See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/311448752

The effects of feedback on students' achievement goals: Interaction between

reference of comparison and regulatory focus

Article  in  Learning and Instruction · June 2017

DOI: 10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.11.008

CITATIONS READS

18 1,918

3 authors:

Jongho Shin You-Kyung Lee

Samsung Michigan State University
41 PUBLICATIONS   95 CITATIONS    24 PUBLICATIONS   241 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Eunjin Seo
University of Texas at Austin
23 PUBLICATIONS   152 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

AERA Motivation SIG Publications View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Eunjin Seo on 01 March 2018.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Running head: FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 1

Citation: Shin, J., Lee, Y., & Seo, E. (2017). The effects of feedback on students’ achievement
goals: Interaction between reference of comparison and regulatory focus. Learning and
Instruction, 49, 21-31. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.11.008

The Effects of Feedback on Students' Achievement Goals:

Interaction Between Reference of Comparison and Regulatory Focus

The final manuscript can be found at:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2016.11.008

Jongho Shina, You-kyung Leeb, and Eunjin Seoc

a
Seoul National University, bMichigan State University, and cThe University of Texas at Austin

Correspondence concerning this manuscript should be addressed to Jongho Shin,

Center for Learning Science and Creative Talent Development, Department of Education,

Seoul National University, 1 Gwanak-Ro 1, Gwanak-Gu, Seoul 08826, Republic of

Korea. Tel: +1-82-880-7640. E-mail: jshin21@snu.ac.kr

FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 2

Abstract

The purpose of the present study was to examine the effect of reference of comparison (i.e., self-

referential vs. normative) and regulatory focus (i.e., promotion vs. prevention) on students'

subsequent achievement goals. We hypothesized that the negative effect of normative feedback

on students' achievement goals would decrease or disappear when the feedback is promotion

focused. The results from an experimental study (n = 155 sixth and seventh graders) supported

the hypothesis. In general, normative feedback led students to more endorsement of

performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals as compared to self-referential

feedback. When students received promotion-focused feedback, however, normative feedback

did not significantly lead to performance goal endorsement. Regarding mastery goal adoption,

none of the feedback types had any significant effect on it. The results provide implications

about how to buffer the detrimental effects of normative feedback on performance goal

endorsement using promotion-focused feedback.

Keywords: achievement goals, comparison reference, regulatory focus, feedback

FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 3

The Effects of Feedback on Students' Achievement Goals:

Interaction Between Reference of Comparison and Regulatory Focus

1. Introduction

Students have varying goals to engage in an achievement task. Some students work on a

task to show their competence or ability to outperform others (performance-approach goals).

Other students work on a task to avoid showing their low competence or inability to outperform

others (performance-avoidance goals). And some students work on a task to develop their

competence or to learn new knowledge (mastery-approach goals). Researchers have theorized

about why students engage in an achievement task, which has given rise to achievement goal

theory (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). In fact, one of the key variables in predicting

students' learning and performance is considered to be achievement goals (Ames, 1992).

The present research examines the effects of feedback on students' subsequent

achievement goals. It is critical to investigate instructional factors that lead students to endorse

more adaptive achievement goals (e.g., mastery-approach goals) and to abnegate maladaptive

achievement goals (e.g., performance-avoidance goals) for more desirable learning outcomes

(e.g., Muis, Ranellucci, Franco, & Crippen, 2013). Feedback plays a primary role in student

motivation and behavior in classrooms by providing students with opportunities to learn and

encouraging them to achieve their goals (Bangert-Drowns, Kulik, Kulik, & Morgan, 1991;

Sansone, 1989). During the past decade, several experimental studies have focused on how

different references of comparison of feedback (e.g., Butler, 2006; Pekrun, Cusack, Murayama,

Elliot, & Thomas, 2014; Steele-Johnson, Heintz, & Miller, 2008) are related to achievement

goals. Concerning the promoting of more adaptive achievement goals (i.e., mastery-approach

goals), these studies have highlighted the importance of self-referential feedback (i.e., feedback
FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 4

based on students' own progress) over normative feedback (i.e., feedback based on students'

relative performance to others).

In reality, however, we often need to provide students with normative feedback due to

standardized tests or evaluation policies. Many standardized tests (e.g., SAT, ACT, GRE) and

school exams provide normative feedback (e.g., percentile rank). Given this situation, it may be

critical to examine factors that are able to minimize the negative effect of normative feedback on

students' achievement goal adoption. Such an objective leads us to apply regulatory focus theory

(Higgins, 1998), which encompasses motivational systems focusing either on growth and

accomplishment (promotion focused) or duties and obligations (prevention focused) as feedback

types.

Regulatory focus theory is particularly useful for extending previous work on the

reference of comparison of feedback by more explicitly considering the valence component of

achievement goals (i.e., approaching success and avoiding failure; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996;

Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Elliot, Murayama, & Pekrun, 2011). Considering that a positive and

desirable possibility (i.e., success) tends to bring on one's approach tendency, promotion-focused

feedback, which emphasizes one's success, may be a possible way to ameliorate the detrimental

effect of normative feedback on achievement goal adoption. However, previous studies on the

relation between feedback and achievement goals have focused only on the effects of reference

of comparison (e.g., Butler, 2006; Pekrun et al., 2014; Steele-Johnson et al., 2008).

In this research, therefore, we investigated the effects of two types of feedback on

students' achievement goals: 1) self-referential versus normative feedback (reference of

comparison) and 2) promotion-focused versus prevention-focused feedback (regulatory focus).

In the following sections, we provide an overview of achievement goal theory and how students'
FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 5

adoption of achievement goals is influenced by different types of feedback. We then describe, as

our main research hypotheses, the expected patterns of the interactions between these two

different types of feedback.

2. Theoretical Background

2.1. Achievement Goals

Achievement goals may be broadly defined as the pursuit of competence-based activities

(Dweck, 1986). Students' motivational orientation in an achievement situation, such as a

classroom, can be represented as an achievement goal. Students' different reasons for the pursuit

of competence are mainly represented by two types of achievement goals—mastery goals and

performance goals (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Achievement goal theorists then

divide performance goals into performance-approach goals and performance-avoidance goals by

adding approach-avoidance valence to the achievement goal framework (Elliot & Church, 1997;

Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). The trichotomous achievement goal framework consists of

mastery goals (or mastery-approach goals) focusing on developing one's competence,

performance-approach goals focusing on demonstrating one's competence, and performance-

avoidance goals focusing on avoiding demonstrating one's incompetence.

Theorists then extended this trichotomous framework to a 2 × 2 framework by dividing

mastery goals into mastery-approach and mastery-avoidance goals as well (Elliot & McGregor,

2001). However, some theorists still lean toward the trichotomous framework because mastery-

avoidance goals (with their focus on avoiding not developing competence) are less conceptually

differential from the other achievement goals (Madjar, Kaplan, & Weinstock, 2011; Maehr &

Zusho, 2009). We, therefore, employed the trichotomous achievement goal framework for the

present study.
FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 6

2.1.1. Consequences of achievement goals. There have been numerous studies about

different consequences of achievement goals. Mastery-approach goals have consistently shown

positive associations with learning outcomes such as greater interest, persistence, engagement,

and help-seeking strategies (e.g., Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999; Gonida, Karabenick, Makara,

& Hatzikyriakou, 2014; Kaplan & Maehr, 1999; Roussel, Elliot, & Feltman, 2011). In contrast,

performance-avoidance goals have consistently shown negative associations with regards to

learning outcomes (e.g., Dickhäuser, Buch, & Dickhäuser, 2011; Elliot et al., 1999; Middleton,

Kaplan, & Midgley, 2004).

Effects of performance-approach goals are rather inconsistent. Previous researchers

reported that students with performance-approach goals showed high academic achievement (e.g.,

Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996), but low intrinsic motivation (e.g., Kaplan & Maehr, 1999).

Researchers also suggest that the effects of performance-approach goals may depend on other

factors such as self-concept (e.g., Spinath & Stiensmeier-Pelster, 2003). Therefore, consensus

has yet to be reached about the effects of performance-approach goals on students' motivation

and achievement.

Based on these prior findings, the most desirable type of achievement goal in learning

situations is generally considered to be mastery-approach goals, with the least desirable type

being performance-avoidance goals. In the present study, we mainly seek to investigate how to

prevent students' adoption of performance-avoidance goals while simultaneously seeking to

enhance or maintain students' mastery-approach goals.

2.1.2. Antecedents of achievement goals. One important assumption of the present

study is that achievement goals can be formed and changed by achievement contexts (Ames &

Archer, 1988; Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). There may be different levels of embedded contexts,
FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 7

from specific cues in classrooms to the larger culture (Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). For example, a

shared meaning of achievement in each culture may influence individuals' perceptions of

achievement settings and thereby provide different reasons for pursuing competence (i.e.,

achievement goals). Specific cues in the classroom, such as task types, teachers' instructional

approaches, and evaluation criteria, contribute to the salience of specific types of achievement

goals in a classroom, namely classroom goal structures. Classroom goal structures refer to goal-

related messages that are salient in the achievement settings (e.g., classroom) which are

associated with (or most likely influence) the personal goals in those settings (Kaplan, Middleton,

Urdan, & Midgley, 2002).

Achievement goal theorists have described six cues which are critical features of school

or classroom settings that contribute to classroom goal structures (Ames, 1992; Kaplan & Maehr,

2007; Maehr & Midgley, 1991, 1996). The six are the task, authority, recognition, grouping,

evaluation, and time (TARGET). TARGET variables include the nature of the task, the authority

to make decisions for the task, what outcomes and behaviors are recognized, criteria for

grouping, evaluation procedures, and how time is allocated for doing the task. Each element of

the settings may prompt adoption of mastery or performance goals. Indeed, researchers have

attempted to manipulate these six TARGET variables and found empirical evidence that

manipulating goal structure led to students adopting corresponding achievement goals (e.g.,

Linnenbrink, 2005; Newman, 1998).

One of the evaluation variables is feedback. In different ways, feedback provides

assessment information on students' performance. If feedback (or evaluation procedures)

includes information on students' progress or mastery of skills, the students are more likely to

endorse mastery goals. If feedback includes information on students' performance in comparison

FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 8

to others, they are more likely to endorse performance goals (Ames, 1992; Kaplan & Maehr,

2007; Maehr & Midgley, 1996). It follows from different features of classroom settings (i.e.,

TARGET) that self-referential feedback focusing on individual progress may lead to more

students adopting mastery goals; normative feedback focusing on performance relative to that of

others may lead to more students adopting performance goals.

Most researchers have tended to investigate different environmental characteristics and

their relations to strictly the mastery vs. performance dimension (i.e., mastery-approach and

performance-approach goals; e.g., Linnenbrink, 2005; Maehr & Midgley, 1996). That is, few

researchers have scrutinized achievement goal environment (e.g., TARGET variables) in relation

to the approach vs. avoidance dimension. Instead, researchers have examined the approach-

avoidance goal dimension in relation to individuals' distinct needs (for success and avoiding

failure). For example, the need for achievement is uniquely associated with mastery-approach

and performance-approach goals (Elliot, 1999) and fear of failure is strongly associated with

performance-approach goals as well as performance-avoidance goals (Elliot & McGregor, 2001).

In the present study, we aimed to examine the effects of environmental factors, such as

different feedback types, on students' approach- and avoidance-valenced achievement goals.

Dweck (1999) pointed out that individual dispositions or needs can also be triggered by

situational factors, which at least temporarily leads to different types of achievement goals.

Furthermore, Elliot and his colleagues' (1999, 2001) research on the relation between individuals'

needs and achievement goals indirectly suggest that promotion-focused feedback focusing on

success may lead to mastery- and performance-approach goals more often being adopted because

this type of feedback motivates one to approach desired end states (Higgins, 1998). In contrast,

prevention-focused feedback focusing on failure may lead to performance-avoidance goals being

FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 9

adopted more often, because this type of feedback motivates one to avoid undesired end states

(Higgins, 1998), or it increases the fear of failure.

2.2. The Effects of Different Types of Feedback on Achievement Goals

2.2.1. Self-referential versus normative feedback. The possible feedback types

affecting achievement goal adoption is derived from different evaluation standards that were

implicitly acknowledged in the classic conceptualization of achievement motivation (Elliot &

McGregor, 2001; McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953). There are two typical

evaluation standards in achievement situation: intrapersonal (i.e., self-referential) and normative.

An intrapersonal standard is concerned with one's own past attainment or maximum potential

attainment. Therefore, an intrapersonal standard involves comparing one's own outcomes over

time. In contrast, a normative standard is concerned with comparing one's outcomes with those

of others (Butler, 2000; Elliot & McGregor, 2001).

There have been some empirical studies on how intrapersonal- and normative-standard

feedback induces individual motivation and behavior differently, though these studies adopted

different terminology (e.g., “temporal vs. normative” in Butler, 2000, 2006; “self-referential vs.

normative” in Pekrun et al., 2014; “self-based vs. normative-based” in Steele-Johnson et al.,

2008). Only a few studies, however, have directly examined the effect of feedback on adoption

of different achievement goals (e.g., Butler, 2006; Pekrun et al., 2014). These studies showed

that mastery goals were enhanced by self-referential feedback, while performance goals were

enhanced by normative-standard feedback. For example, secondary school students' mastery

goals were enhanced when they anticipated evaluations based on their own progress, whereas

their performance goals were enhanced when they anticipated evaluations based on their

performance relative to other students (Butler, 2006; Pekrun et al., 2014).

FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 10

Given these prior findings, we predict that self-referential feedback will lead more likely

to students’ adoption of mastery-approach goals, while normative feedback will promote

students’ adoption of performance goals (both performance-approach and performance-

avoidance goals). Furthermore, we question if there is a possible way of mitigating the

association between normative feedback and the endorsement of performance goals, particularly

performance-avoidance goals which tend to lead to students' maladaptive learning outcomes

(e.g., Elliot et al., 1999; Middleton et al., 2004). Accordingly, we propose regulatory focus

feedback as another predictor for achievement goals.

2.2.2. Promotion-focused versus prevention-focused feedback. Regulatory focus

theory (Higgins, 1998) suggests two fundamental motivational systems including promotion and

prevention systems. A promotion-focused system is concerned with growth and accomplishment,

and involves approaching desired end states (Crowe & Higgins, 1997). In a promotion-focused

system, therefore, success (or failure) is framed as the presence (or absence) of positive

outcomes. Thus, one tends to have approach motivation in order to gain positive outcomes. In

contrast, a prevention-focused system is concerned with duties and obligations, and involves

avoiding undesired end states (Higgins, 1998; Keller, 2006). In a prevention-focused system,

success (or failure) is framed as absence (or presence) of negative outcomes. Thus, one tends to

have avoidance motivation in order to avoid negative outcomes.

There have been a number of empirical studies on how promotion and prevention

framings induce different motivation and behavior (e.g., Förster, Grant, Idson, & Higgins, 2001;

Förster, Higgins, & Idson, 1998; Shah, Higgins, & Friedman, 1998). These studies have

consistently shown that promotion-focused individuals tend to prefer attaining new achievement

or gains; prevention-focused individuals tend to prefer maintaining current achievement or

FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 11

protecting current status against losses (Förster, Grant et al., 2001; Förster, Higgins et al., 1998;

Molden, Lee, & Higgins, 2008; Molden & Miele, 2008). For example, Shah and his colleague

(1998) found that, in a promotion-framing condition, undergraduate students were more likely to

believe they possessed the characteristics of their ideal person. By contrast, in a prevention-

framing condition, students were more likely to believe they possessed the characteristics of the

type of person who they ought to be, or they believed it was their duty or obligation to be. This

suggests that being concerned with desired end states leads to a person's tendency to exhibit the

approach motivational system; being concerned with duties or obligations leads to one’s

tendency to demonstrate the avoidance motivational system.

Based on these prior findings, we predict that feedback focusing on the aspect of

success—promotion-focused—will promote students’ approach-valenced motivation such as

mastery-approach goals and performance-approach goals. Likewise, we predict that feedback

focusing on the aspect of failure—prevention-focused—will lead more likely to students’

avoidance-valenced motivation such as performance-avoidance goals.

2.2.3. The interaction between reference of comparison and regulatory focus. We

also propose that there is an interactive effect between reference of comparison (self-referential

vs. normative) and regulatory focus (promotion vs. prevention) on achievement goal adoptions.

Specifically, we hypothesize that if students consider feedback to be emphasizing their

successful achievement and promoting their task performance (i.e., promotion focus), the

detrimental effect of normative feedback on performance goal adoption may be alleviated. That

is, we expected that students' adoption of performance goals would be less salient in promotion-

focused feedback condition.

FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 12

In contrast, if students consider feedback to be pointing out their mistakes and to be

focused on preventing performance failure (i.e., prevention focus), normative feedback may

evoke a wider adoption of performance goals, especially performance-avoidance goals.

Therefore, given a prevention-focused and a promotion-focused condition, the former will give

rise to larger differences in achievement goal adoptions between self-referential and normative

feedback. For example, we expect that when students receive prevention-focused feedback they

will adopt higher performance goals in a normative condition than in a self-referential condition.

We expect that when they receive promotion-focused feedback students will adopt similar levels

of performance goals in a self-referential as in a normative condition.

The interactive effects on performance goal adoptions interested us more than those on

mastery goal adoptions for a couple of reasons. First, we mainly aimed to provide possible

instruction on how to alleviate the detrimental effect of normative feedback on performance goal

adoption. Second, we assumed that participants' mastery-approach goals are less likely to be

changed by different types of feedback due to the nature of this study's feedback (i.e., providing

“scores” on a task after working on it). That is, the type given here focuses on performance

results rather than learning processes. If there is still an interactive effect on mastery-approach

goals, we expect there to be an additive effect of promotion-focused feedback and self-referential

feedback on mastery-goal adoption. In other words, when they are both given to students, these

two feedback conditions greatly increase students' mastery-goal adoption.

3. The Present Study

The purpose of the present study was to examine the main and interactive effects of

reference of comparison (i.e., self-referential vs. normative) and regulatory focus (i.e., promotion

vs. prevention) on students' achievement goals. The first research question aims to replicate prior
FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 13

findings about the main effects of reference of comparison (e.g., Butler, 2006; Pekrun et al.,

2014). The second research question aims to highlight the usefulness of regulatory focus theory

for understanding students' achievement goals by testing the main effects of feedback based on a

regulatory focus on students' achievement goal adoption. This way we may improve our

understanding of achievement goals as well as the specific roles of feedback while also

underscoring the importance of positive aspects of task performance in classrooms. The last and

most critical research question is about the interactive effect on achievement goal adoption of

different feedback types—reference of comparison and regulatory focus. Testing interactive

effects will help uncover evidence of how different types of feedback can buffer one another's

potential negative effects. We also hoped to extend the literature on the feedback effect on

learning, believing such research could eventually inform both theory (i.e., achievement goal

theory and regulatory focus theory) and practice in classrooms.

To test these three hypotheses, we employed a 2 (reference of comparison: self-

referential vs. normative) × 2 (regulatory focus: promotion vs. prevention) factorial condition.

We experimentally manipulated different types of feedback by assigning students to one of four

feedback conditions from the combinations of reference of comparison and regulatory focus: 1)

self-referential–promotion-focused feedback, 2) self-referential–prevention-focused feedback, 3)

normative–promotion-focused feedback, and 4) normative–prevention-focused feedback. After

providing manipulated feedback on students' task performance, we assessed their subsequent

adoption of achievement goals.

4. Method

4.1. Participants
FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 14

Participants consisted of 155 students in the sixth (n = 95, 61.3%) and seventh (n = 60,

38.7%) grades, ranging between 11 and 13 years old. All of the participants were Korean and

attended either an elementary or a middle school, each located in its own metropolitan city near

Seoul. After the experiment ended, as compensation for the study participation, participants

received information about their individual achievement goals and general guidance for their

learning based on their own achievement goals. A priori power analysis indicated that n = 128 is

the required minimum sample size to attain the desired power level of .80 with medium effect

size (f = .25) and α = .05.

4.2. Experimental Task Design

As an experimental task, we used a modified Stroop task, which is usually used for

measuring selective attention, cognitive flexibility, and processing speed in psychology or

clinical settings (Lamers, 2010). The task consisted of three sets of 20 items with each set having

a potential perfect score of 20. Thus, the total score for each set ranged from 1 to 20. Participants

were exposed to two words on a screen—one large and one small. They were asked to judge

whether the color of the smaller word and the meaning of the larger word on the screen were the

same (Fig. 1). Participants had, for each item, 3.5 seconds to respond.

We used the modified Stroop task in the experiment because the task was, for the

participants, relatively novel. This unfamiliarity allowed participants' task performance and

motivation (e.g., achievement goals) to be less influenced by their prior experience, task efficacy,

and school achievement. Indeed, there have been some experimental studies that for the same

reason used non-academic tasks (e.g., Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1994; Harackiewicz & Elliot,

1993; Pekrun et al., 2014).

FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 15

To manipulate reference of comparison of feedback, total scores of each set were

compared either with their prior test scores (i.e., self-referential feedback) or other participants'

scores (i.e., normative feedback). Specifically, participants in the self-referential feedback

condition received feedback that compared their current scores with their scores on the previous

set. Participants in the normative feedback condition were given feedback that compared their

current scores with the mean of other participants' scores, which was pre-set to be 14, 16, and 17

for each set. The pre-set scores in the normative feedback condition were determined based on

feedback from two former elementary school teachers and twelve researchers in the field of

educational psychology after they conducted the tasks. They were asked to set these scores to be

at medium levels to students of sixth and seventh grade.1

To manipulate the regulatory focus of feedback, participants in the promotion-focused

feedback condition received feedback that emphasized their successful performance when their

answer was correct (Fig. 2). When their answer was incorrect, they received no feedback. In

addition, participants received a zero point at the beginning of the task and scored one point for

each of their correct responses. Participants in the prevention-focused feedback condition

received feedback emphasizing their failure when their answer was incorrect (Fig. 2). No

feedback was given when their answer was correct. Participants received 20 points at the

beginning of the task and lost one point for each incorrect response. Therefore, the range of

scores that participants in both conditions could get was from 0 to 20.

4.3. Procedure

Data collection took place in computer laboratories in school during regular class hours.

After being seated, participants were asked, through individual computer screens, to complete a

1
From the data, we verified that the average score of students' actual performance on the three sets of
experimental tasks (M = 14.02, SD = 2.80) was within one SD from the average preset score (M = 15.67).
FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 16

consent form and questionnaire on their basic demographic information and achievement goals

(as a covariate). Two researchers then explained how to complete the experimental task. The

experimental task (the modified Stroop task) was introduced as a speed and accuracy test.

Participants were then randomly assigned by a computer program to one of the following four

conditions: 1) self-referential–promotion-focused feedback (n = 41), 2) self-referential–

prevention-focused feedback (n = 39), 3) normative–promotion-focused feedback (n = 41), and

4) normative–prevention-focused feedback (n = 34). Participants were then given five sample

tasks for the exercise purpose. After completing the exercise tasks, they were asked whether they

understood how to perform the task or not. Participants who did not show a full understanding of

the task were given five extra training tasks.

Finally, after completing three sets of the tasks, participants were asked to respond to a

questionnaire querying them about their achievement goals for the next set of the same

experimental tasks. In fact, after this questionnaire the next set of experimental tasks was not

given to participants (i.e., there were three task sets in total in this experiment). The whole

experimental procedure took approximately 40 minutes, and participants were debriefed after all

participants in each school had completed the experiment.

4.4. Measures

Participants' individual achievement goals in class were measured before the task to

statistically control their individual achievement goal tendencies that were independent from

experimental conditions in the analysis. Participants' achievement goals for the experimental

task, goals that were influenced by the feedback manipulation in the study, were measured as a

dependent variable after participants finished the modified Stroop task. All achievement goals

were measured based on student ratings of scale items, varying from strongly disagree (1) to
FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 17

strongly agree (5), and mean scores were used in the analyses. All items were presented in

random order to avoid any possible order effect on dependent variables.

4.4.1. Pretest measures. As a control measure to assess participants' general

achievement goals in a school setting (i.e., pretest), we used the Korean Achievement Goal

Questionnaire (KAGQ; Lee & Kim, 2005). Thus, this measure was completed by participants

before they performed the experimental task. The KAGQ was developed based on Elliot and

McGregor's (2001) Achievement Goal Questionnaire. Lee and Kim (2005) adjusted Elliot and

McGregor's scale to reflect the general context of Korean middle and high school students. The

KAGQ includes five items for each type of goal—mastery-approach (e.g., “I am studying

because I want to understand the content of class as thoroughly as possible,” “I want to learn as

much as possible from my class”), performance-approach (e.g., “My goal in this class is to get a

better grade than most of the other students,” “It is important for me to do better than other

students in my class”), and performance-avoidance goals (e.g., “My goal is the class is to avoid

performing poorly compared to other students,” “I study because I just do not want to do worse

than other students in my class”). In South Korea, a class of students usually takes all subject

classes in the same classroom with the same peers. Hence, this Korean achievement goal

questionnaire measured students' general achievement goals in class (across different subjects)

with reference to the same peers. The reliability coefficients were .77, .81, and .76 for mastery-

approach, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals respectively.

4.4.2. Posttest measures. The original Achievement Goal Questionnaire (AGQ),

developed by Elliot and McGregor (2001), was used as an outcome measure to assess

participants' achievement goals on an experimental task (i.e., posttest). Thus, this measure was

completed by participants after they had performed the three sets of experimental tasks. We used
FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 18

a different achievement goal measure for an outcome measure in order to differentiate

participants' situational achievement goals for the experimental task (i.e., achievement goals

measured after the experiment) from their individual achievement goals in class in general (i.e.,

achievement goals measured before the experiment). We did this out of the concern that if they

were given the same questionnaire the participants might be influenced by their own prior

answers (e.g., they might remember their pretest answers and mimic them in the posttest). The

items were modified to reflect the experimental context. Specifically, participants were asked to

report their achievement goals for their next set of experimental tasks. The questionnaire

includes three items for each type of goal: mastery-approach (e.g., “In the next set of tasks, I

want to solve the problems as thoroughly as possible,” “In the next set of tasks, I want to learn as

much as possible about how to solve the problem”), performance-approach (e.g., “In the next set

of tasks, I want to get a better grade than most of the other students,” “In the next set of tasks, it

is important for me to do better than other students”), and performance-avoidance goals (e.g., “In

the next set of tasks, I want to avoid doing poorly,” “In the next set of tasks, my goal is to avoid

doing worse than other students”). The reliability coefficients were .71, .87, and .55 for mastery-

approach, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals respectively.

4.5. Analyses

We conducted Reference of comparison × Regulatory focus analysis of covariance

(ANCOVA) three times, because there were three types of achievement goals (i.e., mastery-

approach, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals) as dependent variables,

which were measured by AGQ. For all three analyses, independent variables were the references

of comparison (self-referential vs. normative feedback) and regulatory focus (promotion-focused

FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 19

vs. prevention-focused feedback). As a covariate, we used pretest scores of participants'

achievement goals for general classroom setting (i.e., KAGQ).

5. Results

5.1. Descriptive Analyses

Intercorrelations among the variables are presented in Table 1. With the exception of the

correlations between the mastery-approach goals on pretest and performance-avoidance goals on

both pre- and post-test, all three pre- and post-test achievement goals (i.e., mastery-approach

goals, performance-approach goals, performance-avoidance goals) correlated with one another.

Mastery-approach goals were more strongly correlated with performance-approach goals than

with performance-avoidance goals. Performance-approach goals were also strongly correlated

with performance-avoidance goals. In further analyses, the grade level was not included as a

covariate because there were no statistically significant differences by grade level, mastery-

approach: t(153)= -0.07, p = .94; performance-approach: t(153) = 0.55, p = .59; performance-

avoidance: t(153) = 1.86, p = .07.

5.2. Effects of Reference of Comparison and Regulatory Focus on Achievement Goals

In this section, we present the main effects of reference of comparison and regulatory

focus and their interactive effects on mastery-approach goals, performance-approach goals, and

performance-avoidance goals. The two-way analyses of covariance (ANCOVA) results are

summarized in Table 2.

5.2.1. Mastery-approach goals. The ANCOVA results showed that there were neither

significant main effects nor interactive effects on mastery-approach goals. Specifically, reference

of comparison did not significantly affect students' mastery-approach goals (Mself = 4.30, SDself =

0.66; Mnormative = 4.25, SDnormative = 0.65). Regulatory focus of feedback also did not significantly
FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 20

affect mastery-approach goals (Mpromotion = 4.29, SDpromotion = 0.64; Mprevention = 4.25, SDprevention =

0.67). These findings did not support our hypothesis that self-referential feedback or promotion-

focused feedback would promote students' adoption of mastery-approach goals. Finally, no

statistically significant interactive effect was found on mastery-approach goals, which also did

not support the hypothesis for the additive effect of both effects.

5.2.2. Performance-approach goals. The ANCOVA results showed that there was a

statistically significant main effect of the reference of comparison on students' performance-

approach goals. Specifically, participants who received normative feedback were more likely to

adopt performance-approach goals (M = 4.21, SD = 0.77) than those who received self-

referential feedback (M = 4.03, SD = 0.81). Results were in line with previous findings and our

hypotheses that normative feedback increased students' adoptions of performance-approach

goals. However, the regulatory focus of feedback did not significantly affect performance-

approach goals (Mpromotion = 4.15, SDpromotion = 0.80; Mprevention = 4.08, SDprevention = 0.78). This did

not support our hypothesis that promotion-focused feedback would increase students’ adoption

of performance-approach goals.

Finally, there was a statistically significant interactive effect on performance-approach

goals (Fig. 3), and the interaction pattern supported our hypothesis. There was, in the promotion-

focused feedback condition, no statistically significant difference in participants' performance-

approach goals between self-referential feedback (M = 4.24, SD = 0.79) and normative feedback

(M = 4.06, SD = 0.81), t(80) = 1.02, p = .31, |d| = .23. In contrast, in the prevention-focused

feedback condition, there was a statistically significant difference in participants' performance-

approach goals, in favor of the normative feedback (Mself = 3.80, SDself = 0.77; Mnormative = 4.40,

SDnormative = 0.67), t(71) = 3.67, p < .001, |d| = .83.

FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 21

5.2.3. Performance-avoidance goals. The ANCOVA results showed that there were

statistically significant main effects of both the reference of comparison and the regulatory focus

on performance-avoidance goals. Specifically, participants who received normative feedback

were more likely to adopt performance-avoidance goals (M = 3.67, SD = 0.86) than those who

received self-referential feedback (M = 3.58, SD = 0.87). Also, participants were more likely to

adopt performance-avoidance goals when they received prevention-focused feedback (M = 3.68,

SD = 0.87) as compared to promotion-focused feedback (M = 3.57, SD = 0.85). Results were in

line with previous findings and our hypotheses that normative feedback or prevention-focused

feedback would increase students' adoptions of performance-avoidance goals.

Finally, there was a statistically significant interactive effect on performance-avoidance

goals (Fig. 4). Analysis revealed similar results to those for performance-approach goals, which

supported our hypothesis. In the promotion-focused feedback condition, there was no statistically

significant difference in participants' performance-avoidance goals between self-referential

feedback (M = 3.69, SD = 0.93) and normative feedback (M = 3.46, SD = 0.77), t(80) = 1.29, p =

.20, |d| = .28. In contrast, in the prevention-focused feedback condition, there was a statistically

significant difference in participants' performance-avoidance goals, in favor of the normative

feedback condition (Mself = 3.46, SDself = 0.79; Mnormative = 3.92, SDnormative = 0.91), t(71) = 2.33,

p = .02, |d| = .55.

5.2.4. Summary. Taken together, regarding the first research question about the main

effects of reference of comparison, the results indicated that the normative feedback led to

students' endorsement of performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals, whereas there

was no evidence for the effect of self-referential feedback on endorsement of any types of

achievement goals. Regarding the second research question about the main effects of regulatory
FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 22

focus, the results indicated that the prevention-focused feedback led to students' endorsement of

performance-avoid goals, whereas no evidence was found for the effect of promotion-focused

feedback on endorsement of any types of achievement goals.

Regarding the last research question, there were statistically significant interactive effects

of reference of comparison and regulatory focus on both types of performance goals. In the

prevention-focused feedback condition, there were significant differences between self-

referential and normative feedback in both performance-approach and performance-avoidance

goals. Specifically, students reported higher performance goals when they were provided with

normative feedback as opposed to self-referential feedback. In the promotion-focused feedback

condition, however, there was no statistically significant difference in performance goal adoption

between normative feedback and self-referential feedback. In other words, once promotion-

focused feedback was also provided the main effect of normative feedback on performance goal

adoption disappeared. These significant interactive effects are consistent with our hypothesis that

the influence of normative feedback on performance goals may be stronger if students are

provided with prevention-focused feedback, while the influence of normative feedback may be

weaker if they are provided with promotion-focused feedback. Finally, there were no significant

interactive effects on mastery-approach goals.

6. Discussion

Numerous studies have reported that certain types of achievement goals lead to more

adaptive or maladaptive patterns of cognitive, behavioral, and emotional outcomes in learning

processes (see reviews in Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliot, 1999; Kaplan & Maehr,

2007; Midgley, 2002). Given such cumulative findings about achievement goals, it would seem

necessary to guide students to adopt more adaptive achievement goals through appropriate
FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 23

educational instruction. By examining the effects of different types of feedback on students'

achievement goals in a randomized experimental study, we sought to find effective feedback

types for students' adoption of adaptive achievement goals.

6.1. The Main Effects of Reference of Comparison and Regulatory Focus on Achievement

Goals

As predicted, normative feedback increased both performance-approach and

performance-avoidance goals. This is consistent with prior findings (e.g., Pekrun et al., 2014) in

that normative feedback had a positive effect on both types of performance goal adoption. In

another experimental study (Butler, 2006), when students had anticipated normative feedback,

they tended to endorse entity views on abilities, or beliefs that their intelligence or abilities are

fixed over time regardless of the amount of efforts (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), as well as to

endorse more performance goals. Taken together, the findings from these experimental studies

suggest that normative feedback particularly influences the way individuals define their

competence in task performance (i.e., performance oriented).

In addition, the current evidence is in line with studies on TARGET (task, authority,

recognition, grouping, evaluation, and time) variables (Ames, 1992; Maehr & Midgley, 1991,

1996), especially with regard to the effect of evaluation on performance goals. Prior literature

has described that when one's performance is evaluated compared to others' performances, one is

more likely to endorse performance goals (Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). The current findings serve as

additional empirical evidence that normative feedback increases the endorsement of performance

goals, suggesting that feedback or evaluation based on social comparison should not be

emphasized in the classroom, thereby avoiding possible maladaptive outcomes of performance

goals.
FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 24

Again as predicted, prevention-focused feedback increased performance-avoidance goals.

This result suggests that if negative aspects are salient in feedback, performance-avoidance goals

tend to be more endorsed. The findings are in line with prior literature that has reported that a

focus on losing positive outcomes tends to trigger one's avoidance motivation to protect oneself

from possible penalties (Förster, Grant et al., 2001; Förster, Higgins et al., 1998; Shah et al.,

1998). Negative feedback that emphasizes failure at a task may cause students' fear of failure,

which in turn leads to more endorsement of performance-avoidance goals (Elliot & McGregor,

2001). Future research needs to confirm this possible mechanism by measuring changes in fear

of failure while testing the effect of prevention-focused feedback on endorsement of achievement

goals.

6.2. The Interactive Effects of Reference of Comparison and Regulatory Focus on

Achievement Goals

As predicted, there were statistically significant interactive effects of reference of

comparison and regulatory focus on both types of performance goals (Fig. 3, 4). Participants

adopted both types of performance goals in the normative feedback condition to a greater degree

than they did in the self-referential feedback condition, but only when they received feedback

emphasizing their failure without any positive feedback on their successful performance (i.e.,

prevention-focused feedback).

The results suggest that promotion-focused feedback may possibly function as a buffer

against the negative influence of normative feedback on achievement goals. It is important for

future research to replicate the findings, as this study represents the first attempt to document the

interactive effects of reference of comparison and regulatory focus on students' achievement

FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 25

goals. As noted above, prior research on feedback effect has focused primarily on the effect of

reference of comparison (e.g., Butler, 2006; Pekrun et al., 2014).

Inconsistent with prior findings, this study found neither main effects nor interactive

effects of reference of comparison and regulatory focus on mastery-approach goals. First,

previous empirical work has shown that self-referential feedback positively influenced mastery

goal endorsement of secondary school students (e.g., Butler, 2006; Pekrun et al., 2014). Second,

recent reviews on regulatory focus summarized that promotion-focused individuals tend to focus

on approaching achievement rather than on avoiding losing something or on maintaining current

status (Molden et al., 2008; Molden & Miele, 2008).

One possible explanation of the non-significant effects of feedback conditions on

mastery-approach goals may arise from the characteristic of the experimental task. We found

students reported generally high levels of mastery-approach goals across all four conditions (M =

4.30, SD = 0.60). Previous studies have reported that students' interest in and enjoyment of a task

(i.e., intrinsic motivation) highly correlated with their mastery-approach goals (Heyman &

Dweck, 1992; Rawsthorne & Elliot, 1999). These findings suggest that students in this research

might have found the experimental task to be enjoyable and novel, which led them to endorse

mastery-approach goals regardless of their conditions. In fact, a previous study that reported

statistically significant effects of feedback type (self-referential vs. normative) on students'

mastery-approach goals used a relatively monotonous task (e.g., finding different numbers or

letters in Pekrun et al. [2014]) at least compared to our task (i.e., modified Stroop task).

Consequently, Pekrun and his colleagues found a lower level of mastery-approach goals (M =

2.93 to 3.87). This interpretation, however, should be tested in future research by replicating our

study with less interesting tasks or measuring students' level of task interest.
FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 26

Previous literature on achievement goals indirectly suggest that once a task loses its

novelty, students may show a decrease in mastery-approach goals, especially in a normative and

prevention-focused feedback condition. Specifically, prior longitudinal studies have shown that

normative feedback for exams lead to a decrease in mastery-approach goals as well as a

sustaining of or increase in performance-approach goals (e.g., Urdan & Midgley, 2003). Some

achievement goal theorists also suggest that endorsing performance goals may undermine

students' adaptive motivational patterns such as maintaining mastery goals, intrinsic motivation,

and interest (e.g., Brophy, 2005; Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001). This suggests the

importance of emphasizing self-referential and promotion-focused feedback. After all, these

feedback types were at least not likely to lead to performance goal adoption. We suggest that

future research should examine the long-term effects of feedback types on students' achievement

goals by employing a longitudinal design.

6.3. Limitations

While this study contributes to research on the roles of feedback in students' achievement

goals, it has some limitations. The current findings could be limited by the low reliability for

performance-avoidance goals in the post-test measure ( = .55). Thus, the results about

performance-avoidance goals should be interpreted with caution.

Most notably, however, the present study's findings may be limited by the nature of the

task adopted here, a modified Stroop task. We chose this task to control for participants' prior

task experiences and task efficacy. Furthermore, previous experimental studies on students'

achievement goals have also used laboratory-type tasks (e.g., finding different numbers or

letters: Pekrun et al., 2014; pinballs: Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1994; Harackiewicz & Elliot, 1993).

Such studies have reported similar results to those from school-setting studies. Although these
FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 27

laboratory-type tasks support internal validity and facilitate interpretation of results in terms of

causality, we acknowledge that they can also limit the generalizability of the results to real

contexts (Remler & Van Ryzin, 2011). Therefore, future research, using more academic-related

tasks, needs to check the generalizability of the current findings to academic settings.

Another concern is related to students' cognitive ability (e.g., executive function skills) or

subsequent self-efficacy on the Stroop task. The dependent variable of interest in our study is

achievement goals rather than cognitive ability or self-efficacy. Nonetheless, it may be possible

that, as students performed tasks, their cognitive ability or self-efficacy might unexpectedly

influence their achievement goal adoptions. For example, the positive effect of promotion-

focused feedback on mastery-approach goal adoption could have been reduced if one's task

performance became consistently worse towards the final task set. In addition, the effects of

normative feedback might also have more detrimental effects on students with low scores than

those with high scores.

To explore this possibility, we first looked for any statistically significant differences in

participants' scores on the task across all four conditions. We found no statistically significant

differences in participants' performances on all three sets of tasks, Set 1: F(3, 151) = 1.07, p =

.37; Set 2: F(3, 151) = 0.92, p = .43; Set 3: F(3, 151) = 1.89, p = .14. The mean differences were

particularly small in the first two sets. This result suggests that it was likely that participants had

similar levels of cognitive ability at least for this particular task and experienced the same level

of self-efficacy across the different experimental conditions. Furthermore, we conducted

additional three-way analyses of variance to examine if the interactive effects of feedback

differed by whether students performed lower or higher than the preset feedback scores. The

results showed statistically significant three-way interactions among regulatory focus,

FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 28

comparison reference, and performance levels on performance-avoidance goals, but not on

mastery-approach and performance-approach goals. The specific interaction pattern indicates

that the buffering effects of promotion-focused feedback on students' adoption of performance-

avoidance goals appeared only when students received normative feedback and also performed

lower than others (i.e., preset feedback scores). The results make sense given that the negative

effects of social comparison on students' adoption of performance-avoidance goals would be

more salient when students' performances are assessed as lower than others. Although these

additional post-hoc analyses provide insights into understand the interaction among different

types of feedback and students' ability, we did not directly measure or manipulate these

constructs during the experiment task. To strengthen internal validity, therefore, we suggest that

future research directly test this possible effect.

Finally, it falls on future research to examine if the effects of feedback types on students'

achievement goal adoption differ by students' diverse characteristics such as gender, prior

academic achievement, and cognitive ability. In regard to gender, previous studies have shown

that it makes no difference in terms of the effects of feedback on students' achievement goals

(Butler, 2006; Pekrun et al., 2014). Nonetheless, researchers also report that females tend to

show higher responsiveness to others' evaluation than do males (Pomerantz, Altermatt, & Saxon,

2002; Roberts, 1991; Rosenberg & Simmons, 1975), suggesting that the feedback effects on

achievement goals may be stronger for female students than for male peers. In other words,

female students may have stronger motives to show their competence or avoid showing

incompetence to others (i.e., performance goals) even more so when they receive normative and

prevention-focused feedback. Therefore, future research should examine how different types of

feedback have similar or different effects on students' achievement goal adoption depending on
FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 29

their individual characteristics. We believe such future research will broaden the applicability of

the previous and current experimental findings on feedback in classroom settings.

6.4. Implications and Conclusion

This study contributes to extending the literature on the role of feedback in educational

settings by illuminating a relatively overlooked theory in educational psychology—regulatory

focus theory. The study addressed the effects of regulatory focus (i.e., promotion vs. prevention)

in addition to the effects of reference of comparison (i.e., self-referential vs. normative). When it

comes to a deeper understanding of achievement goal theory, these results suggest the

importance and usefulness of regulatory focus theory. The two theories may provide richer

explanations for the functional role of feedback in learning outcomes. However, because we

found evidence for such an integrated role of these two theories only for performance goals,

future research should first clarify whether the findings can be replicated and why inconsistency

is found regarding the effects of feedback types on mastery-approach goals. We also suggest that

future research investigate what other feedback types are possible to encourage students to

endorse mastery-approach goals.

The present findings also contribute to practice in terms of how teachers should provide

students with feedback, and in a more general way, how classroom instructions should be formed

and delivered to students. The significant interactive effect of reference of comparison and

regulatory focus is particularly meaningful for the current school and classroom settings, because

many school or classroom environments tend to stress performance goals or grade on a curve

(i.e., relative evaluation) in either implicit or explicit ways. If future studies could replicate the

current evidence using ecologically valid academic tasks, light would be shed on how the

negative effects of such normative evaluation on student motivation can be alleviated; if teachers
FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 30

provide students with additional messages emphasizing successful aspects of their performance,

the negative consequences of normative evaluation system could be buffered. Given the nature of

classroom settings where students coexist and learn together, it is hard for them to focus only on

their own growth and progress, even if the evaluation type is based on self-referential criterion.

As long as students are exposed to other people in classrooms, comparing one's performance to

that of others may be human nature (Allport, 1920; Johnson & Johnson, 1989; Johnson, Johnson,

& Roseth, 2012). Therefore, it is key for teachers to frequently remind students of successful

aspects of their performance rather than unsuccessful ones and in so doing buffer the potential

negative effects of social comparison or competition.

In sum, this study extends previous work by investigating the interaction between

references of comparison and regulatory focuses of feedback in students' achievement goal

adoption. The implications of these results could help improve evaluative and instructional

practices in the classroom for students' more adaptive motivation. Specifically, we warn against

normative feedback and prevention-focused feedback because these feedback types tend to

increase students' performance goals, especially performance-avoidance goals. Instead, our

findings support the importance of promotion-focused feedback as a possible buffer for the effect

of normative feedback on performance goal adoption. Therefore, it may be advisable for parents

and teachers to provide students feedback emphasizing what the students have achieved and how

far they have progressed, especially when students regularly receive normative feedback from

their school.
FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 31

References

Allport, F. H. (1920). The influence of the group upon association and thought. Journal of

Experimental Psychology, 3, 159–182.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 84, 261–271.

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Student learning strategies

and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267.

Bangert-Drowns, R. L., Kulik, C. C., Kulik, J. A., & Morgan, M. T. (1991). The instructional

effect of feedback in test-like events. Review of Educational Research, 61, 218–238.

Butler, R. (2000). Making judgments about ability: The role of implicit theories of ability in

moderating inferences from temporal and social comparison information. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 965–978.

Butler, R. (2006). Are mastery and ability goals both adaptive? Evaluation, initial goal

construction and the quality of task engagement. British Journal of Educational

Psychology, 76, 595–611.

Brophy, J. (2005). Goal theorists should move on from performance goals. Educational

Psychologist, 40, 167–176.

Crowe, E., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Regulatory focus and strategic inclinations: Promotion and

prevention in decision-making. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes,

69, 117–132.

Dickhäuser, C., Buch, S. R., & Dickhäuser, O. (2011). Achievement after failure: The role of

achievement goals and negative self-related thoughts. Learning and Instruction, 21, 152–

162.
FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 32

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41,

1040–1048.

Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development.

Philadelphia, PA: Psychology.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and

personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.

Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational

Psychologist, 34, 169–189.

Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance

achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218–232.

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1994). Goal setting, achievement orientation, and intrinsic

motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66,

968–980.

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, 461–475.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519.

Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. L. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and

exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 549–

563.

Elliot, A. J., Murayama, K., & Pekrun, R. (2011). A 3 × 2 achievement goal model. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 103, 632–648.

FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 33

Förster, J., Grant, H., Idson, L. C., & Higgins, E. T. (2001). Success/failure feedback,

expectancies, and approach/avoidance motivation: How regulatory focus moderates

classic relations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 253–260.

Förster, J., Higgins, E. T., & Idson, L. C. (1998). Approach and avoidance strength during goal

attainment: Regulatory focus and the “goal looms larger” effect. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 75, 1115–1131.

Gonida, E. N., Karabenick, S. A., Makara, K. A., & Hatzikyriakou, G. A. (2014). Perceived

parent goals and student goal orientations as predictors of seeking or not seeking help:

Does age matter? Learning and Instruction, 33, 120–130.

Harackiewicz, J. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1993). Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 904–915.

Heyman, G. D., & Dweck, C. S. (1992). Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: Their

relation and their role in adaptive motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 16, 231–247.

Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle.

Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 1–46.

Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1989). Cooperation and competition: Theory and research.

Edina, MN: Interaction.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Roseth, C. J. (2012). Competition and performance: More

facts, more understanding? Comment on Murayama and Elliot (2012). Psychological

Bulletin, 138, 1071–1078.

Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. (1999). Achievement goals and student wellbeing. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 24, 330–358.

FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 34

Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. (2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory.

Educational Psychology Review, 19, 141–184.

Kaplan, A., Middleton, M. J., Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2002). Achievement goals and goal

structures. In C. Midgley (Ed.), Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning

(pp. 21–53). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Keller, P. A. (2006). Regulatory focus and efficacy of health messages. Journal of Consumer

Research, 33, 109–114.

Lamers, M. J. (2010). Selective attention and response set in the Stroop task. Memory and

Cognition, 38, 893–904.

Lee, J., & Kim, A. (2005). Development of an academic achievement goal orientation scale. The

Korean Journal of Educational Psychology, 19, 311–325.

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.

Madjar, N., Kaplan, A., & Weinstock, M. (2011). Clarifying mastery-avoidance goals in high

school: Distinguishing between intrapersonal and task-based standards of competence.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 268–279.

Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation: A schoolwide approach.

Educational Psychologist, 26, 399–427.

Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures. Boulder, CO: Westview.

Maehr, M. L., & Zusho, A. (2009). Achievement goal theory: The past, present, and future. In K.

R. Wenzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 77–104). New

York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 35

McClelland, D., Atkinson, J., Clark, R., & Lowell, E. (1953). The achievement motive. New

York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Middleton, M. J., Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (2004). The change in middle school students'

achievement goals in mathematics over time. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 289–

311.

Midgley, C. (Ed.) (2002). Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning. Mahwah, NJ:

Erlbaum.

Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what,

for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational

Psychology, 93, 77–86.

Molden, D. C., Lee, A. Y., & Higgins, E. T. (2008). Motivation for promotion and prevention. In

J. Shah & W. Gardner (Eds.). Handbook of motivation science (pp. 169–187). New York,

NY: Guilford.

Molden, D. C., & Miele, D. B. (2008). The origins and influences of promotion-focused and

prevention-focused achievement motivation. In M. Maehr, S. Karabenick, & T. Urdan

(Eds.). Advances in motivation and achievement: Social psychological perspectives (Vol.

15, pp. 81–118). Bingley, U.K: JAI.

Muis, K. R., Ranellucci, J., Franco, G. M., & Crippen, K. J. (2013). The interactive effects of

personal achievement goals and performance feedback in an undergraduate science class.

The Journal of Experimental Education, 81, 556–578.

Newman, R. S. (1998). Students' help seeking during problem solving: Influences of personal

and contextual achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 644–658.

FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 36

Pekrun, R., Cusack, A., Murayama, K., Elliot, A. J., & Thomas, K. (2014). The power of

anticipated feedback: Effects on students' achievement goals and achievement emotions.

Learning and Instruction, 29, 115–124.

Pomerantz, E. M., Altermatt, E. R., & Saxon, J. L. (2002). Making the grade but feeling

distressed: Gender differences in academic performance and internal distress. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 94, 396–404.

Rawsthorne, L. J., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A meta-

analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 3, 326–344.

Remler, D., & Van Ryzin, G. (2011). Research methods in practice: Strategies for description

and causation. Los Angeles, CA: SAGE.

Roberts, T. A. (1991). Gender and the influence of evaluations on self-assessments in

achievement settings. Psychological Bulletin, 109, 297–308.

Rosenberg, F. R., & Simmons, R. G. (1975). Sex differences in the self-concept in adolescence.

Sex Roles, 1, 147–159.

Roussel, P., Elliot, A. J., & Feltman, R. (2011). The influence of achievement goals and social

goals on help-seeking from peers in an academic context. Learning and Instruction, 21,

394–402.

Sansone, C. (1989). Competence feedback, task feedback, and intrinsic interest: An examination

of process and context. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 343–361.

Shah, J., Higgins, T., & Friedman, R. S. (1998). Performance incentives and means: How

regulatory focus influences goal attainment. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 74, 285–293.

FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 37

Spinath, B., & Stiensmeier-Pelster, J. (2003). Goal orientation and achievement: The role of

ability self-concept and failure perception. Learning and Instruction, 13, 403–422.

Steele-Johnson, D., Heintz, P., & Miller, C. E. (2008). Examining situationally induced state

goal orientation effects on task perceptions, performance, and satisfaction: A two-

dimensional conceptualization. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 38, 334–365.

Urdan, T. C., & Midgley, C. (2003). Changes in the perceived classroom goal structure and

pattern of adaptive learning during early adolescence. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 28, 524–551.

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.
FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 38

Table 1

Intercorrelations among Achievement Goals

Pretest Posttest Pretest Posttest Pretest

MAP MAP PAP PAP PAV
Pretest MAP —
Posttest MAP .43*** —
***
Pretest PAP .51 .41*** —
* ***
Posttest PAP .19 .59 .52*** —
** ***
Pretest PAV .13 .27 .60 .47*** —
*** *** ***
Posttest PAV -.08 .35 .34 .52 .53***
Note. MAP = mastery-approach goals; PAP = performance-approach goals; PAV =
performance-avoidance goals.
*
p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 39

Table 2

Two-Way Analyses of Covariance of Achievement Goals

Source Sum of Squares F(1, 150) p ηp2

Mastery-approach
Reference of comparison 0.30 0.85 .36 .01
Regulatory focus 0.28 0.80 .37 .01
Interaction 0.66 1.90 .17 .01
Performance-approach
Reference of comparison 1.95 4.60 .03 .03
Regulatory focus 0.26 0.61 .44 .004
Interaction 3.78 8.91a .003 .06
Performance-avoidance
Reference of comparison 2.57 5.17 .02 .03
Regulatory focus 2.02 4.07 .045 .03
Interaction 3.77 7.59b .007 .05
Note. We omitted the values of mean square in this table, because the dfs for all
the main and interactive effects are equal to one, indicating the values of mean
square are the same as those of sum of squares.
a
In the promotion-focused condition, there was no significant difference
between self-referential feedback and normative feedback, t(80) = 1.02, p = .31,
|d| = .23, whereas in the prevention-focused condition, there was a significant
difference, t(71) = 3.67, p < .001, |d| = .83; bIn the promotion-focused condition,
there was no significant difference between self-referential feedback and
normative feedback, t(80) = 1.29, p = .20, |d| = .28, whereas in the prevention-
focused condition, there was a significant difference, t(71) = 2.33, p = .02, |d| =
.55.
FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 40

Fig. 1. An example computer screen of the modified Stroop task used for the present experiment.
In this example, the correct response is “same,” because the color of smaller word is black and
the meaning of the bigger word is also black. Students were asked to respond each question by
clicking either a left- or a right-arrow key within 3.5 seconds. This time limit was indicated at the
lower left corner of the screen by disappearing one bar at each second. Current score was
indicated at the lower right corner of the screen by adding one point for a correct response
(promotion-focused condition) or losing one point for an incorrect response (prevention-focused
condition).
FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 41

Fig. 2. An example of feedback used in the experiment. Participants in promotion-focused

feedback condition received feedback emphasizing their success (left). Participants in
prevention-focused feedback condition were given feedback emphasizing their failure
(right).
FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 42

5.00

Performance-apporach goals
4.00

3.00 Self-referential
4.21 4.12 3.81 4.35 Normative

2.00

1.00
Promotion Prevention

Fig. 3. The effects of reference of comparison and self-regulatory focus on performance-

approach goals. The y-axis represents adjusted means of performance-approach goals and error
bars represent standard errors.
 FEEDBACK EFFECTS ON ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 43

5.00

Performance-avoidance goals
4.00

3.00 Self-referential
Normative
3.55 3.50 3.47 4.04

2.00

1.00
Promotion Prevention

Fig. 4. The effects of reference of comparison and self-regulatory focus on performance-

avoidance goals. The y-axis represents adjusted means of performance-avoidance goals and error
bars represent standard errors.

View publication stats