The Effect of Rationale Provision on Motivation and ......such beneﬁts. SDT emphasizes the mediating role of enhanced autonomy and competence in explaining why the provision of rationales

The Effect of Rationale Provision on Motivation and PerformanceOutcomes: A Meta-Analysis

Rebecca R. Steingut, Erika A. Patall, and Scott S. TrimbleUniversity of Texas at Austin

A meta-analysis of 23 experimental studies examined the effect of rationale provisionon subjective task value, autonomous motivation, engagement, performance, perceivedautonomy, perceived competence, perceived relatedness, and controlled motivationcompared with a control condition. Results suggested that rationale provision enhancedsubjective task value, engagement, performance, and perceived autonomy to a small tomoderate extent (d � .16 to d � .40) under fixed- and random-effects models. Resultsalso suggested that rationale provision diminished perceived competence under bothfixed- and random-effects models (d � �.19), but did not impact autonomous moti-vation, controlled motivation, or perceived relatedness. Moderator analyses for subjec-tive task value, autonomous value, motivation, engagement, and performance sug-gested that rationales were most effective (a) when they were prosocial or autonomouscompared to controlling (for 3 outcomes), (b) for samples with a higher proportion offemales (for 3 outcomes), and (c) for uninteresting tasks (for 3 outcomes). Implicationsfor theory, future research, and practice are discussed.

Keywords: meta-analysis, motivation, rationale, self-determination theory, subjectivetask value

People are regularly faced with the challenge ofmotivating another individual. Parents, teachers,employers, and doctors regularly use one or moreof the following strategies to motivate anotherindividual to engage in a task: (a) external contin-gencies such as deadlines, rewards, punishment,(b) setting goals, or (c) an emphasis on autonomyin the form of providing choices. Indeed, compre-hensive syntheses of research show the successand limitations of these strategies for motivatingothers (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Locke &Latham, 2002; Patall, Cooper, & Robinson, 2008).This meta-analysis adds to this body of researchby synthesizing the effects of providing a ratio-nale, another promising motivational strategy.

Rationale refers to the “verbal explanation ofwhy putting forth effort during the activity

might be a useful thing to do” (Reeve, Jang,Hardre, & Omura, 2002, p. 185). Examples ofrationale provision include: a teacher discussingthe way students may use information in thefuture, parents referring to rewards associatedwith a chore, or a doctor encouraging a patientto quit smoking by referring either to the in-creased risk of cancer or to associated changesin physical appearance. Across these differentexamples, rationale provision is social: the ex-planation for the task’s value is provided byanother individual. Though rationale is a moti-vational tool employed in educational, work,and health contexts, and a central component inseveral motivational theories, including Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci,2000b), there is little consensus regarding char-acteristics that may enhance or diminish its ef-fects. The present analysis examines the overalleffect of rationale on motivation and perfor-mance outcomes and moderators of that effect.

Theoretical Perspectives onRationale Provision

Self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan &Deci, 2000b) proposes that satisfaction of thepsychological needs for autonomy, competence,

Rebecca R. Steingut, Erika A. Patall, and Scott S.Trimble, Department of Educational Psychology, Univer-sity of Texas at Austin.

Erika A. Patall is now at University of Southern Califor-nia, Rossier School of Education.

Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-dressed to Rebecca R. Steingut, Department of Educa-tional Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, 1 Uni-versity Station D5800, Austin, TX 78712. E-mail:[email protected]

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

Motivation Science © 2017 American Psychological Association2017, Vol. 3, No. 1, 19–50 2333-8113/17/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000039

19

mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1037/mot0000039

and relatedness underlie motivation, particu-larly powerful autonomous or intrinsic forms ofmotivation as opposed to controlling or extrin-sic forms that may not sustain behavior as ef-fectively across time or contexts. As such, SDTprioritizes an examination of the contextual fac-tors that support satisfaction of these needs.

SDT has identified several practices that sup-port the need for autonomy, a sense of volitionor ownership over one’s behavior (Deci,Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone, 1994; Reeve & Jang,2006), including providing a rationale, whichexplains the value of the task and, therefore,gives the individual a reason to endorse it. Inother words, hearing about the task’s value isthought to encourage individuals to feel moreownership, or to feel that their work on the taskis more closely aligned with their own personalgoals. Even if the activity is not freely chosen,as is often the case with school assignments orwork responsibilities, SDT predicts that ratio-nale provision will facilitate the sense that onewould choose the task if it were not required,because that individual understands the value ofthe task.

Although SDT primarily refers to rationaleprovision as an autonomy supportive practice,SDT theorists argue that rationale may alsosupport satisfaction of the need for competence,that is, the sense of being able to succeed at atask, by providing structure or informationabout the link between behaviors and outcomes(Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan, 1997; Grolnick, Gur-land, Jacob, & Decourcey, 2002). For example,Grolnick et al. (2002) suggest that parents ex-plain cleaning to a young child in terms ofhaving enough “space to play on the floor” (p.159), thus connecting cleaning up to the child’sown goals (autonomy support) and helping thechild understand how to achieve desired out-comes (competence support). Thus, SDT ex-pects rationale provision to support motivationprimarily because it supports an individual’sexperience of autonomy and, secondarily, be-cause it supports his or her sense of compe-tence.

In contrast to SDT, which is intended toapply across contexts, expectancy value theory(EVT), as proposed by Eccles, Wigfield andcolleagues (Eccles et al., 1983; Wigfield &Eccles, 2000), theorizes motivation withinachievement contexts, but, like SDT, providespredictions about the effects of rationale provi-

sion. EVT holds that subjective task value, orbeliefs about the reasons for undertaking agiven task as well as an individual’s expectan-cies, beliefs about how well he or she willperform on a given task, are central to achieve-ment motivation, predicting engagement, per-sistence, and performance (Wigfield & Eccles,2000). To the extent that rationales lead to in-creased subjective task value, EVT suggeststhat motivation and performance will also in-crease. Thus, the EVT model suggests that sub-jective task value is an important outcome andmechanism of effect of rationale.

Although both SDT and EVT suggest thatrationale provision likely supports subjectivetask value, motivation, engagement, and perfor-mance, the theories differ in their explanationsfor the mechanism by which rationales havesuch benefits. SDT emphasizes the mediatingrole of enhanced autonomy and competence inexplaining why the provision of rationales isexpected to have benefits for more distal out-comes like intrinsic motivation, engagement,and performance, whereas EVT emphasizes themediating role of enhanced subjective task val-ue. Moreover, while SDT suggests that en-hanced competence may be an outcome andmechanism of effect for rationale provision,empirical research emanating from EVT hasfound that the effect of rationale on perceivedcompetence may depend characteristics of theindividual, including individual interest and/orperceived competence (Durik & Harackiewicz,2007; Durik, Shechter, Noh, Rozek, & Harack-iewicz, 2015). Given the conflicting theory andevidence, it is difficult to make a predictionregarding whether the provision of a rationalewill enhance or diminish perceptions of compe-tence overall. However, taking both theoriesinto consideration, we expected that the provi-sion of rationale would enhance perceptions ofcompetence more often that it does not.

Empirical findings generally support theoreticalpredictions that rationale yields motivational ben-efits. In both field and laboratory studies withindividuals of varied ages, the provision of a ra-tionale has been found to lead to: Subjective taskvalue (Durik & Harackiewicz, 2007), interest/enjoyment (Deci et al., 1994), engagement (Jang,2008; Sansone, Wiebe, & Morgan, 1999), learn-ing (Jang, 2008), and performance (Kuczynski,1983). For instance, Jang (2008) provided a ratio-nale for learning about correlations that pointed

20 STEINGUT, PATALL, AND TRIMBLE

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

out how learning about correlations would be use-ful for participants’ future role as teachers. Partic-ipants who heard the rationale reported higherlevels of autonomous motivation, demonstratedmore behavioral engagement, and learned more.Despite these positive effects, a thorough reviewof the empirical literature does not suggest a clearpicture. Some research has found rationales tohave null effect on outcomes including free-choice engagement (Deci et al., 1994), perfor-mance (Durik & Harackiewicz, 2007; Shin, 2010),and other motivational variables (Gillison,Standage, & Skevington, 2013; Shin, 2010). Fur-ther, it would seem that the generally positiveeffects of rationale may be enhanced or dimin-ished by a number of factors.

Factors That May Influence theEffectiveness of Rationale

Mixed findings suggest that the effects ofrationale are complex and may not always bepositive. First, we discuss factors for whichstrong theoretical logic exists for expectingvariation in the effects of rationale along thefactor. We then discuss factors that may beimportant to explore as moderators of the ef-fects of rationale, though theoretical reasons forexpecting variation along these factors are morelimited.

Type of Rationale

A central question regarding the effects ofrationale is what practitioners should say whenproviding a rationale. SDT provides a usefulframework for categorizing these statements ofrationale into two types: autonomous and con-trolling and suggests that autonomous rationaleswill lead to larger effects on adaptive outcomesthan controlling rationales. Specifically, theysuggest that because of their association withthe fundamental needs of autonomy, compe-tence, and relatedness, both autonomous formsof regulation and intrinsic goal contents lead tomore adaptive outcomes than controlled regula-tion or extrinsic goal contents. Next, we defineand discuss various forms of regulation and goalcontents and their application to explainingvariation in the effects of rationale.

According to SDT (Ryan & Deci, 2000a),motivation can be conceptualized on a contin-uum ranging from autonomous to controlled.

Autonomous motivation includes intrinsic,identified, and integrated forms of motivationand reflects doing a task because it is interestingor enjoyable, personally meaningful, or becauseit has been “brought into congruence with one’sother values and needs” (Ryan & Deci, 2000b,p. 73). In contrast, more extrinsic or controlledmotivation reflects doing a task because of ex-ternally imposed incentives or consequences(external motivation) or because of internalfeelings of obligation or pride (introjected reg-ulation). Whereas all types of motivation maylead an individual to engage in a task, a keyinsight of SDT and corresponding empiricalresearch is that the quality of motivation differsacross these types of motivation, autonomousmotivation being more strongly associated withadaptive outcomes like learning and well-beingthan controlled motivation (Grolnick & Ryan,1987). Given that some rationales express valuein ways that correspond to these types of regu-lation, rationales referring to autonomous rea-sons for engagement are expected to lead tolarger effects on adaptive outcomes than ratio-nales referring to more extrinsic or controlledreasons, which we refer to as controlling ratio-nales.

In addition, another aspect of SDT relates tothis question of what practitioners should saywhen providing a rationale: goal contents,which is another important factor impactingmotivation and performance outcomes. Specif-ically, pursuit of intrinsic goals, which are “con-gruent with actualizing and growth tendenciesnatural to humans,” and include “health andgrowth” and prosocial goals like “communityand helpfulness” (Kasser & Ryan, 1996, p.280), is associated with well-being and reduceddistress. In contrast, the pursuit of extrinsicgoals, which depend on the reactions of others,and include “money . . . , social recognition . . ., and . . . appearance” (Kasser & Ryan, 1996, p.280), is associated with less self-actualizationand vitality and more physical symptoms. Thegoal framing hypothesis applies these otherwiseintraindividual goal contents directly to ratio-nale provision: rationales referring to intrinsicgoals may promote motivation and perfor-mance, whereas rationales referring to extrinsicgoals may undermine such outcomes (Vans-teenkiste, Niemiec, & Soenens, 2010). In fact,evidence has supported goal framing predic-tions that autonomous rationales have greater

21EFFECTS OF RATIONALE

Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

effects on adaptive outcomes than controllingrationales (Reeve et al., 2002; Vansteenkiste,Simons, Lens, Sheldon, & Deci, 2004; Vans-teenkiste, Simons, Lens, Soenens, et al., 2004;Vansteenkiste, Simons, Soenens, & Lens,2004).

The distinction among types of rationalesmay be further complicated by the fact thatsome rationales reflect a prosocial value, mean-ing they refer to the value that task engagementwill accrue to someone other than the partici-pant him or herself. In the present analysis, wedistinguish between prosocial rationales and au-tonomous rationales focused only on benefits tothe self in light of some findings that prosocialrationales may bring about the biggest boost tomotivation and performance.1 For example,Grant and colleagues (e.g., Grant, 2008b, 2012;Grant et al., 2007) argued that focusing on thebeneficiaries of a given task may promote mo-tivation to a greater extent compared with fo-cusing on oneself and found in one study inwhich autonomous and prosocial rationaleswere explicitly compared (Grant & Hofmann,2011) that a prosocial rationale emphasizing thebenefits to patients’ health led to more handwashing among health care professionals than arationale that emphasized the benefits to partic-ipants’ own health. Though few other studieshave explicitly compared autonomous andprosocial rationales, studies have certainly var-ied on this dimension (see Table 1 for defini-tions and examples of each type of rationale). Inother words, whereas prosocial rationales areother-focused or “self-transcendent” (Yeager etal., 2014), both autonomous and controlling ra-tionales refer to value that is self-focused. Interms of the fundamental needs theorized bySDT, prosocial rationales may have a particu-larly pronounced positive effect because theymay also support feelings of relatedness. Whilethe goal contents theory of SDT considersprosocial goals as a subtype of intrinsic goals,more recently, researchers have theorized con-sidering the two as separate but complementary:Grant (2008a) found that intrinsic motivationstrengthens the effect of prosocial motivationand Yeager et al. (2014) found that interven-tions referring to both prosocial and self-oriented reasons for learning may provide ben-efits greater than intereventions that refer onlyto self-oriented reasons. Given these findingsand theoretical debate regarding the categoriza-

tion of prosocial goals/motivation, the presentwork will compare the effects of prosocial andautonomous rationales.

Finally, it is worth noting at this point that theabove predictions regarding differential effectsacross types of rationale are in some contrast topredictions that might be derived from EVT.EVT defines subjective task value as a multidi-mensional construct composed of four sub-types: personal importance or significance of atask to one’s sense of self or identity (attainmentvalue), usefulness of the task to obtaining per-sonal goals in the future (utility value), enjoy-ment associated with a task (intrinsic value),and resources needed or negative consequencesof task engagement such as loss of time, exer-tion of effort, negative affect, or inability toengage in other valued tasks (cost; Eccles et al.,1983). Whereas attainment value, utility value,and intrinsic value each increase subjective taskvalue, cost decreases subjective task value.

Despite the distinction between these types ofsubjective task value, EVT makes little distinc-tion between forms of subjective value in termsof the nature of their effects (Vansteenkiste,Lens, & Deci, 2006; Vansteenkiste et al., 2010).Hulleman, Barron, Kosovich, and Lazowski(2016) suggest that the types of subjective taskvalues vary along the same dimension as thetypes of motivation, from more intrinsic or au-tonomous (e.g., intrinsic value) to less so (e.g.,utility value or attainment value). Given thatEVT does not differentiate the benefits of vari-ous forms of value (or the rationales that refer toeach form) and SDT predicts that the effects ofrationales will vary along a continuum fromcontrolling to autonomous, the predictions ofeach theory are somewhat in conflict. Thismeta-analysis provides an opportunity to com-pare and test the predictions of each theory.

1 By type of rationale, we refer to the type of valuereferred to in the rationale expression itself. This variable isdistinct from characteristics of the setting in which therationale was provided and from the task for which therationale was provided. For example, a task that one mightconsider prosocial, such as recycling, may be justified witha controlling rationale, such as by referring to the moneythat subjects will get if they recycle (Vansteenkiste, Simons,Lens, Sheldon, & Deci, 2004, Study 1). In this example, therationale, would be considered to be controlling although itwas provided for a prosocial task. See Table 1 for furtherexamples and definitions.


Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

Tab

le1

Typ

eof

Rat

iona

le

Typ

eD

efini

tion

Exa

mpl

eT

ask

(Set

ting)

Aut

onom

ous

Stat

emen

tsof

valu

eth

atem

phas

ize

doin

ga

task

beca

use

ofbe

nefit

sto

the

self

,inc

ludi

ngho

wa

task

is:

“Han

dhy

gien

epr

even

tsyo

ufr

omca

tchi

ngdi

seas

es”

(Gra

nt&

Hof

fman

,20

11).

Han

d-w

ashi

ng(W

orkp

lace

setti

ngof

heal

thca

repr

ofes

sion

als)

•in

tere

stin

gor

enjo

yabl

e,pe

rson

ally

mea

ning

ful,

oral

igne

dw

ithpe

rson

al“v

alue

san

dne

eds”

(Rya

n&

Dec

i,20

00b,

p.73

)•

alig

ned

with

the

goal

ofgr

owth

,(e

.g.

pers

onal

impr

ovem

ent,

lear

ning

)

“Doi

nga

little

tae-

bohe

lps

you

rem

ain

phys

ical

lyfit

and

prev

ents

you

from

beco

min

gsi

ckat

ala

ter

age”

(Van

stee

nkis

te,

Sim

ons,

Soen

ens,

etal

,20

04).

Tae

-bo

(Hig

hSc

hool

Phys

ical

Edu

catio

nC

lass

)

“..

.if

you

choo

seto

eat

heal

thy

food

slik

eap

ples

you

will

have

mor

een

ergy

topl

ayan

dbe

activ

e,es

peci

ally

with

your

frie

nds”

(Ban

non

&Sc

hwar

tz,

2006

)

Hea

lthy

snac

kch

oice

(Kin

derg

arte

ncl

assr

oom

)•

alig

ned

with

the

goal

ofhe

alth

Con

trol

ling

Stat

emen

tsof

valu

eth

atem

phas

ize

doin

ga

task

beca

use

ofbe

nefit

sto

the

self

,in

clud

ing:

•ex

tern

ally

impo

sed

ince

ntiv

esor

cons

eque

nces

(e.g

.m

oney

,gr

ades

)as

soci

ated

with

the

task

•in

tern

alfe

elin

gsof

oblig

atio

nor

prid

e(a

lso

incl

udin

ggu

ilt)

•al

igne

dw

ithth

ego

alof

soci

alre

cogn

ition

•al

igne

dw

ithth

ego

alof

apo

sitiv

eap

pear

ance

“Rea

ding

the

text

coul

dte

ach

you

how

tosa

vem

oney

byre

usin

gm

ater

ials

”(V

anst

eenk

iste

,Si

mon

s,L

ens,

etal

.,20

04).

Lea

rnin

gab

out

recy

clin

g(C

olle

gest

uden

ts,

labo

rato

ryse

tting

)

“Doi

nga

little

tae-

bohe

lps

you

rem

ain

phys

ical

lyap

peal

ing

toot

hers

and

prev

ents

you

from

gain

ing

wei

ght

ata

late

rag

e.”

(Van

stee

nkis

te,

Sim

ons,

Soen

ens,

etal

.,20

04).

Tae

-bo

(Hig

hSc

hool

Phys

ical

Edu

catio

nC

lass

)

“The

reas

onw

ear

eas

king

you

totr

yha

rddu

ring

conv

ersa

tiona

lC

hine

seis

beca

use

we

are

goin

gto

give

you

ate

ston

the

mat

eria

lto

eval

uate

how

wel

lyo

ust

udie

dth

ein

form

atio

n.”

(Ree

veet

al.,

2002

,St

udy

1)

Lea

rnin

gco

nver

satio

nal

Chi

nese

(Col

lege

stud

ents

,la

bora

tory

setti

ng)

Pros

ocia

lSt

atem

ents

ofva

lue

that

emph

asiz

edo

ing

ata

skbe

caus

eof

bene

fits

toot

hers

,in

clud

ing

alig

nmen

tof

the

task

with

:

“Han

dhy

gien

epr

even

tspa

tient

sfr

omca

tchi

ngdi

seas

es”

(Gra

nt&

Hof

fman

,20

11).

Han

d-w

ashi

ng(W

orkp

lace

setti

ngof

heal

thca

repr

ofes

sion

als)

•th

ego

alof

com

mun

ity•

the

goal

ofhe

lpfu

lnes

s“R

eadi

ngth

ete

xtco

uld

help

you

know

how

tote

ach

your

futu

reto

ddle

rsth

atth

eyca

ndo

som

ethi

ngto

help

the

envi

ronm

ent”

(Van

stee

nkis

te,

Sim

ons,

Len

s,et

al.,

2004

).

Lea

rnin

gab

out

recy

clin

g(C

olle

gest

uden

ts,

labo

rato

ryse

tting

)

“We’

vere

ceiv

edle

tters

from

the

dean

’sof

fice

wri

tten

byst

uden

tsw

hoha

vebe

nefit

edfr

omsc

hola

rshi

psth

atw

ere

mad

epo

ssib

leby

the

alum

nido

natio

nsth

atyo

u’ve

solic

ited.

We

wan

ted

tosh

are

thes

ele

tters

with

you

togi

veyo

ua

sens

eof

the

impa

ctth

atyo

urw

ork

isha

ving

onst

uden

ts.”

(Gra

ntet

al.,

2007

,Stu

dy1)

Fund

rais

ing

calls

(Col

lege

stud

ents

empl

oyed

asfu

ndra

iser

s)


Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

Autonomy-Support

Beyond type of rationale, SDT suggests thatthe effects of rationales may also vary to theextent that they are delivered alone or in com-bination with other autonomy-supportive prac-tices. Research examining the causal effects ofother autonomy-supportive practices, includingchoice provision, acknowledgment of negativeaffect, and noncontrolling language, either indi-vidually or together as a whole, has often foundsuch practices to support motivation, engage-ment, and performance (Reeve, Jang, Carrell,Jeon & Barch, 2004; Vansteenkiste, Simons,Soenens, & Lens, 2004). SDT suggests a gestalthypothesis, that the effects of autonomy sup-portive practices are synergistic and specificallythat the effects of each practice are heightenedwhen combined (Deci et al., 1994). As such,providing rationales within the context of anautonomy-supportive environment overall isexpected to lead to more positive effects thanrationales delivered in an otherwise controllingcontext. Previous research supports this predic-tion. Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Soenens,and Matos (2005) found that, regardless of ra-tionale type (autonomous, controlling), ratio-nales provided using noncontrolling languageled to more positive effects on autonomous mo-tivation, performance, and engagement than ra-tionales delivered with controlling language.Similarly, Deci et al. (1994) found that theeffects of rationales on motivation and engage-ment were greatest when combined with non-controlling language and acknowledgment ofnegative affect. This synergy or gestalt effectsuggested that the effects of autonomy support-ive practices were amplified as more practiceswere provided simultaneously. That is, the ef-fect of all three practices provided simultane-ously was larger than that of one or two prac-tices.

Uninteresting Tasks

In addition to the characteristics of the ratio-nale, characteristics of the task may also influ-ence the effects of rationale provision. Specifi-cally, if the value of the task in question isevident to the individual, then the rationale mayhave a smaller effect because, regardless of anintervention such as rationale, individuals arelikely to be highly motivated for the task. Ac-

cording to scholars from a variety of perspec-tives including interest theories (Sansone, Weir,Harpster, & Morgan, 1992; Sansone et al.,1999) and SDT (Deci et al., 1994; Jang, 2008;Reeve et al., 2002), rationales will be moreeffective when the task or activity is relativelyboring or uninteresting because more interest-ing activities do not require as much externalsupport for motivation (Hidi & Renninger,2006; Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Some researchsuggests that an individual’s personal interest inthe domain may also moderate the effect ofrationale on motivation and performance (Durik& Harackiewicz, 2007; Shechter, Durik, Miy-amoto, & Harackiewicz, 2011) whereas morerecent work has suggested that such moderationmay be an artifact of the relationship betweeninterest and perceived competence (Durik et al.,2015). Though this research is important forunderstanding the effects of rationale, the roleof personal interest could not be tested in thepresent analysis due to lack of reporting orvariability in individual’s level of personal in-terest. Rather, the present analysis examinesinterest as a feature of the task.

Exploratory and Methodological Factors

Given heterogeneity in research findings, wethought it might also be useful to explorewhether the effects of rationale provision varyby type of task, gender, or outcome measure-ment, although the theoretical reason to expectsuch variation is more limited. First, we exam-ined if the effects of rationales depend on thetype of task for which the rationale is provided.Studies included in the analysis included ratio-nales for school tasks (Shin, 2010) as well aslearning tasks outside of the classroom (Jang,2008; Reeve et al., 2002), health tasks (Bannon& Schwartz, 2006; Vansteenkiste, Simons,Soenens, & Lens, 2004; Williams et al., 2001),and work tasks (Grant, 2008b, 2012; Grant etal., 2007). We therefore sought to determine ifthe effects of rationale for academic tasks differfrom effects for work or health-related tasks.

Next, we tested whether or not the effectsof rationale depend on the proportion of thesample that is female. Research suggests thatwomen report a higher need for affiliation(Hill, 2009) and a higher priority on commu-nal goals (Diekman & Eagly, 2013) comparedwith men. Therefore, given the social nature


Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

of rationale, women may be more likely toendorse rationales provided, and in turn ex-perience motivational benefits than men. De-spite this reasoning, few studies have exam-ined variation in the effects of rationale bysex. One study tested this question and foundthat a prosocial rationale led to a significantlyhigher rate of work among boys who receivedthe rationale compared to the control group,but not for girls (Kuczynski, 1983).

As for methodological characteristics, the ef-fects of rationale on motivation and perfor-mance may also depend on the type of measureused to assess the outcomes. In a classic meta-analysis of the effects of rewards on intrinsicmotivation, Deci et al. (1999) found that type ofmeasure was a significant moderator, with thenegative effects of reward being stronger forbehavioral compared to self-report measures ofintrinsic motivation. Given the finding of thisrelated meta-analysis, it may be important toexplore if outcome measurement moderates theobserved effects of rationales.

Need for a Synthesis on the Effectsof Rationale

Rationales are used in a variety of settings tomotivate others. Indeed, a substantial body ofresearch has accumulated testing the effects ofrationale on motivation and performance out-comes, although there has not yet been an at-tempt to synthesize this evidence. Further, ex-isting research suggests that the effects ofrationale on motivation and performance out-comes may depend on characteristics of therationale, task, sample, and outcome, thoughconclusions about the importance of variousfactors is difficult to decipher without synthe-sizing the existing evidence. Thus, given theimportance of rationale in theories of motiva-tion and applied settings, a meta-analysis of theeffects of rationale on motivation and perfor-mance outcomes was needed.

The purposes of this meta-analysis were two-fold. One purpose was to simply answer themost basic question of the extent to which ra-tionales produce a positive effect on motivationand performance outcomes. Perhaps more im-portantly, the second purpose was to examinefactors that may influence the effects of ratio-nale. A number of predictions regarding mod-erators have emerged based on existing theory

and research on rationale provision, though ev-idence has often been mixed across studies orlimited within a single study to draw firm con-clusions regarding the role of most of thesefactors. The present meta-analysis provides anopportunity to use variation between studies, inaddition to that within studies, to examine therole of characteristics of the rationale, task,sample, or outcome as moderators of rationaleeffects. Resolving the conflict between compet-ing hypotheses of SDT and EVT related todifferential effects of various types of rationalesis a particular aim of this meta-analysis.

To summarize our hypotheses given the the-ory and empirical evidence previously re-viewed, we predicted the following:

1. Rationale provision will lead to an overallpositive effect on all adaptive outcomessuch as subjective task value, autonomousmotivation, engagement, performance,perceived autonomy, perceived compe-tence, and perceived relatedness and neg-ative effects on maladaptive outcomessuch as controlled motivation.

2. Prosocial and autonomous rationales willlead to larger positive effects than control-ling rationales, with prosocial rationaleshaving the largest effects.

3. Rationales will lead to larger effects whencombined with other autonomy-support-ive practices, including acknowledgmentof negative affect or noncontrolling lan-guage compared to rationale alone. Fur-ther, the effect of all three practices com-bined will be greater than the effect twopractices or rationale alone.

4. Rationales will lead to larger effects whenthe task is uninteresting.

We were less certain of predictions regard-ing type of task, sex of participants and out-come measurement. Nonetheless, we sus-pected that:

5. Rationales will lead to larger effects foracademic tasks than for health or worktasks.

6. Rationales will lead to larger effectsamong samples with a higher proportionof females compared to samples with asmaller proportion of females.


Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

7. Rationale will lead to larger effects onbehavioral measures of outcomes com-pared to self-report measures.

Method

Literature Search Procedures

Four complementary search strategies wereused in order to retrieve as many published andunpublished tests of the effect of rationale aspossible: (a) systematic electronic databasesearches, (b) ancestry and descendant searches,(c) contact with researchers through profes-sional networks and organizations, and (d) con-tact with prolific researchers. The first strategyinvolved searches of the ERIC, PsycINFO, Ac-ademic Search Complete, and ProQuest Disser-tation & Theses, for documents catalogued be-fore January 1, 2014. The following terms wereentered simultaneously linked with “OR”s: ra-tionale, instrumental, instrumentality, rele-vance, meaningful, meaningfulness, explana-tion, explanatory, autonomy-support, purpose,goal content, motivation, engagement, effort,persistence, performance, achievement, andlearning. The search of the two main databases(ERIC & PsycINFO) returned approximately7,730 results.

Next, reference sections of relevant docu-ments were examined to determine whether anycited works had titles that also might be relevantto the topic. We also used Web of Science(Reuter’s Web of Knowledge) to identify rele-vant reports that had cited 7 seminal papers onthe effects of rationales (e.g., Deci et al., 1994;Durik & Harackiewicz, 2007; Jang, 2008;Reeve et al., 2002; Vansteenkiste et al., 2005;Vansteenkiste, Simons, Soenens, & Lens,2004).

Finally, members of several professional or-ganizations in fields related to the topic, includ-ing Educational Psychology (Division 15 of theAmerican Psychological Association; DivisionC of the American Educational Research Asso-ciation [AERA]; Motivation in Education Spe-cial Interest Group [associated with AERA])and Social Psychology (Society for Personalityand Social Psychology), were contacted andasked to provide information on relevant re-search. Likewise, researchers who our searchindicated had conducted more than two studies

examining the effects of rationale were askedfor other relevant research.

Criteria for Including Studies

Each study meeting the following six criteriawere included in the analysis. First, studies wererequired to have used an experimental design inwhich the provision of rationale was manipu-lated and participants were randomly assignedto conditions, or cluster-randomized experi-ments in which clusters were randomly as-signed to condition (Bannon & Schwartz, 2006;Gillison et al., 2013; Grant, 2012; Grant &Hofmann, 2011; Vansteenkiste, Simons,Soenens, & Lens, 2004). Second, studies wererequired to have included at least one conditionthat received a rationale and a control conditionthat did not receive a rationale.

Both gain-framed and loss-framed messageswere included in the analysis (Bannon &Schwartz, 2006; Williams et al., 2001). How-ever, the literature examining these two types ofmessages have predominantly compared gain-framed to loss-framed messages and omitted acontrol group. Therefore, most were excludeddue to a lack of control group. Akl et al. (2011)synthesized the effects of gain versus lossframed messages on behavior, but limited theiranalysis to effects on health outcomes. In addi-tion to gain- and loss-framed messages, otherstudies that compared different types of ratio-nales and omitted a true control group were alsoexcluded (Benware & Deci, 1984; Sheldon,Ryan, Deci, & Kasser, 2004; Simons, Dewitte,& Lens, 2003; Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens,Sheldon, & Deci, 2004; Vansteenkiste, Simons,Lens, Soenens, et al., 2004; Wang, Hu, & Guo,2013).

Third, given the definition of rationale provi-sion within the SDT framework as an external orcontextual factor in which another individual pro-vides a reason for putting forth effort, only studiesthat operationalized rationale provision as an ex-ternal explanation of the value of an activity wereincluded. Manipulations of utility value thatprompted participants to self-generate an explana-tion for the benefits of the task or activity wereexcluded (Hulleman, Godes, Hendricks, & Har-ackiewicz, 2010). Although evidence suggeststhat these interventions indeed influence subjec-tive task value and other adaptive outcomes, theseinterventions do not involve the external provision


Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

of a rationale and thus, may function differently(Canning & Harackiewicz, 2015). Although ex-ternal provision of rationales can provide ideasabout the value that is “otherwise hidden” (Jang,2008, p. 798) to individuals, such rationales de-pend on the individual endorsing this externallyexpressed value as something important to thempersonally. In contrast, self-generated utility valueinterventions depend on existing knowledge aboutthe value of a task and capitalizes on that knowl-edge by encouraging individuals to adopt or en-dorse the value.

Fourth and similarly, only studies in which therationale expressed value of the task that partici-pants were to take part in were included. Studiesin which the rationale was not relevant to the taskor which explained why the task was not relevant(Roser, 1990) were excluded. Fifth, included stud-ies needed to have measured the effect of rationaleon at least one of the outcomes of interest, namelysubjective task value, autonomous motivation, en-gagement, performance, perceived autonomy,competence, relatedness, or controlled motivation.However, these outcome categories each includeda set of related constructs. The next section defineseach outcome category and provides examples ofincluded constructs. Sixth and finally, in order tobe included, each study needed to contain suffi-cient information to estimate the effect of rationaleon at least one outcome of interest.

Dependent Measures

This synthesis assessed the effect of rationaleon eight related outcomes: value, autonomousmotivation, engagement, and performance, per-ceived autonomy, competence, or relatedness,and controlled motivation. Studies varied inhow these constructs were operationalized andmost outcomes had conceptual subcategories.Subjective task value included importance(Reeve et al., 2002), usefulness or utility value(Deci et al., 1994; Shechter et al., 2011). Com-petence valuation, the perceived importance oftask success, was also considered a form ofvalue due to the academic nature of the task inquestion, there was little distinction between theimportance of task success and the importanceof the task (Durik & Harackiewicz, 2007;Shechter et al., 2011).

Autonomous motivation included forms of mo-tivation that are generated by the self or are en-dorsed by the self. Intrinsic value and interest

value were categorized as autonomous motiva-tion, as they are conceptually more related tointrinsic motivation than to other forms of value.Other autonomous motivation outcomes includedinterest or enjoyment (Durik & Harackiewicz,2007; Gillison et al., 2013; Shechter et al., 2011),intrinsic regulation, and identified regulation(Vansteenkiste, Simons, Soenens, & Lens, 2004).

Engagement was conceptualized as a multi-dimensional construct with three components:behavioral, cognitive, and emotional (Fredricks,Blumenfeld, & Paris, 2004). Although thesecomponents are useful in explicating the varietyof manifestations of engagement, the distinc-tions among them are not always clear. Thepresent analysis included behavioral engage-ment outcomes, including effort, free choicepersistence (Deci et al., 1994), time on task(Grant et al., 2007), and behavioral engagement(Jang, 2008), as well as cognitive engagement,such as interest-enhancing strategies (Jang,2008; Sansone et al., 1999).

Performance outcomes included learning,which were commonly measured with an experi-menter-created test (e.g., Durik & Harackiewicz,2007; Vansteenkiste et al., 2005). In other studies,performance was a measure or observation of thebehavior of interest (e.g., Bannon & Schwartz,2006).

Few studies measured the effects of ratio-nale on the three needs for autonomy, compe-tence, or relatedness. All studies that mea-sured effects on needs referred to the needconstruct exactly, with a few exceptions: au-tonomy included perceived self-determina-tion (Reeve et al., 2002), competenceincluded self-efficacy (Hall, Bishop, & Mar-teau, 2003), and relatedness included affec-tive commitment to beneficiaries (Grant et al.,2007). Finally, controlled motivation in-cluded introjected and external regulation(Vansteenkiste, Simons, Soenens, & Lens,2004).

Information Retrieved From Studies andCoder Reliability

Numerous characteristics of each study wereincluded in the database. These characteristicsencompassed six categories: (a) research report,(b) rationale manipulation, (c) task, (d) sample,(e) outcome measure, and (f) estimate of effectsize. Table 2 lists the characteristics retrieved


Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

from each study. Lack of reporting was com-mon among the studies, especially with respectto characteristics of the sample, such as thegender of participants.

Every report was independently coded by thefirst and third authors. Of 12,159 codes, onlyapproximately 2.4% were discrepant. Discrep-ancies were noted, discussed, and, if agreementcould not be reached, the second author re-solved the disagreement.

Effect Size Estimation

We used the d-index (Cohen, 1988), a stan-dardized mean difference, as our index of effect.For the present analysis, we computed the d-in-dex for each effect by subtracting the controlmean from the experimental mean and dividingby the pooled standard deviation. As such, pos-itive effects indicate that participants in the ra-tionale condition had higher outcome scoresthan those in the control condition. Whenmeans, standard deviations, and sample sizes

were unavailable, an inference test or propor-tion was used to calculate the d-index. Whenmeans and standard deviations were reportedand the overall, but not group, sample size wasreported, we assumed equal sample sizes amongthe groups. When effects could not be calcu-lated from information provided in the report,we contacted the author(s) for the required in-formation.

Methods of Data Integration

For each outcome, the set of effects wasexamined for values greater than 3 standarddeviations from the mean, which were Win-sorized and replaced with the effect size valuethree standard deviations in the same direc-tion from the mean. Also, although both pub-lished and unpublished studies were includedin the analysis, we took additional steps toensure that publication bias did not undulyinfluence analysis results. To test for publica-tion bias, two complementary methods were

Table 2Complete List of Information Retrieved From Studies

Report characteristics1. Author2. Year3. Type of research report (journal article, dissertation, unpublished data)

Sample1. Country2. Setting (laboratory, school, health care center, work)3. Developmental stage of the sample (elementary, middle, high, college, adults)4. Socioeconomic status (low, middle, high, mixed)5. Age6. Grade level, when appropriate7. % Female8. Ethnicity (Caucasian, African-American, Asian, Native American, Hispanic)

Rationale manipulation1. Type of task (academic, work, health, environmental, other)2. Task reported as interesting (yes/no)3. Type of rationale (autonomous, controlling, prosocial)4. Language (noncontrolling, controlling)5. Acknowledgment of negative affect (yes/no)

Outcome measure1. Outcome category (subjective task value, autonomous motivation, engagement,

performance, autonomy, competence, relatedness, controlled motivation) anddescription

2. Type of outcome measure (self-report, behavioral)3. Time point of outcome measurement (delay from the provision of rationale)

Estimate of the effect1. Direction of the effect2. Magnitude of the effect3. Sample size


Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

used. First, the trim and fill procedure sug-gested by Duval and Tweedie (2000) wasused on the set of effects for each outcomecategory before Winsorization. This tech-nique tests whether the distribution of ob-served effect sizes in an analysis represents asymmetrical distribution. If it does not, thetechnique imputes missing values to create anormal distribution and adjusts the effect es-timate given the imputed studies. In additionto trim and fill, publication status was testedas a moderator of the effect of rationale oneach outcome with more than 10 effect sizes.This technique tests whether the effects aresignificantly smaller for unpublished studies,which would indicate publication bias.

Calculating average effect sizes. We cal-culated the average effect of rationale on eachoutcome by weighting each effect size by theinverse variance of the effect (Hedges & Olkin,1985). In addition to the average effect, 95%confidence intervals around the average effectsize were calculated. The null hypothesis thatthe effect was equal to zero was rejected if the95% confidence interval did not contain zero.We determined whether the effect sizes for agiven outcome category varied significantly us-ing a within-class goodness of fit statistic (Qw)which follows a chi-square distribution having(k-1) degrees of freedom where k is the numberof effect sizes in the analysis.

Identifying independent hypothesis tests.Many studies include multiple estimates of ef-fects of rationale on different outcomes that aregrouped in the same outcome category. Thishappens for a number of reasons. For example,multiple experimental groups might have beencompared to a control group, groups might havebeen compared on several measures of the sameconstruct, or the same outcome might have beenmeasured at multiple time points. For instance,de Young et al. (1993) compared three experi-mental groups with a common control group.To maintain the assumption that effect sizes areindependent, effects coming from the samesample within each outcome category were av-eraged prior to calculation of the overall effectof rationale on the outcome category. However,when testing moderators, this approach limitsvariability and obscures true differences in ef-fects. Thus, for moderator analyses, we used ashifting unit of analysis approach (Cooper,2010) and allowed a single sample to contribute

one effect to each level of the moderator forwhich an effect was available. Effects withinthe same level of a moderator were averaged sothat each sample only contributed one effectwithin a level of a moderator.

Tests for moderators of effects. We usedhomogeneity analyses to assess moderator ef-fects (Cooper, Hedges, & Valentine, 2009).Specifically, a between class goodness of fitstatistic (Qb) was used to test whether the dif-ference between groups varied more than wouldbe expected due to sampling error alone. Thebetween class statistic follows a chi-square dis-tribution with p � 1 degrees of freedom, wherep is equal to the number of groups in the mod-erator analysis. A significant between-classgoodness of fit test indicates significant varia-tion between the groups of effects for each levelof the moderator. Moderator tests were runwhen at least two independent samples wereavailable for at least two levels of the moderatorvariable and levels that had only one effect weredropped before analysis. Because each moder-ator was tested individually, it is possible thatmoderators were confounded. Confoundedmoderators might lead to interpreting a moder-ator as significant only because it co-occurswith another moderator in the sample of effects(see Cooper, 2010 for a review). To explore theextent to which confounding among moderatorsmight have unduly impacted results or interpre-tation, we conducted a series of chi-square teststo examine the relations among moderator vari-ables.

Fixed and random error models. The cal-culation of overall average effects and the test-ing of moderator effects both rely on severalstatistical assumptions. Two models with differ-ing assumptions are often used: fixed-error andrandom-error models. The fixed-error model as-sumes that the variance in effect sizes is dueonly to variance in sampling of participants. Incontrast, the random-error model assumes thatthe effect sizes are affected by other factors ofstudies, which are assumed to vary randomly.Therefore, the random-error model is more con-servative than the fixed-error model.

Because it is impossible to determine whichset of assumptions reflects the true reasons forvariation in the distribution of observed effects,analyses were conducted using both fixed andrandom-error models in order to examine theimpact of each set of assumptions on the results.


Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

Following Greenhouse and Iyengar (1994), weconducted all analyses using both fixed andrandom error models in order to provide a sen-sitivity analysis. This analytic choice enablesinferences regarding the impact of different as-sumptions on analysis results. Indeed, whilesome meta-analysts use the empirical results ofheterogeneity tests to determine the appropriateerror model, meta-analytic experts generallyagree that theory should be used to guide thechoice of error model and either error modelmay be appropriate for both main and modera-tor analyses and that the findings for the overalltest of heterogeneity should not determinechoice of model (Borenstein, Hedges, Higgins,& Rothstein, 2010; Hedges & Vevea, 1998).

Results

The literature search uncovered 23 reportsthat tested the effect of rationale on at least oneof the following outcomes: value, autonomousmotivation, engagement, performance, per-ceived autonomy, competence, relatedness, andcontrolled motivation between 1983 and 2013.From these reports, 37 independent samplescontributed 289 effects, with sample sizes rang-ing from 18 to 265. Characteristics of includedstudies are listed in Table 3. Using Grubbs(1950) test, one outlier was found among thesample sizes (western sample in Study 1 ofShechter et al. (2011) and Winsorized to itsnearest neighbor.

Overall Effects of Rationale Provision

Average effects of rationale on each outcomeare listed in Table 4. Results showed a signifi-cant average effect of rationale on five of theeight outcomes under both fixed-effect (FE) andrandom-effects (RE) models: subjective taskvalue, engagement, performance, perceivedcompetence, and perceived autonomy. Averageeffect sizes ranged from a small effect on per-formance (FE: d � .16, p � .001; RE: d � .19,p � .001) to medium effects on perceived au-tonomy (FE: d � .40, p � .001; RE: d � .38,p � .01) and subjective task value (FE: d � .33,p � .001; RE: d � .34, p � .001). In addition,and contrary to expectations, the average effectof rationale on perceived competence was neg-ative under both fixed and random-error as-sumptions (FE: d � �.19, p � .05; RE: d �

�.19, p � .05). Effects of rationale on autono-mous motivation, perceived relatedness, andcontrolled motivation were not significant.There was significant heterogeneity in the ef-fects of rationale on subjective task value, butnot on any other outcome. However, given ourtheoretical reasons for exploring most modera-tors and the low power of heterogeneity tests,we conducted moderator analyses for outcomeswith more than 10 independent effects includ-ing subjective task value, autonomous motiva-tion, engagement, and performance.

Trim and fill analyses were conducted andresults are listed in Table 5. Results suggest thatthe true average effects of rationale on perfor-mance and engagement may be smaller than theobserved set of effect sizes suggest, with 7missing effects being imputed on the left side ofthe distribution for both outcomes. After includ-ing imputed effect sizes, the effect of rationaleon engagement was no longer significant undereither model while the effect on performanceremained significant under the fixed effectsmodel but not the random effects model. How-ever, publication status did not significantlymoderate effects on any of the four outcomesfor which moderators were tested, suggestingthat the publication status of included studiesdid not significantly explain variability in effectsizes (see Tables 6–9). Even so, results of thetrim and fill analyses suggest that findings forengagement and performance outcomes shouldbe interpreted with caution.

Moderator Analyses

Several variables that we intended to test asmoderators could not be tested because of lackof variability and/or reporting in the primaryliterature (developmental level, ethnicity, out-come measure for all outcomes except engage-ment).

Subjective task value. Moderation by sixfactors was tested for the effects of rationale onsubjective task value: rationale type, autonomysupportive practices, interest level of the task,type of task, proportion of the sample that wasfemale, and publication status (see Table 6).The interestingness of the task and percentagefemale of the sample each moderated the effectof rationales on value under fixed effects but notrandom effects assumptions. Results suggestedthat the effect of rationale on subjective task


Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

Tab

le3

Cha

ract

eris

tics

ofE

xper

imen

tal

Stud

ies

Incl

uded

inth

eM

eta-

Ana

lysi

s

Aut

hor

(yea

r)R

epor

tty

peSu

bsam

ple

(n)

Rat

iona

lety

pe

Ack

now

ledg

ene

gativ

eaf

fect

/no

ncon

trol

ling

lang

uage

Uni

nter

estin

gta

skPr

opor

tion

fem

ale

Tim

epo

int

Out

com

eca

tego

ry(b

ehav

iora

lm

easu

re)

Spec

ific

outc

ome

dva

r(d)

Ban

non

and

Schw

artz

(200

6)J

32A

NC

L/N

LP

Snac

kch

oice

.7.1

536

AN

CL

/YL

PSn

ack

choi

ce.7

.13

Beh

rens

(199

9)M

71A

./NH

AM

Snac

kch

oice

.29

.06

./NP

Cog

nitiv

eL

�.1

9.0

6./N

VPe

rtin

ence

.82

.06

./NV

Rel

evan

ce.4

3.0

662

A./N

HA

M.2

4.0

7./N

PC

ogni

tive

L.0

2.0

6./N

VPe

rtin

ence

1.0

7./N

VR

elev

ance

.58

.07

66C

CL

/NH

AM

.18

.06

/NP

Cog

nitiv

eL

.45

.06

/NV

Pert

inen

ce.4

7.0

6/N

VR

elev

ance

.47

.06

Beh

rens

(199

9),

Pilo

t56

A./N

.V

Pert

inen

ce1.

05.0

8./N

VR

elev

ance

.69

.08

A./N

VPe

rtin

ence

.83

.08

./NV

Rel

evan

ce.8

4.0

8C

CL

/N.

VPe

rtin

ence

.23

.07

/NV

Rel

evan

ce.1

9.0

7de

You

nget

al.

(199

3)J

46.

./NH

P.5

.09

48.

./NP

1.27

.153

../N

P.4

1.0

8D

eci

etal

.(1

994)

J32

.N

CL

/NU

LA

MIn

tere

st.7

5.1

3N

CL

/NU

E(B

)Fr

eech

oice

.7.1

3N

CL

/NU

VU

tility

.87

.14

32.

CL

/YU

LA

MIn

tere

st�

.01

.13

CL

/YU

E(B

)Fr

eech

oice

.29

.13

CL

/YU

VU

tility

.4.1

364

.N

CL

/YU

LA

MIn

tere

st�

.26

.08

NC

L/Y

UE

(B)

Free

choi

ce.0

3.0

8N

CL

/YU

VU

tility

.81

.09

(tab

leco

ntin

ues)


Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

Tab

le3

(con

tinu

ed)

Aut

hor

(yea

r)R

epor

tty

peSu

bsam

ple

(n)

Rat

iona

lety

pe

Ack

now

ledg

ene

gativ

eaf

fect

/no

ncon

trol

ling

lang

uage

Uni

nter

estin

gta

skPr

opor

tion

fem

ale

Tim

epo

int

Out

com

eca

tego

ry(b

ehav

iora

lm

easu

re)

Spec

ific

outc

ome

dva

r(d)

64.

CL

/NU

LA

MIn

tere

st.5

6.0

9C

L/N

UE

(B)

Free

choi

ce�

.33

.08

CL

/NU

VU

tility

1.05

.09

Dur

ikan

dH

arac

kiew

icz

(200

7)J

145

A./N

LA

MIn

tere

st.3

4.0

3./N

E(S

R)

Invo

lvem

ent

.07

.03

./NP

0.0

3./N

VC

omp.

val

.55

.03

./NV

Util

ity.4

6.0

3./N

PC�

.14

.03

Gill

ison

etal

.(2

013)

J19

4C

NC

L/Y

LA

MIn

tere

st�

.05

.02

NC

L/Y

AM

.28

.02

NC

L/Y

AM

Intr

insi

cgo

al.1

1.0

2N

CL

/NE

(SR

)E

ffor

t�

.33

.02

NC

L/Y

V.0

2.0

224

0C

CL

/NL

AM

.13

.02

CL

/NA

MIn

tere

st.2

7.0

2C

L/N

AM

.51

.02

CL

/NE

(SR

)In

trin

sic

goal

.12

.02

CL

/NV

.38

.02

200

AN

CL

/YL

AM

Inte

rest

�.0

4.0

2N

CL

/YA

M.1

.02

NC

L/Y

AM

Intr

insi

cgo

al.2

7.0

2N

CL

/YE

(SR

)E

ffor

t�

.25

.02

NC

L/Y

V.0

3.0

221

0A

CL

/NL

AM

Inte

rest

�.1

2.0

2C

L/N

AM

�.0

8.0

2C

L/N

AM

Intr

insi

cgo

al�

.14

.02

CL

/NE

(SR

)E

ffor

t�

.21

.02

CL

/NV

�.0

3.0

2G

rant

etal

.(2

007)

,1

J22

P./.

LE

(B)

Tim

e�

.53

.19

./.P

�.0

4.1

827

P./.

LE

(B)

Tim

e.7

.17

./.P

.9.1

7G

rant

etal

.(2

007)

,2

J30

P./N

LE

(B)

Free

choi

ce.8

.14

./NV

Sign

ifica

nce

.91

.15


Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

Tab

le3

(con

tinu

ed)

Aut

hor

(yea

r)R

epor

tty

peSu

bsam

ple

(n)

Rat

iona

lety

pe

Ack

now

ledg

ene

gativ

eaf

fect

/no

ncon

trol

ling

lang

uage

Uni

nter

estin

gta

skPr

opor

tion

fem

ale

Tim

epo

int

Out

com

eca

tego

ry(b

ehav

iora

lm

easu

re)

Spec

ific

outc

ome

dva

r(d)

Gra

ntet

al.

(200

7),

3J

64P

./NH

E(B

)Pe

rsis

tenc

e�

.17

.06

./NFR

Aff

ectiv

e.5

4.0

358

P./N

HE

(B)

Pers

iste

nce

.52

.07

./NFR

Aff

ectiv

e.5

4.0

3G

rant

etal

.(2

008)

,1

J21

AC

./NL

P#

Don

atio

ns.3

2.1

9./N

PD

olla

rsra

ised

.32

.19

23P

./NL

P#

Don

atio

ns1.

41.2

2./N

PD

olla

rsra

ised

1.19

.2G

rant

etal

.(2

007)

,3

J34

CP

./NH

P#

Don

atio

ns1.

4.1

5G

rant

(201

2)a

J38

CP

./NH

PD

olla

rsra

ised

.71

.13

./NP

Rev

enue

/Shi

ft�

.09

.12

./NP

Sale

s.6

.13

./NP

.02

.12

41C

P./N

HP

Rev

enue

1.5

.13

./NP

Rev

enue

/Shi

ft�

.27

.11

./NP

Sale

s1.

22.1

2./N

PSa

les/

Shif

t�

.13

.11

44C

P./N

HP

Rev

enue

3.35

.22

./NP

Rev

enue

/Shi

ft.4

4.1

./NP

Sale

s3.

42.2

3./N

PSa

les/

Shif

t.6

4.1

Gra

ntan

dH

ofm

ann

(201

1)J

43P

./N.

PSo

apus

age

.64

.144

A./N

.P

Soap

usag

e�

.27

.09

Hal

let

al.

(200

3)J

122

A./Y

HPC

Self

-effi

cacy

�.4

6.0

311

9A

./YH

PCSe

lf-e

ffica

cy�

.06

.03

Har

acki

ewic

zet

al.

(201

2)J

181

A./N

LP

STE

Mco

urse

s.3

1.0

2Ja

ng(2

008)

J13

6A

NC

L/Y

UH

1HE

(B)

.43

.03

NC

L/Y

UA

UT

.55

.03

NC

L/Y

U2H

E(B

).6

4.0

3N

CL

/YU

E(S

R)

Stra

tegi

es.5

6.0

3N

CL

/YU

E(S

R)

.42

.03

NC

L/Y

UP

Con

cept

ual

L.4

6.0

3N

CL

/YU

PR

ote

L.3

.03

NC

L/Y

UV

Impo

rtan

ce.7

.03

John

son

(200

4)D

265

A./N

.V

Rel

evan

ce.4

6.0

2(t

able

cont

inue

s)


Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

Tab

le3

(con

tinu

ed)

Aut

hor

(yea

r)R

epor

tty

peSu

bsam

ple

(n)

Rat

iona

lety

pe

Ack

now

ledg

ene

gativ

eaf

fect

/no

ncon

trol

ling

lang

uage

Uni

nter

estin

gta

skPr

opor

tion

fem

ale

Tim

epo

int

Out

com

eca

tego

ry(b

ehav

iora

lm

easu

re)

Spec

ific

outc

ome

dva

r(d)

Kuc

zyns

ki(1

983)

J18

(Fem

ale)

P./N

UH

PR

ate

ofw

ork

.47

.23

18(M

ale)

./NU

LP

Rat

eof

wor

k2.

09.3

4M

cCal

l(2

004)

J36

AC

./NL

1MP

.61

.12

./N2M

P.3

9.1

1./N

3MP

.32

.11

./NV

Ben

efits

.17

.11

33A

C./N

L1M

P.3

8.1

3./N

2MP

.47

.13

./N3M

P.1

2.1

3./N

VB

enefi

ts.1

1.1

3R

eeve

etal

.(2

002)

,1

J70

CC

L/N

UH

AU

TSe

lf-d

eter

m.

�.1

6.0

6C

L/N

UE

(B;S

R)

Eff

ort

.39

.06

CL

/NU

VIm

port

ance

�.0

7.0

670

AP

NC

L/Y

UH

AU

TSe

lf-d

eter

m.

.62

.06

NC

L/Y

UE

(B;S

R)

Eff

ort

.59

.06

NC

L/Y

UV

Impo

rtan

ce.5

2.0

670

CP

CL

/NU

HA

UT

Self

-det

erm

.�

.03

.06

CL

/NU

E(B

;SR

)E

ffor

t.4

9.0

6C

L/N

UV

Impo

rtan

ce�

.16

.06

Ree

veet

al.

(200

2),

270

AP

NC

L/Y

UH

AU

TSe

lf-d

eter

m.

.63

.06

NC

L/Y

UE

(B;S

R)

Eff

ort

.38

.06

NC

L/Y

UV

Impo

rtan

ce.7

.06

Sans

one

etal

.(1

999)

J11

1P

./YU

LE

(B)

Stra

tegy

use

.34

.04

Shec

hter

etal

.(2

011)

,1

J72

(Eas

tern

)A

./NH

AM

Invo

lvem

ent

.52

.06

./NE

(B)

Free

choi

ce.2

4.0

6./N

P.0

9.0

6./N

VU

tility

.21

.06

210

(Wes

tern

)A

./NL

AM

Invo

lvem

ent

.02

.02

./NE

(B)

Free

choi

ce.0

2.0

2./N

P�

.22

.02

./NV

Util

ity.0

8.0

2Sh

echt

eret

al.

(201

1),

252

(Eas

tern

)A

./NL

AM

Invo

lvem

ent

.38

.08

./NPC

�.2

5.0

8./N

E(S

R)

Eff

ort

.5.0

8./N

E(S

R)

Invo

lvem

ent

.16

.08


Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

Tab

le3

(con

tinu

ed)

Aut

hor

(yea

r)R

epor

tty

peSu

bsam

ple

(n)

Rat

iona

lety

pe

Ack

now

ledg

ene

gativ

eaf

fect

/no

ncon

trol

ling

lang

uage

Uni

nter

estin

gta

skPr

opor

tion

fem

ale

Tim

epo

int

Out

com

eca

tego

ry(b

ehav

iora

lm

easu

re)

Spec

ific

outc

ome

dva

r(d)

./NP

.09

.06

./NV

Com

p.va

l.0

6.0

8./N

VU

tility

.24

.08

56A

./NL

AM

Inte

rest

�.3

3.0

7./N

PC�

.62

.08

./NE

(SR

)E

ffor

t�

.22

.07

./NE

(SR

)In

volv

emen

t�

.34

.07

./NP

.07

.07

./NV

Com

p.va

l�

.22

.07

./NV

Util

ity.1

8.0

761

(Wes

tern

)A

./NL

AM

Inte

rest

�.5

5.0

7./N

PC�

.35

.07

./NE

(SR

)E

ffor

t�

.17

.07

./NE

(SR

)In

volv

emen

t�

.1.0

7./N

P�

.49

.07

./NV

Com

p.va

l�

.13

.07

./NV

Util

ity�

.34

.07

60A

./NL

AM

Invo

lvem

ent

�.2

6.0

7./N

PC.3

2.0

7./N

E(S

R)

Eff

ort

.27

.07

./NE

(SR

)In

volv

emen

t.3

8.0

7./N

P�

.18

.07

./NV

Com

p.va

l.3

6.0

7./N

VU

tility

�.2

1.0

7Sh

in(2

010)

D43

A./N

.U

3A

M�

.2.1

./NU

5A

M�

.46

.1./N

AM

0.1

./NA

MIn

tere

st.1

8.1

./NA

MIn

trin

sic

valu

e�

.06

.141

./N.

PA

pplic

atio

n�

.93

.12

./NP

Defi

nitio

ns.5

7.1

2./N

PT

erm

inol

ogy

�.1

1.1

143

./N.

PG

rade

�.5

8.1

1./N

VU

tility

�.3

.1./N

AU

T�

.18

.1(t

able

cont

inue

s)


Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

Tab

le3

(con

tinu

ed)

Aut

hor

(yea

r)R

epor

tty

peSu

bsam

ple

(n)

Rat

iona

lety

pe

Ack

now

ledg

ene

gativ

eaf

fect

/no

ncon

trol

ling

lang

uage

Uni

nter

estin

gta

skPr

opor

tion

fem

ale

Tim

epo

int

Out

com

eca

tego

ry(b

ehav

iora

lm

easu

re)

Spec

ific

outc

ome

dva

r(d)

./NU

3C

M�

.09

.1./N

U5

CM

�.6

7.1

1./N

CM

�.3

5.1

./NFR

tope

ers

.28

.1./N

FRto

teac

hers

.23

.1./N

PC.4

1.1

44A

./N.

U3

AM

.23

.1./N

U5

AM

0.1

./NA

M.0

6.1

./NA

MIn

tere

st�

.06

.1./N

AM

Intr

insi

cva

lue

�.1

7.1

43./N

.P

App

licat

ion

.05

.1./N

PD

efini

tions

.45

.1./N

PT

erm

inol

ogy

.16

.144

./N.

PG

rade

.34

.1./N

VU

tility

.25

.1./N

AU

T.1

5.1

./NU

3C

M.2

1.1

./NU

5C

M�

.05

.1./N

CM

0.1

./NFR

tope

ers

.31

.1./N

FRto

teac

hers

�.7

6.1

./NPC

0.1

Stei

ngut

etal

.(2

012)

U34

(Bla

ck)

AC

./NH

AM

Inte

rest

.24

.12

./NPC

�.5

5.1

2./N

E(S

R)

.37

.12

./NP

.18

.12

./NV

.26

.12

./NFR

tope

ers

.02

.12

40(W

hite

)A

C./N

HA

Mto

teac

hers

�.2

7.1

./NPC

�.2

5.1

./NE

(SR

).4

4.1

./NP

.09

.1./N

V.2

2.1

./NFR

tote

ache

rs�

.17

.1


Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

Tab

le3

(con

tinu

ed)

Aut

hor

(yea

r)R

epor

tty

peSu

bsam

ple

(n)

Rat

iona

lety

pe

Ack

now

ledg

ene

gativ

eaf

fect

/no

ncon

trol

ling

lang

uage

Uni

nter

estin

gta

skPr

opor

tion

fem

ale

Tim

epo

int

Out

com

eca

tego

ry(b

ehav

iora

lm

easu

re)

Spec

ific

outc

ome

dva

r(d)

Van

stee

enki

ste

etal

.(2

005)

J47

CN

CL

/NL

1MP

Con

cept

ual

�.6

2.0

9N

CL

/NP

�.0

6.0

8N

CL

/N1M

PR

ote

.39

.09

NC

L/N

P.1

3.0

848

CC

L/N

L1M

PC

once

ptua

l�

1.33

.1C

L/N

P�

1.13

.1C

L/N

1MP

Rot

e.2

8.0

8C

L/N

P.3

9.0

948

AN

CL

/NL

1MP

Con

cept

ual

1.22

.1N

CL

/NP

1.18

.1N

CL

/N1M

PR

ote

�.6

4.0

9N

CL

/NP

�.2

.08

48A

CL

/NL

1MP

Con

cept

ual

1.22

.1C

L/N

P1.

18.1

CL

/N1M

PR

ote

�.6

4.0

9C

L/N

P�

.2.0

8V

anst

eeen

kist

eet

al.

(200

4)J

123

CN

CL

/NL

AM

Iden

tified

�.9

9.0

4N

CL

/NA

MIn

trin

sic

reg.

�.8

6.0

4N

CL

/NE

(SR

)�

1.47

.04

NC

L/N

1WE

(B)

Pers

iste

nce

�.3

7.0

3N

CL

/N1M

E(B

)Pe

rsis

tenc

e.4

5.0

3N

CL

/N4M

E(B

)Pe

rsis

tenc

e.4

8.0

3N

CL

/NP

Gra

de�

.48

.03

NC

L/N

PJo

inin

ggy

m0

0N

CL

/NC

M�

.07

.03

NC

L/N

CM

Intr

ojec

ted

�.0

6.0

312

1C

CL

/NL

AM

Iden

tified

�.1

3.0

3C

L/N

AM

Intr

insi

cre

g.�

.65

.03

CL

/NE

(SR

)�

.87

.04

CL

/N1W

E(B

)Pe

rsis

tenc

e�

.4.0

3C

L/N

1ME

(B)

Pers

iste

nce

.38

.03

CL

/N4M

E(B

)Pe

rsis

tenc

e�

.09

.03

CL

/NP

Gra

de�

.34

.03

CL

/NP

Join

ing

gym

00

CL

/NC

M.8

9.0

4(t

able

cont

inue

s)


Thi

sdo

cum

ent

isco

pyri

ghte

dby

the

Am

eric

anPs

ycho

logi

cal

Ass

ocia

tion

oron

eof

itsal

lied

publ

ishe

rs.

Thi

sar

ticle

isin

tend

edso

lely

for

the

pers

onal

use

ofth

ein

divi

dual

user

and

isno

tto

bedi

ssem

inat

edbr

oadl

y.

Tab

le3

(con

tinu

ed)

Aut

hor

(yea

r)R

epor

tty

peSu

bsam

ple

(n)

Rat

iona

lety

pe

Ack

now

ledg

ene

gativ

eaf

fect

/no

ncon

trol

ling

lang

uage

Uni

nter

estin

gta

skPr

opor

tion

fem

ale

Tim

epo

int

Out

com

eca

tego

ry(b

ehav

iora

lm

easu

re)

Spec

ific

outc

ome

dva

r(d)

CL

/NC

MIn

troj

ecte

d�

.39

Documents

The Effect of Rationale Provision on Motivation and ......such beneﬁts. SDT emphasizes the mediating role of enhanced autonomy and competence in explaining why the provision of rationales