Effect of Perceived Goal Difficulty, Perceived Exercise Exertion and Sub-Goal

on Selected Motor Task

Ms.Meenakshi, Assistant Professor, IGIPESS, Delhi University

Dr. Lalit Sharma, Associate Professor, IGIPESS, Delhi University

Dr. Ajit, Assistant Professor, ASPESS, Amity University

Abstract

The aim of the study was to analyze the effect of sub-goals on selected motor task,

and to find out the relationship between perceived goal difficulty and perceived

exercise exertion A total of 40 subjects between the age group of 17 to 23 were

assigned the sub goals to achieve the target goal within 6 weeks in which only 24

subjects completed the study. Results of one way ANOVA with repeated measures

revealed that the subjects significantly improved their selected motor task

performance in which 61 % of the participants achieved their target within four

weeks. Significant positive relationship between perceived goal difficulty and

perceived exercise exertion was found. Improvement in performance supports the

findings that setting goals improves performance in sport. Perceived goal difficulty

reflects mainly the amount of effort that subjects have to invest in the task to

achieve given target.

Keywords: goals, perception, motivation,

Introduction

Psychological techniques have been an effective tool for enhancing performance and

productivity, and has been found effective in improving long-term self-motivation through

eliciting commitment, perseverance, dedication and effort (Locke & Latham, 1990). Goal is

defined as an object, aim or endpoint of action, which an individual describes as an

accomplishment being sought provide focus and direction of one's activity, and permit the

individual to continuously measure performance through internal processes of comparison, using

subjective standards to evaluate ongoing pursuits (Frierman, Weinberg & Jackson, 1990; Locke

& Bryan, 1969). Many sport-psychologists influenced by Locke and Latham's (1966, 1985)

model based on conscious goals and intentions used the goal setting as a motivational strategies

in the domain of sports and exercise as performance effect of goal setting are at least similar to,

if not more effective in sports than in organizational-industrial setting, and recommend

performers to strive for difficult and challenging, yet realistic and attainable goals. Realistic

challenging goals are considered motivationally superior to the use of unrealistic goals because

goals that are unreachable will result in continuing failure. This, in turn, would lead to a drop in

motivation and the subsequent performance would also deteriorate. In essence, reported failure

could lead to a condition of learned helplessness (Maier & Seligman, 1976 cited by Bar-Eli et al.,

1993) in which the individual simply gives up trying to improve. Senko, Harackiewicz (2005) &

Lazarus, (1991), in the domain of motor performance, have identified perceived goal difficulty as

an important variable in the regulation of emotions and motivation. Nevertheless, little research

has focused specifically on the understanding of the true nature of perceived goal difficulty.

Much research in the area of goal-setting, in particular in industrial or organizational

settings, has shown a positive influence of goal difficulty on performance: the more difficult the

goals, the higher the performances (Mooney & Mutrie , 2000). According to Locke (1966) the

assignment of difficult goals leads to a greater investment of effort and a better persistence, as

effort is provided until the goal or the sub-goal is reached (LaPort&Nath, 1976; Latham &

Locke, 1975). The cognitive theories of motivation offer an interesting frame to analyse the

relationships between goals, effort and persistence (Nuttin, 1980, cited by Delignieres, 1998): the

subject persists in his or her effort as long as he or she perceives a discrepancy between the goal

and the actual outcome. Goal-setting allows this discrepancy to be created and structured. The

theory suggests, at least within certain limits which have to be determined, that invested effort,

and hence performance, are proportional to subjective difficulty. The monotonous relationship

between goal difficulty and performance is valid only if the assigned goal is realistic: if subject is

to assess the task as too difficult, he or she stops investing effort (Locke and Latham 1985). As

well, the amount of effort is limited by a subjective maximum (Kukla, 1972).

In light of the published and unpublished studies concluded in the field settings, the key

study sought to understand how goal setting manifests in sports by undertaking a laboratory-

based test in which abdominal strength was measured by the number of sit-ups.

Therefore the following objectives were set in the study:

To study the effect of sub-goals on selected motor task.

To know the Inter-relationship between perceived goal difficulty and perceived exercise

exertion (LaPort&Nath, 1976; Latham & Locke, 1975).

Method

Participants

For the purpose of the present study a total number of 40 college students from the Indira

Gandhi Institute of Physical Education and Sports Sciences who have voluntarily accepted to be

a part of this study selected as subjects. We assigned the sub goals to forty subjects to achieve

the target goal within 6 weeks in which only 24 subjects completed the study. Younger adults

(Mage= 19 years, age range: 17-23 years) were selected as subjects for the study.

Criterion Measures

The following criterion measure was used for the present study.

Self-developed Perceived goal difficulty scale was used to know the perceived goal difficulty for

the assigned goal. The scale is composed of 10 points numbered from 1 to 10. Every two points

were associated with verbal label ranging from “not difficult at all (1)” to “very very difficult”

(10).

Perceived exercise exertion scale established by Borg (1970) was used. This scale is

composed of 10 points, numbered from 1 to 10, and is anchored all two points with verbal labels,

from "not tired at all (1)," to "very, very tired" (10). This scale is constructed to produce a linear

relationship between objective and perceived exercise exertion.

Procedure for Goal Setting

Initially we assembled and informed all the subjects about the study. For three days they

were asked to perform sit ups in one time under “do your best” instructions and calculated

average of three days scores in order to obtain baseline measure of performance. Once the

baseline performance was obtained, a goal of 60 % improvement of baseline was set for the

participants.

Administration of Training Schedule

Once the initial goal was set, all the subjects were assembled and asked to practice sit-ups

for three set with the target goal of 20 % improvement of baseline for the first two weeks. In the

3rd week they were asked to practice sit-ups for three sets with the target goal of 40 %

improvement of baseline for next two weeks. Again in the 5th week for two weeks 3 sets with the

target goal of 60 % improvement were practiced by the subjects under the supervision of the

researcher. The training was carried out for three days in a week in Indira Gandhi Institute of

Physical Education and Sports Sciences, Delhi University.

Performance Scores

A total of three times performance data were collected from all the subjects. The first

trial was a pretest used to obtain a basal (maximum) performance and to determine the initial

abdominal strength. The subjects then performed a first experimental trial after two weeks in

which they were asked to perform the sit-ups in one time. The total number of sit-ups was

considered as the performance scores after two weeks. After four weeks, the participants again

performed the second experimental trials in which they were asked to perform the sit-ups exactly

in a manner they had earlier performed after two weeks. Finally after the six weeks of training

the data was collected.

Administration of the Questionnaire

Once subjects had been assigned their goals, they were asked to complete a pre

experimental questionnaire to determine perceived goal difficulty. Participants were asked to

complete post experimental questionnaire to know the changes in perceived goal difficulty over

the weeks. They were also asked to complete a pre experimental questionnaire to determine

perceived exercise exertion. Participants were asked to complete post experimental

questionnaire to know the changes in perceived exercise exertion over the weeks. Since the task

was completed followed by six weeks training, subjects were not given perceived goal difficulty

and perceived exercise questionnaire in the sixth week, therefore for the perceived goal difficulty

and perceived exertion, the data was collected only until 4th week.

Statistical Analysis

For the analysis of the data descriptive statistics were employed on pretest and every

experimental data. The one way ANOVA with repeated measure test was computed to find out

the change in each trial of performance for goal attainment, perceived exercise exertion and

perceive goal difficulty during the training. Pearson product moment correlation was computed

to find out the relationship between perceived goal difficulty and perceived exercise exertion.

The chi-square, test of independence was used to know whether the achievement of target was

independent to gender. The level of significance was set at .05 levels.

Results

Changes in the performance as well as in the perceived goal difficulty and perceived

exercise exertion were analyzed and the findings are presented in table 1 and table 2.

Relationship was computed between the perceived exercise exertion and perceived goal

difficulty and the findings are presented in table 3.

Table 1

Performance Means for Selected Motor Task (Sit-Ups)

Trials Performance PEE PGD

M SD M SD M SD

Pre (Trial 1) 60.17 19.71 2.74 1.48 3.37 1.88

After 2 weeks (Trial 2) 80.67 25.28 2.65 2.12 2.83 2.37

After 4weeks (Trial 3) 91.08 30.86 2.22 1.98 2.04 1.76

After 6 weeks (Trial 4) 96.92 37.42

Note. PGD=Perceived Goal Difficulty. PEE= Perceived Exercise Exertion

A one way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures was employed to analyze

performance data. A significant trials effect, F (3, 69) = 29.16, p < .01, was found with

participants performing significantly better on second trial (M = 80.67) than on first trial (M =

60.17). Subjects performed significantly better on third trial (M = 91.08) than on first (M =

60.17) and second trial (80.67) respectively, whereas not performed significantly better in fourth

trial (96.92) than on the third trial (M=91.08).

0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.50

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Performance MeanLinear (Performance Mean)Performance SDLinear (Performance SD)

trials

perf

orm

ance

Figure 1: Means and SD of selected motor task (sit-ups).

One way ANOVA with repeated measures statistics analyzed the perceived goal

difficulty and indicated significant differences among trials, F (2, 46) = 4.67, p < .05. LSD post-

hoc analysis revealed the perceived goal difficulty not reduced significantly on the second trial

(M = 2.83) than on first trial (M = 3.37) whereas significantly reduced on third trial (M =2.04)

than on the second trial (M = 2.83).

One way ANOVA with repeated measures of the results from the perceived exercise

exertion questionnaire indicated no significant difference on the perceived exercise exertion

among trails (M=2.74). Therefore it may be concluded that participants required same

investment of effort from the beginning to the end to achieve the target.

Table 2

Percentage of Participants Achieved Their Target

Participants Target achieved Target not achieved

Total 61 % 39 %

Male 52% 48%

Female 100 % 0 %

Table 2 reveals that 61 % (N = 28) of the participants had achieved their target within

four weeks. Percentage of achievement of target did differ by gender, x2(1, N=28) = 3.99,

p<.05.Chi-square test of independence indicates that achievement of target was related to gender.

100 % female subjects achieved the target whereas only 52 % of male achieved their target in

given period.

Table 3

Inter-Correlations among Perceived Goal Difficulty and Perceived Exercise Exertion on

Selected Motor Task over the Weeks

PGD on 1st trial PGD on 2nd trial PGD on 3rd trial

PEE on 1st trial .51**

PEE on 2nd trial .94**

PEE on 3rd trial .89**

Note. PGD=Perceived Goal Difficulty. PEE= Perceived Exercise Exertion

** p < .01.

Table 3 indicated that matrix correlation coefficients for the perceived goal difficulty and

perceived exercise exertion on selected motor task over the weeks revealed that perceived goal

difficulty on 1st trial was strongly and positively correlated with perceived exercise exertion on

1st trial followed by, 2nd and 3rd trial with 2nd and 3rd trial respectively (r=.51, .94 and.89

respectively). Results confirm that perceived goal difficulty and perceived exercise exertion are

related constructs.

Discussion

61 % of the participants achieved their target and Performance results in this study did

show some consistency with previous literature governing goal-setting and sports. Improvement

in performance supports the findings given by Kyllo & Landers, (1995) that overall, setting goals

improves performance in sport. On the other hand the participants those who had not achieved

their target could be attributed to the fact they might not have given their optimum efforts.

Another reason could be that the subjects were not committed to the work assigned, there may be

lack of motivation to accomplish the task as researcher had not used any motivational technique.

Sub-goals was influencing factor for females than males as more number of females

achieved their target in a given period of time than the males at an equivalent level of perceived

goal difficulty and perceived exercise exertion supports the findings given by Weinberg (2003)

that females set goals more frequently and found their goals more effective than males.

Sub-goals significantly reduced the participants perceived goal difficulty over the weeks

and also found that participants perceived their target neither very easy nor very difficult but

realistic. The results of perceived goal difficulty are in line with both the goal specificity and

goal difficulty hypotheses derived from the application of Locke’s goal-setting theory to sport

that goal difficulty has a direct relationship with performance and shown that more difficult goals

lead to a higher performance, as long as the goals do not become so difficult that athletes

perceive them as impossible. Unreasonable goals frustrate, rather than motivate athletes. On the

other hand difficult but realistic goals lead to increase performance and motivation.

Participants perceived moderate level of exertion and no significant changes were found

in perceived exercise exertion over the weeks, therefore it may be concluded that they perceived

their exercise of same intensity over the weeks and they reported same investment of effort from

the beginning to the end to achieve the target which supports the findings that if the subject was

to estimate the goal as easy, then he or she would think that little effort was necessary to reach

the goal and vise-versa.

Correlation between perceived goal difficulty and perceived exercise exertion on selected

motor task supports the findings from the sports psychology literature that participants who

perceive their goal as difficult reflects the amount of effort which have been invested in the task.

Assignment of difficult goals lead to a greater investment of effort (Locke, 1966) and a better

persistence, as effort is provided until the goal or the sub-goal is reached. (Laport & Nath, 1976;

Latham & Locke, 1975).

Conclusions

There is significant positive relationship between perceived goal difficulty and perceived

exercise exertion on selected motor task. Perceived goal difficulty reflects the amount of

effort that subjects have to invest in the task to reach a given level of performance.

No significant changes were found on perceived exercise exertion among trials.

Significant changes were taken place on perceived goal difficulty among trials.

Significant improvement were observed in the performance on the trials except on fourth

trial in which 61 % of the selected participants had achieved their target within 4 weeks

and then no improvement was observed in last trial.

Gender difference was observed on target achievement in which more females achieved

their target in a given period of time than the males at an equivalent level of perceived

goal difficulty and perceived exercise exertion.

Research Implications

It is suggested that perceived goal difficulty was a reliable index, which could be used in

experimental protocols as well as in teaching or training situations to manage the

difficulty of task that have already been assessed as goal difficulty by subjects.

As perceived goal difficulty and perceived exercise exertion are the same constructs so

coaches, trainers or teachers may use perceived goal difficulty as an index of the amount

of effort that subjects intends to invest on the task for attaining the goal.

Gender difference may be taken into consideration while setting the goals.

References

Botterill, M., & Stanicek, J. A. (1977). Goal setting and performance on an endurance task.

Paper presented at the Canadian Psycho Motor Learning and Sport Psychology

Conference, Banff, Alberta.

Bar-Eli, Michael, Levy-Kolker, Noa, Tenenbaum, Gershon, Weinberg, Robert S. (1993,

March).Effect of goal difficulty on performance of aerobic, anaerobic and power tasks in

laboratory and field settings. Journal of Sport Behavior, 16 (1).

Delignières, D. (1998). Perceived Difficulty and Resources Investment in Motor Tasks.

European Yearbook of Sport Psychology, 2, 33-54.

Kukla, A. (1972). Foundations of an attributional theory of performance. Psychological Review,

79, 454-470.

LaPort, R.E. & Nath, R. (1976).Role of performance goals in prose learning. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 68, 260-264.

Latham G.P. & Locke, E.A. (1975). Increasing productivity with decreasing time limits; a field

replication of Parkinson’s Law. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 524-526.

Locke, A., & Latham , G. P. (1995). The Application of Goal Setting to Sports. Journal of Sport

and Exercise Psychology, 7(3).

Locke, E.A. (1966). The relationship of intentions to level of performance. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 50, 60-66.

Locke, E.A Latham, G.P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance. Englewood

Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Locke, E. A., (1969). Goal setting as a determinant of the effect of knowledge of score and

performance. American Journal of Psychology, 81, 398-406.

Retrieved February 3, 2012, http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/256014?

uid=3738256&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&sid=56139481403

Reference for Business, Encyclopedia of Business, (Ed.) retrieved December 12, 2011, from

http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/management/Ex-Gov/Goals-and-Goal-

Setting.html#b