2010
DOI: 10.1080/17405620801969585
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Age-related differences in outcome and process goal focus

Abstract: Three studies report initial findings on age-related differences in goal focus. Study 1 compared younger (n ¼ 23, 19-25 years) to older (n ¼ 20, 57-78 years) adults regarding their preference for representations of goals in terms of the means (process focus) or the associated outcomes (outcome focus). As expected, older adults chose process descriptors of goals more frequently than younger adults. Study 2 investigated the emotional consequences of goal focus. Whereas younger adults (n ¼ 49, 18-25 years) report… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

8
92
2

Year Published

2012
2012
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
3
2
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 69 publications
(102 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
8
92
2
Order By: Relevance
“…In addition, those with a more serendipitous orientation select and work towards achieving goals that arise from such unexpected circumstances. These individuals likely have a growth, rather than maintenance orientation [e.g., Freund, Hennecke, & Riediger, 2010;Mustafić & Freund, 2012]. In addition, individuals choosing to employ a serendipitous orientation are likely highly agentic, and excel at facing the unexpected challenges [e.g., Little et al, 2006].…”
Section: Process 1: Having a Serendipitous Orientationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In addition, those with a more serendipitous orientation select and work towards achieving goals that arise from such unexpected circumstances. These individuals likely have a growth, rather than maintenance orientation [e.g., Freund, Hennecke, & Riediger, 2010;Mustafić & Freund, 2012]. In addition, individuals choosing to employ a serendipitous orientation are likely highly agentic, and excel at facing the unexpected challenges [e.g., Little et al, 2006].…”
Section: Process 1: Having a Serendipitous Orientationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The actual choices in daily consumption are governed by low construal motivational factors rather than by abstract and distant goals. Recent studies suggest that low construal motives are intrinsic, means-focused, and/or loss oriented (Freitas et al, 2004;Freund et al, 2010;Fujita et al, 2008;Lee et al, 2010). Therefore internal intrinsic motivations for sustainable consumption, or external product cues that are congruent with loss avoidance should, be effective in triggering sustainable consumption among light users.…”
Section: Overview Of Main Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Low construal level motivates one to focus on the means whereas high construal level motivates one to focus on the ends (Fujita et al, 2008). Similarly intrinsic motivation (enjoyment of the activity) fosters a process focus and a low construal level, whereas extrinsic motivation (performance for rewards) fosters an outcome focus and a high construal level (Freund, Hennecke, & Riediger, 2010;Polman & Emich, 2011;. Furthermore high level construal is congruent to achievement goals and a promotion orientation, whereas low construal is congruent with safety goals and a prevention orientation (Lee, Keller, & Sternthal, 2010).…”
Section: Construal Level and Preference Reversalmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 2 more Smart Citations