The effect of distal learning, outcome, and proximal goals on a moderately complex task
Abstract
The effects of learning versus outcome distal goals in conjunction with proximal goals were investigated in a laboratory setting using a class‐scheduling task. The participants ( n = 96) needed to acquire knowledge in order to perform the task correctly. A ‘do your best’ outcome goal led to higher performance than the assignment of a specific, difficult outcome goal. However, the assignment of a specific, difficult learning goal led to higher performance than urging people to ‘do their best.’ Goal commitment was higher in the learning goal than in the outcome goal condition. The correlation between task‐relevant strategies discovered and performance was positive and significant. The number of task‐relevant strategies implemented by participants assigned a distal learning goal in conjunction with proximal goals was higher than in any other goal condition. Setting a distal outcome or learning goal that included proximal outcome goals, however, did not lead to higher performance than the setting of a distal outcome or learning goal alone. Self‐efficacy correlated significantly with performance, and this effect was mediated through strategy development. Furthermore, the discovery of task‐relevant strategies affected self‐efficacy through an increase in performance. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Students who set proximal learning goals and distal learning goals use the greatest number of strategies when approaching a scheduling task.
“Seijts and Latham (2001) found that students who set proximal learning goals and distal learning goals use the greatest number of strategies when approaching a scheduling task.”
From Beyond goal setting and planning: An examination of college students’ self-regulated learning forethought processes (2025) · cites this paper as Seijts and Latham (2001)
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 47 · Cited by 187
- Authors
- Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P.
- Affiliations
- Western University (CA)
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Seijts, Gerard H.
- Venue
- Journal of Organizational Behavior
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2001-04-20
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 291-307
- ISSN
- 0894-3796 (ISSN-L)
- 1099-1379
- OpenAlex
- W2019557603
- Cited by
- 187
- References
- 47
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 9 · 2014: 14 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 9
- FWCI
- 4.50
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Organizational Behavior (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Human Resource Development and Performance Evaluation
- Keywords
- learning objectives, outcome goals, goal commitment, task performance, self-efficacy, strategy formulation, goal difficulty
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review