Published online by Cambridge University Press: 16 May 2014
The main goal was to compare idiographic profiles of achievement goal dominance(AGD) and motivational profiles based on 2x2 achievement goals to improve ourunderstanding of how the four achievement goals work in conjunction with oneanother, and to discern which profiles are most adaptive in the PhysicalEducation context. A total of 351 students (203 males; 148 females)(M = 14.26 ± 1.37 years) from 3 differentsecondary schools agreed to participate. 86.6% (N =303) showed AGD, mostly mastery-approach dominance (62.9%).We examined the fourAGD groups’ idiographic profiles and how they relate to certainpositive (autonomous motivation and positive affect) and negative variables(controlled motivation and amotivation). The results supported the hypotheses ofAGD theory (MANOVA one-way, Wilks’ lambda= .609, F(24, 298) = 7.96,p < .001, η2 = .15).Subsequently, k-means cluster analysis was performed, yielding4 distinct achievement goal profiles. The most adaptive was named“mastery goals”, while “high achievementgoals” were the second most adaptive. AGDparticipants’distribution across the different motivational clusterswas also ascertained (MANOVA one-way, Wilks’ lambda= .678, F(12, 910) = 12.01,p < .001, η2 =.12).