1. HOW PERCEPTIONS OF SUCCESS AND GOALS IMPACT MOTIVATION Damon Burton University of Idaho

2. What is success? AND How do we define it?

3. IS SUCCESS SUBJECTIVE OR OBJECTIVE?  What is objective success?  How does it differ from subjective success?  Give me an example of objective success.  Provide an example of subjective success.

4. OBJECTIVE VERSUS SUBJECTIVE SUCCESS  Objective Success – winning or placing high in a race.  Subjective Success – reaching a valued goal such as playing slightly beyond your current performance capabilities (CPC).

5. Which type of success is more feasible and controllable?

6. MAEHR & NICHOLLS (1980)  Success and failure are not objective events BUT subjective perceptions of each individual.  Perceived success and failure are defined based on whether performance exceeds goals.

7. MAEHR & NICHOLLS (1980)  Goals define success and failure 2 ways  what you are trying to accomplish or personal attributes you value  degree to which performance meets or exceeds goal standards  Primary Achievement Goals  social approval  ability  task/intrinsic

8. PRIMARY ACHIEVEMENT GOALS  Social Approval – others tell you that you did well  Ability – socially compare well and demonstrate competence  Task/Intrinsic – learning, mastery and self-comparison

9. Does success or failure mean the same thing to EACH of us?

10. Do we define these terms the same way?

11. If not, are there gender, racial, ethnic or cultural differences in definitions of success and failure?

12. MEASURING ACHIEVEMENT GOALS  In order to get people’s perceptions of what success and failure means to them, researchers started with the Antecedent and Consequence Method commonly used in attitude research.  Antecedents were measured with the stem, “If you have ________, then you have success/failure.”  Consequences were measured with the stem, “If you have success/failure, then you have ____________.”

13. CONCEPTS CLOSEST AND FARTHEST FROM SUCCESS  A related strategy involved in understanding individual definitions of success/failure involved examining concepts that are closest and farthest from success and failure.  Both open-ended or multiple choice formats have been used.  What are the concepts that are closest to success? _____________  What are the concepts that are farthest from failure? _____________

14. SUCCESS IS DEFINED IN TERMS OF VALUES  Values are learned attitudes.  Values are influenced by...  gender roles learned from significant others  cultural values  racial and ethnic-based norms and beliefs  religious doctrine  other groups that influence how we view the world and decide what is important

15. How do we measure subjective perceptions of success and failure?

16. ANTECEDENTS OF SUCCESS  If you have ____, then you have success. ____ enjoyment ____ fame ____ brighter future ____ sense of accomplishment ____ attention ____ successful life ____ pride ____ friends ____ better life style ____ feelings of competence ____ recognition ____ opportunity to succeed ____ go to a good college ____ great family ____ spirituality ____ scholarships ____ good spouse ____ great social support ____ get into career of choice ____ nice home ____ people I can count on ____ marketability in your field ____ livable community ____ exciting career goals

17. ANTECEDENTS OF FAILURE

18. CONSEQUENCES OF SUCCESS

19. CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE

20. CONSEQUENCES OF SPORT SUCCESS

21. CONSEQUENCES OF SPORT FAILURE

22. PERCEPTIONS OF SUCCESS  Research confirms that success and failure are subjective terms that reflect gender, racial, ethnic and cultural –based personality, attitudes, values and learning experiences.  Definitions of success and failure will differ across and within groups based on how these factors determine personally valued goals.

23. What role do goals play in definitions of success and failure?

24. ROLE OF GOALS IN MOTIVATION

25. NICHOLLS’ (1984) MOTIVATIONAL ORIENTATION  Built on Maehr & Nicholls (1980) research on perceptions of success by combining “social approval” and “ability” goals into a single motivational orientation he termed “ego-involvement.”  Similarly, he combined “intrinsic” and “task” goals into a motivational orientation he termed “task-involvement.”

26. NICHOLLS’ (1984) MOTIVATIONAL ORIENTATIONS  Ego-Involvement – perceptions of ability are based on comparison with other competitors (e.g., placing high and/or winning/losing).  Task-Involvement – perceptions of success are based on learning, improving or surpassing personal performance standards (e.g., setting a PR).  TI performers assume enough ability to learn and improve.  TI competitors may not consider they fail because they are challenged and take a problem-solving approach.

27. CHARACTERISTICS OF EGO-INVOLVEMENT  Ability is viewed as “capacity”  The EI concept of ability is a complex evaluation that includes:  opponents’ ability  outcome  effort expenditure  EI performers perceive they have high ability when they socially compare well and win often.

28. CHARACTERISTICS OF TASK-INVOLVEMENT  Ability is viewed as “mastery”  The EI concept of ability involves a simpler evaluation that includes:  performance  effort expenditure  EI performers perceive they have high ability when they socially compare well and win often.

29. STATES OF INVOLVEMENT (SOI) PROFILES  Nicholls (1989) defined TI and EI as independent constructs, thus you are either TI or EI but not both at the same time.  Contextual and situational factors can prompt us to switch from EI to TI and visa versa.  Thus, our involvement state may be (a) almost totally TI, (b) almost totally EI, or (c) a range of combinations in between (e.g., 50% TI, 50% EI).

30. WHAT FACTORS DETERMINE SOI PROFILES  Elliot’s (1999) Approach/Avoidance SOI Model combines TI/EI with approach/ avoidance tendencies to identify 4 SOI profiles.  Dweck’s (1999) Learned Helpless Model and Gillham, Burton and Gillham’s (2013) Motivational Styles Models combine TI/EI with perceived competence to identify 3-4 SOI profiles.  SOI Profiles impact a range of motivational variables including: attributional pattern, effort, task choice, response to failure, and performance.

31. ELLIOT’S (1999) APPROACH- AVOIDANCE MODEL  Elliot’s (1999) Approach/Avoidance SOI Model examines differences in TI/EI profiles when performers are in approach situations versus avoidance situations.  Mastery-approach focuses on much greater TI because focus is on successful mastery.  Mastery-avoidance focuses on greater TI even when trying to avoid failure. How rare should these situations be?  Performance-approach focuses on greater EI when focus is on successful social comparison.  Performance-avoidance is characterized by greater EI when trying to avoid comparing poorly with others.

32. DWECK’S (1999) LEARNED HELPLESSNESS MODEL  Dweck’s (1999) Learned Helplessness SOI Model examines differences in TI/EI profiles when performers are in situations where their confidence/competence is high versus low.  Mastery -- focuses on much greater TI because focus is on successful mastery regardless of competence.  Performance-oriented focuses on greater EI when focus is on successful social comparison because of high competence levels.  Learned helplessness is characterized by greater EI when trying to avoid comparing poorly with others because of low competence brought on by low control.

33. DWECK’S (1999) LEARNED HELPLESS-RELATED STYLES  Dweck’s (1999) Learned Helplessness SOI Model makes predictions for motivational patterns for each style, particularly related to outlook, S/F attributions, effort expenditure, task choice and resiliency.  Mastery – demonstrates optimistic outlook, ideal attributions, high-consistent effort, high challenge preference and high resiliency.  Performance-oriented -- prefers optimistic outlook, good attributions, enough effort to win, moderate challenge preference and moderate resiliency.  Learned helpless is characterized by a pessimistic outlook, damaging attributions, extreme effort choices, low challenge preference and low resiliency.

34. GILLHAM ET AL. (2013) MOTIVATIONAL STYLE MODEL  Gillham, Burton & Gillham’s (2013) Competitive Motivational Styles Model examines differences in TI/EI profiles when performers are in situations where their confidence/competence is high versus low.  Development-Focused (DF) - focuses on greater TI because success is based on mastery regardless of competence.  Win-Focused (WF) – emphasizes greater EI when focus is on successful social comparison because of high competence.  Doubt-Oriented (DO)– concentrates more on EI but is worried about poor social comparison due to concerns about competence. Hasn’t given up on success.  Failure-Evader (FE) -- is characterized by greater EI when trying to avoid comparing poorly with others because of low competence brought on by limited autonomy. Is trying not to look incompetent.

35. GILLHAM ET AL. (2013) MOTIVATIONAL STYLE PATTERNS  Motivation patterns for Gillham et al.’s (2013) CMSQ SOI Model for competitive outlook, S/F attributions, effort expenditure, task choice and resiliency.  DF – demonstrates optimistic outlook, ideal attributions, high-consistent effort, high challenge preference and high resiliency.  WF -- prefers optimistic outlook, good attributions, enough effort to win, moderate challenge preference and moderate resiliency.  DO shows a pessimistic outlook, damaging attributions, extreme effort choices, moderate challenge preference and limited resiliency.  FE is characterized by a pessimistic outlook, damaging attributions, extreme effort choices, low challenge preference and low resiliency.