An integrative analytical framework for understanding the effects of autonomous and controlled motivation

Abstract

Academic Health Polynomial regression analysis Response surface methodology Cross-sectional and prospective study designs a b s t r a c t Purpose: To use polynomial regression analysis with response surface methodology to examine the extent to which autonomous motivation (AM) and controlled motivation (CM) as separate constructs, as well as how the degree of agreement/differentiation and the direction of differentiation among them, can predict outcomes in academic and health contexts. Methods: Data from two studies with university students and one study with breast cancer survivors were used. Results: In general, AM predicted positive academic and health outcomes, whereas CM positively predicted negative outcomes. Positive outcomes were generally higher whereas negative outcomes were generally lower when AM was greater than CM and when agreement between AM and CM increased. Conclusions: Consideration of the degree of agreement and the direction of differentiation between AM and CM adds to the interpretation of the associations between motivation and outcomes in academic and health contexts that is not captured by simply examining AM or CM separately or using a combined AM-CM score.

Stirring the motivational soup: within-person latent profiles of motivation in exercise

“…This further highlights the complex role of introjected regulation from a classical SDT-related autonomous vs. controlled motivation division. It also points to issues raised in recent papers [13–15] regarding problems with the OIT continuum, where introjected regulation is theoretically labelled as a non self-determined (controlled) type of motivation despite the fact that it, at least empirically, seems to be more in the middle of controlled and self-determined motivation. In the present study, the variable-centered analyses clearly demonstrated that introjected regulation was moderately and positively associated with identified regulation in both samples.…”

“…From a broader methodological perspective, the present study adds to the list of recent papers [13–15] highlighting contradictions and problems associated with the assumptions underlying the OIT and how motivation is conceptualised and operationalised through the unidimensional continuum. Although we have used a different analytical lens compared to these studies, the results of the present study go in the same direction as these studies and support the notion that motivation should best be conceptualized as multidimensional [15], varying in kinds, types or qualities rather than degree of relative autonomy [14].…”

“…The assumption underlining the continuum, and the use of the continuum itself, has however lately been questioned in a number of papers from different perspectives [13–15]. For example, using Rasch analysis to evaluate the postulate that motivation is best represented along a continuum of relative autonomy, Chemolli and Gagne’ [14] found support for the notion that the different regulations should be described as varying in kind rather than in degree and that the empirical evidence points to multidimensional rather than unidimensional conceptualization of motivation.…”

Health in exchange for privacy : the adoption of personalised nutrition advices

“…Furthermore, we contribute to existing knowledge by confirming the assumption (e.g. Brunet et al, 2015) that autonomous motivation is linked to benefit perceptions, while controlled motivation is linked to risk perceptions.…”

“…In contrast to autonomous motivation, controlled motivation is more predictive of negative behaviours related to for instance worry and anxiety (Brunet, Gunnell, Gaudreau, & Sabiston, 2015). In the context of healthy eating, controlled motivation generally leads to eating behaviours that prevent negative health outcomes (e.g.…”