This article was downloaded by: [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich]

On: 15 July 2014, At: 03:25

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Educational Psychology: An
International Journal of Experimental
Educational Psychology
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cedp20

Perceived competence and autonomy

as moderators of the effects of
achievement goal orientations
a b b
YoonJung Cho , Claire Ellen Weinstein & Frank Wicker
a
School of Applied Health and Educational Psychology , Oklahoma
State University , Stillwater, Oklahoma, USA
b
Department of Educational Psychology , University of Texas at
Austin , Austin, Texas, USA
Published online: 31 Mar 2011.

To cite this article: YoonJung Cho , Claire Ellen Weinstein & Frank Wicker (2011) Perceived
competence and autonomy as moderators of the effects of achievement goal orientations,
Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental Educational Psychology, 31:4,
393-411, DOI: 10.1080/01443410.2011.560597

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2011.560597

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 03:25 15 July 2014
 Educational Psychology
Vol. 31, No. 4, July 2011, 393–411

Perceived competence and autonomy as moderators of the effects of

achievement goal orientations
YoonJung Choa*, Claire Ellen Weinsteinb and Frank Wickerb
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 03:25 15 July 2014

a
School of Applied Health and Educational Psychology, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater,
Oklahoma, USA; bDepartment of Educational Psychology, University of Texas at Austin,
Austin, Texas, USA
(Received 29 April 2010; final version received 3 February 2011)
Taylor and Francis
CEDP_A_560597.sgm

Educational
10.1080/01443410.2011.560597
0144-3410
Taylor
2011
0Article
00
Dr
yoonjung.cho@okstate.edu
000002011
YoonJungCho
& Francis
(print)/1469-5820
Psychology (online)

The primary purpose of this study was to investigate the roles of two moderators
– perceived competence and perceived autonomy – in the relationships of
achievement goal orientations with a broad range of learning-related variables,
including interest, effort, learning strategy use and academic achievement.
Perceived competence and autonomy played roles as moderators by strengthening
the positive effects of a mastery goal pursuit on outcome measures of adaptive use
of learning strategies and effort, respectively. However, no moderating role of
either perceived competence or perceived autonomy was found for the effect of a
performance-approach and performance-avoidance goal pursuit. In addition,
perceived competence played a significant role in determining the level of
academic achievement in the context of multiple-goal pursuit. For students with
high perceived competence, the adoption of high performance-approach goals
resulted in a higher level of achievement regardless of the levels of mastery goals.
In contrast, students with low perceived competence showed the highest
achievement when high performance-approach goals are paired with low mastery
goals.
Keywords: achievement goal orientation; mastery goal; performance-approach
goal; performance-avoidance goal; self-determination theory; perceived
competence; perceived autonomy

Achievement goal orientation is defined as the set of purposes or reasons a learner

may have for performing an academic task (Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1986; Nicholls,
1984; Pintrich, 2000). Classical achievement goal theory references two types of
achievement goals – mastery and performance goals. Both types of goals concern the
pursuit of competence in achievement-related settings, but students with the two goal
orientations differ in the ways they define and pursue competence (Elliot, 2005; Elliot
& McGregor, 2001; Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, & Elliot, 2000; Pintrich,
2000). Students who adopt mastery goals focus on developing and improving their
ability, while students who adopt performance goals focus on demonstrating their
ability. Stated differently, mastery-oriented students engage in a task for the sake of
learning and understanding, whereas performance-oriented students engage in a task
to show that they can outperform others (Ames, 1992; Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck,
1986; Harackiewicz & Hulleman, 2010; Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001).

*Corresponding author. Email: yoonjung.cho@okstate.edu

ISSN 0144-3410 print/ISSN 1469-5820 online

© 2011 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/01443410.2011.560597
http://www.informaworld.com
 394 Y. Cho et al.

Clarifying achievement goal effects

Classical achievement goal orientation studies have implied that mastery goals are
preferable to performance goals because numerous empirical studies have shown that
mastery goals are associated with adaptive patterns of learning, while performance
goals are related to maladaptive patterns (Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck & Leggett,
1988; Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988). The contrasting effects of the two achieve-
ment goal orientations on learning outcomes have favoured mastery goals enough to
persuade many researchers and educational practitioners to denigrate the performance
goal orientation. Results of later studies, however, have yielded conflicting results
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 03:25 15 July 2014

regarding the effect of performance goals on learning outcomes and begun to raise
questions about these implications. They suggested that performance goals may not
always have a negative impact on learning behaviour and outcomes, and in fact they
may sometimes even promote positive patterns of learning (Elliot, 2005; Elliot &
Harackiewicz, 1996; Kaplan & Midgley, 1997; Midgley, Kaplan et al., 2001; Pintrich,
2000; Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996; Skaalvik, 1997; Urdan, 1997; Urdan &
Mestas, 2006; Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996). Although a performance-approach goal
orientation has generated the most disagreement among researchers about its nature
and effects, mastery goals also produced conflicting results in the literature regarding
its relationship with academic achievement. Some studies have shown that mastery
goals are positively related to academic performance, whereas some studies have
reported that there is no significant relationship between mastery goals and academic
performance (Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, & Thrash, 2002; Linnenbrink,
2005; Senko & Harackiewicz, 2005). These contradictory results indicate ambiguities
or inconsistencies in the ways researchers view which type of goal orientation is the
most efficacious. Consequently, considerable research is currently attempting to clar-
ify the nature and impacts of performance goals and mastery goals and determine
under what circumstances the positive aspects of achievement goals might emerge.
One of the most notable departures from the classical theory of achievement goals
is the differentiation of performance goals into performance-approach and perfor-
mance-avoidance goals (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Murayama & Elliot, 2009).
Elliot and Harackiewicz (1996) posited that the performance goal construct is
comprised of two distinct components, each affecting learning processes differently.
These components are approach and avoidance goals. People who endorse a perfor-
mance-approach goal orientation are more concerned with demonstrating their compe-
tence, while people who endorse a performance-avoidance goal orientation are more
concerned with hiding their incompetence (Murayama & Elliot, 2009). A number of
studies have consistently linked performance-avoidance goals to negative learning
behaviours and outcomes (Cury, Elliot, Da Fonseca, & Moller, 2006; Elliot & Church,
1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Pajares, Britner, & Valiante, 2000; Urdan, 2004;
Wolters, 2004). On the other hand, studies have shown conflicting results regarding
the effects of performance-approach goals on learning patterns. Essentially, the nature
and effects of the performance-approach goal still remain ambiguous. The current
literature on achievement goal theory often utilises a 2 × 2 framework by dividing
mastery goals into mastery-approach goals and mastery-avoidance goals (Elliot &
McGregor, 2001). However, a mastery goal in the present study refers to a mastery-
approach goal. A mastery-avoidance goal was not included as a part of the study
because mastery-avoidance goals are less prevalent in typical achievement situations
than the other three goals (Elliot, 2005). The scant evidence of mastery-avoidance
 Educational Psychology 395

goals is not relevant for this study given that the primary focus of the study is to recon-
cile the inconsistent effects of the performance-approach goal, and also to corroborate
the positive relationship of a mastery goal and the negative relationship of a perfor-
mance-avoidance goal with learning outcome measures.
Another approach to clarifying the effects of a performance-approach goal was to
see achievement goal orientation as involving a composite of multiple goals instead
of a single goal. According to this multiple-goal perspective, an individual can adopt
and pursue different types of achievement goals simultaneously. In this literature, two
perspectives are discussed regarding how to view a performance goal effect in the
context of a multiple-goal pursuit: a mastery perspective (traditional view) and a
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 03:25 15 July 2014

multiple-goal perspective (Harackiewicz et al., 2002; Linnenbrink, 2005). The

mastery goal perspective claims that only pursuing a single mastery goal promotes the
most optimal pattern of learning. The multiple-goal perspective, however, claims that
the adoption of both mastery and performance goals leads to the most adaptive pattern
of learning. Left unexplained, however, was how performance goals function indepen-
dently of mastery goals (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001). Since the literature shows
inconsistent results on the effects of a performance goal, studies examining the effects
of multiple goals have also reported mixed results as to which combinations of
multiple goals produce optimal motivation and learning.
A more complex approach to understanding and determining the effects of perfor-
mance goals is to identify possible moderator variables. Moderators discussed in the
goal orientation literature include achievement orientation (need for achievement),
learning context and perceived competence. Performance goals were reported to be
associated with adaptive learning patterns for learners high in achievement orientation
and maladaptive patterns for those low in achievement orientation (Harackiewicz &
Elliot, 1993; Senko & Harackiewicz, 2002). Researchers have also reported evidence
that performance goals may produce more adaptive learning patterns when they are
pursued in a performance-oriented learning context than when they are pursued in a
mastery-oriented learning context (Harackiewicz, Barron, & Elliot, 1998; Harackiewicz
et al., 2002; Harackiewicz & Sansone, 1991). Similarly, mastery goals enhance learning
interest when they are pursued in a mastery-oriented learning context, rather than when
they are pursued in a performance-focused context (Sansone, Sachau, & Weir, 1989).
Furthermore, several competence-related variables, such as perceived competence,
self-efficacy and perceived ability, have been examined as antecedents of achieve-
ment goals (Skaalvik, 1997). However, the relationship between these competence-
related variables and performance goals was not clear. Some studies showed that
performance goals were unrelated to perceived competence (Harackiewicz et al.,
2000; Kaplan & Midgley, 1997; Middleton & Midgley, 1997), while some studies
revealed that performance goals were related positively (Bong, 2005; Leondari &
Gialamas, 2002; Pajares et al., 2000; Wolters et al., 1996) or that sometimes they were
related negatively (Anderman & Young, 1994; Schunk, 1996). Given the underlying
beliefs that individuals who endorse performance goals may vary in terms of
perceived levels of competence, some researchers have investigated perceived compe-
tence as a moderator to reconcile the inconsistent findings about performance goal
effects (Cury et al., 2006; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Kaplan & Midgley, 1997).
Dweck and other researchers have noted that the effect of performance goals is posi-
tive for students with a high perception of their own ability and negative for those with
a low perception of their ability (Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott &
Dweck, 1988). Some studies, however, have failed to find evidence that perceived
 396 Y. Cho et al.

competence moderates the relationship between performance goals and learning

outcomes (Bandura & Dweck, 1985; Cury et al., 2006; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996;
Harackiewicz et al., 2000; Kaplan & Midgley, 1997). For example, Bandura and
Dweck (1985) found that performance goals are associated with the avoidance of chal-
lenge, even in participants with high levels of confidence. In addition, Harackiewicz
et al. (1998) found that self-efficacy had no moderating effects on the relationships
between performance-approach goals and actual performance. Kaplan and Midgley
(1997) have failed to support the proposition that perceived competence moderates the
effect of performance goals (Elliot & Church, 1997; Harackiewicz et al., 2000; Kaplan
& Midgley, 1997). Because of several limitations of the findings in the literature,
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 03:25 15 July 2014

however, the apparent finding that perceived competence did not moderate the rela-
tionship between performance goals and learning behaviour should be interpreted with
caution. The first limitation is that most studies included only a certain type of learn-
ing outcome measure (e.g. learning strategy) to test the moderating role of perceived
competence (Cury et al., 2006; Kaplan & Midgley, 1997), which leaves possibilities
that perceived competence may moderate the effect of performance goals on different
learning outcomes. Therefore, further investigation is necessary to test the moderating
role of perceived competence for a broad range of learning-related outcome variables.
Secondly, some studies examining the moderating effect of performance goals did not
differentiate performance-approach goal and performance-avoidance goal (e.g.
Kaplan & Midgley, 1997) so that the findings cannot be generalised to the effects of
performance-approach goals. Further study is therefore warranted that examines the
role of perceived competence as a moderator of the relationship of a performance-
approach goal with a greater variety of learning outcome measures.
The current study was designed to extend this line of research by exploring poten-
tial moderators that may help elucidate inconsistencies in the literature regarding
achievement goal effects on learning and achievement. In doing so, self-determination
theory was utilised as a theoretical foundation on which perceived competence and
perceived autonomy are drawn as possible moderators of the effects of achievement
goals on learning-related outcomes. Despite the contributions that achievement goal
theory and self-determination theory have made to the study of motivation so far, few
studies have examined how the variables entailed in the two theories are related to
each other and how they may jointly affect learner motivation and performance (Ciani,
Sheldon, Hilpert, & Easter, 2010). Linking self-determination theory to that of
achievement goal orientation may help explain why the effects of performance-
approach goals reported in the literature are inconsistent, while the effects of mastery
and performance-avoidance goals are consistently unidirectional.

Perceived competence and autonomy as moderators

Self-determination theory postulates that a person’s behaviour has efficacy only when
the person feels self-determined through the satisfaction of basic psychological needs.
In the self-determination theory perspective, competence, autonomy and relatedness
are basic human psychological needs, and meeting those needs is crucial for the enhance-
ment of life and well-being (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000). Among those three needs,
perceived competence has been examined either as an antecedent or a moderator to
account for performance goal effects. The concept of perceived competence refers to
an individual’s expectancy of success, that is, students’ perception of competence is
defined as their subjective belief about their capabilities of successful task performance.
 Educational Psychology 397

A number of studies have shown that perceived competence influences intrinsic

motivation (Bandura & Cervone, 1983; Harter & Jackson, 1992). Self-determination
theory, however, posits that the satisfaction of the need for competence is necessary,
but not sufficient, for optimal functioning or intrinsic motivation. Increases in intrinsic
motivation in tandem with increases in perceived competence occur only when the
person also feels autonomous with respect to the activity. Thus, the need for compe-
tence does not alone underlie intrinsic motivation, suggesting that perceived compe-
tence should be accompanied by perceived autonomy to have a significant impact on
intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000). As a central construct in self-
determination theory, autonomy has much to do with the motives for the initiation of
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 03:25 15 July 2014

behaviour (Reeve, 2002; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryan, Deci, Grolnick, & La Guardia,
2006). Accordingly, the extent to which the motives for initiating behaviour are in
accord with one’s own value system determines the degree of autonomy (Black &
Deci, 2000). In support of this claim, empirical studies have reported that, when
persons work in conditions that support their autonomy, their strivings for competence
are most effective (Levesque, Zuehlke, Stanek, & Ryan, 2004). This idea suggests that
perceived autonomy may complement any moderating role of perceived competence.
The primary purpose of this study was, therefore, to investigate whether perceived
competence and perceived autonomy play roles as moderators in the relationship
among achievement goal orientations and a broad range of learning-related variables.
Achievement, adaptive learning strategy use, interest and effort were chosen as
outcome measures for two reasons. One is because they were considered to represent
important aspects of learning and achievement and the other is because those variables
have been used as outcome measures in many previous studies (Harackiewicz &
Hulleman, 2010; Zusho, Pintrich, & Cortina, 2005) so it allows us to compare findings
of this study with those of previous studies. An additional purpose of this study was
to examine the roles of perceived competence and perceived autonomy in determining
the most beneficial types of multiple-goal pursuit. With respect to the inconsistent
results on the effects of performance goals, there is a need to clarify the effects of
multiple goals because mixed results have been reported as to which combinations of
multiple goals produce optimal motivation and learning.

Method
The participants in this study were 151 college students (122 females and 29 males)
enrolled in a required statistics course at a large university in the Southwest United
States. The students earned course credit for their participation. The course, Introduc-
tion to Statistics, was a course in the programmes being pursued by upper-division
undergraduate students; therefore, the majority of students were in their third and
fourth years of college. The participants’ mean age was 21.5 years (SD = 3.48).

Measures
Achievement goal orientation
Elliot and Church’s (1997) Achievement Goal Scale was used to assess achievement
goal orientation. To elicit students’ domain-specific achievement goal orientation,
particularly their goal orientation towards the statistics course, some wording on the
scale was modified. For instance, ‘in this course’ was replaced with ‘in this statistics
course’. The scale consists of three subscales: mastery goals, performance-approach
 398 Y. Cho et al.

goals and performance-avoidance goals, with six items in each subscale. The response
to each item is indicated on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Sample items from the mastery goal subscale included
the item ‘I want to learn as much as possible from this statistics course’. The perfor-
mance-approach goal subscale included the item ‘It is important to me to do better
than the other students in this statistics course’. Finally, in the performance-avoidance
goal subscale was the item ‘I worry about the possibility of getting a bad grade in this
statistics course’.
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 03:25 15 July 2014

Perceived competence
Seven items of the academic self-beliefs scale from the Pattern of Adaptive Learning
Survey (Midgley, Maehr et al., 2001) were used to measure perceived competence.
The participants rated how much they agreed with statements regarding their compe-
tence (e.g. ‘I can do almost all the work in this class if I don’t give up’) on a seven-
point Likert scale, with 1 representing strong disagreement and 7 representing strong
agreement.

Perceived autonomy
Students’ perceived autonomy was assessed using the Academic Self-Regulation
Questionnaire (ASRQ) (Ryan & Connell, 1989). The ASRQ, which was designed
primarily for students in late elementary or middle schools, was adapted to measure
the degree to which college students are autonomous towards their task involvement.
Wording was revised to be more appropriate for college students and their learning
environments, for example, ‘the teacher’ was replaced with ‘the instructor’. The
measure consists of four subscales that assess the extent to which the students’ reasons
for task involvement are indicative of autonomous motivation. The subscales include
External, Introjected, Identified and Intrinsic forms of regulation, representing differ-
ent degrees of autonomy. The participants responded to each item by indicating their
answer on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The Exter-
nal Regulation Scale taps into reasons that imply pressure from sources external to the
student (e.g. ‘Because I’ll get in trouble if I don’t’). The Introjected Regulation Scale
taps into internalised coercion or seduction and not part of the intergrated self, because
it does not involve true choice (e.g. ‘Because I’ll feel bad about myself if I don’t do
it’). The Identified Regulation Scale taps into reasons that are internalised into the
value system of the student and are based on choice, not on external pressures (e.g.
‘Because I want to learn new things’). The Intrinsic Regulation Scale taps into reasons
of pure fun and enjoyment (e.g. ‘Because it’s fun’).
The four different types of regulation represent different degrees of autonomy.
According to Ryan and Connell (1989), the four types of regulation display a quasi-
simplex structure in relation to each other, where variables show ordered correlation
patterns reflecting an underlying continuum of relative autonomy. The interrelations
among the subscales for the sample of this study support this conceptual structure.
Ryan and Connell (1989) formulated an index of relative autonomy based on the
ordered correlation patterns. The four subscales were weighted according to their
relative degree of autonomy (−2, −1, +1, and +2, for External, Introjected, Identi-
fied, and Intrinsic Regulation, respectively), and then the weighted scores were
summed.
 Educational Psychology 399

Adaptive learning strategy use

The Adaptive Learning Strategy Subscale from the Pattern of Adaptive Learning
Survey (Midgley, Maehr et al., 2001) was used to measure adaptive learning strategy
use. This subscale consists of 10 items, for which the students indicated their
responses on seven-point Likert scale, where 1 represented strong disagreement and 7
represented strong agreement. An example of the items is ‘I ask myself questions
when I work on my study, to make sure I understand’.

Student interest
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 03:25 15 July 2014

The Interest/Enjoyment subscale from the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) (Ryan,
1982) was used to measure interest. Examples items include ‘This class work was fun
to do’ and ‘I enjoyed doing this class work very much’. The participants responded to
seven items on a seven-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (not at all true) to 7 (very true).

Effort
The Effort/Importance subscale of Ryan’s (1982) IMI was used to assess how much
effort the college students expended on studying and learning. The subscale included
five items, which were each scored on a seven-point Likert scale with 1 being ‘not at
all true’ and 5 being ‘very true’. Among the five items, four items assessed the expen-
diture of effort (e.g. ‘I put a lot of effort into this class work’ and ‘I tried very hard on
this class work’) and only one item assessed the importance of the effort (‘It was
important to me to do well at this class work’). In the present study, the four items
assessing the actual expenditure of effort were used.

Academic achievement
Final course grades were used to assess academic achievement. At the end of the
semester, three instructors provided the grades in the form of percentile scores ranging
from 0 to 100. Because the three instructors might have used different scoring stan-
dards, some variance was expected between classes. The final course grades were
transformed into standardised scores, which were used for the data analysis.

Procedure
The set of questionnaires was administered at mid-semester, when students were
likely to have settled into particular types of achievement goal orientations. To avoid
any carryover effect, participants were randomly assigned to three groups and the
members of each group were given the same set of measures, but from group to group
the order of the measures was different.

Data analysis
The order of the measures for each group was randomly chosen. An analysis of vari-
ance (ANOVA) performed to test a carryover effect indicated that the order of
measures did not have a significant impact on the participants’ scoring. Therefore,
they were combined in subsequent analyses.
 400 Y. Cho et al.

A series of analyses of variances (ANOVAs) were conducted to examine

whether perceived competence and perceived autonomy moderate the relationship
between achievement goals and learning outcomes. The main focus of the present
study was on the two-way interaction effects between each type of achievement goal
orientation and perceived competence, two-way interaction effects between goal
orientation and perceived autonomy, three-way interaction effects among a mastery
goal, a performance-approach goal and perceived competence, and three-way
interaction effects among a mastery goal, a performance-approach goal and
perceived autonomy. The model of the ANOVAs was customised to exclude interac-
tion effect terms that were not a main focus of this study. As shown in Table 3, the
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 03:25 15 July 2014

customised ANOVA model included: (1) five main effect terms (mastery, perfor-
mance-approach, performance-avoidance goals, perceived competence and
perceived autonomy); (2) six two-way interaction terms (mastery goal × perceived
competence, performance-approach goal × perceived competence, performance-
avoidance goal × perceived competence, mastery goal × perceived autonomy,
performance-approach goal × perceived autonomy, performance-avoidance goal ×
perceived autonomy); and (3) two three-way interaction terms (mastery × perfor-
mance-approach goal × perceived competence, mastery × performance-approach
goal × perceived autonomy).
The use of ANOVA as a statistical method has the disadvantage of reducing statis-
tical power in the case where continuous independent variables need to be dichoto-
mised, compared to the regression analysis where independent variables are used as
continuous. Despite the disadvantage, ANOVA was employed in the present study
because it enhances the convenience of the interpretation for three-way interaction
effects (Midgley, Kaplan et al., 2001).
The median-split method, which is a common method used to transform continu-
ous variables into dichotomised level of groups, was used to divide the continuous
variables (mastery, performance-approach, performance-avoidance goals, perceived
competence and perceived autonomy) into high- and low-value groups. A group with
lower values than the median score of each variable was coded as 1, and a group with
higher values than the median score of each variable was coded as 2. This artificial
dichotomisation may lead to the loss of data information. For the follow-up analyses,
in the presence of a significant interaction effect, a simple main effect analysis was
performed to determine at which level of the moderator variable an independent
variable had a significant effect on the outcome measures.

Results
The main measures included in the study showed an acceptable internal consistency.
The Cronbach’s alpha estimates for the sample in the study ranged from .69 to .94 (see
Table 1). The means and standard deviations for the key variables of the study are
presented in Table 1, and zero-order intercorrelations among major variables in the
present study are displayed in Table 2.

The moderating effect of perceived competence

A two-way interaction effect between a mastery goal and perceived competence was
found to be significant, F(1, 141) = 5.42, p = .02, η2 = .06, on adaptive learning
strategy use, indicating that perceived competence moderates the effects of mastery
 Educational Psychology 401

Table 1. Descriptive statistics for scores on key measures.

Name of measures Mean SD Cronbach alpha
Mastery goal 4.54 1.17 .84
Performance-approach goal 4.33 1.44 .90
Performance-avoidance goal 4.59 1.32 .79
Perceived competence 4.92 1.19 .83
Perceived autonomy −.91 3.80 .75
Achievement 81.88 13.97 —
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 03:25 15 July 2014

Adaptive learning strategy use 4.46 1.01 .69

Interest 2.96 1.47 .94
Effort 4.61 1.26 .87

Table 2. Correlation matrix for major variables in the present study.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. Mastery goal
2. Perfor-appro .29**
3. Perfor-avoid −.22** .03
4. Competence .39** .31** −.54**
5. Autonomy .37** −.19* −.42** .34**
6. Achievement .28** .36** −.31** .38** .08
7. Adaptive LS .53** .24** −.15 .41** .22** .17
8. Interest .59** .24** −.35** .48** .47** .34** .45**
9. Effort .36** .14 .06 .15 .15 .20* .32** .34**
*p < .05; **p < .01.
Notes: Perfor-appro, performance-approach goal; Perfor-avoid, performance-avoidance goal; Competence,
perceived competence; Autonomy, perceived autonomy; Adaptive LS, adaptive learning strategy use.

goal pursuit (see Figure 1 and Table 3). A simple main effect analysis was performed
to further understand at what levels of perceived competence a mastery goal has a
significant effect. Specifically, a mastery goal showed a significant positive effect on
adaptive learning strategy use for students who scored high in perceived competence,
F(1, 141) = 12.00, p = .001, η2 = .13. In contrast, a mastery goal did not make a
significant difference in adaptive learning strategy use for students who scored low in
perceived competence, F(1, 141) = .00, p = .99, η2 = .00. The findings of this simple
main effect analysis suggested that the effect of a mastery goal on adaptive learning
strategy use existed only for students who felt competent. This pairing, therefore, led
to the highest level of adaptive learning strategy use (M = 5.28, SD = 1.16)
(Figure 1). No significant interaction effect between achievement goals (i.e. mastery,
performance-approach and performance-avoidance) and perceived competence was
found on the outcome measures of academic achievement, effort and interest
(Table 3).
Figure 1. The interaction effect between a mastery goal and perceived competence on adaptive learning strategy use.

The moderating effect of perceived autonomy

As shown in Figure 2 and Table 3, a two-way interaction effect between a mastery
goal and perceived autonomy on the outcome measure of effort was significant, F(1,
 402 Y. Cho et al.
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 03:25 15 July 2014

Figure 1. The interaction effect between a mastery goal and perceived competence on
adaptive learning strategy use.

Table 3. ANOVA results summary for perceived competence and perceived autonomy as
moderators.
Achievement Adaptive LS Interest Effort
Variables F η2 F η2 F η2 F η2
M .50 .01 4.60* .05 23.61*** .15 6.82* .05
PA 5.34* .06 1.83 .02 .11 .00 .04 .01
PV .40 .01 2.69 .03 .06 .00 7.25** .05
COM 1.43 .02 2.53 .03 4.16 .03 .56 .00
AUT .00 .00 1.88 .02 5.01* .04 3.23 .02
M × COM .01 .00 5.42* .06 .40 .00 .55 .00
PA × COM .20 .00 .00 .00 1.16 .01 .73 .00
PV × COM 1.93 .02 .55 .01 .67 .01 .48 .00
M × AUT 2.14 .03 .00 .00 2.25 .02 4.93* .04
PA × AUT 1.45 .02 .30 .00 .77 .01 1.35 .01
PV × AUT 2.71 .03 .97 .01 .36 .00 .13 .00
M × PA × COM 9.15** .10 .46 .01 .31 .01 1.20 .02
M × PA × AUT 2.15 .03 .16 .00 2.66 .04 1.75 .03
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Notes: M, mastery goal; PA, performance-approach goal; PV, performance-avoidance goal; COM,
perceived competence; AUT, perceived autonomy.

141) = 4.93, p = .02, η2 = .04. A simple main effect analysis was conducted to under-
stand further the specific nature of the interaction effect and the results revealed that
the positive effect of a mastery goal orientation on effort was statistically significant,
F(1, 141) = 10.23, p = .002, η2 = .07, only at the high level of perceived autonomy
(Figure 2).
 Educational Psychology 403
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 03:25 15 July 2014

Figure 2. The interaction effect between a mastery goal and perceived autonomy on the out-
come measure of effort.

The presence of a significant interaction effect of a mastery goal and perceived

Figure 2. The interaction effect between a mastery goal and perceived autonomy on the outcome measure of effort.

autonomy indicated that perceived autonomy plays a role as a moderator, strengthen-

ing the positive impact of a mastery goal on effort. Thus, the adoption of a mastery
goal with high autonomy led to the highest level of effort (M = 5.48, SD = 1.24). The
amount of increased effort was greater than that obtained by simply adding the effect
of perceived autonomy, demonstrating a synergic effect on effort (Figure 2).
Except for the outcome measure of effort, no other two-way interaction was found
to be significant on adaptive learning strategy use, interest and academic achievement
(Table 3).

Optimal type of multiple-goal pursuit and perceived competence and autonomy

Table 3 shows that a three-way interaction effect among a mastery goal, a performance-
approach goal and perceived competence was found to be significant, F(1, 141) = 9.15,
p = .003, η2 = .10, on the outcome measure of achievement. This finding indicated
that the pattern of a two-way interaction effect between a mastery goal and a perfor-
mance-approach goal on the outcome measure of academic achievement differs
depending on the level of perceived competence. A follow-up analysis was conducted
to determine at which level of perceived competence this two-way interaction was
significant. Results revealed that a significant two-way interaction between a mastery
goal and a performance-approach goal appears at a low level of perceived competence,
F(1, 141) = 12.29, p = .002, η2 = .13, while no significant interaction between a mastery
goal and a performance-approach goal was found at a high level of perceived
competence (Figure 3).
For students with high perceived competence, the adoption of high performance-
Figure 3. The three-way interaction effect among a mastery goal, a performance-approach goal and perceived competence on the measure of achievement: (a) for students with high perceived competence and (b) for students with low perceived competence.

approach goals resulted in a higher level of achievement regardless of the levels of

mastery goals. In contrast, students with low perceived competence showed the highest
 404 Y. Cho et al.
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 03:25 15 July 2014

Figure 3. The three-way interaction effect among a mastery goal, a performance-approach

goal and perceived competence on the measure of achievement: (a) First graph for students
with high perceived competence; and (b) second graph for students with low perceived
competence.

achievement when high performance-approach goals are paired with low mastery
goals. The simultaneous pursuit of two goals (a mastery goal and a performance-
approach goal) was found to be the most favourable in relation to achievement (M =
.49, SD = 1.19), while for students with low perceived competence, the predominant
pursuit of a performance-approach goal was found to be the most favourable (M = .68,
SD = 1.39). This finding suggests that, consistent with the hypothesis, the students’
perception of competence consequently played a role in determining the level of
academic achievement in the context of multiple-goal pursuit.
 Educational Psychology 405

Discussion
In the research literature, the question of which type of goal orientation is the most
efficacious is still unanswered, mainly because of the ambiguous nature of the
performance-approach goal orientation literature. Thus, the primary purpose of this
study was to further understand achievement goal effects by investigating the roles
of two moderators – perceived competence and perceived autonomy – on the rela-
tionships of achievement goal orientations with various learning-related variables.

Relationship between achievement goals and learning outcomes

Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 03:25 15 July 2014

Regarding the relationships between achievement goal orientations and learning-

related outcome measures, two different statistical analyses (simple correlations and
ANOVA) employed yielded slightly different results, but a closer look helped identify
the attributes of achievement goals. Thus, reliance on correlations or ANOVA alone
may not provide a full picture of the effects of achievement goal orientations. Caution
needs to be taken to take the particular type of statistical analysis used into account
when interpreting empirical findings on the relationships between achievement goal
orientations and learning outcomes. Unlike the simple correlation analysis where
other variables are not considered, the results of the ANOVA showed that a mastery
goal and a performance-approach goal exhibited distinctive relationship over different
sets of learning outcomes (see Table 3), indicating that each type of goal orientation
was productive for certain outcome measures. This provides clear evidence to support
the argument for specialised goal pattern, which is one of the four patterns of multiple-
goal effects that Harackiewicz et al. (2002) categorised to better understand the
dynamics of multiple-goal pursuit. A mastery goal was, for example, significantly
related to adaptive learning strategy use, interest and effort, but it was not to achieve-
ment. On the contrary, a performance-approach goal was significantly associated with
achievement, but it was not with adaptive learning strategy use, interest and effort.
Although the efficacy of a mastery goal and its stable relationship with learning
outcome measures have been empirically supported, numerous researchers still raise
questions about its predictive utility for academic performance (Harackiewicz et al.,
2002; Linnenbrink, 2005; Senko & Harackiewicz, 2005).
This differential relationship with achievement, as indicated by the ANOVA, may
be due to different focus of the mastery goals and performance-approach goals on task
engagement. Performance-oriented students tend to be self-focused, as indicated by the
labels that have been used in earlier literature on performance goals: ability goals
(Ames, 1992) or ego-involved goals (Nicholls, 1984). This is because the main concern
of students with these goals is to perform better than others and to present themselves
as being more competent than others. In contrast, mastery-oriented students tend to be
more task-focused, as reflected by the terms task goals (Nicholls, 1984) or learning
goals (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), because students with these goals involve themselves
in tasks to learn what the task has to offer them. They are less concerned about how
competent they appear in the eyes of others. Therefore, a self-focused motive associ-
ated with a performance goal may be more directly related to achievement, because to
present oneself as more competent than others, one usually has to demonstrate superior
achievement. On the other hand, a task-focused motive associated with a mastery goal
could be either directly or indirectly related to achievement, because the successful
accomplishment of a mastery goal indicates an improvement of one’s ability that may
or may not reveal itself in an immediately higher level of academic performance, or
 406 Y. Cho et al.

achievement. In line with this argument, McGregor and Elliot (2002) documented that
performance-oriented students exhibit higher standards for their achievement than
mastery-oriented students do. Moreover, Senko and Miles (2008) suggested that
mastery-oriented students and performance-oriented students pursue different learning
agenda because the focus associated with their achievement goals is different. Mastery-
oriented students study based on their own interest-based learning agenda, while
performance-oriented students study following their teachers’ learning agenda.

The role of perceived competence and perceived autonomy as moderators

Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 03:25 15 July 2014

Perceived competence and perceived autonomy played roles as moderators of the

effects of a mastery goal pursuit on outcome measures of adaptive learning strategy
use and effort, respectively. However, no moderating role of either perceived compe-
tence or perceived autonomy was found for the effect of a performance-approach goal
pursuit, which is in accordance with the findings of Kaplan and Midgley’s (1997)
study, or for the effect of a performance-avoidance goal pursuit.
A close examination of the moderating roles of perceived competence and
perceived autonomy on mastery goals reveals that students’ perception of competence
tends to serve to magnify the positive effects of a mastery goal on adaptive learning
strategy use. Therefore, mastery goal-oriented students with high perceived compe-
tence may employ much more adaptive learning strategy use than mastery-oriented
students with low perceived competence. This is similar to Miller, Behrens, and
Greene (1993) who found that undergraduate students with dominant mastery goals
and high self-efficacy reported higher levels of self-monitoring than students with
mastery goals and low self-efficacy. The other significant interaction was between a
mastery goal and perceived autonomy in terms of effort expenditure. This interaction
indicated that the positive impact of a mastery goal on effort was more pronounced for
students with a high level of autonomy in their task engagement than it was for
students with a low level of autonomy. This implies that the amount of effort that
mastery-oriented students put into their learning increased to its maximum as the
autonomous endorsement of value or enjoyment of the task increased for the students.
Thus, a high level of a mastery goal and a high level of perceived autonomy tend to
have a synergistic effect on effort expenditure. Taken together, perceived competence
or perceived autonomy seems to play a role in maximising positive functions of
mastery goals. Without a high level of perceived competence or a high level of
perceived autonomy, the adoption of a mastery goal may not be as effective in promot-
ing adaptive learning strategy and effort, respectively. This is supported by simple
main effect results where mastery goals were not significantly related to positive
learning outcomes when perceived competence or perceived autonomy is low. It is
noteworthy that this finding is not congruent with those of Elliott and Dweck (1988)
that mastery goals are positively associated with an adaptive learning pattern regard-
less of perceived level of self-efficacy.
Given that different moderators come into play to promote the efficacy of a
mastery goal on different types of learning outcomes, the effective combination of
mastery goals with psychological need satisfactions (high perception of competence
or autonomy) should be taken into consideration. Specifically, to promote students to
use adaptive learning strategies, students need to pursue mastery goals with high
perceptions of competence. To encourage students to put more effort into their learn-
ing, students need to pursue mastery goals with high perceptions of autonomy. This
 Educational Psychology 407

pattern of interaction provides evidence that the role of perceived competence and
perceived autonomy as moderators is to superimpose a synergic effect on the existing
positive relationships involving a mastery goal, and not to act as a determinant of the
direction of the effect of a performance-approach goal. Theoretical implication is that
variables entailed from achievement goal orientation theory and self-determination
theory work in concert to produce optimal learning outcomes.
It is noteworthy that significant difference in outcome measures of adaptive
learning strategy use and effort emerged only when both mastery goal and modera-
tor variables of perceived competence or perceived autonomy were high. When
students were low in perceived competence or perceived autonomy, mastery goals
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 03:25 15 July 2014

did not have a significant influence on the outcome measures. Likewise, when
students were low in mastery goals, high perception of competence or autonomy did
not have a significant effect on outcome measures. The results indicate that the
positive effect of perceived competence or perceived autonomy becomes salient
only when mastery goals are accompanied. Similarly, the positive influence of
mastery goals can be exerted only when perceived competence or perceived auton-
omy is accompanied.

Optimal type of multiple-goal pursuit and perceived competence and autonomy

A three-way interaction effect among a mastery goal, a performance-approach goal
and perceived competence indicated that perceived competence plays a critical role in
determining which type of multiple-goal pursuit was the most productive, for the
outcome measure of achievement. Students with high perceived competence tend to
have a high level of achievement regardless of mastery goals as long as they have high
performance-approach goals. In contrast, students with low perceived competence
tend to have a high achievement only when they adopt a high level of performance-
approach goals without adopting a high level of mastery goals. As such, for students
high in perceived competence, performance-approach goals matter only and mastery
goals do not seem to make a significant difference in relation to achievement.
However, for students low in perceived competence, mastery goals seem to play a role
to interfere with the positive impact that adoption of high performance-approach goals
have on academic achievement. Another interesting point is, for these students, having
high mastery goals only helps to somewhat facilitate achievement when paired with
low performance-approach goals.
Examining the level of academic achievement in the context of multiple-goal
pursuit, regardless of the level of perceived competence, students are likely to show
the most detrimental academic performance when they pursue both low mastery and
low performance-approach goals. Depending on the level of students’ perceived
competence, however, there was a significant difference in the level of academic
achievement when they adopt both high mastery and high performance-approach
goals. For students who were high in perceived competence, the simultaneous adop-
tion of these two goals seems to be favourable, resulting in the highest level of
achievement. Such a dual pursuit of goals, however, is not as favourable to students
who are not sure of their competence. Thus, whether or not the multiple-goal pursuits
are beneficial depends on the students’ perception of competence. To ensure that a
multiple-goal pursuit of a mastery goal and a performance-approach goal is productive
for enhancing academic performance, therefore, it seems critical to help students
equip themselves with strong perceptions of their competence. Perceived autonomy,
 408 Y. Cho et al.

however, did not play a significant role in determining the optimal type of multiple-
goal pursuit.
A plausible speculation can be made about the role of students’ perception of
competence in multiple-goal pursuit context. Simultaneous pursuit of the two achieve-
ment goals with different foci, doing better than others while also mastering the mate-
rial, may be much harder for students lacking competence than pursuing a single goal.
Strong perception of competence may enable students to manage the challenges of
pursuing two different goals. On the other hand, students who are low in perceived
competence may struggle in the handling of two goals, with the negative result of lower
performance scores. For competent students, therefore, the two different achievement
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 03:25 15 July 2014

goals seem to function in harmony in predicting achievement, while they functioned

in conflict for students with low competence. In conclusion, the effectiveness of the
combination of a mastery goal and a performance-approach goal orientation tends to
be evident only when the students who adopted the goals were competent.

Limitations of this study and suggestions for future research

The findings of the study are limited in their generalisability for several reasons. First,
there is an imbalance in the number of female and male participants. Most participants
were female, and thus the findings cannot be generalised to a normal population of
college students. While gender differences were not a big issue in the literature on
achievement goal orientation, some studies reported that female students favoured
mastery goal orientation more than male students did (Pintrich, 2000). In this study,
however, I did not observe significant gender differences for most measures, but did
find significant gender differences in mastery goal orientation, with female students
reporting higher scores. Consequently, future studies addressing mastery goal should
consider gender differences.
Another restriction to the generalisability of these findings has much to do with the
characteristics of participants. The participants of the present study, as previously
outlined, were enrolled in a required course, Introduction to Statistics. Because of the
nature of a required course, the motivation for taking the course may be ‘because I
have to’ instead of ‘because I want to’. Those students, therefore, were likely to show
a restricted range of perceived autonomy. Students taking the course as an elective,
however, may have reported a wider range of perceived autonomy, which in turn
might have produced results that are more reliable or more generalisable. At any rate,
future studies are needed that are based on data from samples that incorporate greater
variation in the participants’ perceptions of autonomy.
Also, in order to examine whether the findings of the current study are robust and
replicable, more empirical evidence that supports the generalisability of the findings
about the roles of perceived competence and perceived autonomy needs to be docu-
mented. Lastly, the examination of the moderating effect of perceived competence and
autonomy can also be extended into various age groups (e.g. K-12 school children).

Conclusion
Findings of this study suggest that educational practitioners keep in mind that there
is no single goal orientation or multiple goal orientation that is optimal for all learn-
ing situations and motivational challenges. Achievement goal effects seem to func-
tion differently for different individuals (e.g. competent vs. incompetent students;
 Educational Psychology 409

autonomous vs. controlled students). To do so, teachers should be able to know

which combinations of motivational constructs (achievement goal orientations and
perceived competence/perceived autonomy) maximise learning effectiveness in the
given situation. In a real educational setting, no single control variable is adequate,
but rather all factors related to learning, motivation and achievement come into play
simultaneously. Therefore, it seems critical to understand the complexity of how
achievement goal orientations and students perceptions of competence and auton-
omy jointly affect learning outcomes, which helps us be aware of the motivational
variables that seem to have a synergic effect on outcome variables. This understand-
ing is necessary not only for theoretical reasons, but also gives educational practitio-
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 03:25 15 July 2014

ners meaningful information on how to help students acquire the motivation and the
adaptive patterns that will help them learn.

References
Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and classroom motivational climate. In J. Meece &
D. Schunk (Eds.), Students’ perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327–348). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Student learning strate-
gies and motivational process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267.
Anderman, E.M., & Young, A.J. (1994). Motivation and strategy use in science: Individual
differences and classroom effects. Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 31(8), 811–831.
Bandura, A., & Cervone, D. (1983). Self-evaluative and self-efficacy mechanisms governing
the motivational effects of goal systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
45, 1017–1028.
Bandura, M., & Dweck, C.S. (1985). The relationship of conceptions of intelligence and
achievement goals to achievement-related cognition, affect, and behavior. Unpublished
manuscript, Harvard University.
Barron, K.E., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: Testing
multiple goal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 706–722.
Black, A.E., & Deci, E.L. (2000). The effects of instructor’s autonomy support and students’
autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory
perspective. Science Education, 84, 740–756.
Bong, M. (2005). Within-grade changes in Korean girls’ motivation and perceptions of the
learning environment across domains and achievement levels. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 97, 656–672.
Ciani, K.D., Sheldon, K.M., Hilpert, J.C., & Easter, M.A. (2010). Antecedents and trajectories
of achievement goals: A self-determination theory perspective. British Journal of Educa-
tional Psychology. Retrieved October 2010, from http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/
20659356
Cury, F., Elliot, A.J., Da Fonseca, D., & Moller, A.C. (2006). The social-cognitive model of
achievement motivation and the 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 90, 666–679.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuit: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41,
1040–1048.
Dweck, C.S., & Leggett, E.L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personal-
ity. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
Elliot, A.J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A.J. Elliot &
C.S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52–72). New York, NY:
Guilford Press.
Elliot, A.J., & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achieve-
ment motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218–232.
 410 Y. Cho et al.

Elliott, E.S., & Dweck, C.S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12.
Elliot, A.J., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and
intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
70(3), 461–475.
Elliot, A.J., & McGregor, H.A. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519.
Harackiewicz, J.M., Barron, K.E., & Elliot, A.J. (1998). Rethinking achievement goals: When
are they adaptive for college students and why? Educational Psychologist, 33, 1–21.
Harackiewicz, J.M., Barron, K.E., Pintrich, P.R., Elliot, A.J., & Thrash, T.M. (2002). Revision
of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychol-
ogy, 94, 562–575.
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 03:25 15 July 2014

Harackiewicz, J.M., Barron, K.E., Tauer, J.M., Carter, S.M., & Elliot, A.J. (2000). Short-term
and long-term consequences of achievement goals in college: Predicting continued inter-
est and performance over time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 315–330.
Harackiewicz, J.M., & Elliot, A.J. (1993). Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 904–915.
Harackiewicz, J.M., & Hulleman, C.S. (2010). The importance of interest: The role of
achievement goals and task values in promoting the development of interest. Social and
Personality Psychology Compass, 4(1), 42–52.
Harackiewicz, J.M., & Sansone, C. (1991). Goals and intrinsic motivation: You can get there
from here. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 7, 21–49.
Harter, S., & Jackson, B.K. (1992). Trait vs. nontrait conceptualizations of intrinsic/extrinsic
motivational orientation. Motivation and Emotion, 16, 209–230.
Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (1997). The effects of achievement goals: Does level of perceived
academic competence make a difference? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22,
415–435.
Leondari, A., & Gialamas, V. (2002). Implicit theories, goal orientations, and perceived compe-
tence: Impact on students’ achievement behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 279–291.
Levesque, C., Zuehlke, N., Stanek, L., & Ryan, R.M. (2004). Autonomy and competence in
German and U.S. university students: A comparative study based on self-determination
theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 68–84.
Linnenbrink, E.A. (2005). The dilemma of performance-approach goals: The use of multiple
goal contexts to promote students’ motivation and learning. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 97, 197–213.
McGregor, H.A., & Elliot, A.J. (2002). Achievement goals as predictors of achievement-relevant
processes prior to task engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 381–395.
Meece, J.L., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Hoyle, R.H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cogni-
tive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514–523.
Middleton, M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An
underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710–718.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M.J. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for
what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational
Psychology, 93(1), 77–86.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M., Hicks, L., Roeser, R., Urdan, T., Anderman, E., & Kaplan, A.
(2001). Manual: Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS). Ann Arbor, MI:
Leadership and Learning Laboratory, University of Michigan.
Miller, R.B., Behrens, J.T., & Greene, B.A. (1993). Goals and perceived ability: Impact on
student valuing, self-regulation, and persistence. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
18, 2–14.
Murayama, K., & Elliot, A.J. (2009). The joint influences of personal achievement goals and
classroom goal structures on achievement-related outcomes. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 101(2), 432–447.
Nicholls, J.G. (1984). Conceptions of ability and achievement motivation. In R.E. Ames & C.
Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Student motivation (Vol. 1, pp. 39–73).
New York, NY: Academic Press.
 Educational Psychology 411

Pajares, F., Britner, S.L., & Valiante, G. (2000). Relation between achievement goals and
self-beliefs of middle school students in writing and science. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 25, 406–422.
Pintrich, P.R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning
and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92(3), 544–555.
Reeve, J. (2002). Self-determination theory applied to educational settings. In E.L. Deci &
R.M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 183–203). Rochester,
NY: University of Rochester Press.
Roeser, R.W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T.C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological envi-
ronment and early adolescents’ psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The
mediating role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 408–422.
Ryan, R.M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 03:25 15 July 2014

cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450–461.
Ryan, R.M., & Connell, J.P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examin-
ing reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57,
749–761.
Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and
new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67.
Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., Grolnick, W.S., & La Guardia, J.G. (2006). The significance of
autonomy and autonomy support in psychological development and psychopathology. In
D. Cicchetti & D.J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology (2nd ed., Vol. 1,
pp. 795–849). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
Sansone, C., Sachau, D.A., & Weir, C. (1989). Effects of instruction on intrinsic interest: The
importance of context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 819–829.
Schunk, D.H. (1996). Goal and self-evaluative influences during students’ cognitive skill
learning. American Educational Research Journal, 33, 359–382.
Senko, C., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (2002). Performance goals: The moderating roles of context
and achievement orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 603–610.
Senko, C., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (2005). Regulation of achievement goals: The role of
competence feedback. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 320–336.
Senko, C., & Miles, K.M. (2008). Pursuing their own learning agenda: How mastery-oriented
students jeopardize their class performance. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
33(4), 561–583.
Skaalvik, E.M. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: Relations with task
and avoidance orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 89, 71–81.
Urdan, T.C. (1997). Examining the relations among early adolescent students’ goals and
friends’ orientation toward effort and achievement in school. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 22, 165–191.
Urdan, T.C. (2004). Predictors of academic self-handicapping and achievement: Examining
achievement goals, classroom goal structures, and culture. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 96, 251–264.
Urdan, T., & Mestas, M. (2006). The goals behind performance goals. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 98(2), 354–365.
Wolters, C.A. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal
orientations to predict students’ motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 96, 236–250.
Wolters, C., Yu, S., & Pintrich, P. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and students’
motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8,
211–238.
Zusho, A., Pintrich, P.R., & Cortina, K.S. (2005). Motives, goals, and adaptive patterns of
performance in Asian American and Anglo American students. Learning and Individual
Differences, 15, 141–158.