Achievement Goals and the Hierarchical Model of Achievement Motivation

By A. Elliot, Todd M. Thrash. 2001

648 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Experimental and Cognitive Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/8d138f5b6554f2665f5c9bc80c1ef0f417a03c61

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

The social-cognitive model of achievement motivation and the 2 x 2 achievement goal framework. (2006, methodology): “In this sense, the modified social–cognitive model may be seen as fitting nicely within the hierarchical model of achievement motivation (Elliot, 1997; Elliot & Thrash, 2001 ).”
Autonomous and controlled regulation of performance-approach goals: Their relations to perfectionism and educational outcomes (2010, background): “…goals in a way that includes the reasons for engaging in an achievement setting (e.g., ego-orientation), Elliot and colleagues (Elliot 1999, 2005; Elliot and Thrash 2001) have recently argued that achievement goals need to be defined only in terms of that the criteria for inferring competence,…”
The power of anticipated feedback: Effects on students' achievement goals and achievement emotions (2014, methodology): “The model is consistent with achievement motivation theories such as the hierarchical model of approach-avoidance achievement motivation (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Thrash, 2001), and with achievement emotion theories such as the control-value theory of achievement emotions (Pekrun, 2006).”
The Relation of Self-Determination and Achievement Goals to Taiwanese Eighth Graders' Behavioral and Emotional Engagement in Schoolwork (2008, background): “To date, a full 2 2 crossing of the performance-mastery and approach-avoidance distinctions has been proposed by achievement goal theorists to account for the broad GOALS AND ENGAGEMENT 315 spectrum of competence-based strivings (Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Elliot & Thrash, 2001; Pintrich, 2000).”
The Relationship between Future Goals and Achievement Goal Orientations: An Intrinsic-Extrinsic Motivation Perspective. (2010, background): “…and future goals examined in this study are underpinned by the approach valence of achievement motivation (i.e., focusing on attaining a positive, desirable possibility) rather than the avoidance valence (i.e., focusing on avoiding a negative, undesirable possibility) (see Elliot & Trash, 2001).”
Perfectionism, Implicit Theories of Intelligence, and Taiwanese Eighth-Grade Students’ Academic Engagement (2011, background): “The achievement goals that students endorse may be a promising choice in this respect ( Elliot & Thrash, 2001 ).”
Achievement Goals, Performance Contingencies, and Performance Attainment: An Experimental Test (2005, background): “…to be sensitive to the addition of a performance contingency to the achievement context because these types of goals are inherently focused on external evaluation and are presumed to be responsive to the external constraints and affordances of the achievement environment (Elliot & Thrash, 2001).”
Achievement Goal Theory at the Crossroads: Old Controversies, Current Challenges, and New Directions (2011, neutral): “…self-presentational desire may function as one of many possible reasons that a student strives to outperform others, and it may well color the student’s experience during performance goal pursuit, but the key point is that it is not itself part of the goal (Elliot, 2005; Elliot & Thrash, 2001).”
Examining Hong Kong students’ achievement goals and their relations with students’ perceived classroom environment and strategy use (2008, methodology): “Research using achievement goal theory is currently one of the most active areas of research into student motivation (Elliot & Thrash, 2001 ; Harackiewicz & Linnenbrink, 2005 ; Pintrich, Conley, & Kempler, 2003 ).”
Motivation to Learn and Teacher-Student Relationship. (2016, background): “Considerable research has shown the effects of achievement goals on student motivation to learn (e.g., Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Elliot & Thrash, 2001).”
Moving the Achievement Goal Approach One Step Forward: Toward a Systematic Examination of the Autonomous and Controlled Reasons Underlying Achievement Goals (2014, background): “For these reasons, we follow Elliot and collaborators’ (Elliot & Thrash, 2001) call to disentangle the omnibus goal construct.”
The Value of Fostering Physical Literacy (2018, neutral): “…model (Ames, 1992; Ames & Archer, 1988; Dweck, 1986; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls, 1984, 1989), a trichotomous model (Elliot & Church, 1997; Elliot & Harackiewicz, 1994), a 2 × 2 model (Elliot & McGregor, 2001; Elliot & Thrash, 2001), and a 3 × 2 model (Elliot, Murayama, & Pekrun, 2011).”