Stuck in Limbo: Motivational Antecedents and Consequences of Experiencing Action Crises in Personal Goal Pursuit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Action crises describe the intrapsychic conflicts individuals experience when they feel torn between further goal pursuit and goal disengagement. The present investigation introduces autonomous and controlled motivation as independent predictors of action crisis severity, beyond known personality-level predictors (action orientation) and novel personality-level predictors (Neuroticism and Conscientiousness). METHOD: = 20.2, SD = 2.3). In two follow-up surveys, participants reported on the severity of their action crises, goal progress, and symptoms of depression. RESULTS: Results suggest that autonomous motivation shields individuals from experiencing action crises, whereas controlled motivation represents a risk factor for developing action crises beyond personality-level predictors. Furthermore, MLM revealed that autonomous motivation is a significant predictor of action crisis severity at both the within- and between-person levels of analysis. Action crises mediate both the relationship between autonomous motivation and goal progress, and the relationship between controlled motivation and symptoms of depression. CONCLUSIONS: The implications of these findings for the prevention of action crises and motivation research 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 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".