Supplementary Material
Detailed description of the intervention:
The intervention consisted of three Stages. Students were first instructed to find a place where
they could not be disturbed for the duration of their writing (about two hours for Stage 1 and
another two hours for Stage 2). They were also instructed to leave at least one night between
completing Stages 1 and 2 (the deadlines were two weeks apart, but students could theoretically
do the two Stages simultaneously. Thus, we clarified this in the instructions). Stage 3 involved a
visit to the school’s photographer for a portrait photo to go with the personalized “I WILL”
statement.
Stage 1. This part of the program was designed to have participants reflect, imagine and
daydream about their future. It consisted of eight steps. The first four steps each required at
least two minutes of writing. Step 1 required participants to choose one thing they could do
better. During step 2 they wrote about things they would like to learn more about in the next six
months, and over the next two to five years. In step 3 they wrote about habits they would like to
improve at university, at work, with friends and family, health, and substance use; in step 4
about their future social life, their network, and connections they might want to make. Steps 1 to
4 were virtually identical to step 1 in the intervention devised by Morisano, Hirsh, Peterson, Pihl,
and Shore (2010).
Steps 5 to 7, described below, were not part of the Morisano et al. intervention (2010).
Step 5 required participants to reflect on their future leisure activities, and to carefully plan how
they would spend their leisure time in a meaningful way, instead of “wasting” this time. Step 6
required them to reflect on future home and family life, such as their plans for a partner,
children, if any, how to improve relationships with parents and siblings, etc. Step 7 asked
participants to reflect on their future career and think about where they would like to be in six
months, two years, and five years from now.
Step 8 had two parts: (a) writing about the ideal future, also part of the Morisano et al.
(2010) intervention, and (b) writing about the future they would like to avoid, an item added to
this intervention. In writing about their ideal future, participants had to integrate all the things
they had written about in previous parts. They had to think about who and what they wanted to
be; where they wanted to end up; why, how, and when they would put their plans into action.
This part took at least 15 minutes of non-stop writing. Participants were reminded that these
were their own private goals but should be related to a life they would regard as honorable,
exciting, productive, creative and decent.
In the 15 minutes they spent describing the future they would prefer to avoid,
participants had to reflect on what their life would be like if they failed to define or pursue goals,
if bad habits spiraled out of control, and if they ended up miserable, resentful and bitter. The
idea behind this part was to let participants visualize both a desirable and an undesirable future,
and to get them to contrast the two, as a form of “metacognitive self-regulatory strategy of goal
pursuit” (Duckworth, Kirby, Gollwitzer, & Oettingen, 2013; p. 745; cf. Schippers, Homan, & van
Knippenberg, 2013). This form of mental contrasting with implementation intentions was
designed to make them to outline a strategy for how they could achieve their desired goals and
at the same time to think about what could happen if they failed to achieve those goals. These
steps represented a goal-framing effect: research has shown that people are more likely to take
action when they are confronted with the possible consequences of not doing so (Tversky &
Kahneman, 1981).
Stage 2. This part of the program consisted of four steps. It was designed to help
participants strategize and prioritize their goals, plan for set-backs, and monitor progress
towards goals. It was virtually identical to the goal-setting intervention used by Morisano et al.
(2010). The first step required participants to provide a brief description of the ideal future as a
whole. Step 2 asked students to spend 10-15 minutes specifying and clarifying their goals. They
were asked to break down their ideal future into 6 to 8 titled goals – personal, career and social.
In step 3, they were asked to rank their now-titled goals in order of priority. Step 4 asked
students to evaluate their motivations for their goals, consider the broad personal and social
impact of those goals, write a detailed strategy for goal attainment, identify potential obstacles
and solutions, and monitor progress towards desired goals. Students were asked to be specific
and concrete here – for instance, to write down weekly or daily things that they would do to
further their goal. Detailed implementation plans have been shown to aid goal progress
(Gollwitzer, 1996).
Stage 3. The online goal-setting program was coupled with an initiative called “I WILL”,
developed by the business school, for both students and staff. This involves participants each
devising a one-sentence statement that captures their goals and ambitions, accompanied by a
professional personal photo. The idea behind this initiative was that students and staff would
share their ambitions with the world, and would also, therefore, try harder to realize those
ambitions. The link with goal setting was made by asking students to base their statement on
the goal-setting exercise. The “I WILL” statement can be seen as a form of public commitment
(Hollenbeck, Williams, & Klein, 1989; Schienker, Dlugolecki, & Doherty, 1994), added to enhance
goal commitment, an important component of goal success (Oettingen, Pak, & Schnetter, 2001).
Students were required to choose a single, important goal and formulate a statement
articulating it. They then visited the photographer. The goal statement and consequent photo
were combined into a single poster. Examples include: “I will grab opportunities and realize my
dream”, “I will give people reasons to rebuild their trust in banking”, “I will manage my time
more efficiently” and “I will be the hybrid of Eastern heritage and Western expertise”.
References
Duckworth, A. L., Kirby, T. A., Gollwitzer, A., & Oettingen, G. (2013). From fantasy to action: Mental
contrasting with implementation intentions (MCII) improves academic performance in children.
Social Psychological and Personality Science. doi: 10.1177/1948550613476307
Gollwitzer, G. M. (1996). The volitional benefits of planning. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.),
The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior. (pp. 287-312). New
York: The Guilford Press.
Hollenbeck, J. R., Williams, C. R., & Klein, H. J. (1989). An empirical examination of the antecedents
of commitment to difficult goals. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74(1), 18-23. doi:
10.1037/0021-9010.74.1.18
Morisano, D., Hirsh, J. B., Peterson, J. B., Pihl, R. O., & Shore, B. M. (2010). Setting, elaborating, and
reflecting on personal goals improves academic performance. Journal of Applied Psychology,
95(2), 255-264.
Oettingen, G., Pak, H.-j., & Schnetter, K. (2001). Self-regulation of goal-setting: Turning free
fantasies about the future into binding goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
80(5), 736-753. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.736
Schienker, B. R., Dlugolecki, D. W., & Doherty, K. (1994). The Impact of self-presentations on selfappraisals and behavior: The power of public commitment. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 20(1), 20-33. doi: 10.1177/0146167294201002
Schippers, Homan, A. C., & van Knippenberg, D. (2013). To reflect or not to reflect: Prior team
performance as a boundary condition of the effects of reflexivity on learning and final team
performance. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 34(1), 6-23. doi: DOI: 10.1002/job.1784
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decisions and the rationality of choice. Science,
211, 453-458.