Goal Conflict: Why Competing Priorities Undermine Follow-Through
Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 10, 2026 · Editorial Policy
Goal conflict occurs when pursuing one valued goal makes another valued goal harder to pursue or attain. A person may want to advance at work, spend attentive time with family, sleep enough, save money, remain physically active, and maintain friendships. Every goal can matter sincerely, yet its pursuit can compete with other goals for the same hours, opportunities, attention, or resources. The central psychological problem is how people regulate several legitimate objectives when progress on one changes what is possible for another.
Researchers distinguish interference between goals from the ways goals can facilitate each other. Three studies by Riediger and Freund (2004) found that intergoal interference and facilitation have different relationships with well-being and persistent pursuit. A meta-analysis by Gray, Ozer, and Rosenthal (2017) also found that greater reported conflict between personal goals was associated with psychological distress and less positive well-being. These findings describe meaningful patterns without establishing that every difficult choice causes a mental-health problem.
What Is Goal Conflict in Psychology?
In psychology, goal conflict is an interference relationship between at least two active goals. Interference can arise because their demands exceed available resources, because pursuing them requires incompatible behaviors, or because satisfying one objective obstructs a condition necessary for another. The goals can be immediate or long-term, concrete or abstract, consciously recognized or experienced primarily as pressure to choose. Here the focus is on conflicts between personally meaningful objectives that people can identify and pursue.
Consider a student who plans to prepare for a demanding exam and also wants to help a relative after work. The student may care deeply about both. If the same evening hours are necessary for each, the goals create a resource conflict. A person whose goal is to build savings while accepting frequent expensive social invitations faces a different pattern: certain methods of belonging interfere with a financial objective. A caregiver who needs restorative rest but feels responsible for responding to everyone immediately may experience both resource competition and an internal conflict over acceptable priorities.
The defining feature is the relationship between goals, rather than the simple existence of multiple ambitions. Someone can pursue several demanding aims with little conflict when activities are complementary, compatible, or scheduled across different periods. Conflict is also partly situational: the same pair of goals may interfere during a deadline week and support each other over a longer period. A systematic conceptual review by Gorges and Grund (2017) explains why the field differentiates objective relationships among goals from the subjective experience of conflict.
How Goal Conflict Differs From Goal Facilitation
Goal interference means that one goal's pursuit obstructs another. Goal facilitation means that progress on one makes progress on another easier. For example, biking to work may support physical activity and transportation goals at once; gaining professional expertise may improve both employability and personal confidence. Those links can coexist with interference. Cycling may save commuting time on some days yet create scheduling difficulties on others.
The research tradition treats facilitation and interference as separate dimensions. A relationship between two goals can be high on both: studying for a professional certification may benefit long-term financial security while temporarily reducing time for friendships. It can also be low on both if the goals rarely affect one another. This distinction prevents the common oversimplification that every pair of goals must be either harmonious or contradictory. Riediger and Freund (2004) demonstrated separate associations for interference and facilitation, while Gorges and Grund (2017) describe the measurement problems created when investigators compress them into one continuum.
The Main Forms of Conflict Between Goals
Competition for time, effort, money, and attention
Resource conflict is the most visible form. Two objectives require the same limited resource within the same period: study and paid work compete for evening time; saving for a home and paying for travel compete for money; high-demand caregiving and professional training compete for uninterrupted attention. A schedule can display these limits more clearly than a vague feeling of inadequate discipline. Increasing motivation alone does not create additional hours or restore a depleted budget.
Incompatible strategies or behavioral requirements
Two goals may demand different actions in the same circumstances. A person might aim to network extensively at a conference while also protecting long stretches of concentrated work. Another might want to minimize risk and maximize rapid career growth. The conflict can involve the chosen means rather than the ultimate values: rebuilding social connection and saving money may become more compatible when a person changes from costly outings to lower-cost meetings.
Short-term rewards competing with longer-term priorities
An immediately attractive option can interfere with a more distant objective even when the person endorses that objective. Continuing an absorbing entertainment session may delay sleep; checking a message may interrupt a planned study block. This is often studied as a self-control dilemma, a subset of the wider field of competing goals. The rewards are real and the long-term goal can also be real; the choice depends on what is salient, feasible, expected, and valued at that moment. The newer review on metamotivation and self-control (Fujita, Scholer, and Miele, 2024) emphasizes regulation of motivational states in such dilemmas.
Conflicts between personal values and social obligations
Some conflicts are experienced at the level of values or roles. A person may endorse independence and loyalty, honesty and harmony, or professional achievement and availability to family. These higher-level aims allow many different actions, and the felt tension often depends on how the person defines responsibility, success, and acceptable compromise. Resolving a value-related conflict may involve negotiation with other people, a revision of standards, or selecting an action that preserves the most important part of both aims.
Conflicts within a larger goal hierarchy
Goals are often nested. A broad aim such as living healthfully can support more specific goals for exercise, nutrition, medical care, and rest. Two subgoals may compete for the same morning; other subgoals may supply each other with resources. Conflict between means does not necessarily imply conflict between final purposes. A review of dynamic self-regulation and multiple-goal pursuit (Neal, Ballard, and Vancouver, 2017) describes how the level of a goal and the available task options shape decisions.
Why Competing Priorities Disrupt Follow-Through
Choosing one action carries an opportunity cost
A commitment to one task generally displaces at least some other available actions. The cost is psychologically salient when another goal is urgent, rewarding, or emotionally important. People can therefore experience hesitation even when they know exactly what the next step would be. Their uncertainty concerns which valued outcome should receive present resources. A failed plan may reflect a genuine conflict among demands rather than an absence of intention.
Attention switches toward whichever goal becomes salient
A notification, deadline, visible unfinished task, or interpersonal request can activate a competing goal. Attention then shifts away from the focal task, sometimes repeatedly. Studies of multiple-goal pursuit show that prioritization varies with time remaining, incentives, expectations of success, and discrepancies between current and desired progress. The Neal, Ballard, and Vancouver review (2017) highlights the dynamics of such allocation rather than describing persistence as a fixed personality property.
Commitment can protect a goal while obscuring another
Goal shielding is the tendency for an active focal goal to reduce the accessibility of alternative goals. In six experiments, Shah, Friedman, and Kruglanski (2002) found evidence that activating committed goals inhibited competing goals under certain conditions. Another experiment by Goschke and Dreisbach (2008) showed stronger shielding during response conflict, accompanied by missed cues signaling a separate prospective-memory task. The implication is nuanced: maintaining focus can protect one pursuit, but excessive shielding can make it harder to notice another obligation that deserves attention.
Progress signals change what feels urgent
People compare progress across goals, assess deadlines, and revise effort. An underperforming goal may attract attention because it needs help; alternatively, someone may favor a goal already close to completion because success seems attainable. Which tendency predominates depends on perceived feasibility, rewards, and timing. This is why an identical weekly plan can work in one context and break down in another. Multiple-goal models emphasize ongoing feedback and selection. Neal and colleagues (2017) review these different prioritization patterns.
Emotions can reveal conflict and reshape decisions
Frustration, guilt, anxiety, disappointment, and mixed feelings may accompany conflicting commitments. Their presence does not establish a clinical disorder, nor does it identify which goal deserves priority. Emotion can signal the importance of a neglected aim or the perceived cost of a choice. Once a person is distressed, immediate relief may itself become a short-term goal and influence the next action. Research on goal conflict and well-being finds an association with distress, while the direction of influence can vary across individuals and circumstances. Gray and colleagues (2017) provide the strongest broad quantitative synthesis relevant to this association.
What the Research Actually Shows
Interference and persistence are related, but context matters
The three studies reported by Riediger and Freund (2004) combined questionnaires, diary approaches, and behavioral information across cross-sectional and short-term longitudinal designs. Interference between personal goals was associated with less favorable affective well-being, whereas facilitation was associated with engagement in goal pursuit. These designs broaden confidence that the distinction matters in everyday life, yet associations and short observation windows cannot establish a single universal cause of persistence.
Meta-analytic evidence links conflict more strongly with distress
Gray, Ozer, and Rosenthal (2017) synthesized 54 studies and reported that greater goal conflict was related to more psychological distress and weaker positive psychological outcomes. The association was stronger for distress indicators. The estimated relationship depended in part on how researchers measured conflict and on sample characteristics. This evidence supports treating persistent conflicts as potentially relevant to well-being while ruling out simplistic conclusions such as a direct diagnostic interpretation of any particular conflict score.
Prioritizing one goal does not always reduce conflict
In three studies of competing tasks across adult age groups, Freund and Tomasik (2021) tested whether prioritization helped. Older participants often prioritized more, but when instructions stressed performing equally well on both tasks, stronger prioritization could be associated with more perceived conflict and less positive affect. Under less demanding instructions, some of those associations changed. Thus, the usefulness of prioritization depends on the constraints and expectations surrounding the decision; telling someone to pick one thing and ignore the rest can be counterproductive when both duties must genuinely be met.
Reviews show that multiple-goal regulation remains an active research problem
The 2017 review by Gorges and Grund traced several decades of research and identified major disagreements in definitions and measurement. A 2024 review by Fishbach, Wang, and Fadayomi argued for combining the search for goal harmony with context-specific prioritization. A 2024 review by Scholer, Hubley, and Fujita examined disengagement from a multiple-goal perspective. These reviews provide important organizing frameworks, but the existence of plausible models does not establish that one intervention resolves all goal conflicts.
Goal Conflict, Ambivalence, Procrastination, and Self-Control: Key Distinctions
Goal conflict concerns interference between different objectives. Ambivalence concerns mixed evaluations or motivations regarding an option; ambivalence can occur within a single decision and may accompany goal conflict. Indecision concerns difficulty selecting among options and can arise for many reasons beyond goal relations. These descriptions point to different questions: Which objectives interfere? What feelings or evaluations are mixed? What keeps a choice unresolved?
Procrastination is unnecessary delay of an intended action despite expected costs. Competing priorities can contribute to delay, but goal conflict by itself does not establish procrastination. Postponing one task to respond to an urgent family need may be a deliberate, reasonable allocation of time. Similarly, disengaging from an unattainable or lower-priority goal can represent adaptive reorganization rather than a failure of character. Scholer, Hubley, and Fujita (2024) consider the role of disengagement within multiple-goal regulation.
Self-control typically refers to regulating a strong or immediately attractive response for the sake of another goal. It is one possible mechanism within goal conflict, particularly when a tempting option competes with a higher-priority objective. Self-regulation is broader and includes selecting, monitoring, revising, and sometimes relinquishing goals. For a detailed distinction, see the Hub's self-control versus self-regulation article and its overview of self-control.
The intention–behavior gap describes the difference between intended and enacted behavior. Goal conflict is one possible contributor, alongside inadequate opportunity, unclear cues, changing preferences, environmental barriers, and other factors. A person may fully intend to practice a skill but repeatedly allocate the necessary time elsewhere. Implementation planning can support action, but it cannot eliminate a real constraint. The Gollwitzer and Sheeran (2006) meta-analysis provides broad evidence on if–then planning while distinguishing intention formation from execution.
How Psychologists Study and Measure Goal Conflict
A common research approach asks participants to identify personal goals, then rate the degree to which pursuing each interferes with every other goal. This creates a goal relationship matrix. Some instruments ask about resources such as time and money; others ask about incompatible means, subjective tension, or perceived obstruction. Diaries and repeated assessments can capture how a relationship changes across days and situations.
Measurement details matter. A single bipolar scale running from conflict to facilitation can conceal the possibility that two goals both interfere with and support each other. Asking only how stressful a pair of goals feels may mix the relationship itself with emotional reactions to it. Self-report can identify meaningful experience but is affected by memory, interpretation, and response styles. The methodological review by Gorges and Grund (2017) makes these distinctions central to research validity.
For personal reflection, a goal map can be informative without turning into a diagnostic instrument. Write down current active goals; note the time or resources each needs; identify specific pairs that clash; record whether the collision is constant or tied to certain days; and examine whether alternative routes create mutual support. Repeat when circumstances change. The purpose is to clarify relationships and choices, not to generate a validated score or infer a disorder.
Evidence-Informed Ways to Manage Competing Goals
1. Identify the actual points of interference
Replace the broad statement “I cannot keep up with my goals” with a concrete account: Which two aims conflict, what resource do they both require, and during which period? A clash between studying and caregiving at 7 p.m. requires different solutions from a clash between saving money and an expensive social routine. Identifying constraints may reveal that the problem lies in a particular method, deadline, or expectation rather than in the value of either goal.
2. Distinguish essential commitments from negotiable methods
A person can preserve a central goal while changing the behavior used to pursue it. If friendship and financial security are both important, less expensive social activities may support both. If physical activity and family time are both priorities, walking together may be a workable combined activity. These examples illustrate goal facilitation, but their feasibility depends on health, preferences, accessibility, relationships, and context. The Fishbach, Wang, and Fadayomi (2024) review emphasizes seeing where valued aims can complement one another.
3. Set priorities for a defined period instead of indefinitely
Priorities can be conditional: during the two weeks before an exam, study may receive protected blocks; during an acute caregiving need, other discretionary activities may temporarily contract. Specific time horizons help make a tradeoff explicit and reversible. A priority should also reflect actual obligations. Freund and Tomasik (2021) show why prioritization does not necessarily lower felt conflict when expectations still demand equally strong performance on competing tasks.
4. Allocate resources in a realistic schedule
Estimate the minimum time, money, attention, or coordination each commitment requires and include transitions, interruptions, and recovery. When the combined demand exceeds what is available, the plan needs a change in scope, deadline, support, or objective. Scheduling can make conflict visible, yet planning is useful only when it respects constraints. Someone managing shift work or caregiving has different degrees of discretion from someone whose hours are flexible. Structural conditions must be considered alongside individual choice.
5. Use specific if–then plans for predictable clashes
An implementation intention links a recognizable situation to an intended response: “If a message arrives during my scheduled study block, I will check whether it is urgent and respond at the break if it can wait.” Another might be: “If an unexpected work task takes my planned exercise hour, I will take the shorter walk already built into my evening.” The plan should address a realistic obstacle and allow appropriate exceptions. The Gollwitzer and Sheeran (2006) meta-analysis found beneficial average effects of implementation intentions on goal attainment across 94 independent tests. It does not prove that every conflict can be solved through precommitment.
6. Review progress across goals, not just on the loudest one
A periodic review can reveal whether one goal has begun to absorb resources at the expense of another. Record outcomes relevant to the aim, look for unintended costs, and decide whether to adjust the plan. In an experimental meta-analysis involving 138 studies and 19,951 participants, Harkin and colleagues (2016) found that increasing progress monitoring improved goal attainment on average. The evidence concerns monitoring interventions broadly; applying it to a particular intergoal conflict requires judgment about what to measure and how to respond.
7. Protect focal attention while keeping critical obligations visible
A period of concentrated work can be protected by reducing unnecessary notifications or cues that activate alternative pursuits. At the same time, necessary commitments need a reliable reminder or handoff. Goal shielding supports focus under some conditions, but the laboratory evidence also shows costs to noticing other relevant cues. Shah and colleagues (2002) and Goschke and Dreisbach (2008) provide empirical reasons to combine focus with intentional review points.
8. Negotiate shared priorities where goals depend on other people
Family, workplace, education, and care obligations often involve other people's legitimate needs. The conflict may be partly interpersonal, involving unequal workloads, ambiguous availability, or unspoken expectations. An explicit conversation can establish which commitments are fixed, where support is available, and who can take responsibility for a task. This recommendation follows from analyzing the structure of the problem; it should not be presented as a standalone, experimentally validated treatment for all personal goal conflict.
9. Revise or disengage from goals that have become unworkable
Persistent conflict can indicate that an old goal no longer fits changed circumstances. Revising its timing, scale, or means may preserve its purpose. In some cases, deliberately relinquishing one aim creates room for another that has become more important or feasible. Research treats goal disengagement as an important part of adaptive regulation; the appropriate choice depends on value, attainable outcomes, constraints, and consequences. See the multiple-goal review by Scholer and colleagues (2024).
10. Treat strategies as experiments that need evaluation
An evidence-informed plan begins with a precise mechanism and checks whether the adjustment helps: Did an earlier work block reduce last-minute clashes? Did changing a social routine preserve connection and reduce spending? Did a weekly review expose an avoidable scheduling collision? Evaluate effects on more than one goal and on well-being. Strategies may need revision when conditions change; success in one setting is not a universal guarantee.
Examples of Goal Conflict in Everyday Life
Work advancement versus family availability
A professional wants to complete a demanding credential while remaining available for a child. Both goals may be central and socially constrained. Instead of interpreting each missed session as low motivation, the person can map fixed care hours, define a realistic study workload, negotiate predictable support, and revise the expected completion date. The most effective adjustment may be to change the pace of one objective while continuing both.
Health behavior versus rest and recovery
A person wants regular exercise but also needs sufficient sleep after demanding shifts. Exercise and recovery are not permanently opposing goals, although a particular early-morning session may interfere with rest. Moving activity to another time or modifying intensity may improve compatibility. Specific medical or exercise recommendations belong to individual health contexts; the psychological lesson concerns the difference between changing a method and abandoning an aim.
Saving money versus social participation
Financial security and a sense of belonging can both matter. When a group's default activities involve spending, two goals interfere through the selected social method. Suggesting low-cost alternatives, discussing expectations, and deciding deliberately when spending is worthwhile can make the tradeoff manageable. A budget by itself cannot determine how much connection, participation, or financial resilience is most important to this person.
Digital responsiveness versus concentration
Someone may value collaboration and rapid responsiveness while also wanting uninterrupted work. Messaging tools can make the responsiveness goal continually visible, which competes with a planned deep-work session. Shared urgent-contact rules, status indicators, scheduled check-ins, and deliberate stopping cues can help make the two priorities more compatible. The Hub's article on scrolling, boredom, reward, and stopping cues addresses the separate mechanism of repeated digital behavior.
AI-assisted productivity versus independent skill development
Using AI assistance may support the goal of completing a task quickly while creating a different question about what a person wants to learn or retain independently. The conflict depends on the task and on the individual's objectives; using a tool is not evidence that an important ability is being lost. A practical response is to distinguish tasks where speed matters from tasks where learning or personal authorship matters, then choose assistance accordingly. The Hub examines these adjacent issues in Motivation in the Age of AI.
Individual Differences, Life Circumstances, and Clinical Context
People differ in resources, roles, financial security, available support, cognitive demands, and the flexibility of their environments. A student choosing between electives, a parent with unpredictable care responsibilities, and a worker with two jobs face different forms of conflict. Age-related patterns are complex: Freund and Tomasik (2021) found differences in prioritization across adult age groups, while results changed with task framing. Their laboratory tasks should not be treated as universal prescriptions for older or younger people.
Goal conflict can be especially consequential when basic needs and safety are involved. Financial hardship, discrimination, unstable working hours, disability-related barriers, caregiving duties, and limited access to services can restrict options. The appropriate response may require accommodation, institutional support, or changed expectations. Describing the situation solely as insufficient willpower misses the actual structure of the demands.
Ordinary conflicts between commitments are common psychological experiences. Persistent difficulty acting on goals may also occur alongside symptoms of depression, anhedonia, ADHD, anxiety, sleep disorders, or other conditions. A conflict of priorities alone is neither a diagnostic test nor evidence of any specific disorder. Clinical assessment concerns a broader pattern of symptoms, duration, impairment, context, and diagnostic criteria. When loss of interest or pleasure is prominent, the Hub's article on anhedonia in depression provides a separate evidence-based discussion.
Professional help may be useful when a person experiences sustained distress, serious impairment in daily functioning, or a conflict that cannot be addressed safely through personal planning alone. Support can involve psychological care, workplace or educational accommodations, social services, medical assessment where appropriate, and practical changes in obligations. The aim is to evaluate relevant needs and constraints, rather than turn everyday goal conflict into a diagnosis.
What Current Evidence Cannot Establish
Much research relies on self-reported goals and perceived interference. Participants may understand “conflict” differently, and measures vary widely. Cross-sectional associations cannot determine whether conflict increases distress, distress alters perceptions of conflict, or both are affected by other circumstances. Diary and longitudinal work adds a temporal perspective but remains sensitive to selection, measurement, and context. Gorges and Grund (2017) detail the conceptual and methodological challenges.
Experimental findings can isolate mechanisms while using short tasks far simpler than real decisions about caregiving, employment, identity, or health. A study showing that a focal goal temporarily inhibits another goal's accessibility does not demonstrate that people can consistently resolve long-running life conflicts merely by suppressing thoughts. Likewise, goal-monitoring and implementation-intention meta-analyses establish broad average effects on goal attainment, not a validated universal protocol for competing priorities. The Harkin et al. (2016) and Gollwitzer and Sheeran (2006) reviews should be read within those bounds.
Research is also developing a better account of when different goals can be integrated, how prioritization changes across time, and when disengagement protects well-being. The Fishbach and colleagues (2024) and Scholer and colleagues (2024) reviews suggest productive approaches, but no single ranking system has been established as optimal for every goal structure, person, or life circumstance.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is an example of goal conflict?
Studying for a certification and caring for a family member may require the same evening hours. Both aims may be important, and meeting one can temporarily reduce available time for the other. The conflict concerns competing demands, rather than a simple lack of ambition.
Can two goals conflict even when they are both good goals?
Yes. Goal conflict depends on the relationship between methods, demands, and opportunities. Valuable objectives may still require incompatible actions or shared resources. Psychological research explicitly studies interference among legitimate personal goals.
What are the main causes of goal conflict?
Common sources include competing demands on time and effort, limited financial resources, incompatible strategies, deadlines, value-related obligations, and changes in context. The same pair of goals may interfere in one setting and facilitate each other in another.
Is goal conflict the same as cognitive dissonance?
No. Cognitive dissonance concerns psychological tension related to inconsistent cognitions, attitudes, or behavior. Goal conflict concerns interference between objectives. A particular situation may involve both processes, but neither concept requires the other.
Does goal conflict mean I lack self-discipline?
Goal conflict identifies competing demands. Self-discipline or self-control is only one part of how someone manages them. When commitments exceed available resources, the useful response may involve revising expectations, seeking support, rescheduling tasks, or changing methods.
Does having too many goals automatically reduce success?
The number of goals alone does not determine interference. Goals can reinforce one another, use different resources, and unfold at different times. Feasibility depends on their relationships, deadlines, importance, and environmental conditions.
Can goal conflict affect mental well-being?
Studies show a statistical association between greater reported goal conflict and higher distress, particularly in the Gray and colleagues (2017) meta-analysis. This does not mean conflict always causes distress or that a particular degree of conflict constitutes a disorder.
Should I always prioritize just one goal?
Prioritization can help, but it is not always sufficient. When two obligations must both be met, a narrow single-goal focus may increase perceived conflict. Consider time-limited priorities, compatible strategies, negotiated support, and realistic expectations. Freund and Tomasik (2021) documented important effects of task demands on prioritization outcomes.
How can I reduce conflict between work and personal goals?
Identify the precise overlap in demands, clarify what is flexible, protect necessary periods, discuss expectations with affected people, and check whether alternative methods allow progress in both areas. Some conflicts require organizational or practical changes beyond individual planning.
Is abandoning a goal always a failure?
No. When conditions change, revising or relinquishing an aim can be part of adaptive self-regulation. The decision concerns attainability, costs, meaning, and the effect on other priorities. The Scholer, Hubley, and Fujita (2024) review places disengagement within the wider system of multiple-goal pursuit.
How is goal conflict different from procrastination?
Goal conflict explains why two objectives interfere. Procrastination concerns delaying an intended action despite expecting the delay to be costly. A competing commitment can contribute to procrastination, but a thoughtful decision to handle a more urgent obligation is not necessarily procrastination.
Can an if–then plan solve competing priorities?
An if–then plan can help when the collision is predictable and an appropriate response is feasible. It cannot make incompatible obligations simultaneously achievable or replace needed resources. Evidence for implementation intentions supports their average usefulness for goal pursuit rather than guaranteed conflict resolution.
Related Articles
Goal-Setting Theory: How Specific Goals Affect Performance — How goal specificity, challenge, feedback, and commitment relate to performance.
Goal Monitoring: Does Tracking Progress Improve Achievement? — Experimental evidence on tracking progress and adjusting action.
What Is Self-Control? Psychology, Mechanisms, and Examples — How immediate impulses and broader aims interact.
Self-Control vs. Self-Regulation: Differences and Connections — A comparison of related regulatory constructs.
Motivation in the Age of AI: Effort, Goals, Self-Efficacy, and Human Agency — Goal pursuit and agency in AI-mediated environments.
Anhedonia in Depression: Loss of Interest, Pleasure, and Motivation — The clinical distinction when reduced interest and pleasure are prominent.
References
Fishbach, A., Wang, J., & Fadayomi, I. (2024). What do highly motivated people know? Balancing goals, prioritizing actions. Current Opinion in Psychology, 101871. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101871
Freund, A. M., & Tomasik, M. J. (2021). Managing conflicting goals through prioritization? The role of age and relative goal importance. PLOS ONE, 16(2), e0247047. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0247047
Fujita, K., Scholer, A. A., & Miele, D. B. (2024). Metamotivation: The regulation of motivation in self-control. Current Opinion in Psychology, 101883. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2024.101883
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Implementation intentions and goal achievement: A meta-analysis of effects and processes. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 69–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38002-1
Gorges, J., & Grund, A. (2017). Aiming at a moving target: Theoretical and methodological considerations in the study of intraindividual goal conflict between personal goals. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 2011. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02011
Goschke, T., & Dreisbach, G. (2008). Conflict-triggered goal shielding: Response conflicts attenuate background monitoring for prospective memory cues. Psychological Science, 19(1), 25–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02042.x
Gray, J. S., Ozer, D. J., & Rosenthal, R. (2017). Goal conflict and psychological well-being: A meta-analysis. Journal of Research in Personality, 66, 27–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2016.12.003
Harkin, B., Webb, T. L., Chang, B. P. I., Prestwich, A., Conner, M., Kellar, I., Benn, Y., & Sheeran, P. (2016). Does monitoring goal progress promote goal attainment? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 142(2), 198–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000025
Neal, A., Ballard, T., & Vancouver, J. B. (2017). Dynamic self-regulation and multiple-goal pursuit. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 401–423. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113156
Riediger, M., & Freund, A. M. (2004). Interference and facilitation among personal goals: Differential associations with subjective well-being and persistent goal pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(12), 1511–1523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271184
Scholer, A. A., Hubley, C., & Fujita, K. (2024). A multiple-goal framework for exploring goal disengagement. Nature Reviews Psychology, 3, 741–753. https://www.nature.com/articles/s44159-024-00363-4
Shah, J. Y., Friedman, R., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2002). Forgetting all else: On the antecedents and consequences of goal shielding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1261–1280. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12500810/