Toward a Systematic Study of the Autonomous and Controlled Reasons Underlying Achievement Goals

• In Event: The “What” and “Why” of Achievement Motivation: Antecedents, Consequences, and Mechanisms of Achievement Goal Complexes

Abstract

To move the achievement goal approach one step forward, it has been argued that it is critical to go beyond the "what" (i.e., type) of achievement goals, thereby also considering the "why" of achievement goals, that is, the reasons underlying individuals' achievement goals (Elliot & Thrash, 2001; Vansteenkiste, et al. 2014). Although a variety of theoretical angles have been used to conceptualize these reasons (e.g., Dompnier, Darnon, & Butera, 2013), Self-determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000) is ideally suited given its long tradition in the study of individuals' regulations for action and goal pursuit. Specifically, on the basis of SDT, it can be argued that a person can select and pursue achievement goals for more autonomous or volitional and for more controlled or more pressured reasons. In the present two studies, we sought to build upon past research in this area by (a) addressing the reasons underlying athletes' intrapersonal (Study 1) and task-based (Study 2) achievement goals (the reasons of which have received less attention), (b) adopting a prospective (Study 1) and game-to-game (Study 2) instead of cross-sectional design, (c) shedding light on potential explanatory mechanisms (i.e., appraisals, self-talk, and need-based experiences) underlying the effects of autonomous and controlled reasons and (d) including a variety of both self-reported (i.e., flow) and objectively assessed outcomes (i.e., performance). We hypothesized that the autonomous regulation of achievement goals would come with greater benefits, while the controlled regulation of achievement goals would yield poorer outcomes.

Two samples of Belgian long distance runners 221 (62.4% males; M = 26.57 years; Study 1) and male Belgian soccer players (N = 185; M = 26.57 years; Study 2) participated, respectively, in a two-wave prospective study and a 5-game diary study involving five consecutive assessments. Participants indicated their preferred or dominant achievement goals and rated their autonomous and controlled reasons underlying their dominant goal.

In both studies participants favored intrapersonal-approach and task-approach above avoidance goals. In Study 1, path analyses showed that the type of preferred achievement goal yielded little predictive power, while the reasons were more critical. Autonomous reasons related positively to pre-race challenge appraisals and actual running time and, via need satisfaction, to flow experience. Controlled reasons related positively to pre-race threat appraisals, while also predicting both positive and negative self-talk, with both yielding opposing relations with flow. Using multilevel multivariate process analyses in Study 2, the results were largely replicated. During games that athletes adopted a task-approach goal for autonomous reasons, they perceived the game to be more challenging, which predicted greater goal attainment. In contrast, when their task-goal pursuit for a given game was more controlled motivated, the game was perceived to be more threatening, which related negatively to coach-rated performance.

These findings highlight the incremental value of moving beyond the "what" of achievement goals by also considering the "why".

Authors

• Maarten Vansteenkiste, University of Gent

• Jochen Delrue, Ghent University

• Leen Haerens, Ghent University

• Athanasios Mouratidis, TED University