Goal-Setting Theory: How Specific Goals Affect Performance

Author: Ukrainian Psychological Hub · Published: October 10, 2026 · Editorial Policy

Goal-Setting Theory: How Specific Goals Affect Performance

Goal-setting theory explains how conscious goals influence task performance. Developed principally by Edwin A. Locke and Gary P. Latham, it predicts that specific, challenging, accepted goals tend to produce stronger performance than vague instructions such as “do your best,” particularly when people have the skills, resources, feedback, and opportunity to act. The theory also specifies why the relationship changes with task complexity, goal commitment, ability, feedback, and the kinds of strategies a task requires. Its central contribution is a testable account of the conditions under which a goal changes what people actually do, rather than the assertion that having ambitions is always beneficial. The foundational synthesis is Locke and Latham's 2002 review.

The familiar phrase “set a clear and difficult goal” is only the beginning. An assigned target can focus attention yet undermine learning when a person has not mastered a complex task; a demanding sales target can stimulate output yet increase incentives to manipulate the metric; and a meaningful personal intention can remain unrealized without a plan and opportunities for action. These differences are essential to the scientific interpretation of the theory. Goal setting is a research-based mechanism of motivation and performance regulation, while goal achievement depends on capacities and circumstances extending well beyond the goal statement itself.

What Is Goal-Setting Theory?

Goal-setting theory is a psychological theory of task motivation that links the content and properties of conscious goals to subsequent behavior and performance. In the theory, a goal is the object or aim of an action: a desired outcome, level of performance, or accomplishment toward which activity is directed. Specificity specifies the target; difficulty indicates how demanding the target is relative to the individual's abilities and circumstances. Goal commitment concerns the person's attachment to achieving it. Feedback reveals the relation between current performance and the target. Together these variables explain why two people who want to improve may respond differently to identical instructions. The theory arose from Locke's early experimental work on goals and incentives and was elaborated across decades of laboratory and field research (Locke, 1968; Locke & Latham, 2002).

The usual dependent variable in this literature is observable task performance, such as output, accuracy, completed work, sales, or another defined criterion. A change in a person's performance does not automatically prove that their well-being, satisfaction, learning, or long-term functioning improved. Some desirable outcomes conflict, and a measure chosen for convenience may capture only part of what matters. Research on goal setting consequently distinguishes the motivational effects of a target from the validity and ethics of the performance measure itself.

The Central Prediction: Specific and Difficult Goals

The standard prediction is that, when a task is understood and other conditions are favorable, a specific difficult goal produces better performance than an easy goal, a vague aspiration, or a general instruction to perform one's best. A goal such as “complete an accurate draft of the report by Thursday” identifies an evaluable standard; “work harder on the report” leaves the standard open to interpretation. A difficult goal can require greater effort and persistence, but the difficulty must be interpreted relative to prior ability, available time, resources, and the specific nature of the assignment. Difficulty alone is therefore an inadequate description of a well-designed goal (Mento, Steel, & Karren, 1987).

Specificity and difficulty are related but separable properties. “Answer eight practice problems accurately today” is specific and may be easy for an expert or extremely challenging for a beginner. “Become exceptional in mathematics” expresses high aspiration while remaining vague as a performance criterion. The research-supported recommendation is a demanding standard that is both interpretable and appropriately calibrated—not an arbitrarily intimidating numerical target. If a goal becomes impossible under the current constraints, repeated failure can provide less useful information than a revised goal that preserves learning and credible progress.

Does a harder goal always produce a better result?

No monotonic “harder is always better” rule follows from the evidence. When required performance exceeds what current skills, available time, or accessible resources permit, raising the target can fail to improve performance and may induce counterproductive strategies. The relationship also depends on whether people know how to perform the task. An individual can increase effort on a familiar task; on an unfamiliar task, they may first need to discover a viable method. DeShon and Alexander's experimental studies of complex-task learning show why learning processes can moderate goal effects.

How Goals Influence Performance: Four Established Mechanisms

Attention and direction

A defined target directs attention toward information and activities relevant to its accomplishment. Someone preparing for a timed assessment may concentrate on the tested skills, while someone conducting a safety review may prioritize anomalies requiring investigation. This selective attention can improve coordination of effort. It can also narrow the field: information outside the target may receive too little attention even when it matters. The same mechanism that helps reduce distraction can produce tunnel vision if the chosen performance indicator is incomplete (Locke & Latham, 2002; Ordóñez et al., 2009).

Effort

A challenging target often increases the amount or intensity of effort invested when the person is committed and believes the goal remains attainable. In a simple, familiar task, trying harder may produce visible additional output. Effort is nevertheless only one ingredient of competent performance; working longer with an ineffective procedure may produce fatigue rather than improvement. This is why goals should be considered alongside task design, training, access to tools, and realistic workloads.

Persistence

Goals can extend how long people continue working in the face of obstacles, especially when they can monitor an actionable gap between present performance and a desired standard. Persistence is useful when the underlying strategy is sound and further practice can plausibly help. It is costly when the task is unsafe, the objective has lost its relevance, or additional effort displaces higher-priority responsibilities. A scientific account of goal pursuit must therefore include revision, switching strategies, and reasonable disengagement, rather than treating persistence as a virtue under every condition.

Strategy discovery and strategy use

Goals can encourage people to develop and apply strategies for reaching a target. Yet this mechanism depends on the quality of the strategy and the demands of the task. A difficult outcome target may interfere with exploration when a person is learning a complex new skill; a difficult learning goal can instead prompt the search for effective methods. Studies comparing learning and performance goals demonstrate this distinction (Winters & Latham, 1996; Seijts & Latham, 2005).

The Conditions That Determine Whether Goal Setting Works

Goal commitment and acceptance

Commitment refers to the person's determination to attain the goal. A clearly defined target may have little effect if it is rejected, irrelevant, experienced as illegitimate, or incompatible with other priorities. Goals can be self-set, assigned by another person, or developed jointly. The evidence does not imply that merely choosing a goal oneself guarantees better results than receiving a goal from a supervisor or teacher. Importance, perceived feasibility, participation, social context, and the character of the relationship all influence acceptance. A meta-analysis covering 83 independent samples synthesized the goal-commitment literature and clarified its role in goal pursuit (Klein, Wesson, Hollenbeck, & Alge, 1999).

Ability, resources, and constraints

Ability matters because motivation cannot substitute for a missing prerequisite skill. Resources matter because an effortful action still needs enough time, materials, information, and environmental opportunity. In organizations, an employee instructed to meet a new standard without adequate staffing or authority may be unable to produce the target performance. In education, a student may need foundational instruction before a higher score becomes realistic. Good goal design therefore tests the relationship between aspiration and actual controllable means; otherwise a target may measure resource inequality more than individual commitment.

Feedback and progress monitoring

Feedback tells the performer what has happened and, when sufficiently informative, which changes might help. A numerical target paired with regular, trustworthy evidence of progress is more actionable than a target assessed only at the end. Feedback can be formative, helping someone correct a process, or summative, reporting whether the outcome was achieved. Its value depends on accuracy, timeliness, interpretability, and the possibility of changing behavior. Locke and Latham identified feedback as a key moderator of goal effects, and an earlier meta-analysis also evaluated specific hard goals with and without feedback (Mento et al., 1987).

Independent experimental evidence supports the relevance of monitoring. Harkin and colleagues' meta-analysis included 138 randomized studies with 19,951 participants. Interventions increasing progress monitoring improved goal attainment on average (standardized effect approximately d = 0.40). Effects were larger when progress was physically recorded and when outcomes were reported publicly. This is evidence about monitoring interventions across goals and settings, not proof that every public scoreboard is helpful. Public reporting may also introduce privacy, competition, or pressure costs, depending on the task.

Task complexity and familiarity

A central boundary condition is the complexity of the task. For a familiar task with a known solution, a specific performance target can focus effort efficiently. For a novel problem, the person may need time to experiment and learn. In that circumstance, demanding immediate output can compete with exploration and understanding. DeShon and Alexander (1996) found different consequences of goal difficulty under implicit and explicit learning conditions. This helps explain why the classic effect established on relatively simple tasks is less uniform for complex cognitive tasks.

Performance Goals, Learning Goals, and Process Goals

A performance goal states the desired level of output or evaluated result: finish a task to a standard, achieve a score, or produce a number of qualified results. A learning goal defines what a person intends to discover, understand, or master: compare three problem-solving methods, practice a new technique, or identify why a solution fails. Process goals identify actions to carry out, such as completing a scheduled practice session or reviewing error patterns. These categories can overlap in an actual plan, but they answer different questions: what result is wanted, what capacity must be acquired, and what action will be taken.

This distinction is especially important for beginners. In a controlled study of 114 business-school students working on scheduling tasks, Winters and Latham (1996) found that an outcome goal improved performance on a simple task, whereas a learning goal produced better performance on the complex version than an outcome goal or a do-your-best instruction. Strategy use and self-efficacy differed across conditions. The implication is that selecting a goal type should follow the cognitive demands of the task. These findings do not license an unconditional claim that learning goals always outperform outcome goals.

In practice, a learner can sequence goal types over time. During exploration, the primary goal may be to understand a method and identify common errors; once a reliable strategy develops, performance goals become more informative for speed, consistency, or output. For a professional working in a mature process, outcome goals may be suitable from the beginning, provided the metric reflects the quality of the activity. The theoretical question is which goal will organize the next useful behavior at a person's current stage of learning.

What Do Meta-Analyses Actually Show?

The early meta-analysis by Mento, Steel, and Karren (1987) synthesized research published between 1966 and 1984. It found strong support for the effects of goal difficulty and the comparison of specific hard goals with nonspecific or easier targets. The authors also examined setting, feedback, and participative versus assigned goals as potential moderators. This evidence gives the theory a substantial empirical basis, but it comes from particular tasks, populations, and historical research practices; it should not be converted into an unlimited claim about every goal in everyday life.

A more recent systematic review and meta-analysis by Epton, Currie, and Armitage (2017) assessed the distinct contribution of goal setting to behavior change in 141 randomized studies, with 16,523 participants and 384 effect sizes. The average effect was small and positive (d = 0.34, 95% confidence interval 0.28–0.41). Larger effects were observed in some settings when goals were difficult, made public, or group-based. Those are average patterns with variation; they do not mean that any given goal will increase performance by 34%, because d is a standardized effect size, not a percentage improvement.

These bodies of research answer related but different questions. The original task-performance research examines how goal properties influence assigned or self-chosen tasks, often under controlled work conditions. Behavior-change trials examine whether a goal-setting component changes behaviors across interventions and settings. Their results can inform one another, but they should not be described as though they measure precisely the same outcomes, populations, or mechanisms. The appropriate conclusion is that clear and challenging goals can improve performance and behavior on average, with effects conditioned by what is being attempted and how the goal is implemented.

Goal Setting, Self-Efficacy, and Motivation

Self-efficacy concerns people's beliefs about their capability to perform the actions required in a specific situation. Within the goal-setting tradition, self-efficacy can influence which difficulty level a person accepts, how they approach obstacles, and what effort or strategy they choose. Successful progress may subsequently strengthen perceived capability. This creates a dynamic relationship: beliefs, goals, strategies, and performance can influence one another over time. Locke and Latham's review discusses self-efficacy in relation to the theory's mechanisms and moderators.

Goal setting must also be distinguished from broad motivational constructs. Intrinsic motivation concerns interest and enjoyment in an activity; extrinsic motivation concerns engagement for separable outcomes or consequences. Goal-setting theory asks how properties of a chosen target regulate task performance, regardless of whether the underlying motivation is primarily enjoyment, obligation, incentives, or personal value. Rewarding a specific output may encourage effort while simultaneously affecting autonomy, strategy choice, or perceived purpose. The precise effect of a reward depends on its design and context. Neither “all rewards destroy intrinsic motivation” nor “all incentives improve motivation” follows from goal-setting evidence.

The same distinction applies to self-control and habit formation. A goal can direct deliberate action, but the execution of that action may still depend on inhibitory control, stable cues, routines, and opportunities. A person may strongly endorse a long-term target and repeatedly fail to initiate the behavior needed for it. That gap is a familiar problem in self-regulation research, not a contradiction of the theory. The broader relationships between goals, motivation, habits, and self-control are covered in Motivation, Habits, and Self-Control: Psychology of Behavior Change.

From Setting a Goal to Acting on It

Declaring a desired outcome creates a target; it does not automatically specify the next action. A useful implementation specifies the behavior, the relevant context, and the feedback that will inform adjustments. For example, “improve writing quality” becomes testable when the writer identifies a draft section, allocates a revision period, and checks accuracy against defined criteria. This example illustrates how the general theory can inform practical design without turning this encyclopedia article into a generic goal-setting checklist. Readers looking for a full step-by-step application can use How to Set Goals You Can Actually Follow Through On.

Implementation intentions are a separate, researched self-regulatory technique. They connect an anticipated situation with a planned response, often in an if–then form. A meta-analysis of 94 independent tests by Gollwitzer and Sheeran (2006) found that implementation intentions improved goal attainment on average. That evidence concerns linking opportunities to responses, not the central Locke–Latham prediction about the difficulty and specificity of outcome goals. An effective approach may combine a meaningful goal with appropriate action planning, but the two mechanisms should be identified accurately.

When Goals Backfire: Unintended Effects and Ethical Risks

Specific goals can narrow attention so strongly that important unmeasured outcomes are neglected. A service team rewarded solely for speed may process more cases while overlooking complexity; a researcher evaluated only for publication count may face pressure to prioritize quantity over methodological rigor. Those examples express the general mechanism rather than proving that every metric causes misconduct. A major critique in Ordóñez, Schweitzer, Galinsky, and Bazerman (2009) identifies narrowed focus, distorted risk preferences, impaired learning, ethical harms, and organizational problems as possible side effects when goal setting is prescribed without appropriate safeguards.

There is also primary evidence connecting particular kinds of difficult outcome goals with unethical behavior. Across field and laboratory studies, Welsh, Bush, Thiel, and Bonner (2019) examined learning versus outcome goals and reported different ethical consequences, with difficult outcome goals more closely connected to prevention focus and unethical behavior in the studied settings. The research does not establish that specific difficult goals are inherently unethical. It establishes that goal content, incentives, pressure, and the definition of success matter. Ethical safeguards, independent quality measures, and room for learning can change what a target encourages.

Goals can also conflict with one another. Someone may prioritize daily exercise, demanding work, sleep, family care, and study within the same limited hours. Each goal can be sensible when considered alone; their simultaneous pursuit may overload available time and attention. When progress stalls, the correct response may be renegotiating priorities, changing the environment, reducing competing commitments, or revising the performance criterion. Repeatedly increasing difficulty is rarely a sufficient solution to a resource conflict.

How Goal-Setting Theory Differs From SMART Goals and Other Models

SMART is a popular framework that reminds people to consider properties such as specificity and measurability; versions differ in the words assigned to the letters. Goal-setting theory is a scientific explanation of how specific and challenging goals affect performance and why the effects depend on commitment, ability, task complexity, and feedback. An acronym can serve as a writing aid, but using it is not equivalent to testing the Locke–Latham theory. The evidence for an individual component should not be reported as a measured validation of every formulation of SMART, every worksheet, or every coaching program bearing that label.

WOOP and mental contrasting with implementation intentions involve further self-regulatory ideas about wishes, outcomes, obstacles, and action plans. Their empirical evidence must be assessed separately from goal-setting theory. Similarly, making a task specific is different from turning it into a habit: a habit is a learned context-response tendency that can become relatively automatic through repetition. And self-control is a broader family of regulatory processes than choosing a performance target. These distinctions help prevent a common category error in popular advice, in which every method that mentions goals is credited to the same theory.

Individual Differences and Context

The consequences of goal setting vary with experience, task knowledge, responsibility, social conditions, and the relevance of the goal. The literature includes work settings, educational tasks, laboratory performance, group projects, and health-related behavior change, but generalization requires attention to the actual population and measured outcome. A goal suitable for a practiced athlete, an advanced employee, or a trained technician may be inappropriate for a beginner. In addition, when a metric can be improved at the expense of quality or safety, performance should be evaluated across more than one relevant dimension.

A person who has difficulty beginning or sustaining an activity may face many possible circumstances: incompatible demands, fatigue, poor task design, uncertainty about what to do, low expected benefit, stress, medical conditions, or clinically relevant symptoms. Everyday motivational difficulties alone establish no diagnosis. ADHD involves a developmental clinical pattern assessed through comprehensive criteria; depression and anhedonia involve their own symptom and diagnostic considerations. Goal-setting theory helps explain properties of tasks and goals, but it is not a clinical diagnostic instrument or a substitute for individualized assessment.

How to Evaluate Whether a Goal Is Working

A useful evaluation begins by defining what the goal is intended to improve and what evidence would count as improvement. For a quality-sensitive task, track both output and errors; for learning, assess transfer to new examples rather than relying only on time spent; for an intervention, consider participation and outcomes separately. This avoids the problem of treating whatever is easiest to count as the whole phenomenon. A good monitoring system also distinguishes lagging indicators, such as final results, from information available early enough to guide a change in behavior.

Next, ask whether the target is still aligned with available resources, whether performance data are trustworthy, whether the person understands and accepts the goal, and whether the task currently demands exploration or practiced execution. If progress is poor, these questions point to potentially different remedies: instruction, feedback, altered scope, better tools, a learning goal, or another strategy. A failed target can be informative without being evidence of personal inadequacy. The theory is most useful when goals are revised in response to what performance reveals.

The Scientific Limits of Goal-Setting Research

Goal-setting theory has an unusually extensive experimental history for a theory of work-related motivation, supported by classic syntheses and later trials. Important limitations remain. Task performance is multidimensional; many studies examine relatively bounded tasks; effect sizes vary with design and population; and some intervention packages contain multiple techniques that are difficult to disentangle. Historical findings should also be read in light of contemporary expectations for preregistration, transparent analysis, and representative sampling. Meta-analyses provide valuable aggregate estimates, but study quality, heterogeneity, and selective reporting remain relevant when interpreting them (Mento et al., 1987; Epton et al., 2017).

A second limit concerns time scale. Many experiments demonstrate changes in performance during defined tasks or interventions, while long-term maintenance involves changing environments, constraints, roles, health, and competing goals. One successful period of goal attainment therefore does not establish lasting behavior change. A third limit concerns value judgments: a measurable achievement is not necessarily the outcome that people or institutions should prioritize. The research addresses causal and predictive relations among goal properties and performance; ethical decisions about worthy goals and fair measurement require additional considerations.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who developed goal-setting theory?

Edwin A. Locke developed the original framework in research published in 1968. Gary P. Latham later became a central collaborator in the extensive theoretical and empirical program, including major syntheses in 2002 and 2006. The theory is commonly called Locke and Latham's goal-setting theory (Locke, 1968; Locke & Latham, 2006).

What are the five principles of goal-setting theory?

Popular teaching summaries frequently list clarity, challenge, commitment, feedback, and task complexity. These terms are a convenient presentation of central constructs and moderators. The original research is more detailed: it specifies mechanisms including attention, effort, persistence, and strategy use, while recognizing relevant differences in ability, goal sources, and task demands. The list is useful for orientation but should not replace the empirical relationships it summarizes.

Why are specific goals better than vague goals?

A specific goal identifies a standard that can focus action and make progress easier to evaluate. Experimental and meta-analytic work generally finds an advantage for specific challenging goals over nonspecific do-your-best instructions in many familiar tasks. The advantage depends on appropriate difficulty, opportunity, commitment, and feedback (Mento et al., 1987).

Should a goal be realistic or challenging?

The useful distinction is between a demanding, attainable target and a target that exceeds available ability or resources. Challenge can increase effort when the person can reasonably pursue the goal. For a complex unfamiliar task, an ambitious learning goal may be better than a narrow outcome target. Realistic does not mean effortless; challenging does not mean impossible.

What is the difference between learning goals and performance goals?

A performance goal specifies a level of task output or evaluated success. A learning goal specifies the skills, information, or strategies to acquire. The distinction matters because a new complex task often requires discovering how to perform it before increasing output becomes productive (Winters & Latham, 1996).

Are SMART goals the same as goal-setting theory?

They are different. SMART is an applied checklist whose wording varies. Goal-setting theory is a body of psychological propositions and empirical findings about the relationship between goal properties and task performance. Evidence supporting specificity, difficulty, or monitoring does not automatically validate every SMART implementation.

Does setting a goal guarantee success?

No. A goal can influence attention, effort, persistence, and strategy use, while success still depends on task knowledge, resources, conditions, feedback, competing demands, and the quality of performance measures. Some difficult outcome goals also carry risks of narrow focus or ethically undesirable behavior. Evidence supports conditional effects, not guarantees.

Is goal-setting theory only about workplace motivation?

Its foundations are strongly associated with work and task performance, and studies have also addressed education and behavior change. The average effect in behavior-change experiments is positive but modest, and findings must be matched to the setting and outcome being considered (Epton et al., 2017).

Can specific goals reduce motivation or performance?

Yes, under certain conditions. A demanding outcome goal may crowd out learning on an unfamiliar task, divert attention from unmeasured responsibilities, or encourage inappropriate shortcuts when incentives reward only a narrow metric. Research on complex tasks and ethical consequences documents these possible boundary conditions (DeShon & Alexander, 1996; Welsh et al., 2019).

Conclusion

Goal-setting theory explains a reliable but conditional psychological relationship: clear, challenging, accepted goals can increase task performance by directing attention, mobilizing effort, sustaining persistence, and helping people organize strategies. The same research emphasizes boundaries. Tasks that require learning may benefit from learning goals; progress requires informative feedback; achievement depends on skills and resources; and narrow targets can generate unintended costs. The strongest application of the theory begins with an accurate understanding of the task, the person, and what good performance should mean.

Related Articles

Motivation, Habits, and Self-Control: Psychology of Behavior Change — the broader psychology of motivation, automaticity, goal pursuit, and everyday self-regulation.

How to Set Goals You Can Actually Follow Through On — an evidence-informed practical guide to choosing goals, planning action, and adapting them to constraints.

References

DeShon, R. P., & Alexander, R. A. (1996). Goal setting effects on implicit and explicit learning of complex tasks. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65(1), 18–36. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0002

Epton, T., Currie, S., & Armitage, C. J. (2017). Unique effects of setting goals on behavior change: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 85(12), 1182–1198. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000260

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

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

Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Alge, B. J. (1999). Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: Conceptual clarification and empirical synthesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 885–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.6.885

Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3(2), 157–189. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(68)90004-4

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12237980/

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265–268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00449.x

Mento, A. J., Steel, R. P., & Karren, R. J. (1987). A meta-analytic study of the effects of goal setting on task performance: 1966–1984. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 39(1), 52–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/0749-5978(87)90045-8

Ordóñez, L. D., Schweitzer, M. E., Galinsky, A. D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). Goals gone wild: The systematic side effects of overprescribing goal setting. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2009.37007999

Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2005). Learning versus performance goals: When should each be used? Academy of Management Executive, 19(1), 124–131. https://doi.org/10.5465/ame.2005.15841964

Welsh, D. T., Bush, J., Thiel, C., & Bonner, J. (2019). Reconceptualizing goal setting's dark side: The ethical consequences of learning versus outcome goals. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 150, 14–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2018.11.001

Winters, D., & Latham, G. P. (1996). The effect of learning versus outcome goals on a simple versus a complex task. Group & Organization Management, 21(2), 236–250. https://doi.org/10.1177/1059601196212007