Craig Pickering

Sports Science Quarterly – Q1 2026

/by

Every quarter we take a deep dive into the latest research in sports science. In this edition we look at the latest research on setting goals, post-exercise recovery, team decision making processes, and much more.

As always, the full Sports Science Quarterly is available exclusively to HMMR Plus Members. You can browse the past topics on our archive page. The first topic below is free to everyone, but sign up now to read about all the latest research. To get an idea of what Sports Science Quarterly is all about, the April 2016 edition is available in its entirety for free.

This Quarter’s Topics

Just how important are goals?

Quick Summary – Research on goal-setting in sport shows mixed results; whilst early studies suggested only small effects, more recent meta-analyses highlight that process and performance goals can significantly improve outcomes. Process goals, especially when self-referenced and short-term, outperform outcome, ego, and mastery goals by boosting both performance and psychological factors like confidence and reduced anxiety. For coaches, the evidence points to prioritising process goals, using performance goals alongside them if needed, and treating outcome or ego goals with caution due to their link with increased anxiety.

Goal-setting research kicked-off in in sport in the mid-1980s, and, since then, a great deal of both academic and popular science time and column inches have been dedicated to their effectiveness. The overall concept is that setting goals, especially specific (i.e., quantifiable) and challenging goals, leads to higher levels of performance than setting non-specific, easy, or no goals. However, much of the research in the effectiveness of goal setting in sport is, at best, equivocal. A 1995 meta-analysis found that goal setting had a small effect on sporting performance. Since that study, more research has been carried out, including around alternative goal theories and types, including open goals and performance goals. In addition, research has explored the effectiveness of goal setting on psychological outcomes, such as motivation, confidence, and reductions in anxiety. As a result of this newer research, in 2022 Williamson and colleagues authored a systematic review and meta-analysis on the performance and psychological effects of goal setting in sport, which was published in the International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology.

In all, 27 independent studies, comprising of 1765 participants, met the inclusion criteria for further analysis. The results demonstrate that process goals and performance goals produced significant improvements in performance. Process goals elicited significantly greater improvements than performance goals. Performance goals are your more typical SMARTER-type goals; for example, run the 100m in under 10.10 seconds at the National Championships. In comparison, process goals outline how the work will be done; for example, the specific actions, behaviours, or techniques that we commit to following. When coaching the 4x100m relay, for example, the performance goals I set for athletes are linked to their ability to accurately leave on the checkmark. Conversely, no significant performance improvements were found by setting mastery (e.g., I want to refine my block starts so they are faster than last season), outcome (e.g., win the 100m at the World Championships) or ego goals (e.g., I want to run the fastest leg of the relay so everyone knows I’m the best athlete in the team). Short-term, and a combination of short- and long-term goals also generated significant performance improvements, whilst long-term goals did not. Finally, specific and non-specific goals both enhanced performance, but there was no difference between them in terms of effectiveness. Diving a bit deeper, the authors also reported that self-referenced goals (i.e., those where success is judged entirely against an individual’s own past performance) significantly reduced the symptoms of cognitive anxiety, whilst goals focused on outperforming other people increased the symptoms.

Based on these findings, it appears that process goals are more beneficial for increasing performance and self-efficacy than other goal types. Self-efficacy has been shown to enhance decision making, increase motivation, and enhance sporting performance, all of which are positive outcomes. The likely driver of this is that process goals allow for an increased perception of control; if you’re focused on the process, you largely control whether or not you do that, whilst outcome goals are dependent on the performance of other people. Many of us use process goals, but typically do so in combination with performance and/or outcome goals; this review suggests they would also be useful in isolation.

For coaches, the evidence is clear: prioritise process goals, make them self-referenced where possible, and anchor them to short-term timeframes. Performance goals can still have value, particularly when used alongside process goals, but outcome and ego goals should be applied sparingly, with awareness of their potential to elevate anxiety. The type of goal you set isn’t just a motivational detail — it can materially affect performance and psychological state. Choosing the right goal architecture is therefore a performance lever in its own right.

Join Now to Keep Reading

This is just the beginning. To continue reading this article you must be a HMMR Plus member. Join now to get access to this and more content. Learn more and sign up here. If you are already a member, log in here.