TABLE 4.
Moderation of the associations between task discrepancy and emotions by learning approach and work avoidance goals.
| Model 1: Enjoyment | Model 2: Pride | Model 3: Anger | Model 4: Anxiety | Model 5: Shame | Model 6: Boredom | |
|
Learning approach goal models | ||||||
| Learning approach | 0.27 (0.08) | 0.28 (0.08) | −0.17 (0.07) | 0.06 (0.07) | −0.05(0.08) | −0.27 (0.07) |
| Task discrepancy | 0.46 (0.36) | 0.59 (0.33) | −0.34(0.35) | 0.12 (0.26) | −0.10(0.31) | −0.44(0.29) |
| Interaction | −0.56(0.37) | −0.65 (0.33) | 0.42 (0.34) | −0.02(0.26) | 0.17 (0.32) | 0.45 (0.29) |
| Control variables | ||||||
| Age | 0.12 (0.07) | −0.01(0.07) | < 0.01(0.05) | −0.18 (0.08) | −0.12(0.09) | −0.21 (0.07) |
| Full professor (1 = yes, 0 = no) | 0.03 (0.07) | 0.04 (0.06) | 0.08 (0.06) | 0.10 (0.07) | < 0.01(0.07) | −0.06(0.07) |
| Ph.D. (1 = yes, 0 = no) | −0.03(0.06) | < 0.01(0.06) | 0.01 (0.06) | 0.14 (0.06) | 0.04 (0.07) | 0.08 (0.06) |
| Gender (1 = ♂, 2 = ♀) | 0.08 (0.06) | 0.03 (0.06) | −0.01(0.05) | 0.18 (0.05) | 0.05 (0.06) | 0.13 (0.05) |
| Work avoidance goal models | ||||||
| Work avoidance | −0.19 (0.08) | −0.15 (0.07) | 0.07 (0.07) | < 0.01(0.07) | 0.04 (0.08) | 0.16 (0.07) |
| Task discrepancy | −0.12(0.11) | −0.23 (0.10) | 0.22 (0.09) | 0.02 (0.09) | −0.12(0.12) | −0.09(0.10) |
| Interaction | 0.07 (0.13) | 0.24 (0.11) | −0.20 (0.10) | 0.12 (0.09) | 0.22 (0.12) | 0.09 (0.11) |
| Control variables | ||||||
| Age | 0.08 (0.07) | −0.03(0.07) | < 0.01(0.06) | −0.17 (0.08) | −0.09(0.09) | −0.17 (0.07) |
| Full professor (1 = yes, 0 = no) | 0.04 (0.07) | 0.03 (0.06) | 0.09 (0.06) | 0.09 (0.07) | −0.03(0.07) | −0.07(0.07) |
| Ph.D. (1 = yes, 0 = no) | −0.02(0.06) | < 0.01(0.06) | < 0.01(0.06) | 0.14 (0.06) | 0.03 (0.07) | 0.07 (0.06) |
| Gender (1 = ♂, 2 = ♀) | 0.08 (0.05) | 0.04 (0.05) | −0.02(0.05) | 0.20 (0.05) | 0.07 (0.06) | −0.12 (0.05) |
Reported are the standardized coefficients with their standard errors in parentheses of the individual moderation analyses concerning teaching-related task discrepancy and emotions moderated by achievement goals. Statistically significant effects (p < 0.05) are displayed in boldface. All models were fully saturated and yielded a perfect fit to the data.