The influence of cognitive ability, goal orientation and self-regulatory factors on task performance

Self-regulatory theories of motivation describe how behavior is governed by comparison of one's performance with internalized goals such as the learning goal (LG) and performance goal (PG) orientations described by Dweck and Leggett (1988). This research has not addressed the possibility that differences in cognitive ability, as well as variations in self-regulatory processes, may influence performance. This study tested a model of the relationship between fluid intelligence and self-regulatory variables--goal orientation, self-efficacy, and implicit beliefs about intelligence--in determining performance. Latent variable structural equations modeling using the SAS system's CALIS procedure (SAS Institute, 1989) was employed with a sample of 255 college students. Significant influences of fluid intelligence on strength of goal orientation and ratings of the controllability and stability of ability were predicted. It was hypothesized that strength of goal orientation would influence task performance under difficult task, but not easy, task conditions.;The results revealed four goal orientation factors, including the PG-Advancement and PG-Approval factors identified by Hayamizu and Weiner (1991), an LG factor and a fourth, unique factor ("Satisficing") that expressed the motive of exerting minimum effort. There was little relationship between the strength of participants' endorsement of an incremental theory of intelligence and the four goal orientation factors. There was no significant influence of fluid intelligence on any goal orientation factor. Causal paths from fluid intelligence to the perceived stability and controllability of ability were not significant, suggesting that higher levels of intelligence did not produce a more incremental view of intelligence.;Most interestingly, there were no significant influences of type nor strength of goal orientation on performance. Instead, Session 1 performance was determined by level of fluid intelligence and task-specific self-efficacy; Session 2 performance was determined by fluid intelligence alone. In summary, Dweck and Leggett's (1988) model did not appear to generalize well to this sample. Possible explanations are presented and discussed in terms of construct activation and accessibility. Implications for programs designed to modify individuals' self-regulatory beliefs as a method of improving performance are that such programs may be less effective than interventions such as training, performance feedback and skill reinforcement.