Post on 17-Aug-2020
1
IT’S THE JOURNEY THAT MATTERS:
THE EFFECT OF FEELINGS OF MOVEMENT TOWARD A GOAL ON REWARD VALUE
Jongmin Kim
Nathan Novemsky
Ravi Dhar
Yale University
WORKING PAPER PLEASE DO NOT CITE OR CIRCULATE
2
ABSTRACT
While much prior research has examined goal pursuit, including the effect of the distance
from the start or end of the goal, and the effort exerted to reach the goal, the present research
focuses on a novel aspect of goal pursuit: feelings arising from movement towards the goal.
Seven studies show that people value a reward linked to goal achievement more when they
experience a greater sense of movement during goal pursuit. We explain our results in terms of
positive emotions evoked from this sense of movement. This positive feeling is misattributed to
the reward that is linked to goal completion, increasing both liking and consumption of the
reward.
3
The pursuit of many goals requires engaging in a series of actions that are linked to an
extrinsic reward. Customers make a series of purchases to earn reward points, dieters reduce
their intake of calories for months in order to fit into the perfect dress, and visitors to an
amusement park endure hours-long waiting lines to enjoy rides. While recent goal research has
focused on how motivation changes depending on how far individuals are from achieving their
goals (e.g. Kivetz et al 2006, Huang and Zhang 2011), relatively little is known about how the
value of the reward itself depends on goal pursuit.
This paper aims to fill this gap by examining how the subjective experience of moving
toward a goal influences reward evaluation. Our main proposition is that the reward associated
with goal achievement (hereafter, goal reward) is valued higher when people experienced a
greater feeling of movement toward a goal (i.e. feeling of progress). To illustrate, consider a
consumer who accumulates frequent flyer miles and redeems the miles for a free ticket. In one
case, whenever the consumer accumulates miles she receives a notification about her progress,
and in the other case, she does not receive the notification. We predict that the consumer will
value the free ticket more when she receives the notifications and can more easily monitor her
movement toward the reward. We posit that making progress salient results in an increased
feeling of movement, which then enhances the value of the goal reward.
We examine the processes underlying this effect. We suggest that feelings of movement
evoke positive emotions and that these positive emotions are misattributed to the goal reward.
We also find that once people are aware that their feelings are arising from the movement, they
no longer misattribute their positive emotions to the reward.
The present research extends the existing literature on goal pursuit in two important ways.
First, we introduce a novel theoretical construct that is distinct both from position along the goal
4
path (i.e. distance from the start or end of the goal path), and effort expended, and is based on the
dynamic aspects of goal pursuit. Second, in contrast to previous literature that has focused
primarily on motivation in goal pursuit, we examine valuation of a goal reward.
THEORETICAL BACKGROUND
Pursuing a goal requires a series of actions leading up to an end point, and examining
how consumers are motivated or demotivated in their goal pursuit has been a major focus of
previous research. For instance, people are more motivated to pursue goals when they feel closer
to the endpoint (e.g. Hull 1983); consumers who receive a loyalty card with pre-existing bonus
stamps completed the required purchases faster than consumers who received a regular loyalty
card with no bonus stamps even when both groups had to purchase the same amount (Kivetz et al
2006). Fishbach and Dhar (2005) show that progress in one goal can lead to disengagement from
that goal especially when people hold multiple goals. While most research on goal pursuit has
focused on motivation, the value of the rewards linked to goal achievement can also be
influenced by goal pursuit. The present research investigates whether the value of a goal reward
can change as a function of feelings of moving toward the goal.
Although the construct of feelings of movement is new to the literature, some related
research suggests that reward valuation can be affected by other factors. Research on effort
justification has shown that people attribute a greater value to the outcome of goal pursuit when
they have invested lots of effort to acquire that outcome (e.g. Aronson 1997). Recent research
has also found that consumers value the reward higher when they perceive they are far from a
starting point because the distance they have come signals effort they exerted to achieve the goal
5
(Koo and Fishbach 2010a).
Feelings of Movement Toward a Goal
During goal pursuit, consumers generally move from one point to another along the path
to goal completion. We propose that the change in location on a goal path gives rise to feelings
of movement. A large body of research has explored the impact of one’s position along the goal
path. This is a static concept that reflects one’s past achievement as well as remaining obstacles
to achieving the goal (e.g. beginning vs. advanced stage; Huang and Zhang 2010). Specifically,
most research on goal pursuit has investigated how people are influenced by their position along
their path to the goal (e.g. Hull 1932; Huang and Zhang 2010; Koo and Fishbach 2010a; Bonezzi
et al. 2011;Touré-Tillery and Fishbach 2012). For instance, Bonezzi et al. (2011) find that people
are more motivated to pursue the goal when they are either far from or close to the starting point
rather than in the middle. Huang and Zhang (2010) argue that near the starting point people
concern about goal attainability, but near the end point they begin to consider how soon they will
reach the goal.
In a departure from previous research, we formulate goal pursuit as a dynamic rather
than a static process. Controlling for the location along the goal path, we explore the impact of
subjective perceptions of making progress toward the goal. This subjective feeling of movement
can be influenced by how people are getting to a goal. We manipulated whether people feel they
moved through the entire goal path or just part of it, whether people received progress markers
which make movement more salient, how fast people moved toward their goal, and whether
there was movement away from the goal. Each of our manipulations are designed to influence
perceptions of movement while holding constant other aspects of goal pursuit.
6
Prior research suggests that people are more sensitive to relative rather than absolute
differences in quantity (e.g. Stevens 1957). Building on this, we predict that consumers who
traverse a greater portion of the goal path should experience a greater feeling of movement than
those who traverse a smaller portion even if both cover the same absolute distance. For instance,
endowing individuals with artificial progress leaves a smaller portion to traverse while holding
the absolute travel distance constant (e.g. Kivetz et al. 2006; completing a 10-stamp card vs. a
12-stamp card with 2 pre-existing bonus stamps). We use the endowed progress manipulation to
reduce feelings of movement by making people think that they have traversed a smaller
proportion of the goal path during their goal pursuit.
People often engage in tasks without paying much attention to how much they have
moved toward a goal, and providing progress markers in such situations can make movement
easier to judge and more salient (Amir and Ariely 2008). Therefore, we use progress markers to
increase feelings of movement during goal pursuit. Similarly, the speed at which a goal is
approached should influence feelings of movement. Approaching a goal quickly, even with little
effort, should enhance feelings of movement.
The manner in which people move toward a goal can impact feelings of movement, and
this movement gives rise to affect that can have important consequences for the value of a
reward linked to goal attainment. Research on emotion regulation and learning theories suggests
that a mere sense of movement can evoke positive emotional responses. Approaching is strongly
tied to positivity because approaching positive objects and avoiding negative objects is a
fundamental human behavior (e.g. Higgins 1997). Moving toward a goal is one form of
approaching a desirable outcome. Therefore, when people feel a sense of movement toward a
7
goal, they may experience positive emotions. Indeed, individuals who have a high level of
“locomotion” tendency, which concerns the propensity to move from state to state, have more
positive affect (Kruglanski et al. 2000, see also Labroo and Nielsen 2010). Lawrence, Carver and
Scheier (2002, Hsee and Abelson 1991) manipulate the rate of progress and find that moving a
longer distance versus a shorter distance (e.g. from 12th position to 3rd position vs. from 8th
position to 3rd position) within the same amount of time evokes greater positive emotions. While
the manipulations in prior work are often confounded with amount of movement (e.g. faster
movement involved more movement), we posit that a greater subjective feeling of movement
itself can evoke more pleasure even if the actual movement is held constant.
According to research on feelings-as-information (Schwarz and Clore 1983), people often
rely on their current feelings when making judgments. However, they do not always have
accurate information about the source of their feelings, so they may attribute their feelings to the
wrong sources. For instance, Dutton and Aron (1974) find that physical arousal from anxiety can
enhance the perceived attractiveness of women to men. Schwarz and Clore (1983) demonstrate
that incidental positive mood increases people’s evaluation of their life satisfaction. Likewise,
positive affect arising from a sense of movement toward a goal may not be attributed to that
movement, but rather to a more salient source - the reward people receive for goal attainment,
thereby altering the perceived value of that reward.
To summarize, we propose that perceived movement can impact the desirability of a
reward linked to goal attainment independent of the level of effort and position in goal pursuit.
Consumers who experience a greater sense of movement during goal pursuit feel more pleasure
arising from this perceived movement, and misattribute the pleasure to the goal-related reward,
resulting in a higher evaluation of that reward.
8
We test our proposed process and effect across seven studies. Study 1 manipulates
feelings of movement by endowing artificial progress (Kivetz, Urminsky, and Zheng 2006) and
reveals that endowed progress decreases the feeling of movement and attenuates the
attractiveness of a goal reward while keeping the absolute distance traversed fixed. Study 2
manipulates the feeling of movement by providing progress markers and shows that receiving
progress markers leads to a greater sense of movement and thus higher valuation of a reward.
Study 3 shows that experiencing fast (vs. slow) movement increases the value of a reward, even
when it requires less effort and study 4 shows that moving away from the goal reduces reward
evaluation. Study 5 provides supports for our proposed process, identifying the misattribution of
current affect as an underlying mechanism. Study 6 further tests our feelings-as-information
process by showing that a sense of movement only influences evaluations of a goal-related object
but not a goal-unrelated object. Lastly, study 7 shows that endowed progress can have opposite
effects on valuation and motivation, consistent with our theorizing.
Study 1: The Effect of Endowed Progress on Reward Valuation
In our first study, we attempt to manipulate the feeling of movement while holding
constant position along the goal path and effort people put into achieving the goal. We control
for the objective effort exerted by having people complete identical tasks during goal pursuit. We
control for position by having people finish the task and rate the attractiveness of a goal reward
right after goal completion.
We vary the feelings of movement by endowing half of participants with artificial
advancement. Kivetz et al. (2006) found that people who are endowed with artificial progress
9
(e.g. given a loyalty card that already indicates progress toward a purchase goal) feel closer to
the end of a goal and perceive the distance to the goal to be shorter. Based on this finding, we
argue that endowed progress reduces feelings of movement by shortening the perceived distance
people traverse during goal pursuit. Those with endowed progress feel that they are only moving
through part of the goal path whereas people without endowed progress feel that they are moving
through the entire goal path. Therefore, people with endowed progress will feel less movement
and value the goal reward less than those without endowed progress.
Method
Ninety-five university students were recruited around campus to participate in this study.
Participants were asked to find differences between two very similar pictures and told that if they
completed the task, they would receive a chocolate. One participant was excluded from the
analysis because the participant failed to find all the differences and did not receive the chocolate.
Participants were randomly assigned to one of two conditions. Half of the participants were told
that there were a total of 5 differences in the pictures, but two of them were already marked in
the pictures (the endowed condition). The other half were told that there were a total of 3
differences in the pictures (the unendowed condition). For this condition, the two differences that
were circled in the endowed condition were actually edited out making the task identical across
conditions. To summarize, participants in both conditions were asked to search for the same 3
differences between the pictures, but those in the endowed condition thought that the 3
differences were part of a larger task of finding 5 differences that was already partially
completed. After completing the task, participants were given a chocolate and rated how happy
they were with the reward on a 9-point scale (1: not at all – 9: very). They also indicated the
10
extent to which they perceived a sense of movement and how much effort they put into
completing the task on 9-point scales (1: not at all – 9: very much).
We measured our dependent variables after participants finished the task for several
reasons. First, we wanted to control for position in goal pursuit at the moment of evaluation. In
the middle of goal pursuit, equating the absolute amount of effort exerted (i.e. the number of
differences found) necessarily varies the percentage of the goal completed. After finding one
difference, for example, people in the endowed condition are 60% of the way to completing the
goal, but people in the unendowed condition are 30% of the way to the goal completion. The end
point is the only point where both the degree of goal completion and exerted effort are matched
in the two conditions. Second, measuring variables at the end allows us to test whether
differences in feelings of movement arising from goal pursuit are overwhelmed by goal
attainment or other factors when the goal is accomplished. A goal and its means are deactivated
once the goal is achieved (e.g. Förster et al. 2005), and feelings of movement might also be
deactivated as soon as the goal is achieved. Third, by measuring attractiveness of a reward at the
end, we can test whether feelings of movement impact valuation when consumers actually
receive and potentially consume the reward, a time when the evaluation can influence a variety
of behaviors.
Results and Discussion
As predicted, participants in the unendowed condition were happier with the chocolate
than participants in the endowed condition (Munendowed = 5.65 vs. Mendowed = 4.80, t(92) = 2.03, p
< .05). In addition, those in the unendowed condition perceived a greater feeling of movement
(Munendowed = 6.92 vs. Mendowed = 5.91, t(92) = 2.29, p < .05) than those in the endowed condition.
11
However, there was no differences in ratings of perceived effort between the two conditions
(Munendowed = 4.34 vs. Mendowed = 4.83, t(87) = 1.10, ns). Further, perceived movement mediated
the effect of endowed progress on reward evaluation whether we control for effort (95%
bootstrap CI = .348 to .013; Preacher and Hayes 2004), or not (95% bootstrap CI = .381 to .040).
The results of study 1 show that people who are endowed with progress at the beginning
of goal pursuit perceive less movement than those who are not. Even if all individuals exert the
same amount of effort and take identical steps toward a goal, the differential sense of movement
changes their valuation of the outcome. The finding is unlikely to be caused by an effort
justification account as participants perceive slightly more effort in the endowed condition.
In study 1, participants provided their evaluations of the reward before consuming that
reward. According to prior research, situational factors may be less influential in the presence of
direct experience (e.g. Morewedge et al. 2010). Thus, it is possible that the influence of feelings
of movement may be attenuated with real consumption of the goal reward. To examine this
possibility, we ran another study to test whether endowed progress influences actual
consumption behavior. Upon arrival in the lab, participants were told that they would receive a
cup of juice as a reward if they completed a word search puzzle. Those in the endowed condition
were told that there were 8 words embedded in the grid, but that 2 were already marked for them.
For those in the unendowed condition, the two words that were marked in the endowed condition
were removed leaving 6 words in the grid. After all participants finished the task by finding 6
words, they were given a cup containing 80g of juice as a reward and were told that they could
consume as much or as little of the drink as they wanted. After each session, the experimenter
measured the amount consumed by each participant. Consistent with Study 1’s results,
participants in the unendowed condition consumed significantly more juice than participants in
12
the endowed condition (Munendowed = 57g vs. Mendowed = 44g, t(57) = 2.19, p < .05), suggesting our
effect on liking of the reward persists during actual consumption of that reward.
Study 2: The Effect of Progress Markers on Reward Valuation
In study 1, we showed that endowed progress can influence the value of a reward but we
did not control for the total length of the path from the goal starting point to the end point. In
study 2, we test whether feelings of movement can vary when we control both the relative and
absolute amount of movement. Specifically, we hold the size of the total goal path constant and
manipulate feelings of movement by providing progress markers during goal pursuit. Progress
markers can remind people of their progress and make sensations of moving toward a goal more
salient. Therefore, receiving progress markers during goal pursuit should increase the feeling of
movement and reward value.
Method
One hundred and thirty seven university students either were recruited around campus or
participated in a survey session for monetary compensation. Participants were seated in front of a
computer and performed the picture task where they were asked to find 5 differences between
similar pictures. Participants were informed that they would get one dollar if they finished the
task. We used one dollar for a prize in this study as money is a popular form of a reward. By
using money, we can also examine whether feelings of movement influence evaluation of a
reward that has a relatively well-known value. Participants were randomly assigned to one of
two conditions: progress marker vs. no-progress marker. Whenever participants clicked on an
13
actual difference, a circle appeared on the spot. In the progress marker condition, an arrow bar
appeared above the pictures and grew whenever participants clicked on a difference. If they
found all the differences, for example, 5 arrows appeared on the screen. In the no-progress
marker condition, no arrows appeared on the screen. After participants found all the differences,
they were given a dollar and rated how happy they were with the prize on a 9-point scale (1: not
at all – 9: very). They also indicated their feeling of movement toward the goal and perceived
effort on 9-point scales (1: not at all – 9: very (much)). We included an attention check to detect
those who were likely to complete the survey without paying attention to it (Oppenheimer,
Meyvis, and Davidenko 2009). Thirty-five people (26%) failed to pass the attention check and
were removed from further analysis. Similar or even higher rates of failure have been reported in
similar data collection contexts (Oppenheimer, Meyvis, and Davidenko 2009).
Results and Discussion
As predicted, receiving progress markers significantly changed the value of the reward.
Participants in the progress marker condition were happier with the reward (Mprogress marker = 7.64)
than those in the no-progress marker condition (vs. Mno-progress marker = 6.96, t(100) = 2.21, p < .05).
Further, participants who were given progress markers reported a higher feeling of movement
(Mprogress marker = 6.89 vs. Mno-progress marker = 6.20, t(100) = 2.34, p < .05). There was no difference
in perceived effort between the two conditions (Mprogress marker = 5.77 vs. Mno-progress marker = 5.16
t(99) = 1.58, ns). A mediation analysis shows that the effect of progress markers on value of the
reward was mediated by feelings of movement whether we control for effort (95% bootstrap CI
= .040 to .586; Preacher and Hayes 2004), or not (95% bootstrap CI = .061 to .657).
The results support our notion that receiving progress markers promotes a greater feeling
14
of movement, and this in turn leads to a higher evaluation of a reward linked to goal attainment.
Merely making movement salient with concrete visual markers is sufficient to boost feelings of
movement and the value of a reward.
Study 3: The Effect of Speed of Movement on Reward Valuation
While manipulations in studies 1 and 2 did not reliably influence perceived effort, we
wanted to directly counter the effort justification account by examining whether greater feelings
of movement enhance the value of a reward even when accompanied by substantially less effort.
We predict that a higher rate of progress will lead to a greater feeling of movement and greater
positive emotions, and thus result in a higher evaluation of the reward even when this faster
movement is associated with less effort.
Method
Seventy university students participated in a survey session for monetary compensation.
One participant was excluded from further analysis because the participant did not follow the
procedure as instructed. All participants were asked to solve 5 moderately difficult math
problems (e.g. 237 × 13) and were informed that they would receive a fruit snack as a reward if
they solved all the problems correctly. Participants in the fast condition were given a calculator
and instructed to solve the problems using the calculator. Participants in the slow condition were
instructed to calculate the answers manually. Upon finishing the task, participants were given a
fruit snack and indicated their expected enjoyment of this reward on a 9-point scale (1: not at all
– 9: very much). After rating the expected enjoyment of the fruit snack, participants indicated
15
how much they enjoyed moving toward the goal, and perceived effort on 9-point scales (1: not at
all – 9: very much).
Results and Discussion
As expected, participants who used calculators perceived less effort (Mfast = 2.91 vs.
Mslow = 4.94, t(67) = 4.37, p < .01) than participants who did not use calculators. Consistent with
our predictions, participants in the fast condition expected to enjoy the fruit snack more (Mfast =
6.51 vs. Mslow = 5.18, t(67) = 2.44, p < .05) and enjoyed movement more (Mfast = 6.49 vs. Mslow =
5.29, t(67) = 1.99, p = .0507) than those in the slow condition.
Those who completed the task with much less effort actually valued the reward more
because of a faster rate of movement. This suggests that positive feelings from fast movement
entirely countered any effect of effort, suggesting that feelings of movement can have a powerful
influence on reward valuation.
Study 4: The Effect of Movement Direction on Reward Valuation
In studies 1 to 3, we manipulate feelings of movement while people are moving forward.
At some point during goal pursuit, people may move away from the goal which can decrease the
feelings of movement and thus pleasure from pursuing the goal. Indeed, previous literature has
shown that movement away from a goal end point decreases perceptions of progress (Soman and
Shi 2003). In study 4, we manipulate the direction of movement and posit that even symbolically
moving away from the end state (e.g. undoing earlier steps toward a goal) decreases perceived
movement toward a goal and the value of the reward. This study will provide further evidence
16
against the effort justification account because our backward movement manipulation increases
effort while decreasing perceived movement toward the goal. To further test the robustness of
movement effects, this study also examines liking of a reward following consumption to test
whether the effect is strong enough to emerge in the presence of sensory information about the
reward.
Method
One hundred and one university students participated in a survey session for monetary
compensation. Two participants were excluded from the analysis since they did not follow the
procedure as instructed. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions
(backward vs. movement vs. delay conditions). All participants were asked to find 8 words
embedded in a word search puzzle and told they would receive juice if they completed the task.
After participants finished finding the words, the experimenters checked their answers. Then,
participants in the backward condition were asked to erase their answers. Those in the movement
condition did not receive such instructions. One might argue that participants may value the juice
less in the backward condition because erasing their answers causes a delay and therefore a
decrease in feelings of movement. To address this account, we ran a third condition: the delay
condition. Similar to the other two conditions, participants in the delay condition finished the
word search puzzle and had their answers checked by experimenters. Before receiving the juice,
participants in the delay condition completed another survey which took about 1 minute
(approximately 1 minute was required for erasing answers).
Participants in all conditions then received juice as a prize and consumed it. Participants
rated how much they liked the juice on a 9-point scale (1: not at all – 9: very much) after
17
consuming it.
Results and Discussion
As predicted, participants in the backward condition liked the juice less than those in the
movement condition (Mmovement = 6.89 vs. Mbackward = 5.97, F(1, 96) = 4.70, p < .05, Figure 1). Liking
of juice in the delay condition was higher than the backward condition (Mdelay = 6.86 vs. Mbackward
= 5.97, F(1, 96) = 3.83, p = .053) but similar to the movement condition (Mdelay = 6.86 vs. Mmovement
= 6.89, F(1, 96) < 1, ns). Therefore, the delay is unlikely to be driving the effect of the backward
manipulation.
Participants who moved away from a goal end state evaluated the reward as less
appealing than participants who did not. It is noteworthy that participants who moved away from
the end state actually exerted more effort, making this result inconsistent with an effort
justification account.
Study 5: Misattribution of Pleasure from Goal Movement
We have demonstrated that a greater sense of movement during goal pursuit increases
evaluation of a reward linked to goal attainment. We propose that this effect occurs because
people acquire pleasure from a sense of moving forward, and misattribute this pleasure to the
reward. According to previous research (e.g. Schwarz and Clore 1983), people can misattribute
their feelings to objects other than the true source, but when they are made aware of the true
source of their feelings, they are less prone to this error. In one study (Schwarz and Clore 1983),
incidental mood influenced judgments of life satisfaction, but not when participants attributed
18
their feelings to the true source (e.g. weather). Similarly, people judge the likelihood of desirable
and undesirable events to be higher when they have a stake in those events because they
misattribute arousal evoked by their stake to greater likelihood of the events. When their
attention is drawn to the true cause of the arousal, their affective states no longer have an impact
on the likelihood judgment (Vosgerau 2010). We leverage these findings to design a test of our
proposition that the effect of movement is operating through the misattribution of momentary
affect. We expect that evaluation of a goal reward will not be influenced by feelings of
movement if people are aware that movement is causing their feelings.
Method
In study 5, one hundred eight university students participated in a survey session for
monetary compensation. Participants were asked to find 3 differences between similar pictures
and told they would receive a chocolate if they completed the task. Two participants were
excluded from the analysis because they failed to find all the differences and did not receive the
chocolate. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: before vs. task only vs.
task + attribution conditions. Participants in the task only condition completed the task, received
the chocolate as a prize and then rated liking of the chocolate (1: not at all – 9: very much).
Participants in the before condition were informed that they would get a chocolate upon finishing
the picture task, but they rated liking of the chocolate before they engaged in the task. The task +
attribution condition was the same as the task only condition except that one sentence was added
to the instructions. Prior to engaging in the task, participants assigned to this condition were told:
“Based on the experience of our past participants, most people enjoy making progress toward
completing this task”.
19
Results and Discussion
As expected, participants’ valuation of the reward varied by condition (F(2, 103) = 3.23,
p < .05). Participants in the task only condition liked the chocolate more than those in the before
condition, (Mtask only = 7.06 vs. Mbefore = 5.72, F(1, 103) = 5.68, p < .05, Figure 2), replicating our
previous results where a feeling of movement increased the reward value. More interestingly,
participants who were aware of the source of their feelings valued the reward less than those who
were not (Mtask + attribution = 5.95 vs. Mtask only = 7.06, F(1, 103) = 4.00, p < .05), and similarly to
those who had not yet begun the task (Mtask + attribution = 5.95 vs. Mbefore task = 5.72, F(1, 103) < 1,
ns). Comparison between the task + attribution and the before task conditions suggests that our
misattribution manipulation negated the boost in evaluation caused by movement toward the goal.
The results of this study provide evidence that elevated reward evaluation is indeed caused by
misattributed pleasure from movement toward the goal.
Study 6: Goal Related vs. Unrelated Objects
Study 5 shows that people misattribute their positive feelings arising from movement to
the reward linked to goal attainment. Since the positive feelings arise while individuals are
moving toward a goal, they may realize that the feelings are related to goal pursuit. Hence, they
use the feelings when judging goal related objects. However, objects irrelevant to goal pursuit
are unlikely to be perceived as a possible source of feelings experienced during goal pursuit.
Schwarz and Clore (2007) posit that reliance on feelings increases with relevance of feelings to
the task at hand, and Greifeneder et al. (2010) also argue that feelings may not be used in
20
forming a judgment if the feelings are perceived to be irrelevant. For example, people’s feelings
have a stronger influence on preferences when individuals make decisions for themselves than
when they decide for others since their feelings are more relevant to themselves than to others
(Raghunathan and Pham 1999). Based on the feelings-as-information mechanism, we predict that
feelings of movement will affect evaluations of goal relevant objects but not of goal irrelevant
objects.
Method
One hundred sixty nine university students participated in a survey session for monetary
compensation. Nine participants were excluded from further analysis because they did not follow
the procedure as instructed. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions based
on a 2 (endowed vs. unendowed) x 2 (goal related vs. goal unrelated) between-participant design.
All participants were seated at a desk where a chocolate was placed. Participants in the related
condition were informed that they would get the chocolate if they completed a picture task.
Participants in the unrelated conditions were simply asked to complete a picture task and were
not given any information about the chocolate. We manipulated perceived movement by
endowing artificial progress as in study 1. Participants in the unendowed conditions were asked
to find 3 differences between two similar pictures, and participants in the endowed conditions
were informed that there were a total of 5 differences but 2 of them were marked in advance. All
participants rated their expected enjoyment of the chocolate (1: not at all – 9: very much)
immediately after finishing the task and having their answers verified by the experimenter. While
those in the related condition were told that the chocolate was a reward for finishing the picture
task, those in the unrelated condition were told the chocolate was theirs to keep, but as part of an
21
unrelated study.
Results and Discussion
An ANOVA revealed no main effects of endowed progress (F(1, 156) = 1.21, ns) or
relatedness (F(1, 156) = 1.10, ns). However, the analysis showed a significant endowed progress
by relatedness interaction on expected enjoyment (F(1, 156) = 4.53, p < .05, Figure 3). When the
chocolate was related to the task goal, endowed progress reduced expected enjoyment (Munendowed
= 6.62 vs. Mendowed = 5.73, F(1, 156) = 6.15, p < .05). In contrast, endowing progress did not
produce any reliable differences when the chocolate was unrelated to the task (Munendowed = 5.74
vs. Mendowed = 6.03, F(1, 156) < 1). Consistent with our framework, the feeling of movement
influenced the goal related reward but did not affect evaluations of the goal unrelated object.
Study 7: Endowed Progress Effects on Valuation vs. Motivation
While we find that endowed progress detracts from rewards linked to goal attainment,
prior research has consistently demonstrated that endowed progress increases motivation to
complete the goal. That research finds that people exert more effort when they are endowed with
progress because they perceive the goal to be closer (Nunes and Drèze 2006; Kivetz, Urminsky,
and Zheng 2006). According to the goal gradient hypothesis (Hull 1932; Heath, Larrick, and Wu
1999), being near the goal translates into a steeper goal gradient and a greater marginal benefit of
additional action. Therefore, starting closer to the goal increases motivation for goal pursuit.
However, we suggest that starting closer to the goal leaves individuals with less perceived
movement as they go through a smaller proportion of the goal path. Recent research has
22
demonstrated that motivation and valuation can be two distinctive constructs (e.g. Berridge and
Robinson 1995; Litt, Khan and Shiv 2010) and factors that increase motivation may not always
increase valuation. Study 7 is designed to test whether endowed progress indeed produces
opposite results for valuation and motivation within the same paradigm. Specifically, we predict
that endowed progress will increase motivation to pursue a goal while decreasing the value of the
goal reward. Because motivation is most relevant during goal pursuit, in this study, we measure
both motivation and valuation during goal pursuit to examine whether endowed progress can
simultaneously increase motivation to pursue the goal while decreasing valuation of the goal
reward.
Method
Study 7 employed a 2 (endowed vs. unendowed) x 2 (valuation vs. motivation) between-
participant design. One hundred twenty university students were recruited around campus for
participation in this study. Four participants were removed from the analysis because they did
not follow the procedure as instructed. Participants were randomly assigned into one of four
conditions and asked to perform the picture task that was used in study 1. As in study 1, all
participants were told that they would receive a chocolate for completing the task. Participants in
the unendowed condition were informed that there were a total of 3 differences in the pictures.
Participants in the endowed condition were informed that there were a total of 5 differences but 2
of the differences were marked for them. To measure motivation to pursue a goal, there must be
some remaining goal pursuit. Thus, all participants were asked to stop the task before they found
the last difference. Specifically, participants in the unendowed conditions were asked to raise
their hand after they found 2 differences, and those in the endowed condition were asked to raise
23
their hand after they found 4 differences including the two that were already marked. Notably,
participants in the endowed progress condition were at a more advanced position in goal pursuit
(20% vs. 33% left to go) but experienced less movement as a proportion of the goal path (40% vs.
66%). Then, participants either evaluated the chocolate offered as a reward for completing the
task or rated their motivation to complete the task. People in the valuation conditions indicated
the extent to which they expected to enjoy the chocolate on a 9-point scale (1: not at all – 9: very
much). Participants in the motivation conditions indicated how motivated they were to find the
remaining difference (Liberman and Förster 2008) on a 9-point scale (1: not at all – 9: very).
Results and Discussion
Replicating our previous studies, participants value the chocolate higher when they were
not endowed with progress. Within the valuation conditions, participants in the unendowed
condition expected to enjoy the chocolate more (Munendowed = 6.50) than those in the endowed
condition (Mendowed = 5.14, t(54) = 2.46, p < .05, Figure 4). However, participants in the
unendowed condition were less motivated to find the last difference (Munendowed = 4.26 vs.
Mendowed = 5.55, t(58) = 2.10, p < .05).
The results of this study demonstrate that endowed progress yields different effects for
motivation and valuation. Endowed progress increased the motivation to finish the task (e.g.
Kivetz et al. 2006), but decreased the valuation of the goal reward. This result suggests that
endowed progress has different mechanisms for affecting motivation and valuation. Valuation
depends on feelings of movement, while motivation is based on distance left to go.
General Discussion
24
Consumers often pursue goals that offer rewards upon goal completion and the
evaluation of these rewards can be influenced by the circumstances surrounding goal pursuit. We
examine how and when feelings of movement toward a goal can impact valuation of a reward
associated with goal attainment. We find that feelings of movement toward a goal induce
pleasure, and consumers may misattribute this pleasure to the reward they receive. Consequently,
greater feelings of movement can result in greater valuation of the reward.
We manipulated a sense of movement in several ways. First, we varied feelings of
movement using endowed progress, thus reducing the proportion of the goal path that involved
movement, which in turn led to a decrease in the valuation of goal rewards (studies 1, 6 and 7).
We also showed that providing progress markers increased feelings of movement and enhanced
the value of the reward (study 2). Making fast progress increased the value of the reward (study
3) but symbolically undoing goal progress decreased valuation of the reward (study 4).
The pattern of results observed in the current experiments cannot be easily explained by
effort justification. Feelings of movement seem to have an independent impact on valuation
beyond effort such that a greater sense of movement raised the value of the outcome when effort
was held constant (studies 1, 2 and 6) or even when effort justification operated in the opposite
direction of movement (studies 3 and 4).
Part of our theory involved misattribution of positive feelings from movement to the
goal reward. We have several distinct pieces of evidence to support this idea. We demonstrated
that when consumers are made aware of the fact that pleasure is driven by movement toward the
goal, they no longer misattribute their feelings to the reward (study 5). Also, consumers do not
misattribute their feelings to objects unrelated to the goal because they are unlikely to be a source
25
of feelings experienced during goal pursuit (study 6).
Implications and Future Directions
While the present research found that feelings of movement can be influenced by several
aspects of goal pursuit, there are likely many other factors that affect feelings of movement and
perceived value of a reward. For instance, feelings of movement may vary depending on how
frequent progress markers appear during goal pursuit. Providing progress markers more
frequently may increase feelings of movement by enhancing the subjective rate of progress.
Moving a long distance with large step size vs. moving a shorter distance with smaller step size
can also influence feelings of movement. For instance, in loyalty programs, people who earn 100
points/$ to accumulate 1000 points may experience a different degree of movement than people
who earn 10 points/$ to accumulate 100 points (Bagchi and Li 2011). Research on embodied
cognition suggests that bodily sensations can impact people’s perceptions of approaching an
object (e.g. Labroo and Nielson 2009). These results suggest that bodily sensations of movement
may operate similarly to actual movement toward a goal. For example, people may perceive a
greater sense of movement toward completing a task when they do the task while on a moving
train. Future research could examine these and other potential drivers of perceived movement.
We find that feelings of movement influence value of a reward independent of the level
of effort. Future research can examine the distinct mechanisms behind the effects of feelings of
movement and effort. For instance, when people infer value from effort, they may rely on their
own thoughts and behaviors (e.g. I put a lot of effort to get the reward, therefore I must like it).
On the other hand, when people infer value from feelings of movement, they may rely on their
positive emotions toward the task (e.g. I feel good about my goal pursuit because the reward is
26
valuable). If an affect driven process occurs in a more automatic manner than a cognitive driven
process (Shiv and Fedorikhin 1999), feelings of movement might have a bigger impact than
effort in many real world situations where distraction is present and cognitive resources are taxed.
Since perceived movement plays a critical role in consumer evaluation, it is important to
manage consumers’ sense of movement during goal pursuit. For example, a shipping company
may enhance perceived movement by providing progress markers during a package’s journey. In
loyalty programs, offering consumers a blank loyalty card after redeeming a completed card may
decrease goal movement by making consumers feel that they are moving away from the
completed goal. Indicating previous progress on the next card (e.g. writing a number on the
corner to indicate how many past cards have been completed) may enhance evaluation of
rewards. While most loyalty programs issue an account statement after a fixed time interval (e.g.
every month), statements indicating no progress may undermine consumers’ feelings of
movement. Issuing statements based on amount of activity since the last statement rather than
fixed time intervals may allow those statements to act as indicators of progress and enhance
feelings of movement toward various rewards.
Our findings also advance our understanding of the effect of endowed progress. Prior
research has consistently demonstrated positive effects of endowed progress on motivation such
that people accelerate their effort when endowed with artificial progress (Nunes and Drèze 2006;
Kivetz, Urminsky, and Zheng 2006). However, our results suggest that endowed progress can
actually have negative effects. That is, while false progress can increase motivation, it can reduce
evaluations of the goal-related reward (study 7). Given that endowed progress increases
motivation but decreases valuation, marketers should limit implementations of reward programs
with endowed progress. Providing endowed progress may help consumers participate in a loyalty
27
program, but endowed progress could backfire if the reduced evaluation of the reward
discourages repeat purchase.
Furthermore, understanding the effects of perceived movement enables marketers to
better design queuing systems to boost customer satisfaction. That is, enhancing a sense of
movement while waiting in line (e.g. by providing information about movement through the line)
can increase the value of products or services provided at the end of the line. For example,
consumers may enjoy rides more in amusement parks, or may be happier with the result of
online search engines when they receive indicators of their progress toward the endpoint. The
structure of a queue can also influence feelings of movement. For example, implementing one
long line may boost feelings of movement compared to multiple short lines in a queuing system.
Assuming the waiting time is the same in both cases, consumers who move along the long line
would move faster and cover a greater distance, two drivers of feelings of movement.
The present research also sheds light on how organizations can enhance employees’
valuation of goal-related outcomes by boosting feelings of movement toward goals in the
workplace. For example, displaying reminders of progress for a project can increase perceived
movement in the workplace and enhance the value employees place on rewards. One interesting
question for future research is whether the effect of perceived movement extends from extrinsic
goal rewards to inherent products of goal pursuit. For example, does enhancing feelings of
movement enhance satisfaction with the actual work products? By understanding the importance
of feelings of movement, firms can be more effective in managing consumer and employee
satisfaction.
28
REFERENCES
Amir, On and Dan Ariely (2008), “Resting on Laurels: The Effects of Discrete Progress Markers
as Subgoals on Task Performance and Preferences,” Journal of Experimental
Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition, 34, 1158-1171.
Aronson, Elliot (1997), “The Theory of Cognitive Dissonance: The Evolution and Vicissitudes
of an Idea,” in The Message of Social Psychology: Perspectives on Mind in Society, Craig
McGarty and S. Alexander Haslam, Malden, eds. MA: Blackwell Publishing, 20–35.
Berridge, Kent. C. and Terry E. Robinson (1995). “The mind of an addicted brain: Neural
sensitization of wanting versus liking,” Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4(3),
71-76.
Carver, Charles S., and Michael F. Scheier (1998), On the Self-Regulation of Behavior, New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Cooper, Joel and Russel. H. Fazio (1984), “A New Look at Dissonance Theory,” in Advances in
Experimental Social Psychology, Vol 17, L. Berkowitz, eds. New York: Academic Press,
229–66.
Dutton, Donald. G. and Arthur P. Aron (1974), “Some Evidence for Heightened Sexual
Attraction under Conditions of High Anxiety,” Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 30, 510-517.
Ekman, Paul (1994), “Moods, Emotions, and Traits,” in The nature of emotion: Fundamental
questions, P. Ekman & R. J. Davidson, eds. New York: Oxford University Press, 56-58.
Forster, Jens, Nira N. Lieberman, and E. Tory Higgins (2005), “Accessibility from Active and
Fulfilled Goals,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41 (May), 220–39.
Greifeneder, Reiner, Herbert Bless and Michel Tuan Pham (2011), “When Do People Rely on
29
Affective and Cognitive Feelings in Judgment?: A Review,” Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 15(2), 107–141.
Heath, Chip, Richard P. Larrick, and George Wu (1999), “Goals as Reference Points,” Cognitive
Psychology, 38 (1), 79–109
Higgins, E. Tory (1997), “Beyond Pleasure and Pain,” American Psychologist, 52 (12), 1280–
1300.
Higgins, E. Tory, Arie W. Kruglanski, and Antonio Pierro (2003). “Regulatory Mode:
Locomotion and Assessment as Distinct Orientation,” in Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, Vol 35, Mark P. Zanna, ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press, 294–
345.
Huang, Szu-chi and Ying Zhang (2011) “Motivational Consequences of Perceived Velocity in
Consumer Goal Pursuit”, Journal of Marketing Research, 48(6), 1045-1056.
Hull, Clark. L. (1932), “The Goal-Gradient Hypothesis and Maze Learning,” Psychological
Review, 39, 25–43.
Hsee, Christopher K., Yang Yang, Yangjie Gu, and Jie Chen (2009), “Specification Seeking:
How Product Specifications Influence Consumer Preferences,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 35 (April), 952–66.
Hsee, Christopher K. and Robert P. Abelson (1991). “The Velocity Relation: Satisfaction as a
Function of the First Derivative of Outcome Over Time,” Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 60, 341–347.
Kivetz, Ran, Oleg Urminsky, and Yuhuang Zheng (2006), “The Goal-Gradient Hypothesis
Resurrected: Purchase Acceleration, Illusionary Goal Progress, and Customer Retention,”
Journal of Marketing Research, 43 (1), 39–58.
30
Koo, Minjung and Ayelet Fishbach (2010a). “A Silver Lining of Standing in Line: Queuing
Increases Value of Products” Journal of Marketing Research, 47, 713-724.
_________ (2010b), “Climbing the Goal Ladder: How Upcoming Actions Increase Level of
Aspiration,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99(1), 1–13.
Kruglanski, Arie W., Erik P. Thompson, E. Tory Higgins, M. Nadir Atash, Antonio Pierro, and
James Y. Shah (2000) “To “Do The Right Thing” or To “Just Do It”: Locomotion and
Assessment as Distinct Self-regulatory Imperatives”, Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 79, 793–815.
Labroo, Aparna A., & Jesper H. Nielsen (2010). “Half The Thrill is in The Chase: Twisted
Inferences From Embodied Cognitions and Brand Evaluation,” Journal of Consumer
Research, 37(1), 143−158.
Lawrence, John W., Charles S. Carver and Michael F. Scheier (2002). “Velocity Toward Goal
Attainment in Immediate Experience as a Determinant of Affect,” Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 32(4), 788-802.
Lee, Angela. Y., and Brian Sternthal (1999). “The Effect of Positive Mood on Memory”, Journal
of Consumer Research, 26, 115–127.
Liberman, Nira, and Jens Förster (2008), “Expectancy, Value and Psychological Distance: A
New Look at Goal Gradients,” Social Cognition, 26, 515–533.
Litt, Ab, Uzma Khan and Baba Shiv (2010). “Loathing while Lusting: Parallel Counterdriving of
Wanting and Liking,” Psychological Science, 21 (1), 118-125.
Locke, Edwin A. and Gary P. Latham (2006), “New Directions in Goal-‐Setting Theory,” Current
Directions in Psychological Science, 15 (October), 265–268.
Morewedge, Carey, Daniel Gilbert, Kristian Myrseth, Karim Kassam, and Timothy Wilson
31
(2010), “Consumer Experience: Why Affective Forecasters Overestimate Comparative
Value,” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46 (November), 986-992.
Nunes, Joseph C. and Xavier Drèze (2006), “The Endowed Progress Effect: How Artificial
Advancement Increases Effort’” Journal of Consumer Research, 32, 504–512.
Oppenheimer, Daniel M., Tom Meyvis, and Nicolas Davidenko (2009), "Instructional
Manipulation Checks: Detecting Satisficing to Increase Statistical Power," Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 45 (4), 867-72.
Preacher, Kristopher J. and Andrew F. Hayes (2004). “SPSS and SAS Procedures for Estimating
Indirect Effects in Multiple Mediator Models,” Behavior Research Methods, Instruments,
and Computers, 36 (4), 717-731.
Raghunathan, Rajagopal and Michel Tuan Pham (1999). “All Negative Moods Are Not Equal:
Motivational Influences of Anxiety and Sadness on Decision Making” Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 79, 56-77.
Schwarz, Norbert and Gerald L. Clore (1983), “Mood, Misattribution, and Judgements of Well-
Being: Informative and Directive Functions of Affective States,” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 45, 513-523.
__________ (2007). “Feelings and Phenomenal Experiences,” in Social Psychology: Handbook
of Basic Principles, 2nd ed. E. Tory Higgins & A. W. Kruglanski eds. New York, NY:
Guilford, 385-407.
Shiv, Baba and Fedorikhin (1999), “Heart and Mind in Conflict: Interplay of Affect and
Cognition in Consumer Decision Making,” Journal of Consumer Research, 26
(December), 278-282.
Soman, Dilip and Mengze Shi (2003). “Virtual Progress: The Effect of Path Characteristics on
32
Perceptions of Progress and Choice Behavior,” Management Science, 49, 1229 – 1250.
Stevens, Stanley S. (1957), “On the Psychophysical Law,” Psychological Review, 64 (3), 153–81.
Touré-Tillery, Maferima and Ayelet Fishbach (2012), “The End Justifies The Means, But Only
in The Middle,” Journal of Experimental Psychology: General
Vosgerau, Joachim (2010), “How Prevalent Is Wishful Thinking? Misattribution of Arousal
Causes Optimism and Pessimism in Subjective Probabilities,” Journal of Experimental
Psychology: General, 139(February), 232–48.
33
Figure 1. Liking of the Reward (Study 4)
4
5
6
7
8
Movement Backward Delay
34
Figure 2. Liking of the Reward (Study 5)
4
5
6
7
8
Before Task Task Only Task+Attribution
35
Figure 3. Expected Enjoyment of the Reward (Study 6)
4
5
6
7
8
Related Unrelated
Unendowed
Endowed
36
Figure 4. Endowed Progress Effects on Valuation and Motivation (Study 7) Expected Enjoyment Motivation
3
4
5
6
7
Unendowed Endowed