CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 3,103Education, Achievement, and GiftednessMotivation and Self-Concept in SportsPsychological Testing and Assessment

Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals

Elliot, Andrew J.·1999·Educational Psychologist
DOI 10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Achievement goal researchers and theorists have relied primarily on the distinction between performance goals and mastery goals in differentiating competence-based strivings. In this article, an argument is made for incorporating the distinction between approach and avoidance motivation into the performance-mastery dichotomy. Historical, theoretical, and empirical reasons for attending to the approach-avoidance distinction are offered, and a revised, trichotomous framework of achievement goals comprising mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals is described and reviewed. This trichotomous framework is discussed in the broader context of a hierarchical model of achievement motivation that attends to the motivational foundation underlying achievement goals per se. Avenues for further theoretical development are also overviewed, including consideration of a mastery-avoidance goal construct.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3

Cites

132 of 132 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?

  • Normative evaluations engender a preoccupation with performance concerns.

    “normative evaluations engender a preoccupation with performance concerns (Butler, 1987, 2006; Elliot, 1999; Elliot & Moller, 2003; Harter, 1978; Kluger & DeNisi, 1996; Nicholls, 1984).”

    From Why grades engender performance-avoidance goals: The mediating role of autonomous motivation. (2011) · cites this paper as Elliot, 1999

  • Strong situational cues or contexts can override the effects of chronic goal orientation.

    “both Elliot (1999) and Pintrich (2000) have argued that strong situational cues or contexts can override the effects of chronic goal orientation.”

    From Why grades engender performance-avoidance goals: The mediating role of autonomous motivation. (2011) · cites this paper as Elliot, 1999

  • Elliot argued that competence perceptions are one among a series of potential intrapsychic and environmental goal predictors, and that if achievement-setting cues are sufficiently dominant they can determine goal adoption directly via situation-specific concerns.

    “Elliot (1999) argued that competence perceptions are but one among a whole series of potential intrapsychic and environmental goal predictors, adding that if the achievementsetting cues are sufficiently dominant, they have the potential to determine goal adoption directly via 'situation-specific concerns' (p. 176).”

    From Why grades engender performance-avoidance goals: The mediating role of autonomous motivation. (2011) · cites this paper as Elliot, 1999

  • The finding that perceived competence did not influence or moderate the relationship provides evidence in favor of Elliot's (1999) theory concerning the potential overriding effect that salient environmental variables might have over dispositional variables in the prediction of goal adoption.

    “In addition, providing evidence in favor of Elliot's (1999) theory concerning the potential overriding effect that salient environmental variables might have over dispositional variables in the prediction of goal adoption, pretask perceptions of perceived competence in class exercises did not influence the adoption of performanceavoidance goals.”

    From Why grades engender performance-avoidance goals: The mediating role of autonomous motivation. (2011) · cites this paper as Elliot's (1999)

  • The results of Experiments 2 and 3 provide further support for Elliot's (1999) argument that the association between low competence and performance-avoidance goal adoption is likely to be overridden by salient environmental cues.

    “the results of Experiments 2 and 3 provide further support for Elliot's (1999) argument that the association between low competence and performance-avoidance goal adoption is likely to be overridden by salient environmental cues.”

    From Why grades engender performance-avoidance goals: The mediating role of autonomous motivation. (2011) · cites this paper as Elliot's (1999)

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

5 of the 137 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Elliot, A. J.
Affiliations
University of Rochester (US)
Corresponding author
Elliot, Andrew J.
ORCID
Elliot, Andrew J.
Venue
Educational Psychologist
Publisher
Informa UK Limited
Published
1999-06
Volume
34
Issue
3
Pages
169-189
ISSN
  • 0046-1520 (ISSN-L)
  • 1532-6985
DOI
10.1207/s15326985ep3403_3
OpenAlex
W1967940801
Cited by
3,103
References
137
Citations by year
2026: 98 · 2025: 121 · 2024: 126 · 2023: 145 · 2022: 142 · 2021: 161 · 2020: 181 · 2019: 168 · 2018: 144 · 2017: 153 · 2016: 184 · 2015: 194 · 2014: 182 · 2013: 181 · 2012: 166
FWCI
26.84
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Educational Psychologist (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Psychological Testing and Assessment
Keywords
approach motivation, avoidance motivation, achievement goals, mastery goals, performance goals, performance-avoidance goals, mastery-avoidance goals

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