Learning and Individual Differences 62 (2018) 12–22

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Learning and Individual Differences

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

Personality-based antecedents of teachers' autonomy-supportive and T

controlling motivating styles☆
⁎
Johnmarshall Reevea, Hye-Ryen Janga, Hyungshim Jangb,
a
Korea University, South Korea
b
Hanyang University, South Korea

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

Keywords: We sought to identify teachers' personality-based antecedents that tend them toward an autonomy-supportive or
Autonomy support controlling motivating style. We assessed both aspects of teachers' motivating styles at the beginning of the
Authoritarianism semester (T1, Time 1) and again after all teachers had completed a semester-long intervention (T2) to learn how
Causality orientation to become more autonomy supportive and less controlling. At the start of the semester, 42 full-time elementary-
Personal growth initiative
grade teachers (25 females, 17 males) completed a packet of questionnaires to self-report their core traits (the
Teacher control
big five) and eight surface traits (e.g., causality orientations, authoritarianism) that we hypothesized would
predict one motivating style or the other, while their 633 students self-reported their autonomous motivation.
Regression-based analyses revealed four findings: (1) High levels of openness to experience and agreeableness
both individually predicted teachers' T1 autonomy-supportive motivating style; (2) high levels of control
causality orientation and authoritarianism both individually predicted T1 controlling motivating style; (3) high
levels of autonomy causality orientation and personal growth initiative both individually predicted a post-in-
tervention change in T2 autonomy-supportive motivating style; and (4) high level of control causality or-
ientation predicted a post-intervention change in T2 controlling motivating style. These findings suggest a robust
relation between personality and teachers' motivating styles.

1. Introduction functioning (e.g., disengagement, antisocial behavior), and (4) teacher

control strongly predicted students' need frustration and maladaptive
Motivating style is the interpersonal tone and face-to-face behavior functioning but only weakly predicted (low) need satisfaction and
teachers routinely use to engage their students in the learning activities adaptive functioning (Bartholomew et al., 2011; Cheon, Reeve, & Song,
they provide (Reeve, 2009, 2016). In a self-determination theory (SDT) 2016; De Meyer et al., 2014; Gunnell, Crocker, Wilson, Mack, & Zumbo,
analysis (Ryan & Deci, 2017), motivating style was first conceptualized 2013; Haerens et al., 2015). The conclusion reached was that these are
as a single construct in which a teacher's style could be placed on a two distinct and somewhat independent processes with autotomy sup-
bipolar continuum with a highly autonomy-supportive style on one end port vitalizing the “brighter” side of students' motivation and func-
and a highly controlling style on the other (Deci, Schwartz, Sheinman, tioning and teacher control galvanizing the “darker” side of students'
& Ryan, 1981). Recent empirical findings, however, now suggest that motivation and functioning (Bartholomew et al., 2011).
the autonomy-supportive and controlling styles exist as two separate Autonomy support is the delivery of instruction through an inter-
dimensions (Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan, Bosch, & Thogersen- personal tone of support and understanding that appreciates, vitalizes,
Ntoumani, 2011; Haerens, Aelterman, Vansteenkiste, Soenens, & Van and supports students' psychological needs for autonomy, competence,
Petegem, 2015). This is because it was discovered that (1) the two styles and relatedness (Reeve, 2016). This tone is communicated to students
were only modestly negatively correlated, (2) a low level in one moti- through supportive prosody (i.e., higher pitch, slow speech rate, mild
vating style did not imply or lead to a high level in the other style; (3) voice quality; Zougkou, Weinstein, & Paulmann, 2017) and acts of in-
autonomy support strongly predicted students' need satisfaction and struction such as taking the students' perspective, creating opportu-
adaptive functioning (e.g., engagement, prosocial behavior) but only nities for their input and initiative, offering learning activities in need-
weakly predicted their (low) need frustration and maladaptive satisfying ways, providing rationales for requests, and acknowledging

☆
This work was supported by the Ministry of Education of the Republic of Korea and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF-2015S1A5B6036594). Additionally, this
research was supported by the College of Education, Korea University Grant in 2015.
⁎
Corresponding author at: Department of Education, Hanyang University, Seongdong-gu, Seoul 04763, South Korea.
E-mail address: janghs@hanyang.ac.kr (H. Jang).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2018.01.001
Received 4 November 2016; Received in revised form 17 December 2017; Accepted 1 January 2018
1041-6080/ © 2018 Published by Elsevier Inc.
J. Reeve et al. Learning and Individual Differences 62 (2018) 12–22

and accepting expressions of negative affect as okay and under- 2015; Cheon, Reeve, & Moon, 2012; Tessier, Sarrazin, & Ntoumanis,
standable (Reeve, 2009). Teacher-provided autonomy support is asso- 2010). Core traits may predict such skill-based patterns of behavior, as
ciated with students' high-quality motivation (need satisfaction, au- in the case of openness to experience predicting communication skills
tonomous motivation), effective classroom functioning (engagement, (Sims, 2017) and conscientiousness predicting academic skills (Kappe &
conceptual learning), and positive educational outcomes (high van der Flier, 2012). Nevertheless, we see motivating styles as more
achievement, well-being) and is therefore considered to be the adaptive closely aligned with teachers' surface traits, such as those beliefs, or-
aspect of a teacher's motivating style (Assor, Kaplan, & Roth, 2002; ientations, and regulatory styles teachers acquire by adapting to their
Cheon & Reeve, 2015; Gunnell et al., 2013; Jang, Kim, & Reeve, 2016). experiences. Specifically, as explained in the next section, we focus on
Teacher control is the delivery of instruction through an inter- the three surface traits of an autonomy causality orientation, personal
personal tone of pressure that insists students think, feel, and behave in growth strivings, and the transformational leadership style as possible
teacher-prescribed ways (Reeve, 2016). This tone generally frustrates personality-based antecedents of the autonomy-supportive motivating
students' psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and related- style, and we focus on the five surface traits of a control causality or-
ness (Cheon et al., 2016). It is communicated through pressure-laden ientation, the transactional leadership style, authoritarianism, closed-
prosody (i.e., low pitch, loud tone, fast speech rate, harsh voice quality; mindedness, and discomfort with ambiguity as possible personality-
Zougkou et al., 2017) and acts of instruction such as suppressing stu- based antecedents of the controlling motivating style. Additionally, we
dents' input and voice, offering contingent rewards, uttering pressuring further investigated the predictive power of core traits (the Big Five)
and compliance-inducing language (e.g., “you must”, “you have to”), and a number of demographic variables (e.g., years of teaching ex-
uttering directives without explanations, asserting power or dominance perience).
(e.g., yelling, intimidating), and countering and trying to change stu-
dents' complaints and expressions of negative affect into something 1.2. Hypothesized personality-based antecedents of the autonomy-
acceptable to the teacher (Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, & Thogersen- supportive motivating style
Ntoumani, 2010; Reeve, 2009). Teacher-provided control is associated
with students' low-quality motivation (need frustration, amotivation, We sought to explain both who is characteristically autonomy
controlled motivation), ineffective classroom functioning (disengage- supportive and who is most able to benefit from an intervention ex-
ment, superficial learning), and negative educational outcomes (anti- perience to learn how to become more autonomy supportive. As such,
social behavior, ill-being) and is therefore considered to be the mala- the study assessed teachers' beginning of the semester (i.e., pre-inter-
daptive aspect of a teacher's motivating style (Assor et al., 2002; Assor, vention, or Time 1) autonomy-supportive motivating style and also
Kaplan, Kanat-Maymon, & Roth, 2005; Haerens et al., 2015; Hein, teachers' end of the semester (i.e., post-intervention, or Time 2) changes
Koka, & Hagger, 2015). in the autonomy-supportive style.
Teachers who are autonomy supportive and teachers who learn how
1.1. Personality perspective on the antecedents to teachers' motivating styles to become more autonomy supportive with training are likely to be
those who possess individual differences that orient them favorably to
Many social-contextual factors explain why teachers tend to orient enacting autonomy-supportive attitudes and behaviors, such as em-
themselves toward either an autonomy-supportive or a controlling pathy and perspective taking, believing that the primary drivers of
motivating style during instruction, including school-based factors such motivation are personal interests and preferences, and strivings to im-
as time constraints, emphases on summative grading, and adminis- prove oneself. A high level of dispositional agreeableness, for instance,
trative pressure to adopt prescribed teaching methods (Pelletier & might predict an autonomy-supportive style because it reflects a ten-
Sharp, 2009; Taylor, Ntoumanis, & Smith, 2009), teachers' perceptions dency toward warm, reciprocal interactions with others that features a
of their students' classroom motivation (i.e., autonomous vs. controlled good deal of listening and understanding (McAdams, Jackson, &
motivation; Pelletier, Seguin-Levesque, & Legault, 2002), and even the Kirshnit, 1984). Openness to experience has also been associated with
nation in which they live and teach (Downie, Koestner, ElGeledi, & an autonomous style (Olesen, 2011; Olesen, Thomsen, Schnieber, &
Cree, 2004; Reeve et al., 2014). But little is known about the possible Tonnesvang, 2010). Mostly, however, we focused on the following
personality-based antecedents of teachers' classroom motivating styles. three surface traits as our hypothesized personality-based antecedents
Recognizing this, we undertook the present investigation with the goal of an autonomy-supportive style: autonomy causality orientation, per-
of identifying which personality-based antecedents might tend teachers sonal growth initiative, and transformational leadership.
toward an autonomy-supportive style and which other personality- A causality orientation is one's understanding of what typically
based antecedents might tend teachers toward a controlling style. energizes and directs (i.e., motivates) one's own behavior, and people
Following several personality theorists (McCrae et al., 2000; tend to have, more or less, some level of both an autonomy causality
McAdams & Pals, 2006), we make the distinction between dispositional orientation a control causality orientation (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan &
traits and characteristic adaptations. Dispositional traits represent en- Deci, 2017). An autonomy causality orientation characterizes the degree
dogenous (genetically-based) and stable “core traits” that follow in- to which the person sees the environment as a source of information.
trinsic paths of expression and development and are essentially in- Individuals with a high autonomy causality orientation are “interest-
dependent of environmental influences (Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003). taking”, as they find or create opportunities in the environment for the
The “Big Five” dispositions of extraversion, neuroticism, openness to expression and engagement of their personal needs, interests, and va-
experience, agreeableness, and conscientiousness exemplify core traits. lues (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2017). The presence of need-
Characteristic adaptations represent malleable and experienced-based satisfying, interesting, and valued environmental opportunities there-
“surface traits” that are shaped by context and personal strivings and fore explains why they act. Because autonomy-supportive teaching
have been internalized as self-regulatory orientations in response to builds instruction around mobilizing students' inner motivational re-
persisting social-contextual influences (Vansteenkiste, Niemiec, & sources (e.g., needs, interests, and values), we expected that the au-
Soenens, 2010). The inclusion of surface traits adds a developmental tonomy causality orientation would predict the autonomy-supportive
perspective to explain teachers' motivating styles that are not necessa- motivating style with the logic being that teachers would likely try to
rily captured by core traits (Olesen, 2011). motivate their students by using the same sources of motivation that
Like so many aspects of effective teaching, motivating style is an motivate them.
acquired skill. Intervention research, for instance, shows that teachers' Personal growth initiative characterizes a person's active and inten-
motivating styles are malleable and can change with guidance, ex- tional involvement in changing as a person; it is one's strivings for self-
perience, and deliberate practice (Cheon et al., 2016; Cheon & Reeve, improvement and personal growth (Robitschek et al., 2012). Because

13
J. Reeve et al. Learning and Individual Differences 62 (2018) 12–22

we viewed an intervention to learn how to become more autonomy norms, submission to legitimate authority, and the necessity of using
supportive to be a growth-oriented professional developmental oppor- coercion to ensure conformity (Altemeyer, 1996), we expected au-
tunity for teachers, we expected that teachers with a high personal thoritarianism would predict the controlling motivating style.
growth initiative would more readily capitalize on the professional Closed-mindedness and discomfort occasioned by ambiguity are two
developmental opportunity and, consequently, become more autonomy facets of the need for closure. Individuals high in the need for closure
supportive. have intolerance for uncertainty and aversion to ambiguity. Because
Transformational leadership is a style in which a teacher (the leader) these two individual differences lead people to prefer simplified in-
seeks to inspire students (followers) by promoting their strengths, lis- structional scripts that produce high predictability (Kruglanski, 1989;
tening to their concerns, focusing on their needs, and mobilizing their Webster & Kruglanski, 1994), we expected both closed-mindedness and
inner motivational resources (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). Because we ex- intolerance for ambiguity would predict the controlling motivating
pected teachers who endorsed a transformational leadership style to style.
focus on students' needs and strengths, we expected the transforma-
tional leadership style to predict the autonomy-supportive motivating 2. Method
style.
2.1. Participants
1.3. Hypothesized personality-based antecedents of the controlling
motivating style Teacher-participants were the 42 full-time teachers (25 females, 17
males) who comprised the full faculty at a public elementary school in
We further sought to explain both who is characteristically con- Seoul, South Korea. All teachers were certified teachers who daily
trolling and who remains controlling even after participation in the taught an average of 5 classes with an average of 22 students per class.
intervention experience (i.e., who resists the intervention's message and Teachers averaged 7.1 years of teaching experience (range = 1 to
recommendations). As such, the study assessed teachers' beginning of 20 years) and were, on average, 33.7 years of age (range = 25 to 52).
the semester (i.e., pre-intervention, or T1) controlling motivating style Teachers taught the following grade levels: first (n = 8); second
and also teachers' end of the semester (i.e., post-intervention, or T2) (n = 6); third (n = 6); fourth (n = 7); fifth (n = 7); and sixth (n = 8).
changes in the controlling motivating style. Forty-one of the 42 teacher-participants completed all aspects of the
Teachers who are controlling and teachers who remain controlling study, including both waves of data collection and all three parts of the
after training are likely to be those who possess individual differences intervention, so the teacher retention rate was 97.6% (41/42). At the
that orient them favorably to enacting controlling attitudes and beha- end of the study, each teacher received a gratuity equivalent to $100.
viors, such as believing that people should submit to legitimate au- Student-participants were the 663 students present in class when the
thority, holding a favorable view on the motivational use of rewards student questionnaire was collected. Following precedent and re-
and punishers, preferring to create a tightly-organized social environ- commendations of child development researchers (Skinner & Belmont,
ment, being intolerant to open-ended (uncertain) lesson plans, and 1993), we administered the questionnaire only to students in grades 3,
believing that the primary drivers of motivation are environmental 4, 5, and 6. All students were ethnic Korean and consisted of 323 (49%)
incentives and social expectations. We did not expect any dispositional females and 337 (51%) males with 3 students not indicating a gender
trait to be associated with these teacher characteristics, though there is and 131 (20%) third-graders, 156 (23%) fourth-graders, 164 (25%)
some evidence that a controlling style is associated with a low level of fifth-graders; and 212 (32%) sixth-graders. The purpose of collecting
agreeableness (Olesen, 2011; Olesen et al., 2010). Instead, we focused the student data was simply to obtain a score for students' collective
on the following five surface traits as our hypothesized personality- autonomous motivation to be used as a statistical control in the hy-
based antecedents of a controlling style: control causality orientation, pothesis tests.
transactional leadership, authoritarianism, closed-mindedness, and
discomfort with ambiguity. 2.2. Procedure
A control causality orientation characterizes the degree to which one's
attention and concerns tend to be oriented toward external con- One month prior to the semester, the research team met with the
tingencies and controls. Individuals with a high control causality or- school principal to gain consent for the semester-long study. Following
ientation experience environments in terms of rewards and social this consent, we recruited the full population of 42 teachers to parti-
pressures and, in doing so, often lose sight of their own needs, interests, cipate in the study. The data collection occurred in two waves. First,
and values (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2017). Because control- during week 4 of the semester (T1), teachers completed the teacher
ling teaching builds instruction around the strategic and timely offering questionnaire (to assess the two motivating styles, demographic char-
of attractive rewards and social pressures, we expected that the control acteristics, the big five, and the eight surface traits), while students
causality orientation would predict the controlling motivating style, completed the student questionnaire. Also during week 4 and after
and there is support in the literature for this prediction as teachers' teachers completed their questionnaire, teachers participated in Parts 1
control orientation has been shown to correlate with raters' scoring of and 2 of the autonomy-supportive intervention program (ASIP).
their in-class controlling instructional behavior, such as demanding Second, during the last week of the semester (week 16, T2), teachers
respect and yelling (Van den Berghe et al., 2013). completed the questionnaires assessing the two motivating styles for a
Transactional leadership is a style in which a teacher (the leader) uses second time.
directives, close supervision, and a strategic use of rewards and pun- At both T1 and T2, the teacher questionnaire was administered in a
ishments (extrinsic motivators) to gain students' (followers') compliance group setting by the research team, and teachers were assured that their
to leader-prescribed behaviors and outcomes (Judge & Piccolo, 2004). responses would be confidential and used only for purposes of the re-
Because the transactional leadership style is often called “contingent search study. All parts of the ASIP intervention were also conducted in a
reward leadership” (Bass & Avolio, 1994), we expected it to predict the group setting with all teachers present and participating. At T1, the
controlling motivating style, because the use of contingent rewards is a student questionnaire was administered by a member of the research
central aspect of a controlling motivating style (Bartholomew et al., team (not by the teacher) at the beginning of a class period. Students
2010). were asked to complete the questionnaire in response to their experi-
Authoritarianism is the belief that subordinates should submit to and ences associated with that particular class, and they were assured that
obey authority figures (Altemeyer, 1998). Because people high in au- their responses would be confidential and used only for purposes of the
thoritarianism emphasize sameness and conformity to prevailing social research study. This study was approved by the university's Institutional

14
J. Reeve et al. Learning and Individual Differences 62 (2018) 12–22

Table 1
Measures, psychometric properties, and sample items for the eight hypothesized personality-based antecedents.

Individual difference

Name of questionnaire Seminal reference Items α Sample item

3 hypothesized autonomy-supportive motivating style antecedents

Autonomy causality orientation
General causality orientations Deci & Ryan, 1985 12 0.83 Seek participation: get input from others before you make the final plans.
scale
Personal growth initiative
Personal growth initiative scale II Robitschek et al., 2012 16 0.94 I am constantly trying to grow as a teacher.
Transformational leadership
Multifactor leadership scale Avolio, Bass, & Jung, 1999 4 0.50 I am one who focuses on students' strengths.

5 hypothesized controlling motivating style antecedents

Control causality orientation
General causality orientations Deci & Ryan, 1985 12 0.68 Take charge: make most of the decisions yourself.
scale
Transactional leadership
Multifactor leadership scale Avolio et al., 1999 4 0.71 I am one who focuses on students' mistakes.
Authoritarianism For the following pair of qualities, which one do you think is more important for
National election study DeBell, Wilson, Segura, Jackman, & 4 0.68 a student to have? Curiosity or good manners?
Hutchings, 2011
Closed mindedness
Need for closure scale Webster & Kruglanski, 1994 8 0.74 I feel irritated when one person disagrees with what everyone else in a group
believes.
Discomfort occasioned by ambiguity
Need for closure scale Webster & Kruglanski, 1994 8 0.77 It's annoying to listen to someone who cannot seem to make up his or her mind.

Review Board and all participants were treated in accordance with the supportive and less controlling ways.
guidelines recommended by the university and by the American
Psychological Association.
2.4. Measures

2.3. Autonomy-supportive intervention program (ASIP)

For each questionnaire except Authoritarianism,1 we used a 1–7
response scale (1 = strongly disagree, 7 = strongly agree). We had
The design and implementation of the intervention followed the
available to us a previously-used and validated Korean translated ver-
recommendations for the effective implementation of a short-term
sion of almost all the questionnaires, but we used Brislin's (1980) back-
professional developmental opportunity (e.g., alignment with teachers'
translation procedure for those that we did not. We translated these
training needs, participant-centered setting, demonstration of re-
English measures into Korean using a professional English-Korean
commended behaviors, and providing opportunities for both practice
translator. Once translated, two graduate students who were native
and group discussion; Desimone, 2009; Lauer, Christopher, Firpo-
Korean and fluent in both languages carried out separate English back-
Triplett, & Buchting, 2014). Part 1 of the ASIP was a 2 1/2-hour
translations, discussing any discrepancies that emerged until reaching a
morning informational workshop to introduce autonomy-supportive
consensus translation.
and controlling teaching, to offer empirical evidence on the benefits of
autonomy support and the costs of teacher control, and to introduce
and recommend the following six autonomy-supportive instructional 2.4.1. Autonomy-supportive and controlling motivating styles
behaviors: Take the students' perspective; support students' psycholo- We assessed the autonomy-supportive and controlling motivating
gical needs during instruction; use invitational language; provide ex- styles with two complementary measures—namely, the Teaching
planatory rationales for teacher requests; display patience; and ac- Scenarios questionnaire and the Situations in Schools questionnaire.
knowledge and accept students' expressions of negative affect (for more Both measures include separate scales to assess both the autonomy-
information, see Reeve, 2009, 2016). supportive and controlling motivating styles.
Part 2 was a 3-h, same-day afternoon workshop that focused on the On the two-page Teaching Scenarios measure (Reeve et al., 2014),
“how to” of the six recommended autonomy-supportive instructional teachers first read a 263-word essay (see Reeve et al., 2014, Table 1,
behaviors. Each recommended act of instruction was first described by page 96) that provided a prototype of autonomy-supportive teaching
the research team and modeled with multiple permutations via brief that then asked the following four items to assess extent of agreement
video clips. Teachers then practiced and refined the enactment of each with that approach to teaching: “This approach to teaching describes
instructional behavior—while receiving guidance, scaffolding, and how I teach my students on a daily basis; This approach to teaching
feedback from the research team—until they felt sufficiently skilled to nicely describes what I do during class; This is an accurate and true
try each act of instruction in their own classrooms. description of what I do during my teaching; and I do not teach this
Part 3 was a 2-hour afternoon peer-to-peer group discussion that
took place in the ninth week of the semester, about one month after 1
The Authoritarianism scale was the only scale that did not use a 1–7 response scale, so
teachers completed Parts 1 and 2 and after teachers had sufficient ac- we describe its response scale here. All four items began with the same stem, which was:
tual classroom experience with trying out the recommended instruc- “Please tell use which one you think is more important for a child to have:” and re-
tional behaviors. During the group discussion, teachers shared their spondents were asked to choose between two options. The four option pairs were as
follows: “independence or respect for elders”; “obedience or self-reliance”; “curiosity or
classroom experiences in trying to offer a more autonomy-supportive
good manners”; and “being considerate or well behaved”. Respondents who value “re-
and a less controlling motivating style, reported on how their students spect for elders”, “obedience”, “good manners”, and being “well-behaved” score at the
reacted to each style, and exchanged their experienced-based tips, maximum of the authoritarian scale (4), while those who value “independence”, “self-
suggestions, and strategies as to how to teach in more autonomy- reliance”, “curiosity”, and “being considerate” sore at the minimum (0).

15
J. Reeve et al. Learning and Individual Differences 62 (2018) 12–22

way” (reverse scored). Teachers next read a 262-word essay on the in regard to teaching in specific) is initiated and regulated primarily by
second page that provided a prototype of controlling teaching that then internal causalities (e.g., interests, personal goals), while the control
asked teachers to complete the same four items assessing extent of causality orientation assesses the extent to which the person believes that
agreement with that approach to teaching (with the order of the two behavior is initiated and regulated primarily by environmental caus-
essays being counterbalanced). Teachers completed the 4-item personal alities (e.g., rewards, social demands). We used the Personal Growth
endorsement of autonomy-supportive teaching (α's at T1 and Initiatives II scale to assess the personal growth initiative, which assesses
T2 = 0.92 and 0.88) and the 4-item personal endorsement of control- the person's strivings for self-improvement and personal growth. We
ling teaching (α's = 0.94 and 0.92) in an internally consistent way. The used the Multifactor Leadership Scale to assess both the transforma-
Teaching Scenarios measure has been used successfully in past research tional and transactional leadership styles. The transformational leader-
to assess teachers' autonomy-supportive and controlling motivating ship style represents an approach to management in which the super-
styles (Reeve et al., 2014; Reeve & Cheon, 2016). visor strives to transform supervisees into becoming leaders themselves,
The Situations in School questionnaire (SIS) was developed in col- while the transactional leadership style represents an approach to man-
laboration with self-determination theory experts to assess multiple agement in which the supervisor gives out contingent rewards. We
dimensions of teachers' motivating styles (Aelterman et al., 2017). The assessed authoritarianism with the National Election Study survey,
SIS presents 12 daily classroom situations that deal with different as- which assesses the extent to which the person believes that sub-
pects of the preparation or delivery of the day's lesson plan. Some si- ordinates (i.e., children) should submit to and obey authorities (i.e.,
tuations depicted a problem which requires the teacher to intervene teachers). We used the Need for Closure scale to assess both closed-
and remedy the situation (e.g., “At a difficult point in the lesson stu- mindedness and discomfort occasioned by ambiguity. Closed-mindedness
dents begin to complain. In response, you…”), other situations involved assesses the extent to which the person desires a quick, decisive, simple
a non-problematic situation in which the teacher takes a more proactive answer or perspective on a topic, while discomfort occasioned by ambi-
role (e.g., “You are thinking about classroom rules. So you…”), while guity assesses the person's preference for order and predictability.
other situations involved the provision of learning content (e.g., “It is
time for students to practice what they have learned. You…”). For each 2.4.4. Teachers' demographics and students' autonomous motivation
vignette, the SIS offers four different teaching behaviors that corre- (statistical controls)
spond to an autonomy-supportive, controlling, structuring, or chaotic Teachers reported their gender, grade level taught, and years of
style, and teachers indicate the degree to which each behavior describes teaching experience on the teacher questionnaire. The students of each
their own style. Scores from the 12 response options representing each teacher completed an 8-item questionnaire (α = 0.95) assessing their
scale are averaged to create the four scores, though we used only the collective (class-wide, or class average) level of autonomous motivation
autonomy support and controlling scales in the present study. Teachers that included four items assessing intrinsic motivation (e.g., “This class
completed the 12-item autonomy support (α's = 0.82 and 0.84) and the is enjoyable”) and another four items assessing identified regulation
12-item control (α's = 0.87 and 0.93) scales in an internally consistent (e.g., “This class is important to me.”).
way. Teacher scores on the SIS questionnaire have been shown to
correlate with other measures of autonomy support and control (i.e., 3. Results
the Teacher as Social Context Questionnaire, TASCQ, Belmont, Skinner,
Wellborn, & Connell, 1988) and to predict students' perceptions of 3.1. Preliminary analyses
teachers' autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching (Aelterman
et al., 2017). Missing data were rare (< 0.5%), so we used the expectation-
Teachers' scores on the two autonomy-supportive style ques- maximization (EM) algorithm to produce a multiple imputed data set
tionnaires were positively intercorrelated [r(41) = 0.49, p < 0.001, at (generating 200 iterations). All values for skewness and kurtosis were
T1; r(41) = 0.49, p < 0.001, at T2], and teachers' scores on the two less than | 0.9 |, indicating little deviation from normality.
controlling style questionnaires were also positively intercorrelated [r
(41) = 0.56, p < 0.001, at T1; r(41) = 0.59, p < 0.001, at T2]. Given 3.2. Effectiveness of ASIP
these positive intercorrelations and given that both scales were devel-
oped by SDT experts to assess the same constructs, we averaged the Because the study did not employ an experimental design (all tea-
autonomy-supportive scores from both questionnaires into a single chers were in the experimental group), we used a repeated measures
score (one for T1, a second for T2), and we averaged the controlling regression (i.e., pre-post comparison) to assess whether teachers' mo-
scores from both questionnaires into a single score (one for T1, a second tivating styles changed from the beginning (before the intervention) to
for T2). the end (after the intervention) of the semester. On average, teachers
did report becoming significantly more autonomy supportive (Ms, 4.57
2.4.2. Core trait measures vs. 5.01), F(1, 40) = 14.78, p < 0.001, etap2 = 0.27, though they re-
Teachers completed the Big Five Inventory (John & Srivastava, ported becoming only marginally less controlling (Ms, 3.95 vs. 3.75), F
1999) to self-report their endorsement of the big five traits of extra- (1, 40) = 2.79, p = 0.103, etap2 = 0.07.
version (8-items, α = 0.90, “I see myself as someone who is talkative.”),
neuroticism (8-items, α = 0.88, “I see myself as someone who worries a 3.3. Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations
lot.”), openness to experience (10-items, α = 0.74, “I see myself as
someone who likes to reflect, play with ideas.”), agreeableness (9-items, The descriptive statistics and intercorrelations among the T1 and T2
α = 0.73, “I see myself as someone who is helpful and unselfish with autonomy-supportive motivating styles, the T1 and T2 controlling
others.”), and conscientiousness (9-items, α = 0.82, “I see myself as motivating styles, the three teacher demographics, students' collective
someone who perseveres until the task is finished.”). autonomous motivation, the big five core traits, the three hypothesized
autonomy-supportive surface traits, and the five hypothesized inter-
2.4.3. Surface trait measures personal control surface traits appear in Table 2. Scores for T1 and T2
The teacher questionnaire measured the eight surface traits listed in autonomy support correlated significantly with two of the big five traits
Table 1 (in addition to the Big Five traits). We used the Causality Or- (openness to experience, agreeableness), all three hypothesized au-
ientations Scale to assess both the autonomy and control causality or- tonomy-supportive antecedents, and with one statistical control (years
ientations. The autonomy causality orientation assesses the extent to of teaching experience). Scores for T1 and T2 control correlated sig-
which the person believes that his or her behavior (in life in general, not nificantly with none of the big five traits, all five hypothesized

16
J. Reeve et al. Learning and Individual Differences 62 (2018) 12–22

Table 2
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations among all 21 study variables.

Variable 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Outcome measures
1. T1 autonomy support motivating style –
2. T2 autonomy support motivating style 0.56 –
3. T1 controlling motivating style − 0.38 − 0.25 –
4. T2 controlling motivating style − 0.26 −0.49 0.74 –

Statistical controls
5. Teacher gender (male = 0, females = 1) − 0.11 0.09 0.24 0.14 –
6. Teacher grade level taught − 0.11 − 0.05 0.09 0.26 −0.11 –
7. Teacher years of teaching experience − 0.33 − 0.26 0.05 0.03 0.10 − 0.01 –
8. Students' autonomous motivation 0.21 0.09 −0.11 − 0.11 −0.13 − 0.27 − 0.01 –

Big five personality predictors –

9. Extraversion 0.15 0.12 −0.20 − 0.20 0.06 0.13 0.03 − 0.21 –
10. Neuroticism − 0.29 − 0.16 0.25 0.30 0.23 0.04 − 0.06 0.05 − 0.54 –
11. Openness to experience 0.43 0.37 −0.12 − 0.19 −0.10 − 0.07 − 0.03 − 0.18 0.26 −0.12 –
12. Agreeableness 0.36 0.29 −0.20 − 0.27 0.24 − 0.08 0.12 − 0.11 0.42 − 0.38 0.25 –
13. Conscientiousness 0.16 0.33 −0.03 − 0.18 0.10 0.17 0.09 − 0.02 0.47 − 0.46 0.22 0.56 –

Hypothesized autonomy-supportive predictors

14. Autonomy causality orientation 0.45 0.59 −0.24 − 0.27 0.07 − 0.12 − 0.08 0.02 0.41 −0.23 0.37 0.39 0.21 –
15. Personal growth initiative 0.51 0.68 −0.22 −0.31 0.16 0.00 − 0.29 − 0.10 0.43 − 0.42 0.49 0.50 0.61 0.50
16. Transformational leadership 0.27 0.48 −0.23 − 0.27 0.28 − 0.02 − 0.12 − 0.17 0.44 −0.22 0.26 − 0.46 0.44 0.58

Hypothesized interpersonal control predictors

17. Control causality orientation − 0.15 − 0.23 0.60 −0.59 −0.12 0.09 0.10 − 0.17 − 0.30 0.24 0.10 − 0.16 − 0.07 − 0.02
18. Transactional leadership − 0.13 −0.43 0.26 0.31 −0.09 − 0.02 0.11 0.01 − 0.45 0.33 − 0.15 − 0.16 − 0.43 −0.43
19. Authoritarianism − 0.09 − 0.15 0.54 0.40 0.24 − 0.19 − 0.13 − 0.30 −0.02 −0.04 − 0.04 0.10 0.02 − 0.12
20. Closed-mindedness (need for closure) − 0.48 −0.41 0.37 0.34 −0.08 − 0.10 − 0.08 0.08 − 0.50 0.41 − 0.39 − 0.48 − 0.30 −0.48
21. Discomfort w/ambiguity (need for closure) − 0.32 − 0.11 0.35 0.34 0.18 0.06 0.12 − 0.06 − 0.40 0.32 − 0.10 − 0.25 − 0.16 − 0.21
M 4.57 5.01 3.95 3.76 0.61 3.51 7.10 4.00 4.25 3.37 4.99 5.15 4.83 5.50
SD 0.86 0.70 1.03 1.06 0.49 1.80 4.85 0.38 1.14 1.01 0.68 0.76 0.82 0.72

Variable 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21.

Outcome measures
1. T1 autonomy support motivating style
2. T2 autonomy support motivating style
3. T1 controlling motivating style
4. T2 controlling motivating style

Statistical controls
5. Teacher gender (male = 0, females = 1)
6. Teacher grade level taught
7. Teacher years of teaching experience
8. Students' autonomous motivation

Big five predictors

9. Extraversion
10. Neuroticism
11. Openness to experience
12. Agreeableness
13. Conscientiousness

Hypothesized autonomy-supportive predictors

14. Autonomy causality orientation
15. Personal growth initiative –
16. Transformational leadership 0.55 –

Hypothesized interpersonal control predictors

17. Control causality orientation − 0.20 − 0.18 –
18. Transactional leadership −0.43 −0.44 0.42 –
19. Authoritarianism − 0.02 − 0.04 0.27 0.16 –
20. Closed-mindedness (need for closure) −0.53 −0.42 0.43 0.32 − 0.04 –
21. Discomfort w/ambiguity (need for closure) − 0.08 − 0.16 0.43 0.37 0.12 0.36 –
M 4.94 5.18 3.98 3.70 1.84 5.03 4.50
SD 0.84 0.69 0.73 0.96 0.46 0.68 0.87

N = 41. Boldface correlation coefficients are significant, p < 0.05.

Range for all variables, 1–7, except for authoritarianism, which was 0–4.

controlling style antecedents, and none of the statistical controls. motivating style, we conducted a hierarchical regression. On the first
step, we entered teachers' gender, grade level taught, and teaching
experience, students' collective autonomous motivation, and the big
3.4. Predicting initial autonomy-supportive motivating style
five dispositional traits. This preliminary 9-predictor simultaneous re-
gression was significant overall, F(9, 31) = 4.17, p < 0.001
To predict teachers' pre-intervention T1 autonomy-supportive

17
J. Reeve et al. Learning and Individual Differences 62 (2018) 12–22

Table 3
Regressions to predict teachers' T1 and T2 autonomy-supportive motivating style.

Predictor variable T1 autonomy-supportive motivating style T2 autonomy-supportive motivating style

B SE B β t p B SE B β t p

Constant − 1.10 1.95 0.55 1.47

T1 autonomy support motivating style – – 0.19 0.14 0.23 1.36 0.183
Statistical controls—student variables
Students' collective autonomous motivation 0.79 0.31 0.35 2.56 0.015 0.04 0.25 0.02 0.16 0.873
Statistical controls—teacher variables
Teacher gender 0.06 0.25 0.03 0.22 0.826 0.05 0.20 0.03 0.24 0.815
Years of teaching experience − 0.06 0.02 −0.36 2.93 0.006 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.981
Grade level taught 0.06 0.07 0.12 0.83 0.411 0.01 0.05 0.03 0.26 0.793
Big five personality traits
Extraversion − 0.10 0.12 −0.13 0.82 0.421 − 0.16 0.10 −0.26 1.65 0.110
Neuroticism − 0.27 0.14 −0.31 1.85 0.073 0.04 0.12 0.06 0.32 0.748
Openness to experience 0.56 0.17 0.45 3.32 0.002 − 0.03 0.16 −0.03 0.21 0.833
Agreeableness 0.45 0.18 0.40 2.48 0.019 − 0.13 0.15 −0.14 0.87 0.391
Conscientiousness − 0.24 0.18 −0.23 1.35 0.188 0.10 0.16 0.12 0.65 0.520
Hypothesized individual differences
Autonomy causality orientation 0.38 0.14 0.40 2.71 0.011
Personal growth initiative 0.43 0.18 0.51 2.37 0.025

Table 4
Regressions to predict teachers' T1 and T2 controlling motivating style.

Predictor variable T1 controlling motivating style T2 controlling motivating style

B SE B β t p B SE B β t p

Constant − 2.66 2.48 − 0.12 2.30

T1 controlling motivating style – – 0.54 0.16 0.52 3.47 0.002
Statistical controls—student variables
Students' collective autonomous motivation 0.47 0.36 0.17 1.32 0.197 0.21 0.34 0.07 0.60 0.551
Statistical controls—teacher variables
Teacher gender 0.56 0.28 0.27 2.00 0.055 0.19 0.30 0.09 0.65 0.523
Years of teaching experience 0.01 0.02 0.07 0.59 0.559 − 0.01 0.02 − 0.02 0.21 0.836
Grade level taught 0.10 0.07 0.17 1.36 0.185 0.13 0.07 0.22 1.84 0.076
Big five personality traits
Extraversion 0.04 0.13 0.05 0.34 0.738 0.10 0.13 0.11 0.77 0.449
Neuroticism 0.03 0.16 0.03 0.19 0.854 0.02 0.15 0.02 0.11 0.914
Openness to experience − 0.06 0.18 − 0.04 0.31 0.760 − 0.16 0.18 − 0.10 0.85 0.403
Agreeableness − 0.35 0.19 − 0.26 1.80 0.082 − 0.03 0.20 − 0.02 0.16 0.876
Conscientiousness 0.09 0.19 0.07 0.49 0.630 − 0.25 0.19 − 0.19 1.31 0.201
Hypothesized individual differences
Control causality orientation 0.69 0.19 0.49 3.74 0.001 0.46 0.22 0.32 2.06 0.049
Authoritarianism 1.06 0.30 0.47 3.55 0.001

(R2 = 0.55), with individually significant effects for students' high supportive motivating style, we conducted a second hierarchical re-
collective autonomous motivation (β = 0.35, p = 0.015), (few) years of gression. On the first step, we entered T1 autonomy-supportive moti-
teaching experience (β = −0.36, p = 0.006), high openness to ex- vating style, the same four statistical controls, and the big five dis-
perience (β = 0.45, p = 0.002), and high agreeableness (β = 0.40, positional traits. This preliminary 10-predictor simultaneous regression
p = 0.019). On the second step, we used the forward selection proce- was significant overall, F(10, 30) = 2.32, p = 0.037 (R2 = 0.44), but
dure to test if any of the three hypothesized surface traits (autonomy the only individually significant effect was for T1 autonomy-supportive
causality orientation, personal growth initiative, transactional leader- motivating style (β = 0.44, p = 0.039). On the second step, we again
ship) could explain additional unique variance in T1 autonomy-sup- used the forward selection procedure to test if any of the three hy-
portive motivating style. None was able to do so. For exploratory (ra- pothesized individual differences could explain additional unique var-
ther than for hypothesis-testing) purposes, we conducted an additional iance in T2 autonomy-supportive motivating style. Two personality-
step by using the forward selection procedure to test if any of the five based antecedents were able to do so. This 12-predictor regression was
“cross-over” surface traits associated with the controlling motivating significant overall, F(12, 28) = 4.53, p < 0.001 (R2 = 0.66), and the
style (control causality orientation, transactional leadership, author- amount of variance accounted for by the 12-item regression increased
itarianism, closed-mindedness, and discomfort with ambiguity) might significantly over the 10-item regression (Δ R2 = 0.22, p < 0.001).
explain additional variance in T1 autonomy-supportive style above and Individually significant effects emerged for a high level of the au-
beyond the already-entered variables, but none was able to do so. tonomy causality orientation (β = 0.40, p = 0.011) and a high level of
Results from the final 9-predictor regression to predict the T1 au- personal growth initiative (β = 0.51, p = 0.025). For exploratory pur-
tonomy-supportive motivating style appear on the left side of Table 3. poses, we again used the forward selection procedure to test if any of
the five “cross-over” surface traits associated with the controlling style
3.5. Predicting post-intervention changes in the autonomy-supportive might explain additional variance in the T2 autonomy-supportive style
motivating style above and beyond the already-entered variables, but none was able to
do so. Results from the final 12-predictor regression to predict the T2
To predict teachers' post-intervention changes in T2 autonomy- autonomy-supportive motivating style appear on the right side of

18
J. Reeve et al. Learning and Individual Differences 62 (2018) 12–22

Table 3. which personality-based antecedents might function as a catalyst for

using the ASIP experience as a professional developmental opportunity
3.6. Predicting initial controlling motivating style to meaningfully upgrading the quality of one's classroom motivating
style (i.e., become more autonomy supportive, less controlling). Levels
To predict teachers' pre-intervention T1 controlling motivating of the autonomy causality orientation and personal growth initiative
style, we conducted a third hierarchical regression. On the first step, we predicted a T2 increase in the autonomy-supportive style, while level of
entered the four statistical controls (i.e., teachers' gender, grade level the control causality orientation predicted the post-intervention T2
taught, teaching experience, students' collective autonomous motiva- maintenance of the controlling style.
tion) and the big five dispositional traits. This preliminary 9-predictor
simultaneous regression was not significant overall, F(9, 31) = 0.84, 4.1. Who was characteristically autonomy supportive?
p = 0.583 (R2 = 0.20) and no variable was able to enter as an in-
dividually significant predictor. On the second step, we used the for- Several variables explained teachers' high, rather than low, pre-in-
ward selection procedure to test if any of the five hypothesized surface tervention T1 autonomy-supportive motivating style. One antecedent
traits could explain unique variance in T1 controlling motivating style. was having autonomously-motivated students. This suggests that tea-
Two individual differences were able to do so. This 11-predictor re- chers tend toward an autonomy-supportive motivating style to the ex-
gression was significant overall, F(11, 29) = 5.26, p < 0.001 tent that their students tend toward autonomous motivation. A second
(R2 = 0.67), and the amount of variance accounted for by the 11-item antecedent was having little teaching experience. It is not clear if new
regression increased significantly over the 9-item regression (Δ teachers tend toward higher autonomy support or if veteran teachers
R2 = 0.47, p < 0.001). Individually significant effects emerged for a tend toward lower autonomy support, but the former may be more
high level of the control causality orientation (β = 0.49, p < 0.001) likely because inexperienced preservice teachers do tend to begin the
and a high level of authoritarianism (β = 0.47, p < 0.001). We again profession with a highly autonomy-supportive style but become less
used the forward selection procedure to explore if any of the three autonomy supportive after taking full responsibility for their own
“cross-over” surface traits associated with the autonomy-supportive classrooms (Hoy & Woolfolk, 1990). Two big five traits were in-
style might explain additional variance in T1 controlling style, but none dividually predictive—openness to experience and agreeableness. One
was able to do so. Results from the final 11-predictor regression to reason why a high level of openness to experience may tend teachers
predict the T1 controlling motivating style appear on the left side of toward an autonomy-supportive style is because openness attracts
Table 4. teachers to new and non-traditional ways of motivating one's students
(McCrae, 1987). One reason why a high level of agreeableness may tend
3.7. Predicting post-intervention changes in the controlling motivating style teachers toward an autonomy-supportive style is because it helps tea-
chers cope with students' problems (e.g., disengagement, misconduct,
To predict teachers' post-intervention changes in T2 controlling poor performance) by listening, understanding, displaying patience,
motivating style, we conducted a fourth and final hierarchical regres- and accepting expressions of negative affect as okay (i.e., by relying on
sion. On the first step, we entered T1 controlling motivating style, the autonomy-supportive instructional strategies).
same four statistical controls, and the big five dispositional traits. This None of the three hypothesized personality-based antecedents un-
preliminary 10-predictor simultaneous regression was significant iquely predicted teachers' T1 autonomy-supportive motivating style. As
overall, F(10, 30) = 5.33 p < 0.001 (R2 = 0.64), but the only in- shown in Table 2, both surface traits were highly, positively correlated
dividually significant effect was for T1 controlling motivating style with T1 autonomy support (r = 0.45, p < 0.001, for autonomy caus-
(β = 0.72, p < 0.001). On the second step, we again used the forward ality orientation, and r = 0.51, p < 0.001, for personal growth in-
selection procedure to test if any of the five hypothesized individual itiative), but they were not able to explain additional unique variance
differences could explain additional unique variance in T2 controlling above and beyond the earlier-mentioned predictors. This is because
motivating style. One additional individual differences was able to do both showed the same strong positive intercorrelations (i.e., shared
so. The final 11-predictor regression was significant overall, F(11, 29) predictive capacity) with both openness to experience and agreeable-
= 5.75, p < 0.001 (R2 = 0.69), and the amount of variance accounted ness (all four r's ≥ 0.37; see Table 2).
for by the 11-item regression increased significantly over the 10-item
regression (Δ R2 = 0.05, p = 0.049). Individually significant effects 4.2. Who became more autonomy supportive?
emerged for T1 controlling motivating style (β = 0.52, p = 0.002) and
a high level of the control orientation (β = 0.32, p = 0.049). We again Two of the three hypothesized antecedents explained who was most
used the forward selection procedure to explore if any of the three able to capitalize on the professional developmental opportunity (i.e.,
“cross-over” surface traits associated with the autonomy-supportive the ASIP) to meaningfully upgrade the quality of their post-intervention
style might explain additional variance in T1 controlling style, but none classroom motivating style—namely, autonomy causality orientation
was able to do so. Results from the final 11-predictor regression to and personal growth initiative (but not transformational leadership).
predict the T2 controlling motivating style appear on the right side of Autonomy causality orientation may have predicted post-intervention
Table 4. gains in autonomy support because an autonomy causality orientation
reflects an understanding that internal causalities (e.g., interests, per-
4. Discussion sonal goals) are the most reliable and effective sources of motivation.
Believing this, teachers with a high level of an autonomy causality or-
The present study sought to understand which personality-based ientation likely reacted positively to the various recommended in-
antecedents tended teachers toward an autonomy-supportive style and structional strategies designed to spark students' interest and satisfy
which other personality-based antecedents tended teachers toward a their psychological needs during instruction (e.g., vitalize students'
controlling style. Teachers did vary considerably at the beginning of the inner motivational resources). During their intervention experience,
semester in their pre-intervention (T1) tendency toward the autonomy- these teachers likely discovered new instructional strategies that could
supportive (M = 4.57, SD = 0.86, on a 1–7 scale) and the controlling reliably and effectively vitalize and satisfy students' inherent motiva-
(M = 3.95, SD = 1.03, on a 1–7 scale) motivating styles. Levels of tions.
openness to experience and agreeableness predicted T1 autonomy Personal growth initiative is both a striving for personal growth as
support, while level of authoritarianism and the control causality or- well as a developed set of skills that help make self-improvement pos-
ientation predicted T1 teacher control. We also sought to investigate sible (Robitschek et al., 2012). The level of personal growth initiative a

19
J. Reeve et al. Learning and Individual Differences 62 (2018) 12–22

teacher possesses affects his or her responsiveness to new opportunities associated with the controlling motivating style, but the control caus-
to grow, and it predicts how actively teachers strive to capitalize on the ality orientation and authoritarianism were more closely associated
specific growth opportunities that come their way (Robitschek et al., with this style. Perhaps a study with larger statistical power (larger N)
2012). In the design of our study, we conceptualized the ASIP inter- would allow these three additional predictors to explain additional
vention as one such potential growth opportunity for teachers. Teachers variance in the controlling motivating style, another possibility we
with a high level of personal growth initiative did become more au- suggest for future research.
tonomy supportive post-intervention, and two possible reasons why this
professional development occurred was because these teachers (1) in- 4.4. Who remained controlling? (who resisted the ASIP)
tentionally and actively involved themselves in the semester-long pro-
fessional developmental opportunity (ASIP) and (2) tended to have the Two variables explained teachers' T2 level of the controlling moti-
skill set within them to undertake such an intentional self-change in vating style. The first was teachers' T1 level of the controlling moti-
their motivating style (e.g., being ready for change, making plans for vating style. This suggests that the controlling motivating style is re-
intentional personal growth, using available resources, and following latively stable and not so open to change through professional
through on one's plans for intentional personal growth). developmental experiences, or at least that it is not as open to change in
The one hypothesized antecedent that did not predict a change in T2 the same way that an autonomy-supportive motivating style is.
autonomy support was transformational leadership. We suggest two The one personality-based antecedent that explained a high level of
possible explanations for this null effect—one that is conceptual and a the T2 controlling motivating style was a high level of the control
second that is statistical. Conceptually, transformational leadership is causality orientation. Given this finding, we suspect that, during the
leadership, and it is likely that autonomy support is not rooted in intervention and throughout the semester, teachers with a high control
leading others but, instead, in supporting the inner direction they al- causality orientation likely found the intervention's autonomy-suppor-
ready possess (Kaplan & Assor, 2012). Statistically, transformational tive message to be largely inconsistent with, and even in direct conflict
leadership was positively correlated with T2 autonomy-supportive against, their understanding of external causalities as the motivational
motivating style (r = 0.48, see Table 2), but it was also equally posi- basis of motivation and engagement. These teachers likely disagreed
tively correlated with the autonomy causality orientation and personal with, questioned, and counter-argued against the recommended in-
growth initiative (the three shared a good deal of common variance). structional strategies. That is, these teachers likely resisted the ASIP. If
The measure used in the present study yielded a low alpha coefficient so, the intervention may have had little effect on teachers with a control
(α = 0.50), which also limited the predictive power of this variable. causality orientation. Another way of interpreting this same finding,
Perhaps a study with a larger sample size (i.e., more statistical power) however, is to suggest that teachers with a low control causality or-
or even a different measure (operational definition) would allow ientation were relatively more open to the intervention's message and
transformational leadership to emerge as an individually significant hence were more open to working through the process of adopting a
antecedent, a possibility we suggest for future research. significantly less controlling post-intervention motivating style.

4.3. Who was characteristically controlling? 4.5. Limitations

Two of the five hypothesized personality-based antecedents ex- The study had three notable limitations. One limitation was the
plained who was characteristically controlling—namely, control caus- study's small sample size. To understanding how much of a limitation
ality orientation and authoritarianism (but not transactional leadership, our sample size was to reaching generalizable conclusions, we calcu-
closed-mindedness, or discomfort with ambiguity). The control caus- lated what the ideal sample size would be for a F-test-based multiple
ality orientation reflects an understanding that external causalities regression that tested to detect three moderately potent antecedents of
(e.g., incentives, social demands) are the reliable and effective moti- an outcome (d = 0.30) among a set of 18 total predictors (as in Tables 3
vational sources of people's behavior. Believing this, it makes sense that and 4) using conventional statistics (alpha = 0.05, power = 0.95). That
teachers with a high level of the control causality orientation would ideal sample size would be 63, based on Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, and
tend to use instructional strategies that introduced environmentally- Buchner's (2007) G*Power 3 software program. Because the sample size
generated sources of motivation, such as directives and commands, was 42, we determined that we were under-powered by about one-
pressuring language, and the offering of environmental sources of third. This low statistical power likely played a key role in under-
motivation (e.g., stickers, point systems). standing why some of the hypothesized personality-based antecedents
Authoritarianism is characterized by the belief that students (e.g., were unable to emerge as individually significant predictors in the
subordinates) should submit to and obey the teacher's authority stepwise regressions, despite being correlated as expected with their
(Altemeyer, 1998). The teacher's authority or power is seen as legit- corresponding motivating style. While recognizing this limitation and
imate because of higher age, social status, and professional expertise. its tendency to render our conclusions conservative, it is equally im-
The authoritarian personality sees the teacher's classroom exercise of portant to point out that our sample featured a crucial compensatory
authority and leadership as a constructive and orderly way to increase strength—namely, that it was actually a full population and not a
prescribed behaviors (e.g., do your homework) and to decrease pro- sample per se. Because we were able to recruit the full faculty of an
scribed behaviors (e.g., do not run in the hallways). Thus, a high level elementary school, our data collection avoided the common problem of
of authoritarianism is closely related with a conventional (i.e., teacher- participant self-selection into (or out of) the study. Given that several
centered) classroom and with a conventional (i.e., controlling) moti- personality-based antecedents did predict the motivating styles, even
vating style. with our relatively low statistical power, we suggest that these new
Transactional leadership, closed-mindedness, and discomfort with findings justify a fresh call-to-action for future motivating styles re-
ambiguity were all unable to explain unique variance in the controlling search to incorporate a “personality as antecedents” approach.
motivating style. It is worth highlighting, however, that all three per- A second limitation was the lack of a no-intervention control group.
sonality-based antecedents did correlate significantly with the con- We did not include a no-intervention control group in the research
trolling motivating style (both at T1 and at T2). The reason these three design, because our question was not whether the ASIP would work
predictors were not able to enter the regression as individual predictors, (because this has been demonstrated repeatedly before) but, instead,
we believe, is because they were positively intercorrelated with both which personality-based antecedents would explain for whom the in-
the control causality orientation and authoritarianism (and even with tervention would be effective and for whom it would not. The inter-
the Big Five traits). So, all five surface traits were at least somewhat pretive problem with the lack of a control group, however, is that T1-T2

20
J. Reeve et al. Learning and Individual Differences 62 (2018) 12–22

difference scores can occur for multiple reasons unrelated to the in- need to first address teachers' beliefs and orientations that otherwise
tervention itself. Without a control group, intervention-enabled interfere with the conceptual change process that allows teachers to
changes in the motivating styles are confounded with whatever other upgrade the quality of their classroom motivating style not only toward
events might have also occurred during the semester (e.g., perhaps greater autonomy support and but also toward lesser control.
students became more engaged, the curriculum became more con-
ducive to autonomy support, and so forth). 5. Conclusion
A third limitation was that we assessed the motivating styles with
only self-report. This is a limitation because it raises the possibility of Levels of openness to experience and agreeableness explained tea-
demand effects. We would point out, however, that students' in- chers' characteristic autonomy-supportive motivating style, while levels
dependent reports of autonomous motivation did significantly predict of an autonomy causality orientation and personal growth initiative
teachers' autonomy-supportive motivating style (see left side of explained their post-intervention gains in autonomy support. Levels of
Table 3). This shows that scores from one informant (students) corre- authoritarianism and the control causality orientation explained tea-
sponded with scores from another informant (teachers). That said, chers' characteristic controlling motivating style, while level of a con-
other investigations that utilized a similar teacher-focused intervention trol causality orientation explained their post-intervention maintenance
have included rater-scored objective ratings of teachers' in-class in- of the controlling motivating style. Taken as a whole, these findings
structional behaviors (e.g., Cheon et al., 2016), and our study would be suggest a robust relation between personality and teachers' motivating
made methodologically stronger with the addition of objective ratings styles and, in doing so, encourage future research on the personality-
of teachers' in-class motivating styles. based antecedents of teachers' motivating styles.
Collectively and overall, these three limitations—small sample size,
lack of a control group, and lack of objective measures—could be References
overcome in a future investigation, an empirical effort that seems
worthwhile given the generally positive findings from the current Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., Fontaine, J., Haerens, L., Delrue, J., &
study. Reeve, J. (2017). Toward a fine-grained understanding of the components of need-sup-
portive and need-thwarting teaching: The merits of a gradual approach. (Manuscript
under review).
4.6. Future research and classroom implications Altemeyer, B. (1996). The authoritarian specter. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other “authoritarian personality”. Advances in Experimental
Social Psychology, 30, 47–91.
The empirical study of teachers' motivating styles has been domi- Asendorpf, J. B., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2003). Personality-relationship transaction in
nated by the study of social contextual factors. The positive findings adolescence: Core versus surface personality characteristics. Journal of Personality,
from the current study, however, represent what we believe to be a new 71, 629–666.
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Roth, G. (2005). Directly controlling teacher
call to action to investigate how personality also affects motivating behaviors as predictors of poor motivation and engagement in girls and boys: The
styles. Future research may investigate other personality variables not role of anger and anxiety. Learning and Instruction, 15, 397–413.
included in the present study, such as those associated with autono- Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is excellent:
Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teaching behaviors predicting students' en-
mous motivation to teach (e.g., autonomous motivation, need sa-
gagement in schoolwork. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 27, 261–278.
tisfaction during teaching; Roth, Assor, Kanat-Maymon, & Kaplan, Avolio, B. J., Bass, B. M., & Jung, D. I. (1999). Re-examining the components of trans-
2007; Van den Berghe et al., 2014) and teachers' epistemological beliefs formational and transactional leadership using the Mulitfactor Leadership
about the nature of learning (Roth & Weinstock, 2013). Intrinsic in- Questionnaire. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 72, 441–462.
Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., Ryan, R. M., Bosch, J. A., & Thogersen-Ntoumani, C.
structional goals (e.g., promote students' personal growth) have also (2011). Self-determination theory and diminished functioning: The role of inter-
recently been linked to teachers' autonomy-supportive motivating style personal control and psychological need thwarting. Personality and Social Psychology
(Jang, 2017). Social dominance orientation (Pratto, Sidanius, Bulletin, 37, 1459–1473.
Bartholomew, K. J., Ntoumanis, N., & Thogersen-Ntoumani, C. (2010). The controlling
Stallworth, & Malle, 1994), which emphasizes social hierarchies, may interpersonal style in a coaching context: Development and initial validation of a
also contribute to a controlling motivating style, as might a high level of psychometric scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 32, 193–216.
public self-consciousness, which involves being aware of oneself Bass, B. M., & Avolio, B. J. (1994). Improving organizational effectiveness through trans-
formational leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
through the evaluative eyes of others (Scheier & Carver, 1980). Ex- Belmont, M., Skinner, E., Wellborn, J., & Connell, J. (1988). Teacher as social context: A
trinsic instructional goals (e.g., promote students' high test scores) have measure of student perceptions of teacher provision of involvement, structure, and au-
also been linked to teachers' controlling motivating style (Jang, 2017). tonomy support (Tech. Rep. No. 102). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester.
Brislin, R. (1980). Translation and content analysis of oral and written material. In H. C.
The findings reported in Tables 3 and 4 suggest that teacher-focused Triandis, & J. W. Berry (Vol. Eds.), Handbook of cross-cultural psychology. Vol. 2.
interventions on motivating style are not “one size fits all” exercises in Handbook of cross-cultural psychology (pp. 389–444). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
teachers' professional development. In other words, they may be rela- Cheon, S. H., & Reeve, J. (2015). A classroom-based intervention to help teachers de-
crease students' amotivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 40, 99–111.
tively more effective for some teachers and relatively less effective for
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Moon, I. S. (2012). Experimentally-based, longitudinally de-
others. This insight suggests a greater need to personally-tailor future signed, teacher-focused intervention to help physical education teachers be more
interventions, as by providing more individualize feedback, more self- autonomy supportive toward their students. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology,
assessment, and more one-on-one mentoring. 34, 365–396.
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Song, Y.-G. (2016). A teacher-focused intervention to decrease
The finding that teachers high in the control causality orientation PE students' amotivation by increasing need satisfaction and decreasing need frus-
largely resisted the ASIP to maintain a post-intervention controlling tration. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 38.
style suggest that the ASIP in its current form was lacking some crucial De Meyer, J., Tallir, I. B., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., Van den Berghe,
L., ... Haerens, L. (2014). Does observed controlling teaching behavior relate to
missing ingredient for these teachers. If so, future ASIPs could be re- students' motivation in physical education? Journal of Educational Psychology, 106,
designed to add an additional part that specifically addressed and 541–554.
worked through the how-to skill of becoming less controlling toward DeBell, M., Wilson, C., Segura, G., Jackman, S., & Hutchings, V. (2011). Methodology
report and user's guide for the ANES 2010–2012 evaluations of government and society
students during instruction. During such an addition, teachers could study. Palo Alto, CA, and Ann Arbor, MI: Stanford University and the University of
hear how students react to controlling instruction and also, if they Michigan.
found these student testimonials to be persuasive, how to transform Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-de-
termination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109–134.
their existing controlling instructional behaviors (e.g., utter directives Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to assess
without rationales, rely on pressuring language) into corresponding adult's orientations toward control versus autonomy in children: Reflections on in-
autonomy-supportive instructional behaviors (e.g., offer explanatory trinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73,
642–650.
rationales for teacher requests, rely on invitational and change-oriented
Desimone, L. M. (2009). Improving impact studies of teachers' professional development:
language). Whatever the remedy, the findings suggest a prerequisite

21
J. Reeve et al. Learning and Individual Differences 62 (2018) 12–22

Toward better conceptualizations and measures. Educational Researcher, 38, 181–199. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 186–196.
Downie, M., Koestner, R., ElGeledi, S., & Cree, K. (2004). The impact of cultural inter- Pelletier, L. G., & Sharp, E. C. (2009). Administrative pressures and teachers' interpersonal
nalization and integration on well being among tricultural individuals. Personality behaviour in the classroom. Theory and Research in Education, 7, 174–183.
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 305–314. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance or-
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical ientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of
power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741–763.
Research Methods, 39, 175–191. Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and
Gunnell, K., Crocker, P. R. E., Wilson, P. M., Mack, D. E., & Zumbo, B. D. (2013). how they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist, 44(3),
Psychological need satisfaction and thwarting: A test of basic psychological needs 159–175.
theory in physical activity contexts. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 14, 599–607. Reeve, J. (2016). Autonomy-supportive teaching: What it is, how to do it. In J. C. K.
Haerens, L., Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Van Petegem, S. (2015). Do Wang, W. C. Liu, & R. M. Ryan's (Eds.). Building autonomous learners: Perspectives from
perceived autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching relate to physical education research and practice using self-determination theory (pp. 129–152). Singapore: Springer
students' motivational experiences through unique pathways? Distinguishing be- (Chpt 5).
tween the bright and dark side of motivation. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 16, Reeve, J., & Cheon, S. H. (2016). Teachers become more autonomy supportive after they
26–36. believe it is easy to do. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 22, 178–189.
Hein, V., Koka, A., & Hagger, M. S. (2015). Relationships between perceived teachers' Reeve, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Assor, A., Ahmad, I., Cheon, S. H., Jang, H., ... Wang, C. K. J.
controlling behaviour, psychological need thwarting, anger and bullying behaviour (2014). The beliefs that underlie autonomy-supportive and controlling teaching: A
in high-school students. Journal of Adolescence, 42, 103–114. multinational investigation. Motivation and Emotion, 38, 93–110.
Hoy, W. K., & Woolfolk, A. E. (1990). Socialization of student teachers. American Robitschek, C., Ashton, M. W., Spering, C. C., Geiger, N., Byers, D., Schotts, G. C., &
Educational Research Journal, 27, 279–300. Thoen, M. A. (2012). Development and psychometric evaluation of the personal
Jang, H.-R. (2017). Teachers' intrinsic vs. extrinsic instructional goals predict their growth initiative scale—II. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 59, 274–287.
classroom motivating styles. Learning and Instruction. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Kaplan, H. (2007). Autonomous motivation for
learninstruc.2017.11.001. teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning.
Jang, H., Kim, E.-J., & Reeve, J. (2016). Why students become more engaged or more Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 761–774.
disengaged during the semester: A self-determination theory dual-process model. Roth, G., & Weinstock, M. (2013). Teachers' epistemological beliefs as an antecedents of
Learning and Instruction, 43, 27–38. autonomy-supportive teaching. Motivation and Emotion, 37, 402–412.
John, O. P., & Srivastava, S. (1999). The Big Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in
and theoretical perspectives. In L. A. Pervin, & O. P. John (Eds.). Handbook of per- motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Press.
sonality: Theory and research (pp. 102–138). (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press Scheier, M. F., & Carver, C. S. (1980). Private and public self-attention, resistance to
(Chpt. 4). change, and dissonance reduction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39,
Judge, T. A., & Piccolo, R. F. (2004). Transformational and transactional leadership: A 390–405.
meta-analytic test of their relative validity. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, Sims, C. M. (2017). Do the big-five personality traits predict empathic listening and as-
755–768. sertive communcation? International Journal of Listening, 31, 163–188.
Kaplan, H., & Assor, A. (2012). Enhancing autonomy-supportive I-Thou dialogue in Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom: Reciprocal effects of
schools: Conceptualization and socio-emotional effects of an intervention program. teacher behavior and student engagement across the school year. Journal of
Social Psychology of Education, 15, 251–269. Educational Psychology, 85, 571–581.
Kappe, R., & van der Flier, H. (2012). Predicting academic success in higher education: Taylor, I., Ntoumanis, N., & Smith, B. (2009). The social context as a determinant of
What's more important than being smart? European Journal of Psychology in Education, teacher motivational strategies in physical education. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,
27, 605–619. 19, 235–243.
Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). The psychology of being “right”: The problem of accuracy in Tessier, D., Sarrazin, P., & Ntoumanis, N. (2010). The effect of an intervention to improve
social perception and cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 106, 395–409. newly qualified teachers' interpersonal style, students motivation and psychological
Lauer, P. A., Christopher, D. E., Firpo-Triplett, R., & Buchting, F. (2014). The impact of need satisfaction in sport-based physical education. Contemporary Educational
short-term professional development on participant outcomes: A review of the lit- Psychology, 35, 242–253.
erature. Professional Development in Education, 40, 207–227. Van den Berghe, L., Soenens, B., Aelterman, N., Cardon, G., Tallir, I., & Haerens, L.
McAdams, D. P., Jackson, R. J., & Kirshnit, C. (1984). Looking, laughing, and smiling in (2014). Within-person profiles of teachers' motivation to teach: Associations with
dyads as a function of intimacy motivation and reciprocity. Journal of Personality, 52, need satisfaction at work, need-supportive teaching, and burnout. Psychology of Sport
261–273. and Exercise, 15, 407–417.
McAdams, D. P., & Pals, J. L. (2006). A new Big Five: Fundamental principles for an Van den Berghe, L., Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Aelterman, N., Cardon, G., Tallir, I., &
integrative science of personality. American Psychologist, 61, 204–217. Haerens, L. (2013). Observed need-supportive and need-thwarting teaching behavior
McCrae, R. R. (1987). Creativity, divergent thinking, and openness to experience. Journal in physical education: Do teachers' motivational orientations matter? Psychology of
of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1258–1265. Sport and Exercise, 14, 650–661.
McCrae, R. R., Costa, P. T., Jr., Ostendorf, F., Angleitner, A., Hrebickova, M., Avia, M. D., Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C. P., & Soenens, B. (2010). The development of the five
... Smith, P. B. (2000). Nature over nurture: Temperament, personality, and life span mini-theories of self-determination theory: An historical overview, emerging trends,
development. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 173–186. and future directions. Advances in motivation and achievement. Vol. 16A. Advances in
Olesen, M. H. (2011). General causality orientations are distinct from but related to motivation and achievement (pp. 105–165). Bingley, United Kingdom: Emerald Group
dispositional traits. Personality and Individual Differences, 51, 460–465. Publishing.
Olesen, M. H., Thomsen, D. K., Schnieber, A., & Tonnesvang, J. (2010). Distinguishing Webster, D., & Kruglanski, A. (1994). Individual differences in need for cognitive closure.
general causality orientations from personality traits. Personality and Individual Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 1049–1062.
Differences, 48, 538–543. Zougkou, K., Weinstein, N., & Paulmann, S. (2017). ERP correlates of motivating voices:
Pelletier, L. G., Seguin-Levesque, C., & Legault, L. (2002). Pressure from above and Quality of motivation and time-course matters. Social Cognitive and Affective
pressure from below as determinants of teachers' motivation and teaching behaviors. Neuroscience, 12, 1687–1700.

22