Achievement Goals: Defining Competence and Understanding Performance

Abstract

Theoretical views on the what, the how and the why of human achievement orientations try to capture various components of goal setting and goal processing, revolving around the question of how achievement and competence are defined and constructed. Defining achievement first requires establishment of the level of analysis employed when analyzing an individual's goals for an activity or class of activities. The dominant level of analysis, from both theoretical and methodological standpoints relies on achievement goals as purpose goals. Mapping achievement through competence development and demonstration offers a structural and process basis for what individuals strive when approaching competence relevant contexts. The mastery-performance orientation resumes an important distinction in defining purpose goals and in this article we attempt an analysis of achievement orientations through the lenses of different theoretical approaches. [PUBLICATION ABSTRACT]

Headnote

Key-words: competence, achievement goals, approach/avoidance orientation

Abstract:

Theoretical views on the what, the how and the why of human achievement orientations try to capture various components of goal setting and goal processing, revolving around the question of how achievement and competence are defined and constructed. Defining achievement first requires establishment of the level of analysis employed when analyzing an individual's goals for an activity or class of activities. The dominant level of analysis, from both theoretical and methodological standpoints relies on achievement goals as purpose goals. Mapping achievement through competence development and demonstration offers a structural and process basis for what individuals strive when approaching competence relevant contexts. The mastery-performance orientation resumes an important distinction in defining purpose goals and in this article we attempt an analysis of achievement orientations through the lenses of different theoretical approaches.

The difference between purpose goals (WHY the individual engages in an activity) and task goals (HOW and WHAT the individual does in order to follow task requirements) has guided the construction and implementation of different theoretical approaches on human goal systems. The former line of research focuses on types of general orientations toward an activity, which guide the employment of specific cognitive, emotional and behavioral responses, differentially affecting performance. The latter look at how task structure and functionality can be mirrored in goal formulation and monitoring of goal pursuit.

Achievement goals: defining competence

Goal orientation theories investigate and try to evaluate human achievement patterns. Achievement patterns are defined as purposes for behavior that are perceived or pursued in a competence-relevant setting (Midgley, Kaplan & Middleton, 2001). Theorists describe two dichotomous types of goal orientations or goal framing: (a) the orientation towards ability development, labeled as "mastery goals" "learning goals" or "task goals" and (b) the orientation towards ability demonstration or avoidance of lack of ability demonstration, labeled as "performance goals" "ego goals" or "ability goals" (Dweck & Leggett 1988; Midgley, Kaplan & Middleton 2001; Nicholls 1984). Mastery goals seem to focus the individual on the task at hand and relate especially to developing competence and gaining understanding and insight. Performance goals focus the individual on the self and relate especially to how ability is judged and how one performs, especially compared to others. These achievement goals are associated with different patterns of cognition, affect, and behavior and are inherently linked with the construction of competence (Dweck & Leggett 1988).

According to Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary and the Oxford English Dictionary, "competence" is defined through quality of effectiveness, ability, sufficiency, and success. In analyzing these keywords for defining competence, Elliot and Dweck (2005) take into account that competence is always evaluated against specific standards. Competence refers to different levels and domains of functioning and it involves differential individual strategies (cognitive, behavioral and emotional) in approaching it. These authors consider that at a global level competence is best analyzed in relation with evaluation standards, which dictate and organize both task requirements and individual strategies. In the achievement goal framework three main evaluation standards are identified: (a) an absolute standard, which reflects the requirements of the task itself; (b) an intrapersonal standard, referring to one's own past attainment or maximum potential attainment level, (c) a normative standard, encompassing comparisons to the performance of others.

Competence can therefore be evaluated and defined according to whether one has: (a) acquired understanding or mastered a task (an absolute standard); (b) improved one's performance or developed one's knowledge or skills (an intrapersonal standard); (c) performed better than others (a normative standard).

Absolute and intrapersonal competence share many conceptual and empirical similarities and can often seem indistinguishable; for instance, learning new information represents both the mastering of a task and the development of one's knowledge. The distinction between absolute/intrapersonal and normative standards implies that need for achievement is a multidimensional construct that includes doing well relative to task requirements and relative to others (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark & Lowell 1953).

Achievement goals and ability perceptions

The goal orientation construct has its roots in Carol Dweck's work on achievement motivation in educational settings, with an initial focus of learned helplessness in school learning (Diener & Dweck 1978; Dweck 1975; Dweck & Reppucci 1973). Dweck and colleagues studied young children's motivational patterns in the classroom, and gradually extracted two distinct behavior patterns that can arise in response to challenging activities or obstacles in achieving high levels of performance. These patterns were defined as a maladaptive-helpless pattern and a mastery-oriented, adaptive pattern. On the one hand, the mastery-oriented pattern is associated with challenge-seeking and persistence when obstacles appear. On the other hand, the helpless pattern determines use of avoidance strategies when challenge situations appear and is linked with decreased performance when facing difficulty.

Interestingly, the relations between these behavior patterns and levels of objective capacities of an individual indicated that highly skilled individuals can develop maladaptive patterns and vice versa (Dweck 1975, 1989). When striving to explain why individuals of equal ability showed such different behavior patterns, Carol Dweck and colleagues identified two classes of goals within the domain of intellectual achievement. They proposed that these goals create the framework within which individuals react to and interpret events. The two goal types are: learning oriented goals, in which individuals strive to increase their competence, and performance oriented goals, in which the individual is concerned with gaining favorable judgments of their competence (Dweck & Elliott 1983).

Goal orientation is defined as an individual difference variable that states to what degree an individual is predisposed to either type of goals: learning goal or performance goal. Carol Dweck's work on goals was further developed into the research of how "implicit theories" (defined as people's basic assumptions about themselves and the world) guide the choice and pursuit of goals, defining incremental and entity theories of self, character and perceived intelligence. An incremental theory is related to mastery orientation of goals and focuses the individual on process analysis, mastery and continuous selfdevelopment. On the other hand, an entity theory is related to performance goals and guides the individual towards evaluation, comparison with others, attribution of behavior outcomes to fixed and global internal or external causes (Dweck 1996).

Task-involved versus ego-involved orientation

Nicholls (1984) analyzed achievement motivation in a similar manner to that proposed by Dweck (1975, 1989), relying on how individuals construct and develop conceptions about their abilities. High levels of perceived abilities in approaching an activity were linked with increased learning and effort toward improvement. The development of conceptions about abilities was organized in Nicholls' (1984) conceptual system around two types of goals: ego goals and task goals. On the one hand, ego-involved goals are framed in terms of: "Will I look smart?" or "Can I outperform others?". Individuals with ego-involved goals seek to maximize favorable evaluations of their competence and minimize negative evaluations of competence. On the other hand, task-involved goals imply focus on mastering tasks and increasing personal competence in domain specific activities. Task-involved goals are conceptualized in terms of: "Can I do this task?" and "What will I learn?" (Eccles & Wigfield 2002; Nicholls 1984).

Ego goals are associated with ability development in a differentiated manner, with a comparison criterion (the other) offering specific achievement levels. Task goals are linked with ability development in an undifferentiated sense, with individuals focusing on "mastering" or learning a given task, with intrinsically oriented affect, cognition and behavior leading to individually crafted patterns of achievement. While task goal are defined as inherently intrinsic, ego goals reflect conscious evaluative effort in reaching an extrinsic performance criterion and are effective only when associated with high levels of perceived ability (Elliot 2005). Nicholls (1984) viewed differential conceptualizations of abilities as "the keys to understanding achievement motivation" (p. 329), especially referring to achievement states. Hence, he made a similar postulation to that of Dweck's research team: abilities can be defined as fixed capacities or as attributes that can be continuously developed and their differential conceptualization leads to specific achievement goals patterns.

The approach - avoidance dimension of achievement goals

The research work of Dweck and Nicholls suggested that a focus on mastery or task goals in approaching an activity leads to higher levels of performance and performance related behaviors, cognitions and emotions, than a focus on performance or ego-involved goals. This postulate guided applied research endeavors in the 1990's, in developmental psychology, educational settings (Ames 1992; Maehr & Midgley 1991; Pintrich & Garcia 1991), sports psychology (Duda & Nicholls 1992; Seifriz, Duda & Chi, 1992; White, Duda & Hart 1992), social and personality psychology (Harackiewicz & Elliot 1993; Harackiewicz & Sansone 1991).

Increased efforts to investigate and integrate such a conceptualization of motivation in both experimental and applied research have gradually escaladed into an epistemic crisis in the mid '90s. Analysis of existing studies tended to suggest that in certain types of contexts a performance orientation can be as beneficial as a mastery orientation and that at times individuals can hold at the same time mastery and performance goals (Bouffard, Boisvert, Vezeau & Larouche 1995; Elliot & Harackiewicz 1994). Mastery goals were delineated as positive predictors of task involvement, positive affect in task pursuit or task persistence in the face of set-backs, but as Elliot (2005) concludes on the review of these studies "mastery goals indeed tended to lead to a host of positive processes and outcomes (although evidence linking mastery goals to positive performance outcomes was conspicuously sparse)" (p. 58). What appeared as a necessity was a conceptual and functional reconsideration of performance goals and their impact on individual functioning.

The approach - avoidance distinction in the valence individuals attach to an activity appeared as an illuminating refinement of achievement goals. Dwelling on previous theoretical and methodological accounts, the team of researchers led by Andrew Elliot has gradually introduced this distinction in the achievement goals literature. They described performance and mastery goals in terms of both approach (an orientation to demonstrating ability) and avoidance (an orientation to avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability) components (Elliot & Thrash 2001; Elliot & Harackiewicz 1996; Rawsthorne & Elliot 1999).

These components derive from the valence dimension of competence (Elliot & McGregor 2001). Competence is valenced in terms of a positive, desirable possibility (success) or a negative, undesirable possibility (failure). Studies indicate that people process most, if not all, encountered stimuli in terms of valence and do so immediately and without intention or awareness (Bargh 1997). Furthermore, this automatic, valence-based processing is presumed to instantaneously evoke approach and avoidance behavioral predispositions (Cacioppo, Priester, & Berntson 1993).

Elliot and McGregor (2001) defined a 2 (mastery versus performance) * 2 (valence: approach versus avoidance) framework for achievement motivation: (a) mastery-approach goals (in which competence is seen in absolute/intrapersonal terms and is positively valenced); (b) mastery-avoidance goals (in which competence is defined in absolute/intrapersonal terms and is negatively valenced); (c) performanceapproach goals (in which competence is defined in normative terms and is positively valenced); (d) performance-avoidance goals (in which competence is defined in normative terms and is negatively valenced).

People who are focused on approach performance goals are oriented toward doing better than others and demonstrating their ability and competence, in other words, approaching tasks in terms of trying to outperform others. In contrast, under an avoidance performance orientation, people try to avoid looking incompetent compared to others, hence focusing on prevention of failure. In both correlational and experimental research where mastery, approach performance and avoidance performance goals are compared, non-adaptive patterns of intrinsic motivation and actual performance usually occur in the avoidance performance groups (Elliot & Church 1997). In appraising the differential effect of achievement goals on task performance, research tends to indicate that mastery goals are generally associated with promotion of self-determination, task involvement, increased autonomy and enjoyment (Koestner 2008; Powers, Koestner & Zuroff 2007). Performance goals are supposed to increase and sustain evaluation anxiety, pressure to meet expected results and normative demands.

What is important to note at this point, is the fact that increased interest and involvement for a task, which are generally rather associated with mastery goals (Ryan & Brown 2005), are not necessarily sustained by high levels of actual performance in that task. For instance, a student can be very interested and involved in solving Algebra problems, but he may have lower results at an Algebra assessment than students who are not as interested or involved in this type of activity. Such discrepancies have urged reconsideration of the distinction mastery versus performance goals, with the specification of goal valence, namely approach versus avoidance.

Self-determination and achievement goals

Self-determination theory is organized on the influence of autonomy in motivational processes, proposing that self-determined behavior, freely chosen and reflecting personal values, is associated with the highest levels of individual functioning (Ryan & Deci 2000). Central to self-determination theory is the concept of basic psychological needs that are assumed to be innate and universal. According to the theory, these needs - namely competence, autonomy, and relatedness - must be permanently satisfied in order that people develop and function in healthy or optimal ways (Deci & Ryan 2000). Three main characteristics: autonomy, control, and amotivated orientations are theorized to differentially construct motivation by influencing the extent to which individuals perceive goals as intentionally chosen.

The theoretical model is based on the assumption that people possess inborn tendencies to psychologically grow and develop, to pursue and control environmental challenges, and to integrate experience into a coherent self-concept (Ryan & Deci 2000). These tendencies are fully expressed only within a supportive social context. That is, self-determination is not achieved simply because an individual has certain prerequisite knowledge and skills; it is also important that key people and institutions in a person's life environment provide a facilitative context for the development of self-determination. From an intervention focused perspective, self-determination "refers to the attitudes and abilities required to act as the primary causal agent in one's life and to make choices regarding one's actions free from undue external influence or interference" (Wehmeyer 1992, p. 305).

Self-determination is inherently linked with the development of intrinsic motivation for an activity and autonomy in approaching tasks. As the need for competence is conceptualized as one of the basic individual needs, the intricate pattern of relations between achievement goals and self-determination indicators has been extensively analyzed in research studies. In mapping differential influences of mastery versus performance goals on intrinsic motivation, Rawsthorne and Elliot (1999) conducted a quantitative metaanalysis of 23 separate experimental studies on this topic. Intrinsic motivation was operationalized through behavioral indicators in the free-choice paradigm, with appraisal of the participants' actual behavior of further engagement in an activity or self-report indicators regarding the individual's intention and interest in future involvement in a given activity.

The authors capitalized in their meta-analytical study on what they assessed as an important distinction in the conceptualization of performance goals. This distinction relies on the conceptualization proposed by Nicholls (1984), and segments the definition of a performance orientation in terms of ego involvement or normative standards. The former refers "to a condition in which one's self-esteem is invested in or contingent on attaining a specified outcome or reaching a certain standard" (Rawsthorne & Elliot 1999, p. 327), while the latter includes an external normative standard in performance level appraisal (a norm group). The authors view performance goals framed in terms of ego involvement as more detrimental to intrinsic motivation and self-determination. The results of the meta-analysis indicated that performance goals are associated with reduced free-choice persistence in an activity, self-reported interest and task enjoyment than mastery goals. The magnitude of the summary composites was reduced, though systematic across all meta-analyzed studies.

The postulated distinction between ego versus normative focus in defining a performance orientation could not explain the variability of results in the meta-analyzed studies. An interesting aspect brought forward by Rawsthorne and Elliot's (1999) meta-analysis was the fact that valence of competence feedback leads to differential influences of achievement goals on intrinsic motivation behavioral measures. Competence confirming feedback led to participants holding a performance goal to decrease their intrinsic behaviors for task pursuit. The same goal condition was associated with an increase in intrinsic behaviors when the feedback was negative (competence infirming) or no feedback was given. Under the latter feedback modalities performance and mastery goals determined similar levels of intrinsic behaviors, measured through free-choice involvement in a given activity. Homogeneity tests revealed that the valence of competence feedback has relevant explanatory power for behavioral measures of intrinsic motivation, but not so much for self-report measures. The approach-avoidance distinction was rendered to better account for the variability in performance compared to mastery orientations. On the one hand, performance approach goals had similar effects on intrinsic motivation behavioral and self-report measures with those of mastery goals. Performance avoidance goals, on the other hand, had detrimental effect of both types of intrinsic motivation measures.

In the SD paradigm, evaluative external input individuals receive, in the form of appraisals or feedback (e. g. grades, verbal or objective rewards) is interpreted depending on the functional significance assigned by the individual to an activity or event (Deci & Ryan 2000). Construction of competence is related to three types of subjectively assigned functional significance: informational, controlling, or amotivating (Ryan & Brown 2005). Firstly, informational significance refers to feedback which offers specific information on how an individual can become more proficient in an activity, without putting pressure on exerting control on his endeavors in that task; this form of subjective significance is linked to positive influences on motivation. Secondly, controlling significance is perceived by a person as integrating high degrees of external pressure in reaching a specific outcome or employing certain strategies toward that outcome; this category of significance induces initial compliance with the imposed demands, but in the long run undermines interest and commitment to a task. Thirdly, amotivated significance encompasses feedback perceived as mainly focusing on the incompetence of individuals in a given task, through excessively difficult performance standards or systematic emphasis of shortcomings and errors; this type of significance is supposed to lead to reduced effort and interest and rapid withdrawal from an activity.

The theoretical assumptions of self-determination models construct the image of an individual driven by basic needs which sustain the development of intrinsic motivation and autonomy in action. Construction of competence is therefore further detailed, in that it is viewed as an inborn need, best facilitated through autonomy orientation toward activities and individual assignment of informational significance to the competence feedback ones receives. The role of competence feedback can be better analyzed using findings in this paradigm, with competence confirming feedback leading participants with performance goal to decrease their intrinsic behaviors for task pursuit. The same goal condition was associated with an increase in intrinsic behaviors when the feedback was negative (competence infirming) or no feedback was given. Also, performance goals are associated with reduced free-choice persistence in an activity, selfreported interest and task enjoyment than mastery goals. Research evidence tends to indicate that selfdetermination is linked to a higher extent to the development of mastery goals, which sustain and are sustained by autonomy beliefs and behaviors, though operational mechanisms pertaining to this relation have not yet been thoroughly investigated.

Self-efficacy and achievement goals

Self-efficacy based theories (Bandura 1997) focus on the individual as a proactive and anticipative system. In this paradigm, self-regulation derives from a dual system of control: a proactive system of discrepancy creation, which functions together with a reactive system of discrepancy reduction. Competence is viewed as deeply rooted in personal experiences with a class of activities, and their definition in terms of efficacy beliefs and outcome expectations. Gradual development of a self-schema regarding one's efficacy in a specific domain influences competence perceptions in that domain and ultimately impacts upon performance outcomes. Self-efficacy beliefs are reflected at the level of goal setting, planning strategies, implementation strategies and assessments of performance levels (for an in-depth analysis, see Bandura & Locke 2003).

Goal setting parameters (difficulty, complexity, novelty), goal processes (persistence, strategies when facing barriers, allocation of effort, attention deployment) and goal-relevant assessments (perceptions of task controllability, expectancies for success versus failure, processing of negative feedback) are influenced by self-efficacy beliefs. Empirical studies indicate that self-efficacy is positively related to the persistence individuals deploy when facing negative discrepancies between goal and performance outcomes, to task performance and to levels of self-set goals.

A reactive control system comes into play according to this model whenever individuals receive negative feedback regarding their actions, but it is doubled by a discrepancy creation system, in which they set higher standards for themselves, in light of high levels of self-efficacy beliefs. Hence, self-determination in the construction of competence is not only related to reducing discrepancies between personal achievement goals, but also to proactively creating new standards, for higher levels of performance. From an achievement goal perspective, these tenets bring important information, as they detail the perpetual development of competence as interplay between discrepancy creation and discrepancy reduction. In analyzing within individual differences at this level, Jourden (1991) pointed out that when feedback is framed as progress toward goal achievement, self-efficacy beliefs increase, goals become self-set and selfsatisfaction attains higher levels. When feedback brings forward shortfalls, all previously presented dimensions decrease and performance gradually deteriorates. It thus seems that development of competence is rather aided by the prospect of self-development and high level beliefs that one has "what it takes" to be proficient in an activity.

In correlational school learning studies, self-efficacy beliefs have been found as positive correlates of mastery goals and development of academic competence is complexly linked with the development of academic self-efficacy (Kaplan & Midgley 1997). Academic self-efficacy is based on student aptitudes and skills, direct or vicarious learning experiences in the specific domain and social support (Bandura 1997). Research on the relation between self-efficacy and persistence indicates that individuals with high levels of self-efficacy tend to be more persistent in pursuing activities, especially in the early stages of learning (Schunk 1995). The confidence induced by high self-efficacy levels aids performance in the face of failure, through better calibration of effort and selection of adequate strategies. The between individuals variability in the development of competence is attributed to differential constructions of self-efficacy beliefs, with age and schooling modifying the meaning of effort and ability (Nicholls 1984). Socio-cognitive approaches on competence point out the role of parents, teachers, educational contexts, peer influences on individual development, revealing an intricate pattern of facilitative and inhibitive mechanisms which impact on personal conceptions of achievement.

Educational studies on mastery versus performance goals take into account this multidimensional conception of competence and try to integrate measures of individual self-efficacy in assessments of achievement goals. The differential dynamics of the relation mastery versus performance goals with selfefficacy has been extensively researched in educational settings, with mixed results, especially for the performance goals orientation. While mastery goals are generally believed to be associated with higher levels of self-efficacy hence providing partial explanation for their importance in individual development, performance goals are more controversial. Dweck and Leggett (1988) initially postulated that self-efficacy beliefs act as a moderator for performance goals, in that they have negative effects only when combined with reduced self-efficacy, an assumption that had yielded controversial results. Wolters, Yu and Pintrich (1996) pointed out, in a correlational study on junior high-school students, that high levels of performance approach goals predicted high levels of self-efficacy, task value and employment of cognitive and metacognitive strategies.

In another study though, Kaplan and Midgley (1997) did not find a relation between performance approach goals and self-efficacy. Pintrich (2000) proposed a multiple goals perspective in the analysis of the relation self-efficacy beliefs - achievement goals; individuals can hold and pursue multiple goals at one time, for one activity, being both concerned with doing better than others, while also focusing on mastering a given task. This revised perspective on achievement goals has drawn the attention of researchers in the past decade, indicating that an adequate balance between performance and mastery orientation for an activity can yield better and more adaptive outcomes than an exclusive focus on mastery goals (Pintrich, Conley & Kern pier 2003).

High levels of task specific self-efficacy represent valid contingencies of interest development for an activity and further action involvement in that activity, with research studies indicating a strong relation between mastery goals and self-efficacy beliefs. Hence, analysis of task interest and involvement through the lenses of self-efficacy processes can offer a more detailed understanding on how achievement goals impact performance in an activity.

Goal-setting and achievement

Goal setting theory was gradually elaborated by Locke and Latham, (two industrial-organizational psychologists) starting from the 1960's. Their theory focuses on different goal dimensions which can enhance performance, with most applications referring to work and organizational settings. These dimensions care refer to mechanisms through which goals operate, moderators of goal effects, the relation between goals and satisfaction, and the role of goals as mediators of incentives (Locke & Latham 2002).

According to Locke and Latham (2002), goals can affect performance through four processes: (a) directive - they focus attention of goal-relevant activities, at both cognitive and behavioral levels; (b) energizing - high difficulty goals are associated with an increased expenditure of effort, compared to low difficulty goals; (c) influence on persistence in an activity - the level of goal difficulty and the amount of time in which an activity can be completed lead to differential trade-offs between intensity of effort and time spent on the given activity; (d) facilitation in the use of task-relevant knowledge and strategies.

While achievement goal models and self-determination theories operate on "higher" ground, in that they are rather interested in depicting the dynamics of purpose goals, goal setting theory started from applied observations on how goal impact performance and to this day focus on prescribing how goals should be structured in order to lead to the highest levels of performance. Hence, research in this model focuses on the relation goal structures - performance dimension, and tested how goal difficulty, complexity and specificity affect performance, how previous experience and preexisting skills are used to pursue a current goals, how planning strategies are applied to novel goals, how training strategies can influence effective goal setting. A series of meta-analyses on the goal setting model have pointed out the fact that difficult and specific goals lead to better performance than easy, "do your best" goals (Mento, Steel & Karren 1987); hard, specific goals combined with feedback are linked with augmentation in performance (Tubbs 1986); task complexity was found as a moderator for the effect of goal specificity of simple versus complex tasks (Wood, Mento, & Locke 1987).

Though there have been few studies linking achievement goals with goal setting findings, a host of research endeavors in both frameworks have brought into attention that the two models can complement each other in revealing a more complex image of personal intentionality (Senko & Harackiewicz 2005). In analyzing the relation between achievement goals and interest in determining performance, Senko and Harackiewicz (2005) acknowledge that the level of perceived task difficulty is an important factor in the how mastery versus performance goals influence performance outcomes. The researchers hypothesize that mastery goals increase task interest through the mediation of perceived goal difficulty, with mastery goals being perceived as easier to pursue and attain than performance goals. Still, the two researchers do note that the level of abstractness for achievement goals versus task specific goals is different, with the former being more abstract, while the latter are closely linked with task specific requirements and hence more detailed. This is an important distinction between the two types of goals, and one of the reasons, why, we believe, little has been done so far to link achievement goals with task-specific goals.

The focus of goal setting theory and research on goal structures and task dimensions can offer an interesting ground for future studies in the achievement goal paradigm. Some important short-comings that must be overcome in order to allow goal setting findings to be better integrated in achievement goal research, encompass: (a) more accurate dimensional charting of tasks used in achievement goals studies in order to link task structure with effectiveness of achievement goals upon performance; (b) integration of achievement goals with task goals, in order to better understand which task goal characteristics (as researched in the goal-setting paradigm) better facilitate specific achievement orientations; (c) testing of goal setting assumptions on effective goal structures in contexts where competence is defined on achievement parameters. We strongly believe that operational statements on mastery versus performance goals can be defined in the future using the complex findings of goal setting studies.

Achievement goals: integrative remarks

Achievement goals are defined through contexts where one's competence is relevant, with mastery goals focusing on competence development and performance goals focusing on competence demonstration. They are linked with different effects on performance in an activity, with feedback being differently processed by individuals operating on a mastery goal versus a performance goal. The approach-avoidance distinction offers a more detailed account of achievement goals effects on actual performance, with the formulation of a goal in terms of avoiding failure being detrimental on cognitive, emotional and behavioral functioning, regardless of mastery or performance focus. Though the importance of achievement goals in defining individual intentionality structures has been long established, the theoretical tenets could benefit from analysis of goals conducted in other goal models.

Viewing achievement goals through the lenses of self-determination mechanisms aids a better understanding of how performance versus mastery orientations differentially impact performance outcomes. When analyzed in ecological settings, self-determination in action representation and implementation represents a key factor in the situational development of achievement goals. Two conceptual distinctions made in this paradigm contribute to a better understanding of the relation achievement goals - performance outcomes, with an operational focus on intrinsic motivation patterns. Firstly, the valence of competence feedback differentially impacts performance versus mastery goals, with competence confirming feedback leading individuals holding a performance goal to decrease their intrinsic behaviors for task pursuit, while for mastery goals it is linked with an increase in intrinsic behaviors for task pursuit. Secondly, construction of competence is mediated by three types of subjective functional significance the individual assigns to an activity or event: informational, controlling, or amotivating. These modalities of functional significance gradually lead to different achievement orientations toward that activity, with the informational significance being associated with the most positive influences on action implementation.

In order to analyze the relation achievement goals - task performance, a valuable source of information is offered by the goal setting theory, which focuses on goal structural dimensions that increase performance. This model maps both goal structural organization and task characteristics, in establishing how a goal should be formulated in order to lead to high levels of task performance. Goal and task difficulty, novelty, complexity and specificity have been thoroughly analyzed in this model, in direct relation to structural segmentation of a given task. The relation task goals - purpose goals, where through purpose goals we investigate achievement goals, can be better traced using structural analysis dimensions which were researched in the goal setting paradigm. In order to tap into the relation achievement goals - task goals - performance, we will next use dimensions of analysis employed in this paradigm.

The role of self-efficacy beliefs in goal directed behavior has been widely researched, both in the achievement motivation framework and the self-efficacy one. Empirical studies, conducted in laboratory and field settings, have brought into attention the power of high task self-efficacy when individuals are confronted with negative discrepancies between goal and performance outcomes. In the self-efficacy framework competence is inherently related to a dual process of discrepancy reduction and discrepancy creation in setting and implementing new goals. Individuals are orientated toward achievement not only in order to reduce the distance between an expected (or imposed) performance outcome and a present state, but are also driven by a proactive tendency to set and engage in new goals, without any preexisting negative pressures, internal or external. In the pursuit of a goal in ecological contexts individuals gradually develop activity-specific efficacy beliefs, which are in a relation of dual determination to mastery and performance goals. Development of task interest, future behavioral involvement in that activity, persistence when task performance is at low levels or it plateaus are all linked with high levels of self-efficacy. Unfortunately, this complex dynamics cannot be investigated in experimental settings, but it is important to note that recent studies bring into attention that self-efficacy beliefs can be positively reflected in achievement goals, both mastery and performance oriented, but only when they have an approach valence.

References

Bibliography

Ames, C 1992, 'Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation', Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 84, pp. 261-271.

Bandura, A 1997, Self-efficacy: The exercise of control, New York, W. H. Freeman.

Bandura, A & Locke E 2003, 'Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited', Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 88, pp. 87-99.

Bargh, JA 1997, 'The automaticity of everyday life', in RS Wyer, Jr. (Ed.), The automaticity of everyday life: Advances in social cognition, Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum, vol. 10, pp. 1-61.

Bouffard, T, Boisvert, V, Vezeau, C & Larouche, C 1995, The impact of goal orientation on self- regulation and performance among college students', British Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 65, pp. 317329.

Cacioppo, JT, Priester, JR & Berntson, GG 1993, 'Rudimentary determinants of attitudes. II: Arm flexion and extension have differential effects on attitudes', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 65, pp. 5-17.

Deci, E & Ryan, RM 2000, 'The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior", Psychological Inquiry, vol. 11, pp. 227-268.

Diener, Cl, & Dweck, CS 1978, 'An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in performance, strategy and achievement cognitions following failure', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 36, pp. 451-462.

Duda, JL, & Nicholls, JG 1992, 'Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport', Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 84, pp. 290-299.

Dweck, CS 1996, 'Implicit theories as organizers of goals and behavior', in PM Gollwitzer & JA Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and motivation to behavior, New York, Guilford Press, pp. 69-90.

Dweck, CS 1989, 'Motivation', in A Lesgold & R Glaser (Eds.), Foundations for a Psychology of Education, Hillsdale, NJ, Erlbaum, pp. 87-136.

Dweck, CS 1975, 'The role of expectations and attributions in the alleviation of learned helplessness', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 31, pp. 674-685.

Dweck, CS & Elliott, ES 1983, 'Achievement motivation', in P Müssen and EM Hetherington (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, New York, Wiley, vol. 4, pp. 634-691.

Dweck, CS & Leggett, EL 1988, ? social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality', Psychological Review, vol. 95, pp. 256-273.

Dweck, CS & Reppucci, ND 1973, 'Learned helplessness and reinforcement responsibility in children', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 25, pp. 1 09-1 1 6.

Eccles, J & Wigfield, A 2002, 'Motivational beliefs, values and goals', Annual Review of Psychology, vol. 53(1), pp. 109-132.

Elliot, AJ 2005, A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct', in A Elliot & C Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation, New York: Guilford Press, pp. 52-72.

Elliot, AJ & Dweck, CS 2005, Handbook of Competence and Motivation, New York, Guilford Press.

Elliot, E. S. & Dweck, C. S. 1988, 'Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 54, pp. 5-12.

Elliot, E & Church, M 1997, ? hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 72, pp. 218-232.

Elliot, AJ & Harackiewicz, JM 1994, 'Goal setting, achievement orientation and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis'. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 66, pp. 968-980.

Elliot, AJ & McGregor, HA 2001, x 2 x 2 achievement goal framework', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 80, pp. 501-519.

Elliot, AJ & Thrash, TM 2002, 'Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 82, pp. 804-818.

Harackiewicz, JM & Elliot, AJ 1993, 'Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 65, pp. 904-915.

Harackiewicz, JM & Sansone, C 1991, 'Goals and intrinsic motivation: You can get there from here', Advances in Motivation and Achievement, vol. 7, pp. 21-49.

Jourden, F 1991, 'The influence of feedback framing on the self regulatory mechanisms governing complex decision making', PhD thesis, Stanford University.

Kaplan, A & Midgley, C 1997, 'The effect of achievement goals: Does level of academic efficacy make a difference?', Contemporary Educational Psychology, vol. 22, pp. 415-435.

Koestner, R 2008, 'Reaching one's personal goals: A motivational perspective focused on autonomy", Canadian Psychology, vol. 49, pp. 60-67.

Locke, E & Latham, G 2002, 'Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35year Odyssey", American Psychologist, vol. 57, pp. 705-717.

Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. 1991, 'Enhancing student motivation: A schoolwide approach', Educational Psychologist, vol. 26(3/4), pp. 399-427.

McClelland, DC, Atkinson, JW, Clark, RA & Lowell, EL 1953, The achievement motive, New York, AppletonCentury-Crofts.

Mento, AJ, Steel, RP & Karren, R 1987, ? meta-analytic study of the effects of goal setting on task performance: 1966-1984', Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, vol. 39, pp. 52-83.

Midgley, C, Kaplan, A & Middleton, M 2001, 'Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances and at what costs', Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 93, pp. 77-86.

Nicholls, JG 1984, 'Achievement Motivation: Conceptions of Ability, Subjective Experience, Task Choice, and Performance', Psychological Review, vol. 91(3), pp. 328-346.

Pintrich, PR 2000, 'Multiple goals, multiple pathways: the role of goal orientation in learning and achievement', Journal of Educational Psychology, vol. 92, pp. 544-555.

Pintrich, PR & Garcia, T 1991, 'Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college classroom', in ML Maehr & PR Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, Greenwich CT, JAI Press, vol. 7, pp. 371-402.

Pintrich, PR, Conley, AM, & Kempler, TM 2003, 'Current Issues in Achievement Goal Theory and Research', International Journal of Educational Research, vol. 39, pp. 319-337.

Rawsthorne, L & Elliot, A 1999, 'Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analytic review', Personality and Social Psychology Review, vol. 3(4), pp. 326-344.

Ryan, RM & Brown, KW 2005, 'Legislating competence: The motivational impact of high stakes testing as an educational reform', in C Dweck & AE Elliot (Eds.), Handbook of Competence, New York, Guilford Press, pp. 354-374.

Ryan, RM & Deci, EL 2000, 'Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being', American Psychologist, vol. 55, pp. 68-78.

Schunk, DH 1995, 'Self-efficacy and education and instruction', in JE Maddux (Ed.), Self-efficacy, adaptation, and adjustment: Theory, research, and application, New York: Plenum Press, pp. 281-303.

Seifriz, JJ, Duda, JL, & Chi, L 1992, 'The relationship of perceived motivational climate to intrinsic motivation and beliefs about success in basketball', Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, vol. 14, pp. 375-391.

Senko, CM, & Harackiewicz, JM 2005, 'Achievement goals, performance and task interest: Why perceived difficulty matters', Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol. 31, pp. 1739-1753.

Tubbs, M 1986, 'Goal setting: A meta-analytic examination of the empirical evidence', Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 71, pp. 474-483.

Wehmeyer, ML 1992, 'Self-determination and the education of students with mental retardation', Education and Training in Mental Retardation, vol. 27, pp. 302-314.

White, SA, Duda, JL & Hart, S 1992, 'An exploratory examination of the Parent-initiated Motivational Climate Questionnaire', Perceptual Motor Skills, vol. 75, pp. 875-880.

Wolters, C, Yu, S, & Pintrich, P 1996, 'The relation between goal orientation and students' motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning', Learning and Individual Differences, vol. 8, pp. 211-238.

Wood, R, Mento, A & Locke, E 1987, 'Task complexity as a moderator of goal effects', Journal of Applied Psychology, vol. 17, pp. 416-425.