Soc Psychol Educ (2009) 12:101–112

DOI 10.1007/s11218-008-9070-2

Student perceptions and motivation in the classroom:

exploring relatedness and value

Annette Kaufman · Tonya Dodge

Received: 19 November 2007 / Accepted: 1 September 2008 / Published online: 15 October 2008
© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract According to Self-Determination Theory, feelings of relatedness and

value of a behavior are critical factors that affect internalization and integration. The
purpose of the current study was to identify factors that influence relatedness and value
in an academic setting. Specifically, the study investigated the effects of autonomy,
mastery goals, performance-approach goals, and performance-avoidance goals, on
two dependent variables: relatedness to the professor and value of the course. Partici-
pants were 222 undergraduate students (90 males) enrolled in introductory psychology
classes. Linear regression analyses showed a statistically significant effect of mastery
goals and autonomy on relatedness such that higher scores were associated with greater
relatedness. A similar pattern emerged for value. Neither performance-approach nor
performance-avoidance goals were significantly associated with relatedness or value.
Theoretical and practical contributions are discussed.

Keywords Relatedness · Value · Motivation · Goal · Autonomy

Intrinsic motivation refers to an internal state or condition that influences or drives

behavior. Activities that are intrinsically motivated are those that individuals choose
to do and find interesting and enjoyable (Deci and Ryan 1987). Intrinsic motivation

A. Kaufman (B)
Department of Psychology, The George Washington University, 2125 G Street,
Washington, DC 20052, USA
e-mail: ark@gwu.edu

T. Dodge
Department of Psychology, Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY, USA
e-mail: tdodge@skidmore.edu

123
102 A. Kaufman, T. Dodge

is believed to be important in the academic setting because it is positively associated

with task persistence, effort, and enjoyment (Ryan and Deci 2000; Vansteenkiste et al.
2004; Waterman 2005; Wild et al. 1997). Studies have shown that external rewards,
such as grades, tend to undermine intrinsic motivation in the academic setting (Deci
1971; Deci et al. 1999). Though students are often driven by external reasons to
do schoolwork, there are characteristics of the school environment that can facilitate
internalization or integration of extrinsic rewards. Two such characteristics are: (1)
how connected a student feels to his/her teacher and (2) how valuable the student
perceives the task to be.
Studies have identified relatedness and value as two factors that are critical for facil-
itating and maintaining intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan 2000a,b; Turney 1974).
Relatedness refers to the desire to feel connected to others (Bowlby 1958; Ryan 1993).
In academic settings, research has focused primarily on students’ feelings of related-
ness to teachers (Gest et al. 2005). This research has shown that students’ perceptions
of relatedness or connectedness to their teachers are associated with positive outcomes,
such as positive behavioral engagement and academic outcomes (Connell et al. 1994;
Connell and Welborn 1991; Decker et al. 2007). Value refers to how worthwhile or
important a person perceives an activity to be. Individuals that find personal meaning
or importance in engaging in a behavior will be more likely to internalize that behav-
ior, even in the presence of extrinsic motivators (Deci et al. 1994). Taken together
this literature demonstrates that relatedness and value may foster internalization or
integration of extrinsic motivators.
Although relatedness and value appear to have an important effect on students’ aca-
demic experiences, almost no studies have examined factors that influence relatedness
and value in the academic setting. The objective of the present study is to identify
factors that influence relatedness and value in the college setting. Two such factors are
autonomy and achievement goals.

1 Autonomy and achievement goals

1.1 Autonomy

A number of studies have identified autonomy as a factor critical for success in the
academic setting (Grolnick and Ryan 1987; Vansteenkiste et al. 2005). Autonomy
refers to a person’s desire to feel choiceful in their actions and to be the locus of
initiation of those actions (Connell and Ryan 1987). Students who characterize their
teachers as autonomy supportive are more likely to be intrinsically motivated than
students who do not characterize their teachers this way (Grolnick and Ryan 1987).
Other studies conducted in the academic setting have shown that autonomy is positively
associated with task interest, conceptual understanding, grades, and psychological
well-being (Patrick et al. 1993; Reeve et al. 2002; Vansteenkiste et al. 2004; Williams
and Deci 1998). Autonomy is likely to play an important role in facilitating feelings
of relatedness and value in the classroom setting.

123
Student perceptions and motivation 103

1.2 Achievement goals

Achievement goals provide a framework for how individuals interpret and experience
achievement settings (Elliot 1999). Many studies have examined the role of achieve-
ment goals in the academic setting (Church et al. 2001; Harackiewicz et al. 1997,
2002; McGregor and Elliot 2002). Achievement goals influence the way students
approach, experience, and perform in their classes (Elliot and Harackiewicz 1996;
Grant and Dweck 2003; Harackiewicz et al. 2000). Two types of achievement goals
have been identified: mastery and performance goals. Mastery goals are aspirations
that people hold in order to gain skills and competencies in comparison to their own
prior performance. For individuals with mastery goals, success is achieved when one
has learned something new (Dweck and Leggett 1988). Those with mastery goals
view challenges as an opportunity to learn a new skill or to improve upon one’s past
performance. Individuals with mastery goals show adaptive responses to feedback,
even when the feedback is negative, because such feedback provides information
about how to improve one’s skills or abilities (Dweck 1986). A positive relation-
ship has been established between mastery goals and intrinsic motivation (Cury et al.
2002; Elliot and Church 1997; Shih 2005). While this literature has shown that mas-
tery goals facilitate intrinsic motivation, the current study examines the relationship
between mastery goals and two components of intrinsic motivation, relatedness and
value.
In contrast, individuals with performance goals are concerned with normatively
based evaluations or comparisons (Dweck 1992). Performance goals have been
dichotomized into approach goals and avoidance goals. Performance-approach goals
involve moving toward a desired or positive outcome, and individuals holding strong
performance-approach goals want to demonstrate how much ability they have rela-
tive to others. Performance-avoidance goals involve moving away from an undesired
outcome, and individuals holding strong performance-avoidance goals want to avoid
documenting their inability relative to others. Success for those who hold performance
goals is the result of outperforming others whereas failure is the result of being outper-
formed by others. This focus on normative evaluations has implications for the way
feedback is interpreted. When an individual with performance goals (both approach
and avoidance) receives negative feedback, the self is threatened because such feed-
back signifies incompetence, not an additional opportunity to learn (Grant and Dweck
2003).

2 Current study

Although much work has examined how autonomy and achievement goals influence
motivational and performance outcomes, no research to date has examined the affect
of these constructs on relatedness and value. Given that autonomy and achievement
goals exert such strong affects on performance in the academic setting, it seems likely
these constructs may also affect relatedness and value. The purpose of the current
study is to test whether autonomy and achievement goals influence relatedness and
value in a college course.

123
104 A. Kaufman, T. Dodge

2.1 Relatedness

It is likely that autonomy will be positively associated with relatedness. Research has
shown a positive relationship between autonomy and relationship satisfaction such that
those who report greater autonomy support in a relationship report that relationship
as more satisfying than those who report lower levels of autonomy support (Hodgins
et al. 1996). This suggests that autonomy has a positive effect on relationship quality.
This logic can be extended to the college setting and predicts that students who have
a greater sense of autonomy will feel closer or more related to their professors.
Like autonomy, mastery goals are expected to have a positive influence on relat-
edness. Students with mastery goals are concerned with improving their skills and as
a result are likely to interpret feedback received in classes as information for how to
improve. Because feedback is given by the professor, students with higher mastery
goals may be more likely to view the professor as a facilitator of the learning process
than those with lower mastery goals.
Both performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals are expected to be
negatively associated with relatedness. Those who hold performance goals are con-
stantly looking to others for feedback to gauge how well they are doing. Because
professors in an academic setting serve as the source for feedback, this feedback may
cause students to feel threatened and may result in a barrier for feelings of relatedness.
For these students, a professor may be viewed as an authority figure or judge of their
ability, not a facilitator of learning. Thus, a negative relationship is expected between
both performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals and relatedness.

2.2 Value

It is likely that autonomy will be positively associated with value. Students who feel
they have greater autonomy should find their class to be of greater value than those
who feel they have less autonomy. This is because students who experience greater
autonomy have selected their activities out of personal preference and want to see that
their choices are valuable. As a result, students who report higher feelings of autonomy
will experience their class as more valuable than individuals who report lower feelings
of autonomy.
As with autonomy, it is expected that mastery goals will be positively associated
with value. Students with stronger mastery goals are likely to view their class as
more valuable than those with weaker mastery goals because the class provides an
opportunity to learn and improve. Because students with stronger mastery goals are
interested in acquiring new knowledge and skills, they may view college courses as a
valuable way to achieve these goals than those with weaker mastery goals.
It is predicted that both performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals
will be negatively related to value. Those with strong performance-approach goals
may value a class less than those with weaker performance-approach goals because
their focus is on demonstrating success relative to others, not the inherent value of
the class itself. Similarly, for those with performance-avoidance goals, the class is
not perceived as an opportunity to experience success, but rather the chance to fail.

123
Student perceptions and motivation 105

As a result students holding strong performance-avoidance goals may see limited

value or utility in the course. Because students with either type of performance goal
are focused primarily on their standing relative to others, the class is not useful per
se. Instead, relative comparisons are viewed as important. Students holding both
performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals will be focused on perfor-
mance outcomes, such as obtaining good grades, rather than the value of the experience.
We predict a negative relationship between performance-approach and performance-
avoidance goals and value.

3 Method

3.1 Participants

Two hundred and twenty-two (90 men and 132 women) undergraduate students in
four introductory level psychology classes participated in the study (general psychol-
ogy = 145, social psychology = 77). Approximately 72% were Caucasian, 4% were
African American, 4% were Hispanic, 12% were Asian, and the remaining 8% were
split between Native American and other. Approximately 40% were freshmen, 43%
sophomores, 12% were juniors, and 5% were seniors.

3.2 Procedure

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at The George Washington
University. Trained research assistants attended the last 15 min of class. After the
professor had left the room, research assistants read the following description of the
study aloud, “Today, you have the opportunity to participate in a research study that
will assess how the school environment influences student perceptions about school.”
Participation was voluntary and students who did not wish to participate were free
to leave the room. Those who remained were asked to read and sign an informed
consent form. After all of the consent forms were signed and collected, the survey was
distributed.

3.3 Measures

Reliability coefficients for all measures are shown in parentheses in Table 1. Relat-
edness and value were assessed using two subscales from the Intrinsic Motivation
Inventory (Self-Determination Theory, n.d.). Participants were asked to think about
the class that they were currently in while reading each statement and indicate how
true each statement was for them. Each item was measured on a seven point scale with
points labeled 1 (not at all true), 4 (somewhat true) and 7 (very true).

3.3.1 Relatedness

The relatedness subscale contains six items that assess participants’ perception of
relatedness or connectedness to their professor in the class (e.g. “I feel really distant

123
106 A. Kaufman, T. Dodge

Table 1 Zero-order correlations for all study variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Performance-approach (.90) – – – – –
2. Performance-avoid .23** (.77) – – – –
3. Mastery .07 −.13 (.87) – – –
4. Autonomy −.04 −.22** .39** (.78) – –
5. Value .03 −.05 .65** .36** (.91) –
6. Relatedness .001 −.15* .29** .25** .49** (.69)
*Correlation is significant at the .05 level,**Correlation is significant at the .01 level
Note: Reliability coefficients are shown parenthetically

to this professor” and “I’d like the chance to interact with this professor more often”).
Items were scored so that higher numbers indicated greater relatedness.

3.3.2 Value

The value scale contains four items that assess participants’ perception of how valuable
and the class is for them (e.g. “I would be willing to take a class similar to this again
because it has some value to me” and “I think this is an important class”). Items were
scored so that higher numbers indicated greater perception of value.

3.3.3 Autonomy

The perceived choice subscale of Sheldon and Deci (1996) Self-Determination Scale
was adapted to assess the extent to which participants function in an autonomous or
self-determined way. Participants read five pairs of statements (e.g. statement A: “I am
free to do whatever I decide to do in this class” and statement B: “What I do is often
not what I would choose to do in this class”) and were asked to think about which
statement was truer of them. These items were measured on a five point scale with the
endpoints labeled 1 (only A feels true) and 5 (only B feels true). Items were scored so
that higher numbers reflected greater autonomy.

3.3.4 Achievement goals

Elliot and Church’s (1997) achievement goal questionnaire was adapted to assess
participants’ achievement goals in the course. This questionnaire contains three six-
item scales. One scale contains items measuring mastery goals (e.g. “In a class like
this, I prefer course material that arouses my curiosity, even if it is difficult to learn”).
One scale contains items measuring performance-approach goals (e.g. “I am motivated
by the thought of outperforming my peers in this class”). One scale contains items
measuring performance-avoidance goals (e.g. “I often think to myself, ‘What if I do
badly in this class?”’). Each item was measured on a seven point scale with points
labeled 1 (not at all true for me), 4 (somewhat true for me), and 7 (very true for me).
Higher scores reflect greater propensity toward the goal.

123
Student perceptions and motivation 107

3.4 Data analysis

Linear regression analysis was used to test study objectives. To test the first objective
of the study, relatedness was regressed onto autonomy, mastery goals, performance-
approach goals, and performance-avoidance goals. To test the second objective, value
was regressed onto autonomy, mastery goals, performance-approach goals, and
performance-avoidance goals.

4 Results

4.1 Descriptive statistics

Means and standard deviations of all study variables are shown in Table 2. Value dif-
fered significantly by gender F(1,221) = 10.63, P < .001, therefore gender is entered
as a covariate in the analysis where value is the dependent variable. As seen in Table 2,
females perceived the class as being more valuable than males (t = 3.26, P = .001).
Overall, participants appeared to have strong mastery goals. Performance-approach
and performance-avoidance goals were above the mid-point of the scale. Table 1
presents the zero-order correlations for all study variables. Consistent with previ-
ous research, there was a positive correlation between performance-approach and
performance-avoidance goals (Elliot and Church 1997). Performance-avoidance goals
were negatively associated with autonomy and relatedness.

4.2 Relatedness

To test the effect of goals and autonomy on relatedness, relatedness was regressed onto
autonomy, mastery goals, performance-approach goals, and performance-avoidance
goals. The effect of autonomy was statistically significant and the unstandardized
regression coefficient indicated a positive impact of autonomy on relatedness, such
that for every one unit autonomy increases, relatedness is predicted to increase .15 units
(b = 0.15, P < .05). The effect of mastery goals was statistically significant and the
unstandardized regression coefficient indicated a positive impact of mastery goals on

Table 2 Means and standard deviation of study variables by gender

Variable Overall Males Females

M SD M SD M SD

Relatedness 5.48 .81 5.47 .80 5.49 .82

Value 5.57 1.20 5.26∗ 1.28 5.78∗ 1.09
Performance-approach goals 4.46 1.38 4.29 1.50 4.56 1.29
Performance-avoidance goals 4.52 1.22 4.31∗ 1.21 4.67∗ 1.20
Mastery goals 5.31 1.11 5.16 1.16 5.40 1.07
Autonomy 2.97 .81 2.95 .72 2.98 .87
∗ P < .05

123
108 A. Kaufman, T. Dodge

Table 3 Variables associated

Variable Unstandardized Standard P-value
with relatedness
beta error

Intercept 5.49 0.05 .00

Performance-approach 0.01 0.04 .84
Performance-avoid −0.06 0.05 .17
Mastery 0.16 0.05 .00
Autonomy 0.15 0.07 .04

relatedness, such that for every one unit mastery goals increase, relatedness is predicted
to increase .16 units (b = 0.16, P < .01). Performance-approach and performance-
avoidance goals were not statistically significant predictors of relatedness. The overall
model was significant F(4, 217) = 6.92, P < .01 (adjusted R2 = 0.10). Results of this
analysis are shown in Table 3.

4.3 Value

To test the effect of goals and autonomy, value was regressed onto autonomy and
goals. Because value differed by gender, gender was entered as a covariate in this
analysis. There was a statistically significant positive effect of autonomy on value,
such that for every one unit autonomy increases, value is predicted to increase .20
units (b = 0.20, P < .05). The effect of mastery goals was statistically significant
and the unstandardized regression coefficient indicated a positive impact of mastery on
value, such that for every one unit mastery goals increase, value is predicted to increase
.64 units (b = 0.64, P < .01). Performance-approach and performance-avoidance
goals were not statistically significantly predictive of value. The overall model was
significant F (5, 216) = 29.67,P < .01 (adjusted R2 = 0.45). Results of the analysis
are shown in Table 4.

5 Discussion

The present study is one of the first to examine the independent effects that autonomy
and achievement goals have on relatedness and value. Results showed that mastery
goals and autonomy were significantly associated with relatedness such that those who

Table 4 Variables associated

Variable Unstandardized Standard P-value
with value controlling for gender
beta error

Intercept 5.01 0.21 .00

Performance-approach −0.03 0.05 .50
Performance-avoid 0.04 0.05 .40
Mastery 0.64 0.06 .00
Autonomy 0.20 0.08 .02
Gender 0.36 0.12 .00

123
Student perceptions and motivation 109

had stronger mastery goals and those who felt more autonomous reported feeling more
connected to their professors. Mastery goals and autonomy were also significantly
significant predictors of value such that those who had stronger mastery goals and
those who felt more autonomous reported feeling that the class was more valuable.
The findings for value are especially notable because no prior research has examined
this construct in an academic setting.
Results of the present study make a number of theoretical and practical contribu-
tions. The results make theoretical contributions to both Self-Determination Theory
(Deci and Ryan 2000a) and Achievement Goal Theory (Elliot 1999). Recent studies
on Self-Determination Theory have begun to highlight the critical role that internal-
ization and integration play in psychological and physical well-being (Burton et al.
2006; Deci and Ryan 2000b; Williams et al. 1996). Higher levels of relatedness and
value are associated with integration of extrinsic behaviors, making the behaviors more
intrinsic to the individual. The present study suggests that mastery goals and autonomy
may facilitate two constructs essential for that process: relatedness and value.
Results of the study extend the existing literature on Achievement Goal Theory.
The results showed that mastery goals are positively and significantly associated with
feelings of relatedness to the professor and value of the course. This finding is consis-
tent with other studies that show mastery goals are positively related to task interest
or internalized motivation (Elliot and Harackiewicz 1996). In addition, the present
results suggest that performance goals neither facilitate nor inhibit self reports of relat-
edness or value among undergraduate students. These null findings for performance
goals in predicting relatedness and value warrant future attention because past studies
have documented a negative relationship between performance-avoidance goals and
intrinsic motivation (Elliot and Church 1997; Elliot and Harackiewicz 1996). Those
who hold performance goals may be focused on the outcomes of their efforts rather
than the process of getting there or the value they may get out of the learning experi-
ence. Furthermore, those with strong performance goals may not view the professor as
someone to hold feelings of relatedness or connectedness towards, as they are viewed
as a giver of rewards and punishments (e.g. grades).
The present study has a number of implications for higher education policy and for
the classroom. Over the past decade administrators in higher education have reported
unacceptably high attrition rates. At two-year public institutions only 51% of students
enrolled return the second year, and at four year public institutions about 68% of
students enrolled return the second year (American College Testing Program 2007).
To address attrition rates, it has been suggested that colleges and universities implement
programs to make students feel more related or connected to their coursework (Watson
et al. 2004). The present data suggest another way to improve feelings of relatedness:
providing students with more choice in their curriculum and fostering a sense of
mastery goals. Such improvements can be targeted at both the structural or policy
level, as well as at the classroom level.
At the structural level, one possible change would be for universities and colleges
to provide course offerings where the goals and outcomes of the courses focus on
enhancing knowledge and skills (mastery focus) instead of performance based out-
comes like a grade. Projects where students may demonstrate knowledge of course
material through application to the real world would be one such way to increase

123
110 A. Kaufman, T. Dodge

feelings of mastery. Rather than having exams with a set of pre-determined questions,
students could be asked to write openly about what they have learned. Enrollment in
these types of courses may lead to increased feelings of relatedness and value.
Although structural changes like providing special courses may be cost or resource
prohibitive, there are specific things that can be done by advisers and professors that
might improve feelings of relatedness and value. For example, colleges and univer-
sities could change the way they describe the general curriculum requirements and
requirements for the major. It might be worthwhile to convey to students that they
have the autonomy to choose the direction of their education and to stress the deci-
sions made about courses are a reflection of the student. Thus, encouraging students
to take ownership of their course selection and overall education may improve how
connected a student feels to the educational environment and the value s/he places on
their education. As a result, student retention rates would likely improve.
Although this study makes contributions to Self-Determination Theory and offers
interesting directions for future research, there are several limitations that must be
acknowledged. This research used a cross-sectional design and future research should
examine the relationships under study in a prospective design to see whether autonomy
and achievement goals predict changes in relatedness and value over time. The present
study used a sample of college students making it difficult to generalize the results to
other younger or older populations or to other domains such as the workplace. Despite
these limitations, we feel the study makes interesting contributions to the existing
literature on factors influencing student motivation.

Acknowledgements We wish to thank Stephen Forssell for his comments on this manuscript. We wish
to thank the research assistants who contributed to this project: Jennifer Clift, Dana Epstein, Crystal
Kannankeril, and Mary Yama.

References

American College Testing Program. (2007). National collegiate retention and persistence to degree rates.
Retrieved July 26 from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/retain_2007.pdf.
Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child’s tie to his mother. Jahrbuch der Psychoanalyse, 99, 350–373.
Burton, K. D., Lydon, J. E., D’Alessandro, D. U., & Koestner, R. (2006). The differential effects of intrin-
sic and identified motivation on well-being and performance: Prospective, experimental, and implicit
approaches to self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 750–762.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.750
Church, M. A., Elliot, A. J., & Gable, S. L. (2001). Perceptions of classroom environment, achievement goals,
and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 43–54. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.
93.1.43.
Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Self-regulatory style questionnaire: A measure of external, introjected,
identified, and intrinsic reasons for initiating behavior. Manual, University of Rochester.
Connell, J. P., Spencer, M. B., & Aber, J. L. (1994). Educational risk and resilience in African-American
youth: Context, self, action, and outcomes in school. Child Development, 65(2), 493–506. doi:10.2307/
1131398.
Connell, J. P., & Welborn, J. G. (Eds.). (1991). Competence, autonomy and relatedness: A motivational
analysis of self-system processes (Vol. 23). Hillsdale, NH: Erlbaum.
Cury, F., Elliot, A., Sarrazin, P., Da Fonseca, D., & Rufo, M. (2002). The trichotomous achievement
goal model and intrinsic motivation: A sequential mediational analysis. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 38, 473–481. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00017-3.

123
Student perceptions and motivation 111

Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105–115. doi:10.1037/h0030644.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-
determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 119–142. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.
1994.tb00797.x.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examin-
ing the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668.
doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024–1037. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1024
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000a). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-
determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.
55.1.68.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. The American Psychologist, 41(10),
1040–1048. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040.
Dweck, C. S. (1992). The study of goals in psychology. Psychological Science, 3(3), 165–167.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00019.x.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.
Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256.
Elliot, A. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist,
34(3), 169–189. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3.
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motiva-
tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218–232. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218.
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic
motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 461–475.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461.
Gest, S. D., Welsh, J. A., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2005). Behavioral predictors of changes in social
relatedness and liking school in elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 281–301.
doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2005.06.002.
Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 85(3), 541–553. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.541.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: An experimental and individual
difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 891–898. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.52.5.890.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. T., & Elliot, A. J. (1997). Predictors and
consequences of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1284–1295. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1284.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term and
long-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest and performance over time. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 92(2), 316–330. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.316.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Predicting success in college:
A longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of interest and perfor-
mance from freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 562–575.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.562.
Hodgins, H. S., Koestner, R., & Duncan, N. (1996). On the compatibility of autonomy and relatedness.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 227–237. doi:10.1177/0146167296223001.
Legault, L., Green-Demers, I., & Pelletier, L. (2006). Why do high school students lack motivation in the
classroom? Toward an understanding of academic amotivation and the role of social support. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 567–582. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.567.
McGregor, H. A., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Achievement goals as predictors of achievement-relevant processes
prior to task engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 381–395. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.
94.2.381.
Patrick, B. C., Skinner, E. A., & Connell, J. P. (1993). What motivates children’s behavior and emotion?
Joint effects of perceived control and autonomy in the academic domain. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 65(4), 781–791. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.781.

123
112 A. Kaufman, T. Dodge

Reeve, J., Jang, H., Hardre, P., & Omura, M. (2002). Providing a rationale in an autonomy-supportive
way as a strategy to motivate others during an uninteresting activity. Motivation and Emotion, 26(3),
183–206. doi:10.1023/A:1021711629417.
Ryan, R. M. (1993). Agency and organization: Intrinsic motivation, autonomy and the self in psychological
development (Vol. 40). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new
directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.
Self Determination Theory. An Approach to Human Motivation and Personality. The Self-Determination
Scale. (Retrieved January 22, 2007). http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/selfdet.html.
Sheldon, K., & Deci, E. (1996). The self-determination scale. University of Rochester.
Shih, S. (2005). Taiwanese sixth graders’ achievement goals and their motivation, strategy use, and grades:
An examination of the multiple goal perspective. The Elementary School Journal, 106(1), 39–58.
doi:10.1086/496906.
Turney, J. R. (1974). Activity outcome expectancies and intrinsic activity values as predictors of several
motivation indexes for technical-professionals. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,
11(1), 65–82. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(74)90005-1.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learn-
ing, performance, and persistence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 246–260.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.246.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Matos, L. (2005). Examining the motivational
impact of intrinsic versus extrinsic goal framing and autonomy-supportive versus internally controlling
communication style on early adolescents’ academic achievement. Child Development, 76(2), 483–501.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00858.x.
Waterman, A. S. (2005). When effort is enjoyed: Two studies of intrinsic motivation for personally salient
activities. Motivation and Emotion, 29(3), 165–188. doi:10.1007/s11031-005-9440-4.
Watson, G., Johnson, G. C., & Auston, H. (2004). Exploring relatedness to field of study as an indi-
cator of student retention. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(1), 57–72. doi:10.1080/
0729436032000168496.
Wild, T. C., Enzle, M. E., Nix, G., & Deci, E. L. (1997). Perceiving others as intrinsically or extrinsically
motivated: Effects on expectancy formation and task engagement. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 23(8), 837–848. doi:10.1177/0146167297238005.
Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1998). The importance of supporting autonomy in medical education.
Annals of Internal Medicine, 129, 303–308.
Williams, G. C., Grow, V. M., Freedman, Z. R., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Motivational predictors of
weight loss and weight-loss maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 115–126.

Author Biographies
Annette Kaufman is a doctoral candidate in Applied Social Psychology at The George Washington Univer-
sity in Washington, DC. Her research interests include adolescent health and risk-taking behaviors, decision
making related to health, and motivational factors that impact health behavior.

Tonya Dodge is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at Skidmore College. Her research
focuses on identifying factors that facilitate and inhibit physical and psychological well-being.

123