Final Report of the DFG-funded project "Approach and Avoidance Goal States in Daily Life: Antecedents and Consequences of Intra-individual Variation and Variability"

Individuals can pursue approach and avoidance goals. Approach goals aim to achieve posi-tive outcomes, such as good grades or a harmonious relationship. Avoidance goals, on the other hand, seek to prevent negative outcomes, such as poor grades or relationship conflicts. Numerous studies have shown that approach goals are associated with more positive conse-quences than avoidance goals. However, while previous research has conceptualized ap-proach and avoidance goals as potentially varying states within individuals from moment to moment, so-called “states”, they have never been examined as such. We therefore investi-gated the extent to which approach and avoidance goals vary as states within individuals, whether the psychometric structure of approach and avoidance goals established at the be-tween-person level (in particular, the 2x2 Achievement Goal Framework, Elliot & McGregor, 2001) can also be demonstrated within individuals, and how state approach and avoidance goals relate to approach and avoidance motives, temperaments, and other positive or nega-tive affective, cognitive, and behavioral states. To ensure internal replication, all research questions were examined both in the context of academic achievement goals and in the con-text of relationship goals. Since no established measures exist for assessing state approach and avoidance goals, we first developed scales that capture momentary goal expressions as well as possible affective, cognitive, and behavioral antecedents and consequences. To answer our research questions, we conducted five experience sampling studies in which a total of N = 1,304 participants completed five questionnaires per day over ten days regarding the pursuit of their academic achievement goals or their romantic relationships. The developed state scales proved to be reliable and valid. However, the 2x2 Achievement Goal Framework could not be applied to state goals in the academic achievement context. Unlike goals on the between-person level, state goals could not be clearly assigned to tem-peraments or motives. Instead, all state goals behaved as if they had an approach compo-nent. The hypotheses regarding the antecedents and consequences of state achievement goals could not be confirmed.