Personal Goals: Structures and Processes in Adult Development
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
ABSTRACT Humans are able to project the future on very complex dimensions, aiming at accomplishing various desires, wishes or projects. The present article conducts a critical analysis of personal goals at adult age, through an integrative review of the literature regarding structures and relevant for these types of goals. Starting with a brief presentation of goal definitions, we then discuss the elaboration of personal goals at adult age, through differential integration of normative requirements and individual characteristics. We next present theoretical tenets of developmental personal goal processes, through integration of gains and losses. In the last segment of the article, we analyze the transformation of action independent personal goals (wishes, desires and fantasies about the future) into operational goals, with adequate action commitment. KEYWORDS: personal goals, developmental tasks, adult development, action commitment. Goals are pervasive constructs in human existence. We project our actions in the future, aim at reaching outcomes, set standards, and create desired end states. We seem to organize our lives around the plans we make for ourselves, the goals we set, and the outcomes we expect. Individuals tend to project their development in terms of goals, intentions, or purposes. Contemporary psychological discourse defines goals as internal representations of desired states, where states are broadly construed as outcomes, events, or processes (Austin & Vancouver, 1996, p. 338). Elliott and McGregor (2001) view goals as being not only oriented toward accomplishment of desired outcomes (approach goals), but also toward escaping dreaded outcomes (avoidance goals). Shah and Kruglansky (2003) conceptualize goals as knowledge structures, is, as cognitive representations characterized by particular contents and particular functions (p. 1109). Goals are linked to the activation of specific cognitions and actions and they bias behavior adaptively (Gray and Braver, 2002, p. 295) when they dynamically adjust to situational conditions which shape levels of goal priority. Definitions of goals denote a future finality or outcome that is mentally construed in the present, aimed at increasing personal and contextual organization of resources, toward the achievement of that outcome. There are multiple theoretical and methodological approaches of goal contents, structures and processes, on different domains (eg., learning, health, work), and levels of analysis (for reviews on goal and structures see Austin & Vancouver, 1996; Carver & Scheier, 1998; Emmons & Kaiser, 1996; Fishbach & Ferguson, 2007; Locke & Latham, 2000). These theoretical or applied tenets reflect a Babel tower approach of goals, with many overlapping different concepts, a large array of postulated and different taxonomies of goal contents. It is difficult to construct an integrative view of human goals, because there are multiple levels of analysis, from molecular mechanisms to molar regularities, each offering complex information, framed in multiple, often antagonistic theories (eg., control theory versus self-efficacy models). From these complex approaches we view the following as major statements regarding human goals: (a) behavior is directed by the pursuit of goals; (b) goals are cognitive representations of outcomes (desired or feared); (c) goals influence and are influenced by evaluations, emotions and behaviors that are linked to goal structures, and contents; (d) goals are hierarchically organized in dynamic systems of superordinate and subordinate goals. Goals imply the assumption of intentionality in adult development. At various levels of content and structure, they give direction to our actions and meaning to our becoming. Personal goals, seen as goals of high long-term relevance for a person, maintain strength over time and adversities and represent subjectively important means or end-states. …
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule tête enseignante, pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».