Restoration process of the need for autonomy: The early alarm stage.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Autonomy is described by self-determination theory as a basic psychological need, essential for individuals' well-being. While basic needs are generally thought to induce a restorative response when thwarted, evidence for such a process is lacking for autonomy. To date, most evidence indicates that autonomy deprivation leads to disaffection of this need in favor of other motives. A temporal model based on the general adaptation syndrome was adapted to reconcile this seeming contradiction. Specifically, it is hypothesized that an early alarm response aimed at restoring the satisfaction of the need for autonomy should precede the later relinquishment and compensation of this need that would result from a prolonged deprivation. Three studies provide support for this model by showing the existence of the immediate autonomy restorative response. Using a controlling situation to manipulate autonomy deprivation, the authors demonstrate in Experiments 1 and 2 that a controlling context leads to enhanced accessibility and an approach bias for autonomy-related stimuli. Experiment 3 indicates that the urge to restore autonomy can also affect personal judgment, leading individuals to make more independent judgments, exercising a nonreactive form of autonomy. Integration of this model within self-determination theory is discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".