When we set goals, the issue of motivation arises regarding the ability to meet those goals. In a 2013 study, Maura L. Scott and Stephen M. Nowlis examined what happens when people pursue goals with either a single, specific target or a range. They found that people who set a low – high goal (a target expressed as a range rather than a single point), were more likely to re-engage with their goal after a setback, and more likely to stick with it over time.
The reason is that a single number creates a binary outcome: you either hit it or you don’t. A range, by contrast, creates a zone of success. The low end is achievable, which keeps you from quitting when momentum slips. The high end is challenging, which keeps you reaching when things go well.
For example, let’s take weight loss. If your goal is to lose five pounds in a month and you lose only four, you’ve failed to meet your goal. However, if your goal is to lose four to six pounds, you are in the ballpark, but you are using a very different psychology. The first frame punishes anything short of perfection, the second frame acknowledges that real progress rarely moves in a straight line, and gives you credit for landing anywhere in a reasonable window.
There are two rules for setting a good range:
1. The low end should be achievable. It needs to be something you can hit on an average day, not your best day.
2. The second rule is that the high end should be challenging. It needs to require real effort, not just the bare minimum plus a little. When both ends are set thoughtfully, you create a band you can operate inside, with room to adjust without feeling like you failed.
This type of goal setting can be applied to made or missed putts, unforced turnovers in pickleball or tennis, times for walking “X” number of miles within a given time range, and in a variety of other areas.
