Sustaining motivation and academic goals: The role of academic delay of gratification

SUSTAINING MOTIVATION AND ACADEMIC GOALS:THE ROLE OF ACADEMIC DELAY OF GRATIFICATION HI~FERBEMBENUTTY CITY UNIVERSITYOF NEW YORK

ABSTRACT: This study examined college students' academic delay of gratifica-

tion; that is, their preference for an immediately available option (e.g., go to a favorite concert the day before a test even though the student is not well-prepared) or a delayed alternative (e.g., stay home studying to get later a good grade in the course). Academic delay of gratification, its motivational determinants (i.e., importance, utility, interest, perceived cost of success, and social expectancy), and students' use of motivation regulation strategies were examined among students identified on the basis of their task-goal orientation, performance-approach-goal orientation, and performance-avoidance-goal orientation using a hierarchical cluster analysis (N = 102). The results supported the notion that academic delay of gratification and its motivational determinants differed as a function of goal orientation. Students in Cluster 1, the high task-goal oriented learners, are high in delay of gratification and have high motivation. Students in Cluster 2, labeled combined high task-high-performance approach, considered the delay of gratification's alternatives as important and useful while perceiving the nondelay alternatives as highly interested and socially beneficial. Students in Cluster 3 were low in all of the three goal orientations and reported low preference for delay of gratification. Academic delay of gratification was discussed in view of the macro-analytic model of Mischel's cognitive-affective personality system.

To remain task-focused, students often have to maintain academic goals in spite of attractive alternatives that could preclude them from achieving high academic

Direct all correspondence to: Hdfer Bembenutty, EducationalPsychologyProgram, GraduateSchool and University Center, City University of New York, P.O. Box 932, New York, NY 10156, USA. E-mail: Learning and Individual Differences, Volume 11, Number3, 1999, pages233-257. All rights of reproductionin any form reserved.

Copyright © 2000 by ElsevierScience Inc. ISSN: 1041-6080

234

LEARNINGANDINDIVIDUALDIFFERENCES

VOLUME11, NUMBER3 1999

outcomes (Garcia et al., 1998; McCann, 1999; Randi & Corno, 2000; Wolters, 1998; Zimmerman, 1998a, 2000a). Choosing to enact long-term intentions requires the ability to forego immediate impulse and to delay gratification for the sake of longterm valuable outcomes. Successful self-regulated learners engage in academic delay of gratification by deferring attractive activities (e.g., having fun with friends) in order to achieve long-term goals (e.g., studying in order to later get a high final grade in the course). In contrast, less-skilled learners engage in immediate gratification that could preclude them from academic success. Indeed, Zimmerman (1998b) proposed that less-skilled self-regulated learners "must generate extraordinary personal motivation to delay gratification until distal goals are achieved" (p. 6). Likewise, Randi & Corno (2000) proposed that when conflicts arise while pursuing predetermined goals, "gratification must be delayed" (p. 667). Motivational determinants, such as expectancy of success, interest, utility, and task value, are known to influence learners' task engagement and choice, in general (Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000), and are also known to influence delay preference, in particular (Mischel, 1996). These differences may be explained by learners' task a n d / o r performance-goal orientations; that is, engaging in school activities for the sake of mastery of a task or for the sake of demonstrating ability and avoiding failure. Further, these differences may also be explained by learners' ability to use self-regulatory strategies to maintain intentions when attractive alternatives may arise (Corno, 1993; Garcia et al. 1998; Kuhl, 2000; Zimmerman, 1998a). Until now, the relationship between delay of gratification and the students' different goal orientations has not been fully explored. This study will focus on that relationship, especially on differences in delay of gratification and its motivational determinants for learners with task-, performance-approach-, and performance-avoidance-goal orientations.

DELAY OF GRATIFICATION The majority of research on delay of gratification comes from the work of Mischel and his associates (Mischel, 1996). Mischel (1981) suggested that delay of gratification occurs when "people attempt to delay immediate smaller gratification for the sake of more distant but deferred goals" (p. 244). In Mischel's basic paradigm, children are presented with the choice of waiting for a large desirable reward (e.g., two cookies), or not waiting and receiving instead a less-desirable reward (e.g., one cookie). Mischel, Shoda, and Peake (1988) found that children who opted to delay gratification, such as preschoolers, years later achieved more during high school and were academically and socially more competent than were children who preferred immediate gratification. According to Mischel (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999; Mischel, Cantor, & Feldman, 1996), the ability to delay gratification is a process of the self-regulatory system of willpower that orchestrates maintenance of motivation and enactment of goals. Thus, the self-regulatory system is one by which individuals must guide their behavior, often when they do not have external coercive stimuli. Mischel conceptu-

ACADEMICDELAYOFGRATIFICATION

235

alizes delay of gratification among children as a competence necessary for development of self-control and willpower. Different experimental methods and instruments have been used to manipulate and to assess delay of gratification in children, adolescents, and adults (Rosenbaum & Ben-Ari Smira, 1986). In addition to Mischel's basic assessment paradigm, researchers have used the Q-sort technique (Funder, Block, & Block, 1989) and questionnaires. Ward and her associates (Ward et al., 1989) assessed delay of gratification among African-American university students leaders, with particular interest on the students' delay of gratification and their academic and career concerns, and individual and group sociopolitical beliefs. An example of their questionnaire items is, "Go to a favorite concert and risk getting a bad grade, or stay home and study to get a better grade." In the study, the researchers found that achievement-oriented delay of gratification was related to career preference. Ward et al. (1989) made an important contribution by designing an instrument that assessed delay in relation to the general academic context. Witt (1990a, 1990b) used Ray & Najman's (1986) deferment of gratification scale and found that college students' delay of gratification was related to commitment to and satisfaction with the university in which the students were enrolled. These results are important because they sought an association between college students' academic endeavors and delay of gratification. Despite the advantage of these instruments in examining academically related issues, they did not assess academics in a specific context. Consequently, a new instrument was warranted to reflect specific aspects of delay that mediate the interaction between the students and their particular academic environment. Current measurements assessing delay consider it as a global entity and do not consider the situational specificity of this concept. There is evidence that suggests that delay of gratification is domain specific (Bembenutty, 1997; Durden, 1997; Ward et al., 1989). For example, Ward and her associates (1989) were concerned with the sociopolitical and achievement specificity of delay of gratification. The results of a factor analysis indicated that, indeed, there were several dimensions of delay such as sociopolitical, career objective, and academic achievement. Consequently, given that there is evidence suggesting that delay of gratification is highly dependent of the situation (Metcalfe & Mischel, 1999), a global or a general conceptualization of delay of gratification could be misleading. Considering delay of gratification as domain specific could provide a better understanding of its processes. Indeed, in an initial study to develop an appropriate scale to assess delay of gratification among college students, Bembenutty (1997) factor analyzed items that assessed delay of gratification in academic and employment situations. Bembenutty found that items assessing delay of gratification in an academic context loaded separately from the items assessing delay in relation to employment. Thus, in the present research, the specific domain of concern is academic delay of gratification.

ACADEMIC DELAY OF GRATIFICATION

Pressley (1983) noted the important implications of delay of gratification for education and academic performance. He noted that delay of gratification could facilitate

236

LEARNINGANDINDIVIDUALDIFFERENCES

VOLUME11, NUMBER3 1999

learning and information processing among learners. Pressley recommended that learners should be trained how to delay gratification and in self-control. Consistent with Pressley and in an attempt to fill the gap created by diminished empirical attention that has been given to the specific role that delay may play in facilitating learners' academic success and their learning processes, researchers have begun to examine students' preference for delay of gratification in academic settings (Bembenutty, 1997; Bembenutty & Karabenick, 1998; Karabenick & Bembenutty, 1998a, 1998b). Bembenutty (1997) developed the 10-item Academic Delay of Gratification Scale (ADOGS) to assess individual differences in academic delay of gratification (ADOG; see Appendix A). In this context, academic delay of gratification refers to students' postponement of immediately available opportunities to satisfy impulses in favor of pursuing important academic rewards, goals, and intentions that are temporally remote but ostensibly more valuable (Bembenutty, 1997; Bembenutty & Karabenick, 1998). The ADOGS operationalizes delay of gratification by determining the likelihood that students would select activities associated with long-term versus shortterm goal satisfaction. For each situation, the students first rated their preference for an option that offered immediate gratification, such as "Going to a favorite concert, play, or sporting event, even though it may mean getting a lower grade on an exam in this class to be taken the next day," or a delayed gratification option such as, "Staying home and studying to increase your chances of getting a higher grade." In a set of studies using the ADOGS, both Bembenutty and Karabenick (Bembenutty & Karabenick, 1998; Karabenick & Bembenutty, 1998a, 1998b) demonstrated associations between students' preference for delay, and their motivational tendencies and use of learning strategies. Students with greater delay of gratification also reported that they were more academically motivated, more highly self-efficacious, and more intrinsically interested in learning. Students with greater delay preference reported also greater use of cognitive strategies, such as critical thinking, rehearsal, and elaboration, as well as use of metacognition. Students with high delay of gratification also successfully used resource management strategies, such as effort regulation, control of time, and study environment. Academic delay of gratification is conceptualized largely within Mischel's competence view of self-imposed delay. Academic delay of gratification is not a new construct; rather, it is specific to the academic domain. The construct of delay of gratification is already present in the literature (Melcalfe & Mischel, 1999). For example, a student who delays gratification in a Spanish class may not do so in an English class perhaps because the student does not have the same level of self-efficacy beliefs, expectancy for success, and value for English as she has for Spanish. In a self-imposed delay of gratification behavior, cognition, motivation, and behavior all interact to determine choice selection and maintenance of intention.

ACADEMIC DELAY OF GRATIFICATIONAND GOAL ORIENTATIONS Students' preference for academic delay of gratification is expected to differ as a function of students' preferential goal orientations. Unlike achievement-related

ACADEMICDELAYOFGRATIFICATION

237

motivational determinants of delay of gratification, which are largely centered on beliefs about ability and value of the reward or academic tasks, students' goal orientation is concerned with why students approach learning. Two major goal orientations have been identified in the literature: 1) task-goal orientation (also called mastery- and learning-goal orientation) and 2) performance-goal orientation (also called ego- and ability-goal orientation) (see Ames, 1992; Dweck, 1998; Maehr & Midgley, 1991). Task-goal orientation refers to students' engagement in challenging schoolwork for the sake of mastering the tasks (Elliot, 1999; Pintrich, 2000a, 2000b). Task-goaloriented students focus their attention on understanding class work, selecting challenge tasks for themselves (Ames, 1992), and remaining highly interested in the task (Maehr, 1989). High task-goal-oriented learners are known to be self-efficacious and are concerned with improvement, progress, effort regulation, and intrinsic motivation. They choose challenging tasks for themselves and have a higher level of achievement (see Elliot, 1999; Pintrich, 2000a, 2000b). Performance-goal orientation refers to students' engagement in academic tasks in order to demonstrate high ability or to avoid failure. Performance-goal-oriented learners are driven to protect the self. Performance-goal orientation has two different components: performance-approach goal orientation and performance-avoidance goal orientation (Duda & Nicholls, 1992; E!liot, 1999; Meece & Holt, 1993; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Pintrich, 2000a). Performance-approachgoal orientation refers to students' engagement in learning to demonstrate competence and ability. Students with a performance-approach goal orientation are concerned with high grades, performing better than others, and demonstrating self-worth. In contrast, performance-avoidance goal orientation refers to students' engagement in academic tasks primarily to avoid demonstration of incompetence or lack of ability. They choose easy tasks, are motivated to avoid failure, and have a low level of achievement (Elliot, 1999; Pintrich, 2000a). There is theoretical and empirical evidence supporting the differences between performance-approach and performance-avoidance goal orientations (see Elliot, 1999, Pintrich, 2000a). In a recent study assessing achievement goals among fifthand sixth-grade students, Meece & Holt (1993) classified students by using a cluster analysis according to their task-mastery, ego-social, and work-avoidance goal orientations. The cluster analysis identified three type of goal-oriented learners. Cluster 1, labeled "high mastery," contained students with a high tendency for mastering academic tasks. Cluster 2, labeled "combined mastery-ego," identified students high in both task-mastery goals and ego-social goals. Cluster 3, labeled "low mastery-ego," identified students high in work-avoidance goal orientation. Recently, Elliot, McGregor, & Gable (1999) examined cognitive, metacognitive, and motivational strategies, as well as achievement goals and exam performance among students with mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goal orientations. Consistent with previous research, the investigators found significant differences among the students. Students with a performance-avoidance goal orientation performed lower than the students with a performanceapproach goal orientation in most of the dependent measures such as effort, disorganization, persistence, and exam performance. Further, Lopez (2000) found a

238

LEARNINGANDINDIVIDUALDIFFERENCES

VOLUME11, NUMBER3, 1999

positive association between mastery and performance-approach goal orientation and schoolchildren's academic performance (grades). However, Lopez did not find a statistically significant association between avoidance-goal orientation and academic performance. Task-goal-oriented learners were expected to have greater preference for delay of gratification because they seek challenging tasks, are self-efficacious, and have intrinsic motivation for task engagement. Performance-approach goal-oriented learners were also expected to have greater preference for delay of gratification because they are willing to compete for grades and academic tasks. In contrast, performance-avoidance goal-oriented learners were expected to have lower preference for delaying gratification because they are not willing to take risks, choose easy tasks, avoid failure, and avoid task engagement rather than initiating goaldirected responses related to learning.

MOTIVATIONAL DETERMINANTS OF ACADEMICDELAYOF GRATIFICATION Academic delay of gratification is multidetermined by the learners' motivational tendencies, and those tendencies should differ as a function of the students' goal orientations. Different perceptions, values, and perceived utility of both the delay and the nondelay alternatives are expected to determine choice and task engagement. Indeed, Mischel (1974) posits that "it is necessary to consider the determinants of the individual's choice to delay for the sake of more preferred delayed outcomes" (p. 287). He emphasizes that delay is highly determined by the value of the reward and the expectancy for success. Expectancy and value of the alternatives in a delay-of-gratification condition influence the choices of action as well as the likelihood of resisting temptations when attractive options arise (Mischel, 1996). To illustrate this, in a study using a "clown box," Mischel and his associates (Mischel, 1970; Mischel et al. 1989) gave to preschoolers the alternative of receiving an immediately available but smaller reward or a delayed reward that was temporally distant. The researchers varied the value of the rewards. They found that delay of gratification was determined by the outcome expectancy of obtaining the preferred choice and the perceived value of the alternatives. Expectancy-value theory (Atkinson, 1966; Feather, 1982) accentuates expectancy and value as two important determinants of task choice. For example, Eccles and her associates (Eccles, Wigfield, & Schiefele, 1998) highlight importance (e.g., importance of learning the course material), interest (e.g., interest in the content of the course), utility (e.g., perceived usefulness of the course material), and perceived cost of success (e.g., time and effort required to do the task). The present study sought to examine the relationship between delay and importance, utility, interest, and perceived cost of success. In addition, students' social expectancy for success was also considered. Social expectancy for success is defined as students' belief that by choosing the delayed alternative rather than the immediate alternative they will achieve social goals a n d / o r avoid social problems. Social expectancy is known to influence task selec-

ACADEMICDELAYOFGRATIFICATION

239

tion and task engagement (Anderman, 1999; Ryan, Hicks, & Midgley, 1997; Wentzel, 1999). The notion of social expectancy for success contains an element of perceived cost of success, since both aspects look at what could happen to the students given a selection of engaging in self-imposed delay of gratification or choosing an immediate gratification. Indeed, these notions involve the students' action control beliefs (Lopez, 2000) that their behavior may or may not result in academic success. The notion of social expectancy for success emphasizes the students' self-consequating belief that by choosing the delay alternatives they would avoid social problems and could achieve social goals. As it is defined here, social expectancy for success is similar to Wolters (2000) concept of self-consequating, which refers to students' sustaining of motivation by engaging in self-reinforcement and focusing on future goals.

ACADEMIC DELAYOF GRATIFICATION AND MOTIVATIONALREGULATION STRATEGIES Learning over long periods under significant obstacles often involves avoiding alternative activities that are attractive. Students need to engage in self-regulation and need to remain task-focused (Corno, 1993; Wolters, 1996, 1998; Zimmerman, 2000a). According to Zimmerman (2000a), self-regulation refers to "self-generated thoughts, feelings, and actions that are planned and cyclically adapted to the attainment of personal goals" (p. 14). An important function of delay of gratification is to orchestrate the enactment of goals and intentions. Intentional self-imposed delay of gratification facilitates negotiation between immediately available but less valuable goals and highly valuable long-term academic goals. Self-regulated learners are problem-solving agents who know how to negotiate demands from their present environment and their long-term goals. For example, when faced with academic difficulties that could affect academic goals, a self-regulated learner seeks help from teachers, peers, and parents (Karabenick, 1998) and thus is making effective use of available personal resources. Students also orchestrate their environment to serve an adaptive purpose that facilitates academic success by self-imposing constraints onto their own actions. Indeed, they engage in selfregulation. Corno (1993) proposed that once students have made a commitment to engage in a task, self-regulation of behavior is important to follow up the intentions. Students need to distract themselves from an environment that could preclude them from their goals. Zimmerman (1998a) proposed that skillful self-regulated students are those who use performance control to maintain intention in the light of distracting alternatives. For example, Wolters (1998, 2000) reports that learners regulate their motivation in order to remain task-focused by using motivational regulation strategies such as control of efficacy beliefs, regulation of emotions under stressful academic situations, and environmental control. In spite of these general findings, little is known about how motivational regulation strategies, such as self-efficacy enhancement and stress-reduction actions, orchestrate with students' goal orientations to enhance the implementation of inten-

240

LEARNINGANDINDIVIDUALDIFFERENCES

VOLUME11, NUMBER3, 1999

tion and students' delay of gratification tendencies. Further, it was expected that students with task- and performance-approach orientations would report using motivational regulation strategies to attain important academic goals. In contrast, performance-avoidance goal-oriented students would use less motivational regulation strategies, such as self-efficacy enhancement and stress-reduction actions. In summary, the major research question was: Are there differences among students in their task, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goal orientations on academic delay of gratification, motivational determinants, and use of motivations regulation strategies? In addition, following Pintrich's (2000a) recommendation to examine gender and ethnic differences among the different goal orientations, the present study sought to examine whether there are gender and ethnic differences among the students' goal orientations. Further, the present study sought to examine how students' goal orientations and delay of gratification preference are related to academic performance as indicated by their college grade point average (GPA).

METHOD PARTICIPANTS Participants were college students (N = 102; 62 females and 40 males) enrolled in undergraduate math courses at a large, public, midwestern university. Twenty of the participants were graduate students. Sixty-seven of the participants were Caucasians and thirty were members of different minority groups. Five students did not report their ethnicity. Participation was voluntary and anonymous. A lottery prize of $25 was awarded to one of the participants as an inducement for participation, and some of them obtained extra credit for their participation. The students took the survey to their home and returned it at the next class meeting. Participants also reported their college GPA.

MEASURES Academic Delay of Gratification. In this study, three scenarios from a short version of the ADOGS (Bembenutty, 1997) were used. Indeed, the students responded to four scenarios of the ADOGS, but one was dropped from further analyses due to low correlation with the other scenarios and because it would lower the internal consistency as indicated by the Cronbach alpha. The three scenarios have an internal consistency Cronbach e~ = .72 (M = 2.93, SD = .71). The ADOG examines students' delay of gratification preference in relation to the math course in which they were currently enrolled. The students rated their preference for an immediately available attractive option versus a delayed alternative. An example (see Appendix A) is, A: "Delay studying for an exam in this class the next day even though it may mean getting a lower grade, in order to attend a concert, play, or

ACADEMICDELAYOFGRAT/F/CATION

241

sporting event" versus B: "Stay home to study to increase your chances of getting a high grade on the exam." Students responded on a four-point scale: "Definitely choose A," "Probably choose A," "Probably choose B," and "Definitely choose B." Considered as continuous variables, responses were coded and added for the three items so that higher total scores indicated greater delay of gratification (range I to 4).

Academic Delay of Gratification's Motivational Determinants. To

assess m o t i v a t i o n a l

determinants of ADOG, students also reported how strongly they agreed or disagreed with statements alluding to the delayed and the immediate alternatives presented in the ADOG situations described above. Motivational determinants of delay preference were as follows: Importance (e.g., "This is something that I would like to do"); Utility (e.g., "This is something that would be useful for me"); Interest (e.g., "This is something that would be interesting to me"); Perceived Cost of Success (e.g., This is something that takes a lot of time or effort"). Social Success was assessed with two items (e.g., "This is something that would help me to achieve my social goals"). Students responded on a five-point scale ranging from "strongly disagree" to "strongly agree" (coded I to 5). Differential scores between delay preference and immediate preference were obtained by subtracting responses to the immediate alternatives from the delay alternatives in all of the four items. Higher scores were thus indicative of greater differences for interest, utility, importance, perceived cost, and social success of the delay versus nondelay alternative.

Personal-Achievement Goal Orientations. Students' task-, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goal orientations were measured with an adapted version of the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS; Midgley et al. 1997; see Appendix B). The PALS contains three subscales that examine students' goal orientations in their classroom. First, the Task-Goal Orientation scale (Cronbach R = .87; five items; M = 5.16, SD = 1.34) measures students' task engagement for the sake of developing competence and mastery (e.g., "I do my schoolwork in math because I am interested in it"). Second, the Performance-Approach Goal Orientation scale (Cronbach oL = .85, six items; M = 3.97, SD = 1.52) measures students' engagement in the tasks to demonstrate competence and skills (e.g., "I want to do better than other students in this class"). Third, the Performance-Avoidance Goal Orientation scale (Cronbach o~ = .81, six items; M = 2.64, SD = 1.26) refers to students' intention to avoid demonstration of lack of skills (e.g., "The reason I do my work is so others won't think I'm dumb"). The PALS is a scale with a response format consisting of a 7-point Likert scale (1 = "Not at all true of me" and 7 = "Very true of me"). Motivational Regulation Strategies. The students also responded to a modified version (17-item) of the Academic Volitional Strategy Inventory (AVSI; McCann, 1999; McCann & Garcfa, 2000) that assessed college students' use of motivational regulation strategies known to support and mediate cognitive and behavioral performance. The AVSI is a scale with the response format consisting of a 7-point

242

LEARNINGANDINDIVIDUALDIFFERENCES

VOLUME11, NUMBERS. 1999

Likert scale (1 = " N o t at all true of me" a n d 7 = "Very true of me"). Previous w o r k b y M c C a n n (1999; M c C a n n & Garcfa, 2000) identified subscales of the AVSI b a s e d on e x p l o r a t o r y factor analysis. In the p r e s e n t study, f e w e r items w e r e u s e d for several reasons. First, there w a s a limited time available for the students to res p o n d to all of the measures. Second, M c C a n n (1999) a n d M c C a n n & Garcfa (2000) u s e d m o r e items because they w e r e interested to create a s t a n d a r d i z e d scale. Third, s o m e of the items of the AVSI a p p e a r to be repetitive; for example, "I usually m e d i t a t e or use s o m e f o r m of relaxation techniques so I a m better able to concentrate on m y studies" w a s similar to "I p u t on b a c k g r o u n d music (e.g., classical, soft, instrumental) to relax m e . " Fourth, s o m e of the items included situations that are unlikely to h a p p e n in the p o p u l a t i o n s a m p l e d in this study; for example, "... I count to 10 to help m e get on track w i t h it." Nevertheless, in the present study, a factor analysis w a s p e r f o r m e d u s i n g a principal c o m p o n e n t extraction a n d varim a x rotation on the AVSI items. Using the e i g e n v a l u e = 1 criterion, six factors e m e r g e d , b u t not all w e r e interpretable. Thus, three factors w e r e then extracted (see A p p e n d i x B). With a criterion factor-loading of 1.401, the final three factors accounted for 45.5% of the variance a n d w e r e interpreted b a s e d on salient factor loadings. Factor 1, labeled Self-Efficacy Enhancement (Cronbach e~ = .74; seven items; M = 5.02, SD = 1.07), represents behavioral control in w h i c h students reassure t h e m s e l v e s a b o u t their capacity to do expected tasks (e.g., "I tell myself, 'I can do this' "). Factor 2, labeled Stress-Reducing Actions (Cronbach oL = .69; six items; M = 3.67, SD = 1.27), represents s t u d e n t s ' taking actions to reduce stress p r o d u c e d b y attractive alternatives (e.g., "I usually use s o m e f o r m of relaxation techniques so I a m better able to concentrate on m y studies." Factor 3, NegativeBased Incentives (Cronbach c~ = .56; four items; M = 3.40, SD = 1.33), r e p r e s e n t s t u d e n t s ' a t t e m p t to r e m i n d t h e m s e l v e s of their goals a n d intentions a n d to increase m o t i v a t i o n to c o m p l y with a c a d e m i c c o m m i t m e n t s (e.g., "I do think a b o u t the kinds of j o b / c a r e e r I m a y e n d u p w i t h if I flunk out of college").

RESULTS G e n d e r or ethnic differences on academic delay of gratification a n d s t u d e n t s ' goal orientations w e r e considered. A m u l t i v a r i a t e analyses of variance ( M A N O V A ) w a s carried out w i t h academic delay of gratification a n d three goal orientations as the d e p e n d e n t variables. The i n d e p e n d e n t variables w e r e g e n d e r (coded m a l e s = 0 a n d females - 1) a n d etlmicity (coded Caucasians = 0 a n d minorities = 1). The results of the M A N O V A indicated that there w a s not a significant m a i n effect for ethnicity (F(1, 84) = 1.26, p > .05) or for g e n d e r (F(1, 84) - .85, p > .05), a n d there w a s not an interaction b e t w e e n ethnicity a n d g e n d e r for a n y of the d e p e n d e n t variables (F(1, 84) = .73, p > .05). Motivational d e t e r m i n a n t s of academic delay of gratification w e r e a n a l y z e d b y obtaining the m e a n s of the s t u d e n t s ' preferences for the delay alternatives as well as their preference for the n o n d e l a y alternatives. Table 1 s h o w s the m e a n a n d s t a n d a r d deviations for these alternatives a n d their correlations w i t h academic

ACADEMICDELAYOFGRATIFICATION

243

TABLE 1 Means and Standard Deviations of the Students' Preference for the Delay and Nondelay Alternatives, Their Correlations with Academic Delay of Gratification (ADOG), and Means and Correlations of the Differences between Students' Preference for the Delay Alternatives and The Nondelay Alternatives and Their Correlation Coefficiencts with Academic Delay of Gratification

Delay Alternative

ADOGDeterminants a

Importance Would be important for m e Utility Would be useful for m e Increase getting a good grade Help achieving academic goals Help avoiding problem Interest Would be interesting to me I w o u l d like to do Perceived Cost of Success Worry m e Have n e g a t i v e c o n s e q u e n c e s Take a l o t of time and effort Conflict w i t h h a v i n g fun Social Success Help achieving social goals Help avoiding socialproblems

M

(SD)

r with ADOG

4.08

(.68)

4.34 4.42 4.41 4.21

Nondelay Alternative

M

(SD)

.67

2.83

(.89)

(.48) (.52) (.58) (.66)

.38 .38 .36 .23

2.60 1.85 1.90 204

3.23 2.26

(.89) (.93)

.61 .56

2.26 1.72 3.57 3.43

(.93) (.72) (.78) (.88)

2.63 2.61

(.82) (.83)

r with ADOG

Differences between Delay and Nondelay Alternatives r with ADOG

M

(SD)

.34

1.24

(1.29)

.59

(.67) (,79) (,77) (.81)

-.32 -.19 -.24 .27

1.75 2.58 2.51 2.17

(.97) (1.12) (1.13) (1.25)

.41 .30 .34 .29

3.69 2.52

(.76) (.86)

-.27 -.34

-.46 .65

(1.31) (1.43)

.60 .55

-.22 .24 .06 -.31

2.52 3.19 2.61 2.00

(.68) (.78) (.81) (.72)

.07 .13 .07 .17

-.26 -1.47 .96 1.43

(1.12) (1.05) (1.00) (1.21)

-.25 -.30 .10 .32

.29 .16

3.25 2.93

(.95) (.90)

-.31 -.30

-.63 -.31

(1.43) (1.25)

.39 .32

Note: Correlations greater than .19 are significant at p ~ .05 (N = 102). ~'Positive means differences indicate greater agreement with the delay alternative, and the negative mean differences indicate greater agreement with the nondelay alternative.

delay of gratification. Then, five major motivational determinants (i.e., importance, utility, interest, perceived cost of success, and social expectancy for success) were created by taking the differences between the delay and the nondelay alternatives. Table I also shows the mean and standard deviations of these differences and their correlations with academic delay of gratification. Taken together, these results indicate that the students considered the delay alternatives more important and useful than the nondelay alternatives. In contrast, the students reported that they consider the nondelay alternatives as more interesting and more socially attractive, but worry and have more negative consequences than the delay alternatives. Next, the relationships between all the variables used in this study were considered. Task-goal orientation was not significantly related to performance-approach goal orientation. However, performance-approach was highly and positively related to performance-avoidance goal orientation (r = .60, p K .001) and to negative-based incentives (r = .44, p ~ .001). Task-goal orientation was related to students' use of self-efficacy enhancement. Performance-avoidance goal orientation was negatively related to task-goal orientation (r = - . 36, p ~.001) and nega-

LEARNINGAND INDIVIDUALDIFFERENCES

244

VOLUME11, NUMBER3, 1999

tive-based incentives enhancement (r = .43, p < .001). There were positive associations among the motivation determinants of delay preference, with the exception of the perceived cost of success, which has a negative relationship with most of the variables. Table 2 displays the correlations between all of the variables in this study. Academic delay of gratification was positively correlated to the students' beliefs that the delay alternatives were more important, useful, interesting, and enhance social and academic endeavors as compared with the nondelay alternatives such as going to a party. As expected, delay was negatively related to students' perception that the delay alternatives require more effort and worry them more than the nondelay alternative. Surprisingly, among the motivational regulation strategies, delay of gratification is positively related to self-efficacy enhancement, but not to stress-reducing actions or negative-based incentives. This suggests that academic delay of gratification is not isomorphic with motivational regulation strategies. Task-goal orientation was positively related to all of the delay of gratification' motivational determinants (i.e., importance, utility, interest, social expectancy) and to the motivational regulation strategy of self-efficacy enhancement and stress-reducing actions. However, task-goal orientation was negatively related to perceived cost of success and was not related to negative-based incentives. Performance-approach goal orientation was negatively associated with interest and positively related to negative-based incentives. Performance-avoidance goal orientation was negative related to importance, utility, interest, and social expectancy for success. It is quite interesting to note that perceived cost of success is positively related, although not statistically significant, to performance-approach and TABLE 2 Bivariate Correlations among Academic Delay of Gratification (ADOG), Its Motivational Determinants, Goal Orientations, and Motivational Regulation Strategies Measure ADOG G o a l Orientations Task goal Performance-Approach Performance-Avoid A D O G ' s Determinants a Importance Utility Interest Per ceiv ed Cost Social Success

1

2

.49 .07 .14 .14 - . 3 6 .59 .38 .62 -.38 .39

3

4

5

6

7

.55 .60 .47 .32

.30 .23 - . 5 2 .15 .49

8

9

10

11

.60

.41 - . 1 4 - . 2 1 .37 - . 1 2 - . 2 6 .49 .26 - . 2 2 .25 .18 .17 .34 -.21 - . 2 7

.25

Motivational Regulation Strategies Self-Efficacy E n h a n c e m e n t Str ess-Reducing Actions N e g a t i v e - B a s e d In centives

.52 .54 .01 - . 1 0 .18 .30 -.11 .07 .15 - . 0 6 .44 .43

.31 .46 .10 - . 0 7 .12 - . 0 6

.02 .36 - . 2 5 .15 .01 -.05 .33 .07 .27 .28 .05 - . 0 3

Note: Correlations greater than .21 are significant at p < .05 (N - 102). ,' These are the differences between the delay minus the nondelay alternatives; thus, positive correlations indicate greater agreement with the delay alternatives, and the negative correlations indicate greater agreement with the nondelay alternatives.

ACADEMICDELAY OFGRAT/F/CATION

245

performance-avoidance goal orientation. In other words, the students who perceived that the delay alternatives required more effort, worried them, or could have negative consequence for them also reported pursuing other external rewards or avoiding task engagement. A K-means cluster analysis generated a highly interpretable three-cluster solution. This analysis produced an estimate of within-subjects similarity and dissimilarity according to the students' response profiles to task-, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goal orientations. Cluster 1 (labeled high mastery) consisted of students with a high task-goal orientation. Cluster 2 (labeled combined high mastery and high performance-approach) consisted of students with a high task-goal orientation and a high performance-approach goal orientation. Cluster 3 (labeled low mastery, low performance-approach, and low performance-avoidance) consisted of students with a low mastery-, low performanceapproach, and low performance-avoidance goal orientation. Analysis of variance was used to compare the differences among the clusters in students' self-report college GPA and found that it was not significant (Cluster 1: M = 3.21, SD = .42; Cluster 2: M = 3.38, SD = .55; Cluster 3: M = 3.16, SD = .54) (F(2, 94) = 1.50, p .05). An examination of mean differences among the clusters indicated that, as expected, there were mean differences among the three clusters on the three goal orientations (see Table 3). A MANOVA with academic delay of gratification, its motivational determinants, and the self-regulatory learning strategies used as the dependent variables was conducted (see Table 4). The independent variable were the three-cluster solutions: Cluster 1, high task goals (coded 1); Cluster 2, high task goal and high performance-approach (coded 2); and Cluster 3, low task goal, low performanceapproach, and low performance-avoidance (coded 3). The MANOVA was followed by nine univariate ANOVAs, one per dependent variable (see Table 4) and subsequently by the Tukey's honestly significant differences (HSD; see Table 5) to test group comparisons. As shown in Table 4, results of the MANOVA indicated significant overall differences between cluster groups (Fmultivariate(2 , 8 1 ) = 3.65, p ~ 001). Further, cluster groups were significantly different on all univariate measures, with the exception of perceived cost of success and the motivational regulation strategy of stress-reducing actions.

TABLE 3 M e a n a n d S t a n d a r d D e v i a t i o n s for the C l u s t e r S o l u t i o n s o n G o a l O r i e n t a t i o n Cluster I

M

SD

Cluster 2

M

SD

Cluster 3

M

SD

Goal Orientations

( N = 45)

( N = 32)

( N - 25)

Task goal Performance-Approach Performance-Avoid

5.81 1.08 2.73 1.04 1.68 .70

5.52 .70 5.46 .68 3.35 1.07

3.49 .93 4.34 1.07 3.47 1.06

Note:

Cluster 1 = high task goal; Cluster 2 = combined high task and high performance-approach; Cluster 3 - low task goal-performance-approach-performance-avoidance.

LEARNINGANDINDIVIDUALDIFFERENCES

246

VOLUME11, NUMBER3, 1999

TABLE 4 Descriptive Statistics and Multivariate Analysis of Variance (MANOVA) Summary for Academic Delay of Gratification (ADOG), Its Motivational Determinants, and Motivational Regulation Strategies among the Students Identified by the Three Cluster Solutions Cluster 1

M

ADOG

SD

Cluster 2

M

SD

Cluster 3

M

SD

(N = 45)

( N = 32)

3.13

.67

2.97

1.67 2.60 .04 .02 -.02

1.22 1.08 1.24 .73 1.59

1.34 1.06 2.17 .83 .81 1.27 .22 .65 - . 7 6 1.10

.32 1.26 1.70 .77 1.18 1.13 .41 .69 - . 9 0 1.18

8.79*** 7.85** 10.22"** 2.70 4.65*

5.25 1.15 3.90 1.51 2.84 1.17

5.17 .94 3.58 1.10 3.92 1.44

4.45 .90 3.38 1.10 3.68 1.10

6.64** 2.10 3.80*

.67

( N = 25)

2.52

.69

ANOVAs

5.19"*

ADOG's Determinants a Importance Utility Interest Perceived Cost Social E x p e c t a n c y

Motivational Regulation Strategies Self-Efficacy E n h a n c e m e n t Stress-Reducing Actions Negative-Based Incentives

Note: Significance levels are denoted as follows: *p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001. MANOVA using all variables: F(2, 81) 3.65; p < 001. P-values are for univariate F-ratios with a (2, 81) degree of freedom. Cluster 1 high task goal; Cluster 2 combined high task and high performance-approach; and Cluster 3 low task goal-performance-approach-per formance-avoidance. " These are the differences between the delay and the nondelay alternatives; thus, higher positive values indicate greater agreement with the delay alternative, and the lower negative values indicate greater agreement with the non-delay alternative.

As expected, there were significant differences a m o n g the clusters on delay of gratification (F(2, 81) = 5.19, p < 01). The post hoc test indicated that on delay of gratification, Cluster 3 differed from the other two clusters (see Table 5), but there was no difference between Clusters 2 and 3. The high task-goal-oriented students had a greater preference for academic delay of gratification (M = 3.13, SD = .67) than students in the other two clusters. A m o n g the academic delay of gratification's motivational determinants, the univariate ANOVAs indicated that there w e r e differences a m o n g the clusters on all of the variables with the exception of cost of success. Students in Cluster 1 have the highest means for importance, utility, interest, and social expectancy, and the students in Cluster 3 have the lowest means. That is, the high task-oriented students overall had greater preference for the delay alternatives because they believed that those alternatives w o u l d help them to i m p l e m e n t long-term academic goals. In contrast, students in Cluster 3 had the most negative means for interest and social expectancy, which indicated that students with scores low in task-goal, low in performance-approach, and low in p e r f o r m a n c e - a v o i d a n c e indicated greater preference for the n o n d e l a y alternative in c o m p a r i s o n with the students in the other two clusters. Post hoc analyses indicated that Clusters 1 and 2 differed significantly from Cluster 3 on importance scores. On utility scores, Cluster 1 differed from Cluster 3, but not from Cluster 2. The post hoc analyses also indicated that students with high task-goal orientation differed from the other two clusters.

ACADEMICDELAYOFGRATIFICATION

247

TABLE 5

Post H o c ( T u k e y ' s H S D ) Analyses on Academic Delay of Gratification (ADOG), Its Motivational Determinants, and Learning Strategies among the Three Cluster Solutions Clusters 1 versus 2 ADOG A D O G ' s Determinants a Importance Utility Interest Perceived Cost Social E x p e c t a n c y

1 versus 3

2 versus 3

*

* *

*

* * *

*

*

Motivational Regulation Strategies Self-Efficacy E n h a n c e m e n t Stress-Reducing Actions Negative-Based Incentives

* *

*

*

Note: Cluster I = high task goal; Cluster 2 = combined high task and high performance-approach; and Cluster 3 = low task goal-low performance-approach-low performance-avoidance. ,' These are the differences between the delay minus the nondelay alternatives.

There were not significant differences b e t w e e n clusters in cost-of-success scores. Students with the high task-goal differed significantly from the other two clusters in interest and social expectancy scores. In relation to the motivational regulation strategies, students in Cluster 1 and students in Cluster 2 reported that they used m o r e self-efficacy e n h a n c e m e n t than students in Cluster 3. Indeed, a post hoc comparison indicated that students in Cluster 3 differed significantly from the other two groups of students. In contrast, although the students in Cluster 2 reported greater use of negative-based incentive strategies than the students in the other two clusters, a post hoc analysis indicated that there were not differences a m o n g the three clusters on this variable. H o w e v e r , there were differences in stress-reduction actions scores, in which students high in task-goal obtained the lowest scores (M = 2.84, SD = 1.17).

DISCUSSION The 'results of this study s h o w e d that academic delay of gratification and its motivational determinants differ as a function of goal orientation. Evidently, as it applies to delay of gratification, "all goals are not created equal" (Ryan, Sheldon, Kasser, & Deci, 1996, p. 7). There are clear differences a m o n g the three groups of students, identified b y the cluster solution according to their goal orientation similarities, in practically all of the variables. Of particular interest are the significant differences b e t w e e n p e r f o r m a n c e - a p p r o a c h and performance-avoidance goal orientation.

248

LEARNINGAND INDIVIDUALDIFFERENCES

VOLUME11, NUMBER3, 1999

Students in Cluster 1, labeled high task-goal-oriented learners, reported greater preference to remain task-focused, had greater motivational tendencies, were low in performance-approach and performance-avoidance goal orientation, and reported using motivational regulation strategies more than students in Cluster 2, labeled combined high task-high performance-approach. However, students in Cluster 3 were low in all of the three goal orientations. They engaged in activities that provided immediate gratification although these activities may be detrimental in the long term. These students may not be well prepared for the demands and challenges of the current educational environment that requires postponement of attractive activities for the sake of valuable long-term goals. These results clearly show that students with a combined high task-goal orientation and high performance-approach orientation have a balance between goal orientations, delay of gratification's motivational determinants, and use of motivational regulation strategies. At the same time, they are low in performanceavoidance goal orientation. This balance appears to function well in pursuing long-term goals and dealing with distractions. Thus, these students report that to overcome obstacles over time while pursuing academic goals, they strategically orchestrate their goal orientations. It is plausible to conclude that these learners are highly adaptable to situational and task demands. They also considered the delay alternatives as important and useful while perceiving the nondelay alternatives as highly interesting and socially beneficial. However, they believe that not engaging in the delay alternatives would have negative consequence for them. Ultimately, they prefer selecting delay of gratification alternatives to secure the goals that they have set for themselves. They have the same pattern in relation to their use of motivational regulation strategies. They are high in self-efficacy enhancement and are similar to the students in the high task cluster in the use of stress-reduction actions and negative-based incentive learning strategies. The high task-goal-oriented learners appear to orchestrate enactment of longterm goals and delaying gratification in a different fashion than the combined high task-goal and high performance-approach learners. High task-goal-oriented learners had a high preference for delay of gratification. They were also very high in task-goal orientation and low in performance-approach and performanceavoidance goal orientations. Their preferences for delay of gratification responses were highly associated with their intrinsic interest in the task and with trying to understand and master the tasks. In relation to the motivational determinants of delay preference, the high task-goal-oriented learners reported that their preference for delay of gratification is highly associated with how useful and important the delay alternative is relative to the nondelay alternative. While the students in Clusters 2 and 3 also rated highly how likeable and interesting the delay alternatives were in relation to the nondelay alternatives, the high task-goal-oriented learners placed high regard on how well the alternatives would help them to achieve academic goals and avoid academic problems, as well as their importance relative to their long-term goals. Students in Cluster 3 were low in all of the three goal orientations. They also reported low preference for delay of gratification. These students appear to be less adaptable because they reported greater preference for the nondelay alterna-

ACADEMICDELAYOFGRATIFICATION

249

tives. In other words, they believed that the nondelay alternatives were more interesting, likeable, and socially favorable. Similarly, they believed that the delay alternatives were less important and less useful relative to the nondelay alternatives. They were less concerned about the negative consequence of selecting the nondelay alternatives despite the fact such a selection might preclude them from completing important academic tasks. Further, these students reported that should distraction arise while they were completing schoolwork, they used less self-efficacy control. Likewise, if they ran into problems during homework completion, they used less resources available to them, such as getting help from peers. Further, they reported that in the face of difficulties, they did not exert significant control of their motivation. One interpretation of this pattern of behavior is that these are students who do not want to be deeply involved in academic tasks. These findings suggest that having a task-goal orientation is positively and significantly related to delay of gratification. This means that students who like the schoolwork, who like to learn new things, and who engage in a class task because it is interesting, reported greater preference for delaying gratification for the sake of long-term academic goals. These students are self-regulated learners (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Zimmerman, 1998a, 2000a). Equally important, students with high task-goal orientations believed that the delay alternatives were important, useful, and interesting. That is, students who delay gratification, although they like the nondelay alternative, still prefer delay alternatives that would secure academic achievement. This study shows that there are students who are oriented to demonstrate their competence, and at the same time they engage in schoolwork for the sake of mastering the tasks. They are also willing to delay gratification. These results support previous findings that indicate that having a performance- or extrinsic-goal orientation is not necessarily detrimental to academic learning (Pintrich, 2000a; Pintrich & Garc~a, 1994). Further, these results support Bembenutty's (1997; Bembenutty & Karabenick, 1999) finding that extrinsic goal orientation is positively associated with delay of gratification. Accordingly, wanting to do better than others in the classroom appears to enhance deferment of gratification and therefore helps maintain the pursuit of academic goals. Thus, demonstrating competence or trying to do better than other students in a classroom does not necessarily preclude students from pursuing long-term goals. An important conclusion based on the result of this study is that academic delay of gratification adds and explains specific aspects of the students' learning experience that other construct included in this study did not add or explain. It is plausible to conclude that academic delay of gratification is a learner's characteristic highly domain-specific that prompts an individual to choose a less enjoyable activity over one that would be more enjoyable. Consistent with motivational and expectancy-value theorists, it suggests that the long-term goals are much more valued than the immediate goals, and that they are chosen despite the fact that they are more distant. However, expectancy value, per se, does not guarantee the probability of a desired outcome; delay of gratification and motivational regulation strategies are also necessary. In contrast and consistent with goal theorists, it

250

LEARNINGANDINDIVIDUALDIFFERENCES

VOLUME11, NUMBERS, 1999

may simply mean that mastery and task-goal orientation is as enjoyable as going to a movie. Consistent with the future time-perspective approach, the students' preference for delay of gratification will depend on how instrumental academic tasks are perceived and how useful tasks are to prepare them for their future (Husman & Lens, 1999; Nuttin & Lens, 1985). Accordingly, successful learners enjoy learning and achieving in school, and place high value in their academic tasks not only to succeed in the present, but to secure long-term success (Husman & Lens, 1999). In relation to specific implications of delay to education, the work of Zimmerman (1998) on self-regulation of learning deserves particular attention, since he has discussed self-regulatory strategies in academic settings. Zimmerman has significantly contributed to our understanding of students' persistent in the light of distraction by helping us to acknowledge, with high domain specificity, the importance of self-regulation for learners. Zimmerman (1998) proposes that skillful self-regulated students are those that use volition or performance control to maintain intention in light of distracting alternatives. Zimmerman (1998) has explained the process of self-regulation according to a cyclical model of self-regulation. First, the forethought phase refers to a selection of goals and strategic planning that are influenced by self-efficacy beliefs, goal orientation, and intrinsic interest. Second, the performance or volitional control phase refers to once the learner has chosen a goal or strategic planning, he or she will engage in attention selection, self-instruction, and self-monitoring to secure the expected outcomes. Third, the self-reflective phase refers to when learners engage in self-evaluation, use of attributions, and self-reactions to examine their progress, to compare their performance with the goals, and to identify errors. Accordingly, skillful self-regulated learners and naive learners will react differently at each of the phases. Self-regulated learners would establish a hierarchy of goals, have a learning-goal orientation, and they will be highly self-efficacious. The results of the present study are consistent with Zimmerman's cyclical-phases model. More skillful, self-regulated learners who use more motivational regulation strategies, such as self-efficacy enhancement and have task-goal orientation rather than performance-avoidance goal orientation, are those more likely to delay gratification when faced with attractive nontask alternatives. In the present study, the motivational regulation strategy that got the highest scores was self-efficacy enhancement. That is, self-regulation of behavior, motivation, and cognition through enhancement of self-efficacy was the learning strategy most used by the students when they encounter difficulties during goal enactment. This is important because here self-efficacy enhancement is conceptualized as a motivational regulation strategy that learners can use to manipulate motivation and action in the anticipation of long-term goals. Indeed, by using self-efficacy control, learners act as "personal agents" that are able to exercise control over their social structure (Bandura, 1999). Further, these students are able to strategically translate their self-efficacy beliefs into proficient motivational regulation strategies. Although not tested in this study, these findings support the notion of academic delay of gratification as a learning strategy (Bembenutty, 1997; Bembenutty

ACADEMICDELAYOFGRATIFICATION

251

& Karabenick, 1998). In addition, academic delay of gratification is conceptualized as an outcome of the learners' cognitive, behavioral, and motivational task engagement. Simultaneously, successful academic delay of gratification will occur depending on the individual's history of successes, degree of self-efficacy beliefs, and expectancy-task value. Without an expectancy of success and high selfefficacy beliefs, an individual will not be able to resist attractive temptations over a long period of time. Thus, self-imposed delay as an adaptive motivational regulation strategy will be useful to secure success while pursuing academic intentions and goals. Delay of gratification could serve also as an outcome or consequence of exercising willpower and self-regulation, which depend on learners' self-perception of ability, perceived control over the learning environment, and motivational orientation. This is a tenable contention that future studies should investigate. Taking together the results of this study, there are great similarities with the other papers presented in this special edition. We all are concerned with students' sustaining academic motivation though self-regulation of behavior. While I put an emphasis on the students' willingness for academic delay of gratification, goal orientations, and motivational regulation strategies among college students, Wolters (2000) addressed the same question by examining students' motivational regulation strategies and achievement. Likewise, McCann & Garcia (2000) developed an instrument that has acceptable psychometric properties to examine how students sustain motivation and regulate their behavior over a long period of time and obstacles. Similarly, Lopez (2000) investigated the association between students' action-control beliefs, their goal orientation tendencies, and achievement-related outcomes. There is a consensus among all of the papers that students' self-regulation of behavior of academic engagement by sustaining of motivation is an important issue that deserves the full attention of the educational researchers, theorists, and policy makers if we want to fully examine the motivational and behavioral aspect that determine learners' academic success. Although there are differences in labels among the studies in this special edition, all of the papers suggest that in the years to come, educators and researchers will realize that academic success is multidetermined and that factors such as students' volition, motivation, and behavior would need to be considered integrally and not separately, as they have been done until very recently. These are some of the issues that Bill J. McKeachie, "this country's foremost teacher of teachers" (Miller & Ware, 1999, p. 42) recommended in two recent interviews. He indicated that future research would need to address the issues of self-regulation of learning, motivation, and volition, as well as how students develop and maintain intrinsic motivation, autonomy, epistemologies, and conditional knowledge (Landrum, 1999; Miller & Ware, 1999). In the years to come, educators must teach delay of gratification to their students. It is important to comment on the limitations of this study. The ADOGS is a self-report instrument and, therefore, any student's actual choice between a delay or nondelay alternative it is not known. Thus, experimental studies are necessary to clarify the relationship between students' delay preference and actual behavior. A further limitation is that the participants are college students. Thus, these

252

LEARNINGAND INDIVIDUALDIFFERENCES

VOLUME11, NUMBER3, 1999

findings m a y not a p p l y to students at different academic levels. In other w o r d s , w h e t h e r these findings will generalize to a different s a m p l e is an empirical question. It could be possible that these findings m a y s h o w e v e n stronger disparities in explaining a c a d e m i c delay of gratification a n d p e r f o r m a n c e a n d task-goal orientations a m o n g junior high a n d high school students. Finally, s t u d e n t s ' college G P A scores w e r e r e p o r t e d b y the students rather than obtained f r o m the school record. M o r e i m p o r t a n t , all of the m e a s u r e s in this s t u d y w e r e course-specific a n d not directed to all of the classes in general. This m a y explain w h y college G P A overall w a s not related to the m a i n constructs e x a m i n e d in this study. In s u m m a r y , the implications of these results in relation to the theoretical consideration of a c a d e m i c d e l a y of gratification are crucial. These findings s u p p o r t the contention that academic delay of gratification m a y be c o n s i d e r e d an o u t c o m e of m o t i v a t i o n a l e n g a g e m e n t in academic tasks a n d learning strategies. The p r e s e n t s t u d y suggests the i m p o r t a n c e of academic delay of gratification as an ind i v i d u a l difference d i m e n s i o n in adult learners that can serve to explain learners' a c a d e m i c achievement. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS: A debt of gratitude to Dr. Bill McKeachie, Stuart A. Karabenick,

Barry J. Zimmerman, Paul R. Pintrich, Yi-Guang Lin, Alan L. Gross, David Rindskopf, and Roger Peach for their comments and suggestions on an early draft of this paper. I am grateful to Dr. Teresa Garcia for her editorial recommendations and abiding commitment to this special edition. This study was conducted when the author was a research assistant at the University of Michigan.

REFERENCES Ames, C. (1992). "Classroom: Goals, structures, and student motivation." Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271. Anderman, L. H. (1999). "Classroom goal orientation, school belonging and social goals as predictors of students' positive and negative affect following the transition to middle school." Journal of Research and Development in Education, 32 (2), 89-103. Atkinson, J. W. (1966). "Motivational determinants of risk taking behavior." Pp. 11-31 in A theory of achievement motivation, edited by J. W. Atkinson & N. T. Feather. New York: Wiley. Bandura, A. (1999a). "Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective." Asian Journal of Social Psychology, 2, 21-41. Bembenutty, H. (1997). College students" willingness for academic delay of gratification, motivation for learning, and use of learning strategies. Unpublished master's thesis, Eastern Michigan University. Bembenutty, H. & Karabenick, S. A. (1998). "Academic delay of gratification." Learning and Individual Differences, 10 (4), 329-346. Corno, L. (1993). "The best-laid plans: Modern conceptions of volition and educational research." Educational Researcher, 22, 14-22. Duda, J. & J. Nicholls. (1992). "Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport." Journal of EducationaI Psychology, 84, 290-299.

ACADEMICDELAYOFGRATIFICATION

253

Durden, C. A. (1997). Life satisfaction as related to procrastination and delay of grat~'cation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Angelo State University, Texas. Dweck, C. S. (1998). "The development of early self-conceptions: Their relevance for motivational processes." Pp. 257-280 in Motivation and self-regulation across the life span, edited by J. Heckhausen & C. S. Dweck. New York: Cambridge University Press. Dweck, C. S. & E. L. Leggett. (1988). "A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality." Psychological Review, 95, 256-273. Eccles, J. S., A. Wigfield, & U. Schiefele. (1998). "Motivation to succeed." Pp. 1017-1095 in The Handbook of child psychology, social, emotional, and personality development, edited by W. Danon & N. Eisenberg. New York: Wiley. Elliot, A. (1999). "Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals." Educational Psychologist, 34 (3), 169-189. Elliot, A., H. A. McGregor, & S. Gable. (1999). "Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance: A mediational analysis." Journal of Educational Psychology, 91 (3), 549-563. Feather, N. T. (1982). " H u m a n values and the prediction of action: An expectancy-valence analysis." Pp. 263-289 in Expectations and actions: Expectancy value models in psychology, edited by N. T. Feather. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Funder, D. C., J. H. Block, & J. Block. (1989). "Delay of gratification: Some longitudinal personality correlates." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 1198-1213. Garcfa, T., E. J. McCann, J. E. Turner, & L. Roska. (1998). "Modeling the mediating role of volition in the learning process." Contemporary Educational Psychology, 23, 392-418. Husman, J. & W. Lens. (1999). "The role of the future in student motivation." Educational Psychologist, 34 (2), 113-125. Kanfer, R., & E. D. Heggestad. (1999). "Individual differences in motivation: Traits and self-regulatory skills." Pp. 293-313 in Learning and individual differences: Process, trait, and content determinants, edited by P. L. Ackerman, P. C. Kyllonen, & R. D. Roberts. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. Karabenick, S. A. (1998). Strategic help seeking: Implications for learning and teaching. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Karabenick, S. A. & H. Bembenutty. (1998a, April). Motivational determinants of academic delay of gratification. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA. Karabenick, S. A. & H. Bembenutty. (1998b, August). Academic delay of gratification as a volitional learning strategy and motivational choice. Paper presented at the 24 th International Congress of Applied Psychology, San Francisco, CA. Kuhl, J. (2000). "A functional-design approach to motivation and self-regulation: The dynamics of personality systems interactions." Pp. 111-169 in Handbook of self-regulation, edited by M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Landrum, R. E. (1999). "Fifty-plus years as a students-centered teacher: An interview with Wilbert J. McKeachie." Teaching of Psychology, 26 (2), 142-146. Lopez, D. F. (2000). "Social cognitive influences on self-regulated learning: The impact of action-control beliefs and academic goals on achievement-related outcomes." Learning

and Individual Differences, 11,301-319. Maehr, M. L. (1989). "Thoughts about motivation." Pp. 299-315 in Research on motivation in education: Goals and cognitions, Vol. 3. edited by C. Ames & R. Ames. New York: Academic. Maehr, M. L. & C. Midgley. (1991). "Enhancing student motivation: A schoolwide approach." Educational Psychologist, 26, 399427. McCann, E. J. & T. Garcfa. (2000). "Maintaining motivation and regulating emotion: mea-

LEARNINGANDINDIVIDUALDIFFERENCES

254

VOLUME11, NUMBER3, 1999

suring individual differences in academic volitional strategies." Learning and Individual

Differences, 11,259-279. McCann, E. J. (1999). The assessment and importance of volitional control in academic performance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Texas at Austin. Meece, J. L. & K. Holt. (1993). "A pattern analysis of students' achievement goals." Journal of Educational Psychology, 85 (4), 582-590. Metcalfe, J. & W. Mischel. (1999). "A hot/cool-system analysis of delay of gratification dynamics of power." Psychological Review, 106 (1), 3-19. Middleton, M. & C. Midgley. (1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 207-223. Midgley, C., M. Maehr, L. Hicks, R. Roeser, T. Urdan, E. Anderman, A. Kaplan, R. Arunkumar, & M. Middleton. (1997). Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey, (PALS). Unpublished manuscript, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Miller R. L. & M. E. Ware. (1999). "A conversation with Wilbert J. McKeachie: Involving undergraduate students in research." Journal of Psychological Inquiry, 4, 42-50. Mischel, W. (1993). Introduction to Personality. Orlando, FL: Harcourt Brace. Mischel, H. N. & W. Mischel. (1983). "The development of children's knowledge of selfcontrol strategies." Child Development, 54, 603~19. Mischel, W. (1974). "Processes in delay of gratification." Pp. 249-292 In Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 7, edited by L. Berkowitz. New York: Academic Press. Mischel, W. (1981). "Metacognition and the rules of delay." Pp. 240-271 in Cognitive social development: Frontiers and possible futures, edited by J. Flavell & L. Ross. New York: Cambridge University Press. Mischel, W. (1996). "From good intentions to willpower." Pp. 197-218 in The psychology of action: Linking cognitions and motivation to behavior, edited by P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh. New York: Guilford. Mischel, W., N. Cantor, & S. Feldman. (1996). "Principles of self-regulation: The nature of willpower and self-control." Pp. 329-360 in Social Psychology: Handbook of basic principles, edited by E. T. Higgins & A. Gruglanski. New York: Guilford Press. Mischel, W., Y. Shoda, & P. K. Peake. (1988). "The nature of adolescent competencies predicted by preschool delay of gratification." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 687-696. Nuttin, J. & W. Lens. (1985). Future time perspective and motivation: Theory and research method. Leuven, Belgium, & Hillsdale, NJ: Leuven University Press & Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Pintrich, P. R. (2000a). "The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning." Pp. 451-502 in Handbook of self-regulation, edited by M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Pintrich, P. R. (2000b). "An achievement goal theory perspective on issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research." Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 92104. Pintrich, P. R. & E. De Groot. (1990). "Motivational and self-regulated learning components of classroom academic performance." Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 33-40. Pintrich, P. R. & T. Garcia. (1994). "Self-regulated learning in college students: Knowledge, strategies, and motivation." Pp. 113-133 in Student, motivation, cognition, and learning: Essays in honor of Wilberg J. McKeachie, edited by P. R. Pintrich, D. R. Brown, & C. E. Weistein. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Pressley, M., W. M. Reynolds, K. D. Stark, & M. Gettinger. (1983). "Cognitive strategy training and children's self-control." Pp. 267-300 in Cognitive strategy research: Psychological foundations, edited by M. Pressley & J. R. Levin. New York: Springer-Verlag.

ACADEMICDELAYOFGRATIFICAlION

255

Randi, J. & L. Corno. (2000). "Teacher innovations in the self-regulated learning." Pp. 651685 in Handbook of self-regulation, edited by M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Ray, J. J. & J. M. Najman. (1986). "The generalizability of deferment of gratification." The Journal of Social Psychology, 126 (1), 117-119. Rosenbaum, M. & K. Ben-Ari Smira. (1986). "Cognitive and personality factors in the delay of gratification of hemodialysis patients." Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51 (2), 357-364. Ryan, A. M., L. Hicks, & C. Midgley. (1997). "Help-seeking attitudes and behaviors in the classroom: The role of academic and social goals." Journal of Early Adolescence, 17, 152171, Ryan, R. M., K. M. Sheldon, T. Kasser, E. L. Deci. (1996). "All goals are not created equal: An organismic perspective on the nature of goals and their regulation." Pp. 7-26 in The psychology of action: Linking cognitions and motivation to behavior, edited by P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh. New York: Guilford. Snow, R. E., L. Corno, & D. Jackson. (1996). "Individual differences in affective and cognitive functions." Pp. 243- 310 in Handbook of educational psychology, edited by D. C. Berliner & R. C. Calfee. New York: Simon & Schuster Macmillan. Ward, E. W., T. B. Perry, J. Woltz, & E. Doolin. (1989). "Delay of gratification among Black college students leaders." The Journal of Black Psychology, 15 (2), 11-128. Wentzel, K. (1999). "Social influences on school adjustment: Commentary." Educational Psychologist, 34 (1), 59-69. Wigfield, A. & J. S. Eccles. (2000). "Expectancy-value theory of achievement motivation." Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25 (1), 68-81. Witt, L. A. (1990a). "Person-situation effects and gender differences in the prediction of social responsibility." Journal of Social Psychology, 130 (4), 543-553. Witt, L. A. (1990a). "Delay of gratification and locus of control as predictors of organizational satisfaction and commitment: Sex differences." The Journal of General Psychology, 117 (4), 437-446. Wolters, C. A. (1996). Issues in self-regulated learning: Metacognition, conditional knowledge and the regulation of motivation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Michigan. Wolters, C. A. (1998). "Self-regulated learning and college students' regulation of motivation." Journal of Educational Psychology, 90 (2), 224-235. Wolters, C. A. (2000). "The relation between high school students' motivational regulation and their use of learning strategies, effort, and classroom performance." Learning and

Individual Differences, 11,281-299. Zimmerman, B. J. (1998a). "Academic studying and the development of personal skill: A self-regulatory perspective." Educational Psychologist, 33 (2/3), 73-86. Zimmerman, B. J. (1998b). "Developing self-fulfilling cycles of academic regulation: An analysis of exemplary instructional models." Pp. 1-19 In Self-regulated learners: From teaching to self-reflective practice, edited by D. H. Schunk & B. J. Zimmerman. New York: Guilford Press. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000a). "Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective." Pp. 13-39 in Handbook of self-regulation, edited by M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, & M. Zeidner. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Zimmerman, B. J. (2000b). "Self-efficacy: An essential motive to learn." Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 82-91.

LEARNINGANDINDIVIDUALDIFFERENCES

256

VOLUME11, NUMBER3, 1999

APPENDIX A Sample Item from the Academic Delay of Gratification Scale (ADOGS) SCENARIO 1

W H I C H OF THE F O L L O W I N G W O U L D Y O U CHOOSE TO DO? A. D e l a y s t u d y i n g for an e x a m in this class the next d a y e v e n t h o u g h it m a y m e a n g e t t i n g a l o w e r grade, in o r d e r to a t t e n d a concert, play, or s p o r t i n g event, o r B. Stay h o m e to s t u d y to increase y o u r chances of g e t t i n g a h i g h g r a d e on the exam. Choose One ~

Definitely

choose A

Probably

choose A

Probably

choose B

Definitely

choose B

ADOG's MOTIVATIONAL DETERMINANTS Nex t i n d i c a t e (by w r i t i n g a n u m b e r in front of each of the s t a t e me nt s ) h o w s t r o n g l y y o u agree or d i s a g r e e w i t h the s t a t e m e n t s b e l o w use the f o l l o w i n g scale: 1 = Strongly D i s a g r e e

2 = Disagree 4

Agree

3 = N e i t h e r A g r e e nor D i s a g r e e

5 = Strongl y A gre e

G o i n g to a f a v o r i t e concert, p l a y , o r s p o r t i n g e v e n t

S t a y i n g h o m e to s t u d y

This is s o m e t h i n g that w o u l d . . .

This is s o m e t h i n g that w o u l d . . .

_ _

Be i m p o r t a n t for me.

_ _

Be useful for me.

Be i m p o r t a n t for me. Be useful for me.

__

Be i n t e r e s t i n g to me.

_ _

Be i n t e r e s t i n g to me.

__

W o r r y me.

_ _

W o r r y me.

__

H a v e n e g a t i v e c o n s e q u e n c e s for me.

_ _

H a v e n e g a t i v e c o n s e q u e n c e s for me. Take a lot of t i me or effort.

Take a lot of time or effort. __

Increase m y chances of g e t t i n g a g o o d grade.

_ _

Increase m y chances of g e t t i n g a g o o d grade.

__

H e l p m e to achieve m y a c a d e m i c goals.

_ _

H e l p m e to a c hi e ve m y a c a d e m i c goals.

__

H e l p m e to achieve m y social goals.

_ _

H e l p m e to a c hi e ve m y social goals.

__

H e l p me to a v o i d a c a d e m i c p r o b l e m s .

_ _

H e l p m e to a v o i d a c a d e m i c probl e ms .

__

Help me to a v o i d social p r o b l e m s ,

_ _

H e l p m e to a v o i d social p r o b l e m s .

I

Conflict w i t h h a v i n g fun.

_ _

Conflict w i t h h a v i n g fun.

I w o u l d like to do.

I w o u l d like to do.

~'Values are based on a 1 ("Definitely choose A" ) to 4 ("Definitely choose B") coding responses, with higher values indicating greater preference for academic delay of gratification.

ACADEMICDELAYOFGRATIFICATION

257

APPENDIX B

Samples Items of the Patterns of Adaptive L e a r n i n g S u r v e y and the Academic Volitional Strategy Inventory and Reliability Cronbach Alphas GOAL ORIENTATIONS a

P A I T E R N S OF ADAPTIVE LEARNING SURVEY (PALS; MIDGLEY ET AL., 1997)

Task Goal Orientation (c~ = .87) • •

A n i m p o r t a n t r e a s o n w h y I d o m y w o r k for t h i s c l a s s is b e c a u s e I l i k e to l e a r n n e w t h i n g s . I d o m y w o r k in t h i s class b e c a u s e I a m i n t e r e s t e d in it.

Performance-Approach • •

G o a l O r i e n t a t i o n (c~ = .85)

I w a n t to d o b e t t e r t h a n o t h e r s t u d e n t s in t h i s m a t h class. I w o u l d feel s u c c e s s f u l if I d i d b e t t e r t h a n m o s t of t h e o t h e r s t u d e n t s in t h i s m a t h class.

Performance-Avoid Goal Orientation (c~ = .81) • •

A n i m p o r t a n t r e a s o n I d o m y m a t h w o r k for t h i s c l a s s is so t h a t I d o n o t e m b a r r a s s m y s e l f . It is v e r y i m p o r t a n t to m e t h a t I d o n o t l o o k s t u p i d i n t h i s m a t h class. MOTIVATIONAL

REGULATION

STRATEGIES a

ACADEMIC VOLITIONAL STRATEGY INVENTORY (A VSI; MCCANN, 1999) S e l f - E f f i c a c y E n h a n c e m e n t (c~ = .74) • •

I tell m y s e l f t h a t I w i l l b e a b l e to u n d e r s t a n d a n d r e m e m b e r this c o u r s e m a t e r i a l . I tell m y s e l f , "I c a n d o this!"

S t r e s s Reducing Actions (c¢ = .69) • •

I call a f r i e n d f r o m c l a s s a n d d i s c u s s t h e a s s i g n m e n t or m a t e r i a l w i t h h i m . I d o t h i n k of i n t e r e s t i n g or d i f f e r e n t w a y s to m a k e s t u d y i n g m o r e f u n or c h a l l e n g i n g for me.

Negative-Based Incentives (c~ = .56) • •

I d o t h i n k a b o u t h o w d i s a p p o i n t e d o t h e r s ( f a m i l y / f r i e n d s ) w i l l b e if I d o p o o r l y . I d o t h i n k a b o u t t h e k i n d s of j o b s / c a r e e r t h a t I m a y e n d u p w i t h if I f l u n k o u t of college. The response format consisted of a 7-point Likert scale (1 - "Not at all true of me" to 7 - "'Very true of me").