The two roads of passionate goal pursuit: links with appraisal, coping, and academic achievement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: In this research, we tested the role of cognitive appraisals in explaining why harmonious and obsessive passion dimensions are related to distinct forms of coping and explored if performance was impacted by these appraisal and coping processes. DESIGN: Undergraduate students (N = 489) participated in a longitudinal study and completed three surveys throughout the course of an academic year. METHODS: Participants completed assessments of both passion dimensions (Time 1), reported how they were appraising and coping with the mid-year examination period (Time 2), and provided consent to obtain their final grade in Introductory Psychology (Time 3). The hypothesized model was tested using structural equation modeling. RESULTS: Harmonious and obsessive passion dimensions were linked with approach and avoidant coping responses, respectively. Cognitive appraisals, particularly appraisals of challenge and uncontrollability, played an indirect role in these relationships. In addition, both appraisals and coping responses had an indirect effect in the relationship between passion dimensions and final grade. CONCLUSIONS: These results identify cognitive appraisal as a reason why passion dimensions are linked with distinct coping tendencies and demonstrate the role of appraisal and coping processes in the journey to passionate goal attainment.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".