State of the Goal
Goal disruption theory makes a distinction between abstract and concrete goals, such that extremely abstract goals, like a self-identity goal (i.e., to be a scholar), cannot ever be fully achieved (Fujita and MacGregor, 2012; Wicklund & Gollwitzer, 1982). A distinction is also made between long-term and short-term goals with the main distinction lying in when one expects to have attained goal-relevant rewards—if the goal is more long-term and abstract, a violation may be less likely to cause a disruption because the person is not expecting immediate attainment. Individuals "should select these goals for themselves that target outcomes that satisfy their needs or motives; moreover, when these outcomes have features that suggest a strong incentive value, this should further strengthen a persons readiness to commit to the goal in question” (Gollwitzer, Kappes, & Oettingen, 2012, p. 118). When the incentive value of goal attainment is higher, there is increased willingness to strive for a goal when confronted with difficulty (Brehm & Self, 1989; Liberman & Forster, 2012; Wright, 1996). Wicklund & Gollwitzer (1982) found that commitment to one’s goal is a determinant of whether efforts toward it are increased in the face of failure. If one is only weakly committed to a goal, disengagement is more likely when encountering a shortcoming or violation.
Different reference points of one’s distance to the goal (glass half full v. glass half empty) provide different consequences for action (e.g., Brendl & Higgins, 1996; Carver & Scheir, 1999; Fishbach, Zhang, & Koo, 2009). Individuals place higher value on a near future reward than on a distant future reward, even if the distant future reward may be larger (e.g., Ainslie & Haslam, 1992; Fishbach & Trope, 2001; Loewenstein & Elster, 1992; Mischel, 1974; Read et al., 1999). So, the closer one believes that they are to a goal, the more valued the goal will be, but as temporal distance increases, the probability of attainment decreases and uncertainty increases (Liberman & Forster, 2012), lowering the value and feasibility of the goal.
Different reference points of one’s distance to the goal (glass half full v. glass half empty) provide different consequences for action (e.g., Brendl & Higgins, 1996; Carver & Scheir, 1999; Fishbach, Zhang, & Koo, 2009). Individuals place higher value on a near future reward than on a distant future reward, even if the distant future reward may be larger (e.g., Ainslie & Haslam, 1992; Fishbach & Trope, 2001; Loewenstein & Elster, 1992; Mischel, 1974; Read et al., 1999). So, the closer one believes that they are to a goal, the more valued the goal will be, but as temporal distance increases, the probability of attainment decreases and uncertainty increases (Liberman & Forster, 2012), lowering the value and feasibility of the goal.
