Clarifying mastery-avoidance goals in high school: Distinguishing between intrapersonal and...

Contemporary Educational Psychology 36 (2011) 268–279

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Contemporary Educational Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate /cedpsych

Clarifying mastery-avoidance goals in high school: Distinguishingbetween intrapersonal and task-based standards of competence

Nir Madjar a,⇑, Avi Kaplan b, Michael Weinstock a

a Ben-Gurion of the Negev, Department of Education, Beer-Sheva 84105, Israelb Temple University College of Education, Department of Psychological Studies in Education, Philadelphia, PA 19122, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 1 April 2011

Keywords:Goal orientationsMastery-avoidanceSelf-regulated learning strategiesAffect in school

0361-476X/$ - see front matter � 2011 Elsevier Inc. Adoi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.03.003

⇑ Corresponding author. Address: DepartmentUniversity of the Negev, Beer Sheva 84105, Israel.

E-mail address: [email protected] (N. Madjar).

a b s t r a c t

The definition, measurement, prevalence, and relations of mastery-avoidance goals with engagementoutcomes are still under debate. Study 1 (n = 256) aimed to investigate these issues among junior highand high school students in two domains. Findings indicated that students distinguished between thethree commonly assessed achievement goals and mastery-avoidance goals. Moreover, students distin-guished between the two standards conceived to underlie mastery-avoidance goals—task-mastery andintrapersonal competence. However, the task-mastery items failed to show reliability. Study 2(n = 118) aimed to replicate the results of Study 1 as well as to investigate the associations of mastery-avoidance goals with self-regulation strategies and affect in school. Intrapersonal mastery-avoidancegoals were positively related to adaptive strategies and negatively with maladaptive strategies. More-over, when combined with mastery-approach goals, intrapersonal mastery-avoidance goals enhancedstudents’ reports of adaptive affect in school. The implications of these findings to theory, method, andfuture directions are discussed.

� 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

The construct of mastery-avoidance goals was introduced intoachievement goal theory about a decade ago (Elliot, 1999; Elliot& McGregor, 2001; Pintrich, 2000). However, the relevance, mean-ing, and prevalence of mastery-avoidance goals in academic set-tings, and their association with adaptive and maladaptiveoutcomes, are still unclear (Pintrich, 2003; Sideridis & Mouratidis,2008). As research has consistently demonstrated that the stu-dents’ achievement goals relate to a range of adaptive and mal-adaptive learning and affective outcomes (Ames, 1992; Kaplan &Maehr, 2007; Meece, Anderman, & Anderman, 2006), it isimportant to clarify the theoretical conceptualization of mastery-avoidance goals, explore whether they are indeed held by K-12students in relation to their academic subjects, and if they are, theninvestigate their associations with adaptive and maladaptive out-comes. The current study aims to contribute to this domain ofstudy by investigating the conceptualization and prevalence ofmastery-avoidance goals and their relations with learningstrategies and affect among junior high and high school studentsin specific subject domains.

ll rights reserved.

of Education, Ben Gurion

2. Achievement goal theory

Achievement goal theory postulates that students’ motivationcan be usefully conceptualized as the purpose that students adoptwhen engaging in tasks in achievement situations (Dweck, 1986;Maehr, 1984; Nicholls, 1984). Whereas researchers differ some-what on the purposes they have identified among students, mostresearch in achievement goal theory has focused on two primaryachievement goals: mastery and performance goals (Ames, 1992).Mastery goals refer to engagement with the purpose of developingcompetence and involve defining success according to absolutestandards of mastering the task or according to intrapersonal stan-dards of improvement over previous achievement. Mastery goalsmanifest as an orientation toward deep learning, improvement,and the acquisition of new skills. Performance goals refer toengagement with the purpose of demonstrating competence andinvolve defining success according to interpersonal standards(Elliot, 1999). Performance goals manifest as an orientation towarddoing better than others, achieving high grades with little effort, oravoiding doing poorly or less well than others (Ames, 1992).

Research in the 1980s and 1990s focused on comparing the out-comes associated with adopting mastery goals and performancegoals. The research consistently pointed to the positive outcomesassociated with mastery goals, most particularly deep learningstrategies, self-efficacy, coping and self-regulation, well-being,and achievement (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls,

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.03.003

mailto:[email protected]


http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/0361476X

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/cedpsych

N. Madjar et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 36 (2011) 268–279 269

1984; Utman, 1997). The research findings were less consistentregarding performance goals. Some researchers found performancegoals to be associated with maladaptive outcomes such as shallowprocessing, problematic coping, negative emotions, and lowachievement, while other researchers found no such relations,and some researchers even found associations between perfor-mance goals and adaptive outcomes such as self-efficacy andachievement (Urdan, 1997).

2.1. Approach and avoidance valence in achievement goals

About a decade ago, Elliot (1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996;see also Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Skaalvik, 1997) argued thatthe distinction between mastery and performance goals empha-sizes different definitions of competence but ignores the differentvalence possible in the pursuit of competence. Elliot suggested,for example, that the inconsistent research findings regarding per-formance goals may be due to the conflation of two distinct moti-vational orientations within performance goals, which aredifferentiated by their valence: approach goals that are orientedtowards attaining success and avoidance goals that are oriented to-wards avoiding failure. Accordingly, performance-approach goalsrefer to the purpose of engaging in order to demonstrate high com-petence, and include goals such as doing better than others andsucceeding with little effort. Performance–avoidance goals referto the purpose of engaging in order to avoid demonstrating lowcompetence, and include goals such as avoiding doing less wellthan others, and avoiding appearing unable.

The distinction between performance-approach and avoidancegoals resulted in a trichotomous model of achievement goals thatincluded mastery, performance-approach, and performance–avoidance goals (Elliot & Church, 1997). A decade of research onthis model supported the different patterns of outcomes associatedwith performance-approach and performance–avoidance goals (El-liot, 1999, 2005; Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). Performance–avoidancegoals have been associated almost unequivocally with maladaptiveoutcomes such as negative emotions and well-being, problematiccoping, avoidance behaviors, and low achievement. In contrast,performance-approach goals have been associated with many po-sitive outcomes such as high self-efficacy, high achievement, andself-regulated learning. However, this motivational orientationhas also been associated with some less adaptive outcomes suchas high disruptive behavior, negative intergroup relations, and a ri-gid conflict resolution style (Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). Generally, thefindings regarding mastery goals have continued to indicate posi-tive outcomes (e.g., Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubien, 2007).

Soon after the introduction of the distinction between approachand avoidance valence to performance goals, it was suggested asrelevant also with respect to mastery goals (Elliot, 1999; Elliot &McGregor, 2001; Pintrich, 2000). However, in contrast to theempirical rationale of inconsistent findings that supported distin-guishing between performance-approach and avoidance goals,the rationale for distinguishing between mastery-approach andmastery-avoidance goals was primarily theoretical: applying thevalence dimension to the mastery goals standard of competence(Elliot, 1999). This led to deliberations concerning the conceptualand empirical validity, psychological relevance, and ecologicalprevalence, of mastery-avoidance goals among students (Deshon& Gillespie, 2005; Pintrich, 2003; Sideridis & Mouratidis, 2008).

3. Mastery-avoidance goals

Theoretically, mastery-avoidance goals represent an avoidancevalence—orientation towards avoiding failure—along mastery goalstandards of competence: i.e., ‘‘avoiding self-referential or task-

referential incompetence’’ (Elliot, 1999, p. 181). More generally,mastery-avoidance goals refer to ‘‘striving to avoid losing one’sskills and abilities (or having their development stagnate), forget-ting what one has learned, misunderstanding material, or leavinga task incomplete or unmastered’’ (p. 181).

Elliot (1999) suggested that concerns about losing competencewould be common among the elderly who experience decline intheir abilities. However, he also noted contexts where this achieve-ment goal may become relevant to younger people; for example,among high performing athletes whose competence peaks andthen starts to decline at a relatively young age. However, research-ers and educators found mastery-avoidance goals to be counterin-tuitive for describing a motivational orientation among youngpeople in formal educational contexts. This led to several investiga-tions that aimed to validate the distinct nature of mastery-avoidance goals from mastery-approach goals and from perfor-mance–avoidance goals, and the utility of mastery-avoidance goalsin explaining variability in students’ motivation and outcomes.Elliot and McGregor (2001) used exploratory and confirmatoryfactor analyses and supported the empirical distinction betweenmastery-avoidance and the other achievement goals as well asthe differential pattern of relations between mastery-avoidancegoals and outcomes among US undergraduate students. Otherstudies followed to support the empirical distinction and differen-tial pattern of mastery-avoidance goals, primarily among UScollege students (e.g., Conroy, Elliot, & Hofer, 2003; Finney, Pieper,& Barron, 2004; Pastor, Barron, Miller, & Davis, 2004), but alsoamong younger students in other societies (e.g., Bong, 2009).

However, other studies found only little relevance of mastery-avoidance goals to young students. In one of the very few studiesthat assessed mastery-avoidance goals in young students, Sideridisand Mouratidis (2008) used two types of measures to assess ele-mentary and middle-school students’ achievement goals in physi-cal education (PE). The first measure was a one-item perachievement goal forced-choice scale that asked students to selecttheir most salient goal in PE. The mastery-avoidance goal itemwas: ‘‘In PE, I want to avoid not learning all that I possibly could.’’In two samples, very few students (1 out of 112 and 13 out of 267)selected mastery-avoidance as their salient goal. The second mea-sure was an open-ended question that asked students to convey allpossible goals they try to achieve when attending PE class. No stu-dents provided statements that fit a mastery-avoidance goal. Thesefindings led the researchers to the conclusion that mastery-avoid-ance goals are practically non-existent in such settings. Thus, therelevance and prevalence of mastery-avoidance goals amongyoung students and in different contexts are still unclear. Whilemastery-avoidance goals can be conceptually distinguished frommastery-approach goals, young students may indeed have littleconcern with losing skills. Somewhat differently, it may that, underthe mastery goals’ malleable definition of competence (cf. Dweck &Leggett, 1988), concerns about avoiding failure to achieve changein competence are empirically indistinct from concerns to achievesuccess in competence change. This could result with the empiricaloverlap of mastery-avoidance and mastery-approach goals.

One characteristic of mastery-avoidance goals—and masterygoals more generally—that may contribute to inconsistent findingsregarding its relevance and prevalence among students is its multi-dimensional definition. This definition includes at least two com-petence standards: task-mastery and intrapersonal change. Elliotand Thrash (2001) noted that either of these standards could bea focus of mastery goals, and hence defined mastery-avoidancegoals as ‘‘striving not to fall short of task mastery or striving notto lose one’s skills, abilities or knowledge’’ (Elliot & Thrash, 2001,p. 145, emphasis added). Elliot and McGregor (2001) elaboratedon possible examples of mastery-avoidance goals: ‘‘striving toavoid misunderstanding or failing to learn course material, striving

1 Unlike other researchers, Van Yperen’s (2003) approach emphasizes the domi-ant achievement goal that individuals pursue. In his measures, participants aresked to contrast various pairs of achievement goals, with the summation of these

mparisons resulting with their categorization as holding a certain dominantchievement goal.

270 N. Madjar et al. / Contemporary Educational Psychology 36 (2011) 268–279

not to make an error in a business transaction, striving not to missa free throw in a basketball game, striving to avoid leaving a cross-word puzzle incomplete, striving not to forget what one haslearned, and striving not to lose one’s physical or intellectual capa-bilities’’ (p. 502). Whereas questions may be raised whether someof these instances necessarily indicate mastery-avoidance goals,what is clear is that these examples involve the emphasis on avoid-ing failure along standards of competence as defined either bymastery of the task or by the person’s own previous competencein the task.

Interestingly, measures of mastery-avoidance goals were notconsistent in attending to these different standards. The originaland most commonly used measure of mastery-avoidance goals—Elliot & McGregor’s (2001) three-item subscale in the AchievementGoal Questionnaire (AGQ)—attempts to capture both of the compe-tence standards by using general language. The measure includesthree items that focus on a negative emotion (worry, fear, concern)that is associated with failure to take advantage of an opportunity todevelop competence to its potential: ‘‘I worry that I may not learn allthat I possible could in this class,’’ ‘‘Sometimes I’m afraid that I maynot understand the content of this class as thoroughly as I’d like,’’and ‘‘I am often concerned that I may not learn all that there is tolearn in this class.’’ It is noteworthy, that while being general withregard to the standard by which success is defined, these itemsfocus on the failure to gain in competence but do not include thepossibility of losing already acquired skills—a form of mastery-avoidance goals that is included in the construct’s definition, butmay be less relevant in educational settings and more relevantamong older populations and top athletes (Elliot, 1999).

Findings from studies using this measure, primarily among col-lege students, did not find consistent patterns of associations ofmastery-avoidance goals with outcomes. Generally, however, thefindings suggested that mastery-avoidance goals are associatedwith maladaptive outcomes and are not associated with positiveoutcomes. Howell and Watson (2007) found that mastery-avoidance goals were related to maladaptive cognitive and learn-ing strategies as well as to procrastination, had no relations withmore desirable strategies such as meta-cognitive and deep pro-cessing, and were negatively related to students’ grades. Similarly,Bartels and Magun-Jackson (2009) found that, whereas mastery-approach goals mediated the relations between need for achieve-ment and meta-cognitive strategies, mastery-avoidance goals wereunrelated to these strategies.

Recently, Elliot and Murayama (2008) noted several limitationsof the AGQ. These limitations included the confounding in theitems of negative emotions and goals through the use of emotionalwords, the confounding of goals and the underlying reasons behindthese goals, and the inclusion of ambiguous language that can beinterpreted along different achievement goals. Elliot and Muray-ama created a revised measure—the AGQ-R. Using this measure, El-liot and Murayama (2008) found that whereas mastery-avoidancegoals were positively correlated with both need for achievementand fear of failure, they were not predictive of intrinsic motivationor exam performance. Interestingly, whereas they defined mas-tery-avoidance goals as a ‘‘focus on avoiding task-based or intra-personal incompetence’’ (p. 614, emphasis added), the reviseditems still focus on avoiding failure to take advantage of an oppor-tunity to develop competence: ‘‘My aim is to avoid learning lessthan I possibly could,’’ ‘‘I am striving to avoid an incomplete under-standing of the course material,’’ ‘‘My goal is to avoid learning lessthan it is possible to learn.’’ Thus, notably, the AGQ-R still lacks theconceptual dimension of mastery-avoidance goals that aims toavoid losing competence.

Other researchers have employed more specific operationaliza-tions of mastery-avoidance goals, making the explicit decision tofocus on only one of the competence standards. For example, Van

Yperen and his colleagues (Van Yperen, 2003, 2006; Van Yperen,Elliot, & Anseel, 2009; Van Yperen & Renkema, 2008) have em-ployed both survey and experimental methods to elicit and assessmastery-avoidance goals that focus exclusively on the intraper-sonal competence standard: ‘‘not to perform worse than my usuallevel’’ (Van Yperen, 2006, p. 1435).1 Thus, in contrast to the empha-sis in the AGQ on avoiding missing the positive opportunity to developcompetence, this measure emphasizes avoiding the negative indicationof losing competence. Still, the emphasis on avoiding worse perfor-mance, rather than on avoiding deterioration (i.e., losing) of compe-tence, in these items may call students to attend to factors otherthan their ability and its potential deterioration (e.g., situational cir-cumstances that interfere with performance such as a harsh teacheror fatigue). The findings from research using this measure suggestedthat approximately 30% of the samples of college students in theNetherlands held mastery-avoidance goals as the dominant achieve-ment goal. These students, however, scored lower than studentswith any other dominant achievement goal on both positive (e.g.,need for achievement, general self-efficacy, positive affect, intrinsicmotivation) and negative (e.g., avoidance orientation, negative af-fect, extrinsic motivation) variables (Van Yperen, 2006, Study 1), orwere indistinct from the other students on various variables (per-ceived competence, interest, grades) (Van Yperen, 2006, Study 2).

In summary, the literature concerned with mastery-avoidancegoals is still relatively scarce and the prevalence and relevance ofmastery-avoidance goals, and its distinction from mastery-approach goals, are still under debate. The research that has beenconducted so far employed measures that do not address the dif-ferent standards of competence by which mastery-avoidance goalscan be conceptualized, and whether these may have differentimplications to the empirical relevance and prevalence ofmastery-avoidance goals and to its association with academicoutcomes for different students in different contexts. Most studiesthat assessed mastery-avoidance goals were conducted withsamples of college students.

The present research includes two studies that aimed to addressthese issues. Study 1 tested a newly constructed measure ofmastery-avoidance goals and investigated the empirical distinctionbetween the task-mastery and intrapersonal standards of mastery-avoidance goals and between these two standards and mastery-approach goals. Study 2 sought to replicate the findings from Study1 and investigate associations between mastery-avoidance goalsand student academic outcomes.

4. Study 1

Study 1 aimed to investigate the empirical distinction betweenthe task-mastery and intrapersonal standards of mastery-avoid-ance goals, as well as their distinction from mastery-approachgoals. Since achievement goals were found sometimes to manifestsomewhat different patterns in different subject domains (e.g.,Bong, 2001), the current study investigated these questions intwo domains considered to be different in their characteristics:Math and History.

Most recent studies that investigated the distinction betweenmastery-avoidance goals and the other achievement goals em-ployed factor analytic methods. Factor analysis aims at findingsand emphasizing distinctions between groups of item. Thus, factoranalysis is based on the assumption that relations among items ina group are linear and on testing the hypothesis that groups of

nacoa


items that assess different constructs would be found distinct.However, the literature concerned with the conceptual definitionof mastery-avoidance goals does not imply that students woulddifferentiate between ‘‘intrapersonal mastery-avoidance goals’’and ‘‘task-based mastery-avoidance goals’’ (Elliot, 1999). More-over, in testing a hypothesis about clear linear distinctions be-tween groups of items, factor analysis provides a crude, binary,perspective on assessment of conceptual relations between con-structs: they are either distinct or not. In the current study weadopted a different approach that allows for a more complex inves-tigation of the relations among constructs that are hypothesized toshare some meaning: Smallest Space Analysis (SSA) (Guttman,1968; Lingoes, 1973; Shye, 1997).

SSA is a form of Non-Metric Multidimensional Scaling: an ana-lytic technique that uses the rank-order of inter-item correlationsto construct a spatial representation of the relative distance be-tween each pair of items in a Euclidean space, taking into accountthe rank-order of all other relations among items. The spatial rep-resentation, which resembles a map, presents each item as a pointin a geometric space. The distance between any two items on themap represents the relative strength of the relation between them,so that the stronger the relation relative to other relations, the clo-ser these items will be to each other on the map. Such a visual rep-resentation of the matrix of relations between the items ‘‘reflectsthe ‘hidden structure’ in the data’’ (Kruskal & Wish, 1978, p. 7), al-lows interpretation of a large number of relations, and has the po-tential to highlight features of the data that are masked whenviewed by numbers alone. Moreover, SSA is more robust than ana-lytical methods that have to satisfy assumptions concerning thelinearity and distribution of the data and is, therefore, reliable alsowhen there are non-linear relations among groups of items andwith data from relatively small samples (Cohen, 2005; Edmundson,1993; Maslovaty, Marshall, & Alkin, 2001).

When items in the SSA map belong to scales that assess latentvariables, the spatial regions on the map that are captured by itemsbelonging to the particular latent variables portray the ‘‘structuralproperties of variables’’ (Guttman & Greenbaum, 1998, p. 25).Moreover, these regions are assumed to represent the psychologi-cal space of the variable as it is indicated by the responses of theparticipants in this sample (Shye, Elizur, & Hoffman, 1994). Spatialregions of constructs that are close indicate stronger empiricalrelations between the constructs relative to spatial regions thatare far. Moreover, the analysis allows spatial regions of constructsto partially or fully overlap on the map, indicating an overlap in re-sponses to the sets of items belonging to the different scales, andpotentially an overlap in their psychological meaning. Thus, the vi-sual spatial representation can expose, and allow the examinationof, underlying dimensions and structural relations that organizethe participants’ responses to the items of the different scales. Itprovides an opportunity to examine the meaning of particularitems, of groups of items, and of the form of the psychologicalspace that groups of items belonging to different scales capturein students’ responses in light of theoretical assumptions concern-ing the meaning of specific items and the relations among the con-structs. [For a more extensive discussion of the interpretation ofSSA see Guttman and Greenbaum (1998), and Shye (1997).] Thesecharacteristics of SSA have appealed to researchers interested inthe complex meanings and relations among constructs includingmotivational orientations and strategies, cultural values, andpersonality attributes (e.g., Assor, Kaplan, & Roth, 2002; Bardi &Schwartz, 2003; Donald & Canter, 1990; Kaplan, Lichtinger, &Gorodetsky, 2009; Sabbagh, Faher-Aladeen, & Resh, 2004;Schwartz, Roccas, Sagiv, & Knafo, 2002).

In Study 1, we used SSA to investigate the structural relationsamong items assessing task-mastery and intrapersonal mastery-avoidance, mastery-approach, performance-approach, and

performance–avoidance goals. Following the conceptual distinc-tions in the literature, our working hypothesis was that we willfind empirical distinctions among the items assessing each of theseachievement goals, as well as between the two different standardsof mastery-avoidance goals.

4.1. Method

4.1.1. ParticipantsParticipants were 256 junior high and high school students (55%

females; 80 in 7th grade, 87 in 9th grade and 89 in 11th grade). Theparticipants were from two large schools in an urban area at thecenter of Israel. Students in both schools represent a diversesocio-economic population, ranging from high to mid-low levels.Students in regular education classroom study the Israeli curricu-lum that aims to prepare students for a national matriculationexam in several core subjects and a few elective subjects. Historyand math are two of the core subjects and are obligatory to all stu-dents. Unlike math (and other subject domains such as English), inthe domain of history, all students in the cohort follow the samecurriculum. This provides for a more uniform educational contextthan the context in mathematics, which is stratified by abilityand status. Within the sample, 141 students (51 in 7th, 27 in 9th,and 63 in 11th grade) responded to surveys on their motivationin the domain of history, and 115 (29 in 7th, 60 in 9th, and 26 in11th grade) responded to surveys on their motivation in thedomain of math.

4.1.2. ProcedureAll participating students received permission to participate

from their parents. The study was also approved by the Israeli Min-istry of Education. Students filled out questionnaires during classtime, taking approximately 25–35 min to complete. Each question-naire included 72 items (some of which were not included in thefollowing analysis). Participants were asked to indicate their levelof agreement with each item on a scale ranging from ‘‘1 – not atall true’’ to ‘‘5 – very true.’’ Items were modified to focus on historyor on math. Trained research assistants were present throughoutthe survey administration to respond to students’ questions.

4.1.3. Instruments4.1.3.1. Mastery-approach, Performance-approach, and Performance–avoidance goals. The three commonly measured achievement goalswere assessed with scales adopted from the Patterns of AdaptiveLearning Scale (PALS) (Midgley et al., 2000). These scales are themost widely used measures of these achievement goals in K-12school-settings and their validity and reliability has been sup-ported repeatedly (Levy-Tossman, Kaplan, & Assor, 2007; Midgley,Kaplan, Middleton, & Maehr, 1998; Smith, Duda, Allen, & Hall,2002). Mastery-approach goals were assessed with five items(Cronbach’s a = .81; a sample item: ‘‘An important reason why Ido my class work in history is because I like to learn new things’’);Performance-approach goals were assessed with six items (Cron-bach’s a = .86; a sample item: ‘‘I want to do better than other stu-dents in my history class’’); and Performance–avoidance goalswere assessed with six items (Cronbach’s a = .74; a sample item:‘‘One of my main goals in history is to avoid looking like I can’tdo my work’’).

4.1.3.2. Mastery-avoidance goals. Mastery-avoidance goals were as-sessed with eight items that were constructed for this study. Theitems appear in Table 1. These items involved references to severalaspects of the mastery-avoidance goals definition corresponding totask-mastery and intrapersonal standards of competence. One as-pect corresponded with the AGQ and concerned the task-masterystandard of increasing competence in relation to the task: avoiding

Table 1Items assessing mastery-avoidance goals.

Item # Item Means StD Skewness Kurtosis

MAV1 Often in history/math class, I think that it is important to me that I am not slow in learning the material 4.02 0.92 �1.01 1.20(Intra-P) 4.09 0.97 �1.27 1.57MAV2 One of my goals in history/math class is not to miss opportunities to learn important things 3.55 1.01 �0.38 �0.33(Task) 3.51 0.96 �0.32 �0.38MAV3 One of my main goals in learning history/math is not to forget what I have learned already 3.73 1.04 �0.88 0.61(Intra-D) 3.80 1.08 �0.95 0.48MAV4 One of my goals in history/math is that my learning pace is not too slow 3.63 1.08 �0.60 �0.34(Intra-P) 3.72 0.99 �0.75 0.21MAV5 It is very important to me that I do not forget what I have learned in history/math so far 3.91 0.91 �0.51 �0.50(Intra-D) 4.01 0.93 �0.97 �0.89MAV6 I want to avoid a situation where I will not have the time to learn and understand what there is in history/math 3.96 0.91 0.69 0.08(Intra-P) 3.76 0.94 �0.60 �0.16MAV7 Sometimes, I am concerned that I might not learn as deeply as I can in history/math 3.23 1.00 �0.27 �0.35(Task) 3.62 1.05 �0.54 �0.29MAV8 I’m concerned that I will not learn all there is to learn in history/math 2.81 1.03 0.07 �0.49(Task) 2.93 1.07 0.10 �0.54

Note: MAV = mastery-avoidance; Task = task-mastery standard – avoiding missing opportunities to learn; Intra-P = intrapersonal progress standard – avoiding not pro-gressing; Intra-D = intrapersonal deterioration standard – avoiding loss of knowledge and skill. Top coefficients refer to data about the domain of history; bottom coefficientsrefer to data about the domain of math.


missing opportunities to gain task-mastery afforded by the achieve-ment situation. Another aspect concerned the intrapersonal stan-dard of avoiding losing competence already acquired. While thisstandard has been included in the definition of mastery-avoidancegoals, it may be less relevant to K-12 students, as they are mostlyoriented towards building competence. Therefore, we also in-cluded items assessing the intrapersonal standard of avoiding thefailure to gain competence, or avoiding failure to keep up withlearning.

4.2. Results

4.2.1. Smallest space analysis (SSA)We conducted separate SSA analyses with all the items assess-

ing the four achievement goals in the domain of history, the do-main of math, and with students in 7th, 9th, and 11th grade.Fig. 1 presents the results of the analysis in the domain of history.The analyses’ results of the math domain and the different ages

Mastery-avoidance

Performance-approach

Fig. 1. Multidimensional scaling with all

groups can be found in the Supplementary material on-line. Therewere strong similarities among the analyses of the different subjectmatters and age groups. The findings from all the analyses pointedto spatial organizations with distinct regions for the mastery-approach items, performance-approach items, and performance–avoidance items (except for one item, which appeared in theperformance-approach region in all of the analyses: Pav1 – ‘‘It’simportant to me that I don’t look stupid in the class’’). In addition,all the analyses included a distinct region captured by the fiveitems assessing the intrapersonal standard of mastery-avoidancegoals (Mav1, Mav3, Mav4, Mav5, Mav6—e.g., ‘‘One of my goals inhistory is that my learning pace is not too slow;’’ ‘‘One of my maingoals in learning history is not to forget what I’ve learned already’’).Again, in all analyses, one item in the mastery-approach scale—Fig. 4: ‘‘An important reason why I do my work in class is becauseI want to get better at it’’—(an intrapersonal standard mastery-approach goal item) was located very close, and at times withinthe boundary of the intrapersonal mastery-avoidance region.

Mastery-approach

Performance-avoidance

achievement goal items in Study 1.

Table 3Zero order correlations among the variables in Study 1.

1 2 3

1. MAP –2. IMAV .50b –3. PAP .31b .39b –4. PAV .13a .24b .53b

Note. MAP = mastery-approach, IMAV = intrapersonal mastery-avoidance,PAP = performance-approach, PAV = performance–avoidance.

a p < .05.b p < .001.


Finally, the three items assessing task-based mastery-avoidancegoals—Mav2, Mav7, and Mav8—were not found to capture a con-sistent region. In all analyses, one item (Mav2: ‘‘One of my goalsin history class is not to miss opportunities to learn importantthings’’) was located among or close to the mastery-approach re-gion. However, the other two items (Mav7: ‘‘Sometimes, I am con-cerned that I might not learn as deeply as I can in history’’; Mav8:‘‘I’m concerned that I won’t learn all there is to learn in history’’)appeared in a different location in different analyses and mostlyfar apart from each other.

Following the findings from the SSA analyses, we tested thereliabilities of the different scales, excluding the performance–avoidance goals item that repeatedly appeared within the perfor-mance-approach goals region. Table 2 presents the psychometricproperties of the variables. All variables had appropriate Skewnessand Kurtosis supporting the assumption of normal distributions.The means of the variables were also appropriate, replicating find-ings in the literature. Both intrapersonal and task-based mastery-avoidance goals had means and distributions similar to the otherachievement goals, indicating comparable endorsement bystudents. Finally, all variables except for the task-based mastery-avoidance goals had acceptable reliability. The three items assess-ing task-based mastery-avoidance goals items had a very lowreliability as a scale.

An item-focused analysis conducted on the three task-basedmastery-avoidance items indicated that each had very good psy-chometric properties. However, the one item that repeatedly ap-peared close to the mastery-approach goals region (Mav2) wasmoderately-strongly correlated with the mastery-approach items(rs: .35–.56) and weakly with the intrapersonal mastery-avoidanceitems (rs: .17–.38), but not with the two other task-based mastery-avoidance items. The other two items (Mav7, Mav8) were weaklycorrelated between themselves (r = .31), but not with any of theother mastery-avoidance or mastery-approach items. Examinationof the language of these items indicated that both used the term‘‘I’m concerned. . .,’’ which may have distinguished their meaningfrom the other items. Interestingly, this did not result with highcorrelations between them or with a consistent pattern of findingsacross domains and age groups. Thus, due to the low reliability, thevariable task-based mastery-avoidance goals could not be used infurther analyses.

4.2.2. CorrelationsTable 3 presents the correlations among the variables. Intraper-

sonal mastery-avoidance goals were moderately-strongly and pos-itively associated with mastery-approach goals (r = .50, p < .001),and also positively but somewhat less strongly with both perfor-mance-approach and avoidance goals (r = .39, p < .001; r = .24,p < .01; respectively). Mastery-approach goals were associated

Table 2Psychometric characteristics of variables in Study 1.

Variable #Items

M (SD) Skewness Kurtosis Cronbacha

Achievement goalsMastery-approach 5 3.12 (.82) �.19 �.21 .81Task-based mastery-

avoidance3 3.86 (.60) �.46 .20 .31

Intrapersonalmastery-avoidance

5 3.27 (.67) .01 �.11 .68


6 3.15 (.86) .00 �.39 .86

Performance–avoidance

5 2.40 (.75) .55 .58 .74

with performance-approach goals (r = .31, p < .01) but not withperformance–avoidance goals.

4.3. Discussion

The purpose of Study 1 was to investigate empirically the con-ceptual distinction of mastery-avoidance goals from the otherachievement goals, and the distinction between the intrapersonaland task-based competence standards of mastery-avoidance goalsamong high school students in different domains and age groups.The findings suggest that the intrapersonal dimension ofmastery-avoidance goals can be distinguished from other goalorientations. Moreover, this type of mastery-avoidance goals wasendorsed by students to the same degree as were the otherachievement goals, and it had similar psychometric characteristics.

Unfortunately, the items assessing tasked-based mastery-avoidance manifested inconsistent patterns, had low reliability asa scale, and included language that raises validity questions. Inter-estingly, the one item in the task-based mastery-avoidance goalthat did not include affective language, and that manifested consis-tent relations across the subject domains and the age groups,seemed to be strongly associated with mastery-approach goals,and more so than with the intrapersonal mastery-avoidance goals.This raises the speculative possibility that task-based mastery-avoidance goals may be less distinct from mastery-approach goalsthan are the intrapersonal mastery-avoidance goals. However, thecurrent study was not able to provide conclusive findings on thispossibility. Future research will need to focus on developing stron-ger measures for assessing task-based mastery-avoidance goals.

Whereas the findings from Study 1 suggest that intrapersonalmastery-avoidance goals are empirically distinct from the otherachievement goals, they also suggest that these mastery-avoidancegoals are positively correlated with the three achievement goals.This pattern of relations leaves open the question of the psycho-educational correlates of intrapersonal mastery-avoidance goals.In Study 2, we seek to replicate the distinctions found in Study 1,and also investigate the relations of intrapersonal mastery-avoidance goals with two important engagement outcomes: self-regulated learning strategies and affect in school.

5. Study 2

Based on the assumed underlying psychological motives ofmastery-avoidance goals, which combine the adaptive motive ofapproaching success as well as the less adaptive motives of avoid-ing failure, Elliot (1999) expected mastery-avoidance goals to ‘‘pro-duce a somewhat complex and variable empirical pattern’’ (p. 182).For example, Elliot hypothesized that mastery-avoidance goals willbe positively associated with effort and persistence but negativelywith intrinsic motivation. More generally, mastery-avoidancegoals were hypothesized to have a more adaptive pattern than that


associated with performance–avoidance goals, but less adaptivepattern than that associated with mastery-approach goals.

In Study 2, we investigated the relations of intrapersonal mas-tery-avoidance goals with two sets of engagement outcomes:learning strategies and affect in school. As in Study 1, we opera-tionalize achievement goals at the subject-domain level, andaccordingly, the outcomes at the same unit-of-analysis. FollowingElliot’s (1999) hypotheses, and previous findings that mastery-avoidance goals were more likely to be related to maladaptiveoutcomes and unrelated to adaptive outcomes, we expected intra-personal mastery-avoidance goals to be positively associated withadaptive learning strategies and negatively associated with mal-adaptive strategies; however, not as strongly as mastery-approachgoals would be. In addition, we expected intrapersonal mastery-avoidance goals to be related negatively with positive affect andpositively with negative affect.

Whereas these relations may be expected when mastery-avoid-ance goals are the student’s dominant motivational orientation,some researchers noted that students are very likely to pursuemultiple goals (Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, & Thrash,2002). Indeed, the moderately-strong correlation found betweenmastery-approach goals and intrapersonal mastery-avoidancegoals in Study 1 implies that students are likely to pursue bothof these goals simultaneously. Findings suggest that the pursuitof multiple goals may enhance resilience to negative emotions inlearning such as anxiety and boredom (Daniels et al., 2008). How-ever, a question then arises concerning the possible consequencesof the likely simultaneous pursuit of these two types of masterygoals to student engagement. More specifically, a question thathas not been explored so far to our knowledge is the possibilityof a moderating effect of mastery-avoidance goals on the positiverelations commonly found between mastery-approach goals andadaptive academic engagement variables such as learning strate-gies and affect.

Based on the scant literature, we could expect the positive rela-tions between mastery-approach goals and adaptive outcomessuch as use of deep learning strategies and positive affect to belower in the presence of mastery-avoidance goals. Similarly, wemay expect negative relations between mastery-approach goalsand less adaptive outcomes such as maladaptive strategies andnegative affect to be lower in the presence of mastery-avoidancegoals.

Thus, Study 2 has two purposes: (1) to replicate findings fromStudy 1 concerning the empirical distinction of intrapersonal mas-tery-avoidance goals from the other achievement goals and theircomparable level of endorsement; (2) to investigate the associa-tions between intrapersonal mastery-avoidance goals and adaptiveand less adaptive educational engagement outcomes, as well astheir possible moderating role on the relations of mastery-ap-proach goals and these outcomes.

5.1. Method

5.1.1. ParticipantsParticipants were 118 10th-grade Jewish Israeli students (55%

females) from two regional high schools in a city in the South of Is-rael. The schools serve students from different neighborhoods inthe city, which are characterized by low to mid-level socio-eco-nomic class populations. Students were answering the surveysregarding their history class.

5.1.2. ProcedureThis study also received approval by the Israeli Ministry of Edu-

cation and participating students received permission from theirparents. Students filled out questionnaires during class time, tak-ing approximately 30–40 min to complete. Each questionnaire in-

cluded 93 items (with items that were not included in thecurrent analysis). Participants were asked to indicate their levelof agreement with each item on a scale ranging from ‘‘1-not atall true’’ to ‘‘5 – very true.’’ Students were instructed to think oftheir history class when responding to the items. The items werephrased to focus on history. Trained research assistants were pres-ent during the administration to respond to students’ questions.

5.1.3. Instruments5.1.3.1. Achievement goal orientations. The measures of achieve-ment goal orientations were identical to the measures describedin Study 1.

5.1.3.2. Affect in school. Positive and negative affect in school wereassessed with scales originally developed by Wolters, Garcia, andPintrich (1992) and later employed in several other studies (e.g.,Kaplan & Maehr, 1999; Kaplan & Midgley, 1999; Roeser & Midgley,1997). Students report levels of positive affect in school byresponding to five items (Cronbach’s a = .68; a sample item: ‘‘I likebeing in school’’), and levels of negative affect in school byresponding to six items (Cronbach’s a = .73; a sample item: ‘‘I’m of-ten angry when I’m at school’’).

5.1.3.3. Learning strategies. Students’ use of learning strategies wasassessed with the Self-Regulation Strategy Inventory (Cleary,2006). The inventory includes three factors: Managing environ-ment and behavior in a way that promotes learning is assessedby 12 items (Cronbach’s a = .66; a sample item: ‘‘I make sure noone disturbs me when I study’’); Active seeking of information isassessed by eight items (Cronbach’s a = .84; a sample item: ‘‘I askmy teacher questions when I do not understand something’’);and Maladaptive regulatory behavior which may harm learningprocesses is assessed by eight items (Cronbach’s a = .68; a sampleitem: ‘‘I wait to the last minute to study for science tests’’).

Unlike the other instruments in the study, this instrument isrelatively new and was not translated into Hebrew previously.The items were translated into Hebrew and then back to Englishby independent translators. The back-translation was comparedto the original and was found to maintain the meaning of theitems.

5.2. Results

5.2.1. SSA analysis: replicating findings of Study 1An identical SSA to the one in Study 1 was run with all achieve-

ment goal items. Fig. 2 presents the findings from this analysis. Asin Study 1, the findings from this sample support the distinct re-gions of mastery-approach, performance-approach, performance–avoidance, and intrapersonal mastery-avoidance regions, withthe exception of the same performance–avoidance item (Pav1)appearing in the performance-approach region. Also, the samemastery-approach goals item (Fig. 4) was located very close tothe intrapersonal mastery-avoidance region. In the current sample,the three task-based mastery-avoidance items were all locatedwithin the mastery-approach region, providing some further sup-port to the speculation raised previously that this construct maybe empirically similar to mastery-approach goals.

Table 4 presents the psychometric properties of the variables inStudy 2. All variables had appropriate Skewness and Kurtosis sup-porting the assumption of normal distributions. The means of thevariables were also appropriate, replicating the findings in the lit-erature and in Study 1. Again, similar to the findings from Study 1,all variables except for the task-based mastery-avoidance goalshad acceptable reliability, although these were somewhat lowerthan those in Study 1.

Performance-avoidance


Mastery-avoidance

Mastery-approach

Fig. 2. Multidimensional scaling with all achievement goal items in Study 2.

Table 4Psychometric characteristics of variables in Study 2.

Variable #Items

M (SD) Skewness Kurtosis Cronbacha

Achievement goalsMastery-approach 5 3.21 (.69) .04 �.07 .68Task-based mastery-

avoidance3 3.22 (.76) �.08 .39 .49

Intrapersonalmastery-avoidance

5 3.62 (.76) �.48 �.32 .75


6 3.23 (.81) .07 �.30 .83

Performance–avoidance

5 2.43 (.86) .50 �.37 .77

Affect in schoolPositive affect 5 3.26 (.72) .02 .21 .68Negative affect 6 2.19 (.69) .19 �.39 .73

Learning strategiesManaging

environment12 3.21 (.71) �.17 .38 .66

Seeking and learninginformation

8 3.22 (.58) .05 .06 .84

Maladaptiveregulatorybehavior

7 2.51 (.65) .07 �.17 .69

Table 5Zero order correlations among the variables in Study 2.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

1. MAP –2. IMAV .55c –3. PAP .24b .22a –4. PAV .08 .05 .39c –5. PA .39c .23a .13 �.16 –6. NA �.18a �.04 .12 .54c �.59c –7. ENV .58c .41c .10 �.04 .16 �.19a –8. INFO .54c .42c .32c �.02 .27b �.18a .53c –9. MAL �.38c �.12 .06 .37c �.22a .37c �.53c �.34b

Note: MAP = mastery-approach, IMAV = intrapersonal mastery-avoidance,PAP = performance-approach, PAV = performance–avoidance, PA = positive affecttoward school, NA = negative affect toward school, ENV = managing environmentand behavior, INFO = seeking and learning information, MAL = maladaptive regu-latory behavior.

a p < .05.b p < .01.c p < .001.


5.2.2. CorrelationsTable 5 presents the zero-order correlations among the vari-

ables. Intrapersonal mastery-avoidance goals were strongly andpositively correlated with mastery-approach goals, weaklypositively correlated with performance-approach goals, and notcorrelated with performance–avoidance goals. Intrapersonalmastery-avoidance goals were weakly positively correlated withpositive affect and moderately with the adaptive information seek-ing and environmental strategies; but not correlated with negativeaffect or maladaptive strategies. Mastery-approach goals had avery similar pattern of correlations as did intrapersonal mastery-avoidance goals with stronger magnitude of correlations, and withthe addition of negative correlations with negative affect and

maladaptive strategies. This pattern of relations is similar to whathas been found in other studies and provides support to the valid-ity of the measure.

Performance-approach goals were correlated positively andmoderately with performance–avoidance goals, uncorrelated withthe affect variables, and positively correlated with the informationseeking strategies, but not with the environmental or the maladap-tive strategies variables. Performance–avoidance goals, in contrast,were positively and moderately correlated with negative affect,uncorrelated with the adaptive strategies variables and positivelycorrelated with the maladaptive strategies. Again, this pattern ofcorrelations supports the validity of these measures.

Positive affect in school was strongly and negatively correlatedwith negative affect, positively correlated with the informationseeking strategies and negatively with the maladaptive strategies.The negative affect in school variable manifested the reversepattern, with small negative correlations with the adaptive learn-ing strategies and a positive moderate correlation with the

Table 6Regression results of achievement goals predicting learning strategies.

ENV INFO MAL

Step 1 Step 2 Step3 Step 4 Step 1 Step 2 Step3 Step 4 Step 1 Step 2 Step3 Step 4

PAP .10 �.05 �.10 �.10 .32c .21b .17a .18a .06 .16 .21a .17MAP .59c .41c .41c .49c .38c .38c �.42c �.27b �.25a

IMAV .32b .32b .20a .20a �.28b �.30b

MAP�IMAV .03 .08 �.23b

R2 .01 .33c .40c .40c .10c .33c .35c .36c .00 .17c .22c .27c

DR2 .31c .07b .00 .23c .02� .01 .17c .05b .05b

Note: After the Bonferroni adjustment, only findings with probability smaller than .01 are considered statistically significant; PAP – Performance-approach; MAP – Mastery-approach; IMAV – Intrapersonal mastery-avoidance.

a p < .05.b p < .01.c p < .001.

Table 7Regression results of achievement goals predicting affect toward school.

Positive affect Negative affect

Step 1 Step 2 Step3 Step 4 Step 1 Step 2 Step3 Step 4

PAP .13 .04 .02 .06 .12 .18 .22a .16MAP .38c .32b .30b �.23a �.11 �.09IMAV .11 .12 �.22a �.24a

MAP�IMAV .23b �.27a

R2 .02 .15c .16c .21c .01 .06a .09a .16c

DR2 .13c .01 .05b .05a .03 .13b

Note: After the Bonferroni adjustment, only findings with probability smaller than .01 are considered statistically significant; PAP – Performance-approach; MAP – mastery-approach; IMAV – intrapersonal mastery-avoidance.

a p < .05.b p < .01.c p < .001.


maladaptive strategies. Finally, the environmental and informationseeking strategies were moderately and positively correlated, andeach was moderately and negatively correlated with the maladap-tive strategies.

5.2.3. Multiple regressionsMultiple regression analyses were run in order to investigate

the unique associations between intrapersonal mastery-avoidancegoals and the engagement variables, and to test whether they mod-erate the associations between mastery-approach goals and thesevariables. Since performance–avoidance goals were not correlatedwith the mastery goals variables, this variable was not included inthe analysis. Performance-approach goals, however, were posi-tively correlated with both mastery goals variables. Therefore, weentered performance-approach goals into the regression in orderto control for the shared variance it has with the mastery goals var-iable. In the following three steps, we entered into the regressionthe mastery-approach goals variable, the intrapersonal mastery-avoidance goals variable, and then the interaction between them.This group of independent variables were tested with the fiveadjustment dependent variables: positive affect in school, negativeaffect in school, managing environment and behavior strategies,seeking and learning information strategies, and maladaptive reg-ulatory behavior. In order to account for the multiple analyses andmaintain the probability of type I error at p < .05, we used the Bon-feronni correction: only findings with p < .01 would be consideredstatistically significant.

Table 6 presents the results of the multiple regressions with thelearning strategies as dependent variables. Table 7 presents the re-sults of the multiple regressions with the affective variables asdependent variables. Tests of multicolinearity indicated acceptableVIF levels (1.05–1.63). The findings from the regression analysessuggested that mastery-approach goals were moderate to strong

positive predictors of the adaptive environment and informationseeking strategies and of positive affect in school, explaining 31%,23% and 13% of the variance in these variables respectively.Mastery-approach goals were also negative predictors of themaladaptive strategies, explaining 17% of the variance in that var-iable. Intrapersonal mastery-avoidance goals were positive predic-tors of the adaptive environmental strategies and negativepredictors of the maladaptive strategies, over and beyondmastery-approach goals, explaining additional 7% and 5% of thevariance in these variables.

In addition, the interaction between mastery-approach andintrapersonal mastery-avoidance was significant in explaining var-iance in maladaptive strategies and both the positive and negativeaffective variables. This interaction added 5%, 5% and 13% to the ex-plained variance in these variables respectively. Figs. 3–5 presentthe plots of the interaction of mastery-approach and intrapersonalmastery-avoidance goals in predicting maladaptive learning strat-egies, positive affect, and negative affect respectively. The plotsindicate that higher levels of intrapersonal mastery-avoidancegoals contributed to stronger negative relations between mas-tery-approach goals and maladaptive strategies; stronger positiverelations between mastery-approach goals and positive affect;and stronger negative relations between mastery-approach goalsand negative affect.

5.3. Discussion

The findings from Study 2 replicated the structural organizationof the achievement goals constructs found in Study 1 providingadditional support to the empirical, and potentially phenomeno-logical, distinction of intrapersonal mastery-avoidance goals frommastery-approach goals and the performance goals. The findingsalso suggested that intrapersonal mastery-avoidance goals show

Note. MAP = mastery approach, MAV = mastery avoidance

Fig. 3. Plot of the interaction between MAP intrapersonal MAV predictingmaladaptive strategies.


Fig. 4. Plot of the interaction between MAP and intrapersonal MAV predictingpositive affect.


Fig. 5. Plot of the interaction between MAP intrapersonal MAV predicting negativeaffect.


a pattern of associations with engagement variables that is similarto, albeit weaker than, the pattern associated with mastery-approach goals. Notably, while the patterns were similar, theregression analyses suggested that the intrapersonal mastery-avoidance goals share some variance with the engagement vari-ables that is distinct from mastery-approach goals. The patternassociated with intrapersonal mastery-avoidance goals was clearlymore adaptive than the one associated with performance–avoid-ance goals, but also with the one associated with performance-ap-proach goals. Finally, intrapersonal mastery-avoidance goals werefound to moderate the relations of mastery-approach goals withthe affective and maladaptive strategies. Unexpectedly, the find-ings suggested that, when combined with intrapersonal mastery-avoidance goals, mastery-approach show a stronger positive pat-tern of associations with these variables: higher positive and lower

negative affect and maladaptive strategies. This implies that, atleast in the context of Jewish high school students studying history,an orientation to avoiding the loss of knowledge learned alreadyand avoiding the failure to keep pace with learning the materialmay enhance students’ adaptive engagement, and particularly sowhen combined with the orientation towards improving compe-tence and learning the material deeply.

6. General discussion

The findings of the current studies suggest that mastery-avoid-ance goals may indeed be distinct empirically motivational orien-tations among junior high and high school students. Analysis ofdata from two different samples, in two different domains, andfrom students of different ages replicated the finding that itemsassessing the goals of avoiding loss of competence and of avoidingfailure to keep pace with learning captured distinct structural re-gions from mastery-approach, performance-approach, and perfor-mance–avoidance goals. Moreover, endorsement of these goalswas similar in level to the other three achievement goals suggest-ing that students were as willing to indicate agreement with itemsasking them about their orientation towards avoiding loss ofknowledge learned and avoiding losing pace with learning thematerial.

However, the findings also seem to suggest that mastery-avoid-ance goals are not a unitary construct. Whereas the theoretical def-inition of mastery-avoidance goals integrates both task-based andintrapersonal standards for assessing competence, the findingssuggest that students may be responding somewhat differentlyto items assessing these two different standards. Unfortunately,the findings from the current studies are limited in their abilityto strongly support this conclusion, due to the unreliable task-based mastery-avoidance goals scale. Indeed, future researchshould aim to explore further the meaning of the task-basedmastery-avoidance goal construct and to establish a reliablemeasure to assess it. Nevertheless, the replication of finding onetask-based mastery-avoidance goals item in close proximity withthe task-based mastery-approach goals items (i.e. item MAV2),and the replication of finding the one item in the PALS mastery-approach goals scale in very close proximity with the intrapersonalmastery-avoidance goals items (i.e. item MAP4) do provide someinitial support to this suggestion, and encourage continuedresearch in this direction. An empirical distinction between task-based and intrapersonal mastery-avoidance goals seems reason-able in light of the different conceptual emphases of the task-basedand intrapersonal standards in mastery-avoidance goals. Whereasboth mastery-avoidance goals involve defining failure along thedevelopment of competence, the task-based mastery-avoidancegoal’s sole emphasis is on the learning of the material. In this sense,both the approach and the avoidance task-based mastery goalsmay be considered aspects of task-involvement (cf. Nicholls,1989), which refers to a focus on the task and on learning the con-tent with little or no focus on the self (see also Maehr, 2001).

In contrast, the intrapersonal standard of competence is, by def-inition, self-evaluation focused. Whereas it is likely to involve thebelief that competence is malleable (cf. Dweck, 1999), and henceto have less consequence to self-worth than performance–avoid-ance goals would have, the self-focus may still set it apart from,and result with less adaptive patterns than the focus on the taskwould be. Future research should aim at creating a more validand reliable task-based mastery-avoidance goals scale. Moreover,it seems that research should also pursue the possible distinctionbetween intrapersonal and task-based mastery-approach goals.

The findings also suggested that intrapersonal mastery-avoid-ance goals were generally associated with an adaptive pattern of


engagement, at least in the context of 10th-grade history class. Thepositive relations of the intrapersonal mastery-avoidance goalsconstruct with the adaptive environmental strategies, and the neg-ative relation with maladaptive strategies, were less strong thanthe associations of these variables with mastery-approach goals.However, these associations were independent from mastery-approach goals and, hence, unique to the intrapersonal mastery-avoidance goals construct. Moreover, when combined withmastery-approach goals, these associations were even stronger.Thus, it seems that students who are concerned with the changeand development of their skills and knowledge are more likely toengage in strategies that would effectively address these skillsand knowledge, even if they focus also on not losing these skillsand knowledge.

Interestingly, the pursuit of the intrapersonal mastery-avoid-ance goals was not associated, in-and-of-itself, with positive ornegative affect. This may suggest that in the context of 10th-gradehistory class such pursuit is neither anxiety-producing nor excitingor enjoyable. However, when the focus on not losing competencewas combined with the focus on mastering the task, the positiveemotional experience of engagement seemed to be enhanced. Thisis a rather surprising finding that goes against Elliot’s (1999)expectation that mastery-avoidance goals would be associated anegative emotional experience. One possibility is that, at least inthe context of the current sample, when combined with mastery-approach goals, the emphasis in intrapersonal mastery-avoidancegoals was not so much on its avoidant valence, but on its intraper-sonal standard. It may be that the experience of simultaneouslypursuing both the opportunity to learn and master the task (thecore of the mastery-approach goals scale) and utilizing theseopportunities to benefit one’s level of competence (the core ofthe intrapersonal mastery-avoidance scale) is a strongly gratifyingexperience that is stronger than the focus on only one of thesestandards. Clearly, this suggestion requires further research. Fur-thermore, research should address specifically the possible addi-tive and interactive effects of the simultaneous pursuit of thetwo standards of mastery goals (cf. Barron & Harackiewicz,2003). Such research may have important implications in guidingresearch and practice to emphasize primarily a focus on masteryof the task, a focus on consciously attempting to improve over pastperformance, or a combination of the two.

Overall, the findings suggest that, at least in certain educationalcontexts, mastery-avoidance goals can contribute to adaptiveengagement. Future research is required to investigate the per-sonal and contextual characteristics that might moderate or alterthese relations. For example, individual differences in contingencyof the students’ self-worth on the development of their compe-tence may moderate the relations of mastery-avoidance goalsand engagement (Niiya, Brook, & Crocker, 2010). When the self-worth is contingent on one’s development of competence, the pur-suit of not losing competence is likely to be self-threatening andtherefore be related to less adaptive engagement. Similarly, itmay be that in higher-stakes educational settings than the onestudied here, in which missing opportunities to learn or having aslow learning pace might have consequences to important andimmediate self-related and achievement outcomes, mastery-avoidance goals may be found to be associated with less adaptivepatterns of engagement than that found in the current study. Fu-ture research should explore these hypotheses in different educa-tional settings and subjects, and among students with differentcharacteristics.

Future research should also address several limitations of thecurrent study. For example, the single-time correlational data ofthe current studies should be supplemented with longitudinal dataand experimental designs that may help to support theoreticalhypotheses concerning lagged relations and effects among the var-

ious types of mastery goals, and between those mastery goals andengagement outcomes. Research should employ more comprehen-sive instruments to investigate relations of mastery-avoidancegoals and engagement outcomes that are more specific than thegeneral strategies and affective measures in the current study(e.g., Pekrun, Goetz, & Perry, 2005).

Finally, future research should also employ methods other thanself-report in order to provide data about mastery-avoidance goalsand its association with engagement. Most importantly, perhaps,future research should employ qualitative methods to explore indepth the meaning of the various standards of mastery goals tostudents of various characteristics and in different educational set-tings. Particularly, such research should investigate the possibleempirical distinction of the various mastery goals standards, andexplore their antecedents in students’ background and currenteducational experiences, and their relations with educationaldecision-making and engagement (Kaplan, Flum, & Kemelman,2009). Such research should provide for an enriched theoreticalperspective of the processes that may give rise to mastery-avoidance of different types, their role in the psychological experi-ences of students, and the possible effects of individual, contextual,and developmental processes in their adoption and operation.

Appendix A. Supplementary material

Supplementary data associated with this article can be found, inthe online version, at doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2011.03.003.

References

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 84, 261–271.

Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent:Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours predicting students’’engagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72,261–278.

Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and behavior: Strength and structure ofrelations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1207–1220.

Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2003). Achievement goals and optimalmotivation: Testing multiple goal models. International Journal of EducationalResearch, 39, 357–374.

Bartels, J. M., & Magun-Jackson, S. (2009). Approach–avoidance motivation andmetacognitive self-regulation: The role of need for achievement and fear offailure. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 459–463.

Bong, M. (2001). Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivationamong middle and high school students: Self-efficacy, task value, andachievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 23–34.

Bong, M. (2009). Age-related differences in achievement goal differentiation. Journalof Educational Psychology, 101, 879–896.

Cleary, T. J. (2006). The development and validation of the self-regulation strategyinventory – Self reported. Journal of School Psychology, 44, 307–322.

Cohen, E. H. (2005). Student evaluations of course and teacher: Factor analysis andSSA approaches. Assessment and Evaluation in Higher Education, 30, 123–136.

Conroy, D. E., Elliot, A. J., & Hofer, S. M. (2003). A 2 � 2 achievement goalsquestionnaire for sport: Evidence for factorial invariance, temporal stability,and external validity. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25, 456–476.

Daniels, L. M., Haynes, T. L., Stupinsky, R. H., Perry, R. P., Newall, N. E., & Pekrun, R.(2008). Individual differences in achievement goals: A longitudinal study ofcognitive, emotional and achievement outcome. Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 33, 584–608.

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

Donald, I., & Canter, D. (1990). Temporal and trait facets of personnel assessment.Applied Psychology: An International Review, 39, 413–429.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. AmericanPsychologist, 41, 1040–1048.

Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role I motivation, personality, anddevelopment. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

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

Edmundson, E. W. (1993). A facet analysis approach to content and constructvalidity. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53, 351–368.

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goalsand intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 70, 416–475.

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



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

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. (2001). A 2 � 2 achievement goal framework. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519.

Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of achievement goals:Critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100,613–628.

Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2001). Achievement goals and the hierarchical model ofachievement motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 139–156.

Finney, S. J., Pieper, S. L., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Examining the psychometricproperties of the achievement goal questionnaire in a general academic context.Educational and Psychological Measurement, 64, 365–382.

Guttman, L. (1968). A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallestcoordinate space for a configuration of points. Psychometrika, 33, 469–506.

Guttman, R., & Greenbaum, C. W. (1998). Facet theory: Its development andcurrentstatus. European Psychologist, 3, 13–36.

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

Howell, A. J., & Watson, D. C. (2007). Procrastination: Associations withachievement goal orientation and learning strategies. Personality andIndividual Differences, 43, 167–178.

Kaplan, A., Flum, H., & Kemelman, K. (2009). Meaning making and motivation: Adynamic model. In A. Kaplan, S. Karabenick, & E. De Groot (Eds.), Culture, self andmotivation: Essays in honor of Martin L. Maehr (pp. 69–110). Charlotte, NC:Information Age Publishing.

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

Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contribution and prospects of goal orientationtheory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 141–187.

Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (1999). The relationship between perceptions of theclassroom goal structure and early adolescents’ affect in school: The mediatingrole of coping strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 11, 187–212.

Kaplan, A., Lichtinger, E., & Gorodetsky, M. (2009). Achievement goal orientationsand self-regulation in writing: An integrative perspective. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 101(1), 51–69.

Kruskal, J.B., & Wish, M. (1978) Multidimensional scaling. Sage University Paperseries on Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, number 07-011.Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

Levy-Tossman, I., Kaplan, A., & Assor, A. (2007). Academic goal orientations,multiple goal profile and friendship intimacy among early adolescents.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 231–252.

Lingoes, J. C. (1973). The Guttman–Lingoes nonmetric program series. Ann Arbor, MI:Mathesis Press.

Maehr, M. L. (1984). Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personalinvestment. In C. Ames & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education(Vol. 1) (pp. 115–124). New York: Academic Press.

Maehr, M. L. (2001). Goal theory is not dead—not yet anyway: A reflection on thespecial issue. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 177–185.

Maslovaty, N., Marshall, A. E., & Alkin, M. C. (2001). Teachers’ perceptions structuredthrough facet theory: Smallest space analysis versus factor analysis. Educationaland Psychological Measurement, 61, 71–84.

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

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

Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., & Maehr, M. (1998). The development andvalidation of scales assessing student’s achievement goal orientations.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 113–131.

Midgley, C., Maehr, M. L., Hruda, L. Z., Anderman, E., Anderman, L., Freeman, K. E.,et al. (2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). AnnArbor, MI: University of Michigan.

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conception of ability, subjectiveexperience, task choice and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328–346.

Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Niiya, Y., Brook, A. T., & Crocker, J. (2010). Contingent self-worth and self-handicapping: Do incremental theorists protect self-esteem? Self & Identity, 9,276–297.

Pastor, D. A., Barron, K. E., Miller, B. J., & Davis, S. L. (2004). College students’achievement goal orientation profiles. Paper presented at the annual meeting ofthe American Educational Research Association, San Diego.

Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examinationof the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92,128–150.

Pekrun, P., Goetz, T., & Perry, R. P. (2005). Academic emotions questionnaire (AEQ) –User’s manual. Department of Psychology, University of Munich.

Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goalorientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92,544–555.

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

Roeser, R. W., & Midgley, C. (1997). Teachers’ views of issues involving students’mental health. Elementary School Journal, 98.

Sabbagh, C., Faher-Aladeen, R., & Resh, N. (2004). Evaluation of grade distributions:A comparison of Druze and Jewish students in Israel. Social Psychology ofEducation, 7, 313–337.

Schwartz, S. H., Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., & Knafo, A. (2002). The Big Five personalityfactors and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28,789–801.

Shye, S. (1997). Smallest space analysis. In J. P. Keeves (Ed.), Educational researchmethodology and measurement: An international handbook (pp. 677–684).Adelaide, Australia: Flinders University of South Australia.

Shye, S., Elizur, D., & Hoffman, M. (1994). Introduction to facet theory: Content designand intrinsic data analysis in behavioral research. London: Sage.

Sideridis, G. D., & Mouratidis, A. (2008). Forced choice versus open-endedassessments of goal orientations: A descriptive study. International Review ofSocial Psychology, 21, 219–248.

Skaalvik, E. (1997). Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation: Relationswith task avoidance orientation, achievement, self-perceptions, and anxiety.Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 71–81.

Smith, M., Duda, J., Allen, J., & Hall, H. (2002). Contemporary measures of approachand avoidance goal orientations: Similarities and differences. British Journal ofEducational Psychology, 72, 155–190.

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, CT: JAI Press.

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

Van Yperen, N. W. (2003). Task interest and actual performance. The moderatingeffects of assigned and adopted purpose goals. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 85, 1006–1015.

Van Yperen, N. W. (2006). A novel approach to assessing achievement goals in thecontext of the 2 � 2 framework: Identity distinct profiles of individual withdifferent dominant achievement goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,32, 1432–1445.

Van Yperen, N. W., Elliot, A. J., & Anseel, F. (2009). The influence of mastery-avoidance goals on performance improvement. European Journal of SocialPsychology, 39, 932–943.

Van Yperen, N. W., & Renkema, L. J. (2008). Performing great and the purpose ofperforming better than others: On the recursiveness of the achievement goaladoption process. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 260–271.

Wolters, C., Garcia, T. & Pintrich P. R. (1992). Assessing curly adolescents’ schoolcompetence and commitment. Unpublished manuscript, University ofMichigan.

Clarifying mastery-avoidance goals in high school: Distinguishing between intrapersonal and...

Documents

Transcript of Clarifying mastery-avoidance goals in high school: Distinguishing between intrapersonal and...