The classic goal-gradient hypothesis posits that motivation to reach a goal increases monotonically with proximity to the desired end state. However, we argue that this is not always the case. In this article, we show that motivation to engage in goal-consistent behavior can be higher when people are either far from or close to the end state and lower when they are about halfway to the end state. We propose a psychophysical explanation for this tendency to get “stuck in the middle.” Building on the assumption that motivation is influenced by the perceived marginal value of progress toward the goal, we show that the shape of the goal gradient varies depending on whether an individual monitors progress in terms of distance from the initial state or from the desired end state. Our psychophysical model of goal pursuit predicts a previously undiscovered nonmonotonic gradient, as well as two monotonic gradients.
BaumeisterR.F.BratslavskyE.MuravenM.TiceD.M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252–1265.
2.
BrownJ.S. (1939). A note on a temporal gradient of reinforcement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 25, 221–227.
3.
BrownJ.S. (1948). Gradients of approach and avoidance responses and their relation to level of motivation. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 41, 450–465.
4.
CarverC.S.ScheierM.F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
5.
ElsterJ.LoewensteinG. (1992). Utility from memory and anticipation. In LoewensteinG.ElsterJ. (Eds.), Choice over time (pp. 213–234). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
6.
FörsterJ.HigginsE.T.IdsonL.C. (1998). Approach and avoidance strength during goal attainment: Regulatory focus and the “goal looms larger” effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1115–1131.
7.
HeathC.LarrickR.P.WuG. (1999). Goals as reference points. Cognitive Psychology, 38, 79–109.
8.
HullC.L. (1932). The goal-gradient hypothesis and maze learning. Psychological Review, 39, 25–43.
9.
HullC.L. (1934). The rat’s speed-of-locomotion gradient in the approach to food. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 17, 393–422.
10.
KahnemanD.TverskyA. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica, 47, 263–291.
11.
KivetzR.UrminskyO.ZhengY. (2006). The goal-gradient hypothesis resurrected: Purchase acceleration, illusionary goal progress, and customer retention. Journal of Marketing Research, 43, 39–58.
12.
KooM.FishbachA. (2008). Dynamics of self-regulation: How (un)accomplished goal actions affect motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 183–195.
13.
KooM.FishbachA. (2010). Climbing the goal ladder: How upcoming actions increase level of aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 1–13.
14.
LewinK. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
15.
LewinK. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers (CartwrightD., Ed.). New York, NY: Harper.
16.
LibermanN.DarR. (2009). Normal and pathological consequences of encountering difficulties in monitoring progress toward goals. In MoskowitzG.B.GrantH. (Eds.), The psychology of goals (pp. 277–303). New York, NY: Guilford.
17.
LoewensteinG. (1994). The psychology of curiosity: A review and reinterpretation. Psychological Bulletin, 116, 75–98.
18.
LoscoJ.EpsteinS. (1977). Relative steepness of approach and avoidance gradients as a function of magnitude and valence of incentive. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 86, 360–368.
19.
LouroM.J.PietersR.ZeelenbergM. (2007). Dynamics of multiple-goal pursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 174–193.
20.
MillerN.E. (1944). Experimental studies of conflict. In HuntJ.M. (Ed.), Personality and the behavior disorders (Vol. 1, pp. 431–465). Oxford, England: Ronald Press.
21.
MillerN.E. (1959). Liberalization of basic S-R concepts: Extensions to conflict behavior, motivation and social learning. In KochS. (Ed.), Psychology: A study of a science. Vol. 2: General and systematic formulations, learning, and special processes (pp. 196–292). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
22.
MuravenM.TiceD.M.BaumeisterR.F. (1998). Self-control as a limited resource: Regulatory depletion patterns. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 774–789.
23.
NunesJ.C.DrèzeX. (2006). The endowed progress effect: How artificial advancement increases effort. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 504–512.
24.
RigbyW.K. (1954). Approach and avoidance gradients and conflict behavior in a predominantly temporal situation. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 47, 83–89.
25.
SmithN.W. (1965). GSR measures of cigarette smokers’ temporal approach and avoidance gradients. The Psychological Record, 15, 261–268.
26.
StevensS.S. (1975). Psychophysics: Introduction to its perceptual, neural, and social prospects. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
27.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference-dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 106, 1039–1061.
28.
VohsK.D.SchmeichelB.J. (2003). Self-regulation and extended now: Controlling the self alters the subjective experience of time. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 217–230.
29.
WanE.W.SternthalB. (2008). Regulating the effects of depletion through monitoring. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 32–46.
30.
WipfJ.L. (1964). Positive and negative gradients of response strength in a temporal conflict situation. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 234–241.
