academic motivation

Achievement motivation, locus of control, andacademic achievement behavior'Charles 6. Schultz,^ Tr'mity College and Michael Pomerantz,Universiiy of Corinecticuf

Recently Wolk and DuCette (1973) found that locus of con-trol mediates the effects of achievement motivation on achieve-ment behavior. Resultant achievement motivation correlatedpositively with the choice and performance of achievement tasksonly for persons characterized as internals on Rotter's (1966)I-E Scale. Similar relationships were not obtained for externalsor for the sample as a whole. The mediating status of the locusof control variable was underscored by Wolk and DuCette's find-ing that it and resultant achievement motivation were inde-pendent. The compelling imphcation from these data is thatthere are two distinct groups of need achievement persons: in-ternals who accept responsibility for their acts and for whomachievement tasks are attractive as Atkinson's (1964) theory ofachievement motivation would predict, and externals who at-tribute the outcomes of their acts to environmental sources andfor whom achievement tasks hold no particular attraction.

Weiner (1972) poses a contrasting and more complex medi-ating function for the locus of control variable in his attributionexplanation of achievement behavior. According to this view,locus of control is not a unitary variable. Internal ascriptions ofcausality for events which may result in success or in failure canbe based on the constant, stable factor of ability or the fluctuat-ing, unstable factor of effort. Thus, there are four internal at-tribution conditions: success to ability, success to effort, failure

1. The authors are grateful to John Battle and Ken Padach for their assis-tance in the conduct of the research and to Gary Jacolson and Ralph Walde fortheir assistance in the analyses of the data. The authors, of course, are solelyresponsible for any errors. They are also indebted to Charles Clock, Edward Bier-man, and Francis Whittle of the West Hartford School District for their coopera-tion. This research was supported, in part, by a grant from Trinity College.

2. Requests for reprints should be sent to Charles B. Schtdtz, Trinity College,Department of Education, 300 Summit Street, Hartford, Connecticut 06106.

Achievement and locus of control 39

to lack of ability, and failure to lack of effort. An important fea-ture of the attribution approach is that these four internal con-ditions, far from being independent of achievement needs, arerelated to them on the one hand and to achievement behavioron the other.

It is the attribution view (e.g., Weiner, 1972) that personswith high achievement needs attribute success to the internalfactors of ability and effort. Accordingly they experience greaterpride in success and, therefore, are more attracted to such ac-tivities on future occasions than persons low in achievement needswho attribute success to external factors. When persons withhigh need achievement fail, the situation apparently is less clear-cut. They attribute failure to a lack of effort, an unstable, in-ternal factor. The effect of this attribution is to raise two oppos-ing tendencies toward the achievement task. One is inhibitivedue to the shame experienced with failure. The other tendencyis facilitative due to the maintenance of a relatively high expec-tation of success following failure. It is assumed that attributionof failure to an unstable factor (e.g., lack of effort) does notlower expectations of success. Since persons with high achieve-ment needs experience one inhibitive and one facilitative ten-deney after failure, presumably they are ambivalent aboutachievement activities.

For their part, persons with low achievement needs attributefailure to lack of ability which is associated with two inhibitivetendencies, shame due to failure and the expectation of futurefailures. The latter tendency is based on the assumption thatattribution of failure to stable factors (e.g., lack of ability) lowersor maintains low expectancies. Since persons with low achieve-ment needs experience only inhibitive tendencies after failure,presumably they avoid achievement activities.

Based on this rationale, the attribution approach imphes aset of relations between achievement needs and attributions ofcausality and between attributions of causality and achievementbehavior. Achievement motivation is positively related to theattribution of success to ability and to effort and the attributionof failure to lack of effort. Achievement needs are inversely re-lated to the attribution of failure to lack of abihty. Weiner andPotepan (1970) obtained support for these propositions; how-ever, the positive relationships between achievement needs and

40 Schultz and Pomerantz

the attribution of success and failure to effort were marginal atbest. The attribution approach also implies a set of relations be-tween attributions of causality and the attractiveness of achieve-ment activities. Both the attribution of success to ability and toeffort are positively related to achievement activity. Attributionof failure to lack of ability is negatively related to achievementactivity and, because of the counter tendencies generated byattribution of failure to lack of effort, that factor is presumablyunrelated to achievement activity.

Thus, the two approaches to the mediating function of locusof control differ in several respects. According to Wolk and Du-Cette (1973), achievement needs and locus of control are unre-lated; locus of control mediates the effects of achievement mo-tivation on achievement behavior by distinguishing those highneed achievers who find achievement activities attractive (in-ternals ) from those who do not (externals). According to Weiner(1972), locus of control and achievement needs are related ina relatively complex pattern; the mediating function of locus ofcontrol resides in its relationship to achievement motivation onthe one hand and achieveTnent behavior on the other.

An initial step toward resolving these contrasting views ofthe two variables, locus of control and achievement motivation,is replicating the findings on which they are based. The presentinvestigation was designed to replicate and to extend the earlierworks. The Wolk and DuCette (1973) study was replicatedwith the following modifications. The Resultant AchievementMotivation Scale (Mehrabian, 1969) used by Wolk and DuCette(1973) with some misgivings (Wolk & DuCette, 1971) was sup-plemented with Prestatie Motivatie Test (Hermans, 1970) whichholds promise as an objective measure of achievement motivation(Hermans, 1970; Schultz & Pomerantz, 1974). In addition, theIntellectual Achievement Responsibility Questionnaire (Crandall,Katkovsky, & Crandall, 1965) was substituted for a shortenedversion of Rotter's (1966) I-E Scale because it is a specific mea-sure of locus of control for achievement tasks similar to thoseencountered in schools by subjects in the present investigation.

The Weiner and Potepan (1970) study was replicated in partand was extended. The relationships between achievement needsand causal ascriptions were obtained, replicating a portion ofWeiner and Potepan's (1970) investigation. In addition, rela-


tionships were obtained between causal ascriptions and mea-sures of preference for and performance of achievement tasks.Finally, the important assumption of the attribution approachthat attribution of success to stable factors is positively relatedto expectancy of success and attribution of failure to stable fac-tors is negatively related to expectancy of success was tested.

METHOD

The subjects were 93 male ninth-graders who were randomly se-lected from two suburban jimior high schools. Seven tests were ad-ministered in two separate one-hour sessions to groups of approxi-mately 25 subjects. These tests as well as the modifications made tobring them closer to the reading and experiential level of ninth gradershave been described elsewhere (Schultz & Pomerantz, 1974).

Briefly, the measures of achievement needs were Mehrabian's(1969) Resultant Achievement Motivation Scale (RAM) and Her-mans' (1970) Prestatie Motivatie Test (PMT). Fear of failure wasassessed by the debilitative scale of Alpert and Haber's (1960) Achieve-ment Anxiety Test (AAT). The Intellectual Achievement Responsi-bility Questionnaire (IAR) (Crandall, Katkovsky, & Crandall, 1965)was used as a measure of locus of control. Internals and externalswere defined by the 30 highest and 30 lowest scores respectively onthe IAR. One advantage of the IAR is that it can be partitioned intosuccess and failure subscales. Furthermore, some items refer to ef-fort and others to ability.* Thus, the scale contains four subscaleswhich represent the four internal attributions discussed above.

The subjects also rated four English and three mathematics itemsfrom the Comprehensive Test of Basic Skills (CTBS) for their attrac-tiveness and estimated their chances of success on these same items.The difficulty level of the items used in the analyses reported hereis in the moderate range; 45 percent to 55 percent of the students inthe junior high schools from which the subjects were drawn answeredthem correctly. Performance of academic achievement tasks wasassessed by total scores on the CTBS, language arts and mathematicspart-scores on the CTBS, and by gradepoint averages.

The personality scales were administered via 35mm. slides. Sub-jects read each item projected on a screen as they listened to a tape-

3. Weiner (e.g., Weiner & Potepan, 1970) divided his adult version of theIAR into subscales of ability and effort or motivation. Crandall categorized allitems other than those which reflect effort as simply undifferentiated, since dieseitems may refer to more than ability (personal communication). Crandall's sub-scales were employed in the present analyses with Ihe labels used by Weinerand Potepan for the sake of consistency.

Schultz and Pomerantz

recorded reading of the item by the experimenter. The timing of theitems was determined by pilot work at a different junior high schooland was controlled by an audio-synchronizer device.

RESULTS

Achievement motivation was correlated with achievement be-havior for three groups: all subjects, internals, and externals.The achievement behaviors were similar to those used by Wolkand DuCette (1973). They included estimates of probability ofsuccess and task preferences for moderately difficult items onthe CTBS, grades for classroom work, and scores on verbal andquantitative standardized achievement tests. The results aresummarized in Table 1. The present study failed to replicateWolk and DuCette's (1973) findings in at least four respects.Achievement motivation was significantly and quite substan-tially related to estimates of the probability of success and toperformance of achievement tasks for the complete sample. Thestrength of these correlations suggests that little is to be gainedby using locus of control as a moderator variable (Zedeck, Cranny,Vale, & Smith, 1971). More important, the correlations betweenachievement motivation and achievement behaviors did not differsignificantly in any of the contrasts between the internal andexternal subgroups. In addition, corresponding regression co-efficients for the internal and external subgroups were compared.None of these contrasts was significant. Correlations betweenachievement motivation and achievement behaviors for externalsin the present study were significant in some cases and in generalwere stronger than Wolk and DuCette's (1973), who obtainedseveral negative trends. According to these findings, there ishttle support for restricting the apphcability of achievement mo-tivation notions to internals. Finally, unlike Wolk and DuCette(1973), who reported no relation between achievement motiva-tion and locus of control, in the present study the correlation wasmodest and significant in the case of the RAM (r = .29, df = 91,p < .01) and more substantial using the PMT-AAT (r = .52, df= 91,p<.001).

Although Mehrabian's (1969) achievement motivation scalewas designed as a resultant measure of the motive to succeedminus the motive to avoid failure, Weiner and Potepan (1970)suspect that, in actuality, it may reflect only success tendencies.

43

-ISi

r I r

1̂2?=E =5

O> » CN K Q 9C4 •-. >O Cj « 5;

8 2

so

IIz

ao

74 CSO-K,OS —

CM CM OS CM I -«N • • r> •<* «

« « «« « «« « «

i ln

llJii-s.

s e

S 0.= -sa 0)ua c9 o

SI'S

II« 0)

IIE C

^^ Schultz and Pomerantz

Accordingly, they devised a second resultant measxire by sub-tracting test anxiety scores from the RAM. Both the originalversion of the RAM and the resultant of the RAM minus testanxiety were correlated with the various subscales of the IAR.The same procedure was used in the present study with the ad-dition of a third measure of resultant achievement motivationbased on the PMT minus the debilitating scale of the AAT (Table2). Weiner and Potepan's (1970) results were replicated as faras the correlations between achievement motivation and attribu-tion of success are concerned. Indeed, the relationships wereconsiderably stronger in the present study particularly when thePMT was used as a measure of achievement motivation. An im-portant feature of the present findings is the relatively strongcorrelation between achievement needs and attribution of successto effort. The attribution model predicts this relationship, butWeiner and Potepan's (1970) findings were only marginal.

In addition to the correlations between measures of achieve-ment motivation and internal causal ascriptions, partial corre-lations were also computed in which the internal ascriptions notserving as dependent variables were controlled (see Table 2).After removing the effects of the other internal causal ascriptions,the relationship between achievement motivation and the attri-bution of success to ability and, in particular, to effort remains.

Attribution of failure to internal factors was unrelated to theRAM and slightly and nonsignificantly (p = .05) related to thePMT. The present findings are similar to those of Weiner andPotepan (1970) in regard to the low correlations between achieve-ment needs and the attribution of failure to lack of effort. Thesharpest distinction between the two studies occurs in the failureof the present study to obtain a negative relationship betweenachievement motivation and attribution of failure to lack ofability.

The correlations between the four subscales of the IAR andmeasures of preference and performance of achievement tasksare presented in Table 3. As implied by the attribution model ofachievement behavior, there was a relatively strong correlationbetween both the ability and effort attributions for success andthe preference for achievement tasks and performance of themwhether measured by a standardized achievement test or byteachers' ratings of learners' performance. However, neither the


Table 2. Correlations and partial correlations of resultant achieve-ment motivation with internal causal ascriptions (N = 93).

Internal

ascriptions

Success to abilityScccess to effortTotol internol forFailure to lack ofFailure to lack ofTotal internal for

successobilityeffort

failure

r

.36

.40

.44

.02- .06- .02

Measure of

RAM

r,'

* • * .24 '*** 2 9 * *

- .08-.08

resultant achievement motivation

RAM-AAT

r

.34***

.45* * *

. 47 * * *

.00-.01

.00

.21

.36* * *

- .11-.02

PMT-AAT

r

.50* * *

.55** *

. 6 2 * * *

.12

.13

.16

r /

.35**

.43* * *

- .06.12

* p < .05.**p<.01.

***p<.001.^ Correlation between RAM ond each internal causal ascription with the effects of the

remaining causal ascriptions partialed out.^ Correlation between RAM-AAT and each internal causal ascription with the effects of

the remaining causal ascriptions portialed out.'̂ Correlation between PMT-AAT and each internal causal ascription with the effects of

the remaining causal ascriptions partialed out.

attribution of success to ability nor to effort appear to be stronglyrelated to preference for academic achievement tasks nor per-formance of them when the effects of achievement motivationand the other internal causal ascriptions were removed.

Attribution of failure to lack of effort was unrelated to thepreference for or performance of achievement tasks, as expected.However, the attribution of failure to lack of ability was assumedto be negatively related to preference for achievement tasks. Nosuch relationship was obtained.

Although there were weak relationships between internalascriptions and achievement, there were relatively strong relation-ships between achievement motivation and academic achieve-ment when the effects of the fovir internal ascriptions were re-moved. The partial correlations were as follows: PMT-AAT andGPA = .40, p < .001; PMT-AAT and CTBS = .23, p < .05; RAMand CPA = .38, p < .01; RAM and CTBS = .27, p < .05; RAM-AAT and CPA = .38, p < .001; and RAM-AAT and CTBS = .40,p < .001.

Finally, two resultant stability scores were computed fromthe subscales of the IAR as follows:

Resultant Stability Score for Success (RSSS) = Attribution ofsuccess to ability - Attribution of success to effort -f 100.


Table 3. Correlations and partial correlations of internal causal as-scriptions with achievement activities (N = 93).

Achievementactivity

Task preferenceCTBS-totolGrode-point average

Success toability

r f/

.27' .20

.35** .17

.47** .26*

Internal causal

Success toeffort

r r.

.28** .20

.35** .16

.44** .20

ascriptions

Failure to lackof ability

r fp

-.02 -.09.10 .03.19 .07

Failure to lackof effort

r

-.09.00

-.14

r.

-.10-.01

.15

* p < .05.**P<.01.^ Partial correlations between achievement activities and internal causal ascriptions

with the effects of achievement motivation and the remaining internal ascriptions controlled.The RAM was used as the measure of achievement motivation. The PMT-AAT and RAM-AATresulted in similar but slightly smaller partial correlations.

Resultant Stability Score for Failure (RSSF) = Attribution offailure to lack of ability - Attribution of failure to lack of effort+ 100.

These resultant scores were used to test the assumption thatpersons who attribute success on academic tasks to stable fac-tors (i.e., to ability rather than effort) will approach similaracademic tasks with relatively high expectations of success andthat persons who attribute failure to stable factors will approachachievement tasks with relatively low expectancies of success.Neither assumption was supported by the present findings. TheRSSS was unrelated to ratings of probability of success (r = .04)and the RSSF was positively but not reliably related to ratingsof probability of success (r = .18).

DISCUSSION

Wolk and DuCette (1973) were interested in increasing theconsistency with which achievement needs were found to berelated to achievement behavior by identifying the group of highneed achievers for whom this relationship would be strongest.Unfortunately, the present failure to replicate their findings sug-gests that the use of locus of control to separate high needachievers who approach achievement tasks from those who donot may be as susceptible to contrary findings as the originalapproach to testing achievement motivation theory. Indeed, forthe present sample at least, the relationship between achievement


needs and achievement behavior for all subjects approximatesthe correlations Wolk and DnCette (1973) found for internalsalone. Moreover, the present study, like others (e.g., Mehrabian,1968), found that achievement motivation and locus of controlwere positively correlated. This relationship is not surprisinggiven the cogent analysis of the similarities between achievementmotivation theory and control-of-reinforcement theory that WolkandDuCette (1973) present.

The attribution conception of locus of control as a mediatingvariable received mixed support. The most supportive findingsoccurred in the event of success. High need achievers tended toattribute success to both internal factors of effort and abihty and,in turn, persons who attributed success internally also tended toundertake achievement tasks. The latter relationship appearsto lend support to the attribution explanation of achievementbehavior. The former relationship, also consistent with the at-tribution view, agrees with and complements findings obtainedby Weiner and Potepan (1970) and by Cohen, Reid, and Booth-royd (1973) on an Anglicized version of the RAM. Weiner andPotepan (1970) foimd a relatively strong correlation betweenachievement needs and attribution of success to ability but onlya weak correlation between achievement needs and attributionof success to effort. The opposite trend occurred in Cohen, Reid,and Boothroyd's (1973) results. In the present study, both abil-ity and effort factors were significantly related to achievementneeds as suggested by the attribution model. This effect was ac-centuated when the PMT-AAT was used as a measure of re-sultant achievement motivation.

Unfortunately, when the effects of related variables are par-tialed out, support for the attribution view is weakened. Al-though modest relationships between achievement motivationand internal ascriptions for success remain, in some cases theyare relatively small and in one case not significant. Moreover,there appears to be only a slight relationship between either theascription of success to ability or to effort and the preferencefor or performance of academic achievement tasks once the ef-fects of achievement motivation and the remaining internal as-criptions are controlled.

The present analyses using correlations or partial correlations

^^ Schultz and Pomerantz

clearly suggest that locus of control serves no mediating functionin the event of failure. The findings in regard to the ascription offailure to internal factors, particularly to effort, pose severalproblems for the attribution view. First, there is substantial evi-dence from the present study and from others (Cohen, Reid, &Boothroyd, 1973; Reid & Cohen, 1973; Weiner & Potepan, 1970)that achievement needs are unrelated to the ascription of fail-ure to lack of effort. These findings, which are inconsistent withthe attribution model, were obtained from responses to the hy-pothetical situations used on self-report measures. Weiner andKukla (1970) found that over a series of trials which inducedfailure, high need achievers tended to rate their effort lowerthan low need achievers. Thus, if a relationship between achieve-ment needs and attribution of failure to lack of effort does exist,it may be detectable only after actual performance on an achieve-ment task and, perhaps, only after sustained failure. It is uncer-tain whether the present results reflect difficulties in measuringone's attribution of failure to lack of effort or whether they pointto weaknesses in the model.

Second, the attribution approach is unclear with respect tothe finding that attribution of failure to lack of effort is unrelatedto achievement activities. On the one hand, the finding is con-sistent with the notion implied by attribution theory that theascription of failure to lack of effort simultaneously arouses ap-proach and avoidance tendencies. As a result of these countertendencies, persons who attribute failure to lack of effort arejust as likely to undertake achievement activities as they are toignore or avoid them. On the other hand, the findings are incon-sistent with the attribution explanation of high need achievers'persistence after failure. This explanation rests on the assump-tion that persons who attribute failure to lack of effort will ap-proach achievement activities. According to Weiner (1972),"Individuals high in resultant achievement needs ascribe failureto lack of effort. Thus, their expectancy of success followingfailure remains relatively high, and they continue striving forthe goal" (p. 389). Weiner's explanation takes into account thefacilitative tendency of attributing failure to an unstable factorwhich maintains high expectancies, but it ignores the inhibitivetendency of attributing failure to an internal factor which arousesfeelings of shame. The failure to obtain a correlation between


attribution of failure to effort and achievement activities high-lights the difficulty of the attribution view in this respect. Finally,the problem with the attribution explanation of persistence afterfailure is further comphcated by the finding that persons whoattribute failure to unstable rather than stable factors are no morelikely to have lower estimates of success on similar tasks thanpersons who make the opposite attributions.

The correlations between achievement motivation and at-tribution of failure to lack of ability were neghgible in contrastto the negative correlations obtained by Cohen, Reid, and Booth-royd (1973) and Weiner and Potepan (1970) and to predictionsbased on the attribution approach. However, the failure to sup-port the attribution view in this respect is not imique. Weinerand Kukla (1970) found that high need achievers tend to at-tribute failure to lack of ability. Thus the present results sug-gest that Weiner and Potepan's (1970) and Cohen, Reid, andBoothroyd's (1973) findings in regard to the attribution of fail-ure to lack of ability, though consistent with the theory, are notdefinitive. The difficulty may lie as much in the ambiguity ofthe abihty subscale, or at least in the failure portion of it, as inweaknesses in the theory. Moreover, attribution of failure tolack of ability was not negatively related to achievement activity.Only a small, nonsignificant negative correlation was obtainedfor preferences for achievement tasks. In sum, there appears tobe little evidence to suggest that the effects of achievement moti-vation on achievement behavior are mediated by the attributionof failure to lack of ability or, as described above, to the lack ofeffort.

In spite of the inconsistencies in the relatively direct attemptsto substantiate achievement motivation theory (e.g., Weinstein,1969), the present findings argue for just such an approach. Atleast they suggest that alternatives which posit a mediating func-tion for locus of control are no more parsimonious and are them-selves fraught with inconsistencies in evidence. The cleareststatement in the present findings is that persons with high achieve-ment needs, as assessed by two objective measures, prefer inter-mediate risks and perform better on academic achievement tasksthan persons with low achievement needs, a conclusion whichis entirely consistent with Atkinson's (1964) theory. This con-clusion is underscored by the finding that these relationships re-


mained relatively strong after the effects of the internal ascrip-tions were eliminated.

SUMMARY

Two views of locus of control as a mediator of the effects ofachievement motivation on achievement behavior were examined.Measures of achievement motivation, locus of control, and thepreference for and performance of achievement tasks were ob-tained from 93 male ninth-graders. Achievement motivation wasas strongly related to achievement activities for the entire sampleas it was for internals alone. Thus, locus of control did not dis-tinguish high need achievers who prefer achievement activitiesfrom those who do not. The mediating function of locus of controlimplied by attribution theory received partial support. Achieve-ment needs were significantly related to internal attributions ofsuccess, which in turn, were related to achievement behaviors.However, no relationship was obtained between achievementneeds and internal attributions of failure or between internal at-tributions of failure and achievement activities.

REFERENCES

Alpert, R., & Haber, R. N. Anxiety in academic achievement situations. Journalof Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1960, 61, 207-215.

Atkinson, J. W. An introduction to motivation. Princeton, N. J.: Van Nostrand,1964.

Cohen, L., Reid, I., & Boothroyd, K. Validation of the Mehrabian need forachievement scale with college of education students. British Journal of Ed-ucational Psychology, 1973, 43, 269-278.

Crandall, V. C , Katkovsky, W., & Crandall, V. J. Children's beliefs in their owncontrol of reinforcements in intellectual-academic achievement situations.Child Development, 1965, 36, 91-109.

Hermans, H. J. M. A questionnaire measure of achievement motivation. Journalof AppUed Psychology, 1970, 54, 353-363.

Mehrabian, A. Male and female scales of the tendency to achieve. Educationaland Psychological Measurement, 1968, 28, 493-502.

Mehxabian, A. Measures of achieving tendency. Educational and PsychologicalMeasurement, 1969, 29, 445-451.

Reid, I., & Cohen, L. Achievement orientation, intellectual achievement responsi-bility, and the choice between degree and certificate courses in colleges ofeducation. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 1973, 43, 63-66.

Rotter, J. B. Ceneralized expectancies for internal versus external control of re-inforcement. Psychological Monographs, 1966, 80 (1, Whole No. 609).

Schultz, C. B., & Pomerantz, M. Some problems in the application of achieve-ment motivation to education: The assessment of motive to succeed andprobability of success. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1974, 66, 599-608.

Weiner, B. Theories of motivation. Chicago: Markham, 1972.Weiner, B., & Kukla, A. An attribution analysis of achievement motivation.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 15, 1-20.Weiner, B., & Potepan, P. A. Personality characteristics and affective reactions


toward exams of superior and failing college students. Journal of Edttca-tiorud Psychology, 1970, 61, 144-151.

Weinstein, M. S. Achievement motivation and risk preference. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 1969, 13, 153-172.

WoUc, S., & DuCette, J. Locus of control and adiievement motivation: Theo-retical overlap and methodological divergence. Psychological Reports, 1971,29,755-758.

Wolk, S., & DuCette, J. The moderating effect of locus of control in relation toachievement motivation variables. Jourruil of Personality, 1973, 41, 59-70.

Zedeck, S., Cranny, C. J., Vale, C. A., & Smith, P. C. Comparison of "jointmoderators" in three prediction techniques. Journal of Applied Psychology,1971, 55, 234-240.

Manuscript received March 4, 1974.

academic motivation

Documents