Learning goals: A qualitative and quantitative review

New Developments in Goal Setting and Task Performance

Volumn , Issue , 2013, Pages 195-212

  Seijts, Gerard H ^a   Latham, Gary P ^b   Woodwark, Meredith ^a  

^a WESTERN UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84909949035     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203082744     Document Type: Chapter

References (40)

1. Ackerman, P. L., Kanfer, R., & Goff, M. (1995). Cognitive and non-cognitive determinants and consequences of complex skill acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1,270-304.
2. Adler, S., & Weiss, H. (1988). Recent developments in the study of personality and organizational behavior. In: C. L. Cooper & I. T. Robertson (Eds.), International review ofindustrial and organizational psychology, 3, 307-330. Chichester, England: Wiley.
3. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L.V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 2) [Computer software]. Englewood, NJ: Biostat. Retrieved July 14,2011. Available fromhttp://www.meta-analysis.com/
4. Borenstein, M., Hedges, L. V., Higgins, J. P. T., & Rothstein, H. R. (2009). Introduction to meta-analysis. Chichester, England: Wiley.
5. Brown, T. C. (2003). The effect of verbal self-guidance training on collective efficacy and team performance. Personnel Psychology, 56, 935-964.
6. Brown, T. C., & Latham, G. P. (2002). The effects of behavioural outcome goals, learning goals, and urging people to do their best on an individual’s teamwork behaviour in a groupproblem-solving task. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 34, 276-285.
7. Cianci, A. M., Klein, H. J., & Seijts, G. H. (2010). The effect of negative feedback on tension and subsequent performance: The main and interactive effects of goal content and conscientiousness. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 618-630.
8. Drach-Zahavy, A., & Erez, M. (2002). Challenge versus threat effects on the goal-performance relationship. OrganizationalBehaviorandHumanDecisionProcesses, 88, 667-682.
9. Dweck, C. S. (1999). Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
10. Kanfer, R., & Ackerman, P. L. (1989). Motivation and cognitive abilities: An integrative/ aptitude-treatment interaction approach to skill acquisition. Journal of Applied Psychology, 74,657-690.
11. Kanfer, R., Ackerman, P. L., Murtha, T. C., Dugdale, B., & Nelson, L. (1994). Goal setting, conditions of practice, and task performance: A resource allocation perspective. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 79, 826-835.
12. Kozlowski, S. W.J., & Bell, B. S. (2006). Disentangling achievement orientation and goal setting: Effects on self-regulatory processes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 900-916.
13. Latham, G. P. (2012). Workmotivation:History, theory, researchandpractice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
14. Latham, G. P., & Brown, T. C. (2006). The effect of learning versus outcome goals on self-efficacy and satisfaction in an MBA program. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 55, 623.
15. Latham, G. P., Ganegoda, D. B., & Locke, E. A. (2011). Goal setting: A state theory but related to traits. In: T. Chamorro-Premuzic, S. Von Stumm, & A. Furnham (Eds.), The handbook ofindi-vidual differences (pp. 579-587). Oxford, England: Blackwell-Wiley.
16. Latham, G. P., & Lee, T. (1986). Goal setting. In: E.A. Locke (Ed.), Generalizingfrom laboratory to field settings (pp. 101-117). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
17. Latham, G. P., & Locke, E. A. (2007). New developments and directions for goal setting. European Psychologist, 12, 290-300.
18. Latham, G. P., Seijts, G. H., & Crim, D. (2008). The effects of learning goal difficulty level and cognitive ability on strategy development and performance. Canadian Journal of BehaviouralSciences, 40, 220-229.
19. Latham, G. P., & Wexley, K. N. (1977). Behavioral observation scales for performance appraisal purposes. PersonnelPsychology, 30, 255-268.
20. Locke, E. A. (1965). Interaction of ability and motivation in performance. Perceptual and Motor Skills,21, 719-725.
21. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory ofgoal setting and taskperformance. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
22. Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717.
23. Masuda, A., & Locke, E. (2011). The effects of having simultaneous learning and performance goals on performance: An inductive exploration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of theacademy of management, San Antonio, Texas.
24. Meyer, R. D., Dalal, R. S., & Hermida, R. (2010). A review and synthesis of situational strength in the organizational sciences. Journal of Management, 36, 121-140.
25. Miner, J. B. (2003). The rated importance, scientific validity, and practical usefulness of organizational behaviour theories: A qualitative review. Academy of Management Learning and Education, 2, 250-268.
26. Mischel, W. (1977). The interaction of person and situation. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interactional psychology. Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.
27. Mitchell, T. R., & Daniels, D. (2003). Motivation. In: W. C. Borman, D. R. Ilgen, & R. J. Klimoski (Eds.), Handbook of psychology, vol. 12: Industrial organizational psychology (pp. 225-254).New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
28. Mone, M. A., & Shalley, C. E. (1995). Effects oftask complexity and goal specificity on change in strategy and performance over time. Human Performance, 8, 249-262.
29. Noel, T. W., & Latham, G. P. (2006). The importance of learning goals versus outcome goals for entrepreneurs. International Journal ofEntrepreneurship and Innovation, 7, 213-220.
30. Pinder, C. C. (1998). Work motivation in organizational behaviour. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
31. Porter, R., & Latham, G. P. (in press). The effect of employee learning goals and goal commitment on departmental performance. Journal of Leadership and Organizational Studies.
32. Seijts, G. H., & Crim, D. (2009). The combined effects ofgoal type and cognitive ability on performance. Motivation and Emotion, 33, 343-352.
33. Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2001). The effect of distal learning, outcome, and proximal goals on a moderately complex task. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 22, 291-302.
34. Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2005). Learning versus performance goals: When should each be used? Academyof ManagementExecutive, 19,124-131.
35. Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2011). The effect of commitment to a learning goal, self-efficacy, and the interaction between learning goal difficulty and commitment on performance in abusiness simulation. Human Performance, 24,189-204.
36. Seijts, G. H., & Latham, G. P. (2012). Knowing when to set learning versus performance goals. Organizational Dynamics, 41,1-7.
37. Seijts, G. H., Latham, G. P., Tasa, K., & Latham, B. W. (2004). Goal setting and goal orientation: An integration of two different yet related literatures. Academy of Management Journal, 47,227-239.
38. Winters, D., & Latham, G. P. (1996). The effect of learning versus outcome goals on a simple versus a complex task. Group and Organization Management, 2, 235-250.
39. Wood, R. E. (1986). Task complexity: Definition of the construct. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 37, 60-82.
40. Wright, J. C., & Mischel, W. (1987). A conditional approach to dispositional constructs: The local predictability of social behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53,1159-1177.