Primary and Secondary Control in Achievement Settings: A Longitudinal Field Study of Academic Motivation, Emotions, and Performance<sup>1</sup>
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present research represents an application of Rothbaum et al.'s (1982) dual‐process model of perceived control to adaptation in achievement settings. This eight‐month longitudinal field study examined how primary and secondary control influenced end‐of‐year academic motivation (e.g., voluntary course withdrawal), emotions (e.g., stress, regret, pride), and performance (e.g., cumulative grade point average) in 703 first‐year college students. For successful students, primary control related to better performance, higher motivation, and more positive affect. For unsuccessful students, the combination of primary and secondary control resulted in optimal academic adjustment. Unsuccessful students who rely on primary at the expense of secondary control risk serious long‐term deficits in motivation and performance. These findings are discussed with respect to academic overconfidence and control‐enhancing treatments.
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.
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 | 0.001 | 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 it