O R I G I N A L P A P E RWhat do students want socially wh.docx

O R I G I N A L P A P E R
What do students want socially when they arrive at college?
Implications of social achievement goals for social behaviors
and adjustment during the first semester of college
Sungok Serena Shim • Allison M. Ryan
Published online: 20 January 2012
� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2012
Abstract This study investigated if the social achieve-
ment goals that students endorsed at the beginning of their
freshman year were associated with social behaviors and
adjustment 6 months later (N = 276; 52% female). Stu-
dents were recruited from a residential hall and Resident
Advisors provided multi-dimensional assessments of stu-
dents’ social behaviors. A social development goal (a focus
on improving social skills and relationships) promoted
adjustment, indicated by a positive association with overall
social competence. A social demonstration-avoid goal (a

focus on avoiding negative judgments) hindered adjust-
ment, indicated by negative associations with overall social
competence, popularity and prosocial behavior and positive
associations with anxious and internalizing behavior. A
social demonstration-approach goal (a focus on gaining
positive judgments) had benefits, as shown by positive
associations with overall social competence and popularity,
and negative associations with anxious behavior, but also
drawbacks for adjustment, as shown by a positive associ-
ation with aggression.
Keywords Social goals � First year in college � Transition
to college � Social motivation � Social adjustment
Introduction
Students face many changes, challenges and opportunities
as they negotiate the transition from high school and home
life to college life (Petruzzello and Motl 2006). When
students arrive at college they meet a myriad of new peo-
ple. Making new friends and establishing positive peer
relationships are important to having a successful first year

in college (Buote et al. 2007; Friedlander et al. 2007; Paul
and Brier 2001). While some students enjoy the new col-
lege social scene, many students struggle in adjusting
socially to college and report feeling lonely, anxious and
lacking positive relationships (Compas et al. 1986; Cutrona
1982; Larose and Boivin 1998). Social and personal growth
is an important benefit of college in its own right but it is
also intricately intertwined with academic adjustment,
satisfaction with the college experience, and ultimately
retention in college (Tinto 1993, 1997). Thus, under-
standing the factors that underlie social adjustment to
college is an important issue.
The aim of the present study is to investigate if the social
achievement goals that students endorse at the beginning of
their freshman year will help explain social behaviors and
adjustment 6 months later. We use an achievement goal
framework to conceptualize students’ social goals (Dweck
1986; Elliot 2005). Social achievement goals concern stu-

dents’ different orientations toward social competence and
have been shown to be important to college students’ per-
ceptions of personal relationships and overall well-being
during the later years of college (Elliot et al. 2006; Horst et al.
2007; Ryan and Shim 2006). An achievement goal approach is
likely to be helpful in understanding students’ initial adjust-
ment to college because at this transitional time, students
experience uncertainty and ambiguity in their social world
and are likely to reflect on their social competence.
S. S. Shim (&)
Ball State University, 519 Teachers College,
2000 W. University Ave., Muncie, IN 47037, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
A. M. Ryan
Combined Program in Education and Psyhcology, University
of Michigan, 4111 School of Education, 610 East University
Ave., Ann Arbor, MI 48104, USA
e-mail: [email protected]
123

Motiv Emot (2012) 36:504–515
DOI 10.1007/s11031-011-9272-3
Conceptualization of social achievement goals
Goals are cognitive representations of things individuals
want to accomplish and provide direction and energy for
behavior (Austin and Vancouver 1996; Pintrich 2000).
There are different approaches to the conceptualization of
goals. Our achievement goal approach can be distinguished
from a content approach to goals. A content approach
concerns what outcomes individuals pursue and identifies
categories of goals that characterize what individuals want
and this approach has been informative in documenting the
various goals individuals strive for in social situations. For
example, individuals often have goals for affiliation,
responsibility, nurturance, and intimacy (e.g., Ford 1992;
Sanderson et al. 2005; Wentzel 2001). Social goals can also
include healthy desire such as companionship or fun (e.g.,

Anderman 1999; Jarvinen and Nicholls 1996; Wentzel
2001) as well as unhealthy ones such as revenge, domi-
nation or control over others (e.g., Chung and Asher 1996;
Kiefer and Ryan 2008; McAdams 1987; Rose and Asher
1999). Regardless of what someone wants in a social sit-
uation (e.g., intimacy or fun or both), it is likely they also
want to feel socially competent (or at least not feel
incompetent). Achievement goals transcend various con-
tent or outcome goals that are salient to individuals in
social settings (Dweck 1986; Pintrich 2000).
Achievement goal theorists distinguish between goals that
focus on developing versus demonstrating competence
(Dweck and Leggett 1988; Molden and Dweck 2006). As
theory evolved, researchers bifurcated the goal focusing on
demonstration of competence into approach and avoidance
dimensions (see Elliot 2005 for a review). In the social domain
(Ryan and Shim 2006), a social development goal involves
improving social relationships and social skills (e.g., gaining

insights into friends or learning how to get along with others);
a social demonstration-approach goal involves garnering
positive feedback from others and gaining social prestige
(e.g., being seen as ‘‘cool’’ or ‘‘popular’’); and a social dem-
onstration-avoid goal involves avoiding negative judgments
from others (e.g., not being seen as a ‘‘loser’’). Similar to the
distinction made for ‘‘demonstration’’ goals, there has been
some attention to bifurcating ‘‘development’’ goals into sep-
arate approach and avoid goals although Ryan and Shim
(2006) did not include this in their conceptualization of
achievement goals in the social domain (nor did Elliot et al.
2006 and Horst et al. 2007). Such ‘‘development-avoid goals’’
are viewed as less prevalent in real world situations and have
weaker relations with adjustment variables in the academic
domain (Elliot 2005). Given the weaker conceptual and
practical justifications for a development-avoid goal, we do
not include it in the current study.
Prior theory and research indicates that social achieve-

ment goals set in motion different processes, encompassing
whether and how individuals approach, engage, function,
and evaluate themselves in the social domain (Dweck and
Leggett 1988; Elliott and Dweck 1988; Elliot et al. 2006;
Erdley et al. 1997; Ryan and Shim 2006, 2008). Consistent
with this premise, we anticipate that students’ social
achievement goals at the beginning of college will predict
their subsequent social behaviors and adjustment. To assess
social behaviors and adjustment, we used Resident Advisor
ratings of students.
The importance of Resident Advisors’ views
on students’ social adjustment to college
Prior research examining college students’ social achieve-
ment goals and adjustment has predominantly used self-
reports of both constructs (Elliot et al. 2006; Horst et al.
2007; Ryan and Shim 2006). One problem with this
approach is that shared method variance may explain the
associations found between goals and adjustment. Further,

self-reports of adjustment concern students’ subjective
perceptions, which may tap into desired rather than actual
social adjustment. Goals, by definition, concern subjective
perceptions and must be measured by self-reports but some
facets of social adjustment can be observed by others. It is
theorized that social achievement goals bring about dif-
ferent social behaviors (in addition to cognitions and
emotions; see Ryan and Shim 2006). To test this proposi-
tion, and to avoid methodological problems associated with
self-reports, we used Resident Advisor reports of students’
social behaviors and adjustment to college.
Resident Advisors are an important, but rarely examined,
source of information. In this investigation, we are interested
in students’ broader social adjustment to college and wanted
information on students in a social setting, which was possible
with Resident Advisor ratings of students in their residence
hall. The residence hall is an important context of develop-
ment for many freshmen. For many students, the freshman

year represents a transition from their home environment with
family to full immersion of cohabitating with peers around the
clock. When they arrive on campus their freshman year, stu-
dents must interact with peers that they generally do not know,
and did not choose, day in and day out and encompass eating,
sleeping, studying and socializing.
In the present investigation, we ask Resident Advisors to
not only rate students’ overall social competence (e.g.,
good social skills when interacting with others; skilled at
explaining their point of view, see Ryan and Shim 2006)
but also rate students’ prosocial, aggressive, social anxiety
and internalizing behavior (actions that direct problematic
energy toward the self, such as withdrawn, inhibited, and
depressed behaviors) as well as popularity with peers.
These behaviors and adjustment indices represent key
aspects of peer relationships and social development
Motiv Emot (2012) 36:504–515 505
123

(Rubin et al. 2006). Such behaviors and status ratings have
not been examined in relation to social achievement goals
in college students so the present study will provide
insights into whether social achievement goals are associ-
ated with observable behaviors and expand the range of
social behavioral and adjustment variables associated with
social achievement goals for college students.
The relationships between social achievement goals
and social behaviors and adjustment to college
With its focus on improving social competence, a social
development goal is expected to be related to adaptive
social behaviors and adjustment. It is likely that a social
development goal would facilitate navigating the changing
terrain of students’ social world during the transition to
college. A focus on developing peer relationships is likely
to promote reflection on the nature of social relationships in
a new setting and promote successful peer relationships. A

social development goal is an approach goal in nature—a
goal focusing on positive outcomes. Thus, it is often
undergirded by positive views of oneself and enhanced
efficacy to achieve desired outcomes (Ryan and Shim
2006). When focused on social development goals, indi-
viduals tend to report positive perceptions of social rela-
tionships as well as well-being in general (Elliot et al.
2006; Horst et al. 2007; Kuroda and Sakurai 2011; Mou-
ratidis and Sideridis 2009; Ryan and Shim 2006, 2008).
Thus, a social development goal is likely to be associated
with higher levels of overall social competence and spe-
cifically, higher levels of prosocial behavior and lower
levels of aggressive, socially anxious and internalizing
behaviors (Ryan and Shim 2008). Because success is
defined in terms of internal standards with a social devel-
opment goal, there is no motivation for individuals to
achieve social status, and so no association is expected
between a social development goal and popular status

(Ryan and Shim 2008).
During the transition to college, there is likely to be much
attention to social comparison and judgment of social attri-
butes. In the residence hall setting, students spend most of their
time among peers and have much opportunity to observe and
evaluate characteristics of each other in a variety of situations
making social demonstration goals salient. Striving to achieve
positive recognition from peers and securing high social sta-
tus, which are the core elements of a demonstration-approach
goal, may lead individuals to engage in various status-
enhancing tactics. Some of them may be in agonistic nature
and not be construed as prosocial by others (Dolan 2001; Eder
1985; LaFontana and Cillessen 2002; Parkhurst and Hop-
meyer 1998). The phenomenon of popular students being
aggressive has received much attention in child and adoles-
cent development research in recent years (Cillessen and Rose
2005; Rodkin and Roisman 2010) but whether these dynamics
play out in older adolescent samples in the college setting is

unexamined. However, in a new group setting, when status
and dominance are being established, students may resort to
aggressive techniques when necessary to manage others’
impressions (Cillessen and Mayeux 2004; Ryan and Shim
2008).
A social demonstration-approach goal has generally
been found to be unrelated to psychological well-being
indicators, including perceptions of positive social rela-
tionships (Horst et al. 2007; Kuroda and Sakurai 2011;
Ryan and Shim 2006). This may reflect the complexity of
striving for social status—it may be associated with social
competence and popularity but also incur some costs in
terms of being widely liked and forming close, satisfying
personal relationships that bolster well-being (Mouratidis
and Sideridis 2009; Ryan and Shim 2008). Thus, a social
demonstration-approach goal is likely to have benefits
(associated with higher levels of overall social competence
and popularity and lower levels of socially anxious

behavior) and drawbacks (associated with higher levels of
aggressive behavior). Given the lack of association of a
social demonstration-approach goal with well-being in
previous research (e.g., Horst et al. 2007), no association is
expected with internalizing behavior. It is likely that a
demonstration-approach goal is associated with some pro-
social behavior, although it is targeted strategically, and so
we anticipate no overall relation to prosocial behavior
(Ryan and Shim 2008).
With its focus on avoiding negative judgments, a social
demonstration-avoid goal is expected to lead to maladap-
tive social behaviors and undermine adjustment. As an
avoidance goal, it is expected to be under-girded by neg-
ative views of one’s social competence (Ryan and Shim
2006). Avoidance or withdrawal from social situations is
likely to be preferred to engaging in social interactions, as
it is safer and satisfies the goal of avoiding possible neg-
ative outcomes. A social demonstration-avoid goal has

been found to be related to maladjustment, encompassing
negative perceptions of social relationships, overall lone-
liness, social worry, fear of negative evaluation, depression
when faced with interpersonal stress as well anxious soli-
tary behavior (Elliot et al. 2006; Horst et al. 2007; Kuroda
and Sakurai 2011; Mouratidis and Sideridis 2009; Ryan
and Shim 2006, 2008). Thus, we hypothesize that a social
demonstration-avoid goal will be associated with lower
levels of overall social competence and popularity as well
as higher levels of socially anxious and internalizing
behaviors. Given the focus on avoiding the negative
judgments of others, a social demonstration-avoid goal is
likely to be negatively associated with aggressive behavior.
Regarding prosocial behavior, a social demonstration-
avoid goal is concerned with avoiding negative judgments
506 Motiv Emot (2012) 36:504–515
123

and thus might promote prosocial behavior towards others
(e.g., acquiesce to requests for help, sacrifice personal
needs thus being perceived as kind and cooperative) but
this is balanced by the focus on avoidance and withdrawal
and thus, overall no association is expected between a
social demonstration-avoid goal and prosocial behavior.
The role of self-esteem, gender, and interactions
between social achievement goals in social adjustment
In our investigation of social achievement goals, we
examined the main and moderation effects self-esteem and
gender, along with interactions among social achievement
goals. Below we briefly describe how examination of these
issues can enrich our understanding of social achievement
goals, social behaviors and social adjustment.
Self-esteem
Research on social achievement goals is a fairly recent and
thus it is important to demonstrate that these new con-
structs offer additional and unique insights above and

beyond constructs known to be important to social
behaviors and adjustment. Self-esteem has been widely
investigated (e.g., Baumeister et al. 2003; Diener and
Diener 1995; Robins and Trzesniewski 2005) in relation to
social adjustment. Self-esteem refers to a person’s overall
evaluation of their self-worth and has been found to be a
critical factor in well-being and adjustment. How we feel
about ourselves matters for how we behave and interact
with others (e.g., Baumeister et al. 1996; Steele et al.
1993). Goals concern different orientations toward com-
petence and should have unique effects from the more
general evaluations represented by self-esteem (Dweck
1986; Elliot 2005). We examine social achievement goals
and self-esteem jointly to investigate unique effects. We
also examine possible interactive effects of self-esteem and
social achievement goals. The proposition that the desire to
look better than others (i.e., a social demonstration-
approach goal) is most problematic when one lacks confi-

dence figures prominently in achievement goal theory
(Dweck 1986), despite mixed empirical evidence in the
academic domain (Harackiewicz et al. 2000). To further
our understanding of achievement goal processes in the
social domain, we examine if self-esteem moderates the
associations of social demonstration-approach goals with
social behaviors and adjustment.
Gender
We also include gender in our model. Previous research
indicates that males and females might differ in their social
achievement goals, social behaviors and adjustment.
Females tend to be more oriented towards communal goals
whereas males tend to be more oriented towards domi-
nance goals (Rose and Rudolph 2006). Females tend to be
more prosocial, but also more socially anxious and
depressed than males whereas males tend to be more
aggressive than females (Buhrmester and Furman 1986;
Galen and Underwood 1997; Rose and Rudolph 2006).

Further, there is some suggestion that goals have different
effects for males and females (Ryan and Shim 2008). Thus,
we examine the effect of gender when examining relations
among social achievement goals and social adjustment
(main effect) and examine if the effects of social
achievement goals vary for males and females (moderation
effect).
Interactions among social achievement goals
Finally, we explore interactive effects among social
achievement goals. This is important because students may
pursue multiple goals and the effects of one goal may be
different when pursued in conjunction with another goal
(see Barron and Harackiewicz 2001). Of the three studies
concerning social achievement goals in college students,
one study examined potential interactions and few were
found (Ryan and Shim 2006). However, the effect of one
goal may vary depending on the level of another goal. For
example, when a development goal and a demonstration-

approach goal are pursued simultaneously, the resulting
social outcome may be more positive, compared to when a
demonstration-approach goal is pursued exclusively with-
out striving for a development goal (Ryan and Shim 2006,
2008). Another plausible interaction is that when accom-
panied by high level of a demonstration-avoidance goal,
the benefits of the other two approach goals may be com-
promised (Ryan and Shim 2008). However, given that only
a handful of studies have examined the interactions, more
studies are clearly needed to draw a definitive conclusion.
Overview
In summary, the goal of the present research is to examine the
role of social achievement goals to students’ early adjustment
to college. We use Resident Advisor reports of different
aspects of students’ social behaviors and adjustment (overall
social competence, popularity, prosocial, aggressive, anxious
and internalizing behaviors). In line with previous research,
we hypothesize that a social development goal will facilitate

positive adjustment, a social demonstration-avoid goal will be
associated with maladjustment and a social demonstration-
approach goal will have both benefits and drawbacks for
adjustment. The main effects of gender and self-esteem as
well as the interactive effects between goals and self-esteem,
goals and gender and among goals are tested.
Motiv Emot (2012) 36:504–515 507
123
Method
Participants
The participants were 276 college students from a large
State university located in the Midwest. We recruited stu-
dents from 12 different single-sex floors (half male and half
female) in a large residence hall (representing half of the
total floors in the residence hall). This residence hall is one
of the more diverse residence halls with more minority and
international students than most residence halls on the

campus. The residence hall is predominantly freshman
(80%) with some older students (15% sophomores and 5%
juniors and seniors). We recruited freshman who were 18 at
the time of the wave 1 survey. Students indicated their race
and gender on the top of the survey. The sample was 54%
White, non-Hispanic, 20% Asian, Pacific-Islander, 13%
Black, non-Hispanic, 8% Hispanic, and 5% other minority
groups. The sample was 52% female and 48% male.
Procedure
Surveys were administered to students in their residence
hall by a pair of trained researchers. Social achievement
goals and self-esteem were measured during the first week
of the Fall semester (wave 1) and Resident Advisor ratings
of students’ social behaviors and adjustment were collected
at the beginning of Spring semester in January (wave 2).
Students were told that completing the survey was volun-
tary and that if, at any point they wanted to stop, they could
do so. Students were assured the information would be kept

confidential. Surveys were administered at the end of a
mandatory floor meeting held by each Resident Advisor to
review rules and procedures of the dorm. As an incentive to
stay and complete the survey, the three dorm floors with
the highest participation rate won a pizza party.
Resident Advisors of each floor (N = 12) were asked to
complete a brief survey about each of the participating stu-
dents’ social behaviors and adjustment. According to the
University materials, Resident Advisors at this university are
generally responsible for developing a strong sense of com-
munity among the residents. Resident Advisors are highly-
visible and live-in members of the residence halls who support
the mission of the university by developing a safe environment
conducive to academic success and the holistic development
of all students. Specific duties in the job description include:
fostering healthy relationships with residents, serving as a
resource of information about the institution, communicating
regularly with residents, using conflict management and

mediation techniques between residents as needed and trouble
shooting problems with residents.
Participating students gave permission for Resident
Advisors to provide information about their behaviors and
adjustment. Resident Advisors were told that their partic-
ipation was voluntary and their responses confidential.
Each Resident Advisor was given a $10 gift certificate for a
local coffee shop.
Measures
Social achievement goals
Social achievement goals were measured with an adapted
version of Ryan and Shim’s (2006) measure. Social devel-
opment goal items concern a focus on developing social
competence (7 items, e.g., ‘‘In general, I strive to develop my
interpersonal skills’’ and ‘‘It is important to me to work on
improving the quality of my relationships with my friends’’).
Social demonstration-approach goal items concern a focus on
demonstrating social desirability and gaining positive judg-

ments from others (6 items, e.g., ‘‘It is important to me that
others think of me as popular’’ and ‘‘It is important to me to
have ‘‘cool’’ friends’’). Social demonstration-avoid goal items
concern a focus on demonstrating that one is not socially
undesirable and avoiding negative judgments from others (6
items, e.g., ‘‘My goal is to avoid doing things that would cause
others to make fun of me’’ and ‘‘I would be successful if I
could avoid being socially awkward’’). All items were rated
on a scale that ranged from 1 (not at all true of me) to 5 (very
true of me). The measure was reliable in the present sample
(Cronbach’s alpha = .83, .88, and .87 for a social develop-
ment, a social demonstration-approach and a social demon-
stration-avoid goal, respectively).
Self-esteem
We used Rosenberg’s 10-item measure (1965) of self-
esteem. Self-esteem refers to students’ general perceptions
of worth and satisfaction with self. Sample items are ‘‘On
the whole, I am satisfied with myself’’ and ‘‘At times I

think I am no good at all’’ (reversed). All items were rated
on a scale that ranged from 1 (not at all true of me) to 5
(very true of me). The measure was reliable in the present
sample (Cronbach’s alpha = .89).
Social adjustment
To assess students’ overall social competence, Resident
Advisors completed a scale about students’ general social
competence, adapted from Ryan and Shim (2006) to be
appropriate for the residence hall setting. The scale con-
sisted of the following four items: (a) ‘‘This student has
good social skills when interacting with others,’’ (b) ‘‘This
student is skilled at explaining their point of view to oth-
ers,’’ (c) ‘‘If you were to rank all the students on your floor
from worst to best, how would you rank this student in
508 Motiv Emot (2012) 36:504–515
123
terms of social skills,’’ and (d) ‘‘If you were to rank all the

students on your floor from worst to best, how would you
rank this student in terms of ability to make new friends’’.
Instructors rated students on a 5-point scale ranging from 1
(not at all true) to 5 (very true) for items a and b and from 1
(one of the worst) to 5 (one of the best) for items c and d.
Prior research demonstrated inter-rater reliability between
instructors and peers in the use of this scale (see Ryan and
Shim 2006). The measure was reliable in the present
To assess additional dimensions of social adjustment,
Resident Advisors completed scales assessing prosocial
behavior, overt aggressive behavior, popularity, socially
anxious behavior and internalizing behavior. For each
student, Resident Advisors were instructed to circle one
number to indicate how true the various descriptors were
for the student. All items were rated on a scale that ranged
from 1 (never) to 5 (always).
Prosocial behavior

Prosocial behavior was assessed with a measure adapted
from Cassidy and Asher (1992; see also Crick 1996 and the
affiliative subscale of the interpersonal competence scale
(ICS) by Cairns et al. 1995 for use of some similar items)
and consisted of five items: ‘‘friendly’’, ‘‘helpful’’,
‘‘cooperative’’, ‘‘kind’’, and ‘‘considerate’’. The measure
was reliable in our sample (Cronbach’s alpha = .87).
Overt aggressive behavior
Overt aggressive behavior was assessed with the aggres-
sion subscale of the ICS (Cairns et al. 1995) and consisted
of three items: ‘‘fights with others’’, ‘‘argues with others’’,
and ‘‘gets in trouble’’. The measure was reliable in our
Popularity
Popularity was assessed with the popularity subscale of the
ICS (Cairns et al. 1995) and consisted of three items:
‘‘popular with boys’’, ‘‘popular with girls’’, and ‘‘has lots of
friends’’. The measure was reliable in our sample (Cron-

bach’s alpha = .81).
Socially anxious behavior
Socially anxious behavior was assessed with a measure
adapted from La Greca and Stone (1993) and consisted of
four items: ‘‘worries’’, ‘‘anxious’’, ‘‘self-conscious’’, and
‘‘nervous’’. The measure was reliable in our sample
(Cronbach’s alpha = .69).
Internalizing behavior
Internalizing behavior was assessed with a measure adapted
from Radloff (1977) and consisted of two items that would be
visible to others: ‘‘sad’’ and ‘‘cries a lot’’. The measure was
reliable in our sample (Cronbach’s alpha = .73).
The ICS scales have convergent validity with direct
observation and peer nomination measures and have pre-
dictive validity over an 8-year period for adult adjustment,
early school drop out, and teenage parenthood (cf. Cairns
et al. 1995, for a detailed presentation of the psychometric
properties of the ICS). Ryan and Shim (2008) demonstrated

inter-rater reliability between two different teachers and
between teachers and students for several of these scales
(prosocial, overt aggressive, and socially anxious behav-
iors). As students only have one Resident Advisor it was
not possible to establish inter-rater reliability in the present
sample.
Results
Descriptive statistics
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations (SD) and
bivariate correlations for social achievement goals, self-
esteem and Resident Advisor ratings of social behaviors and
adjustment. We examined gender differences in all of the
constructs and found significant differences in many of them.
Males reported higher social demonstration-approach
(t = 5.03, p .001) and social demonstration-avoid goals
(t = 3.94, p .001) than females. Females were rated higher
on overall social competence (t = -2.29, p .05), popular-
ity (t = -2.89, p .01), prosocial (t = -5.35, p .001),
and internalizing behaviors (t = 3.30, p .001) than males.
Regression analyses: Examining social achievement

goals as predictors of subsequent social behaviors
and adjustment
Separate multiple regression analyses were conducted for
each of the six dependent variables: overall social compe-
tence, prosocial behavior, aggressive behavior, popularity,
anxious behavior, and internalizing behavior (see Table 2).
Social achievement goals and self-esteem (measured at wave
1), as well as gender, were entered as predictor variables (main
effect terms). As we described in the earlier section, the
interactions between a social demonstration-approach goal
and self-esteem, interactions between gender and social
achievement goals (e.g., Gender 9 development goal) as well
as interactions among social achievement goals (e.g., Devel-
opment goal 9 Demonstration-approach goal) were of the-
oretical interest. Thus, these terms were examined. Main
Motiv Emot (2012) 36:504–515 509
123

effect terms were standardized before computing interaction
terms to avoid multi-collinearity and aid interpretation of beta
coefficients (Aiken and West 1991). Significance of interac-
tions was determined if the R2 increased by a significant
amount and if the beta coefficient for the interaction term was
significant as well. However, none of the interaction terms
were significant and were dropped from the final models.
Social competence
Social competence was regressed on the three social
achievement goals, self-esteem, and gender. The overall
model was significant, F (5, 274) = 5.23, p .001,
R2 = .10. A development goal (b = .12, p .05) and a
demonstration-approach goal (b = .24, p .01) predicted
social competence positively while a demonstration-avoid
goal (b = -.29, p .001) predicted it negatively. Self-
esteem was not related to social competence. Gender was a
significant predictor, indicating that females were rated as
having higher social competence than males (b = .26,
p .05).
Prosocial behavior

The regression of prosocial behavior on the model yielded
significant effects for the final model, F (5, 274) = 7.53,
p .001, R2 = .12. There were significant relationships
for social development and demonstration-avoid goals but
not for a social demonstration-approach goal. A social
development goal was positively related to prosocial
behavior but the effect did not reach statistical significance
(b = .11, p .06). A social demonstration-avoid goal was
negatively related to prosocial behavior (b = -.16,
p .001). Gender was a significant predictor of prosocial
behavior (b = .27, p .001), indicating that females were
rated as higher in prosocial behavior compared to males.
Self-esteem was not a significant predictor of prosocial
behavior.
Aggressive behavior
When all predictors were included, the model was not
significant, F (5, 274) = 1.52, p = n.s. The only signifi-
cant variable in the model was a social demonstration-
approach goal. A social demonstration-approach goal
positively predicted aggressive behavior (b = .21,

p .01). No other predictors were significant. Subse-
quently, the model was simplified to obtain significance,
via removing all non-significant variables. The resulting
model was significant, F (1, 275) = 5.50, p .05,
R2 = .03, in which a social demonstration-approach goal
positively predicted aggressive behavior (b = .14,
p .05).
Popularity
The regression of perceived popularity on the model yiel-
ded significant effects for the final model, F (5, 274) =
7.55, p .001, R2 = .12. A social demonstration-approach
goal was positively related to popularity (b = .32,
p .001) and a social development-avoid goal was nega-
tively related to popularity (b = -.33, p .001). Gender
was also a significant predictor of popularity (b = .36,
p .01), indicating that females were rated as more pop-
ular than males. Self-esteem was not a significant predictor
of popularity.
Table 1 Means, standard deviations and correlations among
variables
Measures 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
1 W1 social dev. (SR)

2 W1 social dem-ap. (SR) .18
3 W1 social dem-av. (SR) .20 .62
4 W1 self-esteem (SR) .09 -.12 -.31
5 W2 social competence (RA) .11 .03 -.16 .09
6 W2 prosocial (RA) .14 -.12 -.19 .01 .59
7 W2 aggressive (RA) .04 .15 .03 .01 .05 -.26
8 W2 popularity (RA) .06 .14 -.17 .10 .68 .43 .19
9 W2 anxious (RA) .02 -.08 .18 -.15 -.34 .06 -.03 -.40
10 W2 internalizing (RA) .05 -.01 .14 -.18 -.37 -.27 .04 -.42 .43
M 3.85 2.46 2.61 4.02 3.51 3.86 1.41 3.40 2.24 1.89
SD .67 .86 .93 .74 .95 .74 .56 .95 .66 .57
Correlations above |.12| are significant at .05 level; above |.16|
are significant at .01 level. SR refers to self-report measures
and RA refers to
Resident Advisor-report measures. Social dev., social dem-ap.,
and social dem-av. refer to social developmental goal, social
demonstration-
approach goal, and social demonstration-avoidance goal,
respectively
510 Motiv Emot (2012) 36:504–515

123
Socially anxious behavior
The regression of socially anxious behavior on the model
yielded significant effects for the final model, F (5, 274) =
3.56, p .01, R2 = .06. There was a significant relation-
ship for social demonstration-approach and avoidance
goals but not for a social development goal. A social
demonstration-approach goal was negatively related to
anxious behavior (b = -.18, p .05) and a social dem-
onstration-avoid goal was positively related to anxious
behavior (b = .26, p .01). Self-esteem and gender were
not significant predictors of anxious behavior.
Internalizing behavior
The regression of internalizing behavior on the model yiel-
ded significant effects for the final model, F (5, 274) = 5.37,
p .001, R2 = .09. There was a significant relationship for a
social demonstration-avoid goal (b = .19, p .05) but not
for social demonstration-approach and social development
goals. Self-esteem was negatively related to internalizing
behavior (b = -.13, p .05). Gender was also a significant

predictor of internalizing behavior (b = .21, p .05),
indicating that females were rated as exhibiting more inter-
nalizing behavior than males.
Discussion
The transition to college is a major milestone in the lives of
young adults. It brings new social challenges as students
are thrust into a new social scene quite different from high
school that involves navigating a larger social system and
living amongst peers. Making new friends and establishing
positive peer relationships are important to a successful
first year in college (Buote et al. 2007; Friedlander et al.
2007; Paul and Brier 2001). The findings of our study
indicate that students’ social achievement goals are
important to their social adjustment during this important
developmental stage. Even after taking into account initial
levels of self-esteem, the social achievement goals that
students endorsed at the beginning of college predicted
Resident Advisor ratings of social behaviors and adjust-
ment 6 months later.

Social achievement goals and social adjustment
A social development goal promoted social adjustment in
that it had positive associations with social competence and
prosocial behavior, although the latter was only a marginal
effect in the full regression model. The findings regarding
social competence paralleled previous results for instruc-
tors’ ratings of college students’ social competence in the
classroom. Contrary to our expectation that a social
development goal would be associated with lower anxious,
internalizing, and aggressive behavior, the associations
were null. The weak and absent associations of a social
development goal with more specific types of behaviors are
interesting given that it is associated with positive per-
ceptions of social relationships (e.g., Elliot et al. 2006;
Horst et al. 2007; Ryan and Shim 2006). An absence of
relations for a social development goal and specific
behaviors as rated by others was also seen in Ryan and
Shim’s (2008) study with middle school students. It may

reflect that students have varied personalities and rela-
tionships and that developing social skills and relationships
can look quite different. It seems that having a social
development goal is associated with social competence and
personal satisfaction but the more specific manifestations
of social behaviors stemming from this goal are varied.
Table 2 Standardized regression coefficients for predicting
Resident Advisor reports of social behaviors and adjustment at
wave 2 from social
achievement goals, self-esteem and gender at wave 1
Predictor Social competence Pro-social Aggressive
b
Popularity Anxious Internalizing
Social dev. .12* .11
?
.03 .07 .00 .03
Social dem-ap. .24** .01 .21** .33*** -.18* -.09
Social dem-av. -.29*** -.16* -.10 -.33*** .26** .19*
Self-esteem .03 -.05 .01 -.05 -.10 -.13*
Gender
a

.14* .27*** .03 .19** -.03 .21**
Total R
2
.10*** .12*** .03 .12*** .06** .09***
? p .06; * p .05; ** p .01; *** p .001
a
Gender is coded 1 = female and 0 = male. The standardized
regression coefficients are shown. Social dev., social dem-ap.,
and social dem-av.
refer to social developmental goal, social demonstration-
approach goal, and social demonstration-avoidance goal,
respectively
b
Subsequently, the model was simplified until it reached
significance. The final model included a social demonstration-
approach goal, which
was the only significant predictor. The resulting model was
significant, F (1, 275) = 5.50, p .05, R2 = .03. A social
demonstration-approach
goal positively predicted aggressive behavior (b = .14, p .05)
Motiv Emot (2012) 36:504–515 511
123
A social demonstration-approach goal had benefits and

drawbacks for social adjustment. It was positively associ-
ated with social competence and popularity and negatively
associated with anxious behavior. However, it was also
positively associated with aggressive behavior. Students
who report during the first week of college that they want
to be popular were indeed seen as socially competent and
popular after one semester in college. However, the pursuit
of positive judgments by peers as cool or popular was
associated with aggressive behavior. It seems that students
who are focused on status may resort to aggressive tech-
niques when necessary to assert dominance or manage
others’ impressions. This may explain why a social dem-
onstration-approach goal is unrelated to social satisfaction
and overall well-being (e.g., Ryan and Shim 2006). There
are some social and psychological costs involved in getting
to the top of the social pyramid and this may dampen their
overall social satisfaction and well-being.
It is interesting that students who endorse a social

demonstration-approach goal were seen by their Resident
Advisor as low in socially anxious behavior (see also Ryan
and Shim 2008). Prior research using student self-reports
indicates that a demonstration-approach goal is positively
associated with worry about one’s social behavior and
relationships (Ryan and Shim 2006) and fear of getting
negative evaluation from others (Horst et al. 2007). It
seems students who are focused on achieving social status
do worry but do not let others see their anxiety. This too,
likely reflects the importance of impression management
but could incur costs to well-being if the need to maintain a
positive image prevents help seeking or sharing of prob-
lems with others. The divergent pattern for a social dem-
onstration-approach goal with self-reported worry versus
observed anxious behavior highlights the need for research
that uses both self-reports and observations by others.
A social demonstration-avoid goal hindered adjustment
to college. Endorsement of a social demonstration-avoid

goal was negatively associated with subsequent ratings of
social competence and popularity. Further, a social dem-
onstration-avoid goal was positively associated with sub-
sequent anxious and internalizing behavior. This pattern is
concerning. Students who were focused on such avoid
goals at the beginning of college also tended to have lower
self-esteem at the outset. However, the effects for social
demonstration-avoid goals were found controlling for self-
esteem. The focus on negative social possibilities that
are inherent in a social demonstration-avoid goal seems to
set in motion maladaptive behaviors and hinder social
adjustment.
Surprisingly, a social demonstration-avoid goal was
found to be negatively associated with subsequent ratings
of prosocial behavior. If a student was concerned about
others not liking them, wouldn’t they try extra hard to be
nice and please others? One possible interpretation is that
avoidance or anxious behavior are the first behavioral

manifestations of a social demonstration-avoid goal and
lead to diminished social relationships and status which in
turn dampen prosocial behavior. Social exclusion has been
found to decrease prosocial behavior (Twenge et al. 2007).
If someone feels they are left out and not valued, they may
stop being nice and kind to others. Future work that
examines the consequences of social achievement goals
with multiple time points and smaller time increments
could be informative.
Due to theory and prior research, we examined numer-
ous possible moderators of social achievement goals on
social behaviors and adjustment but none of them were
found significant. Thus, the patterns we describe for social
achievement goals are the same for students with high and
low self-esteem as well as males and females. Further,
there were no interactive effects amongst social achieve-
ment goals. We should note however, that the previous
studies finding interactions amongst goals were with self-

reported outcomes. For example, a social development goal
was found to moderate the effects of a social demonstra-
tion-approach goal in two previous studies (Ryan and Shim
2006, 2008). In both studies, the deleterious effects of a
social demonstration-approach goal were reduced for stu-
dents who also had high levels of a social development
goal. Perhaps such moderating effects are more likely to be
seen with students’ own perceptions and experiences.
Given research on social achievement goals is somewhat
new, additional studies are needed regarding moderation
amongst goals.
Females were rated by their Resident Advisors as being
more socially competent, popular, prosocial, and display-
ing more internalizing behavior than males. Males reported
higher levels of both social demonstration-approach and
-avoid goals than females. The regression models con-
trolled for gender so the associations for social achieve-
ment goals with social behaviors and adjustment were

above and beyond the contribution of gender. While there
were mean level differences in many of the variables, the
association of social achievement goals to social behaviors
and adjustment were the same across gender. Thus, males
may be more likely to focus on demonstration goals but the
consequences are the same across gender. Perhaps males
may especially need encouragement to change their focus
on demonstration-approach and avoid goals given they
were both associated with adjustment problems.
Strengths, limitations and future direction
Our work provided new insights into the implications of
social achievement goals for observable behaviors and
adjustment in the residence hall setting during the
512 Motiv Emot (2012) 36:504–515
123
transition to college. However, there are several limitations
that need to be noted and possibly addressed in future

research. First, our study is correlational and cannot make
conclusions about causality. Given that we were interested
in the relation of social achievement goals to Resident
Advisor reports of early college adjustment, our smaller
time frame and prospective longitudinal analyses made
sense. It would not be possible for Resident Advisors to
provide ratings at the very beginning of the year as they
would not have known students then. However, future
work with multiple assessments by Resident Advisors
could provide important information about development
and change across time.
Resident Advisor ratings have both strengths and limi-
tations. Resident Advisors’ have professional duties in the
residence hall that involve observation and supervision of
all students. On the one hand, this makes them important
informants, as it is their job to be knowledgeable about all
students and in particular students with adjustment prob-
lems. Thus, they would notice and keep an eye on students

who were isolated and did not interact much with others.
Peers on the very same floor might not even notice such
students. Their professional post, however, puts them out-
side the peer system. Because they are in a position to
impose sanctions, they are likely to be excluded from many
conversations and social gatherings. Further, as the Resi-
dent Advisor, they might not be on the receiving end of
friendly behavior compared to peers on the floor. Thus, an
interesting avenue for future research on social achieve-
ment goals and behavior in college students might be to use
peer ratings within a residence hall as well. This would
provide more of an insider perspective. However, this too
would have limitations given many students’ close friends
will not be on their floor or even in their residence hall. The
size of the social network at college makes it challenging to
use peer nomination techniques that are the gold standard
for children and adolescents in the school system (Rubin
et al. 2006). However, peer ratings of children in the

classroom setting also miss many important peer relation-
ships in other settings (e.g., neighborhood or activities in
the town) but nonetheless provide important information
about social competence and behaviors. Thus, future work
might augment Resident Advisor ratings with peer ratings
to provide a different perspective on college students’
social adjustment.
The strengths and limitations of Resident Advisor
reports should also be considered specifically in relation to
anxious and internalizing feelings. While it is part of
Resident Advisors’ professional duties to notice these kinds
of behaviors, given their internal nature they may be hard
to observe. Social demonstration-avoid goals have been
found to be associated with self-reports of anxiety (Ryan
and Shim 2008) as well as depressive symptoms (Kuroda
and Sakurai 2011). It is possible our associations would
have been stronger in the present study if we used self-
reports of anxious and internalizing behaviors. However,

individuals often do not want to be seen as having prob-
lems so the accuracy of self-reports of anxious and inter-
nalizing behaviors can be limited by social desirability
bias. Nonetheless, emerging convergence in the literature
spanning self-report and other (i.e., Resident Advisors,
teachers) reports in regards to the positive association of
social demonstration-avoid goals with anxious and inter-
nalizing behaviors suggests this association is robust (see
Ryan and Shim 2008 as well).
Conclusion
Overall, the results are informative about individual dif-
ferences in social achievement goals, social behaviors and
adjustment during the transition to college. The findings are
important because we know the transition to college can
bring social challenges. While many students thrive in the
new social scene at college, others are overwhelmed and
struggle to fit in. Social problems are intimately related to
overall well-being and general success at college. Knowl-

edge about how the different social achievement goals
students strive for relate to different outcomes puts us in a
better position of helping students during this transitional
time. Students’ achievement goals have been shown to be
malleable and sensitive to others’ encouragement (see
Elliot 2005 for a review) so it may be possible for Resident
Advisors and counselors to better promote adjustment
during the transition to college by attending to students’
social achievement goals.
References
Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing
and
interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Anderman, L. H. (1999). Classroom goal orientation, school
belong-
ing and social goals as predictors of students’ positive and
negative affect following the transition to middle school.
Journal
of Research & Development in Education, 32, 89–103.
Retrieved
from www.csa.com.

Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in
psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological
Bulletin, 120, 338–375. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.120.3.338.
Barron, K. E., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2001). Achievement
goals and
optimal motivation: Testing multiple goal models. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 80, 706–722. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.80.5.706.
Baumeister, R. F., Campbell, J. D., Krueger, J. I., & Vohs, K.
D.
(2003). Does high self-esteem cause better performance, inter-
personal success, happiness, or healthier lifestyles? Psycholog-
ical Science in the Public Interest, 4, 1–44. doi:10.1111/1529-
1006.01431.
Motiv Emot (2012) 36:504–515 513
123
http://www.csa.com
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.120.3.338
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.706
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.5.706
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.01431
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1529-1006.01431
Baumeister, R. F., Smart, L., & Boden, J. M. (1996). Relation
of

threatened egotism to violence and aggression: The dark side of
high self-esteem. Psychological Review, 103(1), 5–33. doi:
10.1037/0033-295X.103.1.5.
Buhrmester, D., & Furman, W. (1986). The changing functions
of
children’s friendships: A neo-Sullivan perspective. In V.
Derlega
& B. Winstead (Eds.), Friendships and social interaction (pp.
41–62). New York: Springer.
Buote, V. M., Pancer, S. M., Pratt, M. W., Adams, G., Birnie-
Lefcovitch, S., Polivy, J., et al. (2007). The Importance of
friends: Friendship and adjustment among 1st-year university
students. Journal of Adolescent Research, 22(6), 665–689. doi:
10.1177/0743558407306344.
Cairns, R. B., Leung, M.-C., Buchanan, L., & Cairns, B. D.
(1995).
Friendships and social networks in childhood and early adoles-
cence: Fluidity, reliability, and interrelations. Child Develop-
ment, 66, 1330–1345. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00938.x.
Cassidy, J., & Asher, S. R. (1992). Loneliness and peer
relations in
young children. Child Development, 63(2), 350–365. doi:
10.2307/1131484.

Chung, T., & Asher, S. R. (1996). Children’s goals and
strategies in
peer conflict situations. Merrill-Palmer Quarterly: Journal of
Developmental Psychology. Special Issue: Conflicts in Families
and between Children: Advances in Theory and Research, 42(1),
125–147. Retrieved from www.csa.com.
Cillessen, A. H. N., & Mayeux, L. (2004). From censure to
reinforcement: Developmental changes in the association
between aggression and social status. Child Development, 75,
147–163. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00660.x.
Cillessen, A. H., & Rose, A. J. (2005). Understanding
popularity in
the peer system. Current Directions in Psychological Science,
14, 102–105. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00343.x.
Compas, B. E., Wagner, B. M., Slavin, L. A., & Vannatta, K.
(1986).
A prospective study of life events, social support, and psycho-
logical symptomatology during the transition from high school
to college. American Journal of Community Psychology, 14,
241–257. doi:10.1007/BF00911173.
Crick, N. R. (1996). The role of overt aggression, relational
aggression, and prosocial behavior in the prediction of
children’s

future social adjustment. Child Development, 67, 2317–2327.
Cutrona, C. E. (1982). Transition to college: Loneliness and the
process of social adjustment. In L. A. Peplau & D. Perlman
(Eds.), Loneliness: A sourcebook of theory, research and
therapy
(pp. 291–309). New York: Wiley Interscience.
Diener, E., & Diener, M. (1995). Cross-cultural correlates of
life
satisfaction and self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 68, 653–663. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.68.4.653.
Dolan, D. (2001). How to be a popular teenager [Online news
article]. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/
08/magazine/08POPULAR.html?pagewanted=al.
Dweck, C. S. (1986). Motivational processes affecting learning.
American Psychologist, 41(10), 1040–1048. doi:10.1037/0003-
066X.41.10.1040.
Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive
approach to
motivation and personality. Psychological Review, 95(2),
256–273. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256.
Eder, D. (1985). The cycle of popularity: Interpersonal relations
among female adolescents. Sociology of Education, 58, 154–
165.

Elliot, A. J. (2005). A conceptual history of the achievement
goal
construct. In A. J. Elliot & C. S. Dweck (Eds.), Handbook of
competence and motivation (Vol. 16, pp. 52–72). New York,
NY: Guilford Publications.
Elliot, A. J., Gable, S. L., & Mapes, R. R. (2006). Approach and
avoidance motivation in the social domain. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 378–391. doi:10.1177/01461672
05282153.
Elliott, E., & Dweck, C. S. (1988). Goals: An approach to
motivation
and achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
54, 5–12. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.5.
Erdley, C. A., Loomis, C. C., Cain, K. M., & Dumas-Hines, F.
(1997).
Relations among children’s social goals, implicit personality
theories, and responses to social failure. Developmental Psy-
chology, 33(2), 263–272. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.2.263.
Ford, M. E. (1992). Motivating humans: Goals, emotions, and
personal agency beliefs. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Friedlander, L. J., Reid, G. J., Shupak, N., & Cribbie, R.
(2007). Social
support, self-esteem, and stress as predictors of adjustment to
university among first-year undergraduates. Journal of College

Student Development, 48(3), 259–274.
doi:10.1353/csd.2007.0024.
Galen, B. R., & Underwood, M. K. (1997). A developmental
investigation of social aggression among children. Developmen-
tal Psychology, 33, 589–600. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.4.589.
Harackiewicz, J. M., Barron, K. E., Tauer, J. M., Carter, S. M.,
&
Elliot, A. J. (2000). Short-term and long-term consequences of
achievement goals: Predicting interest and performance over
time. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 316–330. doi:
10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.316.
Horst, J., Finney, S., & Barron, K. (2007). Moving beyond
academic
achievement goal measures: A study of social achievement
goals. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 32, 667–698. doi:
10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.10.011.
Jarvinen, D. W., & Nicholls, J. G. (1996). Adolescents’ social
goals,
beliefs about the causes of social success, and satisfaction in
peer
relations. Developmental Psychology, 32(3), 435–441. doi:
10.1037/0012-1649.32.3.435.
Kiefer, S. M., & Ryan, A. M. (2008). Striving for social

dominance
over peers: The implications for academic adjustment during
early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100,
417–428. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.417.
Kuroda, Y., & Sakurai, S. (2011). Social goal orientations,
interper-
sonal stress, and depressive symptoms among early adolescents
in Japan: A test of diathesis-stress model using the trichotomous
framework of social achievement goal orientations. The Journal
of Early Adolescence, 31(2), 300–322.
LaFontana, K. M., & Cillessen, A. H. N. (2002). Children’s
perceptions of popular and unpopular peers: A multimethod
assessment. Developmental Psychology, 38, 635–647. doi:
10.1037/0012-1649.38.5.635.
La Greca, A. M., & Stone, W. L. (1993). Social anxiety scale
for
Children—Revised: Factor structure and concurrent validity.
Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 22(1), 17–27. doi:
10.1207/s15374424jccp2201_2.
Larose, S., & Boivin, M. (1998). Attachment to parents, social
support expectations, and socioemotional adjustment during the

high school-college transition. Journal of Research on Adoles-
cence, 8(1), 1–27.
McAdams, D. P. (1987). Motivation and friendship. In S. Duck
& D.
Perlman (Eds.), Understanding personal relationships: An
interdisciplinary approach (pp. 85–105). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Molden, D. C., & Dweck, C. S. (2006). Finding ‘‘meaning’’ in
psychology: A lay theories approach to self-regulation, social
perception, and social development. American Psychologist, 61,
192–203. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.192.
Mouratidis, A., & Sideridis, G. (2009). On social achievement
goals:
Their relations with peer acceptance, classroom belongingness,
and perceptions of loneliness. The Journal of Experimental
Education, 77(3), 285–307. doi:10.3200/JEXE.77.3.285-308.
Parkhurst, J. T., & Hopmeyer, A. (1998). Sociometric
popularity and
peer-perceived popularity: Two distinct dimensions of peer
status. Journal of Early Adolescence, 18, 125–144. doi:
10.1177/0272431698018002001.
514 Motiv Emot (2012) 36:504–515
123

http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.103.1.5
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0743558407306344
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.1995.tb00938.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1131484
http://www.csa.com
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2004.00660.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00343.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00911173
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.4.653
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/08/magazine/08POPULAR.ht
ml?pagewanted=al
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/04/08/magazine/08POPULAR.ht
ml?pagewanted=al
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.41.10.1040
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.95.2.256
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167205282153
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167205282153
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.1.5
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.2.263
http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/csd.2007.0024
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.33.4.589
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.92.2.316
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.10.011
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.32.3.435
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.2.417
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.38.5.635
http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15374424jccp2201_2
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.3.192
http://dx.doi.org/10.3200/JEXE.77.3.285-308
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0272431698018002001
Paul, E. L., & Brier, S. (2001). Friendsickness in the transition
to

college: Precollege predictors and college adjustment correlates.
Journal of Counseling & Development, 79(1), 77–89.
Petruzzello, S. J., & Motl, R. W. (2006). Physical activity and
mental
health in college students. In M. V. Landow (Ed.), College
students: Mental health and coping strategies (pp. 41–57).
Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science Publishers.
Pintrich, P. R. (2000). An achievement goal theory perspective
on
issues in motivation terminology, theory, and research. Contem-
porary Educational Psychology, 25, 92–104. doi:10.1006/
ceps.1999.1017.
Radloff, L. S. (1977). The CES-D scale: A self-report
depression
scale for research in the general population. Applied Psycholog-
ical Measurement, 1, 385–401. doi:10.1177/0146621677001003
06.
Robins, R. W., & Trzesniewski, K. H. (2005). Self-esteem
develop-
ment across the lifespan. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 14(3), 158–162. doi:10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00353.
Rodkin, P. C., & Roisman, G. I. (2010). Antecedents and
correlates of
the popular-aggressive phenomenon in elementary school. Child
Development, 81, 837–850. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01

437.x.
Rose, A. J., & Rudolph, K. D. (2006). A review of sex
differences in
peer relationship processes: Potential trade-offs for the
emotional
and behavioral development of girls and boys. Psychological
Bulletin, 132, 98–131. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.98.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton.
Rubin, K. H., Bukowski, W., & Parker, J. G. (2006). Peer
interactions,
relationships, and groups. In W. Damon, R. Lerner (Series Eds.)
& N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol.
3. Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed.,
pp. 571–645). New York: Wiley. doi:10.1002/9780470147658.
chpsy0310.
Ryan, A., & Shim, S. S. (2006). Social achievement goals: The
nature
and consequences of different orientations toward social com-
petence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(9),
1246–1263. doi:10.1177/0146167206289345.
Ryan, A., & Shim, S. S. (2008). An exploration of young
adolescents’

social achievement goals: Implications for social adjustment in
middle school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(3),
672–687. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.672.
Sanderson, C. A., Rahm, K. B., & Beigbeder, S. A. (2005). The
link
between the pursuit of intimacy goals and satisfaction in close
same-sex friendships: An examination of the underlying pro-
cesses. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22(1),
75–98. doi:10.1177/0265407505049322.
Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J., & Lynch, M. (1993). Self-image
resilience and dissonance: The role of affirmational resources.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64(6), 885–896.
doi:10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.885.
Tinto, V. (1993). Leaving college: Rethinking the causes and
cures of
student attrition (2nd ed.). Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Tinto, V. (1997). Classrooms as communities: Exploring the
educa-
tional character of student persistence. The Journal of Higher
Education, 68(6), 599–623.
Twenge, J. M., Baumeister, R. F., DeWall, C. N., Ciarocco, N.
J., &

Bartels, J. M. (2007). Social exclusion decreases prosocial
behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92,
56–66. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.56.
Wentzel, K. (2001). The contribution of social goal setting to
children’s school adjustment. In A. Wigfield & J. S. Eccles
(Eds.), Development of achievement motivation (pp. 221–246).
San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Motiv Emot (2012) 36:504–515 515
123
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1017
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/014662167700100306
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00353
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01437.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2010.01437.x
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.1.98
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0310
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0310
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167206289345
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.100.3.672
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0265407505049322
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.64.6.885
http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.92.1.56
Copyright of Motivation & Emotion is the property of Springer
Science & Business Media B.V. and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a
listserv without the copyright holder's express
written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.
PSY 110HA
Compare and Contrast Critique
Guidelines and Rubric
Students shall locate one source of popular psychology (i.e.,
pop psychology) and one source of
empirical research. Sources of pop psychology include
television shows (e.g., Dr. Phil video clip on
YouTube) or internet sources (e.g., blogs or news snippets).
Empirical research should come from a
literature search in PsycINFO.
After locating these two sources, students are to critique the
merit of the information using critical thinking
concepts and standards. Students should use basic APA style
guidelines (1” margin, 12 point Times New
Roman font, double-spaced) and critiques should total 2-3
pages. Critiques should address the following:
1. What is the question or issue addressed?
2. Who is asking this question?
3. What data and facts are used to support the assertion? Where
do these data and facts
come from?

4. Be sure to provide a link or a source the non-empirical
reference as well!
5. What inference is reached based on these data? Do these data,
in fact, support the claim
being made?
6. Are there other points of view or ways of explaining the
results or assertion made?
7. Is this a reliable source of information based on your
analysis?
Grading Rubric
Rating Scale Exemplary: Corresponds to an A- to A (90-100%)
Proficient: Corresponds to B- to B+ (80-89%)
Basic: Corresponds to C- to C+ (70-79%)
Novice: Corresponds to D to D+ (60-69%)
Not Attempted: Corresponds to an F (0-59%)
Elements
Criteria
Score
Not
Attempted
(Criterion is
missing or not
in evidence).

0-14.99%
Novice
(does not meet
expectations;
performance is
substandard).
15-17.49%
Basic
(works towards
meeting
expectations;
performance needs
improvement).
17.5-19.99%
Proficient
(meets
expectations;
performance is
satisfactory).
20-22.49%
Exemplary
(exceeds

expectations;
performance is
outstanding).
22.5-25
Appropriate
sources
located.
25%
No sources
cited.
The paper located
one source but not
two (one source is
missing).
There are two
sources cited but
neither addresses
the objective of the
assignment.
There are two
sources cited but
one is inadequate.
There is an
empirical journal
article cited and
a non-empirical
article or source

cited.
___/25
Length
requirements.
25%
(2 to 3 pages)
There was
little or no
evidence of a
cohesive
paper.
The paper is
entirely too short.
The paper contains
a great deal of
“fluff” and still
doesn’t meet the
length
requirements.
The paper is just a
little on the short
side and/or it
meets the
requirements only
because it
contains “fluff” that
could use
trimming.

The paper falls
within the
required length
requirements
without going
over and
without straying
from the main
topic.
___/25
Mechanics of
writing.
25%
Little to no
evidence of
proper writing
mechanics.
The grammar of
the paper greatly
impedes
understanding of
content; and/or
the paper contains
no citations.
The paper needs a
good deal of
improvement with
respect to
grammar, citations,

spelling, and/or
style.
The paper is
mostly free of
errors with respect
to grammar,
citations, spelling,
and/or style, but
needs some
improvement in
this area.
The paper is
nearly perfect
with respect to
grammar,
citations,
spelling, and
style.
___/25
Understanding:
sources were
adequately
critiqued per
assignment.
25%
The paper
exhibits a
complete lack
of comparing
and
contrasting

the two
sources.
The paper exhibits
very little
comparison or
critiquing of the
two sources.
The paper exhibits
basic comparison
of the two sources.
The paper exhibits
sufficient
comparison and
critique of the
sources.
The paper does
an excellent job
of comparing
and contrasting
the two sources
per the
assignment.
___/25
____/100

O R I G I N A L P A P E RWhat do students want socially wh.docx

O R I G I N A L P A P E RWhat do students want socially wh.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to O R I G I N A L P A P E RWhat do students want socially wh.docx

Similar to O R I G I N A L P A P E RWhat do students want socially wh.docx (20)

More from hopeaustin33688

More from hopeaustin33688 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

O R I G I N A L P A P E RWhat do students want socially wh.docx