 4. Achievement Goal Complexes  113
term instrumental reasons for emotion 
regulation (Tamir, 2009), or the relation be -
tween superordinate goals and their corre -
sponding attainment means (Shah & Krug -
lanski, 2003). In the case of achievement 
motivation, this analysis supports the idea 
that studying achievement goals and SDT- 
derived reasons is best served by adopting an 
integrative rather than comparative or even 
competitive approach.
Consequences of  SDT‑Derived Achievement 
Goal Complexes: A  Systematic  Review
As stated earlier, we believe that the SDT- 
derived reason variables used in the extant 
work are based on a twin-track  operation -
alization, encompassing a focal goal and a 
focal reason (e.g., in Gaudreau & Braaten, 
2016; Gillet et al., 2015; Vansteenkiste, 
Mouratidis, et al., 2010). As such, these 
SDT-  derived reason variables really cor -
respond to SDT-  derived achievement goal 
complexes and the past findings should be 
(re)interpreted accordingly.
Three basic patterns of results may emerge 
from this approach. The first possibility is 
that specific goals are systematically associ -
ated with (dis)advantageous outcomes, re -
gardless of the reason to which they are tied 
(a goal-  driven pattern). If that is the case, all 
possible approach -based achievement goal 
complexes are likely to have equally ben -
eficial consequences, whereas all possible 
avoidance -based achievement goal com -
plexes are likely to have equally detrimental 
consequences.
The second possibility is that specific rea -
sons are systematically associated with (dis)
advantageous outcomes, regardless of the 
goal to which they are tied (a reason-  driven 
pattern). If that is the case, all possible au -
tonomous  achievement goal complexes are 
likely to have equally beneficial consequenc -
es, whereas all possible controlled  achieve -
ment goal complexes are likely to have 
equally detrimental consequences. This po -
sition is advocated by some SDT researchers: 
For instance, in reviewing the literature, Öz -
demir Oz, Lane, and Michou (2016) stated 
that it reveals that “the same underlying rea -
sons of different achievement goals account 
for the same outcomes irrespective of the 
goal to which they are tied” (p. 1160).We favor a third possibility: Specific 
achievement goal complexes are associated 
with specific (dis)advantageous outcomes (a 
goal complex-  specific pattern). From a theo -
retical perspective, the reason component 
of a goal complex gives a certain color or 
flavor to the goal, whereas the goal com -
ponent takes a particular route to serve the 
reason (Elliot & Thrash, 2001). One the one 
hand, autonomous reasons enhance goal 
ease, progress, and attainment (an adap -
tive form of goal regulation; see Koestner, 
Otis, Powers, Pelletier, & Gagnon, 2008; 
Ntoumanis et al., 2014; Werner, Milyav -
skaya, Foxen-Craft, & Koestner, 2016), and 
achievement goals energized by autonomous 
reasons, in turn, efficiently direct individu -
als toward specific behavior. On the other 
hand, controlled reasons diminish goal ease, 
progress, and attainment (i.e., a maladap -
tive form of goal regulation), and achieve -
ment goals energized by controlled reasons 
fail to efficiently direct individuals toward 
specific behavior. In particular, controlled 
mastery- and performance-  approach goal 
complexes may not be as beneficial as their 
autonomous reason-  grounded counterparts.
To examine the pattern of outcome asso -
ciated with each SDT-  derived achievement 
goal complex, we systematically gathered 
hundreds of correlations from the literature. 
To date, we know of 15 published empirical 
articles on the consequences of SDT-  derived 
achievement goal complexes measured using 
a twin-track operationalization. As seen in 
Figure 4.3,  these 15 articles reported 391 ze -
ro-order correlations between SDT-  derived 
achievement goal complexes and a set of 
achievement- relevant outcomes from 25 in -
dependent samples involving 6,859 partici -
pants. We chose to focus on zero-order cor -
relations rather than regression coefficients, 
because research designs and regression 
models varied from one sample to another, 
making it impossible to compare regression 
results across studies.3
Several findings emerged. First, the au -
tonomous mastery-  approach goal com -
plex is predominantly beneficial  in terms 
of achievement (86% of the correlations 
are beneficial). The autonomous mastery- 
approach goal complex shows robust 
moderate-  to- strong positive correlations 
with beneficial affective (e.g., positive emo -