Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: approach and avoidance temperaments and goals.
By A. Elliot, Todd M. Thrash. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2002
1,735 citations recorded by the source corpus.
Subfields: Applied Psychology, Clinical Psychology
View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/253462113c12211ea3833f2802ba5d47df74150f
How researchers see this paper
The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.
In Applied Psychology
- Richard M. Ryan
- T. Kashdan
- Cynthia Fisher
- L. King
- M. Steger
- Sonja Lyubomirsky
- E. Diener
- Wilmar B. Schaufeli
In Clinical Psychology
- Paul J Silvia
- T. Kashdan
- Sonja Lyubomirsky
- Colin G. DeYoung
- Andrew J. Howell
- Cynthia Fisher
- A. Elliot
- L. King
Citations in the corpus
- APPROACH OR AVOIDANCE (OR BOTH?): INTEGRATING CORE SELF‐EVALUATIONS WITHIN AN APPROACH/AVOIDANCE FRAMEWORK (2011, methodology): “Based on previous work (Elliot & Thrash, 2002), we examined whether CSE is best characterized as a form of approach or avoidance temperament (or both) by examining its relation with established indicators of approach/avoidance temperaments and approach/avoidance motivation constructs.”
- Integrating Theories of Motivation (2006, background): “Elliot and Thrash (2002), as well as Carver, Sutton, and Scheier (2000), review a confluence of findings from a variety of motivational formulations that supports its existence.”
- Fear of failure as a mediator of the relationship between obstacles and nascent entrepreneurial activity—An experimental approach ☆ (2017, background): “…show an increased cognitive focus on the aversive consequences of failing (e.g., disappointing themselves or significant others; Elliot and Thrash, 2002), experience painful feelings of shame and sadness (Turner et al., 2002; Brown and Dutton, 1995; McGregor and Elliot, 2005), and feel…”
- Personality change via work: a job demand–control model of Big-five personality changes (2016, background): “For example, the BIS system has been positively linked to neuroticism and negative affectivity due to its governance of vulnerability and avoidance of negative events (Elliot & Thrash, 2002).”
- Affect sensitivity and affect regulation in dealing with positive and negative affect (2007, background): “Neuroticism is related to the punishment system because it shows substantial loadings on a common factor along with behavioral inhibition and negative emotionality ( Elliot & Trash, 2002 ).”
- Personality Neuroscience and the Biology of Traits (2010, background): “Additionally, however, neuroscience data may influence personality psychologists in their development of trait models, as Eysenck (1997) suggested.”
- Flourishing: Achievement-related correlates of students’ well-being (2009, background): “Elliot and Thrash (2002) showed that approach and avoidance goal orientations predicted positive and negative affect, respectively.”
- Inspiration as a psychological construct. (2003, methodology): “Inspiration was also expected to be positively related to Extraversion but unrelated to Neuroticism, given evidence that the core of these traits represent approach and avoidance dispositions, respectively (Elliot & Thrash, 2002; Lucas, Diener, Grob, Suh, & Shao, 2000).”
- How Happiness Affects Choice (2011, positive): “Because emotions serve to guide reactions to the environment so as to appropriately inform behavior (Elliot and Thrash 2002), it is perhaps not surprising that emotions are linked to time.”
- Dangerous mindsets: How beliefs about intelligence predict motivational change (2011, background): “Such personal beliefs may not only be more malleable than contextual variables but also serve as a buffer against negative environmental influences (Elliot & Thrash, 2002; Roeser, Midgley & Urdan, 2001; Walker, Greene & Mansell, 2006).”
- The Strategic Use of Gain- and Loss-Framed Messages to Promote Healthy Behavior: How Theory Can Inform Practice (2006, background): “Using a range of measures , investigators have shown that people differ in the extent to which they think about their daily experiences in terms of the presence and absence of favorable outcomes or unfavorable outcomes (Carver & White, 1994; Elliot & Thrash, 2002; Higgins, 1998, 1999).”