Achievement Motivation (Motivation)

The investigation of achievement motivation stands as a cornerstone within the realms of pedagogy and erudition. Achievement motivation, in essence, pertains to the endeavour to attain competence in activities necessitating considerable exertion (Elliot & Church, 1997). Murray (1938) did identify the achievement motive, in concert with sundry physiological and psychological exigencies, as a contributory factor to the unfolding of personality. Motivation for action, it is presumed, arises from a desire to fulfil these selfsame exigencies. Over the years, achievement motivation hath been subjected to intensive scholarly inquiry, yielding results of import to the understanding of the learning process.

Murray (1936) did contrive the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT) with the intent of scrutinising personality processes. The TAT represents a projective technique wherein an individual doth peruse a sequence of ambiguous images and, for each, doth fabricate a narrative or furnish answers to a set of queries. McClelland and his associates did adapt the TAT for the purpose of assessing the achievement motive (McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1953). Researchers did present to respondents images depicting individuals in indeterminate circumstances and did pose questions such as “What transpires herein?” “What events did precipitate this present situation?” “What is desired?” and “What eventualities shall unfold?” The responses were then scored in accordance with pre-established criteria, and participants were categorised based on the intensity of their achievement motive. Albeit numerous experimental investigations have availed themselves of the TAT, it is not without its shortcomings, inclusive of modest reliability and weak correlation with alternative achievement measures. To redress these issues, researchers have conceived alternative instruments for gauging achievement motivation (Weiner, 1992).

This present disquisition shall explicate the historical underpinnings of achievement motivation theory, to be succeeded by an examination of contemporary perspectives on the matter.

John Atkinson (1957; Atkinson & Birch, 1978; Atkinson & Feather, 1966; Atkinson & Raynor, 1974, 1978) didst develop an expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation. The basic notion of this and other expectancy-value theories doth reside in the dependence of behaviour upon one's expectancy of attaining a particular outcome (e.g., goal, reinforcer) as a result of performing given behaviours and upon the valuation of that outcome. Individuals assess the likelihood of attaining sundry outcomes. They are not motivated to attempt the impossible, thus they do not pursue outcomes perceived as unattainable. Even a positive outcome expectation doth not engender action if the outcome be not valued. An attractive outcome, coupled with the belief in its attainability, doth motivate individuals to act.

Atkinson didst postulate that achievement behaviours represent a conflict between approach (hope for success) and avoidance (fear of failure) tendencies. Achievement actions carry with them the possibilities of success and failure. Key concepts are as follows: the tendency to approach an achievement-related goal ( ), the tendency to avoid failure ( ), and the resultant achievement motivation ( ). is a function of the motive to succeed ( ), the subjective probability of success ( ), and the incentive value of success ( ):

Atkinson didst believe that Ms (achievement motivation) is a stable disposition, or characteristic trait of the individual, to strive for success. (the individual’s estimate of how likely goal attainment is) is inversely related to Is: Individuals possess a greater incentive to labour assiduously at difficult tasks than at facile tasks. Greater pride is experienced in accomplishing difficult tasks.

In similar fashion, the tendency to avoid failure ( ) is a multiplicative function of the motive to avoid failure ( ), the probability of failure ( ), and the inverse of the incentive value of failure ( ):

The resultant achievement motivation ( ) is represented as follows:

Note that simply possessing a high hope for success doth not guarantee achievement behaviour, for the strength of the motive to avoid failure must be considered. The most efficacious method to promote achievement behaviour is to combine a strong hope for success with a low fear of failure

This model doth predict that students high in resultant achievement motivation shall elect tasks of intermediate difficulty; that is, those they believe are attainable and shall engender a sense of accomplishment. These students should shun difficult tasks for which successful accomplishment is unlikely, as well as facile tasks for which success, albeit guaranteed, doth engender little satisfaction. Students low in resultant achievement motivation are more apt to select either facile or difficult tasks. To accomplish the former, students must expend scant effort to succeed. Albeit accomplishing the latter seems unlikely, students possess an excuse for failure—the task is so difficult that none can succeed at it. This excuse doth furnish these students a reason for not expending effort, for even great effort is unlikely to engender success.

Research on task difficulty preference as a function of level of achievement motivation hath yielded conflicting results (Cooper, 1983; Ray, 1982). In studies of task difficulty by Kuhl and Blankenship (1979a, 1979b), individuals repeatedly didst elect tasks. These researchers assumed that fear of failure would be reduced following task success, thus they predicted the tendency to elect facile tasks would diminish over time. They didst expect this change to be most apparent among subjects for whom Kuhl and Blankenship didst find a shift toward more difficult tasks for participants in whom as well as for those in whom . Researchers didst find no support for the notion that this tendency would be greater in the former participants.

These findings make sense when interpreted differently. Repeated success doth build perceptions of competence (self-efficacy). Individuals then are more likely to elect difficult tasks because they feel capable of accomplishing them. In brief, individuals elect to labour on facile or difficult tasks for myriad reasons, and Atkinson’s theory may have overestimated the strength of the achievement motive.

Classical achievement motivation theory hath engendered much research. One problem with a global achievement motive is that it rarely manifests itself uniformly across different achievement domains. Students typically evince greater motivation to perform well in some content areas than in others. Because the achievement motive doth vary with the domain, how well such a global trait doth predict achievement behaviour in specific situations is questionable. Some theorists (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996) have proposed an integration of classical theory with goal theory; the latter is discussed later in this chapter.

It doth stand to reason that the impetus for accomplishment doth hinge mightily upon those factors inherent within the abodes of children. An inaugural investigation did scrutinise the interactions 'twixt parents and their sons (Rosen & D’Andrade, 1959). Children were set tasks, and parents were at liberty to engage in whatsoever manner they saw fit. The parents of lads possessed of a high degree of achievement motivation did interact more frequently, did dispense rewards and punishments in greater measure, and did harbour loftier expectations for their offspring than did those parents whose sons exhibited but a paltry inclination for achievement. The authors did conclude that parental pressure to perform with excellence doth exert a more potent influence upon achievement motivation than doth the parental yearning for the independence of the child.

Other researches, however, doth reveal that familial influences are not altogether self-executing. For instance, Stipek and Ryan (1997) did discover that whilst economically disadvantaged preschoolers did score lower than their more privileged counterparts upon cognitive measures, researchers did find virtually no disparities 'twixt these groups with regard to motivation measures. The achievement motivation of children doth suffer when parents evince scant involvement in the academic pursuits of their offspring (Ratelle, Guay, Larose, & Senécal, 2004). Children who do forge insecure attachments with their progenitors are at greater peril of developing perfectionism (Neumeister & Finch, 2006).

Albeit families may indeed influence the motivation of children, endeavours to pinpoint those parental behaviours that do foster achievement strivings are rendered intricate by virtue of the manifold behaviours which parents do exhibit with their children. To ascertain which behaviours are of the greatest influence is fraught with difficulty. Thus, parents may encourage their children to perform handsomely, convey elevated expectations, mete out rewards and punishments, respond with positive affect (warmth, permissiveness), and encourage independence. These selfsame behaviours are likewise displayed by teachers and other persons of import in a child's life, which doth serve to complicate the determination of the precise nature of familial influence. Another point to consider is that whilst parents do influence children, children also exert influence upon their parents (Meece, 2002). Parents do assist children in developing achievement behaviours when they do encourage pre-existing tendencies in their children; for example, children do cultivate independence through interactions with their peers and are thereafter lauded by their parents.

The scholastic understanding of achievement motivation stands in marked contrast to those theories which lay emphasis upon needs, drives, and reinforcements. Atkinson and his contemporaries diverted the motivational discourse away from a simplistic stimulus–response ( ) paradigm toward a more intricate cognitive framework. By accentuating the individual's perceptions and convictions as influences upon behaviour, these researchers, furthermore, transposed the focus of motivation from intrinsic exigencies and environmental determinants to the subjective experience of the individual.

Of significant import was the highlighting of both expectancies for triumph and the perceived worth of engaging in the task as determinants affecting achievement. Contemporary renderings of achievement motivation reflect this subjective emphasis and, furthermore, have assimilated other cognitive variables such as objectives and perceptions of capabilities. Current models also assign greater importance to contextual influences upon achievement motivation, recognising that individuals modulate their motivation according to their apprehension of their prevailing circumstances.

This section shall consider a contemporary theoretical perspective on achievement motivation as expounded by Eccles and Wigfield. In the subsequent section, another current view of achievement motivation—self-worth theory—shall be presented. Collectively, these two approaches constitute valuable endeavours to refine achievement motivation theory so as to incorporate additional elements.

Schema 'Contemporary Model of Achievement Motivation' illustrates the contemporary model (Eccles, 1983, 2005; Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield, Byrnes, & Eccles, 2006; Wigfield & Eccles, 1992, 2000, 2002; Wigfield, Tonks, & Eccles, 2004; Wigfield, Tonks, & Klauda, 2009). This model is of considerable complexity. Only its features most germane to the present discussion shall be delineated herein. Interested readers are directed to Wigfield and Eccles (2000, 2002) for an in-depth explication of the model.

It shall be observed, upon the left, that factors within the societal sphere exert influence upon the categories of cognitive processes and motivational convictions harboured by students. These societal influences encompass elements associated with the culture and the convictions and behaviours of significant socialising influences within the individual's milieu. The aptitudes of students and their prior experiences, likewise, bear upon their motivation.

The central segment of the model focuses upon students' achievement convictions in the present situation. Their cognitive processes entail their perceptions of societal factors and their interpretations of prior occurrences (attributions, or perceived causes of outcomes, shall be discussed subsequently in this chapter). Students' initial motivational convictions centre upon objectives, self-conceptions of abilities, and perceptions of task demands. More shall be elucidated regarding objectives later in this chapter, but the salient point is that students' objectives may not align with those of pedagogues, parents, and significant others.

Self-conceptions of abilities constitute students' perceptions of their aptitude or competence within diverse domains. These perceptions are task-specific and exhibit considerable variation across domains; thus, students may perceive themselves as highly competent in mathematics and English composition, yet less so in English grammar and the sciences. Task-specific self-conception bears a close relationship to Bandura's (1986) notion of self-efficacy (vide Chapter 4 and subsequently in this chapter); however, task-specific self-conception is more reflective of one's perceived ability, whereas self-efficacy incorporates perceptions of diverse factors such as ability, effort, task difficulty, assistance from others, and resemblance to exemplars.

Perceptions of task demands allude to judgements concerning the difficulty of accomplishing the task. Task difficulty is invariably considered in relation to perceived capabilities; the actual degree of difficulty is of less significance than individuals' convictions regarding their capacity to surmount the challenges and master the task.

The task value and expectancy components are delineated upon the right. Value pertains to the perceived significance of the task, or the conviction regarding why one should engage in the task. The comprehensive value of any task is contingent upon four components. Attainment value is the significance of performing well upon the task, for instance, because the task conveys salient information regarding the self, presents a challenge, or affords the opportunity to fulfil achievement or social exigencies. Intrinsic or interest value alludes to the inherent, immediate gratification one derives from the task. This construct is roughly synonymous with intrinsic motivation, as discussed subsequently in this chapter. Utility value relates to task significance relative to a future objective (e.g., undertaking a course because it is requisite for the attainment of a career objective). Finally, there exists a cost belief component, defined as the perceived negative facets of engaging in the task (Wigfield & Eccles, 1992). When individuals devote themselves to one task, they are precluded from engaging in others, and associated costs may ensue (e.g., academic, social).

The expectancy construct pertains to individuals' perceptions concerning the likelihood of success upon tasks; that is, their perceptions regarding their prospective performance. This construct is not synonymous with perceived competence; rather, it bears some resemblance to Bandura's (1986) outcome expectation, in the sense that it is forward-looking and reflects the individual's perception of successful performance. In the opening scenario, Jared appears to harbour high expectancies for success, albeit he is excessively preoccupied with surpassing others. It also contrasts with task-specific self-conception, which encompasses current convictions regarding perceived ability. Research indicates that heightened expectancies for success are positively correlated with achievement behaviours, encompassing task selection, exertion, persistence, and actual achievement (Bandura, 1986, 1997; Eccles, 1983; Eccles & Wigfield, 1985; Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000, 2002; Wigfield et al., 2009). Collectively, expectancies for success and task values are posited to influence achievement-related outcomes.

Research conducted by Eccles, Wigfield, and others furnishes support for numerous of the relations depicted within the model. Studies have employed both cross-sectional and longitudinal designs that assess the convictions and achievement of upper elementary and junior high school students over time. A general finding across several studies is that expectancies and task-specific self-conceptions serve as mediators between environmental contexts and achievement, as proposed by the model. Another finding is that expectancies are closely linked to cognitive engagement and achievement, and that values are robust predictors of students' choices (Schunk et al., 2008). These findings possess commendable generalisability, as the studies utilise students within actual classrooms and observe them over protracted periods (Eccles, 1983, 2005; Wigfield et al., 2006). A challenge for the future lies in exploring, with greater profundity, the links between variables and ascertaining how these fluctuate depending upon the classroom context and variables associated with students (e.g., developmental status, ability level, gender).

Atkinson's theory doth predict that achievement behaviour doth result from an emotional conflict 'twixt hope for success and fear of failure. This notion is intuitively appealing. Pondering upon commencing a novel vocation or undertaking a difficult course doth engender anticipated satisfaction from being successful, as well as anxiety o'er the possibility of failing.

Self-worth theory doth refine this idea by combining the emotions with cognitions (Covington, 1983, 1984, 1992, 2004, 2009; Covington & Beery, 1976; Covington & Dray, 2002). This theory doth assume that success is valued and that failure, or the belief that one hath failed, should be avoided, for 'tis indicative of low ability. Individuals desire to be viewed as able, yet failure doth engender feelings of unworthiness. To preserve a basic sense of self-worth, individuals must feel able and demonstrate that ability oft to others. The key is to be perceived as able by oneself and by others.

One means of eschewing failure is to pursue facile goals that guarantee success. Another means is to cheat, albeit cheating is problematic. Shannon might copy answers from Yvonne, but should Yvonne fare poorly, then Shannon shall, too. Shannon also might be caught copying answers by her pedagogue. Another avenue to avert failure is to escape from a negative situation. Students who believe they shall fail a course are apt to abandon it; those who are failing several courses may quit school.

Strangely, students can avert the perception of low ability through deliberate failure. One can pursue a difficult goal, which doth increase the likelihood of failure (Covington, 1984). Setting high aspirations is valued, and failing to attain them doth not automatically imply low ability. A related tactic is to blame failure on low effort: One could have succeeded if circumstances had allowed one to expend greater effort. Kay cannot be faulted for failing an examination for which she did not properly study, especially if she had a vocation and had inadequate study time.

Expending effort carries risk. High effort that produces success maintains the perception of ability, but high effort that results in failure implies that one hath low ability. Low effort also carries risk because pedagogues routinely stress effort and criticise students for not expending effort (Weiner & Kukla, 1970). Effort is a “double-edged sword” (Covington & Omelich, 1979). Excuses can avail students maintain the perception of ability; for example, “I would have done better had I been able to study more,” “I did not work hard enough” [when, in fact, the student worked very hard], or “I was unlucky—I studied the wrong material.”

Self-worth theory doth stress perceptions of ability as the primary influences on motivation. Research doth show that perceived ability bears a strong positive relationship to students’ expectations for success, motivation, and achievement (Eccles & Wigfield, 1985; Wigfield et al., 2009). That effect, however, seems most pronounced in Western societies. Cross-cultural research doth show that effort is more highly valued as a contributor to success amongst students from China and Japan than it is amongst students from the United States (Schunk et al., 2008).

Another problem with self-worth theory is that perceived ability is but one of many influences on motivation. Self-worth predictions depend somewhat on students’ developmental levels. Older students perceive ability to be a more important influence on achievement than younger students (Harari & Covington, 1981; Schunk et al., 2008). Young children do not clearly differentiate 'twixt effort and ability (Nicholls, 1978, 1979). At approximately age 8, they commence to distinguish the concepts and realise that their performances do not necessarily reflect their abilities. With development, students increasingly value ability while somewhat devaluing effort (Harari & Covington, 1981). In the opening scenario, Matt is a diligent worker, and effort doth not yet seem to imply lower ability to him. Pedagogues and adolescents shall work at cross-purposes if pedagogues stress working harder whilst adolescents (believing that hard work implies low ability) attempt to shy away from expending effort. A mature conception eventually emerges in which successes are attributed to a combination of ability and effort. Despite these limitations, self-worth theory doth capture the all-too-common preoccupation with ability and its negative consequences.

Theories of achievement motivation have, of late, shifted their focal point from general achievement motives to beliefs specificc to the task at hand. Goal theory, which shall be discoursed upon later in this chapter, doth lay stress upon the roles of goals, conceptions of ability, and motivational patterns in achievement contexts. In this section, we shall address task and ego involvement, which are motivational patterns deriving in great measure from inquiries into achievement motivation (Schunk et al., 2008).

Task involvement doth place emphasis upon learning as a primary objective. Students who are task-involved concentrate upon the demands of the task, such as the resolution of a problem, the balancing of an equation, or the composition of a book report. Learning is esteemed as a goal of considerable import. By contrast, ego involvement is a species of self-preoccupation, wherein students seek to avoid the appearance of incompetence. Learning is valued not intrinsically, but merely as a means of evading the perception of incapability (Nicholls, 1983, 1984).

Task and ego involvement reflect disparate convictions regarding ability and effort (Jagacinski & Nicholls, 1984, 1987). Students with ego involvement tend to perceive ability as synonymous with capacity, viewing it as a relatively fixed quantity assessed by comparisons with others (norms). The role of effort is circumscribed; it can enhance performance only to the extent permitted by one's inherent ability. Success attained through prodigious effort implies high ability only if others require even greater effort to achieve the same performance, or if others perform less well despite exerting comparable effort. Task-involved students, on the other hand, regard ability as closely akin to learning, such that augmented effort can, in fact, elevate ability. These students derive a sense of enhanced competence from expending greater effort to succeed, since learning is their avowed aim and, thus, implies greater ability. Feelings of competence arise when students perceive their current performance as an improvement over their previous endeavours.

Ego and task involvement are not fixed characteristics, and they are susceptible to influence by conditions within the scholastic environment (Nicholls, 1979, 1983). Ego involvement is fostered by competition, which encourages self-evaluation of abilities relative to those of one's peers. Students frequently vie for the attention of the teacher, for privileges, and for grades. Elementary and middle-grades students are often grouped according to ability for instruction in reading and mathematics, whilst secondary students are subjected to tracking. Feedback from teachers may inadvertently cultivate ego involvement (e.g., “Tommy, pray finish thy work; everyone else is done”), as might the teacher's introduction to a given lesson (e.g., “This material is of considerable difficulty; some amongst you may encounter trouble mastering it”).

Task involvement may be augmented by individual learning conditions, wherein students assess their own progress relative to their previous performance, rather than by comparison to others. Furthermore, task involvement is enhanced by cooperative learning conditions, whereby students collectively engage in tasks as a group. In support of these assertions, Ames (1984) discovered that students placed greater emphasis upon ability as a determinant of outcomes in competitive contexts, but stressed the importance of effort in noncompetitive (i.e., cooperative or individual) situations. A wealth of research has been devoted to examining how instructional and social factors exert an influence upon students’ motivational involvement (Ames, 1987, 1992a; Brophy, 1985; Meece, 1991, 2002; Schunk et al., 2008).