For Better or for Worse? Outsourcing Self-Regulation and Goal Pursuit

Abstract

In recent years, there has been increasing interest in how close relationships can impact personal goal pursuit. Extensive research on social support has shown that support often facilitates goal pursuit. However, Fitzsimons and Finkel found that perceived partner support may actually undermine motivation and decrease goal pursuit intentions. In this article, we report three well-powered studies (N = 850) that investigated the conditions under which romantic partners may bolster or undermine goal pursuit. In contrast with the original Fitzsimons and Finkel’s findings, the results of these studies consistently showed that perceived partner support bolsters goal pursuit intentions by increasing goal commitment. Implications for successful goal pursuit in the context of relationships are discussed.

Full text

Article
For Better or for Worse? Outsourcing
Self-Regulation and Goal Pursuit
Julia L. Briskin
1
, Catalina E. Kopetz
1
, Gra
´inne M. Fitzsimons
2
,
and Richard B. Slatcher
1
Abstract
In recent years, there has been increasing interest in how close relationships can impact personal goal pursuit. Extensive research
on social support has shown that support often facilitates goal pursuit. However, Fitzsimons and Finkel found that perceived
partner support may actually undermine motivation and decrease goal pursuit intentions. In this article, we report three well-
powered studies (N¼850) that investigated the conditions under which romantic partners may bolster or undermine goal
pursuit. In contrast with the original Fitzsimons and Finkel’s findings, the results of these studies consistently showed that per-
ceived partner support bolsters goal pursuit intentions by increasing goal commitment. Implications for successful goal pursuit in
the context of relationships are discussed.
Keywords
interpersonal relationships, self-regulation, goal pursuit, social support
“There are people who, the more you do for them, the less they will
do for themselves.”
Jane Austen (2016, p. 699)
“Alone we can do so little; together we can do so much.”
Helen Keller
The sentiments on goal pursuit put forth by Austen and Keller
differ, and their ideas reflect an important question: Do close
others help or hinder goal pursuit? Whereas Austen implies that
support from others can be demotivating, Keller suggests the
opposite. Abundant evidence from the social support literature
suggests that close others can boost goal attainment (Brunstein,
Dangelmayer, & Schultheiss, 1996; Cohen & Wills, 1985), and
by definition, social support provides people with resources to
pursue their goals (Cohen, Gottlieb, & Underwood, 2000). On
the other hand, relying on others for help may hurt goal pursuit
(Latane´, Williams, & Harkins, 1979). In a series of studies,
Fitzsimons and Finkel (2011) found that being reminded that
a close other helps with goal pursuit reduced one’s intentions
to pursue that goal, an effect they called outsourcing self-reg-
ulation. In other words, thinking of how a partner can be help-
ful to one’s goals may lead one to believe “my partner will
take care of that for me, so I don’t have to.” The current
research attempts to address these seemingly conflicting
accounts of interpersonal influences on goal pursuit by
exploring the circumstances under which close others boost
or undermine goal pursuit, as well as the mechanisms under-
lying these relationships.
At any point in time, people have multiple goals (Kruglanski
et al., 2002). People may want to have successful careers but
also enjoy time with friends and family. Despite their desire
to pursue multiple goals, people have limited resources
(Baumeister, Vohs, & Tice, 2007; cf. Lurquin et al., 2016) and
may need to rely on others for support. In such instances (e.g.,
low energy after an exhausting day at work), others may serve
as means to one’s goal pursuit (Orehek & Forest, 2016). For
example, if Jill has a partner, Jack, who cooks healthy meals
for her and thus advances her health goals, Jill may be
inclined to invest less time and energy advancing this goal
herself and may choose to conserve her resources for pursuing
her other goals. In line with this notion, Fitzsimons and Finkel
(2011) showed that considering how others would help with
the pursuit of health and fitness goals reduced people’s inten-
tions to expend their own effort to pursue this goal, particu-
larly when their resources were limited (e.g., following a
cognitively demanding task). This is akin to perceived goal
progress whereby a person interprets a partner’s support as
movement toward the goal; when people perceive goal
1
Department of Psychology, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA
2
Department of Psychology, The Fuqua School of Business, Duke University,
Durham, NC, USA
Corresponding Author:
Julia L. Briskin, Department of Psychology, Wayne State University, 42 W
Warren Ave., Detroit, MI 48202, USA.
Email: julia.briskin@wayne.edu
Social Psychological and
Personality Science
1-12
ªThe Author(s) 2017
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1948550617736112
journals.sagepub.com/home/spp

progress, they may be inclined to switch their focus to pursue
other goals (Fishbach & Dhar, 2005). In other words, even if
Jill remains committed to the health goal that her partner
serves, Jack’s support may be interpreted as health goal prog-
ress and may prompt Jill to switch to pursuing other goals
rather than persevering on the same goal.
On the other hand, remembering that one can rely on others
to advance one’s goals may be perceived as goal commitment
rather than goal progress and may prompt continued pursuit
of the same goal (Fishbach & Dhar, 2005). Indeed, the social
support literature suggests that in some cases, support from
close others to achieve a goal may boost self-efficacy (Ander-
son, Winett, & Wojcik, 2007), leading one to feel more
equipped to achieve a goal, which may in turn facilitate goal
pursuit. For instance, if Jack cooks healthy dinners (advancing
Jill’s health goals), Jill may feel more committed to reaching
her health goals, because the goal seems more attainable.
The above analysis suggests that the same action (a partner’s
help or support) could be interpreted as goal progress or goal
commitment. While perceived goal progress may result in sub-
sequent actions inconsistent with the goal, perceived goal com-
mitment should prompt subsequent actions consistent with the
goal. In the current studies, we specifically focused on the
effects of perceived partner support on goal commitment and
intentions to pursue a goal.
An important factor that can influence the way a partner’s
support is perceived is the type of support provided. One may
perceive a partner as providing esteem-related, validating sup-
port (emotional support); alternatively, one may perceive a
partner as providing tangible, concrete help (instrumental sup-
port; Semmer et al., 2008). The type of partner support and its
possible effects on goal pursuit are unclear. For instance,
whereas instrumental support may be substitutable for personal
effort and may thus decrease goal pursuit intentions (Fitzsi-
mons & Finkel, 2011), emotional support may not be as
directly substitutable. However, research on physical activity
shows the opposite pattern; instrumental support significantly
increased physical activity over a 19-week intervention (Sicel-
off, Wilson, & Horn, 2013), suggesting that instrumental sup-
port may be especially important for increasing goal
commitment and therefore the likelihood of goal attainment.
The present research attempts to reconcile prior outsourcing
self-regulation findings (suggesting that thinking about support
from others may hinder individual goal pursuit) with extensive
social support research suggesting that relying on others bol-
sters goal pursuit. In three well-powered studies, we methodo-
logically replicated the research conducted by Fitzsimons and
Finkel (2011). Additionally, we explored the role of goal com-
mitment (Studies 1–3) and the ways that specific types of social
support may influence goal pursuit intentions (Study 3).
According to the findings from the original outsourcing
study (Fitzsimons & Finkel, 2011), one would expect that par-
ticipants prompted to think of how a partner helps with their
health and fitness goals (vs. career goals) would plan to spend
less time and effort on health and fitness goals in the upcoming
week.Furthermore,thiseffect should be particularly strong
when participants’ cognitive resources are low. This might be
the case because a person whose resources are depleted would
be less likely to invest in goal pursuit, especially when that par-
ticular goal could be attained with the help of others. However,
the social support literature suggests the opposite pattern of
findings might be expected: Perceiving one’s partner as instru-
mental to one’s health and fitness goals (vs. career goals)
should increase goal pursuit intentions, and this effect should
be particularly strong when cognitive resources are low. This
may be the case because feeling depleted should decrease the
expectancy of goal attainment; in such circumstances, a sup-
portive partner may alleviate this effect.
Study 1
We aimed to test the effect of perceived partner instrumentality
on goal pursuit intentions and the extent to which individuals’
limited resources may exacerbate this effect. Furthermore, we
aimed to explore the mediating role of goal commitment. In
order to do so, we employed a 2 2 design, with partner instru-
mentality (high vs. control) and resources (low vs. control) as
between-subjects factors.
Method
Study 1 was a direct replication of Study 1 from the original
Fitzsimons and Finkel’s (2011) paper and was preregistered
with the Open Science Framework. Two hundred sixty-three
female participants in committed romantic relationships were
recruited using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. Guidelines for
direct replication studies suggest an estimate of at least 95%
power to detect anticipated effects (a¼.05). Based on a com-
putation of the effect size achieved in the original outsourcing
study (f¼.585), we sought to be conservative and thus opted
for an effect size that was slightly less than half of the effect
size in the original study (f¼.25). For Study 1, based on cal-
culations using G*Power software (Version 3.1; estimated
effect size f¼.25, numerator df ¼1, and number of groups
¼4), the minimum total participants needed were 210. In order
to be certain that there would be enough power to detect effects
after data screening, a total of 263 participants were recruited.
Of the 263 participants recruited, 7 participants were male
and 46 participants did not follow the study instructions (either
they did not write down one way their partner helps with a
health and fitness goal and/or they failed to complete the
resource depletion manipulation as instructed); thus, those par-
ticipants were excluded from analyses. A total of 210 partici-
pants were analyzed for Study 1 (N¼210, all female, mean
age ¼35.03, SD ¼11.38; see Table 1). Only women were
recruited for the study, consistent with the original Fitzsimons
and Finkel’s (2011) study.
Procedure
Consistent with the procedures followed by Fitzsimons and
Finkel (2011), people were recruited for a study investigating
2Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)

interpersonal relationships and goals. The survey contained
very brief prescreening questions as eligibility criteria (i.e., are
you in a committed romantic relationship?) that only allowed
participants to continue if the answer was “yes.” Eligible parti-
cipants first underwent a task designed to manipulate cognitive
resources. Specifically, participants either retyped a paragraph
“skipping all vowels that come two letters after another vowel”
(low resource condition) or participants retyped the same para-
graph with the instructions to “skip all vowels” (control
resources condition).
To manipulate partner instrumentality, participants were
asked to provide an example of how their partner helps with
their health and fitness goals (high instrumentality condition)
or to provide an example of how their partner helps with an
alternative, career goal (control condition). Participants then
reported their intentions to pursue their health and fitness
goals in the upcoming week, which was the dependent vari-
able of interest. Specifically, participants rated the amount
of time and effort they planned to spend on health and fitness
in the upcoming week (1 ¼much less than usual to 5 ¼much
more than usual). The answers on the two questions were
highly correlated (r¼.885, p< .001) and were therefore
averaged and used as an indicator of participants’ goal pur-
suit intentions.
To assess goal commitment, participants rated goal impor-
tance(“Myhealthandfitnessareimportanttome”)andhow
much they cared about goal progress (“I care about my progress
on my health and fitness goals”) on a 1–7 scale (1 ¼Icom-
pletely disagree to 7 ¼I completely agree;r¼.912, p<
.001). The average score on these 2 items was used as an indi-
cator of goal commitment. Finally, participants provided
demographic information.
Results
Using SPSS version 24, a two-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was conducted to test the effect of partner instru-
mentality (high vs. control) and resources (low vs. control)
on goal pursuit intentions; results are displayed in Table 2.
Similar to Fitzsimons and Finkel’s (2011) findings, there was
no main effect of resources on goal pursuit intentions. There
was a significant main effect of partner instrumentality on goal
pursuit intentions; specifically, participants planned to spend
more time and effort on their health and fitness goals when they
perceived their partner as instrumental to these goals compared
to the alternative career goals (see Table 3).
The analysis also revealed a significant interaction
between partner instrumentality and resources (see
Figure 1a). Simple effects analysis showed that the effect
of partner instrumentality on goal pursuit intentions was only
significant in the low resources condition and not in the con-
trol resources condition; participants planned to spend signif-
icantly more time and effort on health and fitness goals when
they had considered how their partner was instrumental to
these goals (vs. the alternative career goal), but only in the
low resources condition. Within the control resources condi-
tion, there was no difference in planned time and effort to
pursue the health and fitness goal as a function of partner
instrumentality (see Table 3).
A second ANOVA revealed a significant main effect of
partner instrumentality on goal commitment (see Table 2 and
Figure 1b); specifically, participants who were led to perceive
their partner as instrumental to their health and fitness goals
reported higher commitment to these goals than participants
who perceived their partner as instrumental to the alternative
career goal. However, this effect was not moderated by
resources (see Table 2 and Figure 1b).
These results contrast with the findings of Fitzsimons and
Finkel (2011) who did not find an effect of perceived partner
instrumentality on goal commitment. However, they are in line
with the social support literature, which suggests that perceived
partner instrumentality (i.e., support) may boost one’s expec-
tancy for goal attainment and thus goal commitment, which
in turn may increase goal pursuit intentions. To test this possi-
bility directly, we conducted a mediated moderation analysis
using the PROCESS macro (Model 5) in SPSS with 10,000
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of Demographic Study Variables.
Variables
Study 1 Study 2 Study 3
N¼210 N¼337 N¼303
Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
Relationship length (years) N/A N/A N/A N/A 7.98 8.71
Age 35.03 11.38 32.17 9.52 35.19 10.66
Gender (% female) 100% N/A 100% N/A 56.40% N/A
Race/ethnicity (%)
White/Caucasian 74.30% N/A 76.90% N/A 79.90% N/A
Black/African American 9.00% N/A 6.50% N/A 7.60% N/A
East Asian 4.80% N/A 6.50% N/A 6.60% N/A
Middle Eastern 0.00% N/A 0.60% N/A 0.00% N/A
Hispanic 6.70% N/A 4.50% N/A 3.60% N/A
Native American 1.00% N/A 1.20% N/A 1.00% N/A
Multiracial 4.30% N/A 3.90% N/A 1.30% N/A
Briskin et al. 3

bootstrapped samples (Hayes, 2013). The analysis revealed that
the effect of perceived partner instrumentality on goal pursuit
intentions was indeed mediated by goal commitment as sug-
gested by a significant indirect effect. Specifically, perceiving
one’s partner as instrumental to one’s health and fitness goals
(vs. career goal) increased commitment to health and fitness
goals, which in turn increased goal pursuit intentions. Partner
instrumentality led to increased goal pursuit intentions only
when cognitive resources were low (see Figure 1c).
The above findings offer preliminary support for the notion
that relying on close others for support may in fact facilitate
rather than reduce goal pursuit intentions. The results are in line
with the social support literature and in contrast to the outsour-
cing findings previously reported by Fitzsimons and Finkel
(2011). To ensure that our Study 1 findings (including the med-
iation analysis of goal commitment) were not spurious, we con-
ducted a rereplication of this study.
Study 2
Method
To guide calculations for an appropriate sample size, a power
analysis was conducted using the effect size from the interac-
tion term of partner instrumentality and resources (f¼.19)
obtained in Study 1. Using G*Power software (Version 3.1;
estimated effect size of f¼.19, numerator df ¼1, and number
of groups ¼4), the minimum total participants needed were
372 in order to achieve 95%power.
A total of 433 female participants in committed romantic
relationships were recruited on Amazon’s Mechanical Turk
to help ensure that we would have the desired power after data
screening. Fourteen participants did not provide an example of
how their partner was instrumental, and 92 participants failed
to complete the resources manipulation as instructed. Thus,
these participants were excluded from analyses, and a priori
Table 2. Analysis of Variance Results for Goal Pursuit Intentions and Goal Commitment as a Function of Partner Instrumentality and Cognitive
Resources in Study 1.
Variables Sum of Squares df Mean Square FSig. Z2
p
Dependent Variable (DV): Goal pursuit intentions
Partner instrumentality 9.64 1 9.64 11.52 .001** .053**
Resources 0.38 1 0.38 0.45 .503 .002
Instrumentality Resources 6.10 1 6.10 7.29 .008** .034**
Error 172.42 206 0.84
Total 2,273.50 210
Corrected total 186.62 209
Simple effects: Resources
Low
13.61 1 13.61 16.26 .001** .162**
Error 172.42 206 0.84
Simple effects: Resources
Control
0.24 1 0.24 0.28 .597 .002
Error 172.42 206 0.84
Dependent Variable (DV): Goal commitment
Partner instrumentality 13.27 1 13.27 7.23 .008** .034**
Resources 0.02 1 0.02 0.01 .919 .000
Instrumentality Resources 6.20 1 6.20 3.38 .068 .016
Error 378.20 206 1.84
Total 6,715.00 210
Corrected total 395.46 209
*p < .05. **p< .01.
Table 3. Means, SDs, SEs, 95% CIs, and Cohen’s dfor Goal Pursuit Intentions and Goal Commitment as a Function of Partner Instrumentality
and Cognitive Resources in Study 1.
Variables
High Instrumentality Control Instrumentality
MSDSE 95% CI MSDSE 95% CI Cohen’s d95% CI for d
DV: Goal pursuit intentions
Instrumentality main effect 3.37 1.03 .09 [3.20, 3.55] 2.94 0.80 .09 [2.76, 3.12] .465** [0.190, 0.739]
Low resources 3.59 1.02 .14 [3.32, 3.86] 2.81 0.75 .14 [2.54, 3.08] .871** [0.439, 1.30]
Control resources 3.16 1.01 .12 [2.93, 3.39] 3.07 0.83 .12 [2.83, 3.31] .098 [0.261, 0.456]
DV: Goal commitment
Instrumentality main effect 5.74 1.24 .13 [5.45, 6.00] 5.23 1.48 .14 [4.96, 5.50] .374** [0.102, 0.647]
Low resources 5.92 1.22 .20 [5.52, 6.32] 5.07 1.56 .20 [4.67, 5.47] .607** [0.184, 1.03]
Control resources 5.57 1.23 .17 [5.22, 5.89] 5.40 1.41 .18 [5.04, 5.75] .129 [0.230, 0.488]
Note.CI¼confidence interval.
*p< .05. **p< .01.
4Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)

power was reduced to approximately 93%. A total of 337 par-
ticipants were analyzed for Study 2 (N¼337, all female, mean
age ¼32.17, SD ¼9.52; see Table 1).
Procedure
The procedure for Study 2 was identical to Study 1. We pre-
dicted that Study 2 would replicate the findings from Study 1.
Results
A two-way ANOVA was conducted with partner instrumental-
ity (high vs. control) and resources (low vs. control) as
between-subjects factors. Consistent with Study 1, there was
no main effect of resources on goal pursuit intentions. There
was a significant main effect of partner instrumentality on goal
pursuit intentions (see Table 4); participants planned to spend
more time and effort on their health and fitness goals in the
high partner instrumentality condition than in the control part-
ner instrumentality condition, successfully replicating Study 1
findings (see Table 5 and Figure 2a).
The interaction between partner instrumentality and
resources was not significant. Simple effects analysis showed
that the effect of the instrumentality condition on goal pursuit
intentions was significant in both the low resources condition
and in the control resources condition (see Table 4). In both the
low resources condition and the control resources condition,
participants with instrumental partners for the health and
A
B
C
Goal
Commitment
Partner
Instrumentality
Goal Pursuit
Intentions
.46* .36*
-.41
Resources
.44*
Figure 1. (a) Goal pursuit intentions as a function of partner instrumentality (high vs. control) and amount of resources (low vs. control) in
Study 1. Participants with instrumental partners planned to pursue their health and fitness goal to a greater extent than those in the control
instrumentality condition, especially when resources were low. Error bars are +1SE. (b) Goal commitment as a function of partner instru-
mentality (high vs. control) and amount of resources (low vs. control) in Study 1. Participants with instrumental partners had greater com-
mitment to their health and fitness goal than those in the control instrumentality condition. Error bars are +1SE. (c) The effects of
instrumentality condition on goal pursuit intentions via goal commitment in Study 1. Unstandardized regression coefficients are displayed above;
the direct effect of instrumentality condition on goal pursuit intentions was only significant when cognitive resources were low. The indirect
effect of instrumentality condition on goal pursuit intentions was 0.16 (SE ¼.07), which was statistically significant, 95% confidence interval
[.0358, .3081]. *p< .05, **p< .01.
Briskin et al. 5

fitness goal planned to spend more time and effort on the health
and fitness goal than those in the control instrumentality condi-
tion (see Table 5). Although the moderation results did not
replicate the findings from Study 1, the overall pattern of
effects between the two studies was similar, in that greater part-
ner instrumentality led to increased goal pursuit intentions.
In line with Study 1 findings, a second ANOVA revealed a
significant main effect of partner instrumentality on goal com-
mitment (see Figure 2b). Participants who perceived their part-
ner as instrumental to their health and fitness goals reported
higher commitment to these goals than participants who per-
ceived their partner as instrumental to the alternative career
goal. Similar to Study 1, there was not a significant interaction
between resources and partner instrumentality on goal commit-
ment (see Table 4).
To test the extent to which increased goal commitment is the
mechanism through which partner instrumentality influences
goal pursuit intentions, we conducted a simple mediation anal-
ysis using PROCESS model 4 (Hayes, 2013). This analysis
revealed that the effect of partner instrumentality (high vs. con-
trol) on goal pursuit intentions was indeed mediated by goal
commitment, as suggested by a significant indirect effect.
Thus, greater partner instrumentality led to increased goal com-
mitment, which in turn increased goal pursuit intentions (see
Figure 2c).
Results from Studies 1 and 2 consistently showed that
greater partner instrumentality increased goal pursuit intentions
by increasing goal commitment, in line with research on social
support. Although partner support may be substituted for one’s
own effort and may lead to perceived goal progress, Studies 1
and 2 did not support this idea. Thus, it may have been the case
that participants did not consider their romantic partners as
“means” to the health and fitness goal but rather as sources
of support that increased the likelihood of attaining one’s
Table 4. Analysis of Variance Results for Goal Pursuit Intentions and Goal Commitment as a Function of Partner Instrumentality and Cognitive
Resources in Study 2.
Variables Sum of Squares df Mean Square FSig. Z2
p
DV: Goal pursuit intentions
Partner instrumentality 5.53 1 5.53 8.42 .004** .025**
Resources 1.39 1 1.39 2.11 .147 .006
Instrumentality Resources 0.18 1 0.18 0.28 .599 .001
Error 218.65 333 0.66
Total 3,664.25 337
Corrected total 225.52 336
Simple effects: Resources
Low
2.98 1 2.98 4.54 .034*
Error 218.65 333 0.66
Simple effects: Resources
Control
2.622 1 2.62 3.99 .046*
Error 218.650 333 0.66
DV: Goal commitment
Partner instrumentality 13.98 1 13.98 7.13 .008** .021**
Resources 5.30 1 5.30 2.70 .101 .008
Instrumentality Resources 0.68 1 0.68 0.35 .557 .001
Error 652.86 333 1.96
Total 10,591.50 337
Corrected total 675.82 336
*p< .05. **p< .01.
Table 5. Means, SDs, SEs, 95% CIs, and Cohen’s dfor Goal Pursuit Intentions and Goal Commitment as a Function of Partner Instrumentality
and Cognitive Resources in Study 2.
Variables
High Instrumentality Control Instrumentality
MSDSE 95% CI MSDSE 95% CI Cohen’s d95% CI for d
DV: Goal pursuit intentions
Instrumentality main effect 3.35 0.81 .07 [3.22, 3.48] 3.08 0.81 .07 [2.95, 3.21] .333** [.118, .548]
Low resources 3.26 0.76 .08 [3.11, 3.41] 3.04 0.77 .08 [2.88, 3.19] .288* [.021, .555]
Control resources 3.44 0.90 .11 [3.23, 3.65] 3.12 0.87 .11 [2.92, 3.33] .362* [.001, .724]
DV: Goal commitment
Instrumentality main effect 5.67 1.29 .11 [5.45, 5.90] 5.25 1.51 .11 [5.03, 5.47] .299** [.084, .514]
Low resources 5.59 1.28 .13 [5.33. 5.85] 5.07 1.55 .14 [4.90, 5.34] .366** [.099, .634]
Control resources 5.76 1.31 .18 [5.39, 6.12] 5.43 1.43 .18 [5.07, 5.78] .240 [.120, .601]
Note.CI¼confidence interval.
*p< .05. **p < .01.
6Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)

health and fitness goal. In this way, reminders of helpful part-
ners can thus serve to motivate individuals to work harder in
their own goal pursuit.
Study 3
Given the disconnect between the social support literature and
the original outsourcing findings (Fitzsimons & Finkel, 2011)
and in line with goal pursuit literature that suggests the same
action (partner support) can be perceived as goal progress or
goal commitment, with different consequences for goal pursuit
(Fishbach & Dhar, 2005), Study 3 investigated the possibility
that the type of partner support (instrumental vs. emotional)
may influence when partners bolster (vs. undermine) goal pur-
suit. We conducted an experimental study with type of support
(instrumental vs. emotional) and gender (male vs. female) as
the independent variables. Goal commitment and goal pursuit
intentions, operationalized identically to Studies 1 and 2, were
the dependent variables of interest.
In line with social support research suggesting that instru-
mental support is particularly helpful for advancing fitness
goals (Siceloff et al., 2013), we hypothesized that instrumental
support (in which a partner does something concrete to advance
a goal; Cutrona, 1990; Semmer et al., 2008) rather than emo-
tional support (in which a partner expresses validation and
warmth) would be particularly relevant for enhancing one’s
goal pursuit intentions. Furthermore, we expected this effect
to be mediated by goal commitment; specifically, we hypothe-
sized that instrumental (vs. emotional) support would result in
greater goal commitment, which would in turn increase goal
pursuit intentions.
Finally, although Studies 1 and 2 recruited women exclu-
sively, based on the notion that women are socialized to accept
perceived support more so than men (Landman-Peeters et al.,
2005), Study 3 recruited both genders and tested this assump-
tion directly. It may be the case that women are more receptive
to social support provision; women have been shown to draw
social support from more people compared to men, who
AB
C
Goal
Commitment
Partner
Instrumentality
Goal Pursuit
Intentions
.45** .30**
.25**(.12)
Figure 2. (a) Goal pursuit intentions as a function of partner instrumentality (high vs. control) and amount of resources (low vs. control) in
Study 2. Participants with instrumental partners planned to pursue their health and fitness goal to a greater extent than those in the control
instrumentality condition. Error bars are +1SE. (b) Goal commitment as a function of partner instrumentality (high vs. control) and amount of
resources (low vs. control) in Study 2. Participants with instrumental partners had significantly greater commitment to their health and fitness
goal than those in the control instrumentality condition. Error bars are +1SE. (c) The effects of instrumentality condition on goal pursuit
intentions via goal commitment in Study 2. Unstandardized regression coefficients are displayed above; the direct effect of instrumentality
condition on goal pursuit intentions was no longer significant when goal commitment was included in the model. The indirect effect of
instrumentality condition on goal pursuit intentions was 0.13 (SE ¼.05), which was statistically significant, 95% confidence interval [.0471, .2389].
*p< .05, **p< .01.
Briskin et al. 7

typically draw support mostly from their romantic partners
(Carver, Scheier, & Segerstrom, 2010; Srivastava, McGonigal,
Richards, Butler, & Gross, 2006). Thus, we expected that the
mediated effect of support type on goal pursuit intentions
would only hold for women, because of their increased propen-
sity to have and use social support.
Method
Based on calculations using G*Power (Version 3.1; estimated
effect size of f¼.20, numerator df ¼1, and number of groups
¼4), the total participants needed to achieve 90%power were
265. As Study 3 was not a direct replication, we reasoned that
achieving 90%power would be sufficient for detecting an
effect. To be certain that enough surveys would be complete for
data analysis, a total of 306 participants in committed relation-
ships were recruited using Amazon’s Mechanical Turk. How-
ever, three participants failedtogiveanexampleofhow
their partner was supportive for a health and fitness goal. Thus,
these participants were excluded from analysis. Data from 303
participants were analyzed. Of these, 171 were female, with a
mean age of 35.19 (SD ¼10.66; see Table 1).
Procedure
To manipulate the type of support, participants wrote down one
way that their partner was instrumentally supportive of a health
and fitness goal (instrumental partner condition) or one way
that their partner was emotionally supportive of a health and fit-
ness goal (emotional support condition). Specifically, in the
instrumental support condition, participants were instructed
to list an example of how their partner does something concrete
to help them advance their health and fitness goal. In the emo-
tional support condition, participants were instructed to provide
an example of how their partners are emotionally supportive
and say things or discuss their goals with them in a way that
helps advance their health and fitness goals. Subsequently, par-
ticipants rated their goal commitment in a manner identical to
Studies 1 and 2. As in the previous studies, these items were
averaged to create an index of goal commitment (r¼.711, p
< .001). Finally, to assess intentions to engage in goal pursuit,
participants rated the amount of time and energy/effort they
were planning to spend on health and fitness in the upcoming
week, on a scale of 1 (much less than usual)to5(much more
than usual); these items were averaged to create an index of
goal pursuit intentions (r¼.826, p< .001).
Results
A two-way ANOVA was conducted to test the effect of support
type (instrumental vs. emotional) and gender (male vs. female)
on goal pursuit intentions. No significant main effects of
support-type condition or gender emerged for goal pursuit inten-
tions (see Table 6). Participants with instrumentally supportive
partners planned to spend approximately the same amount of time
and effort on health and fitness as participants with emotionally
supportive partners, and men planned to spend approximately the
same amount of time and effort on health and fitness as women
(see Table 7). There was no significant interaction between gen-
der and support type on goal pursuit intentions (see Figure 3a).
Another two-way ANOVA was conducted to test the effect
of support type (instrumental vs. emotional) and gender (male
vs. female) on goal commitment. No significant main effects of
support-type condition or gender emerged for goal commit-
ment. However, there was a significant interaction between
gender and support type on goal commitment (see Table 6).
Simple effects analysis showed that among women, there was
significantly greater goal commitment in the instrumental
Table 6. Analysis of Variance Results for Goal Pursuit Intentions and Goal Commitment as a Function of Support Type and Gender in Study 3.
Variables Sum of Squares df Mean Square FSig. Z2
p
DV: Goal pursuit intentions
Support type 0.14 1 0.14 0.16 .691 .001
Gender 1.66 1 1.66 1.87 .172 .006
Support Type Gender 0.64 1 0.64 0.72 .397 .002
Error 264.49 299 0.89
Total 7,852.00 303
Corrected total 267.00 302
DV: Goal commitment
Support type 0.34 1 0.34 0.42 .520 .001
Gender 0.24 1 0.24 0.29 .590 .001
Support Type Gender 8.00 1 8.00 9.86 .002** .032**
Error 242.69 299 0.81
Total 12,078.50 303
Corrected total 251.94 302
Simple effects: Gender
Male
2.63 1 2.63 3.24 .073
Error 242.69 299 0.81
Simple effects: Gender
Female
5.74 1 5.74 7.08 .008**
Error 242.69 299 0.81
*p< .05. **p< .01.
8Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)

support condition than in the emotional support condition.
Among men, goal commitment did not significantly differ as
a function of support type (see Table 7 and Figure 3b).
Although there were no significant direct effects of support
type on goal pursuit intentions or goal commitment, we pro-
ceeded with a moderated mediation analysis using the
Table 7. Means, SDs, SEs, 95% CIs, and Cohen’s dfor Goal Pursuit Intentions and Goal Commitment as a Function of Support Type and Gender
in Study 3.
Variables
Instrumental Support Emotional Support
MSDSE95% CI MSDSE 95% CI Cohen’s d95% CI for d
DV: Goal pursuit intentions
Support-type main effect 4.99 1.04 .08 [4.83, 5.14] 5.03 .83 .08 [4.88, 5.18] .043 [.183, .268]
Male 5.01 0.94 .12 [4.78, 5.26] 5.15 .85 .11 [4.94, 5.37] .157 [.186, .500]
Female 4.96 1.11 .10 [4.76, 5.16] 4.91 .80 .10 [4.71, 5.11] .052 [.248, .351]
DV: Goal commitment
Support-type main effect 6.28 0.96 .08 [6.13, 6.43] 6.21 .86 .07 [6.06, 6.35] .077 [.148, .302]
Male 6. 14 1.13 .12 [5.91, 6.37] 6.40 .77 .11 [6.19, 6.61] .274 [.071, .618]
Female 6.41 0.81 .10 [6.22, 6.60] 6.02 .90 .10 [5.82, 6.21] .456** [.152, .760]
Note.CI¼confidence interval.
*p< .05. **p< .01.
A
B
C
Goal
Commitment
Gender
Goal
Pursuit
Intentions
.07
-.33**
.42**
-.08
Support
Type
Figure 3. (a) Health and fitness goal pursuit intentions as a function of partner support type (emotional vs. instrumental) and gender (men vs.
women) in Study 3. There were no significant main effects or interactions of support type and gender on goal pursuit intentions. Error bars
are +1SE. (b) Health and fitness goal commitment as a function of partner support type (emotional vs. instrumental) and gender (men vs.
women) in Study 3. Women with instrumentally supportive partners had significantly greater health goal commitment than women with
emotionally supportive partners. Men did not significantly differ in their goal commitment as a function of support type. Error bars are +1SE.
(c) The effects of perceived support type on goal pursuit intentions via goal commitment, moderated by gender in Study 3. Unstandardized
regression coefficients are displayed. The indirect effect of support-type condition on goal pursuit intentions via goal commitment for women
was 0.17 (SE ¼.05), which was statistically significant, 95% confidence interval [.0684, .2836]. No significant indirect effects were observed for
men. *p<.05,**p<.01.
Briskin et al. 9

PROCESS macro (Model 7) in SPSS with 10,000 bootstrapped
samples (Hayes, 2013) to test the idea that perceived instru-
mental partner support enhances goal commitment for women
(but not men), which in turn increases goal pursuit intentions.
Instrumental support was coded as 2 and emotional support was
coded as 1, for ease of interpretability, with larger regression
coefficients corresponding to greater partner instrumentality.
Gender was effects coded (men ¼1, women ¼1). Moderated
mediation results revealed that instrumental (vs. emotional)
support did indeed increase goal commitment for women only,
which in turn increased women’s goal pursuit intentions; the
index of moderated mediation was 0.28 (SE ¼.09, 95%con-
fidence interval [CI] [.4738, .1118]). A significant indirect
effect of support type on goal pursuit intentions via goal com-
mitment was observed for women (indirect effect ¼.17, SE ¼
.05, 95%CI [.0684, .2836]) but not for men (indirect effect ¼
.11, SE ¼.07, 95%CI [.2719, .0205]; see Figure 3c).
Discussion
Three studies tested the effects of perceived partner support on
goal commitment and goal pursuit intentions. Although exten-
sive research suggests that close others may boost goal pursuit,
there is evidence that, under certain circumstances, relying on
others may in fact undermine one’s goal pursuit intentions. The
current research attempted to reconcile these inconsistencies
and explore the conditions under which partner support may
enhance or decrease goal pursuit intentions, as well as explore
the mechanisms underlying this effect.
Our findings demonstrate that thinking of supportive part-
ners (i.e., how a partner may help with one’s health and fitness
goals) bolsters one’s goal pursuit intentions (i.e., the amount of
time and effort one plans to invest in pursuing health and fit-
ness goals in the upcoming week). These results are in line with
research on social support, which suggests that perceived sup-
port from significant others can bolster goal pursuit (Brunstein
et al., 1996; Feeney, 2004; Rusbult, Finkel, & Kumashiro,
2009). Furthermore, they are consistent with research on goal
pursuit (Fishbach & Dhar, 2005; Kruglanski et al., 2002),
which indicates that certain actions (i.e., a partner’s support/
help) may be perceived as goal commitment and may result
in subsequent actions that further advance the same goal.
Relying on others to facilitate one’s personal goal pursuits
may be particularly beneficial, given that people have limited
regulatory resources (Baumeister, Bratslavsky, Muraven, &
Tice, 1998; Baumeister et al., 2007). In line with this notion,
in Study 1, we found that thinking of an instrumental partner
boosts goal pursuit intentions, especially when one’s cognitive
resources are depleted. This may happen because the availabil-
ity of a partner who could help with one’s goals may alleviate
the negative effect that being depleted or exhausted has on
expectancy of goal attainment. However, we failed to replicate
this finding in Study 2, which might indicate that the effect of
resources is not very robust. Furthermore, although resources
moderated the effect of partner instrumentality on goal pursuit
intentions in Study 1, we did not find an effect on goal
commitment. Although only a speculation, it is possible that
the effect of partner instrumentality on goal commitment would
not be dependent on cognitive resources, if a partner’s instru-
mental support was perceived to provide sufficient resources
for goal pursuit in and of itself (Kruglanski et al., 2012). How-
ever, given the inconsistent pattern of findings, the effects of
resources should be interpreted cautiously at this point.
Finally, the type of support matters; the research reported
here reveals that instrumental support, relative to emotional
support, is particularly important for increasing goal commit-
ment and therefore for increasing one’s goal pursuit intentions.
It should be noted that emotional support may be considered
instrumental in some circumstances (i.e., discussing challenges
for goal pursuit with a partner, which may bolster motivation);
however, our results suggest that goal commitment and goal
pursuit intentions are bolstered more when a partner does
something supportive, compared to when a partner says some-
thing supportive.
The effect of partner instrumentality on goal pursuit inten-
tions only held for women. We are speculating here, but we
suggest that this may be the case because women are socialized
to value warmth and interpersonal connectedness (Olson &
Shultz, 1994), whereas men are socialized to value autonomy
and independence. Thus, women may be more comfortable
accepting support from others and may in turn benefit more
from perceived social support for goal pursuit. Although the
present studies only examined social support that participants
acknowledged, it may also be important to consider how invi-
sible social support can affect goal pursuit intentions (Bolger,
Zuckerman, & Kessler, 2000).
To conclude, in three well-powered studies, we consistently
demonstrated that partner instrumentality can both directly and
indirectly boost goal pursuit intentions. The results are in line
with the empirical findings of social support research as well
as with the theoretical notions from the goal pursuit literature.
However, it is important to note several limitations of the pres-
ent studies and to discuss the implications and potential future
directions. First, all three studies were conducted on Amazon’s
Mechanical Turk, which tempers the confidence that results are
broadly generalizable (cf. Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling,
2011). Second, participants in Studies 1 and 2 were more likely
to be excluded in the “low resources” condition for failing to
follow instructions, which challenges the assumption of ran-
dom assignment. Third, Study 3 did not have a control condi-
tion; thus, the effects of emotional versus instrumental
support should be interpreted with caution. Another threat to
generalizability of the current findings is the fact that this
research focused exclusively on health and fitness goals.
Although these are important goals (i.e., Kopetz, Faber, Fish-
bach, & Kruglanski, 2011), it is important to extend this
research to other types of goals that people pursue (i.e., one’s
career) and also examine goal pursuit behavior in addition to
goal pursuit intentions.
While our findings failed to replicate the outsourcing self-
regulation findings of Fitzsimons and Finkel (2011), there are
theoretical reasons to believe that a partner’s support could
10 Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)

be, under certain circumstances, perceived as goal progress
rather than goal commitment. This could lead to “goal switch-
ing” rather than to “goal persistence” that was found in the
studies reported above. Future studies should examine the con-
ditions under which perceived partner support may indeed be
substitutable for one’s own effort and may therefore undermine
goal pursuit.
Authors’ Note
Research materials are accessible at https://osf.io/wknd3/.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, author-
ship, and/or publication of this article.
References
Anderson, E. S., Winett, R. A., & Wojcik, J. R. (2007). Self-
regulation, self-efficacy, outcome expectations, and social support:
Social cognitive theory and nutrition behavior. Annals of Beha-
vioral Medicine,34, 304–312. doi:10.1007/BF02874555
Austen, J. (2016). Chapter XI. In The complete novels of Jane Austen
[Google Play version] (p. 699). Retrieved April 28, 2017, from
https://books.google.com/books?id¼9K6TDgAAQBAJ&print
sec¼copyright&source¼gbs_pub_info_r#v¼onepage&q&f¼false
Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M.
(1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self a limited resource? Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,74, 1252–1265. doi:10.
1037//0022-3514.74.5.1252
Baumeister, R. F., Vohs, K. D., & Tice, D. M. (2007). The strength
model of self-control. Current Directions in Psychological Sci-
ence,16, 351–355.
Bolger, N., Zuckerman, A., & Kessler, R. C. (2000). Invisible support
and adjustment to stress. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology,79, 953–961. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.6.953
Brunstein, J. C., Dangelmayer, G., & Schultheiss, O. C. (1996). Per-
sonal goals and social support in close relationships: Effects on
relationship mood and marital satisfaction. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,71, 1006–1019. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.
71.5.1006
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. (2011). Amazon’s Mechan-
ical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data?
Perspectives on Psychological Science,6, 3–5. doi:10.1037/
e527772014-223
Carver, C. S., Scheier, M. F., & Segerstrom, S. C. (2010). Optimism.
Clinical Psychology Review,30, 879–889.
Cohen, S., Gottlieb, B., & Underwood, L. (2000). Social relationships
and health. In S. Cohen, L. Underwood, & B. Gottlieb (Eds.), Mea-
suring and intervening in social support (pp. 3–25). New York,
NY: Oxford University Press.
Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the buf-
fering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin,98, 310–357. doi:10.
1037//0033-2909.98.2.310
Cutrona, C. E. (1990). Stress and social support—In search of optimal
matching. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,9, 3–14. doi:
10.1521/jscp.1990.9.1.3
Feeney, B. C. (2004). A secure base: Responsive support of goal striv-
ings and exploration in adult intimate relationships. Journal of Per-
sonality and Social Psychology,87, 631–648. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.87.5.631
Fishbach, A., & Dhar, R. (2005). Goals as excuses or guides: The lib-
erating effect of perceived goal progress on choice. Journal of
Consumer Research,32, 370–377.
Fitzsimons, G. M., & Finkel, E. J. (2011). Outsourcing self-regulation.
Psychological Science,22, 369–375. doi:10.1177/0956797610
397955
Hayes, A. F. (2013). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and con-
ditional process analysis: A regression-based approach.New
York: The Guilford Press.
Kopetz, C., Faber, T., Fishbach, A., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2011).
The multifinality constraints effect: How goal multiplicity narrows
themeanssettoafocalend.Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,100, 810.
Kruglanski, A. W., Be´langer, J. J., Chen, X., Ko¨ petz, C., Pierro, A., &
Mannetti, L. (2012). The energetics of motivated cognition: A
force-field analysis. Psychological Review,119, 1–20. doi:10.
1037/a0025488
Kruglanski, A. W., Shah, J. Y., Fishbach, A., Friedman, R., Chun, Y.
W., & Sleeth-Keppler, D. (2002). A theory of goal systems.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology,34, 331–378. doi:
10.1016/s0065-2601(02)80008-9
Landman-Peeters,K.M.,Hartman,C.A.,Pompe,G.V.,Boer,J.
A., Minderaa, R. B., & Ormel, J. (2005). Gender differences
in the relation between social support, problems in parent-
offspring communication, and depression and anxiety. Social
Science & Medicine,60, 2549–2559. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.
2004.10.024
Latane´, B., Williams, K., & Harkins, S. (1979). Many hands
make light the work: The causes and consequences of social
loafing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,37,
822.
Lurquin, J. H., Michaelson, L. E., Barker, J. E., Gustavson, D. E., Von
Bastian, C. C., Carruth, N. P., & Miyake, A. (2016). No evidence
of the ego-depletion effect across task characteristics and individ-
ual differences: A pre-registered study. PLoS One, 11,e0147770.
doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0147770
Olson,D.A.,&Shultz,K.S.(1994).Genderdifferencesinthe
dimensionality of social support. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology,24, 1221–1232. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1994.
tb00555.x
Orehek, E., & Forest, A. L. (2016). When people serve as means to
goals: Implications of a motivational account of close relation-
ships. Current Directions in Psychological Science,25, 79–84.
doi:10.1177/0963721415623536
Rusbult, C. E., Finkel, E. J., & Kumashiro, M. (2009). The Michelan-
gelo phenomenon. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
18, 305–309. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8721.2009.01657.x
Semmer, N. K., Elfering, A., Jacobshagen, N., Perrot, T., Beehr, T. A.,
& Boos, N. (2008). The emotional meaning of instrumental social
Briskin et al. 11

support. International Journal of Stress Management,15,
235–251. doi:10.1037/1072-5245.15.3.235
Siceloff,E.R.,Wilson,D.K.,&Horn,L.V.(2013).Alongitudinal
study of the effects of instrumental and emotional social support
on physical activity in underserved adolescents in the ACT trial.
Annals of Behavioral Medicine,48, 71–79. doi:10.1007/s12160-
013-9571-x
Srivastava, S., McGonigal, K. M., Richards, J. M., Butler, E. A., &
Gross, J. J. (2006). Optimism in close relationships: How seeing
things in a positive light makes them so. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,91, 143.
Author Biographies
Julia L. Briskin is a doctoral student at Wayne State University.
Her research interests focus on how relationship and self-
regulation processes interact to influence psychological health in
romantic couples.
Catalina E. Kopetz is an assistant professor at Wayne State Univer-
sity. Her research interests focus on self-regulation phenomena from
the perspective of motivation as cognition.
Gra
´inne M. Fitzsimons is an associate professor at The Fuqua School
of Business at Duke University. Her research interests focus on inter-
personal relationships, self-regulation, and motivation.
Richard B. Slatcher is an associate professor at Wayne State Univer-
sity. His research interests focus on close relationship processes and
investigations of the links between close relationships, biological pro-
cesses, and physical health.
Handling Editor: Simine Vazire
12 Social Psychological and Personality Science XX(X)