Discussion & Conclusion

1. Introduction Researchers often consider supervisor’s behavior as either autonomy-supportive (and not controlling) or as controlling (and not autonomy-supportive; Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, & Ryan, 1981; Vansteenkiste et al., 2012). However, behaviors are often far more complex and can, at times, appear as being autonomy-supportive (A) and controlling (C; Bartholomew, et al., 2011a; Grolnick & Ryan, 1989, Pelletier, et al., 2001; Tessier, et al., 2008). This research tested the effects of autonomy-support and controlling style, usually considered as two ends of one continuum, on contextual autonomous motivation using Cluster analyses (Study 1), and on situational autonomous motivation using a quasi-experimental design (Study 2). Results supported the independency of those constructs by highlighting a significant interaction of both interpersonal styles on motivation. An unexpected effect was found in the low A/high C condition (Study 2) where a high level of motivation was observed. A third study aimed at testing whether this level of motivation was due to the cognitive dissonance generated by the commitment procedure used to recruit participants. A self-affirmation intervention (Sherman & Cohen, 2006) known to reduce cognitive dissonance also reduced motivation in the low Ay/high C condition with the same commitment procedure. Method Sudy 1: 260 French first year psychology students (65 males and 195 females; mean age was 19.46 years, SD = 1. 55) were recruited during lesson in social psychology. Academic motivation (Vallerand, Blais, Brière, & Pelletier, 1989) and perceptions of autonomy-supportive and controlling style (Mageau, Ranger, Koestner, Moreau, & Forest, 2011) were assessed at the middle of the semester. Study 2: 100 French third year economy students (57 males and 43 females; mean age was 21.48 years, SD = 1. 19) from 4 different classes corresponding to each experimental condition (n = 31, 16, 30, and 23). Contextual motivation toward studies has been controlled three months before, no differences on the RAI and sex have been observed between the 4 groups. Students were asked to complete logic tasks under particular experimental conditions. All groups were randomly assigned (high A and C, high A/low C, low A/high C, low A and C), and their situational motivation (Guay, Vallerand, & Blanchard, 2000) were assessed . To recruit students, the experimenter said to each class separately: “I need motivated volunteers’ participants to conduct this study”. Then, he said “Of course, you are free to participate or not to this study. In this regard, if someone disagreed to participate, he/she can raise his hand now and wait outside the time the experiment is conducted”. This commitment procedure (CP; Freedman & Fraser, 1966) is regularly used with non-paid participants to recruit a maximum of participants in France. Study 3: 83 French first year sport students (47 male and 36 female, mean age was 19.19 years, SD = 1.08) from 3 different classes (n = 27, 28, and 25) were also asked to complete the same logic tasks as for Study 2. Contextual motivation toward studies has been controlled 2 weeks before, no differences on the RAI and sex have been observed between the 3 groups. The experimenter showed for each group low A and high C. Each was randomly assigned to an experimental condition (without CP; CP + self-affirmation condition; CP + without self-affirmation).  Autonomy supportive and controlling behaviors: Two sides of the same coins?AMOURA, Camille (1); BERJOT, Sophie (1); GILLET, Nicolas (2); ALTINTAS, Emin (3); CARUANA, Sylvain (1) & FINEZ Lucie(4)(1) Université de Reims - Champagne Ardenne, France(2) Université François Rabelais - Tours, France(3) Université Lille Nord de France - Lille 3, France(3) Université Bourgogne - Dijon, France Results Study 1:results from a k-means Cluster analysis confirmed the consistency of the 4-Cluster solution. An ANOVA on the Relative Autonomy Index (RAI) showed a significant effect of Clusters on the RAI; F(3, 256) = 3.34, p < .02; Figure 1). Study 2:results showed a significant interaction between autonomy-supportive and controlling style on the Situational Relative Autonomy Index F(1.96) = 8.99; p < .004. Study 3: a one-way ANOVAs revealed significant effects of experimental conditions on the situational relative autonomy index; SRAI, F(2,76) = 13.56, p < .001. Discussion & Conclusion These results first of all showed that our results showed that both facets of interpersonal styles of teachers (autonomy-supportive and controlling) were distinctly detected by students. The autonomy-supportive style as defined by SDT does not seem so antithetical to the controlling style. Study 1 showed that students perceiving High A and Low C were more autonomously motivated than those in the other groups. Study 2 revealed consistent literature results, except for the low A/high C condition. Participants remained motivated in the Low A/High C condition because of the voluntary nature of the experiment. An inconsistency between the highly controlled task resolution and participants’ free choice to take part in the experiment occurred. This incoherent situation induced cognitive dissonance among students (Beauvois & Joule, 1999; Festinger, 1957), who attempted to reduce it by perceiving the tasks as enjoyable to rationalize (Festinger, 1957).This rationalization was a way to cope with the self-threat induced by the fact to have freely accepted to take part in the experiment while they were under a strong social control. Study 3 showed that the situational motivation found in this condition was due to the cognitive dissonance induced by the CP. The first proof of that was that when the CP was not used, situational motivation decreased. The second proof was that when participants were allowed to self-affirm, the situational motivation also decreased (which was not the case in the non self-affirmation condition which equates to a control condition, in the sense that it amount to doing nothing). From a practical point of view, researchers should use CP precociously when dealing with situational autonomous motivation. Figure 1. Study 1. Effect of Clusters on Contextual RAI. Note. A: perceived autonomy, C: perceived control Figure 2. Effect of Autonomy Support and Psychological Control on Situational RAI. Figure 3. Effects of the Low Autonomy-Supportive and High Controlling Conditions on Situational RAI