Autonomous and controlled motivation as moderators between achievement goals and sport outcomes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The present study examined the relationship between achievement goals and sport outcomes. Achievement goals are often examined with the 2x2 achievement goal theory (Elliot & McGregor, 2001) that differentiates between performance-approach goals (PAP; aim to outperform others) and mastery-approach goals (MAP; aim to attain task mastery). However, past research has rarely studied the impact of both the aims and reasons for pursuing achievement goals. Goals can be pursued autonomously and aligned with personal values and interests, or for controlled reasons that are external or self-imposed (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). Previous studies in the academic (Gaudreau, 2012; Vansteenkiste et al. 2010) and sport domain (Vansteenkiste, Mouratidis, & Lens, 2010; Vansteenkiste, Mouratidis, Van Riet, and Lens; 2014) show that autonomously pursued achievement goals result in greater well-being and performance. The present study was the first to examine athletes’ goal motivation (autonomous or controlled) as a moderator between both achievement goals and four separate sport outcomes (performance, satisfaction, positive affect, and negative affect) with athletes from diverse sport backgrounds. 553 athletes from a Canadian university completed an online questionnaire. Results revealed that goal motivation significantly moderated several of the effects between achievement goals and sport outcomes. Athletes who pursued PAP goals autonomously had higher performance, satisfaction, and positive affect, whereas when PAP goals were pursued for controlled reasons athletes’ had lower satisfaction and positive affect. When MAP goals were pursued autonomously athletes had higher performance and positive affect, whereas when MAP goals were pursued for controlled reasons athletes’ had greater negative affect. The study indicates the advantages of differentiating two important features of achievement goals (aim and motivation) to explicate for whom PAP and MAP goals lead to better sport outcomes. In addition, these findings suggest it is most beneficial for athletes to pursue achievement goals autonomously to have the best sport outcomes.
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 | 0.003 | 0.008 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".