source Whether slimming down, saving money or improving their sports prowess, people do better with a range than a single number, new research suggests.
Woman with high-low goals for weight loss enjoy the process more, research shows.
If you're desperate to lose five pounds, don't try to lose five pounds. Try to lose between two and six, or maybe between two and seven. You'll be much better off.
That's the conclusion of an intriguing study of how consumers attain goals, whether slimming down, saving money or improving their sports performance.
RELATED: LOSE WEIGHT, IMPROVE YOUR MEMORY: STUDY
Rather than set a specific goal that you may not meet - and maybe get discouraged - use a range consisting of a pretty darn easy and a pretty tough goal. Over and over, says the new research, greater satisfaction and higher attainment plays out.
It's all found in "The Effect of Goal Specificity on Consumer Goal Reengagement" in the new issue of Journal of Consumer Research, published by the University of Chicago.
RELATED: OBESITY IS OFFICIALLY A DISEASE, AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION RULES
Maura Scott and Stephen Nowlis, marketing professors at Florida State University and Washington University in St. Louis, respectively, conducted tests involving weight loss, saving money and playing games. It included 64 University of Kentucky students trying to find the ace among five face-down playing cards and also trying to exercise self-control by eating as few M&M's as possible from a nearby bowl.
The most intriguing research involved 45 overweight females between ages 24 and 71 who are either employees or spouses of workers at a Midwest company. They were part of a 10-week weight loss program, seeing a dietician for an hour each week and weighing in privately while being assigned to one of two groups.
RELATED: WEIGHT-LOSS SURGERY MAY CONTROL GLUCOSE IN DIABETICS: STUDY
Participants in the first group had different single-number goals for their weekly weight loss. The other group had different low-high ranges.
At the end of the 10 weeks, those with high-low goals, such as between 2 and 4 pounds, were more inclined to re-enroll for another 10 weeks. That was despite the fact that, in many cases, their actual weight loss wasn't much different than those who had a specific, single goal.
RELATED: GASTRIC-BYPASS SURGERY GONE BAD
Their sense of satisfaction, however, was far higher.
Those who had the single goal and fell short were a bit discouraged and less inclined to continue. Those with the high-low goal tended to feel gratified that they had least had topped the lower-end number.
RELATED: TOO MUCH COFFEE CAN MAKE YOU FAT: STUDY
The study is filled with arcane academic models and methods of mathematical analyses of the data. But the bottom line is that, in various ways, a similar pattern was found in different tests involving saving money and doing well at different games.
But, as far as weight, the high-low range goal offers what amounts to the best of both worlds, the academics write. Trying to lose between two and four pounds means that "the high end of the goal (lose 4 pounds) increases the challenge of the goal, while the low end (lose 2 pounds) increases its attainability."
RELATED: GROSSEST WEIGHT LOSS METHOD EVER?
On the other hand, a more difficult, single number goal "goal can be perceived as challenging, but due to a lack of attainability, consumers might not be interested in re-engaging such a goal."
They suggest that we will maintain a goal if it seems we can actually meet it but there still remains a bit of a challenge. Setting a range of very practical aims winds up both more satisfying and keeps people on track.
Thus, if you seek to save $20 to $30 a week, but save just $20, there's still a belief you've done fairly well and will try again next week.
If the goal is specifically saving $25, and one winds up saving just $20, there's a sense of failure and the likelihood you'll throw in the towel.
 |
| Today Wight Loos Tips |
Woman with high-low goals for weight loss enjoy the process more, research shows.
If you're desperate to lose five pounds, don't try to lose five pounds. Try to lose between two and six, or maybe between two and seven. You'll be much better off.
That's the conclusion of an intriguing study of how consumers attain goals, whether slimming down, saving money or improving their sports performance.
RELATED: LOSE WEIGHT, IMPROVE YOUR MEMORY: STUDY
Rather than set a specific goal that you may not meet - and maybe get discouraged - use a range consisting of a pretty darn easy and a pretty tough goal. Over and over, says the new research, greater satisfaction and higher attainment plays out.
It's all found in "The Effect of Goal Specificity on Consumer Goal Reengagement" in the new issue of Journal of Consumer Research, published by the University of Chicago.
RELATED: OBESITY IS OFFICIALLY A DISEASE, AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION RULES
Maura Scott and Stephen Nowlis, marketing professors at Florida State University and Washington University in St. Louis, respectively, conducted tests involving weight loss, saving money and playing games. It included 64 University of Kentucky students trying to find the ace among five face-down playing cards and also trying to exercise self-control by eating as few M&M's as possible from a nearby bowl.
The most intriguing research involved 45 overweight females between ages 24 and 71 who are either employees or spouses of workers at a Midwest company. They were part of a 10-week weight loss program, seeing a dietician for an hour each week and weighing in privately while being assigned to one of two groups.
RELATED: WEIGHT-LOSS SURGERY MAY CONTROL GLUCOSE IN DIABETICS: STUDY
Participants in the first group had different single-number goals for their weekly weight loss. The other group had different low-high ranges.
At the end of the 10 weeks, those with high-low goals, such as between 2 and 4 pounds, were more inclined to re-enroll for another 10 weeks. That was despite the fact that, in many cases, their actual weight loss wasn't much different than those who had a specific, single goal.
RELATED: GASTRIC-BYPASS SURGERY GONE BAD
Their sense of satisfaction, however, was far higher.
Those who had the single goal and fell short were a bit discouraged and less inclined to continue. Those with the high-low goal tended to feel gratified that they had least had topped the lower-end number.
RELATED: TOO MUCH COFFEE CAN MAKE YOU FAT: STUDY
The study is filled with arcane academic models and methods of mathematical analyses of the data. But the bottom line is that, in various ways, a similar pattern was found in different tests involving saving money and doing well at different games.
But, as far as weight, the high-low range goal offers what amounts to the best of both worlds, the academics write. Trying to lose between two and four pounds means that "the high end of the goal (lose 4 pounds) increases the challenge of the goal, while the low end (lose 2 pounds) increases its attainability."
RELATED: GROSSEST WEIGHT LOSS METHOD EVER?
On the other hand, a more difficult, single number goal "goal can be perceived as challenging, but due to a lack of attainability, consumers might not be interested in re-engaging such a goal."
They suggest that we will maintain a goal if it seems we can actually meet it but there still remains a bit of a challenge. Setting a range of very practical aims winds up both more satisfying and keeps people on track.
Thus, if you seek to save $20 to $30 a week, but save just $20, there's still a belief you've done fairly well and will try again next week.
If the goal is specifically saving $25, and one winds up saving just $20, there's a sense of failure and the likelihood you'll throw in the towel.
0 comments:
Post a Comment