Goal orientation: Difference between revisions
m Typo and General fixing, replaced: with in attempt → with an attempt using AWB |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{Merge|Goal-oriented}} |
|||
{{Orphan|date=January 2011}} |
{{Orphan|date=January 2011}} |
||
'''Goal Orientation''' is a psychological construct that involves the attitudes and behaviors associated with achievement situations. Goal orientation is a mental framework that describes the different motivational approaches that persons embrace to reach goals and is a strong predictor of the individual behavior and performance. These orientations illustrate how people react differently to achievement and failure. |
'''Goal Orientation''' is a psychological construct that involves the attitudes and behaviors associated with achievement situations. Goal orientation is a mental framework that describes the different motivational approaches that persons embrace to reach goals and is a strong predictor of the individual behavior and performance. These orientations illustrate how people react differently to achievement and failure. |
||
Revision as of 11:04, 14 March 2012
 |
Goal Orientation is a psychological construct that involves the attitudes and behaviors associated with achievement situations. Goal orientation is a mental framework that describes the different motivational approaches that persons embrace to reach goals and is a strong predictor of the individual behavior and performance. These orientations illustrate how people react differently to achievement and failure.
Overview
Goal orientation has been conceptualized as a dispositional personality characteristic. Organizational researchers first treated goal orientation as a stable individual-difference characteristic. Nevertheless, other theoretical explanation suggested that goal orientation can vary as a function of people’s implicit theory of intelligence, which can be manipulated in experiments.[1] Therefore, goal orientation can exist as both a trait and a state, and one’s trait goal orientation has a direct effect on his or her state goal orientation.
History of Orientations
A theory related to goal orientation was proposed by Nicholls in 1975.[2] Nicholls believed that that individuals embraced task involvement or ego involvement. Task involvement defined success based on subsequent individual performance. Ego involvement defined success based on relative peer performance. This conceptualization is based on internal vs. external referents as opposed to Dweck’s conceptualization based on theories of intelligence.[1]
Carol Dweck (1986) originally proposed two types of goal orientation: learning orientation and performance orientation.[3] These orientations shaped task choice and task pursuit, and influence performance. Individuals with learning goals were believed to approach situations in an attempt to master acquisition of new skills, while individuals with performance goals were believed to approach situations with an attempt to gain approval from peers and teachers. It was originally conceptualized that students could not adopt both learning goals and performance goals as they were opposite ends of the same continuum. Essentially, researchers believed that one cannot be simultaneously high (or low) on both orientations.
More recently researchers have embraced the idea that individuals can adopt the two orientation style simultaneously: persons can be high in both learning and performance orientations, low in both learning and performance orientations, or high in one orientation and low in the other. Ultimately, individuals can entertain multiple competing goals at the same time. Persons can strive to both outperform competitors and improve their own performance. This led to the conceptualization of two separate continuums, one for learning goal orientation and one for performance goal orientation.[4]
Today it is recognized that performance goal orientation consists of two parts: performance approach orientation and performance avoid orientation. The opposing ends of the dichotomy are demonstrating performance to prove competence, and avoiding negative judgment from others centered around lack of competence.[5] Learning goal orientation has also been separated into two categories learning approach orientation and learning avoid orientation,[6] however, this conceptualization is neither widely accepted nor substantially proven.
Types of Goal Orientation
Learning Orientation (Mastery Orientation)
Learning approach orientation represents attention toward self-referent levels of performance.[7] Persons with learning approach orientation seek feedback on past performance to evaluate current performance. These individuals focus on improving skills and acquiring knowledge, and are less concerned with making mistakes. Research shows that adoption of mastery goals leads to greater intrinsic motivation as opposed to performance approach or performance avoid which are associated with external motivation.[8]
Some researchers proposed that there should be a learning-avoid goal orientation as well. However, this hypothesis is relatively new and little empirical research has been done to support the idea.[1]
Performance Orientation (Grade Orientation)
The performance approach orientation represents a desire to achieve a high level of performance.[1] Persons with performance approach orientation seek positive reinforcement and feedback. These individuals don’t want to put forth a lot of effort unless they will be positively evaluated, and tend to avoid tasks were they may make mistakes and therefore be poorly evaluated.
The performance avoid orientation represents a desire to avoid instances of low performance. Persons with performance avoid orientation focus on avoiding situations in which they will receive evaluations or risk demonstrating lack of confidence. Individuals high in fear of failure are more likely to adopt performance avoid goals.[8]
Goal Orientations and Achievement
Learning orientation was originally believed to be more adaptive than performance orientation. In 1997 a meta-analytic study that reviewed previous studies indicated that learning goals did in fact lead to better task performance.[9] Persons who have mastery or learning orientation are intrinsically motivated and are more likely to spend more time on challenging tasks. In the absence of a mastery goal a performance goal is adaptive.[10] Focus on the opportunity for learning and the development of competence leads to better task performance than does a focus on displaying high levels of ability.[3]
Upon, the multi-dimensional conceptualization of goal orientation researchers suggested that a focus on mastery and performance at the same time would result in the most positive outcomes.[11] Button and colleagues also noted in their study, when people are high on both learning and performance goal orientations they are mostly likely to have better performance.[12]
Development of Orientations
Theory of Intelligence
Dweck believed that students who adopted learning goals believe in incremental theory of intelligence, by which intelligence is malleable and can be increased through effort.[3] Essentially, the more effort the students put forth the more obtained skill knowledge. Student who adopted performance goals believe in the entity theory of intelligence, by which intelligence is fixed. Student believing in the entity theory of intelligence are less likely to be persistent when pursuing goals. In fact, the entity theory of intelligence is related to low competence expectancies.[8]
Classroom Instructions
Studies done on students’ goal orientation suggested that students’ goal orientations change as they progress from elementary to middle school.[13] Students place more emphasis on performance goals as they get older. Elementary school students tend to have more learning goals whereas middle school students have more performance goals. Midgley and colleagues suggested that school goal culture has an influence on students’ goal orientations, because elementary school teachers focus on learning goals to a greater extend compared to middle school teachers.[14]
Antecedents of Goal Orientation
Research on the antecedents of goal orientation proposed that cognitive ability, need for achievement, Big Five personality characteristics (openness to experience, conscientiousness, extraversion, agreeableness, and neuroticism), and self-esteem can predict individuals’ goal orientation.[1]
However, Payne and her colleagues found that not all proposed antecedents are predictors of goal orientation. Cognitive ability is not related to any of the goal orientation dimensions (learning, performance approach, performance avoid). The need for achievement is positively related to learning goal orientation and negatively related to performance-avoid orientation. With the Big Five personality characteristics, openness to experience and conscientiousness are the strongest predictors of goal orientation. A person with learning orientation is high on openness to experience, conscientiousness, and extraversion. One with performance approach goals has low emotional stability, and one with performance avoid goals is low on emotional stability and extraversion. Moreover, self-esteem is positively associated with learning goals and negatively related to both types of performance goals.
Consequences of Goal Orientation
Goal orientation has been studied in relation to many organizational concepts. Learning goal orientation and performance goal orientation have been compared and contrasted as to their effects on self-efficacy, task involvement, information sharing, feedback seeking, and training.
Goal orientation has been linked to self-efficacy and it has been found that low-learning/low-performance individuals have the lowest level of self-efficacy.[15] In contrast, high-learning/high-performance individuals had the highest level of self-efficacy. Students low in learning orientation had lover levels of task involvement than students high in learning orientation;[6] and students with performance goals are less likely to share information.[16] Also, people with learning goal orientation are more likely to seek feedback but people with performance approach orientation will only seek feedback if they believe the feedback will be positive.[1]
Ford and others suggested that training is more effective for people with the learning goal orientation.[17] Trainees can display different goal orientations across various learning situations, however, performance orientation is more stable across different skill acquisition situations than learning orientation.[18] Research also demonstrated that trainees with higher learning orientation engaged in more metacognitive activities (planning, monitoring, and revising behaviors) during learning. Conversely, performance oriented individuals reported lower ability to transfer performance at the end of training and were less likely to accept challenging tasks.[17]
References
- ^ a b c d e f Payne, S.C., Youngcourt, S.S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analysis examination of the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 128-150.
- ^ Nicholls, J. G. (1975). Causal attributions and other achievement-related cognitions: Effects of task outcome, attainment value, and sex. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 379–389.
- ^ a b c Dweck, C.S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040-1048.
- ^ Eison, J. A., Pollio, H., & Milton, O. (1986). Educational and personal characteristics of four different types of learning- and grade-oriented students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 11, 54–67.
- ^ VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 995–1015.
- ^ a b Pintrich, P. R. (2000). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544–555.
- ^ DeShon, R.P. & Gillespie, J.Z. (2005). A motivated action theory of goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1096-1127.
- ^ a b c Elliot, A. & Church, M. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.
- ^ Utman, C. H. (1997). Performance effects of motivational state: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 170-182.
- ^ Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461–475.
- ^ Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. T., & Elliot, A. J. (1997). Predictors and consequences of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1284–1295.
- ^ Button, S.B., Mathieu, J.E., & Zajac, D.M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 26-48.
- ^ Wigfield, A. & Cambria, J. (2010). Students’ achievement values, goal orientations, and interest: Definitions, development, and relations to achievement outcomes. Developmental Review, 30, 1-35.
- ^ Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom, and under what circumstances? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 77-87.
- ^ Hsieh, P. H., Sullivan, J. R., & Guerra, N. S. (2007). A closer look at college students: Self-efficacy and goal orientation. Journal of Advanced Academics, 92, 33-40
- ^ Swift, M., Balkin, D. B., & Matusik, S. F. 2010. Goal orientations and the motivation to share knowledge. Journal of Knowledge Management, 14, 378-393
- ^ a b Ford, J.K., Smith, E.M., Weissbein, D.A., Gully, S.M., & Salas, E. (1998). Relationships of goal orientation, metacognitive activity, and practice strategies with learning outcomes and transfer. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 218-233.
- ^ Yeo, G.B. & Neal, A. (2004). A multilevel analysis of effort, practice, and performance: Effects of ability, conscientiousness, and goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 231-247.