1. Exploring the Relationships Among College Students’ Goal Orientations, Perfectionism, and Academic Self-Efficacy Hannah Geis and Brittany Weber, Faculty Advisor: Mary Beth Leibham, Ph.D. University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, Department of Psychology References Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 501-519. doi:10.1037//0022-3514.80.3.501 Finney, S. J., Pieper, S. L., & Barron, K. E. (2004). Examining the psychometric properties of the achievement goal questionnaire in a general academic context. Educational And Psychological Measurement, 64, 365-382. doi:10.1177/0013164403258465 Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. T., & Elliot, A. J. (1997). Predictors and consequences of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 73(6), 1284-1295. doi:10.1037/0022- 3514.73.6.1284 Pacht, A. (1984). Reflections on perfectionism. American Psychologist, 39, 386-390. Pintrich, P. R., Smith, D. A., Garcia, T., & McKeachie, W. J. (1993). Reliability and predictive validity of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (MSLQ). Educational And Psychological Measurement, 53(3), 801-813. doi:10.1177/0013164493053003024 Powers, T. A., Koestner, R., Zuroff, D. C., Milyavskaya, M., & Gorin, A. A. (2011). The effects of self-criticism and self-oriented perfectionism on goal pursuit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 964-975. doi:10.1177/0146167211410246 Slaney, R. B., Rice, K. G., Mobley, M., Trippi, J., & Ashby, J. S. (2001). The revised almost perfect scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 130-145. Methods Participants A total of 239 undergraduate college students (42 male, 197 female) participated in our study. There were 78 freshman, 69 sophomores, 45 juniors, 32 seniors, and 15 fifth-year seniors. Materials Participants completed five brief questionnaires. The first questionnaire, the Attitude Toward Learning and Performance in College This Semester (Finney et al., 2004) included 12 items assessing participants’ achievement goal orientations. The second questionnaire, the Almost Perfect Scale-Revised (Slaney et al., 2001) included 23 items assessing participants’ perfectionism. The third questionnaire, a subscale of the Motivated Strategies for Learning Questionnaire (Pintrich, et al., 1991) included 8 items assessing participants’ self-efficacy. The fourth questionnaire included 3 items and assessed participants’ work avoidance goal orientation (Harackiewicz, et al., 1997). The fifth questionnaire included additional demographic variables such as gender, age, ethnic background, class level, major, G.P.A., ACT, birth order, and other descriptors. Procedure Students completed the questionnaires in an online (Qualtrics) context. Participants were informed that the study was examining college students’ goal orientations, self-efficacy, and perfectionism. By continuing with the questionnaire, participants provided consent to participate in the study. Completion of the questionnaires typically took 15 minutes or less. Students were thanked for their participation at the end of the survey and were given a proof of participation form to print and give to their professors in order to receive extra credit, which was an incentive to participate. Results Perfectionism is defined as striving to be perfect and avoid error (Powers et al., 2011). Perfectionists have established themselves in a "no-win scenario," meaning that their goals are often set so unrealistically high that they cannot possibly succeed. They are constantly frustrated by their need to achieve and their failure to do so. Even when they complete a task successfully, they are rarely able to enjoy their accomplishments because they have only accomplished what they expected of themselves (Pacht, 1984). Slaney et al. (2001) proposed two types of perfectionists: Adaptive perfectionists, who have high expectations for themselves and believe they can accomplish their goals, and maladaptive perfectionists, who have high expectations for themselves but don’t believe that their accomplishments are good enough. Achievement goal orientation refers to one’s reasons for engaging in academic tasks. There are four different achievement goal orientations: Mastery approach goals (desire to master and understand content), performance approach goals (desire to look good in front of others and/or outperform others), performance avoidance goals (desire to avoid appearing incompetent), and mastery avoidance goals (desire to not lose skills or knowledge; Elliot et al., 2001). Another type of goal orientation is the work avoidance orientation, which reflects students’ desire to do as little work as possible. Research suggests that mastery approach goals are the most adaptive for optimal learning (Finney et al., 2004). Research also suggests that perfectionists may be more likely to have mastery avoidance goals. The purpose of the current study was to examine the relationships among perfectionism, achievement goal orientations, and academic self-efficacy (one’s beliefs about his/her capabilities). BackgroundConclusions Gender Differences Males had significantly higher work avoidance ratings than females, but no other significant gender differences in goal orientations were found. There was no link between gender and perfectionism type, nor was there a link between gender and self-efficacy. Achievement Goal Orientations and Perfectionism Types Non-perfectionists scored significantly lower in the performance approach orientation than did both types of perfectionists. Maladaptive perfectionists scored significantly higher in the performance avoidance orientation than did adaptive perfectionists and non-perfectionists. Non-perfectionists scored significantly lower than did both types of perfectionists in the mastery approach orientation. Maladaptive perfectionists scored significantly higher in the mastery avoidance orientation than did both the non- perfectionists and adaptive perfectionists; non- perfectionists scored significantly higher than the adaptive perfectionists. Non-perfectionists scored significantly higher than did both types of perfectionists in the work avoidance orientation. Self-Efficacy and Perfectionism Types Adaptive perfectionists scored significantly higher in self- efficacy than both maladaptive perfectionists and non- perfectionists. Self-Efficacy, Goal Orientations, and G.P.A. Self-efficacy was positively correlated with the performance approach and mastery approach orientations and negatively correlated with the performance avoidance, mastery avoidance, and work avoidance orientations. G.P.A. was positively correlated with the performance approach orientation and negatively correlated with the work avoidance orientation. G.P.A. and self-efficacy were positively correlated. Overall Conclusion Simply put, goal orientations are related to perfectionism and self-efficacy. That is, one’s academic goals are related to their personal expectations and their beliefs about their capabilities. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the Office of Research and Sponsored Programs (ORSP) for supporting this study and the Learning and Technology Services (LTS) for printing this poster. * p <.05; ** p <.001 Goal Orientations Across Perfectionism Types Percentage of Perfectionism Types Among Participants Mean Scores of Goal Orientations Among Participants Relationships Among Self-Efficacy, Goal Orientations, and G.P.A. Performance Approach Performance Avoidance Mastery Approach Mastery Avoidance Work Avoidance G.P.A. Self- Efficacy.24**-.14*.26**-.44**-.15*.26** G.P.A..19**-.07.01-.11-.17*-- Self-Efficacy Across Perfectionism Types F(2, 236) = 26.88, p =.00; η 2 =.186Wilk’s Λ =.66, F(8, 466) = 13.26, p =.00; η 2 =.185