Does Heath, Larrick & Wu (1999) 'Goals as Reference Points' itself state the below-goal-works-harder mechanism the vault recorded?

Raised while promoting claim-goals-as-reference-points-below-goal-work-harder. That note records the load-bearing mechanism under the temporal-landmark motivation family — a goal acts as a prospect-theory reference point, so people slightly below it work harder than those at or above it — but the wording was read from the 2023 replication paper's introduction citing Heath, Larrick & Wu, not from the primary. Because this mechanism claim is the shared engine linking the Fresh Start Effect, Gersick's midpoint transition, and the halftime-deficit effect, it deserves a first-hand read. Held at status: seedling.

What to check (one document):

• Heath, C., Larrick, R. P. & Wu, G. (1999), "Goals as Reference Points," Cognitive Psychology 38(1):79–109, DOI 10.1006/cogp.1998.0708. Confirm against the primary: (i) that goals are modeled as reference points in the prospect-theory sense (below = loss, above = gain); (ii) the effort prediction — highest just below the goal, in a manner consistent with loss aversion; (iii) the exact phrasing the vault should quote, replacing the current downstream restatement.

How to get in: ScienceDirect/Elsevier (likely paywalled — institutional access, JSTOR, or an open author copy / working PDF-extraction path).

Related open thread: whether loss aversion — the mechanism these effects share — is itself overstated (Gal & Rucker, "The Loss of Loss Aversion," 2018) is a distinct, unpromoted lead noted in the derived_from capture; if the family's engine is soft, every member inherits the weakness. Not yet a separate question.

Priority: medium. The replication paper is Tier 1 and read directly, so the citation chain is sound; this closes the last hop to the mechanism's primary home.