On the Meaning and Measurement of Goal Commitment

Recent research by Tubbs and Dahl (1991) and Tubbs (1993) has proposed that discrepancy measures of goal commitment are superior to self-report measures. We explore the theoretical, practical, and empirical problems with discrepancy measures of goal commitment. We reanalyzed some of the relationship...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inJournal of applied psychology Vol. 79; no. 6; pp. 795 - 803
Main Authors Wright, Patrick M, O'Leary-Kelly, Anne M, Cortina, Jose M, Klein, Howard J, Hollenbeck, John R
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Washington, DC American Psychological Association 01.12.1994
American Psychological Association, etc
Subjects
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

Loading…
More Information
Summary:Recent research by Tubbs and Dahl (1991) and Tubbs (1993) has proposed that discrepancy measures of goal commitment are superior to self-report measures. We explore the theoretical, practical, and empirical problems with discrepancy measures of goal commitment. We reanalyzed some of the relationships discussed by these authors using their data and demonstrate that the failure to control for ability leads to incorrect conclusions regarding the relative usefulness of discrepancy versus self-report measures. In addition, we conducted a separate study to further compare the usefulness of these different measures. Finally, we discuss the meaning of goal commitment and the role of goals in the motivational process.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ISSN:0021-9010
1939-1854
DOI:10.1037/0021-9010.79.6.795