The Contributions and Prospects of Goal Orientation Theory

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

The Contributions and Prospects of GoalOrientation Theory

Avi Kaplan & Martin L. Maehr

Published online: 22 September 2006# Springer Science + Business Media, LLC 2006

Abstract In the last two decades, goal orientation theory has become an importantperspective in the field of achievement motivation, and particularly in academic motivation.However, as research in the theory has proliferated, the use of multiple methods to assessgoal orientations seems to have contributed to theoretical vagueness, especially with regardto the origin, development, and stability of these orientations. This review article starts witha critique of methods used in goal orientation research. The article then suggests sixpossible theoretical models of goal orientations that seem to be suggested by the literature,including the perspectives of goal orientations as emerging from: situation-schemas, self-schemas, self-prime, needs, values, and situated meaning-making processes. The articleconcludes with pointing to convergent findings, implications for practice, and persisting aswell as emerging issues for future research.

Keywords Achievement . Motivation . Goals . Method

Introduction

In the past couple of decades, goal orientation theory (Ames, 1992a; Dweck, 1986; Maehr,1984; Nicholls, 1984) emerged as an important theoretical perspective on students’motivation in school (Anderman & Wolters, 2006; Elliot, 2005; Meece, Anderman, &Anderman, 2006; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002). This theory provided a framework for extensiveresearch on motivational orientations that contributes to students’ adaptive and maladaptivepatterns of engagement. In addition, the theory highlights environmental characteristics thatfoster these motivational orientations (see Midgley, 2002; Meece et al., 2006; Pintrich &Schunk, 2002). Educators have also used this framework for environmental change with the

Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184DOI 10.1007/s10648-006-9012-5

A. Kaplan (*)Department of Education, Ben-Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva, 84105, Israele-mail: akaplan@bgu.ac.il

M. L. MaehrCombined Program in Education and Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

purpose of enhancing adaptive engagement in school (e.g., Ames, 1992b; Maehr &Midgley, 1991, 1996).

However, the recent popularity of goal orientation theory, and the proliferation of studiesusing different methods in this framework resulted with variability in the (oftenunspecified) definitions of the constructs and in the underlying assumptions that guideempirical investigations (Elliot, 2005). In addition, several theoretical developments duringthe past few years led the theory along new paths (see Kaplan & Maehr, 2002). This articleprovides a critical review of the concept of goal orientations and of methods used tooperationalize them, and follows by suggesting several theoretical models for conceivingthese orientations, all with the purpose of clarifying theory and invigorating future research.

Goal Orientation Theory

Goal orientations were originally defined as situated orientations for action in anachievement task (Ames, 1992a; Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1984). Rather then focusing onthe content of what people are attempting to achieve (i.e., objectives, specific standards),goal orientations define why and how people are trying to achieve various objectives(Anderman & Maehr, 1994) and refer to overarching purposes of achievement behavior.These orientations were conceived of as encompassing the experience of the person in thesituation, guiding interpretation of events and producing patterns of cognition, emotion andbehavior (Ames, 1992a; Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Whereas the original definition of goalorientations was of situated purposes for action, these orientations have been also conceivedof as more enduring dispositions towards engagement (e.g., Nicholls, 1992). Thus, researchin the past few decades has variably investigated these orientations as a “state” (e.g.,through experimental manipulations or questionnaires that focused on engagement in aspecific task) or as a “trait” (e.g., through questionnaires and interviews that focused oncross-situational engagement such as in a domain, class, and even learning in general). Still,across these various conceptualizations, findings suggest that adopting different orientationsis associated with different quality of engagement in schoolwork as well as with differentemotional experiences in school (Ames, 1992a; Dweck & Leggett, 1988).

Researchers differed somewhat in the number and in the definition of the orientationsthat people may adopt in achievement situations (Pintrich, 2000a). However, in spite ofthese differences, most researchers focused mostly on two main orientations that werefound to relate differently to adaptive and maladaptive engagement. Ames (1992a)highlighted the convergence among researchers on these two orientations and chose tolabel them “mastery” and “performance” goals, and these terms are used quite prevalently.Therefore, despite some disagreement about the adequacy of these terms (cf. Brophy,2004), we follow Ames’ terminology in this review.

Mastery and Performance Goal Orientations

Mastery goals orientation refers to an individual’s purpose of developing competence(Ames, 1992a). Mastery-oriented students focus on learning, understanding, developingskills, and mastering information. More generally, mastery goals orientation can be said torefer to a purpose of personal development and growth that guides achievement-relatedbehavior and task-engagement. Students’ endorsement of mastery goals orientation hasbeen regularly found to be associated with positive outcomes such as self-efficacy,persistence, preference for challenge, self-regulated learning, and positive affect and well-

142 Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184

being (see reviews in Ames, 1992a; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliot, 1999; Kaplan,Middleton, Urdan, & Midgley, 2002b; Midgley, 2002; Pintrich, 2000a; Urdan, 1997).

These relations of mastery goals orientation with such positive outcomes has beensupported by experimental, correlational, as well as qualitative research. For example,eliciting a mastery goals orientation in experiments was found to be related to positivecoping, persistence, and positive emotions (Elliott & Dweck, 1988), self-regulated learning(Graham & Golan, 1991), transfer of problem-solving strategies and achievement on task(Bereby-Meyer & Kaplan, 2005), and positive social attitudes towards others (Kaplan,2004). Some longitudinal–correlational studies that controlled for previous achievementand perceived ability found that mastery goals orientation predicted interest and continuingmotivation (e.g., intrinsic motivation, number of courses taken, majoring in a domain) (e.g.,Cury, Elliot, Da Fonseca, & Moller, 2006; Harackiewicz, Barron, Taur, & Elliot, 2002b). Inaddition, many correlational studies have supported the relations between mastery goals anda host of positive outcomes including effort and persistence (Elliot, McGregor, & Gable,1999), employment of deep learning strategies (Elliot et al., 1999; Kaplan & Midgley,1997), retention of information learned (Elliot & McGregor, 1999), self-efficacy (Kaplan &Maehr, 1999), positive emotions (Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan, 1996), and general well-being(Dykman, 1998). Finally, qualitative studies, mostly using interviews, also found relationsbetween mastery goals and adaptive outcomes such as willingness to cooperate with peers(e.g., Levy, Kaplan, & Patrick, 2004).

One ambiguous issue has been the relation of mastery goals orientation with schoolachievement. Some correlational studies, conducted mostly in K-12 settings, found positiverelations between mastery goals orientation and classroom achievement (e.g., Brookhart,Walsh, & Zientarski, 2006; Kaplan & Maehr, 1999), whereas other studies, conductedmainly in college settings (although see Cury et al., 2006; Grant & Dweck, 2003), did notfind such relations (e.g., Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto, & Elliot, 1997, 2000). Thesedifferent findings may be related to the type of assessment employed, with mastery goalsorientation associated with achievement on such tasks as open-ended assignments andprojects and less so with grades on tasks such as multiple-choice tests or one-right-answerproblems (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2000).

Whereas mastery goals orientation refers to the purpose of developing competence,performance goals orientation refers to the purpose of demonstrating competence (Ames,1992a; Dweck, 1986). Performance-oriented students focus on managing the impressionthat others have of their ability: attempting to create an impression of high ability and avoidcreating an impression of low ability (Dweck, 1986). Often, this is done throughcomparison with others’ ability (Nicholls, 1984). Unlike the findings concerning masterygoals, research findings concerning performance goals are inconsistent. Often, performancegoals orientation has been associated with a maladaptive pattern of cognition, affect, andbehavior (see Ames, 1992a; Dweck & Leggett, 1988). For example, performance goalsorientation was found to be associated with use of surface rather than deep learningstrategies and with negative affect in events involving challenge or difficulty (Ames,1992a). However, a few studies did not find such negative characteristics. Moreover,whereas some studies found no associations between performance goals orientation andpositive outcomes, others have found weak or even moderate associations between thisorientation and variables such as self-efficacy, use of effective learning strategies, grades,and positive attitudes and affect (Elliot, 1999; Urdan, 1997). Still, a meta-analysis thatcompared the effects of experimentally eliciting achievement goal orientations on theperformance of participants in the task found a strong support to the benefit of eliciting amastery goals orientation over eliciting a performance goals orientation (Utman, 1997).

Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184 143

This meta-analysis, which was conducted on 24 studies (with 43 effect size coefficients),found an overall moderate effect (Cohen’s d of 0.53) of eliciting a mastery goals orientationon performance, in comparison to eliciting a performance goals orientation. In addition, theanalysis indicated that the benefit of eliciting a mastery goals orientation was large whenthe task was complex (e.g., problem solving) and small to non-existent when the task wassimple (e.g., rote learning). Mastery goals orientation were also more beneficial amongolder children and young adults than among young children, and when peers were present(as is often the case in educational settings) in comparison to tasks performed alone.

About a decade ago, several researchers, most notably Elliot (1997, 1999), argued thatthe inconsistent pattern of results concerning the relations of performance goals orientationwith adaptive outcomes may stem from failing to account for a distinction between“approach” and “avoidance” orientations within performance goals (cf., Atkinson, 1957).An “approach” orientation refers to a focus on the possibility of achieving success, whereasan “avoidance” orientation refers to a focus on the possibility of failure, and on the attemptto avoid it. Elliot and his colleagues (Elliot, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996) as well asother researchers (e.g., Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Skaalvik, 1997; Vandewalle, 1997)suggested that performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals should be viewedas two distinct motivational orientations. When pursuing performance-approach goals, theperson is oriented towards the desired possibility of demonstrating high ability, and engagesin the task with that purpose. When pursuing performance-avoidance goals, the person isoriented towards the undesired possibility of demonstrating low ability and engages in thetask with the purpose of avoiding such a demonstration (Elliot, 1997).

Studies that distinguished between performance-approach and performance-avoidancegoals suggest quite strongly that performance-avoidance goals are associated with negativeoutcomes (Elliot, 1999). Performance-avoidance goals have been found to be associatedwith low efficacy, anxiety, avoidance of help-seeking, self-handicapping strategies, and lowgrades (Urdan, Ryan, Anderman, & Gheen, 2002). The pattern of associations related toperformance-approach goals is mostly considered positive as this goal orientation wasfound to be related to outcomes such as persistence, positive affect, and grades (Elliot,1999; Harackiewicz et al., 2002b); however, some studies found this goal orientation to bealso associated with negative outcomes such as anxiety, disruptive behavior, and low reten-tion of knowledge (Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001). In recent years, some researchersargued that performance-approach goals could be beneficial in certain contexts (e.g., acompetitive college setting) and for older students (Harackiewicz, Barron, & Elliot, 1998;Harackiewicz et al., 2002b; Pintrich, 2000a). However, other researchers argued that per-formance-approach goals would lead students to focus on strategies that aim at enhancingdemonstration of ability rather than at learning, and therefore might contribute to grades butnot necessarily to understanding and deep processing (Midgley et al., 2001). Notably, onepossible problem with performance-approach goals is the potential of their transformationinto performance-avoidance goals when students experience changes in circumstances and inperceived-competence or the likelihood of failure (Middleton, Kaplan, & Midgley, 2004).Currently, the issue concerning the potential benefits of performance-approach goals ineducational settings is still under debate (Elliot & Moller, 2003; Harackiewicz, Barron,Pintrich, Elliot & Thrash, 2002a; Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000; Kaplan & Middleton, 2002).

More recently, the distinction between approach and avoidance orientations was appliedalso to mastery goals (Elliot, 1999; Pintrich, 2000a; Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2000, 2002).The little research conducted on mastery-avoidance goals makes it hard to evaluate theirprevalence among students and to provide generalizations regarding the patterns ofengagement that are associated with them (Pintrich, 2003). In the few published studies that

144 Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184

examined mastery-avoidance goals to date, this orientation was found to be mostlyunrelated to cognitive strategies or to grades, but negatively related to intrinsic motivation(Cury et al., 2006) and positively related to negative emotions such as test anxiety andworry (Elliot & McGregor, 2001), and to help-seeking threat (Karabenick, 2003).

Other Goal Orientations

Early conceptualizations of goal orientation theory suggested other goal orientations, inaddition to mastery and performance goals, as possible purposes for achievement behavior(e.g., Maehr & Braskamp, 1986; Maehr & Nicholls, 1980). For a while, the otherorientations did not receive much attention. However, in the past few years, researchersstarted to attend to these other purposes (e.g., Urdan & Maehr, 1995). In addition, researchthat investigates goal orientations from students’ qualitative reports (e.g., Lemos, 1996;Dowson & McInerney, 1997, 2001) suggested that the parsimonious two-goal framework isinsufficient to describe students’ motivational orientations in school (Bempechat & Boulay,2000). And thus, a proliferation of goal orientation constructs occurred.

One goal orientation identified in early work (e.g., Maehr & Nicholls, 1980)—extrinsicgoal orientation—concerns the purpose of attaining an extrinsic incentive (Maehr, 1984).Extrinsically oriented students engage in the task with the purpose of attaining sometangible reward or in order to avoid tangible punishment. So far, goal orientation theoristshave paid only little attention to extrinsic goals as a separate construct. Early on, extrinsicgoals were considered to be a form of performance goals (e.g., Pintrich, Smith, Garcia &McKeachie, 1993). More recently, several researchers noted the theoretical and empiricalneed to make a distinction between performance goals—the focus on managing impressionof ability—and extrinsic goals (Midgley et al., 1998). However, only few studies wereconducted that investigated extrinsic goals orientation as a distinct variable. For the mostpart, theorists have been content to incorporate the findings of others (e.g., Deci & Ryan,1985; Harter, 1992; Lepper & Greene, 1978) into their framework. The few studies that didinvestigate extrinsic goal orientation found that in general, this orientation is associatedwith a maladaptive attitude toward achievement: placing a lower value on the task,reporting higher achievement anxiety, admitting to relatively more cheating, and using self-handicapping strategies (Anderman, Griesinger, & Westerfield, 1998; Ryan & Pintrich,1997; Wolters, Yu, & Pintrinch, 1996). However, the work concerning extrinsic goalorientation could benefit from a more thorough exploration and from a clearer definition ofthis construct and its relations to other extrinsic motivation constructs such as extrinsicvalues (cf. Eccles et al., 1983), extrinsic locus of causality (Deci & Ryan, 1985), andcompetence-contingent rewards (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 2000).

Another orientation identified in early conceptualizations is the category of social goalorientations (e.g., Maehr & Nicholls, 1980). Within a goal orientation theoreticalframework, social goal orientations would refer to social/interpersonal reasons for engagingin an achievement behavior (Urdan & Maehr, 1995). These may include pleasing or gainingthe approval of someone or some group, or gaining an opportunity for desired socialinteraction. However, the concept of social goals to date has a distinctly different researchhistory from the work on mastery and performance goals orientations. The concept of socialgoals now employed in most goal orientation theory research (see Anderman, 1999;Patrick, Anderman, & Ryan, 2002; Wentzel, 1993, 2000) emerged largely from researchprocedures that primarily focused on what students are attempting to achieve, rather than onwhy students engage in a particular achievement task. Moreover, thus far, little attention has

Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184 145

been given to the origins of social goals in a manner that parallels that to be found in thecase of mastery and performance goals orientations, particularly to how the context, orcertain conditions, might lead to the adoption of different social goals (for initial work inthis direction, see Anderman, 1999; Kaplan, 2004; Patrick, 2004; Wentzel, 1998).

Finally, researchers in goal orientation theory recognized that in achievement contextssuch as classrooms, certain individuals are not interested in pursuing success or even inavoiding demonstrating poor ability; they simply want to be left alone (Nicholls, Patashnik,& Nolen, 1985). In order to capture this orientation, researchers formulated another goalorientation—one that is an apparent opposite of an “achievement goal orientation”—whichwas variously labeled “work-avoidance” and “academic alienation” (Archer, 1994; Meece,Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988; Nicholls et al., 1985; Nolen, 1988)1. The purpose associatedwith this goal is completing the work with as little expenditure of effort as possible or byconning the system. The behavioral pattern associated with work-avoidance goals seemssimilar to that of performance-avoidance goals. Research findings consistently point to anegative pattern of cognition, affect, and behavior for work-avoidance oriented individuals(Archer, 1994, Meece et al., 1988; Nicholls et al., 1985; Nolen, 1988; Skaalvik, 1997).However, the similar behavior of individuals pursuing work-avoidance goals andperformance-avoidance goals stems from different underlying cognitive–affective frame-works. As Archer (1994) notes, “For alienated students, their interests and source of self-esteem lie in areas other than the classroom and so a proclaimed lack of effort is not a hedgeto conceal lack of ability” (p. 432). This assumption is supported by studies that found onlylow correlations between performance-avoidance goals and work-avoidance goals (e.g.,Skaalvik, 1997).

The Assessment of Goal Orientations2

Critical to any systematic examination of a body of research is a thorough consideration ofmethodological issues. As methodologies, like theories, emerge from a particular traditionof thought, and are constrained by certain characteristics, they inevitably relate toassumptions that underlie the empirical investigation of phenomena. Thus, the nature,status and continuing viability of work in goal orientation theory are significantlydependent on the research procedures employed.

Researchers have used various procedures to operationalize goal orientations. Asmentioned above, mastery and performance goal orientations have been treated primarily intwo ways in reported studies. First, they have been treated as state or situated variables thatcan be created or primed by specific experimental manipulations. Second, it is currentlyespecially common to assess the existence of mastery and performance goal orientationswith inventories using Likert type scales. In addition, while hardly prevalent, there are alsoseveral qualitative investigations of goal orientations. These different research procedurescould imply different views on the nature of goal orientations, including differences inassumptions concerning the psychological origins, stability, and situated nature of theseorientations.

1 Work avoidance goals—the goal of doing the work with minimum effort—are sometimes differentiatedfrom academic alienation goals—the goal of getting away with not doing the work (see Pintrich, 2000a).2 This section focuses on personal goal orientations adopted by students. Research concerning achievementgoal structures—the environmental emphases on different goal orientations, and students’ perceptions ofsuch emphases—is not the focus of this review.

146 Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184

Survey Research Procedures

While much of Nicholls’ work was qualitative and constructivist in nature (e.g., Nicholls,1976, 1978, 1992; Nicholls, Patashnik, & Mettetal, 1986), early on he participated in thecreation of a survey measure (Nicholls et al., 1985) that in whole or in part was widely used(e.g., Martin & Debus, 1998; Nicholls, 1989; Nolen, 1988; Nolen & Haladyna, 1990;Thorkildsen, 1988) and provided a basis for other measures (e.g., Meece et al., 1988). In hisapproach, Nicholls assigned a central role to students’ beliefs about success in school asindices of goal orientations. In his measures, all items begin with the stem “I feel mostsuccessful if-” (Nicholls et al., 1985). Archer (1994) followed a similar conceptualization;however, she supplemented it with other stems for her goal orientation measures: “Whendid you feel most successful”; “How satisfied did you feel when you...”; and “When didyou feel greatly satisfied or positive about yourself.”

Other investigators have taken a more direct approach in constructing their measures.Midgley et al., (1998), for example, asked students about their reasons for doing schoolwork;Miller, Behrens, Greene, and Newman (1993) asked college students to respond to items withthe stem of “One of my primary goals”; and Elliot and Church (1997) asked college studentsabout what is important to them, what they are striving for, and what motivates them. All ofthese instruments seem to fit the conceptualization of goal orientations as rather enduringdispositions that students have—at least when it concerns a particular domain or setting,although some of these measures were used ad hoc to refer to a specific task (e.g., Bereby-Meyer & Kaplan, 2005). More importantly, items that ask students to report on their goalswhen engaging in schoolwork may be tapping more on the specific objectives that studentsset for themselves rather than on the overarching purpose that guides this goal-setting (e.g., agoal of achieving deep understanding with the purpose of demonstrating smartness).

Some investigators used a combination of items asking students about cognition, affect,and behavior. Skaalvik (1997), for example, asked students to report on what is important tothem in engaging in academic work, what they are concerned about, what they try to do inclass, what they like, and when they feel successful in school. The construction of goalorientation measures that tap on a combination of aspects resulted sometimes with inclusionof behavioral and affective items, that, in certain studies, were perceived to be outcomesrather than an integral element of goal orientations (e.g., mastery goals orientation items—“I persevere even when I’m frustrated by a task” (Roedel, Schraw, & Plake, 1994); “When Ifail to complete a difficult task, I plan to try harder the next time I work on it” (Button,Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996); an item asking “what the subject would do if experiencing diffi-culty in a sport, namely, ‘find another sport’ or ‘keep trying’ “ (Treasure & Roberts, 1994,p. 608); a performance-avoidance goals orientation item: “I worry about the possibility ofgetting a bad grade in this class” and “I wish this class was not graded” (Elliot & Church,1997). Again, this highlights different assumptions used by researchers concerning what isincluded in the definition of goal orientations.

A recent study (Smith, Duda, Allen, & Hall, 2002) that compared three commonly usedsurvey measures (Elliot & Church, 1997; Midgley et al., 1998; Skaalvik, 1997) generallysupported the convergence of the corresponding scales of mastery, performance-approachand performance-avoidance goals orientations. The study did identify, however, somedifferences among the measures in the content of the performance-avoidance scales, withtwo of the scales (Midgley et al., 1998, Skaalvik, 1997) focusing more on impressionmanagement, and the third (Elliot & Church, 1997) focusing on fear of failure. Table Iprovides a sample of commonly used goal orientation inventories with sample items foreach of the goal orientations they assess.

Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184 147

Self-ReportMeasuresof

GoalOrientatio

Source/Reference

Goalscales

included

ofparticipants

Goalorientationscales

samples

Archer,19

94Mastery;performance

(perform

ance-app

roach);

alienatio

orkavoidance)

College

“Whendidyo

mostsuccessful...”“W

henalectureor

tutorial

youthinkabou

tthings”;”Whenyo

tahigh

ermarkthan

otherstud

ents”;

“whenyo

udidalmostno

workandgo

aywith

it.”

Buttonet

al.,19

96Learning(m

astery);performance

College

studentsand

working

adults

“Iprefer

toworkon

tasksthat

forcemeto

learnnew

things”;

“Ifeel

smartwhenIdo

something

outmakinganymistakes.”

Elliot

andChu

Mastery;performance-approach;

performance-avoidance

College

“Itisim

portantformeto

understand

thecontentof

thiscourse

asthoroughly

ssible”;

“Itisim

portantto

dobetterthan

theotherstud

ents”;

“Myfear

ofperformingpo

inthisclassisoftenwhatmotivates

me.”

Midgley

etal.,19

98:Patterns

ofadaptiv

elearning

survey

(PALS)

Task,ability

(perform

-approach,

ability

(perform

ance)-avoid,

extrinsic

Elementary

andmiddle

school

students

portantreason

myworkisbecauseIlik

learnnew

things”;

“Iwantto

dobetterthan

otherstud

entsin

mymathclass”;“O

mymain

goalsin

mathisto

avoidlook

inglik

eIcan’tdo

mywork”;The

mainreason

myworkisbecausewegetgrades.”

Miller

etal.,19

93:Attitude

towardstatistics

Learning(m

astery),performance

College

students

“One

ofmyprim

thiscourse

owledge”;

“One

ofmyprim

thiscourse

betterthan

others.”

Nicholls

etal.,19

85Task

(mastery),ego(perform

-social,work-avoidance

thgrade

olstud

mostsuccessful

if-:“Som

ething

Ilearnedreally

sense”;

“Ishow

leI’m

smart”/”Iworkwith

friend

s”/”theteacherlik

esmywork”;

“Igetou

work.”

Pintrichet

al.,19

Motivated

strategies

learning

questio

nnaire

(MSLQ)

Intrinsic(m

astery),extrinsic

(perform

ance-approachand

extrinsic)

College

“EvenwhenIdo

poorly

Itryto

learnfrom

mymistakes”;

“Ilik

workon

difficultprob

lemsandtasksto

smartIam

Roedelet

al.,19

94Learning(m

astery),performance

College

students

“Ienjoychalleng

ingschool

assign

ments”;“I

likeothersto

thinkIkn

owalot”

Skaalvik,

Mastery,self-enhancingego

orientation(perform

ance-approach),

self-defeatin

gegoorientation

(perform

ance-avoidance),avoidance

orientation(w

orkavoidance)

Middlescho

olstud

“Atschool

itisim

portantformeto

learnsomething

new”;

Ialwaystryto

dobetterthan

otherstud

entsin

myclass”;“A

olitisim

portantformeto

avoidlook

ingstup

id”;

Atschool

Itryto

aywith

doingas

little

ssible.”

TreasureandRoberts,19

Perceptionof

success

questio

nnaire

(insport)

(mastery);orientation;

(perform

ance)orientation

adolescents

Whatisdoingwellinschool:“Winning

,”“T

ryinghard,”

“Doing

aswellasor

betterthan

others,”“Sho

wingperson

ement.”

uworkhard

atsport:“w

win,”“w

learnnewskills.”

Vandewalle,19

97:Work

domaingoal

orientation

instrument

Learninggoalorientation(m

astery);

proveorientation(perform

approach);avoidorientation

(perform

ance-avo

idance)

College

entsfrom

variou

smajors

“Iam

willingto

selectachallengingworkassign

mentthatI

canlearnalotfrom”;

“Iprefer

toworkon

projectswhere

Icanprovemyability

toothers”;

“Iprefer

toavoidsituations

atworkwhere

Imight

perform

poorly.”

148 Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184

Survey research procedures have served to expand the number of variables that might beassociated with goal orientations—most notably, perhaps, the complex learning processesinvolved in self-regulated learning (e.g., Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Pintrich & Garcia,1991; see Pintrich, 2000a) and processes of general well-being (e.g., Dykman, 1998;Kaplan & Maehr, 1999; Roeser & Eccles, 1998; Roeser et al., 1996). This work has beenand continues to be invaluable. However, there may be a risk in an over-reliance on surveymethods in the development of a theory as seems to have been the case in goal orientationtheory. The use of surveys involves a set of assumptions that seldom are acknowledged(Coyne & Gottlieb, 1996). For example, using scales to operationalize constructs impliesthat the construct has essentially the same meaning to each and every individual. However,this is a questionable assumption, especially as individuals are a product of different socio-cultural backgrounds (cf. Urdan, 2004). McInerney, Roche, McInerney, and Marsh (1997),for example, who conducted cross-cultural research, called specific attention to thisproblem, though their solution was only provisional: using a pooled data set from thevarious cultural groups to create the goal orientation scales. This practice resulted in asimilar statistical structure of item loadings and intercorrelations among goal orientationsacross culturally dissimilar groups. However, McInerney et al., (1997) also noted that, incontrast to the procedure that they used, “it might be appropriate or necessary to test anintact instrument that has been well validated in one cultural setting to determine the extentto which it can be applied intact with other cultural groups” (p. 220).

While survey methodology has contributed immensely to our understanding of thestructure and nature of goal orientations, it likely has also biased researchers and theoristsby its reliance on aggregate reports. Goal orientation theory, which partially emerged fromresearch that investigated the different meanings of achievement in different cultures (e.g.,Maehr & Nicholls, 1980), would benefit at this point from complementing survey methods,and a cross-cultural approach to motivation in different cultural groups, with research thatfocuses on the socio-cultural meaning of action in achievement settings within cultural aswell as other types of groups (e.g., Bempechat & Boulay, 2000; Dowson & McInerney,2001; MacCallum, 2000). In this regard, it is possible to question the practice ofaggregating responses on surveys of students who either come from different socio-culturalbackgrounds, differ in their sex, ethnicity and social class (or for that matter, learn indifferent schools and classrooms, and study different subject matters) in order to create ascale that is supposedly assessing a construct with a clear and coherent meaning. Indeed,from this perspective one may also wonder whether the scales assess the exact sameconstruct among students with different educational histories, perceived ability, and socialstatus; and even among students who differ in their liking of the subject matter and in theiridentification with school and teacher. And obviously, such criticism can be extended to thepractice of attempting to “purify” the associations of constructs with outcomes bystatistically controlling for gender, ethnicity, perceived ability and the like.

Clearly, there is high value to survey investigations; particularly to those that includestudents’ characteristics and background as a factor affecting research results. However, anuncritical over-reliance on surveys and statistical procedures could be misleading and maybe detrimental to the development of the concepts and their interrelationships. Research thatattends to this concern would inevitably have to employ methods that could capture thecomplex meanings of goal orientations in order to establish the generalizable as well as theunique aspects of these orientations in different social groups. Obviously, qualitativemethods come to mind. Yet, there are quantitative methods that can be used that do notshare some of the limitations of factor analytic methods. For example, multidimensionalscaling (MDS) (Davison, 1983; Kruskal & Wish, 1978) and smallest space analysis (SSA)

Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184 149

(Shye, Elizur, & Hoffman, 1994) do not share the bias of factor analysis towards finding thesimplest structure that would explain most of the variance among the items, but ratherexamine the relations of each pair of items. These methods present the aggregate results in aspatial representation that affords a multi-dimensional perspective on the way theparticipants responded to the items. These methods allow viewing the relations amongthe items as a progression rather than as separate categories (cf. Assor & Kaplan, 2001).Moreover, these methods allow exploration of the unique meanings that actions may havefor a particular group of students, as well as the similarities between these meanings andthose of other groups (cf. Schwartz & Ros, 1995).

In addition to issues that can be raised concerning the overuse of surveys, there are otherpossible problems that are associated with the use of surveys in the study of goalorientations. One phenomenon that has been the result of the wide and somewhat scattereddevelopment of survey research procedures is the proliferation of goal orientationconstructs in a manner that is not always theoretically coherent (cf. Lewthwaite & Piparo,1993; but see Grant & Dweck, 2003). For the most part, the goal orientations identifiedoutside of mastery and performance have not been clearly conceptualized or tied toantecedents and consequences. While exploratory work is of high worth, if notcomplemented by theoretical elaboration and research that serves to identify antecedents,its utility is and will remain limited.

Experimental Procedures

A large number of investigators have used experimental designs to elicit goal orientations,and indeed, goal orientation theory emerged to some extent from experimental findings(e.g., Ames, 1984). These experimental manipulations essentially consist of statements thatdescribe the purpose of the task as learning, making progress, and as individual andpersonal growth focused in the mastery condition; or as an opportunity for demonstratingability, and as an evaluative situation in the performance condition. Elliott and Dweck(1988), for example, had participants work on tasks with descriptions that highlighted thevalue of looking competent (performance condition—“although you will not learn newthings, it will really show me what kids can do”) and of increasing competence (masterycondition—“you’ll probably make a bunch of mistakes, get a little confused, maybe feel alittle dumb at times—but eventually you’ll learn some useful things,” p. 7). In addition,under the performance goals condition, participants are sometimes told that theirperformance would be filmed and normatively evaluated. Under the mastery goal condition,participants are told that what they would learn will help them in their studies (see alsoButler, 1993; Bereby-Meyer & Kaplan, 2005). Ames (1984) instructed students to try andbe the winner (competitive/performance goals condition) or to try and solve as manypuzzles as they could, and more puzzles than they had previously (individualized/masterygoals condition). Somewhat differently, Jagacinski and Nicholls (1987) asked students toname activities that they found as task (mastery) or as ego (performance) involving.Students were then asked to imagine that they were engaging in such an activity. Inaddition, half the sample received social comparison information as to others’ success inthis activity thus eliciting performance goals orientation. In spite of such variance in actualwords used and in the manipulations of mastery and performance conditions, there isremarkable convergence in the results surrounding experimentally manipulated mastery andperformance goals orientation conditions as described in the review above. In his meta-analysis, Utman (1997) found that experimental conditions of goal orientations vary interms of the pressure they put on students to do well. Interestingly, he found that the

150 Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184

difference favoring the mastery condition over the performance condition was largest whenthe mastery condition was mildly pressuring and the performance condition was highlypressuring.

More recently, Elliot and Harackiewicz (1996) experimentally elicited four differentconditions: mastery, performance-approach, performance-avoidance, and performance-neutral. In the mastery condition, students were informed that the purpose of the taskwas to “collect data on college students’ reactions” (p. 464) to the task. In the performance-approach condition, students were told that “some students stand out because they do quitewell” (p. 464) and that the task would provide them an opportunity to demonstrate that theywere good. The instructions in the performance-avoidance condition informed students that“some students stand out because they do quite poorly” (p. 464) and that the task wouldprovide them a chance to demonstrate that they were not poor problem solvers. Finally,instructions in the performance-neutral condition told students that the task would providean opportunity to demonstrate their skills. The results from Elliot and Harackiewicz’s studysuggest that further conceptual work is needed to identify the basic nature of performancegoals orientation, and perhaps also of mastery goals orientation. Table II presents a few ofthe experimental manipulations used to induce mastery and performance goal orientationsstates.

Whereas the experimental design has strengths that surveys do not share—for example,its strong indication of the antecedents of goal orientations, and its ability to support causalrelations between goal orientations and outcomes—there are issues emerging also withregard to experiments, and to those targeting goal orientations in particular. Whileexperiments have suggested that there would be greater probability of participants undermastery or performance goals conditions to manifest a certain pattern of cognitions, affectand behavior; this procedure is limited in explaining why not all participants under thiscondition manifest such a pattern of outcomes. Indeed, as some published studies suggest—and one can wonder how many of these have not been published—not all participantsundergoing the treatment indeed seem to adopt the goal orientation implied (e.g., Bergin,1995). Experiments also do not address the issue of divergence of meaning that may beassociated with a certain goal orientation in different groups. The treatment that is meant toelicit the goal orientation is the result of the investigator’s pre-assumptions, and is forced onthe participants. Finally, many (albeit not all) of the experiments associated with goalorientation theory were conducted in laboratories and have rarely considered the relevanceof the experimental conditions to natural settings such as classrooms. Moreover, laboratoryexperiments most often do not include many of the processes that are common mediators inclassrooms and that may have significant effect on goal orientation processes—forexample, the presence and participation of peers in the activity, the familiarity of theacademic tasks, participants’ pre-formed perceptions and emotions towards subject matter,etc. Still, perhaps more than any other methodology, experiments have provided thestrongest support to hypotheses concerning the antecedents and consequences of goalorientations and thus established the importance of the theory to educational practice. In thefinal analysis, of course, educators and other practitioners are ‘intervenors’ and need toknow what one does to effect a certain response.

Qualitative Studies

While hardly dominating the field, a few investigators have employed qualitative methodsin examining goal orientations and related processes. Notable first of all here is the work ofJohn Nicholls and his colleagues (Nicholls & Hazzard, 1993; Nicholls & Thorkildsen,

Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184 151

Experim

entalConditio

nsfortheElicitatio

GoalOrientatio

Source/Reference

andgeneraldescription

Mastery

condition

Perform

condition

Butler(199

3):College

entsweretested

individu

onproblemspresentedon

acomputer.Instructions

included

wingmanipulations:

Analytic

thinking

skillsarean

important

ofmuchof

academ

icactiv

tasksbefore

youprov

opportunity

toapplylogical

problem-solving

skills,to

modify

ineffectivestrategies

necessary;

developandrefine

alstrategies

Academicsuccessdependsin

largeparton

e’sanalyticthinking

tasksbeforeyo

uareavalid

testof

analyticprob

lemsolving,which

includes

ability

tomodifyineffectivestrategies

necessary.University

studentsshould

dowello

Elliot

andHarackiew

icz(199

6):College

entsweretested

individu

onsolvingNinapuzzles.Allparticipants

weretold

thisispartof

gameplayingandpu

solving.

thefollo

wingmanipulations

wereread:

purposeof

thisprojectisto

collect

oncollege

ents’reactio

Whenyouhave

completed...

youwill

beprovided

inform

ationregardingthe

percentage

ofthe...that

youfoun

today’ssession.

Performance-approach:

purposeof

thisprojectisto

compare

college

studentsto

oneanotherin

theirability...

Yourperformance

intoday’ssessionwill

levelo

f...ability.Fo

rinstance,

ifyoufind

more...thanamajority

of...studentsyouwill

demonstrate

youhave

good...ability....W

henyouhave

completed...youwill

beprovided

inform

ationregarding

howyoudidcomparedtoother...students.

Perform

ance-avoidance:T

hepurposeof

thisprojectisto

compare

college

entsto

oneanotherin

theirability...

rperform

intoday’ssessionwill

levelof...ability.For

instance,

fewer...than

amajority

of...studentsyouwill

demonstratethat

youhave

poor...ability....W

henyouhave

completed...youwill

beprovided

inform

ationregardinghow

youdid

comparedto

other...students.

ElliottandDweck(198

8):Fifth

graders

weretested

individu

ally.Allwere

presentedwith

xesandthe

wingdescription:

Inthisbo

xwehave

problemsof

differentlevels.Som

hard,someareeasy.Ifyo

thisbo

x,although

youwon

’tlearnnew

things,it

really

mewhatkids

youpick

thetask

inthisbo

u’ll

learnalotof

things.But

you’llprobably

makeabu

mistakes,

Participants“w

eretold

thelearning

beabighelp

inscho

becauseit‘sharpensthemind’

learning

itwellcouldhelp

ies.”

Participants“w

eretold

theirperformance

beingfilm

edandwou

ativelyevaluatedby

experts.”

152 Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184

getalittle

confused,maybe

alittle

dumbat

times-but

eventually

you’ll

learnsomeuseful

things.

Jagacinski

andNicholls

7):College

entsweretested

ingroups,

however,workedindividu

ofmaterials.

“Studentswereaskedto

nameactiv

usually

foundtask

involving(activities

thatthey

really

enjoyeddoingfortheirow

andlik

theirsparetim

e),”

“After

recordingthenameof

theactiv

ity...

studentswereaskedtobrieflydescribe

enjoyedtheactivity

”.Then,“students

wereaskedto

imaginethatthey

selected

projectin

theirdesignated

ity.”Thiswas

manipulationdescribing

thenew

projectas

demanding

versus

effort,andfor

halfthesample,social

comparativ

einform

ationwas

provided.Fo

rthehigh

effortcondition:“you

discover

people

didnotfind

itchallengingand

needed

muchless

effortthan

youdid”;

forthelow

effortcondition:“other

people

foundthetask

challengingandneeded

muchmoreeffortthan”you.

“Studentswereaskedto

nameactiv

that...(theyfeltitwas

importanttobe

outstandingatandwherethey

wouldfeelterribleifthey

werebelowaverage”,“After

recordingthenameof

theactiv

ity...studentswereaskedto

brieflydescribe...why

importanttothem

outstandingattheactiv

ity”.Then,“studentswereasked

aginethatthey...been

assigned

anewprojectintheirdesign

ity.”This

byamanipulationof

versus

effortconditions.Thiswas

byamanipulationof

versus

effortcond

itions,andforhalfthe

sample,

social

comparativ

einform

ationwas

provided.For

thehigh

effort

ition:

“you

discov

erthat

otherpeop

ledidno

itchalleng

ingandneeded

effortthan

youdid”;forthelow

effortcondition:“other

lefoun

dthetask

challeng

ingandneeded

muchmoreeffortthan”yo

Graham

andGolan

(1991):Fifthandsixth

gradestudentsweretested

individually.

Childrenwereinform

edthatthey

ontwoactivities:asetof

puzzlesandawork

gameon

thecomputer.Allchildrenwere

inform

edthat“how

studentsdo

onthepuzzles

ussomething

abouthow

probably

thecomputergame”.After

working

for1minuteon

apracticepuzzle,the

experim

entalmanipulations

wereintro

duced:

“Manypeople

makemistakeson

puzzlesin

thebeginn

tgetbetteras

goalon

g.Whenpeople

seethe

puzzlesas

achallenge,

itmakes

harder

andhave

morefunalongtheway.

ityisalotlik

ethison

ujustconcentrateon

thetask,tryto

seeitas

achallengeandenjoymastering

probably

getbetteras

goalon

“From

udidon

zzles,Ihave

apretty

uareat

thistype

zzle-solving

comparedtootherk

urage.The

nextactiv

ityisalot

likethison

thatpeop

leareeithergo

odattheseactiv

comparedto

otherkids

theirageor

t.Soho

tellmesomething

abouth

uareatthiskind

oftask.”

Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184 153

1995) who used ethnographic and qualitative interviewing methods to investigate purposesand meanings of achievement tasks and settings. In one such project (Nicholls & Hazzard,1993), Nicholls collaborated with a second-grade teacher in a year-long ethnographic studyof her classroom. Observing, engaging in discussions with students, and recording students’negotiations with the teacher and among themselves, Nicholls and Hazzard documented theprocesses that are involved in the construction of meaning and purpose of activities andsettings.

Several researchers used different types of interviews to tap students’ goal orientations.MacCallum (2000), for example, conducted in-depth interviews with ten students in the lastyear of primary school (seventh grade) and again in the first year of secondary school(eighth grade) about their goal orientations and beliefs about the causes of motivationalchange. Levy et al., (2004) conducted individual semi-structured interviews in which theyasked fifty fifth-grade students to respond to questions concerning subjects the studentsliked and disliked and subjects in which students felt that they were good at and not goodat. For each question, students were asked to explain their answers and to provide a specificevent that exemplified their answer. Lemos (1996) made repeated sampling of students inone classroom in different situations with different teachers. She conducted two sets ofsemi-structured interviews with students, one that focused on their general goal orientationsin school, and one that employed videotaped scenes from lessons in six subject matter areasand asked about goal orientations in these activities. Lemos also interviewed the teachers asto their goals for the students and sought convergence and divergence between teachers’and students’ reported goals. Dowson and McInerney (1997, 2001) used conversational,semi-structured, and structured interviews that were administered hierarchically. Theconversations were highly open-ended and flexible and began with very general questionssuch as: “what’s it like to be motivated in school?” (p. 6). Inductive content analysis on theconversation data provided categories to be explored with the same, as well as with new,participants in the semi-structured and later in the structured interviews. The semi-structured interviews were used to explore further the categories generated from theconversations as well as from idiosyncratic responses. The structured interviews were usedto test specific hypotheses; in particular, the distinctiveness of the categories.

Lee and Anderson (1993) used a combination of instruments. They prompted studentsby asking open-ended questions about their reasons for studying science. They then gavethe students goal orientation rating scales (modified versions of Nicholls et al., 1985) onwhich students had to rate their endorsement of task (mastery), ego (performance), andwork-avoidance goals. Finally, students were asked to explain in their own words the threemost salient goals they chose. Another study that combined methods involved askingparticipants who were administered surveys in a large study to respond freely in writing to aquestion concerning their personal goals (Harackiewicz et al., 1997). Most answersincluded single line responses and some included more than one type of goal.

Several of these studies exemplify the possible benefit of complementing quantitativemethods with qualitative methods. For example, it was mainly qualitative methods thathighlighted the existence of goal orientations other than mastery and performance goals(e.g., Maehr & Braskamp, 1986; Dowson & McInerney, 2001). In addition, qualitativestudies identified nuances in the manifestation of goal orientations among students withinspecific contexts, emphasizing the situated nature of the meaning-construction processesthat contribute to the elicitation of these orientations (e.g., MacCallum, 2000; Lemos,1996). Finally, qualitative methods provide an opportunity to clarify puzzling findings thatseem to contradict hypotheses by revealing the phenomenological processes that are relatedto adoption of different goal orientations (e.g., Levy et al., 2004).

154 Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184

It is clear that goal orientation theory would benefit from diverse methodologies such asopen and structured observations, talk-aloud protocols, conversation analysis, life history,and ethnography. Each methodology could further our understanding on different aspects ofthe origins, development and change, and nature of goal orientations. It is desirable that theliterature reflects the use of different procedures. What should be avoided, however, is lackof critique concerning what different procedures inevitably bring in the way of defining andutilizing the constructs.

Differences in selection of procedure may at times represent a conscious choice thatreflects a theoretical perspective on the nature and definition of goal orientations. In somecases, however, it appears that choice of procedures is driven by other factors, such asconvenience. However made, the selection of instruments and procedures not onlyinfluences the nature of the data obtained, but also guides the interpretation of results andtherewith shapes the definition of concepts. Thus, the use of the TAT in early research onachievement motivation was integral to the conception of motivation as an unconsciousprocess (see McClelland, 1961). Similarly, the current use of survey research procedures isa likely product of the emergence of social-cognitive perspectives on motivation thatassume that people can access, think about, and express their motives (e.g., Maehr &Braskamp, 1986). The potential success and usefulness of goal orientation theory foreducation depends on the perspective concerning the nature of goal orientations—perspective that cannot be detached from the procedures used to operationalize the concept.As we continue to discuss the possible perspectives that theorists and researchers mayassume with regard to goal orientation theory later on in the article, the benefits of usingdifferent types of qualitative methods become clear.

The Nature of “Goal Orientations”

The portrayal of the current research and methods used in goal orientation theory prompts aseries of questions. Certainly a question at the top of the list would have to be—what “is” agoal orientation? (cf. Elliot, 2005). When viewing goal orientations as situated meanings,differences in conceiving the nature of goal orientations are inextricably related to theprocesses and factors that are assumed to be involved in the construction of thesecognitive–affective frames: are these processes mostly elements in the socio-culturalcontext, characteristics of a specific situation, or more enduring individual differences? Theanswers have implications for understanding the construction and change of goalorientations over time, for example, in the course of the life cycle of the individual aswell as in the course of engaging in a task.

Goal orientations are self-evidently thought of as part and parcel of the cognitive life ofthe individual. Arguably, most current research in goal orientation theory can be said to bebased in one of two perspectives on the nature of goal orientations: goal orientations asemerging from schemas of achievement situations and goal orientations as based inachievement-related self-schemas. Viewing goal orientations as emerging from schemasimplies two primary facets. First, there is a concept of purpose that is activated in responseto a set of circumstances. Second, there is a script that guides action (Abelson, 1981).Broadly, this implies that goal orientations are frameworks for filtering information,constructing and appraising the nature of the situation, creating meaning, and guidingaction. In the following sections we elaborate on the research that supports or complicatesthese perspectives, particularly as it relates to the emergence of goal orientations and theirchange over time. We follow the detailed review of these two perspectives by more briefly

Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184 155

considering four other possible perspectives on the foundation of goal orientations that areassociated with different ways of studying and interpreting motivational phenomena. Thethird perspective does not diverge radically from the first two, but rather suggests that apossible parsimonious framework for goal orientation theory would be to view goals asoriginating from differences in self-awareness or self-focus that may be related tosituational cues. The fourth perspective explores the possibility that goal orientations arebased in psychological needs. The fifth examines the relations between goal orientationsand values. And the sixth proposes a view of goal orientations as emerging from a situatedprocess of meaning-construction.

Goal Orientations as Based in Situation-Schemas

One important perspective in goal orientation theory suggests that goal orientations may bedefined as purpose-schemas that are associated with certain achievement situations orcontexts. Arguably, one of the more attractive features of goal orientation theory is thefinding that individuals adopt different goal orientations depending upon certain contextualconditions (i.e., in experiments or interventions). This notion led to research that focused onhow perceptions of purpose in context are associated with the adoption of goal orientationsand scripted behavior. The primary hypothesis in this line of work is that individualsperceive cues in the environment that highlight the salience of one goal orientation oranother, which in turn, guides thoughts, feelings and behavior in accord with thisorientation. Several lines of research provide support for this view. They concern, first, theability of people to perceive situations in purposive terms; second, the relations of suchperceptions to adoption of corresponding goal orientations; and third, the relations of theseperceptions to scripted behavior that is associated with the corresponding goal orientations.

Several studies suggest that people indeed perceive achievement situations according toa prototype or schema (e.g., Cantor, Mischel, & Schwartz, 1982). Other research suggeststhat even young students are aware of and recognize different prototypical situations andtheir associated appropriate behavior (e.g., Thorkildsen, 1989), and evaluate practicesaccording to the perceived “goals of situations and the particular type of social goods atstake” (p. 861). Incidentally, one perspective of goal orientations was developed, in part, byasking individuals to “think back on times in which they were successful” at work anddescribe the features of those times and the reasons for the happiness (Maehr & Braskamp,1986). All this suggests that individuals acquire and hold in memory certain purposeschemas that are derived from experiences and that have become prototypical. Thesesituation prototypes have a purpose component that is crucial and they appear to operatefairly much as a schema, as defined, for example, within connectionist theory (e.g., Hinton,1989; cf. Cantor et al., 1982).

A fair number of studies have proceeded to investigate directly the perceptions thatindividuals have of achievement settings (largely in mastery and performance goals terms),and to relate these to the goal orientations that individuals report that they adopt as well asto achievement behavior they exhibit. Most of these studies employed surveys askingparticipants to report on the level of perceived emphasis on mastery and performance goalsin the achievement setting. The authors then drew conclusions on the basis of regressionand path analytical procedures. The general findings of these studies are that perceivedemphasis on mastery goals in the learning environment is associated with students’adoption of mastery goals (Roeser et al., 1996), use of effective learning and copingstrategies (Ames & Archer, 1988; Kaplan & Maehr, 1999), preference for challenging tasks,attribution of success to effort and strategy use (Ames & Archer, 1988), and positive

156 Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184

emotions towards the school and the class (Ames & Archer, 1988; Kaplan & Maehr, 1999;Kaplan & Midgley, 1999). Such perceptions were also found to be negatively associatedwith disruptive behavior (Kaplan & Maehr, 1999).

In contrast, students who perceived the learning environment as emphasizingperformance goals were likely to adopt performance goals (Roeser et al., 1996). Theywere also likely to attribute failure to lack of ability and to task difficulty (Ames & Archer,1988), to use projective and denial coping strategies (Kaplan & Midgley, 1999), and toreport cheating (Anderman et al., 1998), higher rate of disruptive behavior (Kaplan, Gheen,& Midgley, 2002a; Kaplan & Maehr, 1999) self-handicapping strategies (Urdan, Midgley,& Anderman, 1998), and negative emotions towards the class and school (see Ames &Archer, 1988; Kaplan & Maehr, 1999; Kaplan & Midgley, 1999).

Generally, these findings support two conclusions. First, even at an early age, individualsrecognize differential emphases on purpose within achievement settings. Second, theseperceptions are associated with distinctly different behavior patterns. In short, perceptionsof the context seem to be followed by scripted behavior. Most of this research has beendone with school children and referenced to the classroom, and sometimes to the school asa whole. However, results of other studies indicate a similar prevalence of such perceptionsand of domain and contextual goal emphases in other areas, such as sports (e.g., Biddleet al., 1995; Duda & Nicholls, 1992) and work settings (Button et al., 1996; DeShon &Gillespie, 2005; Maehr & Braskamp, 1986).

The Emergence of Achievement Situation Schemas

The emergence of purpose schemas of achievement situations or contexts can be viewed asresulting from levels of embedded contexts: the larger culture, schools and classrooms, andspecific situations. Schemas concerning achievement situations are likely affected bynotions of achievement that are prevalent in the culture at large (Maehr & Nicholls, 1980).For example, Fyans, Salili, Maehr, and Desai (1983) used a semantic differential procedurewith adolescent males of 30 different language groups and identified quite differentmeanings of achievement among these groups. Two main meanings differed, for example,in regard to their emphasis on independence versus tradition and in the valence of affectthat was associated with competition. These cultural schemas for achievement may inducedifferential perceptions, affect, and behavior in achievement settings and thus affectindividuals’ construction of purpose in those settings.

Whereas cultures provide a broad setting for the construction of achievement-situationschemas, specific environments embedded in the cultures could provide more proximalsettings for these constructions. Indeed, an important line of theory and research in goalorientation theory has been concerned with what features of the achievement contexts andsituations prompt the emergence of or perceived emphasis on goal orientations. This ofcourse is not only of theoretical interest but has practical importance if one wishes toconsider interventions to enhance one or another motivational orientation in a particularachievement setting.

Meece (1991) conducted ad hoc observations in achievement settings that were found tobe associated with certain goal orientations more than others. She found that mastery goalsorientation was facilitated in classrooms where teachers promote meaningful learningthrough facilitating active participation, involvement, independence as well as collaborationof students; making material relevant and interesting to students, and expecting students tounderstand and make sense of the material. In these classrooms, teachers provided supportfor complex and challenging tasks, and did not use grades or extrinsic incentives to

Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184 157

motivate students. In contrast, classes that facilitated performance goals orientation werethose in which evaluation was very salient and grades emphasized, rote learning morecommon than “meaningful” learning, and student autonomy limited (see also Perry, 1998).

Other researchers concerned with achievement in school settings have focused moresystematically on elements of the setting that may prompt the adoption of one or anothergoal orientation. Following Epstein’s (1989) taxonomy of critical features of school settings(TARGET), researchers (Ames, 1992b; Maehr & Midgley, 1991) have considered cuesstemming from the nature of the task, the autonomy given in acting, what recognition isgiven for, grouping and evaluation procedures and the factor of time allocated for doing thetask. Table III presents practices in these features of context that could promote emphasison mastery and performance goals orientation. These categories arose out of a variety ofstudies, largely experimental in nature, on the effects of achievement conditions onmotivation, learning, and performance. What is perhaps more current is the conclusion thatthese various TARGET variables really serve together as cues to trigger a comprehensivemastery or performance goal orientation (e.g., Ames, 1990, 1992b; Maehr & Midgley,1996). That is, in some sense, this work may be viewed as breaking down the cues for theevocation of prototypes into certain elemental properties of contexts.

However, while there is some evidence that these elements lead to different goalorientations, little is known about their relative contributions within any given type ofcontext. For example, do social comparative evaluations have greater effect than the natureof the task—and do these vary with age and type of setting (school, playground, work)?Moreover, some research (Patrick, Anderman, Ryan, Edelin, & Midgley, 2001) suggeststhat in addition to the TARGET categories, the affective-social character of the classroomthat manifests in the interpersonal relationships and mutual respect between teacher andstudents may be important elements that influence the perceived purpose of action in thesituation (see Anderman, Patrick, Hruda, & Linnenbrink, 2002b; Patrick, 2004). Thesefeatures suggest that there is much to be learned about the characteristics of achievementcontexts that elicit different purpose schemas.

A third level of setting, in which achievement-situation schemas are constructed, is thesocial interaction around the purpose of specific achievement tasks. In an ethnographicstudy conducted in a second grade, Nicholls and Hazzard (1993) presented data supportingthe process by which students construe the meaning of tests. This construction took placemainly through negotiation with the teacher and with peers. Nicholls and Hazzard reported,for example, on how the meaning of test situations was introduced by the teacher whoexplained the purpose of and the appropriate behavior in tests, and how tests are differentfrom other situations in the classroom. Nicholls and Hazzard concluded that “Thedefinitions of different types of classroom situations are negotiated and renegotiated as[the teacher] and the children try to decide what this classroom is for” (pp. 45–46).

In a contrasting example, Chouliaraki (1996) noted the ways by which discourse andteacher’s instruction function as covert regulative mechanisms of students’ behavior,learning, and understanding of the purpose of activities. In a case study of a child-centeredclassroom—a context that is, supposedly, dedicated to the acknowledgment and support ofunique individual students’ ways of learning—Chouliaraki noted the body-positioning,“‘rules of use’ of pupils’ official documents” (p. 111), and other “specific ‘musts’ ofmovement and behavior” (p. 112) that the teacher required from students so that they willbe able to “listen” more effectively. Regulating students’ behavior in such a way is likely tosocialize students to construe achievement as oriented to adult’s criteria rather than towardspersonal understanding, and thus facilitate situation schemas that would give rise to somerather than other goal orientations.

158 Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184

The specific processes by which teachers, classrooms, and schools send messagesconcerning the purpose of achievement situations have been only minimally investigated(for exceptions see Kaplan & Gadasi, 2003; Patrick et al., 2001; Urdan, Kneisel, & Mason,1999). Interestingly, what little research has been conducted suggests that teacher practicesdo not necessarily send a unitary and clear message about the purpose of achievement aswould be predicted by experimental research. Much more research is needed that wouldtarget the saliency of different teacher practices and their link to perceived emphases of goal

Table III Aspects of the Setting that Influence Goal Orientations (TARGET)

Domain ofenvironment

Issue Enhancing mastery goals Enhancing performance goals

Task What is the person asked todo? What is the product, theparticipation structure, andthe demands of the task?How meaningful is the taskto the person?

The person is asked to engagein a personally meaningfuland challenging task with aflexible participationstructure that produces aproduct that is useable or hasmeaning. Tasks are differentfor different people in thesetting.

The person is asked to engagein an overly easy task thatinvolves a rote activity or inan overly difficult task with astrict participation structureand a product that is mainlytargeted for evaluation. Tasksare similar to all people in thesetting.

Authority Does the person has theauthority to decide how andwhen to perform the task?Can regulations and rules bechanged? Who participate indecision-making and in whatway?

The person participates indecision-making concerningregulations that affect heractions and has authority todecide about means andstrategies for engaging in thetask.

The person has to abide byexternally enforcedregulations and has noauthority in choosingalternatives to the wayprescribed for performing thetask.

Recognition What outcomes and behaviorsare attended to andrecognized?

Behaviors that are recognizedinclude: extending effort,taking risks, being creative,sharing ideas, learning frommistakes. Recognition isdone privately.

Behaviors that are recognizedinclude: excelling with littleeffort, not making mistakes,abiding by externallyenforced rules andregulations. Recognition isdone publicly.

Grouping What are the criteria by whichpeople are grouped? Whatare the norms and regulationsof group-members’interaction?

Criteria for grouping include:domain of interest, differencesamong members that wouldfacilitate learning, interactionand sharing within andbetween groups encouraged.

Criteria for grouping include:level of ability, performance,social status. Interactionbetween members is limited,competition between groups.

Evaluation What does the taskassessment imply about thetask objectives? How isevaluation done?

People are evaluated forprogress, creativity, andmastery of skills. Evaluationis conducted privately.

People are evaluated forcompletion and in comparisonto others. Evaluation ispublic.

Time How is time managed? Howflexible is the schedule?What message is sent withtime limits?

Time is flexible, people canwork in their own pace,schedule is changed toaccommodate task and peopledemands with a focuson learning.

Time is inflexible, time limitsare posed, people are requiredto perform under timepressure, schedule overrunscompletion andunderstanding.

Constructed based on sources that include Ames, 1990; Epstein, 1989; and Maehr and Midgley, 1996

Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184 159

orientations (Turner & Meyer, 1999) as well as the moderating processes in theseperceptions (Urdan, 2001). Such research should use a variety of methods that aim atcapturing the meaning of norms, rules, and actions in context. Hare’, Clarke, and De Carlo(1985), for example, emphasize the benefits of using the repertory grid analysis (see Shaw,1980) for uncovering the system of norms and rules that underlies the meaning of practice.Other methods that could be used include different types of observations and discourseanalysis (e.g., Turner et al., 1998).

The Stability of Achievement Situation Schemas

Several longitudinal studies have focused especially on changes in goal orientations andachievement related behavior as a function of change in context; for example, transitionsfrom a lower to upper level school. Anderman and Midgley (1997), for example, studiedgoal orientations across the transition from elementary to middle school and found thatwhereas both mastery and performance goals orientations were moderately stable, studentsperceived a greater emphasis on performance goals in middle school than in elementaryschool and were more mastery-oriented in elementary school than in middle school. Kaplanand Midgley (1999) found that the stability of students’ perceived emphasis on goalorientations was stronger within an academic year than across a transition betweenelementary school and middle school.

Within environments, Nolen and Haladyna (1990) found that mastery goal orientation ofhigh-school students at the beginning of the school year was moderately related to mastery goalorientation at the end of the year. The relation was both direct and through perceived teachers’goals, leading the researchers to conclude that dispositions as well as teachers’ instructionalstrategies were at play in influencing the change and the stability of these goal orientations.Wolters et al., (1996) also found moderate to high stability for both mastery and performancegoals orientations within the same academic year and in three different subject matter areas(cf. De Groot, 1997). A relevant finding in this regard is that teachers’ practices seem to berelatively stable across the school year (Patrick et al., 2001). These findings with questionnairesin real life achievement settings converge with results of the experimental manipulations in thelaboratory that were reviewed earlier to support a schema-script paradigm that emphasizes therole of schemas of achievement situations in students’ goal orientations.

However, there are quite a few issues that are still unanswered with regard to the view ofgoal orientations as based in situation schemas. One issue, for example, is the seemingevidence that people’s perceptions of situations may be very complex. For example, peopleare aware of purposes of achievement that are different from what their culture, gender, age-group or teachers emphasize (e.g., Salili, 1994). It may be that situation schemas do notlead directly to the emergence of certain goal orientations. D’Andrade (1990) noted, forexample, that whereas the culture (or context) provides “packages” of cognition andbehavior, there is always selection among packages at the individual level (cf. Strauss,1992). There is also evidence that individuals do not always conform to the purposes thatthey perceive as emphasized in the context. For example, the correlations betweenperceived emphasis on mastery and performance goals and the goal orientations thatstudents report pursuing is usually only moderate in size (e.g., Kaplan & Maehr, 1999;Roeser et al., 1996). Therefore it may be necessary to consider the possibility that goalorientations are not only the manifestation of contextual or situational characteristics andtheir representations in students’ perceptions but also involve additional processes.

A second issue concerns what Maehr (1984) termed the “action possibilities” componentof goal orientations. In as much as achievement motivation is concerned with people’s

160 Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184

behavior, people do not behave similarly across situations—even when they have similarunderstandings of the purpose of the situation and of action. Students in the classroom maydiffer in the repertoire of behaviors that they are familiar with, feel comfortable with, orperceive as optional in the situation. For example, investigators interested in self-handicapping strategies suggest that whereas some students may procrastinate or goof-offin order to provide excuses other than low ability for failure, other students may choosedifferent, more “acceptable” strategies such as setting unattainable goals, or taking-on toomany commitments (Covington, 1992). The “action possibilities” component of goalorientation theory has not been investigated enough and maintains an open domain forinquiry. However, it clearly suggests that in conceptualizing goal orientations, situationschemas may not be enough to provide a comprehensive description of the purpose–scriptrelations. For this, some aspects of the individual should be taken into account.

Goal Orientations as Based in Self-Schemas

One particularly influential schema that has obvious implications to achievementmotivation broadly and to goal orientations specifically is self-schema (Garcia & Pintrich,1994). This multi-faceted dynamic cognitive–affective system of beliefs that individualshave about themselves (Markus & Wurf, 1987) has been related in more than one way togoal orientations. The primary hypothesis pursued in this regard is that individuals hold acertain cognitive–affective concept about themselves, which is activated in a particularsituation, gives rise to self-related goal orientations and manifests itself in related thoughts,feelings and behavior.

One of the main perspectives in goal orientation theory highlights differences in specificself-schemas as providing foundation for different goal orientations. Carol Dweck and hercolleagues (Dweck, 1986, 1989, 1992, 1999; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Dweck, Chiu, &Hong, 1995a; Dweck et al., 1995b) contended that goal orientations originate fromindividuals’ theories of the nature of intelligence. Dweck’s research suggests that thedetermining factor in the construction of either learning (mastery) goals or performancegoals, is the belief that intelligence is malleable (an “incremental” theory of intelligence) oris a fixed trait (an “entity” theory), respectively. Whereas these theories of intelligence maybe generalized beyond the self (see Dweck, 1999), it is when thinking of their ownintelligence in a particular domain as malleable or as fixed that individuals are assumed toadopt the orientation towards increasing it or demonstrating it: the schema or theory ofintelligence as malleable gives rise to mastery goals orientation in the activity, and seems toactivate a script that involves an adaptive pattern of coping; the theory of intelligence as afixed entity gives rise to performance goals orientation for the activity. When combinedwith high confidence in ability, it activates an adaptive pattern of coping. When combinedwith low confidence in ability, it activates a maladaptive pattern of coping. This perspectivehas received considerable support from survey studies that related people’s dispositionaltheories of intelligence to goal orientations and to patterns of coping, as well as fromexperimental research in which theories of intelligence were manipulated and resulted in theadoption of different goal orientations and patterns of coping (for reviews see Dweck, 1999;Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Dweck et al., 1995a). A recent study (Cury et al., 2006),employing both experimental and survey methodology, found strong support to therelations between entity theory and performance-approach and performance-avoidancegoals, and between incremental theory and mastery-approach and mastery-avoidance goals.These relations were found to be independent of the relations of perceived competence onachievement goals–relations that supported the role of perceived competence in the valence

Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184 161

of the achievement goals (approach–avoidance) but not in the type of orientation (mastery-performance).

A different approach to goal orientations that also relies on aspects of the self-schemasuggests that goal orientations emerge from attention to different conceptions of ability(Nicholls, 1984). Nicholls (1984, 1990) argued that with development, individuals come toconstrue ability differently. While young children conceive of ability as undifferentiatedfrom effort, in later childhood, children come to understand that ability is differentiatedfrom effort, and moreover, may be inversely related to the effort that one has to exert inorder to succeed in a task3.When using the undifferentiated conception of ability, thestudent is likely to focus on the task and be task-involved (mastery-oriented). When usingthe differentiated conception of ability, the student is likely to see ability as a capacity thatis evaluated in comparison to others, and to become ego-involved (performance-oriented)and concerned with the consequences of action as it may lead to the demonstration ofability and therefore to self-worth4 (cf. Covington, 1992).

Nicholls (1989) suggested that not all children who acquired the differentiatedconception of ability as capacity will necessarily adopt performance goals orientation inthe situation. He argued that characteristics in the immediate situation direct students’ focusto the evaluation of ability, thus encouraging them to use the differentiated conception andadopt ego (performance) goals. Alternatively, the situation may guide students’ attention tothe task, encouraging them to use the undifferentiated conception of ability and adopt task(mastery) goals. The characteristics that would guide students’ attention and affect themeaning and purpose that the students construct in the situation include the specific task,the setting (e.g., a particular assignment in a certain subject), and the social context (e.g.,Nicholls, 1992; Silva & Nicholls, 1993; Thorkildsen & Nicholls, 1991). Thus, whereasNicholls’ perspective views goal orientations as based in different conceptions or schemasof ability, it seems to go beyond a mere focus on self-schema. We discuss this extensionfrom self-schemas to the environment in the section presenting a view of goal orientation asa socially situated meaning-construction process.

Other perspectives on the self-schema may also suggest that different self-schemas couldgive rise to different goal orientations. For example, people’s possible selves—representations of future selves that the person wants to become and is afraid of becoming(see Markus & Nurius, 1986)—may guide students to adopt certain goal orientations ratherthan others. Such an influence may depend, for example, on whether the self that isactivated is desired, thus leading to an approach orientation; or undesired, leading to anavoidance orientation (Markus & Nurius, 1986; Markus & Ruvolo, 1989). Moreover, apossible self of a knowledgeable person may guide a student to adopt mastery goalsorientation whereas a possible self of an admired person may guide the adoption ofperformance goals orientation. In one study, Anderman, Anderman, and Griesinger (1999)found that perceptions of self as a “good student” predicted reports of adopting masterygoals as well as performance-approach goals. A future possible self of a “good student”predicted performance-approach goals—perhaps because the “good student” possible self

4 The association of performance goals with a sense of contingent self-worth is seen somewhat differently bydifferent researchers. For Nicholls (1984) it is an inherent characteristic of performance goals (see also Ames,1992a). Dweck (1999) does not define performance goals in such terms, but also suggests that these goalsand entity theories of intelligence are strongly related to contingent self-worth.

3 See Nicholls (1990) for his position on the differences between his view of conceptions of ability andDweck’s view of theories of intelligence.

162 Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184

in this study included statements such as “interested in my schoolwork” as well asstatements such as “doing better than other students.”

The distinction between the “private” self and the “public” self (Carver & Scheier, 1981)also has been suggested to relate to mastery and performance goal orientations (Nicholls,1984). A focus on the private self might be understood as a concern with self-references orstandards that may lead to self-improvement and development of private attributes such ascompetence. A focus on the public self and the concern with others’ perceptions mayhighlight normative standards and lead to an orientation towards favorable judgments byothers (see e.g., Martin & Debus, 1998). In support for these suggestions, the concern withprivate versus public aspects of the self have been related to certain scripts of behavior andaffect that could be thought of as parallel to those associated with mastery and performancegoals (Carver & Scheier, 1981). Furthermore, some studies that elicited the public self andperformance goals experimentally used similar procedures (e.g., Elliott & Dweck, 1988).However, despite early references that relate the private/public self-literature with goalorientations, and a couple of later studies, such work is scarce and requires more extensiveconceptualization as well as empirical investigation.

The Emergence of Achievement Self-Schemas

Nicholls’ (1984) perspective suggests that one factor in considering the emergence of goalorientations from the self-schema perspective is a clear developmental one. The normativedevelopment of different conceptions of ability should result in appearance of more variedgoal orientations among older children in comparison to younger children. However,according to Nicholls (1989, 1992), this developmental trajectory is not necessarily thedetermining factor in the dispositions towards task (mastery) goals versus ego (perfor-mance) goals. Rather, the culture and, more so, the person’s experience are more likely tohave an effect on the prevalence, perhaps the age of transition, and maybe even the exactcharacter, of different conceptions of ability.

The development of theories of intelligence as malleable or as fixed (Dweck, 1999) andof dispositions to public versus private self-consciousness (e.g., Fenigstein, Scheier, &Buss, 1975; Nicholls, 1989) is embedded in cultural practices, but also varies greatly withincultures. When considered as enduring personality dispositions, both mastery andperformance goal orientations can be thought of as developing within the proximalenvironments of the individual. In investigating the development of theories of intelligence,Dweck and her colleagues considered the obvious possibility that parents and the homeenvironment might play an important role in these self-schemas and therefore in thetendency to adopt mastery versus performance goal orientations. In a series of studies,Dweck and her colleagues (Cain & Dweck, 1995; Heyman, Dweck, & Cain, 1992; Smiley& Dweck, 1994) have identified mastery and performance goal orientations in children asyoung as preschoolers. The work stemming from this research program suggests that asocialization process, in which adults (parents and teachers) focus more on evaluation or onlearning, predisposes children to adopt an entity or incremental theory of their “goodness”and “badness” (Cain & Dweck, 1995; Heyman et al., 1992; see also Hokoda & Fincham,1995; see Burhans & Dweck, 1995 for a review). Burhans and Dweck (1995) suggestedthat a parental evaluative focus may contribute to the child constructing a perception of self“as object of judgment with contingent worth” with traits such as goodness and badness“viewed as static entities” (p. 1722). These early theories are later differentiated intospecific domains and provide precursors for the development of entity and incrementaltheories of intelligence and of goal orientations (Dweck et al., 1995a).

Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184 163

Stability and Change of Achievement Self-Schemas

The focus on self-cognitions suggests that these are enduring individual structures, andtherefore, that they may be conceived of as quite stable dispositions for the adoption ofcertain goal orientations. While theories of intelligence are considered to be relativelystable, Dweck (1999) emphasized the possibility of manipulating these beliefs. Whereasalmost no research has as of yet investigated the “natural” change of these beliefs, and thechange of goal orientations as a consequence, experimental studies strongly suggest thatstudents can be persuaded to change their theory of intelligence and thus to adopt adifferent goal orientation, at least temporarily. Nicholls’ (1990) emphasis on thedevelopmental origins of conceptions of ability suggests that there is a readiness phasefor employing different conceptions of ability. However, Nicholls also strongly emphasizedthe role of the experienced environments on the employment of different conceptions ofability and on goal orientation adoption. Similarly, concern with private or public self hasbeen conceived as a disposition as well as an induced state, and orientations to public andprivate aspects of the self have been manipulated quite easily by the use of mirrors,cameras, and audiences (Carver & Scheier, 1981 for a review). Indeed, even socio-culturalself-construals have been found to be domain and situation dependent (e.g., Kurman &Sriram, 1997; Yik, Bond, & Paulhus, 1998). Manifestations of interdependent character-istics of the self among East Asians, for example, are common as long as the group towhich they refer are members of their in-group. When the other individuals in theachievement context are from an out-group, individuals from collective societies are likelyto display typical “individualistic” attitudes and orientations.

These characteristics of the self-schema suggest the possibility that, whereas individualsmay indeed have a disposition to a certain goal orientation, they have in their repertoire thevarious schemas (e.g., public and private aspects of self; differentiated and undifferentiatedconceptions of ability; entity and incremental theories of intelligence) that would make itpossible for them to adopt any goal orientation, and it is rather the situated attention to acertain aspect of the self-schema that is the significant defining characteristic elicitingdifferent goal orientations.

Whereas many goal orientation theorists implicitly or explicitly adopt a schema-scriptmodel for goal orientations, seldom have theory and research gone beyond generalstatements (e.g., Ames, 1992a; Elliott & Dweck, 1988), and little attention has been givento the nature of cognition and to current models of cognitive processes. Alternative modelsthat describe processes of schema-construction and operation, such as components,production lines, connections, and activation patterns could provide testable hypothesesfor interesting questions that should concern goal orientation theorists, such as the stabilityof goal orientations, the conditions upon which they would be likely to change, and thecognitive operation of pursuing multiple goal orientations. More dynamic cognitive modelssuch as those emphasizing connections (e.g., Longuet-Higgins, 1989), with their conceptionof the activation of schema as a process in which the schema is reconstructed rather thanaccessed (Smith, 1996), would better account for situated changes in goal orientations (cf.Hinton, 1989). In contrast, more stable models such as production lines (Anderson, 1983)may account better for the stability of orientations and the relations of mastery andperformance goal orientations with certain behavioral scripts (for discussion see Holyoak &Spellman, 1993). Recently, Pintrich (2000b) highlighted the promise of connectionistmodels, particularly parallel distributed processing (PDP, see Rumelhart & McClelland,1986), in explicating the cognitive processes that operate under mastery and performancegoal orientations. No research has been undertaken yet to examine these alternative models.

164 Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184

Alternative Perspectives on Goal Orientations

Whereas most of the research and theory conducted in the framework of goal orientationtheory could be fitted in the schema-script paradigm, other metaphors are available aspossible concepts to define and explain the phenomena of goal orientations. We turn toexamine the possible connections between some of these metaphors and theory andresearch on goal orientations.

Goal Orientations as Differential Self Primes

A possible alternative to the schema-script paradigm that implicitly or explicitly seems toframe most of the goal orientation theory research to date is what we will term a “self-awareness” paradigm (cf. Baumeister, Hutton, & Cairns, 1990; Carver & Scheier, 1981). Theterminology of goal orientation theory—particularly those terms that concern the ego (e.g.,Nicholls, 1989)—may raise the possibility that what is at stake here is not so much aparticular schema (e.g., a certain theory of intelligence, a certain conception of ability), butrather a differential awareness of self. As we note above, it is possible to view goalorientations not as specific dispositional schemas that produce scripted behavior, but more asa reflection of an engendered state. Clearly, this engendered state could be conceived of as theactivation of specific schemas that lead to scripts (e.g., Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1984).Indeed, the definition of goal orientations as concerned with competence suggests that a smallnumber of competence-related situation-, or self-schemas, could provide a parsimoniousmodel for goal orientations. However, the identification of non-competence concerns asimportant to students’motivational orientations in achievement settings (e.g., extrinsic goals,social goals) and the recent work that takes goal orientations out of achievement contexts(e.g., Dykman, 1998) may suggest that relying on competence-related schemas is limiting(although see Elliot & Dweck, 2005). On the other hand, a search for all relevant schemasthat could be significant to people’s motivational orientations is likely to lead to themultiplication of goals and to the loss of the useful relative parsimony that goal orientationtheory currently enjoys (Kaplan & Maehr, 2002). The self-awareness perspective suggeststhat rather than being the manifestations of different schemas, different goal orientationsand their associated patterns of behavior are the result of differential attention to the self-schema—regardless of the specific content of the self-schema that is activated.

It has been suggested previously that heightened self-awareness could make thoughts ofcompetence (or incompetence) salient (cf. Nicholls, 1984). However, heightened self-awareness may also prompt other thoughts of self, such as of one’s gender, ethnic identity,social class—and serve, for example, to evoke “stereotype threats” that have notable effectson achievement behavior (cf. Steele, 1997; Steele & Aronson, 1995; Croizet & Claire,1998; Major, Spencer, Schmader, Wolfe, & Crocker, 1998). It is worth noting in this regardthat the contextual conditions or experimental treatments (“diagnostic conditions”)employed in stereotype threat studies are similar to those employed in creating performancegoal conditions—and the results generally comparable (Ryan & Ryan, 2005). Thus, what istermed a performance goal may actually represent a heightened awareness to self—as whena set of circumstances (and the perception of them) focus attention on who one is and whatone can be or do. Conversely, a qualitatively different goal orientation (mastery goals?) isadopted when self-awareness is minimal (Nicholls, 1992; cf. Csikszentmihalyi, 1990;Baumeister et al., 1990; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996).

Whereas the self-prime hypothesis suggests a very parsimonious perspective, there areseveral issues that can readily be raised. First, whereas the environmental conditions that

Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184 165

heighten self-awareness have been demonstrated in experimental conditions, the conditionsthat lower it and directs attention to the task could use further investigation (Hidi &Harackiewicz, 2000). Moreover, the conditions that were found to elicit task-absorption,such as emphasizing the opportunity to develop competence (Dweck & Leggett, 1988),making material meaningful to students’ lives, and providing choice to explore and developinterests (e.g., Ames, 1992b; Ryan, Connell, & Deci, 1985), are not necessarily devoid ofattention to the self, although perhaps to different motives of the self than those associatedwith elicitation of performance goal orientations. Interestingly, almost 50 years ago, in acritique of dispositional theories of motivation, Foote (1951) suggested that identification isthe source of situational motivation. And Garretson (1962) noted, for example, that thereare differences in perceptions of contexts between individuals who identify with the largersocial group (define themselves in consensual terms) and those who are oriented to a morelimited social group (define themselves in non-consensual terms). More recently, Flum andKaplan (2006) highlighted the exploration of experiences to the self, or “exploratoryorientation,” as an extension of mastery goals orientation. Clearly, such an orientationincreases rather than minimizes attention to the self. Nevertheless, it should at least be notedthat much of what is discussed and researched in the goal orientation theory literature todate is strikingly similar to the work on self-awareness, and that the relations between thegoal orientation literature and literatures on self and identity pose a promising domain ofinquiry (e.g., Baumeister, 1997; Higgins, 1987; Flum & Kaplan, 2006; Kaplan & Flum,2005; Kashima, Foddy, & Platow, 2002; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Schlenker, Britt, &Pennington, 1996).

Goal Orientation as Based in “Needs”

It would not be surprising for anyone who has even only casually followed the motivationliterature over the last couple of decades to assume or project that goal orientations aresimply manifestations of “needs.” Indeed, the operative goal orientations that have emergedin the recent goal orientation literature appear on the surface as not all that different from“needs” that have been posited in the past (e.g., Murray, 1938). More interesting is thequestion of underlying assumptions concerning the nature and origin of goal orientationsand the possible role of needs in these processes.

Like some conceptualizations of goal orientations, needs are assumed to reside in theindividual but also and “more frequently (when in a state of readiness)” to be provoked “bythe occurrence of one of a few commonly effective press (or by anticipatory images of sucha press)” (Murray, 1938, p. 124; cf. McClelland, 1985). Indeed, a recent perspective on goalorientations (Elliot, 1997) explicitly suggests that goal orientations are the concretemanifestation—or the “motivational surrogates” (Elliot & Church, 1997, p. 219)—of theneeds of achievement motivation and fear of failure (cf. McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, &Lowell, 1953). Such a view would suggest that goal orientations are based in mostlyunconscious and stable individual dispositions. These dispositions are triggered bysituational characteristics and result with energy for a particular achievement behavior.

Research that could provide support for such a view points to associations betweenmeasures of dispositions that are associated with theoretical concepts of needs andmeasures that assess achievement goals. For example, Elliot and his colleagues (Elliot &Church, 1997; Elliot et al., 1999) found positive associations between self-report measuresof achievement motivation (e.g., “I enjoy difficult work”) and mastery goals as well asperformance-approach goals, and positive associations between a self-report measure offear of failure (e.g., “I try to avoid failure at all costs”) and performance-approach and

166 Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184

performance-avoidance goals. Harackiewicz et al., (1997) found that a “workmastery”orientation (the dispositional desire to work hard, prefer challenging tasks, and meetinternal standards, cf. Spence & Helmreich, 1983) predicted the adoption of mastery goalswhereas a “competitive” orientation (the dispositional enjoyment of interpersonalcompetition) predicted the adoption of performance goals and work-avoidance goals. Also,similar to a traditional conception of needs (e.g., McClelland, 1961), some research pointsto child-rearing practices as antecedents of a disposition toward goal orientations (e.g.,Smiley & Dweck, 1994). Moreover, some research suggests that one importantcharacteristic of some need conceptions—the cyclical pattern of motivation: approach/satiation/avoidance and the varying availability of energy—may be applied to self-regulation processes that presumably flow from goal orientations (cf. Baumeister,Bratslavsky, Muraven, & Tice, 1998). Most of the research on the comparative effects ofmastery goal orientation and other incentives involves only a relatively short time periodand do not typically consider any possible satiation effects. The work by Baumeister et al.,(1998) raises empirical questions such as how long can individuals retain the intenseinvestment associated with total task absorption (cf. Csikszentmihalyi & Nakamura, 1989),or endure the intense competition of the business world before the “ego is depleted?”

However, the use of the “need” concept to explain behavior has been criticized for goodreasons. The explanatory power of needs for specific patterns of behavior is rather low dueto the issues of multifinality and equifinality: the same behavior might be explained byvarious different needs (e.g., the investment in the task with the purpose of meaningfullearning and understanding for its own sake may be the result of the need for achievement,the need for competence, the need for self-actualization, etc.); and in addition, not everyarousal of the need results in the expectant behavior (not every thirsty person drinks, notevery drinking person is thirsty, and similarly, not every person who engages in action withthe purpose of demonstrating high ability is motivated by high achievement motivation).Another problem is that the term “need” has been used in various ways and with differenttheoretical–ideological underlying assumptions (e.g., Maslow, 1968; Deci & Ryan, 1985;McClelland, 1961; Murray, 1938). Thus, the concept of need that may be involved in theemergence of goal orientations requires clarification. And furthermore, it seems that such aconcept of need cannot stand alone in predicting the type of goal orientation that wouldemerge. It may be also noted that in his more recent work, (McClelland 1985; McClelland,Koestner, & Weinberger, 1989; Weinberger & McClelland, 1990; see Schultheiss &Brunstein, 2005) has argued that self-oriented cognitive conceptions and traditional need-focused frameworks of achievement motivation tap into two different kinds of motivation.These authors argued, further, that these two systems have different origins—whereas needsoriginate from innate, affect-laden incentives, cognitive conceptions are founded onlanguage-based learning processes—and are orthogonal to each other.

Perhaps goal orientation theorists have too soon given up on the latent and unconsciousnature of certain components in cognitive frameworks. But the usefulness of anymotivational theory that puts its emphasis on concepts such as unconscious needs wouldhave to answer to fundamental criticisms of such concepts as motives (e.g., McCord, 1997),in comparison, for example, with dispositions expressed as self-reported reasons, goals, andvalues (e.g., Ford, 1992).

Goal Orientations as Based in “Values”

Unlike the mostly unconscious concept of need, perhaps it would be easier to view goalorientation as a variant on or as emerging from the concept of “value.” Clearly, there are

Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184 167

value overtones to the concept of goal orientations—particularly in relation to valence, orthe attractiveness of an achievement situation, that can be related to approaching it withdifferent goal orientations. Moreover, more recent social-cognitive conceptualizations ofvalue as implicit and explicit attitudes (e.g., Greenwald & Banajii, 1995) can make therelations of goal orientations and values rather straightforward.

Some researchers indeed consider goal orientation theory as belonging to the Expectancyx Value family of achievement theories (cf. Dweck, 1992; Dweck & Elliott, 1983; Garcia &Pintrich, 1994). Similar to viewing needs as a basis for goal orientations, suggesting thatgoal orientations emerge from values highlights the dispositional nature of theseorientations. Such a view would receive support from socio-cultural research that showsthat in groups that differ in constellations of values, students are also more prone to adopttheoretically related goal orientations over others. For example, Butler and Ruzany (1993)found differences in reasons for glancing at others’ work among children of various ages(preschool—second grade) from urban schools and from Kibbutzim in Israel, with Kibbutzchildren more likely to explain glances in terms of learning and improving and urbanschool children more likely to provide a normative evaluation explanation. The authorshypothesize that these differences are the result of the different cultures that exist inKibbutzim—a setting with an explicit commitment to cooperation, social interaction, andpositive attitudes toward help-seeking—and in urban settings. In contrast, however, somecross-cultural research suggests that propensity to adopt certain goal orientations overothers is not very different among different cultural groups (e.g., McInerney, Hindley,Dowson, & Van Etten, 1998). As we discuss above, this may be the result of the type ofassessment used. Future research should no doubt continue to investigate the possiblerelations between group values and goal orientations.

In terms of theoretical conceptualization, very commonly values are seen as directed atdesirable end-states of behavior (cf. Rokeach, 1973; Schwartz & Bilsky, 1987, 1990). Assuch, they seem to be more similar to goals as objectives (e.g., Ford, 1992; DeShon &Gillespie, 2005) than to an orientation for an activity or task. However, when defined interms of the achievement task, there may be many parallels between values and goalorientations. For example, the framework employed by Eccles, Wigfield and their co-workers (e.g., Eccles, 2005; Eccles et al., 1983; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992) assumes thatdifferent values that the individual attaches to a task would result in constellations of schooloutcomes such as achievement, track placement, and plans for future courses (e.g., Berndt& Miller, 1990; Eccles, Adler, & Meece, 1984; Feather, 1988). Eccles (2005), for example,specified task-values that seem similar to mastery goal orientations (intrinsic, attainment)and performance or extrinsic goal orientations (attainment, utility). Commonly, theEccles et al., model depicts goal orientations as dispositional characteristics that give rise tothe more proximal and specific task-value (Eccles, 2005). Eccles suggested, for example,that whether individuals will perceive an attainment value for a task depends on theirperceptions of an opportunity to actualize an important aspect of themselves: a competitivetask for those who are performance-oriented, and a competence enhancing task for thosewho are mastery-oriented. However, in other occasions, Eccles and her colleagues(Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992) suggested that goal orientations emerge fromthe value components, with intrinsic value contributing to mastery goals and utilityvalue interacting with expectancy beliefs to result with performance-approach andperformance-avoidance goals. In a recent study, Wigfield, Anderman, and Eccles (2000)found that mastery, performance-approach, and extrinsic goal orientation constructs weredistinct from competence beliefs and from an interest and usefulness–importanceconstructs. The study also found that both value components predicted all three goal

168 Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184

orientations, although the relations with mastery goals were the strongest (Wigfield &Eccles, 2002).

Task value, particularly when conceptualized in the way Eccles and Wigfield do, indeedmay be a precursor of goal orientations. However, the concept of value and much of theresearch on it has focused on the valence of behavior (see Feather, 1990)—its direction.Most often, for example, the different values (and cost) specified by Eccles and hercolleagues are combined to form the general value of the task and are not consideredseparately as influencing possible different outcomes (e.g., Pintrich, Ryan, & Patrick, 1998;Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998). In comparison, mastery and performance goalorientations are not just associated with positive and negative affect or approach–avoidancebehavior. They are associated especially, and perhaps most importantly, with the quality ofaction taken when either mastery or performance goals are salient. Still, the recent attemptto disentangle the various components of task value and examine their distinct relations todifferent goal orientations seems promising, but more research and conceptual developmentis required.

Goals as Emerging from a Situated Socially Constructed Meaning

Another view of goal orientations is as emerging from a situated socially constructed meaningof the achievement-oriented action. Recent emphases on social constructivist processessuggest that a purpose for action is socially negotiated in the situation (e.g., Newman, Griffin,& Cole, 1989). Meanings of activities and of settings are constructed through theparticipation of people in an interaction and are guided to a large extent by the“psychological tools” that are used (cf. Vygotsky, 1978; Wertsch, 1991), such as languageand other artifacts, and that mediate the construction process (McCaslin, 2004).

This view suggests first that purposes would depend on situational conditions: forexample, on an encounter with a competitive peer (e.g., Paris & Turner, 1993), or on theinstructions of the experimenter. Second, it suggests that meaning is socially constructedand that it is embedded in the milieu of the culture at large as well as the specific setting (cf.Wertsch, 1991)—that is, it is not the product of an isolated individual but a result of theparticular social configuration, mode of interaction, and mediating tools that exist in theparticular setting (e.g., Newman et al., 1989).

Considering goal orientations as a situated meaning-construction process is supportedmostly by qualitative research that focuses primarily on the type and content of interactionand on shifts in purpose that occur as individuals negotiate meaning (e.g., Hicks, 1994;Nicholls & Hazzard, 1993; Thorkildsen & Nicholls, 1991). This view puts a strongemphasis on the social interaction, and particularly on the discursive processes, that takeplace in an achievement setting. Such a perspective would agree more with socialconstructivist or social constructionist perspectives on cognition (e.g., Rogoff & Lave,1984; Newman et al., 1989) and motivation (Hickey & McCaslin, 2001), withconnectionist models (cf. Rumelhart & McClelland, 1986), or with their integration (e.g.,Strauss & Quinn, 1997).

There likely are other metaphors or models that do or could guide the conceptualization ofgoal orientations than the ones we have reviewed (see DeShon & Gillespie, 2005). We hopeand trust, however, that our choices of what to review reflect a significant portion of theliterature. Of course, a productive future endeavor would be to suggest models that attempt tointegrate understandings and empirical findings from the various perspectives we reviewedabove and suggest how contexts, situations, and individual differences combine in theprocesses that elicit goal orientations (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Kaplan & Maehr, 2002).

Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184 169

Conclusion

Research within goal orientation theory constitutes a substantial and informative body ofknowledge concerning motivational processes in achievement settings and particularly ineducational contexts. As such, it is not surprising that goal orientation theory has become amajor, if not the major, perspective in the study of achievement motivation, and perhaps asignificant framework for the study of human motivation generally (Elliot, 1999, 2005;Pintrich, 1994; Pintrich & Schunk, 2002; Weiner, 1990). While obviously building on earlywork on achievement motivation, goal orientation theory is currently firmly positionedwithin a social-cognitive framework, interlocking perceptions of “meaning,” “purpose,” and“self” in guiding and framing action, thought and emotion (Maehr, 1989).

Armed with a range of measures, investigators have examined a wide range ofachievement behavior, but have concentrated largely on learning-related strategies amongchildren and adolescents in school settings. Researchers have not only examined individualdifferences in achievement choices made, persistence, and overall performance, but havepushed the study of motivation to examine relationships between motivational conditions andthe quality of thinking and emotional processes among students. This work has beenextensively tested in educational settings and appears to have strong implications forinstructional theory. As a result, it is increasingly applied in school contexts. Interesting alsois that it has been extensively applied in sports contexts, an occasional venue for Atkinson’searlier work on achievement motivation, and more recently, it is also beginning to berecognized as relevant to other achievement domains such as the world of work (Button et al.,1996; DeShon & Gillespie, 2005). Finally, one might project that work on goal orientations,particularly as these orientations relate to self, adaptive behavior, and emotions, may extendto the realms of counseling and clinical psychology (see Dykman, 1998).

Convergent Findings and Implications for Practice

Perhaps of primary importance, work to date has yielded replicable findings on which tobuild a more solid foundation for theory as well as application. First, research findingssuggest quite unequivocally that mastery goals are an adaptive motivational orientation.That is, when mastery goals are perceived to be emphasized in an achievement context andwhen students endorse them as an orientation, quality of engagement in tasks is higher:students are likely to invest in the task, seek challenge, persist longer, feel more positivelyabout it, and be more productive. Indeed, experimental and correlational research suggeststhat mastery goals orientation is not only related to learning and thinking processes inachievement situations, but also appears to be associated with adaptive orientation towardlife more broadly: encourage appropriate social behavior, positive feeling about self andothers, and a sense of well-being.

In addition, there is evidence that performance goals orientation might be problematic.Performance goals orientation is regularly present in achievement contexts and is veryprevalent in schools. This orientation is often consciously promoted as valuable, maybeeven perceived as necessary to motivate performance and achievement in education andalso in the world of sports and work. It is clear that performance goals orientation,particularly performance-approach goals, can be associated with positive outcomes, andindeed, in some settings and for some students they are likely to be related to achievementand positive attitudes. However, it is also clear that in many cases, and particularly whenstudents believe that they are lacking competence to perform effectively and when they areconcerned with failure, a performance goals orientation can be detrimental. This finding

170 Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184

appears to have important implications for common practices in schools, including the useof competitive incentives, the social comparison of students, the strong emphasis onevaluation per se, and the salience of the possibility of failure.

These findings, particularly, perhaps, from experimental studies which indicated thatachievement goal orientations can be manipulated by environmental cues or structures (e.g.,Ames, 1984), have contributed to several attempts at facilitating mastery goals inclassrooms and schools (e.g., Ames, 1990; Fuchs et al., 1997; Lehtinen, Vaurus, Salonen,Olkinuora, & Kinnunen, 1995; Maehr & Midgley, 1991, 1996; Meece & Miller, 1999).Typically, these interventions involve a collaborative engagement of researchers andcommitted practitioners in evaluation of the meaning—in mastery and performance goalsterms—that various educational practices seem to send to students. Some of theinterventions focus on modifying central educational practices, such as the task structureand evaluation methods, in ways that would emphasize mastery goals orientation andreduce the emphasis on performance goals orientation. Fuchs et al., (1997), for example,focused on modifying the task-structure, students’ authority, and the recognition andevaluation strategies in second through fourth grades mathematics classrooms. Theevaluation of this intervention compared change in motivation, attitudes, and mathachievement among low achieving learning disabled and non-learning disabled studentsin control classrooms, classrooms in which teachers provided self-referenced assessmentfeedback, and classrooms where teachers provided self-referenced assessment feedback aswell as implemented mastery-focused practices. Fuchs et al., found strong support for thepositive effects of the mastery-focused intervention condition. Students in the combinedmastery-focused and self-referenced feedback condition chose to work on more challengingcontent than did students in the other groups. Moreover, these students also increased theireffort along the year, whereas the effort of students in the other two groups decreased. Inaddition, the math scores of the low achieving non-disabled students in the mastery-focusedcondition increased more than those of the non-disabled students in the two otherconditions. Finally, both disabled and non-disabled students also reported positive emotionsand feelings of interest and of enhanced learning in the mastery-focused condition.

Other interveners adopted a more comprehensive approach for enhancing mastery goalsorientation. For example, the interventions by Ames (1990) at the classroom level, and byMaehr and Midgley (1996) at the school level, involved consideration of all facets of schooland classroom life, with special attention to the TARGET facets of the environment (for adetailed description see Maehr & Midgley, 1996). The evaluation of Ames_ (1990)intervention in second through sixth grades, which compared randomly assigned class-rooms into treatment and control conditions found that, after 1 year, students at theintervention classrooms perceived classrooms to be more mastery focused, were moreintrinsically motivated, had higher self-concepts of ability, manifested higher preferencesfor challenging work, reported more use of effective learning strategies, and had overallmore positive attitudes towards school than did students in the control classrooms. Theevaluation of Maehr and Midgley_s (1996) extensive 3-year long intervention, whichinvolved two target schools (1 elementary and one middle-level) and two control schoolsfound that students who attended the control schools reported more personal performancegoals orientation and extrinsic goals and perceived a higher emphasis on performance goalsin the school than did students who attended the target schools (Anderman et al., 1999).

Overall findings from the various interventions seem promising. Working to changeeducational environments to increase emphasis on mastery goals orientation seems to havethe potential to enhance students’ motivation, attitudes, and achievement. Indeed, quite afew of the practices that have been recommended as facilitating mastery goals overlap with

Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184 171

practices that have been found to facilitate students motivation and learning in otherdomains such as problem-based inquiry, communities of learners, child-centered learningenvironments, and mathematics reform efforts (e.g., Blumenfeld et al., 1991; Brown &Campione, 1998; McCombs, 2003; Stipek et al., 1998). Yet, the experience of the variousinterventions which focused on enhancing mastery goals orientation also suggests thatworking to change an environmental goal structure is not easy. For example, it is desiredthat change of practices would be comprehensive—e.g., in all TARGET domains (seeTable III)—and involve a strong commitment of the management and teachers to makesuch a change of their school culture (see Maehr & Midgley, 1996; Urdan, Midgley, &Wood, 1995). In addition, recent findings suggest that students’ perceptions of teacherpractices may not always concur with theoretical assumptions (e.g., Kaplan & Gadasi,2003; Patrick et al., 2001; Urdan, 2001). Clearly, there is a need for further investigation ofthe processes relating environmental change with students’ perceptions and adoption ofgoal orientations, and of the effective strategies to facilitate such environmental change.

Persistent and Emerging Issues

Finally, we add a note on issues that we believe to be of special importance for futureresearch in goal orientation theory. First, there seem to be at least two major complementarytrends in current theorizing and investigation that reflect importantly on the definition ofgoal orientations. One trend can be said to be characterized by further particularizing thevarious possible motivational orientations associated with engagement in achievementaction. The somewhat different ways by which goal orientation theorists have definedmastery and performance goals (see Pintrich, 2000a), which have been pretty much setaside during the years of establishing the prominence of goal orientation theory in favor ofa convergence of concepts and research findings (Ames, 1992a; Urdan, 1997), seem to beback in the light (Brophy, 2004; Elliot, 2005). Particularly, some researchers suggest thepossibility that there are different standards that guide purposes for engagement within eachgoal orientation, and that these might be associated with meaningfully different patterns ofoutcomes. For example, Elliot (1999) suggested that within mastery goals, self-referencedimprovement might provide a different goal for engagement than would an attempt tomaster a new skill. Thus, the trend to partition goal orientations that started withintroducing the approach–avoidance distinction into goal orientation theory in order toidentify more specific goal orientations continues (see Grant & Dweck, 2003).

The second trend describes the attempt at integrating the various goals orientations into alarger, more parsimonious, framework. Within goal orientation theory, Elliot and hiscolleagues (Elliot, 1997; Elliot & Church, 1997), for example, attempted to integrate goalorientation theory with the early conceptions of achievement needs, conceiving of goalorientations in terms of more specific objectives that actualize those needs. Dweck and hercolleagues (Dweck, 1999; Dweck et al., 1995a, 1995b) pointed to self-theories of thestability versus the malleability of attributes as giving rise to a meaning system thatintegrates goal orientations with other psychological processes such as social cognition.DeShon and Gillespie (2005) argued for a dynamic system of goals of different levels,starting at the top of the hierarchy with self-goals (Agency, Affiliation, Esteem) and endingat the bottom of the hierarchy with situated and very specific action plans. In this scheme,achievement goals function as mid-low level content goals that serve to fulfill the pursuit ofgoals higher in the hierarchy. And Kaplan and Maehr (2002) have suggested that goalorientations should be conceived of in terms of general dynamic processes of meaningconstruction, which involve the situation, the self, and the regulation of attention, emotion,

172 Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184

and action as an organizing interpretative framework which functions to guide engagement.Clearly, these general frameworks should take account of the findings concerningdifferences among the more specific orientations, and it would be advisable that theproliferation of specific orientations should develop within a sound and comprehensivetheoretical framework. It is likely that the near future will see development of theory andresearch programs in both directions, and it is our hope that researchers will indeedintegrate understandings from these two lines of development.

These theoretical and research directions would not benefit goal orientation theory if, aswe discuss above, goal orientation theorists would not attend to understandings andmethods of new perspectives. The increasing focus on cultural processes—within andacross cultures (cf. Bruner, 1996; Schwartz, White, & Lutz, 1992; Stigler, Shweder, &Herdt, 1990; Kitayama & Markus, 1994; Strauss & Quinn, 1997; Triandis, 2000)—highlights the importance and necessity of employing new methods. Of course, there is amodel for this already in the work of one of the major contributors to goal orientationtheory, John Nicholls (e.g., Nicholls & Hazzard, 1993). But only a beginning here has beenmade. Much more could profitably be attempted.

Equally serious, is that, while adopting a cognitive perspective, goal orientation theoryhas minimally exploited recent perspectives on thought processes. Framing and studyinggoal orientations using a connectionist perspective (cf. Smith, 1996) or alternatively adiscursive perspective (cf. Billig, 1987) and attending to the micro processes involved insocial contexts, for example, may lead to insights on central issues in the theory that are yetto be resolved such as the meaning of perceived emphasis on and pursuit of multiple goals(see Pintrich, 2000a; Harackiewicz et al., 2002a) and the interpretation of specific behaviorsin goal orientation terms.

Developmental issues have been and remain important in goal orientation theory(Anderman, Austin, & Johnson, 2002a). Some of this research has focused primarily onthe early origins of individual differences in orientations in early childhood (cf. Burhans &Dweck, 1995). This work should and likely will continue, especially as it focuses on thechanges that occur as thinking processes mature through experience and the pre-programmedas well as practice-related emergence of capacities. Moreover, research should explore thecomparable and different ways by which such development takes form in different cultures(cf. Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1989). Similarly, little attention has been given tothe study of changes in goal orientation over time, certainly not across the life-span (cf.Kleiber & Maehr, 1985; Maehr & Braskamp, 1986; Maehr & Kleiber, 1981), but scarcelyeven within the duration of engaging in a task. As a result, not much is known about possible“developmental trajectories” or developmental tasks—as a function of age or of the contextsand situations—that could influence the pre-eminence of different goal orientations atdifference points in the course of one’s life or in the course of acquiring an expertise.

Equally important and perhaps less studied to date are questions regarding howsocializing agents influences change—as well as how contexts, roles and challenges differat various stages in the life course. In this regard, it is important to note the increasing focuson developmental transitions and their possible effects on the individual’s views of self andpurpose of achievement behavior (Midgley & Feldlaufer, 1987; Midgley, Feldlaufer, &Eccles, 1988; see Anderman et al., 2002a, 2002b). Most of this work is centered on aparticular developmental transition: the transition from elementary to secondary education.Clearly, there are other critical life transitions that may also be crucial to achievement, thepurposes and views of self one might hold, and the choices that one is likely to make, suchas from school to the workplace, becoming a parent, retiring, and experiencing adebilitating illness.

Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184 173

Cutting across these developmental processes is another possible domain of research thatso far has been only minimally broached: the role of different construals of self, forexample, as dependent or interdependent, in motivational processes. This work, emergingmostly from cross-cultural research, suggests that individuals from different cultures, andsome individuals from the same culture (e.g., men and women) (Cross & Madson, 1997;Triandis, Leung, Villareal, & Clack, 1985), may have self-concept(s) with differentstructures (Boekaerts, 1998; Markus & Kitayama, 1991; Triandis, 1989). It is quite possiblethat self-awareness operates differently when a “dependent” or “interdependent” self isactivated. Such differences may be apparent among people from different socio-culturalgroups, but they may also be relevant to groups or teams that provide different rewardstructures to their members (e.g., Ames, 1984). This possibility needs further consideration,especially with the increased emphasis on cooperative learning and team-learning in school.

Finally, there is at least one other issue that we choose to take special note of. It is thatissue in psychology, and motivation in particular, that seems to never go away: Trait vs.State conceptions of behavior. Two decades or more ago, Mischel (1977) noted that “thequestion of whether individual differences or situations are more important is an empty onethat has no general answer... [as] [t]he answer must always depend on the particularsituations and persons sampled” (p. 340). However, a motivational theory such as goalorientation theory should be able to explicate the core processes that result in the situationalconstruction of a goal orientation and the role of dispositions in these constructions (Kaplan& Maehr, 2002). Of course, much more work is needed in this domain.

A Projected Future

While goal orientation theory seems to have reinvigorated the study of achievementmotivation, we believe that it has not fully realized its potential. For that, it should moresignificantly engage in dialogue with allied areas. If and as this happens, goal orientationtheory could become a widely generalizable model of motivation, and yield principles thatare broadly applicable in a variety of practice domains. While goal orientation theory has,in our view, not reached an asymptote, it is at a critical stage. A number of issues must besuccessfully confronted. If pursued with a rich multi-method inquiry, while being informedby and related to developments in basic research areas such as cognitive science on the onehand, and practice oriented domains such as instructional theory on the other, goalorientation theory will not merely survive, but thrive, as a major perspective on humanmotivation.

References

Abelson, R. P. (1981). Psychological status of the script concept. American Psychologist, 36, 715–729.Ames, C. (1984). Competitive, cooperative, and individualistic goal structures: A cognitive-motivational

analysis. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education, vol. 1, ch. 6 (pp. 177–207). Academic.

Ames, C. (1990, April). The relationship of achievement goals to student motivation in classroom settings.Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.

Ames, C. (1992a). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 84, 261–271.

Ames, C. (1992b). Achievement goals and the classroom motivational climate. In D. Schunk & J. Meece(Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (Ch.15, pp. 327–348). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Student learning strategies andmotivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260–267.

174 Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184

Anderman, L. H. (1999). Classroom goal orientation, school belonging and social goals as predictors ofstudents’ positive and negative affect following the transition to middle school. Journal of Research andDevelopment in Education, 32, 89–103.

Anderman, E. M., Anderman, L. H., & Griesinger, T. (1999). The relation of present and possible selvesduring early adolescence to grade point average and achievement goals. The Elementary School Journal,100, 4–17.

Anderman, E. M., Austin, C. C., & Johnson, D. M. (2002a). The development of goal orientation. In A.Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 197–220). San Diego,California: Academic.

Anderman, E. M., Griesinger, R., & Westerfield, G. (1998). Motivation and cheating during earlyadolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 84–93.

Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review ofEducational Research, 64, 287–309.

Anderman, E.M., Maehr, M. L., &Midgley, C. (1999). Declining motivation after the transition to middle school:Schools can make a difference. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32, 131–147.

Anderman, E. M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in achievement goal orientations, perceived academiccompetence, and grades across the transition to middle-level schools. Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 22, 269–298.

Anderman, L. H., Patrick, H., Hruda, L. Z., & Linnenbrink, E. A. (2002b). Observing classroom goalstructures to clarify and expand goal theory. In C. Midgley (Ed.) Goals, goal structures and patterns ofadaptive learning (pp. 243–278). Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Anderman, E. M., &Wolters, C. (2006). Goals, values and affects: Influences on student motivation. In P. Alexander& P. Winne (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (2nd ed.). New York: Simon & Schuster.

Anderson, J. R. (1983). The architecture of cognition. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Archer, J. (1994). Achievement goals as a measure of motivation in university students. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 19, 430–446.Assor, A., & Kaplan, A. (2001, April). The importance of an inherent value rationale for the experience of

self-determination: Autonomous, controlled and conformist regulations of learning. Paper presented atthe annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, USA.

Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64, 359–372.Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: A multiple goals

approach. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search foroptimal motivation and performance (pp. 229–254). New York: Academic.

Baumeister, R. F. (1997). Esteem threat, self-regulatory breakdown, and emotional distress as factors in self-defeating behavior. Review of General Psychology, 1, 145–174.

Baumeister, R. F., Bratslavsky, E., Muraven, M., & Tice, D. M. (1998). Ego depletion: Is the active self alimited resource? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1252–1265.

Baumeister, R. F., Hutton, D. G., & Cairns, K. J. (1990). Negative effects of praise on skilled performance.Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 11, 131–148.

Bempechat, J., & Boulay, B. A. (2000). Beyond dichotomous characterizations of student learning: Newdirections in achievement motivation research. In D. M. McInerney & S. Van Ettern (Eds.), Research onsociocultural influences on motivation and learning, vol. 1 (pp. 15–36). Greenwich, Connecticut:Information Age.

Bereby-Meyer, Y., & Kaplan, A. (2005). Motivational influences on transfer of problem-solving strategies.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 30, 1–22.

Bergin, D. A. (1995). Effects of a mastery versus competitive motivation situation on learning. Journal ofExperimental Educational, 63, 303–314.

Berndt, T. J., & Miller, K. E. (1990). Expectancies, values, and achievement in junior high school. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 82, 319–326.

Biddle, S., Cury, F., Goudas, M., Sarrazin, P., Famose, J. P., & Durand, M. (1995). Development of scales tomeasure perceived physical education class climate: A cross-national project. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 65, 341–358.

Billig, M. (1987). Arguing and thinking: A rhetorical approach to social psychology. Cambridge University Press.Blumenfeld, P. C., Soloway, E., Marx, R. W., Krajcik, J. S., Guzdial, M., & Palincsar, A. (1991). Motivating

project-based learning: Sustaining the doing, supporting the learning. Educational Psychologist, 26,369–398.

Boekaerts, M. (1998). Do culturally rooted self-construals affect students’ conceptualization of control overlearning? Educational Psychologist, 33, 87–108.

Brookhart, S. M., Walsh, J. M., & Zientarski, W. A. (2006). The dynamics of motivation and effort forclassroom assessments in middle school science and social studies. Applied Measurement in Education,19, 151–184.

Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184 175

Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd edn.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Brown, A. L., & Campione, J. C. (1998). Designing a community of young learners: Theoretical and practical

lessons. In N. M. Lambert & B. L. McCombs (Eds.) How students learn: Reforming schools through learner-centered education (pp. 153–186). Washington, District of Columbia: American Psychological Association.

Bruner, J. (1996). The culture of education. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.Burhans, K. K., & Dweck, C. S. (1995). Helplessness in early childhood: The role of contingent worth. Child

Development, 66, 1719–1738.Butler, R. (1993). Effects of task- and ego-achievement goals on information seeking during task

engagement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 18–31.Butler, R. & Ruzany, N. (1993). Age and socialization effects on the development of social comparison motives

and normative ability assessment in kibbutz and urban children. Child Development, 64, 532–543.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.Cain, K. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1995). The relation between motivational patterns and achievement cognitions

through the elementary school years. Merrill–Palmer Quarterly, 41, 25–54.Cantor, N., Mischel, W., & Schwartz, J. C. (1982). A prototype analysis of psychological situations.

Cognitive Psychology, 14, 45–77.Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1981). Attention and self-regulation: A control-theory approach to human

behavior. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.Chouliaraki, L. (1996). Regulative practices in a “progressivist” classroom: “Good habits” as a “disciplinary

technology.” Language and Education, 10, 103–118.Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school reform. New

York: Cambridge University Press.Coyne, J. C., & Gottlieb, B. H. (1996). The mismeasure of coping by checklist. Journal of Personality, 64,

959–991.Croizet, J. C., & Claire, T. (1998). Extending the concept of stereotype threat to social class: The intellectual

underperformance of students from low socioeconomic backgrounds. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 24, 588–594.

Cross, S. E., & Madson, L. (1997). Models of the self: Self-construals and gender. Psychological Bulletin,122, 5–37.

Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper & Row.Csikszentmihalyi, M., &Nakamura, J. (1989). The dynamics of intrinsic motivation: A study of adolescents. In C.

Ames, & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation and education, vol. 3 (pp. 45–71). New York: Academic.Cury, F., Elliot, A. J., Da Fonseca, D., & Moller, A. C. (2006). The social-cognitive model of achievement

motivation and the 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,90, 666–679.

D’Andrade, R. (1990). Some propositions about the relations between culture and human cognition. In J.Stigler, R. Shweder, & G. Herdt (Eds.), Cultural psychology: Essays on comparative humandevelopment (pp. 65–129). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Davison, M. L. (1983). Introduction to multidimensional scaling and its applications. Applied PsychologicalMeasurement, 7, 373–379.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. NewYork: Plenum.

De Groot, E. A. M. V. (1997). The relations between perceptions of the school psychological environmentand adaptive functioning among early adolescents: A longitudinal study. Unpublished doctoraldissertation. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.

DeShon, R. P., & Gillespie, J. Z. (2005). A motivated action theory account of goal orientation. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 90, 1096–1127.

Dowson, M., & McInerney, D. M. (1997, March). Psychological parameters of students’ social andacademic goals: A qualitative investigation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, Chicago.

Dowson, M., & McInerney, D. M. (2001). Psychological parameters of students’ social and work avoidancegoals: A qualitative investigation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 35–42.

Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport.Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 290–299.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.Dweck, C. S. (1989). Motivation. In A. Lesgold & R. Glaser (Eds.), Foundations for a psychology of

education (pp. 87–136). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Dweck, C. S. (1992). The study of goals in psychology. Psychological Science, 3, 165–167.Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia,

Pennsylvania: Psychology.

176 Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184

Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995a). Implicit theories and their role in jugements and reactions: Aworld from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 267–285.

Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995b). Implicit theories: Elaboration and extension of the model.Psychological Inquiry, 6, 322–333.

Dweck, C. S., & Elliott, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of childpsychology, vol. 4, 3rd ed. (pp. 643–691). New York: Wiley.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.

Dykman, B. M. (1998). Integrating cognitive and motivational factors in depression: Initial tests of a goal-orientation approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 139–158.

Eccles, J. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In A. J. Elliot& C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105–121). New York: Guildford.

Eccles, J., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L. (1983). Expectations, values,and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.) Perspective on achievement and achievement motivation(pp. 75–146). San Francisco, California: Freeman.

Eccles, J. P., Adler, T., & Meece, J. L. (1984). Sex differences in achievement: A test of alternate theories.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 26–43.

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., & Schiefele, U. (1998). Motivation to succeed. In N. Eisenberg (Ed.), Handbookof child psychology, 5ed, vol. 3 (pp. 1017–1095). New York: Wiley.

Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating the ‘classic and ‘contemporary’ approaches to achievement motivation: Ahierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, vol. 10 (pp. 143–179). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI.

Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist,34, 169–189.

Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck(Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52–72). New York: Guildford.

Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievementmotivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218–232.

Elliot, A. J., & Dweck, C. S. (2005). Competence as the core of achievement motivation. In A. J. Elliot &C. S. Dweck (Eds.) Handbook of Competence and Motivation (pp. 3–13). New York: Guilford.

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsicmotivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461–475.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. (1999). Test anxiety and the hierarchical model of approach and avoidanceachievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 628–644.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 80, 501–519.

Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and examperformance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 549–563.

Elliot, A. J., & Moller, A. (2003). Performance-approach goals: Good or bad forms of regulation?International Journal of Educational Research, 39, 339–356.

Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12.

Epstein, J. L. (1989). Family structures and student motivation: A developmental perspective. In C. Ames &R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education, vol. 3 (pp. 259–295). New York: Academic.

Feather, N. T. (1988). Values, valences, and course enrollment: Testing the role of personal values within anexpectancy-valence framework. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 381–391.

Feather, N. T. (1990). Bridging the gap between values and actions: Recent applications of the expectancy-value model. In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition:Foundations of social behavior, vol. 2, ch. 5 (pp. 151–192). New York: Guilford.

Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-consciousness: Assessment andtheory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 43, 522–527.

Flum, H., & Kaplan, A. (2006). Exploratory orientation as an educational goal. Educational Psychologist,41, 99–100.

Foote, N. N. (1951). Identification as the basis for a theory of motivation. American Sociological Review, 16, 14–21.Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions and personal agency beliefs. Newbury Park,

California: Sage.Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Karns, K., Hamlett, C. L., Katzaroff, M., & Dutka, S. (1997). Effects of task-focused

goals on low-achieving students with and without learning disabilities. American Educational ResearchJournal, 34, 513–543.

Fyans, L. J., Salili, F., Maehr, M. L., & Desai, K. A. (1983). A cross-cultural exploration into the meaning ofachievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1000–1013.

Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184 177

Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom: The role of self-schemas and self-regulatory strategies. In D. Schunk & B. Zimmerman (Eds.), Self-regulation of learningand performance: Issues and educational applications (pp. 127–153). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Garretson, W. S. (1962). The consensual definition of social objects. The Sociological Quarterly, 3, 107–113.Graham, S., & Golan, S. (1991). Motivational influences on cognition: Task involvement, ego involvement,

and depth of information processing. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 187–194.Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 85, 541–553.Greenwald, A. G. & Banajii, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes.

Psychological Review, 102, 4–27.Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. R., & Elliot, A. J. (1997). Predictors and

consequences of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1284–1295.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Rethinking achievement goals: When are theyadaptive for college students and why? Educational Psychologist, 33, 1–21.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002a). Revision ofachievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 638–645.

Harackiewicz, J. M., & Sansone, C. (2000). Rewarding competence: The importance of goals in the study ofintrinsic motivation. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Thesearch for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 79–103). New York: Academic.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term and long-term consequences of achievement goals in college: Predicting continued interest and performance overtime. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 316–330.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2002b). Predicting success in college: Alongitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of interest and performancefrom freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 562–575.

Hare’, R., Clarke, D., & De Carlo, N. (1985). Motives and mechanisms: An introduction to the psychology ofaction. London: Methuen.

Harter, S. (1992). The relationship between perceived competence, affect, and motivational orientation withinthe classroom: Processes and patterns of change. In A. K. Boggiano & T. S. Pittman (Eds.) Achievementand motivation: A social-developmental perspective. Cambridge University Press.

Heyman, G. D., Dweck, C. S., & Cain, K. M. (1992). Young children’s vulnerability to self-blame andhelplessness: Relationship to beliefs about goodness. Child Development, 63, 401–415.

Hickey, D. T., & McCaslin, M. (2001). A comparative, sociocultural analysis of context and motivation. In S.Volet & S. Järvelä (Eds.), Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical advances and methodologicalimplications (pp. 33–55). Oxford, UK: Pergamon.

Hicks, D. A. (1994). Individual and social meanings in the classroom: Narrative discourse as a boundaryphenomenon. Journal of Narrative and Life History, 4, 215–240.

Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70, 151–179.

Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340.Hinton, G. E. (1989). Learning distributed representations of concepts. In R. Morris (Ed.), Parallel

distributed processing: Implications for psychology and neurobiology (Ch. 3, pp. 46–61). New York:Oxford University Press.

Hokoda, A., & Fincham, F. D. (1995). Origins of children’s helpless and mastery achievement patterns in thefamily. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87, 375–385.

Holyoak, K. J., & Spellman, B. A. (1993). Thinking. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 265–315.Jagacinski, C. M., & Nicholls, J. G. (1987). Competence and affect in task involvement and ego

involvement: The impact of social comparison information. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79,107–114.

Kaplan, A. (2004). Achievement goals and intergroup relations. In P. R. Pintrich & M. L. Maehr (Eds.),Advances in research on motivation and achievement: Vol. 13: Motivating students, improving schools:The legacy of carol midgley (pp. 97–136). United Kingdom: Elsevier.

Kaplan, A. & Flum, H. (2005, August). Achievement goal orientations and identity formation. Paperpresented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Washington, District ofColumbia, USA.

Kaplan, A., & Gadasi, A. (2003, April). Perceived emphasis on mastery and performance goals of teacherbehavior: Culture, context and individual differences. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educational Research Association, Chicago, USA.

Kaplan, A., Gheen, M., & Midgley, C. (2002a). The classroom goal structure and student disruptivebehavior. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 191–211.

178 Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184

Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (1999). Achievement goals and student well-being. Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 24, 330–358.

Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2002). Adolescents’ achievement goals: Situating motivation in socio-culturalcontexts. In T. Urdan & F. Pajaers (Eds.), Adolescence and education: Vol. 2, Academic motivation ofadolescents (pp. 125–167). Greenwich, Connecticut: Information Age.

Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. J. (2002). Should childhood be a journey or a race?: A response toHarackiewicz et al., (2002). Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 646–648.

Kaplan, A., Middleton, M. J., Urdan, T., & Midgley, C. (2002b). Achievement goals and goal structures. InC. Midgley (Ed.) Goals, goal structures and patterns of adaptive learning (pp. 21–53). Mahwah, NewJersey: Erlbaum.

Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (1997). The effect of achievement goals: Does level of perceived academiccompetence make a difference? Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 415–435.

Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (1999). The relationship between perceptions of the classroom goal structure andearly adolescents’ affect in school: The mediating role of coping strategies. Learning and IndividualDifferences, 11, 187–212.

Karabenick, S. A. (2003). Seeking help in large college classes: A person-centered approach. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 28, 37–58.

Kashima, Y., Foddy, M., & Platow, M. (Eds.) (2002). Self and identity: Personal, social, and symbolic.Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Kitayama, S., & Markus, H. R. (1994). Emotion and culture: Empirical studies on mutual influences.Washington, District of Columbia: American Psychological Association.

Kleiber, D., & Maehr, M. L. (Eds.) (1985). Advances in motivation and achievement: Vol. 4. Motivation andAdult Development. Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI.

Kluger, A. N., & DeNisi, A. (1996). The effects of feedback interventions on performance: A historicalreview, a meta-analysis, and a preliminary feedback intervention theory. Psychological Bulletin, 119,254–284.

Kruskal, J. B. & Wish, M. (1978).Multidimensional scaling: Quantitative applications in the social sciences.London: Sage.

Kurman, J., & Sriram, N. (1997). Self-enhancement, generality of self-evaluation, and affectivity in Israeland Singapore. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 421–441.

Lee, O., & Anderson, C. W. (1993). Task engagement and conceptual change in middle school scienceclassrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 585–610.

Lehtinen, E., Vauras, M., Salonen, P., Olkinuora, E., & Kinnunen R. (1995). Long-term developmentof learning activity: Motivational, cognitive, and social interaction. Educational Psychologist, 30,21–35.

Lemos, M. S. (1996). Students’ and teachers’ goals in the classroom. Learning and Instruction, 6, 151–171.Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D. (1978). The hidden costs of reward: New perspectives on the psychology of

human motivation. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Levy, I., Kaplan, A., & Patrick, H. (2004). Early adolescents’ achievement goals, social status, and attitudes

towards cooperation with peers. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 127–159.Lewthwaite, R., & Piparo, A. J. (1993). Goal orientations in young competitive athletes: Physical achievement,

social-relational, and experiential concerns. Journal of Research in Personality, 27, 103–117.Linnenbrink, L., & Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple pathways to learning and achievement: The role of goal

orientation in fostering adaptive motivation, affect, and cognition. In C. Sansone & J. M. Harackiewicz(Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 196–227).New York: Academic.

Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2002). Achievement goal theory and affect: An asymmetricalbidirectional model. Educational Psychologist, 37, 69–78.

Longuet-Higgins, H. C., (1989). Network models of the mind. In R. Morris (Ed.), Parallel distributedprocessing: Implications for psychology and neurobiology, (pp. 3–7). Oxford, UK: Clarendon.

MacCallum, J. (2000). The contexts of individual motivational change. In D. M. McInerney & S. Van Ettern(Eds.), Research on sociocultural influences on motivation and learning, vol. 1 (pp. 61–97). Greenwich,Connecticut: Information Age.

Maehr, M. L. (1984). Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personal investment. In C. Ames & R.Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education, vol. 1, ch. 4 (pp. 115–144). New York: Academic.

Maehr, M. L. (1989). Thoughts about motivation. In C. Ames, & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation ineducation: (Vol. 3) Goals and cognitions (pp. 299–315). San Diego, California: Academic.

Maehr, M. L., & Braskamp, L. A. (1986). The motivation factor: A theory of personal investment. Lexington,Massachusetts: Lexington Books.

Maehr, M. L., & Kleiber, D. A. (1981). The graying of achievement motivation. American Psychologist, 36,787–793.

Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184 179

Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation: A schoolwide approach. EducationalPsychologist, 26, 399–427.

Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures. Boulder, CO: Westview.Maehr, M. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1980). Culture and achievement motivation: A second look. In N. Warren

(Ed.), Studies on cross-cultural psychology, vol. 2 (pp. 221–267). New York: Academic.Major, B., Spencer, S., Schmader, T., Wolfe, C., & Crocker, J. (1998). Coping with negative stereotypes

about intellectual performance: The role of psychological disengagement. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 24, 34–50.

Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (1991). Culture and the self: Implications for cognition, emotion, andmotivation. Psychological Review, 98, 224–253.

Markus, H. J., & Nurius, P. (1986). Possible selves. American Psychologist, 41, 954–969.Markus, H. R., & Ruvolo, A. (1989). Possible selves: Personalized representation of goals. In L. Pervin (Ed.),

Goal concepts in personality and social psychology (pp. 211–241). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Markus, H., & Wurf, E. (1987). The dynamic self-concept: A social psychological perspective. Annual

Review of Psychology, 38, 299–337.Martin, A. J., & Debus, R. L. (1998). Self-report of mathematics self-concept and educational outcomes: The

role of ego-dimensions and self-consciousness. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 68, 517–535.Maslow, A. (1968). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.McCaslin, M. (2004). Coregulation of opportunity, activity, and identity in student motivation: Elaborations

on Vygotskian themes. In D. M. McInerney & S. Van Etten (Eds.), Research on sociocultural influenceson motivation and learning: Vol. 4: Big theories revisited (pp. 249–274). Greenwich, Connecticut:Information Age.

McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. New York: Free.McClelland, D. C. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, Illinois: Scott.McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The achievement motive. New

York: Appleton Century Crofts.McClelland, D. C., Koestner, R., & Weinberger, J. (1989). How do self-attributed and implicit motives

differ? Psychological Review, 96, 690–702.McCombs, B. L. (Ed.) (2003). Theory into practice. Spring, 42(2), 90–92.McCord, J. (1997). He did it because he wanted to... In D. W. Osgood (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on

motivation: Motivation and delinquency (pp. 1–43). University of Nebraska.McInerney, D. M., Hindley, J., Dowson, M., & Van Etten, S. (1998). Aboriginal, Anglo, and immigrant

Australian students’ motivational beliefs about personal academic success: Are there culturaldifferences? Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 621–629.

McInerney, D.M., Roche, L. A., McInerney, V., &Marsh, H.W. (1997). Cultural perspectives on school motivation:The relevance and application of goal theory. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 207–236.

Meece, J. L. (1991). The classroom context and students’ motivational goals. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, vol. 7 (pp. 261–285). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI.

Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student motivation andacademic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 487–503.

Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitiveengagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514–523.

Meece, J. L., & Miller, S. D. (1999). Changes in elementary school children’s achievement goals for reading andwriting: Results of a longitudinal and an intervention study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3, 207–229.

Middleton, M. J., Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (2004). The change in middle school students_ achievementgoals in math over time. Social Psychology of Education, 7, 289–311.

Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An under-exploredaspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710–718.

Midgley, C. (Ed.) (2002).Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning. Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.Midgley, C., & Feldlaufer, H. (1987). Students’ and teachers’ decision-making fit before and after transition

to junior high school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 7, 225–241.Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1988). The transition to junior high school: Beliefs of pre- and

post-transition teachers. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 17, 543–562.Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton M. J. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom,

under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 77–86.Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Maehr, M. L., Urdan, T., Hicks Anderman, L. et al. (1998). The

development and validation of scales assessing students’ achievement goal orientations. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 23, 113–131.

Miller, R. B., Behrens, J. T., Greene, B. A., & Newman, D. (1993). Goals and perceived ability: Impact onstudent valuing, self-regulation, and persistence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 2–14.

180 Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184

Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. Endler (Eds.), Personalityat the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.Newman, D., Griffin, P., & Cole, M. (1989). The construction zone: Working for cognitive change in school.

New York, New York: Cambridge University Press.Nicholls, J. G. (1976). Effort is virtuous, but it’s better to have ability: Evaluative responses to perceptions of

effort and ability. Journal of Research on Personality, 10, 306–315.Nicholls, J. G. (1978). The development of the concepts of effort and ability, perception of own attainment

and the understanding that difficult tasks require more ability. Child Development, 49, 800–814.Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice,

and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328–346.Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard

University Press.Nicholls, J. G. (1990). What is ability and why are we mindful of it? A developmental perspective. In R.

Sternberg & J. Kolligian (Eds.), Competence considered. (pp. 11–40). New Haven, Connecticut: YaleUniversity Press.

Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Students as educational theorists. In D. Schunk & J. Meece (Eds.), Studentperceptions in the classroom (Ch. 12, pp. 267–286). Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Nicholls, J. G., & Hazzard, S. P. (1993). Education as adventure: Lessons from the second grade. New York:Teachers College.

Nicholls, J. G., Patashnick, M., & Mettetal, G. (1986). Conceptions of ability and intelligence. ChildDevelopment, 57, 636–645.

Nicholls, J. G., Patashnick, M., & Nolen, S. B. (1985). Adolescents’ theories of education. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 77, 683–692.

Nicholls, J. G., & Thorkildsen, T. A. (Eds.) (1995). Reasons for learning: Expanding the conversation onstudent– teacher collaboration. New York: Teachers College.

Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strategies. Cognition andInstruction, 5, 269–287.

Nolen, S. B., & Haladyna, T. M. (1990). Personal and environmental influences on students’ beliefs abouteffective study strategies. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 15, 116–130.

Paris, S. G., & Turner, J. C. (1993). Situated motivation. In P. R. Pintrich, D. R. Brown, & C. E. Weinstein,(Eds.), Student motivation, cognition, and learning, (pp. 213–237), Hillsdale, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Patrick, H. (2004). Re-examining classroom mastery goal structure. In P. R. Pintrich & M. L. Maehr (Eds.),Advances in motivation: Vol. 13, Motivating students, improving schools: The legacy of Carol Midgley(pp. 233–263). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., & Ryan, A. M. (2002). Social motivation and the classroom social environ-ment. In C. Midgley (Ed.), Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning (pp. 85–108)Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., Ryan, A. M., Edelin, K. C., & Midgley, C. (2001). Teachers’ communicationof goal orientations in four fifth-grade classrooms. The Elementary School Journal, 102, 35–58.

Perry, N. (1998). Young children’s self-regulated learning and contexts that support it. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 90, 715–729.

Pintrich, P. R. (1994) Continuities and discontinuities: Future directions for research in educationalpsychology. Educational Psychologist, 29, 137–148.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000a). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boedaerts, P. Pintrich, &M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Theory, research and applications. San Diego,California: Academic.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000b). An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory,and research. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 92–104.

Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning andteaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 667–686.

Pintrich, P. R., & De Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroomacademic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33–40.

Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college classroom. InM. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, vol. 7 (pp. 371–402).Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI.

Pintrich, P. R., Ryan, A. M., & Patrick, H. (1998). The differential impact of task value and masteryorientation on males’ and females’ self-regulated learning. In L. Hoffmann, A. Krapp, A. K. Renninger,& J. Baumert (Eds.), Interest and learning: Proceedings of the Seeon Conference on interest and gender(pp. 337–353). Kiel, Germany: International Press Network.

Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184 181

Pintrich, P. R., & Schunk, D. (2002). Motivation in education: theory, research, and applications (2nd ed.).Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall.

Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A. F., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliabilty and predictive validity ofthe Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, 53, 801–813.

Roedel, T. D., Schraw, G., & Plake, B. S. (1994). Validation of a measure of learning and performance goalorientations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 1013–1021.

Roeser, R. W., & Eccles, J. S. (1998). Adolescents’ perceptions of middle school: Relation to longitudinalchanges in academic and psychological adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 123–158.

Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the school psychological environment andearly adolescents’ psychological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating role of goals andbelonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 408–422.

Rogoff, B., & Lave, J. (Eds.) (1984). Everyday cognition: Its development in social context. Cambridge,Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Rokeach, M. (1973). The nature of human values. New York: Free.Rumelhart, D. E., & McClelland, J. L. (1986). Parallel distributed processing: Explorations in the

microstructure of cognition, vol. 1. Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT.Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., & Deci, E. L. (1985). A motivational analysis of self-determination and self-

regulation in education. In C. Ames & R. E. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Theclassroom milieu (pp. 13–51). New York: Academic.

Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). “Should I ask for help?” The role of motivation and attitudes inadolescents’ help seeking in math class. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 329–341.

Ryan, K. E. & Ryan, A. M. (2005). Psychological processes underlying stereotype threat and standardizedMath test performance. Educational Psychologist, 40, 53–63.

Salili, F. (1994). Age, sex, and cultural differences in the meaning and dimensions of achievement.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 635–648.

Schlenker, B. R., Britt, T. W., & Pennington, J. (1996). Impression regulation and management: Highlights ofa theory of self-identification. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation andcognition: Vol. 3: The interpersonal context. New York: Guilford.

Schultheiss, O. C., & Brunstein, J. C. (2005). An implicit motive perspective on competence. In A. J. Elliot& C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 31–51). New York: Guildford.

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1987). Toward a universal psychological structure of human values. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 550–562.

Schwartz, S. H., & Bilsky, W. (1990). Toward a theory of the universal content and structure ofvalues: Extensions and cross-cultural replications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58,878–891.

Schwartz, S. H., & Ros, M. (1995). Values in the west: A theoretical and empirical challenge to theindividualism–collectivism cultural dimension. World Psychology, 1, 99–122.

Schwartz, T., White, G. M., & Lutz, C. A. (Eds.) (1992). New directions in psychological anthropology.New York: Cambridge University Press.

Shaw, M. L. G. (Ed.) (1980). Recent advances in personal construct theory. London: Academic.Shye, S., Elizur, D., & Hoffman, M. (1994). Introduction to facet theory: Content design and intrinsic data

analysis in behavioral research. Thousand Oaks, California: Sage.Silva, T., & Nicholls, J. G. (1993). College students as writing theorists: Goals and beliefs about the causes

of success. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 18, 281–293.Skaalvik, E. M. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: Relations with task and avoidance

orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 71–81.Smiley, P. A., & Dweck, C. S. (1994). Individual differences in achievement goals among young children.

Child Development, 65, 1723–1743.Smith, E. R. (1996). What do connectionism and social psychology offer each other? Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 70, 893–912.Smith, M., Duda, J., Allen, J., & Hall, H. (2002). Contemporary measures of approach and avoidance goal

orientations: Similarities and differences. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 155–190.Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1983). Achievement related motives and behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.),

Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological perspectives (pp. 7–74). SanFrancisco: Freeman.

Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape the intellectual identities and performance ofwomen and African Americans. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of AfricanAmericans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.

182 Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184

Stigler, J. W., Shweder, R. A., & Herdt, G. (Eds.) (1990). Cultural psychology: Essays on comparativehuman development. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Stipek, D., Salmon, J. M., Givvin, K. B., Kazemi, E., Saxe, G., & MacGyvers, V. L. (1998). The value (andconvergence) of practices suggested by motivation research and promoted by mathematics educationreformers. Journal for Research on Mathematics Education, 29, 465–488.

Strauss, C. (1992). Models and motives. In R. D’Andrade & C. Strauss (Eds.), Human motives and culturalmodels (pp. 1–19). Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

Strauss, C., & Quinn, N. (1997). A cognitive theory of cultural meaning. Cambridge, UK: CambridgeUniversity Press.

Thorkildsen, T. A. (1988). Theories of education among academically able adolescents. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 13, 323–330.

Thorkildsen, T. A. (1989). Justice in the classroom: The student’s view. Child Development, 60, 323–334.Thorkildsen, T. A., & Nicholls, J. G. (1991). Students’ critiques as motivation. Educational Psychologist, 26,

347–368.Treasure, D. C., & Roberts, G. C. (1994). Perception of success questionnaire: Preliminary validation in an

adolescent population. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79, 607–610.Triandis, H. C. (1989). The self and social behavior in differing cultural contexts. Psychological Review, 96,

506–520.Triandis, H. C. (2000). Dialectics between cultural and cross-cultural psychology. Asian Journal of Social

Psychology, 3, 185–195.Triandis, H. C., Leung, K., Villareal, M. J., & Clack, F. L. (1985). Allocentric versus idiocentric tendencies:

Convergent and discriminant validation. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 395–415.Turner, J. C., & Meyer, D. K. (1999). Integrating classroom context into motivation theory and research:

Rationales, methods, and implications. In T. C. Urdan (Ed.), Advances in motivation and achievement,vol. 11 (pp. 87–121). Greenwich, Connecticut: JAI.

Turner, J. C., Meyer, D. K., Cox, K. E., Logan, C., DiCintio, M., & Thomas, C. T. (1998). Creating contextsfor involvement in mathematics. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 730–745.

Urdan, T. (1997). Achievement goal theory: Past results, future directions. In M. L. Maehr & P. R.Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement, vol. 10 (pp. 99–141). Greenwich,Connecticut: JAI.

Urdan, T. C. (2001). Contextual influences on motivation and performance: An examination of achievementgoal structures. In F. Salili, C. Y. Chiu, & Y. Y. Hong (Eds), Student motivation: The culture and contextof learning (pp. 171–201). New York: Kluwer.

Urdan, T. C. (2004). Predictors of academic self-handicapping and achievement: Examining achievementgoals, classroom goal structures, and culture. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 251–264.

Urdan, T. C., Kneisel, L., & Mason, V. (1999). The effect of particular instructional practices on studentmotivation: An exploration of teachers’ and students’ perceptions. In T. Urdan (Ed.), Advances inmotivation and achievement, vol. 11 (pp. 123–158). Stamford, Connecticut: JAI.

Urdan, T. C., & Maehr, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and achievement: A case forsocial goals. Review of Educational Research, 65, 213–243.

Urdan, T., Midgley, C., & Anderman, E. (1998). The role of classroom goal structure in students’ use of self-handicapping strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 35, 101–122.

Urdan, T., Midgley, C., & Wood, S. (1995). Special issues in reforming middle level schools. Journal ofEarly Adolescence, 15, 9–37.

Urdan, T., Ryan, A. M., Anderman, E. M., & Gheen, M. H. (2002). Goals, goal structures, and avoidancebehaviors. In C. Midgley (Ed.), Goals, goal structures and patterns of adaptive learning (pp. 55–83).Mahwah, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Utman, C. H. (1997). Performance effects of motivational states: A meta-analysis. Personality and SocialPsychology Review, 1, 170–182.

Vandewalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 995–1015.

Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes. Cambridge,Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Weinberger, J., & McClelland, D. C. (1990). Cognitive versus traditional motivational models: Irreconcilableor complementary? In E. T. Higgins & R. M. Sorrentino (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition:Foundations of social behavior, vol. 2, ch. 16 (pp. 562–597). New York: Guilford.

Weiner, B. (1990). History of motivational research in education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82,616–622.

Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Motivation and achievement in early adolescence: The role of multiple classroomgoals. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 4–20.

Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184 183

Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of parents, teachers,and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 202–209.

Wentzel, K. R. (2000). What is it that I’m trying to achieve? Classroom goals from a content perspective.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 105–115.

Wertsch, J. V. (1991). Voices of the mind: A sociocultural approach to mediated action. Cambridge,Massachusetts: Harvard University Press.

Wigfield, A. (1994). Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation: A developmental perspective.Educational Psychology Review, 6, 49–78.

Wigfield, A., Anderman, E., & Eccles, J. S. (2000, April). Relations among children’s ability-related beliefs,achievement values, and achievement goals. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the AmericanEducational Research Association, New Orleans.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (1992). The development of achievement task values: A theoretical analysis.Developmental Review, 12, 265–310.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). The development of competence beliefs, expectancies for success, andachievement values from childhood through adolescence. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles (Eds.),Development of achievement motivation (pp. 91–120). San Diego, California: Academic.

Wolters, C. A., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and students’motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 211–238.

Yik, M. S. M., Bond, M. H., & Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Do Chinese self-enhance of self-efface? It’s a matter ofdomain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 399–406.

184 Educ Psychol Rev (2007) 19:141–184

The Contributions and Prospects of Goal Orientation Theory

Documents

Transcript of The Contributions and Prospects of Goal Orientation Theory

PENSION CONTRIBUTIONS AND NATIONAL SAVINGS IN GHANA; TRENDS, PROSPECTS AND CHALLENGES

Light Robust Goal Programming - Semantic Scholar

Goal Directed Dynamics - Computer Science & Engineering

1 Page PROSPECTS

PROSPECTS FOR EURO-ATLANTIC COOPERATION

Prospects for Community Organization

Goal-oriented decomposition of switching functions

goal comic book - Standard Chartered

Conferring Menus – Levels A – B Goal/Skill Goal/Skill

SMITHSONIAN CONTRIBUTIONS to ASTROPHYSICS

Parallel & Perpendicular Lines II. Goal - PDF4PRO

Go For the Goal(s): Relationship Between Goal Setting and Transfer of Training Following Leadership Development

Phenomenological Contributions to Dzogchen

Millenium Development Goal - MDG

CURRENT STATUS, PROSPECTS AND CHALLENGES

indian contributions to science

prospects - Globethics.net

Sociology Contributions to Indian

A Primer on Goal A Primer on Goal Attainment Scaling Attainment Scaling

Goal Clarity and Financial Planning Activities as Determinants of Retirement Savings Contributions