116 I. THEORETICAL  PERSPECTI vES AND  CONCEPT uAL uNITS
tonomous and controlled avoidance-  based 
achievement goals.
In conclusion, we believe that if scholars 
are able to reach an agreement regarding the 
conceptualization, operationalization, and 
nature of the consequences of achievement 
goal complexes, the goal complex approach 
is likely to become a full-grown model of 
achievement motivation. Obviously, many 
research questions need to be addressed, 
in particular in the field of personality: To 
what extent do achievement goal complexes 
remain stable or change over time? What are 
the dispositional antecedents of achievement 
goal complexes (e.g., trait competitiveness, 
temperament, needs)? Do self-  regulatory 
processes such as challenge and treat apprais -
al mediate the relation between achievement 
goal complexes and achievement-  relevant 
outcomes? We believe that motivation scien -
tists from different theoretical perspectives 
could collaborate to answer such questions, 
helping us to better grasp the complexity of 
achievement motivation.
NOTES
1. For both Hulleman et al.’s (2010) and Senko 
and Dawson’s (2017) work, we focus on the meta- 
analytic correlation involving normative  goals.
2. One could consider achievement goal com -
plex statements as double-  barreled questions, that 
is, as assessing two elements simultaneously (i.e., 
a goal and a reason; see Podsakoff, MacKenzie, & 
Podsakoff, 2012). However, this twin-track opera -
tionalization directly relates to the ontology of the 
achievement goal complex construct. Echoing the 
principles of Gestalt psychology, achievement goal 
complexes are more than the mere sum of a goal and 
a reason. As such, they are inseparable motivational 
units and they may only be assessed with single and 
indivisible items. Importantly, this implies that an 
achievement goal complex could not be constructed 
as an interaction variable between a “pure” goal 
and a “pure” reason, because such an interaction 
variable does not necessarily indicate a goal com -
plex. For instance, a high mastery-  approach goal 
and high autonomous reasons does not necessar -
ily indicate a high autonomous mastery-  approach 
goal complex: The mastery-  approach goals may 
very well be energized by controlled reasons, 
while the autonomous reasons may be directed by 
performance-  approach goals.
3. A correlation of r = .1 is regarded as weak, a 
correlation of r = .3 as moderate, and a correlation 
of r = .5 as strong (Cohen, 1992).4. In Gillet et al. (2017) and Michou, Vansteen -
kiste, Mouratidis, and Lens, 2014 (Study 1), multi -
collinearity was so high that autonomous approach- 
and avoidance-  based achievement goals were 
collapsed into a single score. In Gillet et al. (2015), 
principal component analyses revealed that autono -
mous mastery-  approach and -avoidance goals and 
autonomous performance-  approach and -avoidance 
goals each loaded on the same factor in Studies 1 
and 2 (the pattern was less clear for Study 3; Nicolas 
Gillet was kind enough to share the raw data for us 
to run the analyses; the findings do not change the 
conclusions of his and his coauthors’ paper). In Del -
rue et al. (2016), achievement goal complexes were 
assessed for the focal dominant goal only, and the 
emphasis was put on dominant mastery approach 
and avoidance goal; however, Ciani and Sheldon 
(2010) have shown that the approach and avoidance 
form of these goals were often hard to discriminate.
REFERENCES
The 15 publications reviewed in Figure 4.3 are 
marked with a dagger (†).
Ames, C. (1984). Competitive, cooperative, and 
individualistic goal structures: A cognitive- 
motivational analysis. In C. Ames & R. Ames 
(Eds.), Research on motivation in education  
(Vol. 3, pp. 177–207). New York: Academic 
Press.
Archer, J. (1994). Achievement goals as a measure 
of motivation in university students. Contempo -
rary Educational Psychology, 19, 430–446.
Baranik, L. E., Stanley, L. J., Bynum, B. H., & 
Lance, C. E. (2010). Examining the construct 
validity of mastery-  avoidance achievement goals: 
A meta-  analysis. Human Performance, 23,  265–
282.
Benita, M., Roth, G., & Deci, E. L. (2014). When 
are mastery goals more adaptive?: It depends on 
experiences of autonomy support and autonomy. 
Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 258–
267.
Benita, M., Shane, N., Elgali, O., & Roth, G. 
(2017). The important role of the context in 
which achievement goals are adopted: An ex -
perimental test. Motivation and Emotion, 41, 
180–195.
Butler, R. (1992). What young people want to know 
when: Effects of mastery and ability goals on in -
terest in different kinds of social comparisons. 
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 
62, 934–943.
Carver, C. S., & Baird, E. (1998). The American 
dream revisited: Is it what you want or why you 
want it that matters? Psychological Science, 9, 
289–292.