News

Index of Autonomous Functioning (IAF)

Refresh your browser if you are unable to download the scale.

Scale Description

A growing interest in the functional importance of dispositional autonomy led to the development and validation of the Index of Autonomous Functioning (IAF) across seven studies (Weinstein, Przybylski, & Ryan, 2012). The IAF provides a brief and reliable measure of trait autonomy based on three theoretically derived subscales assessing authorship/self-congruence, interest-taking, and low susceptibility to control.

Authorship/congruence reflects how much one views oneself as the author of behavior and experiences high consistency among behaviors, attitudes, and traits. Interest-taking concerns an ongoing insight into oneself and one’s experience in an open and non-judgmental manner. Lastly, low susceptibility to control refers to the absence of internal and external pressures as motivators for behaviors. Initial validation studies showed consistency within and across subscales, and appropriate placement within a nomological network of constructs.

Diary studies demonstrated IAF relations with higher well-being, greater daily satisfaction of basic psychological needs, and more autonomous engagement in daily activities. Using an experimental approach, the IAF was shown to predict more positive interactions among dyads. Please note that when using the subscales separately, the interest-taking subscale is still in exploratory phase of validation.

 

Please use the following reference when using the IAF scale:

 

Weinstein, N., Przybylski, A. K., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). The index of autonomous functioning: Development of a scale of human autonomy. Journal of Research in Personality46, 397-413. doi: 10.1016/j.jrp.2012.03.007

Perceived Parental Autonomy Support Scale (P-PASS)

 

NOTE: Refresh your browser a few times if you are unable to download the scale.

The P-PASS is a 24 question scale to assess autonomy-supportive and controlling parenting behaviors using separate subscales. The P-PASS assesses the following behaviors: Choice within certain limits, rationale for demands and limits, acknowledgement of feelings, threats to punish, performance pressures, guilt-inducing criticisms.

This scale has been successfully used in Bureau and Mageau (2014)’s paper on the relation between autonomy support and adolescents honesty. The adapted 24-item version simplified for children (Joussemet, Mageau, & Koestner, 2014) or contextualized for the work domain (Moreau & Mageau, 2012) also yielded significant findings.

 

Validation paper:

Mageau, G. A., Ranger, F., Joussemet, M., Koestner, R., Moreau, E., & Forest, J. (2015). Validation of the Perceived Parental Autonomy Support Scale (P-PASS). Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 47, 251-262.

References

Bureau, J. & Mageau, G. A. (2014). Parental autonomy support and honesty: The mediating role of identification with the honesty value and perceived costs and benefits of honesty. Journal of Adolescence, 37, 225-236.

Papers that successfully used an adapted version of the scale :

At work:

Moreau, E., & Mageau, G. A. (2012). The importance of perceived autonomy support for the psychological health and work satisfaction of health professionals: Not only supervisors count, colleagues too! Motivation and Emotion, 36, 268-286.

With children aged 8 to 12 years:

Joussemet, M., Mageau, G. A., & Koestner, R. (in press). Promoting Optimal Parenting and Children’s Mental Health: A Preliminary Evaluation of the How-to Parenting Program. Journal of Child and Family Studies.

Metrics & Methods: Questionnaires

Research on Self-Determination Theory has included laboratory experiments and field studies in several different settings. In order to do this research, we have developed many questionnaires to assess different constructs contained within the theory. Each questionnaire page will typically include:

  • the scale
  • description of the scale
  • a key for the scale, and
  • references for articles describing studies that used the scale

*** Please note that all questionnaires on this web site, developed for research on self-determination theory, are copyrighted. You are welcome to use the instruments for academic (non-commercial) research projects. However, you may not use any of them for any commercial purposes without written permission to do so from the Center for Self-Determination Theory.
To inquire about a commercial requests, please email:  [email protected]

Click on any questionnaire name below to access the scale or set of questionnaires and other information.

PAS – Sport Climate

The Sport Climate Questionnaire (SCQ)

 

NOTE: Refresh your browser if you are unable to download the scale.

Scale Description

The SCQ has a long form containing 15 items and a short form containing 6 of the items. The questionnaire is typically used with respect to specific coaches or individuals in comparable positions with respect to a sport or physical activity. The wording can be changed slightly to specify the particular situation being studied. The questions then pertain to the autonomy support of the respondent’s coach, trainer, or sport/exercise instructor. Below, you will find the 15-item version of the questionnaire, worded in terms of “my coach” (or trainer). If you would like to use the 6-item version, simply reconstitute the questionnaire using only items # 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, and 14.

Scoring: Scores on both the 15-item version and the 6-item version are calculated by averaging the individual item scores. However, for the long version, before averaging the item scores, you must first “reverse” the score of item 13 (i.e., subtract the score on item 13 from 8 and use the result as the item score for this item–for example, the score of 3, when reversed would become 5). Higher average scores represent a higher level of perceived autonomy support.

 


 

The SCQ as a rating device

The SCQ was designed to be used by athletes to report their perceptions of their coaches, trainers, or sport instructors. However, it can also be used for having trained observers rate the autonomy supportiveness of such individuals, based on listening to tape recorded interactions between those individuals and athletes. This approach has not been used with the SCQ, but it has been used with the HCCQ. A description of its use can be found on the HCCQ page, and can be easily adapted if you would like to use the SCQ in this way.


 

Sport Climate Questionnaire

PAS – Work Climate

The Work Climate Questionnaire (WCQ)

 

NOTE: Refresh your browser if you are unable to download the scale.

Scale Description

The WCQ has a long form containing 15 items and a short form containing 6 of the items. The questionnaire is typically used with respect to specific work settings, such as teams or work groups that have one manager. The wording can be changed slightly to specify the particular situation being studied. In these cases, the questions pertain to the autonomy support of the respondent’s manager. If, however, the WCQ is being used to assess a general work climate that goes beyond a particular work group, the questions are stated with respect to the autonomy support in general of the managers of that company, department, or organization. Below, you will find the 15-item version of the questionnaire, worded in terms of “my manager” (or supervisor). If you would like to use the 6-item version, simply reconstitute the questionnaire using only items # 1, 2, 4, 7, 10 and 14.

Scoring: Scores on both the 15-item version and the 6-item version are calculated by averaging the individual item scores. However, for the long version, before averaging the item scores, you must first “reverse” the score of item 13 (i.e., subtract the score on item 13 from 8 and use the result as the item score for this item–for example, the score of 3, when reversed would become5). Higher average scores represent a higher level of perceived autonomy support.


Articles that have Used the Work Climate Questionnaire

Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M. (2004). Intrinsic need satisfaction: A motivational basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 2045-2068.
PDF Download this article in .pdf format (for Personal Use Only)


The WCQ as a Rating Device

The WCQ was designed to be used by employees (or volunteers) to report their perceptions of their managers or supervisors. However, it can also be used for having trained observers rate the autonomy supportiveness of a manager or supervisor, based on listening to tape recorded interactions between managers and subordinates. This approach has not been used with the WCQ, but it has been used with the HCCQ. A description of its use can be found on the HCCQ page, and can be easily adapted if you would like to use the WCQ in this way.


Sport Climate Questionnaire

PAS – Learning Climate

The Learning Climate Questionnaire (LCQ)

 

NOTE: Refresh your browser if you are unable to download the scale.

Scale Description

The LCQ has a long form containing 15 items and a short form containing 6 of the items. The questionnaire is typically used with respect to specific learning settings, such as a particular class, at the college or graduate school level. Thus, the questions are sometimes adapted slightly, at least in the instructions, so the wording pertains to the particular situation being studied–an organic chemistry class, for example. In these cases, the questions pertain to the autonomy support of an individual instructor, preceptor, or professor. If, however, it is being used to assess a general learning climate in which each student has several instructors, the questions are stated with respect to the autonomy support of the faculty members in general. Below, you will find the 15-item version of the questionnaire, worded in terms of “my instructor.” If you would like to use the 6-item version, simply reconstitute the questionnaire using only items # 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, and 14.

Scoring: Scores on both the 15-item version and the 6-item version are calculated by averaging the individual item scores. However, for the long version, before averaging the item scores, you must first “reverse” the score of item 13 (i.e., subtract the score on item 13 from 8 and use the result as the item score for this item–for example, the score of 3, when reversed would become 5). Higher average scores represent a higher level of perceived autonomy support.


Articles that have Used the Learning Climate Questionnaire

Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84, 740-756.
PDF Download this article in .pdf format (for Personal Use Only)

Williams, G. C., Saizow, R., Ross, L., & Deci, E. L. (1997). Motivation underlying career choice for internal medicine and surgery. Social Science and Medicine, 45, 1705-1713.
PDF Download this article in .pdf format (for Personal Use Only)

Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 767-779.

Williams, G. C., Wiener, M. W., Markakis, K. M., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (1994). Medical student motivation for internal medicine. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 9, 327-333.


The LCQ as a rating device

The LCQ was designed to be used by students to report their perceptions of their instructors. However, it can also be used for having trained observers rate the autonomy supportiveness of an instructor or teacher, based on listening to tape recorded interactions between an instructor and students, for example, during a class session. This approach has not been used with the LCQ, but it has been used with the HCCQ. A description of its use can be found on the HCCQ page, and can be easily adapted if you would like to use the LCQ in this way.


Learning Climate Questionnaire

PAS – Health Care Climate

The Health Care Climate Questionnaire (HCCQ)

 

NOTE: Refresh your browser if you are unable to download the scale.

Scale Description

The HCCQ has a long form containing 15 items and a short form containing 6 of the items. There are also variants to the questionnaire. Specifically, depending on the issue being examined, the HCCQ can be used to assess patients’ perceptions of the degree to which their specific doctor is autonomy supportive, or it can be used to assess patients’ perceptions of the degree to which their team of health care providers is autonomy supportive. The latter would be more appropriate for example, if patients are seeing several providers within a clinic to deal with a particular problem. For example, patients with diabetes may see a physician, a nurse educator, and a dietician, all working together to treat the disease. If a researcher were interested in the relation between a physician’s interpersonal style and their patients’ motivation, behavior, and health, the questionnaire is best used with respect to the individual doctor. If the research question concerns the interpersonal climate of a clinic or group of providers, the word “providers” or “practitioners” is substituted for “physician” or “doctor.” Below, you will find the 15-item version of the questionnaire, worded in terms of “my physician.” If you would like to use the 6-item version, simply reconstitute the questionnaire using only items # 1, 2, 4, 7, 10, and 14.

Scoring: Scores on both the 15-item version and the 6-item version are calculated by averaging the individual item scores. However, for the long version, before averaging the item scores, you must first “reverse” the score of item 13 (i.e., subtract the score on item 13 from 8 and use the result as the item score for this item–for example, the score of 3, when reversed would become 5). Higher average scores represent a higher level of perceived autonomy support.


Articles that have Used the Health Care Climate Questionnaire (or an earlier version).

Williams, G. C., Cox, E. M., Kouides, R., & Deci, E. L. (1999). Presenting the facts about smoking to adolescents: The effects of an autonomy supportive style. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 153, 959-964.
PDF Download this article in .pdf format (for Personal Use Only)

Kasser, V. M., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). The relation of psychological needs for autonomy and relatedness to health, vitality, well-being and mortality in a nursing home. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 935-954.
PDF Download this article in .pdf format (for Personal Use Only)

Williams, G. C., Rodin, G. C., Ryan, R. M., Grolnick, W. S., & Deci, E. L. (1998). Autonomous regulation and adherence to long-term medical regimens in adult outpatients. Health Psychology, 17, 269-276.

Williams, G. C., Freedman, Z. R., & Deci, E. L. (1998). Supporting autonomy to motivate glucose control in patients with diabetes. Diabetes Care, 21, 1644-1651.
PDF Download this article in .pdf format (for Personal Use Only)

Williams, G. C., Grow, V. M., Freedman, Z. R., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Motivational predictors of weight loss and weight-loss maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 115-126.

Williams, G. C., Gagné, M, Ryan, R, M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Supporting autonomy to motivate smoking cessation: A test of self-determination theory. Health Psychology 21, 40-50.

Williams, G. C. & Deci, E. L. (2001). Activating patients for smoking cessation through physician autonomy support. Medical Care 39, 813-823.


The HCCQ as a rating device.

The HCCQ was designed to be used by patients to report their perceptions of their doctors or their team of health care providers. However, it has also been used effectively for having trained observers rate the autonomy supportiveness of a provider, based on listening to tape recorded interactions between providers and patients. Observers have some initial training until they are able to achieve high inter-rater reliability with other observers. The rater listens to the tape and responds to each item as if he or she were the patients. The score for the provider’s rated autonomy support is the average of the 15 ratings (after reverse scoring item 13 as explained above in the instructions for scoring). Typically, in studies that involve ratings, there are at least two raters to assure reliability. These can be used in two ways. Either the scores of two or more raters can be averaged, or, if the analyses are being done by Structural Equation Modelling, the average rater score for each of three raters can be used as indicators of the latent variable “rated provider autonomy support.”

This method was used in the following study.

Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (2001). Activating patients for smoking cessation through physician autonomy support. Medical Care, 39, 813-823


Health Care Climate Questionnaire

General Causality Orientations Scale – Studies

Some of the Studies that Used the GCOS

Validation Article

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109-134.


Validation Article for the French Version

(the French version is available from Robert J. Vallerand: [email protected])

Vallerand, R. J., Blais, M. R., Lacouture, Y., & Deci, E. L. (1987). L’echelle des orientations generales a la causalite: Validation canadienne francaise du General Causality Orientations Scale. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 19, 1-15.


Other Articles

Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., & Tighe, E. M. (1994). The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 950-967.

Anderson, S., Nero, F., Rodin, J., Diamond, M., et al. (1989). Coping patterns of in vitro fertilization nurse coordinators: Strategies for combating low outcome effectance. Psychology and Health, 3, 221-232.

Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84, 740-756.

Blustein, D. L. (1988). The relation between motivational processes and career exploration. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 345-357.

Farmer, R., & Sudberg, N. D. (1986). Boredom proneness: The development and correlates of a new scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 50, 4-17.

Hodgins, H. S., Koestner, R., & Duncan, N. (1996). On the compatibility of autonomy and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 227-237.

Hodgins, H. S. & Liebeskind, E. (2003). Apology versus defense: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 297-316.

Hodgins, H. S., Liebeskind, E., & Schwartz, W. (1996). Getting out of hot water: Facework in social predicaments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 300-314.

Isaac, J. D., Sansone, C., & Smith, J. L. (1999). Other people as a source of interest in an activity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 239-265.

Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of financial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 410-422.

Kernis, M.H. (1982). Motivational orientations, anger, and aggression in males. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester.

King, K.B. (1984). Coping with cardiac surgery. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester.

Knee, C. R., Neighbors, C., & Vietor, N. (2003). Self-determination theory as a framework for understanding road rage. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 889-904.

Knee, C. R., & Zuckerman, M. (1996). Causality orientations and the disappearance of the self-serving bias. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 76-87.

Knee, C. R., & Zuckerman, M. (1998). A nondefensive personality: Autonomy and control as moderators of defensive coping and self-handicapping. Journal of Research in Personality 32, 115-130.

Koestner, R. (1986). Praise, involvement and intrinsic motivation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, New York.

Koestner, R., Bernieri, F., & Zuckerman, M. (1992). Self-regulation and consistency between attitudes, traits, and behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 52-59.

Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. (1996). Distinguishing reactive versus reflective autonomy, Journal of Personality, 64, 465-494.

Koestner, R., Gingras, I., Abutaa, R, Losier, G, DiDio, L., & Gagné, M. (1999). To follow expert advice when making a decision: An examination of reactive vs reflective autonomy. Journal of Personality, 67, 851-872.

Koestner, R., & Zuckerman, M. (1994). Causality orientations, failure, and achievement. Journal of Personality, 62, 321-346.

McHoskey, J.W. (1999). Machiavellianism, intrinsic versus extrinsic goals, and social interest: A self-determination theory analysis. Motivation and Emotion, 23, 267-284.

Robbins, R. M. (1995). Parental autonomy support vs. control: Child and parent correlates, and assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Rochester, New York.

Scherhorn, G. (1990). The addictive trait in buying behaviour. Journal of Consumer Policy, 13, 33-51.

Scherhorn, G., & Grunert, S. C. (1988, September). Using the causality orientations concept in consumer behaviour research. Paper presented at the 13th Annual Colloquium of the International Association for Research in Economic Psychology, Leuven, Belgium.

Scherhorn, G., Reisch, L. A., & Raab, G. (1990). Addictive buying in West Germany: An empirical study. Journal of Consumer Policy, 13, 355-387.

Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1995). Coherence and congruence: Two aspects of personality integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 531-543.

Sheldon, K. M. (1995). Creativity and self-determination in personality. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 61-72.

Sheldon, K. M. (1996). The Social Awareness Inventory: Development and applications. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 620-634.

Strauss, J. & Ryan, R.M. (1987). Autonomy disturbances in subtypes of anorexia nervosa. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96, 254-258.

Wheeler, B.L. (1984). Awareness of internal and external cues as a function of the interaction between causality orientations and motivational subsystems. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Fordham University.

Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 767-779.

Williams, G. C., Grow, V. M., Freedman, Z., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Motivational predictors of weight loss and weight-loss maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 115-126.

Wong, M. M. (2000). The relations among causality orientations, academic experience, academic performance, and academic commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 315-326.

Zuckerman, M., Gioioso, C., & Tellini, S. (1988). Control orientation, self-monitoring, and preference for image versus quality approach to advertising. Journal of Research in Personality, 22, 89-100.

———————————————————-

Note: For additional studies that used the GCOS, go to Causality Orientations in the Publications Section.

Mindfulness Attention Awareness

Mindfulness Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS)

Refresh your browser if you are unable to download the scale.

Scale Description

The concept of mindfulness has a long lineage, dating back more than 2500 years, and writings in SDT have discussed the importance of this, and related qualities of consciousness for behavioral self-regulation and well-being. Mindfulness is an open or receptive awareness of and attention to what is taking place in the present. The construct has been operationalized in dispositional terms by the Mindful Attention Awareness Scale (MAAS), a 15-item self-report instrument with a single factor. The scale has been validated in college, working adult, and cancer patient populations. A description of the scale and its validation can be found in Brown and Ryan (2003). The scale is shown below, followed by information about scoring.

Validation article

Brown, K.W. and Ryan, R.M. (2003). The benefits of being present: The role of mindfulness in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 822-848.

Other selected writings on mindfulness

Brown, K.W. and Ryan, R.M. (2004). Fostering healthy self-regulation from within and without: A Self-Determination Theory perspective. In P.A. Linley & S. Joseph (Eds.), Positive psychology in practice (pp. 105-124) . New York, NY: Wiley.

Hodgins, H.S. & Knee, C.R. (2002). The integrating self and conscious experience. In E.L. Deci & R.M. Ryan (Eds), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 87-100). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.

Ryan, R.M. & Deci, E.L. (2004). Autonomy is no illusion: Self-Determination Theory and the empirical study of authenticity, awareness, and will. In J. Greenberg, S. Koole & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of Experimental Existential Psychology (pp. 449-479). New York, NY: Guilford.

Ryan, R.M. and Brown, K.W. (2003). Why we don’t need self-esteem: On fundamental needs, contingent love, and mindfulness. Psychological Inquiry, 14, 27-82.
PDF Download this article in .pdf format (for Personal Use Only)