Achievement behavior is denned as behavior directed at developing or demonstrating high rather than low ability. It is shown that ability can be conceived in two ways. First, ability can be judged high or low with reference to the individual's own past performance or knowledge. In this context, gains in mastery indicate competence. Second, ability can be judged as capacity relative to that of others. In this context, a gain in mastery alone does not indicate high ability. To demonstrate high capacity, one must achieve more with equal effort or use less effort than do others for an equal performance. The conditions under which these different conceptions of ability function as individuals' goals and the nature of subjective experience in each case are specified. Different predictions of task choice and performance are derived and tested for each case. In this article, predictions of task choice, performance, and subjective experience in experimental achievement settings are derived, and relevant evidence is examined. An intentional view of behavior (Dennett, 1978) is adopted. In this, action is construed as a rational attempt to attain goals or incentives. In commonsense terms, individuals' actions serve to achieve purposes efficiently or economically. In the terms of games theory, action maximizes

/pdf/achievement-motivation-conceptions-of-ability-subjective-1pzqng26ay.pdf

Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance.

Proponents of the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT), most notably McClelland, have argued that the TAT and questionnaires are valid measures of different aspects of achievement motivation. Critics of the TAT have argued that questionnaires but not the TAT are valid measures of the need for achievement. Two meta-analyses of 105 randomly selected empirical research articles found that correlations between TAT measures of need for achievement and outcomes were on average positive; that these correlations were particularly large for outcomes such as career success measured in the presence of intrinsic, or task-related, achievement incentives; that questionnaire measures of need for achievement were also positively correlated with outcomes, particularly in the presence of external or social achievement incentives; and that on average TAT-based correlations were larger than questionnaire-based correlations. The theoretical implications of these findings are discussed. Over the course of 4 decades, McClelland, Atkinson and their associates have studied the motivational bases of human behavior. Much of their work has focused on the sources and effects of achievement motivation. This work has ranged from laboratory studies of the effects of need for achievement on performance (Atkinson & Litwin, 1960), studies of performance and success of people such as entrepreneurs in vocational settings (McClelland & Winter, 1969), training efforts aimed to increase the need for achievement of individuals (McClelland, 1965), as well as studies linking the achievement motive to the economic growth and decline of civilizations (McClelland, 1961). During this period a number of theories of motivation have been developed (e.g., Atkinson, 1957; McClelland, 1985). At the same time, McClelland, Atkinson, and their colleagues have devoted much research to the issue of measuring the need for achievement in individuals. The focus of this work has been the Thematic Apperception Test (TAT; Atkinson, 1982; McClelland, 1972, 1980, 1985; McClelland, Atkinson, Clark, & Lowell, 1958; McClelland, Clark, Roby, & Atkinson, 1958). TAT presents the subject with a set of pictures, general instructions to be creative, and a set of four questions to guide the respondent in writing stories. The respondent writes a short story interpreting each picture, and the stories are then coded for the presence of various types of achievement imagery. The TAT method of measuring the achievement motive has inspired substantial criticism as well as defense. Critics have charged that TAT measures of the achievement motive demonstrate poor test-retest and internal consistency reliability (Entwisle, 1972; Fineman, 1977; Weinstein, 1969) and have low and inconsistent correlations with actual achievement-oriented be

Validity of questionnaire and TAT measures of need for achievement: Two meta-analyses.

The first section of this paper introduces a set of constructs, develops a cognitive model of motivation, and derives specific propositions for the case of achievement motivation. The model describes functional relationships among expectancies, instrumentalities, incentive values, and valences, each of which is calculated separately for situations, actions, and outcomes. Each valence is calculated with reference to an outcome's anticipated consequences, both immediate and delayed. The model draws on, but reworks and extends, Expectancy × Value Theory, Bolles' Psychological Syllogism, Instrumentality Theory, Achievement Motivation Theory, and Causal Attribution Theory. The second section examines the model's fit to the body of data that bears on a central area of research in achievement motivation, namely task preferences. The last section scrutinizes the motive construct as a summary concept and divides it into six parameter sets which represent sources of individual differences.

Achievement motivation and its constructs: A cognitive model

A classic distinction in the literature on achievement and motivation is between fear of failure and success orientations. From the perspective of self-worth theory, these motives are not bipolar constructs but dimensions that interact in ways that make some students particularly vulnerable to underachievement and disengagement from school. The current study employs the quadripolar model of need achievement (Covington, 1992; Covington & Omelich, 1988) to explore how these approach and avoidance orientations are related to self-handicapping, defensive pessimism, and helplessness in Eastern and Western settings. Although there have been numerous calls for research of this kind across cultures (Elliott & Bempechat, 2002; Jose & Kilburg, 2007; Pintrich, 2003), little exists in the field to date. In Study 1, with 1,423 Japanese high school students, helplessness and self-handicapping were found to be highest when students were low in success orientation and high in fear of failure. These findings were replicated in Study 2 with 643 Australian students and extended to measures of truancy, disengagement, and self-reported academic achievement. Consistent with self-worth theory, success orientation largely moderated the relationship between fear of failure and academic engagement in both cultures. These results suggest that in the absence of firm achievement goals, fear of failure is associated with a range of maladaptive self-protective strategies. The current project thus represents a unique application of self-worth theory to achievement dynamics and clarifies substantive issues relevant to self-handicapping and disengagement across cultures.

/pdf/unmotivated-or-motivated-to-fail-a-cross-cultural-study-of-4dnttcjmml.pdf

Unmotivated or motivated to fail? A cross-cultural study of achievement motivation, fear of failure, and student disengagement

https://kar.kent.ac.uk/20132/1/Stoeber_&_Feast_&_Hayward_IntrinsicExtrinsicMotivation_2009.pdf

Prafulachandra N. Dave

Papers

Hope of success, fear of failure, subjective probability, and risk-taking behavior.