From intentions and attitudes to achievement and success
6.3. Goals
6.3.1. Definitions of goals
1. A goal is a cognitive representation of what it is that an individual is trying to achieve in a given situation (Wenzel, 2000);
2. “That toward which effort is directed; aim or end” (The American College Dictionary, p. 517);
3. “A destination, an object of effort or ambition” (The advanced learning dictionary of current English, p. 535).
6.3.2. Definitions of Achievement/learning/mastery and performance goals 1. A learning goal “refers to what knowledge and skills students are to
acquire” (Schunk & Ertmer, 2000, p. 635); A performance goal denotes what task students are to complete” (ibid, ibid);
2. An achievement goal concerns the purposes of achievement behavior.
It defines an integrated pattern of beliefs, attributions, and affects that produces the intentions of behavior (Weiner, 1986) and that is represented by different ways of approaching, engaging in, and responding to achievement-type activities (Dweck & Leggett, 1988);
3. Elliott and Dweck (1988) defined and achievement goal as involving a “program of cognitive processes that have cognitive, affective, and behavioral consequences” (p. 11);
4. Pintrich (2000a) defined achievement goals as “the purposes or reasons an individual is pursuing an achievement task”;
5. “Achievement goals [are] the purpose of task engagement, and the specific type of goal adopted is posited to create a framework for how individuals interpret and experience achievement settings” (Maehr, &
Ames, 1989; cited by Elliot, 1999).
6.3.3. Approach versus avoidance goals
The concept of achievement goal approach was developed in the 80ies with the work of Nicholls (1984a), Ames (1984), Maehr (1984), and Dweck (1986). In spite of the fact that the division within approach goals into two categories has several nuances, researchers agree to the division into performance- versus mastery goals. Performance
goals were believed – until contradictory results were found in more recent studies – to be linked to negative consequences, such as a low level of persistence, especially when facing failure, superficial learning, or a low level of enjoyment. Mastery goals, on the other hand, were believed to have positive outcomes, such a persistence in the face of failing, deep learning and understanding the material, and high level of enjoyment (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls, 1990; Nolen, 1988).
While Dweck used her achievement goal theory to explain mastery or helpless responses to failure (e.g. Dweck, 1984, 1986; Dweck & Bempecht, 1983; Dweck &
Elliott, 1983), Nicholls explained them with his ego-task involvement distinction his work about conceptions of ability (Nicholls, 1978, 1984a, 1984b, 1989, 1990;
Nicholls & Miller, 1984). However, both Dweck and Nicholls have realized, that achievement goals might belong either to the approach or to the avoidance category.
Dweck & Bempechat (1983) have found, that performance oriented people might adopt either an approach or an avoidance behavior. Their explanation to this phenomenon was that while people with a high level of competence would probably adopt an approach behavior, those with a low level of competence would rather prefer the avoidance one. Nicholls (1984a) used the competence ingredient to explain his ego-task involvement dichotomy in a similar way. Schunk and Zimmerman and their colleagues (Schunk, 1981, 1982, 1983, 1984, 1989a, 1989b, 1990, 1991, 1994, 1995, 1996, 2000; Schunk, & Ertmer, 2000; Schunk, & Zimmerman, 1994, 1996, 1998;
Zimmerman, 1990; Zimmerman & Martinez-Pons, 1990) have also researched this issue intensively.
6.3.3.1. Why is the approach versus avoidance concept needed?
Unfortunately, even when taking competence into consideration as a moderator, the performance-mastery goal distinction has not proved to predict achievement-relevant processes and outcomes. The clue to this dilemma lies in the fact that most studies by Dweck and Nicholls and their colleagues were conducted in the laboratory while those challenging them were ”field experiments”, taking place in a natural environment such as classrooms. Studies of mastery goals were consistently associated with positive outcomes in field-research; they did not prove as consistently positive in the laboratory (Harackiewicz, Barron, & Elliot, 1998; Urdan, 1997, 2001; Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996).
In the case of performance goals the picture is even more mixed. Some studies have shown, that performance goals had negative outcomes when the level of competence was low (Butler, 2000; Covington & Omlich, 1984; Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Smiley & Dweck, 1994). In any case, in many studies that did take the competence component into consideration the results were nevertheless mixed (Elliot, & Harackiewicz, 1996; Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto, & Elliot, 1997; Harackiewicz, & Elliot, 1998; Kaplan, & Maehr, 1999; Kaplan, & Midgley, 1997; Miller, Behrens, Greene, & Newman, 1993;
Miller et al, 1996). Thus the conclusion must be that the Dweck/Nicholls theory about the negative influences of performance goals is not valid, unless perhaps other variables – in addition to competence – are taken into consideration, or the theory should be refined.
Elliot (1994, 1999) has found that performance goals classified as approach ones resulted in similar outcomes to those classified as mastery goals, while performance goals classified as avoidance undermined intrinsic motivation. Elliot &
Church (1997) have discovered that performance goals classified as approach ones tended to have either no correlations or positive correlations with intrinsic motivation, while those classified as avoidance goals correlated negatively with intrinsic motivation. This discovery led to the trichotomous achievement goal framework.
6.3.3.2. The trichotomous achievement goal framework
The trichotomous achievement goal framework includes the conventional goal constructs, i.e. the approach and avoidance motivations, and three independent achievement goals: mastery goal, approach goal, and performance-avoidance goal (Elliot, 1999). The need for achievement is an approach motive, leading the person who adopts it to success (McCleland, 1955a, 1961; McCleland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowel, 1953). Thus, the result of materializing the need to succeed can be the adoption of either mastery or performance approach. Fear of failure has a potential to lead to performance-approach goals; when the wish to prevent a failure is accompanied to the one of attaining success the result is the adoption of a performance goal.
As we have already shown, the competence variable should have influenced the motivation approach in a straightforward way: people with high competence perception should have chosen approach goals – either mastery or achievement;
people with a low competence perception – a performance avoidance goal. In contrast to the theories of Dweck and Nicholls (ibid), where competence is the only component influencing the adoption of approach or avoidance motivation, in the trichotomous achievement goal framework perceived competence is just one out of many ingredients influencing the adoption of approach, avoidance, or mixed-goals.
Dweck herself has suggested the incremental versus fixed beliefs about intelligence as predictors of approach or avoidance approach (e.g. 1990, 1999). Sorrentino and his colleagues (e.g. Sorrentino, Brouwers, Hanna, & Roney, 1996; Sorrentino &
Hewitt, 1984; Sorrentino, Roney, & Hanna, 1992; Sorrentino, & Short, 1977;
Trope, 1986) have offered the hypothesis that the choice between approach and avoidance approaches depends partially on how much the individual seeks information about her/his performance. Various researchers have studied the influence of many more variables on choosing approach or avoidance goals; the variables considered most important and thus studied more deeply than the others are gender (e.g. Dweck, 1986; Ghei, 1973), ethnicity (Rosen, 1959; Urdan, 1997, 2001), and socio-economic or socio-cultural background (Adkins, & Payne, 1972; Botha, 1971;
Cooper & Tom, 1984; DeBord, 1977; Hall, 1972; Hines, 1973, 1974; Maehr &
Nicholls, 1980).
In addition to the components listed above, it was found that there is a neuro-physiological pre-disposition that directs the individual towards goal adoption (Elliot,
& Sheldon, 1997; Elliot, Sheldon, & Church, 1997). Individuals whose tendency is to react to positive stimuli would be predicted to choose performance-approach goal;
those who tend to react to negative stimuli – to performance-avoidance goals. While all other variables are more easily changeable and acquired by education and socialization processes, neuro-physiological pre-dispositions are presumed to be rooted in the individual and can hardly change.
Goal orientation is also influenced by environmental variables, such as norm-based evaluation, and relationally-norm-based variables, or fear of rejection. We can thus see, that there are, according to Elliot (1999), at least six different kinds of variables that influence the adoption of approach or avoidance motivation, and each theory that fails to take them into consideration might either lead to false conclusions or end with results that contradict other existing theories proved to be right under other circumstances or conditions.
6.3.3.3. The 2x2 achievement goal framework
In the second half of the 90ies a new motivational model has been proposed by Elliot and his colleagues (Elliot, 1997, 1999; Elliot, & Covington, 2001; Elliot &
Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). This model includes not only the
“traditional opposites of “mastery/learning” vs. task/achievement motivation, but for the task/achievement motivation it includes the approach and avoidance component as well. According to this model three motivational possibilities existed:
mastery/learning motivation; task/achievement approach motivation, and task/achievement avoidance motivation. This new model received scientific reinforcement; research done in various studies (e.g. Elliot & Church, 1997;
Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Skaalvik, 1997; VandeWalle, 1997) has shown that these three goal constructs were related to different patterns and led to different results.
A new motivational construct has been suggested by Elliot & McGregor (2001). This construct is the combination of mastery/learning and avoidance motivation, already suggested by Elliot (1999) and applied as a variable in a research by Linnenbrick & Pintrich, (2000), and Pintrich (2000a, 2000b, 2000c). The reason for overlooking this component of the 2x2 matrices is, according to Elliot &
McGregor (2001), the tendency of theorists to identify mastery goals with intrinsic motivation (e.g. Dweck, 1999), and to perceive mastery goals as based on high competence regulation. Thus, the concept of mastery goals that co-exist with avoidance motivation seems illogical, and as a result was not taken into consideration until recently. The mastery-avoidance goal construct can be demonstrated in school as well as in every other domain of everyday life: putting much effort in order not to fail in a test; working hard in the gym for the sake of not losing one’s good shape;
spending a lot of time in the kitchen so that the meal will not be a failure.
Perfectionists are mostly people who have adopted a mastery-avoidance goal orientation (Flett, Hewitt, Blankkstein, & Gray, 1998): they work hard in order not to fail, but since they are hardly satisfied with their achievements they tend to fear of failing or of not being good enough, which for them is the equivalent of a failure.
Perfectionism is considered a “female hazard” (Kline & Short, 1991; Martin, 1985; Polotzki, 1989; Silverman, 1991; Reis, 1987; Schwartz, 1994; Zorman &
David, 2000). Girls and women, especially when gifted or talented, are exposed to it more than “regular” females and more than talented and gifted males.
6.3.4. Correlations between mastery and performance goals
Barron & Harackiewicz, (2000, 2001) have found, that there are positive effects of performance goals on intrinsic motivation and performance. The model of multiple goals (Wentzel, 1989) they present suggests that both performance and mastery goals can optimize intrinsic motivation and performance. Lepper and colleagues (2000;
Lepper, Green, & Nisbett, 1973; Lepper, & Hodell, 1989) have suggested a similar model. According to them, intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations can relate to one another in different ways: they can be in conflict, but they can also be positively correlated to affect behavior. Hidi (2000), who reviewed changes in motivational aspects of school-activities, suggested that extrinsic factors might play an increasingly more important role in motivating students so they would progress through their education. This finding is in accordance with the Israeli school situation, where even good students with a high level of intrinsic motivation must study subjects they don’t particularly like while approaching the matriculation examinations.
Anderman, Austin, & Johnson (2001), Anderman, Eccles, Yoon, Roeser, Wigfield, & Blumenfeld (2001); Middleton & Midgley (1997), and Nicholls (1990) have found low correlations between mastery and performance goals. Pajares, Britner, & Valiante (2000) have found, in a research done among middle school American students, that task-goals and performance goals were positively correlated.
Dweck (1999) has summarized that “but both [learning- and performance] goals can fuel achievement” (p. 15).
The dichotomy between learning and achievement goals has been criticized by many researchers (e.g. Ames & Archer, 1988; Bong, 1996, 2001; Deci, Koestner, &
Ryan, 2001; Elliot & Church, 1997; Harackiewicz et al, 1997; Harackiewicz et al, 1998; Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, & Elliot, 2000; Harackiewicz, &
Elliot, 1998; Harackiewicz, & Sansone, 1991; Harackiewicz, & Sansone, 2000;
Stone, 1998). Dweck (1999) has summarized this concept in a few words:
All students want to be validated for their skills and their accomplishments. They also want to develop their skills and knowledge. So it’s not that there is anything wrong with either kind of goals (p. 15).
6.3.5. Goals and motivation: Connections among variables
The two main kinds of goals defined by Dweck (1990, 1999) are learning and performance goals. While learning goals are connected with striving towards fulfilling challenges, performance goals are connected with both the wish to please others or be perceived as smart by others, and with avoidance behavior, i.e. choosing not to strive towards challenges, caused by the fear of not being successful.
Research has shown (Ames & Archer, 1988; Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988; Miller et al, 1993; Nolen, 1988; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991) that students with learning goals approach report using more meaningful or deep cognitive strategies than students with a performance approach.
Ames & Archer (1988) studied junior high/high school academically advanced students regarding their goal orientation, use of effective learning strategies, task choices, attitudes, and causal attributions. Students who emphasized mastery goals reported using more effective strategies, preferred challenging tasks, had a more positive attitude toward the learned subject, and had a stronger belief that success was a direct result of effort. Students who stressed performance goals perceived their ability as more important, while evaluating their ability negatively and attributing failure to lack of it.
In accordance with the Dweck (e.g. 1999) theory, Wolters et al (1996) have found that 7th and 8th graders adopting learning goals resulted in positive patterns of motivational beliefs that included high level of task values, self-efficacy, low level of test anxiety, as well as high academic performance.
Research of the relation between 9th and 10th grade high school students’
motivational regulation and their use of learning strategies, effort, and classroom performance (Wolters, 1999) resulted in somewhat different findings. As in the previously described research (Wolters et al, 1996), the students participating in this study (Wolters, 1999) were using the “doing better than others” motivation to enhance their effort and improve their achievements. This finding contradicts previous research (e.g. Ames, 1992; Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Graham & Golan, 1991; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990), according to which intrinsic goals were found to be more adaptive than extrinsic ones, including that of outperforming others. The explanation that Wolters (1999) gives is that students are more familiar with this kind of motivation. Another explanation for this finding is that when high school students approach the end of adolescence, they become more aware of the importance of
grades for their future academic studies, and of their relative place in the classroom and in the school, that influence their chances of being a valedictorian, or getting any of the other honors as best pupils.