Defining Achievement Motivation

Buy this book »

Achievement contexts can be found anywhere—on the playing field, on stage, in an art studio, or even in a kitchen or a garden. To be sure, standards and even the definitions of success vary among contexts. In sports success usually means winning, although it could also be defined in terms of personal improvement. Success for a pianist might be measured in the length of applause or in newspaper reviews, for a hostess in the amount of food the guests consume, and for a surgeon in patient survival rates. This article focuses primarily on school contexts, but most of the issues discussed apply to any context that involves some standard against which performance can be measured—any situation that offers the opportunity to succeed or fail.

Theoretical Frameworks

Several psychological theories will be used to organize our analysis of achievement motivation. Theories of motivation are created to help us explain, predict, and influence behavior. If we can explain why individuals behave the way they do in achievement settings we might be able to change their behavior. Why does Defensive Dave pretend to be working when he is not, and how can we get him to exert genuine effort on school tasks? Why does Satisfied Santos put so much more effort into intellectual activities outside of school than those in school? What can be done to interest him in the school curriculum? Why doesn't Alienated Al attend school regularly, and how can we get him interested and engaged in academic work?

Motivation theories are important to discuss because everyone has them. And consciously or unconsciously, people rely on their theories of what causes behavior when deciding how to try to change their own or another's behavior.

The theory a researcher chooses for studying motivation influences how motivation is measured and defined in his or her studies, and what his or her notions are about appropriate interventions to address motivation problems. Some of the theories discussed in this book contradict each other; they cannot both be "right." More often different theories are compatible because they account for different aspects of achievement motivation or focus on different causes of behavior.

Over time, psychological theories are often modified in response to research evidence on their usefulness in predicting and changing behavior. New theories are also developed, and different theories become prominent at different times. In general, psychological theories that have been used to explain behavior in achievement contexts have shifted focus in the last few decades, from observable behavior to psychological variables—such as beliefs, values, and goals—that can be inferred but cannot be directly observed from behavior. Below is a brief overview of the theories discussed in this book.

Reinforcement theory, which dominated the educational literature until the early 1960s, conceptualizes motivation entirely in terms of observable behavior. According to traditional reinforcement theory, individuals exhibit a particular behavior in achievement or other settings because they have been reinforced (rewarded) for that behavior in the past. Accordingly, students who are rewarded (for example, with good grades) for working hard on school tasks and for persisting when they face difficulty will continue to work hard and persist in the future.

Reinforcement theory was originally derived from drive theories, which assumed that reinforcement necessarily involved the reduction of basic biological needs (e.g., hunger and thirst; Hull, 1943, 1951). Applications to achievement contexts, however, assume that other consequences (e.g., teacher praise) take on reinforcing properties by having previously been associated with the reduction of basic drives, and can therefore influence behavior. In contrast to drive reduction theories, the best-known reinforcement theory today, developed primarily by Skinner (1974), does not make any claims about particular qualities of reinforcements. Any consequence of a behavior that increases the likelihood of its future recurrence is, by definition, reinforcing.

Reinforcement theory is considered "mechanistic" because it is not concerned with beliefs, feelings, aspirations, or any other psychological variable that cannot be directly observed. It assumes that there is a direct link between the consequences to a behavior and the likelihood that it will be repeated.

The theory has clear implications for how motivation is conceptualized and measured. Motivation is not considered a quality of the person, but rather a set of behaviors and their contingencies (i.e., whether the behaviors are rewarded or punished). Any attempt to explain, predict, or influence motivation would involve measuring behavior and examining the consequences of the current and the desired behavior. A reinforcement theorist who wanted Defensive Dave to exert more effort, for example, would first closely examine the consequences of Dave's behavior. What happens to him when he spends 20 minutes sharpening his pencil and arranging his desk? What happens on those rare occasions that he completes tasks efficiently? The next step would be to adjust the environmental consequences so that the undesirable behaviors (wasting time) were punished, or at least not rewarded, and the desired behaviors (getting to work and completing tasks) were rewarded.