Educology

54

55

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.

56

Two goal perspectives in particular have been given

special attention in educological research literature. These

article.

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).

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),

57

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

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).

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.

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).

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).

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.

60

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

and November 1999, when the students attended sixth grade

districts in a large region in Norway.

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:

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.

61

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:

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

and sixth grade.

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.

version of an eight item anxiety scale focusing on the

emotionality dimension of anxiety (see Skaalvik & Rankin,

1995). Examples of items are:

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

15 item intrinsic motivation scale developed by Skaalvik &

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

62

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

and sixth grade.

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

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

analyses were conducted letting goal orientation measured

analysis was conducted with achievement, self-perceptions,

criterion variables.

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

63

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

64

(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

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

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,

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.

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

67

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

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

regression analyses defining achievement, self-perceptions,

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

conclusion, therefore, is that in a longitudinal perspective

and controlled for previous measures of mathematics

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

68

intrinsic motivation, goal orientation had practically no

predictive value for these variables.

Lastly, regression analyses were conducted with goal

Predictor variables were mathematics achievement, self-

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.

69

concept, self-efficacy, anxiety, and intrinsic motivation

somewhat lower for goal orientation than comparable

stability coefficients for self-perception, motivation,

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.

70

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

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

Motivation at time one also predicted avoidance orientation

This study confirms previous findings. As in previous

studies, it shows that in a mathematics context one may

discriminate between two relatively independent dimensions

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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

75

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

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

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

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

Achievement Goals and Intrinsic Motivation: A Mediational

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

1295.

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

Achievement Goals: When are They Adaptive for College Students

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.

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,”

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

Achievement Goal Orientation and Self-Efficacy: Different Goals,

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,”

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

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

Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

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

Hillsday, New Jersey: Erlbaum.

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

“Individual Differences in Academic Motivation: Perceived

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

683-692.

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

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

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

Orientation: Relations with Task and Avoidance Orientation,

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

Frame of Reference Model at Different Levels of Math and Verbal

161-184.

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

Ego Involvement: Relations with Academic Achievement,