Notes on Fishbach & Dhar (2005) – Goals as Excuses or Guides

Fishbach & Dhar (2005) – Goals as Excuses or Guides: The Liberating Effect of Perceived Goal Progress on Choice

Main Topic or Phenomenon

This paper examines a counterintuitive phenomenon in self-regulation: how perceived progress toward a goal can paradoxically lead people to subsequently engage in behaviors that are inconsistent with or undermine that same goal. The research challenges the traditional view that goal pursuit leads to consistent, goal-congruent behaviors by demonstrating that progress can “liberate” individuals to pursue conflicting objectives.

Core Theoretical Construct and Framework

Goal Progress vs. Goal Commitment Framework:

• Goal Progress: Refers to the pursuit or movement toward a previously defined goal; represents how much advancement has been made toward an end state
• Goal Commitment: An inference concerning the strength or importance of a goal; represents how central the goal is to one’s identity or self-concept

Key Theoretical Mechanism: When people hold multiple goals simultaneously, their interpretation of initial goal-directed actions determines subsequent behavior:

• Actions interpreted as indicating progress → liberation to pursue inconsistent goals
• Actions interpreted as indicating commitment → continued pursuit of the focal goal

Balancing Theory: The paper proposes that people engage in “balancing” behavior across multiple goals when focusing on progress, treating progress like a resource that can be “consumed” (past progress) or “borrowed from” (future progress).

Key Findings

1. Perceived progress liberates inconsistent choice: Dieters who perceived greater progress toward weight loss (via scale manipulation) were more likely to choose chocolate over an apple (Study 1)
2. Social comparison affects balancing: Students who compared favorably to others (downward comparison) perceived more academic progress and showed greater interest in non-academic social activities (Study 2)
3. Progress vs. commitment have opposite effects: When actions were framed as indicating progress, people chose more goal-inconsistent behaviors; when framed as indicating commitment, people chose more goal-consistent behaviors (Study 3)
4. Future progress enables present indulgence: People were more willing to eat fatty foods before exercising (anticipating progress) than after exercising (having made progress), due to overoptimistic evaluations of future workout effectiveness (Study 4)
5. Subjective perception matters more than objective progress: Across studies, perceived progress predicted behavior better than actual progress made

Boundary Conditions and Moderators

Framing of Goal-Relevant Actions:

• Progress framing → balancing behavior (inconsistent choices)
• Commitment framing → consistent behavior (continued goal pursuit)

Multiple vs. Single Goals:

• The liberation effect only occurs when people hold multiple goals simultaneously
• With single goals, traditional self-regulation patterns (consistency) prevail

Temporal Perspective:

• Future progress expectations (often overoptimistic) create stronger liberation effects than past progress
• People more willing to “borrow” from anticipated future progress than “consume” past progress

Goal Hierarchy:

• The effect is stronger when switching from higher-order, effortful goals to lower-order, tempting goals
• Not limited to self-control conflicts but applies to any competing goal domains

Building on Previous Work

Challenges Traditional Self-Regulation Theory:

• Contradicts the assumption that goal activation leads to consistent goal-congruent behavior
• Extends beyond single-goal contexts that dominated prior research

Integrates Multiple Literature Streams:

• Builds on variety-seeking research (Ratner et al., 1999) by providing a goal-based mechanism
• Connects to self-perception theory (Bem, 1972) by showing how action interpretation affects subsequent behavior
• Relates to social comparison theory by demonstrating how comparison standards affect goal perceptions

Distinguishes from Resource Depletion:

• Unlike ego depletion (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000), this effect is based on subjective perceptions rather than objective resource states
• Can occur before any effortful activity (borrowing from future progress)

Major Theoretical Contribution

Dual Nature of Goal-Relevant Actions: The paper’s primary contribution is demonstrating that identical goal-directed behaviors can have opposite downstream effects depending on whether they signal progress or commitment. This provides a more nuanced understanding of self-regulation that accounts for multiple, competing goals.

Progress as a Mental Resource: Introduces the concept that progress functions like a mental resource that can be allocated across different goal domains, enabling a “licensing” or “balancing” approach to goal management.

Metacognitive Strategy Framework: Positions balancing as a general metacognitive strategy for managing multiple goals, distinct from but complementary to traditional consistency-based self-regulation.

Major Managerial Implications

Marketing Strategy:

• Marketers can leverage perceived progress to encourage indulgent purchases (e.g., promoting gym memberships might increase sales of unhealthy foods)
• Loyalty programs should carefully consider whether highlighting progress vs. commitment leads to desired behaviors

Product Positioning:

• Health and fitness products should frame usage in terms of commitment rather than progress to maintain consistent behavior
• Indulgent products can be positioned as “earned rewards” following progress in other domains

Consumer Education:

• Warning: Making consumers aware of progress in one domain might backfire by licensing inconsistent behaviors
• Focus on commitment-based messaging for sustained behavior change

Timing Strategies:

• Interventions should account for when consumers evaluate progress (people more vulnerable to inconsistent choices when anticipating future progress)
• Avoid highlighting progress when trying to maintain consistent goal-directed behavior

Limitations and Open Questions (Author-Acknowledged)

Methodological Limitations:

• Most studies used student samples from a single university, limiting generalizability
• Short-term effects only - no evidence of longer-term consequences of balancing behavior
• Study 1 acknowledges that scale manipulation could have affected both progress and commitment perceptions
• Limited measurement of actual behavior vs. intentions in some studies

Theoretical Gaps Identified by Authors:

• The relationship between abstract goals and concrete subgoals remains unclear - subgoals may facilitate balancing under progress framing but inhibit it under commitment framing
• The paper doesn’t address when progress “cancels out” due to inconsistent actions (e.g., when feeling safe makes people more reckless)
• Authors note their framework may not apply to situations where focal goals have greater long-term value or are more taxing

Boundary Condition Questions:

• The authors acknowledge uncertainty about whether their framework applies beyond self-control conflicts to other types of goal competition
• Limited exploration of individual differences that might moderate the effect

Potential Moderators

Individual Difference Moderators:

Regulatory Focus (Promotion vs. Prevention):

• Prevention-focused individuals might be less likely to engage in balancing due to loss aversion
• Promotion-focused individuals might show stronger liberation effects due to approach orientation

Need for Cognitive Closure:

• High need for closure individuals might prefer consistency over balancing
• Low need for closure might enable more flexible goal switching

Temporal Orientation:

• Present-focused individuals might show stronger liberation from past progress
• Future-focused individuals might be more influenced by anticipated progress

Self-Control Capacity/Trait Self-Control:

• Individuals with higher trait self-control might resist liberation effects
• Chronic dieters vs. occasional dieters might respond differently

Situational/Contextual Moderators:

Goal Accessibility and Salience:

• When competing goals are highly accessible, liberation effects might be stronger
• Environmental cues that make alternative goals salient could amplify balancing

Social Context and Monitoring:

• Public vs. private goal pursuit might influence willingness to balance
• Presence of accountability partners could reduce liberation effects

Goal Interdependence Structure:

• Complementary goals might show different patterns than competing goals
• Sequential vs. simultaneous goal pursuit timing

Cultural Factors:

• Individualistic vs. collectivistic cultures might differ in balancing tendencies
• Cultural values around consistency vs. flexibility

Goal Characteristics:

Goal Difficulty and Specificity:

• Very difficult goals might create stronger liberation effects
• Specific vs. abstract goal formulations might moderate the effect

Goal Origin (Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic):

• Self-determined goals might show different patterns than externally imposed goals
• Approach vs. avoidance goal formulations

Moral vs. Non-moral Goal Domains:

• Moral licensing research suggests stronger effects in moral domains
• Sacred vs. secular goals might show different balancing patterns

Cognitive and Affective Moderators:

Construal Level:

• Abstract vs. concrete thinking might influence progress vs. commitment focus
• Psychological distance to goals could moderate effects

Mood and Emotion:

• Positive mood might enhance liberation effects through increased optimism
• Guilt or pride following initial goal pursuit might moderate subsequent choices

Cognitive Load:

• High cognitive load might increase reliance on balancing heuristics
• Deliberative vs. automatic processing modes

Reference

Fishbach, Ayelet and Ravi Dhar (2005), “Goals as Excuses or Guides: The Liberating Effect of Perceived Goal Progress on Choice,” Journal of Consumer Research, 32 (3), 370–77.