Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 384

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 16 of the 16 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Unique effects of setting goals on behavior change: Systematic review and meta-analysis.

Open access
Epton, Tracy, Currie, Sinead, Armitage, Christopher J.·2017·Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: Goal setting is a common feature of behavior change interventions, but it is unclear when goal setting is optimally effective. The aims of this systematic review and meta-analysis were to evaluate: (a) the unique effects of goal setting on behavior change, and (b) under what circumstances and for whom goal setting works best. METHOD: Four databases were searched for articles that assessed the unique effects of goal setting on behavior change using randomized controlled trials. One-hundred and 41 papers were identified from which 384 effect sizes (N = 16,523) were extracted and analyzed. A moderator analysis of sample characteristics, intervention characteristics, inclusion of other behavior change techniques, study design and delivery, quality of study, outcome measures, and behavior targeted was conducted. RESULTS: A random effects model indicated a small positive unique effect of goal setting across a range of behaviors, d = .34 (CI [.28, .41]). Moderator analyses indicated that goal setting was particularly effective if the goal was: (a) difficult, (b) set publicly, and (c) was a group goal. There was weaker evidence that goal setting was more effective when paired with external monitoring of the behavior/outcome by others without feedback and delivered face-to-face. CONCLUSIONS: Goal setting is an effective behavior change technique that has the potential to be considered a fundamental component of successful interventions. The present review adds novel insights into the means by which goal setting might be augmented to maximize behavior change and sets the agenda for future programs of research. (PsycINFO Database Record

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/ccp0000260

Cites

16 of 16 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 16 references

Cited by

See all 384

Metadata

Authors
Epton, T., Currie, S., & Armitage, C. J.
Venue
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology
Published
2017-12
Volume
85
Issue
12
Pages
1182-1198
ISSN
  • 0022-006X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-2117
OpenAlex
W2769434684
Cited by
384
References
16
FWCI
3.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
green
Funders
National Institute for Health Research

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Unique effects of setting goals on behavior change: Systematic review and meta-analysis. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1037/ccp0000260
The paper
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. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000260

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.