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WORKING PAPER PLEASE DO NOT CITE OR CIRCULATE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