The theory of achievement motivation revisited: The implications of inertial tendencies.

Abstract

The basic: theory of achievement motivation as developed by Atkinson is reviewed, and lhe implications of the incrliaUcndcncy postulate are examined. The classic theory of achievement motivation is found to be a special case of a more general theory relating lask difficulty and number of trials to performance. II is shown that the inertial-temlcncy postulate implies an asymmetric, curvilinear relationship between lask difficulty and effort, and that the degree of asymmetry is a function of the number of experimental trials and the consummatory value of failure. Experimental evidence previously viewed as contradicting the classic theory of achievement motivation is shown to be compatible with the general theory and to allow for estimation of the consummatory value of failure. Several predictions that allow for a direct test of the iiierlial-tcndency postulate are derived. The general theory of achievement motivation is suggested to be relevant to other theories concerned with the effects of success and failure on performance. We would like to thank J. VV. Alkinson for extensive and helpful criticism of an earlier draft of this manuscript. The comments of I'hilip Jirickmau are also appreciated. Requests for reprints should be sent to William

Personality, motivation, and performance: A theory of the relationship between individual differences and information processing.

“…We prefer to think of time spent on a task as indicating the relative allocation of resources between different tasks but not the total availability of resources. In this context, much of the data supporting the theory of achievement motivation (Atkinson, 1974;Kuhl & Blankenship, 1979;Revelle & Michaels, 1976) show consistent effects for preferences between tasks or time spent on tasks. Efforts to show differences in intensity of performance (e.g., Rocklin, 1981) are much less successful.…”

Does Hard Work Pay Off? The Influence of Perceived Effort on Romantic Attraction

“…In many cases, those who exert effort are more successful (Revelle & Michaels, 1976;Thomas, 1983;Van Lange et al, 1997;Wieselquist et al, 1999). Therefore, in our scenario, it was interesting to find that when effort did not lead to success, participants still found the target to be as desirable as the successful target that exerted effort.…”

“…When people exert effort, they are more likely to be successful in a myriad of activities (Revelle & Michaels, 1976;Thomas, 1983;Van Lange, Rusbult, Drigotas, Arriaga, Witcher, & Cox, 1997;Wieselquist et al, 1999). The effort might lead to increased time spent on that activity or increased motivation creating a better likelihood of success thus enhancing views on effort exertion.…”

Individual Differences in Cognition: New Methods for Examining the Personality-Cognition Link

“…Environmental cues at the reactive level evoke fixed action patterns, while at the routine level they evoke action tendencies which in turn elicit actions. In a negative feedback loop, these actions in turn reduce the very action tendencies that evoked them (Atkinson & Birch, 1970;Revelle & Michaels, 1976;Revelle, 1986). The reflective layer is a control layer for the two lower ones, and monitors and steers the performance of the reactive and routine levels.…”