 4. Achievement Goal Complexes  109
mastery-  approach goal endorsed with a 
sense of internal or external compulsion 
(Benita, Roth, & Deci, 2014; see also Ben -
ita, Shane, Elgali, & Roth, 2017; Pulfrey, 
Vansteenkiste, & Michou, 2019; Spray, 
Wang, Biddle, & Chatzisarantis, 2006). 
Thus, taking both achievement goal and rea -
son content into account allows for not only 
a more complete description of achievement 
motivation but also sharper predictions of 
achievement behavior.
Which theoretical framework should 
be used to conceptualize achievement goal 
complexes? To answer this question, one 
needs to define the nature of the reason com -
ponent of a goal complex. A reason corre -
sponds to “the psychological starting point 
for action” (Elliot & Thrash, 2001, pp. 143–
144). As such, it is important to distinguish 
between the various possible reasons behind 
achievement goals and the various anteced -
ents of achievement goals. Specifically, con -
textual antecedents (or mere social percep -
tions) are not reasons per se, because they 
do not directly  instigate achievement goals. 
For instance, competitive environments 
(antecedent) are presumed to fuel competi -
tive motives (reason) before further foster -
ing performance-  based goals (for a related 
point, see Murayama & Elliot, 2012). The 
same applies to dispositional antecedents 
(or self-  perceptions), which are not reasons 
per se unless directly  instigating achieve -
ment goals. For instance, incremental beliefs 
about intelligence (antecedent) are presumed 
to fuel self-  improvement motives (reason) 
before further fostering mastery-  approach 
goals (for a related point, see Heslin & Keat -
ing, 2017).
One can list various lines of research in 
which the reasons behind achievement goals 
serve an energizing function. For instance, 
in the hierarchical model of achievement 
motivation (Elliot & Church, 1997), need 
for achievement and fear of failure (McClel -
land, 1985) are posited to exert a distal, la -
tent, and indirect influence on achievement- 
relevant outcomes, with motive-  charged 
achievement goals serving as regulatory sur -
rogates and exerting a proximal, manifest, 
and direct influence. Other example includes 
the model action theory (in which self- and 
principle goals are conceived as higher-  level 
goals, and achievement goals are consid -ered as lower-level goals; DeShon & Gil -
lespie, 2005), research on the social value 
of achievement goals (in which social desir -
ability and social utility reasons are shown 
to alter the predictive utility of achievement 
goals; Dompnier et al., 2009, 2013; Smeding 
et al., 2015) or, more recently, a theoretical 
proposition to combine Bronfenbrenner’s 
bioecological model with the achievement 
goal framework (in which macro- [e.g., cul -
tural] to micro-level [e.g., family] anteced -
ents predict distal and proximal reasons for 
achievement goal adoption; Liem & Elliot, 
2018). However, SDT has thus far been the 
most generative approach to operational -
ize reasons behind achievement goals and 
achievement goal complexes (for reviews, 
see Senko, 2016; Vansteenkiste et al., 2014; 
Vansteenkiste & Mouratidis, 2016).
Conceptualization of  SDT‑Derived Achievement 
Goal Complexes
A fundamental aspect of SDT is that the 
regulatory processes tied to goals depend 
on whether three basic psychological needs 
are satisfied (for a review, see Ryan & Deci, 
2008). These three needs are conceived as 
innate, cross-  developmental, and culturally 
universal antecedents (as in Hull’s [1943] or 
White’s [1959] traditions) rather than ac -
quired reasons (as in Murray [1938] and, by 
extension, as in McClelland [1985]). These 
three needs are the need for autonomy (the 
necessity to self-  endorse one’s own goals and 
behaviors), the need for competence (the ne -
cessity to feel efficacious), and the need for 
relatedness (the necessity to be connected to 
others).
An environment providing the nutri -
ments of need fulfillment (especially need 
for autonomy and competence) facilitates 
intrinsic motivation. In an autonomy- and 
competence-  supportive context, individu -
als will be more likely to adopt goals and 
goal-  directed behaviors for the inherent sat -
isfaction they procure, out of interest and 
enjoyment (Koestner, Powers, Milyavskaya, 
Carbonneau, & Hope, 2015). Conversely, 
an environment thwarting need satisfaction 
generates extrinsic motivation. In a control -
ling and competence-  threatening context, 
individuals will be more likely to adopt goals 
and goal-  directed behaviors for operational -