Advertisement

Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

When and why performance goals predict exploitation behaviors: An achievement goal complex analysis of the selection function of assessment

Abstract

We adopted an achievement goal complex framework (studying achievement goals and reasons connected to goals) to determine when and why performance goals predict exploitation of others’ knowledge. We hypothesized that: (i) when selective assessment is used (exams aiming to select a limited number of individuals), the link between performance goals and exploitation orientation is stronger; (ii) the reason why is that selective assessment fosters performance goals regulated by controlled reasons. Study 1 (N = 166) supported these hypotheses in a “real world” environment, comparing students enrolled in programs using non-selective versus selective assessment (but having a majority of common courses). Then, an experimental causal-chain-like design was used. In Study 2 (N = 187), presenting an intelligence test as selective (vs. [self-]evaluative) predicted controlled reasons connected to performance goals. In Study 3 (N = 192), inducing performance goals using controlling (vs. autonomy-supportive) language predicted exploitation orientation, indirectly impairing information-sharing behaviors. The results contribute to the understanding of both the structural antecedents and interpersonal consequences of achievement goal complexes.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. 1.

    Study 1 was part of a student research project. For pedagogical reasons, students were encouraged to proposed their own ideas of variables to add to the questionnaire. Self-efficacy, social dominance goals, and reciprocity orientation (i.e., confidence that others will provide one with good information) were therefore additionally assessed. As these variables are not directly relevant to our research question, they are not included in the main analysis. For the sake of transparency, the variables are described in Supplementary Materials.

  2. 2.

    Different views were expressed regarding the conceptual status of this variable. Vansteenkiste et al. (2010a) initially conceived it as “underlying reasons of performance-approach goals” (p. 223; see also, Delrue et al. 2016; Vansteenkiste et al. 2014a; Michou et al. 2016). Recently, other scholars have challenged this position, arguing that the variable includes both a goal and a reason component and would be better conceived as an achievement goal complex (Sommet and Elliot 2017; see also Senko and Tropiano 2016). We designed and conducted this set of studies before this debate; here, we conceive the variable as pertaining to reasons connected to achievement goals, and we conceive an achievement goal complex as corresponding to an interaction between this variable and the strength of the achievement goal (as in Gaudreau 2012; Gaudreau and Braaten 2016).

  3. 3.

    The observation was both a statistical outlier (studentized deleted residuals above 4) and an influential case (Cooks’ Ds > 0.1) on several outcome variables. However, if the participant had not been excluded, the hypothesized interaction between the planned contrast and performance goals would have remained significant, B = 0.26 CI [0.04, 0.48], p = .020, η2p = .03.

  4. 4.

    For this analysis, five participants had to be excluded due to missing values on the ranking provided to the other participants. Despite finishing the study (i.e., providing a final ranking), these five participants did not give any answer to the bogus other. Interestingly, four of them were in the controlled reasons condition.

References

  1. Autin, F., Batruch, A., & Butera, F. (2015). Social justice in education: How the function of selection in educational institutions predicts support for (non) egalitarian assessment practices. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 707.

  2. Benita, M., Shane, N., Elgali, O., & Roth, G. (2017). The important role of the context in which achievement goals are adopted: An experimental test. Motivation and Emotion, 41, 180–195.

  3. Berkovits, I., Hancock, G. R., & Nevitt, J. (2000). Bootstrap resampling approaches for repeated measure designs: Relative robustness to sphericity and normality violations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 60, 877–892.

  4. Bourdieu, P., & Passeron, J.-C. (1970). La Reproduction: Éléments d’une théorie du système d’enseignement [Reproduction: Elements for a Theory of the Educational System]. Paris: Editions de Minuit.

  5. Chen, C. H., Law, V., & Chen, W. Y. (2017). The effects of peer competition-based science learning game on secondary students’ performance, achievement goals, and perceived ability. Interactive Learning Environments, 26(2), 235–244

  6. Cheung, P. C., Ma, H. K., & Shek, D. T. (1998). Conceptions of success: Their correlates with prosocial orientation and behaviour in Chinese adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 21, 31–42.

  7. Ciani, K. D., Middleton, M. J., Summers, J. J., & Sheldon, K. M. (2010). Buffering against performance classroom goal structures: The importance of autonomy support and classroom community. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 88–99.

  8. Conroy, D. E., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2009). Achievement motivation. In M. R. Leary & R. H. Hoyle (Eds.), Handbook of individual differences in social behavior (pp. 382–399). NewYork: Guilford Press.

  9. Coombs, R. (1998). Surviving medical school. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

  10. Crouzevialle, M., & Butera, F. (2013). Performance-approach goals deplete working memory and impair cognitive performance. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142, 666–678.

  11. Darnon, B., & Butera, F. (2005). Buts d’accomplissement, stratégies d’étude, et motivation intrinsèque: Présentation d’un domaine de recherche et validation française de l’échelle d’Elliot et McGregor (2001) [Achievement goals, study strategies, and intrinsic motivation: Presenting a domain of research and the French validation of Elliot & McGregor’s scale]. L’Année Psychologique, 105, 105–131.

  12. Darnon, C., Dompnier, B., Delmas, F., Pulfrey, C., & Butera, F. (2009). Achievement goal promotion at university: Social desirability and social utility of mastery and performance goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 119–134.

  13. Darnon, C., Dompnier, B., & Poortvliet, P. M. (2012). Achievement goals in educational contexts: A social psychology perspective. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 6, 760–771.

  14. Daumiller, M., Dickhäuser, O., & Dresel, M. (2018). University instructors’ achievement goals for teaching. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000271.

  15. De Paola, M. (2011). Easy grading practices and supply–demand factors: Evidence from Italy. Empirical Economics, 41, 227–246.

  16. Deci, E. L., Betley, G., Kahle, J., Abrams, L., & Porac, J. (1981). When trying to win: Competition and intrinsic motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 7, 79–83.

  17. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

  18. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and” why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

  19. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2016). Optimizing students’ motivation in the era of testing and pressure: A self-determination theory perspective. In W. C. Liu, J. C. K. Wang & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Building autonomous learners: Perspectives from research and practice using self-determination theory (pp. 9–29). Singapore: Springer Singapore.

  20. Delrue, J., Mouratidis, A., Haerens, L., De Muynck, G. J., Aelterman, N., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2016). Intrapersonal achievement goals and underlying reasons among long distance runners: Their relation with race experience, self-talk, and running time. Psychologica Belgica, 56, 288–310.

  21. Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169–189.

  22. Elliot, A. J., Aldhobaiban, N., Kobeisy, A., Murayama, K., Gocłowska, M. A., Lichtenfeld, S., & Khayat, A. (2016). Linking social interdependence preferences to achievement goal adoption. Learning and Individual Differences, 50, 291–295.

  23. 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.

  24. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2*2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519.

  25. Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2001). Achievement goals and the hierarchical model of achievement motivation. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 139–156.

  26. Freud, R. J., & Littell, R. C. (2000). SAS system for regression. Cary: Sas Institute.

  27. Fryer, J. W., & Elliot, A. J. (2008). Self-regulation of achievement goal pursuit. In D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulated learning: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 53–76). New York: Lawrence Erlbaum.

  28. Gaudreau, P. (2012). Goal self-concordance moderates the relationship between achievement goals and indicators of academic adjustment. Learning and Individual, 22(6), 827–832

  29. Gaudreau, P., & Braaten, A. (2016). Achievement goals and their underlying goal motivation: Does it matter why sport participants pursue their goals? Psychologica Belgica, 56, 244–268.

  30. Gillet, N., Lafrenière, M. A. K., Huyghebaert, T., & Fouquereau, E. (2015). Autonomous and controlled reasons underlying achievement goals: Implications for the 3 × 2 achievement goal model in educational and work settings. Motivation and Emotion, 39, 858–875.

  31. Hodis, F. A., Tait, C., Hodis, G. M., Hodis, M. A., & Scornavacca, E. (2016). Analyzing student motivation at the confluence of achievement goals and their underlying reasons: An investigation of goal complexes. Social Psychology of Education, 19, 643–660.

  32. Hulleman, C. S., Schrager, S. M., Bodmann, S. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). A meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels? Psychological Bulletin, 136, 422–449.

  33. Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (1980). Promoting constructive student-student relationships through cooperative learning. Minneapolis: Minnesota University (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 249 216). Retrived from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED249216.pdf.

  34. Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., & Smith, K. A. (2014). Cooperative learning: Improving university instruction by basing practice on validated theory. Journal on Excellence in University Teaching, 25, 1–26.

  35. Judd, C. M., McClelland, G. H., & Ryan, C. S. (2015). Data analysis: A model comparison approach (2nd edn.). New York: Routledge.

  36. Jury, M., Darnon, C., Dompnier, B., & Butera, F. (2017). The social utility of performance-approach goals in a selective educational environment. Social Psychology of Education, 20, 215–235.

  37. Kaufman, N. (1994). A survey of law school grading practices. Journal of Legal Education, 44, 415–423.

  38. Kilduff, G. J., Galinsky, A. D., Gallo, E., & Reade, J. J. (2016). Whatever it takes to win: Rivalry increases unethical behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 59, 1508–1534.

  39. Liem, G. A. D., & Elliot, A. J. (2018). Sociocultural influences on achievement goal adoption and regulation: A goal complex perspective. In G. A. D. Liem & D. M. McInerney (Eds.), Big theories revisited 2 (pp. 41–67). Charlotte: Information Age Publishing.

  40. Liem, G. A. D., Lau, S., & Nie, Y. (2008). The role of self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals in predicting learning strategies, task disengagement, peer relationship, and achievement outcome. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 486–512.

  41. Mason, C. H., & Perreault, W. D. Jr. (1991). Collinearity, power, and interpretation of multiple regression analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 268–280.

  42. Michou, A., Matos, L., Gargurevich, R., Gumus, B., & Herrera, D. (2016). Building on the enriched hierarchical model of achievement motivation: Autonomous and controlling reasons underlying mastery goals. Psychologica Belgica, 56, 269–287.

  43. Murayama, K., & Elliot, A. J. (2012). The competition-performance relation: A meta-analytic review and test of the opposing processes model of competition and performance. Psychological Bulletin, 138, 1035–1070.

  44. Nelson, R. M., & DeBacker, T. K. (2008). Achievement motivation in adolescents: The role of peer climate and best friends. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 170–189.

  45. Ntoumanis, N., Healy, L. C., Sedikides, C., Duda, J., Stewart, B., Smith, A., & Bond, J. (2014). When the going gets tough: The “why” of goal striving matters. Journal of Personality, 82, 225–236.

  46. OECD. (2013). Education at a Glance 2013: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.

  47. Özdemir Oz, A., Lane, J. F., & Michou, A. (2016). Autonomous and controlling reasons underlying achievement goals during task engagement: Their relation to intrinsic motivation and cheating. Educational Psychology, 36, 1160–1172.

  48. Pekrun, R., Cusack, A., Murayama, K., Elliot, A. J., & Thomas, K. (2014). The power of anticipated feedback: Effects on students’ achievement goals and achievement emotions. Learning and Instruction, 29, 115–124.

  49. Poortvliet, P. M. (2012). Harming others’ task-related efforts: The distinct competitive effects of ranking information on performance and mastery goal individuals. Social Psychology, 44, 373–379.

  50. Poortvliet, P. M., & Darnon, C. (2014). Understanding positive attitudes toward helping peers: The role of mastery goals and academic self-efficacy. Self and Identity, 13, 345–363.

  51. Poortvliet, P. M., Janssen, O., Van Yperen, N. W., & Van de Vliert, E. (2007). Achievement goals and interpersonal behavior: How mastery and performance goals shape information exchange. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1435–1447.

  52. Poortvliet, P. M., Janssen, O., Van Yperen, N. W., & Van de Vliert, E. (2009a). Low ranks make the difference: How achievement goals and ranking information affect cooperation intentions. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1144–1147.

  53. Poortvliet, P. M., Janssen, O., Van Yperen, N. W., & Van de Vliert, E. V. D. (2009b). The joint impact of achievement goals and performance feedback on information giving. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 31, 197–209.

  54. Reeve, J., & Assor, A. (2011). Do social institutions necessarily suppress individuals’ need for autonomy? The possibility of schools as autonomy promoting contexts across the globe. In R. Chirkov, R. M. Ryan & K. Sheldon (Eds.), Human autonomy in cross-cultural context: Global perspectives on the psychology of freedom and people’s well-being. New York: Springer.

  55. Rosnow, R. L., & Rosenthal, R. (1991). If you’re looking at the cell means, you’re not looking at only the interaction (unless all main effects are zero). Psychological Bulletin, 110, 574–576.

  56. Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 359–371.

  57. Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1997). Should I ask for help? The role of motivation and attitudes in adolescents’ help seeking in math class. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 329–341.

  58. Ryan, R. M., & Brown, K. W. (2005). Legislating competence: The motivational impact of high stakes testing as an educational reform. In C. Dweck & A. E. Elliot (Eds.), Handbook of competence (pp. New York: Guilford Press. 354 – 374).

  59. Senko, C. (2016). Achievement goal theory: A story of early promises, eventual discords, and future possibilities. In K. Wentzel & D. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (Vol. 2, pp. 75–95). New York: Routledge.

  60. Senko, C., & Dawson, B. (2017). Performance-approach goal effects depend on how they are defined: Meta-analytic evidence from multiple educational outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, 574–598.

  61. Senko, C., Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2011). Achievement goal theory at the crossroads: Old controversies, current challenges, and new directions. Educational Psychologist, 46, 26–47.

  62. Senko, C., & Tropiano, K. L. (2016). Comparing three models of achievement goals: Goal orientations, goal standards, and goal complexes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 108, 1178–1192.

  63. Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing autonomous and controlled reasons for goals as predictors of effort and attainment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 546–557.

  64. Shieh, G. (2010). On the misconception of multicollinearity in detection of moderating effects: Multicollinearity is not always detrimental. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 45, 483–507.

  65. Shin, J., Lee, Y. K., & Seo, E. (2017). The effects of feedback on students’ achievement goals: Interaction between reference of comparison and regulatory focus. Learning and Instruction, 49, 21–31.

  66. Skaalvik, E. M., & Federici, R. A. (2016). Relations between classroom goal structures and students’ goal orientations in mathematics classes: When is a mastery goal structure adaptive? Social Psychology of Education, 19, 135–150.

  67. Sommet, N., Darnon, C., & Butera, F. (2015). To confirm or to conform? Performance goals as a regulator of conflict with more-competent others. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 580–598.

  68. Sommet, N., Darnon, C., Mugny, G., Quiamzade, A., Pulfrey, C., Dompnier, B., & Butera, F. (2014). Performance goals in conflictual social interactions: Towards the distinction between two modes of relational conflict regulation. British Journal of Social Psychology, 53, 134–153.

  69. Sommet, N., & Elliot, A. J. (2017). Achievement goals, reasons for goal pursuit, and achievement goal complexes as predictors of beneficial outcomes: Is the influence of goals reducible to reasons? Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(8), 1141

  70. Sommet, N., Pillaud, V., Meuleman, B., & Butera, F. (2017). The socialization of performance goals. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 49, 337–354.

  71. Sommet, N., Pulfrey, C., & Butera, F. (2013). Did my MD really go to university to learn? Detrimental effects of numerus clausus on self-efficacy, mastery goals and learning. PloS ONE, 8, e84178.

  72. Sommet, N., Quiamzade, A., Jury, M. M., & Mugny, G. (2015). The student-institution fit at university: Interactive effects of academic competition and social class on achievement goals. Frontiers in Psychology, 6, 769.

  73. Spencer, S. J., Zanna, M. P., & Fong, G. T. (2005). Establishing a causal chain: Why experiments are often more effective than mediational analyses in examining psychological processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 845–851.

  74. Spray, C. M., Wang, J. C. K., Biddle, S. J., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2006). Understanding motivation in sport: An experimental test of achievement goal and self determination theories. European Journal of Sport Science, 6, 43–51.

  75. Toma, C., Gilles, I., & Butera, F. (2013). Strategic use of preference confirmation in group decision making: The role of competition and dissent. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 44–63.

  76. Urdan, T., & Mestas, M. (2006). The goals behind performance goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 354–365.

  77. Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Elliot, A. J., Soenens, B., & Mouratidis, A. (2014b). Moving the achievement goal approach one step forward: Toward a systematic examination of the autonomous and controlled reasons underlying achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 49, 153–174.

  78. Vansteenkiste, M., Mouratidis, A., & Lens, W. (2010a). Detaching reasons from aims: Fair play and well-being in soccer as a function of pursuing performance-approach goals for autonomous or controlling reasons. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32, 217–242.

  79. Vansteenkiste, M., Mouratidis, A., Van Riet, T., & Lens, W. (2014a). Examining correlates of game-to-game variation in volleyball players’ achievement goal pursuit and underlying autonomous and controlling reasons. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 36, 131–145.

  80. Vansteenkiste, M., Smeets, S., Soenens, B., Lens, W., Matos, L., & Deci, E. L. (2010b). Autonomous and controlled regulation of performance-approach goals: Their relations to perfectionism and educational outcomes. Motivation and Emotion, 34, 333–353.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to Nicolas Sommet.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 6230 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sommet, N., Nguyen, D., Fahrni, K. et al. When and why performance goals predict exploitation behaviors: An achievement goal complex analysis of the selection function of assessment. Motiv Emot 43, 266–284 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9742-y

Download citation

Keywords

  • Achievement goals
  • Self-determination theory
  • Achievement goal complex
  • Exploitation orientation
  • Selective assessment