Predictors and Consequences of Achievement Goals in the ...€¦ · compasses the desire to work hard, seek challenge, attain inter- nal standards, and outperform others across situations

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 1997 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 1997, Vol. 73, No. 6, 1284-1295 0022-3514/97/$3.00

Predictors and Consequences of Achievement Goals in the College Classroom: Maintaining Interest and Making the Grade

Judith M. Harackiewicz, Kenneth E. Barron, Suzanne M. Carter, and Alan T. Lehto

University of Wiscons in- -Madison

Andrew J. Elliot University of Rochester

The authors investigated personality predictors of achievement goals in an introductory psychology class, as well as the consequences of these goals for the motivation and performance of 311 undergrad- uates. Two dimensions of achievement motivation (workmastery and competitive orientations; J. T. Spence & R. L. Helmreich, 1983) predicted the goals endorsed. Individuals high in workmastery were more likely to adopt mastery goals and less likely to adopt work avoidance goals, whereas competitive individuals were more likely to endorse performance and work avoidance goals. Students adopting mastery goals were more interested in the class, but students adopting performance goals achieved higher levels of performance. These results suggest that both mastery and performance goals can lead to important positive outcomes in college classes.

Each semester as students decide whether to enroll in a particular class, those of us lurking in the halls hear students asking each other the following questions: "How much will I learn in this class?," " H o w did you do in this course?," and " H o w much work is required for this course?" These questions illustrate the issues that are important to college students in academic achievement situations and provide insight into the types of goals they might adopt for a particular course. Achievement goals are situationally specific orientations that represent the desire to develop, attain, or demonstrate competence in a particular context (Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1984, 1989), and they can affect the way that students approach and perform their coursework (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Maehr & Braskamp, 1986). Although theoretical perspectives and labels differ, there is an emerging consensus that two primary types of achievement goals are important determinants of motivation and performance (Ames & Archer, 1988): Mastery goals concern the desire to develop competence (e.g., " I want to learn as much as I can about psychology this semester" ), whereas performance goals concern demonstrating competence relative to others (e.g., " I want to be the best student in my class this semester" ).l

Many theorists endorse a multiple goals perspective and dis- cuss the ways in which individuals might sequentially or simulta- neously integrate and pursue mastery and performance goals

(Harackiewicz & Sansone, 1991; Maehr, 1983; Pintrich & Gar- cia, 1991; Veroff, 1969; Wentzel, 1.991). Indeed, striving to outperform others is not necessarily inconsistent with trying to attain task mastery, and adopting both goals might enhance flexibility in achieving different academic outcomes. For example, mastery goals may foster task involvement and help students maintain interest in a class, whereas performance goals may motivate students to remain focused on what they have to learn to perform well, and thus help them attain higher grades. Ac- cording to a multiple goals perspective, then, mastery and performance goal orientations are independent motivational dimensions that represent different types of positive strivings toward achievement (Nicholls, 1984).

However, not all students are positively motivated in the college classroom, and several theorists have identified a third type of achievement goal orientation: work avoidance (Brophy, 1983; Duda & Nicholls, 1992). Students who endorse work avoidance goals are motivated to complete their work with minimal effort, and research indicates that work avoidance goals have detrimental effects on motivation and performance (Archer, 1994; Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988; Nicholls, Patashnick, & Nolen, 1985; Nolen, 1988). The present research was designed to further the understanding of the personality predictors of the multiple goals that students pursue in college classes, and the consequences of these goals for important classroom outcomes.

Judith M. Harackiewicz, Kenneth E. Barton, Suzanne M. Carter, and Alan T. Lehto, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin-- Madison; Andrew J. Elliot, Department of Psychology, University of Rochester.

This research was supported by a grant from the Vilas Associates Program, University of Wisconsin. We thank Krisie Augustine and Ro- berta Deppe for their help in collecting and coding these data, and Carol Sansone and Randy Young for their helpful comments on drafts of this article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Judith M. Harackiewicz, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin, 1202 West Johnson Street, Madison, Wisconsin 53706. Electronic mail may be sent via the Internet to [email protected].

I O t h e r theorists have labeled mastery goals as learning or task involvement goals (e.g., Dweck, 1986, and Nicholls, Patashnick, & Nolen, 1985) and performance goals as ego incentives or ego involvement goals (Maehr & Braskamp, 1986; Nicholls et al., 1985). Some achievement goal formulations implicitly assume that students adopt mastery or performance goals to the exclusion of the other (cf. Meece & Holt, 1993), but in previous correlational studies, some researchers have found mastery and performance goal measures to be essentially uncorrelated (e.g., Ames & Archer, 1988; Nicholls, Cheung, Lauer, & Patashnick, 1989), and others report small positive correlations between them (e.g., Archer, 1994; Meece et al., 1988; Nolen, 1988).

1284

ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 1285

Personality Predictors of Achievement Goals

Situational factors can affect the goals that students adopt in their classes, and researchers have identified a number of classroom structure variables, such as the design of educational tasks, instructional style, and evaluation practices that influence achievement goals (cf. Ames, 1992). Within a given classroom structure, however, students may vary in the extent to which they adopt achievement goals. The first goal of the current research was to examine personality predictors of goal adoption in a specific classroom context by exploring the effects of individual differences in achievement motivation. Theorists have historically conceptualized achievement motivation as a unidi- mensional motive to strive for performance excellence that en- compasses the desire to work hard, seek challenge, attain inter- nal standards, and outperform others across situations (Atkin- son, 1957; McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953; Murray, 1938). According to this formulation, achievement oriented individuals should endorse both mastery and performance goals in classroom settings, and reject work avoidance goals.

In a more recent formulation of achievement motivation, however, Spence and Helmreich (1983) have developed a two-dimensional measure that should afford greater precision in predicting which types of achievement goals students adopt in a particular classroom setting. They identified three components of achievement motivation: work, mastery, and competitiveness. The work (the desire to work hard and do a good job) and mastery (the preference for difficult, challenging tasks and for meeting internally prescribed standards of excellence) components are highly correlated and typically combined into a single "workmastery" orientation. This is contrasted with the competitive component (the enjoyment of interpersonal competition and the desire to win and be better than others), resulting in a two-dimensional model of achievement motivation. Spence, Helmreich, and colleagues have demonstrated that these two types of positive achievement strivings have different effects on achievement outcomes such as college GPAs and citation rates for scientists, indicating the importance of separating the two components of achievement motivation (Helmreich, Beane, Lucker, & Spence, 1978; Helmreich, Spence, Beane, Lucker, & Matthews, 1980; Spence & Helmreich, 1983).

The workmastery-competitiveness distinction seems to correspond to the mastery-performance goal distinction, and one might expect a more differentiated pattern of goal adoption as a function of achievement motivation as conceptualized by Spence and Helmreich (1983). Specifically, to the extent that students are workmastery oriented, they may be particularly likely to adopt mastery goals and reject work avoidance goals, whereas students high in competitiveness should be more likely to adopt performance goals.

Consequences of Achievement Goals

The second goal of the current research was to explore two important outcomes in college classes: graded performance and intrinsic interest in the course. Ames (1992) and Blumenfeld (1992) recently reviewed the achievement goal literature and marshalled evidence for the beneficial consequences of mastery goals, relative to performance goals. For example, students who adopt mastery goals choose challenging tasks (Ames & Archer,

1988), become involved in the learning process (Nicholls et al., 1989), and use effective study strategies (Nolen & Hala- dyna, 1990). Complementary evidence suggests that performance goals are associated with surface-level and effort-min- imizing learning strategies and impaired problem solving (El- liot & Dweck, 1988; Graham & Golan, 1991; Meece et al., 1988; Nolen, 1988). However, most of this research has tested relations between single goals and outcome measures. From a multiple goals perspective, it is important to evaluate the simultaneous effects of mastery and performance goals and test whether mastery and performance goals interact in predicting motivation and performance. 2

A few studies have examined the joint and interactive effects of mastery and performance goals on learning strategies and study behaviors. These studies have documented positive effects for mastery goals, but they also reveal some positive effects of performance goals as well (Archer, 1994; Meece et al., 1988; Meece & Holt, 1993; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991 ).3 Even fewer studies have examined the effects of mastery and performance goals on objective measures of performance in the classroom, and the results are mixed, revealing positive, negative and null results. Wentzel (1991) analyzed group differences in grades as a function of goal profiles and found that high school students who endorsed both performance and mastery goals had higher GPAs than students who endorsed only one or neither goal. In contrast, Meece and Holt (1993) found that students who were high in both mastery and performance goals had lower science grades than students high in mastery but low in performance goals. Finally, Pintrich and Garcia (1991) examined correlations of single goals with grades and reported small positive correlations between mastery (r = . 18) and performance (r = .08) goals and grades in a college sample, but neither was significant. These discrepant findings may reflect the analytic strategies used, and it is possible that more powerful multiple regression techniques would reveal a clearer pattern of goal effects on graded performance.

It is also important to note that many of the findings reviewed here have been obtained with elementary and secondary school students. Their classroom experience differs in many important

2 Some researchers have tested the simultaneous effects of mastery and performance goals with multiple regression or structural equation models (Ames & Archer, 1988; Meece et al., 1988); others have classified students as high or low in mastery and performance goals and conducted analyses of group differences (Archer, 1994; Pintrich & Gar- cia, 1991; Wentzel, 1991 ), and still others have classified students on the basis of goal profiles developed through cluster analysis (Meece & Holt, 1993).

3 Meece et al. (1988) found that mastery and performance goals were each independently correlated with active cognitive engagement in mid- dle school classes. Archer (1994) reported a similar pattern of findings. In both cases, the mastery goal effect was much larger in magnitude than the performance goal effect, but both effects were positive and significant. In a college setting, Pintrich and Garcia (1991) found that mastery goals were most clearly linked to deep processing, but they also found a smaller number of positive performance goal effects on learning strategies. Other studies have documented interactive effects of mastery and performance goals (Meece & Holt, 1993). For example, Pintrich and Garcia (1991) found that performance goals promoted the use of metacognitive strategies, particularly when mastery goals were not endorsed.

1286 HARACKIEWICZ, BARRON, CARTER, LEHTO, AND ELLIOT

ways from that of college students, and these differences may affect the role that goals play in the classroom. Specifically, college classes, especially at the introductory level, tend to be large lecture classes, rely heavily on multiple-choice exams, and use normative grading structures (i.e., the infamous " c u r v e " ). In this extremely performance oriented setting, students who adopt performance goals might actually be striving to attain good grades in a manner that is consistent with the classroom context, and a performance goal orientation might therefore be especially facilitative of objective performance in college settings.

In addition to graded performance, another important classroom consequence to consider is intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation concerns the pursuit o f activities for their own sake and reflects interest and involvement in learning (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Lepper & Hodell, 1989; Sansone & Morgan, 1992). Stu- dents should work harder, and pursue further courses in a disci- pline when they find their introductory course material interesting. Because mastery goals promote active cognitive engagement and deep processing of course material (Pintr ich & DeGroot, 1990), they might lead to higher levels of interest even in a performance oriented college class (Archer, 1994; Heyman & Dweck, 1992). We therefore predicted that mastery goals would have more positive effects on intrinsic interest than performance goals, but that performance goals would have more positive effects on graded performance than mastery goals.

T h e P r e s e n t R e s e a r c h

In sum, our primary goals in the present research were to test, first, the relations between individual differences in achievement motivation and the adoption of three different types of achievement goals (mastery, performance, and work avoidance) and, second, the relations between these goals and intrinsic interest and performance. We used a prospective longitudinal design to examine the personality predictors of the goals that students adopted at the beginning of an introductory psychology course as well as the consequences of these goals for their interest and performance, measured at the end of the course.

We also included two additional variables in our study. Al- though we have emphasized the positive, approach component of personality measures of achievement motivation thus far, achievement theorists have long recognized the dual nature of the construct, including both approach and avoidance tendencies (Atkinson, 1974; Covington & Omelich, 1988, 1991 ). We therefore included a measure of test anxiety to examine the effects of negative achievement tendencies at the personality level (cf. Atkinson & Litwin, 1960; Pintrich, 1989; Rothblum, 1990). We also included a measure of perceived competence in the class to examine whether goal effects varied as a function of perceived competence.

M e t h o d

Overview

The study took place over the course of a semester in introductory psychology classes at a large university. The multisession study consisted of five assessment waves. Students' achievement orientation and test anxiety were assessed at the beginning of the semester, and their goals for the class were measured 2 -3 weeks into the semester. A month later,

they were asked to state their goals for the course in their i3wn words. Finally, we measured students' intrinsic interest in the class near the end of the semester and obtained their final grades in the course.

Participants and Setting

The sections of the course from which students were recruited were large lecture classes taught by three instructors (average enrollment of 363 students). The size of the classes and the lecture format necessarily limited opportunities for instructor-student interactions and in-class participation. Students' grades were determined by their performance on multiple-choice exams. Grades were assigned by instructors according to normative curves recommended by the Psychology Department. A sample of 311 introductory psychology students (112 men and 199 women) participated in all five assessment waves. They received extra credit for their participation.

Individual-Differences Wave

Students completed two personality scales as part of a larger survey administered to all students on their second day of class. First, students' achievement orientation was measured with the Work and Family Orien- tation Questionnaire (Spence & Helmreich, 1983), a 19-item questionnaire assessing three dimensions of achievement motivation: mastery ( " I f I am not good at something, I would rather keep struggling to master it than move on to something I may be good at" ), work ( "There is satisfaction in a job well done"), and competitiveness ( " I feel that winning is important in both work and games" ). Students indicated the extent of their agreement with each item on a 5-point scale. The work and mastery scales were highly correlated (r = .51 ) and combined into a single index as recommended by Spence and Helmreich (1983 ), resulting in two measures of achievement orientation: workmastery (a = .80) and competitiveness (c~ = .76). Second, students' test anxiety was measured with the Test Anxiety Scale (TAS; Sarason, 1978 ), a 37- item true-false questionnaire (a = .89). The TAS consists of items dealing with affective, cognitive, and physical reactions before, during, and after taking examinations.

Goals Wave

Two to three weeks into the term, after students had an opportunity to become familiar with the course and their instructor, a 15-item goals questionnaire was administered to 384 students. The questionnaire was designed to assess students' self-reported adoption of mastery, performance, and work avoidance goals in their introductory psychology classes, and items were adapted from Meece ( 1991 ) and Pintrich (Pin- trich & DeGroot, 1990; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991 ). Students were in- structed to consider their attitudes toward learning and performance in their introductory psychology class and to indicate the extent to which they believed each item to be true of them on a 1 (not at all) to 7 (very) scale. Items were written to reflect the content and format of an introductory college-level course. The mastery, performance, and work avoidance goal items appear in Table 1.

Open-Ended Goals Wave

We also provided students with an open-ended format to see if they would spontaneously mention adopting mastery, performance, or work- avoidance goals, or combinations of these goals. A full month after the goals questionnaire was administered, the 311 students who remained in the study were asked to respond in their own words to the question: "What are your personal goals in Psychology 202?"

Interest Wave

Near the end of the semester, but before receiving their final course grades, students' intrinsic interest in the class and perceived competence


were measured. Students were asked to consider their interest in the class and to indicate their agreement with each of seven items on a 1 (strongly disagree ) to 7 (strongly agree) scale. Students also considered how well they were doing in the class and rated their agreement with each of four items. The interest and perceived competence items are presented in Table 2.

Grades Wave

After the conclusion of the semester, students' final course grades were obtained from departmental records. Students could receive one of eight possible grades, based on the university's 4-point scale (A = 4.0, AB = 3.5, B = 3.0, BC = 2.5, C = 2.0, D = 1.0, F = 0.0). The average grade for students in our study was 3.06 (SD = 0.81). The average grade for students in our sample was higher than the average grade for all students enrolled in Introductory Psychology (M = 2.66; N = 1,089). 4

Resu l t s

Scale Construction

Principal-components factor analyses using varimax rotation were performed on the 15-item goals questionnaire to test whether the mastery, performance, and work avoidance goal items conformed to a priori classification, and on the 11 items measured at the interest wave to construct measures of intrinsic interest and perceived competence. For all analyses, scale items loaded at least .50 on the primary factor and below .30 on other factors.

The factor analysis yielded a three-factor solution reflecting our a priori identification of Mastery, Performance, and Work Avoidance factors. The eigenvalues for the Mastery, Perfor- mance, and Work Avoidance factors were 4.27, 2.50, and 1.37, respectively. Cronbach alphas reached acceptable levels for both the 7-item mastery ( a = .83) and 6-item performance scales

Table 1 Mastery, Performance, and Work Avoidance Items

Mastery goals

1. My goal in this class is to learn as much as I can about psychology.

2. Understanding psychology is important to me. 3. I want to learn as much as possible. 4. I like it best when something I learn makes me want to find out

more. 5. I want to feel involved in the process of learning. 6. I think what I will learn in Psychology 202 will be useful for me

to know. 7. The best way to succeed in this class is to learn a lot.

Performance goals

1. My goal in this class is to get a good grade. 2. It is important for me to do better than other students. 3. It is important for me to do well compared to others in this class. 4. It is most important for me to get a good grade in this class. 5. I want others to think I am smart. 6. The best way to succeed in this class is to get a good grade.

Work avoidance goals

I want to do as little work as possible. I like my classes best when tests are easy.

Table 2 Interest and Perceived Competence Items

Interest

1. I am enjoying this psychology class very much. 2. I don't like the lectures very much. (reversed) 3. I enjoy the lectures because they really make me think. 4. The lectures in this class really seem to drag on forever.

(reversed) 5. I really like my professor. 6. I think what we are learning in this class is boring. (reversed) 7. I enjoy the lectures for their own sake.

Perceived competence

1. I think I am doing very well in this class. 2. I am satisfied with my performance so far in this class. 3. I am worried about my grade in this class. (reversed) 4. I am doing poorly in this class. (reversed)

(~x = .78). The 2-item work avoidance measure was not as internally consistent ( a = .49), but the scale was retained for consistency with previous research (Archer, 1994; Meece et al., 1988). Factor analyses on the interest wave items yielded two factors, one containing the seven interest items (eigenvalue = 4.27; ~x = .85), and one containing the four perceived competence items (eigenvalue = 2.42; cz = .87).

Open-Ended Goal Statements

Students' responses to the open-ended goals question were coded for the presence of mastery, performance, or work avoidance goals, or combinations of these goals. Mastery responses dealt with developing skill and understanding for its own sake (e.g., "To get a better understanding of psycho logy") . Perfor- mance responses focused on normative success, such as getting good grades in the class (e.g., " A n A as a final grade"). . We also coded for the presence of an external orientation. Externally oriented responses focused on concerns that were clearly unre- lated to the course material, such as the fulfillment of graduation requirements (e.g., "To satisfy my social sciences credi ts" ), or maintaining a scholarship (e.g., " I want to take the class and do well in it so I can keep my scholarship. I don ' t care what I learn.") . Although there were elements of work avoidance in some external statements, no student gave a purely work-avoid- ant response, and the external category label seemed more ap- propriate for these responses. A number of open-ended responses included combinations of motivational elements, particularly the combination of mastery and performance goals (e.g., "To review some of the principles of how the mind works and to beef up my GPA" ).

The open-ended data were scored independently by two coders. Each student 's response received one code that character-

4 The distribution of grades was as follows: A: 33.4%, AB: 4.5%, B: 27.3%, BC: 13.5%, C: 19.3%, D: 1.9%, F: 0.0%. Comparison with the grade distribution from the overall class suggests that our sample included a higher percentage of "A" students, and a smaller percentage of ~'C" students than would be found in the overall class (distribution for all students, A: 17.6%, AB: 7.8%, B: 24.3%, BC: 12.4%, C: 29.0%, D: 7.6%, and F: 1.4%).


ized his or her response, either in terms of a single type of goal, or as a combination of goals. Sixty percent of the students answered the open-ended question with a single goal response, 38% listed more than one type of goal, and 2% failed to respond to the question. Intercoder reliability was high (96% agreement), and any disagreements between coders were resolved by discussion. Table 3 shows the distribution of responses according to these coding criteria. These data indicate that a size- able percentage of students (32%) spontaneously mentioned both performance and mastery goals when asked to state their goals in their own words, and that very few students (7%) were exclusively performance oriented in their goal statements.

Attrition Analyses

A total of 311 students participated in all five assessment waves (individual differences, goals, open-ended goals, interest, and grades waves). Another group of students (n = 53) completed the individual-differences and goals waves but dropped out of the study (but not the course) prior to the open-ended goals wave ( "s tudy drops" ) . A third group of students (n = 20) completed the first two waves but then dropped the course ( "course d rops" ) . Thus, we were able to compare study and course drops to our sample on variables measured in the first two assessments. Additionally, we were able to compare study drops with our sample participants on final grades in the course. Although study drops were found to have significantly lower final course grades (M = 2.12) than those who stayed with the study (M = 3.06), t (362) = 6.97, p < .001, no significant differences emerged between students in our sample, study drops, and course drops in achievement orientation, test anxiety, or goals adopted.

Descriptive and Correlational Analyses

The means, standard deviations, and ranges for the variables assessed are reported in Table 4. Mastery goals were the most likely to be adopted by students (M = 5.91 ), followed by performance goals (M = 5.40) and work avoidance goals (M = 4.10). Zero-order intercorrelations are reported in Table 5.

Gender differences. Many researchers have found gender differences in achievement motivation, goals, and classroom performance (cf. Meece & Holt, 1993; Spence & Helmreich, 1983 ), and we therefore tested for gender effects in all analyses. To compare initial differences between male and female students

Table 3 Frequency Distribution of Open-Ended Goal Statements

Goal statement n

Mastery goal 162 Performance goal 22 External motivation 3 External and mastery 9 External and performance 12 Mastery and performance 94 External, mastery, and performance 4 Left blank 5

Total 311

Table 4 Descriptive Statistics for Individual Differences, Goals, and Outcome Variables

Variable Range M SD

Workmastery 14-70 51.74 6.66 Competitiveness 5-25 17.78 3.63 Test anxiety 0-37 19.32 7.60 Performance goals 1-7 5.40 0.94 Mastery goals 1-7 5.91 0.74 Work avoidance goals 1-7 4.10 1.16 Interest 1-7 4.59 1.03 Perceived competence 1-7 3.67 1.53 Final grade 0 -4 3.06 0.81

No~. N = 311.

in the individual-differences wave, a series of t tests was conducted. Male students were found to be more competitive (M = 18.87) than female students (M = 17.16), t (309) = 4.08, p < .001, whereas female students reported more test anxiety (M = 20.42) than males (M = 17.36), t (309) = 3.47, p < .01. No other gender differences in individual-differences wave measures were significant. Gender differences in the goals, interest, and grade waves are addressed in the regression analyses that follow.

Instructor differences. Although the structure, content, and grading distributions of the three class sections were comparable, we tested for instructor differences in all variables. There were no significant instructor differences in the individual-differences or goals wave variables. However, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed significant differences in interest between sections (M = 4.82, M = 4.62, and M = 4.26, respectively), F (2 , 308) = 6.66, p < .01. In addition, students' final grades differed across the three sections (M = 2.88, M = 3.26, and M = 2.88, respectively), F (2 , 308) = 9.25, p < .001. Because we found significant instructor differences on interest and graded performance, we constructed a pair of orthogonal contrast codes (Cohen & Cohen, 1983) to test and control for differences among the three instructors in all subsequent analyses.

Regression Analyses

We conducted a series of multiple regression analyses to examine the effects of individual differences on goals adopted in the classroom, and the subsequent effects of these goal variables on intrinsic interest in the class and graded performance. This data analytic strategy allowed us to retain the continuous nature of the variables and to test the independent effects of each personality and goal variable as well as the interactions between them. Moreover, we generated path models to represent the motivational processes identified through the regression analysis. For the following analyses, all main effect terms were centered, and multiplicative two- and three-way interaction terms were created with these variables (Aiken & West, 1991 ). To interpret significant interaction effects from these analyses, we computed predicted values (](s) for representative groups from the regression equations using the unstandardized b coefficients.

The basic regression model included the main-effect terms

ACHIEVEMENT GOALS

Table 5 Zero-Order Correlations for Individual Differences, Goals, and Outcome Variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1. Workmastery 2. Competitiveness .38** - - 3. Test anxiety -.07 .06 - - 4. Performance goals .16"* .41"* .12 - - 5. Mastery goals .21"* .01 .13 .29** 6. Work avoidance goals -.23** .08 .10 .21"* 7. Interest .04 - .10 .01 .00 8. Perceived competence .11 .06 - .19"* .11 9. Final grade .06 .08 -.18"* .13"

-.10 .20** - .14" - -

-.01 -.12 .25** -.07 -.09 .17"

Note. N = 311. *p < .01. **p < .001.

m

.67**

1289

for the three personality variables (workmastery, competitiveness, and TAS ), gender (coded - 1 for males and 1 for females), their interactions, and the two orthogonal instructor contrast codes. 5 Preliminary analyses revealed that no three-way or higher order interactions were significant on any measures. Thus, the basic model consisted of 12 terms: six main effects and six two-way interactions among the individual-difference variables.

Predictors of Goals

The three goal measures were each regressed independently on the basic model.

Mastery goals. The overall model was significant, F ( 12, 298) = 4.74, p < .001 (R 2 = .16). Main effects for both workmastery, F (1 , 298) = 19.81, p < .001 (~ = .27), and gender, F ( 1 , 2 9 8 ) = 22.17, p < .001 (/3 = .27), were found. Students high in workmastery were more likely to adopt mastery goals, and female students were more likely to adopt mastery goals. No other effects were significant.

Performance goals. The overall model was significant, F(12 , 298) = 7.33, p < .001 (R 2 = .23). A significant main effect was found for competitiveness, F ( 1 , 2 9 8 ) = 50.68, p < .001 (/3 = .42), showing that students high in competitiveness were more likely to adopt performance goals. A significant main effect for gender, F ( 1,298 ) = 6.05, p < .05 (/3 = . 14), indicated that women were more likely to endorse performance goals. No other effects were significant.

Work avoidance goals. The overall model was significant, F(12 , 298) = 3.51, p < .001 (R 2 = .12). A significant main effect for competitiveness, F (1 , 298) = 9.80, p < .01 (/3 = .20), indicated that competitive students were more likely to endorse work avoidance goals. A significant main effect for workmastery F ( 1 , 2 9 8 ) = 25.39,p < .001 (/3 = - .31 ), revealed that students high in workmastery were less likely to endorse work avoidance goals. The two-way interaction between gender and TAS was significant, F ( 1 , 2 9 8 ) = 4.49, p < .05. Women were more likely to report work avoidance goals when they were high in test anxiety (~" = 4.35) than when they were low in test anxiety (~" = 3.86), but men reported comparable levels of work avoidance goals whether high (~" = 4.05) or low (~" = 4.12) in test anxiety. No other effects were significant. A path diagram summarizing the significant achievement orientation effects is shown in Figure 1. 6

Consequences of Goals

To investigate the effects of goals on the outcome variables, interest and final grade were regressed on models that included the goals measures and also controlled for all the effects included in the basic model. Accordingly, the goals model included all terms from the basic model, with the addition of each of the three goal main effects (Mastery, Performance, and Work Avoidance) and three 2-way interactions between the goals. 7 Thus, the 18-term goals model permitted investigation of possible goal effects while controlling for the effects of individual- difference and instructor variables.

Interest. The overall model was significant, F ( 18, 292) = 2.99, p < .001 (R 2 = .16). A main effect was tbund for mastery goals, F ( 1 , 2 9 2 ) = 8.02, p < .01 (/3 = .19), such that students who adopted mastery goals reported higher levels of interest in the class than students who did not endorse mastery goals. Main effects were also found for gender, F ( 1 , 2 9 2 ) = 6.49, p < .05 (13 = .16), and instructor, F ( 1 , 2 9 2 ) = 13.12, p < .001 (/3 = .20). Overall, female students reported enjoying the class more than males, and students of particular instructors also reported enjoying the class more. Neither the main effect of performance goals (/3 = - . 0 2 ) nor the Performance × Mastery Goal interaction (/3 -- .02) was significant, and no other effects were significant.

Final grade. The overall model was significant, F ( 18, 292) = 3.71, p < .001 (R 2 = .19). Main effects were found for both performance goals, F ( 1 , 2 9 2 ) = 9.08, p < .01 (fl = .21), and work avoidance goals, F ( 1 , 2 9 2 ) = 6.02, p < .05 (/3 = - . 15 ). Students who adopted performance goals achieved higher grades in the course than those who did not endorse performance goals, whereas students who adopted work avoidance goals received lower grades than those not endorsing work avoidance goals. Main effects were also revealed for both gender, F ( 1 , 2 9 2 ) = 4.67, p < .05 (fl = .13), and instructor, F ( 1 , 2 9 2 ) = 19.11, p < .001 (/3 = .24). Overall, female students achieved higher

5 Preliminary testing revealed no significant interactions with instructor codes on any measure.

6 For clarity of presentation, the significant TAS and gender effects are not depicted in the path model.

7 Preliminary testing revealed that the three-way goals interaction was not significant. Preliminary testing also revealed that no interactions between personality and goals measures were significant.


grades than males, and students from a particular instructor received higher grades. The main effect of TAS was also significant, F( 1, 292) = 14.95, p < .001 (/3 = - . 2 2 ) . Test-anxious students received lower grades than non-test-anxious students. This effect was qualified by a significant interaction between TAS and competitiveness, F( 1, 292) = 4.96, p < .05. Test- anxious students were especially likely to receive lower grades if they were also low in competitiveness (/3 for the TAS effect = - . 2 6 for students low in competitiveness and - . 18 for students high in competitiveness). Predicted values for this effect are shown in Table 6. Neither the main effect of mastery goals (/3 = - . 1 0 ) nor the Performance x Mastery Goal interaction (/3 = .07) was significant, and no other effects were significant. Figure 2 displays a path model illustrating both the predictors and consequences of goals. 8

Effects o f Perceived Competence

Dweck and Leggett (1988) argued that performance goals should have their most detrimental consequences at lower levels of perceived competence (cf. Nicholls, 1989). Specifically, perceptions of competence are hypothesized to moderate the effects of goals such that students who are highly concerned with performance, but doubt their ability, may reveal the most vulnerabil- ity in the face of performance difficulties (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). We therefore conducted analyses to test whether the effects of performance goals were moderated by perceived competence in the present study. However, it is important to note that our measure of perceived competence is not ideally suited to test the specific Dweck and Leggett prediction. Those authors typically assessed students' perceptions of their ability at the outset of task engagement, whereas our measure was taken later in the semester when students had already received some performance feedback in the course. These two measures assess different aspects of perceived competence, and they may not moderate goal effects in the same way.

We regressed interest and final grade on a model that included

J Individual j ~ Goals J Differences .- Adopted

.~7 7 Workmastery ~ ~1

orientation

Mastery goal

Work avoid. goal

.2O J C o m p e t l t l v e ~ 4~ ~ Performance orientation . . . . goal

Figure 1. Path model of personality predictors of mastery, performance, and work avoidance (avoid.) goals. All paths represented are significant (p < .05), and path coefficients are standardized regression coefficients.

Table 6 Predicted Values for Final Grades as a Function o f Test Anxiety and Competitiveness

Competitiveness

Test anxiety Low High

Low 3.24 3.08 High 2.66 2.96

Note. Predicted values were computed using representative high (1 SD above the mean) and low (1 SD below the mean) values on each continuous variable.

perceived competence and its interactions with the goals measures. Specifically, we added the main effect of perceived competence and three 2-way interactions between perceived competence and mastery, performance, and work avoidance goals to the goals model tested earlier. On interest, the overall model was significant, F(22, 288) = 3.78, p < .001. The main effect of perceived competence was significant, indicating that students who felt they were doing better in the class reported higher levels of intrinsic interest, F ( 1 , 2 8 8 ) = 17.07, p < .001 (/3 = .24). This effect was qualified by a significant interaction with performance goals, F(1 , 288) = 4.57, p < .05 (/3 = - . 1 3 ) . This interaction showed that performance oriented students who thought they were doing well reported lower levels of interest than those who thought they were doing more poorly. This puz- zling result indicates a negative effect of performance goals at high, but not low, levels of perceived competence, and suggests that students who were concerned about doing well relative to others and were successful in this regard may have become bored with the class. The three effects that were significant in the goals model reported earlier (gender, instructor, and mastery goals) remained significant.

On final grade, the overall model was significant, F(22, 288) = 14.18, p < .001. The main effect of perceived competence was significant, showing that students who perceived themselves as performing well in the class actually obtained higher grades in it, F ( 1 , 2 8 8 ) = 191.74, p < .001 (/3 = .62). However, there were no significant interactions between perceived competence and goals. Several of the effects that had been significant in the goals model reported earlier were no longer significant in this model (the main effects of work avoidance and TAS, and the TAS x Competitiveness interaction), but the main effects of gender, instructor, and performance goals remained significant. No other effects were significant. In sum, this series of analyses indicates that although our measure of perceived competence was highly correlated with both interest and performance, including it in each model did not alter the pattern or significance of the goal effects documented earlier. In future research, it will be important to assess perceived competence both at the beginning of and during a course, and test whether either type of measure moderates the effects of goals.

More generally, our failure to detect any negative effects of performance goals on interest or performance may reflect the

8 For clarity of presentation, the significant gender and instructor effects are not depicted in the path model.


Individual Differences t .-~"

Goals Adopted t , -

Classroom Outcomes

Mastery .27 ~ goal

Workmastery < orlentatlon

-.31 ~ Work avoid. goal

J9 ~ Interest

-,1§

J Performance ,._ Final Competitive 42 =L ~ .21 orientation " "- goal v grade

Test anxiet~

Figure 2. Path model of predictors and correlates of mastery, performance, and work avoidance (avoid.) goals. All paths represented are significant (p < .05), and path coefficients are standardized regression coefficients. The path from test anxiety to final grade represents a significant main effect of the Test Anxiety Scale (/3 = - .22) qualified by a significant interaction with competitiveness. Accordingly, we estimated the test anxiety beta separately for individuals high (Hi) and low (Lo) in competitiveness.

difficulty of the course; specifically, it is possible that this introductory psychology course failed to challenge students or pose serious performance difficulties. If this is a fair characterization of the course, we should not expect to find detrimental effects of performance goals on interest or performance, according to Dweck and Leggett (1988). However, we doubt that either the students enrolled in this course or the course instructors would agree with this characterization. The majority of students in this study (77%) failed to received an A in the course, and the overall range of final grades received suggests that many students did experience performance difficulties throughout the semester. Moreover, the mean for perceived competence (M = 3.67, SD = 1.53) was just above the midpoint of the 7-point scale, sug- gesting that many students were dissatisfied with their performance in the course. Nonetheless, it will be important in future research to include measures of course difficulty (in terms of student perceptions, course material, or stringency of grading criteria) and examine the effects of goals in a variety of classes that vary in their objective or subjective difficulty.

Comparisons of Open-Ended and Questionnaire Goals Measures

We conducted one-way ANOVAs on the continuous mastery, performance, and work avoidance goals measures to examine differences among the three groups of students whose open- ended responses were coded as reflecting mastery, performance, or both mastery and performance goals. The groups differed significantly in their endorsement of mastery, performance, and work avoidance goals, F (2 , 275) = 7.42 for mastery goals,

7.29 for performance goals, and 7.34 for work avoidance goals (all p s < .001 ). Group means are presented in Table 7. Notably, students who mentioned only mastery goals or both mastery and performance goals scored higher on the mastery goals measure than did students who mentioned only performance goals in their open-ended statements. In turn, students who mentioned only performance goals or both performance and mastery goals in their open-ended goals statements scored higher on the performance goals measure than did students who mentioned only mastery goals. Finally, students who mentioned only performance goals were higher in work avoidance than students who mentioned both mastery and performance goals or just mastery goals. 9 Thus, the students' own reports of their goals for the class correspond to questionnaire measures and provide validation for the goals measures.

Several researchers have called for the inclusion of alternative procedures for the assessment of students' goals to provide construct validation for the questionnaire measures typically used (Blumenfeld, 1992; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990), and we believe that our approach provides a first step in this direction.

D i scus s ion

We followed college students enrolled in an introductory psychology class through a semester and showed that their chronic

9 Including the 25 students whose open-ended goal statements included external components in conjunction with mastery and/or performance goals in one of the corresponding groups did not change the pattern of means or significance of the group differences.


Table 7 Goal Scales and Outcome Measures as a Function of Open-Ended Goals Classification

Goals classification

Mastery and Goal scales Mastery Performance performance

Mastery goals 6.03 5.42 5.90 Performance goals 5.24 5.68 5.64 Work avoidance goals 4.01 5.00 4.11

personality traits predicted their adoption of mastery, performance, and work avoidance goals. We documented the validity of these goal measures by demonstrating relationships with open-ended reports of goal adoption. We found significant effects of all three achievement goals on students' intrinsic interest and graded performance, measured at the end of the semester. A series of regression analyses testing the joint and interactive effects of these goals found no evidence that the goals interacted in predicting interest and performance. Rather, mastery and performance goals had independent positive effects on interest and performance, respectively, whereas work avoidance goals had a negative effect on performance. We also demonstrated that these effects did not vary as a function of students' perceived competence in the class. In sum, our results contribute to the bur- geoning achievement goals literature by identifying important personality predictors of achievement goals and by documenting the ways in which both mastery and performance goals are associated with motivation and performance in college classes.

Our first goal was to examine personality predictors of achievement goals. Characteristic differences in achievement motivation were associated with the adoption of specific goals in a college classroom, and two distinct patterns of goal adoption emerged. Workmastery oriented students were more likely to adopt mastery goals and less likely to adopt work avoidance goals. In contrast, competitive students were more likely to endorse both performance and work avoidance goals. These results nicely document the precision afforded by Spence and Helm- reich's (1983) two-dimensional approach to the assessment of achievement motivation. Their distinction between the "purer," more intrapersonal aspects of achievement motivation (striving to attain personal standard, seeking challenges, and working hard) and the more interpersonal aspects (striving to beat others and win competitions ) corresponds to the mastery-performance goal distinction at the theoretical level, and our results provide strong empirical support. Furthermore, the fact that competitive students were more likely to adopt work avoidance goals also suggests that their interest in performing well is motivated by extrinsic concerns rather than an intrinsic involvement in the work itself. Such students may be especially likely to use superficial study strategies and do the least amount of work necessary to obtain a good grade. These results indicate that our situationally specific goal measures were quite sensitive to the motives isolated by Spence and Helmreich (1983) and indicate that chronic achievement motives were associated with situationally specific goals adopted in a particular classroom context.

When tested in conjunction with achievement goals, there were no significant direct effects of achievement motivation on

intrinsic interest or performance. Rather, specific achievement goals for the class were the more proximal predictors of intrinsic motivation and performance in this study. In previous work, Spence and Helmreich (1983) have found interactions between the two achievement motives in predicting performance outcomes such as citation rates for scientists, salaries for MBAs, and grades for students, such that competitiveness has negative effects at high levels of workmastery orientation, but positive effects when workmastery is low (Helmreich et al., 1978; Helm- reich et al., 1980). We tested the interaction between workmastery and competitiveness but it was not significant on any of our measures.

One possible reason that Spence and Helmreich ( 1983 ) found significant relationships between achievement motives and grades is that they were predicting outcome measures aggre- gated across a number of courses taken over several semesters (i.e., cumulative GPAs). In contrast, our performance outcome measure was situationally specific--that is, the single grade obtained in a particular course. It is therefore not surprising that the situationally specific goal measures were the better predictors of grades in this study. However, the fact that we were able to link chronic motives to situationally specific goals indicates the theoretical and empirical utility of considering achievement strivings at two levels of specificity: broad, cross-situational motives, as assessed with measures of achievement motivation, and contextually specific goals that influence performance and motivation in particular achievement situations (cf. Harackiewicz & Sansone, 1991; Sansone & Harackiewicz, 1996).

Our results extend previous findings by researchers who identified other personality predictors of achievement goals. For example, Dweck (Dweck, Chiu, & Hong, 1995; Dweck & Leggett, 1988) has argued that individuals' implicit theories of intelli- gence predict mastery versus performance goal adoption. Ni- cholls (1989) and others have found that characteristic individual differences in goal orientations predict the adoption of specific classroom goals (Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Meece et al., 1988; Nicholls et al., 1985; Nolen, 1988). Our findings comple- ment these individual-difference approaches and integrate clas- sic achievement theory with the more contemporary social- cognitive approach to achievement goals.

Our model, with its emphasis on characteristic positive achievement strivings and approach types of achievement goals, was optimally suited for the documentation of positive achievement tendencies in the classroom. We were not able to link negative achievement tendencies (i.e., test anxiety) to any type of achievement goal measured in this study. Instead, test anxiety had direct effects on graded performance, independent of achievement goal processes. Specifically, test anxiety predicted poorer performance, and this finding is consistent with much prior research (cf. Pintrich, 1989; Sarason & Sarason, 1990). Although the negative relationship of work avoidance goals with performance replicates previous findings (Meece et al., 1988; Nicholls et al., 1985), the work avoidance measure was our only measure of negative tendencies at the goals level, and it was based on only two items and low reliability. An important goal for future research will be to better identify the motivational dynamics associated with negative achievement tendencies (Covington& Omelich, 1991; Elliot, 1994).

Our second goal was to examine the correlates of achievement


goals with two important classroom outcomes: students' intrinsic interest and final grades in the class. Both outcomes were significantly related to students' achievement goals. Students who adopted mastery goals showed higher levels of interest in the class, but there was no effect of mastery goals on performance. In contrast, performance goals had no effect on interest, but students who adopted performance goals obtained higher grades in the course. Moreover, students who endorsed work avoidance goals performed more poorly. Thus, all three types of achievement goals predicted important classroom outcomes, but performance and work avoidance goals were more predictive of graded performance, whereas mastery goals were more predictive of interest. It is of course important to note that we cannot draw any strong causal inferences from these correlational results. It is possible that students who perform well in general are more likely to adopt performance goals and that students who find particular topics interesting are more likely to adopt mastery goals in courses on those topics. Nonetheless, the results do suggest that the goals adopted at the beginning of a semester may influence subsequent interest and final grades in the class.

Many theorists have argued that mastery goals are beneficial for a wide range of educationally relevant outcome measures, but that performance goals have deleterious effects (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls et al., 1989). Our intrinsic-interest findings are quite consistent with one component of this position, because they provide strong support for the predictive power of mastery goals, which were measured approximately two months prior to the assessment of intrinsic interest in the class. However, our results qualify this perspective in two important ways. First, we found no negative effects of performance goals on interest. Thus, consistent with some of the findings reviewed earlier (e.g., Archer, 1994; Meece et al., 1988; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991), we documented the positive effects of mastery goals on interest but found no evidence that performance goals had detrimental effects. This finding is also consistent with some recent experimental work (e.g., Butler, 1992; Harackiewicz & Elliot, 1993, 1995, in press).

. Second, we found a positive effect of performance goals on graded performance. Students who adopted performance goals at the outset of the class obtained significantly higher final grades in the course. Moreover, there was no significant effect of mastery goals on performance and no evidence of an interaction between mastery and performance goals. These results represent strong support for the beneficial effects of performance goals in this context. It is important, however, to recognize that our findings are limited to students in a particular classroom envi- ronment. Specifically, their introductory college course had a large lecture format, evaluation based on multiple-choice exams, and a normative grading structure. These factors may all com- bine to establish a context in which performance goals are opti- mal in motivating effective study strategies and performance.

We can only speculate about the motivational processes un- derlying the positive effects of performance goals on grades observed here. However, two possibilities seem plausible. One is that students who endorse performance goals are highly motivated to perform well relative to their peers, and thus work hard, process the course material at a deep level, and do whatever is necessary to learn the material well enough to ensure a good grade. The alternative is more pessimistic and a possible indict-

ment of the way performance is evaluated in college classes: Perhaps performance oriented students engage in more superficial processing of course material, memorizing facts and defini- tions rather than processing the material at a higher level, as suggested by previous research (Meece et al., 1988; Pintrich, 1989; Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). A superficial approach to learning may actually be quite effective in preparing for multiple-choice exams in introductory courses. If college examinations do not test for deep processing or thoughtful synthesis and integration, then performance oriented students may be the ones most likely to obtain good grades. Future research that examines self-regulated learning and study behaviors along with achievement goals and performance in college classes may help resolve these issues.

Nonetheless, we were surprised and disappointed to find no effects of mastery goals on graded performance. As educators, we would hope that there would be some rewards for mastery oriented students in our classes. Perhaps mastery goals might have indirect effects, and the high correlation of interest (which was strongly predicted by mastery goals) with students' final grades is promising in this regard. If students perform better when they enjoy classes, then mastery goals can promote performance over the longer term by fostering task involvement and intrinsic motivation. However, it is difficult to evaluate the causal direction of the interest-performance relationship in our study. It seems equally likely that students enjoy classes because they are performing well in them.

Even if mastery goals do not promote performance in this context, we would expect to see positive effects of mastery goals in smaller, more advanced classes where coursework is more likely to require deep processing, thoughtful integration of materials, and sustained effort and involvement. Although there may be short-term benefits to adopting performance goals in terms of higher grades on multiple-choice exams in an introductory college class, over the longer term, task involvement and continued interest may be what drives students to do independent reading, pursue advanced coursework, and produce high quality work (cf. Sansone & Harackiewicz, 1996; Sansone, Sachau, & Weir, 1989). It is ironic, then, that good grades in introductory courses are often prerequisites for admission into more advanced courses. Successful negotiation of academic life at the college level may require a performance orientation in some contexts, but a mastery orientation in others, and the wisdom to know which one to adopt when.

One of the major contributions of goal theory (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988) has been to identify specific patterns of cognition, emotion, and behavior that develop over time as a function of the goals adopted by individuals in achievement situations, affording a comprehensive account of the motivational processes engendered by goals. These models suggest that mastery and performance oriented students might approach and experience the same class quite differently. For example, mastery oriented students should approach the course material thought- fully, work to integrate readings and lectures, process material at a deep level, and define success in terms of how much they have learned (cf. Pintrich & DeGroot, 1990). In contrast, performance oriented students should approach the course with an eye to learning what they need for exams (and nothing more), concentrate on memorizing facts and figures, process the material at a superficial level, and define success in terms of their


grades. But how does the person who has endorsed both goals approach his or her class?

Theorists have recently begun to develop multiple-goals models (Harackiewicz, Barron, & Elliot, in press; Harackiewicz & Sansone, 1991; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; Wentzel, 1991), in which mastery and performance goals can work together to facilitate performance and motivation, and our results offer con- siderable support for this approach. Support for a multiple-goals perspective could take several statistical forms. Some researchers have tested the simultaneous effects of mastery and performance goals with analysis of variance, multiple regression, or structural equation models (Archer, 1994; Meece et al., 1988; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; Wentzel, 1991 ), and others have classified students on the basis of goal profiles developed through cluster analysis (Meece & Holt, 1993). All of these data analytic strategies allow researchers to test whether mastery and performance goals have independent effects and whether the goals interact in predicting motivation and performance. For example, mastery and performance goals could have independent, additive effects on some measures, or they might interact positively such that the person who endorses both goals is particularly advan- taged on some outcome measures. Alternatively, the goals might interact negatively such that people who endorse both goals are relatively disadvantaged on other outcome measures (cf. Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; Spence & Helmreich, 1983).

Demonstrating that these goals can have independent and interactive effects is one step toward supporting a multiple-goals perspective, but the next step must be the theoretical specifica- tion of how these goals work together. Adopting both goals may offset the downsides of each. Mastery goals can promote task involvement and keep performance oriented students focused on the course material itself, and performance goals can help mastery oriented students remain focused on what they have to do to meet course requirements and perform well, and prevent them from getting lost in their work. This analysis raises intrigu- ing questions about the way in which individuals pursue multiple goals; for example, do they hold both goals in mind simultane- ously, or do they alternate between conceptions of what it is they are trying to accomplish in the situation? Can these goals be hierarchically linked such that mastery goals are pursued in the service of higher order performance goals, or vice versa? More generally, how do people integrate their goals to achieve their desired outcomes? Our results cannot address these questions directly, but our future research will be guided by them.

In sum, our results demonstrate the power of regression techniques to elucidate multiple goal effects, and they offer strong support for a multiple-goals perspective. Specifically, we identified outcome variables that proved to be sensitive to different goal processes, and we were able to document the advantages of adopting both mastery and performance goals in terms of independent, positive effects on different measures. To the extent that a student adopts a mastery goal, he or she is more likely to be interested in the class, and to the extent that a student adopts a performance goal, he or she will do better in the class. Thus, in line with a multiple-goals perspective, the student who can adopt both mastery and performance goals seems to be at an advantage in this educational context.

Re fe rences Aiken, L. S., & West, S.G. ( 1991 ). Multiple regression: Testing and

interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267.

Archer, J. (1994). Achievement goals as a measure of motivation in university students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 430- 446.

Atldnson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior Psychological Review, 64, 359-372.

Atkinson, J. W. (1974). The mainsprings of achievement oriented activ- ity. In J. W. Atldnson & J. O. Raynor (Eds.), Motivation and achievement (pp. 11-39). Washington, DC: Winston.

Atkinson, J.W., & Litwin, G. (1960). Achievement motive and test anxiety conceived as a motive to approach success and a motive to avoid failure. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 60, 52-63.

Blumenfeld, P. C. (1992). Classroom learning and motivation: Clarify- ing and expanding goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 272-281.

Brophy, J. E. (1983). Conceptualizing student motivation. Educational Psychologist, 18, 200-215.

Butler, R. (1992). What young people want to know when: Effects of mastery and ability goals on interest in different kinds of social comparisons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 934- 943.

Cohen, J., & Cohen, P. ( 1983 ). Applied multiple regression~correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Covington, M.V., & Omelich, C.L. (1988). Achievement dynamics: The interactions of motives, cognitions and emotions over time. Anxi- ety Journal, 1, 165-183.

Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1991). Need achievement revis- ited: Verification of Atkinson's original 2 X 2 model. In C. Spielberger, I. G. Sarason, Z. Kulusar, & G. L. Van Heck (Eds.), Stress and emotion: Anxiety, anger, and curiosity (Vol. 14, pp. 85-105). New York: Hemisphere.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-deter- mination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 290-299.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. Ameri- can Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.

Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psy- chological Inquiry, 6, 267-285.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.

Elliot, A. J. (1994). Approach and avoidance achievement goals: An intrinsic motivation analysis. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Uni- versity of Wisconsin--Madison.

Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5-12.

Graham, S., & Golan, S. (1991). Motivational influences on cognition: Task involvement, ego involvement, and depth of information processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 187-194.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., & Elliot, A. J. (in press). Rethinking achievement goals: When are they adaptive for college students and why? Educational Psychologist.

Harackiewicz, J.M., & Elliot, A.J. (1993). Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 904-915.

Harackiewicz, J. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1995). Life is a roller coaster when you view the world through entity glasses. Psychological Inquiry 6, 298-301.

Harackiewicz, J. M., & Elliot, A. J. (in press). The joint effects of target


and purpose goals on intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Harackiewicz, J. M., & Sansone, C. (1991). Goals and intrinsic motivation: You can get there from here. In M. L. Maehr & E R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 7, pp. 21- 49). Greenwich, C'12. JAI Press.

Helmreich, R. L., Beane, W., Lucker, G. W., & Spence, J.T. (1978). Achievement motivation and scientific attainment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 222-226.

Helmreich, R.L., Spence, J. T., Beane, W. E., Lucker, G.W., & Mat- thews, K, A. (1980). Making it in academic psychology: Demo- graphic and personality correlates of attainment. Journal of Personal- ity and Social Psychology, 39, 896-908.

Heyman, G. D., & Dweck, C. S. (1992). Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: Their relation and their role in adaptive motivation. Moti- vation and Emotion, 16, 231-247.

Lepper, M. R., & Hodell, M. (1989). Intrinsic motivation in the classroom. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Goals and cognitions (Vol. 3, pp. 73-105). New York: Academic Press.

Maehr, M. L. (1983). The development of continuing interests in music. In Documentary report of the Ann Arbor symposium on the applica- tions of psychology to the teaching and learning of music: Session Ill. Reston, VA: Music Educators National Conference.

Maehr, M.L., & Braskamp, L.A. (1986). The motivation factor: A theory of personal investment. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.

McClelland, D.C., Atkinson, J.W., Clark, R.A., & Lowell, E.L. (1953). The achievement motive. New York: Appleton-Century- Crofts.

Meece, J. L. (1991). The classroom context and students' motivational goals. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 7, pp. 261-285). Greenwich, C12. JAI Press.

Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students' goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514-523.

Meece, J. L , & Holt, K. ( 1993 ). A pattern analysis of students' achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 582-590.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346.

Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Nicholls, J. G., Cheung, P. C., Lauer, J., & Patashnick, M. (1989). Indi- vidual differences in academic motivation: Perceived ability, goals, beliefs, and values. Learning and Individual Differences, 1, 63-84.

NichoUs, J.G., Patashnick, M., & Nolen, S.B. (1985). Adolescents' theories of education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 683- 692.

Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivation orientations and study strategies. Cognition and Instruction, 5, 269-287.

Nolen, S, B., & Haladyna, T.M. (1990). Motivation and studying in high school science. Journal of Research on Science Teaching, 27, 115-126.

Pintrich, P. R. (1989). The dynamic interplay of student motivation and cognition in the college classroom. In M. Maehr & C. Ames (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Motivation-enhancing envi- ronments (Vol. 6, pp. 117-160). Greenwich, C'12. JAI Press.

Pintrich, P. R., & DeGroot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40.

Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. ( 1991 ). Student goal orientation and regulation in the college classroom. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 7, pp. 371-402). Greenwich, C'12 JAI Press.

Rothblum, E. (1990). Fear of failure: The psychodynamic, need achievement, fear of success, and procrastination models. In H. Leitenberg (Ed.), Handbook of social and evaluation anxiety (pp. 497-537). New York: Plenum Press.

Sansone, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). "I don't feel like it": The function of interest in self-regulation. In L. L Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), Striving and feeling: Interactions among goals, affect, and self-regulation (pp. 203-228). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Sansone, C., & Morgan, C. (1992). Intrinsic motivation and education: Competence in context. Motivation and Emotion, 16, 249-270.

Sansone, C., Sachau, D. A., & Weir, C. (1989). The effects of instruction on intrinsic interest: The importance of context. Journal of Personal- ity and Social Psychology, 57, 819-829.

Sarason, I. G. (1978). The test anxiety scale: Concept and research. In C. D. Spielberger and I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Stress and anxiety (Vol. 5, pp. 193-216). Washington, DC: Hemisphere.

Sarason, I. G., & Sarason, B. R. (1990). Test anxiety. In H. Lettenberg (Ed.), Handbook of social and evaluation anxiety (pp. 475-495). New York: Plenum Press.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1983). Achievement-related motives and behaviors. In J. T, Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 7-74) . San Francisco: Freeman.

Veroff, J. (1969). Social comparison and the development of achievement motivation. In C. E Smith (Ed.), Achievement-related motives in children (pp. 46-101). New York: Russell Sage.

Wentzel, K. R. ( 1991 ). Social and academic goals at school: Motivation and achievement in context. In M. L. Maehr & E R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 7, pp. 185-212). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Received December 4, 1995 Revision received December 5, 1996

Accepted December 13, 1996 •

Documents

Predictors and Consequences of Achievement Goals in the ...€¦ · compasses the desire to work hard, seek challenge, attain inter- nal standards, and outperform others across situations