The goal-striving reasons framework: Further evidence for its predictive power for subjective well-being on a sub-dimensional level and on an individual goal-striving reasons level as well as evidence for its theoretical difference to self-concordance
- 4 Downloads
This paper compares the predictive power of the goal-striving reasons model and the self-concordance model on a sub-dimensional and an individual goal-striving reasons level based on a cross-sectional research design (N = 139). Multiple regression analyses on a sub-dimensional level show that approach, as well as avoidance goal motivation, have higher predictive power in the prediction of affective and cognitive subjective well-being than autonomous and controlled goal motivation. Equally, the predictive power of the four individual goal-striving reasons is generally stronger than the predictive power of the individual self-concordance reasons. The analyses of the theoretical differences between goal-striving reasons and self-concordance show that on an overall goal-striving reasons index level, on a sub-dimensional level as well as on an individual goal-striving reasons level that the goal-striving reasons framework is generally more strongly related to measures representing people’s tendency to be influenced by others in their goal pursuit. Self-concordance is not significantly associated with either of these measures. Based on these findings, it is concluded that the goal-striving reasons framework is more sensitive to the influence of others than self-concordance. The theoretical implications of these findings revolve around the fact that goal-striving reasons can be seen as a more comprehensive goal reason measure than self-concordance. Practical implications point towards the importance of personal assertiveness as a correlate of positive goal-striving reasons.
KeywordsGoal-striving reasons Self-concordance model Subjective well-being Index of autonomous functioning Sociotropy
Compliance with Ethical Standards
I am in agreement with the content and form of the manuscript and the study has been conducted in accordance with the ethical standards of the human subjects review committee. This manuscript is not under review elsewhere and is not substantially similar to any manuscript already published.
Conflict of Interest
The author also declares that he has no conflict of interest.
- Adler, A. (1937). Mass psychology. International Journal of Individual Psychology, 2, 111–120.Google Scholar
- Batson, D. D., Ahmad, N., & Lishner, D. A. (2009). Empathy and altruism. In S. J. Lopez & C. R. Snyder (Eds.), Oxford handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp. 417–426). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1999). Themes and issues in the self-regulation of behavior. In X. I. I. RS Wyer Jr. (Ed.), Perspectives on behavioral self-regulation: Advances in social cognition (pp. 1–105). Mahwah: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Ehrlich, C. (2018). The development of an extended goal-striving reasons framework: Evidence for its relevance in the workplace, for its theoretical difference to self-concordance and for its buffering effect on work intensity. Journal of Positive Psychology and Wellbeing. Advance online publication. ISSN 2587-0130.Google Scholar
- Ellis, A. (2005). The myth of self-esteem. New York: Prometheus books.Google Scholar
- Ford, M. E., & Nichols, C. W. (1987). A taxonomy of human goals and some possible applications. In M. E. Ford & D. H. Ford (Eds.), Humans as self-constructing systems: Putting the framework to work (pp. 289–311). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Latham, G. (2012). Work motivation. London: Sage Publications.Google Scholar
- Osborne, J. W., & Costello, A. B. (2004). Sample size and subject to item ratio in principal components analysis. Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation, 9, 1–9.Google Scholar
- Raven, B. H. (1992). A power / interaction model of interpersonal influence: French and Raven thirty years later. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 217–244.Google Scholar
- Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing autonomous and controlled reasons as predictors of effort and attainment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 546–557.Google Scholar
- Stone, D. N. , Deci, E. L. &, Ryan, R. M. (2009). Beyond talk: Creating autonomous motivation through self-determination theory. Journal of General Management, 34, 75–91.Google Scholar
- Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). New York: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
- Vallerand, R. J. (2007). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in sport and physical activity: A review and a look at the future. In G. Tennenbaum & R. Eklund (Eds.), Handbook of sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 59–83). New York: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Van Dyne, L., Graham, J.W. &, Dienesch, R. M. (1994). Organizational citizenship behavior: Construct redefinition, measurement, and Validation. The Academy of Management Journal, 37, 765–802.Google Scholar