An emotional approach to achievement goal theory : the role of emotion and goal orientation in response to failure and success

Goal theory research indicates mastery goal orientation (MGO) is more adaptive than performance goal orientation (PGO). This research looks at connections between goal orientation and emotion. The Emotional Stroop (ES) task gauged the interaction between goal orientation and individuals' emotional responses to a manipulated failure or success condition. University students (N=113) were assessed for level of MGO and PGO, anxiety (ANX), depression (DEP), and positive (PA) and negative affect (NA). Participants (49 female, 40 male) completed a pre-test ES task, a task to induce either success or failure emotions, and a post-task ES task. Regression analyses showed the interaction of MGO and PGO predicted ES interference for effort words. The interaction of PGO and condition predicted ES interference changes for evaluation words and positive ability words. The interaction of PGO and condition predicted ES interference changes for words related to solving the manipulation task. Correlations show that PGO correlated positively with ANX, DEP, while MGO correlated positively with PA. Emotion and Achievement Goal Theory iii Table of contents . Abstract 11 List of Tables . iv List of Figures . v Introduction . 1 Achievement Goal Theory . 4 . Motivation and Emotion 13 The Emotional Stroop . 20 . Hypotheses 28 Method . 29 . Results 38 . Discussion 59 Theoretical Contributions . 64 Limitations of the Study . 60 Conclusions and Directions for Future Research . 68 . References 71 Appendix A: Instructions for the Emotional Stroop . 81 Appendix B: Instructions for the Arena Search Task . 75 Appendix C: Debriefing Protocol . 76 Appendix D: Word and domain list for the Emotional Stroop . 77 Emotion and Achievement Goal Theory iv List of Tables Table 1 Inter-item reliability of BDI, STAI, PALS, and PANAS. 3 9 Table 2 . Mean Stroop word latencies for the Success Group males, females, and total group 40 Table 3 Mean Stroop word latencies for the Failure Group males, females, and total group . 41 Table 4 Standardized* Motivational Orientation Subscale Means and the Domain Specific Stroop Word Differences Score Means Within Success and Failure Groups . 42 Table 5 Correlations Between Questionnaires for all Participants . 44 Table 6 Regression of Standardized Mean Positive Ability Stroop Word Interference onto Group, Mastery Orientation, Performance Orientation, and Their Respective 2-Way Interactions . 46 Table 7 Regression of Standardized Mean Evaluative Stroop Word Interference onto Group, Mastery Orientation, Performance Orientation, and Their Respective 2-Way Interactions . 49 Table 8 Regression of Standardized Mean Failure Stroop Word Interference onto Group, Mastery Orientation, Performance Orientation, and Their Respective 2-Way Interactions . 561 Table 9 Regression of Standardized Mean Task-Environment Stroop Word Interference onto Group, Mastery Orientation, Performance Orientation, and Their Respective 2-Way Interactions . 53 Table 10 Regression of Standardized Mean Task-Strategic Stroop Word Interference onto Group, Mastery Orientation, Performance Orientation, and Their Respective 2-Way Interactions . 55 Table 1 I Regression of Standardized Mean Effort Stroop Word Interference Scores onto Group, Mastery Orientation, Performance Orientation, and Their Respective 2-Way Interactions . 56 Emotion and Achievement Goal Theory v List of figures Figure l a . Group by performance interaction for positive ability words . 47 Figure l b . Mastery by performance interaction for positive ability words . 48 Figure 2a . Performance by group interactions for evaluative words . 50 Figure 2b . Mastery by group interactions for evaluative words . 51 Figure 3 . Mastery by group interactions for failure words . 52 Figure 4 . Group by performance interaction for task-environment words . 54 Figure 5 . Group by performance interactions for task-strategic words . 56 Figure 6 . Mastery by performance interaction for effort words . 57 Introduction Picture the following scenario: two students, both of whom have high GPAs and proven track records at university, are given a test for a course they are both taking. They each receive the same set of questions, and both have the same base of knowledge. Neither of them does well on the test. One student accepts the results, and simply studies harder for the next exam, including taking the time to review the questions from the failed test. The other student drops the course, and complains about the unfairness of the test, or that the student could have done better, but did not really study. What accounts for the differences in how these students responded to failure? Both students have been equally successful in school; both students appear to have the same level of ability. Why does one student give up as soon as failure occurs, while the other student seems to take it as a challenge? This type of scenario is played out in educational settings throughout Western society (I would say across the world, but most of the data come from Western researchers). People who appear to be equal in ability and training can have completely different reactions to failure. These reactions to failure, which are emotion responses, affect academic motivation. There are several theories of academic motivation, but for this thesis academic motivation will be addressed from the achievement goal orientation theory perspective. Within achievement goal theory, the emotional aspects of motivation have been largely overlooked. In the above example it may be that the student who drops the course has a much more pronounced emotional response to failure than does the student who stays. Anger about a poor mark is an emotional response, as is feeling humiliated enough to drop a course. By overlooking these emotional components of Emotion and Achievement Goal Theory 2 achievement goal orientation, researchers may be neglecting a large part of the puzzle; why do people react differently to failure? The central hypothesis of this current study is that failure elicits an emotional response, and that motivating goals moderate the degree of that emotional response. Achievement goal theorists (Covington, 2000; Covington & Omelich, 1984; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliot, 1999) have asserted that in addition to the task at hand, people are motivated by self-presentation and self-development goals. Although researchers have used a variety of terms to describe these goals, here I will use the terms mastery orientation (focusing on mastery of the task and learning for the sake of learning), and performance orientation (focusing on self, and being primarily concerned with perceived external judgments of their own competence). This study will examine these goals as continuous variables. Research supports the proposition that persons are not solely mastery oriented or solely performance oriented (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Goals can be held simultaneously to varying degrees depending on the individual's response to a set task; for example, a student may work hard in a course to fully understand the concepts and master the material, but also be concerned with getting a good grade. Considering each as a continuous variable may be more realistic and informative than using the traditional dichotomous distinction between mastery and performance orientations. These construct distinctions are important if we are to explicitly address emotions. The interactions of emotion and goal orientations have only just begun to be explicitly studied, although relations between anxiety, depression, and goal orien