ORIGINAL PAPER

Achievement goals and self-talk in physical education:The moderating role of perceived competence

Nikos Zourbanos • Athanasios Papaioannou •

Evaggelia Argyropoulou • Antonis Hatzigeorgiadis

Published online: 2 October 2013

� Springer Science+Business Media New York 2013

Abstract Self-talk plays a key role in performance and

self-regulation. One of the antecedents that may influence

individual’s self-talk are achievement goal orientations.

Three studies of 628, 313 and 1,169 participants were

conducted to examine the relationships between positive

and negative self-talk, perceived competence and achieve-

ment goals using two theoretical models of achievement

goals. The participants completed the Automatic Self-Talk

Questionnaire for Sports, the Task and Ego Orientation in

Physical Education, the physical self-perception profile, and

the Achievement Goal Questionnaire-Revised. The results

revealed additive and interactive effects of achievement

goals and perceived competence on students’ positive and

negative self-talk. Overall, the results stressed the potential

role of achievement goals and perceived competence as

personal factors that influence students’ self-talk.

Keywords Motivation � Thoughts � Students

Introduction

Almost ninety-six percent of adults talk to themselves

(Winsler et al. 2006), engaging in what is called internal

dialogue, inner speech, self-statement, inner conversation,

subvocal speech, self-verbalizations or self-talk (Winsler

2009). These concepts of internalization vary from theory

to theory (Guerrero 2005; Larrain and Haye 2012) playing

a key role in human processes and self-regulation (Mei-

chenbaum 1977; Berk 1992). Meichenbaum viewed self-

statements as indices of an individual’s beliefs that may

play a mediational role in performance. Very recently

Hatzigeorgiadis et al. (2011) used a meta-analytic approach

to reveal a positive moderate effect size (ES = .48), which

supports the facilitative effects of self-talk on sport task

performance. Self-talk is the term that has prevailed in

sport and physical activity literature for the description of

self-statements, and is the one that we will be using in this

paper.

Despite the recent growth of self-talk research in sport,

the lack of theoretical background in the self-talk literature

is evident (for review see, Theodorakis et al. 2012). Hardy

et al. (2009) proposed a conceptual model for the

advancement of the field. According to Hardy et al.’s

model, personal and situational factors influence athletes’

self-talk, which in turn has an impact on cognitive, moti-

vational, behavioral and affective mechanisms and subse-

quently on their sport performance. More specifically,

personal antecedents consist of factors such as the indi-

vidual’s cognitive processing preferences, his/her’s belief

in self-talk and his/her personality, anxiety and achieve-

ment goal orientations (e.g., Harwood et al. 2004; Hatzi-

georgiadis and Biddle 2002). Situational antecedents, on

the other hand, consist of factors such as task difficulty,

match circumstances, coaching behaviour and competitive

setting (for more details on the model see Hardy et al.

2009). Conroy and Metzler (2004) and Zourbanos et al.

(2006) suggested that determining the origins of self-talk

should become a priority in sport psychology research

(Zourbanos et al. 2007). Furthermore, Hardy et al. (2009)

noticed that ‘‘While both self-concept and forms of anxiety

may be antecedents of self-talk, preliminary evidence

suggests that a motivation-based personality disposition,

achievement goal orientation, might be another’’ (p. 41),

stressing the importance of examining goal orientations as

N. Zourbanos (&) � A. Papaioannou � E. Argyropoulou �A. Hatzigeorgiadis

University of Thessaly, Trikala, Greece

e-mail: nzourba@pe.uth.gr

123

Motiv Emot (2014) 38:235–251

DOI 10.1007/s11031-013-9378-x

personal antecedents of self-talk. The main objective of the

present research was to bridge the gap between self-talk

and achievement goals using two theoretical models of

achievement goals, which are presented below.

Achievement Goal Theory (AGT)

AGT is a central theoretical framework in the literature often

used by researchers and sport psychologists to investigate

why some individuals are more driven than others in sport

and physical activity (e.g., Roberts et al. 2007). Achievement

goals were primarily examined with the use of a dichoto-

mous model that distinguished between two types of goals,

namely task and ego (Nicholls 1984) or learning and per-

formance goals (Dweck and Leggett 1988). Task-oriented

individuals adopt self-referenced criteria to define success,

focus on mastery, use effective cognitive strategies to master

a task, are intrinsically motivated, give high value to effort

and seek for personal improvement (e.g., Roberts et al.

2007). On the other hand, ego-oriented individuals evaluate

success through the comparison of their ability with that of

other people, focus on outperforming others, value high the

normative ability and pursue the exhibition of high norma-

tive ability. In their review of studies in physical activity,

Biddle et al. (2003) concluded that task orientation was a

significant predictor of enjoyment, satisfaction, intrinsic

motivation, positive affect and perceived competence and

that ego orientation significantly predicted cognitive anxi-

ety, stress and cognitive interference.

In the following years, Elliot and his colleagues modi-

fied the dichotomous model by proposing a trichotomous

model that also included mastery, performance approach,

and performance avoidance goals (e.g., Elliot and Church

1997) and then a 2 9 2 model that included mastery

approach, mastery avoidance, performance approach and

performance avoidance goals (e.g., Elliot and McGregor

2001). In the sport literature, based on the 2 9 2 frame-

work, Papaioannou et al. (2012) revealed in their review

that mastery approach goals were connected to the most

desirable motivational outcomes in sport and physical

education, while performance approach goals were asso-

ciated with fewer but still positive motivational outcomes.

Correspondingly, avoidance goals presented the less

adaptive patterns of motivation and behavior.

Recently Hulleman et al. (2010) indicated that there is

lack of clarity between theory and measurement consis-

tency in achievement goal literature. They noted that the

relationships between achievement goals and educational

outcomes vary significantly depending on the content of

items used to measure the achievement goals, resulting in

confusing results, which has implications both on practi-

tioners and on the motivational science as well. Similarly,

in sport literature, Roberts et al. (2007) and Papaioannou

et al. (2012) have argued that the differences between

Nicholls’ and Elliot’s conceptualization have led to

inconsistent findings due to measurement issues (Elliot and

Murayama 2008), with many questions still remaining

unanswered in competitive sport and physical education

settings (e.g., Harwood et al. 2008). For example, the

concept of different definitions of success is inherent in the

conceptualization and measurement of achievement goals

in Nicholls’ theory but is not considered at all in that of

Elliot. Papaioannou et al. (2012) noticed that high levels of

motivation occur when task accomplishment conveys a

meaning that is tied to an individual’s long-term major

outcome in life, which he/she defines as success. Another

example concerns the recognition of Papaioannou et al.

(2012) and Roberts and Kristiansen (2012) that the stan-

dards to evaluate mastery are not specific in the wording of

mastery approach items which are similar to the ‘‘do-your-

best goals’’, which have been criticized by goal-setting

researchers (Locke and Latham 1990) (e.g., ‘‘My goal is to

learn as much as possible’’ in Elliot and Murayama 2008;

‘‘to answer a lot of questions correctly on the exams of this

class’’ in Elliot et al. 2011). Moreover, these items do not

necessarily connote that the organism is committed to

achieve the described goals, which is considered a basic

feature of goals (Hulleman et al. 2010). Commitment and

maximum effort occur when one tries to accomplish

something personally meaningful (Papaioannou et al.

2012). On the other hand, items that associate mastery

goals with subjective feelings of success, like in Duda’s

and Nicholls’ (1992) measure, are likely to reflect that the

organism is committed to achieve something important.

Duda’s and Nicholls’ (1992) measure was based on the

conceptualization that goals are linked with experiences of

success and resulting perceptions of competence into

broader schemas that determine consistency of behavior

across different achievement settings (cf. Kaplan and

Maehr 2007; Papaioannou et al. 2012). Elliot (2005) and

Elliot and Murayama (2008) disassociated the objective of

goal pursuit from the reasons that normative or subjective

standards of competence are chosen and the associated

achievement related processes.

These differences in conceptualization and item con-

struction suggest that adaptive motivational outcomes

might have a stronger association with task goals than with

mastery approach goals. A critical difference between the

original dichotomous and the subsequent 2 9 2 model

concerns the role of perceived competence when individ-

uals encounter performance difficulties (Elliot and Dweck

1988). According to Nicholls (1984), individuals espousing

high ego goals exhibit adaptive or maladaptive motiva-

tional patterns, depending on if they have high or low

perceived competence, respectively. It has to be noticed

that it was originally predicted that the negative effects of

236 Motiv Emot (2014) 38:235–251

123

ego orientation would occur when the individual encoun-

tered performance difficulties which led them to question

their ability (Nicholls 1984). In the 2 9 2 model perceived

competence has additive effects, irrespective of individu-

als’ goals (e.g., Elliot and Church 1997).

Achievement goals and thoughts

In general two different research approaches are evident in

the self-talk literature in sport. The first refers to self-talk as a

cognitive strategy focusing on the beneficial effects of self-

talk on performance enhancement (e.g., Mallett and Hanra-

han 1997). The second approach examines self-talk in the

form of automatic thoughts exploring the factors that shape

and influence athletes’ self-talk content (e.g., Zourbanos

et al. 2010; Zourbanos et al. 2011). As stated above one of the

personal antecedents that influences individual’s self-talk

are the achievement goal orientations. Regarding research on

the relation between achievement goals and thoughts in

sport, Hatzigeorgiadis and Biddle (1999) revealed that task

orientation was negatively related to disengagement

thoughts, irrespective of perceptions of competence. Fur-

thermore, athletes with a lower perceived competence ego

orientation were reported to be positively related to experi-

encing disengagement thoughts, whereas in athletes with a

higher perceived competence no relationship between ego

orientations and disengagement thoughts was shown. In

another study, Hatzigeorgiadis and Biddle (2002) found that

athletes with a high ego and a low task orientation goal were

more vulnerable to disengagement thoughts than athletes

with different goal profiles. However, no consistent differ-

ences between the two goal profiles emerged concerning

worrying thoughts. Finally, regarding the relationships

between perceived competence and cognitive interference

(negative thoughts), Hatzigeorgiadis and Biddle (2000)

revealed low but significant relationships. Overall, the

results of the above studies seem to suggest that task orien-

tation has more positive outcomes on the individual’s

thought patterns, whereas ego orientation depends more on

other personal factors such as perceived competence or sit-

uational factors, which can lead to failure (Nicholls 1984).

Nevertheless, all of the above studies have measured

negative thoughts using the Thought Occurrence Ques-

tionnaire for Sport-TOQS (Hatzigeorgiadis and Biddle

2000). Recently, Zourbanos et al. (2009) developed the

Automatic Self-Talk Questionnaire for Sports-ASTQS for

the evaluation of athletes’ automatic thoughts. This ques-

tionnaire is more comprehensive and different to the TOQS

in two ways: (a) it measures four underlying factors of

negative thoughts (adding somatic fatigue) instead of three

(worry, disengagement, and irrelevant thoughts) and

(b) additionally to the athletes’ negative thoughts, it also

measures four positive ones (psych up, confidence, anxiety

control and instruction). So far, only one study has exam-

ined the relationship between goal orientations and positive

self-talk, but seeing it as a mental strategy (Harwood et al.

2004) and not as a content of thought (for the distinction

between self-talk as mental strategy and self-talk as a

content of thought, see Theodorakis et al. 2012). They

revealed that athletes with higher task and moderate ego

orientations reported more positive thinking than both

athletes with lower task and moderate ego orientations and

athletes with moderate task and lower ego goal orienta-

tions. Furthermore, all the above mentioned studies

examined athletes’ self-talk and little research has been

conducted in other fields such as physical education set-

tings. Finally, the majority of the studies have used the

dichotomous model, investigating the relationships

between task and ego goals and thoughts. Therefore, it

would be interesting to examine the relationships of

thoughts with mastery and performance approach and

avoidance goals (Elliot and Murayama 2008).

Expanding upon the studies of Hatzigeorgiadis and

Biddle and also based on the theoretical postulations of

self-talk (Hardy et al. 2009) and on Hulleman et al.’s

(2010) meta-analysis in mainstream psychology and Pa-

paioannou et al.’s (2012) review in sport literature about

Elliot and Nicholls’ differences that are reflected in the

conceptualization and measurement, three studies were

conducted aimed to examine more elaborately the rela-

tionships between achievement goals, perceived compe-

tence and student’s thoughts. It has to be noticed that this

study is one of the first in the sport literature to really

address this issue in relation to athletes’ self-talk. The first

study examined the relationships between achievement

goals, perceived competence and student’s thoughts by

using the dichotomous framework. She second study re-

examined the relationships of the first study using the

2 9 2 framework. Finally, taking into consideration Har-

wood et al.’s (2008) suggestions that research should

examine the moderating role of perceived competence on

the relationship between achievement goals and psycho-

logical outcomes such as self-talk, the aim of the third

study was to examine the interaction between perceived

competence and achievement goals using both achieve-

ment goal frameworks on students’ self-talk using multi-

group path analysis.

Study 1

In the first study we examined students’ thoughts in PE

during play with high and low sport achievers and we

developed hypotheses based on theories of intrinsic moti-

vation and anxiety (e.g., Csikszentmihaly 1975) and pre-

vious findings in physical education related to this scenario

Motiv Emot (2014) 38:235–251 237

123

(Papaioannou 1995). We have to notice that the Greek

curriculum is competitive sport focused, while both in the

curriculum and in its implementation the major emphasis is

on the most popular sports in Greece, football, basketball

and volleyball, and less emphasis on athletics and gym-

nastics (Papaioannou et al. 2007, 2008). Specifically we

assumed that (a) students’ negative self-talk (e.g., worry)

would be more frequent but confidence-related self-state-

ments would be less frequent when playing against the

most competent student in a particular sport than during

playing with the least competent student. We also expected

that students would find more challenging to play against

high achievers and therefore would score higher in psych

up in comparison to play against low achievers. Based on

assumptions of AGT and the preliminary findings of Hat-

zigeorgiadis and Biddle (1999, 2002) it was hypothesized

that (b) task orientation would be positively related to

students’ positive self-talk dimensions and negatively to

students’ negative self-talk dimensions. Based on reviews

of research in sport suggesting a low positive association of

ego goals with various negative cognitive processes (e.g.,

Duda and Hall 2001), (c) a low relationship between ego

goals and positive self-talk was expected. Moreover based

on theories of competence and motivation (e.g., Harter

1978; White 1959) it was expected that (d) perceived

competence would positively correlate with positive self-

talk dimensions, but would negatively correlate with neg-

ative self-talk dimensions.

Method

Participants and procedure

Participants were 628 students (325 females and 303

males) with a mean age of 14.49 years (SD = .50) who

attended physical education classes located in a city in

central Greece. Each student assented to participate and

provided written informed consent via a parent/guardian.

Confidentiality and anonymity were assured throughout.

Finally, instructions aimed at minimizing socially desirable

responses were emphasized. The order of the question-

naires was counterbalanced. The questionnaires were

completed under the supervision of one of the authors.

Permission to conduct the study was obtained by the

institution’s research ethics committee.

Measures

Self-Talk in PE An adapted version of the Automatic Self-

Talk Questionnaire for Sports—ASTQS (Zourbanos et al.

2009) in PE was administered to assess students’ self-talk.

The instrument consists of 40 items assessing four positive

(19 items) and four negative (21 items) ST dimensions.

Positive self-talk consists of the dimensions of confidence

(e.g., I believe in myself), anxiety control (e.g., Keep

calm), psych up (e.g., Do your best), instruction (e.g.,

Concentrate on what you have to do right now). Negative

self-talk consists of the dimensions of worry (e.g., I will

lose), disengagement (e.g., I want to quit), somatic fatigue

(e.g., I feel tired) and irrelevant thoughts (e.g., I am hun-

gry). Participants were instructed to bring in their minds

the most usual sport, game or activity that they play in the

physical education lesson. Then they were asked to write

down the game. After that they were told to imagine that

they were playing against the most competent student in

their age in this particular sport, game or activity. Fur-

thermore, they were asked to recall their self-talk again but

this time to imagine that they were playing against the least

competent student in their age in this particular sport, game

or activity. Finally, in both situations, they were told to

indicate the frequency of thoughts that they usually expe-

rience or intentionally use while performing against the

best/worst students in this sport, game or activity on a

5-point scale (0 = never, 4 = very often). Zourbanos et al.

(2009, 2010, 2011) has supported the psychometric integ-

rity of the ASTQS. In this study, Cronbach’s alpha coef-

ficients for both situations are displayed in Table 1.

Achievement goals in PE Task and Ego Orientation in

Physical Education Questionnaire (TEOPEQ). This

instrument (Duda and Nicholls 1992; Walling and Duda

1995), which has been used widely in Greece, has been

adapted for physical education classes and has been shown

to have very good psychometric properties (e.g., Biddle

et al. 2003; Duda and Whitehead 1998; Papaioannou and

MacDonald 1993; Marsh et al. 2006). Following the stem

‘‘I feel most successful in physical education when…’’),

students respond to the seven task-oriented items (e.g. ‘‘I

learn something that is fun to do’’) and six ego-oriented

items (e.g. ‘‘The others can’t do as well as me’’) of the

instrument. Students respond to a 5-point Likert scale

(1 = Strongly disagree, 5 = Strongly agree). Cronbach’s

alpha coefficients are displayed in Table 1.

Perceived competence This subscale is part of the five-

scale physical self-perception profile developed by Fox and

Corbin (1989). It consists of six items (e.g. ‘‘Some people

feel that they are among the best when it comes to athletic

ability’’) and has been used several times in Greek physical

activity settings and exhibits good psychometric properties

(e.g. Papaioannou et al. 2006). Students responded to a

5-point scale (1 = Not at all like me, 5 = Very much like

me to). Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the perceived

competence subscale is displayed in Table 1.

238 Motiv Emot (2014) 38:235–251

123

Analysis

The 40 items of ASTQS were screened by the investigators

and two physical educators, each of whom evaluated the

wording and the applicability of the items in PE. Based on

their recommendations the ASTQS was used in the current

study with minor rewording (only one item was changed

from the ASTQS: ‘‘What will others think of my poor

performance’’ to ‘‘What will the teacher think of my poor

performance’’) to be more suitable for the specific context

of the study. The factor structure of the self-talk dimen-

sions in PE were tested through confirmatory factor ana-

lysis (CFA) using the EQS 6.1 (Bentler and Wu 2004).

Three alternative models were tested. One where the ori-

ginal eight-factor structure was tested with the eight factors

allowed to correlate, a 2-factor model where all positive

self-talk items were set to load on a single positive factor

and all negative self-talk items were set to load on a single

negative factor (the two factors were allowed to correlate)

and a 10-factor model where the four positive self-talk

factors were set to form a second-order positive self-talk

factor, and the four negative self-talk factors were set to

form a second-order negative self-talk factor. To examine

whether the Chi square values differed significantly

between the 3 models, the Satorra and Bentler’s scaled

difference qui-square test was conducted (Satorra and

Bentler 2001; Crawford and Henry 2003). Four fit indices

were used to assess the adequacy of the tested model,

which have been shown to be more accurate at rejecting

misspecified models (for review see, Martens 2005): the

Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Incremental Fit Index

(IFI), the Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI), and the Root

Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA).

Results and conclusions

Model parameters were estimated based on the covariance

matrix and using the robust method, because examination

of the descriptive statistics revealed small deviations from

univariate normality for some of the items (kurtosis[2.0).

The results provided adequate support for the eight-factor

model, but not for the two-factor model and the ten-factor

model. Factor loadings for the eight-factor model ranged

from .46 to .77 and for the two-factor model ranged from

.28 to .73. The correlation between the two factors was

-.54. The results provided supportive evidence for the

construct validity of the ASTQS in PE.1

To further assess the construct validity of ASTQS, eight

dependent t-tests with Bonferroni adjustment were performed

to examine significant differences between the self-talk

Ta

ble

1S

tud

y1

(n=

62

8)

Su

bsc

ales

M±

SD

aM

±S

Db

ta1

a20

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

91

01

1

01

.P

sych

up

3.2

5±

.81

3.1

3±

.94

3.6

1*

**

.82

.84

–.7

7*

*.5

5*

*.8

0*

*2

.18

**

2.3

8*

*2

.21

**

2.1

6*

*.3

4*

*.1

0*

.22

*

02

.In

stru

ctio

n3

.02

±.8

82

.95

±.9

82

.09

.84

.85

.73

**

–.6

3*

*.7

5*

*2

.13

**

2.3

1*

*2

.15

**

2.1

7*

*.3

5*

*.1

4*

*.2

8*

*

03

.A

nx

iety

con

tro

l2

.78

±.8

62

.71

±1

.04

1.7

2.6

4.7

5.5

0*

*.5

4*

*–

.53

**

2.0

62

.12

**

2.0

62

.06

.18

**

.07

.14

**

04

.C

on

fid

ence

2.9

5±

.88

3.1

1±

.91

-4

.64

**

*.8

4.8

4.7

1*

*.7

3*

*.5

0*

*–

2.3

1*

*2

.40

**

2.3

0*

*2

.16

**

.34

**

.16

**

.33

**

05

.W

orr

y1

.56

±.8

9.8

9±

.79

21

.83

**

*.7

9.8

3-

.35

**

-.2

6*

*-

.16

**

-.5

0*

*–

.62

**

.76

**

.41

**

2.1

3*

*2

.09

*2

.20

**

06

.D

isen

gag

emen

t.8

9±

.87

.76

±.8

04

.03

**

*.8

0.7

6-

.51

**

-.4

1*

*-

.22

**

-.4

9*

*.6

1*

*–

.66

**

.54

**

2.3

0*

*2

.07

2.2

2*

*

07

.S

om

atic

fati

gu

e1

.23

±.7

8.7

1±

.83

14

.31

**

*.7

9.8

0-

.31

**

-.2

4*

*-

.10

*-

.35

**

.59

**

.61

**

–.5

5*

*2

.18

**

2.1

1*

*2

.21

**

08

.Ir

rele

van

tth

ou

gh

ts1

.28

±.8

51

.14

±.9

24

.61

**

*.5

6.6

6-

.27

**

-.2

2*

*-

.09

*-

.21

*.2

7*

*.5

2*

*.5

4*

*–

2.1

8*

*2

.03

2.1

4*

*

09

.T

ask

3.8

7±

.68

––

.77

–.4

1*

*.4

3*

*.2

6*

*.3

8*

*-

.14

*-

.31

**

-.1

6*

-.2

7*

*–

.27

**

.35

**

10

.E

go

3.0

4±

.92

––

.84

–.1

6*

*.1

7*

*.0

8*

.18

**

-.0

6-

.06

-.0

2-

.06

.27

**

–.3

9*

*

11

.P

erce

ived

com

pet

ence

3.3

6±

.78

––

.77

–.3

7*

*.3

8*

*.2

1*

*.4

8*

*-

.28

**

-.3

2*

*-

.17

**

-.1

9*

*.3

5*

*.3

9*

*–

Des

crip

tiv

est

atis

tics

,P

ears

on

’sco

rrel

atio

ns

and

Cro

nb

ach

’sal

ph

aco

effi

cien

tsfo

ral

lsu

bsc

ales

Inn

orm

alch

arac

ters

are

pre

sen

ted

the

corr

elat

ion

sfo

rth

esi

tuat

ion

pla

yin

gw

ith

the

bes

t,W

ith

bo

ldch

arac

ters

are

pre

sen

ted

the

corr

elat

ion

sfo

rth

esi

tuat

ion

pla

yin

gw

ith

the

wo

rst

aM

ean

san

dst

and

ard

dev

iati

on

so

fse

lf-t

alk

wh

enp

layi

ng

wit

hth

eb

est

bM

ean

san

dst

and

ard

dev

iati

on

so

fse

lf-t

alk

wh

enp

layi

ng

wit

hth

ew

ors

t

*p

\0

.05

;*

*p\

0.0

1;

**

*p\

0.0

01

1 The results from the CFAs are available upon request from the first

author.

Motiv Emot (2014) 38:235–251 239

123

dimensions in the two situations (playing with the best student

vs. playing with the worst student). The results were in

accordance with hypothesis (a). Significant differences were

observed for the negative self-talk dimensions revealing that

students experience higher negative self-talk referring to

worry, disengagement, somatic fatigue and irrelevant

thoughts when they play against the best student than when

they play against the worst student. Non-significant differ-

ences were observed for positive self-talk referring to

instruction and anxiety control, but significant differences

were observed for self-talk referring to psych up and confi-

dence showing that students exhibit more psych up and less

confidence statements when they play against the best student

than when they play against the worst student.

In sum, the results of the eight-factor model showed

good internal consistency except from the irrelevant

thoughts factor. Similar result was also found in in Zo-

urbanos et al.’s (2010) study. In general, ASTQS in PE

showed factorial and structure validity, as well as dis-

criminant validity.

Means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alpha coeffi-

cients and correlations between goal orientations, per-

ceived competence and students’ self-talk dimensions are

reported in Table 1. In general, in accordance with

hypothesis (b) correlation analyses revealed moderate

relationships between task goal and students’ positive self-

talk dimensions. The results were in accordance with

hypothesis (c) showing low positive relationships between

ego goal and positive self-talk dimensions and non-sig-

nificant relationships between ego and negative self-talk

dimensions. Finally in accordance with hypothesis (d) the

results revealed perceived competence had positive rela-

tionship with positive self-talk dimensions and negative

relationship with negative self-talk dimensions.

Study 2

The purpose of the second study was to investigate the

relationship of achievement goals and self-talk as they are

measured with the AGQ-R and the ASTQS. Following the

same reasoning with that in Study 1 and based on meta-

analysis of findings concerning the relationship of various

cognitions with mastery and performance approach and

avoidance goals in sport and physical education (Papa-

ioannou et al. 2012) it was hypothesized that (a) mastery

approach goal and (b) performance approach goal would be

positively related to students’ positive self-talk dimensions

and negatively to students’ negative self-talk dimensions,

and (c) mastery avoidance goal and (d) performance

avoidance goal would be negatively related to students’

positive self-talk dimensions and positively to students’

negative self-talk dimensions.

Method

Participants and procedure

Participants were 313 students (151 females and 162

males) aged 12 (SD = .48) years old who attended phys-

ical education classes (elementary school) located in a city

in central Greece. Similar procedures with study 1 were

followed.

Measures

Self-Talk in PE We distributed the ASTQ-PE that was used

in Study 1. However, here we examined only self-talk

during play with the most competent student. The ASTQ-

PE demonstrated acceptable internal consistency (apart

from irrelevant thoughts’ factor, see Table 2).

Achievement goals in PE Following the stem ‘‘In the

Physical Education class…’’ students responded to the

items of the Achievement Goal Questionnaire-Revised

(AGQ-R; Elliot and Murayama 2008). Mastery approach

items include, ‘‘My aim is to completely master the

material presented in this class’’, Performance approach

items include, ‘‘My aim is to perform well relative to other

students’’, Mastery avoidance item include, ‘‘My aim is to

avoid learning less than I possibly could’’, and Perfor-

mance avoidance items include, ‘‘My aim is to avoid doing

worse than other students’’. Ratings are made on a five-

point Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly

agree). The alpha coefficients in the present study are

reported in Table 2). The questionnaire was translated from

the English to the Greek language and back. More spe-

cifically, a bilingual translator familiar with the theoretical

concepts of achievement goals translated the instrument. A

back-translation was carried out by two translators. One of

them completed a ‘‘blind’’ back-translation, which means

that the blind translator was not familiar with the theoret-

ical concepts of achievement goals, in contrast to the other

translator who was. Discrepancies were finally decided by

the three translators.

Perceived competence To assess students’ perceived

competence we used the same measure as in study 1.

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the perceived competence

is displayed in Table 2.

Analysis

The factor structure of the achievement goals was tested

through CFA using the EQS 6.1 (Bentler and Wu 2004).

Three alternative models were tested. In Model 1 (M1) the

original four-factor structure was tested, with the four

factors allowed to correlate. Model 2 (M2) was a trichot-

omous model, in which the performance-approach and

240 Motiv Emot (2014) 38:235–251

123

performance-avoidance items loaded on their respective

latent factors, and the mastery-approach and mastery-

avoidance items loaded together on a third latent factor.

Model 3 (M3) was also a trichotomous model in which the

mastery approach and performance approach items loaded

on their respective latent factors, and the mastery-avoid-

ance and performance-avoidance items loaded together on

a third latent factor. Finally, the factor structure of ASTQS

in PE was re-tested. Four fit indices as in Study 1 were

used to assess the adequacy of the tested model.

Results and conclusion

Confirmatory factor analyses

Model parameters were estimated based on the covariance

matrix and using the robust method, because examination

of the descriptive statistics revealed moderate deviations

from univariate normality for some of the items (kurtosis

[2.49). To examine whether the Chi square values dif-

fered significantly between M1 and M2 and between M1

and M3, the Satorra and Bentler’s scaled difference qui-

square test was conducted (Satorra and Bentler 2001;

Crawford and Henry 2003). The results provided adequate

support for the four-factor model (M1), which was superior

to the trichotomous model (M2) and the trichotomous

model (M3 Factor loadings for the four-factor (M1) ranged

from .43 to .73. In conclusion the results provided adequate

support for the factor structure of the AGQ-R in the PE

settings.2

Correlation analyses

Means, standard deviations, Cronbach’s alpha coefficients

and correlations between achievement goals, perceived

competence and students’ self-talk dimensions are reported

in Table 2. In general, the results were in accordance with

hypotheses (a) and (b) revealing low positive relationships

of mastery and performance approach goals with students’

positive self-talk dimensions and negative with students’

negative self-talk. However, it has to be noticed that from

the positive self-talk dimensions both mastery and per-

formance approach were not related to anxiety control.

Whereas from the negative self-talk dimensions, mastery

approach was not related to somatic fatigue and irrelevant

thoughts and performance approach was not related to

disengagement and irrelevant thoughts. In order to com-

pare the relationships between task goal and positive self-

talk and mastery goal and positive self-talk, we used the

Fisher r-to-z transformation for independent rs. If ra

Ta

ble

2S

tud

y2

(n=

31

3)

Su

bsc

ales

M±

SD

a0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

91

01

11

21

3

01

.P

sych

up

3.3

9±

.72

.81

–

02

.In

stru

ctio

n3

.22

±.7

1.7

7.7

1*

*–

03

.A

nx

iety

con

tro

l2

.73

±.8

1.5

7.2

5*

*.3

3*

*–

04

.C

on

fid

ence

3.2

1±

.71

.76

.75

**

.71

**

.29

**

–

05

.W

orr

y1

.34

±.7

6.7

7-

.36

**

-.3

3*

*-

.13

*-

.45

**

–

06

.D

isen

gag

emen

t.6

8±

.75

.78

-.4

9*

*-

.41

**

-.0

8-

.45

**

.58

**

–

07

.S

om

atic

fati

gu

e1

.09

±.7

7.7

3-

.33

**

-.2

8*

*-

.11

-.3

4*

*.5

6*

*.5

6*

*–

08

.Ir

rele

van

tth

ou

gh

ts1

.23

±.8

1.5

2-

.19

**

-.2

1*

*-

.12

*-

.17

**

.35

**

.44

**

.53

**

–

09

.M

aste

ryap

pro

ach

4.2

1±

.63

.53

.20

**

.23

**

.03

.14

**

-.1

3*

-.1

8*

*-

.07

-.1

0–

10

.P

erfo

rman

ceap

pro

ach

3.6

7±

.89

.64

.16

**

.22

**

.01

.27

**

-.1

7*

*-

.11

-.1

6*

-.0

2.1

4*

–

11

.M

aste

ryav

oid

ance

2.6

6±

1.1

5.7

1-

.05

-.0

4-

.05

-.0

1.0

3.0

4-

.04

-.0

5-

.02

.01

–

12

.P

erfo

rman

ceav

oid

ance

3.5

9±

1.1

7.7

2-

.07

.11

.07

.08

-.0

2-

.10

-.1

0*

-.0

4.0

4.3

2*

*.3

1*

*–

13

.P

erce

ived

com

pet

ence

3.5

9±

.74

.71

.32

**

.33

**

.06

.39

**

-.2

4*

*-

.20

**

-.1

9*

*-

.13

*.1

6*

.37

**

.06

.14

*–

Des

crip

tiv

est

atis

tics

,P

ears

on

’sco

rrel

atio

ns

and

Cro

nb

ach

’sal

ph

aco

effi

cien

tsfo

ral

lsu

bsc

ales

*p

\0

.05

;*

*p\

0.0

1

2 The results from the CFAs are available upon request from the first

author.

Motiv Emot (2014) 38:235–251 241

123

(relationships between task goal and positive self-talk

dimensions) is greater than rb (relationships between mas-

tery goal and positive self-talk dimensions), the resulting

value of z will have a positive sign. The results showed that

the relationships between mastery goal and self-talk were

of a lower magnitude in comparison to the relationships

between task goal and self-talk (z scores ranged between

3.25 and 3.73, p \ .001, for all the positive self-talk

dimensions). Furthermore, the results were not in accor-

dance with hypothesis (c) and (d) revealing non-significant

relationships between mastery and performance avoidance

and positive and negative self-talk (only performance

avoidance was negatively related to somatic fatigue

dimension). Finally, the results were in accordance with

Study 1 findings revealing that perceived competence had

moderate positive correlations with athletes’ positive self-

talk dimensions (only the anxiety control dimension was

not related to perceived competence), whereas perceived

competence had moderate negative correlations with ath-

letes’ negative self-talk dimensions. Furthermore, mastery

approach and performance avoidance had low positive

relationships with perceived competence, performance

approach had moderate positive relationship with per-

ceived competence and mastery avoidance had non-sig-

nificant relationship.

In general the results of Study 2 re-confirmed the rela-

tionships between achievement goals, self-talk and per-

ceived competence. We suspected that the weaker

correlations of mastery approach goals with self-talk were

due to different conceptualization and measurement of

achievement goals between Elliot’s and Nicholls’ models

(Papaioannou et al. 2012). In order to investigate it further

we decided to use both dichotomous and 2 9 2 models and

to investigate whether perceived competence moderates the

relationship of ego goal with self-talk as it is outlined in the

dichotomous model but not in the 2 9 2 model.

Study 3

Roberts et al. (2007) consider competence as the ‘‘ener-

gizing construct of the motivational processes of achieve-

ment goal theory’’ (p. 4). In the dichotomous model

(Nicholls 1984), task goals were assumed to lead to

adaptive thoughts and behaviour in achievement situations

irrespective of an individual’s perceived competence. In

contrast, the effects of ego goals were postulated to depend

on perceived competence, that is, ego goals were suggested

to lead to adaptive patterns of behavior when perceived

competence is high, whereas in cases where perceived

competence is low, ego goals were assumed to lead to

maladaptive behavior, when performance difficulties are

encountered. Nicholls’ (1984, 1989) in his original work,

described a process by which ego-involved individuals who

encounter performance difficulties gradually lose confi-

dence in their abilities and if they are unable to perform

well eventually will abandon the goal of doing better than

others and adopt the goal of avoiding a display of incom-

petence. On the contrary, individuals who do not have

doubts about their ability should not experience this decline

in perceived ability and consequent abandonment of the

goal of performing better than others.

In an experimental study using a complex task, Elliot

and Dweck (1988) found that mastery goals displayed

adaptive learning patterns regardless of perceived compe-

tence. In contrast, performance goals exhibited adaptive

patterns with high perceived competence, whereas with

low perceived competence performance goals exhibited

maladaptive patterns. More specifically noteworthy is that

in the performance approach-low ability group their self-

statements were negative such as ‘‘I’m not very good at

this’’. In another study Kaplan and Midgley (1997) found

that perceived competence functioned as a moderator in the

relationship between mastery goals and learning outcomes,

but not in the relationship between performance goals and

learning outcomes. However, Elliot and Church (1997)

with the revised social-cognitive model of achievement

motivation viewed competence as an antecedent and not as

a moderator. That is, higher levels of competence are

associated with the performance approach and mastery

approach goals. Furthermore, performance avoidance goals

are predicted to develop for those who are low in perceived

competence. In some cases competence has been viewed as

a mediator as well (e.g., Cury et al. 2002). Based on the

inconsistencies in the literature and suggestions about

important differences in the theorization between the

dichotomous and 2 9 2 models which are reflected in the

measurement of achievement goals (Hulleman et al. 2010),

the purpose of the third study was to explore the moder-

ating effects of perceived competence on the relationship

between achievement goals and positive and negative self-

talk. Based on the original work by Dweck and Nicholls,

participants were told to imagine that they were playing

against the most competent student in their age in this

particular sport, game or activity in order to put themselves

into a situation with performance difficulties. Specifically

we expected, for the dichotomous model, that low per-

ceived competence and ego orientation would positively

predict negative self-talk, whereas with high perceived

competence no relationship between ego orientation and

negative self-talk would occur (Nicholls 1984; Duda and

Nicholls 1992). For the 2 9 2 model we expected that

performance approach goal and perceived competence

would have additive but not interactive effects (Papaioan-

nou et al. 2012). Furthermore, we hypothesized that low

perceived competence and mastery approach goal would

242 Motiv Emot (2014) 38:235–251

123

positively predict positive self-talk, whereas with high

perceived competence no relationship between mastery

approach goal and positive self-talk would occur. Finally,

students with low perceived competence and performance/

mastery avoidance goal would positively predict negative

self-talk, whereas for students with high perceived com-

petence performance/mastery avoidance goal would nega-

tively predict negative self-talk.

Method

Participants and procedure

Participants were 1,169 students with a mean age of

13.34 years (SD = 1.30) who attended physical education

classes located in a city in central Greece. Similar proce-

dures with studies 1 and 2 were followed.

Measures

Self-Talk in PE To assess students’ self-talk we used the

ASTQ-PE that was used in study 1 and 2. The ASTQ-PE

demonstrated good internal consistency ranging from .70 to

.81 for the negative self-talk dimensions except from ath-

letes’ irrelevant thoughts, which demonstrated low internal

consistency .56. For the purposes of the present study and

based on the low internal consistency that was also

emerged in study 1 and 2 we didn’t use the irrelevant

thoughts factor. Finally, for the positive self-talk dimen-

sions internal consistencies ranged from .82 to .83 except

from athletes’ anxiety control, which demonstrated lower

(.62), but still acceptable internal consistency.

Achievement goals in PE To assess students’ achieve-

ment goals we used the TEOPEQ as in study 1 and the

AGQ-R as in study 2. Both measures demonstrated

acceptable internal consistencies ranging for AGQ-R from

.67 to .72 and for the task and the ego orientations (TE-

OPEQ) were .78 and .84, respectively.

Perceived competence To assess students’ perceived

competence we used the same measure as in study 1 and 2.

Cronbach’s alpha coefficient for the perceived competence

subscale was .75.

Results and conclusions

Preliminary results

Means, standard deviations, and correlations between

achievement goals, perceived competence and students’

self-talk dimensions are reported in Table 3. The rela-

tionships of the third study were similar with the results of

study 1 and 2.

Multi-group path analysis

One of the ways to test for moderator effects is through

multiple-group path analysis (EQS; Bentler and Wu 2004).

To examine the hypothesized relationships between

achievement goals and students’ self-talk structural models

with latent factors were tested (for dichotomous model, see

Fig. 1 and for 2 9 2 model, see Fig. 2). In this study

ASTQS was represented by a second order 10-factor model

suggesting that the eight factors assess different self-talk

dimensions, which however, represents two broader posi-

tive and negative dimensions (for details see Zourbanos

et al. 2009). The sample was dived into groups (high:

n = 424, and low perceived competence: n = 375, top and

bottom 33 percent of the sample). The multiple-group

analysis allows investigation of moderation hypotheses

through examination of path differences in identical mod-

els tested in different conditions. In the model specification

the investigated paths are constrained to be equal and the

analysis reveals whether the constraints should be released

or not, that is whether the paths are statistically different or

not. In addition, where indications of non-normality were

identified, the Satorra and Bentler’s v2 and the respective

robust fit indices, which have been shown to work well

under non-normal distributions, were considered.

Dichotomous model

For the dichotomous model and the high perceived com-

petence group (see Fig. 1 for standardized coefficients,

regular characters) task orientation was positively related

to positive self-talk and negatively related to negative self-

talk, ego orientation was neither related to positive self-talk

nor to negative self-talk. For the low perceived competence

group (see Fig. 1 for standardized coefficients, bold char-

acters) task orientation was once more positively related to

positive self-talk and negatively related to negative self-

talk, whereas ego orientation wasn’t related to positive self-

talk but was positively related to negative self-talk. Multi-

sample analysis was calculated to test the moderation

hypothesis. The paths between task orientation/positive

self-talk and negative self-talk and ego orientation/negative

self-talk and positive self-talk were constrained to be equal

for the high perceived competence and the low perceived

competence groups, that is, it was hypothesized that for the

two groups these paths coefficients were not statistically

different. The LM test indicated that the constraint for the

path between ego orientation and negative self-talk was

significantly different (p \ .05) for the two groups. More

specifically low perceived competence and ego orientation

were positively related to negative self-talk, whereas high

perceived competence and ego orientation were not related

Motiv Emot (2014) 38:235–251 243

123

Ta

ble

3S

tud

y3

(n=

1,1

69

)

Subsc

ales

n=

1,1

69

Low

PH

igh

P01

02

03

04

05

06

07

08

09

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

M±

SD

M±

SD

M±

SD

01.

Psy

chup

3.3

0±

.79

2.9

9±

.92

3.5

8±

.60

–

02.

Inst

ruct

ion

3.1

1±

.82

2.7

8±

.90

3.4

2±

.69

.72**

–

03.

Anxie

tyco

ntr

ol

2.7

5±

.85

2.6

1±

.89

2.8

9±

.82

.44**

.49**

–

04.

Confi

den

ce3.0

5±

.84

2.6

0±

.94

3.4

5±

.63

.72**

.73**

.44**

–

05.

Worr

y1.4

7±

.85

1.7

5±

.88

1.2

0±

.80

-.3

5**

-.2

8**

-.1

5**

-.5

0**

–

06.

Dis

engag

emen

t.7

9±

.82

1.0

6±

.92

.59

±.7

3-

.47**

-.3

9**

-.1

6**

-.4

6**

.61**

–

07.

Som

atic

fati

gue

1.1

4±

.77

1.2

7±

.80

.99

±.7

5-

.39**

-.2

4**

-.1

0**

-.3

4**

.59**

.59**

–

08.

Posi

tive

self

-tal

k3.0

5±

.69

2.7

5±

.77

3.3

3±

.55

.86**

.88**

.72**

.87**

-.3

8**

-.4

4**

-.2

9**

–

09.

Neg

ativ

ese

lf-t

alk

1.1

3±

.70

1.3

6±

.74

.93

±.6

5-

.44**

-.3

6**

-.1

6**

-.5

1**

.87**

.86**

.84**

-.4

4**

–

10.

Tas

k4.0

3±

.66

3.7

8±

.71

4.2

7±

.58

.39**

.42**

.21**

.38**

-.1

9**

-.3

2**

-.1

9**

.42**

-.2

7**

–

11.

Ego

3.0

3±

.92

2.7

0±

.91

3.4

1±

.86

.13**

.16**

.06*

.17**

-.0

8**

-.0

6**

-.0

4**

.16**

-.0

7*

.24**

–

12.

Mas

tery

appro

ach

3.9

9±

.76

3.7

5±

.81

4.2

2±

.72

.22**

.24**

.05

.21**

-.1

3**

-.2

4**

-.1

5**

.21**

-.2

0**

.52**

.10**

–

13.

Per

form

ance

appro

ach

3.5

4±

.94

3.1

1±

.92

3.9

2±

.86

.21**

.24**

.08**

.27**

-.1

3**

-.1

4**

-.1

2**

.24**

-.1

5**

.21**

.39**

.23**

–

14.

Mas

tery

avoid

ance

2.7

2±

1.0

62.7

0±

.99

2.7

6±

1.1

4.0

1.0

2.0

2-

.01

.01

.03

.01

.00

.02

.02

.09**

-.0

1.0

4–

15.

Per

form

ance

avoid

ance

3.5

9±

1.0

83.4

1±

1.0

83.7

2±

1.1

1.1

1**

.10**

.10**

.08**

-.0

1-

.06

-.0

5.1

1**

-.0

4.1

1**

.19**

.12**

.29**

.31**

–

16.

Per

ceiv

edco

mpet

ence

3.4

6±

.78

3.5

8±

.44

4.2

7±

.36

.36**

.16**

.16**

.47**

-.3

1**

-.2

8**

-.1

9**

.40**

-.3

1**

.33**

.36**

.26**

.38**

.03

.12**

–

Des

crip

tive

stat

isti

csan

dP

ears

on’s

corr

elat

ions

for

all

subsc

ales

*p\

0.0

5;

**

p\

0.0

1

244 Motiv Emot (2014) 38:235–251

123

to negative self-talk. The fit indices for all models are

displayed in Table 4.

2 9 2 model

Similar procedure was followed for the 2 9 2 model. For

the high perceived competence group (see Fig. 2 for

standardized coefficients, regular characters) mastery

approach orientation was neither related to positive self-

talk nor to negative self-talk. Furthermore, performance

approach orientation was neither related to positive self-

talk nor to negative self-talk. Mastery avoidance orienta-

tion was neither related to positive nor to negative self-talk,

and performance avoidance orientation was neither related

to positive nor to negative self-talk. For the low perceived

competence (see Fig. 2 for standardized coefficients, bold

characters) mastery approach orientation was positively

related to positive self-talk and negatively related to neg-

ative self-talk, performance approach orientation was

positively related to positive self-talk and was unrelated to

negative self-talk. Mastery avoidance orientation was nei-

ther related to positive nor to negative self-talk and

performance avoidance orientation was neither related to

positive nor to negative self-talk. The paths between

mastery approach orientation/positive and negative self-

talk were constrained to be equal for the high perceived

competence and the low perceived competence groups, that

is, it was hypothesized that for the two groups these paths

coefficients were not statistically different. The LM test

indicated that the constraints for the paths between mastery

approach and positive self-talk were significantly different

(p \ .05) for the two groups. More specifically, students

with low perceived competence and mastery approach goal

was positively related to experiencing positive self-talk and

whereas students with high perceived competence no

relationship between mastery and performance approach

goal and positive self-talk was found. The fit indices for all

models are displayed in Table 4.

General discussion

The purpose of the study was twofold. First, to examine the

relationships between achievement goals, perceived

D5

D6

D3

D7

D1

D8

D2 D9

D10

D4

D11

.16*

.25*

-.01-.10

-.31*-.34*

.92*

.79*

.83*

.83*

.87*

.94*

-.05.17*

.51*

.56*.91*.93*

.98*

.91*

.63*

.73*

.97*

.92*

.78*

Negative Self-Talk

Positive Self-Talk

Somatic Fatigue

Disengagement

Worry

Confidence

Anxiety Control

Ego

Task

Psych Up

Instruction

Fig. 1 The structural model for

high perceived competence,

n = 424 (regular characters)

and low perceived competence,

n = 375 (bold characters) for

the dichotomous approach.

*p \ 0.05

Motiv Emot (2014) 38:235–251 245

123

competence and students’ self-talk dimensions using the

dichotomous and the 2 9 2 achievement goal frameworks;

and second, to investigate the moderating role of perceived

competence on the relationship between achievement goals

and students’ self-talk using multi-group path analysis. To

the best of our knowledge, this is the first examination of

the combined effects of achievement goals using both

theoretical frameworks and perceived competence on

.18*.11

D7

D8

D5

D1 D9

D2D10

D3

D11

D4D12

D6

D13

.06

.11

.01-.04

.45*

.29*

.47*

.44*

.19*

.21*

.06

.00

-.04-.06

.14

.16*

-.14.13

-.04-.03

.12-.04

.92*

.79*

.83*

.83*

.87*

.94*

-.16-.23*

.07

.31*

.91*

.93*

.98*

.92*

.63*

.73*

.97*

.91*

Negative Self-Talk

Positive Self-Talk

Somatic Fatigue

Disengagement

Worry

Confidence

Anxiety Control

Performance Avoidance

Performance Approach

Psych Up

Instruction

Mastery Avoidance

Mastery Approach

Fig. 2 The structural model for

high perceived competence,

n = 424 (regular characters)

and low perceive competence,

n = 375 (bold characters) for

the 2 9 2 model. *p \ 0.05

Table 4 Fit indices for the path models

Groups Models Satorra and Bentler’s v2/df CFI IFI NNFI RMSEA

(confidence intervals)

High perceived competence (N = 424) Dichotomous 1,569.11**/1,114 .89 .90 .89 .03 (.03–.04)

Low perceived competence (N = 375) Dichotomous 1,799.72**/1,114 .88 .88 .88 . 04 (.04–04)

Multi-group

Released 3,359.01**/2,228 .89 .89 88 .03 (.02–.03)

Constrained 3,294.02**/2,232 .89 .89 .89 .02 (.02–.03)

High perceived competence (N = 424) 2 9 2 1,452.30/1,058 .91 .91 .90 .03 (.03–.03)

Low perceived competence (N = 375) 2 9 2 1,678.77/1,058 .89 .89 .88 .04 (.04–04)

Multi-group

Released 3,121.48/2,116 .89 .90 .89 .02 (.02–.03)

Constrained 3,134.88/2,124 .89 .90 .89 .02 (.02–.03)

She robust fit indices are reported because deviations from normality were identified

** p = .00

246 Motiv Emot (2014) 38:235–251

123

positive and negative self-talk. Overall, the results pro-

vided support for the interaction between achievement

goals and perceived competence on students’ positive and

negative self-talk, through the use of path analysis.

In Study 1, in which the dichotomous framework was

adopted, task orientation was associated with positive

thoughts related to psych up, confidence, instructions and

anxiety control. Nicholls (1984) proposed that, when

individuals are task oriented, adaptive cognitive patterns

are likely to emerge. Moreover, task orientation was neg-

atively related to negative self-talk indicating that

increasing levels of task orientation were associated with

lower worry, disengagement, somatic fatigue and irrelevant

thoughts. Similar results have also been obtained for cog-

nitive anxiety in the form of worry (e.g., White and Zellner

1996). On the other hand, ego orientation was unrelated to

negative self-talk dimensions. Similar results have been

reported in literature (e.g., Biddle et al. 2003) showing that

ego orientation was not related to negative outcomes such

as anxiety, feelings of pressure and worry.

Given the equivocal results between ego orientation and

negative self-talk dimensions the aim of the second study

was to re-examine the above relationships by using the

2 9 2 framework. In general, the results of Study 2 were

similar to those of Study 1 but, as expected, the relationship

of mastery approach goals with self-talk was of a lower

magnitude than between task goal and self-talk. More

specifically, mastery and performance approach were

positively related to students’ positive self-talk dimensions

and negatively related to negative self-talk. Similar results

were reported in a recent meta-analysis (for more details

see Papaioannou et al. 2012), which revealed that mastery

and performance approach goals were related to several

adaptive outcomes such as self-esteem, effort, positive

affect and perceived competence.

In study 3, performance avoidance goals were positively

related to positive self-talk dimensions and were unrelated

to negative self-talk and mastery avoidance goals were

unrelated to positive and negative self-talk dimensions.

Urdan and Mestas (2006) found that participants had dif-

ficulty to distinguish between performance and mastery

avoidance goals and that they used approach explanations

when they responded to performance avoidance items.

Recently, Ciani and Sheldon (2010) found that athletes

who endorsed mastery avoidance goals tended to use

mastery approach explanations. These findings suggest that

children have difficulty to understand the items of perfor-

mance or mastery avoidance scales, which maybe explains

the non-significant relationships between mastery avoid-

ance goals and self-talk. In general, the moderating role of

perceived competence on the relationships between ego

goals and cognitive outcomes hasn’t always been supported

(for review see Roberts et al. 2007; Harwood et al. 2008).

Based on the original work by Dweck and Nicholls, par-

ticipants were told to imagine that they were playing

against the most competent student in their age in a par-

ticular sport, game or activity in order for them to feel they

are in a situation with performance difficulties. We sought

to address this gap in the literature by using both the

dichotomous and the 2 9 2 framework. Students with low

perceived competence had an ego orientation that was

positively related to experiencing negative self-talk,

whereas in students with high perceived competence no

relationship between ego orientations and negative self-talk

was shown. Nicholls’ (1984) moderating hypothesis was

supported when the concept of success was used to capture

an ego goal (Duda and Nicholls 1992) but not when the

definition of competence was used to capture a perfor-

mance approach goal (Elliot and Murayama 2008). Like-

wise, Papaioannou et al. (2012) reported findings

supporting the moderating role of perceived competence

between ego orientation and self-efficacy for normative

performance, when achievement goal measures were based

on Nicholls’ but not on Elliot’s approach.

These findings are in line with our predictions. Hull-

eman et al. (2010) stated that ‘‘the differing conceptual-

izations of achievement goals had a common origin in the

achievement motivation framework and consider that

researchers may have gone in different directions without

realizing it, thus at the very least researchers should

understand—theoretically-what they want to measure’’ (p.

446), highlighting the controversies in the field of

achievement goal literature. Elliot’s measures don’t cap-

ture different conceptions of success but different defini-

tions of standards used to evaluate competence. Elliot and

Murayama (2008) purposely separated ‘‘aim from reason’’

in their measurement of definition of competence. How-

ever, for Nicholls (1984, 1989) (a) the definition of com-

petence was largely a by-product of the definition of

success, (b) the association of aim with reason is central to

the individual’s decision to adopt different definitions of

success and therefore different corresponding goals and

motivational outcomes, (c) individual differences in

achievement goal adoption reflect different world views

that shape different definitions of success (Nicholls et al.

1985) and trigger different reasons for striving to accom-

plish something important (Papaioannou et al. 2012). One

should have an important reason to consistently select

subjective or normative criteria of evaluation across situ-

ations. Indeed, personality psychologists suggest that rea-

sons/values are connected to goals when individuals show

consistent behavior across situations (Mischel and Shoda

1998). Accordingly, Nicholls’ measures seem more effec-

tive to assess dispositional differences in achievement goal

adoption across situations, such as sport and school (e.g.,

Duda and Nicholls 1992) than Elliot’s, which are more

Motiv Emot (2014) 38:235–251 247

123

situation-specific (Papaioannou et al. 2012). In the current

study ego goals were assumed to reflect dispositional dif-

ferences and therefore the support of the moderating

hypothesis is in line with the original dichotomous model

which conceptualized achievement goals as something

relatively stable across situations, while the rejection of the

moderating hypothesis is in line with Elliot’s framework

that considers achievement goals as situation-specific

variables.

To exemplify this, we can consider a low perceived

athletic ability student who plays against the best student in

a particular sport. If the student is high ego-oriented, he

will like to establish his superiority in the game as this is

consistent with his notion of success in life: to establish

superiority. However, because this is too difficult for him

in the above circumstances, he is worried that he won’t be

able to achieve this goal that is so important to him/her. If

the student has a high performance approach goal he wants

to outperform others but his self-worth isn’t threatened

because it isn’t necessarily tied to the expected outcome. In

a competitive game almost all children want to win; those

students who are quick in complying with the demands of

the competitive situation (i.e., pursue performance

approach goals) might consider winning a temporary goal

but wouldn’t necessarily consider an important goal for

themselves as a person.

In accordance with previous research in sport (Hatzi-

georgiadis and Biddle 1999) and with Nicholls’ (1984)

predictions, it was also found that task orientation was

negatively related to negative self-talk irrespective of

perceptions of competence. It is important to note that task

orientation was positively related to positive self-talk

irrespective of perceptions of competence. When task ori-

ented students play with high achievers, they experience

positive thoughts irrespective of their level of abilities

because they feel that a challenging game offers them

opportunities to improve and because they enjoy their

involvement in it, which is for them the definition of suc-

cess in physical education. Regarding the 2 9 2 frame-

work, the results were different. It was revealed that for

students with low perceived competence mastery approach

goals were positively related to positive self-talk, whereas

for students with high perceived competence no relation-

ship between mastery approach goals and positive self-talk

was shown. This finding suggests that individuals with low

perceived competence think positively when they adopt

mastery approach goals because they have positive

expectancies to reach their goals, since they feel that their

achievement depends on themselves. Therefore, when they

engage in PE activities they tend to experience positive

thoughts. In other words, mastery approach goal acts as a

buffer of low perceived competence. On the other hand,

individuals with high perceived competence already have

positive expectancies to reach their goals and therefore mas-

tery approach goals that don’t set specific criteria for self-

improvement (i.e., do your best goals) don’t further increase

their challenge neither do they add something to their positive

thoughts that already exist due to high competence.

Main effects were found in performance approach goals

which were positively related to positive self-talk, irre-

spective of perceptions of competence. Also, non-signifi-

cant relationships were observed between mastery and

performance avoidance goals and self-talk, similarly to the

results of study 1 and 2.

The practical importance of this study is clear. Teachers

and parents are encouraged to promote task-involving and

mastery approach goals because this approach is more

beneficial for both the person and society (Papaioannou

et al. 2012). Our results showed that the adoption of task

and mastery approach goals was linked to the most adap-

tive patterns for students’ positive self-talk. Although the

adoption of performance approach goals wasn’t maladap-

tive for students’ positive self-talk, we don’t encourage

teachers to emphasize on performance approach goals

because it might be perceived by students as controlling

and sometimes stressful. As elite athletes have said, every

athlete knows that he/she has to win but, when the coach

tells them that they have to, they feel stress (Kristiansen

and Roberts 2010). Moreover, a high evaluative, threat-

ening and unsupportive climate might trigger avoidance

goals and negative self-talk. On the other hand, teachers

who help students to use positive self-talk to enjoy physical

education and improve their performance are more proba-

ble to create a task-involving climate and boost students’

self-esteem (Milosis and Papaioannou 2007). The use of

ASTQS items can prove important to practitioners who

want to examine whether their teaching promotes positive

thinking in their classes.

Limitations and future research

Given the exploratory nature of the present investigation,

there is a number of limitations that further research should

address. Firstly, it is important to notice that no causal link

can be inferred from the present findings. It can be spec-

ulated that achievement goals may influence cognitive

outcomes, based on the theoretical grounds of motivation

and on models of self-talk antecedents; however, it is

possible that the identified links reflect bidirectional rela-

tionships. For example, self-talk contains directions to self

about doing, the choice to do or not to do something, which

involve goal-directed actions. Furthermore, self-talk could

play a mediating role between achievement goal theory and

other cognitive, affective or behavioral responses. Experi-

mental research providing ego or task involving feedback

could give us a deeper understanding on the relationship

248 Motiv Emot (2014) 38:235–251

123

between achievement goals and self-talk. Nevertheless,

taking into consideration that no previous research has

examined this kind of relationships, the present findings

provide valuable evidence regarding the additive and

interactive effects of achievement goals, perceived com-

petence and self-talk.

Another issue that should be addressed is the retro-

spective verbal self-reports. Cognitive processes cannot be

accurately assessed through external measures since the

use of self-reports provides us with ‘metacognitive

knowledge’ only, which can help us understand percep-

tions, motives, and generally what someone is thinking

(Guerrero 2005). Although ASTQS in PE was based on the

established ASTQS, further validation in PE is required,

using discriminant validity, in order to establish its psy-

chometric properties.

In summary, the present findings suggest that both stu-

dents’ achievement goals and perceived competence may

have an impact on students’ self-talk but the effects should

be examined in relation to how goals are conceptualized

and measured. The dichotomous model is based on the

presumption that goal orientations constitute schemas

encompassing goals, experiences and perceptions of suc-

cess, perceptions of competence, and related thoughts (cf.

Mischel and Shoda 1998). This model might be further

developed by including conceptualization of avoidant

behavior and thoughts in relation to schemas connected

with perceptions of failure. Taking into account the sig-

nificant role of thoughts on performance, we hope that this

line of research will contribute to subsequent explorations

of the antecedents of self-talk and achievement behavior.

References

Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E. J. C. (2004). EQS 6 for windows user’s

guide. Encino, CA: Multivariate Software, Inc.

Berk, L. E. (1992). Children’s private speech: An overview of theory

and the status of research. In R. M. Diaz & L. E. Berk (Eds.),

Private speech: From social interaction to self-regulation (pp.

17–53). Hove: Erlbaum.

Biddle, S. J. H., Wang, C. K. J., Kavussanu, M., & Spray, C. M.

(2003). Correlates of achievement goal orientations in physical

activity: A systematic review of research. European Journal of

Sport Science, 3, 1–20. doi:10.1080/17461390300073504.

Ciani, K. D., & Sheldon, K. M. (2010). Evaluating the mastery-

avoidance goal construct: A study of elite college baseball

players. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 127–132. doi:10.

1016/j.psychsport.2009.04.005.

Conroy, D. E., & Metzler, J. N. (2004). Patterns of self-talk associated

with different forms of competitive anxiety. Journal of Sport &

Exercise Psychology, 26, 69–89.

Crawford, J. R., & Henry, J. D. (2003). The Depression Anxiety

Stress Scales: Normative data and latent structure in a large non-

clinical sample. British Journal of Clinical Psychology, 42,

111–131. doi:10.1348/014466503321903544.

Csikszentmihaly, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. Ca: Jossey

Bass.

Cury, F., Elliot, A., Sarrazin, P., Da Fonseca, D., & Rufo, M. (2002).

The trichotomous achievement goal model and intrinsic moti-

vation: A sequential mediational analysis. Journal of Experi-

mental Social Psychology, 38, 473–481. doi:10.1016/S0022-

1031(02)00017-3.

Duda, J. L., & Hall, H. (2001). Achievement goal theory in sport:

Recent extensions and future directions. In R. N. Singer, H.

A. Hausenblas & C. M. Janelle (Eds.), Handbook of Sport

Psychology (2nd ed, pp. 417–443). NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Duda, J. L., & Nicholls, J. G. (1992). Dimensions of achievement

motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational

Psychology, 84(3), 290–299.

Duda, J. L., & Whitehead, J. (1998). Measurement of goal perspec-

tives in the physical domain. In J. L. Duda (Ed.), Advances in

sport and exercise psychology measurement (pp. 21–48). Fitness

Information Technology.

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to

motivation & personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.

Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement goal

construct. In A. Elliot & C. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence

and motivation (pp. 52–72). New York: Guilford Press.

Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of

approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218–232.

Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. (2001). A 2 9 2 achievement goal

framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80,

501–519.

Elliot, A. J., & Murayama, K. (2008). On the measurement of

achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application. Jour-

nal of Educational Psychology, 100(3), 613–628. doi:10.1037/

0022-0663.100.3.613.

Elliot, A. J., Murayama, K., & Pekrun, R. P. (2011). A 3 9 2

achievement goal model. Journal of Educational Psychology,

103, 632–648.

Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to

motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 54, 5–12.

Fox, K. R., & Corbin, C. B. (1989). The physical self-perception

profile: Development and preliminary validation. Journal of

Sport & Exercise Psychology, 11, 408–430.

Guerrero, M. C. M. (2005). Inner speech-L2: Thinking words in a

second language. New York: Springer.

Hardy, J., Oliver, E., & Tod, D. (2009). A framework for the study

and application of self-talk in sport. In S. D. Mellalieu & S.

Hanton (Eds.), Advances in applied sport psychology: A review

(pp. 37–74). London: Routledge.

Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a

developmental model. Human Development, 1, 34–64.

Harwood, C. G., Cumming, J., & Fletcher, D. (2004). Motivational

profiles and psychological skills use within elite youth sport.

Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 16, 318–332. doi:10.1080/

10413200490517986.

Harwood, C. G., Spray, C. M., & Keegan, R. (2008). Achievement

goal theories in sport. In T. S. Horn (Ed.), Advances in sport

psychology (3rd ed., pp. 157–185). Champaign, IL: Human

Kinetics.

Hatzigeorgiadis, A., & Biddle, S. J. H. (1999). The effects of goal

orientation and perceived competence on cognitive interference

during tennis and snooker performance. Journal of Sport

Behavior, 22, 479–501.

Hatzigeorgiadis, A., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2000). Assessing cognitive

interference in sport: Development of the Thought Occurrence

Questionnaire for Sport. Anxiety, Stress, & Coping, 13, 65–86.

doi:10.1080/10615800008248334.

Motiv Emot (2014) 38:235–251 249

123

Hatzigeorgiadis, A., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2002). Cognitive interference

during competition among athletes with different goal orienta-

tion profiles. Journal of Sports Sciences, 20, 707–715.

Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Zourbanos, N., Galanis, E., & Theodorakis, Y.

(2011). Self-talk and sports performance: A meta-analysis.

Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(4), 348–356. doi:10.

1177/1745691611413136.

Hulleman, C. S., Schrager, S. M., Bodmann, S. M., & Harackiewicz,

J. M. (2010). A meta-analytic review of achievement goal

measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different

constructs with similar labels? Psychological Bulletin, 136,

422–449. doi:10.1037/a0018947.

Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (2007). The contributions and prospects

of goal orientation theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19,

141–184.

Kaplan, A. C., & Midgley, C. (1997). The effect of achievement

goals: Does level of perceived academic competence make a

difference. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 415–435.

Kristiansen, E., & Roberts, G. (2010). Young elite athletes and social

support: Coping with competitive and organizational stress in

‘‘Olympic’’ competition. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine and

Science in Sports, 20, 686–695. doi:10.1111/j.1600-0838.2009.

00950.x.

Larrain, A., & Haye, A. (2012). The discursive nature of inner speech.

Theory & Psychology, 22(1), 3–22. doi:10.1177/

0959354311423864.

Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and

task performance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Mallett, C. J., & Hanrahan, S. J. (1997). Race modeling: An effective

cognitive strategy for the 100 m sprinter? The Sport Psycholo-

gist, 11, 72–85.

Marsh, H. W., Papaioannou, A., Martin, A., & Theodorakis, Y.

(2006). Motivational constructs in Greek physical education

classes: Gender and age effects in a nationally representative

longitudinal sample. International Journal of Sport & Exercise

Psychology, 4, 121–148. doi:10.1080/1612197X.2006.9671789.

Martens, M. P. (2005). The use of structural equation modeling in

counseling psychology research. The Counseling Psychologist,

33, 269–298. doi:10.1177/0011000004272260.

Meichenbaum, D. (1977). Cognitive-behavior modification: An

integrative approach. New York: Plenum Press.

Milosis, D., & Papaioannou, A. (2007). Effects of interdisciplinary

teaching on multiple goals, intrinsic motivation, self-concept and

school achievement. In J. Liukkonen, Y. Wanden Auweele, B.

Vereijken, D. Alfermann, & Y. Theodorakis (Eds.), Psychology

for physical educators (Vol. 2, pp. 175–198). Champaign, IL:

Human Kinetics.

Mischel, W., & Shoda, Y. (1998). Reconciling processing dynamics

and personality dispositions. Annual Review of Psychology, 49,

229–258.

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of

ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance.

Psychological Review, 91, 328–346.

Nicholls, J. G. (1989). The competitive ethos and democratic

education. Cambridge, MA, US: Harvard University Press.

Nicholls, J. G., Patashnick, M., & Nolen, S. B. (1985). Adolescents’

theories of education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77(6),

683–692.

Papaioannou, A. (1995). Differential perceptual and motivational

patterns when different goals are adopted. Journal of Sport &

Exercise Psychology, 17, 18–34.

Papaioannou, A., Bebetsos, E., Theodorakis, Y., Christodoulidis, T.,

& Kouli, O. (2006). Causal relationships of sport and exercise

involvement with goal orientations, perceived competence and

intrinsic motivation in physical education: A longitudinal study.

Journal of Sport Sciences, 24, 367–382. doi:10.1080/

02640410400022060.

Papaioannou, A., Laparidis, K., Mihalopoulou, M., Pilianidis, T.,

Zetou, E., Goulimaris, D., et al. (2007). Physical education 2

grade of junior high school: Teachers’ book (Translation from

Greek). Athens: Greek Ministry of Education.

Papaioannou, A., Laparidis, K., Serbezis, V., Mihalopoulou, M.,

Pilianidis, T., Karipidis, A., et al. (2008). Physical education 3rd

grade of junior high school: Teachers’ book (Translation from

Greek). Athens: Greek Ministry of Education.

Papaioannou, A., & MacDonald, A. (1993). Goal perspectives and

purposes of physical education among Greek adolescents.

Physical Education Review, 16, 41–48.

Papaioannou, A. G., Zourbanos, N., Krommidas, H., & Ampatzoglou,

G. (2012). The place of achievement goals in the social context

of sport: A critique of the trichotomous and 2 9 2 models. In G.

Roberts & D. Treasure (Eds.), Motivation in sport and exercise

(3rd ed., pp. 59–90). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Roberts, G. C., & Kristiansen, E. (2012). Goal setting to enhance

motivation in sport. In G. Roberts & D. Treasure (Eds.),

Advances in motivation in sport and exercise (3rd ed.,

pp. 207–227). Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.

Roberts, G. C., Treasure, D. C., & Conroy, D. E. (2007).

Understanding the dynamics of motivation in sports and physical

activity. In G. Tenenbaum & R. Eklunds (Eds.), Handbook of

sport psychology (3rd ed., pp. 3–30). New York: Wiley.

Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2001). A scaled difference Chi square

test statistic for moment structure analysis. Psychometrika, 66,

507–514. doi:10.1007/BF02296192.

Theodorakis, Y., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., & Zourbanos, N. (2012).

Cognitions: self-talk and performance. In S. Murphy (Ed.),

Oxford handbook of sport and performance psychology. Part

two: Individual psychological processes in performance (pp.

191–212). New York: Oxford University Press.

Urdan, T., & Mestas, M. (2006). The goals behind performance goals.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 354–365. doi:10.1037/

0022-0663.98.2.354.

Walling, M. D., & Duda, J. L. (1995). Goals and their association

with beliefs about success in and perceptions of the purpose of

physical education. Journal of Teaching in Physical Education,

14, 140–156.

White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of

competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297–333.

White, S. A., & Zellner, S. R. (1996). The relationship between goal

orientation, beliefs about the causes of sport success, and trait

anxiety among high school, intercollegiate, and recreational

sport participants. Sport Psychologist, 10, 58–72.

Winsler, A. (2009). Still talking to ourselves after all these years: A

Review of current research on private speech. In A. Winsler, C.

Fernyhough, & I. Montero (Eds.), Private speech, executive

functioning, and the development of verbal self-regulation (pp.

3–41). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Winsler, A., Feder, M., Way, E., & Manfra, L. (2006). Maternal

beliefs concerning young children’s private speech. Infant and

Child Development, 15, 403–420. doi:10.1002/icd.467.

Zourbanos, N., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Chroni, S., Theodorakis, Y., &

Papaioannou, A. (2009). Automatic Self-Talk Questionnaire for

Sports (ASTQS): Development and preliminary validation of a

measure identifying the structure of athletes’ self-talk. The Sport

Psychologist, 23, 233–251.

Zourbanos, N., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Goudas, M., Papaioannou, A.,

Chroni, S., & Theodorakis, Y. (2011). The social side of self-

talk: Relationships between perceptions of support received from

the coach and athletes’ self-talk. Psychology of Sport and

Exercise, 12, 407–414. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2011.03.001.

250 Motiv Emot (2014) 38:235–251

123

Zourbanos, N., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., & Theodorakis, Y. (2007). A

preliminary investigation of the relationship between athletes’

self-talk, and coaches’ behaviour and statements. International

Journal of Sports Science and Coaching, 2(1), 57–66.

Zourbanos, N., Hatzigeorgiadis, A., Tsiakaras, N., Chroni, S., &

Theodorakis, Y. (2010). A multi-method examination of the

relationship between coaching behavior and athletes’ inherent

self-talk. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 32,

764–785.

Zourbanos, N., Theodorakis, Y., & Hatzigeorgiadis, A. (2006).

Coaches’ behavior, social support and athletes’ self-talk.

Hellenic Journal of Psychology. Special Issue: Self-Talk in

Sport Psychology, 3, 150–163.

Motiv Emot (2014) 38:235–251 251

123