Cited by 154Behavioral Health and InterventionsPsychological Well-being and Life SatisfactionMotivation and Self-Concept in Sports

Goal conflict and well-being: a review and hierarchical model of goal conflict, ambivalence, self-discrepancy and self-concordance.

Kelly, Rebecca E., Mansell, Warren, Wood, Alex M.·2015·Personality and Individual Differences

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.paid.2015.05.011

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 113 · Cited by 154

Authors
Kelly, R. E., Mansell, W., & Wood, A. M.
Affiliations
  • King's College London (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • University of Stirling (GB)
Corresponding author
Kelly, Rebecca E.
Venue
Personality and Individual Differences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-10
Volume
85
Pages
212-229
ISSN
0191-8869 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2186304915
Cited by
154
References
113
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 13 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 1
FWCI
14.11
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Personality and Individual Differences (publishedVersion)
  • Stirling Online Research Repository (University of Stirling) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (submittedVersion)
Funders
ESRC (RES-060-25-0044)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Psychological Well-being and Life Satisfaction
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
Keywords
goal conflict, ambivalence, self-discrepancy, self-concordance, well-being, goal hierarchy, intrinsic motivation, hierarchical models

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review