Achievement goals and emotions: The mediational roles of perceived progress, control, and value
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: The link between achievement goals and achievement emotions is well established; however, research exploring potential mediators of this relationship is lacking. The control-value theory of achievement emotions (Pekrun, 2006, Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315) posits that perceptions of control and value mediate the relationship between achievement goals and achievement emotions, whereas the bidirectional theory of affect (Linnenbrink & Pintrich, 2002, Educational Psychologist, 37, 69) proposes that perceived progress mediates this relationship. AIMS: The present study empirically evaluated three hypothesized mediators of the effects of achievement goals on learning-related emotions as proposed in the control-value theory and the bidirectional theory of affect. SAMPLE: Undergraduate students (N = 273) from humanities, social science, and STEM disciplines participated. METHODS: Participants completed web-based questionnaires evaluating academic achievement goals, perceptions of control, perceived task value, and achievement emotions. RESULTS: Results provided empirical support primarily for perceived progress as a mediator of mastery-approach goal effects on positive emotions (enjoyment, hope), showing indirect effects of mastery- and performance-approach goals on outcome-related emotions (hope, anxiety) via perceived control. Indirect effects of mastery- and performance-approach goals were further observed on anxiety via perceived value, with higher value levels predicting greater anxiety. CONCLUSIONS: Study findings partially support Linnenbrink and Pintrich's (2002, Educational Psychologist, 37, 69) bidirectional theory of affect while underscoring the potential for indirect effects of goals on emotions through perceived control as proposed by Pekrun (2006, Educational Psychology Review, 18, 315).
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 | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| 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".