Basic Personality Dispositions, Self‐Esteem, and Personal Goals: An Approach‐Avoidance Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This research examined the hypothesis that self-esteem negatively predicts avoidance (relative to approach) personal goals, as well as the hypothesis that self-esteem mediates the link between indicators of approach and avoidance temperament and avoidance (relative to approach) personal goals. Study 1 established that self-esteem is indeed negatively related to avoidance (relative to approach) goals, even with social desirability concerns controlled. In Study 2, self-esteem was found to mediate the relation between Neuroticism (conceptualized as an indicator of avoidance temperament) and avoidance (relative to approach) personal goals. In Study 3, self-esteem was documented as a mediator of the relation between BAS and BIS sensitivity (conceptualized as indicators of approach and avoidance temperament, respectively) and avoidance (relative to approach) personal goals in the achievement domain. The implications of these findings for our understanding of basic personality dispositions, self-esteem, and personal goals are discussed.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".