REVIEW ARTICLE

Examining Individuals’ Strivings for Value, Control,and Truth Effectiveness: Implications for EducationalPsychology Research

Flaviu A. Hodis1

Published online: 5 May 2018# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract This paper is grounded on a recent conceptualization of human motivation thatencompasses strivings for value, control, and truth effectiveness. The article elucidates the keyaspects that form the basis for a multidimensional self-system perspective comprising moti-vational orientations mapping these three types of effectiveness strivings. In addition, the paperhighlights the importance of examining these strivings in motivation research. Moreover, thearticle delineates how employing this systemic approach to study motivation in conjunctionwith expectancy-value theory and self-determination theory leads to new insights, providesenhanced explanatory power, and delineates important directions for productive futureresearch.

Keywords Motivation . Strivings for value, control, and truth effectiveness . Regulatory focusandmode . Expectancy value . Self-determination theory .Motivation profiles . Self-regulatedlearning .Motivation regulation

Human motivation is a multifaceted determinant of individuals’ cognitions (e.g., goal selec-tion), behaviors (e.g., persistence at a given task), and emotions (e.g., affective reactions tosuccess and failure) (Higgins 2012b; Higgins and Scholer 2015). This article proposes thatusing a motivational system perspective centered on individuals’ strivings for value, control,and truth effectiveness (Higgins 2012b) helps shed fresh light on mechanisms and processesthat influence individual differences in key motivation constructs and outcomes.

The outline of the paper is as follows. First, we overview the main tenets of Higgins’(2012b) theory of motivation. Second, we discuss the motivational system encompassing

Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9439-5

Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-018-9439-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

* Flaviu A. Hodisflaviu.hodis@vuw.ac.nz

1 Faculty of Education, Victoria University of Wellington, 15 Waiteata Road, Building C, Room 324,Kelburn, Wellington 6140, New Zealand

strivings for value, control, and truth effectiveness. Third, we articulate that the role andsignificance of this motivational system can be studied by means of analyzing the interrelationsamong four motivational orientations: promotion, prevention (both concerning value effec-tiveness), locomotion (pertaining to control effectiveness), and assessment (reflecting trutheffectiveness. Following, we discuss salient characteristics of these four motivational orienta-tions and highlight their interrelationships with other key motivation factors and outcomes.Fourth, we delineate how using this systemic conceptualization of motivation along withexpectancy-value and self-determination theories leads to new insights, brings about enhancedexplanatory power, and maps productive directions for future research in education andeducational psychology. Finally, we offer a conclusion.

Conceptualizing Motivation at the Intersection of Conjoint Strivingsfor Value, Control, and Truth Effectiveness

A pivotal aspect of human motivation is that Bpeople need to feel able to operate effectivelywithin their important life contexts^ (Ryan and Deci 2017, p. 11). Similarly, Higgins (2012b)argued that individuals are not motivated solely by wanting to achieve valued goals, that is, bystriving to attain value effectiveness. In fact, they are also motivated to have control effec-tiveness, that is, to be Bsuccessful in managing what happens^ (p. 53; emphasis in original)during goal pursuits and, more generally, in their lives. As a result, people have preferencesregarding the strategies they employ to attain valued outcomes (e.g., preference for eager vs.vigilant strategies; Molden 2012; for details, see the BRegulatory Focus, Promotion, andPrevention: General Considerations^ section). These preferences, which illustrate individuals’strivings to be effective in exerting control over their goal pursuits, have important motivationconsequences; for instance, they influence judgment processes (e.g., knowledge activation andrecall, differential weighting of speed vs. accuracy in information processing) and interact withoutcome preferences (Molden 2012).

Besides being motivated to attain value and control effectiveness, Bhumans possess aninherent desire, independent of consequentialist considerations, to resolve uncertainty^(Hsee and Ruan 2016, p. 659), reduce ambiguity, and understand their circumstances(i.e., to find the truth about themselves and their experiences; Higgins 2012b). This iswhy, having truth effectiveness—that is, Bbeing successful in establishing what’s real^(Higgins 2012b, p. 51)—is a pivotal motive and its absence leads to confusion andbewilderment (Higgins 2013; Higgins and Scholer 2015). Moreover, regardless of thenature of the goal an individual pursues, there are Bmotivational questions regarding howreal or imaginary that goal is^ (Eitam and Higgins 2014, p. 142). For example, having highexpectations of success with regard to attaining a goal engenders the perception that thefuture states related to this present goal pursuit (e.g., consequences of goal attainment) arereal (Sehnert et al. 2014). In turn, perceiving future events as likely to eventuate helps theindividual allocate resources in the present to prepare for future realities (e.g., by strength-ening current engagement in goal-related activities) (Higgins et al. 2013; Sehnert et al.2014). Furthermore, strivings for truth effectiveness affect cognitive processes linked todrawing inferences about one’s own and others’ behaviors, cognitions, and affective states(e.g., self-evaluative processes; Higgins 2012b; Higgins et al. 2003; Higgins and Scholer2015). Hence, truth effectiveness is a key determinant of motivation (Higgins 2012b).Notably, Higgins’ (2012b) theorizing suggests that individuals’ perceptions of truth

1002 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030

(rather than the objective reality) play an important role in motivation. Specifically, Btryingto find the truth is not in itself beneficial^ (p. 165) in all situations: BWhat matters isfeeling that one has been successful at finding the truth (i.e., experiencing trutheffectiveness)^ (p. 165).

In sum, Higgins (2012b) proposed that being motivated entails wanting to be effective withregard to attaining desirable outcomes and avoiding undesirable ones (i.e., possessing valueeffectiveness), exerting control over one’s goal pursuits (i.e., having control effectiveness), anddistinguishing what is true from what is false (i.e., having truth effectiveness). Moreover,individuals’ behaviors, cognitions, and emotions are shaped by how strivings for value, truth,and control effectiveness interact in specific contexts (Higgins 2012b; see also Dweck et al.2003). Hence, analyzing the interrelationships among value, control, and truth effectivenessstrivings could help advance knowledge of the processes shaping motivation effects.

The Motivational System Encompassing Conjoint Strivings for Value,Control, and Truth Effectiveness

Cervone et al. (2011) defined personality architecture as including Bthe within-person designand operating characteristics of those psychological systems that underlie individual person-ality functioning and differences among individuals^ (p. 462). Similarly, we conceive moti-vational architecture as comprising the structure and organization of the motivational systemthat determines the motivational influences on an individual’s behavioral manifestations,cognitive processing, and affective reactions. Following, we highlight key aspects of theproposed motivational system.

Drawing from Dweck et al.’s (2003) discussions of self-systems and consistent withHiggins (2012b), we conceptualize the motivational system as consisting of the Bcoordinatedset^ (Dweck et al. 2003, p. 248) of motivational orientations that encompass an individual’sstrivings to be effective with regard to achieving valued end-states, having control over hergoal pursuits, and finding out the truth about herself and her experiences. Consequently, in thisframework, the structure of this individual’s motivational system is represented by the set ofmotivational orientations that map her strivings for value, control, and truth effectiveness (e.g.,by promotion, prevention, locomotion, and assessment; see the BThe Structure of the Motiva-tional System: Promotion, Prevention, Locomotion, and Assessment^ section). In line withextant research, we consider that motivational orientations represent Bcoordinated knowledgestructures in memory that can vary in their level of activation and serve as flexible sources ofgoal-directed behaviors^ (Lisjak et al. 2012, p. 889). In addition, consistent with Lisjak et al.(2012), we conceptualize chronically accessible motivational orientations (in short, chronicmotivational orientations) as being the subset of such orientations Bthat are frequently activatedand enacted^ (p. 891).

The organization of a person’s motivational system is given by the pattern of absolute andrelative strengths of the motivational orientations comprising the system. This pattern isillustrated by the individual’s motivation profile. In line with the principles of accessibilitytheory (Higgins 1996, 2012a), the stronger a motivational orientation is, the more often it isactivated and involved in mental processes. This is why, examining an individual’s motivationprofile offers information on how readily accessible motivational orientations comprising her/his motivational system are and how they interact with one another and with contextual/situational factors to shape motivation effects.

Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030 1003

Key Contributions of This Article

Using the proposed motivational system perspective in motivation research has a number ofpotentially significant benefits. Following, we highlight five areas in which the adoption of thisperspective could provide fresh information and/or advance current understandings. First,examinations of motivation profiles reflecting strivings for value, control, and truth effectiveness(i) facilitate access to key information regarding the cues that are likely to be perceived asmotivationally relevant by given individuals and (ii) shed light on the trade-offs amongmotivational orientations that shape motivation effects (e.g., compatibility and conflict amongtheir characteristic tendencies) (see the BInvestigating Motivation Profiles Associated WithConcomitant Strivings for Value, Control, and Truth Effectiveness^ section for details). Second,information provided by motivation profiles offers a new and potentially useful vantage point toidentify some of the mechanisms involved in the emergence of negative interaction effectsbetween expectancy and value beliefs (see the BAdvancing Understanding of the MechanismsInvolved in Negative Interaction Effects of Expectancy and Value^ section). Third, knowledgeof the motivational orientations that tap into strivings for value, control, and truth effectivenesscould help advance understanding of the factors that influence the internalization of extrinsicmotivation (see the BInterrelationships Among Regulatory Focus, Regulatory Mode, and PivotalSelf-Determination Theory Constructs: Implications for the Internalization of ExtrinsicMotivation^ section). Fourth, simultaneous consideration of these motivational orientations,basic needs satisfaction, and basic needs frustration could lead to more precise predictions ofindividual differences in self-perceptions of ability, value beliefs, and achievement (see theBConjoint Consideration of Regulatory Focus, Regulatory Mode, Basic Needs Satisfaction, andFrustration Contributes toMore Precise Predictions of Individual Differences in Self-Perceptionsof Ability, Value-Related Beliefs, and Achievement^ section). Finally, using the proposedmotivational system framework could have important implications for enhancing knowledgeof key educational phenomena (e.g., motivation regulation in learning settings and self-regulatedlearning) (see the BImplications of the Proposed Framework for Education and EducationalPhenomena: Self-Regulated Learning and Motivation Regulation^ section).

The Structure of the Motivational System: Promotion, Prevention,Locomotion, and Assessment

Information regarding the role and significance of the motivational system defined by strivingsfor value, control, and truth effectiveness can be amassed by analyzing the interrelationsamong four motivational orientations: promotion, prevention, locomotion, and assessment(Higgins 2012b; Higgins and Scholer 2015). BPromotion and prevention are distinct valueorientations. Locomotion is concerned with control, and assessment is concerned with truth^(Higgins 2012b, p. 324; emphasis in original). Notably, Higgins’ (2012b) theorizing employstwo motivational orientations (i.e., promotion and prevention) to map strivings for valueeffectiveness. This conceptualization ensures that the motivating roles of both positive andnegative outcomes are represented in the proposed motivational system. Figure 1 presents aconceptual representation of this motivational system and highlights the motivational orienta-tion(s) that measure(s) each type of effectiveness striving.

The four motivational orientations mentioned above are not the only constructs that couldtap into the three key ways of being effective (Higgins and Scholer 2015). For example,

1004 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030

agency and locus of control relate to control effectiveness; there could also be connectionsbetween making attributions for success/failure and striving for truth effectiveness (we thankan anonymous reviewer for suggesting these conceptual links). Nonetheless, it is productive tofocus on promotion, prevention, locomotion, and assessment because these orientations serveessential survival needs (Higgins 2012b), Bproduce universal motivational states^ (Higgins2008, p. 620), and are germane to self-regulation (Higgins 2008; Higgins et al. 2008). Inaddition, the research literature has documented that these motivational orientations influence abroad range of motivation effects (Higgins 2008, 2012b; details follow in the BRegulatoryFocus, Promotion, and Prevention: General Considerations^; BPromotion and Prevention:Interrelationships With Key Motivation Factors and Achievement^; BRegulatory Fit^;BRegulatory Mode, Locomotion, and Assessment: General Considerations^; and BLocomotionand Assessment: Interrelationships With Key Motivation Factors and Achievement^ sections).Moreover, recent research found that differences in motivation profiles—which were definedby distinct patterns of emphases on promotion, prevention, locomotion, and assessment—wereassociated with large differences in key motivation constructs (e.g., expectancy of success,sense of accomplishment; Hodis et al. 2017). In sum, it is important to examine the motiva-tional system defined by these four motivational orientations because emphasizing promotion,prevention, locomotion, and assessment to different degrees (e.g., having strong promotion,locomotion, and assessment and weak prevention vs. having low levels of all of theseorientations) leads to Bdifferent ways of dealing with and perceiving the world^ (Higgins2012b, p. 324).

To underscore further the importance of examining the motivational system anchoredby promotion, prevention, locomotion, and assessment, the following sections underlinethat differential emphases on these motivational orientations are associated with distinctpatterns of behavior, cognition, and affect (Higgins 2012b; Higgins et al. 2008). Eventhough our overview of promotion, prevention, locomotion, and assessment adopts achronic inter-individual difference perspective, it is important to note that each of theseorientations can also be situationally and temporarily induced (e.g., by priming) (Higgins1997, 2012b; Pierro et al. 2009). In turn, this feature makes it potentially

Truth

Effectiveness

AssessmentLocomotion

Promotion Prevention

Control

Effectiveness

Value

Effectiveness

Fig. 1 Conceptual representationof the interrelationships amongvalue, control, and trutheffectiveness and between eacheffectiveness striving and themotivational orientation(s) thatmeasure(s) it. Note: The lineshaving arrows at both ends denotethe fact that all effectivenessstrivings interact with one anotherto shape motivation and its effects;the lines having arrow at only oneend denote the fact that themotivational orientation at thearrow end of the line is an indicatorof the corresponding effectivenessstriving

Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030 1005

productive to use knowledge of these constructs when designing motivation interventionsthat aim to strengthen/engender adaptive motivations (Hodis 2018).

Regulatory Focus, Promotion, and Prevention: General Considerations

Regulatory focus theory (Higgins 1997, 2012b) proposed that promotion and preventionprovide important information on individuals’ strivings for value effectiveness (i.e., to attaindesirable outcomes and avoid undesirable ones). Both theory and substantive findings concurthat promotion and prevention are independent motivational orientations that can be empha-sized to different degrees by different individuals (Higgins 2012b; Hodis 2018; Hodis andHodis 2015, 2017). When a regulatory focus orientation (i.e., promotion, prevention) is strong,attendant (promotion vs. prevention) goals are chronically activated, readily accessible,intertwined, and Bassociated with intense emotional and motivational responses to success orfailure feedback^ (Vieth et al. 2003, p. 249).

A promotion focus orients people to be sensitive to the presence (vs. absence) ofpositive outcomes and motivates them to strive to advance their ideals and aspirations. Inaddition, a strong promotion orientation leads to preferences for using eager strategiesduring goal pursuits (Higgins 1997, 2012b); eager strategies are strategies that maximizechances for advancement and gains even at the cost of making errors and sustaininglosses (Molden 2012). Having a strong promotion orientation could be associated withboth adaptive and maladaptive tendencies (Scholer and Higgins 2012b). For example,individuals who have a strong promotion focus are motivated by the desire to advancetheir current circumstances (Higgins 1997, 2012b). Although this tendency could begenerally adaptive, it is not without potential costs. In particular, promotion-orientedindividuals’ constant desire for more gains/advancements may generate feelings of dissat-isfaction or make it difficult for them to sustain commitment to goals or interpersonalrelationships (Scholer and Higgins 2012b).

A strong promotion orientation is associated with paying close attention to, and beingmotivated by, rewards, positive feedback, and positive role models (Higgins 1997, 2012b;Lockwood et al. 2002, 2004). These tendencies are likely to be adaptive in circumstanceswhen the individual is doing reasonably well, and thus, eager strategies are likely to beeffective. Nevertheless, they also have some potential costs with regard to self-regulation.Specifically, sensitivity to positive signals and general preference for using eager strategiescould lead promotion-oriented individuals to ignore negative information or feedback (Scholerand Higgins 2012b). In turn, this drawback could be most problematic in situations/contextswhere a prevention focus would be effective.

Prevention focuses attention on the need to fulfill responsibilities, duties, and obligations(Higgins 1997, 2012b; Scholer and Higgins 2010). Hence, when prevention is emphasized,individuals are sensitive to the absence (vs. presence) of negative outcomes and prefer toemploy vigilant strategies (i.e., strategies that minimize the risks of making errors andsustaining losses even at the expense of forsaking opportunities for gains) (Higgins 1997;Molden 2012; Molden and Rosenzweig 2016). Consequently, individuals who have a strongprevention orientation are sensitive to negative feedback and negative role models (Lockwoodet al. 2002; Lockwood et al. 2004). In addition, prevention-oriented people are more motivatedto maintain a (perceived) satisfactory state than they are to improve it.

As it was the case for promotion, having a strong prevention focus could be associated withboth adaptive and maladaptive tendencies, depending on the context of goal pursuit and task

1006 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030

requirements. For example, using vigilant strategies (i.e., re-reading) helped prevention-oriented students clarify misunderstandings in their reading only when the information neededfor these clarifications was included in paragraphs they read previously (Miele et al. 2009). Incontrast, a strong prevention focus could be detrimental when individuals are content tomaintain a (barely) satisfactory state despite being capable of improving it (Scholer andHiggins 2012b). In this context, a promotion focus is likely to be more adaptive. Similarly,a focus on duties and responsibilities strengthens prevention-oriented individuals’ commitmentto important goals and relationships (Higgins 2012b; Scholer and Higgins 2012b). While thistendency is adaptive in many circumstances, it could backfire when original commitments aredetrimental to the person.

Promotion and Prevention: Interrelationships With Key Motivation Factorsand Achievement

Hodis and Hodis (2015) used regulatory focus (Higgins 1997, 2012b) and expectancy-valuetheories (Eccles and Wigfield 2002; Wigfield and Eccles 2000) to develop a structural equationmodel predicting expectancies of success in mathematics and utility value pertaining to thisschool domain (see BAppendix A^ for a short overview of the expectancy value theory). Totest this model, Hodis and Hodis (2015) used data collected from a sample of 463 secondaryschool students. Findings of this research showed that promotion, which was positivelycorrelated with expectancies of success (r = 0.44), had strong and positive direct and indirectrelationships with this criterion; the magnitude of the standardized direct path betweenpromotion and expectancies was equal to 0.29. In addition, promotion had a medium-strength positive association with utility value beliefs (r = 0.37). In contrast, the relationshipsbetween prevention and the two criteria were not statistically significant.

Hodis (2018) surveyed 5732 secondary-school students and used a different model topredict their expectancies of success in mathematics. Results revealed that promotion had amedium-strength positive correlation with expectancy (r = 0.38). The positive associationbetween promotion and expectancy remained robust even after controlling for preventionand a set of other motivation predictors (standardized coefficient = 0.31). In contrast, thecorrelation between prevention and expectancy was weak (r = 0.08 in the total sample).

A recent study revealed meaningful associations between regulatory focus and satisfactionof basic psychological needs, which are central components of self-determination theory (SDT;Deci and Ryan 2000; Ryan and Deci 2017); BAppendix B^ offers a brief overview of SDT andits key concepts. Specifically, Vaughn (2017) examined the interrelationships between promo-tion and prevention focus and subjective experiences of need support for autonomy, compe-tence, and relatedness. Results in three studies indicated that a reciprocal relationship existsbetween regulatory focus and the construal of basic needs satisfaction. In particular, whenparticipants recalled promotion-focused experiences (i.e., experiences centered on hopes oraspirations), they rated these events as being more supportive of autonomy, competence, andrelatedness than experiences focusing on prevention (i.e., experiences regarding fulfillment ofduties and obligations). In addition, events that were more (vs. less) supportive of participants’needs satisfaction were viewed as promotion-focused (vs. prevention-focused). In light ofthese findings, Vaughn (2017) concluded that (i) support for basic needs satisfaction caninfluence the experience of regulatory focus and (ii) Bpromotion focus can cause inflation ofsubjective need support, whereas prevention focus can cause deflation of subjective needsupport^ (p. 323).

Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030 1007

Rosenzweig and Miele (2016) explored the relationships between students’ regulatoryfocus and their academic test performance. In the first study, these authors found that, on themathematics test section, students in the prevention condition—which emphasized that goodtest performance could prevent a loss—Bearned higher raw scores, answered more questionscorrectly, and were more likely to revisit questions^ (p. 119) than students in the promotioncondition—which emphasized that good test performance may bring about a gain. Discussingthese findings, Rosenzweig and Miele (2016) noted that the lack of time pressure and theanalytic nature of the test made it likely that vigilant strategies—which are preferred byprevention-oriented individuals—were more conducive for performance than eager strategies,which are generally favored by promotion-oriented individuals. Results in the second studyshowed that, for the mathematics section of the test, students assigned to the preventioncondition made fewer errors and answered more questions correctly than students assignedto the promotion condition. Unlike in study 1, there were no significant differences betweenthe two conditions with regard to the frequency of revisiting questions. Study 3 investigatedthe relationships between regulatory focus and performance by means of different criteria (i.e.,mid-term and final exam scores) and chronic, rather than situationally induced, promotion andprevention orientations. Results from study 3 suggest that in authentic achievement situationswhere sufficient time to solve problems was available, prevention-oriented individualsoutperformed their promotion-oriented counterparts.

Regulatory Fit

Regulatory fit theory posits that people engage more strongly in an activity and value itsattendant outcome(s) more when the manner in which they pursue a goal matches/fits (i.e., issustained by) their preferred strategic manner of goal pursuit (e.g., their regulatory focusorientation) (Higgins 2000, 2006). In particular, an eager pursuit of ideal aspirations sustains apromotion orientation (i.e., is a fit for promotion) and disrupts a prevention one (i.e., is a non-fit for prevention). Similarly, a vigilant pursuit of ought responsibilities is a fit for preventionand a non-fit for promotion (Dweck et al. 2003; Higgins 2000, 2006).

When people experience regulatory fit, they are immersed in the activity they are doing andare motivated to pursue selected goals (Higgins 2012b). As a result, regulatory fit conditionsare associated with strengthened task engagement and persistence (Freitas et al. 2002; Higgins2006). Although research on regulatory fit has focused primarily on promotion and prevention,the principles of regulatory fit are general and applicable to any motivational orientation that isassociated with a preferred strategic manner of goal pursuit (e.g., to locomotion/assessment;Higgins 2012b; Higgins and Scholer 2015).

Regulatory Mode, Locomotion, and Assessment: General Considerations

Regulatory mode theory (Higgins 2012b; Higgins et al. 2003; Kruglanski et al. 2000) proposesthat locomotion and assessment are independent motivational orientations that capture people’sstrivings for control and truth effectiveness, respectively. BThe locomotion mode is the aspectof self-regulation that is concerned with control^ (Higgins 2015, p. 339), that is, with makingsomething desirable happen or preventing something undesirable from occurring (Higgins2012b, 2015). Individuals having a strong locomotion orientation are open to change andready to act rather than wait and contemplate. This is not the case for people whose locomotionorientation is weak: they evaluate change less positively and are less prompt to initiate action

1008 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030

than their counterparts whose locomotion is strong (Kruglanski et al. 2016; Scholer andHiggins 2012a).

Individuals who have strong locomotion prioritize speed over accuracy in task engage-ment (Kruglanski et al. 2016; Orehek et al. 2012). In addition, they are generally opti-mistic, enjoy multitasking, and like to engage in activities that provide opportunities forrapid advancement through stages and tasks (Higgins 2012b; Kruglanski et al. 2016;Pierro et al. 2013). In contrast, people who have a weak locomotion orientation do notfocus on the pace at which they carry out activities and are unlikely to weigh heavier speedthan accuracy (Kruglanski et al. 2016). Moreover, they are less optimistic about futurepotential success, as well as less likely to enjoy multitasking and to engage in it(Kruglanski et al. 2000; Pierro et al. 2013).

Emphasizing locomotion is associated with both adaptive and maladaptive tenden-cies. For example, individuals who have a strong locomotion orientation are lesslikely to procrastinate than people who have a weak locomotion orientation (Pierroet al. 2011). This tendency has clear advantages. Nevertheless, when the desire tochange the current state and the motivation to act quickly become too strong, thesefeatures of a locomotion focus may affect negatively performance and could lead toacceptance of suboptimal outcomes; for example, individuals may end up transitioningto a comparatively worse state (Higgins 2012b; Kruglanski et al. 2016). Similarly, astrong locomotion orientation is related to a focus on the future and a desire to effectand embrace change (Kruglanski et al. 2016). These tendencies could lead to bothpositive outcomes (e.g., accelerated professional accomplishments) and negative ones(e.g., Ba devaluation of past friendships no longer relevant to current goal pursuits andoverweighting of others’ instrumentality to current objectives^; Kruglanski et al. 2016,p. 114).

BAssessment is the aspect of self-regulation that is concerned with the truth, with deter-mining what is best and what is right^ (Higgins 2015, p. 339). Consistent with this preoccu-pation to understand reality and uncover the optimal alternative, a strong assessmentorientation is associated with preference for decision-making strategies that involve generatinga large number of hypotheses, seeking numerous pieces of evidence, and critically comparingthem (Higgins et al. 2003; Kruglanski et al. 2000). A potential benefit of these tendencies isthat individuals who have a strong assessment orientation are open to consider, evaluate, andcompare a broad range of alternatives (Higgins et al. 2003; Kruglanski et al. 2000). However,engagement in exhaustive evaluations and comparisons of numerous alternatives could alsolead to excessive reflection, conflicting thoughts, and delays in acting upon the knowledgeacquired (Higgins 2012b).

When people have weak assessment orientations, their truth-finding process generallyinvolves seeking less evidence, generating fewer hypotheses, and engaging in more limitedcomparisons of available information (Higgins 2012b; Kruglanski et al. 2000). Consistent withthese tendencies, they also consider fewer potential interpretations of events than individualswho emphasize assessment strongly (Higgins 2012b).

People who have a strong assessment orientation dislike ambiguity and prioritize accuracyover speed in both decision making and goal pursuit (Higgins 2012b; Higgins et al. 2003;Kruglanski et al. 2000). In contrast, individuals who have a weak assessment orientationexperience less discomfort with ambiguity and do not focus more on accuracy than on speedduring task engagement and goal pursuit (Higgins 2012b; Higgins et al. 2003; Kruglanski et al.2000; Mauro et al. 2009).

Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030 1009

Strong assessment is associated with a tendency to engage in self-evaluation processes thatinvolve multiple sets of high and low comparison standards (Higgins 2012b). This inclinationcan have both adaptive and maladaptive consequences. On one hand, it facilitates access torealistic knowledge of one’s strengths/weaknesses, which could lead to identifying accuratelythe areas where self-improvement is most needed (Higgins et al. 2003). On the other hand,engaging in exhaustive self-evaluations could also lead to emotional instability and vulnera-bility to negative affect (Higgins 2012b; Kruglanski et al. 2000).

Locomotion and Assessment: Interrelationships With Key Motivation Factorsand Achievement

Given their tendency to favor psychological and physiological movement over extensiveevaluations of alternatives, people who have a strong locomotion orientation are likely toexhibit elevated levels of intrinsic and autonomous motivation. In comparison, when assess-ment is strong, individuals have a tendency to Bexperience activities as means toward ends^(Kruglanski et al. 2000, p. 795) and to be extrinsically motivated (Higgins 2012b; Higginset al. 2003; Pierro et al. 2006, 2009).

These theoretical propositions have received support from empirical data. For example,Pierro et al. (2006; study 1) found that locomotion was a significant positive predictor ofintrinsic motivation (β = .54), in a model controlling for assessment; the latter was notsignificantly related to intrinsic motivation. In turn, assessment was strongly and positivelyrelated to extrinsic motivation (β = .45) after controlling for locomotion, which was notsignificantly associated with this criterion. Notably, the relationships between locomotionand intrinsic motivation and between assessment and extrinsic motivation remained strongeven after controlling for the Big Five dimensions of conscientiousness, agreeableness,neuroticism, openness to experience, and extraversion. In addition, locomotion was positivelyrelated to goal self-concordance (β = .48, study 3; r = 0.24, study 4), which suggests thathigher levels of locomotion are associated with intrinsic and identified reasons for goal pursuitrather than with introjected, and external reasons (see Sheldon and Elliot 1999 for detailsregarding goal self-concordance). In contrast, assessment was negatively related to self-concordance (β = − .32, study 3; r = − 0.25, study 4).

Findings reported by Piero et al. (2006), which were informed by data collected fromItalian samples, are consistent with results associated with samples drawn from differentcultures. In particular, using data collected from US participants, Kruglanski et al. (2000)found that locomotion was positively associated with both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation(average correlations were r = 0.43 and 0.29, respectively). Assessment had a significantassociation with extrinsic motivation (average r = 0.36) and a non-significant one withintrinsic motivation (average r = − 0.02). In addition, locomotion had stronger positiveassociations with more autonomous forms of self-regulation (i.e., intrinsic and identified;r’s = 0.34 and 0.22, respectively) than with more controlled forms of self-regulation (i.e.,external and introjected; rs = 0.01 and 0.17, respectively). In contrast, assessment was notsignificantly related to more autonomous forms of self-regulation (r = 0.11 for both intrinsicand identified regulation) but had significant positive associations with the more controlledones (r = 0.18 for external regulation and r = 0.13 for introjected regulation).

Koletzko et al. (2015, study 2) collected data from participants in Switzerland andexamined the interrelationships among regulatory mode orientations, goal self-concordance,autonomous and controlled reasons for pursuing the goal of attaining a Bachelor’s degree in

1010 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030

psychology, life satisfaction, and positive affect. Results from this research showed thatlocomotion had positive associations with autonomous motivation (r = 0.23), life satisfaction(r = 0.35), and positive affect (r = 0.19); assessment was negatively associated with goal self-concordance (r = − 0.20), life satisfaction, and positive affect (both rs = − 0.25) as well aspositively related to controlled motivation (r = 0.20).

Pierro et al. (2009) examined the role played by locomotion and assessment in learning andteaching settings. Results reported by these authors indicate that teachers’ chronic levels oflocomotion (assessment) had significant positive (negative) associations with having anautonomy supportive (vs. controlling) teaching style (β = .17and β = − .24, respectively; study1). These findings were replicated when locomotion and assessment were induced situationallyby means of priming (study 2). Pierro et al. (2009) also found that high school students whohad strong locomotion orientations reported more satisfaction with autonomy-supportive thanwith controlling learning climates. The opposite was true for students who had high levels ofassessment (study 3).

Research suggests that locomotion and assessment are related not only to factors that playimportant roles in learning and teaching settings (e.g., intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation)but also to actual achievement. Case in point, Kruglanski et al. (2000; study 7) found that bothlocomotion and the interaction between locomotion and assessment were positively related toundergraduate student GPA (β = .12 and β = .07, respectively), in a model that controlled forstudents’ gender and Scholastic Aptitude Test (SAT) score. Similarly, both locomotion and theinteraction between locomotion and assessment were positively associated with the likelihoodof success in an elite military training, after controlling for a host of other relevant predictors(unstandardized bs = 0.33 and 0.22, respectively; Kruglanski et al. 2000; study 8).

Employing the Proposed Systemic Conceptualization: New Insights,Enhanced Explanatory Power, and Directions for Future Research

Investigating Motivation Profiles Associated With Concomitant Strivings for Value,Control, and Truth Effectiveness

Understanding motivation and motivation effects is enhanced by taking into account individ-uals’ conjoint strivings for value, control, and truth effectiveness (Higgins 2012b). Latentprofile analysis (LPA), a statistical technique developed on the joint platform of structuralequation modeling (Hancock and Mueller 2013) and mixture modeling (McLachlan and Peel2000), can be used to evaluate the complex pattern of associations among indicators of thethree effectiveness strivings. Recently, Harring and Hodis (2016) and Hodis et al. (2017) haveused LPA to identify a set of motivation profiles that offers an informative representation of theinterrelationships among promotion, prevention, locomotion, and assessment. These authorsfound that seven motivation profiles describe parsimoniously the configuration of thismotivational system in a population of secondary school students. Given that thecorresponding profiles were consistent across three independent large samples, findings inHarring and Hodis (2016) and Hodis et al. (2017) can be summarized meaningfully by creatinga representation of weighted motivation profiles across studies (see Fig. 2). Table 1 presents abrief characterization of these seven profiles. For each profile, the value of every indicatorvariable was obtained as the sample size-weighted average of this indicator in the studieswhere this type of profile was identified. For example, a profile similar to C1 (see Fig. 2 and

Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030 1011

Table 1) was uncovered in each of the three samples examined by Harring and Hodis (2016)and Hodis et al. (2017). Thus, the weighted average profile of C1 was calculated as the samplesize-weighted combination of corresponding estimates of assessment, locomotion, promotion,and, respectively, prevention obtained in the LPAs conducted in these three samples.

Investigations of the motivation profiles defined by promotion, prevention, locomotion, andassessment provide novel and rich information regarding motivation processes and their effects.Specifically, findings reported by Hodis et al. (2017) revealed significant differences amongsome of these profiles with regard to important motivation factors (e.g., expectancies of successin mathematics, a sense of accomplishment associated with learning something new in math-ematics, striving to advance one’s knowledge of mathematics, and the goal to achieve one’sacademic ambitions). Importantly, the observed pattern of similarities and differences in thesecriteria was consistent with the organization (i.e., configuration) of the motivation profilesexamined. For example, the C2 profile is characterized by very low levels of assessment,locomotion, and promotion and below average prevention (see Fig. 2 and Table 1). Consistentwith regulatory focus andmode theories (Higgins 1997, 2012b; Higgins et al. 2003; Kruglanskiet al. 2000), individuals exhibiting this type of motivation outlook have low/very low levels oftruth, control, and value effectiveness. Hence, they are likely to be Bpassive, ineffective, orwithout purpose with respect to any set of potential actions^ (Ryan and Deci 2017, p. 16) and,thus, at risk for amotivation and disengagement from school. Findings reported by Hodis et al.(2017) are consistent with this hypothesis; they showed that students having this type ofmotivation profile had the lowest average values of sense of accomplishment, striving toadvance knowledge, and desire to achieve academic ambitions of all profiles. In addition, theirmean expectancies of success were the second lowest among all profiles identified.

A motivation profile that includes one or more strong motivational orientations engenderswhat Dweck (2017) called Bpreparedness,^ that is, Breadiness to attend to and learn from need-relevant cues^ (p. 707). In turn, preparedness leads to heightened and selective attention tomotivationally relevant cues that are central for the given strong orientation(s). For example,

ASE LOC PRO PREConstruct2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

5

5.5

6

6.5Weighted Average

AVE

C7

C6

C5

C4

C3

C2

C1

Classes

Fig. 2 Sample size-weighted average motivation profiles based on findings reported by Harring and Hodis(2016) and Hodis et al. (2017). ASE assessment, LOC locomotion, PRO promotion, PRE prevention, AVEaverage across the three samples

1012 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030

having high levels of both promotion and locomotion (e.g., the C4 profile) is associated withstrong and preferential attention to both information related to gains and positive feedback aswell as to cues that indicate the likelihood of smooth and unencumbered progression betweenstates/stages (Higgins 1997, 2012b). Thus, consistent with Dweck’s (2017) theorizing, whenindividuals have different motivation profiles, they Bmay be biased to attend to differentevents, seek different experiences, weight the same experiences differently, or perhaps bedifferentially likely to update^ (Dweck 2017, p. 708) their mental representations of motiva-tionally relevant experiences, beliefs, and action tendencies.

Results reported by Harring and Hodis (2016) and Hodis et al. (2017) provide support forHiggins’ (2012b) theorizing that the role and impact of each motivational orientation (each

Table 1 Overview of sample-size weighted average motivation profiles from extant research

Profilesymbol

ASE LOC PRO PRE Brief characterization of profile

C1 Average Average Average Average Average and comparable levels on allorientations. PRO is slightlystronger than LOC; LOC isslightly stronger than ASE andPRE, which are similar instrength.

C2 Weak Very weak Very weak Below average Generally weak levels on allorientations. PRE is slightlystronger than PRO and ASE,which have similar levels; LOC isthe weakest orientation in thisprofile.

C3 Weak Weak Below average Above average Similar levels of PRO and PRE,which are stronger than LOC andASE; the latter orientations aresimilarly weak.

C4 Very strong Very strong Very strong Very weak The strongest levels of PRO, LOC,and ASE of all profiles;comparable levels of PRO andLOC, which are somewhatstronger than ASE; PRE is theweakest orientation in this profile.

C5 Very strong Strong Above average Very weak PRO and LOC, which areindistinguishable in strength, areslightly stronger than ASE; PRE isthe weakest orientation in thisprofile.

C6 Average Strong Strong Very strong PRO is somewhat stronger thanLOC, which is slightly strongerthan PRE; PRE is stronger thanASE; C6 has the strongest PRE ofall profiles identified.

C7 Strong Below average Below average Very weak ASE is stronger than both LOC andPRO, which are similar instrength; PRE is the weakestorientation in this profile.

The weighted profiles described here, which are represented graphically in Fig. 2, are based on findings reportedby Harring and Hodis (2016) and Hodis et al. (2017). The labels Bstrong,^ Baverage,^ and Bweak^ are created inreference to the corresponding average levels across all the samples involved (see the red disks in Fig. 2)

ASE assessment, LOC locomotion, PRO promotion, PRE prevention

Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030 1013

type of effectiveness striving) depend on the magnitude of the other orientations. For example,an examination of the configuration of the weighted motivation profiles summarized in Fig. 2reveals that two profiles (i.e., C5 and C6) have very similar levels of locomotion, comparablelevels of promotion, and differ markedly with regard to prevention and assessment. Asreported by Hodis et al. (2017), these two different configurations were associated withsignificant (C5 vs. C6) mean differences in some of the criteria examined (i.e., expectanciesof success and sense of accomplishment) but not the others.

Examining motivation profiles enables identifying key trade-offs that shape motivation and itseffects. For example, the C4 profile has strong promotion, locomotion, and assessment orientations.For these individuals, high levels of locomotion support tendencies that keep in check some of thenegative propensities engendered by strong promotion and assessment. Specifically, locomotion ispositively associatedwith commitment to start and follow through a process of goal pursuit (Higgins2012b; Higgins et al. 2003). These tendencies counterbalance the proclivity to procrastinate, whichis associated with strong assessment (Pierro et al. 2011), and the inclination to switch goals uponencountering obstacles, which is related to strong promotion (Molden 2012; Molden and Miele2008).

In addition, for individuals who have a motivation profile that is similar to C4, motivationtendencies associated with their strong assessment are likely to counterbalance some of thedrawbacks of having strong locomotion and promotion. In particular, an emphasis on locomotionengenders a preference to pursuemultiple goals at the same time. This is why, these individuals maybecome frustrated when they (have to) focus on a single goal at a time (Pierro et al. 2013). Whenpeople have strong promotion (as in C4), they are motivated to seek gains, to fulfill aspirations, andto advance (Higgins 1997, 2012b). Thus, to the extent that pursuing several goals concomitantly isperceived to offer more opportunities to gain and advance than a single goal pursuit, frustration maybe compounded when individuals who have a strong focus on both locomotion and promotionpursue a single goal. However, individuals exhibiting a C4 type of motivation profiles also have astrong assessment orientation. As a result, they are likely to identify multiple goals that could beprofitably pursued simultaneously and, thus, avoid frustration. Importantly, these counterbalancinginfluences are unlikely to play a significant role in all motivation profiles (e.g., when all of theorientations are weak/relatively weak, as it is the case in the C2 profile).

Recent research conducted in a population of Chinese undergraduate students (Gabiana etal., manuscript in preparation) identified motivation profiles of promotion, prevention,locomotion, and assessment that were similar in shape to the ones uncovered by Harring andHodis (2016) and Hodis et al. (2017). Considering that the target populations in the two sets ofstudies (i.e., Gabiana et al., manuscript in preparation, on the one hand, Harring andHodis 2016and Hodis et al. 2017, on the other) differ with regard to both culture and developmental age, itseems plausible that the motivation profiles identified consistently in the two populationsBcapture a substantial portion of the significant motivational states that vary across persons,situations, organizations, and cultures^ (Higgins 2012b, p. 314). Therefore, examinations ofthese types of motivation profiles could enhance understanding of the processes shapingindividual differences in important motivation factors and outcomes.

Advancing Understanding of the Mechanisms Involved in Negative InteractionEffects of Expectancy and Value

Expectancy-value theory (Eccles and Wigfield 2002; Wigfield and Eccles 2000) posits thatessential choices influencing students’ performance in achievement settings are affected by

1014 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030

how successful students believe they will be in the given learning domain/activity and howmuch they value doing well in/at it (Eccles 2005; see Appendix A for more details regardingthis theory). One of the tenets of this influential theory is that expectancy and value have apositive and reciprocal relationship (Hulleman et al. 2010). Thus, when individuals feelcompetent and expect to do well on an upcoming task, they tend to value activities that areassociated with the task. Additionally, finding meaning and value in what one is doing canenhance engagement with the task, help develop competence, and, ultimately, raise expectan-cies of performing well in the task (Hulleman et al. 2010). Importantly, the interaction betweenexpectancy and value has both Bconceptual and practical significance^ (Lauermann et al. 2017,p. 1555).

Table 2 includes a summary of results from recent intervention research aimed at enhancingstudents’ motivation and/or performance. The key feature of these interventions is that theyhelped students identify/reflect upon reasons as to why engaging in specific tasks or learningactivities would be useful or relevant to them. The results in Table 2 show that, for somegroups of students, negative effects of the interaction between expectancy and value on keyoutcomes are apparent. Specifically, the findings highlight three important elements: (A) Whenindividuals themselves generated the reasons (i.e., the utility value or relevance informationthat was at the core of the intervention), the intervention was effective mainly for students whohad low performance expectations, low expectancies of success, low actual competence, lowinitial performance, or low prior grades; for a similar conclusion, see Priniski et al. (2018). (B)When the utility value/relevance information was externally provided, but the intervention wasnot preceded by strengthening students’ expectancies of success (i.e., an expectancy boost wasnot included), the intervention was (B1) effective for students who had high perceivedcompetence but was (B2) detrimental for students who had low perceived competence(Priniski et al. 2018). (C) When the utility value/relevance information was externally providedand the intervention was preceded by an expectancy boost, the intervention was effective onlyfor students who had low initial perceptions of competence and received the expectancy boost.Following, we show that considering the structure of the proposed motivational system couldhelp shed fresh light on the mechanisms leading to negative interactive effects involvingexpectancy and value.

Across four studies, Shah and Higgins (1997) showed that the interaction effects ofexpectancy and value on goal commitment, decision-making processes, and taskperformance were moderated by chronic or primed regulatory focus. Shah and Higgins(1997) and Higgins (2012b) elaborated on these findings and argued that when people havea promotion focus, they also try to maximize the utility value of their goal pursuits. As a result,positive interactive effects of expectancy and value are likely to be identified when peoplehave strong promotion orientations. In contrast, when individuals have a prevention focus and,thus, construe their goals as duties or obligations, their commitment to these goals is influencedonly marginally by their expectancy to attain them (Higgins 2012b). In addition, whenprevention-oriented individuals perceive that they are likely to succeed at a task they regardas a duty, their commitment is only marginally influenced by the value of accomplishing thetask (Higgins 2012b; Shah and Higgins 1997). Consequently, when prevention orientations arestrong, negative interactive effects of expectancy and value are likely.

Given these considerations, we propose that the findings of the utility value/relevanceinterventions summarized in Table 2 can be productively reframed by using regulatory focusand fit theoretical frameworks (Higgins 1997, 2000, 2006). Specifically, as we explain below,it is plausible that students who had low performance expectations, low expectancies of

Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030 1015

Tab

le2

Brief

summaryof

results

from

utility

value/relevanceinterventio

nsstudiesthatfoundnegativeeffectsof

theinteractionbetweenexpectancy

andvalueconstructs

Reference

Source

ofvalue

orrelevance

inform

ation

Additional

interventio

nOutcomes

targeted

Brief

summaryof

relevant

findings

Hulleman

etal.

(2010)

two

experiments

Self-generated

None

Interest;

usefulness

Forboth

outcom

es,the

interventio

nwas

effectiveonly

forstudentswho

hadlow-perform

ance

expectations

orlowactual

competence.

There

wereno

interventio

neffectsforstudentswho

hadhigh-perform

ance

expectations

orhigh

actual

competence.

Hulleman

etal.

(2017)

Self-generated

None

Finalexam

grade;interest

Forbothoutcom

es,the

interventionwas

effectiveonlyforstudentswho

hadlowscores

onthefirstcourse

exam

.There

wereno

interventio

neffectsforstudentswho

performed

wellon

thefirstexam

.Hulleman

and

Harackiew

icz

(2009)

Self-generated

None

Interest;grade

Forboth

outcom

es,the

interventio

nwas

effectiveonly

forstudentswho

hadlowexpectancies

ofsuccess.

There

wereno

interventio

neffectsforstudentswho

hadhigh

expectancies

ofsuccess.

Harackiew

icz

etal.(2016)

Self-generated

None

Coursegrade

The

interventionwas

mosteffectiveforstudentswho

hadlowgrades

priorto

theinterventio

n,for

underrepresented

minority

students,and

forfirst-generationstudents.

The

interventionwas

slightly

effectiveforallstudents(d=0.06).

Durik

etal.

(2015)

study1

Externally

communicated

None

Situational

interest;task

performance

Forboth

outcom

es,the

interventionwas

effectiveonly

forstudentswho

hadhigh

perceivedcompetence.

With

regard

tointerest,the

interventio

nwas

detrimentalfor

studentswho

hadlowperceivedcompetence.

With

regard

totask

performance,the

difference

betweeninterventio

nandcontrolgroups

was

not

significantforstudentswho

hadlow

perceivedcompetence.

Durik

etal.

(2015)

study2

Externally

communicated

Expectancy

boost

Situational

interest;task

performance

Forstudentswho

didnotreceive

theexpectancy

boost(priorto

themaininterventio

n)andhadhigh

perceptio

nsof

competence,theinterventio

nwas

effectiveforinterest.

Forstudentswho

didnotreceive

theexpectancy

boostand

hadlowinitialperceptio

nsof

competence,the

interventionwas

detrimentalw

ithregard

tointerest.

Forstudentswho

didnotreceive

theexpectancy

boost,perceivedcompetencedidnotm

oderatetheeffect

ofinterventio

non

task

performance.

Forstudentswho

received

theexpectancy

boostand

hadlowperceptions

ofcompetenceinitially,the

utility

valueinterventio

nwas

effectivewith

regard

tointerest.

Forstudentswho

received

theexpectancy

boostandhadhigh

initialperceptio

nsof

competence,interest

was

notsignificantly

affected

bytheutility

valueintervention.

Studentswho

hadlow

initialperceptions

ofcompetenceandreceived

theexpectancy

boostperformed

betterthan

their(low

-perception)

counterpartswho

werenotexposedto

theexpectancy

boost.

Forstudentswho

hadhigh

initialperceptions

ofcompetence,theexpectancy

boostdidnothave

asignificanteffecton

performance.

1016 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030

success, low actual competence, low initial performance, or low prior grades had a preventionfocus prior to the intervention. In line with accessibility theory (Higgins 1996, 2012a), theinterventions that asked these students to identify why it would be useful to them to engage insome learning-related tasks prompted them to uncover reasons that were consistent with theirprevention orientations. As a result, for these students, a regulatory fit was established betweentheir motivational orientation and the means (i.e., reasons) they used to support their goalpursuits. In turn, this regulatory fit was associated with strengthened task engagement,persistence, and improved performance (Higgins 2000, 2006, 2012b).

In contrast, in the intervention where the relevance information was provided externally andan expectancy boost was not implemented (Durik et al. 2015; study 1), the reasons highlightedin the intervention did not facilitate regulatory fit for students who had low perceptions ofcompetence. As regulatory non-fit is associated with decreased engagement (Higgins 2000,2006, 2012b), the intervention was not effective for these students. However, when the sameintervention was preceded by an expectancy boost (Durik et al. 2015; study 2), additionalprocesses facilitated its success. Specifically, consistent with findings that reported significantpositive correlations between expectancy beliefs and promotion (e.g., Hodis 2018; Hodis andHodis 2015), it is plausible that the expectancy boost intervention also shifted upward orprimed these students’ promotion orientation. In turn, this induced promotion focus facilitatedregulatory fit with the information provided and, by means of the mechanisms describedbefore, the effectiveness of this two-step intervention. Following, we provide additionalsupport for these hypotheses.

When students value success at a task or in a given domain but have low expectationsof success, low perceived ability, or low prior performance, they generally focus onnegative aspects associated with the task/domain (e.g., they may decide not to pursuecareers for which the given abilities are important; Lauermann et al. 2017). In addition,they may perceive the experience of engaging in the task as stressful, detrimental to theirself-worth, or threatening (Covington 2009; Lee et al. 2014; Lee et al. 2013; Trautweinet al. 2012). In turn, these aspects are likely to prime a prevention orientation (Higgins2012b). Next, we discuss why utility value/relevance interventions that provideprevention-oriented students reasons supporting the utility or relevance of tasks/coursesare likely to be a non-fit with their motivational orientation.

Individuals who have a strong prevention orientation try to limit the flow of informationthey take into account, and are generally reluctant to request feedback regarding the success/failure of their goal pursuits (Righetti et al. 2011). Thus, receiving utility value/relevanceinformation did not fit with these students’ vigilant outlook and weak desire to engage withnew information. In turn, according to regulatory fit theory (Higgins 2000, 2006, 2012b), thisregulatory non-fit is likely to have detrimental effects on task engagement. This conclusion isconsistent with the results reported by Durik et al. (2015).

A different scenario was at play when prevention-oriented students identified themselvesreasons for the utility/relevance of a task or activity. In this situation, consistent with acces-sibility theory (Higgins 1996, 2012a), it is plausible that these students generated reasons thatfit their vigilant strategic outlook and their preoccupation with safety and responsibility. As aconsequence of the ensuing regulatory fit (Higgins 2000, 2006, 2012b), these students’ taskengagement likely increased. Extant research supports these hypotheses. For example, theauthors of some intervention studies that relied on self-generated reasons noted that this type ofintervention offered students the chance Bto make connections to topics and areas of greatestinterest to their lives^ (Hulleman et al. 2010, p. 881) and Bto make course content congruent

Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030 1017

with their own goals^ (Harackiewicz et al. 2016, p. 747). In addition, Harackiewicz et al.(2016) conducted text analyses of the essays students wrote (as part of the intervention) toarticulate why they find course work useful/relevant to their lives. Results of these analysesshowed that the essays of students for whom the intervention was effective were longer,provided evidence for stronger cognitive engagement, and Bcontained more personal writing^(Harackiewicz et al. 2016, p. 756). In turn, stronger engagement lead to better performance(see Harackiewicz and Priniski (2018) for a similar analysis regarding the mechanismsfacilitating this intervention’s effectiveness).

Integrating all of these aspects, we argue that situations/contexts that prime a strongprevention orientation are likely to be associated with negative interactions between expec-tancy of success and value. Examining students’ motivation profiles could provide access tofresh information on negative interaction effects involving expectancy of success and valuebeliefs; in turn, this new knowledge might be useful for designing or implementinginterventions targeting one or both of these sets of beliefs. For example, results reported byHodis et al. (2017) showed that students who exhibited very weak assessment and locomotionorientations (e.g., the C2 and C3 motivation profiles in Fig. 2) had also very low levels ofexpectancies of success in mathematics. Moreover, in both C2 and C3, prevention, which wasof average/above average strength, was either the strongest or the second strongest motiva-tional orientation in these profiles. Considering our previous discussions in this section and theresults of the intervention research we overviewed (see Table 2), we hypothesize that studentswho have motivation profiles that are similar to C2 and C3 are more likely to benefit fromutility value/relevance interventions that give them the chance to reflect upon why learning isimportant rather than from interventions that provide them with ready-made reasons. Notably,students who have a C2 type of motivation profile are at risk for disengagement andamotivation (Hodis et al. 2017). This is why the likelihood of success of the utility value/relevance intervention targeting these students may be enhanced if these students’ truth andcontrol effectiveness (e.g., assessment and locomotion) are strengthened prior to the mainintervention. Future research is needed to test these hypotheses.

High levels of assessment are associated with a strong emphasis on the value of a goal (anda weak focus on expectancy; Higgins et al. 2003; Higgins and Scholer 2015). Therefore, whenstudents have a strong assessment orientation and perceive that the goals they pursue areBright^ and the means they use are optimal, their strong truth effectiveness may constrain theextent to which differences in expectancies of success are reflected in different patterns of(goal-related) interest, engagement, or performance. In these circumstances, negative effects ofthe interaction between expectancy and value may be identified. Moreover, effective expec-tancy boost interventions may be particularly difficult to design for these students. Once again,future work is needed to test these assertions.

Interrelationships Among Regulatory Focus, Regulatory Mode, and PivotalSelf-Determination Theory Constructs: Implications for the Internalizationof Extrinsic Motivation

This section highlights how information on regulatory focus and mode orientations could beused to advance knowledge of the factors that influence the internalization of extrinsicmotivation. To begin, we note that Vaughn (2017) found that promotion focus was associatedwith stronger perceptions of needs satisfaction than a prevention focus (see the BPromotion andPrevention: Interrelationships With Key Motivation Factors and Achievement^ section). In

1018 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030

addition, Ryan and Deci (2017) noted that internalization is Ba natural process that operates inthe service of one’s basic psychological needs for relatedness, competence, and autonomy^ (p.189). Given these empirical findings and conceptual considerations, we hypothesize that thedifferential focus of promotion and prevention on ideals and aspirations—respectively, onduties and obligations—may lead to a generally fuller and more integrated internalization ofpromotion goals (i.e., higher levels of identification or integration) compared to preventiongoals. This hypothesis has received additional support from recent research. In particular,Sheldon et al. (2017) found that introjected motivation defined in relation to attaining highself-worth, which is consistent with a promotion but not a prevention focus, was located on theautonomy side of the relative autonomy continuum (i.e., it was correlated more strongly withidentified motivation than with external motivation). In comparison, introjected motivationdefined in relation to avoiding low self-worth, which is consistent with a prevention but not apromotion focus, was located on the controlled side of the relative autonomy continuum (i.e., itwas correlated more strongly with external motivation than with identified motivation). Similarfindings were reported by Assor et al. (2009).

Information on individuals’ motivation profiles provides useful knowledge aboutother factors that could act as catalysts for a more (vs. less) integrated internalizationof extrinsic goals or extrinsic reasons energizing goal pursuit. In particular, given (i)the positive relationship between locomotion and intrinsic motivation (Koletzko et al.2015; Kruglanski et al. 2000; Pierro et al. 2006) and (ii) the fact that provision ofstructure supports both autonomy and a sense of competence (Jang et al. 2010; Ryanand Deci 2017), it is probable that internalization is strengthened when an individualhas a high level of locomotion and functions in environments where appropriatestructure is available. Importantly, a person who emphasizes locomotion is also likelyto experience regulatory fit when she/he engages in tasks that are structured in waysthat fit locomotion (e.g., involve a sequence of clear and attainable steps). In contrast,internalization is more difficult when an individual has a strong assessment orienta-tion—which was found to be positively related to extrinsic motivation (Kruglanskiet al. 2000; Pierro et al. 2006)—and pursues goals in an environment that isunpredictable or chaotic.

Individuals who have strong levels of both prevention and assessment are likely to pursueBought to^ goals centered on obligations and responsibilities as well as to use multiple sets ofcomparison standards to evaluate themselves and their performance. This motivation outlookis associated with emotional instability and renders them vulnerable to negative affect (Higgins2012b; Higgins et al. 2003; Kruglanski et al. 2000). These negative outcomes parallel thoseassociated with pursuing goals for introjected motives, namely, feelings of internal control/pressure and fluctuating self-esteem (Ryan and Deci 2017). An important yet unknown aspectto investigate in future research is whether having elevated levels of both prevention andassessment acts as a catalyst for introjection or, alternatively, whether generalized introjectionleads to exhibiting strong prevention and assessment.

Conjoint Consideration of Regulatory Focus, Regulatory Mode, Basic NeedsSatisfaction, and Frustration Contributes to More Precise Predictions of IndividualDifferences in Self-Perceptions of Ability, Value-Related Beliefs, and Achievement

Self-determination theory (SDT) posits that individuals’ strivings to attain valued outcomes,that is, to achieve value effectiveness, could be energized by autonomous or controlled motives

Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030 1019

(Ryan and Deci 2017). As we discussed in the BPromotion and Prevention: InterrelationshipsWith Key Motivation Factors and Achievement^ section, Hodis (2018) found that promotionorientation and an autonomous reason for studying mathematics were strong predictors ofexpectancies of success in this learning domain in a model that also included regulatory modeorientations, school-related achievement motives, and a controlled reason for learning math-ematics. Despite its relative simplicity, this model accounted for significant variability inexpectancies of success (i.e., over 30.0% in each of the groups examined).

These and other findings discussed in the BPromotion and Prevention: InterrelationshipsWith Key Motivation Factors and Achievement^ section (e.g., Hodis and Hodis 2015) suggestthat using together information on regulatory focus and factors that influence whether indi-viduals pursue goals for autonomous vs. controlled reasons (e.g., basic needs satisfaction vs.frustration; Ryan and Deci 2017) could enhance understanding of individual differences in keymotivation factors and outcomes. For example, the expectancy construct has importantconceptual overlaps with self-perceptions of competence, self-efficacy beliefs, and academicself-concept (Bong 2001; Trautwein et al. 2012). Hence, it may be productive to examine theextent to which, taken together, regulatory focus and needs satisfaction account for significantinterindividual differences in self-perceptions of ability/competence. Moreover, as wediscussed in the BLocomotion and Assessment: Interrelationships With Key MotivationFactors and Achievement^ section, extant research has identified robust positive associationsbetween locomotion and intrinsic and autonomous motivations and between assessment andextrinsic and controlled motivations, respectively (Koletzko et al. 2015; Pierro et al. 2006).Thus, taking into account information provided by individuals’ motivation profiles (i.e., theirpromotion, prevention, locomotion, and assessment orientations) together with data on basicneeds satisfaction (i.e., autonomy, competence, and relatedness) could further enhance theprecision of predicting individual differences in self-perceptions of ability/competence andcognate constructs. This is an important topic for future research.

The expectancy-value theory posits positive relationships between expectancy and valueand among different sets of value beliefs (Brisson et al. 2017; Eccles and Wigfield 2002). Inaddition, recent research found that promotion has a robust positive association with utilityvalue beliefs (Hodis and Hodis 2015) and that regulatory focus, regulatory mode, andautonomous as well as controlled reasons for studying/learning accounted for non-overlapping variability in expectancies of success (Hodis 2018). These findings suggest thatconsidering simultaneously individuals’ motivation profiles and the satisfaction of their basicneeds could help enhance the precision of predictions of individual differences in utility value,attainment value, and intrinsic value.

In a related vein, theoretical propositions and empirical findings from both SDT andregulatory focus theory (Deci and Ryan 2000; Higgins 2012b; Ryan and Deci 2017) highlightthat individuals are likely to perceive goal pursuits as less costly (e.g., as involving less effort)when their basic needs are satisfied, they are intrinsically motivated to achieve goals (or haveautonomous reasons for pursuing them), or when they exhibit a strong promotion focus. Incontrast, perceptions of cost are likely to be higher when people are extrinsically motivated,pursue goals for controlled reasons, or have a poorly internalized prevention focus. In addition,given that frustration of basic needs is associated with maladaptive outcomes (e.g., burnout,negative affect; Ryan and Deci 2017), it is possible that needs frustration is also associatedwith heightened perceptions of cost.

Key tendencies associated with regulatory mode orientations may also contribute to howindividuals form perceptions of task-related costs. Specifically, strong locomotion motivates

1020 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030

individuals to plan, initiate, and maintain changes from current states (Higgins 2012b; Higginset al. 2003). To support these tendencies and avoid stagnation, it is likely that an emphasis onlocomotion is associated with lower perceptions of cost. In contrast, strong assessmentmotivates individuals to try to understand and make appropriate decisions (i.e., Bto be right^).As a consequence, a strong focus on assessment is linked to preference for engaging inexhaustive evaluations and comparisons (Higgins 2012b; Higgins et al. 2003; Kruglanskiet al. 2000). In turn, these tendencies may contribute to elevated perceptions of cost. In sum,these aspects suggest that conjoint consideration of promotion, prevention, locomotion,assessment, and basic needs satisfaction as well as frustration could strengthen researchers’ability to predict interindividual differences in maladaptive perceptions of cost in learningsettings. Future studies would do well to examine this hypothesis.

Research informed by the expectancy-value theory has consistently found significantrelationships between self-perceptions of ability/competence, value beliefs, and actual achieve-ment in learning settings (Eccles 2005; Wigfield et al. 2016). Our discussions in this sectionand in the BPromotion and Prevention: Interrelationships With Key Motivation Factors andAchievement^ and BLocomotion and Assessment: Interrelationships With Key MotivationFactors and Achievement^ sections highlighted that regulatory focus, regulatory mode, basicneeds satisfaction, and basic needs frustration are salient predictors of self-perceptions ofability, value, and cost beliefs. Hence, using information on students’ motivation profilestogether with knowledge about their basic needs satisfaction and frustration in learning settingscould advance thinking regarding individual differences in student achievement. This is animportant direction for future work.

Implications of the Proposed Framework for Education and EducationalPhenomena: Self-Regulated Learning and Motivation Regulation

Student learning is a priority for education and society. Importantly, many theoristshave argued that motivation plays a key role in learning. For example, Hattie andDonoghue (2016) theorized motivation as both a pivotal input for learning and asalient outcome of the learning process. Similarly, Zusho (2017) proposed that moti-vation processes and motivation regulation are core components of self-regulatedlearning (details follow). In this section, we highlight that access to fresh knowledgefacilitated by investigations of students’ motivation profiles could advance understand-ing of important aspects that support effective learning (e.g., self-regulated learning)and motivation regulation.

Findings reported by Hattie and Donoghue (2016) indicate that employment of effectivelearning strategies requires cognitive flexibility, which is the ability to adopt multipleperspectives, to switch seamlessly between tasks, and to Bthink outside the box^ (Diamond2013, p. 152). In a similar vein, An and Carr (2017) argued that the development of skills isfacilitated by information processing that is fluent and accurate; Bprocessing fluency refers tothe dimension of subjective ease or difficulty with which cognitive processes can beexecuted^ (Reber and Greifeneder 2017, p. 84). Notably, the experience of regulatory fit isassociated with both cognitive flexibility (Grimm et al. 2012, 2009; Maddox et al. 2006) andincreased processing fluency (Higgins 2012b; Higgins and Scholer 2015). These aspectsunderline an important implication of the proposed framework. Specifically, knowledge ofstudents’ motivation profiles enables both learners and teachers to structure learning envi-ronments in ways that are aligned to task requirements and support (i.e., fit)

Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030 1021

students’ motivational orientations. When this desiderate is attained, students’ cognitiveflexibility and processing fluency are strengthened. As a result, their task engagement,learning, and achievement are likely to be enhanced. We clarify further this aspect by meansof an example.

When success at a learning task requires, say, strong levels of assessment, teachers/learnerscould (if needed) try to strengthen students’ assessment (see Section 3 of the SupplementaryMaterial). Subsequently, the learning tasks could be designed to include opportunities for in-depth comparisons and evaluations of alternatives. The ensuing regulatory fit is associatedwith stronger task engagement, a feeling that one’s processing is fluent (e.g., Bit feels right^),and cognitive flexibility. In turn, these cognitive and affective processes support students’selection of effective learning strategies and skill development.

Building upon Maehr’s (1984) conceptualization of purpose of engagement, Kaplan (2008)proposed that self-regulation of (learning) tasks is influenced by interindividual differencespertaining to (a) how people perceive the Bpurpose of the task in the particular situation^ (p.482), (b) their Bself-processes that are relevant for that situation^ (p. 482), and (c) theBengagement strategies^ they perceive Bto be relevant for the particular ‘self’ pursuing theparticular purpose^ (p. 482). Moreover, Kaplan argued that a productive way forward in self-regulation research would involve identifying Bdimensions along which types of self-regulatedaction vary^ (p. 477; emphasis in original). With these propositions in mind, we postulate thatregulatory focus and mode orientations are four dimensions that influence significantlyindividuals’ perceptions of the purpose of learning tasks, the types of self-processes theyrecruit in response to learning situations, and the kinds of strategies they prefer to employ toengage with learning tasks. We elaborate on these aspects below.

Consistent with the tenets of the regulatory focus theory (Higgins 1997, 2012b), individualswho have a strong promotion orientation are likely to relate perceptions of task purpose to theiraccessible ideals and aspirations. Thus, a legitimate question that promotion-oriented learnerswould ask when thinking of the purpose of a learning task is BHow does engagement in thistask (or achieving its attendant outcomes) help me gain knowledge and make progress towardmy learning aspirations?^ In contrast, for prevention-oriented individuals, questions regardingthe purpose of the task are inherently linked to their core concerns with loss avoidance andmaintenance of a satisfactory state: BHow does engagement in this task (or achieving itsattendant outcomes) help me maintain a satisfactory state of my learning and avoid asuboptimal performance at the test?^

As predicted by the regulatory mode theory (Higgins 2012b; Higgins et al. 2003;Kruglanski et al. 2000), when learners who have strong locomotion orientations consider thepurpose of a learning task, they are likely to weigh heavily the extent to which the taskfacilitates smooth progression between learning phases or stages. For example, when evalu-ating the purpose of a learning task, locomotion-oriented learners could ask themselves: BHowdoes engagement in this task (or achieving its attendant outcomes) influence my ability towork effectively on the first part of the final essay?^ In contrast, when learners who havestrong assessment orientations reflect upon the purpose of a learning task, they are likely toconsider the role of the task in advancing their understanding of the material: BHow doesengagement in this task and/or the achievement of its attendant outcome(s) help my in-depthunderstanding of this theory/concept?^

Regulatory focus and mode orientations influence not only how individuals perceive thepurpose of learning tasks but also the kinds of self-processes they activate in response tolearning tasks. For example, these self-processes are anchored by ideal (ought) self-

1022 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030

perspectives for promotion (prevention)-oriented individuals (Higgins 1997) and involveexhaustive self-evaluations (e.g., of one’s previous performances at similar tasks) whenpeople’s assessment orientation is strong (Higgins 2012b). In addition, as we discussedpreviously, preferences for strategies that are used to engage in a task are also influenced byindividuals’ regulatory focus and mode orientations. Specifically, when their promotion(prevention) is strong, people most likely prefer to employ eager (vigilant) strategies inlearning settings, such as reading numerous sources—in addition to the ones recommendedby the teacher—to prepare the final essay (employing only a small number of authoritativesources that were recommended by the teacher or experts). When individuals’ locomotion(assessment) is strong, they prefer to engage in quick (exhaustive) evaluations of means/strategies that could help successful task engagement, such as using the first strategy thatcomes to mind and appears to be adequate (comparing and contrasting the potential benefitsand drawbacks of multiple strategies before selecting the one that appears the best).

Taken together, these examples and discussions suggest that future research could produc-tively investigate the extent to which different configurations of regulatory focus and modeorientations (i.e., different motivation profiles) are associated with distinct patterns of self-regulated learning. This suggestion is consistent with Efklides’ (2011) viewpoint that animportant challenge for theory and research on self-regulated learning (SRL) pertains to theBidentification of constellations of person characteristics/profiles and their effects on SRL andbehavior^ (p. 21).

To engage in effective (lifelong) learning, individuals need to become self-regulatedlearners, that is, Bautonomous, reflective, and efficient learners who have the cognitive andmetacognitive abilities as well as the motivational beliefs and attitudes needed to understand,monitor, and direct their own learning^ (Wolters 2003, p. 189). Motivation regulation is a keyaspect of self-regulated learning (Kim et al. 2018; Schwinger and Otterpohl 2017; Wolters2003). Following, we discuss how promotion, prevention, locomotion, and assessment influ-ence motivation regulation.

Motivation regulation is Bthe process by which one attempts to maintain the level and typeof motivation needed to optimally pursue some goals^ (Miele and Scholer 2018, p. 3).Learning tasks induce different cognitive and processing demands on learners. As ourdiscussions of promotion, prevention, locomotion, and assessment underlined, not all motiva-tional orientations support optimally (i.e., fit) the demands of a given learning task. Consistentwith this observation, motivation theorists have proposed that students who adjust (one ormore of) their motivational orientations to fit the processing demands of learning tasks arelikely to outperform peers who do not shift their motivations (Miele and Scholer 2016). Toknow when such shifts are needed, students must monitor (consciously or automatically) thequantity and quality of their task motivation vis-à-vis the processing demands of the learningtask. Having a strong assessment orientation could help this phase of motivation regulation byactivating/supporting the tendency to take into account and examine carefully a broad range offacets of motivation (e.g., promotion value, prevention value).

When the monitoring phase suggests that the strength or the quality of motivation is notappropriate for the demands of the task, the motivation needs to be controlled by means ofBselecting and executing strategies that bolster or change one’s task motivation^ (Miele andScholer 2018, p. 3). The efficiency of this phase of the motivation regulation process isenhanced when individuals have a strong locomotion orientation, because this orientationinvolves tendencies that support the initiation and maintenance of change (Higgins 2012b).Notably, as promotion and prevention reflect pivotal survival needs (i.e., growth and safety,

Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030 1023

respectively), these motivational orientations Bare fundamental for understanding how peopleregulate motivation^ (Miele and Scholer 2018, p. 7).

Conclusion

This paper showed that the examination of the proposed motivational system anchored bypromotion, prevention, locomotion, and assessment facilitates access to important freshknowledge. In addition, it overviewed how information pertaining to this motivational systemcan be used together with knowledge of key constructs proposed by expectancy-value andself-determination theories to (i) enhance the prediction of salient antecedents of learning andachievement and to (ii) map some of the mechanisms influencing the differential effectivenessof utility value/relevance motivation interventions. Moreover, the paper highlighted that accessto new information facilitated by the examination of students’ motivation profiles advancesunderstanding of important aspects that support self-regulation of learning and motivationregulation. Finally, the paper delineated a number of novel and potentially productive avenuesfor future research.

Acknowledgments The work of the author was supported by a Fast Start Marsden Grant from Marsden FundCouncil, from government funding, administered by the Royal Society of New Zealand (contract VUW1210).The author would like to thank the editor and three anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments andsuggestions.

Appendix A. A Brief Overview of Expectancy-Value Theory

Expectancy-value theory (EVT; Eccles and Wigfield 2002; Wigfield and Eccles 2000)posits that engagement in behaviors that support school achievement (e.g., devotingeffort to learning, persisting when encountering difficulties or experiencing failure) isinfluenced by (a) expectancy of success beliefs (i.e., by how successful one believesshe/he will be in the given learning domain (activity) and (b) value beliefs (i.e., howmuch individuals value engagement in a task and/or being successful at it) (Eccles2005; Wigfield et al. 2016).

In the EVT, values are defined with regard to the enticing characteristics of tasks andencompass the reasons supporting individuals’ desire to engage in a given activity (Eccles andWigfield 2002; Wigfield et al. 2016). Importantly, the expectancy-value paradigm focuses onvalues that are task specific (Wigfield et al. 2016). The EVT distinguishes four components ofsubjective task values: utility value, intrinsic (interest) value, attainment value (importance),and the cost of engaging with the task (Eccles 2005).

The utility value (usefulness) construct reflects how a given task is aligned to (matches) aperson’s future plans (Wigfield et al. 2016), that is, how it supports one’s long- and/or short-term goals and/or rewards (Eccles 2005). Intrinsic value, which is conceptually related tointrinsic motivation and interest, reflects how much an individual enjoys to engage in a task(Wigfield et al. 2016). Attainment value reflects the extent to which a task is viewed as pivotalfor an individual’s concept of self or as enabling a person to Bexpress or confirm importantaspects of self^ (Wigfield et al. 2016, p. 57). Cost encompasses the aspects that an individualhas to give up in order to engage in a task, the (anticipated) time, effort, and energy required to

1024 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030

do/complete the task, and the potential negative consequences that task failure may have on aperson’s sense of self (Eccles 2005). As we discussed in the BAdvancing Understanding of theMechanisms Involved in Negative Interaction Effects of Expectancy and Value^ section, theEVT posits a positive association of expectancy and value beliefs. Generally, perceptions ofcost are negatively related to the other value components.

Appendix B. A Brief Overview of Self-Determination Theory

Self-determination theory (SDT) consists of six mini theories: (1) cognitive evaluation theory,(2) organismic integration theory, (3) causality orientation theory, (4) basic psychologicalneeds theory, (5) goal content theory, and (6) relationship motivation theory. Ryan and Deci(2017) have recently provided in-depth discussions of these six mini theories; these discus-sions present the focus of each theory, underline its key propositions, and overview researchthat has been informed by the given theory.

The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is at the core of SDT. Accordingto SDT, engagement in an activity is intrinsically motivated when the activity is undertaken forthe inherent satisfaction of doing it (Ryan and Deci 2017). In this case, individuals engage inan activity simply because they like doing the activity and not for any outcome(s) that mayderive from activity engagement or completion. In contrast, when individuals are extrinsicallymotivated to engage in an activity, they do so because the activity has an instrumental value tothem (i.e., they are motivated by the outcome(s) that could be attained by engaging in theactivity or by completing it) (Ryan and Deci 2017).

Autonomous motivation and controlled motivation are other important concepts in SDT.When a behavior is autonomously motivated, the individual engages in it wholeheartedly, hasa sense of volition, and experiences the behavior Bas emanating from, and an expression of,one’s self^ (Ryan and Deci 2017, p. 14; emphasis in original). In contrast, when the motivationto engage in a behavior is controlled, the person feels that internal and/or external pressurecompel her to do so. As a result, the behavior is perceived as lacking fit with the person’s self-conceptualization (Ryan and Deci 2017).

Following, we overview briefly some key tenets of organismic integration theory (OIT) andbasic psychological needs theory (BPNT); these theories are the most relevant to the topic ofthis paper. OIT focuses on the processes of internalization and integration. Internalization isBthe process of taking in values, beliefs, or behavioral regulations from external sources andtransforming them into one’s own^ (Ryan and Deci 2017, p. 182). BIntegrated regulationentails that one brings a value or regulation into congruence with the other aspect of one’s self^(Ryan and Deci 2017, p. 188). A pivotal proposition of OIT is that extrinsic motivations toengage in a behavior could have different degrees of autonomy, depending on the extent towhich the target behavior has been internalized (Ryan and Deci 2016). Following, we discussthe four different types of extrinsic motivation proposed by OIT.

When an individual’s behavior is externally regulated, this person engages in the behaviorto attain external rewards or to avoid punishments (Ryan and Deci 2017). As a consequence,external regulation has very low levels of autonomy (Ryan and Deci 2016). BIntrojection is atype of internalization that involves taking in or adopting a regulation or value, yet doing so ina way that it is only a partial and incomplete transformation or assimilation^ (Ryan and Deci2017, p. 185; emphasis in original). Similar to external regulation, introjected regulationrevolves around a controlling element, namely, that one has to do something in order to attain

Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030 1025

rewards and/or avoid punishments. Importantly, in introjected regulation, the controllingelement is internal and the rewards (punishments) are feelings of pride (guilt, shame, oranxiety) (Ryan and Deci 2016, 2017).

When the regulation of a behavior is identified, people have understood and accepted thevalue of engaging in the behavior. In addition, when people act in ways that are congruent withvalues that have been identified, they have a sense of volition and perceive their behaviors asself-endorsed (Ryan and Deci 2016). As a consequence, identified self-regulation is considereda more autonomous form of self-regulation than introjected regulation (Ryan and Deci 2017).Finally, when the regulation of a behavior is integrated, the person has both identified the valueof the behavior and has brought this identified value in consonance with other key componentsof her/his sense of self (Ryan and Deci 2017). Given these characteristics, integrated regulationis the most autonomous of all extrinsic forms of motivation (Ryan and Deci 2016).

Basic psychological needs theory (BPNT) proposes that individuals have three basic needs,namely, for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The key tenets of BPNTare that (i) supportfor (thwarting of) basic needs promotes (undermines) health and well-being and (ii) internaliza-tion and integration of values, behaviors, and regulations is positively related to the support for,and the satisfaction of, basic psychological needs and negatively associated with their frustration(Ryan and Deci 2017). Following, we overview briefly each of the three needs. Autonomyreflects individuals’ need to feel that they engage in behaviors voluntarily and wholeheartedly.As a consequence, when the basic need for autonomy is met, people regard their behaviors asself-endorsed and consistent with their values/interests (Ryan and Deci 2017). Competenceencompasses individuals’ need to feel effective in their environments and in major domains oftheir lives (e.g., as parents, at work). Relatedness reflects people’s need to feel connected to andinstrumental for social groups and organizations they value. In addition, relatedness concerns theneed to care for, be cared for, and be involved with others (Ryan and Deci 2017).

References

An, D., & Carr, M. (2017). Learning styles theory fails to explain learning and achievement: recommendationsfor alternative approaches. Personality and Individual Differences, 116, 410–416. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.04.050.

Assor, A., Vansteenkiste, M., & Kaplan, A. (2009). Identified versus introjected approach and introjectedavoidance motivations in school and in sports: the limited benefits of self-worth strivings. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 101(2), 482–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014236.

Bong, M. (2001). Between- and within-domain relations of academic motivation among middle and high schoolstudents: self-efficacy, task value, and achievement goals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93(1), 23–34.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.93.1.23.

Brisson, B. M., Dicke, A.-L., Gaspard, H., Hafner, I., Flunger, B., Nagengast, B., & Trautwein, U. (2017). Shortintervention, sustained effects: promoting students’ math competence beliefs, effort, and achievement.American Educational Research Journal, 54(6), 1048–1078. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217716084.

Cervone, D., Mor, N., Orom, H., Shadel, W. G., & Scott, W. D. (2011). Self-efficacy beliefs and the architectureof personality: on knowledge, appraisal, and self-regulation. In K. Vohs & R. Baumeister (Eds.), Handbookof self-regulation: research, theory, and applications (2nd ed., pp. 461–484). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Covington, M. (2009). Self-worth theory: retrospection and prospects. In K. A. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.),Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 141–169). New York, NY: Routledge.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The Bwhat^ and Bwhy^ of goal pursuits: human needs and the selfdetermination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01.

Diamond, A. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 135–168. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143750.

1026 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030

Durik, A. M., Shechter, O. G., Noh, M., Rozek, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2015). What if I can’t? Successexpectancies moderate the effects of utility value information on situational interest and performance.Motivation and Emotion, 39(1), 104–118. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9419-0.

Dweck, C. S. (2017). From needs to goals and representations: foundations for a unified theory of motivation,personality, and development. Psychological Review, 124(6), 689–719. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000082.

Dweck, C. S., Higgins, E. T., & Grant-Pillow, H. (2003). Self-systems give unique meaning to self-variables. InM. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 239–252). New York, NY: GuilfordPress.

Eccles, J. S. (2005). Subjective task value and the Eccles et al. model of achievement-related choices. In A. J.Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of competence and motivation (pp. 105–121). New York, NY:Guilford Press.

Eccles, J. S., &Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1),109–132. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153.

Efklides, A. (2011). Interactions of metacognition with motivation and affect in self-regulated learning: theMASRL model. Educational Psychologist, 46(1), 6–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2011.538645.

Eitam, B., & Higgins, E. T. (2014). What’s in a goal? The role of motivational relevance in cognition and action.Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37(02), 141–142. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X13002008.

Freitas, A. L., Liberman, N., & Higgins, E. T. (2002). Regulatory fit and resisting temptation during goal pursuit.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(3), 291–298. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.2001.1504.

Grimm, L. R., Markman, A. B., Maddox, W. T., & Baldwin, G. C. (2009). Stereotype threat reinterpreted asregulatory mismatch. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96(2), 288–304. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0013463.

Grimm, L. R., Markman, A. B., & Maddox, W. T. (2012). End-of-semester syndrome: how situational regulatoryfit affects test performance over an academic semester. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34(4), 376–385. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973533.2012.693427.

Hancock, G. R., & Mueller, R. O. (Eds.). (2013). Structural equation modeling: a second course (2nd ed.).Charlotte, NC: Information Age.

Harackiewicz, J. M., & Priniski, S. J. (2018). Improving student outcomes in higher education: the science oftargeted intervention. Annual Review of Psychology, 69(1), 409–435. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011725.

Harackiewicz, J. M., Canning, E. A., Tibbetts, Y., Priniski, S. J., & Hyde, J. S. (2016). Closing achievement gapswith a utility-value intervention: disentangling race and social class. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 111(5), 745–765. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspp0000075.

Harring, J. R., & Hodis, F. A. (2016). Mixture modeling: applications in educational psychology. EducationalPsychologist, 51(3-4), 354–367. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1207176.

Hattie, J. A. C., & Donoghue, G. M. (2016). Learning strategies: a synthesis and conceptual model. Science ofLearning, 1(1), 1–13. https://doi.org/10.1038/npjscilearn.2016.13.

Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activation: accessibility, applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgins & A. W.Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psychology: handbook of basic principles (pp. 133–168). New York, NY: GuilfordPress.

Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist, 52(12), 1280–1300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.52.12.1280.

Higgins, E. T. (2000). Making a good decision: value from fit. American Psychologist, 55(11), 1217–1230.https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.11.1217.

Higgins, E. T. (2006). Value from hedonic experience and engagement. Psychological Review, 113(3), 439–460.https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.113.3.439.

Higgins, E. T. (2008). Culture and personality: variability across universal motives as the missing link. Social andPersonality Psychology Compass, 2(2), 608–634. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2007.00075.x.

Higgins, E. T. (2012a). Accessibility theory. In P. A. M. Van Lange, A. W. Kruglanski, & E. T. Higgins (Eds.),Handbook of theories of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 75–96). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Higgins, E. T. (2012b). Beyond pleasure and pain: how motivation works. New York, NY: Oxford UniversityPress.

Higgins, E. T. (2013). Truth motivation. In K. D. Markman, T. Proulx, & M. J. Lindberg (Eds.), The Psychologyof meaning (pp. 91–114). doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/14040-005.

Higgins, E. T. (2015). Control and truth working together: the agentic experience of ‘going in the right direction.In P. Haggard & B. Eitam (Eds.), The sense of agency (pp. 327–344). New York, NY: Oxford UniversityPress.

Higgins, E. T., & Scholer, A. A. (2015). Goal pursuit functions: working together. In M. Mikulincer & P. R.Shaver (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology: Vol. 1. Attitudes and social cognition(pp. 843–889). doi:https://doi.org/10.1037/14341-027.

Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030 1027

Higgins, E. T., Kruglanski, A. W., & Pierro, A. (2003). Regulatory mode: locomotion and assessment as distinctorientations. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 35, pp. 293–344). NewYork, NY: Academic Press.

Higgins, E. T., Pierro, A., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2008). Re-thinking culture and personality: how self-regulatoryuniversals create cross-cultural differences. In R. Sorrentino & A. Yamaguchi (Eds.), Handbook of motiva-tion and cognition across cultures (pp. 161–190). San Diego, CA: Elsevier.

Higgins, E. T., Franks, B., Pavarini, D., Sehnert, S., & Manley, K. (2013). Expressed likelihood as motivator:creating value through engaging what’s real. Journal of Economic Psychology, 38, 4–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joep.2012.03.005.

Hodis, F. A. (2018). Underpinnings of expectancies of success in mathematics: an analysis of general, school-related, and domain-specific motivation antecedents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 110(3), 407–430.https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000218.

Hodis, F. A., & Hodis, G. M. (2015). Expectancy, value, promotion, and prevention: an integrative account ofregulatory fit vs. non-fit with student satisfaction with communicating with teachers.Annals of the InternationalCommunication Association, 39(1), 339–370. https://doi.org/10.1080/23808985.2015.11679180.

Hodis, F. A., & Hodis, G. M. (2017). Assessing motivation of secondary school students: an analysis ofpromotion and prevention orientations as measured by the regulatory focus questionnaire. Journal ofPsychoeducational Assessment, 35(7), 670–682. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282916658385.

Hodis, F. A., Hattie, J. A. C., & Hodis, G. M. (2017). Investigating student motivation at the confluence ofmultiple effectiveness strivings: a study of promotion, prevention, locomotion, assessment, and theirinterrelationships. Personality and Individual Differences, 109, 181–191. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.01.009.

Hsee, C. K., & Ruan, B. (2016). The Pandora effect: the power and peril of curiosity. Psychological Science,27(5), 659–666. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616631733.

Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2009, December 4). Promoting interest and performance in high schoolscience classes. Science, 326(5958), 1410–1412. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1177067.

Hulleman, C. S., Godes, O., Hendricks, B. L., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). Enhancing interest and perfor-mance with a utility value intervention. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4), 880–895. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019506.

Hulleman, C. S., Kosovich, J. J., Barron, K. E., & Daniel, D. B. (2017). Making connections: replicating andextending the utility value intervention in the classroom. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109(3), 387–404. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000146.

Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Engaging students in learning activities: it is not autonomy support orstructure but autonomy support and structure. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(3), 588–600.https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682.

Kaplan, A. (2008). Clarifying metacognition, self-regulation, and self-regulated learning: what’s the purpose?Educational Psychology Review, 20(4), 477–484. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-008-9087-2.

Kim, Y.-e., Brady, A. C., & Wolters, C. A. (2018). Development and validation of the brief regulation ofmotivation scale. Learning and Individual Differences. Advance online publication. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2017.12.010.

Koletzko, S. H., Herrmann, M., & Brandstätter, V. (2015). Unconflicted goal striving: goal ambivalence asmediator between goal self-concordance and well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(1),140–156. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214559711.

Kruglanski, A. W., Thompson, E. P., Higgins, E. T., Atash, M. N., Pierro, A., Shah, J. Y., & Spiegel, S. (2000).To Bdo the right thing^ or to Bjust do it^: locomotion and assessment as distinct self-regulatory imperatives.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 793–815. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.79.5.793.

Kruglanski, A. W., Pierro, A., & Higgins, E. T. (2016). Experience of time by people on the go: a theory of thelocomotion—temporality interface. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20(2), 100–117. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868315581120.

Lauermann, F., Tsai, Y.-M., & Eccles, J. S. (2017). Math-related career aspirations and choices within Eccleset al.’s expectancy-value theory of achievement-related behaviors. Developmental Psychology, 53(8), 1540–1559. https://doi.org/10.1037/dev0000367.

Lee, J., Lee, M., & Bong, M. (2013). High value with low perceived competence as an amplifier of self-worththreat. In D. M. McInerney, H. W. Marsh, R. G. Craven, & F. Guay (Eds.), Theory driving research: newwave perspectives on self-processes and human development (pp. 205–231). Charlotte, NC: InformationAge.

Lee, J., Bong, M., & Kim, S. (2014). Interaction between task values and self-efficacy on maladaptiveachievement strategy use. Educational Psychology: An International Journal of Experimental EducationalPsychology, 34(5), 538–560. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.895296.

1028 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030

Lisjak, M., Molden, D. C., & Lee, A. Y. (2012). Primed interference: the cognitive and behavioral costs of anincongruity between chronic and primed motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 102(5), 889–909. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027594.

Lockwood, P., Jordan, C. H., & Kunda, Z. (2002). Motivation by positive or negative role models: regulatoryfocus determines who will best inspire us. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(4), 854–864.https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.83.4.854.

Lockwood, P., Sadler, P., Fyman, K., & Tuck, S. (2004). To do or not to do: using positive or negative role modelsto harness motivation. Social Cognition, 22(4), 422–450. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.22.4.422.38297.

Maddox, W. T., Baldwin, G. C., & Markman, A. B. (2006). A test of the regulatory fit hypothesis in perceptualclassification learning. Memory and Cognition, 34(7), 1377–1397. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195904.

Maehr, M. L. (1984). Meaning and motivation: toward a theory of personal investment. In C. Ames & R. Ames(Eds.), Research on motivation in education (Vol. 1, pp. 115–144). New York, NY: Academic.

Mauro, R., Pierro, A., Mannetti, L., Higgins, E. T., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2009). The perfect mix: regulatorycomplementarity and the speed-accuracy balance in group performance. Psychological Science, 20(6), 681–685. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2009.02363.x.

McLachlan, G. J., & Peel, D. (2000). Finite mixture models. New York, NY: Wiley.Miele, D. B., & Scholer, A. A. (2016). Self-regulation of motivation. In K. R. Wentzel & D. B. Miele (Eds.),

Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed., pp. 363–384). New York, NY: Routledge.Miele, D. B., & Scholer, A. A. (2018). The role of metamotivational monitoring in motivation regulation.

Educational Psychologist, 53(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2017.1371601.Miele, D. B., Molden, D. C., & Gardner, W. L. (2009). Motivated comprehension regulation: vigilant versus

eager metacognitive control. Memory & Cognition, 37(6), 779–795. https://doi.org/10.3758/MC.37.6.779.Molden, D. C. (2012). Motivated strategies for judgment: how preferences for particular judgment process can

affect judgment outcomes. Social and Personality Compass, 6(2), 156–169. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00424.x.

Molden, D. C., & Miele, D. B. (2008). The origins and influences of promotion-focused and prevention-focusedachievement motivations. In M. Maehr, S. Karabenick, & T. Urdan (Eds.), Advances in motivation andachievement: social psychological perspectives (Vol. 15, pp. 81–118). Binley, Wales: Emerald.

Molden, D. C., & Rosenzweig, E. Q. (2016). The origins and educational implications of promotion-focused andprevention-focused achievement motivations. In K. R. Wentzel & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook ofmotivation at school (2nd ed., pp. 477–503). New York, NY: Routledge.

Orehek, E., Mauro, R., Kruglanski, A. W., & van der Bles, A. M. (2012). Prioritizing association strength versusvalue: the influence of self-regulatory modes on means evaluation in single goal and multigoal contexts.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(1), 22–31. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025881.

Pierro, A., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (2006). Regulatory mode and the joys of doing: effects of‘locomotion’ and ‘assessment’ on intrinsic and extrinsic task motivation. European Journal of Personality,20(5), 355–375. https://doi.org/10.1002/per.600.

Pierro, A., Presaghi, F., Higgins, E. T., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2009). Regulatory mode preferences for autonomysupporting versus controlling instructional styles. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 79(4), 599–615. https://doi.org/10.1348/978185409X412444.

Pierro, A., Giacomantonio, M., Pica, G., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (2011). On the psychology of timein action: regulatory mode orientations and procrastination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,101(6), 1317–1331. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0025943.

Pierro, A., Giacomantonio, M., Pica, G., Kruglanski, A. W., & Higgins, E. T. (2013). Locomotion and thepreference for multi-tasking: implications for well-being. Motivation and Emotion, 37(2), 213–223.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-012-9300-y.

Priniski, S. J., Hecht, C. A., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2018). Making learning personally meaningful: a newframework for relevance research. The Journal of Experimental Education, 86(1), 11–29. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1380589.

Reber, R., & Greifeneder, R. (2017). Processing fluency in education: how metacognitive feelings shape learning,belief formation, and affect. Educational Psychologist, 52(2), 84–103. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2016.1258173.

Righetti, F., Finkenauer, C., & Rusbult, C. (2011). The benefits of interpersonal regulatory fit for individual goalpursuit. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101(4), 720–736. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0023592.

Rosenzweig, E. Q., & Miele, D. B. (2016). Do you have an opportunity or an obligation to score well? Theinfluence of regulatory focus on academic test performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 45, 114–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2015.12.005.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2016). Facilitating and hindering motivation, learning, and well-being in schools. InK. R. Wentzel & D. B. Miele (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed., pp. 96–119). New York,NY: Routledge.

Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030 1029

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: basic psychological needs in motivation,development, and wellness. New York, NY: Guilford.

Scholer, A. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2010). Conflict and control at different levels of self-regulation. In R. Hassin, K.Ochsner, & Y. Trope (Eds.), Self-control in society, mind, and brain (pp. 312–334). New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

Scholer, A. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2012a). Commitment to change from locomotion motivation during deliber-ation. Motivation and Emotion, 36(2), 114–129. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9239-4.

Scholer, A. A., & Higgins, E. T. (2012b). Too much of a good thing? Trade-offs in promotion and preventionfocus. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 65–84). New York, NY: OxfordUniversity Press.

Schwinger, M., & Otterpohl, N. (2017). Which one works best? Considering the relative importance ofmotivational regulation strategies. Learning and Individual Differences, 53, 122–132. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.12.003.

Sehnert, S., Franks, B., Yap, A. J., & Higgins, E. T. (2014). Scarcity, engagement, and value. Motivation andEmotion, 38(6), 823–831. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-014-9442-1.

Shah, J., & Higgins, E. T. (1997). Expectancy × value effects: regulatory focus as a determinant of magnitude anddirection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(3), 447–458. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.73.3.447.

Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: the self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(3), 482–497. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.3.482.

Sheldon, K. M., Osin, E. N., Gordeeva, T. O., Suchkov, D. D., & Sychev, O. A. (2017). Evaluating thedimensionality of self-determination theory’s relative autonomy continuum. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 43(9), 1215–1238. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217711915.

Trautwein, U., Marsh, H. W., Nagengast, B., Ludtke, O., Nagy, G., & Jonkmann, K. (2012). Probing for themultiplicative term in modern expectancy–value theory: a latent interaction modeling study. Journal ofEducational Psychology, 104(3), 763–777. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027470.

Vaughn, L. A. (2017). Foundational tests of the need-support model: a framework for bridging regulatory focustheory and self-determination theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 43(3), 313–328.https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167216684132.

Vieth, A. Z., Strauman, T. J., Kolden, J. J., Woods, T. E., Michels, J. L., & Klein, M. H. (2003). Self-systemtherapy (SST): a theory-based psychotherapy for depression. Clinical Psychology: Science and Practice,10(3), 245–268. https://doi.org/10.1093/clipsy/bpg023.

Wigfield, A., & Eccles, J. S. (2000). Expectancy-value theory of motivation. Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 25(1), 68–81. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1015.

Wigfield, A., Tonks, S., & Klauda, S. L. (2016). Expectancy-value theory. In K. R.Wentzel & D. B. Miele (Eds.),Handbook of motivation at school (2nd ed., pp. 55–74). New York, NY: Routledge.

Wolters, C. A. (2003). Regulation of motivation: evaluating an underemphasized aspect of self-regulatedlearning. Educational Psychologist, 38(4), 189–205. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15326985EP3804_1.

Zusho, A. (2017). Toward an integrated model of student learning in the college classroom. EducationalPsychology Review, 29(2), 301–324. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-017-9408-4.

1030 Educ Psychol Rev (2018) 30:1001–1030