Students would encounter motivational conflicts in academic study. Previous studies on motivational conflicts mainly focus on study-leisure conflicts, pointing out that study-leisure conflicts are not conducive to students' academic learning. Except that students may make leisure decisions under them to hinder study activities, even if students make study decisions in the conflicts, there may be motivational interference after the decision, which will lead to various adverse academic consequences (Fries, Schmid, & Dietz, 2008; Grund, Schmid, & Fries, 2015; Hofer, 2007; Hofer et al., 2011; Kilian et al., 2010; Plluut, Curseu, & Elies, 2015).

However, in addition to study-leisure conflicts, students would also face study-study conflicts. Grund et al. collected college students' motivational conflicts in their daily life by experience sampling. They found that although study-leisure conflicts were the most in their life, study-study conflicts also occupied a certain proportion. Such conflict could be a "want" or "should" conflict (Grund, Grunschel, Bruhn, & Fries, 2015; Grund, Schmid, & Fries, 2015). As long as it is a motivational conflict, post-decision motivational interference may occur (Fries & Dietz, 2007; Fries, Dietz, & Schmid, 2008).

Several studies have investigated the relationship between value orientation and motivational interference after deciding study-leisure conflict and found that the higher the achievement value orientation of students, the less motivational interference after study decision and the higher the motivation interference after leisure decision. On the contrary, the higher the student's well-being value orientation, the more motivational interference after study decision and less motivational interference after leisure decision (Hofer et al., 2007, 2009, 2011). In the study-study conflict, whether the achievement value orientation can also have the same protective effect, when the student's achievement value orientation is higher, no matter which studies decision is made, will there be less motivational interference?

In addition, many studies have pointed out that college students' positive and negative perfectionism will have different consequences, the positive perfectionism and negative perfectionism are related to adaptive and non-adaptive ones, respectively (Rice & Dellwo, 2002; Rice & Slaney, 2002; Zhang, Gan, & Cham, 2007). Can positive perfectionism be protective and negative perfectionism destructive after deciding on study-study conflict? Whatever the study decision is, the higher the positive perfectionism of the students, the less the motivational interference; and the higher the negative perfectionism, the more the motivational interference? Furthermore, can two kinds of perfectionism moderate the relationship between achievement value orientation and motivational interference?

Since few studies have explored the related factors of motivational interference in study-study conflicts, this study aimed to investigate the differences of motivational interference between want and should conflicts and examine the relationship between achievement value orientation, perfectionism, and motivational interference among college students.

The survey participants were 1171 undergraduate students from 8 universities. The questionnaire used in this study comprised the Achievement Value Orientation Scale, the Perfectionism Scale, and the Motivational Interference Scale. The Achievement Value Orientation Scale was developed by Chen (2017). It had four items. One factor extracted from the scale could explain 64.86% of the total variance. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .73. The Perfectionism Scale was developed by Fang (2015). It comprised two subscales: the positive perfectionism scale and the negative perfectionism scale. Both scales had 19 items. For the positive perfectionism scale, three factors extracted from the scale could explain 53.93% of the total variance. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .88. For the negative perfectionism scale, three factors extracted from the scale could explain 54.07% of the total variance. Cronbach’s alpha for the scale was .88. The Motivational Interference Scale was adapted from Chen, Teo, and Zhou (2016). In the scale, a scenario which described a common study-study conflict first and followed by four hypothesized decisions. After each decision, there were four items measuring motivational interference after the decision. Therefore, there were four motivational interference scales for the “should conflict-choose writing report", “should conflict-choose report meeting", “want conflict-choose writing report", and “want conflict-choose report meeting" situations respectively. The only one factor extracted from each scale could explain 57.61%, 58.57%, 50.06%, and 58.58% of the scale respectively. Cronbach’s alphas for the scales were .75, .76, .65, and .76 respectively. After the sampling had been completed, the researcher contacted the teachers of each selected class to discuss the survey. If teachers agreed to assist, then the survey was conducted as a group during class. The SPSS statistical software package was used to archive data and undertake statistical analyses. Statistical methods included paired samples t-test, simple regression analysis, multiple regression analysis, and PROCESS Macro Model 2 for moderating effect analysis.

The results were as follows: 1. In study-study conflicts, regardless of whether the students finally decide to engage in the activity they wanted or should, there would be more motivational interference if the activity they abandoned was what they wanted than they should. 2. When the students decided to engage in the learning activity they originally intended to carry out, their achievement value orientation could not predict motivational interference. Moreover, when the students decided to abandon the intended learning activity and engage in the other learning activity, their achievement value orientation could negatively predict motivational interference. 3. Except that positive perfectionism could not predict motivation interference in the "want conflict-choose writing report" situation, in all situations, positive perfectionism could predict motivation interference negatively, and negative perfectionism could predict motivation interference positively. 4. Positive perfectionism could not moderate the relationship between achievement value orientation and motivational interference in all situations; negative perfectionism could moderate in the two situations of "should conflict-choose writing report" and "should conflict-choose attending meeting.”

Chen, P.-H. (2017). Relationship of value orientation and self-regulatory efficacy to conflict decision-making and motivational interference in college students. International Symposium on Education and Psychology, September 5-7, Seoul, Korea. Chen, P.-H., Teo, T., & Zhou, M. (2016). Relationships between digital nativity, value orientation, and motivational interference among college students. Learning and Individual Differences, 50, 49-55. Fries, S., Dietz, F., & Schmid, S. (2008). Motivational interference in learning: The impact of leisure alternatives on subsequent self-regulation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33, 119–133. Grund, A., Grunschel, C., Bruhn, D., & Fries, S. (2015). Torn between want and should: An experience-sampling study on motivational conflict, well-being, self-control, and mindfulness. Motivation and Emotion, 39(4), 506-520. Grund, A., Schmid, S., & Fries, S. (2015). Studying against your will: Motivational interference in action. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 41, 209-217. Hill, A. P., & Curran, T. (2016). Multidimensional perfectionism and burnout: A meta-analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 20(3), 269-288. Hofer, M. (2007). Goal conflicts and self-regulation: A new look at pupils’ off-task behavior in the classroom. Educational Research Review, 2, 28-38. Hofer, M., Schmid, S., Fries, S., Kilian, B., & Kuhnle, C. (2010). Reciprocal relationship between value orientation and motivational interference during studying and leisure. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 80, 623-645. Hofer, M., Schmid, S., Fries, S., Zivkovic, I., & Dietz, F. (2009). Value orientations and studying in school-leisure conflict: A study with samples from five countries. Learning and Individual Differences, 19, 101-112. Kilian, B., Hofer, M., Fries, S., & Kuhnle, C. (2010). The conflict between on-task and off-task actions in the classroom and its consequences for motivation and achievement. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 25(1), 67-85. Pluut, H., Curşeu, P. L., & Ilies, R. (2015). Social and study related stressors and resources among university entrants: Effects on well-being and academic performance. Learning and Individual Differences, 37, 262-268. Rice, K. G., & Dellwo, J. P. (2002). Perfectionism and self‐development: Implications for college adjustment. Journal of Counseling and Development, 80(2), 188-196. Stoeber, J. (2018). The psychology of perfectionism: An introduction. In J. Stoeber (Ed.), The psychology of perfectionism: Theory, research, applications (pp. 3-16). London: Routledge. Zhang, Y., Gan, Y., & Cham, H. (2007). Perfectionism, academic burnout and engagement among Chinese college students: A structural equation modeling analysis. Personality and Individual Differences, 43(6), 1529-1540.