Study Reviewed: A Large-Scale Experiment on New Year’s Resolutions: Approach-Oriented Goals are More Successful than Avoidance-Oriented Goals. Oscarsson et al. (2020)

Key Points

1. This was a survey of New Year’s resolutioners with follow-ups throughout the year. Participants were put in three groups. The “No Support” group was just asked to state their goals and rate their success at three follow-ups, the “Some Support” group had monthly follow-ups and guidance on social support, and the “Extended Support” group also had guidance on setting “SMART” goals that were “approach-oriented” versus “avoidance-oriented.” 
2. Irrespective of group, those who set approach goals (a goal of doing something) rated themselves as significantly more successful than those who set avoidance goals (a goal of not doing something). Yet, the Some Support group rated themselves as significantly more successful compared to both the No Support and Extended Support groups.
3. Receiving regular social support and framing your goals as approach-oriented is likely to help you achieve your goals. However, if your goals require lasting behavior change, such as weight loss, improved health, or new eating patterns, the SMART goal framework may do more harm than good.

The New Year is a time when millions of people around the world set resolutions, of which health and fitness goals are the most common. This study (1) set out to determine what goals resolutioners set, which goals are more likely to succeed, and if providing follow-ups and information on goal setting, motivation, and social support increases the likelihood of success. The authors sent a series of email surveys which were completed by 1,066 participants. They were divided into three groups: 1) the No Support group, 2) the Some Support group, and 3) the Extended Support group. The No Support group served as an active control which completed an initial survey asking what resolutions they set, their belief in their chance of success, questions assessing self-efficacy, procrastination, quality of life, and demographic details, and then they had follow-ups in June and December to assess how they rated their success, and to reevaluate self-efficacy, procrastination, and quality of life. The Some Support group completed the same surveys, and received initial information on the importance of social support, guidance on obtaining it, and monthly follow-ups to gauge self-rated success. Finally, the Extended Support group mirrored the Some Support group, but had additional guidance emails and received information on how to set SMART goals (specific, measurable, accepted/achievable, realistic/relevant, and time-framed goals) and were encouraged to frame goals as approach-oriented (a goal to do something) rather than avoidance-oriented (a goal to not do something). Assessing the year in retrospect, approach-oriented goals were significantly more likely to be rated as successful than avoidance-oriented goals, and people who considered themselves successful also increased their self-efficacy and quality of life scores to a greater degree. Interestingly, the Some Support group rated themselves as significantly more successful than the other two groups. This suggests that something the Extended Support group did may have actually reduced their chances of success. Since approach-oriented goals positively impacted goal attainment, the SMART framework may have had a negative impact on ratings of success. In this review I’ll discuss the details of this study and why this might have occurred.

Purpose and Hypotheses

Purpose

This study sought to determine 1) what types of New Year’s resolutions people make, 2) whether different types of resolutions have differing success rates, and 3) if it’s possible to increase success rates by providing information and strategies for effective goal setting.

Hypotheses  

The authors hypothesized that providing goal-achievement supportive material and goal assessment timeframes would result in greater success rates, and that approach-oriented goals would be more likely to succeed than avoidance-oriented goals.

Subjects and Methods

Subjects

The survey was completed by 1,066 Swedish residents, four of whom were not included in the final analysis due to incomplete responses. Participants were recruited by Swedish mass media and by social media during the last week of December 2016. The only requirements for participation were being at least 18 years of age and speaking Swedish fluently. Participant characteristics are shown for each group and the full sample in Table 1.  

Study Overview

Each participant was randomized into one of three groups: 1) the No Support group, 2) the Some Support group, and 3) the Extended Support group. 

No Support Group

The No Support group received brief, general information about New Year’s resolutions, and was then asked to report what their resolutions were and what they believed their chances of success were (from 0-100%, in 10% increments). They also answered questions to determine self-efficacy, procrastination, and quality of life. This group completed a self-assessment on the last day of January, June, and December 2017, in which they were again asked to report their success from 0-100%. 

Some Support Group

The Some Support group received the same initial general information regarding resolutions as the No Support group, and then received additional information about the benefits of social support for goal achievement. This group was also asked to report what their resolutions were, and what they believed their chances of success were, before then naming a support person for  the year to help them achieve their goals. The participants in this group completed the same three self-report measures at the end of January, June, and December 2017, but they also received monthly follow-ups at the end of every month for all of 2017 (January through December).

Extended Support Group

The Extended Support group received the same information, instruction, support, and guidance as the Some Support group, but in addition they also were given guidance on how to set “SMART” goals: specific, measurable, accepted/achievable (they say both at different points in the study; this is probably a translation issue), realistic/relevant, and time-framed (the authors mention there are other variations on the acronym, most of which differ slightly but not meaningfully, but I discuss this more in the interpretation). Further, they were asked to set interim goals for each resolution throughout the year, and to frame each goal as an “approach” rather than as an “avoidance” goal (“I want to eat more fruits and vegetables and lean proteins” rather than “I want to avoid processed foods”). Like the other groups, the Extended Support group was asked to report their resolutions and what they believed their chances of success would be. This group had the same self-report time points as the other two groups, the same monthly follow-ups as the Some Support group, but also received three additional supportive emails beyond what the Some Support group received with information on goal-achievement, motivation, and dealing with setbacks throughout the year. Table 2 summarizes the differences between groups in regards to what support they received.

Self Assessments

At the initiation of the study, the participants stated their New Year’s resolutions, followed by answering questions from three scales which had questions that assessed 1) subjective quality of life, 2) procrastination, and 3) self-efficacy, before answering demographic questions. These scales were administered at follow-ups as well. The scales and their internal consistency – how related all the questions are to the metric they are supposed to assess – measured by Cronbach’s Alpha (a value from 0-1, interpreted similarly to an r score) are shown in Table 3.

After reporting their resolutions, completing the scales, and reporting their demographic details, the participants prospectively rated what they believed their resolutions’ chances of success were from 0-100% in 10% increments. Then, at each assessment point they, rated their current success from 0% (“I have fully and completely abandoned my New Year’s resolutions”) to 100% (“I am sticking to my New Year’s resolutions fully and completely according to plan”) in 10% increments. For analysis purposes, self-assessed success and failure were dichotomized as scores of 70% (“I am, by and large, sticking to my New Year’s resolutions”) or higher, and 60% (“I am considering giving my New Year’s resolutions a shot”) or lower, respectively. 

Finally, at each follow-up except the last, the participants rated “conviction” – belief in their chances of success. This was rated similarly to their initial prospective belief in their goal success, from 0% (“not convinced at all; I will definitely not be successful”) to 100% (“extremely convinced; I will definitely succeed”) in 10% increments.

Findings

When the resolutions of the participants were categorized and grouped, the most common goals were related to health (33%), followed by weight loss (20%), then the desire to change one’s eating habits (13%), followed by numerous other resolution goals as shown in Figure 1.

The response rates and self-reported goal success rates (again, when the score was 70% or higher out of 100%) for all participants at each month of the year are shown in Table 4. All three groups were assessed in January, June, and December, and only the Some Support and Extended Support groups were assessed in the other months of the year.

Between the first and final assessment, those who rated themselves as successful increased their scores for self-efficacy (p < 0.001, effect size = 0.30) and quality of life (p < 0.001, effect size = 0.38) to a greater degree than the participants who rated themselves as unsuccessful.

When evaluating the effectiveness of different types of goal setting, irrespective of group, rates of self-rated success (reporting at least a 70% success rate) were significantly higher for approach-oriented goals (mean = 58.9%) compared to avoidance-oriented goals (47.1%, p = 0.002). The effect size of this difference (V = 0.11) was considered small using the non-parametric test Cramér’s V, which uses a different scale than the effect sizes we typically report in MASS.

Self-rated success rates for each group are shown graphically in Figure 2 for every month of the year in which it was reported (January, June, and December only for the No Support group).

When evaluating differences in self-rated success between groups, on average, the Some Support group (mean = 62.3%, 95% CI = 59.4-65.2%) rated themselves as successful at a higher rate than both the No Support group (mean = 55.9%, 95% CI = 53.1-58.8%, p = 0.004, effect size = 0.22) and the Extended Support group (mean = 52.5%, 95% CI = 49.3-55.7%, p = 0.002, effect size = 0.34).

Interpretation

What this study found was that in general, as the year progresses, more and more people rate themselves as unsuccessful in their New Year’s resolutions. However, the majority of participants still consider themselves successful by year’s end. Self-rated success across all groups started around ~90% in this sample, and fell to around ~55% by the end of the year. It’s important to note that these rates don’t necessarily reflect the average rate of success you’d expect in the broader populace of resolutioners, as this success rate is scaled to the response rate. While ~90% of the participants responded in January to the follow-up, for the rest of the year response rates were ~50-70%. Thus, the self-reported success rate of ~55% at year’s end is ~55% of the 68.7% of participants who responded, not ~55% of the entire sample that participated in the study (Table 4). It’s not unreasonable to assume that many who didn’t respond were not successful in their goal achievement and didn’t feel like reporting. Further, the participants specifically volunteered for this study, which likely biased the sample toward being more motivated and focused on their goals relative to the general population. Even if you just consider the “No Support” group, this is still probably the case. It’s important to remember that this group was still composed of self-enrolled resolutioners, and it was an active control group. Meaning, while they didn’t receive as much support as the other groups, they were asked to state their resolutions in writing and report their progress three times during the year. Thus, you could argue that all three groups received varying degrees of support, even though one group was labeled as “No Support.” Indeed, this study reported higher rates of resolution success than every other study to date, except for one by Norcross et al (2), where at the six-month mark 69% of the resolutioners rated themselves as successful compared to 67.8% in the present study. However, Norcross used a 4-point Likert scale to gauge success where scores of 3 and 4 were categorized as “successful,” while in the present study, a 0-100% scale in 10% increments (11 points) was used with scores ≥ 70% categorized as successful. Thus, one could argue the bar was higher for success in the present study, so it’s possible the success rates in this study are the highest or very near to the highest observed in the literature. Unfortunately, resolution success rates in the real world are certainly lower for all of the above reasons, and the average resolutioner doesn’t even have what was called “No Support” in the present study, i.e. someone who instructs them to write down their goals and checks in with them a few times in the coming year. Indeed, a large body of data suggests that simply setting concrete goals increases the likelihood of success, and that this can also be enhanced to a small degree by follow-ups, even when they don’t contain feedback (3). 

I was also pleasantly surprised to see that health was far and away the most common goal of the respondents (33%), while the goal of weight loss – which I expected to be the most common goal – was only the second most common (20%). While not directly relevant to or informed by this article, based on my experience as a trainer and also some published data, focusing on health rather than weight loss will probably have a greater net benefit for most people. As I’ll discuss later in this interpretation, weight loss goals are more often avoidance-oriented (don’t eat X), while health goals are more often approach-oriented (do Y activity), possibly (albeit indirectly) making health goals more likely to succeed. Further, as you are probably aware, the weight loss industry is full of quick fixes, crash diets, misinformation, quacks, pseudoscience, and predatory companies and individuals. Often people who seek out weight loss get burned because of this, and rebound with only guilt and shame to show for it. On the other hand, while the health industry is by no means perfect, engaging in health and fitness behaviors seems to have less potential for harm and doesn’t generate as much guilt and shame. For example, participants in a cross-sectional analysis of 352 young men and women who reported using exercise and nutrition tracking tools (food trackers, wearable fitness devices, etc.) primarily to manage their weight or shape scored higher on scales for disordered eating and compulsive exercise than those who used the tools to improve their health or fitness (whose scores were similar to non-trackers) (4). To be clear, I’m not saying there are never situations where weight loss is a reasonable goal. However, doing things like eating more fruits, vegetables, and protein, taking up a movement practice you enjoy (I avoid the word “exercise” because people often don’t share the positive associations with the word most of us trainers do), increasing outdoor leisure activities, and improving sleep and mindfulness, will collectively improve your health, but might also result in some unintentional weight loss you’re likely to sustain, without the same potential for harm. 

Like I said, this tangential viewpoint is partially informed by my experience and partially informed by empirical data, but the present study did find a significant advantage to approach- compared to avoidance-oriented goals. As mentioned, weight loss goals often take the form of avoiding certain foods, or the behavior of overeating, while health goals are often approach-oriented. As was observed in this study, overall success occurred for 58.9% of approach-oriented goals compared to only 47.1% of avoidance-oriented goals. With that said, you certainly could set behavioral goals related to weight loss that are approach-oriented, such as choosing what to eat at specific meals versus what not to eat, or engaging in regular activity, for example. 

Moving on to other findings of the present study, unsurprisingly, those who rated themselves as successful in their goals also increased their scores for self-efficacy and quality of life to a greater degree than those who rated themselves as unsuccessful. While we can’t know for sure, I suspect the direction of causality is that success increased self-efficacy and quality of life, rather than the opposite. With that said, while I think that is the acute direction of causality in this specific intervention, the beauty of self-efficacy is that it has feed forward effects; it is a gift that keeps on giving. Developing self-efficacy is like an investment in yourself, as the more successes you rack up, the more you build your self-efficacy, resulting in more future success. In one study, increases in self-efficacy mediated the effectiveness of a behavior change intervention, resulting in increases in time spent walking (5).

Probably the most interesting finding of this study however, was that the Some Support group outperformed not only the No Support group, but the Extended Support group as well! Not only that, just looking at the raw values, the Extended Support group actually had slightly worse success rates (albeit non significantly) than the No Support group. Since the Extended Support group got all the same guidance as the Some Support group plus more, that means something in the “plus more” category that the Extended Support group did was actually counterproductive. First up, we can eliminate the guidance of setting approach-oriented goals since approach-oriented goals were significantly more likely to succeed. What remains is the guidance related to the SMART goal framework. In the Extended Support group, the participants were instructed to set specific, measurable, achievable, realistic/relevant, time-framed goals. In part, this meant they set interim goals which could be objectively measured throughout the year. Viewed cynically, it might just be that the Some Support group set vague goals that were difficult to objectively measure and that weren’t measured as often. Thus, they were more prone to positivity bias in recollection and were more easily able to frame the year successfully compared to the Extended Support group who had to more accurately face reality. While possible, I think it’s more likely that the SMART framework just doesn’t mix well with health, fitness, and nutrition goals (which collectively accounted for two-thirds of the resolutions). I realize that statement conflicts with most personal trainer textbooks and the general zeitgeist of modern goal-setting practice, but hear me out.  

The original SMART goal framework was developed for managers in a corporate setting. In fact, if you’ve ever thought when seeing the present iteration of SMART: “what’s the difference between achievable/accepted and realistic/relevant?” there’s a reason for that. In the original SMART acronym the letters stood for specific, measurable, assignable, realistic, and time-related. The application of the framework to goals outside of the workplace management setting is a recent adaptation. This framework certainly can be adapted and applied in other settings – for example, in clinical rehabilitation (6) – but it does require adapting. Even in a clinical setting where SMART goals are related to health, the practitioners have a known endpoint they are working toward and are trying to help their patient achieve a specific outcome before they leave their care. Adopting new eating patterns, lifestyles, and behavior changes, on the other hand, is ongoing. The closest thing to an endpoint in these cases is getting to a point where the behavior is automatic, but they aren’t truly supposed to end. Like I said, behavior change can fit in the SMART framework, but in my experience as a trainer, the process of setting SMART goals for behavior changes is not very intuitive. It lends itself to forecasting rates of weight loss and strength gain (which we simply can’t accurately predict, potentially setting up the client for failure) and also to focusing more on outcomes versus processes, which can impede goal attainment (7). Given the participants in this study simply received written guidance on setting their own SMART goals rather than sitting down with a trainer, nutritionist, or health practitioner to establish their SMART goals with all this in mind, it wouldn’t surprise me if they ended up setting themselves up for failure more often. 

Next Steps

Given we know approach-oriented goals are better than avoidance-oriented goals, but we can’t know for sure exactly which aspect of the Extended Support group’s intervention had a negative impact, a follow-up study could tease out the culprit. You would need two groups with the same frequency of support and follow-ups as the Some Support group, but one would receive guidance on the SMART goal framework, and the other would not. Then you would need two other groups with the same frequency of support and follow-ups as the Extended Support group, with one receiving guidance on the SMART goal framework, while the other would not. All groups would be advised to use approach-oriented goals. With this design, you’d be able to see if there was a negative effect when using the SMART framework, or if instead the frequency of follow-ups was too high and perhaps resulted in unrealistic time frames for goal achievement or unnecessary pressure. 

Application and Takeaways

Social support is an important aid for goal achievement. Starting a new habit with a partner or group, telling your friends and family about your goals, and enlisting someone to be accountable to on at least a semi-regular basis can enhance your likelihood of success. Further, approach-oriented rather than avoidance-oriented goals are more likely to be successful. Finally, be wary of using the SMART goal framework for behavior change. If you set SMART goals for fitness or health, make your goals related to the process not the outcome (e.g., eating a source of lean protein and a fruit or vegetable at each meal versus losing 20lb), and ensure you have a plan for long-term maintenance after you achieve your goal. 

References

1. Oscarsson M, Carlbring P, Andersson G, Rozental A. A large-scale experiment on New Year’s resolutions: Approach-oriented goals are more successful than avoidance-oriented goals. PLoS One. 2020 Dec 9;15(12):e0234097. 
2. Norcross JC, Mrykalo MS, Blagys MD. Auld lang syne: success predictors, change processes, and self-reported outcomes of New Year’s resolvers and nonresolvers. J Clin Psychol. 2002 Apr;58(4):397-405. 
3. Epton T, Currie S, Armitage CJ. Unique effects of setting goals on behavior change: Systematic review and meta-analysis. J Consult Clin Psychol. 2017 Dec;85(12):1182-1198. 
4. Plateau CR, Bone S, Lanning E, Meyer C. Monitoring eating and activity: Links with disordered eating, compulsive exercise, and general wellbeing among young adults. Int J Eat Disord. 2018 Nov;51(11):1270-1276. 
5. Darker CD, French DP, Eves FF, Sniehotta FF. An intervention to promote walking amongst the general population based on an ‘extended’ theory of planned behaviour: a waiting list randomised controlled trial. Psychol Health. 2010 Jan;25(1):71-88. 
6. Bovend’Eerdt TJ, Botell RE, Wade DT. Writing SMART rehabilitation goals and achieving goal attainment scaling: a practical guide. Clin Rehabil. 2009 Apr;23(4):352-61. 
7. Fishbach A, Choi J. When thinking about goals undermines goal pursuit. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes. 2012 Jul 1;118(2):99-107.