Effects of Assigned and Participative Goal Setting on Performance and Job Satisfaction: Erratum.

Reports an error in the the article "Effects of Assigned and Participative Goal Setting on Performance and Job Satisfaction" by Gary P. Latham and Gary A. Yukl (Journal of Applied Psychology. Vol 61(2) Apr 1976, 166-171). The last paragraph in the Results section subtitled "Manipulation Check and Reliability of Measures" on page 168 was a repetition of the previous paragraph. It should be changed to read as follows: The internal consistency of the satisfaction measure was .83, The stability of the satisfaction scale, as estimated by the correlation between the before and after measures of satisfaction, was .70 (p 1977-30702-001.) Evaluated the job performance of 41 female typists under participative or assigned goal setting conditions over a 10-wk period. Significant productivity improvement occurred in both conditions during the 2nd 5 wks. There was no significant difference between conditions with respect to goal difficulty or frequency of goal attainment. Job satisfaction declined slightly in both conditions. Individual trait measures such as need for independence did not moderate the effects of either type of goal setting. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Effect of previously assigned goals on self-set goals and performance": Correction to Locke, Frederick, Buckner, and Bobko.

Reports an error in "Effect of previously assigned goals on self-set goals and performance" by Edwin A. Locke, Elizabeth Frederick, Elizabeth Buckner and Philip Bobko (Journal of Applied Psychology, 1984[Nov], Vol 69[4], 694-699). The third line was left out on p. 696, top right column. The entire section should read as follows: "Figure 1 compares the goals on T-1 with the mean goals chosen on T-2 by the same groups of subjects (i.e., grouped according to T-1 goals). On T-2 the mean goal levels of the seven original groups ranged from 4.8 to 12.9, in contrast with the T-1 range of 2 to 26." (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 1985-08583-001.) 231 undergraduates were asked to list from 2–26 uses for common objects depending on the level of difficulty of the section (1 of 7) to which they were assigned. Ss were given a 1-min practice trial after task explanations and were then administered 2 experimental trials. Ss were told they were free to change their goals to a higher or lower level for the 2nd trial if they did not like the goal they had been assigned. Results show that Ss chose more difficult goals, if the assigned goals had been easy, and easier goals, if the assigned goals had been difficult. Ss were heavily influenced in their self-set goals by their previously assigned goals. The performance of Ss with impossible goals did not drop on the 2nd trial. A goal–expectancy interaction was found on the 2nd trial that was due to expectancy being positively related to performance at the higher but not the lower goal levels. (8 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)