New Year's Resolutions Kids Actually Want to Keep

I came across a Substack note from Hannah Liz (@hannahlizm) that stopped me mid-scroll. She suggested having kids make fun New Year's resolutions, things like visiting all the neighborhood parks or trying every flavor at the local ice cream shop. My first thought was cute idea for a family activity. My second thought, because I can't help myself, was wait, is there actually research behind this?

Turns out there is. A lot of it.

What looks like a lighthearted twist on New Year's traditions is actually grounded in some of the most robust findings in developmental psychology about how children's brains develop the capacity for goal setting, motivation, and persistence. And understanding why goals like "jump in every puddle this year" work better than "read more books" reveals something essential about how children learn to set and pursue goals at all.

The Developmental Sweet Spot for Optimistic Goal Setting

Children between the ages of 4 and 7 exist in what researchers call the optimistic goal setting phase (Bamford & Lagattuta, 2020). They wildly overestimate their capabilities. They believe they can become professional soccer players by next Tuesday or learn to fly if they practice hard enough. This isn't ignorance or magical thinking that needs correcting. It's protective.

Research shows that this hyperoptimism serves a critical developmental function. In a 2022 study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, researchers found that young children are particularly "hyperoptimistic" because their brains are less sensitive to negative outcomes compared to adolescents and adults (Habicht et al., 2022). Using computational modeling, the researchers demonstrated that this reduced learning from worse-than-expected outcomes helps children maintain motivation in the face of setbacks. Without this rose-tinted lens, children would give up far more easily when facing the constant failures inherent in learning new skills.

The optimism bias exists across approximately 80% of adults (Sharot, 2011), but in children it's cranked up to eleven. Three- to six-year-olds consistently overestimate positive future outcomes even when they know the actual probabilities (Hennefield et al., 2022). They expect they'll win games of chance, master difficult tasks quickly, and achieve ambitious goals with minimal effort. Rather than being a cognitive flaw, this bias builds self-efficacy before children hit the comparison trap of middle childhood, when they start measuring themselves against peers and their optimism naturally declines (Xia et al., 2023).

This is why "try all the ice cream flavors" works. The goal leverages their natural optimism while providing achievable wins that reinforce their belief that they can set and accomplish things. Each scoop becomes data that says I can do hard things, even if the "hard thing" is just remembering which flavor they tried last week.

Why Children's Brains Need Concrete, Sensory Goals

The prefrontal cortex, the brain region responsible for planning, goal-directed behavior, and executive function, undergoes significant maturation throughout childhood but doesn't fully develop until the mid-20s (Best & Miller, 2010; Casey et al., 2011). What this means practically is that children can't hold long-term, abstract goals the way adult brains can.

Developmental neuroscience research shows that children need what are called proximal subgoals, immediate and concrete steps toward a larger aim (Moffett et al., 2017). A 5 year old's prefrontal cortex can manage "find the playground with the red slide" far better than it can manage "get more exercise this year." The first goal is specific, sensory, and provides immediate feedback. The second requires abstract thinking about health, sustained motivation without concrete milestones, and the ability to track progress over an extended timeline. That's asking a developing brain to do something it's not yet equipped to handle.

Research on goal setting in preschoolers shows that children's learning goal choices are heavily influenced by environmental cues and task context (Leclercq et al., 2023). When goals align with tangible, present-focused activities (like completing a puzzle or visiting a location), children demonstrate much higher commitment and follow through than when goals require them to project far into the future or maintain abstract concepts.

This is where the neuroscience of dopamine comes in. Each mini-win (trying a new flavor, visiting a new park, jumping in a puddle) releases dopamine and reinforces the goal-setting loop itself (Schultz et al., 1997). Children aren't just accomplishing a fun task; they're building the neural pathways that support goal directed behavior throughout life.

The Power of Autonomy in Intrinsic Motivation

One of the most consistent findings in motivation research is that autonomy, the sense of control over one's choices and actions, is fundamental to intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). When children feel they have genuine ownership over their goals, they're significantly more engaged and persistent than when goals are imposed by adults.

Research in educational settings demonstrates that student generated goals produce higher levels of engagement and academic achievement than teacher assigned goals (Rowe et al., 2017). The mechanism isn't complicated. When a goal belongs to the child, when it reflects their interests and values rather than adult expectations, they're working toward something they actually want. That internal drive, intrinsic motivation, produces deeper learning and more sustained effort than any external reward system.

This is where most parents derail the entire enterprise. We hear "I want to try all the ice cream flavors" and immediately start thinking about how to make it educational. We add requirements about writing down each flavor, photographing the experience, or learning about the science of ice cream making. We turn the child's goal into our project. And in doing so, we kill their intrinsic motivation and replace it with compliance or resistance.

Edward Deci's research on motivation asks the critical question: How can we create conditions within which others will motivate themselves, rather than how can we motivate others? (Deci & Flaste, 1995). The difference isn't semantic. It's the difference between fostering genuine self-directed learning and creating another item on the parent's to-do list.

The Four Ways Parents Sabotage Kid Goal-Setting

Research on children's goal setting identifies several patterns where well-intentioned adults undermine the developmental benefits:

Imposing goals that sound "developmental." When we redirect "read in every room of the house" toward "read 20 books this year," we're substituting our educational values for their intrinsic interest (Locke & Latham, 2006). The first goal is weird and fun and probably involves forts and flashlights. The second is a chore.

Extending timelines beyond child capacity. A yearlong goal requires sustained attention and memory that many young children simply don't have (Moffett et al., 2017). Their developing prefrontal cortex works much better with goals that have natural checkpoints every few days or weeks, not months. "Try all the flavors" works because each trip to the ice cream shop is a discrete event, not an abstract yearly commitment.

Taking over documentation and tracking. The moment we create a chart, start an Instagram account to document their progress, or turn their goal into family content, we've made it about us (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987). The goal shifts from the child's experience to the parent's performance. Children pick up on this instantly, and their motivation evaporates.

Correcting the optimism gap. When children announce they want to visit every park in the city and we immediately respond with logistical objections ("that's 47 parks, honey, we don't have time for that"), we're teaching them that goal setting means exposure to adult skepticism (Habicht et al., 2022). Better to let them discover through natural experience that some goals need adjustment. The learning happens in the doing, not in the pre-emptive reality check.

What Actually Works: Age-Specific Applications

The beauty of this approach is it scales across developmental stages:

Ages 3-5: Goals should be immediate and sensory. "Wear my favorite shirt on Tuesdays," "find three smooth rocks," "learn everyone's favorite color." These goals have quick feedback loops and don't require sustained memory or planning.

Ages 6-8: Children can handle slightly longer timelines and more complex goals. "Visit every library branch," "try a new food each week," "learn to do a cartwheel." There's still concreteness, but the goals allow for more autonomy in timing and approach.

Ages 9-11: Pre-teens can manage goals with planning components. "Design and build something new each month," "interview five interesting adults about their jobs," "create a collection of something meaningful." The goals invite creativity and self-direction while still providing clear endpoints.

Ages 12+: Adolescents can work with longer-term goals that involve skill building. "Learn to cook ten different meals," "read books from ten different countries," "document daily life through photography." These goals support identity development and allow for both structure and autonomy.

Across all ages, the pattern holds: concrete beats abstract, sensory beats conceptual, child-chosen beats parent-assigned, and achievable beats aspirational.

When Kids "Fail" at Their Goals

Here's what happens when children set a goal and then lose interest halfway through: they learn about themselves. They gather data about their own patterns of commitment, their genuine interests versus passing fascinations, their tolerance for repetition versus need for novelty.

Research shows that children's goal commitment is significantly influenced by metacognitive skills and cognitive flexibility (Leclercq et al., 2023). When a child abandons a goal, they're not demonstrating lack of character or discipline. They're demonstrating that they're learning to read their own signals about what engages them and what doesn't. That's essential information for developing self-awareness and realistic self-assessment.

The developmental task isn't completing every goal they set. It's learning to set goals, trying them out, and adjusting based on actual experience rather than abstract planning. Some goals will stick. Others won't. Both outcomes produce valuable learning about who they are and how they work.

This is where repair based approaches matter far more than punishment or forced completion. When a child loses interest in their goal, the question isn't "why can't you finish what you started?" It's "what did you learn about what you actually enjoy?" or "what got hard about this, and what would make it more interesting?" Those questions support metacognition and self-knowledge rather than shame.

What to Do Next

If you want to try this with your children this January, here's what makes it work:

Let them brainstorm completely on their own. Your job is to ask questions that help them think, not to guide them toward "better" goals. Ask what would make them excited to wake up in the morning or what would make them laugh to accomplish.

Make sure goals are theirs alone. If you start tracking their progress or turning it into content, you've taken ownership. Resist the urge to document unless they specifically request it.

Celebrate the process, not just completion. When they try a new ice cream flavor, the win is the trying, not the completing of all flavors. Let the dopamine hit come from the action itself.

Let natural consequences provide the feedback. If a goal turns out to be too ambitious or boring, let them experience that and adjust. Don't rescue or redirect prematurely.

Notice what they're learning about themselves. Point out patterns you see in what they choose, what they stick with, what they modify. Help them develop the metacognitive skill of observing their own behavior without judgment.

The research is clear: children who experience autonomy-supportive environments where adults respect their input and provide opportunities for genuine choice develop stronger intrinsic motivation and better self-regulation skills (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Niemiec & Ryan, 2009). Setting silly, concrete, self-directed goals isn't just a cute activity. It's foundational practice for a lifetime of effective goal-setting.

Need Support With Your Child's Development?

If you're noticing your child struggles with motivation, goal setting, or follow-through in ways that feel concerning, or if you want personalized guidance on supporting their specific developmental stage, that's exactly what discovery calls are for. Together we can look at your child's unique developmental profile and create strategies that actually fit how they learn and grow.

Book a discovery call to talk through what you're seeing and get concrete, research-backed approaches tailored to your family.

By Lauren Greeno
Child & Adolescent Development Specialist & Parenting Coach | Founder, The Parenting Collaborative

Lauren specializes in helping parents understand invisible dynamics shaping their children’s development and redesigning family systems before patterns calcify into adult identity. With expertise in child development, family systems theory, and trauma-informed parenting, she works with families navigating sibling dynamics, only child considerations, neurodivergence, emotional regulation, and breaking generational patterns.

Work with Lauren: Book a discovery call | Learn more| Instagram | TikTok

References

Bamford, C., & Lagattuta, K. H. (2020). Optimism and wishful thinking: Consistency across populations in children's expectations for the future. Child Development, 91(4), 1116-1134. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.13281

Best, J. R., & Miller, P. H. (2010). A developmental perspective on executive function. Child Development, 81(6), 1641-1660. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01499.x

Casey, B. J., Jones, R. M., & Hare, T. A. (2011). The adolescent brain. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 1124(1), 111-126. https://doi.org/10.1196/annals.1440.010

Deci, E. L., & Flaste, R. (1995). Why we do what we do: Understanding self-motivation. Penguin Books.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children's learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5), 890-898. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.5.890

Habicht, J., Bowler, A., Moses-Payne, M. E., & Hauser, T. U. (2022). Children are full of optimism, but those rose-tinted glasses are fading: Reduced learning from negative outcomes drives hyperoptimism in children. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 151(8), 1843-1853. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001138

Hennefield, L., Hwang, H. G., Weston, S. J., & Povinelli, D. J. (2022). The development of optimistic expectations in young children. Developmental Psychology, 58(7), 1269-1282. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0001355

Leclercq, A. L., Gimenes, M., Maintenant, C., & Clerc, J. (2023). Goal choice in preschoolers is influenced by context, cognitive flexibility, and metacognition. Frontiers in Psychology, 13, 1078111. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.1078111

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15(5), 265-268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8721.2006.00449.x

Moffett, L., Moll, H., & FitzGibbon, L. (2017). Future planning in preschool children. Developmental Psychology, 54(5), 866-874. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000484

Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133-144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318

Rowe, M. B., Mazzotti, V. L., Ingram, A., & Lee, S. (2017). Effects of goal-setting instruction on academic engagement for students at risk. Career Development and Transition for Exceptional Individuals, 40(1), 25-35. https://doi.org/10.1177/2165143416678175

Schultz, W., Dayan, P., & Montague, P. R. (1997). A neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science, 275(5306), 1593-1599. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.275.5306.1593

Sharot, T. (2011). The optimism bias. Current Biology, 21(23), R941-R945. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2011.10.030

Xia, M., Poorthuis, A. M. G., & Thomaes, S. (2023). Children's overestimation of performance across age, task, and historical time: A meta-analysis. Child Development, 95(4), 1001-1022. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.14094