achievement goals and intrinsic motivation a meta-analysis

Personality and Social Psychology Review1999, Vol. 3, No. 4, 326-344

Copyright 0 1999 byLawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Achievement Goals and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meta-Analytic Review

Laird J. Rawsthorne and Andrew J. ElliotDepartment of PsychologyUniversity of Rochester

This article presents a meta-analysis ofthe experimental literature that has examinedthe effect of performance and mastery achievement goals on intrinsic motivation.Summary analysesprovided supportfor the hypothesis that thepursuit ofperformancegoals has an undermining effect on intrinsic motivation relative to the pursuit ofmas-tery goals. Moderator analyses were conducted in an attempt to explain significantvariation in the magnitude and direction of this effect across studies. Results indicatedthat the undermining effect ofperformance goals relative to mastery goals was contin-gent on whetherparticipants received confirming or nonconfirming competencefeed-back, and on whether the experimental procedures induced a performance-approachor performance-avoidance orientation. These findings provide conceptual clarity to

the literature on achievement goals and intrinsic motivation and suggest numerous

avenuesfor subsequent empirical work.

Contemporary research on achievement motiva-tion is based largely on an analysis of individuals'achievement goals, which are defined as the purposeof or reason for competence-relevant activity (Ames,1992; Maehr, 1989). A number of researchers havecontrasted different types of achievement goals andexamined the effects of these goals on a variety ofcognitive, affective, and behavioral outcomes (for re-views, see Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1986; Nicholls,1989; Urdan, 1997). One outcome that has attractedconsiderable research attention is intrinsic motiva-tion, or interest in and enjoyment of an activity for itsown sake (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Lepper, 1981). Intrin-sic motivation has been recognized by many theoristsas a central aspect of adaptive self-regulation in theachievement domain (Butler, 1987; Deci & Ryan,1985; Harackiewicz, 1989; Koestner, Zuckerman, &Koestner, 1987; Lepper, 1981; Sansone, 1986). Theimpact of different goal states on individuals' intrin-

Portions of this research were presented at the 106th Annual Con-vention of the American Psychological Association, August 1998,San Francisco, California.

This research was supported in part by National Institute of Men-tal Health Grant MH57054-01.

This research could not have been conducted without the assis-tance of the following individuals: Lorraine Colleyacme, CarrieRosen, and Heather Sherman. We thank Ruth Butler, Edward Deci,Judith Harackiewicz, Richard Koestner, and Richard Ryan for theirhelpful comments on earlier versions of this article.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Laird J. Rawsthorne or An-drew J. Elliot, Department of Psychology, Meliora Hall, Universityof Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627. E-mail: laird(scp.roches-ter.edu or andye@ scp.rochester.edu.

sic enjoyment of achievement-related activities is anissue of considerable theoretical importance in that itforges a conceptual link between the achievementand intrinsic motivation literatures (Harackiewicz &Elliot, 1993), and it is also an issue of great appliedimportance in that it has direct implications for edu-cational, occupational, and sport settings (Heyman &Dweck, 1992). This article presents a meta-analysisof the experimental research that has examined theeffect of achievement goals on intrinsic motivation.

Most formulations of the achievement goal con-struct have delineated two distinct forms of achieve-ment goals. Dweck (1986) contrasted learning goalswith performance goals; Ames (1984) and Butler(1992) differentiated mastery goals from abilitygoals; and Nicholls (1989), Ryan (1982), and others(Koestner et al., 1987) compared task involvementand ego involvement (for alternative proposals, seeMaehr, 1984; Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988;Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996). Despite differencesin terminology and conceptual frameworks espousedby these theorists, Ames and Archer (1987) arguedthat these formulations share enough similarity to jus-tify convergence in a mastery goal (learning goals,mastery goals, and task involvement) versus perfor-mance goal (performance goals, ability goals, andego involvement) distinction. Mastery goals focus onthe development of competence and task mastery,whereas performance goals focus on the demonstra-tion of competence relative to others.

Most achievement goal and intrinsic motivationtheorists contend that mastery and performance goals

326 at University of Southampton on September 12, 2015psr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

ACHIEVEMENT GOALS AND INTRINSIC MOTIVATION

produce distinct processes that have divergent conse-quences for intrinsic motivation. Mastery goals areposited to promote challenge appraisals, encouragetask absorption, and support self-determination andfeelings of autonomy, all factors presumed to befacilitative of intrinsic interest and enjoyment (Butler,1987; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Dweck, 1986). Perfor-mance goals, on the other hand, are posited to pro-duce evaluative pressures and elicit anxiety,processes considered antithetical to intrinsic motiva-tion (Harackiewicz, Manderlink, & Sansone, 1984;Ryan & Stiller, 1991). Thus, most theorists have es-poused a main effect hypothesis whereby individualspursuing performance goals are expected to demon-strate lower levels of intrinsic motivation than theirmastery-oriented counterparts (Deci & Ryan, 1990;Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1989). Empirical investiga-tions of the relation between achievement goals andintrinsic motivation, however, have yielded mixedsupport for this main effect hypothesis. Although anumber of experiments have documented an under-mining effect of performance goals on intrinsic moti-vation (Butler, 1987, 1988; Harackiewicz, Abrahams,& Wageman, 1987; Ryan, 1982; Ryan, Koestner, &Deci, 1991), other investigations have failed to pro-vide supporting evidence (Butler, 1992; Harack-iewicz & Elliot, 1993; Koestner, Zuckerman, &Koestner, 1989; Sansone, 1986). Accordingly, thereexists a degree of uncertainty regarding the relationbetween performance and mastery achievement goalsand intrinsic motivation.

One objective of this article is to reduce this un-certainty by examining the evidence for the main ef-fect hypothesis in the experimental literature. Weemploy meta-analytic techniques to address the ques-tion of whether, across studies, the pursuit of perfor-mance goals has an undermining effect on intrinsicmotivation relative to the pursuit of mastery goals. Asecond objective of this article is to identify factorsthat can account for the inconsistency of the perfor-mance versus mastery goal effect in the literature.Several factors are tested meta-analytically as poten-tial explanations for the variability of study out-comes, including the strength of the manipulationused to establish performance goals, the type of per-formance feedback provided to participants, and theoutcome focus induced by the experimental proce-dures. Each of these alternative explanatory factors isexplored in detail.

Ego-Involvement Versus NormativePerformance Goals

Performance goals have been alternatively con-ceptualized in terms of either (a) self-esteem contin-

gency or (b) a focus on normative evaluation alone.Investigators who conceptualize performance goals interms of self-esteem contingencies, or ego involve-nent, generally employ a somewhat stronger form ofperformance-goal manipulation than those emphasiz-ing the normative aspect of performance goals alone.A number of researchers have acknowledged thisconceptual and methodological distinction and sug-gested that this difference may underlie the inconsis-tency of the performance versus mastery goal effectin the literature (Harackiewicz & Elliot, 1993; Ryanet al., 1991; Sansone, Sachau, & Weir, 1989).

The concept of ego involvement refers to a condi-tion in which one's self-esteem is invested in or con-tingent on attaining a specified outcome or reachinga certain standard (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan, 1982).Researchers focusing on the effect of egQ involve-ment on intrinsic motivation have manipulated per-formance goals in a manner that explicitly linksperformance on the experimental activity to a cen-tral, self-relevant attribute. In the first study to exam-ine the effects of ego involvement on intrinsicmotivation, Ryan (1982) presented a puzzle-solvingtask as a measure of creative intelligence and in-formed participants that the activity was often usedas a component of IQ tests. Subsequent ego-involvement studies have followed suit and em-ployed performance-goal manipulations that intro-duced the target activity as a test of intelligence orsome other valued attribute (Butler, 1992; Koestneret al., 1987). The assumption underlying this proce-dure is that, by linking performance to an es-teem-relevant attribute, participants will be pressuredto perform well to preserve their sense of self-worth.Such evaluative pressures are argued to elicit perfor-mance anxiety and undermine feelings of autonomyand self-determination, thereby undermining individ-uals' intrinsic motivation for the activity at hand(Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan, 1982).

Other researchers have conceptualized perfor-mance goals solely in terms of normative evaluationand social comparison. These investigators have gen-erally instantiated performance goals by making sa-lient a normative referent for evaluation withoutlinking performance to a self-relevant attribute. For ex-ample, Harackiewicz and Elliot (1993) manipulatedperformance goals by informing participants that theirperformance on the experimental task (a pinball game)would be compared to the performance of other stu-dents who had previously participated in the study. Atno time, however, were performance outcomes pre-sented as reflective of any specific skills, abilities, or

personal attributes. Thus, the manipulation empha-sized normative evaluation and social comparison butdid not explicitly implicate esteem-relevant personal-ity dimensions.


RAWSTHORNE & ELLIOT

By introducing self-esteem contingencies, studiesdesigned to induce ego involvement may have agreater potential to elicit evaluative pressure and anx-iety than studies that simply emphasize normativeevaluation and, therefore, may have a greater likeli-hood of producing an undermining effect of perfor-mance goals on intrinsic motivation (Ryan et al.,1991; Sansone, 1986). Although a direct test of thishypothesis is not available in the literature, it is possi-ble that at a between-studies level, the distinction be-tween ego-involving and normative performancegoals may account for the inconsistency of the per-formance versus mastery goal effect in the extantliterature.

Confirming Versus NonconfirmingFeedback

Between-study variation in the administration ofperformance feedback is a second, alternative factorthat may explain the inconsistency of study outcomes.The majority of achievement-goal/intrinsic-motivationexperiments have employed a "free-choice" paradigmto obtain behavioral measures of intrinsic motivation(see Deci, 1971). In this procedure, the participant is leftalone in the laboratory at the end of the session with theopportunity to return to the experimental task or engagein a variety of other activities (e.g., read a magazine).During this free-choice period, the participant's behav-ior is unobtrusively observed, and persistence at the ex-perimental activity is interpreted as a sign of intrinsicmotivation. Because participants believe the experi-ment is over and are unaware ofbeing observed, extrin-sic reasons for returning to the experimental task areeliminated. Therefore, it is inferred that the sole motivefor reengaging in the activity is the feeling of interestand enjoyment derived from the behavior itself.

Ryan and his colleagues (Ryan et al., 1991) pos-ited that the validity of free-choice persistence mea-sures as an indicator of intrinsic motivation iscontingent on whether participants receive perfor-mance feedback that confirms their competence at theexperimental activity. These researchers reasonedthat participants pursuing performance goals are pri-marily concerned with demonstrating their compe-tence at the activity. Positive performance feedbackwould function to confirm their competence, therebysatisfying their goal and eliminating any instrumentalmotivation to further engage with the task. However,when feedback is negative or when participants donot receive any feedback, individuals with a perfor-mance goal may persist at the activity in a pressuredattempt to advance their normative standing anddemonstrate (albeit to themselves) their compe-tence-behavior that Ryan et al. termed ego-involved

persistence. Thus, when participants receive positivefeedback, persistence at the task during a free-choiceperiod would constitute a legitimate indicator of in-trinsic motivation. In the absence of confirming feed-back, however, task engagement during a free-choiceperiod would not reflect intrinsic motivation butwould represent a Zeigarnik-like persistence in whichindividuals strive to reach their unattained goals.

Ryan et al. (1991) provided empirical support forthis feedback hypothesis by inducing ego and task in-volvement and providing participants with either con-firming or nonconfirming performance feedback. Egoinvolvement produced the expected undermining ef-fect on behavioral persistence when participants re-ceived positive, competence-confirming feedback. Incontrast, when feedback was nonconfirming, the ef-fect was reversed, with ego-involved participantsdemonstrating greater free-choice persistence than in-dividuals in the task-involvement condition. Thesefindings suggest that the inconsistency of the under-mining effect of performance goals in the publishedliterature may be explained by between-study varia-tion in the administration of performance feedback.From this standpoint, studies that provide positive,competence-confirming feedback are predicted tofind an undermining effect of performance goals rela-tive to mastery goals on measures of free-choice per-sistence. Studies that provide negative or nofeedback, however, are predicted to find null differ-ences (or even enhancement effects) between masteryand performance goals on behavioral measures. Forself-reports of interest and enjoyment of the experi-mental activity, another commonly used indicator ofintrinsic motivation, an undermining effect of perfor-mance goals would be predicted regardless ofwhether participants received competence-confirmingor nonconfirming feedback.

Performance-Approach VersusPerformance-Avoidance Goals

A third factor that may account for the variation inexperimental outcomes is whether participants pursu-ing a performance goal are focused on the possibilityof a positive or negative performance outcome. Earlytheories of achievement motivation emphasized thatindividuals' achievement pursuits may be oriented to-ward the attainment of success or the avoidance offailure (Lewin, Dembo, Festinger, & Sears, 1944;McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953). Elliotand his colleagues (Elliot, 1997; Elliot & Church,1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996) proposed anachievement goal framework that incorporates thisapproach-avoidance distinction into the prevailingperformance versus mastery dichotomy. This tri-


ACHIEVEMENT GOAt S AND INTRINSIC MOTIVATION

chotomous conceptualization identifies a masterygoal, which is focused on task mastery and the devel-opment of competence, and two independent ap-proach and avoidance performance-goal orientations:a performance-approach goal, which is focused onthe attainment of favorable judgments of normativecompetence, and a performance-avoidance goal,which is focused on avoiding unfavorable judgmentsof normative competence. Mastery goals and perfor-mance-approach goals both represent regulation ac-cording to positive potential outcomes and are thusconsidered approach orientations. The perfor-mance-avoidance goal represents regulation accord-ing to a negative potential outcome and is thusviewed as an avoidance orientation.

Elliot and his colleagues (mentioned in the previousparagraph) maintained that the approach-avoidancedistinction is critical to understanding the relation be-tween achievement goals and intrinsic motivation. Theyposited that approach forms of regulation, whether fo-cused on mastering the task at hand or on outperformingothers, can produce processes that facilitate intrinsicmotivation. Striving to attain success, however defined,may lead individuals to view the task as a challenge,elicit feelings of excitement, and encourage cognitiveand affective immersion in the activity. In contrast, per-formance-avoidance goals, which are focused on thepossibility of failure, are hypothesized to produce threatappraisals and elicit anxiety, processes that are detri-mental to intrinsic motivation. Therefore, relative toperformance-approach and mastery goals, perfor-mance-avoidance goals are expected to produce lowerintrinsic motivation.

To test these predictions, Elliot and Harackiewicz(1996) conducted two experiments in which they ma-nipulated individuals' achievement goals and observedthe influence of these goal states on participants' in-trinsic motivation for a puzzle-solving task. In the firstexperiment, performance-approach and perfor-mance-avoidance orientations were established by pre-senting the task as diagnostic of high or low normativeability, respectively. The second experiment used amore subtle manipulation. After informing partici-pants that their performance would be normativelyevaluated, the experimental instructions simply men-tioned the possibility of success or failure at the activ-ity. In both studies, the performance-goal conditionswere contrasted with a mastery goal condition in whichparticipants' attention was simply drawn to the taskwithout mention of normative evaluation. The resultsof both experiments indicated that individuals in theperformance-approach and mastery conditions evi-denced equivalent levels of intrinsic motivation, andboth of these groups showed significantly greater in-trinsic motivation than participants in the perfor-mance-avoidance condition.

The results of these studies suggest that a criticalmoderator of the achievement goal-intrinsic motiva-tion relation may be whether the individual is strivingto attain success or to avoid the possibility of failure.Studies employing procedures that focus participants'attention on the possibility of a negative performanceoutcome may evoke an avoidance orientation and pro-duce an undermining effect on intrinsic motivation.However, in the absence of failure cues, participantspursuing performance goals may focus on the potentialfor success and demonstrate levels of intrinsic motiva-tion that are near or equal to that of mastery-orientedindividuals.

Overview and Summary

In the first stage of this meta-analysis, we examinethe main effect hypothesis in the experimental litera-ture by summarizing the magnitude and direction ofthe performance versus mastery goal effect acrossstudies. This addresses the question of whether per-formance goals overall undermine intrinsic motiva-tion relative to mastery goals. In the second stage ofthe analysis, we attempt to account for the inconsis-tency of the performance versus mastery goal effectby examining three alternative factors as potentialmoderators of the effect. Each study was coded forthese potential moderators, and model-testing tech-niques were used to determine whether the dichoto-mous classifications were able to explain thevariability in study outcomes.

First, studies were coded for whether the perfor-mance-goal manipulation was designed to induce egoinvolvement or simply to introduce a normative refer-ent for evaluation. Several researchers have sug-gested that ego-involvement manipulations may bethreatening to participants and produce greaterevaluation anxiety than normative manipulations(Harackiewicz & Elliot, 1993; Ryan et al., 1991;Sansone, 1986). From this perspective, studies usingan ego-involvement induction should have a greaterundermining effect than studies using a normativemanipulation.

Next, studies were classified according to whetherparticipants were provided with feedback that con-firmed their competence at the experimental activity.According to Ryan et al. (1991), an undermining effectof performance goals on free-choice persistence is tobe expected only under conditions in which partici-pants receive competence-confirming feedback. In theabsence of such feedback, individuals pursuing perfor-mance goals may persist at the activity to demonstratetheir competence, producing null findings or even en-hancement effects. From this perspective, performancegoals are predicted to have a larger undermining effect


RAWSTHORNE & ELLIOT

on free-choice persistence for studies providing partic-ipants with positive, competence-confirming feedbackthan for studies administering negative or no perfor-mance feedback. This viewpoint only generates be-tween-class predictions for behavioral measures; themain effect hypothesis is presumed to hold forself-report measures of interest and enjoyment.

Finally, studies were coded for factors that mightfocus participants on the possibility of a negative per-formance outcome, thereby instantiating a perfor-mance-avoidance goal. Elliot and colleagues (Elliot,1997; Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz,1996) distinguished performance-avoidance from per-formance-approach goals and posited that perfor-mance-avoidance goals are the primary impediment tointrinsic motivation. From this perspective, studiesthat instantiate performance-avoidance goals shouldproduce a larger undermining effect than studiesinstantiating performance-approach goals.

Method

Literature Search

First, articles were located through a computersearch of the PsycINFO (American PsychologicalAssociation, 1971-1997) database covering the pub-lished literature from 1971 (the year Deci's seminalarticle on intrinsic motivation was published) through1997. The keywords used were intrinsic motivation,intrinsic interest, continuing motivation, achievementgoals, performance goals, ability goals, learninggoals, mastery goals, task-involvement, andego-involvement. Additional articles were located bymanually searching the reference sections of severalnarrative reviews of the intrinsic motivation andachievement goal literatures (e.g., Deci & Ryan,1987; Heyman & Dweck, 1992). Finally, the refer-ence sections of all articles deemed relevant to thisreview (see next section) were searched until no newreferences were found. All studies available in pub-lished form were considered for inclusion in themeta-analysis.

Inclusion Criteria

To be included in the meta-analysis, a study had tomeet each of the criteria listed next. First, the studyhad to contain a situation-specific experimental ma-nipulation of performance and mastery achievementgoals. This criterion led to the exclusion ofcorrelational research that assessed participants'self-reported achievement goals (e.g., Elliot &

Church, 1997) or dispositional achievement orienta-tions (e.g., Harter, 1981) and studies that manipulatedvariables such as rewards, deadlines, surveillance,praise, target goals, and competition (see Amabile,DeJong, & Lepper, 1976; Deci, Koestner, & Ryan,1999; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1994; Enzle & Ander-son, 1993; Mueller & Dweck, 1998; Vallerand,Gauvin, & Halliwell, 1986). Second, achievementgoals had to be established for an enjoyable or plea-surable experimental activity. Research on the devel-opment of intrinsic motivation for tedious or

uninteresting tasks (Bandura, 1986; Locke & Latham,1990; Sansone, Weir, Harpster, & Morgon, 1992)was outside the focus of this review and was not con-sidered. Third, the study had to include a behavioralor self-report measure of intrinsic motivation. Thebehavioral indicator of intrinsic motivation was per-sistence at the experimental task during a free-choiceperiod (measured by either length of task engagementor number of additional puzzles, games, etc. at-tempted). Self-report indicators were comprised ofparticipants' responses to scales assessing interestand enjoyment of the experimental activity and indi-cations of a desire for future engagement with thetask (e.g., number of additional tasks requested at theend of the session). Finally, the research report had tocontain sufficient statistical information (e.g., cellmeans and standard deviations, F tests) to calculatean estimate of effect size. Application of these crite-ria led to the inclusion of 23 separate experiments.'

Determination of Comparison Cells

Effect size estimates were based on comparisonsof the level of intrinsic motivation demonstrated by

IThe majority of studies included in this meta-analysis were ex-plicitly designed to be investigations of the performance versus mas-tery goal distinction. For these studies, our inclusion decisions were

guided by the authors' designations of their goal manipulations (e.g.,ego vs. task involvement, performance vs. learning goals). To in-crease the comprehensiveness of our review, however, we also con-sidered studies of intrinsic motivation that were not originally de-signed to examine achievement goal effects but that establishedperformance and mastery orientations via the manipulation of an-other variable. Specifically, we included two studies (Butler& Nisan,1986; Sansone et al., 1989) in which the provision of performancefeedback following initial engagement with the experimental task(e.g., on practice trials) focused participants' attention on normativeevaluation (thereby establishing a performance goal) or on task mas-tery (establishing a mastery orientation).

If sufficient information was not provided in the published report,efforts were made to contact the author and obtain the necessary sta-tistics. Overall, our efforts were quite successful. Only three studiesmeeting the remaining criteria had to be excluded due to our inabilityto obtain the requisite descriptive statistics for calculating an effectsize estimate (Boggiano, Ruble, & Pittman, 1982; Harackiewicz &Manderlink, 1984; Sansone, 1986).



participants in performance and mastery goal condi-tions. However, the design of most experimentscrossed the manipulation of achievement goals withone or more moderator variables. If the moderatorwas a nonmanipulated individual-difference variable,we collapsed across the factor when calculating theeffect size. Collapsing across experimentally manipu-lated variables, however, can add extraneous varianceto the comparison cells and reduce the accuracy of ef-fect size estimates (Johnson & Eagly, in press).Therefore, for studies that manipulated moderatorvariables, calculations were based, whenever possi-ble, on a comparison of mastery and performancegoal cells within control conditions in which the ma-nipulation of other variables was absent.2 In the casethat the manipulated variable was one of the modera-tors under investigation in this meta-analysis, sepa-rate comparisons were made within each level of thevariable, and the study contributed more than one ef-fect size.3 This procedure produced 30 performanceversus mastery goal comparisons for use in themeta-analysis.4 A complete list of included studiesand comparison cells is provided in the Appendix.

Coding Moderator Variables

Each comparison was coded for whether (a) the per-formance-goal manipulation was designed to induce

2For example, Koestner et al. (1987) crossed a manipulation ofego involvement versus task involvement with the administration ofability-focused or effort-focused verbal praise. The investigators alsoincluded a control condition in which no praise was given. In thiscase, the effect size estimate was based on a comparison of ego- andtask-involvement cells within the no-praise condition. In a subse-quent experiment, however, Koestner et al. (1989) crossed the samevariables but omitted theno-praise control cells. In this later case, cal-culations were necessarily based on a comparison of goal states col-lapsed across praise conditions.

3For example, Ryan et al. (1991, Study 3) crossed an ego- versustask-involvement manipulation with the provision of either positiveor no performance feedback. Because the feedback manipulation iscentral to the free-choice persistence hypothesis, separate compari-sons were made within each feedback condition, and the study con-tributed two independent effect sizes to the analysis.

4For studies contributing multiple effect sizes, independence waspreserved in studies using factorial designs because the effect sizeswere based on data derived from different participants. However,three studies (e.g., Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996) employed one-waydesigns that included separate approach and avoidance performancegoal conditions and a single mastery goal condition. Effect size cal-culations were necessarily based on comparisons of perfor-mance-approach and performance-avoidance cells with the samemastery goal condition, rendering the two indexes statistically de-pendent. Gleser and Olkin (1994) argued that the use ofcorrelated ef-fect sizes for across-studies inferences (like those used in this analy-sis) is valid, although comparison of the derived effect sizesunderestimates the true difference between the population effectsizes. Because this represents a conservative approach, we deemed itoptimal to use the comparisons to test our hypotheses.

ego involvement (ego involvement vs. normative), (b)the participants received performance feedback con-firming their competence on the experimental task(confirming vs. nonconfirming feedback), and (c) theexperimental procedures instantiated an approach oravoidance performance goal (performance-approachvs. performance-avoidance).

Performance-goal manipulations were codedego-involving if the task was presented as a test of in-telligence (e.g, Ryan, 1982) or in a manner suggestingthat performance was indicative of a valued skill orability (e.g., creative ability; Butler, 1992). If the taskwas presented in a way that emphasized normativeevaluation and social comparison without explicitlystating that performance reflected an esteem-relevantskill or attribute, the performance-goal manipulationwas classified as having a normative focus (e.g.,Harackiewicz & Elliot, 1993).

The criteria for coding confirming and non-confirming feedback were based on the valence ofperformance feedback and the point in the experi-ment at which it was administered. When perfor-mance feedback was provided on completion of thetask, a comparison was coded confirming if the feed-back was positive. If the feedback was negative or ifparticipants did not receive any performance feed-back, a comparison was classified nonconfirming.When feedback was administered on a per trial basis,a comparison was coded confirming if feedback onlatter trials was positive. Negative scores or the ab-sence of feedback on latter trials resulted in anonconfirming classification.

The criteria for coding performance goals as ap-proach or avoidance were based on aspects of the ex-perimental procedures that focused participants'attention on the possibility of a positive or negativeperformance outcome. When the pretask experimen-tal instructions made salient the potential for a goodperformance, performance goals were classified ap-proach. Conversely, performance goals were codedavoidance when the pretask instructions made salientthe potential for a poor performance. An example ofcoding based on pretask instructional cues was pro-vided by Elliot and Harackiewicz (1996). If thepretask experimental instructions did not contain anexplicit orienting cue, approach and avoidance cod-ing was based on feedback administered prior to (i.e.,following a practice trial) or during (i.e., on early tomid-trial of) task engagement. When such feedbackwas negative, performance goals were classified asavoidance. When such feedback was positive orwhen no feedback was given, performance goalswere classified as approach (the inclusion of "nofeedback" comparisons in the performance-approachclassification provides a conservative test of the ap-proach-avoidance hypothesis). An example of ap-


RAWSTHORNE & ELLIOT

proach-avoidance coding based on feedback wasprovided by Sansone et al. (1989, Study l). It is im-portant to note that the approach-avoidance classifi-cations based on feedback were orthogonal to theconfirming-nonconfirming classifications specifiedpreviously. 2(1. N = 30) < 1, ns.

Coding was performed independently by Laird J.Rawsthorne and a trained research assistant.Interrater reliability was assessed using Cohen'skappa, which reflects the agreement between observ-ers corrected for chance (Cohen, 1960). Bakeman andGottman (1989) maintained that a value above .70 in-dicates acceptable reliability. This value was sur-passed for each of these classifications: K = .93 forthe ego-involvement versus normative and approachversus avoidance classifications, and K = .86 for theconfirming versus nonconfirming feedback ratings-.Disagreements were resolved through discussion.

Overview of Meta-Analytic Procedures

Calculation of effect sizes. The effect size in-dex employed in this meta-analysis was Cohen's d.The d statistic represents the difference between themeans of two groups divided by the pooledwithin-group standard deviation and corrected forsample size bias (Hedges & Olkin, 1985). Thus, dcan be interpreted as a standardized unbiased esti-mate of the mean difference between performancegoal and mastery goal groups. The effect sizes werescored so that a negative d statistic represented an un-dermining effect of performance goals relative tomastery goals and a positive d represented an en-hancement effect. Cohen's d can be derived from avariety of statistics commonly reported in publishedresearch reports. When available, d was computedfrom cell means, standard deviations, and samplesizes. If these descriptive statistics were not reported,d was derived from t or F statistics for main effects,simple effects or contrasts, or from zero-order corre-lation coefficients.

Intrinsic motivation has been operationalized in theliterature using behavioral measures of free-choicepersistence, self-report measures of interest and enjoy-ment, or both. As explicated previously, Ryan et al.(1991.) offered both a theoretical rationale and empiri-cal evidence that behavioral and self-report measuresmay not always yield parallel results. Accordingly, wecomputed separate effect sizes for each measure andconducted all analyses separately for behavioral andself-report indicators of intrinsic motivation. Effectsize computations and subsequent analyses were con-ducted using DSTAT (Johnson, 1990), a computersoftware program for meta-analysis.

Summary analyses. Once individual effect sizeswere computed, we calculated composite effect size es-timates (d*) for the behavioral and self-report mea-sures. The composite indexes indicate the direction andmagnitude of the effect averaged across studies. Incomputing the composites, each individual d wasweighted by the reciprocal of its variance to givegreater weight to more reliable effect size estimates(Hedges & Olkin, 1985). Next, 95% confidence inter-vals were computed to provide a test of the main effecthypothesis (a confidence interval that included a valueof 0 was interpreted as a nonsignificant effect). The ho-mogeneity of each set of effect sizes was further exam-ined to determine if the variability in study outcomeswas greater than would be expected on the basis of sam-pling error. Homogeneity was tested with thewithin-class goodness-of-fit statistic (Qw), which hasan approximate chi-square distribution with k - 1 de-grees offreedom (k = number of effect sizes). A signifi-cant Qw statistic indicates systematic variance amongeffect sizes and suggests the need to examine modera-tor variables that may account for differences in the ef-fect across studies.

Categorical model testing. Categorical modelswere tested by dividing the effect sizes into classes onthe basis of the coded moderator variables, calculatingwithin-class composite effect sizes, and comparing thecomposites between classes. For example, to test theperformance-approach model versus the perfor-mance-avoidance model, effect sizes were first dividedinto classes according to the categorical coding de-scribed previously. Mean weighted effect size esti-mates (do) were computed for comparisons of perfor-mance-approach goals with mastery goals, andseparate weighted composites were computed for com-parisons of performance-avoidance goals with masterygoals. The performance-approach versus mastery com-posites were then contrasted with the perfor-mance-avoidance versus mastery composites to deter-mine if they differed significantly. The test isconducted by computing the between-class good-ness-of-fit statistic (QB), which has an approximatechi-square distribution withp - 1 degrees offreedom (p= number of classes). A significant QB statistic indi-cates that the magnitude of the effect differs betweenclasses of the moderator variable and permits meaning-ful interpretation of the within-class composite effectsizes. In addition, tests of within-class homogeneitywere conducted to determine whether the categoricalmodel could account for the variability in effect sizesacross studies. A categorization producing within-classhomogeneity (indicated by nonsignificant Qw statis-tics) indicates that the moderator can explain the incon-sistency of the effect across studies.


ACHlFVFMENT (OAL S AND INTRINSIC MOTIVATION

Results

Effect Sizes

Of the 30 performance versus mastery goal compar-isons used in the meta-analysis, 22 included bothself-report and behavioral measures of intrinsic moti-vation, 7 included only a self-report measure, and I in-cluded only a behavioral measure. Hence, 23 effectsizes were available for behavioral measures of intrin-sic motivation, and 29 effect sizes were available forself-report measures. A complete list of individual ef-fect sizes and corresponding confidence intervals isprovided in the Appendix.

Summary Analyses

As presented in Table 1, the composite effect sizefor behavioral measures was d+ = -0.17, which dif-fered significantly from zero. This indicates that,when averaged across the entire sample of studies,the pursuit of performance goals produced signifi-cantly less free-choice task persistence than the pur-suit of mastery goals. According to Cohen's (1988)guidelines, a d statistic of this magnitude represents arelatively small effect. The composite effect size forself-report measures was d+ = -0.36, indicating asmall to moderate undermining effect of performancegoals on self-reports of interest and enjoyment. How-ever, inspection of the individual self-report effectsizes revealed the presence of three studies contribut-ing extremely large negative effect sizes (> |-1.00|)that could considerably inflate the self-report com-posite (Butler, 1987, 1988; Butler & Nisan, 1986).An outlier analysis, which sequentially identifies ef-fect sizes that most increase the heterogeneity of theset (see Johnson & Eagly, in press), confirmed thestatus of these studies as outliers.

Because (a) the three studies were conducted by thesame primary investigator and were methodologicallyhomogeneous and (b) the inclusion of these outlierscould skew the analysis and distort the results, we feltthat it was most appropriate to treat the studies as a sep-arate class and to recalculate the overall self-report

composite with the three outliers removed. As shownin the third row of Table 1, exclusion of the outliers re-sulted in a composite effect size of d+ = -0. 1 2, whichdiffered significantly from zero. This indicates a smallbut significant undermining effect of performancegoals on self-reports of interest and enjoyment thatparallels the effect found for free-choice persistence.

In summary, the overall composites support themain effect hypothesis. When averaged across studies,performance goals were associated with significantlyless behavioral persistence and self-report interest andenjoyment than were mastery goals. Conclusionsbased on the overall composites, however, must bequalified in view of the substantial variation in themagnitude and direction of effect across studies. Asshown in the far right column of Table l, the homoge-neity statistics (Qw) for the behavioral and self-reportmeasures were significant, indicating systematic vari-ability in the magnitude and direction of the effectacross studies. In the following sections, we attempt toexplain this variability by examining variables thatmight moderate the effect.

Categorical Model Testing

As with the summary analyses, we were con-cerned that inclusion of the three outliers would in-flate within-class heterogeneity and composite effectsizes and distort important findings. For this reason,we conducted the moderator analyses for theself-report measures twice, once with the outliers in-cluded and again with the outliers removed. For pres-entational and conceptual clarity, moderator analysesare reported and interpreted with the outliers re-moved. Any deviations in the pattern of findings re-sulting from inclusion of the outliers are detailed infootnotes, and further consideration of these studiesis reserved for the discussion.

Ego-involvement versus normative performancegoals. Between-class analyses failed to find signifi-cant differences between the ego-involvement andnormative composites on both behavioral measures,QB(l) = 2.06, ns, and self-report measures, QB(1) =

Table 1. Overall Performance Versus Mastery Goal Composite Effect Si-es

Measure k d+ 95% CT Homogeneity (Qw)

Behavioral 23 --0.17 -0.28 to -0.05 32.81*Self-Report

With Outliers 29 -0.36 -0.46 to A).26 178.26**Without Outliers 26 0.12 -0.23 to -0.01 45.32**

Note: k = number of effect sizes; dt = mean weighted effect size; Cl = confidence interval; Qw = within-class goodness-of-fit statstic.*p <.05. **p<.01.


RAWSTHORNE & ELLIOT

0.43, ns. These null effects caution against the inter-pretation of within-class analyses and prevent usfrom drawing conclusions based on the within-classcomposite effect sizes. However, to be comprehen-sive in our presentation, we report the within-classanalyses in Table 2. The composite effect sizes forego-involvement and normative classes were in thepredicted direction for self-report measures of inter-est and enjoyment (dX = -0.17 and -0.09, respec-tively) but in the opposite direction for behavioralmeasures of free-choice persistence (d+ = -0.06 and-0.23, respectively).5 Homogeneity tests revealedsystematic variance left unexplained forego-involvement studies on behavioral measures aswell as for normative studies on self-report measures.In sum, the analyses of the ego-involvement versusnormative model yield no clear pattern of results andprovide little evidence that the ego-involvement/nor-mative distinction can explain the variability in studyoutcomes

Confirming versus nonconfirming feedback.Analyses of the confirming versus nonconfirming

feedback model revealed a significant between-classeffect for measures of behavioral persistence, QB(1) =5.60, p < .05. As shown in Table 3, the behavioral com-posite for confirming-feedback comparisons was d' =-0.26, which differed significantly from zero, and thenonconfirming feedback composite was d' = +0.03,which was nonsignificant. The between-class analysisfor self-report measures of interest and enjoyment re-vealed no significant difference in the magnitude anddirection of the confirming and nonconfirming com-posite effect sizes, QB(l) = 2.09, ns. Indeed, the com-posite effect sizes were nearly identical, dc = -0.13 andX = -0.11 for confirming and nonconfirming compari-

5lnclusion of the three outliers increased the normative compositefor self-report measures to d+ = -0.45 (k = 19); the within-class homo-geneity statistic to Qw = 161.81, p < .0001; and the between-classcontrast to QB() = 6.63, p < .01.

6A similar goal strength distinction can be made for mastery goals.We conducted ancillary analyses contrasting studies using a rela-tively strong mastery goal manipulation (which explicitly empha-sized the development of skills and abilities) with studies using a rela-tively weak mastery goal manipulation (which simply directedparticipants' attention toward the task). For the self-report measuresof interest and enjoyment, we found no differences in the magnitudeof the performance versus mastery effect between studies inducingstrong and weak mastery goals, QB( 1) = 0.003, ns. For the behavioralmeasures, however, our analyses revealed a larger undermining ef-fect of performance goals for studies inducing relatively weak mas-

tery goals (d+ = -0.24, k = 17) than for studies inducing relativelystrong mastery goals (d+ 0.06, k = 6), QB() = 4.87, p < .05. Thisfinding is counterintuitive and difficult to interpret, and overall theseresults suggest that explanatory precision and conceptual clarity are

not likely to be attained by attending to the strength of the masterygoal induction.

sons, respectively. Additional analyses conductedwithin the nonconfirming feedback class revealed nosignificant differences between studies providing neg-ative feedback and no feedback on either the behav-ioral, QB(1) = 1.10, ns, or self-report, QB(l) = 0.31, ns,measures.

The between-class differences on behavioral persis-tence provide support for Ryan et al.'s (1991) confirm-ing-nonconfirming feedback hypothesis. Whenparticipants were provided with positive, compe-tence-confirming feedback, performance goals had thepredicted undermining effect on free-choice persis-tence. In the absence of confirming feedback, how-ever, performance and mastery goals were associatedwith equivalent behavioral persistence. The null effectfor self-report measures is also consistent with the con-firming-nonconfirming feedback hypothesis, whichdoes not predict differences between classes of feed-back for self-report indicators of intrinsic motivation.In addition, the within-class homogeneity tests werenonsignificant for the behavioral measures, indicatingthat the confirming-nonconfirming feedback distinc-tion can account for the variability in outcomes on thefree-choice persistence measure. For self-report mea-sures, however, the homogeneity statistic for the con-firming feedback class was significant, indicatingsystematic variability in the self-report effect sizes leftunexplained by the model. Thus, although the confirm-ing-nonconfirming feedback distinction can explainthe variability of the achievement goal effect for be-havioral measures of free-choice persistence, it is doesnot account for the inconsistency of the effect forself-report measures of interest and enjoyment.

Performance-approach versus performance-avoidance goals. Between-class analyses revealedsignificant differences between the perfor-mance-approach and performance-avoidance compos-ite effect sizes on both behavioral measures offree-choice persistence, QB(1) = 10.77, p < .001, andself-report measures of interest and enjoyment, QB( I) =4.49, p < .05. As shown in Table 4, the behavioral com-posite for studies instantiating a performance-approachgoal was cC = -0.04, which did not differ significantlyfrom zero. This within-class effect indicates that acrossstudies, performance-approach and mastery goalsyielded equivalent levels of free-choice persistence. Incontrast, the avoidance composite was do = -0.46, re-vealing a significant undermining effect of perfor-mance-avoidance goals relative to mastery goals. A

71nclusion of the three outliers increased the nonconfirming feed-back composite for self-report measures to d+ = -0.66 (k = 12); thecorresponding within-class homogeneity statistic to Qw = 123.13, p<.0001; and the between-class contrast to QB( I=) 26.12, p <.0001.



Table 2. Moderato lA,4iolscs. Eto -involiveltne V uiso Normati've Pe(r/fiminance Goals

Class

BehavioralEgo-Involvement

NormativeSelf-Report

Ego-Involvement

Normative

k

9

14

16

95% CI

---0.06-(.23

-0.17-0.09

Homogeneity (Qw)

-0.25 to +0.14_0.37 to -0.09

19.73*11.01

-0.34 to +0.01-0.23 to +0.05

9.8335.07*

Note: k = number of effect sizes: o = mean weighted effect size; Cl = confidence interval; Qua = within-class goodness-of-fit statstic.p/) < .01.

Table 3. MoVodetotot Aoolseas. Con/it-ltlli erl suo Nonl( onl/itwilvlni( Feedba(k

Class k

Behavioral

Confirming FeedbackNonconfirming Feedback

Self-ReportConfirming FeedbackNonconfirming Feedback

158

179

95% CI

-0.26+0.03

-0.13-0.11

Homogeneity (QA)

--0.40 to -0. 12-0.17 to +0.24

18.438.78

-0.26 to +0.01-0.30 to +0.08

29.0116.29*

Note: k = number of effect sizes; d' = mean weighted effect size; Cl = confidence interval; Qw = within-class goodness-of-fit statstic.*p < .05.

Table 4. Moderator Analyses: Peiformance-Approach Versus Performance-Avoidance Goals

Class k d+ 95% CI Homogeneity (Qw)

BehavioralPerformance-Approach 17 -0.04 -0.18 to +0.10 19.39Performance-Avoidance 6 -0.46 -0.67 to -0.25 2.64

Self-ReportPerformance-Approach 18 -0.04 -0.17 to +0.09 27.94Performance-Avoidance 8 -0.29 -0.49 to -0.10 12.89

Note: k = number of effect sizes; da = mean weighted effect size; Cl = confidence interval; Qw = within-class goodness-of-fit statstic.

parallel pattern of results was found for self-reportmeasures. The self-report composite for comparisonsof performance-approach and mastery goals was a' =

-0.04, which was not significant. This indicates the ab-sence of an undermining effect for perfor-mance-approach goals on self-report measures of inter-est and enjoyment. In contrast, the avoidancecomposite was d = -0.29, revealing a significant un-

dermining effect of performance avoidance goals on

self-report interest and enjoyment.8Additional analyses were conducted within the

performance-avoidance class to test for differencesbetween studies classified as avoidance due to a

pretask orienting cue or due to the administration ofnegative feedback prior to or during task engage-

ment. No significant differences were found for ei-

ther behavioral, QB( 1) = 1.04, ns, or self-report,QB(1) = 1.57, ns, measures. The undermining effectwas found to hold across both the orienting cue (be-havioral d+ = -0.58, k = 3; self-report d+ =-0.41, k =5) and feedback (behavioral d+ = -0.36, k = 3;self-report d+ = -0.16, k = 3) classifications.

Together, these findings provide clear support forthe performance-approach/performance-avoidancehypothesis. Relative to mastery goals, perfor-mance-avoidance goals had a significant underminingeffect on free-choice persistence and self-reports of in-terest and enjoyment. No evidence of an underminingeffect was found, however, for comparisons of perfor-mance-approach and mastery goals. In addition, thewithin-class homogeneity tests were nonsignificant,indicating that the performance-approach/perfor-mance-avoidance distinction could explain the vari-ability in study outcomes for both the behavioral andself-report measures.

In sum, the results of the moderator analyses foundsupport for both the confirming-nonconfirming

335

Inclusion of the three outliers increased the perfor-mance-avoidance composite for self-report measures to d+ = -0.79, k= 11; the within-class homogeneity statistic to Qw = 98.13, p <.0001;and the between-class contrast to QB( I) = 52.19. P < .0001.

at University of Southampton on September 12, 2015psr.sagepub.comDownloaded from

RAWSTHORNE & ELLIOT

feedback and the performance-approach/performance-avoidance hypotheses but failed to find evidence sup-porting the ego-involvement/normative prediction. Aremaining conceptual issue, however, suggests theneed for further analyses. According to Ryan et al.(1991), in the absence of competence-confirming feed-back, free-choice persistence may not be a valid indi-cator of intrinsic motivation for participants pursuingperformance goals. Under such conditions, persistenceat the task during a free-choice period is likely to re-flect a pressured attempt to prove one's ability ratherthan interest in and enjoyment of the activity itself.This possibility has implications for our model-testinganalyses. If the free-choice persistence measure did infact reflect ego-involved persistence in thenonconfirming feedback comparisons, then our tests ofthe ego-involvement/normative and performance-approach/performance-avoidance hypotheses werebased, in part, on an "impure" indicator of intrinsicmotivation. Inclusion of the nonconfirming feedbackcomparisons may have prevented us from findingego-involvement/normative differences or added aconfound to the performance-approach/perfor-mance-avoidance model. To address this issue, weretested the ego-involvement/normative and perfor-mance-approach/performance-avoidance models forthe free-choice persistence measure with the non-confirming feedback comparisons excluded.When limited to comparisons providing compe-

tence-confirming feedback, the between-class analy-sis of the ego-involvement/normative model againfound no significant difference between theego-involvement (d+ = -0.18, k = 7) and normative(d+ = -0.33, k = 8) composite effect sizes, QB(1) =1.1 1, ns. This null result argues against the possibilitythat significant ego-involvement/normative differ-ences in intrinsically motivated free-choice behaviorwere obscured by the presence of ego-involved per-sistence in the nonconfirming feedback comparisons.Even when restricted to a more accurate indicator ofintrinsic motivation, no differences between studiesemploying ego-involvement and normative perfor-mance goal manipulations were found.

The between-class analysis of the perfor-mance-approach/performance-avoidance model re-vealed a significant difference between theperformance-approach (k = 11) and performance-avoidance (k = 4) composites, QB(1) = 5.64, p < .02.Tests of the within-class composites indicated thatperformance-avoidance goals had a significant under-mining effect on free-choice persistence, relative tomastery goals, d+ = -0.51, p < .01. Perfor-mance-approach goals, on the other hand, produced alevel of free-choice persistence that was not signifi-cantly different from that of mastery goals, d+ =

-0.15, ns. These findings, based on analyses limited

to the confirming feedback comparisons, rule out thepossibility of confounding and testify to the robust-ness of the performance-approach/performance-avoidance distinction.9

Discussion

The first objective of this meta-analysis was to ex-amine the evidence for the main effect hypothesis inthe existing experimental literature. That is, wesought to determine whether the pursuit of perfor-mance goals has an undermining effect on intrinsicmotivation, relative to the pursuit of mastery goals.Consistent with the theorizing of Deci and Ryan(1985), Dweck (1986), Nicholls (1989), and others,we found that, overall, the pursuit of performancegoals produced significantly less free-choice persis-tence and self-report interest and enjoyment than didthe pursuit of mastery goals. The magnitude of thesummary composites indicated that the underminingeffect of performance goals was relatively smallwhen averaged across the entire sample of experi-ments. The results of these summary analyses mustbe qualified, however, because the magnitude and di-rection of the effect was found to vary systematicallyacross studies. This later finding suggests that thecritical issue is not only to determine whether perfor-mance goals undermine intrinsic motivation relativeto mastery goals but also to determine when an un-dermining effect of performance goals is or is notlikely to occur. Thus, the second objective of thismeta-analysis was to explain the variation in studyoutcomes in the extant literature. To meet this objec-tive, we examined three alternative factors that mightmoderate the relation between performance and mas-tery goals and intrinsic motivation at a be-tween-studies level.

The moderator analyses failed to support the hy-pothesis that studies designed to induce ego involve-ment would produce a larger undermining effect thanstudies that manipulated performance goals by empha-sizing normative evaluation alone. No significant dif-ferences in the magnitude or direction of theperformance versus mastery goal effect were found be-tween the two classes of studies, and homogeneity testsindicated that the ego-involvement/normative distinc-

9For reasons detailed in the following discussion, we also testedthe performance-approach/performance-avoidance goal modelwithin the nonconfirming feedback class for behavioral measures.This analysis revealed a significant between-class difference for ap-proach and avoidance performance goals, QB( I) = 4.43, p < .04, witha tendency toward an enhancement effect of performance-approachgoals over mastery goals (d+ = +0.16, k = 6) and an undermining ef-fect of performance-avoidance goals relative to mastery goals (d+-0.33, k = 2).



tion was unable to explain the variability of the effectacross studies.

Our analyses did find support, however, for thehypothesis that performance goals produce a largerundermining effect on behavioral measures of intrin-sic motivation for studies providing participants withpositive, competence-confirming feedback than forstudies administering negative or no performancefeedback. The magnitude of the performance versusmastery goal effect differed significantly between theconfirming and nonconfirming feedback classes.When participants were provided with positive feed-back, performance goals had a significant undermin-ing effect on free-choice persistence relative tomastery goals. When feedback was negative or ab-sent, performance and mastery goals produced equiv-alent persistence during the free-choice period.Furthermore, homogeneity tests revealed that theconfirming-nonconfirming feedback distinction wasable to explain the inconsistency of the performanceversus mastery effect for behavioral measures of in-trinsic motivation but was unable to account for thevariability of the effect for self-report measures.Thus, it is important to note that the explanatorypower of the confirming versus nonconfirming feed-back model is limited.

The moderator analyses also found strong supportfor the hypothesis that performance goals produce alarger undermining effect when experimental proce-dures focus participants' attention on the possibilityof a negative performance outcome, thereby inducinga performance-avoidance orientation. Across severalstudies conducted by different researchers using di-vergent tasks and experimental paradigms, perfor-mance-avoidance goals had a deleterious effect onparticipants' intrinsic motivation, reflected in lowerfree-choice persistence and self-reports of interestand enjoyment. In contrast, performance goals classi-fied as having an approach orientation did not pro-duce evidence of an undermining effect. The analysesrevealed that participants pursuing perfor-mance-approach goals demonstrated levels of intrin-sic motivation equivalent to that of individualspursuing mastery goals. In addition, the ap-proach-avoidance performance-goal classificationproduced homogeneous classes of effect sizes forboth behavioral and self-report measures of intrinsicmotivation, indicating that the distinction betweenperformance-approach and performance-avoidancegoals can fully account for the variability in the per-formance versus mastery goal effect.

Thus, this meta-analysis succeeded in identifyingfactors that can explain the inconsistency of experi-mental outcomes in the achievement-goal/intrin-sic-motivation literature. Support was found for theconfirming-nonconfirming feedback and perfor-

miance-approach/performance-avoidance goal hypoth-eses but not for the ego-involvement/normative pre-diction. Homogeneity tests indicated that theconfirming versus nonconfirming feedback modelcould only explain the variability of the effect for thefree-choice persistence measure, whereas the perfor-mance-approach/performance-avoidance goal modelcould account for the variation in study outcomesacross both behavioral and self-report indicators of in-trinsic motivation.

Implications and Directions forFuture Research

The results of the performance-approach/perfor-mance-avoidance goal model suggest that future the-oretical and empirical work on achievement goalsand intrinsic motivation would benefit by attending tothe approach-avoidance distinction as well as theperformance versus mastery distinction. These find-ings suggest that the effect of performance goals onintrinsic motivation is contingent on whether the per-son is striving to attain a positive outcome or avoid anegative one. The pursuit of performance-avoidancegoals had a deleterious effect on intrinsic motivation,and it is our expectation that this effect would befound across most if not all achievement contexts.Using a negative possibility as the hub of achieve-ment-relevant regulation is likely to produce a host ofdeleterious processes (e.g., threat appraisals, anxi-ety-both worry and emotionality-task distraction,low self-determination) that invariably lead to an un-dermining of intrinsic motivation.

The pursuit of performance-approach goals, on theother hand, did not have a negative impact on intrinsicmotivation, and although these findings nicely illustratethe fact that performance-approach and mastery goalscan have similar effects, we believe that it would be in-accurate to conclude that performance-approach goalsalways have a beneficial effect on intrinsic motivation.Elliot (1997) argued that individuals may at times adoptperformance-approach goals as a means to avoid fail-ure, and under such conditions performance-approachgoals are unlikely to facilitate intrinsic motivation. In-deed, correlational research conducted in the collegeclassroom has shown that performance-approach goalshave null effects on intrinsic motivation when under-girded by a dispositional avoidance motive such as fearoffailure (Elliot& Church, 1997). It is also possible that,when undergirded by an avoidance motive, perfor-mance-approach goals may have no immediate nega-tive effect on intrinsic motivation but may undermineindividuals' intrinsic interest and enjoyment ofachieve-ment activities over the long term. For example, thestrategy of defensive pessimism (Norem & Cantor,


RAWSTHORNE & ELLIOT

1986), which represents an approach form ofregulationundergirded by an avoidance motive (Elliot & Church,1998), has been shown to be detrimental to individuals'interest and enjoyment ofachievement pursuits but onlyafter an extended period of time (Cantor, Norem,Niedenthal, Langston, & Brower, 1987).

The results of the confirming versus nonconfirmingfeedback model provide clear support for Ryan et al.' s(1991) argument that, in the absence of positive feed-back, performance goals may produce task persis-tence-resulting in null effects on behavioralmeasures of intrinsic motivation relative to masterygoals. Indeed, we found that when performance feed-back following task engagement was negative or ab-sent, individuals pursuing performance goalsevidenced levels of free-choice persistence equivalentto that of people with mastery goals. However, in con-trast to individuals with mastery goals, people pursu-ing performance goals were likely to persist at the taskout of a sense of pressure and urgency rather than con-tinued interest and enjoyment and likely experiencedthis state as psychologically aversive. Ryan et al. foundattenuated correlations between task persistence andself-reported interest for performance-goal partici-pants receiving nonconfirming feedback, suggestingthat the behavior of these individuals was not intrinsi-cally motivated.

These findings have methodological implicationsfor researchers using the free-choice paradigm to assessintrinsic motivation. Because different processes arelikely to be operating in performance and mastery goalconditions, the free-choice persistence measure shouldnot be considered a valid or reliable indicator ofintrinsicmotivation in the absence of competence-confirmingfeedback. Researchers conducting laboratory studies ofintrinsic motivation should be attentive to this issue anduse the free-choice persistence measure only when theirexperimental procedures include the provision of posi-tive, competence- confirming feedback. For experi-ments administering negative or no performancefeedback, assessment of intrinsic motivation should belimited to the use of self-report indicators.

The results of the confirming versus nonconfirmingfeedback model also have theoretical implications forthe literature on achievement goals and responses tonegative performance feedback. A number of re-searchers have observed that individuals pursuingmastery goals respond to negative performance feed-back with increased effort and persistence, whereasthose pursuing performance goals demonstrate a"helpless" pattern of responses following negativefeedback, including the withdrawal of effort and de-creased persistence at the activity (see Ames, 1992;Mueller & Dweck, 1998). The results of thismeta-analysis are somewhat at odds with this prior re-

search, for they suggest that individuals pursuing per-

formance goals may, at least under some conditions,respond to negative performance evaluation with in-creased effort and task persistence, much like individu-als with mastery goals.How might these seemingly discrepant findings be

reconciled? First, it is important to note that, in thissample of studies, task persistence was assessed dur-ing a free-choice period in which participants werealone and their performance at the activity was notunder evaluation. It is possible that under such pri-vate, nonevaluative conditions, individuals pursuingperformance goals may persist at the activity in an at-tempt to demonstrate to themselves that they have theability to perform well at the task. In more public,evaluative situations, however, individuals with per-formance goals may withdraw from the task out ofsocial evaluative concerns and demonstrate decreasedpersistence and other helplessness deficits. A secondpossibility involves the performance-approach/per-formance-avoidance distinction. In ancillary analyses(see Footnote 9) we tested the approach-avoidancemodel within the nonconfirming feedback compari-sons and found a significant between-class effect forperformance-approach and performance-avoidancegoals. After receiving nonconfirming feedback, indi-viduals pursuing performance-approach goals tendedto display enhanced free-choice persistence relativeto the those with mastery goals. Conversely, thosepursuing performance-avoidance goals evidenced de-creased task persistence (i.e., an undermining effect)relative to mastery-oriented individuals. These find-ings suggest that task persistence following negativefeedback may be evidenced primarily in persons withperformance-approach goals (see Elliot, McGregor,& Gable, 1999). The pursuit of performance-avoid-ance goals, on the other hand, may result in taskwithdrawal and decreased persistence in response tonegative feedback as well as other helplessness defi-cits identified in prior research. At present, each ofthese potential explanations remains speculative andawaits future research attention.

The interplay of performance feedback and ap-proach and avoidance regulation deserves further con-sideration, for not only may the effects of confirmingand nonconfirming feedback vary according to the va-lence of performance goals (as suggested previously),but the valence of performance feedback may influ-ence the adoption of approach and avoidance perfor-mance goals.'0 If the valence of a performance goal has

101n considering this issue, it is important to bear in mind the dis-tinction between feedback encountered prior to or during engage-ment with an evaluative task and feedback encountered on comple-tion of the activity. In the former case, feedback is capable ofinfluencing the person's goals for the activity, whereas, in the lattercase, it is not.


ACHIEVEMENT GOAL S AND INTRINSIC MOTIVATION

not yet been established (via dispositional factors orsituational cues that orient the individual toward thepossibility of a positive or negative performance out-come), performance feedback received early duringtask engagement may function to transform an undif-ferentiated performance orientation into an approachor avoidance performance goal. We incorporated thispossibility in developing our coding criteria.

In coding the experiments for moderator variables,we classified studies as inducing performance-avoidance goals when there was an explicit cue in thegoal manipulation that would focus participants on thepossibility that they might perform poorly at the exper-imental activity. In the absence of any explicit orient-ing cue, however, we employed an alternateclassification criterion. In this case, we coded perfor-mance goals as avoidance whenever participants withan unspecified performance orientation received nega-tive feedback early during task engagement. This sec-ond criterion was adopted with the assumption thatnegative feedback on a practice trial or on early trialsof the experimental task would focus participants onthe possibility of a poor performance outcome andthereby establish the goal of avoiding such an occur-rence. We conducted ancillary analyses comparingperformance goals classified as avoidance on the basisof the different coding criteria and found no be-tween-class differences in the magnitude of the under-mining effect. The undermining effect was found tohold across both groups of studies. Nonetheless, aquestion remains concerning the subset of perfor-mance goals classified as avoidance on the basis offeedback. Given the limitations of our meta-analyticdatabase, we cannot determine conclusively whetherthe undermining effect observed for this subset of stud-ies was due to participants adopting an avoidance goalper se. An alternative explanation is that the partici-pants in these studies had an unspecified performanceorientation (i.e., they were simply aware that their per-formance would be normatively evaluated) and thattheir intrinsic motivation suffered as a direct result ofnegative evaluation (e.g., through a compe-tence-related process). From this perspective, a perfor-mance orientation may leave individuals vulnerable tothe effects of failure independent of any detrimentalconsequences of avoidance regulation. Future researchis needed to determine the impact of feedback on un-differentiated performance goals and the precise mech-anisms through which negative evaluation producesdetrimental effects.A related question is whether approach and avoid-

ance performance goals, once they have been estab-lished, remain stable over time despite fluctuations inthe valence of performance feedback. For example,can persons pursuing performance-approach goals re-tain a positive outcome focus when confronted with

negative feedback, or does such feedback automati-cally lead to a focus on the potential for failure and acorresponding shift to performance-avoidance regula-tion? We believe the answer to this question dependson several situational and dispositional factors. For ex-ample, mild negative feedback or performance set-backs (as found in this sample of laboratoryexperiments) may be too weak or benign to elicit achange in the regulatory focus of an established perfor-mance-approach goal. Unambiguous negative feed-back or repeated failure experiences, on the other hand,seem more likely to elicit the transformation from per-formance-approach to performance-avoidance regula-tion. In addition, when performance-approach goalsare undergirded by fear of failure (Elliot & Church,1997) or emerge from an entity theory of ability(Dweck, 1990), negative performance feedback maybe experienced as shameful or interpreted as indicatingan immutable lack of ability and, therefore, may impela shift to avoidance regulation. On the other hand,when performance-approach goals are undergirded byneed for achievement, negative feedback may be inter-preted in an informational fashion as a challenge to beovercome, and therefore, the performance-approachorientation may be retained. At present, this issue hasyet to receive direct attention in the achievement goalliterature and remains an important avenue for futureresearch.

The results of the ego-involvement versus norma-tive model also warrant discussion and suggest direc-tions for future empirical activity. The null findingsobserved in this meta-analysis suggest thatego-involved and normative performance goals mayevoke many of the same psychological processes andhave a similar impact on intrinsic motivation. It is im-portant to note, however, that null findings at a be-tween-studies level may reflect between-studyvariation in other factors that may have obscured truedifferences between distinct goal states. The possibil-ity remains that a direct comparison betweenego-involved and normative performance goals withina carefully designed and executed study might distin-guish the two goal states and find them to have differ-ent effects on intrinsic motivation. Conceptually, egoinvolvement entails making global self-evaluationcontingent on some external criteria (e.g., a perfor-mance outcome). This state is likely to elicit evaluativepressure and anxiety and to reduce the individual'ssense of self-determination. These factors, in turn,would likely be detrimental to the person's intrinsic in-terest and enjoyment of the activity at hand. There is noreason to believe, however, that such processes arenecessarily operative when regulating with referenceto a normative standard of evaluation. In the absence ofego involvement, normative evaluation may simplyprovide useful information about one's level of perfor-


RAWSTHORNE & ELLIOT

mance, skills, or abilities and have little negative effecton intrinsic motivation. Empirically differentiatingthese conceptually distinct regulatory states remains achallenge for future research.

In addition to the main body of findings discussedpreviously, we identified a small group of studiesdemonstrating a strong undermining effect of perfor-mance goals that deviated substantially in magnitudefrom the other experiments (Butler, 1987, 1988; But-ler & Nisan, 1986). Because the three studies wereconducted by the same principal investigator andwere methodologically homogeneous, we regardedthese studies as a separate class of outliers and re-ported the results of the moderator analyses with thestudies excluded. Inclusion of the outliers inflatedwithin-class heterogeneity and composite effect sizesbut left the general pattern of findings unchanged.However, the question remains as to the factors thatcould have produced these large effects. The mostlikely possibility lies in the experimental paradigmused in these investigations. The researchers em-ployed a quasi-experimental design in which classesof students, rather than individuals, were randomlyassigned to performance and mastery goal conditions.Because the students participated in the studieswithin the context of their own classrooms in thepresence of their classmates, the environment wasconsiderably more realistic than that of most labora-tory experiments and may have elicited stronger reac-tions to the achievement goal manipulations.

Interestingly, there is a noticeable trend in theachievement goal literature toward the increased useof self-report measures of goals in actual achieve-ment settings, and several researchers have examinedthe links between self-reported achievement goalsand intrinsic motivation in the classroom (Ames &Archer, 1988; Archer, 1994; Duda & Nicholls, 1992;Elliot & Church, 1997; Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter,Lehto, & Elliot, 1997; Miller, Behrens, Greene, &Newman, 1993; Nicholls, Pastashnick, & Nolen,1985). As this literature develops, it will be possibleto conduct a companion meta-analytic review to com-plement this work, although this companionmeta-analysis would be limited to self-report mea-sures of intrinsic interest (see Harackiewicz, Barron,Carter, Tauer, & Elliot, in press, however). Juxta-posing the pattern of results obtained via these differ-ent methodologies will undoubtably yield additionalinsights into the relation between achievement goalsand intrinsic motivation. At present, the resultsemerging from the classroom research appear rathersimilar to those found in the experimental literature,the primary difference being that self-reported perfor-mance-approach goals seem to be unrelated ratherthan positively related to interest and enjoyment inthe classroom setting (Elliot & Church, 1997).

In closing, it is important to note that the results ofthis meta-analysis have clear applied implications. Inrecent years, a number of theorists have argued forthe implementation of classroom and school-wide in-tervention programs aimed at promoting the adoptionof mastery goals and discouraging the adoption ofperformance goals (Ames, 1992; Anderman, 1997;Maehr & Midgley, 1991; Roeser, Midgley, & Urdan,1996; Solomon, 1996). Although we wholeheartedlyagree that the promotion of mastery goals is an im-portant and worthwhile endeavor, we contend thatdiscouraging all forms of performance goals may becounterproductive. The results of this meta-analysissuggest that some performance goals, namely perfor-mance-approach goals, do not undermine intrinsicmotivation. Recent research in the college classroomreiterates this point and additionally demonstratesthat performance-approach regulation yields somepositive achievement outcomes not obtained throughthe pursuit of mastery goals (see Elliot & Church,1997; Elliot & McGregor, 1999; Elliot et al., 1999).Furthermore, the eradication of performance goals ineducational settings may be a difficult, if not impossi-ble feat. Levine (1983) noted that students tend toadopt a normative mind set and compete with eachother even when learning environments are explicitlystructured to minimize this type of regulation. Ac-cordingly, it would seem optimal for interventionstrategies to have a dual aim-the facilitation ofself-improvement/task mastery and the promotion ofan approach (as opposed to avoidance) focus with re-gard to normative comparison. As such, we believethat future investigations should be directed at identi-fying classroom and school-wide factors that serve asantecedents to performance approach as well as mas-tery goal adoption. Such efforts would serve the ulti-mate purpose of conceptual and empirical work in theachievement goal literature, the identification andpromotion of adaptive motivational orientations to-ward achievement-relevant pursuits.

References

*References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in themeta-analysis.

Amabile, T. M., DeJong, W., & Lepper, M. R. (1976). Effects of ex-ternally imposed deadlines on subsequent intrinsic motivation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 92-98.

American Psychological Association. (1971-1997). PsycINFO[On-line]. Washington, DC: Author [Producer]. OvidTechnologies [Distributor].

Ames, C. (1984). Competitive, cooperative, and individualistic goalstructures: A cognitive-motivational analysis. In C. Ames & R.Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3,pp. 177-207). New York: Academic.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motiva-tion. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 84, 261-271.



Ames. C., & Archer, J. (1987). Mothers' belief about the role of abil-ity and effort in school learning. Journal of Educational PsY-chology, 79, 409-414.

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom:Students' learning strategies and motivational processes. Jlou-nal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267.

Anderman, E. M. (I 997). Motivation and school reform. In M. Maehr& P. Pintrich (Eds.). Advances in motivation and achievemient(Vol. 10, pp. 303-337). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Archer, J. (1994). Achievement goals as a measure of motivation inuniversity students. Contemporary Educational Psychology,19, 430-446.

Bakeman, R., & Gottman, J. M. (1989). Observing interaction: Anintroduction to sequential analysis. Cambridge, England: Cam-bridge University Press.

Bandura, A. (1986). Socialfoundations of thought and action: A so-cial-cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Boggiano, A. K., Ruble, D. N., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). The masteryhypothesis and the overjustification effect. Social Cognition, 1,38-49.

*Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties ofevaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motiva-tional perceptions, interest and performance. Journal ofEduca-tional Psychology, 79, 474-482.

*Butler, R. (1988). Enhancing and undermining intrinsic motivation:The effects of task-involving and ego-involving evaluation oninterest and performance. British Journal of Educational Psy-chology, 58, 1-14.

*Butler, R. (1992). What young people want to know when: Effectsof mastery and ability goals on interest in different kinds of so-cial comparisons. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 62, 934-943.

*Butler, R., & Nisan, M. (1986). Effects of no feedback, task-relatedcomments, and grades on intrinsic motivation and performance.Journal ofEducational Psychology, 78, 210-216.

Cantor, N., Norem, J. K., Niedenthal, P. M., Langston, C. A., &Brower, A. M. (1987). Life tasks, self-concept ideals, and cog-nitive strategies in a life transition. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 53, 1178-1191.

Cohen, J. (1960). A coefficient of agreement for nominal scales. Edu-cational and Psychological Measurement, 10, 37-46.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sci-ences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates,Inc.

Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrin-sic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,18, 105-115.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic re-view of experiments examinging the effects of extrinsic rewardson intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627-668.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation andself-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and thecontrol of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 53, 1024-1037.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1990). A motivational approach to self:Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), NebraskaSymposium on Motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 237-288). Lincoln:University of Nebraska Press.

Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievementmotivation in schoolwork and sport. Journalof EducationalPsychology, 84, 290-299.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning.American Psychologist, 41, 1040- 1048.

Dweck, C.S. (1990). Self-theories and goals: Their role in motiva-tion, personality, and development. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Ne-

ba-ska SYmposium on Motivation (Vol. 38, pp. 199--235 .Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Elliot. A. J. ( 1997). Integrating the "classic" and 'contemporary" ap-proaches to achievement motivation: A hierarchical model ofapproach and avoidance achievement motivation. In M. Macfir& P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advance.s in motivation and achievemzent("Vol. 10, pp. 143- 179). Greenwich, CT: JAI.

Elliot. A. J., & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approachand avoidance motivation. Journal of'Personality and SocialPsychology, 72, 218-232.

Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. (1998). [Motivational portrait of defensi\ epessimism and self-handicapping]. Unpublished raw data, Uni-sersity of Rochester.

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1994). Goal setting, achievementorientation, and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysisJournal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 968-980.

*Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidanceachievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational anal-ysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70,461-475.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor. H. (1999). Test anxiety and the hierarchi-cal model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 628-644.

Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H.A., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievementgoals, study strategies, and exam performance: A mediationalanalysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 549-563.

Enzle, M. E., & Anderson, S.C. (1993). Surveillant intentions and in-trinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 64, 257-266.

Gleser, L. J., & Olkin, I. (1994). Stochastically dependent effectsizes. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges (Eds.), Handbook of re-search synthesis (pp. 339-355). New York: Russell Sage Foun-dation.

Harackiewicz, J. M. (1989). Performance evaluation and intrinsicmotivation processes: The effects of achievement orientationand rewards. In D. M. Buss & N. Cantor (Eds.), Personality psy-chology: Recent trends and emerging directions (pp. 128-137).New York: Springer-Verlag.

*Harackiewicz, J. M., Abrahams, S., & Wageman, R. (1987). Perfor-mance evaluation and intrinsic motivation: The effects ofevaluative focus, rewards, and achievement orientation. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1015-1023.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. T., &Elliot, A. J. (1997). Predictors and consequences of achieve-ment goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest andmaking the grade. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 73, 1284-1295.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Tauer, J., & Elliot,A. J. (in press). Short and long-term consequences of achieve-ment goals: The role of interest. Journalof Educational Psy-chology.

5Harackiewicz, J. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1993). Achievement goals andintrinsic motivation. Journal of'Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 65, 904 915.

Harackiewicz,J. M., & Manderlink, G. (1984). A process analysis ofthe effects of performance-contingent rewards on intrinsic moti-vation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20,531-551.

*Harackiewicz,J. M., Manderlink, G., & Sansone, C. (1984). Re-warding pinball wizardry: Effects of evaluation and cue valueon intrinsic interest. Journal of'Personality and Social Psychol-ogy, 47, 287-300.

Harter,S. (198 1). A new self-report scale of intrinsic vs. extrinsic ori-entation in the classroom: Motivational and informational com-ponents. Developmental Psychology, 17, 300-312.

Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, 1. (1985). Statistical methods fiormneta-analysis. Orlando, FL: Academic.


RAWSTHORNE & ELLIOT

Heyman, G. D., & Dweck, C. S. (1992). Achievement goals and in-trinsic motivation: Their relation and their role in adaptive moti-vation. Motivation and Emotion, 16, 231-247.

Johnson, B. T. (1990). DSTAT: Software for the meta-analytic re-view of research literatures [Computer software]. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Johnson, B. T., & Eagly, A. H. (in press). Quantitative synthesis ofsocial psychological research. In H. T. Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.),Handbook of research methods in social psychology. London:Cambridge University Press.

*Koestner, R., & Zuckerman, M. (1994). Causality orientations, fail-ure, and achievement. Journal ofPersonality, 62, 321-346.

*Koestner, R., Zuckerman, M., & Koestner, J. (1987). Praise, in-volvement, and intrinsic motivation. Journal ofPersonality andSocial Psychology, 53, 383-390.

*Koestner, R., Zuckerman, M., & Koestner, J. (1989). Attributionalfocus of praise and children's intrinsic motivation: The moder-ating role of gender. Personality and Social Psychology Bulle-tin, 15, 61-72.

*Koestner, R., Zuckerman, M., & Olson, J. (1990). Attributionalstyle, comparison focus of praise, and intrinsic motivation.Journal ofResearch in Personality, 24, 87-100.

Lepper, M. R. (1981). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in children:Detrimental effects of superfluous social controls. In W. A. Col-lins (Ed.), Aspects ofthe development ofcompetence: The Min-nesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 155-214).Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Levine, J. M. (1983). Social comparison and education. In J. M. Le-vine & M. C. Wang (Eds.), Teacher and student perceptions:Implications for learning (pp. 29-55). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates, Inc.

Lewin, K., Dembo, T., Festinger, L., & Sears, P. S. (1944). Level ofaspiration. In J. McHunt (Ed.), Personality and the behaviordisorders (Vol. 1, pp. 333-378). New York: Ronald.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory ofgoal setting andtask performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Maehr, M. L. (1984). Meaning and motivation. In R. Ames & C.Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Student mo-tivation (Vol. 1, p. 115-144). New York: Academic.

Maehr, M. L. (1989). Thoughts about motivation. In C. Ames & R.Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education: Goals andcognitions (Vol. 3, pp. 299-315). Orlando, FL: Academic.

Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation:A school-wide approach. Educational Psychologist, 26,399-427.

McClelland, D. C, Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L.(1953). The achievement motive. New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students'goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activi-ties. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 80, 514-523.

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

Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence canundermine children's motivation and performance. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 75, 33-52.

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

Nicholls, J. G., Pastashnick, M., & Nolen, S. B. (1985). Adolescents'theories of education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77,683-692.

*Nichols, A. L., Whelan, J. P., & Meyers, A. W. (1991). The effectsof children's goal structures and performance feedback onmood, task choice, and task persistence. Behavior Therapy, 22.491-503.

Norem, J. K., & Cantor, N. (1986). Defensive pessimism: Harnessinganxiety as motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 51, 1208-1217.

*Plant, R. W., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and the ef-fects of self-consciousness, self-awareness, andego-involvement: An investigation of internally controllingstyles. Journal ofPersonality, 53, 435-449.

Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of theschool psychological environment and early adolescents' psy-chological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediatingrole of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 88, 408-422.

*Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonalsphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 43, 450-461.

*Ryan, R. M., Koestner, R., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Ego-involved per-sistence: When free-choice behavior is not intrinsically moti-vated. Motivation and Emotion, 15, 185-205.

Ryan, R. M., & Stiller, J. (1991). The social context of internaliza-tion: Parent and teacher influences on autonomy, motivation,and learning. In M. L. Maehr& P.R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances inmotivation and achievement (Vol. 7, pp. 115-149). Greenwich,CT: JAI.

Sansone, C. (1986). A question ofcompetence: The effects ofcompe-tence and task feedback on intrinsic interest. Journal ofPerson-ality and Social Psychology, 51, 918-931.

*Sansone, C., Sachau, D., & Weir, C. (1989). Effects of instructionon intrinsic interest: The importance of context. Journal ofPer-sonality and Social Psychology, 57, 819-829.

Sansone, C., Weir, C., Harpster, L., & Morgon, C. (1992). Once aboring task always a boring task? Interest as a self-regulatorymechanism. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 63,379-390.

Solomon, M. A. (1996). Impact of motivational climate on students'behavioral and perceptions in a physical education setting. Jour-nal ofEducational Psychology, 88, 731-738.

*Tripathi, K. N., & Nigam, R. (1990). Effect of the type of informa-tion and task orientation on performance and task motivation.Indian Journal of Current Psychological Research, 5, 33-38.

Urdan, T. C. (1997). Achievement goal theory: Past results, future di-rections. In M. Maehr & P. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motiva-tion and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 99-141). Greenwich, CT:JAI.

Vallerand, R. J., Gauvin, L. I., & Halliwell, W. R. (1986). Effects ofzero-sum competition on children's intrinsic motivation andperceived competence. Journal of Social Psychology, 126.465-472.

Wolters, C., Yu, S., & Pintrich, P. (1996). The relation between goalorientation and students' motivational beliefs and self-regulatedlearning. Learning and Individual Differences, 8, 211-238.


If - =2 If - cl C'- IC C 00 CM C,' 00 Z OC00 M 00 C-I C-o Ir c- 1.ofo0-1 0 -c If cf MT CC-

+ ++ + + + + +± + + + +

00 Z - DC0 Co ON DC0 ) c- - C- - O -xo c= r< m "C mC0 -C,~

C C- c- 0 O NC° 'I- O C- C°-C-- C- CIA l ° °l °l) C °l 00C C Cl C Z Cl C- C- C-I 00 = - O7N a rnCON mtc -<,

C1lI°l ° °i°-°l° l ° °° ° °°lIl lI°I°I°

o C t t±C- 00 00 m m r- - C-

V1- - -t r-C XI 00 )r t

++ + + + + + + + + +1+

000000~~~~~000000Cf,

°0 C C °l °l Cl ClC! °lc -

-°l C°°°l°l °- °Cl°~°°l°l

aX X4 a= w= 04= w z P4wC= w= w=:: =w:= wX' w=1 wX w

e >0- - > 0-Q > 0 0- >> j0 0 0 0- 0

o0 o 0 ,a) 0 0 O 00

x~0)

=0

~~~10_

0)0)0)0)1=)0)a.10_

0^?10 10_

001-.1= _= 1

S101cJO

1- 1- 00 10co.4=)=u >00 w

X ct ° o550)510zr55c 50

10X =j5t 0 0-u00000)o o U c0c> > > 1=0 =0. °- 0

1 10 1o= 1= 0 O=00 < 0; u

¢

0)

10m00)

0)0Cn0

10

,0

0u

0)

0-0.._

0

0

0LL

O C) O

u: ct c

1= 0) Q )Act CA cn

0) E E

> s)10S > > >

;0 0 t0

CIA-

Na

- ---

-^

0:U:C

1=1=_0/~1

N )oo Z - X - -~~~~~0

o 3 3 [.1~~_* X Q~~~~~~~~~1

000;

0>la

-

ON

0)0.1

ct

0

-

00)

0 3

u

0 )

CZ

0 )0,0

00=0

m

7: 1

0-10 0-

0.0

u _

0)1=)C> CI1-10

=0C

O ON

00 01010

*-̂~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~4

1-1

100

= 10

00

0)001=)1010

=00

13=0

c1

3

0)

0)

X001=._

0)

0

0G

0=0

=0*010

,0

0)0)>0

C-

=00

30

0

-

00C)

CA000(A

._

0)0o

0010(a

0)

00.0._

03

4--

bj)

CA

(1):

0.

07:~.0)

u

.40-

0

.0

u:

r-

0)

S00)

0400

0)

0^0:0

*0

=0

0tc

0 0)co co10 10

=0v

0 0D

S S

0 0

0a 000 00

. °

01=8

10

.- 00c00)

0-0=00

000000

.

00u

0)0)

0)0)00

a00

1010

00

rv u

_

1= ON

- C0 -

0) _

0= =^E 4~~~~~zt')On

z'1=

0

Cu)0.I"

co

Cq

Cq)

1;;0.

0


- o 0 O 0 0 O0 - .

00000 M ) O-) 0 0 G

Its.

U) cnun Cn ce) C4 C/) 0) 0

> 0.~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~I0

bb C)~~~~~~~~~~~0

Cis)

-o - oooo~ oo~ o. o o o o o oC

4- _ W=

m t o < N cr~~~E E E 5 :mo o£_C

> >> > > > >~~~~~~~~~1

M~CCd CO CM C's C's C'sC

b o 0c0 b0 0e 0 0 0 U

00

> Li

o .5

0)0

00 ~ ~ 0 bo

0) g

0 CO O

0 .0~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~o.0) U -U *- -

O O co'

0)- > >0 >1 0

Cffl CrN, Ct in ce C pC/)

CC '0.g Cd Q o0)X> E

O0 O 0 0 0: X0ZtO 0t 0n0Z0)-O Q

0) 0 v .0)r

0) 0) 0) 0) 0) 0) °.C)

5 C C C >> >n C *= 2;dII


achievement goals and intrinsic motivation a meta-analysis

Documents

mastery achievement

mastery goals

intrinsic motivation

enjoyment of achievement

intrinsic motivation

achievement motivation

pursuit ofmastery goals

contemporary research