Effects of Autonomy-Supportive and Controlling Styles on Situational Self-Determined Motivation: Some Unexpected Results of the Commitment Procedure

Abstract

Distinct and simultaneous effects of autonomy-supportive and controlling styles, usually considered as mutually exclusive, on situational self-determined motivation are tested. In Study 1, economics students (N = 100; 57 men, 43 women; M age = 21.5 yr.) were randomly assigned to one of the four experimental conditions (high vs. low) of autonomy supportive and/or controlling behaviors during a task. Results supported the independence of those constructs. An unexpected effect in regards to Self-determination Theory was found in the Low autonomy - High control condition in which self-determined motivation was observed. The interpretation for this specific condition, an effect due to the attempt to reduce cognitive dissonance triggered by the commitment procedure, was tested. In Study 2, sport students (N = 80, 44 men, 36 women; M age = 19.2 yr.) were randomly assigned to one of the three experimental conditions: No commitment, Commitment plus self-affirmation, and Commitment without self-affirmation. Results supported Study 1's interpretation: motivation was lower when participants were recruited without a commitment procedure or when they were invited to self-affirm than when participants recruited with a commitment procedure.

Controlling coaches’ behaviour, psychological need thwarting, motivation and results of the volleyball competitions

“…The results of this study in some extent corroborate the findings obtained in the experimental study of Amoura [3], where students' group who got their tasks in the low autonomy and high control condition led to the highest situational self-determined motivation. In general, young people are going to the sport training and competitions on a voluntary basis, and current situation was similar to Amoura [3] experiment, but Gillet [10] showed that higher results were related to autonomy supportive behaviours. Therefore, the future studies should look both behaviours (autonomy and controlling) together, because first one cannot rule out the second one [3].…”

“…In general, young people are going to the sport training and competitions on a voluntary basis, and current situation was similar to Amoura [3] experiment, but Gillet [10] showed that higher results were related to autonomy supportive behaviours. Therefore, the future studies should look both behaviours (autonomy and controlling) together, because first one cannot rule out the second one [3].…”

“…We might guess that autonomy-supportive and controlling style are two ends of the self-determined continuum line and mutually related such as different types of motivation. Recently, Amoura [3] with her colleagues showed that it is not like that, these are negatively non-significantly correlated. The positive effect of teachers' or coaches' autonomy supportive behaviour on the psychological need satisfaction for autonomy, competence and relatedness which in turn positively related to autonomous motivation is well documented [1,2,23].…”

Satisfacción de necesidades psicológicas básicas y estilos de motivación en supervisores de empresas en Lima Metropolitana

“…Un estilo de motivación de control opera a través de conductas seductoras que incluyen recompensas explícitas o implícitas, o castigos. Otras conductas incluyen: la negación de la racionalidad, utilizar un lenguaje que induce presión, mostrar impaciencia por ver las cosas bien hechas y afirmar su poder para superar las quejas y las expresiones negativas de los otros (Amoura, Berjot, Gillet, Caruana, & Finez, 2015;Black & Deci, 2000). En relación con el tipo de motivación, las investigaciones han demostrado que un estilo motivacional de control, se relaciona con la motivación controlada (regulación introyectada y externa) y con la falta de motivación de los subordinados.…”

“…En relación con el tipo de motivación, las investigaciones han demostrado que un estilo motivacional de control, se relaciona con la motivación controlada (regulación introyectada y externa) y con la falta de motivación de los subordinados. En otras palabras, cuando un supervisor utiliza un estilo de motivación de control, las necesidades psicológicas básicas de los subordinados se ven frustradas y la motivación es menos auto-determinada (Amoura et al, 2015;Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, & Brière, 2001;Soenens, Sierens, Vansteenkiste, Dochy, & Goossens, 2012).…”