Effects of perceived competence and goal orientations on task persistence and affect in physical activity : a test of Dweck and Leggett's motivation theory / by Julia Walsh. --
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
This study tested Dweck and Leggett?s (1988) social cognitive model of motivation in the \nphysical domain. It investigated the effects of perceived competence (PC) and goal orientation \n(GO) on affective and behavioral patterns in a motor skill activity. The model proposes that \nunder failure conditions subjects with a low perceived competence and an outcome/win goal \nwill have high negative affect, and will persist less than the other three groups, who will \ncontinue to display a mastery pattern. The sample 61 university students majoring in physical \neducation. In phase 1 participants were individually tested on a throwing and balancing task \nand completed a "Task Specific Perceived Competence" Scale. The Scale was administered \nseveral days later to determine test-retest reliability (P=.79). The two scores were averaged and \nthe participants were separated into high or low perceived competence groups dependent on \nthe score obtained. Participants were then randomly assigned into two GO groups \ndifferentiated by given instructions. In phase 2 subjects experienced four successful trials and \nfour failure trials on the task. They were told that they could have up to five additional \nrehearsals in between each trial. A Positive Affect Negative Affect schedule (PANAS, Watson, \n1988) was administered after trial four and trial eight. The data was analyzed by a 2 (PC) by \n2 (GO) by 2 (gender) by 2 (success/failure condition) with repeated measures on the last \nfactor. There was a significant conditions effect for negative affect, F (1,53) = 17.68, p <.001. \nNegative affect increased for all groups from success to failure. There was no support for an \ninteraction between PC and GO. The analysis for persistence revealed a GO by Gender by \nCondition interaction, F(l,53) = 4.50, p <.05. Post-hoc analysis using a Scheff^ test revealed \nthat in success there was no difference between groups. In failure one group (females with an \noutcome/win goal) was different from the other three. Across conditions three groups changed \nsignificantly. The only group that failed to change were females with an outcome/win goal \norientation. The findings do not support the hypothesis of an interaction between PC and GO in failure conditions. The results have imphcations for goal setting and instructional methods \nused to motivate students and athletes.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,004 | 0,011 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,003 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».