No abstract

Achievement goal theory originally defined performance-approach goals as striving to demonstrate competence to outsiders by outperforming peers. The research, however, has operationalized the goals inconsistently, emphasizing the competence demonstration element in some cases and the peer comparison element in others. A meta-analysis by Hulleman et al. (2010) discovered that students’ academic achievement was negatively predicted by performance-approach goals that focus on appearing talented, but positively predicted by performance-approach goals that focus on outperforming peers. The present meta-analysis extends that pattern to numerous other educational outcomes, such as competence perceptions and self-regulation. It does so while also removing a confound (i.e., the sample’s mean age) that varies systematically along with the type of performance-approach goal measure employed in studies. Discussion explores when and why the 2 types of performance-approach goals are most likely to diverge versus converge. It also considers 2 potential directions that goal theory can take to incorporate the 2 performance-approach goals.

Two studies examined the degree to which pursuit of achievement goals is regulated in response to ongoing competence feedback. In Study 1, conducted in a college classroom, goal pursuit remained largely stable throughout the semester, yet poor exam performance predicted a significant decrease in mastery goal and performance-approach goal pursuit and an increase in performance-avoidance goal pursuit. In Study 2, conducted in a laboratory, negative feedback reduced participants' mastery goal pursuit. In addition, both studies showed unique benefits of 2 goals: The performance-approach goal predicted success on exams (Study 1) and a novel activity (Study 2), and the mastery goal predicted higher interest in both studies. Implications of achievement goal regulation for both theory and research methodology are discussed.

No abstract

Achievement goal theory (Dweck, 1986) initially characterized mastery goals and performance goals as opposites in a good–bad dualism of student motivation. A later revision (Harackiewicz, Barron, & Elliot, 1998) contended that both goals can provide benefits and be pursued together. Perhaps both frameworks are correct: Their contrasting views may stem from differences in how they define performance goals. The traditional framework favors a goal orientation model in which performance goals entail demonstrating competence (“appearance goals”). The revised framework favors a goal standard model in which performance goals entail outperforming peers (“normative goals”). The present studies test whether the 2 performance goals function differently, each promoting educational outcomes that support its guiding framework’s view of performance goals. These studies also unify the earlier models through the emerging goal complex model, which assumes that the normative goal’s effects depend on students’ reasons for pursuing the goal. University students (Ns = 168 and 160) completed measures of their appearance, normative, and mastery goals; their reasons for pursuing normative goals; and several educational outcomes. When pursued for autonomous reasons (e.g., enjoyment or challenge seeking), normative goals predicted adaptive outcomes (self-efficacy and interest) and also proved more compatible with mastery goals (all ps < .05). However, when pursued for controlling reasons (e.g., rewards), normative goals behaved exactly like appearance goals, each predicting maladaptive outcomes (help avoidance and self-handicapping). These findings help resolve the long-standing debate about performance goals, showcase the goal complex model’s potential as a unifying framework, and unveil multiple new research directions.

In field studies, mastery goals, which focus on developing skill, often predict task interest but not actual performance. Performance-approach goals, which focus on outperforming others, instead often predict strong performance but not interest. Two experiments tested the hypothesis that these distinct goal effects trace to goal difficulty perceptions. In each study, participants assigned to a performance-approach goal perceived their goal to be harder, and therefore felt more performance pressure, than those assigned to a mastery goal. Among participants low in dispositional achievement orientation, this experience translated into lower task interest when pursuing the performance-approach goal. However, participants in both studies also performed the activity better when pursuing this goal instead of a standard mastery goal, although this was not mediated by self-reported goal difficulty perceptions. Finally, further demonstrating the role of goal difficulty, a mastery goal manipulated to appear more difficult than a standard mastery goal produced effects matching the performance-approach goal.

No abstract

Achievement goal research consistently reveals that mastery-avoidance goals (i.e., striving to avoid losses) are maladaptive, especially in comparison to mastery-approach goals (i.e., striving for gains). Nearly all of it has been done with children or young adults, however. Lifespan theories of motivation posit that people in late adulthood are more likely than young adults to strive toward maintenance and lossprevention rather than gains, and also that they sometimes profit from pursuing those goals. Integrating the two approaches, this experiment compared young and older adults' experience and performance on a laboratory task when pursuing either mastery-approach or mastery-avoidance goals. Results show that young adults perceived the mastery-approach goal to be more attainable and therefore felt less pressure, enjoyed the task more, and performed better with it, whereas older adults showed this pattern with the mastery-avoidance goal. This matching effect replicates recent research on adult development and has broader implications for achievement goal theory and avoidance motivation in general. Mastery-Avoidance Achievement Goals 2 AbstractAchievement goal research consistently reveals that mastery-avoidance goals (i.e., striving to avoid losses) are maladaptive, especially in comparison to mastery-approach goals (i.e., striving for gains). Nearly all of it has been done with children or young adults, however.Lifespan theories of motivation posit that people in late adulthood are more likely than young adults to strive toward maintenance and loss-prevention rather than gains, and also that they sometimes profit from pursuing those goals. Integrating the two approaches, this experiment compared young and older adults' experience and performance on a laboratory task when pursuing either mastery-approach or mastery-avoidance goals. Results show that young adults perceived the mastery-approach goal to be more attainable and therefore felt less pressure, enjoyed the task more, and performed better with it, whereas older adults showed this pattern with the mastery-avoidance goal. This matching effect replicates recent research on adult development and has broader implications for achievement goal theory and avoidance motivation in general.Key words: Achievement goals, mastery-avoidance, gains, losses, adult agedifferences Mastery-Avoidance Achievement Goals 3 Are Mastery-Avoidance Achievement Goals Always Detrimental?An Adult Development Perspective Achievement goal theory (Dweck, 1986;Nicholls, 1984) distinguishes two main types of goals often pursued in achievement situations: mastery goals, which focus on learning or developing one's ability, and performance goals, which instead focus on demonstrating one's ability by outperforming peers. Additionally, these goals separate into approach and avoidance forms (Elliot & McGregor, 2001;Pintrich, 2000). Mastery-approach goals entail striving to learn or improve, whereas mastery-avoidance goals entail striving to avoid failures to learn or decline in skill....