Pursuing Goals with Others

This article explores motivation in a social context: how people pursue goals with others, with information on others, and for the self and others. As people incorporate close others into their extended selves (Aron et al., 1991), they begin to treat others’ actions and outcomes as partially their own. This tendency, in turn, has implications for coordinating goal pursuits with others and for the preference for actions that maximize the total benefits for the self and others. To demonstrate these principles – coordination and joint-benefits maximization – we first explore coordination in pursuing goals with others (i.e., working in teams), showing that people respond to others’ actions and lack of action similarly to how they respond to their own actions and lack of action.We next explore coordination in pursuing goals with information on others, showing that people conform to others’ preferences and attitudes yet choose actions that complement others’ actions. Finally, we review research on pursuing goals for the self and others, showing that people wish to maximize the total benefits for the group. Our most important goals are those we pursue with others. Be it business success, starting a family, or making a research discovery, a goal often requires a joint effort by a group of individuals. Moreover, other people support our personal goals by providing feedback (Ashford et al., 2003; Crommelinck & Anseel, 2013; Finkelstein & Fishbach, 2012), monitoring our behavior (Fishbach & Trope, 2005; Na & Paternoster, 2012; Tucker & Anders, 2001), and serving as role models (Lockwood et al., 2002; Lockwood & Kunda, 1997). And, naturally, the presence of others can also sway us from our goals, for example, when others are bad role models ( John & Norton, 2013; Linardi & McConnell, 2011) or encourage us to procrastinate, overeat, drink, or cheat (Christakis & Fowler, 2007; Carrell, Hoekstra, & West, 2011). Realizing the social context of goals, we explore how people pursue goals (1) with others – when working in teams, (2) with information on others – when working alone, and (3) for the self and others – when working alone for a team. For example, we explore how team members coordinate their efforts, when people conform to others, and how people allocate resources to the self and others. Whereas traditionally, research has focused on individuals working individually to achieve their individual goals (Higgins, 1987; Carver & Scheier, 1998; Gollwitzer, 1999; Kuhl, 1985), more recent research has shifted toward exploring motivation in a social context. For example, recent research explores motivation in the context of interpersonal relationships and how people support and hinder each other’s goal pursuits (Fitzsimons & Finkel, 2010; Fitzsimons et al., 2015; Shah, 2003). In exploring social contexts, our basic premise is that the experience of connection matters and people’s self-definitions largely overlap. The boundaries between the self and others are not clear cut, as people are psychologically connected and experience each other’s identities, actions, and outcomes as partially their own. Indeed, “you and I” more often becomes “we” (Aron et al., 1991; Brewer & Gardner, 1996; Burger et al., 2004; Cialdini et al., 1997; McCulloch et al., 2011; Monin et al., 2004; Wesselmann et al., 2009), and people define © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 2 Pursuing Goals with Others themselves by their relationships with other individuals or groups (Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Tajfel, 1972; Turner et al., 1987). For example, to demonstrate the self–other overlap and inclusion of others in the self, Aron et al. (1991) measured how quickly people sort personal traits as “me” versus “not me.” Participants were quicker to sort traits that were either true or false for both themselves and their romantic partner than traits that were true only for one of those targets – the self or the romantic partner. Other studies showed that participants were quicker to sort traits that both they and their in-group possessed than traits only one of these targets possessed (Smith & Henry, 1996). As yet another demonstration, studies have found that as people become closer, they use the pronoun “we” instead of “(s)he and I” to refer to the self and the other in conversation (Agnew et al., 1998; Cialdini et al., 1976; Dovidio et al., 1991; Fiedler et al., 1991). The premise that people see themselves as connected to others has important motivational consequences. Here, we identify two basic self-regulatory principles that result from self–other overlap: (1) Coordination – people coordinate their actions with others; and (2) joint-benefits maximization – people choose actions that optimize the outcome for the group as a whole. In the rest of this article, we explore these principles across several motivational phenomena that we have studied in recent years. First, we explore contributions to a shared goal (“pursuing goals with others”). According to the principle of coordination, we argue that information on others’ existing and missing contributions inf luences one’s own contributions to a shared goal as much as information on one’s own existing and missing contribution (Fishbach et al., 2011; 2014; Koo & Fishbach, 2008). Second, we explore how people regulate their actions when pursuing goals others also pursue (“pursuing goals with information on others”). According to the principle of coordination, we expect people to coordinate with others by adopting their preferences but to choose different actions, so they do not repeat the same action (Tu & Fishbach, 2015). We also explore how and when people vicariously satiate on others’ actions (Tu & Fishbach, 2016). Finally, we explore the principle of joint-benefits maximization in “pursuing goals for the self and others.” As we demonstrate, people often strive to maximize the total benefits for the self–other collective, while focusing less on who gets what (Tu et al., 2016). These motivational phenomena increased with interpersonal closeness, yet they are not unique to close relationships; we also observe them in shallow relationships between acquaintances or ad hoc team partners. Moreover, not only does closeness result in coordination and joint-benefits maximization; it is also the outcome of these processes. Thus, having links among people’s goals and working toward common goals are not only outcomes; they are leading factors in the process of becoming closer – the transition from two independent self-regulating agents to a multi-person, interdependent, self-regulating system. Pursuing Goals with Others People strategically coordinate actions with others. As an initial demonstration, research on transactive memory (Wegner et al., 1991) demonstrated that people use others’ minds as external information storage. They perceive they have access to the same information others have and are less inclined to learn new information if others around them already know it (see also Goldstein & Cialdini, 2007; McCulloch et al., 2011). Moving beyond such division of labor in learning tasks, research on shared goals has explored whether people respond to others’ contributions to a shared goal similarly to how they respond to their own contributions to a personal goal. Building on earlier work showing that people in close (communal) relationships deliberately engage in behaviors that make determining which partner made which contributions to a shared goal difficult (Clark, 1984), more © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass (2016): 1–15, 10.1111/spc3.12251 Pursuing Goals with Others 3 recent research has explored whether people respond to others’ actions similarly to how they respond to their own actions. Shared goals are those goals that a collection of individuals work together to achieve, for example, engaging in social movements, pledging to charity, generating ideas in team meetings, and accomplishing household chores. Research on shared goals has specifically explored how people respond to information on others’ existing and missing contributions (Fishbach et al., 2010; 2014; Koo & Fishbach, 2008). According to the coordination principle, people respond to others’ existing andmissing contributions similarly to how they respond to their own existing and missing contributions. Thus, for personal goals, research on the dynamics of self-regulation explored how people adjust their effort with respect to their own previous actions and lack of action (Fishbach & Dhar, 2005; Fishbach et al., 2006; Fishbach & Zhang, 2008; Fishbach et al., 2009). This research distinguishes between a dynamic of highlighting, by which actions reinforce each other (e.g., after accomplishing one household chore, the person is motivated to accomplish another chore), and a dynamic of balancing, by which actions substitute for each other (e.g., after accomplishing one household core, the person has lower motivation to accomplish another chore; see also Dhar & Simonson, 1999).What determines whether actions highlight (reinforce) or balance each other is the subjective meaning of the action for the pursuer. When the action signals commitment and personal confidence, it motivates a choice of similar actions (Bem, 1972; Cialdini et al., 1995). When the (often same) action signals that progress has been made, it justifies disengagement with the goal (Carver & Scheier, 1998; Higgins, 1987; Locke & Latham, 2002; Monin &Miller, 2001). For example, if the household-chore pursuer feels more committed as a result of paying the bills, he might next buy groceries (highlighting), whereas if he feels progress has been made once the bills are paid, he might forgo further house chores (balancing). One major factor that inf luences how people perceive their actions is their level of commitment. Low-commitment individuals who question their own commitment perceive their actions as a signal of commitment and highlight. By contrast, high-commitment individuals who do not question their commitment perceive their actions as a signal of progress and balance (Fishbach et al., 2006; Koo & Fishbach, 2008). In the context of shared goals, Koo and Fishbach (2008) tested whether low-commitment individuals further highlight other group members’ actions; others’ actions (versus lack of ) increase their commitment and thereby their motivation. In addition, high-commitment individuals were expected to balance for other group members: others’ lack of action signals to them a lack of progress and motivates them more than if others were taking action. In this way, people respond to others’ action and lack of action similarly to how they respond to their own action or lack thereof. These processes were demonstrated in a field experiment with a charity organization – Compassion International – in the context of a campaign to support AIDS orphans. The solicited population included uncommitted supporters, who had not contributed before (the “cold list”), and committed supporters, who had donated on a regular basis over the past year (the “hot list”). They all learned about the campaign goal (to raise 10 million won) and that approximately half the money had already been raised. Some participants received a solicitation letter that emphasized the glass was half full (other group members had donated half ); the rest received a letter that emphasized the glass was half empty (half was still missing). As predicted, among low-commitment people, an emphasis on existing contributions increased donations more than an emphasis on missing contributions, because they were highlighting others’ actions. In contrast, among high-commitment people, an emphasis on missing contributions increased donations more than an emphasis on existing contributions, because they were balancing for others’ lack of action (Figure 1). This pattern is almost identical to the one © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass (2016): 1–15, 10.1111/spc3.12251 Figure 1 Low-commitment individuals donatedmore to a charity campaignwhen considering existing (versusmissing) contributions by others. High-commitment individuals donated more when considering missing (versus existing) contributions by others. 4 Pursuing Goals with Others observed for personal goal pursuits (e.g., deciding to study for an exam based on what one did versus did not; Koo & Fishbach, 2008). Another study (Fishbach et al., 2011) operationalized goal commitment through group identification (Tajfel & Turner, 1979; Doosje et al., 2006). A campaign to help children in Kenya was established following a period of political riots. In the high-identification condition, the solicitation letter referred to the children in need as “our children,” whereas in the lowidentification condition, they were presented as the “children in Kenya.” In addition, the solicitation letter either emphasized others’ actions – that to this point, others had raised about half the money – or lack of action – that half the money was missing. As expected, low identifiers highlighted others’ actions; they gave more after reading that others had given half the money than after reading that half the money was missing. By contrast, high identifiers balanced for others’ actions; they gave more in response to a message on missing (versus existing) contributions (Figure 2). Moving beyond the findings that people respond to others’ actions similarly to how they respond to their own actions, other studies tested whether messages on “expressing support” and “making a difference” tap into two different motivations in coordinating contributions to a shared goal: to express commitment to the cause via widespread symbolic giving (everyone gives a little) or to make progress on solving a problem via a substantial resource investment by fewer individuals ( few give a lot; Koo et al., 2015). These studies assessed effects on both the number of contributors (participation rates) and the average contribution size and found that Figure 2 Low identifiers donated more to a charity campaign when considering existing (versus missing) contributions by others. High identifiers donated more when considering missing (versus existing) contributions by others. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass (2016): 1–15, 10.1111/spc3.12251 Pursuing Goals with Others 5 an appeal to express support increased the participation rate, whereas an appeal to make a difference increased the average contribution. For example, in one study, visitors to a university website were invited to write a message to children in poverty, and the university donated $0.01 per written word on their behalf. Using this paradigm, lengthier messages would result in larger donations. Participants were either invited to “express support” or “make a difference” or received a control (“help”) message. Results showed that more people decided to participate in the express-support appeal, but those who participatedwrote lengthier messages in the makea-difference appeal (Figure 3). Taken together, research reviewed here shows that people respond to others’ contributions and lack of contributions to a shared goal similarly to how they respond to their own existing and missing contributions to personal goals. This research has implications for understating the origins of social loafing.Whenever individuals decrease their contributions if others contribute, we can refer to them as “free riders” because others’ contributions justify the individuals’ loafing. However, whenever individuals decrease their contributions if others did not contribute (and increase if others contributed), we can no longer refer to them as free riders, because free-riding assumes the opposite pattern of coordination, whereby the person loafs if others work. In the latter case, loafing individuals are not free-riding on others’ efforts but rather are adopting a perceived norm of low commitment and low contributions to the shared goal. Pursuing Goals with Information on Others Whereas coordination is necessary for shared goals, perhaps surprisingly, people also coordinate pursuit of their personal goals. However, a brief observation of people’s products, clothing, and food choices reveals that they are not only inf luenced by others, they also coordinate with others by making complementary choices. The reason people coordinate what they buy, wear, and eat is that they see themselves as part of others (self–other overlap). Indeed, people experience others’ goal pursuits as partially their own (Ackerman et al., 2009; Gunia et al., 2009; Maner et al., 2002; Monin et al., 2004). For instance, people perceive themselves as more generous after watching a close other helping someone (Goldstein & Cialdini, 2007) and lonelier after observing others being rejected (Wesselmann et al., 2009). In addition, after watching another person exert efforts on a goal, people relaxed their efforts (McCulloch et al., 2011), and after learning their group was moral, Figure 3 A “Make a Difference” (progress) solicitation increased average contributions (length of messages) compared to control and “Express Your Support” (commitment) solicitations. “Express Your Support” solicitations increased the participation ratio compared to control and “Make a Difference” solicitations. © 2016 John Wiley & Sons Ltd Social and Personality Psychology Compass (2016): 1–15, 10.1111/spc3.12251 6 Pursuing Goals with Others people acted less morally (i.e., relaxed their moral efforts; Kouchaki & Smith, 2013). In this section, we accordingly explore how these patterns of coordination inf luence the degree to which people conform to others versus choose complementary actions.