Available online at www.sciencedirect.

com

Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 1454–1464

www.elsevier.com/locate/paid

Personality and achievement motivation: Relationship

among Big Five domain and facet scales, achievement
goals, and intelligence
Tanja Bipp a,b,*, Ricarda Steinmayr c, Birgit Spinath c
a
University of Dortmund, 44221 Dortmund, Germany
b
Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The Netherlands
c
University of Heidelberg, Hauptstr. 47–51, 69117 Heidelberg, Germany

Received 7 August 2007; received in revised form 14 December 2007; accepted 3 January 2008

Abstract

In the present study we examined the nomological network of achievement motivation and personality
by inspecting the relationships between four goal orientations (learning, performance-approach, perfor-
mance-avoidance, work avoidance), the Big Five personality traits, and intelligence. Within a sample of
university students (N = 160), relations were examined on the facet level of the Big Five. Inspection of asso-
ciations between personality facets and goal orientations provided a clearer picture about why goals and
personality traits are related and some of the previous inconsistent results could be explained by opposing
associations at this level of analysis. Intelligence and goal orientations shared no common variance. Find-
ings are discussed with reference to a hypothesized approach and avoidance temperament and the nomo-
logical network integrating personality, motivation, and ability dimensions.
Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Goal orientations; Personality; Intelligence; Achievement motivation; Nomological network; Big Five

*
Corresponding author. Address: Eindhoven University of Technology, P.O. Box 513, 5600 MB Eindhoven, The
Netherlands. Tel.: +31 40 2474407; fax: +31 40 2437161.
E-mail address: T.Bipp@tue.nl (T. Bipp).

0191-8869/$ - see front matter Ó 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.paid.2008.01.001
 T. Bipp et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 1454–1464 1455

1. Introduction

Within the last two decades, the construct of goal orientation has become one of the most fre-
quently studied in the field of motivation. Based on the extensive research on achievement moti-
vation in educational psychology (e.g., Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1996), the
construct has spread out successfully into various applied settings. Goal orientation is thought to
be involved in self-regulatory processes and, thus, constitutes an important social-cognitive com-
ponent of behavior and personality. To understand the interplay of personality and goal orienta-
tion, it is important to investigate how goal orientations are linked to traits on various levels of
abstraction.

1.1. Goal orientations

Different researchers have found it useful to distinguish between two goal orientations when
describing reasons why people engage in achievement tasks and learning (Dweck, 1986; Nicholls,
1984). People with a high learning goal orientation (LG) primarily want to gain knowledge and
skills and thus increase their competence. People with a high performance goal orientation (PG)
want to demonstrate high abilities or want to avoid demonstrating a lack of competence to others.
Further research has lead to the partitioning of PG into approach and avoidance factors (Elliot &
Harackiewicz, 1996): While performance-approach goals (P-ApG) focus the individual on demon-
strating high competence, performance-avoidance goals (P-AvG) entail strategies that prevent the
individual from showing a lack of competence. Although there have been suggestions to distin-
guish even more goal orientations (see Smith, Duda, Allen, & Hall, 2002), the so-called trichoto-
mous goal framework is currently the most widely used in achievement motivation research.
Furthermore, some researchers have included one component in their considerations that taps
the opposite of high achievement motivation, namely work avoidance (W-AvG) (e.g., Hara-
ckiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto, & Elliot, 1997). People high in W-AvG are interested neither
in competence enhancement nor in demonstrating high or low ability: They simply want to invest
as little work as possible in a task. Although the term W-AvG suggests a predominant active
avoidance behavior, individuals high in W-AvG act very passively and are not driven by worry
or fear.

1.2. Relationship between goal orientations and personality

With regard to trait-oriented personality theories, especially the Five Factor Model (see Dig-
man, 1990) has inspired much research over the past decades. According to this model, five largely
independent personality dimensions – neuroticism (N), extraversion (E), openness to experience
(O), agreeableness (A), and conscientiousness (C) – constitute the basic structure of personality.
Some previous studies have already investigated the relationship between the Big Five person-
ality traits and goal orientations. Due to different theoretical and measurement models, studies are
difficult to compare and lead to inconsistent results (e.g., Day, Radosevich, & Chasteen, 2003). A
recent meta-analysis examining the nomological net of goal orientations (Payne, Youngcourt, &
Beaubien, 2007) noticed that very few studies had used three-dimensional measures of goal orien-
tation when investigating the relationship to personality. Most studies only distinguished LG and
1456 T. Bipp et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 1454–1464

PG, and therefore, in cases where only PG were pitted against LG, Payne et al. coded the PG
measure as P-ApG. This makes their results very difficult to interpret with respect to P-ApG
and P-AvG. Nevertheless, the meta-analysis shows that LG are weakly to moderately positively
associated with all of the Big Five, whereas P-AvG are weakly to moderately negatively related to
them (N redefined as emotional stability). In addition to these results, it is worthwhile to take a
look at the few studies that have explicitly examined the relationships between the trichotomous
goal framework and the Big Five. The results of Zweig and Webster (2004) and Day et al. (2003)
by and large supported a negative association of LG with N ( .09 < r < .13), and – in part –
positive correlations for the remaining four factors (highest relationships found for C and O;
r < .38). For P-ApG both studies supported a positive relationship to N (.15 < r < .32), and inde-
pendence from E. Only within some measures were P-ApG related to O, C, or A. Whereas P-AvG
correlated significantly with all five traits in the data presented by Zweig and Webster (2004)
(r P |.15|), findings from Day et al. (2003) only provided clear support for the relations of N,
E, and O to P-AvG.
Although most of these studies investigated the relations on an exploratory empirical basis, El-
liot and Thrash (2002) were the first to offer a testable theoretical basis for the linkage between
personality and goal orientations. These authors followed a biological approach to E and N
and postulate the existence of an approach and avoidance temperament. Based on a biologically
determined sensitivity to positive (or negative) stimuli, these temperaments are ‘‘accompanied by
perceptual vigilance for, affective reactivity to, and a behavioral predisposition toward such stim-
uli” (Elliot & Thrash, 2002; p. 805). On the basis of these assumptions, Elliot and Thrash hypoth-
esized that personality dimensions associated with approach behavior (such as E) should be
positively connected to LG and P-ApG. Likewise, personality dimensions associated with avoid-
ance behavior (such as N) should be positively related to P-AvG. Moreover, the authors assumed
attempts to override these main associations and expected P-ApG to be linked to avoidance tem-
perament. Their own empirical findings (Elliot & Thrash, 2002) largely, but not fully, supported
these assumptions, and it has to be noted that all identified associations were rather weak. Since
an elaborated theoretical framework for integrating goal orientations and personality traits is
desirable, we used Elliot and Thrash’s assumptions as a theoretical framework for our study.
However, we took into account that results of previous studies showed only in part support for
this theoretical basis (e.g., Day et al., 2003). Moreover, it is yet unresolved how the assumptions
for E and N can be applied to the remaining Big Five factors.
Beside overwhelming empirical evidence for a five factorial structure for describing individual
differences, several approaches exist that outline specific facets for each global trait (Saucier &
Goldberg, 2003). For example, Costa and McCrae (1995) hierarchical specification integrates
six facets for each broad (domain) factor. To date, no studies exist that have investigated the rela-
tion between these Big Five sub-facets at a mid-level of abstraction and goal orientations.
Since goal orientations are often investigated in order to explain learning and achievement,
ability-related dimensions are also important for the specification of a nomological network. Most
motivation theories imply the assumption that motivation should be largely independent from in-
ter-individual differences in abilities (i.e., potentials for high performance) such as intelligence
(e.g., Dweck & Leggett, 1988). The hypothesis that goal orientations are uncorrelated with intel-
ligence was corroborated by Payne et al. (2007): All investigated goal orientations correlated close
to zero with intelligence.
 T. Bipp et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 1454–1464 1457

1.3. Present study

All in all, there is not much known about the relationships between goal orientations, person-
ality, and intelligence. Only a few studies relied on a trichotomous goal framework or included
work avoidance as a goal facet. We, therefore, extended the spectrum of goal orientations beyond
LG, P-ApG, and P-AvG and integrated the tendency to avoid work (W-AvG). Furthermore, we
took a new approach to explain the relations by investigating the nomological network of achieve-
ment motivation with lower order facets of the Big Five. The 30 hierarchical sub-facets of the
NEO-PI-R (Costa & McCrae, 1992) allow for deriving precise hypotheses about the relation to
goal orientations and should therefore yield clearer correlation patterns than the broad Big Five
factors.

1.4. Hypotheses

We expected many, though not all, of the personality facets to yield predictable relations to goal
orientations. We assumed that some of the facets would be markedly higher correlated with
achievement motivation than the Big Five or show opposing connections within a global factor.
In the following, we outline the assumptions about associations between goal orientations and
personality facets (cf. Table 1). Essential relations for the global Big Five traits were only postu-
lated if a distinct correlational pattern to goal orientations of more than one facet was
hypothesized.
Relating the facets of N to achievement motivation, we expect them to be clearly linked to both
performance goal orientations. High scores on the facet of Anxiety imply, for example, the pre-
vention of failures, which should lead to a positive association with P-AvG. The same association
pattern was hypothesized for the facets of Depression, Self-consciousness and Vulnerability: People
who feel easily discouraged or are unconfident in social groups, easy to embarrass or not very self-
reliant are supposed to avoid unfavorable judgments from other people (P-AvG). Based on the
override tendency stated by Elliot and Thrash (2002), a concurrent association pattern can be pos-
tulated for P-ApG and these four sub-facets (Anxiety, Depression, Self-conscientiousness, and Vul-
nerability). Referring to research relating Angry hostility to hypercompetition (attitude to win at
any cost, see Ross, Rausch, & Canada, 2003), it is possible to postulate a positive association to
P-AvG and P-ApG. In contrast to a clear positive association of N with both performance goal
orientations, none of the six facets of N were postulated to covary with LG or W-AvG.
In addition, substantial relations for three of the subcomponents of E were anticipated. A po-
sitive affect and optimistic beliefs about the future have been shown to have a positive effect on
learning behavior, implying for the facet of Positive emotions a positive association with LG
(see also Van Yperen, 2006). Another relation supports the postulated positive connection of E
to LG: People with high scores on Activity who report a lot of energy and find sedentary work
unattractive, should be more oriented towards new things, i.e. LG. In addition, they should report
lower levels on W-AvG, due to their need for stimulation. Whereas for P-ApG no essential rela-
tionships can be hypothesized, another facet was expected to correlate with goal orientations: Peo-
ple scoring low on Assertiveness can be described as weak, self-conscious or servile. Within
competitive settings, this should lead to a predominant tendency to avoid demonstrating incom-
petence in front of others. Thus, Assertiveness should be negatively correlated with P-AvG.
1458 T. Bipp et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 1454–1464

Table 1
Hypothesized relations between goal orientations, Big Five personality traits, and intelligence
Goal Orientation
LG P-ApG P-AvG W-AvG
Big Five
Neuroticism 0 + + 0
Facets: Anxiety (+), Anxiety (+),
angry hostility (+), angry hostility (+),
depression (+), depression (+),
self-consciousness (+), self-consciousness (+),
vulnerability (+) vulnerability (+)
Extraversion + 0
Facets: Activity (+), Assertiveness ( ) Activity ( )
positive emotions (+)
Openness + 0 0
Facets Fantasy (+), Aesthetics (+), Values ( )
aesthetics (+), feelings (+),
feelings (+), values ( )
actions (+),
ideas (+),
values (+)
Agreeableness + 0
Facets: Trust (+), Straightforwardness ( ), Straightforwardness
altruism (+), compliance ( ), ( )
compliance (+), modesty ( )
tender-mindedness (+)
Conscientiousness + 0
Facets: Competence (+), Achievement Competence ( ), Competence ( ),
achievement striving (+) achievement dutifulness ( ),
striving (+) striving (+) achievement
striving ( ),
self-discipline ( )
Intelligence 0 0 0 0
Note: = negative correlation; + = positive correlation; 0 = no correlation.

Building on the relations of O with learning behavior and the overlap with intelligence (Acker-
man & Heggestad, 1997), we anticipated positive correlations for all of the facets (Fantasy, Aes-
thetics, Feelings, Actions, Ideas, Values) with LG and consequently a positive correlation to O on
the domain level. People who are imaginative, curious, can easily adjust to novelty, and are broad-
minded or independent in their judgments should prefer new situations or intellectual stimulation
and therefore be eager to engage in situations offering learning opportunities. People who reason
about authority and do not tend to conformity are not supposed to align their behavior with nor-
mative standards, hence negative associations to P-ApG and P-AvG can be inferred for Openness
to Values. The sub-facets of Openness to Aesthetics and Feelings, in contrast, rather address the
presentation of end results of a process and, thus, should be positively related to P-ApG. These
opposing associations should result for O on the global level in no essential correlation to P-ApG.
No connections were hypothesized for O and W-AvG on different levels of abstraction.
 T. Bipp et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 1454–1464 1459

Four anticipated correlations on the sub-facet level offer an explanation for a positive relation
between A and LG. Especially Altruism and Compliance have been shown to be related to scores
on personal development competition (Ross et al., 2003), describing people who look out for
opportunities for personal growth, which correspond to LG. This connection should also be true
for Trust and Tender-mindedness, two facets describing people who are eager to learn from others.
Additionally, the interpersonal aspects of A imply relationships between certain facets and norm-
oriented performance goals: The resemblance of the competition aspect in demonstrating one’s
ability to others should manifest itself within negative relations of P-ApG with Straightforward-
ness, Compliance, and Modesty, implying a negative association of A to P-ApG. In contrast, no
essential correlations were expected for P-AvG. People who are self-centered or calculating
(Straightforwardness) are supposed to optimize their efforts within achievement situations, which
should result in a negative correlation of this facet with W-AvG.
C is supposed to be clearly negatively related to W-AvG, because this personality trait – in
particular its lower order facets Achievement striving and Self-discipline – has been shown to
correlate negatively with procrastination (e.g., Watson, 2001). Within achievement situations,
people with low scores on Dutifulness are not expected to be very reliable or careful, which
should also result in a lower W-AvG. Prominent Achievement striving is supposed to lead to
high levels of LG, P-ApG, and P-AvG (Van Yperen, 2006). A second association strengthens
the postulated positive relation of LG to C: People with high self-efficacy, who are confident
in their own abilities, should be more open to increase their knowledge (Competence and
LG). People on the other end of the Competence scale, who are thoughtless or imperceptive,
are supposed to report lower scores on P-AvG or W-AvG. Again, opposing correlations were
postulated on the sub-facet level, which on the global level should result in no essential covari-
ation between C and P-AvG.
Finally, we assumed that intelligence should not be associated with goal orientations. Several
achievement motivation aspects have already been found to be uncorrelated to ability (e.g. Payne
et al., 2007), and consequently we assumed that W-AvG should also be independent of
intelligence.

2. Method

2.1. Participants and procedure

The sample comprised 160 (115 female and 45 male) undergraduates from a German Univer-
sity. Students from different faculties were invited to take part in the study on a voluntary basis
and received either course credit (36%) or a monetary incentive in return for their participation.
Subjects were mostly prospective teachers or enrolled in an educational class (69% of the sample)
and on average within their third academic year (M = 2.71, SD = 1.71). Their ages ranged from
19 to 30, with an arithmetic mean of 23.31 (SD = 2.51) years.
The assessment battery included three inventories: Big Five and intelligence measures were
administered within eight different group settings. On average 2–3 weeks later, students made their
ratings on the goal orientation scales. The time interval between questionnaires was purposely
extended to reduce common method bias.
1460 T. Bipp et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 1454–1464

2.2. Measures

CFT 3: Intelligence was assessed by Cattell’s Culture Fair Test 3 (CFT 3) (Weiß, 1971). The
CFT is a widely used intelligence test which has proven its construct validity as a measure of gen-
eral intelligence. Scores were obtained by summing the results of all four subtests (series, classifi-
cation, matrices, and topologies), which were speed-administered to the participants. The test was
used in its long version, which consists of two test parts.
NEO-PI-R: In order to assess a broad range of personality traits, students responded to the
German adaptation of the NEO Personality Inventory in its revised form (Ostendorf & Angleit-
ner, 2004). Besides the Big Five, the questionnaire measures six sub-facets hierarchically struc-
tured under each domain. The 240 items are answered without time restriction on a five-point
Likert scale, ranging from ‘‘strongly disagree” to ‘‘totally agree”.
SELLMO-ST: Goal orientations were measured using the learning and achievement orienta-
tion assessment scale (Spinath, Stiensmeier-Pelster, Schöne, & Dickhäuser, 2002) in its version
for college students (‘‘In my studies it is important for me . . .”). Participants are asked to indicate
on a five-point Likert scale, ranging from ‘‘totally disagree (1)” to ‘‘totally agree (5)”, whether
they agree with 31 statements indicating four different goal orientations: learning (e.g., ‘‘. . . to
learn as much as possible.”), performance-approach (e.g., ‘‘. . . to finish tests better than others.”),
performance-avoidance (e.g., ‘‘. . . that others do not think I’m stupid.”), and work avoidance
(e.g., ‘‘. . . to do as little work as possible.”). Raw scale scores are computed by summing the
respective items. The test manual reports convincing values for test–retest stability, the factorial
structure of the instrument, as well as convergent and discriminate validities.

3. Results

Tables 2 and 3 present means, standard deviations, and reliabilities of all variables.1 Psycho-
metric properties of the measures were mostly good within the sample, reaching values compara-
ble to the ones reported in the corresponding manuals. For example, reliability estimates for the
sub-scales of the NEO-PI-R varied within the sample between .42 and .87, with an average Cron-
bach’s alpha of .73. Only the facet of Openness to Values reached a low value of internal consis-
tency, which is a result commonly found in other international translations of the questionnaire or
samples including young participants (Ostendorf & Angleitner, 2004, p. 105).
Table 2 provides correlations between the facets of the NEO-PI-R and goal orientations. Table
3 presents the relationships for the Big Five on the domain level, and for intelligence. Due to our
theoretically derived hypothesis, the alpha level was set at .05. Highest support was found for the
assumed relations of N with achievement goals: all six facets correlated positively with P-ApG and
almost the same result pattern was observed for P-AvG (exception: Impulsiveness), which reached
even higher correlations to those facets. On the domain level, N was positively related to both

1
No scale differences were found between participants regarding incentives, study program, or year of study. Age and
gender were not related to goal orientation scores. Analysis, though, revealed two – not exceptional – differences
regarding gender (t(158) > |2.7|, p < 1%): men scored higher than women on the intelligence measure and women
reached higher values on N compared to men.
 T. Bipp et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 1454–1464 1461

Table 2
Means (M), standard deviations (SD), internal consistencies (a), and intercorrelations between NEO-PI-R facets and
goal orientations
M SD a LG P-ApG P-AvG W-AvG
Neuroticism
Anxiety 17.07 5.80 .83 .12 .17 .32 .03
Angry hostility 15.03 4.87 .75 .11 .19 .26 .04
Depression 14.20 5.98 .85 .01 .25 .43 .15
Self-consciousness 16.52 5.32 .78 .07 .18 .51 .19
Impulsiveness 18.26 4.20 .61 .12 .19 .13 .06
Vulnerability 13.41 4.77 .79 .08 .20 .34 .12
Extraversion
Warmth 22.48 4.53 .78 .23 .10 .09 .07
Gregariousness 19.63 5.67 .83 .10 .11 .08 .05
Assertiveness 16.69 5.59 .85 .05 .01 .31 .05
Activity 18.81 4.96 .77 .23 .02 .14 .28
Excitement-seeking 17.10 4.78 .55 .08 .12 .03 .13
Positive emotions 22.56 5.56 .86 .25 .05 .12 .01
Openness to experience
Fantasy 21.86 5.20 .82 .16 .02 .00 .01
Aesthetics 21.75 5.29 .78 .25 .14 .09 .04
Feelings 23.10 3.92 .70 .31 .21 .09 .04
Actions 17.66 4.33 .70 .31 .02 .02 .08
Ideas 20.57 5.21 .81 .29 .00 .07 .14
Values 20.05 3.35 .42 .17 .19 .10 .07
Agreeableness
Trust 18.29 4.77 .77 .17 .08 .08 .03
Straightforwardness 17.89 4.57 .71 .12 .20 .04 .23
Altruism 22.69 3.55 .66 .35 .01 .13 .13
Compliance 15.73 4.25 .65 .06 .03 .09 .01
Modesty 16.51 4.17 .70 .04 .26 .04 .09
Tender-mindedness 20.48 3.59 .64 .34 .12 .05 .11
Conscientiousness
Competence 21.30 3.57 .68 .20 .05 .22 .20
Order 18.64 4.64 .68 .03 .16 .10 .13
Dutifulness 21.73 3.86 .63 .10 .01 .07 .29
Achievem. striving 20.17 4.57 .72 .30 .13 .04 .31
Self-discipline 17.48 5.77 .87 .03 .01 .14 .32
Deliberation 17.01 4.17 .68 .08 .07 .04 .02
Note: N = 160. Learning (LG), performance-approach (P-ApG), performance-avoidance (P-AvG), work avoidance
(W-AvG). Correlations: r P |.16|, p < .05, r P |.20|, p < .01.

performance goal orientations. A weak positive correlation was found for Self-consciousness and
W-AvG. Three facets of E (Warmth, Activity, and Positive emotions) correlated positively with
LG, which resulted in a positive association on the global level. An inverse relation of E to P-
AvG was apparent, which was due to a significant correlation with the facet of Assertiveness.
1462 T. Bipp et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 1454–1464

Table 3
Means (M), standard deviations (SD), internal consistencies (a), and intercorrelations among domain scales,
intelligence, and goal orientations
Descriptives Intercorrelations
M SD a N E O A C LG P-ApG P-AvG W-AvG
Intelligence 58.06 7.86 .67a .08 .03 .03 .05 .11 .00 .07 .01 .12
Big Five
Neuroticism (N) 95.37 23.78 .92 .36 .07 .08 .29 .06 .25 .45 .13
Extraversion (E) 117.27 21.94 .91 .32 .02 .19 .22 .09 .18 .02
Openness (O) 124.99 16.91 .86 .27 .07 .40 .06 .01 .10
Agreeableness (A) 111.58 16.00 .86 .07 .26 .08 .02 .13
Conscientiousness (C) 116.32 19.28 .90 .11 .06 .07 .30
Goal orientations
Learning (LG) 34.77 2.97 .74 .22 .03 .32
Perf.-Appr. (P-ApG) 22.33 4.31 .82 .57 .18
Perf.-Avoid. (P-AvG) 17.84 6.20 .91 .40
Work Avoid. (W-AvG) 15.69 4.74 .87
Note: N = 160. Correlations: r P |.18|, p < .05, r P |.22|, p < .01.
a
Split-half reliability.

The negative relation of W-AvG with Activity also reached significance. All sub-facets of O were
essentially related to LG, resulting in a positive correlation of LG to O on the domain level. The
result pattern for the remaining goal orientations and O was less clear. Though Openness to Feel-
ings was positively related to P-ApG, Openness to Values showed a negative correlation with this
motivational aspect. For A, correlations of Trust, Altruism, and Tender-mindedness with LG of-
fered explanations for a positive relation on the global level. Three additional correlations were
found for two sub-facets of A: Straightforwardness and Modesty correlated negatively with P-
ApG, whereas the first facet was also negatively related to W-AvG. Only one facet of C correlated
negatively with P-AvG (Competence), and Order was positively related to P-ApG. When we re-
lated the sub-facets of C to LG, Competence and Achievement striving showed a positive correla-
tion. These relations did not manifest themselves in a significant relation on the domain level. A
clear association of C was only found for W-AvG, explained by essential correlations of Compe-
tence, Dutifulness, Achievement striving, and Self-discipline to this achievement motivation aspect.
Intelligence stood in no essential relationship to goal orientations or psychometric personality (see
Table 3).

4. Discussion

The main aim of our study was to shed light on the nomological network linking achievement
motivation to the Big Five personality traits and intelligence. Prior research was extended by tak-
ing into account four dimensions of goal orientations, the hierarchical Big Five facets, as well as
intelligence.
 T. Bipp et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 1454–1464 1463

For the Big Five, only two of the postulated relations were not confirmed (A did not correlate
with P-ApG, nor C with LG), and consistent with our assumptions all goal orientations were
clearly independent from cognitive ability. Our hypotheses at the facet level were only largely sup-
ported: 35 of the 41 postulated correlations were evident within the sample (exceptions: no rela-
tions found between Openness to Aesthetics and P-ApG, Openness to Values and P-AvG,
Compliance and LG or P-ApG, Achievement striving and P-ApG or P-AvG). One limitation of
our study is, though, that some of the identified correlations were only weak (.16 6 r 6 .51), indi-
cating a maximum of 26% of shared variance between personality traits and achievement motiva-
tion. Due to the total number of statistical tests performed, some of our findings might also be a
result of an increased type I error rate.
However, our results demonstrate that relating achievement goals solely to the Big Five factors
does not generate a comprehensive picture of the nomological network. Aggregating information
of different lower order constructs onto a global factor masks essential relations. For example, both
positive and negative correlations were observed for different sub-facets of one factor (e.g., O and
P-ApG) which offers an explanation for the associations found close to zero within other studies
(e.g., Payne et al., 2007). The result pattern documents that a single connection is not always suf-
ficient to result in an essential correlation for the corresponding Big Five factor and that not all
facets show the same association pattern as the domain factors. Future research should concentrate
on this level of abstraction, to clarify convergent and discriminant validities of goal orientations
and to replicate the reported findings. Furthermore, identifying relationships for the subcompo-
nents helps to close gaps within the nomological network surrounding goal orientations. Differen-
tial relations clarify, for example, the distinctions between achievement motivation aspects (e.g.,
facets of A or O are only related to P-ApG, but not to P-AvG). Moreover, future research should
test whether the subcomponents bear an advantage in the prediction of proximal and distal conse-
quences of different aspects of goal orientation (e.g., self-efficacy beliefs or school performance).
Our data only partly support the assumptions of Elliot and Thrash (2002) concerning the
existence of an avoidance and approach temperament. All hypothesized validities for P-ApG
or P-AvG were corroborated for the domain and facet scales of N, confirming, for example,
the postulated override effect. Three sub-facets clarify the positive correlation for E and LG,
but this level of abstraction provides no explanation for an association between E and P-ApG.
Additionally, the theoretical framework does not seem to be easily extended to the remaining
Big Five factors. While all Big Five factors are thought to have a biological basis (Loehlin,
1992), it remains unclear how O, A, and C can be associated with neurological or psychophysio-
logical functions. Thus, with respect to these traits, the avoidance and approach temperament put
forward by Elliot and Thrash (2002) might not be the right theoretical frame to explain their
underlying connection to approach or avoidance behavior. In addition, the aspect of work avoid-
ance cannot be categorized into this dichotomy, but recent research has espoused the need for
such a separation within learning goals (Elliot & McGregor, 2001).

References

Ackerman, P. L., & Heggestad, E. D. (1997). Intelligence, personality, and interests: Evidence for overlapping traits.
Psychological Bulletin, 121, 219–245.
1464 T. Bipp et al. / Personality and Individual Differences 44 (2008) 1454–1464

Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) and NEO Five-Factor Inventory
(NEO-FFI). Professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.
Costa, P. T., & McCrae, R. R. (1995). Domains and facets: Hierarchical personality assessment using the revised NEO
personality inventory. Journal of Personality Assessment, 65, 21–50.
Day, E. A., Radosevich, D. J., & Chasteen, C. S. (2003). Construct- and criterion-related validity of four commonly
used goal orientation instruments. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 28, 434–464.
Digman, J. M. (1990). Personality structure: Emergence of the Five-Factor Model. Annual Review of Psychology, 41,
417–440.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning. American Psychologist, 41, 1040–1048.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality. Psychological
Review, 95, 256–273.
Elliot, A. J., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (1996). Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation: A
mediational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 461–475.
Elliot, A. J., & McGregor, H. A. (2001). A 2  2 achievement goal framework. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 80, 501–519.
Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance
temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 804–818.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Carter, S. M., Lehto, A. T., & Elliot, A. J. (1997). Predictors and consequences of
achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 73, 1284–1295.
Loehlin, J. C. (1992). Genes and environment in personality development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and
performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328–346.
Ostendorf, F., & Angleitner, A. (2004). NEO-PI-R: NEO-Persönlichkeitsinventar nach Costa und McCrae. Testmanual
[NEO-PI-R: NEO Personality Inventory. Manual]. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation
nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 128–150.
Ross, S. R., Rausch, M. K., & Canada, K. E. (2003). Competition and cooperation in the Five-Factor Model:
Individual differences in achievement orientation. The Journal of Psychology, 137, 323–337.
Saucier, G., & Goldberg, L. R. (2003). The structure of personality attributes. In M. R. Barrick & A. M. Ryan (Eds.),
Personality at work (pp. 1–29). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Smith, M., Duda, J., Allen, J., & Hall, H. (2002). Contemporary measures of approach and avoidance goal
orientations: Similarities and differences. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 155–190.
Spinath, B., Stiensmeier-Pelster, J., Schöne, C., & Dickhäuser, O. (2002). SELLMO - Skalen zur Erfassung der Lern-
und Leistungsmotivation. Testmanual [SELLMO –Learning and achievement motivation assessment scales. Manual].
Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Van Yperen, N. W. (2006). A novel approach to assessing achievement goals in the context of the 2  2 framework:
Identifying distinct profiles of individuals with different dominant achievement goals. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1432–1445.
Watson, D. (2001). Procrastination and the Five-Factor Model: A facet level analysis. Personality and Individual
Differences, 30, 149–158.
Weiß, R. (1971). Grundintelligenztest CFT 3 Skala 3. Handanweisung [Culture Fair Intelligence Test CFT 3 Scale 3.
Manual]. Braunschweig: Georg Westermann.
Zweig, D., & Webster, J. (2004). What are we measuring? An examination of the relationships between the Big Five
personality traits, goal orientation, and performance intentions. Personality and Individual Differences, 36,
1693–1708.