The effects of assigned goals on goal orientation, learning and performance in a new and complex task

• Main Author: Chia, Ho-beng
• Format: Others
• Language: English
• Published: 2009
• Online Access: http://hdl.handle.net/2429/6291

Contrary to the usual goal setting effect, researchers are finding that in new and complex tasks, specific and difficult (SD) goals may be worse than "do your best" (DYB) goals. Dweck and colleagues' research and ideas on goal orientation provide some insight into the possible causes of these observations. Dweck (1986, 1990) suggests that the goal orientation (proving vs. learning) which the person adopts affects learning and performance. She suggested that when both (1) the perceived task ability (self-efficacy) of participants is low, and (2) performance set-backs occur, participants with proving orientations often show deficits in learning and performance, while those with a learning orientation do not. This dissertation argues that in the initial trials of complex tasks, participants are more likely to encounter the two conditions of low self-efficacy and set-backs. If SD goals lead to a proving orientation, then learning and performance may be impaired. This dissertation re-framed Dweck and colleagues' work within goal setting theory to test whether: (1) different assigned goals (learning, proving, SD, and DYB goals) affect goal orientation, learning, and performance; (2) goal setting affects new and familiar tasks differently; and (3) SD goals lead to a proving orientation. The results showed that learning and no goals led to better performance than the proving goals especially when the task was unfamiliar. However, SD and DYB goals had no differential effects on proving orientation, learning, and performance. Dweck's hypothesized processes were also not supported: although assigned goals affected learning orientation, learning orientation did not affect either learning or performance. Exploratory analyses found that learning and performance were also unaffected by two important mediators in motivational processes - self-efficacy and personal goal levels. Thus, the performance difference between learning and proving goals could not be accounted by the motivational processes of both goal setting and self-efficacy theory. An alternative script base explanation that is consistent with the findings is discussed. The results demonstrated the limitation of motivational processes in accounting for goal effects. Furthermore, they showed that traditional goals (SD and DYB goals) had little effect on performance whereas learning and proving goals did. === Business, Sauder School of === Graduate