Effects of perceived competence and goal orientations on task persistence and affect in physical activity : a test of Dweck and Leggett's motivation theory / by Julia Walsh. --
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study tested Dweck and Leggett?s (1988) social cognitive model of motivation in the \nphysical domain. It investigated the effects of perceived competence (PC) and goal orientation \n(GO) on affective and behavioral patterns in a motor skill activity. The model proposes that \nunder failure conditions subjects with a low perceived competence and an outcome/win goal \nwill have high negative affect, and will persist less than the other three groups, who will \ncontinue to display a mastery pattern. The sample 61 university students majoring in physical \neducation. In phase 1 participants were individually tested on a throwing and balancing task \nand completed a "Task Specific Perceived Competence" Scale. The Scale was administered \nseveral days later to determine test-retest reliability (P=.79). The two scores were averaged and \nthe participants were separated into high or low perceived competence groups dependent on \nthe score obtained. Participants were then randomly assigned into two GO groups \ndifferentiated by given instructions. In phase 2 subjects experienced four successful trials and \nfour failure trials on the task. They were told that they could have up to five additional \nrehearsals in between each trial. A Positive Affect Negative Affect schedule (PANAS, Watson, \n1988) was administered after trial four and trial eight. The data was analyzed by a 2 (PC) by \n2 (GO) by 2 (gender) by 2 (success/failure condition) with repeated measures on the last \nfactor. There was a significant conditions effect for negative affect, F (1,53) = 17.68, p <.001. \nNegative affect increased for all groups from success to failure. There was no support for an \ninteraction between PC and GO. The analysis for persistence revealed a GO by Gender by \nCondition interaction, F(l,53) = 4.50, p <.05. Post-hoc analysis using a Scheff^ test revealed \nthat in success there was no difference between groups. In failure one group (females with an \noutcome/win goal) was different from the other three. Across conditions three groups changed \nsignificantly. The only group that failed to change were females with an outcome/win goal \norientation. The findings do not support the hypothesis of an interaction between PC and GO in failure conditions. The results have imphcations for goal setting and instructional methods \nused to motivate students and athletes.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".