Motivational Climate and Achievement Goals at the Situational Level of Generality

Abstract

Based on the rule of compatibility, according to which motivational climate scales should capture both the objective environment and whether it activates particular goals, a measure is presented assessing achievement goals and climate perceptions in physical education at a particular point of time. In Study 1, students completed the questionnaires following an experimental manipulation where eight classes had task-involving drills (n = 185 students), eight classes had ego-involving drills (n = 174 students) and nine classes (n = 221) served as the control group. Study 2 was an intervention consisting of nine consecutive physical education lessons. Students in the intervention group (n = 174) pursued mastery goals and control group students (n = 181) participated in typical classes. Questionnaires were completed prior to the intervention and every third lesson. The structure of the model consisting of four achievement goals (mastery, performance approach, performance avoidance, and social approval) and four perceptions of teachers' emphasis on these goals was satisfactory and superior to the structure of all alternative models. Factor correlation results and the relationship of the current scales with intrinsic-extrinsic motivation and amotivation provided evidence of convergent and divergent validity for the measures. Results from multi-sample confirmatory factor analyses supported the invariance of factor loadings across samples and the invariance of covariances for the goals construct. In both studies, the differences that emerged between groups provided additional support to the construct validity of the present scales. Practitioners interested in the effects of teaching and coaching on motivational climate and achievement goal adoption could acquire useful feedback using these scales.

Notes

¹Despite the many similarities, the theoretical framework of Elliot (1997), Nicholls (1984), and Dweck and Leggett (1988) differ between each other in terms of the explanation of how achievement goals raise and, therefore, different predictions evolve from the three approaches, but a description of these differences is beyond the purpose of this study.

²In the theorization of Maehr and Nicholls (1980), social approval goals are considered achievement goals. The approval-oriented person adopts a behavior to demonstrate high effort, virtuous intent, and personal commitment. Hence, items capturing social approval goals should describe achievement behaviors. This is also supported by Triandis et al. (1972) who found that success was an “active” concept in Greece and other cultures, meaning that the individual has something to do to succeed. This contrasts sharply with items referring to social approval but not to achievement behaviors, such as “I feel successful when the others love me” that one anonymous reviewer suggested, which have a “passive” meaning and do not indicate high effort, virtuous intent, or personal commitment as was suggested by Maehr and Nicholls (1980).

³Although consequences of success as for the social approval were connected with mastery/task-related behaviors to describe social approval goal adoption, this does not imply that if we join any consequence of success with mastery behaviors we will end up with achievement goals that are conceptually different from mastery goals. According to Maehr and Nicholls (1980) when social approval goals are adopted the person wants to indicate high effort, but when task/mastery goals are adopted the individual wants to solve a problem for its own shake and exhibit ability in the less differentiated sense (Nicholls, 1984), or develop competence (Elliot, 1997). If we connect mastery behaviors with any of the top consequences of success in America, that is, achievement, satisfaction, progress, self-confidence, happiness, and joy (Triandis et. al., 1972), the goal with regard to what the person wants to exhibit remains the one that is described by mastery behaviors, that is, to solve the problem for its own sake and exhibit ability in the less differentiated sense (Nicholls, 1984), or develop competence (Elliot, 1997).

∗p < .05,

∗∗ p < .01,

∗∗∗ p < .001.

∗p < .05,

∗∗ p < .01,

∗∗∗ p < .001.