Goal Theory

Goal theory is used to interpret the motivation behind the choices people make. Edwin Locke created the theory in the 1960s, and it has been expanded since its creation to include various aspects of a person's psyche, like whether a person is acting based on internal or external factors. Whether a person is trying to master a task or perform well at it to look good in front of others is also a primary focus for goal theorists. Goal theory posits that people approach or avoid goals according to similar principles. Goal theory is commonly used in modern psychological and educational settings.

Educational Theory > Goal Theory

Overview

Edwin Locke created goal theory (goal setting theory) in the 1960s to gain an understanding of how goals influence an individual's performance. Goal theory is based on Aristotle's four forms of causation, in which the "final cause" is defined as the purpose of something. Aristotle believed that purpose could cause action. Locke took this idea further by studying the impact goals have on activity. The purpose of setting a goal is based on achieving that goal through action. In the world of education, action can take on many forms. It can be studying for an exam, practicing the long jump for a track meet, or reading several pages in preparation for a class discussion. In any event, the final cause, purpose, or goal is to become proficient at something, and students have different reasons for achieving proficiency.

Motivation

Mastery orientation, being motivated by the desire to master subject matter, is based on a student's intrinsic enthusiasm for gaining knowledge regardless of the grade they receive or how they are viewed by the teacher; they are motivated by the simple act of learning.

Performance orientation, on the other hand, motivates students to achieve an objective based entirely upon extrinsic forces. What grade the student will receive or how the teacher will perceive them are factors that stimulate them to perform. As the student is motivated by external forces (i.e., grades; how others perceive them), they are more likely to be anxious (it is difficult to control external forces) and to learn information superficially rather than in depth. This student is also likely to cheat to achieve the goal of earning a high grade. The student motivated by internal structures, however, is confident and focused on the process of acquiring knowledge, even when it takes time. Intrinsically motivated students do not cheat because to do so would rob them of their goal to master the subject.

Regarding the relationship between intrinsic and external motivations, Cooper proposes a “hierarchy of wants, in which extrinsic motivations and goals are seen as attempts—albeit often unsuccessful ones—to reach the highest order, most intrinsic goals.” His model also suggests that human beings are most likely to achieve a state of well-being when their goals are “synergetically related: determined both by the internal configuration of goals and external resources” (Cooper, 2013).

An additional development in understanding extrinsic and intrinsic motivations was contributed by Duriez, Giletta, Kuppins, and Vansteenkiste, who studied the role of peers in determining the source of motivation. Social network analyses on data the authors gathered from senior high-school students “confirm that peer similarity in goal pursuit exists, and that, although this similarity partly originates from adolescents selecting friends on the basis of perceived goal pursuit similarity, it also results from peers actively influencing each other.” The authors concluded that friends tend to become more alike in terms of goal pursuit over time (Duriez, Giletta, Kuppins, & Vansteenkiste, 2013).

Interest Involvement

In addition to the motivation behind various goals, a student can have different interest levels as well. Task-involved students, like the mastery-oriented student, are interested in the job itself—studying and learning. They do not perceive failure as a terrible thing because they know that a lack of success on one test does not determine who they are. Perhaps the task-involved student plays sports and did not manage their time well when facing a math exam in addition to an overnight away trip. It is their fault, and they own up to the consequences, deciding to do better next time.

Alternatively, an ego-involved student achieves goals according to what is in it for them, as they are extrinsically motivated. If they are successful (in academics, sports, work) it is because they have done what is necessary to be viewed as a success by those around them. To this student, test failure is the result of two things: It is the teacher's fault for using trick questions on the test, or it is their classmate's fault for telling them to study the wrong material. In any event, the student bears no responsibility for their lack of success and, therefore, becomes discouraged when they are not rewarded with positive feedback.

Achieving goals is complex when considering goal theory. When intrinsically motivated, students achieve academically because they know they are responsible for their success. They value approach goals because approach goals yield a desirable outcome, like making the team or earning an allowance. Avoidance goals, however, are utilized by students to attempt to avoid an outcome, like failing an exam or not making the team. Students who are motivated to avoid looking unsuccessful will frame their activities toward that end, studying, practicing, et cetera, in order not to fail.

The Self

When considering all the possibilities created from goal theory, it is essential to look at what psychologists view as the focal point of the theory: The concept of self. A person's "self" or "self-concept" is embedded within their personality; it is the view they have of themselves, and it combines the feelings, impressions, and attitudes they have about themselves. It is their conscience (morality, ethics) as well as their consciousness and unconsciousness (the ideas which represent their values, which are both beneath and upon the surface). The self sees its worth in various situations—emotional, social, and physical—and positive experiences can increase the way a person perceives themselves, what is known as their self-worth. Motivation is the underlying momentum that carries people from one experience to another; it can reinforce or diminish peoples' perception of self-worth based on the success and/or failure to achieve various goals.

Maehr explains that the self "is not just about competence: it is about worth, and it is fraught with potential for modifying motivational patterns … self is at the center of achievement, as well as most social behavior (e.g., Baumeister, 1998). And, the self that is at the center of action is not just the competent, efficacious, attributing self-although it is certainly that-but the valued self. Awareness of one's ability as well as one's identity can undermine or encourage" (Maehr, 2001, p. 182).

Teunissen and Bok, who examined motivation and the concept of self within medical education, wrote that self-theories, or “people’s theories on what competence is and means for the self,” play a major role in establishing the goals people set for themselves, the emotions they experience, and the meanings they attach to situations. These self-views, the authors argue, are often “not explicitly articulated and are therefore called ‘implicit’” self theories (Teunissen & Bok, 2013).

It seldom occurs that people are motivated without considering what will happen to them (their "self") when completing a task. Firefighters put out fires and pull people from buildings because it is their job. They may be mastery oriented and intrinsically motivated (as proficient as possible and helpful to others because they feel good about it), but their motivation is not marred by a misunderstanding of the risk they take. Jim, a firefighter in Plattsburgh, New York, for over fifteen years said that "any firefighter who tells you he doesn't think about dying every time he goes out on a call is a liar" (personal communication, January 16, 2008). In the fire-fighting profession, it is greatly encouraging when a life is saved. What happens when that is not the case? According to Jim, "sure, you feel [badly], but you have to get back out there and do the best you can on the next call. That's all you can do" (Personal communication, January 16, 2008).

Applications

Mastery Goals vs. Performance Goals

According to goal theorists, the study of motivation is not a new concept. Brophy suggests that mastery and performance goals can be broken down to further analyze the actions of students regarding how they approach and/or avoid certain situations. "Goal theory researchers generally agree that mastery goals are more productive than performance goals and approach goals are more productive than avoidance goals" (Brophy, 2005, p. 67). As such, Brophy investigated these concepts within the following multiple-goals perspective, established by goal theorists.

Mastery-approach (students achieve proficiency for the sake of acquiring a skill or learning a concept),

• Mastery-avoidance (students achieve proficiency but do so focusing on avoiding making mistakes or failing),

• Performance-approach (students demonstrate their proficiency based on being better than others and publicly displaying their proficiency), and

• Performance-avoidance (students focus on demonstrating their proficiency, not necessarily to be better than others but to avoid looking incompetent).

Teachers must consider if encouraging performance-approach goals within the classroom is best practice. As they require an emphasis on social competition, teachers need to consider what, if any, value to place on their utilization. The multiple perspectives focus grants some latitude to the use of performance-approach goals - competing in a spelling bee, for example, but the question remains whether performance-avoidance goals are ever constructive.

Brophy notes an issue with the multiple perspectives view—when several goals are approached at the same time, students can experience negative effects. For example:

Coordinating their goal striving involves taking advantage of opportunities to pursue more than one goal simultaneously and trying to avoid getting caught in situations where the things they feel they must do to satisfy one goal will interfere with their attempts to satisfy another (Urdan, 1999, as cited in Brophy, 2021, p. 168) …. Goal coordination in classrooms is especially difficult for struggling students, because maintaining commitment to mastery goals requires them to work harder than their peers. (Hong, 2001, as cited in Brophy, 2021, p. 169)

These definitions and descriptions are those of the theorists, rather than the viewpoints of students themselves. It is not fair to criticize teachers for what they might do or suggest to them what they should not do when the interpretation of students is what is under scrutiny. To this end, Brophy asked students how they interpreted activities in the classroom. He found that:

. . .when allowed to describe their goals in their own words, students (or at least elementary and middle school students) seldom mention performance goals spontaneously. They may aspire to passing a test or getting a certain grade, but they rarely mention displaying ability or looking good in comparison with their classmates … [He was able to conclude that] under natural classroom conditions, performance goals are a low-incidence phenomenon. (p. 170)

Art Education

To the student who is not afraid to be compared to their peers, art class can be stimulating, even if they are asked to create a sneaker from a ball of clay. There are students, however, who think that if their sneaker looks more like an automobile, they have failed at being creative. Pavlou set out to investigate how students view their competence in and motivation toward art projects in school. He individually interviewed sixteen students between eleven and twelve years in age to determine the students' engagement with art tasks. According to the researcher, he chose students at this age because it is "when pupils' uncertainty about their abilities in art making is getting stronger" (p. 195). Furthermore, this is also the age when "[p]upils show greater awareness of realism, exhibit interest in details, and are more self[-]conscious about their work and more aware of their shortcomings in art" (Lowenfeld & Brittain, 1987, as cited in Pavlou, 2000, p. 196).

Pavlou's interview included questions about students' most and least favorite activities in school, their feelings toward art (and art activities), their sense of competence in art, their perceptions of how useful art is, and their perceptions regarding support from their teacher, how some art is made and what their engagement is with art outside of school. Pavlou notes that with relation to the students' "initial engagement" and their level of engagement with art activities, both concepts:

. . . appeared to function within the context of pupils' perceptions about their competence. In particular, pupils' perceptions of their competence along with their perceptions of art's value, their feelings and the amount of effort they made appeared to form the wider context that influenced pupils' achievement goals. In turn, pupils' achievement goals appeared to influence their actual achievement. (Pavlou, 2000, p. 196)

Throughout his interview, Pavlou (noted that students with high levels of confidence about art said that they liked art and enjoyed participating in art activities. Conversely, the students with low levels of confidence noted that art activities were boring but with probing confess that the fear of failure was the reason they did or did not participate in art class. Teachers will note that a student who identifies a class activity as boring is a student who is hiding some form of goal-avoidance. For Pavlou's students, the avoidance was complete in that the students with low levels of confidence, when they participated, did not put forth much effort and often left activities incomplete. When it was possible, some of these students dropped out of the class.

Art teachers can note that in this study, there were some activities that both groups (students with high and low confidence levels) said were appealing. Those were activities that:

• Were new or unusual (a 3-D construction is noted)

• Were complex and thus more challenging

• Helped pupils to build skills, such as learn to observe and indirectly respond to their need of a realistic outcome

• Introduced pupils to other forms of art, such as abstract art

• Allowed pupils to choose and thus give them a sense of control over their work

• Had topics according to pupils' interests

• Allowed collaboration and social interaction.

An important fact that Pavlou discovered is that most students said their parents rarely asked about art activities. Nor did their parents discuss art class at home or speak about it in terms of its value as a subject. Considering this information, the art teacher becomes the primary (and possibly only) contribution toward art’s holding significant value for students.

Physical Education

Standage, Treasure, Hooper & Kuczka conducted an experiment to determine in which activities (mastery or performance) students would be more likely to present a self-handicap (a reason they might fail). The researchers sent seventy students on an endurance run that either tested their self-concept or their performance (ego-involved orientation versus task-involved orientation). Students were randomly assigned to the tasks and were given the opportunity to disclose a self-handicap prior to beginning the run. Each group was given a set of instructions and sent on its way.

Self-handicapping is shrouded in two cloaks. The first is behavioral, while the second is claimed. The former explains a true injury or reason for a negative outcome. Students returning to an organized sport team before they are healed are an example of this. The latter situation is the one studied for the purpose of this experiment. Claimed self-handicaps are those that are not debilitating and are considered excuses, like the above students being healed but fearing that being away from the sport for so long has made them rusty.

The ego-involving group was given instructions like scoring well was the most important aspect of the experiment. Furthermore, the group was told that they would be ranked in order of their finish and that the ranking would be posted both on a community bulletin board within the school and on the school's website. They were told that teamwork was not an issue and that making a mistake or testing incorrectly would result in a null score and a low, if not the lowest, rank. They were also encouraged to win. The task-oriented group, however, was encouraged to do the best they could. They were told that the test was not a competition and that their scores would be written down but that nobody would see them other than the researcher and themselves, if they were interested in noting their performance against the normative score of their age group. They were also told that there was no penalty for making a mistake and that encouraging each other along during the run was acceptable.

As the research team speculated, the students in the ego-involved group reported more self-handicapping than the task-involved group. The emotional gain from such a behavior is to keep one's self-esteem in check. However, researchers note that habitual self-handicapping results in a lack of persistence and diminished performance. The message to people who teach physical education classes is that creating tasks that are ego-involved is not productive to the mental health of students.

Academic Dishonesty

Finally, a concern for many teachers is how to encourage their students to maintain academic integrity. Many sources report that the incidence of cheating is standard among high school students with up to ninety percent of students admitting to cheating at least once before they graduate. Speculations have been drawn about the reasons for cheating, and two major theories are that cheating has become more acceptable and that the pressure to keep up—with their peers and standardized testing requirements—makes students high-stakes.

Motivation for Cheating

Based on these statistics, Murdock & Anderman researched student cheating in an effort to determine students' motivation for being dishonest. The study focused on three factors. First, the authors looked at what a student's purpose for cheating was. Second, they wanted to note whether students felt they could accomplish a task without cheating, and finally, they documented what students' interpretations were about the costs associated with cheating (abstract). By limiting the scope of their search to three influences (the classroom, the students' families, and the students' peers), Murdock & Anderman searched studies regarding the motivating factors linked with cheating.

Looking at cheating from a motivational perspective, Murdock & Anderman offer their conclusions for the likelihood of cheating. First, a student's expectation of performance is a key factor for cheating. Weaker students are more likely to cheat out of self-perseverance—attempting to keep up with their peers when compared to students who are holding their own academically. This is a typical performance-avoidance situation similar to the one perceived by students wanting to keep the persona of the smart-kid in the class. At the possibility of losing this persona, even higher achieving students will cheat if they are ego-involved. Second, students who feel that they cannot accomplish certain tasks by their own (honest) effort are more likely to cheat than their more confident counterparts. Finally, when the chance of being caught is great (the perceived threat of being punished or the psychological/emotional ramifications [i.e.: guilt] is high), students of all academic strengths are less likely to cheat. If it is likely that they will not get caught, however, cheating is a possibility.

Levitt & Dunbar note that students are not the only players in the cheating game. "Pressure for high test scores is so extreme that teachers and administrators have falsified students' standardized tests themselves" (as cited in Murdock & Anderman, 2006, p. 133). With the stakes so high for teachers and districts to perform (making students successful when it comes to passing standardized tests), it seems implausible and even unethical for the same teachers and administrators to hold students accountable for their dishonest behavior, even if the rationale behind the dishonesty is different.

Viewpoints

Motivation theories have held a place in psychology since Aristotle attempted to find a purpose within the actions of the people around him. Maehr points out that the pieces of theory guiding researchers (and educators) need to be considered in combination.

[T]he approach-avoidance paradigm, although useful in some cases, when applied exclusively could prevent a consideration of the motivational origins of complex thought and action … the motivation literature as a whole in fact already seems to embrace much more than approach-avoidance behavior or orientations do…[A]pproach-avoidance "goals" should be seen as alternative objectives determining choice to do or not to do that emerge as individuals interpret the purpose of the activity and ascribe meaning to it in task-and performance goal-terms (Maehr, 2001, p. 181).

Furthermore, motivation is a complex issue, and it is important to keep it in context. Putting this category and that subcategory onto the actions of students may be beneficial to theorists and possibly even to teachers.

However, a simpler motivational theory may someday prevail, especially regarding academic dishonesty: students act in certain ways because they can. When the child in physical education class is allowed to say that they performed poorly because they did not get enough sleep the previous night, the teacher lets them avoid a consequence—failing for the sake of failing. Furthermore, not everyone has the creative ability to make a clay sneaker look like a clay sneaker. If a child is allowed to give a teacher half of a shoe or, worse yet, drop out of class altogether, they are taught that people who are no good at something do not have to do that something. Finally, if students are allowed to cheat—for whatever reason—without consequences that clearly indicate that cheating is wrong, they will cheat forever.

Terms & Concepts

Approach Goals: Goals created to approach a situation. (I will pass this exam because when I do, my teacher and classmates will think I am really smart.)

Avoidance Goals: Goals created to avoid a situation. (I will pass this exam because if I fail, my parents will ground me.)

Ego Involved: Completing a task for the sake of increasing one's self-concept.

Extrinsic Motivation: Prompted by an external source. (If I mow my neighbor's lawn, I will earn enough money to buy…)

Goal Theory (Goal Setting Theory): A psychological theory created to study how people become motivated and what makes them achieve their goals.

Intrinsic Motivation: Prompted by an internal perception. (My neighbor is elderly and really should not mow his lawn; I will do it for him so he can stay out of the heat.)

Mastery Orientation: Completing a task to become proficient because of how it makes the person feel.

Performance Orientation: Completing a task to become proficient because of how other people will view that proficiency.

Task Involved: Completing a task for the sake of the task itself, like reading an assignment because learning the information is interesting.

Bibliography

Baumeister, R. F. (1998). The self. In Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T., & Lindzey, G. (eds). Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed.). McGraw-Hill, 680-740.

Brophy, J. (2005). Goal theorists should move on from performance goals. Educational Psychologist, 40, 167-176. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier:

Callahan, D. (2004). The cheating culture: Why more Americans are doing wrong to get ahead. Hartcourt.

Cizek, G. J. (1999). Cheating on tests: How to do it, detect it, and prevent it. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Cooper, M. (2013). The intrinsic foundations of extrinsic motivations and goals: toward a unified humanistic theory of well-being and change. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 53, 153–171. Retrieved December 17, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

Davis, S. F., Grover, C. A., Becker, A. H., & McGregor, L. N. (1992). Academic dishonesty: Prevalence, determinants, techniques, and punishments. Teaching of Psychology, 19, 16-20. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete.

Duriez, B., Giletta, M., Kuppens, P., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2013). Extrinsic relative to intrinsic goal pursuits and peer dynamics: Selection and influence processes among adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 36, 925–933. Retrieved December 17, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169-189. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete.

Evans, E. D., & Craig, D. (1990). Adolescent cognitions for academic cheating as a function of grade level and achievement status. Journal of Adolescent Research, 5(3), 325–345. https://doi.org/10.1177/074355489053005

Evans, E. D., & Craig, D. (1990). Teacher and student perceptions of academic cheating in middle and senior high schools. Journal of Educational Research, 84, 44-52. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete.

Gross, J. (2003). Exposing the cheat sheet with students' aid. The New York Times. Retrieved May 30, 2023, from https://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/26/nyregion/exposing-the-cheat-sheet-with-the-students-aid.html

Hong, Y. (2001). Chinese students' and teachers' inferences of effort and ability. In F. Salili, C. Chiu, & Y. Hong (Eds.), Student Motivation: The Culture and Context of Learning, (pp. 105–120). Kluwer Academic Publishers. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4615-1273-8‗6

Levitt, S. D. & Dunbar, S. J. (2005). Freakanomics: A rogue economist explores the hidden side of everything. Morrow.

Lindberg, S, and Susman, D. (2020). Tips for goal setting. Verywell Mind. www.verywellmind.com/tips-for-goal-setting-self-improvement-4688587

Locke, E. A. (1993, Jan). Facts and fallacies about goal theory: Reply to Deci. Psychological Science, 4, 63-64. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier:

Lowenfeld, V., & Brittain, L. (1987). Creative and Mental Growth. Macmillan Publishing.

Maehr, M. L. (2001, Jun). Goal theory is not dead-not yet, anyway: A reflection on the special issue. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 177-185. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier:

Martin, A. J., Marsh, H. W., & Debus, R. L. (2001). Self-handicapping and defensive pessimism: Exploring a model of predictors and outcomes from a self-protection perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 87–102. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.87

McCabe, D. L., & Trevino, L. K. (1997). Individual and contextual influences on academic dishonesty: A multicampus investigation. Research in Higher Education, 38, 379-396. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete.

Murdock, T. B. & Anderman, E. M. (2006 Summer). Motivational perspectives on student cheating: Toward an integrated model of academic dishonesty. Educational Psychologist, 41, 129-145. Retrieved January 11, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier:

Pavlou, V. (2006, May). Pre-adolescents' Perceptions of Competence, Motivation and Engagement in Art Activities. International Journal of Art & Design Education, 25, 194-204. Retrieved January 12, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Research Complete:

Schab, F. (1991). Schooling without learning: Thirty years of cheating in high school. Adolescence, 26, 839-847. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Education Research Complete.

Standage, M., Treasure, D., Hooper, K. & Kuczka, K. (2007). Self-handicapping in school physical education: The influence of the motivational climate. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 81-99. Retrieved January 10, 2008, from EBSCO online database Academic Search Premier:

Teunissen, P., & Bok, H. (2013). Believing is seeing: How people’s beliefs influence goals, emotions and behaviour. Medical Education, 47, 1064–1072. Retrieved December 17, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

Urdan, T. (Ed.). (1999). The Role of Context (Vol. 11 in the Advances in motivation and achievement series). JAI.

Zuckerman, M., Kieffer, S. C., & Knee, C. R. (1998). Consequences of self-handicapping: Effects on coping, academic performance and adjustment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1619–1628. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1619

Suggested Reading

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261

Anderson, L., Brubaker, N., Alleman-Brooks, J., & Duffy, G. (1985). A qualitative study of seatwork in first-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 86, 123-140. https://doi.org/10.1086/461438

Barron, K., & Harackiewicz, J. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: Testing multiple goal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(5), 706–722. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.706

Brophy, J. (1983). Research on the self-fulfilling prophecy and teacher expectations. Journal of Educational Psychology, 75(5), 631–661. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.75.5.631

Brophy, J. (2021). Motivating Students to Learn (5th ed.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Butler, R., & Neuman, O. (1995). Effects of task and ego achievement goals on help-seeking behaviors and attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(2), 261–271. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.2.261

Church, M., Elliott, A., & Gable, S. (2001). Perceptions of classroom environment, achievement goals, and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 43–54. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.43

Croizet, J., Després, G., Gauzins, M., Huguet, P., Leyens, J., & Méot, A. (2004). Stereotype threat undermines intellectual performance by triggering a disruptive mental load. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(6), 721-731. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672042639

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040

Elliot, A., & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218–232. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218

Elliot, A., & Harackiewicz, J. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 461–475. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461

Elliot, A., & McGregor, H. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3), 501–519. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501

Emmons, R., & King, L. (1988). Conflict among personal strivings: Immediate and long-term implications for psychological and physical well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54(6), 1040-1048. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.54.6.1040

Erdley, C., Cain, K., Loomis, C., Dumas-Hines, F., & Dweck, C. 1997). Relations among children's social goals, implicit personality theories, and responses to social failure. Developmental Psychology, 33(2), 263-272. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.33.2.263

Grant, H., & Dweck, C. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 541–553. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.541

Gehlbach, H. (2006, Jul/Aug). How changes in students' goal orientations relate to outcomes in social studies. Journal of Educational Research, 99, 358-370. Retrieved January 12, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier:

Harackiewicz, J., Barron, K., Pintrich, P., Elliot, A., & Thrash, T. (2002). Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 638–645. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.638

Harackiewicz, J., Barron, K., Tauer, J., & Elliot, A. (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(3), 562–575. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.562

Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2002). Should childhood be a journey or a race? Response to Harackiewicz et al. (2002). Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 646–648. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.646

Kiviniemi, M., Snyder, M., & Omoto, A. (2002). Too many of a good thing? The effects of multiple motivations on stress, cost, fulfillment, and satisfaction. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 732–743. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202289003

Levy, I., Kaplan, A., & Patrick, H. (2004). Early adolescents' goals, social status, and attitudes towards cooperation with peers. Social Psychology of Education, 7(2), 127–159. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SPOE.0000018547.08294.b6

McNeil, N., & Alibali, M. (2000). Learning mathematics from procedural instruction: Externally imposed goals influence what is learned. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 734-744. Retrieved January 11, 2008, https://alibali.psych.wisc.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/371/2018/02/McNeilAlibali2000.pdf

Meyer, D. & Turner, J. (2006, Dec). Re-conceptualizing emotion and motivation to learn in classroom contexts. Educational Psychology Review, 18(4), 377-390. Retrieved January 11, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier:

Middleton, M., Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (2004). The change in middle school students' achievement goals in mathematics over time. Social Psychology of Education, 7(3), 289–311. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SPOE.0000037484.86850.fa

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(1), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.77

Nicholls, J. (1989). The Competitive Ethos and Democratic Education. Harvard University Press.

Pomerantz, E., Saxon, J., & Oishi, S. (2000). The psychological trade-offs of goal investment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(4), 617–630. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.4.617

Robertson, J. (2000). Is attribution training a worthwhile classroom intervention for K-12 students with learning difficulties? Educational Psychology Review, 12, 111-134. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009089118008

Rohrkemper, M., & Bershon, B. (1984). Elementary school students' reports of the causes and effects of problem difficulty in mathematics. Elementary School Journal, 85, 127-147. https://doi.org/10.1086/461396

Schmader, T., & Johns, M. (2003). Converging evidence that stereotype threat reduces working memory capacity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 440–452. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.440

Senko, C., & Harackiewicz, J. (2004). Regulation of achievement goals: The role of competence feedback. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(3), 320-336. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.320

Sheldon, K., & Elliot, A. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 482–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.482

Soares, I., Lemos, M. S. & Almeida, C. (2005, Spring). Attachment and motivational strategies in adolescence: Exploring links. Adolescence, 40, 129-154. Retrieved January 13, 2008, from EBSCO online database, Academic Search Premier:

Treasure, D. C., & Roberts, G. C. (2001). Students' perceptions of the motivational climate, achievement beliefs and satisfaction in physical education. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 72(2), 165-175. https://doi.org/10.1080/02701367.2001.10608946

Urdan, T. (1997). Achievement goal theory: Past results, future directions. In P. Pintrich & M. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 10, 99-141. JAI.

Urdan, T. (2001). Contextual influences on motivation and performance: An examination of achievement goal structures. In F. Salili, C. Chiu, & Y. Hong (Eds.), Student Motivation: The Culture and Context of Learning, 171-201. Kluwer/Plenum.

Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2001). Academic self-handicapping: What we know, what more there is to learn. Educational Psychological Review, 13(2), 115–138. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1009061303214

Urdan, T. (2004). Predictors of academic self-handicapping and achievement: Examining achievement goals, classroom goal structures, and culture. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 251–264. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.251

Utman, C. (1997). Performance effects of motivational state: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1(2), 170-182. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327957pspr010

VanYperen, N. (2003). Task interest and actual performance: The moderating effects of assigned and adopted purpose goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(6), 1006–1015. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.6.1006

Waldron, J. J. & Krane, V. (2005, Dec). Motivational climate and goal orientation in adolescent female softball players. Journal of Sport Behavior, 28, 378-391. Retrieved January 13, 2008, from EBSCO online database

Weiner, B. (1979). A theory of motivation for some classroom experiences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 71(1), 3–25. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.71.1.3

Wentzel, K. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relationships: Implications for understanding motivation at school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 76-97.

Wolters, C. (2004). Advancing achievement goal theory: Using goal structures and goal orientations to predict students' motivation, cognition, and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(2), 236–250. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.96.2.236