To Achieve Your Goals, Focus on Reasons

July 1, 2010 RSS Feed Print

Quick, name your top money goals: Do you want to earn more? Save more? Stop wasting cash on stuff you don’t care about? Now, instead of focusing on how to go about achieving those goals– by keeping a spending diary, perhaps, or leaving your credit cards at home – meditate instead on the reasons behind them. Do you want to be debt-free? Save enough to afford a vacation? Stop worrying about overextending your bank account?

[Slideshow: 10 Things to Splurge on This Summer.]

By focusing on those big-picture reasons instead of logistics, you will actually improve your chances of achieving your goals, according to new research published in the Journal of Consumer Research. According to the paper, people become more close-minded when they focus on logistics, and less likely to take advantage of unexpected ways they can move closer to their goals. But people who focused on the abstract reasons were able to spontaneosly take advantage of ways to turn their dreams into reality.

For example, if someone wants to save money, the researchers explain, she might come up with a plan to buy fewer clothes on a trip to the mall. But then, she might miss the opportunity to save by having a cheaper lunch or avoiding an impulse purchase instead.

So, how did the researchers come up with this finding? They asked one group of people to plan how they were going to save money, and another group not to plan at all. A third group was asked to focus on why they wanted to save money. Then, all groups were offered a chance to buy candy.

The group that had formed a savings plan were more likely to buy the candy than those who hadn’t planned. (But the study authors add that among abstract thinkers, those who planned were more likely to avoid the candy purchase.)

“Planning is more effective when people think abstractly, keep an open mind, and remind themselves of why they want to achieve a goal,” according to the authors. “This strategy is especially effective when the plan turns out to be infeasible (cheaper restraunt is too far away, gym is closed today for a holiday) or when other goal-directed activities become available (walk instead of taking a cab, eating a healthier meal.”

[See Splurge on This, Save on That.]

This discovery is just the latest from academia on how we should be managing our financial lives. Among other recent findings:

  • Don’t be lured by credit card rewards: People tend to spend more on their credit cards as they get close to receiving card rewards, a behavior dubbed “purchase acceleration.” "People find their motivation increases as they get closer to goals," says Ran Kivetz, business professor at Columbia University. As people close in on a credit card reward, they're likely to spend money more quickly to reach it, he explains. That could mean buying a Prada purse that you don't necessarily want, or splurging on a steak at Morton's, to build up reward points when it would be easier—and, in some cases, cheaper—to just purchase the reward on your own.
  • But don’t spend too little, either. Kivetz has also identified what he calls “self-control regrets,” which refers to the fact that people may actually wish they had spent more, because their sense of guilt over purchases dissapates over time while their sense of “missing out” does not. "People feel guilty about luxuries and it's hard to justify them, so they under-consume them," he explains.
  • Beware the “placebo effect.” Think your $4 coffee keeps you more alert than the $1 one? Or that your $45 bottle of wine tastes better than a $9 one? Turns out it might all be in your head. "We have been conditioned to expect that higher prices equates to higher quality," explains Gregory Berns, a professor in the psychiatry and behavioral sciences as well as economics at Emory University. "Therefore with a product like an energy drink, you expect the more expensive it is, the better it works." But is it really better? It is if you believe it is, says Berns.
Tags:
personal finance

Reader Comments Read all comments (1)

Add Your Thoughts
Your comment will be posted immediately, unless it is spam or contains profanity. For more information, please see our Comments FAQ.

Public and private organizations are into a phase of creative disassembly where constant reinvention and adjustments are constant. Hundreds of thousands of jobs are being shed by Chevron, NUMI, Wells Fargo Bank, HP, Starbucks etc. and the state, counties and cities. Even solid world class institutions like the University of California Berkeley are firing staff, faculty and part-time lecturers. Estimates are that the State of California may jettison 47,000 positions.

Yet many employees, professionals and faculty cling to old assumptions about one of the most critical relationship of all: the implied, unwritten contract between employer and employee.

Until recently, loyalty was the cornerstone of that relationship. Employers promised job security and a steady progress up the hierarchy in return for employees’s fitting in, performing in prescribed ways and sticking around. Longevity was a sign of employeer-employee relations; turnover was a sign of dysfunction. None of these assumptions apply today. Organizations can no longer guarantee employment and lifetime careers, even if they want to.

Organizations that paralyzed themselves with an attachment to “success brings success’ rather than “success brings failure’ are now forced to break the implied contract with employees – a contract nurtured by management that the future can be controlled.

Jettisoned employees are finding that the hard won knowledge, skills and capabilities earned while being loyal are no longer valuable in the employment market place.

What kind of a contract can employers and employees make with each other? The central idea is both simple and powerful: the job or position is a shared situation. Employers and employees face market and financial conditions together, and the longevity of the partnership depends on how well the for-profit or not-for-profit continues to meet the needs of customers and constituencies. Neither employer nor employee has a future obligation to the other. Organizations train people. Employees develop the kind of security they really need – skills, knowledge and capabilities that enhance future employability.

The partnership can be dissolved without either party considering the other a traitor. Traditional employee loyalty is dead – get used to it.

Milan Moravec of CA 11:23PM August 10, 2010

Alpha Consumer

Alpha Consumer

Kimberly Palmer, senior editor for U.S. News & World Report, is the author of Generation Earn: The Young Professional's Guide to Spending, Investing, and Giving Back. Send her your personal finance questions.


advertisement

Latest Video

advertisement