In the second half of the 90ies a new motivational model has been proposed by Elliot and his colleagues (Elliot, 1997, 1999; Elliot, & Covington, 2001; Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). This model includes not only the “traditional opposites of “mastery/learning” vs. task/achievement motivation, but for the task/achievement motivation it includes the approach and avoidance component as well. According to this model three motivational possibilities existed: mastery/learning motivation; task/achievement approach motivation, and task/achievement avoidance motivation. This new model received scientific reinforcement; research done in various studies (e.g. Elliot & Church, 1997; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Skaalvik, 1997; VandeWalle, 1997) has shown that these three goal constructs were related to different patterns and led to different results.
A new motivational construct has been suggested by Elliot & McGregor (2001). This construct is the combination of mastery/learning and avoidance motivation, already suggested by Elliot (1999) and applied as a variable in a research by Linnenbrick & Pintrich, (2000), and Pintrich (2000a, 2000b, 2000c). The reason for overlooking this component of the 2x2 matrices is, according to Elliot & McGregor (2001), the tendency of theorists to identify mastery goals with intrinsic motivation (e.g. Dweck, 1999), and to perceive mastery goals as based on high competence regulation. Thus, the concept of mastery goals that co-exist with avoidance motivation seems illogical, and as a result was not taken into consideration until recently. The mastery-avoidance goal construct can be demonstrated in school as well as in every other domain of everyday life: putting much effort in order not to fail in a test; working hard in the gym for the sake of not losing one’s good shape; spending a lot of time in the kitchen so that the meal will not be a failure.
Perfectionists are mostly people who have adopted a mastery-avoidance goal orientation (Flett, Hewitt, Blankkstein, & Gray, 1998): they work hard in order not to fail, but since they are hardly satisfied with their achievements they tend to fear of failing or of not being good enough, which for them is the equivalent of a failure.
Perfectionism is considered a “female hazard” (Kline & Short, 1991; Martin, 1985; Polotzki, 1989; Silverman, 1991; Reis, 1987; Schwartz, 1994; Zorman &
David, 2000). Girls and women, especially when gifted or talented, are exposed to it more than “regular” females and more than talented and gifted males.
6.3.4. Correlations between mastery and performance goals
Barron & Harackiewicz, (2000, 2001) have found, that there are positive effects of performance goals on intrinsic motivation and performance. The model of multiple goals (Wentzel, 1989) they present suggests that both performance and mastery goals can optimize intrinsic motivation and performance. Lepper and colleagues (2000; Lepper, Green, & Nisbett, 1973; Lepper, & Hodell, 1989) have suggested a similar model. According to them, intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations can relate to one another in different ways: they can be in conflict, but they can also be positively correlated to affect behavior. Hidi (2000), who reviewed changes in motivational aspects of school-activities, suggested that extrinsic factors might play an increasingly more important role in motivating students so they would progress through their education. This finding is in accordance with the Israeli school situation, where even good students with a high level of intrinsic motivation must study subjects they don’t particularly like while approaching the matriculation examinations.
Anderman, Austin, & Johnson (2001), Anderman, Eccles, Yoon, Roeser, Wigfield, & Blumenfeld (2001); Middleton & Midgley (1997), and Nicholls (1990) have found low correlations between mastery and performance goals. Pajares, Britner, & Valiante (2000) have found, in a research done among middle school American students, that task-goals and performance goals were positively correlated. Dweck (1999) has summarized that “but both [learning- and performance] goals can fuel achievement” (p. 15).
The dichotomy between learning and achievement goals has been criticized by many researchers (e.g. Ames & Archer, 1988; Bong, 1996, 2001; Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 2001; Elliot & Church, 1997; Harackiewicz et al, 1997; Harackiewicz et al, 1998; Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, & Elliot, 2000; Harackiewicz, & Elliot, 1998; Harackiewicz, & Sansone, 1991; Harackiewicz, & Sansone, 2000; Stone, 1998). Dweck (1999) has summarized this concept in a few words:
All students want to be validated for their skills and their accomplishments. They also want to develop their skills and knowledge. So it’s not that there is anything wrong with either kind of goals (p. 15).
6.3.5. Goals and motivation: Connections among variables
The two main kinds of goals defined by Dweck (1990, 1999) are learning and performance goals. While learning goals are connected with striving towards fulfilling challenges, performance goals are connected with both the wish to please others or be perceived as smart by others, and with avoidance behavior, i.e. choosing not to strive towards challenges, caused by the fear of not being successful.
Research has shown (Ames & Archer, 1988; Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988; Miller et al, 1993; Nolen, 1988; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991) that students with learning goals approach report using more meaningful or deep cognitive strategies than students with a performance approach.
Ames & Archer (1988) studied junior high/high school academically advanced students regarding their goal orientation, use of effective learning strategies, task choices, attitudes, and causal attributions. Students who emphasized mastery
goals reported using more effective strategies, preferred challenging tasks, had a more
positive attitude toward the learned subject, and had a stronger belief that success was a direct result of effort. Students who stressed performance goals perceived their ability as more important, while evaluating their ability negatively and attributing failure to lack of it.
In accordance with the Dweck (e.g. 1999) theory, Wolters et al (1996) have found that 7th and 8th graders adopting learning goals resulted in positive patterns of motivational beliefs that included high level of task values, self-efficacy, low level of test anxiety, as well as high academic performance.
Research of the relation between 9th and 10th grade high school students’ motivational regulation and their use of learning strategies, effort, and classroom performance (Wolters, 1999) resulted in somewhat different findings. As in the previously described research (Wolters et al, 1996), the students participating in this study (Wolters, 1999) were using the “doing better than others” motivation to enhance their effort and improve their achievements. This finding contradicts previous research (e.g. Ames, 1992; Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Graham & Golan,
1991; Pintrich & De Groot, 1990), according to which intrinsic goals were found to
be more adaptive than extrinsic ones, including that of outperforming others. The explanation that Wolters (1999) gives is that students are more familiar with this kind of motivation. Another explanation for this finding is that when high school students approach the end of adolescence, they become more aware of the importance of
grades for their future academic studies, and of their relative place in the classroom and in the school, that influence their chances of being a valedictorian, or getting any of the other honors as best pupils.
6.4. Variables that influence motivation