Abstract Past research has shown that motivation is an important predictor of goal-related behaviors. Sheldon and Elliot (1999) proposed the Self-Concordance Model (SCM), to distinguish between personal goals that reflect intrinsic interests and values (self-concordant goals) and personal goals that are pursued because of self-imposed and social pressures (self-discordant goals). Another important motivational construct is self-efficacy, people’s beliefs in their capabilities to exercise control over their level of functioning and their environment (Bandura, 1996). Self-efficacy has been shown to predict goal attainment and well-being as people who are self-efficacious put more effort and commitment towards their goals (Koestner, Horberg, Gaudreau, Powers, Di Dio, Bryan, Jochum & Salter, 2006). Despite the unique contribution of self-concordance and self-efficacy, little is known about their combined effects. I performed a study with 135 university students to investigate whether two self-regulatory processes could in fact be better than one. Results using hierarchical regression analyses indicated that self-efficacy did moderate the relationship between self-concordance and the outcome variables. Self-concordance was associated with greater well-being and goal progress for those high on self-efficacy (β = .21, p < .05; β = .33, p < .01) while negatively relating to well-being and goal progress for those low on self-efficacy (β = -.22, p = .07; β = -.19, p > .05 ). It appears that two motivational processes combined, self-concordance and self-efficacy, are in fact better than one.

The first objective was to test the prospective relationship between need satisfaction and coping. A total of 113 undergraduate students completed a measure of need satisfaction at Time 1 (T1; i.e. a few weeks before the midterm exams) as well as a measure of coping at Time 2 (T2; i.e. a few weeks after the midterm exams). Results indicated that need satisfaction T1 explained unique variance in both dimensions of coping T2, namely task-oriented and disengagement-oriented coping, even after having statistically controlled for gender, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and social desirability at T1. The second objective was to examine a model in which need satisfaction and coping predict the amount of progress towards academic goals and, in turn, how coping and goal progress are associated to increases in need satisfaction over the course of a semester. A total of 166 undergraduate students completed a measure of need satisfaction at Time 1 (T1; i.e. a few weeks before the midterm exams) as well as measures of coping, goal progress, and need satisfaction at Time 2 (T2; i.e. a few weeks after the midterm exams). Results from structural equation modeling indicated that coping T2 fully mediated the relationship between need satisfaction T1 and goal progress T2. Results also indicated that goal progress T2 partially mediated the relation between task-oriented coping T2 and need satisfaction T2 as well as between disengagement-oriented coping T2 and need satisfaction T2.

Abstract Past research has shown that motivation is an important predictor of goal-related behaviors. Sheldon and Elliot (1999) proposed the Self-Concordance Model (SCM), to distinguish between personal goals that reflect intrinsic interests and values (self-concordant goals) and personal goals that are pursued because of self-imposed and social pressures (self-discordant goals). Another important motivational construct is self-efficacy, people’s beliefs in their capabilities to exercise control over their level of functioning and their environment (Bandura, 1996). Self-efficacy has been shown to predict goal attainment and well-being as people who are self-efficacious put more effort and commitment towards their goals (Koestner, Horberg, Gaudreau, Powers, Di Dio, Bryan, Jochum & Salter, 2006). Despite the unique contribution of self-concordance and self-efficacy, little is known about their combined effects. I performed a study with 135 university students to investigate whether two self-regulatory processes could in fact be better than one. Results using hierarchical regression analyses indicated that self-efficacy did moderate the relationship between self-concordance and the outcome variables. Self-concordance was associated with greater well-being and goal progress for those high on self-efficacy (β = .21, p < .05; β = .33, p < .01) while negatively relating to well-being and goal progress for those low on self-efficacy (β = -.22, p = .07; β = -.19, p > .05 ). It appears that two motivational processes combined, self-concordance and self-efficacy, are in fact better than one.

The first objective was to test the prospective relationship between need satisfaction and coping. A total of 113 undergraduate students completed a measure of need satisfaction at Time 1 (T1; i.e. a few weeks before the midterm exams) as well as a measure of coping at Time 2 (T2; i.e. a few weeks after the midterm exams). Results indicated that need satisfaction T1 explained unique variance in both dimensions of coping T2, namely task-oriented and disengagement-oriented coping, even after having statistically controlled for gender, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and social desirability at T1. The second objective was to examine a model in which need satisfaction and coping predict the amount of progress towards academic goals and, in turn, how coping and goal progress are associated to increases in need satisfaction over the course of a semester. A total of 166 undergraduate students completed a measure of need satisfaction at Time 1 (T1; i.e. a few weeks before the midterm exams) as well as measures of coping, goal progress, and need satisfaction at Time 2 (T2; i.e. a few weeks after the midterm exams). Results from structural equation modeling indicated that coping T2 fully mediated the relationship between need satisfaction T1 and goal progress T2. Results also indicated that goal progress T2 partially mediated the relation between task-oriented coping T2 and need satisfaction T2 as well as between disengagement-oriented coping T2 and need satisfaction T2.

Abstract Past research has shown that motivation is an important predictor of goal-related behaviors. Sheldon and Elliot (1999) proposed the Self-Concordance Model (SCM), to distinguish between personal goals that reflect intrinsic interests and values (self-concordant goals) and personal goals that are pursued because of self-imposed and social pressures (self-discordant goals). Another important motivational construct is self-efficacy, people’s beliefs in their capabilities to exercise control over their level of functioning and their environment (Bandura, 1996). Self-efficacy has been shown to predict goal attainment and well-being as people who are self-efficacious put more effort and commitment towards their goals (Koestner, Horberg, Gaudreau, Powers, Di Dio, Bryan, Jochum & Salter, 2006). Despite the unique contribution of self-concordance and self-efficacy, little is known about their combined effects. I performed a study with 135 university students to investigate whether two self-regulatory processes could in fact be better than one. Results using hierarchical regression analyses indicated that self-efficacy did moderate the relationship between self-concordance and the outcome variables. Self-concordance was associated with greater well-being and goal progress for those high on self-efficacy (β = .21, p < .05; β = .33, p < .01) while negatively relating to well-being and goal progress for those low on self-efficacy (β = -.22, p = .07; β = -.19, p > .05 ). It appears that two motivational processes combined, self-concordance and self-efficacy, are in fact better than one.

The first objective was to test the prospective relationship between need satisfaction and coping. A total of 113 undergraduate students completed a measure of need satisfaction at Time 1 (T1; i.e. a few weeks before the midterm exams) as well as a measure of coping at Time 2 (T2; i.e. a few weeks after the midterm exams). Results indicated that need satisfaction T1 explained unique variance in both dimensions of coping T2, namely task-oriented and disengagement-oriented coping, even after having statistically controlled for gender, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and social desirability at T1. The second objective was to examine a model in which need satisfaction and coping predict the amount of progress towards academic goals and, in turn, how coping and goal progress are associated to increases in need satisfaction over the course of a semester. A total of 166 undergraduate students completed a measure of need satisfaction at Time 1 (T1; i.e. a few weeks before the midterm exams) as well as measures of coping, goal progress, and need satisfaction at Time 2 (T2; i.e. a few weeks after the midterm exams). Results from structural equation modeling indicated that coping T2 fully mediated the relationship between need satisfaction T1 and goal progress T2. Results also indicated that goal progress T2 partially mediated the relation between task-oriented coping T2 and need satisfaction T2 as well as between disengagement-oriented coping T2 and need satisfaction T2.

Abstract Past research has shown that motivation is an important predictor of goal-related behaviors. Sheldon and Elliot (1999) proposed the Self-Concordance Model (SCM), to distinguish between personal goals that reflect intrinsic interests and values (self-concordant goals) and personal goals that are pursued because of self-imposed and social pressures (self-discordant goals). Another important motivational construct is self-efficacy, people’s beliefs in their capabilities to exercise control over their level of functioning and their environment (Bandura, 1996). Self-efficacy has been shown to predict goal attainment and well-being as people who are self-efficacious put more effort and commitment towards their goals (Koestner, Horberg, Gaudreau, Powers, Di Dio, Bryan, Jochum & Salter, 2006). Despite the unique contribution of self-concordance and self-efficacy, little is known about their combined effects. I performed a study with 135 university students to investigate whether two self-regulatory processes could in fact be better than one. Results using hierarchical regression analyses indicated that self-efficacy did moderate the relationship between self-concordance and the outcome variables. Self-concordance was associated with greater well-being and goal progress for those high on self-efficacy (β = .21, p < .05; β = .33, p < .01) while negatively relating to well-being and goal progress for those low on self-efficacy (β = -.22, p = .07; β = -.19, p > .05 ). It appears that two motivational processes combined, self-concordance and self-efficacy, are in fact better than one.

The first objective was to test the prospective relationship between need satisfaction and coping. A total of 113 undergraduate students completed a measure of need satisfaction at Time 1 (T1; i.e. a few weeks before the midterm exams) as well as a measure of coping at Time 2 (T2; i.e. a few weeks after the midterm exams). Results indicated that need satisfaction T1 explained unique variance in both dimensions of coping T2, namely task-oriented and disengagement-oriented coping, even after having statistically controlled for gender, Conscientiousness, Neuroticism, and social desirability at T1. The second objective was to examine a model in which need satisfaction and coping predict the amount of progress towards academic goals and, in turn, how coping and goal progress are associated to increases in need satisfaction over the course of a semester. A total of 166 undergraduate students completed a measure of need satisfaction at Time 1 (T1; i.e. a few weeks before the midterm exams) as well as measures of coping, goal progress, and need satisfaction at Time 2 (T2; i.e. a few weeks after the midterm exams). Results from structural equation modeling indicated that coping T2 fully mediated the relationship between need satisfaction T1 and goal progress T2. Results also indicated that goal progress T2 partially mediated the relation between task-oriented coping T2 and need satisfaction T2 as well as between disengagement-oriented coping T2 and need satisfaction T2.

Procrastination is a problem for many individuals - especially university students - who may struggle to keep up not only with the requirements of a demanding life domain (i.e., education), but also with the demands of their other life domains (e.g., health, family, finances, and community). Past research on procrastination has mainly focused on understanding why some individuals procrastinate more than others and the consequences of procrastination for those individuals (i.e., between-person level). However, given that almost all individuals procrastinate to a certain extent, there has been an increased interest over the last few years in studying procrastination as a phenomenon that fluctuates within each person, especially over time (i.e., within-person level). Inspired by these burgeoning multilevel perspectives, the purpose of my doctoral thesis was to propose three new multilevel studies to increase our understanding of the antecedents and outcomes of procrastination when comparing university students to one another (i.e., between-person level) and when comparing time points and contexts within each student (i.e., within-person level). In Article 1, I examined the influence of between-person procrastination on the within-person achievement trajectory of students from their last year of high school to their first year at university. A sample of 269 first-year undergraduate students completed a self-reported measure of trait procrastination and their objective grades were obtained at three time points, namely the last year of high school, the first semester at university, and the second semester at university. Using piecewise multilevel growth modeling, the results revealed that students who procrastinated more than their peers tended to have a larger grade decrease from high school to the first semester at university. Although procrastination did not influence the grade change from the first semester to the second semester at university, students who procrastinated more tended to maintain their achievement disadvantage compared to students who procrastinated less. In Article 2, I examined whether procrastination could act as a mediator in the associations between two dimensions of motivation and achievement and affective outcomes both when comparing students to one another (i.e., between-person level) and when comparing the courses taken by each student during a semester to each other (i.e., within-person level). A sample of 359 university students completed self-reported measures of autonomous/controlled motivation, procrastination, and positive/negative affect in each course and their final course grades were obtained at the end of the semester. Using multilevel structural equation modeling, the results showed that procrastination was associated with worse achievement and affective outcomes at both levels of analysis. However, controlled motivation was significantly positively associated with procrastination only at the between-person level, whereas autonomous motivation was significantly negatively associated with procrastination only at the within-person level. This study highlights that, although procrastination tends to generally be detrimental to the success and emotional well-being of students, the motivational antecedent of procrastination differs depending on the level of analysis. In Article 3, I went beyond the academic domain by examining whether procrastination could act as a mediator in the associations between two dimensions of motivation and achievement and affective outcomes both when comparing students to one another (i.e., between-person level) and when comparing the life domains in which each student is invested to each other (i.e., within-person level). A sample of 330 undergraduate students completed self-reported measures of autonomous/controlled motivation, procrastination, self-actual-to-ideal proximity, goal progress, and positive/negative affect in each of their life domains. Using multilevel structural equation modeling, the results showed that autonomous and controlled motivation were associated with less and more procrastination, respectively, and in turn, procrastination was associated with worse achievement and affective outcomes but only at the within-person level. At the between-person level, only controlled motivation was positively related to procrastination, and in turn, procrastination was related to more negative affect and, surprisingly, more goal progress. Overall, all three articles contribute in complementary ways to the idea that proposing new multilevel perspectives can enrich our understanding of procrastination and its associations with antecedents and outcomes. Specifically, the studies in my thesis showed that the multilevel findings sometimes corroborate existing knowledge in the literature (e.g., the negative association between procrastination and academic achievement) and other times offer nuances and unexpected insights in our comprehension of the nomological network related to procrastination (e.g., the motivational antecedents of procrastination and the different relation between procrastination and goal progress depending on the level of analysis).

This dissertation comprises three essays that investigate how goal progress influences information processing and subsequent goal pursuit. Essay 1 demonstrates how perceived goal progress influences construal level. I propose that people perceiving low progress will pay more attention to specific means or subacts, which are required to effectively achieve their goals (a lower level of construal), whereas people perceiving high progress will consider the general meaning or value of their goal (a higher level of construal). Based on this relationship between goal progress and construal level, I further predict that fit between goal progress and goal construal (i.e., abstract vs. concrete goal construal) will enhance self-regulation as a result of increasing engagement. Across various domains of self-regulation, I show that fit between goal progress and goal construal increases engagement, which in turn influences subsequent self-regulation. Extending the motivational influence of fit between goal progress and construal level, essay 2 shows how to effectively persuade people to pursue their goals depending on goal progress. Based on the relationship between goal progress and construal level in essay 1, I propose that fit between goal progress and the construal level of message framing leads to greater persuasion than would nonfit. Three studies reveal that as people perceive greater progress, messages framed in an abstract, high construal level are perceived to be more persuasive than messages framed in a concrete, low construal level. Finally, essay 3 demonstrates how goal progress affects subsequent goal pursuit, specifically perceptions of and preferences for means that serve a single (i.e., unifinal means) or multiple goals (i.e., multifinal means). Based on cognitive theories of goals and motivation, I show that greater goal progress leads people to structure goals more inclusively than lesser goal progress. The inclusive structures further increase perceived instrumentality and preferences for multifinal means versus unifinal means. Across three studies, I demonstrate that greater goal progress increases perceived instrumentality of multifinal means relative to unifinal means. I further show that the inclusive representations of goals and means underlie the impact of greater goal progress on the perceived instrumentality of and preferences for multifinal means.