Content uploaded by Silke Paulmann
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Silke Paulmann on Oct 24, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Yo ur Prosody Matters! The Effect of Controlling Tone of Voice on Listeners
Throughout the Lifespan
Berdien Vrijders1, Netta Weinstein2, Silke Paulmann3, Bart Soenens1, Joachim Waterschoot1,
Maarten Vansteenkiste1
1Ghent University
2University of Reading
3University of Essex
Berdien.vrijders@ugent.be, n.weinstein@reading.ac.uk, paulmann@essex.ac.uk,
bart.soenens@ugent.be, joachim.waterschoot@ugent.be, maarten.vansteenkiste@ugent.be
Abstract
According to Self-Determination Theory, speakers can
communicate with listeners either in more controlling or in
more autonomy-supportive ways. Whereas most previous
studies focused on the content of both communication styles,
the current research examined whether experimentally induced
controlling versus autonomy-supportive tone of voice
differentially predicts listeners’ felt pressure, closeness,
intention for collaboration, and feelings of fear and anger, even
when listeners are exposed to these communications only
briefly. In three experimental studies with adults (Study 1, N =
61; Mage = 31.51), adults that are parents (Study 2, N = 111; Mage
= 44.73), and toddlers (Study 3, N = 189; Mage = 4.93),
multilevel analyses indicated that voice quality is the most
critical acoustic parameter distinguishing between controlling
and autonomy-supportive prosody. That is, sentences spoken
with a harsher, relative to a softer, tone of voice were perceived
as more pressuring, leading to higher levels of felt pressure
(Study 1, 2 and 3). Listening to such harsh voices explained
why listeners felt less close to and were less inclined to
collaborate with controlling speakers (Study 2) and reported
higher levels of anger and fear (Study 3). Results for the first
time show the impact of a speaker’s tone of voice on listeners
across ages, with adults and toddlers alike reporting more
maladaptive effects following controlling tone of voice.
Index Terms: motivational prosody, self-determination theory,
parent-child interaction
1. Introduction
Teachers asking their students to stop interrupting a classroom
lecture, managers requesting a report by the end of the day, or
parents asking their children to get dressed and out the door:
everyday life is replete with brief but powerful interactions in
which a speaker tries to direct the behavior of a listener. To this
end, speakers can rely on different motivational practices.
According to Self-Determination Theory (SDT; [1]), a broad
theory on human motivation, these practices can vary in their
level of control relative to autonomy support and this variation
is consequential for listeners’ perceptions and functioning.
When listeners are approached in an autonomy-supportive way,
speakers empathize with and support their interlocutor’s
interests, preferences, and values, which enhances their
experience of free choice, volition, and self-endorsement of
their actions. In contrast, when speakers motivate their listeners
in a controlling way, they put pressure on them to act, think, or
behave in speaker-prescribed ways and, hence, reduce listeners’
sense of free choice [1, 2].
Recent research has begun to show that, in addition to the
words used by speakers (e.g., “you may” vs. “you should”; [3-
5], autonomy-supportive and controlling communication can
also be differentiated on the basis of speakers’ tone of voice [6,
7]. In the present study, we examined, for the first time, whether
a single sentence spoken in a controlling (as opposed to an
autonomy-supportive) tone of voice (or prosody) could shape
listeners’ perceptions, and whether this is true for adults as well
as toddlers.
1.1. Autonomy-supportive and controlling socialization
In diverse interpersonal relationships (e.g., parent-child,
teacher-student, employer-employee,…), speakers use different
autonomy-supportive practices to address listeners [8-10].
Autonomy-supportive speakers provide choice to interlocutors,
stimulate their initiative and offer a meaningful rationale when
making requests. Moreover, they follow their interlocutors’
rhythm in performing certain tasks, and are patient as they do
so [11]. In contrast, controlling speakers pressure their
interlocutors to act, feel, or think in specific ways. They do so
by dismissing objections, by using threats or sanctions, or by
making use of subtler controlling practices such as guilt
induction or love withdrawal [1, 2]. Research has revealed
repeatedly, across life domains (e.g., teaching, parenting, work,
…) and across age groups, that controlling communication
predicts poor quality motivation [12], lower well-being [13],
less long-term persistence [14], and lower performance [15]
than autonomy-supportive communication (see [16, 17] for
meta-analyses). Further, autonomy-supportive communication
predicts a host of adaptive interpersonal outcomes, including
higher attachment security [18], greater emotional reliance on
others for support [19] and more voluntary disclosure of
personal information between parent and child [20]. Such
findings have been obtained using both cross-sectional [2],
longitudinal [21], diary-based [22] and experimental methods
[5, 23] and making use of both self-report measures and
observations [24].
Autonomy-supportive and controlling communication
styles differ not only in terms of conversation practices used by
speakers (e.g., giving choice and providing a rationale versus
relying on threats), but also in terms of the content or lexical-
semantics of the communicated message. That is, the words
speakers use can vary in terms of their level of conveyed choice
relative to control [9]. Hence, the functional significance or
meaning attributed to the message [25, 26] can be more
Speech Prosody 2024
2-5 July 2024, Leiden, The Netherlands
456 10.21437/SpeechProsody.2024-93
informational or more pressuring. Specifically, autonomy-
supportive speakers more often make use of inviting (e.g., “I
propose”; “I ask”), suggestive (e.g., “You may…”; “You could
…”) or descriptive (e.g., “I notice”) language. By contrast,
controlling communication involves the use of more forceful
(e.g., “You have to”) and evaluative (e.g., “Good children
should do X”) language and commands (e.g., “Do this!”).
Previous studies, both observational and experimental in nature,
have shown that whereas controlling content impacts negatively
on intrinsic motivation [4, 27] and conceptual learning [28, 29],
autonomy-supportive content promotes autonomy need
satisfaction [30], positive affect and motor skills learning [31]
and perseverance [32].
1.2. Autonomy-supportive and controlling tone of voice
Alongside communicated content, the way in which content is
delivered may also differ in its level of conveyed autonomy
support relative to control. That is, the paraverbal aspects of a
speaker’s message, and specifically, the tone of voice or
prosody, may impact the functional significance of the message
to be perceived as more controlling and pressuring or more
informational and autonomy-enhancing. Tone of voice can be
operationalized through different acoustic cues, including the
low- or highness (pitch), sharpness or harshness as an indicator
of voice quality (as measured via the distribution of energy in
high-frequency energy bands) and volume (i.e., intensity or
amplitude) of one’s utterances (e.g.,[33]).
A couple of previous studies using both experimental
designs [7, 34] and more ecologically valid methods [35],
analyzed speech patterns of speakers in terms of acoustics, and
found that controlling, relative to autonomy-supportive,
prosody is characterized by increased energy in higher
frequency bands of the voice signal, resulting in a harsher-
sounding voice. Pitch and amplitude were shown to covary with
an increase in vocal energy for controlling messages, yet in
different directions across studies, i.e., louder/quieter and
higher/lower pitch [7, 34, 35].
Similar to the way motivational content impacts listeners’
emotional and motivational functioning, listeners have been
found to respond differently to controlling and autonomy-
supportive prosody. When compared with a neutral tone of
voice, autonomy-supportive tone of voice led to more positive
and less negative affect, increased closeness and more
cooperation and effort in adolescents, whereas listening to a
controlling tone of voice undermined these outcomes compared
to a neutral tone condition [6, 36]. Moreover, experimentally
induced controlling tone of voice elicited more pressure than
autonomy-supportive tone of voice, which helped to explain
why listeners reported being more likely to defy controllingly
communicated messages [7]. Further, even infants, who are not
able to understand verbal communications yet, were shown to
attend to controlling tone of voice longer as compared to
autonomy-supportive tone of voice, indicating that even before
the age of one, babies are able to differentiate both types of
motivational intent [37].
What remains unclear from this emerging literature on
motivational prosody is whether these effects can be found for
listeners of diverse ages. To this end, the current research
investigated whether adults and children respond to controlling
and autonomy-supportive tone of voice in the same way. It was
hypothesized that controlling prosody, relative to autonomy-
supportive prosody, would be perceived as more pressuring,
leading to more maladaptive outcomes and this across the
lifespan.
2. Method
2.1. Participants
Respectively, 61 adults (Study 1; Mage = 31.51 years, SDage =
13.62; 51% female), 111 parents (2.02 children on average)
(Study 2; Mage = 44.73 years, SDage = 9.61 ; 50% female) and
189 toddlers (Study 3; Mage = 4.92 years, SDage = .79; 50%
female) participated. For Study 1 and 2, participants were
recruited via Prolific Academic [38] for an online survey. For
Study 3, participants were surveyed during home visits, with
their parent in another room so as to not influence responses.
Participants or their parents provided informed consent.
2.2. Experimental stimuli
Stimuli were developed in collaboration with two professional
actors (one male, one female) with experience in improvisation
theater. Actors intoned the same 24 sentences (e.g., “I don’t like
you doing that”, “Let me remind you of the rules”) twice, once
with an autonomy-supportive tone of voice and once with a
controlling tone of voice. As such, each actor ended up intoning
48 sentences. Similar to procedures outlined in Weinstein, et al.
[34], actors were informed about the nature of controlling and
autonomy-supportive motivations prior to recording but were
not instructed on how to intone these two different motivating
styles. Instead, they were instructed to speak in a way that felt
natural to them and were asked to avoid sounding angry or
happy. Recordings took place in a sound attenuated room in
which speakers sat at an equal distance from a high-quality
microphone during recordings for each condition; actors were
asked to repeat the sentence until they were satisfied with the
result. Sentences were presented in randomized order to
participants in semantically identical pairs, counterbalanced for
type of prosody used (i.e., controlling and autonomy-
supportive). Adults rated all 24 sentence pairs (Study 1 & 2),
toddlers rated 6 sentence pairs (Study 3), with type of prosody
as a within-subject predictor.
2.3. Measures
After each sentence, participants were asked to rate how
pressuring, and supportive of choice the speaker sounded
(Study 1-3), how close the listener would want to be near the
speaker and to what degree s/he would want to collaborate
(Study 2-3), and to which degree the listener felt sad or angry
when listening to the speaker (Study 3). Adults (Study 1-2)
rated sentences on a rating scale from 1 (not at all true) or 7
(absolutely true), toddlers on a rating scale from 1 (not at all
true) to 4 (absolutely true). A composite perceived pressure
score was created each time by subtracting the felt choice from
felt pressure (i.e., the higher the score, the more pressure was
perceived).
3. Results
3.1. Study 1
3.1.1. Manipulation check
Table 1 provides the descriptive statistics and t-tests of
between-condition effects for each acoustic parameter.
Controlling for gender, significant effects were found for
amplitude and voice quality, while no effect was found for
pitch. This indicates that sentences were spoken more loudly as
well as with increased harshness indicated through increased
457
high-frequency energy in the controlling condition, compared
to the autonomy-supportive condition.
Table 1: Between-condition comparison in terms of
acoustic parameters with means (standard deviations) and
paired-sample t-tests
3.1.2. Primary analyses
Unconditional models to assess intraclass correlation (ICC)
showed that for felt pressure, 23% of the variance existed
between, rather than within, speakers. As part of the
preliminary analyses, no unique effect for the
sociodemographic variables age, gender and number of
children were found (all p> .05). Next, findings from the linear
mixed regression model indicated that overall, sentences
spoken with a controlling intent (M = 2.64) were perceived as
significantly more pressuring than sentences spoken with an
autonomy-supportive intent (M = -.77) (β = .55, t(2856.04) =
38.45, p < .001).
3.2. Study 2
3.2.1. Preliminary analyses
A main effect of gender was found for felt pressure (β = .07,
t(99) = 2.07, p = .041), but not for collaboration or closeness,
indicating that women generally perceived sentences as more
pressuring than men. No other effects were found for the
sociodemographic variables in prediction of the study variables
(all p > .05).
3.2.2. Primary analyses
Unconditional models to assess ICC showed sufficient
variability at the between-raters level for conducting full
models, with an ICC of 9% for felt pressure, 27% for intent to
collaborate and 25% for felt closeness. Linear mixed regression
modelling showed a large effect of condition, such that
sentences spoken with controlling prosody were perceived as
more pressuring (β = .62, t(6133) = 67.88, p < .001), and made
listeners less inclined to collaborate with (β = -.41, t(6133) = -
43.74, p < .001) and be close to the speaker (β = -.46, t(6133) =
-49.09, p < .001) than sentences spoken in an autonomy-
supportive voice.
A multilevel mediation model was then tested, with felt
pressure serving as the mediator between manipulated prosody
and collaboration and closeness. As can be noticed in Figure 1,
manipulated prosody related positively to felt pressure, which,
in turn, related negatively to collaboration with and closeness
to the speaker. The total effects between prosody and both
collaboration and closeness were no longer significant when
introducing felt pressure as the mediator (both p > .05), showing
that controlling prosody impacts reduced collaboration and
closeness by eliciting pressure.
Figure 1: Saturated Multilevel Mediation Model with
Controlling as Compared to Autonomy-Supportive Prosody
Relating to Differences in Felt Closeness and Intention to
Collaborate via Felt Pressure. Standardized Coefficients,
Calculated at the Within-Person Level are Significant at
p<.001. Between-Person Effects Were Controlled for.
3.3. Study 3
3.3.1. Preliminary analyses
A main effect of age was found for felt pressure (β = .16,
t(145.02) = 2.85, p = .005) and anger ((β = .14, t(146.24) = 2.45,
p = .016), indicating that older children generally perceived
sentences as more pressuring and angering than younger
children. No other effects were found for the sociodemographic
variables in prediction of the study variables (all p > .05).
3.3.2. Primary analyses
Unconditional models to assess intraclass correlation (ICC)
showed sufficient variability at the between-raters level for
conducting full models, with an ICC of 36% for perceived
pressure, 33% for intended collaboration, 25% for felt
closeness, 32% for anger and 34% for fear. Linear mixed
regression modelling showed that sentences spoken with
controlling prosody were perceived as more pressuring (β = .11,
t(931.84) = 4.55, p < .001 ) than sentences spoken in an
autonomy-supportive voice. Moreover, a controlling tone of
voice evoked more feelings of anger (β = .09, t(931.55) = 3.65,
p < .001) and fear (β = .10, t(928.38) = 4.20, p < .001) in
toddlers. No effects were found for closeness and collaboration
(both p > .05).
A multilevel mediation model was again tested, with felt
pressure serving as the mediator between manipulated prosody
and anger and fear. Figure 2 shows that controlling prosody
related positively to felt pressure, which, in turn, related
positively to feelings of anger and fear in toddlers. Felt pressure
served as a partial mediator, as the direct effects between
prosody and both anger and fear were not cancelled out when
introducing felt pressure as the mediator. Still, results indicate
that controlling prosody makes toddlers feel angry and scared
by eliciting pressure.
Condition
t
p
η2p
AS
CO
Pitch (Hz)
170.03
(44.1)
171.35
(35.42)
0.46
.65
.00
Amplitude
(dB)
72.8
(3.61)
75.04
(2.53)
3.88
<.001
.13
Voice quality
(dB)
31.45
(3.97)
36.73
(2.97)
8.19
<.001
.40
458
Figure 2: Saturated Multilevel Mediation Model With
Controlling vs. Autonomy-supportive Prosody Relating to
Differences in Anger and Fear via Felt Pressure. Standardized
Coefficients, Calculated at the Within-Person Level are
Significant at p<.001. Between-Person Effects Were
Controlled for.
4. Discussion
In daily life, we sometimes feel reluctant to be cooperative with
a speaker and may even take physical distance from them in an
attempt to show our dissatisfaction. We may even feel sad, or
scared when spoken to in a controlling way. What explains our
disobedience has in many cases not to do with the content of the
speakers’ message, but the tone with which the message was
conveyed. Despite its ecological validity, the literature on
motivational prosody is still in its infancy. The present set of
studies aimed to contribute to this growing body of work by
examining whether variation in prosody impacts variation in
felt pressure, closeness, and intended collaboration not only in
adults, but already early on in the lifespan. That is, it was
investigated whether children as young as 4 years old respond
in the same way as adults. Two key findings deserve being
highlighted.
First, a systematic effect of motivational prosody was found
across three studies, with different acoustic profiles reflecting
different motivational intents, leading to different responses in
listeners across ages. Keeping the content of the message
constant, the meaning [39] attributed to the message was found
to vary as a function of how the message was expressed. That
is, being spoken to in a controlling, as compared to autonomy -
supportive, tone of voice made listeners feel more pressured,
made them less willing to collaborate with the speaker and
instead led them to take more distance from the speaker. These
findings are congruent with previous research [6, 7, 36], while
also extending them by showing that listeners across the
lifespan (i.e., toddler to adult) pick up the variation in tone of
voice as it changes from sentence to sentence. Indeed,
multilevel analyses indicated that a large percentage of the
variance (i.e.,73-91%) was situated at the within-person level,
where the manipulation took place. Said differently, brief
exposure to a controlling and autonomy-supportive tone of
voice suffices to generate different experiences in both adults
and toddlers, and thus, that motivational tone of voice is picked
up and differentiated quickly by listeners of various ages. These
findings fit well with neurophysiological research showing that
adults differentiate controlling and autonomy-supportive
prosody from each other and neutral tone of voice within 200
ms after sentence onset [40], and that controlling tone of voice
especially is picked up early on and leads to preferential, and
more in-depth processing [41].
Second, mediational analyses indicated that felt pressure
explained why controlling prosody reduced participants’
intention to collaborate and undermined their felt closeness to
the speaker (Study 2), as well as aroused participants’ feelings
of anger and fear (Study 3). These findings are congruent with
prior studies which found autonomy need satisfaction to
account for the impact of controlling, relative to autonomy-
supportive, language on participants’ intrinsic motivation and
persistence [27, 30]. Yet, rather than focusing on intrinsically
motivating activities, the requests in the current study often
involved rather boring activities that one would not
spontaneously engage in. The findings confirm the broader
claim within Self-Determination Theory that basic need
experiences have explanatory power, thereby accounting for
minimal variations in the effects of the social context [42].
Finally, a few limitations need to be mentioned. First,
participants’ reactions may be different in case they are not
asked to imagine being exposed to the materials, but are
actually exposed to a speaker addressing them with a
controlling and autonomy-supportive tone of voice. Although
well-controlled lab studies as the current one allow to isolate
critical factors and minimize contaminating factors, a limitation
is that they come with somewhat lower ecological validity. It
will be important to test how participants react during real
conversations and to monitor prosody effects on emotional and
behavioral outcomes. Second, the current study used a within-
subjects design because this approach allowed us to account for
individual differences in listeners, for instance the tone of voice
listeners are more habitually used to hear around them.
Although the presentation of materials was balanced, hearing
the contrasting tone of voice may have artificially inflated the
differences in prosody. Future research might want to pair
within- and between-subjects designs, which together offer a
more conservative test of motivational tone of voice perception
while controlling for individual differences in listeners.
5. Conclusion
In conclusion, the current set of experimental studies has shown
that the tone of voice with which speakers convey their
message, has an immediate impact on their interlocutors, even
when listeners are as young as 4 to 6 years old. Indeed, speaking
with a harsher voice makes speakers sound more controlling,
which makes interlocutors feel pressured and therefore less
inclined to collaborate with or be near the speaker, and more
likely to experience feelings of fear or anger.
6. References
[1] R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci, Self-determination theory: Basic
psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness.
Guilford publications, 2017.
[2] B. Soenens and M. Vansteenkiste, "A theoretical upgrade of the
concept of parental psychological control: Proposing new insights
on the basis of self-determination theory," Developmental review,
vol. 30, no. 1, pp. 74-99, 2010.
[3] J. Reeve and H. Jang, "What teachers say and do to support
students' autonomy during a learning activity," Journal of
educational psychology, vol. 98, no. 1, pp. 209-218, 2006.
[4] R. M. Ryan, "Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere:
An extension of cognitive evaluation theory," Journal of
personality and social psychology, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 450-461,
1982.
[5] M. Vansteenkiste, J. Simons, W. Lens, K. M. Sheldon, and E. L.
Deci, "Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: the
synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-
supportive contexts," Journal of personality and social
psychology, vol. 87, no. 2, pp. 246-260, 2004.
[6] N. Weinstein, M. Vansteenkiste, and S. Paulmann, "Listen to your
mother: Motivating tones of voice predict adolescents’ reactions
to mothers," Developmental Psychology, vol. 55, no. 12, pp.
2534-2546, 2019.
[7] N. Weinstein, M. Vansteenkiste, and S. Paulmann, "Don't you say
it that way! Experimental evidence that controlling voices elicit
defiance," Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 88, p.
103949, 2020.
[8] E. L. Deci, H. Eghrari, B. C. Patrick, and D. R. Leone,
"Facilitating internalization: The self ‐determination t heory
perspective," Journal of personality, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 119-142,
1994.
[9] J. Reeve, "Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style
toward students and how they can become more autonomy
459
supportive," Educational psychologist, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 159-
175, 2009.
[10] M. Vansteenkiste, N. Aelterman, L. Haerens, and B. Soenens,
"Seeking stability in stormy educational times: A need-based
perspective on (de) motivating teaching grounded in self -
determination theory," in Motivation in education at a time of
global change: Theory, research, and implications for practice ,
vol. 20, E. N. Gonida and M. S. Lemos Eds., 2019, pp. 53-80.
[11] B. Soenens, E. L. Deci, and M. Vansteenkiste, "How parents
contribute to children’s psychological health: The critical role of
psychological need support," in Development of self-
determination through the life-course, M. Wehmeyer, K.
Shogren, T. Little, and S. Lopez Eds., 2017, pp. 171-187.
[12] M. Vansteenkiste, M. Zhou, W. Lens, and B. Soenens,
"Experiences of autonomy and control among Chinese learners:
Vitalizing or immobilizing?," Journal of educational psychology,
vol. 97, no. 3, pp. 468-483, 2005.
[13] B. Soenens, K. Luyckx, M. Vansteenkiste, P. Luyten, B. Duriez,
and L. Goossens, "Maladaptive perfectionism as an intervening
variable between psychological control and adolescent depressive
symptoms: a three-wave longitudinal study," Journal of Family
Psychology, vol. 22, no. 3, pp. 465-474, 2008.
[14] R. J. Vallerand, M. S. Fortier, and F. Guay, "Self-determination
and persistence in a real-life setting: toward a motivational model
of high school dropout," Journal of Personality and Social
psychology, vol. 72, no. 5, pp. 1161 -1176, 1997.
[15] N. Weinstein, H. S. Hodgins, and R. M. Ryan, "Autonomy and
control in dyads: Effects on interaction quality and joint creative
performance," Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, vol.
36, no. 12, pp. 1603-1617, 2010.
[16] J. S. Bureau, J. L. Howard, J. X. Chong, and F. Guay, "Pathways
to student motivation: A meta-analysis of antecedents of
autonomous and controlled motivations," Review of Edu cational
Research, vol. 92, no. 1, pp. 46-72, 2022.
[17] A. C. Vasquez, E. A. Patall, C. J. Fong, A. S. Corrigan, and L.
Pine, "Parent autonomy support, academic achievement, and
psychosocial functioning: A meta-analysis of research,"
Educational Psychology Review, vol. 28, pp. 605-644, 2016.
[18] J. G. La Guardia, R. M. Ryan, C. E. Couchman, and E. L. Deci,
"Within-person variation in security of attachment: a self-
determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment,
and well-being," Journal of personality and social psychology,
vol. 79, no. 3, pp. 367-384, 2000.
[19] E. L. Deci, J. G. La Guardia, A. C. Moller, M. J. Scheiner, and R.
M. Ryan, "On the benefits of giving as well as receiving autonomy
support: Mutuality in close friendships," Personality and social
psychology bulletin, vol. 32, no. 3, pp. 313-327, 2006.
[20] D. Wuyts, B. Soenens, M. Vansteenkiste, and S. Van Petegem,
"The role of observed autonomy support, reciprocity, and need
satisfaction in adolescent disclosure about friends," Journal of
adolescence, vol. 65, pp. 141-154, 2018.
[21] J. J. Duineveld, P. D. Parker, R. M. Ryan, J. Ciarrochi, and K.
Salmela-Aro, "The link between perceived maternal and paternal
autonomy support and adolescent well-being across three major
educational transitions," Developmental psychology, vol. 53, no.
10, pp. 1978-1994, 2017.
[22] J. Van der Kaap-Deeder, M. Vansteenkiste, B. Soenens, and E.
Mabbe, "Children’s daily well-being: The role of mothers’,
teachers’, and siblings’ autonomy support and psychological
control," Developmental psychology, vol. 53, no. 2, pp. 237-251,
2017.
[23] J. Reeve and C.-M. Tseng, "Cortisol reactivity to a teacher’s
motivating style: The biology of being controlled versus
supporting autonomy," Motivation and emotion, vol. 35, pp. 63-
74, 2011.
[24] S. W. Bindman, E. M. Pomerantz, and G. I. Roisman, "Do
children’s executive functions account for associations between
early autonomy-supportive parenting and achievement through
high school?," Journal of educational psychology, vol. 107, no. 3,
pp. 756-770, 2015.
[25] E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan, "The general causality orientations
scale: Self-determination in personality," Journal of research in
personality, vol. 19, no. 2, pp. 109 -134, 1985.
[26] R. M. Ryan and E. L. Deci, "Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory,
practices, and future directions," Contemporary educational
psychology, vol. 61, p. 101860, 2020.
[27] E. Mabbe, B. Soenens, G.-J. De Muynck, and M. Vansteenkiste,
"The impact of feedback valence and communication style on
intrinsic motivation in middle childhood: Experimental evidence
and generalization across individual differences," Journal of
Experimental Child Psychology, vol. 170, pp. 134-160, 2018.
[28] W. S. Grolnick and R. M. Ryan, "Autonomy in children's
learning: an experimental and individual difference
investigation," Journal of personality and social psychology, vol.
52, no. 5, pp. 890-898, 1987.
[29] M. Vansteenk