The effect of multiple-goal strategies on sport performance.

Sport psychologists traditionally fought against the pervasive "winning is everything" mentality and encouraged athletes to set self-referenced performance and process goals. However, studies that have explored the practices of successful performers have found that they do in fact make effective use of outcome goals (Burton & Naylor, 2002). The aim of this project was to examine empirically Hardy, Jones, and Gould's (1996) suggestion, that consultants should promote the use of a multiple goal-setting style. In the first study, forty participants were split into five groups and matched for ability on a soccer task. Four of the groups used different combinations of outcome, performance, and process goals while the other acted as a control group. The superior performance of the groups using multiple goal-setting styles, in both training and in competition, provided evidence to support the efficacy of maintaining a balance between outcome, performance, and process goal-setting styles. The second study sought to explore further the effects of varied multiple goal experiences upon psychological processes thought to support performance. Sixty participants were split into six groups and matched for performance on a bench-pressing task.This time the four groups using an outcome goal within their protocol received bogus feedback that allowed experimental control of goal attainment expectancy.Significant differences were found between the groups for bench-press performance, state anxiety, self-efficacy, goal commitment and effort allocation. The effect of outcome goals on performance was demonstrated to be affected by goal attainment expectancies, and the potential for such goals to have negative effects was confirmed. However, the superior performance of groups using multiple goal strategies provided further evidence to support the efficacy of combining the benefits of using outcome and performance goals.