 4. Achievement Goal Complexes  107
Bynum, & Lance, 2010; Hulleman et al., 
2010), as well as other beneficial outcomes 
such as self-  efficacy (Baranik et al., 2010; 
Huang, 2016), positive emotion (Baranik et 
al., 2010; Huang, 2011), and help-  seeking 
(Baranik et al., 2010). Mastery-  approach 
goals sometimes show a weak positive cor -
relation with performance (Baranik et al., 
2010; Huang, 2012; Lochbaum & Gottardy, 
2015; Van Yperen, Blaga, & Postmes, 2014; 
Wirthwein, Sparfeldt, Pinquart, Wegerer, & 
Steinmayr, 2013), but this link is not very 
consistent (Hulleman et al., 2010; see also, 
Linnenbrink-  Garcia, Tyson, & Patall, 2008). 
This illustrates that mastery-  approach goals 
facilitate interest-  based studying, increasing 
the subjective value of achievement activities 
and self-  regulated learning (Nicholls, 1984: 
Pekrun, 2006; Pintrich, 2000b), but that 
this does not necessarily translate into high -
er performance attainment (Senko, Durik, 
& Harackiewicz, 2008).
Second, meta-  analyses reveal that focal 
performance-  approach goals are predomi -
nantly beneficial  for achievement- relevant 
outcomes. Performance-  approach goals 
are a robust positive predictor of perfor -
mance (Baranik et al., 2010; Huang, 2012; 
Hulleman et al., 2010; Lochbaum & Got -
tardy, 2015; Murayama & Elliot, 2012; 
Van  Yperen et al., 2014; Wirthwein et al., 
2013), as well as other beneficial outcomes 
such as self-  efficacy (Baranik et al., 2010; 
Huang, 2016), positive emotion (Baranik et 
al., 2010; Huang, 2011; Senko & Dawson, 
2017), and adaptive surface learning strat -
egies (Senko & Dawson, 2017). However, 
performance-  approach goals are a positive 
predictor of some detrimental achievement- 
relevant outcomes, such as anxiety (Senko 
& Dawson, 2017). This illustrates that 
performance-  approach goals arouse perfor -
mance pressure, which increases a strategic 
approach to studying and effort toward one’s 
aspirations (Senko & Harackiewicz, 2005), 
but may also increase negative activity emo -
tion (Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2009).1
Third, meta-  analyses reveal that both focal 
mastery-  avoidance and focal performance- 
avoidance goals are negative or null predic -
tors of interest and performance (Hulleman 
et al., 2010; Lochbaum & Gottardy, 2015; 
Van Yperen et al., 2014). However, the 
meta-  analytic literature is somehow more limited for avoidance-  based achievement 
goals. On the one hand, mastery-  avoidance 
goals have not been as extensively studied as 
the other achievement goals, perhaps due to 
their lower prevalence and less general eco -
logical relevance (Ciani & Sheldon, 2010; 
Senko & Freund, 2015). On the other hand, 
performance-  avoidance goals have mostly 
been operationalized using older subscales 
that include non-goal-  related elements, 
thereby limiting the conclusions that can be 
drawn for most meta-  analyses (e.g., Cellar 
et al., 2011; Payne, Youngcourt, & Beaubi -
en, 2007). Nevertheless, it can be stated that 
the extant data suggests that performance- 
avoidance goals are problematic for many 
achievement- relevant outcomes (for a re -
view, see Senko, Hulleman, & Harackie -
wicz, 2010).
Summary
In the first generation of achievement goal 
research, achievement goals were concep -
tualized and operationalized as a mixture 
of goals and reasons (the goal orientation 
model). Mastery goal orientation was found 
to be mostly beneficial for achievement- 
relevant outcomes, whereas the effects of 
performance goal orientation were incon -
sistent. In the second generation of achieve -
ment goal research, achievement goals have 
been conceptualized and operationalized as 
focal goals stripped of reason elements (the 
goal standard model). Mastery-  approach 
goals were found to be primarily ben -
eficial for interest, performance-  approach 
goals were found to be primarily ben -
eficial for performance, and mastery- and 
performance-  avoidance goals were found to 
be detrimental (or, at least, not beneficial) 
for both performance and interest. More 
recently, a third generation of achievement 
goal research is emerging, emphasizing 
that achievement goals do not come from a 
“motivational vacuum” and showing that 
the reasons behind achievement goals have 
predictive utility (e.g., see Dompnier et al., 
2009; Urdan & Mestas, 2006; Vansteen -
kiste, Smeets, et al., 2010). These innovative 
new lines of inquiry (see Senko, 2016) have 
begun to lay the empirical foundation for 
the goal complex approach to achievement 
goals (Elliot & Thrash, 2001).