A three-dimensional taxonomy of achievement emotions.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We present a three-dimensional taxonomy of achievement emotions that considers valence, arousal, and object focus as core features of these emotions. By distinguishing between positive and negative emotions (valence), activating and deactivating emotions (arousal), and activity emotions, prospective outcome emotions, and retrospective outcome emotions (object focus), the taxonomy has a 2 × 2 × 3 structure representing 12 groups of achievement emotions. In four studies across different countries (N = 330, 235, 323, and 269 participants in Canada, the United States, Germany, and the U.K., respectively), we investigated the empirical robustness of the taxonomy in educational (Studies 1-3) and work settings (Study 4). An expanded version of the Achievement Emotions Questionnaire was used to assess 12 key emotions representing the taxonomy. Consistently across the four studies, findings from multilevel facet analysis and structural equation modeling documented the importance of the three dimensions for explaining achievement emotions. In addition, based on hypotheses about relations with external variables, the findings show clear links of the emotions with important antecedents and outcomes. The Big Five personality traits, appraisals of control and value, and context perceptions were predictors of the emotions. The 12 emotions, in turn, were related to participants' use of strategies, cognitive performance, and self-reported health problems. Taken together, the findings provide robust evidence for the unique positions of different achievement emotions in the proposed taxonomy, as well as unique patterns of relations with external variables. Directions for future research and implications for policy and practice are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".