Main Facts
In contemporary self-improvement and daily goal-setting, a silent trap pervades our intentions. Statements such as “I want to stop feeling so behind,” “I want to stop overthinking social interactions,” or “I want to stop having the same arguments with my partner” are frequently categorized as personal goals. However, psychological research demonstrates that these statements do not actually express what an individual wants. Instead, they merely describe what a person wants to stop.
This distinction is far from semantic; it dictates the psychological direction of our lives. When our ambitions are defined entirely by what we wish to escape or eliminate, we can spend years successfully solving problems while remaining no closer to the life we actually desire.
To bridge this gap, psychological science utilizes models such as the Problem-Remedy-Outcome (PRO) model (Tompkins & Lawley, 2006) and the foundational principles of positive psychology (Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). These frameworks distinguish between "avoidance goals"—which focus on running away from the negative—and "approach goals," which focus on cultivating the positive. Longitudinal studies indicate that relying primarily on avoidance goals leads to heightened stress, maladaptive coping mechanisms, and diminished subjective well-being (Elliot et al., 2011). Ultimately, rewriting our internal dialogue to focus on what needs to exist rather than what needs to disappear changes not only how we think about personal change, but also the very trajectory of our lives.
Chronology: The Evolution of Goal-Setting Theory
To understand how modern psychology shifted from fixing pathologies to cultivating human potential, it is helpful to trace the evolution of therapeutic and motivational frameworks over the past several decades.
- The Mid-20th Century (The Pathology Paradigm): For decades, psychological research and clinical practice were overwhelmingly focused on the "disease model" of human behavior. The primary objective of therapy and self-help was the reduction of negative states—treating anxiety, depression, and trauma by removing symptoms. The assumption was that once the bad things disappeared, health would naturally take their place.
- The Year 2000 (The Birth of Positive Psychology): A major paradigm shift occurred when Martin Seligman and Mihaly Csikszentmihalyi published their landmark introduction to positive psychology in the American Psychologist. They argued that psychology should concern itself not only with pathology and weakness, but equally with human strengths and positive functioning. As they famously asserted, "Treatment is not just fixing what is broken; it is nurturing what is best."
- February 2006 (The Introduction of the PRO Model): Expanding on therapeutic techniques that minimized clinician bias, Penny Tompkins and James Lawley introduced the Problem-Remedy-Outcome (PRO) model through their work on Clean Language in coaching (Tompkins & Lawley, 2006). This framework provided a structured way to separate what clients want to stop (the problem and the remedy) from what they genuinely want to create (the outcome).
- 2011 (Longitudinal Evidence on Avoidance vs. Approach): A pivotal study by Andrew J. Elliot, Todd M. Thrash, and Kou Murayama (2011) provided empirical weight to the dangers of avoidance goals. Their longitudinal analysis revealed that individuals who consistently pursue avoidance personal goals experience greater stress generation, heavier reliance on avoidance-based coping strategies, and lower overall subjective well-being over time.
- Present Day (The Shift Toward Constructive Design): Today, behavioral scientists, executive coaches, and therapists increasingly advocate for an "approach-first" mindset. Rather than asking “What needs to disappear?” modern psychological interventions challenge individuals to ask “What needs to exist?”—paving the way for sustainable personal transformation.
Supporting Data and Psychological Frameworks
The empirical case against purely avoidance-based goal setting is robust, drawing from multiple intersecting fields of psychological research.
1. The PRO Model in Action
Developed out of the Clean Language questioning methodology—which minimizes the assumptions and interpretations introduced by a facilitator—the PRO model categorizes human strivings into three distinct layers:
- The Problem: The current unwanted state or symptom (e.g., “I’m exhausted.”).
- The Remedy: The immediate reactive fix or cessation of a behavior (e.g., “I need to stop working so much.”).
- The Outcome: The generative, self-determined state of being that truly satisfies the individual’s core desire (e.g., “I want enough energy after work to enjoy time with my family.”).
When facilitators use Clean Language, they bypass the temptation to impose their own remedies onto a client. Instead, they repeatedly pivot the client’s attention from the problem and the remedy toward the ultimate outcome by asking variations of the foundational question: "And when that is happening, what would you like to have happen?"
2. Approach Goals vs. Avoidance Goals
Psychological literature makes a critical distinction between two motivational orientations:
- Avoidance Goals: Directed toward moving away from a negative, feared, or undesirable outcome (e.g., “I want to stop feeling anxious” or “I want to spend less time on my phone”).
- Approach Goals: Directed toward moving toward a positive, desired, or enriching outcome (e.g., “I want to speak freely in meetings even when some anxiety is present” or “I want evenings filled with things absorbing enough that I forget to check my phone”).
According to Elliot et al. (2011), avoidance goals are cognitively taxing. Because the mind must constantly monitor for the presence of the very thing it is trying to avoid, it keeps the threat active in the individual’s attentional field. Furthermore, removing a negative behavior without replacing it leaves a vacuum. Without a compelling alternative to take its place, old habits easily reassert themselves.
3. Key Empirical Findings
- Stress Generation: Longitudinal tracking shows that individuals pursuing avoidance goals generate more daily stress because their focus remains locked on potential threats and failures.
- Coping Mechanisms: Avoidance goals correlate strongly with avoidant coping strategies—such as denial, distraction, and withdrawal—which inhibit long-term problem-solving and emotional resilience.
- Subjective Well-Being: Studies consistently confirm that individuals with high proportions of approach goals report significantly higher life satisfaction and positive affect compared to those driven primarily by avoidance motivations.
Official Responses and Expert Perspectives
Mental health professionals, academic researchers, and coaching experts emphasize that while avoiding negative states is sometimes necessary for immediate safety, it is fundamentally insufficient for building a fulfilling life.
Dr. Martin Seligman, a pioneer of positive psychology, has long argued that traditional psychology’s obsession with disease and deficit has blinded society to the mechanisms of human flourishing. In institutional and academic settings, experts note that mental health treatment programs are increasingly integrating positive psychology principles. Rather than merely stabilizing a patient—bringing them from a state of psychological distress to a neutral baseline of zero—modern interventions focus on elevating them into positive functioning, building resilience, optimism, and strong social connections.
Similarly, coaching authorities who utilize the PRO framework point out that language shapes neurobiology and behavior. When a client states, "I want to stop feeling lonely," their nervous system is primed for threat detection and social isolation. When shifted via Clean Language to "I want to foster relationships in which I feel understood, valued, and connected," the brain receives a clear blueprint for action.
Executive coaches observe that corporate and personal goal-setting sessions frequently stall because leaders and clients build metrics entirely around risk mitigation (e.g., “reduce errors,” “stop losing clients”) rather than value creation (e.g., “innovate client onboarding,” “deepen strategic partnerships”). Experts stress that true leadership and personal growth require flipping the script from damage control to visionary design.
Implications: Changing How We Think About Change
The realization that reducing the negative is not the same as cultivating the positive has profound implications for how we structure our personal lives, our workplaces, and our therapeutic systems.
1. Expanding Our Range of Options
When a goal is framed as an escape, options are severely limited. Consider the contrast between:
- “I want to stop feeling anxious.” (A restrictive, dead-end aspiration).
- “I want to be able to speak freely in meetings even when some anxiety is present.” (An expansive, possibility-rich outcome).
The second formulation does not require the anxiety to magically vanish before life can begin. It allows the individual to act in spite of the discomfort, vastly expanding their behavioral repertoire.
2. Redefining Self-Improvement
For generations, self-improvement has been marketed as a process of ruthless elimination—cutting out bad habits, shedding unwanted pounds, and stamping out perceived personal flaws. The psychological research reviewed here suggests a different paradigm: growth is generative.
By systematically auditing our internal vocabulary and shifting our questions from “What needs to disappear?” to “What needs to exist?” we transition from an exhausting reactive posture to a sustainable creative one.
3. Practical Translation for Daily Life
To integrate these insights into everyday decision-making, individuals can apply a simple linguistic filter whenever they catch themselves aiming for an escape hatch.
- Instead of: "I want less stress."
Ask: "What do I want more of instead?"
Outcome: "I want more time, control, and freedom in my week." - Instead of: "I want to stop being insecure."
Ask: "What do I want to be happening instead?"
Outcome: "I want to become someone who can express what I think without constantly checking how it will be received." - Instead of: "I want to stop feeling lonely."
Ask: "If that were no longer the problem, what would I want to be experiencing?"
Outcome: "I want to foster relationships in which I feel understood, valued, and connected."
Conclusion
A genuinely good life is vastly more than the mere absence of bad things. While escaping danger, reducing stress, and eliminating toxicity are vital first steps—particularly in crisis situations—they represent only the foundation of human experience. By moving past the problem and the remedy, and daring to articulate a clear, compelling outcome, we give ourselves something real to move toward. In doing so, we build lives that reflect what we deeply value, rather than merely reflecting what we are trying to run away from.
References
- Elliot, A. J., Thrash, T. M., & Murayama, K. (2011). A longitudinal analysis of self-regulation and well-being: Avoidance personal goals, avoidance coping, stress generation, and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality, 79(3), 643–674. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00694.x
- Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5–14. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.5
- Tompkins, P., & Lawley, J. (2006, February). Coaching for P.R.O.’s: The Problem, Remedy, Outcome model. Coach the Coach. https://cleanlanguage.com/coaching-for-pros/
