 4. Achievement Goal Complexes  105
laboratively on the types of goals that in -
dividuals pursue in achievement contexts 
(Ames, 1984; Dweck, 1986; Maehr, 1984; 
Nicholls, 1984; for a historical review, see 
Elliot, 2005). For example, Dweck and her 
colleagues highlighted why learners with 
equivalent ability reacted differently to fail -
ure (Dweck, 1975, 1986; Dweck & Legget, 
1988; Elliott & Dweck, 1988). They showed 
that learners’ goal orientation (rather than 
ability) predicted different patterns of re -
sponse to failure. Goal orientation was then 
understood as the overarching purpose for 
which learners engage in achievement be -
havior: Mastery goals focused on the pur -
pose of developing  competence (learning), 
whereas performance goals focused on the 
purpose of demonstrating  competence rela -
tive to others (seeking favorable judgments 
or avoiding unfavorable judgments of one’s 
competence). Dweck and her colleagues 
showed that mastery-  oriented learners 
tended to believe that ability is an expend -
able quality (i.e., they held incremental be -
liefs), attribute failure to a controllable lack 
of effort, and show resilience in the face of 
obstacles. However, performance-  oriented 
learners were found to believe that ability 
is a fixed quantity (i.e., they held entity be -
liefs), attribute failure to an uncontrollable 
lack of intelligence, and show helplessness in 
the face of obstacles.
At that time, a considerable array of re -
search confirmed that mastery goals were 
associated with a pattern of adaptive  cogni -
tive, affective, and behavioral achievement-  
relevant outcomes (for a representative 
review, see Dweck, 1991). For instance, 
mastery-  oriented individuals were found to 
report a higher level of cognitive engagement 
(Meece, Blumenfeld, & Hoyle, 1988), to ver -
balize less, or exhibit the absence of negative 
affect during difficulty (Elliott & Dweck, 
1988) or to display a behavioral prefer -
ence for task-  related rather than normative 
feedback (Butler, 1992). However, research 
was not as consistent when it came to per -
formance goals (for a review, see Midgley, 
Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001). As an illustra -
tion, performance-  oriented individuals were 
sometimes found to use surface rather than 
deep learning strategies (Greene & Miller, 
1996; Miller, Greene, Montalvo, Ravin -
dran, & Nichols, 1996; Nolen, 1988), but at other times they were found to use deep 
learning strategies (Archer, 1994; Miller, 
Behrens, Greene, & Newman, 1993; Wolt -
ers, Yu, & Pintrich, 1996). To resolve this 
kind of empirical inconsistency, the goal ori -
entation model needed to be revised.
The Second Generation of  Achievement 
Goal Research: The  Goal Standard  Model
In the late 1990s to the early 2000s, Elliot 
and his colleagues sought to revise the goal 
orientation model, suggesting that achieve -
ment goals had thus far been characterized 
as omnibus  constructs (Elliot, 1994; Elliot 
& Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 
1996). They pointed out two elements.
First, in early achievement goal research, 
achievement goals were conceptualized as 
a mixture of the goal (or aim) that the in -
dividual strives to achieve and  the reason 
(or motive) the individual wants to achieve 
(Elliot & Thrash, 2001). Specifically, mas -
tery goals were often conceptualized as the 
aim of attaining task-  referenced competence 
(the goal component: mastering the task) 
and the self-  improvement motive (a rea -
son component: to improve one’s skills and 
abilities). However, performance goals were 
often conceptualized as the aim of attaining 
other-  referenced competence (the goal com -
ponent: outperforming others) and  the self- 
presentation motive (a reason component: to 
prove one’s ability; Pintrich, 2000a).
Second, in early achievement goal re -
search, achievement goals were conceptu -
alized as a mixture of the tendency to ap -
proach competence and  the tendency to 
avoid incompetence (Elliot & McGregor, 
2001). In particular, performance goals 
were conceived as the purpose of demon -
strating the adequacy of one’s competence 
(especially for individuals having high self- 
perceived competence) and  as the purpose 
of avoiding the demonstration of inadequate 
competence (especially for individuals hav -
ing low self-  perceived competence; Dweck 
& Legget, 1988).
To address these issues, Elliot and his col -
leagues adopted a constrained  conceptual 
definition of achievement goals, focusing 
exclusively on the focal goal component (El -
liot, 1999; Elliot & Murayama, 2008; Elliot 
& Thrash, 2001). From this perspective, 