Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Liat Levontin
ABSTRACT
In this thesis I propose to expand goal orientation theory. Goal orientation theory
has developed within a social-cognitive framework and focuses on the goals that are
patterns of cognition, affect, and behavior (Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck & Leggett,
1988; Nicholls, 1984). The theory initially described two achievement goals: Mastery
goal, the goal to develop competence by acquiring new skills and developing mastery
others and avoiding negative ones. Several scholars have advocated that goal
positive outcomes (approach motivation) have very different effects than performance
Church, 1997; Midgley et al., 1998; VandeWalle, 1997). Both the newer and the former
relevant need in achievement situations. In this work, I suggest that relatedness needs
avoidance goals are interpreted on the continuum of the competence dimension whereas
this suggestion.
goal orientation questionnaires (Elliot & McGregor, 2001; VandeWalle, Cron, &
Slocum, 2001). The results support the hypothesis that mastery and performance-
avoidance goals are represented on the continuum of one dimension, the competence
of another dimension.
Study 2 (N = 782) replicated the findings of Study 1 with two existing work goal
Furthermore, this Study tested the hypotheses that values may serve as antecedents of
goal orientations. Indeed, a unique pattern of relations between goal orientations and
the dimensions of Schwartz' values theory (Schwartz, 1992) was found such that each
of the three goal orientations was positively correlated with one higher order value,
negatively correlated with the opposite conflicting higher order value and not correlated
Study 3 (N = 122) further supported the structure of goal orientations and also
supported the hypothesis that the relations between goal orientations and values are
stable over time. The relations between goal orientations and values measured a few
Amity goals
3
months apart replicated the relations found in Study 2 when goal orientations were
In the second part, I present a new achievement goal – amity goal and a four goal
orientations model (FGOM). I suggest that the two most relevant needs in achievement
situations are competence and relatedness, and that these needs are independent of one
another. Competence and relatedness are thus the basis of a two dimensional goal
orientations model. Amity goal is the goal to increase relatedness, cooperate with
others, help others to succeed, and develop and improve relations with others. Amity
goals, or contest goals as I suggest calling them, are also better interpreted on this
Study 4 (N = 635) tested the four goal orientations model. Amity items were
developed and added to the goal orientation questionnaire and data was analyzed with
confirmatory factor analysis, SSA, and correlations with values. The confirmatory
factor analysis supported the four goals model. The SSA analysis further supported a
two ends of one dimension, the competence dimension, whereas contest and amity
goals represent another dimension, the relatedness dimension. The Four Goal
Orientations Model (FGOM) was further supported by analyzing the relations between
each of the four goal orientations with values. Each goal presented a unique pattern of
correlations with values in the hypothesized directions such that each of the four goal
orientations had positive correlations with one motivational type of values, negative
correlations with the opposed motivational type of values and no correlations with the
Study 4 was replicated albeit Studies 4 and 5 were different in their research
items (Hebrew, English), goal orientation domain (school, work) and goal orientation
items.
In the third part, Studies 6-8, I present a nomological network for FGOM. In these
studies I tested the relations between each of the four goal orientations and other
motivational and personality constructs: Basic needs, attachment styles, and the Big-5
personality traits. This part builds a better picture of what amity goals are. Specifically,
individuals with high amity goals value benevolence and universalism over power and
achievement (Study 4) are motivated by relatedness needs rather than competence and
autonomy needs (Study 6, N = 178), are low on the avoidance dimension of attachment
(Study 7, N = 208), and are high on agreeableness and emotional stability (Study 8, N =
240).
In the fourth part, I present some of the many possible consequences of FGOM.
Studies 9-10 test changes in motivation following failure and present the advantages of
revealed that amity goals may immune individuals with performance-avoidance goals
effect of amity goals on motivation following failure above and beyond the known
effect of mastery goals was hypothesized. Participants were randomly assigned to one
the conditions participants read a scenario that described failure in an academic class.
Amity goals
5
The results revealed that following failure, it is the combination of mastery and amity
goals that yielded the highest level of motivation and may relate to the mastery-oriented
avoidance and contest goals yielded the lowest level of motivation and may relate to the
helpless pattern. Thus, this study demonstrated a beneficial effect of amity goals on
response to failure above and beyond the known effect of mastery goals.
participant worked on a task that demanded creativity and received bogus negative
feedback. The hypothesized immunity effect was found in this Study, namely, the
avoidance goals were coupled with amity goals than when they were coupled with
contest goals.
Finally, the results of the first 8 studies were meta-analyzed and despite the
Taken together, the 10 studies presented here suggest that achievement motivation
carry. Yet, only a few can obtain such rewards: Not everyone can be promoted and get
a large bonus at work, few receive "A" grades at school, and very few receive the gold
(VandeWalle, 2001). Indeed, people who pursue mastery goals, that is to increase one's
(Elliot & Dweck, 2005). Do all individuals hold contest goals in achievement
situations? Is contest the only path to superior performance? This thesis suggests that
Amity goals are also pursued in achievement situations, and may affect emotions,
theory.
and focuses on the goals that are pursued or perceived by individuals in an achievement
situation that result in different patterns of cognition, affect, and behavior (Ames &
Archer, 1988; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls, 1984). The theory describes two
achievement goals: The goal to develop competence by acquiring new skills and
developing mastery in new situations (variously named as task goal, learning goal, or
mastery goal), and the goal to demonstrate competence or to avoid the demonstration of
negative ones (variously named as ability goal, ego goal, or performance goal). These
opportunities to learn new skills, to develop and improve one's capabilities, while
identifiable chronic trait but can also be influenced by situational factors. The chronic
1988). Specifically, people who hold an incremental theory of intelligence, that is,
believe that intelligence and other capabilities are increasable, tend toward mastery
goals, while people that hold an entity theory of intelligence, that is, believe that
intelligence and other capabilities are relatively fixed, tend toward performance goals.
Leggett, 1988). Specifically, mastery goals can be induced by praise for effort, a focus
induced by praise for intelligence, low expectancies to succeed and information on how
Each goal orientation has different consequences. People who hold mastery goals
are willing to take the risk of making an error for the purpose of learning. They also
prefer to perform difficult, challenging and new tasks, rather than repeat a familiar task.
Conversely, people who hold performance goals tend to sacrifice learning opportunities
that involve the risk of making errors. They also prefer to perform familiar tasks in
which they feel “safe” as not to make errors, and are reluctant to choose difficult tasks
(Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Mastery goals elicit enjoyment, optimism and intrinsic
interest (Butler, 1987; Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988), whereas performance
goals elicit helplessness, negative affect, anxiety and stress (Dweck & Leggett, 1988).
Amity goals
8
This theory was supported empirically in different domains such as school
(Butler, 2006; Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000; Middleton & Midgley, 2002), work (Brett
& VandeWalle, 1999; Button et al., 1996; Lin & Chang, 2005), and sports (Boyd &
Kim, 2007; Tod & Hodge, 2001). However, accumulating data yielded inconsistencies
regarding the consequences of performance goals. To give just one example, Midgley
et al. (1998) describe a large number of studies that found that mastery goals were
academic self-efficacy. It was suggested then, that performance goals involve more
than one motivation and should thus be separated into performance-approach goals and
performance-avoidance goals.
three factor construct. They provided theoretical explanations and empirical evidence
that performance goals focused on positive outcomes (approach motivation) have very
(Elliot & Church, 1997; Midgley et al., 1998; VandeWalle, 1997). Thus, a three goal
Studies overview
Amity goals
9
In this thesis I present a further theoretical development of goal orientation
theory. The thesis is built of four parts; each part is supported by empirical data.
In the first part I suggest that goal orientation theory is better conceptualized as a
two dimensional space in which mastery goals and performance-avoidance goals are
approach goals may be better interpreted on another dimension. Studies 1-3 support this
suggestion. I use Smallest Space Analysis (SSA) and present the unique pattern of
relations between goal orientations and the dimensions of Schwartz' values theory
In the second part I present a new goal orientation – amity goals and a four goal
orientations model (FGOM). I suggest that the two most relevant needs in achievement
situations are competence and relatedness, that amity goals are better interpreted on the
suggest to call them, are also better interpreted on this dimension. Studies 4-5 were
The third part, Studies 6-8, build a nomological network for FGOM. In these
studies I test the relations between each of the four goal orientations and other
motivational and personality constructs: Basic needs, attachment styles, and the Big-5
personality traits.
Finally in the fourth part I present some of the many possible consequences of
FGOM. Studies 9-10 test changes in motivation following negative feedback. In this
part I present the advantages of using a two dimensional model to study achievement
The results of Studies 1-3 hint at the existence of a fourth goal orientation. The
SSA maps all three studies (see Figures 1 & 3) had empty space in them opposite the
performance-approach items suggesting the existence of a goal orientation that was not
measured. A concept like goal orientation may be studied in terms of the conceptual
components that make it up, in much the same way as a continent can be explored in
terms of its geographical regions (Shye et al., 1994). The set of variables in each of the
maps include goal orientation items that are a sample of the goal orientation concept.
The map revealed an unexplored region of the goal orientation concept, a region that
was not represented by any item from the goal orientation questionnaires used, and
thus, in the following studies I added to the item sample of goal orientation new items
which may enable to uncover and define the entire goal orientation concept space.
Also, Studies 2 & 3 (see Figures 4 & 5) presented three different patterns of
correlations between goal orientations and values. Three of the higher order values
positively correlated with one of the goal orientations while the fourth higher order
any of the goal orientations. Values are organized in a two dimensional space
(Schwartz, 1992, see Figure 2). One dimension contrasts higher order openness to
change and conservation value types and as showed in Studies 2 & 3 may serve as
The empty space in the SSA map may represent a goal that its antecedents may be self-
transcendence values, that is, a goal that may be positively correlated with self-
Dweck, 2005). I suggest that achievement situations may also enable the fulfillment of
the need for relatedness. More than one theory other than values theory support the
suggestion that the combination of competence and relatedness needs better explain
motivation and behavior than competence needs alone. Self-determination theory (Ryan
& Deci, 2000) for example defines autonomy, competence and relatedness, the need to
feel belongingness and connectedness with others, as the three basic needs. The need to
Attachment theory (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003) also suggests the existence of two
central systems, the attachment system that exists to bring the infant into close
proximity with its caregiver (relatedness) and the exploration system that exists to drive
the infant to learn about the environment (competence). From another world of content,
the stereotype content model also suggests two primary dimensions of stereotypes
content, competence and warmth, in which competition predicts low warmth (Fiske,
Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). Therefore, I believe that relatedness needs play a role in
Grant & Dweck's (2003) normative goals' items all include contest components (e.g.
than other students", "My goal in this class is to get a better grade than most of the
other students", and "It is important for me to do well compared to others in this
class". These items although originally developed to measure the need to appear
competent in the eyes of others share a common theme, above and beyond, what these
dimension, thus, from now on, I use the term contest goals and not performance-
approach goals to emphasize that contest goals better fit the relatedness dimension. But
alternative to relate to others may be to increase relatedness via, I suggest, Amity goals.
Amity goal orientation is the goal to increase relatedness, cooperate with others,
help others to succeed, and develop and improve relations with others. Whereas contest
goal orientations represent wanting to outperform others and working against others to
win, amity goals are about striving with others toward task accomplishment.
adolescence goal orientation research. For example, Wentzel and colleagues (Wentzel,
1998, 1999; Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997; Wentzel & Watkins, 2002) provide insights
into ways in which students' multiple social and academic goals might influence their
academic accomplishments. Urdan & colleagues (Urdan, 1997; Urdan & Maehr, 1995;
Urdan & Schoenfelder, 2006) claimed that mastery and performance goals are
(Ames & Ames, 1984; Roseth, Johnson, & Johnson, 2008). Roseth et al. (2008)
the research on goal orientations such that cooperative goal structure overlap with
mastery goals whereas competitive goal structure overlaps with performance goals. I
tend to agree with the latter, that performance-approach goals overlap with competitive
goal structure but not with the former. Rather, I propose that the adaptive effect of
is not due to an overlap between mastery goals and cooperative goal structure, but
rather due to the belonging of these two goals to two independent dimensions and thus
Studies overview
Mastery and performance-avoidance goals are best interpreted on the continuum of the
competence dimension while contest goals are better interpreted on the relatedness
dimension. In the next two studies amity goal orientation is presented, a new goal
orientation that belongs to the relatedness dimension. In these studies I show that in a
items whereas contest goal items emerge opposite to amity items. The empty space
found in Studies 1-3 will be filled by amity items. Study 4 also shows that amity goals
fill up the picture of the relations between goal orientations and values such that amity
goals are positively related to self-transcendence values and are negatively related to
self-enhancement values. In other words, each of the four higher order values is now
Amity goals
14
positively related to one goal orientation, negatively related to the other goal orientation
from the same dimension (competence or relatedness), and is not related to the two
Study 4
and amity goals belong to the relatedness dimension. In this study I test the suggestion
competing with others in order to outperform them – contest goals, versus cooperating
and promoting the welfare of others in order to achieve better results for all – amity
goals.1
H1: In a two dimensional space mastery goal items will emerge opposite to
H2: Amity goals will be positively correlated with universalism and benevolence
values, negatively correlated with achievement and power values, and not correlated
1
Recent research applied achievement goals to the social domain: Social achievement goals (Ryan &
Shim, 2006) and friendship goals (Elliot, Gable, & Mapes, 2006). These two models deal with social
competence in social situations. Our model suggests combining relatedness and competence needs into
one model of achievement.
Amity goals
15
Method
A total of 635 University students (39.8% woman, mean age = 23.98 years) were
asked to report their values and then to report their goal orientations in return for course
credit or a small amount of money (~ 2$). 35 participants who failed to follow the
Instruments
Study 1 with the addition of 10 amity goal orientation items (see Appendix A) that were
Amity items were developed to measure cooperation with others, the will to help others
to succeed, and the will to develop and improve relations with others. Also, items were
developed to resemble as much as possible in style, warding, length etc. the other goal
orientation items. Examples of items are, "It is important for me that my best friends
will do as well as I do"; "A course that requires cooperation with others in exercises,
home work etc. is more enjoyable for me"; "To be honest, I prefer studying with others
Values. Values were measured with a 44-item version of Schwartz Value Survey
Results
solution to four factors yielded the expected pattern matrix. Promax rotation was used
avoidance goals. Factor 1 contains all performance approach items. Factor 2 contains
Amity goals
16
all amity items. Factor 3 contains all performance-avoidance items except for one item
("My goal for this class is to avoid performing poorly compared to the rest of the
class") from the Elliot & McGregor 2001 scale that did not load on any of the factors.
This analysis revealed that consistent with my expectations amity goals are a
distinct construct, participants clearly distinguished between amity goals and other goal
Amity goals
17
orientations. Participants did not distinguish however between items measuring the
Structure Analyses
To test the structure of the suggested four goal orientations model (FGOM), and
uncover a circumplex structure if one exists, HUDAP was employed for an SSA
analysis (see Figure 6). The Coefficient of Alienation (COA) was .12, indicating that
two dimensions are sufficient to recover the correlation matrix. As expected, four
Replicating Studies 1 through 3, all items measuring mastery goals were grouped
together on the top left side of the SSA map, opposing all items representing
top right side. As hypothesized, amity items were grouped together (on the bottom left
of the map) opposite the contest items. The separation to four regions was almost as
hypothesized (SI = .99) such that 33 of the 34 items emerged in the hypothesized area.
Amity goals
18
Figure 1: An SSA map of 34 academic related goal orientation items (Elliot &
McGregor, 2001; VandeWalle et al., 2001) and amity items developed by us,
COA = .12
Note. el = Elliot & McGregor mastery-approach items, ea = Elliot & McGregor performance-avoidance
items, ep = Elliot & McGregor performance-approach items, vl = Vandewalle mastery items, va =
Vandewalle performance-avoidance items, vp = Vandewalle performance-approach items, am = amity
items.
Correlation analyses
The four clusters of goal items (see Figure 6) were used to build mastery (7 items,
amity (10 items, α = .86) indexes. As in Study 2 centered each person’s responses were
hypothesized amity goals had a unique pattern of correlations with values. Specifically,
Amity goals
19
amity goals positively correlated with benevolence (r = .27, p<.01) values and
universalism (r = .16, p<.01) and, negativity correlated with power (r = -.24, p<.01) and
achievement (r = -.21, p<.01) values. Also as expected amity goals were not correlated
negative correlation was found between amity goals and self-direction values (r = -.11,
p<.01).
The integrated hypothesis specified that the correlations between amity goals and
the whole set of 10 values would follow the motivational circle of values from
benevolence and universalism (most positive) in both directions around the circle to
achievement, and power (most negative, see Table 2). A correlation of .88 (p < .01)
between the predicted and observed order of correlations supported the integrated
hypotheses. Only the correlation with self-direction deviated from the predicted circular
order.
Amity goals
20
Figure 2: Correlations between academic related goal orientations and values
(5=600)
0.4
0.3
0.2
Correlations
0.1
0
pow ACH HED ST SD UN BE TR CO SEC
-0.1
-0.2
-0.3
Values
of correlations with values. Specifically, replicating the results of Studies 2 & 3, contest
goals positively correlated with power (r = .29, p<.01) achievement (r = .17, p<.01) and
hedonism values (r = .12, p<.01) and negatively correlated with benevolence (r = -.27,
p<.01) and universalism values (r = -.07, n.s.). Also as expected contest goals were not
A correlation of .90 (p < .01) between the predicted and observed order of
correlations between contest goals and values supported the integrated hypotheses.
Finally, the correlation between amity goals' correlations with values and contest goals'
correlations with values was high and negative (r = -.92, p<.01) in line with the
hypotheses that amity and contest goals represent two ends of one axis.
Amity goals
21
The correlations between mastery goals' correlations with values and
performance-avoidance goals' correlations with values was high and negative (r = -.83,
p<.01) replicating the results of Studies 2 and 3 and in line with the hypotheses that
Discussion
The four goal orientations' SSA map revealed a two dimensional structure in
which mastery and performance-avoidance goals represent two ends of one dimension,
the competence dimension, whereas contest and amity goals represent another
dimension, the relatedness dimension. The Four Goal Orientations Model (FGOM) was
further established by analyzing the relations between each of the four goal orientations
with values. Each goal presented a unique pattern of correlations with values in the
hypothesized directions (see Table 4). Specifically, each goal orientation had positive
correlations with one motivational type of values, negative correlations with the
opposed motivational type of values and no correlations with the type of values that
The relations between values and goal orientations were established such that
each goal orientation relate differentially to values. I expect to find that each goal
serves to clarify the nature of the goal orientation constructs in the context of a larger
nomological network, that is, the nature of each construct can be more fully understood
Studies overview
In the following studies the relations between the four goal orientations and other
constructs is tested: Basic needs (Study 6), attachment styles (Study 7) and the five
These three constructs were chosen for several reasons. First, all these constructs
are theories that have the potential to explain differently competence related goal
orientations and relatedness related goal orientations. Other constructs such as implicit
theories of intelligence, perceived ability or need for achievement (see Table 1) are
avoidance) but there is no theoretical basis to think that these constructs can well
explain relatedness related goal orientations. On the contrary, as I suggested, the lack of
extent the result of the assumption that performance-approach goals are competence
related goals. Three theories that have the potential to explain both competence and
relatedness goal orientations were thus chosen. Second, the three chosen theories
represent three different self constructs – needs, traits and self-processes. Finally, the
related to goal orientations, then attachment styles, which were related to goal
orientations in only a few studies, and finally the five factor model of personality traits,
Study 6
The purpose of this Study was to test the relations between the four goal
orientations model (FGOM) and basic needs. Self-determination theory (SDT, Deci &
relatedness. Competence needs are related to goal orientations (e.g., Cury, Elliot, Da
Fonseca, & Moller, 2006; El-Alayli, 2006; Van Yperen, 2006). Past research has shown
that relatedness needs may also somewhat influence goal orientations (Pomerantz,
Grolnick, & Price, 2005). Some studies investigated the relations between perceived
basic needs in the sports achievement domain. It was found that mastery (named "Task
relatedness while performance (named "Ego involving") climate was negatively related
or not related to perceived competence, autonomy and relatedness (Reinboth & Duda,
2006; Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier, & Cury, 2002; Standage, Duda, &
Ntoumanis, 2003). The task-involving climate items reflect a sense that cooperative
learning is encouraged, that each player has an important role on the team, and
effort/improvement are emphasized. In other words, this measure may include both
mastery and amity items and thus was related as one may expect to the three basic
needs suggested by SDT. Ego-involving items reflect a sense that mistakes are
Amity goals
24
punished, that recognition by the coach is reserved for the most talented athletes, and
that a feeling of intra-team rivalry exists among players in the team. In other words this
measure may include both performance-avoidance and contest goals and thus was
related as one may expect, yet negatively, to the same three basic needs.
To my best knowledge the three basic needs were not considered as antecedents
of goal orientations in past research. That is probably since it was assumed that
competence is the underlying need of goal orientations (Elliot & Dweck, 2005) and
relatedness needs were not expected to influence on goal orientations. This may be true
when mastery and performance-avoidance goals are considered, but it is not the case
when amity goals are considered as well. Therefore, I wish to suggest a comprehensive
competence and autonomy needs and are not related to relatedness needs.
H2: Amity (contest) goals are positively (negatively) related to relatedness needs
Method
A total of 178 Hebrew University students (43.4% woman, mean age = 22.6
years) were asked to report their basic needs and their goal orientations in return for
course credit.
Instruments.
Basic !eeds. Basic needs were measured with the General Need Satisfaction
= .70) are generally satisfied in their life. Examples of items are, “I generally feel free
Results
between basic needs and goal orientations. Each regression equation included the three
and as hypothesized, competence needs did no predict either amity or contest goals (β =
hypothesized autonomy did not predict amity goals (β = -.09). Not as hypothesized,
.10 respectively). Not as hypothesized, relatedness needs did not predict contest goals
(β = -.04).
Discussion
The results of study 6 support the suggested FGOM's two dimensional structure.
needs whereas amity and contest goals were not related to competence needs. It seems
that the assumption that competence is the core of achievement motivation is only
partially true.
Amity and contest goals were both suggested to be better interpreted on the
relatedness dimension. Indeed, amity goals were positively related to relatedness needs.
Contest goals on the other hand, along with mastery and performance-avoidance goals
were not related to relatedness needs. Unlike with competence and autonomy needs, no
Amity goals
27
goal orientation is negatively related to relatedness needs. This result may suggest that
concerns whether a goal reflects an individual's interests and personal values versus
"should do" (Koestner, 2008). Thus, as hypothesized, autonomy was positively related
to mastery goals that reflect self-direction and stimulation values (Studies 2, 4) and
security values (Studies 2, 4). Autonomy was also negatively related to contest goals a
relation that was not predicted. The relations between contest goals and values can be
used for a post-hoc explanation of these relations. Specifically, contest goals reflect
power and achievement values (Studies 2, 4) values that are related to social
After establishing the relations between FGOM and basic needs, a relation that
was not studied before, I move next to study the relations between FGOM and
attachment styles. The relations between goal orientations and attachments styles were
Study 7
The purpose of this Study was to test the relations between the four goal
in terms of two underlying dimensions – the avoidance dimension and the anxiety
dimension (Fraley & Shaver, 2000). The avoidance dimension is concerned with the
degree, to which a person feels uncomfortable depending on and being close to others.
relatively low on both dimensions, can use their attachment resources for exploration.
relationships between adult attachment constructs on the one hand and adult goal
orientations on the other hand (Elliot & Reis, 2003). Elliot & Reis (2003) found
across several studies that the low end of the avoidance dimension was a positive
attachment dimensions. In this study I wanted to replicate these results and at the
same time test the hypothesis that attachment avoidance is a positive predictor of
amity goals. Individuals high on the avoidance dimension that undervalue the
H1: The low end of the avoidance dimension is a positive predictor of amity
goals.
Method
A total of 208 Hebrew University students (38.5% woman, mean age = 22.6
years) were asked to complete an attachment measure and a goal orientations measure
Instruments
Attachment Attachment anxiety and avoidance were assessed with the Hebrew
version of the Experiences in Close Relationships scale, (ECR, Brennan, Clark, &
Amity goals
29
Shaver, 1998). Respondents indicated on a scale from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7
(strongly agree) the way they usually experience close relationships. Responses were
summed to form the avoidance (18 items, α = .87), and anxiety (18 items, α = .87)
indexes. Examples of items are, "I worry about being abandoned" (anxiety), "I prefer
Results
between attachment and goal orientations. Each regression equation included the two
and also predicted contest goals (β = .30). The interaction between avoidance and
anxiety was a marginally significant predictor of amity goals (β = .17), and did predict
Discussion
Also, Elliot & Reis (2003) results were replicated regarding the relations between
performance-avoidance goals and attachment. Surprisingly, Elliot & Reis (2003) results
regarding the relations between mastery and contest goals and attachment styles were
not replicated. Mastery goals were predicted by low anxiety but were not predicted by
avoidance, while Elliot & Reis (2003) found avoidance to be a negative predictor of
mastery goals but not anxiety. Also, contest goals were positively predicted by the
anxiety dimension, while Elliot & Reis (2003) found no relations between attachment
questionnaire as Elliot & Reis's (2003) was used here, the attachment measure cannot
explain these differences in results; however, these differences may be explained by the
different measures of goal orientations. A 34 items goal questionnaire was used in this
Amity goals
31
Study that included ten amity goal items that I have developed, while the other three
goal orientations were measured using the items of two goal orientation questionnaires
(Elliot & McGregor, 2001; VandeWalle et al., 2001). Since Elliot & Reis (2003) used
Elliot & McGregor's items as well, new indexes were created for the three goal
orientations other than amity in order to produce indexes as similar as possible to those
used by Elliot & Reis (2003). Specifically, new indexes were built for each goal, once
including only the Elliot & Reis (2003) items, and again including only the Vandewalle
et al. (2001) items. Next, the analysis was replicated as reported above. This time (See
Table 7) the results were similar to those obtained by Elliot & Reis (2003). Specifically,
avoidance was a negative predictor of mastery goal orientations and did not predict
performance-avoidance goal orientations and did not predict mastery goal orientations.
In my data anxiety also predicted contest goal orientations while in Elliot & Reis
orientations. The results when just the Vandewalle items were included differed from
the results when just the Elliot & McGregor items were included only with regards to
mastery goals.
The differences between the correlations of attachment style with these two
mastery orientation scale may suggest either the existence of some fine differences
between these measures which does not pop-up when mastery items are compared to
other goal orientations (as in the SSA maps of Studies x,y,z), or that the true correlation
with mastery goals is neglible (both my results and Elliot's yielded relatively small
Note. For each column and variable, the first value is from the Elliot & McGregor goal
orientations index, and the second value is from the Vandewalle goal orientations index.
*p<.05, **p<.01
performance-avoidance goals. Mastery and contest goals are not well predicted by
attachment dimensions. Finally, the interaction between anxiety and avoidance that
reflects the secure attachment orientations is related to amity goals more than to any
After establishing the relations between FGOM and attachment, a relation that
was not often studied in the past, I move next to study the relations between FGOM and
Big 5 personality traits. The relations between goal orientations and the Big 5
personality traits was studied in the past, in many studies and I hope to shed light on the
Amity goals
33
relations between amity goals and the Big 5 traits in comparison to the relations
between the three other goal orientations and the Big 5 traits.
Taken together Studies 6-8 shed more light on amity goals, the new presented
goal orientation. The results of these studies imply that amity goals are positively
related to relatedness needs but are not related to competence and autonomy needs, are
negatively related to avoidance attachment style and are marginally positively related to
the secure attachment style, and are positively related to agreeableness and emotional
stability.
Amity goals
34
Chapter 4 - The consequences of failure
The relations of FGOM with other well known theories were established in the
previous studies. The following studies are focused on one of the most intriguing
especially relevant, more than other possible consequences, because the first studies
from which goal orientation theory emerged were based on the differences between
Dweck and colleagues identified two distinct reactions to failure which they
named the helpless and mastery-oriented patterns (Dweck, 1999). The helpless pattern,
describes one's view that when failure occurs the situation is out one's control, and
performance. Students showing the helpless response doubt their intelligence in the
face of failure and lose faith in their ability to perform the task. The mastery-oriented
mastery in spite of present difficulties and remaining confident that success will follow.
Students showing the mastery-oriented response maintain the positive mood they had
when succeeding and welcome the chance to confront and overcome obstacles.
sign they might lack the competence needed for the task. Since their goal is not to be
thought of as incompetent they tend to withdraw from the task and to invest little effort
if any following failure. They tend to blame their perceived low intelligence for doing
poorly and tend to fall into a helpless pattern. Individuals with high mastery goals on
the other hand, tend to interpret a failure as an indication that more effort or a different
strategy is necessary for task completion so that when things don't go well it has
nothing to do with intelligence but rather that the right strategies have not yet been
Amity goals
35
found. Thus when they do poorly, they tend to work harder on the task or at least
continue with similar levels of motivation and show the mastery-oriented pattern.
(Butler, 2000; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Grant & Dweck, 2003).
related to two of the goal orientations, mastery and performance-avoidance goals, both
are competence associated goals. FGOM that also includes relatedness associated goals
allows new hypotheses regarding the influences of failure. Specifically, I suggest that
individuals fall to the helpless pattern when both performance-avoidance and contest
goals are high but not when both performance-avoidance and amity goals are high. In
other words, it is suggested that amity goals may immune individuals with high
Also, I suggest that individuals show the mastery-oriented pattern following failure
when both mastery and amity goals are high but not when both amity and contest goals
are high. In other words, it is suggested that contest goals might work as a barrier for
individuals with high mastery goals and make it more difficult for them to persist
following failure.
Studies overview
based goals and relatedness based goals following failure. In Study 9 I test student's
following failure in an experiment using a real task. In both Studies goal orientations
were manipulated but in each Study different manipulations of goal orientations were
used.
Amity goals
36
Study 9
The purpose of this study was to test student's motivation following failure. It is
hypothesized that due to the suggested immunity effect of amity goals, students primed
suggested barrier effect of contest goals, students primed with the combination of
mastery and contest goals will present lower motivation than students primed with the
H1: There will be a beneficial effect of amity goals on response to failure above
Method
A total of 182 university students (36.3% woman, mean age = 25.8 years) were
described failure in an academic class. They were asked to imagine themselves in the
place described in the scenario and to answer two questions about their motivation.
avoidance) following by one relatedness goals (contest or amity). Scenarios were built
by adding together academic goal orientation items (see Appendix A) from the goal
orientation questionnaires used in previous studies with some minor changes to make
All four scenarios manipulated failure and had the same general structure:
“Imagine you enrolled to a class… (Goal manipulations)… you have failed in the mid
Amity goals
37
term exam that counts for 40% of the final grade.” The mastery manipulation was as
following: "Imagine you enrolled to a challenging class that enables you to learn a lot.
You desire to completely master the material presented in this class." The performance-
avoidance manipulation was as following: "Imagine you enrolled to a class you felt you
have a good chance to succeed in. Your goal for this class is to avoid performing
poorly compared to the rest of the class." The amity manipulation was as following: "It
is important for you to assist your friends to succeed in this class." The contest
manipulation was as following: "It is important for you to do better than other students
in this class."
Measures
expectations you had to succeed in this course, what is your current expectancy to
succeed?”, “Relative to the value this course had for you when you enrolled to it,
what is the current value of the course for you?” (α = .66). Participants were provided
with an 11-point scale ranging from “much less” (anchored with − 5) through “about
the same” (0) to “much more” (anchored with 5). This measure is based on a single-
item measure of motivation (Van-Dijk & Kluger, 2004) that measured participants
willingness to invest effort in one's work following a failure. Here, two items that
reflect the motivational process of expectancy and valence (Vroom, 1964) were used.
Indeed, reliability is high enough to suggest that both items measure motivation, but
not too high to suggest that each item measures a different aspect of the motivational
process.
Amity goals
38
Results
To test the hypothesis of the beneficial effect of amity goals on response to failure
ANOVA was used, with relatedness and competence as the fixed factors. A
competence main effect was found, namely motivation following failure was higher in
(1,178) = 4.77, p < .05). As hypothesized the relatedness main effect was also
significant, namely motivation was higher in the scenarios that emphasized amity goals
over contest goals, (F (1,178) = 6.16, p < .05). There was no interaction (F (1,178) = 2.08,
0.6
0.4
0.2
motivation
0
avoidance
- 0.4
- 0.6
- 0.8
Amity Contest
To further test the differences between means we used Tukey post-hoc tests. First,
the immunity hypothesis was tested, namely that motivation following failure is higher
when performance-avoidance goals are coupled with amity goals than when coupled
Amity goals
39
with contest goals. This hypothesis was not supported although results were in the right
direction: M = -.49 for the performance-avoidance amity condition and M = -.77 for the
The second was the barrier hypothesis, namely that motivation following failure is
higher when mastery goals are coupled with amity goals than when coupled with
contest goals. This hypothesis was supported: M = .48 for the mastery amity condition
and M = -.57 for the mastery contest condition (mean difference = 1.05, p < .05).
Discussion
The results of this Study are consistent with previous research which showed that
motivation is higher following failure when mastery goals are more dominant than
performance-avoidance goals (e.g., Ames & Archer, 1988; Cron, Slocum Jr.,
VandeWalle, & Fu, 2005; Senko & Harackiewicz, 2002). However, in this study the
motivation following failure was not significant when both goals were coupled with
contest goal. Rather, following failure, it was the combination of mastery and amity
goals that yielded the highest level of motivation and may relate to the mastery-oriented
avoidance and contest goals yielded the lowest level of motivation and may relate to the
helpless pattern. Thus, this study demonstrated a beneficial effect of amity goals on
response to failure above and beyond the known effect of mastery goals.
The barrier hypothesis, namely that motivation following failure is higher when
mastery goals are coupled with amity goals than when coupled with contest goals was
supported. The immunity hypothesis, namely that motivation following failure is higher
when performance-avoidance goals are coupled with amity goals than when coupled
with contest goals, was not supported although results were in the expected direction.
Amity goals
40
Possible explanations to this result may be (a) the motivation measure had low
reliability (which may be due to the very short nature of this experiment) and (b) the
scenarios may not be close enough to real behaviors. Study 10 was designed to test
these possibilities.
FGOM which is a two dimensional model allows the manipulation of two goal
orientation one from each dimension since it is assumed that the relatedness and
competence dimensions are independent. This study thus, is innovative in the sense that
it is the first study that primed two goal orientations for each participant. The results
support the suggestion that achievement motivation is complex and may be influenced
Study 10
This Study was conducted to retest the barrier and immunity hypotheses
following a failure in a real task. Whereas in Study 9 motivation was measured after
imagining failure that was described in a scenario, in this study motivation was
Method
A total of 112 university students (45.2% woman, mean age = 23.9 years) were
experimental design. Participants arrived to the lab in small groups, ranging in size
between six and 10 participants, and were assigned as a group to either contest or amity
goals condition. Then, each participant received an individualistic task that demanded
their motivation to perform a similar task. Finally, participants were fully debriefed.
to know each other better. Each participant was assigned to a partner and was asked to
tell the partner two things about oneself that nobody else from the group knows. Then,
together, the couple had to make up a lie about each one of them. Finally, each
participant presented the partner to the group by telling the two true facts and the lie in
a random order to the rest of the group. The other group members were asked to guess
which of the three "facts" the lie was. In the contest condition participants were
presented with the following riddle: "add one line to the following equation to make it
correct: 5 + 5 + 5 =550." The first to solve the riddle received a prize (Solution in
Appendix B).
Task. In the "unusual uses task" (Silvia & Phillips, 2004; Silvia et al., 2008)
participants received lined sheets of paper and were asked to generate as many as
possible creative uses to a common object, a broomstick. This task is widely used as a
measure of creativity and previous research also used this task with an ability to
improve manipulation (Silvia & Phillips, 2004) which is very similar to the competence
manipulations used here. Five minutes after participants started to work on the task the
manipulation was part of task instructions (Silvia & Phillips, 2004; Steele-Johnson,
Beauregard, Hoover, & Schmidt, 2000). In the mastery goal orientation condition, the
task instructions were designed to create the perception that cognitive ability is
changeable and easy to improve through effort and to focus the participants on
exploring and mastering the task. Mastery instructions were as following: “Research
Amity goals
42
showed that level of performance in tasks like the one you are about to perform
improves with practice. You will probably feel this improvement”. In the performance-
avoidance goal orientation condition, the task instructions were designed to create the
perception that cognitive ability was stable and difficult to improve through effort and
following: “Research showed that level of performance in tasks like the one you are
Following task completion the experimenter collected the sheets from all
participants in order to go over the ideas in the sheets and give each participant a
feedback. While the experimenter prepared the feedback participants worked on a filler
task.
participant wrote down and prepared a feedback sheet for each participant. The
feedback sheet opened by saying that the average number of uses participants usually
think of to a broomstick in a 5 minuets time limit is 19. This number was found in a
pretest to be high enough such that most participants did not reach it, but not too high
such that participants believed it to be the average. Then, the experimenter wrote down
the real number of uses each participant thought of. This way, each participant received
feedback that implied on performance below average. Ten participants who thought of
18 or more uses were eliminated from the analysis since they did not receive negative
feedback.
Motivation. Motivation was measured as in Study 9 with two items (α = .72), one
that asked about the expectancy to succeed in a similar task and another that asked how
(very much).
Results
main effects (for relatedness F (1, 99) = .01; for competence F (1, 99) = 1.16) and a
significant interaction (F (1, 99) = 12.36, p<.01, see Figure 10). This interaction supports
the immunity hypothesis such that motivation following failure is higher when
performance-avoidance goals are coupled with amity goals than when coupled with
contest goals. However, the interaction does not support the buffer effect such that there
was no significant difference in motivation for mastery goals when coupled with either
motivation
5
Performance-avoidance Mastery
Amity Contest
To further test the differences between means we used Tukey post-hoc tests. First,
the immunity hypothesis was tested, namely that motivation following failure is higher
when performance-avoidance goals are coupled with amity goals than when coupled
with contest goals. Results are in support with this hypothesis: M = 7.96 for the
The second was the barrier hypothesis, namely that motivation following failure is
higher when mastery goals are coupled with amity goals than when coupled with
contest goals. This hypothesis was not supported as the difference in means was
opposite to the predicted direction. However, the opposite difference was not
significant: M = 7.04 for the mastery amity condition and M = 8.34 for the mastery
As expected, the immunity effect was found in this Study. The motivation
were coupled with amity goals than when they were coupled with contest goals.
However, the buffer effect that was found in Study 9 was not replicated. There was no
difference in motivation following failure when mastery goals were coupled with either
amity goals or contest goals. Thus, a beneficial effect of amity goals on response to
failure above and beyond the effect of mastery goals was not found but rather we found
performance-avoidance goals were coupled with amity goals and when mastery goals
This interaction found supports the well documented advantage of mastery goals
over performance-avoidance goals but only when both goals are coupled with contest
goals (mean difference = 1.74, p < .05). The motivation of those primed with mastery
and amity goals (M = 7.04) was not different from the motivation of those primed with
most previous studies that documented this advantage, amity goals were probably not
salient. Rather, more likely either contest or no relatedness goal were salient. Thus, the
relatedness goals.
manipulated goal orientations; one from each dimension. In study 9, motivation was
measured following a failure in a real task. There were some differences in results
between these two studies but one important result was replicated: In both studies the
Amity goals
46
lowest motivation following failure was reported by participants with the combination
(Dweck, 1999) but, as was shown in these studies is also related to contest goals. Thus,
it may be that amity goals when coupled with performance-avoidance goals may
In these studies we showed an immunity effect and a buffer effect and suggested
an advantage for amity goals above and beyond the advantage of mastery goals. We
have only partially supported this suggestion and more research is necessary to study
these effects. Specifically, it may be beneficial to study the mechanisms of both effects.
The immunity and buffer effects may occur due to more amity, less contest, or both.
Future research could manipulate three patterns of goal combinations: Mastery (or
individual differences in the four components of FGOM may help to shed new light on
both the mastery-oriented pattern and the helpless pattern that follow from failure.
Amity goals
47
References
Appendix A
10. A course that requires cooperation with others in exercises, home work etc. is more enjoyable
for me.
8. An assignment that requires cooperation with others is more enjoyable for me.
Amity goals
57
Appendix B
The riddle: add one line to make the following equation correct:
5 + 5 + 5 = 550
Solution:
5 4 5 + 5 = 550