Cited by 598Education, Achievement, and GiftednessEmployee Performance and MotivationBehavioral Health and Interventions

Task complexity as a moderator of goal effects: a meta-analysis

Wood, Robert E., Mento, Anthony J., Locke, Edwin A.·1987·Journal of Applied Psychology

Abstract

Much evidence exists that supports the use of goal setting as a motivational technique for enhancing task performance; howevei; little attention has been given to the role of task characteristics as potential moderating conditions of goal effects. Meta-analysis procedures were used to assess the moderator effects of task complexity for goal-setting studies conducted from 1966 to 1985 (n = 125). The reliability ofthe task complexity ratings was .92. Three sets of analyses were conducted: for goaldifficulty results (hard vs. easy), for goal specificity-difficulty (specific difficult goals vs. do-best or no goal), and for all studies collapsed across goal difficulty and goal specificity-difficulty. It was generally found that goal-setting effects were strongest for easy tasks (reaction time, brainstorming), d = .76, and weakest for more complex tasks (business game simulations, scientific and engineering work, faculty research productivity), d = .42. Implications for future research on goal setting and the validity of generalizing results are discussed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0021-9010.72.3.416

Cites

106 of 106 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • In psychological literature, complexity and difficulty of tasks are often used interchangeably.

    “Resulting flaws concerning information processing capacities emerge often in the psychological literature in which “complexity” and “difficulty” of tasks are used interchangeably (see for examples: Wood et al., 1987; McDowd and Craik, 1988).”

    From Human- versus Artificial Intelligence (2021) · cites this paper as Wood et al., 1987

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 107 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wood, R. E., Mento, A. J., & Locke, E. A.
Affiliations
UNSW Sydney (AU)
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Published
1987-08
Volume
72
Issue
3
Pages
416-425
ISSN
  • 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1854
OpenAlex
W2067506429
Cited by
598
References
107
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 64 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 26 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 17 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 25
FWCI
17.14
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Organizational Behavior and Human Resource Management › Employee Performance and Motivation
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
Keywords
goal setting, task complexity, goal difficulty, goal specificity, task performance, motivation, moderator effects, reaction time, brainstorming, research productivity

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