Continue Or Give Up? How Publicity and Self-Monitoring Influence Goal

ASSOCIATION FOR CONSUMER RESEARCH

Labovitz School of Business & Economics, University of Minnesota Duluth, 11 E. Superior Street, Suite 210, Duluth, MN 55802

Continue Or Give Up? How Publicity and Self-Monitoring Influence Goal Persistence Cathy Cole, University of Iowa, USA Jinfeng (Jenny) Jiao, University of Iowa, USA Yael Zemack-Rugar, University of Central Florida, USA

We examine whether the public or private nature of consumer goals affects goal persistence. Across three experiments, we demonstrate that high self-monitors are more likely to persist following a public failure than a private failure. However, the public versus private nature of the goal does not affect low self-monitors’ persistence.

[to cite]: Cathy Cole, Jinfeng (Jenny) Jiao, and Yael Zemack-Rugar (2015) ,"Continue Or Give Up? How Publicity and Self-Monitoring Influence Goal Persistence", in AP - Asia-Pacific Advances in Consumer Research Volume 11, eds. Echo Wen Wan and Meng Zhang, Duluth, MN : Association for Consumer Research, Pages: 163-164.

[url]: http://www.acrwebsite.org/volumes/1018919/volumes/ap11/AP-11

[copyright notice]: This work is copyrighted by The Association for Consumer Research. For permission to copy or use this work in whole or in part, please contact the Copyright Clearance Center at http://www.copyright.com/. Continue or Give Up? How Publicity and Self-Monitoring Influence Goal Persistence Jinfeng (Jenny) Jiao, The University of Iowa, USA Cathy Cole, The University of Iowa, USA

EXTENDED ABSTRACT across different settings. In contrast, low self-monitors are (relatively We examine whether the public or private nature of consumer speaking) more consistent across different social situations and are goals affects goal persistence following initial goal failure. In partic- generally oblivious to how others see them. Thus we expect that the ular, we explore the moderating role of self-monitoring. Across three motivating effect of publicity will be stronger for high self-monitors experiments, we demonstrate that high self-monitors are more likely than low self-monitors, because the former will be especially con- to persist following a public failure than a private failure. However, cerned with the construction of their public selves (Gangestad & the public versus private nature of the goal does not affect low self- Snyder, 2000; Nyer & Dellande, 2010). Formally, monitors’ persistence. We also explore two boundary conditions for this effect by manipulating the timing of feedback and by testing the Hypothesis 1: After a goal failure, the effects of goal publicity role of the perceived value of the incentive for achieving the goal. on goal persistence will be moderated by self- The article concludes with a discussion of theoretical and managerial monitoring such that for high self-monitors pub- insights from this work. lic (as compared to private) goals will increase Every day, consumers engage in a variety of goal pursuit de- goal persistence, but for low self-monitors, goal cisions (Bagozzi & Dholakia, 1999; Fishbach & Dhar, 2005; Koo publicity should have no effect on post-failure & Fishbach, 2008; Zhang, Fishbach, & Dhar, 2007). On their way persistence. to goal attainment, consumers sometimes encounter failure, and are Boundary conditions: feedback timing and incentive value . then left to decide – should they persist with goal efforts or abandon Previous research indicates the importance of feedback in influenc- the goal altogether (Fishbach & Dhar, 2005; Fishbach & Finkelstein, ing subsequent goal (e.g., Finkelstein & Fishbach 2011). Previous 2011; Soman & Cheema, 2004)? We address questions about when research also examined whether people seek feedback strategically and why consumers persist following failures by studying the inter- to motivate themselves (Finkelstein & Fishbach, 2012). In the cur- play between goal publicity, self-monitoring and goal persistence. rent research, as this effect of failure is presumed to be driven by Doing so allows us to make several contributions. First, while it public failure, we predict that if failure feedback is not provided until is well established that public goals lead to greater goal persistence, after the decision about whether to continue or quit, the effect of goal little research explores whether this persistence holds even after a publicity and self-monitoring on goal persistence will be attenuated. failure. We argue that publicity of goals can be a double edged sword, Feedback towards the goal leads to better performance toward a goal leading to either greater commitment towards or greater divesting by informing the individual about the discrepancy between the goal away from goals (Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2009; Parrott, Monahan, and the performance (Fishbach & Finkelstein, 2011; Neubert, 1998). Ainsworth, & Steiner, 1998). Therefore, the impact of goal public- Therefore, we predict, ity on post-failure persistence is unclear. Second, while research explores the impact of a variety of individual differences that impact Hypothesis 2: When consumers receive immediate failure feed- post-failure persistence, no research (to our knowledge) has explored back, we expect to observe the self-monitoring the role of self-monitoring in this context. by goal publicity interaction specified in H1, but Private versus public goals and motivation. Making goals when consumers do not receive feedback, we ex- public, which is defined as making significant others aware of one’s pect that all consumer goal persistence will be goals, has a positive effect on goal persistence because it is easy attenuated. to abandon a goal known only to oneself, but it is hard to abandon a goal that is known to others (Jones, et al., 1972; Pallak & Cum- Incentive programs which offer consumers awards for achiev- mings, 1976; Salancik, 1977). One’s motivation to avoid anticipated ing goals are effective in a variety of situations (Lee, Locke, & Phan, personal and social disapproval for failing to follow through with 1997; Schmidt & DeShon, 2007). For example, Schmidt and DeShon promised actions is one explanation for these effects (Parrott, et al., (2007) find that incentives offered for goal attainment determine how 1998). Furthermore, Bem’s (1967) self-perception theory suggests people resolve goal-performance discrepancies. As a result, we pre- that individuals who make a public commitment to an action may dict that if the perceived value of the incentive awarded for achiev- interpret the act of making a public commitment as a signal of their ing the goal is low, the goal publicity by self-monitoring interaction high motivation to engage in the promised action (Bem, 1967). Prior will be attenuated because the social consequences of goal failure are research has shown that public commitment leads to high levels of lower for small than large incentives (Huang, Zhang, & Broniarczyk, weight loss motivation (Nyer & Dellande, 2010), increased recycling 2012; Seta, Donaldson, & Seta, 1999). Therefore, when incentives behaviors and reduced gas and electricity consumption (Pallak & for achieving goals are not perceived as valuable, even high self- Cummings, 1976; Salancik, 1977). monitors should care little about appearances, and persist less, even The role of self-monitoring . We posit that goal publicity will after failure. Therefore, not affect all consumers in the same way because not all individuals are equally influenced by social approval or disapproval. Specifical- Hypothesis 3: When the incentive for achieving the goal is per- ly, we propose individual differences in self-monitoring will moder- ceived to be high, we expect to observe the self- ate the effect of goal publicity on goal persistence. Self-monitoring monitoring by goal publicity interaction speci- assesses the extent to which people regulate their own behavior in fied in H1, but when the incentive for achieving order to look good in the eyes of others (Snyder & Gangestad, 1986; the goal is perceived to be low, the interaction Snyder & Simpson, 1984). High self-monitors attend to their envi- of goal publicity and self-monitoring will be at- ronment and adapt to new situations, so that their behavior varies tenuated.

We tested our predictions in three studies. Across the three stud- Schmidt, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2007). What to do? The effects ies, our results show converging evidence that self-monitoring mod- of discrepancies, incentives, and time on dynamic goal erates the relationship between publicity and goal persistence such prioritization. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 928. that high self-monitors, but not low self-monitors, are more likely to Seta, J. J., Donaldson, S., & Seta, C. E. (1999). Self-relevance as a persist at goals following failure in public than in private conditions. moderator of self-enhancement and self-verification.Journal In addition, high self-monitors are especially sensitive to goal pub- of Research in Personality, 33, 442-462. licity effects, especially when they perceive the incentive for achiev- Snyder, M., & Gangestad, S. (1986). On the nature of self- ing the goal is valuable and when they have feedback about initial monitoring: Matters of assessment, matters of validity. Journal goal failure. of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 125. Snyder, M., & Simpson, J. A. (1984). Self-monitoring and dating REFERENCES relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Bagozzi, R. P., & Dholakia, U. (1999). Goal Setting and Goal 47, 1281. Striving in Consumer Behavior. The Journal of Marketing, 63, Soman, D., & Cheema, A. (2004). When goals are 19-32. counterproductive: The effects of violation of a behavioral Bem, D. J. (1967). Self-perception: An alternative interpretation of goal on subsequent performance. Journal of Consumer cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psychological Review, 74, Research, 31, 52-62. 183. Zhang, Y., Fishbach, A., & Dhar, R. (2007). When Thinking Beats Finkelstein, S. R., & Fishbach, A. (2012). Tell Me What I Did Doing: The Role of Optimistic Expectations in Goal-Based Wrong: Experts Seek and Respond to Negative Feedback. Choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 34, 567-578. Journal of Consumer Research, 39, 22-38. Fishbach, A., & Dhar, R. (2005). Goals as excuses or guides: The liberating effect of perceived goal progress on choice. Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 370-377. Fishbach, A., & Finkelstein, S. R. (2011). How feedback influences persistence, disengagement, and change in goal pursuit. J. Forgas & A. Kruglanski (Series Eds.), H. Aarts, & AJ Elliot (Vol. Eds.), Frontiers of social psychology: Goal-directed behavior, 203-230. Gangestad, S. W., & Snyder, M. (2000). Self-monitoring: Appraisal and reappraisal. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 530. Gollwitzer, P. M., & Sheeran, P. (2009). Self-regulation of consumer decision making and behavior: The role of implementation intentions. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 19, 593-607. Huang, S.-c., Zhang, Y., & Broniarczyk, S. M. (2012). So near and yet so far: The mental representation of goal progress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103, 225. Jones, E. E., Kanouse, D. E., Kelley, H. H., Nisbett, R. E., Valins, S., & Weiner, B. (1972). Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior: General Learning Press Morristown, NJ. Koo, M., & Fishbach, A. (2008). Dynamics of self-regulation: How (un) accomplished goal actions affect motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 94, 183. Lee, T. W., Locke, E. A., & Phan, S. H. (1997). Explaining the assigned goal-incentive interaction: The role of self-efficacy and personal goals. Journal of Management, 23, 541-559. Neubert, M. J. (1998). The value of feedback and goal setting over goal setting alone and potential moderators of this effect: A meta-analysis. Human Performance, 11, 321-335. Nyer, P. U., & Dellande, S. (2010). Public commitment as a motivator for weight loss. Psychology & Marketing, 27, 1-12. Pallak, M. S., & Cummings, W. (1976). Commitment and voluntary energy conservation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2, 27-30. Parrott, R., Monahan, J., Ainsworth, S., & Steiner, C. (1998). Communicating to Farmers About Skin Cancer The Behavior Adaptation Model. Human Communication Research, 24, 386-409. Salancik, G. R. (1977). Commitment and the control of organizational behavior and belief. New directions in organizational behavior, 1-54.