On the Nature of Motivational Orientations: Implications of Assessed Goals and Gender Differences for Motivational Goal Theory

Abstract

In a historical revision of the achievement goal construct, Elliot (2005) recognized that there is little consensus on whether the term “goal” in “achievement goal orientations” (GO) is best represented as an “aim”, as an overarching orientation encompassing several “aims”, or as a combination of aims and other processes -self-regulation, etc.-. Elliot pointed also that goal theory research provides evidence for different models of GO. As there were no consensus on these issues, we decided to get evidence about the nature and structure of GO, about the role of gender differences in the configuration of such structure, and about relations between GO, expectancies, volitional processes and achievement. A total of 382 university students from different faculties of two public universities of Madrid (Spain) that voluntarily accepted to fill in a questionnaire that assessed different goals, expectancies and self-regulatory processes participated in the study. Scales reliability, confirmatory factor analyses, multiple-group analyses, and correlation and regression analyses were carried out. Results support the trichotomous model of GO, the consideration of GO as a combination of aims and other psychological processes, showed some gender differences and favour the adoption of a multiple goal perspective for explaining students' motivation.