Goal Representation and Reflection: The Crucial Roles of How We Think About Our Goals by Ki Man Bernice Cheung A dissertation accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology Dissertation Committee: Elliot Berkman, Chair Robert Chavez, Core Member Jennifer Pfeifer, Core Member Jenefer Husman, Institutional Representative University of Oregon Summer 2025 GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 2 © 2025 Ki Man Bernice Cheung This work is openly licensed via CC BY 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 3 DISSERTATION ABSTRACT Ki Man Bernice Cheung Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology Title: Goal Representation and Reflection: The Crucial Roles of How We Think About Our Goals This dissertation investigates how people perceive and reflect on their goals, with the broader aim of contributing to an understanding of how to set goals that foster a fulfilling pursuit experience. Across three studies, the central focus is on goal representation, which refers to the way individuals perceive and evaluate their goals. This dissertation aims to expand the understanding of the dynamics of goal representation, its roles in shaping goal pursuit, and its relations to the self, as well as to explore interventions that guide goal reflection in order to improve well-being during goal pursuit. Study 1 was a three-month longitudinal study that examined relative differences in six goal representation components, namely value, external motivation, attainability, instrumentality, consensus, and measurability, and their prospective associations with goal pursuit outcomes. Components showed distinct prospective associations with effort, progress, and action crisis. Additionally, the six-component structure remained aligned across two timepoints whereas components varied in stability. This project provided empirical evidence supporting a multifaceted, dynamic model of goal representation in multiple-goal contexts. Study 2 introduced a novel network-based approach to capture the relationships between multiple goals and multiple identities with a cross-sectional design. Participants nominated their personal goals and identities, and then rated each pairwise connection between a specific goal and a specific identity. Descriptive patterns showed that goals tend to connect to distinct subsets of identities. At the goal level, broader goal–identity integration, measured as the proportion of identities connected to a goal, was associated with higher perceived value, attainability, commitment, effort, and satisfaction with progress. At the person level, greater centralization of the goal–identity network was linked to GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 4 higher life satisfaction. This network approach expands how the self-relevance of one’s goals is conceptualized and opens new possibilities for understanding how the self shapes goal representation and pursuit. Study 3 was an online experiment aimed at testing whether brief, single-session guided reflections could enhance momentary subjective well-being during goal pursuit. Participants were randomly assigned to an attainment-focused reflection, a value-focused reflection, or a non-goal-related control condition. Across conditions, participants reported significant reductions in ill-being immediately after reflection, suggesting that both goal-related reflection strategies can buffer against negative affect and stress in the moment. Reductions were smaller for the attainment-focused condition than for the control, and no differences were observed for positive well-being or need satisfaction. Moderation analyses indicated that the effects of each strategy varied depending on the representation of the selected goal. For example, value-focused reflection was more effective for goals high in clarity, while attainment-focused reflection was less effective for goals high in value. These findings suggest that tailoring reflection strategies based on goal representation may optimize their effects on subjective well-being. These studies establish goal representation as a multifaceted construct, demonstrate the utility of mapping goal–identity systems, and provide initial evidence that brief, structured reflections can reduce ill-being during goal pursuit. GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 5 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I am deeply grateful for my graduate school journey. These six years have felt like being a kid in a playground, constantly chasing new ideas, discovering new tools to play with, and digging into rabbit holes that may matter to no one but me. I still cannot believe how fortunate I have been to spend this much time simply reading, thinking, exploring, learning, and having fun. This journey would not have been so fulfilling without the following people. I would like to express my deepest gratitude to my wise, witty, and inspiring advisor, Dr. Elliot Berkman. Our journey began with the question, “What is a goal?” Six years later, I have no answers, only more questions, and that is perhaps the best outcome I could have hoped for. His unconditional support gave me the freedom to follow my curiosity wherever it led. He connected me with language data when all I could see were numbers, found me opportunities when I had given up on applying to internships, and created space for me to explore new career pathways. Chatting about research ideas with him has been one of the most enjoyable parts of graduate school. I am also grateful to my committee members, Robert Chavez, Jenefer Husman, Jennifer Pfeifer, and Kate Mills, for their thoughtful critiques and steady support throughout this process. I have been lucky to have two more extraordinary mentors whose guidance and insights have helped me find my footing in academia and venture into industry. Brent Hughes trusted me to help build a new lab from scratch and gave me the opportunity to learn everything I needed to fully enjoy graduate school. Our regular meetings often turned into hours-long conversations exchanging research ideas and critiquing new papers. Seifu Chonde, my manager and career mentor, never missed our weekly career development meetings, no matter how busy he was. He helped me translate my research mindset and skills into the practice of building a real product and to thrive in the fast-paced environment of a startup. GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 6 Our SAN lab is, without a doubt, the best. I am grateful to be part of this loving family, where we supported each other through highs and lows. It was a place where no idea was dismissed, no mistake was judged, and no self-handicapping was allowed. More importantly, I grew as a person by watching these wonderful people march toward the lives they desired and deserved. Because of our lab, I never felt alone. I am also grateful to my collaborators: Dave Markowitz, David Condon, and Tyler Davis. From them, I learned advanced neuroimaging techniques, psycholinguistic analysis, and psychometric evaluation. I could not have completed any of my research without the research assistants who helped code over 800 goals, and the more than 1,000 participants who completed lengthy and often challenging studies. Lastly, I want to thank my personal support system. I could not list them all without leaving someone out, but they held me together during my darkest times and believed in me when I had lost faith in myself. Every day is full of joy because of them and because of my dearest cats, Mocha and Caramel. GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS DISSERTATION ABSTRACT ............................................................................................................................. 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ................................................................................................................................ 5 TABLE OF CONTENTS .................................................................................................................................... 7 LIST OF TABLES ............................................................................................................................................. 9 LIST OF FIGURES ......................................................................................................................................... 10 CHAPTER I: OVERALL INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 11 The Importance of Understanding Goals Themselves ............................................................................ 11 The Definition and Features of Goals ..................................................................................................... 12 Toward a Framework of Goal Representation in Sustainable Goal Pursuit ........................................... 14 Overview of the Three Empirical Projects .............................................................................................. 16 CHAPTER II: EXPANDING THE UNDERSTANDING OF GOAL REPRESENTATION IN A MULTIPLE-GOAL PURSUIT CONTEXT ...................................................................................................................................... 19 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 19 Methods ................................................................................................................................................. 31 Results .................................................................................................................................................... 38 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................... 52 CHAPTER III: EXPANDING THE UNDERSTANDING OF GOAL-IDENTITY RELATIONS IN A MULTIPLE-GOAL MULTIPLE-IDENTITY CONTEXT ................................................................................................................... 68 Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 68 Method ................................................................................................................................................... 82 Results .................................................................................................................................................... 87 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................... 94 CHAPTER IV: EFFECTIVE GOAL REFLECTION STRATEGIES TO ENHANCE WELL-BEING .............................. 109 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................... 109 Methods ............................................................................................................................................... 121 Results .................................................................................................................................................. 126 Discussion ............................................................................................................................................. 137 CHAPTER V: OVERALL DISCUSSION .......................................................................................................... 150 Summaries of Study Aims and Findings ................................................................................................ 150 Implications .......................................................................................................................................... 151 Future Directions in Supporting Individuals in Setting Goals that Lead to Fulfilling Goal Pursuit ........ 156 CONCLUSION ............................................................................................................................................ 160 GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 8 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................. 161 APPENDIX ................................................................................................................................................. 176 Appendix A. Six-Component of Goal Representation at Baseline ........................................................ 176 Appendix B. Goal Representation Measures ........................................................................................ 177 Appendix C. Striving Behavior Measures .............................................................................................. 181 Appendix D. Reflection Prompts .......................................................................................................... 183 GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 9 LIST OF TABLES Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for Goal Representation Component .......................................................... 40 Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for Goal Pursuit Measures .......................................................................... 41 Table 3: Comparison of Full and Final Linear Models Predicting Overall Perceived Progress .................... 43 Table 4: Comparison of Full and Final Linear Models Predicting Average Effort ........................................ 44 Table 5: Comparison of Full and Final Linear Models Predicting Average Action Crisis ............................. 45 Table 6: Exploratory Factor Analysis Results Assessing Configural Invariance ........................................... 48 Table 7: Post-hoc Pairwise Contrasts of Goal Representation Components from Baseline to Three-Month Follow-Up ................................................................................................................................................... 50 Table 8: Multilevel Model Predicting Perceived Attainability from the Interaction between Goal Type and Time ............................................................................................................................................................ 51 Table 9: Post-hoc Pairwise Contrasts of Goal Representation Components from Baseline to Three-Month Follow-Up ................................................................................................................................................... 52 Table 10: Operational Definitions and Network Measures for Goal–Identity Constructs .......................... 85 Table 11: Number of Goal–Identity Connections (Edges) Nominated per Goal .......................................... 87 Table 12: Descriptive Statistics for Goal–Identity Integration and Goal–Identity System Indices .............. 89 Table 13: Multilevel Model Predicting Perceived Goal Value From Goal–Identity Integration .................. 90 Table 14: Summary of Multilevel Models Predicting Goal Representation and Pursuit Outcomes From Goal–Identity Integration ........................................................................................................................... 91 Table 15: Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations Among Goal–Identity Network Metrics ............ 92 Table 16: Associations Between Goal–Identity Network Structure and Life Satisfaction ........................... 93 Table 17: Fixed Effects Estimates from Mixed-Effects Models Predicting Subjective Well-being, Action Crisis, and Ill-being ................................................................................................................................... 130 Table 18: Multilevel Model Predicting Ill-being from the Interaction Between Reflection Condition and Timepoint, and Covariates ........................................................................................................................ 132 Table 19: Estimated Pre–Post Differences in Ill-Being Within Each Reflection Condition ......................... 133 Table 20: Group Differences in Life Satisfaction and Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction at Post- Intervention .............................................................................................................................................. 136 GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 10 LIST OF FIGURES Figure 1: Distribution of Goal Representation Component ........................................................................ 40 Figure 2: Distribution of Goal Pursuit Measures ......................................................................................... 41 Figure 3: Exploratory Factor Analysis Results of Goal Representation at Baseline .................................... 47 Figure 4: Exploratory Factor Analysis Results of Goal Representation at the Three-Month Follow-up ...... 47 Figure 5: Predicted goal representation component scores at baseline and three-month follow-up ........ 50 Figure 6: Distributions of goal–identity integration and system-level network indices ............................. 89 Figure 7: Distribution of Baseline Characteristics of the Selected Goals .................................................. 127 Figure 8: Interaction Between Reflection Condition and Timepoint Predicting Ill-being .......................... 131 Figure 9: Interactions Between Goal Representation Components and Timepoint on Ill-being in the Value- Focused Reflection Condition ................................................................................................................... 134 Figure 10: Interactions Between Goal Value Component and Timepoint on Ill-being in the Attainment- Focused Reflection Condition ................................................................................................................... 135 GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 11 CHAPTER I: OVERALL INTRODUCTION The Importance of Understanding Goals Themselves Goals are among the most common concepts in both everyday life and psychological research. People routinely set goals, talk about their struggles with them, and experience emotional highs and lows tied to their success or failure. The popularity of goal-tracking tools and self-help content in productivity reflects a broader cultural obsession with how to manage and achieve one’s goals. This widespread attention is mirrored in psychological science. Over the past century, goals have become central to theories of motivation, affect, self-regulation, and well-being, as well as to applied domains such as health behavior, organizational psychology, and intervention science. However, the dominant focus in both theoretical and applied research tends to center on how to achieve a goal. Far less attention is paid to the goals themselves. Foundational questions, such as what kinds of goals people set and how they think about their goals, remain underexplored. Goals are central to human behavior and well-being. They shape how individuals think, feel, and act across time. A person’s goals organize attention, influence decision-making, and guide behavior toward desired outcomes (Bailey, 2019; De Ridder & De Wit, 2006; Dijksterhuis & Aarts, 2010; Krantz & Kunreuther, 2007; Schoenfeld, 2010). Goals also give meaning to success and failure, shaping how people interpret their experiences and regulate their emotions (Emmons, 2003; Griffith & Graham, 2004; Park, 2010). Goal pursuit is not a binary outcome of success versus failure. Instead, it is a dynamic psychological process, and the goals people hold influence how they experience this process. Pursuing goals that are personally meaningful and perceived as attainable is associated with greater motivation, vitality, and life satisfaction (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Sheldon & Houser-Marko, 2001). In contrast, persistent engagement with externally imposed goals lacking clear pathways can lead to distress, diminished self- efficacy, and internal conflict (Brandstätter et al., 2013; Holding et al., 2021; Koestner et al., 2008). https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?0QPR13 https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?0QPR13 https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?0VJvUv https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?0VJvUv https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?Bi1buu https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?3PxvuO GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 12 Goals are also part of who we are. The goals people pursue often reflect their values, identities, and social roles (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). Over time, important goals become integrated into the self- concept, shaping how individuals define themselves and who they aspire to become (Burkley et al., 2015). Goals also serve social functions. They signal what a person stands for, what communities they belong to, and what roles they identify with. Having shared goals is fundamental to forming and maintaining social connections. Whether in close relationships, teams, or broader communities, shared goals coordinate behavior, reinforce group identity, and create a sense of belonging (Fishbach et al., 2016; Huang et al., 2015). At the same time, social context shapes which goals feel acceptable, desirable, or expected. In summary, the goals people pursue are central to motivation, social connection, and well- being. A deep understanding of goals themselves is essential for developing theories and interventions that help people set goals that support a more fulfilling and sustainable pursuit journey. The Definition and Features of Goals Despite the centrality of goals in psychological science, there is no clear and consistent definition of what constitutes a “goal.” For the purposes of this dissertation, I adopt the definition of a goal as a mental representation of an end state that a person is committed to or actively striving for (Elliot & Fryer, 2008). This definition highlights three essential components. First, a goal is a mental representation. It exists as an idea stored in memory, and it is accessible, maintained, and used to guide behavior over time. These representations often involve future-oriented images of desired outcomes, along with evaluations of various aspects of goals, such as importance, feasibility, and the rationales that motivate behavior. By definition, this dissertation includes only goals that individuals are consciously aware of. Unconscious or automatic goal processes fall outside the scope of this definition. Second, a goal involves an end state that describes a condition or outcome a person wants to move toward or https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?ZLO2GU https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?SBVP1E https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?SBVP1E https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?DZqx0O https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?DZqx0O GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 13 away from. This end state can take virtually any form: it may be concrete or abstract, personally defined or socially shaped, short-term or long-term. In this dissertation, I adopt this definition to accommodate the wide variety of goals people naturally generate, with no restriction on domain, framing, or temporal scope. Third, a goal requires commitment or active striving. This criterion distinguishes goals from mere desires, passing wishes, or simple tasks that do not require sustained effort or psychological investment. To qualify as a goal in this framework, an individual must either be currently investing effort toward the end state or have formed a clear intention and commitment to do so. As mental representations, goals are inherently idiosyncratic and subjective. Because a goal can refer to virtually any end state, it may differ from other goals in countless ways. Some differences are observable, such as the goal’s content or framing, while others reflect internal beliefs and evaluations, such as perceived value and attainability. Even when two people set the same goal, such as “eat healthier,” they may interpret it very differently: one may view it as an obligation, while another may find it energizing. This variability in subjective evaluation makes goals a rich psychological construct, but also one that is difficult to systematically characterize and compare. The dynamic nature of goals adds another layer of complexity. Setting a goal typically involves identifying a future-oriented end state and implicitly or explicitly setting expectations about when that state should be achieved. Once a goal is set, experiences are interpreted relative to both the starting point and the anticipated timeline. As a result, even in the absence of observable progress or behavior change, the psychological experience of the goal is never static. Perceptions of urgency, feasibility, and progress may shift simply due to the passage of time. Additionally, the mental idea of the goal itself both guides and responds to the process of striving. People may describe their goals using identical wording across time, yet the plans they make, the effort they invest, the progress they observe, and the feedback they receive all shape how they evaluate those goals. Because of these features, research that focuses only on goal content or outcomes overlooks a critical lever for supporting fulfilling goal pursuit: individuals’ subjective perceptions of their goals. GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 14 Toward a Framework of Goal Representation in Sustainable Goal Pursuit At the heart of this dissertation is a foundational question: How can we support individuals in setting goals that lead to a fulfilling and sustainable goal pursuit journey? This is an ambitious question that will require decades of research. The studies in this dissertation begin to address this question by focusing on a critical starting point: how people mentally represent their goals. This work centers on the construct of goal representation, which refers to the way individuals perceive and evaluate their goals. As discussed above, it captures a key source of variance among goals and plays an essential role in shaping the experience of goal striving. To leverage goal representation as a pathway to more fulfilling and sustainable goal pursuit, three key questions need to be addressed. First, how can we capture variance in ways people represent their goals? Because goals are highly idiosyncratic, it is essential to identify the core components along which goal representations vary and how these differences shape pursuit experiences. Second, how do relationships between goals and the self influence these representations? Goals are fundamentally subjective. Individuals evaluate their goals through the lens of their personal values, identities and past experiences. Understanding how these self concepts shape goal representation is essential for explaining individual differences in how goals are evaluated, and in turn, shape goal pursuit experiences. Third, how can we guide individuals to represent their goals in ways that improve their pursuit experience? People may not always have control over which goals they pursue, but they do have certain agency in how they think about those goals. Investigating whether and how shifts in goal representation contribute to adaptive experiences can inform the design of cognitive interventions aimed at enhancing both well-being and sustained engagement during goal pursuit. Existing research has made important contributions to each of these areas, but critical gaps remain across theoretical, empirical, and applied domains. Theoretically, although many studies have established prospective associations between individual dimensions of goals with pursuit experiences, GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 15 few have attempted to form a comprehensive framework that organizes these attributes into a broader conceptual structure. As a result, knowledge in this area remains fragmented, limiting both theoretical integration and measurement development. Moreover, little is known about how goal representation evolves throughout the pursuit process. Despite theoretical models that emphasize the dynamic nature of goal striving, most research assesses goal representation only once at baseline, implicitly treating it as a stable trait rather than a construct that shifts over time. Without a clear understanding of how the structure and components of goal representation change, it is difficult to determine when and how they should be measured or targeted in interventions. Empirically, two forms of oversimplification limit the understanding of goal representation in real-world contexts. First, most studies either focus on one goal from a selected domain or aggregate responses across goals, thereby overlooking the fact that individuals typically pursue multiple goals simultaneously. This approach fails to capture the within- person variation in how different goals are represented, as well as how these differences influence prioritization, effort allocation, and the overall experience of goal pursuit. Second, although many theories acknowledge that connections between goals and the self are central to how goals are represented, such as by shaping perceived value or motivation, empirical work often relies on measures that fail to reflect the complexity of self-concept. For example, individuals hold multiple identities, and any given goal may connect to these identities in distinct ways. Without directly assessing which identities are linked to a particular goal, research risks oversimplifying how that goal is embedded within a person’s broader identity system. This limitation constrains the understanding of how identity shapes the representation of a goal and, in turn, how these connections influence the trajectory of goal pursuit. Finally, from an intervention standpoint, existing strategies primarily focus on increasing motivation or supporting behavior change, often overlooking the affective experience of goal pursuit. This neglects the possibility that improving how people feel in the moment may be critical for sustaining long-term engagement and well-being. GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 16 To move toward a comprehensive understanding of the role of goal representation in shaping goal pursuit experience, several underexplored areas warrant closer attention. These include clarifying its structure and stability over time, examining how different aspects of identity influence representations across multiple goals, and exploring whether shifts in representation affect how people feel during pursuit. These directions provide a conceptual roadmap for the three projects included in this dissertation. Overview of the Three Empirical Projects Expanding the Understanding of Goal Representation in a Multiple-Goal Pursuit Context My first project expands the understanding of goal representation by examining two underexplored sources of variation: relative differences across an individual’s goals (goal-level variance) and changes in representation over time (temporal variance). I conducted a three-month online longitudinal study and used a multifaceted approach to examine how relative differences in six goal representation components, namely value, external motivation, attainability, instrumentality, consensus, and measurability, were prospectively associated with goal pursuit experiences. I also evaluated how the overall structure and individual components of goal representation evolve during pursuit. Findings showed that distinct components were differentially associated with outcomes such as effort, progress, and action crisis, and exhibited varying degrees of temporal stability. This project underscores the multifaceted nature of goal representation and provides empirical evidence for the alignment of its conceptual structure across two timepoints, laying the groundwork for integrated, dynamic models of goal representation in multiple-goal pursuit contexts. GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 17 Expanding the Understanding of Goal-Identity Relations in a Multiple-Goal Multiple-Identity Context My second project introduces a novel network-based approach to describe goal-identity systems, providing an expanded framework for understanding the multifaceted ways in which goals and identities connect. While extensive theoretical and empirical evidence underscores the importance of the relationships between goals and identities, research has primarily assessed the degree to which goals align with an individual’s general sense of self, overlooking the complexity of how goals relate to an individual's multiple identities. I begin with the observation that individuals have multiple goals and identities, and propose that their relationships can be operationalized as a goal-identity network, which consists of pairs of connections between specific goals and specific identities. I conducted a cross- sectional study to evaluate whether goal–identity networks can feasibly and meaningfully quantify how individuals’ multiple goals relate to their multiple identities. The findings provide initial insights into how the breadth of a goal's integration with various identities is associated with its representation, and how the overall configuration of an individual’s goal-identity system relates to their well-being. Effective Goal Reflection Strategies to Enhance Well-being My third project aims to identify goal reflection strategies that enhance subjective well-being through an online experiment with single-session interventions. To better understand how to increase positive affect and reduce negative affect during goal pursuit, this study includes two conceptually distinct reflection strategies: an attainment-focused strategy that adapts commonly used behavioral techniques that support goal-directed action; and a value-focused strategy that encourages individuals to explore how their goals align with personal values and identities, shaping their mental representation of the goal. These two strategies differ not only in focus but also in the potential psychological pathways through which they may influence well-being. One possibility is that the attainment-focused strategy enhances well-being by supporting the need for competence, helping individuals feel more effective and GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 18 capable in managing their goals. In contrast, the value-focused strategy may enhance well-being by supporting the need for autonomy, reinforcing a sense of volition, authenticity, and personal significance in goal pursuit. This project provides an important first step in evaluating how different goal reflection strategies influence individuals’ momentary emotional experiences during goal pursuit—an outcome often overlooked in behavior change research. GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 19 CHAPTER II: EXPANDING THE UNDERSTANDING OF GOAL REPRESENTATION IN A MULTIPLE-GOAL PURSUIT CONTEXT Introduction Goal Representation “What is your goal?” is often the first question about goal pursuit. While a goal’s content is essential, it only tells part of the story. A more intriguing question highlights the personal side of goals: “What do you think about your goals?” Goal representation provides a framework for answering this question. It refers to the mental structure people use to perceive, evaluate, and make sense of their goals (Berkman & Lieberman, 2009). This framework offers a lens through which individuals articulate the unique qualities of their goals, revealing the distinct ways goals are mentally represented and differentiated. A goal can be mentally represented along countless dimensions, for example, how important it feels, how attainable it seems or whether it aligns with personal values. These dimensions collectively constitute goal representation and are inherently subjective. Two people might pursue the same goal, such as exercising regularly, but one may perceive it as exciting and manageable, while the other sees it as burdensome and difficult. Even within the same person, different goals can vary in perceived value, feasibility, and relevance. Because goal representation reflects how a person perceives the goal itself, rather than how they strive toward it, dimensions such as effort, commitment, or urgency, while related, are treated as indicators of goal pursuit and are not considered part of goal representation in this project. https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=N1lhXT GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 20 The role of Goal Representation in Goal Pursuit Goal representation is closely linked to how individuals behave and feel during goal pursuit, ultimately influencing their likelihood of goal attainment and well-being. Psychologists have accumulated a considerable knowledge base regarding the associations among specific dimensions of goal representation, striving behaviors, goal achievement, and well-being. Perceived value is a foundational dimension of goal representation. Expectancy–value theory proposes that goal choice, persistence, and performance are shaped by how much a person values a goal and how likely they believe they are to attain it (Atkinson, 1964; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). Consistent with this framework, research shows that goals perceived as more important tend to elicit stronger commitment, particularly in contexts requiring individuals to prioritize among competing demands or resist short-term temptations in favor of long-term rewards (Austin & Vancouver, 1996; Berkman et al., 2017; Iwama et al., 2021). Beyond global appraisals of importance, more specific facets of value also contribute to goal pursuit, including hedonic, instrumental, and social value. For example, the vitality or positive affect associated with a goal has been shown to predict greater goal progress (Hope et al., 2016). When resources are limited or demands are high, individuals often rely on a goal’s anticipated rewards to guide selection and prioritization (Neal et al., 2017). Additionally, individuals are more likely to persist on goals that are important to their significant others (Fitzsimons & vanDellen, 2015). Together, these value-related appraisals influence how people evaluate, prioritize, and persist in pursuing their goals. Perceived attainability is another key aspect of goal representation. Although often discussed alongside value in expectancy–value models, attainability reflects distinct beliefs about feasibility and control. Several aspects of goal representation inform how attainable a goal is perceived to be. One relevant construct is goal difficulty, which reflects how challenging the goal appears. According to goal- https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=LKKvuD https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=WcP7rY https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=WcP7rY https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=iyPhhD https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=r3RZ7g https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=RMbPih https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=RMbPih GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 21 setting theory, more difficult goals tend to elicit higher performance than easier ones, whether they are self-selected or externally assigned (Latham et al., 2002; Locke & Latham, 1990). Another factor is affordance, defined as the perceived opportunities in one’s environment to act on the goal, which influences whether individuals believe sustained effort is possible (McArthur & Baron, 1983). In addition, controllability, defined as the extent to which individuals believe goal outcomes depend on their own actions, has been shown to predict motivation and adaptive goal-directed behavior (Galvin et al., 2018). In summary, these facets of attainability shape whether individuals initiate action, how much effort they invest, and whether they persist in the face of obstacles. The reasons people pursue their goals vary widely, and these motivational drives are embedded in how goals are mentally represented. According to self-determination theory (Deci et al., 1999; Deci & Ryan, 2012), goals differ in the degree to which they are pursued for autonomous versus controlled reasons. Individuals may engage with a goal because it reflects intrinsic enjoyment, personal values, or internalized beliefs; or because of external pressure or obligation. A growing body of research shows that goals pursued for more autonomous reasons are associated with greater progress (Sheldon et al., 1999), fewer competing temptations (Milyavskaya et al., 2015), and more positive affect during pursuit (Schneider & Kwan, 2013). Self-discrepancy theory (Higgins, 1997) offers a complementary perspective by emphasizing the role of self-evaluative standards in motivation—specifically, whether individuals pursue goals to reduce the gap between their actual and ideal selves, or between their actual and ought selves. Research suggests that these discrepancies are tied to distinct emotional responses, especially when facing setbacks. When individuals perceive a gap between their actual and ideal selves, they are more likely to experience dejection-related emotions, such as disappointment, dissatisfaction, and sadness, because they feel they are falling short of their own aspirations or potential (Berking et al., 2003). In contrast, a discrepancy between the actual and ought selves tends to elicit high-arousal negative emotions, such as agitation, threat, or fear, which are often driven by the anticipation or https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=9gYwxW https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=2G1uV8 https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=m8aCEz https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=qAMCCO https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=qAMCCO https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=6yO6XG https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=6yO6XG GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 22 presence of negative consequences for failing to meet perceived duties or social expectations (Kelly et al., 2015). These findings suggest that the perceived source of motivation can shape both the behavioral and emotional responses of goal pursuit. Certain aspects of goal representation pertain directly to how a goal is structured or framed. One such aspect is specificity, which refers to how precisely the goal is described. Specific goals provide clearer standards for action and have been consistently associated with stronger commitment and a higher likelihood of achievement (Klein et al., 1990a; Latham et al., 2002; Wallace & Etkin, 2018). Relatedly, measurability reflects how easily progress toward the goal can be tracked. Measurable goals enhance self-monitoring, a critical component of effective self-regulation (Harkin et al., 2016; Liccione, 2009). Another structural feature is construal level, which captures the abstractness of a goal’s mental representation. High-level construals frame goals in terms of desired end states or values (“be” goals), whereas low-level construals emphasize concrete actions and intermediate steps toward those ends (“do” goals). Activating high-level construals has been shown to enhance self-control by fostering a broader, more purpose-driven orientation toward pursuit (Fujita et al., 2006). Collectively, these structural features shape how people conceptualize their goals, monitor their progress, and sustain motivation over time. Finally, people rarely perceive their goals in isolation. People typically pursue multiple goals simultaneously. Some goals may be mutually facilitative, whereas others may compete for limited time and resources, creating conflict. The strength and valence of these inter-goal relationships are important components of how a goal is represented. Research has shown that goal facilitation predicts goal progress and is associated with greater positive affect and life satisfaction (Boudreaux & Ozer, 2013; Gebhardt, 2007; Riediger & Freund, 2004). In contrast, goal conflict is linked to a range of negative outcomes, including increased stress, lower commitment, reduced performance, and diminished well- being (Kelly et al., 2015; Kung & Scholer, 2021). Just as goals are not isolated, neither are individuals. https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=RLhsCh https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=RLhsCh https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=8Ewyck https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=CfhrVy https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=CfhrVy https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=ZJXcaF https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=K7w40g https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=K7w40g https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=O9BoUO GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 23 People often consider how others perceive their goals and how socially normative or desirable those goals appear (Little, 1983). These social appraisals form another layer of goal representation. These interpersonal dimensions may influence both motivation and self-regulation, and warrant greater attention in future research on goal pursuit. Gap 1: Fragmentation in Goal Representation Research The previous section reviewed the significance of individual dimensions of goal representation in shaping decision-making, behavior, and affective experiences during goal pursuit. It also highlighted that goal representation is inherently multifaceted: people evaluate and differentiate their goals along numerous conceptual dimensions. Yet despite widespread recognition that goal representation is multifaceted, this complexity has been largely overlooked in research examining goal-level factors. Rather than capturing the full range of how people think about their goals, most studies assess each goal along only one or two dimensions. This limitation stems from the fact that most goal-related research is theory-driven, with each theory focusing narrowly on a minimal subset of goal components. As a result, the literature remains fragmented. This fragmentation has contributed to gaps in both theory and empirical knowledge. Theoretically, it has prevented researchers from developing an integrated understanding of how different goal components relate to one another and collectively shape pursuit. Empirically, it has led to heterogeneity in how goal representation is operationalized and measured, making it difficult to synthesize findings across studies (Kiendl & Hennecke, 2022). Addressing the fragmentation in goal representation research would allow researchers to build a more complete and empirically grounded understanding of how people represent their goals and to identify distinct components that differentially predict striving behaviors, affective responses, and goal pursuit outcomes. One promising way to do so is by incorporating a comprehensive range of goal representation dimensions into analysis. However, this multifaceted approach requires more than https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=WgAcIT https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=o24kcK GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 24 assessing a long list of individual dimensions. To use this approach effectively, researchers must first establish a conceptual structure that organizes these dimensions into broader components. Without such structure, it becomes impractical to include dozens of predictors in a single model, which limits both analytical power and interpretability. More importantly, the absence of structure prevents researchers from identifying underlying mechanisms that associate goal representation to goal pursuit, or from comparing findings to existing theoretical frameworks. One theory-driven approach to establishing a multidimensional structure of goal representation involves identifying critical components from existing theoretical frameworks and prior empirical research. Several such frameworks have been proposed, but no consensus has emerged. These frameworks often define goals differently, emphasize different subsets of dimensions, and rarely specify how various components relate to one another. An alternative is to adopt a data-driven approach to uncover the underlying structure of goal representation. This method uses dimensionality-reduction techniques, such as Principal Component Analysis (PCA) or Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), to estimate a parsimonious structure that captures the key components along which goals vary. While this approach offers the advantage of identifying a multifaceted structure based on actual patterns in how people perceive their goals, it has been rarely used in goal research to date. To extend our understanding of the role goal representation plays in goal pursuit, it is essential to move beyond fragmented, theory-bound approaches. A data-driven, multifaceted approach offers a powerful and underutilized tool for identifying how a diverse range of components collectively and uniquely influence goal striving, affective experiences, and outcomes. Gap 2: Overlooking Goal-Level Variance in Multiple-Goal Pursuit Most individuals pursue multiple goals simultaneously (Kung & Scholer, 2020). However, accounting for multiple-goal pursuit involves more than simply summing across individual goals. https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=p4TFDM GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 25 Managing multiple goals is a common challenge in self-regulation and engages dynamic psychological processes that are not applicable when goals are considered in isolation. For example, goals may compete for limited resources such as time and energy, prompting individuals to continuously evaluate and prioritize their goals (Alister et al., 2024; Schmidt & DeShon, 2007). These dynamics imply that not all goals are represented in the same way. Even within the same person, some goals are perceived as more valuable or attainable than others. Accordingly, in the context of multiple-goal pursuit, variance among goals unfolds at two levels: between persons (“individual level”) and, within people, between goals (“goal level”). Despite the prevalence of multiple-goal pursuit, most goal research adopts an individual differences approach and overlooks variance at the goal level. Studies often either examine one focal goal from a predefined domain or aggregate individuals’ goals by averaging goal representation scores across all their goals. The latter approach treats goal-level variance as noise, ignoring the nested structure of goals within individuals. However, evidence suggests that most variance in goal appraisal, motivation, and attainment exists at the goal level rather than the individual level (Holding et al., 2017; Milyavskaya & Werner, 2018; Nurmi et al., 2009). These findings challenge the assumption that individual traits are the primary determinants of goal pursuit. Therefore, by neglecting goal-level variance, research risks drawing misleading conclusions about the mechanisms underlying goal pursuit. Traits typically associated with goal achievement at the person level may not predict the progress of a specific goal within a person. Similarly, studies that treat goal representation as a stable, person-level attribute miss the opportunity to examine how differences in representation shape the pursuit of multiple goals. Addressing this gap by accounting for goal-level variance enables researchers to explore how individuals represent their goals differently and how these differences contribute to variation in goal pursuit experiences. https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=6UlolC https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=y2bj0c https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=y2bj0c GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 26 Goal-level variance can be incorporated into goal pursuit research through at least two analytical approaches. One method decomposes absolute differences in goal representation scores into between-person and within-person components. This approach allows researchers to examine how goal representation influences goal pursuit experiences both across individuals and across goals within individuals simultaneously. Alternatively, researchers can focus exclusively on within-person variance by centering each goal’s score around the individual’s mean. This relative approach removes between- person differences and captures how each goal is represented in relation to the person’s other goals. It addresses research questions such as whether, for a given person, goals that are more valuable than their other goals are more likely to be achieved (Algina & Swaminathan, 2011). The relative approach is particularly well-suited to the context of multiple-goal pursuit, where individuals need to decide which goal to prioritize at a given moment. Decisions about where to allocate effort, attention, or time often depend on comparative evaluations, such as which goals feel more urgent, attainable or worthwhile than others (Hennecke & Freund, 2013; Vancouver et al., 2010). However, no study has systematically examined how relative differences across a multifaceted goal representation structure are prospectively associated with goal pursuit experiences over time. Addressing this gap is essential for understanding how the relative representation of goals drives variation in goal pursuit experiences across a person’s multiple goals. Gap 3: Unverified Temporal Variation in Goal Representation Goal representation is inherently dynamic. The accessibility and evaluation of a goal can shift over time, shaped by progress, setbacks, environmental cues, and interactions with other goals (Naju Ahn et al., 2015; Scholer et al., 2024). For example, both the intensity and quality of motivation often fluctuate across the goal pursuit process. It typically begins at a high level during initiation, declining as time passes and obstacles emerge, and rising again as the goal becomes more proximal (Bonezzi et al., https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=LTg2Gl https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=zdRyDj GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 27 2011). Additionally, goals initially perceived as externally motivated may come to feel increasingly internally motivated as individuals engage with them (Ryan et al., 1992). In some cases, setbacks may lead individuals to devalue their goals as a coping response to disappointment (Brandstätter & Bernecker, 2022; Brandtstädter, 1989). These variations in goal representation play a critical role in shaping pursuit outcomes. For example, during an action crisis, declines in perceived desirability and attainability further intensify the crisis and ultimately lead to goal disengagement (Ghassemi et al., 2017). Despite empirical evidence demonstrating the dynamic nature of goal representation, most theoretical models do not specify whether particular dimensions are expected to change over the course of goal pursuit. As a result, the majority of studies assess goal representation only once, typically at the goal-setting phase, assuming the stability of goal representation across time without verification. To date, no study has systematically examined the temporal variation of goal representation as a multifaceted construct, leaving open questions about how its structure and values shift throughout the pursuit process. This lack of evidence limits our ability to identify the mechanisms through which goal representation shapes goal pursuit. Assuming stability and relying on one-time assessments may overlook the impacts of within-goal changes in goal representation on goal pursuit. Moreover, even in longitudinal studies that include multiple assessments of goal representation, it is difficult to disentangle whether observed changes are driven by the passage of time itself, time-varying factors such as proximity to deadlines, or state-level fluctuations such as changes in affect. To address this gap, it is important to examine two distinct aspects of temporal variation in goal representation. The first aspect is the stability of its conceptual structure over time. Given that goal representation is a multifaceted construct composed of several dimensions, any meaningful interpretation of change in individual components requires that its underlying structure remains consistent across timepoints. Without this verification, it is unclear whether observed changes reflect https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=vwlWMW GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 28 shifts in component values or indicate that the construct lacks a consistent structure across time. For example, people may initially differentiate between the measurability and attainability of a goal. However, as they gain experience with it, they may begin to view the goal as more attainable in part because it is easier to measure. As a result, these two components may begin to converge and load onto the same factor over time. In such cases, untested assumptions of structural stability could lead to incorrect conclusions about changes in perceived measurability or attainability, when in fact, some of the observed change may result from shifts in how these components are conceptually organized. Beyond structural stability, it is also critical to examine how the values of individual goal representation components change naturally over time. Even in the absence of external feedback or major events, individuals may revise how they perceive their goals simply as a function of time spent in pursuit. Tracking these changes across multiple components provides a nuanced understanding of how different facets of goal representation vary in their susceptibility to within-person change. Some components may remain relatively consistent and function more like trait-like features that describe stable qualities of a goal. Others may fluctuate more often, reflecting state-like properties that are better suited for repeated measurement and dynamic modeling. Evaluating both the structural stability and temporal variability of individual components is essential for developing a comprehensive understanding of how goal representation evolves over time and influences goal pursuit. Although a substantial body of theoretical and empirical research has underscored the central role of goal representation in shaping striving behaviors, affective experiences, and pursuit outcomes, further research is needed to examine its multifaceted structure, capture within-person relative differences, and track how it changes over time. GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 29 Study Aims My first project expands the understanding of goal representation by providing preliminary evidence on its temporal stability and its prospective associations with goal pursuit experiences in the context of multiple-goal pursuit. I conducted a three-month online longitudinal study using a multifaceted approach to examine how within-person differences in goal representation among an individual’s goals relate to goal pursuit experiences, and to evaluate how both the overall structure and individual components of goal representation evolve during pursuit. To adopt a multifaceted approach, I operationalized goal representation as a multifaceted construct composed of six components: value, external motivation, attainability, instrumentality, consensus, and measurability. This structure was derived from exploratory analyses in the present sample and supported by several preliminary studies (see Appendix A and preprint). Findings from these exploratory factor analyses suggest that the six components capture distinctions in how people represent their goals and that these components are differentially related to pursuit outcomes. Detailed information regarding these components is included in the material section. This project focuses on two often overlooked sources of variance in goal representation: goal- level variance (relative differences across an individual’s goals) and temporal variance (changes in representation over time). Understanding patterns in these within-person variations can offer critical insights into the psychological processes involved in managing multiple goals and adaptations to changing circumstances. By examining both forms of variability, this study advances an ecologically valid and conceptually integrated model of how people mentally represent and pursue their goals. Aim 1: Examining the Associations Between Goal Representation and Goal Pursuit Experience at the Goal Level. The first aim of the study was to examine the prospective associations between relative differences in goal representation at the goal level and goal pursuit experiences. I GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 30 operationalized relative goal representation by centering each goal’s component scores around the individual's mean, allowing for estimates of how deviations from a person’s typical goal representations predicted pursuit outcomes for specific goals. Because goal representation is a multifaceted construct composed of related but distinct components, I hypothesized that relative differences in these components would be differentially associated with specific aspects of goal pursuit experiences. This approach offers a novel contribution by isolating within-person variation in goal representation and identifying which components uniquely predict how people engage with their goals in a multiple-goal context. Aim 2: Examining Changes in Goal Representation at the Temporal Level. The second aim of the study was to examine how goal representation changed over a three-month period, focusing on two aspects: (1) the stability of its conceptual structure, and (2) changes in the values of its individual components. Aim 2.1. Verifying configural invariance. Measurement invariance refers to the extent to which a construct is psychometrically equivalent across groups or timepoints (Putnick & Bornstein, 2016). As an initial step toward establishing invariance for goal representation over time, this study tested configural invariance, which assessed whether the factor structure was congruent across measurement occasions. Specifically, I compared the factorial structure of goal representation at baseline and at the three-month follow-up. I hypothesized that the multifaceted structure of goal representation would remain stable across timepoints. Establishing configural invariance was essential for interpreting observed changes in component scores and laid the groundwork for quantifying measurement variance in future studies. Aim 2.2. Evaluating temporal changes in individual components. Prior research on the dynamic nature of goal representation had primarily examined isolated dimensions within specific contexts. In contrast, this study evaluated changes across all six components over a three-month period. Building on https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=3JcIBm GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 31 the multifaceted nature of goal representation, I hypothesized that its components would vary in the degree to which they evolve during pursuit. The findings provided preliminary evidence for distinct trajectories of individual components across timepoints, laying the groundwork for future longitudinal research on the reciprocal relationship between goal representation and goal pursuit. Methods Participants I recruited 251 participants from Amazon Mechanical Turk for this online longitudinal study. It is worth noting that this study was conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic in the United States. A power analysis for correlation coefficient was conducted with .95 power to detect a medium effect size of .25 at the standard .05 alpha error probability. The results recommended a sample size of 202, and therefore we set our recruitment goal at 250 to accommodate potential attrition and missing data. I expected participants to have 3 or 4 goals on average based on data from pilot studies. Thus our targeted sample size would be sufficiently powered at the individual level and well-powered at the goal level. To control for potential confounding influences on goal representation and goal pursuit experiences, all participants met four inclusion criteria prior to recruitment: they were over 18 years old, native English speakers, not currently diagnosed with depression, and residing in the U.S. Goal representation ratings rely heavily on nuanced language comprehension and cultural context, so limiting the sample to native English speakers helped ensure consistency in how participants interpreted the goal items. Additionally, prior research has shown that depression can affect motivation (Anderson et al., 2023), perceived goal importance (Street, 2002), and sense of purpose (Boreham & Schutte, 2023). GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 32 Including individuals with current depression diagnoses could therefore introduce confounding variability in the associations between goal representation and goal pursuit. Material Personal Goals. I asked participants to list up to five goals that they anticipated either achieving or making progress on over the next three months. I set only this criterion because I wanted to ensure that participants would experience changes with these goals while still preserving their idiosyncratic nature. Given that individuals may represent and evaluate the progress of their goals differently depending on their temporal durations, I asked them to categorize each goal into the following three categories: short-term goals that they planned to complete within the next three months, long-term goals on which they planned to make progress over the next three months, and recurrent goals that they plan to maintain over the next three months. Goal Representation. I generated a relatively comprehensive list of single-item measures of goal representation based on theoretical frameworks and previous experiments. I deliberately included as many dimensions of goals as possible, such as goal framing, goal evaluations, motivation, inter-goal relationships, and social evaluations about goals. Notably, I included only measures assessing people's perceptions of their goals and did not include items related to goal content (e.g., whether a goal was about physical activity) or striving behaviors (e.g., how often a person engaged in behaviors intended to promote the goal). For dimensions without existing single-item measures, I developed items based on their definitions. For example, I measured affordance using the item “How much does your current environment enable you to work on this goal?” based on its definition as the degree of opportunities in the environment to meet the goal (Austin & Vancouver, 1996). I evaluated and modified these items based on their distributions, inter-correlations, and qualitative feedback from participants in four previous cross-sectional studies. I finalized the goal representation measurement list with thirty-one https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=OrpNNt GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 33 items: one nominal item, two ordinal items, and twenty-eight items using a Likert scale. All items were assessed on a 7-point Likert scale, except for the attainability item, which used an 11-point Likert scale. (See Appendix B for a complete list of goal representation items.) I operationalized goal representation as a multifaceted construct with six components, derived from a data-driven exploratory factor analysis of thirty-one items. The six components are value, external motivation, measurability, consensus, instrumentality, and attainability. I conceptualized each component based on the items that were primarily loaded onto it. The value component reflects the subjective importance people assign to their goals, including attainment value, hedonic value, alignment with personal values, and higher-level construals. The attainability component reflects the perceived likelihood of success, incorporating evaluations of goal difficulty, clarity of pursuit procedures, and environmental support. These two components align closely with the value and expectancy constructs described in expectancy–value theory (Wigfield & Eccles, 2000). In particular, the attainability component is conceptually similar to self-efficacy, as both involve judgments about one’s capability and likelihood of successful goal pursuit (Bandura, 1997). The external motive component captures the degree to which a goal is motivated by external factors. It includes items that cut across multiple motivational theories, including the motives to meet social expectations, obtain extrinsic rewards and avoid shame (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Higgins, 1987). It also includes items related to the external impacts of goals, such as their visibility and importance to other people. The consensus component reflects the degree to which a goal is perceived to be commonly held and esteemed within society. It reflects the two main factors people consider when they project their goals to society: how often others hold the goals and how valuable they perceive them to be. The measurability component reflects the extent to which a goal is clearly defined and progress toward it can be objectively evaluated. It represents the feasibility to assess advancement. The instrumentality component reflects the extent to which a goal is embedded within a broader system of pursuits. It represents the degree to which a goal is positively GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 34 related to other goals. See Appendix A for the six components of goal representation and the individual item loadings. Goal Striving Behaviors. To explore the relationships between goal representation and goal pursuit experience, I included eight items related to striving behaviors assessed at baseline, including commitment, urgency, effort, initial timing of the goal, expected regret, procrastination, and experiences of failure. At each monthly follow-up, I assessed commitment, urgency, effort, resources, implementation intentions, and action crisis. All items were assessed with single-item measures on a 7- point Likert scale, except for action crisis, which was assessed with a six-item action crisis scale (Brandstätter et al., 2013). (See Appendix C for a complete list of goal striving items.) Subjective Progress. At baseline, the assessment of subjective progress depended on the type and temporal duration of the goals to ensure face validity of the items. For short-term goals that participants planned to complete within three months, baseline progress was assessed with the item: “How much progress have you made towards this goal?” using an 11-point Likert scale ranging from 0% to 100%. For long-term goals, where progress but not completion was expected within three months, we used the same item. Participants were also asked to describe the progress or milestones they planned to achieve in the following three months in a complete sentence. Additionally, we assessed participants’ satisfaction with their progress for both short-term and long-term goals using the item: “How satisfied are you with this level of progress?” on a 7-point Likert scale. For recurring goals that participants planned to maintain for three months, progress was assessed with the item: “How often have you successfully maintained or achieved this goal? Please click on the bar where the corresponding percentage represents your success rate in achieving this goal,” using an 11-point Likert scale ranging from “Never” to “100%.” Satisfaction with the progress of recurring goals was assessed with the item: “How satisfied are you with this level of success rate?” on a 7-point Likert scale. https://www.zotero.org/google-docs/?broken=8dQp76 GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 35 In the follow-up surveys, subjective progress for both short-term and long-term goals was measured with the item: “How much progress have you made out of the total progress you hoped to make during these three months?” using a 12-point Likert scale ranging from “0%” to “Have made more progress than I planned.” Monthly progress for recurring goals was measured with the same item as at baseline: “How often have you successfully maintained or achieved this goal?” Satisfaction with progress was assessed in the same manner as at baseline. Procedure At baseline, after completing the screening and informed consent process, participants read through the definition of a goal along with multiple examples illustrating various framings and contents. Next, they listed up to five goals they were currently pursuing. Then, they rated each goal on all goal representation and striving items, as well as their baseline subjective progress and progress satisfaction. The order of the goals and items was randomized. After the baseline assessment, I sent participants a follow-up survey every month for three consecutive months. The first two follow-ups were brief surveys in which participants updated their goal progress. In these surveys, participants first indicated the status of each goal as one of the following: achieved, abandoned, continued, or adjusted. They then rated each goal on its current progress, progress satisfaction, and striving behaviors over the past month. If a goal was achieved or abandoned, participants also re-rated it on all goal representation items, and I stopped tracking that goal in subsequent surveys. If a goal was adjusted, participants were required to list the newly adjusted goal and rate the new goal on all goal representation items. In the final follow-up survey, in addition to the items included in previous surveys, participants re-rated all the goals they were still actively pursuing on all goal representation items. GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 36 Analysis Plans Aim 1. I used multiple linear regression models to evaluate the prospective associations between relative differences in baseline goal representation components and relative differences in goal pursuit experiences across an individual's multiple goals. All variables were person-mean centered to isolate within-person, goal-level effects. The initial plan was to model all five outcomes: goal progress, progress satisfaction, commitment, effort, and action crisis. However, substantial correlations between several of these outcomes (e.g., between progress and progress satisfaction, and between commitment and effort) raised concerns about redundancy (see Supplementary Table S1.1 for the full correlation matrix). Therefore, I focused on three representative outcomes: overall perceived progress at the final follow-up and average reported effort and action crisis across all follow-ups. These outcomes were selected to capture distinct aspects of goal pursuit: evaluative (progress), behavioral (effort), and psychological process (action crisis). In the full models, I included all six goal representation components as predictors and controlled for initial progress at baseline. I then used backward elimination to identify the subset of predictors significantly associated with each outcome, removing non-significant terms based on an F-test threshold of p > .05. Aim 2.1. I verified configural invariance by evaluating whether the conceptual structure of goal representation aligned and whether the patterns of loadings remained consistent between the two assessment timepoints. To account for missing data and variations in study durations, I included only those goals with ratings at both baseline and the three-month follow-up. I extracted six factors using exploratory factor analysis (EFA) from the baseline and follow-up samples separately and compared the alignment of each component by verifying that the same items loaded on the same component across both time points. When the models indicated configural invariance, I quantified differences in https://docs.google.com/document/d/1IWZrgHA-swRgJdh3C_tuPVGCiL-mVML5-V-X1LwpsLM/edit?tab=t.0#bookmark=id.fo6teagc3jhv GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 37 component loadings by calculating the squared differences between the standardized factor loadings for congruent items. Aim 2.2. I used linear mixed-effects models with random intercepts to evaluate changes in each goal representation component over time. To assess whether components varied in the degree of change between the two assessment timepoints, I included time (baseline = 0, follow-up = 1), goal representation component (six-level factor), and their interaction as fixed effects, with component value as the dependent variable. I also included grand-mean centered overall progress as a covariate to account for variability in goal pursuit process. A random intercept was included for participants to account for the nested structure of repeated ratings within individuals. Post-hoc comparisons were used to examine changes in each component individually. The basic model is specified as: To explore whether changes in goal representation components varied by goal type, I conducted follow-up models testing the interaction between time and goal type (short-term, long-term, and recurring goals) only for the component that showed a significant change over time based on post-hoc comparisons. This allowed me to evaluate whether the extent of change differed depending on the temporal scope of the goal. Each model included time, goal type, and their interaction as fixed effects, with the component score as the dependent variable and overall progress as a covariate. A random intercept was included for participants. Post-hoc comparisons were used to examine changes within each goal type individually. GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 38 Results Sample Overview Baseline. After excluding five participants due to poor data quality (e.g., short durations, uniform responses, attention check failures, or missing data), the final sample included 246 mTurk participants (51.2% women; Mage = 43.51, SDage = 13.12), with 75.87% identifying as White. Participants listed an average of 3.81 goals (SD = 1.08; mode = 5), yielding 845 goals at baseline. Retention. Of the 246 participants, 89.02% completed at least one follow-up, and 78.05% completed all three. At the goal level, 706 goals (83.55%) were completed, abandoned, or last updated by the third follow-up and retained for analysis. Aim 1 Sample Overview. Because Aim 1 focused on within-person variability in goal pursuit, participants who listed only one goal were excluded. The analytic sample for Aim 1 included 836 goals from 237 participants. Of these, 704 goals from 213 participants had valid overall progress ratings recorded at follow-up. Aim 2 Sample Overview. The second aim examined the temporal stability of goal representation as a multifaceted construct. To reduce heterogeneity in time intervals between assessments, goals that were completed, abandoned, or adjusted before the third follow-up were excluded. The final analytic sample for Aim 2 included 486 goals from 194 participants. Associations Between Goal Representation and Goal Pursuit Experience at the Goal Level. Descriptive Stats. Descriptive statistics for the six goal representation components are presented in Table 1. These variables represent unit-weighted component scores derived from an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using oblique rotation. On average, participants rated their goals as moderately attainable (M = 3.38, SD = 1.04), moderately externally motivated (M = 3.47, SD = 1.26), and GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 39 somewhat consistent with social consensus (M = 3.19, SD = 1.20). Goals were rated high in personal value (M = 5.55, SD = 0.95), instrumentality (M = 5.05, SD = 1.23), and measurability (M = 6.07, SD = 1.14). Most component score distributions approximated normality, with the exception of Value and Measurability, which were negatively skewed. Measurability exhibited particularly strong skew, with over 50% of goals rated above 6 on a 7-point scale (see distribution in Figure 1). Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) ranged from 0.17 to 0.40, indicating that the majority of variance in these components was attributable to differences between goals within individuals. Descriptive statistics for all goal pursuit measures included in the analysis are presented in Table 2. On average, participants reported low levels of baseline progress (M = 3.41, SD = 2.82) and moderate levels of overall progress at the three-month follow-up (M = 6.30, SD = 3.47). The distribution of baseline progress was positively skewed, suggesting that participants were just beginning to pursue many of their goals at the start of the study. In contrast, overall progress was more evenly distributed, indicating substantial variability in how much progress participants made across different goals over the three-month period. On average across all follow-ups, effort was moderately high (M = 4.52, SD = 1.66), while action crisis was low (M = 2.44, SD = 0.88), indicating that most goals were pursued with consistent effort and little internal conflict. Intraclass correlation coefficients (ICCs) for all measures ranged from .16 to .25, indicating that the majority of variance in these measures was attributable to differences between goals within individuals. GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 40 Table 1: Descriptive Statistics for Goal Representation Component Note. All component scores are unit-weighted based on exploratory factor analysis. The Consensus and Attainability components each include one item with a negative loading, which was reverse-scored prior to aggregation. Figure 1: Distribution of Goal Representation Component GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 41 Table 2: Descriptive Statistics for Goal Pursuit Measures Figure 2: Distribution of Goal Pursuit Measures Overall Perceived Progress. A multiple linear regression model was conducted to examine goal- level predictors of overall progress. All predictors and the outcome were person-mean centered to isolate within-person variance and capture how relative differences in goal representation predicted differences in perceived progress across an individual’s goals. The final model retained three goal representation components following backward elimination: External Motivation, Attainability, and Instrumentality, with baseline progress as the covariate (R² = .16, 90% CI [0.12, 0.20]; adjusted R² = .15). Goals perceived as more externally motivated (β = 0.38, 95% CI [0.17, 0.59], p < .001) and more GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 42 attainable (β = 0.72, 95% CI [0.47, 0.97], p < .001) were associated with greater overall progress. In contrast, goals rated higher in instrumentality were associated with lower progress (β = –0.47, 95% CI [– 0.69, –0.25], p < .001). These findings suggest that relative differences in perceived attainability, external motivation, and instrumentality account for goal-level variance in reported progress across an individual’s goals. See Table 3 for full model results. Average Effort. A multiple linear regression model was conducted to examine goal-level predictors of the average reported effort across all follow-ups. All predictors and the outcome were person-mean centered. The final model retained four goal representation components following backward elimination: Value, External Motivation, Measurability, and Instrumentality, with baseline progress as a covariate (R² = .16, 90% CI [0.11, 0.20]; adjusted R² = .15). Greater effort was associated with higher perceived goal value (β = 0.46, 95% CI [0.31, 0.60], p < .001), external motivation (β = 0.15, 95% CI [0.04, 0.25], p = .006), and measurability (β = 0.15, 95% CI [0.05, 0.25], p = .003). In contrast, higher instrumentality was associated with lower effort (β = –0.25, 95% CI [–0.35, –0.14], p < .001). These findings suggest that relative differences in perceived value, external motivation, perceived measurability and instrumentality of goals account for goal-level variance in self-reported effort across three months. See Table 4 for full model results. Average Action Crisis. A multiple linear regression model was conducted to examine goal-level predictors of average action crisis scores across all follow-ups. All predictors and the outcome were person-mean centered. The final model retained two goal representation components following backward elimination: Attainability and Instrumentality, with baseline progress as a covariate (R² = .12, 90% CI [0.08, 0.16]; adjusted R² = .11). Higher perceived attainability was associated with lower action crisis (β = –0.22, 95% CI [–0.29, –0.16], p < .001), while higher instrumentality was associated with greater action crisis (β = 0.07, 95% CI [0.02, 0.13], p = .009). These findings suggest that relative differences in perceived attainability and instrumentality account for goal-level variance in the internal GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 43 conflict individuals experience when deciding whether to disengage from or continue pursuing their goals. See Table 5 for full model results. Table 3: Comparison of Full and Final Linear Models Predicting Overall Perceived Progress Full Model Final Model ꞵ CI ꞵ CI Predictor Intercept 0.01 [-0.16, 0.18] 0.01 [-0.16, 0.19] Value 0.31 [0.00, 0.61] External Motive 0.33** [0.10, 0.56] 0.38*** [0.17, 0.59] Attainability 0.69*** [0.44, 0.95] 0.72*** [0.47, 0.97] Consensus -0.04 [-0.25, 0.17] Measurability 0.18 [-0.03, 0.39] Instrumentality -0.53*** [-0.76, -0.30] -0.47*** [-0.69, -0.25] Baseline Progress 0.31*** [0.22, 0.40] 0.32*** [0.23, 0.41] Model Fit R2 0.17 [0.12, 0.20] 0.16 [0.12, 0.20] R2 adjusted 0.16 0.15 Observations 704 704 Note. All predictors were person-mean centered prior to analysis. Goal progress refers to the person- mean centered progress reported at the three-month follow-up. The full model includes all six goal representation components. The final model retains only predictors that significantly contributed to predicting goal progress based on backward elimination. * p < .05, ** p < .005, *** p < .001. GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 44 Table 4: Comparison of Full and Final Linear Models Predicting Average Effort Full Model Final Model ꞵ CI ꞵ CI Predictor Intercept 0.01 [-0.08, 0.09] 0.00 [-0.08, 0.09] Value 0.46*** [0.32, 0.61] 0.46*** [0.31, 0.60] External Motive 0.15* [0.04, 0.26] 0.15* [0.04, 0.25] Attainability 0.12* [0.00, 0.24] Consensus 0.03 [-0.07, 0.13] Measurability 0.14* [0.03, 0.24] 0.15** [0.05, 0.25] Instrumentality -0.26*** [-0.37, -0.15] -0.25*** [-0.35, -0.14] Baseline Progress 0.14*** [0.10, 0.19] 0.16*** [0.12, 0.20] Model Fit R2 0.16 [0.12, 0.20] 0.16 [0.11, 0.20] R2 adjusted 0.16 0.15 Observations 704 704 Note. All predictors were person-mean centered prior to analysis. Average effort refers to the mean of reported effort across all follow-up assessments. The full model includes all six goal representation components. The final model retains only predictors that significantly contributed to predicting goal progress based on backward elimination. * p < .05, ** p < .005, *** p < .001. GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 45 Table 5: Comparison of Full and Final Linear Models Predicting Average Action Crisis Full Model Final Model ꞵ CI ꞵ CI Predictor Intercept 0.00 [-0.05, 0.04] 0.00 [-0.05, 0.04] Value -0.04 [-0.12, 0.05] External Motive -0.03 [-0.09, 0.04] Attainability -0.22*** [-0.29, -0.15] -0.22*** [-0.29, -0.16] Consensus 0.03 [-0.03, 0.08] Measurability -0.02 [-0.08, 0.04] Instrumentality 0.08* [0.01, 0.14] 0.07* [0.02, 0.13] Baseline Progress -0.06*** [-0.08, -0.03] -0.06*** [-0.08, -0.04] Model Fit R2 0.12 [0.08, 0.15] 0.12 [0.08, 0.16] R2 adjusted 0.11 0.11 Observations 704 704 Note. All predictors were person-mean centered prior to analysis. Average action crisis refers to the mean of reported action crisis across all follow-up assessments. The full model includes all six goal representation components. The final model retains only predictors that significantly contributed to predicting goal progress based on backward elimination. * p < .05, ** p < .005, *** p < .001. GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 46 Configural Invariance of Goal Representation Components Across Three Month To assess whether the structure of goal representation remained stable over time, exploratory factor analyses were conducted separately at baseline and at the three-month follow-up using the minimum residual extraction method with oblique rotation. In both timepoints, a six-factor solution was extracted, and the resulting factor structures showed a similar pattern of item loadings. Across baseline and follow-up, the six components, namely value, external motivation, attainability, measurability, instrumentality, and consensus, were defined by similar sets of items, indicating that each component captured a comparable construct over time. The primary loadings for most items were consistent across time points. Five of the 26 items did not load onto the same components at both assessments. These items were external importance, conflict, visibility, clarity, and perceived control. However, these inconsistencies did not substantially alter the conceptual meaning of the components. Among the items that loaded onto the same components across time, the average squared difference in standardized loadings was 0.008, with none exceeding 0.05. These findings suggest that the factor structure remained relatively stable at the item level over time. See Table 6 for a comparison of primary component loadings at baseline and follow-up, including congruence indicators and differences in standardized loadings for each item. GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 47 Figure 3: Exploratory Factor Analysis Results of Goal Representation at Baseline Figure 4: Exploratory Factor Analysis Results of Goal Representation at the Three-Month Follow-up GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 48 Table 6: Exploratory Factor Analysis Results Assessing Configural Invariance Note. 'PC' represents Primary Component; 'PL' represents Primary Loadings; 'Congruence' represents whether the item loaded onto the same primary component at both baseline and three-month follow- up; 'PL Difference' refers to the squared difference between the standardized primary loadings at the two time points. Temporal Changes in Goal Representation Components. A linear mixed-effects model was conducted to examine whether the six goal representation components differed in their degree of change from baseline to the three-month follow-up. The model included time (0 = baseline, 1 = follow-up), component (six-level factor), their interaction, and overall GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 49 goal progress as a covariate. All predictors were entered as fixed effects, and a random intercept was included for participants. The time × component interaction was significant, indicating that the extent of change between timepoints differed across components (conditional R² = .64). See Figure 2 and Table S1.2 in supplement for the full model. Post-hoc pairwise comparisons revealed that only the attainability component significantly increased from baseline to follow-up (ΔM = 0.41, 95% CI [0.28, 0.54], z = 6.17, p < .001). Changes in the measurability component did not remain significant after adjusting for multiple comparisons (ΔM = – 0.16, 95% CI [–0.29, 0.04], z = –2.50, p = .053), and no significant differences were observed for the other components (ps > .05). These results suggest that perceived attainability shifted over the course of three months of goal pursuit, even after controlling for overall perceived progress, whereas the other components remained relatively stable (see Table 7 for post-hoc contrasts). To examine whether changes in perceived attainability varied by goal type, a linear mixed- effects model was conducted with time (baseline vs. three-month follow-up), goal type (short-term, long-term, and recurring), their interaction, and overall progress as a covariate. There was no significant interaction between goal type and time (ps > .05), indicating that the pattern of change in attainability did not differ significantly across goal types. Attainability increased from baseline to follow-up for short- term goals (ΔM = 0.26, SE = 0.13, p = .045), long-term goals (ΔM = 0.49, SE = 0.12, p < .001), and recurring goals (ΔM = 0.43, SE = 0.09, p < .001). These findings suggest that, regardless of goal type or level of overall progress, individuals tended to perceive their goals as more attainable after three months of goal pursuit (see Table 8 for full model and Table 9 for post-hoc contrasts). GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 50 Figure 5: Predicted goal representation component scores at baseline and three-month follow-up Notes: Predicted component scores are adjusted for overall goal progress and reflect within-person changes over time. Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals around predicted marginal means. Table 7: Post-hoc Pairwise Contrasts of Goal Representation Components from Baseline to Three-Month Follow-Up Notes: ΔM = mean difference; CI = 95% confidence interval; z = z-statistic from the linear mixed-effects model. p-values were adjusted for multiple comparisons using Tukey’s method. GOAL REPRESENTATION AND REFLECTION 51 Table 8: Multilevel Model Predicting Perceived Attainability from the Interaction between Goal Type and Time