Performance-approach goals: good or bad forms of regulation?

By A. Elliot, Arlen C. Moller. 2003

274 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Education, Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/02fca14639ef32718d14b5d4078ef3755c345fa9

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Education

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Autonomous and controlled regulation of performance-approach goals: Their relations to perfectionism and educational outcomes (2010, background): “Furthermore, individuals with mastery goals have been found to report using deep-level cognitive strategies such as elaboration and organization and meta-cognitive strategies such as time management and monitoring (see Elliot and Moller 2003; Midgley et al. 2001 for reviews) and to be less likely ”
The Strength of the Relation Between Performance-Approach and Performance-Avoidance Goal Orientations: Theoretical, Methodological, and Instructional Implications (2012, background): “Elliot and Moller (2003) echoed this sentiment, suggesting that all educational environments should be unabashedly mastery-oriented. . . .”
Passion and performance attainment in sport (2008, result): “The finding that performance-avoidance goals negatively predict performance is in line with past results in the achievement goal literature (Elliot & Moller, 2003; Elliot, Shell, Henry, & Maier, 2005).”
Achievement Goals and Persistence Across Tasks: The Roles of Failure and Success (2011, background): “…the simultaneous pursuit of high levels of mastery and performance-approach goals would lead to the highest quality of engagement in academic tasks (Elliot & Moller, 2003; Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, & Thrash, 2002; Kaplan & Middleton, 2002; McGregor & Elliot, 2002; Ntoumanis & Biddle,…”
The 2×2 achievement goal framework in a physical education context. (2007, background): “Over 70 studies have been published on the trichotomous achievement goal framework, and this research has clearly supported the utility of this model (Elliot, 2005; Elliot & Moller, 2003).”
Perceived competence moderates the relation between performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals (2012, background): “…although we think it would be unwise to dissuade high perceived competence students from pursuing performance-approach goals that emerge of their own accord (Elliot & Moller, 2003), we think it is best to be wary of establishing a performance-approach goal context at the classroom level.”
Antecedents and consequences of approach and avoidance achievement goals: A test of gender invariance (2008, background): “…mainly from the educational setting have showed that the approach form of goals, both mastery and performance goals, relate to positive achievement-related processes and outcomes (Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Elliot, McGregor, & Gable, 1999; Elliot & Moller, 2003; Smith, Duda, Allen, & Hall, 2002).”
The influence of mastery‐avoidance goals on performance improvement (2009, methodology): “…goals have repeatedly been found to be positively related to performance, whereas performance-avoidance goals have displayed a robust negative link with performance (Elliot & Moller, 2003; Harackiewicz, Barron, Pintrich, Elliot, & Thrash, 2002; Porath & Bateman, 2006; Van Yperen, 2006).”
Autonomy and task performance: Explaining the impact of grades on intrinsic motivation. (2013, background): “Second, grades provide clear diagnostic performance-related information (Darnon, Dompnier, Delmas, Pulfrey, & Butera, 2009; Elliot & Moller, 2003), and thus are potentially able to satisfy competence This article was published Online First August 6, 2012.”
Why Grades Engender Performance Avoidance Goals: The Mediating Role of Autonomous Motivation (2011, background): “…has been associated with reductions in performance (Butler, 1988; Harter, 1978), as have performance-avoidance goals (Elliot & McGregor, 2001), performance-approach goals have, in a majority of cases, been associated with performance increase (Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Elliot & Moller, 2003).”
A NOVEL APPROACH TO ASSESSING ACHIEVEMENT GOALS IN THE CONTEXT OF THE 2 X 2 FRAMEWORK: IDENTIFYING DISTINCT PROFILES OF INDIVIDUALS WITH DIFFERENT DOMINANT ACHIEVEMENT GOALS (2006, background): “Performanceapproach goals have been found to be related to both positive and negative antecedents and outcome variables (e.g., Elliot & Moller, 2004; Grant & Dweck, 2003; Harackiewicz et al., 2002; Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001; Pintrich, 2000), and it has been demonstrated that mastery-avoid”
Perceived structure and achievement goals as predictors of students' self-regulated learning and affect and the mediating role of competence need satisfaction (2013, background): “…goals do orient students towards success, they are less likely, compared to masteryapproach goals, to facilitate deep-level learning (Harackiewicz, Durik, Barron, Linnenbrink-Garcia, & Tauer, 2008) and to invoke positive emotions during engagement in learning activities (Elliot & Moller, 2003).”
Understanding the impact of intrinsic versus extrinsic goal framing on exercise performance: The conflicting role of task and ego involvement (2007, background): “In contrast to these viewpoints, Harackiewicz, Elliot, and colleagues (Elliot, 1999, 2005; Elliot & Moller, 2003; Harackiewicz et al., 2002) argue that these self-presentational concerns should be left out from the definition of ego-approach goals, because they are unrelated to the issue of…”