achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: coherence, concordance, and achievement orientation

Journal ofExperimental

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39 (2003) 378–385

www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp

Social Psychology

Achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: Coherence,concordance, and achievement orientationq,qq

Amanda M. Durik* and Judith M. Harackiewicz

Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin, 1202 W Johnson St., Madison, WI 53706, USA

Received 10 January 2002; revised 5 July 2002

Abstract

Two studies examined the effects on intrinsic motivation of pursuing lower-order target goals in an achievement context

emphasizing a performance purpose goal. The purpose goal was theorized to be concordant with intrinsic needs for individuals high

in achievement motivation (HAMs), but not for individuals low in achievement motivation (LAMs). Target goals that were coherent

with the overall purpose goal were hypothesized to help LAMs enjoy the task even though the purpose goal was not concordant.

HAMs evidenced high enjoyment in all conditions. LAMs enjoyed the tasks most when pursuing coherent target goals. Study 2

replicated the results of Study 1 and tested process variables theorized to mediate goal effects on intrinsic motivation.

� 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.

Keywords: Intrinsic motivation; Achievement goals; Achievement orientation; Goal coherence; Goal concordance

Goals help guide behavior, whether they are set in the

classroom, at the office, or on the playing field. Some

situations promote the adoption of certain goals. For

example, in college courses with a normative grading

structure, students might adopt the goal of outperform-

ing other students. Thus the context defines what is im-

portant and individuals pursue situationally influencedgoals concerning the purpose of task engagement.

Within the context of these overarching purpose goals,

individuals may also pursue specific target goals that help

them work toward their purpose goals (Harackiewicz &

Sansone, 1991). For example, students might plan to

attend every lecture, or try to study more hours than

their classmates. We will argue that the motivational

consequences of goal setting depend on whether targetgoals match or are coherent with purpose goals (Hara-

ckiewicz & Sansone, 1991; Sheldon & Kasser, 1995).

qSpecial thanks go to Kenneth Barron for his help throughout this

research. In addition, we would like to thank the undergraduate

research assistants who spent many hours conducting experimental

sessions for these projects.qqThe editor thanks Eliot R. Smith for serving as the editor on

this paper.* Corresponding author. Fax: 1-608-262-4029.

E-mail address: [email protected] (A.M. Durik).

0022-1031/03/$ - see front matter � 2003 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights

doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00013-1

Another important factor is whether situational goals

are concordant with individuals� internal strivings. Goal

concordance refers to the degree to which goals serve the

intrinsic needs of the individual. Concordance is espe-

cially important at the purpose goal level because pur-

pose goals provide the reasons for task engagement, and

can affect the ease with which individuals internalizethose reasons. If purpose goals are not concordant, in-

dividuals may not perceive the task as worthwhile. In-

dividuals pursuing concordant goals display higher

levels of self-determination, effort, and intrinsic moti-

vation (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999).

Most goal concordance research has involved personal

goals that are fairly general (e.g., making friends), and

goal concordance has been measured in terms of whe-ther goals are perceived as stemming from intrinsic

needs. In the current research, we focus on concordance

within achievement situations in order to capitalize on

well-documented individual differences in response to

achievement goals.

Achievement goals are focused on the attainment of

competence, but vary in the type of competence pursued

(Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls, 1984). Mastery goalsare focused on self-referenced skill development mea-

sured by improvement over time, whereas performance

reserved.

mail to: [email protected]

A.M. Durik, J.M. Harackiewicz / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39 (2003) 378–385 379

goals are focused on demonstrating high ability com-pared to others. Individual differences in achievement

strivings help clarify which achievement goals should

be concordant for particular individuals. Need for

achievement refers to the desire to master the environ-

ment, to do things well, and to excel beyond others

(Murray, 1938). Individuals who are high in achievement

motivation (HAMs) enjoy challenges, seek competence

feedback, and set both mastery and performance goalsfor themselves. In contrast, individuals low in achieve-

ment motivation (LAMs) tend to avoid ability assess-

ment, and are unlikely to set performance goals for

themselves (Elliot & Church, 1997). In sum, performance

goals are concordant for HAMs, but not for LAMs.

Moreover, LAMs and HAMs show different patterns

of intrinsic motivation when assigned achievement goals

in the laboratory. HAMs show higher intrinsic motiva-tion than LAMs when assigned performance purpose

goals (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001; Harackiewicz &

Elliot, 1993). HAMs, for whom both mastery and per-

formance goals are self-concordant, respond positively

to the challenge inherent in situations emphasizing

performance goals. In contrast, LAMs� intrinsic moti-

vation suffers inordinately when pursuing non-concor-

dant performance purpose goals. External performancegoals focus on ability assessment, which can arouse

LAMs� concerns regarding performance evaluation.

These concerns may distract them from the task and

reduce task enjoyment (Senko & Harackiewicz, 2002).

Many achievement settings have an implicit perfor-

mance purpose (e.g., college exams, job interviews). This

poses a problem for LAMs because performance goals

are not self-concordant and can arouse concerns aboutability assessment, hereby disrupting involvement in

tasks. However, focusing on lower-order target goals

might preserve their intrinsic motivation. Target goals

provide specific steps an individual can take to achieve

an overall purpose goal (Harackiewicz & Sansone,

1991). Target goals might be especially helpful to LAMs

in performance purpose contexts because these goals can

help focus attention at a lower level during task en-gagement, so that concerns about the overall perfor-

mance context are less distracting. For example, a

student�s interest in a course might be jeopardized if

concerns about doing well interfere with involvement in

the coursework. Focusing on specific target goals may

help students maintain attention and involvement in

coursework. On a daily basis, the student could focus on

taking better lecture notes than other students, and thiscould promote involvement. However, this note-taking

strategy will foster intrinsic motivation only if taking

more notes than others is perceived as instrumental to

outperforming others in the course. This is because

target goals are helpful only to the extent that they are

related to the overarching purpose goal. Vertical goal

coherence refers to the degree to which lower-order

goals are seen as facilitative of higher-order goals(Sheldon & Kasser, 1995). In the current research, we

tested two ways target goals could be coherent with a

performance purpose goal.

Goals at different levels are coherent if they match by

type (i.e., mastery or performance). For example, Ha-

rackiewicz and Elliot (1998) found that both LAMs and

HAMs were more intrinsically motivated when assigned

performance, as compared with mastery, target goals ina performance purpose goal context. They argued that

the lower-order performance target goals helped LAMs

focus on the specific steps necessary to attain the per-

formance purpose goal. In contrast, mastery target goals

did not promote intrinsic motivation because they were

not relevant to the performance purpose goal, and thus

could not facilitate purpose goal attainment. Goals may

also be coherent if the target goals are explicitly de-scribed as facilitating attainment of the overall purpose

goal, even if they do not match by type. For example,

mastery target goals could be coherent with a perfor-

mance purpose goal if skill development is perceived as

essential to performing well compared to others. How-

ever, because they are not the same type, an additional

link must explain how mastery target goals can serve a

performance purpose goal. We hypothesized that, just asperformance target goals could preserve LAMs� intrinsicmotivation in a performance context, so too could

mastery target goals, provided that the mastery target

goals were explicitly linked to the overall performance

purpose goal.

In summary, goal coherence can be achieved either by

matching (performance target goals in a performance

context) or by linking. Notably, linking either masteryor performance target goals should facilitate goal co-

herence, and coherence is theorized to lead to sub-

sequent enjoyment. However, linking performance

target goals to a performance purpose goal may prove

problematic for LAMs by accentuating the overall per-

formance goal and increasing evaluative pressure.

Therefore LAMs� intrinsic motivation may suffer when

performance target goals are explicitly linked to a per-formance purpose goal, although these goals are co-

herent.

In the current research, we tested the effects of

adopting lower-order mastery or performance target

goals that were either explicitly linked or not linked to

an overarching performance purpose goal. All partici-

pants engaged in an enjoyable activity within a perfor-

mance purpose context (to do better than others), andwere given specific scores to aim for on two subsequent

trials. These target goals were framed in terms of either

improvement and skill development (mastery) or per-

formance relative to others (performance). Target goal

type was also crossed with an explicit linking manipu-

lation or not. Participants in linked conditions were

told that achieving the target goals was essential to

380 A.M. Durik, J.M. Harackiewicz / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39 (2003) 378–385

performing well compared to others. Coherence couldtherefore be achieved in two ways—via matching (per-

formance target goals with the performance purpose

goal) or via explicit linking of the target goal (mastery or

performance) to the performance purpose goal. We

hypothesized that coherence would lead to higher en-

joyment among both HAMs and LAMs. However, be-

cause the performance purpose goal is not concordant

for LAMs, we expected LAMs� enjoyment to be morevariable than that of HAMs. Specifically, LAMs are

more likely than HAMs to need coherent target goals to

function optimally in a performance context.

1 Responses indicated that participants understood the goal and

linking manipulations.2 Seventy-three percent of participants achieved both target goals

and received above average feedback. An additional 9% who missed

one goal were also given this feedback, because the sum of their scores

for the two trials surpassed the sum of the assigned target goals.

Neither goal attainment nor performance varied by condition.

Study 1

Method

Participants

One hundred thirty college students (64 men, 66

women) participated for extra credit.

Design

We employed a 2 (target goal type: mastery, perfor-

mance)� 2 (linking: unlinked, linked) between-subjectsdesign. A no-target-goal control condition was also in-

cluded. Effects of achievement orientation, initial inter-

est in math, and gender were also tested. The dependent

variable was intrinsic motivation, as measured by sub-

jective enjoyment of the activity.

Procedure

Participants were taught a technique for mentallysolving multiplication problems (Flansburg & Hay,

1994). The method involves computing a series of mul-

tiplication operations and adding the products from

each operation. An initial estimate of the answer is

calculated and then progressively refined by adding the

products of the other digit-combinations. During a

testing phase, participants used the method to solve

math problems. Prior research suggests that collegestudents enjoy the activity (Barron & Harackiewicz,

2001).

Participants were told that they would learn a new

method for solving multiplication problems and use it

on three timed trials (one practice and two test trials).

After reporting their initial interest in math, participants

were told the performance purpose goal. A tape-re-

cording stated, ‘‘The purpose of today�s session is tocompare college students on how well they perform

math problems using a new way of doing math. So, we

recommend that you adopt a �performance objective� asyou go through this session. In other words, focus on

how the technique can help you perform well and solve

math problems better than other students.’’ Participants

also heard that they would receive feedback at the end of

the session about their performance compared to otherstudents.

After the tape explained the math technique, partic-

ipants completed a practice trial of multiplication

problems. The experimenter scored the problems, and in

target goal conditions, gave the participant a form in-

dicating scores to aim for on the test trials. Unbe-

knownst to the participants, these goals were based on

participants� practice trial scores. The goal for the firsttest trial was set slightly above the practice trial score,

and the goal for the second trial was set slightly above

the first goal. The tape stated that the specific goals were

relevant to skill development (mastery) or normative

comparisons (performance). Participants in mastery

target goal conditions heard, ‘‘We selected these goals

on the basis of prior research with the problems you will

do today. These goals can give you a good sense of yourprogress as you work through the problems. Reaching

these goals will indicate that you are developing your

skills.’’ Participants in performance target goal condi-

tions heard, ‘‘We selected these goals on the basis of

prior testing of college students. These goals can give

you a good sense of your math ability as you work

through the problems. Reaching these goals will indicate

that you are performing above average compared toother students.’’

Participants in linked goal conditions then heard ex-

planations of how the target goals could be useful to

reaching the overall performance goal. Participants in

the linked mastery target goal condition heard, ‘‘These

specific goals can also help you meet the �performance

objective� recommended earlier. This is because devel-

oping your skills on each set of problems is essential toperforming better than other students.’’ Participants in

the linked performance target goal condition heard,

‘‘These specific goals can also help you meet the �per-formance objective� recommended earlier. This is be-

cause scoring above average on each set of problems is

essential to performing better than other students.’’

Participants completed an open-ended manipulation

check,1 and then did the two test trials. After each trial,the experimenter scored the participants� problems and

returned the problem set so that participants could

record their scores. The experimenter then gave partic-

ipants feedback about their performance relative to

other students.2 Following feedback, participants re-

ported their enjoyment of the math technique and

were dismissed.


Measures

Achievement orientation was measured using the

Achievement Orientation subscale from Jackson�s Per-

sonality Research Form (1974). This 16-item measure,

based on Murray�s (1938) conceptualization of achieve-

ment motivation, has well-documented reliability and

validity (Fineman, 1977).

Participants� initial interest in math was assessed using

a 5-item measure composed of statements such as ‘‘I findmath enjoyable’’ and ‘‘Math just doesn�t appeal to me’’

(reversed, a ¼ :93). The anchor points for all self-reportitems were 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree).

Intrinsic motivation was measured as participants� re-ports of enjoyment of the task on a 5-item scale, in-

cluding ‘‘The learning session on the LEFT-to-RIGHT

technique was fun’’ and ‘‘I thought the learning session

on the new technique was boring’’ (reversed, a ¼ :86).

Results and discussion

Overview of analyses

Multiple regression was used to test three sets of or-

thogonal contrasts. The contrast for goal type compared

mastery target goals ()1) to performance target goals

(+1), with the appended control coded 0. The contrastfor linking compared unlinked conditions ()1) to linked

conditions (+1), with the appended control coded 0. The

target goal contrast compared conditions with target

goals (+1) to the appended control that did not include

target goals ()4). Achievement orientation was entered

as a continuous variable. Products among the contrast

codes and with achievement orientation yielded four 2-

way interactions and a 3-way interaction between targetgoal type, linking, and achievement orientation.

Initial interest in math, a continuous variable, and

gender ()1 for females, +1 for males) were entered as

covariates. In addition, a goal attainment contrast was

entered comparing participants who met both goals (+1)

with those who missed at least one goal ()1).3 All

variables were standardized prior to analysis. Predicted

values involving continuous predictors were calculatedfor individuals scoring one standard deviation below

and above the mean.

Twelve terms were used to predict enjoyment. This

analysis yielded a main effect for initial interest,

F ð1; 117Þ ¼ 27:84, p < :01, b ¼ :42. Individuals who

were initially more interested in math ðYY ¼ 5:73Þ en-

joyed the task more than those who were less interested

ðYY ¼ 4:97Þ. A main effect for goal attainment alsoemerged. Participants who attained both goals

ðYY ¼ 5:50Þ enjoyed the task more than those who did

not ðYY ¼ 5:21Þ, F ð1; 117Þ ¼ 4:06, p < :05, b ¼ :17. The3-way interaction between achievement orientation,

3 Results were the same whether individuals who missed goals were

included or not.

linking, and target goal type was also significant,F ð1; 117Þ ¼ 8:19, p < :01, b ¼ :23 (see Table 1). We

conducted a second series of regression analyses using

dummy codes to test differences between mastery and

performance target goal conditions for LAMs and

HAMs (Aiken & West, 1991). Overall, HAMs enjoyed

the task in all conditions and were unaffected by whether

the target goals were coherent with the overall purpose

goal. In contrast, LAMs� enjoyment varied. Consistentwith our hypothesis that unlinked, mismatched goals

would undermine task enjoyment, LAMs enjoyed the

task less when assigned mastery target goals that were

not linked to the performance context. Furthermore,

LAMs enjoyed the task more when assigned linked

mastery target goals and unlinked performance target

goals, two of the three conditions in which target goals

were coherent with the overall performance context.However, LAMs reported less enjoyment when assigned

linked performance goals than linked mastery goals.

Although coherent with the overall performance con-

text, linked performance target goals may have under-

mined LAMs� intrinsic motivation because the linked

goals made the performance context particularly salient.

Target goals were theorized to help LAMs maintain

their focus on the task so that concerns about the overallperformance purpose would not interfere with ongoing

performance. However, explicitly linking performance

target goals to a performance purpose goal may have

made the overall performance purpose goal too salient,

and therefore disrupted task enjoyment among LAMs.

We will test this explanation further in Study 2 by ex-

amining processes throughout task engagement.

Overall, the results for HAMs are less conclusive.Although their task enjoyment was highest when pur-

suing performance target goals linked to the overall

performance purpose, this was not significantly different

from their enjoyment when pursuing linked mastery

target goals. Furthermore, we did not find that unlinked

mastery target goals lowered task enjoyment compared

with unlinked performance target goals. We had hy-

pothesized that HAMs� as well as LAMs� enjoymentwould be lower in this condition because the goals are

not coherent (Harackiewicz & Elliot, 1998). One possi-

ble explanation for this pattern of results is that HAMs

may have spontaneously linked the mastery target goals

to the overall performance goal on their own.

Study 2

The primary goals of this study were to replicate the

effects found in Study 1, using a different activity, and to

examine process variables theorized to mediate the ef-

fects of goals on enjoyment. In particular, we measured

process variables to better understand why linking per-

formance target goals had detrimental effect for LAMs�

Table 1

Predicted values for enjoyment as a function of target goal type, linking, and achievement orientation in Study 1

Target goal type Simple effects

Mastery Performance F ð1; 117Þ

LAMs Unlinked 4.97 5.69 4.45�

Linked 5.65 4.98 4.80�

HAMs Unlinked 5.35 5.35 0.01

Linked 5.22 5.63 1.66

Note. Enjoyment could range from 1 (low enjoyment) to 7 (high enjoyment). LAMs, individuals low in achievement motivation; HAMs,

individuals high in achievement motivation. There was not a significant relationship between achievement motivation and enjoyment in the no-target-

goal condition. HAMs ðYY ¼ 5:44Þ enjoyed the task similarly to LAMs ðYY ¼ 5:34Þ.* p < :05.


enjoyment in Study 1. We hypothesized that pursuing

coherent target goals would affect both individuals�valuation of competence at the outset of the task as well

as their involvement in the task during task engagement.

Specifically, we predicted that LAMs pursuing linkedmastery target goals or unlinked performance target

goals would value competence more at the outset of the

task because they would have tools to strive for the

overall performance goal (Harackiewicz & Sansone,

1991). HAMs were hypothesized to value competence in

all conditions, but most in the linked performance target

goal condition and least in the unlinked mastery target

goal condition. These predictions parallel researchfindings on matched goals (Harackiewicz & Elliot,

1998), and we hoped to replicate those findings as well as

extend them to linked mastery goals.

Competence valuation was hypothesized to funnel

attention and energy into task engagement (Hara-

ckiewicz & Sansone, 1991). LAMs pursuing coherent

target goals in linked mastery and unlinked performance

target goal conditions should remain focussed and in-volved in the task. However, task involvement should be

lowest for LAMs in the linked performance target goal

condition if they are distracted by concerns about

evaluation. HAMs were hypothesized to show highest

task involvement in the linked performance target goal

condition because their focus will be firmly fixed on the

task when pursuing coherent performance target

goals with the explicit intent of performing better thanothers.

4 As in Study 1, 73% of participants achieved both target goals. An

additional 13% were given above average feedback based on the same

criteria as used in Study 1. Neither goal attainment nor performance

varied by condition.

Method

Participants

One hundred twenty-six undergraduate students (70

men; 56 women) participated for extra credit.

Design

This study had a 2 (target goal type)� 2 (linking

condition) between-subjects design. Achievement orien-

tation and gender effects were also examined. Intrinsic

motivation was measured by self-reported enjoyment,

and the two process measures were competence valua-

tion and task involvement.

Materials and procedure

The task was a battery-operated game called BrainWarp (distributed by Tiger Electronics), in which play-

ers respond to voice commands given by a 6-sided ma-

chine. The commands correspond to a number on each

of the six sides, and the player rotates the machine so

that the specified side faces up. Each game consisted of

two rounds. During each round, the pace of the com-

mands accelerates until the player responds incorrectly,

takes too long to respond, or finishes the commands.Following each round, the game tells the player the

number of correct responses for that round, as well as

the total number for all rounds in the same game.

The experimenter set the performance context en

route to the lab, saying, ‘‘What we�re interested in is how

well students play various games and leisure activities.

Today�s session involves a game called Brain Warp, and

we�re collecting data on how well students play it com-pared to other students.’’ The experimenter described

and demonstrated how to play Brain Warp, and then

had participants play one practice round.

Participants were assigned either low or high target

goals based on their practice round scores. Next, target

goals were manipulated, with (in linked conditions) a

statement linking the target and purpose goals. The

goals and linking manipulations were very similar tothose used in Study 1. Participants completed the mea-

sure of competence valuation, and then played two

games of Brain Warp. After each game participants re-

corded their scores on a sheet that also contained the

target goals for each game. At the end of the games,

participants completed the task involvement measure.

After the experimenter gave participants feedback about

their overall performance relative to other students,4

participants completed the enjoyment measure.


Measures

The 3-item competence valuation measure included

items tapping competence valuation and commitment,

e.g., ‘‘I feel determined’’ and ‘‘It is important to me that

I do well on the next two games’’ (a ¼ :80). Four items

assessed task involvement, including ‘‘I got really in-

volved in playing Brain Warp’’ and ‘‘I was distracted

and thought about things other than the game’’

(a ¼ :83). Achievement orientation was measured as inStudy 1. The enjoyment scale included five items similar

to those used in Study 1, but adapted for Brain Warp

(a ¼ :92).

Results and discussion

The terms included in analyses were identical to those

used in Study 1, with the exception that the currentstudy did not include a no-target-goal control or a

measure of initial interest, and thus there were no terms

for these effects.

Direct effects on enjoyment

The model consisted of nine terms (five main effects,

three two-way interactions, and one three-way interac-

tion). As in Study 1, a main effect emerged for goal at-tainment.5 Participants who met both target goals

ðYY ¼ 5:86Þ reported more enjoyment than those who did

not ðYY ¼ 5:18Þ, F ð1; 116Þ ¼ 11:90, p < :01, b ¼ :30, andwomen ðYY ¼ 5:73Þ enjoyed the task more than did men

ðYY ¼ 5:32Þ, F ð1; 116Þ ¼ 4:67, p < :05, b ¼ �:18. Con-

sistent with prior research, achievement orientation was

a significant predictor, suggesting that LAMs� intrinsicmotivation faltered in this context, relative to HAMs,F ð1; 116Þ ¼ 4:88, p < :05, b ¼ :20. However, this was

qualified by the predicted 3-way interaction of target

goal type, linking, and achievement orientation,

F ð1; 116Þ ¼ 9:98, p < :01, b ¼ :30 (see Table 2).

The pattern of predicted values for LAMs was similar

to that in Study 1—they enjoyed the task most when

assigned either unlinked performance target goals or

linked mastery target goals, but enjoyed the task leastwhen assigned linked performance target goals. Analy-

ses using dummy codes to probe differences between

conditions indicated that linking mastery target goals to

the performance context had a more positive effect than

linking performance target goals. Whereas linking

mastery target goals gave LAMs the tools with which to

achieve the overall performance goal, linking perfor-

mance target goals accentuated the performance pur-pose goal, and undermined LAMs� enjoyment.

The pattern for HAMs was again less conclusive,

although HAMs� enjoyment was high overall. As in

Study 1, HAMs enjoyed the task a great deal when

5 Results were the same whether individuals who missed goals were

included or not.

assigned linked performance target goals, although notsignificantly more than when assigned linked mastery

target goals. HAMs� enjoyment in unlinked mastery

target goal conditions is somewhat puzzling, because

this does not replicate Harackiewicz and Elliot (1998).

HAMs readily set both mastery and performance goals

for themselves, and may not perceive mastery target

goals as incoherent with performance purpose goals. In

these studies, HAMs may have been able to make themastery target goals coherent with the overall perfor-

mance goal on their own.

Direct effects on competence valuation and task involve-

ment

The process measures were regressed separately on

the basic model. The goal attainment contrast was not

included in the competence valuation regressionbecause valuation was measured before participants

did the problems. A significant main effect of

achievement orientation emerged, F ð1; 117Þ ¼ 11:40,p < :01, b ¼ :31, as well as a 2-way interaction be-

tween target goal type and linking, F ð1; 117Þ ¼ 8:80,p < :01, b ¼ �:25. These were qualified by the 3-way

interaction also found for enjoyment, F ð1; 117Þ ¼ 4:30,p < :05, b ¼ :19 (see Table 2). Consistent with ourhypotheses, LAMs valued competence most highly in

linked mastery target goal and unlinked performance

target goal conditions. LAMs were more willing to

commit themselves to the achievement situation when

they approached the task with target goals that could

help them achieve the overall performance purpose

goal. In contrast, HAMs valued competence in gen-

eral, consistent with Murray�s (1938) definition of highneed for achievement.

On task involvement, there were significant effects of

linking, F ð1; 116Þ ¼ 6:69, p < :05, b ¼ :21, achievement

motivation, F ð1; 116Þ ¼ 4:79, p < :05, b ¼ :19, and a 2-

way interaction between target goal type and achieve-

ment orientation, F ð1; 116Þ ¼ 4:00, p < :05, b ¼ :17.These effects were qualified by the 3-way interaction also

found for enjoyment and competence valuation, F ð1;116Þ ¼ 16:18, p < :01, b ¼ :37 (see Table 2). In addition,

participants who met both goals ðYY ¼ 5:80Þ reported

more task involvement than those who did not ðYY ¼5:13Þ, F ð1; 116Þ ¼ 13:14, p < :01, b ¼ :31, and women

ðYY ¼ 5:70Þ were more task involved than men ðYY¼ 5:23Þ, F ð1; 116Þ ¼ 7:03, p < :01, b ¼ �:22. Consistentwith our hypothesis that coherent target goals should

help LAMs stay focused on the task, LAMs� task in-volvement was highest in linked mastery target goal

and unlinked performance target goal conditions. In

contrast, LAMs� task involvement was lowest in the

linked performance target goal condition. Furthermore,

HAMs� task involvement was highest in the linked per-

formance target goal condition, suggesting that HAMs�absorption in the task was facilitated by pursuing specific

Table 2

Predicted values for enjoyment, competence valuation, and task involvement as a function of target goal type, linking, and achievement orientation

for Study 2

Group Target goal type Simple effects

Mastery Performance F ð1; 116Þ

Enjoyment

LAMs Unlinked 5.34 5.84 1.99

Linked 5.63 4.37 8.82�


Linked 5.55 5.98 0.90

Competence valuation


Linked 4.49 3.68 4.33�


Linked 5.11 5.13 0.08

Task involvement


Linked 5.51 4.42 7.56�


Linked 4.87 6.14 8.94�

Note. Enjoyment, competence valuation, and task involvement could range from 1 (low) to 7 (high). LAMs, individuals low in achievement

motivation; HAMs, individuals high in achievement motivation.* p < :05.


target goals that were explicitly linked to the perfor-

mance purpose goal.

Next, we tested whether competence valuation and

task involvement mediated the 3-way interaction on

enjoyment. Competence valuation accounted for a

significant portion of variance in enjoyment, F ð1; 115Þ ¼72:47, p < :01, b ¼ :62. When task involvement was

added to this 9-term model, the competence valuationeffect remained significant, F ð1; 114Þ ¼ 23:50, p < :01,b ¼ :40, and task involvement was also significant,

F ð1; 114Þ ¼ 20:54, p < :01, b ¼ :39. Importantly, the 3-

way interaction was greatly reduced in magnitude and

was no longer significant, F ð1; 114Þ ¼ 0:81, p ¼ :37,b ¼ :07. The reduction in beta from .30 to .07 suggests

that competence valuation and task involvement

partially mediated the 3-way interaction effect onenjoyment. In other words, coherent goals enhanced

intrinsic motivation for LAMs because they promoted

competence valuation and task involvement.

General discussion

In these studies, target goals affected intrinsic moti-vation differently among LAMs and HAMs pursuing a

performance purpose goal. HAMs, for whom the

performance purpose goal was concordant, showed

consistently high task enjoyment. In contrast, LAMs�enjoyment was more variable. LAMs enjoyed the tasks

more when the target goals cohered with the performance

purpose goal than when they did not cohere, provided

the performance purpose goal was not too salient. The

variability of LAMs� enjoyment, compared with the

consistency of HAMs�, suggests the importance of con-

cordance of higher-order goals with individual needs.

Specifically, because purpose goals provide the reason

for task engagement (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 1991),

concordance at this level may be particularly important

for believing task engagement is worthwhile. HAMs re-

ported higher competence valuation, task involvementand enjoyment, regardless of target goal condition. In

contrast, LAMs valued doing well and became task in-

volved only in linked mastery and unlinked performance

goal conditions. Coherent target goals, by providing

helpful steps with which to pursue the purpose goal, may

have helped LAMs internalize the overall performance

purpose goal and therefore pursue it for themselves.

This research also raises questions about how linkinginfluences goal pursuit. Target goals are concrete goals

that provide explicit information about competence

during task engagement. Linking goals may alter the

way individuals pursue target goals by making this

competence information more relevant to the purpose

goal. Monitoring step-by-step progress toward a per-

formance purpose goal may focus LAMs on their own

achievement and relieve concerns about external evalu-ation. However, our findings reveal a tension between

helping individuals work toward a performance purpose

goal and making that purpose goal too salient. When

performance target goals were explicitly linked to the

purpose goal, focusing at the target goal level was

anything but a respite for LAMs. The target goals in this

condition may have served as constant reminders of the

performance purpose goal rather than as helpful guides.


These data may offer some guidance for goal settingin competitive contexts. For example, coaches recom-

mending target goals for mastery-oriented drills may

promote enjoyment by explicitly connecting improve-

ment on the drill to performing well in competition.

Similarly, teachers might connect mastery-based target

goals for schoolwork to good grades. However, LAMs�enjoyment may suffer if a performance-oriented drill is

explicitly linked to outperforming others. Coaches andteachers should be mindful not only of the target goals

they recommend but also of the overall purpose of task

engagement and the extent to which these are related.

These recommendations and our conclusions are

limited by the fact that these studies only tested the ef-

fects of matching and linking target goals within per-

formance contexts. A provocative question for future

research concerns the effects of matching and linkingtarget goals within mastery contexts. Previous research

suggests that LAMs respond more positively to mastery

purpose goals than HAMs (Harackiewicz & Elliot,

1993). Therefore, in a mastery context, HAMs� enjoy-ment may be more labile than that of LAMs, and the

extent to which target goals cohere to a mastery purpose

goal may play a pivotal role in HAMs� enjoyment.

Furthermore, examining how individuals conceptualizetarget goals in varied achievement situations may reveal

additional contextual factors, other than linking, that

promote (or inhibit) coherence among goals at different

levels.

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and

interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and

optimal motivation: Testing multiple goal models. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 706–722.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-

determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social—cognitive approach to

motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.

Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of

approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218–232.

Fineman, S. (1977). The achievement motive construct and its

measurement: Where are we now? British Journal of Psychology,

68, 1–22.

Flansburg, S., & Hay, V. (1994). Math magic. New York: Harper

Collins.

Harackiewicz, J. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1993). Achievement goals and

intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

65, 904–915.

Harackiewicz, J. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). The joint effects of target

and purpose goals on intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis.

Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 675–689.

Harackiewicz, J. M., & Sansone, C. (1991). Goals and intrinsic

motivation: You can get there from here. In M. L. Maehr, & P. R.

Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement: Vol. 7 (pp.

21–49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Jackson, D. N. (1974). Personality research form manual. Goshen, NY:

Research Psychologists Press.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford

University Press.

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of

ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance.

Psychological Review, 91, 328–346.

Senko, C. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2002). Performance goals: The

moderating roles of context, and achievement orientation. Journal

of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 603–610.

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction,

and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 482–497.

Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1995). Coherence and congruence: Two

aspects of personality integration. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 68, 531–543.

achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: coherence, concordance, and achievement orientation

Documents