A 3 × 2 achievement goal model

By A. Elliot, Kou Murayama, Reinhard Pekrun. 2011

797 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/2bdbfc027dd0e02d9b45e54a372c0f672ae942c9

How researchers see this paper

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

In Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

University Instructors’ Achievement Goals for Teaching (2019, background): “Elliot et al. (2011); Elliot and Murayama (2008) . . .”
Extending the 3 × 2 achievement goal model to the sport domain: The 3 × 2 Achievement Goal Questionnaire for Sport (2015, background): “Intercorrelations between achievement goals were consistent with previous findings with the 2 2 model in the sport domain (Conroy et al., 2003; Riou et al., 2012;Wang, Liu, Lochbaum, & Stevenson, 2009) and the 3 2 model in the school domain (Elliot et al., 2011; Wu, 2012).”
Perfectionism and exam performance: The mediating effect of task-approach goals (2015, background): “Regarding the 3 2 achievement goals, we expected other-approach goals to positively predict exam performance (cf. Elliot et al., 2011) in line with previous research on the 2 2 model suggesting that performance-approach goals predict academic achievement (Moller & Elliot, 2006).”
A Meta-Analysis of the Impact of Situationally Induced Achievement Goals on Task Performance (2015, background): “Seeing the task as a challenge tends to evoke effort and persistence, and subsequently benefits performance attainment (cf. Elliot et al., 2011).”
Achievement goals in educational contexts: A social psychology perspective (2012, positive): “…need for achievement and fear of failure (Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Elliot & Murayama 2008; Elliot & Sheldon, 1997), approachavoidance temperament (Elliot et al., 2011), implicit theories of intelligence (Dweck, 1999), and perception of competence (Cury et al., 2006; Elliot & Church, 1997;…”
Performance-Approach Goal Effects Depend on How They Are Defined: Meta-Analytic Evidence From Multiple Educational Outcomes (2017, neutral): “T hi s ar tic le is in te nd ed so le ly fo r th e pe rs on al us e of th e in di vi du al us er an d is no t to be di ss em in at ed br oa dl y. tive goals (Elliot & Murayama, 2008; Elliot et al., 2011).”
Motivational processes in Sport Education programs among high school students (2018, positive): “In addition, research using AGT should include self-and task-based goals based on the latest 3 × 2 AGT model (Elliot et al., 2011).”
Moving the Achievement Goal Approach One Step Forward: Toward a Systematic Examination of the Autonomous and Controlled Reasons Underlying Achievement Goals (2014, background): “…goals have been found to yield a unique association with learners’ energy in class (new outcome), whereas all three approach goals were predicted by approach temperament (Elliot et al., 2011; see Murayama et al., 2012, and Senko, Hulleman, & Harackiewicz, 2011, for recent narrative overviews).”