Does Our Self-Talk Influence Our Success in Pursuing Goals? Relationships Between Self-Talk Valence, Personality Traits, and Goal Attainment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Does our self-talk influence our success in pursuing goals? Research on this topic, largely limited to sports psychology, has shown evidence of self-talk’s association with goal achievement. Drawing from sports literature, we predicted a positive association between self-talk valence and goal attainment among college students in their everyday goal pursuit. Additionally, we examined how neuroticism and extraversion related to goal attainment and whether self-talk valence mediated these relationships. Our sample comprised 190 students from a Canadian university who completed in-lab surveys on self-talk content and frequency, goal attainment, and personality traits. Linear regressions found that self-talk valence and extraversion positively correlated with goal attainment, while neuroticism showed a negative correlation. Mediation analyses found that self-talk valence partially mediated the relationship between these personality traits and goal attainment. Overall, the results supported our hypotheses. Future research should utilize longitudinal design and alternative measures of goal achievement to establish causal relationships.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".