Selected Conference Papers 18
Grandma died again:
Goal Orientation and Excuses
in the Classroom
Psychoanalysts Team
Cynthia D. ODellMark Sudlow HoyertIndiana University
Northwest
General Psychology (PSY 1012)Spring, 2009
Grandma died again:
Goal Orientation and Excuses
in the Classroom
Cynthia D. ODellMark Sudlow HoyertIndiana University
Northwest
Introduction
If you don't want to do something, one excuse is as good as
anotherYiddish ProverbAs long as there have been college students
and teachers there have been assignments and reasons for not
completing those assignments on time. Certainly most college
professors have experienced the quandary of what to do about missed
assignments and their accompanying excuses, either while designing
the class and the syllabus or during interactions with individual
students. Should excuses be accepted and make-up examinations and
assignments be developed? Should efforts be made to ascertain the
validity of the claims? While the literature on excuse making in
college students is not a large one, several important factors have
been explored in the last decade.This paper will provide a review
of the literature and then describe the results of a study
conducted by the authors to examine the role of goal orientation on
the practice of excuse making. Student excuses were collected over
the course of several years along with assessments of goal
orientation. It was then possible to evaluate the effect of
providing a documented or an undocumented excuse on test scores as
well as relate excuse making tendencies to goal
orientation.BACKGROUND INFORMATIONIn a sample of 261 college
students, Caron, Whitbourne and Halgin (1992) found that 68%
confessed to making at least one fraudulent excuse while in college
and 99% indicated they had made at least one legitimate excuse
while in college. These findings compare well to more current data
by Roig and Caso (2005) who found that in a sample of 565 college
students 72% indicated making at least one fraudulent excuse while
in college and 100% at least one legitimate excuse. The most common
reason provided for fabricating an excuse was the hope of gaining
more time to study or complete the assignment (Caron, Whitbourne
& Halgin, 1992; Roig & Caso, 2005). Men were more likely
than women to fabricate fraudulent excuses as well as to offer
legitimate excuses. Students with GPAs of 3.00 or greater were less
likely to fabricate excuses (Caron, Whitbourne & Halgin, 1992;
Roig & Caso, 2005). The most common fraudulent excuses offered
were personal illness, followed by family emergency and failure to
understand the assignment (Caron, Whitbourne & Halgin, 1992;
Roig & Caso, 2005). Interestingly, these were also the three
most commonly offered legitimate excuses. Attribution
TheoryAttribution theorists have argued that people use excuses
when self-esteem is threatened by potential performance (Basgall
& Snyder, 1988; Smith & Whitehead, 1988; Snyder, Higgins,
& Stucky, 1983). The excuses can serve to diminish public
attributions of responsibility (Snyder & Higgins, 1986). Most
of the extant literature has focused on the beneficial aspects of
excuses, however recent research indicates that there may be
negative consequences as well. The triangle model of responsibility
asserts that people are held responsible as a function of the
strength of connection between three components, the persons
identity, the event, and the prescriptions relevant to the event
(Tyler & Feldman, 2007). Excuses serve to weaken the strength
of the above connections. Conditions that indicate the validity of
an excuse include believability, care for others and a chance to
make changes in the future. This allows the excuse maker to
maintain a positive character. However, when conditions are not
believable, lack or show no future potential for change, or display
a lack of validity or respect for others, excuses can result in
more negative character ratings and repercussions. Additionally,
excuses may damage an excuse makers self-image and self-efficacy
beliefs (Schlenker, Pontari, & Christopher, 2001). Goal
Orientation Theory A second theory, Goal Orientation theory, has
been used to examine many aspects of academic behavior. It holds
the potential for gaining insights into excuse making as well. Goal
orientation theory examines the sources of motivation underlying
achievement behavior. It suggests that individuals will orient
themselves towards and pursue one or more goals. Two goals
predominatemastery and performance goals. Mastery goals are
associated with a variety of largely adaptive behaviors and
attitudes such as the enjoyment of challenge, enjoyment in
acquiring knowledge, use of effective learning strategies, greater
persistence and the belief that competence is obtained
incrementally through effort (Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck &
Leggett, 1988; Harackiewicz, Barron, & Elliot, 1998; Pintrich
& Garcia, 1991).Performance goals are more complex but have
sometimes been associated with a less adaptive set of academic
outcomes such as self-aggrandizing, task-aversion, a reluctance to
seek help, self-handicapping, and learned helplessness (Dweck &
Leggett, 1988; Urdan, 1997). Excuse making could certainly be
classified as an undesirable academic behavior.People who pursue
performance goals are intensely interested in evaluation, in the
opinions of others, and place a heavy emphasis on appearance in
front of others. The excuse making literature suggests that
students who engage in fraudulent excuse making are concerned with
similar issues (Snyder & Higgins, 1986; Tyler & Feldman,
2007). In the case of performance goals, these thoughts stem from
the basic belief that intelligence or capability is innate and
immutable. That is, performance oriented people believe that you
are born with some set level of intelligence or other ability. Each
evaluation provides feedback to your level of competence (Dweck
& Leggett, 1988). When the feedback is positive, this may
temporarily provide evidence of competence. When feedback is
negativefor instance when an examination is failedthis is
interpreted as a clear signal that you are not competent. In
general, negative feedback is more salient. One successful
evaluation provides affirmation until the next trial. One failed
examination provides a convincing demonstration that you are not
smart, not competent, and not worthy in that setting. Performance
oriented students tend to prefer and to seek out easier tasks where
success and validation are more readily obtained. Additionally,
performance goals carry a strong normative component. A student
pursuing performance goals will compare her or his accomplishments
to those of others. That student will be more satisfied when
outperforming the others.Both performance goal orientation and
excuse making are associated with procrastination. Gaining
additional time to study or to complete an assignment was the most
frequently cited reason provided by fraudulent excuse makers
(Caron, Whitbourne & Halgin, 1992; Roig & Caso, 2005). In
both, procrastination appears to be a strategy associated with the
belief that effort indicates a lack of ability and an emphasis on
evaluation. Waiting until it is too late to adequately complete a
project can sometimes function as an attempt to buffer the self
against the negative effects of failure. After procrastination,
excuse makers and performance oriented students can attribute the
failure to a lack of time or a lack of effort and not to a lack of
ability (Ferrari & Beck, 1998; Urdan, 1997). A meta-analysis of
the literature on procrastination has shown that procrastinators
tend to have lower achievement drives, self-esteem and
self-efficacy (Steel, 2007).Excuse making is also associated with
internal/external locus of control (Wang & Anderson, 1994).
People with an external locus of control believe that behavior is
guided by fate, luck, or other external circumstances while those
with an internal locus of control believe that their behavior is
guided by personal decisions and efforts (Rotter, 1979). Research
has shown that people with an external locus of control are more
prone to make excuses, to assign blame to others and are more
sensitive to blame than people with an internal locus of control
(Wang & Anderson, 1994). Basgall and Snyder (1988) suggest that
external-internal differences in excuses will be found only under
failure conditions. Changes in behavior due to performance goal
orientation are also exacerbated under conditions of failure (Dweck
& Leggett, 1988; Hoyert & ODell, 2004, 2005, 2006). This
paper explores the possibility that the endorsement of performance
goals may be related to the phenomenon of excuse making and
especially to fraudulent excuse making. It also explores the
academic consequences accruing from the intersection of goal
orientation and excuse making.DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDYThe authors
collected excuses across the course of 20 semesters from students
enrolled at an urban campus of a public university in the Midwest.
The students were enrolled in a variety of psychology courses
including lower (Introductory Psychology), middle (Statistics) and
upper level content courses. The student demographics of the
university are 52% full-time students, 70% female, 23% African
American, 11% Latina/o, and 30% over the age of 25. The students
enrolled in psychology courses closely mirror the overall student
demographics of the university. Some students offered excuses
following missed tests and assignments. All students were asked for
documentation for each excuse but were allowed to complete the
assignment or exam even if no documentation was produced.
Interestingly, the need to produce documentation for an excuse is
not widely required at the college level (Caron, Whitbourne &
Halgin, 1992; Roig & Caso, 2005). A record of the specific
excuse offered along with evidence or lack of documentation were
kept for each excuse. During the semesters that the excuses were
collected, many students in the courses involved participated in a
voluntary research study evaluating the relationship between goal
orientation, grades and retention. This paper provides a report on
goal orientation data for 271 of the students whose excuses were
collected. Goal orientation was measured using Roedel, Schraw and
Plakes (1994) Goals Inventory. This instrument consists of 25
statements rated on a 5-point Likert-type scale for strength of
agreement. The statements assess attitudes and behaviors towards
mastery and performance goals as described by Dweck and Leggett
(1988). Twelve items are averaged to produce a mastery goals score
(e.g., I prefer challenging tasks even if I dont do as well at
them), and five items are averaged to produce a performance goals
score (e.g., I like others to think I know a lot). Higher scores
indicate a stronger endorsement of goal orientation. Test-retest
reliability has been reported as r=.73 for the mastery goals
sub-scale and r=.76 for the performance goals subscale. Cronbachs
alpha for our sample was .81 for mastery goals and .76 for
performance goals. At the end of the academic term the students
psychology examination grades and assignment scores were obtained
from the instructors for this analysis. FINDINGSTypes and
Frequencies of ExcusesA total of 596 excuses following missed tests
and assignments were offered. Students were always asked to provide
documentation for these excuses. Acceptable documentation was
provided for 233 of the excuses, leaving 363 without documentation.
Previous research has focused on students recollections regarding
excuse making rather than actual counts of excuses. Students in
those studies indicated whether an excuse was legitimate or
fraudulent. In this study, the authors only knew whether
documentation could be provided for an actual excuse; legitimacy
was not ascertained. The personal beliefs of the authors, however,
were that they were inclined to view the documented excuses as
valid and to suspect that many of the undocumented excuses were
fabricated. The 61% of the excuses in the study that were not
accompanied with documentation compare quite closely to the 67% and
72% of college students who reported using a fraudulent excuse in
previous studies (Caron, Whitbourne & Halgin, 1992; Roig &
Caso, 2005). The relationship between excuse making (and thus
completing work at a later date) and grades was investigated by
comparing the examination and assignment scores of two groups of
students: those offering excuses and the general class. Since the
various grades were recorded in different classes with different
point values, all grades were normalized to a distribution where
the mean score was 75 (SD=12). Previous research has suggested that
the most frequent reason given for offering a fraudulent excuse was
to obtain extra time to either complete an assignment or to study
for an exam (Caron, Whitbourne & Halgin, 1992; Ferrari &
Beck, 1998; Roig & Caso, 2005). The potential for gaining an
undue advantage through this strategy is also one of the prime
concerns for faculty when considering late assignment policies.
However, this strategy didnt seem to have the desired effect. When
students offered an excuse their grade was over one letter grade
lower (M=64.7, SD=21.5)) than the class average (t=2.093, df=1188,
p=.037). The effect was even more robust in the students who did
not provide documentation. These students earned markedly lower
grades (M=58.5, SD=23.1) than those that could provide
documentation (M=74.7, SD=13.7; t= -9.61, df=594, p < .001).
Caron, Whitbourne and Halgin (1992) and Roig and Caso (2005) report
that students with GPAs of 3.00 or greater are less likely to make
fraudulent excuses than students with lower GPAs. The data from
this study demonstrate this effect at a microlevel, the individual
test score. Thus, the strategy of making a fraudulent excuse to
obtain extra time seems to be a flawed one. The most commonly
offered excuse in this study was illness, followed by work
conflict. Together, they made up 57% of the excuses offered. The
first category is consistent with previous reports of college
excuse making (Caron, Whitbourne & Halgin, 1992; Roig &
Caso, 2005). However, work conflict, which makes up a large portion
of the excuses presented in this study, did not even appear as a
category in either of the previous studies. This probably reflects
the demographics of the universitys commuter student population as
compared to the residential student populations in the earlier
studies. The prototypical excuse, my grandmother died, appeared at
a relatively low and similar frequency as in the earlier studies,
which is comforting both for faculty and grandmothers. Table 1
below summarizes the findings. Table 1
Summary of Type and Frequency of Excuse Offered
Type of ExcuseFrequencyPercentage
Illness22137%
Other12621%
Work conflict11820%
Child care305%
Out of town (business)254%
Death in family234%
Car problems214%
Procrastination112%
Snow112%
Court Date101%
DISCUSSION
Results Related to Goal Orientation Theory
Goal orientation theory predicts that students who offered
excuses and especially those that offered fraudulent excuses should
pursue performance goals more than other students. For the overall
sample, students endorsed learning goals (M=3.78, SD=.63) more than
performance goals (M=3.58, SD=.88) (t(1088)=2.226, p=.026). These
goal orientation scores are similar to other classes that the
authors have evaluated (Hoyert & ODell, 2004, 2005, 2006). The
pattern of goal endorsement for students who offered excuses was
similar to the overall classes. The excuse makers pursued mastery
goals (M=3.73, SD=.71) more than performance goals (M=3.62,
SD=.74). Neither mastery goals nor performance goals for the excuse
makers were significantly different from the overall class goal
orientation scores (Mastery goals: t(813)=1.09, p=.278; Performance
goals: t(813)=.693, p=.521).The goal orientation profile was
different, however, when comparing students who offered excuses
with and without documentation. The students who provided
documentation endorsed mastery goals (M=3.84, SD=.71) more than
performance goals (M=3.57, SD=.78). Again, these goals were not
statistically different from the overall sample (Mastery goals:
t(674)=.963, p=.336; Performance goals: t(674)=.067; p=.336). In
contrast, students who could not provide documentation endorsed
performance goals (M=3.67, SD=.75) more than mastery goals (M=3.61,
SD=.69). These students pursued mastery goals less than the overall
sample (t(674)=-2.742, p=.006) and less than the students who
provided documentation (t(269)=-2.720, p=.007). Students who did
not provide documentation endorsed performance goals more than the
other two groups but these differences were not significant
(compared to the overall sample: t(674)=1.002, p=.317; compared to
students with documentation: t(674)=1.090, p=.276). In general, it
appears that the pursuit of mastery goals buffers students from
less productive strategies such as offering undocumented excuses.
This fits within the general constellation of behaviors associated
with mastery orientation (Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck &
Leggett, 1988; Hoyert & ODell, 2004, 2005, 2006). Goal
orientation theory predicts that the two goals are orthogonally
related constructs. Therefore, students can adopt any level of
either mastery or performance goals. As a result, it can be useful
to examine the combined effects of the two goals (Ames &
Archer, 1988; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Hoyert & ODell, 2004,
2005, 2006; Urdan, 1997). Participants in the current study were
classified as high or low in mastery and performance goal
orientation through a median split procedure (mastery: median=3.8;
performance: median=3.6). This analysis identifies four
combinations of goals: 1) students who pursue both goals; 2)
students who do not endorse either goal; 3) students who pursue
learning goals to the exclusion of performance goals; and 4)
students who endorse performance goals to the exclusion of learning
goals. A Chi-square analysis demonstrates that these frequencies
are not equally distributed, (X2 (3) =14.527, p=.002). This is
largely driven by the greater number of high performance students
(whether low or high mastery) providing undocumented excuses.Again
there is a need to make a distinction between students who can
offer documentation and those who cannot offer documentation. In
this study, the authors were inclined to treat the excuses
accompanied by documentation as legitimate. As can be observed in
Table 2, approximately equal numbers of excuses were provided by
students in all four categories. Thus, the four constellations do
not seem to be related to the production of legitimate excuses. In
other words, students in all four categories do get sick, have work
conflicts, or experience a death in the family. However, a markedly
different pattern appears in the students who were not able to
provide documentation. A preponderance of these excuses came from
students belonging in the two high performance categories. It is
suspected that many of these excuses may have been fabricated. From
this analysis, it appears that strong endorsement of performance
goals is associated with the production of fabricated excuses. See
Table 2 below.Table 2
Goal Orientation Frequency as a Function of Excuse Type
With Documentation
Goal OrientationPerformance
HighLow
MasteryHigh3341
Low3332
No Documentation
Goal OrientationPerformance
HighLow
MasteryHigh5224
Low4016
As students progress through college they tend to adopt stronger
mastery goals and weaker performance goals (Hoyert & ODell,
2004, 2005, 2006; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991). In this study, the
students were enrolled in a variety of psychology courses including
lower (Introductory Psychology), middle (Statistics) and upper
level content courses. Introductory Psychology is primarily taken
by students in their first year in college. Statistics is typically
taken during the second year. The upper level content courses are
typically taken during the third year and beyond. In this sample,
mastery goals increased and performance goals decreased across
level of coursework as shown in Table 3.
Table 3
Changes in Mastery and Performance Orientation across Level of
Coursework
Overall Goal OrientationClass
Intro PsychStatisticsUpper-level topics
Mastery3.583.683.75
Performance3.783.393.38
At the same time, excuse making decreased across level of
coursework with the highest percentage of excuses offered in
Introductory Psychology classes as shown in Table 4. The rate of
excuse making was negatively related to mastery goals, r = -.957.
The rate of excuse making was positively related to performance
goals, r = .994. Thus, as goal orientation theory would predict,
the adoption of performance goals is associated with a less than
adaptive academic outcome, excuse making (Dweck & Leggett,
1988; Urdan, 1997). Table 4
Rate of Excuse Making by Class Type
Class
Intro PsychStatisticsUpper-level topics
Overall7.9%5.7%5.4%
Documentation3.2%2.1%2.2%
No Documentation4.7%3.7%3.2%
However, the goal orientation scores of students who actually
produced excuses did not change across the type of course enrolled
in as shown in Table 5. Both mastery (F(2,684) = .931, p=.881) and
performance scores (F(2,684) = .644, p=.901) remained fairly
consistent across course type. On the other hand, as indicated
earlier, students undergo a gradual change in goal orientation
while in college (Hoyert & ODell, 2004, 2005, 2006; Pintrich
& Garcia, 1991). The pursuit of mastery goals tends to
increase, and the pursuit of performance scores tends to decrease.
However, this growth and change does not seem to occur in the
students who offer excuses. Table 5
Goal Orientation of Students offering Excuses by Class Type
Class
Intro PsychStatisticsUpper-level topics
Mastery3.603.863.66
Performance3.613.623.65
Conclusions and RECOMMENDATIONSPerformance goals are associated
with a variety of maladaptive academic behaviors while mastery
goals are associated with a variety of adaptive academic behaviors
(Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Harackiewicz,
Barron, & Elliot, 1998; Pintrich & Garcia, 1991; Urdan,
1997). Fabricating excuses is certainly an example of a maladaptive
academic behavior. The results of this study are consistent with
the idea that the pursuit of performance goals is linked with
excuse making. Students who did not provide documented excuses
endorsed performance goals more than mastery goals. They also
pursued mastery goals less than the overall student population. A
high proportion of undocumented excuses were made by students with
high performance orientation scores. Additionally, the goal
orientation of students employing excuses in this study did not
change across course level unlike the general student population
who show an increase in mastery goals and a decrease in performance
goals. Conversely, adopting mastery goals seems to prepare students
to engage in more adaptive behaviors and guide students away from
less adaptive strategies such as making fraudulent excuses.
Students who pursued mastery goals showed a higher rate of
documented excuses. Mastery orientation increased across course
level at the same time that excuse making decreased. Students with
undocumented excuses earned markedly lower grades than those who
could provide documentation. Highly performance oriented students
sometimes engage in maladaptive strategies in an effort to protect
their self-esteem. They might procrastinate, self-handicap, or
offer fraudulent excuses at times in which success is not
particularly likely (Harackiewicz, Barron, & Elliot, 1998;
Urdan, 1997). The strategy buffers them from the feedback following
a failure. Under normal conditions, this feedback would be
interpreted as evidence of a lack of competence. However, if they
can attribute the failure to the excuse or to procrastination, they
are buffered from this negative feedback. Thus, a student could
believe that s/he is still bright and competent, and feel it was
the conditions of the excuse that held her or him back. An external
excuse can be found for failure rather than an internal one (Wang
& Anderson, 1994). While students may offer fraudulent excuses
in an attempt to protect their self-esteem, the end result is a
decrease in grades that has the potential to harm the very
attributes they are struggling to protect. These results lie in
opposition to the Yiddish proverb that begins this article, as this
study demonstrates that any excuse just wont do, rather that
documentable excuses prove superior in assignment and test scores
and should do more to protect self-esteem and self-efficacy as a
result. How can teachers translate these results into agents of
change for the classroom? The following are suggestions which may
be helpful:1) Have a clear policy regarding makeup exams and
assignments included in your syllabus. This has the potential to
decrease the number of undocumented excuses offered by students. In
this study, the authors asserted in the syllabus that if an
assignment was turned in late or an exam missed, that documentation
must be provided in order to earn the right to be able to make up
the exam or assignment. 2) Require documentation of excuses when
allowing students to make up exams or turn in assignments late.
This should decrease the number of fraudulent excuses offered,
which ultimately could harm students grades and self-concepts.3)
Foster mastery thoughts in your classrooms. An increase in mastery
thoughts is associated with a decrease in excuse making in this
study. Thus, structuring the classroom setting to provide the
opportunity for students to be exposed to and influenced by a
mastery orientation should reduce the number of excuses offered.
References
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the
classroom: Students learning strategies and motivation processes.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267. Basgall, J. A.,
& Snyder, C. R. (1988). Excuses in waiting: External locus of
control and reactions to success-failure feedback. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 656-662. Caron, M. D.,
Whitbourne, S. K., & Halgin, R. P. (1992). Fraudulent
excuse-making among college students. Teaching of Psychology, 19,
90-93.Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive
approach to motivation and personality, Psychological Review, 95,
256-273.Ferrari, J. R., & Beck, B. L. (1998). Affective
responses before and after fraudulent excuses by academic
procrastinators. Education, 118, 529-537. Harackiewicz, J. M.,
Barron, K. E., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Rethinking achievement
goals: When are they adaptive for college students and why?
Educational Psychologist, 33, 1-21. Hoyert, M. S., & ODell, C.
D. (2004). Altering achievement motivation to enhance classroom
learning. In J. A. Chambers (Ed.), Selected papers from the 15th
International Conference on College Teaching and Learning (pp.
199-135). Jacksonville, FL: Florida Community College. Hoyert, M.
S., & ODell, C. D. (2005). A brief intervention to aid
struggling students: A case of too much motivation? Journal of
Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 5, 1-15.Hoyert, M. S., &
ODell, C. D. (2006). Altering goal orientation to improve academic
success and retention. In J. A. Chambers (Ed.), Selected papers
from the 17th International Conference on College Teaching and
Learning (pp. 65-77). Jacksonville, FL: Florida Community College.
Pintrich, P. R., & Garcia, T. (1991). Student goal orientation
and self-regulation in the college classroom. In M. L. Maehr &
P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement:
Goals and self-regulatory processes (pp. 371-402). Greenwich, CT:
JAI Press. Roedel, T. D., Schraw, G., & Plake, B. S. (1994).
Validation of a measure of learning and performance goal
orientation. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54,
1013-1021. Roig, M., & Caso, M. (2005). Lying and cheating:
Fraudulent excuse making, cheating, and plagiarism. The Journal of
Psychology, 139, 485-494.Rotter, J. B. (1979). Comments on section
4: Individual differences and perceived control. In L. Perlmuter
& R. A. Monty (Eds.), Choice and perceived control (pp.
263-269). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Schlenker, B. R., Pontari, B. A.,
& Christopher, A. N. (2001). Excuses and character: Personal
and social implication of excuses. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 5, 15-32. Smith, S. H., & Whitehead, G. I.
(1988). The public and private use of consensus-raising excuses.
Journal of Personality, 56, 355-371. Snyder, C. R., & Higgins,
R. L. (1986). Excuse attributions: Do they work? In S. L. Zelen
(Ed.), Self-representation: The second attribution-personality
theory conference (pp. 52-132). New York: Springer-Verlag. Snyder,
C. R., Higgins, R. L., & Stucky, R. J. (1983). Excuses:
Masquerades in search of grace. New York: Wiley-Interscience.
Steel, P. (2007). The nature of procrastination: A meta-analytic
and theoretical review of quintessential self-regulatory failure.
Psychological Bulletin, 133, 65-94.Tyler, J. M., & Feldman, R.
S. (2007). The double-edged sword of excuses: When do they help,
when do they hurt. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 26,
659-688.Urdan, T. C. (1997). Examining the relations among early
adolescent students goals and friends orientation toward effort and
achievement in school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22,
165-191. Wang, D., & Anderson, N. H. (1994). Excuse-making and
blaming as a function of internal-external locus of control.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 295-302.
20
