Exploring the Meaning and Usefulness of Measures of Subjective Goal Difficulty

Exploring the Meaning and Usefulness of Measures of Subjective Goal Difficulty'

CYNTHIA LEE' College of Business Administration. Northeastern University

PHILIP BOBKO Department of Management. Rutgers University

Despite the critical role of the goal difficulty construct in predicting the effects of goals on task performance, the choice of goal difficulty measure(s) has not played a prominent role in goal setting research. The current laboratorystudy, using92college students, examines three operationalizations of the goal difficulty construct: assigned goal level (objective or direct measure), self-referenced goal difficulty perception. and an externally-referenced goal difficulty perception. The results clearly demonstrated that the choice of a goal difficulty measure matters in relation to other constructs in goal setting theory. Furthermore, it was found that the externally-referenced goal difficulty perception measure corresponded best with assigned goal level.

As evidenced by traditional narrative literature reviews (Austin & Bobko, 1986; Latham & Yukl, 1975; Locke, Shaw, Saari, & Latham, 1981) and meta-analytic studies (Mento, Steel, & Karren, 1987; Tubbs, 1986; Wood, Mento, & Locke, 1987), the relationship between goal attributes and task performance is extremely robust. Additionally, studies conducted in the laboratory have been generalized to field settings (Latham & Lee, 1986) and have also been replicated in other countries (Earley, 1986; Erez, 1986; Punnet, 1986; Schmidt, Kleinbeck, & Brockman, 1984). While the construct of goal difficulty plays a critical role in goal setting theory, its operationalization has not received prominent attention in the literature. Recently, Wright's (1990) study indicated that the way in which goal difficulty is operationalized can have profound implications for the effect size observed. The results of Wright's study revealed that the assigned goal level operationalization displayed the largest effect size on performance, while the goal perception operationalization displayed the smallest effect size.

A review of the literature indicates that studies often use a single item to measure perceived goal difficulty or a small number of items that vary

'The authors thank Adrienne Colella, P. Christopher Earley, and Edwin Locke for their comments. We also thank P. Christopher Earley and Edwin Locke for their assistance in developing the goal difficulty items.

'Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Cynthia Lee, Human Resources Group, College of Business Administration, Northeastern University, Boston, MA 021 IS.

1417

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1992, 22, 18, pp. 1417-1428. Copyright @ 1992 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved.

1418 LEE AND BOBKO

drastically in their content (Wright, 1990). The operationalization of goal difficulty perceptions is an important concern in the goal setting literature because perceptual measures of goal difficulty are used frequently as manipulation checks in experimental studies, or in survey studies if objective measures are unavailable. Wright (1990) revealed that operationalizations of goal difficulty perception varied greatly in content. For example, Andrews and Farris (1972) measured goal difficulty as the scientists’ perceived “experienced time pressure” while Hall and Hall (1972) and Hall and Foster (1977) measured individuals’ “intentions to do well.” Still others (Ivancevich & McMa- hon, 1977a, 1977b, 1977~; Steers, 1975) measured thedegree ofgoal challenge.

According to Wright (1990), these operationalizations of goal difficulty perception fail to “measure the specific quantitive goals discussed by Locke (1968)”(p. 229). Wright (1990) questioned whether these studies truly tested goal theory since the operationalization of goal difficulty perceptions is inconsistent with the goal difficulty definition. Thus, the purposes of this paper are to delineate some a priori types of measures of perceived goal difficulty, demonstrate how differences in their measurement lead to different correlational findings, and suggest appropriate ways to assess subjective goal difficulty.

Types of goal difficulty measures. In this study, we will consider three distinct operationalizations of goal difficulty: assigned goal level, perceived self-referenced goal, and perceived externally-referenced goal. Assigned goal level is the most commonly implemented measure of goal difficulty (e.g., Wright, 1990) and is amenable to use in a controlled research setting (i.e., laboratory research). This goal difficulty measure is objective and quantita- tive in nature (and usually determined by performance norms), whereas the self-referenced and the externally-referenced goal difficulty measures are subjective (perceptual) in nature. Yukl and Latham (1978) have argued that an objective measure of goal difficulty should be used rather than a perceptual one. Assigned goal level has repeatedly been shown to have strong positive relationships with performance and personal goals (Locke & Latham, 1990; Wright, 1990). Moreover, self-efficacy has also been shown to have a positive association with assigned goals (Locke & Latham, 1990). This study will, therefore, examine the relationship between assigned goal (and the other two perceptual measures of goal difficulty) and the measures of self-efficacy, personal goal, and performance. It is expected that assigned goal level will be positively related to all three outcome measures.

The second operationalization of goal difficulty, self-referenced goal difficulty perception, is a typicial way of measuring perceived goal difficulty in field settings and is often applied as a manipulation check in experimental settings. Items in these measures essentially ask the individual subjects how difficult a particular goal is for that particular individual, or they ask for

SUBJECTIVE GOAL DIFFICULTY 1419

self-reports of an individual’s intention to perform well (Wright, 1990). The underlying philosophy, of course, is that it is the perception of goal difficulty that plays a role in an individual’s cognitive decision to expend effort toward a particular goal.

However, the perception of difficulty can be assessed relative to one’s individual abilities or to the abilities of others in the work environment. Clearly, the above definition of self-referenced goal difficulty is ipsative, in that such measures generally reflect the individual’s assessment of whether or not he or she can accomplish the task at hand. However, such a frame of reference implies that an individual with high initial ability will see most goals as being relatively easy, whereas low ability subjects may see the identi- cal goals as being rather difficult. Thus, from an across-individual (between subjects) frame of reference, self-report perceptions of goal difficulty may be contaminated by an individual’s initial ability. This may explain the low effect size reported by Wright (1990) on the relationship between subjective goal difficulty and performance. Furthermore, because of its relationship with an individual’s initial ability, self-referenced goal difficulty may be unrelated to self-set goals. In this regard, Locke et al. (1981) suggested that ability needs to be controlled when examining the effects of goal difficulty.

Additionally, Locke and Latham (1990) have noted that subjective difficulty is confounded with at least two different types of estimates: how hard the goal is objectively and the individual’s self-efficacy. Locke and Latham (1990) suggested that objective goal difficulty would be positively related to subjective difficulty, while self-efficacy would be negatively related to subjective goal difficulty. Therefore, subjective goal difficulty is hypothesized to be positively associated with objective goal difficulty, yet negatively associated with self-efficacy. As Locke and Latham (1990) state, “the positive relationship with objective goal difficulty reflects the fact that the higher goal is, in fact, harder to reach. The negative relationship with self-efficacy reflects the fact that the more confident the individual is of being able to perform well, the less difficult (easier) any given goal will appear to that individual. Thus, the overall rating of subjective goal difficulty reflects a compromise between the objective goal level rating (how high is it?) and a self-efficacy rating (can I do it?)” (pp. 75-76). Additional empirical evidence for this possibility has been presented by Meyer, Schacht-Cole, and Gellatly (1988). Using a task that required subjects to generate uses for common objects, they found that goal difficulty had no overall relationship with performance, as a result of offset- ting positive and negative effects (i.e., a positive effect through expected performance, but a negative effect because of lowered subjective probability of goal attainment). In summary, it is expected that self-referenced goal difficulty will be unrelated to both task performance and personal goal, yet negatively related to self-efficacy.

1420 LEE AND BOBKO

Our third type of operationalization is labeled externally-referenced goal difficulty. As recommended by Locke and Latham (1990), in order to elimi- nate the confounds on the perception of “can I do it?” as discussed above, this operationalization is measured by asking individuals to assess the difficulty of particular goals for someone of “average ability on the task or job.” Thus, the externally-referenced measure of goal difficulty is normative rather than ipsative. Because of its normative nature, this measure is expected to have similar correlations with self-efficacy, personal goal, and performance as assigned goal level.

Methods

Subjects

The subjects were 92 undergraduates from three introductory management classes. Each class was assigned to one of the three goal conditions. An analysis of variance was conducted on the three classes regarding their examination scores at the end of the academic term. No significant differences in ability were found among the three classes or goal conditions. The experiment was conducted during class time and the subjects were told that they would be experiencing a different form of learning (through the use of a brainstorming exercise). After the experiment was over, the students were asked if they had any idea what their experience was about. Student responses indicated that they did not relate the brainstorming exercise to goal setting. The subjects were then debriefed with a lecture on goal setting and were thanked. The mean age of these students was 22; there were 33 females and 57 males.

Task

The brainstorming task asked the subjects to generate uses for common objects such as a brick, books, clothes hanger, paper clip, or cushion (cf. Locke, Frederick, Lee, & Bobko, 1984). A different object was used for the two 3-minute experimental trials, following two initial practice trials in which no goals were set.

Conditions

There were three assigned goal levels: (a) an easy goal (coded as 1; n = 35) of generating at least eight uses for a single object in 3 minutes, (b) a moder- ately difficult goal (coded as 2; n = 28) of generating 12 uses in 3 minutes, and (c) a difficult goal (coded as 3; n = 29) of generating 16 uses in 3 minutes. In the first practice trial, these goal levels were achieved by 66%, 54%, and 11% of the subjects, respectively.


Procedure

At the beginning of the class period, the task was explained and the subjects were then allowed two practice trials. After these practice trials, the subjects were presented with their assigned goals by the experimenter. The object for brainstorming and the assigned goal were written on top of the page on which the subjects generated uses for the object. Measures of perceived goal difficulty and a self-efficacy scale were then administered. The subjects were then asked to write down their personal goals for the following trial. Next, the subjects were asked to brainstorm for the first experimental trial. After the 3-minute brainstorming on the first trial, the subjects were asked to assess their self-efficacy and provide their personal goals for the second trial. After completing the questionnaires, the subjects were asked to brainstorm for the second experimental trial.

Measures

An individual’s task performance was measured by the total number of uses given (on each experimental trial), deleting responses that were inap- propriate or were duplications within the same trial. Practice trial performance was used to control for initial ability.

Self-efficacy was assessed at the end of the second practice trial and after the first experimental trial in a manner consistent with Bandura’s (1982) conceptualization and methodology. The subjects were asked to indicate yes or no as to whether they could perform at five different levels of proficiency. Proficiency level (self-efficacy magnitude) was defined by listing differing numbers of uses for each object in 3 minutes. For each of the five proficiency levels to which the subjects indicated “yes I can meet the goal,” the subjects also estimated their confidence (self-efficacy strength) about their present capability to perform at that level (rated 0 to 100 with 0 = totally unconfi- dent and 100 = totally confident). An inspection of the individual items (five levels of proficiency demonstrated by listing 4, 8, 12, 16, and 20 uses) indicated that the first two levels of proficiency (of listing 4 and 8 uses) had very little dispersion and were making negligible contributions to the overall measure. As in Wood and Locke (1987), these two levels were deleted from subsequent analyses. The Cronbach alpha coefficients for self-efficacy magnitude and self-efficacy strength after the first experimental trial were .73 and .79, respectively. Their respective alphas after the second experimental trial were .74 and .77. Each subject’s single self-efficacy score was then computed by standardizing each of the remaining three levels of confidence ratings and then summing the standardized self-efficacy strength scores across the three levels of proficiency that were answered yes. This procedure

1422 LEE AND BOBKO

is the standard method for assessing self-efficacy and has been used pre- viously by others (Bandura & Wood, 1989; Gist, 1989).

A subject’s self-set, or personal, goal was assessed by a single item asking how many uses the subject intended to list for each of the experimental trials.

The goal difficulty perception items are presented in the Appendix. Through the assistance of Locke (personal communication, 1989) and a review of the literature, 1 1 goal difficulty items representing self-referenced and externally-referenced goal difficulty were generated. The set of externally-referenced goal difficulty items was created to portray normative information relative to an average person. The subjects were asked to consider only the average student in their position who had a similar level of education and experience. These questions were prefaced with the phrase, “For the average student.”

The 1 1 perceived goal difficulty items (all of the self- and externally- referenced items) were subjected to an exploratory principal components analysis (Ford, MacCallum, & Tait, 1986). Oblique rotation was used because all of the items were intended to measure perceptions of similar constructs (self-referenced and normative goal difficulty). As Harman (1976) notes, constructs in the real world are rarely uncorrelated. The results revealed two factors with eigenvalues greater than 1. These factors ac- counted for 69.6% of the total variance. The factor intercorrelation was .49, and the two derived factors were as expected: the five self-referenced goal difficulty items loaded on one factor and the remaining six externally- referenced goal difficulty items loaded on the second factor (see factor load- ings in the Appendix). The Cronbach alpha coefficients for the two sets of items were .89 and .91, respectively.

Results

The scale means, standard deviations, and Pearson correlations of the three goal difficulty measures are presented in Table 1. Assigned goal level correlated .28 ( p < .01) with self-referenced goal difficulty perception and .19 ( p < .05) with externally-referenced goal difficulty. The low correlation between assigned goal level and externally-referenced goal difficulty suggests that these two measures are by no means equivalent. The correlation between self-referenced goal difficulty and externally-referenced goal difficulty was .58 ( p < .01). The average correlation between the three measures was .35. The moderate, average correlation between goal level and the two subjective goal difficulty measures suggests that these measures are separable and distinct. The high correlation between the two subjective measures suggests that a person’s perceptions of his or her own abilities will likely bias or influence his or her perceptions of what is average ability (although we note


Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Intercorrelations of Assigned Goal Level and Goal Difficulty Perceptions

Correlations

2 3 Means SD

1. Assigned goal level 1.93 .84 .28** .19*

2. Self-reference goal difficulty

3. Externally-reference goal

perception 3.33 .75 - .58**

difficulty perception 3.61 .62 -

Note. n = 92. *p < .05. **p < .01.

later that these two subjective measures have, as predicted, very different relationships with other goal setting variables).

Table 2 presents the partial correlations (controlling for practice trial performance) among the three measures of goal difficulty and self-efficacy, personal goal, and performance for experimental trials 1 and 2. The pattern of partial correlations for the goal difficulty measures with the three outcome measures was consistent across both experimental trails. That is, the assigned goal and the externally-referenced measure were significantly corre-

Table 2

Partial Correlations Between Measures of Goal Di f fu l ty and Outcomes, Controlling for Practice Trials Performance

Assigned goal SLFDIF EXTDIF

Trial 1 Self-efficacy -.02 -.25** -.03 Personal goal .28** .02 .2 1 * Performance quantity .19* .10 .17*

Trial 2 Self-efficacy -.02 -.26** -.04 Personal goal .25** .08 .24** Performance quantity .22* .14 .19*

Note. n = 92. SLFDIF = self-referenced goal difficulty perception. EXTDIF = externally-referenced goal difficulty perception. *p < .05. **p < .01.

1424 LEE AND BOBKO

lated with personal goal and performance and were not correlated with self-efficacy. In contrast, the self-referenced measure of goal difficulty was significantly related (in the hypothesized negative direction) only with self- efficacy. Self-referenced goal difficulty did not significantly correlate with either personal goal or subsequent performance.

Discussion

Our study demonstrated that the three measures of goal difficulty differ in their relations to self-efficacy, personal goal, and performance. The externally-referenced subjective difficulty measure is: (a) positively related to assigned goal level but (b) unrelated to self-efficacy. Thus, the confound, obtained with the typical subjective self-referenced goal difficulty measure, is eliminated. As a result, the external measure predicts performance, whereas the self-referenced measure does not.

Additionally, our findings support Locke and Latham’s (1990, chap. 3) thesis regarding the differential relationships between objective goal difficulty, subjective perceptions of goal difficulty, and self-efficacy. In particular, Locke and Latham (1990, p. 75) hypothesized that traditional subjective goal difficulty (e.g., our self-referenced goal difficulty perception) would be positively associated with objective goal difficulty (we obtained r = .28, p < .01) yet negatively related to self-efficacy (we obtained r = -.25 and r = -.26, p < .01, respectively, in our two trials). This represents the first empirical support of these hypotheses (Locke, personal communication, 1992).

The results of this study also support Wright’s (1990) finding that the way in which goal difficulty is operationalized can have profound implications for the effect size observed. Similar to Wright’s (1990) findings, the assigned goal level operationalization displayed the largest effect size on performance, whereas the subjective goal difficulty measures (particularly the traditional self-referenced measure) displayed smaller effect sizes. Furthermore, note that the effect size of goal difficulty level on task performance, while statis- tically significant, was relatively low. It is possible that the very difficult assigned goal condition of listing 16 uses of common objects in 3 minutes was just beyond the reach of most capable performers. Future studies should explore this possible effect on task performance.

As suggested by Wright (1990), differences in definitions of goal difficulty may help explain the variation in results across previous goal setting studies. Our results empirically support and demonstrate this notion. These differences should help determine which measure of goal difficulty is appropriate. For example, if goal setting is to be used in concert with individual performance feedback (e.g., for an individual’s developmental purposes), then goal difficulty might be appropriately assessed from a self-referenced perspective. On the other hand, if the focus of attention is across individuals who have


been assigned different objective goals, then subjective measures based on external referents will correlate similarly to differences in assigned goals. For example, if one desires to measure objective goal difficulty in a field question- naire, a form of our externally-referenced goal difficulty perception could be considered. As Locke and Latham note (1990, p. 76), this type of measure would be particularly useful in conducting goal setting studies when multiple jobs are involved.

A norm-referenced measure might also be more appropriate if the underlying theory being tested involves group goals (Weldon & Weingart, 1988). Zander (1980) suggests that, in any group context, up to four interrelated goals may be present: (a) each member’s goal for the group, (b) the group’s goal for the group, (c) the group’s goal for each member, and (d) each member’s goal for himself or herself. If the group assigns a goal to each member (option c), this would presumably be reflected in an externally-referenced based measure of goal difficulty (i.e., in reference to the group’s goals for each member). Extern- ally-referenced (normative) measures of goal difficulty might also be most appropriate when task performance is highly dependent across jobs.

As per the usual caveat, the above empirical results should be replicated with another task and in field settings. Indeed, the lack of a significant positive relation between assigned goal level and the self-efficacy perception is inconsistent with research reported in Locke and Latham (1990) and the perceived norm explanation provided by Meyer and Gellatly (1988). It is possible that a decrease in expectancy associated with increasingly difficult goals may offset an increase in valence of goal attainment. That is, assigned goals may, in some cases, affect cognition in such a way that goal difficulty would have no, or even a negative, effect on self-efficacy.

In summary, the purpose of the current study was to empirically demonstrate that measures of goal difficulty matter. Goal setting researchers need to pay more theoretical attention to how goal difficulty is measured. For example, it has been shown that perceptions of externally-referenced goal difficulty best reflect differences in assigned goals. On the other hand, perceptions of self-referenced goal difficulty may be more appropriate in ipsative models. The items reported in the Appendix are a first step toward sorting out the measurement differences across the unique ways of defining goal difficulty. Our factor analyses confirmed the existence of the two underlying factors. Future researchers may want to refine and incorporate these measures in subsequent goal setting research.

References

Andrews, F. M., & Farris, G. G. (1972). Time pressure and performance of scientists and engineers: A five-year panel study. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 185-200.

1426 LEE AND BOBKO

Austin, J., & Bobko, P. (1986). Goal setting theory: Unexplored areas and future research needs. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58,289-308.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. American Psychologist, 37, 122- 147.

Bandura, A., & Wood, R. E. (1989). Effect of perceived controllability and performance standards on self-regulation of complex decision-making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 805-8 14.

Earley, P. C. (1986). Supervisors and shop stewards as sources of information in goal setting: Acomparison of the United States with England. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 11 1-1 17.

Erez, M. (1986). The congruence of goal-setting strategies with socio-cultural values and its effect on performance. Journal of Management, 12,83-90.

Ford, J. K., MacCallum, R. C., & Tait, M. (1986). The application of exploratory factor analysis in applied psychology: A critical review and analysis. Personnel Psychology, 39, 291-3 14.

Gist, M. E. (1989). The influence of training method on self-efficacy and idea generation among managers. Personnel Psychology, 42, 1- 17.

Hall, D. T., & Foster, L. W. (1977). A psychological success cycle and goal setting: Goals, performance, and attitudes. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 282-290.

Hall, D. T., & Hall, F. S. (1976). The relationship between goals, performance, success, self-image, and involvement under different organizational climates. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 9, 267-278.

Harman, H. H. (1976). Modern factor analysis. Chicago: University of Chi- cago Press.

Ivancevich, J. M., & McMahon, J. T. (1977a). Black-White differences in a goal-setting program. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,

Ivancevich, J. M., & McMahon, J. T. (1977b). Education as a moderator of goal-setting effectiveness. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 11, 83-94.

Ivancevich, J. M., & McMahon, J. T. (1977~). A study of task-goal attributes, high order need strength, and performance. Academy of Management Journal, 20, 552-563.

Latham, G. P., & Lee, T. W. (1986). Goal setting. In E. Locke (Ed.), Generali- zating from laboratory to field settings (pp. 101-1 17). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.

Latham, G. P., & Yukl, G. A. (1975). A review of research on the application of goal setting in organizations. Academy of Management Journal, 18,

Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives.

Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984). Effects of self-

20,287-300.

8 24- 8 4 5.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157- 189.


efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performance. Journalof Applied

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

L.ocke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, P. (1981). Goal setting and task performance: 1969- 1980. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 125-152.

Mento, A. J . , Steel, R. P., & Karren, R. J. (1987). A meta-analytic study of the effects of goal setting on task performance: 1966- 1984. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39, 52-83.

Meyer, J. P., & Gellatly, 1. R. (1988). Perceived performance norm as a mediator in the effect of assigned goals on personal goal and task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73,4 10-420.

Meyer, J. P., Schacht-Cole, B., & Gellatly, I . R. (1988). An examination of the cognitive mechanisms by which assigned goals affect task performance and reactions to performance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18,

Punnet, B. J. (1986). Goal setting: An extension of the research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71, 171-172.

Schmidt, K. H. , Kleinbeck, U., & Brockman, W. (1984). Motivational control of motor performance by goal setting in a dual-task situation. Psychologi- cal Research, 46, 129- 14 1.

Tubbs, M. E. (1986). Goal setting: A meta-analytic examination of the empirical evidence. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71,474-483.

Weldon, E., & Weingart, L. R. (1988). A theory of group goals and group performance. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Anaheim, CA.

Wood, R. E., & Locke, E. A. (1987). The relation of self-efficacy and grade goals to academic performance. Educational and Psychological Measure- ment, 47, 10 13- 1024.

Wood, R. E., Mento, A. J., & Locke, E. A. (1987). Task complexity as a moderator of goal effects: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychol-

Wright, P. M. (1990). Operationalization of goal difficulty as a moderator of the goal difficulty-performance relationship. Journal of Applied Psychol-

Yukl, G. A., & Latham, G. P. (1978). Interrelationships among employee participation, individual differences, goal difficulty, goal acceptance, goal instrumentality, and performance. Personnel Psychology, 31, 305-323.

Zander, A. (1980). The origins and consequences of group goals. In L. Festinger (Ed.), Retrospections in socialpsychology. Oxford: Oxford Uni- versity Press.

Psychology, 69,241-25 1 .

390-408.

ogy, 72,416-425.

ogy, 75,227-234.

1428 LEE AND BOBKO

Appendix

Subjective Goal Difficulty Items

Factor 1 Factor 2

A. Self-reference goal difficulty: 1. The goal I was given of listing X uses re-

quired: (“very little attention and effort” to “as much attention and effort as I can give”)

2. the goal I was given of listing X uses was generally: (“not challenging at all” to “very challenging”)

3. The goal I was given of listing X uses was such that I could: (“always attain the goal with plenty of time to spare” to “often have to push myself to capacity to attain the goal”)

4. The goal of listing X usings was set at appropriately: (“a level of difficulty lower than my practice trial performance” to “a level of difficulty higher than the practice trial performance”)

5. How difficult was the goal you had to attain for this experiment? (“not at all difficult” to “extremely difficult”)

B. Externally-reference goal difficulty: Rather than using your own personal ability and skill, please consider only the average student in your position who has a similar level of education and experience as you. Please circle the re- sponse that best describes your opinion: For this average student, the goal that you would require: 1. “extreme challenge” to “no challenge at all” 2. “enormous effort” to “almost no effort” 3. “an extreme degree of thought and problem

solving skill” to “no thought or skill” 4. “an enormous amount of persistence and

tenacity” to “very little persistence and tenacity”

5 . “very high standards of performance” to “no standards of performance at all”

6. that “you discover better ways of doing things” to “you never have to discover better ways of doing things”

.a 1

.77

.86

.84

.74

.04

.27

16

.09

-.07

-.15

-.04

. I3

-.07

-.03

.24

.a 1

.69

.77

.78

.86

34

Note. Factor 1 = self-referenced goal difficulty perception. Factor 2 = externally-referenced goal difficulty perception.

Documents

Exploring the Meaning and Usefulness of Measures of Subjective Goal Difficulty