They found that setting proximal goalswas related to greater self-efficacy, interest, and effort compared to setting distal

goals. Taken together, there is substantial evidence thatmotivational strategies are positively linked to students effort and achievement.

people have not only different amounts, but also different kinds of motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 54). That is, it is both important howmuch a person ismotivated and why she ismotivated.With respect to the why of actions, it is often distinguished between intrinsic and extrinsic forms of motivation. The most important difference between intrinsic and extrinsic kinds of motivation is that intrinsic motivation implies doing something because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable, whereas extrinsicmotivation is characterized by doing something because it leads to a desired outcome, for instance, good grades in school (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Moreover, the criterion should not be restricted to motivational concepts but expand to consequences of motivation. The most distal and often considered the most important outcome of motivational regulation certainly refers to higher achievement. In previous studies, it was shown that the effect of motivational regulation strategies on achievement was mediated by effort expenditure (Schwinger et al., 2009; Wolters, 2003). Taken together, an adaptive motivational regulation profile can be defined as one which is associatedwith high effort expenditure and alsowith high achievement

Given previous findings from variable-centered studies on motivational regulation, it is hypothesized

that regardless of profile shape a higher level of motivational regulation profiles (i.e., in terms of quantity) corresponds with higher effort and performance (Schwinger & Stiensmeier-Pelster, submitted for publication; Schwinger et al., 2009; Wolters, 1999

distinguish the effects of primarily intrinsic from primarily extrinsic profiles. Results from variable-centered studies can be examined and motivational strategies can be rank-ordered according their correlation with effort. In pertinent studies, mastery self-talk showed the highest positive correlation with participants effort whereas performance self-talk was most adaptive with respect to achievement (Schwinger & Stiensmeier-Pelster, submitted for publication; Schwinger et al., 2009; Wolters, 1999). A recent meta-analysis on achievement goals supports these findings (Hulleman et al., 2010). Similarly, cluster and latent profile analyses of achievement goals revealed themost positive outcomes for students primarily endorsing mastery goals, but also high achievement outcomes for students preferring performance-approach goals (Bembenutty, 1999; Cano & Berbn, 2009; Meece & Holt, 1993; Pastor

Differences in profile level describe quantitative differences between groups in motivational regulation overall. Based on previous results from studies using a variable-centered approach (Schwinger et al., 2009; Wolters, 1999), we assume profiles with a higher level of motivational strategy use to be associated with higher levels of effort expenditure and achievement.

1.3.3. Effects of profile shape on effort and achievement Profiles with different shapes indicate qualitative differences between

groups. Because previous research has shown that individual profiles emphasizing intrinsic forms of motivation, self-regulation, and engagement are most advantageous (e.g., Cano & Berbn, 2009; Pastor et al., 2007), we suppose that students primarily using mastery self-talk and other intrinsic motivational strategies display higher levels of effort than students focusing on extrinsic motivational strategies. On the other hand, profiles with an emphasis on performanceapproach self-talk are assumed to be most adaptive for students achievement (Pastor et al., 2007).

Goal-focused and high profile students showed the highest effort expenditure. In comparison, students with an interest-focused and those with a medium profile reported to invest significantly less effort into learning.

On the one hand, mastery goals reflect intrinsic interest in a task (Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, & Thrash, 2002). However, it seems that students differentiate their motivational strategies rather by method-related than by content-related aspects. Stated differently, mastery self-talk is a strategy which refers to one's goals and this makes it more similar to other goal-oriented self-talk strategies than to other intrinsic motivational strategies. Moreover, although classified as intrinsic strategy, Schwinger et al. (2007) reported that mastery self-talk was also highly associated with extrinsic forms.

As stated above, we think that increase in effort and persistence is the most relevant outcome criterion in motivational regulation. Regarding this aspect, it can be concluded that using a lot of motivational strategies frequently

seems to be effective in enhancing one's learning motivation,

Former studies have also proven a link between effort and achievement. Nevertheless, higher effort might not automatically result in higher achievement. There are additional prerequisites for high performance like cognitive abilities or prior knowledge which are not necessarily accompanied with high effort. Consistent with this reasoning and resembling results from previous studies (e.g., Ho & Hau, 2008), the association between effort expenditure and achievement on the scale level was rather low. More important in this regard, we neither found significant differences in school performance between different profile groups. Interestingly, however, low profile students showed the same high performance than goal-focused profile students. One possible explanation for this finding is that not all students need to regulate their motivation. Students with a low profile of motivational regulation might be sufficiently motivated to show good academic performance and they might draw on other resources, e.g., on high intellectual ability. Further research has to determine what characterizes this group of students, specifically howtheymanage to reach their good academic achievement.

Goal-focused profile students were best in both effort expenditure and school performance. Interest-focused profile students, in contrast, showed only average effort and apparently lower school performance. High profile students reported significantly higher effort expenditure at t2 than students from all other profile groups (see Table 6). The second highest values were found for goal-focused profile students whereby this profile was associated with significantly higher effort

compared to an interest-focused profile. The lowest effort expenditure was reported by the low and the performance self-talk profile groups. High profile students were also best with respect to study performance. They showed significantly higher grades compared to students holding a low or a performance self-talk profile. Goalfocused and interest-focused profile students showed an intermediate study performance which was not significantly different from any of the other groups. achievement. Again, a goal-focused regulation profile proved to be more adaptive than an interest-focused profile in this regard. Moreover, profiles reflecting a high level of motivational strategy use were associated with higher effort expenditure and also with higher study performance than profiles indicating a less frequently use. An interesting result emerged for the comparison of the low and the performance self-talk students. Although the last mentioned students used two motivational strategies rather often, they had similarly low values on effort and achievement. This indicates that performance self-talk the onlymethod those students used formotivational regulation was quite ineffective in producing the aspired outcomes. In line with these results, previous variable-centered studies reported performance-avoidance self-talk to be either not or only weakly correlated with effort and achievement (Lenzner & Dickhuser, 2009; Schwinger et al., 2007). Based on the fact that performance-avoidance goals represent a dubious form of motivation which is associated with maladaptive outcomes like test anxiety (Elliot & McGregor, 1999), self-handicapping (Urdan, 2004), and low academic self-efficacy (Middleton & Midgley, 1997), it appears reasonable that selfmotivation by focusing one'smind on this kind of goals does not considerably increase effort and persistence. On the other hand, using

performance-avoidance self-talk in addition to other, more adaptive motivational strategies seems to be less dangerous (see high and goal

strategy of performance-avoidance self-talk has maladaptive effects the more students rely exclusively on this specific formof motivational regulation. Altogether, further research needs to identify potential advantages and disadvantages of performance self-talk strategies

It seems reasonable to conclude that individualsmay favor a respective regulatory profile in accordance to their habitualmotivational tendencies. For example, students holding a goal-focused motivational regulation profile usually highly endorse performance-approach goals.

The performance self-talk students had the lowest initial effort expenditure, measured at t1. It might thus be possible that these students have long-lasting motivational problems, including low interest, low self-efficacy, low self-esteem and/or frequent use of maladaptive selfregulation strategies like, for instance, self-handicapping (Martin, Marsh, & Debus, 2001; Schwinger & Stiensmeier-Pelster, 2010)

Students would thus only use performance self-talk in order to sustain a minimum of effort and persistence. However, this interpretation is speculative and needs to be bolstered in further research.

motivational strategies were positively related to measures of effort and persistence (Schwinger et al., 2007; Schwinger & Stiensmeier-Pelster, submitted for publication; Wolters, 1999). With respect to their adaptivity, motivational

regulation profiles thus seem to follow the more, the merrier principles. On the other hand, there are also exceptions from this rule. For example, low profile and performance self-talk profile students in Study 2 had similar values on effort expenditure although the latter mentioned group had a higher average strategy use. This finding indicates that the effects of profile level are sometimes amended by the effects of profile shape.

Thoughwewere right in assigning profiles containing highmastery self-talk asmost adaptive, this effect could not be generalized to the remaining intrinsic strategies

A possible reason for why mastery selftalk is such an effective motivational regulation strategy may be that it focuses on a person's individual improvement (i.e., on intrinsic elements), butwithout being dependent on application quality. The specific mechanisms that moderate the effectiveness of motivational strategies in general and of interest enhancement strategies in particular certainly need further examination.

Goal-focused and high profile students showed the highest scores on these strategies and also on effort expenditure in both studies. Our results resemble findings from research on multiple achievement goals. Several studies yield evidence that a multiple goal profile (both goals high) may produce even better outcomes than highly pursuing either mastery or performance-approach goals alone (e.g., Pastor et al., 2007; Valle et al., 2003). In sum, both mastery and performance-approach goals have a positive impact on important educational processes

and outcomes, and this effect becomes even larger when both goals are endorsed simultaneously (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001)