I received an update for the September's issue of the journal Motivation and emotion with all kinds of cognitive studies. I have access only until July's issue, so I checked that one out and found the following article. I thought it was interesting in view of Authoritarian Dollowers and learned helplessness within the Control System. It also highlights the capability of Will to overcome perceived obstacles.
Anyway, here are some excerpts:
Anyway, here are some excerpts:
Restoration processes after need thwarting: When autonomy depends on competence
Motiv Emot (2013) 37:234–244
Rémi Radel • Luc Pelletier • Philippe Sarrazin
Abstract
Like other fundamental needs, recent studies
have shown that the need for autonomy elicits goal-oriented
behaviors that aim to its restoration when it is
thwarted. However, no research has yet examined the
factors that moderate the restoration process. In the present
studies, we investigated the moderating role of perceived
competence in the restoration of autonomy. We monitored
autonomy restoration behaviors by assessing the extent to
which participants turn away from a controlling function in
a computerized puzzle task. Across the two studies, the
results suggested that, in comparison with baseline participants,
autonomy-deprived participants acted to regain their
autonomy but only when their level of perceived competence
in the task was high. When perceived competence
was low, participants disengaged from autonomy restoration,
seemingly to favor competence. These findings are
discussed using self-determination theory and models of
stress and coping.
Introduction
When individuals act in accordance with their own values
and beliefs, and work or play freely without external
control, they experience autonomy. Research over the last
20 years have emphasized how autonomy experience is
essential for psychological well-being and optimal functioning
(see Ryan and Deci 2006 for a review). As such,
autonomy is now considered as a human basic psychological
need (Deci and Ryan 2000; Ryan and Deci 2006).
One of the recurrent points in the literature on motivation is
that deprivation of fundamental needs leads to a restoration
process (e.g., Fiske 2004; Hull 1943; McDougall 1908;
Maslow 1943; Veltkamp et al. 2009). However, very few
studies have examined the autonomy-restoration process by
which autonomy-deprived individuals regain autonomy. In
fact, most of the studies have focused on the consequences
of controlling events that thwart the need for autonomy and
have shown that, once it has been thwarted, individuals
lose their autonomous motivation for an activity. It is only
recently that some evidence have came to show that the
need for autonomy has motivational force, that it guides
cognitive processes and behaviors, and that it aims to
restore autonomy when it is thwarted (Radel et al. 2011;
Sheldon and Gunz 2009; van Prooijen 2009). An explanation
for the scarcity of reports on this phenomenon in the
literature could be the presence of important moderators. In
the present research, we examine the possibility that individuals
restore their autonomy only when they feel competent
for the activity in which they are involved.
Consequences of autonomy deprivation
The consequences of exposure to controlling environments
that thwart the individual’s need for autonomy have been
extensively studied. Hundreds of studies have shown that
people lose their autonomous motivation and then experience
a wide array of negative outcomes, such as low performance,
lack of effort, and negative affects (see Gagne´
and Deci 2005; Hagger and Chatzisarantis 2007; Reeve
2009; Ryan et al. 2008, for reviews in the domains of work,
sport, education, and health care, respectively) when their
need for autonomy has been thwarted.
Since basic needs are generally thought to have motivational
force (Baumeister and Leary 1995; Fiske 2004;
Pittman and Zeigler 2007), some researchers have recently
hypothesized that, rather than passively suffering autonomy
loss, individuals may try to restore their autonomy.
The study by van Prooijen (2009) on individuals’ reactions
to procedural justice provided a first sign of this restorative
process. Across three experiments, he showed that autonomy-
deprived participants were more affected by the fairness
of procedural justice than those for whom the need for
autonomy was fulfilled. Insofar as the fairness of procedural
justice can be interpreted as an autonomy-related cue,
the observation that autonomy-deprived individuals attend
to it more than others can indeed suggest the existence of
an autonomy-restorative process. Additional evidence was
provided by Sheldon and Gunz (2009), who more directly
tested the hypothesis that the three needs postulated by
self-determination theory (SDT; i.e., autonomy, competence
and relatedness) create a motivation to be satisfied
when thwarted. In two studies, they observed that participants’
reports of autonomy satisfaction were negatively
associated with the desire to experience autonomy-fulfilling
situations. Radel et al. (2011) not only provided further
evidence for the autonomy-restoration process but also
specified the features of this process. Specifically, these
authors examined the possibility that the autonomy-restoration
process has two distinct components. First, they
showed an automatic component, which mobilizes automatic
processes. For example, results of a lexical decision
task indicated that autonomy-deprived participants automatically
had a perceptual readiness for autonomy-related
cues. Second, a strategic component was also revealed,
which influences behaviors or thoughts that can be controlled
by conscious guidance. Specifically, participants
exposed to an autonomy threat conformed less than baseline
participants in a judgment task, relying more on their
personal standards to make their judgment.
The role of perceived competence in coping with threat
Research suggests that the frustration of basic needs
engenders an experience of stress. For example, it has been
well demonstrated that lack of autonomy is one of the main
stressors in the workplace (e.g., Spector et al. 1988, 2000).
In the same vein, the recent study by Reeve and Tseng
(2011) showed that exposure to an autonomy threatening
context elevated salivary cortisol, which suggests a biological
stress response. As such, reactions to autonomy
deprivation could be appropriately analyzed using models
of stress. In stress models, much attention is paid to coping
strategies because the extent to which individuals invest
resources to confront the problem or disengage from
attempts to overcome the threat has considerable implications
for their performance and well-being (Lazarus and
Folkman 1984). Coping strategies are thus generally divided
into two forms: approach versus avoidant coping
(Anshel and Anderson 2002; Roth and Cohen 1986). While
approach coping is described as the direct attempt to
resolve the problem, avoidance coping is described as an
attempt to reduce the importance of the problem or disengagement
from attempts to solve the problem (Anshel
and Anderson 2002). Given that approach coping is usually
related to positive outcome and avoidant coping is linked to
negative outcome (e.g., Herman-Stahl et al. 1995), it is
crucial to determine the predictors of the type of coping
strategies used by individuals. In this regard, it has been
suggested that perceived competence plays a pivotal role in
the way individuals cope with problems (Folkman 1984).
More specifically, Lazarus (1993) indicated that low perceived
competence is related to the choice of coping
strategies like avoidance, distraction or denial, rather than
to active coping processes that solve the problem and
change the environmental circumstances. Numerous
empirical studies have supported this assumption (e.g.,
Folkman and Lazarus 1985; Roberts 1995; Zakowski et al.
2001). In all of these studies, it was shown that when
people felt competent they tended to act directly on the
problem, whereas when they felt incompetent they preferably
used avoidant coping strategies.1 It is interesting to
note that self-efficacy theory (Bandura 1997) also arrives at
similar predictions. As elaborated by Bandura (1997,
p. 173), efficacy expectancies, which are closely related to
perceived competence, ‘‘determine how much effort people
will expend, and how long they will persist in the face of
obstacles and aversive experiences.’’ In sum, it seems well
accepted in the coping literature that the extent to which
people feel competent in the current situation they are
facing determines whether or not they will act to counter
the threat.
The present research
The aim of the present research was to identify the conditions
that could inhibit the active restoration of autonomy.
As it has been reliably shown in studies on the
influence of stressful events that perceived competence
influences the selection of coping strategies, we hypothesized
that the level of perceived competence for a task
would predict whether or not resources would be engaged
to restore autonomy when the need for it was thwarted.
More specifically, we hypothesized that when participants
did not feel competent in a task, they would adopt an
avoidant coping strategy and then disengage from the
activity. By contrast, when they felt competent, participants
would adopt an approach coping strategy and then
attempt to restore their autonomy. Two studies were
designed to test this hypothesis. With the exception of the
manipulation of perceived competence, the two studies
were similar. A standard procedure for need deprivation
was used to thwart the participants’ need for autonomy.
This procedure relies on the provision of false feedback
about their type of personality (Twenge et al. 2001), which
was adapted to the need for autonomy (Radel et al. 2011;
Sheldon and Gunz 2009). In order to measure the extent to
which the participants would attempt to restore their
autonomy, we created a game task that included a built-in
feature that allowed them to determine the extent to which
they wanted to behave in an autonomous way. Participants
played a computerized version of Mahjong (the solitaire
version), a traditional Chinese board game where the player
has to match pairs of tiles in order to clear the board by
finding combinations of tiles, depending of their location
and their indication.Our main dependent variable was the
participants’ motivation to find solutions to the problems
by themselves. Past studies (e.g., Vansteenkiste et al. 2008)
have shown that when people act in an autonomous manner,
they are more persistent and they try to get a deeper
understanding of the learning material. Research on help
seeking have also indicated that autonomy concerns lead to
a resistance to help seeking because of a desire to complete
work on one’s own without depending on assistance from
someone else (Ryan et al. 2001). In the same vein, Butler
(p. 630, 1998) noted that: ‘‘help seeking may be perceived
as a dependent behavior that conflicts with personal needs
for autonomy (Deci and Ryan 1987) and with Western
social cultural emphases on independent mastery and selfreliance
(Markus and Kitayama 1991)’’. Several studies
have supported the fact that individuals are reluctant to ask
for help because of strivings for independent mastery
(Butler and Neuman 1995; Van der Meij 1988). For these
reasons, we presumed that an alienated behavior—i.e., the
failure to behave according one’s own choices or preferences
(see Kuhl and Beckman 1994)—would convey, on
the contrary, a renunciation of personal autonomy. In order
to assess the autonomy versus alienated behavior of the
participants, we left them the possibility of activating a key
that provided part of the solution in the form of a controlling
command. Previous studies (e.g., Reeve et al. 1999;
Reeve and Jang 2006) have shown that disclosing solutions
in a directive way is a controlling event, depriving individuals
of autonomy. This modified version of the software
automatically recorded the number of times the participants
pressed the ‘alienating key’.
In order to ensure the efficacy of the autonomy-deprivation
manipulation, we added a lexical decision task
(Neely 1991) measuring the participants’ accessibility for
autonomy-related cues. As Radel et al. (2011) showed,
autonomy deprivation leads to enhanced cognitive accessibility
for autonomy-related cues. Since this cognitive
process is considered to be systematic and inflexible
(Shiffrin and Schneider 1977), we expected to find
enhanced accessibility for autonomy-related cues following
autonomy deprivation even if participants did not feel
competent in the previous task.
To summarize, the following hypotheses were proposed:
Hypothesis 1 Compared with the control group, participants
in the autonomy-deprivation group would show
enhanced accessibility for autonomy-related cues.
Hypothesis 2 Perceived competence in a task is a moderator
of the motivation to regain autonomy after deprivation.
Compared with the other groups, participants in the
autonomy-deprivation/high perceived ability group would
be more willing to regain autonomy by searching for
solutions to problems without using the key that provides
the solutions in a controlling way.[...]
General discussion
The aim of this research was to investigate the factors that
inhibit behavioral attempts to regain autonomy when it has
just been deprived. We assumed that people would act to
restore autonomy only when they felt competent in the
current situation. The results from the two studies supported
this hypothesis. First, Study 1 showed that after
autonomy deprivation only experienced players tended to
engage in autonomy-restoration behaviors by relying on
their own resources instead of mobilizing the ‘alienating
key’. As perceived competence is likely linked to the level
of experience, this suggests that perceived competence
matters when it comes to regaining autonomy. Study 2
provided stronger evidence because competence was
actually manipulated. While the participants who received
negative competence feedback relied more on the ‘alienating
key’ in the game task when their autonomy had been
threatened, those who received the positive competence
feedback acted more autonomously by playing more on
their own when their autonomy was threatened. In sum,
these results clearly indicate that active restoration of the
need for autonomy is conditional on the perception of
competence for the activity. In line with the traditional
models of stress (Lazarus and Folkman 1984), it seems that
the level of competence plays an important role in the way
people cope with autonomy threat. As predicted by Lazarus
(1993), high competence was related to approach coping as
the participants attempted to regain autonomy, and low
competence was related to avoidant coping as they turned
away from their autonomy-related concerns. This research
shows that stress models can be relevant for studying how
individuals respond to threats to their needs, such as
the need for autonomy. Our results are also in line
with research on self-enhancement that suggest that
disengagement from an activity is likely to occur when one
doubts one’s capacity to perform due to poor self-regard
(Newman and Wadas 1997) or disbelief in the possibility
of improvement (Ommundsen 2001), research on selfaffirmation
that suggests that, following a threat people
may disengage from an activity by focusing on other
aspects of one’s life irrelevant to the threat, or engaging in
another activity that makes salient important values
unconnected to the threatening event (Sherman and Cohen
2002), and research on mental contrasting that posits that
when people realize that there is a discrepancy between
their present reality and their desired future, they only try
to overcome this discrepancy when they have high
expectancies of being successful in doing so (Oettingen
et al. 2001, 2009).
As Radel et al. (2011) demonstrated, autonomy restoration
not only comprises a strategic component but also an
automatic one. It should be noted that we also closely
monitored the automatic component of autonomy restoration
in order to ensure that the absence of active autonomy
restoration did not mean an absence of a manipulation
effect. Our results showed that the autonomy-deprivation
manipulation led to a rise in cognitive accessibility for
autonomy for all participants, even those who did not
engage in active restoration. This suggests dissociation
between the two components of the autonomy-restoration
process. Since the early-stage cognitive processes of the
automatic component are typically defined as inflexible
(Shiffrin and Schneider 1977), being systematically triggered
in response to threatening cues, this component
seems to be less dependent on context. For example, it
seems that the detection of autonomy-threatening cues
always shapes the cognitive processes of the automatic
component in order to facilitate the process of restoration.
Nevertheless, whether or not individuals actually act to
restore their autonomy depends on the way the situation is
appraised. These assumptions are consistent with the dual
information-processing model in anxiety proposed by Beck
and Clark (1997). Indeed, this model suggests a first stage
of immediate preparation occurring after the detection of
threatening cues. The authors indicated that this stage is
dominated by automatic processes, which are systematic
and inflexible. Then, the model suggests that ‘‘a secondary
appraisal process occurs in which the individual engages in
a more reflective consideration of the current context and
their coping resources’’ (Beck and Clark 1997, p. 53). It
will be very interesting in future studies to design an
empirical procedure to test this sequence dissociating the
automatic and controlled processes implied in the restoration
process. {System 1 and System 2}
An important result of our studies was that, instead of
simply reducing active autonomy restoration, low feelings
of competence led to the relinquishment of the need for
autonomy. Participants who were inexperienced in the
game or who got negative feedback on their competence
relied much more on the ‘alienating key’ when autonomy
had been deprived than when autonomy was not manipulated.
The over-utilization of the key providing the solution
seems to correspond to a form of ‘‘dependent help seeking’’.
In help seeking research, two kinds of help seeking
behaviors have traditionally been distinguished: adaptive
or autonomous help seeking and dependent help seeking
(Nadler 1997, 1998; Butler 1998). While autonomous help
seeking reflects a request for help under the form of cues or
hints arising after a substantial time of work alone,
dependent help seeking is characterized by passivity on the
task, i.e., an absence of effort to work on one’s own, and by
a systematic recourse to help in an attempt to get the
solution directly and terminate the problem quickly (see
Nadler 1997, 1998). This kind of behavioral pattern is
thought to appear when individuals’ self-efficacies are low
and when the situation is highly stressful (Nadler 1998;
Ryan et al. 2001). Therefore, it is possible that the deprivation
of the need for autonomy associated with the low
perceived competence on the task generated a high level of
stress that led to dependent help seeking. The systematic
request of solution could represent a mean to cope with the
stressful situation. If it did not allow them to restore their
autonomy, it could give them the illusion to progress in the
task in an attempt to get rid of it. In a future study, it would
be very interesting to have a hint provision function in
addition to the solution disclosure function in order to
clearly distinguish dependent help seeking from adaptive
help seeking.
In sum, the interplay between autonomy and competence
have turned to be very meaningful. Indeed, acting
autonomously in the presence of external pressure requires
a certain sense of self-confidence. For example, affirming
our own stance against a controlling authority requires
confidence in our capacity to defend a position. Regaining
autonomy surely provides satisfaction for individuals but,
in the balance, the harmful effect of failing to restore
autonomy might be even greater than the salutary effect of
regaining autonomy. In other words, in line with selfenhancement,
self-affirmation, and mental contrasting
research, we think that people implicitly prefer to avoid
behavioral attempts at autonomy restoration when their
likelihood of failing is high. Therefore, autonomy-deprived
individuals may temporarily relinquish autonomy in the
activity in which their perceived competence is low and
then delay their restoration efforts for the next situation, or
they may attempt to compensate for the thwarted need by
engaging in a different activity. When their attempts to
restore autonomy in the domain where the threat took place
and their attempts to compensate for the need for autonomy
in another domain both fail, individuals may then
experience a sense of helplessness. At this point, when all
restoration attempts have turned to be unfruitful, it is
possible that people will turn to less optimal ways of
functioning (i.e., controlling regulatory styles, need substitutes,
and rigid behavioral patterns) (see Deci and Ryan
2000).
The interpretation of our findings is however limited by
some aspects of our methodological choices. First, it is
possible that our dependent variable (i.e., alienating key
use) is certainly not perfectly negatively associated with
strategic autonomous restoration. It can certainly be influenced
by other variables as shown by the main effect of the
perceived competence in Study 2. In addition, a bias is that
participants could choose to use the alienating key, which
could have lowered its controlling nature. In spite of these
limits, the present research provides a first probable
explanation for the relatively weak representation of the
autonomy-restoration process in the literature by identifying
the moderating role of perceived competence. Beside
this effect, it is possible that other moderators could also
affect this crucial restoration process, such as other context-
dependent variables (e.g., presence of supporting
individuals should lead to more active restoration) or personality
traits (e.g., anxious individuals could set more
avoidant coping strategies; autonomous persons could be
more inclined to restore their autonomy). Further studies
might help to determine the boundary conditions for the
restoration of autonomy.
