Fically, the RAI formula is based on the level of self-determination associated with each regulation. For example, a weight of +2 is assigned to intrinsic motivation, +1 to identified regulation, -1 to introjected regulation, and -2 to external regulation. The RAI thus contrasts the relative amount of autonomous motivation to the one of controlled motivation and offers the possibility of conducting more parsimonious analyses. A positive score on the RAI means that individuals endorse more autonomous motives than controlled ones. Because controlled motivations were found to be less GW9662 web specific at the school subject level, the RAI variations at different levels of generality would be due mostly to autonomous motivation variations at these levels and could not be attributable to controlled motivation variations. Therefore, the specificity of the various levels obtained in HMIEM studies could simply be an artifact of the specificity of autonomous motivation supported by our results. Valsartan/sacubitril chemical information Broadly speaking, we believe that our results bring into question the operationalization of autonomous and controlled motivations when multiple domains or multiple levels of generality are considered. Different psychological processes could be involved for motivational types that are more contextual (introjected and external regulations) than specific (intrinsic and identified regulations). In fact, autonomous motivation assessed in a specific school subject has been described as more specific, and therefore less related to the contextual level, compared to controlled motivation assessed in the same school subject. We believe that the distinction between autonomous and controlled motivations should be accounted for when investigating multiple domains or multiple levels of specificity and, accordingly, composite scores, such as the relative autonomy index, should not be used in these studies.PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0134660 August 6,18 /School Subjects Specificity of Autonomous and Controlled MotivationsTheoretical issues concerning the hierarchical differentiation effect for autonomous and controlled motivationsIn past studies [16, 17, 18], autonomous and controlled motivations have both been conceptualized to fluctuate from one specific domain to another without considering that regulation types could be more or less specific. Our results show that such a distinction has theoretical implications for research in the school domain. Perhaps one of the most important consequences of these findings resides in our understanding of the mechanisms involved in the development of regulation types in school subjects. Two main types of antecedents of motivational resources are commonly postulated and tested in studies: social environments and global personality orientations [36]. These antecedents have also been considered to influence autonomous and j.jebo.2013.04.005 controlled motivations similarly according to specific school subjects without considering j.jecp.2014.02.009 hierarchical differentiation effects. However, as controlled motivation has been demonstrated to be less specific than autonomous motivation, we could infer that global personality orientations would be more responsible for students’ controlled motivation in a specific school subject than for their autonomous motivation. We could also infer that autonomy support provided by teachers in a specific school subject would impact more autonomous motivation (i.e., because they are more school-subject-specific) and less controlled motiva.Fically, the RAI formula is based on the level of self-determination associated with each regulation. For example, a weight of +2 is assigned to intrinsic motivation, +1 to identified regulation, -1 to introjected regulation, and -2 to external regulation. The RAI thus contrasts the relative amount of autonomous motivation to the one of controlled motivation and offers the possibility of conducting more parsimonious analyses. A positive score on the RAI means that individuals endorse more autonomous motives than controlled ones. Because controlled motivations were found to be less specific at the school subject level, the RAI variations at different levels of generality would be due mostly to autonomous motivation variations at these levels and could not be attributable to controlled motivation variations. Therefore, the specificity of the various levels obtained in HMIEM studies could simply be an artifact of the specificity of autonomous motivation supported by our results. Broadly speaking, we believe that our results bring into question the operationalization of autonomous and controlled motivations when multiple domains or multiple levels of generality are considered. Different psychological processes could be involved for motivational types that are more contextual (introjected and external regulations) than specific (intrinsic and identified regulations). In fact, autonomous motivation assessed in a specific school subject has been described as more specific, and therefore less related to the contextual level, compared to controlled motivation assessed in the same school subject. We believe that the distinction between autonomous and controlled motivations should be accounted for when investigating multiple domains or multiple levels of specificity and, accordingly, composite scores, such as the relative autonomy index, should not be used in these studies.PLOS ONE | DOI:10.1371/journal.pone.0134660 August 6,18 /School Subjects Specificity of Autonomous and Controlled MotivationsTheoretical issues concerning the hierarchical differentiation effect for autonomous and controlled motivationsIn past studies [16, 17, 18], autonomous and controlled motivations have both been conceptualized to fluctuate from one specific domain to another without considering that regulation types could be more or less specific. Our results show that such a distinction has theoretical implications for research in the school domain. Perhaps one of the most important consequences of these findings resides in our understanding of the mechanisms involved in the development of regulation types in school subjects. Two main types of antecedents of motivational resources are commonly postulated and tested in studies: social environments and global personality orientations [36]. These antecedents have also been considered to influence autonomous and j.jebo.2013.04.005 controlled motivations similarly according to specific school subjects without considering j.jecp.2014.02.009 hierarchical differentiation effects. However, as controlled motivation has been demonstrated to be less specific than autonomous motivation, we could infer that global personality orientations would be more responsible for students’ controlled motivation in a specific school subject than for their autonomous motivation. We could also infer that autonomy support provided by teachers in a specific school subject would impact more autonomous motivation (i.e., because they are more school-subject-specific) and less controlled motiva.
