INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2005, 40 (6), 373384

Influence of achievement goals and self-efficacy on

students self-regulation and performance
There`se Bouffard, Maryse Bouchard, Genevie`ve Goulet, Isabelle Denoncourt, and
Nathalie Couture
Universite du Quebec a` Montreal, Canada

t is widely admitted that low self-efficacy has a detrimental impact on the functioning and performance of a
person mainly concerned with performance goals but has no impact when a person is mainly concerned with
learning goals (Dweck, 1986). However, results from both correlational and experimental studies are divergent.
Since these studies examined very few indicators of participants cognitive functioning, they may have failed to
detect those aspects that could be more vulnerable to a negative impact of the combination of performance goals
and low self-efficacy. Another concern is the lack of most studies to clearly distinguish the type of performance
goal examined, particularly the performance-avoidance versus the performance-approach goal. In the current
study, we decided to focus on performance-approach and learning goals in order to examine how self-efficacy
intervenes in their effects on participants self-regulation and performance on a cognitive task. One hundred and
forty participants (85 females and 55 males) were examined. They were randomly assigned either to the learning
or the performance-approach goals condition. In each condition, half of the participants received feedback
aimed at inducing either high or low self-efficacy beliefs with regard to the task prior to executing it aloud.
Examination of participants verbal reports, direct observation of some of their behaviours while solving the
task, and responses to a retrospective questionnaire allowed the assessment of several indicators of their selfregulation and performance. As already reported by many studies, self-efficacy influenced various aspects of
participants self-regulation and performance. However, contrary to Dwecks hypothesis (1986), when interaction
effects between self-efficacy and goals were observed, they always involved learning instead of performanceapproach goals. Findings of this study suggest that the nature of the goal might not matter as much as its
personal significance or value.

l est largement admis quun sentiment faible dauto-efficacite a un impact negatif sur le fonctionnement et le
rendement de la personne quand elle est tre`s preoccupee par des buts de performance, mais pas si elle
lest par des buts dapprentissage (Dweck, 1986). Cependant, autant les etudes de type correlationnel
quexperimental rapportent des resultats divergents. Comme ces etudes nont examine que peu dindices du
fonctionnement cognitif des personnes, elles nont peut-etre pas reussi a` detecter les aspects sensibles a` limpact
negatif de la combinaison des buts de performance et dun sentiment faible dauto-efficacite. Un autre proble`me
concerne labsence de distinction du type de but de performance examine dans la plupart de ces etudes, en
particulier le but de performance-evitement versus celui de performance-approche. Dans la presente etude, nous
avons centre notre interet sur le but de performance-approche et sur celui dapprentissage afin dexaminer
comment le sentiment dauto-efficacite intervient dans leurs effets sur lautoregulation et la performance dans
une tache cognitive. Cent quarante sujets (85 femmes et 55 hommes) ont participe a` letude. Les sujets ont ete
assignes aleatoirement a` un but dapprentissage ou de performance-approche. Dans chaque condition, un
sentiment dauto-efficacite faible ou eleve devant la tache a aussi ete induit chez la moitie des sujets avant que la
tache soit executee a` voix haute. Lexamen des protocoles verbaux des sujets, lobservation directe de certains de
leurs comportements durant la tache et leurs reponses a` un questionnaire retrospectif ont permis devaluer leur
autoregulation et leur performance. Comme lont montre de nombreuses etudes, lauto-efficacite influence
plusieurs aspects de lautoregulation et de la performance. Contrairement a` lhypothe`se de Dweck (1986), les
effets dinteraction observes entre le sentiment dauto-efficacite et les buts impliquent les buts dapprentissage et

Correspondence should be addressed to There`se Bouffard PhD, Departement de Psychologie, Universite du Quebec a` Montreal,
C.P.8888, Succ. centre-ville, Montreal, Qc, Canada, H3C 3P8 (e-mail: bouffard.therese@uqam.ca).
This study was supported by a grant from The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The authors thank the
anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this paper.
# 2005 International Union of Psychological Science

http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/00207594.html

DOI: 10.1080/00207590444000302

374

BOUFFARD ET AL.

non ceux de performance-approche. Les donnees de cette etude sugge`rent que ce nest peut-etre pas tant le type de
but qui importe que sa valeur ou la signification quil revet aux yeux de la personne.

e ha admitido que la autoeficacia baja impacta en detrimento del funcionamiento y el desempeno de una
persona principalmente si persigue metas de rendimiento, pero que no tiene impacto si la persona persigue
metas de aprendizaje (Dweck, 1986). Sin embargo, los resultados tanto de estudios de correlacion como experimentales difieren entre s. Dado que estos estudios examinaban unos cuantos indicadores del funcionamiento
cognitivo de los participantes, tal vez no detectaron aquellos aspectos mas vulnerables al impacto negativo de la
combinacion de metas de rendimiento y la autoeficacia baja. Otra preocupacion es que la mayora de los estudios
no distingua el tipo de metas de rendimiento examinadas, particularmente la meta de rendimiento-evitacion
versus rendimiento-aproximacion. El presente estudio se centro en las metas de rendimiento-aproximacion y de
aprendizaje para examinar como la autoeficacia interviene en sus efectos sobre la autorregulacion y desempeno
de los participantes en una tarea cognitiva. Se examino a 140 participantes (85 mujeres y 55 varones). Los
participantes se haban asignado en forma aleatoria, ya sea a la condicion con metas de aprendizaje o a una con
metas de ejecucion-aproximacion. En cada condicion, la mitad de los participantes reciban retroinformacion
orientada a inducir ya sea creencias de autoeficacia baja o alta, con respecto a la tarea antes de ejecutarla en voz
alta. El examen de los informes verbales de los participantes, la observacion directa de algunas de sus conductas
durante la tarea y las respuestas a un cuestionario retrospectivo permitieron evaluar varios indicadores de su
autorregulacion y desempeno. Como ya lo han informado muchos estudios, la autoeficacia influyo sobre varios
aspectos de la autorregulacion y el desempeno de los participantes. Sin embargo, contrariamente a la hipotesis de
Dweck (1986), cuando se observaron los efectos de la interaccion entre la autoeficacia y las metas, estos siempre
entranaban la meta de aprendizaje en vez de la de rendimiento-aproximacion. Los hallazgos de este estudio
sugieren que la naturaleza de la meta podra no importar tanto como su significado o valor personal.

Recent intentional or goal-oriented theories of

achievement motivation propose that the specific
type of goals adopted by students determines their
choices, attitudes, and performance in achievement situations. Although researchers have given
different labels to these types of goals, two large
classes have been identified in the literature:
learning or task goals and performance, ability,
or ego goals (Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck, 1986;
Nicholls, 1984).
The contrast between learning and performance
goals bears on what a person is seeking to achieve
and how she values learning processes and the role
of effort. A person striving for learning goals in a
task is mainly concerned with personal development and the acquisition of new skills and knowledge. Learning processes and effort expenditure
are positively valued, and errors are not seen as
threatening but act as a spur to perseverance. A
person striving for performance goals is mainly
concerned with documenting and gaining favourable judgments or avoiding negative judgments
of his or her own ability. Achieving success
with low effort and outperforming others are
seen as requisite conditions towards feeling and
appearing competent. Errors and failures are
threatening because they are seen as evidence of
incompetence.
The types of superordinate goals pursued by
students are important because they elicit qualitatively different motivational patterns and contribute

to deliberate self-regulation in academic tasks

(Ames & Archer, 1988; Bandura, 1986; Dweck,
1986, 1991; Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Fisher & Ford,
1998; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992). Many researchers maintain that learning goals are adaptive
for cognitive functioning (Archer, 1994; Bell &
Zozlowski, 2002; Dweck, 1989; Jacacinski, Madden,
& Reider, 2001) and that performance goals may
lead to less positive patterns of motivation, selfregulation, and performance, particularly when
they are combined with low self-efficacy or low
perceived ability (Ames & Archer, 1988; Archer,
1994; Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988).
According to this hypothesis, when a person is
mainly concerned with showing high competence in
a task, beliefs of inefficacy or low perceived ability
with regard to the task will have a detrimental
impact on his or her functioning and performance.
This negative impact would be due to the persons
belief about the usefulness of effort and its
connotation with low competence, particularly
when the risk of failure is high. However, when a
person is mainly concerned with learning and
personal improvement, and believes that efforts
are a valuable means to improvement, perceived
ability should have no impact whatsoever. The
validity of this hypothesis is widely acknowledged
(Archer, 1994; Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett,
1988; Hofmann, 1993; Midgley, 1993; Schmidt &
Ford, 2003), but there are as of yet few empirical
studies that have tested it.

SELF-EFFICACY AND ACHIEVEMENT GOALS

Correlational studies examining how levels of

perceived competence intervene in the effect of
achievement goals on task motivation and performance in school settings did not provide clear
evidence. In some cases, studies reported confirmation of the hypothesis in a given class but not
in the other (Goudas, Biddle, & Fox, 1994; Kaplan
& Midgley, 1997). Even when they distinguished
performance-approach and work avoidance goals,
Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, and Elliot
(2000) still failed to find evidence that perceived
competence moderates the effect of any of these
goals. Other studies reported even more controversial conclusions. Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter,
Lehto, and Elliot (1997) and Miller, Behrens,
Greene, and Newman (1993) found that low rather
than high perceived competence was more adaptive for students with performance goals. Miller,
Greene, Montalvo, Ravindran, and Nichols (1996)
reported that having high self-efficacy was more
beneficial for students with low performance goals.
Finally, in other studies it was students with
learning goals who were negatively affected by low
self-efficacy beliefs (Kaplan & Midgley, 1997;
Miller et al. 1996; Vezeau, Bouffard, & Tetreault,
1997).
Divergent conclusions are also reported in
experimental studies that have tested whether
self-efficacy has a detrimental effect when the
person is strongly committed to performance goals
(Cury, Biddle, Sarrazin, & Famose, 1997; Elliott &
Dweck, 1988; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996;
Johnson, Perlow, & Pieper, 1993). Thus, even
under controlled conditions, the hypothesis still
lacks empirical evidence. However, these studies
examined very few indicators of participants
cognitive functioning, thus they may have failed
to detect those aspects that could be more vulnerable to a negative impact of the combination of
performance goals and low self-efficacy. Another
concern is the type of performance goal induced.
According to Harackiewicz (Harackiewicz,
Barron, & Elliot, 1998; Harackiewicz et al.,
2000), there was a conceptual ambiguity in the
early definitions of performance goals: They
sometimes focused on gaining positive judgments
of competence, or on avoiding unfavourable
judgments of competence, or, worse, on both at
a same time. The former type of performance goal
is now called a performance-approach goal
whereas the second is called performance-avoidance. Recently, authors showed that performanceapproach goals emphasizing students pursuit and
achievement of high standards to gain positive
judgments of competence tend to foster academic
achievement (Bouffard, Boileau, & Vezeau, 2001;

375

Bouffard & Couture, 2003; Church, Elliot, &

Gable, 2000; Harackiewicz et al., 1997, 2000).
With few exceptions, studies examining how selfefficacy intervenes in the effects of performance
goals did not distinguish these types of goals, nor
did they provide the items used to assess them.
Thus, it is unclear how the conceptual ambiguity
in performance goals is involved in the diverging
conclusions. Given the potentially adaptive value
of a performance-approach goal, in this study it
was decided to test the hypothesis when this goal
was involved.
The purpose of the present study was to
examine how self-efficacy intervenes in the effects
of learning and of performance-approach goals.
Experimental manipulations were used to induce
either learning or performance-approach goals
and either high or low self-efficacy beliefs with
regard to the task in half the participants in each
goal condition. In order to focus participants
attention on learning goals, the task was presented
as an opportunity to improve vocabulary and
comprehension skills; in order to focus participants attention on the performance-approach
goal, the task was presented as an opportunity
for assessing their verbal competence.
The choice of the verbal concept identification
task (see Bouffard-Bouchard, Parent, & Larivee,
1993, for a description) is based on two important
criteria: Completion of a problem does not provide
information about correctness of the response,
thus the task is suitable for manipulating selfefficacy. The task is also suitable for thinking
aloud during execution, which should allow access
to several covert self-regulatory processes. Direct
observation of participants online self-regulation
during task execution and their answers to retrospective questions will provide additional information about the processes used to solve the task.
Using several indicators of participants functioning should increase the likelihood of observing
whether some of them are affected by the
interaction between goals and self-efficacy beliefs.
METHOD
Participants
The sample comprised 140 college students (85
females and 55 males, mean age 5 17.8 years,
SD 5 8.6 months) recruited via an announcement
in the student newspaper. They were offered $10 as
compensation for coming to the laboratory. Half
of the males and females were randomly assigned
to either the learning or the performance-approach

376

BOUFFARD ET AL.

goal condition, and in each group, half of the

students were randomly assigned to the high or the
low self-efficacy condition.
Procedure
Students were examined during an individual
session that lasted about 45 to 50 minutes. On
arrival at the laboratory, they were informed that
the experiment was aimed at knowing what
students usually do to discover the meaning of
an unknown word when only the sentence context
is available to them. Each problem was comprised
of six different sentences in which the same target
word was replaced by an imaginary word. The
subject had to discover, based on contextual cues,
the single meaningful word that adequately
replaced a nonsense word appearing in all
sentences of the problem. According to the
condition to which they had been assigned,
students received the following information about
the task.
Induction of learning goal
The task comprises problems of varying
difficulty among which one is really difficult.
However, working carefully on problems will
allow you to discover new ways and strategies as
to how solve them. You may encounter difficulties
during the solving process, but this is usual and
normal. The very important thing is to do your
best since this will lead you to improve your
vocabulary and comprehension skills which could
be useful for your learning in class.
Induction of performance-approach goal
The task comprises problems of varying
difficulty among which one is really difficult.
However, since the performance on this task is
linked to verbal IQ, working carefully on problems
will allow you to have information about your
verbal competence. You may encounter difficulties
during the solving process, but this is usual and
normal. The very important thing is to do your
best since this will lead you to get information
about your verbal IQ.
The objective of the task was then explained and
the experimenter executed a sample problem to
familiarize students. As a manipulation check,
students filled out a 10-item questionnaire developed for the purpose of this study (see
Appendix A). Five items assessed performanceapproach goals (I will work as hard as I can to get

the greater number of correct responses) whereas

five others assessed learning goals (The most
important thing to me in this task is to learn new
ways to discover the meaning of new words).
Internal consistency reached .83 and .84 respectively for the learning and the performanceapproach subscales.
Students then had 3 minutes to attempt to solve
each of three problems. They were asked to work
aloud and to report every thought without
selecting those of a specific type, and were advised
that they would be reminded to keep talking if they
seemed to forget to think aloud. Students were
requested to give a response for each problem.
Then, as a function of students assignment to the
self-efficacy conditions, they received the following
feedback about their performance.
High self-efficacy condition
You look to have worked carefully in attempting to solve these problems. You seem to be quite
at ease with this kind of task. As a matter of fact,
your three responses are correct. Usually, students
of your school level really have problems with this
task. In order to know how you compared to
them, look at these graphics that show the
percentage of students of your school level who
succeed at each of these problems.
Low self-efficacy condition
You look to have worked carefully in attempting to solve these problems. You do not seem to be
quite at ease with this kind of task. As a matter of
fact, your three responses are incorrect. Usually,
students of your school level do not really have
problems with this task. In order to know how you
compared to them, look at these graphics that
show the percentage of students of your school
level who succeed at each of these problems.
The graphics were designed to clearly show that
the students performance was outstandingly good
for those in the high self-efficacy condition,
whereas they clearly showed that the students
performance was outstandingly poor for those in
the low self-efficacy condition.
In order to check the manipulation of selfefficacy, students were informed that there were
four remaining problems to solve and that, in
order to help a colleague who was a researcher
interested in how college students could accurately
predict their performance, could they kindly try to
predict their performance on the remaining problems. They were informed that, following the
results of a previous study conducted with students

SELF-EFFICACY AND ACHIEVEMENT GOALS

of their school level, the problems were of varying

difficulty. The difficulty rating of each problem
was indicated. Then, each student received four
sheets of paper, each one corresponding to a
problem. Two questions appeared on each sheet:
The first asked whether the student believed he/she
would resolve the problem, and if yes what was
his/her level of confidence about the expected
success on a scale ranging from very unsure (10%)
to completely sure (100%). The experimenter read
aloud all the sentences of the first problem, after
which the student indicated his/her responses. This
procedure was repeated for each problem.
Exposure to the problems was limited to preclude
students from attempting to solve them prior to
rating their self-efficacy. The experimenter kept
her back to the student to reduce concern over
social evaluation. The students put their answers
in an envelope and sealed it. Internal consistency
for self-efficacy reached .85.
Students were then allowed a 20-minute period
within which to solve the four experimental
problems. As for the previous problems, they were
instructed to work aloud. However, they were now
free to choose the number and sequence of the
problems to be solved as well as whether or not to
give a response. They were permitted to rework
any of the experimental problems for whatever
reason. The only requirement was to not work on
two or more problems at the same time. At the end
of this period, students were given the option to
work for an additional 5 minutes. Those who said
they had finished all problems were offered a last
one to be chosen among one of average or of high
difficulty. Even though a student preferred to
continue working on the preceding problems or
not to do this last problem, he/she was requested
to say which one he/she would have chosen
otherwise. Finally, students were asked the two
following retrospective questions: Before you
started working, I informed you that the fourth
problem was particularly difficult. Which, among
the following alternativeschallenged, indifferent,
discouragedbest characterized how you felt
about this? I observed the sequence in which
you attempted to solve the problems. Was it at
random? (if no) What was your purpose in doing
so?
Given the deception used in this study, all
students were completely debriefed before leaving
the room about the manipulations they had
undergone. They were told that assignments to
either group were made at random and the real
objectives of the study were exposed. It was also
clearly explained to them that the task was nothing
else than a sort of game created for the purposes of

377

the study. It was emphasized that finding

responses was most often a matter of luck or
insight, and that in no way was it related to any
aspect of verbal IQ or intellectual capacity.
The entire session was tape-recorded. In addition, the experimenter directly recorded on an
observational form the number of students
glances at the clock or at a watch, instances of
reworking an already attempted problem, and
students responses to the retrospective questions.
Data codification
Self-regulation is a complex mechanism that
encompasses multiple activities, some of which
are difficult to assess because they are composed of
usually covert processes (Borkowski, Johnson, &
Reid, 1987; Bouffard-Bouchard et al., 1993;
Lefebvre-Pinard & Pinard, 1985). In order to
access multiple self-regulatory components, three
sources of information were used: verbal reports,
direct observation, and retrospective questions.
The practice problems only served to manipulate students self-efficacy and to exercise participants in expressing thoughts aloud. Therefore,
only performances on these problems were examined to verify equivalence of groups at the outset
of the procedure. The verbal reports were transcribed and segmented into units by three independent judges blind to the students classification.
The criterion used for segmentation was that a
stated idea, whether grammatically correct or not,
constituted a unit. Inter-judge agreement on
segmentation reached 91%. The written protocols
were then categorized according to a coding
scheme developed for previous studies that used
the same task and data collection procedure
(Bouffard-Bouchard et al., 1993). Only one coding
category, described below, was allowed per unit.
Inter-judge agreement, calculated on 40% of the
protocols chosen randomly, reached 85%. All
disagreements were resolved through discussion.
Verbal fluency might have been a confounding
factor. Thus, the total number of statements was
counted for each student and used as a covariate in
analyses of data issued from verbal protocols.
Measure of self-regulation
Self-regulation encompasses several different components: a cognitive component comprising strategies and activities required to solve the task; a
metacognitive component comprising strategies
aimed at controlling the solving process as well
as metacognitive experiences expressing thoughts

378

BOUFFARD ET AL.

and feelings about progress toward the goal; and a

motivational component comprising indicators of
students commitment to the task such as expenditure of effort and persistence.
1. Cognitive strategies refer to a students making
use of her/his previous knowledge about
language, like identifying the category to
which the target word belongs (a verb, a
noun, an adjective, etc.), or making use of
the contextual cues of the sentences in which
the word is embedded, etc. (see BouffardBouchard et al., 1993, for a description of
categories).
2. Metacognitive strategies refer to a students
report of supervision activities like monitoring
of processing (Hum, it seems that this word
fits well with five sentences. What could it
mean with the sixth one?), monitoring of
time, as indicated by students instances of
checking the time by glancing at the clock or
at a watch or statements about management
of working time (I already spent too much
time on this one. I will try another one.),
and planning (I better start with the easiest
one).
With regard to the latter category, students
responses to the retrospective question about their
reason for choosing the sequence in which they
attempted to solve problems were also examined;
95% of these responses fell into one of the
following categories: no specific intention (Well,
I did not really choose. I took them from left to
right); self-training or self-encouragement in
starting with the easiest problem (Yes, I thought
that solving the easy one first would boost me for
the others); management of ones cognitive functioning (I thought it was better to attempt the
difficult one first while I was fresh. I thought I
should have enough time and energy for the easiest
ones at the end).
3.
1. Metacognitive experiences refer to the students conscious internal feedback about how
and why they progress (or not) toward the
goal, and they were characterized either by a
positive or a negative valence. Metacognitive
experiences with a positive valence refer to
a students positive thoughts about solving
the problem (I feel I am close to the
solution. I am sure I will find the word),
or self-reinforcements (Good, good, you are
doing very well, lets go). Metacognitive
experiences with a negative valence refer to
self-debilitating thoughts about achieving
the goal or negative self-appraisal of ones

own ability that may interfere with solving

processes (You should not have accepted me
in your study, I am so poor at solving such
problems).
2. Motivation was examined using three indica4.
tors. The first, labelled persistence, was
scored by allowing one point for each
problem the student kept working on until
he/she found a solution (whether it was
correct or not), and one more point for
accepting the extra working time. The second
indicator, called choice of difficulty, refers to
the degree of difficulty students chose for the
additional problem. Finally, the third indicator, called mental attitude, refers to students responses about how they felt when
they were informed about the difficulty of the
fourth problem.
Actual performance was assessed using two
criteria: the number of correct responses and the
number of rejections of ones own correct
responses.
RESULTS
Due to mechanical problems, verbal protocols of
12 students (7 and 5 students respectively in the
performance and the learning condition) were lost.
Therefore, the sample included in the analyses
varied from 128 to 140 students depending on
whether or not measures were issued from verbal
protocols.
Preliminary analyses examined whether or not
goal and self-efficacy manipulations were successful. The analysis of learning and performanceapproach scores using goal condition (62) and
gender (62) as factors showed that learning
goals were higher for students in the learning
condition than for those in performance-approach
condition, F(1, 139) 5 7.79, p , .005, whereas
performance-approach goals were higher for
students in the performance-approach condition than for those in the learning condition,
F(1, 139) 5 14.47, p , .001. There was no gender
effect or interaction.
The number of students positive expectations
about the upcoming problems and the associated
levels of confidence were analysed using selfefficacy condition (62) and gender (62) as
factors. Students in the high self-efficacy condition
reported a greater number of positive expectations, F(1, 139) 5 7.92, p , .005, and higher levels
of confidence, F(1, 139) 5 7.90, p , .005, than
did those in the low condition. There was no
gender effect or interaction. These results confirm

SELF-EFFICACY AND ACHIEVEMENT GOALS

that the goal and self-efficacy manipulations were

successful.
The analysis of students performance on
problems they solved prior to the self-efficacy
manipulation according to goal condition (62),
self-efficacy condition (62), and gender (62) as
factors showed no effect for any factor nor an
interaction effect between factors. The analysis
performed to examine effect of gender on overall
dependent measures showed no difference between
males and females. Therefore, data of males and
females were aggregated in the remaining analyses.
Intercorrelations between cognitive and metacognitive strategies and metacognitive experiences
were also examined. No relation was observed
between metacognitive experiences with a negative
valence and the other measures, and the relations
between monitoring of time and other variables
were low. However, relations between metacognitive experiences with a positive valence, and
cognitive and metacognitive strategies related to
monitoring of processing and to planning ranged
from .40 to .49. Therefore, in order to avoid
problems of collinearity and duplicate analyses, a
global score of self-regulatory statements was
calculated by summing up data on these categories.
Analyses of variance (ANCOVAs) with goal
(62) and self-efficacy (62) conditions as factors
and verbal fluency as a covariate examined data
on self-regulatory statements, negative thoughts,
and monitoring of time. Since the covariate was
irrelevant for persistence and performance, it was

379

omitted (see Table 1 for means and standard

deviations). Because data on order of solving
problems, mental attitude, and choice of difficulty
were dichotomous, they were examined using Chisquare analyses controlling for each factor successively. Also, given the theoretical importance of
potential interaction between self-efficacy and
goal, marginal effect (p , .10) was further explored.
Results of the analysis on self-regulatory statements showed significant effects for the covariate,
F(1, 123) 5 18.11, p , .001, and for goal condition, F(1,123) 5 4.53, p , .05, but no effect for
self-efficacy, nor for the interaction between
factors. Whatever their self-efficacy condition,
students assigned to the learning condition (M 5
10.0) expressed more self-regulatory statements
than did those in the performance-approach
condition (M 5 6.0).
The analysis of metacognitive experiences with a
negative valence showed that students assigned
to the low self-efficacy condition (M 5 0.41)
expressed them almost twice as often than did
those assigned to the high self-efficacy condition
(M 5 0.22), F(1, 123) 5 3.05, p , .05. No effect
was found for the covariate, for goal condition, or
for the interaction between factors.
With regard to monitoring of time, significant
effects were found for the covariate, F(1, 123) 5
5.50, p , .05, and for self-efficacy, F(1, 123) 5
3.84, p , .05, as well as a marginally significant
effect for the interaction between self-efficacy and
goal condition F(1, 123) 5 3.75, p , .06. While

TABLE 1
Means (and standard deviations) of self-regulatory and performance measures according to goal and self-efficacy conditions
Goals
Performance-approach

Self-regulatory measures
Self-regulatory statements
Metacognitive experiences with a negative valence
Monitoring of time
Persistencea

Performance measures
Rejection of correct responsesa
Correct reponsesa

Learning

High SE
(n 5 30)

Low SE
(n 5 32)

High SE
(n 5 35)

Low SE
(n 5 31)

6.50
(8.45)
0.20
(0.38)
1.85
(1.58)
5.55
(1.14)

5.59
(8.48)
0.38
(0.48)
1.64
(2.01)
5.28
(1.89)

10.94
(11.50)
0.26
(0.40)
2.32
(1.47)
5.57
(0.69)

9.00
(8.44)
0.55
(0.65)
1.30
(1.29)
4.74
(1.73)

0.09
(0.29)
1.73
(0.83)

0.39
(0.68)
1.53
(0.91)

0.03
(0.16)
1.97
(0.72)

0.56
(0.56)
1.27
(1.02)

a
Cell sizes of variables comprising the entire sample: (n 5 33) (n 5 36) (n 5 37) (n 5 34).
SE 5 self-efficacy.

380

BOUFFARD ET AL.

students in the performance-approach condition

did not differ according to self-efficacy (M 5 1.7
for both groups), students in the learning condition who were assigned to the high self-efficacy
condition (M 5 2.3) expressed concerns about
monitoring their working time (either verbally or
behaviourally) more often than did those in the
low self-efficacy condition (M 5 1.3).
Analysis of persistence showed an effect of selfefficacy, F(1, 136) 5 5.15, p , .05, and a marginal
effect of the interaction between factors, F(1, 136)
5 2.95, p , .09. Persistence of students in the
performance-approach condition did not differ
according to self-efficacy, but students in the
learning condition who were assigned to the high
self-efficacy condition tended to persist longer
than those in the low self-efficacy condition.
Students reasons for solving problems in a
given sequence varied according to self-efficacy
and goal condition. In the performance-approach
condition, the proportion of students reporting
either reason did not differ whatever their selfefficacy condition. However, in the learning
condition, differences were found according to
self-efficacy, x2(2) 5 6.143, p , .05. Concerns
about managing their working time or cognitive
function were reported by students in both the low
and high self-efficacy condition (21% and 45%
respectively). Concerns about self-training or selfencouragement were reported by 50% and 24% of
students respectively in the low and high selfefficacy conditions. The proportion of students
reporting that they had no specific intention was
similar whatever the self-efficacy or the goal
condition.
With respect to students mental attitude about
the presence of a very difficult problem, the
proportion of those reporting discouragement
and challenge differed according to self-efficacy
conditions in both the learning, x2(2) 5 10.33,
p , .005, and the performance-approach, x2(2) 5
17.45, p , .001, goal condition. In the high selfefficacy condition, only 2% of students in the
performance-approach condition and no students
in the learning condition expressed discouragement compared to 36% and 25% of those in the
low self-efficacy condition. In the high self-efficacy
condition, 73% and 64% of students in the
performance-approach and learning condition
respectively reported challenge against 29% and
39% of students in the low self-efficacy condition.
Similar analyses performed while controlling for
self-efficacy showed no difference between goal
conditions. The proportion of students reporting
they remained indifferent about the difficulty of a

given problem was similar whatever the selfefficacy or the goal condition.
The analysis of the level of difficulty of the extra
problem selected by students showed differences
according to self-efficacy. In both the learning,
x2(1) 5 10.52, p , .001, and the performanceapproach, x2(1) 5 4.32, p , .05, goal condition,
the proportion of students saying they would
choose (or did choose) a more difficult problem
was higher in the high self-efficacy condition (66%
and 54% respectively in the performance-approach
and the learning condition) than it was in the low
self-efficacy condition (27% and 29% respectively
in the performance-approach and the learning
condition). Again, similar analyses performed
controlling for self-efficacy showed no difference
between goal conditions.
Finally, a multivariate analysis of variance
performed on students actual performance using
goal (62) and self-efficacy (62) conditions as
factors revealed an effect for self-efficacy, F(2, 135)
5 13.43, p , .001. Subsequent univariate analyses
showed that students in the high self-efficacy
condition less often (M 5 0.06) rejected correct
responses, F(1, 136) 5 23.61, p , .001, than did
those in the low self-efficacy condition (M 5 0.47),
and that they also obtained a greater number
of correct responses, F(1, 136) 5 9.31, p , .005
(M 5 1.86 and M 5 1.40 respectively in the high
and low self-efficacy condition). However, this
latter effect was qualified by a marginal interaction
between self-efficacy and goal condition, F(1, 136)
5 2.93, p , .10. While students in the performance-approach condition did not differ according to self-efficacy (M 5 1.53 and M 5 1.73
respectively for low and high self-efficacy), students in the high self-efficacy condition reached a
greater number of correct responses (M 5 1.97)
than those in the low condition (M 5 1.27), F(1,
69) 5 11.44, p , .001.
DISCUSSION
This study was aimed at examining the hypothesis
stating that self-efficacy intervenes in the effect of
goals on students cognitive functioning and
performance. Following this hypothesis, whatever
a students self-efficacy beliefs, endorsing learning
goals will led him/her to adaptive patterns of
functioning. However, self-efficacy will make a
difference for a student endorsing performance
goals. More precisely, while adaptive patterns of
functioning should be expected when a student has
high self-efficacy beliefs, the reverse should be
expected when he/she has low self-efficacy beliefs.

SELF-EFFICACY AND ACHIEVEMENT GOALS

In order to avoid confounding different types of

performance goals, it was decided to test the
hypothesis when a performance-approach goal
was involved. High and low self-efficacy beliefs
as well as learning and performance-approach
goals were experimentally induced. Manipulation
checks confirmed that self-efficacy and goals had
been induced successfully. In addition, the experimental task was carefully selected to allow for
observation of a greater number of indices of
students self-regulation, reactions, and performance than had been done in previous studies
examining the hypothesis under investigation.
Seven indicators of participants online selfregulation related to cognitive, metacognitive,
and motivational processes were examined, as well
as two dimensions of their actual performance.
Self-efficacy was found to influence various
aspects of students functioning. Those in the low
self-efficacy group expressed more instances of
negative metacognitive experiences than those in
the high self-efficacy group. While the majority of
students in the latter group reported a sense of
challenge when informed about the presence of a
difficult problem, it was the reverse in the former
group. Given the opportunity to choose the level
of difficulty of an extra problem, a majority of
students in the high self-efficacy group but a
minority in the low group said they would like to
attempt to solve a difficult one. Finally, low selfefficacy students more often rejected their own
correct responses and as a consequence, in the
learning condition, had a lower performance than
participants in the high group. In fact, after adding
scores of rejected correct responses to performance, no difference remained between selfefficacy groups in this condition.
Altogether, these findings support the claim by
Bandura and Locke (2003) about the adaptive and
central role of self-efficacy in human functioning.
They replicate the findings reported in various
studies in very different domains such as education
(Bouffard & Couture, 2003; Lee & Klein, 2002;
Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Pajares, 2003;
Schunk, 1990; Zimmerman, Bandura, &
Martinez-Pons, 1992), sports (Feltz, 1988), career
counselling (Hackett, 1995; Lent, Brown, &
Hackett, 1994), organizational psychology (Gist
& Mitchell, 1992; Sadri & Robertson, 1993), or
complex decision-making and problem-solving
(Breland & Donovan, in press; Wood, Bandura,
& Bailey, 1990).
With regard to the hypothesis stating that selfefficacy would intervene in the effect of goals on
students cognitive functioning and performance,
the instances of interaction between self-efficacy

381

and goals all involved learning goals. Other studies

have reported similar conclusions (Kaplan &
Midgley, 1997; Miller et al., 1993, 1996). In the
learning goal condition, when compared to students
in the low self-efficacy condition, those in the high
condition glanced more often at their watch or at
the clock, or expressed comments about working
time allotted during solving the task. This suggests
that they were more concerned about monitoring
their working time, and more active in doing so.
This interpretation is reinforced by their responses
to the retrospective question about the sequence in
which they attempted to solve the problems.
Students in the learning condition were similarly
purposeful in choosing a specific sequence in an
attempt to solve the problems (71% versus 69%
reported a specific reason for having done so), but
their reason differed according to the level of the
induced self-efficacy. Twice as many students in
the high self-efficacy condition than in the low
self-efficacy condition reported that their aim was
managing their working time and energy across
problems. The reverse was observed for those
in the low self-efficacy condition, who instead
reported that their motive was self-training or
self-encouragement. Persistence also differed
between low and high self-efficacy groups within
the learning condition; the former showed less
persistence than the latter. With regard to actual
performance at the task, again students in the
learning condition differed according to selfefficacy; those in the high condition outperformed
those in the low condition. No evidence was found
that students in the performance-approach condition were affected by induced self-efficacy.
Different interpretations may be raised to explain
our results. Since individuals already possess a
dispositional goal orientation, it may be argued
that experimental manipulation leads to different
results according to the initial disposition. Although
it is difficult to eliminate this argument, measurement of the induced goals ensured that the
experimental manipulation was successful. Beyond
this, previous studies have shown that independent
of the link between dispositional goal orientation
and some variables, situational goal orientation has
unique and significant relations with these same
variables (Kozlowski, Gully, Brown, Salas, Smith,
& Nason, 2001).
Alternatively, it may be argued that the manipulation of goals encompassed different incentives
with regard to the importance of achieving the task
at hand. More precisely, the performanceapproach goal was induced by informing students
that task performance was linked to verbal IQ and
that working carefully on problems would allow

382

BOUFFARD ET AL.

them to gain information about it. Even though

students in the low self-efficacy group were
informed they had done poorly on the first
problems and subsequently reported low selfefficacy beliefs for the remaining problems, they
may have considered that they could work harder
and achieve a more positive demonstration of their
verbal competence. In such a case, the importance
of performing at their best may have alleviated the
expected negative impact of low self-efficacy. As
observed, whatever their self-efficacy, students in
the performance-approach condition were similarly active in monitoring their working time,
showed similar persistence, and finally achieved a
similar performance. In comparison, students in
the learning condition were told that working
carefully on problems would allow them to
improve their comprehension skills and vocabulary, which could be useful for their learning in
class. The importance of improving learning skills
may have been insufficient to compensate for the
effects of low self-efficacy. Thus, we argue that
the personal significance or value of a goal may
be more important than its nature per se.
Harackiewicz and Sansone (1991) have already
suggested that competence valuation reflecting the
degree to which a person is concerned with doing
well might sometimes have more effect on task
engagement than perceived competence. Bouffard,
Boisvert, Vezeau, and Larouche (1995) also argue
that because doing the best one can is central to
both those who are strongly concerned with
improving their competence and with getting to
the highest possible level, similar task engagement
should be expected. Being strongly motivated to
do the best one is able to may protect the person
against the deleterious effects of low self-efficacy.
Despite being plagued by self-doubts, a person
may be willing to struggle and make significant
efforts in a situation when doing so is likely to
yield important outcomes. For example, if a
student really wants to be admitted to a programme of study requiring high marks in mathematics, he may decide to expend all the effort he
can to reach this goal despite believing that this
domain is difficult for him. Similarly, if he highly
values improving his mathematics skills, he is also
likely to work hard whether he feels efficacious or
not. Conversely, thinking that gaining high marks
in mathematics is unimportant for admittance into
the programme or if he does not care about
improving his mathematics skills, it is unlikely the
student will make the effort if he is already
convinced he lacks the requisite ability.
In conclusion, the studys findings suggest that a
better understanding of the interplay between

achievement goals and self-efficacy beliefs could

be achieved by distinguishing goals according
to their importance and significance for the
person. Exploration of this issue certainly deserves
some research effort and may benefit both selfefficacy and goal-oriented theories of achievement
motivation.
Manuscript received November 2003
Revised manuscript accepted June 2004

REFERENCES
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the
classroom: Students learning strategies and motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80,
260267.
Archer, J. (1994). Achievement goals as a measure of
motivation in university students. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 19, 430446.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and
action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs,
NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative selfefficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 88, 8799.
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). Goal
orientation and ability: Interactive effects on selfefficacy, performance and knowledge. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 87, 497505.
Borkowski, J. G., Johnson, M. B., & Reid, M. K. (1987).
Metacognition, motivation, and controlled performance. In S. J. Ceci (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive,
social, and neuropsychological aspects of learning
disabilities, Vol. 2 (pp. 147173). Hillsdale, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Bouffard, T., Boileau, L., & Vezeau, C. (2001). Students
transition from elementary to high school and
changes of the relationship between motivation and
academic performance. European Journal of
Psychology of Education, XVI, 589604.
Bouffard, T., Boisvert, J., Vezeau, C., & Larouche, C.
(1995). The impact of goal orientation on selfregulation and performance among college students.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65,
317329.
Bouffard, T., & Couture, N. (2003). Motivational
profile and academic achievement among students
enrolled in different schooling tracks. Educational
Studies, 29, 1938.
Bouffard-Bouchard, T., Parent, S., & Larivee, S. (1993).
Self-regulation of a concept formation task among
average and gifted students. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 56, 115134.
Breland, B. T., & Donovan, J. J. (in press). The role of
state goal orientation in the goal establishment
process. Human Performance.
Church, M. A., Elliot, A. J., & Gable, S. (2000).
Perceptions of classroom context, achievement goals
and achievement outcomes. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 92, 4354.
Cury, F., Biddle, S., Sarrazin, P., & Famose, J. P.
(1997). Achievement goals and perceived ability
predict investment in learning a sport task. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 67, 293309.

SELF-EFFICACY AND ACHIEVEMENT GOALS

Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting

learning. American Psychologist, 41, 10401048.
Dweck, C. S. (1989). Motivation. In A. Lesgold &
R. Glaser (Eds.), Foundations for a psychology of
education (pp. 87136). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Dweck, C. S. (1991). Self-theories and goals: Their role
in motivation, personality, and development. In
R. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on
motivation, 1990, Vol. 38: Perspectives on motivation
(pp. 139235). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska
Press.
Dweck, C. S., & Legget, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive
approach
to
motivation
and
personality.
Psychological Review, 95, 256273.
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An
approach to motivation and achievement. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 512.
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, 461475.
Feltz, D. (1988). Self-confidence and sports performance. In K. B. Pandolf (Ed.), Exercise and sport
science reviews, Vol. 16 (pp. 423457). New York:
Macmillan.
Fisher, S. L., & Ford, K. J. (1998). Differential effects of
learner effort and goal orientation on two learning
outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 51, 397420.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy:
A theoretical analysis of its determinants and
malleability. Academy of Management Review, 12,
472485.
Goudas, M., Biddle, S., & Fox, K. (1994). Perceived
locus of causality, goal orientations, and perceived
competence in school physical education classes.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64,
453463.
Hackett, G. (1995). Self-efficacy in career choice and
development. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy in
changing
societies
(pp. 232259).
Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M.,
Lehto, A. T., & Elliot, A. J. (1997). Predictors and
consequences of achievement goals in the college
classroom: Maintaining interest and making the
grade. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
73, 12841295.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., & Elliot, A. J.
(1998). Rethinking achievement goals: When are they
adaptive for college students and why? Educational
Psychologist, 33, 121.
Harachiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M.,
Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term and
long-term consequences of achievement goals:
Predicting interest and performance over time.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 316330.
Harackiewicz, J. M., & Sansone, C. (1991). Goals and
intrinsic motivation: You can get there from here.
Advances in motivation and achievement, Vol. 7
(pp. 2149). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Hofmann, D. A. (1993). The influence of goal orientation on task performance: A substantively meaningful suppressor variable. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 23, 18271846.
Jacacinski, C. M., Madden, J. L., & Reider, M. H.
(2001). The impact of situational and dispositional

383

achievement goals on performance. Human

Performance, 14, 321337.
Johnson, D., Perlow, R., & Pieper, K. F. (1993).
Differences in task performance as a function
of type of feedback: Learning-oriented versus
performance-oriented. Journal of Applied Psychology, 23, 303320.
Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (1997). The effect of
achievement goals: Does level of perceived academic
competence make a difference? Contemporary
Education Psychology, 22, 415435.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Brown, K. G.,
Salas, E., Smith, E. M., & Nason, E. R. (2001).
Effects of training goals and goal orientation traits
on multidimensional training outcomes and performance adaptability. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 85, 131.
Lee, S., & Klein, H. J. (2002). Relationships between
conscientiousness, self-efficacy, self-deception, and
learning over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,
11751182.
Lefebvre-Pinard, M., & Pinard, A. (1985). Taking
charge of ones own cognitive activity: A moderator
of competence. In E. Neimark, R. Delisi &
J. Newman (Eds.), Moderators of competence
(pp. 191211). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum
Associates Inc.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994).
Toward a unifying social-cognitive theory of career
and academic interest, choice and performance.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79122.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role of
self-efficacy beliefs in student engagement and
learning in the classroom. Reading and Writing
Quarterly, 19, 119137.
Midgley, C. (1993). Motivation and middle level
schools. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.),
Advances in motivation and achievement: Vol. 8.
Motivation in the adolescent years (pp. 217274).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Miller, R. B., Behrens, J. T., Greene, B. A., &
Newman, D. (1993). Goals and perceived ability:
Impact on student valuing, self-regulation and
persistence. Contemporary Educational Psychology,
18, 214.
Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P.,
Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J. D. (1996).
Engagement in academic work: The role of learning
goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and
perceived
ability.
Contemporary
Educational
Psychology, 21, 388422.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Conceptions of ability and
achievement motivation. In R. Ames & C. Ames
(Eds.), Research on motivation in education, Vol. 1
(pp. 3973). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, and
achievement in writing: A review of the literature.
Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 139158.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students
motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagement
in classroom academic tasks. In D. H. Schunk &
J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 149183). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Sadri, G., & Robertson, I. T. (1993). Self-efficacy and
work-related behaviour: A review and meta-analysis.

384

BOUFFARD ET AL.

Applied Psychology: An International Review, 42,

139152.
Schmidt, A. M., & Ford, J. K. (2003). Learning within a
learner control training environment: The interactive
effects of goal orientation and metacognitive instruction on learning outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 56,
405419.
Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacy
during
self-regulated
learning.
Educational
Psychologist, 25, 7186.
Vezeau, C., Bouffard, T., & Tetreault, F. (1997). Impact
du type de buts et du sentiment dauto-efficacite sur

lautoregulation et la performance dans une tache

cognitive [Impact of types of goal and self-efficacy on
self-regulation and performance in a cognitive task].
International Journal of Psychology, 32, 114.
Wood, R., Bandura, A., & Bailey, T. (1990).
Mechanisms governing organizational performance
in complex-making environments. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 181201.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M.
(1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: The
role of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting.
American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663676.

APPENDIX A
Goals questionnaire
L:
PA:
L:
L:
PA:
PA:
L:
PA:
PA:
L:

The most important thing to me in this task is to learn new ways to discover the meaning of new words.
The most important to me is to be among those who will discover the greater number of correct responses.
I will work as hard as I can to discover and master new skills to improve my vocabulary.
I hope that working on this task will allow me to discover things I do not know yet.
The most interesting to me in this task is to know how many correct responses I will find.
My main objective will be to class myself in the very best at this task.
I hope to have the feeling of having learned new things when I will have finished the task.
It is important to me to outperform others in this task.
I will work as hard as I can to get the greater number of correct responses.
Gaining new knowledge and skills is my main objective in this task.

L 5 Learning; PA 5 Performance-approach.
For each item, students must specify their level of agreement on a scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 6 (completely agree).