Abstract
When applying self-determination theory to educational settings, evidence suggests that the basic psychological need of relatedness is actually multi-dimensional, which could result in differential influences on intrinsic motivation. Thus, this study proposes a modification to the operationalization of relatedness. The relatedness items from the adapted Basic Satisfaction Needs at Work scale were altered so that items asked students to separately report the amount of connection they feel with their instructors and peers, as opposed to the original items that asked them to more broadly reflect on people in their course. College students (556 female, 321 male) completed a questionnaire assessing their basic psychological needs, including the two new relatedness subscales, motivation, and academic outcomes. Results of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the original relatedness scale should, in fact, be treated as two-dimensional. In addition, of all the basic psychological needs, instructor relatedness was most predictive of student interest/enjoyment in the course and self-reported effort. Conversely, peer relatedness did not significantly predict any outcome variables. Study implications, limitations, and areas for future research are discussed.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The power analysis using Satorra-Saris method (Satorra and Saris 1985) yielded a power value of 1.00, which indicated that our sample size (N = 297) is sufficient to obtain statistical power.
References
Andersen, J. F. (1979). Teacher immediacy as a predictor of teaching effectiveness. In D. Nimmo (Ed.), Communication yearbook 3 (pp. 543–559). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
Bailey, T. H., & Phillips, L. J. (2015). The influence of motivation and adaptation on students’ subjective well-being, meaning in life and academic performance. Higher Education Research & Development, 35, 201–216. https://doi.org/10.1080/07294360.2015.1087474.
Beachboard, M. R., Beachboard, J. C., Li, W., & Adkison, S. R. (2011). Cohorts and relatedness: Self-determination theory as an explanation of how learning communities affect educational outcomes. Research in Higher Education, 52, 853–874. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11162-011-9221-8.
Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84, 740–756. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237x(200011)84:6%3c740:aid-sce4%3e3.0.co;2-3.
Brown, T. (2006). Confirmatory factor analysis for applied research. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Cheon, S. H., Reeve, J., & Moon, I. S. (2012). Experimentally based, longitudinally designed, teacher-focused intervention to help physical education teachers be more autonomy supportive toward their students. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34, 365–396. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.34.3.365.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York, NY: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1104_01.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.). (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49, 182. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagné, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former Eastern Bloc country. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930–942. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201278002.
Eisinga, R., Te Grotenhuis, M., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health, 58, 637–642. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00038-012-0416-3.
Frisby, B. N., & Martin, M. M. (2010). Instructor–student and student–student rapport in the classroom. Communication Education, 59, 146–164. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634520903564362.
Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148–162. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.1.148.
Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 199–223.
Gorham, J. (1988). The relationship between verbal teacher immediacy behaviors and student learning. Communication Education, 37, 40–53. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634528809378702.
Guay, F., Denault, A.-S., & Renauld, S. (2017). School attachment and relatedness with parents, friends and teachers as predictors of students’ intrinsic and identified regulation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 51, 416–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2017.10.001.
Guay, F., Marsh, H. W., Senécal, C., & Dowson, M. (2008). Representations of relatedness with parents and friends and autonomous academic motivation during the late adolescence–early adulthood period: Reciprocal or unidirectional effects? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 621–637. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709908x280971.
Guiffrida, D., Gouveia, A., Wall, A., & Seward, D. (2008). Development and validation of the need for relatedness at college questionnaire (NRC-Q). Journal of Diversity in Higher Education, 1, 251–261. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014051.
Guiffrida, D. A., Lynch, M. F., Wall, A. F., & Abel, D. S. (2013). Do reasons for attending college affect academic outcomes? A test of a motivational model from a self-determination theory perspective. Journal of College Student Development, 54, 121–139. https://doi.org/10.1353/csd.2013.0019.
Hatcher, L. (1994). A step-by-step approach to using the SAS system for factor analysis and structural equation modeling. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc.
Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118.
Hughes, J. N., & Chen, Q. (2011). Reciprocal effects of student–teacher and student–peer relatedness: Effects on academic self efficacy. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology, 32, 278–287. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.appdev.2010.03.005.
Ilardi, B. C., Leone, D., Kasser, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). Employee and supervisor ratings of motivation: Main effects and discrepancies associated with job satisfaction and adjustment in a factory setting. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1789–1805. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1993.tb01066.x.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., & Kim, A. (2009). Can self-determination theory explain what underlies the productive, satisfying learning experiences of collectivistically oriented Korean students? Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 644–661. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014241.
Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A., Vaughan, A. L., & Wright, S. L. (2015). Development of a self-determination measure for college students: Validity evidence for the Basic Needs Satisfaction at College Scale. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 48, 266–284. https://doi.org/10.1177/0748175615578737.
Johnston, M. M., & Finney, S. J. (2010). Measuring basic needs satisfaction: Evaluating previous research and conducting new psychometric evaluations of the Basic Needs Satisfaction in General Scale. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 35, 280–296. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2010.04.003.
Kasser, T., Davey, J., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Motivation, dependability, and employee supervisor discrepancies in psychiatric vocational rehabilitation settings. Rehabilitation Psychology, 37, 175–187. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079104.
Kim, J. (2011). Developing an instrument to measure social presence in distance higher education. British Journal of Educational Technology, 42(5), 763–777. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8535.2010.01107.x.
Levesque-Bristol, C., Knapp, T. D., & Fisher, B. J. (2010). The effectiveness of service-learning: It’s not always what you think. Journal of Experiential Education, 33, 208–224. https://doi.org/10.5193/jee33.3.208.
Mehrabian, A. (1967). Attitudes inferred from nonimmediacy of verbal communication. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 6, 294–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5371(67)80113-0.
Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. School Field, 7, 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318.
Plant, R. W., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and the effects of self-consciousness, self-awareness, and ego-involvement: An investigation of internally-controlling styles. Journal of Personality, 53, 435–449. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1985.tb00375.x.
Ray, J., & Kafka, S. (2014, May 6). Life in college matters for life after college. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/168848/life-college-matters-life-college.aspx
Richmond, V. P., Gorham, J. S., & McCroskey, J. C. (1987). The relationship between selected immediacy behaviors and cognitive learning. In M. McLaughlin (Ed.), Communication Yearbook 10 (pp. 574–590). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Richmond, V. P., Lane, D. R., & McCroskey, J. C. (2006). Teacher immediacy and the teacher–student relationship. In T. Mottet, V. Richmond, & J. McCroskey (Eds.), Handbook of instructional communication: Rhetorical and relational perspectives (pp. 167–193). Boston, MA: Pearson.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford.
Ryan, R. M., Mims, V., & Koestner, R. (1983). Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: A review and test using cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 736–750. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.45.4.736.
Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J. D., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relationships to teachers, parents, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 226–249.
Satorra, A., & Saris, W. E. (1985). Power of the likelihood ratio test in covariance structure analysis. Psychometrika, 50, 83–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02294150.
Standage, M., Duda, J. L., & Ntoumanis, N. (2005). A test of self-determination theory in school physical education. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 75, 411–433. https://doi.org/10.1348/000709904x22359.
Taylor, G., Jungert, T., Mageau, G. A., Schattke, K., Dedic, H., Rosenfield, S., et al. (2014). A self-determination theory approach to predicting school achievement over time: The unique role of intrinsic motivation. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 39, 342–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2014.08.002.
Taylor, I. M., & Ntoumanis, N. (2007). Teacher motivational strategies and student self-determination in physical education. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 747–760. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.747.
Thogersen-Ntoumani, C., Ntoumanis, N., Cumming, J., & Chatzisarantis, N. L. D. (2011). When feeling attractive matters too much to women: A process underpinning the relation between psychological need satisfaction and unhealthy weight control behaviors. Motivation and Emotion, 35, 413–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-011-9226-9.
Trenshaw, K. F., Revelo, R. A., Earl, K. A., & Herman, G. L. (2016). Using self-determination theory principles to promote engineering students’ intrinsic motivation to learn. International Journal of Engineering Education, 32, 1194–1207.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.246.
Funding
This work was supported by the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation’s Grant to Strengthen Innovation in Engaged Teaching and Learning, which was awarded to Colorado College [Grant Number 31300614].
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards. This article does not contain any studies with animals performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Appendix
Appendix
Adapted basic needs satisfaction scale
Autonomy
-
1.
I feel like I have a lot of say in deciding how my coursework gets done.
-
2.
I am free to express my ideas and opinions in this course.
-
3.
My feelings are taken into consideration in this course.
-
4.
I feel like I can pretty much be myself in this course.
Competence
-
1.
People in this course tell me I am good at what I do.
-
2.
Most days I feel a sense of accomplishment from this course.
-
3.
I feel very competent in this course.
Relatedness-Instructor
-
1.
I really like the instructors in this course.
-
2.
I get along with the instructor in this course.
-
3.
The instructor in this course cares about me.
-
4.
I am not close to the instructors in this course. (R)
-
5.
The instructor in this course does not seem to like me much. (R)
Relatedness-peers
-
1.
I really like the other students in this course.
-
2.
I get along with other students in this course.
-
3.
The other students in this course care about me.
-
4.
There are not many students in this course that I am close to. (R)
-
5.
The other students in this course do not seem to like me much. (R)
Interest/enjoyment
-
1.
I enjoyed this course very much.
-
2.
This course was fun to take.
-
3.
I thought this was a boring course. (R)
-
4.
I would describe this course as very interesting.
Effort
-
1.
I put a lot of effort into this course.
-
2.
I didn’t try very hard to do well in this course. (R)
-
3.
It was important to me to do well in this course.
Perceived learning
-
1.
I feel that I learned a lot in this course.
-
2.
I understand the content of this course well.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fedesco, H.N., Bonem, E.M., Wang, C. et al. Connections in the classroom: Separating the effects of instructor and peer relatedness in the basic needs satisfaction scale. Motiv Emot 43, 758–770 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09765-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09765-x