Psychology of Sport & Exercise 62 (2022) 102248

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Psychology of Sport & Exercise

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

Review

Self-determination theory based instructional interventions and

motivational regulations in organized physical activity: A systematic review
and multivariate meta-analysis
Mika Manninen a, *, Rod Dishman b, Yongju Hwang b, Eric Magrum c, Yangyang Deng b,
Sami Yli-Piipari b
a
Dublin City University, School of Sport and Human Performance, Dublin, Ireland
b
University of Georgia, Department of Kinesiology, Athens, GA, USA
c
Stockton University, School of Health Sciences, Galloway, NJ, USA

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

Keywords: This study aimed to provide a quantitative synthesis of the effect of Self-determination theory (SDT) based
Motivation instructional interventions on the motivational regulations of participants in organized physical activity. We
Teaching conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on experimental studies conducted before December 2021. The
Coaching
search using the online databases PsychINFO, PsychARTICLES, ERIC, SportDISCUS, and ProQuest Dissertations
Physical education
Self-determination theory
and Theses, and Google Scholar and other supplementary search strategies yielded 7774 articles, with 38 articles
(142 effects and 12,457 participants) meeting the inclusion criteria. The articles were analyzed using a meta-
analytic multivariate model. The study showed that SDT-based instruction had a positive heterogeneous small
effect on intrinsic motivation (g = 0.29; CI 95% [0.17, 0.41]) and identified regulation (g = 0.23; CI 95% [0.10,
0.35]) and a negative heterogeneous, small effect on external regulation (g = − 0.16; CI 95% [-0.31, − 0.00]) and
amotivation (g = − 0.14; CI 95% [-0.28, − 0.01]). SDT-based instruction did not have an effect on integrated
regulation (g = 0.08; CI 95% [-0.11, 0.28]) nor introjected regulation (g = 0.03; CI 95% [-0.7, 0.13]). Univariate
categorical moderator analyses highlighted multiple variables that impacted the size of the effects on the out­
comes, including type of intervention and control group, length of study, age of participants, and study quality.
Findings from the moderator analyses challenge the practical implications of SDT-based instructional in­
terventions in improving motivation in organized physical activity. High-quality experimental trials using careful
and precise conceptualizations of need-supportive behaviors and strategies would benefit the discipline.

Motivation, generally speaking, impacts the direction, strength, and
persistence of human behavior (Pintrich, 2003). As it relates to physical
activity, motivation has been shown to predict performance (Cerasoli,
Nicklin, & Ford, 2014; Charbonneau, Barling, & Kelloway, 2001),
physical activity behavior (Howard, Bureau, Guay, Chong, & Ryan,
2021; Owen, Smith, Lubans, Ng, & Lonsdale, 2014; Standage, Gillison,
Ntoumanis, & Treasure, 2012; Teixeira, Carraça, Markland, Silva, &
Ryan, 2012), and both positive and negative affective outcomes (Cox,
Smith, & Williams, 2008; Vasconcellos et al., 2019). Given the signifi­
cance of motivation, several theory-based interventions have been
developed in order to influence motivation. However, in physical ac­
tivity contexts, the aggregated causal effects of some of these widely
adopted interventions have not been investigated.
1. Self-determination theory
In psychology, the construct of motivation can be viewed from
several perspectives (see Pintrich, 2003 for a review). This study utilized
the widely used self-determination theory (SDT) framework (Deci &
Ryan, 1985, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017) to determine the effect of theory
based interventions on participants’ motivation in organized physical
activity. SDT is one of the most prevalent contemporary social-cognitive
motivational theories in the area of physical activity, sport, and exercise.
SDT theorizes how social contexts may support or thwart human func­
tioning based on the social environments’ ability to satisfy participants
basic psychological needs. Specifically, SDT suggests that humans have
three basic psychological needs, namely autonomy (i.e., engaging in a

* Corresponding author. Dublin City University, School of Health and Human Performance, Dublin 9, Ireland.
E-mail address: mika.manninen@dcu.ie (M. Manninen).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2022.102248
Received 11 February 2022; Received in revised form 26 May 2022; Accepted 22 June 2022
Available online 2 July 2022
1469-0292/© 2022 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an open access article under the CC BY license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
M. Manninen et al.
behavior with a full sense of volition), competence (i.e., the experience
of mastery and efficacy), and relatedness (i.e., the need to feel connected
to other people in a meaningful way) (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000). Ac­
cording to the theory, these basic needs are considered essential nutri­
ents for individuals’ adjustment, integrity, and growth (Ryan, 1995;
Vansteenkiste, Ryan, & Soenens, 2020). Further, the theory postulates
that need-supportive social environments improve human’s internal
motivational sources and well-being. In juxtaposition, need-depriving
(disregard for the needs) and need-thwarting (active undermining of
the needs) social environments impact human’s external motivational
sources with maladaptive consequences such as passivity and ill-being
(Deci & Ryan, 1985; Vansteenkiste et al., 2020). Thus, the social envi­
ronments described above occupy opposite ends of a continuum that set
the stage for human motivation.
SDT suggests the extent of need-support, -deprivation, and -thwart­
ing impact the quality of motivation (i.e., the relative quantity of
different behavioral regulations) (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci,
2017). SDT distinguishes the quality of motivation to six types that can
be placed on a continuum ranging from low to high self-determination
(Ryan & Deci, 2017). This theoretical postulation is, apart from a few
exceptions, supported by correlational meta-analytic findings on the
continuum structure (Howard, Gagné, Morin, & Forest, 2017). The
continuum has two polar ends representing intrinsic motivation on one
end and amotivation on the other. The intermediate signposts on the
continuum represent the other four types of motivation, all of which will
be explained hereafter.
According to SDT, the most self-determined type of motivation is
intrinsic and is characterized by participating in behaviors due to mo­
tivations relating to the inherent satisfaction and interest in the behavior
(Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2017). The next four motivation types
on the continuum are forms of extrinsic motivation. The most
self-determined type of extrinsic motivation is integrated regulation,
which represents reasons for behaviors which are an essential part of a
person’s identity. Identified regulation, the third most self-determined
type of motivation reflects personally important and valued causes of
participating in activities (e.g., health). Following these autonomous
types of motivation in the continuum are introjected and external reg­
ulations, which are considered to be controlling in nature. Introjected
regulation characterizes behavior that is motivated by the desire to seek
acceptance from others while external regulation illustrates being
motivated by behavior that is performed to comply with externally
administered reward/punishment contingencies. Amotivation is placed
last and on the opposite side of the continuum from intrinsic motivation
as it describes a state that is characterized by a total lack of motivation
and intention.
Central to the SDT is the concept of internalization. Internalization
signifies the process in which less self-determined behavioral regula­
tions become more self-determined. According to the theory, this
development can be supported by the satisfaction of the basic psycho­
logical needs (Ryan & Connell, 1989). In general, the theory posits that
the tendency for internalization is natural for humans and based on the
process of assimilating external values into personal values (Ryan,
1993). However, based on the social environment and satisfaction of the
basic needs, internalization can lead to different degrees of
self-determination (i.e., different quality of motivation) (Deci & Ryan,
2000; Ryan, 1993) and further to different behavioral, cognitive, and
affective consequences (Vallerand, 1997; 2000).
1.1. SDT-based interventions in organized physical activity
In organized social environments (e.g., physical education; PE), a
social agent (e.g., coach, teacher, or instructor) is able to intentionally
influence the social environment. And as a result, the instructor may
support (or influence) participants need satisfaction as well as the
internalization process through various instructional and communica­
tional techniques. The link between these instructional behaviors and
2
Psychology of Sport & Exercise 62 (2022) 102248
participant motivation has been explored most extensively in education
(e.g., Deci, Spiegel, Ryan, Koestner, & Kauffman, 1982; Skinner & Bel­
mont, 1993).
To date, SDT-based instructional interventions have been conducted
from multiple perspectives. A prominent line of this research has
explicitly focused on autonomy-supportive teaching and instruction
highlighting, for example, the importance of teachers providing choice
and meaningful rationales for students (e.g., Reeve & Jang, 2006). While
most of the SDT-based interventions have reported to use
autonomy-supportive techniques, in reality, these interventions have
possibly incorporated strategies that might influence also relatedness
and competence (e.g., Cheon, Reeve, & Moon, 2012). For example, a
commonly used instructional strategy in autonomy-supportive in­
terventions is acknowledging and accepting students’ negative affect,
which probably affects also students’ relatedness satisfaction. Further,
some of these studies mention nurturing inner motivational resources as
an autonomy-supportive instructional strategy, which in itself is some­
times explained to include a wide range of specific instructional stra­
tegies such as offering students optimal challenges or asking students
curiosity-inducing questions (Cheon & Reeve, 2015).
Contrasting the broader autonomy-supportive interventions, some
SDT-based interventions have focused on influencing participants’
satisfaction for only one need, such as relatedness by such techniques as
friendly communication and support (Sparks, Lonsdale, Dimmock, &
Jackson, 2017). In the most precise and focused interventions, only one
specific instructional element, such as provision of positive feedback
(“Well done, great shot!”), is manipulated (e.g., Fransen, Boen, Van­
steenkiste, Mertens, & Vande Broek, 2017). Finally, a group of studies
have examined the social agents’ support explicitly for all three needs
focusing on the broad spectrum of techniques such as offering
constructive and informational feedback (competence-support or
structure) and expressing interest in the students (relatedness-support or
involvement) along with autonomy-support (see Stroet, Opdenakker, &
Minnaer, 2013 for review). Adding to the variability of the SDT-based
interventions, the comparison/control conditions also vary between
SDT-based intervention studies. Broadly speaking, the study participants
in the comparison conditions follow either as usual/traditional
instructional practices (e.g., Ulstad, Halvari, Sørebø, & Deci, 2018) or
instruction that systematically reduces need support (e.g, Leptokaridou,
Vlachopoulos, & Papaioannou, 2016).
Recognizing the differences in operationalizing SDT-based in­
terventions, recent efforts have been taken to organize all known need-
supportive techniques into comprehensive and systematic taxonomies
based on their most apparent target needs (Gillison, Rouse, Standage,
Sebire, & Ryan, 2018; Teixeira et al., 2019). However, there are some
limitations with these classifications as they are not strictly based on
experimental quantitative evidence about the techniques’ effect on
participants’ need satisfaction but rather on qualitative assessments of
researchers in the field.
Besides differences in utilizing different need-supportive strategies
and comparison conditions, SDT-based interventions differ in terms of
the type of intervention delivery. In one approach, teachers, instructors,
or coaches are trained by a research team on SDT, its application, and
possible ways to provide need-support without manipulating the
instructional dynamics directly (e.g., Cheon et al., 2012; Langan, Toner,
Blake, & Lonsdale, 2015; Ntoumanis, Thøgersen-Ntoumani, Quested, &
Hancox, 2017). Typically, this type of training consists of three work­
shop sessions with variable durations measured in hours (e.g., Cheon,
Reeve, & Song, 2016; Cheon & Reeve, 2015). In another intervention
approach, the intervention interaction between the social agent and the
participants is more controlled and predetermined (even scripted), and
the focus is not on the professional development of the social agents (e.
g., Fransen, Boen, Vansteenkiste, Mertens, & Vande Broek, 2018).
Overall, the relationship between adolescents’ perceptions of need-
supportive teaching and motivation has been shown to be positive by
narratively synthesizing the evidence of 71 education studies (Stroet,
M. Manninen et al.
Opdenakker, & Minnaert, 2013). In PE, interventions aiming to improve
teachers’ autonomy-support have also shown to positively influence
students’ autonomous motivation (Cheon et al., 2012; Fin,
Moreno-Murcia, León, Baretta, & Júnior, 2019). In exercise settings, the
data indicates trainer/coach interventions are effective in improving
exercise instructors’ need-supportive instructional behaviors. However,
in terms of adult participants’ motivation, ceiling and floor effects have
been reported to be a factor (Ntoumanis, Thøgersen-Ntoumani, Quested,
& Hancox, 2017). Lastly, youth (adolescent) coaches’ positive feedback
during a single practice has been shown to increase basketball players’
intrinsic motivation (Fransen et al., 2018).
1.2. Associations of motivational regulations in organized physical
activity
The meta-analytic findings by Vasconcellos et al. (2019) show that
intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, and introjected regulation
have a positive relationship with students’ desirable affective (e.g.,
persistence), behavioral (e.g., physical activity outside and during PE
lessons), and cognitive outcomes in PE (e.g., concentration). In contrast,
external regulation and amotivation have shown to be negatively asso­
ciated with these outcomes and positively linked to maladaptive out­
comes (e.g., lack of engagement) (Aelterman et al., 2012; Vasconcellos
et al., 2019). Together the data supports a conceptual continuum that
highlights motivations that are more or less self-determined and are
anchored at the ends by amotivation and intrinsic motivation. Gener­
ally, as students score themselves closer to intrinsically motivated
desirable outcomes persist. Conversely, scores closer in proximity to
amotivation along the scale demonstrate less desirable outcomes.
In sport, autonomous forms of motivation have shown to be associ­
ated with positive affective outcomes, such as effort (Pope & Wilson,
2012), increased enjoyment (Rottensteiner, Happonen, & Konttinen,
2015), and reduced drop-out intentions (Gillet, Berjot, Vallerand, &
Amoura, 2012). Similarly, the data demonstrates students’ intrinsic
motivation and identified regulation to be positively linked to greater
training participation (Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, & Briere, 2001). On
the contrary, findings from the same study suggest that students amo­
tivation and external regulation correlate with weak sport participation
adherence.
Similarly, meta-analytic findings indicate that the intention to ex­
ercise is positively associated with introjected and identified regulation
as well as intrinsic motivation (Howard et al., 2021). Moreover,
although some mixed correlational findings have been reported (see
McDonough & Crocker, 2007; Werman-Josefsson, Lindwall, & Ivarsson,
2015), intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, and identified regu­
lation have usually been linked to increased physical activity (Daley &
Duda, 2006; Dishman, Mciver, Dowda, & Pate, 2018; Duncan, Hall,
Wilson, & Jenny, 2010; Owen et al., 2014; Wilson, Rodgers, Fraser, &
Murray, 2004). In contrast, meta-analytic findings have shown
controlled motivation and amotivation to be negatively associated with
children’s and adolescents’ physical activity (Howard et al., 2021; Owen
et al., 2014).
In regards to affective outcomes in exercise settings, intrinsic moti­
vation, and identified regulation were found to be related to higher
physical self-esteem among female exercisers (Wilson & Rodgers, 2002).
The same constructs have also shown to be positively linked to physical
self-worth (Thøgersen-Ntoumani & Ntoumanis, 2006), whereas amoti­
vation and external regulation were found to have an inverse relation­
ship with these constructs. Finally, intrinsic motivation, identified
regulation, and introjected regulation have shown to have a positive
reciprocal relationship with the development of exercise identity
(Ntoumanis et al., 2018).
1.3. Prior meta-analyses on need-support and motivation
Although several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been
3
Psychology of Sport & Exercise 62 (2022) 102248
conducted on need-supportive strategies in education and health, to our
knowledge, two meta-analyses have been conducted explicitly targeting
the physical activity domain (Lochbaum & Jean-Noel, 2015; Vascon­
cellos et al., 2019). However, these quantitative syntheses have not
examined causality. Lastly, there are meta-analyses conducted in phys­
ical activity that have examined other relationships, such as correlations
between the motivational regulations, in the SDT-framework (e.g.,
Chatzisarantis, Hagger, Biddle, Smith, & Wang, 2003).
The meta-analysis of Lochbaum and Jean-Noel (2015; Nstudies = 39;
Nparticipants = 23,554), aggregated correlational data on
autonomy-supportive teaching in PE and detected large and significant
positive correlations between perceived autonomy support and intrinsic
motivation (r = 0.54) and identified regulation (r = 0.50) and small
sized correlations between perceived autonomy support and introjected
regulation (r = 0.20), external regulation (r = − 0.15), and amotivation
(r = − 0.19). Further, the correlational meta-analysis in the PE context
by Vasconcellos et al. (2019; Nstudies = 252; Nparticipants = na) determined
that teachers’ relative need-support correlated positively with students’
intrinsic motivation (r = 0.46), identified regulation (r = 0.48) and
introjected regulation (r = 0.19) and negatively with students’ external
regulation (r = − 0.07) and amotivation (r = − 0.24).
In general education, systematic reviews have supported the central
assumptions of the SDT and have corroborated the benefits of need-
supportive instruction on student motivation (Lazowski & Hulleman,
2016; Stroet et al., 2013). Specifically, a narrative review by Stroet et al.
(2013; Nstudies = 71; Nparticipants = na) on the effects of need-supportive
teaching on adolescents’ motivation concluded on a positive relation­
ship between perceptions of need-supportive teaching and students’
motivation measured by students’ self-reports. Lazowski and Hulleman
(2016; Nstudies = 74 [11 SDT-centered interventions]; Nparticipants = 38,
377 in total), in turn, showed SDT-based motivational interventions to
improve various student outcomes (self-report measures, performance,
and behavioral indicators) by a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.70).
In the health care context (excluding PE and sport studies), corre­
lational meta-analytic findings by Ng et al. (2012; Nstudies = 188; Nparti­
cipants = na) demonstrated a positive link between autonomy-supportive
health care climate and intrinsic motivation (r = 0.42) and identified
regulation (r = 0.36). In contrast, the associations between
autonomy-supportive health care climate and introjected regulation (r =
0.09) and external regulation (r = − 0.02) were minuscule and, in
amotivation, negative (r = − 0.27). Second, the meta-analytic path
analysis of SDT constructs in health behavior by Hagger and Chatzi­
sarantis (2009; Neffects = 18; Nparticipants = 4036) showed a positive
relationship between perceived autonomy-support and self-determined
motivation (r = .32). In addition, in a recent meta-analysis by Gillison
et al. (2018; Nstudies = 74 [58 effects for autonomous motivation]; Npar­
ticipants = na) examining SDT-centered health intervention studies
showed that SDT-interventions impacted autonomous motivation to­
ward health behavior change on average by 0.41 standard deviations
(Hedge’s g). An additional finding was that out of all the examined
need-supportive strategies (e.g., interpersonal involvement, acknowl­
edging participant’s perspective, and provision of structure), only the
provision of rationale was detected to increase autonomous motivation
(Gillison et al., 2018). Lastly, the meta-analysis by Ntoumanis et al.
(2020; Nstudies = 73; [k = 37, 18, and 14 for autonomous- and controlled
motivation, and amotivation, respectively]; Nparticipants = 30,088 in
total), concluded that SDT-based interventions in the health context
improve autonomous motivation (g = 0.30) measured at the end of the
intervention but have no effect on participants controlled motivation
nor amotivation.
Our review of the current literature exposed several gaps in knowl­
edge that warrant this meta-analytic review. Most importantly, the
meta-analyses by Lochbaum and Jean-Noel (2015) and Vasconcellos
et al. (2019) focus on correlational data preventing conclusions of causal
relationships between need-supportive instruction and motivational
regulations in organized physical activity. Second, although the recent
M. Manninen et al.
meta-analyses based on experimental studies by Gillison et al. (2018)
and Ntoumanis et al. (2020) included physical activity studies, they did
not include physical activity setting moderators in their analyses. More
importantly, the focus of these reviews was more broadly on health
studies and/or in summative scores of motivational regulations as out­
comes. The use of summative scores (e.g., controlled motivation score
consisting of introjected and external regulation) have been criticized in
the light of recent meta-analytic findings, which suggest these scores to
lead to loss of critical information and reduction in predictive validity
(Howard, Gagné, Morin, & Forest, 2017).
Contextually, organized physical activity differs from the general
education and health contexts where most of the quantitative syntheses
are done. For example, physical activity is almost by definition visible
and, as such, more open for other people’s evaluations compared to
classroom activities or one-to-one health counseling sessions. This study
also seeks to explain effect size differences between studies by meta
regression analyses targeting important study and intervention design
features. For example, in addition to the various designs of SDT-based
interventions, the motivational context of mandatory PE lessons dif­
fers quite significantly from sport and exercise settings in which people
take part in their leisure time. Finally, focusing only on experimentally-
oriented research allows for the establishment of causality, whereas
correlational and qualitative approaches are limited in this respect. To
this end, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to find the existing SDT-
based instructional experimental studies and to focus on the effect of
SDT-based instruction on different qualities of participant motivation in
organized physical activity as theorized by SDT (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
Specifically, this study aimed to address two broad research questions:
What is the effect of SDT-based instructional interventions on par­
ticipants’ motivational regulations in organized physical activity?
Are there important study design features that moderate the effect of
the SDT-based instructional interventions on the motivational
regulations?
2. Method
2.1. Literature search
The meta-analysis was not pre-registed but was conducted according
to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and
Meta-analyses) statement guidelines (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, & Alt­
man, 2009). The articles used in this meta-analysis were conducted
before December 2021. The research articles were searched from Psy­
chINFO, PsychARTICLES, ERIC, SportDISCUS, and ProQuest Disserta­
tions and Theses databases as well as Google Scholar. The authors of the
study gathered the articles from these databases using different combi­
nations of the keywords: autonomy, competence, relatedness, need, sup­
port*, structure, involvement, self-determination, motivation, teach*,
coach*, instruct*, strateg*, physical, education, sport, exercise, intervention,
training, workshop, treatment, experiment, comparison. The full search
strings are listed in the supplemental file.
All the found articles were scanned by the title, and the articles that
seemed to fit the inclusion criteria were investigated by reading the
abstract. All duplicate publications were removed. Besides the database
search, the authors reviewed the reference lists of the retrieved articles
and the tables of the found review articles. In the final phase of the
search, unpublished research was searched by contacting individually
the first authors of the articles that were included in the qualitative
analysis. The authors were contacted a maximum of three times with a
one-week time interval between the contact efforts. If the email address
of the author was not working or it was not publicly available, the pri­
vate message function of the Research Gate website was used as the
method of contact.
4
Psychology of Sport & Exercise 62 (2022) 102248
2.2. Study selection
The inclusion criteria were 1) peer-reviewed research publications
from academic journals, unpublished articles, conference presentation,
and dissertations 2) intervention studies (quasi-experimental and RCTs)
using control and intervention groups with pre- and post-measures, 3)
PE, sport, or exercise setting, 4) motivational interventions based on
SDT, 5) at least one motivational regulation (amotivation, external
regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, integrated
regulation, and intrinsic regulation) as outcome measures of the inter­
vention, and 6) conducted before December 2021. Exclusion criteria
were 1) other than teacher, coach, or exercise instructor conducting the
intervention (e.g., peer).
The search with all the different search strategies identified 7774
studies, of which the first, third, fourth, and the last author initially fully
reviewed 185 papers. Out of these papers, only three inclusion/exclu­
sion decisions were initially in conflict between two authors. All the
conflicts were resolved by discussion. In addition, the authors deemed
15 articles eligible if additional information could be attained from the
authors. Lastly, the authors of five already included studies were con­
tacted to seek further information on the unreported scores relating to
motivational regulations (e.g., only composite scores reported). In the
case of two studies with incomplete reporting of standard deviations or
errors and no response from authors, we estimated the standard de­
viations from the most similar other study (Cheon et al., 2012). In total,
38 articles were carried to the quantitative analysis. The complete
flowchart representing the study selection process is provided in
Figure 1.
2.3. Effect size calculation
For all the outcomes we focused primarily on the standardized mean
change differences (Hedge’s g) between the intervention and control
conditions. First, we computed the standardized mean change for the
treatment and control conditions using the pre-test standard deviations
and a bias correction factor (Becker, 1988). Next, we computed the
difference in the standardized mean changes by subtracting the stan­
dardized mean change of the intervention conditions from the stan­
dardized mean change of the control conditions (Morris, 2008). The
corresponding sampling variances were computed by summing up the
sampling variances of the two conditions. Besides Hedge’s g effect sizes,
we computed raw mean change and raw mean change difference effect
sizes (%) using the Percent of Maximum Possible (POMP) scores for an
alternative interpretation of the results (Cohen, Cohen, Aiken, & West,
1999).
The studies that had multiple measurement points, the time point
closest to 10 weeks (the average time for the studies with only two
measurement points), was used as the post-measurement point. In the
studies reporting only a total number of participants, an even split of
participants was assumed to the different conditions (k = 2). An increase
in the behavioral regulations resulted in a positive effect size. Cohen’s
(1988) widely used criteria of small (0.2), medium (0.5), and large (0.8)
were used to assess the size of the effects.
The reliability of all the derived datapoints was assessed with
Cohen’s kappa and intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). The initial
agreement on the continuous data which was used to compute the effect
sizes (means, standard deviations, and participants numbers) was very
high (two-way mixed effect model and “single rater” unit: 0.99 [0.99,
0.99], p < .001, rough percentage agreement = 97.3%). Before the
analyses, a rater agreement was achieved by locating and resolving
dissimilarities.
2.4. Selection and coding of the moderators
An a priori moderator selection based on reason and relevant litera­
ture were conducted to explain the expected variation in the effect sizes
M. Manninen et al.
Figure 1. Flowchart of the study selection.
(Rosenthal & DiMatteo, 2001). A total number of eight moderators were
categorized as setting (PE or exercise/sport), age (under 18 or 18 and
over), intervention scope (only one need supported or two or three needs
supported), intervention type (intervention was delivered by trained
“real life” professionals or intervention was delivered by researchers
through a scripted plan), control condition (as usual or manipulated),
intervention length (i.e., participants exposure to the intervention:
maximum two weeks, six to nine weeks, or more than 10 weeks), and
quality measured by the MERSQI instrument and by an adapted quality
instrument developed for the study (see Supplemental file for more
detailed descriptions).
The agreement of moderator and quality coding between the raters
was initially high (Cohen’s kappa, [2, 450] = 0.83, z = 22.7, p < .001,
95% CI = [0.79, 0.88]; rough percentage agreement = 90%). The large
majority of the initial differences in coding were due to dissimilarities in
determining the scope and the type of intervention. Particularly, the
authors had initial disparities in how many basic needs the intervention
content covered and whether the intervention was indirect via profes­
sional training or executed according to a clearly defined plan (e.g., a
script). The differences in coding were reconciled via a discussion before
the analyses.
5
Psychology of Sport & Exercise 62 (2022) 102248
2.5. Statistical analysis
A multivariate maximum likelihood random effects model (Berkey,
Hoaglin, Antczak-Bouckoms, Mosteller, & Colditz, 1998) was fitted to
the data using R (version 4.0.0) (R Core Team, 2018) and the Metafor
package (Viechtbauer, 2010). The adopted meta-analytic multivariate
approach handles the non-independence of the effect sizes by including
a variance-covariance matrix in the model. The between outcome cor­
relations required for the variance-covariance matrix were derived from
the original studies or from the meta-analysis by Howard, Gagné, Morin,
and Forest (2017). In the model, random effects were added for each
outcome within each study allowing the outcomes to be correlated and
to have different variances. Parameters of tau2 and I2 were used to
examine the between-study heterogeneity of the effects (Higgins,
Thompson, Deeks, & Altman, 2003; Jackson, White, & Riley, 2012).
Further, as the Q statistic for heterogeneity cannot be applied to
multivariate models, a likelihood ratio test examining the effect of tau2
on all the outcomes was used as an indicator of significant between study
heterogeneity. The between study heterogeneity of the effect sizes was
indicated if likelihood ratio test (χ 2) reached a significance level of p <
.05, and the sampling error contributed to the observed variance less
than 75% (Hedges & Olkins, 1985; Lipsey & Wilson, 2001). The I2
M. Manninen et al.
values, which represent the heterogeneity of the studies, were catego­
rized as low (25%), moderate (50%), and high (75%). The precision of
effect sizes were indicated by 95% CIs.
The moderators were used in a linear regression analysis as univar­
iate independent variables to explain the possible heterogeneous effects
of the outcomes. Interactions of the moderators were not tested because
of inadequate numbers of effects for each outcome (Deeks, Higgins, &
Altman, 2011).
An extension of the Egger’s test (Egger, Smith, Schneider, & Minder,
1997) using the standard error of the observed outcomes as a predictor
in a multivariate model and a visual examination of the contour
enhanced funnel plots were used to detect publication bias. The exis­
tence of outlier and influential studies and effects were determined using
Cook’s distances and by analyzing the distribution of studentized re­
siduals (Viechtbauer & Cheung, 2010). The data set and R-code used for
the analyses can be found on the project OSF website: https://osf.
io/k6cqr/.
3. Results
In total, 142 effects from 38 studies were derived for six outcomes:
intrinsic motivation (k = 35), integrated regulation (k = 5), identified
regulation (k = 28), introjected regulation (k = 23), external regulation
(k = 25), and amotivation (k = 26). The total amount of participants was
12,457 (55% females, with two studies not reporting gender distribu­
tion). In the 33 studies with the detailed ages of the participants, the
weighted mean age was 15.4 years. The other five studies provided in­
formation only on the grade level of the participants (e.g., college). The
setting for 27 studies was PE, for five studies sports, and for six studies, a
fitness class. All studies except for two applied a cluster randomization
design with existing groups. Twenty-six of the studies implemented an
as usual (or traditional) control condition, whereas 12 manipulated the
control condition in some way (e.g., systematically limiting choice or
providing minimum need support). The implementation of the in­
terventions was conducted by teachers (k = 24), researchers (k = 2),
instructors (k = 6), coaches (k = 4), and teaching assistants (k = 1). The
interventions used various need-supportive behaviors and strategies,
which were either taught and made known to the intervention con­
ductors via workshops (k = 23), or carried out according to a specific
and systematic plan (k = 15). Twenty of the studies implementing
workshops reported the amount of the workshops held and the amount
of total workshop hours. The amount of workshops ranged from 1 to 5
with an average of 2.9 while the amount of total hours ranged from 3 to
40 with an average of 10.7 h. Seven of the studies reported supporting
one need (competence, autonomy, or relatedness), 15 two needs (au­
tonomy and competence), and 16 all the three psychological needs. The
most frequently used behavioral regulation scales were Perceived Locus
of Causality in PE scale (Goudas, Biddle, & Fox, 1994; PLOC in PE) (k =
16), Behavioral Regulations in Exercise Questionnaire − 2 (Markland &
Tobin, 2004; BREQ-2) (k = 4), and Self-Regulation Questionnaire (Ryan
& Connell, 1989; SRQ) (k = 4). Six of the interventions lasted between
one session and two weeks, 15 between six and nine weeks, and 17 more
than 10 weeks. Twenty of the studies were conducted in Europe, nine in
Asia, four in Australia, three in the U.S., and one in Brazil and Mexico.
The full details of the independent studies are listed in Table 1 and in
supplemental Table 4.
3.1. Effects of need-supportive instruction
The observed outcomes of 35 studies for intrinsic motivation ranged
from − 0.18 to 2.61, with 83% of the effects being positive. Based on the
multivariate model, the standardized mean change difference between
the intervention and control conditions for intrinsic motivation was 0.29
(CI 95% [0.17, 0.41], z = 4.64, p < .001). The standardized mean change
difference differed significantly from zero but was strongly heteroge­
neous (χ 2(1) = 54.97, p < .001, tau2 = 0.103, I2 = 91%).
6
Psychology of Sport & Exercise 62 (2022) 102248
For integrated regulation, the outcomes of five studies ranged from
− 0.27 to 0.16 with 60% of the studies having positive estimates. The
standardized mean change difference based on the multivariate model
was 0.08 (CI 95% [-0.11, 0.28], z = 0.85, p = .276), and hence, statis­
tically not significant. The mean estimate was strongly heterogeneous
(χ 2(1) = 5.46, p = .0195, tau2 = 0.122, I2 = 76.45%).
The observed mean change differences from 28 studies for identified
regulation ranged between − 0.13 and 2.98. Out of the 28 studies, in
71% the estimates were positive. On average, the standardized mean
change difference with the multivariate model was 0.23 (CI 95% [0.10,
0.35]) differing from zero (z = 3.52, p < .001). The Likelihood ratio test
indicated the true standardized mean change differences to be hetero­
geneous (χ 2(1) = 14.27, p < .001, tau2 = 0.111, I2 = 91.9%).
The slight majority of standardized mean change differences for
introjected regulation (23 studies) were negative (57%) with the mean
estimates ranging from − 1.00 to 1.48. The mean estimate was 0.03 (CI
95% [-0.07, 0.13]), and it was not significantly different from zero (z =
0.63, p = .526). The true standardized mean change differences seemed
to be heterogeneous (χ 2(1) = 17.67, p < .001, tau2 = 0.043, I2 =
81.41%).
For external regulation, 56% of the estimates coming from 25 studies
were negative ranging from − 2.40 to 0.33. Based on the multivariate
model, the mean estimate was − 0.16 (CI 95% [-0.31, − 0.00]) and,
hence, significantly different from zero (z = -2.02, p = .044). The true
standardized mean change differences appeared to be heterogeneous (χ 2
(1) = 51.31, p < .001, tau2 = 0.144, I2 = 93.33%).
The estimate for the standardized mean change difference of amo­
tivation was − 0.14 (CI 95% [-0.28, − 0.01]). The individual outcomes of
26 studies ranged between − 3.02 and 0.17 with 73% of the effects were
negative. The mean estimate was significantly different from zero (z =
-2.10, p = .036), but the Likelihood ratio test suggested the true out­
comes to be heterogeneous (χ 2(1) = 27.06, p < .001, tau2 = 0.126, I2 =
92.93%).
The individual effect sizes and their CIs and the standardized mean
change differences according to a meta-analytic multivariate model as
well as independendent two-level random effects models are displayed
in Figures 2-4. Further, standardized mean changes from pre-to post-test
for both conditions, intraclass correlation coefficients (ICC) between the
six outcomes, and the heterogeneity statistics for all the six outcomes are
presented in Table 2. Lastly, for a different interpretation of the results,
Percent of maximum possible (POMP) scores of the six outcomes and
mean the estimates computed with those scores are displayed in Table 3.
3.2. Moderator analyses
Based on the significant likelihood ratio tests and high values of I2 for
all the outcomes, there was a strong reason to believe that variability in
need-supportive interventions was not only due to a sampling error of
the independent studies. Thus, the between-study variances were pur­
sued to identify using univariate regression analyses in the meta-analytic
multivariate model.
Out of the eight moderators, five moderated the mean estimates at
least on one motivational outcome. First, the interventions that were
conducted by researchers according to a specific plan compared to in­
terventions in which professionals (e.g., teachers) were trained to be
need supportive in workshops had stronger effects on identified regu­
lation (z = 2.40, p = .017), external regulation (z = − 2.39, p = .017),
and amotivation (z = − 2.65, p = .008). Second, the studies that
manipulated the control group (e.g., limiting participant choice)
compared to studies with an as usual control group had larger effects on
intrinsic motivation (z = 2.11, p = .036), identified regulation (z = 2.94,
p = .003), external regulation (z = − 3.04, p = .002), and amotivation (z
= − 3.48, p = .001). Third, the studies that lasted between six and nine
weeks had a stronger effect on intrinsic motivation compared to studies
lasting two weeks or less (z = 2.12, p = .034). In contrast, studies lasting
two weeks or less had a stronger effect on external regulation compared
M. Manninen et al. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 62 (2022) 102248

Table 1
Study features.
Authors n (sex) Age Country Setting Outcomes Scale Design Conductor Support Intervention Control Length

Abula, 2018 258 19.9 China PE (Col.) No IN PLOC- TL CR Teachers ASIP T-3(NA) As usual 3 m.
(53% F) PE (2)
Amado, 2017 921 13.17 Mexico PE No IN QMDCE CL CR Teachers NS (3) T - 3(15h) As usual 4m.
(46%F)
Barkoukis, 2021 256 13.5 Greece PE No IN, PLOC- SL CT Teachers ASIP T-3(4.5h) As usual 10 w.
(53%F) AM PE (2)
Behzadnia, 2017 28 21 Iran PE (Col.) No IN, SRQ-L R Teacher AS (2) P Controlling 14 w.
(100% AM
M)
Chang, 2016 126 13.7 Taiwan PE No IN SDM SL CR Teachers AS (1) P No choices 6 w.
(48% F)
Cheon, 2010 28 College S-Korea Fitness No IN SRQ GL CR Instructor AS (3) P Controlling 6 w.
(100% class
M)
Cheon, 2012 1430 MS & S-Korea PE AM PLOC SL CR Teachers ASIP T-3(5h) As usual 2 m.
(47% F) HS PE (2)
Cheon, 2015 598 MS & S-Korea PE AM AI SL CR Teachers ASIP T-3(4h) As usual 2 m.
(54% F) HS (2)
Cheon, 2016 1017 MS & S-Korea PE AM AI + SL CR Teachers ASIP T-3(7h) As usual 2 m.
(57% F) HS PRS (2)
Edmunds, 2008 56 21.3 UK Fitness All BREQ-2 CL CR Instructor AS (3) P Min 9 w.
(100% class support
F)
Fin, 2019 61 12.9 Brazil PE No IN PLOC- CL CR Teachers AS (3) T-NA(40h) As usual 8 m.
(54% F) PE
Franco, 2017 53 13.4 Spain PE IM PLOC- CL CR Teachers NS (3) T-5(10h) As usual 3 m.
(43% F) PE
Fransen, 2018 60 14.9 Belgium Club sport IM PLOC- GL CR Researcher CS (1) P No 1 ses.
(100% PE feedback
M)
Gillison, 2013 190 13.7 UK PE No IN SIMS CL CR Researcher AS (2) P Controlling 1 ses.
(M&F)
González-Cutre, 2018 88 14.7 Spain Extracur. All PLOC- SL CR Teachers NS (3) P As usual 2 m.
(59% F) PE PE
Ha, 2020 667 14.4 HK PE IM, ID PLOC CL CR Teachers NS (3) T − 2(7h) As usual 4 w.*
(31%M)
Langan, 2015 87 15.2 Ireland Club sport All BRSQ GL CR Coaches NS (3) T- As usual 12 w.
(100% (biweekly)
M)
Leptokaridou, 2016 54 11, 12 Greece PE No IN PLOC- CLCR Teacher AS (2) P Lack of AS 9 w.
(46% F) y PE
Leyton, 2017 95 59.1 Spain Fitness No IN BREQ-2 CL CR NA NS (3) P Traditional 12 w.
(100% class
F)
Lonsdale, 2013 132 13.6 Australia PE No IN, IJ SIMS CL CR Teachers AS (1) P As usual 1 ses.
(51%
M)
Lonsdale, 2019 1255 12.9 Australia PE No IN PLOC SL CR Teachers NS (3) T 3(9h)* As usual 7.5 m.
(55%M)
Manninen, Deng, 57 20.6 USA PE (Col.) All BREQ-3 GL CR Teacher NS (3) P No support 2 w.
Hwang, Waller, & (75% F)
Yli-Piipari, 2020
Mertens, 2018 84 16 Belgium Club sport IM PLOC- GL CR Coach CS (1) P No 1 ses.
(100% PE feedback
M)
Moreno-Murcia & 145 10.4 Spain PE IM PLOC- CL CR Teachers AS (2) T-NA(12h) As usual 4 m.
Sánchez-Latorre, (51% F) PE
2016
Moustaka, 2012 35 44.3 Greece Fitness No IN BREQ-2 CL CR Instructor AS (2) P Lack of AS 8 w.
(100% class
F)
Ntoumanis, 2017 317 39.9 Australia Fitness No IN BREQ-2 GL CR Instructors NS (3) T − 3(9h) As usual 11w.
(79% F) class
Prusak, 2004 1110 MS USA PE No IJ SIMS TL CR Teachers AS (1) P No choices 2 w.
(100%
F)
Pulido, 2017 109 13.7 Spain Club sport No IN SMQ GL CR Coaches NS (3) T-2(12h) Traditional 6 w.
(100%
M)
Sánchez-Oliva et al., 836 12.8 Spain PE IM, ID, CMEF TL CR Teachers NS (3) T-3(15h) As usual 3 m.
2017 (49% F) AM
Schneider, 2019 502 14.5 Finland PE No IN PLOC TL CR Teachers ASIP T-6(12h) As usual 1 m.
(56%M) (2)
Sebire, 2016 10 UK BREQ SL CR TAs AS (3) T-5(25h) Traditional 20 w.
(continued on next page)

7
M. Manninen et al. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 62 (2022) 102248

Table 1 (continued )
Authors n (sex) Age Country Setting Outcomes Scale Design Conductor Support Intervention Control Length

490 Extracur. No IN,

(45%M) PE AM
Sfandyari, 2020 30 15.1 Iran PE/ IM SMS R Instructor AS (1) P No choice 8 w.
(100% Fitness
M)
Sparks, 2017 383 13.2 Australia PE No IN PLOC- SL CR Teachers RS (1) T-1(3h) As usual 3 m.
(72% F) PE
Sullivan (2005) 107 11, 12 USA Youth IM, AM SMS GL CR Coaches NS (3) T-1(4.5h) As usual 4 m*
(51%M) y sport
Tilga, 2019 190 13.7 Estonia PE IM, ID PLOC TL CR Teachers ASIPw T-4(4h) As usual 9 w.
(45%M) (2)
Tilga, 2020 329 13.2 Estonia PE No PLOC TL CR Teachers AS (2) T-1(8h) As usual 5 w.
(53%M)
Ulstad, 2018 425 14 Norway PE No IN, SRQ SL CR Teachers ASIP T-3(8h) As usual 12 m.
(M&F) AM (2)
Zazo, 2018 49 45.1 Spain Fitness All BREQ-3 GL CR Instructor ASIP T-1(NA) As usual 9 m.
(100% class (2)
F)

Note. AI = Amotivation Inventory-PE; BREQ = Behavioural Regulations in Exercise Questionnaire; BRSQ = Behavioral Regulations in Sports Questionnaire; CMEF =
Questionnaire of Motivation in PE; PLOC = Perceived Locus of Causality (in PE); PRS = Problematic Relationship Scale; QMDCE = Questionnaire on Motivation in
Dance and Corporal Expression; SDM = Self-determined Motivation in PE; SIMS = Situational Motivation Scale; SMS = Sport Motivation Scale Questionnaire; SMQ =
Sport Motivation Questionnaire; SRQ = Self-Regulation Questionnaire; CL = Classroom level; CR = Cluster Randomization; GL = Group level; R = Randomized; SL =
School level; TL = Teacher level; AS = Autonomy Support; ASIP = Autonomy Supportive Intervention Program (w = web); CS = Competence Support; NS = Need
Support; RS = Relatedness Support; P = Planned; T = Trained.

to studies lasting more than ten weeks (z = 2.11, p = .035). Fourth,
studies with participants older than 18-years had stronger effects
intrinsic motivation compared to studies with underage participants (z
= 2.41, p = .016). Lastly, the study quality scores moderated the effects.
The lowest quality studies measured by the MERSQI-instrument had
stronger effects on intrinsic motivation compared to the intermediate (z
= − 2.47, p = .014) and highest quality studies (z = − 2.34, p = .019) and
on amotivation compared to the intermediate (z = 2.25, p = .025) and
highest quality studies (z = 2.21, p = .027). The applied quality scores
moderated the effects only on introjected regulation with lowest quality
studies having stronger effects compared to intermediate (z = − 2.65, p
= .008) and highest quality studies (z = − 2.73, p = .006). The full de­
tails of the moderator effects are displayed in Table 4.
4. Discussion
SDT stipulates that socio-environmental factors, such as teachers’ or
coaches’ instructional strategies and behaviors, affect human motiva­
tion through the satisfaction of three basic needs of competence, au­
tonomy, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000). As instructional strategies
and behaviors that nurture need-satisfaction are a) not clearly estab­
lished (see Gillison et al., 2018), b) vary from study to study, and c) may
be culturally determined (Iyengar & Lepper, 1999; Taylor & Lonsdale,
2010), the findings of this study do not result in absolute certainty on the
applicability of SDT-based intervention studies in organized physical
activity. The results, however, do advance our knowledge on how cur­
rent SDT-based interventions influence participants’ motivational reg­
ulations towards organized physical activity in different contexts.
The results of this study suggest that SDT-based instructional in­
terventions have a small heterogeneous effect on improving partici­
pants’ intrinsic motivation and identified regulation (autonomous forms
of motivation). The results also suggest that SDT-based instructional
interventions slightly reduce participants’ external regulation and
amotivation. The mean estimates are somewhat encouraging and in line
with the theorization of the SDT and the previous studies [e.g., the meta-
analysis by Vasconcellos et al. (2019)] and the systematic review by
Stroet el al. (2013). In addition, this meta-analysis showed SDT-based
interventions to have no statistically significant effect on integrated
and introjected regulations. While not fully supporting the central
theorization of the SDT, the mean estimates are mostly in line with the
findings of the previous meta-analysis summarizing the correlational
evidence on autonomy-supportive teaching and motivational regula­
tions (Lochbaum & Jean-Noel, 2015; Vasconcellos et al., 2019).
Considering that only five included studies assessed integrated regula­
tion, any definitive conclusions regarding integrated regulation are
beyond the findings of this study. However, due to the inability of
psychometric scales measuring motivation to distinguish integrated
regulation from intrinsic motivation and identified regulation (Howard,
Gagné, Morin, & Forest, 2017), the null effect might be due to a small
number of analyzed effects. Alternatively, it might be that longer and
more foundational interventions (i.e., interventions beyond instruc­
tional practices) are needed to change individuals’ integrated regulation
as it ties so strongly with people’s identity.
It is mostly unknown why SDT-based interventions do not seem to
impact introjected regulation in organized physical activity. It may be
that participants perceive organized physical activity inherently con­
trolling, thus undermining the effect of need-supportive instruction. On
the other hand, two of the reviewed interventions resulted in substantial
positive effects whereas two studies derived large negative effects on
introjected regulation corroborating the previous mixed findings
(Teixeira et al., 2012). These variable effects may in part be explained by
the fact that introjected regulation reflects a mix of reasons for behavior
as it is connected with both the pursuit of desired outcomes (e.g.,
self-esteem) as well as negative ones (e.g., pride) (Howard, Gagné,
Morin, & Forest, 2017). Lastly, this study did not corroborate the find­
ings that have shown introjected regulation to increase across time
(Rodgers, Hall, Duncan, Pearson, & Milne, 2010).
The practical significance of the findings of this study was under­
mined by the considerable heterogeneity of the effect sizes across all
outcomes, as demonstrated by the previous meta-analyses (Gillison
et al., 2018; Su & Reeve, 2011). However, the initial large magnitude of
the heterogeneity was unexpected. A closer examination of the
need-supportive instruction strategies indicated that SDT-based in­
struction was conceptualized in numerous different ways, which may
partly explain the demonstrated heterogeneity. For example, five of the
analyzed studies (Abula et al., 2018; Cheon et al., 2012; Cheon & Reeve,
2015; Cheon et al., 2016; Ulstad et al., 2018) utilized an
autonomy-supportive intervention program that conceptualized
need-supportive (or autonomy-supportive) strategies into six specific
categories: taking the students’ perspective, vitalizing students’ inner
motivational resources, provision of explanatory rationales, acknowl­
edgement and acceptance of negative affect, use of informational and

8
M. Manninen et al.
Figure 2. Forest plots for Intrinsic Motivation and Integrated Regulation.
non-pressuring language and patience (Reeve, 2016). On the other hand,
the study by Sánchez-Oliva et al. (2017) focused their need-supportive
intervention program specifically to target all the basic needs of SDT
and thus, at least according to procedure descriptions, provided
considerable support to the need for relatedness by behaviors, such as
being helpful and friendly, which are not part of the
autonomy-supportive intervention program protocol. Moreover, adding
to the variation of the intervention procedures, the study by Edmunds,
Ntoumanis, and Duda (2008) conceptualized need-supportive strategies
based on autonomy-support, provision of structure, and interpersonal
involvement, which differs slightly from the conceptualization of
Sánchez-Oliva and colleagues (2017).
Out of the eight moderators, some categories within the type of
intervention, the type of the control group, the length of the interven­
tion, the age of the participants, and the study quality were statistically
9
Psychology of Sport & Exercise 62 (2022) 102248
different from one another for at least one outcome. Specifically, dif­
ferences for a) type of intervention (trained or planned) on identified
regulation, external regulation, and amotivation, b) the type of the
control group (as usual or manipulated) on intrinsic motivation, iden­
tified regulation, external regulation, and amotivation, c) the length of
the study (maximum two weeks, from six to nine weeks, and more than
ten weeks) on intrinsic motivation and external regulation, d) the age of
the participants (under or over 18-year old) on intrinsic motivation, and
e) the total quality of the studies (low, medium or high) for intrinsic
motivation, introjected regulation, and amotivation were detected. On
one hand, these moderating effects partly corroborate the central pos­
tulations of the SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000) and on the other challenge the
practical implications of SDT-based interventions in PA settings. Spe­
cifically, it seems that the effect of need-supportive instruction on
identified regulation, external regulation, and amotivation arises only
M. Manninen et al.
Figure 3. Forest plots for Identified and Introjected Regulation.
when compared to the conditions that are manipulated (e.g., a lack of
autonomy-support) but not when compared to the as-usual instructional
conditions. The logical conclusion of this finding is that many teachers,
instructors, and coaches know how to motivate in their work quite
effectively without explicit training. Moreover, the results suggest that
the effect of SDT-instruction workshops on these three outcomes is
non-existent. Altogether, the practical significance of SDT-based in­
struction decreases in the light of these findings, at least in terms of
participants’ motivation. However, the finding supports the previous
correlational evidence suggesting that need-depriving and -thwarting
environments should be avoided in PA settings (Bartholomew, Ntou­
manis, Ryan, Bosch, & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, 2011; Haerens, Aelterman,
Vansteenkiste, Soenens, & Van Petegem, 2015). Regarding the duration
of the instructional period, it appears that the most optimal length of the
need-supportive instruction exposure is six to 9 weeks as it relates to
10
Psychology of Sport & Exercise 62 (2022) 102248
intrinsic motivation and identified regulation. It might be that one ses­
sion or even two weeks of instruction with a need-supportive style is not
enough to result in changes in participant motivation. Further,
SDT-based interventions seem to lose some of their impact if the inter­
vention continues more than ten weeks. This reduction may be due to
the ceiling effect, that is when motivational values cannot continue
increasing due to already achieved maximum values. Alternatively, over
time, people may get accustomed to the new instructional style, which
may weaken the effect of the motivational intervention. Moreover, this
study corroborates the findings of Gillison et al. (2018), showing that the
benefits of SDT-based instruction on intrinsic motivation are greater for
participants who are older than 18 years compared to under-aged par­
ticipants. It might be that the specific need-supportive instruction stra­
tegies are, at least to some extent, age-specific and that underage
participants’ need satisfaction mechanisms are different from those of
M. Manninen et al.
Figure 4. Forest plots for External Regulation and Amotivation.
adults. Also, the adult participants were either college students or
middle-aged adults taking part in voluntary fitness classes. Compared to
mandatory PE classes (the most prevalent context for under 18-year-­
olds), the adults, thus, operated in a very different need-supportive
environment regardless the instructional characteristics. Lastly, the
lowest quality studies yielded bigger effects on intrinsic motivation,
introjected regulation, and amotivation compared to the medium and
high quality studies. As the lowest quality of studies typically had small
sample sizes, described study protocols vaguely, and did not conduct
fidelity checks and randomization procedures, the result might be linked
with the general tendency of less-rigorous studies to yield bigger effects
(Shrout & Rodgers, 2018).
The visual interpretation of the funnel plots and the testing of Cook’s
distances and studentized residuals indicated that five relatively small
studies with many very large effects were potential outliers and/or
11
Psychology of Sport & Exercise 62 (2022) 102248
influential studies. The following sensitivity analysis excluding these
studies from the analyses, reduced the heterogeneity between the
studies quite considerably. Thus, much of the initial heterogeneity in the
effects was due to these studies with outlying effects sizes, especially for
identified regulation and amotivation. As all these studies were small,
planned, had a long duration, and manipulated the control group
(except for one study), the univariate moderator analyses were not able
to detect their effect but support the overall conclusions of the moder­
ator analyses.
Although the large heterogeneity and moderator analyses challenge
the practical implications of some of the initial results, most of the
detected standardized mean change differences in the sensitivity ana­
lyses remained significant for intrinsic motivation, identified regulation,
and amotivation. All in all, the sensitivity analyses suggest that the effect
of SDT-based interventions on intrinsic motivation, identified
M. Manninen et al. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 62 (2022) 102248

Table 2
True effect ICC:s between the motivational regulations, standardized mean change estimates, and heterogeneity values.
Outcomes 1 2 3 4 5 6

1. Intrinsic -
2. Integrated 0.928 -
3. Identified 0.791 0.672 -
4. Introjected 0.699 0.911 0.424 -
5. External − 0.643 − 0.626 − 0.766 − 0.423 -
6. Amotivation − 0.732 − 0.758 − 0.923 − 0.653 0.765 -
Control SMC (Hedge’s g) − 0.129 [-0.261, − 0.006 [-0.131, − 0.158 [-0.257, − 0.026 [-0.106, 0.029 [-0.092, 0.15] 0.108 [-0.003, 0.219]
0.004] 0.112] − 0.058]** 0.055]
Intervention SMC 0.186 [0.058, 0.315] 0.099 [-0.041, 0.074 [-0.042, 0.189] 0.019 [-0.061, − 0.104 [-0.202, − 0.017 [-0.112,
(Hedge’s g) ** 0.239] 0.098] − 0.006]* 0.077]
SMCD (Hedge’s g) 0.287 [0.166, 0.408] 0.083 [-0.11, 0.276] 0.226 [0.10, 0.352]*** 0.031 [-0.065, − 0.155 [-0.306, − 0.144 [-0.278,
*** 0.127] − 0.004]* − 0.01]*
Tau2 (SMCD) 0.103 0.122 0.111 0.043 0.144 0.126
I2 (SMCD) 91% 76.45% 91.9% 81.41% 93.33% 92.93%

Note. SMC = Standardized mean change (pre-post), SMCD = Standardized mean change difference. *p < .05., **p < .01., ***p < .001.

regulation, and amotivation is only small. On the other hand, the outlier
studies suggested that the changes in participant motivation can be quite
dramatic if a) SDT-based interventions are contrasted with instructional
styles that lack in or thwart need-support (e.g., controlling instruction),
b) the instructor-participant relationship is between six and fourteen
weeks long, and c) the intervention is designed according to a specific
plan. It is also noteworthy that in all excluded studies, the same teacher
or instructor interacted as the only person teaching both the control and
intervention group.
4.1. Limitations
The results of this meta-analysis are not free from limitations. The
relatively small number of effects (at most 35 for intrinsic motivation)
and the large initial heterogeneity of the effects limit the interpretation
and generalizability of the findings, as well as the statistical power to
detect moderator effects. The results of the analyses are also bound to
the methodological features of the included studies, which typically
lacked a randomized allocation to the conditions and rigorous control of
confounding factors.
Although the small number of studies and the small power to detect
moderating effects were anticipated, the non-significance of some of the
moderators was unexpected. Like already stated, the high heterogeneity
of the effect sizes added to the notion SDT-based interventions have been
conducted and operationalized in very different ways (Gillison et al.,
2018; Stroet et al., 2013), and that the interplay between the different
need-supportive schemes and different contextual factors and pop­
ulations are not well understood. In addition, although a great deal of
attention was devoted to coding the intervention characteristics
correctly, the used strategies and the scope of the intervention was at
times, hard to interpret and conclude from the article descriptions.
Hence, there is a possibility that the coding of the moderators (in some
cases) does not reflect actual differences in the nature of the
interventions.
Other moderators might have been selected a priori. However,
because of the small number of effects and the increased risk for a type 1
error, we did not pursue additional univariate moderator analyses. In
addition, all moderators were selected carefully.
The modified Egger’s tests and funnel plots suggested that there is a
possibility for publication bias with the retrieved studies. However,
caution regarding the publication bias results should be taken as the
number of analyzed studies was relatively small, and the heterogeneity
among effects high (Sterne, Gavaghan, & Egger, 2000). In addition, as
the detected outlying studies were removed, there seemed to be no issue
with publication bias. In addition, alleviating the issue, the search
strategy included unpublished research as well as dissertations and an
extensive contacting of the authors known to do research with SDT.
4.2. Future studies
Relating to the heterogeneity of the studies, there is a need for well-
designed studies using more detailed descriptions of the experimental
procedures, manipulation checks, and the study characteristics. Clearer
conceptualizations of the study characteristics would allow a more
careful and reliable examination of the moderating effects and would be
valuable in determining which contexts and in which way conducted
SDT-based instruction is the most effective.
In educational settings, true randomization is usually not attainable
as demonstrated by this review; cluster randomization is regarded to be
the most practical design to apply. However, in exercise settings, designs
that are more ambitious could be deployed more easily. Moreover,
different age groups, school-levels, and physical activity settings should
be examined more thoroughly in the future. It would also be interesting
to see how culture influences the effect of SDT-based instruction on
motivation. SDT argues that there are no cultural differences in the
satisfaction of the basic psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In the
PE setting, the findings of the recent meta-analysis by Vasconcellos et al.
(2019) partially support this idea. However, people from different cul­
tures may respond differently to the same instruction if it carries a
different cultural meaning (Iyengar & Lepper, 1999; Markus &
Kitayama, 2003). In addition, the as usual style (the most used control
condition in this review) is probably very different across cultures (e.g.,
the use of teacher- and student-led instruction) (Cothran et al., 2005). As
the nature of the control condition affected the size of the effect on
external regulation and amotivation, it might be reasonable to anticipate
variable effects across different cultures with different normative
practices.
Based on the number of studies included in this review, it can be
concluded that more research on the impact of SDT-based instruction
and sport is in demand. In fact, for this review, only three studies were
conducted in sport settings, and only one used a long-term intervention
design. We suggest that sport interventions intervening with coaching
behaviors could be highly important as a strong correlational link be­
tween need-thwarting coaching strategies and detrimental outcomes
have been established (Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan, & Thøger­
sen-Ntoumani, 2011; Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan, & Thøgersen-N­
toumani, 2011). Furthermore, including sport settings and, for example,
coaching training programs would offer a completely new venue and
opportunity for longer-term need-supportive interventions.
In this analysis, we decided to include only one post measurement
time point from each study, although some of the studies had several
measuring points of motivational regulations, even including follow-up
measurements for maintenance of motivation. With additional studies
and adoption of more complex multivariate analyses, the moderating
effect of the duration of the intervention on the motivational regulations
could be estimated with better precision. Additionally, we suggest that

12
M. Manninen et al. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 62 (2022) 102248

findings of meta-analyses in this discipline could be presented also as

Note: POMP effect sizes are computed without the study by Sullivan (2005) which reported only change scores. SMC = Standardized mean change; SMCD = Standardized mean change difference. *p < .05., **p < .01.,
POMP SMCD [CI.lb, CI.ub]
POMP scores to provide clarity of the overall motivational levels of
participants. For example, our analyses of POMP scores illustrate that

− 3.24 [-6.38, − 0.09]*

− 3.04 [-5.81, − 0.28]*
5.54 [2.97, 8.11]***
5.48 [0.55, 10.41]*
4.07 [1.52, 6.61]**
participants in organized physical activity display relatively high levels

1.01 [-0.92, 2.95]

of intrinsic motivation and identified regulation and low levels of
amotivation.
For this meta-analysis, we included only studies that had outcome
measures for separate motivational regulations postulated by SDT. This
approach left us to reduce the number included studies excluding studies
that reported motivational outcomes as weighted composite scores, such
as the relative autonomy index, self-determination index, and autono­

− 2.21 [-4.36, − 0.06]*

mous motivation. We suggest that future research should always report

− 0.90 [-2.80, 1.01]

the information also on the separate motivational regulations as they are
3.99 [0.51, 7.48]*
4.54 [0.07, 9.01]*
1.30 [-0.89, 3.48]
1.23 [-0.71, 3.17]

theoretically different from one another and have been theorized to have
Intervention

different implications for behavioral, affective, and cognitive outcomes

(Vallerand, 1997). Suppressing information can sometimes be justified,
but for example, a relative autonomy index combines all the different
motivational constructs into one variable limiting the interpretation of
the effects of interventions considerably (Howard, Gagné, Morin, &
POMP SMC [CI.lb, CI.ub]

Forest, 2017). Furthermore, as only five included studies reported scores

− 2.20 [-5.46, 1.07]
− 0.63 [-4.37, 3.11]
− 2.46 [-5.14, 0.21]

on integrated regulation, conclusions on the effect of SDT-based in­

0.05 [-2.05, 2.14]
0.37 [-2.46, 3.20]
1.67 [-1.26, 4.61]

struction on integrated regulation are difficult to make. Future research

should also measure this regulation as it is postulated in SDT to be one of
the six distinct motivational regulations with its implications for human
Control

behavior. However, the current scales measuring this construct might

need to be revised (Howard, Gagné, Morin, & Forest, 2017).
POMP as raw means at pre- and post-post, standardized mean change from pre-to post-test, and standardized mean change difference.

Lastly, we propose that future research efforts should use standard­

ized need-supportive strategies and behaviors. The meta-analysis by
[75.30, 81.70]
[48.77, 63.39]
[73.13, 78.46]
[49.44, 60.96]
[35.74, 50.23]
[25.15, 35.40]

Gillison et al. (2018) and the classification study by Teixeira et al. (2019)
are a good start to this direction and clearly shows the abundance of
behaviors and strategies that could be defined as need-supportive. This
Intervention

is potentially a problem since interventions utilizing several strategies

78.50
56.08
75.79
55.20
42.98
30.28

and behaviors are not able to pinpoint the importance of single strate­
gies or their interaction with a certain another strategy. This leaves the
efficacy of SDT-based instruction somewhat vague, open for too much
interpretation, and the importance of specific strategies over others
PostPOMP(CI.lb, CI.ub)

impossible to determine. Promising, however, is that 30 of the 38

76.97]
78.43]
75.83]
59.22]
53.71]
39.56]

analyzed studies were published in 2015 or after. This indicates a clear

positive trend of research in this area.
73.23 [69.48,
64.93 [51.43,
72.77 [69.71,
53.86 [48.50,
46.56 [39.42,
33.96 [28.37,
Control

5. Conclusion

This meta-analysis suggests that SDT-based instructional in­

terventions have a positive but heterogeneous effect on some of the
participants’ motivational regulations in organized physical activity. In
[70.92, 78.27]
[46.40, 57.33]
[70.98, 76.91]
[49.40, 59.64]
[37.07, 50.85]
[24.74, 33.76]

detail, the observed effect is small on intrinsic motivation, identified

regulation, external regulation, and amotivation. The practical impli­
Intervention

cations of the results should be considered with caution for three reasons
highlighted by our moderator analyses. First, as usual instruction seems
74.60
51.87
73.94
54.52
43.96
29.25

to be almost equally effective in motivating participants as SDT-based

instruction. Second, workshops in which teachers, coaches, or in­
structors are trained in SDT-based instruction are less effective at
improving motivation compared to more controlled and prescriptive
PrePOMP(CI.lb, CI.ub)

75.53 [71.64, 79.42]

57.99 [49.95, 66.03]
75.20 [72.32, 78.09]
52.34 [46.60, 58.07]
43.34 [36.13, 50.55]
29.81 [25.18, 34.45]

interventions. Finally, lower quality SDT-based intervention studies

yield the biggest effects on participant motivation. More well-designed
research in different contexts would help to understand the variable
effects of SDT-based instruction on motivational regulations of partici­
Control

pants in organized physical activity.

Funding

This research was not supported by any specific grant from any
6. Amotivation
4. Introjected
2. Integrated

funding agency in the public, private, or not-for-profit sector.

***p < .001.
3. Identified

5. External
1. Intrinsic
Outcomes
Table 3

13
M. Manninen et al. Psychology of Sport & Exercise 62 (2022) 102248

Table 4
Univariate Moderator analyses for all the outcomes.
Effect moderator Intrinsic Integrated Identified Introjected External Amotivation

k g (95% CI) k g (95% CI) k g (95% CI) k g (95% CI) k g (95% CI) k g(95% CI)

Setting
PE 24 .23 (.10, .36) 2 .11 (− .22, .44) 20 .19 (.05, .32) 15 .05 (− .07, .17) 17 − .18 (− .35, 17 − .12 (− .26, .03)
− .01)
Exercise & Sport 11 .42 (.20, .65) 3 .12 (− .19, .43) 8 .27 (.03, .51) 8 − .07 (− .28, .14) 8 − .12 (− .41, .17) 9 − .21 (− .46, .05)
Scope of need support
1 supported 7 .19 (− .09, .46) 0 NA 4 .13 (− .18, .44) 2 .17 (− .09, .42) 4 − .19 (− .53, .16) 4 − .19 (− .50, .14)
2 supported 12 .40 (.20, .59) 1 .17 (− .34, .68) 10 .35 (.15, .55) 9 .08 (− .07, .22) 9 − .30 (− .54, 9 − .29 (− .50, − .08)
− .06)
3 supported 16 .22 (.05, .39) 4 − .02 (− .26, 14 .15 (− .04, .33) 12 − .03 (− .15, .09) 12 − .01 (− .21, .20) 13 − .01 (− .20, .18)
.22)
Type of intervention
Trained 20 .22 (.07, .37) 2 .06 (− .18, .31) 16 .12 (− .02, 13 .05 (− .08, .18) 13 − .03 (− .20, .14)a 15 − .03 (− .17, .10)a
.25)a
Planned 15 .42 (.22, .63) 3 .09 (− .19, .37) 12 .41 (.21, .61)b 10 − .04 (− .23, .16) 12 − .37(-59, − .15)b 11 − .37(-57, − .16)b
Type of control
As usual 23 .22 (.08, .35)a 3 .09 (− .12, .31) 19 .12 (− .01, 15 .04 (− .09, .15) 16 − .03 (− .18, .12)a 18 − .04 (− .16, .08)a
.25)a
Manipulated 12 .51 (.28, .74)b 2 .14 (− .19, .47) 9 .52 (.29, .75)b 8 − .03 (− .25, .20) 9 − .47(-.71, − .23)b 8 − .48(-.69, − .26)b
Length of the study
Max 2 weeks 6 .05 (− .26, 1 − .02 (− .48, 4 .16 (− .21, .54) 2 − .02 (− .29, .25) 4 − 42 (− .72, 4 − .21 (− .54, .13)
.37)a .44) − .12)a
6–9 weeks 13 .46 (.25, .67)b 2 − .05 (− .32, 11 .39 (.15, .62) 9 − .07 (− .23, .09) 9 − 17 (− .39, .04)ab 11 − 29 (− .50, − .08)
.22)
> 10 weeks 16 .22 (.04, .41)ab 2 .06 (− .17, .28) 13 .11 (− .10, .33) 12 .07 (− .04, .19) 12 − .04 (− .22, .14)b 11 − .03 (− .22, .17)
Age, y
<18 26 .21 (.09, .33)a 2 .14 (− .08, .36) 29 .16 (.03, .30) 14 .04 (− .07, .15) 16 − .18 (− .35, .00) 18 − .13 (− .28, .02)
>18 9 .55 (.31, .80)b 3 .22 (− .11, .55) 9 .44 (.19, .70) 9 .06 (− .14, .25) 9 − .16 (− .45, .14) 8 − 23 (− .51, .06)
MERSQI
Low 10 .56 (.33, .79)a 1 .30 (− .22, .82) 9 .44 (.20, .69) 9 .14 (− .04, .32) 9 − .36 (− .64, 9 − .40 (− .64,
− .08) − .16)a
Medium 16 .21 (.05, .37)b 4 .01 (− .21, .24) 13 .14 (− .04, .32) 9 .00 (− .14, .14) 11 − .06 (− .27, .16) 10 − .06 (− .24, .12)b
High 9 .20 (− .01, 0 NA 6 .19 (− .03, .41) 5 − .03 (− .21, .16) 5 − .17 (− .46, .12) 7 − .04 (− .25, .16)b
.40)b
Quality Applied
Low 13 .45(.26, .64) 0 NA 10 .35 (.14, .56) 8 .21 (.07, .36)a 8 − .24 (− .51, .03) 9 − .30 (− .52, − .07)
Medium 16 .20 (.04, .37) 4 − .06 (− .28, 14 .14 (− .03, .32) 12 − .04 (− .15, 13 − .08 (− .29, .13) 13 − .06 (− .24, .12)
.15) .08)b
High 6 .13 (− .16, .42) 1 .01 (− .49, .51) 4 .21 (− .12, .54) 3 − .15 (− .36, 4 − .19 (− .59, .21) 4 − .05 (− .39, .29)
.07)b
Quality Total
Low 10 .55 (.33, .76)a 1 .29 (− .21, .80) 9 .43 (.19, .67) 8 .27 (.13, .42)a 8 − .29 (− .58, 8 − .44 (− .67,
− .00) − .20)a
b
Medium 16 .21 (.05, .37) 3 − .09 (− .30, 12 .15 (− .04, .33) 9 − .08 (− .20, 10 − .06 (− .29, .17) 10 − .00 (− .19, .18)b
.13) .03)b
High 9 .15 (− .05, 1 .09 (− .38, .56) 7 .16 (− .06, .38) 6 − .02 (− .15, 7 − .18 (− .45, .09) 8 − .07 (− .28, .13)b
.35)b .11)b
Total 35 .29 (.17, .41) 5 .08 (-.11, .28) 28 .23 (.10, .35) 23 .03 (-.07, .13) 25 ¡.16 (-.31, -.00) 26 ¡.14 (-.28, -.01)

Note. ab = within a categorical moderator, mean estimates without a common superscript differ (p < .05)

Declaration of competing interest
None.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2022.102248.
References
* Abula, K., Beckmann, J., He, Z., Cheong, C., Lu, F., & Gröpel, P. (2018). Autonomy
support in physical education promotes autonomous motivation towards
leisure-time physical activity: Evidence from a sample of Chinese college students.
Health Promotion International, 102, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/day102.
Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Van Keer, H., Van den Berghe, L., De Meyer, J., &
Haerens, L. (2012). Students’ objectively measured physical activity levels and
engagement as a function of between-class and between-student differences in
motivation toward physical education. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34,
457–480. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.34.4.457
* Amado, D., Sánchez-Miguel, P. A., & Molero, P. (2017). Creativity associated with the
application of a motivational intervention programme for the teaching of dance at
school and its effect on the both genders. PLoS One, 12. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0174393.
* Barkoukis, V., Chatzisarantis, N., & Hagger, M. S. (2021). Effects of a school-based
intervention on motivation for out-of-school physical activity participation. Research
Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 92(3), 477–491.
Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R. M., Bosch, J. A., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C.
(2011). Self-determination theory and diminished functioning: The role of
interpersonal control and psychological need thwarting. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 37, 1459–1473. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211413125
Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R. M., & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C. (2011).
Psychological need thwarting in the sport context: Assessing the darker side of
athletic experience. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 33, 75–102. https://doi.
org/10.1123/jsep.33.1.75
Becker, B. J. (1988). Synthesizing standardized mean-change measures. British Journal of
Mathematical and Statistical Psychology, 41(2), 257–278.
* Behzadnia, B., Mohammadzadeh, H., & Ahmadi, M. (2017). Autonomy-supportive
behaviors promote autonomous motivation, knowledge structures, motor skills
learning and performance in physical education. Current Psychology. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s12144-017-9727-0.
Berkey, C. S., Hoaglin, D. C., Antczak-Bouckoms, A., Mosteller, F., & Colditz, G. A.
(1998). Meta-analysis of multiple outcomes by regression with random effects.
Statistics in Medicine, 17, 2537–2550.
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic
incentives jointly predict performance: A 40-year meta-analysis. Psychological
Bulletin, 140, 980–1008. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0035661

14
M. Manninen et al.
Chang, Y. K., Chen, S., Tu, K. W., & Chi, L. K. (2016). Effect of autonomy support on self-
determined motivation in elementary physical education. Journal of Sports Science
and Medicine, 15(3), 460–466.
* Charbonneau, D., Barling, J., & Kelloway, E. K. (2001). Transformational leadership
and sports performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1521–1534. https://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb02686.x.
Chatzisarantis, N. L., Hagger, M. S., Biddle, S. J., Smith, B., & Wang, J. C. (2003). A meta-
analysis of perceived locus of causality in exercise, sport, and physical education
contexts. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 25, 284–306. https://doi.org/
10.1123/jsep.25.3.284
* Cheon, S. H., & Moon, I. S. (2010). Implementing an autonomy-supportive fitness
program to facilitate students’ autonomy and engagement. Korean Journal of Sport
Psychology, 21(1), 175–195.
* Cheon, S. H., & Reeve, J. (2015). A classroom-based intervention to help teachers
decrease students’ amotivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 99–111.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.06.004.
* Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Moon, I. S. (2012). Experimentally based, longitudinally
designed, teacher-focused intervention to help physical education teachers be more
autonomy supportive toward their students. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,
34, 365–396. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.34.3.365.
* Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Song, Y. G. (2016). A teacher-focused intervention to
decrease PE students’ amotivation by increasing need satisfaction and decreasing
need frustration. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 38, 217–235. https://doi.
org/10.1123/jsep.2015-0236.
Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York, NY:
Routledge Academic.
Cohen, P., Cohen, J., Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1999). The problem of units and the
circumstance for POMP. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 34, 315–346. https://doi.
org/10.1207/S15327906MBR3403_2
Core Team, R. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna,
Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Retrieved from https://www.R-pro
ject.org/.
Cothran, D. J., Kulinna, P. H., Banville, D., Choi, E., Amade-Escot, C., MacPhail, A., …
Kirk, D. (2005). A cross-cultural investigation of the use of teaching styles. Research
Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 76, 193–201. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02701367.2005.10599280
Cox, A. E., Smith, A. L., & Williams, L. (2008). Change in physical education motivation
and physical activity behavior during middle school. Journal of Adolescent Health, 43,
506–513. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2008.04.020
Daley, A. J., & Duda, J. L. (2006). Self-determination, stage of readiness to change for
exercise, and frequency of physical activity in young people. European Journal of
Sport Science, 6, 231–243. https://doi.org/10.1080/17461390601012637
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York, NY: Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ’what’ and ’why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs
and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. https://
doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
Deci, E. L., Spiegel, N. H., Ryan, R. M., Koestner, R., & Kauffman, M. (1982). Effects of
performance standards on teaching styles: Behavior of controlling teachers. Journal
of Educational Psychology, 74, 852. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.74.6.852
Deeks, J. J., Higgins, J. P. T., & Altman, D. G. (2011). Chapter 9: Analysing data and
undertaking meta-analyses. In J. P. T. Higgins, & S. Green (Eds.), Cochrane Handbook
for systematic Reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration.
https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470712184.ch9, 2011.
Dishman, R. K., Mciver, K. L., Dowda, M., & Pate, R. R. (2018). Declining physical
activity and motivation from middle school to high school. Medicine & Science in
Sports & Exercise, 50, 1206–1215. https://doi.org/10.1249/
MSS.0000000000001542
Duncan, L. R., Hall, C. R., Wilson, P. M., & Jenny, O. (2010). Exercise motivation: A
cross-sectional analysis examining its relationships with frequency, intensity, and
duration of exercise. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity,
7, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1186/1479-5868-7-7
* Edmunds, J., Ntoumanis, N., & Duda, J. L. (2008). Testing a self-determination
theory-based teaching style intervention in the exercise domain. European Journal of
Social Psychology, 38, 375–388. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.463.
Egger, M., Smith, G. D., Schneider, M., & Minder, C. (1997). Bias in meta-analysis
detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ, 315, 629–634. https://doi.org/10.1136/
bmj.315.7109.629
* Fin, G., Moreno-Murcia, J. A., León, J., Baretta, E., & Júnior, R. J. N. (2019).
Interpersonal autonomy support style and its consequences in physical education
classes. PLoS One, 14. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0216609.
* Franco, E., & Coterón, J. (2017). The effects of a Physical education intervention to
support the satisfaction of basic psychological needs on the motivation and
intentions to be physically active. Journal of Human Kinetics, 59, 5–15. https://doi.
org/10.1515/hukin-2017-0143.
* Fransen, K., Boen, F., Vansteenkiste, M., Mertens, N., & Vande Broek, G. (2018). The
power of competence support: The impact of coaches and athlete leaders on intrinsic
motivation and performance. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 28,
725–745. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12950.
Gillet, N., Berjot, S., Vallerand, R. J., & Amoura, S. (2012). The role of autonomy support
and motivation in the prediction of interest and drop-out intentions in sport and
education settings. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34, 278–286. https://doi.org/
10.1080/01973533.2012.674754
Gillison, F. B., Rouse, P., Standage, M., Sebire, S. J., & Ryan, R. M. (2018). A meta-
analysis of techniques to promote motivation for health behaviour change from a
15
Psychology of Sport & Exercise 62 (2022) 102248
self-determination theory perspective. Health Psychology Review, 13, 110–130.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2018.1534071
* Gillison, F. B., Standage, M., & Skevington, S. M. (2013). The effects of manipulating
goal content and autonomy support climate on outcomes of a physical education
fitness class. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 342–352. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2012.11.011.
* González-Cutre, D., Sierra, A. C., Beltrán-Carrillo, V. J., Peláez-Pérez, M., & Cervelló, E.
(2018). A school-based motivational intervention to promote physical activity from
a self-determination theory perspective. The Journal of Educational Research, 111,
320–330. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220671.2016.1255871.
Goudas, M., Biddle, S., & Fox, K. (1994). Perceived locus of causality, goal orientations,
and perceived competence in school physical education classes. British Journal of
Educational Psychology, 64, 453–463. https://doi.org/10.1123/pes.6.2.159
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 between the bright and dark side of motivation. Psychology of Sport
and Exercise, 16, 26–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2014.08.013
Hagger, M. S., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. (2009). Integrating the theory of planned
behaviour and self-determination theory in health behaviour: A meta-analysis.
British Journal of Health Psychology, 14, 275–302. https://doi.org/10.1348/
135910708X373959
* Ha, A. S., Lonsdale, C., Lubans, D. R., & Ng, J. Y. (2020). Increasing students’ activity in
physical education: Results of the self-determined exercise and learning for FITness
trial. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 52, 696–704. https://doi.
org/10.1249/mss.0000000000002172.
Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Academic press.
Higgins, J. P., Thompson, S. G., Deeks, J. J., & Altman, D. G. (2003). Measuring
inconsistency in meta-analyses. BMJ, 327, 557–560. https://doi.org/10.1136/
bmj.327.7414.557
Howard, J. L., Bureau, J., Guay, F., Chong, J. X., & Ryan, R. M. (2021). Student
motivation and associated outcomes: A meta-analysis from self-determination
theory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 1–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/
1745691620966789
Howard, J. L., Gagné, M., & Bureau, J. S. (2017). Testing a continuum structure of self-
determined motivation: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 143(12), 1346.
https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000125
Howard, J. L., Gagné, M., Morin, A. J., & Forest, J. (2017). Using bifactor exploratory
structural equation modeling to test for a continuum structure of motivation. Journal
of Management, 44, 2638–2664. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206316645653
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural
perspective on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76,
349. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514 .76.3.349
Jackson, D., White, I. R., & Riley, R. D. (2012). Quantifying the impact of between-study
heterogeneity in multivariate meta-analyses. Statistics in Medicine, 31(29),
3805–3820. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.5453
* Langan, E., Toner, J., Blake, C., & Lonsdale, C. (2015). Testing the effects of a
self-determination theory-based intervention with youth gaelic football coaches on
athlete motivation and burnout. The Sport Psychologist, 29, 293–301. https://doi.
org/10.1123/tsp.2013-0107.
Lazowski, R. A., & Hulleman, C. S. (2016). Motivation interventions in education: A
meta-analytic review. Review of Educational Research, 86, 602–640, 10.3102%
2F0034654315617832.
* Leptokaridou, E. T., Vlachopoulos, S. P., & Papaioannou, A. G. (2016). Experimental
longitudinal test of the influence of autonomy-supportive teaching on motivation for
participation in elementary school physical education. Educational Psychology, 36,
1138–1159. https://doi.org/10.1080/01443410.2014.950195.
* Leyton, M., Batista, M., Lobato, S., Aspano, M. I., & Jimenez, R. (2017). Application of
two intervention programs in order to optimize motivation and to improve eating
habits in adult and elderly women. Journal of Human Kinetics, 59, 131. https://doi.
org/10.1515/hukin-2017-0153.
Lipsey, M. W., & Wilson, D. B. (2001). Practical meta-analysis. London, UK: Sage
Publications.
Lochbaum, M., & Jean-Noel, J. (2015). Perceived autonomy-support instruction and
student outcomes in physical education and leisure-time: A meta-analytic review of
correlates. Revista Internacional de Ciencias del Deporte, 12, 29–47. https://doi.org/
10.5232/ricyde2016.04302
* Lonsdale, C., Lester, A., Owen, K. B., White, R. L., Peralta, L., Kirwan, M., … Lubans,
D. R. (2019). An internet-supported school physical activity intervention in low
socioeconomic status communities: Results from the activity and motivation in
physical education (AMPED) cluster randomised controlled trial. British Journal of
Sports Medicine, 53, 341–347. https://doi.org/10.1136/bjsports-2017-097904.
* Lonsdale, C., Rosenkranz, R. R., Sanders, T., Peralta, L. R., Bennie, A., Jackson, B., …
Lubans, D. R. (2013). A cluster randomized controlled trial of strategies to increase
adolescents’ physical activity and motivation in physical education: Results of the
Motivating Active Learning in Physical Education (MALP) trial. Preventive Medicine,
57, 696–702. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2013.09.003.
* Manninen, M., Deng, Y., Hwang, Y., Waller, S., & Yli-Piipari, S. (2020). Psychological
need-supportive instruction improves novel skill performance, intrinsic motivation,
and enjoyment: a cluster-randomised study. International Journal of Sport and Exercise
Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1080/1612197X.2020.1826999.
Markland, D., & Tobin, V. (2004). A modification to the behavioural regulation in
exercise questionnaire to include an assessment of amotivation. Journal of Sport &
Exercise Psychology, 26, 191–196. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.26.2.191
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2003). Models of agency: Sociocultural diversity in the
construction of action. In V. Murphy-Berman, & J. J. Berman (Eds.), Nebraska
M. Manninen et al.
symposium on motivation, 9 pp. 1–57). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press. Cross-
cultural differences in perspectives on the self.
McDonough, M. H., & Crocker, P. R. (2007). Testing self-determined motivation as a
mediator of the relationship between psychological needs and affective and
behavioral outcomes. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 29, 645–663. https://
doi.org/10.1123/jsep.29.5.645
* Mertens, N., Boen, F., Vande Broek, G., Vansteenkiste, M., & Fransen, K. (2018). An
experiment on the impact of coaches’ and athlete leaders’ competence support on
athletes’ motivation and performance. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in
Sports, 28, 2734–2750. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.13273.
Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Prisma Group.. (2009). Preferred
reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement.
PLoS Medicine, 6, Article e1000097. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pmed.1000097
* Moreno-Murcia, J. A., & Sánchez-Latorre, F. (2016). The effects of autonomy support in
physical education classes. Revista Internacional De Ciencias Del Deporte, 12, 79–89.
https://doi.org/10.5232/ricyde2016.04305.
Morris, S. B. (2008). Estimating effect sizes from pretest-posttest-control group designs.
Organizational Research Methods, 11, 364–386. https://doi: 10.1177/10944281
06291059.
* Moustaka, F. C., Vlachopoulos, S. P., Kabitsis, C., & Theodorakis, Y. (2012). Effects of
an autonomy-supportive exercise instructing style on exercise motivation,
psychological well-being, and exercise attendance in middle-age women. Journal of
Physical Activity and Health, 9, 138–150. https://doi.org/10.1123/jpah.9.1.138.
Ng, J. Y., Ntoumanis, N., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Duda, J. L., &
Williams, G. C. (2012). Self-determination theory applied to health contexts: A meta-
analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 325–340, 10.1177%
2F1745691612447309.
Ntoumanis, N., Ng, J. Y., Prestwich, A., Quested, E., Hancox, J. E., Thøgersen-
Ntoumani, C., … Williams, G. C. (2020). A meta-analysis of self-determination
theory-informed intervention studies in the health domain: Effects on motivation,
health behavior, physical, and psychological health. Health Psychology Review, 1–31.
https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2020.1718529
Ntoumanis, N., Stenling, A., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., Vlachopoulos, S., Lindwall, M., …
Tsakonitis, C. (2018). Longitudinal associations between exercise identity and
exercise motivation: A multilevel growth curve model approach. Scandinavian
Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 28, 746–753. https://doi.org/10.1111/
sms.12951
* Ntoumanis, N., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., Quested, E., & Hancox, J. (2017). The effects
of training group exercise class instructors to adopt a motivationally adaptive
communication style. Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports, 27,
1026–1034. https://doi.org/10.1111/sms.12713.
Owen, K. B., Smith, J., Lubans, D. R., Ng, J. Y., & Lonsdale, C. (2014). Self-determined
motivation and physical activity in children and adolescents: A systematic review
and meta-analysis. Preventive Medicine, 67, 270–279. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
ypmed.2014.07.033
Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Briere, N. M. (2001). Associations
among perceived autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence: A
prospective study. Motivation and Emotion, 25, 279–306. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:
1014805132406
Pintrich, P. R. (2003). A motivational science perspective on the role of student
motivation in learning and teaching contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95,
667. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.4.667
Pope, J. P., & Wilson, P. M. (2012). Understanding motivational processes in university
rugby players: A preliminary test of the hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation at the contextual level. International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching,
7, 89–107, 10.1260%2F1747-9541.7.1.89.
* Prusak, K. A., Treasure, D. C., Darst, P. W., & Pangrazi, R. P. (2004). The effects of
choice on the motivation of adolescent girls in physical education. Journal of
Teaching in Physical Education, 23, 19–29. https://doi.org/10.1123/jtpe.23.1.19.
Pulido, J. J., Sánchez-Oliva, D., Leo, F. M., Matos, S., & García-Calvo, T. (2017). Effects of
an interpersonal style intervention for coaches on young soccer players’
motivational processes. Journal of Human Kinetics, 59, 107. https://doi.org/10.1515/
hukin-2017-0151
Reeve, J. (2016). Autonomy-supportive teaching: What it is, how to do it. In
J. C. K. Wang, W. C. Liu, & R. M. Ryan’s (Eds.), Building autonomous learners:
Perspectives from research and practice using self-determination theory (pp. 129–152).
New York, NY: Springer. Chap. 5.
Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy
during a learning activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 209. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209
Rodgers, W. M., Hall, C. R., Duncan, L. R., Pearson, E., & Milne, M. I. (2010). Becoming a
regular exerciser: Examining change in behavioural regulations among exercise
initiates. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 11, 378–386. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
psychsport.2010.04.007
Rosenthal, R., & DiMatteo, M. R. (2001). Meta-analysis: Recent developments in
quantitative methods for literature reviews. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 59–82.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.59
Rottensteiner, C., Happonen, L., & Konttinen, N. (2015). The interplay of autonomous
and controlled motivation in youth team sports. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 46, 225–243. https://doi.org/10.7352/IJSP.2015.46.225
Ryan, R. M. (1993). Agency and organization: Intrinsic motivation, autonomy and the
self in psychological development. In J. Jacobs (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on
motivation: Developmental perspectives on motivation, 40 pp. 1–56). Lincoln, NE:
University of Nebraska Press.
16
Psychology of Sport & Exercise 62 (2022) 102248
Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes.
Journal of Personality, 63, 397–427. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.
tb00501.x
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization:
Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57, 749–761. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in
motivation development and wellness. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
* Sánchez-Oliva, D., Pulido-González, J. J., Leo, F. M., González-Ponce, I., &
García-Calvo, T. (2017). Effects of an intervention with teachers in the physical
education context: A self-determination theory approach. PLoS One, 12. https://doi.
org/10.1371/journal.pone.0189986.
* Schneider, J., Polet, J., Hassandra, M., Lintunen, T., Laukkanen, A., Hankonen, N., …
Hagger, M. S. (2020). Using physical education to promote leisure-time physical activity
in lower secondary school students: The PETALS Trial. Research Square. Preprint.
* Sebire, S. J., Edwards, M. J., Fox, K. R., Davies, B., Banfield, K., Wood, L., & Jago, R.
(2016). Delivery and receipt of a self-determination-theory-based extracurricular
physical activity intervention: Exploring theoretical fidelity in action 3:30. Journal of
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 38, 381–395. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2015-0217.
* Sfandyari, B., Ghorbani, S., Rezaeeshirazi, R., & Noohpisheh, S. (2020). The
effectiveness of an autonomy-based exercise training on intrinsic motivation,
physical activity intention, and health-related fitness of sedentary students in middle
school. International Journal of School Health, 7, 40–47. https://doi.
org/10.30476/INTJSH.2020.84678.1046.
Shrout, P. E., & Rodgers, J. L. (2018). Psychology, science, and knowledge construction:
Broadening perspectives from the replication crisis. Annual Review of Psychology, 69,
487–510. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-122216-011845
Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects
of teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 85, 571. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.85.4.571
* Sparks, C., Lonsdale, C., Dimmock, J., & Jackson, B. (2017). An intervention to improve
teachers’ interpersonally involving instructional practices in high school physical
education: Implications for student relatedness support and in-class experiences.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 39, 120–133. https://doi.
org/10.1123/jsep.2016-0198.
Standage, M., Gillison, F. B., Ntoumanis, N., & Treasure, D. C. (2012). Predicting
students’ physical activity and health-related well-being: A prospective cross-domain
investigation of motivation across school physical education and exercise settings.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34, 37–60. https://doi.org/10.1123/
jsep.34.1.37
Sterne, J. A., Gavaghan, D., & Egger, M. (2000). Publication and related bias in meta-
analysis: Power of statistical tests and prevalence in the literature. Journal of Clinical
Epidemiology, 53, 1119–1129. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0895-4356(00)00242-0
Stroet, K., Opdenakker, M. C., & Minnaert, A. (2013). Effects of need supportive teaching
on early adolescents’ motivation and engagement: A review of the literature.
Educational Research Review, 9, 65–87. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
edurev.2012.11.003
* Sullivan, G. S. (2005). The effects of a coaching education workshop on the self-regulated
motivation of 6th grade male and female basketball players. The Ohio State University:
Doctoral Dissertation.
Su, Y. L., & Reeve, J. (2011). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intervention
programs designed to support autonomy. Educational Psychology Review, 23,
159–188. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-010-9142-7
Taylor, I. M., & Lonsdale, C. (2010). Cultural differences in the relationships among
autonomy support, psychological need satisfaction, subjective vitality, and effort in
British and Chinese physical education. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32,
655–673. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.32.5.655
Teixeira, P. J., Carraça, E. V., Markland, D., Silva, M. N., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Exercise,
physical activity, and self-determination theory: A systematic review. International
Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9, 78. https://doi.org/10.1186/
1479-5868-9-78
Teixeira, P. J., Marques, M. M., Silva, M. N., Brunet, J., Duda, J., Haerens, L., &
Hagger, M. S. (2019). Classification of techniques used in self-determination theory-
based interventions in health contexts: An expert consensus study. Preprint.
Available in: https://osf.io/f65jy.
Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., & Ntoumanis, N. (2006). The role of self-determined
motivation in the understanding of exercise-related behaviours, cognitions and
physical self-evaluations. Journal of Sports Sciences, 24, 393–404. https://doi.org/
10.1080/02640410500131670
* Tilga, H., Hein, V., & Koka, A. (2019). Effects of a web-based intervention for PE
teachers on students’ perceptions of teacher behaviors, psychological needs, and
intrinsic motivation. Perceptual & Motor Skills, 126, 559–580. https://doi.
org/10.1177/0031512519840150.
* Tilga, H., Kalajas-Tilga, H., Hein, V., Raudsepp, L., & Koka, A. (2020). Effects of a brief
one-day autonomy-supportive intervention on improving basic psychological needs,
motivation, and behaviours of physical activity among middle-school students: A
multidimensional approach. International Journal of Sport Psychology.
* Ulstad, S. O., Halvari, H., Sørebø, Ø., & Deci, E. L. (2018). Motivational predictors of
learning strategies, participation, exertion, and performance in physical education: A
randomized controlled trial. Motivation and Emotion, 42, 497–512. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11031-018-9694-2.
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp.
271–359). New York: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(08)
60019-2.
M. Manninen et al.
Vallerand, R. J. (2000). Deci and Ryan’s self-determination theory: A view from the
hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Psychological Inquiry, 11,
312–318.
Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R. M., & Soenens, B. (2020). Basic psychological need theory:
Advancements, critical themes, and future directions. Motivation and Emotion, 44,
1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09818-1
Vasconcellos, D., Parker, P. D., Hilland, T., Cinelli, R., Owen, K. B., Kapsal, N., …
Lonsdale, C. (2019). Self-determination theory applied to physical education: A
systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology. https://doi.
org/10.1037/edu0000420
Viechtbauer, W. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the Metafor package.
Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
Viechtbauer, W., & Cheung, M. W. (2010). Outlier and influence diagnostics for meta-
analysis. Research Synthesis Methods, 1, 112–125. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.11
Werman-Josefsson, K., Lindwall, M., & Ivarsson, A. (2015). Need satisfaction,
motivational regulations and exercise: Moderation and mediation effects.
17
Psychology of Sport & Exercise 62 (2022) 102248
International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 12, 67. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s129660150226-0
Wilson, P. M., & Rodgers, W. M. (2002). The relationship between exercise motives and
physical self-esteem in female exercise participants: An application of self-
determination theory. Journal of Applied Biobehavioral Research, 7, 30–43. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.17519861.2002.tb00074.x
Wilson, P. M., Rodgers, W. M., Fraser, S. N., & Murray, T. C. (2004). Relationships
between exercise regulations and motivational consequences in university students.
Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 75, 81–91. https://doi.org/10.1080/
02701367.2004.10609136
* Zazo, R., Peruyero, F., & Murcia, J. A. M. (2018). Autonomy support in the aquatic
motivational healthy program through the SDT. Motricidade, 14, 95–106.
https://doi.org/10.6063/motricidade.13864.
An asterisk indicates the studies used in the meta-analysis.