Goal adjustment capacities and quality of life: A meta-analytic review.
Level 1 - systematic review of randomized trials
Meta-analysis of observational studies (level 1 by design analogy)
PubMed 31131441 · doi:10.1111/jopy.12492
What was done
This meta-analysis synthesized 421 effect sizes (Fisher's Z) from 31 samples to assess the associations between goal adjustment capacities (goal disengagement and goal reengagement) and quality of life (well-being and health). The authors evaluated these associations using meta-analytic random-effects models and examined several moderators, including quality of life subtypes (positive vs. negative indicators), age, and depression risk status.
What was found
Both goal disengagement (r = 0.08, p < 0.01) and goal reengagement (r = 0.19, p < 0.01) were positively associated with overall quality of life. Goal disengagement was inversely related to negative well-being indicators (r = -0.12, p < 0.01) but was not significantly related to positive indicators (r = 0.02, p = 0.37). In contrast, goal reengagement showed significant associations with both positive (r = 0.24, p < 0.01) and negative (r = -0.17, p < 0.01) indicators. Goal disengagement was associated with fewer depressive symptoms overall (r = -0.11, p < 0.01), but this association reversed in samples at risk for depression (r = 0.08, p = 0.01). In addition, goal disengagement more strongly predicted quality of life in older samples (B = 0.003, p < 0.01).
Why it matters
This review clarifies the distinct self-regulatory functions of goal adjustment: giving up unattainable goals primarily reduces distress (especially in older adults), whereas identifying new goals actively fosters positive well-being. It also highlights a critical nuance: goal disengagement may not be protective, and could be detrimental, in individuals at risk for depression.
Limits
The abstract does not report the total participant count across the 31 samples, the specific primary study designs (e.g., cross-sectional vs. longitudinal), or assessments of publication bias. All pooled effect sizes are correlational and modest in magnitude (r = 0.08 to 0.24), precluding causal conclusions.
Cited by
- supports Psychological research demonstrates that individuals who are more adept at disengaging from unattainable goals experience better mental well-being and re-engage in new goals faster.