Need satisfaction and autonomy support did not predict external regulation, and introjected associations did not hold in the full model¶
Claim · All claims
Evidence · 1 study (2 entries) · quant-synthesisr3·q3
Currency · newest study 2022 · not yet checked against its sources · not reviewed by a person
Subclaims¶
Reading the evidence codes
q is the design tier, i the impact, n the sample, and the kind with its r
the rigour judged within that kind: what each code means.
This claim: no standardized effect is recorded in observations/ for it yet, so no benchmark reading is possible.
q3 i? Variance in external regulation explained by need satisfaction was negligible (R2 = .004) in relative weight analysis. → Bureau 2022
q3 i? Small meta-analytic associations between both autonomy support sources and introjected regulation did not hold when needs and autonomy support predicted introjection within a single model. → Bureau 2022 (2)
Evidence¶
Bureau 2022¶
Bureau, J. S., Howard, J. L., Chong, J. X. Y., & Guay, F. (2022). Pathways to Student Motivation: A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents of Autonomous and Controlled Motivations. Review of Educational Research, 92(1), 46–72. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211042426
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3
Relative weight analysis of the three psychological needs predicting motivation types from pooled meta-analytic correlations. For external regulation, "variance explained by needs was negligible (R2 = .004), making the relative weight analysis meaningless"; the MASEM models likewise gave external regulation a mean R2 of .01.
"For external regulation, variance explained by needs was negligible (R2 = .004), making the relative weight analysis meaningless."
Bureau 2022 (2)¶
Bureau, J. S., Howard, J. L., Chong, J. X. Y., & Guay, F. (2022). Pathways to Student Motivation: A Meta-Analysis of Antecedents of Autonomous and Controlled Motivations. Review of Educational Research, 92(1), 46–72. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543211042426
q3 · i? · quant-synthesis · r3
The discussion of the MASEM results reports that small bivariate autonomy-support associations with introjected regulation "did not hold when needs and autonomy support predicted introjection within a single model", with only small consistent positive indirect effects on introjected regulation.
"despite meta-analytic correlations showing a small association between both autonomy support sources and introjected regulation, these associations did not hold when needs and autonomy support predicted introjection within a single model."
Discussion¶
Related Claims¶
- Psychological needs correlate more strongly with more self-determined motivation types, from intrinsic motivation down to near-zero with external regulation — possibly the same claim (merge candidate)
- Teacher autonomy support predicts students' need satisfaction and self-determined motivation more strongly than parental autonomy support — related
- Competence need satisfaction is the strongest psychological-need predictor of students' self-determined motivation types — related
- Satisfaction of basic psychological needs is positively associated with autonomous motivation, with competence the strongest predictor — related
- The intervention does not change general motivation for mathematics measured by the SRQ-A — related
Page metadata
| Field | Value |
|---|---|
type |
claim |
id |
needs-autonomy-support-not-predict-external-regulation |
title |
Need satisfaction and autonomy support did not predict external regulation, and introjected associations did not hold in the full model |
description |
Need satisfaction and autonomy support did not predict external regulation, and introjected associations did not hold in the full model |
status |
review |
evidence_strength |
moderate |
newest_evidence |
2022 |
generated |
by process:wiki-ingest on 2026-10-20 |
trust |
unverified — no one has confirmed this page's content |
sources |
2 — bureau-2022, bureau-2022-2 |
Frontmatter is the page's machine-readable record — see the Schema & Guide.