Stauner, N. (2009). The factor structure of personal goals. Presented in the Proseminar for Current Research in Personality Psychology, June 4, University of California, Riverside.

1. The Factor Structure of Personal Goals Nick StaunerUC Riverside

2. The Factor Structure of Personal GoalsOutline What are the essential themes of goals? Answer must balancesimplicity with exhaustiveness Must facilitate analysis of individual differences Must aim to explain and predict psychological outcomes Existing motive structure theory Our lab’s work on goals Sample, factor analyses & results Interpretations Limitations & future directions

3. A priori theories of motive structure List of instincts (McDougall, 1908, 1933) In one of the first social psychology textbooks Life and Death Instincts (Freud, 1920) List of motives (Murray, 1938) Hierarchy of needs (Maslow, 1943) List of “ergs” from factor analysis (Cattell, 1957, 1975) The first a posteriori theory Agency & Communion (Bakan, 1966; Hogan, 1983; Wiggins, 1991; Leary, 1956) Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000) Motivational Systems Theory (Ford, 1992)

4. Motive assessment instruments Thematic Apperception Test (TAT; Murray, 1943) Projective test Sixteen ambiguous pictures Edwards Personal Preference Schedule (1959) Two hundred twenty-five forced-choice items Personality Research Form (Jackson, 1984) Describes trait-like tendencies Not state-like motives, nor their objectives Assessment of Personal Goals (Ford & Nichols, 1987) Twenty-four five-item scales measuring goals from authors’ taxonomy Items describe situations designed to activate goal-relevant “behavior episode schemata”

6. Personal Action Constructs (PACs) A general term for intentions to act (Little, 1999) Personal projects (McGregor & Little, 1998) Life tasks (Zirkel & Cantor, 1990) Personal strivings (Emmons, 1986, 1999) Current concerns (Klinger, 1977; Ruehlman, 1985) Core goals (Ford, 1992) Personal goals (Kaiser & Ozer, 1997) Volunteered in a free-response format using participants’ own words Aggregated and boiled down to frequently volunteered goals Organized by common themes into a hierarchical taxonomy Taxonomy features 8 major categories, each with subcategories 1. Academic / Occupational 2. Social Relationships 3. Financial 4. Health 5. Organization 6. Affect Control 7. Independence 8. Moral / Religious

7. The Personal Goals Questionnaire Includes most goals from our taxonomy Sixty-five that could be generally, coherently phrased E.g., “Do well in school,” “Help my romantic partner,” “Save money,” etc. Distinct as the most empirically generated goal list Asks to rate current importance from 1 (“Not one of my goals currently”) to 5 (“Among my most important goals currently”) Introduces new opportunities to analyze goals Compare importance of all of students’ normative goals across individuals Empirically categorize goals through factor analysis Study conflict and tradeoffs in goal prioritization Create scales for latent goal groups and tradeoffs Correlate to other variables of interest

8. Sample N = 800 Young adults Mean = 19.2 years ; standard deviation = 2.1 years Age range: 17 – 46 Gender-balanced (61% female) Ethnically diverse & representative of UCR population 49% Asian American 24% Hispanic / Latino 17% Caucasian 6% African American 5% other / mixed ethnicity UCR undergraduates 57% freshmen 26% sophomores 12% juniors 5% seniors

9. Ceiling effect Too many goals were rated “Among my most important currently” Ninety-five participants said this of over half the goals! Twelvepercent of the sample These participants’ data were excluded from analyses Possibly an effect of fatigue PGQ was always administeredafter numerous other questionnaires in these studies Correlations with average importance rating: Neuroticism (r = .21, p < .0001) Age (r = -.09, p =.015)

10. Top 10 most important goals

11. Top 10 most EXTREME sex differences Note. Overall N = 639. All correlation estimates are significant: p < .0001

12. Principal axis factor analysis of goals N = 647 due to missing data (deleted listwise) Four itemswith communalities below .25 were removed “End a romantic relationship” “Control my temper” “Manage a chronic/specific health problem” “Reduce consumption of drugs, alcohol, or tobacco” Among the 12 least important goals No consistent relationship with other 61 goals Scree test suggested 6 factors After oblimin rotation, 7 were retained to improve interpretability and simplicity of structure Less problematic to over-factor than under-factor

13. Seven oblimin-rotated goal factors Self-enablement (10 goals) Desire to overcome disabling feelings and more freely self-direct behavior Academic achievement (9 goals) Oriented toward academic and career outcomes Spirituality (3 goals) Largely religious in nature Social participation (8 goals) Seek active involvement and improved standing with one’s peers and community Finances (6 goals) Address present monetaryconcerns Physical health (4 goals) Aim to improve physicalwell-being and appearance Family-building (4 goals) Focus on progressing in romantic relationships and building a family

14. Self-Enablement

15. Academic Achievement

16. Spirituality

17. Social Participation

18. Finances

19. Physical Health

20. Family-Building

21. Standardization & parceling Importance ratings were standardized within each participant Forced bipolarloadings on components No clear solution identified Ambiguous number of uninterpretable components Goals were parceled to reduce the number of items to be factored and accentuate their heterogeneity Formed from the theoretical organization of the taxonomy Twenty parcels of onetoeight content-similar items each Standardizedratings of all goals were averaged for parcel scores

22. 5 most and least important parcels Note. Reliability =Spearman-Brown formula for standardized item alpha. N = 691

23. Principal axis factor analysis of parcels N = 690 Twenty parcels of 1 – 8 goals each All goals except “End a romantic relationship” Each factor contained parcels with strong positive and negative loadings Rating one set of parcels as highly important often meant rating an opposing set as unimportant Indicates dimensions of goal tradeoffs or conflict Scree test suggested 3 factors Oblimin rotation Spirituality versus Finances (3 parcels vs. 1) Intimacy versus Self-Enablement (3 vs. 2 parcels) Achievement versus Enjoyment (2 vs. 2 parcels)

24. Spirituality versus Finances

25. Intimacy versus Self-Enablement

26. Achievement versus Enjoyment

27. Interpreting bipolar factors Suggests conflict or tradeoffs in priorities may be essentialaspects of the structure of motives All goals draw from the same pool of resources Inconclusive as to why these tradeoffs occur Do the poles reflect preferences and personal values? Materialism vs. Spiritualism, Dependability vs. Independence, & Diligence vs. Enjoyment? Do the poles represent goals concerning more urgent problems or unmet needs? Communion vs. Poverty, Dependents’ Needs vs. Emotional Stabilization, Work Harder vs. Play Harder?

28. General limitations Only current, explicit goals assessed No commonlymet or implicit needs Underemphasized future goals? The usual limitations of self-report questionnaires Ambiguity of scale points & scores Confounds: self-serving bias, social desirability, etc. Cross-sectional UCR conveniencesample Lacks diversity across age, cohort, occupation, educational level, geographic region, and language

29. Future directions Need to extend theory and test for comprehensiveness 17 goals and 8 parcels need factorial homes Need more diverse samples to test for demographic differences Need a longitudinal design to identify individual developmental trajectories Will test replicabilityof all results in archived, current, and future data Will query participants’ religious denomination, income, & romantic status Will test relationships with free-response goal lists & ratings, goal conflict, and external variables Personality, spirituality, presence & search for meaning & religiousness, life satisfaction, values

30. Correlations with the Big Five Note. N = 691

31. Thank you! Dan Ozer Sonja Lyubomirsky & Robin DiMatteo Tierra Stimson Ryan Howell, Jacob Hershey, Patrick Markey, Michael Cassens Many cohorts of research assistants Friends and family And last but not least… My gracious audience

32. 10 most important goals: 1966 vs. Now Note. Richards’ scale is 1-4, N = 12,432; our scale is 1-5, N = 689-693

33. Top 10 largest sex differences of 1966 Note. Goals were rated on a scale from 1 – 4. Overall N = 12,432 (Richards, 1966)

34. Top 10 largest sex differences of today Note. Overall N = 639. All correlation estimates are significant: p < .0001