Goal projection in public places

13 Pages·2015·0.36 MB·English

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/276353687
Goal projection in public places: Projection of
Goals
ARTICLE in EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY · MAY 2015
Impact Factor: 1.78 · DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.2112
CITATION READS
1 120
3 AUTHORS:
Janet N. Ahn Gabriele Oettingen
Columbia University New York University
4 PUBLICATIONS 7 CITATIONS 120 PUBLICATIONS 2,459 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Peter M. Gollwitzer
New York University
218 PUBLICATIONS 10,608 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Available from: Janet N. Ahn
Retrieved on: 06 October 2015
Eur. J. Soc. Psychol.
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Goal projection in public places
JanetNajuAhn*,GabrieleOettingen*,†&PeterM.Gollwitzer*,‡
* Psychology,NewYorkUniversity,NewYork,NY,USA
† Psychologie,UniversitätHamburg,Hamburg,Germany
‡ UniversityofKonstanzandNewYorkUniversity
Correspondence Abstract
JanetNajuAhn,Psychology,NewYork
Threestudiesinvestigatedthephenomenonofgoalprojectionineverydaylife
University,6WashingtonPlace7thFloor,New
consideringthreemoderators:goalcommitment,theperceivedsimilarityofthe
York,NY10003,USA.
E-mail:[email protected] targetperson,andgoalattainment.Moviegoers’(Study1)highlycommittedto
see a particular movie projected this goal onto other movie patrons. Com-
Received:22October2014 muters(Study2)highlycommittedtocatchacertaintrainprojectedthisgoal
Accepted:9March2015 ontoothercommuters,giventhatthesecommuterswereperceivedassimilar.
Shoppers (Study 3) projected buying a particular item when both their goal
doi:10.1002/ejsp.2112 commitmentandtheperceivedsimilarityofanothershopperwerehigh,and
thegoalwasnotyetattained.Theresultsimplythatgoalprojectionispartof
Keywords: goalprojection,goalcommitment,
oureverydaylifeandisfosteredbyhigh-goalcommitment,perceivingothers
goalattainment,everydaylife,perceived
assimilar,andongoinggoalstriving.Copyright©2015JohnWiley&Sons,Ltd.
similarity
Imagine that you are on your way to your favorite The present research tests whether goal projection
coffee place and notice another individual walking in generalizes to naturalistic, everyday life events (versus
the same direction. Immediately you think, ‘That per- controlledlabenvironments)whileidentifyingrelevant
sonmustbegoingtomycoffeeplace!’Insuchsituations moderators. Palomares (2012) observed that goal pro-
where individuals have very little information about jection occurs between strangers interacting in the lab
anotherperson,peopletendtoassumethatothershave and that levels of goal projection were moderated by
thesamegoalastheydo. theapplicabilityofanindividual’sgoaltothesocialcon-
Previous research has established goal projection text(i.e.,projectionincreasedwhentherewasastronger
in the lab and showed that people readily project associationbetweentheindividual’sgoalandthesocial
theirgoalsontoatarget person(Kawada,Oettingen, context) and the congruency or match between an
Gollwitzer, & Bargh, 2004; Oettingen, Ahn, individual’sandatargetperson’sgoal(suchthatgreater
Gollwitzer, Kappes, & Kawada, 2014; Palomares, correspondence between the two is associated with
2012). For instance, when people were asked to increasedprojection).Wecontributetoexistingfindings
name the goals of a target person engaged in an bytestingwhethergoalprojectionisaphenomenonthat
interaction, people projected their goals onto this peoplehavetoreckonwithwhentraversingthroughev-
target person, assuming the goal-directed behaviors erydaylife.WhereasinthestudiesbyPalomares(2012),
of the target person to be in line with their own participantsinthelabengagedinconversationandpre-
goals (Studies 2 and 3 of Kawada et al., 2004). In sumablymayhavehadtimetoinfertheotherperson’s
addition,goalprojectionwasobservedtohaveinter- goals,wearguethat goalprojectionshouldevenoccur
personal consequences. For example, when people wherepeople encountertarget personsforonlya brief
were asked to advise a target person who was moment. To test this notion, we conducted a series of
described as being in need of help (i.e., a middle threefieldstudies.Weobservedpeoplepursuingmun-
school student working on complex anagrams or a daneactivities(e.g.,attendingamovietheater,commut-
student entering college), goal projection predicted ing on a train, or shopping at a grocery store) and
the extent to which participants helped this person assessedthedegreetowhichparticipantsprojectedtheir
in terms of the quantity and quality of advice given goals onto target persons whom they had never
(Oettingen et al., 2014). interactedwithbutwereinclosephysicalproximity.
EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology00(2015)00–00Copyright©2015JohnWiley&Sons,Ltd.
ProjectionofGoals JanetNajuAhnetal.
SOCIALPROJECTION:BACKGROUND matters in moderating projection effects. Relatedly,
Ames(2004a,2004b)demonstratedthattheperceived
The strategyofinferring other people’s goals or inten-
similarity with the target person, as defined by ‘an
tions based on one’s own action-related experiences
idiosyncratic and subjective sense that one is similar to
startsearlyinlife.Developmentalpsychologistsempha-
a target group/person’ plays an important role when
sizethatinfantsunderstandothersas‘likeme,’suchthat
inferring another person’s internal state. For example,
infantsusetheirownintentionalactionsasaframework
howwouldoneinfertheintentionsofamanataparty
for inferring other people’s behavioral intentions
who is talking to an attractive woman? Is he engaging
(Meltzoff, 2007; Meltzoff & Gopnik, 1993; Meltzoff &
inaconversationtogettoknowherbetter,orishemore
Moore, 1995). The ‘like me’ hypothesis rests on the
interestedinasexualconquest?Ames’researchsuggests
assumption that personal experience is highly valued
thatwhenthetargetpersonisviewedasdissimilarfrom
and gives infants the foundation to build and develop
oneself,peoplearemoreinclinedtostereotypethatper-
their understanding of other people’s mental states.
son,whereaswhenthetargetpersonisviewedassimilar
AccordingtoErikson(1968),infantsseekopportunities
tooneself,peoplearemorelikelytoengageinprojection.
todeveloptheirautonomybylearninghowtosuccess-
fully achieve theirplans through a process oftrialand
error.Thus,whenaninfantseesanotherpersonacting GOALPROJECTION
inthesameway(i.e.,engaginginvarioustrialanderror
Morerecently,researchershaveturnedtoanalyzingthe
actions), this infant’s own experience suggests that
projection of goals (Kawada et al., 2004; Palomares,
thereisanintentionbehindthebehaviorofthattarget
2012,Oettingenetal.,2014)asadistinctphenomenon
person(i.e.,thepersonis‘likeme’;Meltzoff,2007).
within social projection that has primarily examined
Viewing others as like me does not cease as infants
theprojectionoftraits,attitudes,andthelike.Although
growolder.Intheabsenceofdetailedinformationabout
goalsarestructurallysimilartotraitsinthatgoalsarealso
others,adultsalsoinferothers’internalstatesbyprojecting
mentally represented in associative networks (Bargh,
theirownpersonalattributesandcharacteristics(Krueger,
1990; Bargh & Gollwitzer, 1994; Shah & Kruglanski,
2000,2007;Ross,Greene,&House,1977).Forinstance,
2000; Wegner & Vallacher, 1986), a property of goals
in one of the earlier studies on social projection1, Katz
thatisdifferentfromtraitsisthatgoalscanvaryinterms
and Allport (1931) noticed that the more students
ofhowstronglyoneintendstoachievethem.Research
indicated that they had cheated on an exam, the more
on identity goals (e.g., Brunstein & Gollwitzer, 1996;
they believed that other students had cheated, too. Re-
Ledgerwood, Liviatan, & Carnevale 2007; Longoni,
searchersreasonedthatprojectionoccursbecausepeople
Gollwitzer, & Oettingen, 2014; Wicklund & Gollwitzer,
onlyhaveaccesstotheirowninternalstates.Specifically,
1982), goal accessibility (e.g., Förster, Liberman, &
individualstendtorecalltheirowninclinations,tenden-
Higgins, 2005; Marsh, Hicks, & Bink, 1998), and goal
cies, and preferences, as these are cognitively available
progress (Carver & Scheier, 1998; Fishbach & Dhar,
when inferring other people’s internal states (Ames,
2005; Higgins, 1987; Locke & Latham, 1990; Miller,
2004a, 2004b; Dawes, 1990; Kelley & Jacoby, 1996;
Galanter, & Pribram, 1960) consistently demonstrates
Krueger,2007;Ross,Greene,&House,1977;VanBoven
thatgoalstrengthisaffectedbyprovidingpositiveversus
& Loewenstein, 2003). Additionally, constructs that are
negative feedback on goal completion or attainment.
easilyaccessibletendtobeappliedwhenjudgingothers
Morespecifically,goalstrengthisweakenedwhenposi-
(Andersen&Chen,2002;Higgins,King,&Mavin,1982;
tive feedback is received, indicating that the goal is
Marks & Miller, 1987; Markus, Smith, & Moreland,
attained,butgoalstrengthisheightenedwhennegative
1985), and thereby readily projected onto others
feedback is received, indicating that the goal still needs
(Bornstein, 1993; Erdelyi, 1985; Newman, Duff, &
tobestrivenfor.
Baumeister,1997).
Consequently,goalprojectionresearchdemonstrated
Thedegreeofsimilarityordissimilaritywiththetarget
thatmodifyinggoalstrengthviaperformancefeedback,
person has been found to moderate social projection
indicating goal attainment (or lack thereof), affects
effects. Forinstance,projectionlevels increasedforin-
subsequent goal projection effects (e.g., Study 3 of
group members but decreased for out-group members
Kawadaetal.,2004;Study3ofOettingenetal.,2014).
(Krueger & Zeiger, 1993; Robbins & Krueger, 2005).
Forinstance,inStudy3ofOettingenetal.,(2014),par-
Thus, the social categorization of group membership
ticipants’maintaskwastoadviseanincomingfreshman
(Tom)ontransitioningtocollegelife.Theywereeither
1Socialprojectionservesasanumbrellatermforthevariousformsof
primed with an achievement goal or not primed with
perceivedconsensusoftraits,attitudes,beliefs,andpersonalcharacter-
istics(Krueger,1998,2000,2008). anysuchgoal.Participantsinbothconditionswerethen
EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology00(2015)00–00Copyright©2015JohnWiley&Sons,Ltd.
JanetNajuAhnetal. ProjectionofGoals
given information about Tom such as his gender, his implications for subsequent goal striving, which we
birthday, and most importantly, that Tom’s goal as a suspectshouldalsoaffectgoalprojection.Thus,wewant
freshman entering college was unknown or unavail- to identify moderators of goal projection by examining
able.Then,inanostensiblyunrelatedtask,participants variousgoalproperties.
hadtodemonstrateanalyticalskillsrelevanttoacademic Separately, the perceived similarity of the target
achievement,anduponcompletionofthistask,theyre- person has been shown to moderate social projection,
ceivedeithersuccessorfailurefeedback.Thestrengthof butithasneverbeenexaminedwhetheritwouldalso
the mentalassociationbetween ‘Tom’ and thegoal ‘to be relevant for goal projection. Here, we define
achieve’wasassessedinaprimedlexicaldecisiontask. perceivedsimilarityaccordingtoAmes(2004a,2004b)
Failure feedback strengthened the target person–goal asageneralbeliefaboutone’sglobalsimilaritytoatar-
association in the goal priming condition, thereby getgroup/person.Socialprojectionandgoalprojection,
confirming that these participants projected the thoughdifferent,areconceptuallysimilar,andthuswe
activated academic achievement goal onto the target hypothesize that the perceived similarity of the target
person. In contrast, success feedback attenuated this person should matter for goal projection as well. Next
mental association, thereby confirming these partici- to the moderation of goal projection by goal commit-
pantsdidnotengageingoalprojection.Thesefindings mentandgoalattainment,thepresentlineofresearch
demonstratethatgoalsprimedoutsideofawarenessthat thusalsoanalyzestheperceivedsimilarityofthetarget
werenotattainedtendedtobeprojectedasopposedto personasafurtherpotentialmoderator.
goalsthatwereattained.
Additionally, Palomares (2012) observed that goal
THEPRESENTRESEARCH
projectionincreasedwhentherewasastrongerassocia-
tionbetweenagoalandthesocialcontext.Forinstance, In three studies, we examine whether goal projection
inStudy 1ofPalomares (2012),participantsweretold occursinpublicplaces.InStudy1,atamovietheater,
that they would meetsomeone in the study and have we measure movie-goers’ commitment to the goal to
aninteractionwithher‘asifataninformalsettinglike watch a certain movie. In Study 2, at a popular train
a party.’ One of the participants in the dyad was ran- station,weassessbothcommuters’commitmenttothe
domlyassignedtobeeithertheperceiverorthetarget goal to travel to their destination and the perceived
person. The perceiver was then randomly given a similarity of a target person (i.e., another commuter).
specific goal (‘to find out about the partner’s political Finally,inStudy3,atasupermarket,weassesspartici-
or religious affiliations’), a midlevel goal (‘to find out pants’commitmenttopurchaseacertainitemandthe
aboutthepartner’sviewsonpoliticsorreligion’),oran perceived similarity of a target person (i.e., another
abstract goal (‘to find out as much as you can about shopper)eitherbeforeorafterthepurchaseofthecriti-
thepartner’).Then,theperceiverandthetargetperson calitem(i.e.,thegoalisattainedornot).Wehypothe-
interactedforabout5minandfilledoutquestionnaires sized that goal projection would occur given that both
separately. Results showed that perceivers tended to participants’goalcommitmentandtheperceivedsimi-
projectanabstractgoalratherthanaspecificgoal.This larityofthetargetpersonarehigh,andthegoalisnot
finding indicates that projection is more pronounced attained yet. Finding that people in their everyday life
whentheperceiver’sgoal(tofindoutgeneralinforma- project their goals onto others will ultimately help us
tionaboutthepartner)iscognitivelylinkedandapplica- better understand interpersonal interactions. Consider
ble to the social context (a casual environment) as again the opening example—projecting one’s goal to
comparedwithwhenthegoalandcontextwereweakly go to one’s favorite coffee place might prompt one to
associated(tofindoutprivatedetailsaboutthepartner quickly bypass the other person on the street—or,
inacasualenvironment). perhaps,leadonetobehaveinaprosocialmannersuch
Still,thedescribedresearchonthemoderationofgoal asofferingadviceonwheretofindtheentrancetothe
projectiondoesnotyetaddressotherrelevantmodera- coffee place (Ahn, Oettingen, & Gollwitzer, 2015;
tors that are typically related to goal properties: the Oettingenetal.,2014).
person’sinitialcommitmenttothegoal(i.e.,thedegree
of determination to reach the goal; Locke & Latham,
STUDY1:GOINGTOWATCHAMOVIE
1990; Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1982) and actual goal
attainment. Because goal commitment has important Study 1 tests our hypothesis that people project their
implicationsforbehaviorandperformance,theroleof goals onto people they encounter in everyday social
commitmentongoalprojectioneffectsshouldbeexam- situationsatamovietheater.Wechoseamovietheater
ined. Additionally, the actual attainment of a goal has because moviegoers have an active goal to watch the
EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology00(2015)00–00Copyright©2015JohnWiley&Sons,Ltd.
ProjectionofGoals JanetNajuAhnetal.
movieoftheirchoice.Tomeasuregoalcommitment,we movie theaters frequently may have more experience
assessed how badly moviegoers wanted to see the atjudgingothers’moviechoices(intentionstoseeone
chosenmovie.Weexpectedthatthemoremoviegoers or another movie) more accurately. Similarly, those
wanted to watch the movie of their choice (i.e., the whobelievethatthemovietheywanttowatchisespe-
stronger participants’ goal commitment), the more ciallypopularmayberelyingonthesheerfactthatthe
likelytheyshouldprojecttheirgoalontoatargetperson movie is actually very popular, and can correctly as-
who isphysically present (apersonstanding in lineto sumethatmanypeoplecametowatchthisverymovie.
purchaseamovieticket). Insum,wehypothesizedthataboveandbeyondpartic-
ipants’frequencyinvisitingtheatersandtheperception
of the movie’s popularity, goal projection should still
METHOD
prevail. After participants had answered all the ques-
tionsweasked,theyweredebriefedandthanked.
ParticipantsandDesign
Ninetymoviegoers(ageandgenderwerenotrecorded)
RESULTSANDDISCUSSION
volunteeredtoparticipateinthisstudy.Thisstudyused
acorrelationaldesigntoexaminewhethergoalcommit- Using a logistic regression analysis, we entered all the
ment(howbadlymoviegoerswantedtowatchachosen relevantvariables:participants’commitmenttothegoal
movie) and goal projection (assuming that others are to watchthemovieoftheir choice predictingwhether
goingtowatchthesamemovie)arepositivelyrelated. thetargetpersonhadthegoaltowatchthesamemovie,
adjustedforthefrequencyofcinemavisits,andpercep-
tionofthemovie’spopularity(meansandstandardde-
ProcedureandMaterials
viationsareprovidedinTable1).Ofthe90participants,33
Afterreceivingpermissiontosurveymoviepatronsata participants(36.7%)believedthatthetargetpersoncame
popularmovietheaterclosetoauniversitycampus,we towatchthesamemovie.Amongtheseparticipants,we
approachedmoviegoersinthemainlobbyofthismovie observedthatthestrongerparticipants’goalcommitment,
theatertoparticipateinashortsurveycalled‘Allabout the higher the probability of inferring that the target
Movies!’Atthetimeofdatacollection,therewereato- person has the goal to watch the same movie, b=0.45,
talof10moviesplayingatthistheater,meaningthere exp(b)=1.56, SE=0.24, Wald X2=3.59, p=0.058. The
wasa10%(1outof10)chancethatagivenindividual same pattern of results also emerged without adjusting
wouldwatchthesamemovieasparticipantswould. forthetwocovariates,p=0.047.
Participantsfirstindicatedthenameofthemoviethey Theresultsofthisfirststudysuggestthatgoalprojec-
came to watch by verbally answering the question: tionisaphenomenonthatoccursineverydaysocialsit-
‘Which movie did you come to watch?’ Then, partici- uations,suchasattendingamovietheater.Participants
pants indicated their goal commitment by answering (i.e.,moviegoersatalocaltheater)whostronglywanted
theitem:‘Howbadlydoyouwanttowatchthismovie?’ to watch the movie of their choice showed a higher
usinga1(notatall)to5(extremely)scale.
At this point, the experimenter identified a target
Table1. Study1:means,standarddeviations,andcorrelationsamongkey
personwhowasthefirstpersonstandinginlinetopur-
variables
chaseaticket.Afteridentifyingthisperson,participants
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4
indicatedthegoalofthatpersonbynamingthemovie
thattheythoughtthatpersoncametowatch.Weoper- (1)Moviechoice — — 0.21* (cid:1)0.10 0.15
ationalized goal projection dichotomously, as a match (2)Goalcommitment 3.68 1.55 0.12 0.21*
(versusamismatch)betweenthesetwoquestions.For (3)Frequencyofvisits 3.14 1.34 0.33**
(4)Moviepopularity 3.81 1.16
instance, if the person said they came to watch movie
‘A’andtheyindicatedthatthetargetpersonalsocame Note.Moviechoicewasassessedasadichotomousvariable(amatchbe-
to watch movie ‘A,’ this was taken asan indication of tweentheparticipant’sresponseandthepredictedresponseofthetarget
goalprojection. person).Goalcommitmentwastheparticipant’sindicationofhis/hercom-
Ascovariates,participantsindicatedthefrequencyof mitment to watch the chosen movie (indicated by how badly he/she
theirvisitstomovietheaters:‘Howoftendoyouattend wantedtowatchthemovie).Frequencyofvisitswastheparticipant’sindi-
the theaters?’ using a 1 (never) to 5 (all the time) scale, cationofhis/herfrequencyofvisitingmovietheaters.Moviepopularitywas
theparticipant’sindicationofthechosenmovie’spopularity.Theselatter
andtheperceivedpopularityofthefilm:‘Howpopular
threevariableswereindicatedon5-pointLikertscales.
do you think that movie is?’ using a 1 (not at all) to 5 *p<0.05
(extremely) scale. We reasoned that those who visit **p<0.01
EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology00(2015)00–00Copyright©2015JohnWiley&Sons,Ltd.
JanetNajuAhnetal. ProjectionofGoals
probability of projecting this very goal onto a person waiting for their track number to appear. They first
standinginlinetopurchaseaticket.Thiseffectevinced named the destination they intended to reach by
withorwithoutadjustingforothervariableslikethefre- verballyansweringthequestion:‘Whatisyourdestina-
quencyofvisitingmovietheatersandperceptionofthe tion?’Second,theyindicatedtheirgoalcommitmentby
chosenmovie’spopularity. answeringtwoquestions:‘Howfrustratedwouldyoube
Althoughthecurrentstudyprovidesinitialevidence if you missed your train?’ and ‘How rushed are you to
thatpeopleprojectgoalstowhichtheyfeelcommitted gettoyourdestination?’bothitemsusinga1(notatall)
onto others who are physically present while engaged to7(extremely)scale(α=0.65).
inareal-lifeactivity(i.e.,goingtowatchamovie),itdoes Atthispoint,theexperimentersingledoutatarget
notprovideevidenceforpotentialboundaryconditions personwhowaswaitingintheclosestvicinitytothem
of this phenomenon. For instance, one might suspect and was easily observable (i.e., was visually accessi-
that projecting onto real people is hampered when ble).Participantsfirstindicatedhowsimilartothem-
those others appear to be very different from oneself selves they perceived the target person: ‘In general,
(i.e., perceived dissimilarity of the target person is howsimilardoyouthinkthatpersonistoyou?’using
high). Because participants in this study had a very a1(notatall)to7(extremely)scale.Finally,goalpro-
short time in which they could visually assess the tar- jectionwasassessedviatheperceivedlikelihoodthat
getpersonasbeingsimilarordissimilar,thenextstudy the target person would have the goal of reaching
provided a better opportunity to assess the target per- the same desired destination: ‘How likely is that
son’s similarity or dissimilarity. persongoingtothesamedestination?’usinga1(notlikely)
to7(verylikely)scale.
Asinthepreviousstudy,weconsideredthefrequency
STUDY2:COMMUTING
of commuting as a potential covariate because those
InStudy2,wetestwhethergoalprojectionwouldex- who commute regularly may have a different impres-
tendtogoalpursuitsinadifferentpublicsetting—the sion of others’ traveling intentions based on their
travel goals of commuters at a popular train station. extensive commuting experiences: ‘How often do you
Study2alsoexploredwhethertheperceivedsimilar- commute?’Wealsoconsideredtheperceptionofades-
ityofthetargetpersonplaysamoderatingroleingoal tination’spopularityasanothercovariatebecausethose
projection. Research by Ames (2004a, 2004b) dem- whobelievethattheirdestinationisespeciallypopular
onstrated that social projection is enhanced when a mayberelyingontheactualfactthatthedestinationis
perceiverviewsatargetpersonassimilar.Wedefined indeed popular, thus facilitating more accurate judg-
perceived similarity as a general belief about one’s ments: ‘How popular do you think your destination
global similarity to the target person. Thus, we ex- is?’bothitemsusinga1(notatall)to7(extremely)scale.
pectedgoalprojectioneffectstobemostpronounced Thus, beyond the effects of these two covariates
in those commuters who report strong goal commit- (frequencyincommutingandpopularityofthedestina-
mentandalsoperceivethetargetpersontobehighly tion),wehypothesizedpeoplewouldprojecttheirgoal
similar. on similar others. When all questions had been
answered,participantsweredebriefedandthankedfor
theirparticipation.
METHOD
ParticipantsandDesign
RESULTSANDDISCUSSION
A total of 43 commuters participated (14 females;
Mage=34.50,SDage=12.37)atabusytrainstation.We Totesttheeffectofgoalcommitmentontheperceived
analyzed whether perceived similarity would moderate likelihoodthatthetargetpersonhasthesamegoaland
the relationship between goal commitment and goal whetherthiseffectwouldbeenhancedforparticipants
projection. whoviewthetargetpersonassimilar,weusedgeneral-
izedlinearmodelinpredictingperceivedlikelihoodthat
thetargetpersonwouldgotothesamedestinationfrom
ProcedureandMaterials participant’s goal commitment, perceived similarity of
Werecruitedcommuterstoparticipateinashortsurvey thetargetperson,andtheirinteraction,adjustedforex-
about‘CommutingintheCity’inthewaitingareaofa perienceincommutingandperceivedpopularityofthe
populartrainstation.Experimentersapproachedpartic- destination(meansandstandarddeviationsprovidedin
ipants who were standing, looking up at a time table Table2).Weobservedthepredictedinteractioneffectof
EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology00(2015)00–00Copyright©2015JohnWiley&Sons,Ltd.
ProjectionofGoals JanetNajuAhnetal.
Table2. Study2:means,standarddeviations,andcorrelationsamongkeyvariables
Variables Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5
(1)Traveldestination 2.78 1.72 0.23 0.30* 0.25 0.15
(2)Goalcommitment 4.92 1.84 0.01 0.15 (cid:1)0.01
(3)Perceivedsimilarity 3.35 2.04 0.13 0.13
(4)Frequencyofcommute 5.02 2.44 0.33*
(5)Destinationpopularity 5.08 1.80
Note.Traveldestinationwasthepredictedlikelihoodthatthetargetpersonhadthesamedestination.Goalcommitmentwastheparticipant’s
indicationofhercommitmenttotraveltotheintendeddestination(indicatedbyherfrustrationandhowrushedhe/shefelt).Perceivedsimilarity
wastheparticipant’sindicationofhowsimilarhe/sheperceivedthetargetpersontohimself/herself.Frequencyofcommutewasthepartici-
pant’sindicationofhis/herexperienceincommuting.Destinationpopularitywastheparticipant’sindicationoftheintendeddestination’spop-
ularity.Allvariableswereindicatedon7-pointLikertscales.
*p<0.05
**p<0.01
goal commitment and perceived similarity, b=0.13, observed interaction between goal commitment and
t(37)=2.09, p=0.0362, R2adj=6.6%. the perceived similarity of the target person. We hy-
AsdepictedinFigure1,participantswithstronggoal pothesizedthatgoalsthatareattainedshoulddiminish
commitment were more likely to believe the target goal projection effects as pursuit of these goals should
personwouldgotothesamedestinationthemorethat cease,whereasgoalsthathavenotbeenattainedshould
personwasperceivedtobesimilar,b=.50,t(37)=2.82, increasegoalprojectioneffectsaspursuitofthesegoals
p=0.005,R2adj=14.0%,whichwasnottrueofpartici- shouldresume.
pants with weak goal commitment, b=(cid:1)0.03, t(37) Accordingly,asthesettingforthestudy,wechosea
=0.15,p=0.88. supermarket because it provides the opportunity of
Study2examinedwhetherpeopleprojecttheirgoals approaching people who did not yet attain their goal
ontoatargetpersonwhotheyencounteredatapopular (i.e., they have the goal to purchase an item but did
trainstation.Weobservedthattheperceivedsimilarity not yet purchase it) versus those who already
ofthetargetpersonplaysamoderatingroleongoalpro- attainedit(i.e.,they hadthegoaltopurchasean item
jectioneffectsgiventhatgoalcommitmentisstrong.In anddidpurchaseit).Wefirstassessedparticipants’goal
otherwords,wefoundthatthosewhostronglywanted commitment to purchase a certain item and then
to reach their destination and also viewed the target approached participants who did not yet purchase this
persontobesimilarprojectedthisdestinationgoalmore itemversus those who did. Then, we assessed whether
than those with strong goal commitment who did not peoplewouldprojecttheirgoalontoatargetpersonthey
viewthetargetpersontobesimilar.Ontheotherhand, encountered (i.e., another person at the supermarket)
wefoundthatperceivedsimilarityofthetargetperson andwhoseperceivedsimilarityhadbeenmeasured.We
did not play a moderating role for those with weak expectedgoalprojectiontobemostpronouncedinthose
goal commitment; participants with weak goal com- withastronggoalcommitmentwhoperceivedthetarget
mitment showed low levels of goal projection regard- persontobehighlysimilar,butonlywhenthegoalhad
less of whether the target person was judged to be notbeenattainedyet.
similar ornot.
METHOD
STUDY3:SHOPPING
ParticipantsandDesign
Sofar,thefirsttwostudiesdemonstratedthatgoalsare
projected onto other people encountered in everyday Thirty-nine participants (21 females; Mage=36.72,
situationswhengoalcommitmentishighandthetarget SDage=16.13) volunteered their time to participate in
this studyata localsupermarket in New York City. In
personisperceivedassimilar.Inthenextstudy,weex-
this study, we assessed participants’ commitment to
amined whether varying goal attainment affects the
thegoaltopurchaseacertainitematthesupermarket,
and the perceived similarity to the target person as
2Thesamepatternofresultsemergedwhenwedidnotadjustforthe
twocovariates—frequencyofcommutingandperceivedpopularityof within-subjects factors. The between-subjects factor
thedestination—theinteractiontermthenshowedap-levelof0.059. wasgoalattainment:participantswhowereapproached
EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology00(2015)00–00Copyright©2015JohnWiley&Sons,Ltd.
JanetNajuAhnetal. ProjectionofGoals
Fig.1: Anothercommuteratthetrainstation:inferredgoaltoreachthecriticaldestinationasafunctionofgoalcommitment(i.e.,toatravelgoal)andperceived
similarityofthetargetperson,adjustedforfrequencyofcommuting(Study2)
beforeshopping(i.e.,theyhavethegoaltopurchasean supermarket at that given moment for both types of
itembutdidnotyetpurchaseit)wereconsideredtobe shoppers alike (i.e., shoppers who were going to shop
inthegoalunattainedcondition(n=18),whereaspar- andshopperswhojustshopped).Iftherewasmorethan
ticipantswhowereapproachedaftershopping(i.e.,they onepersonentering(orleaving)thesupermarketatthat
had the goal to purchase an item and did purchase it) time, the experimenter chose the person who was in
were considered to be in the goal attained condition closest proximity. Participants indicated how similar to
(n=21). themselvestheyviewedthetargetpersonusingthesame
7-pointscale:‘Howsimilardoyouthinkthatpersonisto
you?’ Then, as an indication of goal projection, partici-
ProcedureandMaterials
pants answered the following item: ‘Please indicate the
The experimenter stood either by the entrance or the probability (from 1–100%) that the other shopper is
exitofthesupermarket(whichwereseparatebutclose committed to purchasing the same [critical] item.’ As
toeachother)andthusapproachedshopperswhowere thestudyvariableswereindicatedondifferentresponse
enteringthemarketreadytomaketheirpurchase(the scales(e.g.,1–7or1–100),westandardizedallvariables
goalunattainedcondition)orexitingthemarkethaving toz-scores(seeTables3and4forunstandardizedmeans
made their purchase (the goal attained condition), re- andstandarddeviationsfortherespectiveconditions).
spectively.Allparticipants,whetherapproachedbefore
oraftershopping,wereaskedthesamequestions(con-
textualizedappropriatelyinthepresentorpasttense).
RESULTSANDDISCUSSION
Participants were told the purpose of the study was
to survey people’s shopping habits. They first named As expected, participants projected their goal onto an-
the main item they came to purchase (or just pur- othershopper(asselectedbytheexperimenter)when
chased): ‘Name the main item you came to purchase goal commitment was strong and the target person
today/[Namethemainitemyoujustpurchasedtoday].’ was viewed to be similar, as long as the goal had not
Participantsnameditemssuchasmilk,orangejuice,let- been attained yet. Applying a robust estimator,3 we
tuce,etc.Then,participantsindicatedtheirgoalcommit-
menttopurchasethatitem:‘Howcommittedareyouto 3Arobustestimatorisanestimationtechniquedesignedtocircumvent
purchasingthisitemtoday?/[Howcommittedwereyou limitationsoftraditionalparametricmethods,makingitinsensitiveto
topurchasethisitemtoday?]’Weuseda1(notatall)to smalldeparturesfromtheidealizedassumptionswhichhavebeenused
tooptimizethealgorithm.Thus,whenregressionmodelsarevulnera-
7(extremely)scale.
ble to outliers and not particularly robust to suspicions of
Atthispoint,theexperimenterchoseatargetperson
heteroscedasticity (i.e., particularly for small sample sizes), a robust
as someone who was just about to enter the modelisappropriate(Cohen,Cohen,West,&Aiken,2003).
EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology00(2015)00–00Copyright©2015JohnWiley&Sons,Ltd.
ProjectionofGoals JanetNajuAhnetal.
Table3. Study3:means,standarddeviations,andcorrelationsamongkey GOALUNATTAINEDCONDITION
variablesforgoalunattainedcondition
Inageneralizedlinearmodel,weenteredparticipants’
Variablesforgoal goal commitment (to purchase the critical item), the
unattainedcondition Mean SD 1 2 3
perceivedsimilarityofthetargetperson,andtheinter-
(1)Percentageofsamegoal 23.40 26.26 (cid:1)0.05 0.28 actiontermtopredictparticipants’estimateofthetarget
(2)Goalcommitment 5.50 2.14 0.09 person’sgoaltopurchasethecriticalitem.Mostimpor-
(3)Perceivedsimilarity 3.81 1.76 tanttoourpredictions,therewasasignificantinteraction
2
NotePercentageofsamegoalwastheparticipant’sindicationofthelike- effect, b=0.30, t(14)=2.47, p=0.014, R adj=4.5%. As
shown in Figure 2 (right side), participants who had a
lihoodthatthetargetpersonenteringthesupermarketwouldpurchase
thesamecriticalitem.Goalcommitmentwastheparticipant’sindication stronggoalcommitmentweremorelikelytothinkthat
of his/her commitment to purchase the critical item he/she intends to the target person had the goal to purchase the critical
purchase.Perceivedsimilaritywastheparticipant’sindicationofthetarget itemthemoresimilartheyperceivedthatpersontobe,
person’ssimilaritytohimself/herself. b=0.32, t(14)=2.47, p=0.01, R2adj=5.8%. No such
relation between perceived similarity and projection
was observed for those with weak goal commitment,
b=(cid:1)0.11,t(14)=0.79,p=0.43.
Table4. Study3:means,standarddeviations,andcorrelationsamongkey
variablesforgoalattainedcondition
Variablesforgoal GOALATTAINEDCONDITION
unattainedcondition Mean SD 1 2 3
Weappliedthesameanalysisusedforthegoalattained
(1)Percentageofsamegoal 31.50 28.69 0.30 0.34 condition and did not observe aninteraction effectfor
(2)Goalcommitment 6.06 1.73 0.36 goalcommitmentandperceivedsimilarity,b=(cid:1)0.30,t
(3)Perceivedsimilarity 4.25 2.13
(17)=1.40, p=0.16 (Figure 2, left side). Although the
Note.Percentageofsamegoalwastheparticipant’sindicationofthelike- interaction effect was not significant, we followed up
lihoodthatthetargetpersonenteringthesupermarketwouldpurchase withsimpleslopeanalyses.Weobservednorelationbe-
thesamecriticalitem.Goalcommitmentwastheparticipant’sindication tweenperceivedsimilarityandparticipants’estimatesof
ofhis/hercommitmenttopurchasethecriticalitemhe/shealreadypur- the target person’s goal for those with strong a priori
chased.Perceivedsimilaritywastheparticipant’sindicationofthetarget goal commitment, b=(cid:1)0.14, t(17)=0.71, p>0.48.
person’ssimilaritytohimself/herself.
However,therewasatrendforparticipantswithweak
goal commitment such that they were more likely to
think that the target person had the goal to purchase
found that this three-way interaction was significant, the critical item the more similar they perceived that
2
b=0.61,t(31)=2.44,p=0.015,R adj=4.0%.Tofurther persontobe,b=0.49,t(17)=1.56,p=0.12.
clarify it, we analyzed the interaction of participants’ Theresultsofthisfinalstudyprovidefurtherevidence
goal commitment and perceived similarity separately that goals are projected onto people encountered in
forthegoalunattainedandthegoalattainedconditions. everyday life situations, given that goal commitment is
Fig.2: Anothershopperinthesupermarket:inferredgoaltobuythecriticalitemasafunctionofgoalcommitment(i.e.,topurchaseacertainitem)andperceived
similarityofthetargetpersonbygoalattainmentcondition(Study3)
EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology00(2015)00–00Copyright©2015JohnWiley&Sons,Ltd.
JanetNajuAhnetal. ProjectionofGoals
high, the target person is perceived as similar, and the itemweremorelikelytoprojecttheirgoalontosimilar
goal has not been attained yet. We observed shoppers othersintheirvicinity(Study3).
at a local supermarket who had the goal to purchase a Apparently, strong goal commitment and perceived
certainitem.Newinthepresentstudy,wevariedgoalat- similarity are powerful moderators of goal projection.
tainment by approaching shoppers either before they Across these three studies, no goal projection effects
shopped (goal unattained) or after they had shopped wereobservedforparticipantswithweakgoalcommit-
(goal attained). We replicated our findings from Study ment,andinStudies2and3wherewemeasuredper-
2thatgoalprojectionismoderatedbyperceivedsimilar- ceived similarity, projection effects were not observed
ityofthetargetpersonforparticipantswithstronggoal fordissimilarothers.Finally,inStudy3,wherewevar-
commitment,giventhattheyhadnotyetattainedtheir iedgoalattainmentbylookingatparticipants’whostill
goal.Participantswhohadstronggoalcommitmentwere wantedtoreachtheirgoalversusthosewhohadalready
morelikelytothinkthatthetargetpersonhadthesame attained it, we observed that participants project their
goalthemoresimilartheyperceivedthatpersontobe. goalswhenbothgoalcommitmentandperceivedsimi-
In the goal attained condition (i.e., the critical item larityofthetargetpersonarehigh,butonlywhenthe
hasbeenpurchased),weobservedthatparticipantswith goalinquestionisnotyetattained.
stronggoalcommitmentnolongerprojectedtheirgoal. Although we observed that goal commitment, goal
Interestingly,weobservedatrendforparticipantswith attainment, and the perceived similarity of target per-
weak goal commitment that when the target person sonsmoderategoalprojectioneffectsinnaturalisticen-
wasperceivedtobesimilar,participants’goalprojection vironments,itcouldbearguedthatourfindingsaredue
wasenhanced.Itispossiblethattheseparticipants,hav- toordereffects.Inallstudies,weassessedgoalprojec-
ingalreadypurchasedthecriticalitem,starttovalueit tion last in the order of variables (as opposed to first),
more than originally thought (e.g., basedon a process whichmayormaynothaveinfluencedparticipants’re-
of dissonance reduction; Brehm, 1956). As a conse- sponses.However,theorderofquestionshasbeenvar-
quence, the increase in value may in turn could have iedinpreviousresearchonsocialprojection(seeAmes
led to an increase in goal commitment that is then 2004a) and the results consistently indicated that pro-
reflectedinheightenedgoalprojection. jection occurred. Thus, whether goal projection was
Insum,Study3providesastrictertestofgoalprojec- assessedfirstorlastshouldnotaltertheobtainedresults.
tionineverydaylife.Whereasatamovietheaterandat Additionally,ourresultsindicatedthattheperceived
apopulartrainstation,thereareratherfewalternatives similarity of target persons matters inmoderating goal
thatpeoplecanchoosefrom(i.e.,thereisalimitednum- projection. However, we do not know which features
berofmoviespeoplecanwatchandalimitednumberof of the target person were inferredas similar. Work by
trainspeoplecantake),atasupermarket,thereareahost Palomares (2012) suggests that a ‘fit’ betweena goal’s
of items a person can potentially buy. Accordingly, the applicabilityandthesocialcontextathandmightmake
actual likelihood that the target person would buy the certain features of the target person moresalient (and
sameexactitemisquitesmall.Still,participantsinStudy perhaps appear more similar), and thereby may facili-
3projectedtheirgoalstobuyaspecificitemwhengoal tate projection effects. Future research might want to
commitmentwashigh,thetargetpersonwasperceived disentanglewhichaspectsofperceivedsimilaritymod-
assimilar,andthegoalhadnotbeenattainedyet. erategoalprojectioneffects.
GENERALDISCUSSION GOALPROJECTIONANDACCURACY
In three studies, we observed that moderate levels of Animportantquestioninresearchongoalprojectionis
goal projection occurred in everyday life in public howitrelatestoaccuracy.Specifically,howaccurateis
places—showingthatgoalprojectioneffectscanbeas- the projector in assuming that the target person (e.g.,
sumed with different types of goals and in different the moviegoer,thecommuter, theshopper) pursuesa
typesofsituationalcontexts.Moviegoerswithastrong goalthatsheherselfiscurrentlypursuing?Insocialpro-
goalcommitmenttowatchacertainmovieweremore jectionresearch,itisassumedthatpeoplewhoarecon-
likelytoprojectthisgoalontoothermoviegoers(Study sidered to be most typical of a population tend to fare
1). Commuters with a strong commitment to catch a better at making accurate estimates about others’ be-
certaintrainweremorelikelytoprojectthisgoalonto havioral tendencies and attitudes (e.g., Dawes, 1990;
other commuters whom they perceived to be similar Hoch,1987).Forexample,Hoch(1987)askedresearch
(Study 2). And shoppers on their way into the super- participantstocompleteasurveyabouttheirowncon-
marketwhowerestronglycommittedtobuyacertain sumerpreferencesandthenaskedthemtopredict the
EuropeanJournalofSocialPsychology00(2015)00–00Copyright©2015JohnWiley&Sons,Ltd.