# Statistics on assigning goals

**URL:** <http://discourse.iapct.org/t/statistics-on-assigning-goals/10784>\
**Category:** CSG1993\
**Created:** [May 27, 1993, 8:39pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/statistics-on-assigning-goals/10784 "1993-05-27T20:39:30Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 1

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![\_Gary\_A\_Cziko](http://discourse.iapct.org/letter_avatar_proxy/v4/letter/_/3ab097/32.png) [@\_Gary\_A\_Cziko](http://discourse.iapct.org/u/_Gary_A_Cziko)\
**Post date:** [May 27, 1993, 8:39pm UTC](http://discourse.iapct.org/t/statistics-on-assigning-goals/10784/1 "1993-05-27T20:39:30Z")

</div>

[from Gary Cziko 930527.1936 UTC]

Greg Williams (930526) said:

> Browsing through the L&L book, I came across the following (on page  
> 133), perhaps indicating where Locke is "coming from" in a nutshell:
> 
> "The studies reported in Chapter 5 that measured personal goals  
> after the goals were assigned show that the two are HIGHLY CORRELATED  
> (r = .52)." [Italics added.]

Ouch. This is about 85% useless as a correlation; in other words HIGHLY  
USELESS [Italics in original].

I wonder why it is so low. Perhaps it is due to measurement error.

I've done much better "assigning" goals. I once asked all the females in  
my statistics class to stand up and the males to remain seated. All the  
females stood and none of the males did. That gave me a perfect  
correlation (acually phi-coefficient). Perhaps I should write book about  
that.

I suppose I might not get such a high correlation if assigned different  
goals like "give me your money" or "study 4 hours every day."--Gary

> **···**
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------  
> Gary Cziko Telephone: 217-333-8527  
> Educational Psychology FAX: 217-244-7620  
> University of Illinois E-mail: g-cziko@uiuc.edu  
> 1310 S. Sixth Street Radio: N9MJZ  
> 210 Education Building  
> Champaign, Illinois 61820-6990  
> USA  
> ------------------------------------------------------------------