Emerging Trends in The Social and Behavioral Sciences

Holding On or Letting Go? Persistence and Disengagement in Goal Striving

Item

Title

Holding On or Letting Go? Persistence and Disengagement in Goal Striving

Author

Brandstätter, Veronika

Research Area

Cognition and Emotions

Topic

Motivation

Abstract

Goals shape our personal identities, structure our everyday lives, regulate our behavior, and thus are in fact one of the most important sources of performance and well‐being. Successful goal striving unfolds between tenacious persistence on the one hand and timely disengagement on the other when a goal has become futile and too costly. Disengagement from goals is often difficult, however. Issues of unproductive persistence and (unsuccessful) goal disengagement have, for a long time, been addressed primarily in the realm of monetary decision‐making (escalation of commitment). In the more recent past, research on personal goals has devoted attention to issues of goal disengagement, doing so from two different research perspectives (individual differences approach, process‐oriented approach). This essay gives an overview of traditional and current research on goal disengagement with its practical implications for the individual but also on a societal level, and outlines promising lines of research addressing fundamental questions still unanswered.

Related Essays

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity (Psychology), Rodica Ioana Damian and Dean Keith Simonton

Youth Entrepreneurship (Psychology), William Damon et al.

Resilience (Psychology), Erica D. Diminich and George A. Bonanno

Insight (Psychology), Brian Erickson and John Kounios

State of the Art in Competition Research (Psychology), Márta Fülöp and Gábor Orosz

Positive Development among Diverse Youth (Psychology), Richard M. Lerner et al.

Neural and Cognitive Plasticity (Psychology), Eduardo Mercado III

Sociology of Entrepreneurship (Sociology), Martin Ruef

Creativity in Teams (Psychology), Leigh L. Thompson and Elizabeth Ruth Wilson

To Flop Is Human: Inventing Better Scientific Approaches to Anticipating Failure (Methods), Robert Boruch and Alan Ruby

Setting One's Mind on Action: Planning Out Goal Striving in Advance (Psychology), Peter M. Gollwitzer

Positive Developments During the Transition to Adulthood (Psychology), Gil G. Noam and Bailey Triggs

Identifier

etrds0458

extracted text

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:16 P.M.

Page 1

Holding On or Letting Go?
Persistence and Disengagement in
Goal Striving
VERONIKA BRANDSTÄTTER

Abstract

k

Goals shape our personal identities, structure our everyday lives, regulate our
behavior, and thus are in fact one of the most important sources of performance
and well-being. Successful goal striving unfolds between tenacious persistence
on the one hand and timely disengagement on the other when a goal has become
futile and too costly. Disengagement from goals is often difficult, however. Issues
of unproductive persistence and (unsuccessful) goal disengagement have, for a
long time, been addressed primarily in the realm of monetary decision-making
(escalation of commitment). In the more recent past, research on personal goals
has devoted attention to issues of goal disengagement, doing so from two different
research perspectives (individual differences approach, process-oriented approach).
This essay gives an overview of traditional and current research on goal disengagement with its practical implications for the individual but also on a societal level,
and outlines promising lines of research addressing fundamental questions still
unanswered.

k

“Winners never quit and quitters never win.” In claiming this, the famous
former US football coach Vince Lombardi addressed a widely shared social
norm in Western industrialized countries: Keep on going, cling tenaciously
to your goals, finish what you have started, and lead it to a successful
conclusion! Indeed, parents, teachers, sport coaches, employers, and health
professionals instruct their children, pupils, athletes, employees, or patients
to persist in their goal striving even in the face of difficulties or setbacks. No
doubt, without a considerable amount of tenacity, individuals would not
even find their feet, would not develop any competencies, and ultimately
would not reach the stars, as proclaimed in the Latin proverb: Per aspera ad
astra (Through difficulties to the stars).
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Robert A. Scott and Marlis Buchmann (General Editors) with Stephen Kosslyn (Consulting Editor).
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

2

k

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:16 P.M.

Page 2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

This is just one side of the coin, though, as there are many instances
of “pathological persistence” (Ross & Staw, 1993), instances in which
individuals overstretch themselves, throw good money after bad, become
increasingly frustrated to the point of becoming depressed, and forgo more
productive lines of action. Political, economic, and personal histories are
full of examples of excessive persistence in endeavors that would better
have been dismissed at an earlier point in time (e.g., Vietnam war, Long
Island Lighting Company’s Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, remaining in
an unhappy relationship or unsatisfactory job). Obviously, both getting
started and keeping going, as well as stopping and letting go, are two fundamental prerequisites for successful goal striving—from the perspective
of life-span development (Heckhausen, Wrosch, & Schulz, 2010) but also
from the perspective of individuals’ goal striving, quite independently of
the context. Interestingly, though, unproductive persistence and (unsuccessful) goal disengagement have long been addressed primarily in the
realm of monetary decision-making but not with respect to personal goal
striving.
In the domain of economic decision-making, various theoretical accounts
have been put forward which point to the deleterious dynamics in the
“escalation of commitment”, that is, the tendency to stick with a course of
action despite suffering conspicuous (monetary) losses (Staw, 1997). More
recently, research on personal goals has discovered the relevance of (hindered)
goal disengagement for psychological and physical well-being (Brandstätter,
Herrmann, & Schüler, 2013; Brandtstädter & Rothermund, 2002; Heckhausen
et al., 2010). This line of research either focuses on the individual’s goal
adjustment capacities (i.e., distancing oneself from a futile goal, re-engaging
in alternative goals; individual differences approach) (Brandtstädter &
Renner, 1990; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller, Schulz, & Carver, 2003), or on the
dynamic (cognitive, affective, and behavioral) processes in striving for a goal
when goal disengagement becomes an issue (process-oriented approach)
(Brandstätter & Herrmann, 2017).
THE CURRENT STATE OF THE FIELD
ESCALATION OF COMMITMENT IN ECONOMIC CONTEXTS
When an investment of resources (e.g., money and time) turns out to be
futile, decision-makers often face the dilemma of whether to withdraw from
the failing course of action or to continue investing in the endeavor. Abundant research in the field of organizational decision-making shows that there
is a dogged tendency in decision-makers to “escalate their commitment”,
that is, to persist in the losing endeavor by committing more resources to

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Holding On or Letting Go? Persistence and Disengagement in Goal Striving

6:16 P.M.

Page 3

3

it—even in the face of questionable economic prospects (Staw, 1997). Several
psychological explanations for escalating commitment have been proposed,
the most influential of which are the self-justification hypothesis (Staw,
1997), the sunk cost effect (Arkes & Blumer, 1985), and prospect theory
(Whyte, 1993).
DISENGAGEMENT IN PERSONAL GOAL STRIVING

k

Personal goals describe an individual’s everyday strivings, from trivial
pursuits to magnificent obsessions (Little, 1989), embedded in all kinds
of different contexts (e.g., work, study, family, health). Goals “provide the
structure that defines people’s lives” (Carver, Lawrence, & Scheier, 1996,
p. 12; Emmons, 1986) and thus regulate a wide array of human emotion,
cognition, and behavior (Brunstein, 1993; Carver & Scheier, 2005). Due to
the significance of personal goals for people’s definitions of themselves, the
persistent and successful pursuit of self-relevant goals plays a crucial role
for well-being (for a summary, Hennecke & Brandstätter, 2017).
Even though a great variety of psychological (i.e., cognitive, affective)
mechanisms support persistence in goal striving (Brandstätter & Hennecke,
in press; Hennecke & Brandstätter, 2017), success is not guaranteed—who
does not have a tale to tell about repeated failure and setbacks in striving
for a personal goal, which eventually gave way to doubts about whether to
hold on to or let go of the goal? Klinger (1977) was one of the first scholars
to take a look at commitment to and disengagement from personal goals.
He pointed out that disengaging from a goal can be a lengthy process and
an incisive experience for the individual and one that is accompanied by
profound emotional, cognitive and behavioral changes—a kind of “psychic
earthquake” (Klinger, 1977, p. 137). Two core questions are addressed with
respect to disengagement from personal goals: Do people differ in terms
of their goal adjustment capacities when they are confronted with goals
that are too costly or unrealistic to attain (Wrosch et al., 2003)? What are the
cognitive, affective, and behavioral processes in the phase, dubbed an action
crisis, that might precede goal disengagement (Brandstätter & Herrmann,
2017)?
ESCALATION OF COMMITMENT IN ECONOMIC CONTEXTS
THE SELF-JUSTIFICATION HYPOTHESIS
The dominant theoretical account of “escalation of commitment” is the
self-justification hypothesis derived from cognitive dissonance theory
(Festinger, 1957). In the very first study testing this hypothesis, Staw (1997)
argued that decision-makers, when incurring negative consequences within

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

4

k

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:16 P.M.

Page 4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

an investment context, might enlarge their commitment of resources because
they are eager to justify their initial investments. Refraining from further
investments would mean admitting that one’s initial investment decision
was flawed. This, in turn, would create the unpleasant state of cognitive
dissonance, as one’s positive self-concept of being a competent and rational decision-maker would be heavily compromised. Studies testing the
self-justification hypothesis in escalation of commitment follow a common
pattern (Brockner, 1992). The decision-maker (mostly confronted with
fictitious though realistic and personally involving case studies of economic
investment decisions) is either personally responsible or not responsible
for an initial financial decision, such as allocating R & D funds to one of
two divisions of a company, which then either fails or succeeds. Escalation
of commitment is operationalized as the amount of funds allocated to the
initially chosen division in a second round of funding. A pervasive tendency
is consistently observed in decision-makers to allocate more resources to
the underperforming division when one is personally responsible for first
but now failing investment (Schultze, Pfeiffer, & Schulz-Hardt, 2012; Staw,
1997; Wong, Yik, & Kwong, 2006). Beyond self-justification, several authors
have claimed that impression management motives (e.g., saving face), that
is, social justification, also play a role in the escalation of commitment (Staw,
1997).
THE SUNK COST EFFECT
A second influential theoretical approach to escalation of commitment refers
to the sunk cost effect. The sunk cost effect is manifested “in a greater tendency
to continue an endeavor once an investment in money, effort, or time has been
made” (Arkes & Blumer, 1985, p. 124). Well-known is the scenario described
by Arkes and Blumer (1985, p. 126), depicting that you have purchased a
ticket for a skip trip to Michigan ($100) and weeks later one for a nother, even
much more enjoyable skip trip to Wisconsin ($50) not realizing that they were
for the same dates. With no options of returning or selling one of the tickets,
which trip would you go on? Only 46% of the participants in the scenario
study (and not 100% as predicted by traditional economic theory) chose the
Wisconsin trip. From the perspective of rational economic decision theory,
this qualifies as irrational behavior because only incremental costs should
influence the decision, not sunk costs. The reluctance to withdraw from a
prior investment of resources is psychologically justified by “the desire not
to appear wasteful” (Arkes & Blumer, 1985, p. 125) and the attempt to “recover the initial investment” (Feldman & Wong, 2018, p. 1). Notably, the focus
on financial investments in sunk cost research should not obscure the fact
that nonmonetary costs (e.g., time, effort) may also mislead a decision-maker

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Holding On or Letting Go? Persistence and Disengagement in Goal Striving

6:16 P.M.

Page 5

5

into holding on to an endeavor whose outlook is bleak. Obviously, looking
back and focusing on previous investments instead of looking ahead at the
prospects of one’s endeavor bears the risk of escalating commitment.
PROSPECT THEORY

k

Kahneman and Tversky’s (1979) prospect theory is another theoretical
approach put forward in the literature on escalation of commitment (Whyte,
1993). Prospect theory deals with decisions involving uncertainty and
defines the conditions under which decision-makers are risk seeking versus
risk averse. A core assumption of prospect theory is that decision-makers are
risk seeking in the realm of losses whereas they are risk averse in the realm
of gains. These propositions are derived from the theoretically postulated
value function, on the one hand, and the certainty effect, on the other hand.
The value function describes the relationship between (monetary) gains or
losses and the subjective evaluation of these gains or losses. In the area of
gains, it is concave, that is, higher gains are associated with a diminishing
marginal utility. In the area of losses, the value function is convex indicating
that higher losses are associated with “diminishing marginal harm”. The
certainty effect refers to the fact that certain gains are overvalued (i.e., subjectively evaluated relatively more positively than a gain with a probability
of little less than certainty [p < 1.0]), whereas certain losses are undervalued
(i.e., subjectively evaluated relatively more negatively than a loss with a
probability of little less than certainty [p < 1.0]). Translated to the escalation
of commitment, one would predict that individuals involved in a costly
endeavor in which they have already invested heavily find themselves in the
realm of losses. They are confronted with the decision either to give up the
endeavor, which would mean the certain loss of all previous investments, or
to choose the risky option, that is to go on. The latter is associated with the
finite chance of changing course but also with the possibility of incurring
even greater losses. The prevailing risk proneness in the realm of losses
actually induces the decision-maker to choose the risky option, that is, to
hold on to the chosen (costly) line of behavior (Whyte, 1993).
Besides these traditional influential theories explaining escalation of
commitment, more recent research has focused on cognitive (information)
processing (Schultze et al., 2012; framing, Feldman & Wong, 2018), and
affective processes (Wong et al., 2006; Zhang & Baumeister, 2006) in the
escalation of commitment. For example, Schultze et al. (2012) showed that
the tendency to commit further resources to losing courses of action is
mediated by a biased evaluation of information about the success versus
failure of the chosen course of action. In more concrete terms, participants
who had made a first (unprofitable) investment decision valued information

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

6

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:16 P.M.

Page 6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

in favor of further investments more positively than participants who were
not responsible for the first investment. With respect to the importance of
emotional aspects in escalating situations (e.g., trait or state negative affect,
threatened self-esteem), Zhang and Baumeister (2006) reported that participants who had been experimentally confronted (vs not confronted) with
an ego threat were more prone to escalate their commitment in a fruitless
endeavor. In sum, escalation of commitment research stresses the conflict
a decision-maker faces between the calamities associated with pursuing a
goal further (i.e., investing more and more resources against long odds) and
the negative consequences of letting it go (i.e., admitting to having made a
flawed initial decision, appearing wasteful). It is also evident that cognitive
as well as affective processes are involved in escalation of commitment;
however, these have not been investigated systematically so far.
DISENGAGEMENT IN PERSONAL GOAL STRIVING
AN INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES PERSPECTIVE ON GOAL DISENGAGEMENT

k

Two theoretical approaches explicitly address issues of goal disengagement from the perspective of individual differences; on the one hand, the
dual-process model of assimilative and accommodative coping (Brandtstädter &
Rothermund, 2002) and, on the other hand, the concept of individual goal
adjustment tendencies (Wrosch, et al., 2003).
The Dual-Process Model of Assimilative and Accommodative Coping This model
by Brandtstädter and Rothermund (2002; Rothermund & Brandtstädter,
2003) focuses on individuals’ reactions when confronted with setbacks or
prospective losses in striving for a personal goal. It postulates that in such
instances individuals will first intensify their efforts (assimilative mode of
coping) through instrumental activities through which the individual tries
to align the present situation with his or her goals and aspirations. However,
when a goal emerges as being (subjectively) unattainable, accommodative
coping sets in, which involves a devaluation of, or disengagement from,
unattainable goals or a lowering of personal aspirations. The individual’s
inclination to chronically use assimilative and/or accommodative strategies
can be measured using a 30-item questionnaire encompassing two orthogonal scales: Tenacious Goal Pursuit (e.g., “If I run into problems, I usually
double my efforts.” [assimilation]) and Flexible Goal Adjustment (e.g., “If I
run into problems, I let go of my goal, instead of fighting too long for it.”
[accommodation]) (Brandtstädter & Renner, 1990). Notably, successful goal
striving has been posited to arise from the dynamic, situation-sensitive
interplay of assimilative, and accommodative strategies. As assimilation

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Holding On or Letting Go? Persistence and Disengagement in Goal Striving

6:16 P.M.

Page 7

7

and accommodation ultimately buffer difficulties in goal striving, although
in different ways, both are independently associated with well-being across
all age levels (Rothermund & Brandtstädter, 2003).

k

Goal Disengagement and Goal Reengagement Capacities In a very similar
vein, Wrosch and his colleagues (2003) conceived of goal adjustment
capacities as core dimensions of personality but place the emphasis on
an individual’s reaction when confronted with a subjectively unattainable
goal. The authors empirically demonstrate the importance of differentiating
between (the largely independent) goal disengagement and goal reengagement
capacities that can be measured using the 10-item Goal Adjustment Scale
(Wrosch et al., 2003). Goal disengagement, on the one hand, is defined as an
individual’s tendency to withdraw behavioral efforts and psychological
commitment from unfeasible goals (e.g., “If I have to stop pursuing an
important goal in my life [generic stem of all items], it is easy for me to
reduce my efforts toward the goal.”). Goal reengagement, on the other hand,
is conceptualized as the capacity to identify, commit to and work on new
goals (e.g., “ … I convince myself that I have other meaningful goals to
pursue.”).
The studies conducted by Wrosch and his colleagues (for a summary,
Wrosch et al., 2013), analogously to the above-mentioned research of Brandtstädter and colleagues, primarily focused on the relationship between
adjusting to the experience of unattainable goals and (psychological
and physical) well-being. In a nutshell, evidence from a multitude of
cross-sectional as well as longitudinal studies confirms that goal adjustment
capacities predict a great variety of adaptive outcomes (e.g., lower levels of
perceived stress, depressive symptoms, or intrusive thoughts; higher levels
of well-being; lower biomarkers of chronic inflammation; fewer symptoms
of illness), above and beyond other personality characteristics (e.g., Big Five
personality factors, assimilation, accomodation). This was true for quite
diverse samples and contexts (e.g., college students, community-dwelling
adults, breast cancer survivors, adults taking care of a family member
afflicted by a severe disease). Interestingly, goal reengagement tendencies show a distinct pattern of relationships with outcome variables (i.e.,
facilitating positive well-being instead of ameliorating negative aspects of
well-being) which underscores the differential validity of these capacities.
Wrosch et al. (2013) concluded that goal disengagement primarily aims at
relieving psychological distress associated with repeated goal failure. In
contrast, goal reengagement aims at keeping a person engaged in feasible
and meaningful activities, which, in turn, strengthens the positive aspects of
subjective well-being.

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

8

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:16 P.M.

Page 8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

The discovery of individual differences in coping with unattainable goals
has greatly advanced our understanding of goal disengagement. However, a
more process-oriented analysis of the mechanisms is still lacking, explaining
how individuals disengage from a goal when striving has become too costly
or the expectations of success are too low.
A PROCESS-ORIENTED APPROACH TO GOAL DISENGAGEMENT: THE CONCEPT OF AN ACTION
CRisis

k

Based on the notion put forward by Klinger (1977) that disengagement
from a goal is by no means a binary event but rather the result of a lengthy
and occasionally rather difficult process, an action crisis is conceived of as a
critical phase in this process (Brandstätter & Herrmann, 2017; Brandstätter
et al., 2013). An action crisis is characterized by a motivational conflict
in which the individual is torn between holding on to and letting go of
a personal goal—a situation that typically arises when individuals have
already invested a great deal into their goal, but suffer from repeated
setbacks and/or a substantial drop in the perceived desirability of the goal.
The extent to which an action crisis is experienced in a personal goal has
been operationalized by the Action Crisis Scale (ACRISS; Brandstätter et al.,
2013), which covers different aspects (i.e., conflict, setbacks, implemental
disorientation, rumination, disengagement impulses and procrastination)
assumed to be constitutive of the phenomenon in question. Although an
action crisis does not have to result in the abandonment of the goal, but
may likewise be overcome by a renewal of the commitment (e.g., if people
identify new strategies for goal attainment), recent findings show that it
frequently precedes goal termination (Herrmann & Brandstätter, 2015).
Empirical studies have examined the affective, physiological, cognitive,
and behavioral correlates of an action crisis. In line with its interpretation
as an intrapsychic conflict, it has been found to concurrently and longitudinally predict impairments in psychological (affect and life-satisfaction) and
physical well-being (sleeping disorders, symptoms) in healthy individuals
(Brandstätter et al., 2013). Moreover, in a clinical sample of patients with
musculoskeletal disorders, action crises in personal goals compromised
recovery during physical therapy (Wolf, Herrmann, Zubler, & Brandstätter,
2018). Finally, in a field study with marathon runners, in which salivary
cortisol was sampled after 10, 20, 30, and 40 km, an action crisis, measured
2 weeks before the race, was predictive of a stronger cortisol secretion (i.e.,
slope) during the race (Brandstätter et al., 2013).
An action crisis also affects the individual’s goal-related cognitive orientation (mindset) (Herrmann, Baur, Brandstätter, Hänggi, & Jäncke, 2014).
Hypotheses relating to the cognitive correlates of an action crisis are based

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Holding On or Letting Go? Persistence and Disengagement in Goal Striving

k

Page 9

9

on the mindset theory of action phases (Gollwitzer & Keller, 2016). Mindset
theory distinguishes distinct phases in goal pursuit, each associated with
a specific challenge (i.e., choosing between the multitude of one’s wishes
in order to set attractive and realistic goals; implementing the chosen
goal). Each phase is thought to be accompanied by a specific mindset (e.g.,
deliberative vs implemental mindset) that supports tackling the task in an
optimal way. The implemental mindset, which focuses on implemental issues
(i.e., when, where, how to act) and an overly optimistic outlook in favor of
the goal, contributes to persistence and goal attainment. In an action crisis,
however, this firm orientation toward goal implementation is dampened,
while a deliberative weighing of the pros and cons of the goal and a sober
assessment of the desirability and feasibility of the goal resurge. This change
in cognitive orientation, which has been denoted a mindset-shift (Herrmann
et al., 2014), is regarded as facilitating the initiation of the disengagement
process (Brandstätter et al., 2013). Importantly, empirical evidence so far
reinforces the view that disengagement is shaped by reciprocal processes
between the experience of an action crisis and changes in the cognitive
appraisal of the goal. An action crisis in the goal to complete a university
degree predicted a devaluation of its desirability and attainability, and
conversely, low goal attainability (but not desirability) predicted increases
in action crises (Ghassemi, Bernecker, Herrmann, & Brandstätter, 2017).
The affective impairment resulting from the intrapsychic conflict and
the ambiguous cognitive orientation between weighing up and acting
(“being in two minds”) presumably has a negative impact on performance.
Students who were not sure whether to continue their major and who were
considering dropping out, for example, performed significantly worse over
the course of several terms than students who did not entertain similar
thoughts (Herrmann & Brandstätter, 2015). Analogously, individuals who
experienced higher levels of action crisis while preparing for a marathon
performed worse in the marathon 2 weeks later, controlling for experience,
amount of training, age, and body mass index. This effect was partly
mediated by steeper increases in salivary cortisol, a physiological indicator
of stress, measured repeatedly during the run (Brandstätter et al., 2013).
Altogether, an action crisis can last for weeks and months, profoundly compromising well-being and performance, an issue that calls for interventions
to overcome this wearisome phase of goal pursuit.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
This essay set out to show that persistence in pursuing one’s goals and
projects as well as disengagement from them are two pivotal aspects of
successful goal striving—be it in the economic context or in the realm of

k

6:16 P.M.

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

10

k

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:16 P.M. Page 10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

personal goals. On the one hand, individuals would never achieve what
they value without the capacity to tenaciously sustain their efforts, even in
the face of high costs or obstacles. On the other hand, disengagement from a
goal may become badly necessary when striving for the goal turns out to be
unrealistic or too costly. This is easier said than done, though. In everyday
life, individuals are rarely confronted with completely unattainable goals.
On the contrary, the difficulties from which people typically suffer in their
everyday goal striving are more innocuous; and project-related costs seldom
accrue all at once, but occur in the guise of the “slippery slope”, increasing
steadily but almost imperceptibly. Hence, in the vast majority of situations
it is anything but clear whether the goal or project should be abandoned
or not; what follows is a full-blown decision conflict (Mann & Janis, 1982)
between hanging on or letting go. Usually, despite repeated setbacks, there
remains a glimmer of hope that, with increased effort, one will be able to
realign one’s goal striving or that changing environmental circumstances
might support one’s goal striving again in the future. Although, this state of
affairs is quite well known, and past research that analyzed the determinants
and consequences of “pathological persistence” (Ross & Staw, 1993) has
accumulated, fundamental questions still remain unanswered that need
to be addressed in future research, two of which will be outlined in the
following paragraphs.
ESCALATION OF COMMITMENT AND DISENGAGEMENT FROM GOALS CONSTRUED AS A DECISION
CONFLICT
One productive avenue for future research seems to be scrutinizing the
decisional conflict present in the escalation of commitment or in situations
when doubts arise as to whether to hold on to a personal goal. Traditionally,
escalation of commitment has been viewed from the perspective of economic decision making, however, with too narrow a perspective. It is not
only the expected (or already incurred) costs and benefits that determine
further persistence, but all kinds of self-regulatory processes addressed
in self-regulation research. In this regard, Gollwitzer and Keller (2016)
revealed that a core postulate of mindset theory of action phases is that
desirability and feasibility of a goal only play a role when people deliberate
on whether or not to commit to the goal in question, but not anymore
after having made a decision in favor of the goal. For example, it would be
intriguing to analyze how individuals trapped in the futile pursuit of a goal
construe their concrete decision alternatives and how this relates to outcome
variables. Moreover, an analysis of the dynamic interplay between affective
and cognitive processes over the course of time would guarantee important

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Holding On or Letting Go? Persistence and Disengagement in Goal Striving

6:16 P.M. Page 11

11

insights into mediating mechanisms of an ongoing decision conflict resulting
in unproductive persistence.
INTERVENTIONS TO PREVENT OR OVERCOME UNPRODUCTIVE PERSISTENCE

k

Holding on too long to futile goals can be detrimental in various regards—on
the level of individuals’ well-being and health, but also on the level of economic and societal outcomes. Hence, it is all the more astonishing that there
has been virtually no research on interventions to prevent or overcome
unproductive persistence (for an exception, Henderson, Gollwitzer, & Oettingen, 2007; Simonson & Staw, 1992). It seems worthwhile identifying the
various points in the course of goal pursuit (e.g., decision on a project/goal;
the first occurrence of a disengagement impulse) at which intervening
would be most helpful. This could be a certain mental training before
making a decision for a project/goal that would be informed by research
on the self-regulation of goals (for a summary, Brandstätter & Hennecke,
in press). This could also be an intervention aimed at strengthening affect
regulation competencies when confronted with setbacks that compromise
self-esteem.
Taken together, persistence and disengagement in goal striving is an
intriguing field of theoretical research with enormous practical implications
for all areas of an individual’s life and for society in general. Sticking to the
goal of revealing its determinants, mechanisms, and consequences does not,
therefore, seem to be an escalation of commitment.

REFERENCES
Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 124–140.
Brandstätter, V., & Hennecke, M. (2018). Goals. In J. Heckhausen & H. Heckhausen
(Eds.), Motivation and action (pp. 331–353). New York, NY: Springer.
Brandstätter, V., & Herrmann, M. (2017). Goal disengagement and action crises. In
N. Baumann, T. Goschke, M. Kazén, S. Koole & M. Quirin (Eds.), Why people do the
things they do: Building on Julius Kuhl’s contribution to motivation and volition psychology (pp. 87–108). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Brandstätter, V., Herrmann, M., & Schüler, J. (2013). The struggle of giving up personal goals: Affective, physiological, and cognitive consequences of an action crisis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(12), 1668–1682.
Brandtstädter, J., & Renner, G. (1990). Tenacious goal pursuit and flexible goal adjustment: Explication and age-related analysis of assimilative and accommodative
strategies of coping. Psychology and Aging, 5(1), 58–67.

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

12

k

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:16 P.M. Page 12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Brandtstädter, J., & Rothermund, K. (2002). The life-course dynamics of goal pursuit and goal adjustment: A two-process framework. Developmental Review, 22(1),
117–150.
Brockner, J. (1992). The escalation of commitment to a failing course of action: Toward
theoretical progress. The Academy of Management Review, 17(1), 39–61.
Brunstein, J. C. (1993). Personal goals and subjective well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 1061–1070.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.1061.
Carver, C. S., Lawrence, J. W., & Scheier, M. F. (1996). A control-process perspective
on the origins of affect. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), Striving and feeling: Interactions among goals, affect, and self-regulation (pp. 11–52). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2005). Engagement, disengagement, coping, and catastrophe. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation
(pp. 527–547). New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
Emmons, R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: an approach to personality and subjective
well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(5), 1058–1068.
Feldman, G., & Wong, K. F. E. (2018). When action-inaction framing leads to higher
escalation of commitment: A new inaction-effect perspective on the sunk cost fallacy. Psychological Science, 29, 537–548.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Ghassemi, M., Bernecker, K., Herrmann, M., & Brandstätter, V. (2017). The process of
disengagement from personal goals: Reciprocal influences between the experience
of action crisis and appraisals of goal desirability and attainability. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(4), 524–537.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Keller, L. (2016). Mindset theory. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 1–8). New
York, NY: Springer.
Heckhausen, J., Wrosch, C., & Schulz, R. (2010). A motivational theory of life-span
development. Psychological Review, 117(1), 32–60.
Henderson, M. D., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2007). Implementation intentions and disengagement from a failing course of action. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 81–102.
Hennecke, M., & Brandstätter, V. (2017). Means, ends, and happiness: The role of
goals for subjective well-being. In M. Eid & M. Robinson (Eds.), The happy mind:
Cognitive contributions to well-being (pp. 235–251). New York, NY: Springer.
Herrmann, M., Baur, V., Brandstätter, V., Hänggi, J., & Jäncke, L. (2014). Being in two
minds: The neural basis of experiencing action crises in personal long-term goals.
Social Neuroscience, 9(6), 548–561.
Herrmann, M., & Brandstätter, V. (2015). Action crises and goal disengagement: Longitudinal evidence on the predictive validity of a motivational phase in goal striving. Motivation Science, 1(2), 121–136.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under
risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. doi:10.2307/1914185.

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Holding On or Letting Go? Persistence and Disengagement in Goal Striving

k

6:16 P.M. Page 13

13

Klinger, E. (1977). Meaning & void: Inner experience and the incentives in people’s lives.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Little, B. R. (1989). Personal projects analysis: Trivial pursuits, magnificent obsessions, and the search for coherence. In D. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 15–31). New York, NY: Springer.
Mann, L., & Janis, I. (1982). Conflict theory of decision making and the
expectancy-value approach. In N. T. Feather (Ed.), Expectations and actions:
Expectancy-value models in psychology (pp. 341–364). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ross, J., & Staw, B. M. (1993). Organizational escalation and exit: Lessons from the
Shoreham nuclear power plant. The Academy of Management Journal, 36(4), 701–732.
Rothermund, K., & Brandtstädter, J. (2003). Coping with losses and deficits in later
life: from compensatory action to accommodation. Psychology and Aging, 18(4),
896–905.
Schultze, T., Pfeiffer, F., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2012). Biased information processing in
the escalation paradigm: Information search and information evaluation as potential mediators of escalating commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 16–32.
Simonson, I., & Staw, B. M. (1992). Deescalation strategies: A comparison of techniques for reducing commitment to losing courses of action. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77, 419–426.
Staw, B. M. (1997). The escalation of commitment: An update and appraisal. In Z.
Shapira (Ed.), Organizational decision making. Cambridge series on judgment and decision making (pp. 191–215). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Whyte, G. (1993). Escalating commitment in individual and group decision making:
A prospect theory approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
54(3), 430–455.
Wolf, B. M., Herrmann, M., Zubler, I., & Brandstätter, V. (2018). Action crises in
personal goals compromise recovery during physical therapy. Motivation Science.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/mot0000106.
Wong, K. F. E., Yik, M., & Kwong, J. (2006). Understanding the emotional aspects of
escalation of commitment: The role of negative affect. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91, 282–297.
Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., & Miller, G. E. (2013). Goal adjustment capacities, subjective well-being, and physical health. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,
7(12), 847–860.
Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., Miller, G. E., Schulz, R., & Carver, C. S. (2003). Adaptive
self- regulation of unattainable goals: Goal disengagement, goal reengagement,
and subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1494–1508.
Zhang, L., & Baumeister, R. F. (2006). Your money or your self-esteem: Threatened
egotism promotes costly entrapment in losing endeavors. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 32, 881–893.

Veronika Brandstätter is a professor of psychology at the University
of Zurich. She studied psychology at the University of Munich where
she also received her PhD after holding a doctoral scholarship at the

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

14

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:16 P.M. Page 14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Max-Planck-Institute for Psychological Research, Munich. Later, she was a
program director at the Leadership and Management Training Unit of the
University of Augsburg. After that, she returned to the University of Munich
as an assistant professor at the chair of Social Psychology (Professor Dieter
Frey). Since 2003, she has been at the University of Zurich, where she holds
the chair of “Psychology of Motivation, Volition, and Emotion”. From 2010
to 2012, she was associate editor of the journal Motivation and Emotion. She
is presently on the editorial boards of Motivation Science and Motivation and
Emotion.
RELATED ESSAYS

k

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity (Psychology), Rodica Ioana
Damian and Dean Keith Simonton
Youth Entrepreneurship (Psychology), William Damon et al.
Resilience (Psychology), Erica D. Diminich and George A. Bonanno
Insight (Psychology), Brian Erickson and John Kounios
State of the Art in Competition Research (Psychology), Márta Fülöp and
Gábor Orosz
Positive Development among Diverse Youth (Psychology), Richard M. Lerner
et al.
Neural and Cognitive Plasticity (Psychology), Eduardo Mercado III
Sociology of Entrepreneurship (Sociology), Martin Ruef
Creativity in Teams (Psychology), Leigh L. Thompson and Elizabeth Ruth
Wilson
To Flop Is Human: Inventing Better Scientific Approaches to Anticipating
Failure (Methods), Robert Boruch and Alan Ruby
Setting One’s Mind on Action: Planning Out Goal Striving in Advance
(Psychology), Peter M. Gollwitzer
Positive Developments During the Transition to Adulthood (Psychology), Gil
G. Noam and Bailey Triggs

k

k



k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:16 P.M.

Page 1

Holding On or Letting Go?
Persistence and Disengagement in
Goal Striving
VERONIKA BRANDSTÄTTER

Abstract

k

Goals shape our personal identities, structure our everyday lives, regulate our
behavior, and thus are in fact one of the most important sources of performance
and well-being. Successful goal striving unfolds between tenacious persistence
on the one hand and timely disengagement on the other when a goal has become
futile and too costly. Disengagement from goals is often difficult, however. Issues
of unproductive persistence and (unsuccessful) goal disengagement have, for a
long time, been addressed primarily in the realm of monetary decision-making
(escalation of commitment). In the more recent past, research on personal goals
has devoted attention to issues of goal disengagement, doing so from two different
research perspectives (individual differences approach, process-oriented approach).
This essay gives an overview of traditional and current research on goal disengagement with its practical implications for the individual but also on a societal level,
and outlines promising lines of research addressing fundamental questions still
unanswered.

k

“Winners never quit and quitters never win.” In claiming this, the famous
former US football coach Vince Lombardi addressed a widely shared social
norm in Western industrialized countries: Keep on going, cling tenaciously
to your goals, finish what you have started, and lead it to a successful
conclusion! Indeed, parents, teachers, sport coaches, employers, and health
professionals instruct their children, pupils, athletes, employees, or patients
to persist in their goal striving even in the face of difficulties or setbacks. No
doubt, without a considerable amount of tenacity, individuals would not
even find their feet, would not develop any competencies, and ultimately
would not reach the stars, as proclaimed in the Latin proverb: Per aspera ad
astra (Through difficulties to the stars).
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Robert A. Scott and Marlis Buchmann (General Editors) with Stephen Kosslyn (Consulting Editor).
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

2

k

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:16 P.M.

Page 2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

This is just one side of the coin, though, as there are many instances
of “pathological persistence” (Ross & Staw, 1993), instances in which
individuals overstretch themselves, throw good money after bad, become
increasingly frustrated to the point of becoming depressed, and forgo more
productive lines of action. Political, economic, and personal histories are
full of examples of excessive persistence in endeavors that would better
have been dismissed at an earlier point in time (e.g., Vietnam war, Long
Island Lighting Company’s Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, remaining in
an unhappy relationship or unsatisfactory job). Obviously, both getting
started and keeping going, as well as stopping and letting go, are two fundamental prerequisites for successful goal striving—from the perspective
of life-span development (Heckhausen, Wrosch, & Schulz, 2010) but also
from the perspective of individuals’ goal striving, quite independently of
the context. Interestingly, though, unproductive persistence and (unsuccessful) goal disengagement have long been addressed primarily in the
realm of monetary decision-making but not with respect to personal goal
striving.
In the domain of economic decision-making, various theoretical accounts
have been put forward which point to the deleterious dynamics in the
“escalation of commitment”, that is, the tendency to stick with a course of
action despite suffering conspicuous (monetary) losses (Staw, 1997). More
recently, research on personal goals has discovered the relevance of (hindered)
goal disengagement for psychological and physical well-being (Brandstätter,
Herrmann, & Schüler, 2013; Brandtstädter & Rothermund, 2002; Heckhausen
et al., 2010). This line of research either focuses on the individual’s goal
adjustment capacities (i.e., distancing oneself from a futile goal, re-engaging
in alternative goals; individual differences approach) (Brandtstädter &
Renner, 1990; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller, Schulz, & Carver, 2003), or on the
dynamic (cognitive, affective, and behavioral) processes in striving for a goal
when goal disengagement becomes an issue (process-oriented approach)
(Brandstätter & Herrmann, 2017).
THE CURRENT STATE OF THE FIELD
ESCALATION OF COMMITMENT IN ECONOMIC CONTEXTS
When an investment of resources (e.g., money and time) turns out to be
futile, decision-makers often face the dilemma of whether to withdraw from
the failing course of action or to continue investing in the endeavor. Abundant research in the field of organizational decision-making shows that there
is a dogged tendency in decision-makers to “escalate their commitment”,
that is, to persist in the losing endeavor by committing more resources to

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Holding On or Letting Go? Persistence and Disengagement in Goal Striving

6:16 P.M.

Page 3

3

it—even in the face of questionable economic prospects (Staw, 1997). Several
psychological explanations for escalating commitment have been proposed,
the most influential of which are the self-justification hypothesis (Staw,
1997), the sunk cost effect (Arkes & Blumer, 1985), and prospect theory
(Whyte, 1993).
DISENGAGEMENT IN PERSONAL GOAL STRIVING

k

Personal goals describe an individual’s everyday strivings, from trivial
pursuits to magnificent obsessions (Little, 1989), embedded in all kinds
of different contexts (e.g., work, study, family, health). Goals “provide the
structure that defines people’s lives” (Carver, Lawrence, & Scheier, 1996,
p. 12; Emmons, 1986) and thus regulate a wide array of human emotion,
cognition, and behavior (Brunstein, 1993; Carver & Scheier, 2005). Due to
the significance of personal goals for people’s definitions of themselves, the
persistent and successful pursuit of self-relevant goals plays a crucial role
for well-being (for a summary, Hennecke & Brandstätter, 2017).
Even though a great variety of psychological (i.e., cognitive, affective)
mechanisms support persistence in goal striving (Brandstätter & Hennecke,
in press; Hennecke & Brandstätter, 2017), success is not guaranteed—who
does not have a tale to tell about repeated failure and setbacks in striving
for a personal goal, which eventually gave way to doubts about whether to
hold on to or let go of the goal? Klinger (1977) was one of the first scholars
to take a look at commitment to and disengagement from personal goals.
He pointed out that disengaging from a goal can be a lengthy process and
an incisive experience for the individual and one that is accompanied by
profound emotional, cognitive and behavioral changes—a kind of “psychic
earthquake” (Klinger, 1977, p. 137). Two core questions are addressed with
respect to disengagement from personal goals: Do people differ in terms
of their goal adjustment capacities when they are confronted with goals
that are too costly or unrealistic to attain (Wrosch et al., 2003)? What are the
cognitive, affective, and behavioral processes in the phase, dubbed an action
crisis, that might precede goal disengagement (Brandstätter & Herrmann,
2017)?
ESCALATION OF COMMITMENT IN ECONOMIC CONTEXTS
THE SELF-JUSTIFICATION HYPOTHESIS
The dominant theoretical account of “escalation of commitment” is the
self-justification hypothesis derived from cognitive dissonance theory
(Festinger, 1957). In the very first study testing this hypothesis, Staw (1997)
argued that decision-makers, when incurring negative consequences within

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

4

k

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:16 P.M.

Page 4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

an investment context, might enlarge their commitment of resources because
they are eager to justify their initial investments. Refraining from further
investments would mean admitting that one’s initial investment decision
was flawed. This, in turn, would create the unpleasant state of cognitive
dissonance, as one’s positive self-concept of being a competent and rational decision-maker would be heavily compromised. Studies testing the
self-justification hypothesis in escalation of commitment follow a common
pattern (Brockner, 1992). The decision-maker (mostly confronted with
fictitious though realistic and personally involving case studies of economic
investment decisions) is either personally responsible or not responsible
for an initial financial decision, such as allocating R & D funds to one of
two divisions of a company, which then either fails or succeeds. Escalation
of commitment is operationalized as the amount of funds allocated to the
initially chosen division in a second round of funding. A pervasive tendency
is consistently observed in decision-makers to allocate more resources to
the underperforming division when one is personally responsible for first
but now failing investment (Schultze, Pfeiffer, & Schulz-Hardt, 2012; Staw,
1997; Wong, Yik, & Kwong, 2006). Beyond self-justification, several authors
have claimed that impression management motives (e.g., saving face), that
is, social justification, also play a role in the escalation of commitment (Staw,
1997).
THE SUNK COST EFFECT
A second influential theoretical approach to escalation of commitment refers
to the sunk cost effect. The sunk cost effect is manifested “in a greater tendency
to continue an endeavor once an investment in money, effort, or time has been
made” (Arkes & Blumer, 1985, p. 124). Well-known is the scenario described
by Arkes and Blumer (1985, p. 126), depicting that you have purchased a
ticket for a skip trip to Michigan ($100) and weeks later one for a nother, even
much more enjoyable skip trip to Wisconsin ($50) not realizing that they were
for the same dates. With no options of returning or selling one of the tickets,
which trip would you go on? Only 46% of the participants in the scenario
study (and not 100% as predicted by traditional economic theory) chose the
Wisconsin trip. From the perspective of rational economic decision theory,
this qualifies as irrational behavior because only incremental costs should
influence the decision, not sunk costs. The reluctance to withdraw from a
prior investment of resources is psychologically justified by “the desire not
to appear wasteful” (Arkes & Blumer, 1985, p. 125) and the attempt to “recover the initial investment” (Feldman & Wong, 2018, p. 1). Notably, the focus
on financial investments in sunk cost research should not obscure the fact
that nonmonetary costs (e.g., time, effort) may also mislead a decision-maker

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Holding On or Letting Go? Persistence and Disengagement in Goal Striving

6:16 P.M.

Page 5

5

into holding on to an endeavor whose outlook is bleak. Obviously, looking
back and focusing on previous investments instead of looking ahead at the
prospects of one’s endeavor bears the risk of escalating commitment.
PROSPECT THEORY

k

Kahneman and Tversky’s (1979) prospect theory is another theoretical
approach put forward in the literature on escalation of commitment (Whyte,
1993). Prospect theory deals with decisions involving uncertainty and
defines the conditions under which decision-makers are risk seeking versus
risk averse. A core assumption of prospect theory is that decision-makers are
risk seeking in the realm of losses whereas they are risk averse in the realm
of gains. These propositions are derived from the theoretically postulated
value function, on the one hand, and the certainty effect, on the other hand.
The value function describes the relationship between (monetary) gains or
losses and the subjective evaluation of these gains or losses. In the area of
gains, it is concave, that is, higher gains are associated with a diminishing
marginal utility. In the area of losses, the value function is convex indicating
that higher losses are associated with “diminishing marginal harm”. The
certainty effect refers to the fact that certain gains are overvalued (i.e., subjectively evaluated relatively more positively than a gain with a probability
of little less than certainty [p < 1.0]), whereas certain losses are undervalued
(i.e., subjectively evaluated relatively more negatively than a loss with a
probability of little less than certainty [p < 1.0]). Translated to the escalation
of commitment, one would predict that individuals involved in a costly
endeavor in which they have already invested heavily find themselves in the
realm of losses. They are confronted with the decision either to give up the
endeavor, which would mean the certain loss of all previous investments, or
to choose the risky option, that is to go on. The latter is associated with the
finite chance of changing course but also with the possibility of incurring
even greater losses. The prevailing risk proneness in the realm of losses
actually induces the decision-maker to choose the risky option, that is, to
hold on to the chosen (costly) line of behavior (Whyte, 1993).
Besides these traditional influential theories explaining escalation of
commitment, more recent research has focused on cognitive (information)
processing (Schultze et al., 2012; framing, Feldman & Wong, 2018), and
affective processes (Wong et al., 2006; Zhang & Baumeister, 2006) in the
escalation of commitment. For example, Schultze et al. (2012) showed that
the tendency to commit further resources to losing courses of action is
mediated by a biased evaluation of information about the success versus
failure of the chosen course of action. In more concrete terms, participants
who had made a first (unprofitable) investment decision valued information

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

6

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:16 P.M.

Page 6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

in favor of further investments more positively than participants who were
not responsible for the first investment. With respect to the importance of
emotional aspects in escalating situations (e.g., trait or state negative affect,
threatened self-esteem), Zhang and Baumeister (2006) reported that participants who had been experimentally confronted (vs not confronted) with
an ego threat were more prone to escalate their commitment in a fruitless
endeavor. In sum, escalation of commitment research stresses the conflict
a decision-maker faces between the calamities associated with pursuing a
goal further (i.e., investing more and more resources against long odds) and
the negative consequences of letting it go (i.e., admitting to having made a
flawed initial decision, appearing wasteful). It is also evident that cognitive
as well as affective processes are involved in escalation of commitment;
however, these have not been investigated systematically so far.
DISENGAGEMENT IN PERSONAL GOAL STRIVING
AN INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES PERSPECTIVE ON GOAL DISENGAGEMENT

k

Two theoretical approaches explicitly address issues of goal disengagement from the perspective of individual differences; on the one hand, the
dual-process model of assimilative and accommodative coping (Brandtstädter &
Rothermund, 2002) and, on the other hand, the concept of individual goal
adjustment tendencies (Wrosch, et al., 2003).
The Dual-Process Model of Assimilative and Accommodative Coping This model
by Brandtstädter and Rothermund (2002; Rothermund & Brandtstädter,
2003) focuses on individuals’ reactions when confronted with setbacks or
prospective losses in striving for a personal goal. It postulates that in such
instances individuals will first intensify their efforts (assimilative mode of
coping) through instrumental activities through which the individual tries
to align the present situation with his or her goals and aspirations. However,
when a goal emerges as being (subjectively) unattainable, accommodative
coping sets in, which involves a devaluation of, or disengagement from,
unattainable goals or a lowering of personal aspirations. The individual’s
inclination to chronically use assimilative and/or accommodative strategies
can be measured using a 30-item questionnaire encompassing two orthogonal scales: Tenacious Goal Pursuit (e.g., “If I run into problems, I usually
double my efforts.” [assimilation]) and Flexible Goal Adjustment (e.g., “If I
run into problems, I let go of my goal, instead of fighting too long for it.”
[accommodation]) (Brandtstädter & Renner, 1990). Notably, successful goal
striving has been posited to arise from the dynamic, situation-sensitive
interplay of assimilative, and accommodative strategies. As assimilation

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Holding On or Letting Go? Persistence and Disengagement in Goal Striving

6:16 P.M.

Page 7

7

and accommodation ultimately buffer difficulties in goal striving, although
in different ways, both are independently associated with well-being across
all age levels (Rothermund & Brandtstädter, 2003).

k

Goal Disengagement and Goal Reengagement Capacities In a very similar
vein, Wrosch and his colleagues (2003) conceived of goal adjustment
capacities as core dimensions of personality but place the emphasis on
an individual’s reaction when confronted with a subjectively unattainable
goal. The authors empirically demonstrate the importance of differentiating
between (the largely independent) goal disengagement and goal reengagement
capacities that can be measured using the 10-item Goal Adjustment Scale
(Wrosch et al., 2003). Goal disengagement, on the one hand, is defined as an
individual’s tendency to withdraw behavioral efforts and psychological
commitment from unfeasible goals (e.g., “If I have to stop pursuing an
important goal in my life [generic stem of all items], it is easy for me to
reduce my efforts toward the goal.”). Goal reengagement, on the other hand,
is conceptualized as the capacity to identify, commit to and work on new
goals (e.g., “ … I convince myself that I have other meaningful goals to
pursue.”).
The studies conducted by Wrosch and his colleagues (for a summary,
Wrosch et al., 2013), analogously to the above-mentioned research of Brandtstädter and colleagues, primarily focused on the relationship between
adjusting to the experience of unattainable goals and (psychological
and physical) well-being. In a nutshell, evidence from a multitude of
cross-sectional as well as longitudinal studies confirms that goal adjustment
capacities predict a great variety of adaptive outcomes (e.g., lower levels of
perceived stress, depressive symptoms, or intrusive thoughts; higher levels
of well-being; lower biomarkers of chronic inflammation; fewer symptoms
of illness), above and beyond other personality characteristics (e.g., Big Five
personality factors, assimilation, accomodation). This was true for quite
diverse samples and contexts (e.g., college students, community-dwelling
adults, breast cancer survivors, adults taking care of a family member
afflicted by a severe disease). Interestingly, goal reengagement tendencies show a distinct pattern of relationships with outcome variables (i.e.,
facilitating positive well-being instead of ameliorating negative aspects of
well-being) which underscores the differential validity of these capacities.
Wrosch et al. (2013) concluded that goal disengagement primarily aims at
relieving psychological distress associated with repeated goal failure. In
contrast, goal reengagement aims at keeping a person engaged in feasible
and meaningful activities, which, in turn, strengthens the positive aspects of
subjective well-being.

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

8

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:16 P.M.

Page 8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

The discovery of individual differences in coping with unattainable goals
has greatly advanced our understanding of goal disengagement. However, a
more process-oriented analysis of the mechanisms is still lacking, explaining
how individuals disengage from a goal when striving has become too costly
or the expectations of success are too low.
A PROCESS-ORIENTED APPROACH TO GOAL DISENGAGEMENT: THE CONCEPT OF AN ACTION
CRisis

k

Based on the notion put forward by Klinger (1977) that disengagement
from a goal is by no means a binary event but rather the result of a lengthy
and occasionally rather difficult process, an action crisis is conceived of as a
critical phase in this process (Brandstätter & Herrmann, 2017; Brandstätter
et al., 2013). An action crisis is characterized by a motivational conflict
in which the individual is torn between holding on to and letting go of
a personal goal—a situation that typically arises when individuals have
already invested a great deal into their goal, but suffer from repeated
setbacks and/or a substantial drop in the perceived desirability of the goal.
The extent to which an action crisis is experienced in a personal goal has
been operationalized by the Action Crisis Scale (ACRISS; Brandstätter et al.,
2013), which covers different aspects (i.e., conflict, setbacks, implemental
disorientation, rumination, disengagement impulses and procrastination)
assumed to be constitutive of the phenomenon in question. Although an
action crisis does not have to result in the abandonment of the goal, but
may likewise be overcome by a renewal of the commitment (e.g., if people
identify new strategies for goal attainment), recent findings show that it
frequently precedes goal termination (Herrmann & Brandstätter, 2015).
Empirical studies have examined the affective, physiological, cognitive,
and behavioral correlates of an action crisis. In line with its interpretation
as an intrapsychic conflict, it has been found to concurrently and longitudinally predict impairments in psychological (affect and life-satisfaction) and
physical well-being (sleeping disorders, symptoms) in healthy individuals
(Brandstätter et al., 2013). Moreover, in a clinical sample of patients with
musculoskeletal disorders, action crises in personal goals compromised
recovery during physical therapy (Wolf, Herrmann, Zubler, & Brandstätter,
2018). Finally, in a field study with marathon runners, in which salivary
cortisol was sampled after 10, 20, 30, and 40 km, an action crisis, measured
2 weeks before the race, was predictive of a stronger cortisol secretion (i.e.,
slope) during the race (Brandstätter et al., 2013).
An action crisis also affects the individual’s goal-related cognitive orientation (mindset) (Herrmann, Baur, Brandstätter, Hänggi, & Jäncke, 2014).
Hypotheses relating to the cognitive correlates of an action crisis are based

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Holding On or Letting Go? Persistence and Disengagement in Goal Striving

k

Page 9

9

on the mindset theory of action phases (Gollwitzer & Keller, 2016). Mindset
theory distinguishes distinct phases in goal pursuit, each associated with
a specific challenge (i.e., choosing between the multitude of one’s wishes
in order to set attractive and realistic goals; implementing the chosen
goal). Each phase is thought to be accompanied by a specific mindset (e.g.,
deliberative vs implemental mindset) that supports tackling the task in an
optimal way. The implemental mindset, which focuses on implemental issues
(i.e., when, where, how to act) and an overly optimistic outlook in favor of
the goal, contributes to persistence and goal attainment. In an action crisis,
however, this firm orientation toward goal implementation is dampened,
while a deliberative weighing of the pros and cons of the goal and a sober
assessment of the desirability and feasibility of the goal resurge. This change
in cognitive orientation, which has been denoted a mindset-shift (Herrmann
et al., 2014), is regarded as facilitating the initiation of the disengagement
process (Brandstätter et al., 2013). Importantly, empirical evidence so far
reinforces the view that disengagement is shaped by reciprocal processes
between the experience of an action crisis and changes in the cognitive
appraisal of the goal. An action crisis in the goal to complete a university
degree predicted a devaluation of its desirability and attainability, and
conversely, low goal attainability (but not desirability) predicted increases
in action crises (Ghassemi, Bernecker, Herrmann, & Brandstätter, 2017).
The affective impairment resulting from the intrapsychic conflict and
the ambiguous cognitive orientation between weighing up and acting
(“being in two minds”) presumably has a negative impact on performance.
Students who were not sure whether to continue their major and who were
considering dropping out, for example, performed significantly worse over
the course of several terms than students who did not entertain similar
thoughts (Herrmann & Brandstätter, 2015). Analogously, individuals who
experienced higher levels of action crisis while preparing for a marathon
performed worse in the marathon 2 weeks later, controlling for experience,
amount of training, age, and body mass index. This effect was partly
mediated by steeper increases in salivary cortisol, a physiological indicator
of stress, measured repeatedly during the run (Brandstätter et al., 2013).
Altogether, an action crisis can last for weeks and months, profoundly compromising well-being and performance, an issue that calls for interventions
to overcome this wearisome phase of goal pursuit.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
This essay set out to show that persistence in pursuing one’s goals and
projects as well as disengagement from them are two pivotal aspects of
successful goal striving—be it in the economic context or in the realm of

k

6:16 P.M.

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

10

k

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:16 P.M. Page 10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

personal goals. On the one hand, individuals would never achieve what
they value without the capacity to tenaciously sustain their efforts, even in
the face of high costs or obstacles. On the other hand, disengagement from a
goal may become badly necessary when striving for the goal turns out to be
unrealistic or too costly. This is easier said than done, though. In everyday
life, individuals are rarely confronted with completely unattainable goals.
On the contrary, the difficulties from which people typically suffer in their
everyday goal striving are more innocuous; and project-related costs seldom
accrue all at once, but occur in the guise of the “slippery slope”, increasing
steadily but almost imperceptibly. Hence, in the vast majority of situations
it is anything but clear whether the goal or project should be abandoned
or not; what follows is a full-blown decision conflict (Mann & Janis, 1982)
between hanging on or letting go. Usually, despite repeated setbacks, there
remains a glimmer of hope that, with increased effort, one will be able to
realign one’s goal striving or that changing environmental circumstances
might support one’s goal striving again in the future. Although, this state of
affairs is quite well known, and past research that analyzed the determinants
and consequences of “pathological persistence” (Ross & Staw, 1993) has
accumulated, fundamental questions still remain unanswered that need
to be addressed in future research, two of which will be outlined in the
following paragraphs.
ESCALATION OF COMMITMENT AND DISENGAGEMENT FROM GOALS CONSTRUED AS A DECISION
CONFLICT
One productive avenue for future research seems to be scrutinizing the
decisional conflict present in the escalation of commitment or in situations
when doubts arise as to whether to hold on to a personal goal. Traditionally,
escalation of commitment has been viewed from the perspective of economic decision making, however, with too narrow a perspective. It is not
only the expected (or already incurred) costs and benefits that determine
further persistence, but all kinds of self-regulatory processes addressed
in self-regulation research. In this regard, Gollwitzer and Keller (2016)
revealed that a core postulate of mindset theory of action phases is that
desirability and feasibility of a goal only play a role when people deliberate
on whether or not to commit to the goal in question, but not anymore
after having made a decision in favor of the goal. For example, it would be
intriguing to analyze how individuals trapped in the futile pursuit of a goal
construe their concrete decision alternatives and how this relates to outcome
variables. Moreover, an analysis of the dynamic interplay between affective
and cognitive processes over the course of time would guarantee important

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Holding On or Letting Go? Persistence and Disengagement in Goal Striving

6:16 P.M. Page 11

11

insights into mediating mechanisms of an ongoing decision conflict resulting
in unproductive persistence.
INTERVENTIONS TO PREVENT OR OVERCOME UNPRODUCTIVE PERSISTENCE

k

Holding on too long to futile goals can be detrimental in various regards—on
the level of individuals’ well-being and health, but also on the level of economic and societal outcomes. Hence, it is all the more astonishing that there
has been virtually no research on interventions to prevent or overcome
unproductive persistence (for an exception, Henderson, Gollwitzer, & Oettingen, 2007; Simonson & Staw, 1992). It seems worthwhile identifying the
various points in the course of goal pursuit (e.g., decision on a project/goal;
the first occurrence of a disengagement impulse) at which intervening
would be most helpful. This could be a certain mental training before
making a decision for a project/goal that would be informed by research
on the self-regulation of goals (for a summary, Brandstätter & Hennecke,
in press). This could also be an intervention aimed at strengthening affect
regulation competencies when confronted with setbacks that compromise
self-esteem.
Taken together, persistence and disengagement in goal striving is an
intriguing field of theoretical research with enormous practical implications
for all areas of an individual’s life and for society in general. Sticking to the
goal of revealing its determinants, mechanisms, and consequences does not,
therefore, seem to be an escalation of commitment.

REFERENCES
Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 124–140.
Brandstätter, V., & Hennecke, M. (2018). Goals. In J. Heckhausen & H. Heckhausen
(Eds.), Motivation and action (pp. 331–353). New York, NY: Springer.
Brandstätter, V., & Herrmann, M. (2017). Goal disengagement and action crises. In
N. Baumann, T. Goschke, M. Kazén, S. Koole & M. Quirin (Eds.), Why people do the
things they do: Building on Julius Kuhl’s contribution to motivation and volition psychology (pp. 87–108). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Brandstätter, V., Herrmann, M., & Schüler, J. (2013). The struggle of giving up personal goals: Affective, physiological, and cognitive consequences of an action crisis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(12), 1668–1682.
Brandtstädter, J., & Renner, G. (1990). Tenacious goal pursuit and flexible goal adjustment: Explication and age-related analysis of assimilative and accommodative
strategies of coping. Psychology and Aging, 5(1), 58–67.

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

12

k

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:16 P.M. Page 12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Brandtstädter, J., & Rothermund, K. (2002). The life-course dynamics of goal pursuit and goal adjustment: A two-process framework. Developmental Review, 22(1),
117–150.
Brockner, J. (1992). The escalation of commitment to a failing course of action: Toward
theoretical progress. The Academy of Management Review, 17(1), 39–61.
Brunstein, J. C. (1993). Personal goals and subjective well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 1061–1070.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.1061.
Carver, C. S., Lawrence, J. W., & Scheier, M. F. (1996). A control-process perspective
on the origins of affect. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), Striving and feeling: Interactions among goals, affect, and self-regulation (pp. 11–52). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2005). Engagement, disengagement, coping, and catastrophe. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation
(pp. 527–547). New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
Emmons, R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: an approach to personality and subjective
well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(5), 1058–1068.
Feldman, G., & Wong, K. F. E. (2018). When action-inaction framing leads to higher
escalation of commitment: A new inaction-effect perspective on the sunk cost fallacy. Psychological Science, 29, 537–548.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Ghassemi, M., Bernecker, K., Herrmann, M., & Brandstätter, V. (2017). The process of
disengagement from personal goals: Reciprocal influences between the experience
of action crisis and appraisals of goal desirability and attainability. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(4), 524–537.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Keller, L. (2016). Mindset theory. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 1–8). New
York, NY: Springer.
Heckhausen, J., Wrosch, C., & Schulz, R. (2010). A motivational theory of life-span
development. Psychological Review, 117(1), 32–60.
Henderson, M. D., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2007). Implementation intentions and disengagement from a failing course of action. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 81–102.
Hennecke, M., & Brandstätter, V. (2017). Means, ends, and happiness: The role of
goals for subjective well-being. In M. Eid & M. Robinson (Eds.), The happy mind:
Cognitive contributions to well-being (pp. 235–251). New York, NY: Springer.
Herrmann, M., Baur, V., Brandstätter, V., Hänggi, J., & Jäncke, L. (2014). Being in two
minds: The neural basis of experiencing action crises in personal long-term goals.
Social Neuroscience, 9(6), 548–561.
Herrmann, M., & Brandstätter, V. (2015). Action crises and goal disengagement: Longitudinal evidence on the predictive validity of a motivational phase in goal striving. Motivation Science, 1(2), 121–136.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under
risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. doi:10.2307/1914185.

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Holding On or Letting Go? Persistence and Disengagement in Goal Striving

k

6:16 P.M. Page 13

13

Klinger, E. (1977). Meaning & void: Inner experience and the incentives in people’s lives.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Little, B. R. (1989). Personal projects analysis: Trivial pursuits, magnificent obsessions, and the search for coherence. In D. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 15–31). New York, NY: Springer.
Mann, L., & Janis, I. (1982). Conflict theory of decision making and the
expectancy-value approach. In N. T. Feather (Ed.), Expectations and actions:
Expectancy-value models in psychology (pp. 341–364). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ross, J., & Staw, B. M. (1993). Organizational escalation and exit: Lessons from the
Shoreham nuclear power plant. The Academy of Management Journal, 36(4), 701–732.
Rothermund, K., & Brandtstädter, J. (2003). Coping with losses and deficits in later
life: from compensatory action to accommodation. Psychology and Aging, 18(4),
896–905.
Schultze, T., Pfeiffer, F., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2012). Biased information processing in
the escalation paradigm: Information search and information evaluation as potential mediators of escalating commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 16–32.
Simonson, I., & Staw, B. M. (1992). Deescalation strategies: A comparison of techniques for reducing commitment to losing courses of action. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77, 419–426.
Staw, B. M. (1997). The escalation of commitment: An update and appraisal. In Z.
Shapira (Ed.), Organizational decision making. Cambridge series on judgment and decision making (pp. 191–215). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Whyte, G. (1993). Escalating commitment in individual and group decision making:
A prospect theory approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
54(3), 430–455.
Wolf, B. M., Herrmann, M., Zubler, I., & Brandstätter, V. (2018). Action crises in
personal goals compromise recovery during physical therapy. Motivation Science.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/mot0000106.
Wong, K. F. E., Yik, M., & Kwong, J. (2006). Understanding the emotional aspects of
escalation of commitment: The role of negative affect. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91, 282–297.
Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., & Miller, G. E. (2013). Goal adjustment capacities, subjective well-being, and physical health. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,
7(12), 847–860.
Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., Miller, G. E., Schulz, R., & Carver, C. S. (2003). Adaptive
self- regulation of unattainable goals: Goal disengagement, goal reengagement,
and subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1494–1508.
Zhang, L., & Baumeister, R. F. (2006). Your money or your self-esteem: Threatened
egotism promotes costly entrapment in losing endeavors. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 32, 881–893.

Veronika Brandstätter is a professor of psychology at the University
of Zurich. She studied psychology at the University of Munich where
she also received her PhD after holding a doctoral scholarship at the

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

14

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:16 P.M. Page 14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Max-Planck-Institute for Psychological Research, Munich. Later, she was a
program director at the Leadership and Management Training Unit of the
University of Augsburg. After that, she returned to the University of Munich
as an assistant professor at the chair of Social Psychology (Professor Dieter
Frey). Since 2003, she has been at the University of Zurich, where she holds
the chair of “Psychology of Motivation, Volition, and Emotion”. From 2010
to 2012, she was associate editor of the journal Motivation and Emotion. She
is presently on the editorial boards of Motivation Science and Motivation and
Emotion.
RELATED ESSAYS

k

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity (Psychology), Rodica Ioana
Damian and Dean Keith Simonton
Youth Entrepreneurship (Psychology), William Damon et al.
Resilience (Psychology), Erica D. Diminich and George A. Bonanno
Insight (Psychology), Brian Erickson and John Kounios
State of the Art in Competition Research (Psychology), Márta Fülöp and
Gábor Orosz
Positive Development among Diverse Youth (Psychology), Richard M. Lerner
et al.
Neural and Cognitive Plasticity (Psychology), Eduardo Mercado III
Sociology of Entrepreneurship (Sociology), Martin Ruef
Creativity in Teams (Psychology), Leigh L. Thompson and Elizabeth Ruth
Wilson
To Flop Is Human: Inventing Better Scientific Approaches to Anticipating
Failure (Methods), Robert Boruch and Alan Ruby
Setting One’s Mind on Action: Planning Out Goal Striving in Advance
(Psychology), Peter M. Gollwitzer
Positive Developments During the Transition to Adulthood (Psychology), Gil
G. Noam and Bailey Triggs

k

k


k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:16 P.M.

Page 1

Holding On or Letting Go?
Persistence and Disengagement in
Goal Striving
VERONIKA BRANDSTÄTTER

Abstract

k

Goals shape our personal identities, structure our everyday lives, regulate our
behavior, and thus are in fact one of the most important sources of performance
and well-being. Successful goal striving unfolds between tenacious persistence
on the one hand and timely disengagement on the other when a goal has become
futile and too costly. Disengagement from goals is often difficult, however. Issues
of unproductive persistence and (unsuccessful) goal disengagement have, for a
long time, been addressed primarily in the realm of monetary decision-making
(escalation of commitment). In the more recent past, research on personal goals
has devoted attention to issues of goal disengagement, doing so from two different
research perspectives (individual differences approach, process-oriented approach).
This essay gives an overview of traditional and current research on goal disengagement with its practical implications for the individual but also on a societal level,
and outlines promising lines of research addressing fundamental questions still
unanswered.

k

“Winners never quit and quitters never win.” In claiming this, the famous
former US football coach Vince Lombardi addressed a widely shared social
norm in Western industrialized countries: Keep on going, cling tenaciously
to your goals, finish what you have started, and lead it to a successful
conclusion! Indeed, parents, teachers, sport coaches, employers, and health
professionals instruct their children, pupils, athletes, employees, or patients
to persist in their goal striving even in the face of difficulties or setbacks. No
doubt, without a considerable amount of tenacity, individuals would not
even find their feet, would not develop any competencies, and ultimately
would not reach the stars, as proclaimed in the Latin proverb: Per aspera ad
astra (Through difficulties to the stars).
Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences.
Robert A. Scott and Marlis Buchmann (General Editors) with Stephen Kosslyn (Consulting Editor).
© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Inc. ISBN 978-1-118-90077-2.

1

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

2

k

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:16 P.M.

Page 2

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

This is just one side of the coin, though, as there are many instances
of “pathological persistence” (Ross & Staw, 1993), instances in which
individuals overstretch themselves, throw good money after bad, become
increasingly frustrated to the point of becoming depressed, and forgo more
productive lines of action. Political, economic, and personal histories are
full of examples of excessive persistence in endeavors that would better
have been dismissed at an earlier point in time (e.g., Vietnam war, Long
Island Lighting Company’s Shoreham Nuclear Power Plant, remaining in
an unhappy relationship or unsatisfactory job). Obviously, both getting
started and keeping going, as well as stopping and letting go, are two fundamental prerequisites for successful goal striving—from the perspective
of life-span development (Heckhausen, Wrosch, & Schulz, 2010) but also
from the perspective of individuals’ goal striving, quite independently of
the context. Interestingly, though, unproductive persistence and (unsuccessful) goal disengagement have long been addressed primarily in the
realm of monetary decision-making but not with respect to personal goal
striving.
In the domain of economic decision-making, various theoretical accounts
have been put forward which point to the deleterious dynamics in the
“escalation of commitment”, that is, the tendency to stick with a course of
action despite suffering conspicuous (monetary) losses (Staw, 1997). More
recently, research on personal goals has discovered the relevance of (hindered)
goal disengagement for psychological and physical well-being (Brandstätter,
Herrmann, & Schüler, 2013; Brandtstädter & Rothermund, 2002; Heckhausen
et al., 2010). This line of research either focuses on the individual’s goal
adjustment capacities (i.e., distancing oneself from a futile goal, re-engaging
in alternative goals; individual differences approach) (Brandtstädter &
Renner, 1990; Wrosch, Scheier, Miller, Schulz, & Carver, 2003), or on the
dynamic (cognitive, affective, and behavioral) processes in striving for a goal
when goal disengagement becomes an issue (process-oriented approach)
(Brandstätter & Herrmann, 2017).
THE CURRENT STATE OF THE FIELD
ESCALATION OF COMMITMENT IN ECONOMIC CONTEXTS
When an investment of resources (e.g., money and time) turns out to be
futile, decision-makers often face the dilemma of whether to withdraw from
the failing course of action or to continue investing in the endeavor. Abundant research in the field of organizational decision-making shows that there
is a dogged tendency in decision-makers to “escalate their commitment”,
that is, to persist in the losing endeavor by committing more resources to

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Holding On or Letting Go? Persistence and Disengagement in Goal Striving

6:16 P.M.

Page 3

3

it—even in the face of questionable economic prospects (Staw, 1997). Several
psychological explanations for escalating commitment have been proposed,
the most influential of which are the self-justification hypothesis (Staw,
1997), the sunk cost effect (Arkes & Blumer, 1985), and prospect theory
(Whyte, 1993).
DISENGAGEMENT IN PERSONAL GOAL STRIVING

k

Personal goals describe an individual’s everyday strivings, from trivial
pursuits to magnificent obsessions (Little, 1989), embedded in all kinds
of different contexts (e.g., work, study, family, health). Goals “provide the
structure that defines people’s lives” (Carver, Lawrence, & Scheier, 1996,
p. 12; Emmons, 1986) and thus regulate a wide array of human emotion,
cognition, and behavior (Brunstein, 1993; Carver & Scheier, 2005). Due to
the significance of personal goals for people’s definitions of themselves, the
persistent and successful pursuit of self-relevant goals plays a crucial role
for well-being (for a summary, Hennecke & Brandstätter, 2017).
Even though a great variety of psychological (i.e., cognitive, affective)
mechanisms support persistence in goal striving (Brandstätter & Hennecke,
in press; Hennecke & Brandstätter, 2017), success is not guaranteed—who
does not have a tale to tell about repeated failure and setbacks in striving
for a personal goal, which eventually gave way to doubts about whether to
hold on to or let go of the goal? Klinger (1977) was one of the first scholars
to take a look at commitment to and disengagement from personal goals.
He pointed out that disengaging from a goal can be a lengthy process and
an incisive experience for the individual and one that is accompanied by
profound emotional, cognitive and behavioral changes—a kind of “psychic
earthquake” (Klinger, 1977, p. 137). Two core questions are addressed with
respect to disengagement from personal goals: Do people differ in terms
of their goal adjustment capacities when they are confronted with goals
that are too costly or unrealistic to attain (Wrosch et al., 2003)? What are the
cognitive, affective, and behavioral processes in the phase, dubbed an action
crisis, that might precede goal disengagement (Brandstätter & Herrmann,
2017)?
ESCALATION OF COMMITMENT IN ECONOMIC CONTEXTS
THE SELF-JUSTIFICATION HYPOTHESIS
The dominant theoretical account of “escalation of commitment” is the
self-justification hypothesis derived from cognitive dissonance theory
(Festinger, 1957). In the very first study testing this hypothesis, Staw (1997)
argued that decision-makers, when incurring negative consequences within

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

4

k

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:16 P.M.

Page 4

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

an investment context, might enlarge their commitment of resources because
they are eager to justify their initial investments. Refraining from further
investments would mean admitting that one’s initial investment decision
was flawed. This, in turn, would create the unpleasant state of cognitive
dissonance, as one’s positive self-concept of being a competent and rational decision-maker would be heavily compromised. Studies testing the
self-justification hypothesis in escalation of commitment follow a common
pattern (Brockner, 1992). The decision-maker (mostly confronted with
fictitious though realistic and personally involving case studies of economic
investment decisions) is either personally responsible or not responsible
for an initial financial decision, such as allocating R & D funds to one of
two divisions of a company, which then either fails or succeeds. Escalation
of commitment is operationalized as the amount of funds allocated to the
initially chosen division in a second round of funding. A pervasive tendency
is consistently observed in decision-makers to allocate more resources to
the underperforming division when one is personally responsible for first
but now failing investment (Schultze, Pfeiffer, & Schulz-Hardt, 2012; Staw,
1997; Wong, Yik, & Kwong, 2006). Beyond self-justification, several authors
have claimed that impression management motives (e.g., saving face), that
is, social justification, also play a role in the escalation of commitment (Staw,
1997).
THE SUNK COST EFFECT
A second influential theoretical approach to escalation of commitment refers
to the sunk cost effect. The sunk cost effect is manifested “in a greater tendency
to continue an endeavor once an investment in money, effort, or time has been
made” (Arkes & Blumer, 1985, p. 124). Well-known is the scenario described
by Arkes and Blumer (1985, p. 126), depicting that you have purchased a
ticket for a skip trip to Michigan ($100) and weeks later one for a nother, even
much more enjoyable skip trip to Wisconsin ($50) not realizing that they were
for the same dates. With no options of returning or selling one of the tickets,
which trip would you go on? Only 46% of the participants in the scenario
study (and not 100% as predicted by traditional economic theory) chose the
Wisconsin trip. From the perspective of rational economic decision theory,
this qualifies as irrational behavior because only incremental costs should
influence the decision, not sunk costs. The reluctance to withdraw from a
prior investment of resources is psychologically justified by “the desire not
to appear wasteful” (Arkes & Blumer, 1985, p. 125) and the attempt to “recover the initial investment” (Feldman & Wong, 2018, p. 1). Notably, the focus
on financial investments in sunk cost research should not obscure the fact
that nonmonetary costs (e.g., time, effort) may also mislead a decision-maker

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Holding On or Letting Go? Persistence and Disengagement in Goal Striving

6:16 P.M.

Page 5

5

into holding on to an endeavor whose outlook is bleak. Obviously, looking
back and focusing on previous investments instead of looking ahead at the
prospects of one’s endeavor bears the risk of escalating commitment.
PROSPECT THEORY

k

Kahneman and Tversky’s (1979) prospect theory is another theoretical
approach put forward in the literature on escalation of commitment (Whyte,
1993). Prospect theory deals with decisions involving uncertainty and
defines the conditions under which decision-makers are risk seeking versus
risk averse. A core assumption of prospect theory is that decision-makers are
risk seeking in the realm of losses whereas they are risk averse in the realm
of gains. These propositions are derived from the theoretically postulated
value function, on the one hand, and the certainty effect, on the other hand.
The value function describes the relationship between (monetary) gains or
losses and the subjective evaluation of these gains or losses. In the area of
gains, it is concave, that is, higher gains are associated with a diminishing
marginal utility. In the area of losses, the value function is convex indicating
that higher losses are associated with “diminishing marginal harm”. The
certainty effect refers to the fact that certain gains are overvalued (i.e., subjectively evaluated relatively more positively than a gain with a probability
of little less than certainty [p < 1.0]), whereas certain losses are undervalued
(i.e., subjectively evaluated relatively more negatively than a loss with a
probability of little less than certainty [p < 1.0]). Translated to the escalation
of commitment, one would predict that individuals involved in a costly
endeavor in which they have already invested heavily find themselves in the
realm of losses. They are confronted with the decision either to give up the
endeavor, which would mean the certain loss of all previous investments, or
to choose the risky option, that is to go on. The latter is associated with the
finite chance of changing course but also with the possibility of incurring
even greater losses. The prevailing risk proneness in the realm of losses
actually induces the decision-maker to choose the risky option, that is, to
hold on to the chosen (costly) line of behavior (Whyte, 1993).
Besides these traditional influential theories explaining escalation of
commitment, more recent research has focused on cognitive (information)
processing (Schultze et al., 2012; framing, Feldman & Wong, 2018), and
affective processes (Wong et al., 2006; Zhang & Baumeister, 2006) in the
escalation of commitment. For example, Schultze et al. (2012) showed that
the tendency to commit further resources to losing courses of action is
mediated by a biased evaluation of information about the success versus
failure of the chosen course of action. In more concrete terms, participants
who had made a first (unprofitable) investment decision valued information

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

6

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:16 P.M.

Page 6

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

in favor of further investments more positively than participants who were
not responsible for the first investment. With respect to the importance of
emotional aspects in escalating situations (e.g., trait or state negative affect,
threatened self-esteem), Zhang and Baumeister (2006) reported that participants who had been experimentally confronted (vs not confronted) with
an ego threat were more prone to escalate their commitment in a fruitless
endeavor. In sum, escalation of commitment research stresses the conflict
a decision-maker faces between the calamities associated with pursuing a
goal further (i.e., investing more and more resources against long odds) and
the negative consequences of letting it go (i.e., admitting to having made a
flawed initial decision, appearing wasteful). It is also evident that cognitive
as well as affective processes are involved in escalation of commitment;
however, these have not been investigated systematically so far.
DISENGAGEMENT IN PERSONAL GOAL STRIVING
AN INDIVIDUAL DIFFERENCES PERSPECTIVE ON GOAL DISENGAGEMENT

k

Two theoretical approaches explicitly address issues of goal disengagement from the perspective of individual differences; on the one hand, the
dual-process model of assimilative and accommodative coping (Brandtstädter &
Rothermund, 2002) and, on the other hand, the concept of individual goal
adjustment tendencies (Wrosch, et al., 2003).
The Dual-Process Model of Assimilative and Accommodative Coping This model
by Brandtstädter and Rothermund (2002; Rothermund & Brandtstädter,
2003) focuses on individuals’ reactions when confronted with setbacks or
prospective losses in striving for a personal goal. It postulates that in such
instances individuals will first intensify their efforts (assimilative mode of
coping) through instrumental activities through which the individual tries
to align the present situation with his or her goals and aspirations. However,
when a goal emerges as being (subjectively) unattainable, accommodative
coping sets in, which involves a devaluation of, or disengagement from,
unattainable goals or a lowering of personal aspirations. The individual’s
inclination to chronically use assimilative and/or accommodative strategies
can be measured using a 30-item questionnaire encompassing two orthogonal scales: Tenacious Goal Pursuit (e.g., “If I run into problems, I usually
double my efforts.” [assimilation]) and Flexible Goal Adjustment (e.g., “If I
run into problems, I let go of my goal, instead of fighting too long for it.”
[accommodation]) (Brandtstädter & Renner, 1990). Notably, successful goal
striving has been posited to arise from the dynamic, situation-sensitive
interplay of assimilative, and accommodative strategies. As assimilation

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Holding On or Letting Go? Persistence and Disengagement in Goal Striving

6:16 P.M.

Page 7

7

and accommodation ultimately buffer difficulties in goal striving, although
in different ways, both are independently associated with well-being across
all age levels (Rothermund & Brandtstädter, 2003).

k

Goal Disengagement and Goal Reengagement Capacities In a very similar
vein, Wrosch and his colleagues (2003) conceived of goal adjustment
capacities as core dimensions of personality but place the emphasis on
an individual’s reaction when confronted with a subjectively unattainable
goal. The authors empirically demonstrate the importance of differentiating
between (the largely independent) goal disengagement and goal reengagement
capacities that can be measured using the 10-item Goal Adjustment Scale
(Wrosch et al., 2003). Goal disengagement, on the one hand, is defined as an
individual’s tendency to withdraw behavioral efforts and psychological
commitment from unfeasible goals (e.g., “If I have to stop pursuing an
important goal in my life [generic stem of all items], it is easy for me to
reduce my efforts toward the goal.”). Goal reengagement, on the other hand,
is conceptualized as the capacity to identify, commit to and work on new
goals (e.g., “ … I convince myself that I have other meaningful goals to
pursue.”).
The studies conducted by Wrosch and his colleagues (for a summary,
Wrosch et al., 2013), analogously to the above-mentioned research of Brandtstädter and colleagues, primarily focused on the relationship between
adjusting to the experience of unattainable goals and (psychological
and physical) well-being. In a nutshell, evidence from a multitude of
cross-sectional as well as longitudinal studies confirms that goal adjustment
capacities predict a great variety of adaptive outcomes (e.g., lower levels of
perceived stress, depressive symptoms, or intrusive thoughts; higher levels
of well-being; lower biomarkers of chronic inflammation; fewer symptoms
of illness), above and beyond other personality characteristics (e.g., Big Five
personality factors, assimilation, accomodation). This was true for quite
diverse samples and contexts (e.g., college students, community-dwelling
adults, breast cancer survivors, adults taking care of a family member
afflicted by a severe disease). Interestingly, goal reengagement tendencies show a distinct pattern of relationships with outcome variables (i.e.,
facilitating positive well-being instead of ameliorating negative aspects of
well-being) which underscores the differential validity of these capacities.
Wrosch et al. (2013) concluded that goal disengagement primarily aims at
relieving psychological distress associated with repeated goal failure. In
contrast, goal reengagement aims at keeping a person engaged in feasible
and meaningful activities, which, in turn, strengthens the positive aspects of
subjective well-being.

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

8

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:16 P.M.

Page 8

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

The discovery of individual differences in coping with unattainable goals
has greatly advanced our understanding of goal disengagement. However, a
more process-oriented analysis of the mechanisms is still lacking, explaining
how individuals disengage from a goal when striving has become too costly
or the expectations of success are too low.
A PROCESS-ORIENTED APPROACH TO GOAL DISENGAGEMENT: THE CONCEPT OF AN ACTION
CRisis

k

Based on the notion put forward by Klinger (1977) that disengagement
from a goal is by no means a binary event but rather the result of a lengthy
and occasionally rather difficult process, an action crisis is conceived of as a
critical phase in this process (Brandstätter & Herrmann, 2017; Brandstätter
et al., 2013). An action crisis is characterized by a motivational conflict
in which the individual is torn between holding on to and letting go of
a personal goal—a situation that typically arises when individuals have
already invested a great deal into their goal, but suffer from repeated
setbacks and/or a substantial drop in the perceived desirability of the goal.
The extent to which an action crisis is experienced in a personal goal has
been operationalized by the Action Crisis Scale (ACRISS; Brandstätter et al.,
2013), which covers different aspects (i.e., conflict, setbacks, implemental
disorientation, rumination, disengagement impulses and procrastination)
assumed to be constitutive of the phenomenon in question. Although an
action crisis does not have to result in the abandonment of the goal, but
may likewise be overcome by a renewal of the commitment (e.g., if people
identify new strategies for goal attainment), recent findings show that it
frequently precedes goal termination (Herrmann & Brandstätter, 2015).
Empirical studies have examined the affective, physiological, cognitive,
and behavioral correlates of an action crisis. In line with its interpretation
as an intrapsychic conflict, it has been found to concurrently and longitudinally predict impairments in psychological (affect and life-satisfaction) and
physical well-being (sleeping disorders, symptoms) in healthy individuals
(Brandstätter et al., 2013). Moreover, in a clinical sample of patients with
musculoskeletal disorders, action crises in personal goals compromised
recovery during physical therapy (Wolf, Herrmann, Zubler, & Brandstätter,
2018). Finally, in a field study with marathon runners, in which salivary
cortisol was sampled after 10, 20, 30, and 40 km, an action crisis, measured
2 weeks before the race, was predictive of a stronger cortisol secretion (i.e.,
slope) during the race (Brandstätter et al., 2013).
An action crisis also affects the individual’s goal-related cognitive orientation (mindset) (Herrmann, Baur, Brandstätter, Hänggi, & Jäncke, 2014).
Hypotheses relating to the cognitive correlates of an action crisis are based

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Holding On or Letting Go? Persistence and Disengagement in Goal Striving

k

Page 9

9

on the mindset theory of action phases (Gollwitzer & Keller, 2016). Mindset
theory distinguishes distinct phases in goal pursuit, each associated with
a specific challenge (i.e., choosing between the multitude of one’s wishes
in order to set attractive and realistic goals; implementing the chosen
goal). Each phase is thought to be accompanied by a specific mindset (e.g.,
deliberative vs implemental mindset) that supports tackling the task in an
optimal way. The implemental mindset, which focuses on implemental issues
(i.e., when, where, how to act) and an overly optimistic outlook in favor of
the goal, contributes to persistence and goal attainment. In an action crisis,
however, this firm orientation toward goal implementation is dampened,
while a deliberative weighing of the pros and cons of the goal and a sober
assessment of the desirability and feasibility of the goal resurge. This change
in cognitive orientation, which has been denoted a mindset-shift (Herrmann
et al., 2014), is regarded as facilitating the initiation of the disengagement
process (Brandstätter et al., 2013). Importantly, empirical evidence so far
reinforces the view that disengagement is shaped by reciprocal processes
between the experience of an action crisis and changes in the cognitive
appraisal of the goal. An action crisis in the goal to complete a university
degree predicted a devaluation of its desirability and attainability, and
conversely, low goal attainability (but not desirability) predicted increases
in action crises (Ghassemi, Bernecker, Herrmann, & Brandstätter, 2017).
The affective impairment resulting from the intrapsychic conflict and
the ambiguous cognitive orientation between weighing up and acting
(“being in two minds”) presumably has a negative impact on performance.
Students who were not sure whether to continue their major and who were
considering dropping out, for example, performed significantly worse over
the course of several terms than students who did not entertain similar
thoughts (Herrmann & Brandstätter, 2015). Analogously, individuals who
experienced higher levels of action crisis while preparing for a marathon
performed worse in the marathon 2 weeks later, controlling for experience,
amount of training, age, and body mass index. This effect was partly
mediated by steeper increases in salivary cortisol, a physiological indicator
of stress, measured repeatedly during the run (Brandstätter et al., 2013).
Altogether, an action crisis can last for weeks and months, profoundly compromising well-being and performance, an issue that calls for interventions
to overcome this wearisome phase of goal pursuit.
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
This essay set out to show that persistence in pursuing one’s goals and
projects as well as disengagement from them are two pivotal aspects of
successful goal striving—be it in the economic context or in the realm of

k

6:16 P.M.

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

10

k

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:16 P.M. Page 10

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

personal goals. On the one hand, individuals would never achieve what
they value without the capacity to tenaciously sustain their efforts, even in
the face of high costs or obstacles. On the other hand, disengagement from a
goal may become badly necessary when striving for the goal turns out to be
unrealistic or too costly. This is easier said than done, though. In everyday
life, individuals are rarely confronted with completely unattainable goals.
On the contrary, the difficulties from which people typically suffer in their
everyday goal striving are more innocuous; and project-related costs seldom
accrue all at once, but occur in the guise of the “slippery slope”, increasing
steadily but almost imperceptibly. Hence, in the vast majority of situations
it is anything but clear whether the goal or project should be abandoned
or not; what follows is a full-blown decision conflict (Mann & Janis, 1982)
between hanging on or letting go. Usually, despite repeated setbacks, there
remains a glimmer of hope that, with increased effort, one will be able to
realign one’s goal striving or that changing environmental circumstances
might support one’s goal striving again in the future. Although, this state of
affairs is quite well known, and past research that analyzed the determinants
and consequences of “pathological persistence” (Ross & Staw, 1993) has
accumulated, fundamental questions still remain unanswered that need
to be addressed in future research, two of which will be outlined in the
following paragraphs.
ESCALATION OF COMMITMENT AND DISENGAGEMENT FROM GOALS CONSTRUED AS A DECISION
CONFLICT
One productive avenue for future research seems to be scrutinizing the
decisional conflict present in the escalation of commitment or in situations
when doubts arise as to whether to hold on to a personal goal. Traditionally,
escalation of commitment has been viewed from the perspective of economic decision making, however, with too narrow a perspective. It is not
only the expected (or already incurred) costs and benefits that determine
further persistence, but all kinds of self-regulatory processes addressed
in self-regulation research. In this regard, Gollwitzer and Keller (2016)
revealed that a core postulate of mindset theory of action phases is that
desirability and feasibility of a goal only play a role when people deliberate
on whether or not to commit to the goal in question, but not anymore
after having made a decision in favor of the goal. For example, it would be
intriguing to analyze how individuals trapped in the futile pursuit of a goal
construe their concrete decision alternatives and how this relates to outcome
variables. Moreover, an analysis of the dynamic interplay between affective
and cognitive processes over the course of time would guarantee important

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Holding On or Letting Go? Persistence and Disengagement in Goal Striving

6:16 P.M. Page 11

11

insights into mediating mechanisms of an ongoing decision conflict resulting
in unproductive persistence.
INTERVENTIONS TO PREVENT OR OVERCOME UNPRODUCTIVE PERSISTENCE

k

Holding on too long to futile goals can be detrimental in various regards—on
the level of individuals’ well-being and health, but also on the level of economic and societal outcomes. Hence, it is all the more astonishing that there
has been virtually no research on interventions to prevent or overcome
unproductive persistence (for an exception, Henderson, Gollwitzer, & Oettingen, 2007; Simonson & Staw, 1992). It seems worthwhile identifying the
various points in the course of goal pursuit (e.g., decision on a project/goal;
the first occurrence of a disengagement impulse) at which intervening
would be most helpful. This could be a certain mental training before
making a decision for a project/goal that would be informed by research
on the self-regulation of goals (for a summary, Brandstätter & Hennecke,
in press). This could also be an intervention aimed at strengthening affect
regulation competencies when confronted with setbacks that compromise
self-esteem.
Taken together, persistence and disengagement in goal striving is an
intriguing field of theoretical research with enormous practical implications
for all areas of an individual’s life and for society in general. Sticking to the
goal of revealing its determinants, mechanisms, and consequences does not,
therefore, seem to be an escalation of commitment.

REFERENCES
Arkes, H. R., & Blumer, C. (1985). The psychology of sunk cost. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 35, 124–140.
Brandstätter, V., & Hennecke, M. (2018). Goals. In J. Heckhausen & H. Heckhausen
(Eds.), Motivation and action (pp. 331–353). New York, NY: Springer.
Brandstätter, V., & Herrmann, M. (2017). Goal disengagement and action crises. In
N. Baumann, T. Goschke, M. Kazén, S. Koole & M. Quirin (Eds.), Why people do the
things they do: Building on Julius Kuhl’s contribution to motivation and volition psychology (pp. 87–108). Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Brandstätter, V., Herrmann, M., & Schüler, J. (2013). The struggle of giving up personal goals: Affective, physiological, and cognitive consequences of an action crisis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 39(12), 1668–1682.
Brandtstädter, J., & Renner, G. (1990). Tenacious goal pursuit and flexible goal adjustment: Explication and age-related analysis of assimilative and accommodative
strategies of coping. Psychology and Aging, 5(1), 58–67.

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

12

k

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:16 P.M. Page 12

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Brandtstädter, J., & Rothermund, K. (2002). The life-course dynamics of goal pursuit and goal adjustment: A two-process framework. Developmental Review, 22(1),
117–150.
Brockner, J. (1992). The escalation of commitment to a failing course of action: Toward
theoretical progress. The Academy of Management Review, 17(1), 39–61.
Brunstein, J. C. (1993). Personal goals and subjective well-being: A longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(5), 1061–1070.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.1061.
Carver, C. S., Lawrence, J. W., & Scheier, M. F. (1996). A control-process perspective
on the origins of affect. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), Striving and feeling: Interactions among goals, affect, and self-regulation (pp. 11–52). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates.
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2005). Engagement, disengagement, coping, and catastrophe. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation
(pp. 527–547). New York, NY: Guilford Publications.
Emmons, R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: an approach to personality and subjective
well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(5), 1058–1068.
Feldman, G., & Wong, K. F. E. (2018). When action-inaction framing leads to higher
escalation of commitment: A new inaction-effect perspective on the sunk cost fallacy. Psychological Science, 29, 537–548.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University
Press.
Ghassemi, M., Bernecker, K., Herrmann, M., & Brandstätter, V. (2017). The process of
disengagement from personal goals: Reciprocal influences between the experience
of action crisis and appraisals of goal desirability and attainability. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(4), 524–537.
Gollwitzer, P. M., & Keller, L. (2016). Mindset theory. In V. Zeigler-Hill & T. K. Shackelford (Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 1–8). New
York, NY: Springer.
Heckhausen, J., Wrosch, C., & Schulz, R. (2010). A motivational theory of life-span
development. Psychological Review, 117(1), 32–60.
Henderson, M. D., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Oettingen, G. (2007). Implementation intentions and disengagement from a failing course of action. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 20, 81–102.
Hennecke, M., & Brandstätter, V. (2017). Means, ends, and happiness: The role of
goals for subjective well-being. In M. Eid & M. Robinson (Eds.), The happy mind:
Cognitive contributions to well-being (pp. 235–251). New York, NY: Springer.
Herrmann, M., Baur, V., Brandstätter, V., Hänggi, J., & Jäncke, L. (2014). Being in two
minds: The neural basis of experiencing action crises in personal long-term goals.
Social Neuroscience, 9(6), 548–561.
Herrmann, M., & Brandstätter, V. (2015). Action crises and goal disengagement: Longitudinal evidence on the predictive validity of a motivational phase in goal striving. Motivation Science, 1(2), 121–136.
Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under
risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263–291. doi:10.2307/1914185.

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

V2 - 10/22/2018

Holding On or Letting Go? Persistence and Disengagement in Goal Striving

k

6:16 P.M. Page 13

13

Klinger, E. (1977). Meaning & void: Inner experience and the incentives in people’s lives.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Little, B. R. (1989). Personal projects analysis: Trivial pursuits, magnificent obsessions, and the search for coherence. In D. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 15–31). New York, NY: Springer.
Mann, L., & Janis, I. (1982). Conflict theory of decision making and the
expectancy-value approach. In N. T. Feather (Ed.), Expectations and actions:
Expectancy-value models in psychology (pp. 341–364). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Ross, J., & Staw, B. M. (1993). Organizational escalation and exit: Lessons from the
Shoreham nuclear power plant. The Academy of Management Journal, 36(4), 701–732.
Rothermund, K., & Brandtstädter, J. (2003). Coping with losses and deficits in later
life: from compensatory action to accommodation. Psychology and Aging, 18(4),
896–905.
Schultze, T., Pfeiffer, F., & Schulz-Hardt, S. (2012). Biased information processing in
the escalation paradigm: Information search and information evaluation as potential mediators of escalating commitment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 97, 16–32.
Simonson, I., & Staw, B. M. (1992). Deescalation strategies: A comparison of techniques for reducing commitment to losing courses of action. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 77, 419–426.
Staw, B. M. (1997). The escalation of commitment: An update and appraisal. In Z.
Shapira (Ed.), Organizational decision making. Cambridge series on judgment and decision making (pp. 191–215). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
Whyte, G. (1993). Escalating commitment in individual and group decision making:
A prospect theory approach. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,
54(3), 430–455.
Wolf, B. M., Herrmann, M., Zubler, I., & Brandstätter, V. (2018). Action crises in
personal goals compromise recovery during physical therapy. Motivation Science.
Advance online publication. doi:10.1037/mot0000106.
Wong, K. F. E., Yik, M., & Kwong, J. (2006). Understanding the emotional aspects of
escalation of commitment: The role of negative affect. Journal of Applied Psychology,
91, 282–297.
Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., & Miller, G. E. (2013). Goal adjustment capacities, subjective well-being, and physical health. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,
7(12), 847–860.
Wrosch, C., Scheier, M. F., Miller, G. E., Schulz, R., & Carver, C. S. (2003). Adaptive
self- regulation of unattainable goals: Goal disengagement, goal reengagement,
and subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1494–1508.
Zhang, L., & Baumeister, R. F. (2006). Your money or your self-esteem: Threatened
egotism promotes costly entrapment in losing endeavors. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 32, 881–893.

Veronika Brandstätter is a professor of psychology at the University
of Zurich. She studied psychology at the University of Munich where
she also received her PhD after holding a doctoral scholarship at the

k

k

k
PSYHB etrds0458.tex

14

V2 - 10/22/2018

6:16 P.M. Page 14

EMERGING TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL AND BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES

Max-Planck-Institute for Psychological Research, Munich. Later, she was a
program director at the Leadership and Management Training Unit of the
University of Augsburg. After that, she returned to the University of Munich
as an assistant professor at the chair of Social Psychology (Professor Dieter
Frey). Since 2003, she has been at the University of Zurich, where she holds
the chair of “Psychology of Motivation, Volition, and Emotion”. From 2010
to 2012, she was associate editor of the journal Motivation and Emotion. She
is presently on the editorial boards of Motivation Science and Motivation and
Emotion.
RELATED ESSAYS

k

Four Psychological Perspectives on Creativity (Psychology), Rodica Ioana
Damian and Dean Keith Simonton
Youth Entrepreneurship (Psychology), William Damon et al.
Resilience (Psychology), Erica D. Diminich and George A. Bonanno
Insight (Psychology), Brian Erickson and John Kounios
State of the Art in Competition Research (Psychology), Márta Fülöp and
Gábor Orosz
Positive Development among Diverse Youth (Psychology), Richard M. Lerner
et al.
Neural and Cognitive Plasticity (Psychology), Eduardo Mercado III
Sociology of Entrepreneurship (Sociology), Martin Ruef
Creativity in Teams (Psychology), Leigh L. Thompson and Elizabeth Ruth
Wilson
To Flop Is Human: Inventing Better Scientific Approaches to Anticipating
Failure (Methods), Robert Boruch and Alan Ruby
Setting One’s Mind on Action: Planning Out Goal Striving in Advance
(Psychology), Peter M. Gollwitzer
Positive Developments During the Transition to Adulthood (Psychology), Gil
G. Noam and Bailey Triggs

k

k



Media

Holding On or Letting Go? Persistence and Disengagement in Goal Striving