AUTHOR=Kappes Cathleen , Greve Werner 

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

JOURNAL=Frontiers in Psychology

VOLUME=15

YEAR=2024

URL=https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/psychology/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1288667

DOI=10.3389/fpsyg.2024.1288667

ISSN=1664-1078

ABSTRACT=<sec id="sec1001"><title>Introduction</title><p>Individual differences in dealing with unattainable goals or resource-consumptive goal pursuit are conceptualized as goal adjustment processes in three theoretical approaches: accommodative coping (<italic>two-process model of developmental regulation</italic>), compensatory secondary coping (<italic>motivational theory of life-span development</italic>), and goal disengagement and goal reengagement (<italic>goal adjustment theory</italic>). 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.</p></sec><sec id="sec2001"><title>Methods</title><p>The empirical study is based on a cross-sectional online survey (<italic>N</italic> = 433; <italic>M</italic> = 28.9 years, <italic>SD</italic> = 8.4 years; 50% female).</p></sec><sec id="sec3001"><title>Results</title><p>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.</p></sec><sec id="sec4001"><title>Discussion</title><p>We discuss the lessons learnt from these findings and conclude by proposing future avenues to examine goal adjustment processes.</p></sec>