Andrew J. Elliot

Approach-Avoidance Motivation in Personality: Approach and Avoidance Temperaments and Goals

The present research examined the role of approach and avoidance motivation in models of personality. Specifically, it examined the hypothesis that approach and avoidance temperaments represent the foundation of several basic dimensions espoused in the trait adjective, affective disposition, and motivational system approaches to personality. Factor analytic support for the hypothesis was obtained in Studies 1, 2, and 6; measures of extraversion, positive emotionality, and behavioral activation system loaded together on 1 factor (Approach Temperament) and measures of neuroticism, negative emotionality, and behavioral inhibition system loaded on another factor (Avoidance Temperament). This 2-factor structure was shown to be independent of response biases. In Studies 3-7, approach and avoidance temperaments were shown to be systematically linked to achievement goals (both nomothetic and idiographic). The findings are discussed in terms of an integrative approach to personality.

Revision of achievement goal theory: Necessary and illuminating.

C. Midgley et al. (2001) raised important questions about the effects of performance-approach goals. The present authors disagree with their characterization of the research findings and implications for theory. They discuss 3 reasons to revise goal theory: (a) the importance of separating approach from avoidance strivings, (b) the positive potential of performance-approach goals, and (c) identification of the ways performance-approach goals can combine with mastery goals to promote optimal motivation. The authors review theory and research to substantiate their claim that goal theory is in need of revision, and they endorse a multiple goal perspective. The revision of goal theory is underway and offers a more complex, but necessary, perspective on important issues of motivation, learning, and achievement. In tins response. the authors dispel interpretation of their critical review of research on performance-approach goals as support for a dichotomous perspective of achievement goal theory. Second, the authors challenge the suggestion that accepting recent research findings and adopting a multiple goals perspective constitutes a theoretical revision of the assumption that mastery goals are always good and performance goals are always bad (J. M. Harackiewicz. K. E. Barron, P. R. Pintrich, P. R. Elliot, & T. M. Thrash. 2002, p. 643). The authors make a distinction between developments that contribute to the explanatory power of the theory and value-laden interpretations of theory and research. The authors argue that phrasing the latter in terms of the former is misleading and that it masks the necessity for a critical discussion over the desired purposes in different types of achievement contexts.

Achievement goals, study strategies, and exam performance : A mediational analysis

Two studies examined achievement goals as predictors of self-reported cognitive/ metacognitive and motivational study strategies and tested these study strategies as mediators of the relationship between achievement goals and exam performance in the normatively graded college classroom. The results support hypotheses generated from the trichotomous achievement goal framework. Mastery goals are positive predictors of deep processing, persistence, and effort; performance-approach goals are positive predictors of surface processing, persistence, effort, and exam performance; and performance-avoidance goals are positive predictors of surface processing and disorganization and negative predictors of deep processing and exam performance. Persistence and effort mediate the relationship between performance-approach goals and exam performance, whereas disorganization mediates the relationship between performance-avoidance goals and exam performance.

Test anxiety and the hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation.

This research was designed to incorporate the test anxiety (TA) construct into the hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Hypotheses regarding state and trait TA were tested in 2 studies, and the results provided strong support for the predictions. State TA (specifically, worry) was documented as a mediator of the negative relationship between performance-avoidance goals and exam performance. The positive relationship between performance-approach goals and exam performance was shown to be independent of TA processes. A series of analyses documented the conceptual and functional convergence of trait TA and fear of failure (FOF), and further validation of the proposed integration was obtained by testing trait TA/FOF and state TA together in the same model. Mastery goals were positively and performance-avoidance goals negatively related to long-term retention.

Predicting Success in College: A Longitudinal Study of Achievement Goals and Ability Measures as Predictors of Interest and Performance From Freshman Year Through Graduation

The authors examined the role of achievement goals, ability, and high school performance in predicting academic success over students’ college careers. First, the authors examined which variables predicted students’ interest and performance in an introductory psychology course taken their first semester in college. Then, the authors followed students until they graduated to examine continued interest in psychology and performance in subsequent classes. Achievement goals, ability measures, and prior high school performance each contributed unique variance in predicting initial and long-term outcomes, but these predictors were linked to different educational outcomes. Mastery goals predicted continued interest, whereas performance-approach goals predicted performance. Ability measures and prior high school performance predicted academic performance but not interest. The findings support a multiple goals perspective.

On the Measurement of Achievement Goals: Critique, Illustration, and Application.

The authors identified several specific problems with the measurement of achievement goals in the current literature and illustrated these problems, focusing primarily on A. J. Elliot and H. A. McGregors (2001) Achievement Goal Questionnaire (AGQ). They attended to these problems by creating the AGQ-Revised and conducting a study that examined the measures structural validity and predictive utility with 229 (76 male, 150 female, 3 unspecified) undergraduates. The hypothesized factor and dimensional structures of the measure were confirmed and shown to be superior to a host of alternatives. The predictions were nearly uniformly supported with regard to both the antecedents (need for achievement and fear of failure) and consequences (intrinsic motivation and exam performance) of the 4 achievement goals. In discussing their work, the authors highlight the importance and value of additional precision in the area of achievement goal measurement.

Approach and Avoidance Motivation

In this article, we introduce this special issue by establishing a conceptual foundation for the distinction between approach and avoidance motivation. We do so primarily by explicating several reasons why the approach–avoidance distinction should be viewed as fundamental and basic to the study of human behavior. In addition, we compare and contrast the “approach–avoidance” designation with other designations that have been used in the motivational literature to cover the same or similar conceptual ground. Finally, we conclude by briefly overviewing the other contributions to this special issue, specifically highlighting how they make use of the approach–avoidance distinction.

Behavioral activation and inhibition in everyday life.

Joint effects of daily events and dispositional sensitivities to cues of reward and punishment on daily positive affect (PA) and negative affect (NA) were examined in 3 diary studies. Study 1 showed that positive events were strongly related to PA but not NA, whereas negative events were strongly related to NA but not PA. Studies 2 and 3 examined how the dispositional sensitivities of independent appetitive and aversive motivational systems, the Behavioral Activation System (BAS) and the Behavioral Inhibition System (BIS), moderated these relationships. Participants in Study 2 with higher BAS sensitivity reported more PA on average; those with more sensitive BIS reported more NA. Also, BIS moderated reactions to negative events, such that higher BIS sensitivity magnified reactions to negative events. Study 3 replicated these findings and showed that BAS predisposed people to experience more positive events. Results demonstrate the value of distinguishing within-person and between-person effects to clarify the functionally independent processes by which dispositional sensitivities influence affect.

Achievement goals and discrete achievement emotions: A theoretical model and prospective test.

A theoretical model linking achievement goals to discrete achievement emotions is proposed. The model posits relations between the goals of the trichotomous achievement goal framework and 8 commonly experienced achievement emotions organized in a 2 (activity/outcome focus) × 2 (positive/negative valence) taxonomy. Two prospective studies tested the model in German and American college classrooms. The results were largely in line with the hypotheses. Mastery goals were positive predictors of enjoyment of learning, hope, and pride and were negative predictors of boredom and anger. Performance-approach goals were positive predictors of pride, whereas performance-avoidance goals were positive predictors of anxiety, hopelessness, and shame. The results were consistent across studies and robust when controlled for gender, GPA, social desirability, temperament, and competence expectancy. The research is discussed with regard to the underdeveloped literature on achievement emotions and with regard to the motivation and emotion research domains more broadly.

Achievement Goals and the Hierarchical Model of Achievement Motivation

The achievement goal approach has attained prominence in the achievement motivation literature and has produced a valuable empirical yield. However, the precise nature of the achievement goal construct is in need of scrutiny, as is the issue of how achievement goals and their antecedents combine to produce competence-based self-regulation. In this article, we address these important conceptual issues in the context of the hierarchical model of achievement motivation. The approach–avoidance distinction, which has been an integral part of the achievement motivation literature since its inception, is highlighted throughout.