Most contemporary achievement goal conceptualizations consist of a performance goal versus mastery goal dichotomy. The present research offers an alternative framework by partitioning the performance goal orientation into independent approach and avoidance motivational orientations. Two experiments investigated the predictive utility of the proposed approach-avoidance achievement goal conceptualization in the intrinsic motivation domain. Results from both experiments supported the proposed framework; only performance goals grounded in the avoidance of failure undermined intrinsic motivation. Task involvement was validated as a mediator of the observed effects on intrinsic motivation. Ramifications for the achievement goal approach to achievement motivation and future research avenues are discussed. Achievement motivation theorists focus their research attention on a particular class of behaviors, those involving competence. Individuals may aspire to attain competence or may strive to avoid incompetence, and this approach-avoidance distinction was explicitly incorporated into the earliest achievement motivation conceptualizations. Two independent motivational orientations, the desire for success and the desire to avoid failure, were identified by Lewin and colleagues as critical determinants of aspiration behavior (Hoppe, cited in Lewin, Dembo, Festinger, & Sears, 1944). In his nascent achievement motivation theory, McClelland (1951) proposed that "there are at least two kinds of achievement motivation, one of which appears to be oriented around avoiding failure and the other around the more positive goal of attaining success" (p. 202).
This meta-analysis addresses whether achievement goal researchers are using different labels for the same constructs or putting the same labels on different constructs. We systematically examined whether conceptual and methodological differences in the measurement of achievement goals moderated achievement goal intercorrelations and relationships with outcomes. We reviewed 243 correlational studies of self-reported achievement goals comprising a total of 91,087 participants. The items used to measure achievement goals were coded as being goal relevant (future-focused, cognitively represented, competence-related end states that the individual approaches or avoids) and were categorized according to the different conceptual definitions found within the literature. The results indicated that achievement goal-outcome and goal-goal correlations differed significantly depending on the goal scale chosen, the individual items used to assess goal strivings, and sociodemographic characteristics of the sample under study. For example, performance-approach goal scales coded as having a majority of normatively referenced items had a positive correlation with performance outcomes (r = .14), whereas scales with a majority of appearance and evaluative items had a negative relationship (r = -.14). Mastery-approach goal scales that contained goal-relevant language were not significantly related to performance outcomes (r = .05), whereas those that did not contain goal-relevant language had a positive relationship with performance outcomes (r = .14). We concluded that achievement goal researchers are using the same label for conceptually different constructs. This discrepancy between conceptual and operational definitions and the absence of goal-relevant language in achievement goal measures may be preventing productive theory testing, research synthesis, and practical application.
C. Midgley et al. (2001) raised important questions about the effects of performance-approach goals. The present authors disagree with their characterization of the research findings and implications for theory. They discuss 3 reasons to revise goal theory: (a) the importance of separating approach from avoidance strivings, (b) the positive potential of performance-approach goals, and (c) identification of the ways performance-approach goals can combine with mastery goals to promote optimal motivation. The authors review theory and research to substantiate their claim that goal theory is in need of revision, and they endorse a multiple goal perspective. The revision of goal theory is underway and offers a more complex, but necessary, perspective on important issues of motivation, learning, and achievement. We thank Amanda Durik and Corwin Senko for helpful comments on earlier drafts of this article.
We tested whether classroom activities that encourage students to connect course materials to their lives will increase student motivation and learning. We hypothesized that this effect will be stronger for students who have low expectations of success. In a randomized field experiment with high school students, we found that a relevance intervention, which encouraged students to make connections between their lives and what they were learning in their science courses, increased interest in science and course grades for students with low success expectations. The results have implications for the development of science curricula and theories of motivation.
We tested whether a utility value intervention (via manipulated relevance) influenced interest and performance on a task and whether this intervention had different effects depending on an individual's performance expectations or prior performance. Interest was defined as triggered situational interest (i.e., affective and emotional task reactions) and maintained situational interest (i.e., inclination to engage in the task in the future). In 2 randomized experiments, 1 conducted in the laboratory and the other in a college classroom, utility value was manipulated through a writing task in which participants were asked to explain how the material they were learning (math or psychology) was relevant to their lives (or not). The intervention increased perceptions of utility value and interest, especially for students who were low in expected (laboratory) or actual (classroom) performance. Mediation analyses revealed that perceptions of utility value explained the effects of the intervention on interest and predicted performance. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.