The DOI matches its Crossref record; 106 of the 107 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Task complexity as a moderator of goal effects: a meta-analysis
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.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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?
In the citing paper
“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
Citations
Cites
Thompson, V. A., & March, J. G. (1966) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2090830 · Cited by 3,351
Cultivating competence, self-efficacy, and intrinsic interest through proximal self-motivation.
Bandura, A., & Schunk, D. H. (1981) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.41.3.586 · Cited by 2,675
Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing the motivational effects of goal systems.
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983) · Journal of Personality and Social Psychology · doi:10.1037/0022-3514.45.5.1017 · Cited by 1,511
Task complexity: Definition of the construct
Wood, R. E. (1986) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(86)90044-0 · Cited by 1,393
Self-citationFeldman, J. M., Hunter, J. E., Schmidt, F. L., & Jackson, G. B. (1984) · Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/258247 · Cited by 1,203
Steel, R. P., & Ovalle, N. K. (1984) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.4.673 · Cited by 1,060
Validity of self-evaluation of ability: A review and meta-analysis.
Mabe, P. A., & West, S. G. (1982) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.67.3.280 · Cited by 973
Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performance.
Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1984) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.69.2.241 · Cited by 942
Combining results of independent studies.
Rosenthal, R. (1978) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.85.1.185 · Cited by 910
Development of a general solution to the problem of validity generalization.
Schmidt, F. L., & Hunter, J. E. (1977) · Journal of Applied Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-9010.62.5.529 · Cited by 769
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Social cognitive theory of self-regulation
Bandura, A. (1991) · Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes · doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90022-l · Cited by 6,875
“Even on tasks that are directly controllable by effort alone, goal effects are weaker for more complex activities (Wood, Mento, & Locke, 1987).”
BackgroundBuilding a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.57.9.705 · Cited by 7,766
Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254 · Cited by 5,882
Self-efficacy and work-related performance: A meta-analysis.
Stajković, A. D., & Luthans, F. (1998) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.124.2.240 · Cited by 4,130
“…lack of standardization of defini-248 tions pertaining to what constitutes task complexity as a result of the variable and empirically hard to determine confounding nature of the person-task interaction (Campbell, 1988; Fleish-man, 1975; Hackman, 1969; Weick, 1965; Wood, 1986; Wood et al., 1987).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialThe need for and meaning of positive organizational behavior
Luthans, F. (2002) · Journal of Organizational Behavior · doi:10.1002/job.165 · Cited by 3,373
Metadata
- 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 › Developmental and Educational 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
