Achievement goal orientations and identity formation styles

Educational Research Review 5 (2010) 50–67

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Educational Research Review

journa l homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate /EDUREV

Achievement goal orientations and identity formation styles

Avi Kaplan ∗, Hanoch Flum ∗∗

Department of Education, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, Beer Sheva 84105, Israel

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Received 2 March 2008Received in revised form 22 June 2009Accepted 26 June 2009

Keywords:MotivationIdentity formationSchoolAdolescence

a b s t r a c t

The present article points to shared underlying theoretical assumptions and central pro-cesses of a prominent academic motivation perspective – achievement goal theory – andrecent process perspectives in the identity formation literature, and more specifically, iden-tity formation styles. The review highlights the shared definition of achievement goalorientations and identity formation styles as mental frames that guide interpretation ofsituations, define standards for action, and direct coping with challenges. Despite differ-ences in unit-of-analysis and general focus, both perspectives emphasize the qualitativedifferences between mental frames that are oriented towards self-development and thosethat are oriented towards self-worth validation and enhancement. Also, recent theorizing inboth perspectives highlights the role of contexts and situations in adolescents’ adoption ofcertain achievement goal orientations and identity formation styles. The article concludeswith research questions concerning the potential reciprocal relations between adolescents’academic achievement goal orientations and identity formation styles.

© 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

The notion that motivation, academic engagement, and identity are linked has been highlighted by scholars from manydisciplines (Davidson, 1996; Delpit, 1995; Erikson, 1968; McCaslin, 2004; Ogbu, 1987). Some scholars emphasized how groupidentity may shape quality of academic engagement (e.g., Ogbu, 1987; Oyserman, Bybee, & Terry, 2003; Steele, 1997). Otherscholars pointed to the ways by which school-life and quality of engagement may affect students’ identity (e.g., Davidson,1996; Delpit, 1995). Yet others described the co-construction of students’ engagement and identities (e.g., McCaslin, 2004).Currently, it is an accepted assumption that success and failure in academic tasks are fundamental building blocks in thedevelopment of contemporary youth’s identity components such as self-competence perceptions, personal values, interests,and career goals (Kaplan & Flum, 2009; Roeser, Peck, & Nasir, 2006; Super, 1980; Wigfield & Wagner, 2005).

However, whereas theory and research have been looking at the relations of academic motivation, engagement, and iden-tity components, little has been done to theoretically relate academic motivation to the processes of identity formation—thedifferent ways by which adolescents and emerging adults approach the task of identity. For the most part, theories of achieve-ment motivation and identity formation developed in parallel, with only few intersections (Roeser et al., 2006). In the pastseveral decades, theory and research in each domain made significant advancements in conceptualizing adaptive and lessadaptive orientations for coping with life’s challenges. The literature in each domain has also made advancements in under-standing contextual characteristics that would facilitate adoption of more adaptive orientations. Yet, the lack of theoreticallinks between the two bodies of literature makes it difficult to translate these understandings across domains. Particularlyat a period in which acquisition of knowledge is deemed insufficient for preparing youth to life in contemporary society, andin which education and schooling are called on to facilitate an orientation towards life-long learning and exploration amongstudents (Flum & Kaplan, 2006), we believe that there is much to be gained from understanding the ways by which differ-

∗ Corresponding author at: Department of Education, Ben Gurion University of the Negev, P.O. Box 653, Beer Sheva 84105, Israel.∗∗ Corresponding author.

E-mail addresses: [email protected] (A. Kaplan), [email protected] (H. Flum).

1747-938X/$ – see front matter © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2009.06.004

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/1747938X

http://www.elsevier.com/locate/EDUREV

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.edurev.2009.06.004

A. Kaplan, H. Flum / Educational Research Review 5 (2010) 50–67 51

ent identity formation styles may be related to different academic motivational orientations, and how facilitating differentmotivational orientations in school may affect the styles of identity formation adopted.

The goal of the present article is to lay a theoretical foundation for links between a prominent achievement motivationperspective – achievement goal theory (Ames, 1992; Covington, 2000; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliot, 1999, 2005; Maehr,1984; Meece, Anderman, & Anderman, 2006; Nicholls, 1989; Pintrich, 2000) – and process perspectives of identity formation(cf. Berzonsky, 1992; Bosma & Kunnen, 2001; Grotevant, 1987), most particularly the perspective developed by Berzonsky(1988, 1989, 1990, 1992). These two theoretical approaches developed from different research traditions. Nevertheless,the two traditions manifest some similar theoretical trajectories, and interestingly, seemed to have had some commontheoretical roots (e.g., the theoretical and physical proximity of Erik Erikson [1959] and Robert White [1959]). In the 1950sand 1960s, the major theories of achievement motivation (e.g., Atkinson, 1957; McClelland, 1961) as well as of identityformation (e.g., Erikson, 1968) were based primarily on psychodynamic processes. During the second half of the 20th century,some central perspectives in both domains shifted to include, and eventually rely on, socio-cognitive processes (Bandura,1986; Weiner, 1986 in motivation; Berzonsky, 1989 in identity formation). Most recently, perspectives in both domains havebeen emphasizing the roles of culture, context, and social situations in the dynamic way by which adolescents approachmeaningful challenges in their life (e.g., Volet & Järvelä, 2001 in motivation; Côté & Levine, 2002 in identity formation).

The present article aims to highlight the shared underlying theoretical assumptions of achievement goal theory andidentity formation processes—all this for the purpose of building a theoretical bridge that may promote mutual fertilizationbetween the two bodies of knowledge and invigorate future research. In order to achieve this task, we structured the article asfollows. We start with a review of the development of achievement goal theory: the socio-cognitive theoretical foundation ofthe theory, the characteristics of the main achievement goal orientations and their antecedents in self-motives and contextualfactors, and their relation to the school context. We follow with a review of the development of the identity formationliterature: the notion of identity, the constructs of identity statuses and identity formation styles, the characteristics ofthe main identity formation styles and their antecedents in self-motives and contextual factors, and their relation to theschool context. We then make explicit links between particular achievement goal orientations and identity formation styles.Finally, we end with the potential contributions of the links between the two perspectives to research and theoreticalunderstandings of motivation, identity formation, and the role of educational practice in facilitating adaptive engagement.Table 1 summarizes the main convergent assumptions underlying achievement goal theory and identity formation processesstyles.

1. Achievement goal theory

Achievement goal theory has become one of the dominant frameworks for the conceptualization of achievement motiva-tion, motivation in school in particular (Elliot, 1999; Pintrich, 1994). The theory has been employed in the past two decades topredict and understand student outcomes such as self-regulation, interest in the subject matter, and achievement (Covington,2000; Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, & Thrash, 2002; Kaplan & Maehr, 2007; Meece et al., 2006; Midgley, 2002). Muchconceptualization and research in achievement goal theory focused on the antecedents of achievement goal orientations andon their academic outcomes (see Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1999; Elliot, 1999). Importantly, however, relatively little attention hasbeen given to the potential role of achievement goal orientations in long-term developmental processes.

Achievement goal theory was formulated out of several research programs that converged on the idea that studentsconstrue meanings for achievement situations, and that these meanings involve a comprehensive purpose for engagementin action: achievement goal orientations (Maehr, 1984; Molden & Dweck, 2000).1 Despite the term “goals” in their label,achievement goal orientations were not conceived of as objectives to be achieved, but rather as more general purposes forengagement within which certain standards for success and failure are highlighted, more specific goals and objectives are set,and strategies for their pursuit are chosen (Anderman & Maehr, 1994; Pintrich, 2000).2 Ames (1992), for example, definedan achievement goal orientation as “an integrated pattern of beliefs, attributions, and affect that produces the intentionsof behavior . . . and that is represented by different ways of approaching, engaging in, and responding to achievement-typeactivities” (p. 261). Other researchers referred to achievement goal orientations as cognitive-affective schemas (Elliott &Dweck, 1988) or lay theories (Nicholls, 1989) that are applied to achievement situations. Thus, goal orientations can beviewed as rather comprehensive social-cognitive mental frames that guide the person in interpreting situations, processinginformation, confronting tasks, and coping with challenges (Kaplan & Maehr, 2002).

1 The different programs of research manifested in slightly different conceptualizations of the main constructs and somewhat different terminologyamong the researchers (Ames, 1992; Elliot, 2005; Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). The theory has been referred to as achievement goal theory, goal orientationtheory, and the achievement goal approach. These differences notwithstanding, we employ the more commonly used label of achievement goal theory.

2 More recently, some researchers have conceptualized achievement goal orientations as objectives, i.e., as concrete cognitive representations of desiredend-states that define what students are trying to achieve (for reviews see Elliot, 2005; Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). The present article does not address thisperspective. For reasons of presentation, we sometimes use the term “achievement goals” rather than “achievement goal orientations”. However, throughoutthe article we refer to the broader purpose (cf. Kaplan & Maehr, 2002) rather than to the specific objectives of engagement.

52 A. Kaplan, H. Flum / Educational Research Review 5 (2010) 50–67

Table 1Convergent assumptions in achievement goal theory and identity formation processes.

Assumptions Achievement goal theory Identity formation styles

Definition of central construct An orientation for engaging in an achievement situationthat includes the purpose of engagement; organizes andguides cognition, affect and behavior (Ames, 1992; Dweck,1986; Maehr, 1984).

An orientation for engaging in identity-relevant issuesthat involves a dominant cognitive-affective strategy;organizes patterns of cognition, affect, and behavior(Berzonsky, 1990).

Unit-of-analysis Engagement in achievement situations in domains such asacademics, sports, and career (more recently, also socialrelationships) (Kaplan & Maehr, 2007).

Engagement in identity-relevant issues in any domainincluding education and career, political ideology,religious beliefs, social relationships, and sexualexpression and roles (Berzonsky, 1990; Marcia, 1980).

Dispositional antecedents Self-theories of intelligence (Dweck, 1999);personality-based achievement needs (Elliot, 1997).

Self-theory (Berzonsky, 1992; Epstein, 1973);psychosocial maturity (Berzonsky & Kuk, 2005);personality attributes (e.g., Dunkel, Rapini, &Berzonsky, 2008).

Contextual antecedents Socio-cultural contextual emphases on the meaning ofachievement (e.g., learning, mastery, and growth orevaluation, competition, and demonstration of ability)(Ames, 1992; Maehr & Nicholls, 1980).

Socio-cultural contextual emphases on the meaning ofadulthood (e.g., individuality, innovation, and personaltransformation or collectivity, conformity andobedience) (Berzonsky & Adams, 1999).

Situational antecedents Strong situational emphases on improvement and learningversus on evaluative social comparison may overridedispositional achievement goal orientations (e.g., Dweck,1999; Nicholls, 1989).

Strong situational emphases on identity-relevantdilemmas and support of exploration or situationalthreat to self may override dispositional preferencesfor a certain identity style (Berzonsky, 1990;Waterman, 1988).

Styles of engagement Mastery goal orientation: Engaging in the achievement taskwith the purpose of learning and improvement. Involvesinformation-seeking, problem-focused coping, and highwell-being. Based in self-motives for self-development andgrowth.

Informational-oriented: Approaching identity-relevantissues with the purpose of gathering information andemploying reasoned decision-making. Associated withpsychosocial maturity and well-being. Based inself-motives of self-development and growth.

Performance goal orientation: Engaging in the achievementtask with the purpose of enhancing self-worth by publiclydemonstrating high ability (approach goals) or with thepurpose of protecting self-worth by avoidingdemonstrating low ability (avoidance goals) based onnormative standards.

Normative-oriented: Engaging with the purpose ofvalidating the self and protecting self-worth throughconforming to normative standards.

Work-avoidance goal orientation: Avoiding investing effortin achievement tasks; attempting to get-by without gettingin trouble. Includes numerous sub-types of differentcharacteristics.

Avoidant/diffused-oriented: Avoiding engaging inidentity-relevant issues; attempting to get-by withoutconfronting identity conflicts and dilemmas. Includesnumerous sub-types of different characteristics.

Multiple styles Individuals can and do pursue multiple achievement goalssimultaneously (Harackiewicz et al., 2002; Nicholls et al.,1989).

Adolescents have all three identity strategies in theirrepertoire and may adopt each depending oncircumstances (Berzonsky, 1990).

1.1. Achievement goal orientations

1.1.1. Mastery and performance goal orientationsWhile several categories of achievement goal orientations have been suggested (e.g., Maehr, 1984; Maehr & Braskamp,

1986; Maehr & Nicholls, 1980), research in achievement goal theory focused on two competence-related purposes: masterygoals and performance goals.3 Mastery goals refer to an orientation towards development of competence. More generally,mastery goals refer to an orientation towards personal growth and development that is based in effectance motivation—themotive to engage in behavior that increases adaptive interaction and mastering of the environment (White, 1959; see Maehr,1984). Thus, mastery goals refer to a psychological frame that involves defining success in relation to mastering the task itselfor to self-reference standards such as improvement over past performance and learning new knowledge and skills (Ames,1992). Mastery goals involve the beliefs that in order to learn and develop, one should invest effort, explore the material,collaborate, approach challenges, take risks, learn from mistakes, be imaginative, and express personal feelings and values(Nicholls, 1989, 1992). Importantly, mastery goals refer to a purpose of self-development and do not involve a concern withvalidating or protecting self-worth (Covington, 1992; Dweck, 1999; Nicholls, 1989). Therefore, people’s capacity to adoptmastery goals can be said to be based in a fundamental human propensity for exploration (Elliot & Reis, 2003) or in theunderlying motives for self-improvement and self-actualization (cf. Dykman, 1998; Leary, 2007).

3 Other terms used for mastery goals are task goals (Nicholls, 1989) and learning goals (Dweck, 1999). Other terms used for performance goals are egogoals (Nicholls, 1989) and ability goals (Maehr & Midgley, 1991).


Performance goals refer to an orientation towards demonstration of competence (Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1986). More gen-erally, performance goals refer to an orientation towards impression formation that aims to validate, enhance, or protectself-worth (Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1999; Dweck & Molden, 2005; Nicholls, 1989). Performance-oriented students are con-cerned with the way their ability is perceived by others and engage in tasks with the purpose of creating personal and publicrecognition that they have high ability or that they do not have low ability (Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1986). Thus, an impor-tant aspect of performance goals is a sense that one’s self-worth is contingent on perceptions of one’s ability by significantothers (Ames, 1992). Such recognition of ability depends on success according to externally and publicly defined standardsand norms such as high grades, outperforming others, and completing tasks with little effort (Ames, 1992; Nicholls, 1984).Hence, for performance-oriented students, learning, or increasing knowledge and skills, are not ends in themselves but aremeans to the end of demonstrating ability and enhancing or protecting self-worth (Nicholls, Cheung, Lauer, & Patashnick,1989). Generally, people’s capacity to adopt performance goals may be said to be based in the motive for self-enhancement(cf. Covington, 1992; Dykman, 1998; Leary, 2007; Sedikides, 1993).

Research between the early-1980s and mid-1990s focused primarily on investigating the association of adopting masterygoals versus performance goals with adaptive and less adaptive patterns of cognition, emotion and behavior. This researchfound ubiquitous support for the adaptive qualities of a mastery goal orientation as an adaptive orientation in its own right,and in comparison to performance goal orientation. Mastery goal orientation was found to be associated with a host of positivecharacteristics such as self-efficacy, the employment of deep learning strategies, self-regulated learning, adaptive coping withdifficulty and failure, and positive emotions and overall well-being (Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliot, 1999; Nicholls,1984; Urdan, 1997; Utman, 1997). Mastery goal orientation has also been associated with achievement, but not in a consistentmanner. In a meta-analysis that compared the effects of experimentally induced achievement goals on the performance ofparticipants, Utman (1997) found strong support for the benefit of eliciting mastery goals over performance goals (an overalleffect of Cohen’s d of 0.53). Studies in classrooms, however, have found mixed results concerning the relations of masterygoals and achievement, which may be due to different grading practices and standards (Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001;but see Senko & Miles, 2008). In comparison to mastery goals, performance goal orientation was found to be associated withless positive outcomes, and often with negative outcomes, but not in a very consistent manner (Urdan, 1997). This patternof findings was corroborated by numerous experimental, correlational and qualitative studies (for a review see Kaplan &Maehr, 2007).

1.1.2. Approach and avoidance achievement goalsWith the advancement of theory and research in achievement goal theory, several major developments were introduced

that changed significantly the original formulation conceived during the early 1980s. Among these developments was theintroduction of the distinction between approach and avoidance motivation into achievement goal theory (Elliot, 1997,1999; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Pintrich, 2000). Elliot and his colleagues argued that much of the inconsistency in findingsconcerning performance goals was due to the failure to recognize the conflation of two different achievement goals withinperformance goals: performance-approach and performance-avoidance. Performance-approach goals refer to an orientationtowards demonstrating high ability. Performance-avoidance goals refer to an orientation towards avoiding demonstratinglow ability. Indeed, as research over the past decade suggests, performance-avoidance goals are associated with a maladap-tive pattern of engagement, whereas performance-approach goals are associated with a more mixed pattern of outcomes,including negative but also positive outcomes such as high self-efficacy, positive emotions, and high grades (Elliot, 2005;Kaplan & Maehr, 2007; Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001). More recently, the approach-avoidance distinction was alsoapplied to mastery goals (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Yet, research on mastery-avoidance goals, which refer to engagementwith an orientation to avoid loss of skill and knowledge, is still relatively scarce (Pintrich, 2003).

1.1.3. Social goal orientationsAnother development in current literature on achievement goals is the attention to goal orientations other than mastery

and performance goals in achievement settings (Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). Early on in the development of the theory, researchersnoted, for example, that social strivings are powerful motivators in achievement settings (e.g., Maehr, 1984). However, inthe past several decades, most attention was directed at mastery and performance goals, and it is only relatively recentlythat social goals have become an important domain of research. It has been more common for researchers investigatingsocial goals to focus on the social objectives that students pursue in school settings, such as making friends, achieving socialstatus, and behaving responsibly (Anderman, 1999; Wentzel, 1991). However, researchers acknowledged that motives such asintimacy and social approval may and do provide orientations also for achievement behavior (Urdan & Maehr, 1995). Recently,researchers also focused on social relationships as an achievement domain and noted that students’ motives towards self-development and self-enhancement are likely to manifest also in social engagement. Recent work attempted to conceptualizeand operationalize the social goal orientations that are parallel to academic mastery and performance goals and that focuson the purposes of developing social competence (e.g., making close friends and increasing intimacy) and of demonstratingand validating social competence and worth (e.g., achieving social recognition and status) (Dweck, 1999; Ryan & Shim, 2006).Whereas research on social goals is expanding, and some recent work started relating social processes and identity in school(e.g., Faircloth, 2009), there is still much conceptual and empirical work to be done in order to distinguish among the variousdifferent motivational orientations that may be included under this very broad category.


1.1.4. Work-avoidance goal orientationAnother goal orientation to schoolwork that has been recognized as prevalent among students has been labeled “work-

avoidance” or “academic alienation” (Archer, 1994; Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988; Nicholls, Patashnick, & Nolen, 1985).Unlike the competence-based mastery and performance goal orientations, work-avoidance goals refer to a purpose of com-pleting the necessary work to avoid getting in trouble with as little expenditure of effort as possible. Students adoptingwork-avoidance goals can be described as disengaged from school and schoolwork, and those who are academically alienatedmay be said to be antagonistic to school. These students are not committed to achievement in school, and their self-concernsseem to lie in other areas of life (Archer, 1994). The achievement goal theory literature has paid less attention to work-avoidance goals than it did to mastery and performance goals. However, work-avoidance is a prevalent orientation towardsschoolwork that represents students’ problematic relations with academic engagement. Therefore, it seems particularlyrelevant to our current attempt at relating academic motivation and identity processes.

1.1.5. Multiple goalsAn additional emphasis in current achievement goal theory is the recognition that, particularly when assessed as dispo-

sitions, students can pursue multiple achievement goals simultaneously and to varying degrees (Harackiewicz et al., 2002).Indeed, along the assumption that mastery and performance goals are the respective contextualized manifestations of thehuman motives for self-development and growth and self-enhancement and validation – both motives that operate simul-taneously in individuals – it is reasonable to expect that individuals would be manifesting both types of achievement goalorientations. Still, personal and contextual factors often make people oriented more towards one motive over the other (cf.Van Yperen, 2006), and individuals vary in the profile of multiple goals they pursue (e.g., high, medium, or low on masterygoals and high, medium, or low on performance goals). Research findings suggest that different configurations of masteryand performance goals are related to different patterns of adaptive and maladaptive outcomes (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001;see Harackiewicz et al., 2002 for a review). Generally, findings indicate that profiles in which mastery goals are high are asso-ciated with more positive patterns of outcomes than are profiles in which mastery goals are low or lower than performancegoals (e.g., Levy-Tossman, Kaplan, & Assor, 2007; Meece & Holt, 1993).

2. The adoption and change of achievement goal orientations

As achievement goal theory emerged from different research programs, researchers differ in their conceptualization of theprocesses that give rise to adoption of mastery or performance goal orientations (Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). Several researchersemphasize more enduring personal characteristics such as students’ relatively stable lay theories about intelligence (Dweck,1999). A theory of intelligence as an innate and fixed attribute is hypothesized to gives rise to performance goals whereasa theory of intelligence as a quality that can be developed through effort is hypothesized to gives rise to mastery goals(Molden & Dweck, 2006). Other researchers emphasize the role of enduring contextual characteristics that send messagesabout the values and norms in the context such as the types of tasks students are assigned and the ways by which students areevaluated (Ames, 1992). Tasks that are geared to students’ interests and evaluation that acknowledges investment of effort,employment of strategies, and personal progress are hypothesized to emphasize and promote adoption of mastery goalswhereas tasks and evaluation systems that are uniform and standardized, and which emphasize competition and comparisonamong students, are hypothesized to promote adoption of performance goals (Ames, 1992). Finally, there are researcherswho highlight the role of characteristics of specific situations (Nicholls, 1992; Thorkildsen, 1988), or situated events (e.g.,excellent performance, Van Yperen & Renkema, 2008), in eliciting different achievement goals. Situational characteristicsthat trigger self-consciousness such as high-stakes evaluation are hypothesized to contribute to adoption of performancegoals whereas situational characteristics that highlight the possibility of enjoyable and meaningful engagement, such asgames and personal projects, are hypothesized to contribute to adoption of mastery goals (Nicholls, 1989).

Whereas research in achievement goal theory started by emphasizing the situated orientations that students adopted(Ames, 1984), the theoretical perspectives that emphasized the more enduring characteristics as antecedents of achieve-ment goals led to the conception of achievement goal orientations as cross-situational orientations (cf. Dweck, Chiu, &Hong, 1995a, 1995b; Dykman, 1998; Nicholls, 1989, 1992). Researchers recognized that people have a preference, or a pre-disposition, towards adopting mastery or performance goals (Van Yperen, 2006). Therefore, going beyond the assessment ofachievement goal orientations at the situation unit-of-analysis, researchers started to use questionnaires that asked studentsabout their general orientations towards engagement in a subject matter, in schoolwork, or even in life generally (Kaplan &Maehr, 2007). This research indicated that achievement goal orientations are relatively stable within learning environments(e.g., Bong, 2005; Nolen & Haladyna, 1990; Wolters, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996) and across subject matters (e.g., Bong, 2001; Duda &Nicholls, 1992; Wolters et al., 1996). However, other studies still pointed to changes in achievement goal orientations that tookplace when students made a transition between learning environments (e.g., Middleton, Kaplan, & Midgley, 2004). Researchthat pointed to the role of the learning environment in students’ adoption of achievement goals highlights the importance ofattending to the comprehensive characteristics of environments, including aspects such as social and emotional relationshipsamong teachers and students (Meece, 1991; Patrick, Anderman, Ryan, Edelin, & Midgley, 2001). Finally, experimental studiesin which students’ achievement goals were manipulated corroborate the potential power of environments and situationalcharacteristics to affect students’ achievement goal orientations (Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). Recently, several researchers sug-gested integrative models that highlight the interaction of personal, contextual, and situational characteristics in facilitating


adoption of mastery or performance goal orientations (e.g., DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Elliot & Church, 1997; Kaplan & Maehr,2002).

3. Achievement goal orientations and school contexts

Researchers working within perspectives that highlight the role of contexts and situations in facilitating adoption ofachievement goal orientations provided guidelines for environmental strategies that would encourage students to adoptadaptive achievement goal orientations. Despite the finding that performance-approach goals are associated with positiveoutcomes as well as negative outcomes, most researchers suggest that mastery goal orientation is the more adaptive moti-vational orientation and should be facilitated whereas performance goal orientation should be de-emphasized (Ames, 1992;Maehr & Midgley, 1991, 1996; although see Harackiewicz et al., 2002; Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). Broadly, recommendedstrategies for promoting mastery goals involve creating classroom contexts (Ames, 1992; Meece, 1991) and school envi-ronments (Kaplan & Maehr, 1999; Maehr & Midgley, 1991) in which schoolwork is personally meaningful to students andrequires deep and complex thinking; tasks provide students opportunities to exercise autonomy and explore novel ideas andproblem-solving strategies individually and collaboratively; and recognition and evaluation systems emphasize the valuesof personal progress and development, academic risk-taking, and learning from mistakes.

4. Achievement goal orientations: an interpretative summary

A large body of theory and research over the past three decades points to the theoretical, empirical, and practical utility ofconceiving students’ motivation along their achievement goal orientations: different mental frames that meaningfully guideindividuals as they interpret experiences and cope with challenges (Ames, 1992; Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). These achievementgoal orientations seem to be relevant to achievement in different domains of life, such as school and social relationships(Anderman, 1999; Dweck, 1999; Kaplan, 2004). Achievement goal theory emphasizes the important and meaningful dis-tinction between achievement goal orientations that seem to emanate from the motive to develop and grow versus thosethat seem to emanate from the motive to self-enhance and validate worth (Ames, 1992; Maehr, 1984; Nicholls, 1989).When oriented towards development and growth – mastery goal orientation – students manifest a positive pattern of cog-nitive, affective and behavioral processes and outcomes. When oriented towards self-worth enhancement and validation– performance-approach goal orientation – students manifest a pattern combining positive as well as less positive out-comes. When oriented towards avoiding harm to self-worth – performance-avoidance goal orientation – students manifesta maladaptive pattern of outcomes. In addition, some students are not concerned about competence and success and adoptwork-avoidance goals: they disengage from achievement pursuits and attempt to get-by with little effort and little trouble.

As the motives to grow and to self-enhance operate among all individuals, people can and do pursue multiple achievementgoal orientations simultaneously (Harackiewicz et al., 2002; Nicholls et al., 1989). However, theory and research suggest thatthere are individual differences in the disposition to pursue certain goal orientations over others, at least within domains(e.g., Dweck, 1999), and perhaps even across domains (e.g., Dykman, 1998; Kaplan, 2004). Despite the relative stabilityof goal orientations, contexts and situations can and do influence the achievement goal orientations that people adopt(Kaplan & Maehr, 2002). Interactionist perspectives suggest that the roles of dispositions, context, specific situations, orsome interactions among these characteristics in the adoption of the situated goal orientation would depend on the natureof the situation and the person (cf. Mischel, 1977). However, more theoretical development and research is required to specifythe complex processes that contribute to such achievement goal orientation adoption.

Achievement goal theory has become a dominant framework in conceptualizing and explaining students’ motivation andin guiding motivational interventions. Yet, several important questions remain (see Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). One such impor-tant question concerns the relations of achievement goal orientations with broader and longer term developmental processes.Whereas a few achievement goal researchers investigated developmental processes associated with achievement goal orien-tations, such as change in conceptions of ability and intelligence (e.g., Cain & Dweck, 1995; Nicholls, 1990) or environmentaleffects on the development of achievement goals themselves (e.g., Anderman, Maehr, & Midgley, 1999), few attempts havebeen made at theorizing or investigating the potential role of achievement goal orientations in developmental processes andtrajectories that may point to the potential long-term benefits of adopting certain achievement goal orientations in school(for a review see Anderman, Austin, & Johnson, 2002). In the current article, we suggest that achievement goal theory couldbenefit from theoretical links with the developmental processes of identity formation in adolescence.

5. Identity

Identity has been conceived in various ways in different fields (Côté & Levine, 2002). Arguably, in psychology, most contem-porary theory and research on identity is based on Erikson’s (1963, 1968, 1982) theory. Erikson described self-developmentas a life-long process that has the purpose of facilitating optimal functioning of people in their social environment. How-ever, Erikson assigned a special critical role to processes taking place during the stage of adolescence, in which the maindevelopmental task is achieving a sense of identity. It is in adolescence that the first integration of childhood identificationsand introjections occurs to result with a structure that provides the foundations for continuous reformulations of the selfthroughout the rest of the person’s life.


However, Erikson never provided a clear and concise definition of the term Identity. Indeed, he felt that identity is sucha broad concept that any definition would delimit its complexity and richness. Erikson was also critical of attempts tomeasure identity as a “variable” as such attempts necessarily narrow the meaning of the concept. In his criticism, Erikson(1968) noted components that are subsumed under identity but underdetermine it: “For the sake of logical or experimentalmaneuverability (and in order to keep in good academic company) [social scientists] try to treat [identity] as matters of socialroles, personal traits, or conscious self-images, shunning the less manageable and more sinister – which often also meansthe more vital – implications of the concept” (p. 16). Thus, for Erikson (1968), identity is not simply self-concept or socialroles and identifications. Rather, it is “a process ‘located’ in the core of the individual and yet also in the core of his communalculture (p. 22); it is at one and the same time the “conscious sense of individual uniqueness . . . an unconscious striving fora continuity of experience . . . [as well as the] solidarity with a group’s ideals” (p. 208). It combines the integrative dynamicoperation of the unconscious psychoanalytic ego, the conscious agent (i.e., William James’ “I”), and the perceived self (seeErikson, 1968, pp. 216–221).

This complex notion of identity presented a challenge to researchers who sought to investigate it empirically (Waterman,1988, 1999). Several researchers built on Erikson in an attempt to provide a definition for identity. Adams (1992), for example,defined identity as “an internalized, self-selected regulatory system that represents an organized and integrated psychicstructure that requires the developmental distinction between the inner self and outer social world” (p. 1). Marcia (1966,1980) defined identity as “an internal, self-constructed organization of drives, abilities, beliefs, and individual history” (1980,p. 159). Waterman (1984) defined identity as “a clearly delineated self-definition comprised of those goals, values, andbeliefs to which the person is unequivocally committed” (p. 331). Berzonsky (1992) defined identity as “self-constructedtheory of the self . . . [that] serves as the conceptual framework within which life experiences are interpreted . . .” (p. 193).Thus, researchers emphasized in their definitions quite different aspects of the Eriksonian notion of identity. However, thevarious definitions and research programs that are associated with them also share several important characteristics withErikson’s theoretical view. One is that identity involves an integrated psychological structure of personal attributes, values,and goals. Another is that this structure is self-constructed—its establishment requires the individual’s agency in identifying,selecting, and integrating abilities, beliefs, and goals. A third important aspect of the concept that all identity researchersshare is that the self-construction of identity takes place through social interactions that are located within the social–culturalenvironment. Finally, identity researchers agree that the more integrated and coherent the identity structure is, the moreadjusted the individual is. Individuals with a strong sense of identity are aware of their unique qualities, strengths, andweaknesses and they employ them adaptively in fulfilling their social roles in their groups and in society. When individualslack a sense of identity, they lack such sound and confident inner guidance in self-evaluation and action. As Marcia (1980)suggested, the less coherent and developed the identity structure is, “the more confused individuals seem about their owndistinctiveness from others and the more they have to rely on external sources to evaluate themselves” (p. 159).

6. Identity formation

A central tenet of Erikson’s (1968) theory is that achieving a sense of identity is not a simple matter. Erikson suggestedthat the normative Western culture allows adolescents a moratorium to experiment with a variety of possible social roles,values, and goals before making more firm commitments that provide the basis for a personal and societal sense of who theperson is. Such experimentation and selection is inherently a reciprocal interaction between the adolescents and their socialenvironment, and involves assuming roles and participating in important societal institutions. Erikson (1968) stated that

“in psychological terms, identity formation employs a process of simultaneous reflection and observation, a processtaking place on all levels of mental functioning, by which the individual judges himself in the light of what he perceivesto be the way in which others judge him in comparison to themselves and to a typology significant to them; while hejudges their way of judging him in the light of how he perceives himself in comparison to them and to types that havebecome relevant to him (pp. 22–23).

This complex description of the identity formation process highlights the multitude of concerns and actions that ado-lescents engage in while forming their identity; but again, and not surprisingly, it was deemed too vague to be a guide forempirical psychological research. In attempting to resolve the dilemma of operationalizing Erikson’s notion of identity andidentity formation, Marcia (1966, 1980, 1993) emphasized the roles of two aspects in identity formation. The first is theaction of gathering information, questioning, experimentation, and critical reflection on one’s identifications, beliefs, quali-ties, and roles—exploration.4 The second is the selection and integration of a personal set of goals and values—commitment.Commitment refers to “the degree of personal investment the individual exhibits” (Marcia, 1966, p. 551) towards certainideas and/or actions in different domains (e.g., occupation, religion, political ideology, sexual and interpersonal relation-ships). It is the integrated set of commitments that anchors the psychological structure which is the person’s core identity.Exploration refers to a process of reflecting on and raising questions about currently held identifications, values, ideals, androles, evaluating their relevance and choosing among meaningful alternatives. More comprehensively, exploration refers to“a deliberate internal or external action of seeking and processing information in relation to the self [that leads to] . . . the

4 Originally referred to as “crisis” (Marcia, 1966).


creation of self-relevant meaning with an integrative effect and thus the facilitation of development” (Flum & Kaplan, 2006,p. 100). It is the engagement in exploration that leads to the synthesis and integration of prior identifications, self-perceivedabilities, and experiences, which in turn lead to commitments to beliefs, values, roles, and goals that comprise the core ofthe person’s identity.

6.1. Identity formation statuses

In what became one of the most productive programs of research on identity in the past four decades or so, Marcia(1966) suggested that the dimensions of exploration and commitment can be employed to characterize the type or statusof individuals’ identity formation. On these theoretical grounds, Marcia suggested four such statuses: identity achievement,moratorium, foreclosure, and diffusion. Identity achievers engaged in exploration and, through it, autonomously selected,integrated, and made commitment to a set of values, roles, goals, and actions. Such individuals are considered to have a “self-constructed identity.” People in moratorium are in the midst of engaging in exploration: asking questions about childhoodidentifications, values, ideals, and expectations, and experimenting with roles without yet making any firm commitments.Their engagement in exploration is considered to be an indication of being on a path that potentially leads to self-constructedidentity. People in foreclosure have not engaged in meaningful exploration but have made high levels of rather rigid com-mitments to a single set of values and roles. These commitments are based, uncritically, on childhood identifications andothers’ (usually parents’) expectations. Finally, people in diffusion are not engaged in exploration, are not interested in, oravoid identity issues, and have not made any commitments.

These statuses represented to Marcia “both outcomes of the process of identity formation and structural properties ofthe personality.” More importantly, “each portrays a dominant mode of experiencing the world” (Patterson, Sochting, &Marcia, 1992, p. 10). Along this perspective, most research employing the identity status approach conceived of the fourstatuses as representing individual differences. Research that investigated the characteristics of the different statuses fromthis perspective, particularly in Western societies, suggests quite clearly that adolescents who have engaged in explorationand the self-construction of their identity (i.e., moratorium and identity achievement) are more adjusted than are adolescentswho have not (i.e., diffusion and foreclosure) (Berzonsky & Adams, 1999). Whereas the status of moratorium is associatedwith some anxiety and indecisiveness, both moratorium and identity achievement are associated with a sense of autonomyand with a positive problem-solving orientation. In comparison, diffusion is associated with a low sense of self-esteem, highanxiety and apathy, and problematic relations with parents. The status of foreclosure is associated with a high sense of self-esteem but also with rigidity of thought and with conformity. Also, whereas adolescents in foreclosure tend to have positiverelations with their parents, this relationship involves idealization and psychological dependence rather than mutuality thatrepresents relations among mature individuals5 (Berzonsky & Adams, 1999). These findings strongly point to the centrallyconstructive role of exploration in self-development and the formation of identity.

Several researchers suggested that the four statuses theoretically specified by Marcia can be sub-divided further. Empir-ical investigations suggested, for example, that the diffusion status can be sub-divided into various types, depending on theunderlying process for the diffusion: e.g., normative immaturity, temporary reaction to a stressful event, pathological condi-tion that reflects long-term developmental difficulties (Archer & Waterman, 1990). Individuals in different sub-categories ofdiffusion may also manifest different behaviors, for example, procrastination versus active avoidance (Lannegrand-Willems& Bosma, 2006). The foreclosure category was also found to include more than one type, including a “firm” type who isdependent on parents, can not imagine changing commitments, and who is likely to remain in foreclosure 2 years later, anda “developmental” type who is more open to the possibility of change in commitments and who is likely to shift to moratoriumlater-on (Kroger, 1995). In empirical research on the styles of approaching identity-related issues among middle-adolescentsin high school, Flum (1994) identified styles that paralleled the statuses specified by Marcia. In addition, however, Flumidentified a style of identity formation that involved a step-by-step exploration, rather than the all encompassing explo-ration characteristic of moratorium. Individuals manifesting this “evolutive” style expressed low confusion and seemed tohave established temporary and tentative commitments in certain domains that allowed them to explore other domains ina more gradual and circumscribed manner.

6.2. Adoption and change of identity formation statuses

Many studies have treated identity formation statuses as personality structures that constitute individual differences.However, theorists suggest that people move between statuses (Waterman, 1999). Moreover, theorists also argue thatcontexts play an important role in adolescents’ identity formation and its change, and that adolescents may even mani-fest characteristics of different statuses in different domains. Marcia and his colleagues, for example, suggested that evenafter achieving an identity, individuals go through cycles of moratorium–achievement–moratorium–achievement (MAMA)(Patterson et al., 1992). More comprehensively, Waterman (1982, 1999) suggested that, overall, the adolescent years representa developmental shift from diffusion to identity achievement. Prior to adolescence, children have not made firm commitments

5 It is noteworthy that the characteristics associated with foreclosure may not be seen as necessarily problematic in societies that hold family interde-pendence and collective identity in high regard (Phinney, 2000 in Arnett, 2004).


and have not engaged in identity-related exploration. Upon entering adolescence, individuals start to engage in explorationand formation of commitments, and many of them make the transition to adulthood with identity achievement. Empiricalstudies support this very general trend (Waterman, 1999).

Originally, some researchers argued that the identity formation statuses can be arranged along a relatively linear develop-mental trajectory leading from diffusion, either through foreclosure or not, to moratorium and then to identity achievement.However, researchers have been debating the nature of this developmental trajectory. Currently, most do not consider thefour statuses as representing a developmental continuum, but rather perceive shifts among statuses to be more dynamicand dependent on personal as well as contextual characteristics and circumstances (e.g., Kroger & Green, 1996). For exam-ple, Waterman (1999) suggested that upon entering adolescence, individuals may remain in diffusion, start to engage inexploration and move from diffusion to moratorium, or form commitments without exploration and move from diffusion toforeclosure. The latter two shifts represent to Waterman developmental progressions. Two other developmental progressionshifts that may occur later-on are moves from foreclosure to moratorium and from moratorium to identity achievement.

However, Waterman (1982, 1999) also highlighted the possibility of shifts that represent developmental regressions.Adolescents may become frustrated by their exploration efforts, decide not to form commitments, and move from moratoriumto diffusion. They may become disillusioned by their commitments and move from foreclosure to diffusion, or even fromidentity achievement to diffusion. Finally, contextual and personal circumstances may trigger questioning of commitmentsmade after a prior process of exploration and lead to a move from identity achievement to moratorium.6 Whereas Waterman(1999) noted that the moratorium status is theoretically more volatile than the other statuses, he also suggested that duringearly and mid-adolescence, experiences and contexts may often lead individuals to question commitments made and to shiftfrom foreclosure in certain domains. Such shifts are less likely to occur later in life.

Identity researchers also highlight the interaction between characteristics of the broader culture (cf. Baumeister &Muraven, 1996), formal institutions and social environments (Grotevant, 1987), and personal characteristics in promotingshifts between statuses (Kroger, 1995). Waterman (1982), for example, noted the opportunities that the formal and infor-mal contexts of school and college provide to adolescents for thinking about identity and exploring identity alternatives.In addition to promoting shifts between statuses, institutions and the broader socio-cultural values concerning the timingof roles (e.g., high school, higher education, occupation, marriage) guide adolescents to be more concerned with, and toconsider as identity-relevant different domains at different times. These cultural emphases would interact with personalcharacteristics, such as gender, ethnicity, and immigrant status, and with societal barriers such as racism, sexism, poverty,and parental expectations (Yoder, 2000), to constrain and guide further the domains that are and those that are not relevantfor exploration at different times to adolescents. In turn, these cultural processes interact with the characteristics of theproximal social environment (e.g., social models, prevalent values) and personality characteristics (e.g., openness to change,dialectical thinking) to facilitate the adoption of a certain identity status and the shift between statuses (Bosma & Kunnen,2001).

Thus, identity formation is a dynamic process, and adolescents are likely to engage in different levels of explorationand form different levels of commitment in different domains along development, and thus manifest, at least temporarily,characteristics representing different identity statuses in those different domains and at different times (Waterman, 1999).Theory and research, however, are still needed for investigating the operation of the myriad of cultural, contextual, social,and personal processes that contribute to adolescents’ adoption of a certain style of identity formation and to its change(Bosma & Kunnen, 2001).

6.3. Social-cognitive identity formation styles

Since the introduction of the identity status paradigm in the middle of the 1960s, the perspective has gone throughseveral developments which included diversity of interpretations and theoretical elaborations and integrations. Some of theseinterpretations and theoretical–empirical developments continue to emphasize psychoanalytical processes (e.g., Kroger,1992; Marcia, 1993). Others integrate identity statuses with different philosophical traditions such as humanism (Waterman,1992), feminism (Archer, 1992), and existentialism (Bilsker, 1992). Diverse as they are, all of these approaches share thefundamental assumption that exploration and commitment provide a sound operationalization to the process of identityformation (see Waterman, 1999). The criticisms of this approach have focused primarily on the need to embed identityformation processes in socio-cultural processes and to highlight the co-construction of identity and contexts (Côté & Levine,1988). Most relevant to the purpose of the current article and to the challenge of incorporating contextual processes intoidentity formation are theoretical and empirical developments that have conceptualized identity formation in terms ofsocial-cognitive processes.

The attempt to conceptualize identity formation as socio-cognitive processes can be attributed to the psychologicalzeitgeist of the late 20th century. Socio-cognitive processes such as self-perceptions and beliefs were included as ele-ments in Erikson’s (1968) notions of identity and identity formation, and Marcia (1988) himself ventured into integratingego-identity development with cognitive and moral developmental processes. More recently, several researchers proposed

6 Waterman (1999) notes that two shifts are theoretically anomalous: from identity achievement to foreclosure and from moratorium to foreclosure.Once engaged in exploration, one cannot form commitments without exploration.


models describing different affective socio-cognitive standards and feedback loops that characterize different approachesto identity formation (e.g., Kerpelman, Pittman, & Lamke, 1997). However, it is the work of Michael Berzonsky (1988, 1990,1992, 1994) which provides, perhaps, the most integrative perspective on identity formation and social-cognitive processes(Lapsley & Power, 1988). Berzonsky argued that individuals’ identity can be conceived of as a lay theory that they constructof themselves while interacting with their social and physical environment. Individuals employ social-cognitive informa-tion processing strategies that lead them to assimilate experiences to their self-theory or accommodate their theory toincorporate new experiences and understandings. According to Berzonsky, individuals in the different identity statuses aredistinguished from each other by their dominant strategies of information processing and decision-making concerning iden-tity issues. These strategies constitute different mental frames or orientations that guide people in interpreting situations,making decisions, and taking action.

Berzonsky identified three frames or identity-oriented styles: informational, normative, and diffuse/avoidant. Theinformational-oriented style involves a primary concern with the private self – personal characteristics and attributes –and manifests in coping with identity issues and dilemmas through proactive self-exploration and information-seekingand -gathering, evaluation of alternatives, and withholding decisions until more information is gathered. This style is asso-ciated with openness to new ideas and views, need for cognition, and problem-focused coping. The normative-orientedstyle involves a primary concern with the collective self – the perceived standards, norms, and values of the significantcollective-reference group – and represents the contingency of self-evaluation and worth on measuring-up to these norma-tive standards. This style manifests in coping with identity issues through a reactive attention and adherence to normativestandards, and deference to normative authority in identity-relevant decisions and action. This style is associated with defen-sive attitudes and reactions towards information that seems to threaten beliefs, values, and self-perceptions that are in linewith normative standards. The diffuse/avoidant style involves a primary concern with the public self – the situated impressionone makes on others and their consequent approval – and manifests in coping with identity issues either by avoidance and/orunsystematic and unconstructive processing of self-related information, by procrastination and unwillingness to engage inself-related decision-making, or by deference to the social standards that happen to be emphasized in the situation.

Adolescents, particularly late adolescents, are able to and indeed employ all three information processing strategies.Hence, individuals may be said to have “multiple” styles. However, many individuals tend to rely more on some strategiesover others. Empirical research investigating the characteristics of these styles either employs variable-centered correlationaldata (e.g., Berzonsky, 1994) or classifies individuals into styles according to their Z-scores on the style variables. Individualswho score beyond one standard deviation on only one of the variables are considered to manifest a “pure” style (Berzonsky &Neimeyer, 1994). Research on late adolescents who were classified according to Marcia’s identity statuses found overall thatindividuals in foreclosure rely primarily on the normative-oriented identity style, individuals in diffusion rely primarily onthe avoidant/diffuse identity style, and individuals in the moratorium and identity achievement statuses employ primarilythe information-oriented style. The latter finding, however, was found to be moderated by individuals’ level of commitment.Even individuals in moratorium or identity achievement manifested less information-oriented strategies in domains in whichthey made commitments (Berzonsky, 1989, 1990, 1994; Berzonsky & Kuk, 2000; Berzonsky & Neimeyer, 1994; Schwartz,Mullis, Waterman, & Dunham, 2000; Streitmatter, 1993). Thus, unlike models of identity formation that describe shiftsbetween statuses (e.g., Waterman, 1999), Berzonsky emphasizes a general style or approach to coping with identity issuesthat determines the developmental pathway by which identity is going to be achieved, or not (see Bosma & Kunnen, 2001).

6.4. Identity formation and school contexts

The role of schools in adolescents’ identity formation processes has been recognized by many, fore and foremost, perhaps,Erikson. Erikson (1959) noted that formal and informal schooling, or the systematic instruction that children receive fromadults and older children in, what he termed, “basic skills of technology” (p. 83) is a cross-cultural phenomenon. It is throughschooling that the child encounters opportunities to identify with adults who have knowledge and skills, practice abilities,learn to cooperate, and develop a sense of competence. It is through schooling that the child resolves the psychosocialconflict of Industry versus Inferiority, which results with a set of identifications and sense of competence that provide theproximal psychosocial material for the formation of identity. Moreover, the schooling context provides adolescents ampleopportunities to explore and experiment with different contents, social roles, and vocational possibilities.

Some researchers investigated the adaptation of students with different identity formation statuses and styles to thenormative college environment. Berzonsky and Kuk (2005), for example, found that freshmen’s identity formation styleswere related to their adjustment in college. Students with different dominant identity styles did not differ on their aca-demic ability (as measured by their SAT scores); however, in comparison to students who adopted primarily a normativeor a diffuse/avoidant-oriented styles, those who employed primarily an informational-oriented identity style had higherachievement scores, sense of purpose for their education, self-regulation of learning, self-management of resources, andtolerance and willingness to relate to others from diverse backgrounds and with different views. These informational-oriented students also reported lower dependence on others’ approval than students adopting either of the two otherstyles. The diffuse/avoidant-oriented students manifested a maladjusted pattern of outcomes indicating that such studentsmay be at risk, both academically and socially. The normative-oriented style was associated with clear purposes and goalsof education, but with less emotional maturity, personal autonomy, and tolerance of diversity. Berzonsky and Kuk sug-gested that normative-oriented students may do well in well-structured educational environments where expectations


and standards are clear, but may experience difficulty in environments that emphasize independence and self-directedlearning.

Marcia’s identity status approach was criticized for not attending to the important role that social contexts such as schoolsplayed in Erikson’s identity theory (Côté & Levine, 1988; Schwartz, 2001, 2005; van Hoof, 1999; Yoder, 2000). But while theimportance of context in the formation of identity has been a topic of interest in the past couple of decades (e.g., Grotevant,1987; Phinney & Goossens, 1996), research on the role of school contexts in the nature of identity formation processes hasbeen scarce enough to lead Lannegrand-Willems and Bosma (2006) to state recently that “The study of identity formation inthe school context is still a wasteland” (p. 87). The few studies that did look at the possible role of school contexts on students’identity formation processes indicate that self-related school domains, such as private and public academic self-concepts,coping strategies with schoolwork challenge, and social relations in the school comprise important domains for explorationand formation of commitments. The findings also suggest that exploration and commitment are dynamic and are dependenton situational and contextual characteristics in school including socioeconomic background of the school, achievement indifferent domains, and time along the school year (Lannegrand-Willems & Bosma, 2006).

While the notion of schools as contexts within which identity formation takes shape does not feature frequently in theidentity formation literature, a few theorists recommended school interventions that may facilitate adaptive identity forma-tion processes. Waterman (1989), for example, recommended the construction of “practices and curricula that encouragestudents to reflect upon a variety of alternative identity possibilities, promote the gathering of information necessary for thesuccessful resolution of an identity crisis, and encourage the formation of strong, personally expressive identity commit-ments” (p. 390). Among the specific strategies that Waterman suggested was an emphasis on the notion that problems havemultiple possible answers, encouraging students to construct alternative solutions, and facilitating discussion of strengthsand limitations of solutions. Such strategies, he argued, “may increase the willingness for students to seek to put as manyoptions as possible on the table before trying to reach decisions, whether about problems raised in their coursework or intheir personal lives” (p. 391).

Clearly, much work is still required in order to make practical recommendations to educators concerning the facilitationof adaptive identity formation in school (Flum & Kaplan, 2006). The variety of exploration processes and their relevance todifferent settings, including the consideration of characteristics of educational contexts, students, subject matters, and stagein learning the material, suggest that no prescription can fit all. Rather, what is required are general principles for creationof educational environments that trigger exploration and reflection, and provide the necessary encouragement and supportin the process of exploration and formation of commitments (Kaplan & Flum, 2006, 2009).

6.5. Identity formation: an interpretative summary

The field of identity formation in adolescence concerns the ways by which adolescents come to understand who they are.Over the past few decades, theory and research highlighted qualitative differences between different ways of confrontingidentity issues in various domains. Different ways of engaging in the task of identity formation fundamentally representthe combined operation of ego and social-cognitive processes (Erikson, 1968; Marcia, 1980). These different approachesmanifest in different social-cognitive mental frames that guide the adolescent in interpreting identity-relevant situationsand in adopting standards for and mode of action for coping with specific identity-relevant dilemmas and questions. Whileresearchers acknowledge that each of the various frames may be adaptive in certain specific situations, there is consensusthat identity formation orientations that are geared primarily towards self-transformation and growth and that involveexploration are developmentally more beneficial than identity formation orientations that are geared primarily towards self-validation or enhancement and that do not involve exploration. Whereas there are many different ways by which adolescentsmay engage in the task of identity formation, the literature emphasizes three general categories. Broadly, the first categorydescribes a primary concern with the adaptive development of private self-attributes in the relevant social environment. Thisgrowth-oriented approach, which is characterized by the status of moratorium and by the evolutive or the informational-oriented styles of identity formation, involves interpreting identity-relevant situations along their potential to contribute tothe complexity of the self and its adaptation to the social environment. The action that this frame calls for includes internal andexternal exploration such as self-reflection, information-gathering, and in-depth processing that aim to advance informedidentity-relevant decisions concerning values, beliefs and goals. Such action is accompanied by a sense of autonomy andopenness to new information and ideas. Whereas self-worth concerns and anxiety are not incidental to this approach, suchconcerns do not become primary in the framework but rather provide additional experiences to explore and understand in theprocess of forming a coherent sense of self-identity. With its primary concern being the development of self-understandingand adaptive integration of the self and the social environment, this approach can be generally viewed as emanating fromthe motive for self-development and self-actualization (cf. Leary, 2007).

The second category describes a primary concern with validation and enhancement of the self along normative standardsthat the person adopted uncritically. This validation-oriented approach is characterized by the status of foreclosure, or bythe normative-oriented identity style, and is based in a self that is comprised of commitments to values, beliefs, and goalsthat were adopted from significant others’ expectations. This approach guides the individual to interpret situations in lightof their potential to confirm or invalidate self-worth along these internalized normative standards. The action called for bythis approach involves conforming and attempting to excel according to normative standards. It also involves avoiding andrejecting experiences and information that seem to threaten perceptions of oneself as measuring-up to or as excelling along


these standards. With its primary concern being the validation and enhancement of self-worth along established and oftenconservative normative standards, this approach seems to be based primarily in the motive for self-enhancement (cf. Leary,2007).

The third category describes a general lack of a stable coherent core of personal beliefs and values and the reliance onsituated indicators by significant others as standards for self-perceptions and for action. Characterized in the literature asthe diffusion status, or as the diffuse/avoidant-oriented identity style, this avoidant-oriented approach to identity is basedin a self that is fragmented and that is staked on the peer-group’s perceptions and ascription of roles. This approach guidesthe individual to interpret situations in light of the immediate values emphasized by significant others, mostly peers. Theapproach calls for the avoidance of meaningful engagement in identity-relevant tasks and deference to the situated norms ofthe significant peer group for decisions and action. Whereas self-worth concerns seem to play primary role in this approach,these concerns are not anchored in any stable set of values, beliefs, and goals. Rather, such self-worth concerns are volatile,could aim at different standards depending on the situation, and seem to represent primarily the motive for social approvalor acceptance.

Adolescents can and do have in their repertoire all three approaches to identity described above. However, adolescentsdiffer from each other with regard to the primary approach they would employ in identity-relevant situations. These primaryidentity-processing orientations are likely to manifest mostly in the domains that are subjectively construed as central tothe self-definition. In other domains, the adolescent may employ a different strategy to confront challenges and questions.Moreover, situations might be able to override the adolescent’s primary identity-processing strategy by strongly highlightingself-worth or by providing a very secure environment in which making mistakes has little consequence. Certainly, individualschange their primary approach with development, and personal, contextual, and situational circumstances play a role in thesechanges.

7. Identity formation and achievement goal orientations

Schooling is recognized by identity theorists to be an important context for identity formation processes (Grotevant,1987). Clearly, as school is central in the life of many adolescents, their styles of identity formation are likely to manifest inthe multiple identity-related challenges they face in school. It can be expected, for example, that students’ identity formationstyles would affect the way they cope with social dilemmas and relationships with peers in school (e.g., group-membership,friendship and intimacy, and social conflict) as well as with adults (e.g., authority, conformity, approval, rebellion). It can alsobe expected that students’ identity formation styles would manifest in the way they engage in schoolwork—that is, in theirmotivational orientations.

Within the broad domains of identity and academic motivation and their possible relations (see Kaplan & Flum, 2009),achievement goal orientations and identity formation styles seem to share a theoretical emphasis: both perspectives high-light the centrality of the mental frames that guide adolescents in interpretation of experiences and in taking action. Bothperspectives also rely fundamentally on self-development and self-enhancement motives that facilitate mastering of andadaptation to one’s physical and social environment (Erikson, 1968; White, 1959). Both perspectives suggest that certainframes or styles of problem-solving are more oriented to mastery, exploration, and self-development whereas others seemto emerge from or serve self-enhancement and concerns of self-worth. Both perspectives also currently hold the view thatindividuals have in their repertoire multiple frames or orientations; that individuals may manifest a disposition towardsemploying a certain orientation over others; that social contexts and situations may prompt the adoption of an orientationthat may or may not correspond to the dispositional orientation; and that individuals may manifest different orientationsin different domains. Some differences between the perspectives notwithstanding,7 these shared theoretical assumptionsprovide a basis for making links between identity formation styles and achievement goal orientations. Table 1 summarizesthe convergent and divergent assumptions of achievement goal theory and identity formation styles.

The review above seems to point to similar underlying theoretical assumptions concerning mastery goal orientationand the identity formation styles that involve exploration. Both concepts describe mental frames that lead to interpretingsituations along their potential for development and growth. Both concepts also refer to action that includes information-gathering and in-depth processing, to affective experiences that include a sense of self-direction and generally high well-being, and to coping with difficulty through problem-focused strategies. While informational-oriented identity style focuseson the self, and mastery goal orientation focuses on the task, it may be possible to hypothesize that mastery goal orientationwould be the dominant mental frame adopted by informational-oriented adolescents when they engage in an identity-relevant achievement task. When the content and skills involved in the achievement task are interpreted as potentiallycontributing to the development of the self, it is very likely that the student would engage in the task with the purposeof learning the content and mastering the skills. As the student is informational-oriented, it is likely that beyond learningthe material, the student would be likely to engage in reflection on the self-transformation that occurred through task-engagement. Such reflection is not commonly included in definitions of mastery goals.8 However, recently, Flum and Kaplan

7 For example, in primary focus (i.e., self versus achievement task) or in main unit-of-analysis (i.e., general identity issues versus the achievement domain).8 Interestingly, identity theorists also do not assume that self-construction of identity takes place only through intentional conscious processes. In fact,

Erikson (1968) indicated that the process of self-development “is luckily, and necessarily, for the most part unconscious” (p. 23).


(2006) suggested that for facilitating development in educational settings, mastery goal orientation should be enhanced by anemphasis on explicit self-reflection and exploration of engagement experiences. Conceiving of mastery goal orientation withsuch added elements of self-reflection and exploration – an “exploratory orientation” (Flum & Kaplan, 2006) – introducesthe self, in addition to the content of the task, as a focus of learning. The notion of such a motivational orientation highlightsthe possibility of reciprocal effects between identity formation styles and achievement goal orientations. Indeed, wheneducational environments emphasize mastery of content and skills in a way that makes the student self-aware, masterygoal orientation and informational-oriented identity styles may converge, as expressed in the words of a student in AlvernoCollege—an educational environment with the credo that “learning is a change in the self” (Kegan, 1994, p. 297):

I know [these changes] would not have happened if I was going to another kind of institution because [here] you haveto keep turning back to yourself . . . I don’t see how anyone can do [this without] . . . finding out who the hell they are. . . [Because] every time you sit down to write a learning agreement you have to say “what do I want to learn out ofthis? What’s valid? What is it that I need to know so I can do the work I want to do? (Taylor, 1991 in Kegan, 1994, p.297).

In light of the similarity between the two concepts, it is not surprising that identity formation theorists and achievementgoal theorists share notions of the characteristics of social environments that would elicit exploration-oriented identityformation styles and mastery goal orientation. Such characteristics include encouragement of meaningful questions aboutthe world and about values, facilitation of independence and autonomy, and recognition and support of the need for securesocial structure, social relationships, and emotional support (Marcia, 1988; Patrick, 2004; Turner et al., 2002).

Normative-oriented identity style and performance goal orientation also seem to share underlying processes. Both con-cepts refer to mental frames that are based in commitments to the normative standards of the significant collective. In bothframes, the individual’s self-worth is contingent on measuring-up to the standards. Hence, both frames guide interpretationof situations along the potential for validation and enhancement of self-worth. Action under both mental frames involvesconforming to and attempting to validate the self along normative standards of excellence. When perceiving opportunitiesfor validation and enhancement, both normative-oriented and performance-approach goals oriented adolescents expresspositive affect and high well-being, strive for validation, and yet apply narrow and rigid cognitive strategies. When perceiv-ing a risk of failure to validate the self, both normative-oriented and performance-avoidance oriented adolescents expressnegative emotions, defensive reactions, and emotion-focused coping strategies.

Normative-oriented identity style focuses generally on standards of significant others (mostly parents) that were adopteduncritically. In comparison, the standards that provide the focus for performance goal orientation are focused more specifi-cally on relative ability. However, ability and its public evaluation, particularly in highly regarded subjects, can be consideredto be a prime example of the standards of excellence that parents expect of their children, and that children adopt asindicators of their global self-worth (Dweck, 1999). Therefore, performance goal orientation can be considered to be theachievement-contextualized manifestation of the normative-oriented identity style. Indeed, unlike the somewhat disparatefoci of the informational-oriented style and mastery goal orientation, both the normative-oriented style and performancegoal orientation focus on evaluation of the self.

Finally, one may find some similar underlying processes among diffuse/avoidant-oriented identity styles, work-avoidantgoals, and perhaps some forms of social goals that aim at situated social approval. In this case, however, the theoretical linksare more circumspect due to the fact that the diffuse/avoidant style, work-avoidance goals, and social goals may be describingseveral distinct sub-categories. The diffuse/avoidant style may be considered to share lack of commitment to the normativestandards with work-avoidance goals and an orientation to situated approval with some social goals. Beyond this commonground, however, there may be numerous sub-categories of these concepts that could be similar or quite different fromeach other. For example, the classic diffuse/avoidant-oriented orientation may share many underlying processes with a sub-category of work-avoidance and social goals that represents early adolescents who are disengaged from schoolwork becausetheir main pre-occupation is with the approval of the peer-group who is not concerned with schoolwork. Alternatively,diffuse/avoidant-oriented style may have little shared with middle-adolescents who are disengaged from school becausethey and their peers made commitments to, albeit transient, contents that are not school-bound, such as computer games.The diffuse/avoidant-oriented style may have even less shared with the adolescent who decided to temporarily disengagefrom school as part of a process of self-exploration. More theoretical exploration and empirical research are required to map-out the possible underlying processes of work-avoidance goals and of social goals—sometimes measured but under-theorizedmotivational orientations.

8. Future directions for theory and research

The theoretical links presented above raise at least two categories of research questions, which represent complementaryperspectives on the relations of identity formation styles and achievement goal orientations. One category of research ques-tions concerns the effect of identity formation styles on achievement goal orientations. As described above, it is possible toconceive of achievement goal orientations in identity-relevant domains and situations as the manifestation of more disposi-tional identity formation styles. Support for such hypotheses could lead to better understanding of the nature and operationof achievement goal orientations. It may also open venues to consider factors found to contribute to dispositional identityformation styles as antecedents of achievement goal orientations. These would include significant developmental events and


relationships thought to underlie the resolution of developmental conflicts that precede the identity/identity diffusion con-flict of adolescents. Initial work already supported relations between attachment processes and achievement goals (Elliot& Reis, 2003). Additional hypotheses could focus more specifically on particular child-rearing practices, sibling relations,peers and social identity processes, early-education experiences, traumatic events such as sickness or loss of a parent, andimportantly, inner change or cognitive-affective maturation (cf. Kroger, 1995). Research in this perspective should investigatethe mediating role of identity formation styles in the relations of such early experiences and achievement goal orientations.It should also investigate hypotheses concerning potential moderators such as commitments (cf. Berzonsky & Neimeyer,1994) and hypotheses concerning cases in which a relationship between identity formation styles and achievement goals isnot expected to be strong, such as in domains less central to the adolescent’s identity.

The effect of identity formation on achievement goal orientations could also be considered at the more situated unit-of-analysis. It can be hypothesized that eliciting certain identity formation processes would facilitate a change in achievementgoals. Such a hypothesis can be said to receive support from manipulations of performance goal orientations that highlight theperson’s standing on normative standards of excellence. More interesting would be the hypothesis that facilitating explorationmay shift students’ achievement goal orientations from performance goals, work-avoidance goals, or social approval goalsto mastery goals. An interesting recent example is provided by Djikic and Langer (2007) who highlighted the possibilityof making automatic social comparison processes that were originally focused on self-validation and enhancement moremindful and hence facilitative of development.

A second category of interesting research questions concerns the effect of achievement goal orientations on identityformation processes and styles. Particularly in identity relevant domains, research should investigate hypotheses concerningthe potential role of contextual and situated achievement goal orientations in facilitating a change in identity formationprocesses. Indeed, the mechanisms by which contexts can effect a change in identity formation comprise a domain in needof further theorizing and empirical research (Bosma & Kunnen, 2001; Schwartz, 2008). This is particularly the case concerningschool contexts (Lannegrand-Willems & Bosma, 2006). Students’ achievement goal orientations may be a viable mechanismfor such a change. Hypotheses should consider the potential mediating role of achievement goal orientations between variouscontextual and situational characteristics and identity formation processes and their change. Of most interest, of course, is thehypothesis that facilitating the adoption of more adaptive achievement goal orientations would in turn trigger and facilitateshift towards more adaptive identity formation processes and styles. The relatively similar recommendations for educationalinterventions that facilitate mastery goal orientation and exploration-based identity formation statuses lend initial supportto the validity of such hypotheses.

Clearly, a third category of research questions that begs to be mentioned concerns the reciprocal relations of achievementgoal orientations and identity formation. Employment of a longitudinal design that incorporates both constructs may affordthe investigation of: (1) the relations of identity formation styles with the later adoption of achievement goals in differentdomains; and (2) the possible change in identity formation styles as a reaction to educational contexts that facilitated changein achievement goals. Such research holds promise for the identification of the role that achievement goal orientations mayplay in the longer developmental processes of self and identity development.

Many other hypotheses can be raised concerning more specific issues and processes relevant to both identity formationand achievement goal theory. These could include the nature of multiple identity formation strategies and multiple goalorientations pursuit, the potential contribution of the approach-avoidance distinction into identity formation processes,the potentially different relations of achievement goal orientations with outcomes among children, early adolescents andlate adolescents, and the relations of social identities (i.e., gender, ethnicity, immigrant status, socioeconomic status) andintergroup processes with academic motivation. Finally, the theoretical links between identity formation processes andachievement goal orientations might also shed a different light on the debate concerning the desirability of performance-approach goals (Midgley et al., 2001). Indeed, by viewing performance goals generally as representing an inherent componentof self and self-development, the issue under debate in the case of performance-approach goals would shift from thedesirability of their mere existence to the role that they play in the self and identity development of students.

Research on the relations of identity formation and achievement goal orientations would need to take account of recentdevelopments in both perspectives. For example, recent developments in the identity formation literature differentiateamong various types of exploration as well as of commitments (Assor, Cohen-Malayev, Kaplan, & Friedman, 2005; Luyckx,Goossens, & Soenens, 2006; Luyckx et al., 2008). These developments imply more differentiation in identity formation stylesthat could highlight the need for more differentiation in the types of achievement goals that students adopt. Recent devel-opments in achievement goal theory that suggest that orientations such as mastery goals can be meaningfully differentiatedinto more specific orientations (e.g., at the beginning versus at the end of a task, at initial levels versus at advanced levelsof skill-acquisition, e.g., Nolen, 2007) may provide insights into different exploration strategies that could inform ways ofengagement also in identity issues. Clearly, both perspectives could gain from the pursuit of theoretical and empirical linksbetween constructs and processes of the two theories.

9. Conclusion

Achievement goal theory is currently a dominant framework for conceptualizing students’ motivation and for guid-ing educational interventions that facilitate adaptive motivation and engagement. However, the role of achievement goalorientations in students’ longer term developmental processes and trajectories is understudied. In the present article we


attempted to invigorate achievement goal theory by drawing theoretical links between achievement goal orientations andadolescents’ identity formation processes. We suggested that students’ achievement goal orientations in school and the stylesthey employ for coping with identity-relevant issues share theoretical foundations and are potentially related. By relatingstudents’ achievement motivation and identity development processes, we hope to make the conversation concerning thegoals of education clearer: what do we really want for and from our students? (cf. Kegan, 1994).

The review above led to several research questions and many empirically testable hypotheses. However, one importantissue that needs to be addressed concerns the implications of these theoretical links to educational practice: what doesthis mean for the role of teachers and schools in facilitating adaptive motivation and development? Tackling this issuein depth would be a grander task than what we are able to do in the present article. Clearly, the results of the empiricalinvestigations we propose above should provide leads to answering this question. However, in closing this article, we wouldlike to note that Erikson (1968) strongly highlighted both the social nature of developmental conflicts and the crucial roleof environments in their adaptive resolution. Thus, whereas exploration can be defined in personal terms, it can also bedefined in contextual terms and refer to environmental values and norms that sanction it. It is by providing support forexploration – of academic material, competencies, emotions, interests, social relationships, identifications, and values androles – in a manner that makes it non-threatening and that highlights its adaptive potential, that educators can facilitateadaptive motivation in all stages of schooling. Whereas the mode and meaning of exploration may differ for students indifferent developmental stages, and perhaps among students in different contexts and cultures, we believe that constructiveexploration could provide a focal component for conceptualizing adaptive motivation. We thus recommend that educatorsadopt the facilitation of an “exploratory orientation” – “the engagement in activities with the purpose of relating experiencesto the self” – as an educational goal (Flum & Kaplan, 2006, p. 100).

References

Adams, G. R. (1992). Introduction and overview. In G. R. Adams, T. P. Gullotta, & R. Montemayor (Eds.), Adolescent identity formation (pp. 1–8). Newbury Park,CA: Sage.

Ames, C. (1984). Competitive, cooperative, and individualistic goal structures: A cognitive-motivational analysis. In C. Ames, & R. Ames (Eds.), Research onmotivation in education (pp. 177–207). Academic Press.

Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261–271.Anderman, L. H. (1999). Expanding the discussion of social perceptions and academic outcomes: Mechanisms and contextual influences. In T. C. Urdan (Ed.),

Advances in motivation and achievement: Vol. 11: The role of context (pp. 303–336). JAI Press.Anderman, E. M., Austin, C. C., & Johnson, D. M. (2002). The development of goal orientation. In A. Wigfield, & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of achievement

motivation (pp. 197–220). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Anderman, E. M., & Maehr, M. L. (1994). Motivation and schooling in the middle grades. Review of Educational Research, 64, 287–309.Anderman, E. M., Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1999). Declining motivation after the transition to middle school: Schools can make a difference. Journal of

Research and Development in Education, 32, 131–147.Archer, S. L. (1992). A feminist’s approach to identity research. In G. R. Adams, T. P. Gullotta, & R. Montemayor (Eds.), Adolescent identity formation (pp. 25–49).

Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Archer, J. (1994). Achievement goals as a measure of motivation in university students. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19, 430–446.Archer, S. L., & Waterman, A. S. (1990). Varieties of identity diffusions and foreclosures: An exploration of subcategories of the identity statuses. Journal of

Adolescent Research, 5, 96–111.Arnett, J. J. (2004). Adolescence and emerging adulthood: A cultural approach (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Assor, A., Cohen-Malayev, M., Kaplan, A., & Friedman, D. (2005). Choosing to stay religious in a modern world: Socialization and exploration processes leading

to an integrated internalization of religion among Israeli Jewish youth. In M. L. Maehr, & S. Karabenick (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement:Vol. 14: Motivation and religion (pp. 107–152). United Kingdom: Elsevier Press.

Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64, 359–372.Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation: Testing multiple goal models. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 80, 706–722.Baumeister, R. F., & Muraven, M. (1996). Identity as adaptation to social, cultural, and historical context. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 405–416.Berzonsky, M. D. (1988). Self-theorists, identity status, and social cognition. In D. K. Lapsley, & F. C. Power (Eds.), Self, ego, and identity: Integrative approaches.

(pp. 243–262). New York: Springer-Verlag.Berzonsky, M. D. (1989). Identity style: Conceptualization and measurement. Journal of Adolescent Research, 4, 268–282.Berzonsky, M. D. (1990). Self-construction over the life-span: A process perspective on identity formation. In G. J. Neimeyer, & R. A. Neimeyer (Eds.), Advances

in personal construct theory (pp. 155–186). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.Berzonsky, M. D. (1992). A process perspective on identity and stress management. In G. R. Adams, T. P. Gulluta, & R. Montemayor (Eds.), Adolescent identity

formation (pp. 193–215). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Berzonsky, M. D. (1994). Self-identity: The relationship between process and content. Journal of Research in Personality, 28, 453–460.Berzonsky, M. D., & Adams, G. R. (1999). Reevaluating the identity status paradigm: Still useful after 35 years. Developmental Review, 19, 557–590.Berzonsky, M. D., & Kuk, L. (2000). Identity status, identity processing style, and the transition to university. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 81–98.Berzonsky, M. D., & Kuk, L. (2005). Identity style, psychosocial maturity, and academic performance. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 235–247.Berzonsky, M. D., & Neimeyer, G. J. (1994). Ego identity status and identity processing orientation: The moderating role of commitment. Journal of Research

in Personality, 28, 425–435.Bilsker, D. (1992). An existentialist account of identity formation. Journal of Adolescence, 15, 177–192.Bong, M. (2001). Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation among middle and high school students: Self-efficacy, task-value, and

achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 23–34.Bong, M. (2005). Within-grade changes in Korean girls’ motivation and perceptions of the learning environment across domains and achievement levels.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 656–672.Bosma, H. A., & Kunnen, E. S. (2001). Determinants and mechanisms in ego identity development: A review and synthesis. Developmental Review, 21, 39–66.Cain, K. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1995). The relation between motivational patterns and achievement cognitions through the elementary school years. Merrill-

Palmer Quarterly, 41, 25–52.Côté, J. E., & Levine, C. (1988). A critical examination of the ego identity status paradigm. Developmental Review, 8, 147–184.Côté, J. E., & Levine, C. (2002). Identity formation, agency, and culture. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.


Covington, M. V. (1992). Making the grade: A self-worth perspective on motivation and school-reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.Covington, M. V. (2000). Goal theory, motivation, and school achievement: An integrative review. Annual Review of Psychology, 51, 171–200.Davidson, A. L. (1996). Making and molding identity in schools: Student narratives on race, gender, and academic achievement. New York: SUNY Press.Delpit, L. (1995). Other people’s children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press.DeShon, R. P., & Gillespie, J. Z. (2005). A motivated action theory account of goal orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1096–1127.Djikic, M., & Langer, E. J. (2007). Toward mindful social comparison: When subjective and objective selves are mutually exclusive. New Ideas in Psychology,

25, 221–232.Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 290–299.Dunkel, C. S., Papini, D. R., & Berzonsky, M. D. (2008). Explaining differences in identity styles: Possible roles of personality and family functioning. Identity,

8, 349–363.Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role I motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995a). Implicit theories and their role in judgements and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry,

6, 267–285.Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C., & Hong, Y. (1995b). Implicit theories: Elaboration and extension of the model. Psychological Inquiry, 6, 322–333.Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.Dweck, C. S., & Molden, D. C. (2005). Self-theories: Their impact on competence motivation and acquisition. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of

competence and motivation (pp. 122–140). New York: Guilford.Dykman, B. M. (1998). Integrating cognitive and motivational factors in depression: Initial tests of a goal-orientation approach. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 74, 139–158.Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating the ‘classic’ and ‘contemporary’ approaches to achievement motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance

achievement motivation. In M. L. Maehr, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp. 143–179). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169–189.Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal construct. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp.

52–72). New York: Guilford.Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,

218–232.Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. (2001). A 2 × 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501–519.Elliot, A. J., & Reis, H. T. (2003). Attachment and exploration in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 317–331.Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12.Epstein, S. (1973). The self-concept revisited: Or a theory of a theory. American Psychologist, 28, 404–416.Erikson, E. H. (1959). Identity and the life cycle. Psychological Issues, 1 (Monograph No. 1). New York: International Universities Press.Erikson, E. H. (1963). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.Erikson, E. H. (1982). The life cycle completed: A review. New York: Norton.Faircloth, B. S. (2009). Making the most of adolescence: Harnessing the search for identity to understand classroom belonging. Journal of Adolescent Research,

24, 321–348.Flum, H. (1994). The evolutive style of identity formation. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 23, 489–498.Flum, H., & Kaplan, A. (2006). Exploratory orientation as an educational goal. Educational Psychologist, 41, 99–110.Grotevant, H. D. (1987). Toward a process model of identity formation. Journal of Adolescent Research, 2, 203–222.Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating. Journal

of Educational Psychology, 94, 638–645.Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. Review of Educational Research, 70,

151–179.Kaplan, A. (2004). Achievement goals and intergroup relations. In P. R. Pintrich, & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in research on motivation and achievement:

Vol. 13: Motivating students, improving schools: The legacy of Carol Midgley (pp. 97–136). United Kingdom: Elsevier.Kaplan, A., & Flum, H. (2006, July). Facilitating an exploratory orientation in school. Paper presented at the 4th international biennial SELF research conference.Kaplan, A., & Flum, H. (Eds.). (2009). Special issue: Motivation and identity. Educational Psychologist, 44(2), 73–157.Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (1999). Enhancing the motivation of African American students: An achievement goal theory perspective. Journal of Negro Education,

68, 23–35.Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2002). Adolescents’ achievement goals: Situating motivation in socio-cultural contexts. In F. Pajaers, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Adolescence

and education: Vol. 2: Academic motivation of adolescents (pp. 125–167). Greenwich, CT: Information Age.Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contribution and prospects of goal orientation theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 141–187.Kegan, R. (1994). In over our heads: The mental demands of modern life. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Kerpelman, J. L., Pittman, J. F., & Lamke, L. K. (1997). Toward a microprocess perspective on adolescent identity development: An identity control theory

approach. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 325–346.Kroger, J. (1992). Intrapsychic dimensions of identity during late adolescence. In G. R. Adams, T. P. Gullotta, & R. Montemayor (Eds.), Adolescent identity

formation (pp. 122–144). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Kroger, J. (1995). The differentiation of ‘firm’ and ‘developmental’ foreclosure statuses: A longitudinal study. Journal of Adolescent Research, 10, 317–337.Kroger, J., & Green, K. E. (1996). Events associated with identity status change. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 477–490.Lannegrand-Willems, L., & Bosma, H. (2006). Identity development-in-context: The school as an important context for identity development. Identity, 6,

85–113.Lapsley, D. L., & Power, F. C. (1988). In D. K. Lapsley, & F. C. Power (Eds.), Self, ego, and identity: Integrative approaches (pp. 243–262). New York: Springer-Verlag.Leary, M. R. (2007). Motivational and emotional aspects of the self. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 317–344.Levy-Tossman, I., Kaplan, A., & Assor, A. (2007). Academic goal orientations, multiple goal profiles, and friendship intimacy among early adolescents.

Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 231–252.Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., & Soenens, B. (2006). A developmental contextual perspective on identity construction in emerging adulthood: Change dynamics

in commitment formation and commitment evaluation. Developmental Psychology, 42, 366–380.Luyckx, K., Schwartz, S. J., Berzonsky, M. D., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Smits, I., et al. (2008). Capturing ruminative exploration: Extending the four-

dimensional model of identity formation in late adolescence. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 58–82.Maehr, M. L. (1984). Meaning and motivation: Toward a theory of personal investment. In C. Ames, & R. Ames (Eds.), Research on motivation in education (pp.

115–144). New York: Academic Press.Maehr, M. L., & Braskamp, L. A. (1986). The motivation factor: A theory of personal investment. Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1991). Enhancing student motivation: A schoolwide approach. Educational Psychologist, 26, 399–427.Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Maehr, M. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1980). Culture and achievement motivation: A second look. In N. Warren (Ed.), Studies on cross-cultural psychology (pp.

221–267). New York: Academic Press.Marcia, J. E. (1966). Development and validation of ego identity status. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 3, 551–558.Marcia, J. E. (1980). Identity in adolescence. In J. Abelson (Ed.), Handbook of adolescent psychology (pp. 159–187). New York: John Wiley.


Marcia, J. E. (1988). Common processes underlying ego identity, cognitive/moral development, and individuation. In D. K. Lapsley, & F. C. Power (Eds.), Self,ego, and identity: Integrative approaches (pp. 211–225). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Marcia, J. E. (1993). The ego identity status approach to ego identity. In J. E. Marcia, A. S. Waterman, D. R. Matteson, S. L. Archer, & J. L. Orlofsky (Eds.), Egoidentity: A handbook for psychosocial research. New York: Springer-Verlag.

McCaslin, M. (2004). Coregulation of opportunity, activity, and identity in student motivation: Elaborations on Vygotskian themes. In D. M. McInerney, & S.Van Etten (Eds.), Research on sociocultural influences on motivation and learning: Vol. 4: Big theories revisited (pp. 249–274). Greenwich, CT: InformationAge.

McClelland, D. C. (1961). The achieving society. New York: Free Press.Meece, J. L. (1991). The classroom context and students’ motivational goals. In M. L. Maehr, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement

(pp. 261–285). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press Inc.Meece, J. L., Anderman, E. M., & Anderman, L. H. (2006). Classroom goal structure, student motivation and academic achievement. Annual Review of Psychology,

57, 487–503.Meece, J. L., Blumenfeld, P. C., & Hoyle, R. H. (1988). Students’ goal orientations and cognitive engagement in classroom activities. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 80, 514–523.Meece, J. L., & Holt, K. (1993). A pattern analysis of students’ achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 582–590.Middleton, M. J., Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (2004). The change in middle school students’ achievement goals in math over time. Social Psychology of Education,

7, 289–311.Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An under-explored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology,

89, 710–718.Midgley, C. (Ed.). (2002). Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., & Middleton, M. J. (2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost?

Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 77–86.Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson, & N. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional

psychology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Molden, D. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2000). Meaning and motivation. In C. Sansone, & J. M. Harackiewicz (Eds.), Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The search for

optimal motivation and performance (pp. 131–159). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Molden, D. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Finding “meaning” in psychology: A lay theories approach to self-regulation, social perception, and social development.

American Psychologist, 61, 192–203.Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328–346.Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Nicholls, J. G. (1990). What is ability and why are we mindful of it? A developmental perspective. In R. J. Sternberg, & J. Kolligian Jr. (Eds.), Competence

considered (pp. 11–40). New Haven: Yale University Press.Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Students as educational theorists. In D. Schunk, & J. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 267–286). Hillsdale, NJ:

Lawrence Erlbaum (Chapter 12).Nicholls, J. G., Cheung, P. C., Lauer, J., & Patashnick, M. (1989). Individual differences in academic motivation: Perceived ability, goals, beliefs, and values.

Learning and Individual Differences, 1, 63–84.Nicholls, J. G., Patashnick, M., & Nolen, S. B. (1985). Adolescents’ theories of education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 683–692.Nolen, S. B. (2007). Young children’s motivation to read and write: Development in social contexts. Cognition and Instruction, 25, 219–270.Nolen, S. B., & Haladyna, T. M. (1990). Personal and environmental influences on students’ beliefs about effective study strategies. Contemporary Educational

Psychology, 15, 116–130.Ogbu, J. U. (1987). Variability in minority school performance: A problem in search of an explanation. Anthropology & Education Quarterly, 18, 312–334.Oyserman, D., Bybee, D., & Terry, K. (2003). Gendered racial identity and involvement with school. Self and Identity, 2, 307–324.Patrick, H. (2004). Re-examining classroom mastery goal structure. In P. R. Pintrich & M. L. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in research on motivation and achievement:

Vol. 13: Motivating students, improving schools: The legacy of Carol Midgley (pp. 233–263). United Kingdom: Elsevier.Patrick, H., Anderman, L. H., Ryan, A. M., Edelin, K. C., & Midgley, C. (2001). Teachers’ communication of goal orientations in four fifth-grade classrooms. The

Elementary School Journal, 102, 35–58.Patterson, S. J., Sochting, I., & Marcia, J. E. (1992). The inner space and beyond: Women and identity. In G. R. Adams, T. P. Gulluta, & R. Montemayor (Eds.),

Adolescent identity formation (pp. 9–24). Newbury Park, CA: Saga.Phinney, J. S., & Goossens, L. (1996). Introduction: Identity development in context. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 401–403.Phinney, J. S. (2000). Identity formation across cultures: The interaction of personal, societal, and historical change. Human Development, 43, 27–31.Pintrich, P. R. (1994). Continuities and discontinuities: Future directions for research in educational psychology. Educational Psychologist, 29, 137–148.Pintrich, P. R. (2000). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In M. Boedaerts, P. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner (Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation:

Theory, research and applications. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology,

95, 667–686.Roeser, R. W., Peck, S. C., & Nasir, N. S. (2006). Self and identity processes in school motivation, learning and achievement. In P. A. Alexander, & P. H. Winne

(Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 391–424). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Ryan, A. M., & Shim, S. S. (2006). Social achievement goals: The nature and consequences of different orientation toward social competence. Personality and

Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1246–1263.Schwartz, S. J. (2001). The evolution of Eriksonian and neo-Eriksonian identity theory and research: A review and integration. Identity, 1, 7–58.Schwartz, S. J. (2005). A new identity for identity research: Recommendations for expanding and refocusing the identity literature. Journal of Adolescent

Research, 20, 293–308.Schwartz, S. J. (Ed.). (2008). Special issue: Self and identity in early adolescence. Journal of Early Adolescence, 28(1), 1–176.Schwartz, S. J., Mullis, R. L., Waterman, A. S., & Dunham, R. M. (2000). Ego identity status, identity style, and personal expressiveness: An empirical

investigation of three converging constructs. Journal of Adolescent Research, 15, 504–521.Sedikides, C. (1993). Assessment, enhancement, and verification determinants of the self-evaluation process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65,

317–338.Senko, C., & Miles, K. M. (2008). Pursuing their own learning agenda: How mastery-oriented students jeopardize their class performance. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 33, 561–583.Steele, C. M. (1997). A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance. American Psychologist, 52, 613–629.Streitmatter, J. (1993). Identity status and identity style: A replication study. Journal of Adolescence, 16, 211–215.Super, D. E. (1980). A life-span life-space approach to career development. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 16, 282–298.Thorkildsen, T. A. (1988). Theories of education among academically able adolescents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 13, 323–330.Turner, J. C., Midgley, C., Meyer, D. K., Gheen, M., Anderman, E. M., Kang, Y., et al. (2002). The classroom environment and students’ reports of avoidance

strategies in mathematic: A multimethod study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 88–106.Urdan, T. C., & Maehr, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and achievement: A case for social goals. Review of Educational Research, 65,

213–243.Urdan, T. (1997). Achievement goal theory: Past results, future directions. In M. L. Maehr, & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (pp.

99–141). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.


Utman, C. H. (1997). Performance effects of motivational states: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 170–182.van Hoof, A. (1999). The identity status field re-reviewed: An update on unresolved and neglected issues with a view on some alternative approaches.

Developmental Review, 19, 497–556.Van Yperen, N. W. (2006). A novel approach to assessing achievement goals in the context of the 2 × 2 framework: Identifying distinct profiles of individuals

with different dominant achievement goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1432–1445.Van Yperen, N. W., & Renkema, L. J. (2008). Performing great and the purpose of performing better than others: On the recursiveness of the achievement

goal adoption process. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 20–271.Volet, S., & Järvelä, S. (Eds.). (2001). Motivation in learning contexts: Theoretical advances and methodological implications. Oxford, UK: Elseveir Science.Waterman, A. S. (1982). Identity development from adolescence to adulthood: An extension of theory and review of research. Developmental Psychology, 18,

341–358.Waterman, A. S. (1984). Identity formation: Discovery or creation? Journal of Early Adolescence, 4, 329–341.Waterman, A. S. (1988). Identity status theory and Erikson’s theory: Communalities and differences. Developmental Review, 8, 185–208.Waterman, A. S. (1989). Curricula interventions for identity change: Substantive and ethical considerations. Journal of Adolescence, 12, 389–400.Waterman, A. S. (1992). Identity as an aspect of optimal psychological functioning. In G. R. Adams, T. P. Gullotta, & R. Montemayor (Eds.), Adolescent identity

formation (pp. 50–72). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Waterman, A. S. (1999). Identity, the identity statuses, and identity status development: A contemporary statement. Developmental Review, 19, 591–621.Weiner, B. (1986). An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. New York: Springer-Verlag.Wentzel, K. R. (1991). Social competence at school: Relation between social responsibility and academic achievement. Review of Educational Research, 61,

1–24.White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333.Wigfield, A., & Wagner, A. L. (2005). Competence, motivation, and identity development during adolescence. In A. J. Elliot, & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of

competence and motivation (pp. 222–239). New York: Guilford Press.Wolters, C. A., Yu, S. L., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The relation between goal orientation and students’ motivational beliefs and self-regulated learning. Learning

and Individual Differences, 8, 211–238.Yoder, A. E. (2000). Barriers to ego identity status formation: A contextual qualification of Marcia’s identity status paradigm. Journal of Adolescence, 23,

95–106.

Documents

Achievement goal orientations and identity formation styles