What Are the Social Values of College Students?: A Social Goals Approach

Journal of College and Character ISSN: 2194-587X (Print) 1940-1639 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ujcc20 What Are the Social Values of College Students?: A Social Goals Approach Daniel L McCollum To cite this article: Daniel L McCollum (2005) What Are the Social Values of College Students?: A Social Goals Approach, Journal of College and Character, 6:6, To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.2202/1940-1639.1469 2006 The Authors Published online: 01 Sep 2005. Submit your article to this journal Article views: 611 View related articles Citing articles: 1 View citing articles Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalinformation?journalcode=ujcc20 Download by: [46.3.192.252] Date: 26 December 2017, At: 14:32

Journal of College and Character Volume 6, Issue 6 2009 Article 2 What Are the Social Values of College Students?: A Social Goals Approach Daniel L. McCollum University of Houston, Clear Lake Copyright c 2009 by the authors. All rights reserved. http://journals.naspa.org/jcc

What Are the Social Values of College Students?: A Social Goals Approach Daniel L. McCollum Abstract The present article investigates conceptualizations of social motivations and social goals. These conceptualizations are brought together toward an integrated taxonomy of social goals, and concurrently an integrated measurement instrument. Goal statements were administered to 571 college students, and dimensionality was assessed using factor analysis of the responses. Seven internally consistent dimensions were identified, interpreted, and labeled. The goal categories are social responsibility and concern, social attractiveness, power, intimacy and interpersonal play, belongingness, receiving assistance, and giving advice. KEYWORDS: Motivation, Social, Values

Social Goals 1 What Are the Social Values of College Students?: A Social Goals Approach Daniel L. McCollum University of Houston Clear Lake

Social Goals 2 Abstract The present article investigates conceptualizations of social motivations and social goals. These conceptualizations are brought together toward an integrated taxonomy of social goals, and concurrently an integrated measurement instrument. Goal statements were administered to 571 college students, and dimensionality was assessed using factor analysis of the responses. Seven internally consistent dimensions were identified, interpreted, and labeled. The goal categories are social responsibility and concern, social attractiveness, power, intimacy and interpersonal play, belongingness, receiving assistance, and giving advice.

Social Goals 3 What are the Social Values of College Students?: A Social Goals Approach Social goals are cognitive representations of desired social outcomes. As described below, the concern in the present research is to establish an integrated taxonomy and measure of social goals by identifying and defining the characteristics of social goals, then identifying the value placed on these goals. There are research needs to expand the social goals measured by researchers (Urdan & Maehr, 1995) as well as to integrate the conceptualizations of social goals into a single measure. Wentzel and Wigfield (1998) suggest identifying, defining, and researching additional social goal constructs. Additional concerns that need to be addressed in the development of an integrated measure of social goals are the limited populations in which social goals have been addressed (Urdan & Maehr, 1995). Generally, elementary and middle school populations have been addressed in social goal research. Older populations (e.g., college students) should be studied. Overall, there is a need to expand the goals studied, integrate past concepts, and identify social goal pursuit in college students. To expand the dimensions of social goals, a larger sample of social goals needs to be included. By bringing together the conceptions of multiple social goals researchers, a more comprehensive taxonomy of goals can be developed. In addition, new possibilities for social goals may be found in older social motivation literature, which is not goal oriented (e.g., constructs from Murray, 1938). The work from multiple past researchers in social goals and social motivations can lead to the development of an expanded view of social goals and an integrated taxonomy. Having an integrated conceptualization has multiple benefits for the development of theory and practice related to social goals. An integrated measure provides a unified framework

Social Goals 4 for assessing social goals. It also gives researchers a shared language for better communication. With a new measure, a shared structure of social goals that illustrates the dimensions and interrelationships of these goals would be possible. Further explaining the structure of the instrument will provide advances in theory. To begin the integration of past concepts, the literature review begins with early research on social motivation. Social Motivations Early Theories Early work in social motivation was reviewed in order to find ways to expand upon social goals research. This work reflected concepts that refer to human needs. Murray (1938) suggested that people have needs for such things as achievement, aggression, sex, nurturance, play, and superiority. More specifically, he addressed a need for dominance that entailed persuading others, being a leader, setting examples, and controlling others. Furthermore, there was a need for achievement in the domain of erotic ability. This reflected an ability to be sexually attractive and pleasing to the opposite sex, as well as to be loved and to love. Murray (1938) also presented a need for achievement in the domain of social ability, which entailed needing to be liked, trusted, popular, amusing, entertaining, and able to make friends. Later researchers maintained theories that included a need for affiliation as described by Murray (1938). In addition, strong affiliation motives were shown to result in assertive presentations of one s self as friendly and likeable (McGhee & Teevan, 1967). That finding seemed to blur the need for affiliation with a need for approval. Crowne and Marlowe (1964) added the need for approval construct, which stemmed from their development of a social desirability measure. Socially desirable responding (behaving in a socially expected manner, in

Social Goals 5 such a way as to be liked or approved of) was considered a demonstration of one s need for approval. Additional researchers developed concepts similar to a need for approval. For example, Jones (1964) presented the ingratiation motive, which was a motive to be liked by others and to gain approval. Gaining approval was an assertive tactic used to satisfy desires for resources from someone else, for self-regard, and for protection from harm (Jones, 1964). Overall, it appeared that approval seeking was a motivation. Thus, in addition to the need for affiliation, motives to gain social approval became important ideas in social motivation research. The needs for affiliation and approval became the general model of social motivations. Those needs had achievement implications. Researchers presented evidence that one s need for affiliation conflicted with one s need for achievement, and this conflict resulted in diminished performance (Atkinson & O Connor, 1966). More specifically, if one was to succeed, one s need for achievement must be high and outweigh one s need for affiliation. Similarly, in relation to the need for approval, Harter (1975) found that high needs for approval were negatively related to mastery motivations, which are indicative of high achievement. In sum, social motivational research began with broad taxonomies of social motivations (e.g., Murray, 1938). Then, social motivations were narrowed to two general needs, approval and affiliation, and investigated empirically (e.g., Atkinson & O Connor, 1966; Crowne & Marlowe, 1964). These needs were linked to some achievement outcomes (e.g., Harter, 1975). The current climate of social motivational research as pertinent to education is again one of broadening the dimensions of social motivations and relating these motivations to achievement. This recent climate is evidenced by much recent research in the areas of social and social-academic goals.

Social Goals Social Goals 6 Through much of the 1990 s and into the present, theorists and researchers revived social motivation research in such a way that past ideas were recaptured, developed, and expanded in terms of social goals. The work of authors such as Chulef, Read and Walsh (2001) and Ford and Nichols (1991) broadly identified possible social goals. Those researchers presented taxonomies of social motivations in terms of goals, based on theory and empirical inquiry. For the purposes of the present article, these taxonomies helped identify possible social goals for a new, more comprehensive measure. Ford and Nichols (1991) offered a hierarchical taxonomy of human goals. These researchers presented self-assertive social relationship goals and the integrative social relationship goals. The subcategories included goals for individuality, self-determination, superiority, resource acquisition, belongingness, social responsibility, equity, and resource provision. Ford and Nichols (1991) suggested that these goals were mental representations of a desired end for the person, and the goals directed other characteristics of the individual (e.g., affect and behavior) to that desired end. That is, for a given behavioral episode multiple goals were at work mentally representing an outcome (e.g., receiving praise from a teacher) and directing affect and behavior toward the outcome (e.g., listening to the teacher s instructions). In addition to explaining behaviors in particular episodes, Ford and Nichols (1991) suggested that the goals held by a person in and across situations were indicators of their behaviors. Chulef and colleagues (2001) also offered a taxonomy of human goals, which they suggested has relevance in explaining behavior across situations. The categories of social goals from these researchers included sex and romance, marriage and immediate family, belonging,

Social Goals 7 social recognition and approval, being appreciated, giving to others, receiving from others, friendship, leadership, social awareness, and ethics and morality. Wentzel (1994) measured two dimensions of social goals: prosocial and social responsibility. Each of the dimensions was measured in two subparts: academic and peer. Academic prosocial goals involved sharing and helping peers with academic problems, whereas personal prosocial goals entailed sharing and helping peers with social problems. The academic side of the social responsibility dimension reflected following classroom rules, whereas the peer side meant keeping promises and commitments to peers. These dimensions of social goals reflected most of Wentzel s work on the construct (i.e., Wentzel, 1994, 1996, 1997, 1998, 2003). Miller et al. (1996) approached social goals differently than Wentzel and measured new social goals constructs. Their research with high school students included two social goals: trying to please others and trying to be socially responsible. After interpreting exploratory factor analytic findings, the researchers argued for and labeled two variables: pleasing the teacher and pleasing the family. Anderman and Anderman (1999) somewhat expanded the dimensions of social goals measured by assessing social responsibility, relationship, belongingness, and status goals. Though Anderman and Anderman (1999) do address more dimensions of social goals than other researchers do, they again address middle schoolers, and older populations should be addressed (i.e., Urdan & Maehr, 1995) in a more comprehensive measure. In additional work, further dimensions of social goals were identified. Specifically, Dowson and McInerney (2003) presented additional social-academic goals. These authors used interviews and observations to identify five dimensions of social goals. The goals were: social affiliation goals, social approval goals, social responsibility goals, social status goals, and social

Social Goals 8 concern goals (Dowson & McInerney, 2003). Each of these goals was found to have cognitive, affective, and behavioral components, believed to interact in motivational processes. Similar to Ford and Nichols (1991), the multiple goals found by Dowson & McInerney (2003) were believed to have interactive relationships. That is, people s actions were believed to be motivated by the combinations of goals being sought. Characteristic of much of this body of research, the researchers found that multiple goals (social and achievement goals) were simultaneously at work in motivating academic pursuits. When viewed together, it seems that social goal researchers do not always agree about what constitutes a social goal. No two researchers (or teams of researchers) presented the same dimensions of social goals in their work. Yet, there was some overlap among some of the dimensions studied by the researchers reviewed here. In some cases, the same types of goals were being studied, but were given different names. There exists a need to combine the current ideas of social goals into a set of empirically supported dimensions in a new measure. The new measure will provide a unified basis from which to assess social goals, further develop social goals instrumentation, and fully develop a social goals theory. Purpose of Present Research The present article integrates social goal constructs into a single measurement instrument that addresses the constructs from past research. In addition, college students were studied. The following research questions were to be answered. What are the social goals of college students? What dimensions can the goals be categorized into? What are the relationships amongst the dimensions? What is the internal consistency of the dimensions? What is the value placed on each type of social goal?

Method Social Goals 9 Participants The participants in this study consisted of undergraduate volunteers from a large U. S. university (N = 571). Participants received a small amount of extra class credit for their participation. The sample was 78.6% female (n = 449) and 21.4% male (n = 122). There sample was 91.9% Caucasian (n = 525), 2.5% African-American (n = 14), 3.7% Asian (n = 21), and 1.6% Hispanic (n = 9). The sample consisted of 564 single people (98.8%), 4 married people (.7%), and 3 divorced people (.5%). One hundred fifty participants (26.3%) were first year students, 291 (51%) were sophomores, 78 (13.7%) were juniors, and 52 (9.1%) were seniors. The mean age of the participants was 19.75 (SD = 2.53). Apparatus Materials used in this study included an informed consent form, a set of instructions, the Social Goals Questionnaire (SGQ), and a demographic questionnaire. The SGQ included 76 items scored on a 7 point Likert scale with the anchors 1 = not at all true of me, and 7 = very true of me. Items with negative wording were capitalized (e.g., NOT. The items were written by the author of this article and were based on social goals identified in past literature. Procedure Participants received a packet of materials that included two copies of an informed consent form one for the participant and one for the researcher. A set of instructions for completing the questionnaires was also included. For descriptive purposes, a demographics questionnaire asking about gender, age, ethnicity, and year in school was included. At the start of each session, participants completed an informed consent form. After that, participants

Social Goals 10 completed the questionnaires in the packets and returned them to the researcher. Each session lasted about 30 minutes. Results and Discussion In this study, analyses were conducted using SPSS version 10.0. Exploratory Factor Analysis An exploratory factor analysis (EFA) of the 76 items was conducted, using parallel analysis (see Thompson & Daniel, 1996) to determine the number of items to extract. Seven factors were extracted. The factor extraction procedure was principal axis factoring. Principal axis factoring is robust to violations of normality. Factors were rotated using promax rotation, which provides the simplest solution for correlated factors (Gorsuch, 1983). Items with loadings less than.3 were suppressed. Hair, Anderson, and Tatham (1987) explain that.3 is the minimal factor loading representing statistical significance. The seven factors accounted for 46.40% of the variance in the data. Factor 1 accounted for 21.22% of the variance. Factor 2 accounted for 8.06% of the variance. Factors 3 accounted for 5.12% of the variance. Factor 4 accounted for 3.71% of the variance. Factor 5 accounted for 3.04% of the variance. Factor 6 accounted for 2.76% of the variance. Factor 7 accounted for 2.50% of the variance. Table 3 shows the factor structure for the 76 SGQ items.

Table 3 Social Goals 11 Exploratory Factor Analysis 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Social Responsibility and Concern 2. I consider it important to be ethical. 0.75 11. I want to promote justice. 0.71 10. I would like to promote equality. 0.71 9. Maintaining firm values is important to me. 0.62 21. I consider it important to be fair. 0.57 52. I consider it important to be considerate of others. 0.50 41. I want to pay attention to others. 0.47 42. I want to promote stability in the groups to which I belong. 0.46 43. Setting examples for others is valuable to me. 0.45 23. I like to keep promises I make to other people. 0.43 39. I have a goal to be a productive member of society. 0.37 34. I value guidance from those who are more knowledgeable than me. 0.32 57. Gaining the trust of others is important to me. 0.32 Social Attractiveness 61. I want others to think I am attractive. 0.82 67. It is important to me to look good. 0.77 18. I hope to be popular. 0.76 1. I want to be a socially attractive person. 0.74 65. I hope to be accepted by others. 0.64 7. I desire to be liked by others. 0.62 49. I hope to attain or maintain a high social position. 0.57

54. I think about being sexually attractive. 0.53 Social Goals 12 75. I hope to be with someone who looks good. 0.37 27. Achieving recognition is something I value. 0.34 Power 28. I would like to control others. 0.71 17. I want to decide for others. 0.65 16. I like to push people into things. 0.65 12. I consider it important to persuade others. 0.59 30. I want to control the environment. 0.54 4. Gaining influence over others is important to me. 0.44 35. I hope to show my authority. 0.39 31. I consider it important to receive acclaim. 0.38 Intimacy & Interpersonal Play 64. I want to be playful. 0.69 20. I consider it very important to be playful. 0.69 46. I want to have erotic relationships. 0.67 50. I want to have sexual experiences. 0.66 70. It is important to feel physical closeness. 0.52 37. Having fun is especially valuable to me. 0.52 32. I think it is important to have adventures with others. 0.46 25. I hope to establish intimacy in my relationships. 0.44 76. I like to have warm feelings for others. 0.38 60. I like to be the life of the party. 0.37 19. I would like to be an affectionate person. 0.34 Receiving Assistance 72. When I have a difficulty, I want someone to help me through it. 0.61

Social Goals 13 69. I want encouragement from others. 0.58 5. I would like others to take care of me. 0.56 48. It is important for me to get advice from others. 0.52 22. I want to gain help from others. 0.49 6. I want to be mentored. 0.45 44. I want to get encouragement from others. 0.45 29. I consider it important to gain validation from others. 0.43 45. Validating others feelings and thoughts is valuable to me. 0.36 73. It is important to gain the perspectives of others. 0.35 47. I hope to gain my self-esteem from others. 0.34 Belongingness 33. I want to be a member of a club. 0.61 15. I want to get involved with others. 0.54 26. I would like to enjoy collaborative activities. 0.50 55. I want to be a part of a community. 0.49 38. I hope to be a good group member. 0.48 8. I hope to establish a sense of community with others. 0.48 3. I think it is important to be connected with a group. 0.46 36. I want to get others involved. 0.46 51. I want to participate in activities with others. 0.43 59. I d like to be a part of something bigger than me. 0.37 Giving 68. I feel it is important to give advice. 0.71 53. It is important to me to give advice to others. 0.63 63. Providing discipline for others is important to me. 0.56 Labeling of Factors

Social Goals 14 The process of interpreting and labeling the factors was completed. The items from each factor were aligned together and the content of the items was reviewed for patterns. Factor 1 Factor 1 consisted of items that reflected social responsibility and concern. The social responsibility goals seemed to conceptually gel with concern goals, as each included demonstrating responsibility toward others, concern for others, and concern for community values. However, items 14, 40, 58, 62, and 74 were inconsistent with the majority of other items. These items will be dropped, and revisited in later research. Taken together, a good interpretation of Factor 1 was social responsibility and concern. Factor 1 is the Social Responsibility and Concern (SRC) dimension. In past research, social responsibility goals (e.g., Anderman & Anderman, 1999; Dowson & McInerney, 2003; Ford & Nichols, 1991; Jacobson & Ford, 1966; Wentzel, 1989, 1992, 1997, 1998, 2000, 2002, 2003) and ethics and morality goals (Chulef et al., 2001) have been conceptualized and in some cases empirically supported, however, a hybrid of these types of goals had not previously been found. Factor 2 Factor 2 consisted of goal statements aimed at social, sexual, and physical attractiveness. In other words, the goals on Factor 2 were desires to be socially attractive. Factor 2 was dubbed the Social Attractiveness (SA) dimension. Items 13 and 66 did not fit with that description; therefore, they were dropped. Similar goal dimensions in past research include need for erotic ability (Murray, 1938), sex and romance, and belonging, social recognition, and approval (Chulef et al., 2001). Factor 3

Social Goals 15 The items on Factor 3 reflected items from the category termed power. These goals reflected the desire for a higher position over others, in which influence and control are had. Factor 3 was labeled the Power (Power) dimension. Murray (1938) hypothesized a need for dominance, which reflects elements of power. In addition, Jones (1964) conceived of social power, social influence, ingratiation, and self-presentation, each of which reflects some of the aspects of Power. Moreover, Anderman and Anderman (1999) and Dowson and McInerney (2003) discuss status goals, which are similar to Power. Lastly, leadership goals presented by Chulef et al. (2001) also has similarities with Power. As with the previous constructs, power reflects something new that brings together goals hypothesized in the past. Factor 4 Factor 4 contained goal statements that included sexual intimacy, fun, and play. Factor 4 was termed the Intimacy and Interpersonal Play (IIP) dimension. IIP goals reflect elements of need for erotic ability (Murray, 1938), sex and romance, as well as friendship goals, and belonging, social recognition, and approval (Chulef et al., 2001). In addition, Murray s (1938) need for social ability is reflected is this new construct. Factor 5 The items loading on Factor 5 consisted of concepts regarding receiving from others, such as receiving help, advice, and self-esteem. It was believed that a good interpretation of Factor 4 was goals for Receiving Assistance (RA). The type of assistance reflected in the Factor 4 construct has similarities with resource acquisition (Ford & Nichols, 1991) and receiving from others (Chulef et al., 2001). Factor 6

Social Goals 16 Factor 6 items reflected being a part of a community or group and generally being involved with others. Factor 6 was labeled the goals for Belongingness (Belong) dimension. Belongingness reflects elements of social affiliation (Dowson & McInerney, 2003), belongingness (Ford & Nichols, 1991), social relationship (Anderman & Anderman, 1999); social responsibility (Anderman & Anderman, 1999), and prosocial-academic and social responsibility-academic goals (e.g., Wentzel, 1997). Factor 7 Factor 7 reflects giving things such as advice and discipline to others. Therefore, this dimension is labeled Giving. Though seemingly incomplete based on the item content, the dimension clearly reflects giving. This category of social goals is reflected in the literature by Ford and Nichols (1991). Internal Consistency Analysis Following the identification of the goal structure, the internal consistency of the dimensions was examined using Cronbach s Alpha. The initial Coefficient Alpha (CA) of factor 1 was.86, but items 64 and 40 were lowering reliability. The removal of those items led to an alpha of.88. The factor 2 reliability was.87. The reliability of factor 3 was.82. The factor 4 reliability was.84. The reliability calculation for factor 5 was.82. The internal consistency of factor 6 was.85. Last, the reliability of factor 7 was.76. These coefficients are good to very good given the type of construct being assessed. Subscale Correlations and Descriptive Statistics After interpreting and labeling the factors, the correlations between the seven dimensions were calculated. It was expected that the dimensions would be correlated. The dimension means, standard deviations, intercorrelations (and reliabilities) are presented in Table 2. The SRC

Social Goals 17 dimension has the highest mean (M = 6.06, SD =.55); therefore, it is the most valued dimension, while Power has the lowest mean (M = 3.32, SD =.88). Table 2 Descriptive Statistics, Correlations, and (Internal Consistency) M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 1. SRC 6.06.55 (.88).34** -.19**.39**.47**.64**.62** 2. Attract 5.40.86 (.87).22**.58**.49**.40**.48** 3. Power 3.32.88 (.82).08*.06 -.07.02 4. IIP 5.68.76 (.84).32**.35**.39** 5. Receive 4.77.79 (.82).56**.52** 6. Belong 5.58.73 (.85).55** 7. Giving 4.73 1.07 (.76) Note. * = significant at the.05 level; ** = significant at the.01 level All of the dimensions were expected to be correlated. There were significant correlations amongst the dimensions except for Power not being correlated with Receiving, Belongingness, and Giving. Conclusions The integration of social goals gives researchers a common structure from which to draw social goals. The new measure of social goals can be the base construct theory for the further development of social goal instrumentation. Having this structure helps to standardize a growing body of research and further explaining this structure will help advance theory. Elaborating upon the rationale for the relationships in the instrument s dimensions will help to develop further an understanding of the meaning and usefulness of social goals in college students.

Social Goals 18 References Anderman, L. H., & Anderman, E. M. (1999). Social predictors of changes in students achievement goal orientations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 21-37. Atkinson, J.W., & O Connor, P. (1966). Neglected factors in studies of achievement-oriented performance: Social approval as incentive and performance decrement. In J.W. Atkinson, & N.T. Feather (Eds.), A theory of achievement motivation (pp. 299 325). New York: Wiley. Chulef, A. S., Read, S. J., & Walsh, D. A. (2001). A hierarchical taxonomy of human goals. Motivation and Emotion, 25(3), 191-232. Barker, K. L., Dowson, M., & McInerney, D. M. (2004). Advances in the conceptual understanding of students goals and academic self-concept: A multidimensional and hierarchical approach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, April, 2004 Dowson, M., & McInerney, D. M. (2003). What do students say about their motivational goals?: Towards a more complex and dynamic perspective on student motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 91-113. Ford, M. E., & Nichols, C. W. (1991). A taxonomy of human goals and some possible applications. In M. E. Ford, & D. H. Ford (Eds.), Humans as selfconstructing living systems: Putting the framework to work (pp. 289-311). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence-Erlbaum.

Social Goals 19 Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Hair, J.F, Jr., Anderson, R. E, & Tatham, R. L. (1987). Multivariate data analysis with readings (2 nd ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Company. Jacobson, L., & Ford, L. (1966). Need for approval, defensive denial, and sensitivity to cultural stereotypes. Journal of Personality, 34(4), 596-609 McClelland, D. C. (1951). Measuring motivation in fantasy: The achievement motive. In H. Guetzkow (Ed.), Studies in cross-cultural psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 221-267). New York: Academic Press. McGhee, P., & Teevan, R. (1967). Conformity behavior and need for affiliation. Journal of Social Psychology, 72, 117-121. Miller, R. B., Greene, B. A., Montalvo, G. P., Ravindran, B., & Nichols, J. D. (1996). Engagement in academic work: The role of learning goals, future consequences, pleasing others, and perceived ability. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21, 388-422. Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press. Thompson, B., & Daniel, L. G. (1996). Factor analytic evidence for the construct validity of scores: A historical overview and some guidelines. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 56, 197-208.

Social Goals 20 Urdan, T. C., & Maehr, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and achievement: A case for social goals. Review of Educational Research, 65(3), 213-243. Wentzel, K. R. (1989). Adolescent classroom goals, standards for performance, and academic achievement: an interactionist perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 131-142. Wentzel, K. R. (1992). Motivation and achievement in adolescence: A multiple goals perspective. In D. H. Schunk & J. L. Meece (Eds.), Student perceptions in the classroom (pp. 287-306). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Wentzel, K. R. (1993). Does being good make the grade? Social behavior and academic competence in middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(2), 357-364. Wentzel, K. R. (1994). Relations of social goal pursuit to social acceptance, classroom behavior, and perceived social support. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86(2), 173-182. Wentzel, K. R. (1996). Social and academic motivation in middle school: Concurrent and long-term relations to academic effort. Journal of Early Adolescence, 16(4), 390-406. Wentzel, K. R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role of perceived pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 411-419.

Social Goals 21 Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle school: The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90(2), 202-209. Wentzel, K. R. (1999). Social-motivational processes and interpersonal relationships: Implications for understanding motivation at school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 76-97. Wentzel, K. R. (2000). What is it I'm trying to achieve? Classroom goals from a content perspective. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25, 105-115. Wentzel, K. R. (2002). The contribution of social goal setting to children s school adjustment. In A. Wigfield, & J. S. Eccles (Eds.), Development of Achievement Motivation (pp. 221-246). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Wentzel, K. R. (2003). Sociometric status and adjustment in middle school: A longitudinal study. Journal of Early Adolescence, 23(1), 5-28. Wentzel, K. R., & Wigfield, A. (1998). Academic and social motivational influences on students' academic performance. Educational Psychology Review, 10(2), 155-174.