This research demonstrates that as people approach a goal, external representations, which increase the ease of visualizing the goal, enhance goal pursuit. Specifically, consumers judge easy-to-visualize goals to be closer than difficult-to-visualize goals, which in turn increases effort and commitment. Ease of visualization affects performance in swimming competitions and the physical effort exerted in the lab. Visualization also affects commitment toward savings, willingness to wait for service, and performance in a simulated sales task. Importantly, the beneficial effects of visualization exist only when people are close to the goal. In addition, the effect of visualization attenuates when the goal is split into subgoals. Managers can use these results to enhance consumer goal pursuit, influence consumer satisfaction in online service encounters, and motivate employees to improve performance. In these varied contexts, visual representations of goal progress (e.g., progress bars) enhance motivation as people approach their goal.
AmirOn, and ArielyDan (2008), “Resting on Laurels: The Effects of Discrete Progress Markers on Task Performance and Preferences,”Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 34 (5), 1158–71.
2.
AustinJames T., and VancouverJeffrey B. (1996), “Goal Constructs in Psychology: Structure, Process, and Content,”Psychological Bulletin, 120 (3), 338–75.
3.
BagozziRichard P., and DholakiaUtpal (1999), “Goal Setting and Goal Striving in Consumer Behavior,”Journal of Marketing, 63 (Special Issue), 19–32.
4.
BanduraAlbert, and SchunkDale H. (1981), “Cultivating Competence, Self-Efficacy, and Intrinsic Interest Through Proximal Self-Motivation,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41 (3), 586–98.
5.
BrownJudson S. (1948), “Gradients of Approach and Avoidance Responses and Their Relation to Level of Motivation,”Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 41 (6), 450–65.
6.
BrownSteven P., CronWilliam L., and SlocumJohn W. (1998), “Effects of Trait Competitiveness and Perceived Intraorganizational Competition on Salesperson Goal Setting and Performance,”Journal of Marketing, 62 (October), 88–98.
7.
BrownSteven P., and PetersonRobert A. (1994), “The Effect of Effort on Sales Performance and Job Satisfaction,”Journal of Marketing, 58 (April), 70–80.
8.
CryderCynthia E., LoewensteinGeorge, and SeltmanHoward (2010), “A Race to the Finish: Nearing Fund-Raising Goals Increases the Rate of Donation,” working paper, Olin Business School, Washington University in St. Louis.
9.
CubukcuEbru, and NasarJack L. (2005), “Relation of Physical Form to Spatial Knowledge in Large Scale Virtual Environments,”Environment and Behavior, 37 (3), 397–417.
10.
EarlyP. Christopher, NorthcraftGregory B., LeeCynthia, and LituchyTerri R. (1990), “The Impact of Process and Outcome Feedback on the Relation of Goal Setting to Task Performance,”Academy of Management Journal, 33 (1), 87–105.
11.
ErezMiriam (1977), “Feedback: A Necessary Condition for the Goal-Setting Performance Relation,”Journal of Applied Psychology, 62 (5), 624–27.
12.
ForsterJens, HigginsE. Tory, and IdsonLorraine (1998), “Approach and Avoidance Strength During Goal Attainment: Regulatory Focus and the ‘Goal Looms Larger’ Effect,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (5), 1115–31.
13.
HullClark L. (1932), “The Goal Gradient Hypothesis and Maze Learning,”Psychological Review, 39 (1), 25–43.
14.
HumphreyStephen E., MoonHenry, ConlonDonald, and HofmannDavid (2004), “Decision-Making and Behavior Fluidity: How Focus on Completion and Emphasis on Safety Changes Over the Course of Projects,”Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 93 (1), 14–27.
15.
KatzKaren, LarsonBlaire, and LarsonRichard (1991), “Prescription for the Waiting-in-Line Blues: Entertain, Enlighten, and Engage,”Sloan Management Review, 32 (2), 44–53.
16.
KivetzRan, UrminskyOleg, and ZhengYuhuang (2006), “The Goal-Gradient Hypothesis Resurrected: Purchase Acceleration, Illusionary Goal Progress, and Customer Retention,”Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (February), 39–58.
17.
KooMinjung, and FishbachAyelet (2008), “Dynamics of Self-Regulation: How (Un)Accomplished Goal Actions Affect Motivation,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94 (2), 183–95.
18.
LappeMarkus, JenkinMichael, and HarrisLaurence R. (2007), “Travel Distance Estimation from Visual Motion by Leaky Path Integration,”Experimental Brain Research, 180 (1), 35–48.
19.
LarkinJill H., and SimonHerbert A. (1987), “Why a Diagram Is (Sometimes) Worth Ten Thousand Words,”Cognitive Science, 11 (1), 65–99.
20.
LibermanNira, and TropeYaacov (1998), “The Role of Feasibility and Desirability Considerations in Near and Distant Future Decisions: A Test of Temporal Construal Theory,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75 (1), 5–18.
21.
LockeEdwin A. (1968), “Toward a Theory of Task Motivation and Incentives,”Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3 (2), 157–89.
22.
LockeEdwin A., and LathamGary P. (1990), A Theory of Goal Setting and Task Performance.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
23.
McCreaSean M., LibermanNira, TropeYaacov, and ShermanSteven J. (2008), “Construal Level and Procrastination,”Psychological Science, 19 (12), 1308–1314.
24.
MedlinBobby, and GreenKenneth W.Jr. (2009), “Enhancing Performance Through Goal Setting, Engagement, and Optimism,”Industrial Management & Data Systems, 109 (7), 943–56.
25.
NasarJack L. (1983), “Environmental Factors, Perceived Distance and Spatial Behavior,”Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 10 (3), 275–81.
26.
NasarJack L., ValenciaHugo, OmarZainal A., ChuehShan-Chy, and HwangJi-Hyuan (1985), “Out of Sight, Further from Mind: Destination Visibility and Distance Perception,”Environment and Behavior, 17 (September), 627–39.
27.
NaylorJames C., and IlgenDaniel R. (1984), “Goal Setting: A Theoretical Analysis of a Motivational Technology,” in Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 6, CummingsLarry L., and StawBarry M., eds. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 95–140.
28.
NewellAllen, and SimonHerbert (1972), Human Problem Solving.Englewood, NJ: Prentice Hall.
29.
PhamLien B., and TaylorShelley E. (1999), “From Thought to Action: Effects of Process-Versus Outcome-Based Mental Simulations on Performance,”Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25 (2), 250–60.
30.
ProffittDennis R. (2006), “Distance Perception,”Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15 (June), 131–35.
31.
ShinJiwoong, and ArielyDan (2004), “Keeping Doors Open: The Effect of Unavailability on Incentives to Keep Options Viable,”Management Science, 50 (5), 575–86.
32.
ShivBaba, and FedorikhinAlexander (1999), “Heart and Mind in Conflict: Interplay of Affect and Cognition in Consumer Decision Making,”Journal of Consumer Research, 26 (December), 278–92.
33.
SrivastavaJoydeep, and LurieNicholas (2001), “A Consumer Perspective on Price-Matching Refund Policies: Effect on Price Perceptions and Search Behavior,”Journal of Consumer Research, 28 (September), 296–307.
34.
SuwaMasaki, and TverskyBarbara (2002), “External Representations Contribute to the Dynamic Construction of Ideas,” in Diagrams, HegartyMary, MeyerBernd E., and Hari NarayananN., eds. New York: Springer-Verlag, 341–43.
35.
TaylorShirley (1994), “Waiting for Service: The Relationship Between Delays and Evaluations of Service,”Journal of Marketing, 58 (April), 56–69.
36.
TropeYaacov, and LibermanNira (2003), “Temporal Construal,”Psychological Review, 110 (3), 403–421.
37.
VallacherRobin R., and WegnerDaniel M. (1989), “Levels of Personal Agency: Individual Variation in Action Identification,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57 (4), 660–71.
38.
VallacherRobin R., and WegnerDaniel M., and SomozaMaria P. (1989), “That's Easy for You to Say: Action Identification and Speech Fluency,”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56 (2), 199–208.
39.
WrightPatrick M., and KacmarK. Michele (1994), “Goal Specificity as a Determinant of Goal Commitment and Goal Change,”Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, 59 (2), 242–60.
40.
ZhangYing, FishbachAyelet, and DharRavi (2007), “When Thinking Beats Doing: The Role of Optimistic Expectations in Goal-based Choice,”Journal of Consumer Research, 34 (4), 567–78.
