Sustaining Primary Control Striving for Achievement Goals During Challenging Developmental Transitions: The Role of Secondary Control Strategies

Abstract

Developmental transitions are imbued with ubiquitous uncertainties that undermine goal striving in many otherwise committed individuals. Our seven-month study examined whether cognitive selective secondary control strategies (motivation-focused thinking) facilitate the enactment of achievement goals among young adults experiencing the landmark school to university transition. Sequential regression analyses demonstrated that (a) achievement goals predicted selective secondary control, (b) selective secondary control predicted behavioral selective primary control striving, and (c) selective primary control predicted final course grades. Findings support Heckhausen et al.'s (2010) proposition that selective secondary control bolsters selective primary control striving and enables goal attainment during difficult transitions.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported by Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) master's and doctoral scholarships to the first author, a SSHRC postdoctoral fellowship to the second author, a SSHRC insight grant (435-2012-1143) and Alexander von Humboldt/Royal Society of Canada research grant to the third author, and a SSHRC standard grant to the fifth author (410-2010-2049).

Notes

¹Although important conceptual distinctions exist between mastery and performance achievement goals, their predicted effects did not differ in our study. We expected that both mastery and performance goals would (a) positively predict selective secondary control and (b) indirectly influence selective primary control through selective secondary control.

²A series of t tests indicated that the samples used in the CFA and main analyses did not differ (all ps > .05) on any of the main study variables measured at Time 1 (i.e., performance goals, mastery goals, selective secondary control, and selective primary control).

Note. The descriptive statistics for secondary and primary control are based on the sample used in the confirmatory factor analyses.

^a Time 1 measure.

^b Time 2 measure.

^c Time 3 measure.

³The Academic-Specific Control Strategies scale was created by Raymond P. Perry and Judith G. Chipperfield. Correspondence concerning the scale should be addressed to Judith G. Chipperfield at [email protected].

⁴Notably, one secondary control item (SSC2; see the Appendix) may be interpreted as either a secondary or primary control strategy because it may suggest cognitive or behavioral persistence. Because we interpreted the item as implying cognitive persistence, we included it in the secondary control scale.

Note. HSG = high school grade.

^a Time 1 measure.

^b Time 2 measure.

^c Time 3 measure.

*p < .05. **p < .01, two-tailed.

*p < .05. **p < .01, two-tailed.

⁵Because Step 1 was based on cross-sectional data (all variables were measured at Time 1), two supplementary analyses were conducted to explicate the relationship between achievement goals and selective secondary control over time. First, selective secondary control at Time 1 was correlated with its corresponding measure at Time 2 (r = .61). Second, a multiple regression analysis demonstrated that Time 2 selective secondary control was reliably predicted by Time 1 measures of performance (β = .34) and mastery (β = .21) goals when controlling for high school grade and gender.

*p < .05. **p < .01, two-tailed.

⁶A supplemental multiple regression analysis was conducted to test whether Time 1 selective secondary control predicted Time 2 selective primary control beyond the autoregressive effects of Time 1 selective primary control. In line with the main analyses, Time 1 selective secondary control (β = .27) reliably predicted Time 2 selective primary control when controlling for Time 1 selective primary control, high school grade, gender, and performance and mastery goals.

*p < .05. **p < .01, two-tailed.

⁷Estimated scores were calculated using unstandardized beta weights from the regression models including all relevant predictors for selective secondary control (Step 1.2), selective primary control (Step 2.3), and final grade (Step 3.4). The exemplar students were given scores two standard deviations below (Student A) or above (Student B) the mean on mastery and performance goals. Mean scores on high school grade and gender were used in both calculations.

Note. SSC = selective sec ondary control; SPC = selective primary control.