Content uploaded by Paul A Story
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Paul A Story on Mar 24, 2025
Content may be subject to copyright.
TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 1
Using a Two-factor Theory of Achievement Motivation to Examine Performance-Based
Outcomes and Self-regulatory processes
Paul A. Story1, Jason W. Hart2, Mark F. Stasson3, & John M. Mahoney4
1 Auburn University at Montgomery
2 Christopher Newport University
3 Metropolitan State University
4 Virginia Commonwealth University
Author Note
Paul A. Story https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2220-1105
Paul A. Story is now at the Department of Psychological Science, Kennesaw State
University.
John M. Mahoney passed away in December of 2007 and this article was published in his
honor as he was a contributing author.
We have no conflict of interest to disclose.
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Paul A. Story, Kennesaw
State University, 1000 Chastain Road, Kennesaw, GA 30144, United States. Email:
pstory@kennesaw.edu
This is the accepted manuscript of an article published in Personality and Individual
Differences. The final published version is available at:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2008.10.023
TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 3
Abstract
Many researchers agree that achievement motivation represents a multidimensional concept
(e.g., Cassidy & Lynn, 1989; Hart, Stasson, Mahoney, & Story, 2007). We employed a two-
factor theory of achievement motivation (intrinsic and extrinsic factors) to predict three
achievement-related factors: generalized expectancy for success, need for cognition, and self-
reinforcement. As predicted, intrinsic achievement motivation was positively associated with
scores on all three achievement-related factors, whereas extrinsic achievement motivation was
positively related only to generalized expectancy for success. Subsequent regression analyses
revealed that intrinsic achievement motivation better predicted all three factors than did extrinsic
achievement motivation. Implications for employing a two-factor model of achievement
motivation are presented for both basic and applied applications.
Keywords: achievement motivation, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, need for
cognition, generalized expectancy for success, frequency of self-reinforcement,
TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 4
1. Introduction
In the last decade, researchers have increasingly examined relations among achievement
motivation, personality, and behavior (e.g., Busato, Prins, Elshout, & Hamaker, 2000; Farsides &
Woodfield, 2003; Hart, Stasson, Mahoney, & Story, 2007; Major, Turner, & Fletcher, 2006;
Paspalanov, 1984; Phillips, Abraham, & Bond, 2003; Zsolnai, 2002). Although many researchers
agree that achievement motivation represents a complex, multi-dimensional concept, there is
frequently disagreement about the exact number of factors and how to best conceptualize the
construct (e.g., Cassidy & Lynn, 1989; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, &
Elliot, 2002; Herzberg, 2003; Vroom, 1964; Woo, Gibbons, & Thornton, 2007). Current research
proposes that theories of achievement motivation can be summarized well by two theoretically
and empirically supported motivational factors: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci,
2000).
The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation has been exemplified in classic
theories of motivation. For example, Herzberg, Mausner, and Snyderman (1959) found that
employees often cited intrinsic related reasons for being satisfied with work, whereas extrinsic
related reasons were reported as sources of dissatisfaction with work. McGregor (1960)
recommended that managers motivate employees based on whether the worker is either
externally or intrinsically motivated. Vroom (1964) stated that one's motivation to work is a
multiplicative function of three factors: expectancy, instrumentality, and outcome valence. The
distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic motivational factors becomes especially meaningful
for outcome valence, as some people focus on extrinsic outcomes (e.g., money), whereas others
focus on intrinsic outcomes (e.g., satisfaction from mastering a task). These classic motivation
theories are consistent with a two-factor approach.
Achievement motivation refers to the tendency to set and work toward personal goals
and/or standards (Cassidy & Lynn, 1989). Working from a multidimensional view of
achievement motivation, the Cassidy and Lynn Achievement Motivation Scale (CLAMS) was
TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 5
developed to assesses achievement motivation on seven interrelated, but conceptually distinct,
factors: Work Ethic (effort based on enjoying the work for its own sake), Acquisitiveness for
money and material wealth (effort based on a need to obtain valued material objects and
money), Dominance (effort based on the need to exert influence on others), Pursuit of Excellence
(effort based on the need to meet a personal standard of excellence), Competitiveness (effort
based on the need to outperform others), Status (effort based on the need to climb the "social
ladder"), and Mastery (effort based on the need to solve or perform challenging tasks).
Although each factor offers unique insight into the complexity of achievement motivation, a
clearer understanding of achievement motivation may emerge by collapsing the seven factors
into a parsimonious two-factor model.
Influenced by Deci and Ryan’s (1985; 2008) self-determination theory (SDT), our earlier
research (Hart et al., 2007; Story, Stasson, Mahoney, & Hart, 2008) found that the CLAMS fits
well within a two-factor model of achievement motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic achievement
motivation. Consistent with our approach, Deci and Ryan (2008) argued against a unified
construct of motivation, but rather stated that motivation is either autonomous or controlled.
Autonomous motivation refers to types of motivation that involve internal processes through
which people come to identify with and internalize the value of an activity, whereas controlled
motivation refers to types of motivation that are the result of external demands. Based on this
information, it appears that autonomous motivation seems consistent with our notion of intrinsic
achievement motivation, whereas controlled motivation is analogous to extrinsic achievement
motivation.
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation has been shown to relate to academic performance.
College students who adopt external, performance-oriented goals, worry about how their
TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 6
performance compares to others, receive higher grades, and show increased performance
compared to students who adopt internal, learning-focused goals (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001;
Elliot & Church, 1997; Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto, & Elliot, 1997; Harackiewicz,
Barron, Tauer et al., 2002). On the other hand, intrinsically motivated students focus more on
mastering material than extrinsically motivated students, which leads to increased persistence
and involvement in the classroom (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001; Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot
& Harackiewicz, 1996). While the research is mixed (Elliot & Church, 1997; Harackiewicz et
al., 1997), some studies have found that intrinsic motivation predicts final course grades (Phillips
et al., 2003) and performance on standardized tests (Gottfried, 1985).
Intrinsically motivated students use more complex cognitive strategies than extrinsically
motivated students. For example, students who enjoy learning were more likely to report using
deeper level processing strategies compared to students focused on competitive performance
(Nolen, 1988). Students instructed to focus on mastering a task use deeper level processing
strategies compared to those instructed to focus on competing with others (Graham & Golan,
1991). Seventh grade students who enjoyed their classes used a wider variety of cognitive
strategies when studying (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Junior high students adopting a mastery
orientation used more cognitive strategies than students not using this intrinsic-based orientation
Patrick, Ryan, & Pintrich, 1999). Similar results have been found among college students
(Greene & Miller, 1996; Walker, Greene, & Mansell, 2006); suggesting that intrinsically
motivated students enjoy thinking and have a desire to engage in effortful thinking.
Studies have found that intrinsic motivation is associated with better self-regulatory
strategies, not surprising given these individuals are oriented towards mastering and learning the
material (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Even after controlling for prior achievement, students high in
TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 7
intrinsic motivation are better at self-regulating their behavior, and work harder to learn the
material than those low in intrinsic motivation (Patrick et al., 1999; Pintrich & de Groot, 1990).
Extrinsic motivation on the other hand is negatively associated with self-regulatory strategies
(Patrick et al., 1999). For example, extrinsically motivated individuals tend to prefer easier tasks
compared to challenging ones (Ames, 1992; Gottfried, 1985). Intrinsically motivated students
then, seem to reinforce their own behavior whereas extrinsically motivated students do not.
Research also shows that intrinsic motivation is positively associated with a belief in
one’s ability to succeed. Students high in intrinsic motivation perceive themselves as more
competent compared to children low in intrinsic motivation (Gottfried, 1985; Pintrich & de
Groot, 1990). Junior high school students adopting a mastery orientation have increased levels of
self-efficacy (Patrick et al., 1999). Intrinsically motivated college students are confident in their
abilities and expect to succeed (Garcia & Pintrich, 1996; Greene & Miller, 1996; Walker et al.,
2006). Thus, intrinsic motivation is positively associated with expectations of success.
Extrinsic motivation serves as an underlying component of performance goals (Lepper,
Corpus, & Iyengar, 2005). Numerous studies find that performance goals are predictive of valued
achievement performance outcomes (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001; Harackiewicz, Barron,
Pintrich, Elliot, & Thrash, 2002). For example, Harackiewicz and colleagues (1997) found that
the academic performance of students was positively associated with performance goals, but not
with mastery goals. Taken as a whole, extrinsic motivation appears to be especially important in
contexts in which performance outcomes are salient.
The research summarized above links extrinsic motivation to performance outcomes and
intrinsic motivation to cognitive and self-regulatory processes. Much of the research on intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation contrasts these motivation types as two ends of a continuum or as two
TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 8
distinct categories, one is either intrinsically or extrinsically motivated. However, it seems
possible that across a wide range of situations one could be motivated by both intrinsic and
extrinsic factors. For example, while writing a term paper, a student's motivation may be a
product of the desire to receive a good grade in combination with his or her passion for writing.
In this study, we examine the utility of a two-factor model that examines the separate effects of
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
The achievement motivation literature is impressive in scope and depth, but many
important questions remain unanswered. In the present study, we use a two-factor model of
achievement motivation that provides a parsimonious, yet informative, lens through which to
view the construct and its relationship to a number of achievement-related constructs. Using a
two-dimensional conceptualization of motivation we assess the independent impacts of intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation, as well as possible interactive effects. This may allow for a richer
understanding of how achievement motivation relates to other achievement variables.
Extrinsic achievement motivation (EAM) and intrinsic achievement motivation (IAM)
were used to predict three achievement-related constructs: need for cognition, frequency of self-
reinforcement, and generalized expectancy for success. We choose need for cognition (NFC;
Cacioppo, Petty, & Kao, 1984), because this construct measures the degree to which individuals
engage in and enjoy effortful thinking. Past research (e.g., Nolen, 1988) has shown those
classified as intrinsically motivated to show a preference for effortful thinking, so our first
hypothesis (H1) is that we expect IAM to be positively related to NFC. It is less clear if and how
EAM might be predictive of NFC, so we make no definitive prediction for EAM.
Frequency of self-reinforcement (FSR; Heiby, 1982) was included as a measure of self-
reported self-regulation. Prior research has shown that intrinsic motivation is positively
TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 9
associated with self-regulation (Patrick et al., 1999; Pintrich & de Groot, 1990), so our second
hypothesis (H2) is that IAM will be positively related to FSR, because self-reinforcement is very
much an internal process. Given that those high in EAM look to the environment for rewards and
reinforcers, it seems unlikely that EAM would be predictive of an internal process such as FSR.
Generalized expectancy for success (GESS; Fibel & Hale, 1978) is the degree to which
one expects one will attain valued outcomes and/or goals. We included this variable because it
provides us with a self-report of future performance, which should be associated with
environmental motivators. Thus, our third hypothesis (H3) is that EAM will be positively related
to GESS. However, because some goals and outcomes may also be more “internal” (e.g.,
mastering a task), our fourth hypothesis (H4) is that IAM should also be positively related to
GESS.
2. Method
2.1 Participants
Introductory psychology students (total N = 340) took part in the research to complete
part of a course requirement. In this study, participants completed several individual differences
measures during mass testing sessions, at multiple time points in a semester. All participants
were treated in a manner consistent with the American Psychological Association Code of
Professional Ethics (APA, 2002).
2.2 Measures
The 49-item CLAMS measures seven achievement motives: Work Ethic, Acquisitiveness,
Dominance, Pursuit of Excellence, Competitiveness, Status Aspiration, and Mastery. Participants
responded to each item (e.g., I find satisfaction in working as well as I can), using a five-point
Likert-type scale (1 - never to 5 - always). The seven subscales were collapsed into two higher-
TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 10
level dimensions (see Story et al., 2008). Work ethic, pursuit of excellence, and mastery were
combined to form Intrinsic Achievement Motivation (IAM; α = .71) and acquisitiveness,
dominance, competitiveness, and status aspiration subscales formed the measure of Extrinsic
Achievement Motivation (EAM; α = .64).
The Generalized Expectancy for Success Scale (Fibel & Hale, 1978) measures the degree
to which an individual tends to expect that he or she will be able to attain valued outcomes
and/or goals (α = .91). The scale consists of 30 items (e.g., In the future I expect that I will
succeed in the projects I undertake; In the future I expect that I will get the promotions I
deserve), rated on five-point scales (1 = highly improbable to 5 = highly probable).
The 18-item Need for Cognition Scale (Cacioppo et al., 1984) measures the degree to
which individuals take pleasure engaging in effortful thinking (α = .85).
The 30-item Frequency of Self Reinforcement Questionnaire (Heiby, 1982) assesses how
often individuals self-reinforce and their feelings towards success and failure (α = .77).
2.3. Procedure
Participants completed a number of personality and individual difference measures at
multiple time points during one semester. At the first session, all participants filled out the
achievement motivation measures, Generalized Expectancy for Success Scale, and Need for
Cognition scale. One hundred nineteen of the original participants returned to a second session at
which they filled out the Frequency of Self-reinforcement Questionnaire. At the end of each
session, participants were debriefed and thanked for their participation.
3. Results
Simple correlations between each achievement motivation measure and the GESS, NFC,
and FSRQ scores are displayed in Table 1. Supporting H1, IAM scores were positively
TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 11
correlated with scores on the NFC scale (r = .61, p <. 01), greater levels of intrinsic motivation
were associated with a higher need for cognition. On the other hand, EAM was not significantly
related to NFC. Consistent with H2, IAM was positively correlated with FSR (r = .32, p < .01),
showing that those with higher levels of intrinsic motivation reported higher levels of self-
regulation. However, there was no significant correlation between EAM and FSR. As predicted,
GESS was positively correlated with both EAM (r = .28, p < .01) and IAM (r = .45, p < .01),
supporting H3 and H4. Higher levels of extrinsic and intrinsic achievement motivation were each
predictive of higher expectations of success.
IAM and EAM were positively correlated with one another (r = .22, p < .01), but the
modest correlation allows for the possibility that they could have unique contributions in
explaining the other achievement variables. To explore the predictive utility of using the two-
factor model of achievement motivation, we performed regressions to predict NFC, FSR, and
GESS from the IAM and EAM measures. We used centered scores for IAM and EAM to
minimize multicollinearity problems (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). In addition, the regression
models included the interaction between IAM and EAM to examine possible non-additive effects
of these variables. A summary of the regression results are in Table 2.
Consistent with H1, IAM (β = .62, p < .01) was the strongest predictor of need for
cognition. However, EAM (β = -.13, p < .01) had a significant negative relation with NFC after
controlling for IAM, suggesting that higher levels of extrinsic motivation are associated with
lower levels of cognitive activity. A significant interaction between IAM and EAM (β = .11, p <
.05) qualified the main effect results. We examined the interaction effect using simple slopes
predicting NFC for low (1 SD below the mean), average (mean), and high (1 SD above the mean)
values of IAM and EAM (see Figure 1). Generally, those high in IAM had high levels of NFC
TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 12
that were not impacted by EAM. On the other hand, those who were low in IAM had relatively
low levels of NFC and were susceptible to the inverse effect of EAM.
As predicted in H2, IAM was positively related to frequency of self-reinforcement (β =
.32, p < .01), those with higher levels of intrinsic motivation reported higher levels of self-
reinforcement and self-regulation. EAM was not related to FRSQ as the EAM main effect and
interaction term were not significant.
The regression predicting GESS supported both H3 and H4, with main effects for both
EAM (β = .21, p < .01) and IAM (β = .43, p < .01) showing an independent positive effect for
each type of motivation. The interaction between EAM and IAM was also significant (β = -.15, p
< .01), and can be understood by examining predicted GESS scores for combinations of low,
average, and high EAM and IAM values (see Figure 2). Generally, the effect of either motivation
is highest when a person is low on the other type of motivation; whereas at high levels of either
IAM or EAM, the other motivation factor has a relatively small effect. In short, if one is high on
either IAM or EAM that person will have a relatively high expectation of success.
4. Discussion
The results of the present study suggest that a two-factor model of achievement
motivation offers a useful and straightforward method in which to examine the relations among
achievement-related constructs. IAM was positively related to self-reported levels of internal
processes such as cognitive activity (need for cognition) and self-regulation (frequency of self-
reinforcement), while both EAM and IAM were related to a more performance based (outcome)
variable, generalized expectancy for success. In particular, the usefulness of the two-factor
achievement motivation model, as opposed to a single bipolar dimension, was exhibited best
with generalized expectancy for success in that both IAM and EAM, as well as their interaction,
TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 13
were significant predictors of performance expectations. Specifically, the results indicated that a
person can have high expectations for success if one is high in either EAM or IAM, and being
high in both types of achievement motivation provides little rise in success expectations over
being high in just one type of achievement motivation.
Generally, these results are consistent with existing literature showing that intrinsically
motivated individuals not only enjoy engaging in effortful thinking (Graham & Golan, 1991;
Nolen, 1988; Pintrich & de Groot, 1990; Walker et al., 2006), but they are also more likely to
self-reinforce and regulate their behaviors (Patrick et al., 1999; Pintrich & de Groot, 1990).
Intrinsic motivation is also associated with higher self-efficacy and expectations of success
(Garcia & Pintrich, 1996; Greene & Miller, 1996; Walker et al., 2006). Although researchers
have not always found a statistically meaningful relationship between both types of achievement
motivation and expectation of success, we found positive relationships. Of course, comparisons
to studies that define intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as opposite poles of a single dimension
cannot be made easily with our conceptualization of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as
separate, independent constructs (see Deci & Ryan, 2008).
Our results suggest one’s dispositional levels of motivations affect cognitive activities,
self-regulatory strategies, and expectations for success. Those generally high in intrinsic
motivation seem to prefer challenging cognitive tasks and can self-regulate their behaviors, so
offering rewards, setting external goals, or deadlines will do little for them, unless they are also
high in extrinsic motivation. Offering rewards and assigning goals/deadlines would be strategies
best suited for the person high in extrinsic motivation, who is more focused on the outcome than
the process. For those with high intrinsic motivation, emphasis could be placed on the engaging
nature of the task and encouragement of self-set goals and deadlines. Implications from our study
TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 14
are that some may be intrinsically and extrinsically motivated, and would profit from a mixture
of these approaches. Furthermore, there may be some individuals who are not motivated in either
way, and may require help learning how to work on their own, perhaps with focused tasks that
can build intrinsic or extrinsic motivation. For example, a common recommendation for
educators seems to be that teachers should appeal to both types of motivation, and our results
support this approach, especially when teachers do not know their students’ level of achievement
motivation (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2001; Komarraju & Karau, 2005).
One implication of our study is that extrinsic and intrinsic motivation are not always
antagonistic in nature (i.e., extrinsic motivation may actually operate synergistically with
intrinsic motivation in a positive direction). The idea that extrinsic and intrinsic motivations are
not in conflict with each other is not new (e.g., Covington & Müeller, 2001). Guay, Ratelle, and
Chanal (2008) found that positive academic outcomes are associated with both autonomous and
controlled motivations. In sum, individuals may not be limited to just one type of motivation as
they tackle life's demands (Vallerand, Pelletier, & Koestner, 2008).
The study reported here is not without limitations. All of the data collected were
correlational and were measures of dispositional motivation. We did not manipulate goals or
motivation levels. Furthermore, we acknowledge that interventions can focus individuals on one
type of motivation, perhaps overriding the other type in that context (as in the classic over-
justification effect, see Deci & Ryan, 2008). This study included only self-report measures and
we did not collect performance outcomes. Also, students’ perceptions of how they are motivated
may be different from what actually motivates them (Nisbett & Wilson, 1977), and expectations
of success may not be related perfectly to actual achieved levels of success. Finally, it is worth
noting that the frequency of self-reinforcement data were collected at a different time point than
TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 15
the other measures, and not all participants returned to provide data. It is possible that students
who returned at the second time point were different from those who did not, though we cannot
predict how this might impact the results.
Future studies should continue to explore the utility of this two-factor model of
achievement motivation as it may provide more detail than the intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy.
One approach might be suggested by SDT, in which sub-theories such as organismic integration
theory identify particular dimensions of controlled (extrinsic) motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
In the academic domain, the Academic Motivations Inventory (Moen & Doyle, 1977) or
Academic Motivation Scale (Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992) measure multiple facets of
achievement motivation. The CLAMS (Cassidy & Lynn, 1989) measure can also distinguish
sub-types of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and be applied to a wide range of work, school,
and other settings. More generally, the two-factor model of motivation should be tested across a
variety of different performance contexts, and we would hope to see this two-factor approach
lead to the development of techniques that enhance performance of individuals from a wide
range of motivational types. The challenge is to determine what motivates different individuals
in particular contexts thus selecting a strategy that will enable each person to be successful.
TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 16
References
American Psychological Association (2002). Ethical principles of psychologists and code of
conduct. American Psychologist, 57, 1060-1073.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 84, 261-271.
Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement goals and optimal motivation:
Testing multiple goal models. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 706-
722.
Busato, V. V., Prins, F. J., Elshout, J. J., & Hamaker, C. (2000). Intellectual ability, learning
style, personality, achievement motivation and academic success of psychology students
in higher education. Personality and Individual Differences, 29, 1057-1068.
Cacioppo, J. T., Petty, R. E., & Kao, C. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition.
Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306-307.
Cassidy, T., & Lynn, R. (1989). A multifactorial approach to achievement motivation: The
development of a comprehensive measure. Journal of Occupational Psychology, 62, 301-
312.
Covington, M. V., & Müeller, K. J. (2001). Intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation: An
approach/avoidance reformulation. Educational Psychology Review, 13, 157-176.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being
across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49, 14-23.
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.
TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 17
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, 461-475.
Farsides, T., & Woodfield, R. (2003). Individual differences and undergraduate academic
success: The roles of personality, intelligence, and application. Personality and
Individual Differences, 34, 1225-1243.
Fibel, B., & Hale, W. D. (1978). The generalized expectancy for success scale: A new measure.
Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 46, 924-931.
Garcia, T., & Pintrich, P. R. (1996). The effects of autonomy on motivation and performance in
the college classroom. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 477-486.
Gottfried, A. E. (1985). Academic intrinsic motivation in elementary and junior high school
students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 77, 631-645.
Graham, S., & Golan, S. (1991). Motivational influences on cognition: Task involvement, ego
involvement, and depth of information processing. Journal of Educational Psychology,
83, 187-194.
Greene, B. A., & Miller, R. B. (1996). Influences on achievement: Goals, perceived ability, and
cognitive engagement. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 181-192.
Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., & Chanal, J. (2008). Optimal learning in optimal contexts: The role of
self-determination in education. Canadian Psychology, 49, 233-240.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. T., & Elliot, A. J. (1997). Predictors
and consequences of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest
and making the grade. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1284-1295.
TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 18
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, 638-645.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., & Elliot, A. J. (2002). Predicting success in
college: A longitudinal study of achievement goals and ability measures as predictors of
interest and performance from freshman year through graduation. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 94, 562-575.
Hart, J. W., Stasson, M. F., Mahoney, J. M., & Story, P. (2007). The Big Five and achievement
motivation: Exploring the relationship between personality and a two-factor model of
motivation. Individual Differences Research, 5, 267-274.
Heiby, E. M. (1982). A self-reinforcement questionnaire. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 20,
397-401.
Herzberg, F. (2003). One more time: How do you motivate employees? Harvard Business
Review, 81, 87-96.
Herzberg, F., Mausner, B., & Snyderman, B. (1959). The motivation to work (2nd ed.): John
Wiley.
Komarraju, M., & Karau, S. J. (2005). The relationship between the big five personality traits
and academic motivation. Personality and Individual Differences, 39, 557-567.
Lepper, M. R., Corpus, J. H., & Iyengar, S. S. (2005). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational
orientations in the classroom: Age differences and academic correlates. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 97, 184-196.
TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 19
Major, D. A., Turner, J. E., & Fletcher, T. D. (2006). Linking proactive personality and the big
five to motivation to learn and development activity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91,
927-935.
McGregor, D. (1960). The human side of enterprise: McGraw-Hill.
Moen, R., & Doyle, K. O. (1977). Construction and development of the academic motivations
inventory (AMI). Educational and Psychological Measurement, 37, 509-512.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977). Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on
mental processes. Psychological Review, 84(3), 231-259.
Nolen, S. B. (1988). Reasons for studying: Motivational orientations and study strategies.
Cognition and Instruction, 5(4), 269-287.
Paspalanov, I. (1984). The relation of nAch to extraversion, emotional instability and level of
anxiety in people of different social status and success. Personality and Individual
Differences, 5, 383-388.
Patrick, H., Ryan, A. M., & Pintrich, P. R. (1999). The differential impact of extrinsic and
mastery goal orientations on males' and females' self-regulated learning. Learning and
Individual Differences, 11(2), 153-171.
Phillips, P., Abraham, C., & Bond, R. (2003). Personality, cognition, and university students'
examination performance. European Journal of Personality, 17, 435-448.
Pintrich, P. R., & de Groot, E. V. (1990). Motivational and self-regulated learning components of
classroom academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(1), 33-40.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 20
Story, P. A., Stasson, M. F., Mahoney, J. M., & Hart, J. W. (2008). A two-factor model of
achievement motivation. Social Behavior and Personality, 36, 707-708.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics (5th ed.). Boston, MA:
Allyn & Bacon/Pearson Education.
Vallerand, R. J., & Bissonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as
predictors of behavior: A prospective study. Journal of Personality, 60, 599-620.
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., Koestner, R. (2008). Reflections on self-determination theory.
Canadian Psychology, 49, 257-262.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Walker, C. O., Greene, B. A., & Mansell, R. A. (2006). Identification with academics,
intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement.
Learning and Individual Differences, 16, 1-12.
Woo, S. E., Gibbons, A. M., & Thornton, G. C., III. (2007). Latent mean differences in the facets
of achievement motivation of undergraduate students and adult workers in the US.
Personality and Individual Differences, 43, 1687-1697.
Zsolnai, A. (2002). Relationship between children's social competence, learning motivation and
school achievement. Educational Psychology, 22, 317-330.
TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 21
Table 1
Correlations between achievement motivation scales and NFC, GESS, & FRSQ.
Need for Generalized Expectancy Frequency of
Cognition† for Success† self-reinforcement‡
Intrinsic AM .61** .45** .32**
Extrinsic AM .03 .28** .04
†Ns range from 318 to 339
‡Ns range from 112 to 116
** p < .01
TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 22
Table 2.
Regression Analyses Predicting Need For Cognition, Generalized Expectancy for Success, and
Frequency of Self-Reinforcement from Intrinsic and Extrinsic Achievement Motivations.
Need for Generalized Frequency of
cognition expectancy for self-reinforcement
success
Predictor Beta R2Beta R2Beta R2
Intrinsic AM .62** .39** .43** .25** .32** .09**
Extrinsic AM -.13** .21** .04
IAM x EAM .11* -.15** -.09
** p < .01, *p <.05
Notes: Variables were centered prior to analysis, R2 values are adjusted, and all Betas are
standardized coefficients. Regressions that excluded the interaction term showed similar results
for the main effects. N = 323 for NFC, N = 315 for GESS, N = 111 for FSR
TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 23
Figure Captions
Figure 1. Regression slopes of IAM and EAM predicting need for cognition. Low IAM and
EAM = 1 SD below the mean; high IAM and EAM = 1 SD above the mean.
Figure 2. Regression slopes of IAM and EAM predicting expectations for success. Low IAM
and EAM = 1 SD below the mean; high IAM and EAM = 1 SD above the mean.
TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 24
TWO-FACTOR THEORY OF ACHIEVEMENT MOTIVATION 25
