Relationship autonomy and support provision in romantic relationships
Researchers have recently argued that SDT is a fundamental theory of relationship functioning and development. Specifically, prior research has proposed that self-determined motivations to be in one’s relationship—known as relationship autonomy—are associated with more adaptive relationship functioning. While empirical research has explored the association between relationship autonomy and defensiveness, the link with pro-partner behaviors such as support provision has received relatively little attention. The present research tested, across three studies, whether relationship autonomy is associated with more care for one’s partner. Three studies—one cross-sectional, one diary, and one dyadic study—suggest that relationship autonomy is associated with overall supportiveness both in the form of secure base support and basic psychological need support. Additionally, relationship autonomy was associated with less intrusiveness, suggesting that higher relationship autonomy is not simply associated with hyper-vigilance and being overbearing, but rather attention to the partner’s needs.
KeywordsSelf-determination theory Relationship autonomy Close relationships Support provision
- Feeney, B. C. (2004). A secure base: Responsive support of goal strivings and exploration in adult intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 631–648. doi:10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1241.
- Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2014). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review. doi:10.1177/1088868314544222
- Hodgins, H. S., & Knee, C. R. (2002). The integrating self and conscious experience. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 87–100). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.Google Scholar
- Kelley, H. H., & Thibaut, J. W. (1978). Interpersonal relations: A theory of interdependence (p. 341). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Kenny, D. A., Kashy, D. A., & Cook, W. L. (2006). Dyadic data analysis (1st ed.). New York, NY: Guilford.Google Scholar
- Knee, C. R., & Zuckerman, M. (1996). Causality orientations and the disappearance of the self-serving bias. Journal of Research in Personality, 30, 76–87. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1996.0005.
- Knee, C. R., & Zuckerman, M. (1998). A nondefensive personality: Autonomy and control as moderators of defensive coping and self-handicapping. Journal of Research in Personality, 32, 115–130. doi:10.1006/jrpe.1997.2207.
- La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person variation in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 367–384. doi:10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.1997.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- Laurenceau, J., Rivera, L. M., Schaffer, A. R., & Pietromonaco, P. R. (2004). Intimacy as an Interpersonal Process: Current Status and Future Directions. In D. J. Mashek & A. P. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 61–78). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
- Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004a). Perceived Partner Responsiveness as an Organizing Construct in the Study of Intimacy and Closeness. In D. J. Mashek & A. P. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.Google Scholar
- Reis, H. T., Clark, M. S., & Holmes, J. G. (2004b). Perceived partner responsiveness as an organizing construct in the study of closeness and intimacy. In D. J. Mashek & A. Aron (Eds.), Handbook of closeness and intimacy (pp. 201–225). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
- Reis, H. T., & Shaver, P. (1988). Intimacy as an interpersonal process. In S. Duck, D. F. Hay, S. E. Hobfoll, W. Ickes, & B. M. Montgomery (Eds.), Handbook of personal relationships: Theory, research and interventions (pp. 367–389). Oxford: Wiley.Google Scholar
- Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
- Taylor, I. M., Ntoumanis, N., & Standage, M. (2008). A self-determination theory approach to understanding the antecedents of teachers’ motivational strategies in physical education. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 30, 75–94.Google Scholar