EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGIST,33(1), 1-2 1 Copyright O 1998, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Rethinking Achievement Goals: When Are Thety Adaptive for College Students and Why? Judith M. Harackiewicz and Kenneth E. Barron University of Wisconsin-Madison Andrew J. Elliot University of Rochester The types of goals that students adopt in educational settings and the conseque:nce:s of those goals an 2 important educational outcomes-performance and intrinsic motivation-are dis- ciussed. In the case of performance, we briefly review and evaluate a large body of fheory and research conducted by other investigators. In particular, we consider the possibility that some commonly accepted conclusions about the effects of achievement goals are premature. In the case of intrinsic motivation, we describe a theoretical model that has guided our own work on this topic and provide some recent experimental results. We believe that this model and our experimental results can contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of goals and optimal motivation. Finally, we return to the college classroom environment and e;c.amine the consequences of goals for both performance and intiinsic motivation, offering a broader analysis of success in college courses. We live in a competitive society vvhere excellence is often defined in terms of an individual's achievement relative to others. Although many have argued passionately and per- suasively for the negative effects of competition and the need to encourage cooperation in schools (e.g., Ames, 1992; Deutsch, 1979; Kohn, 1992; Maehr & Midgley, 1991), education at the college and university levels re- mains highly competitive. Students compete against one another for grades assigned on normative curves, for places in advanced seminars, for membership in elite honorary societies, and for admission into selective graduate pro- grams. Success in this competitive educational context may depend on the goals that students pursue. To the extent that these competitions inspire an instrumental or "grade-grub- bing" approach to course work, they may actually under- mine the overall quality of scholarship (Lepper & Hodell, 1989). Indeed, it is possible that an exclusive focus on "winning" the contest for grades and academic advance- ment may interfere with involvement and learning in col- lege classes, deep processing of course materials, and con- tinued interest in an academic discipline. On the other Requests for reprints should be sent to Judith M. Harackiewicz,Depart- ment of Psychology, University of Wisconsin, 1202 West Johnson Street, Madison, WI 53706. E-mail:jmh@macc.wisc.edu hand, if success does depend on outperforming others, a focus on winning might actually prove adaptive in some college contexts. What type of motivational orientation is optimal for survival and success at the college level? The question of optimal motivation in college and univer- sity contexts requires a clear definition of what we mean by success. Success is typicall~r defined in terms of performance, and grades represent the most obvious and universally ac- cepled indicator of academic performance in educational contexts. However, we believe that success in a college course involves more than performance. Another important variable to consider is a student's initerest in the course material. Theorists have identified two distinct types of interest in educational contexts: individual interest, which reflects char- acteristic interests in broad domains, or end~lring preferences for topics or subject areas (cf., Hidi, 1990; Schiefele, 1991) and situational interest, defined as an emotional and motiva- tional state that results from specific situational stimuli (cf., Hidi, Renninger, & Krapp, 1992; Rathunde, 1993). Our focus in this article is on the latier type of interest that develops during a particular educational experience. Ely intrinsic inter- est, we refer to the subjective state that results from a student's experience in a particular course, and we consider it as an outcome of the educationad process (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Lepper & Hodell, 1989).