Motivational predictors of learning strategies,participation, exertion,and performance in physical education: A randomized controlled trial

Teachers’ support of student autonomy in physical education (PE) is believed to be important for students’ motivation and outcomes in PE. We tested the hypothesis that an intervention designed to help teachers to be more autonomy supportive in teaching their students to use learning strategies (relative to standard teaching) would increase students’ perceived autonomy support from the teachers, perceived competence, autonomous motivation, use of learning strategies and their exertion, participation, and grades in PE over a school year. We also tested a self-determination theory (SDT) process model. Experimental effects of the intervention yielded significant positive effects on changes in perceived autonomy support, learning strategies defined as absorption and effort regulation, as well as for performance (i.e., grades). In testing the SDT process model with SEM, most of the predicted paths were significantly supported.     

Oral health and dental well‐being: testing a self‐determination theory model

This study tested a self‐determination theory (SDT) process model of oral health and subjective dental well‐being. The results showed that: (1) patients' perceptions of autonomy‐supportive dental professionals were significantly positively predictive of patients' psychological needs satisfaction in treatment; (2) needs satisfaction was significantly related to perceived dental competence (positive), autonomous motivation (positive), and controlled motivation (negative) for dental care; (3) perceived competence was significantly positively, and controlled motivation was significantly negatively associated with self‐rated oral health and oral‐health‐related quality of life; (4) autonomous motivation for dental treatment was significantly positively associated with valuing continued dental treatment; and (5) the three oral‐health‐related variables were all significantly positively linked to subjective dental well‐being. A structural equation model supported the SDT process model.     

The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality

This paper describes the development and validation of a general causality orientations scale. Causality orientations are conceptualized as relatively enduring aspects of people that characterize the source of initiation and regulation, and thus the degree of self-determination, of their behavior. Three orientations—autonomy, control, and impersonal—are measured by the three subscales of the instrument. Individuals are given a score on each orientation, thus allowing the use of the theoretically appropriate subscale (or, in some cases, a combination of subscales) to predict affects, cognitions, and behaviors. The scale was shown to have internal consistency and temporal stability. The orientations were shown to fit appropriately into a nomological network of constructs and to relate to various behaviors that were hypothesized to be theoretically relevant.     

The support of autonomy and the control of behavior

In this article we suggest that events and contexts relevant to the initiation and regulation of intentional behavior can function either to support autonomy (i.e., to promote choice) or to control behavior (i.e., to pressure one toward specific outcomes). Research herein reviewed indicates that this distinction is relevant to specific external events and to general interpersonal contexts as well as to specific internal events and to general personality orientations. That is, the distinction is relevant whether one's analysis focuses on social psychological variables or on personality variables. The research review details those contextual and person factors that tend to promote autonomy and those that tend to control. Furthermore, it shows that autonomy support has generally been associated with more intrinsic motivation, greater interest, less pressure and tension, more creativity, more cognitive flexibility, better conceptual learning, a more positive emotional tone, higher self-esteem, more trust, greater persistence of behavior change, and better physical and psychological health than has control. Also, these results have converged across different assessment procedures, different research methods, and different subject populations. On the basis of these results, we present an organismic perspective in which we argue that the regulation of intentional behavior varies along a continuum from autonomous (i.e., self-determined) to controlled. The relation of this organismic perspective to historical developments in empirical psychology is discussed, with a particular emphasis on its implications for the study of social psychology and personality.     

A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation

A meta-analysis of 128 studies examined the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. As predicted, engagement-contingent, completion-contingent, and performance-contingent rewards significantly undermined free-choice intrinsic motivation (d = -0.40, -0.36, and -0.28, respectively), as did all rewards, all tangible rewards, and all expected rewards. Engagement-contingent and completion-contingent rewards also significantly undermined self-reported interest (d = -0.15, and -0.17), as did all tangible rewards and all expected rewards. Positive feedback enhanced both free-choice behavior (d = 0.33) and self-reported interest (d = 0.31). Tangible rewards tended to be more detrimental for children than college students, and verbal rewards tended to be less enhancing for children than college students. The authors review 4 previous meta-analyses of this literature and detail how this study's methods, analyses, and results differed from the previous ones.     

Competitively Contingent Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation: Can Losers Remain Motivated?

We explored the effects on intrinsic motivation and ego-involved persistence of winning versus losing a competitively contingent reward and, for losers, the additional effects of receiving either positive performance feedback or performance-contingent rewards. Winners were more intrinsically motivated than losers. Losers given an explicit normative standard who received positive feedback for meeting the standard were more intrinsically motivated than losers who did not receive the additional standard and feedback. Losers who received a performance-contingent reward for reaching the same explicit standard displayed less intrinsic motivation behaviorally assessed than did losers who got positive feedback, but the two groups did not differ on self-reported enjoyment. Effects on enjoyment were mediated by perceived competence, but effects on free-choice behavior were not. People who lost the competition showed more ego-involved persistence than people who won or did not compete.