Students' goal orientations and their perceived peer relationships

Abstract

The perception of positive social interactions is important for positive experiences in heterogeneous groups, cultural diversity and inclusion in educational contexts. Based on social-cognitive theories, findings on motivation in school are available from numerous studies. However, only few studies focus on longitudinal relationships between students' mastery vs performance goal orientations and their later perception of peer relationships in school. Aim of the current research was to clarify the extent to which reciprocal effects exist between students' mastery vs performance goal orientation and their perception of peer relationships. To test the assumed reciprocal effects, data from 204 primary school students (on average 11 years of age) of the longitudinal study RUMBA-S in Switzerland were analyzed using cross-lag structural-equation modeling. The results suggest a statistically significant effect of the students' mastery goal orientation on their later positive perception of peer relationships, but not vice versa. Thus, no other and no reciprocal relationships exist. Performance goal orientation is related to the perception of peer relationships. The results highlight the importance of students' mastery goal orientation for their academic and social learning.

Full text

Vol:.(1234567890)
Current Psychology (2024) 43:2486–2498
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-023-04468-6
1 3
Students' goal orientations andtheir perceived peer relationships
AnettWolgast1 · ManuelaKeller‑Schneider2
Accepted: 25 February 2023 / Published online: 11 March 2023
© The Author(s) 2023
Abstract
The perception of positive social interactions is important for positive experiences in heterogeneous groups, cultural diversity
and inclusion in educational contexts. Based on social-cognitive theories, findings on motivation in school are available from
numerous studies. However, only few studies focus on longitudinal relationships between students’ mastery vs performance
goal orientations and their later perception of peer relationships in school. Aim of the current research was to clarify the
extent to which reciprocal effects exist between students’ mastery vs performance goal orientation and their perception of
peer relationships. To test the assumed reciprocal effects, data from 204 primary school students (on average 11years of
age) of the longitudinal study RUMBA-S in Switzerland were analyzed using cross-lag structural-equation modeling. The
results suggest a statistically significant effect of the students' mastery goal orientation on their later positive perception of
peer relationships, but not vice versa. Thus, no other and no reciprocal relationships exist. Performance goal orientation is
related to the perception of peer relationships. The results highlight the importance of students’ mastery goal orientation
for their academic and social learning.
Keywords Mastery goal orientation· Performance goal orientation· School students· Social cognitive theory· Social
perception· Social self-efficacy
Introduction
Social experiences, positive social relationships, and social
learning are essential for children and adolescents (Schon-
ert-Reichl, 2017; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020; Van Lissa
etal., 2017; Wolgast & Barnes-Holmes, 2018; Wolgast etal.,
2022). Among other factors, social learning (Schonert-
Reichl, 2017; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020; Voith etal.,
2020) of school children is based on their perception of peer
relationships (Furrer & Skinner, 2003; Gallardo & Barrasa,
2018; Gallardo etal., 2016).
There is however scant evidence on interrelations
between phenomena in academic domain vs social domain in
children. For example, evidence lacks whether and to what
extent longitudinal effects exist between children’s school-
related achievement goal orientations and their perception
of peer relationships. Accounting for such effects would be
of practical importance in peer learning during class and
collaborative learning outside of class.
Students who focus on outstanding grades might feel dis-
tracted by peer interactions or even threatened through social
comparisons with them and perceive their peer relationships
in class accordingly rather negatively. In contrast, students
who want to learn something might be also interested in
learning something about their peers and perceive their peer
relationships in class accordingly positively.
Prominent conceptualizations of achievement goal ori-
entations are academic goal orientations including school-
related mastery, performance-approach vs performance-
avoidance goal orientations (Dweck, 1986; Dweck &
Leggett, 1988). Students’ school-related goal orientations
(assessed using the established inventory SELLMO, Dick-
häuser etal., 2002), decreased in a longitudinal study (incl.
grades 5–9, Fischer & Theis, 2014) and in a trend study
over ten years in Germany (incl. grades 4–10 (Spinath etal.,
2016). Few researchers examined, whether academic goal
orientations (assessed using different measures) determine
* Anett Wolgast
anett.wolgast@gmail.com
Manuela Keller-Schneider
m.keller-schneider@phzh.ch
1 University ofApplied Sciences FHM Hanover, Lister Straße
17, 30163Hanover, Germany
2 Zurich University ofTeacher Education, Lagerstrasse 2,
8090Zurich, Switzerland
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2487Current Psychology (2024) 43:2486–2498
1 3
adolescents’ perceived social interactions (Gehlbach, 2006;
Gong, 2003; Levy-Tossman etal., 2007). Positive percep-
tion of peer relationships in school emerge from positively
experienced social interactions with classmates and the asso-
ciated social-cognitive processes in those involved in the
interactions (Furrer & Skinner, 2003). For example, Levy-
Tossman etal. (2007) described small effects of school-
related mastery and performance-approach goal orienta-
tions on seventh-grade (no age provided) students’ perceived
social interactions except for the performance-avoidance
goal orientation. The small effects regarded a significant
positive effect of mastery goal orientation on students’ per-
ceived social interactions and a significantly negative effect
of performance-approach goal orientation on the students’
perceived social interactions (Levy-Tossman etal., 2007).
Similar differential effects of school-related goal orientations
in children on their later perception of peer relationships
might thus exist. Accordingly, we initially asked whether
and to what extend differential effects of children’s school-
related mastery vs performance-approach goal orientation
(described henceforth as ‘performance goal orientation’) on
their later perception of peer relationships as criterion exist.
There is, however, evidence for the impact of children’s
social interactions with peers on their achievement goal ori-
entations as criterion each (Anderman, 2020; Anderman &
Midgley, 1997; Anderman & Anderman, 1999), or academic
achievement as criterion (Gallardo etal., 2016). Social com-
parisons (Anderman, 2020; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020;
Steinmayr etal., 2019; Wigfield & Koenka, 2020). Coopera-
tive learning activities in the class (Nichols, 1996; Nichols &
Miller, 1994) often explain the impact on goal orientations
or academic achievement. This evidence suggests effects
of children’s perceived peer relationships (i.e., predictor)
on school-related mastery vs performance goal orienta-
tion (i.e., criterion). It regards the converse direction to our
initial research question mentioned above. We accordingly
extended our research question to whether reciprocal effects
exist between children’s mastery vs performance goal orien-
tation and their perception of peer relationships. We expect
negative reciprocal relations between students’ performance
goal orientation and their perception of peer relationships
in class. The theoretical foundation for these expectations
is outlined next.
School‑related goal orientations – theoretical focus
Goal orientations are conceptualized as motivational traits
that are relatively stable over time within goal theory (Locke
& Latham, 2002; Locke etal., 1981) and achievement goal
theory (Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988), which are
classified as social-cognitive theories of achievement moti-
vation (Urdan & Kaplan, 2020). Other examples of social-
cognitive motivation theories include expectancies-by-values
(Eccles etal., 1984), causal attributions (Weiner, 1980),
reference norm orientation (Rheinberg, 1977), and social
cognitive processes (Bandura, 1989). Within goal orienta-
tions, researchers particularly widely investigated mastery
and performance goal orientations (Urdan & Kaplan, 2020).
School-related mastery goal orientation refers to the
intrinsic pursuit of cognitive stimulation, understanding,
new learning content, and skill enhancement (Dickhäuser
etal., 2002; Levy-Tossman etal., 2007; Spinath etal., 2016).
Mastery goal-oriented students use understanding, problem
solving, and intrapersonal criteria (e.g., the individual ref-
erence norm, Rheinberg, 1977) to assess their progress and
success in completing school tasks. They predominantly
apply the individual reference norm (Schöne etal., 2004)
or criterial reference norm and attribute causes of difficul-
ties and weaknesses predominantly to themselves (Dweck
& Leggett, 1988). That is, they attribute the difficulties or
weaknesses to themselves internally variable and are con-
vinced of the changeability of their cognitive abilities. In
particular understanding and problem solving might also
help students in social interactions to understand their peers
and, if needed, solve conflicts with them.
In contrast, school-related performance goal orientation
involves the focus on reaching a goal, often extrinsically
determined, in conjunction with social comparisons and
the demonstration of high ability (Dickhäuser etal., 2002;
Spinath etal., 2016); understanding learning contents and
ability enhancement are subjectively of little relevance.
Performance-goal-oriented students use social comparisons
and demonstration of superior ability to evaluate their pro-
gress and success in completing school tasks (Levy-Toss-
man etal., 2007). Thus, they predominantly apply norma-
tive aspects such as outperforming others (Brophy, 2005)
and often attribute difficulties and weaknesses externally to
other children, adolescents, or adults. Performance-approach
goal orientation is often accompanied by a higher com-
petitive orientation than mastery goal orientation (Elliot &
McGregor, 2001). In addition, high competitive orientation
related to less positively perceived social relationships than
low competitive orientation (Johnson & Johnson, 2009).
Thus, performance-goal oriented students might perceive
their peer relationships less positively than those who are
mainly mastery goal oriented.
Elliot (1997) presented the subdimensions ‘approach
learning goal orientation’ and ‘avoidance learning goal
orientation’ vs ‘approach performance goal orientation’
and ‘avoidance performance goal orientation’. This model
describes students who demonstrate own abilities and their
proximity to goals on the ‘approach’ dimensions and hide
subjectively perceived gaps in their abilities on the ‘avoid-
ance’ dimensions. Elliot (1997) summarized these dimen-
sions and subdimensions in a 2 × 2 model of performance
goal theory. Elliot and McGregor (2001) already discussed
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2488 Current Psychology (2024) 43:2486–2498
1 3
problems with the avoidance learning goal orientation con-
ceptualization because it seems counterintuitive that students
hide gaps in own skills and concurrently strive for own skill
enhancement (Elliot & McGregor, 2001). Accordingly,
Pekrun etal. (2006) reported results from a model test with-
out the avoidance learning goal orientation subdimension.
Further studies in different contexts suggest that chil-
dren often cannot yet differentiate the subdimensions (i.e.,
approach and avoidance) of performance goal orientations
because of their age. However, all children are already able
to distinguish their learning goal orientation from their per-
formance goal orientation in a questionnaire adapted to their
age (Cumming etal., 2014; Smith etal., 2009). In addi-
tion, they are able to describe their perception of peer rela-
tionships in class (Furrer & Skinner, 2003). Moreover, the
introduced previous research yielded only a positive effect
of mastery goal orientation on students’ perceived social
interactions (Levy-Tossman etal., 2007).
School‑related goal orientations andstudents’
perceived peer‑relations
School children already have extensive experiences from
previous social interactions, especially from out-of-school
situations with their caregivers. Theoretical explanations
for more or less positive perception of social relationships
in educational contexts include the development of social
attachment (Furrer & Skinner, 2003), social cognitive pro-
cesses (Bandura, 1989), and social comparisons (Festinger,
1954).
The present study is based on social cognitive approaches
(Bandura, 1989; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Schunk & DiBene-
detto, 2020). These approaches consider both mastery/per-
formance goal orientations in relation to tasks and social
cognitive processes (e.g., perception of peer relationships).
The approaches basically describe that processes in the per-
son, environment, and observable behavior shape a dynamic
system (Bandura, 1989; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020).
Within the framework of social cognitive theory (Ban-
dura, 1989), self-efficacy is considered a particularly well-
studied construct with regard to social perception and behav-
ior (Bandura, 1989; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). Social
self-efficacy is the subjective expectation of successfully
coping with demands or challenges in a social context.
Positive self-efficacy beliefs may aid positive thought
patterns and anticipated success scenarios students men-
talized. Such success scenarios guide for constructive and
appropriate action in academic and social domains, although
the domains are often full of impediments, failures, adversi-
ties, setbacks, frustrations, and inequities (Bandura, 1989).
Researchers (Bandura, 1989; Furrer & Skinner, 2003;
Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020) suggested the considera-
tion of self-efficacy when analyzing relationships between
individual perception and action-related psychological con-
structs. Large evidence from academic and social domains
supports their view (Huang, 2016; Huang etal., 2019; Unrau
etal., 2018; Zell & Krizan, 2014).
Social self-efficacy and positively experienced social rela-
tionships with others are significant correlates of positive
experiences in heterogeneous groups, cultural diversity, and
inclusion in educational contexts (Abrams etal., 2017; Crisp
& Turner, 2011). Motivation in this context refers to pro-
cesses, including goal orientations, that initiate and sustain
goal-directed activities and manifest in goal-directed actions.
There are few research findings on relations between
achievement goal orientations and social-cognitive pro-
cesses in students of grades 7–10 representing diverse ethnic
groups with various socioeconomic and educational back-
grounds (no age provided, Gehlbach, 2006; Levy-Tossman
etal., 2007). These findings suggest effects from academic to
social domain. Accordingly, mastery goal-oriented individu-
als primarily focused on their ability enhancement in both
the academic domain and the social domain. Performance
goal-oriented individuals particularly focused on their aca-
demic goal and positive self-presentation in the classroom.
They further desired to belong to a "popular group", and to
build a high social status (Levy etal., 2004). This desire is
usually accompanied by social comparisons, in which per-
formance goal-oriented students perceive themselves more
positively than their peer relationships, preferring to conceal
their own difficulties and weaknesses (Levy-Tossman etal.,
2007).
Mastery goal-oriented individuals, on the other hand,
indicated that their relationships with friends in the school
class included trust, constructive social problem solving, and
mutual sharing of difficulties and weaknesses (Levy-Toss-
man etal., 2007). Consequently, these two goal orientations
in the academic domain may be associated with different
consequences in the social domain.
Kindermann (1993) also showed that the nature of aca-
demic motivation can be systematically related to students'
later social relationships. These students were in grades 4–5
(no age provided) in a suburban school in New York. For
example, academic mastery goal-oriented school children
were more likely to join one group and performance goal-
oriented school children were more likely to join another
group (Kindermann, 1993).
Further relevant characteristics ofstudents
Gender repeatedly emerged as a significant predictor of both
goal orientations in favor of girls (Elliot & McGregor, 2001)
and social learning in favor of girls (Wolgast etal., 2018).
Since social self-efficacy related to positive experiences in
educational contexts (Abrams etal., 2017; Crisp & Turner,
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2489Current Psychology (2024) 43:2486–2498
1 3
2011), it might also be related to students ‘ perception of
peer relationships.
In summary, it can be assumed that children’s mastery
goal orientation determines later perception of peer rela-
tionships and vice versa, also when controlling for gender
and self-efficacy. The corresponding theoretical model is
depicted in Fig.1.
Current research
The social cognitive theory framework (Bandura, 1989;
Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020)
includes personal (e.g., goal orientations) goal-directed
processes and actions in the academic and social domain.
Especially in group learning, personal behavioral tendencies
such as goal orientations and perception of peer relation-
ships are closely related to each other. The extent to which
mastery and performance goal orientations of school chil-
dren co-determine their later perception of peer relationships
has remained largely unexplained.
However, previous research let assume effects in both
directions between academic and social constructs (e.g.,
Gehlbach, 2006; Wigfield & Koenka, 2020) suggest-
ing reciprocal effects between school-related and social-
cognitive constructs over time. Our research question was
therefore: Are there significant reciprocal effects between
students' school-related (mastery/performance) goal orien-
tation and their perception of peer relationships over time?
Based on the social cognitive theoretical framework (Ban-
dura, 1989; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Schunk & DiBenedetto,
2020), we assumed that a more pronounced goal orientation
in terms of school competence enhancement has stronger
positive effects on later perception of peer relationships
than performance goal orientation. Since performance goal
orientation is close to competitive behavior, it is probably
negatively related to the perception of peer relationships.
The perception of social relationships, especially proso-
cial relationships, with classmates is characterized by the
relationship of the own person to the others or ´me and the
classmates’ (Furrer & Skinner, 2003). Students’ perception
of their peer relationships probably corresponds with their
traits. Of importance to prosocial behavior is social self-
efficacy as an individual trait (Bandura, 2001). We conse-
quently included social self-efficacy as control variable in
the current study. As introduced, gender predicted individual
goal orientations in favor of girls (Elliot & McGregor, 2001)
and social learning again in favor of girls (Wolgast etal.,
2018). Gender is therefore also included as control variable
in our study. Figure1 provides an overview of the theoreti-
cally grounded and expected significant relations between
students’ mastery goal orientation, performance goal orien-
tation, and their perception of peer relationships at two time
points (T1–T2).
Fig. 1 Theoretical model for testing the hypothesis of reciprocal
effects between students’ school-related goal orientations and their
perception of peer relationships in class (adapted from Bandura,
1989; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). Black
arrows represent expected significantly positive relations, grey arrows
represent expected negative relations
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2490 Current Psychology (2024) 43:2486–2498
1 3
Method
Results from an a priori power analysis for a structural
equation model, an anticipated small effect size of Cohen’s
d = 0.30 based on a moderate effect in previous research
(r = 0.42, Furrer & Skinner, 2003, Tables1, 2), a power
of 80% (Lakens & Evers, 2014; Soper, 2020), the signifi-
cance level α = 0.05, and six latent factors measured by 28
indicators yielded N = 89 participants as minimum sample
size to identify the model structure and N = 161 partici-
pants as recommended sample size (Cohen, 1988; Soper,
2020; Westland, 2010). Furthermore, simulation studies
for latent cross-lagged SEM suggested a power of 80%
(Falkenström etal., 2020; Lakens & Evers, 2014) with
a sample size of at least n = 50 individuals (Falkenström
etal., 2020). Other simulation studies comparing latent
cross-lagged and latent change score models and includ-
ing samples of n = 200 yielded different estimates only for
estimated slopes of latent change score models (Usami
etal., 2016).
Data are available from the student survey of the study
RUMBA-S, a sub-study of the school development study
RUMBA (Keller-Schneider & Albisser, 2013, 2015).
RUMBA has not been preregistered. The study aimed to
gain insights into the interaction of individual and collec-
tive resources in schools or in school classes as social sys-
tem. Students of entire classes (Keller-Schneider, 2019),
or teachers of entire schools, in the canton of Zurich par-
ticipated in the questionnaire-based school development
study with the first measurement time (T1) in November
(Keller-Schneider & Albisser, 2013, 2015). One month
later, in December, the teacher responsible for the par-
ticipating school class received the mean with variance
for that class (i.e., no individual student results) and the
average mean with variance across participating schools
(i.e., no individual school was mentioned or named) as a
reflection of results for the corresponding construct (e.g.,
class climate from the student perspective).
Data source
The sub-study RUMBA-S provides data from 341 primary
students. Of the 341 students n = 204 students (60% of
N = 341) participated at T1 and T2, n = 135 students (40% of
N = 341) at T2 and T3, and n = 64 students (19% of N = 341)
at T1–T3. The multivariate analysis of variance yielded sim-
ilar goal orientations and perceived peer-relationships in the
class between the students who participated at T1 and T2,
and the students who did not participate at T1 and T2 (see
Table1 for the detailed results).
Furthermore, the Χ2-Test indicated no differences in the
variable gender between the students who participated at T1
and T2 and those who did not participate at T1 and T2 (see
Table1). Since we aimed to test a latent cross-lag SEM from
T1 to a later time point, we included this largest longitudinal
sample in the current analyses.
Accordingly, the longitudinal sample for the current anal-
yses includes 204 primary school children with a mean age
Table 1 Tests of differences in students’ school-related mastery goal orientation (MGO), school-related performance goal orientation
(PGO),perception of peer relationships (SOR) in class (Keller-Schneider & Albisser, 2014) between subsamples
Variable Groups χ2/F p
MGO, PGO, SOR at T1 and T2 Longitudinal (T1–T2) vs other data F = 2.47 0.12
MGO, PGO, SOR at T1 and T2 4th vs 5th grade (n = 164 vs n = 40) F = 1.76 0.18
Gender Longitudinal (T1–T2) vs other data χ2 = 0.51 0.48
Gender 4th vs 5th grade χ2 = 7.34 0.06
Table 2 Measures used, sample items, and internal consistency of the constructs assessed in the RUMBA-S study
Measure Sample items Internal consistency
(1) Mastery goal orientation, three items At school, I like solving the tasks that require me to really
think
I try hard at school because I want to learn something
ω = 0.79 incl. two factors (T1, T2)
(2) Performance goal orientation, four items I want the others at school to think I'm smart
In class, I try to show the others how good I am ω = 0.82 incl. two factors (T1, T2)
(3) Perception of peer relationships, three items I get along well with the other students
I have friends or girlfriends in my class ω = 0.81 incl. two factors (T1, T2)
(4) Social self-efficacy (modified from
Schwarzer& Jerusalem, 1999)I also get along well with difficult classmates
I am good at convincing other students of my opinion ω = 0.66 (T1)
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2491Current Psychology (2024) 43:2486–2498
1 3
of 10.6years (SD = 0.56) at T1 (54% female, 46% male).
The students’ demographic background was controlled by
the study design (e.g., families with middle to high socio-
economic status and vocational or higher education in the
Canton of Zurich). All students attended one type of public
school since there is just one type of public school and no
private school, special school, or other types of school in
Switzerland. Assignment to a school is based on the resi-
dential district in which the student lives.
The first measurement took place in November and the
second measurement in November about 12months later.
The students were in the same peer group at both measure-
ment times.
In Switzerland, the students do not change the school
between 4 and 6th grade. The primary school students who
participated in the study were in the 4th or 5th grade at T1
and in the 5th or 6th grade at T2. The students responded
to the questionnaire presented in German within one lesson
(Keller-Schneider, 2019).
The participation of the schools, teachers and students
was voluntary, the teachers agreed via the school manage-
ment, the parents were asked by the school management.
The data collection was anonymized. There was no decep-
tion. All steps of the study followed international ethical
standards (AERA etal., 2014). Responsible teachers and
parents gave their consent for the participation of their child
in the current study.
Materials
Since we follow Open Science approaches (Obels etal.,
2020; Simmons etal., 2011), we provide a complete list
of constructs captured in the current large scale assessment
in Supplement 1. The measures used in the current study
are established instruments published in German language.
Table2 summarizes these measures in English for the pres-
entation purpose here, two sample items each, and internal
consistency using McDonalds ω (McDonald, 1999; Revelle,
2019) in the RUMBA-S sample.
McDonald's coefficient ω is a measure to estimate the
degree of measurement accuracy (AERA etal., 2014) and
indicates the extent to which a latent variable (construct)
reflects the common variance of all items (Dunn etal., 2014)
in contrast to Cronbach’s α, that just measures the inner con-
sistence of each scale. Accordingly, ω captures the construct
as a whole. McDonald's ω (Dunn etal., 2014) can range
from 0 to 1. The interpretation of the coefficient ω is equiva-
lent to Cronbach's α coefficient (Schweizer, 2011). Thus, an
ω > 0.60 allows the interpretation that there is an accept-
able internal consistency of the items capturing a construct
with respect to the data used for the statistical analyses. The
measures presented in the next paragraphs were assessed
using a 5-point rating scale (1 = not true at all to 5 = abso-
lutely true).
Mastery goal orientation (1) was assessed with items
whose wording was adapted to children aged approximately
10–12years in Switzerland (adapted to the current study’s
target group, SELLMO, Dickhäuser etal., 2002). The items
assessing mastery goal orientation include aspired thinking
or understanding of complex relationships (see Table2). The
assessed mastery goal orientation at T1 served as predictor
variable and the assessed mastery goal orientation at T2 as
criterion variable in the cross-lag structural equation model
(SEM).
Performance goal orientation (2) was assessed with items
whose wording was also adapted to children aged approxi-
mately 10–12years in Switzerland (adapted to the current
study’s target group, SELLMO, Dickhäuser etal., 2002).
Performance goal orientation was included as predictor vari-
able at T1 and as criterion variable at T2 in the SEM.
Perception of peer relationships (3) was assessed with
the focus on ‘me and the others’ in students’ social relation-
ships to their classmates (modified from SEMOS, Nakamura
2008). This individual evaluation represents internal repre-
sentations of experiences that have arisen in previous inter-
action and communication contexts. The method is aimed at
primary school students. The factor 'me and the others' was
included as predictor variable at T1 and as criterion variable
at T2 in the SEM.
Social self-efficacy (4) (Schwarzer& Jerusalem, 1999)
was introduced using "How accurately do the following
statements apply to you?" Four items assessed the subjec-
tive likelihood of dealing appropriately with others in social
situations. The manifest variable (i.e., the mean of) social
self-efficacy at T1 served as control variable in the SEM.
The questionnaire included other instruments that are not
relevant to the investigation of the present research question
(see Keller-Schneider & Albisser, 2014, for an overview of
RUMBA).
Data analyses
Testing the hypothesis first requires fitting the theoreti-
cal model including the six factors (see Supplement 1) to
the data using confirmatory factor analysis (CFA). The
CFA model is constructed with the following six latent
factors (measured by the respective items each presented
in Table2): the mastery goal orientation at (1)T1 and (2)
T2, performance goal orientation at (3) T1 and (4)T2, ‘me
and the others' classmates in social relationships at (5)
T1 and (6) T2. All variables included in the CFA model
were z-standardized. The WLSMV estimator (weighted
least square mean of variance adjusted estimation; Ros-
seel, 2010) was used as well as adjustments for complex
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2492 Current Psychology (2024) 43:2486–2498
1 3
data. The fit between the CFA model including the six
factors and the data was tested. In addition to that, meas-
urement invariance across gender and over time was tested
in multigroup analyses (Oberski, 2015; Rosseel, 2010).
According to recommendations from simulation studies
(Rutkowski & Svetina, 2014), it was determined prior to
analysis that the hypothesis of scalar measurement invari-
ance for comparisons of means over time is supported at
values ΔCFI < 0.020 and ΔRMSEA < 0.010.
Finally, the CFA model including the six latent factors
allows an extension to the intended cross-lag SEM by add-
ing the control variables (i.e., gender and self-efficacy)
and cross-lag paths as depicted in Fig.1. The SEM was
tested using the R package lavaan (Rosseel, 2010). The
SEM included the predictor variables and latent factors
‘mastery goal orientation’, ‘performance goal orientation’,
and 'me and the others’ classmates in social relationships
at T1 as well as the control variables gender and social
self-efficacy (see Fig.1 and Supplement 1) specified on
the latent factors ‘mastery goal orientation’, ‘performance
goal orientation’, and 'me and the others' classmates in
social relationships at T2 that were included as criterion
variables in the SEM. The covariates were considered
random, and the means, variances and covariances were
free parameters. The advantage of the latent measurement
is that a latent factor can be measured by means of the
covariance between observable indicators (if the indicators
form one factor). Thereby, the measurement error can be
determined.
Results
The CFA model suggested a good fit between its structure
and the structure found in the data: χ2 (145) = 173.643,
p = 0.053, Comparative Fit Index (CFI) = 0.973, Standard-
ized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR) = 0.081, Root
Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) = 0.038;
95% CI [< 0.001, 0.057], see Supplement 1). The multi-
group analysis and measurement invariance test yielded the
scalar measurement invariance across gender (Delta Com-
parative Fit Index ΔCFI = 0.013; Delta Root Mean Square
Error of Approximation ΔRMSEA = 0.001), and over time
(ΔCFI < 0.014; ΔRMSEA < 0.009, see Supplements 4 and
5 for details).
The chi-square test result and fit indices of the SEM
including cross-lags between the three latent factors indi-
cated an acceptable fit between the assumed and found struc-
ture of the data: χ2 (207) = 287.177, p < 0.001, CFI = 0.917,
SRMR = 0.091, RMSEA = 0.053; 95% CI [0.037, 0.067],
see Table3 and Supplement2). A post hoc power analysis
to detect the degree of misspecification of the SEM cor-
responding to the RMSEA (RMSEA = 0.053, df = 207,
α = 0.05) using the R package semPower (Jobst etal., 2021;
Table 3 Results from the latent
SEM: Standardized beta-
coefficients, standard errors,
z-values, significance levels,
and 95% confidence intervals of
the cross-lags between students’
mastery goal orientation,
performance goal orientation
and their perception of social
relationships to their classmates
Latent measured factors: MGO = mastery-goal orientation in school. PGO = performance goal orienta-
tion. PSR = ‘me and the others – student’s perceived peer relationships’, regr. on = regressed on. Manifest
assessed variables SEf = social self-efficacy Girls are coded as 0 and boys as 1. Statistically significant
results are depicted in bold. The confidence interval is the range of plausible path coefficients for a popula-
tion underlying the path coefficients calculated using the analyzed sample (Cumming etal., 2014).
Criterion Predictor
variable T1
βSE z p CIlower CIupper
PSR T2 regr. on PSR 0.236 0.213 1.111 0.266 -0.181 0.653
MGO 0.413 0.130 3.168 0.002 0.157 0.668
PGO 0.142 0.116 1.222 0.222 -0.086 0.369
MGO T2 regr. on PSR 0.238 0.238 1.000 0.317 -0.228 0.703
MGO 0.796 0.100 7.941 < 0.001 0.600 0.993
PGO 0.105 0.132 0.797 0.426 -0.153 0.363
PGO T2 regr. on PSR -0.241 0.140 -1.724 0.085 -0.514 0.033
MGO -0.082 0.120 -0.687 0.492 -0.317 0.153
PGO 0.700 0.100 7.010 < 0.001 0.504 0.896
PSR T2 regr. on Gender -0.109 0.094 -1.156 0.248 -0.293 0.076
SEf 0.178 0.164 1.083 0.279 -0.144 0.500
MGO T2 regr. on Gender -0.035 0.102 -0.344 0.731 -0.234 0.164
SEf 0.145 0.170 0.852 0.394 -0.188 0.478
PGO T2 regr. on Gender 0.175 0.095 1.844 0.065 -0.011 0.362
regr. on SEf 0.111 0.156 0.712 0.476 -0.195 0.417
PSR T1 regr. on Gender -0.125 0.074 -1.681 0.093 -0.270 0.021
SEf 0.687 0.061 11.216 < 0.001 0.567 0.807
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2493Current Psychology (2024) 43:2486–2498
1 3
Moshagen, 2021; Moshagen & Erdfelder, 2016) gave the
probability to falsify our SEM when it is actually wrong is
96% (see Supplement 5 for details). Results from the SEM
are shown in Table3.
Figure2 presents an overview of the significant beta
coefficients of the SEM with cross-lags. Significant effects
existed of the latent factor ‘mastery goal orientation’ at T1
on the latent factor 'me and the others' at T2 (β = 0.413,
p = 0.002). These effects persist despite competing high
positive autoregressive effects of mastery goal orientation
at T1 on itself at T2 and of performance goal orientation at
T1 on itself at T2 (see Fig.2 and Table3).
However, the latent factor ‘me and the others’ at T1 did
not predict the mastery goal orientation at T2 (β = 0.238,
p = 0.317). Furthermore, neither performance goal orienta-
tion at T1 significantly predicted 'me and the others' class-
mates in social relationships at T2 (β = 0.142, p = 0.222), nor
vice versa: There was also no significant effect of 'me and
the others' at T1 on students’ performance goal orientation
at T2 (β = -0.241, p = 0.085).
There was no difference between girls and boys in their
mastery goal orientation at T1 (β = -0.035, p = 0.731) or
performance goal orientation at T1 (β = 0.175, p = 0.065,
see Table3). Those who indicated relatively low social
self-efficacy, however, reported also relatively low positive
perception of their peer relationships (β = 0.687,p < 0.001,
see Table3). The SEM explained 77.7% in the variance of
the latent measured factor ‘mastery goal orientations’ at T2,
60.1% of the latent factor ‘performance goal orientation’ at
T2, and 36.7% of the variance in the latent measured factor
‘me and others’ classmates in social relationships.
Discussion
The social cognitive theory framework (Bandura, 1989;
Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020)
involves personal (e.g., goal orientations) goal-directed
processes and actions which correspond to the academic
domain and the social domain respectively. Personal behav-
ioral tendencies such as goal orientations and perception
of peer relationships are closely related to each other, for
example, in peer learning in school contexts. The extent to
which mastery and performance goal orientation of school
children co-determine their later perception of peer relation-
ships has remained largely unexplained (as worked out in the
second part of this article).
The present longitudinal study over two measurement
times examined the extent to which reciprocal effects exist
between school children’s mastery vs performance goal ori-
entation and their perception of peer relationships. Mastery
goal orientation involves the pursuit of cognitive challenge
and skill enhancement (e.g. through peer learning) that let
us assume a positive effect on the school children's later
perception of peer relationships, and vice versa, a positive
effect of this perception on their mastery goal orientation
Fig. 2 Theoretical model including the standardized beta coefficients
from the SEM with cross-lags between students’ school-related goal
orientations and their perception of peer relationships (see Supple-
ment 2 for a statistical model presentation). Black arrows represent
significant positive relations, dashed arrows represent insignificant
relations
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2494 Current Psychology (2024) 43:2486–2498
1 3
(Bandura, 1971, 1989, 2001; Locke & Latham, 2002; Locke
etal., 1981). The results from cross-lag SEM support this
theoretically grounded hypothesis in part: Students' mastery
goal orientation is significantly related to their later per-
ception of social relationships but not vice versa. Thus, no
significant reciprocal effects between mastery goal orienta-
tion and the perception of peer relationships existed in the
included sample.
Perception of peer relationships did not significantly
explain the students’ later mastery goal orientation. The
presented theoretical model (see Fig.1) provides an explana-
tory approach for these results. Performance goal orientation
focuses on an external performance goal, with social rela-
tionships being less relevant to goal achievement. Perfor-
mance goal orientation as a focus on a desired goal is more
strongly associated with subsequent competitive behavior
and social comparisons with others than with social interac-
tions (Dweck & Leggett, 1988). Performance goal orienta-
tion may thus be associated only with less positively per-
ceived peer relationships. In contrast, the characteristics of
mastery goal orientation (reflecting, thinking, understanding
complex contexts) may not only be applied to the completion
of school tasks, but also significant for the positive percep-
tion of social relationships. Examples are understanding the
complex behaviors of classmates or behave appropriately in
and outside class. In this case, understanding the complex
behaviors of peers would be a mediating variable between
learning goal orientation and subsequent perception of peer
relationships. This assumption could be tested in future
studies.
Moreover, the results presented in Table3, supplemental
TableS2a and b suggest interindividual differences between
students’ intraindividual changes in their ‘perception of peer
relationships’ and social self-efficacy as a relevant third vari-
able. Social self-efficacy seems to be a relevant third variable
because including it in the model changed the respective
coefficients of the autoregressive path ‘perception of peer
relationships’ and the relationship between goal orienta-
tions and ‘perception of peer relationships’ from T1 to T2.
However, these changes in the coefficients do not change the
interpretations with regard to the current hypotheses. Lon-
gitudinal research including three measurement time points
would allow to test the hypothesis that social self-efficacy
mediates the relationship between students’ mastery goal
orientation and their perception of peer relationships.
The present study results support previous research find-
ings that also showed the empirical link between mastery
goal orientation and social processes in school children,
but rarely between performance goal orientation and social
processes in school children (Levy-Tossman etal., 2007).
Mastery goal orientation involves a tendency to think about,
reason about, and understand complex relationships (Dick-
häuser etal., 2002). Attempting to understand other people
requires thinking about and empathizing with the complexi-
ties of their behaviors. Prosocial relationships with others
are accompanied by a willingness to think and empathize
with them (Wolgast & Barnes-Holmes, 2018; Wolgast etal.,
2019).
Performance goal orientation, on the other hand, involves
focusing on a goal combined with competitive behavior
and demonstrating superior skills to others, so that fewer
cognitive resources are available for empathizing with and
maintaining peer relationships. The direct and indirect rela-
tionships between goal and competitive orientations, under-
standing complex (academic/social) contexts, subsequent
perception of peer relationships, and prosocial behavioral
tendencies could be explored in future studies.
It is noteworthy at this point that school-related perfor-
mance goal orientation and its importance for belonging to
a high social-status group in school has dominated school
related mastery goal orientation in previous studies (Dal-
bert & Stöber, 2008). Urdan and Kaplan (2020) already
discussed that changes in the goal structures of students in
complex classroom processes are often difficult. Classroom
processes are embedded in larger systems, the school, the
living environment, and the social system. School children
are encouraged to engage in social comparison and competi-
tion in classroom processes and outside of school (e.g., at
home) in their leisure time (Urdan & Kaplan, 2020).
However, other studies showed how mastery goal orien-
tation can be promoted in the classroom, for example, via
autonomy support, positive error culture, and individual ref-
erence norms (Ames, 1992; Schöne etal., 2004; Theis etal.,
2020). These studies suggest that fostering a positive group
climate increases students’ mastery goal orientation. The
results of the present study show that mastery goal orienta-
tion by school children is not only associated with positive
perception of new or challenging learning content, but also
outside the academic domain, with positive perception of
peer relationships.
Limitations.
The sample for longitudinal analyses with cross-lag
SEM is relatively small. The anticipated small effect size
of Cohen’s d = 0.30 (based on r = 0.42, Furrer & Skinner,
2003, Table2) might be optimistic according to a reviewer
and Klein etal. (2018). The researchers (Klein etal., 2018)
found in replications of 28 classic and comparative findings
median comparable medium effect sizes (Cohen’s d) for the
original findings and small effect sizes for the correspond-
ing replications. For considering these research findings, the
reviewer recommended using the pwrSEM package (Wang
& Rhemtulla, 2021) for a priori power analyses in further
research.
To avoid over-specification of the model (more param-
eters than cases), only a relatively small number of param-
eters could be included in the model. In this regard, latent
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2495Current Psychology (2024) 43:2486–2498
1 3
modeling was preferred over including only manifest vari-
ables because the latent measured factors in SEM account
for measurement error. We have only used self-report meas-
ures. Due to the difficult comprehensibility of the original
measures for approximately ten-year-old children in Swit-
zerland, an adaptation of the item formulations was neces-
sary. The extent to which the linguistic adaptations affect the
reliability and validity of the self-report measures can hardly
be estimated. The adapted versions suggested acceptable to
good internal consistency each. Peer relationships could
be validated by external assessment or even by objective
observers. It would also be interesting to relate the data to
learning outcomes. Further research on the presented sta-
tistical relationships based on a larger longitudinal sample
would strengthen the robustness of the results and allow for
integrations of additional variables into the model, such as
mastery and achievement emotions that significantly pre-
dicted learning in school in previous research (Pekrun etal.,
2006, 2017; Sommet etal., 2021) and might be also relevant
for students’ perception of social relationships, their social
interactions and social learning (Voith etal., 2020).
Implications forresearch andpractice
The results presented here might be tested in samples with
adolescents and young adults, especially after an educational
transition as relationships with other people are important
in the transition to vocational training or university stud-
ies, and candidates who are motivated to learn and able to
work in a team are sought, especially in the labor market
(European Council, 2005). Social relationships that are per-
ceived as less positive, supportive, and empowering may
limit cooperation and constructive teamwork. A growing
number of experience sampling studies suggest daily fluc-
tuations in different forms of motivation (Bellhäuser etal.,
2019; Ketonen etal., 2018; Liborius etal., 2019; Patall
etal., 2018). These findings may be extended by a cross-
lag hierarchical Bayesian continuous time dynamic model
(Driver & Voelkle, 2018) including goal orientations and
perceived peer-relationships. Moreover, the question arises
whether this finding would change over longer periods of
time and in non-school social environments. This line of
research underlines the immediate and prospective effects of
students’ mastery goal orientation on their academic (peer-)
learning and perceived peer relationships in the class. The
current findings provide helpful insights into unobservable
associations between phenomena of the academic domain
and social domain for teachers and students. Such associa-
tions might be highly important after transitions (e.g., from
primary to secondary school, from school to vocational or
higher education) when students or young adults interact
and collaborate with people in new academic, vocational,
and social environments.
Supplementary Information The online version contains supplemen-
tary material available at https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12144- 023- 04468-6.
Funding Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt
DEAL.
Data availability The dataset analyzed during the current study is avail-
able at https:// osf. io/ uprde/.
Declarations
Informed consent Informed consent was obtained from all individual
participants included in the study. Responsible teachers and parents
gave their consent for the participation of their child in the current
study.
Consent to publish Not applicable.
Disclosure of potential conflicts of interest The authors declare that
they have no conflict of interest.
Research involving human participants and/or animals The study com-
plies with the requirements of the Helsinki Declaration and all steps of
the study followed international ethical standards (AERA etal., 2014).
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attri-
bution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adapta-
tion, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long
as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source,
provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes
were made. The images or other third party material in this article are
included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated
otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in
the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not
permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will
need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
copy of this licence, visit http:// creat iveco mmons. org/ licen ses/ by/4. 0/.
References
Abrams, D., Powell, C., Palmer, S. B., & Van de Vyver, J. (2017). Toward
a contextualized social developmental account of children’s group-
based inclusion and exclusion: The developmental model of subjective
group dynamics. The Wiley handbook of group processes in children
and adolescents. Wiley Online Books. https:// onlin elibr ary. wiley. com/
doi/ book/ 10. 1002/ 97811 18773 123# page= 145. Accessed 7 Mar2023.
AERA, APA, & NCME. (2014). Standards for educational and psy-
chological testing. American Educational Research Association.
https:// www. apa. org/ scien ce/ progr ams/ testi ng/ stand ards# overv
iew.Accessed 7 Mar2023.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motiva-
tion. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(3), 261–271. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0022- 0663. 84.3. 261
Anderman, E. M. (2020). Achievement motivation theory: Balancing
precision and utility. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61,
101864. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cedps ych. 2020. 101864
Anderman, E. M., & Midgley, C. (1997). Changes in achievement goal
orientations, perceived academic competence, and grades across
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2496 Current Psychology (2024) 43:2486–2498
1 3
the transition to middle-level schools. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 22(3), 269–298. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1006/ ceps. 1996.
0926
Anderman, L. H., & Anderman, E. M. (1999). Social predictors of
changes in students’ achievement goal orientations. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 24(1), 21–37. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1006/
ceps. 1998. 0978
Bandura, A. (1971). Social learning theory. General Learning Press.
Bandura, A. (1989). Human agency in social cognitive theory. In Amer-
ican Psychologist (Vol. 44, Issue 9, pp. 1175–1184). American
Psychological Association. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0003- 066X.
44.9. 1175
Bandura, A. (2001). Social cognitive theory: An agentic perspective.
Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 1–26.
Bellhäuser, H., Mattes, B., & Liborius, P. (2019). Daily fluctuations in
motivation. Zeitschrift Für Entwicklungspsychologie Und Päda-
gogische Psychologie, 51(4), 228–242. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1026/
0049- 8637/ a0002 26
Brophy, J. (2005). Goal theorists should move on from performance
goals. Educational Psychologist, 40(3), 167–176. https:// doi. org/
10. 1207/ s1532 6985e p4003_3
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences.
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences. 2nd Ed.
Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc..
Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2011). Cognitive adaptation to the expe-
rience of social and cultural diversity. In Psychological Bulletin
(Vol. 137, Issue 2, pp. 242–266). American Psychological Asso-
ciation. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ a0021 840
Cumming, G. (2014). The new statistics: Why and how. Psychological
Science, 25(1), 7–29. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 09567 97613 504966
Dalbert, C., & Stöber, J. (2008). Forschung zur Schülerpersönlichkeit.
In Helsper, W., & Böhme, J. (eds), Handbuch der Schulforschung.
VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ 978-
3- 531- 91095-6_ 37
Dickhäuser, O., Schöne, C., Spinath, B., & Stiensmeier-Pelster, J.
(2002). Skalen zur Erfassung der Lern- und Leistungsmotivation
(SELLMO). Hogrefe.
Driver, C. C., & Voelkle, M. C. (2018). Hierarchical Bayesian con-
tinuous time dynamic modeling. Psychological Methods, 23,
774–799. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ met00 00168
Dunn, T. J., Baguley, T., & Brunsden, V. (2014). From alpha to omega:
A practical solution to the pervasive problem of internal consist-
ency estimation. 399–412. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ bjop. 12046
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. Amer-
ican Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/
0003- 066X. 41. 10. 1040
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to
motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256–
273. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0033- 295X. 95.2. 256
Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., & Adler, T. (1984). Grade-related changes
in the school environment. In The Development of Achievement
Motivation, Vol. 3 (pp. 238–331).
Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach
and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 72(1), 218.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2 X 2 achievement goal
framework. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80(3),
501–519. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037// 0022- 3514. 80.3. 501
European Council. (2005). European Youth Pact. https:// eur - le x. eur opa.
eu/ legal- conte nt/ EN/ TXT/ HTML/? uri= LEGIS SUM: c1108 1&
from= EL.Accessed 7 Mar2023.
Falkenström, F., Solomonov, N., & Rubel, J. A. (2020). Do therapist
effects really impact estimates of within-patient mechanisms of
change? A monte carlo simulation study. Psychotherapy Research,
30(7), 885–899.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human
Relations, 7(2), 117–140. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00187 26754
00700 202
Fischer, N., & Theis, D. (2014). Extracurricular participation and the
development of school attachment and learning goal orientation:
The impact of school quality. Developmental Psychology, 50(6),
1788.
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in
children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 95(1), 148–162. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/
0022- 0663. 95.1. 148
Gallardo, L. O., & Barrasa, A. (2018). Self-other agreement measures
of acceptance in predicting academic achievement: A longitudinal
analysis. Current Psychology, 37(1), 107–115. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1007/ s12144- 016- 9494-3
Gallardo, L. O., Barrasa, A., & Guevara-Viejo, F. (2016). Positive peer
relationships and academic achievement across early and mid-
adolescence. Social Behavior and Personality: An International
Journal, 44(10), 1637–1648. https:// doi. org/ 10. 2224/ sbp. 2016.
44. 10. 1637
Gehlbach, H. (2006). How changes in students’ goal orientations
relate to outcomes in social studies. The Journal of Educational
Research, 99(6), 358–370. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3200/ JOER. 99.6.
358- 370
Gong, Y. (2003). Goal orientations and cross-cultural adjustment: An
exploratory study. International Journal of Intercultural Rela-
tions, 27(3), 297–305. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/ S0147- 1767(03)
00013-0
Huang, C. (2016). Achievement goals and self-efficacy: A meta-anal-
ysis. Educational Research Review, 19, 119–137.
Huang, Y., Espelage, D. L., Polanin, J. R., & Hong, J. S. (2019). A
meta-analytic review of school-based anti-bullying programs with
a parent component. International Journal of Bullying Prevention,
1(1), 32–44. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s42380- 018- 0002-1
Schwarzer, R., & Jerusalem, M. (1999). Skalen zur Erfassung von
Lehrer- und Schülermerkmalen. Dokumentation der psycho-
metrischen Verfahren im Rahmen der Wissenschaftlichen Beglei-
tung des Modellversuchs Selbstwirksame Schulen. In Skalen zur
Erfassung von Lehrer- und Schülermerkmalen. Dokumentation
der psychometrischen Verfahren im Rahmen der Wissenschaftli-
chen Begleitung des Modellversuchs Selbstwirksame Schulen.
https:// www. resea rchga te. net/ publi cation/ 31560 6769_ Skalen_
zur_ Erfas sung_ von_ Lehre r-_ und_ Schul ermer kmalen_ Dokum
entat ion_ der_ psych ometr ischen_ Verfa hren_ im_ Rahmen_ der_
Wisse nscha ftlic hen_ Begle itung_ des_ Model lvers uc hs_ Selbs twir k
same_ Schul en. Accessed 7 Mar2023.
Jobst, L. J., Bader, M., & Moshagen, M. (2021). A tutorial on assessing
statistical power and determining sample size for structural equa-
tion models. Psychological Methods.Advance online publication.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ met00 00423
Johnson, D. W., & Johnson, R. T. (2009). An educational psychol-
ogy success story: Social interdependence theory and cooperative
learning. Educational Researcher, 38, 365–379. https:// doi. org/ 10.
3102/ 00131 89X09 339057
Keller-Schneider, M. (2019). Die Bedeutung des Belastungserlebens
von Lehrpersonen für das von den Schülerinnen und Schülern
wahrgenommene Klassenklima, ihre Selbstwirksamkeit, ihr
schulisches Selbstkonzept und ihre Motivation. Empirische Päda-
gogik, 33(4), 433–455. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5281/ zenodo. 51530 81
Keller-Schneider, M., & Albisser, S. (2013). Kooperation von Lehrper-
sonen und die Bedeutung von individuellen und kollektiven Res-
sourcen. In M. Keller-Schneider, S. Albisser, & J. Wissinger
(Eds.), Professionalität und Kooperation in Schulen. Beiträge zur
Diskussion über Schulqualität (pp. 33–56). Klinkhardt. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 5281/ zenodo. 36957 05
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2497Current Psychology (2024) 43:2486–2498
1 3
Keller-Schneider, M., & Albisser, S. (2014). RUMBA Ressourcenent-
wicklung im Umgang mit Berufsanforderungen. Ein Forschungs-,
Entwicklungs- Und Schulentwicklungsprojekt. https:// doi. org/ 10.
5281/ zenodo. 53576 80
Keller-Schneider, M., & Albisser, S. (2015). Teamentwicklung als
Strategie der Personalentwicklung. In K. Kansteiner & C. Sta-
mann (Eds.), Zwischen Fremdsteuerung und Selbstentwicklung
(pp. 152–172). Klinkhardt. https:// doi. org/ 10. 5281/ zenodo. 36966
11
Ketonen, E. E., Dietrich, J., Moeller, J., Salmela-Aro, K., & Lonka,
K. (2018). The role of daily autonomous and controlled educa-
tional goals in students’ academic emotion states: An experience
sampling method approach. Learning and Instruction, 53, 10–20.
Kindermann, T. A. (1993). Natural peer groups as contexts for indi-
vidual development: The case of children’s motivation in school.
Developmental Psychology, 29(6), 970–977. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1037/ 0012- 1649. 29.6. 970
Klein, R. A., Vianello, M., Hasselman, F., Adams, B. G., Adams, R.
B., Alper, S., Aveyard, M., Axt, J. R., Babalola, M. T., Bahník,
Š., Batra, R., Berkics, M., Bernstein, M. J., Berry, D. R., Bialo-
brzeska, O., Binan, E. D., Bocian, K., Brandt, M. J., Busching,
R., … Nosek, B. A. (2018). Many labs 2: Investigating variation
in replicability across samples and settings. Advances in Methods
and Practices in Psychological Science, 1(4), 443–490. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 25152 45918 810225
Lakens, D., & Evers, E. R. K. (2014). Sailing from the seas of chaos
into the corridor of stability: Practical recommendations to
increase the informational value of studies. Perspectives on Psy-
chological Science, 9(3), 278–292. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 17456
91614 528520
Levy-Tossman, I., Kaplan, A., & Assor, A. (2007). Academic goal ori-
entations, multiple goal profiles, and friendship intimacy among
early adolescents. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32(2),
231–252. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cedps ych. 2006. 06. 001
Levy, I., Kaplan, A., & Patrick, H. (2004). Early adolescents’ achieve-
ment goals, social status, and attitudes towards cooperation with
peers. Social Psychology of Education, 7(2), 127–159. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1023/B: SPOE. 00000 18547. 08294. b6
Liborius, P., Bellhäuser, H., & Schmitz, B. (2019). What makes a
good study day? An intraindividual study on university students’
time investment by means of time-series analyses. Learning and
Instruction, 60, 310–321.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful
theory of goal setting and task motivation. American Psychologist,
57(9), 705–717. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037// 0003- 066X. 57.9. 705
Locke, E. A., Shaw, K. N., Saari, L. M., & Latham, G. P. (1981). Goal
setting and task performance: 1969–1980. Psychological Bulletin,
90(1), 125–152. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0033- 2909. 90.1. 125
McDonald, R. P. (1999). Test theory: A unified treatment. Erlbaum.
Moshagen, M. (2021). Power analysis for structural equation models:
semPower manual.
Moshagen, M., & Erdfelder, E. (2016). A new strategy for testing struc-
tural equation models. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidis-
ciplinary Journal, 23(1), 54–60.
Nichols, J. D. (1996). The effects of cooperative learning on student
achievement and motivation in a high school geometry class. Con-
temporary Educational Psychology, 21(4), 467–476. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1006/ ceps. 1996. 0031
Nichols, J. D., & Miller, R. B. (1994). Cooperative learning and student
motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 19(2), 167–178.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1006/ ceps. 1994. 1015
Obels, P., Lakens, D., Coles, N. A., Gottfried, J., & Green, S. A. (2020).
Analysis of open data and computational reproducibility in regis-
tered reports in psychology. Advances in Methods and Practices
in Psychological Science, 3(2), 229–237.
Oberski, D. (2015). lavaan.survey: An R package for complex sur-
vey analysis of structural equation models. Journal of Statistical
Software Analysis of Structural Equation Models, VV(II), 1–23.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/0- 387- 23413-6_7
Patall, E. A., Steingut, R. R., Vasquez, A. C., Trimble, S. S., Pituch,
K. A., & Freeman, J. L. (2018). Daily autonomy supporting or
thwarting and students’ motivation and engagement in the high
school science classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology,
110(2), 269.
Pekrun, R., Elliot, A. J., & Maier, M. A. (2006). Achievement goals
and discrete achievement emotions: A theoretical model and pro-
spective test. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(3), 583–597.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1037/ 0022- 0663. 98.3. 583
Pekrun, R., Lichtenfeld, S., Marsh, H. W., Murayama, K., & Goetz, T.
(2017). Achievement emotions and academic performance: Lon-
gitudinal models of reciprocal effects. Child Development, 88(5),
1653–1670. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1111/ cdev. 12704
Revelle, W. (2019). Using R and the psych package to find ω. 1–20.
www. perso nality- proje ct. org/r/ tutor ials/ HowTo/ omega. tutor ial/
omega. pdf. Accessed 7 Mar2023.
Rheinberg, F. (1977). Bezugsnorm-Orientierung von Schülern der
5. bis 13. Klasse bei der Leistungsbeurteilung. Zeitschrift Für
Entwicklungspsychologie Und Padagogische Psychologie, 9(2),
90–93.
Rosseel, Y. (2010). lavaan: an R package for structural equation mod-
eling and more. 1, 1–32.
Rutkowski, L., & Svetina, D. (2014). Assessing the hypothesis of meas-
urement invariance in the context of large-scale international sur-
veys. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 74(1), 31–57.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 00131 64413 498257
Schöne, C., Dickhäuser, O., Spinath, B., & Stiensmeier-Pelster, J.
(2004). Zielorientierung und Bezugsnormorientierung: Zum
Zusammenhang zweier Konzepte [Goal orientation and refer-
ence-norm orientation: Two related constructs?]. Zeitschrift Für
Pädagogische Psychologie, 18(2), 93–99. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1024/
1010- 0652. 18.2. 93
Schonert-Reichl, K. A. (2017). Social and emotional learning and
teachers. Future of Children, 27(1), 137–155. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1353/ foc. 2017. 0007
Schunk, D. H., & DiBenedetto, M. K. (2020). Motivation and social
cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60.
https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cedps ych. 2019. 101832
Schweizer, K. (2011). On the changing role of Cronbach’s α in the
evaluation of the quality of a measure. European Journal of Psy-
chological Assessment, 27(3), 143–144. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1027/
1015- 5759/ a0000 69
Simmons, J. P., Nelson, L. D., & Simonsohn, U. (2011). False-positive
psychology: Undisclosed flexibility in data collection and analysis
allows presenting anything as significant. Psychological Science,
22(11), 1359–1366.
Smith, R. E., Smoll, F. L., & Cumming, S. P. (2009). Motivational
climate and changes in young athletes’ achievement goal orienta-
tions. Motivation and Emotion, 33(2), 173–183.
Sommet, N., Elliot, A. J., & Sheldon, K. M. (2021). Achievement goal
complexes: Integrating the “what” and the “why” of achievement
motivation. In Handbook of personality: Theory and Research,
4th ed. (pp. 104–121). The Guilford Press. https:// psycn et. apa.
org/ record/ 2021- 06060- 004. Accessed 7 Mar2023.
Soper, D. S. (2020). A-priori sample size calculator for structural
equation models [software].
Spinath, B., Kriegbaum, K., Stiensmeier-Pelster, J., Schöne, C., &
Dickhäuser, O. (2016). Negative Veränderungen von Zielorien-
tierungen über Schülergenerationen hinweg: Ein 10-Jahresver-
gleich der SELLMO. Zeitschrift Für Pädagogische Psychologie:
Zfpp, 30(4), 271–278.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

2498 Current Psychology (2024) 43:2486–2498
1 3
Steinmayr, R., Weidinger, A. F., Schwinger, M., & Spinath, B. (2019).
The importance of students’ motivation for their academic
achievement – Replicating and extending previous findings.
Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 1730. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3389/ fps yg.
2019. 01730
Theis, D., Sauerwein, M., & Fischer, N. (2020). Perceived quality
of instruction: The relationship among indicators of students’
basic needs, mastery goals, and academic achievement. British
Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 176–192. https:// doi.
org/ 10. 1111/ bjep. 12313
Unrau, N. J., Rueda, R., Son, E., Polanin, J. R., Lundeen, R. J., &
Muraszewski, A. K. (2018). Can reading self-efficacy be modi-
fied? A meta-analysis of the impact of interventions on reading
self-efficacy. Review of Educational Research, 88(2), 167–204.
Urdan, T., & Kaplan, A. (2020). The origins, evolution, and future
directions of achievement goal theory. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 61. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. cedps ych. 2020. 101862
Usami, S., Hayes, T., & McArdle, J. J. (2016). Inferring longitudinal
relationships between variables: Model selection between the
latent change score and autoregressive cross-lagged factor mod-
els. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal,
23(3), 331–342.
Van Lissa, C. J., Hawk, S. T., & Meeus, W. H. J. (2017). The effects of
affective and cognitive empathy on adolescents’ behavior and out-
comes in conflicts with mothers. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 158, 32–45. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1016/j. jecp. 2017. 01.
002
Voith, L. A., Yoon, S., Topitzes, J., & Brondino, M. J. (2020). A feasi-
bility study of a school-based social emotional learning program:
Informing program development and evaluation. Child and Ado-
lescent Social Work Journal, 37(3), 329–342. https:// doi. org/ 10.
1007/ s10560- 019- 00634-7
Wang, Y. A., & Rhemtulla, M. (2021). Power analysis for parameter
estimation in structural equation modeling: A discussion and tuto-
rial. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science,
4(1), 2515245920918253.
Weiner, B. (1980). The role of affect in rational (attributional)
approaches to human motivation. Educational Researcher, 9(7),
4–11. https:// doi. org/ 10. 3102/ 00131 89X00 90070 04
Westland, J. C. (2010). Lower bounds on sample size in structural
equation modeling. Electronic Commerce Research and Applica-
tions, 9(6), 476–487.
Wigfield, A., & Koenka, A. C. (2020). Where do we go from here in
academic motivation theory and research? Some reflections and
recommendations for future work. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 61, 101872. https:// doi. or g/ 1 0. 1016/j. cedps ych. 2020.
101872.
Wolgast, A., & Barnes-Holmes, Y. (2018). Social perspective taking
and metacognition of children: A longitudinal view across the fifth
grade of school. Humanistic Psychologist, 46(1). https:// doi. org/
10. 1037/ hum00 00077
Wolgast, A., Barnes-Holmes, Y., Hartmann, U., & Decristan, J. (2018).
Interrelations between perspective taking and reading experience:
A longitudinal view on students in the fifth year of school. Psy-
chology of Language and Communication, 22(1). https:// doi. org/
10. 2478/ plc- 2018- 0019
Wolgast, A., Donat, M., Liesen, J., & Rüprich, C. (2022). Perspective-
taking and belief in a just world matter: Adolescents’ role experi-
ences in bullying processes. Current Psychology, 1–16. https://
doi. org/ 10. 1007/ s12144- 022- 03816-2
Wolgast, A., Tandler, N., Harrison, L., & Umlauft, S. (2019). Adults’
dispositional and situational perspective-taking: A systematic
review. Educational Psychology Review. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1007/
s10648- 019- 09507-y
Zell, E., & Krizan, Z. (2014). Do people have insight into their abili-
ties? A metasynthesis. Perspectives on Psychological Science,
9(2), 111–125. https:// doi. org/ 10. 1177/ 17456 91613 518075
Publisher's note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:
use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at
onlineservice@springernature.com