Evaluating the Relationships between Self-Concordance

Motivation, Motivational Persistence and General Self-Efficacy

among Technical University Students
Dumitru FILIPEANU1, Ana Iolanda VODĂ2, Sabina Mădălina CĂNĂNĂU3, Claudiu Gabriel
ȚIGĂNAȘ4

Abstract

The present paper consists of a study based on the analysis of several specialty works in
the field of psychology, along with a piece of research conducted for the purpose of observing
the importance of motivation in setting long-term aims and what leads to the achievement or
failure to reach them. In evaluating aims, motivational persistence and self-efficacy, the
present research uses three standardised scales: Self-Concordance Motivation - SCM; Scale
of Motivational Persistence – SPM and the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE). The
information was collected using the survey method, on a convenience sample of 1494
Romanian respondents. The results shows that motivational persistence in attaining the
intended aim, irrespective of the easiness or hardness on the way is, also, another equally
important element as the purpose to succeed itself. We all want to always succeed and never
fail, whenever possible. Despite all these, success and failure grow as a circle in our lives.
Only our personal reaction before such events is different. Consequences may manifest
themselves from the change of behaviour to the evolution or involution of the self-esteem
level which is strongly connected to it. Experience showed that both success and failure can
change us to the same extent for better or worse.

Keywords: Self-Concordance Motivation, Motivational Persistence, General Self-Efficacy,

success, failure

Introduction

Nowadays aim setting proves to be more and more important as every activity is evaluated
based on several parameters and criteria. Setting objectives and the motivation to choose
them is a largely debated seminal issue in specialty literature, hence the many theories and a
wide range of experiments. Starting from the seminal work of Sheldon & Elliot (1998),
Constantin et al. (2011) and Jerusalem and Schwarzer (1995) this paper aims at evaluating the
relationship between self-aim concordance, motivational persistence and self-efficacy by
using three standardized scales: Self-Concordance Motivation - SCM; Scale of Motivational
Persistence – SPM and the General Self-Efficacy Scale.

1
Department of Concrete Structures, Building Materials, Technology and Management, Faculty of Civil
Engineering and Building Services, Technical University Gheorghe Asachi Iași, ROMANIA. E-mail:
Email: filipeanu@hotmail.com
2
Interdisciplinary Research Institute, Department of Social Sciences and Humanities, Alexandru Ioan Cuza
University of Iași, ROMANIA. E-mail: yolanda.voda@gmail.com
3
Soft-Vision, ROMANIA. E-mail: sabina.cananau@gmail.com
4
Department of Economics and International Relations, Faculty of Economics and Business
Administration, Alexandru Ioan Cuza University of Iași, ROMANIA. E-mail: clau_tiganas@yahoo.com
 To achieve this aim, we collect the information about the population of interest using the
survey method. The present research was conducted on a sample of 1494 subjects from
Gheorghe Asachi Technical University of Iași. From the methodological point of view,
several hypotheses have been developed and tested using Pearson Correlation, Independent T-
tests, One-Way analysis of variance ANOVA and Cronbach Alpha reliability tests. Results
show that at a personal level, failure or success in project motivation and later on, long-term
successful projects have important repercussions and decisively influence an individual’s
development. Each and every one of us aims at success; every person dreams at personal and
professional achievement. Researchers in the field seem to accept and increasingly promote
the idea that success and failure do not matter, but wisdom is required to manage them and
mainly never give up, when you truly believe in the respective aim.

Literature review and hypotheses development

Several studies underline that motivation is an important predictor of goal-related

behaviours. For instance, Sheldon and Elliot (1999) develop the Self-Concordance Model
(SCM), which „addresses the entire temporal sequence leading from goal adoption to goal
attainment, and it also models the effects of attainment on need of satisfaction and well-
being” (Sheldon and Elliot, 1999, p.482). The authors’ research distinguish between personal
or self-concordant goals and those goals, which are rather self-imposed or pursued as a result
of social pressures (self-discordant goals). According to SCM there are four types of reasons
according to which individuals may pursue a goal:
 External motivation - pursing goals because of pressure of others, or to attain
something in return – like rewards;
 Introjected motivation refers to pursuing a goal to avoid feelings of shame, guilt and
anxiety;
 Identified motivation – pursing goals as they are considered highly important;
 Finally, intrinsic motivation refers to pursing a goal because of the fun and enjoyment
it provides.
Persistence of motivation is as important as having motivation. Motivational persistence
scale (SPM) was developed by Constantin et al. (2011). The construct allows the evaluation
of motivational persistence, understood as the individual predisposition to motivate
persistently in the effort aimed at achieving a goal, to find the necessary motivational
resources to achieve the long-term goals (Constantin et al., 2011).
Another important motivational construct is self-efficacy, which reflects individual’s
beliefs in their capabilities to perform a specific action required to attain a desired outcome
(Luszczynska et al., 2005). According to the social cognitive theory, this motivational factor
for influencing behaviour is characterized as being competence-based, prospective and of an
operative nature (Bandura, 1997; Lyons and Bandura, 2018). Schwarzer and Jerusalem
(1995) develop the General Self-Efficacy Scale (GSE) in order to asses a more general sense
of perceived self-efficacy. The developed scale reflects an optimistic self-belief in pursuing a
novel or difficult tasks, and cope with recovery from setbacks and resistance to stressful
situations.
The paper aims at evaluating aims, motivational persistence and self-efficacy by using
three standardized scales: Self-Concordance Motivation – SCM, developed by Sheldon &
Elliot (1998); Scale of Motivational Persistence – SPM (Constantin et al., 2011), and the
General Self-Efficacy Scale, developed by Schwarzer & Jerusalem, in 1995. In order to
achieve this aim and in accordance to the literature, we have developed and tested the
following hypotheses (Table 1).
 Table 1. Developed hypotheses
Hypotheses Content
H1 There is a relation between motivational persistence and self-aim concordance.
H2 There is a relation between self-efficacy and motivational persistence.
H3 There are significant differences between male and female subjects with respect to
motivational persistence.
H4 There are significant differences between male and female subjects with respect to self-
efficacy
H5 There are significant differences according to the type of aim with respect to the self-aim
concordance variable.
H6 There are significant differences based on the type of aim regarding anticipated effort.
H7 There are significant differences at the level of basic needs according to the type of aim.
H7a. There are differences according to the type of aim with respect to the need for
competence.
H7b. There are significant differences according to the type of aim followed with respect to
the need for autonomy.
H7c. There are significant differences according to the type of aim with respect to the need
for relatedness.
Source: Author’s elaboration

The data and methodology, results and interpretation of the empirical analysis and
conclusions are presented in the following sections.

Methodology and data

Data and sample

The questionnaires were distributed to students in the classroom during 2012-2018. There
was thorough consideration for every student to answer the questions only once. First-year
students that received the questionnaire were omitted from the second-year target group.
Every time there was a short presentation before questionnaire administration on the aim of
the study, including the assurance of confidentiality and the use of data for exclusively
research purposes. We supervised the students carefully to avoid their being influenced by
colleagues and contaminate the answers.

Figure 1. Subjects distribution based on gender and year of study

Source: Author’s elaboration
 The present research was conducted on a group of 1494 subjects from the general
population, out of which 612 males and 882 females, all students at Gheorghe Asachi
Technical University of Iași. Out of the research subjects, 792 were first-year students and
702 second-year ones (Figure 1).

Method and Instrument

The present research made use of three standardised scales to evaluate aims, motivational
persistence and self-efficacy. They will be subsequently described and detailed in the order in
which they were applied during the study, as follows:
a. SCM (Self-Concordance Motivation) Questionnaire (Sheldon & Elliot, 1998) –
evaluates self-aim concordance defined as the consistency between personal interests
and values of an individual and his self. Within this scale several factors are
evaluated. First, the subjects are asked to make a list of the 5 aims they want to reach.
The extent to which the individual’s declared objectives correspond to his personal
values or are the result of external factors to him, is evaluated by means of four sets of
reasons on a continuum starting from non-internalised ones to the completely
internalised reasons. This draws on PLOC - perceived locus of causality (Ryan &
Connell, 1989). The items allow answers on a 9-step scale (1 – certainly not for this
reason, 9 – totally for this reason). The self-evaluation of the effort made is measured
on a 1 to 5 scale (1 – to a very small extent, 5 – to a very large extent), followed by
the measurement of the 3 basic needs – competence, autonomy and relatedness
(Deci & Ryan, 1985) on a 5-step Likert scale (1 – to a very small extent, 5 – to a very
large extent).
b. Scale of Motivational Persistence – SPM (Constantin et. al, 2011) – evaluates
motivational persistence, in the sense of the individual’s behavioural persistence, thus
identifying personal needs to overcome the obstacles and to endure the effort, fatigue
and other distracting factors. The Scale of Motivational Persistence affords the
evaluation of this personality trait via the items with an answer on a 5-step scale (1 –
to a very small extent, 5 – to a very large extent) to identify three factors: LTPP –
Long Term Purposes Pursuing, CPP – Current Purposes Pursuing and RUP –
Recurrence of Unattained Purposes. The total score of the three factors evaluated
within the PM4 questionnaire allows the evaluation of global motivational
persistence, i.e. a person’s capacity to persist from a motivational and behavioural
viewpoint to reach objectives, the tendency to persist and imply resources of time and
effort despite the obstacles and difficulties encountered. The internal consistence
coefficient for this scale is α =0.71.
c. The General Self-Efficacy Scale – (Schwarzer & Jerusalem, 1995) - evaluates self –
efficacy defined as an individual’s faith in his capability to carry out tasks in
ambiguous situations. The scale comprises 10 items and allows the evaluation of self-
efficacy on a 4-step scale (1-never, 4-always). The internal consistency coefficient of
this scale is α =0.66.

Results and interpretation

To test hypothesis 1, we used the Pearson correlation and we obtained the following
results: the correlation coefficient between motivational persistence and self-aim concordance
index was r = 0.045, p = 0.568, df = 1494. Therefore, the correlation sign is a positive one
which means that the low scores in the motivational persistence variable are associated to the
low scores in the self-aim variable, whereas the average scores in the motivational persistence
variable are associated to the average scores in the self-aim variable. Last but not least, the
high scores in the motivational persistence variable are associated to the high scores in the
self-aim concordance variable.
The strength of the relation between the two variables is a very weak one and the
correlation coefficient’s value is r = 0.045 whilst the significance threshold goes beyond 0.05
so that there is no significant relation between motivational persistence and self-aim
concordance. To conclude, the hypothesis was left unconfirmed. Table 2 illustrates the
correlation between the two variables.

Table 2. Correlations between motivational persistence and self-aim index

Self-aim concordance index

r 0.045
Motivational persistence p 0.568
df 1494

By interpreting this result, we conclude that motivational persistence is not significantly

correlated to self-aim concordance. This may be explained based on the idea according to
which the aim that does not correspond to his personal values and interests, i.e. it is not
congruent to his self, will endure less in its achievements. On the contrary, if the aim
proposed comes exclusively from inner reasons, the subject is totally convinced that what he
truly follows will persist overcoming all occurring obstacles to be successful. These results
are actually supported by the literature in the field; in this sense, Vasalampi and Nurmi (2009)
show that a self-aim concordance has a major impact not only on wellness, but also on the
youth’s educational future.
To test hypothesis 2, we used the Pearson correlation and obtained the following results:
the correlation coefficient between self-efficacy and motivational persistence is r = 0.323,
p < 0.001, df = 1494. Thus, the correlation sign is a positive one, which means that low
scores in the self-efficacy variable are associated to low scores in motivational persistence
variable, and the high scores in the self-efficacy variable are associated to the high scores in
the motivational persistence variable. The strength of the link between the two variables is an
average one given by the fact that we have a correlation coefficient of 0.323 and the
significance threshold, lower than 0.001, shows that there is a significant relation between
self-efficacy and motivational persistency. It can be noticed that 10% of the variance
observed shows in reality and the relation found between these two variables occurs in a
percentage of 10% of the subjects (r = 0.323, = 0.1). Thus, we may conclude that the
hypothesis was confirmed. Table 3 is a synthesis of the results obtained.

Table 3. Correlations between self-efficacy and motivational persistence

Motivational persistence
r 0.032
Self-efficacy p 0.000
df 1494

The results are consistent with the previous research which pointed out to us a correlation
between self-efficacy and persistence. Bandura (1977) claims that individuals that possess a
stronger feeling of self-efficacy last longer in the task, thus obtaining higher performance; at
the same time, individuals with a weak feeling of self-efficacy get involved and last harder in
activities that involve a high degree of motivational involvement and are much more likely to
give up when they encounter the first obstacle. In this research the subjects intended to reach
academic aims, the higher scores in persistence being associated to higher scores in self-
efficacy. As a result, the optimistic and confident subjects in their capacity to cope with
ambiguous situations last in reaching the aims they set despite the obstacles faced which they
managed to overcome. People have the tendency to adopt behaviours they think they will
attract what they want and which they think they can adjust to. We choose the respective
actions and strategies that we believe we can complete, and not the actions that go beyond
our possibilities, hence the allocation of our resources, the effort made and the time necessary
to reach performance. In other words, the more we persist in the actions we take, the more
confident in our forces and the more efficient in achieving the tasks.
To test hypothesis 3, we applied the statistical method of Independent-Samples T Test and
we obtained the following results:

Table 4. The difference between male and female subjects with respect to motivational persistence
(Independent-Samples T Test)

Std. Error
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation
Mean
Male 612 53.955 6.898 0.836
PM_total
Female 882 52.581 6.501 0.656
Source: data processed using the output from SPSS version 21.0.

The mean of results for male subjects on the motivational persistence is 53.955, whereas
the mean of results for female subjects is 52.581. Therefore, we did not identify statistically
significant differences between male and female gender subjects with respect to motivational
persistence (t (1494) = 1.306, p = 0.193 (p > 0.05)), as detailed in the table above (Table 4).
To conclude, we will accept the null hypothesis.
The results may be justified by the fact that the participant subjects to the present research
are students and they declared they pursued academic aims. Developed in an educational
institutional framework, the research revealed that both female and male subjects intended to
reach aims such as being accepted to college, not paying for their studies or obtaining a study
scholarship. Consequently, the insignificant difference between the two populations is
explained by the fact that both follow the same type of aim and intend to reach performance,
especially against the background of the present conditions in society; herein, the individual
is more and more willing to engage in competition with his social group and more than that.
Furthermore, self-esteem is of particular importance as previous studies have pointed out.
Both girls and boys persist in reaching academic aims, not a high level of self-esteem which
favours trust, hence a higher level of motivational persistence.
To check hypothesis 4, we applied the same statistical method above, namely Independent
Samples for T Tests and the results obtained are presented in the table below (Table 5):

Table 5. The difference between male and female subjects with respect to self-efficacy.
(Independent-Samples T Test)

Std. Error
Gender N Mean Std. Deviation
Mean
Male 612 32.235 4.271 0.517
SE_total
Female 882 30.734 5.354 0.540
Source: data processed using the output from SPSS version 21.0.

The mean of the results of male gender subjects to the self-efficacy variable is 32.235,
whereas the mean of the results for female gender subjects is 30.734. The results lead to the
identification of marginally significant statistical differences between the two populations
analysed in the sense that the mean of male subjects to the self-efficacy variable is higher
than the one of female gender subjects (t (1494) = 1.924, p = 0.056 (p > 0.05)). To conclude,
the hypothesis was partially confirmed. These results may be explained from a psychological
viewpoint by means of the fact that boys have higher self-esteem, which makes them have a
higher level of trust in their own capabilities. The ideas according to which individuals feel
they can reach their aims is better rooted in the mind of the male subjects than in female
subjects. The former feel more competent and capable to fulfil their aims, whereas female
subjects display more frequent fluctuations of self-esteem, and consequently, of self-esteem
and competence which leads to a lower level of self-efficacy.
To hypothesis 5, we used the One-Way analysis of variance ANOVA and we obtained the
results presented in figure 2.

Figure 2. Graph illustration of the self-aim concordance according to the type of aim
Source: graphic obtained using SPSS version 21.0.

The results reported F (2; 495) = 2.56, p = 0.078, which means that there are no significant
statistical differences between the three groups. Since p > 0.05, we will reject the research
hypothesis according to which there is an effect of the type of aim on the self-aim
concordance and we will accept the null hypothesis which claims that there is no such effect
between the two variables.
Using the Bonferroni Post-Hoc test, we extracted the differences between means,
comparing them between the three groups. Thus, the results for the self-aim concordance
variable of the subjects that met an aim successfully are no significantly different from the
results of the subjects that did not fulfil an aim or from the results of those that intend to fulfil
an aim in the future. To summarise, the date below detailed in table 6 highlighted the fact that
there were no significant differences between the results for the self-aim concordance of the
individuals that successfully reached an aim in the past, of those that did not succeed in what
they aimed at or the subjects that intend to fulfil an aim in the future. To summarise, the
hypothesis was not confirmed.

Table 6. Difference between the self-aim indexes according to the type of aim. (One Way ANOVA)

(I) Type of aim (J) Type of aim Mean Difference Std. Error P
Failed aim in the past 1.481 0.729 0.128
Successful aim in the past
Future aim 0.108 0.729 1.000
Failed aim in the past Successful aim in the past -1.481 0.729 0.128
 Future aim -1.373 0.729 0.180
Successful aim in the past -0.108 0.729 1.000
Future aim
Failed aim in the past 1.373 0.729 0.180
Source: data processed using the output from SPSS version 21.0.

So, in this context the following aspect needs considering: as long as the aim the
individual sets matches his self and corresponds to his personal values, irrespective of the
failure or success of the aim proposed or intended for the future. The most important factor in
the success or failure to reach an aim is the difficulty of the aim proposed, which actually led
to failure; however, this does not mean that aims were not strongly intrinsic ones and there
was no congruence between an individual’s personal interests and values.
To hypothesis 6, we used the One-Way analysis of variance ANOVA and we obtained the
results presented in figure 3.

Figure 3. Graph illustration of anticipated failure according to the type of aim.

Source: graphic obtained using SPSS version 21.0.

The results showed that F (2; 495) = 172.67, p < 0.01, hence the existence of statistically
significant differences between the three groups. P < 0.001 so we will accept the research
hypothesis and reject the null one; as a result, there is no effect of the type of aim followed
and its consequence on the effort made.
By means of the Bonferroni Post-Hoc test, we extracted the differences between the means
of the three variables, then comparing them; the results showed that the effort variable of the
subjects who successfully reached an aim differed significantly from the results of the
subjects who did not reach an aim, and the results of those that want to reach an aim in the
future. According to table 7, there are significant differences between the results for the
variable that account for the effort made by the individuals who successfully reached an aim,
those that did not succeed and those that want to reach an aim in the future. Put differently,
the subjects declared that they made more effort when they reached the intended aim, than
when they failed in its accomplishment. Also, they anticipate that for the success of what they
want to do in the future, they will need to make more effort than they did for meeting
previous aims. We may reach a different conclusion, namely that the hypothesis was partially
confirmed.

Table 7. Difference between the efforts made based on the type of aim. (One Way ANOVA)

(I) Type of aim (J) Type of aim Mean Difference Std. Error P
Failed aim in the past 0.951 0.087 0.000
Successful aim in the past
Future aim -0.674 0.087 0.000
Failed aim in the past Successful aim in the past -0.951 0.087 0.000
 Future aim -1.626 0.087 0.000
Successful aim in the past 0.674 0.087 0.000
Future aim
Failed aim in the past 1.626 0.087 0.000
Source: data processed using the output from SPSS version 21.0.

The effort anticipated by subjects with respect to the three types of aims differs based on
the difficulty of their intended aims. Previous research showed that an aim considered hard to
reach implied more effort, resources and time if acknowledged by others as intricate. Deci
and Ryan (1985) found out that, in the attempt to be successful, individuals managed to
perceive the task as more interesting, to feel more involved and make more cognitive and
emotional effort to reach their aims. But on the other hand, the fear of losing value and
competence in the eyes of the other individuals determines the subjects’ reluctance in making
efforts (Deci and Ryan, 1985). Another explanation for the low level of anticipated effort
regarding the failed aim is the one according to which individuals are not willing to take risks
and feel humiliated when the aim is considered to be difficult and try to avoid such feelings
as much as possible.
According to the effort anticipated for the future aim, the subjects declared a higher mean
as compared to the other two types of aims, given the personal expectancies on their
academic and professional future. Being influenced by previous events, which were
perceived as more or less successful in their lives, they expected and were willing to make
more effort than before even if they succeeded in their endeavours. Subjective wellbeing, as
well as a good capacity of self-control, helps them to last in the effort they make and the
resources they allocate to reach the aims set. Despite the fact that the subjects of the present
research considered their personal future project as difficult, its importance for the individual
has a special role with respect to the anticipated effort to be made. Thus, the more important
the aim set for one’s self, the more willing to invest time, resources and effort for its
achievement due to the strong motivation given by the thought and desire to be successful, as
expectancy-value theories argue (Feather, 1961).
To check hypothesis 7a, we used the One-Way analysis of variance ANOVA for each of
the three basic psychological needs, and the results obtained are detailed in figure 4.

Figure 4. Graph illustration of the need for competence based on the type of aim.
Source: graphic obtained using SPSS version 21.0.

The results showed F (2; 495) = 84.59, p < 0.01, hence the statistically significant
differences between the three groups. P < 0.001 so we will accept the research hypothesis and
reject the null one so that there is an effect of the type of aim followed by competence.
Using the Bonferroni Post-Hoc test, we extracted the differences between the means of the
three variables, subsequently comparing them; the results showed that the competence
variable of the subjects who successfully fulfilled an aim was significantly different from the
results of the subjects that did not; however, they are not significantly different from the
results of those that aim at reaching an aim in the future. As detailed in table 8, there are
significant differences between the results for the competence variable of the individuals who
successfully achieved an aim, those that failed in reaching one, but not those that aimed at
succeeding in the future. In other words, competence, i.e. the individual’s faith in his
capabilities to successfully meet his aims, differs based on the type of aim. The subjects felt
more competent when they successfully reached the aim and also feel competent with respect
to their future aims; yet they stated that they felt less competent with respect to the aims they
failed to reach.

Table 8a. Difference between the need for competence based on the type of aim. (One Way ANOVA)

(I) Type of aim (J) Type of aim Mean Difference Std. Error P
Failed aim in the past 0.927 0.086 0.000
Successful aim in the past
Future aim -0.084 0.086 0.988
Successful aim in the past -0.927 0.086 0.000
Failed aim in the past
Future aim -1.012 0.086 0.000
Successful aim in the past 0.084 0.086 0.988
Future aim
Failed aim in the past 1.012 0.086 0.000
Source: data processed using the output from SPSS version 21.0.

The subjects’ competence differs based on the type of aim followed. They felt more
competent when they reached an aim and they feel the same when they think of what they
want to achieve in the future. The data show that when they did not feel competent and
capable to complete the personal projects set, they failed. The cause of this low competence
level felt by the subjects draws on low self-esteem, hence low self-confidence and the
difficulty to reach the intended aim.
Moreover, self-aim agreement intervenes here in the sense that, if the aim set did not come
from the desire to fulfil it, it was either followed by guilt and anxiety, or was imposed by
others, so the subjects did not feel capable enough to be successful. The greater the extent to
which motivation is determined by the self, the better the results of the subjects, their
persistence in the task and the successful reaching of aims. Declared competence on future
aims is higher than of the one for those failed since the subjects expect to succeed even in the
case of a previous failed aim; this comes as a result of previous success and motivation of
failure in life.
To check hypothesis 7b, we used the One-Way analysis of variance ANOVA and we
obtained the results presented in figure 5.

Figure 5. Graph illustration of the need for autonomy according to the type of aim.
 Source: graphic obtained using SPSS version 21.0.
The results showed that F (2; 495) = 48.68, p < 0.01; as a result, there are significant
differences between the three groups. P < 0.001, so we will accept the research hypothesis
and we will reject the null one to obtain a type of an aim following autonomy.
Using the Bonferroni Post-Hoc test, we extracted the differences between the means of the
three variables that we subsequently compared and we obtained similar results to the ones in
the competence variable; thus, we showed that the results in the autonomy variable of the
subjects that successfully reached an aim significantly differed from the results of the subjects
that did not. However, there is no significant difference from the results of the ones that wish
to fulfil an aim in the future. As detailed in table 8b, there are significant differences between
the results in the autonomy variable of the individuals that successfully fulfilled an aim and
of those that did not succeed, but not of the ones that want to reach an aim in the future. In
other words, the subjects’ feeling to feel free and do what they intended or be autonomous
differs based on the type of aim.

Table 8b. Difference between the need for autonomy according to the type of aim. (One Way ANOVA)

(I) Type of aim (J) Type of aim Mean Difference Std. Error P
Failed aim in the past 0.855 0.102 0.000
Successful aim in the past
Future aim -0.042 0.102 1.000
Successful aim in the past -0.855 0.102 0.000
Failed aim in the past
Future aim -0.897 0.102 0.000
Successful aim in the past 0.042 0.102 1.000
Future aim
Failed aim in the past 0.897 0.102 0.000
Source: data processed using the output from SPSS version 21.0.

In this case, supporting the need for autonomy implies decision making for individuals to
feel they play a significant role in their own education, an idea also postulated by Ames
(1992). The subjects felt less autonomous when they failed to fulfil the personal projects
envisaged than when they succeeded or when they wanted to reach an aim. They blame the
external factors for failure and assess success to be a result of internal factors which explains
the results above. Individuals feel greater autonomy when they reach an objective or intend to
reach one, they sense freedom, pride, whereas when failing, they have the tendency to find
excuses for their lack of success; furthermore, they blame constraints for their failure,
claiming that is was rather the desire of their parents or others, than theirs.
To check hypothesis 7c, we also used the One-Way analysis of variance ANOVA and we
obtained the results presented in figure 6.

Figure 6. Graph illustration of the need for relatedness according to the type of aim.
 Source: graphic obtained using SPSS version 21.0.
The analysis of the results showed that F (2; 495) = 7.08, p < 0.01. Given the fact that
p < 0.01, we accept the research hypothesis according to which there is an effect of the type
of aim on the need for relatedness. By using the Bonferroni Post-Hoc test, we extracted the
differences between means and we subsequently compared them so that the results in the
relation variable of the subjects that successfully met an aim do not differ significantly from
the results of the subjects that did not manage to reach one; however, they are significantly
different from the results of the subjects that wish to reach an aim in the future as shown in
table 8c.

Table 8c. Difference between the need for relatedness according to the type of aim. (One Way ANOVA)

(I) Type of aim (J) Type of aim Mean Difference Std. Error P
Failed aim in the past 0.174 0.140 0.638
Successful aim in the past
Future aim -0.343 0.140 0.044
Successful aim in the past -0.174 0.140 0.638
Failed aim in the past
Future aim -0.518 0.140 0.001
Successful aim in the past 0.343 0.140 0.044
Future aim
Failed aim in the past 0.518 0.140 0.001
Source: data processed using the output from SPSS version 21.0.

A basic component of Ryan and Deci’s theory (1985), the need for relatedness is translated
by the individual’s need to be permanently connected to significant people in his life and not
be marginalised. Among the aims reached in the past and the ones failed, there are no
differences from the viewpoint of the need for relatedness. They only occur when the subjects
referred to the aims they intended to reach in the future. Consequently, we may refer again to
the self-aim concordance as the one that mostly affects relatedness. The subjects reported a
higher concordance of the self to the intended aim when they brought into play the aims for
the past 12 months, irrespective of their result (be they success or failure). However,
regarding future aims, they may be constrained to reach them because of the external factors
drawing on relatedness – we here refer to family and friends, the other significant ones. Thus,
it is important to know how to accurately distinguish between “ego” and “non-ego”, i.e.
between the aims that represent one’s own interests and values and those that stand for the
others’ interests and values, as Kuhl and Kazén (1994) claimed.
Selecting the appropriate needs is difficult and requires skilfulness, hence the likeliness of
failure when aims that the individual wants to reach are not self-determined and in agreement
with his personal values and faiths. In such cases, the individuals’ choices are led by others,
and not by personal needs, traits and impulses.
To conclude, when we refer to differences based on the type of aim concerning basic needs
– competence, autonomy, relatedness –, as the results of the present research show, we may
observe that the aims set by the subjects to be fulfilled in the future are insignificantly
connected to the previously successful or unsuccessful ones. With respect to the three
components of the basic psychological needs, all three hypotheses were confirmed.

Conclusions

This research facilitated an analysis on what failure and success represent and the extent to
which they influence motivation when aims are set on the long term; it also accounts for the
means through which subjects proposed to reach the purposes they set. The ideas were
focused on the desire to succeed, yet possible failure was not ruled out.
 Furthermore, there was focus on the strategies through which the ones interviewed found
motivation to succeed, to eliminate inherent ambiguities within development, thus trying to
prove that they could overcome any obstacle to reach their aim. This can be done wisely, to
persist when failure occurs often and it is recommended to analyse other means than the ones
approached to reach the personal goal.
It is important to know where you start from and where you want to get to. The means to
do it depends on each and every one of us in part, on the aims and priorities proposed. A clear
vision with well-established steps in which the subject may find himself may lead to success
and every successful experience will shape a possible fulfilling career.
With the help of a synthetic analysis conducted on a series of specialty works in the field
of psychology which actually constituted the basis of subsequent research, the validity of
hypotheses outlined in the beginning of the study was verified.
By means of this research it was confirmed once more that every person reacts differently
to events, be they successful or unsuccessful. The consequences may show in the change of
behaviour or the involution of the level of self-esteem which is strongly related to it.
Experience proved that both success and failure may have negative influences on the
individual to an equally positive or negative extent.
Statistical results mostly confirm our hypotheses. Despite all these, they need to be
regarded with prudence given the fact that research was only conducted on first and second
year students. In addition, the conditions in which it was conducted need improving since
most of the subjects responded to questionnaires in-between the course breaks which might
have influenced their answers. The explanation could consist in the fact that students did not
have enough time to analyse the questions in depth because they were already tired so they
might have dealt superficially with the questionnaire received.

Acknowledgment: This work was supported by a grant of the “Alexandru Ioan Cuza”
University of Iasi, within the Research Grants program, Grant UAIC, code GI-UAIC-2017-
03.

References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 84 (3), 261-271.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84 (2), 191-215.
Bandura. A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman
Constantin, T., Holman, A., Hojbota, M.A. (2011). Development and validation of a
motivational Persistence Scale, Psihologija, 45 (2), 99-120.
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behaviour. New York: Plenum.
Feather, N. T. (1961). The relationship of persistence at a task to expectation of success and
achievement related motives. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 63 (3),
552-561.
Jerusalem, M., Schwarzer, R. (1992). Self-efficacy as a resource factor in stress appraisal
processes. In R. Schwarzer (Ed.), Self-efficacy: Thought control of action (195-213).
Washington, DC: Hemisphere.
Kuhl, J., Kazén M. (1994). Self-discrimination and memory: state orientation and false self-
ascription of assigned activities. Journal of personality and social psychology, 66 (6),
1103-1115
Lyons, P., Bandura, R. (2018). Self-efficacy: core of employee success, Development and
Learning in Organizations: An International Journal, 33 (3), 9-12.
Luszczynska, A., Scholz, U., Schwarzer, R. (2005). The general self-efficacy scale:
multicultural validation studies. The Journal of psychology, 139 (5), 439-457.
Ryan R.M., Connell J.P. (1989) Perceived Locus of Causality and Internalization: Examining
Reasons for Acting in Two Domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7
(5), 749-61.
Schwarzer, R., Jerusalem, M. (1995). Generalized Self-Efficacy scale. In Weinman J., Wright
S., Johnston M., Measures in health psychology: A user’s portfolio. Causal and control
beliefs (35-37). Windsor, UK: NFER-NELSON.
Sheldon, K.M., Elliot, A.J. (1998). Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing
autonomous and controlled reasons for goals as predictors of effort and attainment.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24 (5), 546-557.
Sheldon, K.M., Elliot, A.J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-
being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76
(3), 482-497.
Vasalampi, K., Salmela-Aro, K., Nurmi, J.-E. (2009). Adolescents’ self-concordance, school
engagement, and burnout predict their educational trajectories. European Psychologist,
14 (4), 332-341.