A meta-analytic review of Elliot’s(1999)Hierarchical Model of Approach and Avoidance Motivation in the sport,physical activity,and physical education literature

Mrc Lochum,Jvn Jen-Noel,Colleen Pinr,Todd Gilson

aDepartment of Health,Exercise,and Sport Sciences,Texas Tech University,Lubbock,TX 79409,USA

bDepartment of Kinesiology,Northern Illinois University,DeKalb,IL 60115,USA

A meta-analytic review of Elliot’s(1999)Hierarchical Model of Approach and Avoidance Motivation in the sport,physical activity,and physical education literature

Marc Lochbauma,*,Javan Jean-Noela,Colleen Pinara,Todd Gilsonb

aDepartment of Health,Exercise,and Sport Sciences,Texas Tech University,Lubbock,TX 79409,USA

bDepartment of Kinesiology,Northern Illinois University,DeKalb,IL 60115,USA

Purpose:The purpose of this quantitative review was to summarize the state of Elliot’sHierarchical Model of Approach and Avoidance Motivation,specificaly the antecedents of the 2×2 achievement goals in the sport,physical activity,and physical education literature.In addition, the intercorrelations amongst the 2×2 goals were also examined.

Achievement motivation;Antecedents;Competence;Mastery goals;Meta-analysis;Performance goals

1.Introduction

In the late 1990’s,Elliot and Church1proposed the approachavoidance achievement goals and Elliot purposed hisHierarchical Model ofApproach and Avoidance Motivation.2,3Elliot’s model theorized a number of antecedents that stimulate adoption of his achievement goals,thereby mediating the link between antecedents and achievement behaviors,cognitions,and emotions.Specificaly,Elliot3outlined 6 categories of antecedents: competence-based,self-based,relationally based,demographics,environmental,and neurophysiological predispositions.

Past meta-analytic research has demonstrated that Elliot’s approach-avoidance or 2×2 achievement goals have been researched in sport,exercise,and physical education(PE) research.4–6Stevenson4was the firs to quantitatively review Elliot’s goals in the psychology of sport,exercise,and PE research. Her dissertation, which also examined educational literature,listed nearly 50 studies.In their metaanalytic review of approach-avoidance achievement goals and performance in sport,exercise,and PE,Lochbaum and Gottardy5included 17 studies many of which were not in Stevenson’s review.Most recently,Jean-Noel6summarized the Self-Determination Theory and the approach-avoidance achievement goal literature and identifie 17 studies for inclusion with again a number not in the Stevenson4or Lochbaum and Gottardy5meta-analytic reviews.In short,a literature base exists with Elliot’s goals in the sport,exercise,and PEliterature.However,a significan knowledge gap remains in understanding Elliot’sHierarchical Model of Approach and Avoidance Motivationin the sport,exercise,and PE domains to better determine the utility of the model and to help shape future research with approach-avoidance goals.

1.1.Elliot’s approach-avoidance achievement goals

Elliot’s approach-avoidance goals stem from the dichotomous achievement goal framework.7,8In the dichotomous framework,there are 2 orientations by which personal competency is judged.Individuals endorsing a task orientation are primarily motivated by personal mastery or improvement. Because of their personal mastery orientation,these individuals reflec a self-referenced standard of personal achievement to gauge their personal competency for a desired behavior.In contrast,an ego-oriented person strives to attain high normative standards of ability which is typically define by winning or beating intended others.Ego-oriented individuals judge their success and failure on other-referenced standards.While the dichotomous task and ego distinction relates to how competence is define,the approach-avoidance dimension relates to how competence is valenced.Elliot and his colleagues’contribution to achievement goal theory is the approach-avoidance dimension.1,2

An approach valence indicates a behavior that is initiated by a positive or desirable event or possibility.In contrast,an avoidance valence indicates a behavior which is initiated by a negative or undesirable event or possibility.Thus,approach goals focus on attaining competence,whereas avoidance goals focus on avoiding incompetence.Initially,Elliot and colleagues1,2,9proposed a trichotomous framework with the mastery, performance-approach,and performance-avoidance goals. These 3 goals were the focus of the hierarchical model of achievement motivation.1The trichotomous model2was then expanded with bifurcation of the mastery goal into the masteryapproach and mastery-avoidance goals.10,11

With the 2×2 achievement goal framework,competence based on the mastery-approach goal is define by a focus on task-based attainment such as improving upon one’s past performance in a marathon,whereas competence based on the mastery-avoidance goal is define by a focus on avoiding a worsening of task-based attainment.For instance when playing golf,a golfer’s focus could be to not get score worse relative to a past performance what was a personal best such breaking 80; thus,the focus is not on scoring a 79,but avoiding to score an 80.From the performance goal perspective,the performanceapproach goal define competence based on normative achievements such as a student in a PE class focusing on scoring more soccer goals than anyone else in class,whereas the performance-avoidance goal define competence based on avoiding displays of normative incompetence such as not missing more tennis serves than one’s opponent.

1.2.Purpose and hypotheses

The key question of course is how one chooses to adopt one or all of the 2×2 achievement goals because achievement goal selection influence important consequences such as performance,5intrinsic motivation,6and future task selection.12Thus,the purpose of the present research was to examine Elliot’sHierarchical Model of Approach and Avoidance Motivationin the sport,exercise,and PE literature to determine the relationships of his antecedent categories on goal adoption.To date,the only published quantitative review of antecedents of achievement goals was conducted in the organizational psychology literature with the learning, prove performance,and avoid performance achievement goals.13Though important in their own right,organizational psychology achievement goals are not those of Elliot’s, which are widely reflecte in sport,exercise,and PE. Hence,to date quantitative reviews with Elliot’s approachavoidance goals and his theorized antecedents are nonexistent.

Elliot3set forth basic sets of hypotheses for each antecedent category and his approach-avoidance goals.Given the mastery goal was bifurcated after his 1999 article,14hypotheses generation was extended upon logically on either the definitio or valence dimensions.For competence-based variables such as need for achievement,it was hypothesized that these variables would be positively related to approach while negatively related to avoidance goal adoption.The identical hypotheses were also forwarded for self-based variables such as self-esteem and selfworth.For relationally-based variables such as fear of rejection, it was hypothesized that they would be positively related to the avoidance goals as well as the performance-approach goal. Performance-approach goal adoption was hypothesized to be at a lesser degree compared to both avoidance goals,but it should be related given relationally-based variables inherently orient to others.It was hypothesized that relationally-based variables would be negatively related to a small degree with masteryapproach goal adoption.For demographics,sex and age were examined.As cited in Elliot,3researchers with various forms of avoidance motivation constructs have suggested that women are one group that is more susceptible to avoidance motivations.15Hence,women were hypothesized to be more likely to adopt avoidance goals compared to men.No hypothesis was forwarded for age.Environmental variables have a long history in achievement goal research stemming from the original implicit self-theories work16as well as Ames’goal climate research.17To account for differing directional hypotheses because of the constructs themselves,it was hypothesized that incremental and mastery environmental constructs would be positively related to adoption of both mastery goals,whereas,entity and ego environmental constructs would be positively related to adoption of both performance goals.Last for the neurophysiological predispositions,this class of variables was also split on whether they should be positively related to approach or avoidance goals.Specificaly,positively valenced neurophysiological predispositions such as extraversion and Gray’s18behavioral activation were hypothesized to be related to adoption of both approach goals.The negatively valenced neurophysiological predispositions such as neuroticism and Gray’s18behavioral inhibition were hypothesized to be related to adoption of both avoidance goals.

2.Materials and methods

2.1.Literature search and inclusion criteria

The literature search included electronic databases,review articles,search of references of articles found,and correspondence to authors that had published in the area.The electronic database search was conducted in EBSCO with the entire range of individual databases selected for inclusions(e.g., PsychINFO,PsychARTICLES,SPORTDiscus,and ERIC). Variants of the following keywords were used in the search: trichotomous achievement goals,2×2 achievement goals, approach-avoidanceachievementgoals,sport,exercise,physical activity,PE,performance-approach,performance-avoidance, mastery-approach,mastery-avoidance,and achievement motivation.Articles retained for the current meta-analysis met the following inclusion criteria:(a)published literature in the English and Spanish languages from January 1,1996(conceptualization of Elliot’s goals)to May 14,2015;(b)clear use of at least 1 type of Elliot’s approach-avoidance goals(i.e.,masteryapproach,mastery-avoidance,performance-approach,and performance-avoidance);(c)ameasureofan antecedentvariable that from one of Elliot’s categories;(d)articles reporting suffi cient statistical information between antecedents and the 2×2 achievement goals which in all cases was a correlation and sample size;and(e)articles that failed to report sufficien information but an author provided the sufficien quantitative statistical information via email communication for either the correlation,sample size,or both.

Data extraction procedures were handled by the firs author who coded for(a)the domain(sport,exercise/physical activity, or PE);(b)the sex make-up of the sample(male,female,and mixed);(c)mean age of the sample(<18 or≥18 years),(d)the Elliot antecedent category (competence-based,self-based, relationally-based,demographic,environmental,or neurophysiological predispositions).The co-authors as well as 2 trained research assistants examined the firs author’s data extraction recordsaswellasemailsreceived from study authorsthatsentin requested information.Coding of antecedent categories was the mostarduouspartofthedataextraction.First,alistofantecedent examples were written down based on Elliot’s writings.3For instance,Elliot3(p.175)described anumberofneurophysiological predispositions(behavioral inhibition sensitivity,positive or negative temperament,and extraversion-neuroticism).Hence, those neurophysiologicalpredispositions were written down asa guide for data extraction.Likewise,Elliot3(p.175)wrote about a number of environmental variables that fi within this antecedentcategory such asimplicittheoriesofability.Forboth ofthese antecedent categories,they were split into 2 further categories that aligned with Elliot’s writings3concerning hypothesized relationships based on goal definitio (i.e.,performance or mastery).Specificaly,incremental theory and mastery climate were 1 subcategory of the environmental antecedent as was entity theory and performance climate.Overall,data extraction, though arduous as probably most quantitative reviews,was mostly discrepancy free.Certainly,antecedent data extraction and coding of each category required more discussions than the other data extractions.

2.2.Effect size calculations

The Comprehensive Meta-Analysis(CMA,Version 2.2.064, Biostat,Inc.,Englewood,NJ,USA)(https://www.metaanalysis.com/index.php)was used for this meta-analysis.Based on Hedges and Olkin’s19suggestion,rwwas chosen as the measure of effect size as all extracted data were reported as correlations.Given more than 1 achievement goal exists,strict adherence to independence of the sample is not possible.For instance,given all studies measured at least 2 of the 2×2 achievement goals in a sample via questionnaire,each participant had a score for at least 2 achievement goals with the same antecedent.In addition,in many studies there were multiple antecedents so many studies resulted in many samples.Separate analyses were set up for each goal measure by each of the 6 antecedent categories.Cohen’s20criteria were used for interpretation of eachrwas follows:above 0.50 as large,between 0.30 and 0.50 as moderate,and between 0.10 and 0.30 as small. Positive effect sizes should be interpreted as the antecedent facilitating adoption of the specifi achievement goal,whereas a negative effect size should be interpreted as the antecedent having a detrimental impact on adoption of the specifi achievement goal.

Of the 2 primary models to determine statistical assumptions of error,21,22the fi ed as opposed to random model was chosen. The fi ed effects model assumes that all of the gathered studies share a common effect and differences are a result of within study error or sampling error.The random effects model assumes both within-study error and between-study variation. Thus,the fi ed effects model was selected because theoretically antecedents of achievement goal adoptions should be consistent and not vary for any reason(s)though certainly past metaanalytical summaries with achievement goals have reported heterogeneity of variance.

2.3.Heterogeneity of variance

Given that past quantitative reviews have reported heterogeneity,itwasconsidereda prioriin thismeta-analytic review.Two indicators(QandI2)were used to determine whether heterogeneity of variance existed for each goal and performance overall effect size calculation and are briefl explained.TheQtest is a test of significanc based on the critical values for aχ2distribution.A significanQvalue indicates that heterogeneity of variance existsacrossthe individualeffectsizes used to calculate the overall effect size.TheQvalue does not provide information on the magnitude of the individual effect size dispersion.TheI2statistic is the ratio of excess dispersion to total dispersion.As explained by Higginsand colleagues,23,24I2may beinterpreted as the overlap of confidenc intervals explaining the total variance attributed to the covariates.Higgins and Thompson24have provided a tentative classificatio ofI2values to help interpret magnitude of the heterogeneity of variance:25(low),50 (medium),and 75(high).In addition,if heterogeneity was present,anotherpurpose wasto see ifany ofthe coded moderator variables could account for the heterogeneity.This was done by computing theQbetween(QB)value that is calculated by subtracting the individualQvalues referred to asQwithin(QW)values for each moderator subcategory fromQtotal(QT)value for the overall effect size.For instance,theQBfor the age moderatorwascalculated fortheperformanceapproach goaland a specifi antecedentby subtracting the 2 subcategoryQWvalues for the 2 mean age of sample categories(from theQTfor the performance approach goal).To determine significanc oftheQBvalue,an onlineχ2value calculator for the specifi degrees of freedom(number of moderator categories−1)was used.

3.Results

3.1.Description of retained studies

Given the popularity of the achievement goal theory across disciplines such as education psychology and organizational psychology as well as in the areas of the present quantitative review,thousands of studies were identifie in the initial literature search.By simply determining whether the main domain was either sport,exercise,or PE,this list was pared down to fewer than 100 through abstract screening.A total of 47 published studies found in Table 1 were located that met the inclusion criteria.25–71Given self-determination constructs were not in Elliot’s antecedent categories,3they were not included.This set of 47 studies resulted in 53 datasets as a few had multiple independent datasets.The samples collected represented 14 countries and 15,285 participants.Most of the studies had reported the intercorrelations amongst the achievement goals(krange 48–54)with the most number of samples(k=54)for the performance-approach and performance-avoidance goals.Antecedents fittin all of Elliot’s antecedent categories were found within the 47 studies:competence-based27–29,34,36,37,39–42,47–51,53–56,58–60,64,66–69,71(krange 39–46),environmental-based performance oriented28,33–35,37,39,41,47–49,52,55–58,62,66–69(krange 24–28)and mastery oriented28,33–35,39,47–49,52,55–58,62,66–69(krange 23–27), relationally-based30–32,37–39,41,53,54(krange 19–20), self-based25–27,29,32,38,41,56(krange 16–17),neurophysiologicalbased approach oriented41,44,46,63,70(k=10)and avoidance oriented27,41,43,44,70(krange 6–8),and last demographics of sex33,42,45,48,57,59–62(krange 8–9)and age27,33,40,44,45,48,60,62(krange 7–9).

3.2.Results for intercorrelations amongst the 2×2 achievement goals

As found in Table 2,all of the intercorrelations were statistically significant The performance-approach to performance-avoidance(rw=0.45),mastery-avoidance to performance-avoidance(rw=0.39),and mastery-approach to performance-approach(rw=0.37)intercorrelations were medium to large in meaningfulness.The rest of the intercorrelations were in the range of small to medium,specifi cally mastery-avoidance to performance-approach(rw=0.27), mastery-approach to mastery-avoidance(rw=0.28),and masteryapproach to performance-avoidance(rw=0.17).The fail safens for all of the intercorrelations were quite large(range 3705–43,495).Hence,the overall reported effect sizes appear very“safe”from any fil drawer issue.Though the 95% confidenc intervals(CIs)were fairly tight around eachrw,QTwas significan for each analysis and allI2values were large in magnitude(>75).

3.3.Results for competence-based antecedent category

As found in Table 2,all of the weighted correlations were statistically significant The competence-based antecedents to the mastery-approach and performance-approach goal correlations were identical and medium in meaningfulness(rw=0.32). The weighted correlations for the 2 avoidance goals and competence were small in meaningfulness(mastery-avoidancerw=0.16,Z=16.51; performance-avoidancerw=0.10,Z=10.89).The fail safens for all of the correlations were quite large,ranging from 850 to 8701.QTwas significan for each analysis and allI2values were large in magnitude.

3.4.Results for self-based antecedent category

As found in Table 2,all of the weighted correlations were statistically significan though the avoidance goal results were very small to small in meaningfulness(masteryavoidance:rw=0.04;performance-avoidance:rw=0.08).The self-based antecedents to the mastery-approach(rw=0.27)and performance-approach(rw=0.21)goals were small to medium in meaningfulness.The fail safens for all of the weighted correlations were large for the approach goals(range 578–844). The avoidance goal fail safens were relatively small,consistent with the very small weighted correlations.QTwas significan for each analysis and allI2values were large in magnitude.

3.5.Results for relationally-based antecedent category

As found in Table 2,all of the weighted correlations were statistically significant The approach achievement goal results were very small to small in meaningfulness(masteryapproachrw=−0.05;performance-approachrw=0.14).The relationally-based antecedents to mastery-avoidance(rw=0.30) and performance-avoidance(rw=0.22)goals were medium to medium small in meaningfulness.The fail safens for all of the weighted correlations were large for the performance achievement goals and the mastery-avoidance goal(range 339–1597). The mastery-approach goal fail safenwas relatively small consistent with the very small weighted correlation.QTwas significan for each analysis thoughI2was considered large (>75)for only the mastery-avoidance goal.

3.6.Results for approach neurophysiological-based antecedent category

As found in Table 2,only the approach achievement goal weighted correlations were significan albeit small in meaningfulness(rw=0.18 and 0.10 for mastery-approach and performance-approach,respectively).The weighted correlations for the avoidance goals were not significant The fail safenfor the mastery-approach goal is fairly large as it approached 100 given the relatively few investigations with approach neurophysiological-based antecedents.QTwas significan for each of the approach goal analyses though theI2value was only >75 or for the mastery-approach goal.

Table 1 Summary information for all studies included in meta-analytic review.

Table 1(continued)

Table 2 Fixed effect model results for intercorrelations and Elliot’s(1999)3antecedent categories by 2×2 achievement goals.

3.7.Results for avoidance neurophysiological-based antecedent category

As found in Table 2,though all of the weighted correlations were significant each was small in meaningfulness(masteryapproachrw=−0.07;mastery-avoidancerw=0.11;performanceapproachrw=0.06;performance-avoidancerw=0.10).The fail safens were correspondingly very small suggesting the results could quickly sway with studiesfile away.QTwassignifican for each analysisand allI2valueswerenearly 75 or>75 in magnitude.

3.8.Results for demographic antecedent category of sex

As found in Table 2,significan albeit small in meaningfulness resulted for the avoidance goals(rw=−0.10 and−0.06 for mastery-avoidance and performance-avoidance,respectively). The results are interpreted as meaning females scoring higher for both avoidance goals and lower for the performanceapproach goal.The fail safens were 42 for the masteryavoidance and 6 for the performance-avoidance goals.QTwas significan for both mastery goals and the performanceapproach goal.Only theI2for the mastery-avoidance goal was large.

3.9.Results for demographic antecedent category of age

As found in Table 2,the only significan albeit very small in meaningfulness correlation was for the performance-approach goal(rw=−0.07)suggesting that as age increased scores on the performance-approach goal decreased.The fail safenwas also very small suggesting the results could sway with studies in“fil drawers”.The heterogeneity statistic was significan for both performance achievement goals andI2>75 for the performance-approach goal.

3.10.Results for environmental-based antecedent performance oriented category

As found in Table 2,though all of the weighted correlations were significant each were small in meaningfulness (mastery-approach:rw=−0.09;mastery-avoidance:rw=0.10; performance-approach:rw=0.23; performance-avoidance:rw=0.22).The fail safens were very large(nearly 4000)for the performance achievement goals results suggesting very little chance of these being changed based on file away data.QTwas significan for each achievement goal.TheI2value was>75 for the performance achievement goals.TheI2values for the mastery achievement goals were much lower with the masteryapproachI2being very low.

3.11.Results for environmental-based mastery oriented antecedent category

As found in Table 2,the weighted correlations for both mastery achievement goals and the performance-approach goal were statistically significan ranging in meaningfulness from medium to small(mastery-approach:rw=0.33;masteryavoidance:rw=0.15;performance-approach:rw=0.08).The fail safens for these achievement goals were large(range 586–5475).QTwas significan for all of the 2×2 achievement goals and allI2values were greater than 75 for both performance achievement goals and the mastery-approach goal.The mastery-avoidance goalI2was medium in meaningfulness.

3.12.Moderator results

Moderator results were examined for mean age of sample, domain,and sex makeup of the sample for both the intercorrelations amongst the achievement goals and the antecedent categories for each achievement goals.For space and readability purposes,only the weighted correlations were presented.In addition,a moderator category needed at least 2 cases to be reported.Details of all statistics are available from the firs author.For domain,the most striking results concerned the 2 approach goal relationships being higher in the exercise and PE domains compared to the sport domain.In addition,the sport intercorrelation approached 0 compared to the small-tomoderate intercorrelations for the other 2 domains.For the sex makeup of the sample,differences existed only for 2 of the goal-to-goal intercorrelations and they were not entirely consistent across the 4 categories(Table 3).

Concerning moderator of the antecedent categories with each achievement goal,mean age of the sample moderated a number of relationships.As found in Table 4,the approach goals were stronger when the mean age of the sample was less than 18 years of age for the self-based antecedent category.The mastery-approach goals’relationship with competence-based variables was also greater in magnitude for the adolescent compared to adult samples.For the avoidance goals(Table 4),the greatest difference was found for the relational-based antecedent variables with the correlation being nearly 0 for the younger sample,yet small to medium in meaningfulness for the older sample.

As found in Table 5,domain moderated a number of goals to antecedent variable relationships across all of the antecedent categories.The most apparent pattern in the weighted correlations were larger in magnitude for the mastery-avoidance goal and the self,relational,and avoidance neurophysiological-based antecedent variables when compared to the sport and PE domains though this was not found within the competence-based antecedent category.For the performance-avoidance goal,the moderation pattern was not similar to the mastery-avoidance goal.Most of the weighted correlations were small to very small in magnitude.Only the performance environmental-based category did the PE moderator category almost reach medium in meaningfulness.For both approach goals,the pattern of moderation supported larger weighted correlations within the PE category for competence, self,and the environmental performance-oriented categories.

For the sex makeup of the sample moderator,overall there were very few moderated results(Table 6).The differences that standout concern the male and mixed sample correlations being approximately twice thatofthe female only samples forthe both performance goals in the environmental-based performance oriented category.In addition,the correlation between the performance-avoidance goal and the neurophysiological-based avoidance antecedents was very different from the mixed

sample.But,overall few moderated differences emerged for the sex makeup of the sample moderator.

Table 3 Moderator variable results for intercorrelations amongst each achievement goal.

Table 4 Moderator results for each achievement goal for the mean age of sample moderator category.

Table 5 Moderator results for each achievement goal for the domain moderator category.

Table 6 Moderator results for each achievement goal for the sex makeup of sample moderator category.

4.Discussion

The purpose of this investigation was to use meta-analytic techniques to summarize the state of Elliot’s Hierarchical Model of Approach and Avoidance Motivation,specificaly antecedent categorieswith his2×2 achievementgoals.Priorto summarizing those data,the intercorrelations amongst the 2×2 achievement goals were meta-analytically summarized.The intercorrelations were small to medium in meaningfulness.In comparing intercorrelationsamongstthe2×2 achievementgoals,thepresent results were similar to other meta-analytic summaries.72,73In particular,across all 3 sets of meta-analytic findings only the intercorrelations for mastery-avoidance to performanceavoidance and performance-approach to performance-avoidance were medium in meaningfulness.Hence,each achievement goal appears relatively unique,as overlap between any 2 across all 3 meta-analytic summaries was at most 21.11%.Elliot and Murayama74some years ago proposed a revised measurement scale in education thatseemingly nevertook hold in the literature. In addition,very recently Strunk75reported that Elliot’s revised measure actually supported a 3-factor model.To date,the 2×2 achievement goal measurement in sport,exercise,and PE has not undergone a revision though different variants are used.The results of this study suggested that the individual goals are relatively unique as commonly measured.

Of some concern was the heterogeneity present in intercorrelation relationships in the present study as well as in the previously referenced meta-analyses in education.Besides thesex makeup ofthe sample—asonecould hypothesizethatthe intercorrelations for avoidance goals would be stronger in females and minorities—no theoretical or conceptual reasons exist for moderation of the intercorrelations.The masteryapproach relationship with both performanceachievementgoals was moderated by domain such that the PE and exercise domain correlations were greater in magnitude than the sport domain correlationswith mastery-approach.Perhapsitisthe saliency of winning and losing inherentin the sportdomain thatseparatesin participants’minds the distinct definitiona differences between mastery-approach and both of the performance goals.The sex makeup of the sample was a moderator though the results were conflictin in thatthe female correlations between performanceapproach and performance-avoidance were greater than male correlations,but the intercorrelations for the 2 avoidance goals were similarin magnitudeforfemalesand males.The higherand large in meaningfulness intercorrelation for the performance goals for females,when compared to males,suggests that in a group setting females have both goals of winning/looking good while at the same time not wishing to lose/look bad.Future research should examine this result more closely.Last,when compared to the 2 published intercorrelations datasets in education and the present study,no consistent findin emerged.These results potentially cloud lines of future inquiry into why heterogeneity is present amongst intercorrelations of 2×2 achievement goals.

Concerning the main purpose ofthe presentreview,nearly all of the hypotheses were supported.The deviations were minor and the impact on achievement goal theory inconsequential.For instance,the only unsupported hypotheses concerned the hypothesized negative relationships between both the competence-and self-based antecedents and the avoidance goals.In both instances,the correlations were positive though small in magnitude.The magnitudes of the antecedents to achievement goal relationships were not specificaly hypothesized.

When examining how related should an antecedent be to a specifi achievement goal,the finding of this review indicated that,for the most part,the relationships were small to medium in magnitude.Even though heterogeneity was present,the significan and hypothesized relationships with competence-,self-, relationally-,and the environmental-based antecedents seem invariant to future work given the large fail safe n values relative to number of samples.Thus,if one is trying to stimulate a specifi achievement goal to a large extent or magnitude,the data strongly suggest that antecedents are not the manner in which to do so.This statement is certainly important and has a broad ramificatio for achievement goal research.For instance, the results for the environmental-based and performanceoriented category are such that the relationships with both performance goals seem very difficul to stimulate.This findin is certainly contrary to basic logic that an emphasis on such an environment would stimulate the corresponding performance achievement goals.Last,concerning the overall findings the apparent impact of neurophysiological as well as sex is minimal on achievement goal adoption in the sport,exercise,and PE literature,though neurophysiological variables have been purported as building blocks of achievement goals.76

Though the overall correlations appear very resistant to change,significan heterogeneity was present in the relationships within the achievement goals for each antecedent category.As was noted in the results section,significan variation existed statistically.But,the differences in magnitude of the correlations between or amongst the specifi moderator variables such as sex makeup of the sample were inconsequential.It seemed though the most important and consistent findin was that the domain appeared in many instances to have consequential differences.For instance,for the competence-based antecedent category,both approach goals were more related to this variable category than within the sport or exercise domains. This result suggests that PE instructors should be aware that students devoid of high competence-based self-assessments are more prone to lacking in these 2 valuable approach-oriented achievement goals.This similar pattern of results was also found for the self-based antecedent variables and domain for both approach goals.Hence,an important next step in PE research should be a concerted effort to determine whether experimental manipulations of competence-and or self-based assessments result in greater stimulation of both the masteryapproach and performance-approach goals.In addition to this more apparent and consistent heterogeneity result,others exist as well.Given space limitations,teasing out the most important or interesting results are a challenge.Thus,the moderatorresults found should be used as a guide when conducting future research when searching for meaning research questions to enrich the literature.

Even though this was a comprehensive meta-analysis,a few limitations exist.The authors included all articles that were found that met inclusion criteria.In addition to the English language,only a few in Spanish were found.It could be that additional manuscripts in other languages were not found in the searched databases.Another limitation was the limited number of cases found the neurophysiological-based categories and demographics for both sex and age antecedent categories.At times within the moderation analyses,there were few cases for a specifi moderator.These aforementioned limitations seem minor as overall the search was comprehensive with 14 countries represented and most antecedent categories and moderator variables had sufficien number of cases.The finit number of cases would have been a much more imposing limitation if specifi questionnaires within an antecedent category were coded.The literature based in the psychology of sport,exercise, and PE is certainly sufficien for this study’s stated purpose. But,in education for instance,meta-analytic data have been reported on 243 correlational studies with over 90,000 participants that compared measures of approach-avoidance goals.72

5.Conclusion

This meta-analytic summary provided important finding regarding the state of Elliot’s Hierarchical Model of Approach and Avoidance Motivation in the psychology of sport,exercise, and PE domains.Based on examining the literature with Elliot’s model and achievement goals,the current metaanalysis is the only comprehensive quantitative summary.Thus, this unique study is of great importance in shaping future research.In addition,this study provided confidenc that the measures of Elliot’s 2×2 achievement goals are relatively independent constructs.In education,the utility of achievement goals has been strongly questioned given their small relationship with academic achievement.72However,achievement goals in the psychology of sport,exercise,and PE domains have been demonstrated to be associated with salient and valued outcomes such as performance,5affect,77,78and intrinsic motivation.6The present study confi med that antecedents were theoretically congruent with the 2×2 achievement goals in almost all instances.The one main issue concerned the heterogeneity present in the data and the small to medium relationships as reported.Future research is encouraged to grow and enrich the understanding of achievement goals within Elliot’s complete Hierarchical Model of Approach and Avoidance Motivation to include both antecedents and outcomes simultaneously in the psychology of sport,exercise,and PE to improve upon the understanding of motivation,as well as determine whether achievement goals may be modifie or stimulated to a greater magnitude by manipulation of Elliot’s antecedents.

Authors’contributions

ML conceived of the study,participated in the search and fina studies included,conducted the initial data extraction for coding the moderator variables,examined the extracted data for effect size calculations,conducted the analyses,and wrote the manuscript in full;JJN reviewed all of the coded studies,corrected initial coding discrepancies,prepared the reference list in accordance to the JSHS style,assisted in drafting of the tables and in manuscript draft finalization CP lead the extensive search for articles including emailing authors for missing information,assisted in the conceptualization of the data analyzes, confi med data extraction decisions,prepared the initial draft of Table 1 contents and of the meta-analyzed references;TG assisted in confi ming the study methodology,the data extraction decisions and provided extensive manuscript editing.All authors have read and approved the fina version of the manuscript,and agree with the order of presentation of the authors.

Competing interests

None of the authors declare competing financia interests.

1.Elliot AJ,Church MA.A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation.J Pers Soc Psychol 1997;72:218–32.

2.Elliot AJ.Integrating the“classic”and“contemporary”approaches to achievement motivation:a hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation.In:Pintrich P,Maehr M,editors.Advances in motivation and achievement.Greenwich,CT:JAI Press;1997.p.143–79.

3.Elliot AJ.Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educ Psychol 1999;34:169–89.

4.Stevenson SJ.Elliot’s(1999)2×2 model of achievement motivation:a meta-analysis of the empirical literature in physical activity and education. Lubbock,TX:Texas Tech University;2011.

5.Lochbaum M, Gottardy J. A meta-analytic review of the approach-avoidance achievement goals and performance relationship in the sport psychology literature.J Sport Health Sci 2015;4:164–73.

6.Jean-Noel J.A correlational meta-analysis of the interaction between achievement goals and Self-Determination Theory in sport,exercise,and physical education.Lubbock,TX:Texas Tech University;2014.

7.Dweck CS,Legget EL.A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.Psychol Rev 1988;95:256–73.

8.Roberts GC.Motivation in sport and exercise:conceptual constraints and convergence.In:Roberts GC,editor.Motivation in sport and exercise. Champaign,IL:Human Kinetics;1992.p.3–29.

9.Elliot AJ,Harackiewicz JM.Approach and avoidance achievement goals and intrinsic motivation:a mediational analysis.J Pers Soc Psychol 1996;70:461–75.

10.Conroy DE,Elliot AJ.Fear of failure and achievement goals in sport: addressing the issue of the chicken and the egg.Anxiety Stress Coping:Int J 2004;17:271–85.

11.Elliot AJ,Thrash TM.Achievement goals and the hierarchical model of achievement motivation.Educ Psychol Rev 2001;13:139–56.

12.Roberts GC,Treasure DC,Conroy DE.Understanding the dynamics of motivation in sport and physical activity.In:Tenebaum G,Eklund R, editors.Handbook of sport psychology.Hoboken,NJ:John Wiley and Sons;2007.p.3–30.

13.Payne SC,Youngcourt SS,Beaubien JM.A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net.J Appl Psychol 2007;92:128–50.

14.Elliot AJ,McGregor HA.A 2×2 achievement goal framework.J Pers Soc Psychol 2001;80:501–19.

15.Stein AH,Bailey MM.The socialization of achievement orientation in females.Psychol Bul 1973;80:345–66.

16.Dweck CS,Leggett EL.A social-cognitive approach to motivation and personality.Psychol Rev 1988;95:256–73.

17.Ames C.Classrooms:goals,structures,and student motivation.J Educ Psychol 1992;84:261–71.

18.Gray JA.The psychology of fear and stress.New York,NY:Cambridge University Press;1987.

19.Hedges LV,Olkin I.Statistical methods for meta-analysis.New York,NY: Academic Press;1985.

20.Cohen J.Things I have learned (so far).Am Psychol 1990;45: 1304–12.

21.Borenstein M,Hedges L,Higgins J,Rothstein H.Introduction to meta-analysis.Hoboken,NJ:Jon Wiley Publications;2009.

22.Hedges LV,Vevea JL.Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychol Methods 1998;3:486–504.

23.Higgins JPT,Thompson SG,Deeks JJ,Altman DG.Measuring inconsistency in meta-analysis.BMJ 2003;327:557–60.

24.Higgins JP,Thompson SG.Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med 2002;21:1539–58.

25.Adie JW,Duda JL,Ntoumanis N.Achievement goals,competition appraisals,and the psychological and emotional welfare of sport participants.J Sport Exerc Psychol 2008;30:302–22.

26.Adie JW,Duda JL,Ntoumanis N.Achievement goals,competition appraisals,and the well-and ill-being of elite youth soccerplayersovertwo competitive seasons.J Sport Exerc Psychol 2010;32:555–79.

27.Bois JE,Sarrazin PG,Southon J,Boiché JCS.Psychological characteristics and their relation to performance in professional golfers.Sport Psychol 2009;23:252–70.

28.Castillo I,Duda JL,Álvarez MS,Mercé J,Balaguer I.Motivational climate,approach-avoidance achievement goals and well-being in young soccer players.Revista de Psicología del Deporte 2011;20:149–64.[in Spanish].

29.Cetinkalp ZK.Achievement goals and physical self-perceptions of adolescent athletes.Soc Behav Pers 2012;40:473–80.

30.Chen LH,Wu C,Kee YH,Lin MS,Shui SH.Fear of failure,2×2 achievement goal and self-handicapping:an examination of the hierarchical model of achievement motivation in physical education. Contemp Educ Psychol 2009;34:298–305.

31.Conroy DE,Elliot AJ,Hofer SM.A 2×2 achievement goals questionnaire for sport:evidence for factorial invariance,temporal stability,and external validity.J Sport Exerc Psychol 2003;25:456–76.

32.Conroy DE,Elliot AJ.Fear of failure and achievement goals in sport: addressing the issue of the chicken and the egg.Anxiety Stress Coping Int J 2004;17:271–85.

33.Corrion K,D’Arripe-Longueville F,Chalabaev A,Schiano-Lomoriello S, Roussel P,Cury F.Effect of implicit theories on judgement of cheating acceptability in physical education:the mediating role of achievement goals.J Sport Sci 2010;28:909–19.

34.Cury F,Da Fonséca D,Rufo M,Sarrazin P.Perceptions of competence, implicit theory of ability,perception of motivational climate,and achievement goals:a test of the trichotomous conceptualization of endorsement of achievement motivation in the physical education setting. Percept Mot Skills 2002;95:233–44.

35.Gao Z,Lochbaum M,Podlog L.Self-effica y as a mediator of children’s achievement motivation and in-class physical activity.Percept Mot Skills 2011;113:969–81.

36.Gucciardi DF.Mental toughness profile and their relations with achievement goals and sport motivation in adolescent Australian footballers.J Sport Sci 2010;28:615–25.

37.Gucciardi DF,Mahoney J,Jalleh G,Donovan RJ,Parkes J.Perfectionistic profile among elite athletes and differences in their motivational orientations.J Sport Exerc Psychol 2012;34:159–83.

38.Hagger MS,Hein V,Chatzisarantis NLD.Achievement goals,physical self-concept,and social physique anxiety in a physical activity context.J Appl Soc Psychol 2011;41:1299–339.

39.Halvari H,Kjormo O.A structural model of achievement motives, performance approach and avoidance goals and performance among Norwegian Olympic athletes.Percept Mot Skills 1999;89:997–1022.

40.Halvari H,Skjesol K,Bagoien TE.Motivational climates,achievement goals,and physical education outcomes:a longitudinal test of achievement goals.Scand J Educ Res 2011;55:79–104.

41.Kaye MP,Conroy DE,Fifer AM.Individual differences in incompetence avoidance.J Sport Exerc Psychol 2008;30:110–32.

42.Koh KT,Wang CKJ.Gender and type of sport differences on perceived coaching behaviours,achievement goal orientations and life aspirations of youth Olympic games Singaporean athletes.Int J Sport Exer Psych 2015;13:91–103.

43.Lench HC,Levine LJ,Roe E.Trait anxiety and achievement goals as predictors of self-reported health in dancers.J Dance Med Sci 2010;14:163–70.

44.Lochbaum M,Litchfiel K,Podlog L,Lutz R.Extraversion,emotional instability,and self-reported exercise: the mediating effects of approach-avoidance achievement goals.J Sport Health Sci 2013;2:176–83.

45.Lochbaum M,Podlog L,Litchfiel K,Surles J,Hilliard S.Stage of physical activity and approach-avoidance achievement goals in university students. Psychol Sport Exerc 2013;14:161–8.

46.Lochbaum M,Stevenson S,Hilario D.Achievement goals,thoughts about intense physical activity,and exerted effort:a mediational analysis.J Sport Behav 2009;32:53–68.

47.Moreno JA,González-Cutre D,Sicilia Á,Spray CM.Motivation in the exercise setting:integrating constructs from the approach-avoidance achievement goal framework and self-determination theory.Psychol Sport Exerc 2010;11:542–50.

48.Morris RL,Kavussanu M.Antecedents of approach-avoidance goals in sport.J Sport Sci 2008;26:465–76.

49.Murcia JAM,Camacho AS,Rodriguez JMM.Prognostic of the perceived competence through motivation in practitioners of physical exercise.Fit Perform J 2008;7:357–65.

50.Ntoumanis N,Thøgerson-Ntoumani C,Smith AL.Achievement goals, self-handicapping,and performance:a 2×2 achievement goal perspective. J Sport Sci 2009;27:1471–82.

51.Ommundsen Y.Self-handicapping related to task and performanceapproach and avoidance goals in physical education.J Appl Sport Psychol 2004;16:183–97.

52.Partridge JA,Knapp BA,Massengale BD.An investigation of motivational variables in crossfi facilities.J Strength Cond Res 2014;28:1714–21.

53.Puente-Díaz R.Achievement goals and emotions.J Psychol 2013;147: 245–59.

54.Schantz LH,Conroy DE.Achievement motivation and intraindividual affective variability during competence pursuits:a round of golf as a multilevel data structure.J Res Pers 2009;43:472–81.

55.Skjesol K,Halvari H.Motivational climate,achievement goals,perceived sport competence,and involvement in physical activity:structural and mediator models.Percept Mot Skills 2005;100:497–523.

56.Spray CM,Warburton VE,Stebbings J.Change in physical selfperceptions across the transition to secondary school:relationships with perceived teacher-emphasised achievement goals in physical education. Psychol Sport Exerc 2013;14:662–9.

57.Stenling A,Hassmén P,Holmström S.Implicit beliefs of ability, approach-avoidance goals and cognitive anxiety among team sport athletes. Eur J Sport Sci 2014;14:720–9.

58.Stevenson SJ,Lochbaum M.Understanding exercise motivation: examining the revised social-cognitive model of achievement motivation.J Sport Behav 2008;31:389–412.

59.Stoeber J,Stoll O,Salmi O,Tiikkaja J.Perfectionism and achievement goals in young Finnish ice-hockey players aspiring to make the under-16 national team.J Sport Sci 2009;27:85–94.

60.Stoeber J,Uphill MA,Hotham S.Predicting race performance in triathlon: the role of perfectionism,achievement goals,and personal goal setting.J Sport Exerc Psychol 2009;31:211–45.

61.Su X,McBride RE,Xiang P.College students’achievement goal orientation and motivational regulations in physical activity classes:a test of gender invariance.J Teach Phy Educ 2015;34:2–17.

62.Trenz R,Zusho A.Competitive swimmers’perception of motivational climate and their personal achievement goals.Int J Sports Sci Coach 2011;6:433–43.

63.Turner MJ,Jones MV,Sheffiel D,Slater MJ,Barker JB,Bell JJ.Who thrives under pressure?Predicting the performance of elite academycricketers using the cardiovascular indicators of challenge and threat states. J Sport Exerc Psychol 2013;35:387–97.

64.Wang CKJ,Biddle SJH,Elliot AJ.The 2×2 achievement goal framework in a physical education context.Psychol Sport Exerc 2007;8:147–68.

65.Wang CKJ,Koh KT,Chatzisarantis N.An intra-individual analysis of players’perceived coaching behaviours,psychological needs,and achievement goals.Int J Sports Sci Coach 2009;4:177–92.

66.Wang CKJ,Liu WC,Lochbaum M,Stevenson SJ.Sport ability beliefs,2× 2 achievement goals,and intrinsic motivation:the moderating role of perceived competence in sport and exercise.Res Q Exerc Sport 2009;80:303–12.

67.Warburton VE,Spray CM.Motivation in physical education across the primary-secondary school transition.Eur Phys Educ Rev 2008;14:157–78.

68.Warburton VE,Spray CM.Antecedents of approach-avoidance achievement goal adoption in physical education:a longitudinal perspective.J Teach Phys Educ 2009;28:214–32.

69.Warburton VE,Spray CM.Antecedents of approach-avoidance achievement goal adoption:an analysis of two physical education activities.Eur Phys Educ Rev 2013;19:215–31.

70.Yeatts PE,Lochbaum M.Coping in sport:a testof Elliot’s hierarchalmodel of approach and avoidance motivation.Kinesiolog y 2013;45:186–93.

71.Zarghmi M,Ghamary A,ShaykhShabani SEH,Varzaneh AG. Perfectionism and achievement goals in adult male elite athletes who compete at the national level and above.J Hum Kinet 2010;26:147–55.

72.Huang C.Discriminant and criterion-related validity of achievement goals in predicting academic achievement:a meta-analysis.J Educ Psychol 2012;104:48–73.

73.Hulleman CS,Schrager SM,Bodmann SM,Harachiewicz JM.A meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures:different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels?Psychol Bull 2010;136:422–49.

74.Elliot AJ,Murayama K.On the measurement of achievement goals: critique,illustration,and application.J Educ Psychol 2008;100:613–28.

75.Strunk KK.A factor analytic examination of the achievement goal questionnaire-revised supports a three-factor model.Psychol Reports 2014;115:400–14.

76.Elliot AJ,Thrash TM.Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: approach and avoidance temperaments and goals.J Pers Soc Psychol 2002;82:804–18.

77.Ntoumanis N,Biddle SJ.Affect and achievement goals in physical activity: a meta-analysis.Scand J Med Sci Sports 1999;9:315–32.

78.Biddle SH,Wang CKJ,Kavussanu M,Spray CM.Correlates of achievement goal orientations in physical activity:a systematic review of research.Eur J Sport Sci 2003;5:1–20.

Received 29 November 2014;revised 18 May 2015;accepted 23 July 2015 Available online 25 November 2015

Peer review under responsibility of Shanghai University of Sport.

*Corresponding author.

E-mail address:marc.lochbaum@ttu.edu(M.Lochbaum).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jshs.2015.07.008

2095-2546/©2017 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.on behalf of Shanghai University of Sport.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).

Methods:A systematic review of the literature was conducted.Meta-analytic procedures were used with the mean weighted sample correlation (rw)as the effect size metric.The antecedents were coded by Elliot’s(1999)antecedent categories.A number of moderators were codeda priori.Results:Based on a fi ed effects model from 47 published studies(total uniquen=15,413)that met inclusion criteria,the 2×2 achievement goals were significanty correlated amongst each other ranging from small to medium to large in meaningfulness.Concerning the antecedents,overall they were theoretically correct in associations,but only a few of the relationships were medium in meaningfulness.Most relationships were small in meaningfulness.Heterogeneity was present for the interrcorrelation and antecedent analyses.

Conclusion:Future research is encouraged to grow and enrich the understanding of achievement goals within Elliot’s completeHierarchical Model of Approach and Avoidance Motivationto include both antecedents and outcomes simultaneously to improve upon the understanding of achievement motivation in sport,exercise,and physical activity settings.

©2017 Production and hosting by Elsevier B.V.on behalf of Shanghai University of Sport.This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC-ND license(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).