Learning and Instruction 64 (2019) 101223

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Instruction

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/learninstruc

An intervention to help teachers establish a prosocial peer climate in T

physical education☆
Sung Hyeon Cheona, Johnmarshall Reeveb,∗, Nikos Ntoumanisc
a
Korea University, South Korea
b
Australian Catholic University, Australia
c
Curtin University, Australia

A R T I C LE I N FO A B S T R A C T

Keywords: When teachers participate in an autonomy-supportive intervention program (ASIP), they learn how to adopt a
Autonomy support motivating style toward students that is capable of increasing need satisfaction and decreasing need frustration.
Prosocial behavior Given this, we tested whether an ASIP experience might additionally help teachers establish a peer-to-peer
Antisocial behavior classroom climate that is capable of increasing prosocial behavior and decreasing antisocial behavior. Forty-two
Peer climate
secondary grade-level physical education teachers (32 males, 10 females) and their 2739 students were ran-
Randomized control trial
Self-determination theory
domly assigned into either an ASIP or a no-intervention control condition, and their students completed a
questionnaire four times over an academic year to assess their need satisfaction and frustration, task-involving
and ego-involving peer climates, prosocial and antisocial behaviors, and academic success. Teacher participation
in the ASIP increased students' T2, T3, and T4 perceived autonomy-supportive teaching, need satisfaction, peer
task climate, prosocial behavior, and academic success, and it also decreased students' T2, T3, and T4 perceived
controlling teaching, need frustration, peer ego climate, and antisocial behavior. A multilevel structural equation
modeling analysis showed that intervention-enabled increases in T2 peer task-involving climate longitudinally
increased students' subsequent T3 and T4 prosocial behavior, while the intervention-enabled decreases in T2
peer ego-involving climate longitudinally decreased students’ subsequent T3 and T4 antisocial behavior.
Autonomy-supportive teaching is therefore a precursor to the establishment of a prosocial-boosting and an
antisocial-diminishing peer-to-peer classroom climate.

1. Introduction
Prosocial behavior is action taken to benefit others or to promote
harmonious relationships (Bergin, 2018). In physical education (PE)
classes, benefitting others takes the form of helping, sharing, providing
encouragement, and including a classmate in one's activities, while
promoting harmonious relationships takes the form of cooperating,
making peace, showing respect, and standing up for a classmate
(Caldarella & Merrell, 1997; Greener & Crick, 1999). To warrant the
“prosocial” label, such acts of benevolence and social harmony need to
be intentional and volitional and not just a response to a teacher's
mandate or the promise of an extrinsic incentive (Stukas, Snyder, &
Clary, 1999). Such prosocial behavior is important to students' social
functioning, but it is further educationally important because it is as-
sociated with indicators of academic success, such as math and reading
test scores (Adams, Snowling, Hennessy, & Kind, 1999; Miles & Stipek,
2006) and longitudinal gains academic achievement (Caprara,
Barbaranelli, Pastorelli, Bandura, & Zimbardo, 2000).
1.1. Increasing students’ prosocial behavior
While common in most classrooms, prosocial behavior nevertheless
emerges mostly in an “if, then” fashion—with the “if” being the pre-
sence of supportive teachers and classmates (Gregory & Ripski, 2008).
When schools introduce educational programs to increase students’
capacity to understand and support one another, then both prosocial
behavior and academic success tend to rise (Durlak, Weissberg,
Dymnicki, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011).
In the present study, we sought to expand our understanding of the
classroom conditions that enhance prosocial behavior. One such

☆
This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2018S1A5A2A03036395).
This research was supported by Korea University Future Research Grant: 2018.09.01- 2019.07.31.
∗
Corresponding author. Institute of Positive Psychology and Education, North Sydney Campus, 33 Berry Street, 9th Floor, Sydney, 2060, Australia.
E-mail address: Johnmarshall.Reeve@acu.edu.au (J. Reeve).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2019.101223
Received 13 June 2018; Received in revised form 9 May 2019; Accepted 29 June 2019
0959-4752/ © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
S.H. Cheon, et al.
Fig. 1. Categories of instructional behaviors that flow out of an autonomy-supportive interpersonal tone of understanding and support (left side), and categories of
instructional behaviors that flow out of a controlling interpersonal tone of pressure and coercion (right side).
classroom condition is teacher-provided interpersonal support (Cheon,
Reeve, & Ntoumanis, 2018), but another condition may be supportive
peer relationships. For instance, when students learn how to be more
supportive of their peers (e.g., to listen actively, to cooperate), then
their classmates show greater prosocial behavior (Watkins & Wentzel,
2008). Supportive peer-to-peer relationships may also include the
larger “peer climate” (Ntoumanis & Vazou, 2005; Vazou, Ntoumanis, &
Duda, 2005). Together, teacher support and a supportive peer-to-peer
classroom climate seem to be additive and complementary (rather than
redundant) in the prediction of positive student outcomes (Joesaar,
Hein, & Hagger, 2012); similar findings have been reported in youth
sport with respect to coach and peer motivational climates (Vazou,
Ntoumanis, & Duda, 2006). Given that peer support predicts prosocial
behavior, then the next question becomes, “How can we create such a
supportive peer climate?”
1.2. Autonomy-supportive intervention program
An autonomy-supportive intervention program (ASIP) is a theory-
based and carefully-designed intervention to help teachers become
more autonomy supportive and less controlling toward students during
instruction (Cheon, Reeve, & Moon, 2012). ASIPs are based on self-
determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017), which proposes that all
students possess three psychological needs (autonomy, competence,
and relatedness) which, when supported, catalyze students' well-being
and adaptive personal and social functioning but, when thwarted, lead
to ill-being and maladaptive personal and social functioning. In an
ASIP, teachers learn how to increase students' need satisfaction during
instruction and also how to decrease students’ need frustration. Inter-
vention-enabled increases in need satisfaction then promote adaptive
outcomes such as engagement and prosocial behavior, while interven-
tion-enabled decreases in need frustration then diminish maladaptive
outcomes such as disengagement and antisocial behavior (Cheon,
Reeve, & Song, 2016b; Cheon et al., 2012, 2018).
An autonomy-supportive motivating style, once adopted by the
teacher, can be expected to increase students' prosocial behavior in two
ways. First, it enhances students’ autonomy, competence, and related-
ness need satisfaction and hence enables greater empathy toward
others, better and more proactive coping with conflict, more positive
2
Learning and Instruction 64 (2019) 101223
emotionality, and acceptance (internalization) of classroom expecta-
tions for prosocial behavior (Delrue et al., 2017; Hodge & Lonsdale,
2011; Roth, Kanat-Maymon, & Bibi, 2010). Second, an autonomy-sup-
portive motivating style allows teachers to establish caring teacher-
student relationships and also a caring community environment
(Froiland & Worrell, 2017). These caring relationships and classroom
environments then tend to catalyze prosocial behavior (Solomon,
Watson, Delucchi, Schaps, & Battistich, 1988).
1.3. Peer climate
A teacher's autonomy-supportive motivating style is only one part of
the classroom's motivational climate (Conroy & Coatsworth, 2007), as
student-to-student interactions and peer relationships add a second
part. Once perceived and experienced by students, a supportive peer
climate is likely an important social-contextual resource capable of
promoting adaptive personal, social, and academic functioning, just as
a conflictual peer climate is likely an important social-contextual lia-
bility capable of promoting maladaptive personal, social, and academic
functioning (Hodge & Gucciardi, 2015; Smith, 2003). Some evidence in
youth sport suggests that the benefits accrued from these two parts of
the motivational climate (coach autonomy support, athlete-to-athlete
peer climate) are largely independent from one another (Ntoumanis,
Vazou, & Duda, 2007).
All studies to date conceptualize (and operationally define) a sup-
portive peer climate as a “peer task-involving climate” and a conflictual
peer climate as a “peer ego-involving climate”, drawing from Ames'
(1992) achievement goal theory work on motivational climates
(Joesaar et al., 2012; Ntoumanis & Vazou, 2005; Vazou et al., 2005).
This original work in youth sport has direct relevance for PE. Drawing
on and adapting such work, we conceptualized a peer task-involving
climate as a supportive PE climate in which one's classmates emphasize
improvement, task mastery, interpersonal inclusion, verbal en-
couragement, and working together. Such a task-involving peer climate
may emerge out of teacher-provided autonomy support, out of personal
experiences of need satisfaction, or out of both sources (Jia et al., 2009;
Wang, Bergin, & Bergin, 2014). Similarly, we conceptualized a peer
ego-involving climate as a conflictual PE climate in which one's class-
mates emphasize social comparison, normative ability hierarchies, and
S.H. Cheon, et al.
interpersonal competition.
1.4. Why greater autonomy support might enable a more prosocial peer
climate
When autonomy supportive, the teacher offers students an inter-
personal tone of understanding and acceptance during instruction. As
illustrated on the left side of Fig. 1, this tone communicates to stu-
dents—explicitly and implicitly—relationship messages such as, “I am
your ally. I am here to support you and your strivings.” This tone affects
not only how teachers relate to students but also how students relate to
one another, as high-quality teacher-student relationships tend to lead
to high-quality student-student relationships (Hendrickx, Mainhard,
Oudman, Boor-Klip, & Brekelmans, 2017; Hughes & Kwok, 2006). That
is, how teachers relate to students serves as a social referent for how
students relate to each other.
Autonomy-supportive teachers commonly enact prosocial-enhan-
cing instructional behaviors, such as perspective taking and empathic
listening (see Fig. 1). Taking perspective and showing empathy gen-
erally enable greater prosocial behavior and lesser antisocial behavior
(Miller & Eisenberg, 1988). Autonomy-supportive teachers also enact
instructional behaviors to satisfy students' psychological needs and to
promote their volitional internalization of adaptive ways of behaving
(see Fig. 1). Specifically, to help students internalize teacher-re-
commended adaptive ways of behaving, autonomy-supportive teachers
acknowledge and accept students’ behavioral resistance and expres-
sions of negative emotionality, provide explanatory rationales for their
requests, use invitational language, and display patience (Deci et al.,
1994). Because such autonomy support fuels both need satisfaction and
internalization, such a motivating style tends to foster greater prosocial
behavior (Cheon et al., 2018).
In addition to our focus on prosocial behavior, we also focused on
students' academic success in the course. The addition of this second
outcome measure allowed us to test whether teacher participation in
the ASIP would increase not only students' adaptive social functioning
(i.e., prosocial behavior) but also students’ adaptive personal func-
tioning (i.e., academic success). We further wanted to test if ASIP-en-
abled gains in need satisfaction and a supportive peer climate might
predict these two outcomes selectively (e.g., need satisfaction might
predict personal but not necessarily social functioning, while peer cli-
mate might predict social but not necessarily personal functioning).
1.5. Dual-process model
Self-determination theory highlights two parallel processes that
underlie students' adaptive and maladaptive motivation and func-
tioning (Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan, Bosch, & Thogersen-
Ntoumani, 2011a), including PE students' adaptive and maladaptive
motivation and functioning (Gunnell, Crocker, Wilson, Mack, & Zumbo,
2013; Haerens, Aelterman, Vansteenkiste, Soenens, & Van Petegem,
2015). On the one hand, autonomy-supportive teaching vitalizes the
“brighter side” of students' motivation and functioning (e.g., need sa-
tisfaction, classroom engagement), while teacher control galvanizes the
“darker side” of students' motivation and functioning (e.g., need frus-
tration, classroom disengagement). SDT researchers therefore propose a
dual-process model in which different aspects of a teacher's motivating
style (autonomy supportive vs. controlling) set in motion two parallel
student trajectories of more adaptive and less maladaptive motivation
and functioning (Jang, Kim, & Reeve, 2016).
To better understand how lesser maladaptive motivation might
contribute to lesser maladaptive functioning, we focused on students'
need frustration and antisocial behavior. Antisocial behavior is action
taken to harm others or to promote conflictual relationships (Bergin,
2018). In PE and sport, harming others takes the form of verbally
abusing, criticizing, hitting, injuring, pushing and shoving, excluding a
classmate from one's activities, and damaging a classmate's equipment,
3
Learning and Instruction 64 (2019) 101223
while promoting conflictual relationships takes the form of annoying
one's classmates, generating conflict and hostility, showing dis-
respect—to people and to property, intimidating, being rude and
aversive, rejecting, attacking, and enacting disruptive and destructive
behavior (Birch & Ladd, 1998; Kavussanu & Boardley, 2009). By fo-
cusing on both prosocial and antisocial behavior, we sought to in-
vestigate whether teacher participation in the ASIP would not only
increase students' adaptive (bright side) social functioning but also
decrease students' maladaptive (dark side) social functioning.
When controlling, the teacher offers an interpersonal tone of pres-
sure and coercion during instruction. As illustrated on the right side of
Fig. 1, this tone communicates relationship messages to students such
as, “I am your boss. I am here to socialize and to change you and your
behavior.” The controlling teacher takes only his or her perspective
during instruction and pressures students to think, feel, and behave in a
teacher-prescribed way. Controlling teachers both suppress students'
psychological needs and steer them toward teacher-defined desirable
behavior (prescriptives) and away from teacher-defined undesirable
behavior (proscriptives). Specifically, controlling teachers counter and
try to change students’ negative emotionality into something more ac-
ceptable to the teacher, utter directives without explanations, rely on
pressuring language, and push for immediate compliance. Because such
interpersonal control generates conflict and defiance in students (Van
Petegem, Soenens, Vansteenkiste, & Beyers, 2015), such a motivating
style tends to foster greater antisocial behavior (Aelterman,
Vansteenkiste, & Haerens, 2019).
1.6. Hypotheses and hypothesized model
Hypotheses. We predicted that teacher participation in the ASIP
(experimental group), relative to teacher non-participation (control
group), would significantly increase students' post-intervention (T2, T3,
and T4) perceived autonomy-supportive teaching, need satisfaction,
prosocial behavior, and academic success, and significantly decrease
students’ T2, T3, and T4 perceived controlling teaching, need frustra-
tion, and antisocial behavior.
Hypothesized Model. The hypothesized dual-process model ap-
pears in Fig. 2. As shown in the 11 upwardly-slopped lines, experi-
mental condition (ASIP participation) was hypothesized to increase
both T2 need satisfaction and T2 peer task climate. These ASIP-enabled
increases in T2 need satisfaction and T2 peer task climate were both
then predicted to longitudinally increase both T3 prosocial behavior
and T3 academic success. In addition, subsequent increases in T3 need
satisfaction and T3 peer task climate were further predicted to long-
itudinally increase both T4 prosocial behavior and T4 academic success
in the following semester.
As shown in the 7 downwardly-slopped lines, experimental condi-
tion was hypothesized to decrease both T2 need frustration and T2 peer
ego climate. These ASIP-enabled decreases in T2 need frustration and
T2 peer ego climate were then both predicted to longitudinally decrease
T3 antisocial behavior. In addition, subsequent decreases in T3 need
frustration and T3 peer ego climate were predicted to longitudinally
decrease T4 antisocial behavior.
It is also possible that intervention-enabled increases in T2 peer task
climate might predict increases in T3 need satisfaction and that inter-
vention-enabled decreases in T2 peer ego climate might predict de-
creases in T3 need frustration. Because of this possibility, we added
these later two paths (T2 peer task climate → T3 need satisfaction; T2
peer ego climate → T3 need frustration → status) to the test of the
overall model.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Teacher-Participants. Teacher-participants were 42 full-time
S.H. Cheon, et al.
Fig. 2. Hypothesized model. Upwardly- and downwardly-slopped lines represent hypothesized paths. Horizontal lines represent stability effects.
certified PE teachers (32 males, 10 females) who taught in one of 42
different schools (33 middle, 9 high schools) dispersed throughout the
Seoul metropolitan area in South Korea. All teacher-participants were
ethnic Korean. Teachers on average had 6.9 years of PE teaching ex-
perience (SD = 3.8; range = 1–16) and were, on average, 35.0 years old
(SD = 4.6; range = 28–45). All 42 teacher-participants completed all
aspects of the study, and each teacher-participant received the
equivalent of $100 at the end of the study.
Student-Participants. Student-participants were the 1429 (52.2%)
females and 1310 (47.8%) males in the classrooms of the 42 partici-
pating teachers. Of these 2739 students, 2219 (81.0%) were middle
school students while 520 (19.0%) were high school students; 1376
(50.2%) were students of teachers in the experimental condition while
1363 (49.8%) were students of teachers in the control condition. On
average, students were 14.8 years old (SD = 1.3, range = 13 to 18).
2.2. Procedure and implementation of the ASIP intervention
The research protocol was approved by the University Research
Ethics Committee of the first author's university. Prior to the data col-
lection, we obtained permission to conduct the study from each school
principal and each teacher. Prior to completing their questionnaires,
students completed a consent form. To respect the school principals'
preferred procedure, we used the passive consent procedure for parents
to allow their adolescents to participate in the study.
We recruited PE teachers to participate in a semester-long study on
“classroom instructional strategies.” Teachers were randomly assigned
into either the experimental (ASIP intervention; n = 20) or control (no
intervention; n = 22) condition. The procedural timeline for the year-
4
Learning and Instruction 64 (2019) 101223
long intervention and the four waves of data collection appear in Fig. 2.
For teachers in the experimental conditions, we delivered the ASIP in
three parts.
Part 1 of the ASIP was a 3-h morning workshop that took place in
the weeks before the start of the academic year (i.e., spring semester). It
introduced autonomy-supportive teaching, contrasted it against con-
trolling teaching, offered empirical evidence on the benefits of au-
tonomy support and the costs of control, and introduced (via PPT slides
and brief videos) each of the following recommended autonomy-sup-
portive instructional strategies: Take the students' perspective; support
students' psychological needs during instruction; acknowledge and ac-
cept students’ expressions of negative affect; provide explanatory ra-
tionales for teacher requests; rely on invitational language; and display
patience.
Following Part 1 and a lunch break, Part 2 was a 3-h afternoon “how
to” workshop to help teachers develop, refine, and personalize the
teaching skill needed to deliver the six recommended autonomy-sup-
portive instructional behaviors in their own classrooms. Teachers re-
ceived hands-on modeling, guidance, practice, and corrective feedback
for each instructional behavior. Most of the “how to” workshop in-
volved teaching simulations in which teachers enacted each re-
commended instructional behavior in the context of small groups while
receiving guidance from the workshop administrator and from the
other teacher-participants. During the Part 2 skill-building training,
teachers learned how to restructure their existing controlling instruc-
tional behaviors (e.g., use pressuring language, neglect to provide ex-
planatory rationales) into alternative autonomy-supportive instruc-
tional behaviors (i.e., use invitational language, provide explanatory
rationales for teacher requests).
S.H. Cheon, et al.
Overall, teachers learned how to (1) involve and satisfy students'
psychological needs during a learning activity and (2) help students
internalize the value, importance, or usefulness of a more adaptive way
of functioning whenever they struggled with a problem such as disen-
gagement, poor performance, or disruptive behavior. For instance,
teachers learned how to support students’ autonomy by taking their
perspective (e.g., “What about this lesson is most interesting to you?“),
by providing opportunities for students to pursue their interests and
goals (e.g., “What would you like to do?“), and by revealing to students
the personal usefulness of a more adaptive way of behaving that they
were not necessarily aware of (e.g., “The more you use respectful lan-
guage, the better your friendships will be.“).
Part 3 was a 2-h peer-to-peer group discussion that took place in the
sixth week of the spring semester. During the group discussion, teachers
shared their classroom experiences and exchanged tips, suggestions,
strategies, and teacher-to-teacher insights on how to better implement
each autonomy-supportive instructional behavior in their own class-
room with their own students.
As to the data collection, it was conducted in four waves in which
students completed the same 4-page questionnaire at the beginning (T1;
week 1), middle (T2; week 10), and end (T3; week 19) of the spring
semester and once again at the end (T4; week 44) of the fall semester.
The survey was administered at the beginning of the class period, and
students completed the questionnaire in reference to that particular PE
teacher and that particular PE class. The questionnaire began with a
consent form, and students were assured that their responses would be
confidential.
2.3. Measures
Except for course grade (that used a 0–100 scale), each student-
reported dependent measure used the same 7-point Likert scale that
ranged from 1 (Strongly Disagree) to 7 (Strongly Agree). For each ques-
tionnaire, we had available to us a previously back-translated and
Korean-validated version of each English-language questionnaire
(Cheon, Hwang et al., 2016a; Cheon & Song, 2011).
Perceived Autonomy Supportive and Controlling Teaching. We
assessed perceived autonomy-supportive teaching with the 6-item ver-
sion of Learning Climate Questionnaire (LCQ; Williams & Deci, 1996).
The LCQ includes items such as, “My PE teacher listens to how I would
like to do things.” The LCQ has been used in the PE context to assess
perceived autonomy support and to predict students' need satisfaction
(Jang, Kim, & Reeve, 2012). Students' reports of perceived autonomy
support were internally consistent across the four waves of data col-
lection (αs at T1, T2, T3, and T4 were 0.88, 0.92, 0.93, and 0.94, re-
spectively). We assessed perceived controlling teaching with the 4-item
Controlling Teacher Scale (CTS; Jang, Reeve, Ryan, & Kim, 2009). The
CTQ includes items such as, “My PE teacher puts a lot of pressure on
me.” The TCQ has been used in previous studies to assess controlling
teaching and to predict students' need frustration (Jang et al., 2016).
Students’ CTS scores were internally consistent in each assessment
period (αs = 0.80, 0.85, 0.85, and 0.86).
Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration. We assessed
students’ autonomy, competence, and relatedness satisfaction with
three separate scales, each of which has been used extensively in past
PE research. We assessed autonomy satisfaction with the 5-item
Perceived Autonomy scale (Standage, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2006). A
sample item is, “In this PE class, I feel that I do PE activities because I
want to.” (αs were 0.85, 0.90, 0.92, and 0.93). We assessed competence
satisfaction with the 4-item Perceived Competence scale from the In-
trinsic Motivation Inventory (McAuley, Duncan, & Tammen, 1989). A
sample item is, “I think I am pretty good at physical education.” (αs
were 0.88, 0.91, 0.91, and 0.92). We assessed relatedness satisfaction
with the 5-item Perceived Relatedness scale from the Basic Needs Sa-
tisfaction Scale (Ng, Lonsdale, & Hodge, 2011). A sample item is, “I
have close relationships with others in my PE class.” (αs were 0.81,
5
Learning and Instruction 64 (2019) 101223
0.89, 0.92, and 0.93).
We assessed students’ autonomy, competence, and relatedness
frustration with the 12-item Psychological Need Thwarting Scale
(PNTS; Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan, & Thøgersen-Ntoumani,
2011b). The PNTS includes three 4-item subscales to assess autonomy
frustration (“In PE class, I feel pushed to behave in certain ways.“; αs
were 0.77, 0.86, 0.88, and 0.90), competence frustration (“In PE class,
there are situations where I am made to feel inadequate.“; αs were 0.87,
0.92, 0.93, and 0.94), and relatedness frustration (“I feel rejected by my
PE teachers.“; αs were 0.90, 0.94, 0.95, and 0.95). The PNTS has been
used previously in the PE context (Hein, Koka, & Hagger, 2015).1
2.3.1. Peer task-involving and peer ego-involving climates
To assess students' perceptions of the quality of the classroom peer
motivational climate, we used an adapted version the Peer Motivational
Climate in Youth Sport Questionnaire (PeerMCYSQ; Ntoumanis &
Vazou, 2005). We adapted the PeerMCYSQ by referring to the PE (ra-
ther than to the competitive sport) context and also by referencing
“classmates” and “students” (rather than “teammates”). The 5-scale, 21-
item PeerMCYSQ features three subscales to assess peer task-involving
climate (improvement, effort, and relatedness support) and two sub-
scales to assess peer ego-involving climate (ability, conflict). For the
peer task-involving climate, we did not include scores from the relat-
edness support scale because they overlapped substantially with our
measure of relatedness need satisfaction discussed above (a decision we
made prior to analyzing the data). So, for peer task-involving climate,
we used the 4-item improvement scale (e.g., “In this class, most stu-
dents work together to improve the skills they don't do well”;
αs = 0.90, 0.95, 0.96, and 0.97) and the 5-item effort scale (e.g., “In
this class, most students set an example by giving forth maximum ef-
fort”; αs = 0.88, 0.93, 0.94, and 0.95). For the peer ego-involving cli-
mate, we used the 5-item ability scale (e.g., “In this class, most students
encourage each other to outplay their classmates”; αs = 0.80, 0.85,
0.86, and 0.88) and the 4-item conflict scale (e.g., “In this class, most
students make negative comments that put their classmates down”;
αs = 0.89, 0.93, 0.95, and 0.96).2
Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior. To assess students' prosocial
and antisocial behaviors, we used a slightly adapted version of the
Prosocial and Antisocial Behavior in Sport Scale (PABSS; Kavussanu &
Boardley, 2009), as we changed the scale's original referents of
“teammate” and “opponent” to “classmates” (because our study took
place in the context of PE instruction rather than in the context of
competitive sports). The 4-scale, 20-item PABSS features two subscales
to assess prosocial behavior and two subscales to assess antisocial be-
havior. For prosocial behavior, we used the 4-item prosocial teammate
scale, which we refer to as “encourage”, (e.g., “encouraged a class-
mate”; αs = 0.90, 0.93, 0.94, and 0.94) and the 3-item prosocial op-
ponent scale, which we refer to as “help”, (e.g., “helped an injured
classmate”; αs = 0.71, 0.79, 0.82, and 0.86). For antisocial behavior,
1
To check that participants could distinguish need satisfaction from (low)
need frustration, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis featuring 2 fac-
tors (satisfaction, frustration) and 6 indicators (autonomy satisfaction, compe-
tence satisfaction, relatedness satisfaction, autonomy frustration, competence
frustration, and relatedness frustration). Participants made this satisfaction vs.
frustration distinction reasonably well at T2: X2 (48) = 440.62, p < .001,
RMSEA = 0.092 (90% CI = 0.085 to 0.101), SRMR = 0.022, CFI = 0.969,
NNFI = 0.971. The correlation between the satisfaction and frustration latent
factors was −0.48.
2
To check that participants could distinguish task-involving from (low) ego-
involving climates, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis featuring 2
factors (task-involving, ego-involving) and 4 indicators (improvement, effort,
ability, conflict). Participants made this task vs. ego distinction reasonably well
at T2: X2 (19) = 136.44, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.080 (90% CI = 0.068 to
0.093), SRMR = 0.003, CFI = 0.976, NNFI = 0.977. The correlation between
the task-involving and ego-involving latent factors was −0.56.
S.H. Cheon, et al.
we used the 4-item antisocial teammate scale, which we refer to as
“argue”, (e.g., “verbally abused a classmate”; αs = 0.84, 0.87, 0.84, and
0.86) and the 8-item antisocial opponent scale, which we refer to as
“fight”, (e.g., “tried to injure a classmate”; αs = 0.84, 0.89, 0.89, and
0.90). For all four measures, students self-reported the extent to which
they engage in such behaviors with their classmates. The PABSS has
been used in both the sports and PE contexts (Cheon, Hwang et al.,
2016a; Ntoumanis & Standage, 2009).3
Academic Success. To assess academic success, we measured both
perceived skill developed during the course and self-reported expected
course grade. For perceived skill development, we used the 4-item
Perceived Skill Development scale (PSD; Cheon et al., 2012) that in-
cludes items such as “I have learned new and important skills during
this PE class.“; αs were 0.93, 0.95, 0.96, and 0.97). For expected course
grade, students completed the following single item to assess their an-
ticipated achievement at the beginning, middle, and end of the spring
semester and again at the end of the fall semester: “In this PE class, I
expect my course grade will be ___ points (enter a number between 0
and 100).” This same measure has been used in prior longitudinal re-
search (Jang et al., 2012).
Raters' Scoring of Teachers' Motivating Styles. Before the data
collection, a team of two undergraduates and two graduates received
instruction, training, and practice with rating sheets adapted from
previous studies (Cheon et al., 2018). During the data collection (weeks
10 and 11, see Fig. 3), raters worked in pairs, came to the class un-
announced 5–10 min before its start, did not know into which group
(experimental or control) the observed teacher had been randomly as-
signed, and made independent ratings using a pair of 1–7 unipolar
scales (1 = not at all, 7 = very much). The autonomy-supportive
teaching rating sheet listed the following six instructional behaviors
that the two classroom observers rated in a consistent way: takes the
students' perspective r (42) = 0.72; vitalizes students' psychological
needs, r = 0.65; provides explanatory rationales, r = 0.71; uses in-
vitational language, r = 0.82; acknowledges and accepts negative af-
fect, r = 0.78; and displays patience, r = 81. We averaged the two
ratings into a single score for each behavior and then averaged these six
intercorrelated ratings into one overall “rater-scored autonomy-sup-
portive instructional behaviors” score (6-items, α = 0.95). The con-
trolling teaching rating sheet listed the following six instructional be-
haviors: takes only the teacher's perspective, r (42) = 0.58; introduces
extrinsic motivators, = 0.46; neglects explanatory rationales, r = 0.57;
uses pressuring language, r = 0.67; counters and tries to change nega-
tive affect, r = 0.69; and displays impatience, r = 0.73. We averaged
the two ratings into a single score for each behavior and then averaged
the six intercorrelated ratings into one overall “rater-scored controlling
instructional behaviors” score (6-items, α = 0.94).
Raters' and Students' Agreement. We used observers' ratings and
students' perceptions of teachers' motivating styles as two independent
manipulation checks of the ASIP manipulation. We checked to see
whether observers' and students' middle-of-semester (T2) ratings cor-
responded with each other, and they did. Observers' ratings of teachers'
autonomy-supportive instructional behavior scored at the teacher level
(n = 42, M = 4.85, SD = 0.71) significantly and rather strongly pre-
dicted (i.e., agreed with) students' T2 perceived autonomy-supportive
teaching at the individual student level (n = 2,739, M = 5.07,
SD = 0.81): β = 0.41, SE = 0.05, t (40) = 8.30, p < .001. Similarly,
observers' ratings of teachers' controlling instructional behavior scored
3
To check that participants could distinguish prosocial from (low) antisocial
behaviors, we conducted a confirmatory factor analysis featuring 2 factors
(prosocial, antisocial) and 4 indicators (encourage, help, argue, fight).
Participants made this prosocial vs. antisocial distinction reasonably well at T2:
X2 (19) = 116.87, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.073 (90% CI = 0.061 to 0.086),
SRMR = 0.009, CFI = 0.980, NNFI = 0.981. The correlation between the pro-
social and antisocial latent factors was −0.49.
6
Learning and Instruction 64 (2019) 101223
at the teacher level (n = 42, M = 2.94, SD = 0.65) significantly but
more modestly predicted students’ T2 perceived controlling teaching at
the student level (n = 2,739, M = 2.57, SD = 1.17): β = 0.18,
SE = 0.09, t (40) = 2.04, p = .049.
2.4. Data analyses
Missing Data. Of the 2739 student-participants, 2407 (87.9%) had
complete data across all four waves of the data collection. For these
students, missing data were rare (< 0.01%), and they were missing at
random (Little's MCAR test, X2 (df = 1614) = 1211.68, ns). To deal
with the 332 missing cases distributed across T1, T2, T3, or T4, we used
the multiple imputation procedure using the expectation-maximization
algorithm in SPSS 24 (with 200 iterations).
Multilevel Analyses. We conducted two types of data analyse-
s—one to test the individual hypotheses (the effect of experimental
condition on each of the eight dependent variables), and one to test the
overall hypothesized model.
To test each individual hypothesis, we conducted multi-level ana-
lyses using hierarchical linear modeling (HLM software; Raudenbush,
Bryk, Cheong, Congdon, & du Toit, 2011), because the data had a 3-
level hierarchical structure with repeated measures (Level 1, 4 waves,
N = 10,956) nested within students (Level 2, N = 2739), nested within
classrooms (Level 3, k = 88), nested within teachers (a cross-classified
Level 3, k = 42). At level 1 (within student), the longitudinal data al-
lowed us to measure students' increase or decrease on each dependent
measure over the academic year. Accordingly, we entered ‘‘time’’ as an
independent variable (scored as 0, 1, 2, 3). At level 2 (between stu-
dents), we entered gender and grade level to function as a pair of group
mean centered covariates. At level 3 (between classrooms, nested
within teachers), we entered experimental condition as an un-centered
independent variable (control group = 0, experimental group = 1).
Finally, and most importantly, we created the hypothesis-testing con-
dition × time interaction term as a cross-level predictor (experimental
condition was a level 3 predictor, time was a level 1 predictor) to test
the extent to which the year-long changes in each dependent measure
depended on experimental condition.4 To estimate effect sizes for these
interaction effects, we used the independent-groups pretest-posttest
design test (d IGPP-RAW) that is appropriate for multilevel, repeated-
measures group comparisons to determine the magnitude of the change
in the dependent variable in the intervention group relative to the
magnitude of the change in the control group (Feingold, 2009).5
To test the overall hypothesized model (see Fig. 1), we used mul-
tilevel latent variable structural equation modeling (LISREL 9.20 soft-
ware; Joreskog & Sorbom, 2015). The measurement model featured 24
latent variables (4 latent variables assessed at T1, T2, and T3 and 3
latent variables assessed at T1, T2, T3, and T4), including three in-
dicators for need satisfaction (autonomy, competence, and relatedness),
three indicators for need frustration (autonomy, competence, and re-
latedness), two indicators for peer task climate (improvement, effort),
two indicators for peer ego climate (ability, conflict), two indicators for
prosocial behavior (help, encourage), two indicators for antisocial be-
havior (fight, argue), and two indicators for academic progress (per-
ceived skill development, expected course grade). To represent the
4
For the condition main effects, 5 of 10 effects were statistically significant
(perceived autonomy support, psychological need satisfaction, psychological
need frustration, prosocial behavior, and perceived skill development). For the
time main effects, all 10 effects were statistically significant (p < .001). For the
random effects test for meaningful classroom-level variance, all 10 effects were
statistically significant (p < .001).
5
IGPP stands for “Independent-Groups Pretest-Posttest”. The formula for the
d IGPP-RAW statistic is: d IGPP-RAW = (M CHANGE-T, T4-T1/SD RAW-T at T1) – (M
CHANGE-C, T4-T1/SD RAW-C at T1), where M = mean, SD = standard deviation,
T = treatment (or experimental) group, C = control group, T4 = time 4 (or
wave 4), and T1 = time 1.
S.H. Cheon, et al.
Fig. 3. Procedural timeline for the events included in the delivery of the 3-part intervention and in the 4 waves of data collection. In interpreting the figure, it is
important to note that the Korean school year begins in March and ends in December.
longitudinal character of the data set, we allowed the between-wave
error terms of each repeated-measures indicator to correlate with itself
at a later time. The eight predictor variables and the two statistical
controls (gender, grade level) were allowed to correlate freely at T1.
Within T2, T3, and T4, the errors of the within-wave variables were
allowed to correlate. We report the X2 statistic and degrees of freedom,
but we relied mostly on multiple indices of fit (Kline, 2011), including
the root-mean-square error of approximation (RMSEA), the compara-
tive fit index (CFI), and the non-normed fit index (NNFI). For RMSEA,
values less than 0.08 indicate a good fit; for CFI and NNFI, values
greater than 0.95 indicate a good fit (Kline, 2011).
Mediation Analyses. The model depicted in Fig. 2 is a mediation
model, so we tested for mediation effects. Using Krull and MacKinnon’s
(2001) nomenclature, the type of model tested was a 2-1-1 model (i.e.,
group-based Level 2 intervention effect predicted the two student-re-
ported Level 1 mediators, which predicted each student-reported Level
1 outcome). Fig. 2 features six proposed mediators to explain the three
T3 outcomes (i.e., ASIP → T2 need satisfaction, T2 peer task climate →
T3 prosocial behavior; ASIP → T2 need satisfaction, T2 peer task cli-
mate → T3 academic success; and ASIP → T2 need frustration, T2 peer
ego climate → T3 antisocial behavior) and six proposed mediators to
explain the same three T4 outcomes (i.e., ASIP → T3 need satisfaction,
T3 peer task climate → T4 prosocial behavior; ASIP → T3 need sa-
tisfaction, T3 peer task climate → T4 academic success; and ASIP → T3
need frustration, T3 peer ego climate → T4 antisocial behavior). The
typical procedure to test for such mediation effects is to use resampling
methods to generate bias-corrected confidence intervals, but this con-
ventional bootstrapping method cannot be applied to multilevel mod-
eling, because the assumption of independence of observations is vio-
lated when using nested or clustered data (Preacher & Selig, 2012).
Accordingly, we utilized a Monte Carlo approach to resampling that
allowed us to construct the appropriate confidence intervals necessary
to test for the significance of the 12 possible indirect effects. To do so,
we used Selig and Preacher’s (2008) web-based utility6 to generate and
run R code for simulating the sampling distribution of each indirect
effect (20,000 values). If the 95% CI from this simulation excludes zero,
then the indirect effect test is significant (p < .05).
6
http://quantpsy.org/medmc/medmc.htm.
7
Learning and Instruction 64 (2019) 101223
3. Results
3.1. Preliminary analyses
Values for skewness and kurtosis for the 40 dependent measures (10
dependent measures x 4 waves) were all less than |3|, indicating little
deviation from normality. We tested for any baseline mean differences
between the experimental and control conditions. Statistically sig-
nificant but small (i.e., effect size) differences emerged for 4 of the 10
T1 dependent measures: perceived autonomy-supportive teaching (Ms,
4.77 vs. 4.66, t = 3.23, p = .001, d = 0.12); need satisfaction (Ms, 4.86
vs. 4.78, t = 2.51, p = .012, d = 0.10); need frustration (Ms, 2.44 vs.
2.54, t = 2.83, p = .005, d = 0.11); and peer task climate (Ms, 4.82 vs.
4.73, t = 2.77, p = .006, d = 0.11). We also tested for possible asso-
ciations between students’ demographic characteristics (gender, grade
level) with their baseline scores on the 10 dependent measures. Gender
was associated with 6 measures, while grade level was associated with
4. Given these associations (reported in the lower part of Table 2), we
included gender (females = 0; males = 1) and grade level (middle
school = 0; high school = 1) as covariates (i.e., a statistical control) in
all analyses.
We report the effect of the ASIP on the dependent measures in three
ways. First, Table 1 shows the descriptive statistics (i.e., means and
standard deviations) for all 10 student-reported dependent measures
broken down by experimental condition and time of assessment.
Second, Fig. 4 graphically illustrates these same group means for the
study's four outcome measures (prosocial behavior, antisocial behavior,
expected course grade, perceived skill development). Third, Fig. 5
shows the results of the test of the overall hypothesized model (from
Fig. 2).
3.2. Effect of the ASIP on the two manipulation checks
We tested the effectiveness of the ASIP manipulation by assessing
teachers’ autonomy support and interpersonal control using both ob-
server-scored ratings and student self-reports.
Autonomy-Supportive Teaching. For objectively-scored autonomy-
supportive behaviors, observers rated PE teachers in the experimental
group as enacting more autonomy-supportive behaviors during class-
room instruction than did PE teachers in the control group (Ms, 5.42 vs.
S.H. Cheon, et al. Learning and Instruction 64 (2019) 101223

Table 1
Descriptive statistics for all ten dependent measures broken down by experimental condition and time of assessment.
No Intervention Control Group (N = 1363) ASIP Experimental Condition (N = 1376)

Dependent Measure Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

Perceived Autonomy Support M (SD) 4.77 (0.89) 4.79 (1.00) 4.79 (1.03) 4.70 (1.00) 4.66 (0.89) 5.55 (1.00) 5.60 (1.04) 5.70 (1.00)
Perceived Teacher Control M (SD) 2.91 (1.03) 2.88 (1.14) 2.92 (1.11) 2.97 (1.11) 2.86 (1.00) 2.26 (1.15) 2.21 (1.11) 2.23 (1.11)
Need Satisfaction M (SD) 4.86 (0.85) 4.94 (0.93) 4.95 (0.92) 4.93 (0.92) 4.78 (0.82) 5.48 (0.93) 5.54 (0.93) 5.65 (0.93)
Need Frustration M (SD) 2.44 (0.92) 2.44 (1.08) 2.49 (1.07) 2.55 (1.07) 2.54 (0.93) 2.03 (1.09) 2.02 (1.08) 2.04 (1.08)
Peer Task-Involving Climate M (SD) 4.82 (0.85) 4.89 (1.01) 4.93 (1.00) 4.90 (1.00) 4.73 (0.85) 5.54 (1.01) 5.60 (1.00) 5.67 (1.00)
Peer Ego-Involving Climate M (SD) 3.44 (1.00) 3.50 (1.18) 3.48 (1.14) 3.48 (1.18) 3.43 (1.00) 3.04 (1.19) 2.92 (1.15) 2.83 (1.18)
Prosocial Behavior M (SD) 4.67 (0.89) 4.80 (1.03) 4.76 (1.03) 4.75 (1.04) 4.65 (0.89) 5.31 (1.00) 5.37 (1.04) 5.52 (1.01)
Antisocial Behavior M (SD) 2.83 (1.07) 2.93 (1.29) 2.95 (1.26) 2.95 (1.25) 2.88 (1.08) 2.57 (1.30) 2.60 (1.22) 2.54 (1.21)
Expected Course Grade M (SD) 80.8 (14.0) 79.5 (14.4) 79.7 (14.3) 80.9 (13.7) 80.0 (14.0) 83.5 (14.4) 85.0 (14.3) 86.8 (13.7)
Skill Development M (SD) 4.78 (1.11) 5.00 (1.18) 4.95 (1.14) 4.97 (1.11) 4.73 (1.11) 5.50 (1.18) 5.60 (1.15) 5.71 (1.11)

N = 2739 students. M = Mean, SD = Standard Deviation.

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics, Unstandardized, and Standardized Factor Loadings Associated with the Dependent Measures in the Measurement Model.
Latent Variable Indicators Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4

M (SD) B SE β M (SD) B SE β M (SD) B SE β M (SD) B SE β

Need Satisfaction
1. Autonomy 4.78 (1.01) 1.00 – .89 5.24 (1.14) 1.00 – .93 5.25 (1.15) 1.00 – .93
2. Competence 4.11 (1.17) .80 .02 .73 4.65 (1.29) .84 .01 .78 4.76 (1.28) .86 .01 .80
3. Relatedness 4.74 (1.10) .71 .02 .63 5.17 (1.23) .79 .02 .74 5.21 (1.26) .81 .01 .76

Need Frustration
1. Autonomy 2.72 (1.02) 1.00 – .84 2.35 (1.18) 1.00 -.91 2.34 (1.16) 1.00 – .94
2. Competence 2.61 (1.12) 1.01 .02 .86 2.34 (1.28) .99 .01 .90 2.35 (1.25) .97 .01 .91
3. Relatedness 2.16 (0.98) .91 .02 .76 1.98 (1.13) .96 .02 .87 2.05 (1.14) .95 .02 .89

Peer Task Climate

1. Improvement 4.79 (0.92) .94 .02 .79 5.28 (1.20) .96 .02 .86 5.33 (1.19) .93 .01 .86
2. Effort 4.77 (0.91) 1.00 – .84 5.22 (1.11) 1.00 – .89 5.27 (1.11) 1.00 – .92

Peer Ego Climate

1. Conflict 3.12 (1.17) 1.00 – .88 2.93 (1.45) 1.00 – .92 2.86 (1.43) 1.00 – .92
2. Ability 3.74 (1.10) .71 .02 .63 3.60 (1.33) .73 .02 .67 3.55 (1.33) .73 .02 .67

Prosocial Behavior
1. Help 4.46 (0.93) .75 .02 .67 4.92 (1.13) .83 .02 .77 4.95 (1.17) .87 .01 .82 5.05 (1.19) .89 .01 .84
2. Encourage 4.86 (1.01) 1.00 – .91 5.20 (1.18) 1.00 – .92 5.18 (1.19) 1.00 – .93 5.22 (1.18) 1.00 – .94

Antisocial Behavior
1. Fight 2.79 (1.11) 1.00 – .88 2.68 (1.36) 1.00 – .91 2.70 (1.34) 1.00 – .91 2.69 (1.34) 1.00 – .91
2. Argue 2.94 (1.22) .91 .02 .80 2.84 (1.46) .93 .02 .86 2.89 (1.41) .95 .02.86 2.85 (1.44) .96 .02 .88

Academic Progress
1. Skill Development 4.75 (1.09) 1.00 – .78 5.26 (1.20) 1.00 – .89 5.29 (1.21) 1.00 – .89 5.35 (1.20) 1.00 – .87
2. Exp. Course Grade 80.4 (13.9) .35 .02 .28 81.6 (14.5) .30 .02 .27 82.5 (14.7) .30 .02 .28 84.0 (14.3) .35 .02 .32

Possible range for each variable, 1–7, except Expected Course Grade whose range was 0–100. Note. All Bs are statistically significant (p < .001).

4.33), t (40) = 7.99, p < .001, d = 2.49. For student perceptions of au-
tonomy-supportive teaching, the critical condition × time interaction was
significant, t (8,070) = 21.23, p < .001 (d IGPP-RAW = 1.25). As re-
ported in Table 1, perceived autonomy-supportive teaching increased
significantly for students of the teachers in the ASIP experimental
condition from T1 to T4 (Δ = +1.04, t = 41.02, p < .001, d = 1.17),
while it decreased significantly (though modestly) for students of the
teachers in the control condition from T1 to T4 (Δ = −0.07, t = 2.98,
p = .003, d = 0.08).
Controlling Teaching. For objectively-scored controlling behaviors,
observers rated PE teachers in the experimental group as enacting less
controlling behaviors during classroom instruction than PE teachers in
the control group (Ms, 2.55 vs. 3.31), t (40) = 4.60, p < .001,
d = 1.43. For student perceptions of controlling teaching, the critical
condition × time interaction was significant, t (8,070) = 14.18,
p < .001 (d IGPP-RAW = 0.69). As reported in Table 1, perceived con-
trolling teaching decreased significantly for students of the teachers in
the ASIP condition from T1 to T4 (Δ = −0.63, t = 22.04, p < .001,
d = 0.63), while it increased significantly (though modestly) for stu-
dents of the teachers in the control condition from T1 to T4
(Δ = +0.06, t = 2.17, p = .030, d = 0.06).
3.3. Effect of the ASIP on the eight dependent measures
For need satisfaction, the critical condition × time interaction was
significant, t (8,070) = 24.39, p < .001 (d IGPP-RAW = 1.14). As re-
ported in Table 1, need satisfaction increased significantly for students
of the teachers in the ASIP condition from T1 to T4 (Δ = +0.87,
t = 36.98, p < .001, d = 1.06), while it also increased significantly
(though modestly) for students of the teachers in the control condition
from T1 to T4 (Δ = +0.07, t = 2.79, p = .005, d = 0.08).
For need frustration, the critical condition × time interaction was
significant, t (8,070) = 14.26, p < .001 (d IGPP-RAW = 0.66). As re-
ported in Table 1, need frustration decreased significantly for students

8
S.H. Cheon, et al. Learning and Instruction 64 (2019) 101223

Fig. 4. Means for prosocial behavior (upper

left panel), antisocial behavior (upper right
panel), expected PE course grade (lower left
panel), and perceived skill development
(lower right panel) broken down by experi-
mental condition and time of assessment.
Note. Standard errors for prosocial behavior,
antisocial behavior, and perceived skill de-
velopment range from 0.03 to 0.04, while
standard errors for expected course grade
range from 0.39 to 0.42.

Fig. 5. Standardized beta weights from the test of the hypothesized model. Solid lines represent hypothesized paths; dashed lines represent statistical controls.

of the teachers in the ASIP condition from T1 to T4 (Δ = −0.50, For peer task-involving climate, the critical condition × time inter-
t = 18.59, p < .001, d = 0.54), while it increased significantly for action was significant, t (8,070) = 21.23, p < .001 (d IGPP-RAW = 1.02).
students of the teachers in the control condition (Δ = +0.11, t = 4.11, As reported in Table 1, peer task climate increased significantly for
p < .001, d = 0.12). students of the teachers in the ASIP condition from T1 to T4

9
S.H. Cheon, et al.
(Δ = +0.94, t = 37.52, p < .001, d = 1.11), while it also increased
significantly (though modestly) for students of the teachers in the
control condition (Δ = +0.08, t = 3.32, p < .001, d = 0.09).
For peer ego-involving climate, the critical condition × time interac-
tion was significant, t (8,070) = 13.26, p < .001 (d IGPP-RAW = 0.64).
As reported in Table 1, peer ego climate decreased significantly for
students of the teachers in the ASIP condition from T1 to T4
(Δ = −0.60, t = 20.20 p < .001, d = 0.60), while it remained un-
changed for students of the teachers in the control condition
(Δ = +0.04, t = 1.59, p = .112, d = 0.04).
For prosocial behavior, the critical condition × time interaction was
significant, t (8,070) = 19.48, p < .001 (d IGPP-RAW = 0.89). As re-
ported in Table 1 and as illustrated in the upper left panel of Fig. 4,
prosocial behavior increased significantly for students of the teachers in
the ASIP condition from T1 to T4 (Δ = +0.87, t = 33.92, p < .001,
d = 0.98), while it also increased significantly (though modestly) for
students of the teachers in the control condition (Δ = +0.08, t = 3.31,
p = .001, d = 0.09).
For antisocial behavior, the critical condition × time interaction was
significant, t (8,070) = 8.62, p < .001 (d IGPP-RAW = 0.42). As reported
in Table 1 and as illustrated in the upper right panel of Fig. 4, antisocial
behavior decreased significantly for students of the teachers in the ASIP
condition from T1 to T4 (Δ = −0.34, t = 10.77, p < .001, d = 0.31),
while it increased significantly for students of the teachers in the con-
trol condition (Δ = +0.12, t = 3.87, p < .001, d = 0.11).
For expected course grade, the critical condition × time interaction
was significant, t (8,070) = 15.09, p < .001 (d IGPP-RAW = 0.48). As
reported in Table 1 and as illustrated in the lower left panel of Fig. 4,
expected course grade increased significantly for students of the tea-
chers in the ASIP condition from T1 to T4 (Δ = +6.8, t = 18.13,
p < .001, d = 0.49), while it remained unchanged for students of the
teachers in the control condition (Δ = +0.1, t = 0.43, p = .664,
d = 0.01).
For perceived skill development, the critical condition × time inter-
action was significant, t (8,070) = 17.83, p < .001 (d IGPP-RAW = 0.71).
As reported in Table 1 and as illustrated in the lower right panel of
Fig. 4, perceived skill development increased significantly for students
of the teachers in the ASIP condition from T1 to T4 (Δ = +0.98,
t = 32.90, p < .001, d = 0 0.88), while it also increased significantly
(though modestly) for students of the teachers in the control condition
(Δ = +0.19, t = 6.30, p < .001, d = 0.17).
3.4. Test of the measurement model
The measurement model fit the data reasonably well, X2
(4272) = 8848.23, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.034 (90% CI = 0.033 to
0.035), CFI = 0.991, NNFI = 0.990. Table 2 shows the descriptive sta-
tistics and factor loadings for all 54 individual indicators included in
the measurement model, while Table 3 shows the intercorrelations
among experimental condition, the 24 latent variables, and the 2 sta-
tistical controls (gender, grade level).
3.5. Test of the hypothesized model
The hypothesized model fit the data reasonably well, X2
(4466) = 11,048.64, p < .001, RMSEA = 0.039 (90% CI = 0.038 to
0.040), CFI = 0.987, NNFI = 0.986. The path diagram showing the
standardized estimate for each hypothesized path appears in Fig. 5. For
clarity, we do not show the T1 statistical controls in the figure, but we
do report each of these paths in the full statistical results below.
Early First Semester Effects. Early in the first (spring) semester,
the experimental treatment produced all four hypothesized effects. That
is, experimental condition significantly increased both (1) T2 need sa-
tisfaction (B = 0.19, SE B = 0.01, β = 0.22, t = 16.53, p < .001),
controlling for T1 need satisfaction (B = 0.50, p < .001), grade level
(B = 0.00, p = .980), and gender (B = 0.01, p = .564) and (2) T2 peer
10
Learning and Instruction 64 (2019) 101223
task climate (B = 0.21, SE B = 0.01, β = 0.25, t = 18.51, p < .001),
controlling for T1 peer task climate (B = 0.49, p < .001), grade level
(B = 0.04, p = .018), and gender (B = 0.00, p = .782).
Experimental condition significantly decreased both (3) T2 need
frustration (B = −0.10, SE B = 0.01, β = −0.12, t = 7.73, p < .001),
controlling for T1 need frustration (B = 0.28, p < .001), grade level
(B = 0.03, p = .069), and gender (B = 0.08, p < .001) and (4) T2 peer
ego climate (B = −0.08, SE B = 0.01, β = −0.09, t = 5.65, p < .001),
controlling for T1 peer ego climate (B = 0.50, p < .001), grade level
(B = −0.10, p < .001), and gender (B = 0.09, p < .001).
Late First Semester Effects. Late in the first (spring) semester, 6 of
the 8 hypothesized effects on changes in the T3 measures were sig-
nificant.
For increases in T3 peer task climate, the experimentally-enabled
gain in T2 need satisfaction was a significant predictor (B = 0.08, SE
B = 0.03, β = 0.08, t = 2.26, p = .024), controlling for T2 peer task
climate (B = 0.58, p < .001), T1 peer task climate (B = 0.12,
p < .001), T1 need satisfaction (B = 0.01, p = .683), grade level
(B = 0.02, p = .209), and gender (B = 0.03, p = .100).
For increases in T3 prosocial behavior, the gain in T2 need satisfac-
tion (B = 0.11, SE B = 0.04, β = 0.11, t = 3.07, p = .009) and the gain
in T2 peer task climate (B = 0.33, SE B = 0.04, β = 0.31, t = 7.47,
p < .001) were both individually significant predictors, controlling for
T2 prosocial behavior (B = 0.22, p < .001), T1 prosocial behavior
(B = 0.07, p = .015), T1 need satisfaction (B = −0.02, p = .621), T1
peer task climate (B = 0.05, p = .218), grade level (B = 0.08,
p < .001), and gender (B = 0.02, p = .181).
For increases in T3 academic success, the gain in T2 need satisfaction
(B = 0.28, SE B = 0.04, β = 0.30, t = 6.75, p < .001) and the gain in
T2 peer task climate (B = 0.16, SE B = 0.04, β = 0.16, t = 4.10,
p < .001) were both individually significant predictors, controlling for
T2 academic success (B = 0.24, p < .001), T1 academic success
(B = 0.12, p = .020), T1 need satisfaction (B = −0.01, p = .868), T1
peer task climate (B = −0.03, p = .417), grade level (B = 0.05,
p = .009), and gender (B = −0.02, p = .445).
For declines in T3 peer ego climate, the experimentally-enabled de-
cline in T2 need frustration was not a significant predictor (B = 0.01,
SE B = 0.02, β = 0.01, t = 0.61, p = .541), controlling for T2 peer ego
climate (B = 0.63, p < .001), T1 peer ego climate (B = 0.09,
p < .001), T1 need frustration (B = 0.06, p = .005), grade level
(B = −0.04, p = .023), and gender (B = −0.05, p = .001).
For declines in T3 antisocial behavior, the decline in T2 peer ego
climate was a significant predictor (B = 0.24, SE B = 0.03, β = 0.24,
t = 8.01, p < .001) while the decline in T2 need frustration was not
(B = 0.00, SE B = 0.02, β = 0.00, t = 0.18, p = .907), controlling for
T2 antisocial behavior (B = 0.36, p < .001), T1 antisocial behavior
(B = 0.09, p = .001), T1 need frustration (B = 0.14, p < .001), T1
peer ego climate (B = −0.04, p = .184), grade level (B = −0.05,
p = .001), and gender (B = −0.02, p = .150).
In addition to testing these 8 hypothesized late-semester effects, we
tested whether intervention-enabled changes in the peer climates might
affect late-semester changes in students’ psychological need states. The
ASIP-enabled increase in T2 peer task climate did longitudinally in-
crease T3 need satisfaction (B = 0.19, SE B = 0.03, β = 0.18, t = 6.71,
p < .001), controlling for T2 need satisfaction (B = 0.47, p < .001),
T1 need satisfaction (B = 0.16, p < .001), T1 peer task climate
(B = 0.09, p = .013), grade level (B = 0.03, p = .082), and gender
(B = 0.02, p = .099). Similarly, the ASIP-enabled decrease in T2 peer
ego climate did longitudinally decrease T3 need frustration (B = 0.16,
SE B = 0.02, β = 0.15, t = 6.98, p < .001), controlling for T2 need
frustration (B = 0.40, p < .001), T1 need frustration (B = 0.18,
p < .001), T1 peer ego climate (B = −0.09, p < .001), grade level
(B = −0.02, p = .284), and gender (B = −0.01, p = .456).
Second Semester Effects. By year-end (end of the fall semester), 3
of the 6 hypothesized effects on changes in the T4 measures were sig-
nificant.
 S.H. Cheon, et al.

Table 3
Intercorrelation matrix among experimental condition, the 24 dependent measures, and the 2 statistical controls included in the test of the structural model.
Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27.

1. Experimental Condition

Time 1
2. Need Satisfaction -.07 -
3. Need Frustration .04 -.49 -
4. Peer Task Climate -.03 .70 -.48 -
5. Peer Ego Climate -.07 -.30 .53 -.51 -
6. Prosocial Behavior .02 .63 -.49 .74 -.46 -
7. Antisocial Behavior -.03 -.32 .64 -.49 .66 -.43 -
8. Academic Progress -.06 .84 -.50 .73 -.36 .83 -.37 -
Time 2
9. Need Satisfaction .33 .55 -.33 .39 -.23 .42 -.24 .52 -
10. Need Frustration -.23 -.26 .38 -.23 .31 -.25 .32 -.27 -.47 -
11. Peer Task Climate .39 .38 -.28 .46 -.32 .45 -.31 .40 .79 -.46 -
12. Peer Ego Climate -.26 -.21 .38 -.36 .51 -.33 .43 -.24 -.41 .56 -.60 -

11
13. Prosocial Behavior .32 .37 -.29 .42 -.31 .33 -.31 .42 .72 -.46 .84 -.55 -
14. Antisocial Behavior -.20 -.21 .31 -.31 .44 -.30 .45 -.25 -.38 .65 -.51 .73 -.51 -
15. Academic Progress .27 .51 -.33 .42 -.23 .44 -.25 .60 .83 -.45 .74 -.40 .83 -.38 -
Time 3
16. Need Satisfaction .35 .49 -.30 .37 -.23 .41 -.24 .50 .72 -.46 .64 -.38 .59 -.37 .66 -
17. Need Frustration -.27 -.25 .39 -.24 .28 -.27 .31 -.27 -.44 .58 -.44 .43 -.44 .47 -.44 -.56 -
18. Peer Task Climate .38 .37 -.29 .41 -.30 .44 -.32 .43 .63 -.42 .71 -.55 .65 -.46 .60 .82 -.54 -
19. Peer Ego Climate -.30 -.25 32 -.35 44 -.68 .35 -.25 -.44 .45 -.65 .68 -.51 59 -.37 -.53 .63 -.66 -
20. Prosocial Behavior .35 33 -.29 .37 -.28 42 -.31 30 .58 -.42 .47 -.45 .65 -.44 .58 .76 -.55 .83 -.59 -
21. Antisocial Behavior -.20 -.23 .37 -.31 .37 -.31 .43 -.26 -.37 .46 -.31 .57 -.48 .64 -.38 -.46 .70 -.55 .73 -.58 -
22. Academic Progress .36 .42 -.31 .35 -.24 .53 -.25 .54 .68 -.44 .61 -.37 .86 -.37 .73 .87 -.57 .80 -.53 .86 -.41 -
Time 4
23. Prosocial Behavior .42 .32 -.24 .34 -.25 .41 -.26 .36 .54 -.34 .60 -.41 .66 -.39 .58 .59 -.43 .65 -.51 67 -.46 .64 -
24. Antisocial Behavior -.22 -.23 .32 -.32 .36 -.32 .39 -.23 -.38 .39 -.46 .50 -.53 .62 -.50 -.43 .44 -.51 .56 -.53 .62 -.48 -.63 -
25. Academic Progress .41 .40 -.28 .35 -.22 .40 -.25 .43 .63 -.39 .57 -.34 .63 -.35 .75 .69 -.46 .64 -.45 .63 -.41 .75 .64 -.59 -
Statistical Controls
26. Gender -.13 .13 .02 -.03 .18 -.05 .09 .11 .05 .11 .05 .21 -.04 .16 .06 .04 .07 .01 .11 .04 .10 .00 .02 .06 .04 -
27. Grade Level .26 .00 -.03 .13 -.19 .14 -.17 .00 .06 .04 .16 -.23 .17 -.16 -.06 -.07 .07 -.12 .19 -.17 .17 -.09 .19 .18 .11 -.19 -

N = 2739. r's ≥ 0.04, p < .05; r's ≥ 0.05, p < .01. For experimental condition, control = 0 and experimental = 1. For gender, female = 0 and male = 1. For grade level, middle = 0 and high = 1.
Learning and Instruction 64 (2019) 101223
S.H. Cheon, et al. Learning and Instruction 64 (2019) 101223

For increases in T4 prosocial behavior, the increase in T3 peer task
climate was a significant predictor (B = 0.17, SE B = 0.04, β = 0.17,
t = 4.03, p < .001) while the increase in T3 need satisfaction was not
(B = −0.01, SE B = 0.04, β = 0.00, t = 0.20, p = .839), controlling for
T3 prosocial behavior (B = 0.28, p < .001), T2 prosocial behavior
(B = −0.03, p = .403), T1 prosocial behavior (B = 0.20, p < .001),
T2 peer task climate (B = 0.27, p < .001), T1 peer task climate (B = -
0.18, p < .001), T2 need satisfaction (B = 0.03, p = .491), T1 need
satisfaction (B = 0.05, p = .154), grade level (B = 0.09, p < .001),
and gender (B = 0.02, p = .141).
For increases in T4 academic progress, the increase T3 need sa-
tisfaction was a significant predictor (B = 0.14, SE B = 0.05, β = 0.15,
t = 2.78, p = .005) while the increase in T3 peer task climate was not
(B = 0.05, SE B = 0.04, β = 0.05, t = 1.08, p = .279), controlling for
T3 academic progress (B = 0.30, p < .001), T2 academic progress
(B = −0.06, p = .153), T1 academic progress (B = 0.23, p < .001), T2
peer task climate (B = 0.13, p = .009), T1 peer task climate (B = -0.09,
p = .061), T2 need satisfaction (B = 0.18, p < .001), T1 need sa-
tisfaction (B = −0.09, p = .116), grade level (B = 0.06, p = .001), and
gender (B = 0.03, p = .128).
For decreases in T4 antisocial behavior, the decline in T3 peer ego
climate was a significant predictor (B = 0.12, SE B = 0.03, β = 0.12,
t = 3.54, p < .001) while the decline in T3 need frustration was not
(B = −0.04, SE B = 0.02, β = −0.05, t = 1.83, p = .067), controlling
for T3 antisocial behavior (B = 0.36, p < .001), T2 antisocial behavior
(B = 0.14, p < .001), T1 antisocial behavior (B = 0.05, p = .090), T2
peer ego climate (B = 0.10, p = .011), T1 peer ego climate (B = 0.00,
p = .896), T2 need frustration (B = 0.00, p = .865), T1 need frustration
(B = 0.05, p = .032), grade level (B = −0.06, p < .001), and gender
(B = −0.05, p = .003).
Mediation Analyses. As shown on the left side of Table 4, all three
direct effects of ASIP on the T3 outcomes (prosocial behavior, academic
success, and antisocial behavior) were statistically significant, as were
all three direct effects of ASIP on the same outcomes at T4 (p's <
0.001). As shown on the upper right side of Table 4, there were sig-
nificant indirect effects of ASIP on (1) T3 prosocial behavior via both T2
need satisfaction (95% CI = 0.008 to 0.034) and T2 peer task climate
(0.048, 0.086); (2) T3 academic success via both T2 need satisfaction
(0.036, 0.070) and T2 peer task climate (0.016, 0.046); and (3) T3
antisocial behavior via T2 peer ego climate (0.011, 0.026) but not T2
need frustration (−0.005, 0.004). As shown on the lower right side of
Table 4, there were significant indirect effects of ASIP on (1) T4 pro-
social behavior via T3 peer task climate (0.013, 0.035) but not T3 need
satisfaction (−0.010, 0.008); (2) T4 academic success via T3 need sa-
tisfaction (0.005, 0.031) but not T3 peer task climate (−0.005, 0.018);
and (3) T4 antisocial behavior via T3 peer ego climate (0.002, 0.010)
but not T3 need frustration (−0.012, 0.001).
4. Discussion
This study builds upon and extends a series of studies testing the
capacity of a teacher-focused autonomy-supportive intervention pro-
gram (ASIP) to help teachers learn how to support their students'
classroom motivation and adaptive functioning (Cheon et al., 2012,
2016a, b; Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Barch, & Jeon, 2004). In the present
investigation, teachers who participated in the ASIP were not only able
to promote their students’ in-class need satisfaction and academic
success, they were further able to nurture a peer-to-peer classroom
climate that was perceived by students as increasingly more task-in-
volving and increasing less ego-involving. This latter finding is unique
to both the SDT literature and to empirical tests of ASIP benefits.
The ASIP-enabled more task-involving and less ego-involving peer
climate had two reliable and rather strong effects. The first was to boost
students' prosocial behavior and to diminish their antisocial behavior
(see upper panels in Fig. 4). As shown in Fig. 5, these effects were re-
liable in that they occurred at both T3 and T4, and they were potent in
that they occurred even after statistically controlling for the T2 and T3
changes in need satisfaction on T3 (βs = 0.31) and T4 (βs = 0.17)
prosocial behavior and for the T2 and T3 changes in need frustration on
T3 (βs = 0.24) and T4 (βs = 0.12) antisocial behavior. The second was
that the increased T2 peer task-involving climate boosted T3 need sa-
tisfaction (β = 0.18) while the decreased T2 peer ego-involving climate
diminished T3 need frustration (β = 0.15). This means that the au-
tonomy-supportive teachers in the present study enjoyed two pathways
to contribute constructively to their students’ need states—one direct
way by being more autonomy-supportive and less controlling and one
indirect way by creating the relationship conditions that enable a
greater peer task-involving climate and a lesser peer ego-involving
climate to emerge in the classroom.
4.1. Peer task-involving classroom climate
Little research exists to explain how a supportive classroom climate
develops and how such a classroom climate, once developed, advances
students' personal, social, and educational benefits (Smith, 2003). One
previous study did identify perceived autonomy support from one's

Table 4
Mediation analyses to test the 12 indirect effects of ASIP on the T3 and T4 outcomes.
Direct Effects Indirect Effects Mediation Tests:

T3 Outcome Variable Estimate SE t p-value T2 Mediators Estimate SE t p-value 95% CI 95% CI

Lower Limit Upper Limit

ASIP → T3 Prosocial Behavior .087 .008 11.19 .001 T2 Need Satisfaction .109 .035 3.07 .002 .008 .034
T2 Peer Task Climate .326 .044 7.47 .001 .048 .086
ASIP → T3 Academic Success .085 .008 10.33 .001 T2 Need Satisfaction .277 .041 6.75 .002 .036 .070
T2 Peer Task Climate .161 .039 4.10 .001 .016 .046
ASIP → T3 Antisocial Behavior .017 .004 4.14 .001 T2 Need Frustration -.003 .022 0.18 .907 -.005 .004
T2 Peer Ego Climate .239 .030 8.01 .001 .011 .026

Direct Effects Indirect Effects

T4 Outcome Variable Estimate SE t p-value T2 Mediator Estimate SE t p-value 95% CI 95% CI

Lower Limit Upper Limit

ASIP → T4 Prosocial Behavior .111 .009 12.51 .001 T3 Need Satisfaction -.008 .037 0.20 .839 -.010 .008
T3 Peer Task Climate .170 .042 4.03 .001 .048 .086
ASIP → T4 Academic Success .106 .009 11.35 .001 T3 Need Satisfaction .140 .050 2.78 .005 .005 .031
T3 Peer Task Climate .047 .043 1.08 .279 -.005 .018
ASIP → T4 Antisocial Behavior .017 .005 3.68 .001 T3 Need Frustration -.044 .024 1.83 .067 -.012 .001
T3 Peer Ego Climate .115 .033 3.54 .001 .002 .010

12
S.H. Cheon, et al.
coach as an antecedent to a more task-involving peer-to-peer climate
(Joesaar et al., 2012). Our investigation confirmed Joesaar et al.‘s
pioneering finding, and it extended it by showing that the facilitating
effect of autonomy support on the quality of the peer-to-peer climate
was a causal one.
Autonomy support from a leader (i.e., coach, teacher) acts as a so-
cial-contextual precursor to the establishment of a supportive (high
task-involving, low ego-involving) peer-to-peer climate. This occurs, we
believe, because autonomy-supportive teaching offers students an in-
terpersonal tone of understanding and acceptance (see Fig. 1) that is not
only need-supportive but is prosocial as well (e.g., “I am here to help
you.“). Autonomy-supportive teachers use this tone of understanding
during behavioral change suggestions (e.g., “Is making friends im-
portant to you?“) and during conflict situations (e.g., “using respectful
language can be useful because …“). When a teacher shows under-
standing and values students' perspective and input, then the teacher
acts as a role model to show students ways to support each other and to
avoid interpersonal rivalry and conflict. What is most notable about the
findings in the present study was the strong interdependency or cov-
ariation among autonomy support, need satisfaction, peer task-invol-
ving climate, and prosocial behavior on the one hand as well as the
strong interdependency among teacher control, need frustration, peer
ego-involving climate, and antisocial behavior on the other hand. In the
future, it would be desirable to extend these findings after developing
and validating new measures of peer-provided autonomy support (in
addition to peer task-involving climate) and after developing and va-
lidating new measures of peer-provided interpersonal control (in ad-
dition to peer ego-involving climate). Among other benefits, such
measures would enable new and informative comparisons of the re-
lative effects of teacher vs. peer autonomy support (and control) on
students’ prosocial and antisocial behavior.
Peer task-involving climate did not explain independent (i.e., ad-
ditive) variance in students’ greater academic success (Fig. 5). Thus, the
conclusion that emerged from the present findings was rather clear—-
namely, that gains in peer task-involving climate led to longitudinal
gains in prosocial behavior but not necessarily to greater academic
success, while gains in need satisfaction led to longitudinal gains in
academic success but not necessarily to greater prosocial behavior.
Not all hypothesized effects were significant. The need satisfaction
and prosocial behavior measures were strongly positively correlated, as
were the need frustration and antisocial behavior measures (see
Table 3). But when both need satisfaction and peer task climate were
used together to predict prosocial behavior, peer task climate was a
constant predictor (significant at both T3 and T4) while need satisfac-
tion was an inconsistent predictor (significant at T3, non-significant at
T4). Similarly, when both need frustration and peer ego climate were
used together to predict antisocial behavior, peer ego climate was a
consistent predictor (significant at both T3 and T4) while need frus-
tration was not (non-significant predictor at both T3 and T4). These
results contrast with Cheon et al. (2018) who found rather strong
predictive relations for need satisfaction on prosocial behavior and for
need frustration on antisocial behavior. Evidently, greater autonomy-
supportive teaching produces two correlated effects (not just the one
effect studied by Cheon et al., 2018)—namely, greater need satisfaction
and greater peer task-involving climate, and it is the latter peer climate
effect that more catalyzes students' subsequent prosocial behavior. Si-
milarly, lesser teacher control produces two correlated effects—namely,
diminished need frustration and lesser peer ego-involving climate, and
it is again the latter peer climate effect that more diminishes students’
subsequent antisocial behavior.
4.2. Limitations, future research, and conclusion
Our conclusions are limited by one statistical and three methodo-
logical decisions. As to the statistical limitation, small but significant
baseline (T1) mean differences emerged for 4 of the 10 dependent
13
Learning and Instruction 64 (2019) 101223
measures. These baseline differences are important to the interpretation
of the four associated condition × time interaction effects because, in
each case, students in the experimental condition had a bit more room
for improvement in their T2, T3, and T4 scores than did students in the
control condition. The first methodological limitation was that all de-
pendent measures included in the hypothesized model were assessed
using only students' self-reported data. Our study could be made
stronger with the addition of objective ratings of peer climate and
students’ prosocial-antisocial behavior. The second methodological
limitation was that teachers randomly assigned into the no-intervention
control group did not participate in a structurally equivalent active
intervention experience. Our study could be made more methodologi-
cally rigorous by having teachers in the control group complete an
active 3-part intervention experience (that was unrelated to motivating
style). The third methodological limitation was that we did not include
a baseline score for rater-observed autonomy-supportive and control-
ling teaching. The future inclusion of such baseline observations could
help overcome over-reliance on student-reported measures (i.e., a
limitation which may cause problems with shared method variance)
and confirm that teachers in the intervention condition did objectively
change their in-class instructional behaviors.
Greater autonomy-supportive teaching nurtured a prosocial-
boosting peer climate, while lesser controlling teaching nurtured an
antisocial-diminishing peer climate. We suspect that future research
may find that these same teacher-enabled changes in the peer climate
may affect additional classroom processes. For instance, changes in the
peer climate may have important implications for students' motivation
to learn (as observed in the present study's effects on T3 need sa-
tisfaction and T3 need frustration), and they may also have important
implications for teachers' well-being and motivation to teach
(Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Cuevas-Campos, & Lonsdale, 2014). The
finding that teacher participation in an ASIP had a constructive effect
on the peer-to-peer classroom climate seems to opens up a promising
new area of research as to how teachers might additionally promote
students' adaptive functioning and outcomes.
In conclusion, two new findings emerged. First, autonomy-suppor-
tive teaching was a precursor to the establishment of a supportive peer-
to-peer classroom climate (i.e., more task-involving, less ego-invol-
ving). Second, once this more supportive and less conflictual peer cli-
mate emerged, it enabled greater prosocial and lesser antisocial beha-
vior.
Declarations of conflict of interests
None.
References
Adams, J. W., Snowling, M. J., Hennessy, S. M., & Kind, P. (1999). Problems of behavior,
reading and arithmetic: Assessments of comorbidity using the Strengths and
Difficulties Questionnaire. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 69, 571–585.
Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., & Haerens, L. (2019). Correlates of students' inter-
nalization and defiance of classroom rules: A self-determination theory perspective.
British Journal of Educational Psychology, 89, 22–40.
Ames, C. (1992). Achievement goals and classroom motivational climate. In J. Meece, &
D. Schunk (Eds.). Students' perceptions in the classroom (pp. 327–348). Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum.
Bartholomew, K., Ntoumanis, N., Cuevas-Campos, R., & Lonsdale, C. (2014). Job pressure
and ill-health in physical education teachers: The mediating role of psychological
need thwarting. Teaching and Teacher Education, 37, 101–107.
Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R. M., Bosch, J. A., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C.
(2011a). Self-determination theory and diminished functioning: The role of inter-
personal control and psychological need thwarting. Personality and Social Psychology,
37, 1459–1473.
Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R. M., & Thøgersen-Ntoumanis, C. (2011b).
Psychological need thwarting in the sport context: Assessing the darker side of ath-
letic experience. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 75–102.
Bergin, C. (2018). Designing a prosocial classroom: Fostering collaboration in students from
pre-K-12 with the curriculum you already use. New York: W. W. Norton.
Birch, S. H., & Ladd, G. W. (1998). Children's interpersonal behaviors and the teacher–-
child relationship. Developmental Psychology, 34, 934–946.
S.H. Cheon, et al.
Caldarella, P., & Merrell, K. W. (1997). Common dimensions of social skills of children
and adolescents: A taxonomy of positive behaviors. School Psychology Review, 26,
264–278.
Caprara, G., Barbaranelli, C., Pastorelli, C., Bandura, A., & Zimbardo, P. (2000). Prosocial
foundations of children's academic achievement. Psychological Science, 11, 302–306.
Cheon, S. H., Hwang, S. H., Lee, C., Kim, S. J., Lee, J. W., & Song, Y. G. (2016a).
Development and validation of the Korean version of prosocial and antisocial beha-
vior in sport scale. The Korean Journal of Measurement & Evaluation in Physical
Education and Sport Science, 18, 51–62.
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Moon, I. S. (2012). Experimentally-based, longitudinally de-
signed, teacher-focused intervention to help physical education teachers be more
autonomy supportive toward their students. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34,
365–396.
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Ntoumanis, N. (2018). A needs-supportive intervention to help
PE teachers enhance students' prosocial behavior and diminish antisocial behavior.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 35, 74–88.
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Song, Y.-G. (2016b). A teacher-focused intervention to decrease
PE students' amotivation by increasing need satisfaction and decreasing need frus-
tration. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 38, 217–235.
Cheon, S. H., & Song, Y. G. (2011). Korean version of peer motivational climate in youth
sport: Development and validity. Korean Journal of Sport Psychology, 22(1), 243–260.
Conroy, D. E., & Coatsworth, J. D. (2007). Coaching behaviours associated with changes
in fear of failure: Changes in self-talk and need satisfaction as potential mechanisms.
Journal of Personality, 75, 383–419.
Delrue, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Mouratidis, A., Gevaert, K., Vande Broek, G., & Haerens, L.
(2017). A game-to-game investigation of the relation between need-supportive and
need-thwartive coaching and moral behavior in soccer. Psychology of Sport and
Exercise, 31, 1–10.
Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011).
The impact of enhancing students' social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of
school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405–432.
Feingold, A. (2009). Effect sizes for growth-modeling analysis for controlled clinical trials
in the same metric as for classical analysis. Psychological Methods, 14, 43–53.
Froiland, J. M., & Worrell, F. C. (2017). Parental autonomy support, community feeling
and student expectations as contributors to later achievement among adolescents.
Educational Psychology, 37, 261–271.
Greener, S., & Crick, N. R. (1999). Normative beliefs about prosocial behavior in middle
childhood: What does it mean to be nice? Social Development, 8, 349–363.
Gregory, A., & Ripski, M. B. (2008). Adolescent trust in teachers: Implications for beha-
vior in the high school classroom. School Psychology Review, 37, 337–353.
Gunnell, K., Crocker, P. R. E., Wilson, P. M., Mack, D. E., & Zumbo, B. D. (2013).
Psychological need satisfaction and thwarting: A test of basic psychological needs
theory in physical activity contexts. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 599–607.
Haerens, L., Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Van Petegem, S. (2015). Do
perceived autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching relate to physical education
students' motivational experiences through unique pathways? Distinguishing be-
tween the bright and dark side of motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16,
26–36.
Hein, V., Koka, A., & Hagger, M. S. (2015). Relationships between perceived teachers'
controlling behavior, psychological need thwarting, anger, and bullying behavior in
high-school students. Journal of Adolescence, 42, 103–114.
Hendrickx, M. M. H. G., Mainhard, T., Oudman, S., Boor-Klip, H. J., & Brekelmans, M.
(2017). Teacher behavior and peer liking and disliking: The teacher as a social re-
ferent for peer status. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, 546–558.
Hodge, K., & Gucciardi, D. F. (2015). Antisocial and prosocial behavior in sport: The role
of motivational climate, basic psychological needs, and moral disengagement. Journal
of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 37, 257–273.
Hodge, K., & Lonsdale, C. (2011). Prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport: The role of
coaching style, autonomous vs. controlled motivation, and moral disengagement.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 527–547.
Hughes, J. N., & Kwok, O.-M. (2006). Classroom engagement mediates the effect of
teacher, student support on elementary students' peer acceptance: A prospective
analysis. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 465–480.
Jang, H., Kim, E. J., & Reeve, J. (2012). Longitudinal test of self-determination theory's
motivation mediation model in a naturally-occurring classroom context. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 104, 1175–1188.
Jang, H., Kim, E.-J., & Reeve, J. (2016). Why students become more engaged or more
disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model.
Learning and Instruction, 43, 27–38.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., & Kim, A. (2009). Can self-determination theory explain
what underlies the productive, satisfying learning experiences of collectivistically-
oriented South Korean adolescents? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 644–661.
Jia, Y., Way, N., Ling, G., Yoskihawa, H., Chen, X., Hughes, D., et al. (2009). The influence
of student perceptions of school climate on socioemotional and academic adjustment:
A comparison of Chinese and American adolescents. Child Development, 80,
14
Learning and Instruction 64 (2019) 101223
1514–1530.
Joesaar, H., Hein, V., & Hagger, M. S. (2012). Youth athletes' perception of autonomy
support from the coach, peer motivational climate and intrinsic motivation in sport
setting: One-year effects. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 13, 257–262.
Joreskog, K. G., & Sorbom, D. (2015). LISREL 9.20 for Windows [computer software].
Skokie, IL: Scientific Software International.
Kavussanu, M., & Boardley, I. (2009). The prosocial and antisocial behavior in sport scale.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 31, 97–117.
Kline, R. B. (2011). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (3rd ed.). New
York: Guilford Press.
Krull, J. L., & MacKinnon, D. P. (2001). Multilevel modeling of individual and group level
mediated effects. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 36, 249–277.
McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1989). Psychometric properties of the in-
trinsic motivation inventory in a competitive sport setting: A confirmatory factor
analysis. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 60, 48–58.
Miles, S., & Stipek, D. (2006). Contemporaneous and longitudinal associations between
social behavior and literacy achievement in a sample of low-income elementary
school children. Child Development, 77, 103–117.
Miller, P. A., & Eisenberg, N. (1988). The relation of empathy to aggressive and ex-
ternalizing/antisocial behavior. Psychological Bulletin, 103, 324–344.
Ng, J. Y. Y., Lonsdale, C., & Hodge, K. (2011). The basic needs satisfaction in sport scale
(BNSSS): Instrument development and initial validity evidence. Psychology of Sport
and Exercise, 12, 257–264.
Ntoumanis, N., & Standage, M. (2009). Morality in sport: A self-determination theory
perspective. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 21, 365–380.
Ntoumanis, N., & Vazou, S. (2005). Peer motivational climate in youth sport:
Measurement development and validation. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 27,
432–455.
Ntoumanis, N., Vazou, S., & Duda, J. (2007). Peer-created motivational climate. In S.
Jowett, & D. Lavallee (Eds.). Social psychology in sport (pp. 145–156). Champaign, IL:
Human Kinetics.
Preacher, K. J., & Selig, J. P. (2012). Advantages of Monte Carlo confidence intervals for
indirect effects. Communication Methods and Measures, 6, 77–98.
Raudenbush, S. W., Bryk, A. S., Cheong, Y. F., Congdon, R. T., Jr., & du Toit, M. (2011).
HLM 7: Hierarchical linear and nonlinear modeling [computer software]. Lincolnwood,
IL: Scientific Software International, Inc.
Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students' en-
gagement by increasing teachers' autonomy support. Motivation and Emotion, 28,
147–169.
Roth, G., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Bibi, U. (2010). Prevention of school bullying: The im-
portant role of autonomy-supportive teaching and internalization of pro-social va-
lues. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 654–666.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in
motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Press.
Selig, J. P., & Preacher, K. J. (2008). Monte Carlo method for assessing mediation: An
interactive tool for creating confidence intervals for indirect effects. [Computer
software]. Available from: http://quantpsy.org/.
Smith, A. L. (2003). Peer relationships in physical activity contexts: A road less traveled in
youth sport and exercise psychology research. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 4,
25–39.
Solomon, D., Watson, M. S., Delucchi, K. L., Schaps, E., & Battistich, V. (1988). Enhancing
children's prosocial behavior in the classroom. American Educational Research Journal,
25(4), 527–554.
Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2006). Students' motivational processes and
their relationship to teacher ratings in school physical education: A self-determina-
tion theory approach. Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 77, 100–110.
Stukas, A. A., Snyder, M., & Clary, E. G. (1999). The effects of “mandatory volunteerism”
on intentions to volunteer. Psychological Science, 10, 59–64.
Van Petegem, S., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Beyers, W. (2015). Rebels with a
cause? Adolescent defiance from the perspective of reactance theory and self-de-
termination theory. Child Development, 86, 903–918.
Vazou, S., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. D. (2005). Peer motivational climate in youth sport:
A qualitative inquiry. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 6, 497–516.
Vazou, S., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. L. (2006). Predicting young athletes' motivational
indices as a function of their perceptions of the coach- and peer-created climate.
Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 7, 215–233.
Wang, Z., Bergin, C., & Bergin, D. E. (2014). Measuring engagement in fourth to twelfth
grade classrooms: The Classroom Engagement Inventory. School Psychology Quarterly,
29, 517–535.
Watkins, D. E., & Wentzel, K. R. (2008). Training boys with ADHD to work collabora-
tively: Social and learning outcomes. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 33,
625–646.
Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical
students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70, 767–779.