Process and outcome goals: which helps more with a habit
AI-generated content. How we make it
In brief
- An outcome goal describes where you want to get to (“have more stamina”); a process goal, what you'll do to get closer (“walk for twenty minutes after lunch, five days a week”). In research on behavior change, the latter is called a “behavior goal.”13
- Across all kinds of behavior, there's no clear winner: in a meta-analysis of randomized trials, setting a goal had a small effect, and it was similar whether the goal was a behavior or an outcome. This is an indirect comparison, not a trial that pits them against each other.1
- In sport, process goals—what you focus on while performing a movement—had the largest estimated effect on performance, though the comparison is across different studies. These were sports tasks, almost always in the lab, and the figure for outcome goals rests on just two studies.2
- Our deduction: use the outcome as a direction and keep track of the process, which is up to you and can be checked every day. If you don't yet know how to do it, start with a learning goal.34
“I want more energy” and “I'm going to walk for twenty minutes after lunch” can come from the same intention, but they aren't the same kind of goal. The first says what you hope to achieve; the second, what you're going to do. On blogs and social media, it's easy to read that process goals are “better.” The research is less clear-cut, and it doesn't even use the same words in every field.
This article expands on an idea from the habits guide: that “small” is about what you repeat, not what you want to achieve. Here we look at what sets each kind of goal apart, what the studies comparing them have measured, and how to combine them without relying on the outcome alone.
What a process goal is, and what an outcome goal is
An outcome goal describes a state you want to reach or a consequence you expect: having more stamina, sleeping through the night, feeling more energetic in the afternoon. A process goal describes an action you repeat and that's up to you: when, where, and how much. The taxonomy of behavior change techniques used by many health researchers treats the two as separate techniques: setting a behavior goal and setting an outcome goal.1
The problem is the name. In sport psychology, “process” doesn't mean “the action you repeat every week,” but what you concentrate on while performing a movement: technique, skill, or strategy. And that field also distinguishes a third type, the performance goal, which sets a personal benchmark.23 Classic goal-setting theory, for its part, talks about performance goals and learning goals.3 The table sorts out the terms.
| Field | Type of goal | What it focuses on | Hypothetical example |
|---|---|---|---|
| Health behavior change | Behavior | A specific action you'll take | “Walk for twenty minutes after lunch, five days a week” |
| Health behavior change | Outcome | What you hope to achieve with that action | “Take the stairs up to my place with less effort three months from now” |
| Sport psychology | Process | What you focus on while performing the movement | “Keep my shoulders loose and a pace at which I can talk” |
| Sport psychology | Performance | A personal benchmark or a fixed standard | “Do my usual route two minutes faster” |
| Sport psychology | Outcome | The final result, often relative to others | “Finish in the top ten in the neighborhood race” |
| Goal-setting theory | Learning | Discovering or mastering strategies | “Find three ways to walk more on an office day” |
What popular advice on habits calls a “process goal” is equivalent, in health research, to the behavior goal. That's the sense we use here, except in the section on sport.
What studies on habits and health have compared
The largest meta-analysis pooled 141 articles with randomized trials that isolated the effect of setting a goal: 384 comparisons and 16,523 participants. Setting a goal improved behavior, with a small effect (d = 0.34; on the usual scale, 0.2 is considered small and 0.5 medium). Whether the goal was a behavior or an outcome didn't change that effect: both had small, significant effects.1
The authors warn that this comparison is indirect—different studies, with different goals—and that, up to their review, no study had directly measured the effect of each type of goal on both behavior and outcome. They did observe one nuance: behavior goals moved behavior somewhat more, and outcome goals moved the outcome somewhat more.1
With real health programs, there's less data, and of a different kind. A review of 48 trials lasting at least twelve weeks, aimed at improving physical activity or diet in adults with overweight or obesity, compared the programs with one another: those that included a behavior goal were associated with better effects in the short and long term; those that included an outcome goal, with better long-term effects.5 It's an association between programs with many components: the behavior goal tended to go together with people recording what they did, and the outcome goal with their receiving information on their results, so the two can't be separated.5
There's also the occasional small trial that pits them against each other. In one with 60 people who exercised recreationally, during a six-week program, those with a process goal enjoyed it more, felt they had more choice, and felt less pressure than those with an outcome goal or none, and they stuck to the program more.6
In sport, process stands out, with caveats
In sport, there's a meta-analysis that separates these three types, among others. It pooled 27 studies, with 1,764 participants, and the estimated effect on performance was larger with process goals than with performance goals; outcome goals showed no clear effect. As in the general meta-analysis, each type was measured in different studies, so the comparison between them is indirect. In several studies, process goals also came with greater confidence in one's own ability.2
| Type of goal in sport | What it involved | Effect (Cohen's d) | 95% confidence interval | Studies |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Process | Focusing on technique while performing the movement | 1.36 | 0.57 to 2.16 | 9 |
| Performance | A personal benchmark or a fixed standard | 0.44 | 0.22 to 0.66 | 16 |
| Outcome | The result, often relative to others | 0.09 (indistinguishable from zero) | −0.29 to 0.47 | 2 |
Before carrying this over to a habit, it's worth looking at what was measured. In 22 of the 27 studies the task was done in the lab, almost half were done with beginners, and the “process goal” was to focus on technique while throwing a dart or hitting a ball, not to repeat an action for weeks. The estimate for outcome goals rests on just two studies. What's more, the review only included published studies, which probably inflates the effects, according to the authors themselves.2
A classic experiment with 90 female high school students learning to throw darts adds another nuance: those who started with a process goal and then switched to an outcome goal did better than those who kept to only one of the two, and those who stuck with the outcome goal alone performed worst.7 It suggests that switching from one to the other as you progress may make sense, although it's a single motor task and we could only read the abstract.
If you don't yet know how to do it: learning goals
There's a third type that's usually left out of the discussion. According to goal-setting theory, when a task is new or complex, setting yourself a specific, difficult target can get in the way: the person rushes to meet it instead of learning to do the task well. In those cases, a learning goal is proposed: discovering or trying out a certain number of strategies.3
In a lab experiment with 96 people learning to put together class schedules—an office task, not a health habit—a specific, difficult learning goal led to better performance than “do your best,” and a specific, difficult outcome goal to worse.8 We could only read the abstract.
For physical activity, a group of researchers proposes—as a theory-based hypothesis, not as the result of a trial—that learning goals are a better fit for people who are still not very active, and performance goals for those who already have the habit and the resources to keep it up.43 They give examples such as “identify three strategies to increase your daily steps.” How many steps have support is another question, which we cover in how many steps a day really count.
How to combine them in a habit
None of these studies says you have to choose. The Australian expert statement asks practitioners to consider several types of goal depending on the person and the moment, and it notes two risks: that a specific all-or-nothing goal is experienced as a failure when it isn't met, even if the person has done more activity than before; and that performance or outcome goals, in the rush to meet them, hold back learning better ways of doing things.3
From there, our suggestion, which is a deduction and not the result of a trial:
- Write the outcome down in one sentence. It's your why: “have more stamina,” “get to Friday less tired.” It doesn't need a number.
- Translate it into a behavior that's up to you, with a when and a where. One way to set the when is to anchor it to something you already do every day.
- Keep track of the process, not the outcome. One mark a day—done or not done—is enough, and a day without a mark doesn't cancel out the week; in the guide, we explain what's known about keeping a simple record.
- Look at the outcome now and then, not every day. If you want to know whether the process changes something you measure, set it up as a test: we explain how in turning a data point into a question and a test.
- If you've been sticking to the process for weeks and the outcome isn't budging, change the process before blaming yourself: maybe that action wasn't the one that mattered most.
That leaves the question of difficulty, which is a separate dimension. In the same general meta-analysis, difficult goals—those that asked for considerably more than was usually achieved on that task, though almost all were still attainable—worked better than easy or moderate ones.1 But these were mostly tasks lasting a few weeks: it isn't known how much difficulty suits an action you want to repeat for months. The Australian statement calls for goals that are challenging but attainable and adjusted along the way, because a goal that's too hard increases the risk of not reaching it and of experiencing that as a failure.3 Our deduction, consistent with what the guide says about starting small: choose a process you're sure you can stick to, and step it up once it comes easily.
What isn't known yet
We haven't found any trial that compares, in people changing an everyday habit over months, setting a behavior goal versus an outcome goal for the same behavior. The evidence mixes lab tasks, sports movements, and health programs with many components, and the effects vary a lot from one study to another.12 That the process has practical advantages—it's up to you and can be checked right away—is a reasonable deduction, not a proven finding.
This article is about everyday habits. If the outcome you care about is a health measure, such as blood pressure or blood glucose, or if you have an illness, take medication, or are pregnant, goals and how to track them are something to agree on with a health professional.
Keep reading
Sustainable healthy habits: how to start and stick with them
The section of the guide that separates the size of what you repeat each day from the size of what you want to achieve.
Habit stacking: how to anchor a new habit to something you already do
How to turn a process goal into something you do without thinking: tie it to a routine you already have.
How to turn a wellness data point into a question and a test
If you want to check whether your process really changes an outcome you measure: how to set it up as a test without fooling yourself.
How long does it take to form a habit? Not 21 days, and not exactly 66
How long it usually takes for an action to happen on its own, without thinking: weeks or months, not the 21 days of the popular saying.
Want to turn information into action?
naro helps you prioritize 2–3 high-potential habits and sustain them over time, with context and follow-up.
Sources
Each small number in the text leads to the source that statement rests on. Practical advice without a number is a deduction from these sources, and examples with a person's name are made up. It is general information: it does not replace an assessment by a health professional. How we make this content
Sources consulted up to 28 October 2026.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis. Epton T, Currie S, Armitage CJ (2017). Unique effects of setting goals on behavior change: systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology. 141 articles with randomized trials; two-thirds of the comparisons were with university students, and only 6% were health goals; average follow-up of about two weeks. Read in the accepted version in the University of Stirling repository.
- Systematic review and meta-analysis. Williamson O, Swann C, Bennett KJM, et al. (2024). The performance and psychological effects of goal setting in sport: a systematic review and meta-analysis. International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 27 studies of sports tasks, 22 in the lab; the effect of outcome goals is based on two studies. Published online in 2022.
- Expert statement. Swann C, Buchan J, Calleja EA, et al. (2026). Goal setting in exercise and physical activity: an expert statement on behalf of Exercise and Sports Science Australia. Sports Medicine. The reasoned opinion of an Australian professional association, for those who set exercise goals for other people; many of the authors research non-specific goals.
- Narrative review. Swann C, Jackman PC, Lawrence A, et al. (2023). The (over)use of SMART goals for physical activity promotion: a narrative review and critique. Health Psychology Review. A critique of the SMART acronym; its proposals on which goal suits each person are theory-based hypotheses. Read in the accepted version. Published online in 2022.
- Systematic review and meta-regression. Samdal GB, Eide GE, Barth T, Williams G, Meland E (2017). Effective behaviour change techniques for physical activity and healthy eating in overweight and obese adults; systematic review and meta-regression analyses. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity. 48 trials in adults with overweight or obesity (mean BMI of 30 or more); it compares programs with one another, so it shows associations, not the effect of each technique on its own.
- Randomized trial. Wilson K, Brookfield D (2009). Effect of goal setting on motivation and adherence in a six-week exercise program. International Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. 60 people who exercised recreationally, 15 per goal group; a six-week program. We could only read the abstract.
- Experimental study. Zimmerman BJ, Kitsantas A (1997). Developmental phases in self-regulation: shifting from process goals to outcome goals. Journal of Educational Psychology. 90 female high school students learning to throw darts; a single motor skill. We could only read the abstract.
- Laboratory experiment. Seijts GH, Latham GP (2001). The effect of distal learning, outcome, and proximal goals on a moderately complex task. Journal of Organizational Behavior. 96 participants and a class-scheduling task; not about health. We could only read the abstract.