Goal Setting and Achievement - Literature review Example

Litеrаturе Rеviеw Name Institution Literature Review In the current social setting of existence, a person’s worth is determined by the levels of achievement they manage to realize in different frontiers of life. Goal setting and achievement as such have become widely theorized subjects with a goal to posit on factors that play determinate roles on them. One of the widely studied theoretical postulations is the one put forward by Bandura Albert (1986). His came to be known as the theory of schemas that describes how achievement of goals is determined by the perception a person holds about them. This is in regard to their capabilities, talents, incapability, strengths and weaknesses. The theory captures the notion that the best kind of motivation is that which is derived intrinsically out of positive self-perception when a person holds a perception that they have it in their abilities and strengths to attain the goals they set and surmount the challenges they may encounter on the way (Bandura 1994). The perception of a person about their abilities, strengths and weaknesses is captured by Bandura’s theory as self-efficacy. This paper will discuss the effect negative self-talk may have on self-efficacy and how that may determine whether goals are achieved or not in a cohort of 35-55 year old Australians. Self-talk refers to the thoughts and feelings that a person expresses about them. The thoughts may be either positive or negative. When the thoughts and feelings that are expressed are negative, this is termed as negative self-talk (Irizarry 2002). Negative self-talk has various psychological effects o goal achievement. This is because they express a derogatory perception of self and own potential to either achieve or meet certain set goals and targets (Bond & Bunce 2000). This means that self-talk can have a de-motivating implication on people’s sense of self-efficacy that pertains to how one feels equal to the challenges posed by goals set for achievement. Schwartz & Caramoni ( 1989) did postulate that negative self-talk has an adverse effect on the levels of self-efficacy. This is generally to imply that the impact of negative self-talk is that leads to a lower self-efficacy which has the power to reduce the determination, focus and motivation of achieving goals (Pitt 2014). As such, low self-efficacy has a direct implication of leading to low levels of goal achievement. The abilities of people, their determination and drive to maintain efforts towards goal achievement are not independent but are related to such other factors as ones sense of self-esteem and self-efficacy (Schwartz & Caramoni 1989). Self-efficacy as put forward in Bandura’s theory is how a person’s beliefs they have it in their power to make plans, mobilize all necessities and requisite actions and to execute them in such a way that designated standards and outcomes of performance are attained (Rogojanski et al. 2011). This means that self-efficacy is a fountain of motivation, all drives and appetites for accomplishments. This means that anything that comes to adversely affect the foundation of motivation for goal attainment literary disables the engine that perpetuates desire for positive accomplishment (Bandura 1978). This is the reason as to why negative talk is posted as one of the dangers that compromise self-efficacy which subsequently leads to lower motivation for success and goal attainment. In exploring about factors that impact on self-efficacy, Latham and Locke postulated that goals have a certain power to reinforce motivation towards their achievement or to impede achievement through de-motivation (Barry et al. 1992). The two held concurrent researches that supported a notion that goals that are clear and that are set in a way to such as to be measurable and that has specific outcomes are bound to elicit interest into achievement to achieve them by all means (Barry & Martinez-Pons 1986). As such, when a person sets clear goals according to Barry& Martinez-poz (1986), they have to meet the SMART criteria. They will reflect into a person’s abilities and suitability to achieve them and in effect lead to a higher sense of self-efficacy (Baumeister & Vohs 2007). A person is also less likely to end up into negative self- talk that will negatively impact on their self-efficacy. When goals lack clarity and done and is not consistent with the SMART criteria, a person may not be sure of what they call for, will not focus on how to achieve them and hence will express negative thoughts and counterproductive feelings through negative self-talk that will lead to low levels of goal achievement (Netz & Shulamith 2004). In addition, goals have to be challenging in order to strengthen self-efficacy the more as long as they are kept as attainable and within the ability of a person to achieve as possible. Self-efficacy also contains as part of its substance the ability of one to exercise self-restrain where they have to in order to avoid destruction that impacts on the achievement of set goals. As such the concept of self-regulation comes up at this point. In this theory, people are expected to prevail over themselves and their motives when they potentially may be derailing them from known positive paths (Leahy 2002). This means that when in conflict over actions and thoughts that are positive and good for goal achievement a person should be able to contain the pressure and determine to keep focus when desire seems to be dictating otherwise (Baumeister et al. 1994). However, this should not entail suppression of inappropriate desires as this is not a strategy of handling negative thoughts. An instance is when some adults are medically advised to keep off certain types of foods such as snacks. What they do to avert the craving for them is to intentionally ensure they do not think about them. Better still, when one tries to suppress the thought of quitting a marriage relationship, the more they are likely to think of other related negative thoughts that recurrently perpetuate themselves. This may include thinking about putting the spouse to disadvantage by stripping them of such rights as a share of property or even worse, leaving children on their own without the care of both parents. This is the reason as to why it is no longer suggested that suppression be used to deter negative thoughts as it only makes them come back stronger than initially (Germer 2005). This is known as the rebound effect. It is also suggested that content replacement is also contributes to negative self-talk rather than working as a strategy of avoiding it (Frewen et al 2008). This is because changing the content of negative self-talk does not help in solving the cause of the talk at all. As such, when a person talks about their inabilities in handling businesses and replaces it to talk about their success in sports, it does not take away the fact they are poor in managing businesses. The negative talk about their inabilities in business could be influenced by poorly set goals that are not clear and do not boost their motivation and self-efficacy (Hayes et al. 1996). This makes a substitution of negative with positive self-talk a strategy that does not deal with the real issue that caused the negative self-talk. In order to boost proper reasoning and consistent drive towards goal achievement, mindfulness has been proposed as the way to better ensure psychological flexibility. This is because it treats the emotions of the moment as valid experiences without judging them as good or bad. They are allowed to have their spell encounter them without making efforts to suppress or replace them until they are over. This helps a person to have better control of themselves without having to relive negative thoughts and over and over again due to suppression (Rogojanski et al. 2011). When emotions, thoughts and feelings are left to happen until they are over without judging them, a person is less likely to be critical and to engage in rethinking them. They happen to a person entirely and when they are done a person is allowed to continue with his life value system and maintain his actions in spite of the current impulses and feelings with an awareness of what they would love to achieve in life (Kabat-Zinn 1990). This is perceived as a better way to goal achievement. The theory of psychological flexibility guides actions and behaviors in a manner such that the present experiences and moments are contacted fully with all consciousness and the awareness of personal values that are persisted on in spite of what the situation affords (Frewen et al 2008). It recognizes emotions and feelings as being short-term experiences that can be unreliable indicators of long-term value (pajares 1997). It is therefore validates the fact that they are experiences but takes caution that they should not be trusted too much as the foundation of actions (Hayes et al. 2006). This means that a person can always balance emotions and feelings with the more logical guides of action such as values, ambitions and goals. The mindfulness strategy works best in scenarios when feelings and emotions pose a test to a person. For instance, as a married man one is faced with extra-marital sex temptations. They are supposed to accept them as normal and understand that they are bound to happen again and again (Leahy 2007). However, when they experience them a man will not lose sight of the fact that the marriage relationship with his wife is put at stake and if he gives in to the temptation, it may end up in divorce. They therefore have the feelings happen on them yet have the consciousness of marital faithfulness that makes them avoid the temptation of giving in. Feelings and logical awareness of personal values and goals therefore determine action occasioning a balance that exemplifies mindfulness as well as psychological flexibility (Machell et al. 2015). However, mindfulness can be time-consuming when decisions have to be made out rightly. It is takes time to practice and master it before the desired results will start coming forth. According to research, most adults are busy with career and professional pursuits besides family commitments. This is especially those who fall in the cohort that are the subject of this study. In a case where mindfulness was successfully implemented to handle negative self-talk due to stress eating that resulted in undesirable body shape it had to call for a mindfulness session of 2hrs 15mins a week for a span of 8 weeks to rid the negative talk and develop a motivation of success in a 42 year old mother of 3 children (Bond et al. n.d). This was also the case with a case of mindfulness that targeted to address smoking in a 38 year old man under rehabilitation only that it had to take up to 15 weeks for progress towards enhanced self-efficacy that spawned positive self-talk. Such sessions may not be suitable for individual in the cohort of 35-55 years since it may eat much into their busy daily schedules. Given the time the examples above take to manage negative self-talk, it comes out clear that a session with 4 minutes a day that adds up to 30 mins a week will not be as effective in managing negative self-talk(Bond et al. n.d). Mindfulness that is effective may require at 1east hr 3o0mins a week in order to achieve the objectives in desirable length of time. References Bond &Bunce . (2000). Mediators of Change in Emotion-Focused and Problem-Focused Worksite Stress Management Interventions DOI:10.1037//1076-8Q98 1.1.156 Machell, K. A., Goodman, F. R., &Kashdan, T. B. (2015). Experiential avoidance and well-being: A daily diary analysis. Cognition and Emotion, 29(2), 351-359. Netz, Y. and Shulamith, R. (2004). "Age Differences in Motivational Orientation Toward Physical Activity: An Application of Social—Cognitive Theory." The Journal of psychology 138.135-48. Doi: 10.3200/JRLP.138.1.35-48 Pitt, T. M. (2014). Research Note: The relationship between fear of failure and self-talk in winning and losing situations.Sport & Exercise Psychology Review, 10(1), 91-95. Rogojanski, J., Vettese, L. C., & Antony, M. M. (2011).Role of sensitivity to anxiety symptoms in responsiveness to mindfulness versus suppression strategies for coping with smoking cravings.Journal of clinical psychology, 67(4), 439-445. Doi10.1002/jclp.20774 Schwartz, R. M., &Caramoni, G. L. (1989). Cognitive balance and psychopathology: Evaluation of an information processing model of positive and negative states of mind. Clinical Psychology Review, 9(3), 271-294. Baumeister, R. F., Heatherton, T. F., & Tice, D. M. (1994). Losing Control: How and Why People Fail at Self-Regulation. San Diego, CA:Academic Press. Baumeister, R.F. and Vohs, K.D. (2007). Self-Regulation, Ego Depletion, and Motivation, Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 1, 10, 1-14. Bandura, A. (1994). Self-efficacy. In V. S. Ramachaudran (Ed.), Encyclopedia of human behavior (Vol. 4, pp. 71-81). New York: Academic Press. Bandura, A. (1978). Reflections on self-efficacy. Advances in Behavioural Research and Therapy, 1, 237- 269. Irizarry, Robert (2002), Self-Efficacy & Motivation Effects on Online Psychology Student Retention, USDLA Journal, 16 (12). Pajares, F. (1997). Current directions in self-efficacy research. In M. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.). Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 1-49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Pajares, F., & Schunk, D. H. (2001). Self-beliefs and school success: Self-efficacy, self-concept, and school achievement. In R. Riding & S. Rayner (Eds.), Self-perception (pp. 239-266). London: Ablex Publishi. Barry J., Bandura,A., &Martinez-Pons, M. (1992). Self-Motivation for Academic Attainment: The Role of Self-Efficacy Beliefs and Personal Goal Setting, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 29, No. 3. (Autumn, 1992), pp. 663-676. Barry J., &Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a Structured Interview for Assessing Student Use of Self-Regulated Learning Strategies, American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 23, No. 4., pp. 614-628. DOI: 10.3102/00028312023004614 Bond, F.W., Hayes, S.C., Baer, R.A., Carpenter, K.M., Orcutt, H.K., Waltz, T. & Zettle, R.D. (n.d). Preliminary psychometric properties of the Acceptance and Action Questionnaire – II: A revised measure of psychological flexibility and acceptance. Frewen, P.A., Evans, E.M., Maraj, N., Dozois, D.J.A., & Partridge, K. (2008). Letting go: Mindfulness and negative automatic thinking. Cognitive Therapy Research, 32, 758-774. DOI: 10.1007/s10608-007-9142-1 Germer, C.K. (2005). Mindfulness: What is it? Does it matter? In C.K. Germer, R.D. Seigel, & P.R. Fulton (Eds.) Mindfulness and Psychotherapy (pp.3-27) New York: Guilford Press. Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J., Bond, F., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy: Model, processes, and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(1), 1-25. Hayes, S.C., Wilson, K.G., Gifford, E.V., Follette, V.M., & Strosahl, K., (1996). Experiential avoidance and behavioral disorders: A functional dimensional approach to diagnosis and treatment. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 64, 1152-1168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-006X.64.6.1152 Kabat-Zinn, J. (1990). Full Catastrophe Living: Using the wisdom of your body and mind to face stress, pain, and illness. New York: Bantam Dell. Leahy, R. L. (2002). A model of emotional schemas. Cognitive & Behavioral Practice, 9, 177-190. Leahy, R.L. (2007). Emotion and Psychotherapy. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice, 14, 353-357. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-2850.2007.00095.x Read More

This is generally to imply that the impact of negative self-talk is that leads to a lower self-efficacy which has the power to reduce the determination, focus and motivation of achieving goals (Pitt 2014). As such, low self-efficacy has a direct implication of leading to low levels of goal achievement. The abilities of people, their determination and drive to maintain efforts towards goal achievement are not independent but are related to such other factors as ones sense of self-esteem and self-efficacy (Schwartz & Caramoni 1989).

Self-efficacy as put forward in Bandura’s theory is how a person’s beliefs they have it in their power to make plans, mobilize all necessities and requisite actions and to execute them in such a way that designated standards and outcomes of performance are attained (Rogojanski et al. 2011). This means that self-efficacy is a fountain of motivation, all drives and appetites for accomplishments. This means that anything that comes to adversely affect the foundation of motivation for goal attainment literary disables the engine that perpetuates desire for positive accomplishment (Bandura 1978).

This is the reason as to why negative talk is posted as one of the dangers that compromise self-efficacy which subsequently leads to lower motivation for success and goal attainment. In exploring about factors that impact on self-efficacy, Latham and Locke postulated that goals have a certain power to reinforce motivation towards their achievement or to impede achievement through de-motivation (Barry et al. 1992). The two held concurrent researches that supported a notion that goals that are clear and that are set in a way to such as to be measurable and that has specific outcomes are bound to elicit interest into achievement to achieve them by all means (Barry & Martinez-Pons 1986).

As such, when a person sets clear goals according to Barry& Martinez-poz (1986), they have to meet the SMART criteria. They will reflect into a person’s abilities and suitability to achieve them and in effect lead to a higher sense of self-efficacy (Baumeister & Vohs 2007). A person is also less likely to end up into negative self- talk that will negatively impact on their self-efficacy. When goals lack clarity and done and is not consistent with the SMART criteria, a person may not be sure of what they call for, will not focus on how to achieve them and hence will express negative thoughts and counterproductive feelings through negative self-talk that will lead to low levels of goal achievement (Netz & Shulamith 2004).

In addition, goals have to be challenging in order to strengthen self-efficacy the more as long as they are kept as attainable and within the ability of a person to achieve as possible. Self-efficacy also contains as part of its substance the ability of one to exercise self-restrain where they have to in order to avoid destruction that impacts on the achievement of set goals. As such the concept of self-regulation comes up at this point. In this theory, people are expected to prevail over themselves and their motives when they potentially may be derailing them from known positive paths (Leahy 2002).

This means that when in conflict over actions and thoughts that are positive and good for goal achievement a person should be able to contain the pressure and determine to keep focus when desire seems to be dictating otherwise (Baumeister et al. 1994). However, this should not entail suppression of inappropriate desires as this is not a strategy of handling negative thoughts. An instance is when some adults are medically advised to keep off certain types of foods such as snacks. What they do to avert the craving for them is to intentionally ensure they do not think about them.

Better still, when one tries to suppress the thought of quitting a marriage relationship, the more they are likely to think of other related negative thoughts that recurrently perpetuate themselves. This may include thinking about putting the spouse to disadvantage by stripping them of such rights as a share of property or even worse, leaving children on their own without the care of both parents.

Read More