Optimized but Unowned: How AI-Authored Goals Undermine the Motivation They Are Meant to Drive
Fuente:
arXiv
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Preprint |
| Published: |
2026
|
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1866909040555065344 |
|---|---|
| author | Chi, Vivienne Bihe Rietsche, Roman Göldi, Andreas Ungar, Lyle Guntuku, Sharath Chandra |
| author_facet | Chi, Vivienne Bihe Rietsche, Roman Göldi, Andreas Ungar, Lyle Guntuku, Sharath Chandra |
| contents | As AI tools become embedded in productivity and self-improvement contexts, a pressing question emerges: what happens when AI does the goal-setting for us? While large language models can generate goals that are objectively well-formed, the motivational consequences of delegating this cognitively and emotionally significant task remain unknown. In a preregistered experiment (N = 470), we compared self-authored goals against LLM-authored goals derived from a personal reflection. Although LLM-generated goals scored higher on SMART criteria (specificity, measurability, achievability, relevance, and time-boundedness; d = 2.26), participants in the LLM condition reported lower psychological ownership (d = 1.38), commitment (d = 1.19), and perceived importance (d = 1.13). At two-week follow-up, 72.8% of self-authored participants had acted on two or more of their goals, compared to 46.6% in the LLM condition. Mediation analyses identified psychological ownership as the mechanism: it mediated the authorship effect on every downstream motivational and behavioral outcome, while objective goal quality did not. Critically, individuals low in trait self-efficacy, those most likely to seek AI assistance, experienced the steepest ownership erosion. These findings reveal a quality-motivation dissociation in AI-assisted goal-setting and identify authorship preservation as a design priority for AI tools deployed in identity-relevant, behavior-dependent tasks. |
| format | Preprint |
| id |
arxiv_https___arxiv_org_abs_2605_12344 |
| institution | arXiv |
| publishDate | 2026 |
| record_format | arxiv |
| spellingShingle | Optimized but Unowned: How AI-Authored Goals Undermine the Motivation They Are Meant to Drive Chi, Vivienne Bihe Rietsche, Roman Göldi, Andreas Ungar, Lyle Guntuku, Sharath Chandra Human-Computer Interaction As AI tools become embedded in productivity and self-improvement contexts, a pressing question emerges: what happens when AI does the goal-setting for us? While large language models can generate goals that are objectively well-formed, the motivational consequences of delegating this cognitively and emotionally significant task remain unknown. In a preregistered experiment (N = 470), we compared self-authored goals against LLM-authored goals derived from a personal reflection. Although LLM-generated goals scored higher on SMART criteria (specificity, measurability, achievability, relevance, and time-boundedness; d = 2.26), participants in the LLM condition reported lower psychological ownership (d = 1.38), commitment (d = 1.19), and perceived importance (d = 1.13). At two-week follow-up, 72.8% of self-authored participants had acted on two or more of their goals, compared to 46.6% in the LLM condition. Mediation analyses identified psychological ownership as the mechanism: it mediated the authorship effect on every downstream motivational and behavioral outcome, while objective goal quality did not. Critically, individuals low in trait self-efficacy, those most likely to seek AI assistance, experienced the steepest ownership erosion. These findings reveal a quality-motivation dissociation in AI-assisted goal-setting and identify authorship preservation as a design priority for AI tools deployed in identity-relevant, behavior-dependent tasks. |
| title | Optimized but Unowned: How AI-Authored Goals Undermine the Motivation They Are Meant to Drive |
| topic | Human-Computer Interaction |
| url | https://arxiv.org/abs/2605.12344 |