Defensiveness and threat across the continuum of relative autonomy
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Relative autonomy describes the degree to which people connect their actions to internal values and goals, rather than external standards and expectations (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The present research examined how relative autonomy moderates defensive responses to psychological threats. The first set of studies compared the effects of negative performance feedback to negative feedback about internal aspects of the self (i.e., motivation). The latter threat was expected to be more self-relevant to higher than lower autonomy individuals, who typically do not react defensively to performance threats. In Study 1 (N = 106), having a more autonomous disposition predicted decreased positive affect in neutral and performance threat conditions, but not under motivation threat. In Study 2 (N = 165), participants having a more autonomous disposition showed a consistent desire to engage in intrinsic pursuits across all conditions, but a decreased interest in extrinsic pursuits when threatened. The second set of studies aimed to expand the spectrum of threat-responses to determine whether autonomy would predict greater commitment toward personal goals upon exposure to universally relevant threats (i.e., mortality salience, relational threat). Results of Study 3 (N =120) suggested that more autonomous participants reacted to the threat of mortality (i.e., thinking about their own demise) by planning for future goals and maintaining positive affect. Study 4 (N = 122) compared positive with negative relationship feedback and revealed that participants higher in autonomy were increasingly likely to agree with positive, and disagree with negative, feedback. Additionally, autonomy predicted consistent positive affect and sustained engagement with intrinsic pursuits. In sum, compared with individuals lower in autonomy, those higher in autonomy displayed more positive affect and eagerness to accept positive feedback under a variety of threats, including threats to motivation, relational need satisfaction, and existence as an individual. More autonomous participants distinguished themselves from less autonomous participants by sustaining their interest in existing pursuits and selectively disengaging from less intrinsic activities. Expanding on existing self-determination theory research, these results suggest that a more autonomous disposition relates to greater positivity overall and to a tendency to react to threat with focus on and discernment among personal goals.
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 | 0.006 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| 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".