This longitudinal study finds that fluctuations in cognitive precision predict daily goal achievement, suggesting new insights into behavior versus intention.
The idea that better cognitive functioning helps to close the gap between goals and behavior seems self-evident, yet empirical work has found unusually weak interindividual associations between cognitive task performance and real-world, goal-relevant outcomes. Here, we resolve this paradox by shifting from trait-level to state-level analysis. Leveraging a microtask design to measure daily fluctuations in cognitive function, goal setting and goal progress, mood, sleep, and motivation over a 12-week intensive longitudinal study of university students ( N = 184, time points = 9248), we show that within-person upswings in domain-general cognitive processing precision precede and predict same-day self-reported goal setting and achievement across both academic and nonacademic domains, even controlling for other factors. A one-standard-deviation change in cognitive precision had an effect statistically equivalent to ~40 min of work, with similar or larger predictive effects compared to fluctuations in mood/motivation and no moderation by trait-level self-control or conscientiousness. Our work addresses long-standing controversies and highlights the power of intraindividual analysis to reveal relationships missed by cross-sectional approaches.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Wilson et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: