My amazing paying subscribers, for your Sunday newsletter this week we have a bit of a Q&A and a bit of a story based on an interview I did with Dr. Matthew Schweickle, who is a sports psychology researcher at the University of Wollongong.
I also have two quick things first:
Book Club: We’re going to read ‘Out of Thin Air’—about Ethiopian runners and running culture. It was a finalist for Sports Book of the Year last year and won the Margaret Mead award. The author, who is also an anthropologist and researcher on Ethiopian running culture, is going to talk to us for a Book Club Q&A in mid-January. So get reading over the holidays!
Chats with Kelly: You can also still book a short 15-minute chat through the end of the month. (I did cap the total number, so the system will shut it down at some point soon, but you can still get in there.) I’ve had some lovely talks with subscribers so far on a range of topics.
—
Now, this week’s Q&A is a bit Q&A and a bit reported research. I had originally reached out to Dr. Schweickle because I read this review on effective goal-setting in sports—which primarily suggests that studies have repeatedly found performance and process goals are the most useful. But one thing jumped out to me in the study (see if you can spot it) and as I talked with him.
This is from the conclusion section of the review:
Process goals appear to be the most effective for enhancing performance and improving certain psychological outcomes (e.g. self-efficacy).
Self-referenced goals (e.g. process, performance, and mastery) often lead to positive outcomes, whereas goals based on normative comparisons do not improve performance and result in some maladaptive psychological outcomes.
Non-specific goals appear to be just as effective as specific goals for improving sport performance.
Studies guided by self-regulation theory produced the greatest performance enhancements, although the novice participants sampled and poor implementation may explain these findings.
HINT: Non-specific goals appear to be just as effective as specific goals.
I emailed back and forth with Schweickle for a story I was working on about season planning and goal-setting for the USATri Magazine (coming in January). But a lot of what we started to get into didn’t ultimately make it into the story—yet, I found it fascinating. So I thought you might find it as fascinating and useful.
For background: I’ve written a lot of these stories over the years and the general guiding framework I’ve always been told is that goals must be “SMART” — ie. Specific, Measurable, Attainable, Relevant, and Time-Constrained. When talking about New Year’s resolutions this tends to manifest in the idea that you can’t just “want to get healthier,” you have to set specific goals with measurable outcomes and they can’t be too out of reach or you’ll give up and they can’t be too open-ended without a deadline or you won’t do it.
He basically said nope, that’s not right, the commonly used acronym is not based in research. Whoa.
Here’s some of the Q&A with Dr. Schweickle.
What kind of goals are most effective? Why? What's an example of an effective goal for an athlete?
The most effective types of goals – for both performance and psychological outcomes – are process goals and performance goals. Evidence from a range of studies suggests that process goals are most beneficial for increasing performance and self-efficacy (i.e., confidence). The reason behind this may be due to process goals largely being within the athletes’ control, and hence increasing athletes’ confidence in achieving these goals.
Examples of process goal for a runner may be running within a specific heart rate zone, trying to run to a specific cadence, or focusing on a specific technique cue. Performance goals are also beneficial for performance and can help mobilize effort and reduce anxiety. An example of a performance goal for a runner may be setting a specific time they are aiming to achieve for a race.
What is the difference between process goals, performance goals, and outcome goals?
Process goals center on the execution of behaviors, skills, and strategies (e.g., technique, form, thought processes) that are integral to executing the task. These are generally within the athletes’ control.
Performance goals usually specify an end-product of performance (e.g., achieving a specific race time), and are typically self-referenced and achievable by the athlete independent of others. These are typically mostly within the athletes’ control.
Outcome goals refer to the outcome of a specified event and involve interpersonal comparison of some kind (e.g., winning a race). These are largely outside of the athletes’ control.
How can an athlete create useful goals or use goal-setting most effectively at the beginning of a season?
Athletes may consider setting both long-term (e.g., season goals) and short-term (e.g., weekly or for individual training sessions) goals. Setting both short-term and long-term goals has been shown to have positive effects on performance, rather than only setting long-term goals. Given the above information, athletes may consider setting both process and performance goals (i.e., goals in which the athlete has a sense of control over achieving), which may range in specificity depending on the type of goal. It is also important that athletes’ receive feedback on their progress with regard to achieving their goal.
Does the whole SMART acronym (specific, measurable, attainable, relevant, time-bound) work?
The SMART acronym is not based on a specific theory and is often used inconsistently. There is little evidence from the field of sport for the use of the whole acronym. Indeed, goal-setting theory proposes that goals should be specific and difficult, which means they may not always be attainable. A review of the literature found that there were no differences in performance between those who were set specific goals, and those who were set non-specific goals (e.g., “see how well I can do” or “do the best I can”) – both specific and non-specific goals can be effective. As such, there is little compelling evidence for the use of the SMART acronym.
I didn’t realize there wasn’t literature behind the concept of SMART goals. Why do you think it doesn't matter if a goal is specific or not? (ie. It feels like 'I want to do my best' is vague and wouldn't be useful, but it sounds like it actually can be useful if it's focused on the process, right?)
Regarding the distinction between specific and non-specific, there may be a few potential reasons.
Non-specific goals can often align quite well with more process-based goals (and as discussed above, these can have a lot of positive effects).
Non-specific goals have been linked with experiencing flow states. A lot of work by Christian Swann has shown that when athletes are experiencing flow they are often pursuing open goals (e.g., “see how well I can do”) rather than specific goals. Specific goals were more associated with clutch states (i.e., more pressurized, effortful performances). Both of these states are “optimal” (both psychologically and performance wise), but constitute a different subjective experience and outcomes.
The reason these more open-ended goals may have positive effects it that they may more naturally create an “optimal level of challenge” – in that they don’t pre-specify a level of difficulty that may be either too difficult (which can be demotivating) or too easy (i.e., there is room to see how well you can do).
For some, non-specific goals can remove the prospect of failure – which can reduce anxiety/pressure (which can sometimes be a negative for performance).
The above is not to say that specific goals aren’t useful or beneficial – because there is good evidence they are, but moreso to indicate that both specific and non-specific goals are viable options, depending on the context, the individual, the task, and what they are trying to get from the situation.
To clarify: There is good evidence for the “specific” part of SMART, less so for the rest of the heuristic.
READ: More on some of the issues with the SMART acronym — namely the research and historical analysis suggests that it is not generally applied correctly or consistently from its original intent & that it does not necessarily pertain to physical goals. Goals can be, but need not be, specific. Goals should be challenging, not necessarily “achievable.” And “measurable” may be totally pointless.
LISTEN: If you want to hear more about clutch states, which is Schweickle’s particular expertise, here is a podcast he did on the psychology of clutch performances.
—
In short: There are times where going into a race simply wanting to do the best you can, focusing on specific cues or targets (like your running form or breathing or staying relaxed), can result in a better outcome than being all triathlete about it. And there are times when being all triathlete—and planning out all your specific sessions and targets and giving yourself slightly out-of-reach numbers to hit—can be good too. But don’t aim too low.
Who knew.