Higher grades occur when high autonomous motivation coincides with low controlled motivation (incongruence), not congruence¶

Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study · associational r2 · q3
Currency · newest study 2021 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person

Subclaims¶

q3 i? The line of congruence gave no support for additive synergistic effects of autonomous and controlled motivation on grades. → Mouratidis 2021

Evidence¶

Mouratidis 2021¶

Mouratidis, A., Michou, A., Sayil, M., & Altan, S. (2021). It is autonomous, not controlled motivation that counts: Linear and curvilinear relations of autonomous and controlled motivation to school grades. Learning and Instruction, 73, 101433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2020.101433

q3 · i? · associational · r2

In Sample 1 the congruence-line slope was nonsignificant (p = .061) though curvature was significant, and inspection showed grades decreased as both motivations jointly increased up to a point before rebounding. The authors describe the pattern as inconclusive for Hypothesis 2a.

"The slope was nonsignificant (α1 = 1.15, SE = 0.61, t[3093] = 0.1.88, p = .061, 95%-CI: 2.35, 0.03), but its curvature was statistically significant"

Discussion¶

Related Claims¶

• In 8 countries, a non-parallel asymmetric congruence/incongruence polynomial explained a modest 4.1% of achievement variance yet a 41% increase over the additive model — related
• In 12 countries, a level-dependent incongruence polynomial with free cubic effect of control explained 7.8% of achievement variance (a 30.9% increase over the additive model) — related
• In 14 countries, a cubic effect of autonomous motivation best fit the motivation-achievement relation, explaining 10.7% of achievement variance (an 8.1% increase over the additive model) — related
• Across 37 countries, polynomial models with nonlinear or interactive effects of autonomous and controlled motivation on mathematics achievement always fit better than linear additive-only models — a broader claim this one bears on
• In 3 countries, a quadratic-effects-of-x-and-y polynomial explained 7.2% of achievement variance (an 11% increase over the linear model) — related