Motivational Trait Questionnaire, Heggestad & Kanfer
-
Upload
choncholes -
Category
Documents
-
view
1.643 -
download
2
Transcript of 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
754 E.D. Heggestad, R. Kanfer / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 751}776
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
E.D. Heggestad, R. Kanfer / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 751}776 755
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),
756 E.D. Heggestad, R. Kanfer / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 751}776
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
E.D. Heggestad, R. Kanfer / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 751}776 757
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.
758 E.D. Heggestad, R. Kanfer / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 751}776
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.
E.D. Heggestad, R. Kanfer / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 751}776 759
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.
760 E.D. Heggestad, R. Kanfer / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 751}776
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$cult goals facets of Personal
Mastery and the energy and conscientiousness facets of Hard Work). Finally, when
a majority of items from a facet did not load on one factor, but rather loaded
inconsistently across factors, the facet was disbanded and its items placed in the
unclassi"ed category. This rational}empirical process resulted in the identi"cation of
11 facets: three each for Personal Mastery and Achievement Anxiety, two for both the
hard work and competitive excellence, and one for failure avoidance. The names of the
retained facets can be seen in Table 2.
Item-level analyses were then performed on each of the resulting facets to remove
redundant and unrelated items. When a correlation of r*0.60 was found between
two items on a facet, the items were examined for content similarity. If the content was
E.D. Heggestad, R. Kanfer / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 751}776 761
Table
2
Mea
ns,
standard
dev
iations,
reliability
coe$
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
.
762 E.D. Heggestad, R. Kanfer / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 751}776
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.
E.D. Heggestad, R. Kanfer / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 751}776 763
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
764 E.D. Heggestad, R. Kanfer / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 751}776
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
E.D. Heggestad, R. Kanfer / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 751}776 765
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
766 E.D. Heggestad, R. Kanfer / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 751}776
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
E.D. Heggestad, R. Kanfer / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 751}776 767
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 $0.40 are shown in
boldface). The results provided good initial evidence for the viability of the facets as
measures of the hypothesized motivational traits. Speci"cally, the anxiety factor was
positively related to trait anxiety, the four subscales of the Reactions to Tests measure,
and Neuroticism. The Personal Mastery factor had strong positive relations with both
the WOFO Mastery and Work Orientation scales, the MPQ Achievement scale,
NEO-FFI Conscientiousness, and Typical Intellectual Engagement. Finally, the
Competitive Excellence factor was positively related to the Competitiveness scale of
the WOFO and negatively related to NEO-FFI Agreeableness.
4. Implications and limitations of the MTQ
Researchers have once again begun to study motivation from an individual di!er-
ences perspective. Consistent with this perspective shift, Kanfer and Heggestad (1997)
768 E.D. Heggestad, R. Kanfer / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 751}776
Table
5
Des
crip
tive
info
rmation
and
inte
rcorr
elations
ofth
eM
TQ
face
tsc
ale
s!
Variable
Item
sM
ean
SD
12
34
56
78
9
Per
sonalM
ast
ery
1.D
eter
min
ation
10
44.9
46.4
20.8
6
2.D
esire
toLea
rn9
35.7
07.3
00.4
90.8
6
3.M
ast
ery
Goals
11
47.7
38.0
50.6
40.6
30.8
8
Com
pet
itiv
eExce
llen
ce
4.O
ther
Ref
eren
tG
oals
13
50.5
610.6
6!
0.0
1!
0.0
90.0
70.9
0
5.C
om
pet
itio
nSee
kin
g9
33.9
28.4
60.0
6!
0.0
40.0
80.6
10.8
7
Ach
ievem
ent
Anxie
ty
6.W
orr
y7
23.5
97.1
1!
0.3
2!
0.0
8!
0.0
10.3
3!
0.1
40.8
3
7.M
TQ
Em
otionality
618.4
76.3
2!
0.1
5!
0.0
2!
0.0
60.2
2!
0.1
40.6
60.8
2
8.E
valu
ation
Appre
hen
sion
414.1
64.2
4!
0.2
6!
0.1
1!
0.1
10.3
5!
0.1
20.6
10.6
10.8
2
Failure
Avoid
ance
9.A
ctiv
eA
void
ance
13
39.7
910.1
7!
0.4
5!
0.3
3!
0.2
30.1
8!
0.3
00.6
00.4
30.6
00.8
9
!Corr
elations
gre
ate
rth
an
r"$
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
.
E.D. Heggestad, R. Kanfer / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 751}776 769
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
!Salient loadings ($0.40) are presented in boldface.
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
770 E.D. Heggestad, R. Kanfer / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 751}776
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
!Salient loadings ($0.40) are presented in boldface.
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.
E.D. Heggestad, R. Kanfer / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 751}776 771
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
772 E.D. Heggestad, R. Kanfer / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 751}776
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.
E.D. Heggestad, R. Kanfer / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 751}776 773
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.
774 E.D. Heggestad, R. Kanfer / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 751}776
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.
E.D. Heggestad, R. Kanfer / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 751}776 775
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.
776 E.D. Heggestad, R. Kanfer / Int. J. Educ. Res. 33 (2000) 751}776