Autonomous Motivation: The Key To Employee Performance and Workplace Success?

“Autonomous Motivation: The Key to Employee Performance and Workplace
Success?”
200527752
2012/13
A PSYC3520 Major Project supervised by
“Gina Koutsopoulou”
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the

requirements for the degree of
BSc Psychology
and in agreement with the University of Leeds’

Declaration of Academic Integrity
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
I would like to thank my Supervisor Gina Koutsopoulou for her dedicated support and
guidance. Gina continuously provided encouragement and was always willing and
enthusiastic to assist in any way she could throughout the research project.
I would also like to thank Andrew Prestwich for providing advice regarding
mediational analysis.
Finally, many thanks to all participants that took part in the Study and enabled this
research to be possible.
I
MOTIVATION & AUTONOMY -SUPPORT
ABSTRACT
In the face of modern pressures, competition and demands, with change and
uncertainty looming over the workplace there is perhaps no better time to uncover an
innovative motivational technique. The promotion of autonomy-support offers a
promising intervention to enhance high-quality forms of motivation and performance,
whilst maintaining employee wellbeing and quality of working life. Based on the Self-
Determination Theory, the present research aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of
an autonomy-supportive motivational style on intrinsic motivation and performance in
a learning task. The study employed an independent measures research design with
two experimental conditions that enabled a comparison between ‘autonomy-
supporting’ and ‘autonomy-thwarting’ motivational techniques. The research was
conducted with University Students to ascertain the utility of this motivational tool for
the next generation of workers. It was hypothesised that, compared to a condition
which incorporated a controlling motivational style, participants in an autonomy-
supportive condition would have greater intrinsic motivation (H1) and display superior
performance (H2). Moreover, it was hypothesised (H3) that a causal chain would be
observed in which autonomy-support affects intrinsic motivation which, in turn,
influences performance. All three hypotheses were found to be supported. The
results demonstrate consistent differences between the experimental conditions
despite the brief nature of the interaction, indicating the profound impact of
manipulating the perception of autonomy. Furthermore, they highlight that there is
more to motivation than simply its quantity and that an understanding of the quality of
motivation would be invaluable for various life domains. Finally, this study
demonstrates the simplicity with which perceived autonomy can be influenced and
presents a novel motivational tool that could enrich employee motivation, enhance
performance and drive business success.
Key Words: Self-Determination Theory • Autonomy-Support • Intrinsic

Motivation • Motivational Style • Performance
II
TABLE OF CONTENTS
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS…………………………………………………………………….…I
ABSTRACT…………………………………………………………………………………....II
TABLE OF CONTENTS…………………………………………………………………….III-IV
1. INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………….1-11
1.1. Motivation and Work Design…………………………………………………………………..1-3
1.2. The Self-Determination Theory……………………………………………………………….3-6
1.3. Autonomy-Support, Motivation and Performance…………………………………………..6-9
1.4. Overview, Rationale and Hypotheses………………………………………………………9-11
2. METHOD…….…………………………………………………………………………12-16
2.1. Participants………………………………………………………………………………..........12
2.2. Ethics……………………………………………………………………………………………..12
2.3. Materials……………………………………………………………………………………...12-14
2.4. Experimental Design……………………………………………………………………..........14
2.5. Procedure…………………………………………………………………………………….15-16
2.6. Method of Analysis……………………………………………………………………………...16
3. RESULTS…….………………………………………………………………………...17-21
3.1. Manipulation Check……..……………………………………………………………………...17
3.2. Descriptive Statistics………………………………………………………………………..17-18
3.3. ANOVAs………………………………………………………………………………………....18
3.4. Effect Size and Power………………………………………………………………………….18
3.5. Correlational Analysis……………………………………………………………………….....19
3.6. Regression………………………………………………………………………………………20
3.7. Mediational Analysis…….………………………………………………………………….20-21
4. DISCUSSION….………………………………………………………………………..22-33
4.1. Current Findings……..………………………………………………………………………22-24
4.2. Implications and Practical Applications……………………………………………………24-29
4.3. Methodological Considerations…………………………………………………………….29-30
4.4. Directions for Future Research…………………………………………………………….30-33
4.5. Conclusion…………………………………………………………………………………….....33
III
REFERENCES……………………………………………………………………………...V-XIV
APPENDIX………………………………………………………………………………XV-XLVI
1. Reeve & Jang (2006) Instructional Behaviours..………………………………………….....XV
2. Effect Size Calculations using Cohen’s d….…………………………………………....XV-XVI
2a. Intrinsic Motivation…………………………………………………………………………XVI

2b. Performance………………………………………………………………………………..XVI
3. Power Calculations……………….……………………………………………………………XVII
3a. Intrinsic Motivation………………………………………………………………………...XVII

3b. Performance……………………………………………………………………………….XVII
4. Scatterplot Depicting the Relationship Between PAS and Performance………………..XVII
5. Autonomy-Supportive Verbal Instructions……………….……………………….......XVIII-XIX
6. Controlling Verbal Instructions…………………………………………………………………XX
7. Autonomy-Supportive Condition Reading Passage Option 1……………………………..XXI
8. Controlling Condition: Reading Passage (AS Option 2)…………………………………..XXII
9. Autonomy-Supportive Condition: Comprehension Task………………….……….XXIII-XXIV
10. Controlling Condition: Comprehension Task………………………………………..XXV-XXVI
11. Intrinsic Motivation Questionnaire…………….……………………………………………XXVII
12. Learning Climate Questionnaire (Measure PAS)………………………………….…….XXVIII
13. Participant Information Sheet…….………………………………………………………....XXIX
14. Participant Consent Form……….……………………………………………………………XXX
15. Participant Debrief Sheet…….……….……………………………………………………..XXXI
16. Raw Data…………….…………………………………………………………………XXXII-XLIII
17. Conference Poster…………….……………………………………………………………...XLIV
18. Supervision Diary…….………………………………………………………………………..XLV
19. Certificate of Ethical Approval……………………………………………………………….XLVI
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of the Dependent Measures……………………………………………….17
Figure 1. Scatterplot depicting the Relationship between PAS and IM…………………………………..19
Figure 2. Scatterplot depicting the Relationship between IM and Performance………………………...19
Figure 3. Standardized regression coefficients between Condition and IM, mediated by PAS……….20
Figure 4. Standardized regression coefficients between PAS and Performance, mediated by IM…..21
IV
1. INTRODUCTION
“In today's business environment, competition arises when other organisations seek
to do what your company does, only better” (Wagner & Hollenbeck, 2010, p.xviii).
Organisations are in continuous competition to uncover the latest strategy for
business success, whilst adapting to the unpredictable nature of the modern
workplace. The aim is to identify flexible and innovative solutions to maximise
business productivity without damaging employee wellbeing and quality of working
life (Jones et al. 2006). However, globalisation, the economic recession,
technological advancements and the ‘24/7 service culture’ are all playing a
prominent role in designing a damaging workplace. This is an environment in which
employees are working for longer, under increased pressure and demand, facing job
insecurity and diminished work-life balance (Kodz et al. 2002), which in turn has led
to increasing work-stress and stress-related illness (Jones & Bright, 2001). As a
result, Organisations are arguably becoming increasingly unaware of their key
competitive advantage; their employees. The recognition of employees as a valuable
asset calls for identification of the best technique to create an environment in which
talent can flourish and through which a competitive advantage can be created and
sustained.
1.1. MOTIVATION AND WORK DESIGN
Motivation varies significantly between individuals and concerns what drives an

individual’s action, the effort they expend and how long the action is maintained
(Arnold et al. 2005). It is of considerable importance to organisations to understand
motivation in order to enhance both employee functioning and business productivity.
High levels of work motivation can emerge from various sources in the workplace,
from personal intrinsic interest in one’s job to extrinsic pressure from strict deadlines
or potential rewards (Van den Broeck et al. 2013). Work design relates to the
adaptation of the nature or content of job roles which can affect individual and
organisational outcomes, such as employee motivation and business productivity
(Parker & Wall, 2001). Initially, work design focussed on job simplification (e.g.
Taylor, 1911) however, research began to demonstrate that this approach had
1
psychologically damaging consequences (Dysvik & Kuvaas, 2011). A review of the

job redesign literature found that improvements in work performance resulted from
increasing extrinsic rewards (Kelly, 1993). However, Kelly also found that
improvements in motivation or job satisfaction did not always follow such job
redesign, suggesting that simply adapting extrinsic rewards is not necessarily
enough. Kelly proposed a Twin-track Model of Job Redesign, highlighting one track
that concerns enhancing job satisfaction and motivation and another which
specifically influences job performance. The model suggests that job perceptions
influence satisfaction and intrinsic motivation, which in turn influences job
performance, while direct aspects of job redesign tend to influence job performance
and extrinsic motivation. This therefore indicates an approach to job design that
improves performance in addition to creating an environment in which motivation and
wellbeing can be promoted and maintained. However, in an increasingly competitive
market many organisations are instead choosing to implement “quick-fix” methods
towards achieving short-term gains in employee productivity and performance
(Westover & Taylor, 2010).
Rewards, competition and evaluations are commonly used forms of ‘controlling’

motivation in organisations (Deci & Ryan, 2012). They follow the nature of the
modern work environment by utilising the pressure and competition that is rife in the
workplace and are related to employees being extrinsically motivated. The Goal-
setting Theory originally postulated by Locke (1968) has had a substantial influence
in the workplace and is often used in organisations as a motivational technique that
can be externally controlled (Arnold et al. 2005). Locke & Latham (1990) provided a
review of the goal-setting literature that demonstrates substantial empirical support
for certain phenomena outlined by the theory. It confirmed that difficult and specific
goals lead to higher performance than general ‘do-your-best’ goals, feedback is
essential for total performance benefits and that these positive outcomes depend
partly on the individual’s goal commitment. In relation to Kelly’s (1993) Twin-track
Model, the goal-setting technique could be considered a valuable motivational tool to
enhance performance; however it pays little consideration to the other ‘track’ of
employee wellbeing and satisfaction. Moreover, the Goal-setting Theory considers
motivation from a quantitative viewpoint, emphasising the amount or intensity of
motivation. However, other theories maintain that the quality or type of motivation is
2
also an important consideration. This distinction between quality and quantity of

motivation relates to Kelly’s (1993) Model and highlights the difference between
methods used as “quick-fixes” to workplace performance (through enhancing
motivation quantity) and those that can lead to enduring changes in worker
satisfaction and organisational culture (through enhancing motivation quality).
1.2. THE SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY
The Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985a; Ryan & Deci, 2000) is a
prominent example of a theory that emphasises the importance of motivation quality,
in addition to its quantity. It builds upon the notion that an external or internal locus of
causality (deCharms, 1968) is influential in determining motivation. Specifically, SDT
proposes that there is a qualitative distinction between types of motivation that are
‘autonomous’ (internal locus of causality) and types of motivation that are ‘controlled’
(external locus of causality). Studies have been conducted in multiple domains that
emphasise autonomous motivation as being more effective than controlled
motivations with respect to various important outcomes, including learning,
performing effectively and behaving more healthily (Deci & Ryan, 2012). In relation
to the workplace, autonomous motivation has been positively related to increased
job satisfaction and engagement (Richer et al., 2002), job performance (Bono &
Judge, 2004) and organisational commitment (Lam & Gurland, 2008). Van den
Broeck et al. (2011) drew on SDT to understand the two main components of
workaholism (i.e. working excessively and working compulsively) and how they
relate to vigour and exhaustion. They found that autonomous motivation was
associated with excessive work, which related positively with vigour, whereas
controlled motivation related positively with compulsive work and exhaustion. These
findings clearly highlight the importance of considering the quality of motivation,
rather than simply the overall quantity, to ensure that motivational techniques are
supporting employee wellbeing in addition to promoting performance. As a whole,
these studies highlight the potential value of understanding and utilising the
underlying concepts of SDT in the workplace.
SDT is based on the proposition that all human beings have fundamental needs to
be autonomous, competent and related to others. The theory proposes that
3
satisfaction of these basic needs leads to autonomous motivation (internal regulation

of motivation), psychological wellbeing and healthy development. Conversely,
thwarting of the fundamental needs promotes controlled forms of motivation which
are externally regulated. Research indicates that social contexts vary to the extent
that they support an individual’s autonomy or hold control over their behaviour (Deci
& Ryan, 2012). Ryan & Deci (2002) suggested that four theories underpin SDT, with
this Basic Needs Theory being one of them. The second underlying theory is the
Causality Orientation Theory which highlights the role of individual differences in
motivational orientation. The causality orientation refers to the degree to which an
individual tends to be autonomous, controlled or impersonal (not being intentionally
motivated) across various life domains. Therefore, this individual difference in
orientation can be influenced by contextual elements of a situation, specifically
whether the social environment is interpreted as autonomy-supportive (Baard et al.,
2004). The autonomous orientation has been positively associated with self-
actualisation, self-esteem, ego development and the tendency to support autonomy
in others (Deci & Ryan, 2012). Furthermore, it has been demonstrated that factors in
the environment can prime causality orientations (e.g. Friedman et al. 2010) and can
produce positive outcomes equivalent to those associated with an autonomous
causality orientation. These two theories underlying SDT highlight its appreciation of
the personally-relevant factors of motivation. In relation to the workplace, they imply
the need for organisations to support need satisfaction and promote autonomous
causality orientations to enhance employee wellbeing and development.
The two remaining theories underlying SDT relate to performance-orientated aspects

of motivation and further highlight the importance of autonomy and autonomous
forms of motivation. The Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET) suggests that social-
contextual factors can either enhance intrinsic motivation through promoting feelings
of autonomy and competence, or can undermine intrinsic motivation, resulting in an
individual being controlled by extrinsic contingencies or amotivated (Gagné & Deci,
2005). The CET therefore proposes a clear distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation and implies that motivation can be enhanced through one form or the
other, but not simultaneously through both. In line with this, to explain the
relationship between autonomy-support and an individual’s subsequent motivation,
wellbeing and performance, SDT proposes a motivation mediation model (Jang et
4
al., 2009). This model highlights the distinction made by the CET by proposing that
intrinsic motivation, not extrinsic motivation, is a mediator of the relationship between
autonomy-support and performance-related outcomes. Kuvaas (2009) found partial
evidence, across a broad cross-section of job types, to support the proposition that
intrinsic motivation may mediate the relationship between autonomy-support and
ultimate work performance. This evidence suggests that promotion of intrinsic
motivation is essential to obtain desired performance outcomes.
SDT broadens the concept of intrinsic motivation using a final underlying theory; the
Organismic Integration Theory. This theory explains a process through which
extrinsically motivated behaviour can become intrinsic to the individual when
endorsed by significant others. This is a process of internalisation and, based on the
level of internalisation, four types of extrinsic motivation have been identified (Ryan
et al., 1985). External regulation is the most controlled form of motivation, followed
by introjected regulation which refers to an individual performing a behaviour to avoid
negative feelings. The third type is identified regulation which is motivated by the
valued outcomes of performing a behaviour. Finally, the most developed form of
extrinsically motivated behaviour is integrated motivations, which result from
behaviours that are considered to satisfy personal goals that are consistent with an
individual’s self-identity (Maltby et al. 2010). SDT proposes that it is the degree to
which the need for autonomy is satisfied that distinguishes whether identification or
integration, rather than merely introjection, will occur (Gagné & Deci, 2005). These
two developed forms of extrinsically motivated behaviour are classed as autonomous
because individuals understand and accept the personal value of the activity (Deci &
Ryan, 2012). Autonomous forms of extrinsic motivation are thought to be similar, in
the way that they operate, to intrinsically motivated behaviour (Maltby et al., 2010).
Therefore, SDT moves away from the intrinsic/extrinsic distinction of motivation,
towards distinguishing between autonomous and controlled motivations. Throughout
SDT it becomes evident that motivation is not simply a personally regulated state,
but conversely various social-contextual factors can substantially influence
motivation quality. This is achieved through satisfaction or thwarting of the basic
needs, influencing an individual’s causality orientation, enhancing or undermining
intrinsic motivation or affecting the internalisation process. In relation to the
workplace, this theme of SDT, in conjunction with its emphasis on the importance of
5
autonomy, implies a target for intervention to enhance employee motivation; an

autonomy-supportive work environment.
1.3. AUTONOMY-SUPPORT, MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE
SDT claims that individuals are naturally inclined to seek contexts that support their
basic psychological needs (Sheldon & Grunz, 2009). Therefore, it becomes of
considerable importance for organisations to identify aspects of the work
environment that can support employees’ needs for autonomy, competence and
relatedness. Job autonomy is conceptualised as the extent to which a job provides
an individual with independence, freedom and discretion to make decisions over the
performance of certain roles and tasks (Morgeson & Humphrey, 2006). Therefore, an
autonomy-supportive work environment is a context that provides choice,
encourages self-initiation and acknowledges a subordinate’s perspective (Ryan &
Deci, 2000). Autonomy-supportive contexts are clearly associated with the
satisfaction of the need for autonomy; however these contexts have also been
associated with satisfying the needs for competence and relatedness (Deci & Ryan,
2012), which together improve psychological wellbeing and development.
Furthermore, autonomy-supportive environments have been associated with the
maintenance or enhancement of intrinsic motivation and in facilitating the
internalisation of external contingencies, while controlling contexts have been
associated with undermining intrinsic motivation and preventing internalisation (Black
& Deci, 2000). In relation to the workplace, an autonomy-supportive environment has
been associated with various positive health and organisational outcomes.
Specifically, a recent meta-analysis conducted by Humphrey et al. (2007)
demonstrated the salient role of perceived job autonomy in improving work
performance, satisfaction and commitment to the Organisation, in addition to
highlighting its negative association with absenteeism, stress and burnout. This
evidence indicates the value of providing autonomy-support in the workplace and
consequently begs the question of how autonomy can be supported. Gagné & Deci
(2005) claim that autonomy ‘supports’ fall into two categories, firstly, specific content
of a job, such as choice, can be adapted, and secondly, the general interpersonal
ambience can be improved which relates to organisational climate and manager or
6
leader interpersonal styles. Ryan & Deci (2006) emphasise it is not simply the
number of options provided to an individual that stimulates the perception of
autonomy, but rather it the nature of the support gained and the overall perception of
a culture or context as autonomous. Consequently, to obtain the greatest benefit
from an autonomy-supportive work environment, organisations need to consider the
organisational climate and specifically focus on enhancing key interpersonal
relationships. Therefore, an autonomy-supportive motivational style could be utilised
as a valuable technique to enhance interpersonal style and, in turn, have a profound
influence on employee motivation, wellbeing and performance.
The self-determination literature emphasises the role of a manger or leader in

establishing an organisational climate which promotes need satisfaction and
autonomous motivation (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Although many managers understand
that the quality of employee motivation is important, they are often unsure how to
stimulate employees to promote high-quality motivation (Hardré, 2003). Numerous
studies have shown that basic behaviours displayed by a figure of authority can
significantly influence subordinates’ motivation (Guay et al. 2008). However, there is
some debate in the literature as to what exactly managers can be taught.
Management style is considered to be an innate individual difference that is
integrated within the interpersonal behaviours of an individual (Lewis, 2005) and thus
is unlikely to be malleable. However, other theorists have argued that management
style can be taught and particularly certain features of a management style can be
shaped (Brody, 2008). In line with this, specific management skills and strategies are
generally considered to be malleable (Kouzes & Posner, 2002). Motivating style is a
subset of managerial style that encompasses the way in which a manager attempts
to motivate employees (Bono & Judge, 2003). If motivational style can be shaped to
become more autonomy-supportive this could have vast benefits in an organisation.
It has been found that employees with an autonomy-supportive manager, compared
to a controlling manager, display a range of positive work-related outcomes,
including effort and engagement, job performance, skill development and long-term
retention (Gagné et al., 2000). Moreover, it has been demonstrated that the
autonomy-supportive behaviour of an authority figure can increase high-quality
autonomous motivation and subsequent use of an autonomy-supportive style in
subordinates (Black & Deci, 2000). This finding suggests that the adoption of an
7
autonomy-supportive managerial motivational style could have a substantial

cascading effect in establishing an autonomous organisational culture. The
continued promotion of this organisational culture could have endless positive
benefits for an organisation in terms of workplace success and employee wellbeing,
in addition to being an important factor in the attraction and retention of employees
(Bakker et al., 2011).
The initiation and ultimate use of autonomy-support as a strategy for motivational

and organisational culture change requires the possibility that managers can be
trained in adopting an autonomy-supportive motivational style. A study conducted by
Hardré & Reeve (2009) assessed this possibility in a manager training intervention.
They found that following training, managers displayed a significantly greater
autonomy-supportive motivational style and consequently, their employees showed
significantly enhanced autonomous motivation and workplace engagement. This
study is one of few intervention-focused studies which aimed to develop a manager’s
ability to adopt an autonomy-supportive style, and suggests that motivational style
can be adapted. However, when evaluating their study Hardré & Reeve reported that
the employee-related outcomes may have been a result of the managers becoming
less controlling rather than succeeding in becoming more autonomy-supportive. This
maintains that motivational style can be malleable but supports the view that learning
to become autonomy-supportive may be multi-layered. Reeve (2009) proposed that
there were three stages to accomplish a full transition into an autonomy-supportive
style; becoming less controlling, wanting to support autonomy and learning how to
support it. The Hardré & Reeve study found four general behaviours that
demonstrate how an individual can become less controlling, which is the first stage
to becoming autonomy-supportive. The second stage of ‘wanting to support
autonomy’ could be facilitated by providing evidence that directly compares the
benefits of autonomy-support against the costs of being controlling. Finally, it is
possible that more specific autonomy ‘supports’ may be necessary for an individual
to learn how to support autonomy effectively, in order to ensure a full transition to an
autonomy-supportive motivational style.
8
Modern Organisations are increasingly reliant on rapid and skilful innovation at all
levels of the business (Arnold et al., 2005), placing new pressures and expectations
on young workers joining the workforce. However, early work experiences have been
proposed to significantly shape employees’ subsequent work-related attitudes,
values and behaviours (Loughlin & Barling, 2001). Therefore, it is extremely
important for wellbeing and career development, that young employees are
supported. Moreover, as the workplace provides an extremely different context to
University life and school classrooms, young workers may require additional
constructive forms of support that will ensure the retention of motivation and
successful performance. It has been found that trainees learn and perform best
when they are autonomously engaged (Kozlowski et al., 2010) and when they have
access to autonomy-supportive mentors and autonomy-supportive organisational
climates (Bell & Kozlowski, 2002). Furthermore, evidence has shown that positive
forms of workplace initiative (Grant et al., 2011) and creativity (Hon, 2012) ensue
when employees are autonomously motivated, both of which are desired
characteristics of young employees entering the workforce (Bindl & Parker, 2009).
As a whole, this evidence suggests that autonomy-supportive management and
organisational climates would be beneficial to an organisation in regard to work
quality and productivity by enhancing valuable work-related outcomes in young
workers. However, generally there is limited research exploring the effects of
autonomy-supportive interventions on University-aged students, with the vast
majority of them being conducted with younger children in a teaching or coaching
context (McLachlan & Hagger, 2010). An understanding of the effectiveness of this
motivational technique on the next generation of workers would be of considerable
importance to organisations that are looking for new strategies to stimulate their
young employees.
1.4. OVERVIEW, RATIONALE AND HYPOTHESES
Intrinsic motivation has become increasingly necessary for life success, particularly
in relation to higher education and the workplace (Pulfrey et al., 2013). It is
considered a high-quality form of motivation that is associated with individuals being
more persistent and self-driven (Deci & Ryan, 2000), more active in response to
9
autonomy-support and more successful in achieving goals (Gagné & Deci, 2005).
This suggests that identifying methods that can promote and enhance intrinsic
motivation could be invaluable in various life domains. Self-Determination Theory
proposes that through facilitating the satisfaction of basic psychological needs, social
contexts can impact the quality of an individual’s motivation. The promotion of
autonomy-support in specific social contexts offers a promising intervention to
enhance intrinsic motivation through need satisfaction. However, few studies have
attempted to experimentally manipulate the perception of autonomy (Pavey &
Sparks, 2012). Nevertheless, based on previous research, it is reasonable to
suggest that through modifying an instructors’ motivational style to become more
autonomy-supportive, it could lead to satisfaction of fundamental psychological
needs, facilitation of autonomous motivation and promotion of effective performance.
Furthermore, according to the motivation mediation model (Jang et al., 2009) it is
possible that these advantageous personal and performance outcomes may be
mediated by an individual’s stimulated level of intrinsic motivation.
This study aimed to assess the impact of instructor autonomy-supportive

motivational style on performance outcomes of University Students. These
participants represent an understudied population in relation to this form of
motivational intervention and are a population that are of relevance to employers. To
build upon Hardré & Reeve’s (2009) autonomy-supportive manager training
intervention, this study incorporated more specific autonomy-supportive behaviours
and a second ‘autonomy-thwarting’ experimental condition. This allowed a
comparison of the effects of a controlling versus autonomy-supportive figure on
motivation and performance, in addition to an assessment of the value of specific
autonomy-supportive behaviours. Moreover, it appears that, of the few intervention-
based studies conducted, research has generally been conducted over long
timescales, for example in a series of sport training sessions or classroom lessons
(McLachlan & Hagger, 2010). This study is assessing the capacity of autonomy-
support to influence intrinsic motivation and subsequent performance within a brief
30 minute learning task. The present research will allow an insight into the utility of
autonomy-support as a tool for increasing high-quality motivation and performance in
the next generation of workers.
10
The Study proposed three hypotheses in accordance with the above rationale;
HYPOTHESIS 1 (H1): Participants in an autonomy-supportive experimental condition

will have higher intrinsic motivation than those in a controlling experimental condition
HYPOTHESIS 2 (H2): Participants in an autonomy-supportive condition will perform

better than those in a controlling condition
HYPOTHESIS 3 (H3): A causal chain will be observed in which autonomy-support

affects intrinsic motivation which, in turn, affects performance
11
2. METHOD
2.1. PARTICIPANTS
The participant sample (N=70) was comprised of female (n=63) and male (n=7)
Undergraduate Psychology Students. Participants ranged in age from 18 to 25 years
(M=19.31, SD=1.136). Students voluntarily signed up to the Study with the incentive
of receiving participation credits. Participants were alternatively assigned to one of
two experimental conditions in which they completed a comprehension task and a
questionnaire. Both conditions were completed within 45 minutes.
2.2. ETHICS
This research met the current British Psychological Society ethical standards. Ethical
approval was granted by the Ethics committee of the Institute of Psychological
Sciences, Leeds University (see Appendix 19.). Participants were made aware of the
voluntary nature of their participation and their right to withdraw at any time and
without giving a reason. All participants completed a consent form (see Appendix
14.), confirming they had understood the ethical principles underlying the research.
All participants were fully debriefed. Data collected was recorded anonymously.
2.3. MEASURES
Performance. Performance was assessed using a Multiple-Choice Test, which

involved 10 questions (with options A-D). These questions were based on the 438-
word passage (obtained StudyMyEnglish, 2007-2008) that had previously been read
by participants. See Appendices 7-10. for the full Comprehension Task.
Intrinsic Motivation. The Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) (Ryan, 1982) was used
as a multidimensional measurement tool to assess participants’ subjective
experience of the task. McAuley et al. (1989) found strong support for the validity of
the IMI. It consists of 27 items to assess intrinsic motivation; however, shorter
versions have been confirmed to be reliable (McAuley et al., 1989). This study used
a 24-item version of the IMI (see Appendix 11.). Participants rated each item on a 6-
12
point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 6=strongly agree). The questionnaire

assessed participants’ interest/enjoyment, perceived choice, effort, tension, and
perceived competence, therefore providing 5 subscale scores:
Enjoyment/Interest. Intrinsic motivation is positively predicted by higher

enjoyment/interest following a task. This construct was assessed using 6-
items. These items had an alpha reliability of .92. Participants rated
statements relating to enjoyment and interest such as “This activity was fun to
do”. See Appendix 11., items labelled EN1-6.
Perceived Choice. Perceived choice is a positive predictor of intrinsic motivation.

This construct was assessed using 4 items which included questions such as
“I did this activity because I wanted to”. The alpha reliability for these items
was .78. See Appendix 11., items labelled CH1-4.
Effort. Effort is positively related to intrinsic motivation. 4 items were used to assess
this construct. Statements such as “I tried very hard on this activity” were
used. These items had an alpha reliability of .90. See Appendix 11., items
labelled EF1-4.
Tension. Intrinsic motivation is negatively predicted by tension. 4 items of tension

were used. Participants rated statements such as “I was anxious while
working on this task”. The alpha reliability for these items was .87. See
Appendix 11., items labelled T1-4.
Perceived Competence. This construct is a positive predictor of intrinsic motivation.

Perceived competence was assessed using 6 items. These items had an
alpha reliability of .86. Participants rated statements such as “After working at
this activity for a while, I felt pretty competent”. See Appendix 11., items
labelled CO1-6.
Manipulation Check. A measure of perceived autonomy-support (PAS) was obtained

to ensure the experimental manipulation (instructor motivational style) was
successful. The Learning Climate Questionnaire (LCQ; Williams & Deci, 1996) was
used to assess perceptions of autonomy-support. Participants rated statements such
as “I feel that my instructor provided me choices and options”. This questionnaire
used a 6-item short-version of the LCQ and PAS was calculated by averaging the
13
individual item scores. Participants rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1=strongly

disagree, 7=strongly agree). A higher score indicated greater PAS. The short version
of the LCQ has been found to hold adequate reliability and construct validity when
used with University Students (Nunez et al., 2012). In the present study, the alpha
reliability for the 6 items was .96. Refer to Appendix 12. for this Questionnaire, items
labelled PAS1-6.
2.4. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN
This study employed an independent measures design with two experimental

conditions; ‘Autonomy-supportive’ (AS) and ‘Controlling’ (C). The Independent
Variable (IV) was Instructor Motivational Style and the key Dependent Measure was
Intrinsic Motivation (IM; DV1), assessed through the questionnaire. Performance was
a secondary Dependent Variable (DV2), assessed through the scores obtained on
the multiple-choice test. The IV was manipulated according to Reeve & Jang’s
(2006) instructional behaviours that are perceived as ‘autonomy-supports’ or
‘autonomy-thwarts’ (see Appendix 1.). These instructional behaviours were
incorporated into the corresponding condition in this Study. In the AS condition
participants were seated closest to the learning materials and provided rationales for
each task. The instructor allowed Student’s to work in their own way, including how
long they worked for, having the choice of reading passage ‘style’ and how they
tackled the task. The instructor provided encouragement and allowed questions
before starting the task, was responsive to student-generated questions and
communicated perspective-taking statements following the task. In addition to failing
to perform any of these instructional behaviours, in the C condition the instructor
spent more time than the participant talking, longer holding the learning materials,
uttered more firm directives or commands, used words such as ‘must’ or ‘should’,
and controlled elements of the tasks e.g. the time spent and materials used.
Furthermore, the instructor was critical of the participant if they were not compliant
with instructions, for example if they requested to finish the comprehension task
before the allocated time. Refer to Appendices 5-6. for the full verbal instructions. To
ensure the style of motivation was maintained, the written instructions on the task
materials were also manipulated according to the condition.
14
2.5. PROCEDURE
Participants were provided with an information sheet (see Appendix 13.) and consent
form which highlighted the ethical nature of the study. The participants were told the
study was investigating individual differences in learning styles and memory. The
verbal instructions given to participants throughout the study varied according to
Condition (see above).
The first part of the study involved a reading task. All participants read the same text
on computer use in young children. However, in the AS condition participants chose
from two layouts of the passage (See Appendices 7-8.). Paper and pens were
provided. In the AS condition these resources were highlighted verbally and in the
written instructions as possible aids for learning. In the C condition the availability of
these resources was only highlighted through the written instructions. The Pilot
Study (N=12) carried out, indicated that 10 minutes was sufficient time for
Participants to have confidently read the passage. Participants in the AS condition
were given the option to choose to finish before the 10 minutes. During this task the
instructor left the room. On completion of the task participants (in both conditions)
were asked to sit silently for a few minutes before the next task began. This period of
inactivity was to allow time away from the text before a recognition task was
completed. Ryan et al. (1990) used a similar period of inactivity in their study prior to
a recall task and found 4 minutes to be sufficient. The Pilot Study also demonstrated
4 minutes was sufficient. Participants were then given a comprehension task,
consisting of 10 MCQs based on the passage. The Pilot study found 8 minutes to be
optimal time to complete the test. Participants in the AS condition were given the
option to finish before the allocated time. The final task was a questionnaire. All
participants were provided with an envelope to conceal the completed questionnaire.
This measure was intended to reduce social desirability and self-reporting bias. The
instructor also left the room whilst the questionnaire was being completed. All
participants were given a debrief sheet (see Appendix 15.) and verbally debriefed.
15
In addition to influencing timing, the Pilot Study highlighted errors in the written
content of the questionnaire which were corrected. It also led to the incorporation of
a space for additional comments and two demographic questions into the
questionnaire (see Appendix 12.).
2.6. METHOD OF ANALYSIS
A manipulation check was performed using a One-Way ANOVA to assess PAS in

each condition. Descriptive statistics and One-way ANOVAs were conducted to
compare the difference in the dependent measures (DV1: Intrinsic Motivation, DV2:
Performance) between the two experimental conditions. Inferential analysis was also
performed to assess the subcomponents of the IMI. The effect size and power of
both DVs were calculated. To explore the data further, correlational analysis was
performed to ascertain the relationships between PAS and both DVs, in addition to
assessing the correlational relationship between the two DVs. Regression was
performed to evaluate the ability of PAS to predict IM (DV1), and the ability of IM to
predict Performance (DV2). Finally, mediational analysis was used in an attempt to
uncover sequences of causality between the Condition, PAS, IM and Performance.
16
3. RESULTS
This section will present statistical analysis of the experimental data. The criterion for
statistical significance was set at the alpha level .05. The data has been screened to
check statistical assumptions and found them to be satisfied.
3.1. MANIPULATION CHECK
Descriptive statistics for the ‘Perceived Autonomy-Support’ (PAS) manipulation

check demonstrated higher levels of PAS in the AS condition (M=6.63, SD=.386),
than in the C condition (M=2.92, SD=1.30). Inferential analysis showed this
difference was statistically significant (F(1,69)=263, p<.001), gaining significance at the
alpha level .001.
3.2. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Descriptive statistics obtained for both conditions are presented in Table 1 (see
below). This table presents the Means and Standards Deviations for Intrinsic
Motivation (IM; DV1) and Performance (DV2). It also presents the same descriptive
statistics for each subcomponent of the IM construct.
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of the Dependent Measures
Autonomy Support (AS) Controlling (C)

Mean (M) Standard Dev. (SD) Mean (M) Standard Dev. (SD)
Intrinsic Motivation
4.07 .392 3.27 .550
Enjoyment/Interest 4.16 .601 2.46 .979
Choice 5.02 .625 3.67 1.14
Effort 4.51 .849 3.79 1.06
Tension 2.29 .881 2.79 1.33
Competence 4.25 .555 3.78 .767
Performance 83.7 11.4 75.7 16.3
Note. All figures are rounded to 3 s.f.
IM was found to be higher in the AS condition than in the C condition. Comparisons

between the conditions found higher mean values of each subcomponent of IM for
17
the AS condition compared to the C condition, except for the subcomponent

Tension. Performance was found to be greater in the AS condition than in the C
condition. The standard deviations indicate greater variability of all mean values in
condition C.
3.3. INFERENTIAL ANALYSIS
Inferential analysis was conducted to examine the effect of instructor motivational

style (IV) on IM (DV1) and Performance (DV2). One-way ANOVAs made
comparisons between the two experimental conditions.
Inferential analysis assessing overall IM found the effect of condition to be

statistically significant (F(1,69)=49.5, p<.001), with the AS condition showing higher IM.
One-way ANOVAs carried out to assess each subcomponent of IM found statistically
significant effects, at the alpha level .001, for two of the subcomponents;
Enjoyment/Interest (F(1,69)=76.3, p<.001), Choice (F(1,69)=38.0, p<.001). Effort
(F(1,69)=10.1, p<.01) and Competence (F(1,69)=8.69, p<.01) gained significance at the
alpha level .01. The fifth subcomponent, Tension, was found to be statistically
insignificant (F(1,69)=3.54, p>.05).
A One-way ANOVA conducted to compare Performance between the two conditions

was found to be statistically significant (F(1,69)=5.65, p<.05).
3.4. EFFECT SIZE AND POWER
Post-inferential analysis was carried out separately for each dependent variable (see
Appendices 2-3.). Cohen’s (1992) standard conventions were used to interpret effect
size and a value of .8 was set as the criterion for a good level of power. Post-
inferential analysis of IM (DV1) found a large effect size for the difference between
the two conditions, d=1.55. Power calculations for DV1 were found to be significant at
the alpha level .01 indicating a 99% probability of detecting a real effect, δ=6.48. A
medium effect size was obtained for Performance (DV2), d=0.57. The power
calculations obtained for DV2 found a 67% probability of detecting a real effect at the
alpha level .05, δ=2.38.
18
3.5. CORRELATIONAL ANALYSIS
To explore the data further, three correlational analyses were conducted to assess
the relations between PAS, DV1 and DV2, when the data was collapsed across
conditions.
A correlation for the relation

between PAS and DV1 revealed
that PAS and IM were significantly
related (r=+.665, n=70, p<.01, two
tails). Therefore, the correlation
between PAS and DV1 shows a
large effect size. The strong nature
of this correlation is illustrated by a
scatterplot (see Figure 1., left).
Figure 1. Scatterplot depicting the relationship between
Perceived Autonomy-Support (PAS) and Intrinsic Motivation
(IM)
A correlation carried out demonstrated that PAS and Performance were not
significantly related (r=.190, n=70, p>.05, two tails) (see Appendix 4. for a scatterplot
illustrating this relationship).
However, a correlation for the

relation between DV1 and DV2
revealed that IM and Performance
were significantly related (r=.333,
n=70, p<.01, two tails). Therefore,
the correlation between DV1 and
DV2 demonstrates a medium effect
size. Figure 2. (see right)
demonstrates the nature of this
correlation in a scatterplot.
Figure 2. Scatterplot depicting the relationship between
Intrinsic Motivation (IM) and Performance
19
3.6. REGRESSION
The amount of variance in DV1 explained by PAS and the subsequent effect of DV1
on the variance found in DV2 was examined using two simple regressions.
The first regression found PAS accounted for considerable variance in DV1; R2=.443.
This suggests that PAS accounts for 43.3% of the variance in IM. The second
regression conducted found IM accounted for 11.1% (R2=.111) of the variance in
Performance (DV2).
3.7. MEDIATIONAL ANALYSIS
Three mediational analyses were conducted:
[1] The relationship between Condition (IV) and IM (DV1) was found to be mediated
by PAS. As Figure 3. (below) illustrates, the standardized regression coefficient
between the Condition and IM decreased substantially when controlling for PAS. The
other conditions necessary for a mediation, according to Baron & Kenny (1986),
were also met: Condition was a significant predictor of IM and of PAS, and PAS was
a significant predictor of IM.
PAS
-3.71** -.20**
Condition IM
-.80**
(-.34)
** p<.001
Figure 3. Standardized regression coefficients between
Condition and Intrinsic Motivation (IM) as mediated by
Perceived Autonomy-support (PAS)
[2] Although the conditions of mediation were met for a relationship between
Condition and Performance (DV2) as mediated by IM (DV1), the computed
standardized regression coefficients found a null mediation.
[3] Regression analysis shows PAS is not significantly related to performance, thus
not meeting the preconditions set by Baron & Kenny (1986) for a mediation.
20
However, Mackinnon et al. (2007) suggested this precondition is not necessary.

Thus continuing the mediational analysis the relationship between PAS and
Performance was found to be mediated by IM. This is highlighted by the decrease in
standardized regression coefficient between PAS and DV2 when controlling for IM
(see Figure 4., below).
IM
.20** 7.77*
PAS Performance
1.32 (-.40)
*p<.01 ** p<.001
Figure 4. Standardized regression coefficients between Perceived

Autonomy-support (PAS) and Performance as mediated by Intrinsic
Motivation (IM)
21
4. DISCUSSION
The Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985a; Ryan & Deci, 2000) has led to
a wealth of research into the benefits associated with an autonomy-supportive social
context. Numerous studies have identified its ability to facilitate the satisfaction of
fundamental psychological needs, promote psychological wellbeing, enhance
autonomous motivation and lead to more effective performance in various life
domains. This Study aimed to assess the impact of an autonomy-supportive
motivational style, in contrast to a controlling style, on intrinsic motivation and
subsequent performance of University Students. Specifically, it assessed the
influence of an instructor’s motivational style in a brief 30 minute learning task. It was
hypothesised that, compared to a condition which incorporated a controlling
motivational style, Participants in an autonomy-supportive condition would have
greater intrinsic motivation (H1) and display superior performance (H2). Moreover, it
was hypothesised (H3) that a causal chain would be observed in which autonomy-
support affects intrinsic motivation which, in turn, influences performance.
4.1 CURRENT FINDINGS
The manipulation check demonstrates that across the two conditions Participants’
perception of autonomy-support provided by the instructor varied significantly in the
expected pattern. This implies that the incorporation of Reeve & Jang’s (2006)
‘autonomy-supports’ and ‘autonomy-thwarts’ into the autonomy-supportive and
controlling conditions, respectively, influenced a considerable difference in the
instructor’s motivational style.
The descriptive statistics indicated the expected pattern of results, with the
autonomy-supportive condition demonstrating higher Intrinsic Motivation (IM) and
Performance than the controlling condition. Inferential analysis confirmed these
results and provided support for Hypotheses 1 and 2. The analysis revealed that
between the two conditions there was a significant difference in IM and Performance,
with the finding being stronger for IM than for Performance. In combination with the
descriptive statistics, these results therefore support the expectation that IM would
be higher in the autonomy-supportive condition, in contrast to the controlling
22
condition (H1) and that Performance would follow the same pattern (H2). The
strength of the results relating to IM are perhaps more impressive when the analysis
of each subcomponent of the construct is considered. In particular, the difference
between the conditions in overall IM was highly significant despite the finding that the
subcomponent of ‘Tension’ was insignificant. This insignificance may relate to the
nature of the task, in that pressure was not induced in either condition as there was
no expected consequence for task performance. These results imply that the
difference in the instructor’s motivational style between the two experimental
conditions may have caused the distinct pattern of IM and Performance observed in
each condition. This therefore demonstrates the vast difference in motivation and
performance that can arise as a result of an individual experiencing autonomy or
feeling controlled.
Post-inferential analysis was conducted for both outcome variables. An extremely

large effect size was obtained for IM, indicating that the instructor’s motivational style
(IV) had a strong and reliable effect on IM and thus suggesting an important and
meaningful relationship between them. The power calculation for this relationship is
extremely strong, demonstrating that there is a 99% chance of detecting a real
effect. The effect size obtained for Performance was of medium strength, indicating
there is also a meaningful relationship between the IV and Performance. However,
the power calculation indicates there is only a 68% chance of finding a statistically
significant difference when there is one. Together this analysis begins to highlight the
difference in the strength of the relationship between the experimental manipulation
and its influence on IM and Performance.
To analyse the data further, the self-report measure of Perceived Autonomy-Support

(PAS) was used. PAS provides important information as to how the instructor’s
motivational style affected the individual, particularly as an individual’s perception of
support may differ from the support the instructor assumes they are providing
(Eisenberger et al., 2002). Correlational analysis indicated that PAS was significantly
related to IM but was not significantly related to Performance. However, there was a
significant correlational relationship between IM and Performance. These findings
indicate that there may be a causal chain of effect with the instructor’s autonomy-
supportive motivational style influencing IM through PAS, and in turn IM influencing
Performance. This finding supports Hypothesis 3. A regression found that PAS
23
accounted for 43.3% of the variance in IM, suggesting PAS can vastly impact high-
quality forms of motivation. IM was found to account for only 11.1% of the variance in
Performance. Whilst this finding implies a definite role for IM in learning
performance, it also suggests that other factors may be influential in the relationship.
Mediation analysis attempted to uncover a causal chain within the results to explain
how the experimental manipulation influenced the outcome variables. PAS was
found to mediate the relationship between the experimental condition and IM. This
indicates that an individual’s perception of autonomy is heavily influential in
translating autonomy-support into increases in IM. Although IM was not found to
mediate the relationship between the experimental manipulation and performance, it
was found to be a mediator between PAS and Performance. As a whole, these
results appear to support Hypothesis 3 by indicating a causal chain in which the
experimental condition, through PAS, influenced IM, which in turn influenced
performance in the learning task. This finding is consistent with the motivation
mediation model (Jang et al., 2009), which proposes that the relationship between
autonomy-support and performance is mediated by IM.
4.2. IMPLICATIONS AND PRACTICAL APPLICATIONS
The present Study supports previous literature which has highlighted the applicability
of SDT to enhancing motivation and performance. It emphasises the profound
influence that an individual’s social context can have through facilitating autonomous
forms of motivation. Specifically, it was found that through experimentally
manipulating feelings of autonomy, intrinsic motivation can be enhanced which
subsequently facilitated performance. Furthermore, the study highlights the simplicity
with which perceived autonomy can be influenced and, in turn, has demonstrated
that enhancing high-quality forms of motivation is not necessarily a complicated and
effortful endeavour. As a whole, it proposes the necessity for figures of authority in
various life domains to understand the distinction between controlling and autonomy-
supportive motivational styles.
The present research explicitly demonstrated the positive impact autonomy-support

can have on learning and performance in University Students, whom have been
24
identified as an understudied population in relation to this research area (McLachlan

& Hagger, 2010). This finding reinforces the universality of SDT and identifies the
value of autonomy-support as a motivational technique for University Students. It
highlights a tool for educational purposes in relation to learning, reinforcing previous
research that has demonstrated its use for children in an educational context (Black
& Deci, 2000; Jang et al., 2012). However, it also presents an important
consideration for Graduate Employers and perhaps, more generally, any
organisation that employs young workers new to the workforce. The utility of an
innovative motivational technique is particularly important in the modern pressurised
work environment to support the transition of young workers from the educational
context into the workplace. Previous research has indicated that interventions
designed to engage motivational processes, such as goal-setting, may impede task
learning when the task is complex and novel (Earley et al., 1989). This study has
demonstrated the utility of an autonomy-supportive motivational technique that
enhances motivation whilst retaining, or possibly even improving learning abilities.
Moreover, it has been suggested that early work experience can significantly
influence workers’ subsequent work-related attitudes, values and behaviours
(Loughlin & Barling, 2001). Recent research conducted by Jacobs et al. (2011) found
that autonomous motives predict self-efficacy, positive attitudes and intentions. They
suggested that these outcomes and perceptions of competence are motivationally
adaptive and are likely to be related to behavioural intentions in the future. This
evidence implies that through facilitating autonomous motivation, in addition to
enhancing short-term learning and performance outcomes, an autonomy-supportive
motivational style could be conducive to positive long-term outcomes in relation to
employee development.
This study has revealed the profound influence an instructor’s motivational style can
have within a brief and simple interaction. This is of relevance to various real-life
domains in which, for example, extensive contact with a manager, teacher or coach
may not be possible but can still have a lasting motivational influence. In addition,
this finding is also of importance for managers in the modern workplace that are
striving to identify a ‘quick-fix’ to employee motivation and productivity. It suggests an
alternative motivational tool in place of potentially damaging controlling forms of
motivation, such as rewards and goal-setting. It is important to highlight that research
25
has generally found autonomous motivation to facilitate effective performance if the

task is complex or heuristic and requires deep information processing, creativity and
cognitive flexibility (Zhang et al., 2011). However, this study has demonstrated its
influence on a simple and perhaps relatively mundane task. This influence on
performance was related to a difference in intrinsic motivation, which implied that the
effect of autonomy-support on performance may have been mediated by intrinsic
motivation, in line with a motivation mediation model (Jang et al., 2009). However,
although a significant relationship between intrinsic motivation and performance was
found, it was not extremely strong. Koestner & Losier (2002) provide a potential
explanation for this finding. They proposed that while intrinsic motivation yields better
performance on interesting tasks, autonomous-extrinsic motivation yields better
performance on tasks that are not necessarily interesting but are important and
effort-driven. If this proposal is correct, it implies that the positive performance
outcomes gained in this study, may have resulted through promotion of autonomous-
extrinsic motivation over and above that promoted through intrinsic motivation.
Furthermore, it implies that promotion of autonomous motivation, which consists of
both intrinsic and autonomous-extrinsic motivation, would be extremely valuable in
various life domains that involve both complex tasks that are interesting and less
complex tasks that require effort-driven discipline (Gagné & Deci, 2005).
The utility of providing autonomy-support as a motivational tool is reinforced by this

study through its indication of the ease with which an individual could become more
autonomy-supportive. It implies that simple components of an interaction can be
adapted to become ‘autonomy-supports’ which can create an autonomy-supportive
motivational style. The results suggest it was the specific ‘autonomy-supports’ that
were incorporated into the instructor’s motivational style, for example providing
rationales, choice and encouragement, that appeared to positively influence intrinsic
motivation and performance in the learning task. Conversely, it was demonstrated
through the use of ‘autonomy-thwarts’ that a controlling motivational style has an
opposing, diminishing effect on intrinsic motivation and performance. Consequently,
this study arguably holds elements that could aid each of the three stages that
Reeve (2009) suggested are involved in a process of becoming more autonomy-
supportive. These three stages are; becoming less controlling, wanting to support
autonomy and learning how to support it. Firstly, through incorporating a ‘controlling
26
condition’ and using ‘autonomy-thwarts’ this study has emphasised specific

behaviours to avoid in order to become less controlling. Secondly, through directly
comparing the motivational and performance outcomes generated from an
autonomy-supportive condition against a controlling condition, this study offers an
extremely clear rationale for supporting autonomy. Finally, this study identified
specific behaviours that appeared to have a large effect on the perception of
autonomy-support. These behaviours may have influenced the instructor’s
motivational style directly by making it more autonomy-supportive, rather than simply
less controlling, as was found in Hardré & Reeve’s (2009) intervention study. This
suggests the potential utility of these specific ‘autonomy-supports’ to complete the
full transition to becoming autonomy-supportive.
Although undertaken within a learning instructor-based context, this study has great
applicability to the workplace. It specifically emphasises the potential for using a
manager’s motivational style as a tool for promoting high-quality forms of motivation.
The adoption of autonomy-support within manager-employee interactions could have
a lasting impact on a range of positive workplace outcomes, relating to employee
productivity, wellbeing and satisfaction (Baard et al., 2004). There is some debate
within the literature as to whether management style is malleable. Though this study
does not provide direct evidence that management style can be permanently
modified, it does imply that certain strategies or skills can be adopted that can shape
a motivational style to become more autonomy-supportive. Whether this will
eventually lead to an adaptation in a manager’s motivational style is certainly an
avenue for further study. However, the importance of targeting interventions at high
managerial levels becomes clear on consideration of the influence a manger can
have throughout an organisation. Williams & Deci (1996) found that facilitating
autonomous motivation through autonomy-support can influence an individual’s
subsequent use of an autonomy-supportive style and Moreau & Mageau (2012)
found that colleague autonomy-support can be influential in various work-related
outcomes. Consequently, starting a chain of autonomy-support at managerial levels
could lead to the production of an autonomy-supportive culture that runs throughout
an organisation.
An autonomy-supportive organisational culture would clearly have many advantages.

One potential advantage is the ability of this climate to offset the negative outcomes
27
associated with using “quick-fix” controlling forms of motivation, particularly through

making them less likely to undermine intrinsic motivation (Gagne & Deci, 2005). It is
possible that an autonomy-supportive environment would provide an individual with
discretion in deciding how and when to perform the task and would allow controlling
motivational techniques to provide meaningful information regarding self-
competence (Ryan et al. 1983). Fang & Gerhart (2012) support this finding through
demonstrating that perceived competence and autonomy mediated the relationship
between pay-for-performance plans and intrinsic motivation. This is of significance
because it is suggested that the workplace requires both extrinsic and intrinsic forms
of motivation (Ratelle et al., 2007). It suggests that the promotion of an autonomy-
supportive work environment could positively enhance intrinsic motivation whilst
preventing the damaging effects of controlling factors. Furthermore, the positive
motivational impact associated with extrinsic forms of motivation could be retained
(e.g. greater quantity of work; Jenkins et al., 1998). Finally, evidence has shown that
autonomy-supportive environments can promote employee autonomous goal-setting
which results in greater goal attainment, and in turn enhanced wellbeing and setting
of more autonomous goals (Sheldon & Houser-Marko, 2001). These findings indicate
that developing an autonomy-supportive environment could lead to new forms of
self-motivation, in addition to enhancing conventional motivational techniques.
The workplace is a specific context in which the positive implications of autonomy-

support are undeniable. An autonomy-supportive environment promotes high-quality
motivation, enhances performance, facilitates wellbeing and provides an
environment prepared to develop the next generation of workers. The evidence
documented supports the practical application of training autonomy-supportive
motivational techniques. However, as emphasised the use of this motivational
strategy does not necessarily negate the use of conventional practices but highlights
that changing the quality of employee motivation can lead to improved work-related
outcomes. In addition to enhancing performance outcomes and productivity, the
provision of autonomy-support has been associated with enhancing employee
psychological wellbeing (Moreau & Mageau, 2012), preventing the perception of job
insecurity (Elst et al., 2012) and promoting acceptance of organisational change
(Gagné et al., 2000). In the face of modern pressures and demands, with change
28
and uncertainty looming over the workplace there is perhaps no better time to
promote a new autonomy-supportive motivational technique.
4.3. METHODOLOGICAL CONSIDERATIONS
The participants recruited for this study were University Students and predominantly
female. Although research with this population has been highlighted as important in
relation to new workers joining the workforce, its direct applicability to the workplace
is limited through the nature of the task and use of an unknown instructor rather than
a known manager or supervisor. Furthermore, the use of predominantly female
participants may influence the interpretation and generalisability of these results.
Baard et al. (2004) found a consistent pattern of gender differences in the workplace,
with women generally perceiving their managers as less autonomy-supportive. In a
related vein, Tripathi (2011) highlights the need to consider cultural differences in
relation to need for autonomy-support when applying motivational strategies.
Moreover, they found this cultural variability was not obtained when using self-report
measures. In relation to this study, this finding cautions the sensitivity of the self-
report measurements that assessed motivation and perceived autonomy-support.
However, the use of an envelope to conceal participants’ questionnaires and reduce
social desirability may dampen this caution.
Autonomy-supportive environments have been found to enhance both intrinsic

motivation and high-quality extrinsic motivation (Gagné & Deci, 2005). These two
forms of motivation are classed as ‘autonomous’, however, this Study has only
focused on intrinsic motivation. It is noted that facilitation of internalisation, and thus
autonomous-extrinsic motivation, may require structure, limits or contingencies which
are not necessary for intrinsic motivation (Boiché et al., 2008). Through providing
direct instructions, limited resources to complete tasks and participant credits for
completion, this study has actually provided the necessary factors to facilitate
internalisation. Therefore, whilst this study has only measured the influence of
intrinsic motivation on performance, it is likely that performance has also been
enhanced through other forms of autonomous motivation. Thus performance-related
outcomes cannot be attributed to intrinsic motivation alone. Moreover, the influence
of extrinsic forms of autonomous motivation on performance may have been
29
especially pronounced for this task. It has been suggested that autonomous-extrinsic
motivation is more predictive than intrinsic motivation for behaviours that are effort-
driven, relatively uninteresting and require discipline (Koestner & Losier, 2002).
Therefore, this limitation emphasises the need for this study to have measured
motivation type, and specifically the process of internalisation. Use of a Self-
Regulation Questionnaire (Ryan & Connell, 1989) to determine the type of motivation
that led to performance would have provided greater explanatory power.
Another limitation of this study is that Causality Orientation was not taken into
consideration. Causality orientation is an individual difference factor that refers to the
degree to which individual’s tend to self-regulate and be autonomous, controlled or
impersonally motivated. In various domains, causality orientation has been found to
independently predict performance, in addition to that predicted by autonomy-
support (Baard et al. 2004; Black & Deci, 2000; Ng et al., 2012). It is possible that
causality orientation may have affected performance in this study. Failure to include
a measure of causality orientation may explain why the performance outcome is
relatively unaccounted for by the variables measured. The General Causality
Orientation Scale (Deci &Ryan, 1985b) could have been used to assess causality
orientation in combination with an autonomy-supportive motivational style.
Alternatively, Causality Orientation should have been assessed separately to remove
its effects in order to solely measure the influence of autonomy-support on
motivation and performance. Finally, individual differences in natural ability related to
the task should have been considered.
4.4. DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
A manager’s adoption of an autonomy-supportive motivational style could lead to a

cascade of benefits, both for the employer and the employee. However, the utility of
this motivational technique depends on the availability of specific training tools that
can shape manager behaviour. This study has begun to assess the ability of specific
‘autonomy-supports’ to influence motivational styles. Whilst this study has
demonstrated the positive effects of this approach with University Students in a
learning context, future research should ascertain its utility in the work environment
with specific tasks that young workers may encounter. Furthermore, the use of these
30
specific behaviours with all employees at different levels of an organisation should

be examined. These proposed avenues for future research represent a necessary
shift in focus within this research area from questioning whether autonomy-support is
required in a workplace to discovering how to achieve it.
Another avenue for future research is applying this experimental design, or a design
applicable to the workplace, that will include an assessment of need satisfaction.
This study has utilised the SDT to identify a path through which motivation and
performance can be enhanced. However, if the specific autonomy-supports utilised
in this study were also found to directly satisfy basic human needs, this motivational
technique could be used to enhance both performance and wellbeing. In relation to
the workplace, if concrete managerial behaviours could be identified that enhance
motivation and simultaneously facilitate performance and wellbeing, an organisation
could gain positive recognition for being both successful and employee-focussed.
Recently, the importance of satisfying all three psychological needs (i.e. autonomy,
relatedness, competence) has been stressed (Sheldon & Niemiec, 2006). Although
Deci & Ryan (2012) claimed that an autonomy-supportive environment could support
the satisfaction of all three needs, it may be beneficial to incorporate into autonomy-
support interventions factors that could specifically promote competence and
relatedness. Use of goal-setting, rewards and feedback are frequently used
controlling forms of motivation in the workplace. However, as highlighted previously,
they could be used positively within an autonomy-supportive environment to facilitate
satisfaction of the competence need. The need for relatedness could be satisfied by
incorporating means to create a positive leader-member exchange between
managers and their employees. Graves & Luciano (2013) have demonstrated that a
high-quality leader-member exchange facilitates employee self-determination, thus
indicating the potential for positive relationships to enhance need satisfaction. Future
research to assess the best individual factors that can be incorporated into an SDT-
based intervention to satisfy all or specific needs would be invaluable to target
interventions to specific organisational or employee requirements.
A variable-centred approach was adopted by this study to understand the direct

implications of intrinsic motivation on performance. However, this approach does not
account for the possibility that an individual could hold a distinct combination of
motivation types and that these motivational profiles may influence different
31
outcomes (Moran et al., 2012). Therefore, future research should take a ‘person-
centred’ approach to investigate the effect of autonomy-supportive motivational
strategies on different motivation ‘types’ and the subsequent outcomes. Interventions
could subsequently use profiling to adapt certain components to become more
focused to employees that are within a certain ‘cluster’. Moreover, this can facilitate
identification of individuals that are most in need of autonomy-support, and then
measures can be taken to ensure their support is increased. For example, certain
newcomers to an organisation may require more support and may therefore benefit
from additional interventions such as autonomy-supportive mentoring (e.g. Janessen
et al., 2013). Finally, although it has been suggested that enduring individual
differences in causality orientation cannot be changed (Gagné & Deci, 2005), it has
been found that ‘cluster membership’ can change in certain domains. For example,
Hayenga & Corpus (2010) found that within an autonomy-supportive academic
context 43% of participants changed cluster membership. Future research to
establish this finding would be valuable. If supported, it would suggest that further
benefits could be obtained from autonomy-support through its ability to encourage
development of self-determined profiles, which, in turn, can help to retain the positive
effects of an initial intervention.
It is of importance to ascertain whether the impact of specific interventions to

enhance autonomy-support can be sustained. It has been noted that the effects of
autonomy-support have not been retained over long periods (Jang et al., 2012).
Future longitudinal research should be conducted to assess whether the effects of
an autonomy-supportive motivational style can be maintained. In addition, it would
be interesting to investigate whether a motivational style could have a cascading
impact upon employees throughout the organisation resulting in the establishment of
an autonomy-supportive organisational culture which can then continue to provide
autonomy-support. Alternatively, if the effects of specific person-based interventions
are unlikely to be maintained other techniques to sustain organisational autonomy-
support should be assessed. For example, Levesque & Pelletier (2003) used a
priming technique to elicit either autonomous or controlled motivational orientations.
They found that participants primed with autonomy displayed higher intrinsic
motivation, interest, perceived choice and performance than those given a
‘controlling’ prime. Future research should be conducted to identify priming methods
32
to enhance the perception of autonomy in the workplace, for example through

posters or interactive computer programmes. It is possible that priming may retain, or
even enhance, the effects of an autonomy-supportive environment in the long-term.
Consequently, assessing the benefits of priming in combination with providing
autonomy-support is an intriguing area for future research.
4.5. CONCLUSION
This study has emphasised the profound influence the perception of autonomy-
support can have upon a student-aged population, through only a short interaction.
These findings are of significance to various life domains in which the promotion of
high-quality motivation and facilitation of performance is invaluable. In particular, this
research demonstrates the utility of an autonomy-supportive motivational style as an
innovative technique to enhance performance-related outcomes in the next
generation of workers. In the face of rising pressure, competition and demand,
modern organisations commonly adopt “quick-fix” motivational strategies that may
enhance business productivity but appear to disregard the true value of a key
competitive advantage; their employees. An autonomy-supportive motivational style
provides a novel strategy that has the potential to facilitate autonomous motivation,
enhance employee performance and drive business success.
33
REFERENCES
Arnold, J., Silvester, J., Patterson, F., Robertson, I., Cooper, C., & Burnes, B. (Eds.)
(2005). Approaches to work motivation and job design. In Work Psychology,
Understanding Human Behaviour in the Workplace, (pp. 306-352). (4th ed.)
Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic Need Satisfaction: A
Motivational Basis of Performance and Well-Being in Two Work Settings.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2045-2068.
Bakker, A. B., Albrecht, S., & Leiter, M. P. (2011).Work engagement: Further

reflections on the state of play. European Journal of Work and Organizational
Psychology, 20, 74-88.
Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in

social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic and statistical
considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-
1182.
Bell, B. S., & Kozlowski, S. W. J. (2002). Adaptive guidance: Enhancing self-

regulation, knowledge, and performance in technology-based training.
Personnel Psychology, 55, 267–306.
Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors' autonomy support and
students' autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-
determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84, 740-756.
Bindl, U. K., & Parker, S. K. (2009). Proactive work behavior: Forward-thinking and
change-oriented action in organizations. In S. Zedeck (Eds.), APA handbook
of industrial and organizational psychology. Washington, DC: American
Psychological Association.
V
Boiché, J. C. S., Sarrazin, P. G., Grouzet, F. M. E., Pelletier, L. G., & Chanal, J. P.
(2008). Students’ Motivational Profiles and Achievement Outcomes in
Physical Education: A Self-Determination Perspective. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 100, 688–701.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: toward understanding

the motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management
Journal, 46, 554-571.
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2004). Personality and transformational and

transactional leadership: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89,
901–910.
Brody, R. (2008). Effectively Managing Human Service Organizations (3rd ed.).

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155-159.
deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of

behavior. New York: Academic Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985a). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in

human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985b). The general causality orientations scale: Self-
determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 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. (2012). Motivation, Personality, and Development Within
Embedded Social Contexts: An Overview of Self-Determination Theory. In
R.M. Ryan (Eds.), The Oxford Handbook of Human Motivation (pp. 85-103).
New York: Oxford University Press.
VI
Dysvik, A., & Kuvaas, B. (2011). Intrinsic motivation as a moderator on the

relationship between perceived job autonomy and work performance.
European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 20, 367-387.
Earley, P. C., Connolly, T., & Ekegren, G. (1989). Goals, strategy development and
task performance: Some limits on the efficacy of goal-setting. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 74, 24-33.
Eisenberger, R. A., Stinglhamber, F., Vandenberghe, C., Sucharski, I. L., &

Rhoades, L. (2002). Perceived supervisor support: Contributions of perceived
organizational support and employee retention. Journal of Applied
Elst, T. V., Van den Broeck, A., De Witte, H., & De Cuyper, N. (2012). The mediating
role of frustration of psychological needs in the relationship between job
insecurity and work-related well-being. Work & Stress: An International
Journal of Work, Health & Organisations, 26, 252-271.
Fang, M., & Gerhart, B. (2012). Does pay for performance diminish intrinsic interest?
The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 23, 1176-
1196.
Friedman, R., Deci, E. L., Elliot, A. J., Moller, A. C., & Aarts, H. (2010). Motivational
synchronicity: Priming motivational orientations with observations of others’
behaviors. Motivation and Emotion, 34, 34-38.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362.
Gagné, M., Koestner, R. and Zuckerman, M. (2000). Facilitating acceptance of

organizational change: the importance of self-determination. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1843-1852.
VII
Grant, A. M., Nurmohamed, S., Ashford, S. J., & Dekas, K. (2011). The performance
implications of ambivalent initiative: The interplay of autonomous and
controlled motivations. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 116, 241-251.
Graves, L. M., & Luciano, M. M. (2013). Self-determination at work: Understanding

the role of leader-member exchange. Motivation & Emotion, (under review).
Guay, F., Ratelle, C. F., & Chanal, J. (2008). Optimal learning in optimal contexts:
The role of self-determination in education. Canadian Psychology, 49,
233–240.
Hardré, P. (2003). Beyond two decades of motivation: a review of the research and
practice in human performance technology. Human Resource Development
Review, 2, 54–81.
Hardré, P. L., & Reeve, J. (2009). Training corporate managers to adopt a more
autonomy-supportive motivating style toward employees: an intervention
study. International Journal of Training and Development, 13, 165-184.
Hayenga, A. O., & Corpus, J. H. (2010). Profiles of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations:
A person-centered approach to motivation and achievement in middle school.
Motivation and Emotion, 34, 371–383.
Hon, A. H. Y. (2012). Shaping Environments Conductive to Creativity: The Role of

Intrinsic Motivation. Cornell Hospitality Quarterly, 53, 53-64.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating

motivational, social and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic
summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 92, 1332–1356.
Jacobs, N., Hagger, M. S., Streukens, S., De Bourdeaudhuij, I., & Claes, N. (2011).
Testing an integrated model of the theory of planned behaviour and self-
determination theory for different energy balance-related behaviours and
intervention intensities. British Journal of Health Psychology, 16, 113–134.
VIII
Janssen, S., van Vuuren, M., & de Jong, M. D. T. (2013). Identifying support
functions in developmental relationships: A self-determination perspective.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82, 20–29.
Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2012). Longitudinal Test of Self-Determination
Theory’s Motivation Mediation Model in a Naturally Occurring Classroom
Context. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 1175–1188.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., & Kim, A. (2009). Can self-determination theory
explain what underlies the productive, satisfying learning experiences of
collectivistically oriented South Korean adolescents? Journal of Educational
Jenkins, G. D., Mitra, A., Gupta, N, & Shaw, J. D. (1998). Are financial incentives
related to performance? A meta-analytic review of empirical research. Journal
of Applied Psychology, 83, 777-787.
Jones, F., & Bright, J. (2001). Stress: myth, theory, and research. Harlow, England:
Pearson.
Jones, F. A., Burke, R. J., Westman, M. (2006). Work life Balance: A Psychological
Perspective. New York: Psychology Press.
Kelly, J. E. (1993). Does job redesign theory explain job re-design outcomes?
Human Relations, 45, 753-774.
Kodz, J., Harper, H., & Dench, S. (2002). Work-life balance: Beyond the rhetoric.
Institute for Employment Studies Report 384, London: IES.
Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. (2002). Distinguishing three ways of being internally
motivated: a closer look at introjection, identification, and intrinsic motivation.
In E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research
(pp. 101–121). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Kouzes, J. and Posner, B. (2002). The Leadership Challenge. San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
IX
Kozlowski, S. W. J., Chao, G. T., & Jensen, J. M. (2010). Building an infrastructure

for organizational learning: A multilevel approach. In S. W. J. Kozlowski & E.
Salas (Eds.), Learning, training, and development in organizations (pp. 363–
403). New York: Routledge.
Kuvaas, B. (2009). A test of hypotheses derived from self-determination theory

among public sector employees. Employee Relations, 31, 39-56.
Lam, C. F., & Gurland, S. T. (2008). Self-determined work motivation predicts job
outcomes, but what predicts self-determined work motivation? Journal of
Research in Personality, 42, 1109-1115.
Levesque, C., & Pelletier, L. G. (2003). On the investigation of primed and chronic
autonomous and heteronomous motivational orientations. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1570–1584.
Lewis, J.P. (2005). Project Planning, Scheduling and Control (4th. ed.). New York:
McGraw Hill.
Locke, E. A. (1968). Toward a theory of task motivation and incentives.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 3, 157–189.
Locke, E. A., & Latham, G. P. (1990). A theory of goal setting and task performance.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Loughlin, C., & Barling, J. (2001). Young workers’ work values, attitudes and
behaviours. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 74,
543-558.
MacKinnon, D. P., Fairchild, A. J., & Fritz, M. S. (2007). Mediation Analysis. Annual
Review of Psychology, 58, 593–614.
Maltby, J., Day, L., & Macaskill, A. (2010). Further Ideas and Debates in Personality:
Personality and Culture. Personality, Individual Differences and Intelligence,
(pp. 230-261). (2nd. ed.). Harlow, UK: Pearson Education Limited.
X
McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the
Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory
factor analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 60, 48-58.
McLachlan, S., & Hagger, M. S. (2010). Effects of an autonomy-supportive

intervention on tutor behaviors in a higher education context. Teaching and
Teacher Education, 26, 1204-1210.
Moran, C. M., Diefendorff, J. M., Kim, T., & Liu, Z. (2012). A profile approach to self-
determination theory motivations at work. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 81,
354–363.
Moreau, E., & Mageau, G. A. (2012). The importance of perceived autonomy support
for the psychological health and work satisfaction of health professionals: Not
only supervisors count, colleagues too! Motivation and Emotion, 36, 268-
286
Morgeson, F. P., & Humphrey, S. E. (2006). The Work Design Questionnaire (WDQ):
Developing and validating a comprehensive measure for assessing job design
and the nature of work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 1321–1339.
Ng, J. Y. Y., Ntoumanis, N., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M.,
Duda, J. L., & Williams, G. C. (2012). Self-Determination Theory Applied to
Health Contexts: A Meta-Analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7,
325-340.
Nunez, J. L., Leon, J., Grijalvo, F., & Martin-Albo, J. (2012). Measuring autonomy
support in university students: The Spanish version of the Learning Climate
Questionnaire. The Spanish Journal of Psychology, 15, 1466-1472.
Parker, S. K., & Wall, T. D. (2001). Work design: Learning from the past and
mapping a new terrain. In N. Anderson, D. S. Ones, H. K. Sinangil, & C.
Viswesvaran (Eds.), Handbook of industrial, work and organizational
psychology: Vol. 1, Personnel psychology (pp. 90–109). London: Sage.
XI
Pavey, L. J., & Sparks, P. (2012). Autonomy and defensiveness: Experimentally

increasing adaptive responses to health-risk information via priming and self-
affirmation. Psychology & Health, 27, 259-276.
Pulfrey, C., Darnon, C., & Butera, F. (2013). Autonomy and Task Performance:
Explaining the Impact of Grades on Intrinsic Motivation. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 105, 39–57.
Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Larose, S., & Senécal, C. (2007).
Autonomous, controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A
person-oriented analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 734-746.
Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students
and how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational
Psychologist, 44, 159–75.
Reeve, J. & Jang, H. (2006). What Teachers Say and Do to Support Students’
Autonomy During a Learning Activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98,
209-218.
Richer, S. F., Blanchard, C., & Vallerand, R. J. (2002). A motivational model of work
turnover. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 2089–2113.
Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An

extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 43, 450-461.
Ryan, R. M., Chandler, C., Connell, J. P., & Deci, E. L. (1985). Internalization and
motivation: Some preliminary research and theoretical speculations. In Paper
presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Research in Child
Development. Detroit, MI.
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization:
Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 57, 749-761.
XII
Ryan, R. M., Connell, J. P., & Plant, R. W. (1990). Emotions in non-directed text
learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 2, 1-17.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of
intrinsic motivation, social development and well-being. American
Psychologist, 55, 68–78.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory. In E. L.

Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3-
33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human
autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will?
Journal of Personality, 74, 1557-1585.
Ryan, R. M., Mims, V., and Koestner, R. (1983). Relation of Reward Contingency
and Interpersonal Context to Intrinsic Motivation: A Review and Test Using
Cognitive Evaluation Theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
45, 736–750.
Sheldon, K. M., & Grunz, A. (2009). Psychological needs as basic motives, not just
experiential requirements. Journal of Personality, 77, 1467-92.
Sheldon, K. M., & Houser-Marko, L. (2001). Self-concordance, goal-attainment, and

the pursuit of happiness: Can there be an upward spiral? Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 152–165.
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.
StudyMyEnglish. (2007-2008). Retrieved October 7, 2012, from

http://www.studymyenglish.com/teacher_rc.aspx
Taylor, F. W. (1911). Principles of scientific management. New York: Harper.
XIII
Tripathi, R. (2011). Autonomy, motivation, and work outcomes: A cultural perspective

on self-determination theory [Abstract]. Dissertation Abstracts International:
Section B: The Sciences and Engineering, 71, 7784.
Van den Broeck, A., Lens, W., De Whitte, H., & Van Coillie, H. (2013). Unraveling
the importance of the quantity and the quality of workers’ motivation for well-
being: A person-centered perspective. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 82,
69-78.
Van den Broeck, A., Schreurs, B., De Witte, H., Vansteenkiste, M., Germeys, F., &
Schaufeli, W. (2011). Understanding Workaholics’ Motivations: A Self-
Determination Perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60,
600-621.
Wagner, J. A., & Hollenbeck, J. R. (2010). Organizational Behavior: Securing

Competitive Advantage. New York: Routledge.
Westover, J. H., & Taylor, J. (2010). International differences in job satisfaction: The
effects of public service motivation, rewards and work relations. International
Journal of Productivity and Performance Management, 59, 811-828.
Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by

medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70, 767–779.
Zhang, J., Liu, G., Shi, W., & Fu, X. (2011). On the relationship between motivating
style and elementary students’ creative thinking: The mediating role of
autonomous motivation. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 43, 1138-1150.
XIV
APPENDIX
APPENDIX 1. Reeve & Jang (2006) Instructional Behaviours
Autonomy-Supportive Controlling
Time Listening *Time Talking
*Asking what the student wants *Time holding/monopolizing learning

materials
*Time allowing students to work in own Exhibiting solutions/answers

way
Time student talking Uttering solutions/answers
*Seating arrangements
Whether student allowed to sit closet to *Uttering directives/commands
learning materials
*Providing rationales *Making should/ought to statements
*Praise as informational feedback Asking controlling questions
*Offering encouragement *Deadline statements
Offering hints Praise as contingent reward
*Responsive to student-generated *Criticizing the student

questions
*Communicating perspective-taking
statements
Note. * indicates instructional behaviour was incorporated into this study
APPENDIX 2. Effect Size Calculations using Cohen’s d
To calculate effect size for an independent groups research design:
where:
XV
2 A. Intrinsic Motivation
μ1
σ1
Condition N Mean Std. Deviation
Autonomy-Supportive 35 4.0726 .39235
Controlling 35 3.2690 .55002
σ2
σ' = √ (.39235 + .55002 ) / 2
2 2 μ2
σ' = 0.4777…
σ' = 0.478 (to 3 s.f.)
To calculate Cohen’s d substitute the pooled standard deviation (σ') into the equation:
d = (4.0726 – 3.2690) / 0.478

d = 1.6811…
d = 1.68 Large Effect Size
2B. Performance
μ1 σ1
Autonomy-Supportive 35 83.71 11.398
Controlling 35 75.71 16.321
σ2
μ2
σ' = √ (11.3982 + 16.3212) / 2
σ' = 14.0763…
σ' = 14.1 (to 3 s.f.)
To calculate Cohen’s d substitute the pooled standard deviation (σ') into the equation:
d = (83.71 – 75.71) / 14.1

d = 0.56737…
d = 0.56 Medium Effect Size
XVI
APPENDIX 3. Power Calculations
N
 d
2
3 A. Intrinsic Motivation
δ = 1.68 √ 35/2
δ = 7.0279…
δ = 7.03 (to 3 s.f.)
3B. Performance
δ = 0.56 √ 35/2
δ = 2.3426…
δ = 2.34 (to 3 s.f.)
APPENDIX 4. Scatterplot depicting the relationship between PAS and Performance
XVII
APPENDIX 5. Autonomy-Supportive Verbal Instructions
Passing control to the

*Participants to sit in the chair with materials in front of them*
Participant
“Here is the information sheet about this Study. Please read through it to give you a bit of
information about the Study before you start. Take as long as you like to read through it.”
Providing Choice
“In order to complete any Study you will be asked to complete a consent form giving your
informed consent for completing the Study. The main thing to be aware of is that doing this
study is totally up to you – you can withdraw now and not participate or withdraw at any point
during after you have completed the study. Please read through the questions carefully and
answer the questions on the side. Let me know if you need any help or assistance.”
Providing Rationale, Highlighting the ethical principles underlying the Study
“OK just so you are clear – please if, at any point, you do not want to complete the Study any
more just let me know.”
Task 1:
“The first task is a reading task. This task is looking into the way that you learn and the
techniques that you use.” Providing a Rationale
“Which passage would you like?” *Holding out the two copies of the Reading Task* Providing Choice
It is a passage about computer use in young children. In a moment I will leave the room and
let you read through the passage as many times as you want. I will come back in after 10
minutes but please don’t feel you have to use all this time if you want to stop reading sooner
just call me back in – it is totally up to you!
Providing Choice – How to complete the task and Timeframe needed
I have also left some paper and a pen here – you could use this to make notes/draw
pictures/spider diagrams if you wish. You decide how you would like to tackle this task, use
whatever technique you think works best for you. Providing Choice – How to
complete the task
You can do it! Providing Encouragement
Do you have any questions? Providing time for Questions
*Leave the Room, Time 10 minutes*
“How did you find that?” Responsive and Perspective-taking

- “Yes you have a good point” responses to answers
- “I know it was a difficult task”
“I am sure you have learnt it well” Providing Encouragement

Passing
control to the
“Because we don’t want this first task to interfere with what follows if you could set all the Participant
materials to one side face down and for the next few minutes simply sit and relax.
“I’ll let you know when we will start the next task.” **Time for 4 minutes**
“Right… Are you ready for the next task?” Hinting the Participant has control
XVIII
Task 2:
“This next task is a comprehension task. It is composed of 10 questions referring to the

passage you have just read. The purpose of this task is to see how your learning style has
influenced your memory.” Providing a Rationale
“They are all multiple choice questions and I am sure you will be absolutely fine answering
them!” Providing Encouragement
“You have 8 minutes to answer the questions, but again if you want to finish before this time
let me know and you can stop the task. You can just go straight in and start the questions,
read them through before answering, leave questions out and return to them. Use whatever
approach you feel will work best for you.” There is some more paper you could use if you
wish” Providing Choice
“Do you have any questions?”
Providing the opportunity for questions
*Time for 8 Minutes*
“That’s Great!” Praise as informational feedback
“How did you find that?” Responsive and Perspective-taking

responses to answers
Task 3:
“Finally, if you don’t mind the last task is a questionnaire. It isn’t too long and you can take as
long as you like to complete it.” Providing Choice
“I know you have been here a little while but please could you read through the questions
carefully and think through your answers. This task simply aims to understand your
experience of the Study, there are no trick questions just say how you feel.”
Providing a Rationale
“Remember this is completely anonymous – and all opinions/information you give is
completely confidential. Once you have completed your questionnaire please put it into the
envelope provided so I will not see your answers.”
Attempt to prevent social desirability
“That is the end of the Study, thank you very much for your participation”
*Provide Debrief*
XIX
APPENDIX 6. Controlling Verbal Instructions
Indicates the Instructor is in

*Participant instructed to sit, Instructor hold the materials until they start* control
You must read through this information sheet carefully and complete this consent form giving
your informed consent to complete this Study. Read through the questions on the consent
form carefully and mark your answer on the side.
Task 1:
*Still holding the materials*
“The first task is a reading task.” No rationale given
“In a moment I will leave the room and you must read through a passage. I will return in 10
minutes to stop you reading. By this time you should have finished reading.”
Given a strict deadline
No opportunity for
*Give them the ‘controlling’ reading task, leave the room and time 10 minutes* questions given
Indicates the Instructor is in
Time up! *Instructor takes the papers away* control
“Now you must sit quietly for the next few minutes.” No rationale given
*Time for 4 minutes*
Task 2: Indicates the Instructor is in

*Holding remaining materials in hand* control
“The next task you have to complete is a comprehension task.” No rationale given
“It is composed of 10 questions. You have 8 minutes to answer the questions, by this time
you should have answered all questions.” Given a strict deadline
No opportunity for questions given
*Stop task after 8 minutes, Instructor takes away the papers*
Indicates the Instructor is in control
Task 3:
“The last task is a questionnaire. You can have up to 15 minutes to complete it.”
No rationale provided Given a strict deadline
“You should read through the questions carefully and you must be honest with your answers.
The Questionnaire is completely anonymous and all opinions/information you give is
completely confidential. To ensure this you have to the completed questionnaire into the
envelope provided so I will not be able to see your answers.” No opportunity for questions given
*Instructor leaves the room, returns once the questionnaire is complete*
“That is the end of the Study, thank you very much for your participation”
*Provide Debrief*
Note. Circled words throughout the instructions indicate controlling commands or directives
used
XX
APPENDIX 7. Autonomy-Supportive Condition: Reading Passage Option 1
Task 1: Reading Passage
Please read through the following passage carefully. This

exercise is designed to look into the way that you learn and
the techniques that you use. Please use the pen and paper
provided if you wish. Providing a Rationale
You will have 10 minutes to read, but feel free to call me in at
any time before this if you have finished. Happy reading!
Providing Choice
The role of computers in the development of a young child has been a widely
controversial topic for decades, and both parents and educators have put forth both
concerns about the potential benefits as well as harms to young children. Critics argue
that introducing technology in schools only wastes money and time, and that instead
children should be allowed to develop essential learning and social skills through
interaction with other students. On the other hand, proponents to the idea suggest that
children should take advantage of the newest technologies and that children should
learn to become adept at utilizing such technologies as a means to further their success
in their eventual entering of the workforce. There are also some concerns that the most
modern technologies are not being optimized and utilized in the best way possible.
Both critics and proponents of computers in the classroom agree that the early,
formative years of any child are when physical, social-emotional, language, and
cognitive skills are acquired. Perhaps the most researched area of development in
relation to computer use has been that of cognitive development and the affect that
modern technology has on a child’s mind. Are computers being used properly to
enhance and hasten a child’s cognitive development, or are they inhibiting intellectual
growth? Can technology support the specific needs of children, or does it take away
from essential developmental experiences?
Recent research on brain development has focused on the capabilities of young

children, the stages and styles of learning, and social-emotional development. Such
research has shown that although children may lack knowledge and experience, they
have ample reasoning ability. Given appropriate stimuli, such as close interaction with
caring adults and engaging hands-on activities, most children have been shown to
dramatically improve their mental developmental skills. A study by the National
Research Council found that early learning is assisted by the supportive context of the
family and the social environment, through the kinds of activities in which adults engage
with children. The influence of the two most renowned learning theories of psychology,
Piaget’s theory and Vygotsky’s constructivism theory, are evident in the most recent
research efforts, and it is in considering their models of
development that we can make some assessment about the
significance of a computer’s role in a child's development
process. Researchers have attempted to apply the
developmental theories of Piaget to children’s computer usage.
In considering the Piagetian tasks of classifying and
categorization, researchers have made several interesting
observations about computers and cognitive development. For
example, it has been suggested that a child sorting grocery
items in the kitchen is a sign of mental development.
XXI
APPENDIX 8. Controlling Condition: Reading Passage (AS: Option 2)
Task 1: Reading Passage

Read through the following passage carefully. You have 10 minutes to read the passage. The
instructor will return when your time is up. Pens and paper have been provided.
The role of computers in the development of a young child has been a widely controversial topic
for decades, and both parents and educators have put forth both concerns about the potential
benefits as well as harms to young children. Critics argue that introducing technology in schools
only wastes money and time, and that instead children should be allowed to develop essential
learning and social skills through interaction with other students. On the other hand, proponents
to the idea suggest that children should take advantage of the newest technologies and that
children should learn to become adept at utilizing such technologies as a means to further their
success in their eventual entering of the workforce. There are also some concerns that the most
modern technologies are not being optimized and utilized in the best way possible.
Both critics and proponents of computers in the classroom agree that the early, formative years of
any child are when physical, social-emotional, language, and cognitive skills are acquired.
Perhaps the most researched area of development in relation to computer use has been that of
cognitive development and the affect that modern technology has on a child’s mind. Are
computers being used properly to enhance and hasten a child’s cognitive development, or are they
inhibiting intellectual growth? Can technology support the specific needs of children, or does it
take away from essential developmental experiences?
Recent research on brain development has focused on the capabilities of young children, the
stages and styles of learning, and social-emotional development. Such research has shown that
although children may lack knowledge and experience, they have ample reasoning ability. Given
appropriate stimuli, such as close interaction with caring adults and engaging hands-on activities,
most children have been shown to dramatically improve their mental developmental skills. A
study by the National Research Council found that early learning is assisted by the supportive
context of the family and the social environment, through the kinds of activities in which adults
engage with children. The influence of the two most renowned learning theories of psychology,
Piaget’s theory and Vygotsky’s constructivism theory, are evident in the most recent research
efforts, and it is in considering their models of development that we can make some assessment
about the significance of a computer’s role in a child's development process. Researchers have
attempted to apply the developmental theories of Piaget to children’s computer usage. In
considering the Piagetian tasks of classifying and categorization, researchers have made several
interesting observations about computers and cognitive development. For example, it has been
suggested that a child sorting grocery items in the kitchen is a sign of mental development.
XXII
APPENDIX 9. Autonomy-Supportive Condition: Comprehension Task
Task 2: Comprehension
Please could you now complete the following 10 questions regarding the passage you have just
read.
This exercise is looking into how differing learning styles affect an individual’s memory. You will Providing
Rationale
have 8 minutes to complete this task, but feel free to let me know if you want to finish early.
Just try your best and I am sure you will do well! Providing Choice
Providing Encouragement
1. Which of the following best describes the development and organization of the
passage?
a. The author begins with a concise introduction, followed with a thorough analysis of the
shortcomings of using computers in the classroom.
b. After a broad overview of the argument, the author discusses recent trends in research,
followed by a short description of how proponents and advocates of technology in the
classroom agree on several key issues.
c. First the two viewpoints are introduced, followed by an analysis of the similarities of the
arguments for and against using technology in the classroom, and finally current research
trends are briefly discussed.
d. The author first selects to advocate the use of computer technology in the classroom, but
then, upon a closer inspection of the arguments and research trends, ultimately decides to
shun the use of modern technologies in education.
2. The passage specifically states that critics of introducing technology in

schools argue:
a. It will not help later in life, e.g. in the workplace
b. It is a waste of time and money
c. It could affect a child’s social relationships
d. It could damage a child’s brain
3. “…early, formative years of any child are when physical, social-emotional,

language and cognitive skills are acquired.” Who agrees with this statement?
a. Critics of child computer use
b. Parents
c. Proponents of child computer use
d. Both a and c
4. What has recent research on brain development been focused on?

a. Styles of learning
b. Capabilities of young children
c. Stages of learning
d. All of the above
5. Research on brain development has shown children have sufficient:

a. Reasoning ability
b. Knowledge
c. Social Skills
d. None of the above
XXIII
6. A study by the National Research Council found early learning is assisted by:
a. Supportive families and social environment
b. Use of Computers
c. Healthy lifestyle
d. Both a and b
7. Piaget and Vygotsky provide two separate theories, but both incorporate a
model of:
a. Learning
b. Development
c. Cognition
8. What two Piagetian tasks are mentioned in the text?

a. Prioritization and Classification
b. Organisation and Prioritization
c. Categorisation and Classification
d. Categorisation and Counting
9. The text mentions a study in the last sentence that suggests child sorting
grocery items in the kitchen is a sign of:
a. Mental Development
b. Intellect
c. Social Skills
d. Mathematical Skills
10. The passage provides information that could be used to answer which of the
following questions?
a. Approximately during which years of a child's life are physical, social, emotional,
communication and cognitive skills acquired?
b. Does a young child sorting grocery items provide proof that social and communication skills
are lacking?
c. Should computer technologies be introduced to students when they are in their teens?
d. Has research shown that the use of computers helps to enhance a child's cognitive
development?
That is the end of the Comprehension Task. Thank you for participating.
Note. Correct answers are highlighted
XXIV
APPENDIX 10. Controlling Condition: Comprehension Task
Task 2: Comprehension
You now have to complete the following 10 questions. You must answer every question. You have 8
minutes to complete the task, by which time you should have answered all the questions.
1. Which of the following best describes the development and organization of the passage?
a. The author begins with a concise introduction, followed with a thorough analysis of the
shortcomings of using computers in the classroom.
b. After a broad overview of the argument, the author discusses recent trends in research,
followed by a short description of how proponents and advocates of technology in the
classroom agree on several key issues.
c. First the two viewpoints are introduced, followed by an analysis of the similarities of the
arguments for and against using technology in the classroom, and finally current
research trends are briefly discussed.
d. The author first selects to advocate the use of computer technology in the classroom, but
then, upon a closer inspection of the arguments and research trends, ultimately decides
to shun the use of modern technologies in education.
2. The passage specifically states that critics of introducing technology in schools

argue:
a. It will not help later in life, e.g. in the workplace
b. It is a waste of time and money
c. It could affect a child’s social relationships
d. It could damage a child’s brain
3. “…early, formative years of any child are when physical, social-emotional, language
and cognitive skills are acquired.” Who agrees with this statement?
a. Critics of child computer use
b. Parents
c. Proponents of child computer use
d. Both a and c
4. What has recent research on brain development been focused on?

a. Styles of learning
b. Capabilities of young children
c. Stages of learning
d. All of the above
5. Research on brain development has shown children have sufficient:

a. Reasoning ability
b. Knowledge
c. Social Skills
XXV
6. A study by the National Research Council found early learning is assisted by:
a. Supportive families and social environment
b. Use of Computers
c. Healthy lifestyle
d. Both a and b
7. Piaget and Vygotsky provide two separate theories, but both incorporate a model of:
a. Learning
b. Development
c. Cognition
8. What two Piagetian tasks are mentioned in the text?

a. Prioritization and Classification
b. Organisation and Prioritization
c. Categorisation and Classification
d. Categorisation and Counting
9. The text mentions a study in the last sentence that suggests child sorting grocery
items in the kitchen is a sign of:
a. Mental Development
b. Intellect
c. Social Skills
d. Mathematical Skills
10. The passage provides information that could be used to answer which of the following
questions?
a. Approximately during which years of a child's life are physical, social, emotional,
communication and cognitive skills acquired?
b. Does a young child sorting grocery items provide proof that social and communication
skills are lacking?
c. Should computer technologies be introduced to students when they are in their teens?
d. Has research shown that the use of computers helps to enhance a child's cognitive
development?
That is the end of the Comprehension Task. Thank you for participating.
Note. Correct answers are equivalent to those in previous comprehension task (Appendix 9.)
XXVI
APPENDIX 11. Intrinsic Motivation Questionnaire

Same Questionnaire used for both Conditions
Using the scale below, please indicate your agreement or disagreement with each of the
following statements by placing a number in the blank space preceding each statement.
Please take your time to think about your answer to each question. All your opinions are confidential.
1 2 3 4 5 6
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
____ I enjoyed doing this activity. EN1
____ I did this activity because I wanted to. CH1
____ I put a lot of effort into this. EF1
____ I felt under pressure while doing these. T1
____ I think I am pretty good at this activity. CO1
____ I felt like I had to do this activity. CH2 (Reversed Question)
____ I tried very hard on this activity. EF2
____ This activity did not hold my attention at all. EN2 (Reversed Question)
____ I think I did pretty well at this activity, compared to other students. CO2
____ This activity was fun to do. EN3
____ I believe I had some choice about doing this activity. CH3
____ I thought this was a boring activity. EN4 (Reversed Question)
____ I did not feel nervous at all while doing this. T2 (Reversed Question)
____ After working at this activity for a while, I felt pretty competent. CO3
____ I was very relaxed whilst doing this activity. T3
____ I did not put much energy into this. EF3 (Reversed Question)
____ I was pretty skilled at this activity. CO4
____ I would describe this activity as very interesting. EN5
____ I did not try very hard to do well at this activity. EF4 (Reversed Question)
____ This was an activity that I could not do very well. CO5 (Reversed Question)
____ I was anxious while working on this task. T4
____ I am satisfied with my performance at this task. CO4
____ I felt like it was not my own choice to do this task. CH4 (Reversed Question)
____ I thought this activity was quite enjoyable. EN6
XXVII
APPENDIX 12. Learning Climate Questionnaire (Measure PAS)

Same Questionnaire used for both Conditions
This questionnaire contains items that are related to your experience with your instructor
in this study. Please respond to each of the following statements using the scale below.
Please remember your responses are confidential, and will be collected anonymously. Your
responses will be concealed by placing your questionnaire in the envelope provided. The
instructor will not be able to attribute these answers to you. Please answer all questions
truthfully.
I feel that my instructor provided me choices and options. PAS1

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
My instructor conveyed confidence in my ability to do well in the activity. PAS2

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
My instructor encouraged me to ask questions. PAS3

1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
I do not feel very good about the way my instructor talked to me. PAS4
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
My instructor made sure I really understood the task and what I needed to do. PAS5
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
My instructor did not give me freedom and choice in the task. PAS6
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Strongly Strongly
disagree agree
Any Further comments:

_________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________________________
Finally, please indicate your gender and age below.
GENDER (please circle one): male female

Demographic Questions
AGE: ________________
Thank you for your time. That is the end of the Questionnaire. Please put the
Questionnaire in the Envelope provided and then call in the Instructor.
Measure taken to Prevent Social Desirability
XXVIII
APPENDIX 13. Participant Information Sheet
Information Sheet
Researcher: Stephanie Sattin
E-Mail: ps10ss@leeds.ac.uk
Address: Institute of Psychological Sciences

University of Leeds
Leeds, LS2 9JT
Supervisor: Dr. Gina Z. Koutsopoulou, Lecturer, CSci

Occupational Psychologist, Institute of Psychological Sciences, Leeds.
I am a psychology student at the University of Leeds carrying out a Research Project

as part of my Level 3 study requirements, under the supervision of Dr Gina
Koutsopoulou.
This research is subject to ethical guidelines set out by the British Psychological
Society. These guidelines include principles such as obtaining your informed consent
before research starts, notifying you of your right to withdraw, and protection of your
anonymity. This sheet has been designed to provide you with enough information
about the study to allow you to make an informed decision about participation.
Please take time to read the following information carefully and if you have any
questions or would like to discuss anything with me please let me know.
Aim of the study

This study has been designed to investigate individual differences in learning styles
and techniques. The subsequent effects of these individual differences on your
memory are both interesting and relevant to current literature in the area.
Study Procedure
The Study will consist of three tasks. The first task will involve reading a passage of
information on computer use in young children. The second task requires you to
complete a short comprehension exercise. Finally, you will be provided with a short
questionnaire to complete.
The Study is expected to last for approximately 30-45 minutes and you will receive 2
Participant Pool Credits for you participation.
Participation in this study is voluntary. If you agree to participate in this study, all
your responses and your questionnaire will be treated confidentially. Your name and
identifying information (provided on your consent form) will be kept securely
and separately from the rest of your experimental materials, including your
questionnaire. If you decide to participate, you are free to withdraw at any time and
without giving a reason.
XXIX
APPENDIX 14. Participant Consent Form
Every Participant was required to complete this form in order to participate in the Study
Consent Form
 Have you been provided sufficient information to understand

both the purpose and procedure of this study? YES/NO
 Do you understand what your participation in this study involves?

YES/NO
 Have you had the opportunity to ask questions and discuss

the study? YES/NO
 If you have asked questions, have the answers given

been satisfactory? YES/NO/NA
 Do you understand you are free to withdraw from the research

at any time? YES/NO
 Do you understand that you are free to choose not to

answer a question without giving a reason why? YES/NO
 Do you agree to take part in this study? YES/NO
 Do you agree to your responses being used in a statistical

analysis? YES/NO
Name (block capitals):

__________________________________________________
Signed:
__________________________________________________
Date:
__________________________________________________
XXX
APPENDIX 15. Participant Debrief Sheet
Note. All participants were also verbally debriefed

Participant Debrief
The Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000) proposes
that individuals have innate psychological needs for competence, autonomy and
relatedness. Based on the postulates of SDT, research has been conducted to assess
the benefits of autonomy-support, specifically the benefits of providing autonomy-
supportive teaching and coaching. It has been shown that this supportive style increases
motivation and engagement, resulting in better performance outcomes.
This Study aims to discover whether an autonomy-supportive motivating style would

enhance intrinsic motivation and facilitate performance. All the Participants used within
this study are University Students, as this population has been understudied in relation
to this area of research. Moreover, much of the current research on autonomy-support is
conducted over longer periods of time or in natural contexts, for example a sport training
session or a classroom lesson. This Study is assessing whether this motivational
technique will affect performance in a discrete experimental task.
There were two conditions in this Study, one in which the instructor was autonomy-
supportive and displayed certain behaviours to support the Participant throughout the
task, including providing rationales, choice and encouragement. The second condition is
a ‘controlling’ condition in which the Participants were not supported through the task
and were simply told what to do and how to do it. It is hypothesised that compared to
participants that were in the controlling condition, participants in the autonomy-
supportive condition would be more motivated to complete the comprehension task. As
a result, it is expected that Participants in the autonomy-supportive condition will
demonstrate better task performance. The Questionnaire assessed both level of intrinsic
motivation (page 1.) and the perception of autonomy-support provided by the instructor
(page 2.), as a manipulation check. Performance was assessed through the Multiple-
Choice Test.
This research is important because it will help psychologists to understand the best
techniques to motivate performance in Students. It also has wider implications in the
workplace, specifically in terms of young workers entering the workforce and how
Management can support their needs and motivation. As a potential strategy for
enhancing employee motivation and performance generally, this technique would be of
great interest to employers dealing with issues, such as employee engagement, as a
result of the current economic situation. Finally, this research may provide Employers
with a tool to improve both organisational performance and employee wellbeing.
Thank you for participating in this Study.
If you would like more information about this research, please contact:
Stephanie Sattin: ps10ss@leeds.ac.uk.
XXXI
APPENDIX 16. Raw Data
Note. Data presented in order of presentation within the Report
Descriptives
Descriptive Statistics
N Minimum Maximum Mean Std. Deviation
Age 70 18 25 19.31 1.136
Valid N (listwise) 70
Oneway Manipulation Check

ANOVA
Autonomy_Support
Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Between Groups 240.810 1 240.810 263.063 .000
Within Groups 62.248 68 .915
Total 303.058 69
Descriptives Split by Condition (AS or C)
Descriptive Statistics
Autonomy_Support 35 6.6286 .38579
Intrinsic_Motivation 35 4.0726 .39235
Enjoy 35 4.1571 .60085
Choice 35 5.0214 .62536
Autonomy-Supportive Effort 35 4.5143 .84875
Tension 35 2.2857 .88106
Competence 35 4.2524 .55479
Performance 35 83.71 11.398
Autonomy_Support 35 2.9190 1.29691
Intrinsic_Motivation 35 3.2690 .55002
Enjoy 35 2.4619 .97860
Choice 35 3.6714 1.13561
Controlling Effort 35 3.7857 1.05570
Tension 35 2.7929 1.32909
Competence 35 3.7810 .76672
Performance 35 75.71 16.321
XXXII
Oneway
ANOVA
Intrinsic_Motivation
Between Groups 11.300 1 11.300 49.512 .000
Within Groups 15.520 68 .228
Total 26.820 69
ANOVA Subcomponents of the IM construct

Between Groups 50.292 1 50.292 76.277 .000
Enjoy Within Groups 44.835 68 .659
Total 95.127 69
Between Groups 31.894 1 31.894 37.954 .000
Choice Within Groups 57.143 68 .840
Total 89.037 69
Between Groups 9.289 1 9.289 10.125 .002
Effort Within Groups 62.386 68 .917
Total 71.675 69
Between Groups 4.501 1 4.501 3.540 .064
Tension Within Groups 86.454 68 1.271
Total 90.954 69
Between Groups 3.889 1 3.889 8.685 .004
Competence Within Groups 30.452 68 .448
Total 34.342 69
ANOVA
Performance
Between Groups 1120.000 1 1120.000 5.652 .020
Within Groups 13474.286 68 198.151
Total 14594.286 69
XXXIII
Correlations
Note. ‘Autonomy-Support’ refers to Perceived Autonomy-Support (PAS)
Correlations
Intrinsic_Motivation Autonomy_Support
Pearson Correlation 1 .665**
Intrinsic_Motivation Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 70 70
**
Pearson Correlation .665 1
Autonomy_Support Sig. (2-tailed) .000
N 70 70
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Correlations
Performance Autonomy_Support
Pearson Correlation 1 .190
Performance Sig. (2-tailed) .116
N 70 70
Pearson Correlation .190 1
Autonomy_Support Sig. (2-tailed) .116
N 70 70
Correlations
Performance Intrinsic_Motivation
Pearson Correlation 1 .333**
Performance Sig. (2-tailed) .005
N 70 70
Pearson Correlation .333** 1
Intrinsic_Motivation Sig. (2-tailed) .005
N 70 70
**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
XXXIV
Regression 1
Variables Entered/Removeda
Model Variables Variables Method
Entered Removed
Autonomy_Sup
1 . Enter
portb
a. Dependent Variable: Intrinsic_Motivation
b. All requested variables entered.
Model Summary
Model R R Square Adjusted R Std. Error of the
Square Estimate
a
1 .665 .443 .434 .46885
a. Predictors: (Constant), Autonomy_Support
ANOVAa
Model Sum of Squares df Mean Square F Sig.
Regression 11.872 1 11.872 54.008 .000b
1 Residual 14.948 68 .220
Total 26.820 69
b. Predictors: (Constant), Autonomy_Support
Coefficientsa
Model Unstandardized Coefficients Standardized t Sig.
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 2.726 .140 19.436 .000
1
Autonomy_Support .198 .027 .665 7.349 .000
Regression 2
Entered Removed
Intrinsic_Motiva
1 . Enter
tionb
a. Dependent Variable: Performance
Model Summary
Square Estimate
a
1 .333 .111 .098 13.813
a. Predictors: (Constant), Intrinsic_Motivation
XXXV
ANOVAa
Regression 1619.596 1 1619.596 8.488 .005b
1 Residual 12974.690 68 190.804
Total 14594.286 69
b. Predictors: (Constant), Intrinsic_Motivation
Coefficientsa
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 51.188 9.929 5.155 .000
1
Intrinsic_Motivation 7.771 2.667 .333 2.913 .005
Mediation 1 (X=Condition, M=PAS, Y=IM)
Regression Assess mediation preconditions

Entered Removed
1 Conditionb . Enter
Model Summary
Square Estimate
a
1 .649 .421 .413 .47774
a. Predictors: (Constant), Condition
ANOVAa
Regression 11.300 1 11.300 49.512 .000b
1 Residual 15.520 68 .228
Total 26.820 69
b. Predictors: (Constant), Condition
Coefficientsa
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 4.876 .181 27.005 .000
1
Condition -.804 .114 -.649 -7.036 .000
XXXVI

Entered Removed
a. Dependent Variable: Autonomy_Support
Model Summary
Square Estimate
a
1 .891 .795 .792 .95677
ANOVAa
Regression 240.810 1 240.810 263.063 .000b
1 Residual 62.248 68 .915
Total 303.058 69
Coefficientsa
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 10.338 .362 28.588 .000
1
Condition -3.710 .229 -.891 -16.219 .000

Entered Removed
Autonomy_Sup
1 . Enter
portb
Model Summary
Square Estimate
a
1 .665 .443 .434 .46885
ANOVAa
Regression 11.872 1 11.872 54.008 .000b
1 Residual 14.948 68 .220
Total 26.820 69
XXXVII
Coefficientsa
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 2.726 .140 19.436 .000
1
Regression Mediation found

Entered Removed
Condition,
1 Autonomy_Sup . Enter
b
port
Model Summary
Square Estimate
a
1 .677 .458 .442 .46582
a. Predictors: (Constant), Condition, Autonomy_Support
ANOVAa
Regression 12.282 2 6.141 28.302 .000b
1 Residual 14.538 67 .217
Total 26.820 69
b. Predictors: (Constant), Condition, Autonomy_Support
Coefficientsa
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 3.578 .635 5.632 .000
1 Autonomy_Support .126 .059 .422 2.127 .037
Condition -.338 .246 -.273 -1.374 .174
Mediation 2 (X=Condition, M=IM, Y=Performance)

Entered Removed
XXXVIII
Model Summary
Square Estimate
a
1 .277 .077 .063 14.077
ANOVAa
Regression 1120.000 1 1120.000 5.652 .020b
1 Residual 13474.286 68 198.151
Total 14594.286 69
Coefficientsa
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 91.714 5.320 17.238 .000
1
Condition -8.000 3.365 -.277 -2.377 .020

Entered Removed
Model Summary
Square Estimate
a
1 .649 .421 .413 .47774
ANOVAa
Regression 11.300 1 11.300 49.512 .000b
1 Residual 15.520 68 .228
Total 26.820 69
Coefficientsa
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 4.876 .181 27.005 .000
1
Condition -.804 .114 -.649 -7.036 .000
XXXIX

Model Variables Entered Variables Method
Removed
b
1 Intrinsic_Motivation . Enter
Model Summary
Square Estimate
a
1 .333 .111 .098 13.813
ANOVAa
Regression 1619.596 1 1619.596 8.488 .005b
1 Residual 12974.690 68 190.804
Total 14594.286 69
Coefficientsa
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 51.188 9.929 5.155 .000
1
Regression Null Mediation Found

Removed
Condition,
1 . Enter
Intrinsic_Motivationb
Model Summary
Square Estimate
a
1 .343 .117 .091 13.866
a. Predictors: (Constant), Condition, Intrinsic_Motivation
ANOVAa
Regression 1712.794 2 856.397 4.454 .015b
1 Residual 12881.492 67 192.261
Total 14594.286 69
b. Predictors: (Constant), Condition, Intrinsic_Motivation
XL
Coefficientsa
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 61.578 17.945 3.431 .001
1 Intrinsic_Motivation 6.180 3.520 .265 1.756 .084
Condition -3.034 4.357 -.105 -.696 .489
Mediation 3 (X=PAS, M=IM, Y=Performance)
Regression Assess mediation preconditions (precondition not met)

Entered Removed
Autonomy_Sup
1 . Enter
portb
Model Summary
Square Estimate
a
1 .190 .036 .022 14.384
ANOVAa
Regression 524.815 1 524.815 2.537 .116b
1 Residual 14069.471 68 206.904
Total 14594.286 69
Coefficientsa
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 73.432 4.303 17.066 .000
1
Autonomy_Support 1.316 .826 .190 1.593 .116

Removed
b
1 Autonomy_Support . Enter
XLI
Model Summary
Square Estimate
a
1 .665 .443 .434 .46885
ANOVAa
Regression 11.872 1 11.872 54.008 .000b
1 Residual 14.948 68 .220
Total 26.820 69
Coefficientsa
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 2.726 .140 19.436 .000
1

Entered Removed
Intrinsic_Motiva
1 . Enter
tionb
Model Summary
Square Estimate
a
1 .333 .111 .098 13.813
ANOVAa
Regression 1619.596 1 1619.596 8.488 .005b
1 Residual 12974.690 68 190.804
Total 14594.286 69
Coefficientsa
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 51.188 9.929 5.155 .000
1
XLII
Regression Mediation found following Mackinnon et al. (2007)

Entered Removed
Autonomy_Sup
port,
1 . Enter
Intrinsic_Motiva
tionb
Model Summary
Square Estimate
a
1 .336 .113 .086 13.902
a. Predictors: (Constant), Autonomy_Support,
Intrinsic_Motivation
ANOVAa
Regression 1646.421 2 823.211 4.260 .018b
1 Residual 12947.864 67 193.252
Total 14594.286 69
b. Predictors: (Constant), Autonomy_Support, Intrinsic_Motivation
Coefficientsa
Coefficients
B Std. Error Beta
(Constant) 49.819 10.647 4.679 .000
1 Intrinsic_Motivation 8.662 3.596 .371 2.409 .019
Autonomy_Support -.399 1.070 -.057 -.373 .711
XLIII
APPENDIX 17. Conference Poster
XLIV
APPENDIX 18. Supervision Diary
Final Year project - Supervision Diary

Student: Stephanie Sattin Supervisor: Gina Koutsopoulou
Date Time given Topics discussed and actions to be taken

27th Sept Discussed completing dissertation in Occ Psychology and
1 hour target deadlines completion of proposal/ethics form
Discussed proposal and how to complete ethics form. Also

4th Oct 1 hour
decided to conduct a Pilot Study
Discussed materials produced for the Study and Pilot Study.

18th Oct 1 hour
Decision to begin recruitment for actual results upon
completion of the Pilot study.
General discussion on progress (just finished data collection)
23rd Jan 45mins
and general advice for write up, specifically method section.
4th Feb 1 hour Discussion on results and SPSS analysis.
4th March 30mins Discuss results, progress update and write up
Arranged a meeting with Andy Prestwich, discussion on

13th March 20mins
mediation analysis
Student’s Signature:
Supervisor’s Signature:
APPENDIX 19. Certificate of Ethical Approval
XLV
XLVI

Autonomous Motivation: The Key To Employee Performance and Workplace Success?

Uploaded by

Autonomous Motivation: The Key To Employee Performance and Workplace Success?

Uploaded by

“Autonomous Motivation: The Key to Employee Performance and Workplace

A PSYC3520 Major Project supervised by

A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the

and in agreement with the University of Leeds’

Key Words: Self-Determination Theory • Autonomy-Support • Intrinsic

1.1. Motivation and Work Design…………………………………………………………………..1-3

1.2. The Self-Determination Theory……………………………………………………………….3-6

1.3. Autonomy-Support, Motivation and Performance…………………………………………..6-9

1.4. Overview, Rationale and Hypotheses………………………………………………………9-11

2.4. Experimental Design……………………………………………………………………..........14

2.6. Method of Analysis……………………………………………………………………………...16

3.2. Descriptive Statistics………………………………………………………………………..17-18

3.4. Effect Size and Power………………………………………………………………………….18

3.5. Correlational Analysis……………………………………………………………………….....19

3.7. Mediational Analysis…….………………………………………………………………….20-21

4.2. Implications and Practical Applications……………………………………………………24-29

4.3. Methodological Considerations…………………………………………………………….29-30

4.4. Directions for Future Research…………………………………………………………….30-33

2. Effect Size Calculations using Cohen’s d….…………………………………………....XV-XVI

2a. Intrinsic Motivation…………………………………………………………………………XVI

3a. Intrinsic Motivation………………………………………………………………………...XVII

4. Scatterplot Depicting the Relationship Between PAS and Performance………………..XVII

5. Autonomy-Supportive Verbal Instructions……………….……………………….......XVIII-XIX

6. Controlling Verbal Instructions…………………………………………………………………XX

7. Autonomy-Supportive Condition Reading Passage Option 1……………………………..XXI

8. Controlling Condition: Reading Passage (AS Option 2)…………………………………..XXII

9. Autonomy-Supportive Condition: Comprehension Task………………….……….XXIII-XXIV

10. Controlling Condition: Comprehension Task………………………………………..XXV-XXVI

11. Intrinsic Motivation Questionnaire…………….……………………………………………XXVII

12. Learning Climate Questionnaire (Measure PAS)………………………………….…….XXVIII

13. Participant Information Sheet…….………………………………………………………....XXIX

14. Participant Consent Form……….……………………………………………………………XXX

15. Participant Debrief Sheet…….……….……………………………………………………..XXXI

16. Raw Data…………….…………………………………………………………………XXXII-XLIII

17. Conference Poster…………….……………………………………………………………...XLIV

18. Supervision Diary…….………………………………………………………………………..XLV

19. Certificate of Ethical Approval……………………………………………………………….XLVI

LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES

Figure 1. Scatterplot depicting the Relationship between PAS and IM…………………………………..19

Figure 2. Scatterplot depicting the Relationship between IM and Performance………………………...19

1.1. MOTIVATION AND WORK DESIGN

Motivation varies significantly between individuals and concerns what drives an

psychologically damaging consequences (Dysvik & Kuvaas, 2011). A review of the

Rewards, competition and evaluations are commonly used forms of ‘controlling’

also an important consideration. This distinction between quality and quantity of

1.2. THE SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY

satisfaction of these basic needs leads to autonomous motivation (internal regulation

The two remaining theories underlying SDT relate to performance-orientated aspects

autonomy, implies a target for intervention to enhance employee motivation; an

1.3. AUTONOMY-SUPPORT, MOTIVATION AND PERFORMANCE

The self-determination literature emphasises the role of a manger or leader in

autonomy-supportive managerial motivational style could have a substantial

The initiation and ultimate use of autonomy-support as a strategy for motivational

1.4. OVERVIEW, RATIONALE AND HYPOTHESES

This study aimed to assess the impact of instructor autonomy-supportive

HYPOTHESIS 1 (H1): Participants in an autonomy-supportive experimental condition

HYPOTHESIS 2 (H2): Participants in an autonomy-supportive condition will perform

HYPOTHESIS 3 (H3): A causal chain will be observed in which autonomy-support

Performance. Performance was assessed using a Multiple-Choice Test, which

point Likert scale (1=strongly disagree, 6=strongly agree). The questionnaire

Enjoyment/Interest. Intrinsic motivation is positively predicted by higher

Perceived Choice. Perceived choice is a positive predictor of intrinsic motivation.

Tension. Intrinsic motivation is negatively predicted by tension. 4 items of tension

Perceived Competence. This construct is a positive predictor of intrinsic motivation.

Manipulation Check. A measure of perceived autonomy-support (PAS) was obtained

individual item scores. Participants rated on a 7-point Likert scale (1=strongly

2.4. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

This study employed an independent measures design with two experimental

2.6. METHOD OF ANALYSIS

A manipulation check was performed using a One-Way ANOVA to assess PAS in

3.1. MANIPULATION CHECK

Descriptive statistics for the ‘Perceived Autonomy-Support’ (PAS) manipulation

3.2. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS

Table 1. Descriptive Statistics of the Dependent Measures

Autonomy Support (AS) Controlling (C)

Performance 83.7 11.4 75.7 16.3

Asking what the student wants Time holding/monopolizing learning

Providing rationales Making should/ought to statements

Offering encouragement Deadline statements