What are we measuring? An examination of the relationships between the big-five personality traits, goal orientation, and performance intentions

Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1693–1708 www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

What are we measuring? An examination of the relationships between the big-five personality traits, goal orientation, and performance intentions David Zweig a

a,*

, Jane Webster

b,1

Division of Management, University of Toronto at Scarborough, 1265 Military Trail, Toronto, ON, Canada M1C 1A4 b QueenÕs School of Business, QueenÕs University, 143 Union St., Kingston, ON, Canada K7L 3N6 Received 23 August 2002; received in revised form 9 June 2003; accepted 1 July 2003

Abstract Goal orientation is emerging as a useful construct for understanding learning and performance. However, there is considerable confusion as to the nature of goal orientation and its relationship with related variables. To address this, we extended previous research on the relationship between goal orientation and general personality characteristics by investigating questions about the distinctiveness and utility of the constructs in predicting performance intentions. Results indicated that goal orientation and general personality traits are related but distinct constructs. Furthermore, goal orientation mediates the relationship between personality and performance intentions. Implications for the use of goal orientation as a unique predictor of learning, performance and training success are discussed. Ó 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. Keywords: Goal orientation; Performance intentions; Personality; Learning; Three-factor model

1. Introduction Personality refers to internal factors such as dispositions and interpersonal strategies that explain individual behaviours and the unique and relatively stable patterns of behaviours, thoughts, and emotions shown by individuals (Hogan, Hogan, & Roberts, 1996). Personality has been studied from a variety of paradigms, including classic ones such as traits, and newer ones such as

*

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1-416-287-5613; fax: +1-416-287-7363. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (D. Zweig), [email protected] (J. Webster). 1 Tel.: +1-613-533-3163; fax: +1-613-533-2325. 0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2003 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2003.07.010

1694

D. Zweig, J. Webster / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1693–1708

social-cognitive approaches; however, one of the challenges for personality research is to integrate these approaches (Funder, 2001). From the perspective of traits, many researchers agree that personality is best conceptualized in terms of a five-factor model, including the dimensions of extraversion, openness to experience, emotional stability, conscientiousness, and agreeableness (e.g., Goldberg, 1990, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 1999). From the social-cognitive approach, one of the most well-respected characteristics is DweckÕs (1986, 1997) goal orientation, which identifies two types of goal preferences people hold in achievement situations––a learning orientation in which the focus is on increasing competence, and a performance orientation, in which demonstrating competence by meeting normative-based standards is critical. Although Dweck (1986) originally conceptualized dispositional goal orientation as unidimensional, it was later extended to two dimensions and subsequently to three (e.g., Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). Both the trait and social-cognitive approaches have sought to explain how personality relates to performance (Funder, 2001). However, few studies have investigated the unique and combined influences of elements of the big-five model of personality and goal orientation in predicting these relationships (e.g., Chen, Gully, Whiteman, & Kilcullen, 2000) and none have investigated the combined influence of all five-factors of personality and all three factors of goal orientation in predicting peopleÕs performance intentions. Therefore, to address the challenge of integrating different approaches to personality, the present study examines two research questions: (1) the relation between the big-five model of personality and goal orientation and (2) a comparison of their unique and combined contributions to the prediction of performance intentions.

2. Theoretical background Goal orientation is emerging as a useful construct for understanding learning, training, and performance outcomes (Phillips & Gully, 1997; Steele-Johnson, Beauregard, Hoover, & Schmidt, 2000). As described above, goal orientation represents a motivational variable that describes the broad goals held by people when facing a learning task (Fisher & Ford, 1998). Dweck (1986) believed that both learning orientation and performance orientation originate from individualsÕ implicit theories of intelligence. Specifically, individuals perceive their abilities to be either fixed or incremental. Believing ability to be fixed leads to a performance orientation, whereas conceiving ability to be an acquirable skill leads to a learning orientation (Elliott & Dweck, 1988). Later, Elliot and Harackiewicz (1996) provided support for partitioning performance orientation into two distinct factors––a performance approach variable as it is currently defined in the literature and a performance avoidance variable. Both variables share the same outcome goal of meeting normative standards of performance. However, the avoidance variable is characterized by a desire to avoid unfavourable judgements, while the approach variable is characterized by a desire to attain favourable judgements. Support for Elliot and HarackiewiczÕs (1996) conceptualization of a tri-dimensional factor structure comes from an examination of Button, Mathieu, and Zajac (1996) widely used goal orientation scale. Button et al. (1996) reported Cronbach alphas ranging from 0.79 to 0.85 for learning orientation and alphas ranging from 0.68 to 0.77 for performance orientation. The lower degree of reliability for items measuring performance orientation may stem from the lack of

D. Zweig, J. Webster / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1693–1708

1695

distinction between performance approach and avoidance orientations. Accordingly, Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, and Thrash (2002) point to theoretical and empirical evidence to support performance avoidance as an independent dimension of goal orientation. Although the debate about the number of factors comprising goal orientation continues, questions that remain unanswered relate to the distinctiveness of goal orientation from personality and its predictive utility above and beyond personality. In other words, what is goal orientation? Is it merely repackaged personality or is goal orientation a more proximal variable to intentions and behaviours that is comprised of different elements of personality? Furthermore, does goal orientation add to the prediction of performance intentions over and above personality? We ask these questions because the distinctiveness of goal orientation falls into doubt when examining recent empirical work investigating its relationship with personality. For instance, some of the reported correlations between measures of goal orientation and specific personality variables are strong (e.g., Chan & Tesluk, 2000). For example, McKinney and Carlson (2002) reported a correlation of 0.39 between conscientiousness and learning orientation and questioned whether learning orientation adds much beyond personality to the prediction of performance. Others would suggest that goal orientation is different from general traits. In contrast to the big-five, goal orientation is a composite personality characteristic comprised of a combination of personality variables and motivational elements that is more proximal to specific behaviours. An examination of the definition of goal orientation––the broad goals held by people when approaching a task––implies a motivational component to the construct that might not be captured by general personality traits alone. Further, in their meta-analysis of the goal orientation literature, Beaubien and Payne (1999) suggested that personality constructs such as the big-five should be considered as source or general traits that exhibit a heritable component and demonstrate longterm stability. On the other hand, they proposed that goal orientation should be conceptualized as a ‘‘compound’’ personality characteristic that might result from a combination of the big-five source traits. Similarly, Elliot and Church (1997) considered goal orientation to be a proximal, mid-level construct, hierarchically situated between more distal dispositions and specific behaviours. This conceptualization is consistent with Kanfer (1990), who distinguished between proximal and distal theories of motivation. Specifically, distal theories emphasize indirect effects on action while proximal theories include mechanisms that control the execution of actions during task engagement. Adopting this perspective, it seems plausible to assume moderate to high correlations between the dimensions of goal orientation and the big-five personality constructs but the distinctiveness of these constructs is still under question. 2.1. Relating general personality traits to goal orientation Our first research question examines the relation between the big-five model of personality and goal orientation. Beaubien and Payne (1999) developed non-directional hypotheses for the big-five personality factors in their meta analysis of the goal orientation literature because ‘‘little theoretical work has addressed the specific relationships between the Ôbig-fiveÕ factors and the two goal orientations’’. A few initial studies have examined relationships among these variables (e.g., Chan & Tesluk, 2000; Lawson, 1999; McKinney & Carlson, 2002). However, these studies have been correlational, have not included outcomes, and have not examined the mediating role of goal orientation in predicting outcomes.

1696

D. Zweig, J. Webster / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1693–1708

In contrast, recent theoretical work by Elliot and Thrash (2002) suggests that approach and avoidance temperaments are fundamental to understanding personality. In a review of the literature, they concluded that these two temperaments represent core constructs, that is ‘‘general, neurobiological sensitivity’’ to positive/desirable or negative/undesirable stimuli (p. 805). They proposed that adopting an approach-avoidance perspective could help to elucidate the relationships between goal orientation and extraversion and neuroticism. They suggested that extraversion and positive emotionality comprise an approach temperament that relates to the adoption of learning and performance approach goals. Conversely, neuroticism and negative emotionality characterize an avoidance temperament that relates to performance approach and avoidance orientations. Drawing upon and extending these initial studies, the hypothesized pattern of associations between goal orientation and general personality variables is described next. Traits used to describe extraversion include being sociable, gregarious, assertive, talkative and active (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Individuals possessing a high level of extraversion are predisposed to have both positive affect and cognitions. They are optimistic about the future, less susceptible to distraction and less affected by competition than introverts (Eysenck, 1981). Extraversion is characterized by ambition reflecting individual differences in mastery seeking and perseverance (Clark & Watson, 1991), which are two key concepts in learning goal orientation. Both Lawson (1999) and Chan and Tesluk (2000) found that extraversion was positively correlated with a learning orientation and Elliot and Thrash (2002) found that extraversion was a factor of an approach temperament related to learning orientation. Low levels of extraversion are associated with decreased activity and interest, and avoidance of stimulation (Clark & Watson, 1991). Early goal orientation research (not distinguishing between approach and avoidance orientations) indicates that individuals with a performance goal orientation view challenging problems as a threat to self-esteem and display avoidance and low persistence (Dweck, 1986). However, this avoidance behaviour is characteristic of a performance avoidance goal orientation. Indeed, Chan and Tesluk (2000), who differentiated between approach and avoidance orientations, found a negative correlation between extraversion and avoidance orientation. Therefore, it is proposed that introversion is characterized by behaviours that are similar to avoidance goal orientation. Thus, we propose that: Hypothesis 1a: Extraversion is positively related to learning goal orientation. Hypothesis 1b: Extraversion is negatively related to performance avoidance orientation. Common traits associated with neuroticism include being anxious, worried, depressed, angry, and insecure (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Individuals with low levels of emotional stability tend to be defensive and guarded, have a negative view of themselves, worry about othersÕ opinions of them, and tend to make stable, internal, global attributions about negative events (Clark & Watson, 1991). Behaviours exhibited by individuals with a performance approach orientation, such as focussing on ability before engaging in a task and exhibiting negative self-cognitions are similar to behaviours exhibited by individuals with a low level of emotional stability (Lawson, 1999). Goal orientation research indicates that individuals with a performance approach orientation focus on their ability and its adequacy or inadequacy before engaging in a task, avoid challenging tasks,

D. Zweig, J. Webster / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1693–1708

1697

and experience a deterioration of performance in the face of obstacles (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Emotional instability is characterized by avoidance and defensive behaviours and performance avoidance goal orientation is characterized by a desire to avoid unfavourable judgements. In support of this, Lawson (1999) found that emotional stability was negatively correlated with a performance approach orientation. Furthermore, Elliot and Thrash (2002) found that neuroticism was related to both performance approach and avoidance orientations. However, in distinguishing performance orientation into its two dimensions, Chan and Tesluk (2000) found a similar relationship with a performance avoidance orientation but not for performance approach orientation. Conversely, individuals with learning orientations exhibit behaviours that are consistent with people who possess high levels of emotional stability. Being undaunted, not appearing to believe that they are failing, and maintaining a flagging optimism in the face of challenges characterizes the behaviours of individuals with a learning orientation (Lawson, 1999). Being that individuals with higher emotional stability are characterized by behaviours that are similar to those with a learning goal orientation and that individuals with lower emotional stability are characterized by avoidance and defensive behaviours that are similar to those with performance approach or performance avoidance orientations, the following hypotheses are presented: Hypothesis 2a: Emotional stability is positively related to learning orientation. Hypothesis 2b: Emotional stability is negatively related to performance approach orientation. Hypothesis 2c: Emotional stability is negatively related to performance avoidance orientation. Characteristics used to describe openness to experience include imaginative, sensitive, intellectual, and curious at one end of the continuum, and insensitive, narrow, and simple at the other end (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Individuals with a high level of openness to experience appreciate variety and intellectual stimulation and are better at grasping new ideas (Costa & McCrae, 1988). These individuals generally have more favourable attitudes toward learning experiences (Barrick & Mount, 1991). Research indicates that individuals with a learning goal orientation believe that the opportunity to extend their range of abilities is important, and appear to enjoy exerting effort in the pursuit of task mastery (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Barrick and Mount (1991) note that openness to experience will be a valid predictor of training proficiency because it includes characteristics such as being curious, broad-minded, and intelligent which are attributes associated with favourable attitudes toward learning experiences. These individuals are more likely to be motivated to learn upon entry into training programs and are more likely to benefit from training. Research indicates that trainees who accept personal responsibility for the learning process and are willing to engage in self-assessment are more likely to benefit from the training (Barrick & Mount, 1991). As well, training programs that are designed to foster a learning orientation have been associated with more positive affective responses to training and plans to use more effort to maintain skills (Colquitt & Simmering, 1998). Furthermore, individuals with a learning goal orientation exhibit behaviours and hold beliefs that are consistent with individuals who possess high levels of openness to experience. Conversely, a low level of openness to experience is associated with a preference for familiarity, simplicity, and closure. These individuals tend to be unadventurous, behaviourally rigid, socially

1698

D. Zweig, J. Webster / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1693–1708

conforming and conventional in their reasoning (McCrae & Costa, 1987). These characteristics are similar to those of a performance avoidance goal orientation where avoiding failure by conforming to normative-based standards is the goal. Lawson (1999) found that openness to experience was negatively correlated with performance approach orientation. However, as hypothesized by Chan and Tesluk (2000), low levels of openness are more strongly related to the avoidance characteristics of a performance orientation and as such, should be associated with a performance avoidance orientation and not a performance approach orientation. Therefore, the following hypotheses are presented: Hypothesis 3a: Openness to experience is positively related to learning goal orientation. Hypothesis 3b: Openness to experience is negatively related to performance avoidance goal orientation. Conscientiousness is a general personality trait commonly characterized as careful, thorough, responsible, organized, self-disciplined, and scrupulous at one end, to irresponsible, disorganized, undisciplined, and unscrupulous at the other end (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Conscientiousness also incorporates other characteristics such as being hardworking, persevering and achievement-oriented (Barrick & Mount, 1991). According to Barrick, Mount, and Strauss (1993), conscientiousness may be the most important trait-motivation variable in the work domain. Meta-analytic evidence has found conscientiousness to be one of the best predictors of job performance (Barrick & Mount, 1991). The achievement-oriented nature of conscientiousness maps well onto those characteristics of individuals who are learning oriented. These individuals are motivated to achieve, succeed and persevere on difficult tasks. VandeWalle (1996, 1997) found that a learning goal orientation had positive relationships with optimism and the desire to work hard (a characteristic of conscientiousness). In a study that measured conscientiousness, goal orientation, and motivation to learn during the learning process, Colquitt and Simmering (1998) predicted that high conscientiousness would be associated with learning orientation and this association was replicated by Chan and Tesluk (2000) and McKinney and Carlson (2002). Further, in their meta-analysis of the (twodimensional) goal orientation literature, Beaubien and Payne (1999) found that learning orientation correlated positively with conscientiousness. The performance approach-oriented individual is achievement-oriented and wants to meet normative standards of performance. Individuals who are performance avoidance-oriented are just as concerned with meeting normative standards of performance; however, they are more concerned with avoiding unfavourable judgements (Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996). This determination to meet performance standards for both approach and avoidance orientations implies a positive relationship with conscientiousness. However, it is suggested that only performance approach will display a positive association with conscientiousness and indeed, performance avoidance will display a negative relationship. Persevering on tasks entails the need to attend to errors and learn from them. Doing so might lead to increased focus on errors and the potential for future failure. For the performance avoidance-oriented individual, non-perseverance on tasks is a self-protecting mechanism for avoiding future errors. However, a performance approach-oriented individual will persevere on tasks that are attainable to meet performance standards, thus im-

D. Zweig, J. Webster / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1693–1708

1699

plying a positive relationship with conscientiousness. Although previous research has not supported this position for performance orientation (e.g., Beaubien & Payne, 1999; Chan & Tesluk, 2000) it seems plausible to hypothesize that: Hypothesis 4a: Conscientiousness is positively related to learning orientation. Hypothesis 4b: Conscientiousness is positively related to performance approach orientation. Hypothesis 4c: Conscientiousness is negatively related to performance avoidance orientation. As stated earlier, there has been little theoretical work on the relationships between goal orientation and personality. Nowhere is this lack of theoretical development more evident than investigations into the relationship between goal orientation and agreeableness. However, Chan and Tesluk (2000) examined this relationship and found that both performance approach and performance avoidance orientations were negatively related to agreeableness. While they did not find a significant correlation with learning orientation, we suggest that individuals with learning goal orientations may show high levels of persistence without regard for their perceived levels of ability (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). These traits are similar to being imperturbable, a characteristic of those who are high in agreeableness (McCrae & Costa, 1987). Characteristics of individuals who are low in agreeableness, such as being competitive and interested in proving their abilities, are traits that may parallel those of a performance approach orientation. Furthermore, as stated by Chan and Tesluk (2000), skepticism and cynicism toward others might lead to withdrawal behaviours similar to those displayed by performance avoidance-oriented individuals. As such, the following hypotheses are proposed: Hypothesis 5a: There is a positive relationship between learning orientation and agreeableness. Hypothesis 5b: There is a negative relationship between performance approach orientation and agreeableness. Hypothesis 5c: There is a negative relationship between performance avoidance orientation and agreeableness. 2.2. The mediating role of goal orientation Our second research question assesses whether goal orientation adds to the prediction of performance intentions above and beyond personality. Although goal orientation has been shown to relate to performance intentions (Beaubien & Payne, 1999; Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999), hypotheses 1–5 imply that goal orientation might not add much to the prediction of outcomes above and beyond the measurement of general personality characteristics. Indeed, McKinney and Carlson (2002) found that two factors of goal orientation––learning and performance approach–– did not improve prediction of performance over and above conscientiousness. Congruent with the idea that goal orientation is comprised of a combination of personality variables (Beaubien & Payne, 1999), the constructs should be closely related and both general personality traits and goal orientation should demonstrate direct relationships with performance intentions. In contrast, as Elliot and Church (1997) and Kanfer (1990) suggested, distal variables such as general personality traits are expected to demonstrate indirect effects, while more proximal

1700

D. Zweig, J. Webster / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1693–1708

variables, such as goal orientation, are expected to exhibit more direct effects on outcomes. Indeed, based on the evidence suggested by studies examining the bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in personnel selection (e.g., Ashton, 1998; Moon, 2001; Ones & Viswesvaran, 1996), adopting a narrower categorization of personality traits under the umbrella of goal orientation might add to the prediction of performance outcomes. For example, Ashton (1998), Paunonen and Ashton (2001), and Stewart (1999) found that narrow subtraits of the big-five showed stronger associations with performance than the broad personality variables that encompass them. Examining the three facets of goal orientation might also reveal that more focused combinations of traits will better predict performance outcomes. If this is the case, goal orientation could mediate the relationship between general personality traits and performance intentions. As such, the following hypothesis is proposed: Hypothesis 6: Goal orientation will mediate the relationship between personality and performance intentions.

3. Method 3.1. Participants Seven hundred and eighty-six participants enrolled in multiple sections of an Introductory Psychology course completed the goal orientation and big-five personality measures. As part of the same sample, 626 of the participants completed a measure of intentions to perform schoolrelated activities. All of the participants completed the measures as part of a validation booklet comprised of a number of different scales. Average age for the participants was 19.42 years (SD ¼ 2.12) and females constituted 68.6% of the sample. 3.2. Measures 3.2.1. General personality traits GoldbergÕs Unipolar Markers for the big-five Factor Structure (1992) were used. This measure contains 100 adjectives (such as ‘‘unrestrained’’ for extraversion and ‘‘efficient’’ for conscientiousness) that target each of the five dimensions of personality measured on nine-point Likert scales ranging from 1 ¼ extremely inaccurate to 9 ¼ extremely accurate. Reliabilities range from a low of 0.92 to a high of 0.97 (Smith & Snell, 1996). 3.2.2. Dispositional goal orientation A 21-item goal orientation measure was employed. This measure, adapted from Zweig and Webster (2000) demonstrates good internal consistency, test–retest reliability and validity. Furthermore, the three-factor structure is supported by exploratory and confirmatory factor analytic evidence distinguishing it from constructs such as self-efficacy. Items such as ‘‘I prefer to work on tasks that force me to learn new things’’ assess learning orientation, items such as ‘‘I do not like getting feedback on my performance from others’’ assess performance avoidance orientation, and

D. Zweig, J. Webster / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1693–1708

1701

items such as ‘‘The things that I do most are the things that I do best’’ assess performance approach orientation 2. 3.2.3. Intentions to perform Four items that assessed intentions to perform academic-related activities were used (Koehler, 1999). Participants were asked to rate their intentions to (a) study a minimum of 30 hours for each final exam during the exam period this term, (b) hand in all course papers by their due dates for the rest of the academic year, (c) avoid falling more than 1 week behind in reading for any course next term, and (d) attend at least two public lectures on campus next term that are not required for the course. All items were rated on nine-point Likert scales ranging from 1 ¼ absolutely no intention to 9 ¼ very strong intention. 3.3. Analyses To assess the distinction between the big-five traits and goal orientation (hypotheses 1–5), structural equation modeling (SEM) techniques were employed to examine a hypothesized model that related the five factors of personality to the three factors of goal orientation. This model was compared to one in which the five factors of personality were unrelated to the three dimensions of goal orientation. We predicted that the hypothesized model would display a significantly better fit with the data than the unrelated model. To examine the mediating role of goal orientation (hypothesis 6), two models were compared using SEM: (1) the direct effects of personality and goal orientation on performance intentions and (2) the mediating effects of goal orientation on performance intentions. When using SEM to test hypotheses, sample sizes larger than 400 are considered to be too sensitive in detecting differences (Hair, Anderson, Tatham, & Black, 1995). Rather than split the sample to address this sensitivity, we used a bootstrapping technique (Yung & Bentler, 1996) to test the data. Bootstrapping creates a new estimate of the sampling distribution by recalculating estimates based on selected iterations of the sample population. In other words, bootstrapping continuously resamples with replacement for the entire sample. Thus, bootstrapping serves to

2

Zweig and WebsterÕs (2000) goal orientation measure can serve as an alternative to the bi-dimensional, Button et al. (1996) goal orientation scale and can be differentiated from other, situation-specific three-dimensional measures that require the creation and validation of new items for each situation (e.g., VandeWalleÕs, 1996 and Elliot & ChurchÕs, 1997 for students; VandeWalleÕs, 1997 for the work domain). Situation-specific dispositional measures can explain more of the variance in outcomes than general dispositional measures (Murtha, Kanfer, & Ackerman, 1996) and we strongly support their use. However, by changing the instructions, the Zweig and Webster measure would not need to be revalidated across different situations. For example, in classroom learning situations, the instructions might read: ‘‘Please think about your general attitude toward, and goals for, this class’’. To examine this claim, we collected evidence on the relationship between goal orientation and performance outcomes (midterm and final class grades) for 131 students asked to complete a situationally specific measure. Another 130 students responded to the general goal orientation scale. Both the specific and general measures exhibited similarly high levels of internal consistency reliability. However, the situationally specific measure predicted a greater amount of variance in midterm and final grades than the general measure of goal orientation.

1702

D. Zweig, J. Webster / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1693–1708

approximate a cross-validation in a single sample and addresses any sensitivity concerns stemming from large sample sizes.

4. Results Table 1 presents the means, standard deviations, reliabilities and intercorrelations among the study variables. 4.1. Tests of hypotheses Fig. 1 and Table 2 present the results of the SEM analyses for hypotheses 1–5. Two competing a priori models were tested. For each, we allowed the personality and goal orientation traits to correlate with each other based on past research (e.g., Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Goldberg, 1992; McCrae & Costa, 1987). The first model (diagrammed in Fig. 1) tested the hypotheses regarding the relations between the five personality traits and the three goal orientation dimensions (hypotheses 1–5). The second model tested the assumption that general personality traits and goal orientation dimensions are unrelated. A test of the chi-square difference between the hypothesized and unrelated models (v2 diffð13; N ¼ 622Þ ¼ 374:69, p < 0:05) suggests that the hypothesized model displays a significantly better fit to the data. However, neither model demonstrated adequate levels of adjusted fit. An examination of the modification indices for the hypothesized model suggested that the inclusion of one path, between performance approach and performance avoidance orientations, would significantly improve the fit. For our hypothesized model, we did not include a path between performance approach and performance avoidance orientations; however, past research on this relationship has been mixed (e.g., Elliot & Church, 1997; VandeWalle, 1997). Therefore, we conducted the SEM analysis again with this added path. Results revealed a much higher degree of fit with the data (GFI ¼ 0.99, AGFI ¼ 0.97, RMSEA ¼ 0.04). Furthermore, bootstrapping results for this adjusted model revealed a normal distribution of the data across the sampling iterations. As demonstrated in Fig. 1, an examination of the critical ratios suggests that all of the hypothesized relationships between the personality traits and goal orientation dimensions (hypotheses 1–5) were supported except for that of agreeableness to performance approach orientation (hypothesis 5b). Therefore, we can conclude that there are significant relationships between most personality factors and goal orientation. To test the mediating role of goal orientation (hypothesis 6), two competing a priori models were examined (see Table 3). As described above, the first model tested did not include mediation and thus tested only the direct relationships from personality and goal orientation to performance intentions. The second model examined the mediating relationships between personality, goal orientation and performance intentions. The fully mediated model fit the data well and significantly better than the direct model (v2 diffð7; N ¼ 622Þ ¼ 249:14, p < 0:05). In support of hypothesis 6, the significantly better fit of the fully mediated model suggests that goal orientation does mediate the relationship between general personality traits and performance intentions (see Fig. 2).

Table 1 Means, standard deviations, reliabilities and intercorrelations among study variables M

SD

1

2

3

4

5

6

1. Learning orientation 2. Performance approach orientation 3. Performance avoidance orientation 4. Emotional stability 5. Extraversion 6. Openness to experience 7. Agreeableness 8. Conscientiousness 9. Intentions to study 10. Intentions to meet duedate 11. Intentions to keep up readings 12. Intentions to attend lectures

5.37

0.80

4.95

0.92

0.18




4.26

0.86

)0.34




4.85

1.00

0.09


)0.32


)0.37




5.47 6.46

1.08 0.90

0.21


)0.06 0.33


0.03

)0.28


)0.21




6.86 6.26

0.87 0.98

0.29


0.38




0.04 0.10



)0.15


)0.15




5.73

2.58

0.17




0.07

8.45

1.24

0.19




0.11



7.35

1.92

0.18




0.08


3.82

2.41

0.17




0.04

7

8

(0.89) 0.42




(0.88)

9

0.17


0.01

(0.89) 0.32




(0.85)

0.16


0.16




0.26


0.07

0.38


0.30




0.06

0.00

0.03

0.04

)0.03

0.06

0.11



0.20




0.21


0.14




0.05

)0.08


0.08


0.05

0.20




0.21


0.27




0.04

)0.10



0.03

0.07

0.05

0.03

10

11

12

(0.85) (0.83)

0.30




(0.80)

(0.86)

0.12


)0.08
)0.04

Numbers in parentheses are CronbachÕs alpha estimates of internal consistency.
p < 0:05.

p < 0:01.


p < 0:001.

–

0.27




–

0.35


–

)0.02

0.19




–

D. Zweig, J. Webster / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1693–1708

Variable

1703

1704

D. Zweig, J. Webster / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1693–1708 .25*

extraversion .36*

-.32*

learning orientation

.18*

.07* .30*

.11*

-.45*

emotional stability

.22*

-.37*

.19*

-.42*

.03*

performance approach

.37* openness to experience

-.27*

.36* .33* .43*

.10* performance avoidance

-.18*

conscientiousness .19*

.48* agreeableness

.32*

-.18*

*p<.05

Fig. 1. Conceptual model and study results relating general personality traits to dispositional goal orientation.

Table 2 Goodness of fit values for hypotheses 1–5 Model Modified model Hypothesized model Unrelated model

v2

df

p

v2 =df

GFI

AGFI

RMSEA

5.24 83.14

2 3

0.07 0.00

2.62 27.71

0.998 0.975

0.971 0.703

0.045 0.184

457.83

16

0.00

28.61

0.877

0.723

0.188

df

p

v2 =df

GFI

AGFI

RMSEA

322.51 73.36

15 22

0.00 0.00

21.50 3.33

0.92 0.98

0.62 0.93

0.18 0.06

1256.01

66

0.00

19.03

0.70

0.65

0.17

Table 3 Goodness of fit values for hypothesis 6 Model Direct model Fully mediated model Unrelated model

v2

5. Discussion This study examined the direct and indirect relationships between general personality traits, goal orientation and performance intentions to build upon past research and establish that goal orientation is distinguishable from general traits and represents a more proximal predictor of performance intentions. We found that there are significant relationships between most person-

D. Zweig, J. Webster / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1693–1708 .27*

extraversion .40*

-.35*

.17*

.15* .32*

.16*

-.38* -.44*

.19*

study .11*

.40* -.28* .41* .13*

.27*

.13*

.14*

read .10*

.39*

.19*

-.41*

.17*

.37* conscientiousness

.27*

.24*

performance approach

.05* openness to experience

.16*

learning orientation

.12*

emotional stability

1705

lectures

performance avoidance

-.19* .48*

agreeableness

.36*

.12*

.28* -.16*

.12*

due date

Note: Although all hypothesized paths were tested, only significant paths are presented. *p <.05

Fig. 2. Mediated model of relationship between personality traits, goal orientation and performance intentions.

ality factors and the three factors of goal orientation. However, the results also suggest that personality factors combine to create peopleÕs different orientations toward learning and goals. These orientations in turn predict the types of activities in which they will intend to engage. The relationship between personality traits and performance intentions is mediated by goal orientation. Our results support Paunonen and JacksonÕs (2000) contention that the big-five do not account for all outcome variance and adds to the mounting evidence suggesting that more focused combinations of personality traits might be better than more global traits at predicting outcomes. These findings support the idea that goal orientation is a midlevel construct located between distal personality traits and outcomes (Elliot & Church, 1997). Perhaps, as Murtha et al. (1996) suggested, augmenting large content factors like those represented in the ‘‘big-five’’ by dimensions like those encompassed by goal orientation might improve prediction. 5.1. Future research and practice Recognizing that the relationships between personality, goal orientation and performance are complex, future research should strive to take potential moderators and mediators (e.g., type of learning task, anxiety, task strategies) of these relationships into account. For example, we found that extraversion related positively to learning orientation. However, for other tasks, such as computer programming, that demand concentration and speed, the relationship between extraversion and learning orientation might be weaker. In addition to viewing goal orientation as an individual characteristic, researchers have manipulated treatment instructions to create different goal orientation states (e.g., Colquitt & Simmering, 1998; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996; Steele-Johnson et al., 2000; Stevens & Gist, 1997).

1706

D. Zweig, J. Webster / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1693–1708

What is not known is the interaction between goal orientation as a stable dispositional characteristic and as a state––could a learning treatment overcome a performance avoidance characteristic? For example, adopting a skills-based performance evaluation that rewards the employee for learning and development might elicit an environment that promotes learning (as opposed to an outcome only based evaluation that promotes a focus on meeting performance standards). As suggested by Chen et al. (2000) who examined the relationships between trait and state self-efficacy, future research must attempt to tie together trait and state-like motivational constructs to better understand the motivational mechanisms that influence behaviours. While it is still too early to make concrete recommendations for practice, our results suggest that goal orientation adds more to the prediction of performance intentions than general personality characteristics alone. If this finding is borne out by future research, it could suggest that goal orientation might prove to be a more palatable alternative to the oft-maligned measures of personality traits in predicting performance. Furthermore, with so much time, effort and money spent on delivering training content, relatively little research has investigated the role trainees play as recipients of this instruction. Goal orientation can serve as a useful tool in identifying the manner in which people approach learning goals and should inform the development and delivery of training. Given that our data were based on samples of university undergraduates, it is possible that our results might not generalize to employees in organizations. Further, we were unable to collect actual performance data, which limits our ability to rule out the possibility that same-source bias may have accounted for the magnitude of some of the relationships in this study. However, our results are consistent with previous studies that have examined some of these relationships (e.g., Chan & Tesluk, 2000). Future research should strive to assess these same questions in an organizational sample with behavioural measures of performance to examine this relationship in the context of other environmental factors. For instance, training paradigms that focus on individual or group learning could moderate the influence of goal orientation on performance. Further, despite the use of structural equation modeling techniques, it is also important to note that we did not test the causality of our hypothesized relationships. As such, we cannot make firm conclusions about the direction of the relationships. A cross-lagged design would allow for a determination of directionality. In spite of these limitations, our research offers important implications for future theory, research and practice with goal orientation. As the extant debate about the nature and scope of the big-five conceptualization of personality continues, it is important to establish the distinctiveness and unique contribution of social-cognitive constructs such as goal orientation. Our investigation suggests that goal orientation should not be subsumed under the umbrella of general traits. While there is overlap between the two approaches to personality, the dimensions of goal orientation do contribute unique information in the determination of behaviour.

Acknowledgements The Network for the Evaluation of Education and Training Technologies (EvNet) provided financial support for this research. We would like to thank Derek Chapman and Uli Schimmack for their comments on earlier drafts of this paper, and Heather Wiles for her research assistance.

D. Zweig, J. Webster / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1693–1708

1707

References Ashton, M. C. (1998). Personality and job performance: The importance of narrow traits. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 289–303. Barrick, M. R., & Mount, M. K. (1991). The big-five personality dimensions and job performance: A meta-analysis. Personnel Psychology, 44, 1–26. Barrick, M. R., Mount, M. K, & Strauss, J. P. (1993). Conscientiousness and performance of sales representatives: Test of the mediation effects of goal setting. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 715–722. Beaubien, J. M., & Payne, S. C. (1999). Individual goal orientation as a predictor of job and academic performance: A meta-analytic review and integration. Paper presented at the 14th annual meeting of the Society of Industrial/ Organizational Psychology, Atlanta, Georgia. Button, S. B., Mathieu, J. E., & Zajac, D. M. (1996). Goal orientation and organizational research: A conceptual and empirical foundation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 67(1), 26–48. Chan, D., & Tesluk, P. E. (2000). Affective disposition and personality correlates of goal orientation. Paper presented at the 15th annual conference of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA. Chen, G., Gully, S. M., Whiteman, J. A., & Kilcullen, R. N. (2000). Examination of relationships among trait-like individual differences, state-like individual differences, and learning performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(6), 835–847. Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1991). General affective dispositions in physical and psychological health. In C. R. Snyder & D. R. Forsyth (Eds.), Handbook of Social and Clinical Psychology (pp. 241–245). New York: Pergamon. Colquitt, J. A., & Simmering, M. J. (1998). Conscientiousness, goal orientation and motivation to learn during the learning process: A longitudinal study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83(4), 654–665. Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1988). From catalog to classification: MurrayÕs needs and the five-factor model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 258–265. Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048. Dweck, C. S. (1997). Capturing the dynamic nature of personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 348–362. Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256–273. Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218–232. Elliott, E. S., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to motivation and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 5–12. Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 461–475. Elliot, A. J., McGregor, H., & Gable, S. (1999). Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance: A mediational analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 549–563. Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(5), 804–818. Eysenck, H. J. (1981). Learning, memory, and personality. In H. J. Eysenck (Ed.), A model for personality. New York: Springer-Verlag. Fisher, S. L., & Ford, J. K. (1998). Differential effects of learner effort and goal orientation on two learning outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 51, 397–420. Funder, D. C. (2001). Personality. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 192–221. Goldberg, L. R. (1990). An alternative ‘‘description of personality’’: The big-five factor structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1216–1229. Goldberg, L. R. (1992). The development of markers for the big-five factor structure. Psychological Assessment, 4, 26– 42. Hair, J. F., Anderson, R. E., Tatham, R. L., & Black, W. C. (1995). Multivariate data analysis (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Pintrich, P. R., Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Revision of achievement goal theory necessary and illuminating. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(3), 638–645.

1708

D. Zweig, J. Webster / Personality and Individual Differences 36 (2004) 1693–1708

Hogan, R., Hogan, J., & Roberts, B. W. (1996). Personality measurement and employment decisions: Questions and answers. American Psychologist, 51, 469–477. Kanfer, R. (1990). Motivation theory and industrial and organizational psychology. In M. D. Dunnette & L. M. Hough (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (Vol. 1, 2nd ed., pp. 75–170). Koehler, D. (1999). [Everyday activities scale]. Unpublished raw data. University of Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada. Lawson, L. (1999). Determinants of goal orientation. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Academy of Management, Chicago, IL. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1987). Validation of the five-factor model of personality across instruments and observers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(1), 81–90. McCrae, R. R., & Costa, P. T. (1999). A five-factor theory of personality. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. Johns (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research. New York, NY: Guildford Press. McKinney, A. P., & Carlson, K. D. (2002). Incremental contribution of trait goal orientation in explaining performance variability. Paper presented at the 17th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, ON. Moon, H. (2001). The two faces of conscientiousness: Duty and achievement striving in escalation of commitment dilemmas. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86(3), 533–540. Murtha, T. C., Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1996). Toward an interactionist taxonomy of personality and situations: An integrative situational-dispositional representation of personality traits. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 792–802. Ones, D. S., & Viswesvaran, C. (1996). Bandwidth-fidelity dilemma in personality measurement for personnel selection. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 609–626. Paunonen, S. V., & Ashton, M. C. (2001). Big-five predictors of academic achievement. Journal of Research in Personality, 35, 78–90. Paunonen, S. V., & Jackson, D. N. (2000). What is beyond the big-five? Plenty! Journal of Personality, 68(5), 821–835. Phillips, J. M., & Gully, S. M. (1997). Role of goal orientation, ability, need for achievement, and locus of control in the self-efficacy and goal setting process. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82(5), 792–802. Smith, D. R., & Snell, W. E. (1996). GoldbergÕs bipolar measure of the big-five personality dimensions: Reliability and validity. European Journal of Personality, 10, 283–299. Steele-Johnson, D., Beauregard, R. S., Hoover, P. D., & Schmidt, A. M. (2000). Goal orientation and task demand effects on motivation, affect and performance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(5), 724–738. Stevens, C. K., & Gist, M. (1997). Effects of self-efficacy and goal orientation training on negotiation skill maintenance: What are the mechanisms? Personnel Psychology, 50, 955–978. Stewart, G. L. (1999). Trait bandwidth and stages of job performance: Assessing differential effects for conscientiousness and its subtraits. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(6), 959–968. VandeWalle, D. M. (1996). Are our students trying to prove or improve their ability? Development and validation of an instrument to measure academic goal orientation. Paper presented at the 1996 Academy of Management National Meeting, Cincinnati, Ohio. VandeWalle, D. (1997). Development and validation of a work domain goal orientation instrument. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 57(6), 995–1015. Yung, Y. F., & Bentler, P. M. (1996). Bootstrapping techniques in analysis of mean and covariance structures. In G. A. Marcoulides & R. E. Schumacker (Eds.), Advanced structural equation modeling: Issues and techniques. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Zweig, D. I., & Webster, J. (2000). Are goal orientation and self-efficacy different? A validation of scales. Paper presented at the 15th annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA.