Abstract

Setting a goal is only the first step: the goal has to stay in mind among competing demands, be checked against progress, and wait somewhere reliable when it cannot be acted on yet. This article reviews four bodies of evidence. First, goal setting has a small but reliable effect on behaviour change, larger for difficult and publicly set goals, and committed goals shield themselves from competing ones, while overprescribed goals carry side effects (Epton et al., 2017; Shah et al., 2002; Ordóñez et al., 2009). Second, monitoring progress promotes goal attainment, more so when progress is recorded, and in healthy-eating, activity and weight-loss interventions self-monitoring is associated with better results (Harkin et al., 2016; Michie et al., 2009; Zheng et al., 2015). Third, unfulfilled goals intrude on unrelated work and a specific plan removes that interference, while the popular Zeigarnik memory advantage does not hold up in meta-analysis (Masicampo & Baumeister, 2011; Ghibellini & Meier, 2025). Fourth, saving information to a reliable external store frees memory for new material, while the replicated experiment from a widely cited Internet-and-memory paper did not reproduce in a large preregistered replication (Storm & Stone, 2015; Sparrow et al., 2011; Camerer et al., 2018). On this evidence, Mars keeps your long-term goals and health records in Personal Memory, can run a prompt or a Daily review skill at a set time, and lets you save recurring workflows as skills and teach it names and jargon in a personal dictionary. The evidence supports this design direction; it is not an experimental test of Mars itself.

Keywords: goal setting · goal commitment · progress monitoring · self-monitoring · unfulfilled goals · cognitive offloading · transactive memory · personal AI assistant

1. Introduction

Goal setting is one of the most replicated paradigms in the management literature: hundreds of studies have shown that specific, challenging goals can drive behaviour and boost performance (Ordóñez et al., 2009), and Locke and Latham summarized 35 years of that research, from its core findings and mechanisms to its moderators and limitations (Locke & Latham, 2002). Beyond the workplace, a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (141 papers, 384 effect sizes, N = 16,523) found a small positive unique effect of goal setting on behaviour change across a range of behaviours (d = .34) (Epton et al., 2017).

A goal, however, does not act by being set once. It has to stay in mind while other demands compete for attention, it has to be compared with actual progress, and when it cannot be acted on yet it has to wait somewhere other than a person’s working memory. This article asks what the research says about each of these steps and how the answers translate into the design of a personal AI assistant.

Method: this is a narrative literature review. We favoured peer-reviewed work accessible through a DOI, preferred meta-analyses, systematic reviews and large preregistered replications, and deliberately included work that limits or contests popular claims. Every factual statement carries its source, and the full reference list with original links follows the article.

2. Goals work when they are committed to and kept in view

In Epton and colleagues’ meta-analysis, goal setting was particularly effective when the goal was difficult, set publicly or a group goal, with weaker evidence for a larger effect when the behaviour or outcome was also monitored by others (Epton et al., 2017). A meta-analysis of 83 independent samples synthesized the antecedents and consequences of goal commitment and treats commitment as a critical construct for understanding how goals relate to task performance (Klein et al., 1999).

Commitment also changes what else comes to mind. In six studies, Shah, Friedman and Kruglanski found that activating a focal goal to which a person is committed inhibits the accessibility of alternative goals. This goal shielding depended on the level of commitment, lessened when the alternative goals helped attain the focal goal, and had beneficial consequences for goal pursuit and attainment (Shah et al., 2002).

Goals are not free of cost. Ordóñez and colleagues argue that the benefits of goal setting have been overstated, and identify systematic side effects: a narrow focus that neglects areas outside the goal, distorted risk preferences, a rise in unethical behaviour, inhibited learning and reduced intrinsic motivation (Ordóñez et al., 2009). This argues for keeping a goal in view together with the rest of a person’s life rather than as an isolated target.

Based on this, Mars treats a goal you state as something to keep, not a one-off instruction. Say in a conversation what you want to achieve and it becomes a goal in Personal Memory, next to your own events. Personal Memory has its own Events, Goals and Health tabs, and deleting a goal always asks first, on the web and iOS, so a commitment does not disappear by accident (Klein et al., 1999; Shah et al., 2002). Mars’s suggestions then build on your real goals instead of a blank slate.

3. Progress has to be monitored, and recorded

Control theory models self-regulation with a discrepancy-reducing feedback loop (Carver & Scheier, 1982). Harkin and colleagues tested the monitoring step directly. Across 138 studies (N = 19,951) that randomly allocated participants to an intervention promoting monitoring of goal progress or to a control condition, the interventions increased how often people monitored their progress (d+ = 1.98) and promoted goal attainment (d+ = 0.40), and the change in monitoring frequency mediated the effect. Monitoring had larger effects when the outcomes were reported or made public, and when the information was physically recorded (Harkin et al., 2016).

Health behaviour shows the same pattern. In a meta-regression of 122 evaluations of healthy-eating and physical-activity interventions (N = 44,747), self-monitoring explained the greatest share of between-study heterogeneity, and interventions that combined self-monitoring with at least one other technique derived from control theory were more effective than the rest (0.42 vs. 0.26) (Michie et al., 2009). In weight management, a systematic review of 22 studies consistently found a significant association between self-monitoring and weight loss, although the level of evidence was weak because of methodological limitations (Burke et al., 2011); a review of 17 longitudinal studies found that regular self-weighing was associated with more weight loss and not with adverse psychological outcomes such as depression or anxiety (Zheng et al., 2015). Across 39 randomized trials with digital self-monitoring, greater self-monitoring was linked to weight loss in 74% of occurrences, and engagement was higher in digital than in paper-based arms in 21 of 34 comparisons, although few interventions reached engagement on at least 75% of days (Patel et al., 2021).

Feedback is not uniformly helpful. In Kluger and DeNisi’s meta-analysis (607 effect sizes, 23,663 observations), feedback interventions improved performance on average (d = .41), but more than one third of them decreased performance, and their effectiveness fell as attention moved away from the task and towards the self (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). This suggests that records are more useful when they keep attention on the task, on what was measured and when, rather than on judgments of the person.

Based on this, the Health tab of Mars Personal Memory keeps records of what was measured: sleep stages, water, dietary energy, protein and carbohydrates, and every smart-scale weigh-in keeps body fat, muscle and water together. On iOS you grant Apple Health on its own, and Mars syncs your Apple Health daily summaries so you can review and ask about them on the web and your other devices (Harkin et al., 2016; Michie et al., 2009; Patel et al., 2021). Mars stores and shows these records; this article makes no claim about health outcomes.

4. An unfinished goal stays on the mind until it has a plan

Unfulfilled goals persist in the mind. In Masicampo and Baumeister’s studies, unfinished goals caused intrusive thoughts during an unrelated reading task, high mental accessibility of goal-related words and poor performance on an unrelated anagram task. Letting participants formulate specific plans for those goals eliminated these effects, and the participants who ultimately carried out their plans were the ones who showed no more intrusions. The authors conclude that once a plan is made, the drive to attain the goal is suspended and resumed at the specified later time (Masicampo & Baumeister, 2011).

This persistence is often explained by the Zeigarnik effect, the claim that unfinished tasks are remembered better than finished ones. A recent meta-analysis found no memory advantage for unfinished tasks, but did find a general tendency to resume interrupted tasks, the Ovsiankina effect, and concluded that the Zeigarnik effect lacks universal validity (Ghibellini & Meier, 2025). What the evidence supports is narrower: unfinished goals tend to be resumed and, in the experiments above, interfere with unrelated work until a plan is in place.

Based on this, a reminder in Mars can carry a plan, not only a time. When you create or edit a reminder you can add a prompt, and at the set time Mars opens a new conversation and runs it; you can also add a Daily review skill right from the reminder editor (Masicampo & Baumeister, 2011; Harkin et al., 2016). A goal that cannot be worked on now is given a specific later moment at which the work resumes, which mirrors the plan-making condition in those studies.

5. Handing memory to a reliable store

People do not hold everything in their own heads. In a study of 118 individuals who had been dating for at least three months, natural couples recalled more than impromptu pairs when no memory structure was assigned, but less than impromptu pairs when a structure was assigned (Wegner et al., 1991). Sparrow, Liu and Wegner extended this idea of transactive memory to the Internet: across four studies, people who expected to have future access to information showed lower recall of the information itself and enhanced recall of where to find it (Sparrow et al., 2011).

The Internet part of this story needs care. A high-powered, preregistered project replicated 21 social-science experiments published in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015; 13 (62%) showed a significant effect in the same direction, and replication effect sizes averaged about half of the originals (Camerer et al., 2018). According to the project’s supplementary information, the study replicated from Sparrow and colleagues was their first experiment, in which computer terms became more accessible after hard trivia questions, and the replication with 234 participants in its pooled sample found no significant effect (r = 0.05, against 0.37 originally) (Camerer et al., 2018). The recall findings were not part of that replication, but the result argues for caution with the popular claim that search engines make people forget.

Experiments on offloading give a more specific picture. In three experiments, saving one file before studying a new one improved memory for the new file, but not when the saving process was deemed unreliable or the saved content was too slight to interfere (Storm & Stone, 2015). People are also inclined to offload: given a choice between unaided memory and external reminders, participants were biased towards reminders even when they had a financial incentive to choose optimally, a bias predicted by underconfidence in their own memory and removed by advice about which strategy would maximize performance (Gilbert et al., 2020). Offloading frees memory when the store can be trusted, and it is a strategy people readily choose.

Based on this, Mars gives repeated memory work a place you control. Recurring tasks such as a daily review or a weekly client roundup can be saved as custom skills you start in one tap, with a confirmation before any skill is deleted (Gilbert et al., 2020). In Settings > Personal Dictionary you can review the terms Mars has learned or add your own names, companies and jargon, and voice transcription and fact extraction recognise them the way you write them. A dictionary you can review keeps that store reliable, the condition under which saving freed memory in Storm and Stone’s experiments (Storm & Stone, 2015).

6. From evidence to design

Taken together, the evidence asks four things of a tool meant to help people pursue goals: keep the goal itself, record progress in a form that can be reviewed, give unfinished goals a plan and a time, and provide a reliable place for memory work that would otherwise be repeated. Mars meets each requirement as follows:

1. Commitment and goal shielding → goals kept in Personal MemoryGoals you state in conversation become goals in the Goals tab of Personal Memory, next to your events, and deleting one always asks first on the web and iOS. Mars’s suggestions build on these goals (Epton et al., 2017; Klein et al., 1999; Shah et al., 2002).
2. Recorded progress monitoring → records in the Health tabThe Health tab keeps sleep stages, water, dietary energy, protein and carbohydrates, and every smart-scale weigh-in with body fat, muscle and water; Apple Health daily summaries synced from iOS can be reviewed and asked about on the web and other devices (Harkin et al., 2016; Michie et al., 2009; Zheng et al., 2015).
3. Unfulfilled goals intrude until planned → reminders that run a promptA reminder can carry a prompt that Mars runs in a new conversation at the set time, and a Daily review skill can be added from the reminder editor, so an unfinished goal gets a specific later moment for the work to resume (Masicampo & Baumeister, 2011; Harkin et al., 2016).
4. Saving to a reliable store frees memory → skills and the personal dictionaryRecurring workflows are saved as skills you start in one tap; names, companies and jargon go into the personal dictionary, which voice transcription and fact extraction follow (Storm & Stone, 2015; Gilbert et al., 2020).

7. Limitations

First, the studies cited here test regularities of human goal pursuit and memory, not Mars itself. They support our design direction but do not show that using Mars produces the same effects; the product’s effect needs its own evaluation.

Second, many findings come from specific settings. Samples in weight-loss self-monitoring studies were predominantly white and women (Burke et al., 2011), the transactive memory study used dating couples (Wegner et al., 1991), and much of the weight-management evidence is associational rather than causal (Zheng et al., 2015; Patel et al., 2021). The progress-monitoring meta-analysis rests on randomized studies, but those studies promoted monitoring in general and did not test any particular tool (Harkin et al., 2016).

Third, several popular claims in this area are weaker than they are often presented: the memory advantage of unfinished tasks (Ghibellini & Meier, 2025), the replicated experiment from the Internet-and-memory paper (Sparrow et al., 2011; Camerer et al., 2018), and the general benefits of goal setting (Ordóñez et al., 2009) and of feedback (Kluger & DeNisi, 1996). We use each only as far as its evidence goes.

Fourth, health. This article makes no medical claim. Mars stores and shows the records described above; what they mean for a person’s health is for that person and, where needed, their clinician to judge.

8. Conclusion

A goal works only while it is held, checked and, when it has to wait, parked somewhere reliable. The research reviewed here shows that committed goals shield themselves from competing ones, that recorded progress monitoring promotes attainment, that a specific plan quiets an unfinished goal and that saving information to a trustworthy store frees memory, and it also shows where popular versions of these claims overreach. Mars Personal Memory with its Goals and Health tabs, reminders that run a prompt, skills and the personal dictionary are designed on this evidence.

References

Listed in APA 7th edition style, each with its original DOI link.

1. Burke, L. E., Wang, J., & Sevick, M. A. (2011). Self-monitoring in weight loss: A systematic review of the literature. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 111(1), 92–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jada.2010.10.008
2. Camerer, C. F., Dreber, A., Holzmeister, F., Ho, T.-H., Huber, J., Johannesson, M., Kirchler, M., Nave, G., Nosek, B. A., Pfeiffer, T., Altmejd, A., Buttrick, N., Chan, T., Chen, Y., Forsell, E., Gampa, A., Heikensten, E., Hummer, L., Imai, T., … Wu, H. (2018). Evaluating the replicability of social science experiments in Nature and Science between 2010 and 2015. Nature Human Behaviour, 2(9), 637–644. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-018-0399-z
3. Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality–social, clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92(1), 111–135. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.92.1.111
4. Epton, T., Currie, S., & Armitage, C. J. (2017). Unique effects of setting goals on behavior change: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 85(12), 1182–1198. https://doi.org/10.1037/ccp0000260
5. Ghibellini, R., & Meier, B. (2025). Interruption, recall and resumption: A meta-analysis of the Zeigarnik and Ovsiankina effects. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, 12(1), 962. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-025-05000-w
6. Gilbert, S. J., Bird, A., Carpenter, J. M., Fleming, S. M., Sachdeva, C., & Tsai, P.-C. (2020). Optimal use of reminders: Metacognition, effort, and cognitive offloading. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 149(3), 501–517. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000652
7. Harkin, B., Webb, T. L., Chang, B. P. I., Prestwich, A., Conner, M., Kellar, I., Benn, Y., & Sheeran, P. (2016). Does monitoring goal progress promote goal attainment? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 142(2), 198–229. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000025
8. Klein, H. J., Wesson, M. J., Hollenbeck, J. R., & Alge, B. J. (1999). Goal commitment and the goal-setting process: Conceptual clarification and empirical synthesis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 885–896. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.84.6.885
9. Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historical review, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119(2), 254–284. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.254
10. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705–717. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.57.9.705
11. Masicampo, E. J., & Baumeister, R. F. (2011). Consider it done! Plan making can eliminate the cognitive effects of unfulfilled goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4), 667–683. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024192
12. Michie, S., Abraham, C., Whittington, C., McAteer, J., & Gupta, S. (2009). Effective techniques in healthy eating and physical activity interventions: A meta-regression. Health Psychology, 28(6), 690–701. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0016136
13. Ordóñez, L. D., Schweitzer, M. E., Galinsky, A. D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). Goals gone wild: The systematic side effects of overprescribing goal setting. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23(1), 6–16. https://doi.org/10.5465/amp.2009.37007999
14. Patel, M. L., Wakayama, L. N., & Bennett, G. G. (2021). Self-monitoring via digital health in weight loss interventions: A systematic review among adults with overweight or obesity. Obesity, 29(3), 478–499. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.23088
15. Shah, J. Y., Friedman, R., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2002). Forgetting all else: On the antecedents and consequences of goal shielding. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(6), 1261–1280. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.6.1261
16. Sparrow, B., Liu, J., & Wegner, D. M. (2011). Google effects on memory: Cognitive consequences of having information at our fingertips. Science, 333(6043), 776–778. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1207745
17. Storm, B. C., & Stone, S. M. (2015). Saving-enhanced memory: The benefits of saving on the learning and remembering of new information. Psychological Science, 26(2), 182–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797614559285
18. Wegner, D. M., Erber, R., & Raymond, P. (1991). Transactive memory in close relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 61(6), 923–929. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.61.6.923
19. Zheng, Y., Klem, M. L., Sereika, S. M., Danford, C. A., Ewing, L. J., & Burke, L. E. (2015). Self-weighing in weight management: A systematic literature review. Obesity, 23(2), 256–265. https://doi.org/10.1002/oby.20946

Cite this article

Mars Research. (2026). Why goals need to be remembered and tracked. MarsDataAI. https://marsdata.ai/research/goals-and-self-monitoring