ADVERTISEMENT
  About the SA Blog Network













PsySociety

PsySociety


Blogging At The Intersection Of Psych and Pop Culture
PsySociety Home

Set SMART resolutions in 2014!

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.


Email   PrintPrint



As we approach the beginning of a new year, many people will be heading into 2014 with a long list of resolutions that they intend to tackle. Yet even though we all believe that our own goals are particularly important and meaningful, some of these resolutions will be better than others. In fact, psychological research on goals can clue us in to which resolutions will be more likely to end in success, and which will probably end up flopping before the snow even melts.

Setting SMART Goals

One prominent goal theory says that there are two possible spectrums on which your goals might be situated.

First, you can go “easy” or you can go “difficult.” For example, if you were thinking about setting goals to help you amp up your fitness, a goal on the “easy” end of the spectrum might involve walking once a week or taking the stairs instead of the elevator. A more “difficult” goal might involve training for a marathon or committing yourself to daily workouts.


Second, you can be “vague” or “specific.”
To continue with the fitness example, a “specific” goal would involve clear guidelines for what you want to accomplish (e.g. “Lose 5 pounds in 1 month” or “Run 1 mile in under 10 minutes”). A “vague” goal involves general exhortations to “try your hardest” or “get in shape,” with no straightforward way of figuring out whether or not you’ve actually accomplished your goal; you can easily look at a scale or a stopwatch to figure out if you’ve lost 5 pounds or run a 9:59 mile, but there’s no clear way of really knowing if you’ve actually “done your best” or successfully “gotten in shape.”

According to researchers Locke & Latham, the most motivating goals you can set are difficult and specific; these goals tend to be more effective than goals that are too easy or too vague. Some proponents have even used the acronym ‘SMART‘ to indicate what this theory says about optimal goal setting:

The S, M, and T letters are all essentially saying the same thing: It’s best to have goals that have specific definitions, for which you can measure your progress, with a clear timeline for goal enactment. For example, “Lose 5 pounds in 1 month” is more likely to successfully motivate you than “Get in shape” (Less Specific), “Lose weight” (Less Measurable), or “Lose 5 pounds” (Not Time-bound). Similarly, “Get a 4.0 this semester” is naturally going to be more motivating than “Do well in school” or “Get good grades.”

The A and R letters refer to another important stipulation: Challenging goals are ideal, but they still need to be realistic. Goals that are too easy become boring and will lose your interest and commitment over time; however, goals that are so difficult that they are unattainable are just as demotivating. So if you’ve never run a full mile in your life, it’s probably a better idea to train for a 5K than a full marathon. Similarly, if math isn’t your strong suit, you might not want to set your sights on earning an A+ in Calculus. A goal like an 80% or higher on every exam is still challenging, yet likely more realistic and attainable.

If you’re still trying to formulate your resolutions for 2014, make sure you focus your sights on difficult-yet-attainable, specific, and measurable goals. Instead of “living in the moment,” try “practicing mindfulness three times every week.” Instead of “losing weight,” try “going to the gym after work every day” or “training for a 10K race with a friend.” You might find that you have more success than usual this year!


ResearchBlogging.org

Locke, E., & Latham, G. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57 (9), 705-717 DOI: 10.1037//0003-066X.57.9.705

Locke, E., & Latham, G. (2006). New Directions in Goal-Setting Theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15 (5), 265-268 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00449.x

Resolution List image from the public domain via Wikimedia Commons, submitted by user Dipankan001.

This piece was originally posted at my old PsySociety WordPress blog on 1/1/2013. You can see the original post by clicking the From The Archives icon on the left.

Melanie Tannenbaum About the Author: Melanie Tannenbaum is a doctoral candidate in social psychology at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where she received an M.A. in social psychology in 2011. Her research focuses on the science of persuasion & motivation regarding political, health-related, and environmental behavior. You can add her on Twitter or visit her personal webpage. Follow on Twitter @melanietbaum.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Tags: ,





Rights & Permissions

Comments 2 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. Uncle.Al 11:13 am 12/26/2013

    “two possible spectrums” “spectra” The managed research business model has PERT-charted quantitative outputs. Discovery is insubordination. Public schooling since 1965 fails. It is useless, kills inspiration and curiosity, is mind-numbingly tedious, makes no connections to anything, and is forgotten after the test. One then Obamanates its outputs, throwing meaty bones to dogs (diversity!) while starving stock animals (the Gifted). Halcyon ephemerides of administrative omniscience won’t teach LaShawennna how to read. Iris Kim will not matriculate because her astounding academic record does not include 500 hours of volunteered community time (studying steals from the unabled).

    The 1958 National Defense Education Act gushed genius in the New York City school system. Even the concept was prohibited in 1965′s “Great Society.” CUNY output a dozen Nobel Laureates, 17% of them women. A CUNY diploma is now toilet paper. The NDEA shunted resources to the objectively Gifted, treated the mediocre with equanimity, and abandoned the bottom 10%. Think of it as evolution in action.

    Link to this
  2. 2. David Cummings 6:07 pm 12/26/2013

    Excellent advice, Melanie. Thanks.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a ScientificAmerican.com member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Scientific American Dinosaurs

Get Total Access to our Digital Anthology

1,200 Articles

Order Now - Just $39! >

X

Email this Article

X