Self-Determination as Growth Motivation in Romantic Relationships

By C. Knee, Heather Patrick, Nathaniel A. Vietor, A. Nanayakkara, C. Neighbors. 2002

126 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Applied Psychology, Social Psychology

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/91add6755a438831439d1de73e43819b6a9aa488

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Applied Psychology

In Social Psychology

Citations in the corpus

Self-Determination, Coping, and Goal Attainment in Sport (2004, background): “Based on the widespread use of composite scores representing non-self-determined and self-determined orientations (e.g., Knee et al., 2002; Knee & Zuckerman, 1998), and because of the aforementioned theoretical postulates of SDT, a self-determined motivation variable was computed and regrouped the…”
Autonomy and Nondefensiveness (2006, background): “The relation of autonomy orientation to low defense is also seen in close relationships: Among married couples, high autonomy orientation predicts the use of relationshipmaintaining coping strategies, whereas control orientation predicts the use of denial ( Knee, Patrick, Vietor, Nanayakkara, & Neig”
Attributing autonomous versus introjected motivation to helpers and the recipient experience: Effects on gratitude, attitudes, and well-being (2010, background): “To the extent that autonomy is present, interpersonal interactions are likely to be more positive for those engaging them, and more strongly associated with feelings of closeness and well-being (e.g., Deci et al. 2006; Knee et al. 2002; Patrick et al. 2007; Weinstein et al. 2010).”
Apology versus defense: Antecedents and consequences (2003, unknown): “…autonomy predicts accepting responsibility in close relationships (Patrick, Knee, & Neighbors, 2003), and using relationship-maintaining coping strategies (Knee, Patrick, Vietor, Nanayakkara, & Neighbors, 2002), whereas control orientation predicts the use of avoidant coping (Knee et al., 2002).”
The role of need fulfillment in relationship functioning and well-being: a self-determination theory perspective. (2007, background): “Knee and colleagues conceptualized self-determination as growth motivation in relationships ( Knee, Patrick, Vietor, Neighbors, & Nanayakkara, 2002 ).”
Causality orientations moderate the undermining effect of rewards on intrinsic motivation (2011, unknown): “Causality orientations have typically been tapped using an individual difference scale, the General Causality Orientations Scale (GCOS, Deci & Ryan, 1985a), and research has demonstrated that autonomy causality orientations are associated with indices of adaptive functioning such as autonomy support”
Self-Determination Theory as a Fundamental Theory of Close Relationships (2008, background): “In a study investigating attachment security across varied relationships, including close friendships and romantic relationships, La Guardia et al. (2000) showed that attachment security was greater in relationships that supported basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. ”
A Motivational Model of Driving Anger and Aggression (2002, unknown): “Consistent with this idea, Knee et al. (2000) found that individuals who were higher in controlled orientation had higher levels of trait driving anger and reported more aggressive driving behavior.”
A needs‐supportive intervention to help PE teachers enhance students' prosocial behavior and diminish antisocial behavior (2018, background): “…more inner stress and a sense of vulnerability, experience lesser empathy and perspective taking, display poor coping with conflict, cope , reactively, and tend to reject and defy prosocial classroom rules and regulations (Gagne, 2003; Knee et al., 2002; Pavey et al., 2011; Ryan & Connell, 1989).”
Toward a Social Psychology of Authenticity: Exploring Within-Person Variation in Autonomy, Congruence, and Genuineness Using Self-Determination Theory (2019, result): “These findings are, of course, consistent with a much wider body of SDT research showing that in conditions lacking support for autonomy people are less open, transparent receptive, or connecting (e.g., Knee et al., 2002; R. M. Ryan & Lynch, 1989).”