Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
globdev book
Citation preview
Influence of achievement goals and self-efficacy onstudents’ self-regulation and performance
Therese Bouffard, Maryse Bouchard, Genevieve Goulet, Isabelle Denoncourt, andNathalie Couture
Universite du Quebec a Montreal, Canada
I t is widely admitted that low self-efficacy has a detrimental impact on the functioning and performance of a
person mainly concerned with performance goals but has no impact when a person is mainly concerned with
learning goals (Dweck, 1986). However, results from both correlational and experimental studies are divergent.
Since these studies examined very few indicators of participants’ cognitive functioning, they may have failed to
detect those aspects that could be more vulnerable to a negative impact of the combination of performance goals
and low self-efficacy. Another concern is the lack of most studies to clearly distinguish the type of performance
goal examined, particularly the performance-avoidance versus the performance-approach goal. In the current
study, we decided to focus on performance-approach and learning goals in order to examine how self-efficacy
intervenes in their effects on participants’ self-regulation and performance on a cognitive task. One hundred and
forty participants (85 females and 55 males) were examined. They were randomly assigned either to the learning
or the performance-approach goals condition. In each condition, half of the participants received feedback
aimed at inducing either high or low self-efficacy beliefs with regard to the task prior to executing it aloud.
Examination of participants’ verbal reports, direct observation of some of their behaviours while solving the
task, and responses to a retrospective questionnaire allowed the assessment of several indicators of their self-
regulation and performance. As already reported by many studies, self-efficacy influenced various aspects of
participants’ self-regulation and performance. However, contrary to Dweck’s hypothesis (1986), when interaction
effects between self-efficacy and goals were observed, they always involved learning instead of performance-
approach goals. Findings of this study suggest that the nature of the goal might not matter as much as its
personal significance or value.
I l est largement admis qu’un sentiment faible d’auto-efficacite a un impact negatif sur le fonctionnement et le
rendement de la personne quand elle est tres preoccupee par des buts de performance, mais pas si elle
l’est par des buts d’apprentissage (Dweck, 1986). Cependant, autant les etudes de type correlationnel
qu’experimental rapportent des resultats divergents. Comme ces etudes n’ont examine que peu d’indices du
fonctionnement cognitif des personnes, elles n’ont peut-etre pas reussi a detecter les aspects sensibles a l’impact
negatif de la combinaison des buts de performance et d’un sentiment faible d’auto-efficacite. Un autre probleme
concerne l’absence de distinction du type de but de performance examine dans la plupart de ces etudes, en
particulier le but de performance-evitement versus celui de performance-approche. Dans la presente etude, nous
avons centre notre interet sur le but de performance-approche et sur celui d’apprentissage afin d’examiner
comment le sentiment d’auto-efficacite intervient dans leurs effets sur l’autoregulation et la performance dans
une tache cognitive. Cent quarante sujets (85 femmes et 55 hommes) ont participe a l’etude. Les sujets ont ete
assignes aleatoirement a un but d’apprentissage ou de performance-approche. Dans chaque condition, un
sentiment d’auto-efficacite faible ou eleve devant la tache a aussi ete induit chez la moitie des sujets avant que la
tache soit executee a voix haute. L’examen des protocoles verbaux des sujets, l’observation directe de certains de
leurs comportements durant la tache et leurs reponses a un questionnaire retrospectif ont permis d’evaluer leur
autoregulation et leur performance. Comme l’ont montre de nombreuses etudes, l’auto-efficacite influence
plusieurs aspects de l’autoregulation et de la performance. Contrairement a l’hypothese de Dweck (1986), les
effets d’interaction observes entre le sentiment d’auto-efficacite et les buts impliquent les buts d’apprentissage et
# 2005 International Union of Psychological Science
http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/00207594.html DOI: 10.1080/00207590444000302
Correspondence should be addressed to Therese Bouffard PhD, Departement de Psychologie, Universite du Quebec a Montreal,
C.P.8888, Succ. centre-ville, Montreal, Qc, Canada, H3C 3P8 (e-mail: [email protected]).
This study was supported by a grant from The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada. The authors thank the
anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier version of this paper.
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF PSYCHOLOGY, 2005, 40 (6), 373–384
non ceux de performance-approche. Les donnees de cette etude suggerent que ce n’est peut-etre pas tant le type de
but qui importe que sa valeur ou la signification qu’il revet aux yeux de la personne.
S e ha admitido que la autoeficacia baja impacta en detrimento del funcionamiento y el desempeno de una
persona principalmente si persigue metas de rendimiento, pero que no tiene impacto si la persona persigue
metas de aprendizaje (Dweck, 1986). Sin embargo, los resultados tanto de estudios de correlacion como experi-
mentales difieren entre sı. Dado que estos estudios examinaban unos cuantos indicadores del funcionamiento
cognitivo de los participantes, tal vez no detectaron aquellos aspectos mas vulnerables al impacto negativo de la
combinacion de metas de rendimiento y la autoeficacia baja. Otra preocupacion es que la mayorıa de los estudios
no distinguıa el tipo de metas de rendimiento examinadas, particularmente la meta de rendimiento-evitacion
versus rendimiento-aproximacion. El presente estudio se centro en las metas de rendimiento-aproximacion y de
aprendizaje para examinar como la autoeficacia interviene en sus efectos sobre la autorregulacion y desempeno
de los participantes en una tarea cognitiva. Se examino a 140 participantes (85 mujeres y 55 varones). Los
participantes se habıan asignado en forma aleatoria, ya sea a la condicion con metas de aprendizaje o a una con
metas de ejecucion-aproximacion. En cada condicion, la mitad de los participantes recibıan retroinformacion
orientada a inducir ya sea creencias de autoeficacia baja o alta, con respecto a la tarea antes de ejecutarla en voz
alta. El examen de los informes verbales de los participantes, la observacion directa de algunas de sus conductas
durante la tarea y las respuestas a un cuestionario retrospectivo permitieron evaluar varios indicadores de su
autorregulacion y desempeno. Como ya lo han informado muchos estudios, la autoeficacia influyo sobre varios
aspectos de la autorregulacion y el desempeno de los participantes. Sin embargo, contrariamente a la hipotesis de
Dweck (1986), cuando se observaron los efectos de la interaccion entre la autoeficacia y las metas, estos siempre
entranaban la meta de aprendizaje en vez de la de rendimiento-aproximacion. Los hallazgos de este estudio
sugieren que la naturaleza de la meta podrıa no importar tanto como su significado o valor personal.
Recent intentional or goal-oriented theories of
achievement motivation propose that the specific
type of goals adopted by students determines their
choices, attitudes, and performance in achieve-
ment situations. Although researchers have given
different labels to these types of goals, two large
classes have been identified in the literature:
learning or task goals and performance, ability,
or ego goals (Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck, 1986;
Nicholls, 1984).
The contrast between learning and performance
goals bears on what a person is seeking to achieve
and how she values learning processes and the role
of effort. A person striving for learning goals in a
task is mainly concerned with personal develop-
ment and the acquisition of new skills and knowl-
edge. Learning processes and effort expenditure
are positively valued, and errors are not seen as
threatening but act as a spur to perseverance. A
person striving for performance goals is mainly
concerned with documenting and gaining favour-
able judgments or avoiding negative judgments
of his or her own ability. Achieving success
with low effort and outperforming others are
seen as requisite conditions towards feeling and
appearing competent. Errors and failures are
threatening because they are seen as evidence of
incompetence.
The types of superordinate goals pursued by
students are important because they elicit qualita-
tively different motivational patterns and contribute
to deliberate self-regulation in academic tasks
(Ames & Archer, 1988; Bandura, 1986; Dweck,
1986, 1991; Elliott & Dweck, 1988; Fisher & Ford,
1998; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992). Many research-
ers maintain that learning goals are adaptive
for cognitive functioning (Archer, 1994; Bell &
Zozlowski, 2002; Dweck, 1989; Jacacinski, Madden,
& Reider, 2001) and that performance goals may
lead to less positive patterns of motivation, self-
regulation, and performance, particularly when
they are combined with low self-efficacy or low
perceived ability (Ames & Archer, 1988; Archer,
1994; Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988).
According to this hypothesis, when a person is
mainly concerned with showing high competence in
a task, beliefs of inefficacy or low perceived ability
with regard to the task will have a detrimental
impact on his or her functioning and performance.
This negative impact would be due to the person’s
belief about the usefulness of effort and its
connotation with low competence, particularly
when the risk of failure is high. However, when a
person is mainly concerned with learning and
personal improvement, and believes that efforts
are a valuable means to improvement, perceived
ability should have no impact whatsoever. The
validity of this hypothesis is widely acknowledged
(Archer, 1994; Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett,
1988; Hofmann, 1993; Midgley, 1993; Schmidt &
Ford, 2003), but there are as of yet few empirical
studies that have tested it.
374 BOUFFARD ET AL.
Correlational studies examining how levels of
perceived competence intervene in the effect of
achievement goals on task motivation and perfor-mance in school settings did not provide clear
evidence. In some cases, studies reported con-
firmation of the hypothesis in a given class but not
in the other (Goudas, Biddle, & Fox, 1994; Kaplan
& Midgley, 1997). Even when they distinguished
performance-approach and work avoidance goals,
Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, and Elliot
(2000) still failed to find evidence that perceivedcompetence moderates the effect of any of these
goals. Other studies reported even more contro-
versial conclusions. Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter,
Lehto, and Elliot (1997) and Miller, Behrens,
Greene, and Newman (1993) found that low rather
than high perceived competence was more adap-
tive for students with performance goals. Miller,
Greene, Montalvo, Ravindran, and Nichols (1996)reported that having high self-efficacy was more
beneficial for students with low performance goals.
Finally, in other studies it was students with
learning goals who were negatively affected by low
self-efficacy beliefs (Kaplan & Midgley, 1997;
Miller et al. 1996; Vezeau, Bouffard, & Tetreault,
1997).
Divergent conclusions are also reported inexperimental studies that have tested whether
self-efficacy has a detrimental effect when the
person is strongly committed to performance goals
(Cury, Biddle, Sarrazin, & Famose, 1997; Elliott &
Dweck, 1988; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996;
Johnson, Perlow, & Pieper, 1993). Thus, even
under controlled conditions, the hypothesis still
lacks empirical evidence. However, these studiesexamined very few indicators of participants’
cognitive functioning, thus they may have failed
to detect those aspects that could be more vulner-
able to a negative impact of the combination of
performance goals and low self-efficacy. Another
concern is the type of performance goal induced.
According to Harackiewicz (Harackiewicz,
Barron, & Elliot, 1998; Harackiewicz et al.,2000), there was a conceptual ambiguity in the
early definitions of performance goals: They
sometimes focused on gaining positive judgments
of competence, or on avoiding unfavourable
judgments of competence, or, worse, on both at
a same time. The former type of performance goal
is now called a performance-approach goal
whereas the second is called performance-avoid-ance. Recently, authors showed that performance-
approach goals emphasizing students’ pursuit and
achievement of high standards to gain positive
judgments of competence tend to foster academic
achievement (Bouffard, Boileau, & Vezeau, 2001;
Bouffard & Couture, 2003; Church, Elliot, &
Gable, 2000; Harackiewicz et al., 1997, 2000).
With few exceptions, studies examining how self-
efficacy intervenes in the effects of performance
goals did not distinguish these types of goals, nor
did they provide the items used to assess them.
Thus, it is unclear how the conceptual ambiguity
in performance goals is involved in the diverging
conclusions. Given the potentially adaptive value
of a performance-approach goal, in this study it
was decided to test the hypothesis when this goal
was involved.
The purpose of the present study was to
examine how self-efficacy intervenes in the effects
of learning and of performance-approach goals.
Experimental manipulations were used to induce
either learning or performance-approach goals
and either high or low self-efficacy beliefs with
regard to the task in half the participants in each
goal condition. In order to focus participants’
attention on learning goals, the task was presented
as an opportunity to improve vocabulary and
comprehension skills; in order to focus partici-
pants’ attention on the performance-approach
goal, the task was presented as an opportunity
for assessing their verbal competence.
The choice of the verbal concept identification
task (see Bouffard-Bouchard, Parent, & Larivee,
1993, for a description) is based on two important
criteria: Completion of a problem does not provide
information about correctness of the response,
thus the task is suitable for manipulating self-
efficacy. The task is also suitable for thinking
aloud during execution, which should allow access
to several covert self-regulatory processes. Direct
observation of participants’ online self-regulation
during task execution and their answers to retro-
spective questions will provide additional informa-
tion about the processes used to solve the task.
Using several indicators of participants’ function-
ing should increase the likelihood of observing
whether some of them are affected by the
interaction between goals and self-efficacy beliefs.
METHOD
Participants
The sample comprised 140 college students (85
females and 55 males, mean age 5 17.8 years,
SD 5 8.6 months) recruited via an announcement
in the student newspaper. They were offered $10 as
compensation for coming to the laboratory. Half
of the males and females were randomly assigned
to either the learning or the performance-approach
SELF-EFFICACY AND ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 375
goal condition, and in each group, half of the
students were randomly assigned to the high or the
low self-efficacy condition.
Procedure
Students were examined during an individual
session that lasted about 45 to 50 minutes. On
arrival at the laboratory, they were informed that
the experiment was aimed at knowing what
students usually do to discover the meaning of
an unknown word when only the sentence context
is available to them. Each problem was comprised
of six different sentences in which the same target
word was replaced by an imaginary word. The
subject had to discover, based on contextual cues,
the single meaningful word that adequately
replaced a nonsense word appearing in all
sentences of the problem. According to the
condition to which they had been assigned,
students received the following information about
the task.
Induction of learning goal
‘‘The task comprises problems of varying
difficulty among which one is really difficult.
However, working carefully on problems will
allow you to discover new ways and strategies as
to how solve them. You may encounter difficulties
during the solving process, but this is usual and
normal. The very important thing is to do your
best since this will lead you to improve your
vocabulary and comprehension skills which could
be useful for your learning in class.’’
Induction of performance-approach goal
‘‘The task comprises problems of varying
difficulty among which one is really difficult.
However, since the performance on this task is
linked to verbal IQ, working carefully on problems
will allow you to have information about your
verbal competence. You may encounter difficulties
during the solving process, but this is usual and
normal. The very important thing is to do your
best since this will lead you to get information
about your verbal IQ.’’
The objective of the task was then explained and
the experimenter executed a sample problem to
familiarize students. As a manipulation check,
students filled out a 10-item questionnaire devel-
oped for the purpose of this study (see
Appendix A). Five items assessed performance-
approach goals (I will work as hard as I can to get
the greater number of correct responses) whereas
five others assessed learning goals (The most
important thing to me in this task is to learn new
ways to discover the meaning of new words).Internal consistency reached .83 and .84 respec-
tively for the learning and the performance-
approach subscales.
Students then had 3 minutes to attempt to solve
each of three problems. They were asked to work
aloud and to report every thought without
selecting those of a specific type, and were advised
that they would be reminded to keep talking if they
seemed to forget to think aloud. Students were
requested to give a response for each problem.
Then, as a function of students’ assignment to theself-efficacy conditions, they received the following
feedback about their performance.
High self-efficacy condition
‘‘You look to have worked carefully in attempt-
ing to solve these problems. You seem to be quiteat ease with this kind of task. As a matter of fact,
your three responses are correct. Usually, students
of your school level really have problems with this
task. In order to know how you compared to
them, look at these graphics that show the
percentage of students of your school level who
succeed at each of these problems.’’
Low self-efficacy condition
‘‘You look to have worked carefully in attempt-
ing to solve these problems. You do not seem to be
quite at ease with this kind of task. As a matter of
fact, your three responses are incorrect. Usually,
students of your school level do not really haveproblems with this task. In order to know how you
compared to them, look at these graphics that
show the percentage of students of your school
level who succeed at each of these problems.’’
The graphics were designed to clearly show that
the student’s performance was outstandingly good
for those in the high self-efficacy condition,
whereas they clearly showed that the student’s
performance was outstandingly poor for those in
the low self-efficacy condition.
In order to check the manipulation of self-
efficacy, students were informed that there were
four remaining problems to solve and that, inorder to help a colleague who was a researcher
interested in how college students could accurately
predict their performance, could they kindly try to
predict their performance on the remaining pro-
blems. They were informed that, following the
results of a previous study conducted with students
376 BOUFFARD ET AL.
of their school level, the problems were of varying
difficulty. The difficulty rating of each problem
was indicated. Then, each student received foursheets of paper, each one corresponding to a
problem. Two questions appeared on each sheet:
The first asked whether the student believed he/she
would resolve the problem, and if yes what was
his/her level of confidence about the expected
success on a scale ranging from very unsure (10%)
to completely sure (100%). The experimenter read
aloud all the sentences of the first problem, afterwhich the student indicated his/her responses. This
procedure was repeated for each problem.
Exposure to the problems was limited to preclude
students from attempting to solve them prior to
rating their self-efficacy. The experimenter kept
her back to the student to reduce concern over
social evaluation. The students put their answers
in an envelope and sealed it. Internal consistencyfor self-efficacy reached .85.
Students were then allowed a 20-minute period
within which to solve the four experimental
problems. As for the previous problems, they were
instructed to work aloud. However, they were now
free to choose the number and sequence of the
problems to be solved as well as whether or not to
give a response. They were permitted to reworkany of the experimental problems for whatever
reason. The only requirement was to not work on
two or more problems at the same time. At the end
of this period, students were given the option to
work for an additional 5 minutes. Those who said
they had finished all problems were offered a last
one to be chosen among one of average or of high
difficulty. Even though a student preferred tocontinue working on the preceding problems or
not to do this last problem, he/she was requested
to say which one he/she would have chosen
otherwise. Finally, students were asked the two
following retrospective questions: ‘‘Before you
started working, I informed you that the fourth
problem was particularly difficult. Which, among
the following alternatives—challenged, indifferent,discouraged—best characterized how you felt
about this?’’ ‘‘I observed the sequence in which
you attempted to solve the problems. Was it at
random? (if no) What was your purpose in doing
so? ’’
Given the deception used in this study, all
students were completely debriefed before leaving
the room about the manipulations they hadundergone. They were told that assignments to
either group were made at random and the real
objectives of the study were exposed. It was also
clearly explained to them that the task was nothing
else than a sort of game created for the purposes of
the study. It was emphasized that finding
responses was most often a matter of luck or
insight, and that in no way was it related to any
aspect of verbal IQ or intellectual capacity.
The entire session was tape-recorded. In addi-
tion, the experimenter directly recorded on an
observational form the number of students’
glances at the clock or at a watch, instances of
reworking an already attempted problem, and
students’ responses to the retrospective questions.
Data codification
Self-regulation is a complex mechanism that
encompasses multiple activities, some of which
are difficult to assess because they are composed of
usually covert processes (Borkowski, Johnson, &
Reid, 1987; Bouffard-Bouchard et al., 1993;
Lefebvre-Pinard & Pinard, 1985). In order to
access multiple self-regulatory components, three
sources of information were used: verbal reports,
direct observation, and retrospective questions.
The practice problems only served to manip-
ulate students’ self-efficacy and to exercise parti-
cipants in expressing thoughts aloud. Therefore,
only performances on these problems were exam-
ined to verify equivalence of groups at the outset
of the procedure. The verbal reports were tran-
scribed and segmented into units by three inde-
pendent judges blind to the students’ classification.
The criterion used for segmentation was that a
stated idea, whether grammatically correct or not,
constituted a unit. Inter-judge agreement on
segmentation reached 91%. The written protocols
were then categorized according to a coding
scheme developed for previous studies that used
the same task and data collection procedure
(Bouffard-Bouchard et al., 1993). Only one coding
category, described below, was allowed per unit.
Inter-judge’ agreement, calculated on 40% of the
protocols chosen randomly, reached 85%. All
disagreements were resolved through discussion.
Verbal fluency might have been a confounding
factor. Thus, the total number of statements was
counted for each student and used as a covariate in
analyses of data issued from verbal protocols.
Measure of self-regulation
Self-regulation encompasses several different com-
ponents: a cognitive component comprising stra-
tegies and activities required to solve the task; a
metacognitive component comprising strategies
aimed at controlling the solving process as well
as metacognitive experiences expressing thoughts
SELF-EFFICACY AND ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 377
and feelings about progress toward the goal; and a
motivational component comprising indicators of
students’ commitment to the task such as expen-
diture of effort and persistence.
1. Cognitive strategies refer to a student’s making
use of her/his previous knowledge about
language, like identifying the category to
which the target word belongs (a verb, a
noun, an adjective, etc.), or making use of
the contextual cues of the sentences in which
the word is embedded, etc. (see Bouffard-
Bouchard et al., 1993, for a description of
categories).
2. Metacognitive strategies refer to a student’s
report of supervision activities like monitoring
of processing (‘‘Hum, it seems that this word
fits well with five sentences. What could it
mean with the sixth one?’’), monitoring of
time, as indicated by students’ instances of
checking the time by glancing at the clock or
at a watch or statements about management
of working time (‘‘I already spent too much
time on this one. I will try another one.’’),
and planning (‘‘I better start with the easiest
one’’).
With regard to the latter category, students’
responses to the retrospective question about their
reason for choosing the sequence in which they
attempted to solve problems were also examined;
95% of these responses fell into one of the
following categories: no specific intention (‘‘Well,
I did not really choose. I took them from left to
right’’); self-training or self-encouragement in
starting with the easiest problem (‘‘Yes, I thought
that solving the easy one first would boost me for
the others’’); management of one’s cognitive func-
tioning (‘‘I thought it was better to attempt the
difficult one first while I was fresh. I thought I
should have enough time and energy for the easiest
ones at the end’’).
1. Metacognitive experiences refer to the stu-
dents’ conscious internal feedback about how
and why they progress (or not) toward the
goal, and they were characterized either by a
positive or a negative valence. Metacognitive
experiences with a positive valence refer to
a student’s positive thoughts about solving
the problem (‘‘I feel I am close to the
solution. I am sure I will find the word’’),
or self-reinforcements (‘‘Good, good, you are
doing very well, let’s go’’). Metacognitive
experiences with a negative valence refer to
self-debilitating thoughts about achieving
the goal or negative self-appraisal of one’s
own ability that may interfere with solving
processes (‘‘You should not have accepted me
in your study, I am so poor at solving such
problems’’).
2. Motivation was examined using three indica-
tors. The first, labelled persistence, wasscored by allowing one point for each
problem the student kept working on until
he/she found a solution (whether it was
correct or not), and one more point for
accepting the extra working time. The second
indicator, called choice of difficulty, refers to
the degree of difficulty students chose for the
additional problem. Finally, the third indi-cator, called mental attitude, refers to stu-
dents’ responses about how they felt when
they were informed about the difficulty of the
fourth problem.
Actual performance was assessed using two
criteria: the number of correct responses and the
number of rejections of one’s own correct
responses.
RESULTS
Due to mechanical problems, verbal protocols of
12 students (7 and 5 students respectively in theperformance and the learning condition) were lost.
Therefore, the sample included in the analyses
varied from 128 to 140 students depending on
whether or not measures were issued from verbal
protocols.
Preliminary analyses examined whether or not
goal and self-efficacy manipulations were success-ful. The analysis of learning and performance-
approach scores using goal condition (62) and
gender (62) as factors showed that learning
goals were higher for students in the learning
condition than for those in performance-approach
condition, F(1, 139) 5 7.79, p , .005, whereas
performance-approach goals were higher for
students in the performance-approach condi-tion than for those in the learning condition,
F(1, 139) 5 14.47, p , .001. There was no gender
effect or interaction.
The number of students’ positive expectations
about the upcoming problems and the associated
levels of confidence were analysed using self-
efficacy condition (62) and gender (62) as
factors. Students in the high self-efficacy conditionreported a greater number of positive expecta-
tions, F(1, 139) 5 7.92, p , .005, and higher levels
of confidence, F(1, 139) 5 7.90, p , .005, than
did those in the low condition. There was no
gender effect or interaction. These results confirm
3.
4.
378 BOUFFARD ET AL.
that the goal and self-efficacy manipulations were
successful.
The analysis of students’ performance on
problems they solved prior to the self-efficacy
manipulation according to goal condition (62),
self-efficacy condition (62), and gender (62) as
factors showed no effect for any factor nor an
interaction effect between factors. The analysis
performed to examine effect of gender on overall
dependent measures showed no difference between
males and females. Therefore, data of males and
females were aggregated in the remaining analyses.
Intercorrelations between cognitive and meta-
cognitive strategies and metacognitive experiences
were also examined. No relation was observed
between metacognitive experiences with a negative
valence and the other measures, and the relations
between monitoring of time and other variables
were low. However, relations between metacogni-
tive experiences with a positive valence, and
cognitive and metacognitive strategies related to
monitoring of processing and to planning ranged
from .40 to .49. Therefore, in order to avoid
problems of collinearity and duplicate analyses, a
global score of self-regulatory statements was
calculated by summing up data on these categories.
Analyses of variance (ANCOVAs) with goal
(62) and self-efficacy (62) conditions as factors
and verbal fluency as a covariate examined data
on self-regulatory statements, negative thoughts,
and monitoring of time. Since the covariate was
irrelevant for persistence and performance, it was
omitted (see Table 1 for means and standard
deviations). Because data on order of solving
problems, mental attitude, and choice of difficulty
were dichotomous, they were examined using Chi-
square analyses controlling for each factor succes-
sively. Also, given the theoretical importance of
potential interaction between self-efficacy and
goal, marginal effect (p , .10) was further explored.
Results of the analysis on self-regulatory state-
ments showed significant effects for the covariate,
F(1, 123) 5 18.11, p , .001, and for goal condi-
tion, F(1,123) 5 4.53, p , .05, but no effect for
self-efficacy, nor for the interaction between
factors. Whatever their self-efficacy condition,
students assigned to the learning condition (M 5
10.0) expressed more self-regulatory statements
than did those in the performance-approach
condition (M 5 6.0).
The analysis of metacognitive experiences with a
negative valence showed that students assigned
to the low self-efficacy condition (M 5 0.41)
expressed them almost twice as often than did
those assigned to the high self-efficacy condition
(M 5 0.22), F(1, 123) 5 3.05, p , .05. No effect
was found for the covariate, for goal condition, or
for the interaction between factors.
With regard to monitoring of time, significant
effects were found for the covariate, F(1, 123) 5
5.50, p , .05, and for self-efficacy, F(1, 123) 5
3.84, p , .05, as well as a marginally significant
effect for the interaction between self-efficacy and
goal condition F(1, 123) 5 3.75, p , .06. While
TABLE 1
Means (and standard deviations) of self-regulatory and performance measures according to goal and self-efficacy conditions
Goals
Performance-approach Learning
High SE Low SE High SE Low SE
(n 5 30) (n 5 32) (n 5 35) (n 5 31)
Self-regulatory measures
Self-regulatory statements 6.50 5.59 10.94 9.00
(8.45) (8.48) (11.50) (8.44)
Metacognitive experiences with a negative valence 0.20 0.38 0.26 0.55
(0.38) (0.48) (0.40) (0.65)
Monitoring of time 1.85 1.64 2.32 1.30
(1.58) (2.01) (1.47) (1.29)
Persistencea 5.55 5.28 5.57 4.74
(1.14) (1.89) (0.69) (1.73)
Performance measures
Rejection of correct responsesa 0.09 0.39 0.03 0.56
(0.29) (0.68) (0.16) (0.56)
Correct reponsesa 1.73 1.53 1.97 1.27
(0.83) (0.91) (0.72) (1.02)
aCell sizes of variables comprising the entire sample: (n 5 33) (n 5 36) (n 5 37) (n 5 34).
SE 5 self-efficacy.
SELF-EFFICACY AND ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 379
students in the performance-approach condition
did not differ according to self-efficacy (M 5 1.7
for both groups), students in the learning condi-
tion who were assigned to the high self-efficacy
condition (M 5 2.3) expressed concerns about
monitoring their working time (either verbally or
behaviourally) more often than did those in the
low self-efficacy condition (M 5 1.3).
Analysis of persistence showed an effect of self-
efficacy, F(1, 136) 5 5.15, p , .05, and a marginal
effect of the interaction between factors, F(1, 136)
5 2.95, p , .09. Persistence of students in the
performance-approach condition did not differ
according to self-efficacy, but students in the
learning condition who were assigned to the high
self-efficacy condition tended to persist longer
than those in the low self-efficacy condition.
Students’ reasons for solving problems in a
given sequence varied according to self-efficacy
and goal condition. In the performance-approach
condition, the proportion of students reporting
either reason did not differ whatever their self-
efficacy condition. However, in the learning
condition, differences were found according to
self-efficacy, x2(2) 5 6.143, p , .05. Concerns
about managing their working time or cognitive
function were reported by students in both the low
and high self-efficacy condition (21% and 45%
respectively). Concerns about self-training or self-
encouragement were reported by 50% and 24% of
students respectively in the low and high self-
efficacy conditions. The proportion of students
reporting that they had no specific intention was
similar whatever the self-efficacy or the goal
condition.
With respect to students’ mental attitude about
the presence of a very difficult problem, the
proportion of those reporting discouragement
and challenge differed according to self-efficacy
conditions in both the learning, x2(2) 5 10.33,
p , .005, and the performance-approach, x2(2) 5
17.45, p , .001, goal condition. In the high self-
efficacy condition, only 2% of students in the
performance-approach condition and no students
in the learning condition expressed discourage-
ment compared to 36% and 25% of those in the
low self-efficacy condition. In the high self-efficacy
condition, 73% and 64% of students in the
performance-approach and learning condition
respectively reported challenge against 29% and
39% of students in the low self-efficacy condition.
Similar analyses performed while controlling for
self-efficacy showed no difference between goal
conditions. The proportion of students reporting
they remained indifferent about the difficulty of a
given problem was similar whatever the self-
efficacy or the goal condition.
The analysis of the level of difficulty of the extra
problem selected by students showed differences
according to self-efficacy. In both the learning,
x2(1) 5 10.52, p , .001, and the performance-
approach, x2(1) 5 4.32, p , .05, goal condition,
the proportion of students saying they would
choose (or did choose) a more difficult problem
was higher in the high self-efficacy condition (66%
and 54% respectively in the performance-approach
and the learning condition) than it was in the low
self-efficacy condition (27% and 29% respectively
in the performance-approach and the learning
condition). Again, similar analyses performed
controlling for self-efficacy showed no difference
between goal conditions.
Finally, a multivariate analysis of variance
performed on students’ actual performance using
goal (62) and self-efficacy (62) conditions as
factors revealed an effect for self-efficacy, F(2, 135)
5 13.43, p , .001. Subsequent univariate analyses
showed that students in the high self-efficacy
condition less often (M 5 0.06) rejected correct
responses, F(1, 136) 5 23.61, p , .001, than did
those in the low self-efficacy condition (M 5 0.47),
and that they also obtained a greater number
of correct responses, F(1, 136) 5 9.31, p , .005
(M 5 1.86 and M 5 1.40 respectively in the high
and low self-efficacy condition). However, this
latter effect was qualified by a marginal interaction
between self-efficacy and goal condition, F(1, 136)
5 2.93, p , .10. While students in the perfor-
mance-approach condition did not differ accord-
ing to self-efficacy (M 5 1.53 and M 5 1.73
respectively for low and high self-efficacy), stu-
dents in the high self-efficacy condition reached a
greater number of correct responses (M 5 1.97)
than those in the low condition (M 5 1.27), F(1,
69) 5 11.44, p , .001.
DISCUSSION
This study was aimed at examining the hypothesis
stating that self-efficacy intervenes in the effect of
goals on students’ cognitive functioning and
performance. Following this hypothesis, whatever
a student’s self-efficacy beliefs, endorsing learning
goals will led him/her to adaptive patterns of
functioning. However, self-efficacy will make a
difference for a student endorsing performance
goals. More precisely, while adaptive patterns of
functioning should be expected when a student has
high self-efficacy beliefs, the reverse should be
expected when he/she has low self-efficacy beliefs.
380 BOUFFARD ET AL.
In order to avoid confounding different types of
performance goals, it was decided to test the
hypothesis when a performance-approach goalwas involved. High and low self-efficacy beliefs
as well as learning and performance-approach
goals were experimentally induced. Manipulation
checks confirmed that self-efficacy and goals had
been induced successfully. In addition, the experi-
mental task was carefully selected to allow for
observation of a greater number of indices of
students’ self-regulation, reactions, and perfor-mance than had been done in previous studies
examining the hypothesis under investigation.
Seven indicators of participants’ online self-
regulation related to cognitive, metacognitive,
and motivational processes were examined, as well
as two dimensions of their actual performance.
Self-efficacy was found to influence various
aspects of students’ functioning. Those in the lowself-efficacy group expressed more instances of
negative metacognitive experiences than those in
the high self-efficacy group. While the majority of
students in the latter group reported a sense of
challenge when informed about the presence of a
difficult problem, it was the reverse in the former
group. Given the opportunity to choose the level
of difficulty of an extra problem, a majority ofstudents in the high self-efficacy group but a
minority in the low group said they would like to
attempt to solve a difficult one. Finally, low self-
efficacy students more often rejected their own
correct responses and as a consequence, in the
learning condition, had a lower performance than
participants in the high group. In fact, after adding
scores of rejected correct responses to perfor-mance, no difference remained between self-
efficacy groups in this condition.
Altogether, these findings support the claim by
Bandura and Locke (2003) about the adaptive and
central role of self-efficacy in human functioning.
They replicate the findings reported in various
studies in very different domains such as education
(Bouffard & Couture, 2003; Lee & Klein, 2002;Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2003; Pajares, 2003;
Schunk, 1990; Zimmerman, Bandura, &
Martinez-Pons, 1992), sports (Feltz, 1988), career
counselling (Hackett, 1995; Lent, Brown, &
Hackett, 1994), organizational psychology (Gist
& Mitchell, 1992; Sadri & Robertson, 1993), or
complex decision-making and problem-solving
(Breland & Donovan, in press; Wood, Bandura,& Bailey, 1990).
With regard to the hypothesis stating that self-
efficacy would intervene in the effect of goals on
students’ cognitive functioning and performance,
the instances of interaction between self-efficacy
and goals all involved learning goals. Other studies
have reported similar conclusions (Kaplan &
Midgley, 1997; Miller et al., 1993, 1996). In thelearning goal condition, when compared to students
in the low self-efficacy condition, those in the high
condition glanced more often at their watch or at
the clock, or expressed comments about working
time allotted during solving the task. This suggests
that they were more concerned about monitoring
their working time, and more active in doing so.
This interpretation is reinforced by their responsesto the retrospective question about the sequence in
which they attempted to solve the problems.
Students in the learning condition were similarly
purposeful in choosing a specific sequence in an
attempt to solve the problems (71% versus 69%
reported a specific reason for having done so), but
their reason differed according to the level of the
induced self-efficacy. Twice as many students inthe high self-efficacy condition than in the low
self-efficacy condition reported that their aim was
managing their working time and energy across
problems. The reverse was observed for those
in the low self-efficacy condition, who instead
reported that their motive was self-training or
self-encouragement. Persistence also differed
between low and high self-efficacy groups withinthe learning condition; the former showed less
persistence than the latter. With regard to actual
performance at the task, again students in the
learning condition differed according to self-
efficacy; those in the high condition outperformed
those in the low condition. No evidence was found
that students in the performance-approach condi-
tion were affected by induced self-efficacy.Different interpretations may be raised to explain
our results. Since individuals already possess a
dispositional goal orientation, it may be argued
that experimental manipulation leads to different
results according to the initial disposition. Although
it is difficult to eliminate this argument, measure-
ment of the induced goals ensured that the
experimental manipulation was successful. Beyondthis, previous studies have shown that independent
of the link between dispositional goal orientation
and some variables, situational goal orientation has
unique and significant relations with these same
variables (Kozlowski, Gully, Brown, Salas, Smith,
& Nason, 2001).
Alternatively, it may be argued that the manip-
ulation of goals encompassed different incentiveswith regard to the importance of achieving the task
at hand. More precisely, the performance-
approach goal was induced by informing students
that task performance was linked to verbal IQ and
that working carefully on problems would allow
SELF-EFFICACY AND ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 381
them to gain information about it. Even though
students in the low self-efficacy group were
informed they had done poorly on the firstproblems and subsequently reported low self-
efficacy beliefs for the remaining problems, they
may have considered that they could work harder
and achieve a more positive demonstration of their
verbal competence. In such a case, the importance
of performing at their best may have alleviated the
expected negative impact of low self-efficacy. As
observed, whatever their self-efficacy, students inthe performance-approach condition were simi-
larly active in monitoring their working time,
showed similar persistence, and finally achieved a
similar performance. In comparison, students in
the learning condition were told that working
carefully on problems would allow them to
improve their comprehension skills and vocabu-
lary, which could be useful for their learning inclass. The importance of improving learning skills
may have been insufficient to compensate for the
effects of low self-efficacy. Thus, we argue that
the personal significance or value of a goal may
be more important than its nature per se.
Harackiewicz and Sansone (1991) have already
suggested that competence valuation reflecting the
degree to which a person is concerned with doingwell might sometimes have more effect on task
engagement than perceived competence. Bouffard,
Boisvert, Vezeau, and Larouche (1995) also argue
that because doing the best one can is central to
both those who are strongly concerned with
improving their competence and with getting to
the highest possible level, similar task engagement
should be expected. Being strongly motivated todo the best one is able to may protect the person
against the deleterious effects of low self-efficacy.
Despite being plagued by self-doubts, a person
may be willing to struggle and make significant
efforts in a situation when doing so is likely to
yield important outcomes. For example, if a
student really wants to be admitted to a pro-
gramme of study requiring high marks in mathe-matics, he may decide to expend all the effort he
can to reach this goal despite believing that this
domain is difficult for him. Similarly, if he highly
values improving his mathematics skills, he is also
likely to work hard whether he feels efficacious or
not. Conversely, thinking that gaining high marks
in mathematics is unimportant for admittance into
the programme or if he does not care aboutimproving his mathematics skills, it is unlikely the
student will make the effort if he is already
convinced he lacks the requisite ability.
In conclusion, the study’s findings suggest that a
better understanding of the interplay between
achievement goals and self-efficacy beliefs could
be achieved by distinguishing goals according
to their importance and significance for the
person. Exploration of this issue certainly deserves
some research effort and may benefit both self-
efficacy and goal-oriented theories of achievement
motivation.Manuscript received November 2003
Revised manuscript accepted June 2004
REFERENCES
Ames, C., & Archer, J. (1988). Achievement goals in theclassroom: Students’ learning strategies and motiva-tion processes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 80,260–267.
Archer, J. (1994). Achievement goals as a measure ofmotivation in university students. ContemporaryEducational Psychology, 19, 430–446.
Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought andaction: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs,NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 88, 87–99.
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). Goalorientation and ability: Interactive effects on self-efficacy, performance and knowledge. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 87, 497–505.
Borkowski, J. G., Johnson, M. B., & Reid, M. K. (1987).Metacognition, motivation, and controlled perfor-mance. In S. J. Ceci (Ed.), Handbook of cognitive,social, and neuropsychological aspects of learningdisabilities, Vol. 2 (pp. 147–173). Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Bouffard, T., Boileau, L., & Vezeau, C. (2001). Students’transition from elementary to high school andchanges of the relationship between motivation andacademic performance. European Journal ofPsychology of Education, XVI, 589–604.
Bouffard, T., Boisvert, J., Vezeau, C., & Larouche, C.(1995). The impact of goal orientation on self-regulation and performance among college students.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65,317–329.
Bouffard, T., & Couture, N. (2003). Motivationalprofile and academic achievement among studentsenrolled in different schooling tracks. EducationalStudies, 29, 19–38.
Bouffard-Bouchard, T., Parent, S., & Larivee, S. (1993).Self-regulation of a concept formation task amongaverage and gifted students. Journal of ExperimentalChild Psychology, 56, 115–134.
Breland, B. T., & Donovan, J. J. (in press). The role ofstate goal orientation in the goal establishmentprocess. Human Performance.
Church, M. A., Elliot, A. J., & Gable, S. (2000).Perceptions of classroom context, achievement goalsand achievement outcomes. Journal of EducationalPsychology, 92, 43–54.
Cury, F., Biddle, S., Sarrazin, P., & Famose, J. P.(1997). Achievement goals and perceived abilitypredict investment in learning a sport task. BritishJournal of Educational Psychology, 67, 293–309.
382 BOUFFARD ET AL.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affectinglearning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
Dweck, C. S. (1989). Motivation. In A. Lesgold &R. Glaser (Eds.), Foundations for a psychology ofeducation (pp. 87–136). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates Inc.
Dweck, C. S. (1991). Self-theories and goals: Their rolein motivation, personality, and development. InR. A. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium onmotivation, 1990, Vol. 38: Perspectives on motivation(pp. 139–235). Lincoln, NE: University of NebraskaPress.
Dweck, C. S., & Legget, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitiveapproach to motivation and personality.Psychological Review, 95, 256–273.
Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: Anapproach to motivation and achievement. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12.
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approachand avoidance achievement goals and intrinsicmotivation: A mediational analysis. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 70, 461–475.
Feltz, D. (1988). Self-confidence and sports perfor-mance. In K. B. Pandolf (Ed.), Exercise and sportscience reviews, Vol. 16 (pp. 423–457). New York:Macmillan.
Fisher, S. L., & Ford, K. J. (1998). Differential effects oflearner effort and goal orientation on two learningoutcomes. Personnel Psychology, 51, 397–420.
Gist, M. E., & Mitchell, T. R. (1992). Self-efficacy:A theoretical analysis of its determinants andmalleability. Academy of Management Review, 12,472–485.
Goudas, M., Biddle, S., & Fox, K. (1994). Perceivedlocus of causality, goal orientations, and perceivedcompetence in school physical education classes.British Journal of Educational Psychology, 64,453–463.
Hackett, G. (1995). Self-efficacy in career choice anddevelopment. In A. Bandura (Ed.), Self-efficacy inchanging societies (pp. 232–259). Cambridge:Cambridge University Press.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M.,Lehto, A. T., & Elliot, A. J. (1997). Predictors andconsequences of achievement goals in the collegeclassroom: Maintaining interest and making thegrade. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,73, 1284–1295.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., & Elliot, A. J.(1998). Rethinking achievement goals: When are theyadaptive for college students and why? EducationalPsychologist, 33, 1–21.
Harachiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M.,Carter, S. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term andlong-term consequences of achievement goals:Predicting interest and performance over time.Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 316–330.
Harackiewicz, J. M., & Sansone, C. (1991). Goals andintrinsic motivation: You can get there from here.Advances in motivation and achievement, Vol. 7(pp. 21–49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Hofmann, D. A. (1993). The influence of goal orienta-tion on task performance: A substantively mean-ingful suppressor variable. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 23, 1827–1846.
Jacacinski, C. M., Madden, J. L., & Reider, M. H.(2001). The impact of situational and dispositional
achievement goals on performance. HumanPerformance, 14, 321–337.
Johnson, D., Perlow, R., & Pieper, K. F. (1993).Differences in task performance as a functionof type of feedback: Learning-oriented versusperformance-oriented. Journal of Applied Psy-chology, 23, 303–320.
Kaplan, A., & Midgley, C. (1997). The effect ofachievement goals: Does level of perceived academiccompetence make a difference? ContemporaryEducation Psychology, 22, 415–435.
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Gully, S. M., Brown, K. G.,Salas, E., Smith, E. M., & Nason, E. R. (2001).Effects of training goals and goal orientation traitson multidimensional training outcomes and perfor-mance adaptability. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 85, 1–31.
Lee, S., & Klein, H. J. (2002). Relationships betweenconscientiousness, self-efficacy, self-deception, andlearning over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,1175–1182.
Lefebvre-Pinard, M., & Pinard, A. (1985). Takingcharge of one’s own cognitive activity: A moderatorof competence. In E. Neimark, R. Delisi &J. Newman (Eds.), Moderators of competence(pp. 191–211). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ErlbaumAssociates Inc.
Lent, R. W., Brown, S. D., & Hackett, G. (1994).Toward a unifying social-cognitive theory of careerand academic interest, choice and performance.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 45, 79–122.
Linnenbrink, E. A., & Pintrich, P. R. (2003). The role ofself-efficacy beliefs in student engagement andlearning in the classroom. Reading and WritingQuarterly, 19, 119–137.
Midgley, C. (1993). Motivation and middle levelschools. In M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.),Advances in motivation and achievement: Vol. 8.Motivation in the adolescent years (pp. 217–274).Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Miller, R. B., Behrens, J. T., Greene, B. A., &Newman, D. (1993). Goals and perceived ability:Impact on student valuing, self-regulation andpersistence. Contemporary Educational Psychology,18, 2–14.
Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P.,Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J. D. (1996).Engagement in academic work: The role of learninggoals, future consequences, pleasing others, andperceived ability. Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 21, 388–422.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Conceptions of ability andachievement motivation. In R. Ames & C. Ames(Eds.), Research on motivation in education, Vol. 1(pp. 39–73). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Pajares, F. (2003). Self-efficacy beliefs, motivation, andachievement in writing: A review of the literature.Reading and Writing Quarterly, 19, 139–158.
Pintrich, P. R., & Schrauben, B. (1992). Students’motivational beliefs and their cognitive engagementin classroom academic tasks. In D. H. Schunk &J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the class-room (pp. 149–183). Hillsdale, NJ: LawrenceErlbaum Associates Inc.
Sadri, G., & Robertson, I. T. (1993). Self-efficacy andwork-related behaviour: A review and meta-analysis.
SELF-EFFICACY AND ACHIEVEMENT GOALS 383
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 42,139–152.
Schmidt, A. M., & Ford, J. K. (2003). Learning within alearner control training environment: The interactiveeffects of goal orientation and metacognitive instruc-tion on learning outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 56,405–419.
Schunk, D. H. (1990). Goal setting and self-efficacyduring self-regulated learning. EducationalPsychologist, 25, 71–86.
Vezeau, C., Bouffard, T., & Tetreault, F. (1997). Impactdu type de buts et du sentiment d’auto-efficacite sur
l’autoregulation et la performance dans une tachecognitive [Impact of types of goal and self-efficacy onself-regulation and performance in a cognitive task].International Journal of Psychology, 32, 1–14.
Wood, R., Bandura, A., & Bailey, T. (1990).Mechanisms governing organizational performancein complex-making environments. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Decision Processes, 46, 181–201.
Zimmerman, B. J., Bandura, A., & Martinez-Pons, M.(1992). Self-motivation for academic attainment: Therole of self-efficacy beliefs and personal goal setting.American Educational Research Journal, 29, 663–676.
APPENDIX A
Goals questionnaire
L: The most important thing to me in this task is to learn new ways to discover the meaning of new words.
PA: The most important to me is to be among those who will discover the greater number of correct responses.
L: I will work as hard as I can to discover and master new skills to improve my vocabulary.
L: I hope that working on this task will allow me to discover things I do not know yet.
PA: The most interesting to me in this task is to know how many correct responses I will find.
PA: My main objective will be to class myself in the very best at this task.
L: I hope to have the feeling of having learned new things when I will have finished the task.
PA: It is important to me to outperform others in this task.
PA: I will work as hard as I can to get the greater number of correct responses.
L: Gaining new knowledge and skills is my main objective in this task.
L 5 Learning; PA 5 Performance-approach.
For each item, students must specify their level of agreement on a scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 6 (completely agree).
384 BOUFFARD ET AL.
