At the same time, research suggests that happiness or subjective well-being (SWB) is not simply a result of achieving one's goals, but also a matter of having the right kind of goals (Schultheiss, Jones, Davis & Kley, 2008). In particular, the content of goals (what it is individuals strive for) and whether goals are aimed at achieving desired outcomes or try to avoid undesired outcomes (approach or avoidance goals) have proven to moderate the relationship between goal achievement and SWB (Carver & Scheier, 1999; Kasser & Ryan, 1993, 1996). Research on approach and avoidance goals and goal content in relation to happiness has mainly been focused on the goal itself. By doing so, the analysis of goals is about the form in which a goal is expressed in, which has been criticised as a rather superficial

The paper at hand extends the goal-striving reasons framework in three different ways, using two empirical studies. The first cross-sectional study (N= 146) extends the framework by analysing the degree to which goal-striving reasons predict subjective well-being (SWB) over and above classical measures of goal content, approach-avoidance goals and selfconcordance. The second study contributes to the extension of the framework in the following two ways. By providing longitudinal data (n = 43), study 2 allows to test whether goal-striving reasons have any causal impact on future SWB levels. Study 2 also contains further cross-sectional data (N = 69) to investigate the degree to which people's core selfevaluations, proactivity levels, and self-actualisation tendencies are associated with more SWB-enhancing goal-striving reasons. The findings of study 1 suggest that goal-striving reasons have incremental validity over other goal-related measures in the prediction of affective and cognitive SWB. The findings of study 2 further show that goal-striving reasons influence future SWB levels, and that core self-evaluations are positively correlated with SWB-enhancing goal-striving reasons.

This paper compares the predictive power of the goal-striving reasons model and the selfconcordance model on a sub-dimensional and an individual goal-striving reasons level based on a cross-sectional research design (N = 139). Multiple regression analyses on a subdimensional level show that approach, as well as avoidance goal motivation, have higher predictive power in the prediction of affective and cognitive subjective well-being than autonomous and controlled goal motivation. Equally, the predictive power of the four individual goal-striving reasons is generally stronger than the predictive power of the individual self-concordance reasons. The analyses of the theoretical differences between goalstriving reasons and self-concordance show that on an overall goal-striving reasons index level, on a sub-dimensional level as well as on an individual goal-striving reasons level that the goalstriving reasons framework is generally more strongly related to measures representing people's tendency to be influenced by others in their goal pursuit. Self-concordance is not significantly associated with either of these measures. Based on these findings, it is concluded that the goal-striving reasons framework is more sensitive to the influence of others than selfconcordance. The theoretical implications of these findings revolve around the fact that goalstriving reasons can be seen as a more comprehensive goal reason measure than selfconcordance. Practical implications point towards the importance of personal assertiveness as a correlate of positive goal-striving reasons.

No abstract

No abstract

The omasum is the third forestomach compartment of pecoran ruminants. It is assumed that the re-absorption of fluid present in the forestomach digesta (that facilitates particle sorting, digestion, and harvest of microbes) is its main function, so that less diluted digesta is submitted to enzymatic digestion in the lower digestive tract. Here, we evaluate measures of omasum size (representing 84 ruminant species in the largest data set) against body mass and proxies of the natural diet (% grass) or forestomach physiology (fluid throughput), using phylogenetically controlled models. The origin of specimens (free-ranging or captive) did not have an effect in the data set. Models with the best support invariably either included %grass or a physiology proxy in addition to body mass.These effects were not necessarily additive (affecting the intercept of the allometric regression), but often indicated a change in the allometric body mass-exponent with diet or physiology. Only models that allowed an influence on the allometric exponent yielded basic exponents compatible with predictions derived from geometry. Species that include more grass in their natural diet, or that have a "cattle-type" physiology marked by a high forestomach fluid throughput, generally have larger omasa. However, the existence of outliers, as well as the overall data pattern, suggest that this is not an obligatory morphophysiological condition. Circumstantial evidence is presented leading to the hypothesis that the comparatively small and less complex omasa of "moose-type" species do not necessarily represent an "original" state, but may be derived from more complex states by ontogenetic reduction and fusion of omasal laminae.

This paper describes the development of the short form of the goal-striving reasons questionnaire. The short form was developed by re-examining data from four previously published studies which employed the long form of the goal-striving reasons questionnaire. Additionally, a further cross-validation study was employed using the short form by itself (N = 125). Overall, the analyses reveal that the short form has equally good internal reliability, construct validity and predictive power with regard to affective and cognitive subjective well-being, work engagement and burnout when compared to the long form. Based on these results, it can be concluded that the short form, which reduces the number of items for each self-reported goal from 16 to eight, does provide a reliable and valid instrument and therefore offers a more parsimonious way to measure the reasons why people pursue their most important goals.Implications, particularly for practice, are discussed.

No abstract