Goal Setting

An Enumerative Review and a Meta-Analysis of Primed Goal Effects on Organizational Behavior

Abstract

Drawing on results from 32 published and 20 unpublished laboratory and field experiments, we conducted an enumerative review of the primed goal effects on outcomes of organizational relevance including performance and the need for achievement. The enumerative review suggests that goal-setting theory is as applicable for subconscious goals as it is for consciously set goals. A meta-analysis of 23 studies revealed that priming an achievement goal, relative to a no-prime control condition, significantly improves task/job performance (d = 0.44, k = 34) and the need for achievement (d = 0.69, k = 6). Three moderators of the primed goal effects on the observed outcomes were identified: (1) context-specific vs. a general prime, (2) prime modality (i.e., visual vs. linguistic), and (3) experimental setting (i.e., field vs. laboratory). Significantly stronger primed goal effects were obtained for context-specific primes, visual stimuli, and field experiments. Theoretical and managerial implications of and future directions for goal priming are discussed.
Guy Itzchakov, Geoff Haddock
|
Organizational Behavior and Social Psychology
Willful ignorance is a pervasive phenomenon with significant consequences for decision-making, belief maintenance, and social polarization. While past research has identified various motivational and contextual factors underlying this behavior, less attention has been paid to attitude characteristics that shape the likelihood of engaging in willful ignorance. Addressing this gap, this paper introduces attitude strength as a critical and heretofore unexplored psychological factor that should affect when and why individuals engage in willful ignorance. We argue that strong attitudes, such as those held with certainty, are highly accessible, or are perceived as morally relevant, are particularly likely to elicit willful ignorance. Drawing on cognitive dissonance theory and motivated reasoning, we synthesize findings across domains, from political partisanship to responses to misinformation and AI-mediated communication.
Keep reading
Guy Itzchakov , Netta Weinstein , Mark Leary , Dvori Saluk, and Moty Amar
|
Listening
Disagreements can polarize attitudes when they evoke defensiveness from the conversation partners. When a speaker talks, listeners often think about ways to counterargue. This process often fails to depolarize attitudes and might even backfire (i.e., the Boomerang effect). However, what happens in disagreements if one conversation partner genuinely listens to the other’s perspective? We hypothesized that when conversation partners convey high-quality listening—characterized by attention, understanding, and positive intentions—speakers will feel more socially comfortable and connected to them (i.e., positivity resonance) and reflect on their attitudes in a less defensive manner (i.e., have self-insight). We further hypothesized that this process reduces perceived polarization (perceived attitude change, perceived attitude similarity with the listener) and actual polarization (reduced attitude extremity). Four experiments manipulated poor, moderate, and high-quality listening using a video vignette (Study 1) and live interactions (Studies 2–4). The results consistently supported the research hypotheses and a serial mediation model in which listening influences depolarization through positivity resonance and nondefensive self-reflection. Most of the effects of the listening manipulation on perceived and actual depolarization generalized across indicators of attitude strength, specifically attitude certainty and attitude morality. These findings suggest that high-quality listening can be a valuable tool for bridging attitudinal and ideological divides.
Keep reading