Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Studying for autonomous reasons and having a promotion orientation: key predictors of individual differences in expectancies of success in English

  • Published:
Social Psychology of Education Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This research used the expectancy-value theory to examine the extent to which three classes of motivation antecedents predicted secondary-school students’ expectancies of success in English. To this end, it investigated four general motivation orientations, two school-related achievement motives, as well as autonomous and controlled reasons undergirding motivation to study English. The results of exploratory structural equation modeling (N = 3615) show that studying English for autonomous reasons and having a motivation orientation that focuses on advancement and gains (i.e., a promotion orientation) were the strongest predictors of expectancies of success in this school domain. These results, which are consistent with recent findings examining expectancies of success in mathematics, have important implications for research, learning, and teaching.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. O. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplivary Journal,16, 397–438. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,107, 238–246. https://doi.org/10.1037//0033-2909.107.2.238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W. (2001). An overview of analytic rotation in exploratory factor analysis. Multivariate Behavioral Research,36, 111–150. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr3601_05.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cesario, J., Grant, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2004). Regulatory fit and persuasion: Transfer from “Feeling right”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,86, 388–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.86.3.388.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Conley, A. M. (2012). Patterns of motivation beliefs: Combining achievement goal and expectancy-value perspectives. Journal of Educational Psychology,104, 32–47. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026042.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-determination theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 416–437). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Dickhäuser, O., Dinger, F. C., Janke, S., Spinath, B., & Steinmayr, R. (2016). A prospective correlational analysis of achievement goals as mediating constructs linking distal motivational dispositions to intrinsic motivation and academic achievement. Learning and Individual Differences,50, 30–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.06.020.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in performance, strategy, and achievement cognitions following failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,36, 451–462. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.36.5.451.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinger, F. C., Dickhäuser, O., Spinath, B., & Steinmayr, R. (2013). Antecedents and consequences of students’ achievement goals; A mediation analysis. Learning and Individual Differences,28, 90–101. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2013.09.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dweck, C. S., Higgins, E. T., & Grant-Pillow, H. (2003). Self-systems give unique meaning to self-variables. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 239–252). New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105–121). New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eccles (Parsons), J. S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S. B., Kaczala, C. M., Meece, J. L., et al. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motivation: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75–146). San Francisco, CA: Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology,53, 109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Harold, R. D., & Blumenfeld, P. (1993). Age and gender differences in children’s self- and task-perceptions during elementary school. Child Development,64, 830–847. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1993.tb02946.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eckes, A., Großmann, N., & Wilde, M. (2018). Studies on the effects of structure in the context of autonomy-supportive or controlling teacher behavior on students’ intrinsic motivation. Learning and Individual Differences,62, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.01.011.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating the ‘classic’ and ‘contemporary’ approaches to achievement motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 143–179). Bingley: Emerald.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 52–72). New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. J. (2006). The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation. Motivation and Emotion,30, 111–116. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-006-9028-7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (2003). A motivational analysis of defensive pessimism and self-handicapping. Journal of Personality,71, 369–396. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-6494.7103005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2001). Achievement goals and the hierarchical model of achievement motivation. Educational Psychology Review,13, 139–156. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1009057102306.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fan, W., & Wolters, C. A. (2014). School motivation and high school dropout: The mediating role of educational expectation. British Journal of Educational Psychology,84, 22–39. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fredricks, J. A., & Eccles, J. S. (2002). Children’s competence and value beliefs from childhood through adolescence: Growth trajectories in two male-sex-typed domains. Developmental Psychology,38, 519–533. https://doi.org/10.1037//0012-1649.38.4.519.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freitas, A. L., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Enjoying goal-directed action: The role of regulatory fit. Psychological Science,13, 1–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorman, C. A., Meriac, J. P., Overstreet, B. L., Apodaca, S., McIntyre, A. L., Park, P., et al. (2012). A meta-analysis of the regulatory focus nomological network: Work-related antecedents and consequences. Journal of Vocational Behavior,80(1), 160–172. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jvb.2011.07.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Guo, J., Parker, P. D., Marsh, H. W., & Morin, A. J. S. (2015). Achievement, motivation, and educational choices: A longitudinal Study of expectancy and value using a multiplicative perspective. Developmental Psychology,51, 1163–1176. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0039440.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harackiewicz, J. M., Canning, E. A., Tibbetts, Y., Priniski, S. J., & Hyde, J. S. (2016). Closing achievement gaps with a utility-value intervention: Disentangling race and social class. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,111, 745–765. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000075.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harackiewicz, J. M., Tibbetts, Y., Canning, E. A., & Hyde, J. S. (2014). Harnessing values to promote motivation in education. In S. A. Karabenick & T. C. Urdan (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement. Motivational interventions (Vol. 18, pp. 71–105). Bingley: Emerald.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Haws, K. L., Dholakia, U. M., & Bearden, W. O. (2010). An assessment of chronic regulatory focus measures. Journal of Marketing Research,47, 967–982. https://doi.org/10.1509/jmkr.47.5.967.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review,94, 319–340. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.94.3.319.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist,52, 1280–1300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.52.12.1280.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (2012a). Accessibility theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 75–96). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (2012b). Beyond pleasure and pain: How motivation works. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology,31, 3–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T., Idson, L. E., Freitas, A. L., Spiegel, S., & Molden, D. C. (2003). Transfer of value from fit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,84, 1140–1154. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.6.1140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T., Pierro, A., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2008). Re-thinking culture and personality: How self-regulatory universals create cross-cultural differences. In R. Sorrentino & A. Yamaguchi (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition across cultures (pp. 161–190). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T., & Scholer, A. A. (2015). Goal pursuit functions: Working together. In M. Mikulincer & P. R. Shaver (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Vol. 1. Attitudes and social cognition (pp. 843–889). https://doi.org/10.1037/14341-027.

  • Hodis, F. A. (2015). A multi-sample investigation of the assessment and locomotion scales in a population of secondary school students. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,33, 130–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282914547871.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodis, F. A. (2017). Investigating the structure of regulatory focus: A bifactor analysis. Personality and Individual Differences,109, 192–200. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodis, F. A. (2018a). Examining individuals’ strivings for value, control, and truth effectiveness: Implications for educational psychology research. Educational Psychology Review,30, 1001–1030. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9439-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodis, F. A. (2018b). Underpinnings of expectancies of success in mathematics: An analysis of general, school-related, and domain-specific motivation antecedents. Journal of Educational Psychology,110, 407–430. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodis, F. A., & Hodis, G. M. (2015). Expectancy, value, promotion, and prevention: An integrative account of regulatory fit vs. non-fit with student satisfaction in communicating with teachers. Annals of the International Communication Association,39, 339–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2015.11679180.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hodis, F. A., & Hodis, G. M. (2017). Assessing motivation of secondary school students: An analysis of promotion and prevention orientations as measured by the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,35, 670–682. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916658385.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jacobs, J. E., Lanza, S., Osgood, D. W., Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Changes in children’s self-competence and values: Gender and domain differences across grades one through twelve. Child Development,73, 509–527. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8624.00421.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: It is not autonomy support or structure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology,102, 588–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koenig, A. M., Cesario, J., Molden, D. C., Kosloff, S., & Higgins, E. T. (2009). Incidental experiences of regulatory fit and the processing of persuasive appeals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,35, 1342–1355. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167209339076.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koestner, R., Otis, N., Powers, T. A., Pelletier, L., & Gagnon, H. (2008). Autonomous motivation, controlled motivation, and goal progress. Journal of Personality,76, 1201–1229. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2008.00519.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., & Higgins, E. T. (2016). Experience of time by people on the go: A theory of the locomotion—Temporality interface. Personality and Social Psychology Review,20, 100–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315581120.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kruglanski, A. W., Thompson, E. P., Higgins, E. T., Atash, M. N., Pierro, A., Shah, J. Y., et al. (2000). To “do the right thing” or to “just do it”: Locomotion and assessment as distinct self-regulatory imperatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,79, 793–815. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.793.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: Regulatory focus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,83, 854–864. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.854.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Liem, G. A. D., Martin, A. J., Morin, A. J. S., & Nagengast, B. (2011). Methodological measurement fruitfulness of exploratory structural equation model: New approaches to issues in motivation and engagement. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment,29, 322–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406657.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J. S., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modelling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses. Annual Review of Clinical Psychology,10, 85–110. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-032813-153700.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Ludtke, O., Robitzsch, A., Morin, A. J. S., et al. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling, integrating CFA and EFA: Applications to students’ evaluations of university teaching. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,16, 439–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McLachlan, G. J., & Peel, D. (2000). Finite mixture models. New York, NY: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Morin, A. J. S., Arens, A. K., & Marsh, H. W. (2016). A bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling framework for the identification of distinct sources of construct-relevant psychometric multidimensionality. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,23, 116–139. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705511.2014.961800.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morin, A. J. S., Marsh, H. W., & Nagengast, B. (2013). Exploratory structural equation modeling. In G. R. Hancock & R. O. Mueller (Eds.), Structural equation modeling: A second course (2nd ed., pp. 395–436). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mouratidis, A., Michou, A., Aelterman, N., Haerens, L., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2018). Begin-of-school-year perceived autonomy-support and structure as predictors of end-of-school-year study efforts and procrastination: The mediating role of autonomous and controlled motivation. Educational Psychology,38, 435–450. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2017.1402863.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mueller, R. O., & Hancock, G. R. (2008). Best practices in structural equation modeling. In J. W. Osborne (Ed.), Best practices in quantitative methods (pp. 488–508). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Muenks, K., & Miele, D. B. (2017). Students’ thinking of effort and ability: The role of developmental, contextual, and individual difference factors. Review of Educational Research,4, 707–735. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654316689328.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2013). Mplus, user’s guide (7th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.

    Google Scholar 

  • Perez, T., Cromley, J. G., & Kaplan, A. (2014). The role of identity development, values, and costs in college STEM retention. Journal of Educational Psychology,106, 315–329. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0034027.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roese, N. J., & Sherman, J. W. (2007). Expectancy. In A. W. Kruglanski & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Social psychology: Handbook of basic principles (2nd ed., pp. 91–115). New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York, NY: Guilford.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Goosens, L., Soenens, B., & Dochy, F. (2009). The synergistic relationship of autonomy support and structure in the prediction of self-regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology,79, 57–68. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709908x304398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, D. M., Cumming, J., Standage, M., & Duda, J. L. (2012). Images of exercising: Exploring the links between exercise imagery use, autonomous and controlled motivation to exercise, and exercise intention and behavior. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,13, 133–141. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.10.002.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stapleton, L. M., McNeish, D. M., & Yang, J. S. (2016a). Multilevel and single-level models for measured and latent variables when data are clustered. Educational Psychologist,51, 317–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1207178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stapleton, L. M., Yang, J. S., & Hancock, G. R. (2016b). Construct meaning in multilevel settings. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics,41, 481–520. https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998616646200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steiger, J. H. (1990). Structural model evaluation and modification: An interval estimation approach. Multivariate Behavioral Research,25, 173–180. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2502_4.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2009). The importance of motivation as predictor of school achievement. Learning and Individual Differences,19, 80–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2008.05.004.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Summerville, A., & Roese, N. J. (2008). Self-report measures of individual differences in regulatory focus: A cautionary note. Journal of Research in Personality,42, 247–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2007.05.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thrash, T. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2001). Delimiting and integrating the goal and motive constructs in achievement motivation. In A. Efklides, J. Huhl, & R. Sorrentino (Eds.), Trends and prospects in motivation research (pp. 3–21). Amsterdam: Kluwer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thrash, T. M., & Hurst, A. L. (2008). Approach and avoidance motivation in the achievement domain: Integrating the achievement motive and achievement goal traditions. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 217–233). New York, NY: Psychology Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tucker, L. R., & Lewis, C. (1973). A reliability coefficient for maximum likelihood factor analysis. Psychometrika,38, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02291170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tynkkynen, L., Tolvanen, A., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2012). Trajectories of educational expectations from adolescence to young adulthood in Finland. Developmental Psychology,48, 1674–1685. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Elliot, A. J., Soenens, B., & Mouratidis, A. (2014). Moving the achievement goal approach forward: Toward a systematic examination of the autonomous and controlled reasons underlying achievement goals. Educational Psychologist,49, 153–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2014.928598.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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 and Exercise Psychology,32, 217–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C., & Soenens, B. (2010b). The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: An historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. In T. C. Urdan & S. A. Karabenick (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement. The decade ahead: Theoretical perspectives on motivation and achievement (Vol. 16A, pp. 105–165). Bingley: Emerald.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Vaughn, L. A. (2017). Foundational tests of the need-support model: A framework for bridging regulatory focus theory and self-determination theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,43, 313–328. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216684132.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wach, F.-S., Spengler, M., Gottschling, J., & Spinath, F. M. (2015). Sex differences in secondary school achievement—The contribution of self-perceived abilities and fear of failure. Learning and Instruction,36, 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.01.005.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watt, H. M. G. (2004). Development of adolescents’ self-perceptions, values, and task perceptions according to gender and domain in 7th- through 11th-grade Australian students. Child Development,75, 1556–1574. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00757.x.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Watt, H. M. G., Shapka, J. D., Morris, Z. A., Durik, A. M., Keating, D. P., & Eccles, J. E. (2012). Gendered motivational processes affecting high school mathematics participation, educational aspirations, and career plans: A comparison of samples from Australia, Canada, and the United States. Developmental Psychology,48, 1594–1611. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027838.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology,25, 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., Muenks, K., & Rosenzweig, E. Q. (2015). Children’s achievement motivation in school. In C. M. Rubie-Davies, J. M. Stephenson, & P. Watson (Eds.), Routledge international handbook of social psychology of the classroom (pp. 9–20). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., & Klauda, S. L. (2016). Expectancy-value theory. In K. R. Wentzel & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed., pp. 55–74). New York, NY: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

This work was supported by a Fast Start Marsden Grant from Marsden Fund Council, from Government funding, administered by the Royal Society of New Zealand (contract VUW1210).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Education, Victoria University of Wellington, 15 Waiteata Road, Building C, Room 324, Kelburn, Wellington, 6140, New Zealand

    Flaviu-Adrian Hodis

Authors
  1. Flaviu-Adrian Hodis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Flaviu-Adrian Hodis.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The author declares no conflict of interest regarding the authorship or the publication of this article.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOC 31 kb)

Appendix: Evaluation of the measurement model for promotion, prevention, locomotion, and assessment

Appendix: Evaluation of the measurement model for promotion, prevention, locomotion, and assessment

To maximize the extent to which findings from this study can be compared to those of previous research conducted with regard to a different learning domain (i.e., mathematics), this study measured promotion, prevention, locomotion, and assessment with the same set of items used by Hodis (2018b).

1.1 The measurement model for promotion

Promotion was measured with six items from the Regulatory Focus Questionnaire scale (RFQ; Higgins et al. 2001); this scale is one of the instruments that has been most often used in research gauging the promotion and prevention constructs (Gorman et al. 2012; Summerville and Roese 2008). Multiple studies (e.g., Hodis 2017, 2018b; Hodis and Hodis 2015, 2017) found evidence that this instrument measured appropriately the promotion and prevention orientations of students in secondary school.

To examine whether the six promotion items measured well the targeted construct in this study, a 1-factor CFA model was investigated. This model had a good fit to the data: Chi-square (9, N = 3606) = 157.602, p < .001; CFI = .970; TLI = .950; RMSEA = .068, with the 90% confidence interval (CI) for RMSEA being [.059, .077]. Standardized loadings were significant and strong for each indicator; they ranged from 0.593 to 0.787. These findings suggest that the six indicators measured appropriately promotion in this research.

1.2 The measurement model for prevention

Prevention was measured with the four indicators from the RFQ (Higgins et al. 2001) employed by Hodis (2018b). The one factor model defined by these four items had an excellent fit to the data: Chi-square (2, N = 3523) = 16.168, p < .001; CFI = .997; TLI = .990; RMSEA = .045, with the 90% CI for RMSEA [.026, .066]. All indicators had strong and statistically significant loadings, which ranged from 0.522 to 0.838. These results suggest that the four items provided an appropriate measure of prevention in this study.

1.3 The measurement model for locomotion

To our knowledge, the scale developed by Kruglanski et al. (2000) is the only validated instrument for measuring locomotion and assessment orientations. Previous research (e.g., Hodis 2015) found that items from this scale measure appropriately locomotion and assessment orientations of secondary school students. In this study, we gauged locomotion with the eight items (from Kruglanski et al. 2000) that were used by Hodis (2018b). The 1-factor CFA model of these eight indicators had a very good fit to the data: Chi-square (20, N = 3586) = 265.738, p < .001; CFI = .972; TLI = .960; RMSEA = .059, with the 90% CI for RMSEA [.052, .065]. These items’ standardized loadings were strong and statistically significant; they ranged from 0.549 to 0.693. These findings suggest that the eight items were appropriate indicators of locomotion in this research.

1.4 The measurement model for assessment

Assessment was measured with the four indicators from Kruglanski et al. (2000) used by Hodis (2018b). The four-item CFA model had an excellent fit: Chi-square (2, N = 3499) = 19.593, p < .001; CFI = .998; TLI = .993; RMSEA = .050, with the 90% CI for RMSEA [.031, .071]. For all items, standardized loadings were strong and statistically significant (range was from 0.494 to 0.808). These results suggest that the four items were appropriate indicators of assessment in this study.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hodis, FA. Studying for autonomous reasons and having a promotion orientation: key predictors of individual differences in expectancies of success in English. Soc Psychol Educ 23, 359–383 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-019-09537-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11218-019-09537-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation