motivational trait questionnaire, heggestad & kanfer

*Corresponding author.

E-mail address: [email protected] (E.D. Heggestad).

International Journal of

Educational Research 33 (2000) 751}776

Chapter 4

Individual di!erences in trait motivation:development of the Motivational

Trait Questionnaire

Eric D. Heggestad!,*, Ruth Kanfer"

!Department of Psychology, Colorado State University,

Fort Collins, CO 80523 1876, USA

"Georgia Institute of Technology, USA

Abstract

The development and initial evaluation of a measure of motivational traits, the Motivational

Trait Questionnaire (MTQ), is described. Based upon theorizing by Kanfer and Heggestad (In

B.M. Staw, & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in organizational behaviour, vol. 19 (pp. 1}56).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.) development of the MTQ began by identifying and de"ning "ve

motivational traits. Item pools were generated for each of the proposed traits, and initial facets

were developed through a content-sorting procedure. Two studies were conducted to evaluate

the MTQ at the item, facet, and scale levels. In Study 1, the facet scales were re"ned based on

item-level factor analyses and item characteristics. An exploratory factor analysis of the re"ned

MTQ facets provided support for three of the proposed traits. In Study 2, the facets were

re-evaluated at the item-level. The factor structure of the MTQ facets was similar to that found

in Study 1. An extension analysis from the three trait factors to extant measures of achievement,

test and trait anxiety, and personality provided construct validity evidence for the MTQ scales.

Results from these studies support the multidimensional structure of motivational traits

proposed by Kanfer and Heggestad (In B.M. Staw, & L.L. Cummings (Eds.), Research in

organizational behaviour, vol. 19 (pp. 1}56). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.). Implications for

motivation research in education are discussed. ( 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights

reserved.

Individual di!erences in motivation have long been held to in#uence learning and

performance (e.g., Atkinson, 1957; McClelland, 1951; McClelland, Atkinson, Clark,

0883-0355/01/$ - see front matter ( 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.

PII: S 0 8 8 3 - 0 3 5 5 ( 0 0 ) 0 0 0 4 9 - 5

& Lowell, 1953; Murray, 1938). During the 1970 s and early 1980 s, however, interest

in person-centered approaches waned as researchers grappled with the in#uences of

situational factors on motivation. During the past 15 years, two major developments

have spurred resurgent interest in theory and research directed toward understanding

personality-related in#uences on motivational processes (e.g., Dweck & Leggett, 1988;

Higgins, 1998; Kanfer & Kanfer, 1991; Nicholls, 1984; VandeWalle, 1997; Winne,

1995). The "rst development pertains to progress in personality psychology, where

theory and research on the underlying structure of personality have yielded several

parsimonious and largely complementary frameworks (see, e.g., Costa & McCrae,

1992; Digman & Inouye, 1986; Eysenck, 1991; Goldberg, 1993; Tellegen & Waller, in

press). Applied researchers have used these frameworks (most notably the Five-Factor

Model) to examine the in#uence of traits such as Conscientiousness and Achievement

on academic performance (Dollinger & Orf, 1991; Lao, 1980; Wong & Csikszen-

tmihalyi, 1991) and job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991; Barrick, Mount,

& Judge, 1999; Costa, 1996; Hough, 1992; Hough, Eaton, Dunnette, Kamp,

& McCloy, 1990). Results from these lines of inquiry suggest that academic achieve-

ment and work motivation processes tend to be most closely associated with the

positive agency domain of personality (i.e., individual di!erences in Surgency, Con-

scientiousness, and Achievement). Recent work by Kanfer, Ackerman, and Heggestad

(1996) also suggests, however, that individual di!erences in traits such as Neuroticism

have a detrimental e!ect on motivational processing during skill learning and perfor-

mance (see also Kuhl, 2000).

The second impetus for renewed interest in person-centered approaches to motiva-

tion stems from advances in goal theory and self-regulation (e.g., Carver & Scheier,

1982; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliott & Church, 1997; Gollwitzer, 1993; Higgins,

1998). A central tenet of these goal-based approaches to motivation is that individual

di!erences in personality a!ect motivational processes and subsequent behavior

through their in#uence on the type/character of goals that individuals adopt in

achievement contexts. Dweck and her colleagues (e.g., Dweck & Leggett, 1988), for

example, posited that task persistence and achievement are a result of the individual's

adoption of mastery or performance goals. Research in educational and organiza-

tional domains demonstrates that the types of goals selected by individuals are indeed

related to critical self-regulatory mechanisms by which individuals persist in the face

of di$culties and sustain motivation in protracted learning tasks (e.g., Ames

& Archer, 1988; Bou!ard, Boisvert, Vezeau, & Larouche, 1995; Jagacinski, 1992;

Martocchio, 1994; Tabernero & Wood, 1999; VandeWalle, 1997; Wood & Bandura,

1989). In particular, research has demonstrated that individuals who adopt mastery

goals tend to demonstrate more e!ective self-regulatory functioning during task

execution than individuals who adopt performance goals.

Less attention, however, has been directed toward understanding the relationships

between the types of goals adopted and individual di!erences in personality. Dweck

and her colleagues (Bempechat, London, & Dweck, 1991; Dweck, 1996; Dweck

& Leggett, 1988) have suggested that goal choices (mastery vs. performance) are

rooted in implicit theories of intelligence, such that individuals who hold an incremen-

tal theory of intelligence (i.e., a belief that intelligence can be changed) are more likely

752 E.D. Heggestad, R. Kanfer / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 751}776

to adopt mastery goals than are individuals who hold a "xed theory of intelligence

(i.e., a belief that intelligence is a stable trait). Although research "ndings provide

partial support for this view (for a review, see Dweck & Leggett, 1988), the implicit-

theories-of-intelligence perspective does not address the potentially important in#u-

ence of individual di!erences in motivationally relevant personality variables (e.g.,

need for achievement or fear of failure) on goal choice. In contrast to Dweck's

formulation, Higgins (1998) has suggested that individual di!erences in motive

strength in#uence adoption of security versus. promotion goals. That is, consistent

with achievement motivation formulations, Higgins has suggested that the type of

goal adopted is in part determined by individual di!erences in the motives for

achievement and fear of failure. Similarly, Elliott and Church (1997) provided evid-

ence that achievement motivation and the fear of failure have important relationships

with the type of achievement goal (mastery, performance-approach, and performance

avoidance) adopted.

The purpose of the present chapter is two-fold: (a) to further explore the domain of

personality dispositions that may be related to motivation in achievement and

performance contexts; and (b) to report on the development of a measure expressly

aimed at linking classic theorizing on achievement motivation with contemporary

goal approaches to motivation and behavior. In the "rst section, the motivational

trait-skill formulation proposed by Kanfer and Heggestad (1997) is reviewed. Next,

issues related to the measurement of key motivational traits are discussed. The third

section contains a description of the development of the Motivational Trait Question-

naire (MTQ), the psychometric properties of the measure, and evidence of convergent

and discriminant validity. Finally, implications and limitations of the MTQ for

studying personality-motivation-behavior processes are discussed.

1. A motivational trait-skills perspective

In an attempt to integrate advances in personality and motivation/self-regulation

theory and research, Kanfer and Heggestad (1997) suggested the potential utility of

distinguishing between individual di!erences in motivational traits and motivational

skills. Motivational traits were de"ned as stable, trans-situational individual di!er-

ences in preferences related to approach and avoidance of goal-directed e!ort expen-

ditures. In contrast, motivational skills were de"ned as integrated, self-regulatory

competencies engaged during goal striving. Although a detailed description of the

trait-skill relationship is beyond the scope of the present paper, Fig. 1 depicts the

general relationship proposed by Kanfer and Heggestad (1997). As indicated in the

"gure, individual di!erences in motivational traits are posited to provide a!ordances

for the development of motivational skills. In contrast to traits, however, individual

di!erences in motivational skills represent competencies that may be developed not

only through opportunities fostered by trait tendencies, but also through environ-

mental in#uences on action.

To organize the motivational trait domain, Kanfer and Heggestad (1997) used the

trait construct clustering approach suggested by Snow, Corno, and Jackson (1996).

E.D. Heggestad, R. Kanfer / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 751}776 753

Fig. 1. Taxonomic framework of motivationally relevant traits and skills. Note: From Kanfer and

Heggestad (1997). Motivational trait and skill constructs are represented by the solid ovals. The dashed

lines indicate the distinction between the trait complexes, and the solid lines indicate the in#uence of

task/environment on traits and skills.

More speci"cally, traits thought to have motivational signi"cance were identi"ed

from disparate research streams and then organized on the basis of their similarity.

No a priori limitations were placed on the number of groupings.

Consistent with classic formulations of achievement motivation (emphasizing the

need to achieve success and the need to avoid failure) and more recent conceptualiz-

ations emphasizing appetitive and avoidance goal orientations, the construct group-

ing yielded two distinct superordinate motivational trait complexes, tentatively

termed Achievement and Anxiety. While the Achievement trait complex encompasses

traits characterized by approach-oriented tendencies, the Anxiety trait complex en-

compasses traits characterized by avoidance-oriented tendencies. Each of the superor-

dinate trait complexes was proposed to comprise more narrowly de"ned traits.

1.1. Traits of the Achievement complex

The literature associated with the Achievement complex can be subdivided into two

broad perspectives di!erentiated by their basic approaches. The "rst, referred to as the

achievement motivation approach, is re#ected in the traditions of McClelland (1951)

and Atkinson (1957; Atkinson & Feather, 1966). This approach, of which achievement

goal theorizing is a direct descendent, has sought to identify and di!erentiate multiple

dimensions of the achievement construct. The second, which we refer to as the

personality taxonomy approach, is re#ected in the tradition of Murray (1938). This

approach has sought to locate achievement as a single, unidimensional trait within

comprehensive taxonomic representations of personality. Our review of the achieve-

ment complex from both the achievement motivation and personality taxonomy

approaches led to further speci"cations of the Personal Mastery and Competitive


1Competitive Excellence may, however, be captured by other traits within these taxonomies. Hough

(1992), for example, de"ned the trait of Potency as an individual's `degree of impact, in#uence, and energya

(p. 144), and suggested that individuals with a high standing on this trait are `appropriately forceful and

persuasive, optimistic and vital, and [have] the energy to get things donea (p. 144). Similarly, Tellegen and

Waller (in press) indicate that a person high in Social Potency is `forceful and decisive; is persuasive and

likes to in#uence others; enjoys or would enjoy leadership roles; enjoys being noticed, being the center of

attentiona (p. 59). Thus, although not contained within the Hough or Tellegen and Waller de"nitions of

trait achievement, Competitive Excellence does appear to be represented by, though not equivalent to,

other traits within the respective taxonomies.

Excellence traits discussed by Kanfer and Heggestad (1997), and to the identi"cation

of an additional trait, Hard Work.

1.1.1. Personal Mastery

The roots of Personal Mastery lie in Murray's (1938) n (need) Achievement con-

struct which he de"ned to include a striving `To excel one's self a (p. 164). With regard

to more contemporary theorizing, Personal Mastery can clearly be identi"ed in both

the achievement motivation and the personality taxonomy approaches. Speci"cally,

Personal Mastery is de"ned similarly to Jackson, Ahmed, and Heapy's (1976) Excel-

lence, Helmreich and Spence's (1978; Spence & Helmreich, 1983) Mastery, Cassidy

and Lynn's (1989) Pursuit of Excellence and Mastery, Dweck and Leggett's (1988)

Learning Orientation, and Tellegen and Waller's (in press) and Hough's (1992)

de"nitions of trait Achievement.

Personal Mastery is a self-referent form of achievement striving. An individual with

a high standing on this trait de"nes standards of excellence in terms of personal

improvement and persists in striving to achieve those standards despite frustrations

and di$culties. Individuals with a high level of Personal Mastery generally show

a preference for tasks that challenge their skills and abilities. These individuals are

competitive with themselves, always seeking to `be the best they can bea.

1.1.2. Competitive Excellence

With the exception of Murray (1938), who de"ned n Achievement to include

a tendency to strive `to rival and surpass othersa (p. 164), Competitive Excellence was

generally not represented within the personality taxonomy approach to the achieve-

ment domain.1 Based on dimensions of the achievement construct identi"ed from the

achievement motivation approach, Competitive Excellence is de"ned to re#ect Jack-

son et al.'s (1976) Competitive Acquisitiveness and Status, Helmreich and Spence's

(1983). Competitiveness, Dweck and Leggett's (1988) Performance Orientation, and

Cassidy and Lynn's (1989) Status Aspiration, Competitiveness, Acquisitiveness, and

Dominance.

In direct contrast to Personal Mastery, Competitive Excellence is an other-referent

form of achievement striving. An individual with a high standing on this trait adopts

normative standards of excellence. The absolute quality of performance is not of

paramount importance for these individuals because they de"ne success relative to

others; what matters is that their performance exceeds that of others. These


2 It should be noted, however, that the de"nitions of trait achievement provided by Hough (1992) and by

Tellegen and Waller (2000) represent a blending of Personal Mastery and Hard Work. That is, they make

no di!erentiation between these proposed aspects of the achievement complex.

individuals are very competitive, often attempting to create competition in otherwise

non-competitive situations. Furthermore, these individuals have a strong desire to be

respected by others for their accomplishments.

1.1.3. Hard work

Not identi"ed as part of the original trait taxonomy presented by Kanfer and

Heggestad (1997), our review of the literature associated with the Achievement

complex suggested the possibility of a third motivational trait. In particular, many of

the perspectives we examined identi"ed an e!ort or vigor dimension of achievement.

For example, from the achievement motivation approach, Spence and Helmreich's

(1983) Work Orientation and Cassidy and Lynn's (1989) Work Ethic both re#ect

a desire or drive to work hard. Similarly, from the personality taxonomy approach,

both Hough (1992) and Tellegen and Waller (in press) indicated that an individual

with a high standing on trait achievement would tend to enjoy hard work and/or

endorse the work ethic.2

The trait of Hard Work was proposed. Individuals with a high standing on this trait

would be expected to exert great amounts of e!ort to complete a task, regardless of

their level of intrinsic task enjoyment. These individuals are hard working and

diligent. They have a strong desire to keep busy and "nd it di$cult to simply relax and

do nothing. To account for this aspect of the achievement complex.

1.2. Traits of the anxiety complex

Kanfer and Heggestad (1997) did not initially identify speci"c motivational traits

within the Anxiety complex. Rather, they suggested that the complex might best be

represented by the communality between general anxiety, fear of failure, and test

anxiety. Such an amorphous de"nition of the constituent traits of the Anxiety

complex, however, is less than ideal for investigating the relationships between this

complex and motivational skills and performance. Therefore, we reviewed the general

anxiety, fear of failure, and test anxiety literatures to identify and de"ne speci"c

motivational traits to occupy this complex.

Early conceptualizations of anxiety-based motivational traits were de"ned in terms

of a fear and avoidance of failure-threatening situations. Examples of such representa-

tions include n Infavoidance (Murray, 1938), the fear of failure characterization of the

achievement motive (McClelland, 1951; McClelland et al., 1953), and the motive to

avoid failure (Atkinson, 1957; Atkinson & Feather, 1966). The nature of the anxiety

domain changed, however, when these avoidance-oriented constructs were linked to

the concept of test anxiety (Atkinson & Litwin, 1960). From that point forward,

theory and research into test anxiety blossomed while that on failure-avoidance

waned. This linkage went unchallenged until relatively recently. Given changes in the

conceptualizations of test anxiety over the years (see Hembree, 1988, for a review),


contemporary researchers have identi"ed a mismatch in the behaviors associated with

the traditional notions of the failure-avoidance constructs and those associated with

test anxiety. For example, Heckhausen (1991) has maintained that test anxiety, as

a general tendency to experience anxiety reactions within testing situations, fails to

capture the avoidance aspects of behavior that characterized the classic notions of the

fear of failure and the motive to avoid failure. Designed to capture the tradition

represented by these two aspects of the anxiety complex, two motivational traits are

proposed: Failure Avoidance and Achievement Anxiety.

1.2.1. Failure Avoidance

Failure Avoidance is proposed to capture the avoidance aspects of behavior

represented in the classic conceptualizations of n Infavoidance (Murray, 1938), fear of

failure (McClelland et al., 1953), and the motive to avoid failure (Atkinson, 1957;

Atkinson & Feather, 1966). An individual with a high standing on this trait would be

expected to actively avoid achievement-oriented situations whenever possible due to

anxiety caused by the possibility of experiencing failure.

1.2.2. Achievement Anxiety

As test anxiety represents the tendency to experience anxiety within testing situations,

Achievement Anxiety is proposed to re#ect a tendency to experience anxiety responses

within achievement (i.e., failure-threatening) situations. The primary distinction between

test anxiety and Achievement Anxiety is in the breadth of situations to which each is

applicable. Speci"cally, achievement anxiety is intended to capture a tendency to

experience anxiety reactions across a wide range of achievement-oriented situations,

such as meeting a deadline at work, participating in an athletic competition, or planning

and hosting an important party. As such, academic testing situations represent only one

of several classes of situations relevant to achievement anxiety.

2. Motivational trait assessment

The "rst prominent measure of individual di!erences in the achievement and

anxiety domains was the thematic apperception test (TAT; Murray, 1943). Used

extensively in the research of McClelland and Atkinson (McClelland et al., 1953), the

TAT came under intense scrutiny as a result of questions concerning its validity and

reliability (see Spangler, 1992). As the TAT fell out of favor, numerous self-report

measures of achievement and test anxiety were created. After reviewing many of these

measures, Kanfer and Heggestad (1997) concluded that no instrument was capable of

providing construct appropriate, independent assessments of each of the motivational

traits of the achievement and anxiety complexes, and called for the development of

a new, more comprehensive measure.

2.1. Personality taxonomy measures

Most multi-trait inventories include traits related to the achievement and anxiety

trait complexes. Assessing traits de"ned at a broad level of generality, however, these


measures fail to di!erentiate among the more narrowly de"ned motivational

traits. For example, the de"nitions of trait achievement provided by Tellegen

and Waller (in press) and Hough (1992) incorporate aspects of both Personal Mastery

and Hard Work, but do not include any content related to Competitive Excellence.

Similarly, the anxiety-based traits included in each of these taxonomies are clearly

much broader in scope than Failure Avoidance or Achievement Anxiety. Broad-based

measures from the personality taxonomy approach, therefore, are of little utility for

assessing the motivational traits associated with the Achievement and Anxiety com-

plexes.

2.2. Achievement motivation measures

Researchers working from within what has been termed the achievement motiva-

tion approach have created numerous measures conceptually related to the

achievement complex. Examples of such measures include the Aberdeen Academic

Motivation Inventory (Entwistle, 1968), the Work and Family Orientation Question-

naire (Helmreich & Spence, 1978), and the Achievement Motivation Question-

naire (Lynn, 1969; see also, Hermans, 1970; Mehrabian, 1969, Murray, 1938).

An examination of these measures reveals that many contain items related to

Personal Mastery, Competitive Excellence, and/or Hard Work. A signi"cant limita-

tion of these measures, however, is that most of them do not de"ne separate scales

for each of these traits (the one notable exception is Helmreich and Spence's

(1978) Work and Family Orientation Questionnaire). Therefore, prior to implemen-

ting these measures to assess the traits of the Achievement complex, rational

or empirical (or both) methods would have to be used to derive distinct scales for

the three traits. Unfortunately, as suggested by Kanfer and Heggestad (1997), many

of these measures contain very few items related to Competitive Excellence, which

would make the development of psychometrically acceptable scales for this trait

di$cult.

A second limitation of these measures is that none of them includes items associated

with the traits of the Anxiety complex. This lack of item content can be traced back to

Atkinson and Litwin's (1960) linkage of the Anxiety complex with test anxiety. At that

point, most achievement motivation researchers stopped developing measures to

assess traits associated with the Anxiety complex, opting rather to employ measures of

test anxiety. Only two instruments intended to assess the classic fear of failure

construct were found: Good and Good's (1975) Fear of Failure scale and Murray's

(1938) measure of n Infavoidance. Although each of these measures contained items

relevant to both failure avoidance and achievement anxiety, neither provided scales to

di!erentiate the items. Furthermore, consistent with Heckhausen's (1991) observation,

our examination of items from test anxiety measures (e.g., Alpert & Haber's (1960)

Debilitating Anxiety Questionnaire, Morris, Davis, and Hutching's (1981), Revised

Worry-Emotionality Scale, and Sarason's (1978) Test Anxiety Scale and his (1984)

Reactions to Tests) indicated that they contain item content relevant to achievement

anxiety, but not to failure avoidance.


2.3. Goal orientation measures

The recent focus of achievement motivation researchers on achievement goal

orientation has resulted in the development of several additional measures. Early goal

orientation measures (Ames & Archer, 1988; Button, Mathieu, & Zajac, 1996; Roedel,

Schraw, & Plake, 1994) assessed two orientations to achievement: learning orienta-

tion, which is conceptually similar Personal Mastery; and performance orientation,

which is conceptually similar to Competitive Excellence. More recent measures

(Elliott & Harackiewicz, 1996; Midgely et al., 1998; VandeWalle, 1997) have been

developed to re#ect a theoretical di!erentiation of the performance orientation

construct into two distinct orientations. The "rst is performance-approach, which

represents a striving to outperform others. The second is performance-avoidance,

which represents a desire to avoid situations that could result in failure or negative

judgments from others (similar to our proposed trait of failure avoidance). While these

more recent measures may be capable of assessing three of the proposed motivational

traits, they are clearly incapable of providing assessments of either hard work or

achievement anxiety.

Furthermore, an item-level evaluation of these goal orientation measures suggests

that they provide more direct assessments of the types of goals people adopt within

speci"c contexts rather than the motivational traits that give rise to such goals. In

particular, many of the goal orientation measures consist of items that are situ-

ationally speci"ed, often tied to classroom situations. Since traits represent stable

patterns of performance across situations, the situational speci"city of the items

clearly removes these measures from the trait domain.

The measure created by Button et al. (1996), is an exception. Speci"cally created to

assess goal orientations at the dispositional level, the items of this measure are not tied

to any particular situational context. Designed to assess only learning and perfor-

mance orientations, however, the Button et al. (1996) measure could only provide

assessments of two of the proposed motivational traits.

2.4. Measure mixing and matching

Acknowledging the limitations of any one measure for providing a comprehensive

assessment of the motivational trait domain, it would be possible to assess the traits

by piecing together various extant measures developed from the perspectives de-

scribed above. Such a mix-and-match approach, however, can limit our understand-

ing of how these traits are related to motivational skills and performance. For

example, two researchers, both wanting to evaluate the in#uence of the "ve motiva-

tional traits on academic performance, could create questionnaire batteries for their

studies by choosing particular scales from the various extant measures. It would be

unlikely that their batteries would include the same scales, and, as a consequence, it

would be unlikely that they would in fact be assessing the same constructs (or at least

identical aspects of the same constructs). If the results of these two studies were to

di!er, interpretation would be di$cult given that the results would be confounded

with the di!erences in the measures employed.


The point here is this: Using di!erent measures of key motivational traits can

prevent comparisons of "ndings across studies and hinder our capacity to develop an

understanding of the relationships among motivational traits, self-regulatory skill

development, and learning and performance. Thus, a measure is needed that provides

construct valid assessments of each of the "ve motivational traits posited to constitute

the motivational trait taxonomy. In the following section, we report two studies aimed

at developing and evaluating a more comprehensive measure of the motivational trait

domain.

3. The Motivational Trait Questionnaire

Based on the trait de"nitions provided above, item pools were created to assess

individual di!erences in each of the "ve proposed motivational traits. Items were

generated or adapted from existing sources such that each item represented only one

of the proposed traits. The "ve item pools included a total of 283 items, with 71 items

representing Personal Mastery, 63 items representing Hard Work, 55 items represent-

ing Competitive Excellence, 57 items representing Achievement Anxiety, and 37 items

representing Failure Avoidance.

A conceptual review of the item pools indicated the potential for further di!erenti-

ation, so we decided to de"ne content facets for each of the "ve motivational traits. To

avoid relying exclusively on item-level factor analysis to develop these facets, we

initially speci"ed them by sorting the items within an item pool with respect to

content. There were no a priori restrictions as to the number or nature of the content

facets for each trait. The sorting procedure resulted in 20 facets and "ve (one for each

trait) sets of unclassi"ed items consisting of those items that could not be sorted into

meaningful content facets. The initial facets identi"ed for each trait, as well as the

number of items comprising each facet, are presented in Table 1.

3.1. Study 1

Having developed trait de"nitions, item pools, and initial content facets for each of

the "ve motivational traits, the next step in the development of the MTQ was to

evaluate the instrument empirically at the item and scale levels.

3.1.1. Method

One hundred and sixty-six (103 females) undergraduate students took part in this

study for course credit. Each participant responded to 421 computer administered

self-report items using a 6-point Likert-type response scale that ranged from very

untrue of me to very true of me. In addition to the 283 items of the MTQ, the item set

included 90 items from the Unisex Edition of the ACT Interest Inventory (UNIACT;

Lamb & Prediger, 1981) and 48 items from the NEO-PI-R Agreeableness scale (Costa

& McCrae, 1992). The items from these two measures were included to reduce the

likelihood of response sets given the large number of items related to achievement

situations. All items were randomly assigned to a position in the questionnaire.


Table 1

Initial facets for each of the traits

Trait Facet Number of items

Personal Mastery Best E!ort 8

Desire to Learn 16

Determination 17

Di$cult Goals 9

Focus on Improvement 11

Hard Work Concentration 8

Conscientiousness 7

Energy 17

Enjoy Hard Work 15

Competitive Excellence Competition Seeking 10

Normative Comparison 8

Other Recognition 7

Other Referent Goals 19

Achievement Anxiety Emotionality 12

Interference 12

Social 12

Worry 17

Failure Avoidance Active Avoidance 18

Risk Avoidance 9

Social Embarrassment 6

3.1.2. Results and discussion

The "rst set of analyses was directed toward empirical re"nement of the facet scales.

Principal-axis factor analyses were conducted on each of the "ve item pools, with the

number of factors set equal to the number of facets speci"ed in the sorting procedure

(the unclassi"ed items were not included in these analyses). When a majority of items

from a facet had salient loadings on a factor, all of the items associated with that facet

were retained. When the majority of items from two or more facets had salient

loadings on a single factor, the items from those facets were combined to de"ne

a single facet (e.g., the focus on improvement and di$cult goals facets of Personal

Mastery and the energy and conscientiousness facets of Hard Work). Finally, when

a majority of items from a facet did not load on one factor, but rather loaded

inconsistently across factors, the facet was disbanded and its items placed in the

unclassi"ed category. This rational}empirical process resulted in the identi"cation of

11 facets: three each for Personal Mastery and Achievement Anxiety, two for both the

hard work and competitive excellence, and one for failure avoidance. The names of the

retained facets can be seen in Table 2.

Item-level analyses were then performed on each of the resulting facets to remove

redundant and unrelated items. When a correlation of r*0.60 was found between

two items on a facet, the items were examined for content similarity. If the content was


Table

2

Mea

ns,

standard

dev

iations,

reliability

coe$

cien

ts,and

corr

elations

ofth

eM

TQ

face

tsc

ale

s!

Variable

sIt

ems

Mea

nSD

12

34

56

78

910

11

Per

sonalm

ast

ery

1.D

eter

min

ation

11

49.5

56.8

40.8

9

2.D

esire

toLea

rn10

39.7

57.6

90.6

10.8

9

3.M

ast

ery

Goals

11

48.4

37.8

80.6

80.6

50.9

1

Hard

work

4.Enjo

yH

ard

Work

11

43.3

18.0

50.6

50.7

40.7

00.8

9

5.Ener

gy

18

80.3

312.2

70.7

30.7

00.7

20.7

80.9

2

Com

pet

itiv

eex

cellen

ce

6.O

ther

Ref

eren

tG

oals

16

62.0

912.0

60.0

4!

0.0

50.2

0!

0.0

80.0

10.9

2

7.C

om

pet

itio

nSee

kin

g10

36.4

99.7

70.2

20.0

60.2

90.1

10.1

00.6

40.9

1

Ach

ievem

ent

anxie

ty

8.W

orr

y8

30.9

66.5

50.0

80.0

50.2

20.0

30.0

80.3

90.0

20.8

2

9.Em

otionality

12

40.2

89.6

6!

0.0

2!

0.0

60.0

9!

0.0

70.0

60.2

90.0

80.7

00.8

7

10.In

terfer

ence

721.3

85.5

5!

0.2

1!

0.2

5!

0.0

8!

0.3

0!

0.2

00.2

5!

0.0

10.6

30.7

10.8

1

Failure

avoid

ance

11.A

ctiv

eA

void

ance

14

44.1

410.3

8!

0.5

1!

0.5

1!

0.4

5!

0.5

8!

0.4

30.2

3!

0.2

10.3

70.3

10.5

00.9

0

!Note

.T

he

mast

ery

goals

face

tofper

sonalm

ast

ery

isa

com

bin

ation

oftw

ofa

cets

,di$

cult

goals

and

focu

son

impro

vem

ent,

initia

lly

iden

ti"ed

inth

eco

nte

nt

sort

.C

orr

elations

gre

ate

rth

an

r"$

0.1

55

are

signi"

cantat

p(

0.0

5,tw

o-t

ailed

;co

rrel

ations

gre

ate

rth

an

r"$

0.2

02

are

signi"

cantat

p(

0.0

1tw

o-t

ailed

.

Cro

nbach's

alp

ha

inte

rnalco

nsist

ency

reliability

coe$

cien

tsappea

ralo

ng

the

main

dia

gonalin

bold

.


judged to be similar, one item was removed from the facet. Internal consistency

reliability analyses were also performed. Items with corrected item-total correlations

below r"0.40 were examined, and most were removed.

After the facets were re"ned, the unclassi"ed items were considered. An unclassi"ed

item was added to a facet when at least one of three conditions was met. Either (a) it

was found to correlate more strongly with one facet than with any of the others, (b) its

correlations with other items in the facet were less than 0.60, or (c) its content was

judged to be consistent with the other items in the facet.

Based on these procedures, a total of 128 items were retained across the 11 facets.

The number of items per facet, the facet means and standard deviations, the reliability

coe$cients, and the facet scale intercorrelations are presented in Table 2. As shown,

the Cronbach's a reliability coe$cients were acceptable for each facet.

To examine the interrelations among the 11 facet scales exploratory principal-axis

factor analysis (with squared multiple correlations on the main diagonal) was per-

formed. Evaluation of the eigenvalues by the Humphreys}Montanelli parallel analysis

procedure (Humphreys & Montanelli, 1975; Montanelli & Humphreys, 1976) in-

dicated that a three-factor solution would be most appropriate. Because of the

possibility of non-trivial relations between the traits (and therefore factors), the

three-factor solution was obliquely rotated using Tucker and Finkbeiner's (1981)

direct arti"cial personal probability function rotation (DAPPFR). The "nal factor

solution is presented in Table 3 (salient loadings are de"ned as those'0.40).

The "rst factor was de"ned by salient positive loadings from the Personal Mastery

and Hard Work facets, but also had a salient (negative) loading from the one facet

(Active Avoidance) associated with Failure Avoidance. The second factor was de"ned

by salient positive loadings from the three Achievement Anxiety facets and from the

Active Avoidance facet. The third factor was clearly identi"ed as a Competitive

Excellence factor, with substantial positive loadings from the two facets representing

this trait. The three factors were found to be largely uncorrelated.

Overall, Study 1 provided initial evidence for the viability of the facets as measures

of the hypothesized motivational trait complexes. At the trait level, however, the

results suggested that Personal Mastery and Hard Work do not represent distinct

motivational traits. Table 2 shows that the correlations between the facets of these two

proposed traits ranged from 0.65 to 0.74. The lack of distinction found between

Personal Mastery and Hard Work is consistent with the perspectives of both Hough

(1992) and Tellegen and Waller (in press) who, within each of their respective

personality taxonomies, de"ned the trait of achievement to include aspects of both

Personal Mastery and Hard Work. Further, evidence from the achievement motiva-

tion approach, where there tended to be a distinction drawn between Personal

Mastery and Hard Work, also suggests a non-trivial association between these

dimensions. For instance, the work orientation and mastery scales of the Work and

Family Orientation Questionnaire (Spence & Helmreich, 1978) have generally been

found to correlate in the 0.30}0.40 range (uncorrected, see Ackerman & Ackerman,

1989; Helmreich & Spence, 1978). Also, Cassidy and Lynn (1989) reported two studies

in which they found correlations of 0.51 and 0.36 (uncorrected) between their Work

Ethic and Mastery scales.


Table 3

Oblique (DAPPFR) factor solution for the MTQ facet scales (Study 1)!

Variable Factor

1 2 3

Personal Mastery

Determination 0.77 0.00 0.07

Desire to Learn 0.81 !0.01 !0.09

Mastery Goals 0.81 0.15 0.15

Hard Work

Enjoy Hard Work 0.87 !0.04 !0.07

Energy 0.87 0.09 !0.06

Competitive Excellence

Other Referent Goals !0.06 0.27 0.64

Competition Seeking 0.04 !0.17 0.98

Achievement Anxiety

Worry 0.15 0.85 0.01

Emotionality 0.05 0.79 0.03

Interference !0.20 0.77 !0.00

Failure Avoidance

Active Avoidance !0.55 0.44 !0.05

Factor intercorrelations

Factor 1: Personal Mastery/Hard Work *

Factor 2: Achievement Anxiety !0.10 *

Factor 3: Competitive Excellence 0.13 !0.18

Parallel analysis results 1 2 3 4

Real roots 4.04 2.42 1.07 0.19

Random roots 0.54 0.39 0.29 0.21

!Salient loadings ($0.40) are presented in boldface.

Failure Avoidance also did not emerge as a distinct motivational trait. This trait,

however, was only represented by a single facet. Although neither the eigenvalues

greater than one or the Humphreys}Montanelli parallel analysis procedure supported

the extraction of a fourth factor, a four-factor principal-axis factor analysis solution

was examined to evaluate whether failure avoidance may be di!erentiable with further

item/facet development. In this analysis, a single salient loading from the active

avoidance facet de"ned the fourth factor. Thus, with further item development Failure

Avoidance may emerge as a distinct motivational trait.

3.2. Study 2

The results of Study 1 suggested that three of the proposed motivational traits are

di!erentiable empirically. Before we can be con"dent that the MTQ scales do in fact

measure the intended traits, however, construct validity must be established. That is,

the relations between the MTQ traits and extant measures of achievement, test and


trait anxiety, and personality must be evaluated. The purpose of Study 2, therefore,

was twofold: (a) to re-evaluate the MTQ at the item, facet, and scale levels, and (b) to

assess the measure's construct validity.

3.2.1. Method

Undergraduates completed a large self-report battery as part of a larger study

(Ackerman & Cianciolo, 1999). The battery, which was self-paced and computer

administered, included the MTQ and extant measures of achievement, test and trait

anxiety, personality, and motivational skills. Of the 119 participants (81 females) who

completed the battery, 31 (21 females) had participated in Study 1.

The MTQ contained the 128 items retained on the basis of the results of Study 1.

The wording of many items was slightly revised, but no new items were included.

Participants responded to each item using a 6-point scale ranging from very untrue of

me to very true of me. The items were randomly assigned to a position in the

questionnaire.

Two measures of achievement were included to provide assessments of convergent

validity. The Work and Family Orientation Questionnaire (WOFO; Helmreich

& Spence, 1978), which includes scales for mastery, work orientation, and competitive-

ness, was administered because of its multidimensional approach to the achievement

construct. Responses were made using a 5-point scale from strongly disagree to strongly

agree.

The 21-item Achievement scale from the Multidimensional Personality Question-

naire (MPQ; Tellegen, 1982) was also administered. In contrast to the WOFO, the

MPQ Achievement scale provided a unidimensional assessment of the achievement

construct from a taxonomic framework of personality. A true-false response scale was

used.

The 20-item State-Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI; Spielberger, 1983) was adminis-

tered as an indicator of trait anxiety. Under the trait instructions, participants were

asked to indicate the degree to which each item described the way they generally feel.

Responses were made using a 4-point scale from almost always to almost never.

To provide a multidimensional assessment of test anxiety, the Sarason (1984)

Reactions to Tests (RTT) inventory was given. The 40-item RTT contains four 10-item

scales:

f Worry assesses cognitive preoccupation with performance evaluation;

f Tension measures the tendency to experience emotional reactions to a test;

f Bodily Reaction assesses the propensity to experience physical symptoms, or

reactions, to evaluative situations; and

f Test Irrelevant Thinking assesses the tendency to experience distracting thoughts

while taking a test.

A 4-point scale was used, with response options ranging from not at all typical of me to

very typical of me.

Three measures from the Ackerman and Cianciolo (1999) study were also made

available. The NEO-Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI; Costa & McCrae, 1992)

provided an opportunity to examine the relations between the motivational traits and


3Since the MTQ was developed and revised on the basis of both studies, the inclusion of those

participants who had previously participated in Study 1 could be problematic in that they could overdeter-

mine the resultant structure of the measure. If, however, the responses from these individuals are not

distinguishable from the group of participants who participated in the present investigation only, then

combining the two samples to form a larger composite sample should not be problematic. To assess the

equivalence of the groups, we conducted a series of t-tests comparing the group means on each of the 11

facets (still de"ned identically to Study 1). None of the 11 tests reached statistical signi"cance. In addition,

we also performed a Box's M test (Box, 1950) to assess the similarity of the covariances between the 11 facet

scores for the two groups. This test was also non-signi"cant (Box's M"52.36; Approximate

F(45,11214.9)

"1.03; p"n.s.). Based on the convergent results from these two sets of analyses, the samples

were combined for the remaining analyses.

the broad personality domain. The NEO-FFI contains 60 items organized into "ve

trait scales: Neuroticism, Extroversion, Agreeableness, Conscientiousness, and Open-

ness. Participants responded to each item using a 5-point scale from strongly disagree

to strongly agree.

The 59-item Go! and Ackerman (1992) Typical Intellectual Engagement (TIE) scale

was also administered. Go! and Ackerman (1992) have de"ned typical intellectual

engagement as one's `typical expression of a desire to engage and understand their

world, their interest in a wide variety of things, and their preference for a complete

understanding of a complex topic or problema (p. 539). Participants endorsed each item

using a 6-point response scale that ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree.

Finally, Motivational Skills were assessed with an 18-item scale designed to

measure self-con"dence for learning, studying, and test taking (see Ackerman & Kan-

fer, 1993). Responses were made using a 9-point scale from no conxdence to certain.

A composite score was obtained by summing the responses for each item.

3.2.2. Results and discussion

Given that 31 individuals had previously participated in Study 1, test-retest same-

form correlations for the 11 MTQ facets were examined (the between-administrations

interval ranged from two to "ve weeks). Composite scores from each of the facets from

Study 1 were correlated with identically de"ned composites from Study 2. The

correlations, which are presented in Table 4, all exceeded 0.80. These correlations are

of similar magnitude to short-term test-retest correlations of other trait measures.

Costa and McCrae (1992), for example, reported correlations `over a short period of

timea (p. 45) from 0.66 to 0.92 for the facets of the NEO-PI, and from 0.86 to 0.91 for

the Neuroticism, Extraversion, and Openness domain scales. Although the present

results provide initial evidence of the stability of scores on the MTQ facets over time,

the time elapsed between assessments was clearly too short to de"nitively suggest the

facets represent trait measures. To make such an assertion, correlations of nearly the

same magnitude as those found in the present study would need to be observed over

a period of at least one year (for examples, see Block, 1977; Costa & McCrae, 1992;

Gough, 1987). In addition, the small sample used in the present analyses leaves

substantial room for error in these estimates.

The group of participants who completed both Studies 1 and 2 (n"31) and the

group of participants who completed Study 2 only (n"85) were combined for the

remainder of the analyses.3


Table 4

Test-retest correlations for the 11 facet scales of the MTQ!

Trait Facet Correlation

Personal Mastery Determination 0.82

Desire to Learn 0.89

Mastery Goals 0.92

Hard Work Enjoy Hard Work 0.91

Energy 0.96

Competitive Excellence Other Referent Goals 0.85

Competition Seeking 0.92

Achievement Anxiety Worry 0.84

Emotionality 0.84

Interference 0.81

Failure Avoidance Active Avoidance 0.84

!Correlations are based on a small sample, n"31.

4Because the Failure Avoidance trait was only represented by a single facet in Study 1, these items were

not factor analyzed at the item level in the present study.

Item-level analyses were conducted to re-evaluate and re"ne the MTQ facet scales.

Each facet was examined for items that were redundant, range restricted, or that had

only weak relations to the other items within the facet. Very few items were removed

as a result of these procedures. Item-level principal-axis factor analyses with oblique

(DAPPFR) rotation were then performed on each of three item sets: the Personal

Mastery and Hard Work items (the items representing these traits were combined on

the basis of the results of Study 1), the Competitive Excellence items, and the

Achievement Anxiety items.4 For the Personal Mastery/Hard Work items, a three-

factor solution was retained. The three factors corresponded closely to the three

Personal Mastery facets, with the items from the two Hard Work facets loading

inconsistently across the three factors. As a result, some of the items from the Hard

Work facets were incorporated into the three Personal Mastery facets.

A two-factor solution was retained in the analysis of the Competitive Excellence

items. The factor solution was consistent with the two hypothesized facets of this trait

(i.e., Other Referent Goals and Competition Seeking). In the analysis of the Achieve-

ment Anxiety items, a three-factor solution was retained. Although the "rst two

factors corresponded closely to the Worry and Emotionality facets, the third factor

was not de"ned by the Interference items. Rather, the third factor was de"ned by items

related to an apprehension about evaluation. Based on these results, the Interference

facet was disbanded and an Evaluation Apprehension facet was created. Overall, these

analyses led to the retention of 82 items organized into nine facet scales. Descriptive

information and the intercorrelations for the facet scales are presented in Table 5. As


shown, despite the number of items removed, the Cronbach's alpha internal consist-

ency reliability coe$cients remained high.

The nine facets were subjected to an exploratory principal-axis factor analysis.

Based on the Humphreys}Montanelli parallel analysis procedure, a three-factor

solution was retained and obliquely rotated using the DAPPFR procedure. The

solution is presented in Table 6. Although the removal of the Hard Work facets

changed the order in which the factors emerged, the solution appeared quite similar to

the factor solution found in Study 1. In particular, the "rst factor (the second factor in

Study 1) appeared to capture the Achievement Anxiety facets and the Failure Avoid-

ance facet. There was also, however, a salient positive loading from the other Referent

Goals facet of the Competitive Excellence trait. The second factor was largely

a personal mastery factor, de"ned by salient positive loadings from the three facets

from the Personal Mastery trait. The third factor was a competitive excellence factor,

with salient loadings from only the two facets of this trait. Although the factor

intercorrelations were larger than those found in Study 1, these correlations were

again found to be relatively low.

To assess the potential for the proposed Failure Avoidance trait to emerge with

additional scale development a four-factor solution was again examined. Consistent

with the results of Study 1, the only salient loading on the fourth factor was from the

Failure Avoidance facet. Although there was no evidence to support the extraction of

a fourth factor in either Study 1 or 2, the fact that the fourth factor was de"ned by

loadings from the failure avoidance facet in both studies suggests that this trait may

emerge as distinct with the development of additional facets.

To assess the construct validity of the MTQ trait factors, an extension analysis

(Dwyer, 1937) was conducted. Extension analysis is a procedure in which external

variables, the measures of achievement, test and trait anxiety and personality in the

present context, are correlated with factors that have been de"ned without regard to

these external variables. That is, the loadings of a particular extant scales on the

factors are interpreted as correlations between that scale and the latent variable

de"ned by the factor. The loadings from the extant measures on the three MTQ trait

factors are presented in Table 7 (those loading greater than $0.40 are shown in

boldface). The results provided good initial evidence for the viability of the facets as

measures of the hypothesized motivational traits. Speci"cally, the anxiety factor was

positively related to trait anxiety, the four subscales of the Reactions to Tests measure,

and Neuroticism. The Personal Mastery factor had strong positive relations with both

the WOFO Mastery and Work Orientation scales, the MPQ Achievement scale,

NEO-FFI Conscientiousness, and Typical Intellectual Engagement. Finally, the

Competitive Excellence factor was positively related to the Competitiveness scale of

the WOFO and negatively related to NEO-FFI Agreeableness.

4. Implications and limitations of the MTQ

Researchers have once again begun to study motivation from an individual di!er-

ences perspective. Consistent with this perspective shift, Kanfer and Heggestad (1997)


Table

5

Des

crip

tive

info

rmation

and

inte

rcorr

elations

ofth

eM

TQ

face

tsc

ale

s!

Variable

Item

sM

ean

SD

12

34

56

78

9

Per

sonalM

ast

ery

1.D

eter

min

ation

10

44.9

46.4

20.8

6

2.D

esire

toLea

rn9

35.7

07.3

00.4

90.8

6

3.M

ast

ery

Goals

11

47.7

38.0

50.6

40.6

30.8

8

Com

pet

itiv

eExce

llen

ce

4.O

ther

Ref

eren

tG

oals

13

50.5

610.6

6!

0.0

1!

0.0

90.0

70.9

0

5.C

om

pet

itio

nSee

kin

g9

33.9

28.4

60.0

6!

0.0

40.0

80.6

10.8

7

Ach

ievem

ent

Anxie

ty

6.W

orr

y7

23.5

97.1

1!

0.3

2!

0.0

8!

0.0

10.3

3!

0.1

40.8

3

7.M

TQ

Em

otionality

618.4

76.3

2!

0.1

5!

0.0

2!

0.0

60.2

2!

0.1

40.6

60.8

2

8.E

valu

ation

Appre

hen

sion

414.1

64.2

4!

0.2

6!

0.1

1!

0.1

10.3

5!

0.1

20.6

10.6

10.8

2

Failure

Avoid

ance

9.A

ctiv

eA

void

ance

13

39.7

910.1

7!

0.4

5!

0.3

3!

0.2

30.1

8!

0.3

00.6

00.4

30.6

00.8

9

!Corr

elations

gre

ate

rth

an

r"$

0.1

82

are

signi"

cant

at

p(

0.0

5,tw

o-t

ailed

;co

rrel

ations

gre

ate

rth

an

r"$

0.2

38

are

signi"

cant

at

p(

0.0

1,tw

o-t

ailed

.

Cro

nbach's

alp

ha

inte

rnalco

nsist

ency

reliability

coe$

cien

tsappea

ralo

ng

the

main

dia

gonalin

bold

.


Table 6

Oblique (DAPPFR) factor solution for the MTQ facets (Study 2)!

Factor

Variable 1 2 3

Personal Mastery

Determination !0.17 0.67 0.02

Desire to Learn 0.00 0.71 !0.10

Mastery Goals 0.11 0.86 0.04

Competitive Excellence

Other Referent Goals 0.50 0.04 0.70

Competition Seeking !0.01 !0.05 0.97

Achievement Anxiety

Worry 0.83 0.05 0.03

Emotionality 0.70 0.10 !0.01

Evaluation Apprehension 0.77 !0.00 0.06

Failure Avoidance

Active Avoidance 0.61 !0.24 !0.12

Factor intercorrelations

Factor 1: Achievement Anxiety *

Factor 2: Personal Mastery !0.24 *

Factor 3: Competitive Excellence !0.21 0.12 *

Parallel analysis results 1 2 3 4

Real roots 2.88 1.54 1.20 0.13

Random roots 0.56 0.38 0.27 0.16


have described a framework in which motivational traits are posited to have impor-

tant in#uences on the development and use of motivational skills and performance. In

the present paper, we proposed "ve motivational traits and described the develop-

ment of a measure to assess them.

The results of factor analyses of the MTQ facet scales in both Studies 1 and 2 provide

evidence for the viability of a multidimensional structure of motivational traits, though

only for a three-factor model rather than the "ve factors originally proposed. Speci"-

cally, the three distinct motivational traits identi"ed included Personal Mastery

(a combination of the initially hypothesized Personal Mastery and Hard Work traits),

Competitive Excellence, and Achievement Anxiety (a combination of the hypothesized

Achievement Anxiety and Failure Avoidance traits). In addition, correlations between

these factors and extant measures of achievement, test and trait anxiety, and personal-

ity provide initial evidence of construct validity for traits of the MTQ.

Three aspects of the "ndings are particularly noteworthy. First, the extended

loadings of the WOFO Mastery and Hard Work scales (derived from the achievement

motivation approach) and the MPQ Achievement scale (derived from the personality


Table 7

Extension analysis (Oblique) to the extant measures!

Variable Factor

Anxiety Personal Mastery Competitive Excellence

WOFO

Mastery !0.11 0.69 0.23

Work 0.05 0.70 !0.03

Competitiveness 0.25 !0.04 0.95

MPQ Achievement 0.07 0.86 0.05

STAI Trait Anxiety 0.52 !0.10 0.03

Reactions to Tests

Worry 0.67 !0.06 0.12

Tension 0.75 0.04 0.04

Bodily Reactions 0.63 0.12 0.04

Test Irrelevant Thinking 0.44 !0.14 0.06

NEO-FFI

Neuroticism 0.63 !0.12 0.05

Extroversion 0.03 0.27 0.07

Openness 0.12 0.22 !0.03

Agreeableness !0.06 0.37 !0.60

Conscientiousness !0.03 0.71 !0.15

Typical Intellectual Engagement !0.09 0.55 !0.05

Motivational Skills !0.36 0.16 0.13


taxonomy approach) on the MTQ Personal Mastery factor indicate convergence

among measures of achievement from diverse perspectives. As such, the "ndings

coordinate classic theory and research in achievement motivation with contemporary

work on the structure of personality and research in goal theory.

The "ndings also suggest, however, that individual di!erences in Personal Mastery

are distinguishable from individual di!erences in a related form of achievement,

namely Competitive Excellence. To date, few researchers working from within the

achievement motivation approach to the achievement trait complex have distin-

guished between individual di!erences in achievement related to mastery and those

related to competitive excellence (see Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Cassidy & Lynn, 1989,

Helmreich & Spence, 1978, Nichols, 1984; Jackson et al., 1976; VandeWalle, 1997, for

exceptions). Further, aspects of achievement related to Competitive Excellence have

generally not been represented among de"nitions of trait achievement from the

personality taxonomy approach (a notable exception is Murray, 1938).

The identi"cation and distinction of the Personal Mastery and Competitive Excel-

lence traits has both theoretical and practical implications for motivation research.


Pragmatically, the results we obtained are consistent with extant theorizing on the

in#uence of mastery and performance goal orientation, and suggest that the MTQ

Mastery and Competitive Excellence facets may provide useful measurement of

mastery and performance goal orientation among adults. From a theoretical perspect-

ive, the pattern of relationships among MTQ facets suggests new avenues for research

in goal orientation. For example, as shown in Study 2, the Other Referent Goals facet

loaded on both the Competitive Excellence and Achievement Anxiety factors, whereas

the Competition Seeking facet loaded only on the Competitive Excellence factor.

The splitting of the other Referent Goals facet across these two factors suggests that

future research be directed toward understanding the relationship between individual

di!erences in competitive excellence facets and performance orientation. In academic

situations, individuals who adopt performance goals as a function of strong tenden-

cies toward performing well compared to others may respond di!erently to failure

than individuals who adopt performance goals as a function of dispositional tenden-

cies toward competition seeking. It may be, for example, that de"cits in self-regulatory

functioning associated with a performance goal orientation stem from tendencies

toward social comparison more than tendencies toward competition seeking per se

(see, for example, Nicholls, 1984).

Second, perhaps the most intriguing and challenging "ndings relate to Achievement

Anxiety and Failure Avoidance. Our failure to obtain evidence to support a motiva-

tional trait related to failure avoidance is disappointing, and remains a challenge for

future research. Contemporary researchers (e.g., Elliott & Church, 1997; Midgely et

al., 1998; VandeWalle, 1997) have argued for a distinction between individual di!er-

ences in appetitively oriented (approach) and aversively oriented (avoidence) motiva-

tional tendencies, and initial evidence for the distinction has been provided using

measures that assess such tendencies in speci"c contexts, such as the classroom. At

a more general level, however, researchers have generally not been successful in

developing valid self-report measures of individual di!erences of motivational tenden-

cies to avoid failure (see, Spangler, 1992). Although our "ndings provide some

evidence for the association of Active Avoidance with the broader Achievement

Anxiety factor, it is clear that individual di!erences in the tendency to avoid failure

only share partial overlap with traditional conceptualizations of anxiety in achieve-

ment situations. Future research to clarify this tendency might focus on using di!erent

formats to assess the trait. Promising work by James (1998) suggests that alternative

response formats may, in fact, prove useful for assessing individual di!erences in

socially undesirable, avoidance-oriented traits such as Failure Avoidance.

Third, the results obtained provide partial support for the feasibility of the motiva-

tional trait-skill formulation proposed by Kanfer and Heggestad (1997). Speci"cally,

in Study 2 we included a brief measure of individual di!erences in motivational skills.

This measure was negatively related to individual di!erences in Achievement Anxiety,

suggesting that persons high in these trait tendencies tend to report fewer motiva-

tional skills. Contrary to expectations, however, motivational skills were only weakly

related to individual di!erences in Personal Mastery and Competitive Excellence.

Although longitudinal research is needed to fully evaluate the hypothesis that achieve-

ment-based (versus anxiety-based) motivational tendencies facilitate the development


of motivational skills, it is also important for future research to examine the validity of

the motivational skills measure. In the current measure, motivational skills are

de"ned largely in terms of self-e$cacy for learning activities. Following recent work

by Orange (2000); Zimmerman and Martinez-Pons (1986), and others (e.g., Schunk

& Zimmerman, 1998), future research is needed to investigate the multidimensional

nature of such skills, including skills in help-seeking, self-monitoring, and strategies

for enhancing attentional control (see Kuhl, this volume). As such, our "ndings

represent a "rst step in distinguishing individual di!erences in motivational traits

from the development and use of motivational skills in purposive endeavors.

Acknowledgements

This article was completed as part of the "rst author's thesis requirements. We

would like to thank Phillip L. Ackerman, Auke Tellegen, Rich Arvey, Ernest Daven-

port, Rodney A. McCloy, and Carolyn Jagacinski for their helpful comments on this

work. Support for portions of this research was provided by the U.S. Air Force O$ce

of Scienti"c Research (F49620-98) and the National Science Foundation (NSF/SBE-

9223357).

References

Ackerman, L., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Generational di!erences and parent-child resemblance in

achievement motives and locus of control: A cross-sectional analysis. Personality and Individual Diwer-

ences, 10, 1237}1242.

Ackerman, P. L., & Cianciolo, A. T. (1999). Psychomotor abilities via touchpanel testing: Measurement

innovations, construct, and criterion validity. Human Performance, 12, 231}273.

Ackerman, PL., & Kanfer, R. (1993). Integrating laboratory and "eld study for improving selection:

Development of a battery for predicting Air Tra$c Controller success. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78,

413}432.

Alpert, R., & Haber, R. N. (1960). Anxiety in academic situations. Journal of Abnormal and Social

Psychology, 61, 207}215.

Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in the classroom: Students' learning strategies and

motivation processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 260}267.

Atkinson, J. W. (1957). Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. Psychological Review, 64,

359}372.

Atkinson, J. W., & Feather, N. T. (1966). A theory of achievement motivation. New York: Wiley.

Atkinson, J. W., & Litwin, G. H. (1960). Achievement motive and test anxiety conceived as motive to

approach success and motive to avoid failure. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 60, 52}63.

Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big "ve personality dimensions and job performance:

A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1}26.

Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K., & Judge, T. A. (1999). The "ve factor model of personality and job

performance: A second order meta-analysis. In G. Stewart (Chair), Answers to lingering questions about

personality research. Symposium conducted at the 14th annual convention of the society of industrial

and organizational psychology, Atlanta.

Bempechat, J., London, P., & Dweck, C. S. (1991). Children's conceptions of ability in major domains: An

interview and experimental study. Child Study Journal, 21, 11}36.


Block, J. (1977). Advancing the psychology of personality: Paradigmatic shift or improving the quality of

research. In D. Magnusson, & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in

interactional psychology (pp. 37}63). New York: Wiley.

Bou!ard, T., Boisvert, J., Vezeau, C., & Larouche, C. (1995). The impact of goal orientation on self-regulation

and performance among college students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 317}329.

Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation in organizational research: A conceptual

and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67, 26}48.

Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Control theory: A useful conceptual framework for personality-social,

clinical, and health psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 92, 111}135.

Cassidy, T., & Lynn, R. (1989). A multifactorial approach to achievement motivation: The development of

a comprehensive measure. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 301}312.

Costa Jr., P. T. (1996). Work and personality: Use of the NEO-PI-R in industrial/organizational psychol-

ogy. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 45, 225}241.

Costa Jr., P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO personality inventory and xve-factor inventory

professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.

Digman, J. M., & Inouye, J. (1986). Further speci"cation of the "ve robust factors of personality. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 116}123.

Dollinger, S. J., & Orf, L. A. (1991). Personality and performance in `personalitya: Conscientiousness and

openness. Journal of Research in Personality, 25, 276}284.

Dweck, C. S. (1996). Capturing the dynamic nature of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 30,

348}362.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.

Psychological Review, 95, 256}273.

Dwyer, P. S. (1937). The determination of the factor loadings of a given test from the known factor loadings

of other tests. Psychometrika, 2, 173}178.

Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement

motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218}232.

Elliott, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic

motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461}475.

Entwistle, N. J. (1968). Academic motivation and school attainment. British Journal of Educational Psychol-

ogy, 38, 181}188.

Eysenck, H. J. (1991). Dimensions of personality: 16-, 5- or 3-Criteria for taxonomic paradigm. Personality

and Individual Diwerences, 12, 773}790.

Go!, M., & Ackerman, P. L. (1992). Personality-intelligence relations: assessment of typical intellectual

engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 537}552.

Goldberg, L. R. (1993). The structure of phenotypic personality traits. American Psychologist, 48, 26}34.

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1993). Goal achievement: The role of intentions. In W. Strobe, & M. Hewstone, European

review of social psychology, vol. 4 (pp. 141}185). London: Wiley.

Good, L. R., & Good, K. C. (1975). An objective measure of the motive to avoid failure. Psychology, 12,

11}14.

Gough, H. G. (1987). California Psychological Inventory administrator's guide. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting

Psychologists Press.

Heckhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and action. New York: Springer.

Helmreich, R. L., & Spence, J. T. (1978). The work and family orientation questionnaire: An objective

instrument to assess components of achievement motivation and attitudes toward family and career.

JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 8, 35.

Hembree, R. (1988). Correlates, causes, e!ects, and treatment of test anxiety. Review of Educational Research,

58, 4777.

Hermans, H. J. M. (1970). A questionnaire measure of achievement motivation. Journal of Applied

Psychology, 54, 353}363.

Higgins, E. T. (1998). Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle for approach

and avoidance. In M. P. Zanna, Advances in experimental social psychology, vol. 30 (pp. 1}46). New York:

Academic Press.


Hough, L. M. (1992). The `Big Fivea personality variables * construct confusion: Description versus

prediction. Human Performance, 5, 139}155.

Hough, L. M., Eaton, N. K., Dunnette, M. D., Kamp, J. D., & McCloy, R. A. (1990). Criterion-related

validities of personality constructs and the e!ect of response distortion on those validities. Journal of

Applied Psychology, 75, 581}595.

Humphreys, L. G., & Montanelli Jr., R. G. (1975). An investigation of the parallel analysis criterion for

determining the number of common factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 10, 193}206.

Jackson, D. N., Ahmed, S. A., & Heapy, N. A. (1976). Is achievement a unitary construct? Journal of

Research in Personality, 10, 1}21.

Jagacinski, C. M. (1992). The e!ects of task involvement and ego involvement on achievement-related

cognitions and behaviors. In D. H. Schunk, & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student Perceptions in the classroom

(pp. 307}326). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

James, L. R. (1998). Measurement of relative motive strength via conditional reasoning. Organizational

Research Methods, 1, 131}163.

Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. (1996). Motivational skills and self-regulation for learning:

A trait perspective. Learning and Individual Diwerences, 8, 185}209.

Kanfer, R., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Motivational traits and skills: A person-centered approach to work

motivation. In B. M. Staw, & L. L. Cummings, Research in organizational behavior, vol. 19 (pp. 1}56).

Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc..

Kanfer, R., & Kanfer, F. H. (1991). Goals and self-regulation: Applications of theory to work settings. In M.

L. Maehr, & P. R. Pintrich, Advances in Motivation and Achievement, vol. 7 (pp. 287}326). Greenwich,

CT: JAI Press.

Kuhl, J. (2000). The volitional basis of Personality Systems Interactions theory: Applications in learning

and treatment contexts. International Journal of Education Research, 33, 665}703.

Lamb, R. R., & Prediger, D. J. (1981). The unisex edition of the ACT interest inventory. Iowa City, IA:

American College Testing.

Lao, R. C. (1980). Di!erential factors a!ecting male and female academic performance in high school. The

Journal of Psychology, 104, 119}127.

Lynn, R. (1969). An achievement motivation questionnaire. British Journal of Psychology, 60, 529}534.

Martocchio, J. J. (1994). E!ects of conceptions of ability on anxiety, self-e$cacy, and learning in training.

Journal of Applied Psychology, 79, 819}825.

McClelland, D. C. (1951). Personality. New York: Henry Holt.

McClelland, D. C., Atkinson, J. W., Clark, R. A., & Lowell, E. L. (1953). The achievement motive. New York:

Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Mehrabian, A. (1969). Measures of achieving tendency. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 29,

445}451.

Midgely, C., Kaplan, A., Middleton, M., Urdan, M., Anderman, L. H., Anderman, E., & Roesen, R. (1998).

The development and validation of scales assessing student's achievement orientations. Contemporary

Educational Psychology, 23, 113}131.

Montanelli Jr., R. G., & Humphreys, L. G. (1976). Latent roots of random data correlation matrices with

squared multiple correlations on the diagonal: A Monte Carlo study. Psychometrika, 41, 341}348.

Morris, L. W., Davis, M. A., & Hutchings, C. H. (1981). Cognitive and emotional components of anxiety:

Literature review and a revised Worry-Emotionality Scale. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 541}555.

Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.

Muray, H. A. (1943). The thematic apperception test manual. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Nicholls, J. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and

performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328}346.

Orange, C. (2000). Using peer modeling to teach self-regulation. Journal of Experimental Education, 68,

21}39.

Roedel, T. D., Schraw, G., & Plake, B. S. (1994). Validation of a measure of learning and performance goal

orientations. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 54, 1013}1021.

Sarason, I. G. (1978). The test anxiety scale: Concept and research. In C. D. Spielberger & I. G. Sarason

(Eds.), Stress and anxiety, vol. 5. New York: Wiley.


Sarason, I. G. (1984). Stress, anxiety, and cognitive interference: Reactions to tests. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 46, 929}938.

Schunk, D. H., & Zimmerman, B. J. (1998). Self-regulated learning. From teaching to self-reyective practice.

New York: Guilford.

Snow, R. E., Corno, L., Jackson, D., III. (1996). Individual di!erences in a!ective and conative functions. In:

D. C. Berliner, & R. C. Calfee (Eds.), Handbook of educational psychology (pp. 243}310). New York:

Macmillan.

Spangler, W. D. (1992). Validity of questionnaire and TAT measures of need for achievement: Two

meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 140}154.

Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1983). Achievement related motives and behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.),

Achievement and Achievement Motives. San Francisco, CA: W. H. Freeman and Company.

Spielberger, C. D. (1983). Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychol-

ogists Press.

Tabernero, C., & Wood, R. E. (1999). Implicit theories versus social construal of ability in self-regulation

and performance on a complex task. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 78,

104}127.

Tellegen, A. (1982). Brief manual for the Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire (MPQ). Minneapolis,

MN: Author.

Tellegen, A., & Waller, N. G. (2000). Exploring personality through test construction: Development of the

Multidimensional Personality Questionnaire. In: S. R. Briggs & J. M. Cheek (Eds.), Personality

measures: Development and evaluation, vol. 1. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Tucker, L. R., & Finkbeiner, C. T. (1981). Transformation of factors by artixcial personal probability functions.

Report No. RR-81-58. Educational Testing Service, Princeton, NJ.

VandeWalle, D. M. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal-orientation instrument.

Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57, 995}1015.

Winne, P. H. (1995). Inherent details in self-regulated learning. Educational Psychologist, 30, 173}187.

Wong, M. M., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1991). Motivation and academic achievement: The e!ects of

personality traits and the quality of experience. Journal of Personality, 59, 539}574.

Wood, R., & Bandura, A. (1989). Impact of conceptions of ability on self-regulatory mechanisms and

complex decision making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 407}415.

Zimmerman, B. J., & Martinez-Pons, M. (1986). Development of a structured interview for assessing

students' use of self-regulated learning strategies. American Educational Research Journal, 23, 614}628.

Eric D. Heggestad is an Assistant Professor of Industrial/Organizational Psychology

at Colorado State University (USA). He received his Ph.D. from the Personality

Research Program at the University of Minnesota. His research interests include

understanding the ways in which individual di!erences in personality, motivational

processes, and situational factors jointly in#uence learning and job performance.

Ruth Kanfer is a Professor of Industrial/Organizational Psychology at the Georgia

Institute of Technology. She received her Ph.D. from Arizona State University and

completed post-doctoral training at the University of Illinois. Her research has

focused on issues related to motivation and self-regulation. She presently is studying

the processes by which motivational traits and skills in#uence skill learning and

performance.
