Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The generalized approach, attainMent, maintenance, and avoidance (GAMMA) motivation scale: development, validation, and theoretical contribution

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Motivation and Emotion Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this investigation, the Generalized Approach, attainMent, Maintenance, and Avoidance (GAMMA) Motivation Scale was developed and validated. This scale measures approach and avoidance motivation in any domain of goal pursuit, thus overcoming the limitations of past domain-specific measures. Perhaps more importantly, it can distinguish maintenance from attainment forms of approach motivation. It was initially developed in a large sample reporting on a relatively heterogeneous sample of goals. Its factor structure was refined and confirmed in three samples reporting on healthy-eating, social-relationship, and academic-achievement goals, respectively. It is internally-consistent and its relationships with measures of domain-specific motivation, BIS/BAS, affective traits, motivational constructs from other theories, and successful goal pursuit all support its construct validity across domains. We therefore suggest that the GAMMA Motivation Scale is a useful tool for understanding and researching approach, avoidance, and maintenance motivation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. To be more precise, Brodscholl et al. (2007) suggested that the attainment/maintenance distinction is orthogonal from promotion and prevention focus. As we discuss in the “Other Motivational Distinctions” section of the introduction in more detail, promotion and prevention focus are similar to approach and avoidance motivation (respectively) in many ways, but they are also different in subtle but important fashions.

References

  • Austin, J. T., & Vancouver, J. B. (1996). Goal constructs in psychology: Structure, process, and content. Psychological Bulletin,120, 338–375.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baldwin, A. S., Rothman, A. J., Hertel, A. W., Linde, J. A., Jeffery, R. W., Finch, E. A., et al. (2006). Specifying the determinants of the initiation and maintenance of behavior change: An examination of self-efficacy, satisfaction, and smoking cessation. Health Psychology,25, 626–634.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models. Psychological Bulletin,107, 238–246.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Brodscholl, J. C., Kober, H., & Higgins, E. T. (2007). Strategies of self-regulation in goal attainment versus goal maintenance. European Journal of Social Psychology,37, 628–648.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, T. (2015). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Browne, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 136–162). Newbury Park: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buhrmester, M. D., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon’s mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high quality data? Perspectives on Psychological Science,6, 3–5.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S. (2006). Approach, avoidance, and the self-regulation of affect and action. Motivation and Emotion,30, 105–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1982). Outcome expectancy, locus of attribution for expectancy, and self-directed attention as determinants of evaluations and performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,18, 184–200.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1990). Origins and functions of positive and negative affect: A control-process view. Psychological Review,97, 19–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S., & Scheier, M. F. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,67, 319–333.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark, L. A., & Watson, D. (1995). Constructing validity: Basic issues in objective scale development. Psychological Assessment,7, 309–319.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry,11, 227–268.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeYoung, C. G. (2010). Personality neuroscience and the biology of traits. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,4, 1165–1180.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. J. (1997). Integrating “classic” and “contemporary” approaches to achievement motivation: A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. In P. Pintrich & M. Maehr (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 10, pp. 143–179). Greenwich: JAI.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist,34, 149–169.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. J., & Church, M. A. (1997). A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,72, 218–232.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. J., Gable, S. L., & Mapes, R. R. (2006). Approach and avoidance motivation in the social domain. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,32, 378–391.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. J., Sedikides, C., Murayama, K., Tanaka, A., Thrash, T. M., & Mapes, R. R. (2012). Cross-cultural generality and specificity in self-regulation: Avoidance personal goals and multiple aspects of wellbeing in the U.S. and Japan. Emotion,12, 1031–1040.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. J., & Sheldon, K. M. (1998). Avoidance personal goals and the personality-illness relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,75, 1282–1299.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A., Sheldon, K., & Church, M. (1997). Avoidance personal goals and subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,23, 915–927.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Elliot, A. J., & Thrash, T. M. (2002). Approach-avoidance motivation in personality: Approach and avoidance temperaments and goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,82, 804–818.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Emmons, R. A. (1986). Personal strivings: An approach to personality and subjective well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,51, 1058–1068.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., & Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychological Methods,4, 272–299.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraley, R. C., & Marks, M. J. (2007). The null hypothesis significance testing debate and its implications for personality research. In R. W. Robins, R. C. Fraley, & R. F. Krueger (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in personality psychology (pp. 149–169). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fraley, R. C., Waller, N. G., & Brennan, K. A. (2000). An item response theory analysis of self-report measures of adult attachment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,78, 350–365.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fuglestad, P. T., Rothman, A. J., Jeffery, R. W., & Sherwood, N. E. (2015). Regulatory focus, proximity to goal weight, and weight loss maintenance. American Journal of Health Behavior.,39, 709–720.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Fuglestad, P. T., Rothman, A. J., & Jeffrey, R. W. (2008). Getting there and hanging on: The effect of regulatory focus on performance in smoking and weight loss interventions. Health Psychology,27, S260–S270.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gable, S. L., & Impett, E. A. (2012). Approach and avoidance motives and close relationships. Social and Personality Psychology Compass,6, 95–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, L. R., & Velicer, W. F. (2006). Principles of exploratory factor analysis. In S. Strack (Ed.), Differentiating normal and abnormal personality (2nd ed., pp. 209–237). New York: Springer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. A. (1982). The neuropsychology of anxiety: An enquiry into the functions of the septo-hippocampal system. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gray, J. A. (1990). Brain systems that mediate both emotion and cognition. Cognition and Emotion,4, 269–288.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., & Blanchard, C. (2000). On the assessment of situational intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion,24, 175–213.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T. (1997). Beyond pleasure and pain. American Psychologist,52, 1280–1300.

    Google Scholar 

  • Higgins, E. T., Friedman, R. S., Harlow, R. E., Idson, L. C., Ayduk, O. N., & Taylor, A. (2001). Achievement orientations from subjective histories of success: Promotion pride versus prevention pride. European Journal of Social Psychology,31(1), 3–23.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling,6, 1–55.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hulleman, C. S., Schrager, S. M., Bodmann, S. M., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2010). A meta-analytic review of achievement goal measures: Different labels for the same constructs or different constructs with similar labels? Psychological Bulletin,136(3), 422–449.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The big five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin & O. P. John (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (pp. 102–138). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaiser, H. F. (1960). The application of electronic computers to factor analysis. Educational and Psychological Measurement,20(1), 141–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaplan, D., & Depaoli, S. (2013). Bayesian statistical methods. In T. D. Little (Ed.), Oxford handbook of quantitative methods (pp. 407–437). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kenny DA (2014) Measuring model fit. Retrieved from http://www.davidakenny.net/cm/fit.htm

  • Kline, R. B. (2011). Convergence of structural equation modeling and multilevel modeling. In M. Williams & W. P. Vogt (Eds.), Handbook of methodological innovation in social research methods (pp. 562–589). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kwasnicka, D., Dombrowski, S. U., White, M., & Sniehotta, F. (2016). Theoretical explanations for maintenance of behaviour change: A systematic review of behaviour theories. Health Psychology Review,10(3), 277–296.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Larsen, R. J., & Augustine, A. A. (2008). Basic personality predispositions related to approach and avoidance: Extraversion/neuroticism, BAS/BIS, and positive/negative affectivity. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 151–164). Hillsdale: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewin, K. (1935). A dynamic theory of personality. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Little, R. J. A. (1988). A test of missing completely at random for multivariate data with missing values. Journal of the American Statistical Association,404, 1198–1202.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marsh, H. W., Hau, K. T., & Wen, Z. (2004). In search of golden rules: Comment on hypothesis-testing approaches to setting cutoff values for fit indexes and dangers in overgeneralizing Hu and Bentler’s findings. Structural Equation Modeling,11(3), 320–341.

    Google Scholar 

  • McCabe, K. O., Van Yperen, N. W., Elliot, A. J., & Verbraak, M. (2013). Big five personality profiles of context-specific achievement goals. Journal of Research in Personality,47, 698–707.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, G. A., Galanter, E., & Pribram, K. H. (1960). Plans and the structure of behavior. New York: Holt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Molden, D. C., Lee, A. Y., & Higgins, E. T. (2008). Motivations for promotion and prevention. In J. Shah & W. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook of motivation science (pp. 169–187). New York: Guilford Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mundfrom, D., Shaw, D., & Ke, T. (2005). Minimum sample size recommendations for conducting factor analysis. International Journal of Testing,5, 159–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray, J. M., Brennan, S. F., French, D. P., Patterson, C. C., Kee, F., & Hunter, R. F. (2017). Effectiveness of physical activity interventions in achieving behaviour change maintenance in young and middle aged adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Social Science and Medicine,192, 125–133.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Muthén, L. K., & Muthén, B. O. (2002). How to use a Monte Carlo study to decide on sample size and determine power. Structural Equation Modeling,4, 599–620.

    Google Scholar 

  • O’Connor, B. P. (2000). SPSS and SAS programs for determining the number of components using parallel analysis and Velicer’s MAP test. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, and Computers,32, 396–402.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Otis, N., & Pelletier, L. G. (2008). Women’s regulation styles for eating behaviors and outcomes: The mediating role of approach and avoidance food planning. Motivation and Emotion,32, 55–67.

    Google Scholar 

  • Parrigon, S., Sang, S. E., Tay, L., & Wang, T. (2017). CAPTIONing the situation: A lexically derived taxonomy of psychological situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,112, 642–681.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Payne, S. C., Youngcourt, S. S., & Beaubien, J. M. (2007). A meta-analytic examination of the goal orientation nomological net. Journal of Applied Psychology,92, 128–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powers, W. T. (1973). Behavior: The control of perception. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauthmann, J. F., Gallardo-Pujol, D., Guillaume, E. M., Todd, E., Nave, C. S., Sherman, R. A., et al. (2014). The situational eight DIAMONDS: A taxonomy of major dimensions of situation characteristics. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,107, 677–718.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., Jr., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003). One hundred years of social psychology quantitatively described. Review of General Psychology,7, 331–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, A. J. (2000). Toward a theory-based analysis of behavioral maintenance. Health Psychology,19, 1–6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothman, A. J., Gollwitzer, P. M., Grant, A., Neal, D., Sheeran, P., & Wood, W. (2015). Hale and hearty: How psychological science can create and maintain healthy habits. Perspectives on Psychological Science,10(6), 701–705.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level, quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relationships,5, 357–391.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, J. A. (1980). A circumplex model of affect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,39, 1161–1178.

    Google Scholar 

  • Russell, D. (1996). UCLA Loneliness Scale (Version 3): Reliability, validity, and factor structure. Journal of Personality Assessment,66, 20–40.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (2010). Ensuring positiveness of the scaled difference Chi square test statistic. Psychometrika,75, 243.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Senko, C., Hulleman, C. S., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2011). Achievement goal theory at the crossroads: Old controversies, current challenges, and new directions. Educational Psychologist,46(1), 26–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sharma, L., Markon, K. E., & Clark, L. A. (2014). Toward a theory of distinct types of “impulsive” behaviors: A meta-analysis of self-report and behavioral measures. Psychological Bulletin,140, 374–408.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Not all personal goals are “personal”: Comparing autonomous and controlling goals on effort and attainment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,24, 546–557.

    Google Scholar 

  • Soto, C. J., & John, O. P. (2016). The next Big Five Inventory (BFI-2): Developing and assessing a hierarchical model with 15 facets to enhance bandwidth, fidelity, and predictive power. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,94, 718–737.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stoeber, J., Stoll, O., Pescheck, E., & Otto, K. (2008). Perfectionism and goal orientations in athletes: Relations with approach and avoidance orientations in mastery and performance goals. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,9, 102–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Summerville, A., & Roese, N. J. (2008). Self-report measures of individual differences in regulatory focus: A cautionary note. Journal of Research in Personality,42, 247–254.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., & Clark, L. A. (1994). The PANAS-X: Manual for the positive and negative affect schedule-Expanded Form. Iowa City: University of Iowa.

    Google Scholar 

  • Watson, D., Wiese, D., Vaidya, J., & Tellegen, A. (1999). The two general activation systems of affect: Structural findings, evolutionary considerations, and psychobiological evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,76, 820–838.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whiteside, S. P., & Lynam, D. R. (2001). The five factor model and impulsivity: Using a structural model of personality to understand impulsivity. Personality and Individual Differences,30, 669–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Willard, G., & Gramzow, R. H. (2009). Beyond oversights, lies, and pies in the sky: Exaggeration as goal projection. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,35, 477–492.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Wyoming, Department 3415, 1000 East University Avenue, Laramie, WY, 82071, USA

    Shaun K. Lappi & Benjamin M. Wilkowski

Authors
  1. Shaun K. Lappi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin M. Wilkowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shaun K. Lappi.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

:All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 158 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Lappi, S.K., Wilkowski, B.M. The generalized approach, attainMent, maintenance, and avoidance (GAMMA) motivation scale: development, validation, and theoretical contribution. Motiv Emot 44, 389–409 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09817-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09817-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation