Within achievement goal theory debate remains regarding the adaptiveness of certain combinations of goals. Assuming a multiple-goals perspective, we used cluster analysis to classify 1002 undergraduate students according to their mastery and performance-approach goals. Four clusters emerged, representing different goal combinations: high mastery/performance (i.e., multiple goals), dominant mastery, dominant performance, and low mastery/performance (i.e., low motivation). In a longitudinal analysis over one academic year, the clusters were compared on cognitive appraisals (expected achievement, perceived success), achievement-related emotions (enjoyment, boredom, anxiety), and objective measures of academic achievement (final grade in Introductory Psychology, GPA). The low-motivation cluster demonstrated the least adaptive profile across all outcomes. The multiple-goals, mastery, and performance clusters showed equivalent levels of achievement; however, students in the performance cluster were more psychologically and emotionally vulnerable than the multiple-goals and mastery clusters. Our discussion focuses on the immediate and potentially long-term implications of specific goal combinations for students and educators, with particular attention to understanding the cognitive and emotional vulnerabilities of students in the performance cluster which appear despite satisfactory achievement levels. (Contains 6 tables and 1 figure.)