Metamotivational knowledge of others’ achievement goals in a work context.

Abstract

Achievement goals have been overlooked in the emerging literature on metamotivation. In the present research, we conducted three experiments (two preregistered) with large samples (total N 3,600) designed to test metamotivational accuracy of others' achievement goals in a work context. We put participants in the role of employer and provided them with information on a job applicant's primary achievement goal. Participants then indicated their likelihood of interviewing the candidate and provided their judgments of the applicant's competence and warmth. We found clear and consistent evidence that participants were most likely to grant an interview to mastery-approach goal applicants ("Master tasks and improve in my job") and least likely to grant an interview to performance-avoidance goal applicants ("Avoid performing worse than others in my job"), with performance-approach goal applicants ("Perform better than others in my job") in the middle. These findings represent metamotivational accuracy when compared to existing meta-analyses and systematic narrative reviews of the literature. Perceived competence and warmth mediated the effects of applicant achievement goal on interview likelihood. The findings generalized across applicant gender, type of occupation, participant gender, and prior interviewer experience. We discuss the conceptual implications of the research, lay out avenues for future empirical work, and highlight the integrative nature of our work across prominent and promising literatures.