مشخصات پنج بزرگ شخصیت از اهداف پیشرفت در زمینه خاص
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|34264||2013||10 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||محاسبه نشده|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Journal of Research in Personality, Volume 47, Issue 6, December 2013, Pages 698–707
Over the past decade, an increasing body of literature supports the validity and utility of the 2 × 2 achievement goal framework (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). From this foundation, researchers have begun to investigate the complex antecedents and consequences underlying achievement goal pursuit. In the current studies, we investigated the relations between the Big Five personality traits and context-specific achievement goals in two different contexts (school and work). The results across both studies showed three sets of anticipated, consistent, and specific trait-goal relations. First, conscientiousness was strongly and positively related to mastery-approach goals. Second, agreeableness was positively related to mastery-approach goals and negatively related to performance-approach goals. Third, both avoidance goals and both performance goals were positively related to neuroticism.
There is a rich tradition in psychology of the study of achievement motivation, and in particular, achievement goals (for a review, see Elliot, 2005). Over the past decade, most work on achievement goals has centered around the 2 × 2 framework (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Explored antecedents of these goals include need for achievement and fear of failure (Conroy, Elliot, & Hofer, 2004; Elliot & Church, 1997), which are common constructs to the motivation domain. However, more holistic constructs from the personality domain, such as the five-factor model of personality (Costa and McCrae, 1992 and Goldberg, 1981), have largely been ignored in achievement goal research. The purpose of the present research is to determine the personality trait profiles associated with the pursuit of context-specific achievement goals. In assessing the Big Five personality traits (Costa & McCrae, 1992) and the four goals in the 2 × 2 achievement goal framework (Elliot & McGregor, 2001), we expected personality traits to reflect the conceptual differences among the different achievement goals. We investigated these trait-goal relations in two different achievement contexts (education and work) and with two different demographic samples in terms of age, nationality, and language. This diversity in context should shed light on the stability and change of the trait-goal relationships across contexts. 1.1. Personality traits: the five-factor model The five-factor model (FFM) is a central theory to the trait approach to personality (Allport, 1937), and features five orthogonal personality traits: extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, and openness to experience (Costa and McCrae, 1992 and Goldberg, 1981). These traits are the basic dimensions in which people differ, and their subcomponents, or facets, provide the specific dimensions or qualities within each trait (Widiger & Simonsen, 2005). The five-factor model (or Big Five) has gained in prominence over the years, with longitudinal and cross-cultural evidence supporting this basic personality structure (McCrae and Costa, 2003 and McCrae and John, 1992). While there has been debate about the number of traits (e.g., the HEXACO model, Ashton & Lee, 2009) and which facets comprise each trait (Widiger & Simonsen, 2005), the five-factor model serves as a meaningful and robust way to describe the individual as a whole and predicts an array of major life outcomes (Ozer & Benet-Martínez, 2006). 1.2. Achievement goals: the 2 × 2 framework The achievement goal construct emerged from decades of research into the different motives people have in achievement settings (Elliot, 2005). Initially, the primary emphasis of achievement goals was on two types of achievement goals: mastery and performance goals (Dweck, 1986 and Nicholls, 1984). The fundamental difference in these goal types is how individuals define their competence in a given achievement situation. Specifically, mastery goals use task-referenced and self-referenced competence standards, whereas performance goals are grounded in other-referenced competence standards. In the past two decades, the achievement goal framework has been expanded to account for goal valence, emphasizing that people strive to approach competence and to avoid incompetence. The two definitions of competence and the two types of valence converged in the current theoretical approach known as the 2 × 2 achievement goal framework (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). There are four types of goals: mastery-approach, mastery-avoidance, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance. The four types of achievement goals have distinct patterns of antecedents and consequences (Baranik et al., 2010, Elliot and McGregor, 2001 and Van Yperen, 2006). These patterns can be complex, in part because achievement goals are context-specific. Mastery-approach goals emphasize self-improvement in competence, and they are associated with positive constructs, including intrinsic motivation and task interest (Harackiewicz et al., 2008 and Van Yperen, 2006), cooperative behavior while working with others (Janssen and Van Yperen, 2004 and Poortvliet et al., 2009), and less cheating behavior (Van Yperen, Hamstra, & Van der Klauw, 2011). In the opposite extreme, performance-avoidance goals emphasize avoiding incompetence relative to others and they are related to negative constructs, including anxiety, negative affectivity, amotivation, and lower performance attainment (Elliot and McGregor, 2001 and Van Yperen, 2006). The other two goals, performance-approach and mastery-avoidance, are hybrid goals that have a blend of positive and negative antecedents and consequences that are between the two valence extremes of the other two goals (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Performance-approach goals emphasize doing well compared to others, and they are related to both positive and negative affect (Van Yperen, 2006) and both approach and avoidance temperament (Elliot & Thrash, 2002). Moreover, they predict better performance (for meta-analysis, Hulleman, Schrager, Bodmann, & Harackiewicz, 2010), but also predict increased cheating (Van Yperen et al., 2011) and competitive behavior (Harackiewicz et al., 2008 and Poortvliet et al., 2009). Mastery-avoidance goals emphasize avoiding incompetence relative to oneself, and they generally have produced limited findings. Despite initial findings of positive qualities associated with mastery-avoidance goal pursuit (e.g., higher classroom engagement; Elliot & McGregor, 2001), an increasing body of evidence shows that mastery-avoidance goals tend to be negative (De Lange et al., 2010 and Van Yperen et al., 2013) and predict lower performance (Baranik et al., 2010 and Van Yperen et al., 2009). Although achievement goals are context-specific, the situation alone is not sufficient to fully explain achievement goal adoption (Elliot, 2006); individual differences also play an important role. The primary individual differences explored in previous research are achievement motives, specifically the need for achievement and fear of failure (Chen, Wu, Kee, Lin, & Shui, 2009; Conroy, Elliot, & Hofer, 2004; Diseth and Kobbeltvedt, 2010, Elliot and McGregor, 1999, Liem et al., 2012, Tanaka and Yamauchi, 2001 and Van Yperen, 2006). While these individual differences are clearly important, they represent a narrow conceptual focus. We propose that personality traits offer a more holistic foundation for the antecedents of achievement goals that have largely been unexplored. 1.3. Theories connecting traits and goals Traits and goals developed as conceptually and historically independent constructs. Allport (1937) asserted that traits are central to an individual’s personality, while Murray, 1938) proposed that motives are more fundamental than traits. Although each tradition recognized the importance of the other, these concepts remained largely independent with little effort to connect them. The sole exception was McClelland, 1951) who advocated that both traits and goals were important to an individual’s personality. In recent decades, researchers have proposed differing theories to relate traits and goals. Many theories advocate a causal process, in which traits or temperaments cause different types of goal pursuit (McCrae & Costa, 1999; Elliot and Thrash, 2002 and Elliot and Thrash, 2010; Little, Lecci & Watkinson, 1992). Other theories propose that both traits and goals are independent but critical concepts of personality at different levels (Corker, Oswald, & Donnellan, 2012;McAdams, 1995) or the same level (Roberts & Robins, 2000; Roberts & Wood, 2006). Recently, Whole Trait Theory (Fleeson, 2012) integrated the trait and goal concepts together, asserting that manifestations of traits can be used to achieve an individual’s goals (McCabe & Fleeson, 2012). Each of these theoretical approaches have merit, and research continues to explore how best to connect the trait and goal concepts. 1.4. Five-factor model and achievement goals While little research attention has explored the relations between the Big Five traits and context-specific achievement goals (Chen & Zhang, 2011; Corker, Oswald, & Donnellan, 2012), several studies have explored relations between the Big Five traits and achievement orientations. These achievement orientations are conceptually different from achievement goals in their breadth of self-regulation—goals are context-specific while orientations are broad tendencies ( DeShon and Gillespie, 2005 and Elliot, 2005). Nevertheless, studies on the relations between the Big Five and achievement orientations may be useful in generating predictions. Table 1 contains a summary and meta-analysis of research on the relations between the Big Five traits and achievement orientations and achievement goals. 1 Table 1 also contains our meta-analysis of published work on trait-goal relations, which reflects similar findings of Payne, Youngcourt, and Beaubien (2007). Learning orientation (mastery-approach) had the most positive personality profile, performance-avoidance orientation had the most negative personality profile, and performance-approach orientation had both positive and negative relations with traits. However, with the varying results across the studies in Table 1, these meta-analyses may not fully explain trait-goal relations, especially with the inconsistent findings for performance-approach goals. Moreover, these studies may exaggerate the strength of the relations between traits and achievement motivation because both the traits and the achievement orientations are assessed at the same broad, dispositional level. Table 1. Summary of relations between Big Five traits and achievement motivation. Reference Sample Motivation type Domain N E O A C Mastery-approach (i.e., Learning) Payne et al. (2007)a Goal Orientation Meta-analysis −.18⁎ .29⁎ .44⁎ .19⁎ .32⁎ Current analysisb Both Meta-analysis −.10⁎⁎ .17⁎⁎ .27⁎⁎ .15⁎⁎ .31⁎⁎ Bipp, Steinmayr, and Spinath (2008) 160 Goal Orientation School −.06 .22⁎⁎ .40⁎⁎ .26⁎⁎ .11 Chen and Zhang (2011) 775 Achievement Goal School −.21⁎⁎ .28⁎⁎ .39⁎⁎ .18⁎⁎ .46⁎⁎ Corker et al. (2012) 347 Achievement Goal School −.14⁎ .11⁎ .16⁎ .20⁎ .36⁎ Day, Radosevich, and Chasteen (2003) 384 Goal Orientation School −.12⁎ .11⁎ .33⁎⁎ .20⁎⁎ .23⁎⁎ VandeWalle scale −.13 ⁎⁎ .15 ⁎⁎ .38 ⁎⁎ .20 ⁎⁎ .20 ⁎⁎ PALS scale −.11 ⁎ .07 .27 ⁎⁎ .19 ⁎⁎ .26 ⁎⁎ Fleisher, Edwards, Woehr, and Cullen (2011) 120 Goal Orientation School −.17⁎ .13 .28⁎ .26⁎ .40⁎ Goldberg scale −.14 .12 .25 ⁎ .31 ⁎ .36 ⁎ IPIP scale −.19 ⁎ .14 .30 ⁎ .20 ⁎ .44 ⁎ Freudenthaler, Spinath, and Neubauer (2008) Male only 526–545 Goal Orientation School −.01 .05 .13⁎⁎ ns .30⁎⁎ Female only 779–799 Goal Orientation School −.02 −.04 .17⁎⁎ ns .24⁎⁎ Hendricks and Payne (2007) Leader Self-Report 100 Goal Orientation Experiment −.19 .35⁎⁎ .27⁎⁎ .12 .26⁎ Team observer report c 100 Goal Orientation Experiment −.06 .36 ⁎⁎ .28 ⁎⁎ .02 .25 ⁎ Klein and Lee (2006) 157 Goal Orientation School n/a n/a .36⁎⁎ n/a .26⁎⁎ Steinmayr, Bipp, and Spinath (2011) 509–520 Goal Orientation School −.01 .07 .25⁎⁎ .12⁎⁎ .34⁎⁎ Wang and Erdheim (2007) 183 Achievement Goal Work .04 .19⁎⁎ .10 .03 −.09 Yamkovenko and Holton (2010) 252 Goal Orientation Work −.25⁎ .41⁎ .21 n/a .53⁎ Zweig and Webster (2004) 786 Goal Orientation School −.09⁎⁎ .21⁎⁎ .33⁎⁎ .29⁎⁎ .38⁎⁎ Performance-approach (i.e., proving) Payne et al. (2007)a Goal Orientation Meta-analysis .32⁎ −.03 .06 −.07 .06 Current analysisb Both Meta-analysis .13⁎ .03 .05⁎⁎ −.04 .12⁎⁎ Bipp et al. (2008) 160 Goal Orientation School .25⁎⁎ .09 .06 −.08 .06 Chen and Zhang (2011) 775 Goal Orientation School .02 .18⁎⁎ .09 −.03 .26⁎⁎ Corker et al. (2012) 347 Achievement Goal School −.01 .09 .05 −.08 .17⁎ Day et al. (2003) 384 Goal Orientation School .18⁎⁎ −.03 .10⁎ −.08 .07 VandeWalle scale .20⁎⁎ .01 .12⁎ −.02 .10⁎ PALS scale .15⁎⁎ −.06 .07 −.14⁎⁎ .03 Fleisher et al. (2011) 120 Goal Orientation School .29⁎ −.06 .03 −.07 −.01 Goldberg scale .33 ⁎ −.04 .07 −.06 .03 IPIP scale .24 ⁎ −.08 −.01 −.08 −.04 Freudenthaler et al. (2008) Male only 526–545 Goal Orientation School −.04 .00 .08 ns .08 Female only 779–799 Goal Orientation School .07 −.01 .06 ns .10⁎⁎ Hendricks and Payne (2007) Leader self-report 100 Goal Orientation Experiment .25⁎ .09 .19 .05 .03 Team observer report c 100 Goal Orientation Experiment .28 ⁎⁎ −.06 .13 −.20 ⁎ .01 Steinmayr, Bipp, and Spinath (2011) 509–520 Goal Orientation School .02 .05 −.01 −.22⁎⁎ .22⁎⁎ Wang and Erdheim (2007) 183 Achievement Goal Work .14⁎⁎ .10 −.10 .04 .05 Zweig and Webster (2004) 786 Goal Orientation School .32⁎⁎ −.06 .03 .04 .10⁎⁎ Performance-Avoidance (i.e., Avoiding) Goal Orientation Payne et al. (2007)a Goal Orientation Meta-analysis .37⁎ −.30⁎ −.25⁎ −.19⁎ −.18⁎ Current Analysisb Both Meta-analysis .25⁎⁎ −.13⁎⁎ −.10⁎⁎ −.06 −.05⁎ Bipp et al. (2008) 160 Goal Orientation School .45⁎⁎ −.18⁎ .01 −.02 −.07 Chen and Zhang (2011) 775 Achievement Goal School .17⁎⁎ .04 −.11⁎ −.15⁎⁎ .02 Corker et al. (2012) 347 Achievement Goal School .20⁎ .01 −.19⁎ .08 .05 Day et al. (2003) 384 Goal Orientation School .30⁎⁎ −.25⁎⁎ −.20⁎⁎ −.06 .01 VandeWalle scale .34⁎⁎ −.24⁎⁎ −.21⁎⁎ −.13⁎⁎ −.06 PALS scale .25⁎⁎ −.25⁎⁎ −.19⁎⁎ −.02 .07 Fleisher et al. (2011) 120 Goal Orientation School .34⁎ −.20⁎ .13 .06 −.13 Goldberg scale .35⁎ −.19⁎ .14 .07 −.12 IPIP scale .33⁎ −.20⁎ .11 .04 −.13 Freudenthaler et al. (2008) Male only 526–545 Goal Orientation School .07 −.08 −.08 ns −.04 Female only 779–799 Goal Orientation School .18⁎⁎ −.14⁎⁎ −.04 ns −.09⁎ Hendricks and Payne (2007) Goal Orientation Leader Self-Report 100 Goal Orientation Experiment .25⁎ −.19 −.05 −.09 −.10 Team observer reportc 100 Goal Orientation Experiment .20⁎ −.30⁎⁎ −.06 −.17 −.32⁎⁎ Steinmayr, Bipp, and Spinath (2011) 509–520 Goal Orientation School .31⁎⁎ −.10⁎ −.09⁎ −.21⁎⁎ .00 Wang and Erdheim (2007) 183 Achievement Goal Work .09⁎ −.09 −.10 −.02 −.13⁎ Zweig and Webster (2004) 786 Goal Orientation School .37⁎⁎ −.28⁎⁎ −.21⁎⁎ −.15⁎⁎ −.15⁎⁎ Mastery-avoidance Chen and Zhang (2011) 775 Achievement Goal School .03 .14⁎⁎ .18⁎⁎ .02 .22⁎⁎ Corker et al. (2012) 347 Achievement Goal School .24⁎ −.07 −.12⁎ −.02 −.09 Note: Sample = number of participants, N = Neuroticism, E = Extraversion, 0 = Openness to Experience, A = Agreeableness, C = Conscientiousness, n/a = Not applicable (not measured), ns = not significant, correlation not reported. a Values taken from estimated true mean correlations, with significance determine by confidence intervals. Sample size omitted due to large variance for each correlation. b More details of current meta-analysis can be found in Appendix A. c Correlations from aggregate individual results from entire team of four people. ⁎ p < .05. ⁎⁎ p < .01. Table options The mixed results between the Big Five traits and performance-approach orientation could be illuminated by exploring the underlying facet-goal relations. Facets are highly correlated aspects of a higher-order trait and, as such, facet-goal relations in most cases should be similar to the trait-goal relations. However, fluctuations among the facets are possible, in which performance-approach orientation could be linked to both a negative facet and a positive facet of the same trait. Only looking at the overall trait without recourse to facets may mask the more intricate nature of trait-orientation relations. 1.5. Present research Our studies extend this previous work by assessing context-specific achievement goals rather than achievement orientations, by examining trait-goal relations in two different achievement contexts (education and work) and in two different western countries (the US and the Netherlands), by assessing achievement goals across multiple exams (Study 1), and by investigating the full NEO-PI-R to acquire a comprehensive portrait of trait-goal and facet-goal relations in the workplace (Study 2). With regard to the facet-goal relations, we generally expect these relations to reflect the trait-goal relations. However, the present work will allow us (1) to discern whether the trait-goal relations are reflected in a few key facets or across all facets, and (2) to determine which facet-goal relations have a reversed valence with the omnibus trait-goal relations. Based on the definitions of the achievement goals and the empirical trends in Table 1, we expect the following patterns: H1. Mastery-approach goals have an overall positively-valenced trait and facet profile, comprising positive relations with extraversion, openness to experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness. H2. Performance-avoidance goals have an overall negatively-valenced trait and facet profile, comprising a positive relation with neuroticism and a negative relation with conscientiousness. H3. Performance-approach goals have an overall mixed valence trait and facet profile, comprising positive relations with neuroticism and conscientiousness and a negative relation with agreeableness. H4. Mastery-avoidance goals have a primarily negatively-valenced trait and facet profile, comprising a positive relation with neuroticism and a negative relation with conscientiousness.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
The key findings from our studies are that there are three consistent sets of relations between personality traits and achievement goals, revealing that holistic personality can be used to explain achievement goal pursuit. Interestingly, it is not merely one’s level of conscientiousness that predicts all achievement goals—rather different traits are relevant for different types of goals. We believe that these trait-goal relationships can provide an exciting first step to a new line of achievement goal research. As researchers venture away from single-goal processes and focus on multiple-goal processes (Barron and Harackiewicz, 2001, Pintrich, 2000 and Van Yperen et al., 2013), an understanding of the broad individual differences that are relevant to these processes is critical. Approach temperament and avoidance temperament may provide an underlying baseline in the achievement goal process (Elliot and Thrash, 2002 and Elliot and Thrash, 2010), but greater detail can be afforded by utilizing the Big Five traits and facets in further research.