164 ADOLPH E. CHRIST, ALBERT s. CARLIN, CLYDETTE WEAVER, AND CHARLES EAST

This paper has described techniques which can be utilized to change behavior and promote conceptual growth of seriously disturbed children. One of these allows a successful use of 1 :14 staff :patient ratio by being designed to maximize communi- cation of explicit expectations which spells out appropriate behavior for the child. We feel this is an approach which raises some alternative techniques to changing behavior from the more traditional conditioning or psychoanalytic models.

Though we have spoken about positive and negative sanctions, we have not stated when which is applied. We have purposefully omitted this because mechanical application of positive and negative sanctions cannot be adhered to in a slavish manner. Rather, it is the result of the nurse’s sensitivity and intuitive understanding of each child’s changing needs.

REFERENCES BIRCH, H. G. Brain damage in children. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins, 1964. (See especially Ken-

nedy’s and Eisinberg’s chs.: pp. 23 & 61) CARLIN, A., CHRIST, A., HOGSETT, S., & WILDER, W. Unpublished summer medical student research

project. Universit,y of Washington Medical School, Seattle, Washington, 1965. CHRIST, A., CARLIN, A., KAPROWSKI, G., & MACKAY, S. Nurse-parent group meetings on a psychiatric

day care unit. Presented at research meeting co-sponsored by the Department of Institutions, Division of Mental Health and the University of Washington Department of Psychiatry, Seattle, Washington, October 30, 1965.

CHRIST, A., CRITCHLEY, D., LARSON, M., & BROWN, M. The role of the nurse in child psychiatry. Nursing Outlook, 1965, 13, 30-32.

CHRIST, A., & GRIFFITHS, R. Parent-nurse therapeutic contact on a child psychiatry unit. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 1965,35,589-593.

FLAVELL, J. H. The developmental psychology o f Jean Piaget. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand, 1963. HARVEY, 0. J., HUNT, D. E., & SCHRODER, H. Conceptual systems and personality organization. New

York: Wiley, 1961. HUNT, D. E. A conceptual systems change model and its application to education. Mimeo paper,

Department of Psychology, Syracuse University, 1964. JOYCE, B. R. A manual for coding teacher communications relevant to conceptual systems theory.

Unpublished manuscript, School of Education, University of Chicago, 1963.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE CURRENT THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION FOR RESEARCH AND PERFORMANCE

I N T H E CLASSROOM’ BERNARD WEINER

University of California, Los Angeles

Psychologists have devoted considerable attention to the study of achievement motivation. The accumulated empirical knowledge in this area has resulted in theoretical advancements which now make it possible to apply our knowledge to some of the problems in the classroom. The present paper focuses upon the current conceptions of achievement motivation, the data supporting these theories, and some situations where practical applications are feasible.

A THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION AND SELECTED VALIDATING EVIDENCE Atkinson (195’7) postulates that achievement-oriented behavior is a resultant

of an approach-avoidance conflict situation. When the tendency to approach suc- ‘This paper was in part supported by a grant from the Graduate School of the University of

California, Los Angeles.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE CURRENT THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 165

cess is greater than the tendency to avoid failure, subjects will undertake achieve- ment-related activities. Conversely, when the tendency to avoid failure is greater than the tendency to approach success, subjects will be inhibited in their choice of achievement tasks. They may instigate achievement behaviors if other motivations extrinsic to achievement per se (e.g., monetary, affiliative) are introduced. The strength of the approach and avoidance tendencies is in part determined by in- dividual differences in the motive to approach success (Ms) and the motive to avoid failure (MAF). The motive to approach success is known as the need for achieve- ment (n Ach), while the motive to avoid failure represents a disposition to become anxious in achievement-oriented situations. The strength of the approach and avoidance tendencies also is a function of properties of the environment. The en- vironmental determinants of behavior in Atkinson’s 1957 model include the in- centive value of success (Is) and failure (If), and the probability of succeeding(Ps) or failing (Pf) at an activity. To capture the notion that more pride is experienced when succeeding at a difficult than easy task, Is is conceptualized as l-Ps. Similarly, to capture the idea that more shame is experienced when failing at an easy than difficult task, If is conceptualized as l-Pf. It is assumed that Ps + Pf = 1. There- fore, the value of Ps + Is and Pf + If are identical and equal to 1. The strength of the tendency to undertake achievement-oriented activities (TA) is conceptualized as:

T A = Ms X PS X IS - (MAF X Pf X If).

The model indicates that when MS > MAF, T A is positive. Conversely, T A

is negative when MAF > MS. The motive to approach success generally is opera- tionally determined by scoring Thematic Apperception protocols according to a reliable method of content analysis devised by McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, and Lowell (1953). The motive to avoid failure usually is operationally defined as the score on a verbal-report measure of situationally aroused test anxiety (the Test Anxiety Questionnaire, Mandler & Sarason, 1952). By converting scores on both these measures to 2 scores and subtracting the 2 score representing MA* from the 2 score representing Ms an individual may attain a positive or negative resultant achievement motivation score.

The model has received strong empirical support from a number of investiga- tions. Atkinson (1953) and Weiner and Rosenbaum (1965) report evidence that subjects considered to be high in resultant achievement motivation (Ms > MAF) are more likely to voluntarily undertake achievement activities than subjects low in resultant achievement motivation (MAF > Ms). Further, subjects high in n Ach tend to choose experts rather than friends as work partners (French, 1956), recall more incompleted than completed tasks in test-like situations (Atkinson, 1953; Weiner, 1966b) and persist longer at an insoluble puzzle task than subjects low in n Ach (French & Thomas, 1958).

The main derivations of Atkinson’s 1957 model concern risk-preference. The derivations logically follow from the mathematical constraints imposed on the en- vironmental sources of motivation. Because incentive and probability are recipro- cally related, the maximum absolute value for incentive X probability occurs when Ps = .50. In that condition Ps x Is = .25; for any other Ps value the product of incentive x probability must be below that numerical value. When Ms > MAF motivation is most aroused, or T A is maximal, when Ps = .50. Among subjects in

166 BERNARD WEINER

whom MAF > Ms, T A is most negative (inhibitory) when Ps = .50. Therefore, the model specifies that subjects in whom Ms > M A F are most attracted to tasks of intermediate difficulty (Ps = .50), while subjects in whom MAF > Ms are most attracted to (least inhibited by) tasks which are very easy or very difficult. It is intuitively reasonable for highly anxious subjects to select very easy or very difficult tasks. They can rationalize failing a t a difficult task, since few are expected to suc- ceed, and in fact do not fail a t a very easy task. The differential task preference pre- dicted by the theory has been substantiated in a number of studies (e.g., Atkinson & Litwin, 1960; McClelland, 1958; Mahone, 1960; Moulton, 1965; Weiner, 1965b).

RELEVANT STUDIES EMPLOYING SUCCESS AND FAILURE EXPERIENCES There is an increasing quantity of data which indicates that the effects of suc-

cess or failure a t a task interact with individual differences in resultant achievement motivation. Failure generally dampens the subsequent performance of subjects low in resultant achievement motivation, while success seems to enhance the per- formance of these individuals. On the other hand, prior failure facilitates the future performance of subjects high in resultant achievement motivation, while these individuals exhibit performance decrements after success experiences.

Evidence for this interaction has been obtained with a multiplicity of behavioral indices. Lucas (1952) found that subjects high in anxiety display decrements in their memory of consonant syllables following failure; subjects low in anxiety, how- ever, increase their retention scores following failure. Weiner (1966a), employing a paired-associates task, demonstrated that subjects in whom Ms > MAF learn an easy task faster than subjects in whom M A F > Ms when the groups are given false norms which indicate that they are failing. Conversely, when false norms convey to the subjects that they are succeeding, subjects in whom MA^ > MS learn a difficult task faster than subjects in whom Ms > MAF.

Studies employing intensity of performance as the dependent variable rather than retention or learning also provide empirical support for the proposed inter- action. Analysis of performance at simple tasks leads Mandler and Sarason (1952) to conclude that the optimal condition for a low anxiety group is one in which sub- jects are given a failure report. Katchmar, Ross and Andrews (1959) found that the performance of highly anxious subjects decreases following reported failure, while performance of a group low in anxiety increases in that condition. Experiments with schizophrenic subjects, who are generally considered to be highly anxious, reveal the same findings. Rodnick and Garmezy (1957) report great decrements in the level of performance of schizophrenic patients following failure, and Olsen (1958) found that success enhances the performance of schizophrenic patients more than does failure.

Recent studies utilizing two other behavioral indices have produced a similar pattern of results. Weiner (1965a) found that subjects low in n Ach resume pre- viously interrupted tasks following an interpolated success experience, while sub- jects high in n Ach tend not to resume previously interrupted tasks after an inter- vening success. Finally, Rlischel and Staub (1965) provide evidence that subjects with a low generalized expectancy of success are especially willing to delay gratifica- tion following success feedback as compared to a condition in which there is prior failure.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE CURRENT THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 167

A RAPPROCHEMENT OF THEORY AND EMPIIEICAL EVIDENCE The findings of the investigations cited abovc have important implications for

the model of achievement-oriented behavior prescrited by Atltinson. Atkinson’s model specifies the conditions in which individuals high or low in resultant achieve- ment motivation will exhibit increments or decrements in performance level. In- dividuals in whom 11s > 11AF should perform with greater vigor following success a t a difficult task, and after failure a t a task initially perceived as easy. Individuals in whom &IAF > fils should display increments in their level of performance follow- ing success at a task perceivcd as easy, and after failure a t a difficult task. These con- clusions follow logically from the derivation of the model concerning preference of tasks for intermediate difficulty. Because of thesc restrictions, Atkinson has diffi- culty accounting for the generality of the results cited in the previous section. It appears that the model needs change or extension.

An extension of Atkinson’s 1957 model proposed initially by Atkinson (1964) arid modified by Weirier (1965b) helps to overcome some of the inconsistencies be- tween the theory and the data emanating from studies employing success arid failure experiences. The latter modification was guided by Lewiri’s (1935) conception of a system in a permanent tense state, Freud’s (193s) analysis of the persistence of an unfulfilled wish, arid the suggestions by Atkinson (1964) arid Hebb (1949) that an organism is continually active and need not be goaded into action by external stimulation. The modified model includes a component among the determinants of behavior which captures the idea that aroused resultant motivation persists follow- ing nowattainment (failure) of a goal. The tendency to undertake an achievement- related task is conceptualized as having two sources of motivation. One source is attributable to the motivation aroused by the immediate environment; the second source is derived from the persisting, unsatisfied motivation. Following Atkinson (1964), the model is conceptualized as:

T* = nfis x PS x IS - ( ~ 1 ~ ~ x IY x If) + T~~ where T G , rcpresents the persisting tendency to approach or avoid the goal.

The persisting tcndericy is conceptualized as a i~sultant force consisting of both the tendency to approach success and the tendcncy to avoid failure. Among sub- jects in whom &Is > RIAv greater approach than avoidance is aroused when under- taking an achievement-related task. Greater approach than avoidance motivation then persists following failure. Consequently, the persisting motivation will have iristigating properties. These individuals are cxpected to exhibit increments in level of pcrformancc following failure, and to perform better after failure than after succcss. Convcrsely, for subjects in whom h4AF > Ms, greater avoidance than approach achievement-related motivation is aroused by achievement tasks. The persisting motivation following failure is thercfore inhibitory; these individuals are cxpected to show decrements in level of performance following failure arid to perform better following success than after failure. That is, subjects relatively high in anxiety arc expected to be “discouraged” by failure and rclativcly “ericouraged” by success. Subjects relatively high in achievement motivation arc expected to be highly moti- vated following failure and to “relax” after success.

The model spccifies that subjects high in resultant achicvement motivation are most aroused

The revised model has led to a riumhcr of testable predictions.

168 BERNARD WEINER

to achieve success when attempting a task of intermediate difficulty after exper- iencing failure. They are least motivated to perform after experiencing repeated success and attempting a task perceived as easy. Individuals low in resultant achievement motivation are most motivated when undertaking a task perceived as very easy or very difficult after experiencing success. They are most inhibited when attempting a task whose Ps = -50 and they have been subjected to failure ex- periences.

The predictions concerning relative level of motivation when undertaking achievement tasks has been confirmed in three studies conducted by this writer (Weiner, 196513, 1966a, Weiner & Rosenbaum, 1965). These studies employed four different behavioral indicators : speed of learning, intensity of performance, per- sistence of behavior, and task choice. All dependent variables have yielded pre- dictions in accordance with the new conception.

IMPLICATIONS FOR PERFORMANCE AND RESEARCH IN EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS Progrananaed Inslruction

In recent years there has been a tremendous growth in the use of programmed instruction as a learning device. Programmed learning has many advantages: each student may proceed at his own pace, feedback and reinforcement are immediate, the teacher is free for other classroom duties, etc. Most written programs approxi- mate 100% reinforcement schedules. The student is guided step by step from easy to difficult problems; students generally are able to answer correctly the question posed.

The reinforcement schedule which is employed has motivational consequences. Translated into the terms of the achievement model, when reinforcement is 100% the situation is one of repeated success. Hence Ps = 1 and T G i = 0. Given this constellation of forces motivation is maximized for individuals low in resultant achievement motivation. However, when Ps = 1 and T G ~ = 0 motivation is mini- mized for students high in resultant achievement motivation. To maximize achieve- ment motivation these students should repeatedly face a task whose Ps = .50. Given that, task there also will be some failure experiences (TGi < 0). That is, the best program for high achieving students is one in which they correctly answer the questions only one-half of the time.

To investigate the interaction between individual differences and difficulty of a learning program is a relatively straightforward problem. It is hypothesized that when Ms > R/IAF learning will be maximized when the program is one of inter- mediate difficulty. Conversely, when MAF < MS 100% rewarded trials should be the most efficient condition for learning. More generally, the present analysis sug- gests that individual differences in personality structure as well as ability should be incorporated into the quest for the “ideal” program.

Ability Grouping Another trend in education today is to place students of equaliability in the

same classroom. The use of honors programs in our colleges typifies this procedure. The main argument in support of homogeneous ability grouping is that teachers may make their demands congruent with the ability of most of the students. An over- looked aspect of ability grouping is that it changes the student’s perception of his

IMPLICATIONS OF THE CURRENT THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 169

relative capabilities. That is, his Ps is altered. The model for achievement motiva- tion specifies that a change in the magnitude of this determinant of behavior can affect performance.

Weiner (in press) placed students with a high grade point average and high achievement motivation in an honors class. A selected control group of high achiev- ing students remained in a heterogeneous class. Many behavioral indices revealed superior performance of students in the homogeneous ability class. In addition, survey data indicated that these students had a lower Ps than the bright students in the heterogeneous class. Atkinson and O’Connor (1963) previously had tested the effects of ability grouping on school children. They found that children in whom Ms > MAF exhibit performance increments in a homogeneous classroom setting. This was predicted by the theory; when Ps approaches the level of intermediate difficulty achievement-oriented behavior is most aroused among these subjects.

These findings need replication and extension. Motive measures and perform- ance indicators can readily be obtained to study the interaction of individual differ- ences with the characteristics of the classroom.

The Eflects of Grades on Performance Students receive continual feedback concerning the quality of their perform-

ance. This may be conveyed through test scores, grades, verbal praise or criticism, etc. As indicated throughout this paper, these success and failure experiences have motivational consequences. The model states that to maximize performance sub- jects relatively high in anxiety should receive positive feedback, or encouragement. Conversely, subjects relatively high in achievement motivation should receive some negative feedback. This derivation conforms to our common sense intuitions and observations that individuals anxious about their performance generally profit from a positive experience. Conversely, individuals who anticipate success often benefit from a failure experience.

Performance on Exams Atkinson (1953), Green (1963) and Weiner (1966b) have shown that in achieve-

ment-oriented situations subjects considered to be high in achievement motivation exhibit a Zeigarnik Effect. That is, they tend to recall more incompleted than completed tasks. Conversely, in achievement-related situations subjects low in resultant achievement motivation tend to recall more completed than incompleted tasks. Traditionally the Zeigarnik Effect has been interpreted to indicate that there are differential decay rates of the memory traces of incompleted and completed events. However, a recent analysis by Weiner (1966b), which was guided by an in- vestigation by Caron and Wallach (1957), reveals that the Zeigarnik Effect is at- tributable to differential learning rather than differential memory. That is, in achievement situations subjects high in achievement motivation learn the in- completed tasks to a greater extent than the completed tasks. This differential learning must be mediated by differential rehearsal. These subjects tend to repeat the incompleted tasks more than the completed tasks. In the history of the organ- ism such overt or covert repetition has been instrumental to problem-solving. Hence this is an adaptive procedure. The reverse is true for highly anxious subjects. They tend to avoid the incompleted OF failed tasks, and repeat the already succeeded tasks. This maladaptive behavior is predictable from the model which includes

170 BERNARD WEINER

a resultant inertial motivation tendency. That model specified that when IllAF > Ms failure will result in increased avoidance behavior.

Investigations of the Zeigarnik Effect have always occurred in artificial labora- tory situations. One might ask whether students will recall incompleted (failed) or completed (succeeded) items after an actual exam. The data would lead one to expect that when hIS > MAF there will be greater retention of the incompleted items, and when XIAF > n/ls there will be greater retention of the completed items. Such a finding would indicate that high achievement motivation subjects attempt to solve incompleted items more than subjects low in resuItant achievement motivation. This could account for the differential performance and grade point average (Cox, 1962; AlcClelland, et al., 1953) which has been exhibited by the two groups.

The above analysis leads to a number of hypotheses and research investigations. First, if achievement-oriented subjects are more likely to remember incompleted items, then they should be likely to underestimate their actual performance morr than low resultant achievement motivation subjects. Fiirther, if the differential retention and performance is a function of differential rehearsal, then an altered examination format might minimize these observed differences. For example, an exam in which students were not allowed to return to previous items would not make perseveration instrumental to good performance. This analysis also leads to the general problem of what is a “fair” exam, and how personality variables interact with the type of testing device to influence the level of performance. The Underachiever

The underachiever is one who is performing below his level of ability. Often underachievement is accompanied by emotional disturbance and behavioral prob- lems. However, for many individuals underachievement is characterized by a read- ing disability or other problems which do not describe the neurotic or psychotic person. That is, in many instances underachievement appears to be a motivational rather than an emotional or intellectual deficit.

We need basic descriptive data concerning the behavior of this population. Individuals who are labelled as low in resultant achievement motivation do not voluntarily undertake achievement-related activities, tend to choose easy or difficult tasks, persist a t easy tasks, exhibit performance decrements after failure, etc. If these behaviors also characterize underachievers, then the model suggests methods to increase the motivation of these students. In a recent article McClelland (1965) states: “Rather then developing ‘all purpose’ treatments, good for any person and any purpose, i t (psychotherapy) should aim to develop specific treatments or educa- tional programs built on laboriously accumulated detailed knowledge of the char- acteristic to be changed” (p. 333).

The first step in such a treatment program would be to describe the behavior of students who are labelled as underachievers. A battery of tests tapping behaviors which have been observed in the laboratory should be administered, e.g., recall of interrupted and completed tasks, risk-preference, etc. Then individuals who behave as prototype low achievers could be selected for more intensive work. The program might primarily consist of success experiences a t achievement-oriented tasks,. and subsequent manipulation of the Ps of those tasks. Perhaps some of the current positive reinforcement techniques championed by behavior thcrapists rould aid i n this endeavor.

IMPLICATIONS OF THE CURRENT THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 171

REFERENCES ATKINSON, J. W. The achievement motive and recall of interrupted and completed tasks. Journal

of Experimental Psychology, 1953, 46, 381-390. ATKINSON, J. W. Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 1957, 64,

359-372. ATKINSON, J. W. An introduction to motivation. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand, 1964. ATKINSON, J. W., & LITWIN, G. H. Achievement motive and test anxiety conceived as motive to

approach success and motive to avoid failure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960,

ATKINSON, J. W., & O’CONNOR, PATRICIA. Effects of ability grouping in schools related to individual differences in achievement-related motivat.ion. Office of Education Cooperative Research Pro- gram, Project 1283, University of Michigan, 1963.

CARON, A. J., & WALLACH. M. A. Recall of interrupted tasks under stress: A phenomenon of memory or learning? Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1957,55, 372-381.

Cox, F. N. An assessment of the achievement behavior system in children. Child Development, 1962,

FRENCH, ELI’ABETH G. Motivation as a variable in work-partner selection. Journal of Abnormal and

FRENCH, ELIZABETH G., & THOMAS, F. H. The relation of achievement motivation to problem-solving

FREUD, S. The basic writings of. . . . New York: Random House, 1938.

60, 52-63.

SS, 907-916.

Social Psychotogy, 1956, 53, 96-99.

effectiveness. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1958,56, 46-48.

GREEN, D. R. Volunteering and the recall of interrupted tasks. Journal of Abnormal and Social Ps?/chology, 1963, 66, 397-401.

HEBB, D. 0. -‘?he organization of behavior. New York: Wiley, 1949. KATCHMAR, L. T., Ross, S., & ANDREWS, T. G. Effects of stress and anxiety on performance of a

LEWIN, K. The conceptual representation and measurement of psychological forces. Durham, North

LUCAS, J. D. The interactive effects of anxiety, failure and interserial duplication. American Journal

MAHONE, c. H. Fear of failure and unrealistic vocational aspiration. Journal of Abnormal and Social

MANDLER, G., & SARASON, S. B. A study of anxiety and learning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1952, 47, 166173.

MCCLELLAND, D. C. Risk taking in children with high and low need for achievement. In J. W. Atkin- son (Ed.), Motives in fantasy, action, and society. Princeton: D. Van Nostrand, 1958. Pp. 306321.

MCCLELLAND, D. C. Toward a theory of motive acquisition. Amerzcan Psychologist, 1965, 80, 321- 333.

MCCLELLAND, D. C., ATKINSON, J. W., CLARK, R. A., & LOWELL, E. L. The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1953.

MISCHEL, W., & STAUB, E. Effects of expectancy on working and waiting for larger rewards. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1965, 8, 625633.

MOULTON, R. W. Effects of success and failure in level of aspiration as related t o achievement motives. Journal of Persmality and social Psychology, 1965,1,399-406.

OLSEN, G. W. Failure and the subsequent performance of schizophrenics. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1958,57,310-314.

RODNICK, E. H., & GARMEZY, W. An experimental approach to the study of motivation in schizo- phrenia. I n M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1957. Pp. 109-184.

WEINER, B. Need achievement and the resumption of incompleted tasks. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1965, 1, 165-168. (a)

WEINER, B. The effects of unsatisfied achievement motivation on persistence and subsequent per- formance. Journal of Personality, 1965, 33, 428-442. @)

WEINER, B. The role of success and failure in the learning of easy and complex tasks. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 3, 339-343. (a)

WEINER, B. Achievement motivation and task recall in competitive situations. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 1966,3, 693-696. @)

WEINER, B. The effects of motivation on the availability and retrieval of memory traces. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 1966, 65, 2437. (c)

WEINER, B. An honors course in introductory psychology. Journal of Educational Research, in press. WEINER, B., & ROSENBAUM, R. M. Determinants of choice between achievement and nonachieve-

complex verbal-coding task. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1958, 55, 559-563.

Carolina: Duke University Press, 1938.

Of Psychology, 1952, 55, 59-66.

Psychology, 1960, 60, 253-261.

ment-related tasks. Journal of Experimental Research in Personality, 1965, 1, 114-122.