Which of the following are linked to an ego avoidance perspective on sport achievement?

Achievement goal theory has distinguished two types of achievement goals or goal states. The first type has been referred to as a learning goal (Dweck, 1986), mastery goal (Ames & Archer, 1988), or the state of task involvement (Nicholls, 1984). When we are task-involved, our primary goal is learning or mastery of the task for its own sake. Task involvement usually occurs when we are intrinsically interested in the activity. In task involvement, competence is judged in a self-referenced manner. There is a focus on improvement and, when we work hard and improve, we anticipate positive affects (Jagacinski & Nicholls, 1984). In a task-involved state, we are not concerned with how others perform at the same task. Social comparison information is not necessary to evaluate our competence. There is some evidence that the mere presence of social comparison information about the effort and performance of others does not have a major impact on anticipated reactions to our own accomplishments in task-involving states or contexts (Jagacinski & Nicholls, 1987). In addition, in task-involving contexts, students show greater interest in information about how to do the task than in normative performance information Butler, 1992, Butler, 1993.

The second type of goal has been termed a performance goal Ames & Archer, 1988, Dweck, 1986 or the state of ego involvement (Nicholls, 1984). When we are ego-involved, we are concerned with demonstrating to ourselves or others our superior competence. In this goal state, we may also be interested in mastering the activity, but as a means to the end of demonstrating superior competence. Social comparison information plays an important role in ego involvement because we cannot really judge if our competence is superior without comparing ourselves to others. Working hard to achieve success is not sufficient to demonstrate competence. Instead, we must perform as well as others, but with less effort, or outperform others applying the same effort. Butler, 1992, Butler, 1993 has reported that students are more interested in normative performance information in ego-involving conditions than in task-involving conditions.

Jagacinski & Nicholls, 1984, Jagacinski & Nicholls, 1987 investigated the impact of social comparison information on students' anticipated affective reactions to successful performance in task- and ego-involving contexts. To create the different contexts, Jagacinski and Nicholls (Study 5; 1984, 1987) asked students to think of an activity that they enjoyed for its own sake (task-involving) or one that they wanted to be outstanding at and would feel terrible about if they were below average (ego-involving). Students were further asked to imagine that they selected a new project to work on. Some imagined they worked hard and succeeded, while others imagined they succeeded with little effort. Students who only received effort information anticipated more positive affective reactions from high effort rather than low effort regardless of the type of activity they were asked to name. However, half of the students were given social comparison information in addition to effort information. Those in the high effort scenario were told that others needed less effort to succeed and those in the low effort scenario were told that others needed more effort to succeed. The social comparison information was particularly detrimental to students who were asked to name an activity they wanted to excel at and to imagine they put forth a lot of effort to complete their project. These students anticipated feeling more embarrassed and less competent than students who imagined working hard to succeed on an activity that they wanted to excel at without any social comparison information. Among the students who were asked to name an activity that they enjoyed for its own sake, the addition of the social comparison information that others could do as well with less effort did not have much impact on their anticipated reactions.

Achievement goals are a function of both situational and individual difference factors. Research, which has manipulated the situation or context, has demonstrated that ego-involving instructions, compared to task-involving instructions, lead to poorer performance Elliott & Dweck, 1988, Graham & Golan, 1991, Hall, 1988, less intrinsic interest Plant & Ryan, 1985, Ryan, 1982, less positive attitudes towards the task, and a preference for easier tasks (Treasure, 1993, reported in Duda, 1994).

Other research has examined the correlates of personal goal orientations (e.g., Duda & Nicholls, 1992, Meece et al., 1988, Meece & Holt, 1993, Nicholls, 1989, Nicholls et al., 1985, Thorkildsen & Nicholls, 1998). Goal orientations are viewed as general tendencies and are typically assessed with questionnaires concerning how individuals define success (e.g., Nicholls, 1989) or their reasons for engaging in the task (e.g., Midgley et al., 1998). In this paper, we will use the approach that assesses how the student defines success. Students with a task orientation feel successful when they apply effort and learn something new. Students with an ego orientation define success in terms of performing better than their classmates and demonstrating their superior ability to others. In most studies, the two types of orientation scales are not highly related (e.g., Duda & Nicholls, 1992, r=.21). Thus, students are as likely to be high or low in both task and ego orientation as they are to be high in one and low in the other. Different goal orientation scales have been developed to address specific areas (e.g., academics, mathematics, sports) and specific age groups (e.g., Duda & Nicholls, 1992, Nicholls, 1989, Nicholls et al., 1990).

Research involving goal orientations has been field-based and correlational, typically conducted in academic settings concerning orientations towards academics in general or towards specific academic subject areas. These studies have reported positive relationships between task orientation and the following variables: performance (Meece & Holt, 1993); use of effective learning strategies Ames & Archer, 1988, Greene & Miller, 1996, Meece et al., 1988, Nolen, 1988, Wolters et al., 1996; positive attitudes Archer, 1994, Meece et al., 1988, Nicholls et al., 1989; and positive affective reactions (Vlachopoulos, Biddle, & Fox, 1996). Further, Duda (1994) reports that task orientation is consistently related to enjoyment and satisfaction in achievement domains. Studies typically report less strong (e.g., Archer, 1994, Meece et al., 1988, Middleton & Midgley, 1997, Wolters et al., 1996) or nonsignificant relationships between ego orientation and these variables. A few recent studies have reported a positive relationship between ego orientation and grades (e.g., Elliot & Church, 1997, Elliot & McGregor, 1999).

To date, no research that we are aware of has examined the relationship between dispositional goal orientations and anticipated affective reactions to negative social comparison information in different achievement contexts. How would we expect individual differences in goal orientations to relate to anticipated affective reactions in contexts that are typically task-involving or ego-involving? First, as found in previous studies, we would expect negative social comparison information to have more of an impact in an ego-involving context than in a task-involving context. We further expect the personal goal orientations to be most predictive of anticipated affects when they are in conflict with the achievement context. That is, in a task-involving context, students would typically focus on improvement through effort and anticipate positive affective reactions, pretty much ignoring negative social comparison information. However, in such a context, individuals who have a strong ego orientation would be expected to focus on the social comparison information and anticipate feeling embarrassed. Likewise, most individuals who are concerned with excelling at a task (ego-involving context) would attend to the negative social comparison information and anticipate some embarrassment. However, individuals who are high in task orientation may attend more strongly to the fact that they tried hard and succeeded and still anticipate positive affective reactions. In summary then, we expect the personal dispositions to direct the individual's attention to the information that is relevant for his or her conception of competence (e.g., effort information for the self-referent task-involved conception, social comparison information for the normative ego-involved conception). In effect then, we expect personal goal orientations to interact with achievement context in predicting anticipated affective reactions.

We should point out that, recently, some researchers have included a third goal orientation, an avoidance orientation Elliot & Church, 1997, Midgley et al., 1998, Skaalvik, 1997. The task and ego orientations studied in the past and in this study both represent approach orientations. The avoidance orientation is characterized as a need to try to succeed in order to avoid looking incompetent. Research suggests that the avoidance orientation is negatively related to self-efficacy Midgley et al., 1998, Skaalvik, 1997, self-esteem, and self-concept (Skaalvik, 1997). These scales were not available at the time we collected our data. However, given that we asked the students to name activities that they found personally important and they either enjoyed or wanted to excel at, there is no reason to expect avoidance orientation to have a large role. We expect the approach orientations to be more likely to dominate. We expect that the avoidance orientation is more likely to come into play when students have no choice about participating in an activity, which is often the case in academic contexts.

According to achievement goal theory, the individual's perceived ability relative to others plays an important role in ego-involving situations, but not in task-involving situations Elliott & Dweck, 1988, Nicholls, 1984. Perceived ability involves an assessment of how good one is at the activity relative to others (Nicholls, 1984). Thus, perceived ability incorporates social comparison. The theory predicts that when individuals with low perceived ability start to fail in ego-involving situations, they become anxious and their performance deteriorates. Individuals with low perceived ability have been found to make disparaging comments about their ability and to express negative affect when they experience failure in an ego-involving situation (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). This is not predicted to happen when individuals with high perceived ability experience some failure in an ego-involving situation. Dweck and Bempechat (1983) reported that children who are confident of their abilities simply redouble their efforts when difficulties are experienced. Furthermore, perceived ability should not play a major role in reactions to difficulties in task-involving situations.

Although there is some experimental evidence that manipulated perceived ability has a role in performance in task- and ego-involving conditions Elliott & Dweck, 1988, Hall, 1988, little is known about the influence of perceived ability on anticipated reactions to performance outcomes. Achievement goal theory does not make a specific prediction concerning the influence of perceived ability on anticipated affective reactions. However, based on the theory, we might anticipate that perceived ability would interact with ego orientation and achievement context in predicting anticipated reactions to negative social comparison information. First, ego orientation may play a stronger role for those with low perceived ability. We expected ego orientation to have a stronger influence in a task-involving context than an ego-involving context. Perceived ability may qualify this predicted interaction such that it only occurs for those with low perceived ability. On the other hand, perceived ability may not play a major role when we examine activities students define as personally important, because students then are likely to name activities for which they have high perceived ability.

We were also interested in determining if men and women would differ in goal orientations and anticipated affective reactions. There is already evidence of gender differences in goal orientations. Bouffard, Boisvert, Vezeau, and Larouche (1995) found that, in a college sample, women scored higher than men in task orientation. Research on children in the fifth and sixth grade has also reported higher task orientation among girls than boys Meece & Holt, 1993, Thorkildsen & Nicholls, 1998. In addition, Thorkildsen and Nicholls (1998) reported that fifth-grade boys were more ego-oriented than fifth-grade girls. However, all of these studies have involved goal orientations for academics. The pattern may differ when orientations are assessed for activities that students find personally important.

Several researchers have noted that men tend to be more competitive than women Spence & Helmreich, 1983, Urdan, 1997, Veroff, 1977. Other research suggests that women are more attentive to information about their effort than are men. Zuckerman (1979) found that women are more likely than men to attribute success to effort, whereas men are more likely to attribute success to ability. In addition, Koestner, Zuckerman, and Koestner (1989) found that girls respond more positively than boys to effort-focused praise. Women may be less influenced by negative social comparison information in a hypothetical scenario than men if the situation involves success achieved through high effort.

The purpose of the current research was to examine the extent to which personal task and ego orientations relate to anticipated reactions to success when students imagine that they try very hard at an activity and succeed, but find out that others did not need as much effort to achieve the same level of performance. This situation is of interest because it contrasts the two different ways of defining success found in task involvement and ego involvement. In the case of task involvement, this situation should be clearly defined as success and should lead to positive reactions because the individual succeeds through high effort. The social comparison information should have little impact. However, in the case of ego involvement, this situation would not be interpreted as successful because others can do as well with less effort. The social comparison information implies that the individual has less ability than others.

In order to provide students with a personally relevant and familiar task, we used the same procedure as Jagacinski and Nicholls (1987) in which students are asked to name a skill-based activity that is important to them personally, and then imagine themselves in a specific situation involving that activity. Other research on goal orientations has examined relationships when students consider academics in general. In this experiment, we examined relationships in the context of activities that students personally value. The two different achievement contexts were created based on the nature of the activity the student was asked to name. In one context, the activity was something the students enjoyed doing for its own sake and, in the other context, the activity was one at which they felt that it was important to be outstanding (taken from Jagacinski & Nicholls, 1984, Jagacinski & Nicholls, 1987). Past research suggests that students are more sensitive to social comparison information in the outstanding performance context (Jagacinski & Nicholls, 1987).

We were interested in examining activities that the students are familiar with and contexts that are natural. The two contexts, enjoyment of an activity for its own sake and wanting to excel at an activity, were not expected to represent pure states of task or ego involvement. We expected that students would be more likely to be task-involved than ego-involved when performing tasks that they enjoy for their own sake, but ego involvement could still contribute to enjoyment. We also did not expect the activities that the students wanted to excel at to engender pure states of ego involvement, although we would anticipate greater ego orientation for these activities than for those that the students enjoy for their own sake. Thus, our primary goal was to investigate the impact of personal goal orientations on anticipated affective reactions in these different achievement contexts. Jagacinski & Nicholls, 1984, Jagacinski & Nicholls, 1987 did not collect data on personal goal orientations and, thus, only examined the impact of the context on anticipated affective reactions.

We summarize here our predictions concerning anticipated affects:

In order to shed greater light on the factors contributing to enjoyment or a need to excel, in a more informal part of the study, we asked the students to briefly explain why they enjoyed their activity or why they wanted to excel at it. We wanted to see what themes would arise from these open-ended responses and how they might reflect different aspects of incentive value. Eccles Eccles, 1987, Parsons & Goff, 1980 has suggested that there are different components to the incentive value of a task, such as attainment value (importance of attainment to one's self-concept), interest value (intrinsic enjoyment), and utility value (value of performance for future goals). The students in the Jagacinski and Nicholls' (1987) study who named activities that they wanted to excel at tended to name academic or vocationally relevant activities. In writing about their activity, these students tended to emphasize the importance of the skills for career goals (utility value) and meeting personal standards of excellence (attainment value). In contrast, students who named activities that they enjoyed for their own sake were unlikely to mention academic or career-related activities. These students were more likely to name sports and artistic activities (e.g., art and music) and to write about the interest value of the activity. In a comparison of students who named competitive sports in the enjoyment context with those naming competitive sports in the outstanding performance context, Jagacinski (1992) found similar themes mentioned, although there was greater emphasis on skill development among those in the enjoyment context. In the current study, we wanted to see if competitive sports and career-related activities would evoke similar themes when they were mentioned in the same achievement context (enjoyment or outstanding performance).