108 I. THEORETICAL  PERSPECTI vES AND  CONCEPT uAL uNITS
The “Why” Behind Achievement  Goals
The goal standard model enabled scholars 
to address the question of what  one wants 
to achieve (the direction  function of achieve -
ment motivation). However, by removing all 
reason elements from definition and mea -
surement, the goal standard model left open 
the question of why  one wants to achieve 
(the energization  function of achievement 
motivation).
Achievement motivation has long been 
viewed as serving a directional and an en -
ergizing function (for a historical review, 
see Thrash & Elliot, 2001). For instance, 
Murray (1938) already envisaged that needs  
(defined as subjective inner states, wishes, 
reasons) manifested themselves by leading 
the organism to approach or avoid certain 
encounters, and—when eventually facing 
these encounters—  by driving one’s cognitive 
and behavioral responses. Murray called 
this multicomponent motivational construct 
a “need integrate” (p. 64; also see pp. 123–
124).
Similar to Murray’s need integrate, El -
liot and Thrash (2001) conceptualized the 
achievement goal complex  (see also Elliot, 
2006; Thrash & Elliot, 2001). An achieve -
ment goal complex is a motivational hybrid 
comprising a particular type of achievement 
goal connected to a particular type of rea -
son. An achievement goal complex emerges 
when a reason prompts the endorsement 
of an achievement goal. Reasons may vary 
from relatively conscious cognitive values to 
which individuals have easy and direct ac -
cess to relatively nonconscious affective mo -
tives to which individuals have incomplete 
or indirect access (see McClelland, Koest -
ner, & Weinberger, 1989, for related points). 
The reason provides the primary motiva -
tional impetus for goal endorsement and 
the achievement goal provides the specific 
guidelines to interpret, process, and cope 
with the achievement situation.
The structural form of an achievement 
goal complex is “ achievement goal  IN 
ORDER TO reason” or “ achievement goal  
BECAUSE reason .” Examples of achieve -
ment goal complexes are “ the goal to learn 
IN ORDER TO become a recognized expert 
in one’s job ” or “ the goal to learn BECAUSE 
learning is fun .” From this perspective, in the first generation of achievement goal 
research, the performance-  approach goal 
orientation was often conceptualized and/
or operationalized as an achievement goal 
complex (rather than an achievement goal 
per se), namely “ outperforming other  [the 
goal component] IN ORDER TO demon -
strate competence  [a self-  presentation rea -
son component]” (e.g., Harackiewicz, Bar -
ron, Carter, Lehto, & Elliot, 1997; Ryan & 
Pintrich, 1997; Urdan & Maehr, 1995).
While there is only a finite  number of possi -
ble achievement goals (i.e., three conceivable 
definitions of competence × two conceivable 
valences of competence; Elliot, Murayama, 
& Pekrun, 2011; Elliot & Thrash, 2001), 
there is an infinite  number of possible reasons 
behind achievement goals, and therefore an 
infinite  number of possible achievement goal 
complexes. Different achievement goals may 
be undergirded by similar reasons: One may 
endorse a performance-  approach goal for 
self- presentation reasons (an appearance- 
grounded performance-  approach goal 
complex), whereas another may endorse a 
mastery-  approach goals for the very same 
self- presentation reasons (an appearance- 
grounded mastery-  approach goal complex; 
Hodis, Tait, Hodis, Hodis, & Scornavacca, 
2016). Conversely, similar achievement goals 
may be undergirded by different reasons: 
One may endorse a performance-  approach 
goal because outperforming others is viewed 
as a challenge, whereas another may endorse 
the same performance-  approach goal in re -
sponse to pressure from their teammates 
(Vansteenkiste, Mouratidis, & Lens, 2010).
The functional significance  of an achieve -
ment goal (i.e., the meaning attributed to 
the goal) is presumed to depend on its un -
derlying reasons (Vansteenkiste et al., 2014; 
see also, Deci & Ryan, 1985). During the 
regulatory process, the achievement goal 
is viewed as the channel through which 
the overarching reason affects achievement 
behavior. Similar achievement goals may 
therefore differ in meaning as a function of 
the reason they serve and—by extension— 
these similar achievement goals can be tied 
to different mechanisms and produce differ -
ent effects. For instance, a mastery-  approach 
goal endorsed with a sense of choice and 
interest is arguably more adaptive in terms 
of achievement-  relevant outcomes than a 