We
have all been taught that in order to be successful in life we should
set goals and work relentlessly to achieve them, regardless of how
difficult the task. But what if that hoped-for positive outcome remains
unachievable? Does hanging tough make sense when it looks like we are
beating our heads against the wall and making no progress?
Psychologists Gregory Miller and Carsten Wrosch studied this issue and published their findings in the journal Psychological Science. Using a series of tests, they separated teenagers
into two groups: those who persist when faced with difficult goals and
those who are willing to abandon them when obstacles seem
insurmountable.
The teens that persevered were found to
have high levels of C-reactive protein, an indicator of inflammation in
the body. Those who were willing to cut their losses had much lower
levels. CRP has been associated with the development of a wide variety
of serious illnesses having an inflammatory component, including heart
disease and diabetes. This suggests that excessive persistence could
lead to major physical problems later in life.
Miller and Wrosch state, “When people
are faced with situations in which they cannot realize a key life goal,
the most adaptive response for physical and mental health may be to
disengage from this goal.”
The authors found that many times when a
goal was abandoned, a new objective was instituted. Then when the new
one was reached, a sense of purpose and mastery was achieved, while
also counteracting feelings of failure that might have resulted from
the inability to reach the desired original target. This suggests that
giving up on unattainable objectives and succeeding at more realistic
goals is beneficial for mental health as well.
This study did not look at the ultimate
success ratio between those who excel in persistence and those who do
not. It did show, however, that there is a price to be paid for dogged
determination. As Kenny Rogers affirms in his song “The Gambler,” “You
have to know when to hold ’em, know when to fold ’em. . . ”
