Task Performance and Satisfaction: Evidence for a Task‐ By Ego‐Orientation Interaction¹

Abstract

A significant body of research has documented two achievement goal orientations that individuals can adopt prior to performing a particular task. These orientations have typically been referred to as "task-oriented" or "ego-oriented," each of which has different implications for task performance and related perceptions. The majority of this research has considered individuals either task-or ego-oriented. There is initial evidence, however, that the two goal orientations may be independent and, therefore, that they may interact to predict various outcomes. The central finding of this study was that task-and ego-orientations did interact to influence task satisfaction and performance. Specifically, high task satisfaction was reported by individuals who had at least a moderately high degree of task orientation irrespective of the level of ego orientation. Alternatively, the most effective performance was observed for individuals who had a dominant achievement goal orientation, regardless of whether it was a task-or ego-orientation. The implications of these findings are discussed.'The authors would like to thank Carolyn Jagacinski for her helpful comments on an earlier

Examining Situationally Induced State Goal Orientation Effects on Task Perceptions, Performance, and Satisfaction: A Two‐Dimensional Conceptualization1

“…A third piece of evidence highlighting the value of a two‐dimensional conceptualization of state goal orientation relates to the observed interactions between learning and performance goals. Because prior dispositional goal orientation research has reported interactions (e.g., Bouffard et al., 1995; Hofmann & Strickland, 1995; Meece & Holt, 1993) about as often as not (e.g., Ames & Archer, 1988; Schraw, Horn, Thorndike‐Christ, & Bruning, 1995), we did not offer predictions relating to state goal orientation interactions. However, our results indicate interactions between learning and performance goals for both perceived challenge and perceived effort required.…”

“…Research has revealed beneficial effects for dispositional learning goal orientation on satisfaction with task performance (Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Hofmann & Strickland, 1995). Duda and Nicholls observed a moderate positive relationship between learning goal orientation and satisfaction with performance in both an academic and a sport context.…”

A Motivated Action Theory Account of Goal Orientation.

“…They suggested that a balance of both orientations is adaptive in most work settings and note that “this style cannot be elucidated unless a two dimensional goal orientation approach is adopted” (p. 41). The idea that individuals can be simultaneously high or low on the dimensions of goal orientation has been referred to in various fashions, including a multiple-goal perspective (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001; Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, & Elliot, 2000; see also Archer, 1994; Hofmann & Strickland, 1995; Pintrich, 2000a), goal configurations (Schraw, Horn, Thorndike-Christ, & Bruning, 1995), goal orientation patterns (Somuncuoglu & Yildirim, 1999), and profiles (Bouffard, Boisvert, Vezeau, & Larouche, 1995).…”

“…Thus, dispositional goal orientations will predispose individuals to adopt a particular response patterns across situations, but situational characteristics may cause them to adopt a different or less acute response pattern for a particular situation. Hofmann & Strickland (1995) Nicholls and others have discussed the notion that individuals may have underlying tendencies to be either task or ego oriented. In other words, in the absence of a strong situation cue, individuals will adopt a "default" achievement goal.…”

Goal orientation profiles and task performance growth trajectories

“…It is difficult to interpret these mixed findings because most past research has used analytic techniques such as median splits or cluster analysis which prevent a powerful test of interactions by collapsing the variance in goal orientation dimensions into two groups (see Cohen, 1983 for discussion of the conceptual and statistical problems with this technique). Some studies have used moderated regression (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001;Harackiewicz et al, 1997;Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer et al, 2002;Hofmann & Strickland, 1995). However, this research is limited because it focused on goal orientation effects at only one or two time points and analyzed relationships at the between-person level, thus precluding a test of how goal orientations moderate performance growth trajectories.…”