Abstract
We investigate the possibility of two distinct approaches to autonomy satisfaction—one that is contextually “assisted” and one that is individually “asserted”. Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses (Pilot Study and Study 1; N = 449) develop and validate the two-factor structure. We then show that asserted and assisted autonomy orientations predict psychological wellbeing through distinct pathways (i.e., highly active/agentic vs. interdependent). In Study 2 (N = 206), we examine the sociodevelopmental antecedents of each type of autonomy satisfaction, revealing that assisted autonomy is associated with having had authoritiative parents, whereas asserted autonomy is associated with having had authoritarian parents. In Study 3 (N = 109) we show that asserted—but not assisted—autonomy predicts the integration of negative life experiences. Finally, in Study 4 (N = 202), we examine the degree to which assisted and asserted autonomy moderate responses to conflict in need-thwarting contexts, showing that assisted autonomy predicts an acquiescent coping style, whereas asserted autonomy predicts an assertive negotiation style.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Across studies, no gender differences were found in asserted autonomy (Masserted for men = 4.22; SD = .98; Masserted for women = 4.29; SD = .91), F < 1. In Study 2 only, women (M = 4.60; SD = .95) showed significantly more assisted autonomy than men (M = 4.27; SD = 1.02), F(1, 204) = 7.249, p < .001. T there were no gender differences in assisted autonomy across the other studies (Mmen = 4.784; SD = .817; Mwomen = 4.741; SD = .931), F < 1.
An alternate one-factor model where both assisted and asserted items were ascribed to the same first-order latent general autonomy factor yielded an undesirable fit, CFI = .727; SRMR = .161; RMSEA = .136, which further justified the proposed two factor structure of autonomy satisfaction. We also tested a standard first order factor structure, with asserted and assisted autonomy specified as separate factors. Not surprisingly, this yielded a fit similar to the second order model, CFI = .96, RMSEA = .07; SRMR = .06.
Although they represent theoretically distinct constructs, the strong correlation between assisted autonomy satisfaction and interpersonal connectedness led us to test a measurement model wherein assisted autonomy items and interpersonal connectedness items were specified to load onto the same “interpersonal” factor. This yielded a poor fit, CF1 = .795; SRMR = .147; RMSEA = .121, suggesting that assisted autonomy and interpersonal connectedness are metrically (as well as conceptually) different.
Although this manipulation was hypothetical in nature, credibility of the scenarios in supporting or frustrating psychological needs and wellbeing was assessed by measuring state negative mood using 9 items adapted from the PANAS (i.e., Right now I feel: distressed, upset, guilty, scared, hostile, irritable, ashamed, nervous, jittery). Negative mood was assessed both before and after reading the scenario. Changes in negative mood were significantly different across conditions, F(1, 198) = 6.046, p = .015, η 2p = .031, such that those exposed to the need thwarting manager showed an increase in negative mood (M = .360; SD = .277), whereas those exposed to the supportive manager showed a decrease in negative mood (M = −.057; SD = .234). Changes in negative mood were not related to assisted (r = .03, p = .674) or asserted autonomy (r = .01, p = .883). Also, changes in negative mood were not associated with the outcomes of accommodation (r = −.09 ns) or negotiation (r = −.04 ns). However, an increase in negative mood was associated with rumination (r = .28, p < .001).
References
Adie, J. W., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2012). Perceived coach-autonomy support, basic need satisfaction and the well- and ill-being of elite youth soccer players: A longitudinal investigation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 51–59.
Baumrind, D. (1971). Current patterns of parental authority. Developmental Psychology, 4(1p2), 1.
Bonanno, G. A. (2004). Loss, trauma, and human resilience: Have we underestimated the human capacity to thrive after extremely aversive events? American Psychologist, 59(1), 20.
Bostic, T. J., Rubio, D. M., & Hood, M. (2000). A validation of the subjective vitality scale using structural equation modeling. Social Indicators Research, 52, 313–324.
Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic Press.
Buri, J. R. (1991). Parental authority questionnaire. Journal of Personality Assessment, 57(1), 110–119.
Chatzisarantis, N. L., Hagger, M. S., Kamarova, S., & Kawabata, M. (2012). When effects of universal psychological needs on health behaviour extend to a large proportion of individuals. British Journal of Health Psychology, 4, 785–797.
Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L., Deci, E. L., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., et al. (2015). Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration, and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and Emotion, 39(2), 216–236.
Cheung, G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexes for testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9, 233–255.
Cumming, G. (2009). Inference by eye: Reading the overlap of independent confidence intervals. Statistics in Medicine, 28(2), 205–220.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). The importance of autonomy for development and well-being. In B. W. Sokol, F. M. E. Grouzet, & U. Muller (Eds.), Self-regulation and autonomy: Social and developmental dimensions of human conduct (pp. 19–46). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former Eastern Bloc country. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930–942.
Finkel, E. J., & Campbell, W. K. (2001). Self-control and accommodation in close relationships: An interdependence analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 263.
Flowers, P., & Buston, K. (2001). “I was terrified of being different”: Exploring gay men’s accounts of growing-up in a heterosexist society. Journal of Adolescence, 24(1), 51–65.
Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 199–223.
Hodgins, H. S., & Knee, C. R. (2002). The integrating self and conscious experience. In E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 87–100). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Kashdan, T. B., Gallagher, M. W., Silvia, P. J., Winterstein, B. P., Breen, W. E., Terhar, D., et al. (2009). The Curiosity and Exploaration Inventory-II: Development, factor, structure, and psychometrics. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 987–998.
Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. (1996). Distinguishing reactive versus reflective autonomy. Journal of Personality, 64(2), 465–494.
Legate, N., Ryan, R. M., & Weinstein, N. (2012). Is coming out always a “good thing”? Exploring the relations of autonomy support, outness, and wellness for lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 3, 145–152.
Legault, L., Weinstein, N., Mitchell, J., Inzlicht, M., Pyke, K., & Upal, A. (2016). Owning up to negative ingroup traits: How personal autonomy promotes the integration of group identity. Journal of Personality. doi:10.1111/jopy.12277.
Lu, L., & Gilmour, R. (2007). Developing a new measure of independent and interdependent views of the self. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 249–257.
Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997a). The desire for unique consumer products: A new individual differences scale. Psychology and Marketing, 14, 601–616.
Lynn, M., & Harris, J. (1997b). Individual differences in the pursuit of self-uniqueness through consumption. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 1861–1883.
Maslow, A. H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper and Row.
Masten, A. S., Best, K. M., & Garmezy, N. (1990). Resilience and development: Contributions from the study of children who overcome adversity. Development and Psychopathology, 2(04), 425–444.
Radel, R., Pelletier, L., Baxter, D., Fournier, M., & Sarrazin, P. (2014). The paradoxical effect of controlling context on intrinsic motivation in another activity. Learning and Instruction, 29, 95–102.
Radel, R., Pelletier, L., & Sarrazin, P. (2013). Restoration processes after need thwarting: When autonomy depends on competence. Motivation and Emotion, 37(2), 234–244.
Radel, R., Pelletier, L. G., Sarrazin, P., & Milyavskaya, M. (2011). Restoration process of the need for autonomy: The early alarm stage. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 919–934.
Reeve, J. (2013). How students create motivationally supportive learning environments for themselves: The concept of agentic engagement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 105(3), 579.
Robitschek, C. (1999). Further validation of the Personal Growth Initiative Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 31(4), 197–210.
Robitschek, C., & Keyes, C. L. (2009). Keyes’s model of mental health with personal growth initiative as a parsimonious predictor. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(2), 321.
Rogers, C. R. (1963). The actualizing tendency in relation to “motives” and to consciousness. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation (pp. 1–24). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Rosario, M., Schrimshaw, E. W., Hunter, J., & Braun, L. (2006). Sexual identity development among lesbian, gay, and bisexual youths: Consistency and change over time. Journal of Sex Research, 43(1), 46–58.
Rose, E. A., Markland, D., & Parfitt, G. (2001). The development and initial validation of the Exercise Causality Orientations Scale. Journal of Sports Sciences, 19(6), 445–462.
Rusbult, C. E., Yovetich, N. A., & Verette, J. (1996). An interdependence analysis of accommodation processes. In G. J. O. Fletcher & J. Fitness (Eds.), Knowledge structures in close relationships: A social psychological approach (pp. 63–90). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rusbult, C. E., & Zembrodt, I. M. (1983). Responses to dissatisfaction in romantic involvements: A multidimensional scaling analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 19(3), 274–293.
Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of Personality, 63, 397–427.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2003). On assimilating identities to the self: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization and integrity within cultures. In M. R. Leary, & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook on self & identity (pp. 253–274). New York: The Guilford Press.
Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., Grolnick, W. S., & La Guardia, J. G. (2006). The significance of autonomy and autonomy support in psychological development and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Theory and method (Vol. 1, pp. 795–849). New Jersey: Wiley.
Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65(3), 529–565.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need-satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 482–497.
Sheldon, K. M., & Gunz, A. (2009). Psychological needs as basic motives, not just experiential requirements. Journal of Personality, 77(5), 1467–1492.
Sheldon, K. M., & Niemiec, C. P. (2006). It’s not just the amount that counts: Balanced need satisfaction also affects well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 331–341.
Silvia, P. J. (2006). Exploring the psychology of interest. New York: Oxford University Press.
Snyder, C. R., & Fromkin, H. L. (1980). Uniqueness: The human pursuit of difference. New York: Plenum.
Soenens, B., & Beyers, W. (2012). The cross-cultural significance of control and autonomy in parent–adolescent relationships. Journal of Adolescence, 35, 243–248.
Straus, M. A., Hamby, S. L., Boney-McCoy, S., & Sugarman, D. B. (1996). The Revised Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS2): Development and preliminary psychometric data. Journal of Family Issues, 17, 283–316.
Tremblay, M. A., Blanchard, C. M., Taylor, S., Pelletier, L. G., & Villeneuve, M. (2009). Work Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation Scale: Its value for organizational psychology research. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 41(4), 213.
Treynor, W., Gonzalez, R., & Nolen-Hoeksema, S. (2003). Rumination reconsidered: A psychometric analysis. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 27(3), 247–259.
Van Petegem, S., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., Beyers, W., & Aelterman, N. (2014). Examining the longitudinal association between oppositional defiance and autonomy in adolescence. Developmental Psychology, 51, 67–74.
Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as a unifying principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration, 23, 263–280.
Weinstein, N., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2011). Motivational determinants of integrating positive and negative past identities. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 527–544.
Weinstein, N., Przybylski, A. K., & Ryan, R. M. (2012a). The index of autonomous functioning: Development of a scale of human autonomy. Journal of Research in Personality, 46(4), 397–413.
Weinstein, N., Ryan, W. S., DeHaan, C. R., Przybylski, A. K., Legate, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2012b). Parental autonomy support and discrepancies between implicit and explicit sexual identities: Dynamics of self-acceptance and defense. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 815–832.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
None of the authors have any conflict of interest involving any aspect of this research.
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.
Appendix: Need-thwarting versus need-supportive interpersonal scenario (Study 4)
Appendix: Need-thwarting versus need-supportive interpersonal scenario (Study 4)
Imagine your worst, most controlling boss
Imagine that you are working for a mid-size company, as a data entry clerk. You are required to be in the office from 8:00a.m. until 4:30p.m. every day, recording and processing sales data. Your boss is rude to his employees; he constantly tells everyone what to do (and how to do it), and criticizes their abilities. But, you feel that he is especially controlling with you. He requires you to complete all the jobs that no one else wants to do, without giving you any say in the matter. He barks orders and demands at you multiple times a day. When you are unable to complete tasks due to time constraints or interruptions, he does not accept your excuses and instead says that you are inadequate. To make matters worse, he often excludes you from team meetings and organized events, and plays favorites with some of your other colleagues. Finally, he frequently belittles you in front of others—pointing out your mistakes and character flaws.
Try to visualize this boss, and his behaviors. Take a few minutes to create this scenario in your mind.
Imagine your best, most supportive boss
Imagine that you are working for a mid-size company, as a data entry clerk. You work approximately 8 h per day—mostly recording and processing sales data. Your boss understands that the work is not always exciting, and so he tries to support you by giving you flexible hours, and letting you choose the projects and tasks you want to work on. Your boss also helps you through the less interesting aspects of your job by explaining why the work is meaningful and helpful, and gives you training and opportunity to develop your analytic skills and other professional abilities. He also tries to make work fun by tailoring tasks to your personal preferences and goals. He provides you with constructive feedback, and believes in your potential to be promoted. Your boss generally likes you as a person and wants to see you succeed.
Try to visualize this boss, and his behaviors. Take a few minutes to create this scenario in your mind.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Legault, L., Ray, K., Hudgins, A. et al. Assisted versus asserted autonomy satisfaction: Their unique associations with wellbeing, integration of experience, and conflict negotiation. Motiv Emot 41, 1–21 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-016-9593-3
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-016-9593-3