Achievement Goal Pursuit 1 Running head: ACHIEVEMENT GOAL PURSUIT Achievement Goal Pursuit: Are Different Goals Activated and More Beneficial in Different Types of Academic Situations? Kenneth E. Barron, Sara J. Finney, Susan L. Davis, and Kara M. Owens James Madison University Correspondence concerning this paper should be addressed to Kenneth Barron, MSC 7401, School of Psychology, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA, 22807. E-mail: [email protected]. Paper presented at the 2003 meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.Achievement Goal Pursuit 2 Achievement Goal Pursuit: Are Different Goals Activated and More Beneficial in Different Types of Academic Situations? Achievement goal theory has emerged as a predominant framework for understanding students' achievement motivation (Midgley et al., 1998; Pintrich & Schunk, 1996), however much debate still surrounds how many types of achievement goals exist and which types of achievement goals are advantageous to pursue. Initially achievement goal theorists (e.g., Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1984) proposed a dichotomous model that distinguished between two types of goals: mastery and performance. Although early research generally revealed that adaptive outcomes were linked to mastery goals and less adaptive outcomes were linked with performance goals (Ames, 1992), current theorizing notes another dimension of achievement goal pursuit that distinguishes between approach and avoidance strivings (e.g., Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). This distinction was first used to separate out two types of performance goals, resulting in a trichotomous achievement goal model involving mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals. Adding this distinction helped clarify a number of discrepancies on when performance goals were most likely to have adaptive or maladaptive consequences (Rawsthorne & Elliot, 1999). It also led many theorists to rethink whether more adaptive outcomes were associated with a sole mastery goal pursuit or a combination of mastery and performance-approach goals (Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, & Thrash, 2002). Recently this distinction was extended to separate out two types of mastery goals, resulting in a 2 (mastery vs. performance) x 2 (approach vs. avoidance) model of achievement goals (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). As we continue to refine the different types of achievement goals that students may pursue, it is essential that we also carefully evaluate how these different goals may work in concert to promote or undermine students' motivation. For example, Barron and Harackiewicz (2000; 2001) recently discussed how to test for potential multiple goal benefits and identified four patterns of findings that would reveal an advantage of multiple goal pursuit. First, multiple goals could contribute independent, positive effects for achieving a particular educational outcome (producing an additive goal advantage). Second, multiple goals could interact, such that students who strongly endorse both goals are notably advantaged in achieving a particular educational outcome (producing an interactive goal advantage). Third, rather than promoting the same educational outcomes, different goals could have independent effects on different outcomes (producing a specialized goal advantage). For example, pursuing mastery goals may promote one important educational outcome and pursuing performance goals may promote another. Finally, different achievement goals may be better suited for different types of situations, and students who can selectively shift between goals depending on the situation may be particularly advantaged (producing a selective goal advantage). For example, students may be benefited by pursuing mastery goals in courses that they are interested in (e.g., courses in their major) and pursuing performance goals in courses that they are required to take but lack interest in (e.g., general education courses). The purpose of the current research was therefore twofold. First, we wanted to evaluate whether the recently proposed 2 x 2 achievement goal model could be replicated. Second, we wanted to evaluate whether students were more advantaged by pursuing one particular type of goal or a combination of goals. We also were interested in extending prior research on multiple goal benefits by testing for possible selective goal advantages. We set out to do this by taking advantage of naturally occurring coursework at our university in which students' initial motivation for taking these classes often differs markedly. Specifically, to meet part of theAchievement Goal Pursuit 3 general education requirements, all students must either take a General Psychology course or a Lifespan and Human Development course (both of which are taught in the psychology department). However, for many students these courses can also serve as an introductory course for their chosen major. Therefore, students' initial motivation to take one of these courses can vary from completely extrinsic (to simply fulfill their general education requirements) to completely intrinsic (to begin coursework in one's chosen discipline and future career). As a result, we predicted that different goals are likely to be activated, and that different achievement goals may be linked to success in the class depending on students' reason for taking the class. Methods Overview For the current study, we tracked students at three different time points of a semester. First, for all participants, we measured students’ achievement goals and reasons for taking their class two to three weeks into the semester. Second, for a subset of participants, we returned to their classes and measured students’ interest in psychology and enjoyment of lectures at the end of the semester. Finally, for all participants, we obtained students’ final course grades after their semester was completed, as well as their SAT scores from university records. Participants We surveyed the achievement goals and graded performance of 1213 undergraduate students at a mid-sized, Southeastern university who were enrolled in one of two psychology courses that also fulfilled requirements for the university's general education program. Our sample was 67% female and was 88% Caucasian, 3% African American, 3% Asian, 2% Hispanic, and 4% other ethnicities. In addition, 577 of the original 1213 participated in an additional