Individual Differences

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.
net/publication/223449072
Individual differences in achievement goals: A longitudinal study of cognitive,

emotional, and achievement outcomes
Article in Contemporary Educational Psychology · October 2008

DOI: 10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.08.002
CITATIONS READS
262 1,188
6 authors, including:
Lia M. Daniels Tara L Stewart

University of Alberta Winnipeg Regional Health Authority
83 PUBLICATIONS 3,544 CITATIONS 33 PUBLICATIONS 2,053 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Robert Stupnisky Raymond P Perry

University of North Dakota University of Manitoba
58 PUBLICATIONS 3,645 CITATIONS 215 PUBLICATIONS 16,861 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Achievement Emotions in Second Language Acquisition View project
DFG-Projekt "FEEL - Forschung zum Emotionalen Erleben im Lehr-Lern-Kontext" View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Raymond P Perry on 30 August 2022.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 584–608
www.elsevier.com/locate/cedpsych
Individual differences in achievement goals:

A longitudinal study of cognitive, emotional,
and achievement outcomes q
Lia M. Daniels a,*, Tara L. Haynes a, Robert H. Stupnisky a,
Raymond P. Perry a, Nancy E. Newall a, Reinhard Pekrun b
a
Department of Psychology, University of Manitoba, P404 Duff Roblin Building,
190 Dysart Road, Winnipeg, MB, Canada R3T 2N2
b
Institute of Educational Psychology, University of Munich, Leopoldstrasse 13, D-80802 Munich, Germany
Available online 24 October 2007
Abstract
Within achievement goal theory debate remains regarding the adaptiveness of certain combina-
tions of goals. Assuming a multiple-goals perspective, we used cluster analysis to classify 1002 under-
graduate students according to their mastery and performance-approach goals. Four clusters
emerged, representing different goal combinations: high mastery/performance (i.e., multiple goals),
dominant mastery, dominant performance, and low mastery/performance (i.e., low motivation).
In a longitudinal analysis over one academic year, the clusters were compared on cognitive apprais-
als (expected achievement, perceived success), achievement-related emotions (enjoyment, boredom,
anxiety), and objective measures of academic achievement (final grade in Introductory Psychology,
GPA). The low-motivation cluster demonstrated the least adaptive profile across all outcomes. The
multiple-goals, mastery, and performance clusters showed equivalent levels of achievement; how-
ever, students in the performance cluster were more psychologically and emotionally vulnerable than
the multiple-goals and mastery clusters. Our discussion focuses on the immediate and potentially
long-term implications of specific goal combinations for students and educators, with particular
q
This research was supported by a Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) of Canada
doctoral fellowship to the first author, SSHRC Canadian Graduate Scholarships to the second and third authors,
a CIHR Canadian Graduate Scholarship to the fifth author, and research Grant 410-88-0435 from the Social
Science and Humanities Research Council of Canada to the fourth author. Parts of this research were presented
at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association (2007) in Chicago, IL.
*
Corresponding author. Fax: +1 204 474 7599.
E-mail address: lia_daniels@umanitoba.ca (L.M. Daniels).
0361-476X/$ - see front matter 2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2007.08.002
L.M. Daniels et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 584–608 585
attention to understanding the cognitive and emotional vulnerabilities of students in the perfor-
mance cluster which appear despite satisfactory achievement levels.
2007 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords: Achievement goals; Academic achievement; Discrete emotions; Cognitive appraisals; Cluster analysis
1. Introduction
For decades articles concerned with achievement motivation have opened with a famil-
iar story of two students: One student is interested in improving his competence, whereas
the other student is interested in demonstrating her ability to others. It is generally
accepted that the first student pursues mastery goals and the latter pursues performance
goals. From a motivational perspective, teachers, researchers, and administrators alike
infer that the first student is the ‘‘better’’ of the two. Empirical research has supported this
inference in many instances (e.g., Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Kaplan & Maehr, 1999); how-
ever, on other occasions, it has been rejected in favor of the student with performance
goals (e.g., Elliot & McGregor, 1999). As a result, the role of achievement goals has
become progressively more complicated over time, confusing the seemingly simple story
of these two students.
The basic constructs of mastery and performance goals are so appealing that empirical
investigations based on the constructs flourish even though the theory itself has been
repeatedly subjected to revision (Elliot, 1999; Harackiewicz, Barron, & Elliot, 1998; Hara-
ckiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, & Thrash, 2002; Pintrich, 2000a). In this vein, the con-
structs of mastery and performance goals are incorporated throughout four major variants
of achievement goal theory: the dichotomous perspective (Dweck & Leggett, 1988), the tri-
chotomous perspective (Elliot, 1999), the 2 · 2 perspective (Elliot & McGregor, 2001), and
the multiple-goals perspective (Pintrich, 2000a). Each amendment arose, in part, from a
need to explain contradictory findings in the empirical literature related to patterns of cog-
nitions, emotions, and behavior that are commonly associated with each goal.
In addressing some of these contradictions, the current study sought to identify ways in
which college students combine mastery and performance goals, and the adaptiveness of
such combinations. In doing so, we adhered to the tradition of research on multiple goals
that typically focuses on combinations of mastery-approach and performance-approach
goals. The first objective was to examine combinations of mastery-approach goals and per-
formance-approach goals among a sample of college students without imposing structure
on the combinations. We used cluster analysis to achieve this objective. The second objec-
tive was to assess the adaptiveness of each goal combination, as defined by the clusters, in
terms of student outcomes attained over the course of an entire academic year. We oper-
ationalized adaptiveness according to three outcome areas that are germane to students’
academic experience: cognitive appraisals of achievement, achievement-related emotions,
and objective academic achievement. We chose these outcomes because they represented
both students’ personal responses (cognitive and emotional) to their achievement as well
as objective achievement level. Accordingly, an adaptive goal combination or cluster
would be one characterized by subjective and objective success, and high positive and
low negative discrete emotions.
586 L.M. Daniels et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 584–608
2. Achievement goal theory
As introduced above, several variations of achievement goal theory are actively pursued
by researchers across a range of research areas including middle school (Linnenbrink,
2005), college (Elliot & Church, 1997), athletics (Carr & Weigand, 2002), and business
(Van Yperen & Janssen, 2002). In addition to mastery and performance goals, the theory
has expanded to include non-academic goals such as social affiliation and responsibility
goals (Dowson & McInerney, 2003, 2004), work-avoidance goals (Seifert & O’Keefe,
2001), and external goal structures (e.g., classroom goals; Linnenbrink, 2005; Urdan &
Schoenfelder, 2006). Although important, these constructs are beyond the scope of the
current review which focuses on personal mastery and performance-approach goals.
Several variations of mastery and performance goals are active in the literature.
Researchers refer to the original division of mastery and performance goals, labelled else-
where as learning and performance goals (Dweck, 1986) or task and ego involvement
(Nicholls, 1984), as the dichotomous perspective1 (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Accordingly,
mastery goals were associated with adaptive educational outcomes such as deep process-
ing, intrinsic motivation, and positive affect, whereas performance goals were associated
with maladaptive outcomes such as shallow processing and negative affect (Dweck &
Leggett, 1988). These constructs and relationships caught the fascination of theory-driven
and applied researchers alike and were the founding features of achievement goal theory.
However, this omnibus dichotomy was unable to explain why, at times, mastery and per-
formance goals resulted in similar levels of objective achievement despite different patterns
of engagement (Elliot, 1999).
In pursuing this discord, the original constructs have been adjusted in many ways.
According to the trichotomous goals and 2 · 2 perspectives, mastery and performance goals
are divided into approach and avoidance components (Elliot, 1999). The appetitive, or
approach, components of both goals seem to be generally associated with positive out-
comes. More specifically, mastery goals have been associated with heightened intrinsic
motivation (e.g., Elliot & Church, 1997) and interest (e.g., Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter,
Lehto, & Elliot, 1997). In contrast, performance-approach goals have been associated with
self-regulation (Bouffard, Boisvert, Vezeau, & Larouche, 1995), emotions such as pride
(Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2006), and achievement (e.g., Harackiewicz et al., 1997; for other
instances see Harackiewicz et al., 1998 and Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). The multiple-goals
perspective, in contrast, suggests that endorsing mastery and performance goals together
can be more adaptive in terms of cognitions, emotions, and achievement than endorsing
either goal exclusively (Pintrich, 2000a). To date, researchers who endorse a multiple-goals
perspective restrict their research design to combinations of the appetitive components of
mastery and performance (e.g., Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, & Elliot, 2002; Hara-
ckiewicz & Linnenbrink, 2005; Linnenbrink, 2005).
Some researchers considered these theoretical revisions ‘‘necessary and illuminating’’
(Harackiewicz et al., 2002, p. 638), while others deemed the revisions unwarranted (Midg-
ley, Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001). Regardless of the sentiment surrounding the amend-
1
In other places Pintrich (2000a, 2000b) referred to the original dichotomy of mastery and performance as
normative goal theory and more recently researchers have adopted the label mastery goals approach (Barron &
Harackiewicz, 2001; Linnenbrink, 2005). We chose to retain the title dichotomy because of its descriptive
precision.
ments, researchers generally agree on two things: First, mastery and performance goals are
the building-blocks of this powerful theory, and second, avoidance-valenced goals are
likely maladaptive. As such, we next focus on the empirical research investigating the rela-
tionships between appetitive goals, either individually or jointly, and students’ academic
outcomes in terms of cognitive appraisals, emotions, and achievement.
2.1. Empirical research: Cognitions, emotions, and achievement
Decades of empirical research document that mastery and performance goals are asso-
ciated with divergent sets of cognitions and emotions, even though they may result in sim-
ilar levels of achievement. To borrow an illustration from Pintrich (2000b), while students
with different goal combinations may have similar final outcomes (e.g., grades), their expe-
riences on the way to this outcome may be very different. Of primary importance in this
respect are students’ cognitive appraisals of achievement and their emotional responses.
As for cognitive appraisals, achievement goals research tends to overlook students’ sub-
jective perceptions of achievement. Although grades are the currency of our college edu-
cation system, students’ subjective perceptions of their achievements are important as well
(Perry, 1991; Weiner, 1985). Two studies have specifically considered students’ perceptions
of their success. Valle and colleagues (2003) used cluster analysis to identify three goal
groups: the ‘‘multiple group’’ (high mastery/high performance), the ‘‘learning group’’
(high mastery/low performance), and the ‘‘performance group’’ (low mastery/high perfor-
mance). Their results revealed no differences between the ‘‘multiple’’ and ‘‘learning’’
groups’ perceptions of success. In contrast, students in the multiple-goals group perceived
themselves as more successful than the performance cluster, suggesting that when perfor-
mance goals are paired with mastery goals, students report feeling more successful than
when performance is the only goal. In another study, McGregor and Elliot (2002) asked
students to indicate their grade aspiration (i.e., what grade they would need to receive to
be satisfied by their exam performance). They found that performance-approach goals
were positively related to grade aspirations, whereas mastery goals were unrelated. This
study suggests that students with performance-approach goals may require a higher level
of achievement than mastery-goal students in order to feel satisfied with their achievement.
As for emotional responses, with the exception of test anxiety studies, research on
achievement goals and emotions has been constrained by the use of dichotomous affect
(positive vs. negative) and goals constructs (mastery vs. performance) (see reviews in Lin-
nenbrink & Pintrich, 2002; Pekrun et al., 2006). Within this restricted design, a consistent
finding was that mastery goals were associated with increased positive affect (Kaplan &
Maehr, 1999; Seifert, 1995). However, mastery was less consistently related to lower levels
of negative affect (Linnenbrink, 2005; Seifert, 1995). In addition, on some occasions per-
formance-approach goals were positively related to negative affect (Elliot & Dweck, 1988;
Kaplan & Maehr, 1999; Turner, Thorpe, & Meyer, 1998), while at other times they were
unrelated (Linnenbrink, 2005; Seifert, 1995). From a multiple-goals perspective, Pintrich
(2000a) used a median split to classify students into a 2 · 2 matrix of high or low mastery
and performance. Interestingly, there was no significant difference between any of the
groups on negative affect. However, those in the high mastery and high performance goals
category showed the highest levels of positive affect, whereas those characterized by high
performance and low mastery reported significantly less positive affect. This suggests that
performance goals may undermine positive affect unless paired with mastery goals.
Recently, connections between goals and a number of discrete emotions have been
analyzed in research undertaken in both U.S. and German universities (Pekrun et al.,
2006). Pekrun and colleagues proffer a model that links mastery, performance-
approach, and performance-avoidance goals to several discrete emotions commonly
experienced by students. They argue that discrete emotions may help explain the incon-
sistent findings in earlier research because they capture qualitative differences that are
overlooked by measures of general affect (Frijda, 1986; Pekrun et al., 2006). They found
that mastery goals were positive predictors of enjoyment, hope, and pride, and were
negative predictors of boredom and anger. In contrast, performance-approach goals
were positive predictors of pride only. Following the Pekrun et al. model, we focused
on discrete emotions.
In contrast to emotions, objective achievement is a variable with established practical
and political weight, hence its prominence in the achievement goals literature is expected
and appreciable (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001; Church, Elliot, & Gable, 2001; Elliot &
Church, 1997; Elliot & McGregor, 1999; Elliot, Shell, Henry, & Maier, 2005; Hara-
ckiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, & Elliot, 2000; Kaplan & Maehr, 1999; Rhee, Zusho,
& Pintrich, 2005). Despite its preeminence, the results for objective achievement are some
of the most erratic. The positive direct link between performance-approach goals and
achievement is the most robust and has been demonstrated in several empirical investiga-
tions with college students (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001; Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot &
McGregor, 1999; Harackiewicz et al., 2000). For mastery goals, however, research on
objective achievement, particularly with undergraduate students, reveals null effects
between mastery goals and achievement almost more often than positive relationships
(Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001; Elliot & Church, 1997; Harackiewicz et al., 2000). Two
recent empirical studies, however, demonstrated a positive relationship between mastery
goals and achievement. Rhee et al. (2005) found a direct relationship between mastery
goals and achievement for students in a chemistry class that emphasized criterion-refer-
enced evaluation. In another study with chemistry students, Church et al. (2001) found
that both mastery and performance-approach goals positively and significantly predicted
students’ grades when controlling for classroom characteristics.
When considering multiple goals and academic achievement, the results are varied.
Whereas some studies suggest that high levels of both mastery and performance goals con-
tribute to the highest overall achievement (Wentzel, 1993), others suggest that high levels
of performance paired with lower levels of mastery goals bolster achievement (Elliot &
Church, 1997), and finally some studies demonstrate that high levels of mastery paired
with lower levels of performance goals maximize achievement (Meece & Holt, 1993).
Two explanations for these discrepancies come to mind. First, differences may be
accounted for by the methodologies used to test multiple-goals hypotheses, including med-
ian split (e.g., Wentzel, 1993), multiplicative interaction terms in regression analysis (e.g.,
Elliot & Church, 1997), and cluster analysis (e.g., Meece & Holt, 1993). Second, differences
in the conceptualization and operationalization of mastery and performance constructs
may contribute to empirical inconsistencies (Brophy, 2005; Grant & Dweck, 2003). Two
summative statements can be made nonetheless. First, approach goals are unarguably
better for achievement than avoidance goals (Linnenbrink, 2005; Zusho, Karabenick,
Sims, & Rhee-Bonney, 2007). And second, there is support for pursuing multiple goals,
but disagreement over whether mastery or performance is better suited as the ‘‘dominant’’
goal within the pairing.
In sum, extant research has documented both consistencies and irregularities regarding
the cognitive, affective, and achievement outcomes associated with mastery, performance,
and multiple goals. This is particularly true for the areas of emotions and achievement.
Deficits in these two areas may be related to the tendency for researchers to focus on gen-
eral affect and to rely heavily on objective indicators of students’ achievement. Another
notable feature is that much of the extant research, particularly utilizing cluster analysis,
has been cross-sectional. These three deficits are remedied in our study. First, we used
measures of discrete achievement–emotions rather than general affect. Second, we
included both subjective and objective measures of achievement. Third, the variables in
our study were clearly temporally ordered such that goals were assessed early in the aca-
demic year and outcomes at the end of the academic year, representing a significant
improvement over many of the other cluster-analytic studies of goals (one exception is
Bråten & Olauseen, 2005).
2.2. Overview of aims and hypotheses of the present study
The purpose of the current study was to determine how college students combine mas-
tery and performance goals and to assess the pattern of subsequent academic outcomes
associated with each combination. Three groups of outcomes were included that are
important to students’ academic careers: cognitive appraisals of achievement (expected
achievement and perceived success), achievement-related emotions (enjoyment, boredom,
and anxiety), and objective achievement. This combination of outcomes was particularly
informative because it represented both students’ final outcomes (final grade in Introduc-
tory Psychology and GPA) and important psychological variables (cognitive appraisals
and emotions) experienced along the way to those achievement outcomes over the period
of a full academic year.
To achieve the study objectives, we used the following data analytic strategy. First, we
used cluster analysis to identify groups of students who endorsed combinations of mastery
and performance goals. Other researchers have recommended this person-centered
approach over variable-centered methods which ‘‘do not adequately take into account
variations in how different achievement goals are integrated within individuals’’ (Meece
& Holt, 1993, p. 589; see also Zusho et al., 2007). According to the multiple-goals perspec-
tive, we expected the following four cluster solution to emerge: high mastery/high perfor-
mance (i.e., multiple goals), dominant mastery (i.e., higher mastery than performance),
dominant performance (i.e., higher performance than mastery), and low mastery/low per-
formance (i.e., low motivation). Second, we analyzed the differences between clusters in
the three areas of outcomes described above. Cluster differences on the outcomes were
tested using analysis of covariance with an adjusted conservative a level.
Based on the expected combinations of mastery and performance goals and our range
of dependent variables, we hypothesized the following. We expected the low-motivation
cluster (i.e., low mastery/performance) to have the lowest perceptions of success, the most
discouraging emotional spectrum of low enjoyment and high boredom, and the lowest
achievement. This cluster of students, who successfully gained entry to college but are
characterized by low levels of motivation relative to their peers, provides an interesting
perspective that is often neglected in achievement goal research. While important implica-
tions can be drawn for this cluster on its own, it also functions as a baseline to which the
three remaining clusters can be compared. In distinguishing between the adaptiveness of
the other three goal clusters, we expected multiple-goal students (i.e., high mastery/perfor-
mance) and those with predominantly mastery goals to make more positive appraisals of
their achievement than students in the dominant performance cluster. We expected these
two clusters would also have more adaptive profiles of achievement-related emotions than
the performance cluster (i.e., higher enjoyment, and lower anxiety and boredom). Finally,
we anticipated the multiple-goals cluster would demonstrate the highest levels of
achievement.
3. Methods
3.1. Participants and procedures
Participants were selected from a unique longitudinal dataset formed by merging two
pre-existing data sets. The Motivation and Academic Achievement (MAACH) Project is
a program of research involving 13 separate one-year studies (1992–2005) examining the
academic development of college students (approximate N = 10,500) at one Canadian
Research-1 University. To construct the MAACH dataset, each year a new cohort of stu-
dents, recruited from several sections of an Introductory Psychology course, completed an
omnibus questionnaire on two occasions (approximately: Time 1 = October and Time
2 = March). The questionnaire consists of several classic and well-reputed instruments
assessing individual difference variables (e.g., Motivated Strategies for Learning Question-
naire: Pintrich, Smith, Garcia, & McKeachie, 1993).
At the end of the academic year (Time 3 = June), students’ institutional records con-
cerning high school grades, faculty of registration, official GPA, number of credit hours
(or courses) completed and dropped, etc. are retrieved from university records (specifi-
cally, from the university’s Student Tracking System, STS).Because this three-phase design
is repeated for each MAACH cohort, a common core of psychosocial, demographic, and
academic measures is available across the cohorts. By merging MAACH data with STS
institutional data, up to eight consecutive years of data can be available for each of
10,500 students. As such, the merged MAACH/STS dataset represents a significant
research initiative in terms of a large number of students, richness of measures, and lon-
gitudinal framework.
We extracted the 2000 and 2001 cohorts from the merged MAACH/STS dataset (n =
1002) for two reasons: First, they are consecutive and recent years, and second, the
omnibus questionnaires administered during those two years contained our variables of
interest at the appropriate time. Although we have adopted the multiple-goals approach
which focuses on combining the appetitive components of mastery and performance goals,
it is important to note that our dataset did not include the avoidance dimensions of mas-
tery and performance and hence precludes any analysis of these constructs.
All volunteers were enrolled in Introductory Psychology, but they represented a range
of faculties including arts (18.1%), management (18.4%), and science (15.3%). Sixty-four
percent of the sample was female. Each cohort in the MAACH dataset contains more
female participants than male, a 2:1 ratio that approximates both the number of women
and men registered in Introductory Psychology (Hall, Perry, Ruthig, Hladkyj, & Chipper-
field, 2006; Haynes, Ruthig, Perry, Stupnisky, & Hall, 2006; Ruthig, Perry, Hall, & Hlad-
kyj, 2004) and at the University on the whole (Office of Institutional Analysis, 2005).
English was the first language of the majority of the sample (89%), and 80% of students
were enrolled in their first year of university.
Mastery and performance goals were measured as part of the Time 1 assessment. Stu-
dents’ cognitive appraisals of achievement (expected achievement, perceived success) and
achievement-related emotions (enjoyment, anxiety, and boredom) were assessed at Time 2.
In addition, students’ final grades in Introductory Psychology and GPAs were used as
objective indicators of academic achievement. This study design ensured that there was
a clear temporal separation of the goal assessment and the assessment of outcomes. Three
covariates were included in the analyses to control for pre-existing individual differences:
high school average, age, and gender. Summary information for all variables is presented
in Table 1.
3.2. Measures
3.2.1. Mastery and performance goals

Presently there is no preeminent measurement tool for assessing multiple goals. As
such, the current protocol for research from this perspective has two steps: First, research-
ers use pre-existing scales to separately assess the appetitive components of mastery and
performance goals, and second, they employ one of numerous statistical techniques to
combine the scales (e.g., Gilman & Anderman, 2006; Miller, Behrens, & Greene, 1993;
Pintrich, 2000a; Senko & Harackiewicz, 2005; Valle et al., 2003; Wolters, 2004). For
our purposes, the MAACH/STS dataset included eight items from Pintrich’s Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ; Pintrich et al., 1993) as representative of
mastery and performance goals. Students responded on a scale ranging from 1 = ‘‘not
at all true of me’’ to 7 = ‘‘very true of me’’ to four items measuring mastery goals (e.g.,
‘‘I prefer course material that really challenges me so I can learn new things,’’ a = .71)
and four items measuring performance goals (e.g., ‘‘If I can, I want to get better grades
in this class than most of the other students,’’ a = .78) (see Duncan & McKeachie,
2005, for all items). No differences emerged between the 2000 and 2001 cohorts in terms
of mastery goals, t(1000) = 1.56, p > .05, or performance goals, t(1000) = .97, p > .05,
hence permitting us to confidently collapse data across the cohorts.
Table 1
Descriptive information of variables
Variables Possible range Actual range M SD
Gender 1–2 1–2 1.35 .48
Age 1–10 1–10 1.89 1.50
High school average 0–100 51–97 76.67 8.21
Mastery goals 4–28 6–28 18.03 4.24
Performance goals 4–28 7–28 21.14 4.65
Expected achievement 1–10 1–10 6.35 1.92
Perceived success 1–10 1–10 6.04 2.00
Enjoyment 5–30 8–30 19.71 4.00
Boredom 5–30 6–30 14.70 5.59
Anxiety 5–30 6–29 15.24 4.90
Final grade Introductory Psychology 0–100 37.91–100 70.83 11.84
GPA 0–4.5 0.28–4.50 2.71 .88
3.2.2. Cognitive appraisals

The following question assessed expected achievement: ‘‘What percentage do you expect
to obtain in your Introductory Psychology course at the end of the year?’’ (1 = 50% or
less. . .10 = 90 100%). As evidenced by moderate correlations between expected and
actual achievement, students tend to be reasonably accurate (if slightly optimistic) judges
of their achievement (Svanum & Bigatti, 2006). Other researchers have utilized a similar
single item measure to assess students’ expected achievement (e.g., McGregor & Elliot,
2002; Menec et al., 1994).
Perceived success was measured by the following item: ‘‘How successful do you feel you
are in your Introductory Psychology course so far this year?’’ (1 = ‘‘very unsuccessful’’ to
10 = ‘‘very successful’’). High correlations between perceived success and actual achieve-
ment in other studies provide confidence in this outcome measure (e.g., r = .78, Hall,
Perry, Chipperfield, Clifton, & Haynes, 2006; r = .70, Ruthig, Haynes, Perry, & Chipper-
field, 2007).
3.2.3. Achievement-related emotions

Three six-item scales from an early version of the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire
(AEQ; Pekrun, Goetz, & Perry, 2005; Pekrun, Goetz, Titz, & Perry, 2002) were used to
measure enjoyment, boredom, and anxiety. Instructions asked respondents to indicate
how they typically felt in relation to their psychology course. Students responded on a
five-point Likert-style scale with responses ranging from 1 = ‘‘not at all true of me’’ to
5 = ‘‘completely true of me.’’ Sample items and as for enjoyment, boredom, and anxiety
respectively are ‘‘I enjoy learning new things’’ (a = .73), ‘‘The things I have to do for this
class are often boring’’ (a = .91), and ‘‘Before I start studying material in this course, I feel
tense and anxious’’ (a = .82).
3.2.4. Academic achievement

As an objective indicator of course-specific academic achievement, we used final grade
in Introductory Psychology. Students’ final grades are derived from their achievement on
multiple-choice tests and various assignments throughout the academic year (two semes-
ters) and reported as percentages. In addition, grade point average (GPA) was used as
an objective indicator of general academic performance. GPA is an aggregate measure
of students’ overall achievement throughout the same academic year (two semesters)
(4.5 = A+, 4.0 = A, 3.5 = B+, etc). By using cumulative GPA as an additional measure
of achievement, we were able to obtain a comprehensive estimate of students’ academic
success across a range of courses and types of performance assessments (e.g., essays,
assignments, exams, etc.).
3.2.5. Covariates
Three covariates were included in the analyses: high school average, age, and gender.
Because Canadian students do not write SATs, researchers rely on other measures of high
school aptitude to control for pre-existing differences. The MAACH/STS dataset includes
a record of students’ graduating high school average. Institutional Records computes this
variable by averaging students’ final percentages in each of the university entrance require-
ments (i.e., English, mathematics, chemistry, and physics), hence providing an objective
measure of students’ actual high school achievement. Information was missing for approx-
imately 9% of the sample and, in order to retain these participants, we imputed the mean
graduating high school average (M = 76.67; SD = 8.21). At Time 1, participants provided

researchers with general demographic information including age and gender. Both vari-
ables were assessed categorically.
3.3. Rationale for analyses
Following Karabenick (2003), Zusho et al. (2007), and others (Bembenutty, 1999; Brå-
ten & Olauseen, 2005; Gilman & Anderman, 2006; Meece & Holt, 1993; Pintrich, Ander-
man, & Klobucar, 1994; Riveiro, Cabanach, & Arias, 2001; Seifert, 1995; Valle et al.,
2003), we utilized k-means cluster analysis with running means to identify groups of stu-
dents that were highly similar within groups and highly disparate between groups with
regard to a specific set of variables, in this case, mastery and performance goals (Huberty,
Jordan, & Brandt, 2005). Cluster analysis provided an unbiased method of identifying stu-
dents who endorsed any combination of goals, hence capturing the ecological validity of
the construct and the naturally occurring patterns of goal adoption among college stu-
dents. A cautionary note is required, however, because selection and interpretation of clus-
ters is done at the discretion of the researcher as guided by past theory and empirical work
rather than by an established statistic. Aiding our selection and interpretation of clusters,
we considered the distribution of mastery and performance goals within each cluster as
well as tested the relative levels of each goal across the clusters.
Once clusters were established, we used separate analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) to
compare goal clusters in terms of cognitive appraisals, achievement-related emotions, and
academic achievement. To control for potential pre-existing individual differences, high
school average, age, and gender were included as covariates in all analyses (e.g., Haynes
et al., 2006; Hoffman, 2002; Ruthig et al., 2004; Zheng, Saunders, Shelley, & Whalen,
2002). All significant main effects of cluster membership were followed up by testing all
possible pairwise comparisons using t-tests and a conservative Bonferroni adjusted signif-
icance level (a = .05/6 = .008).
4. Results
4.1. Preliminary analyses
4.1.1. Correlations
We examined the zero-order correlations between all variables. As would be expected,
high school average was positively correlated with both final grade in Introductory Psy-
chology (r = .53, p < .01) and cumulative GPA (r = .56, p < .01) (see Table 2). In addition,
positive correlations emerged between high school average and students’ cognitive
appraisals of their college achievement: expected achievement (r = .42, p < .01) and per-
ceived success (r = .31, p < .01). These correlations provide empirical evidence for includ-
ing high school average as a covariate in all analyses involving achievement and cognitive
appraisals.
Final grade in Introductory Psychology and overall GPA were highly correlated
(r = .83, p < .01). There are two clear reasons for this high correlation. First, final grade
in Introductory Psychology is included in the calculation of GPA and second, high
achievement in one class is logically associated with higher achievement overall. Similarly,
expected achievement in Introductory Psychology and actual final grade were highly
Table 2
Correlations between study variables
Variables 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
1. Age
2. Gender .04
3. High school average .17* .15*
4. Mastery goals .13* .03 .02
5. Performance goals .00 .10* .12* .43*
6. Expected achievea .11* .02 .42* .19* .19*
7. Perceived success .11* .02 .31* .20* .07 .70* —
8. Enjoyment .09* .08 .00 .40* .25* .24 .28* —
9. Boredom .23* .13* .03 .31* .10* .29* .34* .42*
10. Anxiety .13* .01 .03 .11* .17* .26* .29* .04 .44*
11. Final gradeb .04 .09* .53* .09* .18* .82* .67* .15* .22* .24*
12. Cumulative GPA .08* .10* .56* .07 .18* .67* .53* .08 .12* .14* .83*
a
Expected achieve, = expected achievement.
b
Final grade, final grade in Introductory Psychology
*
p < .01.
correlated (r = .82, p < .001) suggesting students are relatively accurate estimators of their
performance.
Mastery and performance goals were correlated (r = .43, p < .01), suggesting that many
college students may simultaneously endorse both goals and providing evidence for the
multiple-goals perspective. The relationships between mastery and performance goals
and each of the academic outcomes were similar in many instances. Two notable excep-
tions were that only mastery correlated with perceived success (r = .20, p < .01) and that,
mastery was negatively related to anxiety (r = .11, p < .01), whereas performance goals
were positively related (r = .17, p < .01).
4.2. Cluster membership
In order to ease the interpretation of clusters, the scales were standardized through Z-
transformations before being entered into the cluster analysis (Huberty et al., 2005). k-
means cluster analyses were run separately specifying two-, three-, four-, and five-cluster
solutions. Based on existing theory, and in order to retain reasonably large sample sizes
in each cluster, we selected the four-cluster solution as the most meaningful. Although
many other researchers that have employed cluster analysis decided upon a three-cluster
solution (e.g., Bembenutty, 1999; Meece & Holt, 1993; Riveiro et al., 2001), we assert that
retaining four factors provides a more complete assessment of likely goal combinations. In
addition, many of these earlier studies were restricted by sample size, whereas our large
sample size permitted us to retain four clusters. This four-cluster solution, as further
described below, was the basis of the four goal groups used in all subsequent analyses.
Final cluster centroids for the four-cluster solution are presented in Table 3. Each cen-
troid represents the physical ‘‘center’’ of the cluster and is defined by the average of all the
scores constituting the cluster. As always, interpretation of clusters is left to the discretion
of the researcher and should be grounded in theory. Aiding our interpretation and labeling
Table 3
Cluster centroids
Goal type Cluster 1: Cluster 2: Cluster 3: Cluster 4:
Multiple goals Mastery Performance Low motivation
Mastery .71 .62 .95 .79
Performance 1.06 .16 .12 1.43
n 289 275 232 206
of each cluster, we inspected centroids to consider the distribution of mastery and perfor-
mance goals within each cluster and relative to the other clusters.
The first cluster was characterized by students who reported high mastery and perfor-
mance goals, and hence was labeled multiple-goals. Using the multiple-goals cluster as a
reference point, we then examined the distribution of mastery and performance goals
within the remaining three clusters. Cluster two suggested endorsement of predominantly
mastery goals (i.e., more mastery than performance) and was subsequently labeled mas-
tery. In contrast, cluster three suggested endorsement of predominantly performance goals
(i.e., more performance than mastery) and hence was labeled performance. Finally, cluster
four was characterized by students who reported low mastery and performance goals and
hence was labeled low motivation.2 It is important to note, however, that the low-motiva-
tion cluster was defined as such relative to the other clusters, and is not characterized by a
complete absence of goals.
We were most interested in the internal structure of each cluster and the influence of the
specific pairing of mastery and performance goals on relevant academic outcomes. How-
ever, we felt it was also important to understand the relative levels of mastery and perfor-
mance goals between the clusters. Using two one-way ANOVAs, we found significant
omnibus differences between the clusters on the measures of mastery goals,
F(3, 998) = 567.31, p < .001, and performance goals, F(3, 998) = 1079.22, p < .001. With
one exception, all follow-up t-tests demonstrated significant differences between clusters
on both goals, suggesting that the composition of each cluster is significantly different
from the others (see Table 4 for cluster descriptives and pairwise t-tests). Based on a con-
servative a level (p < .01), the multiple-goals and mastery clusters did not differ signifi-
cantly on the extent to which students endorsed mastery goals, t(562) = 2.01, p = .04. In
other words, these two clusters represent similar levels of mastery goals paired with differ-
ent levels of performance goals.
4.2.1. Covariates
High school average was a significant covariate for cognitive appraisals and achieve-
ment, but not for emotions. Those who performed well in high school positively
appraised their achievement and attained higher grades (i.e., final grade in Introductory
Psychology and GPA) than those with lower levels of high school achievement (see
2
To facilitate discussion, we have chosen to present clusters according to a conceptual framework rather than
according to the order in which they were empirically produced. Empirically, the clusters emerged as follows:
multiple-goals, performance, low motivation, and mastery. Our restructuring resulted in the mastery cluster
students being inserted between the multiple-goals and performance clusters. This order minimized focus on the
low-motivation students by having them appear last in the order and concentrated focus on the comparisons of
greatest interest: multiple vs. mastery vs. performance.
596
L.M. Daniels et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 584–608
Table 4
Cluster descriptives and pairwise comparisons for mastery and performance goals
Cluster means and standard deviations Pairwise comparisonsa
Goal type Full sample Cluster 1: Cluster 2: Cluster 3: Cluster 4: 1 vs. 2 1 vs. 3 1 vs. 4 2 vs. 3 2 vs. 4 3 vs. 4
Multiple goals Mastery Performance Low motivation
M SD Mb SD Mb SD Mb SD Mb SD
Mastery 18.03 4.24 21.18 2.66 20.77 2.15 13.89 2.52 14.60 3.02 2.01 31.82 25.63 33.17 26.17 2.68
Performance 21.14 4.65 26.14 1.47 20.40 2.28 21.70 2.78 14.50 2.48 35.71 23.39 65.37 5.78 27.09 28.49
a
All values greater than 2.50 are significant at p < .01.
b
Means and standard deviations are presented to provide context for the pairwise comparisons; however, they are not the primary source of interpretation for the
clusters. Raw means can only be compared horizontally across clusters and not vertically within the cluster. Comparison of means across clusters, and cluster
centroids within clusters (Table 3), most accurately reflect the overall composition of the clusters and were used in determining the most suitable label for each cluster
(Huberty et al., 2005).
Table 5
Analysis of variance: main effects for cluster, high school percent, and age on all outcomes
Dependent variable df a Cluster High school percent Age
Ms F g2 Ms F g2 Ms F g2
Cognitive appraisals
Expected achievement 776 19.90 7.01** .03 529.56 186.59** .19 107.88 38.01** .05
Perceived success 777 15.65 4.54* .02 331.08 96.08** .11 82.01 23.80** .03
Achievement emotions
Enjoyment 768 417.87 29.21** .10 6.79 .48 .00 73.77 5.16 .01
Boredom 772 327.28 11.48** .04 66.31 2.33 .00 1162.39 40.77** .05
Anxiety 768 268.47 11.91** .04 92.61 4.11 .01 299.80 13.30** .02
Achievement
Final grade Introductory 993 561.91 5.80* .02 39165.12 403.96** .29 2145.05 22.13** .02
Psychology
GPA 988 254.46 5.10* .02 24103.27 483.28** .33 2384.52 47.81** .05
a
Numerator df = 1 for high school average and age; df = 3 for cluster in all F tests.
*
p < .01.
**
p < .001.
Table 5 for ANCOVA results for all outcome variables). Age was a significant covariate
in all analyses except enjoyment. This suggests that, in general, older students had higher
expected achievement and perceptions of their success, reported less boredom and anx-
iety, and had significantly higher final grades in Introductory Psychology and GPAs
than younger students. However, younger and older students reported equivalent levels
of enjoyment.
Gender was a non-significant covariate in all analyses except boredom. Male students
reported more boredom than females F(1, 764) = 11.22, p < .01, g2 = .01. Because gender
was only a significant covariate in this single instance, and because its inclusion or exclu-
sion had no effect on the direction and magnitude of results, we removed gender from all
analyses in order to retain a more parsimonious test. Controlling for high school average
and age, but not gender, we tested all significant main effects for cluster membership at a
Bonferroni adjusted level (a = .008).
4.3. Profiles of clusters on outcomes
4.3.1. Cognitive appraisals

In line with our assumptions, significant differences across the clusters emerged for
expected achievement, F(3, 776) = 7.01, p < .001, g2 = .03. Multiple-goal students had sig-
nificantly higher expectations for their achievement in Introductory Psychology than both
performance students and low-motivation students (see Table 6). Mastery students also
had higher expectations of their achievement than students in the low-motivation cluster.
The clusters differed on perceived success as well, F(3, 777) = 4.54, p < .01, g2 = .02. Stu-
dents in both the multiple-goals cluster and the mastery cluster perceived themselves as sig-
nificantly more successful in Introductory Psychology than students in the performance
cluster (see Table 6). In sum, students who endorsed predominantly performance goals
did not expect to do as well or feel as successful as students who endorsed mastery goals
either on their own or in conjunction with performance goals.
598
L.M. Daniels et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 33 (2008) 584–608
Table 6
Means for each cluster and significant pairwise comparisons
Cluster means and standard errora Pariwise comparisonb
Variables Cluster 1: multiple Cluster 2: mastery Cluster 3: Cluster 4: low
goals performance motivation
n M SE n M SE n M SE n M SE 1 vs. 2 1 vs. 3 1 vs. 4 2 vs. 3 2 vs. 4 3 vs. 4
Exp achc 225 6.71 .11 219 6.42 .11 187 6.19 .12 187 5.93 .14 3.08 4.35 2.72
Per succd 227 6.25 .12 219 6.27 .13 187 5.71 .14 187 5.84 .15 2.92 3.00
Enjoy 225 21.13 .25 215 20.35 .26 186 18.77 .28 186 17.75 .31 6.28 8.40 4.17 6.41
Boredom 225 13.72 .36 218 13.72 .36 185 16.05 .39 185 15.96 .44 4.37 3.96 4.34 3.93
Anxiety 225 16.02 .32 214 14.07 .33 185 16.43 .35 185 14.33 .39 4.28 3.36 4.94 4.01
Gradee 286 72.02 .58 275 71.26 .59 232 71.07 .65 206 68.37 .69 4.04 3.17 2.85
GPA 284 2.78 .04 274 2.73 .04 231 2.76 .05 205 2.55 .05 3.67 2.78 3.16
a
Adjusted means and standard error evaluated by covariates = high school average and age.
b
Bonferroni adjusted t-tests at p < .008.
c
Exp. ach., expected achievement.
d
Per. succ., perceived success.
e
Grade, final grade Introductory Psychology.
4.3.2. Achievement-related emotions

Significant differences emerged across the clusters for enjoyment, F(3, 768) = 29.21,
p < .001, g2 = .10. As expected, the multiple-goals cluster reported significantly more
enjoyment than both performance and low-motivation students (see Table 6). This pattern
also emerged for students in the mastery cluster, such that they reported greater enjoyment
than both performance and low-motivation students.
Clusters also differed on boredom, F(3, 772) = 11.48, p < .001, g2 = .04. In support of
our hypothesis, multiple-goal students reported significantly less boredom than both the
performance and low-motivation clusters (see Table 6). Again, the same pattern emerged
for mastery-goal students such that they reported less boredom than the performance and
low-motivation clusters.
There were differences between clusters on anxiety, F(3, 768) = 11.91, p < .001, g2 = .04.
Students in the mastery cluster reported significantly less anxiety than students in the mul-
tiple goals and performance clusters, thereby demonstrating a possible association
between performance goals and anxiety even when mastery goals are present (see Table
6). In addition, low-motivation students were less anxious than students with both multi-
ple goals and performance goals.
In sum, students who endorsed mastery goals, either on their own or with performance
goals (i.e., the mastery or multiple-goals clusters), experienced high enjoyment and low
boredom relative to students with predominantly performance goals. In contrast, students
who espoused performance goals, even in combination with mastery goals, were more sus-
ceptible to anxiety than those who focused more exclusively on mastery goals or were low
on both goals. This finding suggests that there may be a relatively exclusive link between
performance goals and students’ achievement-related anxiety (Pekrun et al., 2006).
4.3.3. Academic achievement

Clusters differed in terms of their final grades in Introductory Psychology,
F(3, 993) = 5.80, p < .01, g2 = .02. Three comparisons reached significance (see Table 6).
Contrary to our hypothesis, there were no significant differences between multiple-goals,
mastery, and performance clusters. However, all three achieved a higher final grade in
Introductory Psychology than did students in the low-motivation cluster.
Significant differences also emerged across the clusters for GPA, F(3, 988) = 5.10,
p < .01, g2 = .02. Again, there were no significant differences between multiple-goals, mas-
tery, and performance clusters; however, all three achieved a higher overall GPA than did
students in the low-motivation cluster (see Table 6). In sum, the achievement findings, in
terms of both final grade in Introductory Psychology and GPA, confirmed our expectation
that low-motivation students were at risk for poor performance but failed to find multiple
goals as best for achievement. Instead, in this sample, multiple goals, mastery, and perfor-
mance resulted in similar levels of achievement, all of which were significantly better than
that of the low-motivation students.
5. Discussion
Our results demonstrate that students endorse various combinations of mastery and
performance goals as they approach courses during their college education, and that these
combinations influence not only objective achievement, but cognitive and discrete emo-
tional responses to achievement as well. Three findings of our study are particularly rele-
vant to the achievement goals literature. First, regarding academic achievement, students in
the multiple-goals, mastery, and performance clusters demonstrated equivalent levels of
academic achievement as indicated by final grade in Introductory Psychology and overall
GPA. Second, regarding cognitive appraisals, we document a disjuncture in the relation-
ship between goals and students’ objective achievement vs. personal assessments of their
achievement in a particular course. And third, regarding achievement-related emotions,
performance students displayed a maladaptive emotional profile characterized by less
enjoyment and more boredom than the multiple-goals and mastery clusters, and more
anxiety than the mastery and low-motivation clusters. This suggests that, emotionally,
the performance cluster is at least as vulnerable as the low-motivation cluster, and perhaps
more so. Together our results are particularly informative because, although objective
achievement is central to students’ successes, their cognitive and emotional well-being
are also crucial to their academic development.
As mentioned in our review of the literature, the existing research findings relating mas-
tery and performance goals to objective achievement, especially from a multiple-goals per-
spective, are inconsistent (Elliot & Church, 1997; Meece & Holt, 1993; Pintrich, 2000a;
Wentzel, 1993). Our results contribute to this debate more than they clarify it. For our
sample, the multiple-goals, mastery, and performance clusters had similar levels of
achievement, and all achieved significantly better than the low-motivation cluster. More-
over, this was consistent for two measures of achievement: final grade in Introductory Psy-
chology and GPA. These findings suggest that both mastery and performance goals can be
beneficial for achievement.
The objective achievement differences that reached significance (i.e., those between the
multiple-goals, mastery, and performance clusters and the low-motivation cluster) were
relatively small (see Table 6). Two possible explanations may be considered: First, research
suggests that the learning context we utilized may not be optimal for detecting different
relationships between goals and achievement (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Grant & Dweck,
2003). Our sample consisted of primarily first-year students without declared majors for
whom much of their assessment would be based on multiple-choice tests. The differences
between mastery and performance goals in terms of achievement have been most well dis-
tinguished when the learning situation is difficult, important, personally meaningful, and
characterized by tasks that require complex processing of material. Hence, it is possible
that nature of our participants and their required academic tasks may have concealed
more pronounced achievement differences. Second, the composition of the low-motivation
cluster may have narrowed the differences between clusters. The low-motivation cluster is
defined as such based on the distribution of mastery and performance goals within the
cluster and relative to the other clusters; however, these are college students and hence
some basic level of motivation can be assumed. As a result, the levels of mastery and per-
formance goals defining the low-motivation cluster may be sufficient to influence achieve-
ment, hence bringing the clusters closer together than would have been expected had one
cluster actually lacked goals completely (although such students would be unlikely in a col-
lege setting).
In this context, it also is important to note that even a small difference can be meaning-
ful to students and can have both personal and practical significance. At a course-based
level, students make fine-grained distinctions regarding their achievements and crossing
the ‘‘70% threshold’’ may be an important accomplishment. Notably, students in the mul-
tiple-goals, mastery, and performance clusters achieve this accomplishment (i.e., score
above 70%) but students in the low-motivation cluster do not (i.e., score below 70%). In
addition, while students may expect their college achievement to be somewhat lower than
their high school achievement (which for this sample was M = 76%), dropping from the
familiar 70% range to the 60% range, as do only students in the low-motivation cluster,
may be quite unsettling. More objectively, the difference between clusters spans a pivotal
range that separates often crucial letter grades. For example, at this institution, the
achievement level of the low-motivation cluster generally translates into a C+, whereas
the other three clusters maintain a B letter grade. Although many may not consider either
grade to be an outstanding achievement, a B is often the minimum admission requirement
for many degree programs. From this perspective, the difference, although slight, is
appreciable.
By including subjective assessments of achievement we are able to examine the extent to
which students perceive their achievements to be personal successes and how such percep-
tions are influenced by mastery and performance goals. This important personal perspec-
tive has often been overlooked because of the debate surrounding the value of subjective
perceptions relative to objective circumstances. Our results contribute to a broader litera-
ture in which several types of perceptions have been related to important objective out-
comes. For example, perceived health has been related to mortality, even after
accounting for various objective health problems and risk factors (Idler & Benyamini,
1997; Idler & Kasl, 1995; Menec, Chipperfield, & Perry, 1999). Perceived control in college
students has been related to higher achievement, fewer course withdrawals, and fewer
departures from college (i.e., drop-outs), even when controlling for previous achievement
(Perry, Hladkyj, Pekrun, Clifton, & Chipperfield, 2005). And, perceived stress has been
related to reductions in cellular biological mechanisms as measured by shortened telo-
meres (Hawkley et al., 2005). The power of subjective perception is unmistakable and
our results suggest that combinations of mastery and performance goals differently influ-
ence students’ subjective experiences in terms of achievement-related cognitions and
emotions.
Although the multiple-goals, mastery, and performance clusters had similar achieve-
ment outcomes (i.e., final grade in Introductory Psychology and GPA), students in the
multiple-goals and mastery clusters perceived themselves as more successful than students
in the performance cluster. In other words, the performance cluster reported significantly
lower levels of perceived success than these two clusters, reinforcing past research that has
suggested students with performance goals require a higher level of achievement than mas-
tery students in order to feel successful (McGregor & Elliot, 2002; Valle et al., 2003). On
the one hand, this suggests that students in the performance cluster may not define their
achievement as successful, perhaps indicative of a noble desire to achieve at a higher objec-
tive level. On the other hand, performance students’ hesitancy to view their achievement as
successful could be considered too stringent.
In addition, students in the performance cluster rate their success as similar to those in
the low-motivation cluster, suggesting that performance students may not appropriately
appreciate their current level of achievement. It seems that students with performance
goals may lack the perspective necessary to interpret their achievements as successful,
whereas holding mastery goals appears to facilitate the generation of perceptions of suc-
cess. Zero-order correlations support this notion since performance goals are not signifi-
cantly related to perceptions of success while mastery goals are (r = .20, p < .01). An
important area, open to future empirical testing, would involve identifying an adaptive
balance between striving to improve performance and being pleased with current
achievement.
On the whole, findings suggest that students in the performance cluster do not maintain
a healthy balance between objective and subjective definitions (see Fig. 1 for cluster pro-
files across all variables). Related to this, the emotional profile for students in the perfor-
mance cluster is perhaps even more discouraging than their cognitive appraisals. In
relation to the multiple-goals and mastery clusters, students in the performance cluster
appear to be largely devoid of positive emotional experiences during their psychology
class. While students in the multiple-goals and mastery clusters experienced similarly high
levels of enjoyment and low levels of boredom, performance students reported compara-
tively low enjoyment and high boredom. The performance cluster was also characterized
by more anxiety than either mastery or low-motivation students. Interestingly, no signif-
icant differences emerged between the performance and multiple-goals clusters in terms of
anxiety, suggesting that, even in conjunction with mastery goals, high performance goals
appear to elevate students’ susceptibility to anxiety. In other words, it seems that high per-
formance goals relative to mastery goals may be the likely culprit in students’ vulnerability
to anxiety.
The profile of students in the performance cluster more closely resembles the low-moti-
vation than the mastery or multiple-goals clusters. Both the performance goals and low-
motivation clusters are similarly characterized by low levels of mastery goals, rendering
them cognitively and emotionally distressed when it comes to their psychology course.
Many may have assumed this would be the case for low-motivation students who are
low in both goals; however, the group is so often overlooked that findings such as these,
which validate assumptions, are particularly informative. Additionally, it is particularly
interesting that endorsing performance goals, to the relative-exclusion of mastery goals,
seems to result in similarly negative cognitive and emotional outcomes as does endorsing
low levels of both goals.
0.5
0.3
Standardized Means
0.1
-0.1
-0.3
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
-0.5
Multiple goals Mastery Performance Low Motivation
Fig. 1. Cluster comparisons across all cognitive, emotion, and achievement outcomes. Note. 1, expected
achievement; 2, perceived success; 3, enjoyment; 4, boredom; 5, anxiety; 6, final grade Introductory Psychology; 7,
GPA.
Another way to look at these findings is that they highlight the positive influence of
mastery goals in students’ academic outcomes. Students in the mastery cluster appear to
have matched their academic achievement in psychology with appropriate cognitive
appraisals that were probably neither too lenient nor too harsh, and had an adaptive com-
bination of high positive and low negative emotions regarding the course. Essentially,
mastery goals seem to encourage positive appraisals and healthy emotions. The multi-
ple-goals cluster was quite similar, although they appeared to be somewhat vulnerable
to anxiety, a finding that may be explained by the increased emphasis on performance
goals relative to the mastery cluster. Nonetheless, the overall profile for these two clusters
reinforces that mastery goals are beneficial across a range of academic outcomes.
5.1. Strengths, limitations, and suggestions for future research
This study is characterized by several strengths, the most prominent of which was our
range of subjective and objective dependent variables collected longitudinally. First, in
terms of academic achievement, we included two measures of objective achievement: final
grade in Introductory Psychology and cumulative GPA. The consistency of findings across
multiple achievement outcomes substantiates the validity of our results and provides a
foundation for the generalizability of these results beyond a single course. Second, in
research on achievement goals, objective indicators of achievement have rarely been paired
with subjective expectations and perceptions of success. By including both objective
achievement and subjective appraisals of achievement we detected differences between
clusters on actual vs. expected achievement, hence adding to the literature in this regard.
Third, by including discrete achievement-related emotions rather than generalized affect,
we were able to extend a recent contribution by Pekrun et al. (2006). This is particularly
important since discrete emotions are beginning to receive more attention in the empirical
literature (Pekrun, 2005). In sum, consistent results across a range of achievement-related
variables including cognitive appraisals, achievement-related emotions, and objective indi-
cators of achievement support the robustness of our findings.
The dataset we used also had several notable strengths. As indicated earlier, the
MAACH/STS dataset is a longitudinal and cross-sectional dataset permitting a powerful
amalgamation of self-report and institutional variables. Although this dataset did not
include measures of mastery- or performance-avoidance goals, it provided a large sample
for the current study which was pivotal in terms of retaining a four-cluster solution with a
large number of students in each cluster. In turn, the four-cluster solution identified a
group of students low in mastery and performance goals, a combination that often
neglected in empirical investigations.
Despite these strengths, findings should be interpreted with the following cautions.
First, we used single-item measures to assess expected achievement and perceived success.
Although psychometric issues associated with using single-item measures can arise, such
measures continue to be used (e.g., Ainley & Patrick, 2006; Haynes et al., 2006; McGregor
& Elliot, 2002; Menec et al., 1994). In considering the use of these measures, researchers
have argued that validity is more about the appropriateness of interpretations than about
the measure itself (McMillan, 2008; Messick, 1995). In regards to this proposition, in our
study each of our single-item measures had a strong association with final grade in Intro-
ductory Psychology (expected achievement r = .82; perceived success r = .67, ps < .01),
thereby providing convergent evidence for the validity of each construct. On a conceptual
level, it seems that single-item measures are more likely to provide a valid indicator ‘‘when
the purpose of the measure is clear and unambiguous for the respondent and has a clear
experiential focus’’ (Ainley & Patrick, 2006, p. 282). Several examples of single-item mea-
sures that have been shown to be comparable to their multi-item counterparts include stu-
dent ratings of teachers (Abrami & d’Apollonia, 1991), teaching ability (Williams,
Pillsbury, Stern, & Grum, 2001), self-esteem (Robins, Hendin, & Trzesniewski, 2001),
course interest (Ainley & Patrick, 2006), quality of life (Zimmerman et al., 2006), self-
reported health (DeSalvo et al., 2006), and job satisfaction (Wanous, Reichers, & Hudy,
1997). We argue that, like these measures, expected achievement and perceived success
are relatively clear and unambiguous statements which appear to conform to pre-existing
conceptual frameworks, correlate appropriately with similar measures, and are generally
able to effectively capture students’ perceptions through a single-item.
Additionally, although the data used in the current study were longitudinal we did not
directly manipulate goals and, as such, causal conclusions regarding the effects of goal
combinations on academic outcomes should be avoided. Finally, although some of our
effect sizes are small according to conventional standards, they indicate systematic involve-
ment of goals across three domains of academic outcomes. Given that we controlled for
strong background variables including age and high school average, all additional vari-
ance explained in the dependent variables can be viewed as meaningful.
Considering our results, and the strengths and limitations of the current study, we make
four suggestions for future research in this area. First, because the repercussions associated
with low mastery and performance goals cannot be inferred from evidence based on bivar-
iate relations between single goals and outcomes, researchers need to explicitly extract this
group for consideration in future research so that this vulnerable group does not continue
to be overlooked. Second, given the negative profile of cognitions and emotions that
emerges for students in the low-motivation and performance clusters, and in contrast
the protective nature of mastery goals, interventions should be considered to increase mas-
tery goals relative to performance goals. Third, similar hypotheses need to be considered
from the 2 · 2 perspective (Elliot, 1999) as the inclusion of the approach-avoidance dimen-
sion would be unquestionably informative. Related to this, future research needs to be sen-
sitive to the renewed debate over the definition, operationalization, and nature of
performance goals as separate from outcome goals (Brophy, 2005; Grant & Dweck,
2003). And fourth, in order to differentiate relationships between mastery and perfor-
mance goals and achievement, future research conducted in naturalistic settings needs
to account for students’ perceptions of the difficulty and importance associated with the
learning situation (Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Grant & Dweck, 2003).
6. Conclusions
The complexity of students’ cognitive, emotional, and achievement patterns revealed in

the current study elucidates why the simple story that researchers once told is no longer
prominent in the literature: The story is not simple. We conclude that mastery goals, on
their own or in combination, promote the most positive pattern of cognitive appraisals,
emotions, and achievement. However, when performance goals outweigh mastery goals,
even if mastery goals are still present (i.e., the multiple-goals cluster), some outcomes, such
as anxiety, can be compromised. The multiple-goals cluster alludes to the possibility that
high levels of performance goals may be detrimental for certain outcomes even when com-
bined with mastery goals.
The pattern displayed by students in the performance cluster is particularly discourag-
ing. These students appear to be vulnerable, not in terms of their immediate course perfor-
mance, but in terms of their psychological and emotional well-being and hence future
academic achievement and adjustment in individual courses and at university overall. Par-
ticularly worrisome is the possibility that performance students’ compromised psycholog-
ical and emotional well-being may be concealed by their adequate achievement levels. It is
possible that a professor may recommend a writing workshop to improve a student’s per-
formance on essays; however, it is less likely that a professor would suggest that a student
with adequate achievement consider visiting a peer support group. In this sense, the per-
formance cluster may be at greater risk than even low-motivation students who can at
least be identified through poorer performance. Like many other researchers we can not
endorse the notion that performance goals are ubiquitously beneficial for students (Bro-
phy, 2005). Although our results suggest that endorsing performance goals without mas-
tery goals is not detrimental to immediate achievement, the other negatives associated with
this perspective, which appear when researchers consider subjective experiences of success
and discrete emotions rather than global affect, should not be overlooked.
In conclusion, our results support the idea that mastery goals are particularly beneficial
for students. As such, programs and initiatives that encourage teachers to promote mas-
tery goals and students to adopt mastery goals are important. In addition, researchers and
administrators need to look beyond how mastery and performance goals influence stu-
dents’ objective achievement or else run the risk of overlooking psychological and emo-
tional vulnerabilities that may be obscured by satisfactory achievement. In other words,
even if the achievement outcomes are similar, the cognitive and emotional experiences
of students during their academic careers vary. The profiles that emerged from this
research clearly show that mastery goals promote a more positive overall experience than
performance goals, particularly when performance goals are not paired with mastery. In
sum, our results are relevant to students as they determine how to approach each course
and their overall academic careers, professors as they establish the structure of their class-
rooms, and administrators as they seek to establish psychologically and emotionally sup-
portive learning environments.
References
Abrami, P. C., & D’Apollonia, S. (1991). Multidimensional students’ evaluations of teaching effectiveness:
Generalizability of ‘‘N = 1’’ research: Comment on Marsh (1991). Journal of Educational Psychology, 83,
411–415.
Ainley, M., & Patrick, L. (2006). Measuring self-regulated learning processes through tracking patterns of student
interaction with achievement activities. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 267–286.
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.
Bembenutty, H. (1999). Sustaining motivation and academic goals: The role of academic delay of gratification.
Learning and Individual Differences, 11(3), 233–257.
Bouffard, T., Boisvert, J., Vezeau, C., & Larouche, C. (1995). The impact of goal orientation on self-regulation
and performance among college students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 317–329.
Bråten, I., & Olauseen, B. S. (2005). Profiling individual differences in student motivation: A longitudinal cluster-
analytic study in different academic contexts. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 359–396.
Brophy, J. (2005). Goal theorists should move on from performance goals. Educational Psychologist, 40, 167–176.
Carr, S., & Weigand, D. A. (2002). The influence of significant others on the goal orientations of youngsters in
physical education. Journal of Sport Behavior, 25, 19–40.
Church, M. A., Elliot, A. J., & Gable, S. L. (2001). Perceptions of classroom environment, achievement goals,
and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 43–54.
DeSalvo, K. B., Fisher, W. P., Tran, K., Bloser, N., Merrill, W., & Peabody, J. (2006). Assessing measurement
properties of two single-item general health measures. Quality of life research: An international journal of
quality of life aspects of treatment, care, and rehabilitation, 15, 191–201.
Dowson, M., & McInerney, D. M. (2003). What do students say about their motivational goals?: Towards a
more complex and dynamic perspective on student motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28,
91–113.
Dowson, M., & McInerney, D. M. (2004). The development and validation of the goal orientation and learning
strategies survey (GOALS-S). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 290–310.
Duncan, T. G., & McKeachie, W. J. (2005). The making of the motivated strategies for learning questionnaire.
Educational Psychologist, 40, 117–128.
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 personality. Psychology
Review, 95, 256–273.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34(3),
169–189.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 73–92.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (1999). Test anxiety and the hierarchical model of approach and avoidance
achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(4), 628–644.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 · 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80, 501–519.
Elliot, A. J., Shell, M. M., Henry, K. B., & Maier, M. A. (2005). Achievement goals, performance contingencies,
and performance attainment: An experimental test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 630–640.
Elliot, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 54, 5–12.
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. New York, NY: Cambridge College Press.
Gilman, R., & Anderman, E. M. (2006). The relationships between relative levels of motivation and
intrapersonal, interpersonal, and academic functioning among older adolescents. Journal of School
Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 85, 541–553.
Hall, N. C., Perry, R. P., Chipperfield, J. G., Clifton, R. A., & Haynes, T. L. (2006). Enhancing primary and
secondary control in achievement settings through writing-based attributional retraining. Journal of Social
and Clinical Psychology, 25, 361–391.
Hall, N. C., Perry, R. P., Ruthig, J. C., Hladkyj, S., & Chipperfield, J. G. (2006). Primary and secondary control
in achievement settings: A longitudinal field study of academic motivation, emotions, and performance.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1430–1470.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. T., & Elliot, A. J. (1997). Predictors and
consequences of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1284–1295.
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), 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 Psychology, 94, 638–645.
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: Predicting interest and performance over time. Journal of Educational
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Predicting success in college: A
longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of interest and performance from
freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 562–575.
Harackiewicz, J. M., & Linnenbrink, E. A. (2005). Multiple achievement goals and multiple pathways for
learning: The agenda and impact of Paul R. Pintrich. Educational Psychologist, 40, 75–84.
Hawkley, L. C., Berntson, G. G., Engeland, C. G., Marucha, P. T., Masi, C. M., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2005). Stress,
aging, and resilience: Can accured wear and tear be slowed? Canadian Psychology, 46, 115–125.
Haynes, T. L., Ruthig, J. C., Perry, R. P., Stupnisky, R. H., & Hall, N. C. (2006). Reducing the academic risks of
over-optimism: The longitudinal effects of attributional retraining on cognition and achievement. Research in
Higher Education, 47, 755–779.
Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st
century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151–179.
Hoffman, J. L. (2002). The impact of student cocurricular involvement on student success: Racial and religious
differences. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 712–739.
Huberty, C. J., Jordan, E. M., & Brandt, W. C. (2005). Cluster analysis in higher education research. In J. C.
Smart (Ed.). Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 20, pp. 437–457). Netherlands:
Springer.
Idler, E. L., & Benyamini, Y. (1997). Self-rated health and mortality: A review of twenty-seven community
studies. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 38, 21–37.
Idler, E. L., & Kasl, S. (1995). Self-ratings of health: Do they also predict change in functional ability? Journal of
Gerontology: Social Sciences, 50, S344–S353.
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (1999). Achievement goals and student well-being. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 24(4), 330–358.
Karabenick, S. A. (2003). Seeking help in large college classes: A person-centered approach. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 28(1), 37–58.
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.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Achievement goal theory and affect: An asymmetrical bidirectional
model. Educational Psychologist, 37, 69–78.
McGregor, H. A., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Achievement goals as predictors of achievement-relevant processes prior
to task engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 381–395.
McMillan, J. H. (2008). Educational research: Fundamentals for the consumer (5th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Meece, J. L., & Holt, K. (1993). A pattern analysis of students’ achievement goals. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 85(4), 582–590.
Menec, V. H., Chipperfield, J. G., & Perry, R. P. (1999). Self-perceptions of health: A prospective analysis of
mortality, control, and health. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 54B, P85–P93.
Menec, V. H., Perry, R. P., Struthers, C. W., Schonwetter, D. J., Hechter, F. J., & Eichholz, B. L. (1994).
Assisting at-risk college students with attributional retraining and effective teaching. Journal of Applied Social
Messick, S. (1995). Validity of psychological assessment: Validation of inferences from persons’ responses and
performances as scientific inquiry into score meaning. American Psychologist, 50, 741–749.
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom,
under what circumstances, and at what costs? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 77–86.
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.
Nicholls, J. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and
performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328–346.
Office of Institutional Analysis. (2005). ISBook: 2004–2005 Institutional Statistics, 31st ed. Available from
www.umanitoba.ca/ca/admin/institutional-analysis. ISSN-0226-5753.
Pekrun, R. (2005). Progress and open problems in educational emotion research. Learning and Instruction, 15,
497–506.
Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2006). Achievement goals and discrete emotions: A theoretical model
and prospective test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 583–597.
Pekrun, R., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2005). Achievement emotions questionnaire (AEQ): User’s manual. Munich,
Germany: Department of Psychology, University of Munich.
Pekrun, R. H., Goetz, T., Titz, W., & Perry, R. P. (2002). Academic emotions in students’ self-regulated learning
and achievement: A program of qualitative and quantitative research. Educational Psychologist, 37, 91–105.
Perry, R. P. (1991). Perceived control in college students: Implications for instruction in higher education. In J.
Smart (Ed.). Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 7, pp. 1–56). New York, NY: Agathon.
Perry, R. P., Hladkyj, S., Pekrun, R., Clifton, R. A., & Chipperfield, J. G. (2005). Perceived control and failure in
college students: A three-year study of scholastic attainment. Research in Higher Education, 46, 535–569.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000a). Multiple-goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544–555.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000b). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, &
M. Zeidner (Eds.), The handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451–502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Pintrich, P. R., Anderman, E. M., & Klobucar, C. (1994). Intraindividual differences in motivation and cognition
in students with and without learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 360–370.
Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the
motivated strategies for learning questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53,
801–813.
Rhee, C. K., Zusho, A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2005). Multiple-goals, multiple hypotheses: Reexamining the 2 · 2
achievement goal framework in Introductory Chemistry and Psychology classrooms. Poster presented at the
American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting, Montréal, QC.
Riveiro, J. M. S., Cabanach, R. G., & Arias, A. V. (2001). Multiple-goal pursuit and its relation to cognitive, self-
regulatory, and motivational strategies. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 71, 561–572.
Robins, R. W., Hendin, H. M., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a
single-item measure and the Rosenberg self-esteem scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151–161.
Ruthig, J. C., Haynes, T. L., Perry, R. P., & Chipperfield, J. G. (2007). Domain-specific optimistic bias:
Implications for college students’ achievement and well-being. Social Psychology of Education, 10, 115–137.
Ruthig, J. C., Perry, R. P., Hall, N. C., & Hladkyj, S. (2004). Optimism and attributional retraining: Longitudinal
effects on academic achievement, test anxiety, and voluntary course withdrawal in college students. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 34, 709–730.
Seifert, T. L. (1995). Academic goals and emotions: A test of two models. The Journal of Psychology, 129, 543–552.
Seifert, T. L., & O’Keefe, B. A. (2001). The relationship of work avoidance and learning goals to perceived
competence, externality and meaning. The British journal of educational psychology, 71, 93–113.
Senko, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2005). Achievement goals, task performance, and interest: Why perceived goal
difficulty matters. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1739–1753.
Svanum, S., & Bigatti, S. (2006). Grade expectations: Informed or uninformed optimism, or both? Teaching of
Turner, J. C., Thorpe, P. K., & Meyer, D. K. (1998). Students’ reports of motivation and negative affect: A
theoretical and empirical analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 758–771.
Urdan, T., & Schoenfelder, E. (2006). Classroom effects on student motivation: Goal structures, social
relationships, and competence beliefs. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 331–349.
Valle, A., Cabanach, R. G., Nunez, J. C., Gonzalez Pienda, J., Rodriguez, S., & Pineiro, I. (2003). Multiple-goals,
motivation and academic learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 71–87.
Van Yperen, N., & Janssen, O. (2002). Fatigued and dissatisfied or fatigued but satisfied? Goal orientations and
responses to high job demands. Academy of Management Journal, 45, 1161–1171.
Wanous, J. P., Reichers, A. E., & Hudy, J. (1997). Overall job satisfaction: How good are single-item measures?
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 247–252.
Weiner, B. (1985). An attributional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological Review, 92,
548–573.
Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Motivation and achievement in early adolescence: The role of multiple classroom goals.
Journal of Early Adolescence, 13(1), 4–20.
Williams, B. C., Pillsbury, M. S., Stern, D. T., & Grum, C. M. (2001). Comparison of resident and medical
student evaluation of faculty teaching. Evaluation of the Health Professions, 24, 53–60.
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.
Zheng, J. L., Saunders, K. P., Shelley, M. C., II, & Whalen, D. F. (2002). Predictors of academic success for
freshmen residence hall students. Journal of College Student Development, 43, 267–283.
Zimmerman, M., Ruggero, C. J., Chelminski, I., Young, D., Posternak, M. A., Friedman, M., et al. (2006).
Developing brief scales for use in clinical practice: The reliability and validity of single-item self-report
measures of depression symptom severity, psychosocial impairment due to depression, and quality of life.
Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 67, 1536–1541.
Zusho, A., Karabenick, S. A., Sims, B. C., & Rhee-Bonney, C. (2007). Personal and contextual determinants of
motivation to learning and self-regulation in the college classroom. In R. P. Perry & J. Smart (Eds.), The
scholarship of teaching and learning in higher education: An evidence-based perspective. The Netherlands:
Springer.
View publication stats

Individual Differences

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Individual Differences

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

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

Individual differences in achievement goals: A longitudinal study of cognitive,

Article in Contemporary Educational Psychology · October 2008

Lia M. Daniels Tara L Stewart

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Robert Stupnisky Raymond P Perry

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Achievement Emotions in Second Language Acquisition View project

DFG-Projekt "FEEL - Forschung zum Emotionalen Erleben im Lehr-Lern-Kontext" View project

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Individual diﬀerences in achievement goals:

Available online 24 October 2007

2. Achievement goal theory

2.1. Empirical research: Cognitions, emotions, and achievement

2.2. Overview of aims and hypotheses of the present study

3.1. Participants and procedures

3.2.1. Mastery and performance goals

3.2.2. Cognitive appraisals

3.2.3. Achievement-related emotions

3.2.4. Academic achievement

graduating high school average (M = 76.67; SD = 8.21). At Time 1, participants provided

3.3. Rationale for analyses

4.1. Preliminary analyses

4.2. Cluster membership

4.3. Proﬁles of clusters on outcomes

4.3.1. Cognitive appraisals

4.3.2. Achievement-related emotions

4.3.3. Academic achievement

Multiple goals Mastery Performance Low Motivation

5.1. Strengths, limitations, and suggestions for future research

The complexity of students’ cognitive, emotional, and achievement patterns revealed in

View publication stats

You might also like