Educology

Educology for Developing Democracies on Eaarth

Link

Eaarth Needs Educology

The Philosophical Fallacy

Contributing Papers Set 1

Contributing Papers Set 2

Contributing Papers Set 3

Contributing Papers Set 4

Educology in Australia

Educology in the USA 1

Educology in the USA 2

Educology in Lithuania

Educology in Nigeria

Educology in Guinea

Educology in Britian

Educology in Norway

Educology in Germany

Educology in Netherlands

Educology in Poland

Other Papers

Books in Educology

Educology Doctoral Study

Educology Bachelor Study

Educology Networking

Educology and Media

ERA/USA

page1

page2

Articles Published in cd-International Journal of Educology (cd-IJE) in Educology and Philosophy of Educology
 
by Norway Scholars

1 Article


Document
International Journal of Educology, 2002, Vol 16, No 1Self-Enhancing and Self-Defeating EgoGoals in Mathematics Lessons:Relationships Among Task and AvoidanceGoals, Achievement, Self-Perceptions,Anxiety, and Motivation(A Scientific Educology)Einar M. Skaalvik,Norwegian University of Technology and ScienceDragvoll, Norway
An Article in Educology
 

International Journal of Educology, 2002, Vol 16, No 1

54

Self-Enhancing and Self-Defeating Ego

Goals in Mathematics Lessons:

Relationships Among Task and Avoidance

Goals, Achievement, Self-Perceptions,

Anxiety, and Motivation

(A Scientific Educology)

Einar M. Skaalvik,

Norwegian University of Technology and Science

Dragvoll, Norway

Abstract

Educology is the fund of knowledge about the

educational process, which obviously occurs within and

outside of schools. Educology includes, at the least, the

fund of knowledge about past education (historical

educology), about current states of affairs in education

(scientific educology), about effective practices within

education (praxiological educology), about meanings of

terms and sentences in education (analytic philosophical

educology) and about good education (normative

philosophical educology).

This article is a work in scientific educology. It reports

on an exploration of extant relationships among four

dimensions of goal orientation in mathematics lessons (selfdefeating

ego orientation, self-enhancing ego orientation,

task orientation, and avoidance orientation) and

mathematics achievement, self-concept, self-efficacy,

anxiety, and intrinsic motivation.

Participants in the study were 295 Norwegian

elementary school students. Data were collected at two

International Journal of Educology, 2002, Vol 16, No 1

55

points of time: (1) March and April of 1999, when the

students attended their fifth year in school (Time 1) and (2)

October and November of the same year, when the students

attended their sixth year (Time 2).

Within-time regression analyses revealed that goal

orientations were systematically related to achievement,

self-conceptions, anxiety and motivation and that selfdefeating

and self-enhancing ego orientation related

differently to all these variables.

Across-time analyses failed to show that goal orientation

affected subsequent anxiety, motivation, and achievement,

but it had some predictive value for subsequent self-concept

and self-efficacy. In addition, across-time analyses

indicated that achievement, self-conceptions, motivation and

anxiety have predictive value for subsequent goal

orientation.

Introduction

Recent educological research on motivation has focused

on the importance of students’achievement goals in

relation to their success in their school studies.

An achievement goal is distinguished in relation to the

purposes of the individual (Ames, 1992). According to

achievement goal theory, individuals approach achievement

tasks with qualitatively different types of goals (Jagacinski,

Hofmann & Strickland, 1996). Moreover, students’ goal

orientations are assumed to influence their classroom

behaviour (Ames & Archer, 1988; Meece, Blumenfeld &

Hoyle, 1988; Middleton & Midgley, 1997).

In this study, an examination and an analysis were

undertaken of the relationships among achievement goals,

academic achievement, academic self-perceptions, intrinsic

motivation, and anxiety in school.

International Journal of Educology, 2002, Vol 16, No 1

56

Dimensions of Goal Orientation

Two goal perspectives in particular have been given

special attention in educological research literature. These

perspectives have been given various names: (1)
task

orientation versus ego orientation (Duda, 1993; Nicholls,

1989), (2) learning versus performance goals (Elliott &

Dweck, 1988), and (3) mastery versus performance

orientation (Ames & Archer, 1988). These orientations will be referred to as task orientation and ego orientation in this

article.

Task orientation means that the focus of the students’

attention is on the task (Nicholls, 1983) and that, in the

mind’s eye of the students, the tasks of learning,

understanding, and developing new skills are ends in

themselves (Ames & Archer, 1988; Duda & Nicholls, 1992;

Lens, 1994; Nicholls, 1992). Task oriented students tend to

see mastery as dependent on their effort, and their

perceptions of ability are self-referenced (Duda, 1993).

Ego-oriented students are concerned with being judged

able, and their perceptions of their ability tend to be

normatively referenced. Ability is judged by comparison

with others (Ames & Archer, 1988; Duda, 1993; Nicholls,

1983, 1989), and high ability is evidenced by doing better

than others (Ames, 1992). The goal of ego-oriented

students is typically described as that of establishing the

superiority of their ability relative to that of others, to do

better than others, or to outperform others (Ames & Archer,

1988; Duda, 1993; Duda & Nicholls, 1992; Nicholls,

Cheung, Lauer & Patashnick, 1989).

However, being preoccupied with one’s self and

concerned about how one is perceived by others may lead to

different goals for different students (Skaalvik, 1997;

Skaalvik, Valås, & Sletta, 1994). Skaalvik (1997),

International Journal of Educology, 2002, Vol 16, No 1

57

discriminated between self-enhancing and self-defeating ego

orientation. Self-enhancing ego orientation means that

one’s goal is to be best or to demonstrate superior ability,

which is the typical understanding of ego orientation. Selfdefeating

ego orientation, on the other hand, may result in

trying not to be poorest and to avoid looking stupid. Similar

distinctions have been made by Elliot & Harackiewicz

(1996), Middleton & Midgley (1997) and Skaalvik et al.

(1994).

Elliot & Harackiewicz and Middleton & Midgley

distinguished between performance-approach and performance-

avoidance goals, whereas Skaalvik et al. named the

two dimensions of ego orientation offensive and defensive

ego orientation. However, neither Skaalvik et al. (1994) nor

Elliot & Harackievich (1996) measured both dimensions of

ego orientation. Measuring both dimensions, Skaalvik

(1997) found that self-enhancing and self-defeating ego

orientation was factorially distinct and that they could be

differentiated from task orientation and avoidance

orientation (see also Middleton & Midgley, 1997;

Middleton, Kaplan, & Midgley, 1998).

Harackiewicz, Barron, and Elliot (1998) point out that

although some educological theorists have discussed task

and ego orientation (mastery and performance goals) as if

they were mutually exclusive, striving to outperform others

is not necessarily inconsistent with trying to attain mastery.

In support of this view, a number of correlational

studies has found task orientation and (self-enhancing) ego

orientation to be essentially uncorrelated. Some studies

even show that they are positively correlated (e.g.,

Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto, & Elliot, 1997; for an

overview, see Harackiewicz, Barron, & Elliot, 1998).

International Journal of Educology, 2002, Vol 16, No 1

58

Measuring both self-enhancing and self-defeating egoorientation,

Skaalvik (1997) found task orientation to

correlate close to zero with self-defeating ego orientation,

but to be positively correlated with self-enhancing ego

orientation. Moreover, in the Skaalvik (1997) study, the

two dimensions of ego orientation were positively, but

weakly correlated, whereas Middleton and Midgley (1997)

found a correlation of 0.56.

Relationships Among Achievement, Self-

Perceived Abilities, Anxiety, and Motivation

Although students’ goal orientations are assumed to

influence patterns of cognition, affect, and behaviour in

achievement settings (e.g., Dweck and Leggett, 1988),

studies of relationships between goal orientations and

achievement, self-perceived abilities, anxiety, and intrinsic

motivation are few and inconclusive. Achievement and

academic self-perceptions have often been presented as

outcomes of goals (Middleton, Kaplan, & Midgley, 1998).

Still, longitudinal studies are generally lacking, and the

educological research evidence provides little information

about causal relationships.

The few available educological studies show that both

task and ego orientation are either not significantly

correlated with achievement in school and with selfperceived

abilities or that the associations are weak (Ames

& Archer, 1988; Harackiewicz, et al., 1997; Nicholls, 1989;

Skaalvik, 1997).

When significant correlations are found between task

orientation and academic self-concept or self-efficacy, they

tend to be positive (Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Meece,

Blumenfeld & Hoyle, 1988; Nicholls, 1989; Nicholls,

Patashnick & Nolen, 1985; Seifert, 1995; Skaalvik, 1997).

International Journal of Educology, 2002, Vol 16, No 1

59

Inconsistent relationships have been found between ego

orientation and students' academic self-concept (Ames and

Archer, 1988; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Nicholls, 1989;

Schunk & Swartz, 1993; Seifert, 1995).

A possible explanation for the inconsistent results is that

different educologists measure both goal orientations and

self-perceptions in different ways. Moreover, ego orientation

has been measured with instruments which resemble

the definition of self-enhancing ego orientation in this

article. Skaalvik reports small negative correlations

between self-defeating ego orientation and both academic

self-concept and self-efficacy and small positive correlations

between self-enhancing ego orientation and academic selfconcept

and self-efficacy (Skaalvik, 1997; Skaalvik et al.,

1994).

Educological studies of relationships between goal orientation

and anxiety or intrinsic motivation are very few.

There is some evidence that intrinsic motivation and anxiety

in school may be related to students’ goal orientation (Duda

& Nicholls, 1992; Elliot and Harackiewicz, 1996; Middleton

& Midgley, 1997; Kaplan & Patrick, 1996; Skaalvik, 1997).

Purpose of the Study

This study replicates a cross sectional study by Skaalvik

(1997) in which the nominated dimensions of ego orientation

were tested. Moreover, the predictive value of goal

orientations for achievement, self-perceived abilities, anxiety,

and intrinsic motivation are analyzed in a cross

sectional context and compared with previous data.

Additionally, the same predictions are analyzed in a

longitudinal perspective.

International Journal of Educology, 2002, Vol 16, No 1

60

Method

Participants and Procedure

The participants in this study were 295 Norwegian

elementary school students. Data were collected at two

points of time: (1) first, in March and April 1999, when the

students attended fifth grade (
Time 1) and (2) in October

and November 1999, when the students attended sixth grade

(
Time 2). Intact school classes were drawn from four school

districts in a large region in Norway.

Instruments

Students’ goal orientations in mathematics were measured

by four scales consisting of four items each. The

items are displayed elsewhere (see Skaalvik, 1997).

Examples of statements which constituted the items are:

In math classes it is important for me to learn something new

(task orientation);

In math classes I try to get away with doing as little as possible

(avoidance orientation);

When I am in math classes it is important for me to avoid

looking stupid (self-defeating ego orientation); and

I always try to do better than other students in mathematics

(self-enhancing ego orientation).

Response categories were (1) false, (2) mostly false, (3)

sometimes false/sometimes true, (4) mostly true, and (5)

true. Cronbach's alpha for self-defeating ego orientation,

self-enhancing ego orientation, task orientation, and

avoidance orientation in fifth grade were 0.75, 0.63, 0.63,

and 0.74, respectively. Corresponding values in sixth grade

were 0.81, 0.76, 0.67, and 0.83.

Mathematics achievement was measured by a 49 item

mathematics test. The test had a Cronbach's alpha of 0.90 in

fifth grade and 0.92 in sixth grade.

International Journal of Educology, 2002, Vol 16, No 1

61

Mathematics self-concept was defined as the generalfeeling of doing well or poorly in mathematics. It was

measured by an 11 item modified "Self Description

Questionnaire" (Marsh 1990). Motivational and emotional

items in the original scale (e.g., "I hate math") were replaced

with items measuring perceptions of doing well or poorly.

Examples of items are:

I always do well in math

I am hopeless in math

The scale displayed a Cronbach's alpha of 0.91 in both fifth

and sixth grade.

Mathematics self-efficacy was defined as expectations of

being able to solve particular types of mathematics

problems
. It was measured by presenting 24 sets of

mathematics problems to the students. For each set, the

students were asked: "How certain are you that you can do

(solve) these kind of mathematics problems?" The items

were answered according to a seven-point scale ranging

from "not certain at all" (1) to "very certain" (7).

Cronbach's alpha for the scale was 0.94 and 0.95 in fifth and

sixth grade, respectively.

Mathematics anxiety was measured by a short (5 item)

version of an eight item anxiety scale focusing on the

emotionality dimension of anxiety (see Skaalvik & Rankin,

1995). Examples of items are:

I feel calm in math lessons, and

I am nervous in lessons in mathematics

Cronbach's alpha was 0.80 and 0.82 in fifth and 6th

grade, respectively.
Mathematics intrinsic motivation was

defined as interest in working with or liking to work with

math. It was measured with a short (nine item) version of a

15 item intrinsic motivation scale developed by Skaalvik &

Rankin (1995). Examples of items are as follows:

Working with mathematics is fun, and

International Journal of Educology, 2002, Vol 16, No 1

62

I like mathematics.

The scale had a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.92 in both fifth

and sixth grade.

Data Analysis

Firstly, separate analyses of Time 1 and Time 2 data

were conducted by means of regression analysis, letting goal

orientation predict achievement, self-perceptions, intrinsic

motivation, and anxiety. This was done to control that the

pattern of results was similar to previous results found in a

cross sectional study by Skaalvik (1997). Analyses of
Time1 and Time 2 data revealed the same pattern of results.

Therefore, in order to save space, only the results based on

data from
Time 2 are reported. Secondly, regression

analyses were conducted letting goal orientation measured

at Time 1 predict achievement, self-perceptions, intrinsic

motivation, and anxiety at Time 2. Lastly, regression

analysis was conducted with achievement, self-perceptions,

intrinsic motivation, and anxiety measured at
Time 1 as predictor variables and goal orientation at Time 2 as

criterion variables.

Results

Correlations among the observed variables at Time 2 as

well as statistical means and standard deviations are shown

in Table 1. The relationships among the four dimensions of

goal orientation found by Skaalvik (1997) were supported.

Self-enhancing and self-defeating ego orientation showed a

low, but positive, correlation (0.30). Task orientation was

positively correlated with self-enhancing ego orientation

(0.20), whereas it was not significantly correlated with selfdefeating

ego orientation (0.04). Avoidance orientation was

positively correlated with self-defeating ego orientation

International Journal of Educology, 2002, Vol 16, No 1

63

Table 1

Correlations among the Variables, Statistical Means,

and Standard Deviations (All Measures at Time 2)

Note.
EGODEF = defensive ego-orientation, EGOOFF = offensive egoorientation,

AVOID = avoidance orientation, TASK = task orientation,

ASC = academic self-concept, EFF = self-efficacy for schoolwork, EST

= self-esteem, MANX = anxiety in mathematics classes, VANX =

anxiety in verbal arts classes. All correlations above .11 are statistically

significant (p < 0.05).

EGODEF EGOOFF TASK AVOID

EGODEF

EGOOFF 0.30

TASK 0.04 0.20

AVOID 0.13 0.06 -0.35

ASC - -0.24 0.24 0.23 -0.30

EFF -0.22 0.18 0.33 -0.26

ANX 0.48 0.11 -0.14 0.27

MOTIV -0.08 0.16 0.45 -0.60

ACH -0.13 0.09 0.08 -0.11

___________________________________________________

Mean 16.99 10.98 19.05 11.06

SD 5.63 3.74 3.60 3.36

International Journal of Educology, 2002, Vol 16, No 1

64

Table 1 (Continued)

Correlations among the Variables, Statistical Means,

and Standard Deviations (All Measures at Time 2)

(0.13), but was not significantly correlated with selfenhancing

ego orientation (0.06). Task orientation was

negatively correlated with avoidance orientation (-0.35).

Zero order correlations between goal orientation and

other variables in the study were also in accordance with

previous findings. Both mathematics self-concept and selfefficacy

were positively associated with self-enhancing ego

ASC EFF ANX MOTIV ACH

0.62

-0.43 -0.42

0.45 0.38 -0.32

0.30 0.30 -0.27 0.16

____________________________________________________

27.66 66.89 11.40 10.67

6.79 12.81 4.35 4.27

International Journal of Educology, 2002, Vol 16, No 1

65

orientation (0.24 and 0.18, respectively), whereas these

constructs were negatively related to self-defeating ego

orientation (-0.24 and -0.22, respectively). Self-concept and

self-efficacy were also positively related to task orientation

(0.23 and 0.33, respectively) and negatively related to

avoidance orientation (-0.30 and -0.26, respectively).

Moreover, anxiety was positively related to both selfdefeating

and self-enhancing ego orientation (0.48 and 0.11,

respectively) and to avoidance orientation (0.27), whereas it

was negatively related to task orientation (-0.14). The

association between anxiety and self-defeating ego

orientation was relatively strong.

Intrinsic motivation was not significantly related to selfdefeating

ego orientation (0.08) and weakly related to selfenhancing

ego orientation. However, intrinsic motivation

was relatively strongly related to task orientation (0.45) and

to avoidance orientation (-0.60). Mathematics achievement

did not relate strongly to goal orientation. Achievement was

not significantly related to task orientation or to selfenhancing

ego orientation, and was negatively, but weakly

related to self-defeating ego orientation (-0.13) and to

avoidance orientation (-0.11).

Regression analyses of cross sectional data were

conducted in order to compare the data with previous cross

sectional data. In these analyses, goal orientation was

defined as a predictor variable, predicting achievement, selfperceptions,

intrinsic motivation, and anxiety. The analyses

based on data from
Time 2 are shown in Table 2. These

analyses revealed that self-defeating and self-enhancing ego

orientation were differently associated with the dependent

variables. Mathematics achievement, self-concept, and selfefficacy

were negatively predicted by self-defeating ego

orientation (beta values were -0.15, -0.31, and -0.28,

International Journal of Educology, 2002, Vol 16, No 1

66

respectively) and positively predicted by self-enhancing ego

orientation (0.13, 0.33, and 0.22, respectively).

Furthermore, anxiety was positively predicted by selfdefeating

ego orientation (0.47), but not significantly

predicted by self-enhancing ego orientation (-0.02), whereas

intrinsic motivation was significantly and positively

predicted by self-enhancing ego orientation, but it was not

significantly predicted by self-defeating ego orientation

(0.16 and -0.08, respectively). Both self-efficacy and

intrinsic motivation were positively predicted by task

orientation (0.24) and negatively predicted by avoidance

orientation (-0.16, -0.52, respectively). Avoidance orientation

also predicted self-concept negatively (-0.25). These

results replicate results previously reported by Skaalvik

(1997), they and demonstrate that self-defeating and selfenhancing

ego orientation are differently associated with a

series of variables.

Table 2

Set of Beta Weights and Multiple

Regression Coefficients -Data Collected at Time 2

Predictor Dependent Variables

Variables

SC EFF ANX MOT

EGODEF 0.31*** -0.28 0.47*** -0.08

EGOENH 0.33*** 0.22*** -0.02 0.16***

TASK 0.09 0.24*** -0.10 0.24***

AVOID -0.25*** -0.16 0.18** -0.52***

R2 0.25 0.22 0.29 0.45

F 24.01 20.77 29.17 60.13

df 4/290 4/290 4/290 4/290

International Journal of Educology, 2002, Vol 16, No 1

67

Note. * = p <0 .05, ** = p <0 .01,*** = p < 0.001. EGODEF = selfdefeating

ego orientation, EGOENH = self-enhancing ego orientation,

TASK = task orientation, AVOID = avoidance orientation, SC = selfconcept

in mathematics, EFF = self-efficacy for mathematics, ANX =

anxiety in mathematics classes, MOT = intrinsic motivation in

mathematics, ACH = mathematics achievement.

The next step in the data analysis was to conduct

regression analysis in a longitudinal perspective. As could

be expected, letting goal orientation at
Time 1 (instead of

goal orientation measured at Time 2) predict achievement,

self-perceptions, anxiety, and motivation measured at Time2, did not change the general picture shown in Table 2.

Table 3, however, shows the results of a series of

regression analyses defining achievement, self-perceptions,

intrinsic motivation, and anxiety at
Time 2 as criterion

variables and both goal orientation at Time 1 and a measure

of the relevant criterion variable at Time 1 as predictor

variables. Thus, the ability of goal orientation to predict

subsequent measures of each criterion variable was measured

over and above the stability of the criterion variable.

About 50 % of the variance in the criterion variables

could be explained by the predictor variables. However,

goal orientation added little to the predictions made by

previous measures of the criterion variables, and only two of

these predictions were statistically significant. Selfdefeating

ego orientation at
Time 1 made a weak negative

prediction of self-efficacy at Time 2 (-0.14), whereas selfenhancing

ego orientation at Time 1 made a weak positiveprediction of self-concept at Time 2 (0.12). The main

conclusion, therefore, is that in a longitudinal perspective

and controlled for previous measures of mathematics

achievement, self-concept, self-efficacy, anxiety, and

International Journal of Educology, 2002, Vol 16, No 1

68

intrinsic motivation, goal orientation had practically no

predictive value for these variables.

Lastly, regression analyses were conducted with goal

orientation measured at
Time 2 as criterion variables.

Predictor variables were mathematics achievement, self-

Table 3

Set of Beta Weights and Multiple Regression

Coefficients - Predictor Variables Measured at Time 1

and Dependent Variables Measured at Time 2

Note. * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001. EGODEF = selfdefeating

ego orientation, EGOENH = self-enhancing ego orientation,

TASK = task orientation, AVOID = avoidance orientation,, SC = selfconcept

in mathematics, EFF = self-efficacy for mathematics, ANX =

anxiety in mathematics classes, MOT = intrinsic motivation in

mathematics, ACH = mathematics achievement.

Predictor Dependent Variables at Time 2

Variables ___________________________________________

at Time 1 SC EFF ANX MOT ACH

EGODEF -0.03 -0.14* 0.09 0.06 -0.01

EGOENH 0.12* 0.08 -0.06 -0.04 0.07

TASK 0.01 -0.02 0.06 -0.05 -0.01

AVOID -0.08 -0.03 0.06 -0.09 -0.09

SC 0.60***

EFF 0.64***

ANX 0.55***

MOT 0.69***

ACH 0.72***

R2 0.46 0.49 0.38 0.52 0.57

F 48.37 54.99 36.16 62.38 68.99

df 5/289 5/289 5/289 5/289 5/263

International Journal of Educology, 2002, Vol 16, No 1

69

concept, self-efficacy, anxiety, and intrinsic motivation

measured at
Time 1. In each analysis, a measure of the

relevant goal orientation at Time 1 was also included as a

predictor variable (Table 4). The stability coefficients were

somewhat lower for goal orientation than comparable

stability coefficients for self-perception, motivation,

Table 4

Set of Beta Weights and Multiple Regression

Coefficients with Goal Orientation at
Time 2 as

Dependent Variables

Note. * = p < 0.05, ** = p < 0.01, *** = p < 0.001. EGODEF = selfdefeating

ego orientation, EGOENH = self-enhancing ego orientation,

TASK = task orientation, AVOID = avoidance orientation, SC = selfconcept

in mathematics, EFF = self-efficacy for mathematics, ANX =

anxiety in mathematics classes, MOT = intrinsic motivation in

mathematics, ACH = mathematics achievement.

Predictor Dependent Variables at Time 2

Variables ____________________________________

at Time 1 EGODEF EGOENH TASK AVOID

ACH 0.03 -0.03 -0.12* 0.07

SC 0.10 0.10 0.07 0.10

EFF -0.01 0.14* 0.14* -0.09

MOT -0.03 0.05 0.05 -0.15*

ANX 0.20 0.22*** 0.00 0.02

EGODEF 0.44**

EGOENH 0.47***

TASK 0.42***

AVOID 0.50***

R2 0.30 0.34 0.28 0.52

F 18.74 24.11 17.83 62.38

df 6/276 6/276 6/276 5/289

International Journal of Educology, 2002, Vol 16, No 1

70

achievement, and anxiety (see Table 3). Controlled for

corresponding ego orientation at
Time 1, both selfenhancing

and self-defeating ego orientation at Time 2 were

positively predicted by anxiety at Time 1 (0.22 and 0.20,

respectively). In comparison, goal orientation at Time 1 did

not predict anxiety at Time 2 controlled for previous

measure of anxiety (Table 3). Both task orientation and

self-enhancing ego orientation at
Time 2 were positively, butweakly predicted by self-efficacy at Time 2 (0.14).

Motivation at time one also predicted avoidance orientation

at Time 2 negatively (-0.15).

Discussion

This study confirms previous findings. As in previous

studies, it shows that in a mathematics context one may

discriminate between two relatively independent dimensions

of ego orientation. These dimensions are self-enhancing

and self-defeating ego-orientation. A common feature in

the two dimensions of ego orientation is that ego oriented

students are preoccupied with themselves. They compare

their abilities to other students, and they preoccupy

themselves with how they are perceived by other students.

Self-enhancing ego orientation is defined by the goal of

demonstrating superior abilities, whereas self-defeating ego

orientation is defined by the goal of avoiding looking stupid

or being negatively judged by others.

In accordance with previous educological research, the

two dimensions of ego orientation were weakly, but positively

correlated. Thus, there was a weak tendency that

students who were oriented towards demonstrating superior

abilities also were preoccupied with avoiding showing their

weaknesses. Moreover, both self-defeating and self-enhancing

ego orientation were weakly related to task orientation

and avoidance orientation, although task orientation and

International Journal of Educology, 2002, Vol 16, No 1

71

avoidance orientation were moderately and negatively

related. As previously demonstrated, task orientation

correlated close to zero with self-defeating ego orientation,

whereas it correlated positively, but weakly with selfenhancing

ego orientation. Thus, it is important to note that

neither of the two dimensions of ego orientation predicted

task orientation negatively.

This study demonstrates that the two dimensions of ego

orientation are differently related to other variables. In fact,

they related differently to all other variables in the study.

The (cross sectional) regression analyses displayed in Table

2 show that self-enhancing ego-orientation relates positively

to self-concept, self-efficacy, and achievement, whereas

self-defeating ego-orientation relates negatively to these

constructs. Moreover, self-defeating ego orientation relates

positively and relatively strongly to anxiety, whereas selfenhancing

ego orientation does not relate significantly to

anxiety. Similarly, self-enhancing ego orientation relates

positively to intrinsic motivation, whereas self-defeating ego

orientation is not significantly related to this construct.

Goal theorists traditionally assume that ego goals have a

number of negative effects, for instance increasing anxiety

and decreasing intrinsic motivation, effort, and achievement

(see for instance Harackiewicz et al., 1997, 1998). This

assumption is not always supported in empirical studies.

For instance, Harackiewicz et al.(1997) found no negative

effects of ego goals on interest. Also, Covington (2000) in a

review of research, concludes that no clear pattern has

emerged from those studies exploring the association

between performance (ego) goals and either task persistence

or the degree of effort extended. The failure to confirm

negative relations with ego goals has likely occurred

because, initially, researchers did not distinguish between

International Journal of Educology, 2002, Vol 16, No 1

72

self-enhancing and self-defeating ego goals, and most

studies have used measures of self-enhancing ego goals.

The present result showing that self-defeating and selfenhancing

ego orientation are differently related to a number

of constructs is therefore highly significant. It shows that

self-defeating ego orientation negatively predicts selfconcept,

self-efficacy, anxiety, and achievement. However,

it does not show detrimental effects of self-enhancing ego

orientation, and it even indicates positive relationships

among the dimensions of ego orientation and selfperceptions,

intrinsic motivation, and achievement.

Table 2 also shows that task orientation is positively

related to self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation. Nonetheless,

in accordance with previous research (e.g.,

Harackiewicz et al., 1997), there was no evidence that task

orientation predicted achievement. Task orientation may

still have small indirect effects on achievement through, for

instance, self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation. Avoidance

orientation is negatively related to academic self-perceptions

and intrinsic motivation.

Although cross sectional analyses reveal systematic

relations among dimensions of goal orientation and

academic self-perception, intrinsic motivation, anxiety, and

achievement, the longitudinal analyses provide little

evidence that these variables are affected by achievement

goals. When controlled for previous measures of the

criterion variables, for example, achievement and intrinsic

motivation, measures of goal orientation at
Time 1 had little

predictive value for subsequent measures of the criterion

variables. That is, goal orientation has little predictive value

for self-concept, self-efficacy, anxiety, intrinsic motivation,

and achievement over and above the stability of these

constructs. Significant beta values were found only for self
International

Journal of Educology, 2002, Vol 16, No 1

73

concept and self-efficacy. Self-defeating ego orientation

predicted self-efficacy negatively, whereas self-enhancing

ego orientation predicted self-concept positively. Hence,

these results provide limited support for a model in which

goals affect self-perceptions, anxiety, intrinsic motivation

and achievement, which are commonly accepted beliefs

about the effects of achievement goals.

The regression analyses shown in Table 4 are therefore

based on an alternative model where achievement, selfperceptions,

anxiety, and intrinsic motivation predict goal

orientation. The results give some support to such a general

model. When controlled for previous measures of the

relevant dimensions of goal orientation, anxiety predicted

subsequent measures of both self-defeating and selfenhancing

ego orientation, intrinsic motivation predicted

subsequent avoidance orientation, achievement predicted

subsequent task orientation, and self-efficacy predicted

subsequent measures of self-enhancing ego orientation and

task orientation. Taken together, these results indicate that

goal orientation primarily may be a consequence of

achievement, academic self-conceptions, intrinsic motivation,

and anxiety. The results provide some evidence that

goal orientation may affect academic self-conceptions.

In conclusion, this study confirms that achievement

goals are systematically related to achievement, academic

self-perceptions, intrinsic motivation, and anxiety.

However, the results do not provide much evidence that

these constructs are affected by achievement goals. The

questions often raised by researchers is how to increase task

goals and decrease ego goals in order to reduce anxiety and

increase self-concept, intrinsic motivation and achievement.

An equally important educological question seems to be

how to increase academic self-concept and intrinsic

International Journal of Educology, 2002, Vol 16, No 1

74

motivation and reduce anxiety in order to foster task goals

and reduce self-defeating ego goals.

The findings in this study however, need to be confirmed

in subsequent research. In future research, it will be

important to explore systematically relationships among

goal orientation and relevant constructs at different grade

levels. Furthermore, an important task for future research

will be to examine possible third variables through which

achievement goals may be related to anxiety, intrinsic

motivation, self-conceptions, and achievement. Also, future

research ought to include social goals, both because our

understanding of social goals lags behind in general

(Covington, 2000) and because we have too little

understanding of the interplay between social goals and

other academic goals.

The results of this study imply that the distinction

between self-enhancing and self-defeating ego goals is an

important one. They further imply that both educologists

and educators should pay particular attention to selfdefeating

ego orientation. Detrimental effects of selfenhancing

ego orientation, which is often claimed in the

literature, are less evident.

References

Ames, C. (1992): “Classrooms: Goals, Structures, and Student

Motivation,”
Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Ames, C. & Archer, J. (1988): “Achievement Goals in the Classroom:

Students' Learning Strategies and Motivation Processes,”.
Journalof Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267.

Covington, M.V. (2000): “Goal Theory, Motivation, and School

Achievement: An Integrative Review,” Annual Review of

Psychology, 51, 171-200.

Duda, J.L. (1993): “Goals: A Social-Cognitive Approach to the Study

of Achievement Motivation in Sport,” in R.N. Singer, M. Murchey,

& L. Keith Tennant (Eds.):
Handbook of Research on Sport

Psychology. New York, NY: Macmillan.

International Journal of Educology, 2002, Vol 16, No 1

75

Duda, J.L. & Nicholls, J.G. (1992): “Dimensions of Achievement

Motivation in Schoolwork and Sport,”
Journal of EducationalPsychology, 84, 290-299.

Dweck, C.S., & Leggett, E.L. (1988): “A Social-Cognitive Approach to

Motivation and Personality,”
Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.

Elliott, E.S. & Dweck, C.S. (1988): “Goals: An Approach to

Motivation and Achievement,” Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 54, 5-12.

Elloit, A.J. & Harackiewicz, J.M. (1996): “Approach and Avoidance

Achievement Goals and Intrinsic Motivation: A Mediational

Analysis”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461-

475.

Harackiewicz, J.M., Barron, K.E., Carter, S.M., Lehto, A.T., & Elliot,

A.J. (1997): “Predictors and Consequences of Achievement Goals

in the College Classroom; Maintaining Interest and Making the

Grade,”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1284-

1295.

Harackiewicz, J.M., Barron, K.E., & Elliot, A.J. (1998): “Rethinking

Achievement Goals: When are They Adaptive for College Students

and Why?”
Educational Psychologist, 33, 1-21.

Jagacinski, C.M., Hofmann, D.A. & Strickland, O.J. (1996, April):

Effects of Goal Orientations on Goal Setting in Task- and Ego-

Involving Conditions. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Educational Research Association in New York.

Kaplan, A. & Patrick, H. (1996, April): The Effect of Students’

Achievement Goals on Affect at School. Paper presented at the

annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association

in New York.

Lens, W. (1994): “Motivation and Learning,” in T. Husen & T.

Postlethwaite (Eds.):
The International Encyclopedia of

Education (2nd edition), pp. 3936-3942. Oxford: Pergamon.

Marsh, H.W. (1990): SDQ II. Manual & Research Monograph. New

York: The Psychological Corporation, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,

Inc.

Meece, J.L., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Hoyle, R. (1988): “Students’ Goal

Orientations and Cognitive Engagement in Classroom Activities,”

Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 514-523.

Middleton, M.J., Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (1998, April):

Achievement Goal Orientation and Self-Efficacy: Different Goals,

International Journal of Educology, 2002, Vol 16, No 1

76

Different Relations. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the

American Educational Research Association in San Diego.

Middleton, M.J., & Midgley, C. (1997): “Avoiding the Demonstration

of Lack of Ability: An Under-Explored Aspect of Goal Theory,”

Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710-718.

Nicholls, J.G. (1983): “Conceptions of Ability and Achievement

Motivation: A Theory and its Implications for Education,” in S.G.

Paris, G.M. Olson, & H.W. Stevenson (Eds.),
Learning andMotivation in the Classroom, pp. 211-237. Hillsdale, New Jersey:

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Nicholls, J.G. (1989): The Competitive Ethos and Democratic

Education. Cambridge, Massachusetss: Harvard University Press.

Nicholls, J.G. (1992): “Students as Educational Theorists,” in D.H.

Schunk & J.L. Meece (Eds.), Student Perception in the Classroom.

Hillsday, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

Nicholls, J.G., Cheung, P.C., Lauer, J., & Patashnick, M. (1989):

“Individual Differences in Academic Motivation: Perceived

Ability, Goals, Beliefs, and Values,”
Learning and IndividualDifferences, 1, 63-84.

Nicholls, J.G., Patashnick, M., & Nolen, S.B. (1985): “Adolescents'

Theories of Education,”
Journal of Educational Psychology, 77,

683-692.

Schunk, D.H. & Swartz, C.W. (1993): “Goals and Progress Feedback:

Effects on Self-Efficacy and Writing Achievement,”
ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 18, 337-354.

Seifert, T.L. (1995). “Characteristics of Ego- and Task-Oriented

Students: A Comparison of Two Methodologies,” British Journal

of Educational Psychology, 65, 125-138.

Skaalvik, E.M. (1997): “Self-Enhancing and Self-Defeating Ego-

Orientation: Relations with Task and Avoidance Orientation,

Achievement, Self-Perceptions, and Anxiety,”
Journal ofEducational Psychology.

Skaalvik, E.M. & Rankin, R.J. (1995): “A Test of the Internal/External

Frame of Reference Model at Different Levels of Math and Verbal

Self-Perception,”
American Educational Research Journal, 32,

161-184.

Skaalvik, E.M., Valås, H., & Sletta, O. (1994): “Task Involvement and

Ego Involvement: Relations with Academic Achievement,

Academic Self-Concept and Self-Esteem,”
Scandinavian Journal

of Educational Research, 38, 231-243.


 
The Institute of History and Philosophy of Educology for Developing Democracies in the World (The Institute),
an Initiative of Educology Research Associates/USA (ERA/USA)

Website powered by Network Solutions®