The document discusses how the relational dimension of students' goals, or how students' individual goals are linked to peers' goals, can affect motivation. It focuses on three types of interdependence between students' goals: positive (cooperative), negative (competitive), and independent. The study aims to examine how the type of interdependence between peers' achievement goals (cooperative vs competitive vs individualistic) differentially influences the relationship between motivation and achievement. Based on social interdependence theory, it predicts that cooperative goal structures will promote greater motivation and achievement than competitive or individualistic structures.

1. 1

2. During the past 50 years, considerable research has focused on the effects of goals on
mo;va;on. Within the school achievement literature, three levels of analysis have
been especially emphasized. At the individual level, research has contrasted
mo;va;onal paAerns associated with various dimensions of students’ individual
goals, including goal orienta;ons, expecta;ons, origins, and content. At the classroom
level, research on classroom goal structures has examined how features of the
learning environment can significantly influence students’ personal goal orienta;ons
and associated mo;va;onal paAerns. Finally, researchers have also examined how
school‐level goal structures influence students’ personal goals and mo;va;on in
those seIngs.
2

3. Less well understood is how the rela%onal dimension of students’ goals affects mo;va;on.
The rela;onal dimension focuses on how student’s individual goals may be differen;aly
linked to peers’ goals. Thus, the rela;onal dimension of students’ goals exists between
students rather than within (e.g., goal orienta;ons) or in the larger classroom or school
contexts.
According to social interdependence theory, the rela;onal dimension of students’ goals may
be differen;ated in terms of how each individual’s goal aAainment is affected by the ac;ons
of others. Specifically, students’ goals may be pos%vely interdependent (i.e., linked by
coopera;ve goal structures), such that individual’s perceive that they can reach their goals if
and only if the other individuals with whom they are coopera;vely linked also reach their
goals. Students’ goals may also be nega%vely interdependent (i.e., linked by compe;;ve goal
structures), such that individuals perceive that they can obtain their goals if and only if the
other individuals with whom they are compe;;vely linked fail to obtain their goals. Finally,
students’ goals may also be independent (i.e., no interdependence or linked by individualis;c
goal structures), such that individuals perceive that they can reach their goal regardless of
whether other individuals aAain or do not aAain their goals.
The basic premise of social interdependence theory is that the way in which interdependence
is structured determines how individuals interact which, in turn, determines outcomes. Thus,
when individuals’ goals are structured coopera;vely (posi;ve interdependence), individuals
will tend to promote the success of others (e.g., mutual help and assistance, sharing
resources and informa;on, and ac;ng in trustworthy and trus;ng ways). Compe;;ve goal
structures in contrast result in opposi;onal interac;on paAerns (e.g., obstruc;ng others’ goal
achievement efforts, hiding resources and informa;on from each other, and ac;ng in
distrusRul and distrus;ng ways). Finally, the absence of goal structures (no interdependence)
results in the absence of interac;on.
3

4. The basic premise of this study is that the extent to which mo;va;on is posi;vely or
nega;vely associated with achievement depends on the way peers’ achievement
goals are linked (or structured). Following social interdependence theory, the
argument is made that coopera;ve and compe;;ve goal structures differen;ally
affect the rela;on between mo;va;on and, the former crea;ng the condi;ons under
which one enhances the other, the laAer crea;ng the condi;ons under which one
obstructs the other.
Social interdependence theory predicts that coopera;ve goal structures will result in
higher achievement than will compe;;ve or individualis;c goal structures. Because
coopera;ve goal structures tend to result in promo;ve interac;on (thus providing the
assistance, informa;on, and resources needed to achieve their mutual goals),
whereas compe;;ve and individualis;c goal structures result in opposi;onal or no
interac;on, respec;vely, it may be expected that coopera;ve goal structures will
result in higher achievement than will compe;;ve or individualis;c.
Social interdependence theory also predicts that coopera;ve goal structures will
promote greater mo;va;on than compe;;ve or individualis;c goal structures.
According to Deutsch’s original theorizing, when individual goals are structured
coopera;vely, success in achieving one’s goals will result in a posi;ve cathexis (i.e.,
emo;onal investment) toward other dimensions of the psychological field. Thus,
coopera;ve goal structures will be associated with more posi;ve aItudes toward the
achievement objec;ve (e.g., subject maAer in educa;onal seIngs) and an increase in
self‐efficacy. Contras;ng these outcomes, when individual goals are structured
compe;;vely, failure to achieve one’s goals will result in a nega;ve cathexis toward
other dimensions of the psychological field such as dislike for subject maAer and
more nega;ve feelings of self‐efficacy. Finally, when goals are structures
individualis;cally, the feelings generated by success or failure to achieve one’s goals
tend not to transfer to other psychological dimensions. 4

5. 5

6. 6

7. Hedges gU provides less biased ES es;mates by correc;ng for the slight
overes;ma;on of the popula;on ES for small samples.
Models fiAed in HLM have the general form
7

8. 8

9. 9

10. 10

11. 11

12. 12

13. 13

14. 14