You have to let go sometimes: advances in understanding goal disengagement

Individual differences in goal adjustment: convergence and divergence among three theoretical models

Introduction

Individual differences in dealing with unattainable goals or resource-consumptive goal pursuit are conceptualized as goal adjustment processes in three theoretical approaches: accommodative coping (two-process model of developmental regulation), compensatory secondary coping (motivational theory of life-span development), and goal disengagement and goal reengagement (goal adjustment theory). The aim of this paper is to conceptually and empirically analyze convergences and divergences between the three approaches as well as their relationship with indicators of well-being and their intersections with cognitive emotion regulation.

Methods

The empirical study is based on a cross-sectional online survey (N = 433; M = 28.9 years, SD = 8.4 years; 50% female).

Results

The conceptual analysis yields clear convergences, but also differences. Empirically, clear but partially non-redundant relationships between the concepts are found in structural equation models. Accommodative coping showed the strongest correlations with measures of well-being and cognitive emotion regulation. When all goal adjustment measures are included simultaneously as predictors of well-being, accommodation remains as the strongest predictor (and partly goal reengagement as well), while goal disengagement shows opposing relationships with most measures of well-being.

Discussion

We discuss the lessons learnt from these findings and conclude by proposing future avenues to examine goal adjustment processes.

Commentary: Engage or disengage? Interpretations from a resource conservation perspective

In this commentary, I discuss the eight empirical contributions to the Motivation and Emotion special issue on goal disengagement from a resource conservation perspective. This process was not in the focus of the reported studies, but is central for understanding both engaging and disengaging. I will outline that many of the new findings on disengagement reported in this special issue are highly compatible with the predictions of and research on motivational intensity theory. Examples are the roles of commitment, subjective goal value, affective experiences, autonomy, self-awareness, and action planning. These variables have been found to be central for both engagement and disengagement and their consideration in a resource mobilization perspective should contribute to a more complete understanding of “letting go”.