Quantifying the psychological value of goal achievement

Brief Report

Abstract

It is often assumed that people put forth the least amount of effort necessary to obtain a reward. This assumption is consistent with so-called “rational” economic models of behavior. Yet these models rarely take into account the motivating effects of goals, which may lead to departures from objective reward maximizing behavior. We present an experiment in which people make a series of prioritization decisions whilst pursuing two approach or avoidance goals. Participants were rewarded $10 if they achieved both goals on a randomly selected trial, and either $0, $2.50, $5, $7.50, or $10 if they achieved only one. Bayesian parameter estimation was used to examine the subjective values that people placed on various goal achievement outcomes. The results suggested that people often discounted the achievement of the first goal, relative to a reward maximizing model, particularly when pursuing avoidance goals. These results were most evident among participants who could obtain the full reward after achieving just one goal, yet behaved as if achieving one goal was only half as valuable as achieving both. Our findings question the notion that people put forth the least amount of effort required to obtain a reward. They suggest that when tasks have explicit goals, people may even sacrifice financial reward to achieve the goals.

Keywords

Reward Goals Decision-making Bayesian modeling 

Supplementary material

13423_2017_1329_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (4 mb)
(PDF 3.99 MB)

References

  1. Ballard, T., Yeo, G., Loft, S., Vancouver, J. B., & Neal, A. (2016). An integrative, formal model of motivation and decision making: The MGPM*. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1240–1265. doi:10.1037/apl0000121 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Ballard, T., Yeo, G., Neal, A., & Farrell, S. (2016). Departures from optimality when pursuing multiple approach or avoidance goals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 101, 1056–1066. doi:10.1037/apl0000082 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Finkenauer, C., & Vohs, K. D. (2001). Bad is stronger than good. Review of General Psychology, 5, 323–370. doi:10.1037/1089-2680.5.4.323 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Botvinick, M., & Braver, T. (2015). Motivation and cognitive control: From behavior to neural mechanism. Annual Review of Psychology Psychol, 66, 83–113. doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010814-015044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Botvinick, M., Huffstetler, S., & McGuire, J. T. (2009). Effort discounting in human nucleus accumbens. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, 9, 16–27. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5703/1895.short. doi:10.3758/CABN.9.1.16.Effort
  6. Brunstein, J. C. (1993). Personal goals and subjective well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 1061–1070.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chong, T. T. J., Bonnelle, V., Manohar, S., Veromann, K. R., Muhammed, K., Tofaris, G. K., & Husain, M. (2015). Dopamine enhances willingness to exert effort for reward in Parkinson’s disease. Cortex, 69, 40–46. doi:10.1016/j.cortex.2015.04.003 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Chung, Y., Rabe-Hesketh, S., Dorie, V., Gelman, A., & Liu, J. (2013). A nondegenerate penalized likelihood estimator for variance parameters in multilevel models. Psychometrika, 78, 685–709.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. Gneezy, U., & Rustichini, A. (2000). Pay enough or don’t pay at all. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 115, 791–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Heath, C., Larrick, R. P., & Wu, G. (1999). Goals as reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 79–109. doi:10.1006/cogp.1998.0708 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. James, W. (1993). Rewards, experience and decision costs in first price auctions. Economic Inquiry, 31, 237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kass, R. E., & Raftery, A. E. (1995). Bayes factors. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 90, 773–795.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Koo, M., & Fishbach, A. (2008). Dynamics of self-regulation: How (un)accomplished goal actions affect motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 183–95. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.94.2.183 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Kool, W., & Botvinick, M. (2014). A labor/leisure tradeoff in cognitive control. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 131–141. doi:10.1037/a0031048 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kool, W., McGuire, J. T., Rosen, Z. B., & Botvinick, M. M. (2010). Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139, 665–682. doi:10.1037/a0020198 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Libedinsky, C., Massar, S. A. A., Ling, A., Chee, W., Huettel, S. A., & Chee, M. W. L. (2013). Sleep deprivation alters effort discounting but not delay discounting of monetary rewards. Sleep, 36, 899–904. doi:10.5665/sleep.2720 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. Lord, R.G., Diefendorff, J.M., Schmidt, A.M., & Hall, R.J. (2010). Self-regulation at work. Annual Review of Psychology, 61, 543–568. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.093008.100314 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Louro, M.J., Pieters, R., & Zeelenberg, M. (2007). Dynamics of multiple-goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 174–193. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.174 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Neal, A., Ballard, T., & Vancouver, J. B. (2017). Dynamic self-regulation and multiple-goal pursuit. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 410–423. doi:10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113156 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Plummer, M. (2003). JAGS: A program for analysis of Bayesian graphical models using Gibbs sampling. In Hornik, K., Leische, F, & Zeileis, A (Eds.), Proceedings of the 3rd International Workshop on Distributed Statistical Computing (DSC 2003). Technische Universität Wien, Vienna, Austria.Google Scholar
  22. Schmidt, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2007). What to do? The effects of discrepancies, incentives, and time on dynamic goal prioritization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 928–941. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.4.928 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. Schmidt, A. M., & Dolis, C. M. (2009). Something’s got to give: The effects of dual-goal difficulty, goal progress, and expectancies on resource allocation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 678–691. doi:10.1037/a0014945 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Schmidt, A. M., Dolis, C. M., & Tolli, A. P. (2009). A matter of time: Individual differences, contextual dynamics, and goal progress effects on multiple-goal self-regulation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 692–709. doi:10.1037/a0015012 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1998). Pursuing personal goals: Skills enable progress, but not all progress is beneficial. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1319–1331.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Shenhav, A., Botvinick, M. M., & Cohen, J. (2013). The expected value of control: An integrative theory of anterior cingulate cortex function. Neuron, 79, 217–240. doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2013.07.007 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. Smith, V. L. (1976). Experimental economics: Induced value theory. The American Economic Review, 66, 274–279.Google Scholar
  28. Smith, V. L. (1982). Microeconomic systems as an experimental science. The American Economic Review, 72, 923–955.Google Scholar
  29. Tubbs, M. E. (1986). Goal setting: A meta-analytic examination of the empirical evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 474–483. doi:10.1037//0021-9010.71.3.474 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Unsworth, K., Yeo, G., & Beck, J. (2009). Multiple goals: A review and derivation of general principles. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 30, 839–862. doi:10.1002/job CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Vancouver, J. B., Weinhardt, J. M., & Schmidt, A. M. (2010). A formal, computational theory of multiple-goal pursuit: Integrating goal-choice and goal-striving processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 985–1008. doi:10.1037/a0020628 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. Wagenmakers, E. J. (2007). A practical solution to the pervasive problems of p values. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 14, 779–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang, X. T., & Johnson, J. G. (2012). A tri-reference point theory of decision making under risk. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 141, 743–756. doi:10.1037/a0027415 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Westbrook, A., Kester, D., & Braver, T. S. (2013). What is the subjective cost of cognitive effort? Load, trait, and aging effects revealed by economic preference. PLoS ONE, 8, 1–8. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0068210 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The University of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.The University of Western AustraliaPerthAustralia

Personalised recommendations