HOW PERCEPTIONS OF
SUCCESS AND GOALS
IMPACT MOTIVATION
Damon Burton
University of Idaho
What is success?
AND
How do we define it?
IS SUCCESS SUBJECTIVE
OR OBJECTIVE?
 What
is objective success?
 How does it differ from
subjective success?
 Give me an example of objective
success.
 Provide an example of
subjective success.
OBJECTIVE VERSUS
SUBJECTIVE SUCCESS
Objective
Success – winning
or placing high in a race.
Subjective Success –
reaching a valued goal such
as playing slightly beyond
your current performance
capabilities (CPC).
Which type of success is
more feasible and
controllable?
MAEHR & NICHOLLS (1980)
Success
and failure are not
objective events BUT
subjective perceptions of
each individual.
Perceived success and
failure are defined based on
whether performance
exceeds goals.
MAEHR & NICHOLLS (1980)
 Goals
define success and failure 2
ways
 what
you are trying to accomplish or
personal attributes you value
 degree to which performance meets or
exceeds goal standards
 Primary
 social
Achievement Goals
approval
 ability
 task/intrinsic
PRIMARY
ACHIEVEMENT GOALS
Social
Approval – others tell
you that you did well
Ability – socially compare
well and demonstrate
competence
Task/Intrinsic – learning,
mastery and self-comparison
Does success or failure
mean the same thing to
EACH of us?
Do we define these
terms the same
way?
If not, are there gender,
racial, ethnic or cultural
differences in definitions
of success and failure?
MEASURING
ACHIEVEMENT GOALS



In order to get people’s perceptions of what
success and failure means to them,
researchers started with the Antecedent and
Consequence Method commonly used in
attitude research.
Antecedents were measured with the stem, “If
you have ________, then you have
success/failure.”
Consequences were measured with the stem,
“If you have success/failure, then you have
____________.”
CONCEPTS CLOSEST AND
FARTHEST FROM SUCCESS




A related strategy involved in understanding
individual definitions of success/failure
involved examining concepts that are closest
and farthest from success and failure.
Both open-ended or multiple choice formats
have been used.
What are the concepts that are closest to
success? _____________
What are the concepts that are farthest from
failure? _____________
SUCCESS IS DEFINED IN
TERMS OF VALUES
 Values are
learned attitudes.
 Values are influenced by . . .
 gender
roles learned from significant
others
 cultural values
 racial and ethnic-based norms and
beliefs
 religious doctrine
 other groups that influence how we
view the world and decide what is
important
How do we measure
subjective perceptions of
success and failure?
ANTECEDENTS OF SUCCESS

If you have ____, then you have success.
____ enjoyment
____ sense of accomplishment
____ pride
____ feelings of competence
____ fame
____ attention
____ friends
____ recognition
____ go to a good college
____ scholarships
____ get into career of choice
____ marketability in your field
____ great family
____ good spouse
____ nice home
____ livable community
____ brighter future
____ successful life
____ better life style
____ opportunity to succeed
____ spirituality
____ great social support
____ people I can count on
____ exciting career goals
ANTECEDENTS
OF FAILURE
CONSEQUENCES OF
SUCCESS
CONSEQUENCES
OF FAILURE
CONSEQUENCES
OF SPORT SUCCESS
CONSEQUENCES
OF SPORT FAILURE
PERCEPTIONS OF
SUCCESS
Research confirms that success and
failure are subjective terms that reflect
gender, racial, ethnic and cultural –based
personality, attitudes, values and learning
experiences.
 Definitions of success and failure will
differ across and within groups based on
how these factors determine personally
valued goals.

What role do goals
play in definitions of
success and failure?
ROLE OF GOALS
IN MOTIVATION
NICHOLLS’ (1984)
MOTIVATIONAL ORIENTATION
Built on Maehr & Nicholls (1980) research
on perceptions of success by combining
“social approval” and “ability” goals into a
single motivational orientation he termed
“ego-involvement.”
 Similarly, he combined “intrinsic” and
“task” goals into a motivational
orientation he termed “task-involvement.”

NICHOLLS’ (1984)
MOTIVATIONAL ORIENTATIONS


Ego-Involvement – perceptions of ability are
based on comparison with other competitors
(e.g., placing high and/or winning/losing).
Task-Involvement – perceptions of success are
based on learning, improving or surpassing
personal performance standards (e.g., setting a
PR).
 TI performers assume enough ability to learn
and improve.
 TI competitors may not consider they fail
because they are challenged and take a
problem-solving approach.
CHARACTERISTICS OF
EGO-INVOLVEMENT
 Ability is
viewed as “capacity”
 The EI concept of ability is a
complex evaluation that includes:
 opponents’
ability
 outcome
 effort
 EI
expenditure
performers perceive they have
high ability when they socially
compare well and win often.
CHARACTERISTICS OF
TASK-INVOLVEMENT
 Ability is
viewed as “mastery”
 The EI concept of ability involves a
simpler evaluation that includes:
 performance
 effort
 EI
expenditure
performers perceive they have
high ability when they socially
compare well and win often.
STATES OF INVOLVEMENT
(SOI) PROFILES



Nicholls (1989) defined TI and EI as
independent constructs, thus you are either
TI or EI but not both at the same time.
Contextual and situational factors can
prompt us to switch from EI to TI and visa
versa.
Thus, our involvement state may be (a)
almost totally TI, (b) almost totally EI, or (c) a
range of combinations in between (e.g., 50%
TI, 50% EI).
WHAT FACTORS
DETERMINE SOI PROFILES
Elliot’s (1999) Approach/Avoidance SOI Model
combines TI/EI with approach/ avoidance
tendencies to identify 4 SOI profiles.
 Dweck’s (1999) Learned Helpless Model and
Gillham, Burton and Gillham’s (2013)
Motivational Styles Models combine TI/EI with
perceived competence to identify 3-4 SOI
profiles.
 SOI Profiles impact a range of motivational
variables including: attributional pattern, effort,
task choice, response to failure, and
performance.

ELLIOT’S (1999) APPROACHAVOIDANCE MODEL





Elliot’s (1999) Approach/Avoidance SOI Model
examines differences in TI/EI profiles when
performers are in approach situations versus
avoidance situations.
Mastery-approach focuses on much greater TI
because focus is on successful mastery.
Mastery-avoidance focuses on greater TI even when
trying to avoid failure. How rare should these
situations be?
Performance-approach focuses on greater EI when
focus is on successful social comparison.
Performance-avoidance is characterized by greater
EI when trying to avoid comparing poorly with others.
DWECK’S (1999) LEARNED
HELPLESSNESS MODEL
Dweck’s (1999) Learned Helplessness SOI Model
examines differences in TI/EI profiles when
performers are in situations where their
confidence/competence is high versus low.
 Mastery -- focuses on much greater TI because focus
is on successful mastery regardless of competence.
 Performance-oriented focuses on greater EI when
focus is on successful social comparison because of
high competence levels.
 Learned helplessness is characterized by greater EI
when trying to avoid comparing poorly with others
because of low competence brought on by low
control.

DWECK’S (1999) LEARNED
HELPLESS-RELATED STYLES
Dweck’s (1999) Learned Helplessness SOI Model
makes predictions for motivational patterns for each
style, particularly related to outlook, S/F attributions,
effort expenditure, task choice and resiliency.
 Mastery – demonstrates optimistic outlook, ideal
attributions, high-consistent effort, high challenge
preference and high resiliency.
 Performance-oriented -- prefers optimistic outlook,
good attributions, enough effort to win, moderate
challenge preference and moderate resiliency.
 Learned helpless is characterized by a pessimistic
outlook, damaging attributions, extreme effort
choices, low challenge preference and low resiliency.

GILLHAM ET AL. (2013)
MOTIVATIONAL STYLE MODEL





Gillham, Burton & Gillham’s (2013) Competitive Motivational
Styles Model examines differences in TI/EI profiles when
performers are in situations where their
confidence/competence is high versus low.
Development-Focused (DF) - focuses on greater TI because
success is based on mastery regardless of competence.
Win-Focused (WF) – emphasizes greater EI when focus is on
successful social comparison because of high competence.
Doubt-Oriented (DO)– concentrates more on EI but is
worried about poor social comparison due to concerns
about competence. Hasn’t given up on success.
Failure-Evader (FE) -- is characterized by greater EI when
trying to avoid comparing poorly with others because of low
competence brought on by limited autonomy. Is trying not
to look incompetent.
GILLHAM ET AL. (2013)
MOTIVATIONAL STYLE PATTERNS





Motivation patterns for Gillham et al.’s (2013) CMSQ SOI
Model for competitive outlook, S/F attributions, effort
expenditure, task choice and resiliency.
DF – demonstrates optimistic outlook, ideal attributions,
high-consistent effort, high challenge preference and high
resiliency.
WF -- prefers optimistic outlook, good attributions, enough
effort to win, moderate challenge preference and moderate
resiliency.
DO shows a pessimistic outlook, damaging attributions,
extreme effort choices, moderate challenge preference
and limited resiliency.
FE is characterized by a pessimistic outlook, damaging
attributions, extreme effort choices, low challenge
preference and low resiliency.