Motivation

Development of Achievement Motivation

Allan Wigfield Jacquelynne S. Eccles
University of Maryland University of Michigan
Ulrich Schiefele Roert Roeser
University of !ielefeld "e# $or% University
&amela Davis'(ean
University of Michigan
)o appear in W. Damon *Series Ed.+ , ". Eisenerg *-olume Ed.+. Handbook of Child Psychology, 6th Ed. Vol.
3, Social, Emotional, and Personality Develoment *". Eisenerg. -ol. Ed.+. "e# $or%/ John Wiley. We #ould
li%e to than% Ellen S%inner and "ancy Eisenerg for helpful comments on an earlier version of this chapter.
1
Motivation
)A!0E 12 31")E")S
1-ER-4EW 5
3URRE") )6E1RE)43A0 &ERS&E3)4-ES 1" M1)4-A)41" 7
)heories 3oncerned &rimarily With )he 8uestion 9 :
3an 4 Do )his )as%;<
)heories 3oncerned With the 8uestion 9Do 4 Want )o Do =:
)his )as% and Why;<
)heories 3oncerned With the 8uestion 9What do 4 6ave to do 5=
to Succeed on )his )as%;<
)6E DE-E01&ME") 12 M1)4-A)41"/ W4)64" &ERS1" 5>
36A"?E A"D ?R1U& D422ERE"3ES
Within &erson 3hange in Motivation @A
)he Development and Remediation of Motivational &rolems :5
)he Development of ?ender Differences in Motivation BA
)he Development of ?roup Differences in Motivation/ )he B@
Roles of 3ulture. Ethnicity. and 4mmigration
)6E S134A04CA)41" 12 M1)4-A)41"/ &ARE")A0 >@
4"20UE"3ES
)6E S134A04CA)41" 12 M1)4-A)41"/ 4"20UE"3ES 12 ==A
S36110D4"S)RU3)41"A0 31")EE)S A"D S36110 )RA"S4)41"S
)eacher !eliefs and ?eneral 4nstructional &ractices ===
Within the 3lassroom
School 0evel 3haracteristics and Student Motivation =FA
School )ransitions and Motivational Development =FG
)6E S134A04CA)41" 12 M1)4-A)41"/ R10ES 12 &EERS =G5
31"30US41"S =GB
RE2ERE"3ES =5F
2
Motivation
Wor% on the development of childrenHs achievement motivation has continued to flourish since the fifth
edition of this Handbook #as pulished in =>>B. 4n this chapter #e update Eccles. Wigfield. and SchiefeleHs
*=>>B+ chapter on motivation from the previous edition of the Handbook. Motivational psychologists study #hat
moves people to act and #hy people thin% and do #hat they do *&intrich. FAAGI Weiner. =>>F+. )hus motivation
energiJes and directs actions. and so has great relevance to many important developmental outcomes. Achievement
motivation refers more specifically to motivation relevant to performance on tas%s in #hich standards of eKcellence
are operative. !ecause much of the #or% in the developmental and educational psychology fields on motivation
has focused on achievement motivation. #e emphasiJe it in this chapter. .
6o# can #e conceptualiJe roadly the nature of motivation. its influences on ehavior. and its
development; Motivation is most directly oservale in the level of energy in individualsH ehaviors. Researchers
studying motivation posit various sources of this energy. 6istorically. drives. needs. and reinforcements #ere
proposed as the primary sources *see Eccles et al.. =>>BI &intrich , Schun%. FAAFI Weiner. =>>F+. and needs
continue to e prominent in one maLor current motivational theory. 6o#ever. much current theory and research on
motivation focuses on individualsH eliefs. values. and goals as primary influences on motivation *Eccles ,
Wigfield. FAAF+. )his implies that the processes influencing motivation are cognitive. conscious. affective. and
often under control of the individual. 4t is the elief. value. and goals constructs prominent in current theoretical
models that #e focus on in this chapter.
With respect to influences on ehavior. childrenHs motivation relates to their choices aout #hich tas%s
and activities to do. the persistence #ith #hich they pursue those activities. the intensity of their engagement in
them. and their performance on them. Depending on their motivation. some individuals approach activities in
different areas #ith great persistence and enthusiasm. #hereas others see% to avoid these activities. )hus
motivation influences the #ays in #hich individualsH do or do not participate in different activities. 1nce engaged
in an activity. motivation can influence ho# diligently the activity is pursued. and the #ays in #hich it is pursued.
2undamentally. motivational theorists and researchers #or% to understand the motivational predictors of choice.
persistence. and effort *Eccles et al.. =>>B+.
With respect to development. there are important changes in childrenHs motivation as they gro# up. )he
prevailing pattern of change #ith respect to achievement motivation for many children is a decline over the school
years. We discuss the reasons for this decline in this chapter. )here are also important individual and group
differences in the development of motivation. Many researchers have focused on gender differences in motivation.
and there is increasing interest in cultural differences in motivation. We highlight #or% on oth %inds of
differences. #ith a particular emphasis on culture and motivation. as much #or% on this topic has een done over
the last decade. We noted aove that current theoretical perspectives often emphasiJe psychological eliefs. values.
and goals as crucial to motivation. 6o#ever. childrenHs motivational development also is strongly influenced y
different socialiJation agents. such as parents. teachers. and peers. and y the conteKts in #hich they develop. We
discuss these influences in this chapter. 4ndeed. a hallmar% of much recent #or% on motivation is a concern for
ho# different conteKts influence motivation *Urdan. =>>>+.
)o present the #or% on motivation #e organiJe our chapter in a similar fashion to the one pulished in
the previous edition of this handoo%. #ith some deletions and some additions. 4n order to incorporate the ne#
#or% into the chapter #e deleted or shortened the sections of the chapter focusing on the history of the field.
Readers can consult that chapter *Eccles et al.. =>>B+ or Weiner *=>>F+ for this history. )o eKplain the nature of
motivation. #e egin #ith a discussion of current theories. Some theories discussed in our previous chapter receive
less attention this time and some more attention ased on our assessment of their current influence on the field.
We discuss neKt ho# childrenHs motivation develops. We nest our discussion of group differences in motivation in
this section ecause these differences are developmental in natureI that is. they emerge over the course of
childrenHs development. "eKt #e turn to ho# childrenHs motivation is socialiJed in the home. school. and y peers.
3
Motivation
We conclude #ith a rief overall assessment of the state of theory and research in the achievement motivation
field.
3URRE") )6E1RE)43A0 &ERS&E3)4-ES 1" M1)4-A)41"
3urrent achievement motivation theories continue to emphasiJe childrenHs eliefs. values. and goals as
prominent influences on motivation. )hat is. many theorists adopt a social cognitive perspective on the nature of
motivation *Eccles et al.. =>>BI &intrich. FAAG+. 3entral constructs of interest to motivation theorists include self'
efficacy. perceptions of control. and other competence'related eliefsI the goals *oth specific and general+ children
have for learning and other activitiesI childrenHs interest and intrinsic motivation for learningI and childrenHs
valuing of achievement. Although the study of eliefs. goals. and values remains strong. self'determination
theorists continue to emphasiJe the role of asic psychological needs and ho# they influence motivation.
As Eccles et al. *=>>B+ did #e organiJe our discussion of motivation theories and research around three
road motivation'related questions children can as% themselves/ 93an 4 do this tas%;< 9Do 4 #ant to do this tas%
and #hy;<. and 9What do 4 have to do to succeed on this tas%;< )he first t#o questions primarily are motivational.
#hereas the third merges cognitive and motivational variales crucial to the regulation of achievement ehavior.
Some theories of course include constructs that deal #ith all of these questions. ut even so #e find these questions
to e a useful #ay to organiJe the theories and constructs.
)heories 3oncerned &rimarily With the 8uestion M3an 4 Do )his )as%;M
3ompetence'related eliefs. including individualsN eliefs aout their competence. self'efficacy. and
eKpectancies for successI attriutions and eliefs aout intelligenceI sense of control over outcomes. relate directly
to the question 93an 4 Do )his )as%< and remain prominent in theory and research on achievement motivation
*e.g.. Elliot , D#ec%. in press+. 4n general. #hen children ans#er this question affirmatively. they try harder.
persist longer. perform etter and are motivated to select more challenging tas%s.
Self!Efficacy "heory
!anduraHs *=>::. =>>:+ construct of self'efficacy is a maLor part of his roader social cognitive model of
learning and development. !andura defines self'efficacy as individualsN confidence in their aility to organiJe and
eKecute a given course of action to solve a prolem or accomplish a tas%. 6e emphasiJes human agency and self'
efficacy perceptions as maLor influences on individualsH achievement strivings. including performance. choice. and
persistence. !andura *=>>:+ characteriJes self'efficacy as a multidimensional construct that can vary in strength
*i.e.. positive or negative+. generality *relating to many situations or only a fe#+. and level of difficulty *feeling
efficacious for all tas%s or only easy tas%s+.
An important distinction in !anduraHs *=>>:+ model is different %inds of eKpectancies for success. 6e
distinguished et#een t#o %inds of eKpectancy eliefs/ 1utcome eKpectations. or eliefs that certain ehaviors.
li%e practice. #ill lead to certain outcomes. li%e improved performance. and efficacy eKpectations. or eliefs aout
#hether one can perform the ehaviors necessary to produce the outcome. *e.g.. 4 can practice sufficiently hard to
#in the neKt tennis match+. 4ndividuals can elieve that a certain ehavior #ill produce a certain outcome
*outcome eKpectation+. ut may not elieve they can do that ehavior *efficacy eKpectation+. !andura therefore
proposed that individualsN efficacy eKpectations rather than outcome eKpectancies are the maLor determinant of goal
setting. activity choice. #illingness to eKpend effort. and persistence *see !andura. =>>:+.
!andura proposed that individualsN perceived self'efficacy is determined primarily y four things/
&revious performance *succeeding leads to a stronger sense of personal efficacy+I vicarious learning *#atching
models succeed or fail on tas%s+I veral encouragement y others. and oneNs physiological reactions *over arousal
and anKietyD#orry leading to a lo#er sense of personal efficacy+. 6is stress on these four determinants reflects the
lin% of this theory #ith oth ehaviorist and social learning traditions. 4n addition. !andura ac%no#ledged the
influence of causal attriutions on peopleHs self'efficacy. 6o#ever. !andura argued that causal attriutions only
influence ehavior through their impact on efficacy eliefs. !andura *=>>@+ eKtended the self'efficacy model y
discussing ho# collective efficacy along #ith individual efficacy also can e a strong influence on achievement
strivings.
4
Motivation
)he self'efficacy construct has een applied to ehavior in many domains including school. health. sports.
therapy. occupational choice. and even sna%e phoia *see !andura. =>>:. for a comprehensive revie#+. !y and
large. the evidence is very supportive of his theoretical predictions #ith respect to efficacyHs influences on
performance and choice. 2or eKample. high personal academic eKpectations predict susequent performance.
course enrollment and occupational choice *see !andura. =>>:I Schun% , &aLares. FAAFI &aLares. =>>7+I #e
discuss some of the particular findings in a later section.
!andura *=>>:+ systematically discussed #hy he elieves self'efficacy theory provides a fuller and richer
depiction of the causal relations of self'eliefs to ehavior than do other theories focused on self'referent eliefs.
including theories of self'concept. locus of control. effectance motivation. control eliefs. perceived competence
eliefs. and possile selves. among others. 6e argued that self'efficacy is defined more precisely and is more tas%
and situation specific than many of these other eliefs. and therefore should relate more strongly to ehavior.
6o#ever. some of the distinctions among these constructs may e less clear than !andura proposed. 2or instance.
researchers measuring oth self'concept and self'efficacy in the same study often have found it difficult to
distinguish the t#o constructs empirically S%aalvi% and !ongI FAAGI S%aalvi% , Ran%in. =>>7+. !ong and 3lar%
*=>>>+ and S%aalvi% and !ong *FAAG+ provide a good discussion of conceptual and methodological similarities and
differences et#een self'efficacy and self'concept.
0i%e many social cognitive'ased theories. self'efficacy theory can e criticiJed for its overly rational and
information processing approach. 6o# accurate are individuals at Ludging their efficacy. ho# do these calirations
vary over age. and ho# much are our decisions influenced y a rational Ludgment of our competence to do an
activity; 2urther. the focus on one maLor variale as the maLor predictor of performance and choice perhaps is too
limiting.
Self!Concet and Self!#orth "heories
6arter *=>>BI this volume+ presents comprehensive revie#s of the #or% on self'concept. and so
#e only include a rief discussion of it here. Wor% on self'concept is relevant to this section of the
chapter in t#o main respects. 2irst. many of the most #idely used measures of self'concept. such as those
developed y 6arter *=>BF+ and Marsh *=>B>+ assess perceived competence as the maLor dimension of
self'concept. )hus essentially self'concept as measured y these instruments is eliefs aout oneHs
competence in different areas.
Second. a variety of researchers have eKamined the relationship et#een self'concept and
achievement. one of the outcomes of great interest to motivation researchers. 2or many years researchers
deated aout the causal direction et#een self'concept and achievement. #ith some proposing that
gro#th in self'concept produces gro#th in achievement. and others proposing Lust the opposite *see
Marsh. =>>A+. Many of the studies that purportedly tested these relations used designs that #ere not
adequate to test fully either position *Marsh , $eung. =>>:+. Recently a numer of researchers utiliJing
longitudinal designs found that relations et#een self'concept and achievement are reciprocal. )hese
reciprocal relations have een oserved in studies of children of different ages. including children as
young as seven *?uay. Marsh. , !oivin. FAAG+. )hese findings *finally+ move the field a#ay from the
seemingly intractale question of 9#hich causes #hich< to the more reasonale conclusion that each
variale has causal influence on the other. Such findings provide support for the important role of social
cognitive and ehavioral variales in the study of motivation.
Self'#orth. or oneHs overall evaluation of oneHs #orth as a person. continues to e an important
variale relevant to motivation as #ell. 3ovington and his colleagues *e.g.. 3ovington. =>>FI 3ovington
, Dray. FAAF+ provide the most complete motivational analysis of self'#orth. arguing that individuals
have a strong desire to protect their self'#orth in achievement settings. Schools often focus on the
demonstration of relative competence. and 3ovington argued that to maintain self'#orth in school
children must protect their competence. 3hildren #ho do less #ell than their peers are most at ris% for
losing self'#orth. and so can develop strategies such as not trying or procrastinating as a #ay to try to
protect their sense of competence. )hese strategies may provide some short'term enefits #ith respect to
self'#orth protection. ut over the long run actually #or% against children. 3ovington and his colleagues
have #ritten aout #ays in #hich school environments can e changed to lessen the emphasis on relative
competence of children. therey allo#ing more children to maintain a sense of self'#orth in school.
Researchers also continue to study other self'processes that guide. direct. and motivate ehaviors
in #ays other than self'#orth maintenance *e.g.. ?arcia , &intrich. =>>5I Mar%us , Wurf. =>B:+. 2or
eKample. Mar%us and her colleagues discuss ho# Mpossile future selvesM motivate ehavior. &ossile
selves. the vision individuals have of themselves in the future. include oth hoped'for *4 #ill pass
5
Motivation
geometry+ and feared *4 #ill not pass geometry+ components. !ecause possile selves are not identical to
oneNs current self'concept. they motivate the individual y providing goals that the individual tries to
attain and outcomes that the individual tries to avoid in order to achieve oneNs image. Whether or not the
possile self is attained depends on many things. one of #hich is the individualNs current perceived
competence.
$ttrib%tion "heory and "heories $bo%t &eliefs $bo%t 'ntelligence and $bility
Attriution theory concerns individualsH eKplanations *or attriutions+ for their successes and
failures and ho# these attriutions influence susequent motivation *?raham. =>>=I Weiner. =>B@. FAA5+.
Weiner and his colleagues identified the most frequently used attriutions *aility. effort. tas% difficulty.
and luc%+. and classified these and other attriutions into the different causal dimensions of staility
*stale or unstale+. locus of control *internal or eKternal+. and controllaility *under oneHs volition or
not+. 2or instance. aility is classified as internal. stale. and uncontrollale. Each of these dimensions
has important psychological consequences that influence susequent motivation and ehavior. )he
staility dimension relates most directly to eKpectancies for success and failure. locus of control to
affective reactions to success and failure. and controllaility to help giving. 2or instance. attriuting
failure to lac% of aility leads to lo#ered eKpectancies for success. and negative affect li%e shame *Weiner.
=>B@I see Eccles et al.. =>>B+ for more detailed revie#+.
Attriution theory #as quite dominant in the motivation field for many years. ut its influence
has #aned to an eKtent recently. Despite this. there still is great interest in the motivation field in
perceptions of aility and also of effort. 4ndeed. some theorists *most notaly. 3arol D#ec%+ #or%ing in
the attriution tradition have ecome interested in individualsH eliefs aout the nature of aility and the
implications of these eliefs for their motivation and effort. D#ec% and her colleagues *e.g.. D#ec%. FAAFI
D#ec% , 0eggett. =>BB+ posited that children can hold one of t#o vie#s of intelligence or aility.
3hildren holding an entity vie# of intelligence elieve that intelligence is a stale trait. 3hildren holding
an incremental vie# of intelligence elieve that intelligence is changeale. so that it can e increased
through effort. "ote that this differs from the traditional attriution theory vie#. #hich is that aility is a
stale characteristic. 4n D#ec%Hs #or% there is more than one #ay to vie# oneHs aility.
D#ec% and her colleagues *D#ec%. FAAFI D#ec% , 0eggett. =>BB+ have discussed ho# childrenNs
conceptions of aility and intelligence can have important motivational consequences. D#ec% *FAAF+
argued that children holding an entity theory of intelligence are motivated to loo% smart and protect their
sense of aility. 3hildren elieving intelligence can change focus on learning and improvement. When
children do poorly. elieving that oneHs aility has a limited capacity means that failure is more
deilitating. Some children holding this vie# #ill elieve they have little chance of ever doing #ell.
ecause their aility cannot e improved. 3hildren holding this elief can ecome learned helpless in
achievement settingsI #e discuss learned helplessness later. 4n contrast. elieving effort can improve
performance in important #ays can mean that children #ill continue to try even if they are not doing #ell
on a given tas% *see D#ec% , 0eggett. =>BBI "icholls. =>B5. =>>A for further discussion+.
D#ec% and 0eggett *=>BB+ tied childrenHs eliefs aout intelligence to their achievement goals. as
#e #ill see in a later section. 3hildren holding an incremental vie# of intelligence tend to have mastery
or learning goals. #hereas children holding an entity vie# have performance goals. 2urther. D#ec% and
0eggett roadened their analysis to other domains. contrasting the relative enefits of incremental vs.
entity vie#s aout social relationships. and moral development. 4n each case they argued that the
incremental vie# has many enefits to children *see also D#ec%. FAAF+.
Control "heories
!uilding on the seminal early #or% of Rotter *=>77+ and 3randall. (at%ovs%y. and 3randall *=>7@+ on
internal and eKternal locus of control. theorists have elaorated roader conceptual models of control. 3onnell
*=>B@+. for eKample. added %nkno(n control as a third control elief category and argued that younger children are
particularly li%ely to use this category. 6e developed and validated to a scale to assess eKternal control *in terms of
Mpo#erful others.M+. internal control *in terms of effort and aility+. and un%no#n control for cognitive. physical.
social. and general activities. 3onnell and Wellorn *=>>=+ then integrated control eliefs into the self'
determination frame#or% that proposes the fundamental psychological needs for competence. autonomy. and
relatedness *see Deci , Ryan =>B@I Ryan. =>>FI Ryan , Deci. FAAAa. and further discussion elo#+. )hey lin%ed
control eliefs to competence needs/ 3hildren #ho elieve they control their achievement outcomes should feel
more competent. )hey hypothesiJed that the eKtent to #hich these needs are fulfilled is influenced y the
6
Motivation
follo#ing characteristics of their family. peer. and school conteKts/ the amount of structure. the degree of autonomy
provided. and the level of involvement in the childrenNs activities.
Ellen S%inner and her colleagues *e.g.. S%inner. =>>@I S%inner. 3hapman. , !altes. =>BB+ proposed a
more elaorate model of control eliefs. )his model includes three critical control'related eliefs/ strategy eliefs.
control eliefs. and capacity eliefs. Strategy eliefs concern the eKpectation that particular causes can produce
certain outcomesI these causes include WeinerNs various causal attriutions and 3onnellNs *=>B@+ un%no#n control.
3ontrol eliefs are the eKpectations individuals have that they can produce desired events. and prevent undesired
ones. 3apacity eliefs are the eKpectations that one has access to the means needed to produce various outcomes.
S%inner *=>>@+ proposed that control eliefs are a maLor determinant of actions. leading to outcomes that are
interpreted y the individual and susequently influence their control eliefs. starting the cycle again.
S%inner distinguished her position from self'efficacy theories y noting that self'efficacy theorist discuss
connections et#een agents and means primarily in terms of eKpectancies that the individual can produce some
outcomeI thus outcomes are contingent on oneNs responses. 4n contrast. she argued that her capacity eliefs relate
to potential as #ell as actual means. 2urther. an individual can have strong capacity eliefs for different means
#ithout elieving that any of the means are necessarily effective *see also Ryan. =>>F+.
2inally. S%inner. 3onnell and their colleagues have roadened their discussion of perceived control and its
influences y developing a model of the relations among conteKt. the self. action. and outcomes *e.g.. 3onnell.
Spencer. , Ale. =>>5I S%inner , Wellorn. =>>5+. )hey proposed #hen conteKts are set up in a #ay allo#s the
needs of competence. relatedness. and autonomy to e supported. then individuals #ill e engaged more fully in
activities. #hich leads to positive developmental outcomes. 3onteKts not supportive of these needs lead to
disengagement. that the #ays in #hich these needs are fulfilled determine engagement in different activities.
When the needs are fulfilled. children #ill e fully engaged. When one or more of the needs is not fulfilled.
children #ill ecome disaffected. 3onnell. Spencer. and Aler *=>>5+ and S%inner and !elmont *=>>G+ conducted
studies in classroom settings that supported these lin%ages. We discuss the implications of these findings in the
section on ho# school conteKts influence childrenHs motivation.
)odern E*ectancy ! Val%e "heory
Modern eKpectancy value theories *e.g.. Eccles O&arsonsP et al.. =>BGI 2eather. =>BFI 6ec%hausen. =>::I
&e%run. =>>GI Wigfield , Eccles. FAAA. FAAF+ are ased in At%insonNs *=>@:. =>75+ original eKpectancy Q value
model in that they lin% achievement performance. persistence. and choice most directly to individualsN eKpectancy'
related and tas% value eliefs. 6o#ever. they differ from At%insonHs theory in several #ays/ 2irst. oth the
eKpectancy and value components are more elaorate. and lin%ed to a roader array of psychological and
socialDcultural determinants. Second. they are grounded more in real'#orld achievement tas%s than the laoratory
tas%s often used to test At%insonNs theory. We focus here on the aility and eKpectancy portion of Eccles and her
colleaguesH modelI see Eccles et al. *=>>B+ for revie# of some other modern eKpectancy Q value models.
"he Eccles et al. e*ectancy ! val%e model. Eccles *&arsons+ and her colleagues elaorated and tested
one eKpectancy ' value model of achievement'related choices. *see Eccles. =>B:. =>>GI Eccles O&arsonsP et al..
=>BGI Eccles , Wigfield. =>>@I Wigfield , Eccles. FAAA. FAAF+. )his model focuses on the social psychological
influences on choice and persistence. 3hoices are seen to e influenced y oth negative and positive tas%
characteristics and all choices are assumed to have costs associated #ith them precisely ecause one choice often
eliminates other options. Much of their #or% focuses on individual differences and gender differences in decisions
regarding #hich courses to ta%e. #hat careers to see%. and #hat activities to pursue.
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
4nsert 2igure = aout here
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
)he theoretical model is depicted in 2igure =. EKpectancies and values are assumed to directly influence
performance. persistence. and tas% choice. EKpectancies and values are assumed to e influenced y tas%'specific
eliefs such as perceptions of competence. perceptions of the difficulty of different tas%s. and individualsH goals and
self'schema. )hese social cognitive variales. in turn. are influenced y individualsN perceptions of other peoplesN
attitudes and eKpectations for them. and y their o#n interpretations of their previous achievement outcomes.
7
Motivation
4ndividualsN tas%'perceptions and interpretations of their past outcomes are assumed to e influenced y socialiJerNs
ehavior and eliefs and y the cultural milieu and unique historical events.
Eccles *&arsons+ et al. *=>BG+ defined eKpectancies for success as childrenNs eliefs aout ho# #ell they
#ill do on upcoming tas%s. either in the immediate or longer'term future. )hese eKpectancy eliefs are measured
in a manner analogous to measures of !anduraNs *=>>:+ personal efficacy eKpectations/ )hus. in contrast to
!anduraNs claim that eKpectancy ' value theories focus on outcome eKpectations. the focus in this model is on
personal or efficacy eKpectations.
Eccles *&arsons+ et al. *=>BG+ defined eliefs aout aility as childrenNs evaluations of their competence in
different areasI this definition is similar to those of researchers li%e 3ovington *=>>F+. 6arter *e.g.. 6arter. =>BF.
=>>A+ and Marsh and his colleagues *e.g.. Marsh. =>>Aa+. 4n measuring aility eliefs Eccles and her colleagues
measure individualsH eliefs aout ho# good they are at a certain activity. ho# good they are relative to other
individuals. and ho# good they are relative to their performance on other activities. )his approach is some#hat
different from the #ay in #hich self'efficacy often is measured. Many self'efficacy measures do not include the
comparative items. ut instead focus on individualsH Ludgments of their o#n capailities *!andura. =>>:I &aLares.
=>>7+.
4n this model aility eliefs and eKpectancies for success are distinguished theoretically in that aility
eliefs are seen as road eliefs aout competence in a given domain. in contrast to oneNs eKpectancies for success
on a specific upcoming tas%. 6o#ever. their empirical #or% has sho#n that children and adolescents do not
distinguish et#een these t#o different levels of eliefs *e.g.. Eccles , Wigfield. =>>@I Eccles. Wigfield. 6arold. ,
!lumenfeld. =>>G+. Apparently. even though these constructs can e theoretically distinguished from each other.
in real'#orld achievement situations they are highly related and empirically indistinguishale. Eccles and her
colleagues have found that childrenHs eKpectancy'related eliefs have direct effects on their susequent
performance and indirect effects on their intentions to continue doing activities and actual choices of doing so
*e.g.. Meece. Wigfield. , Eccles. =>>A+.
4n sum. a variety of theories continue to focus on competence'related eliefs as having a maLor impact on
motivation. As #e have seen there are differences in ho# the competence and control constructs are defined and
measured in these theoretical models. )hese distinctions among the various constructs are important theoretically.
ut empirically and practically the constructs are highly related. 3ertainly a further proliferation of these
constructs does not seem necessary. and perhaps y eKamining more closely relations among them #e can
determine #hich of them is the most viale.
)heories 3oncerned With the 8uestion MDo 4 Want to Do )his )as% and Why;M
)heories dealing #ith efficacy. eKpectancy. and control eliefs provide po#erful eKplanations of
individualsN performance on different %inds of achievement tas%s. 6o#ever. these theories do not systematically
address another important motivational question/ does the individual (ant to do the tas%; Even if people are
certain they can do a tas%. they may not #ant to engage in it. and so they may not e strongly motivated to
approach it. 2urther. individuals often have different purposes or goals for doing different activities. #hich also
can impact their motivation for doing the tas%. )he theories presented neKt focus on these %inds of issues.
)odern E*ectancy ! Val%e "heories+ "he 'mortance of "ask Val%e
We discussed in the previous section the eKpectancy and competence elief portions of
eKpectancy Q value models. 6ere #e focus on ho# the tas% value part of the model. Eccles and her
colleagues have done much of this #or%. 6o#ever. it is important to ac%no#ledge 2eatherHs *=>BF. =>BB.
=>>F+ contriutions *see Eccles et al.. =>>B for more detailed discussion of his #or%+. 2eather loo%ed at
roader values and tas%'specific values in several studies of studentsH choices of college maLors and
activities to pursue. 6e found values to e strongly predictive of these choices. and also found that
studentsH eKpectancies for success and values #ere positively rather than inversely related.
Eccles, #igfield, and colleag%es, (ork on s%b-ective task val%es. Eccles *&arsons+ and her
colleagues *=>BG+ defined four motivational components of tas% value/ attainment value. intrinsic value.
utility value. and cost. )hey defined attainment value as the personal importance of doing #ell on the
tas%. and also lin%ed this aspect of tas% value to the relevance of engaging in a tas% for confirming or
8
Motivation
disconfirming salient aspects of oneNs self'schema. such as oneHs perceived gender role. ethnic identity. or
other salient aspect of self.
4ntrinsic value is the enLoyment the individual gets from performing the activity. or the suLective
interest the individual has in the suLect. )his component of value is similar in certain respects to the
construct of intrinsic motivation as defined y 6arter *=>B=+. and y Deci and his colleagues *e.g.. Deci ,
Ryan. =>B@I Ryan , Deci. FAAAa+. and to the constructs of interest and flo# as defined y
3si%sJentmihalyi *=>BB+. Renninger *=>>A+. and Schiefele *=>>=+. 6o#ever. li%e the deates aout the
different competence'related elief constructs. there have een discussions in the literature aout the
differences among these related constructs as #ell.
Utility value is determined y ho# #ell a tas% relates to current and future goals. such as career goals. A
tas% can have positive value to a person ecause it facilitates important future goals. even if he or she is not
interested in tas% for its o#n sa%e. 2or instance. students often ta%e classes that they do not particularly enLoy ut
that they need to ta%e to pursue other interests. to please their parents. or to e #ith their friends. 4n one sense then
this component captures the more MeKtrinsicM reasons for engaging in a tas%. !ut it also relates directly to
individualsH internaliJed short and long'term goals.
2inally. Eccles and her colleagues identified McostM as a critical component of value *Eccles O&arsonsP et
al. =>BGI Eccles. =>B:+. 3ost is conceptualiJed in terms of the negative aspects of engaging in the tas%. such as
performance anKiety and fear of oth failure and success as #ell as the amount of effort that needed to succeed. 4t
also is defined in terms of the lost opportunities that result from ma%ing one choice rather than another. When a
child chooses to do her home#or% this may mean she #ill not have time to instant message her friends. truly a
maLor cost for some children. )his aspect of tas% values has een less studied than the others. even though it li%ely
plays and important role in individualsH choices. 4ndeed. !attle and Wigfield *FAAG+ found that the perceived
psychological costs of attending graduate school #as a negative predictor of college studentsH intentions to enroll in
graduate school.
Eccles and her colleagues and others *e.g.. !ong. FAA=+ have assessed the lin%s of eKpectancies and values
to performance and choice *see Wigfield , Eccles. FAAF. for revie#+. )hey have sho#n that aility self'concepts
and eKpectancies for success directly predict performance in mathematics. English. computer activities. and sport
activities. even #hen previous performance is controlled. 3hildrenHs tas% values predict course plans and
enrollment decisions more strongly than do eKpectancy'related eliefs. Eccles *=>>5+ found that oth eKpectancies
and values predict career choices. )hese results illustrate the importance of loo%ing not only at competence and
eKpectancy eliefs ut also achievement values in understanding individualsH performance and choice.
Val%ing artic%lar learning activities no( and in the f%t%re. !rophy *=>>>+ edited a special issue of the
Lournal Ed%cational Psychologist devoted to the value aspects of learning. 4n his article in this issue he noted that
#e still %no# relatively little aout ho# childrenHs values and interests for particular learning activities develop.
and ho# different learning opportunities influence childrenHs valuing of them. 6e made the intriguing proposal
that #e should thin% of a motivational Jone of proKimal development *C&D+ along #ith a cognitive C&D as #e
consider #ays to enhance childrenHs learning and motivation. When learning activities are #ithin a childHs
motivational C&D they can come to appreciate the importance of the activity and #ill e more li%ely to engage in
it. 4f a learning activity is too far aove a studentHs motivational C&D the student #ill e less li%ely to engage in
the activity. or appreciate its importance. !rophy also proposed that the cognitive and motivational C&DHs may
interact to influence studentsH learning and engagement. and discussed #ays in #hich childrenHs valuing of
learning can e fostered. We return to these ideas in a later section.
6usman. 0ens. and their colleagues have discussed another important values'related construct. future time
perspective *2)&+ *6usman , 0ens. =>>>I 0ens. =>B7+. uilding on earlier #or% on the role of the future in
motivation y theorists such as and Raynor *=>BF+. )hey noted that much of the #or% in the motivation field
focuses on motivation for immediate tas%s and activities. )his motivation oviously is important for studentsH
engagement in learning. ut students also %no# that a maLor purpose of education is to prepare them for the future.
)herefore. if students elieve that current educational activities are useful to them in the long run. they are more
li%ely to e motivated to achieve. 6usman. 0ens and their colleagues have done a series of studies on 2)&. sho#ing
that #hen students see the value of educational activities to their future success they are more positively motivated.
self'regulated. and achieve higher ?&As. )hey refer to the instr%mentality of these activities to the future as the
%ey predictive variale. With respect to Eccles and colleaguesH definitions of aspects of tas% value. it appears that
9
Motivation
2)& focuses on the utility and *possily+ the attainment aspects. rather than the interest aspect. 6o#ever. 6usman
*=>>B+ has sho#n some relations of future instrumentality to intrinsic motivation.
4n sum. eKpectancy ' value models continue to e prominent. We noted in our previous chapter that
research has focused to a much greater eKtent on eKpectancy'related rather than value aspects of this model.
6o#ever. that picture has changed some over the last several years. $et more #or% is needed on the nature of
childrenHs achievement values and ho# they develop. We also need more #or% on ho# the lin%s of eKpectancies
and values to performance and choice change across ages *see Eccles. =>>GI Wigfield. =>>5+ and on the lin%s
et#een eKpectancies and values. !oth Eccles *=>B5+ and !andura *=>>:+ propose a positive association et#een
eKpectancy related eliefs and tas% values. and research supports this *e.g.. Wigfield et al.. =>>:+. )he role of 2)&
in eKpectancy Q value models also deserves continued study.
0i%e self'efficacy theory. modern eKpectancy ' value theory can e criticiJed for emphasiJing overly
rational cognitive processes leading to motivation and ehavior. Such criticisms are li%ely to e particularly
apropos #hen these models are considered from a developmental perspective *see Wigfield. =>>5+. 6o#ever. the
impressive ody of research sho#ing the relations of eKpectancy and values to different %inds of performance and
choice supports the continuing viaility of these models. 2urthermore. as conceptualiJed y Eccles and her
colleagues. values are lin%ed to more stale self'schema and identity constructs and choice is not necessarily the
result of conscious rational decision'ma%ing processes *see Eccles. =>B:. Eccles , 6arold. =>>F+. !y including
affective memories. culturally ased stereotypes. and identity'related constructs and processes as part of the
theoretical system. Eccles and her colleagues have allo#ed for less rational and conscious processes in motivated
ehavioral choices.
'ntrinsic )otivation "heories
)here is a fundamental distinction in the motivation literature et#een intrinsic motivation and
e*trinsic motivation. When individuals are intrinsically motivated they do activities for their o#n sa%e
and out of interest in the activity. When eKtrinsically motivated. individuals do activities for instrumental
or other reasons. such as receiving a re#ard *see Sansone , 6arac%ie#icJ. FAAA+. )here is continuing
deate aout the pros and cons of intrinsic and eKtrinsic motivation. and a gro#ing consensus that these
t#o constructs should not e treated as polar opposites. Rather. they often oth operate. and may even
form a continuum.
Much of the #or% on intrinsic motivation stemmed from WhiteHs *=>@>+ seminal article on
effectance motivation. in #hich he argued persuasively that oth people and at least some animals are
motivated y curiosity and interest in developing their competence. rather than Lust y re#ards or the
satisfaction of asic odily needs. )his influential article had a strong influence on the vie#s of Ed#ard
Deci and Richard Ryan. #hose self'determination theory of intrinsic motivation is the main focus in this
section.
Self!determination theory. Deci. Ryan. and their colleaguesH self'determination theory *SD)+ is
an organismic theory of development that has a particular focus on the role of motivation in development
and learning *e.g.. Deci , Ryan. =>B@I FAAFaI Deci. -allerand. &elletier. , Ryan. =>>=I Ryan , Deci.
FAAAa+. !roadly. self'determined ehavior is ehavior that originates from the self and. results from the
individual utiliJing his or her volition. Deci. Ryan. and their colleagues suggest that #hen individualsH
ehavior is self'determined they are psychologically healthier. and tend to e intrinsically motivated.
4ndeed. they ma%e a specific lin% et#een intrinsic motivation and self'determination. arguing that
intrinsic motivation is only possile #hen individuals freely choose their o#n actionsI that is. they are
self'determined.
A fundamental aspect of this theory is that Deci. Ryan. and their colleagues propose that there
are three asic or fundamental human psychological needs/ the need for competence. the need for
autonomy. and the need for relatedness *Deci , Ryan. FAAFaI Ryan , Deci. FAAF+. 4n order for healthy
development to occur these needs must e met. 2urther. these needs are a asis for motivation. 2or
instance. the need for competence is the maLor reason #hy people see% out optimal stimulation and
challenging activities. )he need for autonomy refers most directly to volition and self'determinationI Deci
and Ryan argue that this sense of volition is necessary for optimum motivation. Ryan *=>>F+ discussed
10
Motivation
the importance of distinguishing et#een competence and autonomy. 6e argued that models that focus
primarily on competence. li%e self'efficacy theory. do not ma%e this distinction clearly enough.
4ndividuals can act competently and demonstrate their competence ut still e doing so under the control
of others. Ryan compared such actions to those of a root. rather than a self'determined individual. and
argued that intrinsic motivation only occurs #hen individuals are oth autonomous and competent. As #e
#ill see. the proposal that autonomy is a asic human need has led to much interesting research on topics
such as choice and ho# providing children and adults #ith choice influences their intrinsic motivation.
Relatedness refers to the need to e connected #ith others. )his need #as added to the theory after the
other t#o. and reflects Deci and RyanHs eliefs that individuals must have strong connections to others for
optimum development to occur. 4n their vie# autonomy does not imply total independenceI connections
#ith others are %ey to optimum development.
Deci. Ryan. and colleagues go eyond the eKtrinsic ' intrinsic motivation dichotomy in their
discussion of internali.ation. the process of transferring the regulation of ehavior from outside to inside
the individual *see Deci. (oestner. , Ryan. =>>>I ?rolnic%. ?urland. Jaco. , Decourcey. FAAF+. )hey
developed a taKonomy to descrie different types of motivation involved in the process of going from
eKternal to more internaliJed regulation of motivation. )his taKonomy forms a continuum. At one
eKtreme is amotivation. #hich as the name implies means an asence of motivation to act. "eKt are
several types of eKtrinsic motivation that range from least to most autonomous. 4n order these are
e*ternal. or regulation coming from outside the individualI intro-ected. or internal regulation ased on
feelings that he or she should or has to do the ehaviorI identified. or internal regulation of ehavior that
is ased on the utility of that ehavior *e.g.. studying hard to get grades to get into college+. and finally.
integrated. or regulation ased on #hat the individual thin%s is valuale and important to the self. Each
of these levels also is associated #ith different %inds of motivation. 2or instance. eKtrinsic re#ards are
most salient for eKternal regulation. and at each susequent level motivation ecome more internaliJed.
Deci. Ryan. and their colleagues have developed scales to measure these different levels of
regulation )hey have tested their continuum idea y loo%ing at ho# related the different %inds of
motivation are. 2or instance. Ryan and 3onnell *=>B>+ assessed childrenHs eKternal. introLected.
identified. and intrinsic reasons for doing school#or%. and found that these correlations formed a simpleK
pattern *see also -allerand. &elletier. !lais. !riRre. SenScal. , -alliRres. =>>G+. )hat is. the levels of
regulation closer to one another in the continuum #ere more highly related than those further apart.
#hich they too% as evidence for their placement on the continuum. 2urther. they found that the more
eKtrinsically motivated the students #ere the less invested they #ere in their school#or%.
1ne maLor focus of Deci. Ryan. and their colleaguesH research and theoriJing has een ho#
eKtrinsic re#ards can undermine intrinsically motivated ehavior. )hey call this portion of their theory
3ognitive Evaluation )heory. )hey and others *e.g.. 0epper , ?reen. =>:B+ descried different
conditions under #hich re#ards can e underminingI the most notale is #hen re#ards are controlling.
#hich reduces the individualHs perceptions of autonomy over their o#n learning. When re#ards provide
individuals #ith information aout ho# they are doing rather than focus on controlling them. the
undermining effects do not occur. 4n =>>5 3ameron and &ierce pulished a meta'analysis of this
research in #hich they questioned the strength of these undermining effects. arguing that they occurred
only in very limited circumstances if at all. )his article led to a series of commentaries and reactions and
further meta analyses of the findings regarding the undermining effects of re#ards on intrinsically
motivated ehavior. #ith many claims and counter'claims aout the adequacy of the meta'analytic
techniques used and #ays of parsing the findings *see Deci et al.. =>>>I 0epper , 6enderlong. FAAAI
Ryan , Deci. FAAAI Sansone , 6arac%ie#icJ. FAAA for a summary of this deate+. We elieve that Deci.
Ryan. and their colleagues have replied effectively to 3ameron and &ierceHs various arguments against the
undermining effects of eKtrinsic motivation. $et this deate #as useful ecause it served to clarify the
conditions under #hich eKtrinsic motivators do undermine intrinsically motivated ehaviors. and so
moved the field ahead in important #ays.
SD) has een a dominant theoretical model and one that has generated a great deal of research.
4t is a road model that encompasses a variety of constructs. and integrates many important issues #ith
respect to the development of motivation. )he theory. ho#ever. has een the suLect of some criticism. A
numer of questions have een raised aout Deci and RyanHs contention that there are three asic
psychological needs *see &intrich. FAAG+. 1ther questions have een raised aout the universality of these
11
Motivation
needs and #hether they operate similarly in different cultures. 2or instance. in cultures defined as less
individualistic and more collectivist does the need for autonomy ta%e on the same importance; )his
question currently is the focus of a great deal of research *Reeve. Deci. , Ryan. FAA5+. )here also has
een deate #ithin SD) on the role of choice in helping children fulfill their need for autonomy *Reeve.
"iK. , 6amm. FAAG+. 2inally. although the continuum from eKtrinsic to intrinsic motivation is
intriguing. there is some concern that intrinsic motivation as defined in this #ay only descries a very
limited set of activities that people do in the normal course of their daily lives. )his perhaps constrains
intrinsic motivation too much.
/lo( theory. 3si%sJentmihalyi *=>BB+ discusses intrinsically motivated ehavior in terms of the
immediate suLective eKperience that occurs #hen people are engaged in the activity. 4ntervie#s #ith
climers. dancers. chess players. as%etall players. and composers revealed that these activities yield a
specific form of eKperience ' laelled flo# ' characteriJed y/ *=+ holistic feelings of eing immersed in.
and of eing carried y. an activity. *F+ merging of action and a#areness. *G+ focus of attention on a
limited stimulus field. *5+ lac% of self'consciousness. and *@+ feeling in control of oneNs actions and the
environment. 2lo# is only possile #hen people feel that the opportunities for action in a given situation
match their aility to master the challenges. )he challenge of an activity may e something concrete or
physical li%e the pea% of a mountain to e scaled. or it can e something astract and symolic. li%e a set
of musical notes to e performed. a story to e #ritten. or a puJJle to e solved. 2urther research has
sho#n that oth the challenges and s%ills must e relatively high efore a flo# eKperience ecomes
possile *Massimini , 3arli. =>BB+.
At first sight. the theories of Deci and Ryan and 3si%sJentmihalyi seem to e very different.
Deci and Ryan *=>B@. FAAFa+ eKplain intrinsic motivation y assuming innate. asic needs. #hereas
3si%sJentmihalyi stresses suLective eKperience. We suggest. ho#ever. that this difference reflects t#o
sides of the same coin. As Schneider *=>>7+ has argued. one has to distinguish et#een immediate
reasons *e.g.. enLoyment+ and ultimate reasons of ehavior *e.g.. survival+. 4ntrinsically motivated
ehavior can e conducive to ultimate goals even though the actor is only motivated y immediate
incentives. A typical case is eKploratory or play ehavior. !oth types of ehavior help to increase an
individualNs competence ut they are usually performed ecause they are eKciting. pleasurale. or
enLoyale. )his distinction et#een immediate and ultimate causes of ehavior ma%es it possile to
reconcile the positions of Deci and Ryan and 3si%sJentmihalyi. Deci and Ryan *=>B@+ focus on ultimate
reasons of ehavior. #hereas 3si%sJentmihalyi *=>BB+ focuses mainly on immediate reasons.
3si%sJentmihalyi and Massimini *=>B@+ have suggested that the eKperience of flo# is a re#ard that
ensures that individuals #ill see% to increase their competence. According to 3si%sJentmihalyi. the
repeated eKperience of flo# is only possile #hen individuals see% out increasingly challenging tas%s and
eKpand their competencies to meet these challenges. )hus. the eKperience of flo# should reinforce
ehaviors underlying development.
'ndivid%al difference theories of intrinsic motivation. Until recently intrinsic motivation
researchers li%e Deci and Ryan and 3si%sJentmihalyi have dealt #ith conditions. components. and
consequences of intrinsic motivation #ithout ma%ing a distinction et#een intrinsic motivation as a state
versus intrinsic motivation as a trait'li%e characteristic. 6o#ever. interest in trait'li%e individual
differences in intrinsic motivation has increased recently. particularly among educational psychologists
*see ?ottfried. =>B@. =>>AI ?ottfried. 2leming. , ?ottfried. FAA=I 6arter. =>B=I "icholls. =>B5. =>B>I
Schiefele. =>>7I Schiefele , Schreyer. =>>5+. )hese researchers define this enduring intrinsic
motivational orientations in terms of three components/ *=+ preference for hard or challenging tas%s. *F+
learning that is driven y curiosity or interest. and *G+ striving for competence and mastery. )he second
component is most central to the idea of intrinsic motivation. !oth preference for hard tas%s and striving
for competence can e lin%ed to either eKtrinsic or more general need achievement motivation.
"onetheless. empirical findings suggest that the three components are highly correlated. 4n addition.
evidence suggests that high levels of trait'li%e intrinsic motivation facilitate positive emotional eKperience
and #ell'eing *Matsumoto , Sanders. =>BBI Ryan , Deci. FAAAa+. self'esteem *Ryan. 3onnell , Deci.
=>B@+. high academic achievement *3ordova , 0epper. =>>7I Schiefele , Schreyer. =>>5+. creativity
*e.g.. 6ennessey. FAAA+. self'regulation and persistence *3ordova , 0epper. =>>7I &elletier. 2ortier.
-allerand. , !riRre. FAA=I &intrich , Schrauen. =>>FI Schiefele , Schreyer. =>>5+. As a consequence.
many have suggested that the development of an intrinsic motivational orientation should e fostered in
the home and the classroom *e.g.. !rophy. =>>>I De#ey. =>=GI 0epper , 3haay. =>B@+.
12
Motivation
'nterest "heories
3losely related to the notion of intrinsic motivation is #or% on the concept of 9interest<
*AleKander. (uli%o#ich. , Jetton. =>>5I 6idi. FAA=I (rapp. FAAFI Renninger. FAAAI Renninger. 6idi. ,
(rapp. =>>FI Schiefele. =>>=. FAA=I )oias. =>>5+. 6idi and 6arac%ie#icJ *FAA=+ propose that interest is
more specific than intrinsic motivation. #hich is a roader motivational characteristic *see also Deci.
=>>F. =>>B+. Researchers studying interest differentiate et#een individual and situational interest.
4ndividual interest is a relatively stale evaluative orientation to#ards certain domainsI situational interest
is an emotional state aroused y specific features of an activity or a tas%. )#o aspects or components of
individual interest are distinguishale *Schiefele. =>>7a. FAA=+/ feeling'related and value'related valences.
2eeling'related valences refer to the feelings that are associated #ith an oLect or an activity itself '
feelings li%e involvement. stimulation. or flo#. -alue'related valences refer to the attriution of personal
significance or importance to an oLect. 4n addition. oth feeling'related and value'related valences are
directly related to the oLect rather than to the relation of this oLect to other oLects or events. 2or
eKample. if students associate mathematics #ith high personal significance ecause mathematics can help
them get prestigious Los. then #e #ould not spea% of interest. Although feeling'related and value'related
valences are highly correlated *Schiefele. =>>7a+. it is useful to differentiate et#een them ecause some
individual interests are li%ely ased primarily on feelings. #hile othersH interests are more li%ely to e
ased on personal significance *see Eccles. =>B5I Wigfield , Eccles. =>>F+. 2urther research is necessary
to validate this assumption.
Much of the research on individual interest has focused on its relation to the quality of learning
*see AleKander et al.. =>>5I 6idi. FAA=I Renninger. E#en. , 0asher. FAAFI Schiefele. =>>7a.. =>>>+. 4n
general. there are significant ut moderate relations et#een interest and teKt learning. More importantly.
interest is more strongly related to indicators of deep'level learning *e.g.. recall of main ideas. coherence
of recall. responding to deeper comprehension questions. representation of meaning+ than to surface'level
learning *e.g.. responding to simple questions. veratim representation of teKtI Schiefele. =>>7. =>>>I
Schiefele , (rapp. =>>7+. 2indings y Ainley. 6idi. and !erndorff *FAAF+ and 6idi *FAA=+ suggest that
attentional processes. affect. and persistence mediate the effects of interest on teKt learning.
)here is also ample evidence that suLect matter interest is positively related to school
achievement *cf. Schiefele. (rapp. , Winteler. =>>F+. Recent studies suggest that interest particularly
predicts achievement #hen there is a conteKt that allo#s for choice. Specifically. (Tller. !aumert. and
Schnael *FAA=+ found that interest in mathematics predicts achievement only at higher grade levels #hen
students have a choice et#een more or less advanced courses. )he 9effect< of interest on achievement
#as partly mediated y choice of course level. 6o#ever. there #as also a direct path from interest to
achievement even #hen controlling for prior achievement.
Most of the research on situational interest has focused on the characteristics of academic tas%s
that create interest. *e.g.. 6idi. FAA=I Schra# , 0ehman. FAA=+. Among others. the follo#ing teKt features
#ere found to arouse situational interest/ personal relevance. novelty. vividness. and comprehensiility
*3hen. Darst. , &angraJi. FAA=I Schra#. !runing. , Svooda. =>>@I Wade. !uKton. , (elly. =>>>+.
Empirical evidence has provided strong support for the relation et#een situational interest and teKt
comprehension and recall *see revie#s y 6idi. FAA=I Schiefele. =>>7a. =>>>I Wade. =>>F+.
0oal "heories
Wor% on achievement goals and goal orientations has flourished since the pulication of our previous
chapter. )his #or% can e organiJed into three relatively distinct areas *see &intrich. FAAAa+. 1ne group of
researchers has focused on the properties of goals for specific learning activities. )hese researchers *e.g.. !andura.
=>B7I Schun%. =>>=+ focus on goalsH proKimity. specificity. and level of challenge and have sho#n that specific.
proKimal. and some#hat challenging goals promote oth self'efficacy and improved performance. A second group
of researchers defined and investigated roader goal orientations students have to their learning. focusing primarily
on three road orientations/ a mastery or learning orientation. an ego or performance orientation. and a #or%
avoidant orientation. )hese orientations refer to roader approaches children ta%e to their learning. rather than
goals for specific activities. although of course goal orientations can also influence the approach one ta%es to a
specific tas%. A third group focuses on the content of childrenHs goals. proposing that there are many different
13
Motivation
%inds of goals individuals can have in achievement settings. including oth academic and social goals *e.g.. 2ord.
=>>FI WentJel. =>>=+. We focus in this section on the #or% of the latter t#o groups.
0oal orientation theory. Researchers *e.g.. Ames. =>>FI !lumenfeld. =>>FI !utler. =>>GI D#ec% ,
0eggett. =>BBI Maehr , Midgley. =>>7I "icholls. =>B5+ initially distinguished t#o road goal orientations that
students can have to#ard their learning. 1ne orientation. called a learning. tas% involved. or mastery goal
orientation. means that the child is focused on improving their s%ills. mastering material. and learning ne# things.
8uestions such as M6o# can 4 do this tas%;M and MWhat #ill 4 learn;M reflect tas%'involved goals. A second goal
orientation. called performance or ego orientation. means that the child focuses on maKimiJing favorale
evaluations of their competence and minimiJing negative evaluations of competence. "icholls and his colleagues
*e.g.. "icholls. 3o. $ac%el. Wood. , Wheatley. =>>A+ and Meece *=>>=. =>>5+ also have descried a #or%
avoidant goal orientation. #hich means that the child does not #ish to engage in academic activities.
)he different terms used to lael these goal orientations occurred ecause different researchers #ere
#or%ing on them simultaneously. #ith each having a some#hat distinctive vie# of each orientation *see &intrich.
FAAAa. and )hor%ildsen , "icholls. =>>B. for discussion of the intellectual roots of different researchersH
definitions of these goal orientations+. 2or instance. D#ec% and 0eggett *=>BB+ proposed that childrenHs goal
orientations stem from their theories of intelligence that #ere descried earlier. 3hildren elieving intelligence is
malleale tend to hold a learning *mastery+ goal orientation. and children adopting the entity vie# ta%e on
performance goals. !y contrast. Ames *=>>F+ focused primarily on classroom antecedents of these goal
orientations. rather than characteristics of children. #hich implies that goal orientations are more a product of
conteKt rather than the person. and so may vary more #idely across different achievement situations. We
ac%no#ledge that the different terminology used y these theorists reflects some important distinctions in the
conceptualiJation of these< goal orientations. ut also elieve that the similarities are stronger than the distinctions
et#een them *see Midgley. (aplan. , Middleton. FAA=. and &intrich. FAAAa for a similar conclusion+. We #ill
use the terms mastery and performance goal orientations in this chapter.
1ne of the ne#er directions in goal orientation theory is further differentiation of these t#o road goal
orientations into approach and avoidance components. )his occurred first for the performance goal orientation.
eginning #ith #or% y Elliot and 6arac%ie#icJ *=>>7+ and S%aalvi% *=>>:+. among others. )hese further
distinctions emerged for t#o main reasons. Empirically. findings concerning the outcomes of having a
performance goal orientation #ere some#hat contradictory. leading researchers to #onder #hy this occurred.
)heoretically. Elliot and 6arac%ie#icJ noted that traditional achievement motivation theories. such as At%insonHs
*=>@:+ eKpectancy'value model. included oth approach and avoidance motives. !y contrast. most modern
theories focus primarily on the approach aspect. thus overloo%ing the importance of avoidance motivation.
)herefore. Elliot and 6arac%ie#icJ *=>>7+ proposed approach and avoidance aspects of performance
goals. as did S%aalvi% *=>>:+. &erformance'approach goals refer to the studentsH desire to demonstrate competence
and outperform others. &erformance'avoidance goals involve the desire to avoid loo%ing incompetent.
Researchers egan to disentangle the effects of these t#o %inds of performance orientations. As #e #ill see later.
there is evidence that performance'approach goals can have a positive impact on different outcomes such as
grades. #hereas the impact of performance'avoidance goals is nearly al#ays negative.
Elliot *=>>>I Elliott , Mc?regor. FAA=+ and &intrich *FAAAc+ proposed that the mastery goal orientation
also may e divided into approach and avoid components. Elliot and Mc?regor stated that the assumption li%ely
#as made that mastery goals al#ays referred to approach situations. rather than avoidance situations. #hich they
elieve does not provide a full characteriJation of situations to #hich mastery goals apply. )hey argued that
mastery'avoidance goals include such things as #or%ing to avoid misunderstanding. or the use of standards to not
e #rong #hen doing an achievement activity. As Elliot and Mc?regor and &intrich oth note. perfectionists may
e characteriJed as holding mastery avoidance goals. Elliot and Mc?regor *FAA=+ developed items to assess
mastery avoidant goals. and found *in a study of college students+ that these items factored separately from items
measuring the other three %inds of goal orientations. )he antecedents *as perceived y the participants+ of mastery'
avoidance goals #ere not as positive as antecedents of mastery'approach goals. )hese results are intriguing. ut
much more #or% is needed to estalish the meaningfulness of this ne# category.
)here is a gro#ing ody of research documenting the consequences of adopting one or the other of these
goal orientations. Researchers have used a variety of methodologies in this #or%. including classroom oservations
*Ames , Archer. =>BB+. intervie#s *Do#son , Mc4nerney. FAAG+. and questionnaire'ased studies. often using
14
Motivation
Midgley and her colleaguesH &atterns of Adaptive 0earning Scale *&A0S+ *Midgley et al.. =>>B+. EKperimental
manipulations of studentsH goal orientations also have een done. y introducing achievement tas%s in a #ay that
fosters either mastery or performance goals *e.g.. ?raham , ?olan. =>>=+. )he results concerning mastery
orientation are quite consistent and positive *see E. Anderman. Austin. , Johnson. FAAFI &intrich. FAAAa. cI
Urdan. =>>:. for revie#+. When children are mastery oriented they are more highly engaged in learning. use
deeper cognitive strategies. and are intrinsically motivated to learn. Elliot and Mc?regor *FAA=+ found that
mastery'avoidance goals are associated #ith a miKture of outcomes. including susequent test anKiety. mastery'
approach goals. and performance'approach goals. !ased on this and other #or% researchers have proposed that
schools should #or% to foster mastery goal orientations rather than performance goal orientations. and school
reform efforts to do Lust that have een underta%en *e.g.. Maehr , Midgley. =>>7+. We discuss some of this #or%
in a later section of this chapter.
As noted aove the research on performance goals is some#hat less consistent. in part ecause of the
methodological confounding of performance avoidance and approach goals. When these t#o aspects of
performance goals are unconfounded. researchers find that performance avoid goals have negative consequences
for students motivation and learning *e.g.. Elliot , 6arac%ie#icJ. =>>7I Middleton , Midgley. =>>:I S%aalvi%.
=>>:+. &erformance approach goals relate positively to academic self'concept. tas% value. and performance *at
least in college students+. ut not to intrinsic motivation to learn *see 6arac%ie#icJ. !arron. &intrich. Elliot. ,
)hrash. FAAF. for revie#+.
)he distinction et#een performance approach and avoid goals. and evidence sho#ing that performance'
approach goals relate to positive motivational and achievement outcomes. led 6arc%ie#icJ. !arron. , Elliot *=>>B+
and &intrich *FAAAa.c+ to call for a revision of goal theory that ac%no#ledges the positive effects of performance'
approach goals. and also the need to loo% at ho# different goals relate to different outcomes. )raditional *or
normative. to use the term adopted y 6arac%ie#icJ et al+ goal theory argues for the enefits of mastery goals and
the costs of performance goals. &intrich *FAAA+ studied B
th
grade studentsH goal orientations. and identified four
groups of children crossing high and lo# mastery and performance goal orientations. 6e found that students #ith
a comination of high mastery and high performance'approach goal orientations #ere similar #ith respect to a
variety of motivational outcomes to a group of students #ho #ere high in mastery ut lo# in performance goal
orientations. )his finding does not support the normative theory vie# that only mastery goal orientations lead to
positive developmental outcomes. and #as one impetus for the call for a revised goal orientation theory.
Midgley et al. *FAA=+ disputed these claims. arguing that the costs of performance avoidance goals are
clearly documented and that the enefits of performance approach goals are not as clearly estalished in the
literature. )hey also noted that performance approach goals may enefit some students *oys. older students+
rather than others *girls. younger students+. and that #e do not yet have enough information aout ho#
performance'approach goals operate in other groups of children. )hey also pointed out that enefits of
performance goals identified y researchers may e in part due to the focus of our educational system on standards.
assessments. and performance rather than effort and improvement. #hich they argue is a etter approach to
schooling.
4n response. 6arac%ie#icJ et al. *FAAF+ argued that the evidence for the positive effects of performance'
approach goals is clearer than Midgley et al. stated that it #as. and continued to propose the multiple goal
perspective *that oth mastery and performance goals can enefit different educational outcomes+ is the more
viale approach to goal orientation theory. )hey noted a numer of areas of research that no# are needed to assess
each of these perspectives. 4n a final response (aplan and Middleton *FAAF+ too% a roader perspective and
focused on #hat the purposes of schooling should e. 4n their vie# the purposes of schooling should e %no#ledge
gro#th and the fostering of a love of learning. rather than performance per se. and thus for them a mastery
orientation continues to e more desirale. even if performance'approach goals relate to some positive educational
outcomes in our current educational system *see also Roeser. FAA5a. for further elaoration of these ideas+. So this
deate appears to e at different levels. At one level is the concern for ho# the specific goal orientations relate to
different %inds of outcomes #ithin our current educational system. )he second level concerns #hat that system
should focus on. rather than an acceptance of the current system and its strong performance emphasis.
)his healthy deate among goal orientation theorists should move the field ahead. as more research is
done to loo% at the enefits and costs of different %inds of goal orientations. and as #e consider further the nature
and purposes of schooling and their influence on the development of studentsH motivation. We elieve the move
eyond the perhaps too simplistic t#o'goal orientation theory is #elcome. ut ac%no#ledge that more #or% is
15
Motivation
needed oth on performance approach and *especially+ mastery'avoidance goals to evaluate their effects. and in the
case of mastery'avoid goals. document their eKistence. Wor% on achievement goal orientations also needs to loo%
more carefully at ho# different achievement domains *math. science. English+ might impact achievement goal
orientations and their effects *see Meece. =>>=. =>>5+.
"he goal content aroach+ $cademic and social goals. !uilding on 2ordHs *=>>F+ #or% defining a
taKonomy of human goals. WentJel has eKamined the multiple goals of children in achievement settings *see
WentJel. =>>=. =>>G. FAAF. for revie# of this #or%+. 6er vie# on goals differs from the goal orientation
theorists in that she focuses on the content of childrenNs goals to guide and direct ehavior. rather than the criteria
a person uses to define success or failure *i.e.. mastery versus performance+. 4n this sense. these goals are li%e the
goals and self'schema that relate to attainment value hierarchies in the Eccles et al. eKpectancy value. 6o#ever.
she does vie# these goals as contriuting to childrenHs competence in particular situations. WentJel primarily has
focused on academic and social goals and their relations to a variety of outcomes.
WentJel has demonstrated that oth social and academic goals relate to adolescentsN school performance
and ehavior *WentJel. FAAF+. 2or instance. she found that the goals related to school achievement include
seeing oneself as successful. dependale. #anting to learn ne# things. and #anting to get things done. 6igher'
achieving students have higher levels of oth social responsiility and achievement goals than lo#er achieving
students. Similarly. WentJel *=>>5+ documented the association among middle school childrenHs pro'social goals
of helping others. academic pro'social goals li%e sharing learning #ith classmates. peer social responsiility goals
li%e follo#ing through on promises made to peers. and academic social responsiility goals li%e doing #hat the
teacher says to do. &ro'social goals *particularly academic pro'social goals+ related positively to peer acceptance.
She also found positive relations et#een prosocial goals and childrenHs grades and even 48 scores *WentJel. =>B>.
=>>7+.
While it appears valuale to have multiple goals. WentJel *FAAF+ discussed the difficulty some children
may have coordinating these multiple goals. 3an students manage a variety of social and academic goals; )his
question also applies to the multiple goal perspective in goal orientation theory. 6aving multiple goals may e
especially challenging for younger children. #hose resources to manage such goals may e limited.
!uilding in part on WentJelHs #or% researchers increasingly are interested in ho# social relations and the
social conteKt influences studentsH goals and other aspects of motivation *e.g.. 0. Anderman. =>>:I &atric%. =>>:I
A. Ryan. FAA=+. 0. Anderman *=>>:+ proposed a numer of mechanisms y #hich studentsH social eKperiences in
school relate to their motivation. )hese include the eKtent to #hich students feel a part of the school or at least
some activities in the school. ho# much they endorse social responsiility goals. and the %inds of relationships they
have #ith peers. We return to some of these points in a later section of this chapter.
S%mmary
Wor% on interest. intrinsic motivation. values. and goals continues to thrive. and the %no#ledge
ase in these areas is eginning to rival that on competence'related eliefs. although it still lags ehind to
a degree. We need additional #or% on the relations among these various constructs. and a closer loo% at
the developmental traLectories that they ta%e.
)heories 3oncerned With )he 8uestion MWhat Do 4 6ave )o Do
)o Succeed 1n )his )as%;M
We discussed in the previous version of our chapter that researchers #ere ecoming increasingly
interested in lin%ages et#een motivation. self'regulation. and cognitive processes. )his #or% has gro#n over the
last several years. We discuss in this section #or% on the follo#ing topics/ =+ motivation and the regulation of
ehaviorI F+ motivation and volitionI G+ relations of motivation to cognitive processes and conceptual changeI and
5+ academic help see%ing.
16
Motivation
Social Cognitive "heories of Self!1eg%lation and )otivation
Revie#ing the eKtensive literature on the self'regulation of ehavior is eyond the scope of the chapter
*see !oe%arts. &intrich. , Ceidner. FAAA. for a comprehensive revie# of models of self'regulation from a variety of
different fields in psychology+. )hese models ta%e a variety of different conceptual and methodological
approaches. )here are t#o approaches to self'regulation that relate most directly to our focus on the development
of motivation in this chapter. 2irst is self'determination theoryI #e mention it only riefly here ecause it #as
discussed earlier. )his theory proposes that individuals are intrinsically motivated #hen they are self'determined.
or are the source of their o#n ehavior *Deci , Ryan. FAAFI Ryan , Deci. FAAF+. Ryan and Deci discuss the
internaliJation process. #hich essentially involves the individual ta%ing greater control over her o#n ehavior.
#hich leads to greater intrinsic motivation. ?rolnic% et al. *FAAF+ revie# the development of self'determination
and ho# it is influenced y eKperiences at home and in schoolI #e discuss some of this #or% in the socialiJation
section of this chapter.
A second approach to self'regulation particularly relevant to this chapter is the social cognitive
perspective. and there are several models in this tradition. We focus on the recent #or% of &intrich. Schun%.
Cimmerman. and their colleagues. ecause they directly lin% motivation to self'regulationI see Schun% and
Cimmerman *=>>5+ and Eccles et al. *=>>B+ for revie# of earlier #or% on self'regulation.
Cimmerman *=>B>+ descried self'regulated students as eing metacognitively. motivationally. and
ehaviorally active in their o#n learning processes and in achieving their o#n goals and active in their use of
cognitive strategies for learningI thus motivation plays and important part in self'regulation. Recent social
cognitive models of self'regulation *e.g.. &intrich. FAAAcI Schun% , Ertmer. FAAAI Cimmerman. FAAA+ divide the
regulation of ehavior into three phases/ forethought. performance and volitional control. and self'reflection. and
#e focus her on ho# motivation relates to each of these phases. /oretho%ght involves planning oneHs ehavior.
and Cimmerman stated that there are t#o maLor aspects of forethought. analyJing the tas% or activity that needs to
e done. and motivating oneself to underta%e the activity. Cimmerman focused on goal setting. self'efficacy. and
interest and value as the %ey aspects of motivation during this phase. When students are efficacious aout their
aility to regulate their ehavior. set goals and commit to them. and value #hat they are doing. they #ill e more
li%ely to egin an activity. Cimmerman also noted that having a mastery goal orientation might facilitate tas%
engagement and self'regulation of achievement ehaviors.
Performance of course refers to self'regulation as the individual actually is doing the activity. What is
crucial for the regulation of performance is focusing attention on the activity and monitoring ho# one is doing.
through processes of self'oservation. Schun% and Ertmer *FAAA+ also noted that maintaining self'efficacy and
monitoring progress to#ards the achievement of goals are important motivational aspects of the performance
process. During self!reflection and reaction individuals interpret the outcomes of their activities y ma%ing
attriutions for their success and failure. and evaluating #hether they achieved their goals. Affective reactions are
li%ely here as #ell. When individuals achieve the eKpected outcome they eKperience satisfaction. ut #hen they
donHt various negative affective reactions can occur *see &intrich. FAAAc+.
Wigfield and Eccles *FAAF+ discussed the particular roles achievement values may ta%e in
different aspects of the regulation of ehavior. )hey argued that the social cognitive models of self'
regulation focus primarily on self'efficacy and goals as the motivational factors influencing self'
regulation. although some attention has een paid to values. Schun% and Ertmer *FAAF+ discussed ho#
the value of an activity is an important part of the forethought or pre'engagement phase of self'regulationI
#hen activities are valued students #ill devote more time oth to planning for them and doing them.
Rheinerg. -ollmeyer. , Rollett. *FAAA+ specified different questions individuals pose to themselves
concerning potential lin%s of their actions to desired outcomes. 1ne of the questions is a 9values<
question/ are the consequences of the action important enough to me; 4f the ans#er is yes the individual
more li%ely #ill underta%e the action. 4f no. then engagement is less li%ely. Wigfield and Eccles
discussed t#o additional roles values may play in the regulation of ehavior. -alues may help individuals
determine #hich of different *and potentially conflicting+ goals to pursue. During the self'reflection phase
after an activity is completed studentsH valuing of the activity li%ely influences their li%elihood to continue
to engage in the activity.
Wolters *FAAG+ discussed the importance of regulating oneHs motivation along #ith regulating
oneHs ehavior and cognition *see also &intrich. FAAAc+. 6e posited that motivational regulation is one
part of the roader self'regulatory process. )he regulatory aspect in this instance refers to individualsH
cognitive a#areness of and control over their o#n motivation. ut Wolters noted that motivation
17
Motivation
regulation and motivation itself li%ely are strongly related. 6e argued further that the regulation of
motivation might e most needed #hen individuals encounter ostacles as they are attempting to do
various achievement activities. even activities that they initially #ere quite motivated to do. Wolters
discussed a variety of motivation regulation strategies. )hese include creating consequences for oneHs o#n
ehavior *#hen 4 finish my home#or% 4 can play the videogame 4 #ant to play+. attempting to modify
activities one is doing to ma%e them more interesting. and engaging in goal'oriented self tal% *reminding
oneself of the purposes for #hich the activity #as underta%en in the first place+. among others. including
managing oneHs efficacy perceptions and controlling the %inds of attriutions for success and failure that
are made. 1ne interesting regulatory strategy is self'handicapping. #hich involves things li%e #aiting
until the last minute to study for a test. and setting up other ostacles to performance. Although this
regulatory strategy may provide students #ith good eKcuses for not doing #ell. its potential costs li%ely
out#eigh its enefits. Another potentially less positive strategy is called defensive pessimism. #hich refers
to individuals elieving that they are very unprepared and set to do poorly on an eKam or assignment. to
spur them to #or% harder. Defensive pessimists often perform #ell. ut the desiraility of this strategy is
questionale.
4n sum. social cognitive models of self'regulation consider many of the aspects of motivation that
#e are revie#ing in this chapter. including self'efficacy. goals. achievement values. and interest.
Researchers are eginning to focus on the regulation of motivation and ho# it fits into the roader models
of self'regulation of achievement ehaviors. 4t should e clear from our discussion that self'regulation of
ehavior and motivation processes require relatively sophisticated cognitive processes. #hich can e
prolematic for young children *see &intrich , Cusho. FAAF. Wigfield , Eccles. FAAF. and Cimmerman.
FAAA. for a discussion of the development of self'regulatory processes+. We return to this issue elo#.
"heories 2f )otivation and Volition
)he term MvolitionM refers to oth the strength of #ill needed to complete a tas% and diligence of pursuit
*3orno. =>>G. in pressI (uhl. FAAA+. Cimmerman *FAAA+ and other theorists proposing social cognitive models of
self'regulation include volition as part of the regulation of achievement ehavior. ut 3orno argued that volition is
a roader concept than self'regulation ecause volition includes personality characteristics. aptitudes. and other
cognitive processes *see also 3orno , (anfer. =>>G+. Researchers studying volition also argue for a clear
distinction et#een motivation and volitionI motivation rings the individual to an activity. ut volitional processes
carry her through the activity *see 3orno. in press+.
(uhl *=>B:+ proposed several specific volitional strategies to eKplain persistence in the face of
distractions and other opportunitiesI including cognitive. emotional. motivational. and environmental control
strategies *see Eccles et al.. =>>B. for revie# of these strategies. 3orno *=>>G+ provided several eKamples of the
volitional challenges students face. including coordinating multiple demands and desires li%e doing home#or%.
#atching )-. or calling a friendI dealing #ith the many distractions in any particular conteKt li%e a classroomI and
clarifying often vaguely'specified goals and assignments.
)here currently is some deate et#een volitional theorists and social cognitive self'regulation theorists
*see 3orno. in pressI Wolters. FAAGI Cimmerman , Schun%. FAAF+. )he social cognitive theorists argue that the
9hard< distinction et#een motivation as the intention to act and volition as the control of action is dra#n to
strongly y volitional theorists. Wolters *FAAG+ notes that the regulation of motivation can occur oth in the phase
leading up to action and the action phase itself. and so sees regulatory process as integrated across oth. 3orno *in
press+ continued to argue for the motivation Q volition distinction. ut stated that volition can involve reassessing
motivational goals as #ell.
"heories 3inking )otivation and Cognition
Motivation researchers increasingly are interested in ho# motivation and cognition influence one another
*see Eccles et al.. =>>B. for #or% done on this topic in the =>BAs and early =>>As+. 4n a seminal article. &intrich.
MarK. and !oyle *=>>G+ discussed lin%s of motivation and cognition. #ith specific reference to conceptual change.
)hey argued that traditional 9cold< cognitive psychological models of conceptual change. #hich focus on
conceptual change resulting from dissatisfaction #ith oneHs current conceptions. and the intelligiility. plausiility.
and fruitfulness of the ne# conception. do not consider the motivational and conteKtual factors that influence
18
Motivation
conceptual development. )hey identified a variety of conteKtual and motivational factors that can influence this
process *see also &intrich , Schrauen. =>>F+I #e riefly note some of the motivation factors here.
&intrich et al. *=>>G+ focused on goal orientation. interest and value. and self'efficacy as motivational
factors influencing conceptual change. )hey revie#ed #or% sho#ing that mastery goal orientations relate to
deeper cognitive processing and more sophisticated cognitive strategy use. As discussed earlier. studentsH valuing
of achievement relates to their choices of activities. and #hen they are interested in an activity deeper cognitive
processing occurs. Similarly. students #ith higher self'efficacy use more elaorate and etter cognitive strategies
*see Schun%. =>>=+. Each of these motivational eliefs and values can e influenced y the classroom conteKt. a
point #e return to in a later section. !ased on this &intrich et al concluded that conceptual change is a hot rather
than a cold process.
)his #or% clearly indicates motivationHs role in conceptual change and engagement in cognitive
processing. 6o#ever. &intrich *FAAG+ discussed that there still is little information on motivationHs relations to
asic cognitive activity such as the activation. acquisition. and development of %no#ledge. and called for research
in this area. 6e also argued that motivational eliefs might e represented cognitively in similar #ays to other
%inds of content %no#ledge *see Winne , MarK. =>B> for a similar vie# that motivational thoughts and eliefs are
governed y the asic principles of cognitive psychology+. 3ognitive psychologists have developed detailed
depictions of %no#ledge representation. and some of these li%ely could e applied to motivational eliefs. We have
focused so far on motivationHs relations to cognitionI &intrich also argued that cognition li%ely influences
motivation and that researchers need to address these compleK and li%ely cyclical relations.
$cademic Hel Seeking
Some researchers have argued that another important aspect of self'regulation and volition is
%no#ing #hen help is needed *"e#man. FAAFI A. Ryan. &intrich. , Midgley. FAA=+. 3hildren learn to
do many tas%s on their o#nI indeed. schools and parents often encourage children to ecome independent
and self'reliant. 6o#ever. there are times #hen children need help. !oth "elson 0e ?all and her
colleagues *e. g.. "elson 0e ?all , ?lor'Shie. =>B@I "elson 0e ?all , Jones. =>>A+ and "e#man and
his colleagues *e. g.. "e#man. =>>5. FAAFI "e#man , ?oldin. =>>AI "e#man , Sch#ager. =>>@+ have
articulated models of childrenNs help'see%ing that stress the difference et#een appropriate and
inappropriate help see%ing. Appropriate help see%ing *laeled instr%mental help'see%ing y "elson'0e
?all and adative help'see%ing y "e#man+ involves deciding that one doesnNt understand ho# to
complete a prolem after having tried to solve it on oneHs o#n. figuring out #hat and #hom to as%.
developing a good question to get the needed help. and processing the information received appropriately
in order to complete the prolem'solving tas%.
Adaptive help see%ing can foster motivation y %eeping children engaged in an activity #hen
they eKperience difficulties. 6o#ever. many children. and often the children that need the most help. are
un#illing to as% for it in many classrooms. li%ely ecause they are concerned that as%ing for help #ill
ma%e them appear to others that they lac% competence *A. Ryan. ?heen. , Midgley. =>>BI A. Ryan et al..
FAA=+. )here are developmental differences here as #ellI younger children are more li%ely to as% for help
than are older children. "e#man *FAAF+ descried conditions under #hich children are more or less
li%ely to as% for helpI these conditions include oth characteristics of children and of the learning
environments they eKperience. When children are self'regulated and perceive they are competent they are
more li%ely to as% for help #hen it is needed. )eachers can facilitate help see%ing y sho#ing concern for
childrenI focusing on mastery goals. improvement and effortI and facilitating peer collaoration in the
classroom.
S%mmary
Wor% on lin%s et#een motivation. self'regulation. and cognition has urgeoned over the last
several years. )his integrative #or% is crucial for a etter understanding of the learning process and
childrenHs achievement. and li%ely #ill continue to gro#. Developmental issues remain front and center
in this #or%. as the compleK regulation of achievement and other %inds of ehaviors poses many
challenges for young children in particular. We need more information aout the development of these
processes and models that ta%e account of them.
19
Motivation
)6E DE-E01&ME") 12 M1)4-A)41"/ W4)64"'&ERS1" 36A"?E A"D
?R1U& D422ERE"3ES
Developmental and educational psychologists have focused on t#o maLor developmental questions/ *=+
6o# do the different eliefs. values. and goals defined in the different theories develop during childhood and
adolescence; and *F+ What eKplains the emergence of individual differences in motivation; Different sources of
influence have een considered/ Within'person changes resulting from gro#th and maturation in cognitive
processing. emotional development. or other individual characteristicsI and socially'mediated developmental
changes resulting from systematic age'related changes in the social conteKts children eKperience at home. in school
and among peers as they gro# upI and socially'mediated influences that differ across individuals and conteKts. 1f
course. these different sources often interact #ith one another ut the nature of this interaction is rarely studied.
3onsequently. #e have organiJed our discussion of the development of motivation and of individual differences in
motivation around these road categories of influence. 2irst. #e present #or% on #ithin'person changes.
eginning #ith #or% on childrenNs early self'evaluations. and then descrie the #or% on #ithin'person changes in
the constructs discussed thus far. We also include a consideration of the development of certain motivational
prolems. Also discussed in this section are the development of seK and ethnic differences in childrenHs
motivation. We include this #or% in this section ecause they emerge over the course of childrenHs development.
)he neKt maLor section then considers ho# various socialiJation agents influence childrenHs motivation.
Within'&erson 3hange in Motivation
Early Develoment of Self!Eval%ation D%ring the Preschool 4ears
Some researchers have loo%ed at very young childrenNs reactions to success and failure. reactions #hich
li%ely provide the foundation for the development of the different motivational eliefs. values. and goals discussed
in this chapter. 6ec%hausen *=>B:+ found that children et#een F =DF and G =DF years start to sho# self'evaluative.
non'veral eKpressions follo#ing a successful or unsuccessful action. )he earliest indicators of achievement
motivation #ere facial eKpressions of Loy after success and sadness after failure. )he eKperience of success *around
GA months+ preceded the eKperience of failure *around G7 months+. Several months later children sho#ed postural
eKpressions of pride and shame follo#ing success and failure. When competing #ith others. three and four year
old children initially sho#ed Loy after #inning and sadness after losing. 4t #as only #hen they loo%ed at their
competitor that they eKpressed pride and shame.
Stipe%. Rechchia. and Mc3lintic *=>>F+ identified three stages of development in young childrenNs self'
evaluations/ )he children younger than FF months #ere neither concerned #ith othersN evaluation of their
performance nor self'reflective in their evaluations. 6o#ever. they did sho# positive emotional reactions to
accomplishing a tas% and negative emotions #hen they did not. )hus. unli%e 6ec%hausen. Stipe% et al. found that
reactions to success and failure occurred at the same time in development. )#o 'year'olds reacted more to othersN
evaluations y see%ing approval #hen they did #ell and turning a#ay #hen they did poorly. After age G. the
children #ere ale to evaluate their o#n performance. #ithout needing to see ho# adults reacted to that
performance. and engaged in more autonomous self'evaluation. 3hildren three and older also reacted more
strongly to #inning and losing than did younger children.
D#ec% and her colleagues *e.g.. !urhans , D#ec%. =>>@I 6eyman. D#ec%. , 3ain. =>>FI Smiley ,
D#ec%. =>>5I see D#ec%. FAAF. for revie#+ also have done interesting #or% on young childrenHs reactions to
failureI #e revie# this #or% more completely later #hen #e discuss the development of learned helplessness.
?enerally. their findings sho# that some preschool children already react quite negatively to failure. reactions that
may lead to later learned helplessness in response to failure.
)a%en together. these studies sho# that reactions to success and failure egin early in the preschool years.
li%ely laying the ground#or% for the development of motivation in the middle childhood years and eyond. )he
results concerning childrenNs reactions to failure are particularly important ecause they suggest that children are
more sensitive to failure in the preschool years than #as once elieved *see D#ec%. FAAF+.
20
Motivation
"he Develoment of Cometence!1elated &eliefs
Much of the #or% on the development of childrenNs achievement'related eliefs has loo%ed at the
development of childrenNs aility and eKpectancy'related eliefs *e.g.. see D#ec% , Elliott. =>BGI Stipe% , Mac
4ver. =>B> for revie#s of the early #or% on this topic+. We discuss three %inds of changes in these eliefs/ change
in their factorial structure. in mean levels. and change in childrenNs understanding of them.
"he factorial str%ct%re of children,s cometence!related beliefs. Eccles et al. *=>>B+ revie#ed
factor analytic research sho#ing that children as young as five or siK appear to have distinctive
competence perceptions among different academic and non'academic domains of competence. Since that
revie# researchers have loo%ed at even younger children and found that these children also have
differentiated competence'related eliefs *MantJicoupolus. 2rench. , Maller. FAA5I Marsh. Ellis. ,
3raven. FAAF+. )his does not mean. ho#ever. that there is no change or refinement in childrenNs eliefs
from %indergarten through high school. )he pattern of correlations of self'concept factors differs in
meaningful #ays for younger and older children *Marsh , Ayotte. FAAG+. $ounger children use fe#er of
the scale points #hen responding to the items on the questionnaires. and their responses correlate less
#ell #ith oth their teachersN and their parentsN estimates of their competencies *Eccles. Wigfield. et al..
=>>GI Wigfield et al. =>>:+.
Eccles , Wigfield *=>>@+ and Eccles et al. *=>>G+ also have used factor analytic strategies to access
#hether childrenNs competence eliefs and eKpectancies for success are distinct constructs. Analyses of oth
childrenHs and adolescentsH responses indicate the ratings of oneNs current competence. eKpectancies for success.
and perceived performance load on the same fact or. suggesting that these components comprise a single concept
for children age 7'=B.
Change in the mean level of children,s cometence!related beliefs. Another #ell'estalished finding in
the literature is that childrenHs competence eliefs for different tas%s decline across the elementary school years and
through the high school years *see D#ec% , Elliott. =>BGI Eccles et al.. =>>BI Stipe% , Mac 4ver. =>B> for
revie#+. Many young children are quite optimistic aout their competencies in different areas. and this optimism
changes to greater realism and *sometimes+ pessimism for many children. )o illustrate. in "icholls *=>:>+ most
first graders ran%ed themselves near the top of the class in reading aility. and there #as no correlation et#een
their aility ratings and their performance level. !y contrast the =F year oldsN ratings #ere more dispersed and
correlated highly #ith school grades *.:A or higher+. Recently. researchers in the U. S. have eKamined change over
the entire elementary and secondary school years in childrenHs competence eliefs for math. language arts. and
sport *Jacos. 0anJa. 1sgood. Eccles. , Wigfield. et al.. FAAFI 2rederic%s , Eccles. FAAFI+. and Watt *FAA5+
loo%ed at change across middle and senior high school in Australia. Jacos et al. eKamined change in childrenHs
competence for math. language arts. and sports across grades = through =F. 3hildrenHs perceptions in each area
#ere strongly positive early on. 6o#ever. the overall pattern of change #as a decline in each domain. )here #ere
some differences across domain #ith respect to #hen the strongest changes occurred. particularly in language arts
and math. 4n language arts the strongest declines occurred during elementary school and then little change #as
oserved after that. 4n sports the change accelerated during the high school years. )he decline in math
competence eliefs #as steady over time. 2rederic% and Eccles and Watt also found declines over time in
competence eliefs and values. although the specific trends #ere some#hat different across these studies.
1ne caveat aout this general 9optimism early and realism later< pattern should e noted. As Lust
discussed. researchers oserving childrenHs reactions to failure find that some preschool children already reacted
negatively to failure *see D#ec%. FAAFI Stipe% et al. =>>F+. D#ec% notes that during the preschool years children
li%ely do not have a clearly defined notion of #hat aility is. So these earlier negative reactions to failure may not
mean that children dout their aility. as their vie#s of aility still are ta%ing shape. !ut the connection et#een
these reactions and level of aility eliefs li%ely egins to develop early in the school years. and children reacting
negatively to failure early on may e more li%ely to e pessimistic aout their ailities later.
4n summary. childrenNs competence eliefs and eKpectancies for success ecome more negative as they get
older. )he negative changes in childrenNs competence'related eliefs have een eKplained in t#o #ays/ *=+ !ecause
children ecome much etter at understanding. interpreting. and integrating the evaluative feedac% they receive.
and engage in more social comparison #ith their peers. children ecome more accurate or realistic in their self'
assessments. leading some to ecome relatively more negative *see D#ec% , Elliott. =>BGI "icholls. =>B5I Rule.
21
Motivation
=>BGI Stipe% , Mac 4ver. =>B>+I *F+ !ecause school environment changes in #ays that ma%es evaluation more
salient and competition et#een students more li%ely. some childrenNs self'assessments #ill decline as they get
older *e.g.. see Eccles , Midgley. =>B>I Wigfield. !yrnes. , Eccles. in pressI Wigfield. Eccles. , &intrich. =>>7+.
We return to this issue of ho# school environments influence childrenHs motivation later.
)here are t#o important limitations to this #or% on mean'level change in the development of competence
eliefs. 2irst. most of it is normative. in the sense that researchers report overall mean differences in their studies.
We thus %no# less aout patterns of changes #ithin different groups of children and adolescents. although there is
some information aout this *e.g.. 6arter et al.. =>>FI Wigfield et al.. =>>=+. Wigfield et al. *=>>=+ found that this
pattern of change varied some#hat for children high or lo# in math aility. Second. the measures used in this
#or% either are at the school level or *more frequently+ at the domain'specific level. 4t is possile that childrenHs
eliefs aout their competence for more particular activities may sho# different patterns of change. and #e %no#
little aout this. We also %no# little aout ho# children arrive at Ludgments of their competence in something as
road as 9reading< or 9science<I do they simply average their performance in a variety of different relevant tas%s.
or use a more elaorate strategy *see Winne. FAAF. for discussion of ho# individuals calirate their eliefs+;
2inally. one other set of findings relevant to the issue of mean'level change should e mentioned.
0ongitudinal studies loo%ing at relations of childrenHs competence eliefs over time sho# that these eliefs ecome
increasingly stale as children get older *e.g.. Eccles et al.. =>B>I Wigfield et al.. =>>:+. Even y the middle of the
elementary school years childrenHs competence eliefs correlate quite highly across a one'year period. #ith the
correlations reaching as high as .:5. )hus y early adolescence there is much staility in these eliefs. even
though the overall pattern of change is the decline Lust discussed. )he implication of these findings is that
individuals tend to maintain their relative position in their group. even as the groupHs mean declines.
Changes in children,s %nderstanding of cometence!related beliefs. )he research on oth the
structure of and mean level differences in childrenNs eliefs does not tell us aout childrenNs understanding
of these constructs. ecause the questionnaire methodology used in these studies requires children to
respond to researcher'defined constructs rather than generate their o#n definitions of a given construct.
!ut it is important to understand ho# children conceptualiJe the different constructs in order to interpret
comparisons of different'aged childrenNs eliefs meaningfully.
D#ec% *FAAF+ descried important developmental changes in childrenHs understandings of
aility. During the preschool years and into %indergarten children do not have a clear sense of aility as a
characteristic that determines outcomes. ut as discussed earlier they do react to success and failure
eKperiences. &art of this reaction is to thin% they are good #hen they do #ell and ad #hen they do
poorlyI indeed. D#ec% argues that conceptions of goodness and adness are primary at this time. During
the early school years concepts of aility egin to emerge. and children see aility as distinct from other
qualities and also differentiate their aility across domains. )hey often thin% of aility as changeale. and
use normative rather than comparative standards to Ludge aility. ut some children egin to see aility as
a stale characteristic. As children move through these ages social comparison ta%es on increasing
importance. ho#ever. 3hildrenHs eliefs aout aility also ecome more accurate. in the sense of
correlating more strongly #ith performance measures. !et#een ages =A and =F children differentiate
more clearly aility. effort. and performance. and also see ho# they interrelate. )hese children more often
use comparative standards in Ludging aility. More children come to vie# aility as capacity *or ta%e an
entity vie# of intelligence. to use D#ec%Hs term+. #hich means they are less li%ely to elieve that #ith
increased effort their aility #ill improve.
Researchers have investigated childrenNs understanding of aility. effort. tas% difficulty and
intelligence *see Eccles et al.. =>>B. for revie#+. "icholls and his colleagues found a developmental
progression et#een ages @ and =F #ith respect to childrenHs eliefs aout aility. effort. and performance
*"icholls. =>:BI "icholls , Miller. =>B5+. )hey found four relatively distinct levels of reasoning/ At
level one *ages @ to 7+. effort. aility. and performance are not clearly differentiated in terms of cause and
effect. At level t#o *ages : to >+. effort is seen as the primary cause of performance outcomes. At level
three *ages > to =F+. children egin to differentiate aility and effort as causes of outcomes. ut they do not
al#ays apply this distinction. 2inally. at level four. adolescents clearly differentiate aility and effort. and
understand the notion of aility as capacity. )hey also elieve that aility can limit the effects of
additional effort on performance. that aility and effort are often related to each other in a compensatory
manner. and. consequently. that success requiring a great deal of effort li%ely reflects limited aility.
As #e #ill discuss in more detail later in the section on learned helplessness. these different
vie#s of aility and intelligence have important implications for childrenHs reactions to success and
22
Motivation
failure. particularly their reactions to failure. As D#ec% and her colleagues have discussed. children #ith
an entity vie# of aility are more li%ely to give up follo#ing failure. ecause they are less li%ely to elieve
that additional effort #ill improve their performance. ecause their aility is fiKed. !y contrast. children
#ith an incremental vie# are more li%ely to continue to strive after failure. ecause they thin% their aility
can change.
&omerantJ and SaKon *FAA=I see also &omerantJ , Rule. =>>:+ added another distinction to
this discussion. )hey distinguished et#een *in their terms+ 9conceptions of aility as stale to eKternal
forces<. and 9conceptions of aility as stale to internal forces.< Staility of aility #ith respect to eKternal
forces 9is the vie# that aility is unli%ely to e influenced y forces eKternal to the individual possessing
the aility *e.g.. situational changes+< *&omerantJ , SaKon. FAA=. p. =@G+. &omerantJ and SaKon argued
that as children get older they increasingly hold this vie# aout aility and a numer of other
characteristics. #ith the implication that children see individualsH ehaviors as relatively consistent across
types of activities and over time. &omerantJ and SaKon see conceptions of aility as stale to internal
forces as analogous to D#ec%Hs *FAAF+ entity theory of aility. 1ne reason they see these is similar is that
D#ec% and her colleagues operationaliJe the entity vie# of aility as the elief that aility is not under
oneHs o#n control *e.g.. 3ain , D#ec%. =>>@+. 2or instance. one item from 3ain and D#ec%Hs measure of
vie#s of intelligence is 9 $ouHre a certain amount smart. and you canHt really do much to change it< *p.
=@G+. )hat is. the individual cannot do much to change his or her aility. &omerantJ and SaKon proposed
that the latter ut not the former conception aout the nature of aility could have negative consequences
for motivation and achievement.
)hey studied these t#o conceptions of aility in a sample of fourth through siKth grade children.
3oncepts of aility as stale to eKternal forces #ere measured y the researchers descriing to participants
another child as either smart or not very smart at school#or%. and then having children rate the other
childHs aility at four time points and in four situations. Similar procedures #ere used to measure social
aility. Differences et#een childrenHs ratings of the otherHs aility and the initial description #ere used to
determine ho# much children elieved that the other childrenHs aility #as stale #ith respect to eKternal
forces. Aility as stale #ith respect to internal forces #as measured using 3ain and D#ec%Hs *=>>@+
scale. Results sho#ed that the t#o %inds of conceptions #ere inversely *ut #ea%ly+ related. 3hildrenHs
eliefs that aility #as stale #ith respect to eKternal forces increased over time. and their conceptions of
aility as stale #ith respect to internal forces decreased over time. !elieving that aility is stale #ith
respect to eKternal forces correlated positively #ith the importance children attached to eing competent. a
preference for challenge. positive perceptions of competence. and academic performance. )he opposite
pattern of relations occurred for perceptions that aility is stale #ith respect to internal forces. 4t should
e noted that oth sets of correlations #ere relatively #ea%.
&omerantJ and SaKon *FAA=+ concluded that seeing aility as stale. at least #ith respect to
eKternal forces. actually is a positive elief for children to have. ecause of the pattern of its relations #ith
other motivational eliefs and performance. !y contrast. elieving that aility is stale #ith respect to
internal forces has negative implications for motivation and performance. )hus it is not staility per se ut
the type of staility that is crucial. 2urther. they noted that vie#ing aility as stale #ith respect to
eKternal forces #as a more stale elief over time than #as vie#ing aility as stale #ith respect to
internal forces. )hese intriguing findings provide a more sutle representation of the impact of having
9stale< eliefs on motivational and performance outcomes. 6o#ever. ecause many of the oserved
relations #ere rather #ea% *aleit significant+ this potentially important distinction requires further
research. 2urther. oth D#ec%Hs #or% and "ichollsH #or% suggests that children increasingly vie# aility
as stale as they get older. #hereas &omerantJ and SaKon found Lust the opposite #ith respect to eliefs
aout staility of aility #ith respect to internal causes. )his apparent contradiction needs to e resolved.
4n sum. #or% on childrenHs understanding of aility converges #ith the factor analytic #or% in
the sense of sho#ing that young children differentiate aility into different areas. 6o#ever. this #or%
sho#s that younger and older children have different ideas aout the nature of aility and its relations to
effort. other achievement eliefs. and performance. #hich means #e must ta%e some care in ho# #e
interpret the factor analytic findings. Using the same scales to measure perceived aility at different ages
may e prolematic given the apparent differences in ho# younger and older children understand aility.
Develoment of Efficacy &eliefs
)here has not een eKtensive research on the development of efficacy eliefs er se. although the #or% on
aility eliefs and eKpectancies is directly relevant. 4nstead. research on childrenNs self'efficacy has focused
primarily on interventions to enhance the self'efficacy and school performance of lo# achieving children *e.g.. see
23
Motivation
Schun%. =>>5I Schun% , &aLares. FAAF+. EKtant #or% on the development of efficacy sho#s that childrenHs
efficacy eliefs increase across age. Shell. 3olvin. and !runing *=>>@+ found that 5th graders had lo#er self'
efficacy eliefs for reading and #riting than did :th and =Ath graders. and the :th graders efficacy eliefs #ere
lo#er than =Ath graders eliefs *see Cimmerman , MartineJ'&ons. =>>A. for similar findings+. )he inconsistency
of these findings #ith those on childrenNs competence eliefs Lust discussed li%ely reflects the self'efficacy measure
used y Shell et al. )heir instrument measured childrenNs estimates of their efficacy on specific reading and
#riting s%ills rather than more general eliefs aout competence reading and #riting.I the more specific eliefs
should e higher among older children. Also. efficacy eliefs usually are not measured comparatively. #hereas
many measures of competence eliefs include comparisons of oneHs aility #ith that of others. )he latter %ind of
measure may e more li%ely to sho# declines over age.
!andura *=>>:+ and Schun% and &aLares *FAAF+ discussed factors influencing the development of self'
efficacy. )hey proposed that children #ho have mastery eKperiences in #hich they eKert some control over their
environments develop the earliest sense of personal agency. )hrough these eKperiences. infants learn that they
can influence and control their environments. &arents and other adults can facilitate the gro#th of this sense of
agency y the %inds of eKperiences they provide children. 4f parents do not provide infants #ith these eKperiences.
they are not li%ely to develop a strong a sense of personal agency. Second. ecause self'efficacy requires the
understanding that the self produced an action and an outcome. !andura argued that a more mature sense of self'
efficacy should not emerge until children have at least a rudimentary self'concept and can recogniJe that they are
distinct individuals. #hich happens sometime during the second year of life *see 6arter. =>>BI this volume+.
)hrough the preschool period. children are eKposed to eKtensive performance information that should e crucial to
their emerging sense of self'efficacy. 6o#ever. Lust ho# useful such information li%ely depends on the childNs
aility to integrate it across time. conteKts. and domainsI Schun% and &aLares discuss the challenges children face
in doing so. More #or% is needed to understand ho# children ecome ale to integrate diverse sources of
information aout their performances *e.g.. information aout their o#n performance. social comparison
information. etc.+ to develop a stale of self'efficacy. Schun% and &aLares also discuss the crucial role peers can
play in the development of self'efficacy. or its demise.
2inally. Schun% and &aLares *FAAF+ and !andura *=>>:+ stressed the importance of school environments
for developing and supporting a high sense of efficacy. or possily undermining it if support is not provided. We
return later to a discussion of ho# this can occur.
Develoment of Control &eliefs
Wor% done on perceived control done in the =>BAs and =>>As sho#ed that there are developmental
patterns in these eliefs. WeisJ *=>B5+ found that younger children actually elieve they have greater control over
chance events than do older children. Similarly. 3onnell *=>B@+ found a decrease in the endorsement of all three
of his locus of control constructs *internal control. po#erful others control. and un%no#n control+ from grades G
through >. 0i%e WeisJNs findings. the un%no#n elief results suggest that older children have a clearer
understanding of #hat controls achievement outcomes. 6o#ever. the older children also rated the other t#o
sources of control as less important. ma%ing interpretation of these findings difficult.
S%inner eKamined age differences in oth the structure and the mean levels of means'ends eliefs *see
S%inner. =>>@+. and found the factor structure ecomes increasingly compleK as children get older. She also found
the largest mean'level differences on some of the means'ends eliefs. At all ages et#een : and =F. children
elieve effort is the most effective means. 4n contrast. older children are much less li%ely to elieve that luc% is an
effective means than younger children. As in 3onnell *=>B@+. elief in the relevance of un%no#n control and
po#erful others also decreased across age levels.
4n a landmar% three'year longitudinal study. S%inner. Cimmer'?emec%. and 3onnell *=>>B+ assessed the
development of perceived control in children and early adolescents and ho# it predicted student engagement in
school. )heir cohort'sequential design encompassed third through seventh grade children. S%inner et al.
measured overall control eliefs. eliefs aout the strategies needed to do #ell in school *including the strategies of
effort. aility. po#erful others. luc%. and un%no#n+. and eliefs aout capacity to access oneHs effort. aility.
po#erful others. and luc%. )hey also measured childrenHs engagement in school. and their perceptions of the
structure and involvement provided y teachers. and eKamined predictive relations among these variales.
24
Motivation
S%inner et al. *=>>B+ found that perceived control sho#ed a curvilinear pattern of change. eing stale at
first. increasing slightly through 5
th
grade. and then declining after @
th
grade. Student engagement declined during
middle school. as did studentsH perceptions that teachers provided structure and #ere involved #ith them. 3hanges
in perceived control related to changes in engagement. and change in the teacher conteKt variales predicted
change in perceived control. Specifically. children initially either high or lo# in perceived control decreased in
their control perceptions if they perceived that teachers #ere providing less structure and #ere less involved #ith
them. A numer of interesting age differences in the predictors of engagement and control emerged. $ounger
childrenHs eliefs aout their capacity to eKert effort #ere a stronger predictor. #hereas for older children it #as
their eliefs aout their aility. ?rades predicted perceived control more strongly for older than younger children.
S%inner et al. also suggested that the conteKt provided y teachers may provide a stronger role in the development
of perceived control for younger than for older children. S%inner et al. also eKamined ho# the constructs they
measured varied across different sugroups in their sample. and thus #ent eyond the normative approach often
ta%en in this area.
)his fascinating study provides a rich depiction of the development of perceived control. and ho# it
relates to studentsH engagement in the classroom. While rich in many respects. the measures of oth academic
performance and perceived control #ere done at the general level *see Eccles. =>>B. for discussion of this and other
issues #ith respect to this study+. !ased on #or% #e revie#ed earlier. these eliefs *and certainly performance+
li%ely varies across different areas. )he measure of teacher conteKt also focused on Lust a fe# features of the
classroom conteKt. "evertheless. the study provides a model for ho# to study the development of motivational
processes.
4n overall summary of this section on competence'related eliefs. there are numerous changes in
childrenNs competence and control eliefs. )hese changes include structural change. mean level change. and
change in childrenNs understanding of the constructs. We need more compleK longitudinal studies such as those of
Jacos et al. *FAAF+ and S%inner et al. *=>>B+ to eKamine these changes over time. for different groups. and in
relation to other conteKtual and psychological factors.
Develoment of S%b-ective "ask Val%es
Eccles. Wigfield. and their colleagues eKamined age'related changes in oth the structure and mean levels
of childrenHs valuing of different activities. 4n Eccles et al. *=>>G+ and Eccles , Wigfield *=>>@+. childrenNs
competence'eKpectancy eliefs and suLective values (ithin the domains of math. reading. and sports formed
distinct factors at all grade levels from first through t#elfth. )hus. even during the very early elementary grades
children appear to have distinct eliefs aout #hat they are good at and #hat they val%e. )he distinction et#een
various su'components of suLective tas% value appear to differentiate more gradually *Eccles. et al.. =>>GI Eccles
, Wigfield. =>>@+. 3hildren in early elementary school differentiate tas% value into t#o components/ interest and
utilityDimportance. 4n contrast. children in grades five through =F differentiate tas% value into the three maLor
sucomponents *attainment valueDpersonal importance. interest. and utility value+ outlined y Eccles et al. *=>BG+.
)hese results suggest that the interest component differentiates out first. follo#ed later y the distinction et#een
utility and attainment value.
As #ith competence'related eliefs. studies generally sho# age'related decline in childrenHs valuing of
certain academic tas%s *e.g. see Eccles et al.. =>>BI Wigfield , Eccles. FAAF. for revie#+. Jacos et al. *FAAF+. in
the study descried earlier in the section on the development of competence eliefs. found that childrenHs valuing
of the domains of math. language arts. and sports declined. As #as the case for competence eliefs. childrenHs
valuing of language arts declined most during elementary school and then leveled off. !y contrast. childrenHs
valuing of math declined the most during high school *see also 2rederic% , Eccles. FAAF+.
Researchers have not addressed changes in childrenNs understandings of the components of tas% value
identified y Eccles et al. *=>BG+. although there li%ely are age'related differences in these understandings. An
eight year old is li%ely to have a different sense of #hat it means for a tas% to e MusefulM than an == year old does.
2urther. it also is li%ely that there are differences across age in #hich of the components of achievement values are
most dominant. Wigfield and Eccles *=>>F+ suggested that interest may e especially salient during the early
elementary school grades #ith young childrenNs activity choices eing most directly related to their interests.
$oung children li%ely try many different activities for a short time each efore developing a more stale opinion
regarding #hich activities they enLoy the most. As children get older the perceived utility and personal importance
25
Motivation
of different tas%s li%ely ecome more salient. particularly as they develop more stale self'schema and long'range
goals and plans. )hese developmental predictions need to e tested.
A related developmental question is ho# childrenNs developing competence eliefs relate to their
developing suLective tas% values. According to oth the Eccles et al. *=>BG+ model and !anduraHs *=>>:+ self'
efficacy theory. aility self'concepts should influence the development of tas% values. 4n support of this prediction.
Mac 4ver. Stipe%. and Daniels *=>>=+ found that changes in Lunior high school studentsN competence eliefs over a
semester predicted change in childrenNs interest much more strongly than vice versa. Does the same causal
ordering occur in younger children; !andura *=>>:+ argued that interests emerge out of oneNs sense of self'efficacy
and that children should e more interested in challenging than in easy tas%s. )a%ing a developmental
perspective. Wigfield *=>>5+ proposed that initially young childrenNs competence and tas% value eliefs are li%ely to
e relatively independent of each other. )his independence #ould mean that children might pursue some activities
in #hich they are interested regardless of ho# good or ad they thin% they are at the activity. 1ver time.
particularly in the achievement domains. children may egin to attach more value to activities on #hich they do
#ell for several reasons/ 2irst. through processes associated #ith classical conditioning. the positive affect one
eKperiences #hen one does #ell should ecome attached to the activities yielding success *see Eccles. =>B5+.
Second. lo#ering the value one attaches to activities that one is having difficulty #ith is li%ely to e an effective
#ay to maintain a positive gloal source of efficacy and self'esteem *Eccles. =>B5I 6arter. =>>A+. )hus. at some
point the t#o %inds of eliefs should ecome more positively related to one another.
4n partial support of this vie#. Wigfield et al. *=>>:+ found that relations et#een childrenNs competence
eliefs and suLective values in different domains indeed are stronger among older than younger
elementary school'aged children. Recently. Jacos et al. *FAAF+ found that changes in competence eliefs
predicted changes in childrenHs valuing of the activities. accounting for as much as 5AU of the variance in
change in childrenHs valuing of the activities. )his suggests that the causal direction in this relation goes
from competence eliefs to values. ut more longitudinal #or% is needed to assess this possiility.
Develoment of 'nterest and 'ntrinsic )otivation
Eccles et al. *=>>B+ summariJed #or% on the early development of childrenHs interests. #hich
sho#s that children have general or universal interests at first. #hich ecome more specific relatively
quic%ly *see also )odt. =>>A+. )odt *=>>A+ argued that this early differentiation eventually leads to
individual differences in interests in the social versus the natural sciences. )he neKt phase of interest
development ' et#een G and B years of age ' is characteriJed y the formation of gender'specific
interests. According to (ohlerg *=>77+. the acquisition of gender identity leads to gender'specific
ehaviors. attitudes. and interests. 3hildren strive to ehave consistently #ith their gender identity. and.
thus. evaluate activities or oLects consistent #ith their gender identity more positively than other
activities or oLects. As a consequence. oys and girls develop gender role stereotyped interests *see
Eccles. =>B:I Rule , Martin. =>>B+.
At the neKt stage *ages > ' =G+ ' the emerging self'concept is assumed to e lin%ed more directly
to social group affiliation and cognitive aility. leading to occupational interests consistent #ith oneNs
social class and aility self'concepts *see 3oo% et al.. =>>7+. )he final stage *occurring after age =G or =5+
is characteriJed y an orientation to the internal. unique self leading to more differentiated and
individualiJed vocational interests. ased on astract concepts of self *e.g.. of personality+. )hus. the
development of vocational interests is a process of continuous elimination of interests that do not fit the
self'concepts of oneNs gender. social group affiliation. aility. and then personal identity *)odt. =>>A+.
)his process is assumed to depend mainly on the general cognitive development of the child or adolescent.
4t is also li%ely that changing needs or motives across the life span can influence the development
of interests. A good eKample is the increasing interest in iology and psychology during puerty. )he need
to %no# oneself and to cope #ith rapid odily and psychological changes seems to foster interest in
iological and psychological domains of %no#ledge at this age *)odt. =>>A+.
3onsistent #ith studies of American children *e.g.. Eccles et al.. =>>GI ?ottfried et al.. FAA=I
6arter. =>B=I Wigfield et al.. =>>=+. several European researchers have found that that interest and
intrinsic motivation in different suLect areas school decline across the school years. )his is especially true
for the natural sciences and mathematics *e.g.. 6edelin , SLoerg. =>B>+ and particularly during the early
adolescent years. &e%run *=>>G+ found that intrinsic motivation stailiJed after eighth grade. and
26
Motivation
?ottfried et al. *FAA=+ reported surprisingly high staility coefficients for intrinsic motivation measured
across a one year period for children ages =G and aove.
!aumert *=>>@+ argued that the decline in school'related interests during adolescence reflects a
more general developmental process in #hich the adolescents discover ne# fields of eKperience that lead
to ne# interests and reduce the dominant influence of school *cf.. Eder. =>>F+. 4n contrast. other
researchers have suggested that changes in a numer of instructional variales li%e clarity of presentation.
monitoring of #hat happens in the classroom. supportive ehavior. cognitively stimulating eKperiences.
self'concept of the teacher Oeducator vs. scientistP. and achievement pressure may contriute to declining
interest in school mathematics and science *e.g.. Eccles , Midgley. =>B>+.
Develoment of Children,s 0oal 2rientations
)here still is not a large ody of #or% on the development of childrenHs goals and goal orientations *see E.
Anderman et al. FAAF for revie# of eKtant #or%+. 4nstead. most of the #or% has focused on relations of goals to
aility eliefs. and ho# different instructional conteKts influence achievement goals. 2or instance. D#ec% and her
colleagues loo%ed at relations of childrenHs eliefs aout aility and their goal orientations. and found that
performance goal oriented children only sho# mastery ehavior #hen their perceived aility is high. !y contrast.
mastery oriented children engage in mastery'oriented ehavior irrespective of their perceived aility *!urhans ,
D#ec%. =>>@I Smiley , D#ec%. =>>5+. !utler and her colleagues have done an elegant series of studies in #hich
they have sho#n ho# different learning conditions *competitive or non'competitiveI performance or mastery
focused+ influence childrenHs susequent motivation. and found quite interesting differences in motivation
depending upon these conditions *see Eccles et al. =>>B. for revie#+.
Maehr. Midgley. and their colleagues conducted a numer of studies loo%ing at ho# classroom
instructional practices relate to childrenHs goal orientations and ho# these relations may change over time. 0.
Anderman and E. Anderman *=>>>+ reported that adolescents endorse performance goals more than mastery goals.
A maLor reason for this li%ely is that schools increasingly emphasiJe performance goals as children get older. 1ne
clear eKample of this is ho# evaluations of different %inds proliferate. and have stronger consequences for
adolescentsH futures. Midgley and their colleagues #or% *Midgley. FAAF+ has sho#n t#o maLor things #ith respect
to this point/ =+ elementary school teachers focus on mastery oriented goals to a greater eKtent than do middle
school teachers. and F+ middle school students perceive school as more performance'oriented than do elementary
school students. )hus any oserved changes in childrenHs goal orientations seem very ound up in changes in the
school goal culture. We return to this issue in a later section.
?oal orientations often are studied at a relatively general level. ut some researchers have loo%ed at goal
orientations to#ards particular school activities. Meece and Miller *FAA=+ studied the development during
elementary of studentsH goal orientations in reading and #riting. loo%ing at performance goals. mastery goals. and
#or% avoidant goals. )he found that childrenHs goal orientation #ere reasonaly stale over a one'year periodI the
lagged correlations #ere .55 for tas% mastery goals. .@B for performance goals. and .5@ for #or%'avoidance goals.
With respect to change over time. follo#ing prediction childrenHs mastery goals decreased over time. 3ontrary to
prediction. performance goals did as #ell. )he pattern of change in #or% avoidant goals #as less consistent.
)here is much less #or% on the development of the content of childrenHs goals. )hus. #e %no# very little
aout ho# the contents of childrenHs goals vary across age and conteKt.
Develoment of Self!1eg%lation and Volition
Eccles et al. *=>>B+ revie#ed #or% estalishing t#o general developmental points concerning self'
regulation. 2irst. childrenNs aility to self'regulate increases dramatically across the toddler period *!ulloc% ,
0ut%enhaus. =>BB+ due to increases in aility to focus on oth the outcomes of their ehaviors and the ehaviors
themselves *see Mischel , Mischel. =>BG+. increases in understanding of the self as a causal agent *!andura. =>>:.
Jennings. =>>=. S%inner. =>>@+. and increases in oth the aility and desire to evaluate the success or failure of
oneHs achievement efforts *6ec%hausen. =>B:I Stipe% et al.. =>>F+. Second. parents play a critical role in the eKtent
to #hich children regulate their o#n ehavior. 2or instance. oth the #ays parents define and organiJe tas%s for
the children. and the control strategies they use. have a ig impact on very young childrenNs aility to regulate their
ehavior *e.g.. use of indirect commands. veral controls. and reasoning facilitates the early development of self'
regulation. see (opp. =>>=+.
27
Motivation
2rom the self'determination theory perspective. development involves the process of internaliJation.
#here children ta%e increasing control over their o#n ehavior and thus ecome more self'determined *see Deci ,
Ryan. FAAF+. ?rolnic% and her colleagues *FAAF+ discussed the important role of autonomy support in the
development of self'determination and intrinsic motivation. )hey revie#ed research sho#ing that #hen parents
and teachers support childrenHs autonomy children have more positive competence eliefs. greater intrinsic
motivation. and higher self'esteem. Along #ith autonomy support ?rolnic% et al. stressed the roles of affective
support. involvement in childrenHs lives. and the provision of adequate structure in childrenHs environments as
fostering the development of self'determination.
)urning to self'regulated learning. Cimmerman *FAAA+ proposed a four'step developmental sequence of
self'regulation. 3hildren first learn effective strategies y oserving successful models and focusing on process
goals. Second. children imitate the strategies. follo#ing #hat the model did relatively closely. )hird. they learn to
use the strategies apart from the modelI Cimmerman called this self'controlled learning. Although children do the
strategies on their o#n. they still are dependent on the model. 2inally. in the self'regulated phase children egin to
oth use the strategies in different situations and tailor them to their o#n purposes. )hey also focus more on
outcome goals. Research is eginning to sho# that individualsH aility to learn different ehaviors relates to the
%ind of regulatory training they eKperience. (itsantas. Cimmerman. and 3leary *FAAA+ found that novice learners
learned est #hen learning from models rather than simply receiving performance feedac% on their o#n
performance. Cimmerman and (itsantas *=>>>+ found that as students moved through the levels of regulatory s%ill
they learned more efficiently #hen focused on outcome goals rather than process goals. ecause the former
matched more clearly their level of self'regulation.
&intrich and Cusho *FAAF+ also discussed the development of self'regulation. discussing oth phases of
self'regulation li%e those #e discussed earlier and different areas that need to e regulated *cognition. motivation.
ehavior. and conteKt+. 0i%e Eccles et al. *=>>B+ they noted that children ecome more efficient at regulating their
cognition and ehavior. and possily their motivation. as they get older. )hey also discussed. ho#ever. that older
children may %no# ho# to regulate these areas ut oftentimes do not. reflecting the pervasive
competenceDperformance distinction that occurs in many areas of psychology. &intrich and Cusho revie#ed
specific aspects of cognition and motivation that relate to the aility to self'regulate learning and ehavior. With
respect to motivation. oneHs level of efficacy. degree of interest in the activity. and goals for it all relate to
childrenHs self'regulation. When children are efficacious. interested in the activity they are doing. and hold
learning goals. they are more li%ely to regulate their ehavior to accomplish a certain activity *see also Wolters.
FAAG+. 2urther. there are potentially interesting developmental issues #ith respect to each of these motivational
constructs. 2or instance. younger childrenHs competence and efficacy eliefs relate less closely to their actual
ehavior. and *particularly #ith respect to competence eliefs+ often are overly optimistic. #hich may mean that
younger children do not see the need to carefully regulate their actions to produce an outcome. As competence
eliefs and performance ecome more closely calirated this li%ely changes. With respect to goal orientations. if
mastery goals ecome less prevalent and performance goals more prevalent then self'regulation may decline *ut
see &intrich. FAAA. on multiple path#ays to different outcomes+.
With respect to the use of different self'regulatory strategies. Cimmerman and MartineJ'&ons *=>>A+
found a compleK pattern of differences across age in use of these strategies y older children and adolescents.
Researchers have not yet systematically tested ho# strategies. goals. and self'efficacy interact to influence the
regulation of learning in different'aged children. Additionally. it #ould e useful to compare CimmermanHs model
#ith Deci and RyanNs discussion of the development of internaliJed regulation.
)here is some developmental #or% on volitional strategies. 2or eKample. (uhl and (ras%a *=>B>+. in
?erman and MeKican elementary school'aged children. found increases in childrenNs aility to use all of the
strategies eKcept for emotion control. !ut more developmental #or% is needed here as #ell.
)he Development and Remediation of Motivational &rolems
Many children begin to experience motivational problems during the school years We focus on three
motivational problems that have received the most attention in the literature: test anxiety, learned helplessness, and
apathy. The first two of these problems are tied to beliefs about not being able to do different activities, whereas
the third emerges when children devalue achievement related activities.
28
Motivation
Anxiety
Anxiety, and its close cousin test anxiety, is estimated to interfere with the learning and performance,
particularly in evaluative situations, of as many as 10 million children and adolescents in the USA (Hill &
Wigfield, 1984; Tobias, 1985; Wigfield & Eccles, 1989), and this problem likely will get worse as evaluation and
accountability become more emphasized in schools (Deci & Ryan, 2002b; Zeidner, 1998). Anxiety often is
conceptualized as having two components, worry and emotionality, with worry referring to cognitive ruminations
and emotionality referring to physiological reactions (see Morris, Davis, & Hutchings, 1981). Researchers have
focused on the cognitive/worry aspect of anxiety because worry is more strongly and negatively related to
performance than emotionality (e.g., Morris et al., 1981; Sarason, 1980).
Researchers *e.g.. Duse%. =>BAI 6ill , Wigfield. =>B5I Wigfield , Eccles. =>B>I Ceidner. =>>B+ postulate
that high anKiety emerges #hen parents have overly high eKpectations and put too much pressure on their children.
ut fe# studies have tested this proposition. AnKiety continues to develop across the school years as children face
more frequent evaluation. social comparison. and *for some+ eKperiences of failureI to the eKtent that schools
emphasiJe these characteristics. anKiety ecomes a prolem for more children *6ill , Wigfield. =>B5+. With a fe#
important eKceptions *e.g.. Silverman. ?reca. , Wasserstein. =>>@I -asey , Daleiden. =>>5I Ceidner. =>>B+.
#or% on anKiety has diminished. 1ne reason for this is the argument that anKiety is simply the flip side of
negative Ludgments aout oneNs aility and efficacy. 2or instance. "icholls *=>:7+ concluded that many items on
one of the maLor scales used to measure anKiety. the )est AnKiety Scale for 3hildren. refer to negative aility
eliefs. When he separated the aility and anKiety items. the aility items related more strongly to indicators of
achievement than the anKiety items *c.f.. !andura. =>>:I Meece et al.. =>>A+. Second is increasing interest in
other %inds of emotions and their relations to motivation and achievement *see &e%run. FAAA+.
$n*iety 'ntervention Programs
Many programs have een developed to reduce anKiety *Denny. =>BAI Wigfield , Eccles. =>B>I Ceidner.
=>>B+. Earlier intervention programs. emphasiJing the emotionality aspect of anKiety. focused on relaKation and
desensitiJation techniques. Although these programs did reducing anKiety. they did not al#ays lead to improved
performance. and the studies had serious methodological fla#s. AnKiety intervention programs lin%ed to the #orry
aspect of anKiety focus on changing the negative. self'deprecating thoughts of anKious individuals and replacing
them #ith more positive. tas%'focused thoughts *e.g.. see Denny. =>BAI Meichenaum , !utler. =>BA+. )hese
programs have een more successful oth in lo#ering anKiety and improving performance.
3earned Hellessness
M0earned helplessness ... eKists #hen an individual perceives the termination of failure to e independent
of his responsesM *D#ec% , ?oetJ. =>:B. p. =@:+. Eccles et al. *=>>B+ revie#ed the early #or% *primarily y
D#ec% and her colleagues+ on ho# helpless and mastery oriented children differ in their responses to failure *see
also D#ec% , Elliott. =>BGI D#ec% , 0eggett. =>BB+. When confronted y difficulty *or failure+. mastery oriented
children persist. stay focused on the tas%. and sometimes even use more sophisticated strategies. 4n contrast.
helpless childrenNs performance deteriorates. they ruminate aout their difficulties. often egin to attriute their
failures to lac% of aility. 2urther. helpless children adopt the MentityM vie# that their intelligence is fiKed. #hereas
mastery oriented children adopt the incremental vie# of intelligence.
As noted earlier. the 9optimism to realism< pattern of change in childrenHs aility'related elief led some
researchers to conclude that helplessness is less li%ely to occur in younger children. D#ec% and her colleaguesH
more recent #or% *e.g.. !urhans , D#ec%. =>>@+ sho#s that in fact some young *@ and 7 year old+ children
respond quite negatively to failure feedac%. sho#ing the helpless pattern and Ludging themselves to e ad people
*c.f.. Stipe% et al.. =>>F+. 4ndeed. they proposed that young childrenNs helplessness is ased more on their
Ludgments that their #orth as persons is contingent on their performance than on having a mature entity vie# of
intelligence. )his #or% y suggests an important developmental modification to D#ec% and 0eggetNs *=>BB+
model of learned helpless versus master oriented motivational styles that is ased in eliefs aout intelligence and
goals.
What else influences the emergence of individual differences in learned helplessness in children; D#ec%
and ?oetJ *=>:B+ stressed the importance of #hether children receive feedac% that their failures are due to lac% of
29
Motivation
aility or lac% of s%ills and effort from parents and teachers. 4n support. 6o%oda and 2incham *=>>@+ found that
mothers of helpless third grade children *in comparison to mothers of mastery'oriented children+ gave fe#er
positive affective comments to their children. #ere more li%ely to respond to their childrenNs lac% of confidence in
their aility y telling them to quit. #ere less responsive to their childrenNs ids for help. and did not focus them on
mastery goals. Recently D#ec% and 0ennon *FAA=+ found that studentsH perceptions that their parents had entity
vie#s of intelligence *measured in terms of the %inds of feedac% they #ould provide their children aout different
achievement outcomes+ predicted their o#n vie#s of intelligence. 2or instance. students perceiving their parents
had an entity vie# #ere more li%ely themselves to have an entity vie#.
$lleviating 3earned Hellessness
-arious training techniques *including operant conditioning and providing specific attriutional feedac%+
have een used successfully to change childrenNs failure attriutions from lac% of aility to lac% of effort. improving
their tas% persistence. and performance *e.g.. Andre#s , Deus. =>:BI D#ec%. =>:@I 2orsterling. =>B@+. )#o
prolems #ith these approaches have een noted. 2irst. #hat if the child is already trying very hard; )hen the
attriution re'training may e counter productive. Second. telling children to Mtry harderM #ithout providing
specific strategies designed to improve performance is li%ely to ac% fire if the children increase their efforts and
still do not succeed. )herefore. some researchers advocate using strategy re'training in comination #ith
attriution retraining in order to provide lo#er achieving andDor learned helpless children #ith specific #ays to
remedy their achievement prolems. !or%o#s%i and his colleagues. for eKample. have sho#n that a comined
program of strategy instruction and attriution re'training is more effective than strategy instruction alone in
increasing reading motivation and performance in underachieving students *e.g.. !or%o#s%i. Weyhing. , 3arr.
=>BBI &aris , !yrnes. =>B>+.
St%dent $athy
Apathy has more to do #ith studentsH sense of the value of participating in different activities rather than
their eliefs aout #hether they are capale of accomplishing the activity. 3hildren #ho are apathetic aout
learning or participating in other activities do not find much #orth#hile to do in school or in other situations. and
may even e so alienated from these activities that they actively resist attempts to get them involved. !rophy
*FAA5+ contended that apathy is the most serious motivational prolem that teachers most contend #ith in their
students. more serious than learned helplessness or anKiety. )he apathy construct has some overlap #ith the
construct of amotivation in SD) *-allerand et al.. =>>G+.
)here has not een a lot of research on the development of apathy. ut different researchers have
discussed possile reasons for it. )hese range from road social and cultural eKplanations to more psychologically
oriented ones. 1guHs *=>>F+ discussion of #hy some minority children do #ell in school and others do not is an
eKample of a road cultural approach to this issue. 3hildren #ho elieve their ethnic or racial group is eKcluded
from meaningful participation in the economic structure of this country may find little reason to engage in the
school activities said to e needed to otain good occupations. 1gu has argued that such children often ecome
oppositional to participation in school activities. resisting attempts of teachers to engage them in learning
activities. We return to this issue later. A more psychological perspective on apathy can e dra#n from Mar%us
and "uriusHs *=>B7+ #or% on possile selves. Mar%us and "urius argued that possile selves provide an important
motivational force for engagement in different activities such as school or sport activities. 4f children do not see
much of a future for themselves in these or other domains they li%ely #ill not see much reason to e involved in
school or other activities designed to prepare them for the future. and so may e very apathetic aout ecoming
involved in such activities.
We noted that apathy stems from the de'valuing of different %inds of activities rather than from childrenHs
perceptions of their competence to accomplish them. ut the interplay of competence eliefs and values may play a
crucial role in the development of apathy. Recall our earlier discussion of ho# children maintain their self'#orth
y valuing those activities at #hich they are competent. and de'valuing activities #here they are doing less #ell.
3hildren doing poorly at school may egin to de'value school achievement. as a #ay to protect their self'esteem
*see 3ovington. =>>F+. )his de'valuing could lead to apathy. again as a self'protective mechanism. Engaging in
learning has ris%s. particularly for students not doing #ell. and one #ay to protect against those ris%s is to e
apathetic aout learning.
30
Motivation
2inally. there li%ely are different developmental traLectories for the development of apathy. We noted t#o
maLor possiilities to this point. children #ho perceive fe# opportunities for themselves or for their group and so
come to de'value school. or children #ho egin to do poorly in school and so egin to de'value it as a #ay to
protect their self'esteem. We use school activities to illustrate these points. ut it should e noted that these
patterns could occur for other %inds of activities as #ell. Another traLectory occurs for students doing #ell in
school during the early school years and #ho come from ac%grounds and cultural groups #ho generally have
succeeded in our society. ut #ho decide *for a variety of reasons+ to no longer engage in school. )hese children
may ecome alienated from school and therefore apathetic aout participating in school activities *"ational
Research 3ouncil. FAA5+. )o date there is little developmental #or% on any of these traLectories. and that should e
underta%en.
S%mmary
4n summary. #or% on anKiety. learned helplessness. and apathy sho#s that some children suffer from
motivational prolems that can deilitate their performance in achievement situations. and lead them to disengage
from school and other achievement activities. Although most of the #or% in developmental and educational
psychology has focused on these prolems. there li%ely are other important motivational prolems as #ell. 4n
particular. some children may set maladaptive achievement goals. and others may have difficulties regulating their
achievement ehaviors. More comprehensive #or% on these %inds of motivational prolems and ho# they affect
childrenNs achievement is needed
)he Development of ?ender Differences in Motivation
0ender Differences in )otivation and $chievement
Despite recent efforts to increase the participation of #omen in advanced educational training and high
status professional fields. #omen are still under'represented in many fields. particularly those associated #ith
technology. physics and applied mathematics and at the highest levels of almost all fields *see Wigfield. !attle.
(eller. , Eccles. FAAF+. Efforts to understand these persistent seK differences in achievement patterns have
produced a proliferation of theories and research *see Mc?illicuddy' De 0isi , De 0isi. FAAF. for revie#+. Eccles
and her colleagues originally proposed their eKpectancy ' value model of achievement choices *see 2igure =+ as an
effort to organiJe this disparate research into a comprehensive theoretical frame#or% *see Eccles O&arsonsP et al..
=>BGI Wigfield , Eccles. FAAF+. )his model predicts that people #ill e most li%ely to enroll in courses and
choose careers that they thin% they #ill do #ell in and that have high tas% value for them. EKpectations for success
depend on the confidence the individual has in hisDher intellectual ailities and on the individualNs estimations of
the difficulty of the course or activity. )hese eliefs have een shaped y the individualNs eKperiences #ith the
suLect matter. y the individualNs suLective interpretation of those eKperiences *e.g.. does the person thin% that
herDhis successes are a consequence of high aility or lots of hard #or%;+ and y cultural stereotypes regarding oth
the difficulty of the course and the distriution of relevant talents across various sugroups. )he value of a
particular course is also influenced y several factors including the follo#ing/ Does the person li%e doing the
suLect material; 6o# #ell does the course fit #ith the individualHs self'concepts. goals. and values; 4s the course
seen as instrumental in meeting one of the individualNs long or short range goals; 6ave the individualNs parents or
counselors insisted that the course e ta%en or. conversely. have other people tried to discourage the individual
from ta%ing the course; Does ta%ing the course interfere #ith other goals and values activities; EKisting evidence.
revie#ed neKt. supports the conclusion that gender'role socialiJation and internaliJation are li%ely to lead to
gender differences in each of these road motivational categories. #hich. in turn. could contriute to the under
representation of #omen in many high achievement'oriented occupations and activities *see Eccles. =>>5+.
0ender Differences in Cometence!1elated &eliefs, Ca%sal $ttrib%tions, and Control &eliefs
?ender differences. often favoring males. in competence eliefs are often reported. particularly in gender'
role stereotyped domains and on novel tas%s. and these differences are apparent as early as %indergarten or first
grade. if not efore. 2or eKample. gifted and high achieving females are more li%ely to underestimate oth their
aility level and their class standing *2rome , Eccles. =>>@+. 4n other studies. the gender difference depends on
the gender'role stereotyping of the activity. 2or eKample. oys hold higher competence eliefs than girls for math
and sports. even after all relevant s%ill'level differences are controlledI in contrast. girls have higher competence
eliefs than oys for reading and English. music and arts. and social studies. Recent #or% *Jacos et al.. FAAF+
sho#s that the gender differences in competence eliefs in math narro# during adolescence. ut those in English
remain. 2urther. the eKtent to #hich children endorse the cultural stereotypes regarding #hich seK is li%ely to e
most talented in each domain predicts the eKtent to #hich girls and oys distort their aility self'concepts and
31
Motivation
eKpectations in the gender stereotypic direction *Eccles , 6arold. =>>=+. 6o#ever. these seK differences are
generally relatively small #hen they are found *Marsh. =>B>+.
?ender differences are also sometimes found for locus of control. #ith girls having higher internal locus
of responsiility scores for oth positive and negative achievement events and the older girls had higher internality
for negative events than did the younger girls *3randall et al.. =>7@+. )hese t#o developmental patterns resulted in
the older girls accepting more lame for negative events than the older oys *c.f.. D#ec% , ?oetJ. =>:B+. 3onnell
*=>B@+ found that oys attriuted their outcomes more than girls to either po#erful others or un%no#n causes in
oth the cognitive and social domains.
)his greater propensity for girls to ta%e personal responsiility for their failures. coupled #ith their more
frequent attriution of failure to lac% of aility *a stale. uncontrollale cause+ has een interpreted as evidence of
greater learned helplessness in females *see D#ec% , 0icht. =>BA+. 6o#ever. evidence for gender differences on
ehavioral indicators of learned helplessness is quite miKed. 4n most studies of underachievers. oys outnumer
girls F to = *see Mc3all. Evahn. (ratJer. =>>F+. Similarly. oys are more li%ely than girls to e referred y their
teachers for motivational prolems and are more li%ely to drop out of school efore completing high school. More
consistent evidence eKists that females. compared to males. select easier laoratory tas%s. avoid challenging and
competitive situations. lo#er their eKpectations more follo#ing failure. shift more quic%ly to a different college
maLor #hen their grades egin to drop. and perform more poorly than they are capale of on difficult. timed tests
*see D#ec% , 0icht. =>BAI Spencer. Steele. , 8uinn. =>>>+.
?ender differences also emerge regularly in studies of anKiety *e.g.. 6ill , Sarason. =>77I Meece et al..
=>>A+. 6o#ever. 6ill and Sarason suggested that oys may e more defensive than girls aout admitting anKiety on
questionnaires. 4n support of this suggestion. 0ord. Eccles. and Mc3arthy *=>>5+ found that test anKiety #as a
more significant predictor of poor adLustment to Lunior high school for oys even though the girls reported higher
mean levels of anKiety.
3losely related to the anKiety findings. Spencer et al. *=>>>+ documented another motivational mechanism
li%ely to undermine femalesH performance on difficult timed tests/ stereotype vulneraility. )hey hypothesiJe that
memers of social groups *li%e females+ stereotyped as eing less competent in a particular suLect area *li%e math+
#ill ecome anKious #hen as%ed to do difficult prolems ecause they are afraid the stereotype might e true of
them. )his vulneraility is also li%ely to ma%e them respond more negatively to failure feedac%. leading to
lo#ering their eKpectations and their confidence in their aility to succeed. )hey gave college students a difficult
math test under different conditions/ *=+ after eing told that males typically do etter on this test. or *F+ after eing
told that males and females typically do aout the same. or *G+ gender differences #ere not mentioned. )he #omen
scored lo#er than the males only in the first condition.
4n sum. #hen gender differences emerge on competence'related measures of motivation. they are oth
consistent #ith gender'role stereotypes and are li%ely mediators of gender differences in various types of
achievement'related ehaviors and choices.
0ender Differences in $chievement Val%es
Eccles. Wigfield and their colleagues have found gender'role stereotypic differences in oth childrenHs
and adolescentsH valuing of sports. social activities. and English that egin quite early in the course of childrenHs
development *e.g. Eccles et al.. =>B>I Eccles et al.. =>>GI Wigfield et al.. =>>=+. 4n Eccles et al. *=>>G+. girls also
valued instrumental music more than oys. Earlier #or% sho#ed gender differences in math value favoring oys
emerging during adolescence *Eccles. =>B5+. ut more recent studies sho# that oys and girls value math equally
during adolescence *Jacos et al.. FAAF+. Although oys and girls no# appear to value math equally. girls are less
interested in science *#ith the eKception of iology+ and engineering than are oys. and enroll much less frequently
in these maLors in college *see Wigfield. !attle et al.. FAAF. for revie#+. Eccles et al. *=>>B+ revie#ed the #or% on
the psychological processes that underlie some of these seK differences in childrenHs achievement values.
Disidentification. Earlier #e discussed the relationship et#een values and competence'related eliefs.
Dra#ing on the #ritings of William James *=B>FD=>7G+. #e suggested that children #ill lo#er the value they
attach to particular activities or suLect areas if they lac% confidence in these areas in order to maintain their self'
esteem *see also 6arter. =>>A+. Spencer et al. *=>>>+ suggested a similar phenomenon related to stereotype
32
Motivation
vulneraility. )hey hypothesiJed that #omen #ill disidentify #ith those suLect areas in #hich females are
stereotyped as less competent than males. !y disidentifying #ith these areas. the #omen #ill not only lo#er the
value they attach to these suLect areas. they #ill also e less li%ely to eKperience pride and positive affect #hen
they are doing #ell in these suLects. 3onsequently. these suLects should ecome irrelevant to their self'esteem.
)hese hypotheses need further testing.
)he Development of ?roup Differences in Motivation/ )he Roles of 3ulture.
Ethnicity. and 4mmigration
As is the case in many areas of psychology *see ?raham. =>>F+. less is %no#n aout the motivation of
children from racial and ethnic groups other than European'Americans. 6o#ever. #or% in this area is gro#ing
quic%ly. #ith much of it focusing on the academic prolems and prospects of African'American *see 6are. =>B@I
Meece , (urtJ'3ostes. FAA=I Slaughter'Defoe. "a%aga#a. )a%anishi. , Johnson. =>>A+I MeKican'American
*e.g.. &adilla , ?onJaleJ. FAA=I &ortes , Rumaut. FAA=+I and Asian'American youth *2uligni , )seng. =>>>I
0ee. =>>5+. oth those orn in this country and those #ho have immigrated here. Motivation theorists increasingly
are interested in the applicaility of their theoretical models to diverse groups of children. 2or instance. in a recent
volume edited y Mc4nerney and -an Etten *FAA5+ theorists representing many of the theoretical perspectives
revie#ed in this chapter discussed the role of culture in their theoretical vie#s.
)his an important time for rene#ed interest in ho# culture. ethnicity. and immigration relate to
childrenHs academic motivation. achievement. and future educational plans and attainments. as emerging and on'
going demographic trends in the United States and in developed countries all over the #orld in sho# that large
scale immigration is ta%ing place. 2or instance. in the United States today. the school'aged population stands at
aout @5 million individuals and is as large and diverse as it has ever een in U.S. history *U.S. Department of
Education. FAAGa+. As of FAAF. approKimately 5AU of the entire school'aged population #as a memer of an
ethnic group other than European'American. a large Lump from the early =>:As that is due mainly to large'scale
immigration from MeKico and certain East Asian countries *U.S. Department of Education. FAAF+. )hus. a
significant proportion of the school'aged population today. approKimately FAU. are 9"e# Americans< #ho are
gro#ing up in immigrant families *&ortes , Rumaut. FAA=I SuareJ'1roJco , SuareJ'1roJco. FAA=+.
)his chapter is aout motivation and not achievement. ut it is important to understand achievement
differences across groups in order to understand motivational differences. )here are many individual differences
#ithin given groups. ut overall Asian American children *oth recent immigrants and those orn here+ perform
etter than many European American children. )hese t#o groups continue to outperform African American
children and 0atina and MeKican American children. MeKican American children have a very high school drop
out rate relative to these other groups *US Department of Education. FAAG+.
)here are interesting generational differences in these effects. and also interesting gender differences.
2or instance. despite traditional socialiJation practices in many cultures that can eKert strong pressures on females
to#ard traditional gender roles associated #ith the home and not achievement in the 9outside< #orld *e.g.. 1lson.
=>>:+. there is evidence that second generation immigrant females. li%e U.S. orn females in general. tend to
outperform their male counterparts in school and aspire to go further educationally and occupationally as #ell
*&ortes , Rumaut. FAA=+. Understanding motivational dynamics ehind these achievement differences is an
important tas%. and so #e no# turn to a discussion of the development of differences in motivation across different
racial and ethnic groups.
Researchers interested in issues of culture. motivation. and achievement have eKamined the #ays
in #hich/ *a+ culture informs the development of self. motives and ehavioral scripts associated #ith
achievement *e.g.. Mar%us , (itayama. =>>=I 1gu. =>B=+I *+ culture shapes group memersH construal
of the meaning of success and failure efore and after achievement eKperiences *e.g.. 6eine et al.. FAA=I
?rant , D#ec%. FAA=+I *c+ culture influences ho# universal and individual psychological needs are
eKpressed *e.g.. 3hir%ov. Ryan. (im , (aplan. FAAG+I and *d+ culture influences engagement in the
classroom *e.g.. ?reeno. 3ollins. , Resnic%. =>>7I 6ic%ey , Mc3aslin. FAA=I Roeser , "asir. in press+.
We focus on the first three of these as a pac%age in this section. and the fourth in the section on school
influences on motivation.
3ontemporary cultural psychology focuses on variation in the self lin%ed to culture'specific
socialiJation practices. 1ne maLor distinction in this #or% socialiJation practices anchored in more
33
Motivation
individualistic *priority place on goals and preferences of the self+ and those anchored in more
collectivist *priority placed on needs and norms of the group+ cultural traditions *)riandis , Suh.
FAAF+. Mar%us and (itayama *=>>=+ developed the notion of 9cultural frame< as a #ay of descriing
ho# cultural socialiJation practices come to literally inform the self. 3ultural frames are meaning
systems comprised of language. tacit social understandings. and scripts for enacting these social
understandings in daily life. 4ndividualHs self construals *i.e. the individualHs understandings aout
#hat it means to e a person in the #orld+ are a critical component of these cultural frames. Mar%us
and (itayama *=>>=+ outlined t#o different cultural frames. each associated #ith a specific self'
construal/ independence and interdependence. 4n the independent construal of self. individuals come
to see themselves as autonomous. self'contained. unique from others. and assertive in pursuing
personal goals and desires. 4n contrast. in the interdependent self'construal. individuals assign
primary significance to others in defining the self. feel a fundamental sense of connectedness to
others. and attend. first and foremost. to social roles. in'group norms. and oligations and
responsiilities to others *see 1yserman. 3oon. , (emmelmeier. FAAF. for a comprehensive revie#
of different strands of research on these t#o construals+. Self'construals are assumed to e the
seeded of goals and motives. including oneHs achievement'related goals and motives.
Although Lust eginning. research relating culture to motivation in this area tends to eKamine ho#
*culturally'informed+ self'construals influence *a+ the %inds of motivations that are prevalent for memers of
different cultural groups *the issue of approach and avoidance motivation+I *+ the %inds of values and goals
that are ta%en up into the self y memers of different cultural groups *the issue of diversity in goal content+.
and *c+ the %inds of meanings that individuals from different cultural groups ma%e oth efore and after
engaging #ith an achievement tas% *issues of meaning and appraisal+. 2or eKample. Elliot. 3hir%ov. (im ,
Sheldon *FAA=+ hypothesiJed that individualistic self'construals should promote approach motivation in
#hich goals associated #ith self'assertion are focalI in contrast. interdependent self'construals should
promote avoidance motivation in #hich goals associated #ith the reduction of group discord are focal. )hey
found some support for these hypotheses in a cross'cultural study of college students. Among non'Asian
college students. small correlations eKist et#een self'as'independent and approach goals and et#een self'
as'interdependent and avoidance goals. !oth Asian'American college students and students from more
collectivist societies *(orea and Russia+ report higher levels of avoidance motivation than European'
American college students.
)hese findings are consistent #ith studies suggesting that oth the level and impact of avoidance
motivation on achievement may e greater among individuals from cultural groups that emphasiJe
interdependence and group memership. 2or instance. Eaton and Demo *=>>:+ found that the fear of failure *an
avoidance motive+ est predicted >
th
grade Asian and Asian'American studentsH performance on an intellectual
tas%I in contrast. the non'Asian studentsH performance #as est predicted y their eliefs aout the incremental
nature of intelligence. the importance of effort. and their self'efficacy. )he authors interpreted these findings in
relation to cultural dimensions of Asian cultures such as collectivism in #hich avoidance motives serve the
function of maintaining group harmony.
0oo%ing more directly at the association of culture to individualHs vie# of such asic universal needs
as autonomy. 3hir%ov et al. *FAAG+ tested the proposition that individuals can 9ta%e up< cultural practices
associated #ith collectivism and individualism in either a self'determined *autonomous+ or an other'controlled
*heteronymous+ #ay in a study of undergraduates in )ur%ey. Russia. the United States. and South (orea.
Defining autonomy in terms of individualsH self'reported level of internaliJation of various collectivist or
individualistic cultural practices. they found considerale variation in the eKtent to #hich individuals #ithin
any culture too% up and internaliJed supposedly focal cultural practices. Despite this variation. Americans
sa# their culture as relatively individualistic. South (oreans sa# their culture as relatively collectivistic. and
Russians sa# their culture as a miKture of oth. 2urther. the greater the degree of internaliJation of any type of
cultural practice *#hether collectivist or individualist+. the greater the association of that elief #ith #ell
eing. )he eKtension of this #or% to eKamine ho# such cultural orientations. and their level of
internaliJation. affect young peopleHs goals and values in relation to education is Lust eginning.
Researchers also have loo%ed at racial and ethnic group differences in the achievement eliefs. values. and
goals #e have een discussing. and #e turn to that #or% neKt.
34
Motivation
1acial and Ethnic 0ro% Differences in Children,s Cometence, Control, and $ttrib%tion &eliefs
?raham *=>>5+ revie#ed the literature on differences et#een African'American and European'American
students on such motivational constructs as need for achievement. locus of control. achievement attriutions. and
aility eliefs and eKpectancies. She concluded that. in general. the differences are not very large. 2urther. she
argued that many eKisting studies have not adequately distinguished et#een race and socioeconomic status.
ma%ing it very difficult to interpret any differences that emerge. 3ooper and Dorr *=>>@+ did a meta'analysis of
many of the same studies revie#ed y ?raham. )here #ere important points of agreement across the t#o revie#s.
ut 3ooper and Dorr concluded that there is evidence suggesting race differences in need for achievement favoring
Whites. especially in lo#er SES and younger samples.
Research on competence eliefs and eKpectancies has revealed more optimism among African' American
children than among European'American children. even #hen the European'American children are achieving
higher mar%s *e.g.. Stevenson. 3hen. , Uttal. =>>A+. !ut more importantly. in Stevenson et al. *=>>A+ the
European'American childrenNs ratings of their aility related significantly to their performance. #hereas the
African' American childrenNs did not. ?raham *=>>5+ suggested the follo#ing eKplanations/ *=+ African'
American and European' American children may use different social comparison groups to help Ludge their o#n
ailitiesI and *F+ African' American children may say they are doing #ell to protect their general self'esteem. and
may also devalue or disidentify academic activities at #hich they do poorly in order to protect their self'esteem.
6o#ever. neither of these eKplanations has een adequately tested. 4f African' American childrenNs competence'
related eliefs indeed do not predict their school performance. then questions must e raised aout ho# relevant the
theories considered in this chapter are for understanding these childrenNs motivation.
1acial and Ethnic 0ro% Differences in $chievement Val%es and 0oals
)here are fe# ethnic comparative studies specifically focused on the %inds of achievement values
measured y Eccles. Wigfield. and their colleagues. or of the %inds of goals measured y "icholls. D#ec%. Ames.
and WentJel. Researchers studying minority childrenNs achievement values have focused instead on the roader
valuing of school y minority children and their parents. 4n general. these researchers find that minority children
and parents highly value school *particularly during the elementary school years+. and have high educational
aspirations for their children *e.g.. Stevenson et al.. =>>AI ?alper. Wigfield. , Seefeldt. =>>:+. 6o#ever. the
many difficulties associated #ith poverty may ma%e these educational aspirations difficult to attain *see Duncan.
!roo%s'?unn. , (leanov. =>>5I 6uston. Mc0oyd. , 3oll. =>>5I Mc0oyd. =>>A+.
4n t#o studies that did eKamine et#een'group differences in the achievement values among 0atino.
African'American. and White youth. ?raham. )aylor. and 6udley *=>>B+ and ?raham and )aylor *FAAF+ used a
peer nomination technique to assess group differences in achievement values. &articipants indicated #hich
children in their class they admired. respected. and #anted to e li%ed. and ?raham and her colleagues argued that
this is one #ay to gauge #hat children value. Results sho#ed that #hite. 0atino. and African American girls chose
high achieving girls as those #hom they admired. respected. and #anted to e li%e. 2or oys this #as only true for
#hite oysI the other t#o groups of oys admired lo# achievers more. 4n a third study they loo%ed at this issue
developmentally. and found that in second and fourth grades all children #ere more li%ely to nominate higher
achievers. 4n :
th
grade the seK'differentiated pattern for the different groups emerged. )his intriguing #or% needs
to e follo#ed up to loo% more closely at #hy the nomination patterns shift et#een fourth and seventh gradesI and
#hat it is aout entering adolescent and puerty that seems to cause many African' and MeKican'American youth
to endorse values and role'models that eKclude school achievement *e.g.. )atum. =>>:+.
4n a study of high school students in Australia. Mc4nerney. 6in%ley. Do#son. , -an Etten *=>>B+
tested #hether or not significant cultural differences et#een Anglo. immigrant. and Aoriginal Australians
#ould eventuate in different achievement goal profiles. )he found that Aoriginals #ere lo#er on mastery
and performance goals compared to the Anglo and immigrant Australians. "onetheless. mastery goals #ere
positively associated #ith achievement for all groups. )hat mastery goals may e interpreted differently y
memers of different cultural groups Q mastery as a means of self'improvement and role fulfillment
*interdependent self+ or mastery as a means of self'improvement and personal success *independent self+ Qmay
eKplain #hy this goal seems to operate effectively across a #ide diversity of cultural settings *Urdan. =>>:+.
35
Motivation
1ace, Ethnicity and )otivation at the 'nterface &et(een E*ectancies and Val%es
Researchers interested in ethnic and racial differences in achievement have proposed models lin%ing
social roles. competence'related eliefs. and values. 2or eKample. Steele *=>>F. =>>:+ proposed stereotype
vulneraility and disidentification to help eKplain the underachievement of African' American students *see also
Aronson. FAAF. Aronson , Steele. in press+/ 3onfronted throughout their school career #ith miKed messages
aout their competence and their potential and #ith the #idespread negative cultural stereotypes aout their
academic potential and motivation. African' American students should find it difficult to concentrate fully on their
school #or% due to the anKiety induced y their stereotype vulneraility *for support see Steele , Aronson. =>>@+.
4n turn. to protect their self'esteem. they should disidentify #ith academic achievement leading to oth a lo#ering
of the value they attach to academic achievement and a detachment of their self'esteem from oth positive and the
negative academic eKperiences. 4n support. several researchers have found that academic self'concept of aility is
less predictive of general self'esteem for some African' American children *Winston. Eccles. Senior. , -ida.
=>>:+. A %ey mediator of this process is African'Americans eliefs aout the nature of their intelligence *D#ec% ,
0eggett. =>BB+. 4n a recent eKperimental intervention #ith college students. Aronson. 2ried. , ?ood *FAA=+ found
that y encouraging African'American college students to adopt a mindset in #hich they vie#ed their o#n
intelligence as malleale. there #ere ale to increase their enLoyment and engagement in academics as #ell as their
grades compared to controls. )his eKciting research suggests have interventions at the level of the meaning of
intelligence and the purpose of learning may ear fruit for ameliorating the effect of stereotype threat on the
achievement of African'Americans.
2ordham and 1gu *=>B7+ have made a similar argument lin%ing African' American studentsN perception
of limited future Lo opportunities to lo#ered academic motivation/ Since society and schools give African'
American youth the dual message that academic achievement is unli%ely to lead to positive adult outcomes for
them and that they are not valued y the system. some African' American youth may create an oppositional culture
that reLects the value of academic achievement. 1gu *=>>F+ discussed ho# this dynamic #ill e stronger for
involuntary minorities #ho continue to e discriminated against y mainstream American culture *e.g.. African'
Americans+ than for voluntary minority immigrant groups *e.g.. recent immigrants from Southeast Asia+.
Although voluntary minorities have initial arriers to overcome due to language and cultural differences. these
arriers can e overcome some#hat more easily than the racism faced y involuntary minorities. giving voluntary
minorities greater access to mainstream culture and its enefits. )his analysis is intriguing. ut may oversimplify
the nature of different %inds of immigrants and not attend enough to individual differences #ithin these groups.
3ontrary to this vie#. several investigators found no evidence of greater disidentification #ith
school among African' American students *e.g.. Spencer. "oll. StoltJfus. , 6arpalani. FAA=I Steinerg.
Dornusch. , !ro#n. =>>FI )aylor et al.. =>>5+. !ut several studies sho# that disidentification.
particularly as a result of inequitale treatment and failure eKperiences at school. undermines achievement
and academic motivation *e.g.. see 2inn. =>B>I )aylor et al.. =>>5+. 4t is li%ely that some students.
particularly memers of involuntary minority groups. #ill have these eKperiences as they pass through the
secondary school system. 0ongitudinal studies of the process of disidentification and ho# to ameliorate it
#hen it occurs are needed.
4n summary. as researchers continue to highlight the importance of understanding racial. ethnic.
and immigrant variations in educational achievement given the demographic trends in our society *(ao ,
)hompson. FAAGI &ortes , Rumaut. FAA=+. a deeper understanding of the role of academic motivational
processes in eKplaining such variation in achievement ehavior among different cultural. ethnic. and
racial groups #ill continue to e critical topics of study in the developmental literature. as #ill further
#or% that #ill help us to understand etter the factors influencing the development of motivation in
diverse groups of children *?raham. =>>5I &intrich. FAAG+.
36
Motivation
)6E S134A04CA)41" 12 M1)4-A)41"/ &ARE")A0 4"20UE"3ES
4n the previous edition of this chapter. Eccles et al. *=>>B+ revie#ed the early literature on ho#
parents influence child motivation through socialiJation process. 4n the last decade. the
socialiJation research has ecome more focused and has egun to eKamine the various processes
and path#ays #here socialiJation strategies might e eKerting their influence *see 3ollins.
Maccoy. Steinerg. 6etherington. , !ornstein. FAAA+. )he research has also ecome more
general as the research has moved from the laoratory settings in #hich researchers lin% specific
parenting practices to specific motivational constructs ut generaliJaility is limited. to large'scale
nationally representative studies of child development and parenting *e.g. &anel Study of 4ncome
Dynamics'3hild Development Supplement. "ational 0ongitudinal Study of $outh. and Early
3hildhood 0ongitudinal Study+ that use gloal indicators of parenting practices and eliefs. and of
motivational and performance outcomes have een collected. )his transition to more complicated
eKamination of socialiJation processes has een motivated y oth advances in theory as #ell as
advances in statistical and analytic techniques that have allo#ed for more complicated analyses of
parent influence to e eKamined and for moderators and mediators of this influence to e ta%en into
account. 4n oth small and large'scale studies. there have een attempts to lin% parenting practices
oth to their antecedents and to their socialiJation consequences. 2igure F provides a general
overvie# of the types of associations tested. Although this specific model #as proposed and
elaorated y Eccles and her colleagues *!arer , Eccles. =>>FI Eccles. =>B>I =>>GI Eccles ,
6arold. =>>G+. similar social cognitive mediational models of parental ehavior and influence have
een proposed y several other researchers *e.g.. AleKander , Ent#isle. =>BBI !ronfenrenner ,
Morris. =>>BI 3lar%. =>BGI ?oodeno# , 3ollins. =>>AI ?rolnic% , Slo#iacJe%. =>>5I Stevenson
et al.. =>>A+.
'4nsert 2igure F aout here'
Although there is eKtensive #or% on some components of this model. very fe# studies include the several
components underlying parenting ehaviors outlined in !oK E. Much of this literature focuses on the association of
the eKogenous characteristics *!oKes A and !+ #ith parentsN eliefs *!oK 3+ or child outcomes *!oK 2I e.g.. lin%ing
family socioeconomic status andDor ethnicity #ith parentsH child'specific eliefs O!oK DP. specific parenting
practices O!oK EP. and childrenHs academic outcomes O!oK 2PI Ent#isle , AleKander. =>>AI Schneider ,
3oleman. =>>GI Steinerg et al.. =>>FI Stevenson et al.. =>>A+. Recently. ho#ever. research is eginning to appear
that directly eKamines the mediating and moderating hypotheses implied in 2igure F on achievement outcomes
*3or#yn , !radley. FAAGI Davis'(ean. in pressI Davis'(ean , Magnuson. FAA5+. 4n general. this research has
focused on the role that parent eliefs and ehaviors may play in the socialiJation of achievement motivation in the
individual child. )his research indicates that parentHs eliefs and ehaviors are critical in setting a climate for
childrenHs motivation development y providing various activities or resources in the home environment that may
provide stimulation to pursue various activities across time. 2or eKample. recent #or% on activity involvement
suggests that parents play a role in promoting certain types of involvement in academic and sports domain in the
early elementary years and that this emphasis translates into greater interest and motivation to continue #ith these
activities overtime and to choice course #or% and eKtracurricular activities consistent #ith these activities in
adolescence *Simp%ins. 2redric%s. Davis'(ean. , Eccles. FAA5+. 4t is only in the past fe# years that this specific
research has started to develop and in general the research remains quite generalI for eKample. lin%ing family SES
and general family socialiJation styles to general school achievement. achievement motivation and other general
motivational constructs such mastery orientation. learned helplessness. and school engagement.
/amily Demograhic Characteristics
Researchers in sociology. economics. and psychology have documented the importance of such factors as
family structure. family siJe. parentsN financial resources. parentsN education. parentsH occupation. community
characteristics. and dramatic changes in the familyNs economic resources in shaping childrenNs academic
motivation and achievement *e.g.. AleKander , Ent#isle. =>BBI 3or#yn , !radley. FAAGI MarLorian%s. FAAFI
)eachman. &aasch. , 3arver. =>>:I )hompson. AleKander. , Ent#isle. =>BBI $eung. 0inver. , !roo%s'?unn.
FAAF+. Several mechanisms could account for these associations. 2irst. family demographics could affect childrenHs
motivation indirectly through their association #ith oth parent eliefs and practices and the opportunity structures
in the childNs environment. 2or eKample. parents #ith more education are more li%ely to elieve that involvement
37
Motivation
in their childrenHs education and intellectual development is important. to e actively involved #ith the childrenHs
education. and to have intellectually stimulating materials in their home *e.g.. Davis'(ean , Magnuson. FAA5I
De!aryshe et al.. =>>GI Schneider , 3oleman. =>>G+
Second. some demographic characteristics could influence motivation indirectly through the competing
demands they place on parentsN time and energy. 2or eKample. the negative association of single parent status.
time spent at #or%. and large family siJe on childrenHs school achievement might reflect the fact that these factors
reduce the time and energy parents have for engaging their children in activities that foster high motivation *e.g..
MarLorian%s. FAAFI Schneider , 3oleman. =>>G+. Similarly. the psychological stress associated #ith some
demographic factors could influence parentsH aility to engage in the %inds of ehaviors associated #ith high
motivation. Ample evidence documents ho# much harder it is to do a good Lo of parenting if one lives in a high'
ris% neighorhood or if one is financially stressed *e.g.. 3onger. Wallace. Sun. Simons. Mc0oyd. , !rody. FAAFI
Elder. Eccles. Ardelt. , 0ord. =>>@I 2urstenerg. 3oo%. Eccles. Elder. , Sameroff. =>>>I Mc0oyd. =>>AI Mistry.
-ande#ater. 6uston. , Mc0oyd. FAAF+. "ot only do such parents have limited resources to implement #hatever
strategies they thin% might e effective. they also have to cope #ith more eKternal stressors than middle class
families living in stale. resource rich neighorhoods. "ot surprisingly. their children also evidence less positive
motivation to#ard conventional school success.
)hird. demographic characteristics can also affect parentsH perceptions of. and eKpectations for. their
children. !oth parent educational level and family income are related positively to parentsH eKpectations regarding
oth their childrenHs immediate school success and long'term educational prospects *e.g.. AleKander , Ent#isle.
=>BBI Davis'(ean. Malanchu%. &ec% , Eccles. FAAGI )eachman et al.. =>>:+. Similarly. divorced parents have
lo#er eKpectations for their childrenHs academic achievement *!arer , Eccles. =>>F+. 1gu has highlighted this
mechanism as one #ay poverty and anticipated discrimination can undermine academic motivation in some
minority populations/ 4f parents elieve that there are limited opportunities for their children to otain
conventional forms of success. they are li%ely to shift their socialiJation efforts to#ards other goals and interests
*2ordham , 1gu. =>B7I 1gu. =>B@+.
2ourth. demographic characteristics can influence parentsH eliefs and ehaviors. and childrenHs
outcomes. in even less direct #ays li%e those associated #ith role modeling. 2amily demographic characteristics
are often associated #ith things li%e parentsH Los and leisure time activities. and #ith the %inds of role models
children see outside the home. )hese ehaviors and models can influence childrenHs achievement goals. values.
and self'perceptions through oservational learning *2urstenerg et al.. =>>>I (ohn. =>::+. -ery little #or% has
addressed this hypothesis directly. 4nstead the mechanisms are typically inferred from correlational findings.
2ifth. demographic characteristics such as culture and ethnicity can influence parentsH ehaviors and
childrenHs motivation through mechanism lin%ed directly to values. goals. and general elief systems *e.g.. ?arcia
3oll , &achter. FAAFI ?utman , Midgley. FAAAI 0uster. Rhoades. , 6aas. =>B>+. 2or eKample. 1gu *=>B@+ has
argued that parents value those characteristics that they assume #ill help their children succeed in their #orld.
1ther scholars descrie cultural differences in valued activities. motivational orientation and ehavioral styles
*e.g.. Stevenson et al.. =>>AI Super , 6ar%ness. FAAF+. Such differences can affect the socialiJation of motivated
ehavior through variations in/ *a+ valued activities *e.g.. athletic versus musical competence+. *+ valued goals
*e.g.. communal goals versus individualistic goals. mastery versus performance goals. doing versus eing goals+.
and *c+ approved means of achieving oneHs goals *e.g.. competitive versus co'operative means+. 2urther. there are
cultural differences in the eKtent to #hich perceived family oligations influence childrenHs motivation and
achievement. Urdan , ?iancarlo *FAA=+ found that children from collectivist cultures had a stronger sense of
oligation to their families that eKtended to the importance of doing #ell in school. Roeser. 0o#e. Sattler.
?ehlach. , Stroel *FAAG+ eKamined t#o %inds of family oligation goals that might motivate B
th
grade 0atinoDasH
academic achievement Q those associated #ith ma%ing their parents proud through academic accomplishment
*approach goals+I and those associated #ith avoiding dishonoring the family through academic failure *avoidance
goals+. 3ompared to European'American early adolescents. the 0atino adolescents #ere more li%ely to endorse the
pursuit of oth types of goals *Roeser , RodriqueJ. FAA5+ and family goals predicted 0atino studentsH language
achievement in school even after controlling for a host of sociodemographic. cognitive aptitude. and other
motivational variales.
Researchers studying cultural differences in school achievement have found cultural differences in
parentsH eKpectations and achievement'related eliefs. and lin%ed them to cultural differences in achievement. 2or
eKample the #or% y Stevenson and his colleagues has demonstrated that European'American parents. compared
38
Motivation
to Japanese parents. overestimate their childrenHs academic ailities. are less a#are of their childrenHs academic
difficulties. and are more satisfied #ith school performance that falls elo# their eKpectations *e.g.. 3rystal ,
Stevenson. =>>=+. Similarly. Stevenson et al. *=>>A+ found differences in parentsN achievement eliefs across
African' American. 6ispanic. and European'American parents in the U. S.
4n summary. there are many #ays for family demographic characteristics to directly or indirectly affect
motivation. 4t is important to note. ho#ever. that even though family demographic characteristics have een
lin%ed repeatedly to childrenHs school achievementI their effects are almost al#ays indirect. mediated y their
association #ith parentsH eliefs. practices. and psychological resources. 4n addition. parentsH eliefs and
psychological and social resources can over ride the effects of even the most stressful demographic characteristics
on childrenHs school achievement and motivation *e.g.. 3lar%. =>BGI Mc0oyd. =>>A+. 2inally. there are often
compleK interactions among various demographic characteristics in predicting either parenting eliefs and
practices or child outcomes.
0eneral Childrearing Climate
6istorically. researchers studying parental influence have focused on the impact of the general patterns
and philosophy of child rearing on childrenNs overall orientation to#ard achievement. Researchers have related a
set of general ehaviors and eliefs to the development of self'esteem. achievement motivation. locus of control.
sense of personal efficacy. and so on. )he variales investigated have included the general emotional #armth and
supportiveness in the home *e.g.. 3onnell. 6alpren'2elsher. 3lifford. 3richlo#. , Usinger. =>>@I ?utman.
Sameroff , Eccles. FAAFI Wagner , &hillips. =>>F+ valuing of achievement *e.g.. De!aryshe. =>>@I 3lar%. =>BG+I
general parental childrearing eliefs and theories. values and goals. as #ell as seK'typed goals and cultural eliefs.
goals. and values *e.g.. ?oodeno# , 3ollins. =>>AI Miller , Davis. =>>F+I general childrearing style as #ell as
authority structure. discipline tactics. and general interaction patterns *e.g.. De!aryshe et al.. =>>GI 0ord et al..
=>>5I Steinerg et al.. =>>FI $ee , 2lanagan. =>B@+I parental locus of control and personal efficacy *!andura.
=>>:I ?utman. et al.. FAAF+I and communicative style and teaching style *Mc?illicuddy'De 0isi , Sigel. =>>=+.
Similarly. researchers have documented the enefits of active involvement #ith. and monitoring of. childrenHs and
adolescentsH school #or% *e.g.. 3lar%. =>>GI 3onnell et al.. =>>5I Eccles. =>>GI Schneider , 3oleman. =>>GI
Stevenson et al.. =>>AI Steinerg. et al.. =>>F+.
Several investigators have stressed an integrated vie# of ho# these various parenting characteristics #or%
together to produce optimal motivational outcomes. 2or eKample. ?rolnic% and Ryan *=>B>+ stressed the interplay
of three components of general parenting in promoting self'determination in children and adolescents/
involvement and interest in the childHs activities. support for autonomous ehaviors. and adequate structure *e.g..
3onnell , Wellorn. =>>=I S%inner. =>>A+. ?rolnic% and colleagues *FAAF+ suggest that these parenting ehaviors
are important in helping children form a sense of autonomy and interest in activities that leads to greater
achievement performance and a reduction in learning prolems. Similarly. 3si%sJentmihalyi. Rathunde. ,
Whalen *=>>G+ suggest the positive motivational developmental is optimiJed #hen there is appropriate synergy in
the familyHs provision of support. harmony. involvement. and freedom. 2inally. Eccles *=>>G+ stressed the
importance of emotional support. role models. and the right alance et#een structure. control. challenge. and
developmentally appropriate levels of support for autonomy. )his alance depends on cultural systems. on the
specific conteKt in #hich the family is living. the age of the child. and other individual characteristics.
While the magnitude of effects varies y raceDethnicity. seK. social economic class. and nationality. there
is consensus that these general parental practices do impact on a variety of indicators of childrenNs motivation and
motivated ehavior *e.g.. Eccles. =>>GI Stevenson , !a%er. =>B:+. )he results are consistent #ith three general
principles/ appropriate levels of structure *as evident in -ygots%yNs notion of appropriate scaffolding and 6unt and
&aras%evopoulosHs *=>BA+ notion of good match+. consistent and supportive parenting. and oservational learning.
2amilies #ho %no# enough aout their child to provide the right amount of challenge #ith the right amount of
support seem more li%ely to produce highly competent and motivated children. )hese parents are also li%ely to e
ale to adLust their ehavior to meet the changing developmental needs and competencies of their children.
2amilies that provide a positive emotional environment are more li%ely to produce children #ho #ant to internaliJe
the parentsN values and goals and therefore #ant to imitate the ehaviors eing modeled y their parents.
3onsequently. children gro#ing up in these homes are li%ely to develop a positive achievement orientation if their
parents provide such a model and value those specific tas%s. goals. and means of achieving oneHs goals valued y
their parents.
39
Motivation
0eneral &eliefs
Researchers have sho#n that parentsN general eliefs such as valuing of achievement and school
competence. general parental childrearing eliefs and theories. values and goals. seK'typed ideologies and goals.
and culturally'ased eliefs. goals. and values are lin%ed to parenting ehaviors in the school achievement arena in
the predicted direction *e.g.. Eccles. =>>GI Eccles 2reedman'Doan. 2rome. , $oon. FAAAI ?oodeno# , 3ollins.
=>>AI Jacos , Eccles. FAAAI Miller. =>BBI Sigel et al.. =>>F+. We are eginning to %no# more aout ho# these
general eliefs relate to specific ehaviors and motivational eliefs across various achievement'related activity
domains *e.g. see+. 2igure F depicts a general overvie# of ho# one might thin% aout these inter'relationships.
Several important questions are suggested y this depiction/ 2irst. #hat is the relation of parentsN general eliefs
and practices to domain and child specific parental eliefs. values. and practices; 2or eKample. do parentsN gender'
role stereotypes affect their perceptions of their o#n childNs ailities in various activity domains; Relevant research
is revie#ed later.
Similarly. do parentsN eliefs regarding the nature of aility affect their motivational parenting; D#ec%
has hypothesiJed that different #ays of vie#ing the nature of aility and incompetence account for individual
differences in academic achievement orientation *D#ec%. FAAF+. As discussed earlier. children #ho thin% that
incompetence is a temporary and modifiale state should respond to failure #ith increased mastery efforts more
than children #ho thin% that current incompetence is a sign of insufficient aptitude that cannot e modified. 4t is
li%ely that parents also differ in their eliefs regarding the origins of individual differences in competence. the
meaning of failure. and the most adaptive responses to failure. )hese eliefs should influence oth their response
to their childrenHs failures and their efforts to help their children acquire ne# competencies and interests. 6o%oda
and 2incham *=>>@+ provide support for these ideas.
Second. do cultural eliefs aout things li%e the nature of aility affect the attriutions parentsN provide to
their children for the childNs successes and failures; 6ess and his colleagues *e.g.. 6ess. 3hih'Mei. , McDevitt.
=>B:I 6ollo#ay. =>BB+ and Stevenson and his colleagues *0ee. 4chi%ama. , Stevenson. =>B:I Stevenson et al..
=>>A+ have found that Japanese and 3hinese parents ma%e different causal attriutions than European'American
parents for their childrenNs school performances #ith Japanese and 3hinese parents emphasiJing effort and hard
#or% and European'American parents emphasiJing natural talent. Similarly. cultural differences in eliefs
regarding the nature of aility and competence should relate to the %inds of statements parents ma%e to their
children aout the origins of individual differences in performance ' statements such as Myou have to e orn #ith
math talentM versus Manyone can e good at math if they Lust #or% hard enoughM *6ollo#ay. =>BBI Stevenson et al..
=>>A+. An interesting cross'cultural difference in the relation et#een the age of the child and parentsN eliefs
regarding aility is also emerging. (night *=>B=+ found that European Australian parents ecome more nativist in
their vie# of their childrenNs cognitive ailities as their children get older. 4n contrast. Japanese mothers ecome
less nativist as their children get older.
Child!Secific &eliefs, Val%es, and Percetions+ Parents as 'nterreters of Cometence!1elevant
'nformation
&arents hold many specific eliefs aout their childrenHs ailities. #hich. in turn. affect motivationally
lin%ed outcomes. such as the #ell estalished positive lin% et#een parentsH educational eKpectations and academic
motivation and performance *e.g.. AleKander. Ent#isle. , !edinger. =>>5I !roo%s'?unn. ?uo. , 2urstenerg.
=>>GI Davis' (ean , Schnael. FAAFI ?rolnic% , Slo#iacJe%. =>>5I 0ee , 3roninger. =>>5I Schneider ,
3oleman. =>>G+. Along #ith others. Eccles *=>>G+ suggested the follo#ing specific parental eliefs as particularly
li%ely influences on childrenHs motivation/ *=+ causal attriutions for their childrenNs performance in each domainI
*F+ perceptions of the difficulty of various tas%s for their childrenI *G+ eKpectations for their childrenNs proale
success and confidence in their childrenNs ailitiesI *5+ eliefs regarding the value of various tas%s and activities
coupled #ith the eKtent to #hich parents elieve they should encourage their children to master various tas%sI *@+
differential achievement standards across various activity domainsI and *7+ eliefs aout the eKternal arriers to
success coupled #ith eliefs regarding oth effective strategies to overcome these arriers and their o#n sense of
efficacy to implement these strategies for each child.
Such eliefs and messages. particularly those associated #ith parentsH perceptions of their childrenHs
competencies and li%ely success. influence childrenNs self and tas% eliefs *e.g.. 2redric%s , Eccles. FAAFI 2rome ,
Eccles. =>>BI Miller. Manhal , Mee. =>>=I &allas et al.. =>>5I Stevenson et al.. =>>A+. 2or eKample. parentsN
40
Motivation
perceptions of their adolescentsH ailities are significant predictors of adolescentsN estimates of their o#n aility and
interest in math. English. and sports even after the significant positive relation of the childNs actual performance to
oth the parentsN and adolescentsN perceptions of the adolescentsN domain specific ailities is controlled *Eccles.
=>>GI 2redric%s , Eccles. FAAFI Jacos. =>>FI Jacos , Eccles. =>>F+. 2urthermore. Eccles and her colleagues
found support for the hypothesiJed causal direction of this relationship using longitudinal panel analyses *Eccles.
=>>GI Eccles et al.. FAAAI 2redric%s , Eccles. FAAFI $oon. Wigfield. , Eccles =>>G+. 4n addition. in this same
longitudinal study *)he Michigan Study of Adolescent 0ife )ransitions ' MSA0)+. there #as a negative relation
et#een mothersN perceptions of their adolescentsH English aility and the adolescentsH perceptions of their o#n
math aility. 4ndividuals use a variety of information in deciding ho# good they are in various domains including
their relative performances across various domains *i.e.. they may decide they are very good at math ecause they
find it easier to do etter in math than in other school suLectsI see Eccles. =>B:I Marsh. =>>Aa+. )hese results
suggest that a similar phenomenon may characteriJe the impact of parentsN perceptions of their childrenNs ailities
on the development of the childrenNs self'perceptions. )he adolescents in this study had lo#er estimates of their
math aility than one #ould have predicted ased on their teachersN and their mothersN rating of their math aility
if their mothers also thought that they #ere etter in English than in math *Eccles et al.. =>>=+.
'nfl%ences on arents, ercetions of their children,s cometencies. 6o# do parentsN form their
impressions of their childrenNs ailities; &arents appear to rely quite heavily on oLective feedac%. such as school
grades *AleKander. Ent#isle. , !edinger. =>>5I Arreton , Eccles. =>>5+. )he causal attriutions parents ma%e
for their childrenHs performances should also influence parentsH perceptions. Support for this hypothesis is
provided y Arreton. Eccles. , 6aroldHs *=>>5+ longitudinal study. )hey found that parentsH attriutions of
success to talent lead to increments in the parentsH perceptions of their childrenHs ailities in math. English. and
sports and decrements in parentsH estimates of ho# hard their children #ill have to #or% in order to e successful
in math. English. and sports even after appropriate controls for prior performance and prior aility ratings are
included.
Researchers have also assessed seK of child effects on parentsH attriutional patterns to help eKplain the
gender role stereotypic distortions in parentsH impression of their childrenNs academic and non'academic ailities
that eKist from a very early age on. even after one controls for actual performance differences *e.g. Eccles. =>>G.
=>>5I Jacos. =>>FI Jacos , Eccles. =>>F+. 2or eKample. in Eccles et al. *=>>F+. mothers gave gender'role
stereotypic causal attriutions for their adolescent childrenHs successes and failures in mathematics. reading and
sports/ sonsN successes in math and sports #ere more li%ely to e attriuted to natural talent than daughtersNI
daughtersN success in English #as more li%ely to e attriuted to natural talent than sonsN. 2urthermore. as
predicted. the seK differences in these mothersH ratings of their adolescentsH ailities in each domain #ere
sustantially reduced once these seK differences in the mothersH causal attriutions #as controlled ' supporting the
hypothesis that parentsH gender'role stereotyped causal attriutions mediate parentsN gender'role stereotyped
perceptions of their childrenNs math competence. Using path analytic techniques. Jacos and Eccles *=>>F+ tested
#hether parentsH gender'role stereotypes generaliJed to their perceptions of their o#n childrenNs aility. )hey
found that parents #ho endorsed gender'role stereotypes regarding #hich seK is most interested in. and has the
most natural talent for. math. English. and sports also distorted their ratings of their o#n childrenHs ailities in
each of these domains in the gender'role stereotypic direction.
Child Secific &eliefs, Val%es, and Percetions+ Parents as 'nterreters of "ask Val%e
&arents may convey differential tas% values through eKplicit re#ards and encouragement for participating
in some activities rather than others. Similarly. parents may influence childrenNs interests and aspirations.
particularly #ith regard to future educational and vocational options. through eKplicit and implicit messages they
provide as they McounselM children or #or% #ith them on different academic activities *e.g.. Eccles , 6arold. =>>GI
Jacos , Eccles. FAAAI )enenaum , 0eaper. FAAG+. 2or instance. )enenaum and 0eaper found that fathers used
higher'order conceptual language #hen discussing physics activities #ith sons than #ith daughters. #hich may
gave oys and girls different messages aout their aility in science. Whether this encouragement directly affects
either the value the children attach to math or their participation in math activities has not een estalished.
Provisions of Secific E*eriences at Home
)here is ample evidence that parents influence their childrenNs motivation through the specific types of
learning eKperiences they provide for their children. 2or eKample. researchers have sho#n that reading to oneHs
41
Motivation
preschool children and providing reading materials in the home predicts the childrenNs later reading achievement
and motivation *e.g.. Davis'(ean , Eccles. FAAGI 0inver. !roo%s'?unn. , (ohen. FAAFI Wigfield , Asher.
=>B5+. Such eKperience li%ely influence oth the childHs s%ill levels and the childHs interest in doing these
activities. oth of #hich. in turn. have a positive impact on the childHs transition into elementary school and
susequent educational success *Ent#isle , AleKander. =>>G+. Similarly. y providing the specific toys. home
environment. and cultural and recreational activities for their children. parents structure their childrenNs
eKperiences *Jacos. Davis'(ean. !lee%er. Eccles. , Malanchu%. FAA5+. 6o#ever. the eKtent to #hich these
eKperiences actually influence childrenHs motivation should depend on the affective and motivational climate that
is created y parents #hen the children are engaged #ith any particular eKperience. 2inally. the differential
provision of such eKperiences to girls and oys and to children from various ethnic groups might eKplain group
differences in susequent motivation to engage various types of achievement activities *see Jacos et al. in press for
discussion vis'V'vis gender+.
Another avenue that parents indirectly influence the provisions in the home is through the #ay they
manage the family. &arents manage the resources and time of their children and thus choice or help in choosing
activities for their child that may increase interest and competence in these areas *Davis'(ean , Eccles. =>>>I
Simp%ins. et al. FAA5+. Many parents try to organiJe and arrange their childrenNs social environments in order to
promote opportunities. to eKpose their children to particular eKperiences and value systems. and to restrict dangers
and eKposure to undesirale influences. 3onsider. for eKample. the amount of attention some parents give to the
choice of child care during early childhood. to pic%ing a place to live. and to selecting appropriate after'school and
summer activities for their children in order to ensure desirale schools and appropriate playmates for their
children and to help their children acquire particular s%ills and interests. 4n the arena of school achievement.
parentsH engagement in managing their children eKperiences vis'V'vis intellectual s%ills *e.g.. reading. acquisition
of general information. and mastering school assignments+ is directly and po#erfully related to childrenHs
susequent academic success even in stressful conteKts such as poverty *2urstenerg et al.. =>>>+. ?iven the
consistency of the evidence in this one domain. understanding the specific #ays parents organiJe and manage their
childrenNs eKperiences across a #ide range of activities is a promising approach to understanding ho# parents
shape individual differences in specific s%ills. self perceptions. interests. and activity preferences. 2or eKample.
children should e most li%ely to acquire those s%ills that their parents ma%e sure they have the opportunity to
learn and practice.
S%mmary
)he studies revie#ed suggest a multivariate model of the relation et#een antecedent child'rearing
variales and the development of achievement orientation/ )he development of achievement motivation li%ely
depends on the presence of several variales interacting #ith each other. and mediating and moderating childrenNs
motivation. Specifically. proper timing of demands creates a situation in #hich the child can develop hisDher sense
of competence in dealing #ith his environment. An optimally #arm and supportive environment creates a
situation in #hich the child #ill choose his parents as role models. )he presence of high yet realistic eKpectations
creates a demand situation in #hich the child #ill perform in accord #ith the eKpectancies of the parents. 2inally.
the aility level of the child must e such that attainment of the eKpected level of performance is #ithin hisDher
capacity. All these factors. as #ell as the availaility of appropriate role models. are essential for the child to
develop a positive. achievement orientation. )he eKact #ay this orientation #ill e manifest is li%ely dependent on
the values the child has learned. #hich are directly influenced y the culture in #hich the family lives and the
social roles that the child is eing socialiJed to assume.
)6E S134A04CA)41" 12 M1)4-A)41"/ 4"20UE"3ES 12 S36110D4"S)RU3)41"A0 31")EE)S
A"D S36110 )RA"S4)41"S
4n this section #e revie# #or% on t#o road topics. ho# teachers. classrooms conteKts. and school
conteKts influence motivationI and ho# school transitions influence childrenHs motivation. ?iven space
limitations. #e provide only an overvie# of the types of #or% eing done in these areas. )here is a continuing
trend for motivational researchers to study conteKtual influences on motivation and the #or% on motivation in
conteKt has urgeoned since the last edition of this handoo% #as pulished *see 6ic%ey , Mc3aslin. FAA=I Urdan.
=>>>. for further discussion of this topic+.
Much of the recent #or% is directly related to notion inherent in person environment fit perspectives. )he
researchers. either implicitly or eKplicitly. assume that motivation #ill e optimiJed in learning settings that meet
individualHs asic and developmental needs. )he eKact nature of the asic or universal needs has een articulated
in various #ays. Deci. Ryan. 3onnell and their colleagues focus attention on three asic needs/ competence.
42
Motivation
relatedness. and autonomy *e.g.. Ryan , Deci. FAAF+. Eccles suggested that the need to matter *e.g.. to ma%e a
real and meaningful difference in oneHs social #orld+ is an additional universal value li%ely to influence
achievement'related motivation particularly as individualsH mature into and through adolescence *Eccles. FAA5+.
Eccles. Midgley and their colleagues *e.g.. Eccles et al.. =>>G+ articulated a set of changing developmental needs
that are often not meet in school settings as children move from elementary school into secondary school. We
elieve that many of the constructs discussed in the neKt sections relate directly to these asic and developmental
needs and thus influence individualsH motivation through their impact on the individualsH elieving and feeling
that their cognitive. emotional and social needs are eing met.
)eacher !eliefs and ?eneral 4nstructional &ractices Within the 3lassroom
"eachers5 0eneral E*ectations and Sense of "heir 2(n Efficacy
!oth teachersH general eKpectations for their studentsH performance and teachersH confidence in their o#n
teaching efficacy *e.g.. confidence in their aility to influence their students through their teaching+ predict
studentsH school achievement li%ely through their impact are on studentsH sense of competence. When teachers
hold high generaliJed eKpectations for student achievement and students perceive these eKpectations. students
achieve more. eKperience a greater sense of esteem and competence as learners. and resist involvement in prolem
ehaviors during oth childhood and adolescence *Eccles et al. =>>GI 0ee , Smith. FAA=I "R3. FAA5I Weinstein.
=>B>+. Similarly. teachers #ho feel they are ale to reach even the most difficult students. #ho elieve in their
aility to affect studentsH lives. and #ho elieve that teachers are an important factor in determining developmental
outcomes communicate such positive eKpectations and eliefs to their students *0ee , Smith. FAA=I Midgley.
2eldlaufer. , Eccles. =>B>I Roeser. Marachi. , ?ehlach. FAA=I )schannen'Moran. Woolfol%'6oy. , 6oy. =>>B+.
Such eKpectations. #hen communicated to students. ecome internaliJed in positive self'appraisals that enhance
oth feelings of competence and #orth. #hich. in turn. enhance engagement in the learning tas%s offered in school
* 0ee , Smith. FAA=I "R3. FAAFI Roeser. Eccles. , Sameroff. =>>B+.
Differential "eacher E*ectations
Equally important are the differential eKpectations teachers hold for various individuals #ithin the same
classroom and the differential treatment practices that sometimes accompany these eKpectations. )hese person'
specific eKpectations may e one of the most direct social influences on studentsH feelings of competence in
classrooms. )he research indicates that teacher'eKpectancy effects are mediated y the #ays in #hich teachers
interact #ith the students for #hom they have high versus lo# eKpectations *!rophy. =>B@I Eccles O&arsonsP et al..
=>BGI Rosenthal. =>7>I Weinstein. =>B>+. Whether the effects are positive or negative depends on the eKact nature
of these interactions. 2or eKample. a teacher can respond to lo# eKpectation y providing the %inds of help and
structure that increase the studentHs sense of competence and aility to master the material eing presented.
Alternatively. the teacher can respond in #ays that communicate lo# eKpectations and little hope that the student
#ill e ale to master the material. 4n the latter case. the studentsH o#n sense of competence should decrease and
the student should disengage from the classroomHs learning agenda as much as is possile. 4t should e noted that
teachersH eKpectations for individual students are directly related to ho# #ell the student has done in the past
*Jussim. Eccles. , Madon. =>>7+. What is critical is ho# these perceptions translate into the teachersH actual
ehavioral interactions #ith each of the students in the class.
A great deal of this #or% has focused on differential treatment related to gender. raceDethnic group. andDor
social class. )here are small ut fairly consistent negative effects of lo# teacher eKpectations on girls *for math
and science+. on minority children *for all suLect areas+. and on children from lo#er social class family
ac%grounds *again for all suLect areas+ *see !aron. )om. , 3ooper. =>B@I Eccles , Wigfield. =>B@I 2erguson.
=>>BI Jussim et al.. =>>7+.
43
Motivation
"eacher!St%dent 1elationshis
Many researchers have stressed the importance of human relationships for human developmentI the
clearest eKemplar of this vie# in the motivation field is self'determination theorists. #ho posit relatedness as a
asic human need *!aumeister , 0eary. =>>@I Ryan , Deci. FAAF+. 3onsistent #ith these suggestions. there is
strong evidence for the importance of positive teacher'student relationships and a sense of elonging for childrenHs
development in school *0. Anderman. =>>>I 2urrer , S%inner. FAAGI 0ynch , 3icchetti. =>>:I WentJel. FAAFa+.
)eachers #ho are trusting. caring. and respectful of students provide the %ind of social'emotional support
adolescents need to approach. engage. and persist on academic learning tas%s and to develop positive achievement'
related self'perceptions and values. high self esteem. and a sense of elonging and emotional comfort at school
*Eccles et al.. =>>BI ?oodeno#. =>>GI Midgley et al.. =>B>I Roeser , Eccles. FAAAI Roeser. Midgley. , Urdan.
=>>7+. 4n addition. teachers represent one stale source of adult models and mentors for children in a highly
compleK society. )eachers can provide guidance and assistance #hen social'emotional or academic prolems
arise. and may e particularly important in promoting developmental competence #hen conditions in the family
and neighorhood do not *Eccles. et al.. =>>BI 0ord et al.. =>>5I Simmons , !lyth. =>B:+.
Classroom )anagement
Wor% related to classroom management focuses on t#o general issues/ orderlinessDpredictaility and
controlDautonomy. We focus on the latter ecause issues of autonomy are so important to student motivation in this
culture. Many researchers elieve that classroom practices that support student autonomy are critical for fostering
intrinsic motivation to learn and for supporting socioemotional development during childhood and adolescence
*Deci , Ryan. =>B@I ?rolnic% et al.. FAAF+. Support for this hypothesis has een found in oth laoratory and
field'ased studies *Deci , Ryan. =>B@I ?rolnic% , Ryan. =>B:+. 6o#ever. it is also critical that the teacher
supports student autonomy in a conteKt of adequate structure and orderliness *S%inner , !elmont. =>>G+. )his
issue is complicated y the fact that the right alance et#een adult'guided structure and opportunities for student
autonomy changes as the students mature/ older students desire more opportunities for autonomy and less adult'
controlled structure. )o the eKtent that the students do not eKperience these changes in the alance et#een
structure and opportunities for autonomy as they pass through the ('=F school years. their school motivation
should decline as they get older.
"he 6at%re of $cademic #ork
Many researchers elieve that the meaningfulness of the academic #or% influences sustained attention. high
investment of cognitive and affective resources in learning. and strong identification #ith educational goals and
aims *"R3. FAA5+. 4n general. research supports this hypothesis/ 2or eKample. studentsH reports of high levels of
oredom in school. lo# interest. and perceived irrelevance of the curriculum are associated #ith poor attention.
diminished achievement. disengagement. and finally. alienation from school *e.g.. Jac%son , Davis. FAAAI "R3.
FAA5I Roeser et al.. =>>BI Roeser. Stroel. , 8uihuis. FAAF+. Unfortunately. evidence from several different
perspectives suggests that the curriculum to #hich most students are eKposed is often not particularly meaningful
from either a cultural or a developmental perspective. Several researchers suggest that the disconnect of traditional
curricula from the eKperiences of several cultural groups can eKplain the alienation of some group memers from
the educational process. sometimes leading to school drop'out *Dehyle , 0e3ompte. =>>>I 2ordham , 1gu.
=>B7I Sheets , 6ollins. =>>>I -alencia. =>>=+. )here is also a disconnect et#een increases in studentsH cognitive
sophistication. life eKperiences. and identity needs and the nature of the curriculum as students move from the
elementary into the secondary school years *Jac%son , Davis. FAAAI 0ee , Smith. FAA=I "R3. FAA5+. As one
indication of this. middle school students report higher rates of oredom than elementary school students #hen
doing school#or%. especially passive #or% *e.g.. listening to lectures+. especially in social studies. math. and
science *0arson , Richards. =>B>+. )his could lead to some of the apathy prolems discussed earlier.
'ntegrated $roaches to #ithin Classroom E*eriences
We have seen an increase over the last FA years in studies that loo% at multiple aspects of the classroom
simultaneously. During the last eight years this approach. in contrast to loo%ing at single classroom or teacher
characteristics one at a time. has predominated in %eeping #ith our increasingly integrated vie# of motivation. 4n
this section. #e provide a couple of eKamples of this more integrated approach.
RosenholtJ and Simpson *=>B5+ hypothesiJed that individualiJed versus #hole group instruction. aility
grouping practices. and the relatively pulic versus private nature of feedac% #or% together to create a classroom
environment that fundamentally shapes childrenHs school motivation . Specifically. they argued that these
practices ma%e aility differences salient and therey undermine motivation. particularly of lo# achieving students.
y increasing the salience of eKtrinsic motivators and ego'focused learning goals. Such motivational orientations.
in turn. are hypothesiJed to lead to greater incidence of social comparison ehaviors. and increased perception of
oneHs ailities as fiKed entities rather than malleale ones. Mac 4ver *=>B:+ provided support for some of these
predictions. More recently. the #or% of Midgley. Maehr and their colleagues has sho#n that school reform efforts
44
Motivation
designed to reduce these types of classroom practices. particularly those associated #ith socially comparative
feedac% and re#ard systems. and teachersH use of competitive motivational strategies have positive consequences
for adolescentsH academic motivation. persistence on difficult learning tas%s. and socio'emotional development
*Maehr , Midgley. =>>7I Midgley. FAAF+.
Dra#ing upon similar insights from different theoretical traditions. ?uthrie. Wigfield. and their colleagues
developed an instructional program in reading *31R4 ' 3oncept 1riented Reading 4nstruction+ focused on
enhancing studentsH reading motivation along #ith their reading comprehension. )he program integrates
instruction in reading and science and is ased in part on principles derived from self'determination theory. self'
efficacy theory. and eKpectancy'value theory *Wigfield , )on%s. FAA5+. )eachers #or% to enhance studentsH
motivation y providing content goals for their learning and y having students engage in hands'on activities in
science that tie to the content goals. Students have a variety of interesting teKts in their classrooms that tie directly
to the hands'on activities and content goals. )hey are given autonomy #ith respect to #hich oo%s to read. #hich
questions to address. and the nature of the proLects that they do. Students also collaorate eKtensively #ith each
other *?uthrie. Wigfield. , &erencevich. FAA5+. ?uthrie et al. *FAA5+ found that 31R4 students surpassed students
eKperiencing a cognitively ased strategy instruction reading program in oth reading motivation and reading
comprehension. )he more general implication of these results is that #hen teachers utiliJe teaching practices
%no#n to enhance student motivation their motivation indeed does gro#.
0ender Differences in Classroom E*eriences
Research on gender differences in achievement is another eKample of an attempt to identify a road set of
classroom characteristics that influence studentsH motivationI due to space limitations #e discuss the eKample of
gender differences in interest in math. physical science. and engineering *see Wigfield. !yrnes. , Eccles. in press.
for a more detailed revie#+. 3ourses in these suLect areas are often taught in a manner that females find either
oring. irrelevant to their interests. or threatening *Eccles. =>B>I 6offmann , 6aeussler. =>>@+. 2emales respond
more positively to math and science instruction #hen it is taught in a cooperative or individualiJed manner rather
than a competitive manner. #hen it is taught from an appliedDperson centered perspective rather than a
theoreticalDastract perspective. #hen it is taught using a hands'on approach rather than a Moo% learningM
approach. #hen the teacher avoids seKism in its many sutle forms. and #hen the eKamples used to teach general
concepts reflect oth stereotypically female and male interests *e.g.. using the heart as an illustration of the
principles associated #ith pumps+. )he reason often given for these effects is the fit of the teaching style and
format #ith femalesH values. goals. motivational orientation. and learning styles *see Eccles. =>B>I (rapp. 6idi. ,
Renninger. =>>F+. 4nterestingly. more males are also motivated y these same approaches suggesting that these
characteristics fit #ell #ith a road range of human needs
E*eriences of 1acial7Ethnic Discrimination in Classrooms
Researchers interested in the relatively poor academic performance of children from some
ethnicDracial groups have suggested another classroom level eKperience as critical for academic motivation and
achievement/ eKperiences of racialDethnic discrimination *Essed. =>>AI 2eagin. =>>FI 2ordham , 1gu. =>B7I
?arcia 3oll et al. =>>7I Roeser et al.. =>>BI Ruggiero , )aylor. =>>@I )aylor et al.. =>>5I Wong. Eccles. ,
Sameroff. FAAG+. Whereas elementary school'aged children may lac% the requisite social understandings and
cognitive s%ills to Ludge discrimination eKperiences *though not al#ays Q see 8uintana , -era. =>>>+. and
may also have too little life eKposure to such incidents to ma%e them impactfulI it is clear that eginning in
early adolescence young people are more li%ely to say they have eKperienced discrimination. and these
eKperiences are negatively associated #ith young peopleHs mental health and sometimes. their motivation in
school *8uintana , -era. =>>>I Roeser et al.. =>>BI SJalacha. Er%ut. ?arcia'3oll. Alarcon. 2ield. , 3eder.
FAAG+.
)#o types of discrimination have een discussed/ *=+ anticipation of future discrimination in the laor
mar%et #hich might e seen as undermining the long term enefits of education *2ordham , 1gu. =>B7+.
and *F+ the impact of daily eKperiences of discrimination on oneHs mental health and academic motivation
*Essed. =>>AI Wong et al. FAAG+. Wong et al. *FAAG+ found that anticipated future discrimination leads to
increases in African American youthHs motivation to do #ell in school. #hich. in turn. leads to increases in
academic performance. 4n this sample. anticipated future discrimination appeared to motivate the youth to do
their very est so that they #ould e maKimally equipped to deal #ith future discrimination *Eccles. FAA5+. 4n
contrast. daily eKperiences of racial discrimination from their peers and teachers led to declines in school
engagement. confidence in oneHs academic competence and grades. along #ith increases in depression and
anger. 4n a study of Asian. MeKican. 3entral and South American immigrant high school students gro#ing
up in maLor metropolitan areas of the United States. &ortes and Rumaut *FAA=+ found that a maLority of youth
in their sample reported feeling discriminated at school and in other settings. )he maLor sources of this
perceived discrimination #ere #hite classmates. teachers. and neighors. Such eKperiences #ere associated
#ith greater feelings of depression among the youth. 4n a sample of MeKican'American high school students
45
Motivation
in 3alifornia. perceived discrimination in school #as found to have a strong. negative multivariate relation to
school elonging *Roeser. FAA5+.
Wong et al. *FAAG+ also found that a strong. positive African'American social identity helped to uffer
these negative effects. )hese results suggest a possile uffering effect of ethnic identity on the potential
deilitating effects of perceived discrimination. perhaps ecause a strong connection to oneHs ethnic group provides
a conteKt of shared meaning ma%ing around issues of discrimination that assist group memers in defusing its
potential negative impact on the self and therefore. on motivation to succeed *SJalacha et al. FAAG+.
4t is also critical in this discussion to consider the quality of the educational institutions that serve many of
these youth. )hirty'seven percent of African' American youth and GF percent of 6ispanic youth. compared to @
percent of European'American and FF percent of Asian youth are enrolled in the 5: largest city school districts in
this countryI in addition. African' American and 0atina youth attend some of the poorest school districts in this
country. )#enty'eight percent of the youth enrolled in city schools live in poverty and @@ percent are eligile for
free or reduced cost lunch. suggesting that class may e as important *or more important+ as race in the differences
that emerge. )eachers in these schools report feeling less safe than teachers in other school districts. drop out rates
are highest. and achievement levels at all grades are the lo#est *3ouncil of the ?reat 3ity Schools. =>>F+. 2inally.
schools that serve these populations are less li%ely than schools serving more advantaged populations to offer either
high quality remedial services or advanced courses and courses that facilitate the acquisition of higher order
thin%ing s%ills and active learning strategies. Even children #ho are eKtremely motivated may find it difficult to
perform #ell under these educational circumstances. )hese facts highlight the importance of focusing on the
conLoint influences that poverty. discrimination. and deilitating #or% conditions for *often under qualified+
teachers can have on the educational motivation. achievement. and attainments of African' and 0atin'American
youth.
School 0evel 3haracteristics and Student Motivation
0eneral Social Climate
Researchers suggest that variations at the school level in the climate and general eKpectations regarding
student potential affect the development of oth teachers and students in very fundamental #ays *e.g.. !andura.
=>>:I !ry%. 0ee. , 6olland. =>>GI Darling'6ammond. =>>:I 0ee , Smith. FAA=I Mac 4ver. Reuman. , Main.
=>>@I "R3. FAA5+. 2or eKample. !ry% et al. *=>>G+ pointed out ho# the culture #ithin 3atholic schools is
fundamentally different from the culture #ithin most pulic schools in #ays that positively affect academic
motivation and achievement. )his culture *school climate+ values academics. has high eKpectations that all
children can learn. and affirms the elief that the usiness of school is learning. Similarly. 0ee and Smith *FAA=+
sho#ed that et#een'school differences in teachersH sense of their o#n personal efficacy as #ell as their confidence
in the general aility of the teachers at their school to teach all students accounted. in part. for et#een'school
differences in adolescentsH high school performance and motivation. 2inally. Maehr. Midgley and their colleagues
have argued that a school'level emphasis on different achievement goals creates a school psychological
environment that affects studentsH academic eliefs. affect. and ehavior *e.g.. Maehr , Midgley. =>>7I MidgleyI
FAAF+. 2or eKample. ecause schoolsH use of pulic honor rolls and assemlies for the highest achieving students.
class ran%ings on report cards. and differential curricular offerings for students of various aility levels ma%e
relative aility. competition. and social comparison salient. these practices can create a school'level aility rather
than masteryDtas% focus. 4n contrast. schools can promote a school'level focus on discovery. effort and
improvement. and academic mastery y focusing school'#ide recognition efforts on academic effort and
improvement as #ell as on a #ide range of competencies that include as many students as possile and y
implementing practices that emphasiJe learning and tas% mastery such as loc% scheduling. interdisciplinary
curricular teams. and cooperative learning *see also 2iqueira'McDonough. =>B7I 2inn. =>B>I Roeser et al.. =>>B+.
$cademic "racks 7 C%rric%lar Differentiation
3urricular trac%ing *e.g.. college trac% course sequences versus general or vocational education sequences+
is another important school'level conteKtual feature that is quite common in secondary schools *1a%es. ?amoran.
, &age. =>>F+. Differentiated curricular trac%ing influences adolescentsH school eKperiences in t#o important
#ays/ 2irst. trac%ing determines the quality and %inds of opportunities to learn each student receives *1a%es et al..
=>>F+I second. it determines eKposure to different peers and thus. to a certain degree. the nature of social
relationships that youth form in school *2uligni. Eccles. , !arer. =>>@+.
Despite years of research on the impact of trac%ing practices. fe# strong and definitive ans#ers have
emerged. )he results vary depending on the outcome assessed. the group studied. the length of the study. the
control groups used for comparison. and the specific nature of the conteKt in #hich these practices are manifest.
)he situation is complicated y the fact that conflicting hypotheses aout the li%ely direction and the magnitude of
the effect emerge depending on the theoretical lens one uses to evaluate the practice. )he est Lustification for
46
Motivation
these practices derives from a person'environment fit perspective. Students are more motivated to learn if the
material can e adapted to their current competence level. )here is some evidence consistent #ith this perspective
for children placed in high aility classrooms. high #ithin'class aility groups. and college trac%s *2uligni. Eccles.
, !arer. =>>@I (uli% , (uli%. =>B:I &allas et al.. =>>5+. )he results for adolescents placed in lo# aility and
non'college trac%s do not confirm this hypothesis. !y and large. #hen long'term effects are found for this group of
students. they are negative primarily ecause these adolescents are typically provided #ith inferior educational
eKperience and support *Dreean , !arr. =>BBI 1a%es et al.. =>>FI &allas et al.. =>>5+. 0o# trac% placement is
related to poor attitudes to#ards school. feelings of incompetence. and prolem ehaviors oth #ithin school *non'
attendance. crime. misconduct+ and in the roader community *drug use. arrests+ as #ell as to educational
attainments *1a%es et al.. =>>F+.
$et another #ay to thin% aout the impact of aility grouping on development is in terms of its impact on
peer groups/ !et#een'classroom aility grouping and curricular differentiation promotes continuity of contact
among adolescents #ith similar levels of achievement and engagement #ith school. 2or those doing poorly in
school. such practices can structure and promote friendships among students #ho are similarly alienated from
school and are more li%ely to engage in ris%y or delinquent ehaviors *Dryfoos. =>>A+. )he 9collecting< of
adolescents #ith poor achievement or adLustment histories also places additional urdens on teachers #ho teach
these classes *1a%es et al.. =>>F+.
Another important and controversial aspect of curriculum trac%ing involves ho# students get placed in
different classes and ho# difficult it is for students to move et#een class levels as their academic needs and
competencies change once initial placements have een made. )hese issues are important oth early in a childHs
school career *e.g.. &allas et al.. =>>5+ and later in adolescence #hen course placement is lin%ed directly to the
%inds of educational options that are availale to the student after high school. Minority youth. particularly
African American and 6ispanic oys. are more li%ely to e assigned to lo# aility classes and non'college ound
curricular trac%s than other groupsI furthermore. many of these youth #ere sufficiently competent to e placed in
higher aility level classes *Dornusch. =>>5I 1a%es et al.. =>>F+.
E*trac%rric%lar $ctivities
Schools differ in the eKtent to #hich they provide a variety of eKtracurricular activities for their students.
Research on eKtracurricular activities has documented a positive lin% et#een adolescentsH eKtracurricular
activities and high school ?&A. strong school engagement. and high educational aspirations *see Eccles , !arer.
=>>>I 6olland , Andre. =>B:+. )his #or% has also documented the protective value of eKtracurricular activity
participation in reducing drop out rates as #ell as involvement in delinquent and other ris%y ehaviors *e.g..
Mahoney , 3airns. =>>:I Mc"eal. =>>@+. &articipation in sports. in particular. has een lin%ed to lo#er li%elihood
of school dropout and higher rates of college attendance *Deeter. =>>AI Eccles , !arer. =>>>I Mc"eal. =>>@+.
especially among lo# achieving and lue'collar male athletes *6olland , Andre. =>B:+. )hese effects li%ely reflect
the impact of eKtracurricular activities on studentsH sense of elonging in the school. as #ell as on the increased
li%elihood of participation leading to good relationships #ith particular teachers.
School )ransitions and Motivational Development
We revie#ed earlier normative developmental #or% sho#ing that many aspects of childrenHs motivation
decline as they go through school. )hese declines are most mar%ed as children ma%e maLor school transitions *e.g.
from elementary school into middle or Lunior high school and then again into high school+. 4n this section. #e
riefly revie# the research focused on eKplaining these developmental declines.
"ransition 'nto and "hro%gh Elementary School
Entrance into %indergarten and then the transition from %indergarten to first grade introduces several
systematic changes in childrenHs social #orlds *see &ianta. Rimm'(aufman. , 3oK. =>>>+. 2irst. classes are age
stratified. ma%ing #ithin'age aility social comparison much easier. Second. formal evaluations of competence y
9eKperts< egin. )hird. formal aility grouping egins usually #ith reading group assignment. 2ourth. peers have
the opportunity to play a much more constant and salient role in childrenH lives. Each of these changes should
impact childrenNs motivational development *&ianta et al. =>>>+. Unfortunately. very little longitudinal research
has focused on this transition. We do %no# that many of the gains made in high quality pre'school programs for
children living in poverty can e lost as the children move into elementary school. although there are notale
eKceptions *Ramey , Ramey. =>>>+. 4n addition. #e %no# that early school transitions are changing and #ill
continue to change during this decade *&ianta , 3oK. =>>>+. )hese transitions are happening earlier as more and
more students egin school at earlier ages. 4n addition. the population of children is getting increasingly diverse
and many pulic schools *particularly in uran and rural settings+ no# serve large groups of children living in
poverty. )he impact of these %inds of changes on studentsH motivation needs to e studied.
4nstead. most of the research on the early elementary school years has focused on individual differences in
the lin% et#een childrenHs early school eKperiences and their susequent development. )his research suggests
significant long'term consequences of childrenHs eKperiences in the early school years. particularly eKperiences
47
Motivation
associated #ith aility grouping and #ithin'class differential teacher treatment. 2or eKample. teachers use a
variety of information to assign first graders to reading groups including temperamental characteristics li%e
interest and persistence. race. gender. and social class *e.g.. AleKander. Dauer , Ent#isle. =>>GI !rophy , ?ood.
=>:5+. AleKander et al. *=>>G+ demonstrated that differences in first grade reading group placement and teacher'
student interactions predict susequent motivation and achievement even after controlling for initial differences in
reading competence. 2urthermore. these effects are mediated y oth differential instruction and the amplifying
impact of aility group placement on parentsH and teachersH vie#s of the childrenHs ailities. talents. and
motivation *&allas et al. =>>5+.
)hese findings are important ecause they point to early school years as critical for susequent school
achievement. )hey are also important ecause they ring attention to the potential role of elementary schools in
reproducing the economic stratification that eKists in our society. Elementary schools are located #ithin the
communities they serveI thus there can e great variations in the populations different schools serve. as #ell as in
the curriculum offered. and the resources availale. at different schools. 4nterestingly. in analyses of data from
their !altimore School Study. Ent#isle and AleKander *=>>>+ found that lo# SES and high SES children
progressed equally during the school year #hen school #as in session. Differences in performance emerged over
the summer #hen school is not in session #ith the lo# SES children losing more ground in #hat they are ale to
do over than summer than the higher SES children.
We revie#ed earlier the research sho#ing that many childrenHs motivation declines during the elementary
school years. Researchers doing this #or% suggest that these changes reflect a comination of cognitive changes in
the children and conteKtual changes in the classrooms *although more longitudinal studies are needed to assess
these eKplanations fully+. More specifically. childrenHs aility to use social comparison information increases over
the elementary school years ma%ing it easier for them to compare their relative aility #ith that other children
*Rule. =>BG+. )his change should lead some children to lo#er their confidence in their o#n aility to master the
school material *Eccles et al.. =>B5+. Similarly. it is possile that teachers increase their use of social comparative
information and their emphasis on aility as entity'ased rather than incremental. )he increasing emphases as
children go through school on evaluation and performance outcomes also li%ely play a strong role *Maehr ,
Midgley. =>>7+. More #or% is needed to test these hypotheses.
Transitions from Elementary School into Secondary School
As #as true in =>>B. most of the research on secondary school transition effects has focused on the
transition to middle or Lunior high school. !ut more #or% is coming out on the transition into high school.
!ecause the principles underlying the declines in studentsH motivation are quite similar across these t#o
transitions. #e focus on these principles rather than the specific grade levels at #hich the transitions are made.
As noted earlier. there are sustantial declines in academic motivation and achievement across the upper
elementary and secondary school years. including changes in grades. interest in school. perceptions of competence
in different areas. and increases in performance goals at the eKpense of mastery goals *see Eccles et al.. =>>B.
Schneider , 3oleman. =>>G for revie#s+. )hese changes are particularly large for students #ho are doing poorly
*either emotionally or academically+ in school *0ord et al.. =>B5+. )hese changes are also li%ely to e especially
prolematic for children from lo# SES communities and families. children #ho find the school curriculum
particularly meaningless and children #ho find the school climate particularly unsupportive and uncomfortale.
4n eKplaining such changes. Eccles et al. *=>>B+ discussed ho# the multiple changes that occur during this
time period *puerty. school transitions. changing relations #ith parents. increasing cognitive maturity. increasing
concern #ith identity. increasing seKuality and heterosociality. and increasing focus on peer relationships+ li%ely
have an impact on studentsH motivation and achievement. )hey also discussed ho# differences in school
environments et#een elementary and secondary schools could contriute to these changes *see also Eccles ,
Roeser. FAA@I "R3. FAA5I Wigfield , Eccles. FAAFI Wigfield , )on%s. FAAF+. )raditional secondary schools
differ structurally in important #ays from elementary schools. Most secondary schools are sustantially larger
than elementary schools. As a result. studentsN friendship net#or%s often are disrupted as they attend classes #ith
students from several different schools. 4n addition. students are li%ely to feel more anonymous and alienated
ecause of the large siJe of many secondary schools. 2inally. the opportunity to participate in and play leadership
roles in school activities often decline over these school transitions due to the limited numer of slots in such
niches and the increasing siJe of the student ody. )hese %inds of changes should affect the studentsH sense of
elonging as #ell as their sense of social competence.
)he nature of instruction also changes/ Secondary school instruction is organiJed and taught
departmentally ' ma%ing it li%ely that secondary school teachers teach several different groups of students each day
and are unli%ely to teach any particular students for more than one year. )his departmental structure can create a
numer of difficulties for students. 2irst. the curriculum often is not integrated across different suLects. Second.
students typically have several teachers each day #ith little opportunity to interact #ith any one teacher on any
48
Motivation
dimension eKcept the academic content of #hat is eing taught and disciplinary issues. As a result. the li%elihood
of students and teachers forming close. supportive onds is much less in secondary than in elementary schools.
)his result can e prolematic for a numer of reasons. 2irst. it should reduce the li%elihood that a teacher #ill e
ale to identify #hether a particular student is having prolems and ma%e appropriate referral recommendation.
Second. it should reduce the li%elihood that a teacher #ill have time to provide adequate instructional supports for
students #ho need eKtra academic help. !oth of these changes are li%ely to undermine lo# performing studentsH
sense of competence and sense of elonging.
2inally. grading systems are more li%ely to e ased on social comparative performance. aility level
trac%ing via curricular trac%ing is common. and teachers are more li%ely to hold entity. rather than incremental.
vie#s of aility differences *Eccles , Midgley. =>B>I Wigfield. Eccles. , &intrich. =>>7+. )hese characteristics. in
turn. are li%ely to lead to an increase in performance rather than mastery goal focus in the classroom and the
school uilding. As noted earlier. these changes are li%ely to undermine lo# performing studentsH sense of
competence. !ecause the nature of these changes is so dramatic at the shift from elementary school to middle or
Lunior high school. it is not surprising that there is a maLor decline in motivation for many students as they ma%e
this transition.
Recent #or% on the transition to high school suggests that similar changes occur at this transition *0ee ,
Smith. FAA=I Mac 4ver et al.. =>>@I "R3. FAA5I Wehlage. et al.. =>B>+. 2or eKample. high schools are typically
even larger and more ureaucratic than middle and Lunior high schools. 0ee and Smith *FAA=+ provide numerous
eKamples of the sense of community among teachers and students is undermined y the siJe and ureaucratic
structure of most high schools. )here is little opportunity for students and teachers to get to %no# each other and.
li%ely as a consequence. there is distrust et#een them and little attachment to a common set of goals and values.
)here is also little opportunity for the students to form mentor'li%e relationships #ith the teachers and there is little
effort to ma%e instruction meaningful to the students. Such environments are li%ely to undermine the motivation
and involvement of many students. especially those not doing particularly #ell academically. and those #ho are
alienated from the values of the adults in the high school. 2urthermore. research ased upon oth teacher and
student reports sho#s that schools ecome more and more socially comparative and competitive in orientation as
students progression from elementary to middle to high school *Roeser et al.. FAAF+. )he coincidence of declining
social support and increased social comparison and competition at oth the middle and high school levels li%ely
contriute to some adolescentsH decisions. those #ho are already on the margins of the school community. to
#ithdra# from school prior to graduation. 2or eKample. 2ine *=>>=+ documented ho# these %inds of secondary
school practices cumulate to drive out students #ho are not doing very #ell academically. 4n a large study of
students in the 3hicago pulic schools. Roderic% and 3ameron *=>>>+ sho#ed ho# failure rates increase
dramatically after students made the transition to high school *this #as particularly true for minority students+.
and ho# early failures in high school strongly predict later poor performance. 1ther studies of ethnic minority
youth document the negative impact of alienating and non'inclusive high school practices on school engagement
and achievement of students of color *e.g.. Darling' 6ammond. =>>:I Deyhle , 0e 3ompte. =>>>I 2erguson.
=>>BI Jac%son , Davis. FAAAI SuarreJ'1roJco , SuarreJ'1roJco. =>>@I )aylor et al.. =>>5I -alencia. =>>=+.
More #or% is needed on this transition point.
School E*eriences as 1elated to Ethnic and C%lt%ral 'dentity /ormation
As noted aove. typical secondary school practices may e particularly prolematic for adolescents from
cultural minority groups. Adolescence is the prime developmental period for identity development. A great deal
of #or% in the last =A'=@ years has focused on the potential disconnect et#een #hat goes on in typical American
secondary schools and the goals. values. and eKperiences of cultural minority groups in the USA *see Meece ,
(urtes'3ostes. FAA=I 1%aga%i. FAA=+.
Much of this #or% has focused on ho# individuals from different ethnic and cultural groups navigate the
sometimes disparate social #orlds of home and school y 9managing< the relation of their in'school identity #ith
roader aspects of their social identities *e.g.. Roeser et al. FAAG+. &erhaps the most #ell'%no#n vie# of ho#
memers of different ethnic minorities manage or rather fail to manage aspects of their ethnicDracial and student
identities is that of John 1gu and Signthia 2ordham. some of #hose #or% #as revie#ed aove. )hese authors
highlighted the identity conflicts that memers of particular ethnic minority groups may eKperience et#een ethnic
loyalty and school identification. Another vie# of ho# memers of traditionally disenfranchised groups address
these %inds of potential identity conflicts comes from scholars such as 1etting and !eauvais *=>>=+ and
0afromoise. 3oleman. , ?erton *=>>G+. )hese authors have pointed to the strategies that memers of non'
maLority groups use to develop icultural identities Q those that integrate a sense of ethnic pride and engagement
#ith activities of the maLority culture in a complementary rather than conflictual #ay *&hinney , Devich'"avarro.
=>>:+. )his #or% underscores ho# some memers of stigmatiJed ethnic minority groups integrate their sense of
ethnic pride and their pursuit of success in school. #ith the presumption that success in school is defined as a
49
Motivation
9maLority< activity. 4n this instance. neither ethnic loyalty nor commitment to education 9gives #ay< to the other.
Evidence for the eKistence of such sugroups among MeKican'American youth. for eKample. has een found at the
middle school *Roeser et al.. FAAG+ and high school level *Matute'!ianchi. =>B7+.
)he emerging literature on social identities and academic identity among ethnic minorities raises
several possiilities concerning #hat Roeser and his colleagues *FAAG+ have called <school identity
configurations.< $oung people from various non'maLority ethnic groups may integrate their sense of
ethnic pride and school commitment in the #ays descried y those #ho study iculturalism. 1thers may
manage different facets of identities in and outside of school y code s#itching in the #ays that scholars
such as 2ordham *=>BB+ have proposedI #hereas some individuals #ho have difficulty managing different
dimensions of identity may sho# oppositional patterns of disengagement as descried y 2ordham ,
1gu =>B7+. 4t is important to note. ho#ever. that such conflicts are not confined to ethnic minority
youth. ut rather are a roader phenomena characteristic of many adolescents *Arroyo , Cigler. =>>@I
Roeser et al.. FAAG+.
)iddle School 1eform Efforts and St%dent )otivation
!ased in part on the research Lust revie#ed. proposals y middle schools eKperts. and the "%rning Points
report #ritten y the 3arnegie 3ouncil on Adolescent Development. middle school reform has ecome very
popular *see 3arnegie 2oundation. =>B>I Jac%son , Davis. FAAAI Midgley , Edelin. =>>B+. )here is gro#ing
consensus aout #hat %inds of changes should e made in middle grades schools *0ipsitJ. MiJell. Jac%son. ,
Austin. =>>:+. 1ne structural change adopted in many school districts has een to move the transition to middle
school from after to efore siKth grade. 6o#ever. this change on its o#n accomplishes little and often simply
moves the transitional prolems one year earlier in the studentsH development. What is more important is
changing school organiJation and instructional practices in systematic #ays *Mac 4ver , Epstein. =>>G+. !oth the
3arnegie 3ouncil on Adolescent Development and the "ational Middle Schools Association have made
recommendations for ho# middle schools should e changedI a summary of their recommendations is presented in
)ale =. As can e seen in the tale. there is much overlap et#een these recommendations. )he roadest goal of
these recommendations is to provide developmentally appropriate education for early adolescents.
)here are a numer of important #ays in #hich these recommendations have een implemented in
different middle schools. 1ne is replacing departmentaliJed curriculum structures #ith teams of teachers #or%ing
#ith the same group of students. )his practice allo#s groups of teachers to spend more time #ith the same group
of adolescents. thus getting to %no# them etter. 4t also allo#s for greater integration across the curriculum.
)eachers serving as advisors and counselors has ecome more prevalent. so that adolescents can develop closer
relationships #ith their teachers. )o create smaller learning communities in often'large middle schools. Mschools
#ithin schoolsM have een created. in part through the teaming approach Lust discussed. )his is particularly li%ely
to occur for the youngest group in a middle school. e they fifth graders. siKth graders. or seventh graders.
3ooperative learning practices are used more frequently. in part to reduce the use of aility grouping or trac%ing.
0ipsitJ and her colleagues *=>>:+ discussed middle school reform efforts across the country. )hey focused
in particular on three sets of middle schools in 4llinois. Michigan. and 4ndiana in #hich reform efforts in line #ith
the recommendations included in )ale = have een underta%en in meaningful #ays. 2elner. (asa%. Mulhall. and
2lo#ers *=>>:+ reported systematic evaluations of the schools in the 4llinois net#or%. )hey conducted longitudinal
studies in school implementing fully the recommendations from the 3arnegie 3ouncil. comparing them #ith
schools implementing the recommendations to a degree and not at all. )he comparison schools are matched
carefully on demographic and other characteristics. 2elner et al. otained measures of studentsN achievement.
school attitudes. and ehavior prolems. &reliminary analyses indicate that schools in #hich the implementation
has een fullest have higher achieving students. Students in these schools report higher self'esteem and fe#er
#orries aout ad things happening to them in schoolsI the teachers report fe#er ehavior prolems. )hese results
provide encouraging support for the efficacy of the reform efforts. 1ne crucial point made y 2elner et al. is that
comprehensive reform is #hat needed. Schools in #hich one or t#o of the recommendations have een
implemented. or schools in #hich the implementation of several recommendations has proceeded slo#ly. have not
een as successful. Unfortunately. as noted aove many schools are Lust eginning to implement change. or are
doing so selectively.
)here is not yet a great deal of information aout ho# reform efforts have affected studentsN motivation.
2elner and his colleagues measured self'esteem. ut not the different aspects of motivation #e have discussed in
this chapter. Mac 4ver and his colleagues egan a middle school reform effort *Mac 4ver , &lan%. =>>:. Mac 4ver
et al.. FAAF+ focused on schools serving early adolescents #ho living in high poverty areas. )he program involves
the implementation of many of the recommendations discussed in this section/ detrac%ing the schools. using
cooperative learning eKtensively. team teaching. offering a challenging core curriculum *including algera+ to all
students. and providing advising services. &reliminary results for oth achievement and motivation outcomes are
encouraging.
50
Motivation
As mentioned aove. Maehr and Midgley *=>>7+ used goal theory to #or% #ith teachers and
administrators to change the culture organiJation and climate of a middle school and an elementary school in a
city in Michigan. )he school ' university team #or%ed eKtensively to restructure the school to#ards a focus on
mastery goalI they spent three years in each school. At the middle school they focused on creating teams of
teachers. Mschools #ithin the schoolM. lessening the use of aility grouping practices. and changing the student
recognition patterns so that not Lust the 9honor roll< students #ere recogniJed. )hey also #or%ed to loosen the
rigid ell schedule so that longer class periods #ere sometimes possile. 3hanging the school culture in the
middle school #as very difficulty due to some teachersH *especially the math teachers+ resistance to change.
particularly #ith respect to doing a#ay #ith grouping. difficulties in adLusting the rigid middle school ell
schedule to accommodate teaming and fleKile class scheduling. and parentsH oLections that their high'achieving
students did not receive enough recognition. 6o#ever. despite these difficulties. the changes had positive effects
on studentsN motivation *E. Anderman. Maehr. , Midgley. =>>>+.
4n contrast. much less #or% has een done on high school reform effort and the results of this #or% are
less consistent *"R3. FAA5+. Reform efforts have follo#ed similar principles aimed at creating school that etter
meet the competence. elonging. autonomy and mattering needs of the adolescent students. As is true for the
middle school reform efforts. #hen these principles are #ell implemented. improvements in studentsH motivation.
school engagement and academic performance are otained *"R3. FAA5+. !ut successfully implementing these
%inds of changes has proven to e very difficult at the high school level.
)6E S134A04CA)41" 12 M1)4-A)41"/ R10ES 12 &EERS
6o# might peers affect motivation and achievement; We focus on four possile lin%s/ the role of social
comparison in self'evaluation. the relation et#een social competence and school motivationDachievement. peers as
co'learners. and the reinforcing and socialiJing mechanism #ithin peer groups.
Social Comarison and Self!eval%ation
?iven the importance of aility self concepts in all motivational theories. understanding the role that peers
play in self'evaluation is critical to our understanding of motivation. Researchers interested in social comparison
have addressed this issue. focusing specifically on age'related increases in childrenHs use of social comparison
information in forming perceptions of oneHs o#n ailities 4n general. older children and adolescents use social
comparison more often and more accurately in forming their o#n self evaluations than younger children *e.g..
Rule. =>>5+. Rule *=>>5+ also suggested that the use of social comparison may increase during transitional
phases in oneNs life li%e the school transitions discussed earlier. )ogether these transitional processes and the age
related increases in the use of social comparison ma%e adolescents eKceptionally vulnerale to the motivational
consequences of such comparisons *Eccles et al.. =>>GI 2uligni , Eccles. =>>@+. 3ultural ac%ground *either in
terms of gender or ethnic group+ also li%ely influences the eKtent and the type of social comparison. 2inally. as
noted earlier. social comparison processes are very sensitive to social conteKt. particularly those lin%ed to the types
of classroom eKperiences lin%ed to performance versus mastery orientation.
Social Cometence and )otivation
Many studies document the positive association of good social s%ills #ith oth etter performance
and higher motivation in school *e.g.. Asher , 3oie. =>>AI Juvonen , WentJel =>>7I WentJel. =>>B+.
2urther. social competence and social support can help ease school transitions *!irch , 0add. =>>7I 0ord
et al.. =>>5I Ruin. !u%o#s%i. , &ar%er. =>>BI Ruin. 3oplan. 3hen. !us%ir%. , WoLsla#o#icJ. in
press+. )he eKact mechanisms underlying these associations are Lust eginning to e understood. Some
suggest that the association represents the influence of some underlying form of inherited intelligence or
temperamentDmotivational orientation that facilitates the acquisition oth social and academic competence
*e.g.. Martin. Dre#. ?addis. , Moseley. =>BBI WentJel. =>>=+. 1thers focus on the lin% et#een social
support and mental health/ 3hildren should e ale to focus more of their attention on learning if they
feel socially supported and #ell'li%ed y oth their peers and the adults in their learning conteKt and if
they feel that they elong *2urrer , S%inner. FAAGI ?oodeno#. =>>GI 0add. =>>AI 0ynch , 3icchetti.
=>>:I Roeser et al.. =>>7I Sage , (indermann. =>>>+. Well'li%ed children may also place more value on
learning in such a conteKt.
Peers as Co!3earners
)he eKtensive #or% on the advantages of cooperative learning provides another lin% et#een peers and
motivation. )his #or% suggests that doing learning activities in a social conteKt is usually more fun and. thus.
more intrinsically interesting *Slavin. =>>@I Stevens , Slavin. =>>@+. &eers also help each other understand and
learn the material through group discussion. sharing of resources. modeling academic s%ills. and interpreting and
clarifying the tas%s for each other *Schun%. =>B:+. Each of these characteristics should influence achievement
through its impact on childrenHs eKpectations for success. their valuing of the activity. and their focus on learning
rather than performance goals.
51
Motivation
Peer 0ro% 'nfl%ences
Much of the classic #or% on peer influences on school achievement focused on the negative effects of peer
groups on childrenHs commitment to doing #ell in school *see !ro#n. =>>A. FAA5 for revie#+. More recently.
researchers have investigated the specific mechanisms y #hich peer groups can have either a positive or negative
affect on motivation across various activity settings. )hese researchers document that children cluster together in
peer groups sharing similar motivational orientations and activity preferences and that such clustering reinforces
and strengthens their eKisting motivational orientation and activity preferences over time *e.g.. ?uay. !oivin. ,
6odges. =>>>I (indermann. Mc3ollam. , ?ison. =>>7I Ryan. FAA=+. Altermatt and &omerantJ *FAAG+ found in
a study of early adolescents that est friendsH report card grades #ere similar. as #ere their eliefs aout their
competence in different suLect areas. 4n addition. friends had significant *ut modest+ influences on each othersH
grades and motivational eliefs across the t#o school years studied. Whether such effects are positive or negative
depends on the nature of the peer groupsH motivational orientation. 6igh achieving children #ho see% out other
high achievers as friends develop even more positive academic motivation over time. 4n contrast. lo# achievers
#ho Loin a lo# achieving peer group should ecome even less motivated to do school #or% and more motivated to
engage in other activities more consistent #ith their peer groupHs values *see !ro#n. FAA5I (indermann. =>>GI
(indermann et al., =>>7+.
)he role of peer group influence varies across ages. #ith peers in an especially important role vis'V'vis
motivation and achievement during adolescence for t#o reasons/ Adolescents are more a#are of. and concerned
aout. peer group acceptance and spend much more unsupervised time #ith peers groups than younger children
*!ro#n. FAA5+. 3onsequently. adolescents should e especially vulnerale to peer group influences on their goals.
interests. and values. 4n addition. ho#ever. the potential negative impact of peers may e especially prolematic
for some adolescentsH academic achievement motivation. 2or eKample. early adolescents rate social activities as
very important and more enLoyale than most other activities. particularly academic activities *Eccles et al.. =>B>I
Wigfield et al.. =>>=+. 3onsequently. to the eKtent that oneHs peer group devalues academic achievement relative
to other goals and activities. the adolescents should shift their focus a#ay from academic pursuits in order to
maintain peer acceptance. 2inally. given other changes associated #ith adolescent development. it is quite li%ely
that a sustantial numer of adolescents #ill e recruited into such a peer group. Some of these adolescents #ill e
recruited into gangs Q a particularly prolematic peer group in terms of antisocial ehavior and lo# school
achievement *!attin'&earson. )hornerry. 6a#%ins. , (rohn. =>>BI "R3. FAA5+.
Another gro#ing concern aout the impact of peers on childrenHs school motivation focuses
ullying and peer violence at school. 2ighting increases during the middle school years. and more
students are ullied in middle school than in either elementary or high school *Juvonen. 0e. (aganoff.
Augustine. , 3onstant. FAA5+. !eing ullied is associated #ith many negative developmental outcomes.
including loneliness. depression. and social anKiety. as #ell as lo#er school performance *Juvonen ,
?raham. FAA=I Juvonen. "ishina. , ?raham. FAA=+. 4ncreasing percentages of oth middle and high
school students report concerns aout their safety in school. #hich of course distracts them from their
school learning and can lead to motivational disengagement from school *!rand et al.. FAAG+. 3reating
safer school environments #here ullying and other forms of violence are less li%ely clearly is an
important priority in terms of maKimiJing all studentsH school engagement and motivation.
31"30US41"S
Research on the development of childrenHs motivation remains a virant field. Many of the same
theories that #ere revie#ed in the previous chapter in this Handbook continue to e influential. although
the influence of some theories has #aned. and others gro#n. Research in these different theoretical
traditions is giving us a more complete understanding of the development of motivation across the
childhood and adolescent years.
We elieve the research since the last edition of this Handbook #as pulished has made
especially important advances in the follo#ing areas. 2irst. #e have learned much aout conteKtual
influences on motivation and ho# childrenHs motivation varies across different conteKts. such as in
different %inds of families. and different school conteKts. We have long %no#n that motivation is not
solely a characteristic of the individual. ut the ne# emphasis on 9motivation in conteKt< has rought that
point out much more clearly *6ic%ey , Mc3aslin. FAA=I Urdan. =>>>+. 2urther. as #e understand etter
conteKtual influences in schools and other settings that influence motivation. #e are ma%ing progress in
developing #ays to foster the development of childrenHs motivation in these settings *e.g.. ?uthrie et al..
FAA5I Maehr , Midgley. =>>7+. )hrough this intervention #or% the often'noted declines in childrenHs
motivation can e reversed or avoided.
Second. #e have learned much aout the development of motivation in diverse groups of children
in this country and others. Although much remains to e done in this area. motivation researchers
52
Motivation
increasingly include diverse samples in their #or%. revising their theories to incorporate culture more
clearly in their models. and testing their theories in diverse groups *see the Mc4nerney , -an Etten. FAA5
volume for good eKamples of this #or%+. 2ollo#ing ?rahamHs *=>>5+ call. much of this #or% is loo%ing at
variation (ithin different cultural groups. rather than comparisons across groups. )his is an important
trend ecause #e need to %no# much more aout variation in motivation #ithin different groups. rather
than ho# one groupHs mean level of motivation compares to the mean level of another group.
)hird. progress has een made in understanding the relations et#een motivation. cognition. and
self'regulation. #hich provides us #ith a more complete picture of childrenHs functioning in different
%inds of achievement settings *e.g.. !oe%aerts et al.. FAAAI &intrich. FAAGI Wolters. FAAGI Cimmerman.
FAAA+. $et as &intrich notes. much #or% remains to e done on this topic. as there is *potentially+ great
compleKity in these relations. Along #ith the relations of motivation. cognition. and self'regulation. there
has een increasing interest in research on relations et#een motivation and affect *e.g.. &e%run FAAAI
&intrich. FAAG+. and #e thin% this #or% #ill gro# over the neKt fe# years. Understanding relations among
the different motivational eliefs. values. and goalsI cognitive processesI and the regulation of ehavior
and affect is a maLor priority for the neKt several years.
Another important advance over the last eight years is the gro#ing concern for ho# motivation
constructs are defined. and attempts to specify the similarities and differences in related constructs *for
instance. self'efficacy and eKpectations for success+. A particular eKample of this is Murphy and
AleKanderHs *FAAA+ article in their special issue of Contemorary Ed%cational &sychology devoted to
motivational terminology. ut others have contriuted to these efforts as #ell *e.g.. !andura. =>>:I
&intrich. FAAGI Schun% , &aLares. FAAFI Wigfield , Eccles. FAAA+. As motivation terminology ecomes
increasingly clearly defined. theoretical clarity. and the similarities and differences across different
theories. also should e etter understood. 4ndeed. #e elieve it may e time for greater integration across
some of the maLor theories of motivation. rather than a continued proliferation of theories focused
primarily on one or t#o constructs.
2inally. in a chapter for the Handbook of Child Psychology #e thin% it important to note that
there needs to e more truly developmental #or% on the nature and development of motivation. Many
researchers have focused on individual differences and group differences in motivation. ut not al#ays on
motivational development. 1ne important developmental issue that needs more attention is ho# children
at different ages understand their o#n motivational eliefs. values. and goals. )he only such elief that
has een investigated systematically in this #ay is childrenHs conceptions of the nature of aility. )his
#or% has sho#n clearly that children have rather different conceptions of aility at different ages. #hich
has many implications for our understanding ho# motivation operates at different ages. as #ell as for ho#
#e measure childrenHs sense of aility. Such #or% has not een done #ith the other maLor elief. value.
and goal constructs discussed in this chapter. and this #or% should e underta%en.
)here have een important methodological advances that allo# us to study the development of
motivation in increasingly sophisticated #ays. Studies #e revie#ed earlier y Jacos et al. *FAAF+.
S%inner et al. *=>>B+ and Watt *FAA5+ are good eKamples. and there are other eKamples in the literature.
)hese researchers *and others+ are using ne#ly developed statistical methods to analyJe short and long'
term change in the elief. value. and goal constructs that impact motivation. )hese researchers also are
eKamining #hat eKplains different patterns of change in childrenHs eliefs. values. and goals. 3ontinuing
such #or% #ill lead to an even etter understanding of the develoment of motivation. 3oupling such
#or% #ith investigations into the rocesses involved in motivationHs relations to outcomes also #ill
advance the field.
53
Motivation
References
Ainley. M.. 6idi. S. , !erndorff. D. *FAAF+. 4nterest. learning. and the psychological process that mediate
their relationship. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, 9:, @5@'@7=.
AleKander. (. 0.. Dauer. S. 0.. Ent#isle. D. R. *=>>G+. 2irst'grade classroom ehavior/ 4ts short' and long'term
consequences for school performance. Child Develoment, 6:. BA='BAG.
AleKander. (. 0.. , Ent#isle. D. *=>BB+. Achievement in the first t#o years of school/ &atterns and processes.
)onograhs of the Society for 1esearch in Child Develoment, ;3 *F. Serial "o. F=B+.
AleKander. (. 0.. Ent#isle. D. R.. , !edinger. S. D. *=>>5+. When eKpectations #or%/ Race and
socioeconomic differences in school performance.M Social Psychology <%arterly 57, FBG'>>.
AleKander. (. 0. , Ent#isle. D. R. *=>>7+. Schools and children at ris%. 4n A. !ooth , J. Dunn *Eds.+.
/amily!school links+ Ho( do they affect ed%cational o%tcomes= Mah#ah. "J/ 0a#rence
Erlaum Associates.
AleKander. &. A.. (uli%o#ich. J. M.. , Jetton. ). 0. *=>>5+. )he role of suLect'matter %no#ledge and interest in
the processing of linear and nonlinear teKts. 1evie( of Ed%cational 1esearch, 6:, FA='F@F.
Altermatt. E. R.. , &omerantJ. E. M. *FAAG+. )he development of competence'related and motivational eliefs/
An investigation of similarity and influence among friends. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, 9;,==='
=FG.
Ames. 3. *=>>F+. 3lassrooms/ ?oals. structures. and student motivation. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, >:.
F7='F:=.
Ames. 3.. , Archer. J. *=>BB+. Achievement goals in the classroom/ StudentsN learning strategies and motivation
processes. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, >?. F7A'F7:.
Anderman. E. M.. Austin. 3. 3.. , Johnson. D. M. *FAAF+. )he development of goal orientation. 4n A. Wigfield
, J. S. Eccles *Eds.+. Develoment of achievement motivation *pp. =>:'FFA+. San Diego/ Academic &ress.
Anderman. E. M.. Maehr. M. 0.. , Midgley. 3. *=>>>+. Declining motivation after the transition to middle
school/ Schools can ma%e a difference. 8o%rnal of 1esearch and Develoment in Ed%cation, 3@. =G='=5:.
Anderman. 0. 6.. , Anderman. E. M. *=>>>+. Social predictors of changes in studentsH achievement goal
orientations. Contemorary Ed%cational Psychology, @;, F='G:.
Andre#s. ?. R.. , Deus. R. 0. *=>:B+. &ersistence and the causal perception of failure/ Modifying cognitive
attriutions. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, A?. =@5'=77.
Arreton. A. J. A.. , J. S. Eccles *=>>5. April+. MotherNs perceptions of their children during the
transition from %indergarten to formal schooling/ )he effect of teacher evaluations on parentsN
eKpectations for their early elementary school children. &aper presented at the annual meeting of
the American Educational Research Association 3onference. "e# 1rleans. 0A.
Arreton. A. J.. Eccles. J. S. , 6arold. R. *=>>5. April+. Parents, ercetions of their children,s
cometence+ "he role of arents attrib%tions. &aper presented at the iennial meeting of the Society
for Research on Adolescence. San Diego.
Aronson. J. *FAAF+. Stereotype threat/ contending and coping #ith unnerving eKpectations. 4n J.
Aronson *Ed.+. 'mroving academic achievement+ 'mact of sychological factors on ed%cation
*pp. F:>'GA=+. San Diego/ Academic &ress.
Aronson. J. 2ried. 3.!.. , ?ood. 3. *FAA=+. Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African
American college students y shaping theories of intelligence. 8o%rnal of E*erimental Social
Psychology.
Aronson. J.. , Steele. 3. M. *in press+. Stereotypes and the fragility of academic competence. motivation. and
self'concept. 4n A. J. Elliot , 3. S. D#ec% *Eds.+. Handbook of cometence and motivation. "e# $or%/
?uilford.
Arroyo. 3. S'Cigler. E. *=>>@+. Racial identity. academic achievement. and the psychological #ell eing
of economically disadvantaged adolescents. 8o%rnal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, >AG'
>=5.
Asher. S. R.. , 3oie. J. D. *Eds.+ *=>>A+. Peer re-ection in childhood. 3amridge. U(/ 3amridge
University &ress.
Ashton. &. *=>B@+. Motivation and the teacherNs sense of efficacy. 4n 3. Ames , R. Ames *Eds.+. 1esearch on
motivation in ed%cationB Vol. @. "he classroom milie% *pp. =5='=:=+. 1rlando. 20/ Academic &ress.
At%inson. J. W. *=>@:+. Motivational determinants of ris% ta%ing ehavior. Psychological 1evie(, 6:. G@>'G:F.
At%inson. J. W. *=>75+. $n introd%ction to motivation. &rinceton. "J/ -an "ostrand.
54
Motivation
!andura. A. *=>::+. Self'efficacy/ )o#ard a unifying theory of ehavioral change. Psychological 1evie(, >:,
=>='F=@.
!andura. A. *=>B7+. Social fo%ndations of tho%ght and action+ $ social cognitive theory. Engle#ood 3liffs. "J/
&rentice'6all.
!andura. A. *=>>@+. EKercise of personal and collective efficacy in changing societies. 4n A. !andura *Ed.+. Self!
efficacy in changing societies *pp. ='5@+. 3amridge. U(/ 3amridge University &ress.
!andura. A. *=>>:+. Self!efficacy+ "he e*ercise of control. "e# $or%/ W. 6. 2reeman.
!arer. !.. , Eccles. J. S. *=>>F+. A developmental vie# of the impact of divorce and single parenting on children
and adolescents. Psychological &%lletin, CCC, =AB'=F7.
!aron. R. M.. )om. D. $. 6.. , 3ooper. 6. M. *=>B@+. Social class. race. and teacher eKpectations. 4n J. !. Duse%
*Ed.+. "eacher e*ectancies *pp. F@='F7>+. 6illsdale. "J/ Erlaum.
!attin'&earson. S. R.. )hornerry. ). &.. 6a#%ins. J. D.. , (rohn. M. D. *=>>B+. 0ang membershi, delinD%ent
eers, and delinD%ent behavior. *Rep. "o. ='==+. Washington D3/ U. S. Department of Justice.
!attle. A.. , Wigfield. A. *FAAG+. 3ollege #omenHs value orientations to#ard family. career. and
graduate school. 8o%rnal of Vocational &ehavior, 6@. @7':@.
!aumeister. R.2. , 0eary. M.R. *=>>@+. )he need to elong. Desire for interpersonal attachments as a
fundamental human motivation. Psychological &%lletin, CCA. 5>:'@F>.
!aumert. J. *=>>@. April+. 0ender, science interest, teaching strategies and socially shared beliefs abo%t gender
roles in Ath graders ! a m%lti!level analysis. &aper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association. San 2rancisco.
!irch. S. 6.. , 0add. ?. W. *=>>7+. 4nterpersonal relationships in the school environment and childrenNs
early school adLustment/ )he role of teachers and peers. 4n J. Juvonen , (. R. WentJel *Eds.+. Social
motivation+ Enderstanding children,s school ad-%stment *pp. =>>'FF@+. "e# $or%/ 3amridge
University &ress.
!lumenfeld. &. 3. *=>>F+. 3lassroom learning and motivation/ 3larifying and eKpanding goal theory. 8o%rnal of
Ed%cational Psychology, >:. F:F'FB=.
!oe%aerts. M.. &intrich. &. R.. , Ceidner. M. *FAAA+. Handbook of self!reg%lation. San Diego/ Academic &ress.
!ong. M. *FAA=+. Role of self'efficacy and tas% value in predicting college studentsH course enrollments and
intentions. Contemorary Ed%cational Psychology, @6. @@G'@:A.
!ong. M.. , 3lar%. R. E. *=>>>+. 3omparison et#een self'concept and self'efficacy in academic motivation
research. Ed%cational Psychologist, 3:. =G>'=@5.
!or%o#s%i. J. ?.. Weyhing. R. S.. , 3arr. M. *=>BB+. Effects of attriutional retraining on strategy'ased reading
comprehension in learning'disaled student. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, >?, 57'@G.
!rand. S.. 2elner. R.. Shim. M.. Seitsinger. A.. , Dumas. ). *FAAG+. Middle school improvement and reform/
Development and validation of a school'level assessment of climate. cultural pluralism. and school safety.
8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, 9;. @:A'@BB.
!ronfenrenner. U.. , Morris. &. A. *=>>B+. )he ecology of environmental processes. 4n W. Damon
*Series Ed.+ , R. M. 0erner *-ol. Ed.+. Handbook of child sychology *@th ed.. -ol. =. pp. >>G'
=AFB+. "e# $or%/ Wiley.
!roo%s'?unn. J. ?uo. ?.. , 2urstenerg. 2. 2. Jr. *=>>G+. Who drops out of and #ho continues eyond high
school; A FA'year follo# up of lac% uran youth. 8o%rnal of 1esearch on $dolescence, 3. F:='F>5.
!rophy. J. E. *=>B@+. )eacher'student interaction. 4n J. !. Duse% *Ed.+. "eacher e*ectations *pp. GAG'GFB+.
6illsdale. "J/ Erlaum.
!rophy. J. E. *FAA5+. )otivating st%dents to learn *F
nd
Ed.+. Mah#ah. "J/ Erlaum.
!rophy. J. E. *=>>>+. )o#ard a model of the value aspects of motivation in education/ Developing
appreciation for particular learning domains and activities. Ed%cational Psychologist. 3:. :@'B@.
!rophy. J. E.. , ?ood. ). 0. *=>:5+. "eacher!st%dent relationshis+ Ca%ses and conseD%ences. "e#
$or%/ 6olt. Rinehart. and Winston.
!ro#n. !. !. *=>>A+. &eer groups and peer culture. 4n S. S. 2eldman and ?. R. Elliott *Eds.+. $t the threshold+
"he develoing adolescent *pp. =:='=>7+. 3amridge. MA/ 6arvard University &ress.
!ro#n. !. !. *FAA5+. AdolescentsH relationships #ith peers. 4n R. M. 0erner , 0. D. Steinerg *Eds.+. Handbook
of adolescent sychology *F
nd
Ed.. pp. G7G'G>5+. "e# $or%/ Wiley.
!ry%. A. S.. 0ee. -. E.. 6olland. &.!. *=>>G+. Catholic schools and the common good. 3amridge. MA/ 6arvard
University &ress.
!ulloc%. M.. , 0ut%enhaus. &. *=>BB+. )he development of volitional ehaviors in the toddler years. Child
Develoment, ;9. 775'7:5.
55
Motivation
!urhans. (. (.. , D#ec%. 3. S. *=>>@+. 6elplessness in early childhood/ )he role of contingent #orth. Child
Develoment, 66. =:=>'=:GB.
!utler. R. *=>>G+. Effects of tas%' and ego'achievement goals on information see%ing during tas% engagement.
8o%rnal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6;. =B'G=.
3ameron. J.. , &ierce. W. D. *=>>5+. Reinforcement. re#ard. and intrinsic motivation/ A meta'analysis. 1evie(
of Ed%cational 1esearch, 6:. G7G'5F5.
3arnegie 3ouncil on Adolescent Development *=>B>+. "%rning oints+ Prearing $merican yo%th for the @Cst
cent%ry. Washington. D3.
3hen. A.. Darst. &. W. , &angraJi. R. &. *FAA=+. An eKamination of situational interest and its sources.
&ritish 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology. AC. GBG'5AA.
3hir%ov. -.. Ryan. R.M.. (im. $.. , (aplan. U. *FAAG+. Differentiating autonomy from individualism
and independence/ A Self'Determination )heory perspective on internaliJation of cultural
orientations and #ell'eing. 8o%rnal of Personality and Social Psychology, >:. >:'==A.
3lar%. R. *=>BGF. /amily life and school achievement+ #hy oor black children s%cceed or fail. 3hicago/
University of 3hicago &ress.
3lar%. R. *=>>G+. 6ome#or% parenting practices that positively affect student achievement. 4n ". 2.
3hav%in *Ed.+. /amilies and schools in a l%ralistic society *pp. @GQ:=+. Alany/ State
University of "e# $or% &ress.
3ollins. W. A.. Maccoy. E. E.. Steinerg. 0.. 6etherington. E. M.. , !ornstein. M. 6. *FAAA+.
3ontemporary research on parenting. )he case for nature and nurture. $merican Psychologist, ;;.
F=B'GF.
3onger. R. D.. Wallace. E.. 0ora. Sun. $umei. !rody. ?.. Mc0oyd. -.. Simons. R.0. and &eris. 0.
*FAAF+. Economic pressure in African'American families/ A replication and eKtension of the family
stress model. Develomental Psychology. 3>, =:>'=>G.
3onnell. J. &. *=>B@+. A ne# multidimensional measure of childrenNs perception of control. Child Develoment,
;6. =A=B'=A5=.
3onnell. J. &.. 6alpern'2elsher. !. 0.. 3lifford. E.. 3richlo#. W.. , Usinger. &. *=>>@+. 6anging in there/
!ehavioral. psychological. and conteKtual factors affecting #hether African'American adolescents stay in
high school. 8o%rnal of $dolescent 1esearch, C?. 5='7G.
3onnell. J. &.. Spencer. M. !.. , Aer. J. 0. *=>>5+. Educational ris% and resilience in African American $outh/
3onteKt. self. and action outcomes in school. Child Develoment, 6;. 5>G'@A7.
3onnell. J. &.. , Wellorn. J. ?. *=>>=+. 3ompetence. autonomy. and relatedness/ A motivational analysis of self'
system processes. 4n R. ?unnar , 0. A. Sroufe *Eds.+. )innesota symosia on child sychology *-ol. FG.
pp. 5G'::+. 6illsale. "J/ 0a#rence Erlaum Associates.
3oo%. ). D.. 3hurch. M. !.. ALana%u. S.. Shadish. W. R.. (im. J. R.. , 3ohen. R. *=>>7+. )he development of
occupational aspirations and eKpectations among inner'city oys. Child Develoment, 6A. GG7B'GGB@.
3ooper. 6.. , Dorr. ". *=>>@+. Race comparisons on need for achievement/ A meta'analytic
alternative to ?rahamHs narrative revie#. 1evie( of Ed%cational 1esearch, 6;. 5BG'@AB.
3ordova. D. 4.. , 0epper. M. R. *=>>7+. 4ntrinsic motivation and the process of learning/ !eneficial effects of
conteKtualiJation. personaliJation. and choice. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, >>. :=@':GA.
3orno. 0. *=>>G+. )he est'laid plans/ Modern conceptions of volition and educational research. Ed%cational
1esearcher, @@. =5'FF.
3orno. 0. *in press+. Wor% haits and study styles/ -olition in education. "eachers College Press.
3orno. 0.. , (anfer. R. *=>>G+. )he role of volition in learning and performance. 4n 0. Darling'6ammond *Ed.+.
1evie( of research in ed%cation *-ol. F>+. Washington. D3/ American Educational Research Association.
3or#yn. R. 2. , !radley. R. 2. *FAAG+. /amily rocess mediators of the relation bet(een SES and child
o%tcomes. Unpulished manuscript. University of Ar%ansas at 0ittle Roc%.
3ouncil of the ?reat 3ity Schools. *=>>F+. 6ational %rban ed%cation goals+ &aseline indicators, C99?!9C.
Washington. D3/ 3ouncil of the ?reat 3ity Schools.
3ovington. M. -. *=>>F+. )aking the grade+ $ self!(orth ersective on motivation and school reform. "e#
$or%/ 3amridge University &ress.
3ovington. M. -.. , Dray. E. *FAAF+. )he developmental course of achievement motivation/ A need'ased
approach. 4n A. Wigfield , J. S. Eccles *Eds.+. Develoment of achievement motivation *pp. GG'@7+. San
Diego/ Academic &ress.
3randall. -. 3.. (at%ovs%y. W.. , 3randall. -. J. *=>7@+. 3hildrenNs eliefs in their o#n control of
reinforcements in intellectual'academic achievement situations. Child Develoment, 36. >='=A>
56
Motivation
3rystal. D. S.. , Stevenson. 6. W. *=>>=+. MothersN perceptions of childrenNs prolems #ith mathematics/ A
cross'national comparison. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, >3. G:F'G:7.
3si%sJentmihalyi. M. *=>BB+. )he flo# eKperience and its significance for human psychology. 4n M.
3si%sJentmihalyi , 4. S. 3si%sJentmihalyi *Eds.+. 2timal e*erience *pp. =@'G@+. 3amridge. MA/
3amridge University &ress.
3si%sJentmihalyi. M.. , Massimini. 2. *=>B@+. 1n the psychological selection of io'cultural information. 6e(
'deas in Psychology, 3. =@'GB.
3si%sJentmihalyi. M.. Rathunde. (.. , Whalen. S. *=>>G+. "alented teenagers+ "he roots of s%ccess and fail%re.
"e# $or%/ 3amridge University &ress.
Darling'6ammond. 0. *=>>:+. "he right to learn+ $ bl%erint for creating schools that (ork. San 2rancisco/
Jossey'!ass.
Davis'(ean. &. E. *in press+. )he influence of parent education and family income on child achievement/
)he indirect role of parental eKpectations and the home environment. "he 8o%rnal of /amily
Psychology.
Davis'(ean. &. E. , Eccles. J. S. *FAAG+. 4nfluences and arriers to etter parent'school collaorations.
"he 3SS 1evie(. @ *=+. 5'@.
Davis'(ean. &. E.. Eccles. J. S. , Schnael. (. U. *August. FAAF+. Ho( the home environment sociali.es
a child+ "he infl%ence of SES on child o%tcomes. &aper presented at the 4nternational Society
for the Study of !ehavioral Development. 1tta#a. 3anada.
Davis'(ean. &. E. , Eccles. J. S. *FAAG+. 4nfluences and arriers to etter parent'school collaorations.
"he 3SS 1evie(. @ *=+. 5'@.
Davis'(ean. &. E. , Magnuson. (. A. *FAA5+. "he imortance of arents5 ed%cation on child o%tcomes.
Unpulished manuscript.
Davis'(ean. &. E.. Malanchu%. 1.. &ec%. S. 3.. , Eccles. J. S. *FAAG+. Parental infl%ence on academic
o%tcomes+ do race and SES matter; &aper presented at the !iennial Meeting of the Society for
Research on 3hild Development. )ampa. 20.
De!aryshe. !. D.. &atterson. ?. R.. , 3apaldi. D. M. *=>>G+. A performance model for academic achievement in
early adolescence. Develomental Psychology, @9. :>@'BA5.
Deci. E. 0.. (oestner. R.. , Ryan. R. M. *=>>>+. A meta'analytic revie# of eKperiments eKamining the effects of
eKtrinsic motivation on intrinsic re#ards. Psychological &%lletin, C@;,7F:'77B.
Deci. E. 0. *=>>F+. )he relation of interest to the motivation of ehavior/ A self'determination theory perspective.
4n (. A. Renninger. S. 6idi. , A. (rapp *Eds.+. "he role of interest in learning and develoment *pp. 5G'
:A+. 6illsdale. "J/ Erlaum.
Deci. E. 0. *=>>B+. )he relation to interest to motivation and human needs/ )he self'determination theory
vie#point. 4n. 0. 6offman. A. (rapp. (. A. Renninger. , J. !aumert *Eds.+. 'nterest and learning *pp. =57'
=7F+. (iel. ?ermany/ 4&" &ress
Deci. E. 0.. , Ryan. R. M. *=>B@+. 'ntrinsic motivation and self!determination in h%man behavior. "e# $or%/
&lenum &ress.
Deci. E. 0.. , Ryan. R. M. *FAAFa+. Self'determination research/ Reflections and future directions. 4n E. 0. Deci ,
R. M. Ryan *Eds.+. Handbook of self!determination theory research *pp. 5G='55=+. Rochester. "$/
University of Rochester &ress.
Deci. E. 0.. , Ryan. R. M. *FAAF+. )he paradoK of achievement/ )he harder you push. the #orse it gets. 4n J.
Aronson *Ed.+. 'mroving academic achievement+ 'mact of sychological factors on ed%cation *pp. 7='
B:+. San Diego/ Academic &ress.
Deci. E.. 0.. -allerand. R. J.. &elletier. 0. 3.. , Ryan. R. M. *=>>=+. Motivation and education/ )he self'
determination perspective. Ed%cational Psychologist, @6. GF@'G57.
Denny. D. R. *=>BA+. Self'control approaches to the treatment of test anKiety. 4n 4. ?. Sarason *Ed.+. "est an*iety+
"heory, research, and alications. 6illsdale. "J/ 0a#rence Erlaum Associates.
Deeter. ). E. *=>>A+. Remodeling eKpectancy and value in physical activity. 8o%rnal of Sort and E*ercise
Psychology, C@, BG'>=.
De#ey. J. *=>=G+. 'nterest and effort in ed%cation. !oston/ Riverside &ress.
Deyhle. D.. , 0e3ompte. M. *=>>>+. 3ultural differences in child development/ "avaho adolescents in middle
schools. 4n R. 6. Sheets and E. R. 6ollins *Eds.+. 1acial and ethnic identity in school ractices+ $sects of
h%man develoment. *pp. =FG'=5A+. Mah#ah. "J/ 0a#rence Erlaum Associates.
Dornusch. S. M. *=>>5F. 2ff the track. &residential address at the iennial meeting of the Society for Research
on Adolescence. San Diego. 3A.
57
Motivation
Do#son. M.. , Mc4nerney. D. M. *FAAG+. What do students say aout their motivational goals; )o#ards a more
compleK and dynamic perspective on student motivation. Contemorary Ed%cational Psychology, @>, >='
==G.
Dreean. R.. , !arr. R. *=>BB+. 3lassroom composition and the design of instruction. Sociology of Ed%cation, 6C,
=F>'=5F.
Dryfoos. J. ?. *=>>A+. $dolescents at risk+ Prevalence and revention. 1Kford/ 1Kford University &ress.
Duncan. ?. J.. !roo%s'?unn. J.. , (levanov. &. (. *=>>5+. Economic deprivation and early childhood
development. Child Develoment, 6;. F>7'G=B.
Duse%. J. !. *=>BA+. )he development of test anKiety in children. 4n 4. ?. Sarason *Ed.+. "est an*iety+ "heory,
research, and alications. 6illsdale. "J/ Erlaum.
D#ec%. 3. S. *=>:@+. )he role of eKpectations and attriutions in the alleviation of learned helplessness. 8o%rnal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 3C. 7:5'7B@.
D#ec%. 3. S. *FAAF+. )he development of aility conceptions. 4n A. Wigfield , J. S. Eccles *Eds.+. Develoment
of achievement motivation *pp. @:'BB+. San Diego/ Academic &ress.
D#ec%. 3. S.. , Elliott. E. S. *=>BG+. Achievement motivation. 4n &. 6. Mussen *Ed.+. Handbook of child
sychology *-ol. 4-. Grd. Ed.. pp. 75G'7>=+. "e# $or%/ Wiley.
D#ec%. 3. S.. , ?oetJ. ). E. *=>:B+. Attriutions and learned helplessness. 4n J. 6. 6arvey. W. 4c%es. , R. 2.
(idd *Eds.+. 6e( directions in attrib%tion research *-ol. F. pp. =@@'=:>+. 6illsdale. "J/ Erlaum.
D#ec%. 3. S.. , 0eggett. E. *=>BB+. A social'cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological
1evie(, 9;. F@7'F:G.
D#ec%. 3. S.. , 0ennon. 3. *FAA=. April+. Person vs. rocess foc%sed arenting+ 'mact on achievement
motivation. &aper presented at the iennial meeting of the Society for Research in 3hild Development.
Minneapolis.
D#ec%. 3. S.. , 0icht. !. ?. *=>BA+. 0earned helplessness and intellectual achievement. 4n J. ?arer , M. E. &.
Seligman *Eds.+. H%man hellessness+ "heory and alications. "e# $or%/ Academic &ress.
Eaton. M. J. , Demo. M.6. *=>>:+. Differences in the motivational eliefs of Asian American and "on'
Asian students. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, >9. 5GG'55A.
Eccles. J. S. *=>B5+. SeK differences in achievement patterns. 4n ). Sonderegger *Ed.+. 6ebraska Symosi%m on
)otivation *-ol. GF. pp. >:'=GF+. 0incoln. "E/ University of "eras%a &ress.
Eccles. J. S. *=>B:+. ?ender roles and #omenNs achievement'related decisions. Psychology of #omen <%arterly,
CC, =G@'=:F.
Eccles. J. S. *=>B>+. !ringing young #omen to math and science. 4n M. 3ra#ford and M. ?entry *Eds.+. 0ender
and tho%ght+ Psychological ersectives *pp. G7'@:+. "e# $or%/ Springer'-erlag.
Eccles. J. S.. *=>>G+. School and family effects on the ontogeny of childrenNs interests. self'perceptions. and
activity choice. 4n J. Jacos *Ed.+ 6ebraska Symosi%m on )otivation, C99@+ Develomental ersectives
on motivation. *pp. =5@' FAB+ 0incoln. "!/ University of "eras%a &ress.
Eccles. J. S. *=>>5+. Understanding #omenNs educational and occupational choices/ Applying the Eccles et al.
model of achievement'related choices. Psychology of #omen <%arterly, C>. @B@'7A>.
Eccles. J. S. *=>>B+. 3ommentary/ 4ndividual differences and the development of perceived control. )onograhs of
the Society for 1esearch in Child Develoment *Serial "o. F@5. -ol. 7. "o.F'G. pp. FF='FG=+.
Eccles. J. S. *FAA5+. Schools. academic motivation. and stage'environment fit. 4n R. M. 0erner , 0. Steinerg
*Eds.+. Handbook of adolescent sychology *F
nd
ed.. pp. =F@'=@G+. "e# $or%/ John Wiley and sons.
Eccles. J. S.. , !arer. !. 0. *=>>>+. Student council. volunteering. as%etall. or marching and/ What %ind of
eKtracurricular involvement matters; 8o%rnal of $dolescent 1esearch, C:. =A'5G.
Eccles. J. S.. 2reedman'Doan. 3.. , $oon. (. *FAAA+. ?ender'role socialiJation in the family/ a
longitudinal approach. 4n ). Ec%es , 6. M. )rautner *Eds+. "he develomental social sychology
of gender. Mah#ah. "J. 0a#rence Erlaum Associates GGG'G7A.
Eccles. J. S. , 6arold. R. D. *=>>=+. ?ender differences in sport involvement/ Applying the EcclesN eKpectancy'
value model. 8o%rnal of $lied Sort Psychology, 3. :'G@.
Eccles. J. S.. , 6arold. R. D. *=>>F+. ?ender differences in educational and occupational patterns among the
gifted. 4n ". 3olangelo. S. ?. Assouline. , D. 0. Amronson *Eds.+. "alent Develoment+ Proceedings form
the C99C Henry &. and 8ocelyn #allace 6ational 1esearch Symosi%m on "alent Develoment. Unionville.
"$/ )rillium &ress *pp. G'F>+.
Eccles. J. S.. , 6arold. R. D. *=>>G+. &arent'school involvement during the early adolescent years. "eachers,
College 1ecord, 9:, @7B'@B:.
58
Motivation
Eccles. J. S.. , Midgley. 3. *=>B>+. StageDenvironment fit/ Developmentally appropriate classrooms for early
adolescents. 4n R. Ames , 3. Ames *Eds.+. 1esearch on motivation in ed%cation *-ol. G. pp. =G>'=B=+.
"e# $or%/ Academic &ress.
Eccles. J. S.. Midgley. 3.. Wigfield. A.. Reuman. D.. Mac 4ver. D.. , 2eldlaufer. 6. *=>>G+. "egative effects of
traditional middle'schools on studentsN motivation. Elementary School 8o%rnal, 93, @@G' @:5.
Eccles. J. S.. , Wigfield. A. *=>B@+. )eacher eKpectations and student motivation. 4n J. !. Duse% *Ed.+. "eacher
e*ectations *pp. =B@'F=:+. 6illsdale. "J/ 0a#rence Erlaum Associates.
Eccles. J. S.. , Wigfield. A. *=>>@+. 4n the mind of the achiever/ )he structure of adolescentsN academic
achievement related'eliefs and self'perceptions. Personality and Social Psychology &%lletin, @C. F=@'FF@.
Eccles. J. S.. , Wigfield. A. *FAAF+. Motivational eliefs. values. and goals. $nn%al 1evie( of
Psychology, ;3. =A>'=GF.
Eccles. J. S.. Wigfield. A.. 2lanagan. 3.. Miller. 3.. Reuman. D.. , $ee. D. *=>B>+. Self'concepts. domain values.
and self'esteem/ Relations and changes at early adolescence. 8o%rnal of Personality, ;A. FBG'G=A.
Eccles. J. S.. Wigfield. A.. 6arold. R.. , !lumenfeld. &. !. *=>>G+. Age and gender differences in childrenNs self'
and tas% perceptions during elementary school. Child Develoment, 6:. BGA'B5:.
Eccles. J. S.. Wigfield. A.. , Schiefele. U. *=>>B+. Motivation to succeed. 4n W. Damon *Series Ed.+ ,
". Eisenerg *-olume Ed.+ Handbook of child sychology *@th ed.. -ol. 444. pp. =A=:'=A>@+. "e#
$or%/ Wiley
Eccles *&arsons+. J.. Adler. ). 2.. 2utterman. R.. ?off. S. !.. (acJala. 3. M.. Meece. J. 0.. , Midgley. 3. *=>BG+.
EKpectancies. values. and academic ehaviors. 4n J. ). Spence *Ed.+. $chievement and achievement
motivation *pp.:@'=57+. San 2rancisco. 3A./ W. 6. 2reeman.
Elder. ?. 6.. Eccles. J. S.. Ardelt. M.. , 0ord. S. *=>>@+. 4nner'city parents under economic pressure/ &erspectives
on the strategies of parenting. 8o%rnal of )arriage and the /amily, 6. B='B7.
Elliot. A. J. *=>>>+. Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Ed%cational Psychologist, 3:.
=7>'=B>.
Elliot. A. J.. , Mc?regor. 6. *FAA=+. A F K F achievement goal frame#or%. 8o%rnal of Personality and Social
Psychology, >?. @A='@A>.
Elliot. A. J.. 3hir%ov. -.4.. (im. $.. , Sheldon. (.M. *FAA=+. A cross'cultural analysis of avoidance
*relative to approach+ personal goals. Psychological Science, 6. @A@'@=A.
Elliot. A. J.. D#ec%. 3. S. *Eds.+. *in press+. Handbook of cometence and motivation. "e# $or%/
?uilford.
Elliot. A. J.. , 6arac%ie#icJ. J. M. *=>>7+. Approach and avoidance goals and intrinsic motivation/ A mediational
analysis. 8o%rnal of Personality and Social Psychology, A?. 57='5:@.
Ent#isle. D. R.. , AleKander. (. 0. *=>>A+. !eginning school math competence/ Minority and maLority
comparisons. Child Develoment, 6C. 5@5'5:=.
Ent#isle. D. R.. , AleKander. (. 0. *=>>G+. Entry into school/ )he eginning school transition and educational
stratification in the United States. $nn%al 1evie( of Sociology, C9. 5A='5FG.
Ent#isle. D. R.. , AleKander. (. 0. *=>>>+. Early schooling and social stratification. 4n R. 3. &ianta , M. J.
3oK *Eds.+. "he transition to kindergarten *pp. =G'GB+. !altimore/ &. 6. !roo%es &ulishing.
2eather. ". ). *=>BF+. EKpectancy ' value approaches/ &resent status and future directions. 4n ". ). 2eather *Ed.+.
E*ectations and actions+ E*ectancy!val%e models in sychology *pp. G>@'5FA+. 6illsdale. "J/ Erlaum.
2eather. ". ). *=>BB+. -alues. valences. and course enrollment/ )esting the role of personal values #ithin an
eKpectancy ' value frame#or%. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, >?. GB='G>=.
2eather. ". ). *=>>F+. -alues. valences. eKpectations. and actions. 8o%rnal of Social 'ss%es, :>. =A>'=F5.
2elner. R. D.. Jac%son. A. W.. (asa%. D.. Mulhall. &.. !rand. S.. , 2lo#ers. ". *=>>:+. )he impact of school
reform for the middle years/ 0ongitudinal study of a net#or% engaged in )urning &oints'ased
comprehensive school transformation. Phi Delta Gaan,A>. @FB'@GFI @5='@@A.
2erguson. R. 2. *=>>B+. )eachersH perceptions and eKpectations and the !lac%'White test score gap. 4n 3.
Jenc%s , M &hillips *Eds.+. "he &lack!#hite test score ga. *pp.F:G' G=:+. Washington. D. 3./
!roo%ings 4nstitute &ress.
2ine. M. *=>>=+. /raming droo%ts+ 6otes on the olitics of an %rban %blic high school. Alany/ State
University of "e# $or% &ress.
2inn. J. D. *=>B>+. Withdra#ing from school. 1evie( of Ed%cational 1esearch, ;9. ==:'=5F.
2iqueira'McDonough. J. *=>B7+. School conteKt. gender. and delinquency. 8o%rnal of 4o%th and
$dolescence, C;. :>'>B.
59
Motivation
2ord. M. E. *=>>FF. H%man motivation+ 0oals, emotions, and ersonal agency beliefs. "e#ury &ar%. 3A/ Sage.
2ordham. S.. , 1gu. J. U. *=>B7+. !lac% studentsN school success/ 3oping #ith Mthe urden of Nacting #hiteNM.
"he Erban 1evie(, C>. =:7'FA7.
2orsterling. 2. *=>B@+. Attriutional retraining/ A revie#. Psychological &%lletin, 9>. 5>@'@=F.
2rederic%s. J.. , Eccles. J. S. *FAAF+. 3hildrenHs competence and value eliefs from childhood through
adolescence/ ?ro#th traLectories in t#o male seK'typed domains. Develomental Psychology, 3>. @=>'@GG.
2rome. &.. , Eccles J. *=>>@. AprilF. Enderestimation of academic ability in the middle school 4ears. !ased on
poster presented at the SR3D. 4ndianapolis. 4".
2rome. &. M. , Eccles. J. S. *=>>B+. &arentsN influence on childrenNs achievement'related perceptions.
8o%rnal of Personality and Social Psychology. A:*F+ 5G@'5@F.
2uligni. A. J.. , Eccles. J. S. *=>>G+. &erceived parent'child relationships and early adolescentsN orientation
to#ards peers. Develomental Psychology, @9. 7FF'7GF.
2uligni. A. J.. Eccles. J. S.. !arer. !. 0. *=>>@+. )he long'term effects of seventh'grade aility grouping in
mathematics. 8o%rnal of Early $dolescence, C;. @B'B>.
2uligni. A. J.. , )seng. -. *=>>>+. 2amily oligation and the academic motivation of adolescents from
immigrant and American'orn families. 4n ). Urdan *Ed.+. $dvances in motivation and achievement,
Vol%me CC+ "he role of conte*t *pp. =@>'=BG+. Stamford. 3)/ JA4 &ress.
2urrer. 3.. , S%inner. E. *FAAG+. Sense of relatedness as a factor in childrenHs academic engagement and
performance. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology. 9;. =5B'=7F.
2urstenerg. 2.. 3oo%. ).. Eccles. J.. Elder. ?.. , Sameroff. A. *=>>>+. )anaging to make it+ Erban families in
adolescent s%ccess. 3hicago/ University of 3hicago &ress.
?alper. A.. Wigfield. A.. , Seefeldt. 3. *=>>:+. 6ead Start parentsN eliefs aout their childrenNs ailities.
tas% values. and performance on different activities. Child Develoment, 6>. B>:'>A:.
?arcia. ).. , &intrich. &. R. *=>>5+. Regulating motivation and cognition in the classroom/ )he role of self'
schemas and self'regulatory strategies. 4n D. 6. Schun% and !. J. Cimmerman *Eds.+. Self!reg%lation of
learning and erformance+ 'ss%es and ed%cational alications *pp. =F:'=@5+. 6illsdale. "J/ 0a#rence
Erlaum Associates.
3arcia 3oll. 3.. ).. 3rnic. (.. 6amerty. ?.. Wasi%. !. 6.. Jen%ins. R.. -aJqueJ ?arcia. 6.. , McAdoo. 6. &.
*=>>7+. An integrative model for the study of developmental competencies in minority children. Child
Develoment, @?.=B>='=>=5.
?arcia 3oll. 3.. , &achter. 0. M. *FAAF+. Ethnic and minority parenting. 4n M. !ornstein *Ed.+.
Handbook of arenting HF
nd
Ed.. -ol. 5+. Mah#ah. "J/ Erlaum.
?oodno#. 3. *=>>G+. 3lassroom elonging among early adolescent students/ Relationships to motivation and
achievement. 8o%rnal of Early $dolescence, C3*=+. F='5G.
?oodno#. J. J.. , 3ollins. W. A. *=>>A+. Develoment according to arents+ "he nat%re, so%rces, and
conseD%ences of arents, ideas. 0ondon/ Erlaum.
?ottfried. A. E.. *=>B@+. Academic intrinsic motivation in elementary and Lunior high school students.
8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, AA*7+. 7G='75@.
?ottfried. A. E. *=>>A+. Academic intrinsic motivation in young elementary school children. 8o%rnal of
Ed%cational Psychology, >@. @F@'@GB.
?ottfried. A. E.. 2leming. J. S.. , ?ottfried. A. W. *FAA=+. 3ontinuity of academic intrinsic motivation from
childhood through late adolescence/ A longitudinal study. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, 93. G'=G.
?raham. S. *=>>=+. A revie# of attriution theory in achievement conteKts. Ed%cational Psychology 1evie(, 3, @'
GB.
?raham. S. *=>>F+. Most of the suLects #ere European American and middle class/ )rends in pulished research
on African Americans in selected A&A Lournals =>:A'=>B>. $merican Psychologist, :A, 7F>'7G>.
?raham. S. *=>>5+. Motivation in African Americans. 1evie( of Ed%cational 1esearch, 6:. @@'==:.
?raham. S.. , !ar%er. ?. *=>>A+. )he do#nside of help/ An attriutional'developmental analysis of helping
ehavior as a lo# aility cue. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, >@. :'=5.
?raham. S.. , ?olan. S. *=>>=+. Motivational influences on cognition/ )as% involvement. ego involvement. and
depth of information processing. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, >3. =B:'=>5.
?raham. S.. , )aylor. A. C. *FAAF+. Ethnicity. gender. and the development of achievement values. 4n
A. Wigfield , J. S. Eccles *Eds.+. Develoment of achievement motivation *pp. =FG'=57+. San
Diego/ Academic &ress.
?raham. S.. )aylor. A. C. , 6udley. 3. *=>>B+. EKploring achievement values among ethnic minority early
adolescents. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, 9?. 7A7'7FA.
60
Motivation
?rant. 6. , D#ec%. 3.S. *FAA=+. 3ross'cultural responses to failure/ 3onsidering outcome attriutions #ith
different goals. 4n 2. Salili. 3.$. 3hui. , $.$. 6ong *Eds.+. St%dent motivation+ "he c%lt%re and
conte*t of learning *pp. FAG'F=>+. "e# $or%/ &lenum.
?reeno. J. ?.. 3ollins. A.M.. Resnic%. 0.!. *=>>7+. 3ognition and learning. 4n D.3. !erliner , R.3. 3alfee
*Eds.+. Handbook of ed%cational sychology *pp. =@'57+. 0ondon. England/ &rentice 6all
4nternational.
?rolnic%. W. S.. ?urland. S. ).. Jaco. (. 2.. , Decourcey. W. *FAAF+. )he development of self'determination in
middle childhood and adolescence. 4n A. Wigfield , J. S. Eccles *Eds.+. Develoment of achievement
motivation *pp. =5:'=:=+. San Diego/ Academic &ress.
?rolnic%. W. S.. , Ryan. R. M. *=>B:+. Autonomy in childrenNs learning/ An eKperimental and individual
difference investigation. 8o%rnal of Personality I Social Psychology, ;@. B>A'B>B.
?rolnic%. W. S.. , Ryan. R. M. *=>B>+. &arent styles associated #ith childrenNs self'regulation and competence in
schools. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, >. =5G'=@5.
?rolnic%. W. S.. , Slo#iacJe%. M. 0. *=>>5+. &arentsN involvement in childrenNs schooling/ A multidimensional
conceptualiJation and motivational model. Child Develoment, 6;. FG:'F@F.
?uay. 2.. !oivin. M.. , 6odges. E.-. E. *=>>>+. &redicting change in academic achievement/ A model
of peer eKperiences and self'system processes. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology. 9C. =A@'==@.
?uay. 2.. Marsh. 6. W.. , !oivin. M. *FAAG+. Academic self'concept and academic achievement/ Developmental
perspectives on their causal ordering. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, 9;. =F5'=G7.
?uthrie. J. ).. Wigfield. A.. !arosa. &.. &erencevich. (. 3.. )aoada. A.. Davis. M. 6.. Scafiddi. ".. ,
)on%s. S. *FAA5+. 4ncreasing reading comprehension and engagement through 3oncept 1riented
Reading 4nstruction. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, 96. 5AG'5FG.
?uthrie. J. ).. Wigfield. A.. , &erencevich. (. *Eds.+ *FAA5+. )otivating reading comrehension+
Concet 2riented 1eading 'nstr%ction. Mah#ah. "J/ 0a#rence Erlaum Associates.
?utman. 0.. , Midgley. 3. *FAAA+. )he role of protective factors in supporting the academic achievement
of poor African American students during the middle school transition. 8o%rnal of 4o%th and
$dolescence, @9. FFG'F5B.
?utman. 0. M.. Sameroff. A. J.. , Eccles. J. S.. *FAAF+. )he academic achievement of African American
students during early adolescence/ An eKamination of multiple ris%. promotive. and protective
factors. $merican 8o%rnal of Comm%nity Psychology. 3?. G7: QG>>.
6arac%ie#icJ. J.M.. !arron. (.E.. , Elliot. A.J. *=>>B+. Rethin%ing achievement goals/ When are they
adaptive for college students and #hy; Ed%cational Psychologist, 33. ='F=.
6arac%ie#icJ. J. M.. !aron. (. E.. &intrich. &. R.. Elliot. A. J.. , )hrash. ). M. *FAAF+. Revision of achievement
goal theory/ "ecessary and illuminating. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, 9:, 7GB'75@.
6are. !. R. *=>B@+. Staility and change in self'perceptions and achievement among African American
adolescents/ A longitudinal study. 8o%rnal of $frican $merican Psychology, CC. F>'5F.
6arter. S. *=>B=+. A ne# self'report scale of intrinsic versus eKtrinsic orientation in the classroom/ Motivational
and informational components. Develomental Psychology, CA. GAA'G=F.
6arter. S. *=>BF+. )he &erceived 3ompetence Scale for 3hildren. Child Develoment, ;3. B:'>:.
6arter. S. *=>>A+. 3auses. correlates and the functional role of gloal self'#orth/ A life'span perspective. 4n J.
(olligian , R. Sternerg *Eds.+. Percetions of cometence and incometence across the life!san *pp. 7:'
>B+. "e# 6aven. 3)/ $ale University &ress.
6arter. S. *=>>B+. )he development of self'representations. 4n W. Damon *Series Ed.+ , ". Eisenerg *-ol. Ed.+.
Handbook of child sychology *-ol. G. @
th
Ed.. pp. @@G'7=:+. "e# $or%/ John Wiley and Sons.
6arter. S.. Whitesell. ". R.. , (o#als%i. &. *=>>F+. 4ndividual differences in the effects of educational transitions
on young adolescentsH perceptions of competence and motivational orientation. $merican Ed%cational
1esearch 8o%rnal, @9. BA>'BG@
6ec%hausen. 6. *=>::+. Achievement motivation and its constructs/ A cognitive model. )otivation and Emotion,
C. FBG'GF>.
6ec%hausen. 6. *=>B:+. Emotional components of action/ )heir ontogeny as reflected in achievement ehavior. 4n
D. ?WrlitJ , J. 2. Wohl#ill *Eds.+. C%riosity, imagination, and lay. 6illsdale. "J/ Erlaum.
6edelin. 0. , SLWerg. 0. *=>B>+. )he development of interests in the S#edish comprehensive school. E%roean
8o%rnal of Psychology of Ed%cation, :. =:'G@.
6eine. S.J.. 0ehman. D.R.. 4de. E.. 0eung. 3. (itayama. S.. )a%ata. ).. , Matsumoto. 6. *FAA=+. Divergent
consequences of success and failure in Japan and "orth America/ An investigation of self'improving
motivations and malleale selves. 8o%rnal of Personality and Social Psychology, >C. @>>'7=@.
61
Motivation
6ess. R. D.. 3hih'Mei. , McDevitt. ). M. *=>B:+. 3ultural variations in family eliefs aout childrenNs
performance in mathematics/ 3omparisons among &eopleNs Repulic of 3hina. 3hinese'American. and
3aucasian'American families. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, A?. =:>'=BB.
6eyman. ?. D.. D#ec%. 3. S.. , 3ain. (. M. *=>>G+. $oung childrenNs vulneraility to self'lame and
helplessness/ Relationships to eliefs aout goodness. Child Develoment, 63. 5A='5=@.
6ic%ey. D.). , Mc3aslin. M. *FAA=+. A comparative. sociocultural analysis of conteKt and motivation. 4n S.
-olet , S. Jarvela. *Eds+. )otivation in learning conte*ts+ "heoretical advances and methodological
imlications *pp. GG'@@+. Elmsford. "$/ &ergamon &ress. 4nc.
6idi. S. *=>>A+. 4nterest and its contriution as a mental resource for learning. 1evie( of Ed%cational 1esearch,
6?. @5>'@:=.
6idi. S. *FAA=+. 4nterest. reading. and learning/ )heoretical and practical considerations. Ed%cational
Psychology 1evie(. C3. =>='FA>.
6idi. S.. , 6arac%ie#icJ. J. *FAAA+. Motivating the academically unmotivated/ A critical issue for the F=
st

3entury. 1evie( of Ed%cational 1esearch, A?. =@='=BA.
6ill. (. ).. , Sarason. S. !. *=>77+. )he relation of test anKiety and defensiveness to test and school performance
over the elementary school years/ A further longitudinal study. )onograhs for the Society for 1esearch in
Child Develoment, 3C *F. Serial "o. =A5+.
6ill. (. ).. , Wigfield. A. *=>B5+. )est anKiety/ A maLor educational prolem and #hat to do aout it.
Elementary School 8o%rnal, >;. =A@'=F7.
6offmann. 0.. , 6aeussler. *April =B ' FF. =>>@+. )odification of interests by instr%ction. &aper presented at
Annual AERA Meeting in San 2rancisco. 3A.
6o%oda. A.. , 2incham. 2. D. *=>>@+. 1rigins of childrenNs helpless and mastery achievement patterns in the
family. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, >A. G:@'GB@.
6olland. A.. , Andre. ). *=>B:+. &articipation in eKtracurricular activities in secondary school/ What is %no#n.
#hat needs to e %no#n; 1evie( of Ed%cational 1esearch, ;A. 5G:'577.
6ollo#ay. S. D. *=>BB+. 3oncepts of aility and effort in Japan and the United States. 1evie( of Ed%cational
1esearch, ;>. GF:'G5@.
6unt. J. M.. , &aras%evopoulos. J. *=>BA+. 3hildrenNs psychological development as a function of the inaccuracy
of their mothersN %no#ledge of their ailities. 8o%rnal of 0enetic Psychology, C36. FB@'F>B.
6usman. J. *=>>B+. "he effects of ercetions of the f%t%re on intrinsic motivation. Unpulished doctoral
dissertation. University of )eKas at Austin.
6usman. J.. , 0ens. W. *=>>>+. )he role of the future in the study of motivation. Ed%cational Psychologist,
3:,==G'=F@
6uston. A. 3.. Mc0oyd. -.. , 3oll. 3. ?. *=>>5+. 3hildren and poverty/ 4ssues in contemporary research. Child
Develoment, 6;. F:@'FBF.
Jac%son. A. W.. , Davis. ?. A. *FAAA+. "%rning oints @???+ Ed%cating adolescents in the @C
st
cent%ry. "e#
$or%/ )eachers 3ollege &ress.
Jacos. J. E. *=>>F+. )he influence of gender stereotypes on parent and child math attitudes. 8o%rnal of
Ed%cational Psychology, >3. @=B'@F:.
Jacos. J. E.. , Eccles. J. S. *=>>F+. )he influence of parent stereotypes on parent and child aility eliefs in three
domains. 8o%rnal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63. >GF'>55.
Jacos. J. E.. , Eccles. J. S. *FAAA+. &arents. tas% values. and real'life achievement'related choices. 4n 3. Sansone
, J. M. 6arac%ie#icJ *Eds.+. 'ntrinsic and e*trinsic motivation+ "he search for otimal motivation and
erformance *pp. 5A@'5G>+. San Diego/ Academic &ress.
Jacos. J.. Davis'(ean. &. E.. !lee%er. M.. Eccles. J. S.. , Malanchu%. 1. *FAA5+. 94 can do it ut 4 donHt
#ant to.< )he impact of parents. interests. and activities on gender differences in math. 4n A.
?allagher , J. (aufman *Eds.+. 0ender differences in mathematics. "e# $or%/ 3amridge
University &ress.
Jacos. J.. 0anJa. S.. 1sgood. D. W.. Eccles. J. S.. , Wigfield. A. *FAAF+. 1ntogeny of childrenNs self'
eliefs/ ?ender and domain differences across grades one through =F. Child Develoment, A3.
@A>'@F:.
James. W. *=B>FD=>7G+. Psychology. "e# $or%/ 2a#cett.
Jenc%s. 3. 0.. , !ro#n. M. *=>:@+. )he effects of high schools on their students. Harvard Ed%cational 1evie(,
:;. F:G'GF5.
Jennings. (. D. *=>>=+. Early development of mastery motivation and its relation to the self'concept. 4n M.
!ulloc% *Ed.+. "he develoment of intentional action. Cognitive, motivational, and interactive rocesses
*-ol. FF. 3ontriutions to human development+. !asel/ (arger &ress.
62
Motivation
Jussim. 0.. Eccles. J.. , Madon. S. *=>>7+. Social perception. social stereotypes. and teacher eKpectations/
Accuracy and the quest for the po#erful self'fulfilling prophecy. 4n 0. !er%o#itJ *Ed.+ $dvances in
E*erimental Social Psychology *pp. FB='GBB+. "e# $or%/ Academic &ress.
Juvonen. J.. , ?raham. S. *Eds.+ *FAA=+. Peer harassment in school+ "he light of the v%lnerable and
victimi.ed. "e# $or%/ ?uilford &ress.
Juvonen. J.. "ishnia. A.. , ?raham. S. *FAA=+. Self'vie#s and peer perceptions of victim status among early
adolescents. 4n J. Juvonen , S. ?raham *Eds.+. Peer harassment in school+ "he light of the v%lnerable
and victimi.ed *pp. =A@'=F5+. "e# $or%/ ?uilford &ress.
Juvonen. J.. 0e. -. ".. (aganoff. ).. Augustine. 3.. , 3onstant. 0. *FAA5+. /oc%s on the (onder years+
Challenges facing the $merican middle school. Santa Monica. 3A/ Rand 3orporation.
Juvonen. J.. , WentJel. (. R. *Eds.+ *=>>7+. Social motivation+ Enderstanding children,s school
ad-%stment. "e# $or%/ 3amridge University &ress.
(ao. ?. , )hompson. J.S. *FAAG+. Racial and ethnic stratification in educational achievement and attainment.
$nn%al 1evie( of Sociology, @9. 5=:'55F.
(aplan. A.. , Middleton. M. *FAAF+. Should childhood e a Lourney or a race; Response to 6arac%ie#icJ et al.
*FAAF+. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, 9:, 757'5B.
(indermann. ). A. *=>>G+. "atural peer groups as conteKts for individual development/ )he case of childrenNs
motivation in school. Develomental Psychology, @9. >:A'>::.
(indermann. ). A.. Mc3ollam. ). 0.. , ?ison. E. Jr. *=>>7+. 4n peer net#or%s and studentsN classroom
engagement during childhood and adolescence. 4n (. WentJel. , J. Juvonen *Eds.+. Social motivation+
Enderstanding children,s school ad-%stment. 3amridge University &ress.
(itsantas. A.. Cimmerman. !. J.. , 3leary. ). *FAAA+. )he role of oservation and emulation in the development
of athletic self'regulation. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, 9@. B=='B=:.
(night. R. *=>B=+. &arentsH eliefs aout cognitive development/ )he role of eKperience. 4n A. R. "esdale. 3.
&ratt. R. ?rieve. J. 2ield. D. 4lling#orth. , J. 6ogen *Eds.+. $dvances in child develoment+ "heory and
research *pp. FF7'FF>+. &erth/ University of Western Australia &ress.
(ohlerg. 0. *=>77+. A cognitive'development analysis of childrenNs seK'role concepts and attitudes. 4n E. E.
Maccoy *Ed.+. "he Develoment of se* differences *pp. B=':F+. Stanford/ Stanford University &ress.
(ohn. M. 0. *=>>:F. Class and conformity+ $ st%dy in val%es, (ith a reassessment. 3hicago/ University
of 3hicago &ress.
(Tller. 1.. !aumert. J. , Schnael. (. *FAA=+. Does interest matter; )he relationship et#een academic
interest and achievement in mathematics. 8o%rnal of 1esearch in )athematics Ed%cation, 3@.
55B'5:A.
(opp. 3. !. *=>>=+. $oung childrenNs progression to self'regulation. 4n M. !ulloc% *Ed.+. "he develoment of
intentional action. Cognitive, motivational, and interactive rocesses *-ol. FF. 3ontriutions to human
development+. !asel/ (arger &ress.
(rapp. A. *FAAF+. Structural and dynamic aspects of interest development/ )heoretical considerations
from an ontogenetic perspective. 3earning and 'nstr%ction. C@. GBG'5A>.
(rapp. A.. 6idi. S. , Renninger. (. A. *=>>F+. 4nterest. learning and development. 4n (. A. Renninger. S. 6idi
, A. (rapp *Eds.+. "he role of interest in learning and develoment *pp. G'F@+. 6illsdale. "J/ Erlaum.
(uhl. J. *=>B:+. Action control/ )he maintenance of motivational states. 4n 2. 6alisch , J. (uhl *Eds.+.
)otivation, intention, and volition *pp. F:>'GA:+. !erlin/ Springer'-erlag.
(uhl. J. *FAAA+. A functional design approach to motivation and self'regulation/ )he dynamics of personality
systems and interactions. 4n M. !oe%aerts. &. R. &intrich. , M. Ceidner *Eds.+. Handbook of self!reg%lation
*pp. ==='=7>+. San Diego/ Academic &ress.
(uhl. J.. , (ras%a. (. *=>B>+. Self'regulation and metamotivation/ 3omputational mechanisms. development.
and assessment. 4n R. (anfer. &. 0. Ac%erman. , R. 3udec% *Eds.+. $bilities, motivation, and
methodology. 6illsdale. "J/ 0a#rence Erlaum Associates.
(uli%. J. A.. , (uli%. 3. 0. *=>B:+. Effects of aility grouping on student achievement. ED%ity I E*cellence. @3.
FF'GA.
0afromoise. ). 3oleman. 6.0.(.. , ?erton. J. *=>>G+. &sychological impact of iculturalism. Evidence and
theory. Psychological &%lletin, CC:. G>@'5=F.
0arson. R.. , Richards. M. 6. *=>>=+. Daily companionship in late childhood and early adolescence/ 3hanging
developmental conteKts. Child Develoment. 6@. FB5'GAA.
0ee. S.J. *=>>5+. !eyond the model'minority stereotype/ -oices of high' and lo#'achieving Asian American
students. $nthroology I Ed%cation <%arterly, @;. 5=G'5F>.
63
Motivation
0ee. -. E.. , !ry%. A.S. *=>B>+. A multilevel model of the social distriution of high school achievement.
Sociology of Ed%cation, 6@. =:F'=>F.
0ee. -.E. , 3roninger. R.?. *=>>5+. )he Relative 4mportance of 6ome and School in Development of
0iteracy S%ills for Middle'?rade Students. $merican 8o%rnal of Ed%cation. =AF *G+. FB7'GF>.
0ee. -. E. , Smith. J. *FAA=+. 1estr%ct%ring high schools for eD%ity and e*cellence+ #hat (orks. "e#
$or%/ )eachers 3ollege &ress.
0ens. W. *=>B7+. 2uture time perspective/ A cognitive'motivational construct. 4n D. R. !ro#n , J. -eroff *Eds.+.
/rontiers of motivational sychology *pp. =:G'=>A+. "e# $or%/ Springer'-erlag.
0epper. M. R. , 3haay. R. W. *=>B@+. 4ntrinsic motivation and instruction/ 3onflicting vie#s on the role of
motivational processes in computer'ased education. Ed%cational Psychologist, @?. F=:'FGA.
0epper. M. R. , ?reen. D. *=>:B+. "he hidden cost of re(ards+ 6e( ersectives on the sychology of h%man
motivation. 6illsdale. "J/ Erlaum.
0epper. M. R.. , 6enderlong. J. *FAAA+. )urning 9play< into 9#or%</ F@ years of research on intrinsic versus
eKtrinsic motivation. 4n 3. Sansone , J. M. 6arac%ie#icJ *Eds.+. 'ntrinsic and e*trinsic motivation+ "he
search for otimal motivation and erformance *pp. F@:'GA:+. San Diego/ Academic &ress.
0inver. M.R.. !roo%s'?unn. J.. , (ohen. D.E. *FAAF+. 2amily processes as path#ays from income to
young childrenHs development. Develomental Psychology, 3>. :=>':G5.
0ipsitJ. J.. MiJell. M. 6.. Jac%son. A. W.. , Austin. 0. M. *=>>:+. Spea%ing #ith one voice/ A manifesto for
middle'grades reform. Phi Delta Gaan. A>, @GG'@5A.
0ord. S.. Eccles. J. S.. , Mc3arthy. (. *=>>5+. Ris% and protective factors in the transition to Lunior high school.
8o%rnal of Early $dolescence, C:. =7F'=>>.
0uster. ).. Rhoades. (. , 6ass. !. *=>B>+ )he relation et#een parental values and parenting ehavior/ A
test of the (ohn hypothesis. 8o%rnal of )arriage and the /amily. ;C. =G>'=5:.
0ynch. M.. , 3icchetti. D. *=>>:+. 3hildrenNs relationships #ith adults and peers/ An eKamination of
elementary and Lunior high school students. 8o%rnal of School Psychology. 3;*=+. B='>>.
Mac 4ver. D. *=>B:+. 3lassroom factors and student characteristics predicting studentsN use of achievement
standards during aility self'assessment. Child Develoment, ;>. =F@B'=F:=.
Mac 4ver. D. J.. , Epstein. J. 0. *=>>G+. Middle grades research/ "ot yet mature. ut no longer a child.
Elementary School 8o%rnal, 93. @=>'@GG.
Mac 4ver. D. J.. , &lan%. J. !. *=>>:+. 4mproving uran schools/ Developing the talents of students placed at ris%.
4n J. 0. 4rvin *Ed.+. #hat c%rrent research says to the middle level ractitioner *pp. F5G'F@7+. 3olumus.
16/ "ational Middle School Association.
Mac 4ver. D. J.. Reuman. D. A.. , Main. S. R. *=>>@+. Social structuring of school/ Studying #hat is. illuminating
#hat could e. 4n M. R. RosenJ#eig , 0. W. &orter *Eds.+. $nn%al revie( of sychology *-ol. 57+.
Mac 4ver. D. J.. $oung. E. M.. , Washurn. !. *FAAF+. 4nstructional practices and motivation during middle
school *#ith special attention to science+. 4n A. Wigfield , J. S. Eccles *Eds.+. "he develoment of
achievement motivation *pp. GGG'G@=+. San Diego/ Academic &ress.
Mac 4ver. D. J.. Stipe%. D. J.. , Daniels. D. 6. *=>>=+. EKplaining #ithin'semester changes in student effort in
Lunior high school and senior high school courses. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, >3. FA='F==.
Maehr. M. 0.. , Midgley. 3. *=>>7+. "ransforming school c%lt%res. !oulder. 31/ Westvie# &ress.
Mahoney. J. 0.. , 3airns. R. !. *=>>:+. Do eKtracurricular activities protect against early school dropout;
Develomental Psychology, 33, F5=5'F@G.
MantJicopoulos. &.. 2rench. !. 2.. , Maller. S. J. *FAA5+. 2actor structure of the &ictorial Scale of &erceived
3ompetence and Social Acceptance #ith t#o pre'elementary samples. Child Develoment, A;. =F=5'=FFB.
MarLorian%s. (. *FAAF+. /amily and school caital+ "o(ards a conte*t theory of st%dents, school
o%tcomes. Dordrecht. )he "etherlands/ (lu#er Academic.
Mar%us. 6. R.. , (itayama. S. *=>>=+. 3ulture and the self/ 4mplications for cognition. emotion. and
motivation. Psychological 1evie(, 9>. FF5'F@G.
Mar%us. 6.. R.. , "urius. &. *=>B7+. &ossile selves. $merican Psychologist, :C. >@5'>7>.
Mar%us. 6. R.. , Wurf. E. *=>B:+. )he dynamic self'concept/ A social psychological perspective. $nn%al 1evie(
of Psychology, 3>. F>>'GG:.
Marsh. 6. W. *=>B>+. Age and seK effects in multiple dimensions of self'concept/ &readolescence to early
adulthood. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, >C. 5=:'5GA.
64
Motivation
Marsh. 6. W. *=>>Aa+. A multidimensional. hierarchical self'concept/ )heoretical and empirical Lustification.
Ed%cational Psychology 1evie(, @. ::'=:=.
Marsh. 6. W. *=>>A+. )he causal ordering of academic self'concept and academic achievement/ A multi#ave.
longitudinal analysis. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, >@.
Marsh. 6. W.. , Ayotte. -. *FAAG+. Do multiple dimensions of self'concept ecome more differentiated #ith age/
)he differential distinctiveness hypothesis. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, 9;. 7B:':A7.
Marsh. 6. W.. Ellis. 0. A.. , 3raven. R. ?. *FAAF+. 6o# do preschool children feel aout themselves; Unraveling
measurement and multidimensional self'concept structure. Develomental Psychology, GB, 3A6!393.
Marsh. 6. W.. , $eung. A. S. *=>>:+. 3ausal effects of academic self'concept on academic achievement/
Structural equation models of longitudinal data. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, >9. 5='@5.
Martin. R.. Dre#. (.. ?addis. 0.. , Moseley. M. *=>BB+. &rediction of elementary school achievement from
preschool temperamentI )hree studies. School Psychology 1evie(, CA *pp. =F@'=G:+.
Massimini. 2. , 3arli. M. *=>BB+. )he systematic assessment of flo# in daily eKperience. 4n M. 3si%sJentmihalyi
, 4. S. 3si%sJentmihalyi *Eds.+. 2timal e*erience+ Psychological st%dies of flo( in conscio%sness *pp.
F77'FB:+. 3amridge. MA/ 3amridge University &ress.
Matsumoto. D. , Sanders. M. *=>BB+. Emotional eKperiences during engagement in intrinsically and eKtrinsically
motivated tas%s. )otivation and Emotion, C@. G@G'G7>.
Matute'!ianchi. M.E. *=>B7+. Ethnic identities and patterns of school success and failure among MeKican'
descent and Japanese'American students in a 3alifornia high school/ An ethnographic analysis.
$merican 8o%rnal of Ed%cation, 9;. FGG'F@@.
Mc3all. R. !.. Evahn. 3. , (ratJer. 0. *=>>F+. High school %nderachievers+ #hat do they achieve as ad%lts;
"e#ury &ar%. 3A/ Sage &ulications.
Mc?illicuddy'De 0isi. A.. , De 0isi. R. *FAAF+. Emergent themes in the development of seK differences in
cognition. 4n A. Mc?illicuddy'De 0isi , R. De 0isi *Eds.+. &iology, society, and behavior+ "he
develoment of se* differences in cognition *$dvances in $lied Develomental Psychology. @C. F5G'
F@B+. Westport. 3)/ AleK &ulishing.
Mc?illicuddy'De0isi. A. -.. , Sigel. 4. E. *=>>=+. 2amily environments and childrenNs representational thin%ing.
4n *Eds.+ $dvances in reading7lang%age research. -ol. @ *pp. 7G'>A+. JA4 &ress.
Mc4nerney. D. M.. 6in%ley. J.. Do#son. M.. , -an Etten. S. *=>>B+. Aoriginal. Anglo. and immigrant
Australian studentsN motivational eliefs aout personal academic success/ Are there cultural
differences; 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, 9?. 7F='7F>.
Mc4nerney. D. M.. , -an Etten. S. *FAA5+. !ig theories revisited/ )he challenge. 4n D. M. Mc4nerney , S. -an
Etten *Eds.+. &ig theories revisited *-ol. 5/ Research on sociocultural influences on motivation and
learning. pp. ='=G+. ?reen#ich. 3)/ 4nformation Age &ress.
Mc0loyd. -. 3. *=>>A+. )he impact of economic hardship on African American families and children/
&sychological distress. parenting. and socioemotional development. Child Develoment, 6C. G=='G57.
Mc"eal. R. !. *=>>@+. EKtracurricular activities and high school dropouts. Sociology of Ed%cation, 6>, 7F'B=.
Meece. J. 0. *=>>=+. )he classroom conteKt and studentsN motivational goals. 4n M. Maehr , &. &intrich *Eds.+.
$dvances in motivation and achievement *-ol. :. pp. F7='FB7+. ?reen#ich. 3)/ JA4 &ress.
Meece. J. 0. *=>>5+. )he role of motivation in self'regulated learning. 4n D. 6. Schun% , !. J. Cimmerman
*Eds.+. Self!reg%lation of learning and erformance *pp. F@'55+. 6illsdale. "J/ 0a#rence Erlaum
Associates.
Meece. J. 0. , (urtJ'3ostes. !. *FAA=+. 4ntroduction/ )he schooling of ethnic minority children and youth.
Ed%cational Psychologist, 36. =':.
Meece. J. 0.. , Miller. S. D. *FAA=+. A longitudinal analysis of elementary school studentsH achievement goals
in literacy activities. Contemorary Ed%cational Psychology, @6. 5@5'5BA.
Meece. J. 0.. Wigfield. A.. , Eccles. J. S. *=>>A+. &redictors of math anKiety and its consequences for young
adolescentsN course enrollment intentions and performances in mathematics. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational
Psychology. >@. 7A':A.
Meichenaum. D.. , !utler. 0. *=>BA+. )o#ard a conceptual model of the treatment of test anKiety/ 4mplications
for research and treatment. 4n 4. ?. Sarason *Ed.+. "est an*iety+ "heory, research, and alications.
6illsdale. "J/ 0a#rence Erlaum Associates.
Middleton. M. J.. , Midgley. 3. *=>>:+. Avoiding the demonstration of lac% of aility/ An uneKplored aspect of
goal theory. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, >9. :=A':=B.
65
Motivation
Midgley. 3. *FAAF+. 0oals, goal str%ct%res, and adative learning. Mah#ah. "J/ Erlaum.
Midgley. 3.. , Edelin. (. 3. *=>>B+. Middle school reform and early adolescent #ell'eing/ )he good ne#s and
the ad. Ed%cational Psychologist, 33. =>@'FA7.
Midgley. 3.. 2eldlaufer. 6.. , Eccles. J.S. *=>B>+. StudentDteacher relations and attitudes to#ard mathematics
efore and after the transition to Lunior high school. Child Develoment. 6?. >B='>>F.
Midgley. 3.. (aplan. A.. Middleton. M.. Maehr. M. 0.. Urdan. ).. Anderman. 0. 6.. Anderman. E.. , Roeser. R.
0. *=>>B+. )he development and validation of scales assessing studentsH achievement goal orientations.
Contemorary Ed%cational Psychology, @3. ==G'=G=.
Midgley. 3.. (aplan. A.. , Middleton. M. *FAA=+. &erformance'approach goals/ ?ood for #hat. for #hom. and
under #hat circumstances; 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, 93, AA!>A.
Miller. S. A. *=>BB+. &arentsN eliefs aout childrenNs cognitive development. Child Develoment. ;9. F@>'FB@.
Miller. S. A.. , Davis. ). 0. *=>>F+. !eliefs aout children/ A comparative study of mothers. teachers. peers. and
self. Child Develoment, 63. =F@='=F7@.
Miller. S. A.. Manhal. M.. , Mee. 0. 0. *=>>=+. &arental eliefs. parental accuracy. and childrenNs cognitive
performance/ A Search for causal relations. Develomental Psychology, @A. F7:'F:7.
Mischel. W.. , Mischel. 3. *=>BG+. Development of childrenNs %no#ledge of self'control strategies. Child
Develoment, ;:. 7AG'7=>.
Mistry. R.S.. -ande#ater. E.A.. 6ouston. A.3.. , Mc0oyd. -.3. *FAAF+. Economic #ell'eing and
childrenHs social adLustment/ )he role of family process in an ethnically diverse lo#'income
sample. Child Develoment, A3, >G@'>@=.
Morris. 0. W.. Davis. M. A.. , 6utchings. 3. J. *=>B=+. 3ognitive and emotional components of anKiety/
0iterature revie# and a revised #orry'emotionality scale. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, A3. @5='
@@@.
Murphy. &. (.. , AleKander. &. A. A motivated eKploration of motivation terminology. Contemorary
Ed%cational Psychology, @;. G'@G.
"ational Research 3ouncil *FAA5+. Engaging schools+ /ostering high school st%dents5 motivation to learn.
Washington. D3/ "ational Academies &ress.
"elson 0e ?all. S.. , ?lor'Shei. S. *=>B@+. 6elp see%ing in elementary classrooms/ An oservational study.
Contemorary Ed%cational Psychology, C?. @B':=.
"elson'0e ?all. S.. , Jones. E. *=>>A+. 3ognitive'motivational influences on tas%'related help'see%ing ehavior
of !lac% children. Child Develoment, 6C. @B='@B>.
"e#man. R. S. *=>>5+. Adaptive help'see%ing/ A strategy of self'regulated learning. 4n D. 6. Schun% , !. J.
Cimmerman/ Self!reg%lation of learning and erformance+ 'ss%es and ed%cational alications *pp. FBG'
GA=+. 6illsdale. "J/ 0a#rence Erlaum Associates.
"e#man. R. S. *FAAF+. What do 4 need to do to succeedX #hen 4 donHt understand #hat 4 am doingY;
Developmental influences on studentsH adaptive help'see%ing. 4n A. Wigfield , J. S. Eccles *Eds.+.
Develoment of achievement motivation *pp. FB@'GA7+. San Diego/ Academic &ress.
"e#man. R. S.. , ?oldin. 0. *=>>A+. 3hildrenHs reluctance to see% help #ith school#or%. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational
Psychology, >@. >F'=AA.
"e#man. R. S.. , Sch#ager. M. ). *=>>@+. StudentsH help see%ing during prolem solving/ Effects of grade. goals.
and prior achievement. $merican Ed%cational 1esearch 8o%rnal, 9:. G'=:.
"icholls. J. ?. *=>:7+. When a test measures more than its name/ )he case of the )est AnKiety Scale for 3hildren.
8o%rnal of Cons%lting and Clinical Psychology, @?. GF='GF7.
"icholls. J. ?. *=>:B+. )he development of the concepts of effort and aility. perceptions of academic attainment.
and the understanding that difficult tas%s require more aility. Child Develoment, :9, BAA'B=5.
"icholls. J. ?. *=>:>+. Development of perception of o#n attainment and causal attriutions for success and
failure in reading. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, AC. >5'>>.
"icholls. J. ?. *=>B5+. Achievement motivation/ 3onceptions of aility. suLective eKperience. tas% choice. and
performance. Psychological 1evie(, 9C. GFB'G57.
"icholls. J. ?. *=>B>+. "he cometitive ethos and democratic ed%cation. 3amridge MA/ 6arvard University
&ress.
"icholls. J. ?. *=>>A+. What is aility and #hy are #e mindful of it; A developmental perspective. 4n R. J.
Sternerg , J. (olligian *Eds.+. Cometence considered *pp. =='5A+. "e# 6aven. 3)/ $ale University
&ress.
66
Motivation
"icholls. J. ?.. 3o. &.. $ac%el. E.. Wood. ).. , Wheatley. ?. *=>>A+. StudentsN theories of mathematics and
their mathematical %no#ledge/ Multiple dimensions of assessment. 4n ?. (ulm *Ed.+.. $ssessing higher
order thinking in mathematics *pp. =G:'=@5+. Washington. D3/ American Association for the Advancement
of Science.
"icholls. J. ?.. , Miller. A. ). *=>B5+. )he differentiation of the concepts of difficulty and aility. Child
Develoment, ;:. >@='>@>.
1a%es. J.. ?amoran. A.. , &age. R.". *=>>F+. 3urriculum differentiation/ 1pportunities. outcomes. and
meanings. 4n &. Jac%son *Ed.+. Handbook of research on c%rric%l%m *pp. @:A'7AB+. "e# $or%/
Macmillan.
1etting. E. , !eauvais. 2. *=>>=+. 1rthogonal cultural identification theory/ )he cultural identification of
minority adolescents. "he 'nternational 8o%rnal of $ddictions, @;. 7@@'7B@.
1gu. J. *=>:B+. )inority ed%cation and caste. "e# $or%/ Academic &ress.
1gu. J. *=>B=+. 1rigins of human competence/ A cultural'ecological perspective. Child Develoment, ;@. 5=G'
5F>.
1gu. J. *=>B@+. 3ultural ecology of competence among inner'city lac%s. 4n 6. McAdoo , J. Mc Adoo *Eds.+.
&lack children social, ed%cational, and arental environments. Sage &ulications 4nc.. "e#ury &ar%.
1gu. J. *=>>F+. Understanding cultural diversity and learning. Ed%cational 1esearcher, @C. @'=5.
1%aga%i. 0. *FAA=+. )riarchic model of minority childrenHs school achievement. Ed%cational Psychologist,
36. >'FA.
1lson. 0. *=>>:+. )ade in $merica+ 'mmigrant st%dents in o%r %blic schools. "e# $or%. "$/ "e# &ress.
1yserman. D.. 3oon. 6. M.. , (emmelmeier. M. *FAAF+. Rethin%ing individualism and collectivism/ Evaluation
of theoretical assumptions and meta'analyses. Psychological &%lletin, C@>, G':F.
&adilla. A.M. , ?onJaleJ. R. *FAA=+. Academic performance of immigrant and U.S. orn MeKican'6eritage
students/ Effects of schooling in MeKico and !ilingualDEnglish language instruction. $merican
Ed%cational 1esearch 8o%rnal, 3>. :F:':5F.
&aLares. 2. *=>>7+. Self'efficacy eliefs in academic settings. 1evie( of Ed%cational 1esearch, 66. @5G'@:B.
&allas. A. M.. Ent#isle. D. R.. AleKander. (. 0. , Stlu%a. M. 2. *=>>5+. Aility'group effects/ 4nstructional.
social. or institutional; Sociology of Ed%cation, 6A. F:'57.
&aris. S. ?.. , !yrnes. J. & *=>B>+. )he constructivist approach to self'regulation and learning in the classroom.
4n !. J. Cimmerman , D. 6. Schun% *Eds.+. Self!reg%lated learning and academic achievement+ "heory,
research, and ractice. "e# $or%/ Springer'-erlag.
&atric%. 6. *=>>:+. Social self'regulation/ EKploring the relations et#een childrenHs social relationships. academic
self'regulation. and school performance. Ed%cational Psychologist, 3@. FA>'FFA.
&e%run. R. *=>>G+. 2acets of adolescentsN academic motivation/ A longitudinal eKpectancy'value approach. 4n M.
Maehr , &. &intrich *Eds.+. $dvances in motivation and achievement *!d. B. S. =G>'=B>+. ?reen#ich. 3)/
JA4 &ress.
&e%run. R. *FAAA+. A social'cognitive. control'value theory of achievement emotions. 4n J. 6ec%hausen *Ed.+.
)otivational sychology of h%man develoment *pp. =5G'=7G+. 1Kford. U(/ Elsevier.
&elletier. 0. ?.. 2ortier. M. S.. -allerand. R. J. , !riRre. ". M. *FAA=+. Associations among perceived
autonomy support. forms of self'regulation. and persistence/ A prospective study. )otivation and
Emotion. @;. F:>'GA7.
&hinney. J.S. , Devich'"avarro. M. *=>>:+. -ariations in icultural identification among African'American
and MeKican'American adolescents. 8o%rnal of 1esearch on $dolescence, A. G'GF.
&ianta. R. 3.. , 3oK. M. J. *=>>>+. )he changing nature of the transition to school/ )rends for the neKt
decade. 4n R. 3. &ianta , M. J. 3oK *Eds.+. "he transition to kindergarten *pp. G7G'G:>+. !altimore/ &.
6. !roo%es &ulishing.
&ianta. R. 3.. Rimm'(aufman. S. E.. , 3oK. M. J. *=>>>+. 4ntroduction/ An ecological approach to
%indergarten transition. 4n R. 3. &ianta , M. J. 3oK *Eds.+. "he transition to kindergarten *pp. G'=F+.
!altimore/ &. 6. !roo%es &ulishing.
&intrich. &. R. *FAAAa+. An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology. theory. and
research. Contemorary Ed%cational Psychology, @;. >F'=A5.
&intrich. &. R. *FAAA+. Multiple path#ays. multiple goals/ )he role of goal orientation in learning and
achievement. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, 9@. @5'@@@.
67
Motivation
&intrich. &. R. *FAAAc+. )he role of goal orientation in self'regulated learning. 4n M. !oe%aerts. &. R. &intrich. ,
M. Ceidner *Eds.+. Handbook of self!reg%lation *pp. 5@='@AF+. San Diego/ Academic &ress.
&intrich. &. R. *FAAG+. A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and
teaching conteKts. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, 9;. 77:'7B7.
&intrich. &. R.. MarK. R. W.. , !oyle. R. A. *=>>G+. !eyond cold conceptual change/ )he role of motivational
eliefs and classroom conteKtual factors in the process of conceptual change. 1evie( of Ed%cational
1esearch, 63. =7:'=>>.
&intrich. &. R. , Schrauen. !. *=>>F+. StudentsN motivational eliefs and their cognitive engagement in classroom
academic tas%s. 4n D. Schun% , J. Meece *Eds.+. St%dent ercetions in the classroom *pp. =5>'=BG+.
6illsdale. "J/ Erlaum.
&intrich. &. R.. , Schun%. D. 6. *FAAG+. )otivation in ed%cation+ "heory, research, and alication *F
nd
Ed.+.
Engle#ood 3liffs. "J/ Merrill'&rentice 6all.
&intrich. &. R.. , Cusho. A. *FAAF+. )he development of academic self'regulation/ )he role of cognitive and
motivational factors. 4n A. Wigfield , J. S. Eccles *Eds.+. Develoment of achievement motivation *pp.
F@A'FB5+. San Diego/ Academic &ress.
&omerantJ. E. M.. , Rule. D. ". *=>>:+. Distinguishing multiple dimensions of conceptions of aility/
4mplications for self'evaluation. Child Develoment, 6>. ==7@'==BA.
&omerantJ. E. M.. , SaKon. J. 0. *FAA=+. 3onceptions of aility as stale and self'evaluative processes/ A
longitudinal eKamination. Child Develoment, A@. =@F'=:G.
&ortes. A. , Rumaut. R.?. *FAA=+. 3egacies+ "he story of the immigrant second generation. !er%eley/
University of 3alifornia &ress.
8uintana. S.M. , -era. E.M. *=>>>+. MeKican'American childrenHs ethnic identity. understanding of ethnic
preLudice. and parental ethnic socialiJation. Hisanic 8o%rnal of &ehavioral Sciences, @C. GB:'5A5.
Ramey. 3. ).. , Ramey. S. l. *=>>>+. !eginning school for children at ris%. 4n R. 3. &ianta , M. J. 3oK
*Eds.+. "he transition to kindergarten *pp. F=:'F@=+. !altimore/ &. 6. !roo%es &ulishing.
Raynor. J. 1. *=>BF+. 2uture orientation. self'evaluation. and achievement motivation/ Use of an eKpectancy E
value theory of personality functioning and change. 4n ". ). 2eather *Ed.+. E*ectations and actions+
E*ectancy!val%e models in sychology *pp. >:'=F5+. 6illsdale. "J/ Erlaum.
Reeve. J.. Deci. E. 0.. , Ryan. R. M. *FAA5+. Self'determination theory/ A dialectical frame#or% for
understanding sociocultural influences on student motivation. 4n D. M. Mc4nerney , S. -an Etten
*Eds.+. &ig theories revisited *-ol. 5/ Sociocultural influences on motivation and learning. *pp. G='7A+.
?reen#ich. 3)/ 4nformation Age &ress.
Reeve. J.. "iK. ?.. , 6amm. D. *FAAG+. )esting models of the eKperience of self'determination in intrinsic
motivation and the conundrum of choice. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, 9;. G:@'G>F.
Renninger. (.A. *=>>A+. 3hildrenNs play interests. representation. and activity. 4n R. 2ivush , J. 6udson *Eds.+.
Gno(ing and remembering in yo%ng children*pp.=F:'=7@+. 3amridge University &ress.
Renninger. (. A. *FAAA+. 4ndividual interest and its implications for understanding intrinsic motivation.
4n 3. Sansone , J. M. 6arac%ie#icJ *Eds.+. 'ntrinsic and e*trinsic motivation *pp. G:G'5A5+. San
Diego. 3A/ Academic &ress.
Renninger. (. A.. E#en. 0. , 0asher. A. (. *FAAF+. 4ndividual interest as conteKt in eKpository teKt and
mathematical #ord prolems. 3earning and 'nstr%ction. C@. 57:'5>=.
Renninger. (. A.. 6idi. S. , (rapp. A. *Eds.+. *=>>F+. "he role of interest in learning and develoment. 6illsdale.
"J/ Erlaum.
Rheinerg. 2..-ollmeyer. R.. , Rollett. W. *FAAA+. Motivation and action in self'regulated learning. 4n
M. !oe%aerts. &. R. &intrich. , M. Ceidner *Eds.+. Handbook of self!reg%lation *pp. @AG'@F>+.
San Diego/ Academic &ress.
Roerts. ). A. *=>>=+. ?ender and the influence of evaluations on self'assessments in achievement settings.
Psychological &%lletin. C?9. F>:'GAB.
Roderic%. M.. , 3amurn. E. *=>>>+. Ris% and recovery from course failure in the early years of high school.
$merican Ed%cational 1esearch 8o%rnal, 36. GAG'G55.
Roeser. R.W. *FAA5a+. 3ompeting schools of thought in achievement goal theory; 4n M.0. Maehr , &.R.
&intrich *Eds.+. $dvances in )otivation and $chievement, Vol%me C3+ )otivating St%dents, 'mroving
Schools *pp. F7@'F>>+. "e# $or%/ Elsevier.
Roeser. R.W. *FAA5. July+. "he diversity of self(ays in school d%ring adolescence ro-ect. &aper
presented at the annual meeting of William ). ?rant 2aculty Scholars &rogram. -ail. 31.
Roeser. R.W.. , Eccles. J.S.. *FAAA+. Schooling and mental health. A.J. Sameroff. M. 0e#is. , S.M. Miller
*Eds.+. Handbook of Develomental Psychoathology, Second Edition *=G@'=@7+. "e# $or%/ &lenum.
68
Motivation
Roeser. R.W.. Eccles. J.S. , Stroel. (. *=>>B+. 0in%ing the study of schooling and mental health/ Selected
issues and empirical illustrations at the level of the individual. Ed%cational Psychologist. 33. =@G'=:7.
Roeser. R.W.. 0o#e. A.. Sattler. R.. ?ehlach. 6.. , Stroel. (.R. *FAAG. April+. 2n identity and motivation
to learn among 3atino adolescents+ Patterns, dynamics, and relation to ed%cational o%tcomes. &aper
presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association. 3hicago. 40.
Roeser. R.W.. Marachi. R.. , ?elhach. 6. *FAAF+. A goal theory perspective on teachersH professional
identities and the conteKts of teaching. 4n 3.M. Midgley *Ed.+. 0oals, goal str%ct%res, and
atterns of adative learning *pp. FA@'F5=+. "e# Jersey/ Erlaum.
Roeser. R. W.. Midgley. 3.. , Urdan. ). 3. *=>>7+. &erceptions of the school psychological environment
and early adolescentsN psychological and ehavioral functioning in school/ )he mediating role of
goals and elonging. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology. >>. 5AB'5FF.
Roeser. R.W. , "asir. ". *in press+. 4dentity and self processes in school learning. achievement and #ell'
eing. 4n AleKander. &.. , Winne. &.6. *Eds+. Handbook of ed%cational sychology *F
nd
edition+.
Mah#ah. "J/ 0a#rence Erlaum.
Roeser. R.W. , RodriqueJ. R. *FAA5. April+. 2n academic motivation, achievement, and the diversity of
self(ays in school d%ring early adolescence. &aper presented at the annual meeting of American
Educational Research Association. San Diego. 3A.
Roeser. R.W.. Stroel. (.R.. 8uihuis. ?. *FAAF+. Studying early academic motivation. social'emotional
functioning. and engagement in learning/ -ariale' and person'centered approaches. $n*iety, Stress,
and Coing, C!@:.
RosenholtJ. S. J.. , Simpson. 3. *=>B5+. )he formation of aility conceptions/ Developmental trend or social
construction; 1evie( of Ed%cational 1esearch, ;:. G='7G.
Rotter. J. !. *=>77+. ?eneraliJed eKpectancies for internal versus eKternal control of reinforcement.
Psychological )onograhs, >?, ='FB.
Ruin. (. 6.. !u%o#s%i. W.. , &ar%er. J. ?. *=>>B+. &eer interactions. relationships. and groups. 4n W.
Damon *Series Ed.+ , ". Eisenerg *-olume Ed.+. Handbook of child sychology *@
th
ed.. -ol. 444.
pp. 7=>':AA+. "e# $or%/ John Wiley.
Ruin. (. 6.. 3oplan. R.. 3hen. E.. !us%ir%. A. A.. , WoLsla#o#icJ. J. 3. *FAA@+. &eer relationships in
childhood. 4n M. !ornstein , M. 0am *eds.+. Develomental science+ $n advanced te*tbook *@
th
ed.. p. 57>'@=F+. Mah#ah. "J/ Erlaum.
Rugerio. (. M.. , )aylor. D. M. *=>>@+. 3oping #ith discrimination/ 6o# disadvantaged group memers
perceive the discrimination that confronts them. 8o%rnal of Personality and Social Psychology, 6>.
BF7'BGB.
Rule. D. *=>BG+. )he development of social comparison processes and their role in achievement'related self'
socialiJation. 4n E. ). 6iggins. D. ". Rule. and W. W. 6artup *Eds.F, Social cognition and social
develoment+ $ socioc%lt%ral ersective *pp. =G5'=@:+. "e# $or%/ 3amridge University &ress.
Rule. D. ". *=>>5+. A phase model of transitions/ 3ognitive and motivational consequences. 4" M. Canna *Ed.+.
$dvances in e*erimental social sychology *-ol. F7. pp. =7G'F=5+. "e# $or%/ Academic &ress.
Rule. D. ".. , Martin. 3. 0. *=>>B+. ?ender development. 4n W. Damon *Series Ed.+ , ". Eisenerg *-ol. Ed.+.
Handbook of child sychology *@
th
ed.. -ol. G. pp. >GG'=A=7+. "e# $or%/ John Wiley and Sons.
Ryan. A. M. *FAA=+. )he peer group as a conteKt for the development of young adolescentsH motivation and
achievement. Child Develoment, A@. ==G@'==@A.
Ryan. A. M.. ?heen. M. 6.. , Midgley. 3. *=>>B+. Why do some students avoid as%ing for help; An eKamination
of the interplay among studentsH academic self'efficacy. teachersH social'emotional role. and the classroom
goal structure. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, 9?. @FB'@G@.
Ryan. A. M.. &intrich. &.R.. , Midgley. 3. *FAA=+. Avoiding see%ing help in the classroom/ Who and
#hy; Ed%cational Psychology 1evie(, C3. >G'==5.
Ryan. R. M. *=>>F+. Agency and organiJation/ 4ntrinsic motivation. autonomy. and the self in psychological
development. 4n J. Jacos *Ed.+. 6ebraska Symosi%m on )otivation *-ol.. 5A. pp. ='@7+. 0incoln. "E/
University of "eras%a &ress.
Ryan. R. M.. , 3onnell. J. &. *=>B>+. &erceived locus of causality and internaliJation/ EKamining reasons for
acting in t#o domains. 8o%rnal of Personality and Social Psychology, ;A. :5>':7=.
Ryan. R. M.. 3onnell. J. &.. , Deci. E. 0. *=>B+. A motivational analysis of self'determination and self'regulation
in education. 4n 3. Ames , R. Ames *Eds.+. 1esearch on motivation in ed%cation *-ol. F. pp. =G'@=+.
1rlando. 20/ Academic press.
69
Motivation
Ryan. R. M. , Deci. E. 0. *FAAAa+. Self'determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation.
social development. and #ell'eing. $merican Psychologist. ;;. 7B':B.
Ryan. R. M.. , Deci. E. 0. *FAAA+. When re#ards compete #ith nature/ )he undermining of intrinsic
motivation and self'regulation. 4n 3. Sansone , J. M. 6arac%ie#icJ *Eds.+. 'ntrinsic and e*trinsic
motivation+ "he search for otimal motivation and erformance *pp. =G'@5+. San Diego/ Academic &ress.
Ryan. R. M.. , Deci. E. 0. *FAAF+. An overvie# of self'determination theory/ an organismic'dialectical
perspective. 4n E. 0. Deci , R. M. Ryan *Eds.+. Handbook of self!determination theory research *pp. G'GG+.
Rochester. "$/ University of Rochester &ress.
Ryan. R. M.. 3onnell. J. &. , Deci. E. 0. *=>B@+. A motivational analysis of self'determination and self'regulation
in education. 4n 3. Ames , R. Ames *Eds.+. 1esearch on motivation in ed%cation. -ol. F/ )he classroom
milieu *pp. =G'@=+. 0ondon/ Academic &ress.
Sage. ". A.. , (indermann. ). A. *=>>>+. &eer net#or%s. ehavior contingencies. and childrenNs
engagement in the classroom. )errill!Palmer <%arterly. :;. =5G'=:=.
Sansone. 3.. , 6arac%ie#icJ. J. M. *Eds.+ *FAAA+. 'ntrinsic and e*trinsic motivation+ "he search for otimal
motivation and erformance. San Diego/ Academic &ress.
Sansone. 3.. , 6arac%ie#icJ. J. M. *FAAA+. 0oo%ing eyond re#ards/ )he prolem and promise of intrinsic
motivation. 4n 3. Sansone , J. M. 6arac%ie#icJ *Eds.+. 'ntrinsic and e*trinsic motivation+ "he search for
otimal motivation and erformance *pp. ='>+. San Diego/ Academic &ress.
Sarason. 4. ?. *=>BA+. 4ntroduction to the study of test anKiety. 4n 4. ?. Sarason *Ed.+. "est an*iety+ "heory,
research, and alication *pp. G'=5+. 6illsdale. "J/ 0a#rence Erlaum Associates.
Schiefele. U. *=>>=+. 4nterest. learning. and motivation. Ed%cational Psychologist, @6, F>>'GFG.
Schiefele. U. *=>>7a+. Motivation und 0ernen mit )eKten OMotivation and teKt learningP. ?Tttingen/
6ogrefe.
Schiefele. U. *=>>7+. )opic interest. teKt representation. and quality of eKperience. Contemorary
Ed%cational Psychology, @C. G'=B.
Schiefele. U. *=>>>+. 4nterest and learning from teKt. Scientific St%dies of 1eading. 3. F@:'F:>.
Schiefele. U. *FAA=+. )he role of interest in motivation and learning. 4n J. M. 3ollis , S. Messic% *Eds.+.
'ntelligence and ersonality+ &ridging the ga in theory and meas%rement *pp. =7G'=>5+.
Mah#ah. "J/ Erlaum.
Schiefele. U. , (rapp. A. *=>>7+. )opic interest and free recall of eKpository teKt. 3earning and 'ndivid%al
Differences. >. =5='=7A.
Schiefele. U.. (rapp. A. , Winteler. A. *=>>F+. 4nterest as a predictor of academic achievement/ A meta'
analysis of research. 4n (. A. Renninger. S. 6idi , A. (rapp *Eds.+. "he role of interest in
learning and develoment *pp. =BG'F=F+. 6illsdale. "J/ Erlaum.
Schiefele. U. , Schreyer. 4. *=>>5+. 4ntrinsische 0ernmotivation und 0ernen O4ntrinsic motivation and
learningP. Jeitschrift fKr PLdagogische Psychologie. >, ='=G.
Schneider. !. , 3oleman. J. S. *=>>G+. Parents, their children, and schools. !oulder. 31/ Westvie# &ress.
Schneider. (. *=>>7+. 4ntrinsically motivated activity as an eKample of creativity and related ehavioral
systems. 4n 6. 6ec%hausen , J. (uhl *Eds.+. )otivation, volition, and action. ?ottingen/
6ogrefe.
Schun%. D. 6. *=>B:+. &eer models and childrenNs ehavioral change. 1evie( of Ed%cational 1esearch, ;A. =5>'
=:5.
Schun%. D. 6. *=>>=+. ?oal setting and self'evaluation/ A social cognitive perspective on self'regulation. 4n M. 0.
Maehr , &. R. &intrich *Eds.+. $dvances in motivation and achievement *-ol. :. pp. B@'==G+. ?reen#ich.
3)/ JA4 &ress.
Schun%. D. 6. *=>>5+. Self'regulation of self'efficacy and attriutions in academic settings. 4n D. 6. Schun% , !.
J. Cimmerman *Eds.+. Self!reg%lation of learning and erformance. 6illsdale. "J/ 0a#rence Erlaum
Associates.
Schun%. D. 6.. , Ertmer. &. A. *FAAA+. Self'regulation and academic learning/ Self'efficacy enhancing
interventions. 4n M. !oe%aerts. &. R. &intrich. , M. Ceidner *Eds.+. Handbook of self!reg%lation *pp. 7G='
75>+. San Diego/ Academic &ress.
Schun%. D. 6.. , &aLares. 2. *FAAF+. )he development of academic self'efficacy. 4n A. Wigfield , J. S. Eccles
*Eds.+. Develoment of achievement motivation *pp. =@'GF+. San Diego/ Academic &ress.
Schun%. D. 6.. , Cimmerman. !. J. *Eds.+ *=>>5+. Self!reg%lation of learning and erformance. 6illsdale. "J/
0a#rence Erlaum Associates.
Schra#. ?.. !runing. R. , Svooda. 3. *=>>@+. Sources of situational interest. 8o%rnal of 1eading
70
Motivation
&ehavior. @A. ='=:.
Schra#. ?. , 0ehman. S. *FAA=+. Situational interest/ A revie# of the literature and directions for future
research. Ed%cational Psychology 1evie(. C3. FG'@F.
Sheets. R. 6.. , 6ollins. E. R. *Eds.+ *=>>>+. 1acial and ethnic identity in school ractices+ $sects of
h%man develoment. Mah#ah. "J/ Erlaum.
Shell. D.2.. 3olvin. 3.. , !runing. R.6. *=>>@+. Self'efficacy. attriution. and outcome eKpectancy mechanisms
in reading and #riting achievement/ ?rade'level and achievement'level differences. 8o%rnal of
Ed%cational Psychology. B:. GB7'G>B
Sigel. 4. E.. Mc?illicuddy'De0isi. A. -.. , ?oodno#. J. J. *Eds.+. *=>>F+. Parental belief systems *Fnd ed.+.
6illsdale. "J/ Erlaum.
Silverman. W. (.. 0a ?reca. A. M.. , Wasserstein. S. *=>>@+. What do children #orry aout; Worries and their
relations to anKiety. Child Develoment, 66. 7:='7B7.
Simmons. R. ?.. , !lyth. D. A. *=>B:+. )oving into adolescence+ "he imact of %bertal change and school
conte*t. 6a#thorn. "$/ Aldine de ?ruyter.
Simp%ins. S. D.. 2redric%s. J. A.. Davis'(ean. &. E.. , Eccles. J. S. *FAA5+. 6ealthy Mind. 6ealthy
6aits/ )he 4nfluence of Activity 4nvolvement in Middle 3hildhood 4n A. 3. 6uston , M. ".
Rip%e *Eds+. )iddle Childhood+ Conte*ts of Develoment, "e# $or%/ 3amridge University
&ress.
S%aalvi%. E. *=>>:+. Self'enhancing and self'defeating ego orientation/ Relations #ith tas% and tas%
avoidance orientation. achievement. self'perceptions. and anKiety. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational
Psychology, >9, :='B=.
S%aalvi%. E. M.. , !ong. M. *FAAG+. Self'concept and self'efficacy revisited/ A fe# notale differences
and important similarities. 4n Marsh. 6. W.. R. 3raven. , D. M. Mc4nerney *Eds.+.
'nternational advances in self research *pp. 7:'>A+. ?reen#ich. 3)/ 4nformation Age
&ulishing.
S%aalvi%. E.M. , Ran%in. R.J. *=>>7. April+. Self!concet and self!efficacy+ Concet%al analysis. &aper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association in "e#
$or%.
S%inner. E. A. *=>>A+. Age differences in the dimensions of perceived control during middle childhood/
4mplications for developmental conceptualiJations and research. Child Develoment, 6C. =BBF'=B>A.
S%inner. E. A. *=>>@+. Perceived control, motivation, and Coing. )housand 1a%s. 3A/ Sage &ulications.
S%inner. E. A.. , !elmont. M. J. *=>>G+. Motivation in the classroom/ Reciprocal effects of teacher ehavior and
student engagement across the school year. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, >;. @:='@B=.
S%inner. E. A.. 3hapman. M.. , !altes. &. !. *=>BB+. 3ontrol. means'ends. and agency eliefs/ A ne#
conceptualiJation and its measurement during childhood. 8o%rnal of Personality and Social Psychology,
;:. ==:'=GG.
S%inner. E. A.. ?emec%'Cimmer. M. J.. , 3onnell. J. &. *=>>B+. 4ndividual differences and the development of
perceived control. )onograhs of the Society for 1esearch in Child Develoment *Serial "o. F@5. -ol. 7.
"o.F'G. pp. ='FFA+.
S%inner. E. A.. , Wellorn. J. ?. *=>>5+. 3oping during childhood and adolescence/ A motivational perspective.
4n D. 2eatherman. R. 0erner. , M. &erlmutter *Eds.+. 3ife!san develoment and behavior *pp. >='=GG+.
6illsdale. "J/ Erlaum.
Slaughter'Defoe. D. ).. "a%aga#a. (.. )a%anishi. R.. , Johnson. D. J. *=>>A+. )o#ard culturalDecological
perspectives on schooling and achievement in African' and Asian'American children. Child Develoment,
6C. G7G'GBG.
Slavin. R.E. *=>>A+. Achievement effects of aility grouping in secondary schools/ A est'evidence synthesis.
1evie( of Ed%cational 1esearch, 6?. 5:='5>>.
Slavin. R. E. *=>>@+. Cooerative learning *F
nd
Ed.+. !oston/ Allyn and !acon.
Smiley. &. A.. , D#ec%. 3. S. *=>>5+. 4ndividual differences in achievement goals among young children. Child
Develoment, 6;. =:FG'=:5G.
Spencer. M. !.. "oll. E.. StoltJfus. J.. , 6arplani. -. *FAA=+. 4dentify and school adLustment/ Revising the 9Acting
White< assumption. Ed%cational Psychologist, 36. G='55.
Spencer. S. J.. Steele. M. , 8uinn. D. M. *=>>>+. Stereotype threat and #omenNs math performance.
8o%rnal of E*erimental Social Psychology. 3;. 5'FB.
Steele. 3. M. *=>>F. April+. Race and the schooling of lac% Americans. $tlantic )onthly, @69H:F. 7B':B.
Steele. 3. *=>>:+. A threat in the air/ 6o# stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. $merican
Psychologist, ;@. 7=G'7F>.
71
Motivation
Steele. 3.M.. , Aronson. J. *=>>@+. Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African'Americans.
8o%rnal of Personality and Social Psychology.
Steinerg. 0.. Dornusch. S.. , !ro#n. !. *=>>F+. Ethnic differences in adolescents achievements/ An ecological
perspective. $merican Psychologist, :A. :FG':F>.
Stevens. R. J.. , Slavin. R. E. *=>>@+. )he cooperative elementary school/ Effects on studentsN achievement.
attitudes. and social relations. $merican Ed%cational 1esearch 8o%rnal, 3@. GF='G@=.
Stevenson. D. 0.. , !a%er. D. &. *=>B:+. )he family'school relation and the childNs school performance. Child
Develoment, ;>. =G5B'=G@:.
Stevenson. 6. W.. 3hen. 3.. , Uttal. D. 6. *=>>A+. !eliefs and achievement/ A study of lac%. #hite. and
6ispanic children. Child Develoment, 6C. @AB'@FG.
Stipe%. D. J.. , Mac 4ver. D. *=>B>+. Developmental change in childrenNs assessment of intellectual competence.
Child Develoment, 6?. @F='@GB.
Stipe%. D. J.. Recchia. S.. , Mc3lintic. S. M. *=>>F+. Self'evaluation in young children. )onograhs of the
Society for 1esearch in Child Develoment, ;A *F. Serial "o. FF7+.
SuareJ'1roJco. 3. , SuareJ'1roJco. M. *FAA=+. Children of 'mmigration. 3amridge/ 6arvard University
&ress.
Super. 3. M. , 6ar%ness. S. *FAAF+. 3ulture structures the environment for development. H%man
Develoment, :;. F:A'F:5.
SJalacha. 0.A.. Er%ut. S.. ?arcia'3oll. 3.. Alarcon. 1. 2ields. J.&.. , 3eder. 4. *FAAG+. Discrimination and
&uerto Rican childrenHs and adolescentsH mental health. C%lt%ral diversity and ethnic minority
sychology, 9. =5='=@@.
)atum. !. D. *=>>:+. 9#hy are all the &lack kids sitting together in the cafeteria=M and other conversations
abo%t race. "e# $or%/ !asic !oo%s.
)aylor. R. D.. 3asten. R.. 2lic%inger. S.. Roerts. D.. , 2ulmore. 3. D. *=>>5+. EKplaining the school performance
of African'American adolescents. 8o%rnal of 1esearch on $dolescence, :. F='55.
)eachman. J.. &aasch. (.. , 3arver. (. *=>>:+. Social caital and the generation of h%man caital.
Social /orces. A;, ='=:.
)enenaum. 6. R.. , 0eaper. 3. *FAAG+. &arent'child conversations aout science/ )he socialiJation of
gender inequities; Develomental Psychology. 39. G5'5:.
)hompson. M. S.. AleKander. (. 0.. , Ent#isle. D. R. *=>BB+. 6ousehold composition. parental eKpectations. and
school achievement. Social /orces, 6A. 5F5'5@=.
)hor%ildsen. ).. , "icholls. J. ?. *=>>B+. 2ifth gradersH achievement orientations and eliefs/ 4ndividual and
classroom differences. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, 9?, =:>'FA=.
)oias. S. *=>B@+. )est anKiety/ 4nterference. deficient s%ills. and cognitive capacity. Ed%cational Psychologist,
@?. =G@'=5F.
)oias. S. *=>>5+. 4nterest. prior %no#ledge. and learning. 1evie( of Ed%cational 1esearch, 6:. G:'@5.
)odt. E. *=>>A+. Development of interest. 4n 6. 6etJer *Ed.+. $lied develomental sychology of children and
yo%th. Wiesaden/ 8uelle , Meyer.
)riandis. 6. 3.. , Suh. E. M. *FAAF+. 3ultural influences on personality. $nn%al 1evie( of Psychology,
;3. =GG'=7A.
)schannen'Moran. M.. Woolfol% 6oy. A.. , 6oy. W. (. *=>>B+. )eacher efficacy/ 4ts meaning and measure.
1evie( of Ed%cational 1esearch, 6>, FAF'F5B.
Urdan. ). 3. *=>>:+. Achievement goal theory/ &ast results. future directions. 4n &. R. &intrich , M. 0. Maehr
*Eds.+. $dvances in motivation and achievement *-ol. =A. pp. >>'=5F+. ?reen#ich. 3)/ JA4 &ress.
Urdan. ). 3. *Ed.+ *=>>>+. "he role of conte*t+ $dvances in motivation and achievement *-ol. ==+. ?reen#ich.
3)/ JA4 &ress.
Urdan. ).. , ?iancarlo. 3. *FAA=+. A comparison of motivational and critical thin%ing orientations across
ethnic groups. 4n D. M. Mc4nerney and S. -. Etten *Eds.+. 1esearch on socioc%lt%ral infl%ences
on motivation and learning, Vol%me C *pp. G:'7A+. ?reen#ich. 3)/ 4nformation Age &ulishing.
U.S. Department of Education. "ational 3enter for Education Statistics. *FAAF+. "he Condition of Ed%cation
@??@ *"3ES FAAF'AF@+. Section =.
U.S. Department of Education. "ational 3enter for Education Statistics. *FAAGa+. Pro-ections of Ed%cation
Statistics to @?C3 *"3ES FAA5'A=G+. Washington. D3/ U.S. ?overnment &rinting 1ffice. FAAF.
U.S. Department of Education. "ational 3enter for Education Statistics. *FAAG+. Digest of Ed%cation
Statistics, @??@ *"3ES FAAG'A7A+. 3hapter F.
72
Motivation
-alencia. R. R. *Ed.+ *=>>=+. Chicano school fail%re and s%ccess+ 1esearch and olicy agendas for the
C99?s. 0ondon/ 2almer &ress.
-allerand. R. J.. &elletier. 0. ?.. !lais. M. R.. !riRre. ". M.. SenScal. 3. !. , -alliRres. E. 2. *=>>G+. 1n
the assessment of intrinsic. eKtrinsic. and amotivation in education/ Evidence on the concurrent
and construct validity of the Academic Motivation Scale. Ed%cational and Psychological
)eas%rement. ;3. =@>'=:F.
-anfossen. !. E.. Jones. J. D.. , Spade. J. C. *=>B:+. 3urriculum trac%ing and status maintenance. Sociology of
Ed%cation. 6?. =A5'=FF.
-asey. M. W.. , Daliedon. E. 0. *=>>5+. Worry in children. 4n ?. Davey , 2. )allis *Eds.+. #orrying+
Persectives on theory, assessment, and treatment *pp. =B@A'FA:+. 3hicester/ Wiley.
Wade. S. E. *=>>F+. 6o# interest affects learning from teKt. 4n (. A. Renninger. S. 6idi. , A. (rapp *Eds.+. "he
role of interest in learning and develoment *pp. F@@'F::+. 6illsdale. "J/ Erlaum.
Wade. S. E.. !uKton. W. M. , (elly. M. *=>>>+. Using thin%'alouds to eKamine reader'teKt interest.
1eading 1esearch <%arterly. 3:. =>5'F=7.
Wagner. !. M.. , &hillips. D. A. *=>>F+. !eyond eliefs/ &arent and child ehaviors and childrenNs perceived
academic competence. Child Develoment, 63. =GBA'=G>=.
Watt. 6. *FAA5+. Development of adolescentsH self'perceptions. values. and tas% perceptions. Child Develoment,
A;. =@@7'=@:5.
Wehlage. ?.. Rutter. R.. Smith. ?.. 0es%o. ".. , 2ernandeJ. R. *=>B>+. 1ed%cing the risk+ Schools as
comm%nities of s%ort. &hiladelphia/ )he 2almer &ress.
Weiner. !.. *=>B@+. An attriutional theory of achievement motivation and emotion. Psychological 1evie(, 9@.
@5B'@:G.
Weiner. !. *=>>F+. H%man motivation+ )etahors, theories, and research. "e#ury &ar%. 3A/ Sage &ulications.
Weiner. !. *FAA5+. Attriution theory revisited/ 3ultural plurality and theoretical unity. 4n D. M. Mc4nerney , S.
-an Etten *Eds.+. &ig theories revisited *-ol. 5/ Sociocultural influences on motivation and learning. pp.
=G'GA+. ?reen#ich. 3)/ 4nformation Age &ress.
Weinstein. R. S. *=>B>+. &erception of classroom processes and student motivation/ 3hildrenNs vie#s of self'
fulfilling prophecies. 4n R. E. Ames , 3. Ames *Eds.+. 1esearch on motivation in ed%cation *pp. =B:'
FF=+. *-ol. G+. "e# $or%/ Academic &ress.
WeisJ. J. &. *=>B5+. 3ontingency Ludgments and achievement ehavior/ Deciding #hat is controllale and #hen to
try. 4n J. ?. "icholls *Ed.+. "he develoment of achievement motivation *pp. =A:'=G7+. ?reen#ich. 3)/
JA4 &ress.
WentJel. (. R. *=>B>+. Adolescent classroom grades. standards for performance. and academic achievement/ An
interactionist perspective. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, >C. =G='=5F.
WentJel. (. R. *=>>=a+. Relations et#een social competence and academic achievement in early adolescence.
Child Develoment, 6@. =A77'=A:B.
WentJel. (. R. *=>>=+. Social competence at school/ Relation et#een social responsiility and academic
achievement. 1evie( of Ed%cational 1esearch, 6C. ='F5.
WentJel. (. R. *=>>G+. Does eing good ma%e the grade; Social ehavior and academic competence in middle
school. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, >;. G@:'G75.
WentJel. (. R. *=>>5+. Relations of social goal pursuit to social acceptance. and perceived social support. 8o%rnal
of Ed%cational Psychology, >6. =:G'=BF.
WentJel. (. R. *=>>7+. Social goals and social relationships as motivators of school adLustment. 4n J. Juvonen ,
(. R. WentJel *Eds.+. Social motivation+ Enderstanding school ad-%stment. "e# $or%/ 3amridge
University &ress.
WentJel. (. R. *=>>B+. Social relationships and motivation in middle school/ )he role of parents.
teachers. and peers. Journal of Educational &sychology. >A. FAF'FA>.
WentJel. (. *FAAFa+. Are effective teachers li%e good parents; )eaching styles and student adLustment in early
adolescence. Child Develoment, A3. FB:'GA=.
WentJel. (. R. *FAAF+. )he contriution of social goal setting to childrenHs school adLustment. 4n A. Wigfield ,
J. S. Eccles *Eds.+. Develoment of achievement motivation *pp. FFF'F57+. San Diego/ Academic &ress.
White. R. 6. *=>@>+. Motivation reconsidered/ )he concept of competence. Psychological 1evie(, 66. F>:'GGG.
Wigfield. A. *=>>5+. EKpectancy ' value theory of achievement motivation/ A developmental
perspective. Ed%cational Psychology 1evie(, 6. 5>':B.
Wigfield. A.. , Asher. S.R. *=>B5+. Social and motivational influences on reading. 4n &.D. &earson. R. !arr.
M.0. (amil. , &. Mosenthal *Eds.+. Handbook of reading research.
73
Motivation
*pp. 5FG'5@F+. "e# $or%/ 0ongman.
Wigfield. A.. !attle. A.. (eller. 0.. , Eccles. J. S. *FAAF+. SeK differences in motivation. self'concept.
career aspirations. and career choice/ 4mplications for cognitive development. 4n A.
Mc?illicuddy'Del0isi , R. De0isi *Eds.+. &iology, society, and behavior+ "he develoment of se*
differences in cognition *pp. >G'=F5+. ?reen#ich. 3)/ AleK.
Wigfield. A.. !yrnes. J. !.. , Eccles. J. S. *in press+. Adolescent development. 4n &. A. AleKander , &.
Winne *Eds.+. Handbook of ed%cational sychology *F
nd
edition+. Mah#ah. "J/ Erlaum.
Wigfield. A.. , Eccles. J. S. *=>B>+. )est anKiety in elementary and secondary school students. Ed%cational
Psychologist, @:. =@>'=BG.
Wigfield. A.. , Eccles. J. *=>>F+. )he development of achievement tas% values/ A theoretical analysis.
Develomental 1evie(, C@. F7@'G=A.
Wigfield. A.. , Eccles. J. S. *FAAA+. EKpectancy ' value theory of motivation. Contemorary
Ed%cational Psychology, @;. 7B'B=.
Wigfield. A.. , Eccles. J. S. *FAAFa+. 3hildrenNs motivation during the middle school years. 4n J.
Aronson *Ed.+. 'mroving academic achievement+ Contrib%tions of social sychology. San Diego/
Academic &ress.
Wigfield. A.. , Eccles. J. S. *FAAF+. )he development of competence eliefs and values from childhood
through adolescence. 4n A. Wigfield , J. S. Eccles *Eds.+. Develoment of achievement
motivation *pp. >F'=FA+. San Diego/ Academic &ress.
Wigfield. A.. Eccles. J. S.. Mac 4ver. D.. Reuman. D.. , Midgley. 3. *=>>=+. )ransitions at early adolescence/
3hanges in childrenNs domain'specific self'perceptions and general self'esteem across the transition to Lunior
high school. Develomental Psychology, @A. @@F'@7@.
Wigfield. A.. Eccles. J.S.. , &intrich. &.R. *=>>7+. Development et#een the ages of eleven and t#enty'five. 4n
D.3. !erliner and R.3. 3alfee *Eds.+. "he Handbook of Ed%cational Psychology. "e# $or%/ Macmillan
&ulishing.
Wigfield. A.. Eccles. J. S.. $oon. (. S.. 6arold. R. D.. Arreton. A.. 2reedman'Doan. 3.. !lumenfeld. &.
3. *=>>:+. 3hanges in childrenNs competence eliefs and suLective tas% values across the
elementary school years/ A three'year study. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, >9. 5@='57>.
Wigfield. A.. , Meece. J. *=>BB+. Math anKiety in elementary and secondary school students. 8o%rnal of
Ed%cational Psychology, >?, @C?!@C6.
Wigfield. A.. , )on%s. S. *FAA5+. )he development of motivation for reading. 4n J. ). ?uthrie. A.
Wigfield. , (. 3. &erencevich *Eds.+. )otivating reading comrehension+ Concet 2riented
1eading 'nstr%ction. Mah#ah. "J/ Erlaum.
Winne. &. 6.. , MarK. R. W. *=>B>+. A cognitive'process analysis of motivation #ithin classroom tas%s. 4n 3.
Ames , R. E. Ames *Eds.+. 1esearch on motivation in ed%cation *-ol. G. pp. FFG'F@:+. San Diego/
Academic &ress.
Winston. 3.. Eccles. J. S.. Senior. A. M.. , -ida. M. *=>>:+. )he utility of an eKpectancyDvalue model of
achievement for understanding academic performance and self'esteem in African'American and
European'American adolescents. Jeitschrift /%r Padagogische Psychologie H0erman 8o%rnal of
Ed%cational PsychologyF, CC. =::'=B7.
Wolters. 3. A. *FAAG+. Regulation of motivation/ Evaluating an underemphasiJed aspect of self'regulated
learning. Ed%cational Psychologist, 3>. =B>'FA7.
Wong. 3.A.. Eccles. J.S.. , Sameroff. A.J. *FAAG+. )he influence of ethnic discrimination and ethnic
identification on African'Americans adolescentsH school and socioemotional adLustment. 8o%rnal of
Personality, AC. ==>:'=FGF.
$ee. D. (.. , 2lanagan. 3. *=>B@+. 2amily environments and self 'consciousness in early adolescence. 8o%rnal of
Early $dolescence. ;. @>'7B.
$eung. W.J.. 0inver. M.R.. , !roo%s'?unn. J. *FAAF+. 6o# money matters for young childrenHs
development/ &arental investment and family processes. Child Develoment, A3, =B7='=B:>.
$oon. (. S.. Wigfield. A.. , Eccles. J. S. *=>>G April+. Ca%sal relations bet(een mothers, and children,s beliefs
abo%t math ability+ $ str%ct%ral eD%ation model. &aper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American
Educational Research Association.
Ceidner. M. *=>>B+. "est an*iety+ "he state of the art. "e# $or%/ &lenum &ress.
Cimmerman. !. J. *=>B>+. A social cognitive vie# of self'regulated learning. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology,
>C. GF>'GG>.
74
Motivation
Cimmerman. !. J. *FAAA+. Attaining self'regulation/ A social cognitive perspective. 4n M. !oe%aerts. &. R.
&intrich. , M. Ceidner *Eds.+. Handbook of self!reg%lation *pp. =G'G>+. San Diego/ Academic &ress.
Cimmerman. !. J.. , (itasantas. A. *=>>>+. Acquiring #riting revision s%ill/ Shifting from process to outcome
self'regulatory goals. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, 9C. F5='F@A.
Cimmerman. !. J.. , MartineJ'&ons. M. *=>>A+. Student differences in self'regulated learning/ Relating grade.
seK. and giftedness to self'efficacy and strategy use. 8o%rnal of Ed%cational Psychology, >@. @='@>.
75
Motivation
)ale =
1ecommendations for 1estr%ct%ring )iddle 0rades Schools
Recommendations from the 3arnegie 3ouncil on Adolescent Development
=. )urn large schools into smaller learning communities
F. All students should receive a common core of high'level %no#ledge
G. All students should e given the opportunity to succeed
5. )eachers and school administrators should have decision'ma%ing authority
@. Middle grades teachers should receive special preparation for #or%ing #ith early adolescents
7. Early adolescentsH fitness and health should e a strong focus of middle school education
:. 2amilies should e involved in middle schools
B. School Q community connections need to e estalished
Recommendations from the "ational Middle School Association
=. Middle school educators should e %no#ledgeale aout young adolescents
F. )he middle school curriculum should e responsive to the needs of young adolescents
G. )here should e a range of organiJational arrangements in middle schools
5. 4nstructional strategies should e varied
@. )here should e full eKploratory programs in different schools
7. 3omprehensive advising and counseling should e provided for all students
:. All students should ma%e continual progress
B. Evaluation procedures should e compatile #ith the nature of young adolescents
>. )eachers should have time for cooperative planning
=A. Each middle school should have a positive school climate
76
Motivation
2igure 3aptions
/ig%re C. Eccles and colleaguesH motivational model of achievement performance and choice.
/ig%re @. Model of parental influences on childrenHs motivation and achievement.
77
Motivation
Achievement-Related
Choices and performance
78
Cultural Milieu

1. Gender role
stereotypes
2. Cultural stereotypes
of subject matter
and occupational
characteristics
Socialiers! "eliefs and
"ehaviors
#ifferential Aptitudes
of Child
$revious
Achievement-Related
%&periences
Child!s $erception of...

1. Socialier!s beliefs'
e&pectations' and
attitudes
2. Gender roles
(. Activity stereotypes
Child!s )nterpretations of
%&perience

1. Causal attributions
2. *ocus of control
Child!s Goals and
General Self-Schemata

1. Self-schemata
2. Short-term +oals
(. *on+-term +oals
,. )deal self
-. Self-concept of
one!s abilities
.. $erceptions of
tas/ demands
Child!s Affective
Memories
%&pectation of Success
Subjective 0as/ 1alue

1. )ncentive and
attainment value
2. 2tility value
(. Cost