The Intertwined Nature of Adolescents’ Social and Academic Lives

Abstract

The relations of academic and social goal orientations to academic and social behaviors and self-concept were investigated among academically talented adolescents (N = 1,218) attending a mastery-oriented academic residential summer program. Results supported context effects in that academic mastery goal orientations predicted academic (in-class engagement, scholastic self-concept) and general outcomes (global self-worth self-concept) more than any other goal orientation. There were also gender differences such that academic mastery goal orientations predicted course performance and responsible classroom behavior only for girls, whereas for boys, academic mastery goal orientations were positively related to close friendship self-concept. The relation of social goal orientations to social outcomes also varied by gender. For instance, social development goal orientations were uniquely associated with social self-concept for girls, whereas there were some unique patterns regarding social demonstration-avoidance goal orientations for boys. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Keywords

academic social motivation goal orientations self-concept behavior gifted high ability adolescents summer program

Like most work environments, work or academic tasks and social life are intertwined in classrooms (Ben-Eliyahu & Bernacki, 2015; Ben-Eliyahu & Kaplan, 2015; Patrick, Ryan, & Kaplan, 2007; Wentzel, 1999). The social climate of the classroom shapes students’ non-academic behaviors and external social support (outside-of-class) predicts academic success (Herrera, Grossman, Kauh, & McMaken, 2011; Rhodes, 2002; Thomas, Bierman, & Powers, 2011). In addition, many academic tasks (e.g., small groups) require social engagement (Järvelä, Volet, & Järvenoja, 2010; Linnenbrink-Garcia, Rogat, & Koskey, 2011). Thus, separating academic-related activities from social aspects in the classroom is difficult and may be especially so in residential settings, such as boarding schools and summer academic programs (e.g., science camp), where students’ social and academic lives are highly connected.

Prior research shows that academic and social motivations are important in determining choices, processes, and behaviors (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 1991; Leary, 2004; Pintrich, 2000b; Rudolph, Abaied, Flynn, Sugimura, & Agoston, 2011). The bulk of this literature examined academic and social motivation separately, implying that they function independently of each other. Only a few researchers have examined social and academic motivations together (e.g., Patrick et al., 2007; Ryan & Shim, 2006, 2008; Wentzel & Asher, 1995). Much of this research considers how social responsibility goals (e.g., desire to conform to classroom rules) and prosocial goals (e.g., desire to engage in positive peer interactions) support academic achievement and adaptive academic beliefs and behaviors (Patrick, Hicks, & Ryan, 1997; Wentzel, 1993a). In the current study, we extended these findings to examine how reasons for engaging in academic and social behaviors, or the academic and social goal orientations, predicted social and academic behaviors and self-concepts and whether these patterns varied by gender. Studying these processes in an academic residential summer program allowed us to use multiple indicators of academic and social behaviors based on self-reports, instructor reports, and residential counselor reports to consider in-class and out-of-class academic and social behaviors. It is important to study the reasons for engaging in academic and social behaviors because they shape behaviors, emotions and cognitions.

Theoretical Framework

Achievement goal theory was used for examining the reasons students engage in social and academic activities. According to achievement goal theory, students focus on learning and developing (mastery goal orientation) or demonstrating competence (performance goal orientation; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliot, 1999). More specifically, mastery goal orientations reflect a focus on learning and developing, whereby students try to improve upon past performance and develop understanding of the task or course material (Elliot & Church, 1997; Middleton & Midgley, 1997). Academic performance goal orientations emphasize demonstrating competence in academics. Performance goals are differentiated into performance-approach goal orientations, with a focus on outperforming others and appearing smart, and performance-avoidance goal orientations, reflecting an emphasis on avoiding failing academically or appearing incompetent. The majority of this research is conducted in the academic domain, with some research considering goal orientations in relation to sports or work (e.g., Duda & Nicholls, 1992).

Notably, one can differentiate between specific goals (what) and goal orientations (why; Elliot & Fryer, 2008; Harackiewicz & Sansone, 1991; Pintrich, 2000a; Ryan & Shim, 2006, 2008). The distinction between the reasons for engaging in an activity (goal orientation or purpose goal) from the intended end result (goal objective, standard, or target goal; Elliot, Murayama, & Pekrun, 2011; Senko, Hulleman, & Harackiewicz, 2011) is important as students can be motivated by a goal to receive a high grade for a variety of reasons, which influence the cognitive strategies used (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 1991). For example, a student who covets a high grade to avoid appearing incompetent will engage in different strategies than a student driven by the desire to learn and develop a deep understanding.

Within the social domain, Ryan and her colleagues (Rodkin, Ryan, Jamison, & Wilson, 2013; Ryan & Shim, 2006, 2008) extended prior research investigating specific goal objectives (or aims, outcomes, standard, or target goals; Wentzel, 1993a, 1993b) to consider social goal orientations or the reasons for engaging in an activity (goal orientation or purpose goal; Elliot et al., 2011; Harackiewicz & Sansone, 1991). According to their conceptualization, a social-development-oriented individual focuses on developing peer relationships and improving social competence (mastery goal orientation); a demonstration-approach-oriented individual focuses on demonstrating social desirability and gaining positive judgments (performance-approach); and a demonstration-avoidance-oriented individual focuses on avoiding negative judgments or being teased (performance-avoidance). Based on this conceptualization, it is reasonable to assume that an adolescent who endorses a demonstration-approach goal orientation, thereby focused on demonstrating and appearing social, might maintain numerous friendships albeit somewhat shallow as a sign of popularity and proof of social desirability. In contrast, an adolescent with a social development orientation would maintain closer, more in-depth friendships, which require more time and energy investment, and therefore fewer, albeit presumably richer friendships. Despite the synergy of social and academic goal orientations in daily lives, work investigating both within one study is scarce. The current study aimed to fill this gap. We use the construct of goal orientations to examine how students’ reasons for engaging academically or socially relate to academic and social outcomes (e.g., Kaplan & Maehr, 2007; Maehr & Zusho, 2009).

Empirical Evidence for Social and Academic Goal Orientations

There is evidence that the academic and social domains are strongly linked, especially for children who are not accepted by their peers (Patrick, Kaplan, & Ryan, 2011; Wentzel, 1991; Wentzel & Asher, 1995). For example, peer victimization can lead to school avoidance and alienation, resulting in poor grades and even school dropout (Bierman, 2004; Parker & Asher, 1987). However, the majority of prior research on social and academic goal orientations examined within-domain processes, which precludes conclusions related to patterns of findings across domains. The current research considers within-domain and cross-domain relations of social and academic motivation on social and academic beliefs and behaviors within gifted youth. There are mixed findings with regard to whether there are differences between gifted and typically developing youth in social and academic motivation (Alexander & Schnick, 2008; Ben-Eliyahu, in press; McNabb, 2003; Reis & McCoach, 2000; Snyder & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2013). However, for gifted youth, within typical schools, there are academic and social challenges. Rimm (2002) noted that gifted students who are less socially accepted by their peers, especially girls, might intentionally underachieve so as to avoid social isolation in a regular classroom. The learning context can facilitate social relations, especially in settings such as gifted summer programs where high ability youth are “typical.” In these types of settings, the role of motivation should be analogous to typically achieving youth in typical schools.

With respect to academic goal orientations, research examined the relations of mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goal orientations to academic outcomes (Pintrich, 2000b). Generally, academic mastery goals are related to adaptive academic outcomes such as self-regulated learning and achievement (e.g., Bong, 2008; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Shim, Ryan, & Anderson, 2008; see also Hulleman, Schrager, Bodmann, & Harackiewicz, 2010; Linnenbrink-Garcia, Tyson, & Patall, 2008, for reviews), whereas academic performance-avoidance goals are related to maladaptive outcomes such as disruptive behavior and high anxiety and lower achievement (Hulleman et al., 2010; Middleton & Midgley, 1997; Pekrun, Elliot, & Maier, 2009). The findings for performance-approach goal orientations are somewhat mixed as performance-approach goal orientations are not only related to adaptive outcomes such as achievement and self-regulated learning but also to maladaptive outcomes such as disruptive behavior and test anxiety (Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, & Thrash, 2002; Huang, 2011; Hulleman et al., 2010; Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2008; Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001; Senko et al., 2011). Work on academic goal orientations in typical high schools found gifted youth to be more academically mastery-oriented than non-gifted students, although the same was not found for academic performance-approach or academic performance-avoidance goal orientations (Lüftenegger et al., 2015), and other research found no such difference (Ben-Eliyahu, in press). The findings for gender differences in goal orientations are inconsistent. Although some studies report gender differences such as girls reporting higher levels of all goal orientations than boys (Bouffard, Boisvet, Vezeau, & Larouche, 1995), others report higher levels of mastery goal orientations in girls and higher levels of performance goal orientations in boys (Sebanc, Guimond, & Lutgen, 2016; Urdan, 1997). Moreover, other studies report no gender differences in goal orientations (Song, Bong, Lee, & Kim, 2015).

In looking at gender differences within gifted youth, the findings are also mixed. Dai (2000) found no difference between gifted girls’ and boys’ goal orientations; however, he used a somewhat different approach to conceptualize and measure goal orientations from that used in the current study. Dai (2000) used “ego protection” and “task orientation” which are similar, though slightly different from performance goal orientations and mastery goal orientations. Dai found gender differences in the relations of goal orientations to goal choice and persistence. For goal choice, gifted girls’ ego protection was negatively related to goal choice more strongly than for boys. For boys, task orientation had a greater impact on goal choice. In looking at persistence, although task orientation positively predicted persistence for gifted boys and girls, ego protection was negatively related to persistence only for girls.

Initial research on social goal orientations suggests similar patterns regarding the relative benefits and detriments of social goal orientations. Specifically, students’ endorsement of social development orientations was related to positive social outcomes, such as self-reported prosocial behavior, higher quality friendships, and effortful social engagement (Rodkin et al., 2013; Rudolph et al., 2011; Ryan & Shim, 2006, 2008). Social demonstration-avoidance goal orientations were associated with maladaptive social outcomes, such as decreased self-acceptance, decreased positive social relations, and increased social worry, retaliation, and ignoring peers (Rudolph et al., 2011; Ryan & Shim, 2006, 2008). Social demonstration-approach goal orientations were not only related to lower levels of social engagement, lower teacher- and student-reported prosocial behavior, but also seemed somewhat beneficial by supporting perceived popularity (Rodkin et al., 2013; Rudolph et al., 2011; Ryan & Shim, 2006, 2008). Thus, endorsement of social demonstration-approach may be related to more superficial social relationships—such as a plethora of friendships—but perhaps a lack of deeper substance. Gender differences were found, such that for girls with high levels of perceived competence, social demonstration-avoidance was positively related with aggressive behavior (Ryan & Shim, 2008). For girls with low levels of perceived social competence and all boys, social demonstration-avoidance was negatively related to aggressive behavior.

A few studies investigated cross-domain relations for social goals rather than social goal orientations (Patrick et al., 1997; Wentzel, 1989, 1993b). Results suggest that social responsibility goals support academic (achievement, academic self-efficacy) and social outcomes (prosocial behavior). Researchers found how social and academic goal orientations relate to academic and social outcomes have found mixed results, though no gender differences. Ryan and Shim (2006, Study 4) found more evidence for domain-specificity. Social orientations were not related to academic outcomes such as academic self-efficacy and academic worry, and academic orientations were not related to social outcomes such as positive social relations, social self-efficacy, and social adjustment. Only social goal orientations were positively related to broader self-concepts such as self-acceptance and personal growth. However, a recent study by Liem (2016) found cross-domain relations, with academic goal orientations predicting social outcomes such as peer relationships and loneliness and social goal orientations predicting academic achievement and academic effort. No gender differences were reported in these relations. The current study extends this research to a residential summer program, thereby allowing multiple sources for outcome measures, in addition to the student self-report.

Current Study

The present study aimed to extend prior research by examining gender differences in the relations of social and academic goal orientations to a variety of social and academic behaviors and self-concepts within a group of high ability adolescents. The study was conducted at an academic residential program for academically talented adolescents, providing the opportunity to examine social and academic outcomes inside and outside of the classroom as reported by multiple sources. Students attended class daily and participated in social activities with their residential group. There was an academic and social focus on learning and developing: Students were not assigned grades for academic work, collaboration and self-guided learning were emphasized, and students had ample opportunity for social interactions. The social and academic domains were highly interwoven and valued by the program staff and students.

Crucially, motivation in gifted adolescents is somewhat understudied, though there is evidence that academic motivation in talented youth ranges from high to low, but tends to be higher than those observed for typically achieving students (Alexander & Schnick, 2008; Dai, Moon, & Feldhusen, 1998; Liem, 2016; McNabb, 2003; Snyder & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2013). Beyond between-group comparisons, it is also important to investigate how goal orientations function among high ability youth. Thus, in the current study, we moved away from between-group comparisons to focus specifically on the relations of goal orientations to outcomes in talented youth.

To examine how social and academic goal orientations are related to academic and social outcomes, we used instructor and residential counselor ratings of academic behaviors (course performance, in-class engagement, out-of-class engagement) and social behaviors (positive peer interaction, responsible classroom conduct, responsible out-of-class conduct, maintained friendships), and a range of self-concepts (global, scholastic, close friendship, social acceptance, and behavioral conduct; Harter, 1988). This extends prior work (Liem, 2016; Rodkin et al., 2013; Ryan & Shim, 2006, 2008) in several ways. First, by including a broader range of academic and social behaviors from multiple sources, we considered additional ways that academic and social goal orientations cross domains. Second, we examined academic and social behaviors within and outside of class, thus allowing a nuanced understanding of how academic and social goal orientations shape behaviors within and across domains. Third, we considered whether there were gender differences in these relations.

Based on Wentzel’s (1989, 1993b) findings that responsibility goals and prosocial goals were important predictors of social and academic outcomes, we included self-concept of responsible behavioral conduct and instructor and residential counselor ratings of responsible conduct and positive peer interaction. We further included academic, social, and global self-concept.

Self-concept refers to one’s attitudes, perceptions, and feelings of his or her abilities or skills (Lent, Brown, & Gore, 1997). Within academic settings, self-concept predicts academic success, grades, and self-regulated learning as well as non-academic successes (Awad, 2007; Cokley, 2000; Isiksal, 2010; Lent et al., 1997; Marsh & Craven, 2006; McInerney, Cheng, Mo Ching Mok, & Kwok Hap Lam, 2012; Valentine, DuBois, & Cooper, 2004). Within the gifted population, self-concept has been frequently studied (e.g., Makel, Lee, Olszewski-Kublius, & Putallaz, 2012; Marsh et al., 2008; Olszewski, Kulieke, & Willis, 1987; Rudasill & Callahan, 2008). Comparisons between gifted and typical children and youth on self-concept have yielded somewhat inconsistent results; at times gifted youth report more positive self-concepts, sometimes the same as typical children, and rarely lower self-concept (Neihart, 1999). Marsh suggests that gifted students’ self-concept is context specific and that students use their proximal peer group as a reference when evaluating their self-concept. Marsh and his colleagues found that gifted students experience a Big-Fish-Little-Pond effect (BFLPE) such that self-concept decreases when gifted students are in programs for gifted youth (Marsh et al., 2008); however, Makel et al. (2012) found no such change. To our knowledge, studies have not compared whether motivation predicts self-concept in similar ways across academic and social domains in a single study. Given the importance of self-concept as a motivator, we investigated how achievement goals are related to self-concept.

Studies that investigated gender differences as moderators of the relations of goal orientations to academic and social outcomes found that goal orientations function somewhat differently for boys and girls. These studies found that for boys, academic performance goal orientations were related to social and academic outcomes such as association with friends with a positive school orientation or metacognition (Bouffard et al., 1995; Urdan, 1997). In the current study, we extend this work to consider how both academic and social goal orientations predict academic behaviors and self-concept.

Finally, we used multiple data sources to indicate students’ behaviors. We drew from instructor ratings, residential counselor ratings, and student self-reports, thereby extending prior research using multiple data sources and perspectives. The use of multiple assessments allows a more generalizable form of measurement and also enables considering shared variance due to self-reports of the predictor and dependent variable. An important factor within the summer program studied here is the strong contextual emphasis on adoption of mastery goals, thereby shaping the educational context (Ames, 1992; Kaplan, Middleton, Urdan, & Midgley, 2002). In line with research on shaping achievement settings, the summer program emphasizes policies and practices that make mastery goals salient. For example, courses are designed with the goal of enrichment, skill development, and becoming open to new ideas and different ways of thinking (Putallaz, Baldwin, & Selph, 2005). The structure of the tasks, authority, and evaluation/recognition in the program coincides with guidelines for creating mastery-structured learning contexts (Ames, 1992). Table 1 presents how the program characteristics map onto instructional strategies (i.e., tasks, authority, and evaluation/recognition) that lead to motivational patterns associated with a mastery-structured environment (focus on effort, learning, active engagement, positive affect, sense of belongingness). In this way, the program has structured a safe learning environment where students can create, take risks, and be challenged, focusing on their intellectual capacity and self-growth. This program also stresses the social aspects of learning (e.g., group tasks, partnering), providing an opportunity for students to develop relationships and network with other highly talented peers. These elements, of lack of judgment and a focus on academic development and growth, are core to creating a mastery-structured educational context (Ames, 1992). In fact, prior work within this program found that mastery goals increase during the summer program when compared with typical classrooms (O’Keefe, Ben-Eliyahu, & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2013).

Table 1.

Aspects of the Program That Align With Instructional Strategies That Promote Mastery Structure.

Program characteristic	Instructional strategy	Mastery structure component (Ames, 1992)
Program participants choose to attend the program and choose their course	Meaningful aspect of learningStudent is participant in decision making	Task and authority
Students are given verbal evaluations not grades	Focus on individual improvement, progress, and masteryRecognition of student effortEncourage mistakes as part of learning	Evaluation/recognition
Multiple types of tasks for individuals and group	Provide opportunity for improvementReasonable challenge for studentsSupport development and use of effective learning strategiesTask designed for novelty, variety, diversity, and interest	Task and evaluation/recognition
Free time for students to socialize or focus on academics	Student is the decision maker in time management	Authority
Students are responsible for themselves	This is a residential summer program without parents so that students are responsible for themselves	Authority

Hypotheses

We hypothesized that there would be within-domain relations for academic and social outcomes. Specifically, we expected that academic mastery and performance-approach goal orientations would positively predict course performance, whereas academic performance-avoidance goal orientations would be negatively related. Because the program was mastery-oriented, we hypothesized that academic mastery goal orientations would positively predict in-class and out-of-class academic engagement, and scholastic self-concept, whereas academic performance-approach and performance-avoidance goal orientations would either relate negatively or be unrelated to these academic outcomes. Similarly, we hypothesized that social development goal orientations would positively relate to social self-concepts (friendship self-concept, social acceptance self-concept, behavioral conduct self-concept), positive peer interaction, and responsible conduct in-class and out-of-class. Social demonstration-approach goal orientations were hypothesized to relate positively to maintained friendships, which may be an indicator of popularity, and would be unrelated to other aspects of social behavior. In contrast, social demonstration-avoidance goal orientations were expected to relate negatively to adaptive social outcomes. Based on previous work that performance goal orientations are higher and positively related to outcomes in boys, we also predicted that for boys, performance/demonstration goal orientations would predict outcomes more than mastery goal orientations.

Overall, we hypothesized fewer cross-domain relations. However, because of the mastery-structured educational context, we predicted that academic mastery and social development goal orientations would cross academic and social domains to predict social and academic outcomes. Prior work suggests that academic mastery-structured contexts support cross-domain relations between academic and social aspects (Parker & Asher, 1987; Parker, Rubin, Price, & DeRosier, 1995; Patrick et al., 2011; Wentzel & Wigfield, 1998). Therefore, we expected the strong emphasis on academic mastery within the summer program would lead to the endorsement of academic mastery goal orientations, as was found in a prior study conducted within this same context (O’Keefe et al., 2013), and social development goals. Given this context, we expected the endorsement of either academic mastery or social development goals would be more likely to cross the academic and social domains to predict both social and academic outcomes.

Method

Participants

Participants included middle and high school students attending a rigorous 3-week residential summer program for academically gifted youth in the southeastern United States. Students qualified for the program by scoring at or above the 95th percentile on an end-of-year standardized test in the fifth or sixth grade and then scoring sufficiently high on an out-of-level standardized test (SAT or ACT; scores of 500 or above on the SAT-V or SAT-M or ACT equivalent) administered in the seventh grade as part of a national talent search. Eligibility criteria were set by the summer program so that participants are in roughly the top 1% of academic achievement for their grade (Wai, Cacchio, Putallaz, & Makel, 2010).

Summer program participants took one course for 7 hours on weekdays and 3 hours on Saturday for a total of 120 class hours across the 3-week program. Courses combined elements of enrichment and acceleration and were not graded to encourage intellectual risk-taking. Social activities provided opportunities to interact with peers in non-academic settings. The program is tuition based with 20% of the students receiving financial aid, allowing youth who qualify but lack the financial resources to attend (see Putallaz et al., 2005).

The current research is part of a larger program evaluation involving data collection at three time points (pre, post, and 6 months after the program). We used data from the Time 2 (post) student survey and one question from the Time 3 follow-up survey. The Time 2 sample consisted of 1,218 students (52% male) and included rising eighth (42%), ninth (25%), 10th (19%), and 11th (14%) grade students, mean age 14.37 years. The sample was somewhat ethnically diverse (69% White/Caucasian, 17% Asian American, 7% African American, 5.5% Hispanic/Latino, <1% Native American, 1.5% other/unknown). The Time 3 survey was completed by 690 participants (57% of Time 2 respondents). There were no statistically significant differences between participants who did not complete the Time 3 survey and those who did on any demographic characteristics or any of the predictor variables.

Procedure

Several weeks prior to attending the summer program, parents of registered students were sent letters explaining the study and provided with a web link where they could login and indicate permission for their child’s participation. Students then indicated assent and completed the Time 1 survey online. Students were told that they could skip any question or quit any time and that responses would not influence their relationship with the organization. Toward the end of the program, a second survey was administered on-site to all students who had previously participated (Time 2). This survey was a paper survey and participants completed it during the day. Finally, participants were emailed 6 months after program completion and asked to complete the follow-up survey online (Time 3). No incentives were given for participation in the study. Each student in the program was assigned to one resident counselor (RC) for the entire program, who oversaw the student during non-academic activities and in the dorm, and one academic instructor and one teaching assistant for the academic course for which the student was enrolled. As part of the program’s own internal program evaluation efforts, the academic instructors completed in-class and the RCs completed out-of-class evaluations toward the end of the program (at Time 2).

Measures

Data were drawn from four sources: (a) Time 2 student surveys (academic and social goal orientations, academic and social self-concepts), (b) Time 3 student surveys (maintained friendships), (c) Time 2 instructor end-of-course student evaluations (course performance, in-class academic engagement, responsible classroom conduct), and (d) Time 2 residential counselor end-of-program student evaluations (positive peer interactions, out-of-class academic engagement, responsible out-of-class conduct). These latter two sets of measures were part of the program’s own internal evaluation battery and were developed by the program staff prior to the start of the current research. Unless otherwise noted, all scales were rated along a 5-point Likert-type scale (1 = not true to 5 = very true), and scales were the unweighted average of the items. For the student surveys, participants were asked to “think about what you think and feel when you are in your [Summer Program Name] course.”

Independent variables

Academic and social goal orientations (mastery/development, performance/demonstration-approach, and performance/demonstration-avoidance) were assessed using scales adapted from Patterns of Adaptive Learning Survey (PALS) for academic goal orientations (Midgley et al., 2000) and Ryan and Shim (2006) for social goal orientations. The PALS was used for two reasons. First, it is one of the most extensively used goal orientation scales with adolescents. Second, it taps into academic goal orientations similar to the way that Ryan and Shim assess social goal orientations, focusing on the broader construct of orientation or purpose for learning (as opposed to the Achievement Goal Questionnaire that focuses on objectives/aims, Elliot & Murayama, 2008). Because of length limitation for the survey, each scale contained three items. A confirmatory factor analysis using MPlus7 validated these goal orientations as separate constructs, χ²(117) = 1,529.69, p < .001; comparative fit index (CFI) = .97, Tucker–Lewis index (TLI) = .97, root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) = .09. As described below, reliabilities were high on each scale.

The Academic Mastery Goal Orientation scale assessed students’ focus on understanding and mastering academics (e.g., “I wanted to learn as much as possible,” study α = .82). The Academic Performance-Approach Goal Orientation scale measured students’ focus on demonstrating their academic competence (e.g., “I wanted to do well compared with other students,” study α = .83). The Academic Performance-Avoidance Goal Orientation scale assessed students’ focus on avoiding appearing academically incompetent (e.g., “My goal was to avoid performing worse than other students,” study α = .85). Similar scales assessed social goal orientations. The Social Development Goal Orientation scale measured students’ focus on developing and learning from their friendships (e.g., “I liked it when I learned better ways to get along with friends,” study α = .78). The Social Demonstration-Approach Goal Orientation scale assessed students’ focus on appearing to have many friends and being socially competent (e.g., “It was important to me to be seen as having a lot of friends,” study α = .82). Finally, the Social Demonstration-Avoidance Goal Orientation scale assessed students’ focus on avoiding appearing socially awkward (e.g., “I tried not to do anything that might make other kids tease me,” study α = .88).

Dependent variables

The dependent variables for the current study included academic behaviors, social behaviors, maintained friendships, and academic and social self-concepts. The academic (course performance, in-class academic engagement, outside-of-class academic engagement) and social (positive peer interaction, responsible out-of-class conduct, responsible classroom conduct) behaviors were assessed from the end-of-course evaluations provided by course instructors or RCs. Although no formal grades were given in the program, instructors rated each student’s in-class behavior along 37 academic dimensions at the conclusion of the summer course. RCs rated each student’s out-of-class behavior along 16 dimensions. Drawing from these instructor and RC ratings, we created scales relevant to the constructs of the current study¹ and used confirmatory factor analyses to determine that the theoretically constructed scales fit the data well using MPlus7, χ²(978) = 4,640.65, p < .001, CFI = .91, TLI = .90, RMSEA = .05, suggesting high factorial validity.

Academic behaviors included instructor ratings of Course Performance derived from ratings of five instructor-rated items about student’s performance on required course assignments (e.g., “performance on quizzes,” study α = .84). In-Class Academic Engagement was assessed with five instructor ratings related to students’ depth of engagement with course material (e.g., “formulated thought-provoking questions and comments,” study α = .90). Outside-of-Class Academic Engagement was derived from two items evaluated by the RC assessing the carryover of academics outside of class (e.g., “Student demonstrated a positive attitude toward academics outside of the classroom,” study α = .86).

Social behaviors included Positive Peer Interactions comprised of three items rated by the RC about the positive nature of each student’s social behavior with peers (e.g., “Student maintained positive interactions with his or her peers,” study α = .87). Responsible Out-of-Class Conduct included RC ratings of four items indicating how responsibly students behaved outside of the classroom (e.g., “Student treated staff with respect and courtesy,” study α = .88). Responsible Classroom Conduct was derived from four of the course instructor ratings of the appropriateness of each student’s classroom behavior (e.g., “demonstrated respect for the thoughts and opinions of others,” study α = .91).

Maintained friendships was assessed at the Time 3 follow-up survey. Students were asked, “Have you kept in touch with any of your friends since leaving [the program]?” The number of maintained friendships was indicated by the total number of peers listed.

Academic and social self-concepts were assessed at Time 2 using Harter’s (1988) Self-Perception Profile for Adolescents questionnaire, which is a well-established measure with adolescent population. Five self-concept subscales were used: Scholastic Competence, Social Acceptance, Close Friendship, Behavioral Conduct, and Global Self-Worth. Each subscale consists of five items requiring participants to choose which of two statements best describes them, and then indicate whether the statement is “really true for me” or “sort of true for me,” using in a 4-point Likert-type scale. Based on the content of the scales, Close Friendships, Social Acceptance, and Behavioral Conduct were classified as social self-concepts, and Scholastic Competence as academic self-concept. Global Self-Worth was considered general constructs.

The Global Self-Worth subscale (study α = .82) assessed the valence with which students view themselves overall (e.g., “Some teens are often disappointed with themselves BUT Other teens are pretty pleased with themselves”). The Scholastic Competence subscale assessed student concepts of schoolwork ability and intelligence (e.g., “Some teens have trouble figuring out the answers in school BUT Other teens almost always can figure out the answers,” study α = .74). The Social Acceptance subscale (study α = .85) measured student concepts of peer acceptance (e.g., “Some teens find it hard to make friends BUT For other teens it’s pretty easy to make friends”), whereas the Close Friendship subscale (study α = .89) assessed student beliefs related to making close friendships (e.g., “Some teens are able to make really close friends BUT Other teens find it hard to make really close friends”). Finally, the Behavioral Conduct self-concept subscale (study α = .81) assessed student beliefs about behaviors and rule following (e.g., “Some teens usually do the right thing BUT Other teens often don’t do what they know is right”). See Table 2 for a summary of the measures.

Table 2.

Summary of the Measures Used in the Study.

Goal orientations	Academic behaviors	Resident counselor evaluations	Self-report
Academic	Course performance	Positive peer interaction	Maintained Friendships
Mastery	In-class academic engagement	Responsible out-of-class conduct	Self-Concept
Performance-approach	Outside-of-class academic engagement	Responsible classroom conduct	Scholastic Competence
Performance-avoidance			Social Acceptance
Social			Close Friendship
Development			Behavioral Conduct
Demonstration-approach			Global Self-Worth
Demonstration-avoidance

Analysis Plan

To better understand cross- and within-domain relations of social and academic achievement goal orientations to academic and social behaviors and self-concepts, a series of multiple regression analyses were conducted for each of the 12 dependent variables. Twelve regression analyses were conducted for each gender, thereby inflating the risk for Type I error. To correct for this, Bonferroni correction was used at the p = .05 significance level, resulting in a stringent significance cutoff of p = .004 (Mundfrom, Perrett, Schaffer, Piccone, & Roozeboom, 2006). Therefore, only results that have a p value of or below .004 are reported as statistically significant. Because participants were nested within their courses when reporting on their motivation and outcome variables, we checked the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) to check for dependency on the course. High ICCs were found for achievement (ICC = .33), in-class academic engagement (ICC = .22), in-class responsible conduct (ICC = .32), and number of maintained friendships (ICC = .12). Therefore, course was considered as a multilevel variable using mixed models multilevel regression analysis in SPSS for these variables. Separate analyses were conducted for girls and boys to investigate whether there were different patterns. Grade level and race were entered as control variables in all analyses.² Each racial group (White, Hispanic, Asian, and Black) was effect coded separately comparing it with the overall average of the sample (Alkharusi, 2012). Specifically, we used the other/mixed category as our anchor or base group (−1), and effect coded each of the four main racial groups (White, Black, Asian, and Hispanic) as “1,” with the others as “0” to allow investigation of each racial group separately.

All goal orientations were centered to account for multicollinearity and facilitate interpretation (Cohen, Cohen, West, & Aiken, 2003). Multicollinearity refers to a statistical situation in which one independent variable is highly correlated with another independent variable, thereby resulting in an unstable or unreliable regression coefficient. A remedy for this is centering the independent variables, thereby stabilizing the analyses. We also examined the predictors using the variation inflation factor (VIF) using SPSS. The VIF estimates how much the variance of a variable is exaggerated because of linear dependence with other predictors and found all the VIF values to be between 1 and 2, suggesting that we can continue with our analyses. Nevertheless, there was a large correlation between academic performance-approach and performance-avoidance goal orientations (r_boys = .76, r_girls = .73, p < .001), and social demonstration-approach and demonstration-avoidance goal orientations (r_boys = .67, r_girls = .62, p < .001). Thus, we also conducted ancillary analyses to further investigate potential instances of statistical suppression (see Linnenbrink-Garcia et al., 2012). Statistical suppression occurs when independent variables are correlated such that the relations between them hide or suppress the real relation with a dependent variable (Cohen et al., 2003). To determine whether the relations between performance/demonstration-avoidance and performance/demonstration-approach suppress each other, additional separate multiple regression analyses included (a) academic mastery and academic performance-approach and all social orientations, (b) academic mastery and academic performance-avoidance and all social orientations, (c) social development and social demonstration-approach and all academic orientations, and (d) social development and social demonstration-avoidance and all academic orientations. These analyses enabled interpretation of the findings in spite of the large shared variance between performance/demonstration-approach and performance/demonstration-avoidance goal orientations.

Results

Correlations and Descriptive Statistics

Table 3 presents intercorrelations and Table 4 presents descriptive statistics. In terms of bivariate correlations, there were more statistically significant within-domain than cross-domain correlations, though several small, but statistically significant cross-domain correlations highlight the importance of examining cross-domain relations. The largest correlations were between goal orientations and self-concept, with academic mastery goal orientations predicting global self-worth (r_boys = .29, r_girls = .27, p < .001), scholastic self-concept (r_boys = .24, r_girls = .28, p < .001), and behavioral conduct (r_boys = .31, r_girls = .32, p < .001).

Table 3.

Correlation Coefficients for Goal Orientations, Academic and Social Behaviors, and Academic and Social Self-Concepts for Boys and Girls.

	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10	11	12	13	14	15	16	17	18
1. Academic Mastery	—	.32**	.31**	.34**	−.06	−.02	.17**	.21**	.10*	.06	−.03	.14**	.08	.26**	.28***	.15***	.07	.32**
2. Academic Performance-Approach	.43**	—	.70**	.17**	.28**	.26**	.02	.04	.00	.04	−.02	.00	.03	.01	.15***	−.02	−.01	.15**
3. Academic Performance-Avoidance	.43**	.75**	—	.22**	.25**	.28**	.00	.02	−.02	.03	−.01	.02	.03	−.03	.12**	.04	−.03	.12**
4. Social Development	.48**	.32**	.37**	—	.31**	.27**	.09*	.06	.08	.13**	.07	.06	.10*	.11**	.09*	.19***	.09*	.20**
5. Social Demonstration-Approach	.12**	.41**	.36**	.44**	—	.62**	−.06	−.08	−.05	.11**	.07	−.03	.03	−.08*	−.10*	.07	.14**	−.10*
6. Social Demonstration-Avoidance	.15**	.36**	.43**	.36**	.67**	—	−.05	−.06	−.07	.04	−.04	−.01	.02	−.13**	−.08	−.03	−.13**	.03
7. Course Performance	.14**	.05	.03	.10*	−.05	−.04	—	.68**	.18**	.07	−.03	.57**	.10**	.05	.16***	.06	.00	.11*
8. In-Class Academic Engagement	.18**	.01	.02	.09*	−.10*	−.15**	.68**	—	.17**	.06	.00	.69**	.04	.09*	.17***	.04	−.02	.16**
9. Out-of-Class Academic Engagement	.08	−.02	.02	.03	−.10*	−.14**	.22**	.24**	—	.57**	−.05	.15**	.51**	.14**	.09*	.07	.02	.15**
10. Positive Peer Interaction	.01	.01	.00	.09*	.05	−.06	.13**	.16**	.54**	—	−.07	.13**	.80**	.22**	.01	.18***	.19**	.22**
11. Maintained Friendships	.00	−.03	−.05	.02	.07	−.02	.12	.12*	.12	.09	—	−.10	−.16**	−.10	−.14*	.12*	.13*	−.07
12. Responsible Classroom Conduct	.10*	−.05	.00	.08	−.05	−.07	.59**	.72**	.227**	.235**	.125*	—	.15**	.03	.04	.02	−.01	.18**
13. Responsible Out-of-Class Conduct	.06	.01	.03	.09*	−.01	−.04	.15**	.18**	.56**	.82**	.06	.30**	—	.15**	.01	.10*	.06	.25**
14. Global Self-Worth Self-Concept	.29**	.05	.07	.16**	−.10*	−.13**	.08	.14**	.06	.06	.13*	.06	.05	—	.54***	.32***	.48**	.49**
15. Scholastic Self-Concept	.24**	.13**	.14**	.06	−.05	−.03	.11*	.19**	.13**	.06	.05	.07	.09*	.48**	—	.14***	.22**	.41**
16. Close Friendship Self-Concept	.16**	.06	.01	.17**	.10*	−.01	.04	.04	−.01	.14**	.15*	.02	.06	.36**	.18***	—	.54**	.14**
17. Social Acceptance Self-Concept	.13**	.08	.01	.17**	.22**	−.01	.06	.06	−.02	.20**	.22**	.03	.06	.47**	.26***	.57***	—	.12**
18. Behavioral Conduct Self-Concept	.32**	.12**	.18**	.17**	−.09*	.05	.09*	.15**	.14**	.10*	.07	.17**	.20**	.50**	.37***	.12**	.13**	—

Note. Correlations for boys appear below the diagonal and for girls above the diagonal.

p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

Table 4.

Descriptives for Goal Orientations, Academic and Social Behaviors, and Academic and Social Self-Concepts for Boys and Girls.

	Boys		Girls		F	p value	Cohen’s d
	M	SD	M	SD	F	p value	Cohen’s d
Academic Mastery	4.28	0.72	4.33	0.68	0.19	.664	.07
Academic Performance-Approach	3.67	0.91	3.61	0.86	0.57	.450	.07
Academic Performance-Avoidance	3.86	0.88	3.82	0.89	0.07	.786	.05
Social Development	3.91	0.77	3.93	0.75	0.64	.427	.03
Social Demonstration-Approach	3.11	0.96	2.78	0.93	9.67	.002	.35
Social Demonstration-Avoidance	3.42	0.99	2.88	1.08	20.32	<.001	.52
Course Performance	4.07	0.66	4.22	0.58	8.25	.004	.24
In-Class Academic Engagement	4.14	0.69	4.28	0.60	3.53	.061	.22
Out-of-Class Academic Engagement	4.44	0.75	4.55	0.65	0.89	.346	.16
Positive Peer Interaction	4.47	0.62	4.62	0.53	5.69	.017	.26
Maintained Friendships	3.21	4.59	6.99	6.70	40.88	<.001	.66
Responsible Classroom Conduct	4.30	0.66	4.49	0.55	2.27	.132	.33
Responsible Out-of-Class Conduct	4.54	0.59	4.73	0.46	9.29	.002	.36
Global Self-Worth Self-Concept	3.30	0.58	3.30	0.61	0.19	.666	.00
Scholastic Self-Concept	3.47	0.49	3.47	0.47	0.10	.753	.00
Close Friendship Self-Concept	3.18	0.72	3.43	0.73	12.15	.001	.35
Social Acceptance Self-Concept	3.15	0.65	3.21	0.65	0.07	.795	.09
Behavioral Conduct Self-Concept	3.13	0.61	3.31	0.60	8.98	.003	.30

The MANOVA was significant for gender, Wilks’ Λ, F(18, 415) = 6.25, p < .001, with mean differences between boys and girls on a number of measures (see Table 4). Specifically, girls reported lower levels of social demonstration approach and avoidance goal orientations and higher maintained friendships, close friendship self-concept, and behavioral conduct self-concept. Instructors and RCs also rated girls as higher on course performance, positive peer interactions, and responsible out-of-class conduct.

Academic Behaviors

Moving beyond descriptive statistics, we also used multiple regression analysis, conducted separately for girls and boys, to examine academic and social goals as predictors of the three academic behaviors: course performance, in-class, and out-of-class academic engagement. With respect to academic goals, academic mastery goal orientations were positively related to in-class academic engagement for both boys (β = .11, p = .001) and girls (β = .13, p < .001). For girls only, academic mastery goal orientations were positively related to course performance (β = .08, p = .004). In terms of social goal orientations, social demonstration-avoidance was negatively related to in-class academic engagement for boys only (β = −.11, p = .003).³ In contrast to our hypotheses, none of the academic (or social) goal orientations significantly related to out-of-class academic engagement. The pattern of findings was generally the same in the ancillary analyses detecting statistical suppression, although there was some evidence that forms of social demonstration goals negatively predicted in-class engagement for boys only. Overall, this pattern of findings is consistent with the idea that there are stronger within-domain patterns (e.g., academic goals to academic outcomes), although we did find some evidence that social demonstration goal orientations may also be associated with lower in-class engagement among boys only.

Social Behaviors

A series of multiple regression analyses predicting four types of social behaviors (positive peer interactions, responsible out-of-class conduct, responsible classroom conduct, maintained friendships) were conducted separately for boys and girls. Contrary to our hypotheses, none of the social goal orientations significantly predicted social behaviors. Crossing academic and social domains, we found that academic mastery goal orientations were positively related to responsible classroom conduct among girls only (β = .08, p = .003). This pattern of findings is not consistent with our within-domain hypotheses that social goal orientations were the strongest predictors of social behaviors.

Social and Academic Self-Concepts

Finally, we conducted a series of multiple regression analyses, separately for boys and girls, examining academic and social goal orientations as predictors of one type of academic self-concept (scholastic), three types of social self-concept (social acceptance, close friendship, and behavioral conduct), and a global indicator of self-worth. Consistent with our within-domain hypotheses, academic mastery goal orientations were positively related to scholastic competence for boys (β = .24, p < .001) and girls (β = .22, p < .001). None of the social goal orientations significantly predicted scholastic competence, providing support for the differential relations hypothesis.

Social self-concepts (close friendship, social acceptance, and behavioral conduct) were predicted by both social development and academic mastery goal orientations. With respect to competence beliefs regarding one’s ability to make and maintain close friendships, the patterns varied somewhat based on gender. For boys, academic mastery (β = .15, p = .003) and social demonstration-approach (β = .18, p = .002) related positively and social demonstration-avoidance (β = −.18, p = .003)⁴ related negatively to self-concept of close friendship. In contrast, among girls, social development goal orientations were positively related to self-concept of close friendship (β = .16, p = .001), suggesting that social development versus social demonstration goal orientations may function differently with respect to competence beliefs regarding close friendships among girls and boys. For self-concept related to social acceptance, a similar pattern was observed for both boys and girls: Social demonstration-approach (β_boys = .38, p < .001; β_girls = .35, p < .001) was positively related and social demonstration-avoidance (β_boys = −.31, p < .001; β_girls = −.36, p < .001) was negatively related to self-concept of social acceptance.⁵ For self-concept of behavioral conduct, there were some similarities across gender. Academic mastery was positively related (β_boys = .23, p < .001; β_girls = .24, p < .001) and social demonstration-approach was negatively related (β_boys = −.27, p < .001; β_girls = −.23, p < .001) to students’ judgments that they followed societal rules. In addition, for girls, social development goal orientations (β = .15, p = .001) were positively related to behavioral conduct self-concept. Overall, these results provide some evidence of our within-domain hypotheses of social goal orientations predicting social self-concepts. Also as hypothesized, we found that academic mastery goal orientations crossed in the social domain.

In considering global self-worth, academic mastery was positively related to global self-worth for both boys (β = .26, p < .001) and girls (β = .25, p < .001). In addition, for boys only, social development (β = .14, p = .004) was positively related and social demonstration-avoidance⁶ (β = −.20, p = .001) was negatively related to global self-worth.⁷

Discussion

Overall, when considering robust findings not suggestive of statistical suppression, our findings reveal complex relations between social and academic goal orientations and social and academic outcomes, supporting the pervasiveness of context. That is, like other work investigating the social and academic aspects of learning, our findings support the notion that social and academic aspects are intertwined in academic contexts (Järvelä et al., 2010; Patrick et al., 2007; Wentzel, 1999). Most consistently, academic mastery goal orientations were positively related to in-class academic engagement, scholastic self-concept, global self-worth, and self-concept of behavioral conduct. For girls, academic mastery goal orientations also positively predicted course performance and responsible classroom conduct, whereas for boys, academic mastery goals positively predicted self-concept of close friendships. This pattern of findings supports both within- and across-domain hypotheses. For example, academic mastery goal orientations crossed over to the social domain (cross-domain) when positively related to responsible classroom conduct (for girls). Within-domain relations were more widespread, for example, with academic mastery goal orientations related to in-class academic engagement and scholastic self-concept, and course performance (for girls). These findings are in line with previous findings that highlight the adaptive nature of students adopting a focus on learning and developing (Hulleman et al., 2010).

One explanation for the potency of academic mastery goal orientations is the learning context. Prior work within the summer program found that the mastery structure of the program was related to an increase in endorsement of mastery goal orientations (see O’Keefe et al., 2013). Perhaps the saliency of the mastery goal orientation contributed to the widespread effect of mastery goal orientation, an indication of the pervasiveness of context. This finding is in line with other work showing the effects of context, particularly on elements of mastery-structured learning environments (Eccles & Midgley, 1989). Our finding suggests that students who endorse mastery goal orientations within the summer course engage more with the course materials during class time. Within an academically mastery-oriented context, academic mastery goal orientations are given priority in the hierarchy of goals. Wentzel and Wigfield (1998) suggested that this hierarchy determines which cross-domain relations occur.

Although not directly parallel, the finding that academic mastery goal structure was related to social and behavioral outcomes is consistent with Patrick et al.’s (2011) findings. They found that within mastery-structured classrooms, students perceive that the teacher promotes social behaviors, such as responsible classroom conduct and mutual respect. Academic mastery was also positively associated with behavioral self-concepts, suggesting that an academic focus on learning and understanding may foster “good citizenship” and other such social competencies. These cross-domain findings lend support to research emphasizing the interconnected nature of social and academic lives within academic settings (Ben-Eliyahu & Kaplan, 2015; Järvelä et al., 2010; Patrick, 1997; Urdan & Maehr, 1995; Wentzel, 1999).

Supporting the within-domain hypothesis (Rudolph et al., 2011; Ryan & Shim, 2006, 2008), social demonstration-approach was positively related to self-concept of social acceptance and negatively related to self-concept of behavioral conduct for both boys and girls. That is, youth focused on appearing socially accepted also perceive themselves as more socially accepted, perhaps a sort of self-fulfilling prophecy, although they do not necessarily view themselves as following rules. This differential pattern between social acceptance and behavioral conduct may be due to the adolescent population, where rule following is not necessarily aligned with being socially accepted among one’s peers. Contrary to our hypotheses, social goal orientations did not significantly predict any of the social behaviors, perhaps because the social behaviors were assessed using instructor and RC evaluations, suggesting that there may be a mismatch between what students believe about themselves socially and how others see themselves as behaving.

Gender Differences

Slightly different patterns were found for boys and girls. For girls, academic mastery goal orientations predicted course performance and responsible in-class behavior. That is, the focus on learning and developing was positively related to achievement in the course and good citizenship within the classroom, but only for girls. These findings further support a context effect, as responsible behavior out of class was not predicted by any of the goal orientations. For boys, the focus on developing and deepening friendships (social development) was positively related with global self-worth.

Another gender difference is that for girls, social development goal orientations were positively related to self-concept of close friendship and behavioral conduct, whereas for boys, social demonstration-avoidance was negatively related to self-concept of social acceptance and global self-worth. For girls, focusing on developing and deepening friendships was related to self-perceptions of close friendships. For boys, the focus on not appearing socially awkward or undesirable (social demonstration-avoidance) was negatively related to global self-worth and self-concept of close friendship. The findings point to social demonstration—or focusing on appearing more liked socially or not appearing socially undesirable or awkward—as a determinant of social and academic outcomes more so for boys than girls. That is, for boys, social comparison with others on social relationships seems to be an important determinant of how boys perceive themselves (i.e., self-concept).

The findings from this study illustrate the interwoven complexity of goal orientations for gifted youth. Gifted students tend to have difficulties when their school-based peers are typically developing students and tend to prefer intellectually similar peers (Gross, 2002). For this reason, they tend to do better socially in contexts where their peers are intellectually similar to them and tasks are challenging, which has led some to suggest that ability-grouping may be preferable for gifted children.

There were a number of gender differences. For gifted boys, the desire to not be socially awkward (social demonstration-avoidance) was negatively related to global self-worth and self-concept of close friendships, and social demonstration-approach was negatively related to behavioral conduct. Another interesting gender difference is that social development goal orientations were predictive of global self-worth (for boys) and self-concept of close friendship and behavioral conduct (for girls). That is, for boys, the focus on developing and deepening friendships aligned with positive self-evaluation in general. For girls, focusing on relationship development was related to higher evaluations of close friendships and social acceptance. Prior research revealed the challenges gifted girls have in typical settings, where gifted girls tend to be ranked as least popular in comparison with gifted boys and typical boys and girls (Luftig & Nichols, 1990). In contrast, in the summer program where giftedness is the norm, girls who focus on developing their friendships also perceive themselves as better friends.

Also contrary to our hypotheses, neither academic performance-approach nor performance-avoidance goal orientations predicted academic behaviors. Although prior research found positive relations of academic performance-approach goal orientations to achievement and engagement (Hulleman et al., 2010; Pintrich, 2000b), it is certainly possible that performance goal orientations function differently in academic residential programs that are academically mastery structured. Importantly, academic mastery goal orientations predicted global and behavioral self-concepts, supporting the cross-domain hypothesis.

Future Directions and Limitations

The present study extends previous research by examining how social and academic goal orientations relate to social and academic outcomes (Rodkin et al., 2013; Ryan & Shim, 2006, 2008). Specifically, our study was conducted using a sample of high ability adolescents attending a residential summer program for gifted adolescents. Thus, the effects we observed, especially with respect to gender differences, may be unique both in terms of the population (high ability students) and the context (mastery-oriented summer residential program for talented adolescents). Moreover, the mastery-oriented focus of the summer program may also explain, at least in part, the cross-domain effects related to academic mastery goals. To further investigate the complexity of social and academic relations, replication in other settings is important, as typical classrooms tend to emphasize performance goals. Moreover, future research is needed to see whether the same patterns of effects appear when studying other populations (e.g., gifted students in a traditional classroom, typical students in a traditional classroom).

It is also worth noting that the overall effects observed in this study are small, especially for the regressions predicting academic and social behaviors. One explanation is that the larger effect sizes observed for self-concepts are due to shared method variance, as goal orientations and self-concepts were both measured using self-report. Notably, however, the relatively small amount of variance explained across all outcomes does not imply its lack of importance, but suggests that variables other than goal orientations may also explain these behaviors. For instance, adding other motivational constructs, such as perceived competence, may be particularly useful (e.g., Patrick et al., 2007). In addition, other processes and mechanisms (e.g., self-regulation) are crucial in determining behaviors, cognitions, and emotions (e.g., Ben-Eliyahu, in press; Ben-Eliyahu & Linnenbrink-Garcia, 2013, 2015; Boekaerts, Pintrich, & Zeidner, 2000; Hoyle, 2010; Zimmerman, 2000) and their inclusion in future research may also be important. Finally, our models did not include prior measures of the dependent variables, and we would expect some stability in the measures over time, which could also account for the relative small amounts of variance explained. Future longitudinal research is needed to investigate and predict changes in academic and social outcomes and consider the possibility of reciprocal relations over time.

Conclusion

The present study extends previous research on achievement goal orientations by considering the interplay between social and academic domains. Generally, there were domain-specific effects: Social goal orientations were related to social outcomes and academic goal orientations were related to academic outcomes, although there were some exceptions that differed between boys and girls. However, we also found evidence for the pervasiveness of academic mastery goal orientations in predicting both academic and social outcomes, perhaps due to the saliency of academic mastery throughout the observed context. This suggests that the relations between academic and social pursuits are more complex and influenced by context. These findings have broader implications for the literature, beyond gifted students.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Notes

About the Authors

Adar Ben-Eliyahu is an assistant professor at the Faculty of Education at the University of Haifa. She is also Head of the Teaching Certificate in Psychology Program. She received her PhD in Developmental Psychology from Duke University. Dr. Ben-Eliyahu’s research focuses on motivation, self-regulated learning, and emotions in formal and informal learning contexts. Her recent work focuses on the interplay of social and academic aspects and how to support and facilitate learning by structuring learning contexts. Her work has been published in a number of journals including Motivation and Emotion, Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, Metacognition & Learning, and Applied Developmental Science. Dr. Ben-Eliyahu was the recipient of the American Psychology Association Division 15 Dissertation Research Award (2010).

Lisa Linnenbrink-Garcia is an associate professor of Educational Psychology in the Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education at Michigan State University. She received her PhD in Education and Psychology from the University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. Dr. Linnenbrink-Garcia’s research focuses on the development of achievement motivation in school settings and the interplay among motivation, emotions, and learning, especially in science and mathematics. Her recent work has sought to understand how motivation and emotions function in school settings, with a particular focus on implications for educational policy. Dr. Linnenbrink-Garcia’s research appears in top journals such as Journal of Educational Psychology, Educational Psychologist, Contemporary Educational Psychology, and Cognition & Instruction. She recently co-edited the International Handbook of Emotions in Education (2014) and is on the editorial boards for the Journal of Educational Psychology, Educational Psychologist, and Contemporary Educational Psychology. In recognition of her work, she was awarded both the Paul R. Pintrich Dissertation Award (2004) and the Richard E. Snow Award for Early Contributions in Educational Psychology (2010) from the American Psychological Association, Division 15.

Martha Putallaz is a professor of Psychology and Neuroscience at Duke University, and previously served as the executive director of the Duke University Talent Identification Program (Duke TIP). She received her doctoral degree in Clinical Psychology from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Dr. Putallaz is a researcher of long standing in the field of children’s social development and peer relationships, with her most recent work focusing on aggression, victimization, and social rejection among middle childhood girls. She was elected to Fellow Status in the American Psychological Association (Division 7) in 1999. Her role as the executive director of Duke TIP has led to an additional focus on the peer relations of academically talented students and long-term outcomes associated with high academic ability.

References

Alexander

J. M.

Schnick

A. K.

(2008). Motivation. In Plucker

J. A.

Callanan

(Eds.), Critical issues and practices in gifted education (pp. 383-407). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

Alkharusi

(2012). Categorical variables in regression analysis: A comparison of dummy and effect coding. International Journal of Education, 4, 202-210.

Ames

(1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261-271.

Awad

G. H.

(2007). The role of racial identity, academic self-concept, and self-esteem in the prediction of academic outcomes for African American students. Journal of Black Psychology, 33, 188-207.

Ben-Eliyahu

(in press). Individual differences and learning contexts: A self-regulated learning perspective. In Michalsky

Schechter

(Eds.), National Society for the Studies of Education Yearbook. Self-regulated learning: Conceptualization, contribution, and empirically based models for teaching and learning. New York, NY: Teachers College, Columbia University Press.

Ben-Eliyahu

Bernacki

M. L.

(2015). Addressing complexities in self-regulated learning: A focus on contextual factors, contingencies, and dynamic relations. Metacognition and Learning, 10, 1-13.

Ben-Eliyahu

Kaplan

(2015). Social and academic coping: Using growth curve modeling to examine third through sixth grade. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 41, 99-109.

Ben-Eliyahu

Linnenbrink-Garcia

(2013). Extending self-regulated learning to include self-regulated emotion strategies. Motivation and Emotion, 37, 558-573.

Ben-Eliyahu

Linnenbrink-Garcia

(2015). Integrating the regulation of affect, behavior, and cognition into self-regulated learning paradigms among secondary and post-secondary students. Metacognition and Learning, 10, 15-42.

10.

Bierman

K. L.

(2004). Peer rejection: Developmental processes and intervention strategies. New York, NY: Guilford Press.

11.

Boekaerts

Pintrich

P. R.

Zeidner

(2000). Handbook of self-regulation. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

12.

Bong

(2008). Effects of parent-child relationships and classroom goal structures on motivation, help-seeking avoidance, and cheating. The Journal of Experimental Education, 76, 191-217.

13.

Bouffard

Boisvert

Vezeau

Larouche

(1995). The impact of goal orientation on self-regulation and performance among college students. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 65, 317-329.

14.

Cohen

West

S. G.

Aiken

L. S.

(2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences (3rd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

15.

Cokley

(2000). An investigation of academic self-concept and its relationship to academic achievement in African American college students. Journal of Black Psychology, 26, 148-164.

16.

Dai

D. Y.

(2000). To be or not to be (challenged), that is the question: Task and ego orientations among high-ability, high-achieving adolescents. The Journal of Experimental Education, 68, 311-330.

17.

Dai

D. Y.

Moon

S. M.

Feldhusen

J. F.

(1998). Achievement motivation and gifted students: A social cognitive perspective. Educational Psychologist, 33, 45-63.

18.

Duda

J. L.

Nicholls

J. G.

(1992). Dimensions of achievement motivation in schoolwork and sport. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 290-299.

19.

Dweck

C. S.

Leggett

E. L.

(1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95, 256-273.

20.

Eccles

J. S.

Midgley

(1989). Stage/environment fit: Developmentally appropriate classrooms for early adolescents. In Ames

Ames

(Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 3, pp. 139-181). New York, NY: Academic Press.

21.

Elliot

A. J.

(1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34, 169-189.

22.

Elliot

A. J.

Church

(1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 218-232.

23.

Elliot

A. J.

Fryer

(2008). The goal construct in psychology. In Shah

Gardner

(Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 235-250). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

24.

Elliot

A. J.

Murayama

(2008). On the measurement of achievement goals: Critique, illustration, and application. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 613-628.

25.

Elliot

A. J.

Murayama

Pekrun

(2011). A 3 × 2 achievement goal model. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 632-648.

26.

Gross

M. U. M.

(2002). Social and emotional issues of exceptionally intellectually gifted students. In Neihart

Reis

S. M.

Robinson

N. M.

Moon

S. M.

(Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 19-29). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

27.

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.

28.

Harackiewicz

J. M.

Sansone

(1991). Goals and intrinsic motivation: You can get there from here. In Maehr

M. L.

Pintrich

P. R.

(Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 7, pp. 21-49). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

29.

Harter

(1988). The self-perception profile for adolescents. Unpublished manual, University of Denver, CO.

30.

Herrera

Grossman

J. B.

Kauh

T. J.

McMaken

(2011). Mentoring in schools: An impact study of big brothers big sisters school-based mentoring. Child Development, 82, 346-361.

31.

Hoyle

R. H.

(Ed.). (2010). Handbook of personality and self-regulation. Malden, MA: Blackwell.

32.

Huang

(2011). Achievement goals and achievement emotions: A meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review, 23, 359-388.

33.

Hulleman

C. S.

Schrager

S. M.

Bodmann

S. M.

Harackiewicz

J. M.

(2010). A meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels? Psychological Bulletin, 136, 422-449.

34.

Isiksal

(2010). A comparative study on undergraduate students’ academic motivation and academic self-concept. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 13, 572-585.

35.

Järvelä

Volet

Järvenoja

(2010). Research on motivation in collaborative learning: Moving beyond the cognitive-situative divide and combining individual and social processes. Educational Psychologist, 45, 15-27.

36.

Kaplan

Maehr

M. L.

(2007). The contributions and prospects of goal orientation theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19, 141-184.

37.

Kaplan

Middleton

M. J.

Urdan

Midgley

(2002). Achievement goals and goal structures. In Midgley

(Ed.), Goals, goal structures, and patterns of adaptive learning (pp. 21-55). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

38.

Leary

M. R.

(2004). The sociometer, self-esteem, and the regulation of interpersonal behavior. In Baumeister

R. F.

Vohs

K. D.

(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation: Research, theory, and applications (pp. 373-391). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

39.

Lent

R. W.

Brown

S. D.

Gore

P. A.

Jr. (1997). Discriminant and predictive validity of academic self-concept, academic self-efficacy, and mathematics-specific self-efficacy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 44, 307-315.

40.

Liem

G. A.

(2016). Academic and social achievement goals: Their additive, interactive, and specialized effects on school functioning. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 37-56.

41.

Linnenbrink-Garcia

Middleton

M. J.

Ciani

K. D.

Easter

M. A.

O’Keefe

P. A.

Zusho

(2012). The strength of the relation between performance-approach and performance-avoidance goal orientations: Theoretical, methodological, and instructional implications. Educational Psychologist, 47, 281-301.

42.

Linnenbrink-Garcia

Rogat

T. K.

Koskey

K. L. K.

(2011). Affect and engagement during small group instruction. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 36, 13-24.

43.

Linnenbrink-Garcia

Tyson

D. F.

Patall

E. A.

(2008). When are achievement goal orientations beneficial for academic achievement? A closer look at main effects and moderating factors. Revue Internationale de Psychologie Sociale, 21, 19-70.

44.

Lüftenegger

Kollmayer

Bergsmann

Jöstl

Spiel

Schobe

(2015). Mathematically gifted students and high achievement: The role of motivation and classroom structure. High Ability Studies, 26, 227-243. doi:10.1080/13598139.2015.1095075

45.

Luftig

R. L.

Nichols

M. L.

(1990). Assessing the social status of gifted students by their age peers. Gifted Child Quarterly, 34, 111-115.

46.

Maehr

M. L.

Zusho

(2009). Achievement goal theory: The past, present, and future. In Wentzel

K. R.

Wigfield

(Eds.), Handbook of motivation in school (pp. 77-104). New York, NY: Taylor & Francis.

47.

Makel

M. C.

Lee

S. Y.

Olszewski-Kublius

Putallaz

(2012). Changing the pond, not the fish: Following high ability students across different educational environments. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 778-792. doi:10.1037/a0027558

48.

Marsh

H. W.

Craven

R. G.

(2006). Reciprocal effects of self-concept and performance from a multidimensional perspective: Beyond seductive pleasure and unidimensional perspectives. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1, 133-163.

49.

Marsh

H. W.

Seaton

Trautwein

Lüdtke

Hau

O’Mara

Craven

(2008). The big-fish-little-pond-effect stands up to critical scrutiny: Implications for theory, methodology, and future research. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 319-350.

50.

McInerney

D. M.

Cheng

R. W.

Mo Ching Mok

Kwok Hap Lam

(2012). Academic self-concept and learning strategies: Direction of effect on student academic achievement. Journal of Advanced Academics, 23, 249-269.

51.

McNabb

(2003). Motivational issues: Potential to performance. In Colangelo

Davis

G. A.

(Eds.), Handbook of gifted education (3rd ed., pp. 417-423). Boston, MA: Merrill.

52.

Middleton

Midgley

(1997). Avoiding the demonstration of lack of ability: An underexplored aspect of goal theory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 710-718.

53.

Midgley

Kaplan

Middleton

(2001). Performance-approach goals: Good for what, for whom, under what circumstances, and at what cost? Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 77-86.

54.

Midgley

Maehr

M. L.

Hruda

L. Z.

Anderman

Freeman

K. E.

. . . Urdan

(2000). Manual for the Patterns of Adaptive Learning Scales (PALS). Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.

55.

Mundfrom

D. J.

Perrett

J. J.

Schaffer

Piccone

Roozeboom

(2006). Bonferroni adjustments in tests for regression coefficients. Multiple Linear Regression Viewpoints, 32, 1-6.

56.

Neihart

(1999). The impact of giftedness on psychological well-being: What does the empirical literature say? Roeper Review, 22, 10-17. doi:10.1080/02783199909553991

57.

O’Keefe

P. A.

Ben-Eliyahu

Linnenbrink-Garcia

(2013). Shaping Achievement Goal Orientations in a Mastery-Structured Environment and Concomitant Changes in Related Contingencies of Self-Worth. Motivation and Emotion, 37, 50-64.

58.

Olszewski

Kulieke

M. J.

Willis

G. B.

(1987). Changes in the self-perceptions of gifted students who participate in rigorous academic programs. Journal for the Education of the Gifted, 10, 287-303.

59.

Parker

J. G.

Asher

S. R.

(1987). Peer relations and later personal adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357-389.

60.

Parker

J. G.

Rubin

K. H.

Price

J. M.

DeRosier

M. E.

(1995). Peer relationships, child development, and adjustment: A developmental psychopathology perspective. In Cicchetti

Cohen

(Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Risk, disorder, and adoption (Vol. 2, pp. 96-161). New York, NY: John Wiley.

61.

Patrick

(1997). Social self-regulation: Exploring the relations between children’s social relationships, academic self-regulation, and school performance. Educational Psychologist, 32, 209-220.

62.

Patrick

Hicks

Ryan

A. M.

(1997). Relations of perceived social efficacy and social goal pursuit to self-efficacy for academic work. Journal of Early Adolescence, 17, 109-128.

63.

Patrick

Kaplan

Ryan

A. M.

(2011). Positive classroom motivational environments: Convergence between mastery goal structure and classroom social climate. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 367-382.

64.

Patrick

Ryan

A. M.

Kaplan

(2007). Early adolescents’ perceptions of the classroom social environment, motivational beliefs, and engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 83-98.

65.

Pekrun

Elliot

A. J.

Maier

M. A.

(2009). Achievement goals and achievement emotions: Testing of a model of their joint relations to academic performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 115-135.

66.

Pintrich

P. R.

(2000a). Multiple goals, multiple pathways: The role of goal orientation in learning and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 544-555.

67.

Pintrich

P. R.

(2000b). The role of goal orientation in self-regulated learning. In Boekaerts

Pintrich

P. R.

Zeidner

(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 451-502). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

68.

Putallaz

Baldwin

Selph

(2005). The Duke University talent identification program. High Ability Studies, 16, 41-54.

69.

Reis

S. M.

McCoach

D. B.

(2000). The underachievement of gifted students: What do we know and where do we go? Gifted Child Quarterly, 44, 152-169.

70.

Rhodes

J. E.

(2002). Stand by me: The risks and rewards of mentoring today’s youth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

71.

Rimm

(2002). Peer pressures and social acceptance of gifted students. In Neihart

Reis

S. M.

Robinson

N. M.

Moon

S. M.

(Eds.), The social and emotional development of gifted children: What do we know? (pp. 13-18). Waco, TX: Prufrock Press.

72.

Rodkin

P. C.

Ryan

A. M.

Jamison

Wilson

(2013). Social goals, social behavior, and social status in middle childhood. Developmental Psychology, 49, 1139-1150.

73.

Rudasill

Callahan

C. M.

(2008). Psychometric characteristics of the Harter Self-Perception Profiles for Adolescents and Children for use with gifted populations. Gifted Child Quarterly, 52, 70-86.

74.

Rudolph

K. D.

Abaied

J. L.

Flynn

Sugimura

Agoston

A. M.

(2011). Developing relationships, being cool, and not looking like a loser: Social goal orientation predicts children’s responses to peer aggression. Child Development, 82, 1518-1530.

75.

Ryan

A. M.

Shim

S. S.

(2006). Social achievement goals: The nature and consequences of different orientations toward social competence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1246-1263.

76.

Ryan

A. M.

Shim

S. S.

(2008). An exploration of young adolescents’ social achievement goals and social adjustment in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 672-687.

77.

Sebanc

A. M.

Guimond

A. B.

Lutgen

(2016). Transactional relationships between Latinos’ friendship quality and academic achievement during the transition to middle school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 36, 108-138.

78.

Senko

Hulleman

C. S.

Harackiewicz

J. M.

(2011). Achievement goal theory at the crossroads: Old controversies, current challenges, and new directions. Educational Psychologist, 46, 26-47.

79.

Shim

S. S.

Ryan

A. M.

Anderson

C. J.

(2008). Achievement goals and achievement during early adolescence: Examining time-varying predictor and outcome variables in growth-curve analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 655-671.

80.

Snyder

K. E.

Linnenbrink-Garcia

(2013). A developmental, person-centered approach to exploring multiple motivational pathways in gifted underachievement. Educational Psychologist, 48, 209-228.

81.

Song

Bong

Lee

Kim

(2015). Longitudinal investigation into the role of perceived social support in adolescents’ academic motivation and achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 107, 821-841.

82.

Thomas

D. E.

Bierman

K. L.

Powers

C. J.

(2011). The influence of classroom aggression and classroom climate on aggressive–disruptive behavior. Child Development, 82, 751-757.

83.

Urdan

T. C.

(1997). Examining the Relations among Early Adolescent Students’ Goals and Friends’ Orientation toward Effort and Achievement in School. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 22, 165-191.

84.

Urdan

T. C.

Maehr

(1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and achievement: A case for social goals. Review of Educational Research, 65, 213-243.

85.

Valentine

J. C.

DuBois

D. L.

Cooper

(2004). The relation between self-beliefs and academic achievement: A systematic review. Educational Psychologist, 39, 111-133.

86.

Wai

Cacchio

Putallaz

Makel

(2010). Sex differences in the right tail of cognitive abilities: A 30-year examination. Intelligence, 38, 412-423.

87.

Wentzel

K. R.

(1989). Adolescent classroom goals, standards for performance, and academic achievement: An interactionist perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 131-142.

88.

Wentzel

K. R.

(1991). Relations between social competence and academic achievement in early adolescence. Child Development, 62, 1066-1078.

89.

Wentzel

K. R.

(1993a). Does being good make the grade? Social behavior and academic competence in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85, 357-364.

90.

Wentzel

K. R.

(1993b). Motivation and achievement in early adolescence: The role of multiple classroom goals. Journal of Early Adolescence, 13, 4-20.

91.

Wentzel

K. R.

(1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relationships: Implications for understanding motivation at school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91, 76-97.

92.

Wentzel

K. R.

Asher

S. R.

(1995). The academic lives of neglected, rejected, popular, and controversial children. Child Development, 66, 754-763.

93.

Wentzel

K. R.

Wigfield

(1998). Academic and social motivational influences on students’ academic performance. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 155-175.

94.

Zimmerman

B. J.

(2000). Attaining self-regulation: A social cognitive perspective. In Boekaerts

Pintrich

P. R.

Zeidner

(Eds.), Handbook of self-regulation (pp. 13-39). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.