Amity Goals Reading

Amity goals 1

Victory with no victims: Amity achievement goals Liat Levontin

ABSTRACT In this thesis I propose to expand goal orientation theory. Goal orientation theory has developed within a social-cognitive framework and focuses on the goals that are pursued or perceived by individuals in an achievement situation that result in different patterns of cognition, affect, and behavior (Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls, 1984). The theory initially described two achievement goals: Mastery goal, the goal to develop competence by acquiring new skills and developing mastery in new situations; and performance goal, the goal to demonstrate competence or to avoid the demonstration of lack of competence by approaching positive judgments from others and avoiding negative ones. Several scholars have advocated that goal orientation is better conceptualized as a three factor construct. They provided theoretical explanations and empirical evidence that performance goals focused on positive outcomes (approach motivation) have very different effects than performance goals focused on negative outcomes (avoidance motivation) and should thus be separated to performance-approach goals and performance-avoidance goals (Elliot & Church, 1997; Midgley et al., 1998; VandeWalle, 1997). Both the newer and the former conceptualizations of goal orientation theory relate to competence as the one most relevant need in achievement situations. In this work, I suggest that relatedness needs may be relevant as well.

Amity goals 2 In the first part, I suggest that goal orientation theory may be better conceptualized as a two dimensional space in which mastery goals and performanceavoidance goals are interpreted on the continuum of the competence dimension whereas performance-approach goals are interpreted on another dimension. Studies 1-3 support this suggestion. Study 1 (N = 122) tested the structure of goal orientations in an attempt to uncover a circumplex structure, if one exists, by employing a Smallest Space Analysis (SSA, Guttman, 1968), a nonmetric multidimensial analysis, on two existing academic goal orientation questionnaires (Elliot & McGregor, 2001; VandeWalle, Cron, & Slocum, 2001). The results support the hypothesis that mastery and performanceavoidance goals are represented on the continuum of one dimension, the competence dimension, while performance-approach goals are better interpreted on the continuum of another dimension. Study 2 (N = 782) replicated the findings of Study 1 with two existing work goal orientation questionnaires (Button, Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996; VandeWalle, 1997). Furthermore, this Study tested the hypotheses that values may serve as antecedents of goal orientations. Indeed, a unique pattern of relations between goal orientations and the dimensions of Schwartz' values theory (Schwartz, 1992) was found such that each of the three goal orientations was positively correlated with one higher order value, negatively correlated with the opposite conflicting higher order value and not correlated with the other dimension's two higher order values. Study 3 (N = 122) further supported the structure of goal orientations and also supported the hypothesis that the relations between goal orientations and values are stable over time. The relations between goal orientations and values measured a few

Amity goals 3 months apart replicated the relations found in Study 2 when goal orientations were measured immediately after values were reported. In the second part, I present a new achievement goal – amity goal and a four goal orientations model (FGOM). I suggest that the two most relevant needs in achievement situations are competence and relatedness, and that these needs are independent of one another. Competence and relatedness are thus the basis of a two dimensional goal orientations model. Amity goal is the goal to increase relatedness, cooperate with others, help others to succeed, and develop and improve relations with others. Amity goals are better interpreted on the relatedness dimension, and performance-approach goals, or contest goals as I suggest calling them, are also better interpreted on this dimension. Studies 4-5 were conducted to support theses suggestions. Study 4 (N = 635) tested the four goal orientations model. Amity items were developed and added to the goal orientation questionnaire and data was analyzed with confirmatory factor analysis, SSA, and correlations with values. The confirmatory factor analysis supported the four goals model. The SSA analysis further supported a two dimensional structure in which mastery and performance-avoidance goals represent two ends of one dimension, the competence dimension, whereas contest and amity goals represent another dimension, the relatedness dimension. The Four Goal Orientations Model (FGOM) was further supported by analyzing the relations between each of the four goal orientations with values. Each goal presented a unique pattern of correlations with values in the hypothesized directions such that each of the four goal orientations had positive correlations with one motivational type of values, negative correlations with the opposed motivational type of values and no correlations with the type of values that belong to the other motivational axis.

Amity goals 4 Study 5 (N = 430) further corroborated FGOM structure. The structure found in Study 4 was replicated albeit Studies 4 and 5 were different in their research populations (Israeli students, Americans with work experience), language of research items (Hebrew, English), goal orientation domain (school, work) and goal orientation items. In the third part, Studies 6-8, I present a nomological network for FGOM. In these studies I tested the relations between each of the four goal orientations and other motivational and personality constructs: Basic needs, attachment styles, and the Big-5 personality traits. This part builds a better picture of what amity goals are. Specifically, individuals with high amity goals value benevolence and universalism over power and achievement (Study 4) are motivated by relatedness needs rather than competence and autonomy needs (Study 6, N = 178), are low on the avoidance dimension of attachment (Study 7, N = 208), and are high on agreeableness and emotional stability (Study 8, N = 240). In the fourth part, I present some of the many possible consequences of FGOM. Studies 9-10 test changes in motivation following failure and present the advantages of using a two dimensional model to study achievement motivation following failure. Manipulating a combination of two goal orientations, one from each dimension, revealed that amity goals may immune individuals with performance-avoidance goals from the detrimental effects failure. Study 9 (N = 182) tested student's motivation following failure. A beneficial effect of amity goals on motivation following failure above and beyond the known effect of mastery goals was hypothesized. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 (competence) X 2 (relatedness) experimental design. In each of the conditions participants read a scenario that described failure in an academic class.

Amity goals 5 The results revealed that following failure, it is the combination of mastery and amity goals that yielded the highest level of motivation and may relate to the mastery-oriented pattern documented by Dweck (1999). In addition, the combination of performanceavoidance and contest goals yielded the lowest level of motivation and may relate to the helpless pattern. Thus, this study demonstrated a beneficial effect of amity goals on response to failure above and beyond the known effect of mastery goals. Study 10 (N = 112) tested student's motivation following failure in a real task. Participants were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 (competence) X 2 (relatedness) experimental design. Following the experimental manipulations, each participant worked on a task that demanded creativity and received bogus negative feedback. The hypothesized immunity effect was found in this Study, namely, the motivation following failure in task performance was higher when performanceavoidance goals were coupled with amity goals than when they were coupled with contest goals. Finally, the results of the first 8 studies were meta-analyzed and despite the existence of moderators, the results support the suggested structure of FGOM. Taken together, the 10 studies presented here suggest that achievement motivation may be better understood by considering the relatedness as well as the competence dimensions of achievement goals.

Amity goals 6 Introduction Achievement motivation is significant to our every day lives at work, school, and sports. Success is important in achievement situations because of the rewards it may carry. Yet, only a few can obtain such rewards: Not everyone can be promoted and get a large bonus at work, few receive "A" grades at school, and very few receive the gold medal in sports. Thus, competition is inherent to achievement situations. Paradoxically, pursuing success in achievement situations may not necessarily lead to success (VandeWalle, 2001). Indeed, people who pursue mastery goals, that is to increase one's competence, usually demonstrate superior performance over people who pursue performance-avoidance goals, that is to avoid showing evidence of incompetence (Elliot & Dweck, 2005). Do all individuals hold contest goals in achievement situations? Is contest the only path to superior performance? This thesis suggests that Amity goals are also pursued in achievement situations, and may affect emotions, motivation and successful performance in ways not predicted by goal orientation theory. Goal orientation theory Achievement goals theory has developed within a social-cognitive framework and focuses on the goals that are pursued or perceived by individuals in an achievement situation that result in different patterns of cognition, affect, and behavior (Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls, 1984). The theory describes two achievement goals: The goal to develop competence by acquiring new skills and developing mastery in new situations (variously named as task goal, learning goal, or mastery goal), and the goal to demonstrate competence or to avoid the demonstration of lack of competence by approaching positive judgments from others and avoiding negative ones (variously named as ability goal, ego goal, or performance goal). These goals differentially influence the way individuals perceive achievement situations:

Amity goals 7 Individual who hold a mastery goal tend to perceive achievement situations as opportunities to learn new skills, to develop and improve one's capabilities, while individuals who hold a performance goal tend to perceive achievement situations as tests of one's abilities and skills. The orientation toward either mastery goals or performance goals is an identifiable chronic trait but can also be influenced by situational factors. The chronic orientation is determined by one's implicit theory of intelligence (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Specifically, people who hold an incremental theory of intelligence, that is, believe that intelligence and other capabilities are increasable, tend toward mastery goals, while people that hold an entity theory of intelligence, that is, believe that intelligence and other capabilities are relatively fixed, tend toward performance goals. The situational orientation can be influenced by several interventions (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Specifically, mastery goals can be induced by praise for effort, a focus on attaining competence and task involvement, whereas performance goals may be induced by praise for intelligence, low expectancies to succeed and information on how well one performs in comparison to others (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Each goal orientation has different consequences. People who hold mastery goals are willing to take the risk of making an error for the purpose of learning. They also prefer to perform difficult, challenging and new tasks, rather than repeat a familiar task. Conversely, people who hold performance goals tend to sacrifice learning opportunities that involve the risk of making errors. They also prefer to perform familiar tasks in which they feel “safe” as not to make errors, and are reluctant to choose difficult tasks (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Mastery goals elicit enjoyment, optimism and intrinsic interest (Butler, 1987; Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988), whereas performance goals elicit helplessness, negative affect, anxiety and stress (Dweck & Leggett, 1988).

Amity goals 8 This theory was supported empirically in different domains such as school (Butler, 2006; Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000; Middleton & Midgley, 2002), work (Brett & VandeWalle, 1999; Button et al., 1996; Lin & Chang, 2005), and sports (Boyd & Kim, 2007; Tod & Hodge, 2001). However, accumulating data yielded inconsistencies regarding the consequences of performance goals. To give just one example, Midgley et al. (1998) describe a large number of studies that found that mastery goals were positively associated with academic self-efficacy, while performance goals were sometimes related positively, sometimes negatively, and sometimes unrelated to academic self-efficacy. It was suggested then, that performance goals involve more than one motivation and should thus be separated into performance-approach goals and performance-avoidance goals. A three goal orientations model Several scholars have advocated that goal orientation is better conceptualized as a three factor construct. They provided theoretical explanations and empirical evidence that performance goals focused on positive outcomes (approach motivation) have very different effects than performance goals focused on negative outcomes (avoidance motivation) and should thus be separated to performance-approach (also named abilityapproach, proving) goals and performance-avoidance (also named ability-avoid) goals (Elliot & Church, 1997; Midgley et al., 1998; VandeWalle, 1997). Thus, a three goal orientations model was introduced: Mastery goals (develop competence), performanceapproach goals (demonstrate competence), and performance-avoidance goals (avoid the demonstration of lack of competence).

Studies overview

Amity goals 9 In this thesis I present a further theoretical development of goal orientation theory. The thesis is built of four parts; each part is supported by empirical data. In the first part I suggest that goal orientation theory is better conceptualized as a two dimensional space in which mastery goals and performance-avoidance goals are best interpreted on the continuum of the competence dimension whereas performanceapproach goals may be better interpreted on another dimension. Studies 1-3 support this suggestion. I use Smallest Space Analysis (SSA) and present the unique pattern of relations between goal orientations and the dimensions of Schwartz' values theory (Schwartz, 1992) to show the dimensionality of goal orientations. In the second part I present a new goal orientation – amity goals and a four goal orientations model (FGOM). I suggest that the two most relevant needs in achievement situations are competence and relatedness, that amity goals are better interpreted on the relatedness dimension, and that performance-approach goals, or contest goals as I suggest to call them, are also better interpreted on this dimension. Studies 4-5 were conducted to support theses suggestions. The third part, Studies 6-8, build a nomological network for FGOM. In these studies I test the relations between each of the four goal orientations and other motivational and personality constructs: Basic needs, attachment styles, and the Big-5 personality traits. Finally in the fourth part I present some of the many possible consequences of FGOM. Studies 9-10 test changes in motivation following negative feedback. In this part I present the advantages of using a two dimensional model to study achievement motivation following negative feedback.

Amity goals 10 Chapter 2 - A four goal orientations model The results of Studies 1-3 hint at the existence of a fourth goal orientation. The SSA maps all three studies (see Figures 1 & 3) had empty space in them opposite the performance-approach items suggesting the existence of a goal orientation that was not measured. A concept like goal orientation may be studied in terms of the conceptual components that make it up, in much the same way as a continent can be explored in terms of its geographical regions (Shye et al., 1994). The set of variables in each of the maps include goal orientation items that are a sample of the goal orientation concept. The map revealed an unexplored region of the goal orientation concept, a region that was not represented by any item from the goal orientation questionnaires used, and thus, in the following studies I added to the item sample of goal orientation new items which may enable to uncover and define the entire goal orientation concept space. Also, Studies 2 & 3 (see Figures 4 & 5) presented three different patterns of correlations between goal orientations and values. Three of the higher order values positively correlated with one of the goal orientations while the fourth higher order value, self-transcendence (universalism and benevolence), was not related positively to any of the goal orientations. Values are organized in a two dimensional space (Schwartz, 1992, see Figure 2). One dimension contrasts higher order openness to change and conservation value types and as showed in Studies 2 & 3 may serve as antecedent to mastery and performance-avoidance goals. The second dimension contrasts higher order self-enhancement and self-transcendence value types and as showed in Studies 2 & 3 may serve as antecedent of only performance-approach goals. The empty space in the SSA map may represent a goal that its antecedents may be selftranscendence values, that is, a goal that may be positively correlated with selftranscendence values and negatively correlated with self-enhancement values. The

Amity goals 11 pattern of relations between values and goal orientations brings us to suggest that the second relevant dimension to achievement motivation, other than competence needs is the dimension of relatedness needs. Competence is presented as the core need of achievement motivation (Elliot & Dweck, 2005). I suggest that achievement situations may also enable the fulfillment of the need for relatedness. More than one theory other than values theory support the suggestion that the combination of competence and relatedness needs better explain motivation and behavior than competence needs alone. Self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) for example defines autonomy, competence and relatedness, the need to feel belongingness and connectedness with others, as the three basic needs. The need to belong is considered a fundamental human motivation (Baumeister & Leary, 1995). Attachment theory (Mikulincer & Shaver, 2003) also suggests the existence of two central systems, the attachment system that exists to bring the infant into close proximity with its caregiver (relatedness) and the exploration system that exists to drive the infant to learn about the environment (competence). From another world of content, the stereotype content model also suggests two primary dimensions of stereotypes content, competence and warmth, in which competition predicts low warmth (Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002). Therefore, I believe that relatedness needs play a role in achievement situations and are also translated to achievement goal orientations. To explore whether relatedness needs can be detected in currently used performance-approach items performance-approach items from several goal orientation questionnaires were examined. Indeed, many of the items used to operationalize performance-approach (normative) goals fit the relatedness dimension. For example, Grant & Dweck's (2003) normative goals' items all include contest components (e.g. "…do well in my courses compared to others." "…confirm that I am more intelligent

Amity goals 12 than other students."; bold typeface added). Elliot & McGregor, (2001) used three items to measure performance-approach goals: "It is important for me to do better than other students", "My goal in this class is to get a better grade than most of the other students", and "It is important for me to do well compared to others in this class". These items although originally developed to measure the need to appear competent in the eyes of others share a common theme, above and beyond, what these items were developed to measure. This theme I believe is contest, wanting to outperform others, not only to appear competent in their eyes. Contest I suggest is a goal orientation on the continuum of the relatedness dimension, thus, from now on, I use the term contest goals and not performanceapproach goals to emphasize that contest goals better fit the relatedness dimension. But contest is only one alternative to relate to others in achievement situations. Another alternative to relate to others may be to increase relatedness via, I suggest, Amity goals. Amity goal orientation is the goal to increase relatedness, cooperate with others, help others to succeed, and develop and improve relations with others. Whereas contest goal orientations represent wanting to outperform others and working against others to win, amity goals are about striving with others toward task accomplishment. Indeed, the importance of relatedness in achievement situations was noted in adolescence goal orientation research. For example, Wentzel and colleagues (Wentzel, 1998, 1999; Wentzel & Caldwell, 1997; Wentzel & Watkins, 2002) provide insights into ways in which students' multiple social and academic goals might influence their academic accomplishments. Urdan & colleagues (Urdan, 1997; Urdan & Maehr, 1995; Urdan & Schoenfelder, 2006) claimed that mastery and performance goals are insufficient to explain student behavior and suggested that a consideration of social goals is necessary for a fuller understanding of motivation and achievement in school

Amity goals 13 settings. Finally, higher achievement of adolescents at school was found to be associated with cooperative rather than competitive or individualistic goal structures (Ames & Ames, 1984; Roseth, Johnson, & Johnson, 2008). Roseth et al. (2008) suggested that this differential effect of goal structures on achievement, corroborates the research on goal orientations such that cooperative goal structure overlap with mastery goals whereas competitive goal structure overlaps with performance goals. I tend to agree with the latter, that performance-approach goals overlap with competitive goal structure but not with the former. Rather, I propose that the adaptive effect of cooperation-mastery over competition-performance suggested by Roseth et al. (2008) is not due to an overlap between mastery goals and cooperative goal structure, but rather due to the belonging of these two goals to two independent dimensions and thus to their being simultaneously and independently activated.

Studies overview Studies 1-3 established goal orientation theory as a two dimensional theory. Mastery and performance-avoidance goals are best interpreted on the continuum of the competence dimension while contest goals are better interpreted on the relatedness dimension. In the next two studies amity goal orientation is presented, a new goal orientation that belongs to the relatedness dimension. In these studies I show that in a two dimensional space, mastery goal items emerge opposite to performance-avoidance items whereas contest goal items emerge opposite to amity items. The empty space found in Studies 1-3 will be filled by amity items. Study 4 also shows that amity goals fill up the picture of the relations between goal orientations and values such that amity goals are positively related to self-transcendence values and are negatively related to self-enhancement values. In other words, each of the four higher order values is now

Amity goals 14 positively related to one goal orientation, negatively related to the other goal orientation from the same dimension (competence or relatedness), and is not related to the two other goal orientations from the other dimension.

Study 4 Based on previous results I proposed that contest (performance-approach) goals and amity goals belong to the relatedness dimension. In this study I test the suggestion that the conflict between self-enhancement and self-transcendence values described by Schwartz values theory is represented in achievement situations by the conflict between competing with others in order to outperform them – contest goals, versus cooperating and promoting the welfare of others in order to achieve better results for all – amity goals.1 Thus I hypothesize (also see last column in Table 2): H1: In a two dimensional space mastery goal items will emerge opposite to performance-avoidance items whereas contest (performance-approach) goal items will emerge opposite to amity items. H2: Amity goals will be positively correlated with universalism and benevolence values, negatively correlated with achievement and power values, and not correlated with other values.

1

Recent research applied achievement goals to the social domain: Social achievement goals (Ryan & Shim, 2006) and friendship goals (Elliot, Gable, & Mapes, 2006). These two models deal with social competence in social situations. Our model suggests combining relatedness and competence needs into one model of achievement.

Amity goals 15 Method Participants & procedure A total of 635 University students (39.8% woman, mean age = 23.98 years) were asked to report their values and then to report their goal orientations in return for course credit or a small amount of money (~ 2$). 35 participants who failed to follow the instructions of the values questionnaire were eliminated from the analyses. Instruments Goal orientations including Amity goals. Goal orientations were measured as in Study 1 with the addition of 10 amity goal orientation items (see Appendix A) that were developed and added to the questionnaire culminating with a 34-item questionnaire. Amity items were developed to measure cooperation with others, the will to help others to succeed, and the will to develop and improve relations with others. Also, items were developed to resemble as much as possible in style, warding, length etc. the other goal orientation items. Examples of items are, "It is important for me that my best friends will do as well as I do"; "A course that requires cooperation with others in exercises, home work etc. is more enjoyable for me"; "To be honest, I prefer studying with others than studying alone". Values. Values were measured with a 44-item version of Schwartz Value Survey (SVS, Schwartz, 1992) as in Studies 2 and 3. Results Confirmatory factor analysis A principal-components analysis using Promax rotation and restricting the solution to four factors yielded the expected pattern matrix. Promax rotation was used because of the documented negative correlation between mastery and performanceavoidance goals. Factor 1 contains all performance approach items. Factor 2 contains

Amity goals 16 all amity items. Factor 3 contains all performance-avoidance items except for one item ("My goal for this class is to avoid performing poorly compared to the rest of the class") from the Elliot & McGregor 2001 scale that did not load on any of the factors. Factor 4 contains all mastery items (see Table 3). Table 1 : Principal-component confirmatory factor analysis with item loadings Goal item type Elliot & McGregor 2001, Mastery

Vadewalle, Cron & Slocum, 2001, Mastery (Learning)

Elliot & McGregor 2001, Performance-avoidance

Vadewalle, Cron & Slocum, 2001, Performance-avoidance

Amity

Elliot & McGregor 2001, Performance-approach

Vadewalle, Cron & Slocum, 2001, Performance-approach (proving)

Item no. 1 11 15 2 4 6 8 3 13 25 32 33 34 18 22 24 26 5 9 17 20 21 23 27 28 30 31 7 19 29 10 12 14 16

1

Promax Rotation 2 3

.49 .56 .78 .74 .74 .56 .71 .52 .48 .68 .61 .71 .48 .75 .52 .76 .70 .61 .75 .77 .74 .74 .80 .68 .86 .85

Note. All loadings above .45 are shown.

This analysis revealed that consistent with my expectations amity goals are a distinct construct, participants clearly distinguished between amity goals and other goal

4 .84 .78 .76 .62 .64 .46 .50

Amity goals 17 orientations. Participants did not distinguish however between items measuring the same goal orientations that originated from different questionnaires. Structure Analyses To test the structure of the suggested four goal orientations model (FGOM), and uncover a circumplex structure if one exists, HUDAP was employed for an SSA analysis (see Figure 6). The Coefficient of Alienation (COA) was .12, indicating that two dimensions are sufficient to recover the correlation matrix. As expected, four separate groups of items emerged, representing the two dimensions proposed. Replicating Studies 1 through 3, all items measuring mastery goals were grouped together on the top left side of the SSA map, opposing all items representing performance-avoidance goals. Contest (performance-approach) items emerged on the top right side. As hypothesized, amity items were grouped together (on the bottom left of the map) opposite the contest items. The separation to four regions was almost as hypothesized (SI = .99) such that 33 of the 34 items emerged in the hypothesized area.

Amity goals 18 Figure 1: An SSA map of 34 academic related goal orientation items (Elliot & McGregor, 2001; VandeWalle et al., 2001) and amity items developed by us, COA = .12

Note. el = Elliot & McGregor mastery-approach items, ea = Elliot & McGregor performance-avoidance items, ep = Elliot & McGregor performance-approach items, vl = Vandewalle mastery items, va = Vandewalle performance-avoidance items, vp = Vandewalle performance-approach items, am = amity items.

Correlation analyses The four clusters of goal items (see Figure 6) were used to build mastery (7 items, α = .79), contest (7 items, α = .90), performance-avoidance (8 items, α = .86) and amity (10 items, α = .86) indexes. As in Study 2 centered each person’s responses were employed on his or her own mean. Figure 7 presents the correlations between goal orientations and values. As hypothesized amity goals had a unique pattern of correlations with values. Specifically,

Amity goals 19 amity goals positively correlated with benevolence (r = .27, p<.01) values and universalism (r = .16, p<.01) and, negativity correlated with power (r = -.24, p<.01) and achievement (r = -.21, p<.01) values. Also as expected amity goals were not correlated with security, conformity, tradition, stimulation and hedonism values. An unexpected negative correlation was found between amity goals and self-direction values (r = -.11, p<.01). The integrated hypothesis specified that the correlations between amity goals and the whole set of 10 values would follow the motivational circle of values from benevolence and universalism (most positive) in both directions around the circle to achievement, and power (most negative, see Table 2). A correlation of .88 (p < .01) between the predicted and observed order of correlations supported the integrated hypotheses. Only the correlation with self-direction deviated from the predicted circular order.

Amity goals 20 Figure 2: Correlations between academic related goal orientations and values (5=600) 0.4

0.3

0.1

0 pow

ACH

HED

ST

SD

UN

BE

TR

CO

SEC

Correlations

0.2

-0.1

-0.2

-0.3

Values avoid

mastery

amity

contest

Note. pow=power, ach=achievement, hed=hedonism, st=stimulation, sd=self direction, un=universalism, be=benevolence, tr=tradition, co=conformity, sec=security, avoid=performanceavoidance goals, mastery=mastery goals, amity = amity goals, contest=performance-approach goals.

Contest (performance-approach) goals had, as hypothesized, the opposing pattern of correlations with values. Specifically, replicating the results of Studies 2 & 3, contest goals positively correlated with power (r = .29, p<.01) achievement (r = .17, p<.01) and hedonism values (r = .12, p<.01) and negatively correlated with benevolence (r = -.27, p<.01) and universalism values (r = -.07, n.s.). Also as expected contest goals were not correlated with stimulation, self-direction, conformity, tradition and security values. A correlation of .90 (p < .01) between the predicted and observed order of correlations between contest goals and values supported the integrated hypotheses. Finally, the correlation between amity goals' correlations with values and contest goals' correlations with values was high and negative (r = -.92, p<.01) in line with the hypotheses that amity and contest goals represent two ends of one axis.

Amity goals 21 The correlations between mastery goals' correlations with values and performance-avoidance goals' correlations with values was high and negative (r = -.83, p<.01) replicating the results of Studies 2 and 3 and in line with the hypotheses that mastery and performance-avoidance goals represent two ends of one axis. Discussion The four goal orientations' SSA map revealed a two dimensional structure in which mastery and performance-avoidance goals represent two ends of one dimension, the competence dimension, whereas contest and amity goals represent another dimension, the relatedness dimension. The Four Goal Orientations Model (FGOM) was further established by analyzing the relations between each of the four goal orientations with values. Each goal presented a unique pattern of correlations with values in the hypothesized directions (see Table 4). Specifically, each goal orientation had positive correlations with one motivational type of values, negative correlations with the opposed motivational type of values and no correlations with the type of values that belong to the other motivational axis. Table 2: Values as antecedents of goal orientations Goal orientations Values (Schwartz, 1992)

Openness to change: Self direction & Stimulation Conservation: Security, Conformity & Tradition Self Enhancement: Power & Achievement Self Transcendence: Universalism & Benevolence

Mastery goals

Performance avoidance goals

Contest goals

Amity goals

+

-

0

0

-

+

0

0

0

0

+

-

0

0

-

+

Note. + = positive relations; - = negative relations; 0 = no relations.

Amity goals 22 Chapter 3 - 5omological network The relations between values and goal orientations were established such that each goal orientation relate differentially to values. I expect to find that each goal orientation relates differentially to other constructs as well. Testing these relationships serves to clarify the nature of the goal orientation constructs in the context of a larger nomological network, that is, the nature of each construct can be more fully understood by examining the association of that construct with other relevant constructs.

Studies overview In the following studies the relations between the four goal orientations and other constructs is tested: Basic needs (Study 6), attachment styles (Study 7) and the five factor model of personality traits (Study 8). These three constructs were chosen for several reasons. First, all these constructs are theories that have the potential to explain differently competence related goal orientations and relatedness related goal orientations. Other constructs such as implicit theories of intelligence, perceived ability or need for achievement (see Table 1) are antecedents of competence related goal orientations (mastery and performanceavoidance) but there is no theoretical basis to think that these constructs can well explain relatedness related goal orientations. On the contrary, as I suggested, the lack of a theory for the antecedents of contest (performance-approach) goals is at least to some extent the result of the assumption that performance-approach goals are competence related goals. Three theories that have the potential to explain both competence and relatedness goal orientations were thus chosen. Second, the three chosen theories represent three different self constructs – needs, traits and self-processes. Finally, the chosen antecedents represent different levels of previous research of the relations

Amity goals 23 between them and goal orientations. First are basic needs, which were not previously related to goal orientations, then attachment styles, which were related to goal orientations in only a few studies, and finally the five factor model of personality traits, which were widely related to goal orientations in many studies.

Study 6 The purpose of this Study was to test the relations between the four goal orientations model (FGOM) and basic needs. Self-determination theory (SDT, Deci & Ryan, 2000) proposes that an understanding of human motivation requires a consideration of innate psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness. Competence needs are related to goal orientations (e.g., Cury, Elliot, Da Fonseca, & Moller, 2006; El-Alayli, 2006; Van Yperen, 2006). Past research has shown that relatedness needs may also somewhat influence goal orientations (Pomerantz, Grolnick, & Price, 2005). Some studies investigated the relations between perceived achievement motivational climate (emphasis on mastery or performance goals) and basic needs in the sports achievement domain. It was found that mastery (named "Task involving") climate was positively related to perceived competence, autonomy and relatedness while performance (named "Ego involving") climate was negatively related or not related to perceived competence, autonomy and relatedness (Reinboth & Duda, 2006; Sarrazin, Vallerand, Guillet, Pelletier, & Cury, 2002; Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2003). The task-involving climate items reflect a sense that cooperative learning is encouraged, that each player has an important role on the team, and effort/improvement are emphasized. In other words, this measure may include both mastery and amity items and thus was related as one may expect to the three basic needs suggested by SDT. Ego-involving items reflect a sense that mistakes are

Amity goals 24 punished, that recognition by the coach is reserved for the most talented athletes, and that a feeling of intra-team rivalry exists among players in the team. In other words this measure may include both performance-avoidance and contest goals and thus was related as one may expect, yet negatively, to the same three basic needs. To my best knowledge the three basic needs were not considered as antecedents of goal orientations in past research. That is probably since it was assumed that competence is the underlying need of goal orientations (Elliot & Dweck, 2005) and relatedness needs were not expected to influence on goal orientations. This may be true when mastery and performance-avoidance goals are considered, but it is not the case when amity goals are considered as well. Therefore, I wish to suggest a comprehensive model of needs and goal orientations. Specifically, I hypothesize that: H1: Mastery (performance-avoidance) goals are positively (negatively) related to competence and autonomy needs and are not related to relatedness needs. H2: Amity (contest) goals are positively (negatively) related to relatedness needs and are not related to competence and autonomy needs. Method Participants & procedure. A total of 178 Hebrew University students (43.4% woman, mean age = 22.6 years) were asked to report their basic needs and their goal orientations in return for course credit. Instruments. Goal orientations. Goal orientations were measured as in Study 4. Basic !eeds. Basic needs were measured with the General Need Satisfaction Scale (Gagné, 2003), translated to Hebrew. Respondents indicated on a scale from 1

Amity goals 25 (not true at all) to 7 (definitely true) the extent to which the psychological needs of autonomy (7 items, α = .64), relatedness (8 items, α = .78), and competence (6 items, α = .70) are generally satisfied in their life. Examples of items are, “I generally feel free to express my ideas and opinions” (autonomy), “I consider the people I regularly interact with to be my friends” (relatedness), and “Most days I feel a sense of accomplishment from what I do” (competence). Results Tiered simultaneous regression analyses were conducted to examine the relations between basic needs and goal orientations. Each regression equation included the three basic needs (See Table 5).

Table 3: Standardized Coefficients and R Squares for goal orientations by basic needs Basic Needs

Goal Orientations

Model 1

Competence

Mastery Performance avoidance .34** -.29**

Model 2

Competence

.25**

-.08

.14

.01

Autonomy

.18*

-.42**

-.25**

.06

Competence

.25**

-.11

.14

-.08

Autonomy

.17*

-.45**

-.23*

-.09

Relatedness

.02

.10

-.04

.45**

.14

.22

.05

.16

Model 3

R2 Note. *p<.05, **p<.01

Contest

Amity

.01

.04

Amity goals 26 Competence was as hypothesized a positive predictor of mastery goals (β = .25) and a negative predictor of performance-avoidance goals (β = -.11). Most importantly and as hypothesized, competence needs did no predict either amity or contest goals (β = -.08, .14 respectively). Autonomy was as hypothesized a positive predictor of mastery goals (β = .17), and a negative predictor of performance-avoidance goals (β = -.45). Also as hypothesized autonomy did not predict amity goals (β = -.09). Not as hypothesized, autonomy needs were a negative predictor of contest goals (β = -.23). Relatedness was as hypothesized a positive predictor of amity goals (β = .45) and as hypothesized did no predict either mastery or performance-avoidance goals (β = .02, .10 respectively). Not as hypothesized, relatedness needs did not predict contest goals (β = -.04). Discussion The results of study 6 support the suggested FGOM's two dimensional structure. Mastery and performance-avoidance goals were suggested to be better interpreted on the competence dimension. Indeed, mastery goals were positively related to competence needs, performance-avoidance goals were negatively related to competence needs whereas amity and contest goals were not related to competence needs. It seems that the assumption that competence is the core of achievement motivation is only partially true. Amity and contest goals were both suggested to be better interpreted on the relatedness dimension. Indeed, amity goals were positively related to relatedness needs. Contest goals on the other hand, along with mastery and performance-avoidance goals were not related to relatedness needs. Unlike with competence and autonomy needs, no

Amity goals 27 goal orientation is negatively related to relatedness needs. This result may suggest that individuals with high contest goals do not feel unconnected to others. Autonomy needs predicted three of the four goal orientations. Autonomy concerns whether a goal reflects an individual's interests and personal values versus whether it is adopted because of social pressures or expectations of what an individual "should do" (Koestner, 2008). Thus, as hypothesized, autonomy was positively related to mastery goals that reflect self-direction and stimulation values (Studies 2, 4) and negatively related to performance-avoidance goals that reflect conformity, tradition and security values (Studies 2, 4). Autonomy was also negatively related to contest goals a relation that was not predicted. The relations between contest goals and values can be used for a post-hoc explanation of these relations. Specifically, contest goals reflect power and achievement values (Studies 2, 4) values that are related to social expectations and thus should be negatively related to autonomy needs. After establishing the relations between FGOM and basic needs, a relation that was not studied before, I move next to study the relations between FGOM and attachment styles. The relations between goal orientations and attachments styles were studied in the past, in few studies.

Study 7 The purpose of this Study was to test the relations between the four goal orientations model (FGOM) and attachment. Adult attachment may be conceptualized in terms of two underlying dimensions – the avoidance dimension and the anxiety dimension (Fraley & Shaver, 2000). The avoidance dimension is concerned with the degree, to which a person feels uncomfortable depending on and being close to others. Individuals high on this dimension undervalue the importance of relationships and

Amity goals 28 maintain distance from others. The anxiety dimension is concerned with fear of rejection and abandonment by others. Securely attached individuals, who are relatively low on both dimensions, can use their attachment resources for exploration. The attachment-exploration link in adulthood may be investigated by testing the relationships between adult attachment constructs on the one hand and adult goal orientations on the other hand (Elliot & Reis, 2003). Elliot & Reis (2003) found across several studies that the low end of the avoidance dimension was a positive predictor of mastery goals, attachment anxiety was a positive predictor of performance-avoidance goals, and contest goals were not well predicted by attachment dimensions. In this study I wanted to replicate these results and at the same time test the hypothesis that attachment avoidance is a positive predictor of amity goals. Individuals high on the avoidance dimension that undervalue the importance of relationships in general will also undervalue the importance of relationships in achievement situations. Specifically I hypothesize: H1: The low end of the avoidance dimension is a positive predictor of amity goals. Method Participants & procedure A total of 208 Hebrew University students (38.5% woman, mean age = 22.6 years) were asked to complete an attachment measure and a goal orientations measure in return for course credit. Instruments Goal orientations Goal orientations were measured as in Study 4. Attachment Attachment anxiety and avoidance were assessed with the Hebrew version of the Experiences in Close Relationships scale, (ECR, Brennan, Clark, &

Amity goals 29 Shaver, 1998). Respondents indicated on a scale from 1 (disagree strongly) to 7 (strongly agree) the way they usually experience close relationships. Responses were summed to form the avoidance (18 items, α = .87), and anxiety (18 items, α = .87) indexes. Examples of items are, "I worry about being abandoned" (anxiety), "I prefer not to show a partner how I feel deep down" (avoidance). Results Tiered simultaneous regression analyses were conducted to examine the relations between attachment and goal orientations. Each regression equation included the two attachment variables and their interaction (See Table 6). Avoidance was as hypothesized a negative predictor of amity goals (β = -.31). Surprisingly, avoidance was not a negative predictor of mastery goals (β = -.01). Anxiety was as expected a positive predictor of performance-avoidance goals (β = .38) and also predicted contest goals (β = .30). The interaction between avoidance and anxiety was a marginally significant predictor of amity goals (β = .17), and did predict any of the other goals.

Amity goals 30 Table 4: Standardized Coefficients and R Squares for goal orientations by attachment Attachment

Goal Orientations

Model 1

Avoidance

Mastery Performance avoidance -.07 .10

Model 2

Avoidance

-.06

.03

.05

-.41**

Anxiety

-.13^

.41**

.28**

.07

Avoidance

-.01

- .01

.09

-.31**

Anxiety

-.09

.38**

.30**

.14^

Avoidance*Anxiety

.09

-.07

.06

.17^

R2

.03

.18

.09

.18

Model 3

Contest

Amity

.08

-.40**

Note. ^p<.1 *p<.05, **p<.01

Discussion As hypothesized, avoidance was found to be a negative predictor of amity goals. Also, Elliot & Reis (2003) results were replicated regarding the relations between performance-avoidance goals and attachment. Surprisingly, Elliot & Reis (2003) results regarding the relations between mastery and contest goals and attachment styles were not replicated. Mastery goals were predicted by low anxiety but were not predicted by avoidance, while Elliot & Reis (2003) found avoidance to be a negative predictor of mastery goals but not anxiety. Also, contest goals were positively predicted by the anxiety dimension, while Elliot & Reis (2003) found no relations between attachment dimensions and contest (performance-approach goals). Since the same attachment questionnaire as Elliot & Reis's (2003) was used here, the attachment measure cannot explain these differences in results; however, these differences may be explained by the different measures of goal orientations. A 34 items goal questionnaire was used in this

Amity goals 31 Study that included ten amity goal items that I have developed, while the other three goal orientations were measured using the items of two goal orientation questionnaires (Elliot & McGregor, 2001; VandeWalle et al., 2001). Since Elliot & Reis (2003) used Elliot & McGregor's items as well, new indexes were created for the three goal orientations other than amity in order to produce indexes as similar as possible to those used by Elliot & Reis (2003). Specifically, new indexes were built for each goal, once including only the Elliot & Reis (2003) items, and again including only the Vandewalle et al. (2001) items. Next, the analysis was replicated as reported above. This time (See Table 7) the results were similar to those obtained by Elliot & Reis (2003). Specifically, avoidance was a negative predictor of mastery goal orientations and did not predict contest and performance-avoidance goal orientations, while anxiety predicted performance-avoidance goal orientations and did not predict mastery goal orientations. In my data anxiety also predicted contest goal orientations while in Elliot & Reis (2003) studies anxiety was not related to contest (performance-approach) goal orientations. The results when just the Vandewalle items were included differed from the results when just the Elliot & McGregor items were included only with regards to mastery goals. The differences between the correlations of attachment style with these two mastery orientation scale may suggest either the existence of some fine differences between these measures which does not pop-up when mastery items are compared to other goal orientations (as in the SSA maps of Studies x,y,z), or that the true correlation with mastery goals is neglible (both my results and Elliot's yielded relatively small betas). Future research may exploration these fine differences.

Amity goals 32 Table 5: Standardized Coefficients and R Squares for goal orientations by attachment Attachment

Goal Orientations Mastery

Model 1

Avoidance

-.15* / -.02

Performance avoidance .04/ .00

Model 2

Avoidance

-.16* / -.01

.01 / -.03

Anxiety

.00 / -.17*

Avoidance

-.16 / .07

-.03 / -.07

.01 / .12

Anxiety

.00 / -.12

.33** / .30**

.18* / .33**

Avoidance*Anxiety

-.00 / .13

-.06 / -.06

-.01/ .09

R2

.02 / .04

.13 / .11

.04 / .10

Model 3

Contest .03 / .09 .02 / .06

.35** / .32** .19** / .29**

Note. For each column and variable, the first value is from the Elliot & McGregor goal orientations index, and the second value is from the Vandewalle goal orientations index. *p<.05, **p<.01

To sum, it appears that attachment is as hypothesized an antecedent of amity goals – avoidance is a negative predictor of amity goals. Also it appears that attachment is an antecedent of performance-avoidance goals – anxiety is a positive predictor of performance-avoidance goals. Mastery and contest goals are not well predicted by attachment dimensions. Finally, the interaction between anxiety and avoidance that reflects the secure attachment orientations is related to amity goals more than to any other goal orientation. After establishing the relations between FGOM and attachment, a relation that was not often studied in the past, I move next to study the relations between FGOM and Big 5 personality traits. The relations between goal orientations and the Big 5 personality traits was studied in the past, in many studies and I hope to shed light on the

Amity goals 33 relations between amity goals and the Big 5 traits in comparison to the relations between the three other goal orientations and the Big 5 traits.

Taken together Studies 6-8 shed more light on amity goals, the new presented goal orientation. The results of these studies imply that amity goals are positively related to relatedness needs but are not related to competence and autonomy needs, are negatively related to avoidance attachment style and are marginally positively related to the secure attachment style, and are positively related to agreeableness and emotional stability.

Amity goals 34 Chapter 4 - The consequences of failure The relations of FGOM with other well known theories were established in the previous studies. The following studies are focused on one of the most intriguing consequences of FGOM, the influence of failure on motivation. Studying failure is especially relevant, more than other possible consequences, because the first studies from which goal orientation theory emerged were based on the differences between mastery and performance oriented students in reaction to failure (Dweck, 1999). Dweck and colleagues identified two distinct reactions to failure which they named the helpless and mastery-oriented patterns (Dweck, 1999). The helpless pattern, describes one's view that when failure occurs the situation is out one's control, and includes dropping expectations, negative emotions, lower persistence and deteriorating performance. Students showing the helpless response doubt their intelligence in the face of failure and lose faith in their ability to perform the task. The mastery-oriented pattern is very different. It includes persistence, remaining in focus on achieving mastery in spite of present difficulties and remaining confident that success will follow. Students showing the mastery-oriented response maintain the positive mood they had when succeeding and welcome the chance to confront and overcome obstacles. Individuals with high performance-avoidance goals tend to interpret failure as a sign they might lack the competence needed for the task. Since their goal is not to be thought of as incompetent they tend to withdraw from the task and to invest little effort if any following failure. They tend to blame their perceived low intelligence for doing poorly and tend to fall into a helpless pattern. Individuals with high mastery goals on the other hand, tend to interpret a failure as an indication that more effort or a different strategy is necessary for task completion so that when things don't go well it has nothing to do with intelligence but rather that the right strategies have not yet been

Amity goals 35 found. Thus when they do poorly, they tend to work harder on the task or at least continue with similar levels of motivation and show the mastery-oriented pattern. (Butler, 2000; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Grant & Dweck, 2003). These helpless and mastery-oriented patterns of response to failure are thus related to two of the goal orientations, mastery and performance-avoidance goals, both are competence associated goals. FGOM that also includes relatedness associated goals allows new hypotheses regarding the influences of failure. Specifically, I suggest that individuals fall to the helpless pattern when both performance-avoidance and contest goals are high but not when both performance-avoidance and amity goals are high. In other words, it is suggested that amity goals may immune individuals with high performance-avoidance goals from falling to the helpless pattern following failure. Also, I suggest that individuals show the mastery-oriented pattern following failure when both mastery and amity goals are high but not when both amity and contest goals are high. In other words, it is suggested that contest goals might work as a barrier for individuals with high mastery goals and make it more difficult for them to persist following failure. Studies overview In the following studies I test the influences of the combination of competence based goals and relatedness based goals following failure. In Study 9 I test student's motivation following failure in a scenario experiment. In Study 10 I test motivation following failure in an experiment using a real task. In both Studies goal orientations were manipulated but in each Study different manipulations of goal orientations were used.

Amity goals 36 Study 9 The purpose of this study was to test student's motivation following failure. It is hypothesized that due to the suggested immunity effect of amity goals, students primed with a combination of performance-avoidance and amity goals will present higher motivation following failure than students primed with the combination of performance-avoidance and contest goals. Also, it is hypothesized that due to the suggested barrier effect of contest goals, students primed with the combination of mastery and contest goals will present lower motivation than students primed with the combination of mastery and amity goals. To sum: H1: There will be a beneficial effect of amity goals on response to failure above and beyond the known effect of mastery goals. Method Participants & procedure A total of 182 university students (36.3% woman, mean age = 25.8 years) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 (competence) X 2 (relatedness) experimental design. In each of the conditions participants read a scenario that described failure in an academic class. They were asked to imagine themselves in the place described in the scenario and to answer two questions about their motivation. Each scenario primed one competence related goals (mastery or performanceavoidance) following by one relatedness goals (contest or amity). Scenarios were built by adding together academic goal orientation items (see Appendix A) from the goal orientation questionnaires used in previous studies with some minor changes to make the scenarios story coherent. All four scenarios manipulated failure and had the same general structure: “Imagine you enrolled to a class… (Goal manipulations)… you have failed in the mid

Amity goals 37 term exam that counts for 40% of the final grade.” The mastery manipulation was as following: "Imagine you enrolled to a challenging class that enables you to learn a lot. You desire to completely master the material presented in this class." The performanceavoidance manipulation was as following: "Imagine you enrolled to a class you felt you have a good chance to succeed in. Your goal for this class is to avoid performing poorly compared to the rest of the class." The amity manipulation was as following: "It is important for you to assist your friends to succeed in this class." The contest manipulation was as following: "It is important for you to do better than other students in this class." Measures Motivation. Motivation was assessed by two questions: “Relative to the expectations you had to succeed in this course, what is your current expectancy to succeed?”, “Relative to the value this course had for you when you enrolled to it, what is the current value of the course for you?” (α = .66). Participants were provided with an 11-point scale ranging from “much less” (anchored with − 5) through “about the same” (0) to “much more” (anchored with 5). This measure is based on a singleitem measure of motivation (Van-Dijk & Kluger, 2004) that measured participants willingness to invest effort in one's work following a failure. Here, two items that reflect the motivational process of expectancy and valence (Vroom, 1964) were used. Indeed, reliability is high enough to suggest that both items measure motivation, but not too high to suggest that each item measures a different aspect of the motivational process.

Amity goals 38 Results To test the hypothesis of the beneficial effect of amity goals on response to failure ANOVA was used, with relatedness and competence as the fixed factors. A competence main effect was found, namely motivation following failure was higher in the scenarios that emphasized mastery goals over performance-avoidance goals (F (1,178)

= 4.77, p < .05). As hypothesized the relatedness main effect was also

significant, namely motivation was higher in the scenarios that emphasized amity goals over contest goals, (F (1,178) = 6.16, p < .05). There was no interaction (F (1,178) = 2.08, n.s., see Figure 9). Figure 3: Motivation following failure, by goal orientations 0.6

0.4

0

Performanceavoidance

Mastery

- 0.2

motivation

0.2

- 0.4

- 0.6

- 0.8

Amity

Contest

To further test the differences between means we used Tukey post-hoc tests. First, the immunity hypothesis was tested, namely that motivation following failure is higher when performance-avoidance goals are coupled with amity goals than when coupled

Amity goals 39 with contest goals. This hypothesis was not supported although results were in the right direction: M = -.49 for the performance-avoidance amity condition and M = -.77 for the performance-avoidance contest condition (mean difference = .28, n.s.). The second was the barrier hypothesis, namely that motivation following failure is higher when mastery goals are coupled with amity goals than when coupled with contest goals. This hypothesis was supported: M = .48 for the mastery amity condition and M = -.57 for the mastery contest condition (mean difference = 1.05, p < .05). Discussion The results of this Study are consistent with previous research which showed that motivation is higher following failure when mastery goals are more dominant than performance-avoidance goals (e.g., Ames & Archer, 1988; Cron, Slocum Jr., VandeWalle, & Fu, 2005; Senko & Harackiewicz, 2002). However, in this study the beneficial effect of mastery goals, relative to performance-avoidance goals, on motivation following failure was not significant when both goals were coupled with contest goal. Rather, following failure, it was the combination of mastery and amity goals that yielded the highest level of motivation and may relate to the mastery-oriented pattern documented by Dweck (1999). In addition, the combination of performanceavoidance and contest goals yielded the lowest level of motivation and may relate to the helpless pattern. Thus, this study demonstrated a beneficial effect of amity goals on response to failure above and beyond the known effect of mastery goals. The barrier hypothesis, namely that motivation following failure is higher when mastery goals are coupled with amity goals than when coupled with contest goals was supported. The immunity hypothesis, namely that motivation following failure is higher when performance-avoidance goals are coupled with amity goals than when coupled with contest goals, was not supported although results were in the expected direction.

Amity goals 40 Possible explanations to this result may be (a) the motivation measure had low reliability (which may be due to the very short nature of this experiment) and (b) the scenarios may not be close enough to real behaviors. Study 10 was designed to test these possibilities. FGOM which is a two dimensional model allows the manipulation of two goal orientation one from each dimension since it is assumed that the relatedness and competence dimensions are independent. This study thus, is innovative in the sense that it is the first study that primed two goal orientations for each participant. The results support the suggestion that achievement motivation is complex and may be influenced by relatedness as well as competence needs. Study 10 This Study was conducted to retest the barrier and immunity hypotheses following a failure in a real task. Whereas in Study 9 motivation was measured after imagining failure that was described in a scenario, in this study motivation was measured following bogus failure in actual task performance. Method Participants & procedure A total of 112 university students (45.2% woman, mean age = 23.9 years) were randomly assigned to one of four conditions in a 2 (competence) X 2 (relatedness) experimental design. Participants arrived to the lab in small groups, ranging in size between six and 10 participants, and were assigned as a group to either contest or amity goals condition. Then, each participant received an individualistic task that demanded originality. Each participant was randomly assigned to either mastery or performanceavoidance goals condition by manipulating task instructions. Following task

Amity goals 41 completion, participants received bogus negative feedback and were asked to report their motivation to perform a similar task. Finally, participants were fully debriefed. Relatedness manipulations. In the amity condition participants were asked to get to know each other better. Each participant was assigned to a partner and was asked to tell the partner two things about oneself that nobody else from the group knows. Then, together, the couple had to make up a lie about each one of them. Finally, each participant presented the partner to the group by telling the two true facts and the lie in a random order to the rest of the group. The other group members were asked to guess which of the three "facts" the lie was. In the contest condition participants were presented with the following riddle: "add one line to the following equation to make it correct: 5 + 5 + 5 =550." The first to solve the riddle received a prize (Solution in Appendix B). Task. In the "unusual uses task" (Silvia & Phillips, 2004; Silvia et al., 2008) participants received lined sheets of paper and were asked to generate as many as possible creative uses to a common object, a broomstick. This task is widely used as a measure of creativity and previous research also used this task with an ability to improve manipulation (Silvia & Phillips, 2004) which is very similar to the competence manipulations used here. Five minutes after participants started to work on the task the experimenter asked them to stop. Competence manipulations. Following previous research, competence manipulation was part of task instructions (Silvia & Phillips, 2004; Steele-Johnson, Beauregard, Hoover, & Schmidt, 2000). In the mastery goal orientation condition, the task instructions were designed to create the perception that cognitive ability is changeable and easy to improve through effort and to focus the participants on exploring and mastering the task. Mastery instructions were as following: “Research

Amity goals 42 showed that level of performance in tasks like the one you are about to perform improves with practice. You will probably feel this improvement”. In the performanceavoidance goal orientation condition, the task instructions were designed to create the perception that cognitive ability was stable and difficult to improve through effort and to focus the subject on achievement. Performance-avoidance instructions were as following: “Research showed that level of performance in tasks like the one you are about to perform is a measure of basic capabilities and is related to intelligence”. Following task completion the experimenter collected the sheets from all participants in order to go over the ideas in the sheets and give each participant a feedback. While the experimenter prepared the feedback participants worked on a filler task. Feedback manipulation. The experimenter counted the number of ideas each participant wrote down and prepared a feedback sheet for each participant. The feedback sheet opened by saying that the average number of uses participants usually think of to a broomstick in a 5 minuets time limit is 19. This number was found in a pretest to be high enough such that most participants did not reach it, but not too high such that participants believed it to be the average. Then, the experimenter wrote down the real number of uses each participant thought of. This way, each participant received feedback that implied on performance below average. Ten participants who thought of 18 or more uses were eliminated from the analysis since they did not receive negative feedback. On the feedback sheet participants were asked to report their motivation to perform a similar task.

Amity goals 43 Measures Motivation. Motivation was measured as in Study 9 with two items (α = .72), one that asked about the expectancy to succeed in a similar task and another that asked how important it is to succeed in a similar task on a scale ranging from 1 (very little) to 11 (very much). Results An ANOVA with relatedness and competence as the fixed factors showed no main effects (for relatedness F (1, 99) = .01; for competence F (1, 99) = 1.16) and a significant interaction (F (1, 99) = 12.36, p<.01, see Figure 10). This interaction supports the immunity hypothesis such that motivation following failure is higher when performance-avoidance goals are coupled with amity goals than when coupled with contest goals. However, the interaction does not support the buffer effect such that there was no significant difference in motivation for mastery goals when coupled with either amity or contest goals.

Amity goals 44 Figure 4: Motivation following failure, by goal orientations 9

8

7

5

4

motivation

6

3

2

1

0

Performance-avoidance Amity

Mastery Contest

To further test the differences between means we used Tukey post-hoc tests. First, the immunity hypothesis was tested, namely that motivation following failure is higher when performance-avoidance goals are coupled with amity goals than when coupled with contest goals. Results are in support with this hypothesis: M = 7.96 for the performance-avoidance amity condition and M = 6.60 for the performance-avoidance contest condition (mean difference = 1.37, p = .05) The second was the barrier hypothesis, namely that motivation following failure is higher when mastery goals are coupled with amity goals than when coupled with contest goals. This hypothesis was not supported as the difference in means was opposite to the predicted direction. However, the opposite difference was not significant: M = 7.04 for the mastery amity condition and M = 8.34 for the mastery contest condition (mean difference = -1.04, n.s.).

Amity goals 45 Discussion As expected, the immunity effect was found in this Study. The motivation following failure in task performance was higher when performance-avoidance goals were coupled with amity goals than when they were coupled with contest goals. However, the buffer effect that was found in Study 9 was not replicated. There was no difference in motivation following failure when mastery goals were coupled with either amity goals or contest goals. Thus, a beneficial effect of amity goals on response to failure above and beyond the effect of mastery goals was not found but rather we found an interaction: Participants reported higher motivation following failure when performance-avoidance goals were coupled with amity goals and when mastery goals were coupled with contest goals. This interaction found supports the well documented advantage of mastery goals over performance-avoidance goals but only when both goals are coupled with contest goals (mean difference = 1.74, p < .05). The motivation of those primed with mastery and amity goals (M = 7.04) was not different from the motivation of those primed with performance-avoidance and amity goals (M = 7.96, mean difference = .93, n.s.). In most previous studies that documented this advantage, amity goals were probably not salient. Rather, more likely either contest or no relatedness goal were salient. Thus, the advantage of mastery goals over performance-avoidance goals may be moderated by relatedness goals. Studies 9 & 10 tested the influence of failure on motivation depending on manipulated goal orientations; one from each dimension. In study 9, motivation was measured following a failure described in a scenario while in Study 10 motivation was measured following a failure in a real task. There were some differences in results between these two studies but one important result was replicated: In both studies the

Amity goals 46 lowest motivation following failure was reported by participants with the combination of performance-avoidance and contest goals. It seems that the helpless-pattern following failure has to do with performance-avoidance goals, as previously suggested (Dweck, 1999) but, as was shown in these studies is also related to contest goals. Thus, it may be that amity goals when coupled with performance-avoidance goals may immune from the helpless pattern that follows failure. In these studies we showed an immunity effect and a buffer effect and suggested an advantage for amity goals above and beyond the advantage of mastery goals. We have only partially supported this suggestion and more research is necessary to study these effects. Specifically, it may be beneficial to study the mechanisms of both effects. The immunity and buffer effects may occur due to more amity, less contest, or both. Future research could manipulate three patterns of goal combinations: Mastery (or performance-avoidance) and contest, mastery (or performance-avoidance) and amity, and mastery (or performance-avoidance) alone. Furthermore, measuring chronic individual differences in the four components of FGOM may help to shed new light on both the mastery-oriented pattern and the helpless pattern that follow from failure.

Amity goals 47 References Amar, R. (2005). Hudap Manual (Version Third Edition). Jerusalem: The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Computation Authority. Ames, C., & Ames, R. (1984). Goal structures and motivation. The Elementary School Journal, 85(1), 39-52. Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260-267. Arieli, S., & Sagiv, L. (working paper). Student-Discipline value congruency: Self-selection or socialization? Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64, 359–372. Bardi, A., & Schwartz, S. H. (2003). Values and Behavior: Strength and Structure of Relations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(10), 12071220. Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. . PsychologicalBulletin, 117(3), 497-529. Bipp, T., Steinmayr, R., & Spinath, B. (2008). Personality and achievement motivation: Relationship among Big Five domain and facet scales, achievement goals, and intelligence. Personality and Individual Differences., 44(7), 1454– 1464. Boyd, M. P., & Kim, M. S. (2007). Goal orientation and sensation-seeking in relation to optimal mood states among skateboarders. Journal of Sport Behavior, 30(1), 21-35. Brennan, K. A., Clark, C. L., & Shaver, P. R. (1998). Self-report measurement of adult attachment: An integrative overview. In J. A. Simpson & W. S. Rholes (Eds.), Attachment theory and close relationships (pp. 46-76). New York: Guilford Press. Brett, J. F., & VandeWalle, D. (1999). Goal orientation and goal content as predictors of performance in a training program. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 863-873.

Amity goals 48 Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and performance. Journal-of-Educational-Psychology, 79(4), 474-482. Butler, R. (2000). Making judgments about ability: The role of implicit theories of ability in moderating inferences from temporal and social comparison information. Journal-of-Personality-and-Social-Psychology., 78(5), 965-978. Butler, R. (2006). Are mastery and ability goals both adaptive? Evaluation, initial goal construction and the quality of task engagement. British-Journal-ofEducational-Psychology, 76(3), 595-611. Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. OrganizationalBehavior-and-Human-Decision-Processes, 67(1), 26-48. Chen, G., Gully, S. M., & Eden, D. (2001). Validation of a new general selfefficacy scale. Organizational Research Methods, 4, 62–83. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences., 13(6), 653-665. Cron, W. L., Slocum Jr., J. W., VandeWalle, D., & Fu, F. Q. (2005). The Role of Goal Orientation on Negative Emotions and Goal Setting When Initial Performance Falls Short of One's Performance Goal. Human Performance, 18(1), 55-80. Cury, F., Elliot, A. J., Da Fonseca, D., & Moller, A. C. (2006). The SocialCognitive Model of Achievement Motivation and the 2 × 2 Achievement Goal Framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(4), 666-679. D’Aprix, A. S., Dunlap, K. M., Abel, E., & Edwards, R. L. (2004). Goodness of fit: Career goals of MSW students and the aims of the social-work profession in the United States. Social-work Education, 23(3), 265–280. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “What” and “Why” of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. DeShon, R. P., & Gillespie, J. Z. (2005). A Motivated Action Theory Account of Goal Orientation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(6), 1096-1127. Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the five-factor model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41, 417–440.

Amity goals 49 Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. AmericanPsychologist, 41(10), 1040-1048. Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. New York: NY, US: Psychology Press Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A Social Cognitive Approach to Motivation and Personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273. Dweck, C. S., & Molden, D. C. (2005). Self-Theories: Their Impact on Competence Motivation and Acquisition. In A. J. D. Elliot, Carol S (Ed.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 122-140). New York, NY, US: Guilford Publications. El-Alayli, A. (2006). Matching Achievement Contexts with Implicit Theories to Maximize Motivation After Failure: A Congruence Model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(12), 1690-1702. Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218-232. Elliot, A. J., & Dweck, C. S. (2005). Competence and Motivation: Competence as the Core of Achievement Motivation. In C. S. Dweck & A. J. Elliot (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation. New York, NY, US: Guilford Publications. Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 461-475. Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2x2 achievement goal framework. Journal-of-Personality-and-Social-Psychology., 80(3), 501-519. Elliot, A. J., & Reis, H. T. (2003). Attachment and exploration in adulthood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 317-331. Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 804-818. Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal-of-Personality-and-Social-Psychology., 54(1), 5-12.

Amity goals 50 Feather, N. T. (1995). Values, valences, and choice: The influences of values on the perceived attractiveness and choice of alternatives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(6), 1135-1151. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878-902. Fraley, R. C., & Shaver, P. R. (2000). Adult Romantic Attachment: Theoretical Developments, Emerging Controversies, and Unanswered Questions. Review of General Psychology, 4(2), 132-154. Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement. . Motivation and Emotion, 27, 199-223. Gandal, N., Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., & Wrzesniewski, A. (2005). Personal value priorities of economists. Human Relations, 58(10), 1227–1252. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative “description of personality”: The BigFive factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216– 1229. Goldberg, L. R., Johnson, J. A., Eber, H. W., Hogan, R., Ashton, M. C., Cloninger, C. R., et al. (2006). The international personality item pool and the future of public-domain personality measures. Journal of Research in Personality, 40(1), 84-96. Grant, H., & Dweck, C. S. (2003). Clarifying achievement goals and their impact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(3), 541-553. Grunert, S., & Juhl, H. J. (1995). Values, environmental attitudes, and buying of organic foods. Journal of Economic Psychology, 16(1), 39-62. Guttman, L. (1968). A general nonmetric technique for finding the smallest coordinate space for a configuration of points. Psychometrica, 33, 469-506. Hidi, S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2000). Motivating the academically unmotivated: A critical issue for the 21st century. . Review-of-Educational-Research, 70(2), 151-179. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Thousand Oaks, CA, US: Sage Publications, Inc

Amity goals 51 Koestner, R. (2008). Reaching one's personal goals: A motivational perspective focused on autonomy. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49(1), 60-67. Leonardi, A., & Gialamas, V. (2002). Implicit theories, goal orientations, and perceived competence: Impact on students' achievement behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 39(3), 279-291. Lin, S. C., & Chang, J. N. (2005). Goal orientation and organizational commitment as explanatory factors of employees’ mobility. Personnel Review, 34(3), 331-353. Maio, G. R., & Olson, J. M. (1995). Relations between values, attitudes, and behavioral intentions: The moderating role of attitude function. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(3), 266-285. Middleton, M. J., & Midgley, C. (2002). Beyond motivation: Middle school students' perceptions of press for understanding in math. ContemporaryEducational-Psychology, 72(3), 373-391. Midgley, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M. J., Maehr, M. L., Urdan, T. C., Anderman, L. H., et al. (1998). The development and validation of scales assessing students' achievement goal orientations. Contemporary-EducationalPsychology, 23(2), 113-131. Mikulincer , M., & Shaver, P. R. (2003). The Attachment Behavioral System in Adulthood: Activation, Psychodynamics, and Interpersonal Processes. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35). San Diego, CA, US: Elsevier Academic Press. Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological-Review, 91(3), 328-346. Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A Meta-Analytic Examination of the Goal Orientation Nomological Net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(1), 128–150. Pomerantz, E. M., Grolnick, W. S., & Price, C. E. (2005). The Role of Parents in How Children Approach Achievement: A Dynamic Process Perspective. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 259278). New York: US: Guilford Publications

Amity goals 52 Reinboth, M. l., & Duda, J. L. (2006). Perceived motivational climate, need satisfaction and indices of well-being in team sports: A longitudinal perspective Psychology of Sport and Exercise., 7(3), 269-286 Roccas, S., Sagiv, L., Schwartz, S. H., & Knafo, A. (2002). The Big Five personality factors and personal values. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(6), 789-801. Rokeach, M., & Ball-Rokeach, S. J. (1989). Stability and change in American value priorities, 1968-1981. American Psychologist, 44(5), 775-784. Ronen, S., Kraut, A. I., Lingoes, J. C., & Aranya, N. (1979). A nonmetric scaling approach to taxonomies of employee work motivation. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 14(4), 387-401. Roseth, C. J., Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2008). Promoting early adolescents' achievement and peer relationships: The effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 223-246. Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. AmericanPsychologist, 55(1), 68-78. Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (1995). Value priorities and readiness for outgroup social contact. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(3), 437448. Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2004). Values, intelligence and client behavior in career counseling: A field study. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 19(3), 237-254. Samuel, S., Dov, E., & Michael, H. (1994). introduction to facet theory: content design and intrinsic data analysis in behavioral research (Vol. 35). Thousand Oaks: Sage publications, Inc. Sarrazin, P., Vallerand, R., Guillet, E., Pelletier, L., & Cury, F. (2002). Motivation and dropout in female handballers: a 21-month prospective study. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32(3), 395–418. Schwartz, S. H. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and empirical tests in 20 countries. Advances in experimental social psychology, 15, 1-65.

Amity goals 53 Schwartz, S. H. (1999). A theory of cultural values and some implications for work. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 48(1), 23-47. Schwartz, S. H., & Rubel, T. (2005). Sex differences in value priorities: Crosscultural and multimethod studies. . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(6), 1010-1028. Schwartz, S. H., & Sagiv, L. (1995). Identifying culture specifics in the content and structure of values. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 26(1), 92116. Senko, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2002). Performance goals: The moderating roles of context and achievement orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(6), 603-610. Shye, S., Elizur, D., & Hoffman, M. (1994). introduction to facet theory: content design and intrinsic data analysis in behavioral research (Vol. 35). Thousand Oaks: Sage publications, Inc. Silvia, P. J., & Phillips, A. G. (2004). Self-Awareness, Self-Evaluation, and Creativity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(8), 1009-1017. Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Willse, J. T., Barona, C. M., Cram, J. T., Hess, K. I., et al. (2008). Assessing creativity with divergent thinking tasks: Exploring the reliability and validity of new subjective scoring methods. Psychology of Aesthetics, Creativity, and the Arts, 2(2), 68-85. Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2003). A Model of Contextual Motivation in Physical Education: Using Constructs From Self-Determination and Achievement Goal Theories to Predict Physical Activity Intentions. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 97-110. Steele-Johnson, D., Beauregard, R. S., Hoover, P. B., & Schmidt, A. M. (2000). Goal orientation and task demand effects on motivation, affect, and performance. Journal-of-Applied-Psychology, 85(5), 724-738. Tod, D., & Hodge, K. (2001). Moral reasoning and achievement motivation in sport: A qualitative inquiry. Journal of Sport Behavior, 24(3), 307-327. Urdan, T. C. (1997). Examining the relations among early adolescent students' goals and friends' orientation toward effort and achievement in school. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22(2), 165-191.

Amity goals 54 Urdan, T. C., & Maehr, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and achievement: A case for social goals. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 213-243. Urdan, T. C., & Schoenfelder, E. (2006). Classroom effects on student motivation: Goal structures, social relationships, and competence beliefs. Journal of School Psychology, 44(5), 331-349. Van-Dijk, D., & Kluger, A. N. (2004). Feedback sign effect on motivation: Is it moderated by regulatory focus? Applied Psychology: An International Review, 53(1), 113-135. Van Yperen, N. W. (2006). A Novel Approach to Assessing Achievement Goals in the Context of the 2 × 2 Framework: Identifying Distinct Profiles of Individuals with Different Dominant Achievement Goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. , 32(11`), 1432-1445. VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational-and-Psychological-Measurement, 57(6), 9951015. VandeWalle, D. (2001). Goal Orientation: Why wanting to look successful doesn't always lead to success. Organizational Dynamics, 30(2), 162-171. VandeWalle, D., Cron, W. L., & Slocum, J. W. J. (2001). The role of goal orientation following performance feedback. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(4), 629-640. Vroom, -. V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. Oxford: Oxford, England: Wiley. Wang, M., & Erdheim, J. (2007). Does the five-factor model of personality relate to goal orientation? Personality and Individual Differences., 43(6), 14931505. Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 202-209. Wentzel, K. R. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relationships: Implications for understanding motivation at school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 76-97.

Amity goals 55 Wentzel, K. R., & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance, and group membership: Relations to academic achievement in middle school. Child Development, 68(6), 1198-1209. Wentzel, K. R., & Watkins, D. E. (2002). Peer relationships and collaborative learning as contexts for academic enablers. School Psychology Review, 31(3), 366-377.

Amity goals 56 Appendices Appendix A

Amity items – academic domain 1.

It is important for me to cooperate with the other students.

2.

It is important for me to study together with my close friends.

3.

I think it is important to cooperate with others at school.

4.

I believe that my friends and I have similar high abilities.

5.

My goal for this course is to help others to succeed.

6.

To be honest, I really believe my friends and I have similar high abilities.

7.

It is important for me to assist my friends to succeed in this class.

8.

To be honest, I prefer studying with others than studying alone.

9.

It is important for me that my best friends will do as well as I do.

10. A course that requires cooperation with others in exercises, home work etc. is more enjoyable for me.

Amity items – work domain 1.

It is important for me to cooperate with my coworkers.

2.

It is important for me to work together with my close friends.

3.

I think it is important to cooperate with others at work.

4.

I believe that my coworkers and I have similar high abilities.

5.

It is important for me to assist my coworkers to succeed with their assignments.

6.

To be honest, I prefer working with others than working alone.

7.

It is important for me that my best friends at work will do as well as I do.

8.

An assignment that requires cooperation with others is more enjoyable for me.

Amity goals 57 Appendix B The riddle: add one line to make the following equation correct:

5 + 5 + 5 = 550 Solution:

5 4 5 + 5 = 550