What is the best way to set goals? Setting goals for wellbeing and mental health makes a lot of sense—but what is the best way to do it?
S.M.A.R.T. goals are ubiquitous in the modern world, but are they effective? Doran (1981) first introduced the Specific, Measurable, Assignable, Realistic, and Time-related (SMART) method for writing effective management goals. Over time, this approach has been adopted by other industries, such as healthcare, and has evolved into many variations (Wikipedia, 2026), including:
S Specific, Strategic
M Measurable
A Achievable, Agreed, Action-oriented, Ambitious, Attainable
R Realistic, Reasonable, Realistic and Resourced, Results-based
T Timeframe, Time-based, Time-oriented, Time-limited, Time/cost-limited, Timely, Time-sensitive
Is SMART the Best Way to Think About Our Goals?
Despite their popularity, SMART goals may not be the best way to set goals for mental health.
Victoria Stewart and colleagues (2024) examined whether SMART goals were fit for purpose when used by Australian community pharmacists delivering a brief, goal-oriented wellbeing intervention to service users with severe and persistent mental illness. They found that participants had difficulty using the SMART method. Fewer than 25% of goals identified how achievement would be measured, and the majority (93.5%) lacked details about how progress would be monitored.
DYB and Open Goals – Other Methods of Setting Goals
Simon Pietsch from the University of Adelaide and colleagues (2024) compared SMART goals with do-your-best (DYB) goals and open goals in relation to creative performance tasks. These tasks are designed to measure fluid intelligence—the ability to think and reason in abstract, non-concrete ways. In Pietsch et al. (2024) study, participants were given two minutes to generate alternative and original uses for a newspaper and a paperclip.
What are DYB and open goals? A do-your-best goal (DYB) involves striving toward a performance level that reflects one’s perceived limits or personal best. Open goals can be conceptualised as non-specific, exploratory goals with no fixed outcome (e.g., “see how well you can do”) (Pietsch et al., 2024).
Pietsch and colleagues (2024) found no differences in creative performance between SMART, DYB, and open goals.
They also reported that DYB goals may be superior to specific goals when a person is:
(i) in the early stages of learning new knowledge or a complex task (as in many educational contexts),
(ii) given no specific strategy to guide effort, and
(iii) under pressure to perform well immediately.
Christian Swann and colleagues (2022) examined goal setting in a similar way, this time in relation to walking. They found no statistical difference in distance walked among participants using open, do-your-best, as-well-as-possible, and SMART goals. However, all of these groups walked significantly further than participants in the control group.
One Size Might Not Fit All
Rebecca Hawkins and colleagues (2020) found that psychological responses differed between active and insufficiently active individuals (those not meeting physical activity guidelines) depending on goal type. SMART goals elicited the most positive feelings and enjoyment in active adults, whereas open goals produced the greatest pleasure and enjoyment in insufficiently active adults. This suggests important implications for goal setting and challenges the idea that SMART goals are a “one size fits all” approach.
Reviews of the SMART Goal Setting Method
Swann and colleagues (2023) reviewed the use of the SMART acronym for goal setting and drew several conclusions, including that it:
- is not based on a strong scientific theory
- is not consistent with empirical evidence
- does not consider the type of goal being set
- is not applied consistently
- lacks detailed guidance
- contains redundancy in its criteria
- is not being used as originally intended
- carries a risk of potentially harmful effects
Swann and colleagues (2024) further questioned the need for mental health–informed goal setting in physical activity. They suggested that “one size fits all” approaches, such as rigid use of SMART goals, may exacerbate mental health difficulties and that mental health considerations should be central to the goal-setting process.
WOOP: Another Goal-Setting Acronym
WOOP stands for Wish–Outcome–Obstacle–Plan. Its core components are based on Mental Contrasting with Implementation Intentions (MCII). In MCII, mentally contrasting a desired future with the internal obstacles that stand in the way helps translate goals into strong commitments (Monin, 2021).
Put simply, WOOP involves four steps:
- Identifying a wish
- Identifying and imagining the desired outcome
- Identifying and imagining a key internal obstacle
- Creating a plan in the form: “If [obstacle], then I will [behaviour to overcome it]”
WOOP differs from SMART in that it is supported by a broader body of research across multiple life domains. However, it is important to keep expectations realistic. Wang and colleagues (2021) conducted a meta-analysis (a study of many studies) examining MCII and goal attainment. Across 21 empirical studies with 15,907 participants, they found that MCII was effective, with a small-to-medium effect size.
A small effect is noticeable but easy to miss in everyday life unless you look closely. A moderate effect is clearer—you would likely see some change, but it is still not dramatic. However, even small-to-moderate effects can be meaningful, particularly when they improve quality of life.
Summary
Setting goals for wellbeing and mental health makes sense. As you likely know, goal setting can be challenging, and there are many different approaches. The research suggests that personal preference, the type of task, and the desired outcome all play important roles in effective goal setting.
If you are having difficulty setting goals for your wellbeing or mental health, speaking with one of our clinical psychologists may help. Change is possible. To book an appointment, you can call 03 9077 0122 or register online.
References
Doran, G. T. (1981). “There’s a S.M.A.R.T. way to write management’s goals and objectives”. Management Review. 70 (11): 35–36.
Hawkins, R. M., Crust, L., Swann, C., & Jackman, P. C. (2020). The effects of goal types on psychological outcomes in active and insufficiently active adults in a walking task: Further evidence for open goals. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 48, 101661. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2020.101661
Monin, J. K., Oettingen, G., Laws, H., David, D., DeMatteo, L., & Marottoli, R. (2021). A Controlled Pilot Study of the Wish Outcome Obstacle Plan Strategy for Spouses of Persons With Early-Stage Dementia. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 77(3), 513–524. https://doi.org/10.1093/geronb/gbab115
Oettingen G, Pak H, Schnetter K. Self-regulation of goal setting: turning free fantasies about the future into binding goals. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2001 May;80(5):736-53. PMID: 11374746.
Pietsch, S., Riddell, H., Semmler, C., Ntoumanis, N., & Gucciardi, D. F. (2024). SMART goals are no more effective for creative performance than do-your-best goals or non-specific, exploratory ‘open goals.’ Educational Psychology, 44(9–10), 946–962. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2024.2420818
SMART criteria. (2026). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=SMART_criteria&oldid=1349432705#References
Stewart V, McMillan SS, Hu J, Collins JC, El-Den S, O’Reilly CL, Wheeler AJ. Are SMART goals fit-for-purpose? Goal planning with mental health service-users in Australian community pharmacies. Int J Qual Health Care. 2024 Feb 21;36(1):mzae009. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzae009. PMID: 38381655; PMCID: PMC10880889.
Swann, C., Schweickle, M. J., Peoples, G. E., Goddard, S. G., Stevens, C., & Vella, S. A. (2022). The potential benefits of nonspecific goals in physical activity promotion: Comparing open, do-your-best, and as-well-as-possible goals in a walking task. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 34(2), 384–408. https://doi.org/10.1080/10413200.2020.1815100
Swann, C., Jackman, P. C., Lawrence, A., Hawkins, R. M., Goddard, S. G., Williamson, O., … Ekkekakis, P. (2023). The (over)use of SMART goals for physical activity promotion: A narrative review and critique. Health Psychology Review, 17(2), 211–226. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2021.2023608
Swann, C., Wagner, D., Clarke, M. M., Goddard, S. G., McKeon, G., Rosenbaum, S., Vella, S. A., & Teychenne, M. (2024). Is there a need for mental health informed goal setting in physical activity? Mental Health and Physical Activity, 27, 100648. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mhpa.2024.100648
Wang, G., Wang, Y., & Gai, X. (2021). A Meta-Analysis of the Effects of Mental Contrasting With Implementation Intentions on Goal Attainment. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 565202. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.565202
