Goal orientation has been proposed to influence a number of training and work outcomes. However, results have been inconsistent and predicted relationships are weaker than anticipated (Payne, Youngcourt & Beaubien, 2007). Weak findings may be due to inconsistencies in how goal orientation is conceptualized and operationalized (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Grant & Dweck, 2003; Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). One such inconsistency is the treatment of goal orientation as a stable trait or a malleable state. Issues of state-versus-trait have long fueled the person-situation debate in personality psychology. Fleeson (2001) offered a solution for integrating the two theoretical perspectives called the density distribution approach. By incorporating Fleeson's approach with Latent Trait-State (LTS) covariance matrix models (Steyer, Ferring, & Schmitt, 1992) this study tested the hypothesis that goal orientation, whether measured as a general trait, a domain-specific trait, or state, is density distribution. In addition, LTS models were hypothesized to provide a better method for examining the predictive relationship between goal orientation and achievement-related performance in an academic setting. Results were generally supportive of the first set of hypotheses, but not the second. Theoretical and practical considerations are discussed.
","abstract_html":"<p>Goal orientation has been proposed to influence a number of training and work outcomes. However, results have been inconsistent and predicted relationships are weaker than anticipated (Payne, Youngcourt & Beaubien, 2007). Weak findings may be due to inconsistencies in how goal orientation is conceptualized and operationalized (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Grant & Dweck, 2003; Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). One such inconsistency is the treatment of goal orientation as a stable trait or a malleable state. Issues of state-versus-trait have long fueled the person-situation debate in personality psychology. Fleeson (2001) offered a solution for integrating the two theoretical perspectives called the density distribution approach. By incorporating Fleeson's approach with Latent Trait-State (LTS) covariance matrix models (Steyer, Ferring, & Schmitt, 1992) this study tested the hypothesis that goal orientation, whether measured as a general trait, a domain-specific trait, or state, is density distribution. In addition, LTS models were hypothesized to provide a better method for examining the predictive relationship between goal orientation and achievement-related performance in an academic setting. Results were generally supportive of the first set of hypotheses, but not the second. Theoretical and practical considerations are discussed.</p>","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Mihalecz, Michael Charles"],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":"Psychology","degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["James P. Bliss","Ivan K. Ash","Jeffrey T. Hansberger"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":2011,"date_issued":"2011-07-01T07:00:00Z","date_published":"2011-07-01T07:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:34:31Z","subjects":["Density distributions","Goal orientation","Motivation","Training outcomes","Applied Behavior Analysis","Industrial and Organizational Psychology","Personality and Social Contexts"],"languages":[],"rights":["In Copyright. URI: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).
"],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["9781267425515"],"render_values":[{"text":"9781267425515","href":null,"code":true}]}]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/psychology_etds/163","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["James P. Bliss","Ivan K. Ash","Jeffrey T. Hansberger"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Mihalecz, Michael Charles"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2019-04-04T07:00:00Z"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_discipline","label":"Discipline","values":["Psychology"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Density distributions","Goal orientation","Motivation","Training outcomes","Applied Behavior Analysis","Industrial and Organizational Psychology","Personality and Social Contexts"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:rights","label":"Dc Rights","values":["In Copyright. URI: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).
"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["9781267425515","https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/psychology_etds/163"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["Goal orientation has been proposed to influence a number of training and work outcomes. However, results have been inconsistent and predicted relationships are weaker than anticipated (Payne, Youngcourt & Beaubien, 2007). Weak findings may be due to inconsistencies in how goal orientation is conceptualized and operationalized (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Grant & Dweck, 2003; Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). One such inconsistency is the treatment of goal orientation as a stable trait or a malleable state. Issues of state-versus-trait have long fueled the person-situation debate in personality psychology. Fleeson (2001) offered a solution for integrating the two theoretical perspectives called the density distribution approach. By incorporating Fleeson's approach with Latent Trait-State (LTS) covariance matrix models (Steyer, Ferring, & Schmitt, 1992) this study tested the hypothesis that goal orientation, whether measured as a general trait, a domain-specific trait, or state, is density distribution. In addition, LTS models were hypothesized to provide a better method for examining the predictive relationship between goal orientation and achievement-related performance in an academic setting. Results were generally supportive of the first set of hypotheses, but not the second. Theoretical and practical considerations are discussed.
"]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["Stability and Change in Goal Orientation and Their Relationship with Performance: Testing Density Distributions Using Latent Trait-State Models"]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["James P. Bliss","Ivan K. Ash","Jeffrey T. Hansberger"],"dc:creator":["Mihalecz, Michael Charles"],"dc:date.available":["2019-04-04T07:00:00Z"],"dc:description.abstract":["Goal orientation has been proposed to influence a number of training and work outcomes. However, results have been inconsistent and predicted relationships are weaker than anticipated (Payne, Youngcourt & Beaubien, 2007). Weak findings may be due to inconsistencies in how goal orientation is conceptualized and operationalized (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Grant & Dweck, 2003; Kaplan & Maehr, 2007). One such inconsistency is the treatment of goal orientation as a stable trait or a malleable state. Issues of state-versus-trait have long fueled the person-situation debate in personality psychology. Fleeson (2001) offered a solution for integrating the two theoretical perspectives called the density distribution approach. By incorporating Fleeson's approach with Latent Trait-State (LTS) covariance matrix models (Steyer, Ferring, & Schmitt, 1992) this study tested the hypothesis that goal orientation, whether measured as a general trait, a domain-specific trait, or state, is density distribution. In addition, LTS models were hypothesized to provide a better method for examining the predictive relationship between goal orientation and achievement-related performance in an academic setting. Results were generally supportive of the first set of hypotheses, but not the second. Theoretical and practical considerations are discussed.
"],"dc:identifier":["9781267425515","https://digitalcommons.odu.edu/psychology_etds/163"],"dc:rights":["In Copyright. URI: http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ This Item is protected by copyright and/or related rights. You are free to use this Item in any way that is permitted by the copyright and related rights legislation that applies to your use. For other uses you need to obtain permission from the rights-holder(s).
"],"dc:subject":["Density distributions","Goal orientation","Motivation","Training outcomes","Applied Behavior Analysis","Industrial and Organizational Psychology","Personality and Social Contexts"],"dc:title":["Stability and Change in Goal Orientation and Their Relationship with Performance: Testing Density Distributions Using Latent Trait-State Models"],"thesis:degree_discipline":["Psychology"],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Doctor of Philosophy (PhD)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T03:34:31Z"}