Working memory moderates the effect of the integrative process of implicit and explicit autonomous motivation on academic achievement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In previous research, autonomous motivation (AM) has been found to be associated with school achievement, but the relation has been largely heterogeneous across studies. AM has typically been assessed with explicit measures such as self-report questionnaires. Recent self-determination theory (SDT) research has suggested that converging implicit and explicit measures can be taken to characterize the integrative process in SDT. Drawing from dual-process theories, we contended that explicit AM is likely to promote school achievement when it is part of an integrated cognitive system that combines easily accessible mental representations (i.e., implicit AM) and efficient executive functioning. A sample of 272 university students completed a questionnaire and a lexical decision task to assess their explicit and implicit AM, respectively, and they also completed working memory capacity measures. Grades were obtained at the end of the semester to examine the short-term prospective effect of implicit and explicit AM, working memory, and their interaction. Results of moderation analyses have provided support for a synergistic interaction in which the association between explicit AM and academic achievement was positive and significant only for individuals with high level of implicit AM. Moreover, working memory was moderating the synergistic effect of explicit and implicit AM. Explicit AM was positively associated with academic achievement for students with average-to-high levels of working memory capacity, but only if their motivation operated synergistically with high implicit AM. The integrative process thus seems to hold better proprieties for achievement than the sole effect of explicit AM. Implications for SDT are outlined.
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 | 0.002 | 0.007 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".