Goal Cognition at the Beginning and the End of the Day

Goals might be mentally represented at varying levels of abstractness and abstraction (Borghi, 2022; Borghi et al., 2017; Trope & Liberman, 2003, 2010). Relatively more abstract concepts are learned later, are grounded in metacognition rather than perception, and cannot be directly experienced whereas relatively more concrete concepts are multidimensional and are grounded in perception of goal referents and interaction with the outside world (Borghi, 2022; Troyer & McRae, 2022). Along similar lines, a central tenet of Construal Level Theory (e.g., Trope & Liberman, 2003, 2010) is the distinction between abstract construal, which facilitate a broader view of a task or situation, and concrete construal, which centers on specific details of the task or situation. For instance, abstract goal construal often focuses on the desirability of an action (Liberman & Trope, 1998) or reasons for why one is pursuing a goal (Fujita et al., 2006), whereas concrete goal construal focuses on the feasibility of an action (Liberman & Trope, 1998) or plans of how to pursue the goal (Fujita et al., 2006). These cognitive aspects of goals can be considered independent dimensions rather than opposite ends of a single spectrum and focus on concrete goal aspects might vary independent of focus on abstract goal aspects (Bolognesi et al., 2020; Borghi, 2022; Borghi et al., 2017; Grossmann et al., 2024; Trope et al., 2021; Troyer & McRae, 2022).

The level of goal abstraction can have important consequences for motivation and goal pursuit (Fujita et al., 2006; Fujita & Carnevale, 2012; Gollwitzer, 1999; Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002; MacGregor et al., 2017; Ülkümen & Cheema, 2011). On the one hand, focusing on concrete representations of a goal can promote goal achievement. Goal setting theory suggests that motivation and performance on tasks is strengthened when people commit themselves to goals that are highly concrete and specific rather than vague or abstract (Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002), and research on implementation intentions highlights the benefits of specifying a detailed concrete action plan (Gollwitzer, 1999; Gollwitzer & Sheeran, 2006). Inducing a concrete construal mindset has been shown to increase the likelihood of achieving saving goals (Ülkümen & Cheema, 2011) and increase intent to pursue smoking and drinking cessation goals (Maurer Herter et al., 2022).

On the other hand, there is evidence that contemplating future goals at a higher level of abstraction promotes motivation and self-control (Fujita et al., 2006; Fujita & Carnevale, 2012; MacGregor et al., 2017). For example, priming an abstract mindset resulted in longer persistence on a test of physical endurance than priming a concrete mindset (Fujita & Carnevale, 2012).

In sum, both concrete and abstract goal aspects might be linked to better goal progress, underlining the parallel nature of concrete and abstract construal. In fact, successful goal-regulation might require the modulation of construal depending on both the type of goal and other situational cues (Trope et al., 2021). The present research contributes to the extant literature by assessing both concrete and abstract construal of personal goals independently and examining a so-far understudied ostensible ecological moderator of the association between goals and mental representations: Time of Day. Specifically, we sought to explore whether some ways of thinking are more prevalent earlier versus later in the day and are more predictive of goal pursuit success than others depending on diurnal cues.

Does the way people think about their goals vary across the day? Human cognition might depend on temporal cues such as seasonal or diurnal cycles (Hohm et al., 2024). Thoughts about goals and goal-directed action might change in systematic ways over the course of the day. Indeed, there is some evidence that self-regulation related behaviors such as honest responding (Gunia et al., 2014; Ingram et al., 2016; Kouchaki & Smith, 2014) or engagement with virtuous over vice content on social media (Zor et al., 2022), prosocial behavior (Francis, Depow, et al., 2021), and healthy choices (Francis, Mata, et al., 2021; Inauen et al., 2016; McKee et al., 2014; Millar, 2017) appear to be easier in the morning than in the evening. For instance, the “morning morality effect” suggests that adherence to ethical standards may be more common in the morning: undergraduates cheated less on an experimental task that paid for correct responses in morning sessions (between 8am and noon) than in sessions held in the afternoon or evening (Kouchaki & Smith, 2014). The morning morality effect is more pronounced for individuals who prefer to be active in the morning (“morning-chronotypes”; Gunia et al., 2014; Ingram et al., 2016). Similarly, a daily diary study assessing prosocial behavior and empathy showed these to be more likely to occur in the morning, especially among morning chronotypes (Francis, Depow, et al., 2021). Finally, overall health-related self-regulation is perceived to be easier earlier rather than later in the day (Millar, 2017) and lapses in goal pursuit are more likely in the evening (Inauen et al., 2016; McKee et al., 2014). For example, participants with a healthy diet goal reported consuming fewer unhealthy snacks during mid-day and afternoon periods than in the evening (Inauen et al., 2016), though another study found snacking intentions to be stronger in the evening (Francis, Mata, et al., 2021).

Does the way people think about their goals differ by time of day? Even though the lay concepts of an “early bird” and a “night owl” are often linked to different plans for the day, little empirical research has directly examined cognition about goals in the morning or the evening. Indirect evidence for shifts in cognition over the course of the day may come from the literature on product preference (Gullo et al., 2019; Luo et al., 2024). A set of studies examining consumer’s thoughts and preferences for sensory experiences found that people prefer more complex sensory experiences in the evening and simpler sensory experiences in the morning (Luo et al., 2024). Another set of studies (Gullo et al., 2019) found that consumers exhibited greater variety-seeking in the evening (and more preference for simplicity in the morning). As simplicity or a narrow focus on individual details is a component of concrete construal (Trope et al., 2021), this research may suggest that cognition is relatively more concrete in the morning than the evening. Thus, it might be that people are more focused on concrete thoughts about their goals in the morning than in the evening, and more focused on complex aspects about the goal in the evening.

Across multiple studies, we examined how time of day might affect mental representation of goals and the process of thinking about goals, comparing the beginning and the end of the day. In the first study, we examined thoughts about concrete and abstract features of goals in the morning and the evening of the same day in a within-subject design. In the second study, we randomly assigned individuals to report on concrete and abstract features of their goals either in the morning or the evening in a between-subject design. In both studies, we estimated the magnitude of the association between concrete and abstract thoughts about goals participants reported and the progress they made on their goals.

Together, these studies contribute to goal theories (Austin & Vancouver, 1996; Kruglanski et al., 2002), extant research on mental representation (Bolognesi et al., 2020; Borghi, 2022; Borghi et al., 2017; Grossmann et al., 2024; Trope et al., 2021; Trope & Liberman, 2003, 2010; Troyer & McRae, 2022) and the emerging body of literature on how temporal ecology affects cognitive and motivational processes (Hohm et al., 2024). Materials, data, and syntax for all studies can be found on OSF: https://osf.io/fm536/ . No conflicts of interest were present.

In this initial study, participants rated their thoughts about three personal goals in the morning and again in the evening of the same day. The time frame for ‘morning’ was operationalized as 6 AM to 10 AM and evening was operationalized as 6 PM until the end of the day. Two aspects of goal cognition were examined: participants’ focus on how to pursue their personal goals (i.e., concrete implementation plans) and participants’ focus on the reasons for the goal (i.e., abstract reasons for goals). Importantly, these two goal cognitions are separate independent dimensions of thought individuals might hold about their goal (Borghi, 2022; Grossmann et al., 2024; Trope et al., 2021) and were examined separately rather than in relation to each other. In the evening, self-reported progress towards the goal was assessed, to examine the role of goal cognition and time of day in actual goal pursuit. This study was not preregistered.

Participants. We recruited a sample of U.S. and Canadian MTurk workers from the EST time zone on a Tuesday. Participants completed an intake survey in the morning (6 AM-10 AM EST) and were contacted again at 6 PM EST in the evening to complete a follow-up survey. They were instructed to do the follow-up survey before they went to bed that day.¹ Initially, 288 participants participated in the first survey and 178 participated again in the second survey later that same day.² Thus, 178 participants reported on a total of 534 goals twice, both in the morning and the evening of the same day. Comparing these goals for each participant, we excluded goals which did not match (e.g., someone with the goal to “save more money” in the morning and the goal to “spend more time with grandkids” in the evening; n = 17 goals), goals that participants did not remember (n = 3), goals that were non sequiturs instead of actual goal descriptions (e.g., “nice;” “good;” n = 6) and goals that participants stated were already complete in the morning (n = 7). The final sample included 175 participants who rated a total of 500 goals. This sample has 99% power to detect even small effect sizes (d = 0.19) between two dependent groups. Table 1 presents information on sample demographics.

Morning Survey. In the morning survey, participants first completed a demographic survey assessing only age and gender. Participants were instructed to describe three personal goals (“Please describe three of your personal goals that you are currently working on below. These could be goals you plan to work on continuously over several weeks or months or short term goals you have for today or this week.”). For example, participants listed “declutter my house,” “Today I have to study,” “Buy new computer,” “Lose weight.” Participants also rated how far along towards completion of the goal they were (“If 100% is achieving the goal completely, how far along are you right now in terms of how much of your goal has been accomplished?” on a slider bar from “0% (nothing yet)” to “100% (fully accomplished the goal)” (M = 37.21%, SD = 28.20).

Participants then rated the extent to which they focused on concrete implementation steps for each goal on a single item (“I think about how I will pursue this goal (e.g., concrete plans)”) and the extent to which they focused on abstract reasons for each goal on a single item (“I think about why this goal is important to me (e.g., reasons or causes)”), on scales from Disagree completely (1) to Agree Completely (7). Across goals, the two items assessing focus on implementation and reasons, respectively, correlated positively, r(499) = .20, p < .001, underlining that they are not opposite ends of a unidimensional abstraction spectrum but rather two independent aspects of goal cognition.

Evening Survey. In the evening survey, participants were asked to think about the three goals they listed earlier and again rated the extent to which they focused on concrete implementation plans and abstract reasons, on the same items as in the morning survey. Across goals, the two items assessing focus on concrete plans and abstract reasons correlated positively, r(498) = .31, p < .001.

In the evening survey, participants also reported how much progress they had made on the goal that day (“How much progress have you made on achieving this goal since this morning?”) and how much effort they put towards the goal (“How much effort did you put into working on the goal?”), on 7-point scales. They again rated the percent of the goal that had been accomplished so far, on the same item as in the morning survey (M = 38.54%, SD = 31.67). ³

Analyses were conducted using the SPSS v.29 software (IBM, 2023). First, we compared the extent of each type of goal cognition in the morning and the evening. As ratings were nested within goals and within the two time points of assessment, we conducted two three-level multilevel regression analyses with the time of day (0=morning; 1=evening) as the predictor variable, and mean ratings of thoughts about concrete implementation plans and mean ratings of thoughts about abstract reasons, respectively, as dependent variables.

Next, we examined whether types of goal cognition in the morning were related to the progress made on the goal over the course of the day. As ratings were nested within goals, we conducted two-level multilevel regression analyses with concrete thoughts and abstract thoughts reported in the morning as simultaneous predictors and self-rated progress and effort reported in the evening as outcome variables. In addition, we conducted a two-level multilevel regression analysis with the percentage of how much of the goal has been accomplished in the evening as the outcome variable and concrete thoughts and abstract thoughts reported in the morning as simultaneous predictors, controlling the percentage of how much of the goal had been accomplished in the morning. This analysis examined change in how much of the goal has been accomplished.

Participants reported thinking more about concrete implementation of their goals in the morning (M = 5.85, SD = 1.32) than in the evening (M = 5.63, SD = 1.47), B = -0.22 _95%CI [-.37; -.08], t(825.22) = -3.08, p = .002. Participants did not differ significantly in their focus on abstract reasons for their goals between morning (M = 5.82, SD = 1.39) and evening surveys (M = 5.72, SD = 1.36), B = -0.10 _95%CI [-.24; .04], t(825.10) = -1.38, p = .167). This result suggests that participant may think about different aspects of the goal pursuit process in the morning than the evening, focusing on how to implement their goals more in the beginning of the day than at the end of the day. Conversely, thinking of underlying reasons for goals appears to be less time dependent.

We next examined whether types of thoughts about the goal in the morning were related to the progress made on the goal over the course of the day. More concrete implementation thoughts about the goal in the morning were linked to more goal progress, B = 0.27 _95%CI [.15; .40], t(463.55) = 4.27, p < .001, and more goal pursuit effort, B = 0.40 _95%CI [.27; .54], t(474.06) = 5.85, p < .001, reported in the evening. Thinking about the underlying reasons for the goal in the morning was not significantly linked with goal progress, B = 0.04 _95%CI [-.08; .16], t(479.09) = 0.64, p = .521, or goal pursuit effort, B = 0.09 _95%CI [-.04; .22], t(489.27) = 1.38, p = .169. The change in percent of goal completion between the morning and evening survey was also more pronounced the more participants thought about goal implementation in the morning, B = 2.53 _95%CI [.88; 4.18], t(461.75) = 3.01, p = .003, but was not significantly associated with thoughts about underlying goal reasons in the morning, B = 0.21 _95%CI [-.1.38; 1.80], t(478.33) = 0.26, p = .795. In sum, this study suggests that types of goal cognition matters, and that the greater focus on concrete implementation plans in the morning might be beneficial for goal progress.

Notably, the within-subject design of this initial study limits conclusions due to potential carry-over effects. Participants’ ratings in the evening were the second time they were rating their goals on the same measures and any differences by time of day might also be in part explained by this order effect. The next study randomly assigned participants to rate their goals either in the morning or in the evening, to avoid carry-over effects. In addition, participants were asked to self-report their goal progress and they might have reported more goal progress in the evening simply because more time had passed. To separate the assessment of goal construal and goal progress and control the temporal difference, in the next study we assessed goal progress on the day after types of thoughts were rated.

We randomly assigned participants to report on their thoughts about their goals either in the morning or the evening of the next day. The time frame for ‘morning’ was operationalized as 5 AM to 10 AM, and the time frame for ‘evening’ was operationalized as 8 PM to 3 AM, reflecting empirically derived ‘optimal’ times for early morning and late evening preferences, respectively (Chauhan et al., 2023; Horne & Ostberg, 1976). We assessed type of thoughts with multiple items drawn from a more comprehensive construal scale (Grossmann et al., 2024), improving on the single-item measure used in Study 1.

We expected that participants would think more concretely about goals in the morning than the evening. We had no hypotheses about the degree to which people might think abstractly or of the underlying reasons for their goals in the morning or evening. Participants also completed an additional follow-up survey the next day, to test whether types of thought in the morning or evening would be linked to goal progress. We expected that more concrete thoughts about the goal would be linked to more goal progress, in line with Study 1’s findings. In this study we also examined participants’ personal preference for mornings or evenings (Horne & Ostberg, 1976) as a potential moderator, to test the possibility that any time of day differences in goal cognition might be amplified for those with the matching chronotype (e.g., morning chronotypes might think even more concretely about their goals in the morning than evening chronotypes). These hypotheses, the data collection plan, and the main analyses were preregistered (https://aspredicted.org/W41_D69).

We recruited a sample of Prolific workers living in the EST time zone of the U.S. We posted 400 participation slots on the crowdsourcing platform Prolific Academic, collecting until these were filled. Participants completed an “intake survey” (day 1, a Tuesday), the “main survey” (day 2, randomly assigned to the morning or evening condition), and a “follow-up survey” (day 3). The intake survey was completed by 400 participants. Of these, 199 participants completed the main survey (n = 102 in the morning and n = 97 in the evening) and 174 completed the follow-up survey on the third day.⁴ See Table 1 for demographic statistics. For the main survey, we excluded goals that did not match the intake survey goals (n = 7). We analyzed all available data (N = 199 for analyses with variables assessed in the main survey and N = 174 for analyses assessed in the follow-up survey). The samples have 80% power to detect medium effect sizes (d = 0.4) between two independent groups at the participant level, and 80% power to detect small effect sizes (d = 0.24) when analyzing at the goal level.

Intake Survey. In the intake survey, participants first completed a demographic survey reporting only age, gender, and ethnicity. Participants described three personal goals and rated the scope of the goal time frame (1=less than a week, 2=1 week, 3=several weeks, 4=1 month, 5=several months, 6=1 year, 7=more than a year). Goal time frame did not differ by condition, t(520) = -0.92, p = .360, d = 0.08 (M = 4.09, equivalent to the response option of goals that have been held for “about 1 month”, SD = 1.99). Participants also completed a 6-item shortform of the Morning-Evening-Questionnaire (MEQ; Adan & Almirall, 1991; Horne & Ostberg, 1976) assessing chronotype. Items were standardized and aggregated (α = .75). MEQ scores did not differ by condition, t(170) = 0.88, p = .380, d = 0.13, and were normally distributed around the standardized mean (M = -0.07, SD = 0.74). At the end of the intake survey, participants were randomly assigned to the morning or evening condition and informed of the time that the main survey would be available on Prolific.

Main Survey. The main survey was available between 5 AM and 10 AM EST for those in the morning condition and between 8 PM and 3 AM EST for those in the evening condition. In the main survey, participants listed the same three goals again and rated their thoughts about each goal with an adapted version of the Situation-specific Abstract and Concrete Construal Scale (SACCS, Grossmann et al., 2024). For each goal, participants rated three items assessing thoughts about concrete goal implementation (“I think about specific steps I have to do to work on the goal.”, “I think about the specific details of the goal.”, “I think about what the goal means for the”here and now” of my day.”, α = .80) and three items assessing underlying reasons for the goal ( “I think about what the goal says about me as a person.”, “I think about how this goal fits into the broader context of my life.”, “I think about how this goal impacts my overall well-being.”, α = .78), using scales from Not at all (1) to Very much (5). These two scales loaded on two separate factors as expected (see online supplements), and were positively linked, r(522) = .48, p < .001, suggesting they were not opposite ends of a construal spectrum but rather independent dimensions of thoughts. ⁵

Follow-up Survey. In the follow-up survey (available for 24 hours starting at 10 AM EST the following day), participants were reminded verbatim of the goals they had listed in the main survey. They then reported how much progress they had made on the goal yesterday and how much effort they had invested in the goal, on 7-point scales as in Study 1. They also rated the percent to which the goal was completed on a 100-point slider scale (0% to 100%), as in Study 1.

Analyses were conducted using the SPSS v.29 software (IBM, 2023). First, we examined types of goal cognition among participants randomly assigned to think about their goals in the morning or the evening. As ratings were nested within goals, we conducted two-level multilevel regression analyses with the time-of-day condition (0 = morning, 1 = evening) as the predictor variable and thoughts about concrete implementation plans and abstract reasons as outcome variables, respectively. Next, we examined whether the effect of time of day may be moderated by their personal Chronotype, by adding MEQ scores and the MEQ×Condition interaction term as predictor variables to the multi-level regression model.

Lastly, we examined the link between types of thought and goal progress. As ratings were nested within goals, we conducted two-level multilevel regression analyses with the thoughts about concrete implementation plans and the thoughts about reasons as simultaneous predictor variables, and self-rated progress, ease, effort, and percent of goal completion as outcome variables, respectively. In a second step, we added the time-of-day condition and its interaction terms with thoughts about concrete plans and abstract reasons.

Participants reported thinking more about concrete plans for their goals in the morning condition than in the evening condition, B = 0.20 _95%CI [.01; .40], t(176) = 2.08, p = .039. Participants did not differ in the extent to which they reported thinking about underlying reasons for the goals by time of day, B = .03 _95%CI [-.17; .23], t(176) = 0.27, p = .784. Table 2 portrays means.

The effect of time-of-day condition on concrete thoughts was significantly moderated by Chronotype as shown by a significant MEQ×Condition interaction term, B = -0.29, _95%CI [-.56; -.03], t(170) = -2.17, p = .032. At 1 SD above the MEQ mean (i.e., Evening Chronotypes), condition had no effect on concrete construal, B = -.04, _95%CI [-.33; .25], t(170) = -0.30, p = .765. At 1 SD below the MEQ mean (i.e., Morning Chronotypes), concrete construal was significantly higher in the morning than the evening condition, B = 0.39, _95%CI [.13; .65], t(170) = 2.95, p = .004. The morning-evening preference score did not moderate the effect of condition on abstract thoughts, B = -0.08 _95%CI [-.36; .20], t(170) = -0.55, p = .582. In sum, the greater focus on concrete implementation plans in the morning than the evening was more pronounced for Morning Chronotypes than for Evening Chronotypes (See Figure 1).

Did types of goal cognition affect actual goal pursuit? Table 3 portrays unstandardized regression coefficients for multilevel regression models predicting goal progress, effort and percent of goal completing reported the next day. Thoughts about concrete plans for how to pursue the goals predicted greater goal progress, goal effort, and greater percent of the goal completed the next day, whereas thoughts about the underlying reasons for the goal was not linked to goal progress, goal effort, and percent of the goal completed. This result replicates Study 1 in showing that concrete plans were associated more strongly with goal pursuit than consideration of underlying reasons for the goal. In models where condition and the condition×concrete thoughts and condition×abstract thoughts interaction terms were added (see Table 3), none of the interaction terms were significant, suggesting that time of day did not affect the link between types of goal cognition and goal progress: thinking concretely in the morning was as beneficial as thinking concretely in the evening.

In sum, Study 2 supported the notion that people think more concretely about how they will work on their goals when prompted to think about them in the morning compared to the evening. This effect was strongest among participants with a trait preference for mornings (‘Morning Chronotypes’). Concrete thoughts about goal implementation were associated with greater reported goal progress the next day, though this link held regardless of whether participants thought about goal implementation in the morning or in the evening.

The way people think about their goals might shift over the course of the day. Across two studies we found that people tend to think more concretely about their personal goals in the morning than in the evening (Study 1 and 2). Thinking more concretely about a goal was in turn linked to greater progress on the goal over the next day (Study 1 and 2). Participants’ more abstract thoughts about their goals did not significantly differ between mornings and evenings, and the abstract thoughts assessed in our studies were not linked to goal progress (Study 1 and 2). These results suggest that concrete aspects of goal cognition may be more easily accessible earlier in the day.

This research contributes to the body of literature examining abstraction of mentally represented concepts (Bolognesi et al., 2020; Borghi, 2022; Borghi et al., 2017; Grossmann et al., 2024; Trope et al., 2021; Trope & Liberman, 2003, 2010; Troyer & McRae, 2022). Prior research has demonstrated that pre-activation of a style of thought (e.g., focusing on the “how” vs the “why”, Freitas et al., 2004) can affect the level of construal people adopt when thinking about an event or a goal (Freitas et al., 2004; Fujita et al., 2006; Ülkümen & Cheema, 2011). The present research extends this work to show that time of day might act as a natural activation of a concrete planning focus in the morning. This finding highlights spontaneous variations in the construal level people adopt. Recent work has posited that flexible adoption of and shifting between concrete vs abstract construal mindsets is most advantageous to successful self-regulation (Miele et al., 2024; Trope et al., 2021), and the present research contributes to this work by highlighting time of day as a possible situational factor that shifts mindsets.

One intriguing question is whether people recognize the potentially time-dependent nature of goal cognition. Are people aware of the tendency to think more concretely at the beginning of the day? It is possible that the propensity for different types of cognition translates into a preference for scheduling concrete goal pursuit tasks (such as planning out next steps or thinking of details of the goal) for the morning rather than the evening. In an additional study (N = 250) we explored people’s preferred time for thinking of concrete goal aspects and abstract goal aspects, respectively. We found that participants scheduled concrete goal cognition tasks for relatively earlier in the day and found no such tendency for abstract goal cognition. Though this preference was not significant when analyzed by morning vs. evening temporal categories, it followed the same pattern (on average, 34% concrete thought tasks were scheduled for the morning, while 24% of concrete thought tasks were scheduled for the evening). Results and data for this additional study are available in online supplements: https://osf.io/kz3a6. More research is needed to examine how strongly goal setters’ task preference follows a consistent diurnal pattern for different types of cognition.

There may be several reasons why concrete aspects of goal cognition are more easily accessible earlier in the day. First, most people’s diurnal nature implies that they are more likely to actively pursue their goals during the day rather than at night. One may be more likely to pursue proximal goals in the morning compared to the evening, because the of the realistic expectation to complete them over the course of the day in the former case (vs. next day in the latter case). The more immediate one’s goal pursuits, the more likely one is to consider concrete steps for their completion (see arguments outlining why temporally proximal events are construed more concretely; Liberman & Trope, 1998). Converging evidence for the role of goal proximity comes from a study finding that goal intentions increase for the types of goals that are more common at certain times of day, such as exercise intentions in the morning or snacking intentions in the afternoon (Francis, Mata, et al., 2021). Future research should compare intended and actual goal activities alongside goal cognition, to examine whether temporally closer goal activities drive a greater focus on concrete goal cognition.

Second, differences in concreteness of goals over the course of the day may be due to changes in emotion or executive function over the same time period. Goal-consistent choices might be less effortful when more mental resources are available or people are in a positive mood (cf. morning-morality effect; Kouchaki & Smith, 2014). People tend to feel more positive emotions in the morning than the evening (English & Carstensen, 2014) and command more mental resources than after a day of completing other tasks. Future research can examine which types of goal cognition are more effortful and require more cognitive resources. Even if both types of thought are equally effortful, one type of thought might be more common when in a hopeful, positive frame of mind.

We examined the time-of-day effect on goal abstraction across different types of design, capturing within-subject variations (Study 1) and between-subject differences where participants were randomly assigned to report on their goals in the morning or the evening (Study 2). However, across all studies, we relied on self-nominated goals. We attempted to rule out differences in the types of goals people nominate in the morning and evening in Study 2 by asking participants to identify goals before they were assigned to the different time of day conditions. However, it is important to consider that any differences in the goals that people think about at the beginning and the end of the day might be part of the changes in abstraction—in other words, at the beginning of a day, people might not only engage in more concrete goal cognition about a given goal but may also think of more concrete goals overall.

The samples were limited to North American participants living in the EST time zone and goals, goal representations, and goal pursuit might differ across cultures (Grouzet et al., 2005). Conceptualizations of time and norms about how active one feels in the morning versus the evening may also be influenced by one’s culture or geographic location (Brang et al., 2010; Levine, 2008)—for example, people living in temperate climates tend to be more morning oriented (Smith et al., 2002). Thus, findings of these studies might not generalize beyond a North American context. Compared to the US population (US Census, 2023), the present studies slightly oversampled men and Non-Hispanic White people and under-sampled some age groups, specifically young adults and the elderly. An important limitation of these studies is therefore the fact that they are based on online convenience samples rather than representative samples.

Notably, we collected data only on weekdays. Therefore, present insights might not extend to goal representation on weekends or vacation days. The types of thoughts about goals might differ on days people tend to work, especially if they work or study during fixed hours, compared to days people dedicate primarily to leisure. Future studies should examine not only the way goal cognition might change over the course of the day but also changes between work and leisure days or changes over the course of a week (e.g., ‘fresh start’ at the beginning of a week might affect types of thoughts about the goal; Dai et al., 2014).

The present research did not systematically examine differences in how people think about different types of goals or goal domains in the morning vs. the evening. For example, goals that can be broken down into daily components (e.g., the goal to lose weight can be broken down into daily exercise and healthy eating) may be more suited to time-dependent changes in types of goal cognition. Meanwhile, for goals that do not require daily progress for achievement, such as saving for retirement (which is often a one-time decision to set up automatic contributions), time of day may influence cognition about these goals less. Similarly, some goals might be more tightly linked to situational cues or situational restrictions (e.g., the goal to keep the yard tidy requires daylight, while the goal to connect with colleagues is most relevant during work hours), whereas other goals might be accomplished independently at any time of the day. Future research should examine goal cognition over the course of the day for different types of goals, either by eliciting participants’ self-classification of goals or by requiring sufficiently extensive descriptions to allow for coding of goals. For instance, goals might be distinguished on the number of goal components involved and situational restrictions to accomplishing the goal, but time of day differences might also depend on the domain (e.g., academic, financial, health goals), personal importance, whether they involve other people, or whether they are ongoing or have an end date.

One moderator of the time of day effect on concrete goal cognition was participants’ chronotype (Horne & Ostberg, 1976). In line with prior research that shows stronger effects for chronotypes that ‘match’ the time of day an effect occurs (Francis, Depow, et al., 2021; Gunia et al., 2014; Ingram et al., 2016), the preference for concrete goal cognition in the morning was amplified among Morning Chronotypes. Other traits might also moderate the effect of time of day on concrete cognition. For example, highly conscientious individuals might be better able to think about their goals in concrete terms throughout the day and thus be less subject to contextual shifts by time of day. After all, one facet of conscientiousness is task planning (MacCann et al., 2009) and conscientiousness has been linked to a tendency to formulate more specific goals (Bates et al., 2023), both of which may increase the likelihood of concrete thoughts about goals.

The present studies focused on the difference in goal abstraction at the beginning and the end of the day, in line with other research examining diurnal cycles (Clark et al., 1989; Wirz-Justice, 2008). There might be other changes in goal abstraction over the course of the day that meaningfully affect how people think about their goals. For example, the post-lunch decrease in mood and commuting-related increase in feeling rushed (Stone et al., 1996) are time effects outside the morning-evening dichotomy.

Finally, the present studies focused on consequences of goal abstraction for goal progress. Another consequence might be the degree to which goals help people’s self-concept clarity (Fite et al., 2017) or perceived self-efficacy (Schunk & Swartz, 1993). Thinking about the reasons for one’s goals might foster self-concept clarity and thinking more abstractly about goals might be functional for perceived self-efficacy, allowing people to see some progress towards higher-order goals even if not all lower-order goals have been accomplished.

The present research suggests that there are systematic differences in how people think about their personal goals at the beginning versus the end of the day. Our studies suggest that in the morning, people tended to think more about concrete aspects of the goal—the “how” of goal pursuit—while more abstract thoughts about reasons for their goals were unaffected by time of day. This focus on concrete plans for how to achieve goals was linked to greater goal progress, suggesting that calling to mind one’s personal goals in the morning may promote goal pursuit more than thinking about one’s goals at the end of the day.

Contributed to conception and design: JP, MS, MD, IG

Contributed to acquisition of data: JP, MS

Contributed to analysis and interpretation of data: JP, MS

Drafted the article: JP

Revised the article: JP, MS, IG

Approved the submitted version for publication: JP, MS, IG

The research was funded by a grant of the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (#435-2012-1211) to the first author.

Studies were reviewed and approved by the Carleton University Ethics Board (protocol #106968 and #121395) and followed APA Guidelines for ethical conduct.

None of the authors has any competing interests to declare.

Materials, data, and syntax for all studies can be found on OSF: https://osf.io/fm536/