Motivation & Performance - Problem 01 PDF

PSY4024/PSY4964 Motivation and Performance 1 2 Problem 01 LG1: How does goal setting relate to performance? LG2: What is self efficacy and how does it affect performance? LG3: How do boundary conditions affect the relationship between self efficacy and...

PSY4024/PSY4964 Motivation and Performance 1 2 Problem 01 LG1: How does goal setting relate to performance? LG2: What is self efficacy and how does it affect performance? LG3: How do boundary conditions affect the relationship between self efficacy and performance? LG4: What is the role of self regulation in this learning goal? LG5: How does motivation affect performance and what are the boundary conditions? LG6: What is the role of self-determination theory? 3 4 5 LG1: How does goal setting relate to performance? Goal-setting theory (GST) states that specific and challenging goals increase performance. Goals provide a clear direction and criteria for success, leading to greater focus, effort, and persistence. Key mechanisms of goal setting: ○ Direction: Goals help prioritize relevant tasks. ○ Effort: Higher goals demand more effort. ○ Persistence: Difficult goals encourage sustained effort. ○ Task strategies: Goals promote strategy development to improve performance. Moderators that influence the goal-performance relationship include: ○ Goal Commitment: Higher commitment improves performance with challenging goals. ○ Feedback: Timely feedback enhances performance by tracking progress. ○ Task Complexity: For complex tasks, specific learning goals may be more effective than performance goals. LG2: What is self-efficacy and how does it affect performance? Self-efficacy: Belief in one’s ability to meet demands and mobilize resources to perform a task. Effects on performance: ○ Positive effects include higher task performance, commitment to change, creativity, and leadership. ○ Self-efficacy enhances effort, persistence, and resilience in challenging situations. ○ Moderating factors: Ambiguity: In high-ambiguity tasks, high self-efficacy can lead to overconfidence and reduced effort. Task challenge: Self-efficacy is beneficial in challenging tasks, encouraging perseverance, but less useful in simpler tasks. Varying outcomes: Some studies indicate that in high-ambiguity situations, self-efficacy may negatively impact performance, as it may reduce effort if individuals overestimate their abilities. LG3: How do boundary conditions affect the relationship between self-efficacy and performance? Performance Ambiguity: High ambiguity weakens the self-efficacy-performance relationship as individuals lack clear feedback, potentially leading to complacency and reduced effort. Task Complexity: In complex tasks, high self-efficacy may not translate directly into better performance unless paired with learning goals and feedback. Task Feedback: Frequent and accurate feedback is crucial in reducing performance ambiguity, enabling self-efficacy to positively impact performance. 6 LG4: What is the role of self-regulation in this learning goal? Self-Regulation: Involves monitoring progress, adjusting behaviors, and maintaining motivation toward goals. Goal striving involves self-regulation to persist through challenges. Discrepancy Reduction: A core process where individuals compare current performance with desired goals, aiming to close gaps. Feedback and Adjustment: Feedback helps self-regulation by allowing timely corrections, essential for complex tasks. LG5: How does motivation affect performance and what are the boundary conditions? Motivation Components: ○ Direction: Determines what an individual focuses on. ○ Intensity: The effort invested in a task. ○ Persistence: Duration of focus on a task. Motivation and performance: High motivation doesn’t guarantee high performance due to external factors. Boundary Conditions: ○ Goal Difficulty: Difficult goals can improve motivation, but only if individuals have confidence and skill. ○ Ambiguity: High ambiguity can reduce the effectiveness of motivation by obscuring progress and desired outcomes. ○ Self-Efficacy: Plays a moderating role; higher self-efficacy can amplify the effects of motivation, while low self-efficacy can hinder it. LG6: What is the role of self-determination theory? Self-Determination Theory (SDT): Focuses on fostering autonomous motivation by satisfying basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Impact on Performance: ○ When these needs are met, individuals experience higher engagement, quality performance, and well-being. ○ Autonomous motivation leads to long-term commitment and quality work, whereas controlled motivation (externally driven) may lead to compliance but risk burnout and lower satisfaction. Work Environment: SDT emphasizes creating supportive environments that nurture autonomy to improve motivation and productivity, rather than solely relying on external rewards. 7  1. Multiple Goal Pursuit Theory (MGPT): ○ Focuses on how individuals manage and prioritize multiple goals simultaneously. ○ Examines the trade-offs and conflicts between goals and how individuals allocate effort based on their priorities. ○ Emphasizes goal competition, goal compatibility, and strategies used to balance various goals. 2. Temporal Motivation Theory (TMT): ○ Integrates time as a key factor in motivation, proposing that motivation is influenced by how soon a reward is expected (proximity) and the value of the reward. ○ Helps explain why people procrastinate or prefer immediate rewards over delayed ones. Comparison: Overlap: Both theories touch on goal pursuit and prioritization, particularly when immediate and delayed rewards are considered. Key Difference: MGPT focuses more on balancing multiple goals, while TMT specifically addresses the role of time in the motivation for individual goals. Vroom's Expectancy Theory → principles of expectancy, valence, and instrumentality: Expectancy Theory posits that motivation is driven by the perceived probability that effort will result in performance (expectancy), the belief that performance will lead to specific outcomes (instrumentality), and the desirability of those outcomes (valence). 8 9  ★ *Schmidt, Aaron M., Beck, James W., & Gillespie, Jennifer Z. (2013). Motivation. In Neal W. Schmitt, Scott Highhouse & Irving B. Weiner (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, Vol. 12: Industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed.). (pp. 311-340). Hoboken, NJ, US: John Wiley & Sons Inc. (e-reader) (Read about goals setting until page 314. Start again at page 318 until 321) Motivation refers to internal forces that underlie the direction, intensity, and persistence of behavior or thought. Direction pertains to what an individual is attending to at a given time. Intensity represents the amount of effort being invested in the activity. Persistence represents for how long that activity is the focus of one’s attention. Motivation is key to behavior in the workplace. Key Constructs in Motivation Motivation involves “the allocation of limited resources across the nearly infinite range of possibilities”. Behavioral indicators like direction, intensity, and persistence are used as proxies for motivation itself. Performance and Motivation While motivation is often linked to performance, one can be highly motivated without achieving high performance due to other influencing factors. Organizing Framework: Goal-Based Theories Core constructs related to goal processes include: ○ Anticipatory Constructs: Expectancies and self-efficacy. ○ Affect: The influence of emotions. ○ Personality: Impact of individual traits. ○ Temporal Dynamics: Effects of time on motivation. ○ Multiple-Goal Self-Regulation: Managing multiple simultaneous goals. OVERVIEW OF GOALS AND GOAL PROCESSES Definition of Goals: "Internal representations of desired states, where states are broadly construed as outcomes, events, or processes". Goals include conscious, deliberative standards and also unconscious, complex cognitive representations. Types of goals vary: Short-term vs. Long-term goals. Some involve self-representations. 10 Goal Setting and Goal Striving Goal Setting: Establishing desired states or outcomes. ○ Core concept in Locke and Latham’s (1990, 2002) Goal-Setting Theory (GST), which posits: Specific, difficult goals enhance performance more than vague goals (e.g., "do your best"). ○ Key moderators: Goal Commitment: Stronger impact with high commitment, less important for easy goals. Feedback: Enhances performance by allowing progress monitoring. Task Complexity: Difficult goals improve performance in simple tasks but may hinder strategy in complex tasks. Ability and Self-Efficacy: Without confidence or ability, difficult goals may lead to disengagement. Goal Striving and Self-Regulation ○ Focuses on pursuing goals over time, known as self-regulation. ○ Control Theory: Central process is discrepancy reduction - aligning current state with desired state: Discrepancy initiates actions to close the gap between current and desired states. Feedback: Essential but can be flawed (e.g., delayed, inaccurate). 11 12 Discrepancy Reduction Discrepancies between current and desired states influence behavior: (sounds like cybernetic model) ○ Example: Lower job-search progress one day may lead to increased effort the next. ○ Larger perceived difficulty (discrepancies) can increase effort, particularly with task experience. ○ Dynamic Resource Allocation: Resources shift based on progress toward goals. Cybernetic Model (Edwards, 1992) Empirical Support: Partial Details: Empirical research supports isolated aspects, such as the effects of discrepancies between perceptions and desires on well-being. However, testing all core assumptions in one study has been challenging due to measurement difficulties. Rate of Progress (Velocity) Velocity (rate of discrepancy reduction) impacts motivation: ○ Positive velocity is linked to positive moods and satisfaction. ○ High velocity can compensate for large discrepancies; low velocity paired with large discrepancies lowers satisfaction and commitment. External Influences (disturbances) impact goal progress independently of individual actions: ○ Examples: Sales referrals impacting performance beyond the salesperson’s control. ○ Thinking about others’ assistance may reduce personal effort, as fewer resources are perceived necessary. Expectancies, Self-Efficacy, And Related Constructs Expectancies and Self-Efficacy Both are prospective constructs, influencing future-oriented behavior and self-regulation. Expectancies: Likelihood that an action will lead to a specific outcome. Self-Efficacy: Beliefs in one's ability to mobilize resources and actions to meet situational demands. Expectancies Core concept in Expectancy-Value Theories, where: ○ Expectancy: Perceived likelihood that effort leads to performance. ○ Instrumentality: Belief that performance results in secondary outcomes (e.g., pay). ○ Valence: Attractiveness of an outcome. 13  Applications: Used to understand goal choice, commitment, and motivation. Studies show expectancies encourage pursuit of challenging tasks when paired with high utility and value. Factors influencing expectancies: ○ Task difficulty tends to lower expectancies. ○ Discrepancy between current state and desired outcome influences expectancies, especially with limited time or low progress. Multiple-Goal Self-Regulation: Steel and König’s Temporal Motivation Theory integrates expectancy and value, focusing on goal choice in competing demands. Self-Efficacy Defined as “beliefs in one’s capabilities to mobilize motivation, cognitive resources, and courses of action to meet demands”. Mediators between self-efficacy and performance → Commitment to change, entrepreneurship, creativity, and leadership. Persistence: High self-efficacy encourages persistence in pursuing goals, even in the face of adversity. Resistance/ Resource Conservation: High self-efficacy can lead to resource conservation by suggesting fewer resources are needed for a task, allowing allocation to other demands. Challenging Goals/ Goal Setting: Self-efficacy influences performance through setting challenging goals, which focus individuals' efforts and resources toward achievement. Effort Allocation: Self-efficacy affects the amount of time, effort, and other resources individuals allocate to achieving their goals. Commitment: Self-efficacy influences commitment by enhancing belief in one's ability to achieve goals. High levels of self-efficacy increase one's adherence to organizational goals, fostering resilience in the face of challenges​(***Handbook of Psycholo…)​(***Handbook of Psycholo…). Persistence: Individuals with high self-efficacy persist longer in tasks, even when faced with obstacles or setbacks. Persistence is critical in achieving challenging goals, as it sustains effort over time​(***Handbook of Psycholo…)​(***Handbook of Psycholo…). Resistance: Resistance refers to the ability to withstand adverse conditions or stress while pursuing goals. 14  Self-efficacy equips individuals with mental resilience, enabling them to maintain focus and effort​(***Handbook of Psycholo…)​(***Handbook of Psycholo…). Challenging Goals: Self-efficacy is directly linked to setting challenging and specific goals. Such goals act as a motivator, encouraging individuals to perform beyond basic expectations and tap into their full potential​(***Handbook of Psycholo…)​(***Handbook of Psycholo…). Effort: Effort allocation is directly proportional to self-efficacy beliefs. Higher self-efficacy ensures that individuals invest more effort in tasks, optimizing their chances of success​(***Handbook of Psycholo…)​(***Handbook of Psycholo…). Performance Perceptions: When performance is ambiguous, individuals rely on self-efficacy to estimate their performance, potentially influencing their resource investment (e.g., time and effort). Task Performance: High self-efficacy correlates with better performance through goal-setting and persistence. Moderators of Self-Efficacy’s Effects: ○ Performance Ambiguity: Reduces positive impact of self-efficacy on performance. ○ Task Challenge: Self-efficacy supports persistence in high-challenge tasks, but lower effort in easier tasks. ○ Goal Difficulty: High self-efficacy positively correlates with performance when goals are difficult, but negatively when goals are easy, as minimal effort is perceived sufficient. ○ Baseline level of self-efficacy: For those with high baseline self-efficacy, increases in self-efficacy might result in reduced effort allocation, as individuals might believe that success requires less effort. Conversely, for individuals with lower baseline self-efficacy, increases in self-efficacy could encourage greater effort and resource allocation, as they feel more capable of handling challenges. ○ Ambiguity: Moderates the relationship between self-efficacy and performance. Under high ambiguity, positively biased performance perceptions due to self-efficacy may lead to lower effort. Controversy: Vancouver et al. argue that self-efficacy’s positive link to performance might be spurious, with high self-efficacy sometimes leading to overconfidence and reduced effort. 15  ○ Studies show mixed results, with negative effects in high ambiguity situations and positive effects under challenging conditions. Related Constructs General Self-Efficacy (GSE): Broader belief in one’s capability across situations. Core Self-Evaluations (CSE): Global assessment of self-worth and competence. External Efficacy: Belief in task-relevant resources (e.g., “means efficacy” involves confidence in tools). Collective Efficacy: Perceptions of a team’s capability; generally supports team performance but may reduce beneficial conflict if confidence is too high. 16  ★ Ballard, T., Vancouver, J. B., & Neal, A. (2018). On the pursuit of multiple goals with different deadlines. Journal of Applied Psychology, 103(11), 1242–1264. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0000304 Objective To develop and test a theory explaining how individuals prioritize their time while pursuing multiple goals with different deadlines. To assess the effects of deadlines, time pressure, and distance to the goal on goal prioritization. Background Existing research on multiple-goal pursuit often assumes goals share the same deadlines, which is unrealistic in many real-life scenarios. Previous models like the Multiple-Goal Pursuit Model (MGPM) fail to account for dynamic prioritization when deadlines differ. The study integrates intertemporal motivation theories, such as time pressure and temporal discounting, with the MGPM to better understand goal prioritization. Key Findings 1. General Patterns in Goal Prioritization: ○ Participants prioritized goals with shorter deadlines across four experiments. ○ Temporal discounting and time pressure significantly influenced prioritization decisions. Temporal discounting refers to the psychological tendency for individuals to assign less value to rewards or goals that are further in the future compared to those that are more immediate. This concept is drawn from behavioral economics and decision-making research, where it is used to describe how the perceived utility or importance of an outcome decreases as the time to receive the outcome increases. Relevance in the Study Application in Goal Pursuit: ○ When individuals pursue multiple goals with different deadlines, temporal discounting influences how they prioritize these goals. Goals with closer deadlines are valued more highly and therefore are more likely to receive attention and effort, even if the farther-away goals may have a greater overall utility. ○ For instance, in the experiments conducted in this study, participants consistently prioritized goals with shorter deadlines because they perceived these as more urgent and important, even when the longer-term goals were more significant or rewarding. Theoretical Basis: ○ Temporal discounting aligns with the notion that immediate rewards are perceived as more certain or tangible, while future rewards are often seen as abstract or uncertain. 17  ○ The study incorporates this principle to explain how individuals dynamically allocate their time and effort when managing competing priorities. Key Takeaways from the Study: 2. Temporal discounting affects decision-making by biasing individuals toward immediate tasks over long-term objectives. 3. In the context of multiple-goal pursuit, temporal discounting interacts with factors like time pressure and perceived goal difficulty to shape how individuals prioritize between competing goals. 4. Experimental Results: ○ Experiment 1: Shorter deadlines were prioritized unless goal difficulty (distance) was high, which led to goal abandonment. ○ Experiment 2: Temporal discounting effects were isolated, showing that shorter deadlines led to higher prioritization even when time pressure was constant. ○ Experiment 3: Independent manipulation of deadline and time pressure confirmed both influence prioritization. Time pressure effects showed an inverted-U relationship, with moderate pressure yielding the highest prioritization. ○ Experiment 4: Simultaneous manipulation of deadline, time pressure, and distance revealed interactions, where prioritization patterns depended on combinations of these factors. 5. Modeling Insights: ○ The model combining time pressure and temporal discounting provided the best fit for observed data. ○ Valence was determined by time pressure, and expected utility was influenced by temporal discounting. Implications Theoretical: ○ Enhances the MGPM to include varying deadlines, offering a more realistic framework for understanding multiple-goal pursuit. ○ Provides insights into how temporal factors influence motivation and decision-making. Practical: ○ Helps organizations and individuals better manage multiple, competing goals by understanding the role of time pressure and deadlines. ○ Suggests strategies for structuring deadlines and task prioritization to optimize performance. 18 Theory and What Is It About (The Problem) Theory: The study integrates the Multiple-Goal Pursuit Model (MGPM) with theories of intertemporal motivation (e.g., time pressure and temporal discounting) to explain how individuals prioritize goals with varying deadlines. The Problem: Previous research on goal prioritization is limited to scenarios where goals share the same deadlines, which does not reflect real-world situations. This study addresses the gap by examining: ○ How deadlines, time pressure, and distance to a goal influence prioritization. ○ How goal prioritization decisions shift dynamically over time and under different conditions. Method: Variables Independent Variables (Predictors): ○ Deadline: The time remaining to complete a goal. ○ Distance: The amount of progress required to achieve the goal. ○ Time Pressure: Ratio of time required to time available to complete a goal. Dependent Variables (Outcome): ○ Goal Prioritization: The extent to which participants chose one goal over another in multiple-goal scenarios. Experimental Context: ○ Participants worked on simulated tasks (e.g., growing crops) where they prioritized between two goals with varying deadlines, distances, and time pressures. Moderators Distance: ○ Affects how deadlines influence goal prioritization. ○ High distances make shorter deadlines less attractive, as the goal may seem unachievable, leading to goal abandonment. Time Pressure: ○ Moderate time pressure enhances goal prioritization, while very low or very high time pressures reduce prioritization effectiveness. Mediators Temporal Discounting: ○ Mediates the relationship between deadlines and prioritization. ○ Goals with shorter deadlines are less discounted and are prioritized more often. Valence: ○ Mediates the effect of time pressure and distance on prioritization by reflecting the immediate value of acting on a goal. 19 ★ Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., & Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: The state of a science. Annual Review of Organizational Psychology and Organizational Behavior, 4, 19-43. 20 The image illustrates Self-Determination Theory (SDT), developed by Gagné and Deci (2005), which outlines different types of motivation along a continuum from amotivation (lack of motivation) to intrinsic motivation (motivation driven by inherent enjoyment): 1. Amotivation Definition: A state where there is no intention to act because the individual feels incapable or sees no value in the activity. Characteristics: ○ Absence of intentional regulation. ○ Lack of perceived connection between actions and outcomes. Example: ○ A student who doesn’t study for a test because they feel it’s pointless or beyond their ability to succeed. 2. Extrinsic Motivation Extrinsic motivation is divided into four types, reflecting varying degrees of external control and internalization: a. External Regulation Definition: Behavior is driven by external contingencies, such as rewards or punishments. Characteristics: ○ Actions are controlled by external forces. ○ Motivation is not self-determined. Example: ○ An employee working overtime solely to earn a bonus or avoid being reprimanded by their manager. b. Introjected Regulation Definition: Behavior is influenced by internal pressures, such as guilt, self-worth, or ego. Characteristics: ○ Actions are partially internalized but still not fully autonomous. Example: ○ A person exercising because they would feel guilty if they didn’t, rather than for personal enjoyment or health benefits. c. Identified Regulation Definition: Behavior is guided by the importance and value assigned to the goal, even if the activity itself isn’t inherently enjoyable. Characteristics: ○ Actions are self-endorsed because they align with personal goals or values. Example: 21  ○ A student studying hard because they value the long-term benefits of good grades, even if they don’t particularly enjoy the subject. d. Integrated Regulation Definition: Behavior is fully assimilated with one’s sense of self and values, making it more autonomous. Characteristics: ○ Coherence among goals, values, and regulations. Example: ○ A person volunteering because helping others aligns deeply with their personal identity and life purpose. 3. Intrinsic Motivation Definition: Behavior is driven by intrinsic interest, enjoyment, and satisfaction derived from the activity itself. Characteristics: ○ Fully autonomous and self-determined. ○ No external rewards or pressures are needed. Example: ○ An artist painting purely because they enjoy the creative process, without concern for external recognition or rewards. Motivational Continuum and Autonomy Levels Lack of Motivation: Amotivation (no intentional regulation). Controlled Motivation: External and introjected regulation. Moderately Autonomous Motivation: Identified regulation. Autonomous Motivation: Integrated regulation. Inherently Autonomous Motivation: Intrinsic motivation. 22 Type of Example Motivation Amotivation Skipping an assignment because you believe it won’t affect your grades or it’s too hard. External Regulation Working late hours for a paycheck or avoiding a fine. Introjected Attending a meeting to avoid feeling guilty for letting your team down. Regulation Identified Learning a new language because you believe it will help you in your career. Regulation Integrated Pursuing a degree because it aligns with your vision of becoming a skilled Regulation professional. Intrinsic Motivation Playing a musical instrument purely for the joy of creating music. Theory and Problem Self-Determination Theory (SDT): is a broad theory of human motivation, focusing on how social environments affect an individual's motivation and well-being. In work organizations, SDT addresses the problem of creating environments that balance employee well-being with high performance. Central Issue: Challenge of fostering sustainable, high-quality motivation in organizations - when employees’ basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness) are met, autonomous motivation improves, leading to better performance and well-being. Conversely, environments that control or constrain employees diminish these outcomes. Method: Variables Predictor Variables (Independent): ○ Autonomy Support: Degree of support for employees’ sense of choice and volition. ○ Leadership Styles: Differences between autonomy-supportive (transformational) and controlling (transactional) leadership. ○ Pay Structure: Type of reward system, especially the impact of performance-contingent pay. Mediators (Predictor & Outcome): 23  ○ Basic Need Satisfaction: Measures satisfaction of the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. ○ Motivation Types: Autonomous motivation (intrinsic and identified) and controlled motivation (introjected and external). Outcome Variables (Dependent): ○ Work Performance: Quality and quantity of performance, often divided between heuristic (complex) and algorithmic (simple) tasks. ○ Employee Well-Being: Includes job satisfaction, reduced burnout, and overall psychological wellness. ○ Turnover Intentions: Measured by indicators like job satisfaction and turnover likelihood. Statistics: Hypothesized Relationships Hypothesis on Need Satisfaction and Motivation: Satisfaction of autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs predicts higher autonomous motivation. Hypothesis on Leadership and Need Satisfaction: Autonomy-supportive leadership positively affects need satisfaction and autonomous motivation, while controlling leadership negatively impacts these outcomes. Hypothesis on Pay and Motivation: Performance-contingent rewards are hypothesized to undermine autonomous motivation, particularly for complex tasks requiring creativity and quality. ○ Autonomy Support: Research consistently supports the hypothesis that autonomy-supportive leadership enhances employee outcomes by satisfying their basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness), which in turn improves work engagement and well-being. Studies confirm that autonomy-supportive managers lead to higher need satisfaction, promoting both wellness and productivity across diverse work settings​. ○ Need Satisfaction: The hypothesis that satisfying basic psychological needs predicts positive work outcomes was confirmed. Need satisfaction, driven by factors like autonomy support, positively correlates with autonomous motivation, increased engagement, enhanced work performance, and improved well-being. Conversely, need-thwarting behaviors (e.g., bullying) lead to burnout and disengagement, further supporting the critical role of need satisfaction​. ○ Types of Motivation and Outcomes: The paper supports the hypothesis that autonomous motivation (such as intrinsic motivation) predicts favorable outcomes, including high-quality performance and well-being. Conversely, controlled motivation often leads to short-term gains but has negative implications for long-term engagement and performance. For instance, performance-contingent pay, which tends to foster controlled motivation, was found less effective for quality-driven tasks and potentially detrimental to well-being in high-stakes environments​. 24 Objective To explore Self-Determination Theory (SDT) as applied in work organizations, focusing on how SDT’s core constructs - autonomy, competence, and relatedness - affect employee motivation, performance, and well-being. Background SDT is a macro theory of motivation that differentiates between autonomous motivation (e.g., intrinsic motivation) and controlled motivation (e.g., motivation regulated by external rewards or pressures). In the workplace, SDT postulates that when employees' basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are supported, it fosters autonomous motivation, high-quality performance, and well-being. Key Findings Autonomous vs. Controlled Motivation: Autonomous motivation is positively linked to work quality, satisfaction, and reduced burnout, while controlled motivation may yield short-term compliance but risks negative long-term impacts on engagement and well-being. Basic Psychological Needs: Satisfying employees’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness results in greater engagement, performance, and well-being. Thwarting these needs, however, can lead to burnout, turnover intentions, and other negative outcomes. Leadership Impact: Transformational and autonomy-supportive leadership styles enhance employee motivation by supporting these basic needs. In contrast, transactional leadership can undermine motivation by emphasizing control. Pay and Motivation: Performance-contingent pay (PFP) tends to shift motivation from autonomous to controlled, leading to adverse effects on job satisfaction and intrinsic motivation, especially for complex, heuristic tasks that require quality over quantity. Implications Workplace Design: Environments that promote autonomy, provide opportunities for skill development, and foster a sense of belonging can improve both employee performance and organizational health. Leadership Approaches: Organizations should train leaders in autonomy-supportive behaviors, which involve acknowledging employees’ perspectives, providing meaningful feedback, and allowing choice in task execution. Pay Structures: Moving away from heavily performance-contingent pay structures and focusing on fair, equitable base pay with non-controlling incentives can preserve intrinsic motivation and foster better long-term outcomes. 25 Overview of Self-Determination Theory (SDT) Types of Motivation Autonomous Motivation: ○ Driven by internal willingness and choice. ○ Includes intrinsic motivation, where activities are done for inherent interest and enjoyment. ○ Leads to higher engagement, performance, and well-being when employees feel ownership and purpose in their work. Controlled Motivation: ○ Arises from external pressures or rewards. ○ Often results in short-term gains but can reduce long-term engagement and well-being. Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation Intrinsic Motivation: ○ Motivated by the activity itself (e.g., interest, enjoyment). ○ Key to sustained performance and wellness, especially in fulfilling, non-reward-based tasks. Extrinsic Motivation: ○ Involves performing tasks for external rewards or outcomes. ○ Ranges along a continuum of autonomy, from external regulation (least autonomous) to integrated regulation (most autonomous). Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET) Core Focus: Examines the effects of external rewards on intrinsic motivation. Findings: Contingent rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation by reducing autonomy and perceived competence. Basic Psychological Needs Needs: Autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Importance: Meeting these needs promotes autonomous motivation, well-being, and performance. Basic Need Support: Environmental factors (e.g., managerial style, job design) that support these needs lead to better outcomes in motivation and performance. 26 SDT’s Continuum of Motivation Motivation types range from less to more autonomous: external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, integrated regulation, and intrinsic motivation. Simplex Pattern: Types of motivation that are closer on the autonomy continuum are more closely related. Conclusion Environmental Impact: Support for basic needs enhances autonomous motivation, work engagement, and employee wellness. Predictive Model: Autonomous motivation is a strong predictor of persistence, performance quality, and well-being in organizational contexts. SDT Model for Workplace Motivation Core Components: ○ Focus on social context variables (organizational support for needs) and individual differences (motivational orientations, aspirations). ○ Emphasis on fulfilling employees’ basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. ○ Autonomy support from managers is crucial, often correlating with increased support for competence and relatedness. 27 Variables in the SDT Model Independent Variables: ○ Social Context Variables: Managerial styles that either support or thwart psychological needs. ○ Individual Difference Variables: Autonomy orientation, controlled orientation, impersonal orientation, and intrinsic/extrinsic aspirations. Mediating Variables: ○ Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction: Autonomy, competence, relatedness (sometimes analyzed separately or as a composite). ○ Motivation Types: Autonomous motivation (including intrinsic) and controlled motivation. Dependent Variables: ○ Performance: Quality and quantity of work, organizational profitability. ○ Well-being/Ill-being: Indicators like job satisfaction, vitality, and stress-related symptoms. Research Findings in Work Settings Consequences of Autonomous Motivation: ○ Positively linked to well-being, satisfaction, commitment, and reduced burnout. ○ Higher autonomous motivation leads to knowledge sharing, better performance, and lower turnover. 28  Need Satisfaction and Outcomes: ○ Satisfaction of autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs reduces burnout, enhances enjoyment, and promotes psychological wellness. ○ Frustration of needs is associated with negative outcomes like exhaustion and reduced job satisfaction. Work Contexts and Managerial Influence Autonomy-Supportive Managers: ○ Higher levels of autonomous motivation, job satisfaction, and engagement reported by employees under autonomy-supportive management. ○ Leads to improved psychological health and work outcomes, as well as lower turnover intentions. Employee Aspirations: ○ Intrinsic aspirations (personal growth, meaningful relationships) are linked to positive well-being and flexibility at work. ○ Extrinsic aspirations (financial goals, recognition) can be associated with ill-being if not integrated with intrinsic motives. Job Characteristics and Autonomy Support Role of Job Design: ○ Autonomy and task identity support the autonomy need. ○ Feedback supports the competence need; task significance enhances autonomy and relatedness. Transformational vs. Transactional Leadership: ○ Transformational: Supports basic needs, fosters employee engagement, commitment, and job satisfaction. Leaders with need satisfaction themselves are more likely to adopt transformational behaviors. ○ Transactional: Emphasis on rewards and norms, often linked to reduced need satisfaction and motivation. Impact of Pay and Rewards Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic Rewards: ○ Tangible rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation if perceived as controlling. ○ Performance-contingent rewards generally reduce intrinsic motivation, particularly in complex tasks. ○ Meta-analysis: Intrinsic motivation better predicts quality performance, while extrinsic incentives predict quantity. 29  Pay-for-Performance (PFP): ○ Effective for simple, quantity-focused tasks but detrimental to quality and autonomous motivation. ○ Linked to increased controlled motivation and turnover intentions, as shown in studies on commission-based compensation. ○ SDT research suggests autonomy-supportive environments with non-contingent pay are more effective for well-being and high-quality performance than PFP models focused solely on quantity. 30  ★ Schmidt, A. M., & DeShon, R. P. (2010). The moderating effects of performance ambiguity on the relationship between self-efficacy and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95(3), 572-581. Objective: ○ The study examines whether high performance ambiguity leads to a negative effect of self-efficacy on performance, while low ambiguity results in a positive relationship. Background: ○ Self-efficacy, or one's belief in their ability to achieve certain tasks, is a widely studied construct associated with motivation and performance. ○ Recent research suggests a negative within-person relationship between self-efficacy and performance under certain conditions, challenging the traditionally positive view. ○ Ambiguity in performance feedback may explain when and why self-efficacy can have a negative impact, particularly in settings where individuals have less clarity on their performance. Key Findings: Moderating Effect of Ambiguity: The relationship between self-efficacy and performance depends significantly on the level of performance ambiguity. High Ambiguity: Under high ambiguity conditions, self-efficacy was negatively related to performance. Individuals with high self-efficacy may overestimate their performance, reducing their subsequent effort. Low Ambiguity: Under low ambiguity conditions, self-efficacy was positively related to performance, aligning with the traditional view that high self-efficacy enhances performance. Role of Effort Allocation: Effort mediates the self-efficacy-performance relationship, as high self-efficacy under high ambiguity led to reduced effort, thereby negatively impacting performance. Effort Measures Consistency: Both objective (solution attempts) and subjective (self-reported) effort measures consistently supported the mediating role of effort in the effect of self-efficacy on performance. Implications: ○ Practical Applications: In ambiguous performance settings, boosting self-efficacy may have unintended negative effects, suggesting that providing clear and immediate feedback could mitigate these outcomes. 31  ○ Interventions: To avoid the negative effects of high self-efficacy in ambiguous situations, organizations could implement explicit feedback mechanisms or encourage self-assessment practices. Theory and Problem Theory: The paper builds on social-cognitive theory, which emphasizes that self-efficacy - an individual's belief in their capability to perform a task - generally enhances motivation and performance by encouraging effort and persistence. However, recent studies indicate a negative within-person relationship between self-efficacy and performance in certain ambiguous contexts. Problem: The main problem investigated in the paper is why self-efficacy sometimes has a negative effect on performance, contrasting with its usual positive effects. The authors propose that performance ambiguity - a lack of clear feedback about one’s performance - may be a critical factor. They aim to determine if high ambiguity moderates the self-efficacy-performance relationship, potentially reversing it under specific conditions. Method: Variables Variables: ○ Independent Variables (Predictors): Self-Efficacy: Measured at different performance levels, representing the confidence individuals have in their abilities before each performance trial. Performance Ambiguity: Manipulated to create conditions of high and low ambiguity, with participants either receiving or not receiving feedback on the number of possible solutions per task. ○ Dependent Variables (Outcome Variables): Performance: Operationalized as the percentage of possible correct solutions participants identified in the anagram task, measuring the actual task outcome. Effort: Represented by two measures, including the number of solution attempts (behavioral index) and self-reported effort (subjective measure) to capture participants’ investment in the task. Outcome Variables and Predictors Outcome Variables (Dependent): ○ Performance: Represents task success and is the primary measure of interest in understanding how self-efficacy influences results under varying levels of ambiguity. ○ Effort: Serves as a mediator, showing how changes in perceived ability (self-efficacy) influence the actual effort exerted, ultimately affecting performance. 32  Predictors (Independent Variables): ○ Self-Efficacy: An individual's level of confidence or belief in their ability to perform a task at different levels of difficulty, assessed before each task trial. ○ Performance Ambiguity: The degree of uncertainty about task performance, manipulated by providing or withholding feedback on the total number of correct solutions possible. VARYING PERSPECTIVES ON SELF-EFFICACY Social-Cognitive Theory: ○ Self-efficacy enhances motivation, self-regulation, effort, persistence, goal level, and performance. ○ Individuals with low efficacy may view challenging tasks as unachievable, reducing their effort and investment. ○ High self-efficacy increases the likelihood of success and encourages setting higher goals and sustained effort. Positive Effects of Self-Efficacy: ○ Leads to higher self-set goals and increased goal difficulty after success. ○ Encourages consistent effort and persistence, thus improving performance. Contrasting Evidence: ○ Some research suggests high self-efficacy can cause overly optimistic self-assessments. ○ This optimism can lead to the belief that goals are closer to being achieved, reducing the perceived need for further effort and time allocation. ROLE OF AMBIGUITY IN NEGATIVE SELF-EFFICACY EFFECTS Ambiguity and Feedback: ○ Without clear, timely feedback, self-efficacy’s benefits may be diminished, as people cannot accurately judge their performance. ○ Ambiguity in performance feedback can lead to inflated self-assessments in high-efficacy individuals, resulting in reduced effort. Conceptualizing Performance Ambiguity: ○ Defined as a lack of objective information about one’s actual performance level during a task. ○ Distinct from role clarity (knowing task expectations) and focuses on understanding actual performance quality. Impact of Ambiguity on Effort and Performance: ○ High self-efficacy under ambiguous conditions leads individuals to assume their efforts are effective, potentially reducing further effort. 33  ○ Self-efficacy beliefs shape performance perceptions, which then guide subsequent effort levels and actions. Purpose of the Study Main Objective: To compare the within-person relationship between self-efficacy and performance under high and low performance ambiguity. Secondary Objective: To test if effort allocation mediates the relationship between self-efficacy and performance. Hypotheses High Ambiguity Condition: ○ High self-efficacy may lead to assumptions of satisfactory performance with less effort invested, resulting in lower performance. Low Ambiguity Condition: ○ With clearer feedback, self-efficacy is less likely to bias perceptions, allowing self-efficacy to positively influence effort and performance. Mediating Role of Effort Effort as a Mediator: ○ Hypothesized that the effects of self-efficacy and ambiguity on effort will mirror their effects on performance. Methodology Approach Bias Reduction via Blockage Model: 34  ○ Directly measuring perceived performance could reduce bias, so a blockage model is used. ○ Low ambiguity condition reduces biases, potentially eliminating the negative effect of self-efficacy on performance. ○ High ambiguity condition allows for biased performance perceptions, supporting the occurrence of a negative self-efficacy effect. Method Task: Participants completed four blocks of five anagrams each, designed to assess their self-efficacy, effort, and performance under varying conditions. Measures: ○ Control Variables: Cognitive ability (measured via self-reported ACT/SAT scores) and time (block number). ○ Performance: Calculated as the percentage of possible solutions identified in each anagram block. ○ Self-Efficacy: Assessed before each block; participants rated their confidence in solving anagrams at different performance levels (scale 1–10). ○ Effort: Measured through both behavioral attempts (solution attempts) and self-reported effort (intensity of work on each block), using Likert-type scales. Ambiguity Manipulation Conditions: ○ Low Ambiguity: Displayed the exact number of possible solutions per anagram, allowing participants to know when they completed the task. ○ High Ambiguity: Did not provide the number of possible solutions, creating uncertainty about task completion. Coding: Ambiguity was coded as 0 for low and 1 for high. Results Pilot Study: ○ Verified that the manipulation effectively created performance ambiguity. ○ High ambiguity resulted in lower accuracy in participants' performance estimates and confidence compared to low ambiguity. Hypothesis Tests Hypothesis 1: ○ Interaction between self-efficacy and ambiguity significantly affected performance. ○ High ambiguity showed a negative relationship between self-efficacy and performance, while low ambiguity showed a positive relationship. 35  Hypothesis 2: ○ Interaction between self-efficacy and ambiguity also significantly affected effort. ○ High ambiguity led to a negative relationship between self-efficacy and effort, while low ambiguity led to a positive one. Hypothesis 3: ○ Mediation tests indicated effort mediated the relationship between self-efficacy, ambiguity, and performance. Additional Analyses Effect of Prior Performance: ○ Prior performance positively influenced self-efficacy, but controlling for it did not change the main interaction effects. Between-Persons Analysis: ○ Between-person analyses showed a positive relationship between self-efficacy and performance, moderated by ambiguity, with stronger effects under low ambiguity. Discussion Contribution of the Study: ○ Ambiguity as a critical boundary condition: self-efficacy negatively impacts performance under high ambiguity but positively impacts it under low ambiguity. Implications of Ambiguity: ○ Tasks with low ambiguity (clear feedback) often show positive self-efficacy effects, while high ambiguity (unclear feedback) aligns with the negative effects. Ambiguity’s Role in Preparatory Contexts: ○ High self-efficacy may reduce preparatory efforts (e.g., studying) if individuals believe they are sufficiently prepared, while some self-doubt can increase effort. Task Complexity and Ambiguity: ○ The efficacy-performance relationship is stronger for low-complexity tasks due to less ambiguity. ○ Complexity is an objective task aspect, while ambiguity is subjective, varying with the individual’s perception of task demands. Mediating Role of Effort: ○ Effort allocation mediates the self-efficacy-performance relationship, with ambiguity influencing whether self-efficacy increases or decreases effort. 36 The table examines how different variables affect Performance and Effort. It includes two primary dependent variables: 1. Performance 2. Effort, measured in two ways: ○ Effort (attempts): Objective measure, based on solution attempts. ○ Effort (self-report): Subjective measure, based on participants' self-reported effort. Explanation by Section Dependent Variable: Performance Step 1 (Main Effects): ○ Ability: Positive effect on performance (γ = 8.73, p <.01, R² =.09), suggesting higher cognitive ability improves performance. ○ Time: Positive effect (γ = 3.08, p <.01, R² =.07), indicating performance increases over time. 37  ○ Performance Ambiguity: Negative effect (γ = -10.81, p <.05, R² =.07), meaning ambiguity reduces performance. ○ Self-Efficacy: No significant effect on performance (γ = -0.02, p >.10, R² =.00). Step 2 (Interaction Effect): ○ Performance Ambiguity × Self-Efficacy: Significant negative interaction effect on performance (γ = -0.44, p <.01, R² =.04), suggesting that under high ambiguity, self-efficacy is negatively related to performance, aligning with the hypothesis. Effort (controlling for effort) on Performance The table also includes analysis with effort included as a mediator in the relationship between self-efficacy, ambiguity, and performance. Effort Operationalized as Solution Attempts: ○ Effort (Attempts): Strong positive effect on performance (γ = 18.22, p <.01, R² =.26), indicating more attempts improve performance. ○ Performance Ambiguity × Self-Efficacy: Still significant (γ = -0.33, p <.01, R² =.02), meaning ambiguity moderates self-efficacy's effect even when controlling for effort. Effort Operationalized as Self-Reported Effort: ○ Effort (Self-Report): Strong positive effect on performance (γ = 9.53, p <.01, R² =.17). ○ Performance Ambiguity × Self-Efficacy: Marginally significant (γ = -0.27, p =.06, R² =.02), suggesting that ambiguity’s moderating effect on self-efficacy is weaker but still present when controlling for self-reported effort. Key Takeaways Ambiguity reduces performance overall and moderates the self-efficacy-performance link, leading to negative effects under high ambiguity. Effort (both attempts and self-reported) positively impacts performance, supporting its role as a mediator. 38  The interaction effect between self-efficacy and ambiguity suggests that self-efficacy may have a detrimental effect on performance when individuals face high ambiguity, confirming the study’s hypotheses. 39  ★ Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57(9), 705-717. Objective Theory of goal setting and task motivation - how specific, challenging goals influence performance and task motivation, outlining key mechanisms, moderators, and mediators involved in goal effects within work settings​. Background Historical Context: Ryan (1970) argued that human actions are influenced by conscious intentions, which led to the foundation of goal-setting theory. Theoretical Foundation: Goal-setting theory is based on the premise that conscious goals are direct motivators of action. Key Findings 1. Goal Difficulty and Specificity: ○ Higher goal difficulty is positively correlated with performance, but performance levels off once ability limits are reached. Specific and challenging goals generally lead to better performance than vague goals like "do your best"​. 2. Mechanisms of Goal Setting: ○ Direction: Goals guide attention toward goal-relevant activities. ○ Effort: More challenging goals result in increased effort. ○ Persistence: Higher goals increase persistence on tasks. ○ Task Strategies: Goals encourage the development of strategies for performance improvement. 3. Moderators of Goal Effects: ○ Goal Commitment: Higher commitment leads to stronger effects, especially for difficult goals. ○ Feedback: Knowledge of results is essential for goal attainment. ○ Task Complexity: On simpler tasks, goals have a stronger effect, while complex tasks may require learning goals to facilitate performance​​. Implications Practical Applications: ○ Organizational Performance: Implementing specific and challenging goals can significantly enhance productivity and cost-efficiency. ○ Performance Appraisal: Goal-setting theory provides a framework for designing performance appraisals that enhance motivation and job satisfaction. 40  ○ Self-Regulation and Motivation: Goal-setting theory emphasizes the role of self-regulation. Techniques such as self-monitoring and reward systems based on goal attainment can improve motivation and job attendance​​. Theory and Problem Theory: Goal-setting theory posits that conscious goals significantly affect motivation and performance. The theory argues that specific, challenging goals enhance task motivation more effectively than general or vague ones (because do-your-best goals have no external referent and thus are defined idiosyncratically). ○ Goal specificity in itself does not necessarily lead to high performance because specific goals vary in difficulty. However, insofar as performance is fully controllable, goal specificity does reduce variation in performance by reducing the ambiguity about what is to be attained Problem: The study seeks to establish a theory that can reliably explain and improve motivation and performance in work settings. It addresses how goals direct behavior and effort, considering the role of self-efficacy, task complexity, and feedback on performance outcomes​​. Method: Variables Independent Variables (Predictors): ○ Goal Specificity: The degree to which a goal is clearly defined. ○ Goal Difficulty: The level of challenge presented by the goal. ○ Feedback: Information on progress towards the goal. ○ Task Complexity: The difficulty and intricacy of the task being performed. ○ Self-Efficacy: The individual’s belief in their capacity to achieve the goal​​. Dependent Variables (Outcome Variables): ○ Performance: Measured in terms of quantity, quality, and time. ○ Effort: Assessed by persistence and the amount of exertion towards achieving the goal. ○ Satisfaction: Evaluated by the level of fulfillment or contentment associated with goal achievement​​. Goal Mechanisms - Goals affect performance through four mechanisms (1) Directive Function: ○ Goals focus attention on relevant tasks and away from distractions. (2) Energizing Function: ○ Higher goals lead to greater effort, demonstrated through physical tasks and cognitive repetition. 41 (3) Persistence: ○ Hard goals prolong effort and help sustain task engagement → tight deadlines speed up work pace, while loose deadlines allow for slower but steady effort (Bryan & Locke, 1967b). (4) Goals affect action indirectly by leading to the arousal, discovery, and/or use of task-relevance → Knowledge and Strategy Activation: ○ Goals stimulate the discovery and application of relevant knowledge and strategies. ○ Key findings: Automatic Knowledge Use: People apply known skills automatically for familiar tasks. Skill Adaptation: For new tasks, previously learned skills are modified to fit new goals. Strategy Planning: New tasks require deliberate planning for effective goal attainment. Self-Efficacy: High self-efficacy individuals are better at developing effective strategies. Additional Insights on Strategy and Complexity: ○ Complex Tasks: For difficult tasks, “do your best” goals may sometimes reduce anxiety and promote better strategy discovery. ○ Training Influence: Training in effective strategies enhances performance with challenging goals. However, if the chosen strategy is ineffective, difficult goals can lower performance compared to easier goals​ Moderators Goal Commitment: ○ Strong commitment enhances the goal-performance link, especially for difficult goals. ○ Key Factors: Importance of goal outcomes and belief in attainability (self-efficacy). Incentives: Monetary rewards can boost commitment but may harm performance if only given upon goal attainment and if goals are overly challenging​. Self-Efficacy: ○ Higher self-efficacy boosts commitment and strategy development. ○ Leaders can enhance self-efficacy through training, modeling, and positive reinforcement​. Feedback: ○ Essential for goal effectiveness, as it allows adjustments in effort and strategies. ○ Feedback combined with goal-setting improves performance more than goals alone​. 42  Task Complexity: ○ Goal-setting effects vary by task complexity: Simple Tasks: Stronger goal effects with specific, challenging goals. Complex Tasks: Performance improves with specific learning goals rather than performance goals, with the help of proximal goals. ○ Complexity requires diverse strategies; proximal goals and feedback help manage errors and adapt strategies effectively​. Personal Goals as Mediators of External Incentives Role of Personal Goals: ○ Personal goals, commitment, and self-efficacy form the "motivation hub," serving as direct motivators of behavior. ○ Assigned goals’ effects are mediated by self-set goals and self-efficacy, with challenging goals enhancing self-efficacy as a sign of leader confidence​. Mediating Effects of Self-Set Goals and Self-Efficacy: ○ Self-set goals and self-efficacy mediate the impact of incentives on performance. ○ Feedback effects are similarly mediated by goals and self-efficacy, with negative feedback impacting self-efficacy and influencing future goal adjustments​. Participation in Goal Setting: ○ Cognitive benefits arise from participative goal setting; it boosts performance and results in higher goals than when goals are solely assigned by supervisors​. Satisfaction and Goals Goals as a Measure of Satisfaction: ○ Goals create a benchmark for satisfaction; achieving or exceeding goals leads to satisfaction, while unmet goals lead to dissatisfaction. ○ A paradox exists: those with high, difficult goals often produce more but feel less satisfied due to higher standards​. Motivation for Setting High Goals: ○ High goals are motivated by expected rewards, such as pride, academic achievements, career prospects, and life success. ○ Setting challenging goals can also enhance task interest and enjoyment, making activities more engaging and fulfilling​. 43 Practical Applications Productivity and Cost Improvement: Specific, challenging goals boost productivity across various jobs. Performance Appraisal: Setting specific goals improves both performance and satisfaction with appraisals. Self-Regulation at Work: ○ Goal setting aids self-regulation by enabling employees to set attendance goals, monitor progress, and self-reward. ○ Training in self-management and goal setting led to increased job attendance and self-efficacy, sustained over time​. Mental Practice and Goal Setting: ○ Mental practice, combined with goal-setting, enhanced communication skills and self-efficacy in supervisors. ○ Six months post-training, supervisors demonstrated higher self-efficacy and improved on-the-job communication​. High-Performance Cycle: ○ High goals drive high performance, leading to rewards and satisfaction, which fosters further goal commitment and achievement. ○ The cycle explains that job satisfaction indirectly influences productivity when it supports specific, challenging goals​. 44 45  ★ Beck, J. W., & Schmidt, A. M. (2013). State-level goal orientations as mediators of the relationship between time pressure and performance: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 98(2), 354-363 Objective: investigate how time pressure influences performance through the mediation of state-level goal orientations, specifically mastery, performance-avoid, and performance-prove orientations. Background Goal orientation theory suggests that individuals adopt different orientations: ○ Mastery Goal Orientation (MGO): Focus on developing new skills and long-term growth. ○ Performance-Prove Goal Orientation (PGO): Aim to demonstrate competence to others. ○ Performance-Avoid Goal Orientation (AGO): Desire to avoid failure and not appear incompetent. Time pressure affects motivation and behavior; understanding its impact on state-level goal orientations could create strategies to improve performance. Key Findings Time Pressure and Goal Orientation: ○ Increased time pressure negatively correlates with MGO and positively correlates with AGO. ○ The relationship between time pressure and PGO was complex, showing mixed outcomes depending on personal differences. Goal Orientation and Performance: ○ MGO positively correlated with performance, particularly within individuals, suggesting that when individuals are more mastery-oriented, they perform better. ○ AGO negatively correlated with performance at the between-person level, indicating that generally avoidant individuals tend to underperform. ○ PGO showed a positive relationship with performance, though this effect varied across contexts. Indirect Effects of Time Pressure on Performance: ○ Time pressure impacts performance indirectly by shifting goal orientations, especially reducing mastery focus and increasing performance-avoid focus. 46 47 Implications Workplace Applications: ○ Organizations aiming to foster continuous learning may need to manage time pressure to prevent employees from adopting avoidant behaviors. ○ Strategies like flexible work schedules and a learning-oriented climate can mitigate the impact of time pressure on goal orientations and enhance long-term performance and development. Theory and Problem Theory: The study draws on goal orientation theory and temporal motivation theory to explore how individuals' focus on specific goals shifts in response to time pressure. It proposes that time pressure influences short-term focus, encouraging certain goal orientations that may impact task performance. Key goal orientations: ○ Mastery Goal Orientation (MGO): Oriented towards learning and skill development. ○ Performance-Prove Goal Orientation (PGO): Focused on proving competence. ○ Performance-Avoid Goal Orientation (AGO): Centered on avoiding failure and avoiding appearing incompetent. Problem: The research addresses the issue of how time pressure can alter individuals' goal orientations, potentially leading them to prioritize immediate performance over skill development → whether time pressure affects performance indirectly by changing goal orientations. Method Variables Independent Variable (Predictor): ○ Time Pressure: Measured through students' perceptions of time constraints before exams, using a scale to capture the extent to which students felt under pressure to meet deadlines. Mediator Variables: ○ Goal Orientations: Mastery Goal Orientation (MGO): Focus on learning new skills and improvement. Performance-Prove Goal Orientation (PGO): Desire to demonstrate skill competence to others. Performance-Avoid Goal Orientation (AGO): Effort to avoid showing incompetence or failure. Outcome Variable (Dependent Variable) Performance: Students’ scores on exams served as a measure of performance, capturing how well students applied knowledge gained in the course. 48 Balancing Responsibilities and Time Pressure Individuals often juggle primary responsibilities with various additional tasks. The sense of inadequate time to meet goals can create strong time pressure. High time pressure can lead to negative psychological outcomes, such as fatigue and burnout. Impact on Goal Orientation Time pressure influences goal orientation, which includes: ○ Mastery Goal Orientation (MGO): Focus on developing new skills. ○ Performance-Prove Orientation (PGO): Emphasis on demonstrating existing skills. ○ Performance-Avoid Orientation (AGO): Avoiding actions that may reveal incompetence. When time is abundant, individuals may pursue MGO, accepting short-term performance dips for long-term gains. Under high time pressure, individuals may reduce focus on MGO to avoid short-term performance losses. Novel Insights into Goal Orientation Antecedents Highlights how goal orientations are not only influenced by stable traits (e.g., personality) but can vary by domain and over time. Methodology and Practical Applications Longitudinal, multi-level analysis of goal orientations, examining both interindividual and intraindividual variations. Provides a theoretical foundation for targeted interventions at both the individual level (e.g., skill development) and situational level (e.g., creating conducive environments). Results could guide strategies to either mitigate negative effects of time pressure on skill development or use it to enhance focus on immediate tasks. Mastery Goal Orientation (MGO): Based on Temporal Motivation Theory (TMT), which suggests actions are motivated by outcome value, probability of achievement, timing, and gain/loss context. High time pressure reduces the perceived utility of MGO since its outcomes are long-term and may not offset short-term performance costs. Performance-Avoid Goal Orientation (AGO): Time pressure may increase focus on avoiding failures or perceived incompetence due to conservative decision-making. Individuals under high time pressure focus on known strategies to reduce risks. 49 Performance-Prove Goal Orientation (PGO): Uncertain relationship; high time pressure might encourage reliance on proven skills (positive impact) or hinder the focus on appearing competent (negative impact). KEY FINDINGS ON TIME PRESSURE AND GOAL ORIENTATIONS Time Pressure and Goal Orientations: ○ Time pressure negatively impacts Mastery Goal Orientation (MGO) and positively impacts Performance-Avoid Goal Orientation (AGO). ○ Negative relationship between time pressure and Performance-Prove Goal Orientation (PGO) observed only at the between-person level. Conceptual Explanation: Time pressure reduces individuals’ cognitive and emotional resources. As resources diminish, individuals prioritize immediate, task-specific goals over demonstrating their abilities to others. The goal shielding phenomenon plays a role: under high time pressure, individuals focus on completing immediate obligations (e.g., task performance) rather than aspirational or secondary objectives, like proving their competence to others. Measurement Consideration: The authors note that their measure of PGO specifically captures the desire to demonstrate competence to others, which may decrease under time pressure as the focus shifts to essential task performance. Alternative facets of PGO, such as outperforming others, might show different relationships with time pressure, suggesting that the observed relationship might not fully represent all aspects of PGO. Between-Person Effect: The relationship is observed only at the between-person level because individuals with higher average time pressure across contexts are less likely to maintain a focus on proving competence over time. Instead, they adapt their goals to manage pressing demands, reflecting a broader strategy rather than momentary fluctuations. This nuanced interpretation suggests that the observed negative relationship arises from a combination of goal prioritization dynamics, goal shielding, and specific measures of PGO used in the study​ Impact on Performance: ○ State goal orientations influenced exam performance: MGO positively related to performance (within-person level). 50  AGO and PGO influenced performance at the between-person level. ○ Time pressure’s impact on performance was partially mediated by goal orientations. Implications for Work Settings Workplace Implications: ○ Time pressure might discourage developmental activities, prioritizing immediate performance tasks. ○ Organizations can mitigate time pressure effects by offering flexible schedules (e.g., telecommuting, flextime) and promoting a learning-focused environment. 51  ★ Bandura, A., & Locke, E. A. (2003). Negative self-efficacy and goal effects revisited. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 87–99. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.88.1.87 → look at Sitzmann Objective: To analyze the role of self-efficacy in goal-setting and self-regulation and address claims by other researchers, particularly Vancouver et al., that high self-efficacy can be detrimental to performance. Background: Self-efficacy is a key component of social cognitive theory and is central to how individuals regulate motivation and behavior. Vancouver et al. argued that high self-efficacy could lead to complacency and ultimately reduce performance, based on control theory's focus on discrepancy reduction. This paper challenges these claims, advocating that self-efficacy and proactive discrepancy production (setting challenging goals) are essential for motivation and performance improvement. Key Findings: Evidence from various studies shows that high self-efficacy typically enhances motivation and performance rather than diminishing it. Self-efficacy enables proactive goal setting, persistence in challenging situations, and resilience in the face of setbacks. Control theory's focus on negative feedback loops does not adequately capture the proactive aspects of self-regulation and motivation observed in human behavior. High self-efficacy leads individuals to set challenging goals, which promotes higher performance. Implications: High self-efficacy is beneficial for performance, supporting the idea that building self-efficacy in individuals can lead to better outcomes in both educational and organizational settings. The findings highlight the need for interventions that boost self-efficacy to foster resilience and sustained effort toward achieving difficult goals. The critique of control theory emphasizes the importance of developing motivational models that include both reactive and proactive regulatory mechanisms. 52 53 54 Overview of Social Cognitive Theory and Self-Efficacy Social Cognitive Theory Overview ○ Rooted in an agentic perspective; individuals act as proactive regulators of their motivation and actions. ○ Focuses on feed-forward self-regulation rather than solely on error correction (as in control theories). ○ Central to this theory is self-efficacy - the belief in one’s ability to achieve desired outcomes. ○ Self-efficacy affects: Cognitive processes (how individuals think). Motivational and affective processes (how they motivate themselves and manage emotions). Decisional processes (choices made in important moments). Self-Efficacy Causality and Evidence ○ Research Question: Does self-efficacy causally impact human functioning? ○ Answered through extensive research, including nine large-scale meta-analyses covering: Work performance, psychosocial functioning, academic achievement, health, athletics, controlled experiments, and group efficacy. ○ Diverse methods confirm that higher self-efficacy generally leads to: Increased motivation and improved performance across various domains and populations. Consistent evidence that self-efficacy predicts both interindividual (between people) and intraindividual (within the same person over time) variations in functioning. 55  Critique of Contradictory Claims by Vancouver et al. ○ Vancouver et al. argue that high self-efficacy can lead to complacency and reduced performance. ○ These claims are based on perceptual control theory, which emphasizes negative feedback loops. ○ Bandura and Locke critique this view, reviewing the conceptual, methodological, and empirical weaknesses in Vancouver et al.'s arguments. ○ The article situates this critique within a broader analysis of control theory versus social cognitive theory, examining how these theories approach causation and human motivation. Sociocognitive Dual Control Model of Self-Regulation: Dual Systems in Motivation: ○ Self-regulation includes both proactive (goal-setting) and reactive (discrepancy reduction) control mechanisms. ○ People are driven by foresight of goals, not just by reducing discrepancies between current and desired states. Motivation through Self-Challenge: ○ People set challenging goals to create motivational discrepancies. ○ High self-efficacy leads to setting higher standards and continuously creating new goals. Discrepancy Framing Effects: ○ Positive framing (progress toward goals) boosts self-efficacy and performance. ○ Negative framing (shortfalls) lowers self-efficacy and reduces motivation. Importance of Resilient Self-Efficacy in Achieving Goals: Resilient self-belief helps individuals persevere despite negative feedback and setbacks. Successful individuals override negative feedback and continue pursuing goals, while those with self-doubt are more likely to quit. Application in Modern Organizations: Organizations must adopt proactive adaptability to succeed in the fast-paced global market. Innovation and readiness to change are essential to prevent stagnation despite current success. Distinction Between Social Cognitive Theory and Expectancy-Value Theory Key Differences in Motivation and Decision-Making: ○ Social Cognitive Theory (SCT) emphasizes the role of self-efficacy - beliefs about one's ability to perform tasks - as a primary driver of motivation and action. 56  ○ Expectancy-Value Theory (EVT) focuses on motivation driven by expected outcomes and the value placed on those outcomes. ○ People often exclude options based on self-efficacy without analyzing costs and benefits, indicating that SCT goes beyond rational decision-making models. ○ Incorporating self-efficacy into decision-making models improves their predictive and explanatory power. Limitations of Effort Expectancy in EVT: ○ Some EVT models include the expectation that effort will lead to achievement (e.g., Vroom’s model). ○ Difference Between Self-Efficacy and Effort Expectancy: Self-efficacy is a broader construct, encompassing belief in one's ability to mobilize and sustain effort despite challenges. Effort expectancy only addresses the belief that effort is useful, not the ability to persist through setbacks. Role of Self-Management in SCT: ○ Self-efficacy for effort regulation is only one aspect of performance management. ○ Effective performance often requires self-beliefs in cognitive and social abilities, adaptability, and emotional resilience. ○ High self-efficacy includes managing distressing emotions and self-debilitating thoughts that can interfere with task performance. Analysis of Control Theories Core Concept of Control Theory: ○ Developed from cybernetics, focusing on negative feedback loops. ○ Actions are driven by discrepancies between desired states and current conditions. ○ Perceptual control theory suggests people act to control perceptions, not actions. Criticisms of Control Theory: ○ Reductionist View: Describes humans as mechanical, ignoring cognitive and emotional factors in motivation and action. ○ Over-Simplicity: Emphasizes feedback loops but neglects human adaptability, intentionality, and goal-setting beyond error correction. ○ Lacks Innovation: Adds little new to understanding motivation and has borrowed concepts from other theories (goal theory, expectancy theory). ○ Inadequate Representation of Human Self-Regulation: through proactive goal-setting and self-efficacy, not just by reducing discrepancies; actively setting challenging goals, regulating emotions, and adapting strategies (which control theory fails to capture). 57  Critiques of Vancouver and Powers’ Applications: ○ Vancouver et al. argued that high self-efficacy is self-debilitating, but Bandura and others find that self-efficacy drives perseverance and proactive behavior. ○ Control theory’s focus on past performance as a driver limits its applicability to forward-looking, aspirational human behavior. Affective Self-Reactions in Social Cognitive Theory: ○ SCT emphasizes self-satisfaction with future goals as a motivator, which is more predictive of performance than satisfaction with past achievements. ○ Affective responses to performance discrepancies (e.g., pride, self-criticism) contribute significantly to future performance, unlike in cybernetic models where emotions are irrelevant. Importance of Observational Learning: ○ SCT highlights humans’ ability to learn through observation, which speeds up skill acquisition and goes beyond error-based learning. ○ Control theory’s error correction model would greatly slow development if humans relied only on direct experience. Conclusion: ○ Control theory is inadequate for capturing the complex, proactive, and emotional aspects of human motivation and self-regulation. ○ A comprehensive theory must include cognitive, social, and emotional factors that influence self-regulation, which are central in SCT. Problems in Research on Negative Self-Efficacy Effects Conceptual Issues: ○ Theoretical Mismatch: Vancouver et al. claimed to test perceptual control theory, yet included self-efficacy (not part of the original theory) to suggest it leads to complacency. ○ Emotional Response Inconsistency: Perceptual control theory does not include emotional responses like satisfaction or dissatisfaction, yet Vancouver’s research assumes these responses affect performance. Conflicting Effects of Self-Efficacy and Goals: ○ Lack of Integration: Vancouver et al. emphasized self-efficacy’s demotivating role but ignored that high self-efficacy encourages setting higher goals, which can be motivating. ○ Unspecified Resolution: They did not clarify how these conflicting influences (demotivating self-efficacy vs. motivating goals) interact to impact performance. 58  Methodological Concerns: ○ Mismatch with Theory Conditions: Perceptual control theory predicts self-efficacy debilitation only in ambiguous feedback conditions, yet Vancouver et al. tested it under explicit feedback, undermining the test’s validity. ○ Nonfalsifiability: They retrospectively claimed feedback wasn’t fully “captured” in hierarchical loops, leaving the theory difficult to falsify. Experimental Design Issues: ○ Unexpected Results: Contrary to predictions, self-set goals and self-efficacy negatively affected performance, contradicting their theory’s expected positive goal effect. ○ Dismissal of Contradictory Findings: Vancouver et al. dismissed the negative effects of self-set goals as “spurious” without an alternative explanation. ○ Omission of Goals in Later Studies: In a follow-up study, they removed goals, an essential element of control theory, making the test conceptually incomplete. 59  ★ Sitzmann, T., & Yeo, G. (2013). A meta-analytic investigation of the within-person self-efficacy domain: Is self-efficacy a product of past performance or a driver of future performance? Personnel Psychology, 66(3), 531–568. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12035 Objective: To investigate whether self-efficacy is primarily a product of past performance or a driver of future performance, focusing on within-person relationships between self-efficacy and performance. Background: Self-efficacy, or belief in one’s capability to succeed, has been widely studied and is generally thought to enhance performance through goal setting, effort, and persistence. Recent research questions the consistency of self-efficacy's positive effect on performance, especially at the within-person level, where it may have varying effects based on task context and personal experience. Control theory suggests that high self-efficacy could sometimes reduce motivation if individuals perceive their performance as meeting their goals, potentially leading to complacency. Key Findings: → SELF-EFFICACY AND PERFORMANCE CORRELATION 1. Positive Relationship: ○ At the within-person level, the meta-analysis found a moderate positive correlation between self-efficacy and performance (ρ =.23). ○ This suggests that on average, higher self-efficacy is associated with better task performance over time within individuals. ○ However, after controlling for the linear performance trajectory, this effect becomes weak and non-significant (ρ =.06). This indicates that the observed relationship was primarily due