Content uploaded by Benjamin W Hadden
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Benjamin W Hadden on Jun 02, 2015
Content may be subject to copyright.
ORIGINAL PAPER
Relationship autonomy and support provision in romantic
relationships
Benjamin W. Hadden
•
Lindsey M. Rodriguez
•
C. Raymond Knee
•
Ben Porter
Published online: 3 December 2014
Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014
Abstract Researchers have recently argued that SDT is a
fundamental theory of relationship functioning and devel-
opment. Specifically, prior research has proposed that self-
determined motivations to be in one’s relationship—known
as relationship autonomy—are associated with more adap-
tive relationship functioning. While empirical research has
explored the association between relationship autonomy and
defensiveness, the link with pro-partner behaviors such as
support provision has received relatively little attention. The
present research tested, across three studies, whether rela-
tionship autonomy is associated with more care for one’s
partner. Three studies—one cross-sectional, one diary, and
one dyadic study—suggest that relationship autonomy is
associated with overall supportiveness both in the form of
secure base support and basic psychological need support.
Additionally, relationship autonomy was associated with
less intrusiveness, suggesting that higher relationship
autonomy is not simply associated with hyper-vigilance and
being overbearing, but rather attention to the partner’s needs.
Keywords Self-determination theory Relationship
autonomy Close relationships Support provision
Introduction
Self-determination theory (SDT; Deci and Ryan 2000)isa
theory of motivation that integrates personality, develop-
ment, and basic psychological needs to describe growth
and optimal well-being. Research has argued that self-
determination theory describes the fundamental mecha-
nisms of relationship functioning (for review, see Knee
et al. 2013), and outlined a sixth mini-theory of SDT
known as relationship motivation theory (RMT; Deci and
Ryan 2014). A self-determination perspective suggests that
relationship autonomy—defined as fully endorsing one’s
involvement in the relationship, rather than feeling
coerced, guilty, or not knowing why one is involved in the
relationship (Knee et al. 2005)—is associated with
healthier, more adaptive relationships (Blais et al. 1990).
Theoretically, this occurs because relationship autonomy
decreases defensiveness and ego-involvement (Hodgins
and Knee 2002), which in turn allows people to approach
conflict more openly and see the conflict as an opportunity
to understand their partner rather than attack or shut them
out (e.g., Knee et al. 2005).
Recently, researchers have argued that relationship
autonomy should also promote the manifestation of pro-
partner motivations such as support provision (Deci and
Ryan 2014; Knee et al. 2013). The association between
relationship autonomy and pro-partner motivations has not,
to our knowledge, received empirical attention. In the
present research, we focus on two conceptualizations of
support provision that reflect support of one’s partner’s
growth and exploration: Secure base support and basic
psychological need support. We focus on these forms of
support primarily because support provision has been
repeatedly shown to be an essential element of high quality
relationships (e.g., Reis et al. 2004a, b; Reis and Shaver
1988). The importance of growth and exploration support
is also central to several prominent theories of optimal
development such as attachment theory (e.g., Feeney and
Thrush 2010) and self-determination theory (e.g., Deci and
Ryan 2000), but it has largely gone unstudied in research
on social support (Feeney and Collins 2014).
B. W. Hadden (&) L. M. Rodriguez C. R. Knee B. Porter
Department of Psychology, University of Houston, Houston,
TX 77204-5022, USA
e-mail: bhadden1765@gmail.com; bwhadden@uh.edu
123
Motiv Emot (2015) 39:359–373
DOI 10.1007/s11031-014-9455-9
Self-determination theory
According to self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan
1985, 2000, 2008), to be self-determined means that one
engages in activities due to freely chosen and fully
endorsed reasons rather than pressures from external forces
or internal expectations. SDT emphasizes the authenticity
of actions and choices that emerge from the fulfillment of
basic psychological needs. A key principle of SDT is that
behaviors are not integrated into and regulated by the true
self to the same degree. Behaviors can be conceptualized
along a continuum from being entirely not endorsed by the
self to being almost entirely determined by the self,
depending on the degree to which the behavior has become
integrated into one’s sense of identity. Behaviors become
more self-determined to the degree that they are more fully
integrated and involve valuing the behavior as important to
one’s identity. At the low end of the continuum, behaviors
are amotivated, meaning people do not know why they do
them and there is no self-involvement. At the next point on
the continuum, behavior can be externally motivated,
whereby the behavior satisfies some external expectation.
Behaviors enacted out of internal pressures are considered
introjected. These behaviors are partially internalized, but
not fully accepted. Identified behaviors are enacted out of
their importance for a self-endorsed goal. Integrated
behaviors resonate with overarching identities. Finally,
behaviors are intrinsically motivated when they are enacted
for the spontaneous positive feelings that are not separable
from the behavior itself. More complete integration of the
motivation to enact behaviors and the self is considered to
be more self-determined and is denoted as autonomous
motivation.
It is important to briefly distinguish SDT’s concept of
autonomy from other concepts with synonymous labels
such as independence, detachment, or self-interest.
Autonomy in SDT is not equitable to independence and
often promotes greater dependence and interrelation.
Grolnick and Ryan (1989) showed that autonomy among
teenagers involves acceptance by and reliance on parents
rather than detachment from them. Further, Koestner et al.
(1999) dubbed Deci and Ryan’s version ‘‘reflective
autonomy’’ and the latter concepts as ‘‘reactive’’ autonomy,
which are only weakly correlated and are associated with
different behaviors (Koestner and Losier 1996; Koestner
et al. 1999). For instance, reflective autonomy predicted
more intimate interactions with peers and openness to
expert advice, compared to reactive autonomy. Other
research has found that reflective autonomy predicts more
satisfying and honest interactions with family and friends
(Hodgins et al. 1996) and fewer attempts to blame others
when awkward social events occur (Hodgins and Liebes-
kind 2003; Hodgins et al. 1996) suggesting that SDT’s
conceptualization of autonomy is divergent from self-
interest.
According to the hierarchical model of motivation
(Vallerand 1997), self-determination can be conceptualized
hierarchically, from general disposition levels (e.g., trait or
personal autonomy) to domain-specific levels (e.g., rela-
tionship autonomy) to situational levels (e.g., motivation
for a specific behavior). Although dispositional self-deter-
mination predicts relationship processes, the effect is lar-
gely mediated by the degree of domain-specific
relationship autonomy (Knee et al. 2005). Thus, relation-
ship autonomy is the most proximate motivation in shaping
relational experiences, although similar predictions may be
made regarding general autonomous motivation. As such,
we derive our current predictions considering the domain-
specific motivation of relationship autonomy.
Self-determination in relationships
Relationship autonomy has been defined as having more
fully integrated one’s relationship into the true self and
reflects a genuine desire to be with one’s partner (Blais
et al. 1990). Those who experience higher relationship
autonomy more fully endorse being in their relationship,
rather than being with their partner due to pressures such as
fear of being alone or a desire to prove oneself as valuable
(Hodgins and Knee 2002). Furthermore, Blais et al. (1990)
seminal study on self-determination in relationships found
that relationship autonomy is related to more adaptive
relationship behaviors such as more consensus between
partners, better teamwork, and overall higher satisfaction.
Prior work on relationship autonomy has largely focused
on how relationship autonomy is associated with less
defensiveness and fewer self-protective mechanisms.
According to this line of research, integration allows one to
be less ego-involved with one’s relationship (e.g., Hodgins
and Knee 2002). That is, higher autonomy allows for one to
focus less on the implications a given situation has for
one’s self-concept and to approach interactions with less
intent to craft a specific image (Hadden et al. 2014; Hod-
gins et al. 1996). As a result of lower ego-involvement,
relationship autonomy promotes the tendency to approach
relationship conflicts more openly and less defensively
which in turn predicts higher relationship quality (Knee
et al. 2002, 2005). However, it remains to be seen whether
relationship autonomy simply lowers defensiveness or also
promotes desire to care for and support partners’ needs.
Support provision in relationships
Many theories such as the interpersonal process model of
intimacy (Reis and Shaver 1988) assert that providing
support is a key element to the development of intimacy in
360 Motiv Emot (2015) 39:359–373
123
close relationships. This assertion is supported by ample
evidence showing that responsiveness and support predict
increased relationship quality over time (e.g., Crocker and
Canevello 2008; Laurenceau et al. 2004; Reis et al. 2004a,
b; Reis and Shaver 1988). Further, recent theorizing has
suggested the importance of interpersonal support that
promotes opportunities for growth and development (Fee-
ney and Collins 2014). This is in line with several theories
of optimal development such as SDT (Deci and Ryan
2000) and attachment theory (Feeney and Thrush 2010;
Hazan and Shaver 1994), which outline specific dimen-
sions of support that are particularly important for pro-
moting growth, largely arguing that partners must
encourage growth and exploration by being encouraging of
one’s partner’s independent abilities while still providing a
sense of connection.
Specifically, attachment theory outlines three primary
ingredients for providing partners with a ‘‘secure base.’’
Secure base support is a specific form of support which
captures intentions to help one’s partner grow, including
availability, encouragement, and non-interference (Feeney
and Thrush 2010). That is, according to attachment theory,
it is important for people to encourage partners to try new,
challenging tasks while also being available to help if
needed. In addition to being available, partners must also
avoid being overbearing and intrusive by interfering with
partners’ activities when it is uncalled for, such as when
one’s partner does not need help. Taken together, secure
base support has been found to boost one’s partner’s hap-
piness and self-esteem (Feeney 2004; Feeney and Thrush
2010), as well as perceptions of partners as helpful and
supportive (Feeney and Thrush 2010).
SDT proposes three basic psychological needs: Auton-
omy, competence, and relatedness. Relatedness support is
the extent to which one feels that his or her relationship
partner provides a sense of connection. Competence sup-
port is the extent to which one feels that his or her rela-
tionship promotes a sense of efficacy and ability. Finally,
autonomy support refers to the extent to which one feels
that his or her relationship allows him or her to act and
choose freely. These psychological needs are considered to
be basic because they cannot be reduced to simpler factors
and are thought to be universal for all individuals (see Deci
and Ryan 2000 for a review of why these are considered
basic psychological needs). Further, research has shown
that these three needs are fundamental for optimal devel-
opment, and research has shown that the extent to which
these needs are supported is associated with increased
relationship quality (Patrick et al. 2007) and well-being
(Reis et al. 2000). Further, among friendships, autonomy
support has been shown to promote feelings of overall need
fulfillment and well-being (Deci et al. 2006). Taken toge-
ther, it appears that receiving need support holds a number
of benefits for recipients, from relationship quality to
overall feelings of well-being.
Although secure base support and basic psychological
need support arise from two distinct theoretical back-
grounds, prior theorizing has suggested a fair amount of
common ground (see Knee et al. 2013 for a review).
Central to both of these perspectives is the notion that
partners should promote growth by supporting feelings of
connectedness while not being overbearing. That is, people
must be available should partners need help while simul-
taneously providing autonomy support by not interfering
and undermining the partner’s confidence. As such, it is
important to understand how relationship autonomy is
associated not just with lower ego-involvement, but with
greater levels of support provision as well.
Relationship autonomy and support provision
We propose that, in addition to lowering negative respon-
ses (e.g., being less defensive in response to conflict or
threatening situations), relationship autonomy is also
associated with more beneficial processes. Specifically, we
anticipate that relationship autonomy is associated with
pro-partner motivations—a subset of pro-relationship
motivations that reflects a desire to maximize one’s part-
ner’s interests (Wieselquist et al. 1999). We draw this
primarily from theorizing regarding the RMT (Deci and
Ryan 2014; Knee et al. 2013) which posits that autonomous
motivations promote interest in partners’ perspectives and
well-being, as well as the energy and desire to empathize
with close others, which increases supportive behaviors
toward romantic partners. Importantly, our conceptualiza-
tion of pro-partner motivations in the present paper is a
distinct subset of the more general concept of pro-rela-
tionship motivations. Whereas motivations to maximize
one’s partner’s interests (pro-partner) can be considered
relatively altruistic, the umbrella of pro-relationship moti-
vations includes selfish desires such as promoting the
relationship to protect one’s identity. According to inter-
dependence theory, people have impulses to pursue
immediate self-interests. In order to act pro-socially, peo-
ple must transform such selfish motivations to focus on the
relationship or the partner’s needs (Kelley and Thibaut
1978).
As relationship autonomy reflects a genuine endorse-
ment of one’s relationship with one’s current partner
(Hodgins and Knee 2002), it is possible that relationship
autonomy helps to facilitate the transformation of moti-
vations, leading to concern for one’s partner’s interests. In
other words, people who have more fully integrated their
relationship should more naturally focus on supporting
their partner’s needs because they truly value their partner
and have the energy to empathize with the partner’s
Motiv Emot (2015) 39:359–373 361
123
perspectives and feelings. This is indirectly suggested by
prior research which has found that participants higher in
relationship autonomy were also more likely to see dis-
agreement as an opportunity to understand their partner
better (Knee et al. 2002), which suggests an interest in
one’s partner’s point of view. As such, individuals higher
in relationship autonomy should be more willing and ready
to attend to their partner’s needs. We expect that the ability
to transform from selfish to relatively altruistic pro-partner
motivations brought about by relationship autonomy will
manifest in support provision, such that one cares for and
encourages one’s partner’s interests.
We are unaware of direct empirical evidence that has
examined a link between autonomous motivation and
giving support to close others. Instead, most research that
has examined the association between autonomous moti-
vation and autonomy support has focused on non-egali-
tarian relationships such as teachers and students or parents
and children. For instance, several studies have shown that
receiving autonomy support fosters more intrinsic moti-
vation in a variety of domains, such as learning and sports
(e.g., Gagne
´
et al. 2003; Grolnick and Ryan 1989; Soenens
and Vansteenkiste 2005). Additionally, some studies sug-
gest that autonomous motivations among teachers, parents,
and coaches are associated with more autonomous moti-
vation among children, specifically because of higher
perceived autonomy support. For example, teachers who
are autonomously motivated to teach have students who
report receiving more autonomy support in the classroom
(Pelletier et al. 2002; Roth et al. 2007) and autonomously
motivated coaches are more autonomy-supportive of
players (Taylor and Ntoumanis 2007; Taylor et al. 2008).
Although these studies suggest a link between autonomous
motivation and autonomy support for authority figures, it
remains to be seen if such a link exists in more egalitarian
relationships, such as romantic relationships.
Research has also examined the benefits of self-deter-
mined motivation for one’s own well-being. For example,
research has shown that, among couples coping with can-
cer, autonomous motivations in caregivers was associated
with greater feelings of intrapersonal well-being (Kim et al.
2008). Further, research has found that when people
autonomously engage in prosocial acts, they report feeling
more need fulfillment and higher well-being (Weinstein
and Ryan 2010). However, it is important to note that
although the studies discussed thus far provide empirical
evidence of the importance of autonomous motivation for
one’s own well-being, none of these studies have examined
the possibility that motivation promotes support provision.
That is, it remains to be seen whether autonomous moti-
vation for being in a relationship is associated with pro-
viding support to close partners.
Some indirect evidence provides support for the asser-
tion that relationship autonomy is associated with support
provision. For instance, people report greater appreciation
and gratitude toward the hypothetical helper when they
thought that he or she was motivated by more self-deter-
mined reasons (Weinstein et al. 2010a). This is presumably
because the recipients perceive that those with self-deter-
mined motivations to help genuinely care for the recipient,
whereas helpers with low self-determined motivations are
less focused on the person they are helping. In another set
of studies, Weinstein and Ryan (2010) found that autono-
mous motivations for caregiving are associated with higher
need fulfillment, vitality, self-esteem, and positive affect
among recipients.
Finally, some research does suggest that autonomous
motivations may be associated with more support provision
within close relationships. For instance, in one set of
studies, researchers had pairs of strangers engage in a
nonverbal communication task (charades). Across two
studies, dyads who were primed with feelings of autonomy
were rated as being closer and more encouraging of each
other (Weinstein et al. 2010b). These findings suggest that
autonomy may be associated with more support of partners.
Additionally, these studies provide much needed evidence
for the causal role of autonomous orientations in promoting
better dyadic interactions. However, these studies looked
exclusively at strangers who were either purely hypothet-
ical (Weinstein et al. 2010a) or randomly paired together
for the study (Weinstein et al. 2010b; Weinstein and Ryan
2010). Thus, it is unclear whether and how this applies to
close relationships or everyday assessments of support. We
suggest that, because integration of the relationship with
the true self facilitates transformations from pro-self to pro-
partner motivations, people who are higher in relationship
autonomy should be more supportive of their romantic
partners.
Overview of studies and hypotheses
The present research tested the association between rela-
tionship autonomy and pro-partner motivation in the form
of support provision. Additionally, although prior research
has established the importance of receiving autonomy
support for the development of autonomous motivations,
this is the first research that tests whether the reverse
association exists, such that autonomous motivations are
associated with more support provision. We tested these
associations in three studies with different methodologies.
Study 1 was a cross-sectional survey design. Study 2
employed a diary design to obtain more accurate assess-
ments of support provision. Finally, Study 3 utilized a
dyadic design in which we were able to test whether one’s
362 Motiv Emot (2015) 39:359–373
123
partner’s motivation is associated with one’s own percep-
tion of support.
Studies 1 and 2 assessed supportiveness as both secure
base support and a more general measure of emotional
responsiveness. We anticipated that relationship autonomy
would be positively associated with emotional respon-
siveness, as well as with overall secure base support.
Within secure base support, we expected relationship
autonomy would be associated with providing both more
availability and encouragement to partners. We also
expected that relationship autonomy would be negatively
associated with intrusiveness. Study 3 tested whether
relationship autonomy promotes support in the form of
basic psychological need support as reported by one’s
partner. As integration of one’s relationship should facili-
tate a transformation of motivations to maximize the
partner’s interests, we expected that, one’s own relation-
ship autonomy would be associated with one’s partner
reporting more basic psychological need support. Specifi-
cally, we anticipated that relationship autonomy would be
positively associated with partner reports of both overall
basic psychological needs as well as each individual psy-
chological need (i.e., relatedness, competence, autonomy).
Additionally, we tested whether the proposed mecha-
nism is distinct from several more selfish explanations for
supporting one’s partner. For instance, it is possible that
relationship autonomy promotes support simply because
one feels better about oneself or the relationship in general,
and not because of pro-partner motivations. We also tested
whether pro-partner motivations are distinct from contin-
gencies of self-worth based upon one’s relationship.
Whereas motivations to maximize the partner’s interests
can be considered relatively altruistic, promoting the rela-
tionship to protect one’s identity would suggest a more
ego-driven reason for engaging in relationship-promoting
behaviors.
Study 1
Study 1 tested for evidence of an association between
relationship autonomy and supportiveness using a cross-
sectional design. Prior work has referred to trait autonomy
as a form of ‘‘true self-esteem’’ (Deci and Ryan 1995) and
has linked autonomy support with self-esteem (Heppner
et al. 2008). As such, in Study 1 we wanted to rule out the
possibility that people high in relationship autonomy are
more supportive of close others simply because they have
higher self-esteem. It is also possible that relationship
autonomy is associated with giving support simply because
people who are more satisfied with their relationship are
more supportive of their partner, or that people who are in
relationships longer are both more autonomous and
responsive to their partner’s needs. As such, in Study 1, we
ruled out self-esteem and relationship satisfaction.
Participants
Participants were recruited from psychology classes at a
large Southwestern University and were offered extra
credit for their participation. One-hundred sixty-six (143
females) participants completed the survey. All participants
were in romantic relationships for at least 3 months. The
sample was ethnically diverse, with 34 % Hispanic/Latino,
29 % Caucasian, 18 % Asian, 13 % African-American,
4 % Middle Eastern and 2 % reporting being other. Age
ranged from 18 years to 51 years (M = 23.22, SD = 5.48).
The average relationship duration was about 35 months
(SD = 36.58 months).
Procedure and measures
Participants signed up online and were given a link to a
series of questionnaires to complete at their own pace.
Upon completion, they read a debriefing page and were
offered extra credit for participation.
Relationship autonomy
Motivations to be in one’s relationship were assessed using
the Couples Motivation Questionnaire (CMQ) (Blais et al.
1990). This 18-item scale was developed to measure rela-
tionship autonomy and has been widely used throughout
the literature on self-determination in relationship contexts
(e.g., Brunell and Webster 2013; Gaine and La Guardia
2009; Hui et al. 2013; Knee et al. 2005; Patrick et al. 2007).
The scale has six subscales with three questions each that
represent the six different levels of internalization: Intrin-
sic, integrated, identified, introjected, external, and amoti-
vated. The questionnaire begins with the stem, ‘‘Why are
you in this relationship?’’ Each of the 18 items then pro-
vides a reason for being in the relationship that varies along
a continuum from reasons that are less self-determined
(e.g., ‘‘There is nothing motivating me to stay in my
relationship with my partner’’) to more self-determined
(e.g., ‘‘Because I value the way my relationship with my
partner allows me to improve myself as a person’’). The
scale was scored with the following algorithm (Blais et al.
1990) that weighs each type of intention based on its rel-
ative location on the self-determination continuum:
(Intrinsic 9 3) ? (Integrated 9 2) ? (Identified 9
1) ?
(Introjected 9-1) ? (External 9-2) ? (Amotivation 9
-3). Amotivated and autonomous motivations are treated
as two poles of the self-determination continuum. Partici-
pants rated how much each statement represents a reason
they are currently in their relationship on a 7-point likert-
Motiv Emot (2015) 39:359–373 363
123
type scale from ‘‘does not correspond at all’’ to ‘‘corre-
sponds exactly’’ (a = .75).
Supportiveness
The degree to which one provides support to one’s partner
was assessed with two scales. Both scales begin with the
instructions to ‘‘select the answer that corresponds to how
much you feel the following statements are accurate about
you.’’ Participants completed the Responsiveness Scale
(Cutrona et al. 1997) which measures how responsive one
is to one’s partner. The scale is comprised of six items
(e.g., ‘‘I try to be sensitive to my partner’s feelings’’).
Participants rated the extent to which they generally try to
be responsive toward their partner on a 7-point likert-type
scale from ‘‘not at all’’ to ‘‘very much so’’ (a = .96).
Additionally, the Secure Base Scale (Feeney and Thrush
2010) measured a specific form of social support for one’s
partner that promotes autonomy, growth, and exploration.
There are three subscales with five items each that measure
the extent to which one is available for one’s partner
(‘‘When my partner is facing a challenging or difficult
situation, I try to make myself available to him/her in case
he/she needs me’’) (a = .81), intrusiveness (‘‘I sometimes
interfere with my partner’s ability to accomplish his/her
personal goals.’’) (a = .65), and encouragement (‘‘When
my partner tells me about something new that he/she would
like to try, I usually encourage him/her to do it’’) (a = .91).
These subscales were also combined to create an overall
score on secure base supportiveness (reversing intrusive-
ness) (a = .85). Participants rated how much they felt the
statements were accurate on a 7-point likert-type scale
from ‘‘not at all’’ to ‘‘very much so.’’
Trait self-esteem
Self-esteem was assessed with the 10-item Rosenberg
(1965) Self-Esteem Questionnaire, which uses a 5-point
likert-type scale ranging from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to
‘‘strongly agree’’. Participants were instructed to ‘‘read
each statement and consider the extent to which [they]
typically and generally agree or disagree.’’ An example
item is, ‘‘I feel I do not have much to be proud of (reverse
scored)’’ (a = .91).
Satisfaction
Participants completed the 5-item satisfaction subscale of
the Rusbult Investment Model (RIM) (Rusbult et al. 1998).
The scale instructs participants to ‘‘…indicate how much
you agree with the following statements.’’ Participants
were also told that ‘‘[t]hese statements pertain to your
relationship with your CURRENT romantic partner.’’
Participants rated how much each statement (e.g., ‘‘My
relationship is close to ideal’’) accurately reflected their
relationship on a 9-point likert-type scale ranging from ‘‘do
not agree at all’’ to ‘‘agree completely’’ (a = .94).
Results and discussion
Means, standard deviations, and correlations can be found
in Table 1. Relationship autonomy was associated with
both self-esteem and satisfaction. Additionally, relationship
autonomy was associated with responsiveness toward one’s
partner, overall secure base support, and each of the three
subscales of secure base support—availability, intrusive-
ness (negatively), and encouragement. Trait self-esteem
and satisfaction were associated with responsiveness,
secure base support, availability, and encouragement. Self-
esteem was also negatively associated with intrusiveness.
Next, we computed a series of multiple regressions in
which relationship autonomy, trait self-esteem, and satis-
faction were entered as simultaneous predictors in order to
rule out self-esteem and satisfaction as possible explana-
tions for the associations between relationship autonomy
and partner support. Relationship autonomy remained
significantly associated with the responsiveness scale
Table 1 Correlations among all study variables (Study 1)
Mean (SD)1234567
1. Relationship autonomy 19.90 (12.20)
2. Self-esteem 4.03 (0.80) .70***
3. Satisfaction 7.54 (1.72) .47*** .31***
4. Availability 5.91 (1.09) .66*** .42*** .48***
5. Intrusiveness 4.78 (1.12) -.26*** -.06 -.24** -.39***
6. Encouragement 6.00 (1.04) .58*** .35*** .44*** .71*** .36***
7. Secure base support 5.57 (0.88) .61*** .34*** .48*** .86*** .73*** .84***
8. Responsiveness 6.37 (0.93) .64*** .47*** .44*** .72*** .24*** .71*** .68***
* p B .05; ** p \.01; *** p \ .001
364 Motiv Emot (2015) 39:359–373
123
(b = .52, SE = .01, p \ .001), the composite of secure
base support (b = .62, SE = .01, p \ .001), as well as
each secure base subscale—availability (b = .62, SE =
.01, p \ .001), intrusiveness (b =-.36, SE = .01, p =
.05), and encouragement (b = .54, SE = .01, p \ .001).
1
Further, in additional analyses requested by an anonymous
reviewer, relationship autonomy remained a significant
predictor of each outcome while also controlling for rela-
tionship duration.
In sum, these analyses provide evidence of an associa-
tion between relationship autonomy and greater support for
one’s partner. Relationship autonomy was also negatively
associated with intrusiveness, suggesting that participants
who have autonomous motivations to be in the relationship
are not simply overbearing, but rather focused on their
partners’ needs. These data also provide evidence in line
with SDT that relationship autonomy is a unique construct
that is important for relationship functioning beyond sim-
ply feeling good about oneself or one’s relationship. That
is, the results of the regression analyses revealed that
genuine desire to be in one’s relationship is associated with
giving support beyond any association with self-esteem and
relationship satisfaction.
Study 2
The design of Study 1 was limited by the retrospective nature
of the cross-sectional design, which required participants to
gauge how much support was given to one’s partner in a
general, rather than a specific timeframe. Study 2 obtained
more current and reliable assessments of support by evalu-
ating reports of outcomes every day over a 14-day period.
We also wanted to rule out another alternative explanation.
Specifically, because relationship autonomy reflects inte-
gration of the relationship within the self, support may not be
due to pro-partner motivations but rather to feeling that one’s
self-worth is wrapped up in the outcome of the relationship,
leading one to desire to protect and promote the relationship
to preserve self-worth. This type of self-worth is known as
relationship-contingent self-esteem (RCSE; Knee et al.
2008). As such, it is important to rule out the possibility that
people higher in relationship autonomy provide more sup-
port to protect their own sense of self-worth.
Participants
Participants were 118 students recruited from psychology
classes at a large Southwestern university. Three partici-
pants were dropped from analyses because they did not
provide enough information in the initial survey, and 16
more were dropped because they did not provide any daily
records. All participants were in romantic relationships for
at least 3 months.
Of the 99 participants included in the analyses, 17 were male
and 82 were female. The average age of participants was
21.7 years of age (SD 5.71). The sample was 21 % Asian/Pacific
Islander, 12 % African American, 24 % Caucasian, 31 %
Latino/a, 2 % Middle Eastern, and 9 % chose other. The average
duration of relationships was about 33 months (SD 32.37).
Among the sample, 2 % of people were in casual dating rela-
tionships, 61 % were in exclusive or serious dating relationships,
30 % were engaged or nearly engaged, and 7 % were married.
Procedure
Participants signed up for the study online and attended an in-
lab orientation session that outlined the study procedures, and
took place during the school week. They then completed a
one-time questionnaire online before Saturday. The next
Sunday, participants began completing daily records each
night for 14 days in which they rated the extent to which they
supported their partner that day. Participants were instructed
to fill out the survey before going to sleep and were told not to
go back to fill out diaries if they failed to complete a diary
record. Records completed after 5am the next morning were
deleted. All questionnaires in this part of the diary were
reworded to ask about that specific day.
1
At the request of an anonymous reviewer, we also ran exploratory
analyses for Studies 1–3 in which relationship autonomy was broken
down into two subscales reflecting autonomous motivations and
controlled motivations. In doing so, we constructed these scales based
on scoring done by Hui et al. (2013), in which the autonomous
relationship motivation subscale was calculated by the first part of the
algorithm: (Intrinsic 9 3) ? (Integrated 9 2) ? (Identified 9 1)
(a = .90), and the controlled relationship motivation subscale was
calculated by the second part of the algorithm: (Introjected 9
-1) ? (External 9-2) ? (Amotivation 9-3) (a = .78). We then
replicated the main analyses reported in each study, replacing
relationship autonomy with the subscales of autonomous and
controlled relationship motivations. In Studies 1 and 2, autonomous
relationship motivations were uniquely associated with more avail-
ability, encouragement, and (margainally) overall secure base
support. Additionally, autonomous relationship motivations were
associated with marginally less intrusiveness in Study 2, but not Study
1. Controlled relationship motivations, meanwhile, were associated
with less availability, encouragement, and overall secure base
support, and more intrusiveness in Studies 1 and 2. Further, although
autonomous and controlled relationship motivations were associated
with more and less responsiveness in Study 1, respectively, neither
was significantly associated with responsiveness in Study 2. Further,
in Study 3, partner autonomous relationship motivations were
associated with more relatedness, autonomy, and overall need support
received, but were not associated with competence support. Partner
controlled relationship motivations, meanwhile, were marginally
associated with less relatedness, competence, and overall need
support, but not with autonomy support. These additional results
generally suggest that the associations between relationship autonomy
and support provision are not driven solely by autonomous or
controlled motivations, but rather by the entire continuum of self-
determination.
Motiv Emot (2015) 39:359–373 365
123
Measures
Relationship autonomy
Relationship autonomy was measured at baseline using the
same methods as in Study 1 (a = .87).
Support
Support was measured daily using the Secure Base Scale
(composite a = .72; availability a = .83; intrusiveness
a = .67; encouragement a = .88) and Responsiveness
Scale (a = .89) from Study 1.
Satisfaction
Relationship satisfaction was measured daily using the
same scale as in Study 1 (a = .93).
RCSE
RCSE was measured daily using the Relationship-Contingent
Self-Esteem scale (Knee et al. 2008) which contains 11 items
about thoughts and behaviors in committed relationships (e.g.,
‘‘My feelings of self-worth are based on how well things are
going in my relationship,’’). Responses were rated on a 5-point
Likert-type scale (1 = not at all like me, 5 = very much like
me) corresponding to how much each item reflected how
participants felt that day. Items were averaged such that higher
scores indicate basing one’s self-worth on one’s romantic
relationship to a greater extent (a = .92).
Results and discussion
Preliminary analyses
Participants recorded 991 daily diary entries during the
14 day period, with the average participant completing
10.01 entries. Means and standard deviations along with
correlations among the variables can be found in Table 2.
For daily variables, participants’ scores were aggregated
from the daily observations such that each participant had
one score that represented his or her average score on the
measure. Relationship autonomy was associated with both
relationship satisfaction and RCSE. Additionally, rela-
tionship autonomy was associated with responsiveness,
secure base support, each individual subscale of secure
base support—availability, intrusiveness (negatively), and
encouragement. Similarly, relationship satisfaction was
associated with overall responsiveness and secure base
support, as well as with each subscale—availability,
intrusiveness (negatively), and encouragement. RCSE was
associated with responsiveness and two subscales of secure
base support—availability and (marginally) with encour-
agement. RCSE was not associated with either overall
secure base support or the subscale of intrusiveness.
Main analyses
Plan of analysis In order to test whether relationship
autonomy predicted giving support beyond relationship
satisfaction and RCSE, we computed a series of analyses
using multilevel modeling to model non-independence
within participants over the diary period. Analyses were
computed using SAS PROC MIXED with restricted max-
imum likelihood estimation. In multilevel modeling, vari-
ables can exist at multiple levels: the daily level (level 1),
which captures the fluctuations between days within people
and the person level (level 2), which reflects individual
differences. As relationship autonomy was exclusively
between-person, the following analyses were conducted at
the person level (level 2), and should be interpreted as
between-person differences. Further, although satisfaction
and RCSE were measured daily, they contain both
between- (level 2) and within-person (level 1) variance. As
relationship autonomy exists purely as a between-person
variable, by controlling for satisfaction and RCSE, we are
controlling for the person-level variance of these variables.
Table 2 Correlations among all
study variables (Study 2)
p B .10; *pB .05;
** p \ .01; *** p \ .001
Variables 2–8 are daily
variables, created by averaging
individuals’ scores over the
14-day period
Mean (SD)1 23 4 567
1. Relationship
autonomy
23.68 (10.03)
2. RCSE 4.99 (1.19) .22*
3. Satisfaction 7.48 (1.40) .55*** .33***
4. Availability 5.95 (0.89) .56*** .21* .75***
5. Intrusiveness 5.22 (0.92) -.30** .01 -.36*** -.48***
6. Encouragement 6.11 (0.86) .52*** .18
.67*** .81*** .55***
7. Secure base
support
5.76 (0.77) .53*** .14 .68*** .88*** .79*** .91***
8. Responsiveness 6.10 (0.91) .53*** .30** .75*** .76*** .39*** .78*** .74***
366 Motiv Emot (2015) 39:359–373
123
Finally, all predictor variables in the following analyses
were grand mean centered.
Relationship autonomy and support A series of multi-
level models were computed in which relationship auton-
omy (referred to as RA in the following equations), daily
relationship satisfaction (referred to as Sat in the following
equations), and daily RCSE were simultaneously included
as predictors. Because satisfaction and RCSE were mea-
sured daily, they include both within- and between-person
variance. As such, inclusion of daily level covariates in the
model with relationship autonomy controls for person-level
differences in the observed associations between relation-
ship autonomy and the outcome.
Support
ij
¼ c
00
þ c
01
RA þ c
10
Sat þ c
20
RCSE þ u
0j
þ e
ij
Table 3 provides parameter estimates, standard errors, and
significance levels. As shown in Table 3, relationship
autonomy remained significantly associated with each
measure of support provision when controlling for both
relationship satisfaction and RCSE. Further, in additional
analyses requested by an anonymous reviewer, relationship
autonomy remained a significant predictor of each outcome
while also controlling for relationship duration.
As such, these analyses replicated the findings of Study
1; higher integration of one’s relationship was associated
with higher pro-partner motivations in the form of support
and responsiveness. Importantly, relationship autonomy
was found to be negatively associated with intrusiveness,
suggesting that higher relationship autonomy is associated
with awareness of partner’s needs, rather than simply
showering partners with attention. These results also add to
Study 1 in two important ways. First, the reports of support
do not rely as heavily on retrospection, providing more
reliable and accurate assessments. Second, Study 2 tested
an additional covariate, further establishing the unique role
of relationship autonomy. Despite the established strong
association between relationship autonomy and satisfaction
(e.g., Blais et al. 1990), these analyses rule out the possi-
bility that people higher in relationship autonomy provide
more support for partners simply because the relationship
is of greater quality. Additionally, according to these data,
although people higher in relationship autonomy have
more fully integrated their relationships within themselves,
the higher levels of support for one’s partner are not due to
one’s self-worth being tied to the success of one’s
relationship.
Study 3
Study 3 addressed several limitations of the previous two
studies. First, we wanted to examine a form of support that
is derived directly from self-determination theory. As such,
we included reports of basic psychological need support
derived from their romantic relationship. As noted in the
introduction, self-determination theory outlines three basic
psychological needs: Relatedness, competence, and
autonomy. Readers should note that although need support
and secure base support derive from two separate theoret-
ical frameworks, both forms of support conceptually
highlight dimensions of support thought to be needed for
optimal growth and development. Second, the previous
studies relied on one’s own report of support provision and
thus, were subject to shared method variance bias. The
current study utilized reports from both partners regarding
support received. Obtaining data from both partners allows
for tests of actor effects (i.e., one’s own outcome as a
function of one’s own predictor) and partner effects (i.e.,
one’s own outcome as a function of one’s partner’s pre-
dictor). Study 3 aimed to extend Studies 1 and 2 by
assessing the link between self-reported relationship
autonomy and partner-reported support receipt. Third, the
previous studies had a considerable gender imbalance. In
Study 3, we sampled heterosexual couples, which removed
the gender imbalance and allowed for tests of gender
differences.
In line with previous hypotheses, we expected people to
report receiving more basic psychological need support
from their partners to the extent that their partner is higher
in relationship autonomy (partner effect). We expected this
to emerge for all three psychological needs—relatedness,
Table 3 Hierarchical analyses for relationship autonomy controlling for daily relationship satisfaction and RCSE (Study 2)
Availability Intrusiveness Encouragement Secure Base Responsiveness
b SE b SE b SE b SE b SE
Relationship Autonomy .03*** .004 -.03*** .007 .03*** .005 .03*** .006 .01* .005
Daily Satisfaction -.31*** .018 .02 .021 .21*** .018 .14*** .012 .47*** .021
Daily RCSE .01 .029 .09* .038 -.01 .030 -.01 .025 .01 .031
* p B .05; *** p \ .001
Motiv Emot (2015) 39:359–373 367
123
competence, and autonomy. Additionally, we expected to
find a positive association between one’s own relationship
autonomy and one’s felt need support (actor effect), as
prior research has found that need support increases
autonomous motivations (e.g., Grolnick and Ryan 1989).
Further, we did not expect to find any moderating effect of
gender in the present analyses.
Methods
Study 3 included assessments from both partners in com-
mitted relationships. Individuals were recruited via
research assistants visiting classrooms, flyers posted around
the psychology building, and the online research manage-
ment system. Interested participants either emailed the
researcher for the link or began the survey through the link
posted in the psychology department online research
management system. Participants were asked for their
partner’s name and email address so they could be con-
tacted to participate. Partners received emails with a link to
complete the survey. In the instructions, individuals were
asked to complete the survey independently from their
romantic partner. Those who were undergraduates were
issued extra credit in exchange for their participation.
Participants
Heterosexual couples completed the questionnaire, with a
final sample of 68 couples (N = 136; 68 men, 68 women).
Participants were, on average, 25.02 years old
(SD = 5.88 years) and the sample was ethnically diverse,
with 28.8 % Caucasian, 37.8 % Hispanic, 16.7 % Asian,
7.7 % African American, and 9.0 % reporting ‘‘Other.’’
The average relationship length was 40.56 months
(SD = 48.96). With respect to relationship status, 4 % of
the sample reported casually dating, 50 % exclusively
dating, 23 % nearly engaged, 8 % engaged, and 15 %
married.
Measures
Relationship autonomy Relationship autonomy was
measured using the same scale as in Study 1 and Study 2
(a = .79).
Basic psychological needs The extent to which one feels
his or her basic psychological needs are met in one’s
relationship, which likely follows from need support by his
or her romantic partner, was assessed with the 9-item Basic
Psychological Needs Scale (La Guardia et al. 2000). Three
subscales (3-items each) all followed the stem, ‘‘When I
am with my romantic partner…’’ and measured relatedness
(e.g., ‘‘I feel loved and cared about’’) (a = .83), compe-
tence (e.g., ‘‘I feel like a competent person’’) (a = .84),
and autonomy (e.g., ‘‘I have a say in what happens and can
voice my opinion’’) (a = .80) on a 7-point rating scale
ranging from ‘‘strongly disagree’’ to ‘‘strongly agree.’’
Following from previous research on need support and
close relationships (e.g., Uysal et al. 2010), we also com-
bined the subscales to create an overall measure of need
fulfillment (a = .92).
Results and discussion
Preliminary analyses
Means and standard deviations as well as correlations
between constructs and intraclass correlations (ICC) are
also presented in Table 4. For both men and women,
relationship autonomy was found to have significant posi-
tive correlations with both overall felt need support as well
as each individual subscale—relatedness, competence, and
autonomy. Paired samples t-tests were performed to test for
differences between means for men and women. There
were no gender differences on relationship motivation,
overall need fulfillment, or on any of the need support
subscales (all ps [ .25).
Main analyses
Plan of analysis APIMs (Actor Partner Interdependence
Model; Kenny 1996; Kenny et al. 2006
) were computed
to determine the associations between relationship
autonomy and basic psychological need support. APIM
partitions variance into actor effects (the unique associ-
ation between one’s own score on a predictor and one’s
outcome) and partner effects (the unique association
between one’s partner’s score on a predictor and one’s
outcome). It is important to note that our use of the term
effect in this context does not refer to an inference of
causality, but is rather the standard terminology
employed in APIM to denote whether the predictor was
reported by oneself (i.e., actor effect) or one’s partner
(i.e., partner effect). Further, because our sample was
composed exclusively of heterosexual couples, we trea-
ted couples as distinguishable by gender. Our main
hypotheses concerned the partner effects, such that we
expected to find associations between one’s partner’s
relationship autonomy and one’s own perception of basic
psychological need support. However, we also expected
actor effects such that one’s own relationship autonomy
368 Motiv Emot (2015) 39:359–373
123
would be associated with felt need support. Thus, we
tested all models with actor paths in order to (1)
incorporate the nonindependence of the dyads and (2)
establish the partner effect of relationship autonomy
beyond previously established associations between
motivation and support. All continuous predictors were
grand mean centered and gender was effect coded such
that men were coded as 1 and women as -1. Thus, all
main effects represent the average association collapsed
across gender.
Relationship autonomy and basic psychological need sup-
port In order to test our hypotheses concerning the role of
relationship autonomy in explaining support of partners,
we computed a series of models in which both actor and
partner relationship autonomy, actor gender, as well as the
actor relationship autonomy 9 actor gender and the part-
ner relationship autonomy 9 actor gender interactions
were entered as simultaneous predictors:
Support
ij
¼ c
00
þ c
10
Actor RA þc
20
Partner RA
þ c
30
Actor Gender þ c
40
Actor RA
Actor Gender þ c
50
Partner RA
Actor Gender þ e
ij
Results can be found in Table 5. In line with our main
hypotheses, a unique partner effect of relationship auton-
omy was significant, such that participants reported
receiving higher overall need support as well as each
individual subscale—relatedness, competence, auton-
omy—if their partner reported being higher in relationship
autonomy. We also found that actor relationship autonomy
was uniquely positively associated with one’s own per-
ceived need support, as well as each individual subscale.
As predicted, there were no observed moderating effects of
gender in the present analyses on either actor (ps [ .25) or
partner (ps [ .42) effects, suggesting that the positive
association between relationship autonomy and support
provision is the same for both men and women. Further, we
ran additional analyses that were requested by an anony-
mous reviewer in which we controlled for relationship
duration. Both actor and partner relationship autonomy
remained significant predictors of each outcome.
Study 3 provides additional support to Studies 1 and 2 in
that relationship autonomy was found to be associated with
support provision in the form of basic psychological needs.
This study expanded upon Studies 1 and 2 by testing
associations between relationship autonomy and support
provision using a different measure of support which was
derived directly from self-determination theory. Addition-
ally, the present study addresses concerns of self-report
bias by utilizing partner reports of support received, with
results suggesting that participants who were more auton-
omously motivated to be in the relationship had partners
who felt their basic psychological needs were more sup-
ported in the relationship. Finally, the present study pro-
vides evidence that these associations hold across gender,
and are not specific to either men or women. One notable
limitation in this study is that our measure of basic psy-
chological needs does not tap directly into need support
provided by partners, but rather the extent to which one’s
needs are met and supported in the relationship which,
presumably, follow from need support. Overall, Study 3
provides further evidence for the hypothesized association
between autonomous motivation and pro-partner motiva-
tions in the form of support provision.
General discussion
A romantic partner’s willingness to provide support when
needed is an integral element of close relationship func-
tioning. Perceived partner responsiveness has been con-
sidered a key organizing construct for the field of close
relationships because of its importance across several lit-
eratures (Reis et al. 2004a, b). We demonstrate, across
three studies, that the way people are motivated to be in
their relationship—from autonomous to controlled or
amotivated motivations—predicts the degree to which they
are supportive of romantic partners. These studies provided
evidence of an association between autonomous motivation
Table 4 Correlations among all study variables (Study 3)
Mean (SD)12345
1. Overall need support 5.95 (1.23) .38*** .93*** .92*** .95*** .43***
2. Relatedness support 5.91 (1.42) .90*** .36** .75*** .85*** .51***
3. Competence support 6.00 (1.28) .88*** .71*** .24* .83*** .28*
4. Autonomy support 5.93 (1.33) .86*** .64*** .63*** .36** .41***
5. Relationship autonomy 21.13 (10.60) .66*** .60*** .65*** .48*** .30*
* p B .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001
ICCs are presented in diagonal with bold. Correlations for women are above the diagonal and correlations for men are below the diagonal
Motiv Emot (2015) 39:359–373 369
123
to be in one’s relationship and support provision. Impor-
tantly, this association was demonstrated for several forms
of support provision which have been derived from sepa-
rate theoretical perspectives. It was also found using cross-
sectional, longitudinal, and dyadic designs with reports
coming from both the individuals themselves as well as
their partners.
Further, whereas prior research has shown that rela-
tionship autonomy is associated with less ego-defensive-
ness and greater understanding during conflict, this is the
first evidence to our knowledge that relationship autonomy
is associated with pro-partner motivations such that one is
more readily supportive of and responsive to the partner’s
needs. Study 1 employed a cross-sectional design and
examined support provision, including greater responsive-
ness, availability, encouragement, and less intrusiveness.
As hypothesized, being in the relationship for more
autonomous reasons was associated with greater suppor-
tiveness on all dimensions except intrusiveness. Study 2
employed a multi-level daily diary design in which par-
ticipants reported the extent to which they were responsive
to and supportive of their partner on a daily basis for
14 days. As hypothesized, relationship autonomy was
associated with greater responsiveness and support provi-
sion. Importantly, the results of Studies 1 and 2 were not
explained by several alternative explanations, including
self-esteem, satisfaction with the relationship, or with
having one’s self-esteem more contingent on the success
and failure of the relationship.
Finally, Study 3 examined a conceptually related, but
distinct, form of support. In this study, we examined a form
of support specifically outlined by SDT in which partners
reported the degree to which they felt their basic psycho-
logical needs were supported in their romantic relationship.
Results suggest that one feels more need-supported when
one’s partner is higher in relationship autonomy. Impor-
tantly, this was found for general need support as well as
all three basic psychological needs. This means that people
who are in their relationships for more self-determined
reasons are more supportive of feelings of connectedness,
as well as partner’s competence. Additionally, this was not
at the cost of imposing on partner’s autonomy and feelings
of self-direction. These results complement the findings of
Studies 1 and 2 by demonstrating that relationship auton-
omy is associated with separate conceptualizations of
support provision.
Taken together, these results fit well into a larger liter-
ature on self-determination in close relationships. The
present research suggests another possible mechanism by
which autonomous motivation facilitates relationship
functioning. Although previous research has found that
relationship autonomy and need fulfillment are related to
reduced ego-defensiveness (e.g., Knee et al. 2005), recent
theoretical work has proposed that relationship autonomy
should also increase desire to care for one’s partner (e.g.,
Deci and Ryan 2014; Knee et al. 2013). The present
research provides empirical support that relationship
autonomy can promote care for partners. Although we were
not able to test the proposed altruistic mechanism—that
relationship autonomy facilitates transformation of moti-
vations to be pro-partner, such that one wants to maximize
one’s partner’s interests—the present findings rule out
several alternatives. The research draws a distinction
between pro-partner motivations—desire to maximize the
partner’s interests—and more selfish forms of pro-rela-
tionship motivations that derive from one’s self-worth
being contingent upon the relationship. This is, to our
knowledge, the first empirical data that demonstrate a
connection between relationship autonomy and pro-partner
motivations.
These findings also expand the more general literature
on self-determination. That is, prior research has examined
the role of autonomy support in fostering intrinsic moti-
vations, largely studying non-reciprocal relationships such
as parent/child or teacher/student relationships (e.g.,
Grolnick and Ryan 1989). This research has found that
receiving autonomy support develops intrinsic motivation.
As such, this is the first research, to our knowledge, that
suggests that the reverse may also be true—that is, that
intrinsic motivation also fosters supportiveness. Some
research has also found that promoting need fulfillment
encourages prosocial behavior such as charity giving
Table 5 Results from APIMs (Study 3)
Overall need support Relatedness support Competence support Autonomy support
b SE b SE b SE b SE
Actor relationship autonomy .05*** .009 .06*** .01 .05*** .010 .05*** .010
Partner relationship autonomy .03** .009 .04*** .01 .02* .010 .03** .010
Gender .08 .091 .12 .10 .10 .098 .01 .094
Actor RA 9 gender .00 .009 .01 .01 .01 .010 -.01 .011
Partner RA 9 gender .00 .009 .00 .01 .00 .010 -.01 .011
* p B .05; ** p \ .01; *** p \ .001
370 Motiv Emot (2015) 39:359–373
123
(Gagne
´
2003; Pavey et al. 2011). However, the current
research suggests the existence of a more cyclical rela-
tionship such that motivation may be important in facili-
tating support of others.
Limitations and future directions
The present research has several important limitations that
should be considered when interpreting our data. First, the
designs were correlational, and thus, we are unable to
address causality or temporal precedence. In order to
establish a causal pathway, experimental research would be
needed. However, the dyadic design of Study 3, in which
people reported feeling more supported if partners were
higher in relationship autonomy rules out limitations
common in self-reported studies such as self-report bias.
The present work also presents researchers with a partic-
ularly interesting challenge for follow-up research.
Namely, this research was not able to test whether the
greater support was the result of truly altruistic and partner-
focused, rather than selfish reasons. Although we ruled out
several possible alternative reasons for providing more
support, and the data indirectly suggest higher levels of
altruism and pro-partner motivations, a more direct test is
warranted to more fully understand the partner-focused
nature of relationship autonomy. For instance, future
research can test the associations between relationship
autonomy and empathy and perspective taking, which may
serve as mediators of the autonomy-support association.
Additionally, future research can examine pro-partner
motivations that involve a conflict between one’s own and
one’s partner’s interests, such as willingness to sacrifice for
one’s partner.
Additionally, it is possible that these results are
explained by relationship-serving biases, such that people
who are higher in relationship autonomy perceive their
relationship as more supportive than it is. However, pre-
vious research has found that autonomous motivation is
associated with fewer self-serving biases (Knee and
Zuckerman 1996, 1998), and thus we feel it is unlikely that
the results could be explained by people higher in rela-
tionship autonomy simply reporting better relationship
outcomes. Nonetheless, it remains an interesting question
for future research to examine the role of relationship-
serving biases.
Finally, the present research exclusively on the associ-
ations between relationship autonomy and need support.
Some researchers have suggested the importance of
examining need thwarting as well. Studies 1 and 2 do
examine the extent to which people intrude on partner’s
autonomy, suggesting relationship autonomy may also
reduce thwarting. However, we could not directly test such
a hypothesis. As such, future research may seek to examine
whether autonomy is not just associated with more sup-
portiveness, but also lower levels of need thwarting.
Conclusion
Prior literature has strongly demonstrated that relationship
autonomy is associated with more positive relationship
outcomes (Blais et al. 1990; La Guardia et al. 2000),
finding that individuals with higher relationship autonomy
are less likely to engage in relationship destructive
behaviors (e.g., Hodgins and Knee 2002; Knee et al.
2005). The current studies expand upon this idea by
demonstrating that these individuals are also more likely
to be supportive of their partners. This is the first
research to suggest that more positive relationship out-
comes may emerge because people higher in relationship
autonomy tend to demonstrate greater care for their
partner and do not just avoid pitfalls of relationship. We
found, across three studies, that relationship autonomy is
associated with more focus and readiness to support one’s
partner’s interests across two related forms of support—
secure base provision and basic psychological need sup-
port. The results suggest that relationship autonomy is
associated with the overall supportiveness of one’s part-
ner, indicating that more integration of the relationship
within one’s true self is associated with more pro-partner
motivations.
References
Blais, M. R., Sabourin, S., Boucher, C., & Vallerand, R. (1990).
Toward a motivational model of couple happiness. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1021–1031. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.59.5.1021.
Brunell, A. B., & Webster, G. D. (2013). Self-determination and
sexual experience in dating relationships. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 39, 970–987. doi:10.1177/01461672134
85442.
Crocker, J., & Canevello, A. (2008). Creating and undermining social
support in communal relationships: The role of compassionate
and self-image goals. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 95, 555–575. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.3.555.
Cutrona, C. E., Hessling, R. M., & Suhr, J. A. (1997). The influence of
husband and wife personality on marital social support interac-
tions. Personal Relationships, 4, 379–393. doi:10.1111/j.1475-
6811.1997.tb00152.x.
Deci, E. L., La Guardia, J. G., Moller, A. C., Scheiner, M. J., & Ryan,
R. M. (2006). On the benefits of giving as well as receiving
autonomy support: Mutuality in close friendships. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 313–327. doi:10.1037/
t02175-000.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-
determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for
true self-esteem. In M. H. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and
self-esteem (pp. 31–49). New York, NY: Plenum Press.
Motiv Emot (2015) 39:359–373 371
123
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal
pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior.
Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. doi:10.1207/S1532
7965PLI1104_01.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A
macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health.
Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49, 182–185.
doi:10.1037/a0012801.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2014). Autonomy and need satisfaction in
close relationships: Relationships Motivation Theory. In N.
Weinstein (Ed.), Human motivation and interpersonal relation-
ships (pp. 53–73). New York: Springer.
Feeney, B. C. (2004). A secure base: Responsive support of goal
strivings and exploration in adult intimate relationships. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 631–648. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.87.5.631.
Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2014). A new look at social support:
A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships.
Personality and Social Psychology Review. doi:10.1177/
1088868314544222
Feeney, B. C., & Thrush, R. L. (2010). Relationship influences on
exploration in adulthood: The characteristics and function of a
secure base. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98,
57–76. doi:10.1037/a0016961.
Gagne
´
, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy ori-
entation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motivation & Emo-
tion, 27, 199–223. doi:10.1023/A:1025007614869.
Gagne
´
, M., Ryan, R. M., & Bargmann, K. (2003). Autonomy support
and need satisfaction in the motivation and well-being of
gymnasts. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15, 372–390.
doi:10.1080/714044203.
Gaine, G. S., & La Guardia, J. G. (2009). The unique contributions of
motivations to maintain a relationship and motivations toward
relational activities to relationship well-being. Motivation and
Emotion, 33, 184–202. doi:10.1007/s11031-009-9120-x.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with
children’s self-regulation and competence in school. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 81, 143–154. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.
81.2.143.
Hadden, B. W., Øverup, C. S., & Knee, C. R. (2014). Removing the
ego: Need fulfillment, self-image goals, and self-presentation.
Self and Identity, 13, 274–293. doi:10.1080/15298868.2013.
815398.
Hazan, C., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Attachment as an organizational
framework for research on close relationships. Psychological
Inquiry, 5, 1–22. doi:10.1207/s15327965pli0501_1.
Heppner, W. L., Kernis, M. H., Nezlek, J. B., Foster, J., Lakey, C. E.,
& Goldman, B. M. (2008). Within-person relationships among
daily self-esteem, need satisfaction, and authenticity. Psycho-
logical Science, 19, 1140–1145. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.
02215.x.
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). Roches-
ter, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Hodgins, H. S., Koestner, R., & Duncan, N. (1996). On the
compatibility of autonomy and relatedness. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 22
, 227–237. doi:10.1177/
0146167296223001.
Hodgins, H. S., & Liebeskind, E. (2003). Apology versus defense:
Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 39, 297–316. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(03)00024-6.
Hui, C. M., Molden, D. C., & Finkel, E. J. (2013). Loving freedom:
Concerns with promotion or prevention and the role of autonomy
in relationship well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 105, 61–85. doi:10.1037/a0032503.
Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A
theory of interdependence (p. 341). New York: Wiley.
Kenny, D. A. (1996). Models of non-independence in dyadic research.
Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 13, 279–294.
doi:10.1177/0265407596132007.
Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data
analysis (1st ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.
Kim, Y., Carver, C. S., Deci, E. L., & Kasser, T. (2008). Adult
attachment and psychological well-being in cancer caregivers:
The meditational role of spouses’ motives for caregiving. Health
Psychology, 27, S144–S154. doi:10.1037/0278-6133.27.2.
Knee, C., Canevello, A., Bush, A. L., & Cook, A. (2008).
Relationship-contingent self-esteem and the ups and downs of
romantic relationships. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 95, 608–627. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.95.3.608.
Knee, C. R., Hadden, B. W., Porter, B. W., & Rodriguez, L. M.
(2013). Self-determination theory and romantic relationship
processes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4,
307–324. doi:10.1177/1088868313498000.
Knee, C. R., Lonsbary, C., Canevello, A., & Patrick, H. (2005). Self-
determination and conflict in romantic relationships. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 997–1009. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.89.6.997.
Knee, C. R., Patrick, H., Vietor, N. A., Nanayakkara, A., &
Neighbors, C. (2002). Self-determination as growth motivation
in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 28, 609–619.
Knee, C. R., & Zuckerman, M. (1996). Causality orientations and the
disappearance of the self-serving bias. Journal of Research in
Personality, 30, 76–87. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1996.0005.
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. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1997.2207.
Koestner, R., Gingras, I., Abutaa, R., Losier, G. F., DiDio, L., & Gagne
´
,
M. (1999). To follow expert advice when making a decision: An
examination of reactive versus reflective autonomy. Journal of
Personality, 67, 851–872. doi:10.1111/1467-6494.00075.
Koestner, R., & Losier, G. F. (1996). Distinguishing reactive versus
reflective autonomy. Journal of Personality, 64, 465–494.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1996.tb00518.x.
La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L.
(2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A
self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need ful-
fillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 79, 367–384. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.79.3.367.
Laurenceau, J., Rivera, L. M., Schaffer, A. R., & Pietromonaco, P. R.
(2004). Intimacy as an Interpersonal Process: Current Status and
Future Directions. In D. J. Mashek & A. P. Aron (Eds.),
Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 61–78). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Patrick, H., Knee, C. R., Canevello, A., & Lonsbary, C. (2007). The
role of need fulfillment in relationship functioning and well-
being: A self-determination theory perspective. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 434–457. doi:10.1037/
0022-3514.92.3.434.
Pavey, L., Greitemeyer, T., & Sparks, P. (2011). Highlighting
relatedness promotes prosocial motives and behavior. Personal-
ity and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 905–917. doi:10.1177/
0146167211405994.
Pelletier, L. G., Levesque, C. S., & Legault, L. (2002). Pressure from
above and pressure from below as determinants of teachers’
motivation and teaching behavior. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 94, 186–196. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.1.186.
Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004a). Perceived Partner
Responsiveness as an Organizing Construct in the Study of
372 Motiv Emot (2015) 39:359–373
123
Intimacy and Closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. P. Aron (Eds.),
Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Mahwah,
NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004b). Perceived partner
responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of
closeness and intimacy. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.),
Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum.
Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process.
In S. Duck, D. F. Hay, S. E. Hobfoll, W. Ickes, & B.
M. Montgomery (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships:
Theory, research and interventions (pp. 367–389). Oxford:
Wiley.
Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M.
(2000). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence,
and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26,
419–435. doi:10.1177/0146167200266002.
Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image.
Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Kaplan, H. (2007).
Autonomous motivation for teaching: How self-determined
teaching may lead to self-determined learning. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 99, 761–774. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.
99.4.761.
Rusbult, C. E., Martz, J. M., & Agnew, C. R. (1998). The Investment
Model Scale: Measuring commitment level, satisfaction level,
quality of alternatives, and investment size. Personal Relation-
ships, 5, 357–391. doi:10.1111/j.1475-6811.1998.tb00177.x.
Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2005). Antecedents and outcomes
of self-determination in three life domains: The role of parents’
and teachers’ autonomy support. Journal of Youth and Adoles-
cence, 34, 589–604. doi:10.1007/s10964-005-8948-y.
Taylor, I. M., & Ntoumanis, N. (2007). Teacher motivational
strategies and student self-determination in physical education.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 747–760. doi:10.1037/
0022-0663.99.4.747.
Taylor, I. M., Ntoumanis, N., & Standage, M. (2008). A self-
determination theory approach to understanding the antecedents
of teachers’ motivational strategies in physical education.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 75–94.
Uysal, A., Lin, H. L., & Knee, C. R. (2010). The role of need satisfaction in
self-concealmentvand well-being. Personality and Social Psychol-
ogy Bulletin, 36, 187–199. doi:10.1177/0146167209354518.
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (pp. 271–360). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60019-2.
Weinstein, N., DeHaan, C. R., & Ryan, R. M. (2010a). Attributing
autonomous versus introjected motivation to helpers and the
recipient experience: Effects on gratitude, attitudes, and well-
being. Motivation and Emotion, 34, 418–431. doi:10.1007/
s11031-010-9183-8.
Weinstein, N., Hodgins, H. S., & Ryan, R. M. (2010b). Autonomy and
control in dyads: Effects on interaction quality and joint creative
performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36,
1603–1617. doi:10.1177/0146167210386385.
Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). When helping helps:
Autonomous motivation for prosocial behavior and its influence
on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 98, 222–244. doi:10.1037/a0016984.
Wieselquist, J., Rusbult, C. E., Foster, C. A., & Agnew, C. R. (1999).
Commitment, pro-relationship behavior, and trust in close
relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
77, 942–966. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.77.5.942.
Motiv Emot (2015) 39:359–373 373
123
