The Factor Structure Of Personal Goals

Loading...

Flash Player 9 (or above) is needed to view presentations.
We have detected that you do not have it on your computer. To install it, go here.

0 comments

Post a comment

    Post a comment
    Embed Video
    Edit your comment Cancel

    Notes on slide 1

    Question: What are the essential themes of goals?A difficult question to answer, because…Answer must balancesimplicity with exhaustivenessMust facilitate analysis of individual differencesMust aim to explain and predict psychological outcomesI’ll begin with an overview of existing motive structure theoryGive a summary of our lab’s work on goalsDescribe our participants and measuresListmy analyses & resultsFactor analyses identified 7 categories of goals Factor analysis of standardized goal parcels identified 3 bipolar goal tradeoffsGive my interpretationsMention a few limitations & plans for the future

    List of instincts (McDougall, 1908, 1933)In one of the first social psychology textbooksLife and Death Instincts (Freud, 1920)List of motives (Murray, 1938)Hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1943)Maslow (1943) criticized the “lists of drives” approach and proposed that motive classifications be based on goals instead of “instigating drives.”List of “ergs” from factor analysis (Cattell, 1957, 1975)The first a posteriori theoryAgency & Communion (Bakan, 1966; Hogan, 1983; Wiggins, 1991; Leary, 1956)Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000)Motivational Systems Theory (Ford, 1992)MST divides goals into within-person and person-environment goalsWithin-person: affective, cognitive, and subjective organization (transcendence & unity)Person-environment: Assertive / integrative social relationships, and tasks

    Rationally designed ways of analyzing rationally generated constructsThematic Apperception Test (TAT; Murray, 1943)Projective testSixteen ambiguous picturesEdwards Personal Preference Schedule (1959)Two hundred twenty-five forced-choice itemsPersonality Research Form (Jackson, 1984)Describes trait-like tendenciesNot state-like motives, nor their objectivesAssessment of Personal Goals (Ford & Nichols, 1987)Twenty-four five-item scales measuring goals from authors’ taxonomyItems describe situations designed to activate goal-relevant “behavior episode schemata”Situations designed to activate goal-relevant “behavior episode schemata” = situations are designed to elicit responses that suggest the strength of a broader goal Example given was a mastery item: “You’re stuck on the last few words of a crossword puzzle. Would you feel a need to finish the puzzle?

    Empirical ways of categorizing rationally generated goal constructsPrincipal components analysis of goal importance ratings (Richards, 1966)Prestige, Personal Happiness, Humanistic-Cultural, Religious, Scientific, Artistic, Hedonistic, Altruistic, Athletic SuccessFrom 35 vocational, social, & personal goals of unspecified origin12,432 college freshmen from all across the country! Principal components analyses of six goal ratings (Novacek & Lazarus, 1990)Novacek ratings: expectancy to achieve, importance, effort, distress if failed, commitment, and visibility of commitment to othersAffiliation, Power/Achievement, Personal Growth, Altruism, Stress Avoidance, Sensation-SeekingCompiled 45 “commitment” items from goals, values, & personal projects literatureHierarchical cluster analyses and factor analyses of goal desire ratings (Wicker, Lambert, Richardson, & Kahler, 1984)Clusters: Individual Striving vs. Harmony SeekingFactors: Interpersonal Concern, Competitive Ambition, Exploration-play, Balanced Success, Economic Status, Intellectual OrientationChose 46 goals from a rationally generated list of 200 Added 10 more from students’ free-response lists of goals and independent informants’ rationally generated listsWicker’s added goals: 440 students listed 4 most important goals; 5 unfamiliargrad students listed as many goals as possible

    Open-ended listing tasks: empirically generated constructs and rationally organized categoriesA general term for intentions to act (Little, 1999)Personal projects (McGregor & Little, 1998)Life tasks (Zirkel & Cantor, 1990)Personal strivings (Emmons, 1986, 1999)Current concerns (Klinger, 1977; Ruehlman, 1985) Core goals (Ford, 1992)Personal goals (Kaiser & Ozer, 1997)Volunteered in a free-response format using participants’ own wordsAggregated and boiled down to frequently volunteered goalsOrganized by common themes into a hierarchical taxonomyTaxonomy features 8 major categories, each with subcategories1. Academic / Occupational 2. Social Relationships3. Financial 4. Health5. Organization 6. Affect Control7. Independence 8. Moral / Religious

    Includes most goals from our taxonomySixty-five that could be generally, coherently phrasedE.g., “Do well in school,” “Help my romantic partner,” “Save money,” etc.Distinct as the most empirically generated goal listAsks to rate current importance from 1 (“Not one of my goals currently”) to 5 (“Among my most important goals currently”)Introduces new opportunities to analyze goalsCompare importance of all of students’ normative goals across individualsEmpirically categorize goals through factor analysisStudy conflict and tradeoffs in goal prioritizationCreate scales for latent goal groups and tradeoffsCorrelate to other variables of interest

    N = 691Young adultsMean = 19.2 years ; standard deviation = 2.1 yearsAge range: 17 – 46Gender-balanced (61% female)Ethnically diverse & representative of UCR population49% Asian American24% Hispanic / Latino17% Caucasian6% African American5% other / mixed ethnicityNo international category of ethnicityUCR undergraduates57% freshmen26% sophomores12% juniors5% seniors

    Too many goals were rated “Among my most important currently”Ninety-five participants said this of over half the goals!Twelvepercent of the sampleThese participants’ data were excluded from analysesPossibly an effect of fatiguePGQ was always administeredafter numerous other questionnaires in these studiesCorrelations with average importance rating:Neuroticism(r = .21, p < .0001)Age (r = -.09, p =.015)Schwartz’ value scales (r = .18 – .28, p < .001) Some goals: End a romantic relationship-.42 Do well in school-.37 Spend more time studying-.23 Be able to support my future family.20 Plan my academic future-.17 Help my parents or siblings.16Some parcelsfuture finances.20 academic-.19

    Different from the results of Richards (1966)

    N = 647 due to missing data (deleted listwise)Four itemswith communalities below .25 were removed“End a romantic relationship”“Control my temper”“Manage a chronic/specific health problem”“Reduce consumption of drugs, alcohol, or tobacco”Among the 12 least important goalsNo consistent relationship with other 61 goalsVery large first general factor (Eigenvalue = 8.53)Represents participants’ average goal importanceScree test suggested 6 factorsAfter oblimin rotation, 7 were retained to improve interpretability and simplicity of structure

    Feel free to make suggestions if you think there might be better namesSelf-enablement (10 goals)Desire to overcome disabling feelings and more freely self-direct behaviorAcademic achievement (9 goals)Oriented toward academic and career outcomesSpirituality (3 goals)Largely religious in natureSocial participation (8 goals)Seek active involvement and improved standing with one’s peers and communityFinances (6 goals)Address present monetaryconcernsPhysical health (4 goals)Aim to improve physicalwell-being and appearanceFamily-building (4 goals)Focus on progressing in romantic relationships and building a family17 goals had no loadings over .35

    Cattell’s rest-seeking erg, MST’s affective and self-assertive social relationship goals, Ruehlman’s current concerns with mental & emotional health, Novacek & Lazarus’ stress avoidance goal component, Pervin’s reduce tension-conflict-threat goal factor, Emmons’ personal growth & health, intrapersonal avoidance, and self-sufficiency/independence strivings

    Maslow’s need for esteem; Murray’s, Madsen’s, & McClelland’s nAch; Cantor et al.’s achievement life tasks, Emmons’ achievement & generativity strivings, Emmons’ & McAdams’ achievement motive disposition, McGregor & Little’s achievement identity theme, MST’s task & cognitive goals, Wicker et al.’s intellectual orientation goal cluster, Ruehlman’s current concerns with education

    Maslow’s desire to know and understand, Emmons’ spiritual self-transcendence strivings, MST’s subjective organization goals, Wicker et al.’s harmony seeking & transpersonal orientation goal clusters, Richards’ religious goal component, Ruehlman’s current concerns with religion

    Need for affiliation/communion/approval/relatedness/social contact, Cattell’s gregariousness erg, Cantor’s social life tasks, Emmons & McAdams’ affiliation strivings & motive dispositions, McGregor & Little’s communion identity theme, MST’s integrative social relationships goals, Novacek & Lazarus’ affiliation & altruism goal component, Richards’ altruism goal component, Wicker et al.’s interpersonal concern goal cluster, Ruehlman’s current concerns for friends

    Murray’s needs for acquisition, retention, & conservance; Madsen’s need for possession; Cattell’s acquisitiveness erg; Wicker et al.’s economic status goal cluster; Ruehlman’s current concerns for employment & money

    Richards’ athletic success goal component, Ruehlman’s current concerns for physical health; Murray’s need for exhibition? Personal strivings for self-presentation?

    Freud’s & Maslow’s need for love, Murray’s need for nurturance & affiliation, Cattell’s parental protectiveness & mating ergs, Emmons & McAdams’ intimacy motive disposition, Ruehlman’s current concerns for family & home, love & sex

    Importance ratings were standardized within each participantEliminated the general componentShrunk all remaining eigenvaluesForced bipolarloadings on componentsNo clear solution identifiedAmbiguous number of uninterpretable componentsGoals were parceled to reduce the number of items to be factored and accentuate their heterogeneity Formed from the theoretical organization of the taxonomyMostly identical to the second order of categoriesTwenty parcels of onetoeightitems eachStandardizedratings of all goals were averaged for parcel scores

    N = 690Twenty parcels of 1 – 8 goals eachAll goals except “End a romantic relationship”Each factor contained parcels with strong positive and negative loadingsRating one set of parcels as highly important often meant rating an opposing set as unimportantIndicates dimensions of goal tradeoffs or conflictScree test suggested 3 factorsOblimin rotationSpiritual versus Financial tradeoff (3 parcels vs. 1)Intimacy versus Self-Enablement tradeoff (3 vs. 2 parcels)Achievement versus Enjoyment tradeoff (2 vs. 2 parcels)8 parcels had no loadings greater than .35 in magnitude

    Spiritual & community-oriented aspect of Social Participation factors and Moral clusterVs.Financial factor

    Family-building & Financial factorsVs.Self-enablement factor

    Academic Achievement factorVs.Non-community-oriented aspect of Social Participation factor

    Suggests conflict or tradeoffs in priorities may be essentialaspects of the structure of motivesAll goals draw from the same pool of resourcesInconclusive as to why these tradeoffs occurDo the poles reflect preferences and personal values?Materialism vs. Spiritualism, Dependability vs. Independence, & Diligence vs. Enjoyment?Do the poles represent goals concerning more urgent problems or unmet needs?Communion vs. Poverty, Dependents’ Needs vs. Emotional Stabilization, Work Harder vs. Play Harder?

    Only current, explicit goals assessedNo commonlymet or implicit needsUnderemphasized future goals?No competitive dominanceLimited variety of avoidance goalsThe usual limitations of self-report questionnairesAmbiguity of scale points & scoresConfounds: self-serving bias, social desirability, etc.Cross-sectional UCR conveniencesampleLacks diversity across age, cohort, occupation, educational level, geographic region, and language

    Need to extend theory and test for comprehensiveness17 goals and 8 parcels need factorial homesNeed more diverse samples to test for demographic differencesNeed a longitudinal design to identify individual developmental trajectoriesWill test replicabilityof all results in archived, current, and future dataWill query participants’ religious denomination, income, & romantic statusWill test relationships with free-response goal lists & ratings, goal conflict, and external variablesPersonality, spirituality, presence & search for meaning & religiousness, life satisfaction, valuesNeed a better way of estimating the reliability of the parcels and scalesRelationships among parceled items are not necessarily strong or positiveParcels are morereliable than the standardized item alphas suggestWill test replicabilityof all results in archived, current, and future dataWill place the PGQ earlier in protocolsAltered instructions to emphasize “most important” instead of “currently”Adding additional instructions to circle the most important goals rated “5”Assess GPA? Credits? Higher educational plans? Parents’ educational level? Job status? Volunteerism? Career plans? BMI? # of children? Health problems?

    Means & SDs for factors: Mean SDIntimacy vs. Self-Enablement -1.73 1.75Spirituality vs. Finances -0.65 1.60Achievement vs. Enjoyment 0.92 1.12Parcel SWLS r pfamily 0.17 0.0005academic 0.09 0.0659find direction -0.12 0.0172

    Dan OzerSonja Lyubomirsky & Robin DiMatteoTierra StimsonRyan Howell, Jacob Hershey, Patrick Markey, Michael CassensThe research assistantsFriends and familyAnd last but not least…My gracious audience

    Favorites, Groups & Events

    The Factor Structure Of Personal Goals - Presentation Transcript

    1. The Factor Structure of Personal Goals
      Nick StaunerUC Riverside
    2. The Factor Structure of Personal GoalsOutline
      What are the essential themes of goals?
      Answer must balancesimplicity with exhaustiveness
      Must facilitate analysis of individual differences
      Must aim to explain and predict psychological outcomes
      Existing motive structure theory
      Our lab’s work on goals
      Sample, factor analyses & results
      Interpretations
      Limitations & future directions
    3. A priori theories of motive structure
      List of instincts (McDougall, 1908, 1933)
      In one of the first social psychology textbooks
      Life and Death Instincts (Freud, 1920)
      List of motives (Murray, 1938)
      Hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1943)
      List of “ergs” from factor analysis (Cattell, 1957, 1975)
      The first a posteriori theory
      Agency & Communion (Bakan, 1966; Hogan, 1983; Wiggins, 1991; Leary, 1956)
      Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000)
      Motivational Systems Theory (Ford, 1992)
    4. Motive assessment instruments
      Thematic Apperception Test (TAT; Murray, 1943)
      Projective test
      Sixteen ambiguous pictures
      Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (1959)
      Two hundred twenty-five forced-choice items
      Personality Research Form (Jackson, 1984)
      Describes trait-like tendencies
      Not state-like motives, nor their objectives
      Assessment of Personal Goals (Ford & Nichols, 1987)
      Twenty-four five-item scales measuring goals from authors’ taxonomy
      Items describe situations designed to activate goal-relevant “behavior episode schemata”
    5. Previous analyses of goal structure
      Principal components analysis of goal importance ratings (Richards, 1966)
      8 factors: Prestige, Personal Happiness, Humanistic-Cultural, Religious, Scientific, Artistic, Hedonistic, Altruistic / Athletic Success (8th for females / males)
      From 35 vocational, social, & personal goals of unspecified origin
      12,432 college freshmen from all across the country!
      Principal components analyses of six goal ratings (Novacek & Lazarus, 1990)
      6 factors: Affiliation, Power/Achievement, Personal Growth, Altruism, Stress Avoidance, Sensation-Seeking
      Compiled 45 “commitment” items from goals, values, & personal projects literature
      • Hierarchical cluster analyses and factor analyses of goal desire ratings
      (Wicker, Lambert, Richardson, & Kahler, 1984)
      Clusters: Individual Striving vs. Harmony Seeking
      Factors: Interpersonal Concern, Competitive Ambition, Exploration-play, Balanced Success, Economic Status, Intellectual Orientation
      Chose 46 goals from a rationally generated list of 200
      Added 10 more from students’ free-response lists of goals and independent informants’ rationally generated lists
    6. Personal Action Constructs (PACs)
      A general term for intentions to act (Little, 1999)
      Personal projects (McGregor & Little, 1998)
      Life tasks (Zirkel & Cantor, 1990)
      Personal strivings (Emmons, 1986, 1999)
      Current concerns (Klinger, 1977; Ruehlman, 1985)
      Core goals (Ford, 1992)
      Personal goals (Kaiser & Ozer, 1997)
      Volunteered in a free-response format using participants’ own words
      Aggregated and boiled down to frequently volunteered goals
      Organized by common themes into a hierarchical taxonomy
      Taxonomy features 8 major categories, each with subcategories
      1. Academic / Occupational 2. Social Relationships
      3. Financial 4. Health
      5. Organization 6. Affect Control
      7. Independence 8. Moral / Religious
    7. The Personal Goals Questionnaire
      Includes most goals from our taxonomy
      Sixty-five that could be generally, coherently phrased
      E.g., “Do well in school,” “Help my romantic partner,” “Save money,” etc.
      Distinct as the most empirically generated goal list
      Asks to rate current importance from 1 (“Not one of my goals currently”) to 5 (“Among my most important goals currently”)
      Introduces new opportunities to analyze goals
      Compare importance of all of students’ normative goals across individuals
      Empirically categorize goals through factor analysis
      Study conflict and tradeoffs in goal prioritization
      Create scales for latent goal groups and tradeoffs
      Correlate to other variables of interest
    8. Sample
      N = 800
      Young adults
      Mean = 19.2 years ; standard deviation = 2.1 years
      Age range: 17 – 46
      Gender-balanced (61% female)
      Ethnically diverse & representative of UCR population
      49% Asian American
      24% Hispanic / Latino
      17% Caucasian
      6% African American
      5% other / mixed ethnicity
      UCR undergraduates
      57% freshmen
      26% sophomores
      12% juniors
      5% seniors
    9. Ceiling effect
      Too many goals were rated “Among my most important currently”
      Ninety-five participants said this of over half the goals!
      Twelvepercent of the sample
      These participants’ data were excluded from analyses
      Possibly an effect of fatigue
      PGQ was always administeredafter numerous other questionnaires in these studies
      Correlations with average importance rating:
      Neuroticism (r = .21, p &lt; .0001)
      Age (r = -.09, p =.015)
    10. Top 10 most important goals
    11. Top 10 most EXTREME sex differences
      Note. Overall N = 639. All correlation estimates are significant: p &lt; .0001
    12. Principal axis factor analysis of goals
      N = 647 due to missing data (deleted listwise)
      Four itemswith communalities below .25 were removed
      “End a romantic relationship”
      “Control my temper”
      “Manage a chronic/specific health problem”
      “Reduce consumption of drugs, alcohol, or tobacco”
      Among the 12 least important goals
      No consistent relationship with other 61 goals
      Scree test suggested 6 factors
      After oblimin rotation, 7 were retained to improve interpretability and simplicity of structure
      Less problematic to over-factor than under-factor
    13. Seven oblimin-rotated goal factors
      Self-enablement (10 goals)
      Desire to overcome disabling feelings and more freely self-direct behavior
      Academic achievement (9 goals)
      Oriented toward academic and career outcomes
      Spirituality (3 goals)
      Largely religious in nature
      Social participation (8 goals)
      Seek active involvement and improved standing with one’s peers and community
      Finances (6 goals)
      Address present monetaryconcerns
      Physical health (4 goals)
      Aim to improve physicalwell-being and appearance
      Family-building (4 goals)
      Focus on progressing in romantic relationships and building a family
    14. Self-Enablement
    15. Academic Achievement
    16. Spirituality
    17. Social Participation
    18. Finances
    19. Physical Health
    20. Family-Building
    21. Standardization & parceling
      Importance ratings were standardized within each participant
      Forced bipolarloadings on components
      No clear solution identified
      Ambiguous number of uninterpretable components
      Goals were parceled to reduce the number of items to be factored and accentuate their heterogeneity
      Formed from the theoretical organization of the taxonomy
      Twenty parcels of onetoeight content-similar items each
      Standardizedratings of all goals were averaged for parcel scores
    22. 5 most and least important parcels
      Note. Reliability =Spearman-Brown formula for standardized item alpha. N = 691
    23. Principal axis factor analysis of parcels
      N = 690
      Twenty parcels of 1 – 8 goals each
      All goals except “End a romantic relationship”
      Each factor contained parcels with strong positive and negative loadings
      Rating one set of parcels as highly important often meant rating an opposing set as unimportant
      Indicates dimensions of goal tradeoffs or conflict
      Scree test suggested 3 factors
      Oblimin rotation
      Spirituality versus Finances (3 parcels vs. 1)
      Intimacy versus Self-Enablement (3 vs. 2 parcels)
      Achievement versus Enjoyment (2 vs. 2 parcels)
    24. Spirituality versus Finances
    25. Intimacy versus Self-Enablement
    26. Achievement versus Enjoyment
    27. Interpreting bipolar factors
      Suggests conflict or tradeoffs in priorities may be essentialaspects of the structure of motives
      All goals draw from the same pool of resources
      Inconclusive as to why these tradeoffs occur
      Do the poles reflect preferences and personal values?
      Materialism vs. Spiritualism, Dependability vs. Independence, & Diligence vs. Enjoyment?
      Do the poles represent goals concerning more urgent problems or unmet needs?
      Communion vs. Poverty, Dependents’ Needs vs. Emotional Stabilization, Work Harder vs. Play Harder?
    28. General limitations
      Only current, explicit goals assessed
      No commonlymet or implicit needs
      Underemphasized future goals?
      The usual limitations of self-report questionnaires
      Ambiguity of scale points & scores
      Confounds: self-serving bias, social desirability, etc.
      Cross-sectional UCR conveniencesample
      Lacks diversity across age, cohort, occupation, educational level, geographic region, and language
    29. Future directions
      Need to extend theory and test for comprehensiveness
      17 goals and 8 parcels need factorial homes
      Need more diverse samples to test for demographic differences
      Need a longitudinal design to identify individual developmental trajectories
      Will test replicabilityof all results in archived, current, and future data
      Will query participants’ religious denomination, income, & romantic status
      Will test relationships with free-response goal lists & ratings, goal conflict, and external variables
      Personality, spirituality, presence & search for meaning & religiousness, life satisfaction, values
    30. Correlations with the Big Five
      Note. N = 691
    31. Thank you!
      Dan Ozer
      Sonja Lyubomirsky & Robin DiMatteo
      Tierra Stimson
      Ryan Howell, Jacob Hershey, Patrick Markey, Michael Cassens
      Many cohorts of research assistants
      Friends and family
      And last but not least…
      My gracious audience
    32. 10 most important goals: 1966 vs. Now
      Note. Richards’ scale is 1-4, N = 12,432; our scale is 1-5, N = 689-693
    33. Top 10 largest sex differences of 1966
      Note. Goals were rated on a scale from 1 – 4. Overall N = 12,432 (Richards, 1966)
    34. Top 10 largest sex differences of today
      Note. Overall N = 639. All correlation estimates are significant: p &lt; .0001
    SlideShare Zeitgeist 2009

    + Nick StaunerNick Stauner Nominate

    custom

    282 views, 0 favs, 0 embeds more stats

    Presented in the 10th Proseminar for Current Resear more

    More info about this document

    © All Rights Reserved

    Go to text version

    • Total Views 282
      • 282 on SlideShare
      • 0 from embeds
    • Comments 0
    • Favorites 0
    • Downloads 10
    Most viewed embeds

    more

    All embeds

    less

    Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
    Flag as inappropriate

    Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate. If needed, use the feedback form to let us know more details.

    Cancel
    File a copyright complaint
    Having problems? Go to our helpdesk?

    Categories

    -->
    What's New

    © 2009 SlideShare Inc. All rights reserved.