Thesis--University of Pennsylvania. / eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison, 1982. / Typescript. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references.

The present study investigated the effects of different goal orientations on motivation after failure. A 2 goals (mastery vs. performance) x 2 regulatory focuses (approach vs. avoidance) experimental design was adopted. Junior secondary students (N = 173) voluntarily attended a prefix learning class. They were randomly assigned one of the four conditions and finished some computerized tasks. The result indicated performance-approach participants had lower persistence than mastery-approach, mastery-avoidant and performance-avoidant participants after failure feedback, regardless of self-efficacy level. Mastery-oriented participants displayed higher interest and higher willingness to seek challenge than performance-oriented participants after failure. Avoidance focus participants revised more materials than approach focus participants after failure. / published_or_final_version / Educational Psychology / Master / Master of Social Sciences

published_or_final_version / abstract / toc / Clinical Psychology / Master / Master of Social Sciences

This thesis explored two issues. Firstly, how participants would respond,in terms of task persistence and task enjoyment, to differing levels of success, when a task was presented to them with a mastery-focus (Experiments 1-5). Secondly, whether improving at task caused participants to enjoy tasks more than achieving a constant level of success (Experiments 6-10). Experiments 1-3 provided evidence that when participants were given the opportunity to persist with a task for as long as they wanted, they persisted longer after performing poorly. However, despite persisting longer, they did not enjoy the task. Experiments 4-5 adopted the same paradigm as Experiments 1-3, but included a second free-choice persistence phase where participants were unaware their behaviour was being monitored. In Experiments 4 and 5, participants who performed poorly persisted longer initially, but less during the subsequent free-choice phase. Again, those who performed poorly during the initial phase reported that they did not enjoy the task. It was suggested that neither the achievement-goal theories of Nicholls (1984) and Dweck (1986) nor Deci's (1975) theory of intrinsic motivation could adequately account for the persistence behaviours observed in the second persistence phase in Experiments 4 and 5. Instead, it was suggested that participants persisted because of the pleasure derived from solving the problems. Experiments 6-10 examined the role of improvement in task enjoyment. Experiments 6 and 7 were control studies intended to establish wheter the paradigm was appropriate to examine improvement. Experiments 8-9 showed that relative to achieving a consistent level of performance, improvement increased task enjoyment. However, this result was found only when participants did well; when they did poorly at a task, improvemenpt produced less enjoyment(Experiment 10). Both results can be explained if participants' expectations are taken into account as well as their rate of success. The final conclusions chapter discusses the types of achievement targets individuals might set themselves when what constitutes good performance at a task is ambiguous, and relates this analysis to the findings from all ten experiments.

Thesis (M.S.)--University of Wisconsin--Madison. / Typescript. eContent provider-neutral record in process. Description based on print version record. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 38-40).

Note:

No description available.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Florida State University, 2003. / Advisor: Daniel R. Boroto, Florida State University, College of Arts and Sciences, Department of Psychology. Title and description from dissertation home page (viewed Apr. 8, 2004). Includes bibliographical references.

Two studies tested a theory of how trait self-esteem moderates behavioral and cognitive persistence in the face of failure. Three primary hypotheses were examined. First, that high self-esteem (HSE) individuals persist more than low self-esteem (LSE) individuals when their initial attempts to reach a goal fail, but subsequent or repeated failures lead HSE individuals to reduce behavioral persistence and pursue goal alternatives more quickly than LSE individuals. Second, that when no goal alternatives are available, HSE individuals behaviorally persist more than LSE individuals. Third, despite reductions in behavioral persistence, LSE individuals do not "give up" on the failed goal but continue to persist cognitively, in the form of aversive ruminations about the failed goal. In a factorial experiment, persistence was examined as a function of self-esteem, degree of failure, and the availability of goal alternatives. As hypothesized, HSE participants behaviorally persisted more than LSE participants after a single failure, but less after repeated failure. However, selfesteem differences in behavioral persistence did not emerge when goal alternatives were unavailable. Partial support was received for the hypothesis that LSE individuals engage in more ruminative persistence than HSE individuals-LSE participants showed higher levels of ruminative persistence on one of two measures of ruminative persistence. The findings regarding behavioral persistence were conceptually replicated, and the hypothesis regarding ruminative persistence received stronger support, in a longitudinal field study in which HSE and LSE participants initially listed their goals and reported on their behavioral and ruminative persistence regarding these goals 5 months later. HSE participants exhibited better calibration between perceptions of goal failure and behavioral pursuit than LSE participants, indicating that increasing perceptions of goal failure were associated with reductions in behavioral pursuit more for HSE than LSE participants. Although they reduced behavioral pursuit relative to HSE participants, LSE participants continued to persist cognitively, by ruminating about their goals more than HSE participants. Discussion focuses on the need to revise traditional views of HSE individuals that emphasize their tenacious persistence and views of LSE individuals that emphasize their tendency to give up in the face of failure.