You are on page 1of 11

Learning and Individual Differences 62 (2018) 12–22

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif

Personality-based antecedents of teachers' autonomy-supportive and T
controlling motivating styles☆

Johnmarshall Reevea, Hye-Ryen Janga, Hyungshim Jangb,
a
Korea University, South Korea
b
Hanyang University, South Korea

A R T I C L E I N F O A B S T R A C T

Keywords: We sought to identify teachers' personality-based antecedents that tend them toward an autonomy-supportive or
Autonomy support controlling motivating style. We assessed both aspects of teachers' motivating styles at the beginning of the
Authoritarianism semester (T1, Time 1) and again after all teachers had completed a semester-long intervention (T2) to learn how
Causality orientation to become more autonomy supportive and less controlling. At the start of the semester, 42 full-time elementary-
Personal growth initiative
grade teachers (25 females, 17 males) completed a packet of questionnaires to self-report their core traits (the
Teacher control
big five) and eight surface traits (e.g., causality orientations, authoritarianism) that we hypothesized would
predict one motivating style or the other, while their 633 students self-reported their autonomous motivation.
Regression-based analyses revealed four findings: (1) High levels of openness to experience and agreeableness
both individually predicted teachers' T1 autonomy-supportive motivating style; (2) high levels of control
causality orientation and authoritarianism both individually predicted T1 controlling motivating style; (3) high
levels of autonomy causality orientation and personal growth initiative both individually predicted a post-in-
tervention change in T2 autonomy-supportive motivating style; and (4) high level of control causality or-
ientation predicted a post-intervention change in T2 controlling motivating style. These findings suggest a robust
relation between personality and teachers' motivating styles.

1. Introduction functioning (e.g., disengagement, antisocial behavior), and (4) teacher
control strongly predicted students' need frustration and maladaptive
Motivating style is the interpersonal tone and face-to-face behavior functioning but only weakly predicted (low) need satisfaction and
teachers routinely use to engage their students in the learning activities adaptive functioning (Bartholomew et al., 2011; Cheon, Reeve, & Song,
they provide (Reeve, 2009, 2016). In a self-determination theory (SDT) 2016; De Meyer et al., 2014; Gunnell, Crocker, Wilson, Mack, & Zumbo,
analysis (Ryan & Deci, 2017), motivating style was first conceptualized 2013; Haerens et al., 2015). The conclusion reached was that these are
as a single construct in which a teacher's style could be placed on a two distinct and somewhat independent processes with autotomy sup-
bipolar continuum with a highly autonomy-supportive style on one end port vitalizing the “brighter” side of students' motivation and func-
and a highly controlling style on the other (Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, tioning and teacher control galvanizing the “darker” side of students'
& Ryan, 1981). Recent empirical findings, however, now suggest that motivation and functioning (Bartholomew et al., 2011).
the autonomy-supportive and controlling styles exist as two separate Autonomy support is the delivery of instruction through an inter-
dimensions (Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan, Bosch, & Thogersen- personal tone of support and understanding that appreciates, vitalizes,
Ntoumani, 2011; Haerens, Aelterman, Vansteenkiste, Soenens, & Van and supports students' psychological needs for autonomy, competence,
Petegem, 2015). This is because it was discovered that (1) the two styles and relatedness (Reeve, 2016). This tone is communicated to students
were only modestly negatively correlated, (2) a low level in one moti- through supportive prosody (i.e., higher pitch, slow speech rate, mild
vating style did not imply or lead to a high level in the other style; (3) voice quality; Zougkou, Weinstein, & Paulmann, 2017) and acts of in-
autonomy support strongly predicted students' need satisfaction and struction such as taking the students' perspective, creating opportu-
adaptive functioning (e.g., engagement, prosocial behavior) but only nities for their input and initiative, offering learning activities in need-
weakly predicted their (low) need frustration and maladaptive satisfying ways, providing rationales for requests, and acknowledging


This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2015S1A5B6036594). Additionally, this
research was supported by the College of Education, Korea University Grant in 2015.

Corresponding author at: Department of Education, Hanyang University, Seongdong-gu, Seoul 04763, South Korea.
E-mail address: janghs@hanyang.ac.kr (H. Jang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.01.001
Received 4 November 2016; Received in revised form 17 December 2017; Accepted 1 January 2018
1041-6080/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier Inc.

and behave in growth strivings. 1985. (e. fast speech rate. believing that the primary drivers of motivating style during instruction.g.. & Reeve. some level of both an autonomy causality McAdams & Pals. and a number of demographic variables (e. teachers' perceptions dency toward warm. Thomsen. standable (Reeve. Gunnell et al. and the transformational leadership style as possible teacher-prescribed ways (Reeve. 2010).g.e. for instance. Ntoumanis. asserting power or dominance perience). Personality perspective on the antecedents to teachers' motivating styles to become more autonomy supportive with training are likely to be those who possess individual differences that orient them favorably to Many social-contextual factors explain why teachers tend to orient enacting autonomy-supportive attitudes and behaviors. and countering and trying to change stu- dents' complaints and expressions of negative affect into something 1. Core traits may predict such skill-based patterns of behavior. 2015). acquired skill. 2016). Olesen. we focus on Teacher control is the delivery of instruction through an inter. personal personal tone of pressure that insists students think. or Time 2) changes Koka. motivating style is an motivate them. we dents' input and voice. Teachers who are autonomy supportive and teachers who learn how 1.. style. This tone generally frustrates personality-based antecedents of the autonomy-supportive motivating students' psychological needs for autonomy. 2017). & Moon.g. 2011. and related. au. 2010). Schnieber. 2009). 2005. Koestner.. Because 13 . taking”. The inclusion of surface traits adds a developmental tonomy causality orientation would predict the autonomy-supportive perspective to explain teachers' motivating styles that are not necessa. based antecedents of the controlling motivating style. emphases on summative grading. energizes and directs (i. Intervention research. 2015.e. 2012. we expected that the au- Soenens.. in the case of openness to experience predicting communication skills tonomous motivation).. 2015. vention.. social behavior. and transformational leadership. 2016). 2004. Openness to experience has also been associated with nation in which they live and teach (Downie. 2002). But little is known about the possible Tonnesvang. 2013. & Legault. Reeve. Reeve et al. openness to expression and engagement of their personal needs. & Thogersen. Specifically. lues (Deci & Ryan. 2011). Reeve et al. or- aspect of a teacher's motivating style (Assor. harsh voice quality. in the autonomy-supportive style. Cheon. perience to learn how to become more autonomy supportive. 2012). An autonomy causality orientation characterizes the degree dogenous (genetically-based) and stable “core traits” that follow in. neuroticism. Taylor. tional involvement in changing as a person. Individuals with a high autonomy causality orientation are “interest- dependent of environmental influences (Asendorpf & van Aken.. agreeableness. and we focus on the five surface traits of a control causality or- ness (Cheon et al. ill-being) and is therefore considered to be the mala. it is one's strivings for self- perience. Deci. including school-based factors such motivation are personal interests and preferences. 2000. post-intervention. Additionally. Sarrazin. supportive motivating style Ntoumani. and discomfort with ambiguity as possible personality- Zougkou et al. we undertook the present investigation with the goal of an autonomy-supportive style: autonomy causality orientation. reciprocal interactions with others that features a of their students' classroom motivation (i. Seguin-Levesque. needs... 2002. 2017) and conscientiousness predicting academic skills (Kappe & conceptual learning). Assor.. shows that teachers' Personal growth initiative characterizes a person's active and inten- motivating styles are malleable and can change with guidance. We sought to explain both who is characteristically autonomy controlled motivation). & sources (e. motivate their students by using the same sources of motivation that Like so many aspects of effective teaching. offering contingent rewards.. and positive educational outcomes (high van der Flier. and conscientiousness exemplify core traits. A high level of dispositional agreeableness. controlled good deal of listening and understanding (McAdams. & Smith. & an autonomous style (Olesen. & Roth.2. as they find or create opportunities in the environment for the The “Big Five” dispositions of extraversion. motivates) one's own behavior. more or less. 2009. well-being) and is therefore considered to be the adaptive closely aligned with teachers' surface traits. and even the Kirshnit. and negative educational outcomes (anti. & Hagger. 1985. effective classroom functioning (engagement. trative pressure to adopt prescribed teaching methods (Pelletier & might predict an autonomy-supportive style because it reflects a ten- Sharp. Teacher-provided control is associated with students' low-quality motivation (need frustration. & motivation. Ryan & Deci. such as em- themselves toward either an autonomy-supportive or a controlling pathy and perspective taking. and va- experience. years of teaching ex- uttering directives without explanations. Jackson. & Ntoumanis. Hein. Cheon & Reeve. and regulatory styles teachers acquire by adapting to their Cheon & Reeve. improvement and personal growth (Robitschek et al. we focused on the following personality-based antecedents of teachers' classroom motivating styles. As such. the study assessed teachers' beginning of the semester (i. 2015. low pitch.. Kaplan.. as ciated with students' high-quality motivation (need satisfaction. however. 2002. Because autonomy-supportive teaching have been internalized as self-regulatory orientations in response to builds instruction around mobilizing students' inner motivational re- persisting social-contextual influences (Vansteenkiste. yelling. Kim. 2012). teachers' end of the semester (i.e. such as those beliefs. Nevertheless. (Sims. interesting. Jang. A causality orientation is one's understanding of what typically based antecedents might tend teachers toward a controlling style. Kanat-Maymon. ElGeledi. Mostly. 2016. autonomous vs. Hypothesized personality-based antecedents of the autonomy- acceptable to the teacher (Bartholomew. The presence of need- Characteristic adaptations represent malleable and experienced-based satisfying.. motivating style with the logic being that teachers would likely try to rily captured by core traits (Olesen... & Cree. “you must”.g. intimidating). superficial learning). 2017). 1984). Pelletier. toward an autonomy-supportive style and which other personality. 2014).1. competence. and deliberate practice (Cheon et al. 2003). Teacher-provided autonomy support is asso. we make the distinction between dispositional orientation a control causality orientation (Deci & Ryan. feel. per- of identifying which personality-based antecedents might tend teachers sonal growth initiative. and strivings to im- as time constraints. the three surface traits of an autonomy causality orientation. 2017) and acts of instruction such as suppressing stu. authoritarianism. interests. Tessier. 2006). and people Following several personality theorists (McCrae et al. ineffective classroom functioning (disengage. Ntoumanis.J. and valued environmental opportunities there- “surface traits” that are shaped by context and personal strivings and fore explains why they act. Haerens et al. ientations. Learning and Individual Differences 62 (2018) 12–22 and accepting expressions of negative affect as okay and under. 2010. Niemiec. 2016). ex. interests.. and values). trinsic paths of expression and development and are essentially in. amotivation.. closed- prosody (i. supportive and who is most able to benefit from an intervention ex- ment. loud tone. experiences. 2009). & Roth. Reeve. It is communicated through pressure-laden ientation. prove oneself. 2009). for instance. uttering pressuring further investigated the predictive power of core traits (the Big Five) and compliance-inducing language (e. or Time 1) autonomy-supportive motivating style and also Kaplan. mindedness. 2010). Dispositional traits represent en.e. as explained in the next section. three surface traits as our hypothesized personality-based antecedents Recognizing this. and adminis. “you have to”). to which the person sees the environment as a source of information. pre-inter- daptive aspect of a teacher's motivating style (Assor et al. the transactional leadership style. we see motivating styles as more achievement. tend to have. Ryan & traits and characteristic adaptations.e.

All teachers were certified teachers who daily trolling and who remains controlling even after participation in the taught an average of 5 classes with an average of 22 students per class. were asked to complete the questionnaire in response to their experi- Authoritarianism is the belief that subordinates should submit to and ences associated with that particular class. 2011. Participants 1. 2017). Following precedent and re- and punishers. First. Hypothesized personality-based antecedents of the controlling motivating style Teacher-participants were the 42 full-time teachers (25 females. transactional leadership. post-intervention. closed-mindedness. we recruited the full population of 42 teachers to parti- pressures and. lis. Method style. commendations of child development researchers (Skinner & Belmont. intolerance for ambiguity would predict the controlling motivating pected teachers who endorsed a transformational leadership style to style. the research team met with the tingencies and controls. directives. we expected the transforma- tional leadership style to predict the autonomy-supportive motivating 2. and teachers were assured that their to leader-prescribed behaviors and outcomes (Judge & Piccolo. fifth (n = 7). Ryan & Deci. and discomfort with ambiguity. Student-participants were the 663 students present in class when the thority. and sixth (n = 8). focus on students' needs and strengths. holding a favorable view on the motivational use of rewards student questionnaire was collected. school principal to gain consent for the semester-long study. their in-class controlling instructional behavior.e. and the eight surface traits). who resists the intervention's message and Teachers averaged 7. Because Transformational leadership is a style in which a teacher (the leader) these two individual differences lead people to prefer simplified in- seeks to inspire students (followers) by promoting their strengths. The purpose of collecting agreeableness (Olesen. teachers respect and yelling (Van den Berghe et al. the big five. Following ientation experience environments in terms of rewards and social this consent. each teacher received a gratuity equivalent to $100. we focused the student data was simply to obtain a score for students' collective on the following five surface traits as our hypothesized personality.. 164 (25%) some evidence that a controlling style is associated with a low level of fifth-graders. 2. We did not expect any dispositional females and 337 (51%) males with 3 students not indicating a gender trait to be associated with these teacher characteristics. 2004). Instead. 2. have intolerance for uncertainty and aversion to ambiguity.7 years of age (range = 25 to 52). during week 4 of the semester (T1). All students were ethnic Korean and consisted of 323 (49%) incentives and social expectations. At T1. submission to legitimate authority. 1994). because the use of contingent rewards is a student questionnaire was administered by a member of the research central aspect of a controlling motivating style (Bartholomew et al.J. and they were assured that obey authority figures (Altemeyer. This study was approved by the university's Institutional 14 . demographic char- of attractive rewards and social pressures. and the necessity of using supportive to be a growth-oriented professional developmental oppor. close supervision. 1989. teachers participated in Parts 1 control orientation has been shown to correlate with raters' scoring of and 2 of the autonomy-supportive intervention program (ASIP). pothesis tests. focusing on their needs. 1985. and mobilizing their Webster & Kruglanski. pre-intervention. 156 (23%) fourth-graders. Because people high in au. All parts of the ASIP intervention were also conducted in a reward leadership” (Bass & Avolio. Reeve et al. Learning and Individual Differences 62 (2018) 12–22 we viewed an intervention to learn how to become more autonomy norms. or T2) (n = 6). 2013). team (not by the teacher) at the beginning of a class period. responses would be confidential and used only for purposes of the re- Because the transactional leadership style is often called “contingent search study. cipate in the study. growth initiative would more readily capitalize on the professional Closed-mindedness and discomfort occasioned by ambiguity are two developmental opportunity and. structional scripts that produce high predictability (Kruglanski. end of the study. often lose sight of their own needs. 2004). we expected au- tunity for teachers. ment. At both T1 and T2.2. T2).. or T1) controlling motivating style Teachers taught the following grade levels: first (n = 8).e. so the teacher retention rate was 97. though there is and 131 (20%) third-graders. Procedure A control causality orientation characterizes the degree to which one's attention and concerns tend to be oriented toward external con. the semester (i. completed the questionnaires assessing the two motivating styles for a Transactional leadership is a style in which a teacher (the leader) uses second time. the study assessed teachers' beginning of 20 years) and were. we administered the questionnaire only to students in grades 3. autonomous motivation to be used as a statistical control in the hy- based antecedents of a controlling style: control causality orientation. Forty-one of the 42 teacher-participants completed all aspects of the Teachers who are controlling and teachers who remain controlling study.1 years of teaching experience (range = 1 to recommendations). consequently. interests. we expected that teachers with a high personal thoritarianism would predict the controlling motivating style.. third (n = 6).. second and also teachers' end of the semester (i.3.e. intervention experience (i.. As such. and 212 (32%) sixth-graders. being intolerant to open-ended (uncertain) lesson plans. such as demanding Second. such as believing that people should submit to legitimate au. we expected that the control acteristics. At the that orient them favorably to enacting controlling attitudes and beha. changes in the controlling motivating style. One month prior to the semester. preferring to create a tightly-organized social environ. including both waves of data collection and all three parts of the after training are likely to be those who possess individual differences intervention. become more autonomy facets of the need for closure. believing that the primary drivers of motivation are environmental 4. coercion to ensure conformity (Altemeyer. and 6. South Korea. during the last week of the semester (week 16. Individuals with a high control causality or. the teacher questionnaire was administered in a ishments (extrinsic motivators) to gain students' (followers') compliance group setting by the research team. 5.. we expected it to predict the group setting with all teachers present and participating. 1998). tening to their concerns. The data collection occurred in two waves. authoritarianism. and values (Deci & Ryan. viors. and 1993). fourth (n = 7). completed the student questionnaire. Because we ex.1. Individuals high in the need for closure supportive. Olesen et al. Because control. 1994). the controlling motivating style. 17 males) who comprised the full faculty at a public elementary school in We further sought to explain both who is characteristically con. 1996).6% (41/42). and a strategic use of rewards and pun. teachers completed the teacher ling teaching builds instruction around the strategic and timely offering questionnaire (to assess the two motivating styles. Also during week 4 and after and there is support in the literature for this prediction as teachers' teachers completed their questionnaire. their responses would be confidential and used only for purposes of the thoritarianism emphasize sameness and conformity to prevailing social research study. on average. while students causality orientation would predict the controlling motivating style. Students 2010). we expected both closed-mindedness and inner motivational resources (Judge & Piccolo. Seoul. 33. 2010). in doing so.

scaffolding. Respondents who value “re- and a less controlling motivating style. 2009. we describe its response scale here. use invitational language. and being “well-behaved” score at the reacted to each style. 1999 4 0. while those who value “independence”. and ac. “how to” of the six recommended autonomy-supportive instructional teachers first read a 263-word essay (see Reeve et al. This approach to teaching feedback from the research team—until they felt sufficiently skilled to nicely describes what I do during class. “good manners”. Christopher. The four option pairs were as follows: “independence or respect for elders”..3.4.68 a student to have? Curiosity or good manners? Hutchings. and “being considerate or well behaved”. Desimone. 2016). 2011 Closed mindedness Need for closure scale Webster & Kruglanski. and strategies as to how to teach in more autonomy. Part 1 of the ASIP was a 2 1/2-hour translations. to offer empirical evidence on the benefits of autonomy support and the costs of teacher control. demonstration of re- English measures into Korean using a professional English-Korean commended behaviors. Once translated. which was: tual classroom experience with trying out the recommended instruc. guidelines recommended by the university and by the American Psychological Association. so teachers completed Parts 1 and 2 and after teachers had sufficient ac. support students' psycholo. Individual difference Name of questionnaire Seminal reference Items α Sample item 3 hypothesized autonomy-supportive motivating style antecedents Autonomy causality orientation General causality orientations Deci & Ryan. discussing any discrepancies that emerged until reaching a morning informational workshop to introduce autonomy-supportive consensus translation. maximum of the authoritarian scale (4). two graduate students who were native and group discussion. Lauer. Teachers then practiced and refined the enactment of each with that approach to teaching: “This approach to teaching describes instructional behavior—while receiving guidance. “self- suggestions. Transformational leadership Multifactor leadership scale Avolio. Each recommended act of instruction was first described by page 96) that provided a prototype of autonomy-supportive teaching the research team and modeled with multiple permutations via brief that then asked the following four items to assess extent of agreement video clips. 1985 12 0.4.77 It's annoying to listen to someone who cannot seem to make up his or her mind. and controlling teaching. and sample items for the eight hypothesized personality-based antecedents. styles with two complementary measures—namely. description of what I do during my teaching. “curiosity”. scale Personal growth initiative Personal growth initiative scale II Robitschek et al.. psychometric properties. We had The design and implementation of the intervention followed the available to us a previously-used and validated Korean translated ver- recommendations for the effective implementation of a short-term sion of almost all the questionnaires. & 4 0. alignment with teachers' translation procedure for those that we did not. and exchanged their experienced-based tips. scale Transactional leadership Multifactor leadership scale Avolio et al. 2.71 I am one who focuses on students' mistakes. All four items began with the same stem. and how I teach my students on a daily basis. teachers shared their spondents were asked to choose between two options. Firpo- Korean and fluent in both languages carried out separate English back- Triplett. Table 1. 2012 16 0. 2009. knowledge and accept students' expressions of negative affect (for more Both measures include separate scales to assess both the autonomy- information. Jackman. “obedience or self-reliance”. 1999 4 0. Discomfort occasioned by ambiguity Need for closure scale Webster & Kruglanski. Review Board and all participants were treated in accordance with the supportive and less controlling ways.. This is an accurate and true try each act of instruction in their own classrooms. Bass. We assessed the autonomy-supportive and controlling motivating gical needs during instruction. and providing opportunities for both practice translator. We translated these training needs. 5 hypothesized controlling motivating style antecedents Control causality orientation General causality orientations Deci & Ryan. reported on how their students spect for elders”. “Please tell use which one you think is more important for a child to have:” and re- tional behaviors.1. “curiosity or classroom experiences in trying to offer a more autonomy-supportive good manners”.83 Seek participation: get input from others before you make the final plans.1 we used a 1–7 response scale (1 = strongly disagree. 1985 12 0. behaviors. and I do not teach this Part 3 was a 2-hour afternoon peer-to-peer group discussion that took place in the ninth week of the semester. 2014.68 Take charge: make most of the decisions yourself. Part 2 was a 3-h. Wilson. Measures 2. the Teaching planatory rationales for teacher requests. Segura. Reeve et al. & Jung. which one do you think is more important for National election study DeBell. 15 . reliance”.J. and to introduce and recommend the following six autonomy-supportive instructional 2. participant-centered setting. display patience. Scenarios questionnaire and the Situations in Schools questionnaire.. see Reeve. 7 = strongly agree). During the group discussion.g. but we used Brislin's (1980) back- professional developmental opportunity (e. 2014). 1994 8 0. Autonomy-supportive and controlling motivating styles behaviors: Take the students' perspective.74 I feel irritated when one person disagrees with what everyone else in a group believes. Learning and Individual Differences 62 (2018) 12–22 Table 1 Measures.50 I am one who focuses on students' strengths. “obedience”. and “being considerate” sore at the minimum (0). 1994 8 0. & Buchting. same-day afternoon workshop that focused on the On the two-page Teaching Scenarios measure (Reeve et al. Authoritarianism For the following pair of qualities. Autonomy-supportive intervention program (ASIP) For each questionnaire except Authoritarianism.. about one month after 1 The Authoritarianism scale was the only scale that did not use a 1–7 response scale. 2014). provide ex. supportive and controlling motivating styles.94 I am constantly trying to grow as a teacher.

We ling teaching (α's = 0. “I see myself as motivating styles.. p < 0.4. which assesses T2 = 0. rewards.. & Connell. at T2]. α = 0. Teachers that included four items assessing intrinsic motivation (e.94 and 0.1.2. and years of style.57 2. the SIS offers four different teaching behaviors that corre.”). So you…”)... Some si. The used the Multifactor Leadership Scale to assess both the transforma- Teaching Scenarios measure has been used successfully in past research tional and transactional leadership styles.95 vs. α = 0.”). agreeableness). F 1999) to self-report their endorsement of the big five traits of extra. p < 0. structuring.001. All values for skewness and kurtosis were T1.. the three teacher demographics..001.84) and the is enjoyable”) and another four items assessing identified regulation 12-item control (α's = 0. and teachers indicate the degree to which each behavior describes teaching experience on the teacher questionnaire. openness to experience (10-items.2. play with ideas. children) should submit to and obey authorities (i. etap2 = 0.95) assessing their scale are averaged to create the four scores. mindedness and discomfort occasioned by ambiguity. 4. α = 0.001. We used the Causality Or. though we used only the collective (class-wide. 3. Reeve et al. Effectiveness of ASIP these positive intercorrelations and given that both scales were devel- oped by SDT experts to assess the same constructs.g.e.. while discomfort occasioned by ambi- role (e. at (generating 200 iterations).g. In response. and teachers' scores on the two less than | 0. Missing data were rare (< 0. the person's strivings for self-improvement and personal growth. and we averaged the controlling regression (i.. p < 0. Learning and Individual Differences 62 (2018) 12–22 way” (reverse scored). α = 0.74. version (8-items. Teachers next read a 262-word essay on the in regard to teaching in specific) is initiated and regulated primarily by second page that provided a prototype of controlling teaching that then internal causalities (e. Belmont. 2017). the three hypothesized autonomy-supportive surface traits. Scores for T1 and T2 The teacher questionnaire measured the eight surface traits listed in autonomy support correlated significantly with two of the big five traits Table 1 (in addition to the Big Five traits). (statistical controls) spond to an autonomy-supportive.5%). (openness to experience.. personal goals). “This class is important to me.82.49. all five hypothesized 16 . other situations involved the provision of learning content (e. ported becoming only marginally less controlling (Ms.78. Teachers' demographics and students' autonomous motivation vignette. 40) = 14. so we used the expectation- Teachers' scores on the two autonomy-supportive style ques. We used the Need for Closure scale to assess both closed- and remedy the situation (e. Closed-mindedness dents begin to complain.73. You…”). or chaotic Teachers reported their gender.56.88) and the 4-item personal endorsement of control.”). at T1. Results the Teacher as Social Context Questionnaire. F(1.”). TASCQ. On average. ordinates (i.g. interests. 3.”).79. 2016). 2017). tuations depicted a problem which requires the teacher to intervene teachers). neuroticism (8-items.g. simple a non-problematic situation in which the teacher takes a more proactive answer or perspective on a topic. and the five hypothesized inter- 2. a second tivating styles changed from the beginning (before the intervention) to for T2).4.001. while the transactional leadership style represents an approach to man- laboration with self-determination theory experts to assess multiple agement in which the supervisor gives out contingent rewards.g.e. “I see myself as someone who worries a 3. 5. the T1 and T2 controlling others. agreeableness (9-items. SIS presents 12 daily classroom situations that deal with different as.07. 2014. and with one statistical control (years ientations.g. Preliminary analyses teachers' autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching (Aelterman et al. tonomy-supportive antecedents. The students of each their own style. We used the Personal Growth endorsement of autonomy-supportive teaching (α's at T1 and Initiatives II scale to assess the personal growth initiative. autonomous motivation.. while the control asked teachers to complete the same four items assessing extent of causality orientation assesses the extent to which the person believes that agreement with that approach to teaching (with the order of the two behavior is initiated and regulated primarily by environmental caus- essays being counterbalanced).75). not nificantly with none of the big five traits. Teachers completed the 4-item personal alities (e.e. Wellborn. p = 0. the big five core traits. “At a difficult point in the lesson stu. we used a repeated measures score (one for T1.90.01). “This class completed the 12-item autonomy support (α's = 0. controlling style questionnaires were also positively intercorrelated [r (41) = 0. Surface trait measures personal control surface traits appear in Table 2. social demands). p < 0.27. Reeve & Cheon.J. p < 0. or class average) level of autonomous motivation autonomy support and controlling scales in the present study.4. The Situations in School questionnaire (SIS) was developed in col.92 and 0. For each 2.4.93) scales in an internally consistent (e. a second for T2).82 and 0. etap2 = 0. r(41) = 0.e. other situations involved assesses the extent to which the person desires a quick. Teacher scores on the SIS questionnaire have been shown to correlate with other measures of autonomy support and control (i.3.87 and 0. “I see myself as someone who likes to reflect. grade level taught.g. decisive. “I see myself as someone who is helpful and unselfish with autonomy-supportive motivating styles.9 |. Given 3. Scores for T1 and T2 control correlated sig- which the person believes that his or her behavior (in life in general.59. The transformational leader- to assess teachers' autonomy-supportive and controlling motivating ship style represents an approach to management in which the super- styles (Reeve et al. maximization (EM) algorithm to produce a multiple imputed data set tionnaires were positively intercorrelated [r(41) = 0. r(41) = 0.49. we averaged the Because the study did not employ an experimental design (all tea- autonomy-supportive scores from both questionnaires into a single chers were in the experimental group). though they re- Teachers completed the Big Five Inventory (John & Srivastava. Skinner.103. while guity assesses the person's preference for order and predictability.. The autonomy causality orientation assesses the extent to of teaching experience). The descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among the T1 and T2 α = 0. which assesses the extent to which the person believes that sub- pects of the preparation or delivery of the day's lesson plan.”).3.92) in an internally consistent way.88.. all three hypothesized au- ientations Scale to assess both the autonomy and control causality or. teachers did report becoming significantly more autonomy supportive (Ms. 3.. “It is time for students to practice what they have learned. the end (after the intervention) of the semester. pre-post comparison) to assess whether teachers' mo- scores from both questionnaires into a single score (one for T1. visor strives to transform supervisees into becoming leaders themselves. students' collective someone who perseveres until the task is finished. “I see myself as someone who is talkative. you…”). (1. 40) = 2. at T2].. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations lot. controlling. way. We dimensions of teachers' motivating styles (Aelterman et al. indicating little deviation from normality. “You are thinking about classroom rules. Scores from the 12 response options representing each teacher completed an 8-item questionnaire (α = 0. 1988) and to predict students' perceptions of 3. The assessed authoritarianism with the National Election Study survey. Core trait measures vs.001. and conscientiousness (9-items.

29 − 0.05 0.39 0.87 N = 41.95 3. 12.83 5.31 −0.03 0.13 − 0.76 0.16 − 0.37 0.27 0.22 −0. 3. females = 1) 6. Closed-mindedness (need for closure) −0.00 4.4.08 0.51 7.56 – Hypothesized autonomy-supportive predictors 14.29 − 0.12 0.48 21.04 − 0.50 0. Students' autonomous motivation 0.02 − 0. Extraversion 0.25 − 0.01 – 8.48 −0.44 −0.29 −0.40 0. T2 controlling motivating style Statistical controls 5.31 0.12 0.84 5. 14.21 0.13 − 0. Outcome measures 1.17 0. Discomfort w/ambiguity (need for closure) − 0.28 − 0. Transactional leadership −0. Discomfort w/ambiguity (need for closure) − 0. T2 autonomy support motivating style 0.33 − 0.16 − 0.23 − 0.37 0.36 – M 4. Variable 1. Transactional leadership − 0.35 0.01 − 0.11 0.27 0.20 − 0.50 16.99 5.14 1. This preliminary 9-predictor simultaneous re- gression was significant overall.09 − 0. Control causality orientation − 0.25 – 13.43 19.22 0.09 − 0.07 − 0.27 0.57 5. Students' autonomous motivation Big five predictors 9.45 0.09 0. except for authoritarianism. Teacher years of teaching experience 8.37 −0.12 −0.03 − 0.45 0.98 3. Neuroticism − 0.27 0.01 – Big five personality predictors – 9.72 Variable 15.10 − 0.04 0.82 0.03 1.27 − 0. Teacher gender (male = 0. On the first step.16 0.24 0.69 0. 16. Predicting initial autonomy-supportive motivating style five dispositional traits.59 −0.18 0.15 0.61 3.25 0.12 − 0.18 0.12 20.42 – 19.12 − 0.001 To predict teachers' pre-intervention T1 autonomy-supportive 17 .10 − 0.23 0.14 – 6.20 0.42 − 0.44 0.84 0. 31) = 4.03 − 0. T2 controlling motivating style − 0.09 −0.12 − 0.32 − 0.05.02 − 0.38 0.43 0. which was 0–4.22 0.03 4. 10. Reeve et al. T1 autonomy support motivating style 2.41 − 0. students' collective autonomous motivation.43 0.43 −0.43 −0. T1 autonomy support motivating style – 2.08 − 0. females = 1) − 0. Agreeableness 13.40 0.30 −0.33 − 0.26 −0.J.03 − 0.19 − 0.04 − 0.96 0.15 0.41 0. grade level taught. Personal growth initiative – 16.36 0. Transformational leadership 0. Learning and Individual Differences 62 (2018) 12–22 Table 2 Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations among all 21 study variables.47 − 0. T1 controlling motivating style 4.02 18. Extraversion 10. Boldface correlation coefficients are significant.17.50 SD 0.15 − 0.23 0.24 − 0. 21.11 0. 19.53 −0.16 − 0.06 0. Teacher grade level taught 7. and the big 3. Outcome measures 1.04 – 21.01 0.18 0.50 0. and none of the statistical controls.68 0. 13.43 − 0. we entered teachers' gender.42 0. 20.16 0.50 SD 0.08 0. 7.86 0.85 0.16 0.10 − 0.24 − 0. p < 0.06 0.13 −0.12 − 0.06 − 0.26 0.51 0. Conscientiousness 0.20 − 0. we conducted a hierarchical regression.15 4.59 −0.49 0.46 0. Openness to experience 12. T1 controlling motivating style − 0.08 0.30 0.15 − 0.46 0.34 0. 2.70 1.02 −0.60 −0.26 −0.23 0.38 − 0. Teacher years of teaching experience − 0.68 −0.11 0.10 0. Authoritarianism − 0.02 − 0.30 0.02 0.33 −0.37 0. 6.70 1.44 0. Autonomy causality orientation 0.43 0.24 0.25 3.09 − 0.10 − 0. Conscientiousness Hypothesized autonomy-supportive predictors 14.06 0. Transformational leadership 0.73 0.21 M 4.49 0.20 − 0. Openness to experience 0.34 −0. Personal growth initiative 0.11 −0. Teacher gender (male = 0.08 − 0. Agreeableness 0. and teaching experience.41 −0.48 − 0.05 0.56 – 3.01 3.39 − 0.74 – Statistical controls 5.26 − 0.17 − 0. F(9. Teacher grade level taught − 0.10 0.80 4. controlling style antecedents.32 − 0.30 −0.12 − 0.55 – Hypothesized interpersonal control predictors 17. 18. Autonomy causality orientation 15.11 0. Range for all variables.11 – 7.08 − 0.48 −0.16 – 20. 17. 1–7. Neuroticism 11.21 – 10.04 0. Control causality orientation − 0.18 3.11 − 0.02 0.58 Hypothesized interpersonal control predictors 17.76 0. T2 autonomy support motivating style 3.05 − 0.10 0. Authoritarianism − 0.19 −0. 4. 8.09 0.37 4.10 − 0.11 − 0.17 0.46 0. Closed-mindedness (need for closure) − 0.26 −0.43 0. p < 0.25 – 4. 5.54 – 11.06 0.10 4.02 0.07 − 0.07 − 0.24 − 0. 11.09 0.26 0.10 − 0.49 1.61 0.38 1.54 0. motivating style.32 − 0.94 5.18 – 18.21 – 15.13 0. 9.00 − 0.42 0.12 – 12.16 0.68 0.27 0.

80 0.40 2.51.93 0. F(10.13 0.06 0.006). personal growth initiative.006 0. and the style (control causality orientation. we conducted an additional iance in T2 autonomy-supportive motivating style. explain additional variance in T1 autonomy-supportive style above and Individually significant effects emerged for a high level of the au- beyond the already-entered variables.197 0.01 0.23 1.59 0. None was able to do so.13 0.011 Personal growth initiative 0.5. we again used the forward selection procedure to test if any of the five “cross-over” surface traits associated with the controlling style 3.27 2.981 Grade level taught 0.01 0.11 0.40.18 − 0.015).30 0.53.38 0.18 0.34 0.J. closed-mindedness. pothesized individual differences could explain additional unique var- ther than for hypothesis-testing) purposes.46 0.22 1.00 0.84 0.26 1.55).66 2.24 0.36 0.403 Agreeableness − 0.815 Years of teaching experience − 0.551 Statistical controls—teacher variables Teacher gender 0.06 0.523 Years of teaching experience 0.13 0.00 0.44).66). but none was able to do so.836 Grade level taught 0.12 2.31 1.17 1.17 1.04 0.02 − 0.18 −0.001 (R2 = 0.22 0. but none was able to do so.36 0.85 0.06 0.760 − 0. Predictor variable T1 controlling motivating style T2 controlling motivating style B SE B β t p B SE B β t p Constant − 2.19 0.69 0.25 0.01 0.49 0.47 T1 autonomy support motivating style – – 0.055 0.110 Neuroticism − 0.421 − 0.02 0.05 0.35 0.07 0.22.52 3.51 2.10 0.011) and a high level of Results from the final 9-predictor regression to predict the T1 au.30 T1 controlling motivating style – – 0.31 0.04 0. For exploratory (ra.16 0. we entered T1 autonomy-supportive moti- teaching experience (β = −0.74 0. p = 0.411 0. we used the forward selection proce.037 (R2 = 0.32 0.07 0.002 − 0.32 2.18 − 0.34 0.25 0. transactional leadership.05 0.07 0.019 − 0.05 0. Learning and Individual Differences 62 (2018) 12–22 Table 3 Regressions to predict teachers' T1 and T2 autonomy-supportive motivating style.22 0. poses.559 − 0.19 − 0.10 0.15 −0.833 Agreeableness 0.002). we again ship) could explain additional unique variance in T1 autonomy-sup.10 1.00 0.47 0.073 0.65 0.32 0. and discomfort with ambiguity) might significantly over the 10-item regression (Δ R2 = 0.03 0.19 0. Predictor variable T1 autonomy-supportive motivating style T2 autonomy-supportive motivating style B SE B β t p B SE B β t p Constant − 1.45 0.12 0.16 0.04 0.10 0.21 0.15 0. p = 0.40 2. For exploratory pur- tonomy-supportive motivating style appear on the left side of Table 3. and high agreeableness (β = 0.001 0.10 0.55 0. Two personality- step by using the forward selection procedure to test if any of the five based antecedents were able to do so.25 0.19 0.21 0.35 0.56 0.77 0.185 0.019).03 0.45 3.19 0.54 0.95 0.71 0.391 Conscientiousness − 0. (few) years of gression. autonomy-supportive motivating style appear on the right side of 18 .47 0.06 0.02 0.793 Big five personality traits Extraversion − 0.55 1.002 Statistical controls—student variables Students' collective autonomous motivation 0.748 Openness to experience 0.28 0.49 3.16 0.24 0. p = 0.449 Neuroticism 0.02 0.826 0.14 0.30 0. Results from the final 12-predictor regression to predict the T2 To predict teachers' post-intervention changes in T2 autonomy.82 0.025).45.47 3.738 0.876 Conscientiousness 0.43 0. On the first step.854 0.188 0.85 0.039).36.02 −0.02 0. p = 0.60 0.14 −0.21 0.56 0.19 0.09 0.001).04 0.14 0.16 −0.26 0. used the forward selection procedure to test if any of the three hy- portive motivating style.31 0. This 12-predictor regression was “cross-over” surface traits associated with the controlling motivating significant overall.79 0.03 0.07 0. was significant overall.36 0.16 0.201 Hypothesized individual differences Control causality orientation 0.87 0. F(12.36 2.520 Hypothesized individual differences Autonomy causality orientation 0.27 0.02 0.630 − 0.26 1.48 − 0.37 0. This preliminary 10-predictor simultaneous regression p = 0.025 Table 4 Regressions to predict teachers' T1 and T2 controlling motivating style.13 0. with individually significant effects for students' high supportive motivating style.16 0. p < 0.03 0.20 − 0.16 0. transactional leader.183 Statistical controls—student variables Students' collective autonomous motivation 0.02 0. motivating style (β = 0. amount of variance accounted for by the 12-item regression increased itarianism.06 0.65 0.31 0.914 Openness to experience − 0.83 0.02 0.56 0. p = 0.076 Big five personality traits Extraversion 0.07 0. 28) = 4.44. positional traits.20 0. high openness to ex.40.13 0.17 0.32.11 0.015 0.32 0. 30) = 2.03 0.049 Authoritarianism 1.12 −0. author.35 2. tonomy causality orientation (β = 0. vating style.03 0.35.14 0.65 0. we conducted a second hierarchical re- collective autonomous motivation (β = 0.12 0.03 0. On the second step.12 0. p < 0. and the big five dis- perience (β = 0.19 1.48 0.09 0.082 − 0.07 0.16 0.001 (R2 = 0.23 1.06 0. On the second step.19 − 0. p = 0. Predicting post-intervention changes in the autonomy-supportive might explain additional variance in the T2 autonomy-supportive style motivating style above and beyond the already-entered variables. personal growth initiative (β = 0.873 Statistical controls—teacher variables Teacher gender 0.06 0. the same four statistical controls.10 0. but dure to test if any of the three hypothesized surface traits (autonomy the only individually significant effect was for T1 autonomy-supportive causality orientation. Reeve et al.18 0.03 0.10 −0. p = 0.02 0.

p = 0. p = 0. become more autonomy supportive. p < 0. on a 1–7 scale) and the controlling reliably and effectively vitalize and satisfy students' inherent motiva- (M = 3.47. disengagement. teaching experience. we conducted a third hierarchical regression.26.001 (R2 = 0. Reeve et al. Results from the final 11-predictor regression to and personal growth initiative (but not transformational leadership).. by relying on sion. p < 0.001). This preliminary 9-predictor simultaneous regression was not significant overall. and accepting expressions of negative affect as okay (i. vitalize students' controlling style. and r = 0. Learning and Individual Differences 62 (2018) 12–22 Table 3. for autonomy caus- (β = 0. Discussion sonal goals) are the most reliable and effective sources of motivation. Several variables explained teachers' high. We again Two of the three hypothesized antecedents explained who was most used the forward selection procedure to explore if any of the three able to capitalize on the professional developmental opportunity (i.03.45.05.002) and a high level of the control orientation (β = 0. Predicting post-intervention changes in the controlling motivating style teachers toward an autonomy-supportive style is because it helps tea- chers cope with students' problems (e. predict the T2 controlling motivating style appear on the right side of Autonomy causality orientation may have predicted post-intervention Table 4. To predict teachers' post-intervention changes in T2 controlling poor performance) by listening. see Table 2). and the big five dispositional traits. but the former may be more high level of the control causality orientation (β = 0.20) and no variable was able to enter as an in- dividually significant predictor. p = 0. Results from the final 11-predictor regression to reason why a high level of openness to experience may tend teachers predict the T1 controlling motivating style appear on the left side of toward an autonomy-supportive style is because openness attracts Table 4.. well as a developed set of skills that help make self-improvement pos- ientation predicted T1 teacher control.64).001 tent that their students tend toward autonomous motivation. SD = 1.e. p < 0.. The final 11-predictor regression was significant overall.e. One additional individual differences was able to do both showed the same strong positive intercorrelations (i.g. One was able to do so.e. F(11. p < 0.51. A second (R2 = 0. gains in autonomy support because an autonomy causality orientation reflects an understanding that internal causalities (e. During their intervention experience. p < 0. while level of authoritarianism and the control causality or. p < 0. the autonomy-supportive instructional strategies). We again profession with a highly autonomy-supportive style but become less used the forward selection procedure to explore if any of the three autonomy supportive after taking full responsibility for their own “cross-over” surface traits associated with the autonomy-supportive classrooms (Hoy & Woolfolk.001. less controlling).. students' collective autonomous motiva. which personality-based antecedents might function as a catalyst for using the ASIP experience as a professional developmental opportunity 3. per- 4. p < 0. shown in Table 2..95. One antecedent traits could explain unique variance in T1 controlling motivating style. maintenance of the controlling style. on a 1–7 scale) motivating styles. This suggests that tea- Two individual differences were able to do so.7. On the second step.. we predicted a T2 increase in the autonomy-supportive style. F(10.72. Levels of tions. we conducted a fourth and final hierarchical regres. and the amount of variance accounted for by the 11-item antecedent was having little teaching experience.33 p < 0.049). semester in their pre-intervention (T1) tendency toward the autonomy.e.583 (R2 = 0.J. 31) = 0.049).37. both surface traits were highly.69). On the first step. and the amount of variance accounted ness (all four r's ≥ 0. these teachers likely discovered new instructional strategies that could supportive (M = 4. F(9. teachers with a high level of an autonomy causality or- The present study sought to understand which personality-based ientation likely reacted positively to the various recommended in- antecedents tended teachers toward an autonomy-supportive style and structional strategies designed to spark students' interest and satisfy which other personality-based antecedents tended teachers toward a their psychological needs during instruction (e. As overall. Two big five traits were in- style might explain additional variance in T1 controlling style. but they were not able to explain additional unique variance differences could explain additional unique variance in T2 controlling above and beyond the earlier-mentioned predictors.001). for personal growth in- selection procedure to test if any of the five hypothesized individual itiative).g.67). This is because motivating style. Predicting initial controlling motivating style to meaningfully upgrading the quality of one's classroom motivating style (i..32.84. It is not clear if new regression increased significantly over the 9-item regression (Δ teachers tend toward higher autonomy support or if veteran teachers R2 = 0. The level of personal growth initiative a 19 ..52. Individually significant effects emerged for a tend toward lower autonomy support. One reason why a high level of agreeableness may tend 3. rather than low. but the only in. Individually significant effects 4. teachers to new and non-traditional ways of motivating one's students (McCrae. grade level the control causality orientation predicted the post-intervention T2 taught. shared so. autonomy causality orientation was able to do so. 1987). we used the for. pre-in- ward selection procedure to test if any of the five hypothesized surface tervention T1 autonomy-supportive motivating style.g. for by the 11-item regression increased significantly over the 10-item regression (Δ R2 = 0. This 11-predictor re.001) likely because inexperienced preservice teachers do tend to begin the and a high level of authoritarianism (β = 0. 2012). misconduct. Believing this. 4.75. On the second step.e. F(11.47. displaying patience. interests. Who became more autonomy supportive? emerged for T1 controlling motivating style (β = 0.6. chers tend toward an autonomy-supportive motivating style to the ex- gression was significant overall. we entered T1 controlling motivating style. Who was characteristically autonomy supportive? p = 0. This None of the three hypothesized personality-based antecedents un- preliminary 10-predictor simultaneous regression was significant iquely predicted teachers' T1 autonomy-supportive motivating style. Levels To predict teachers' pre-intervention T1 controlling motivating of the autonomy causality orientation and personal growth initiative style. same four statistical controls. SD = 0. We also sought to investigate sible (Robitschek et al. but none dividually predictive—openness to experience and agreeableness. 30) = 5.001 (R2 = 0. positively correlated dividually significant effect was for T1 controlling motivating style with T1 autonomy support (r = 0.001. motivating style.1. while level of entered the four statistical controls (i. but none classroom motivating style—namely. “cross-over” surface traits associated with the autonomy-supportive the ASIP) to meaningfully upgrade the quality of their post-intervention style might explain additional variance in T1 controlling style. openness to experience and agreeableness predicted T1 autonomy Personal growth initiative is both a striving for personal growth as support. tion) and the big five dispositional traits.001). 29) predictive capacity) with both openness to experience and agreeable- = 5. On the first step. we again used the forward ality orientation.2.86.. 29) = 5. was having autonomously-motivated students. 1990). understanding. Teachers did vary considerably at the beginning of the inner motivational resources). p < 0.57.49. teachers' gender.

Given this finding. sample per se. we believe. The inter- the Big Five traits). Learning and Individual Differences 62 (2018) 12–22 teacher possesses affects his or her responsiveness to new opportunities associated with the controlling motivating style. is to suggest that teachers with a low control causality or- or even a different measure (operational definition) would allow ientation were relatively more open to the intervention's message and transformational leadership to emerge as an individually significant hence were more open to working through the process of adopting a antecedent. Thus. and two possible reasons why this professional development occurred was because these teachers (1) in.. The reason these three design.. during the leadership. which also limited the predictive power of this variable. or discomfort with ambiguity). Given that several centered) classroom and with a conventional (i.30) among a set of 18 total predictors (as in Tables 3 vational sources of people's behavior. One limitation was the plained who was characteristically controlling—namely.g. using available resources. these teachers likely resisted the ASIP. teacher. That teachers with a high level of the control causality orientation would ideal sample size would be 63.48. that it was actually a full population and not a prescribed behaviors (e. however. It is worth highlighting. our data collection avoided the common problem of of authoritarianism is closely related with a conventional (i. being ready for change. and counter-argued against the recommended in- growth initiative (the three shared a good deal of common variance). This suggests that the controlling motivating style is re- intentional personal growth.e. The first was teachers' T1 level of the controlling moti- their motivating style (e. we calcu- closed-mindedness. Because we were able to recruit the full faculty of an scribed behaviors (e. developmental experiences. Limitations Two of the five hypothesized personality-based antecedents ex. suggest for future research.e. 1998). another possibility we with a high level of personal growth initiative did become more au. A second limitation was the lack of a no-intervention control group.e.3.05.. with this style. So. causality orientation likely found the intervention's autonomy-suppor- ready possess (Kaplan & Assor. see Table 2). or at least that it is not as open to change in The one hypothesized antecedent that did not predict a change in T2 the same way that an autonomy-supportive motivating style is. instead. The teacher's authority or power is seen as legit.g. is that T1-T2 20 .95). Erdfelder. all five surface traits were at least somewhat pretive problem with the lack of a control group. The control caus. While recognizing this limitation and imate because of higher age. and discomfort with findings justify a fresh call-to-action for future motivating styles re- ambiguity were all unable to explain unique variance in the controlling search to incorporate a “personality as antecedents” approach. Buchner's (2007) G*Power 3 software program. We suggest two The one personality-based antecedent that explained a high level of possible explanations for this null effect—one that is conceptual and a the T2 controlling motivating style was a high level of the control second that is statistical. it is equally im- The authoritarian personality sees the teacher's classroom exercise of portant to point out that our sample featured a crucial compensatory authority and leadership as a constructive and orderly way to increase strength—namely. social demands) are the reliable and effective moti. Reeve et al. but it was also equally posi.5. Believing this. motivating style. In the design of our study. Who remained controlling? (who resisted the ASIP) tentionally and actively involved themselves in the semester-long pro- fessional developmental opportunity (ASIP) and (2) tended to have the Two variables explained teachers' T2 level of the controlling moti- skill set within them to undertake such an intentional self-change in vating style. despite being correlated as expected with their (Altemeyer. personality-based antecedents did predict the motivating styles. it makes sense that and 4) using conventional statistics (alpha = 0.g. our sample size was to reaching generalizable conclusions. standing why some of the hypothesized personality-based antecedents Authoritarianism is characterized by the belief that students (e.. we conceptualized the ASIP inter. transformational tive message to be largely inconsistent with.g. Conceptually. participant self-selection into (or out of) the study. tonomy supportive post-intervention.J. Perhaps a study with larger statistical power (larger N) 2012). we determined that we were under-powered by about one- pressuring language... and it predicts how actively teachers strive to capitalize on the ality orientation and authoritarianism were more closely associated specific growth opportunities that come their way (Robitschek et al. the intervention may have had little effect on teachers with a control (α = 0. would allow these three additional predictors to explain additional vention as one such potential growth opportunity for teachers. a possibility we suggest for future research. 2012).. transformational leadership is causality orientation. and professional expertise. That is. power = 0. do your homework) and to decrease pro. because our question was not whether the ASIP would work predictors were not able to enter the regression as individual predictors. Because the sample size generated sources of motivation. we suspect that. was 42. To understanding how much of a limitation ality orientation and authoritarianism (but not transactional leadership. lated what the ideal sample size would be for a F-test-based multiple ality orientation reflects an understanding that external causalities regression that tested to detect three moderately potent antecedents of (e. Teachers variance in the controlling motivating style. (because this has been demonstrated repeatedly before) but. point systems). 4. significantly less controlling post-intervention motivating style. a high level elementary school. we suggest that these new Transactional leadership. even vating style. We did not include a no-intervention control group in the research trolling motivating style (both at T1 and at T2). more statistical power) however. with our relatively low statistical power. Statistically. The study had three notable limitations. but the control caus- to grow. teachers with a high control leading others but. its tendency to render our conclusions conservative. stickers. in supporting the inner direction they al.. an outcome (d = 0. based on Faul. corresponding motivating style. controlling) moti. is because they were positively intercorrelated with both which personality-based antecedents would explain for whom the in- the control causality orientation and authoritarianism (and even with tervention would be effective and for whom it would not. 4. sonality-based antecedents did correlate significantly with the con. Lang. autonomy support was transformational leadership. were unable to emerge as individually significant predictors in the subordinates) should submit to and obey the teacher's authority stepwise regressions. structional strategies. These teachers likely disagreed tively correlated with the autonomy causality orientation and personal with. control caus. Perhaps a study with a larger sample size (i. and following latively stable and not so open to change through professional through on one's plans for intentional personal growth). This low statistical power likely played a key role in under- motivation (e.50).. basis of motivation and engagement. making plans for vating style. do not run in the hallways). their understanding of external causalities as the motivational motivating style (r = 0. and the offering of environmental sources of third. Who was characteristically controlling? 4. causality orientation.g. social status.. If The measure used in the present study yielded a low alpha coefficient so. and tend to use instructional strategies that introduced environmentally.g. and even in direct conflict leadership was positively correlated with T2 autonomy-supportive against. study's small sample size.4. such as directives and commands. Another way of interpreting this same finding. and it is likely that autonomy support is not rooted in intervention and throughout the semester. however. instead. incentives. closed-mindedness. questioned. that all three per.

M. Taken as a whole. Contemporary Educational Psychology.. (2017). MI: Stanford University and the University of hear how students react to controlling instruction and also. structional goals (e. M. Social dominance orientation (Pratto. Experimentally-based. E.. 27.. G. J. Personality-relationship transaction in nated by the study of social contextual factors. A classroom-based intervention to help teachers de- crease students' amotivation. but relevance is excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teaching behaviors predicting students' en- mous motivation to teach (e. Reeve. K. (2010). S. Eds.. & study. Avolio. (1981). Bosch. Toward a fine-grained understanding of the components of need-sup- portive and need-thwarting teaching: The merits of a gradual approach.. Self-determination theory and diminished functioning: The role of inter- recently been linked to teachers' autonomy-supportive motivating style personal control and psychological need thwarting. British Journal of Educational Psychology. included in the present study.6. more self.. B... they may be rela. A. of the controlling motivating style. how to transform Deci. J. No. MA: Harvard University Press.. 37. M. L. Roth. Bulletin.. This is a limitation because it raises the possibility of Levels of openness to experience and agreeableness explained tea- demand effects. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. E. autonomy supportive toward their students. as by providing more individualize feedback. J. & Connell. A.. Kanat-Maymon. rationales for teacher requests. (1999). Haerens.. Cheon. A. Collectively and overall. M. M. & Thogersen-Ntoumani. CA: Sage. N. need sa- gagement in schoolwork. Haerens. M. Ryan. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology.). Learning and Individual Differences 62 (2018) 12–22 difference scores can occur for multiple reasons unrelated to the in. G. N. Kaplan. tively more effective for some teachers and relatively less effective for Cheon. Segura. Journal of Research in Personality.. B. students became more engaged. style suggest that the ASIP in its current form was lacking some crucial De Meyer.. Whatever the remedy. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. B. Improving organizational effectiveness through trans- formational leadership. teachers could study. Ntoumanis. S. students' motivation in physical education? Journal of Educational Psychology. longitudinally de- others. & van Aken.. Ntoumanis... Y. Personality and Social Psychology (Jang. (1980). M. The positive findings adolescence: Core versus surface personality characteristics.. 261–278. B.g. NY: University of Rochester. Reeve et al. these findings structional behaviors (e. Bartholomew. 629–666. Skinner. their existing controlling instructional behaviors (e. Van den Berghe. and au- also been linked to teachers' controlling motivating style (Jang. in doing so. Schwartz. S. however. 2016). . Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. H. (2016).. L. & Kaplan. (1985). (2011). G. R. J.. Directly controlling teacher call to action to investigate how personality also affects motivating behaviors as predictors of poor motivation and engagement in girls and boys: The styles. B. J. Aelterman. H. Sheinman. assessment.. the findings suggest a prerequisite 21 . based antecedents of teachers' motivating styles. J. & Moon. from the current study. A. Rep. public self-consciousness.g. Reeve.... C. If so. & Malle. (2003). Thousand Oaks. 1459–1473. while levels dependent reports of autonomous motivation did significantly predict of an autonomy causality orientation and personal growth initiative teachers' autonomy-supportive motivating style (see left side of explained their post-intervention gains in autonomy support. N. H. K. & Song. J. J. authoritarianism and the control causality orientation explained tea- sponded with scores from another informant (teachers). During such an addition.. promote students' high test scores) have measure of student perceptions of teacher provision of involvement. & Ryan. 106. The empirical study of teachers' motivating styles has been domi. J.g. Vansteenkiste. the curriculum became more con- ducive to autonomy support. Cheon et al. 34. 38. Assor. Boston: Allyn & Bacon. J. Future research and classroom implications Altemeyer. utter directives Deci. Without a control group. L. Soenens. 2017). & Reeve. Cheon. A. 19. H. 389–444). 15. if they Michigan. 40. (2009). 99–111. Learning and Instruction. 102).. Does observed controlling teaching behavior relate to missing ingredient for these teachers.. & Roth. Cambridge. and so forth). This insight suggests a greater need to personally-tailor future signed. Bass. S. (2002). CA.g. Berry (Vol.. represent what we believe to be a new 71. rely on invitational and change-oriented Desimone. & Hutchings.. tisfaction during teaching. chers' characteristic autonomy-supportive motivating style. R. Palo Alto. Journal of Personality. and Ann Arbor.. Wellborn. C. Fontaine. S. such as those associated with autono. 642–650. Future research may investigate other personality variables not role of anger and anxiety. & Jung. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. (2014).. L. 365–396. Re-examining the components of trans- 2007. Brislin. M. & Ryan. & J. Reeve.J. (1996). 4. Vol.. 2017).. as might a high level of psychometric scale. future ASIPs could be re. Rochester. Journal of Educational Psychology. Bartholomew. Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. R. while level of a con- other investigations that utilized a similar teacher-focused intervention trol causality orientation explained their post-intervention maintenance have included rater-scored objective ratings of teachers' in-class in. Methodology report and user's guide for the ANES 2010–2012 evaluations of government and society students during instruction. Belmont. B. L.. Delrue. 30. 441–462... tonomy support (Tech. Assor. Assor. B. 5. (Manuscript under review).. & Roth. I. these three limitations—small sample size. 1994). B. Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development: language). W. Teacher as social context: A trinsic instructional goals (e. Jackman. The other “authoritarian personality”. however. autonomous motivation. & Avolio. R. J. 193–216. & Thogersen-Ntoumani. B.. 109–134. promote students' personal growth) have also (2011). that students' in. which involves being aware of oneself Bass. (2005).-G. chers' characteristic controlling motivating style. An instrument to assess without rationales. Sidanius. through the evaluative eyes of others (Scheier & Carver...g. C. Conclusion A third limitation was that we assessed the motivating styles with only self-report. 2014) and teachers' epistemological beliefs formational and transactional leadership using the Mulitfactor Leadership about the nature of learning (Roth & Weinstock. structure. lack of a control group.. 397–413.. Altemeyer. worked through the how-to skill of becoming less controlling toward DeBell. The general causality orientations scale: Self-de- termination in personality. J. The findings reported in Tables 3 and 4 suggest that teacher-focused Triandis.. That said. Choice is good. offer explanatory trinsic motivation and perceived competence. and lack of objective measures—could be References overcome in a future investigation. E. 72. teacher-focused intervention to help physical education teachers be more interventions.. V. (2012). A teacher-focused intervention to decrease The finding that teachers high in the control causality orientation PE students' amotivation by increasing need satisfaction and decreasing need frus- largely resisted the ASIP to maintain a post-intervention controlling tration. L.. which emphasizes social hierarchies. 73. rely on pressuring language) into corresponding adult's orientations toward control versus autonomy in children: Reflections on in- autonomy-supportive instructional behaviors (e.. need to first address teachers' beliefs and orientations that otherwise tervention itself. Tallir. L. (1998). may interpersonal style in a coaching context: Development and initial validation of a also contribute to a controlling motivating style. Vansteenkiste. 2. Asendorpf... In H. N. intervention-enabled interfere with the conceptual change process that allows teachers to changes in the motivating styles are confounded with whatever other upgrade the quality of their classroom motivating style not only toward events might have also occurred during the semester (e. and our study would be suggest a robust relation between personality and teachers' motivating made methodologically stronger with the addition of objective ratings styles and. 1980). perhaps greater autonomy support and but also toward lesser control. teachers' professional development. M. We would point out... 2013).g... J. Wilson. 32. Van den Berghe et al. designed to add an additional part that specifically addressed and 541–554. The controlling Stallworth. In other words. Kanat-Maymon. I. interventions on motivating style are not “one size fits all” exercises in Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. and more one-on-one mentoring. 47–91. The authoritarian specter. Y. found these student testimonials to be persuasive. This shows that scores from one informant (students) corre.g. Soenens. (1988). D. M. Kaplan.. Levels of Table 3). J. B. M. Intrinsic in. encourage future research on the personality- of teachers' in-class motivating styles. H.. G. J. (1994). I. Ex. an empirical effort that seems worthwhile given the generally positive findings from the current Aelterman. C. (2015). Questionnaire.

Building autonomous learners: Perspectives from perceived autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching relate to physical education research and practice using self-determination theory (pp. Personality behaviour in the classroom. L. 94. (2011). J.. (2012). P.). (2009). M.. Assor.. H. 538–543. T. N. (Chpt 5).. C. R. Jackson. F. 175–191. Haerens. A.. 4). Ashton. 52. Soenens. 16A. 39. M. & Van Petegem. and future directions. erature. W. A. Roth. P. P. Judge. 15.. D. & Buchting.001.. Reeve.. Angleitner. P. Costa. (2004). & O. The impact of need satisfaction in sport-based physical education. Thomsen. G*Power 3: A flexible statistical ientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes.. M. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. John. (2017). (2009). Kim. R. and Exercise. H.. Bingley. United Kingdom: Emerald Group dispositional traits.. Zougkou. 129–152). L. Enhancing autonomy-supportive I-Thou dialogue in Skinner.. Journal of Counseling Psychology. D. (2002). 15.. Contemporary Educational short-term professional development on participant outcomes: A review of the lit. S. C. E. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. S. Do Wang. development.. 207–227. M.. & Srivastava. Tallir. J. P.. K. Hein. M. laughing. (2014). S. & Cheon. (2013). E.. disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. T. C.. Advances in Olesen.). 19.. Hrebickova. H. 106. 251–269. Handbook of per. 38. N. Autonomous motivation for learninstruc. 30. Journal of Personality.. Theory and Research in Education. M. Distinguishing Webster. R. Geiger. A. W. W. Wang. McCrae. Journal in physical education: Do teachers' motivational orientations matter? Psychology of of Personality and Social Psychology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. (2010). G. R. and Social Psychology Bulletin. D. K. 103–114.... C. Teachers' epistemological beliefs as an antecedents of Learning and Instruction. 571–581. (2013). K.. & Malle. 274–287.. Kaplan.. Journal of Social Psychology of Education. Smith. F. Vansteenkiste. teacher motivational strategies in physical education. autonomy-supportive teaching. Jang. The effect of an intervention to improve social perception and cognition. P. N.. Reeve. Liu. Differences. D.. extrinsic instructional goals predict their growth initiative scale—II. S.... & Kirshnit. classroom motivating styles. N. & Cree. & Educational Research Journal.. Journal of power analysis program for the social. 85. I. and wellness. 31. & Deci. (1993).. & Kaplan. (2016). and dissonance reduction. A. L. H. Observed need-supportive and need-thwarting teaching behavior McCrae.... 305–314.. I. G. Cheon. teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning. 173–186. M. Educational Psychology. and burnout. J. Nature over nurture: Temperament. B.-R. and openness to experience.. (2000).. 27–38. (2016). 43. and smiling in (2014). P. 37.. The Big Five trait taxonomy: History. D. (1999). 78. Singapore: Springer students' motivational experiences through unique pathways? Distinguishing be.. Ryan's (Eds. B. Lang. Psychology of Sport 261–273. Relationships between perceived teachers' Reeve. believe it is easy to do. General causality orientations are distinct from but related to motivation and achievement (pp. Kanat-Maymon. L. 27. 741–763. & Legault. D. A.. Teachers' intrinsic vs. M. Kappe. (2007). D. Avia. 14. 22 . Socialization of student teachers. & Ntoumanis. how to do it. 242–253. K. & Tonnesvang. M. Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in and theoretical perspectives. Educational Psychologist. S. Ostendorf. Aelterman.. 402–412. S. & Paulmann. 12. K. E. sonality: Theory and research (pp. A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an Van den Berghe. 204–217. Ahmad. American Psychologist... M.. divergent thinking.. Downie. 599–607. Journal of Applied Psychology. Assor. 1687–1700. Wilson. Cardon. Aelterman. Social Cognitive and Affective pressure from below as determinants of teachers' motivation and teaching behaviors. K. Learning and Individual Differences 62 (2018) 12–22 Toward better conceptualizations and measures. L. F. F. Reeve et al. resistance to (Chpt.. J.. 605–619. J. 67. 99. change. J.. Motivation and Emotion. & Kruglanski. 105–165). (2010).. P.. and life span mini-theories of self-determination theory: An historical overview. Soenens. 61... (1994). A. 178–189. Psychology. N.. G. P. J. Ntoumanis. J. A. Aelterman. (2009). L. 27.. J. R.-G. D.1016/j. M.. Y. E. (2nd ed. Educational Researcher. Hoy. 7. A. Crocker. (2006). Reeve. The impact of cultural inter. teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. 51. Koka. Journal of Adolescence. behavioral. (2012).).. & Soenens. M. H. Do the big-five personality traits predict empathic listening and as- 755–768. 235–243. (2012).. general causality orientations from personality traits. (2017). O.. G.. Behavior Personality and Social Psychology. L. & Buchner. Vansteenkiste. 395–409. Why students become more engaged or more Journal of Educational Psychology. 48. American Robitschek. 35. 279–300. Vol.. Personality and Individual Differences. John (Eds. Learning and Instruction. P. R. Roth. A. 44(3). Publishing. Stallworth. G.. how they can become more autonomy supportive. (2004).. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. personality. A.. F. N. Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of schools: Conceptualization and socio-emotional effects of an intervention program... G.. Vansteenkiste. (1984). C. The development of the five . 1049–1062. R. Kruglanski. & Piccolo. H. (1994). C. The social context as a determinant of What's more important than being smart? European Journal of Psychology in Education. Psychological Bulletin. & Carver. Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 38. K. M. F.. B. C. Thoen. M. 1258–1265. In L. McAdams. C. Transformational and transactional leadership: A 390–405.. Haerens. (2017). M. & Belmont. 102–138). E... measurement. J. E.doi. Niemiec. Pervin. Administrative pressures and teachers' interpersonal nalization and integration on well being among tricultural individuals. & integrative science of personality. I. New York: Guilford Press Scheier. S. Byers. Weinstein. Tallir.. R. tween the bright and dark side of motivation. A. McAdams. 407–417.2017. E.. (1980). & van der Flier. 181–199. Pressure from above and Quality of motivation and time-course matters. 40. Teachers become more autonomy supportive after they 26–36.. Sidanius. http://dx. meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Ryan. A. B. C. A. Schnieber. Within-person profiles of teachers' motivation to teach: Associations with dyads as a function of intimacy motivation and reciprocity. Psychological need satisfaction and thwarting: A test of basic psychological needs 159–175. H. (2010). L. & Haerens. motivation. G. psychological need thwarting. students motivation and psychological Lauer. V. & Woolfolk. F. & Sharp. Private and public self-attention. B. theory in physical activity contexts. The psychology of being “right”: The problem of accuracy in Tessier. 650–661. Jr. Cardon. Seguin-Levesque. C. I. Mack.11. R. P. M. Olesen. A. & Pals.. N. L. Professional Development in Education. Erdfelder. E.-J. Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and Gunnell. & Smith. New York: Guilford Press. Soenens. Christopher. A. Schotts. R. M. (2017).. Firpo-Triplett. L. A. M. development. ERP correlates of motivating voices: Pelletier. (2007). (2016). Sarrazin. H.. 174–183..J.. 67. B.. Looking. 52. & R. (1990). & Assor. Personality and Individual Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. and biomedical sciences. J. Neuroscience. emerging trends. Journal of Educational Psychology. Jang. 89. (2015). L. D. Spering. 42. 93–110. D. C.. newly qualified teachers' interpersonal style. Pratto. sertive communcation? International Journal of Listening. 186–196. C. Autonomy-supportive teaching: What it is. R.. M. 163–188. & Zumbo. Pelletier. .. need-supportive teaching. E. 59. ElGeledi. need satisfaction at work. The beliefs that underlie autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching: A in high-school students. In J. H.. 460–465. Vansteenkiste. & Reeve. & Weinstock.. Individual differences in need for cognitive closure. (1987). (2013). B. 761–774. Research Methods. Sport and Exercise... Advances in motivation and achievement. (2015). Predicting academic success in higher education: Taylor. Development and psychometric evaluation of the personal Jang. multinational investigation. Social dominance or- Faul. (1989). anger and bullying behaviour (2014). Van den Berghe. Sims. M. Koestner. W.. controlling behaviour. 22. C. Creativity. 16. B. 14. H. & Hagger. Motivation and Emotion.org/10. S. 39.