Cited by 786Behavioral Health and InterventionsEducation, Achievement, and GiftednessPsychological Testing and Assessment

A Motivated Action Theory Account of Goal Orientation.

DeShon, Richard P., Gillespie, Jennifer Z.·2005·Journal of Applied Psychology

Abstract

Rapid organizational change is increasing the pressure on employees to continually update their skills and adapt their behavior to new organizational realities. Goal orientation is a promising motivational construct that may explain why some individuals adapt to change better. Unfortunately, the current goal orientation literature is in a state of conceptual and methodological disarray. This presentation reviews the goal orientation literature and identifies numerous conceptual ambiguities, including definitional inconsistencies, dimensional inconsistencies, and inconsistencies in the conceptualization of stability. These conceptual ambiguities result in a confusing array of goal orientation measures and manipulations and ultimately an incoherent empirical database. A dynamic self-regulation model of goal orientation, termed motivated action theory, is presented to integrate the various conceptual perspectives and to provide guidelines for future goal orientation research.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/0021-9010.90.6.1096

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Results of Experiment 3 furnish a timely integration of achievement goal and self-determination theory and support for the multitiered motivational models favored by a number of theorists.

    “In this way, results of Experiment 3 furnish a timely integration of achievement goal and self-determination theory and, furthermore, support for the multitiered motivational models favored by a number of theorists (DeShon & Gillespie, 2005; Elliot, 1999; Grouzet et al., 2004; Moller & Elliot, 2006).”

    From Why grades engender performance-avoidance goals: The mediating role of autonomous motivation. (2011) · cites this paper as DeShon & Gillespie, 2005

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
DeShon, R. P., & Gillespie, J. Z.
Affiliations
  • Michigan State University (US)
  • Bowling Green State University (US)
Venue
Journal of Applied Psychology
Published
2005
Volume
90
Issue
6
Pages
1096-1127
ISSN
  • 0021-9010 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1854
OpenAlex
W1982835598
Cited by
786
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 23 · 2025: 25 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 40 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 40 · 2020: 47 · 2019: 62 · 2018: 45 · 2017: 48 · 2016: 50 · 2015: 47 · 2014: 47 · 2013: 48 · 2012: 52
FWCI
4.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Applied Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
goal orientation, self-regulation, organizational change, employee adaptation, motivation, conceptual ambiguity
MeSH terms
Adaptation, Psychological, Humans, Individuality, Motivation, Organizational Innovation, Organizational Objectives, Personnel Management, Psychological Theory, Organizational Culture, Guidelines as Topic

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