Achievement motivation

The achievement motivation is a "general and relatively persistent tendency to work on tasks rated as essential with energy and perseverance until they are successfully completed".

The construct of achievement motivation comes from developmental psychology , but is also used in personality psychology and above all in educational psychology . It generally describes the tendency of a person to decide for or against alternative courses of action, in the execution of which the achievement of subjectively perceived performance can be expected. However, many researchers question the value of this construct, as there are alternative explanations for all existing empirical evidence. So far, there is no good measurement tool for achievement motivation as an assumed personality trait, so the IQ is still the better predictor of success.

Psychological models of achievement motivation

David McClelland et al. (1953) define achievement motivation as “dealing with a proficiency standard”. Building on the work of Henry Murray (1938), McClelland (1961) postulated in his theory of needs that the motivation of a person results from three dominant needs: the need for achievement ( English achievement ), power ( English power ) and belonging ( English Affiliation ). According to this concept, performance is measured by subjective quality requirements.

According to the theory of John William Atkinson (1957), an incentive is decisive in order to achieve performance motivation in an individual, which he formulated in his expectation-value theory . Accordingly, the value is mainly to be described as an affect, an expression of feeling or an emotion that accompanies the subjective feeling of an individual when the required performance has been achieved. In his thesis, he formulates that the lower the chances of achieving the result aimed at by the individual, the more work will be done to achieve the result, since in the end the individual is the more proud of the result of his or her performance. At the same time, there is an incentive to avoid failure. According to Atkinson, people whose motivation to succeed is greater than motivation to avoid failure choose tasks of moderate difficulty, while in the opposite case very easy and very difficult tasks are preferred. The result therefore depends on the individual's willingness and willingness to perform.

Weiner (1972, 1974) was a student of Atkinson and combined the expectation-for-value model of achievement motivation research with the causal attribution theories of Heider (1958) and Rotter (1966). According to Weiner, the success or failure of an action (retrospectively, but also prospectively) can be attributed to different causes, which has a decisive influence on performance behavior. (See achievement motivation and attribution).

A well-known motivation researcher from the German-speaking area is Heinz Heckhausen . In his work on achievement motivation and action motivation in general, both ideas from McClelland and Atkinson can be found. According to Heckhausen, action is performance-oriented when one's own “actions or action results are related to a standard of proficiency that one considers binding, so that ultimately success or failure is achieved.” (Heckhausen, 1974) In his expanded motivation model (1977) Heckhausen, based on the expectation-by-value theories, developed a motivational model for goal-oriented action, in which motives, incentives, expectations, instrumentalities and attributions are assumed as the main factors of motivation.

According to the self-determination theory (SDT ) established by Deci and Ryan (2000, 2008), the basic psychological need for competence together with the need for autonomy and social integration is the basis for high-quality behavior. From the point of view of this theory, there are similarities with achievement motivation (SDT) in the distinction between competency-expanding behavioral goals and competency-demonstrating behavioral goals and especially in the view of how learning environments should be optimally designed. In contrast, self-determination theory sees more detailed possibilities for describing behavior in its own set of instruments than in the instruments provided by the theories of achievement motivation.

Atkinson's Theory of Achievement Motivation (Risk-Choice Model)

Atkinson assumed that all reasons of human behavior are known and that decisions are made based on reason and rationality. In addition to all existing human needs, Atkinson focused primarily on the need or motive for achievement. This is understood to mean coping with tasks that are experienced as challenges. The so-called achievement motive is the basis of the personality of a person and is therefore an individual, enduring personality trait that determines human behavior. In addition, the performance motive also depends on the characteristics of the situation. Atkinson's risk-choice model deals with the question of which of various performance tasks or alternative courses of action are selected in a particular situation. The choice of a performance task is determined by the tendency to strive for success ( ) and / or the tendency to avoid failure ( ). Using a mathematical model, he tries to make predictions about alternative courses of action and to find the resulting tendency : ${\ displaystyle Te}$ ${\ displaystyle Tm}$ ${\ displaystyle Tr}$

{\ displaystyle Tr = Te + Tm}

.

The tendency to seek success ( ) is a product of 3 variables: 1) Achievement motive / success motive ( ): ${\ displaystyle Te}$
${\ displaystyle Me}$

Disposition of a person, ability to feel pride after success;

2) Subjective expectation of success for a specific task ( ) ${\ displaystyle We}$

Expectation of a person that action will lead to success:

situational variable that is learned through personal experience,

Expectation can be expressed using percentages;

3) Incentive for this success ( ): ${\ displaystyle Ae}$

The more difficult it is, the greater the pride in successfully completing a task:

→ .

{\ displaystyle Ae = \ left (1-We \ right)}

This results in the following multiplication:

{\ displaystyle Te = Me \ cdot Ae \ cdot We}

.

According to this formula, the tendency to seek success is greatest for tasks of moderate difficulty. The pursuit of success is consistently higher for all task difficulties for those with a high motive for success than for those with a low motive for success.

Tendency to Avoid
Failure 1) Failure Motive ( ): ${\ displaystyle Mm}$

Disposition of a person, ability to feel shame after failure,

Fear of performance evaluations and tendency to avoid performance situations;

2) probability of failure ( ): ${\ displaystyle Wm}$

results from the probability of success:

→ .

{\ displaystyle Wm = \ left (1-We \ right)}

3) "Incentive" of failure ( ): ${\ displaystyle Am}$

Failures are differently unpleasant with different degrees of difficulty,

The easier a task, the greater the feeling of shame if you fail the task:

→ .

{\ displaystyle Am = \ left (1-Wm \ right)}

This results in the following multiplication:

{\ displaystyle Tm = Mm \ cdot Am \ cdot Wm}

.

According to this formula, the tendency to avoid failure is greatest for tasks of moderate difficulty. Avoidance of failure for those with a high motive for failure is higher than for those with a low motive for failure.

Performance action: Performance tasks are sought if > . If < , the service task is not processed. However, performance is also influenced by extrinsic motivations ( ) such as B. reward and compulsion. ${\ displaystyle Te}$ ${\ displaystyle Tm}$ ${\ displaystyle Te}$ ${\ displaystyle Tm}$ ${\ displaystyle Tex}$

This results in the following addition:

{\ displaystyle Performance action = Tr + Tex}

The following abbreviations are common:

{\ displaystyle Me}

= Motivation to succeed, a personal trait

{\ displaystyle We}

= Probability of success, a characteristic of the respective task,

{\ displaystyle Ae}

= Incentive to succeed = (probability of success),

{\ displaystyle \ left (1-We \ right)}

{\ displaystyle Te}

= Tendency to success = .

{\ displaystyle Me \ cdot WeAe = Me \ cdot We \ cdot \ left (1-We \ right)}

{\ displaystyle Mm}

= Motivation to avoid failure, a personal characteristic,

{\ displaystyle Wm}

= Probability of failure ,

{\ displaystyle = \ left (1-We \ right) = Ae}

{\ displaystyle Am}

= Incentive to fail (probability of failure),

{\ displaystyle = \ left (1-Wm \ right)}

{\ displaystyle Tm}

= Tendency to avoid failure .

{\ displaystyle = Mm \ cdot Wm \ cdot Am = Mm \ cdot Wm \ cdot \ left (1-Wm \ right)}

{\ displaystyle T}

= Total value of the action tendency

The functions , and are symmetrical parabolas with the definition range 0..1 and an extreme value at the point 0.5. Depending on the strength of the two persons variables and the sum parable may have positive or negative values. The total value of the tendency to act is to be interpreted in this context as the degree of motivation to carry out this act. Negative values mean an aversive attitude, as a result of which the action is not carried out. ${\ displaystyle Te}$ ${\ displaystyle Tm}$ ${\ displaystyle T}$ ${\ displaystyle Me}$ ${\ displaystyle Mm}$ ${\ displaystyle T}$

Example:

x-axis shows the probability of success / severity of various tasks

A person has one with the (neither , Reliable still valid ) TAT measured success motivation of 8, and a measured with a test anxiety test failure avoidance motivation of 3. The Te this person different in tasks difficulty showing the red curve, their Tm is the green curve. The difference T (blue, overall motivation) is positive overall and shows the highest values in the area of moderately difficult tasks.

The second prediction of Atkinson's model, namely that people with low motivation for success and high motivation to avoid failure avoid moderate tasks and instead choose very difficult and very easy tasks, could not be confirmed.

The tendency of each individual is inextricably linked to his or her experiences via the personal variables. For details, see the article on the expectation-by-value model .

Achievement motivation and attribution to causes

Since the 1970s, the relationships between so-called causal attribution ( attribution of causes, e.g. for success or failure) to achievement motivation have been increasingly examined (cf. Gage & Berliner, 1996). The most important relationships are set out below.

“I finished school because I'm smart.” Success is usually attributed to internal (personal) causes, e.g. High ability, and failure due to external factors, e.g. B. Bad luck, high difficulty of the task. This attribution pattern is called success-oriented. It has a positive effect on self-esteem and is found in people with a strong motivation to achieve. Those who attribute success to themselves and failure to others or to the circumstances look for tasks with moderate difficulty, so set realistic goals and achieve them, which leads to a realistic, positive self-image.

In a failure-oriented attribution pattern, success is attributed to external causes (e.g. luck) and failure to internal causes (one's own inability). Such an attribution pattern is detrimental to self-worth and is related to the pessimistic mindsets that are typical of depression. Failure-oriented people look for very easy or sometimes very difficult tasks and thus avoid realistic feedback on their own ability, since the realistic feedback in their eyes only reflects the ability that is assumed to be low.

The reason for differences in the behavior of success-motivated and failure-motivated people is, as Heckhausen (2010) explains, that the directives for action that they follow are based on different standards.

Success-motivated people first and foremost strive to increase their skills and competencies and to prove their efficiency. Even the performance of the service is accompanied by positive emotions of expectation, which stimulate the striving for self-improvement. In addition, the confidence in success of those who are motivated to succeed influences the objectives when working on tasks: they usually choose tasks that are slightly above the level of difficulty of their previous achievements, as this gives them the opportunity to prove their ambition. As already mentioned, the performance level of success-oriented people is in the middle or even slightly above average range, which is why they usually succeed as often as they have to put up with failures. The self-worth of success-motivated individuals, however, does not suffer from the fact that they have an equal number of successes and failures, since successes induce a greater sense of pride in them than failure induces them to feel ashamed. Success-motivated people can maintain a positive self-assessment despite a balanced balance of successes and failures. Success-oriented people tend to attribute their failures to external causes, but they also attribute them in part to a lack of effort. The only thing is that they don't question their own competencies and see each of their failures as an opportunity to achieve better results in future attempts.

Failure-motivated people, unlike success-motivated people, tend to choose tasks that are too difficult or too easy to work on. Failures are mostly attributed to a lack of skill and competence, which is primarily the reason that they find failure so shameful. Successes, on the other hand, are not attributed to their own skills, which is why their self-esteem suffers massively. Even if failure-oriented, like success-oriented, moderate difficulty tasks were chosen, their self-esteem would end up being negative, since even with an equal number of successes and failures, pride in success would not compensate for the feeling of failure. Failure-motivated people would suffer from their negative self-assessment even if they performed the same as success-motivated people. Failure-motivated people follow a directive that is in stark contrast to that of those who are success-oriented. Your goal is to reduce or even completely avoid burdens on self-worth. The aim of your behavior is not to improve your own competence, but to protect your self-worth. The fear of failure thus leads those who are motivated to fail to choose tasks that are too easy or too difficult, to break off performance or to show a lack of perseverance, because these actions hope to minimize a burden on their self-worth. This behavior massively hinders the acquisition of skills.

Weiner's attribution theory (1986) differentiates not only with regard to the localization of the cause (internal vs. external), but also with regard to the stability of the cause (stable: “I am generally incapable” vs. unstable: “I had a bad day”) and with regard to controllability (poor preparation for an exam can be controlled; bad luck cannot be controlled).

Typical findings on achievement motivation

It has already been mentioned that people with high achievement motivation attribute different causes to their successes and failures than people with low achievement motivation. It was also mentioned that people with high achievement motivation prefer moderate tasks and people with low achievement motivation avoid realistic self-assessment and choose easy or very difficult tasks that would fail anyone.

Further findings (quoted from Gage & Berliner, 1996):

A high level of achievement motivation is associated with greater stamina and greater tolerance for failure when working on tasks (e.g. French & Thomas, 1958; Weiner & Kukla, 1970)
High-achievement students try themselves on more tasks and solve more tasks correctly (e.g. Wendt, 1955)

Achievement motivation in older people

With increasing age, the achievement motivation shifts from a more extrinsic, competitive to a more intrinsic achievement pattern (Maehr & Kleiber, 1981).

According to the socio-emotional selectivity theory (Carstensen, 1995), individuals seek out their goals in accordance with the perception of the future as limited or unlimited. As time is also perceived as more limited with age, older people tend to focus more on short-term goals (Botwinick, 1966)

Using a large sample, Holahan (1988) showed that achievement motivation correlates positively with physical and mental health. Further results point in this direction, e.g. B. Bakker (2008) found that achievement motivation is related to creativity, productivity and health.

Levels of achievement motivation development

Theories about the development of achievement motivation agree on many points. According to the research of Dweck & Leggett (1988) and that of Nicholls (1979), eight levels of achievement motivation are observed:

The child enjoys the effect
The child discovers the joy of doing it yourself
The child discovers that the outcome of the action and his or her own ability are related.
The child differentiates between their own ability and the difficulty of the task at hand
The child sets its own level of aspiration
The child sees their own exertion as an explanation for their performance
The ability as an explanation of the child's performance
Differences in the perception assessment of happiness and effort in the various age groups.

The child can enjoy the effect until the end of the first year of life if this is done intentionally. This phenomenon is known from Jean Piaget's research on the cognitive development of his own children, and he called it secondary circular reactions.

In the second stage of self-motivation development, the child begins to deal with the things themselves and, if they are sufficiently developed in their language, express this in language. This happens around the end of the first and in the course of the second year of life.

When the child discovers that the outcome of the action and what he does are related, he expresses this through emotions such as joy or disappointment. The relation to the result is seen as the main factor for the development of achievement motivation.

Under favorable conditions, a child develops the ability to differentiate between their own ability as an internal cause and the difficulty of the task as an external cause for an achievement at around five years of age. Success and high difficulty are therefore ascribed to great skill.

In the next stage, the previously described causes for the success or failure of a task are used, so to speak as a yardstick for the performance to be achieved that the child sets for himself. This individual reference standard only arises at the age of around four and a half years. Only much later, around the age of eight, does social comparison come to the fore as a social reference norm. Ultimately, depending on the situation, both norms are used to assess achievement motivation (Heckhausen 1972).

A study by Nicholls (1978) shows that children from the age of five to six see their own exertion as an explanation for a performance and recognize their own and other people's experiences and views as a measure of performance and results.

The representation of the child in terms of their own abilities and skills from the age of ten to twelve looks different. Children see their own abilities and skills as the basis and explanation for their own performance, which is closely related to the learning process and individual development (cf. Dweck & Leggett 1988). If ability is illustrated, a six-year-old child is already able to explain ability accordingly. The assessment of effort and ability is different. In younger children, this means that effort and ability result in success, without an evaluation of the success of the achievement. In older children, the social aspects mentioned above lead to the formula that the size of the effort, the energy expenditure multiplied by the quantum, the quality of the abilities multiplied by the amount, influences the quality of the result in a positive or negative way. The simple formula applies here:

Ability × effort = amount of expected result

When assessing the perception of happiness and effort in the different age groups, Nicholls and Miller (1985) come to the conclusion that children can only judge at the age of about twelve whether their own effort is decisive for solving a task or not. However, elementary school children clearly distinguish between effort and happiness in solving a task assigned to them.

The courses of action described above are by and large rather unconscious in adults and only become an issue again in the course of self-reflection .

Holodynski (1992) and Stipek et al. (1992) have also presented phase models for the development of achievement motivation. They emphasize the role of the social evaluation of the child’s actions by their caregivers as an essential mediator in the transition to a self-evaluation of performance.

Summary

Achievement-motivated action arises mainly from intrinsic motivation and has a flow experience as a result. It arises as a result of activity as an end in itself and the joy of the effect in the first year of life. The first emotional reactions to success or failure do not arise until around two and a half years. It can already be seen in preschool age that there are children who work more failure-oriented, as well as children who work success-oriented. This can develop as a personality trait and can have a major impact on the child's performance. A standard of quality for the demands that the child places on himself does not emerge until around three and a half years of age, but only at around four and a half years does it orient itself to its own standard of quality. However, these ages are very much dependent on the methods used and the tasks assigned to the child (dependent on talent). The standard of quality that the child uses is the individual reference norm up to school age, although it can be said that the social comparison begins at the end of kindergarten if the development conditions are favorable (depending on the cognitive development of the individual child!). From school age, the social reference norm finally enters the assessment process, so that the child repeatedly compares his own reference norm and the social reference norm and thus develops his or her ability concept . This formation of the ability concept is an essential prerequisite for the development of self-assessment, as the studies by Nicholls (1984) showed, and it forms the central concept of performance-oriented action.

Performance-oriented action arises from two different reasons:

It is used for exercise and thus to improve performance (task orientation)
It serves the purpose of demonstrating a skill (ego orientation)

If people attribute low skills to themselves, they try:

demonstrate high skills.
to hide low abilities and to impress with seemingly high qualifications .
accepting their low skills and still getting a good result on a more difficult task.

Influence of teachers on achievement motivation

In the studies by Rheinberg (1980), reference is made to the influence of the teacher's social and individual reference norm, which can have a significant influence on the students' motivation to achieve. In the case of teachers with an individual reference norm, the following factors are mentioned that have an influence on student performance:

time-stable, internal factors such as ability and diligence
individual learning situation and demands on the student
Blame from above-average students when their performance fell.
Recognition and praise for students with below average performance with significantly better performance.
Lessons geared towards the student.
Students tend to be more success-oriented.

The evaluation of student performance using the method of a teacher with a social reference norm was as follows:

more praise to above-average students, even with poor performance.
Praise and blame only after completion of the activity.
Students tend to work in a failure-oriented manner.
rather negative effects on the students' self-image and self-concept over several years.

Furthermore, a longitudinal study by Ellen A. Skinner et al. (1998) shows that children who had a reliable and predictable teacher developed optimally, which had a positive effect on engagement and performance in class. On the other hand, the performance of children with less reliable teachers, who attributed their failure more to external factors, but more likely to suffer from school disaffection and failure to perform, which in turn led to doubts about their own abilities.

Achievement motivation tests

To find out the motives of people to act, one can proceed in different ways.

Indirect measurement

An indirect measurement can be made; H. Use a procedure in which the respondent can freely formulate his or her answers due to the very open test material. In this way, the test situation can be designed very close to reality and gives the test person many opportunities to incorporate their own biography into their answers. Ideally, the test person is unaware that their answers are used to draw conclusions about their motives . In addition, it must be ensured that the test situation is designed in such a way that the subject to be examined is stimulated in the test person and that the results are correctly evaluated, which can be difficult. An example of a method for the indirect measurement of achievement motivation is the TAT (Thematical Apperception Test) , which is presented below.

The measurement of achievement motivation (or the power motive as well as the social connection motive ) is classically carried out with the TAT (Thematical Apperception Test) by Henry A. Murray . This is a projective procedure (like the Rorschach test ) in which subjects see a series of images and are encouraged to tell stories about them. The stories are recorded and searched for clues about the achievement motive using an evaluation key. It is checked, so to speak, through what kind of “motif glasses” the test person is looking through, i.e. whether he is projecting performance-related aspects into the images.

Direct measurement

The counterpart to the indirect measurement is the direct measurement, which is characterized by strongly standardized test material and given answer options. On the one hand, there is always the risk that the test person might want to present himself / herself in a good light and thus distort the result or misjudge himself and thereby lower the value of his statements. On the other hand, the facts that test methods for direct measurement of motives are significantly easier to evaluate than test methods for indirect measurement and that they have a high psychometric quality speak well for the use of these standardized methods.

Below are some standardized tests for measuring achievement motivation that have higher reliabilities (measurement accuracy) and higher validity (validity in predicting behavior or correlations with related concepts) than the TAT. As aptitude diagnostic instruments, they are primarily marketed by Heinz Schuler in German-speaking countries . Use of the above-mentioned procedures in companies should be clarified in advance by the entrepreneur with regard to the admissibility of the Works Constitution Act (Betr.VG). However, there are also tests that are designed for debt diagnostic purposes.

Achievement Motivation Inventory LMI ( Schuler & Prochaska, 2001)
Bochum inventory for job-related personality description ( Hossiep & Paschen, 2003), from this the corresponding scale "achievement motivation"
Achievement Motivation Inventory (AMI) (Schuler, Thornton, Frintrup & Mueller-Hanson, 2004)
Sport-related achievement motivation test SMT (Frintrup & Schuler , 2007)
Scales for recording motivation to learn and achieve achievement (SELLMO) (Spinath, Stiensmeier-Pelster, Schöne & Dickhäuser, 2002)

literature

JW Atkinson: Motivational determinants of risk-taking behavior. In: Psychological Review. 1957, 64 (6), pp. 359-372.
CS Dweck, EL Leggett: A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. In: Psychological Review. 1988, 95 (2), pp. 256-273.
F. Heider: The psychology of interpersonal relations. Wiley, New York 1958.
DC McClelland, JW Atkinson, RA Clark, EL Lowell: The achievement motive. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York 1953.
John G. Nicholls: Achievement Motivation: Conceptions of Ability, Subjective Experience, Task Choice, and Performance. In: Psychological Review. Volume 91, No. 3, 1984, pp. 328-346 (Jul 1984).
John G. Nicholls, Arden T. Miller: Differentiation of the Concepts of Luck and Skill. In: Developmental Psychology. 1985, 21 (1) pp. 76-82 (Jan 1985).
Falko Rheinberg: Motivation. 5th edition. Kohlhammer, Stuttgart 2004.
JB Rotter: Generalized expectancies of internal versus external control of reinforcements. In: Psychological Monographs. 1966, 80 (609).
B. Weiner (Ed.): Achievement motivation and attribution theory. General Learning Press, Morristown, NJ 1974.
B. Weiner: An attributional approach for educational psychology. In: LS Shulman (Ed.): Review of research in education. (Vol. 4). FE Peacock, Itasca, IL 1977.
B. Weiner: An attributional theory of motivation and emotion. Springer-Verlag, New York 1986.
ML Maehr, & Kleiber, DA (1981). The graying of achievement motivation. American Psychologist , 36, 787-793.
LL Carstensen (1995). Evidence for a life span theory of socioemotional selectivity. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 4, 151-156.
J. Botwinick (1966). Aging and behavior. New York: Springer.
CK Holahan (1988). Relation of life goals at age 70 to activity participation and health and psychological well-being among Terman's gifted men and women. Psychology and Aging, 3, 286-291.
AB Bakker (2008). Building engagement in the workplace. In C. Cooper, & R. Burke (Eds.), The peak performing organization. England: Routledge.
A. Lange, N. Van Yperen, B. Van der Heijden, P. Bal: Dominant achievement goals of older workers and their relationship with motivation-related outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior (77: 118-125) 2010.

Web links

Explanation of achievement motivation in sign language

Individual evidence

↑ James Drever / Werner D. Fröhlich, Dictionary for Psychology , dtv, 1972, p. 170.
^ Edward L. Deci, Richard M. Ryan (2000): The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. In: Psychological Inquiry. 11 (4), 227-268.
Edward L. Deci, Richard M. Ryan: Self-Determination Theory: A Macrotheory of Human Motivation, Development, and Health. In: Canadian Psychology. Volume 49, 2008, pp. 182-185.
^ Edward L. Deci, Richard M. Ryan: Self-Determination Theory: A Macrotheory of Human Motivation, Development, and Health 2008, p. 183. In: Canadian Psychology. 49, 182-185.
^ Edward L. Deci, Richard M. Ryan: The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior 2000, p. 260. In: Psychological Inquiry. 11 (4), 227-268.
^ B. Schlag: Learning and achievement motivation Opladen: Leske + Budrich 1995.
↑ Udo Rudolph, motivational psychology . Weinheim: Beltz, 2003.
↑ Udo Rudolph, motivational psychology . Weinheim: Beltz 2003.
↑ ^a ^b ^c Jutta Heckhausen: Motivation and Action . Ed .: Heinz Heckhausen. 4th edition. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg 2010, ISBN 978-3-642-12692-5 , p. 183-185 .
↑ ^a ^b Jutta Heckhausen: Motivation and Action . Ed .: Heinz Heckhausen. 4th edition. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg 2010, ISBN 978-3-642-12692-5 , p. 147 .

[1] James Drever / Werner D. Fröhlich, Dictionary for Psychology , dtv, 1972, p. 170.

[2] Edward L. Deci, Richard M. Ryan (2000): The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. In: Psychological Inquiry. 11 (4), 227-268.
Edward L. Deci, Richard M. Ryan: Self-Determination Theory: A Macrotheory of Human Motivation, Development, and Health. In: Canadian Psychology. Volume 49, 2008, pp. 182-185.

[3] Edward L. Deci, Richard M. Ryan: Self-Determination Theory: A Macrotheory of Human Motivation, Development, and Health 2008, p. 183. In: Canadian Psychology. 49, 182-185.

[4] Edward L. Deci, Richard M. Ryan: The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior 2000, p. 260. In: Psychological Inquiry. 11 (4), 227-268.

[5] B. Schlag: Learning and achievement motivation Opladen: Leske + Budrich 1995.

[6] Udo Rudolph, motivational psychology . Weinheim: Beltz, 2003.

[7] Udo Rudolph, motivational psychology . Weinheim: Beltz 2003.

[:0-8] Jutta Heckhausen: Motivation and Action . Ed .: Heinz Heckhausen. 4th edition. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg 2010, ISBN 978-3-642-12692-5 , p. 183-185 .

[:1-9] Jutta Heckhausen: Motivation and Action . Ed .: Heinz Heckhausen. 4th edition. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg 2010, ISBN 978-3-642-12692-5 , p. 147 .