Comparing 3 Models of Achievement Goals

Journal of Educational Psychology
Comparing Three Models of Achievement Goals: Goal

Orientations, Goal Standards, and Goal Complexes
Corwin Senko and Katie L. Tropiano
Online First Publication, February 11, 2016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000114
CITATION
Senko, C., & Tropiano, K. L. (2016, February 11). Comparing Three Models of Achievement
Goals: Goal Orientations, Goal Standards, and Goal Complexes. Journal of Educational
Psychology. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000114
Journal of Educational Psychology

2016, Vol. 108, No. 3, 000
2016 American Psychological Association

0022-0663/16/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/edu0000114
Comparing Three Models of Achievement Goals: Goal Orientations, Goal

Standards, and Goal Complexes
Corwin Senko and Katie L. Tropiano
This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers.
This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.
State University of New York New Paltz

Achievement goal theory (Dweck, 1986) initially characterized mastery goals and performance goals as
opposites in a good bad dualism of student motivation. A later revision (Harackiewicz, Barron, & Elliot,
1998) contended that both goals can provide benefits and be pursued together. Perhaps both frameworks
are correct: Their contrasting views may stem from differences in how they define performance goals.
The traditional framework favors a goal orientation model in which performance goals entail demonstrating competence (appearance goals). The revised framework favors a goal standard model in which
performance goals entail outperforming peers (normative goals). The present studies test whether the
2 performance goals function differently, each promoting educational outcomes that support its guiding
frameworks view of performance goals. These studies also unify the earlier models through the
emerging goal complex model, which assumes that the normative goals effects depend on students
reasons for pursuing the goal. University students (Ns 168 and 160) completed measures of their
appearance, normative, and mastery goals; their reasons for pursuing normative goals; and several
educational outcomes. When pursued for autonomous reasons (e.g., enjoyment or challenge seeking),
normative goals predicted adaptive outcomes (self-efficacy and interest) and also proved more compatible with mastery goals (all ps .05). However, when pursued for controlling reasons (e.g., rewards),
normative goals behaved exactly like appearance goals, each predicting maladaptive outcomes (help
avoidance and self-handicapping). These findings help resolve the long-standing debate about performance goals, showcase the goal complex models potential as a unifying framework, and unveil multiple
new research directions.
Keywords: achievement goal, goal orientation, goal complex, self-determination
article will examine both conceptualizations of performance goals,

and then, through two studies, compare the effects of those performance goals. It will also test a newer goal model that can bridge
the two rival perspectives and, we hope, help resolve the ongoing
debate about performance goals.
Throughout, the article will feature the approach forms of mastery goals (i.e., to gain in knowledge or skill) and performance
goals (i.e., to demonstrate high ability by outperforming others).
We refer solely to these approach goals when using the mastery
goal and performance goal labels. On the rare occasion when
referring to the avoidance forms of mastery goals (i.e., to avoid
failures to learn or decline in skill) or performance goals (i.e., to
avoid demonstrating low ability or being outperformed by others),
we employ the mastery-avoidant and performance-avoidant labels
(Elliot & McGregor, 2001).
Achievement goal theory spotlights two academic goals that

shape students learning (Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1984). Mastery
goals emphasize developing competence and skills, whereas performance goals emphasize demonstrating competence by outperforming others. The theory originally assumed mastery goals guide
students experience in adaptive ways, and performance goals in
risky and often maladaptive ways. Research has tested this for over
three decades. Much of it supports the premise. Some does not.
The performance goals benefits, most notably its boost to academic achievement, have proven divisive for the field, with some
theorists touting those benefits (Harackiewicz, Barron, & Elliot,
1998) and others disputing them (Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton,
2001). This no doubt has bewildered onlookers into wondering if
there are two separate achievement goal theories.
Perhaps there are. Much of this divide may boil down to a
simple issue: Theorists favor two unique conceptualizations of
achievement goals especially performance goalsthat may have
resulted in conflicting research findings and conclusions. This
The Goal Orientation and Goal Standard Models:

Two Separate Achievement Goal Theories?
The original version of achievement goal theory, often called
goal orientation theory, conceptualized achievement goals as the
broad reasons for engaging in tasks (Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1986;
Maehr, 1984; Nicholls, 1984). This model pitted two opposing
reasons: to develop competence (mastery goal) versus to demonstrate competence (performance goal). These two goals give tasks
meaning and orchestrate students emotions, thoughts, and behaviors into contrasting patterns of learning, or orientations. Mastery
goals flow from a conviction that ability is malleable and that
Corwin Senko and Katie L. Tropiano, Psychology Department, State

University of New York New Paltz.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Corwin
Senko, Associate Professor, Psychology Department, State University of
New York New Paltz, 600 Hawk Drive, New Paltz, NY 12561. E-mail:
senkoc@newpaltz.edu
1
SENKO AND TROPIANO
errors are natural to learning. These goals should therefore create

a healthy orientation marked by, for example, high self-efficacy,
positive affect and interest, and strategies and behaviors that facilitate learning, such as self-regulation or cooperation. Performance goals flow from the opposite mind-setthat ability is
mostly fixed, something to display rather than grow, and that
errors signal inability. These goals should therefore elicit public
self-consciousness, which, during challenges that threaten to unmask ones inability, will arouse anxiety and cultivate strategies
and behaviors that are inimical to learning, such as avoiding help
or self-handicapping. For these reasons, this model touts mastery
goals over performance goals, with the latter considered riskier and
less adaptive on the whole.1
Ample research has tested the goal orientation model. Yet much
of it has strayed from the models definition of achievement goals.
This is most evident for performance goals. Hulleman, Schrager,
Bodmann, and Harackiewicz (2010) showed that some studies do
define these goals purely in terms of displaying talent, but many
others join or supplant this self-presentational element with another that emphasizes outperforming peers. Goal orientation theorists have generally been nonplussed by this inconsistency. Indeed, the theorys founders considered appearing talented and
outperforming peers to be close companions: Evaluation methods
or other classroom features that emphasize social comparison will
motivate students to appear talented (Ames, 1992; Covington &
Omelich, 1984; Maehr, 1984); likewise, students eager to appear
talented will often rely on normative ranking as a marker (Dweck,
1986; Nicholls, 1984). These two elements may naturally cohere,
each evoking the other, the model implies. By this logic, either
element should produce a maladaptive orientation while learning.
This explains the common practice of including either or both
elements in the performance goals operational definition (e.g.,
Midgley et al., 2000). Still, competence demonstration remains the
performance goals essence; outperforming others is merely a way
to attain this goal, or, as Grant and Dweck (2003, p. 542) assert, a
potentially interesting but nonessential aspect of the performance goal.
Elliot (1999; Elliot & Thrash, 2001) later offered an alternative
conceptualization of achievement goals. Aligning with traditional
theories of goals, his goal standard model insists that an achievement goal must reflect a desire to attain competence. What distinguishes mastery and performance goals is how they define competence. Mastery goals mark success with task-based criteria (e.g.,
getting 90% of problems correct) or personal criteria (i.e., improving on prior performance or subjectively perceiving that one has
learned). Performance goals instead mark it with interpersonal
criteria (i.e., outperforming others). There is no room in this
performance goal definition for striving to demonstrate competence, which instead concerns the social consequences of competence more than competence attainment per se. Of course the
goal to outperform others does not emerge from nothing; students
wish to outperform others for a reason. One reason could be to
impress others, like goal orientation theorists claim. But there may
be many others, too, such as enjoyment, the challenge of competition, or feelings of pride if successful. Regardless, the goal
standard, once triggered, takes over and guides students emotional, cognitive, and behavioral engagement with the task. The
reasons that energize goal pursuit drift into the background at that
point, mere noise to the goals signal (Elliot & Thrash, 2001). This
is why measures inspired by this model feature only normative

strivings, without mention of the underlying reasons for pursuing
this goal (e.g., Elliot & Murayama, 2008).
Figure 1s left two panels summarize the two models different
views of performance goals. Both models assume a goal hierarchy
in which the higher order goal (the top row of each Figure 1 panel)
is the reason for engaging in a task (e.g., competence demonstration), and the lower order goal (the second row of each Figure 1
panel) is the competence standard for defining success (i.e., outperforming others).2 But they disagree about which of these two is
the true performance goal, how closely connected the reason and
standard are, and the role played by each in performance goal
effects on educational outcomes (the third row of each Figure 1
panel).3 The goal orientation model assumes that the higher and
lower goalsto demonstrate competence and outperform others
link naturally; priming one will evoke the other. Nevertheless, it
considers competence demonstration to be the performance goals
essence, and assumes that this self-presentational desire must
arouse public self-consciousness (Maehr, 1984), which is likely to
parlay into a maladaptive orientation to the task when students
experience challenge. By contrast, the goal standard model considers outperforming others the true performance goal, and it
assumes a student might pursue this goal for a variety of reasons
including, but not limited to, self-presentation. Consequently, this
model does not assume that performance goals must elicit selfconsciousness or, therefore, cause a maladaptive orientation to
learning. It instead allows that performance goals could provide a
variety of effects, some undesirable and others desirable, even in
challenging learning contexts.
This debate would be pedantic if performance goals produce the
same effects with either definition. But mounting evidence suggests they do not (Grant & Dweck, 2003). Hulleman et al.s (2010)
meta-analysis demonstrates this best. Their study revealed that
performance goals predict low achievement when emphasizing
competence demonstration (appearance goals) but high achievement when emphasizing competitive success (normative goals).
1
Mastery goals have also been called task orientations and performance goals ego orientations (e.g., Nicholls, 1984; Skaalvik, 1997) to
reflect how these goals orient students toward the task itself or toward ego
concerns (for reviews, see Ames, 1992; Elliot, 2005).
2
Both are relatively abstract goals, the goal reason providing the
why of task engagement and the goal standard providing the how of
engagement (Maehr & Zusho, 2009; Vansteenkiste, Lens, Elliot, Soenens,
& Mouratidis, 2014). Neither is specific like the goals featured in goalsetting theory (Locke & Latham, 2002).
3
Some theorists also disagree over which model construes goals as
trait-like versus state-like. Some consider the goal orientation model more
dispositional than the goal standard model, whereas others contend the
opposite (for reviews, see DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Elliot, 2005; Kaplan
& Maehr, 2007). We agree it is vital to identify the origin and malleability
of achievement goals. But we see little daylight between the two models on
this point. Each explicitly posits that goals derive from forces both within
the individual (e.g., theories of intelligence [Dweck, 1986]; need for
achievement [Elliot, 1999]) and within the situation (e.g., classroom goal
structures [Ames, 1992]; [Harackiewicz et al., 1998]). This is evident
from the research, too. Each model has inspired seminal studies that imply
a dispositional view by linking goals to student traits (e.g., Button, Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996; Elliot & Church, 1997), and others that imply a
situationist view by experimentally inducing goals (e.g., Butler, 1995;
Harackiewicz & Elliot, 1993) or the triggers of these goals (e.g., Mueller
& Dweck, 1998).
COMPARING THREE MODELS OF ACHIEVEMENT GOALS
Goal Orientation Model
Goal Standard Model
3
Goal Complex Model
(applying self-determination theory
for the goal pursuit reasons)
Goal Reason:
(Higher Order Goal)
Goal Standard:
(Lower Order Goal)
Educational
Outcomes:
Various Possibilities
Demonstrating
Competence
(e.g., Demonstrating Competence,

Enjoyment, Challenge)
Outperform
Others
Outperform
Others
Maladaptive Orientation
Mixed Effects
(e.g., public self-consciousness,

anxiety, effort withdrawal, helpavoidance, self-handicapping)
(e.g., mild anxiety &

uncooperativeness;
self-efficacy & achievement)
Outperform
others
Outperform
others
for
for
Controlling
Reasons
Autonomous
Reasons
(e.g., rewards,
proving self,
impressing
others)
(e.g., fun,
challenge,
personal
usefulness)
Maladaptive
Effects
Adaptive
Effects
(e.g., helpavoidance)
(e.g., selfefficacy)
Figure 1. Depiction of the goal orientation, goal standard, and goal complex models accounts of performance
goal reasons, standards, and educational outcomes. Thicker borders indicate the models assumption about the
core essence of the performance goal construct.
Accordingly, to distinguish between these two performance goals,

this article will henceforth use the appearance goal and normative
goal labels, the former fitting the goal orientation model and the
latter fitting the goal standard model. It will retain the original
performance goal label when not distinguishing between them.
Hulleman et al.s (2010) meta-analysis, though provocative, was
limited to only two educational outcomes, academic achievement
and interest. The two performance goals promoted different effects
on achievement only: Normative goals positively predict achievement, whereas appearance goals negatively predict it. Given
achievements status as the desirable outcome most often linked to
performance goals (Senko, Hulleman, & Harackiewicz, 2011), it
is fair to ask whether the two performance goals yield different
relationships with other outcomes. The present studies test this.
We chose four outcomes for which performance goals have
previously shown clear and consistent patterns. Two outcomes
are undesirable: self-handicapping and help avoidance. Selfhandicappers claim obstacles (e.g., test anxiety) or create actual
obstacles (e.g., partying before an exam) that might interfere
with upcoming task performance. The handicap provides a handy
external attribution for failure, but it can also minimize effort and
interfere with learning and growth (Rhodewalt, 1990). Help avoidance can stunt student development for similar reasons, of course
(Karabenick, 2003). Past studies show that mastery goals deter
each strategy, whereas performance goals often promote each (see
Baranik, Stanley, Bynum, & Lance, 2010; Urdan & Midgley,

2001). But the performance goals link should be strong only for
appearance goals because self-handicapping and help avoidance
are largely self-presentational strategies: Students self-handicap or
avoid help most when worried about being judged incompetent by
peers or teachers (Karabenick, 2003; Urdan & Midgley, 2001).
Normative goals, by contrast, have no clear theoretical connection
to these strategies.
The present studies also include two desirable outcomes: academic self-efficacy and course interest. Academic self-efficacy
reflects students belief in their capacity to do the coursework
(Pajares, 1996). Course interestin this case, situational interest
(Hidi & Renninger, 2006)reflects students enjoyment and personal utility in the course material. Self-efficacy and interest each
sustain students engagement and effort, ultimately enabling gains
in learning and, especially in the case of self-efficacy, achievement
as well (Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Valentine, DuBois, & Cooper,
2004). Mastery goals promote each outcome, whereas performance goals typically promote self-efficacy but not interest (Baranik et al., 2010; Hulleman et al., 2010). The performance goals
link to self-efficacy, however, should be stronger for normative
goals than appearance goals, because only normative goalslike
self-efficacyfacilitate challenge seeking (Senko et al., 2013) and
achievement (Hulleman et al., 2010). Interest, by contrast, is
equally insensitive to either of the performance goals, as shown by
SENKO AND TROPIANO
Hulleman et al.s (2010) meta-analysis. Including it thus allows a

useful point of comparison for the other three outcomes, all of
which should be sensitive to the distinct processes likely to be
triggered by the appearance and normative goals.
These four outcomes afford three sets of hypotheses, one for
each achievement goal. Appearance goals should positively predict
self-handicapping and help avoidance, but be unrelated to selfefficacy and interest (Hypothesis 1). Normative goals should positively predict self-efficacy, but be unrelated to the remaining three
outcomes (Hypothesis 2). Finally, replicating the prior work, mastery goals should positively predict self-efficacy and interest, but
negatively predict self-handicapping and help avoidance (Hypothesis 3).
Goal Complexes: A Useful Compromise?

Comparing appearance and normative goals, we hope, will
clear up the muddy findings for performance goals. This comparison also highlights the divide between the goal orientation
and goal standard models. But comparing the two goals does
little to reduce this divide. Each goal leaves implicit and vague
the goal element that its guiding model considers inessential
(i.e., standards in the goal orientation model; reasons in the goal
standard model). So any comparison between the two goals will
contrast not only goal content (appearance vs. normative) but
also the goals hierarchical level (reason vs. standard). A better
long-term approach one that unifies the fieldmust integrate
the two models by making explicit the goals reasons and
standards.
Elliot (2005; Elliot & Thrash, 2001) and Urdan (2000; Urdan &
Mestas, 2006) offered such an approach, the goal complex model.
Figure 1 depicts this in the rightmost panel. Like the goal standard
model, the goal complex model considers standards to be the
achievement goal and assumes that students may pursue a goal
standard for various reasons. Like the goal orientation model,
however, it also assumes that these reasons matterthey not only
trigger a goal but also help shape the goals effects. The same
goal may behave differently based on the underlying reasons for
pursuing it. Accordingly, this model requires unpacking all
reasons from the goal standard, and then recombining the goal
with each unique reason into separate goal complexes. Each
complex therefore fuses the goal and reason, rather than isolating and comparing the two elements.
Let us apply this model to performance goals. The model
considers normative strivings the true goal, yet it also emphasizes the reasons for pursuing this goal. Some students might
seek normative excellence as a way to impress othersin
essence, the goal orientation models appearance goal. But
other students might seek it for different reasons. Many apparently do, in fact. Urdan and Mestas (2006) discovered this in
interviews of high school students about their reasons for pursuing a normative goal. Those reasons clustered into two types:
social reasons reflecting self-presentational desires (e.g., to
make parents proud, look smart to classmates, or please teachers) and personal reasons (e.g., feelings of pride, enjoyment of
competition, desire for challenge). The personal reasons were
more frequent than the social reasons, a finding later buttressed
by other studies (Gillet, Lafrenire, Vallerand, Huart, & Fouquereau, 2014; Vansteenkiste, Mouratidids, & Lens, 2010).
Finally, the goal complex model assumes that unique performance goal complexes also produce unique effects. Some reasons for normative goal pursuit may be healthier than others,
resulting in more adaptive outcomes.
Researchers have only recently begun to compare performance goal complexes (for a review, see Vansteenkiste, Lens,
Elliot, Soenens, & Mouratidis, 2014). They have used selfdetermination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000) to conceptualize the reasons for normative goal pursuit. SDT contends that
people thrive when feeling autonomous in their motivated actions, including goal pursuit. This autonomy is exemplified by
intrinsic motivation, which entails doing something for its own
sake. Students might pursue a normative goal for the joy or
challenge it provides, for example. Of course, many actions are
done not for fun but rather to attain a separate outcome. According to SDT, these extrinsic motivators include three subtypes. The first, identified motivation, is largely autonomous in
nature. This entails freely choosing to do something because its
attainment is personally valued. Students might pursue a normative goal because its attainment enables future career opportunities, for example. The remaining two subtypes are less
autonomous. Introjected motivation entails doing something
because of external or internal pressures, such as to please
others, avoid shame, or maintain self-worth. Students might
pursue a normative goal because its attainment will impress
teachers, for example. Last, external motivation entails doing
something to earn rewards or to avoid punishments. Students
might pursue a normative goal because its attainment brings
trophies, for example. In sum, intrinsic and identified motivation are each largely autonomous, whereas introjected and
external motivation are more controlling. Researchers therefore
combine the pairs into indices of autonomous and controlled motives, respectively (e.g., Sheldon, Houser-Marko, &
Kasser, 2006), deeming the former benficial and the latter
harmful to student learning and well-being (Deci & Ryan,
2000).
Four recent articles have applied this framework to performance goal complexes (Gaudreau, 2012; Gillet et al., 2014;
Vansteenkiste, Mouratidis, et al., 2010; Vansteenkiste, Smeets,
et al., 2010). Each found that normative goals promote only
desirable outcomes (e.g., positive affect, self-regulation,
achievement) when pursued for autonomous reasons, and only
undesirable outcomes (e.g., anxiety, distraction, cheating) when
pursued for controlling reasons. Each study, unfortunately, also
allowed a confound in the reasons measures: The two autonomous types of reasons, intrinsic (e.g., enjoyment) and identified
(e.g., serving future plans), were framed purely in approachbased ways, but the two controlling types, introjected and
external, were framed either in purely avoidant ways (e.g.,
avoiding shame or punishment) or in a mix of avoidant and
approach (e.g., earning approval or rewards) ways. Even when
studies used separate measures of the approach versus avoidance framings of controlled motives (e.g., introjection-approach
vs. introjection-avoidance), they still lumped those measures
into a single index of controlling reasons to use in all analyses
(Vansteenkiste, Mouratidis, et al., 2010; Vansteenkiste, Smeets
et al., 2010). This confounding jeopardizes the validity of the
past findings.
Therefore, the second purpose of the present studies is to replicate, and validate, prior goal complex findings while using only
approach frames for all goal pursuit reasons.4 Normative goals
pursued for autonomous reasons should positively predict selfefficacy and interest, but have null or negative links to selfhandicapping and help avoidance (Hypothesis 4). Conversely,
normative goals pursued for controlling reasons should positively
predict self-handicapping and help avoidance, but have null or
negative links to self-efficacy and interest (Hypotheses 5).
So far, we have considered two budding lines of research one on
different types of performance goals and the other on different goal
complexes. The third purpose of the present research is to overlay
these research lines. If the goal complex modeland, more to the
point, SDT as a framework for classifying goal complexesis to
provide suitable integration of the goal orientation and goal standard
models, it must capture the performance goals essence from both
models. It does so automatically for the goal standard model because
it considers normative strivings to be the performance goal. It attempts to incorporate the appearance goal through a facsimile: the
normative goal complex comprising controlling reasons, which
focus on pleasing others and earning rewards. Is this facsimile
suitable? If so, then appearance goals should correlate positively
and more strongly with the controlling normative goal complex
than with the autonomous normative goal complex (Hypothesis 6).
Can the Goal Complex Model Resolve Other Debates?

The final purpose of the present studies is to explore whether the
goal complex framework can help resolve two intertwined debates.
Each features performance goals and is ultimately a referendum on
their positive potential. The first concerns their compatibility with
mastery goals. Some theorists advocate a mastery goal perspective (e.g., Brophy, 2005; Midgley et al., 2001). They consider
mastery and performance goals as opposing approaches to a task,
divergent in their impact on learning, and, therefore, impossible to
coordinate effectively. To pursue performance goals puts students
at risk of missing the many benefits of mastery goals, they contend. Once it became clear that the two goals often correlate
positively, and that performance goals might provide some unique
benefits not afforded by mastery goals, other theorists proposed a
multiple goals perspective (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001; Harackiewicz et al., 1998). They consider mastery and performance
goals largely independent, and they assume students can pursue the
two goals together and reap the benefits of each.
The second debate is a recent offshoot of the first. It spotlights
the performance goals bond with performance-avoidance goals.
The two often correlate highly, sometimes with rs nearing .70 (see
Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2012). Mastery-goal theorists raise two
concerns about this. One is that it puts students who pursue
performance goals at risk of also pursuing performance-avoidance
goals, suffering all of the latters educational costs (Brophy, 2005;
Midgley et al., 2001): anxiety and disinterest, ineffectual learning
strategies, poor achievement, and so forth (see Baranik et al., 2010;
Hulleman et al., 2010). Another is that the common practice of
testing the two goals together in regression analyses may invite
multicollinearity or suppressor effects, both of which would cloud
our understanding of performance goal effects, including their
touted benefits to academic achievement (Linnenbrink-Garcia et
al., 2012). Multiple-goals theorists counter that performance and
performance-avoidance goals can be structurally separate despite

their high correlation (Murayama, Elliot, & Yamagata, 2011), that
there is little evidence of switching between these two goals
(Senko et al., 2011), and that the two goals produce different
educational effectsnot only in regression analyses but also in
bivariate correlations that are immune to multicollinearity or suppressor effects.
For each debate, we propose that both perspectives are partially
correct. Each issue may come down to students reasons for
pursuing the performance goal: Performance goals should converge more with other goals when they share similar reasons for
being pursued. Consider, first, mastery goals. They produce consistently desirable effects and are also linked to fulfillment of
students need for autonomy (e.g., Ciani, Sheldon, Hilpert, &
Easter, 2011; Kim, Schallert, & Kim, 2010). This suggests they are
usually pursued for healthy and autonomous reasons. Indeed,
students report substantially greater autonomy reasons than controlling reasons for their mastery goal pursuit (Michou, Vansteenkiste, Mouratidis, & Lens, 2014). Accordingly, multiple goal pursuit should be more plausible when the performance goal is a
normative one pursued for autonomous rather than controlling
reasons. Similar logic applies to performance-avoidance goals.
Their track record for maladaptive effects suggests they are usually
pursued for controlling reasons, and, in fact, some argue that
avoidance motivation is always controlling (Carver & Scheier,
2000). Accordingly, normative goals should overlap normativeavoidance goals more when also pursued for controlling reasons
rather than autonomous reasons. The present studies test both ideas
through the correlations among the goals. Mastery goals should
correlate positively and more strongly with normative goals that
are pursued for autonomous reasons rather than controlling reasons
(Hypothesis 7), and normative-avoidance goals should correlate
positively and more strongly with normative goals pursued for
controlling reasons than autonomous reasons (Hypothesis 8).
Overview of Present Studies

The present studies served four purposes. The first pair are
modest in scope, each an attempt to substantiate nascent developments in achievement goal theory. One development is whether
appearance goals (featured in the goal orientation model) and
normative goals (featured in the goal standard model) in fact differ.
Our studies test this through their structural independence (i.e.,
factor analysis) and their predictive utility (i.e., relationships to
educational outcomes). For the latter, appearance goals should
positively predict the two undesirable outcomes, self-handicapping
and help avoidance, but be unrelated to the two desirable outcomes, self-efficacy and interest (Hypothesis 1). Normative goals,
by contrast, should positively predict self-efficacy and be unrelated
to the other three outcomes (Hypothesis 2). Mastery goals should
instead positively predict self-efficacy and interest, but negatively
predict self-handicapping and help avoidance (Hypothesis 3).
The second development is the goal complex model. These
studies test whether autonomous normative goals promote the
4
We have yet to see an intrinsic or identified motive framed in an
avoidance manner, and indeed the prospect may be impossible (Carver &
Scheier, 2000). So we opted to remove this confound by using only
approach framings for all of the autonomous and controlling items.
SENKO AND TROPIANO
desirable outcomes, self-efficacy and interest (Hypothesis 4),

whereas controlling normative goals promote the undesirable outcomes, self-handicapping and help avoidance (Hypothesis 5).
These patterns should emerge even when removing the approachavoidance confound that has jeopardized the prior research.
The studies remaining two purposes are perhaps more vital,
each a novel inspection of the goal complex models potential. One
is to overlay the goal types and goal complex research streams by
comparing appearance goals with the two normative goal complexes. Appearance goals should mirror controlling normative
goals if the goal complex modeland especially SDT as its
framework for classifying reasonsis to bridge the goal orientation and goal standard models. Accordingly, appearance goals
should correlate more positively with the controlling normative
goal than the autonomous normative goal (Hypothesis 6). The final
purpose is to use the goal complex framework to reconcile two
interlaced debates about performance goals. One concerns whether
performance goals can be pursued alongside mastery goals. The
other concerns whether performance goals can be pursued independently of performance-avoidance goals. These studies test
whether the overlap between performance goals and the other two
goals depends on the underlying reasons for their pursuit. Mastery
goals should correlate more with autonomous normative goals than
controlling normative goals (Hypothesis 7), whereas the reverse
should be true of normative-avoidance goals (Hypothesis 8).
To meet these aims, two studies surveyed university students
about their achievement goals (normative, appearance, mastery),
the reasons for their normative goal pursuit, and the educational
outcomes. Study 2 included three measures absent from Study 1:
a second, pride-oriented reason for goal pursuit, added in hopes
of improving the measures reliability, plus course interest and
normative-avoidance goals. Consequently, Study 2 tests each hypothesis, and Study 1 tests all except those entailing course interest
(parts of Hypotheses 1, 2, 3, and 4) or normative-avoidance goals
(Hypothesis 7). Otherwise, the studies share identical hypotheses,
methods, and statistical approaches. So for brevitys sake, we will
cover their methods and results together.
Method
Participants
Participants were university students (Study 1, N 168; Study
2, N 160) at a small public university in the northeastern United
States. All were psychology majors who signed up through the
psychology departments participant pool. Most participants were
young adults (Study 1, Mage 22.0; Study 2, Mage 21.6), female
(Study 1 83%; Study 2 87%), Caucasian (Study 1 74%;
Study 2 73%), and either juniors or seniors (Study 1 77%;
Study 2 78%).
Survey Measures and Procedure

Both studies employed single-session online surveys. In each
study, students listed one of their current courses and completed
the rest of the survey with it in mind. Most chose psychology
courses (85% in Study 1, 84% in Study 2)required foundation
courses (e.g., Statistics or Research Methods), elective content
area courses (e.g., Social Psychology or Cognitive Psychology), or
capstone seminars. The two studies were conducted in different

semesters, thus assuring suitable independence of data. Both were
completed between the third and 10th weeks of their respective
semesterlate enough for students to cultivate course goals and
attitudes, yet still before several major class assignments.5 Participants provided consent online, and the universitys research ethics
board sanctioned each study.
Goals and goal complexes. Participants first completed goalbased measures, all on 1 (not at all true of me) to 5 (completely
true of me) scales. The first were the approach-based normative
and mastery goals from the widely used and validated Achievement Goal Questionnaire (Elliot & Murayama, 2008). Study 2 also
included one of its normative-avoidance goal items (One of my
aims is to avoid doing worse than others in this class).6
We then assessed normative goal complexes. Because the goal
standard is psychologically yoked to its guiding reason(s), so, too,
must our method explicitly yoke the reasons to the goal standard.
We applied Vansteenkiste, Smeets, et al.s (2010) method to do
this. This entails re-presenting one of the normative goal items (I
am striving to do well compared to others in this class) and
instructing participants, Assume you agreed, even if only a little
bit. What reason(s) motivate you to pursue this goal in your class?
We listed multiple reasons in random order (see Table 1). Each
tapped an intrinsic motive (e.g., Pursuing it is fun and enjoyable), identified motive (Attaining it is important to my personal
or career development), introjected motive (e.g., Attaining it
would impress others whose opinions I value), external motive
(Attaining it would bring rewards from others, such as friends,
teachers, or parents), or personal pride motive (e.g., Attaining
this goal would make me feel proud). The SDT reasons borrow
from prior goal complex studies (e.g., Gaudreau, 2012; Vansteenkiste, Smeets, et al., 2010), with minor changes to ensure that the
three extrinsic motives focus on goal attainment. For example,
Gaudreaus (2012) measure of identified motives (This goal is
important to my personal development) was adjusted to emphasize goal attainment. The pride reasons were added because of
Urdan and Mestass (2006) finding that pride is a common normative goal pursuit reason.
The survey next included a four-item measure of appearance
goals (One of my goals is to show others that class work is easy
for me; One of my aims is to look smart in this class; One of
my aims is to show others that I am good at my class work; I am
striving to show others that I can do well in this course). This
measure is based on the performance goal measure from the
widely used Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (Midgley et al.,
2000), the key modifications being to omit mention of peer comparison and to ensure that all items match the other goals in
syntactical structure. We presented the appearance goal at this
point, rather than concurrent with the normative and mastery goals,
5
None of the goal effects reported later was moderated by time of the
semester.
6
The normative-avoidance goal correlated positively with each undesirable outcome (self-handicapping, r .25; help avoidance, r .18), and
was unrelated to each desirable outcome (self-efficacy, r .05; interest,
r .08). These relationships, and their effect sizes, match prior research
(for reviews, see Baranik et al., 2010; Hulleman et al., 2010; Urdan &
Midgley, 2001) and theorizing about this goals unsavory effects (Elliot &
Church, 1997; Skaalvik, 1997). This pattern should allay concerns about
the reliability of using a single-item measure of this goal.
Table 1
Descriptives and Exploratory Factor Analysis Loadings for Performance Goal Pursuit Reasons
Study 1
I am pursuing this goal because . . .

1. pursuing it is fun and enjoyable.
2. of the challenge that this goal provides.
3. attaining this goal is important to my personal
or career development.
4. attaining this goal would impress others
whose opinions I value, such as peers,
teachers, or parents.
5. attaining this goal would bring rewards from
others, such as friends, teachers, or parents.
6. attaining this goal would make me feel proud.
7. Ill feel good if I attain this goal.
SDT label
Study 2
Autonomous
Controlling
SD Reasons factor Reasons factor
Autonomous
Controlling
SD Reasons factor Reasons factor
Intrinsic
3.31c 1.08
Intrinsic
3.73b 1.03
Identification 4.05a .99
.79
.53
.53
.11
.35
.18
3.27cd 1.20
3.54c 1.13
4.00b 1.11
.72
.78
.60
.20
.02
.38
Introjection
3.40b 1.27
.17
.88
3.44c 1.34
.02
.86
Extrinsic
2.68d 1.27
.10
.81
2.96d 1.33
.01
.84
Pride
Pride
4.23a .80
n/a n/a
.71
n/a
.24
n/a
4.40a
4.34a
.66
.70
.34
.39
.81
.82
Note. All reasons measured on 1 (not at all true) to 5 (very true) scales. For each study, means that do not share a subscript differ significantly, p .05,
via Bonferroni tests. Boldface indicates items dominant factor loading, via exploratory factor analysis. SDT self-determination theory; n/a not
available.
p .05. p .01.
to prevent appearance goal items from biasing students interpretation

of the normative goal items and inflating their correlation beyond
naturally occurring levels. Of course, if the two goals are largely
overlapping and inextricable, as implied by the goal orientation
model, then they should automatically prime one another, correlate
highly, and produce similar effects even with the procedure used here.
Outcomes. Participants then completed previously validated
outcome measures. Two outcomes are undesirable: selfhandicapping (14 items; e.g., I would do a lot better if I tried
harder; Rhodewalt, 1990) and help avoidance (six items; e.g.,
Even if the work was too hard to do on my own, I would not ask
for help with this class; Karabenick, 2003). The other two are
desirable: academic self-efficacy (eight items; e.g., Considering
the difficulty of this course, the teacher, and my skills, I think I will
do well in the class; Duncan & McKeachie, 2005) and, in Study
2 only, course interest (eight items; e.g., I enjoy coming to
lecture; Senko & Hulleman, 2013). All outcome measures used 1
(not at all true of me or strongly disagree) to 5 (completely true of
me or strongly agree) scales.
Participant background measures. The survey concluded
with demographic information, including self-reported grade point
average (GPA), which served as a covariate in analyses.
Results
The first set of analyses tested whether normative and appearance goals in fact differ both in their structural independence and
their predictive utility. The second set probed the performance goal
complexestheir number and content, their relationships with
educational outcomes, their capacity to unite the goal orientation
and goal standard models, and their insight into the positive
potential of performance goals. Table 2 provides the internal
reliabilities, descriptive statistics, and zero-order correlations for
each measure, all of which were created by averaging items.
Do Normative and Appearance Goals Differ?

Structural independence. If the two performance goals do
differ, they must be structurally independent. They should separate
into distinct factors, correlate at null to moderate levels, and earn

different endorsement levels by participants. We report each below.
We first conducted confirmatory factor analysis with maximum
likelihood (ML) estimation to test if normative goals and appearance goals differ structurally. All individual items for these two
performance goals were normally distributed, but, as often happens (Kline, 2005), the multivariate distribution for both goals was
non-normal in both studies (Mardias multivariate kurtosis critical
ratios: Study 1 12.23; Study 2 16.03). To correct for this
violations impact on the chi-square tests and corresponding p
values, we applied the Bollen-Stine bootstrapping method (250
bootstrap samples) recommended for small to modest small samples (Nevitt & Hancock, 2001). We report p values for the traditional ML-based chi square and the Bollen-Stine correction.
In both studies, the normative goals items and appearance goals
items each loaded strongly onto its hypothesized factor, with all
standardized weights above .75. Additionally, based on conventional
statistical criteria (Kline, 2005), the two-goal model fit the data well
in each study (Study 1: 2[13] 21.78, p .06, pbs .20, comparative fit index [CFI] .99, root mean square error of approximation
[RMSEA] .06, standardized root mean square residual [SRMR]
.03; Study 2: 2[13] 26.54, p .01, pbs .10, CFI .98,
RMSEA .08, SRMR .03). By contrast, combining each measures items into a single factor (i.e., an omnibus performance goal)
fit poorly (Study 1: 2[14] 273.97, p .001, pbs .002, CFI
.67, RMSEA .33, SRMR .21; Study 2: 2[14] 175.83, p
.001, pbs .004, CFI .75, RMSEA .27, SRMR .13). We
therefore aggregated their respective items to form the two performance goal measures.
These goals correlated at moderate to high levels in the two
studies (rs .39 and .56), yet not enough to be redundant. Indeed,
students reported greater pursuit of normative goals than appearance goals (Study 1: Ms 3.47 vs. 2.96, t[167] 5.66, p .001;
Study 2: Ms 3.47 vs. 2.78, t[159] 8.31, p .001). Altogether,
these analyses confirm that students perceive normative and appearance goals as related but distinct.
Predictive utility. The two performance goals, if truly
unique, should also function differently. We tested this in four
SENKO AND TROPIANO
Table 2
Zero-Order Correlations, Descriptives (M and SD), and Internal Reliabilities () for All Measures
Measure
1. Mastery goal
2. Normative-avoid goal
3. Appearance goal
4. Normative goal
5. Normative goal, autonomous reasons
6. Normative goal, controlling reasons
7. Self-handicapping
8. Help avoidance
9. Self-efficacy
10. Interest
11. Grade point average
Study 1
M
SD
Study 2
M
SD
.02
.19
.27
.48
.10
.23
.10
.42
.46
.18
n/a
.02
n/a
.43
.49
.56
.15
.33
.38
.48
.25
.18
.18
.23
.05
.09
.08
.02
.03
.04
.02
.27
n/a
n/a
.39
.21
.39
.50
.32
.25
.10
.14
.14
.02
.28
.31
.12
.42
.20
.03
10
11
.08
n/a
.53
.30
.37
.29
.34
.03
.02
.03
.21
n/a
.20
.05
.01
.33
.22
.16
.11
.05
.42
n/a
.17
.06
.02
.21
.30
.25
.08
.10
.34
n/a
.00
.15
.33
.04
.23
.12
.45
.13
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.06
.08
n/a
.06
.21
.14
.05
.16
.01
.09
n/a
4.31
.65
.82
n/a
n/a
n/a
2.96
1.06
.88
3.47
1.11
.93
3.78
.71
.67
2.96
1.16
.70
1.77
.86
.88
2.84
.64
.80
3.87
.79
.94
n/a
n/a
n/a
3.24
.49
n/a
4.11
.79
.83
3.52
1.37
n/a
2.78
1.09
.82
3.47
1.12
.91
3.92
.71
.73
3.20
1.20
.76
1.72
.76
.87
2.87
.70
.79
3.87
.79
.94
3.88
.98
.94
3.28
.38
n/a
Note. Study 1 coefficients given above the diagonal; Study 2 coefficients given below the diagonal. All data involving goal complex measures are
restricted to participants who endorsed the normative goal (Study 1, n 157; Study 2, n 147). n/a not available; Cronbachs internal reliability
for multi-item measures.
p .05. p .01.
multiple regression analyses. Each regressed one of the outcomes onto a model comprising the two performance goals,
mastery goals, and, as a covariate, student GPA.7 Interactions
among the three goals, being nonsignificant in both studies (all
ps .20), were omitted. Table 3 provides the results. Crucially,
the two performance goals did predict different outcomes. In
support of Hypothesis 1, appearance goals positively predicted
both undesirable outcomes (self-handicapping and help avoidance), but were unrelated to both desirable outcomes (selfefficacy and interest). By contrast, in support of Hypothesis 2,
normative goals positively predicted high self-efficacy and had
null effects on self-handicapping, help avoidance, and interest.
Finally, in support of Hypothesis 3, mastery goals positively
predicted both desirable outcomes (self-efficacy and course
interest), and negatively predicted both undesirable ones (selfhandicapping and help avoidance).
Performance Goal Complexes: Do Reasons for

Normative Goal Pursuit Matter?
We turn next to a comparison of the performance goal complexes. This assumes students actually do pursue normative goals
in the first place. Accordingly, following Vansteenkiste, Mouratidis, et al.s (2010) recommendation, we restricted the remaining
analyses to participants (Study 1, N 157; Study 2, N 147) who
endorsed the focal normative goal item at least somewhat (i.e., a
score of 2 or higher on the 5-point scale). Most students (80% or
higher in both studies), in fact, endorsed it between moderately
(i.e., the scales midpoint) and very much.
Goal complex formation. Which goal complexes emerged?
Table 1 provides endorsement levels for each goal pursuit reason.
Repeated measures ANOVAs, each applying the Huynh-Feldt
correction for sphericity violation, showed that some reasons for
pursuing the normative goal were more prominent than others
(Study 1: F[4.2, 660.5] 58.03, p .001; Study 2: F[4.2,

662.4] 52.74, p .001). Bonferroni post hoc tests (p .05)
revealed that, in both studies, rewards were the weakest reason and
personal pride the strongest (see Table 1).
We then ran factor analyses to see how these various reasons
consolidate. As explained later in the article, the personal pride
reasons could conceivably align with either autonomous motives
or controlling motives. Owing to this uncertainty, plus the novelty
of the goal reasons measure, we favored the data-driven approach
of principal components analysis over the hypothesis-driven approach of confirmatory factor analysis. We applied varimax rotation to extract factors with eigenvalues above 1.0. As shown in
Table 1, the same two broad factors emerged in both studies,
confirmed by scree tests. One reflects autonomous reasons; it
includes each item in the intrinsic motivation and identification
categories, plus those tapping personal pride. The second factor
reflects controlling reasons; it includes each item in the introjection and extrinsic motivation categories. We combined items into
these two goal complexes for all remaining analyses. On average,
participants reported a stronger autonomous goal complex (Study
1, M 3.78; Study 2, M 3.92) than controlling complex (Study
1, M 2.96; Study 2, M 3.20), ts 9.87 (p .01) and 7.11
(p .05), respectively.
Goal complex outcomes. Do the two normative goal complexes promote different outcomes? To test this, we duplicated
the earlier regression analyses, but replaced the two performance goal terms (i.e., normative and appearance) with the two
performance goal complex terms. The interaction between au7
We chose regression over structural equation modeling because of our
medium sample size and desire to explore all possible effects (Kline,
2005).
Table 3
Multiple Regression Results of Relationships Between Achievement Goals and Educational Outcomes
Self-handicapping
Help avoidance
Self-efficacy
Course interest
Predictor
Study 1
Study 2
Study 1
Study 2
Study 1
Study 2
Study 1
Study 2
Normative goals
Appearance goals
Mastery goals
Grade point average
F
R2
.13
.26
.20
.13
5.45
.14
.12
.16
.25
.03
3.90
.09
.01
.17
.43
.04
10.48
.21
.08
.22
.14
.09
3.36
.08
.18
.09
.34
.03
6.94
.15
.23
.13
.36
.02
9.56
.20
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.11
.10
.49
.09
11.78
.22
Note. Study 1, N 168; Study 2, N 160. Coefficients are standardized (betas). Course interest was measured only in Study 2. Grade point average,
an indicator of baseline performance ability, served as a covariate. n/a not available.
p .05. p .01.
tonomous and controlling complexes was omitted due to being

nonsignificant in both studies (all ps .20). Table 4 provides
the results, which fully support Hypotheses 4 and 5. Autonomously pursued normative goals positively predicted the desirable outcomes (self-efficacy and, in Study 2, course interest).
They were unrelated to the undesirable outcomes (help avoidance and self-handicapping). The exact opposite pattern occurred for normative goals pursued for controlled reasons. They
positively predicted self-handicapping and help avoidance, and
were unrelated to self-efficacy and interest.
Incorporating the goal standard and goal orientation
models. We next tested whether the goal complex model
successfully integrates the goal standard and goal orientation
models. The model attempts this by repackaging the appearance
goal as a normative goal pursued for controlling reasons. Is this
facsimile suitable? It appears so. Using Meng, Rosenthal, and
Rubins (1992) method to compare the appearance goals correlations with the two normative goal complexes, we found that,
matching Hypothesis 6, appearance goals correlated highly and
more positively with the controlling normative goal complex
(Study 1, r .53; Study 2, r .48) than the autonomous
complex (Study 1, r .21; Study 2, r .33), ts 3.94 (p
.01) and 2.49 (p .05), respectively. Moreover, the appearance
goal and controlling goal complex had identical relationships
with the different outcomes (see Tables 2 and 3).
Do Performance Goal Complexes Clarify Other

Goal Debates?
Finally, we tested whether the goal complex approach can
help resolve two ongoing debates. One concerns whether stu-
dents can pursue mastery and performance goals together. Assuming that mastery goals are generally pursued for autonomous reasons, we expected that they would be more compatible
with normative goals that are pursued for those same reasons
(Hypothesis 7). In support of this hypothesis, in both studies,
mastery goals correlated positively and more significantly with
normative goals pursued for autonomous reasons (Study 1, r
.27; Study 2, r .48) than for controlling reasons (Study 1,
r .08, p .05; Study 2, r .10, p .05), ts 3.89 (p
.01) and 3.99 (p .01), respectively.
The second debate concerns whether students can pursue performance goals without also pursuing performance-avoidance
goals. Assuming that normative-avoidance goals are pursued for
controlling reasons, we expected them to converge more with the
controlling normative goal complex (Hypothesis 8). Study 2 demonstrated this. Normative-avoidance goals correlated positively
and more significantly with normative goals pursued for controlling reasons (r .38) than for autonomous reasons (r .15, p
.05; t 2.37, p .05).
Discussion
Achievement goal theory has been divided for nearly two decades, largely over the positive potential of performance goals.
Some theorists tout this potential (e.g., Harackiewicz et al., 1998).
Others dispute it (e.g., Midgley et al., 2001). We propose that
much of this debate traces to simple differences in how researchers
have been defining goals. The present findings demonstrate this
and, more important, provide a possible bridge between the rival
perspectives. They do so by extending and superimposing two
Table 4
Multiple Regression Results of Relationships Between Performance Goal Complexes and Educational Outcomes
Self-handicapping
Predictor
Autonomous normative goals
Controlling normative goals
Mastery goals
Grade point average
F
R2
Study 1
.07
.35
.16
.16
8.14
.18
Study 2
.12
.34
.19
.03
6.88
.16
Help avoidance
Study 1
.03
.17
.41
.04
9.65
.20
Self-efficacy
Study 2
Study 1
.04
.36
.08
.07
5.56
.14
.27
.05
.26
.04
8.53
.18
Course interest
Study 2
.18
.11
.34
.05
9.27
.21
Study 1
Study 2
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
.31
.14
.33
.13
14.12
.29
Note. Coefficients are standardized (betas). Course interest was measured only in Study 2. Analyses include only participants who reported at least some
endorsement of the focal normative goal measure item (Study 1, n 157; Study 2, n 147). n/a not available.
p .05. p .01.
10
SENKO AND TROPIANO
budding developments in achievement goal theory. One compares

different types of performance goals. The other compares different
goal complexes. Below, we summarize our findings and suggest
new directions for each topic in turn, and finish by considering
new issues for goal complex theorizing.
Performance Goal Types

Most achievement goal research is guided by two models. These
models disagree over how best to conceptualize achievement
goals, especially the performance goal. The goal orientation model
conceptualizes goals as the general reason or purpose for engaging
in a task. Its performance goal construct (appearance goals)
emphasizes the desire to demonstrate competence (Ames, 1992;
Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1984). The goal standard model instead
conceptualizes goals as a future-focused and cognitively represented competence standard with which to define success. Its
performance goal construct (normative goals) emphasizes the
desire to outperform others (Elliot, 1999). This difference is nontrivial. Hulleman et al. (2010) discovered that appearance goals
predict low academic achievement, whereas normative goals predict high achievement. The present studies, like another pair
(Grant & Dweck, 2003; Warburton & Spray, 2014), confirm that
the two performance goals differ. In each study, the two performance goals split structurally (e.g., factor analysis), and appearance goals predicted only undesirable outcomes (i.e., selfhandicapping and help avoidance), whereas normative goals
predicted only a desirable outcome (i.e., self-efficacy).
Several research questions loom now that it is clear appearance
and normative goals can diverge. What processes does each trigger? Which outcomes are most sensitive to these processes and are
thus most likely to be affected differently by the two goals? And
do these processes vary based on the context or the student? For
example, given that appearance goals are social in nature, one
wonders if their effects depend on whom students are trying to
impress. To our knowledge, only one study has tested this (Ziegler,
Dresel, & Stoeger, 2008). It suggests that appearance goals are
more prevalent and more damaging when pursued in order to
impress parents or teachers rather than classmates. We now need
studies to examine why this is the case.
Although normative and appearance goals can diverge, surely
they can sometimes converge. When exactly, and why? We expect
that they overlap and function similarly when sharing the same
antecedents. These might include any qualities of the student (e.g.,
socially prescribed perfectionism; Hewitt & Flett, 1993), of the
learning context (e.g., evaluative classroom climates; Ames,
1992), or of the broader culture (Zusho & Clayton, 2011) that
trigger self-presentational concerns. Consider culture. The different achievement goals correlate more highly with one another in
east Asian cultures than in Western cultures (Hulleman et al.,
2010). Perhaps the interdependent self-construal common in Asian
cultures (Cross, Hardin, & Gercek-Swing, 2011) leads students to
tether normative strivings to self-presentational motives, thereby
causing the two performance goals to overlay and behave similarly. Studies are needed to test this possibility and other circumstances in which the two goals diverge versus converge.
We have advocated here for studying appearance and normative
goals together. An alternate approach is to debate which goal
model goal orientation or goal standardis superior, and then
use its performance goal in all future research. A debate, however,

presumes one model would emerge victorious. This is unlikely.
Neither model is clearly superior on theoretical grounds; each
offers unique strengths that mirror the others shortcomings (Elliot,
2005; Kaplan & Maehr, 2007; Senko, in press). Nor is either model
likely to win on empirical grounds. For example, suppose we
choose a model based on which performance goalthe appearance one or the normative oneis most prevalent. Brophy (2005)
advocated this approach when urging the field to abandon normative goals. For evidence, he pointed to interview studies in which
few students claimed to pursue normative goals. Senko et al.
(2011) later offered a rebuttal, pointing to other interview studies
in which students did claim normative goals. There are two plausible reasons for this inconsistency in normative goal prevalence.
One is an artifact of the interview questions. Asking students about
their reasons for engaging in coursework will elicit responses that
emphasize competence demonstration more than normative success (e.g., Lee & Bong, 2015), but the opposite is likely true when
asking students about their lower level aims for the class (e.g., Job,
Langens, & Brandsttter, 2009). In each case, the question directs
students attention to a level on the goal hierarchy (see Figure 1)
that matches the researchers theoretical model. The other reason
for inconsistencies is that a goals prevalence varies by context and
individual differences. For example, mastery-avoidance goals are
uncommon in typical classrooms with children or young adults,
but they appear to be the dominant goal in late adulthood (see
Senko & Freund, 2015). Normative and appearance goals are also
likely to vary in frequency based on several factors, as explained
above. In sum, we doubt that a debate, based on either theoretical
grounds or empirical grounds, can establish one goal model as
superior to the other. The more satisfactory solution, we believe, is
to embrace both goal modelsthat is, to study the two performance goals together or to integrate them through the goal complex model.
Goal Complexes
The studies remaining key contributions feature the goal complex model. This model defines achievement goals as the competence standards that students seek to attain, but it also acknowledges that any goal can be pursued for various reasons (Elliot &
Thrash, 2001; Urdan, 2000). Those reasons matter, too. They not
only energize students to pursue a goal but also shape the goals
impact on students educational experience.
Despite being proffered 15 years ago and echoed since by others
(e.g., DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Pintrich, Conley, & Kempler,
2003), this model has only recently begun to be tested. Those few
studies have used SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000) to classify the various
reasons underpinning goals (Gaudreau, 2012; Gillet et al., 2014;
Michou et al., 2014; Vansteenkiste, Mouratidis, et al., 2010; Vansteenkiste, Smeets, et al., 2010). Those studies, however, are
undercut by their reliance on approach items (e.g., enjoyment) for
the autonomous reasons, but either avoidance items (e.g., avoiding
shame) or a mix of approach and avoidance items for the controlling reasons. We removed this confound by using only approach
items for all goal pursuit reasons. Normative goals continued to
behaved adaptively (i.e., high self-efficacy and interest) when
pursued for autonomous reasons, but maladaptively (i.e., high
self-handicapping and help avoidance) when pursued for controlling reasons. This replication legitimizes the body of work.
Another contribution of these studies is that they integrate the
budding goal type and goal complex research streams. Testing the
two together allows us to superimpose the goal complex framework over the appearance versus normative goal comparison. It is
a strong fit. We now see that a normative goal pursued for
autonomous reasons allows largely desirable outcomes. But when
pursued for controlling reasons, the same goal invites undesirable
outcomes exactly like an appearance goal. This confirms that the
goal complex modeland SDT as the framework for conceptualizing goal pursuit reasons can incorporate the goal constructs
favored by both the goal orientation model and the goal standard
model. In so doing, the goal complex model, we believe, can unite
those two models by retaining their respective strengths.
A final contribution of these studies is that they help settle two
intertwined debates. Both debates concern the performance goals
alliance with other goals. The first questions whether students can
pursue performance goals alongside mastery goals. The second
questions whether they can pursue performance goals without also
pursuing performance-avoidance goals. On the first issue, masterygoal theorists believe performance and mastery goals trigger opposing approaches to a task. To pursue performance goals therefore puts students at risk of missing the benefits of mastery goals
(e.g., Brophy, 2005; Midgley et al., 2001). On the second issue,
they posit that pursuing performance goals puts students at risk of
also pursuing performance-avoidance goals, incurring its various
maladies that may negate any benefits of performance goals (e.g.,
Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2012). Multiple-goals theorists counter
that performance and mastery goals, rather than opposing, correlate positively, provide unique educational benefits, and can be
pursued together (e.g., Harackiewicz et al., 1998). They also
consider performance and performance-avoidance goals to be sufficiently independent, such that the latter is unlikely to infect the
former (e.g., Murayama et al., 2011; Senko et al., 2011).
Both perspectives have clear merit. The key to resolving these
debates, in our view, is to acknowledge that these rival perspectives are rooted in opposing goal models. Mastery-goal theorists
typically embrace the goal orientation model and use appearancebased performance goals that yield adverse effects. Multiple-goals
theorists usually embrace the goal standard model and use
normative-based performance goals that yield more desirable effects. This suggests that the benefits and risks of performance
goals depend on how these goals are conceptualized. The present
studies provide the first direct test of this. Using the goal complex
model, we found that each debate boils down to why students
pursue achievement goals. We assumed that students usually pursue mastery goals for autonomous reasons (Michou et al., 2014)
and performance-avoidance goals for controlling reasons (Carver
& Scheier, 2000). In both studies, normative goals converged more
with either of those goals when guided by the same underlying
reason. When pursued for autonomous reasons, normative goals
correlated strongly with mastery goals and weakly with normativeavoidance goals. They also predicted desirable outcomes, much
like mastery goals and exactly the opposite of normativeavoidance goals. This supports the multiple-goals perspective. The
opposite pattern emerged for normative goals pursued for controlling reasons (and appearance goals). They were unrelated to mastery goals, correlated strongly with normative-avoidance goals,
11
and predicted maladaptive outcomes. This supports the mastery

goal perspective. New studies should further test this view on both
debate topics. For example, do students perceive normative and
mastery goals to be more compatible when both are pursued for
overlapping reasons? And when facing setbacks while pursuing a
normative goal, do they invoke normative-avoidance goals more if
their normative goals were pursued for controlling reasons rather
than autonomous ones?
Limitations
These two studies have genuine shortcomings, too, of course.
Several raise concerns about excess random error jeopardizing the
findings credibility: principally, the modest sample sizes, the aggregation across numerous classes rather than using one standardized
class, the single-item normative-avoidance goal measure, and the
underwhelming reliability of the autonomous performance goal complex measures, especially in Study 1. For example, the sample sizes
may arouse concern about Type I errors or low generalizability. Such
concerns, we believe, should be allayed by the broad pattern of
replication: These two studies replicate one another and also match
prior research that has used single large classes (e.g., Grant & Dweck,
2003), valid multi-item normative-avoidance goal measures (e.g.,
Grant & Dweck, 2003; Warburton & Spray, 2014), or other goal
complex measures (e.g., Gaudreau, 2012).
Another limitation is that our sample was predominantly female,
reflecting the makeup of the psychology major at our university.
Would the results be different with males? Males might be more
likely than females to freely pursue performance goals (e.g., Senko
& Hulleman, 2013), perhaps especially the autonomous normative
goal complex. But we believe the downstream effects of normative
and appearance goals should be similar for males and females
(e.g., Hulleman et al., 2010); so should the effects of the autonomous and controlling performance goal complexes (e.g., Gillet et
al., 2014; Vansteenkiste, Mouratidis, et al., 2010). Nonetheless,
new studies are clearly needed to generalize our findings to other
age groups and cultures, learning contexts, and achievement domains (e.g., sport, workplace, performing arts).
And, finally, the greatest limitation of these studies is their
correlational nature and reliance on a single time point of data
collection. These features make causal conclusions difficult. The
theory and prior research do support the causal interpretation we
have adopted, but it is equally evident that some links between
goals and outcomes may be recursive over time (Senko et al.,
2011). Using longitudinal designs would allow clearer insight into
these dynamics.
Remaining Issues for the Goal Complex Model

In bridging the goal orientation and goal standard models, the
goal complex approach helps resolve long-standing debates and
offers novel directions. Yet it must overcome several potential
limitations if it is to serve the field well. One is that, true to its
name, this model makes achievement goal theory more complex.
The theory began as an intuitively appealing dichotomy of adaptive (mastery goals) versus maladaptive (performance goals) motivation (Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1984). Then, it doubled its goal
canon by bifurcating both goals into approach and avoidance types
(Elliot & McGregor, 2001). The goal complex model allows even
12
SENKO AND TROPIANO
more goal constructs, with the number constrained only by the

reasons identified for goal pursuit. It can quickly become unwieldy. The gains in clarity afforded by this approach must be
balanced against the parsimony lost. To that end, we advise limiting the goal complex catalogue to complexes that are both
common (at least in some populations or situations) and unique.
What are all the goal complexes? Theorists have so far
applied SDT to classify goal complexes (Urdan, 2000; Vansteenkiste et al., 2014). To its credit, SDT does capture several plausible
goal pursuit reasons and groups them tidily into two opposing
categories: autonomous versus controlling. Plus, as noted above,
its controlling normative goal complex captures the appearance
goal of the goal orientation model. But does SDT capture all of the
genuine goal complexes? This remains unknown. Certainly, importing a premade theorywhether SDT or any otherrisks mischaracterizing or overlooking some common goal pursuit reasons.
Personal pride is illustrative. Pride is a common reason for normative goal pursuit (Urdan & Mestas, 2006)the most strongly endorsed reason in the present studies, in fact. Yet perspectives vary
over whether it is a healthy goal pursuit reason. SDT (Deci & Ryan,
2000) considers pride a form of introjection, right alongside the
desire to please others or avoid shaming them. This controlling motive
is marked by feeling pressurein the case of pride, because it makes
ones self-worth fragile and contingent upon success (cf. Covington &
Omelich, 1984, and Crocker, Luhtanen, Cooper, & Bouvrette,
2003)and this pressure begets undesirable outcomes. All prior goal
complex studies that measured pride have taken this view, embedding
pride within the controlling goal complex (Michou et al., 2014;
Vansteenkiste, Mouratidis, et al., 2010; Vansteenkiste, Smeets, et al.,
2010). But by other accounts, personal pride could be considered a
healthy reason to pursue goals. For example, some SDT theorists
(Vallerand et al., 1992; Vansteenkiste, Mouratidis, et al., 2010) classify challenge seeking as an intrinsic motive that, like enjoyment, is
purely autonomous. And yet challenges, if conquered, also are often
what makes one proud (Atkinson, 1957; Carbonneau, Vallerand, &
Lafrenire, 2012). In the present studies, too, factor analyses showed
that pride fit better with autonomous rather than controlling reasons
for normative goal pursuit. Likewise, normative goals often predict
greater feelings of pride, and this emotion contributes to the goals
positive influence on academic achievement (Pekrun, 2006; Pekrun,
Elliot, & Maier, 2009). Personal pride is clearly more complicated
than assumed by SDT. It probably is controlling when it truly makes
self-worth feel contingent on success. But oftentimes it is probably
more autonomous in nature (cf. hubristic vs. authentic pride; Carver,
Sinclair, & Johnson, 2010; Tracy & Robins, 2007).
There may also be other common goal pursuit reasons that we, like
others relying on SDT, have overlooked. Social reasons seem a likely
candidate. We know that students pursue various social goals alongside their academic onesnot just to impress others, as studied here
and in prior goal complex research, but also to be a good class citizen,
to feel a sense of belonging, or, through school success, to honor ones
family or eventually to serve ones community (Dowson & McInerney, 2004; Urdan & Maehr, 1995; Wentzel, 2000). Students may
pursue any number of these and must somehow coordinate their social
goals with their academic goals. One possibility is to arrange the goals
hierarchically such that the social goals serve as reasons to pursue
the academic achievement goals (Wentzel, 2000). Does each social
reason form a unique achievement goal complex that promotes a
distinct learning experience? Or does each social reason distill into
SDTs autonomous or controlling categories and produce learning

experiences like those charted in the current studies and prior work?
This merits direct testing.
Personal pride and social motives both underscore two urgent
directions for goal complex research. One is to canvass all unique
and meaningful goal complexes. The other is to test whether SDT
can capture those complexes well. If SDT cannot, then the goal
complex model would need to supplement SDT with other theoretical frameworks. For instance, social goal theories (e.g., Dowson & McInerney, 2004; Wentzel, 2000) or social-value theory
(Darnon, Dompnier, Delmas, Pulfrey, & Butera, 2009; Dompnier,
Darnon, & Butera, 2009) may each prove useful for identifying the
different social reasons guiding achievement goal pursuit.
Should we compare the effects of reasons versus standards?
The goal complex model combines reasons and standards to test
how they work together. Yet one might wonder which of these
two goal complex components has greater impact. Most prior
goal complex studies have tested this, in fact. They use hierarchical regression models that introduce the goal standard first,
followed by the goal reasons. It turns out that goal standard
effects often disappear after including those underlying reasons
for goal pursuit (for a review, see Vansteenkiste et al., 2014).
Such findings tempt us to conclude that goal reasons matter
more than goal standards or, more provocatively, that SDT
(the framework used to classify reasons) trumps achievement
goal theory in predictive power and utility.
Neither conclusion is warranted. To separate the effects of reasons
from standards requires assuming that the two are psychologically
separate. They are not. They are psychologically (and methodologically) yoked: The goal standard is pursued because of the reason. This
is the fundamental premise of the goal complex model, and it is why
measures of goal reasons ask students why they are pursuing the goal.
The two elements cannot be divorced simply by including both terms
in a regression analysis; statistically controlling for one does not
remove its connection to the other. Nor, therefore, can this statistical
approach isolate the goal standards and reasons respective influences on students educational experience.
Why, then, do the goal reasons terms often have more predictive
power than the goal standard term? Perhaps simply because a goal
reason measure packs more information: It conveys everything
included in the goal standards measure (i.e., I am striving to
outperform others) plus information about the underlying reason
(i.e., . . . because . . .). It assesses the full goal complex, not just
the reason alone. So to compare the goal standard and goal reason
terms is uninformative, because the goal reason term should be the
stronger predictor. What we really learn from the present and prior
goal complex findings is not that reasons matter more than goal
standards, but that some reasons are adaptive than others. This
alone is a valuable contribution.
Practical and Methodological Implications

Achievement goal theorys allure has always been its application potential, and its message has always been clear: Teachers
should create classroom environments that foster mastery goals
(e.g., Ames, 1992). The field remains united in this message,
regardless of theorists stance on the positive potential of performance goals (Senko et al., 2011). The present findings support this
view, too: Mastery goals promoted the desirable outcomes and
deterred the undesirable ones. Perhaps our findings also tempt

teachers to foster normative goals alongside mastery goals, while
discouraging appearance goals. We do not advise this. The goal
complex findings show that normative goals are not always
healthy; if pursued for controlling reasons, they do as much damage as appearance goals. Teachers could, in theory at least, sidestep this risk by nudging their students to embrace normative goals
autonomously. But that is impractical. Students are more apt to do
so if they adopt this goal out of habit rather than persuasion.
This same issue has methodological implications, too, particularly
for laboratory experiments. In the typical experiment, participants
perform a novel task (for control reasons) in an unfamiliar environment, under the (real or imagined) watchful eye of a stranger, and
without any time allowed to cultivate strategies that might calm
nerves and aid performance. And it is in this context that they are
asked to outperform othersan inherently challenging goal (Senko &
Hulleman, 2013). It seems unlikely that most participants freely
embrace this challenge in those intimidating conditions. This might
help explain why laboratory experiments (see Van Yperen, Blaga, &
Postmes, 2015) struggle to duplicate the achievement gains found for
normative goals in the field studies (see Hulleman et al., 2010). Quite
simply, performance goal complexes may often be less autonomous
and adaptive in the lab than in the field.
How can laboratory experiments create autonomous performance goal complexes? An indirect way is to rely on individual
differences that guide interpretations of this goal. One candidate is
achievement orientation, a predisposition to seek challenge, find it
enjoyable, and feel pride from overcoming that challenge. In
numerous experiments by Harackiewicz and colleagues, normative
goals increased engagement and interestmore so even than mastery goalsfor participants who possess this trait, but it had the
opposite effect for those who do not (e.g., Barron & Harackiewicz,
2001; Senko & Harackiewicz, 2005; for a review, see Harackiewicz et al., 1998). Viewing those findings through a goal complex
lens, participants high in achievement orientation probably perceive the assigned normative goal as an opportunitya challenge
they welcome and pursue autonomously.
Conclusion
Achievement goal theory has evolved in the past three decades,
so much so that there is now confusion about the two things that
ought to be clearest: What is an achievement goal and what are its
effects? Theorists are divided on both points, no doubt leaving
outsiders with the peculiar sense that the achievement goal theory
label applies to two separate theories. In fact, it does. One is the
goal orientation model, which defines goals based on the underlying reason for task engagementwhether to develop competence (mastery goals) or to demonstrate competence (performance
goals). That model supports a mastery goal perspective that touts
mastery goals over performance goals. The other is the goal
standard model, which defines goals based on the standards for
determining competencewhether to improve or learn (mastery
goals) or to outperform others (performance goals). That model
supports a multiple-goals perspective that touts the unique benefits
of each goal. In short, the two models conceptualize goals differently especially performance goalsand result in two diverging
sets of findings and conclusions.
13
Moving forward, the field has three options to advance achievement goal theory. One is for researchers to continue as they have
thus far, using either appearance or normative performance goals,
but taking greater care to use those goal labels and to identify their
guiding framework (i.e., goal orientation vs. goal standard; for
similar perspectives, see DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Elliot, 2005;
Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). Another is to directly compare these two
performance goals to explore when and why they diverge versus
converge. The last is to unite the two rival models in a way that
harnesses the strength of each, as with the goal complex model.
Each option has its respective merits. In our view, the latter two
options are the most progressive, with the goal complex model
most able to coalesce the field over the long run.
References
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261271. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0022-0663.84.3.261
Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior.
Psychological Review, 64, 359 372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
h0043445
Baranik, L. E., Stanley, L. J., Bynum, B. H., & Lance, C. E. (2010).
Examining the construct validity of mastery-avoidance achievement
goals: A meta-analysis. Human Performance, 23, 265282. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1080/08959285.2010.488463
Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and
optimal motivation: Testing multiple goal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 706 722. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00223514.80.5.706
Brophy, J. (2005). Goal theorists should move on from performance goals.
Educational Psychologist, 40, 167176. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15326985ep4003_3
Butler, R. (1995). Motivational and informational functions and consequences of childrens attention to peers work. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 87, 347360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.87.3.347
Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in
organizational research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 26 48. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1996.0063
Carbonneau, N., Vallerand, R. J., & Lafrenire, M. A. K. (2012). Toward
a tripartite model of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality, 80,
11471178. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2011.00757.x
Carver, C. S., Sinclair, S., & Johnson, S. L. (2010). Authentic and hubristic
pride: Differential relations to aspects of goal regulation, affect, and
self-control. Journal of Research in Personality, 44, 698 703. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2010.09.004
Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (2000). Autonomy and self-regulation.
Psychological Inquiry, 11, 284 291.
Ciani, K. D., Sheldon, K. M., Hilpert, J. C., & Easter, M. A. (2011).
Antecedents and trajectories of achievement goals: A self-determination
theory perspective. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 223
243. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/000709910X517399
Covington, M. V., & Omelich, C. L. (1984). Task-oriented versus competitive learning structures: Motivational and performance consequences. Journal of Educational Psychology, 76, 1038 1050. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.76.6.1038
Crocker, J., Luhtanen, R. K., Cooper, M. L., & Bouvrette, A. (2003).
Contingencies of self-worth in college students: Theory and measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 894 908.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.894
14
SENKO AND TROPIANO
Cross, S. E., Hardin, E. E., & Gercek-Swing, B. (2011). The what, how,
why, and where of self-construal. Personality and Social Psychology
Review, 15, 142179. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1088868310373752
Darnon, C., Dompnier, B., Delmas, F., Pulfrey, C., & Butera, F. (2009).
Achievement goal promotion at university: Social desirability and social
utility of mastery and performance goals. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 96, 119 134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0012824
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The what and why of goal pursuits:
Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological
Inquiry, 11, 227268. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
DeShon, R. P., & Gillespie, J. Z. (2005). A motivated action theory account
of goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1096 1127.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1096
Dompnier, B., Darnon, C., & Butera, F. (2009). Faking the desire to learn:
A clarification of the link between mastery goals and academic achievement. Psychological Science, 20, 939 943. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j
.1467-9280.2009.02384.x
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. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1177/0013164403251335
Duncan, T. G., & McKeachie, W. J. (2005). The making of the Motivated
Strategies for Learning Questionnaire. Educational Psychologist, 40,
117128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15326985ep4002_6
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American
Psychologist, 41, 1040 1048. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41
.10.1040
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement
goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169 189. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1207/s15326985ep3403_3
Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct.
In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and
motivation (pp. 5272). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach
and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 72, 218 232. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514
.72.1.218
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 2 achievement goal
framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501519.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.3.501
Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals:
Critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100,
613628. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.613
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2001). Achievement goals and the hierarchical model of achievement motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 139 156. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009057102306
Gaudreau, P. (2012). Goal self-concordance moderates the relationship
between achievement goals and indicators of academic adjustment.
Learning and Individual Differences, 22, 827 832. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1016/j.lindif.2012.06.006
Gillet, N., Lafrenire, M. A. K., Vallerand, R. J., Huart, I., & Fouquereau,
E. (2014). The effects of autonomous and controlled regulation of
performance-approach goals on well-being: A process model. British
Journal of Social Psychology, 53, 154 174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/
bjso.12018
Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their
impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 541553.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.541
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, 121. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/
s15326985ep3301_1
Harackiewicz, J. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1993). Achievement goals and

intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,
904 915. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.5.904
Hewitt, P. L., & Flett, G. L. (1993). Dimensions of perfectionism, daily
stress, and depression: A test of the specific vulnerability hypothesis.
Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 58 65. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0021-843X.102.1.58
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest
development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111127. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1207/s15326985ep4102_4
Hulleman, C. S., Schrager, S. M., Bodmann, S. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M.
(2010). A meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different
labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels?
Psychological Bulletin, 136, 422 449. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0018947
Job, V., Langens, T. A., & Brandsttter, V. (2009). Effects of achievement
goal striving on well-being: The moderating role of the explicit achievement motive. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 983996.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167209336606
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects of
goal orientation theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 141184.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9012-5
Karabenick, S. A. (2003). Seeking help in large college classes: A personcentered approach. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 3758.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0361-476X(02)00012-7
Kim, J. I., Schallert, D. L., & Kim, M. (2010). An integrative cultural view
of achievement motivation: Parental and classroom predictors of childrens goal orientations when learning mathematics in Korea. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 102, 418 437. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
a0018676
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Lee, M., & Bong, M. (2015). In their own words: Reasons underlying the
achievement striving of students in schools. Journal of Educational
Psychology. Advance online publication. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/
edu0000048
Linnenbrink-Garcia, L., Middleton, M. J., Ciani, K. D., Easter, M. A., OKeefe,
P. A., & Zusho, A. (2012). The strength of the relation between performanceapproach and performance-avoidance goal orientations: Theoretical, methodological, and instructional implications. Educational Psychologist, 47, 281301.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2012.722515
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory
of goal setting and task motivation. A 35-year odyssey. American
Psychologist, 57, 705717.
Maehr, M. L. (1984). Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personal
investment. In R. E. Ames & C. Ames (Eds.), Motivation in education:
Student motivation (pp. 115144). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Maehr, M. L., & Zusho, A. (2009). Achievement goal theory: Past, present,
and future. In K. Wentzel & D. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at
school (Vol. 1, pp. 77104). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.
Meng, X., Rosenthal, R., & Rubin, D. B. (1992). Comparing correlated
correlation coefficients. Psychological Bulletin, 111, 172175. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.111.1.172
Michou, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Mouratidis, A., & Lens, W. (2014). Enriching
the hierarchical model of achievement motivation: Autonomous and controlling reasons underlying achievement goals. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 650 666. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12055
Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach
goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what
cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 77 86.
Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L.,
Freeman, K. E., . . . Urdan, T. (2000). Manual for the patterns of adaptive
learning scales (PALS). Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan.
Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can
undermine childrens motivation and performance. Journal of Person-

ality and Social Psychology, 75, 3352. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/00223514.75.1.33
Murayama, K., Elliot, A. J., & Yamagata, S. (2011). Separation of
performance-approach and performance-avoidance achievement goals:
A broader analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 238 256.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021948
Nevitt, J., & Hancock, G. R. (2001). Performance of bootstrapping approaches to model test statistics and parameter standard error estimation
in structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling, 8, 353
377. http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/S15328007SEM0803_2
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability,
subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328 346. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.91.3.328
Pajares, F. (1996). Self-efficacy beliefs in academic settings. Review of
Educational Research, 66, 543578. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/
00346543066004543
Pekrun, R. (2006). The control-value theory of achievement emotions:
Assumptions, corollaries, and implications for educational research and
practice. Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315341. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1007/s10648-006-9029-9
Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2009). Achievement goals and
achievement emotions: Testing a model of their joint relations with
academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 115
135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0013383
Pintrich, P. R., Conley, M. M., & Kempler, T. M. (2003). Current issues in
achievement goal theory and research. International Journal of Educational
Research, 39, 319337. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijer.2004.06.002
Rhodewalt, F. (1990). Self-handicappers: Individual differences in the
preference for anticipatory self-protective acts. In R. Higgins, C. R.
Snyder, & S. Berglas (Eds.), Self-handicapping: The paradox that isnt
(pp. 69 106). New York, NY: Plenum Press. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
978-1-4899-0861-2_3
Senko, C. (in press). Achievement goal theory: A story of early promises,
eventual discords, and future possibilities. In K. Wentzel & D. Miele
(Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (Vol. 2). New York, NY:
Taylor & Francis.
Senko, C., Durik, A. M., Patel, L., Lovejoy, C. M., Valentiner, D., & Stang,
M. (2013). Performance-approach goal effects on achievement under
low versus high challenge conditions. Learning and Instruction, 23,
60 68. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2012.05.006
Senko, C., & Freund, A. M. (2015). Mastery-avoidance achievement goal
effects in young versus elderly adults: A laboratory test. Motivation and
Emotion, 39, 477 488. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11031-015-9474-1
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. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1177/0146167205281128
Senko, C., & Hulleman, C. S. (2013). The role of goal attainment expectancies in achievement goal pursuit. Journal of Educational Psychology,
105, 504 521. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0031136
Senko, C., Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2011). Achievement
goal theory at the crossroads: Old controversies, current challenges, and
new directions. Educational Psychologist, 46, 26 47. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/00461520.2011.538646
Sheldon, K. M., Houser-Marko, L., & Kasser, T. (2006). Does autonomy
increase with age? Comparing the goal motivations of college students
and their parents. Journal of Research in Personality, 40, 168 178.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2004.10.004
Skaalvik, E. M. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation:
Relations with task and avoidance orientation, achievement, selfperceptions, and anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 71
81. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.89.1.71
15
Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). The psychological structure of pride:

A tale of two facets. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92,
506 525. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.3.506
Urdan, T. (2000). The intersection of self-determination and achievement
goal theories: Do we need to have goals? Paper presented at the meeting
of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
Urdan, T. C., & Maehr, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of
motivation and achievement: A case for social goals. Review of
Educational Research, 65, 213243. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/
00346543065003213
Urdan, T., & Mestas, M. (2006). The goals behind performance goals.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 354 365. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1037/0022-0663.98.2.354
Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2001). Academic self-handicapping: What we
know, what more is there to learn. Educational Psychology Review, 13,
115138. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1009061303214
Valentine, J. C., DuBois, D. L., & Cooper, H. (2004). The relation
between self-beliefs and academic achievement: A meta-analytic
review. Educational Psychologist, 39, 111133. http://dx.doi.org/10
.1207/s15326985ep3902_3
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Blais, M. R., Brire, N. M., Sencal, C.,
& Vallires, E. F. (1992). The academic motivation scale: A measure of
intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 52, 10031017. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0013164492052004025
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Elliot, A. J., Soenens, B., & Mouratidis, A.
(2014). Moving the achievement goal approach one step forward: Toward a systematic examination of the autonomous and controlled reasons underlying achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 49, 153
174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.928598
Vansteenkiste, M., Mouratidis, A., & Lens, W. (2010). Detaching reasons
from aims: Fair play and well-being in soccer as a function of pursuing
performance-approach goals for autonomous or controlling reasons.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32, 217242.
Vansteenkiste, M., Smeets, S., Soenens, B., Lens, W., Matos, L., & Deci,
E. L. (2010). Autonomous and controlled regulation of performanceapproach goals: Their relations to perfectionism and educational outcomes. Motivation and Emotion, 34, 333353. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/
s11031-010-9188-3
Van Yperen, N. W., Blaga, M., & Postmes, T. (2015). A meta-analysis of
the impact of situationally induced achievement goals on task performance. Human Performance, 28, 165182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
08959285.2015.1006772
Warburton, V., & Spray, S. (2014). Appearance- and competition-focused
performance goals: Examining their links with performance in physical
education. European Physical Education Review, 20, 305318. http://dx
.doi.org/10.1177/1356336X14524112
Wentzel, K. R. (2000). What is it that Im trying to achieve? Classroom
goals from a content perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 105115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1021
Ziegler, A., Dresel, M., & Stoeger, H. (2008). Addressees of performance
goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 643 654. http://dx.doi
.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.643
Zusho, A., & Clayton, K. (2011). Culturalizing achievement goal theory
and research. Educational Psychologist, 46, 239 260. http://dx.doi.org/
10.1080/00461520.2011.614526
Received May 14, 2015

Revision received December 28, 2015
Accepted December 28, 2015

Comparing 3 Models of Achievement Goals

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Comparing 3 Models of Achievement Goals

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

Journal of Educational Psychology

Comparing Three Models of Achievement Goals: Goal

Journal of Educational Psychology

2016 American Psychological Association

Comparing Three Models of Achievement Goals: Goal Orientations, Goal

State University of New York New Paltz

article will examine both conceptualizations of performance goals,

Achievement goal theory spotlights two academic goals that

The Goal Orientation and Goal Standard Models:

Corwin Senko and Katie L. Tropiano, Psychology Department, State

SENKO AND TROPIANO

errors are natural to learning. These goals should therefore create

is why measures inspired by this model feature only normative

COMPARING THREE MODELS OF ACHIEVEMENT GOALS

Goal Orientation Model

Goal Standard Model

(Higher Order Goal)

(e.g., Demonstrating Competence,

(e.g., public self-consciousness,

(e.g., mild anxiety &

Accordingly, to distinguish between these two performance goals,

Baranik, Stanley, Bynum, & Lance, 2010; Urdan & Midgley,

SENKO AND TROPIANO

Hulleman et al.s (2010) meta-analysis. Including it thus allows a

Goal Complexes: A Useful Compromise?

COMPARING THREE MODELS OF ACHIEVEMENT GOALS

Can the Goal Complex Model Resolve Other Debates?

performance-avoidance goals can be structurally separate despite

Overview of Present Studies

SENKO AND TROPIANO

desirable outcomes, self-efficacy and interest (Hypothesis 4),

Survey Measures and Procedure

capstone seminars. The two studies were conducted in different

COMPARING THREE MODELS OF ACHIEVEMENT GOALS

I am pursuing this goal because . . .

to prevent appearance goal items from biasing students interpretation

Do Normative and Appearance Goals Differ?

into distinct factors, correlate at null to moderate levels, and earn

SENKO AND TROPIANO

Performance Goal Complexes: Do Reasons for

(Study 1: F[4.2, 660.5] 58.03, p .001; Study 2: F[4.2,

COMPARING THREE MODELS OF ACHIEVEMENT GOALS

tonomous and controlling complexes was omitted due to being

Do Performance Goal Complexes Clarify Other

SENKO AND TROPIANO

budding developments in achievement goal theory. One compares

Performance Goal Types

use its performance goal in all future research. A debate, however,

COMPARING THREE MODELS OF ACHIEVEMENT GOALS

and predicted maladaptive outcomes. This supports the mastery

Remaining Issues for the Goal Complex Model

SENKO AND TROPIANO

more goal constructs, with the number constrained only by the

SDTs autonomous or controlling categories and produce learning

Practical and Methodological Implications

COMPARING THREE MODELS OF ACHIEVEMENT GOALS

deterred the undesirable ones. Perhaps our findings also tempt

SENKO AND TROPIANO

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

COMPARING THREE MODELS OF ACHIEVEMENT GOALS

Tracy, J. L., & Robins, R. W. (2007). The psychological structure of pride:

Received May 14, 2015

Anda mungkin juga menyukai