Questions

Which personal goals have highest priority

among students?

How do personal goals relate to one another?

Introduction

College students report a variety of

personal goals. Based on an open-ended

listing, Kaiser & Ozer (1997) developed a

taxonomy of undergraduates’ goals. From this

taxonomy, Howell et al. (2001) wrote 65 items

to cover the broad range of college students'

personal goals. The breadth and variety of goal

content included in this 65-item measure

incorporates students’ explicit motivational

space. The measure offers an opportunity to

empirically derive a new theory of which

motives are most essential to young adults.

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Oblimin-Rotated Factor Loadings of 20 Goal Clusters

Goal Cluster Mean SD Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3

Romantic Relations -0.42 0.66 .56* -.07 -.19 Maintain/improve romantic relationship; Help rom. partner; Find a rom. partner

Future Family Concerns -1.07 0.76 .41* .19 -.05 Get married; Have children

Find Direction 0.1 0.93 -.27 .18 -.01 Find direction or meaning in life

Organization 0.14 0.41 -.29* .03 .20 Use time more effectively; Be more organized; Be punctual; Complete a task

Interpersonal -0.39 0.65 -.30* -.25 -.25 Be less shy, more talkative; Control my temper

Assert Influence 0.17 0.65 -.45* -.20 -.08 Be less dependent on or influenced by others; Be more assertive, self confident

Negative Affect Control 0.08 0.6 -.45* -.21 -.03 Reduce the stress in my life; Spend more time relaxing; Stop worrying so much Religious -0.2 0.9 -.02 .62* .05 Observe the tenets of my religion; Experience spiritual growth; Maintain my faith

Moral -0.02 0.56 -.02 .52* -.09 Be a better (i.e., more ethical or moral) person; Do good for my community

Community -0.42 0.66 .04 .37* -.08 Participate in my social community; Be respected or well-known in my commun.

Health Problems -1.01 0.65 -.04 -.17 -.11 Reduce consumption of drugs, alcohol, or tobacco; Take care of a health problem

Health & Appearance 0.13 0.52 -.04 -.25 -.24 Lose weight; Have better diet; Get in shape; Sleep more; Improve appearance

Practical Independence 0.24 0.5 -.11 -.25 .04 Be more self-sufficient; Live independently from my parents; Do things for myself

Immediate Finances 0 0.51 .47* -.52* .08 Increase current income; Budget better; Find employment; Afford an item; etc.

Academic 0.73 0.38 -.14 .03 .67* Do well in school; Spend more time studying; Plan my academic future; etc.

Future Finances 0.3 0.55 .32* -.19 .43* Pursue a financially lucrative career; Be able to support my future family; Save $$

Give Financial Help -0.62 0.65 0 .01 .29* Provide financ. assist. to a friend/community; Financ. assist my parents / siblings

Family Relations 0.37 0.61 -.10 .11 .18 Maintain/improve relationship with parents / siblings; Help my parents / siblings

Peer Relations 0.22 0.48 -.05 .17 -.41* Make new friends; Maintain/improve relationship with friends; Help my friend(s)

Enjoyment-Seeking -0.12 0.42 .14 .07 -.56* Have fun; Participate in hobbies; Play sports; Travel; Enjoy thrills; Enjoy learning Note. N = 692

Method

Participants

N = 786 UC Riverside undergraduates

Mean age = 19.2 years

62% female

44% Asian American

24% Hispanic

15% Caucasian

6% African American

11% other / mixed ethnic.

Measure

65-item questionnaire listing goals commonly

volunteered by undergraduates.

Participants rate “How important is the goal…”

(1 = “This is not one of my goals currently” to

5 = “Among my most important goals currently”)

Discussion

Standardization resulted in bipolar factors. This bipolarity reflects the

tradeoffs students make as they prioritize one domain of goals over another

conflicting domain. Oblimin rotation identified the three most essential

tradeoffs:

Factor 1: Romantic relationship and family-building goals vs. negative affect

management and self-assertion goals

Represents contrasting identity themes: seeking communion vs.

undoing agency inhibitions (McGregor & Little, 1998).

Contrasts intimacy motives (Emmons & McAdams, 1991) against

independence life tasks (Cantor, 1990).

Suggests personal stability is a prerequisite for seeking emotional

intimacy.

Factor 2: Moral or religious goals vs. immediate financial goals.

Introduces a moral and spiritual growth motive advocated in the

psychology of religion and spirituality (Emmons, 1999).

Indicates opposing prioritizations of spiritual and moral growth vs.

material needs and rewards.

Factor 3: Academic and career goals vs. enjoyment- and friend-seeking goals

Represents contrasting motive dispositions toward achievement and

affiliation (McClelland, 1985).

Reflects opposition between achievement and social life tasks (Cantor,

1990).

Conclusions

The bipolar structure of the three factors are empirical descriptions of the

tradeoffs students make in prioritizing their goals.

To reduce stress and assert independence, students may forego romantic

relationships.

To address immediate financial concerns, religious and moral growth may

be sacrificed.

To pursue success in college and a career, friends and fun may be

sacrificed.

The Factor Structure of Personal Goals in an Undergraduate PopulationNick Stauner, Tierra S. Stimson, Daniel J. Ozer

References

Cantor, N. (1990). From thought to behavior: “Having” and “doing” in the study

of personality and cognition. American Psychologist, 45(6), 735-750.

Emmons, R. A., & McAdams, D. P. (1991). Personal strivings and motive

dispositions: Exploring the links. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 17(6), 648-654.

Emmons, R. A. (1999). The Psychology of Ultimate Concerns: Motivation and

Spirituality in Personality. New York: Guilford.

Howell, R. T., Hershey, J. W., Markey, P. M. & Ozer, D. J. (2001). Comparing

operant and respondent measures of personal goals. Poster presented at

the 109th annual convention of the American Psychological Association,

San Francisco, CA.

Kaiser, R. T., & Ozer, D. J. (1997). Emotional stability and goal-related stress.

Personality and Individual Differences, 22(3), 371-379.

McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.

McGregor, I., & Little, B. R. (1998). Personal projects, happiness, and

meaning: On doing well and being yourself. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 74(2), 494-512.

Results

95 participants were removed for rating more

than 50% of goals as “Among my most

important goals currently.” All analyses are

based on the remaining 88% of the original

sample (N = 692).

Goal importance ratings were standardized

within each participant.

Formed twenty clusters of two to six goals

each based on semantic similarity of goal

content.

Factor analyzed the twenty clusters: scree

test identified three principal factors accounting

for 33% of the variance in importance ratings.