A meta-analytic review of achievement goal orientation correlates in competitive sport

Abstract

Recent quantitative research in competitive sport with the Task and Ego Orientations in Sport Questionnaire (TEOSQ) and Perceptions of Success Questionnaire (POSQ) pointed to a potential critical issue that the two questionnaires did not agree across a number tested hypotheses (Lochbaum, Kazak Çetinkalp, Graham, Wright, & Zazo, 2016). Thus, the present quantitative review examined whether correlates of the two achievement goal orientations were moderated by the two measures. To achieve this purpose, 772 unique correlates (489 TEOSQ, 283 POSQ; 402 task orientation, 370 ego orientation) from 93 studies spanning 1989-2016 from 32 countries with 26,387 participants were placed into 15 different categories and meta-analyzed. The task goal orientation was significantly and small to moderate in meaningfulness related to adaptive success factors (rw=.29), maladaptive success factors (rw=-.12), desirable behaviors (rw=.28), positive emotions (rw=.35), amotivation (rw=-.13), extrinsic motivation (rw=.20), external regulations (rw=.12), internal regulations (rw=.34), intrinsic motivation (rw=.47), the mastery/task climate (rw=.38), perceived competence (rw=.26), and trait selfesteem (rw=.35). The ego goal orientation was significantly and small in meaningfulness related to adaptive success factors (rw=.10), maladaptive success factors (rw=.12), negative emotions (rw=.11), undesirable behaviors (rw=.23), amotivation (rw=.16), extrinsic motivation (rw=.28), external regulation (rw=.21), intrinsic motivation (rw=.14), performance/ego climate (rw=.28), and perceived competence (rw=.17). The questionnaire measure was a significant moderator for the task goal orientation relationship with desirable behaviors (POSQ rw=.24; TEOSQ rw=.37), internal regulations (POSQ rw=.26; TEOSQ rw=.39), and trait self-esteem (POSQ rw=.45; TEOSQ rw=.32) and for the ego goal orientation relationship with performance/ego climate (POSQ rw=.34; TEOSQ rw=.24). Overall, the extent of the questionnaire type being a concern when examining correlates was fortunately minimal. Yet, differences in the two dominant measures exit. Recommendations for future research examining both the TEOSQ and POSQ were proposed.

The 2 × 2 Achievement Goals in Sport and Physical Activity Contexts: A Meta-Analytic Test of Context, Gender, Culture, and Socioeconomic Status Differences and Analysis of Motivations, Regulations, Affect, Effort, and Physical Activity Correlates

“…With respect to our final research question, we examined a number of achievement motivation outcome correlates. Overall, our results followed past correlate meta-analyses on the dichotomous achievement goals [9], the approach-avoidance goals [3], and motivation climate [149]. These correlate analyses also pull together Lochbaum and colleagues' [4] antecedent meta-analysis on the 2 × 2 achievement goals.…”

“…Elliot's approach-avoidance goals stem from the dichotomous achievement goal framework [7]. A recent meta-analysis of 260 studies, concerning the dichotomous goal competitive sports literature [8] and a follow-up meta-analysis with over 700 achievement goal correlate samples [9], show that the dichotomous framework is still much researched. In this dichotomous framework, there are two orientations by which personal competency is judged.…”

Task and Ego Goal Orientations across the Youth Sports Experience

“…Since the late 1980s, Achievement Goal Theory (AGT) has flourished in the competitive sports across all age groups Lochbaum, Zazo, Kazak Çetinkalp, Graham, Wright, & Konttinen, 2016). Sports psychology researchers followed Nicholls' (1989) conceptualization.…”

Supporting Subject Justification by Educational Psychology: A Systematic Review of Achievement Goal Motivation in School Physical Education

“…Mastery goals and mastery climates in sports, exercise, youth sports, and competitive sports are fundamentally related to more adaptive consequences. Performance goals and performance climates are associated with rather maladaptive responses (Ntoumanis and Biddle, 1999;Harwood and Biddle, 2002;Biddle et al, 2003;Harwood et al, 2008;Lochbaum et al, 2016). Furthermore, studies focusing on achievement goal profiles substantiate the conceptual orthogonality of achievement goals (Nicholls, 1989) and the pioneering importance of mastery goals.…”

“…Similar to SDT, there are numerous empirical studies and some narrative summaries regarding PE and AGT (Ntoumanis and Biddle, 1999;Duda and Ntoumanis, 2003;Chen and Ennis, 2004;Cecić Erpič, 2011;Rudisill, 2016;Liu et al, 2017). However, systematically organized reviews are limited to physical activities without explicit PE perspectives, e.g., competitive sports, physical activity, or motor skill programming (Biddle et al, 2003;Harwood et al, 2015;Lochbaum et al, 2016;Palmer et al, 2017). As the results of respective published articles are not yet systematically appraised and summarized, the justifying power of AGT regarding the subject status of PE and motivational and pedagogically valuable implications for PE lessons are of limited informative value.…”