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.