Cited by 900Education, Achievement, and GiftednessMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsPsychological Testing and Assessment

Achievement goals and optimal motivation: Testing multiple goal models.

Barron, Kenneth E., Harackiewicz, Judith M.·2001·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Abstract

Currently, there is a debate about which types of achievement goals promote optimal motivation. A number of theorists argue for a mastery goal perspective focusing on the adaptive consequences of mastery goals and the maladaptive consequences of performance goals. Others endorse a multiple goal perspective in which both mastery and performance goals can be beneficial. The purpose of the present investigation was to review why this debate has emerged and to offer a critical test of the mastery versus multiple goal perspectives. In Study 1, a correlational approach was used to identify the optimal goals for college participants to adopt for a learning activity. In Study 2, an experimental approach was used to identify the optimal goals to assign for the same activity. Each study revealed benefits of both mastery and performance goals, providing support for the multiple goal perspective.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.706

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Other goals, particularly mastery-approach goals, may be more salient at other points in the cycle and interact with other goals.

    “It is likely that other goals, particularly mastery-approach goals, may indeed be more salient at other points in the cycle, and interact with other goals (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001; Darnon, Dompnier, Gillie ´ron, & Butera, 2010).”

    From Why grades engender performance-avoidance goals: The mediating role of autonomous motivation. (2011) · cites this paper as Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M.
Affiliations
James Madison University (US)
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Published
2001
Volume
80
Issue
5
Pages
706-722
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
OpenAlex
W1979623518
Cited by
900
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 12 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 25 · 2023: 28 · 2022: 23 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 37 · 2019: 36 · 2018: 32 · 2017: 37 · 2016: 48 · 2015: 54 · 2014: 42 · 2013: 53 · 2012: 63
FWCI
23.41
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
achievement goals, mastery goals, performance goals, goal setting, student motivation, university students
MeSH terms
Achievement, Adult, Female, Goals, Humans, Learning, Male, Models, Psychological, Motivation, Problem Solving, Research Design

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review