Soc Psychol Educ (2009) 12:101–112DOI 10.1007/s11218-008-9070-2

Student perceptions and motivation in the classroom:exploring relatedness and value

Annette Kaufman · Tonya Dodge

Received: 19 November 2007 / Accepted: 1 September 2008 / Published online: 15 October 2008© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Abstract According to Self-Determination Theory, feelings of relatedness andvalue of a behavior are critical factors that affect internalization and integration. Thepurpose of the current study was to identify factors that influence relatedness and valuein an academic setting. Specifically, the study investigated the effects of autonomy,mastery goals, performance-approach goals, and performance-avoidance goals, ontwo dependent variables: relatedness to the professor and value of the course. Partici-pants were 222 undergraduate students (90 males) enrolled in introductory psychologyclasses. Linear regression analyses showed a statistically significant effect of masterygoals and autonomy on relatedness such that higher scores were associated with greaterrelatedness. A similar pattern emerged for value. Neither performance-approach norperformance-avoidance goals were significantly associated with relatedness or value.Theoretical and practical contributions are discussed.

Keywords Relatedness · Value · Motivation · Goal · Autonomy

Intrinsic motivation refers to an internal state or condition that influences or drivesbehavior. Activities that are intrinsically motivated are those that individuals chooseto do and find interesting and enjoyable (Deci and Ryan 1987). Intrinsic motivation

A. Kaufman (B)Department of Psychology, The George Washington University, 2125 G Street,Washington, DC 20052, USAe-mail: ark@gwu.edu

T. DodgeDepartment of Psychology, Skidmore College, Saratoga Springs, NY, USAe-mail: tdodge@skidmore.edu

123

102 A. Kaufman, T. Dodge

is believed to be important in the academic setting because it is positively associatedwith task persistence, effort, and enjoyment (Ryan and Deci 2000; Vansteenkiste et al.2004; Waterman 2005; Wild et al. 1997). Studies have shown that external rewards,such as grades, tend to undermine intrinsic motivation in the academic setting (Deci1971; Deci et al. 1999). Though students are often driven by external reasons todo schoolwork, there are characteristics of the school environment that can facilitateinternalization or integration of extrinsic rewards. Two such characteristics are: (1)how connected a student feels to his/her teacher and (2) how valuable the studentperceives the task to be.

Studies have identified relatedness and value as two factors that are critical for facil-itating and maintaining intrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan 2000a,b; Turney 1974).Relatedness refers to the desire to feel connected to others (Bowlby 1958; Ryan 1993).In academic settings, research has focused primarily on students’ feelings of related-ness to teachers (Gest et al. 2005). This research has shown that students’ perceptionsof relatedness or connectedness to their teachers are associated with positive outcomes,such as positive behavioral engagement and academic outcomes (Connell et al. 1994;Connell and Welborn 1991; Decker et al. 2007). Value refers to how worthwhile orimportant a person perceives an activity to be. Individuals that find personal meaningor importance in engaging in a behavior will be more likely to internalize that behav-ior, even in the presence of extrinsic motivators (Deci et al. 1994). Taken togetherthis literature demonstrates that relatedness and value may foster internalization orintegration of extrinsic motivators.

Although relatedness and value appear to have an important effect on students’ aca-demic experiences, almost no studies have examined factors that influence relatednessand value in the academic setting. The objective of the present study is to identifyfactors that influence relatedness and value in the college setting. Two such factors areautonomy and achievement goals.

1 Autonomy and achievement goals

1.1 Autonomy

A number of studies have identified autonomy as a factor critical for success in theacademic setting (Grolnick and Ryan 1987; Vansteenkiste et al. 2005). Autonomyrefers to a person’s desire to feel choiceful in their actions and to be the locus ofinitiation of those actions (Connell and Ryan 1987). Students who characterize theirteachers as autonomy supportive are more likely to be intrinsically motivated thanstudents who do not characterize their teachers this way (Grolnick and Ryan 1987).Other studies conducted in the academic setting have shown that autonomy is positivelyassociated with task interest, conceptual understanding, grades, and psychologicalwell-being (Patrick et al. 1993; Reeve et al. 2002; Vansteenkiste et al. 2004; Williamsand Deci 1998). Autonomy is likely to play an important role in facilitating feelingsof relatedness and value in the classroom setting.

123

Student perceptions and motivation 103

1.2 Achievement goals

Achievement goals provide a framework for how individuals interpret and experienceachievement settings (Elliot 1999). Many studies have examined the role of achieve-ment goals in the academic setting (Church et al. 2001; Harackiewicz et al. 1997,2002; McGregor and Elliot 2002). Achievement goals influence the way studentsapproach, experience, and perform in their classes (Elliot and Harackiewicz 1996;Grant and Dweck 2003; Harackiewicz et al. 2000). Two types of achievement goalshave been identified: mastery and performance goals. Mastery goals are aspirationsthat people hold in order to gain skills and competencies in comparison to their ownprior performance. For individuals with mastery goals, success is achieved when onehas learned something new (Dweck and Leggett 1988). Those with mastery goalsview challenges as an opportunity to learn a new skill or to improve upon one’s pastperformance. Individuals with mastery goals show adaptive responses to feedback,even when the feedback is negative, because such feedback provides informationabout how to improve one’s skills or abilities (Dweck 1986). A positive relation-ship has been established between mastery goals and intrinsic motivation (Cury et al.2002; Elliot and Church 1997; Shih 2005). While this literature has shown that mas-tery goals facilitate intrinsic motivation, the current study examines the relationshipbetween mastery goals and two components of intrinsic motivation, relatedness andvalue.

In contrast, individuals with performance goals are concerned with normativelybased evaluations or comparisons (Dweck 1992). Performance goals have beendichotomized into approach goals and avoidance goals. Performance-approach goalsinvolve moving toward a desired or positive outcome, and individuals holding strongperformance-approach goals want to demonstrate how much ability they have rela-tive to others. Performance-avoidance goals involve moving away from an undesiredoutcome, and individuals holding strong performance-avoidance goals want to avoiddocumenting their inability relative to others. Success for those who hold performancegoals is the result of outperforming others whereas failure is the result of being outper-formed by others. This focus on normative evaluations has implications for the wayfeedback is interpreted. When an individual with performance goals (both approachand avoidance) receives negative feedback, the self is threatened because such feed-back signifies incompetence, not an additional opportunity to learn (Grant and Dweck2003).

2 Current study

Although much work has examined how autonomy and achievement goals influencemotivational and performance outcomes, no research to date has examined the affectof these constructs on relatedness and value. Given that autonomy and achievementgoals exert such strong affects on performance in the academic setting, it seems likelythese constructs may also affect relatedness and value. The purpose of the currentstudy is to test whether autonomy and achievement goals influence relatedness andvalue in a college course.

123

104 A. Kaufman, T. Dodge

2.1 Relatedness

It is likely that autonomy will be positively associated with relatedness. Research hasshown a positive relationship between autonomy and relationship satisfaction such thatthose who report greater autonomy support in a relationship report that relationshipas more satisfying than those who report lower levels of autonomy support (Hodginset al. 1996). This suggests that autonomy has a positive effect on relationship quality.This logic can be extended to the college setting and predicts that students who havea greater sense of autonomy will feel closer or more related to their professors.

Like autonomy, mastery goals are expected to have a positive influence on relat-edness. Students with mastery goals are concerned with improving their skills and asa result are likely to interpret feedback received in classes as information for how toimprove. Because feedback is given by the professor, students with higher masterygoals may be more likely to view the professor as a facilitator of the learning processthan those with lower mastery goals.

Both performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals are expected to benegatively associated with relatedness. Those who hold performance goals are con-stantly looking to others for feedback to gauge how well they are doing. Becauseprofessors in an academic setting serve as the source for feedback, this feedback maycause students to feel threatened and may result in a barrier for feelings of relatedness.For these students, a professor may be viewed as an authority figure or judge of theirability, not a facilitator of learning. Thus, a negative relationship is expected betweenboth performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals and relatedness.

2.2 Value

It is likely that autonomy will be positively associated with value. Students who feelthey have greater autonomy should find their class to be of greater value than thosewho feel they have less autonomy. This is because students who experience greaterautonomy have selected their activities out of personal preference and want to see thattheir choices are valuable. As a result, students who report higher feelings of autonomywill experience their class as more valuable than individuals who report lower feelingsof autonomy.

As with autonomy, it is expected that mastery goals will be positively associatedwith value. Students with stronger mastery goals are likely to view their class asmore valuable than those with weaker mastery goals because the class provides anopportunity to learn and improve. Because students with stronger mastery goals areinterested in acquiring new knowledge and skills, they may view college courses as avaluable way to achieve these goals than those with weaker mastery goals.

It is predicted that both performance-approach and performance-avoidance goalswill be negatively related to value. Those with strong performance-approach goalsmay value a class less than those with weaker performance-approach goals becausetheir focus is on demonstrating success relative to others, not the inherent value ofthe class itself. Similarly, for those with performance-avoidance goals, the class isnot perceived as an opportunity to experience success, but rather the chance to fail.

123

Student perceptions and motivation 105

As a result students holding strong performance-avoidance goals may see limitedvalue or utility in the course. Because students with either type of performance goalare focused primarily on their standing relative to others, the class is not useful perse. Instead, relative comparisons are viewed as important. Students holding bothperformance-approach and performance-avoidance goals will be focused on perfor-mance outcomes, such as obtaining good grades, rather than the value of the experience.We predict a negative relationship between performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals and value.

3 Method

3.1 Participants

Two hundred and twenty-two (90 men and 132 women) undergraduate students infour introductory level psychology classes participated in the study (general psychol-ogy= 145, social psychology = 77). Approximately 72% were Caucasian, 4% wereAfrican American, 4% were Hispanic, 12% were Asian, and the remaining 8% weresplit between Native American and other. Approximately 40% were freshmen, 43%sophomores, 12% were juniors, and 5% were seniors.

3.2 Procedure

The study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at The George WashingtonUniversity. Trained research assistants attended the last 15 min of class. After theprofessor had left the room, research assistants read the following description of thestudy aloud, “Today, you have the opportunity to participate in a research study thatwill assess how the school environment influences student perceptions about school.”Participation was voluntary and students who did not wish to participate were freeto leave the room. Those who remained were asked to read and sign an informedconsent form. After all of the consent forms were signed and collected, the survey wasdistributed.

3.3 Measures

Reliability coefficients for all measures are shown in parentheses in Table 1. Relat-edness and value were assessed using two subscales from the Intrinsic MotivationInventory (Self-Determination Theory, n.d.). Participants were asked to think aboutthe class that they were currently in while reading each statement and indicate howtrue each statement was for them. Each item was measured on a seven point scale withpoints labeled 1 (not at all true), 4 (somewhat true) and 7 (very true).

3.3.1 Relatedness

The relatedness subscale contains six items that assess participants’ perception ofrelatedness or connectedness to their professor in the class (e.g. “I feel really distant

123

106 A. Kaufman, T. Dodge

Table 1 Zero-order correlations for all study variables

Variable 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Performance-approach (.90) – – – – –2. Performance-avoid .23** (.77) – – – –3. Mastery .07 −.13 (.87) – – –4. Autonomy −.04 −.22** .39** (.78) – –5. Value .03 −.05 .65** .36** (.91) –6. Relatedness .001 −.15* .29** .25** .49** (.69)

*Correlation is significant at the .05 level,**Correlation is significant at the .01 levelNote: Reliability coefficients are shown parenthetically

to this professor” and “I’d like the chance to interact with this professor more often”).Items were scored so that higher numbers indicated greater relatedness.

3.3.2 Value

The value scale contains four items that assess participants’ perception of how valuableand the class is for them (e.g. “I would be willing to take a class similar to this againbecause it has some value to me” and “I think this is an important class”). Items werescored so that higher numbers indicated greater perception of value.

3.3.3 Autonomy

The perceived choice subscale of Sheldon and Deci (1996) Self-Determination Scalewas adapted to assess the extent to which participants function in an autonomous orself-determined way. Participants read five pairs of statements (e.g. statement A: “I amfree to do whatever I decide to do in this class” and statement B: “What I do is oftennot what I would choose to do in this class”) and were asked to think about whichstatement was truer of them. These items were measured on a five point scale with theendpoints labeled 1 (only A feels true) and 5 (only B feels true). Items were scored sothat higher numbers reflected greater autonomy.

3.3.4 Achievement goals

Elliot and Church’s (1997) achievement goal questionnaire was adapted to assessparticipants’ achievement goals in the course. This questionnaire contains three six-item scales. One scale contains items measuring mastery goals (e.g. “In a class likethis, I prefer course material that arouses my curiosity, even if it is difficult to learn”).One scale contains items measuring performance-approach goals (e.g. “I am motivatedby the thought of outperforming my peers in this class”). One scale contains itemsmeasuring performance-avoidance goals (e.g. “I often think to myself, ‘What if I dobadly in this class?”’). Each item was measured on a seven point scale with pointslabeled 1 (not at all true for me), 4 (somewhat true for me), and 7 (very true for me).Higher scores reflect greater propensity toward the goal.

123

Student perceptions and motivation 107

3.4 Data analysis

Linear regression analysis was used to test study objectives. To test the first objectiveof the study, relatedness was regressed onto autonomy, mastery goals, performance-approach goals, and performance-avoidance goals. To test the second objective, valuewas regressed onto autonomy, mastery goals, performance-approach goals, andperformance-avoidance goals.

4 Results

4.1 Descriptive statistics

Means and standard deviations of all study variables are shown in Table 2. Value dif-fered significantly by gender F(1,221) = 10.63, P < .001, therefore gender is enteredas a covariate in the analysis where value is the dependent variable. As seen in Table 2,females perceived the class as being more valuable than males (t = 3.26, P = .001).Overall, participants appeared to have strong mastery goals. Performance-approachand performance-avoidance goals were above the mid-point of the scale. Table 1presents the zero-order correlations for all study variables. Consistent with previ-ous research, there was a positive correlation between performance-approach andperformance-avoidance goals (Elliot and Church 1997). Performance-avoidance goalswere negatively associated with autonomy and relatedness.

4.2 Relatedness

To test the effect of goals and autonomy on relatedness, relatedness was regressed ontoautonomy, mastery goals, performance-approach goals, and performance-avoidancegoals. The effect of autonomy was statistically significant and the unstandardizedregression coefficient indicated a positive impact of autonomy on relatedness, suchthat for every one unit autonomy increases, relatedness is predicted to increase .15 units(b = 0.15, P < .05). The effect of mastery goals was statistically significant and theunstandardized regression coefficient indicated a positive impact of mastery goals on

Table 2 Means and standard deviation of study variables by gender

Variable Overall Males Females

M SD M SD M SD

Relatedness 5.48 .81 5.47 .80 5.49 .82Value 5.57 1.20 5.26∗ 1.28 5.78∗ 1.09Performance-approach goals 4.46 1.38 4.29 1.50 4.56 1.29Performance-avoidance goals 4.52 1.22 4.31∗ 1.21 4.67∗ 1.20Mastery goals 5.31 1.11 5.16 1.16 5.40 1.07Autonomy 2.97 .81 2.95 .72 2.98 .87∗ P < .05

123

108 A. Kaufman, T. Dodge

Table 3 Variables associatedwith relatedness

Variable Unstandardized Standard P-valuebeta error

Intercept 5.49 0.05 .00Performance-approach 0.01 0.04 .84Performance-avoid −0.06 0.05 .17Mastery 0.16 0.05 .00Autonomy 0.15 0.07 .04

relatedness, such that for every one unit mastery goals increase, relatedness is predictedto increase .16 units (b = 0.16, P < .01). Performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals were not statistically significant predictors of relatedness. The overallmodel was significant F(4, 217) = 6.92, P < .01 (adjusted R2 = 0.10). Results of thisanalysis are shown in Table 3.

4.3 Value

To test the effect of goals and autonomy, value was regressed onto autonomy andgoals. Because value differed by gender, gender was entered as a covariate in thisanalysis. There was a statistically significant positive effect of autonomy on value,such that for every one unit autonomy increases, value is predicted to increase .20units (b = 0.20, P < .05). The effect of mastery goals was statistically significantand the unstandardized regression coefficient indicated a positive impact of mastery onvalue, such that for every one unit mastery goals increase, value is predicted to increase.64 units (b = 0.64, P < .01). Performance-approach and performance-avoidancegoals were not statistically significantly predictive of value. The overall model wassignificant F (5, 216) = 29.67,P < .01 (adjusted R2 = 0.45). Results of the analysisare shown in Table 4.

5 Discussion

The present study is one of the first to examine the independent effects that autonomyand achievement goals have on relatedness and value. Results showed that masterygoals and autonomy were significantly associated with relatedness such that those who

Table 4 Variables associatedwith value controlling for gender

Variable Unstandardized Standard P-valuebeta error

Intercept 5.01 0.21 .00Performance-approach −0.03 0.05 .50Performance-avoid 0.04 0.05 .40Mastery 0.64 0.06 .00Autonomy 0.20 0.08 .02Gender 0.36 0.12 .00

123

Student perceptions and motivation 109

had stronger mastery goals and those who felt more autonomous reported feeling moreconnected to their professors. Mastery goals and autonomy were also significantlysignificant predictors of value such that those who had stronger mastery goals andthose who felt more autonomous reported feeling that the class was more valuable.The findings for value are especially notable because no prior research has examinedthis construct in an academic setting.

Results of the present study make a number of theoretical and practical contribu-tions. The results make theoretical contributions to both Self-Determination Theory(Deci and Ryan 2000a) and Achievement Goal Theory (Elliot 1999). Recent studieson Self-Determination Theory have begun to highlight the critical role that internal-ization and integration play in psychological and physical well-being (Burton et al.2006; Deci and Ryan 2000b; Williams et al. 1996). Higher levels of relatedness andvalue are associated with integration of extrinsic behaviors, making the behaviors moreintrinsic to the individual. The present study suggests that mastery goals and autonomymay facilitate two constructs essential for that process: relatedness and value.

Results of the study extend the existing literature on Achievement Goal Theory.The results showed that mastery goals are positively and significantly associated withfeelings of relatedness to the professor and value of the course. This finding is consis-tent with other studies that show mastery goals are positively related to task interestor internalized motivation (Elliot and Harackiewicz 1996). In addition, the presentresults suggest that performance goals neither facilitate nor inhibit self reports of relat-edness or value among undergraduate students. These null findings for performancegoals in predicting relatedness and value warrant future attention because past studieshave documented a negative relationship between performance-avoidance goals andintrinsic motivation (Elliot and Church 1997; Elliot and Harackiewicz 1996). Thosewho hold performance goals may be focused on the outcomes of their efforts ratherthan the process of getting there or the value they may get out of the learning experi-ence. Furthermore, those with strong performance goals may not view the professor assomeone to hold feelings of relatedness or connectedness towards, as they are viewedas a giver of rewards and punishments (e.g. grades).

The present study has a number of implications for higher education policy and forthe classroom. Over the past decade administrators in higher education have reportedunacceptably high attrition rates. At two-year public institutions only 51% of studentsenrolled return the second year, and at four year public institutions about 68% ofstudents enrolled return the second year (American College Testing Program 2007).To address attrition rates, it has been suggested that colleges and universities implementprograms to make students feel more related or connected to their coursework (Watsonet al. 2004). The present data suggest another way to improve feelings of relatedness:providing students with more choice in their curriculum and fostering a sense ofmastery goals. Such improvements can be targeted at both the structural or policylevel, as well as at the classroom level.

At the structural level, one possible change would be for universities and collegesto provide course offerings where the goals and outcomes of the courses focus onenhancing knowledge and skills (mastery focus) instead of performance based out-comes like a grade. Projects where students may demonstrate knowledge of coursematerial through application to the real world would be one such way to increase

123

110 A. Kaufman, T. Dodge

feelings of mastery. Rather than having exams with a set of pre-determined questions,students could be asked to write openly about what they have learned. Enrollment inthese types of courses may lead to increased feelings of relatedness and value.

Although structural changes like providing special courses may be cost or resourceprohibitive, there are specific things that can be done by advisers and professors thatmight improve feelings of relatedness and value. For example, colleges and univer-sities could change the way they describe the general curriculum requirements andrequirements for the major. It might be worthwhile to convey to students that theyhave the autonomy to choose the direction of their education and to stress the deci-sions made about courses are a reflection of the student. Thus, encouraging studentsto take ownership of their course selection and overall education may improve howconnected a student feels to the educational environment and the value s/he places ontheir education. As a result, student retention rates would likely improve.

Although this study makes contributions to Self-Determination Theory and offersinteresting directions for future research, there are several limitations that must beacknowledged. This research used a cross-sectional design and future research shouldexamine the relationships under study in a prospective design to see whether autonomyand achievement goals predict changes in relatedness and value over time. The presentstudy used a sample of college students making it difficult to generalize the results toother younger or older populations or to other domains such as the workplace. Despitethese limitations, we feel the study makes interesting contributions to the existingliterature on factors influencing student motivation.

Acknowledgements We wish to thank Stephen Forssell for his comments on this manuscript. We wishto thank the research assistants who contributed to this project: Jennifer Clift, Dana Epstein, CrystalKannankeril, and Mary Yama.

References

American College Testing Program. (2007). National collegiate retention and persistence to degree rates.Retrieved July 26 from http://www.act.org/research/policymakers/pdf/retain_2007.pdf.

Bowlby, J. (1958). The nature of the child’s tie to his mother. Jahrbuch der Psychoanalyse, 99, 350–373.Burton, K. D., Lydon, J. E., D’Alessandro, D. U., & Koestner, R. (2006). The differential effects of intrin-

sic and identified motivation on well-being and performance: Prospective, experimental, and implicitapproaches to self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 750–762.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.750

Church, M. A., Elliot, A. J., & Gable, S. L. (2001). Perceptions of classroom environment, achievement goals,and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 43–54. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.43.

Connell, J. P., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Self-regulatory style questionnaire: A measure of external, introjected,identified, and intrinsic reasons for initiating behavior. Manual, University of Rochester.

Connell, J. P., Spencer, M. B., & Aber, J. L. (1994). Educational risk and resilience in African-Americanyouth: Context, self, action, and outcomes in school. Child Development, 65(2), 493–506. doi:10.2307/1131398.

Connell, J. P., & Welborn, J. G. (Eds.). (1991). Competence, autonomy and relatedness: A motivationalanalysis of self-system processes (Vol. 23). Hillsdale, NH: Erlbaum.

Cury, F., Elliot, A., Sarrazin, P., Da Fonseca, D., & Rufo, M. (2002). The trichotomous achievementgoal model and intrinsic motivation: A sequential mediational analysis. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 38, 473–481. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00017-3.

123

Student perceptions and motivation 111

Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 18(1), 105–115. doi:10.1037/h0030644.

Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 119–142. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00797.x.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examin-ing the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668.doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024–1037. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1024

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000a). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68.

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. The American Psychologist, 41(10),1040–1048. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040.

Dweck, C. S. (1992). The study of goals in psychology. Psychological Science, 3(3), 165–167.doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00019.x.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–273. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256.

Elliot, A. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist,34(3), 169–189. doi:10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3.

Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motiva-tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218–232. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.72.1.218.

Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsicmotivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 461–475.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.461.

Gest, S. D., Welsh, J. A., & Domitrovich, C. E. (2005). Behavioral predictors of changes in socialrelatedness and liking school in elementary school. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 281–301.doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2005.06.002.

Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 85(3), 541–553. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.85.3.541.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: An experimental and individualdifference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 891–898. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.5.890.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. T., & Elliot, A. J. (1997). Predictors andconsequences of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(6), 1284–1295. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.73.6.1284.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term andlong-term consequences of achievement goals: Predicting interest and performance over time. Journalof Educational Psychology, 92(2), 316–330. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.316.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Predicting success in college:A longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of interest and perfor-mance from freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 562–575.doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.3.562.

Hodgins, H. S., Koestner, R., & Duncan, N. (1996). On the compatibility of autonomy and relatedness.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 227–237. doi:10.1177/0146167296223001.

Legault, L., Green-Demers, I., & Pelletier, L. (2006). Why do high school students lack motivation in theclassroom? Toward an understanding of academic amotivation and the role of social support. Journalof Educational Psychology, 98(3), 567–582. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.3.567.

McGregor, H. A., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Achievement goals as predictors of achievement-relevant processesprior to task engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 381–395. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.381.

Patrick, B. C., Skinner, E. A., & Connell, J. P. (1993). What motivates children’s behavior and emotion?Joint effects of perceived control and autonomy in the academic domain. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 65(4), 781–791. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.4.781.

123

112 A. Kaufman, T. Dodge

Reeve, J., Jang, H., Hardre, P., & Omura, M. (2002). Providing a rationale in an autonomy-supportiveway as a strategy to motivate others during an uninteresting activity. Motivation and Emotion, 26(3),183–206. doi:10.1023/A:1021711629417.

Ryan, R. M. (1993). Agency and organization: Intrinsic motivation, autonomy and the self in psychologicaldevelopment (Vol. 40). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and newdirections. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 54–67. doi:10.1006/ceps.1999.1020.

Self Determination Theory. An Approach to Human Motivation and Personality. The Self-DeterminationScale. (Retrieved January 22, 2007). http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/measures/selfdet.html.

Sheldon, K., & Deci, E. (1996). The self-determination scale. University of Rochester.Shih, S. (2005). Taiwanese sixth graders’ achievement goals and their motivation, strategy use, and grades:

An examination of the multiple goal perspective. The Elementary School Journal, 106(1), 39–58.doi:10.1086/496906.

Turney, J. R. (1974). Activity outcome expectancies and intrinsic activity values as predictors of severalmotivation indexes for technical-professionals. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance,11(1), 65–82. doi:10.1016/0030-5073(74)90005-1.

Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learn-ing, performance, and persistence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 246–260.doi:10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.246.

Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Matos, L. (2005). Examining the motivationalimpact of intrinsic versus extrinsic goal framing and autonomy-supportive versus internally controllingcommunication style on early adolescents’ academic achievement. Child Development, 76(2), 483–501.doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2005.00858.x.

Waterman, A. S. (2005). When effort is enjoyed: Two studies of intrinsic motivation for personally salientactivities. Motivation and Emotion, 29(3), 165–188. doi:10.1007/s11031-005-9440-4.

Watson, G., Johnson, G. C., & Auston, H. (2004). Exploring relatedness to field of study as an indi-cator of student retention. Higher Education Research & Development, 23(1), 57–72. doi:10.1080/0729436032000168496.

Wild, T. C., Enzle, M. E., Nix, G., & Deci, E. L. (1997). Perceiving others as intrinsically or extrinsicallymotivated: Effects on expectancy formation and task engagement. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 23(8), 837–848. doi:10.1177/0146167297238005.

Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1998). The importance of supporting autonomy in medical education.Annals of Internal Medicine, 129, 303–308.

Williams, G. C., Grow, V. M., Freedman, Z. R., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Motivational predictors ofweight loss and weight-loss maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 115–126.

Author Biographies

Annette Kaufman is a doctoral candidate in Applied Social Psychology at The George Washington Univer-sity in Washington, DC. Her research interests include adolescent health and risk-taking behaviors, decisionmaking related to health, and motivational factors that impact health behavior.

Tonya Dodge is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology at Skidmore College. Her researchfocuses on identifying factors that facilitate and inhibit physical and psychological well-being.

123