Vasquez 2016

Educ Psychol Rev
DOI 10.1007/s10648-015-9329-z
R E V I E W A RT I C L E
Parent Autonomy Support, Academic Achievement,

and Psychosocial Functioning: a Meta-analysis of Research
Ariana C. Vasquez 1 & Erika A. Patall 1 &

Carlton J. Fong 2 & Andrew S. Corrigan 3 & Lisa Pine 1
# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015
Abstract A meta-analysis of 36 studies examining the relations between parent autonomy

support (PAS) and child outcomes indicated that PAS was related to greater academic
achievement and indicators of adaptive psychosocial functioning, including autonomous
motivation, psychological health, perceived competence, engagement, and positive attitudes
toward school, among other outcomes. The strongest relation emerged between PAS and
psychological health. Results indicated that the strength of the PAS relation was stronger when
PAS was reflective of both parents, rather than of just mothers or just fathers among five of six
outcomes for which moderators could be examined. Moderator analyses also suggested that
PAS correlations are stronger when the outcome is better aligned to the predictor and the
relation between PAS and psychosocial outcomes may vary by grade level. Implications for
theory and future research are discussed.
Keywords Parenting . Autonomy support . Academic achievement . Psychological well-being .

Meta-analysis
There is a lot of uncertainty about what makes a Bperfect parent.^ One glance at your local
bookstore and the plethora of parenting books suggests that everyone seems to have an
opinion. From the Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, by Amy Chua to Beyond the Sling: a
Real-Life Guide to Raising Confident, Loving Children the Attachment Parenting Way, by
Mayim Bialik, one could read endless hours and still not have a clear understanding of what
* Ariana C. Vasquez
a.c.vasquez@utmerg.com
1
Department of Educational Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station
D5800, Austin, TX 78712, USA
2
Department of Educational Administration, The University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station
D5400, Austin, TX 78712, USA
3
Department of Psychology, The University of Texas at Austin, 1 University Station A8000, Austin,
TX 78712, USA
Educ Psychol Rev
makes a good parent. However, many people can agree that parents play an important role in
shaping a child’s social, psychological, and academic functioning. The relationship between
parent and child may be one of the most significant relationships over the course of a person’s
life. The early attachment an infant establishes with parents serve as the foundation for happy
and healthy relationships later in life (Burrow-Sanchez and March 2006; Cox 2002) and
predicts later development (Linwood 2006). From background characteristics to parenting
style, the literature consistently supports the notion that parents influence children’s school
performance (Ishak et al. 2012; Rivers et al. 2012). The evidence suggests that children who
form a strong, trusting, and warm relationship with their parents exhibit greater curiosity,
flexibility, and self-reliance in the classroom, as well as higher self-esteem and fewer behav-
ioral problems (Cox 2002; Linwood 2006).
Parents vary greatly in their parenting styles, as well as the extent to which and ways they
become involved in their children’s lives (Pomerantz et al. 2007). In particular, a growing body
of research has suggested that parents who interact with their children in ways that support
their experience of autonomy or feeling that their actions are their own (Deci and Ryan 1987)
may be particularly effective in supporting adaptive psychological, social, and academic
outcomes, including psychosocial functioning (Chirkov and Ryan 2001; Ferguson et al.
2011) and academic achievement (Strage and Brandt 1999).
Parents may use a number of strategies and practices to support their children’s experience
of autonomy. Autonomy supportive environments are characterized primarily by parents’
acknowledgement of children’s perspectives, encouragement of children to experiment, pro-
vision of opportunity to make choices, and minimal use of controlling language and contin-
gencies with children (Deci and Ryan 2012). Autonomy supportive parents nurture inner
motivational resources, rely on flexible language when communicating with their child, and
provide explanatory rationales for why it may be personally important or useful for a child to
engage in a behavior (Reeve 2009). In an interaction about homework, for example, an
autonomy supportive parent might ask for the child’s input, try to understand their child’s
perspective on approaches for solving the homework assignment, and encourage their child to
work in their own way. On the other hand, a controlling parent might tell the child exactly how
to do the homework and ask for little, if any, input from the child in the discussion.
Although a considerable amount of research examining the relations between parent
autonomy support and child psychological, social, and academic functioning has accumulated,
this research has yet to be synthesized in order to assess the magnitude of the relation between
this style of parent interaction and child outcomes. Likewise, little research has explored the
conditions under which parent autonomy support is more or less related to adaptive outcomes.
To address this omission in the literature, we conducted a meta-analysis to examine the relation
between parent autonomy support and a variety of outcomes indicative of children’s adaptive
functioning, including their academic achievement and psychosocial functioning.
The Relations Between Autonomy Supportive Parenting and Child

Outcomes
According to self-determination theory, there are three universal and basic psychological needs
that underlie human motivation and achievement: autonomy, competence, and relatedness
(Deci 1980). The need for autonomy is met when a child feels like their actions are their own.
Competence is met when children feel the task before them is within their skill set, and they
Educ Psychol Rev
can readily master their environment. Relatedness is met when a child feels attached and
accepted by a community, group, or family. Self-determination theory hypothesizes that social
contexts that satisfy these three needs will enhance intrinsic motivation, well-being, and
achievement (Beiswenger and Grolnick 2010; Grolnick et al. 2002; Hui et al. 2011), whereas
contexts that undermine these needs will diminish adaptive functioning (Bronstein et al. 2005;
Jiang et al. 2011). In particular, autonomy reflects Bvolitional, harmonious, and integrated
functioning^ (Joussemet et al. 2008, p. 194) and may be particularly important for motivation
and psychological well-being. Self-determination theory has traditionally assumed that feel-
ings of competence and relatedness will not enhance motivation and well-being, unless
accompanied by a sense of autonomy (Ryan and Deci 2000).
Given the centrality of these psychological needs for human functioning, it would seem
reasonable to assume that when a child’s need for autonomy is supported by parents, the
child’s motivation, psychological well-being, and academic outcomes are likely to be opti-
mally supported. In fact, a great deal of research has supported this notion (Annear and Yates
2010; Grolnick 2009; Joussemet et al. 2008).
Previous scholarship has examined the relation between parent autonomy support
and academic achievement. Using a variety of indicators of achievement, including
grade point average (GPA), individual course grades (Cooper et al. 2000; Soenens and
Vansteenkiste 2005), and standardized test scores (Bronstein et al. 2005; Halpern-
Felsher 1994), researchers have suggested that parental autonomy support has a
positive relation with academic achievement. Pomerantz et al. (2007) asserted that
autonomy supportive parenting may benefit academic achievement because it provides
access to motivational and cognitive resources which can enhance positive engage-
ment in school. While many studies have found a strong relation between parental
autonomy support and school achievement, still other studies have not revealed
significant relations and the strength of the overall relation remains uncertain
(Bronstein et al. 2005; Grolnick et al. 2002; Halpern-Felsher 1994). For example,
although Grolnick et al. (1991) found small positive correlations between children’s
perceptions of both maternal and paternal autonomy support and school grades, these
correlations were not statistically significant. Conducting a meta-analysis can help
determine the magnitude of the relation between parental autonomy support and
achievement.
Similarly, research has suggested that parental autonomy support may be related to
enhanced psychosocial functioning, including autonomous motivation for school
(Bronstein et al. 2005; Dai 1998; Grolnick et al. 2000; Hui et al. 2011), greater
psychological health in the form of greater perceived well-being and self-esteem
(Beiswenger and Grolnick 2010; Ferguson et al. 2011), greater perceived competence,
and control in school related tasks (Grolnick et al. 1991; Soenens and Vansteenkiste
2005), increased engagement and effort (Gagné 2003), more positive attitudes toward
school (Annear and Yates 2010), and reduced extrinsic motivation (Dai 1998). For
example, Borenstein et al. (2005) found that greater parental autonomy support in 5th
grade predicted an enhanced intrinsic motivational orientation toward school in 7th
grade. Lekes et al. (2010) found that parental autonomy support was associated with
greater psychological well-being among both Chinese and North American adolescents.
But again, while much research has supported the positive relation between parental
autonomy support and adaptive psychosocial functioning, results have not been ubiq-
uitously supportive (e.g., Purdie et al. 2004; Annear and Yates 2010).
Educ Psychol Rev
Factors that may Explain Variation in the Relations Between Parental

Autonomy Support and Child Outcomes
Given mixed findings, it seems likely that a number of factors might moderate the influence of
parental autonomy support and potentially explain contradictory findings. Factors such as the
child’s grade level, the parent agent of the autonomy support, the domain of the autonomy
support and outcome, the autonomy support respondent, and the type of outcome measure may
influence the relation between parental autonomy support and students’ adaptive functioning.
The effectiveness of various parenting techniques can change with children’s age, depend-
ing on a child’s developmental level (Grolnick et al. 1997). Parenting involvement that begins
early in children’s lives can extend into the adolescent years (Pomerantz et al. 2007) and have
differing impacts on school performance. In particular, adolescence is typically marked as a
time during which children develop conceptualizations of the self as an autonomous, effica-
cious individual (Hill and Tyson 2009), accompanied by a shift in child–parent relationships
that includes more conflict and renegotiations of authority (Smetana and Asquith 1994).
Looking at grade level as a moderator may shed some light on how the relations between
parental autonomy support and child outcomes change across developmental levels.
Understanding who is doing the autonomy support is also critical. Unfortunately, re-
searchers often assess the parenting style of mothers exclusively and assume that fathers
parent in the same way or simply do not take into account how the parenting styles of mothers
and fathers coexist (Simons and Conger 2007). However, the nature and level of interaction
with children may be different across mothers and fathers. According to Collins and Russell
(1991), fathers’ interaction with children during adolescence tends to be more focused and
limited in nature relative to mothers, geared toward school and athletic achievement, whereas
mothers’ interactions with their children tend to be much more varied. Being able to tease apart
the link between parental autonomy support and child outcome when mothers’, fathers’, or
both parents’ level of autonomy support was assessed may clarify the question of whether
parenting practices have similar relations with child outcomes across the agent of autonomy
support. Nonetheless, we would expect that parental autonomy support is more powerful when
both parents are autonomy supportive.
The autonomy support respondent may also be an important factor in explaining variation
in research findings. That is, self-determination theory assumes that the subjective experiences
of parent autonomy from the perspective of the child ultimately determine child motivation
and engagement (e.g., Ryan and Grolnick 1986). As such, it might matter who is reporting on
the autonomy support of the parent. If parents are self-reporting, they might think they are
acting in an autonomy supportive manner, but the child might perceive the actions differently.
Ultimately, we might expect that larger relations will be revealed when child perceptions are
correlated with outcomes.
Finally, the domain of the autonomy support and outcome may be of particular importance
in explaining variation. Autonomy support may be focused on particular domains of parents’
interaction with children, for example, when interacting over school matters or matters of the
home. As such, we may expect for parental autonomy support to yield particularly strong
relations with child outcomes when the outcomes align with the domain in which support was
given (or measured). That is, parents may become involved in different ways on the school and
home fronts, yielding distinct effects on children across outcomes (Pomerantz et al. 2007). The
extent to which more distally aligned relations, for example, the relation between parental
autonomy support for home matters and children’s educational outcomes or between parental
Educ Psychol Rev
autonomy support for school matters and children’s general psychological well-being, is
unclear.
Need for a Synthesis on Parental Autonomy Support
A large body of literature on the parental autonomy support and its relation with children’s
school and life outcomes has accumulated over the last 25 years, making a synthesis of the
findings timely. Given the conflicting findings across the various outcomes, a meta-analysis
might begin to clarify how autonomy supportive parenting relates to academic achievement
and psychosocial functioning. Further, the literature has suggested that a number of theoretical
and methodological factors, described above, may influence the relation between parental
autonomy support and students’ adaptive functioning. A meta-analysis provides a means to
assess the impact of these variations that occur both within and between studies.
The following predictions were made concerning the relations between parental autonomy
support, autonomous motivation, psychological health, and academic achievement. Parental
autonomy support will have a positive overall relation with both adaptive psychosocial
outcomes and academic achievement. Further, given the discussed findings regarding the
potential moderators, the positive relation of parental autonomy support on adaptive psycho-
social outcomes and academic achievement will be stronger when the following moderators
are present: (a) when the grade level is middle or high school, (b) when the agent of support is
both parents, (c) when the outcome is well aligned with the domain of support, and (d) when
the autonomy support respondent is the student.
Method
Literature Search Procedures
We used an assortment of search strategies to retrieve both published and unpublished work
examining the influence of parental autonomy support. First, computer searches of the
following electronic reference databases were conducted: PsycINFO, Educational Resources
Information Clearinghouse (ERIC), Proquest Dissertations and Theses, and Google Scholar.
For each database, a series of search terms was employed: autonom* and (parent* or mother*
or father* or patern* or matern*), applying the appropriate truncation and Boolean techniques
to achieve an inclusive yet focused search. In addition, Social Sciences Citation Index was
searched for documents that had cited seminal articles on parent autonomy support: Grolnick
and Ryan (1989), Deci and Ryan (1987), Grolnick and Ryan (1987), and Pomerantz et al.
(2007). These searches located a total of 6839 non-duplicate, potentially relevant documents.
To supplement searches of electronic databases and obtain any research that might not be
found through computer searches, the reference sections of relevant documents were examined
for cited works that also might be applicable to the topic. In addition, two direct contact
strategies were employed to ensure items were requested from sources that might have access
to parental autonomy support research not included in the reference and citation databases.
First, requests for unpublished research were sent through the following listservs: Motivation
in Education Special Interest Group from the American Education Research Association,
Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Society of Research in Child Development,
Educ Psychol Rev
and Society of Research in Adolescence. Second, requests were sent via electronic mail to
prominent researchers in the motivation and autonomy support areas that had two or more
reports on the topic regarding access to any relevant data that were not publicly available.
Each title and abstract was examined by the first and third authors. If either researcher
judged the abstract to indicate that the paper contained data relevant to the relation between
parental autonomy support and an achievement-related or psychosocial outcome, the full
document was obtained for further examination.
Criteria for Including Studies
To be included in the meta-analysis, studies were required to meet several criteria. First, all
studies must have examined the relation between parental autonomy support and outcomes
related to either educational or psychosocial functioning among students in preschool through
college.
Academic achievement was the most commonly examined outcome and was measured in
the following ways, performance on a specific academic task, non-standardized test score or
scores (i.e., end of unit test scores, researcher developed test, or teacher developed test),
standardized test scores, course grades, GPA, homework completion, or homework grades.
Psychosocial functioning included assessments of children’s motivation and emotion, such as
autonomous motivation, psychological health, perceived competence, engagement and effort,
perceived control, attitudes toward school, extrinsic motivation, executive functioning, and
self-regulation. All psychosocial functioning measures were self-reported, with the exception
of engagement and effort measures and executive functioning measures, which also included
some behavioral observations. Autonomous motivation included measures of academic intrin-
sic motivation, identified regulation, and the Relative Autonomy Index (RAI), a measure that
weights and subtracts extrinsic forms of motivation from intrinsic and identified regulation. All
autonomous motivation measures reflected motivation that is generated from inside the
individual. Psychological health included both measures of self-esteem and well-being, which
broadly encompassed measures of global life satisfaction, positive attitudes toward self, and
positive emotions toward life in general. The very small minority of studies (<2) had a non-
general assessment of psychological health. Perceived competence was assessed with mea-
sures of whether children feel they are able to succeed at an activity or an academic domain.
Engagement and effort captured cognitive engagement or the use of cognitive strategies (i.e.,
elaboration, linking information to prior knowledge) while engaging in academic and non-
academic tasks and overall effort placed on a task or activity through both self-reports and
observations of the behavior. Perceived control measured children’s understanding of the
control they have over their actions and their success or failure, also often in the academic
domain. Attitudes toward school measured positive school attitudes and school satisfaction.
Extrinsic motivation included measures of academic extrinsic motivation and introjected
motivation. That is, motivation that is exclusively generated from outside the individual.
Executive functioning included measures of higher-order cognitive processes, such as inhib-
itory control and working memory, all through observations of certain behavior such as on
delay of gratification tasks or a baby Stroop test. The single measure of self-regulation
examined five aspects: goal setting, self-efficacy for goal achievement, use of task strategies,
self-motivation, self-monitoring, and self-evaluation.
Autonomy support could have been measured in many ways, including through observa-
tion or self-report by either the child or parent. Although autonomy support was
Educ Psychol Rev
operationalized in a variety of ways across research studies, autonomy support was broadly
defined as parents encouraging and providing children with opportunities for choice making
and opinion exchange.
The studies included in the meta-analysis were all correlational in which the extent of
parental autonomy support and the level of the outcome were measured, generally, as they
naturally occur. The design of the studies must have involved the calculation of a bivariate
correlation coefficient between parental autonomy support and achievement or psychosocial
functioning or provided enough information for us to compute this effect.
Finally, one sampling restriction was placed on the included studies. Studies may include
non-US participants, but only if the study was written in English, given the language
limitations of the research team. All non-English studies were excluded.
Due to the requirements that all studies must include a correlation between a measure of
parental autonomy support (previously defined) and outcomes related to education or psycho-
social functioning (described above), 36 articles were retained for analysis. Most studies were
excluded because they measured some other parenting construct and did not measure specif-
ically autonomy supportive parenting. Some studies were excluded because correlations could
not be obtained from the information provided. Several studies were excluded because their
outcome did not fit within the previously defined outcome list, for example they may have
focused on depressive symptoms. A couple studies were excluded because an experimental
design was used in which parents were trained to be autonomy-supportive or parental
autonomy support was intentionally manipulated. While we would have liked to include and
meta-analyze these studies separately, there were so few studies of this nature that we thought
it best to exclude them from the analyses presented here.
Information Retrieved from Studies
Numerous characteristics of each study were coded when available. These characteristics
encompassed six broad distinctions among studies: (a) the research report, (b) the study
characteristics, (c) the characteristics of the participants, (d) the measure of autonomy support,
(e) the measure of achievement or psychosocial functioning, and (f) the estimate of the relation
between parental autonomy support and the outcome. We used simple bivariate correlation
coefficients, r, as measures of the direction and magnitude of the relation. Table 1 presents the
characteristics coded.
Coder Reliability
Two of four graduate and undergraduate student coders extracted information from each report
selected for inclusion. Discrepancies were noted and discussed by the coders, and if agreement
was not reached, the second author was consulted. The agreement between coders averaged
92 % for all the articles coded across all items before discrepancies were resolved. Evidence
suggests that the process used results in high reliability (Rosenthal 1987).
Methods of Data Integration
Before conducting any statistical integration of the effect sizes, the number of positive and
negative effects was counted and the range of effects was assessed. We examined the
distribution of sample sizes and effect sizes to determine whether any studies contained
Educ Psychol Rev
Table 1 Complete list of information retrieved from studies
Report characteristics
1. Author name
2. Year
3. Type of report (journal article, book, dissertation, thesis, government paper, conference paper, other)
4. Was this peer-reviewed?
Study information
1. Participants location (in the USA, in a country outside the USA)
a. Specify
2. Community type (urban, suburban, rural, cannot tell)
3. Setting (home, school, lab, sport, other)
Participant and sample characteristics
1. Student labels (gifted, above average ability/achievement, average ability/achievement, at risk,
low ability/below grade level, possessing a learning deficit, other)
2. Socioeconomic status (low, low-middle, middle, middle-upper, upper, mixed, no information)
3. Grade level
4. Sex
5. Ethnicities (White, African American, Asian American, Hispanic, Native American, other)
6. Percentages of ethnicities
Parental autonomy support measure characteristics
1. Domain (general, general academics, mathematics, science, English language arts, sports, social studies,
music/arts, other)
2. Agent of support (both parents, mother, father)
3. How was autonomy support measured? (observation, child scale, parent scale)
4. Self-report (existing validated scale, created for the study scale)
5. Name of measure, Cronbach’s alpha
6. Type of autonomy support (general multidimensional, offering choice, attending to student
perspective, creating relevance, providing encouragement, providing rationale, asking what
child wants, providing information feedback, offering hints, other)
Outcome measure
1. Outcome
a. Academic achievement (task performance, non-standardized test score, standardized test score,
course grades, GPA, homework completion, homework grades, other)
b. Psychosocial functioning (intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, integrated regulation,
interjected regulation, extrinsic motivation, enjoyment, interest, situational interest, individual interest,
positive emotions, negative emotions, perceived competence, expectancies for success, perceived
autonomy, cognitive engagement, behavioral engagement, effort, persistence, re-engagement with
domain, positive school attitudes, negative school attitudes, task value, intrinsic value, attainment value,
utility value, self-esteem/self-worth, self-acceptance, self-concept, creativity, executive functioning)
2. Outcome measured (behavior, self-report)
a. Behavioral measure (report from student, observed by teacher, observed by parent, observed by
researcher)
b. Self-report (existing scale, created for the study scale)
3. Name of measure, Cronbach’s alpha
4. Domain of outcome (general non-school, school in general, math, science, English language arts,
social studies, sports, music/arts, other)
5. Delay?
6. Attrition?
Educ Psychol Rev
Table 1 (continued)
Effect size information
1. Total sample size
2. Direction of the effect
3. Effect size
statistical outliers. Grubbs (1950) test was applied, and if outliers were identified,
these values were Winsorized by setting them at the value of their next nearest
neighbor.
Both published and unpublished studies were included in the synthesis. There is
still the possibility that not all studies investigating the relation between parental
autonomy support and achievement or psychosocial functioning were obtained.
Therefore, Duval and Tweedie’s (2000) trim-and-fill procedure was employed. The
trim-and-fill procedure tests whether the distribution of effect sizes used in the
analyses was consistent with that expected if the estimates were normally
distributed.
The inverse-variance weighting procedure was used to calculate average effect sizes
across all comparisons. Ninety-five percent confidence intervals were calculated. If the
confidence interval did not contain zero, then the null hypothesis that parental
autonomy support had no relation to the achievement-related or psychosocial
functioning-related outcome was rejected. Possible moderators of the parental auton-
omy support relation were tested via homogeneity analyses (Cooper and Hedges 1994;
Hedges and Olkin 1985). Meta-regression analysis was conducted to examine the role
of Cronbach’s alpha as a measure of quality of study in explaining variability in
correlations. To hold violations of independence to a minimum while retaining as
much information as possible, we used a shifting unit of analysis approach (see
Cooper 2010 for a description). In this approach, multiple correlations for the same
outcome within a sample are averaged so that each sample contributes only one effect
to the overall analysis or each category of a moderator.
All analyses were conducted twice, once using fixed-effect assumptions and once
employing random-effect assumptions (Hedges and Vevea 1998). In a fixed-effect
model, we assume that the only source of error explaining why the effect size varies
from one study to another is due to sampling error or differences among participants
across studies. However, it is also possible to view studies as containing other random
influences. For example, in a random effect model, a study-level variance component
is assumed to be an additional source of random variation. Rather than opt for a
single model of error, we chose to apply both models to our data. Through
conducting these sensitivity analyses (Greenhouse and Iyengar 1994), we could
examine the effects of different assumptions on the outcomes of the synthesis.
To limit our discussion of these results, we focus on those moderator analyses that
were significant under both fixed-effect and random-effect assumptions. All statistical
analyses were conducted with the comprehensive meta-analysis (CMA) statistical
software package (Borenstein et al. 2005). Moderator analysis was conducted only
when sufficient moderator information was present. Consequently, some outcomes did
not have all moderators analyzed due to a lack of data.
Educ Psychol Rev
Results
Studies Correlating Parental Autonomy Support and Academic Achievement
The literature search uncovered 20 studies that estimated the correlation between
parental autonomy support and a measure of academic achievement. The 20 studies
reported 88 separate correlations based on 29 independent samples of students. Of
those correlations, 25 measured GPA, 34 measured course grades, 28 measured
standardized tests, and 1 measured task performance. Of the 88 correlations, 19 were
from an elementary school sample, 30 were from a middle school sample, 22 were
from a high school sample, 5 were from a college sample, and 12 were from a mixed
grade level sample. Thirty-five of the correlations reported had agent of support as
both parents, 16 correlations reported father as agent of support, and 37 reported
mother as the agent of support. The characteristics of these studies are listed in
Table 2.
The 20 studies were published between the years 1986 and 2011. The sample sizes ranged
from 48 to 805, with a median size of 77. The mean sample size was 174.68, with a standard
deviation of 190.01, suggesting a normal distribution. Grubbs test did not reveal any signif-
icant outliers among sample sizes or correlations. The effect sizes of the correlations ranged
from −.33 to .50. There were 72 positive effects, 15 negative effects, and 1 effect for which the
correlation was zero.
Overall Correlation The weighted average correlation was r = .11 (95 % CI = .08,
.13) under a fixed-error model and r = .12 (95 % CI = .07, .16) under a random-error
model (see Table 3 for overall effects), Q(28) = 94, p < .001. Trim-and-fill analyses
indicated that the relation between parental autonomy support and achievement
would be positive and significantly different from zero, although the magnitude
was reduced slightly, even after imputing six missing values under a fixed-effect
model and seven missing values under a random-effect model. The results of the
trim and fill analysis for achievement, as well as every other outcome, can be found
in Table 4. In addition, a moderator analysis indicated that there was no difference
between the average effects of published and unpublished reports (see Table 6).
Regarding study quality, meta-regressions assessing whether a sample’s Cronbach’s
alpha for the measure of parental autonomy support moderates the correlation with
academic achievement were not significant under fixed or random effects (see
Table 5).
Moderator Analyses Next, additional moderator analyses were performed on the

relation between parental autonomy support and academic achievement using six
moderators: grade level, agent of support, autonomy support respondent, domain of
autonomy support, outcome, and domain of outcome (see Table 6). Three moderators,
autonomy support respondent, agent of support, and domain of autonomy support,
were significant under fixed-effect assumptions, but none of the moderators remained
significant when a random-effect model was implemented. Autonomy support respon-
dent, agent of support, and domain of autonomy support did not significantly explain
variability in the correlations between autonomy support and achievement under either
fixed or random-error assumptions.
Table 2 Characteristics of studies correlating parental autonomy support and reported outcomes
Author (year) Type of Sample Grade level Delay in Autonomy Agent of Domain of Outcome Domain of Correlation
document size outcome support support autonomy outcome
measure respondent support
Educ Psychol Rev
Annear and Yates Journal article 92 Middle school No Parent scale Mother General Positive school General academics +.23
(2010) attitudes
Annear and Yates Journal article 92 Middle school No Parent scale Father General Positive school General academics +.02
(2010) attitudes
Beiswenger and Journal article 142 Middle school No Child scale Mother General Well-being Non-school +.27
Grolnick (2010)
Beiswenger and Journal article 142 Middle school No Child scale Father General Well-being Non-school +.30
Grolnick (2010)
Beiswenger and Journal article 142 Middle school No Child scale Mother General Intrinsic motivation Non-school +.06
Grolnick (2010)
Beiswenger and Journal article 142 Middle school No Child scale Mother General Identified regulation Non-school +.03
Grolnick (2010)
Beiswenger and Journal article 142 Middle school No Child scale Father General Intrinsic motivation Non-school +.12
Grolnick (2010)
Beiswenger and Journal article 142 Middle school No Child scale Father General Identified regulation Non-school +.02
Grolnick (2010)
Beiswenger and Journal article 142 Middle school No Child scale Mother General Relative Autonomy Non-school 0
Grolnick (2010) Index
Beiswenger and Journal article 142 Middle school No Child scale Father General Relative Autonomy Non-school +.07
Grolnick (2010) Index
Beiswenger and Journal article 142 Middle school No Child scale Mother General Perceptions of Non-school +.10
Grolnick (2010) competence
Beiswenger and Journal article 142 Middle school No Child scale Father General Perceptions of Non-school +.14
Grolnick (2010) competence
Beiswenger and Journal article 142 Middle school No Child scale Mother General Extrinsic motivation Non-school −.11
Grolnick (2010)
Beiswenger and Journal article 142 Middle school No Child scale Mother General Interjected regulation Non-school +.08
Grolnick (2010)
Beiswenger and Journal article 142 Middle school No Child scale Father General Extrinsic motivation Non-school −.12
Grolnick (2010)
Table 2 (continued)
Beiswenger and Journal article 142 Middle school No Child scale Father General Interjected regulation Non-school +.03
Grolnick (2010)
Bernier et al. (2010) Journal article 80 None reported Yes Observation Mother General Executive functioning Non-school +.38
Birman and Espino Journal article 120 High school No Parent scale Both parents General GPA General academics −.33
(2007)
Blackwelder (2006) MA Thesis 217 College No Child scale Both parents General Course grades General academics +.15
Blackwelder (2006) MA Thesis 217 College No Child scale Both parents General Perceptions of control General academics +.26
Bronstein et al. (2005) Journal article 77 Middle school No Child scale Mother Academics GPA General academics −.03
Bronstein et al. (2005) Journal article 77 Middle school Yes Child scale Mother Academics GPA General academics −.07
Bronstein et al. (2005) Journal article 77 Middle school No Child scale Mother Academics Standardized test scores General academics −.25
Bronstein et al. (2005) Journal article 77 Middle school Yes Child scale Mother Academics Standardized test scores General academics −.02
Bronstein et al. (2005) Journal article 77 Middle school No Child scale Mother Academics GPA General academics +.24
Bronstein et al. (2005) Journal article 77 Middle school No Child scale Mother Academics Standardized test scores General academics +.18
Bronstein et al. (2005) Journal article 77 Middle school No Child scale, Both parents Academics GPA General academics +.19
parent scale
Bronstein et al. (2005) Journal article 77 Middle school Yes Child scale, Both parents Academics GPA General academics +.15
parent scale
Bronstein et al. (2005) Journal article 77 Middle school No Child scale, Both parents Academics Standardized test scores General academics +.25
parent scale
Bronstein et al. (2005) Journal article 77 Middle school Yes Child scale, Both parents Academics Standardized test scores General academics +.11
parent scale
parent scale
Educ Psychol Rev
Table 2 (continued)
Educ Psychol Rev
parent scale
parent scale
Bronstein et al. (2005) Journal article 77 Middle school Yes Child scale, Both parents Academics GPA General academics +.17
parent scale
parent scale
Bronstein et al. (2005) Journal article 77 Middle school Yes Child scale, Both parents Academics Standardized test scores General academics +.21
parent scale
parent scale
parent scale
Bronstein et al. (2005) Journal article 77 Middle school No Child scale Mother Academics Perceptions of General academics +.23
competence
Bronstein et al. (2005) Journal article 77 Middle school Yes Child scale Mother Academics Perceptions of General academics +.27
competence
Bronstein et al. (2005) Journal article 77 Middle school No Child scale Mother Academics Perceptions of General academics +.28
competence
Bronstein et al. (2005) Journal article 77 Middle school No Child scale Both parents Academics Perceptions of General academics +.27
competence
Bronstein et al. (2005) Journal article 77 Middle school Yes Child scale Both parents Academics Perceptions of General academics +.21
competence
competence
competence
Bronstein et al. (2005) Journal article 77 Middle school Yes Child scale Both parents Academics Perceptions of General academics +.25
competence
Table 2 (continued)
competence
Bronstein et al. (2005) Journal article 77 Middle school No Child scale Mother Academics Intrinsic motivation General academics +.18
Bronstein et al. (2005) Journal article 77 Middle school Yes Child scale Mother Academics Intrinsic motivation General academics +.30
Bronstein et al. (2005) Journal article 77 Middle school No Child scale Mother Academics Intrinsic motivation General academics +.29
Bronstein et al. (2005) Journal article 77 Middle school No Child scale, Both parents Academics Intrinsic motivation General academics +.19
parent scale
Bronstein et al. (2005) Journal article 77 Middle school Yes Child scale, Both parents Academics Intrinsic motivation General academics +.12
parent scale
parent scale
parent scale
Bronstein et al. (2005) Journal article 77 Middle school Yes Child scale, Both parents Academics Intrinsic motivation General academics +.19
parent scale
parent scale
Chirkov and Ryan Journal article 116 High school No Child scale Both parents General Self-esteem General academics +.40
(2001)
Chirkov and Ryan Journal article 120 High school No Child scale Both parents General Self-esteem General academics +.54
(2001)
Chirkov and Ryan Journal article 116 High school No Child scale Both parents General Identified regulation General academics +.38
(2001)
Chirkov and Ryan Journal article 116 High school No Child scale Both parents General Intrinsic motivation General academics +.14
(2001)
Chirkov and Ryan Journal article 120 High school No Child scale Both parents General Identified regulation General academics +.47
(2001)
Chirkov and Ryan Journal article 120 High school No Child scale Both parents General Intrinsic motivation General academics +.16
(2001)
Educ Psychol Rev
Table 2 (continued)
Educ Psychol Rev
Chirkov and Ryan Journal article 116 High school No Child scale Both parents General Extrinsic motivation General academics −.21
(2001)
Chirkov and Ryan Journal article 116 High school No Child scale Both parents General Interjected regulation General academics −.26
(2001)
Chirkov and Ryan Journal article 120 High school No Child scale Both parents General Extrinsic motivation General academics +.06
(2001)
Chirkov and Ryan Journal article 120 High school No Child scale Both parents General Interjected regulation General academics +.15
(2001)
Cleveland et al. Journal article 28 Pre-K Yes Observation Both parents General Engagement Non-school +.38
(2007)
Cooper et al. (2000) Journal article 709 Mixed No Parent scale Both parents Academics Standardized test scores General academics +.15
Cooper et al. (2000) Journal article 709 Mixed No Parent scale Both parents Academics Course grades General academics +.13
Cooper et al. (2000) Journal article 709 Mixed No Parent scale Both parents Academics Positive school attitudes General academics +.02
Dai (1998) Dissertation 153 High school No Child scale Both parents General Course grades General academics +.12
Dai (1998) Dissertation 266 High school No Child scale Both parents General Course grades General academics +.07
Dai (1998) Dissertation 153 High school No Child scale Both parents General Self-esteem General academics +.28
Dai (1998) Dissertation 266 High school No Child scale Both parents General Self-esteem General academics +.15
Dai (1998) Dissertation 153 High school No Child scale Both parents General Identified regulation General academics +.21
Dai (1998) Dissertation 153 High school No Child scale Both parents General Intrinsic motivation General academics +.20
Dai (1998) Dissertation 266 High school No Child scale Both parents General Identified regulation General academics +.41
Dai (1998) Dissertation 266 High school No Child scale Both parents General Intrinsic motivation General academics +.22
Dai (1998) Dissertation 153 High school No Child scale Both parents General Engagement General academics +.19
Dai (1998) Dissertation 266 High school No Child scale Both parents General Engagement General academics +.25
Dai (1998) Dissertation 153 High school No Child scale Both parents General Interjected regulation General academics −.25
Dai (1998) Dissertation 266 High school No Child scale Both parents General Interjected regulation General academics −.31
d’Ailly (2002) Conference Paper 805 Mixed No Child scale Mother General Course grades General academics +.05
d’Ailly (2002) Conference Paper 805 Mixed No Child scale Father General Course grades General academics −.01
Table 2 (continued)
d’Ailly (2002) Conference Paper 740 Mixed No Child scale Mother General Course grades General academics +.01
d’Ailly (2002) Conference Paper 740 Mixed No Child scale Father General Course grades General academics −.01
d’Ailly (2002) Conference Paper 805 Mixed No Child scale Mother General Relative Autonomy General academics +.27
Index
d’Ailly (2002) Conference Paper 805 Mixed No Child scale Father General Relative Autonomy General academics +.10
Index
d’Ailly (2002) Conference Paper 740 Mixed No Child scale Mother General Relative Autonomy General academics +.21
Index
d’Ailly (2002) Conference Paper 740 Mixed No Child scale Father General Relative Autonomy General academics +.07
Index
d’Ailly (2002) Conference Paper 805 Mixed No Child scale Mother General Perceptions of control General academics +.24
d’Ailly (2002) Conference Paper 805 Mixed No Child scale Father General Perceptions of control General academics +.10
d’Ailly (2002) Conference Paper 740 Mixed No Child scale Mother General Perceptions of control General academics +.14
d’Ailly (2002) Conference Paper 740 Mixed No Child scale Father General Perceptions of control General academics −.02
d’Ailly (2002) Conference Paper 805 Mixed No Child scale Mother General Effort General academics +.06
d’Ailly (2002) Conference Paper 805 Mixed No Child scale Father General Effort General academics +.03
d’Ailly (2002) Conference Paper 740 Mixed No Child scale Mother General Effort General academics +.03
d’Ailly (2002) Conference Paper 740 Mixed No Child scale Father General Effort General academics 0
Deslandes et al. (1997) Journal article 525 High school No Child scale Both parents Academics GPA General academics +.13
Downie et al. (2007) Journal article 105 College No Child scale Both parents General Well-being Non-school +.33
Downie et al. (2007) Journal article 105 College No Child scale Mother General Well-being Non-school +.31
Downie et al. (2007) Journal article 105 College No Child scale Father General Well-being Non-school +.30
Downie et al. (2007) Journal article 125 College No Child scale Both parents General Well-being Non-school +.27
Fei-Yin Ng et al. (2004) Journal article 121 Elementary school No Parent scale Mother Academics Course grades General academics −.03
Fei-Yin Ng et al. (2004) Journal article 121 Elementary school No Parent scale Mother Academics Course grades General academics +.12
Fei-Yin Ng et al. Journal article 110 Elementary school No Parent scale Mother Other Task performance Digit search task +.39
(2004)
Educ Psychol Rev
Table 2 (continued)
Educ Psychol Rev
Fei-Yin Ng et al. Journal article 110 Elementary school No Observation Mother Other Engagement Digit search task +.21
(2004)
Ferguson et al. (2011) Journal article 322 High school No Child scale Both parents General Well-being Non-school +.59
Ferguson et al. (2011) Journal article 322 High school No Child scale Both parents General Positive school attitudes General academics +.37
Fulton and Turner Journal article 85 College No Child scale Both parents General GPA General academics −.03
(2008)
Fulton and Turner Journal article 160 College No Child scale Both parents General GPA General academics +.23
(2008)
Fulton and Turner Journal article 85 College No Child scale Both parents General Perceptions of control General academics +.25
(2008)
Fulton and Turner Journal article 160 College No Child scale Both parents General Perceptions of control General academics +.23
(2008)
Gagné (2003) Journal article 118 College No Child scale Both parents General Intrinsic motivation Non-school +.17
Gagné (2003) Journal article 118 College No Child scale Mother General Intrinsic motivation Non-school +.22
Gagné (2003) Journal article 118 College No Child scale Father General Intrinsic motivation Non-school +.23
Gagné (2003) Journal article 118 College No Child scale Both parents General Engagement Non-school +.05
Gagné (2003) Journal article 118 College No Child scale Mother General Engagement Non-school +.22
Gagné (2003) Journal article 118 College No Child scale Father General Engagement Non-school +.16
Gonzalez and Wolters Journal article 140 High school No Child scale Both parents General Relative Autonomy General academics +.29
(2006) Index
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school No Observation Mother General Standardized test scores General academics +.10
Table 2 (continued)
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school No Observation Mother General Course grades General academics +.36
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school No Observation Father General Standardized test scores General academics +.13
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school No Observation Father General Course grades General academics +.06
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school No Observation Both parents General Standardized test scores General academics +.30
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school No Observation Both parents General Course grades General academics +.46
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school No Observation Both parents General Perceptions of General academics +.10
competence
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school No Observation Mother General Perceptions of General academics +.14
competence
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school No Observation Father General Perceptions of General academics +.26
competence
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school No Observation Mother General Identified regulation General academics +.13
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school No Observation Mother General Intrinsic motivation General academics +.10
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school No Observation Father General Identified regulation General academics −.04
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school No Observation Father General Intrinsic motivation General academics +.15
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school No Observation Both parents General Identified regulation General academics −.06
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school No Observation Both parents General Intrinsic motivation General academics +.14
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school Yes Observation Mother General Identified regulation General academics +.11
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school Yes Observation Mother General Intrinsic motivation General academics +.14
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school Yes Observation Father General Identified regulation General academics +.25
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school Yes Observation Father General Intrinsic motivation General academics +.30
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school Yes Observation Both parents General Identified regulation General academics +.12
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school Yes Observation Both parents General Intrinsic motivation General academics +.14
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school No Observation Mother General Extrinsic motivation General academics −.18
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school No Observation Mother General Interjected regulation General academics 0
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school No Observation Father General Extrinsic motivation General academics −.17
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school No Observation Father General Interjected regulation General academics −.12
Educ Psychol Rev
Table 2 (continued)
Educ Psychol Rev
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school No Observation Both parents General Extrinsic motivation General academics −.32
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school No Observation Both parents General Interjected regulation General academics −.13
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school Yes Observation Mother General Extrinsic motivation General academics −.28
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school Yes Observation Mother General Interjected regulation General academics +.06
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school Yes Observation Father General Extrinsic motivation General academics −.17
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school Yes Observation Father General Interjected regulation General academics +.10
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school Yes Observation Both parents General Extrinsic motivation General academics −.27
Grolnick (1986) Dissertation 48 Elementary school Yes Observation Both parents General Interjected regulation General academics +.11
Grolnick and Ryan (1989) Journal article 66 Mixed No Observation Mother General Standardized test scores General academics +.19
Grolnick and Ryan (1989) Journal article 66 Mixed No Observation Father General Standardized test scores General academics +.34
Grolnick and Ryan (1989) Journal article 66 Mixed No Observation Both parents General Standardized test scores General academics +.30
Grolnick and Ryan (1989) Journal article 66 Mixed No Observation Mother General Course grades General academics +.46
Grolnick and Ryan (1989) Journal article 66 Mixed No Observation Father General Course grades General academics +.33
Grolnick and Ryan (1989) Journal article 66 Mixed No Observation Both parents General Course grades General academics +.46
Grolnick and Ryan (1989) Journal article 66 Mixed No Observation Both parents General Relative Autonomy General academics +.36
Index
Grolnick and Ryan (1989) Journal article 66 Mixed No Observation Mother General Relative Autonomy General academics +.22
Index
Grolnick and Ryan (1989) Journal article 66 Mixed No Observation Father General Relative Autonomy General academics +.34
Index
Grolnick and Ryan (1989) Journal article 66 Mixed No Observation Both parents General Perceptions of General academics +.15
competence
Grolnick and Ryan (1989) Journal article 66 Mixed No Observation Mother General Perceptions of General academics +.31
competence
Grolnick and Ryan (1989) Journal article 66 Mixed No Observation Father General Perceptions of General academics +.26
competence
Grolnick and Ryan (1989) Journal article 66 Mixed No Observation Both parents General Perceptions of control Non-school −.27
Grolnick and Ryan (1989) Journal article 66 Mixed No Observation Mother General Perceptions of control Non-school −.19
Table 2 (continued)
Grolnick and Ryan (1989) Journal article 66 Mixed No Observation Father General Perceptions of control Non-school −.27
Grolnick et al. (1991) Journal article 456 Elementary school No Child scale Mother General Course grades General academics +.06
Grolnick et al. (1991) Journal article 456 Elementary school No Child scale Mother General Standardized test scores General academics +.10
Grolnick et al. (1991) Journal article 456 Elementary school No Child scale Father General Course grades General academics +.03
Grolnick et al. (1991) Journal article 456 Elementary school No Child scale Father General Standardized test scores General academics +.02
Grolnick et al. (1991) Journal article 456 Elementary school No Child scale Mother General Relative Autonomy Index General academics +.23
Grolnick et al. (1991) Journal article 456 Elementary school No Child scale Father General Relative Autonomy Index General academics +.20
Grolnick et al. (1991) Journal article 456 Elementary school No Child scale Mother General Perceptions of competence General academics +.27
Grolnick et al. (1991) Journal article 456 Elementary school No Child scale Father General Perceptions of competence General academics +.20
Grolnick et al. (2000) Journal article 60 Middle school No Child scale Mother Academics Course grades English language arts +.05
Grolnick et al. (2000) Journal article 60 Middle school No Child scale Mother Academics Course grades Math −.18
Grolnick et al. (2000) Journal article 60 Middle school Yes Child scale Mother Academics Course grades English language arts −.04
Grolnick et al. (2000) Journal article 60 Middle school Yes Child scale Mother Academics Course grades Math 0
Grolnick et al. (2000) Journal article 60 Middle school No Child scale Mother Academics Course grades English language arts +.47
Grolnick et al. (2000) Journal article 60 Middle school No Child scale Mother Academics Course grades Math +.13
Grolnick et al. (2000) Journal article 60 Middle school No Child scale Mother Academics Self-esteem Non-school +.14
Grolnick et al. (2000) Journal article 60 Middle school Yes Child scale Mother Academics Self-esteem Non-school −.05
Grolnick et al. (2000) Journal article 60 Middle school No Child scale Mother Academics Self-esteem Non-school +.22
Grolnick et al. (2000) Journal article 60 Middle school No Child scale Mother Academics Perceptions of competence General academics −.15
Grolnick et al. (2000) Journal article 60 Middle school Yes Child scale Mother Academics Perceptions of competence General academics +.01
Grolnick et al. (2000) Journal article 60 Middle school No Child scale Mother Academics Perceptions of competence General academics −.01
Grolnick et al. (2000) Journal article 60 Middle school No Child scale Mother Academics Perceptions of control Non-school +.21
Grolnick et al. (2000) Journal article 60 Middle school Yes Child scale Mother Academics Perceptions of control Non-school +.16
Grolnick et al. (2000) Journal article 60 Middle school No Child scale Mother Academics Perceptions of control Non-school +.36
Educ Psychol Rev
Table 2 (continued)
Educ Psychol Rev
Grolnick et al. (2000) Journal article 60 Middle school No Child scale Mother Academics Autonomous motivation General academics +.35
Grolnick et al. (2000) Journal article 60 Middle school Yes Child scale Mother Academics Autonomous Motivation General academics +.10
Grolnick et al. (2000) Journal article 60 Middle school No Child scale Mother Academics Autonomous motivation General academics +.09
Grolnick et al. (2002) Journal article 60 Elementary school No Observation Mother Other (verbal) Course Grades General academics −.33
Grolnick et al. (2002) Journal article 60 Elementary school No Observation Mother Other (verbal) Course grades General academics +.37
Grolnick et al. (2002) Journal article 60 Elementary school No Observation Mother Other (non-verbal) Course grades General academics −.33
Grolnick et al. (2002) Journal article 60 Elementary school No Observation Mother Other (non-verbal) Course grades General academics +.34
Halpern-Felsher (1994) Dissertation 66 High school No Observation Father Academics GPA General academics +.34
Halpern-Felsher (1994) Dissertation 66 High school No Observation Mother Academics GPA General academics +.50
Halpern-Felsher (1994) Dissertation 66 High school No Observation Father Academics Standardized test scores Math +.24
Halpern-Felsher (1994) Dissertation 66 High school No Observation Mother Academics Standardized test scores Math +.30
Halpern-Felsher (1994) Dissertation 66 High school No Observation Father Academics Standardized test scores English language arts +.19
Halpern-Felsher (1994) Dissertation 66 High school No Observation Mother Academics Standardized test scores English language arts −.07
Halpern-Felsher (1994) Dissertation 66 High school No Observation Father Academics GPA General academics +.13
Halpern-Felsher (1994) Dissertation 66 High school No Observation Mother Academics GPA General academics +.06
Halpern-Felsher (1994) Dissertation 66 High school No Observation Father Academics Standardized test scores Math +.27
Halpern-Felsher (1994) Dissertation 66 High school No Observation Mother Academics Standardized test scores Math +.21
Halpern-Felsher (1994) Dissertation 66 High school No Observation Father Academics Standardized test scores English language arts +.32
Halpern-Felsher (1994) Dissertation 66 High school No Observation Mother Academics Standardized test scores English language arts +.19
Halpern-Felsher (1994) Dissertation 66 High school No Observation Father Academics Self-esteem Non-school +.20
Halpern-Felsher (1994) Dissertation 66 High school No Observation Mother Academics Self-esteem Non-school +.40
Halpern-Felsher (1994) Dissertation 66 High school No Observation Father Academics Self-esteem Non-school +.17
Halpern-Felsher (1994) Dissertation 66 High school No Observation Mother Academics Self-esteem Non-school +.04
Hui et al. (2011) Journal article 461 High school No Child scale Mother General Academics Perceptions of competence General academics +.31
Hui et al. (2011) Journal article 461 High school No Child scale Both parents General Academics Intrinsic motivation General academics +.23
Jiang et al. (2011) Journal article 218 High school No Child scale Both parents Academics GPA General academics +.10
Table 2 (continued)
Jiang et al. (2011) Journal article 271 High school No Child scale Both parents Academics GPA General academics +.22
Jiang et al. (2011) Journal article 218 High school No Child scale Both parents Academics Self-esteem Non-school +.33
Jiang et al. (2011) Journal article 271 High school No Child scale Both parents Academics Self-esteem Non-school +.18
Jiang et al. (2011) Journal article 218 High school No Child scale Both parents Academics Relative Autonomy Index General academics +.23
Jiang et al. (2011) Journal article 271 High school No Child scale Both parents Academics Relative Autonomy Index General academics +.35
Joussemet et al. (2005) Journal article 132 Elementary school No Observation Mother General Standardized test scores Math −.06
Joussemet et al. (2005) Journal article 132 Elementary school No Observation Mother General Standardized test scores English language arts +.16
Lekes et al. (2010) Journal article 567 High school No Child scale Both parents General Well-being Non-school +.43
Lekes et al. (2010) Journal article 515 High school No Child scale Both parents General Well-being Non-school +.36
Matte-Gagne and Bernier Journal article 53 None reported Yes Observation Mother General Executive functioning - Non-school +.46
(2011) conflict
Matte-Gagne and Bernier Journal article 53 None reported Yes Observation Mother General Executive functioning— Non-school +.32
(2011) impulse control
Purdie et al. (2004) Journal article 214 High school No Parent scale Both parents General Perceptions of Non-school +.17
competence
Purdie et al. (2004) Journal article 214 High school No Child scale Both parents General Perceptions of Non-school +.04
competence
Purdie et al. (2004) Journal article 214 High school No Child scale Both parents General Self-regulation General academics +.26
Purdie et al. (2004) Journal article 214 High school No Parent scale Both parents General Self-regulation General academics +.17
Robbins (1995) Dissertation 177 College No Child scale Both parents General Self-esteem Non-school +.29
Robbins (1995) Dissertation 177 College No Child scale Mother General Self-esteem Non-school +.25
Robbins (1995) Dissertation 177 College No Child scale Father General Self-esteem Non-school +.25
Sheldon et al. (2009) Journal article 1289 High school No Child scale Mother General Intrinsic motivation General academics +.17
Sheldon et al. (2009) Journal article 1289 High school No Child scale Father General Intrinsic motivation General academics +.08
Sheldon et al. (2009) Journal article 1289 High school No Child scale Mother General Perceptions of competence General academics +.24
Sheldon et al. (2009) Journal article 1289 High school No Child scale Father General Perceptions of competence General academics +.24
Educ Psychol Rev
Table 2 (continued)
Educ Psychol Rev
Soenens and Vansteenkiste Journal article 328 High school No Child scale Mother General GPA General academics +.14
(2005)
Soenens and Vansteenkiste Journal article 328 High school No Child scale Father General GPA General academics +.09
(2005)
Soenens and Vansteenkiste Journal article 285 High school No Child scale Mother General GPA General academics +.13
(2005)
Soenens and Vansteenkiste Journal article 285 High school No Child scale Father General GPA General academics +.13
(2005)
Soenens and Vansteenkiste Journal article 328 High school No Child scale Mother General Relative Autonomy Index General academics +.14
(2005)
Soenens and Vansteenkiste Journal article 328 High school No Child scale Mother General Relative Autonomy Index Non-school +.15
(2005)
Soenens and Vansteenkiste Journal article 328 High school No Child scale Father General Relative Autonomy Index General academics +.15
(2005)
Soenens and Vansteenkiste Journal article 328 High school No Child scale Father General Relative Autonomy Index Non-school +.10
(2005)
Soenens and Vansteenkiste Journal article 285 High school No Child scale Mother General Relative Autonomy Index General academics +.24
(2005)
Soenens and Vansteenkiste Journal article 285 High school No Child scale Mother General Relative Autonomy Index Non-school +.26
(2005)
Soenens and Vansteenkiste Journal article 285 High school No Child scale Father General Relative Autonomy Index General academics +.16
(2005)
Soenens and Vansteenkiste Journal article 285 High school No Child scale Father General Relative Autonomy Index Non-school +.23
(2005)
Soenens and Vansteenkiste Journal article 328 High school No Child scale Mother General Perceptions of competence General academics +.14
(2005)
Soenens and Vansteenkiste Journal article 285 High school No Child scale Mother General Perceptions of competence Non-school +.09
(2005)
Soenens and Vansteenkiste Journal article 328 High school No Child scale Father General Perceptions of competence General academics +.13
(2005)
Table 2 (continued)
Soenens and Vansteenkiste Journal article 285 High school No Child scale Father General Perceptions of competence Non-school +.09
(2005)
Stiller and Ryan (1992) Conference Paper 624 Middle school No Child scale Both parents General Perceptions of control Non-school +.22
Stiller and Ryan (1992) Conference Paper 624 Middle school No Child scale Both parents General Engagement General academics +.24
Stiller and Ryan (1992) Conference Paper 624 Middle school No Child scale Both parents General Intrinsic motivation General academics +.15
Strage and Brandt (1999) Journal article 236 College No Child scale Both parents General Overall GPA General academics +.15
Strage and Brandt (1999) Journal article 236 College No Child scale Both parents General Major GPA General academics +.03
Wang (2006) Dissertation 433 Middle school No Child scale Both parents General Course grades General academics +.14
Wang (2006) Dissertation 433 Middle school Yes Child scale Both parents General Course grades General academics +.17
Wang (2006) Dissertation 373 Middle school Yes Child scale Both parents General Course grades General academics +.28
Wang (2006) Dissertation 433 Middle school Child scale Both parents General Well-being Non-school +.47
Wang (2006) Dissertation 433 Middle school Yes Child scale Both parents General Well-being Non-school +.45
Wang (2006) Dissertation 433 Middle school No Child scale Both parents General Well-being Non-school +.44
Wang (2006) Dissertation 373 Middle school Child scale Both parents General Well-being Non-school +.47
Wang (2006) Dissertation 373 Middle school Yes Child scale Both parents General Well-being Non-school +.50
Wang (2006) Dissertation 373 Middle school No Child scale Both parents General Well-being Non-school +.55
Educ Psychol Rev
Educ Psychol Rev
Table 3 Results of overall analyses examining the correlation between parental autonomy support and reported
outcomes
Outcome k r 95 % confidence interval Q
Low estimate High estimate
Academic achievement 29 .11*** (.12***) .08 (.07) .13 (.16) 94.00***

Autonomous motivation 22 .19** (.20**) .17 (.17) .21 (.24) 35.88*
Psychological health 21 .38***(.36***) .36 (.30) .41 (.42) 98.70***
Perceived competence 10 .21*** (.20***) .17 (.14) .25 (.25) 15.92
Engagement and effort 8 .12*** (.16**) .09 (.07) .16 (.24) 30.85***
Perceived control 7 .15*** (.16***) .12 (.09) .18 (.23) 26.50**
Attitudes toward school 6 .22*** (.23**) .16 (.08) .28 (.37) 29.63***
Extrinsic motivation 6 .22*** (.23**) .16 (.08) .28 (.37) 29.63***
Executive functioning 2 .32** (.32**) .16 (.16) .47 (.47) .58
Self-regulation 1 .22***(.22***) .08 (.08) .34 (.34) –
Note. Random-effect Q values and point estimates are presented in parentheses

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.0001
Studies Correlating Parental Autonomy Support and Autonomous Motivation
The literature search uncovered 16 studies that estimated the correlation between parental
autonomy support and autonomous motivation. The 16 studies reported 65 separate correla-
tions based on 22 independent samples of students (see Table 2). Of those correlations, 12
measured identified regulation as the outcome, 30 measured intrinsic motivation as the
outcome, and 23 were measured using the RAI, which is a composite of intrinsic and identified
motivation weighted against extrinsic motivation. Fourteen of the correlations represented an
elementary school sample, 19 represented a middle school sample, 21 represented a high
Table 4 Trim-and-fill results
Outcome Fixed effects trim-and-fill Random effects trim-and-fill
Academic achievement 6 missing values 7 missing values

FE: r=.08; CI=.06/.11 FE: r=.08; CI=.06/.10
RE: r=.08; CI=.03/.13 RE: r=.07; CI=.03/.12
Autonomous motivation None missing None missing
Psychological health None missing None missing
Perceived competence None missing None missing
Engagement and effort 4 missing values 1 missing value
FE: r=.05; CI=.02/.08 FE: r=.12; CI=.08/.16
RE: r=.07; CI=−.03/.16 RE: r=.15; CI=.06/.23
Perceived control 2 missing values 2 missing values
FE: r=.14; CI=.11/.17 FE: r=.14; CI=.11/.17
RE: r=.14; CI=.07/.20 RE: r=.14; CI=.07/.20
Attitudes toward school None missing None missing
Extrinsic motivation None missing None missing
Educ Psychol Rev
Table 5 Meta-regression analysis for Cronbach’s alpha
Outcome k Fixed effects Random effects
β CI β CI
Academic achievement
Measures of parental autonomy support 13 −.03 −.29/.24 −.13 −.62/.36
Autonomous motivation
Measures of parental autonomy support 19 −.30* −.54/−.05 −.17 −.59/.26
Measures of autonomous motivation 13 .28** .13/.42 .30 −.03/.63
Psychological health
Measures of parental autonomy support 14 1.77** 1.22/2.31 1.65** .79/2.5
Measures of psychological health 13 −.36 −1.00/.28 −.05 −1.06/.96
Perceived competence
Measures of perceived competence 6 −.01 −.22/.20 −.05 −.60/.50
Perceived control
Measures of parental autonomy support 8 .37* .001/.73 .37* .001/.73
Measures of perceived control 10 −.19 −1.28/.91 −.48 −2.37/1.40
*p<.05; **p<.001
school sample, 3 represented a college sample, and 1 represented a mixed grade level sample.
Twenty-five of the correlations had both parents as the agent of support, while 17 reported the
father and 23 reported the mother. The 16 studies were published between the years 1986 and
2011. The sample sizes ranged from 48 to 1289, with a median size of 120. The mean sample
size was 223.80, with a standard deviation of 266.59. Grubbs test revealed a significant sample
size outlier (a sample of 1289 was Winsorized to 805). There were no significant outliers
among the correlations. The effects sizes of the correlations ranged from −.06 to .47. There
were 2 negative effects and 63 positive effects.
Overall Correlation The weighted average correlation was r=.19 (95 % CI=.17, .21)
with a fixed-error model and r=.20 (95 % CI=.17, .24) with a random-error model
(see Table 3 for overall effects), Q(21)=35.88, p=.02. No additional correlations were
imputed under either error model for trim-and-fill analyses (see Table 4).There was no
difference between the average effects of published and unpublished reports (see
Table 7). Meta-regressions (Table 5) examining whether Cronbach’s alpha for the
measure of parental autonomy support moderated the correlation with autonomous
motivation were significant under fixed but not under random effects, suggesting that
the correlation decreased with more reliable measurement of parent autonomy support.
Results from the meta-regressions assessing the role of Cronbach’s alpha for the
measures of autonomous motivation were also significant under fixed but not under
random effects, but this time suggesting that the correlation increased with more
reliable measurement of autonomous motivation.
Moderator Analyses Next seven additional moderator analyses were conducted for grade
level, autonomy support respondent, agent of support, domain of autonomy support, outcome,
domain of outcome, and predictor-outcome domain alignment.
Educ Psychol Rev
Table 6 Results of analyses examining the correlation between parent autonomy support and academic
achievement
Moderators k r 95 % confidence interval Qb
Publication type
Published 19 .12*** (.11***) .08 (.05) .15 (.17) .84 (.15)
Unpublished 10 .09*** (.13***) .06 (.06) .13 (.19)
Grade level
Elementary (K–4) 7 .10*** (.12) .03 (−.04) .16 (.26) 6.60 (4.30)
Middle school (5–8) 4 .20*** (.20***) .14 (.14) .26 (.26)
High school (9–12) 10 .11*** (.10**) .07 (.02) .15 (.18)
College 4 .13*** (.13**) .05 (.03) .20 (.21)
Autonomy support respondent
Child scale 18 .10*** (.11***) .07 (.07) .13 (.15) 6.37* (2.18)
Parent scale 3 .07* (−.04) 0 (−.32) .13 (.23)
Observation 8 .20*** (.19*) .12 (.03) .27 (.35)
Agent of support
Both parents 16 .14*** (.14***) .11 (.08) .17 (.20) 17.95*** (1.73)
Mother 16 .08*** (.12***) .05 (.05) .12 (.18)
Father 9 .04* (.08*) .01 (.02) .08 (.15)
Domain of autonomy support
General 16 .08*** (.09***) .05 (.03) .11 (.14) 7.79** (3.47)
Academics 10 .15*** (.15***) .11 (.11) .19 (.19)
Outcome
Course grades/GPA 35 .09*** (.12***) .07 (.07) .11 (.17) 2.08 (.11)
Standardized test scores 13 .12*** (.13***) .08 (.08) .16 (.18)
Domain of outcome
English language arts 4 .18** (.18**) .07 (.07) .28 (.28) 1.89 (1.23)
Math 4 .08 (.11) −.03 (−.07) .19 (.27)
General academics 26 .10*** (.11***) .08 (.06) .13 (.16)
Note. Random-effect Q values and point estimates are presented in parentheses. Qb is an index of the
heterogeneity between the group mean effect sizes. If Qb is significant, it indicates that the mean effect sizes
across categories differ by more than sampling error; that is there is a statistical difference between groups
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
Four moderator analysis were significant under both fixed and random-effect assumptions,
agent of support, domain of autonomy support, domain of outcome, and predictor-outcome
domain alignment (see Table 7). Pairwise comparisons revealed that the average correlation
between parental autonomy support and autonomous motivation for mothers was significantly
different from the average correlation for fathers under both fixed, Q(1)=18.01, p<.001 and
random assumptions, Q(1)=8.56, p<.05. In addition, the average correlation was significantly
greater when parental autonomy support reflected both parents’ support compared with only
mothers (fixed-effect (FE): Q(1)=5.56, p<.05; random effects (RE): Q(1)=4.63, p<.05) or
only fathers (FE: Q(1)=33.70, p<.001; RE: Q(1)=29.28, p<.001). In addition, moderator
analyses revealed that the correlation between parental autonomy support and children’s
Educ Psychol Rev
Table 7 Results of analyses examining the correlation between parental autonomy support and autonomous
motivation
Publication type
Published 16 .19** (.21**) .16 (.16) .28 (.25) .04 (.23)
Unpublished 6 .18** (.19**) .14 (.14) .22 (.24)
Grade level
Elementary and middle school (K–8) 10 .17** (.17**) .13 (.13) .20 (.24) 2.19 (4.04*)
High school (9–12) 10 .20** (.24**) .17 (.17) .24 (.30)
Child scale 27 .19** (.20**) .17 (.16) .21 (.24) .28 (.49)
Observation 7 .16** (.16**) .05 (.05) .26 (.26)
Agent of support
Both parents 13 .26** (.26**) .22 (.22) .30 (.30) 37.80** (30.12**)
Mother 13 .20** (.20**) .17 (.15) .23 (.24)
Father 11 .11** (.12**) .08 (.08) .14 (.15)
General 29 .18** (.19**) .16 (.15) .20 (.22) 7.20** (5.53*)
Academic 5 .28** (.28**) .21 (.21) .35 (.35)
Outcome
Intrinsic motivation 15 .16** (.16**) .13 (.13) .19 (.19) 7.54* (2.53)
Relative Autonomy Index 10 .20** (.20**) .16 (.15) .23 (.25)
Identified regulation 9 .25** (.22**) .19 (.08) .31 (.34)
Domain of outcome
General 7 .13** (.13**) .08 (.06) .18 (.19) 5.58* (5.88*)
Academic 28 .20** (.22**) .18 (.18) .22 (.25)
Predictor-outcome domain alignment
Both academic 5 .28** (.28**) .21 (.21) .35 (.35) 11.01** (10.06**)
Both general 7 .13** (.13**) .08 (.06) .18 (.19)
Unmatched 24 .19** (.20**) .16 (.16) .21 (.24)
*p<.05; **p<.01
autonomous motivation was greater when parents’ support was specific to the academic
domain relative to in general. This same pattern held for the domain of the outcome measure,
results revealed that the correlation between parental autonomy support and children’s auton-
omous motivation was greater when the autonomous motivation was focused on academics
versus life in general, this general grouping included examining autonomous motivation in
general life, friendships, work, and non-academic tasks. Moderator analyses revealed that the
average correlation between parental autonomy support and children’s autonomous motivation
varied significantly depending on whether the domain of the predictor and outcome matched.
Most commonly, domains were mismatched by the parental autonomy support predictor being
for life in general and the autonomous motivation outcome being specific to the academic
domain. Pairwise comparisons revealed that the average correlation between parental auton-
omy support and autonomous motivation when both domains focused on academics was
Educ Psychol Rev
significantly greater than the average correlation when both domains focused on life in general,
under fixed Q(1)=10.98, p<.01, and random assumptions, Q(1)=10.01, p<.01. In addition,
the average correlation was significantly greater when both the predictor and outcome focused
on the academic domain compared with when domains were mismatched (FE: Q(1)=5.92,
p<.05; RE: Q(1)=3.65, p=.05). Surprisingly, the average correlation was greater when
domains were mismatched compared with when both domains focused on life in general
(FE: Q(1)=3.73, p=.05; RE: Q(1)=3.90, p=.05).
Studies Correlating Parental Autonomy Support and Psychological Health
The literature search uncovered 11 studies that estimated the correlation between parental
autonomy support and a measure of psychological health. The 11 studies reported 34 separate
correlations based on 21 separate samples. Of those correlations, 18 measured well-being and
16 measured self-esteem. Eleven correlations were from middle school grade levels, 16 were
from high school, and 7 were from college. Twenty-one correlations reported the agent of
support as both parents, while five correlations were for father as agent of support and eight
correlations were for mother as the agent of support. The characteristics of these studies are
listed in Table 2.
The 11 studies appeared between the years 1994 and 2011. The sample sizes ranged from
60 to 567, with a median size of 142. The mean sample size was 205.56, with a standard
deviation of 148.03, suggesting a normal distribution. The Grubbs test did not reveal any
significant outliers in samples sizes or correlations. The effects sizes of the correlations ranged
from −.05 to .59. There were 1 negative effect and 33 positive effects.
under a fixed-error model and r=.36 (95 % CI=.30, .42) under a random-error model
(see Table 3 for overall effects), Q(20)=98.70, p<.001. Trim-and-fill analyses indi-
cated that no additional correlations were missing. There was no difference between
the average effects of published and unpublished reports (see Table 8). Meta-
regressions (see Table 5) examining whether a sample’s Cronbach’s alphas for the
measure of parental autonomy support moderated the correlation between parental
autonomy support and psychological health were significant under both fixed and
random effects, suggesting that the magnitude of the correlation increased with more
internally consistent measures of parental autonomy support. Results from the meta-
regressions assessing whether a sample’s Cronbach’s alpha for the measure of psy-
chological health moderated the correlation between parental autonomy support and
psychological health were not significant under fixed or random effects.
Moderator Analyses Next, moderator analyses on the relation between parental autonomy
support and psychological health were conducted using five moderators: grade level, agent of
support, autonomy support respondent, domain of autonomy support, and outcome. All five
moderator analyses were significant under fixed-effects assumptions, and three moderators,
agent of support, domain of autonomy support, and outcome, remained significant when a
random-effect model was implemented (see Table 8). More specifically, moderator analyses
revealed that the correlation between parental autonomy support and children’s psychological
health was greater for psychological well-being relative to self-esteem outcomes. Well-being
Educ Psychol Rev
Table 8 Results of analyses examining the correlation between parental autonomy support and psychological
health
Publication type
Published 14 .39*** (.39***) .36 (.32) .43 (.45) 1.28 (1.02)
Unpublished 7 .36*** (.31***) .32 (.18) .41 (.43)
Grade level
Middle school (5–8) 4 .44*** (.38***) .39 (.25) .49 (.51) 10.13* (2.9)
High school (9–12) 14 .38*** (.37***) .35 (.29) .41 (.45)
College 3 .28*** (.28***) .19 (.19) .37 (.37)
Child scale 19 .39*** (.37***) .36 (.31) .41 (.43) 5.03* (2.84)
Observation 2 .21* (.21*) .03 (.01) .36 (.39)
Agent of support
Both parents 17 .40*** (.39***) .37 (.33) .42 (.45) 23.20*** (9.93*)
Mother 6 .25*** (.25***) .17 (.16) .32 (.33)
Father 5 .26*** (.26***) .18 (.18) .33 (.33)
General 16 .41*** (.40***) .38 (.34) .44 (.46) 22.73*** (10.07**)
Academics 5 .23*** (.23***) .16 (.14) .30 (.31)
Outcome
Well-being 11 .44*** (.43***) .41 (.37) .47 (.49) 39.09*** (9.37*)
Self-esteem 10 .27*** (.28***) .22 (.19) .31 (.36)
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
was characterized by global life satisfaction, while self-esteem encompasses more positive
attitudes toward the self and feelings of self-wroth. Also in line with our hypotheses,
psychological health was greater when support was aligned with the outcome and for the
general domain rather than focused on the academic domain and schoolwork. Pairwise
comparisons revealed that the average correlation for mothers was not different from the
average correlation for fathers under either fixed, Q(1)=.02, p=.88, or random error assump-
tions, Q(1)=.03, p=.87. However, the average correlation between parental autonomy support
and psychological health was significantly greater when both parents were reported as the
agent of support compared with when only mothers were reported (FE: Q(1)=14.31, p<.001;
RE: Q(1)=7.25, p<.01) or only fathers were reported (FE: Q(1)=97.16, p<.001; RE:
Q(1)=6.82, p<.01).
Studies Correlating Parental Autonomy Support and Perceived Competence
The literature search revealed ten studies that estimated the correlation between parental
autonomy support and perceptions of competence. The 10 studies reported 31 separate
correlations of perceived competence based on 10 samples (see Table 2). Twenty-three of
the correlations reported an elementary or middle school sample, and eight reported a high
Educ Psychol Rev
school sample. For agent of support, 11 correlations reported both parents as the agent of
support, while 7 reported the father and 13 reported the mother. The studies were published
between 1986 and 2011. The Grubbs test revealed one significant outlier among sample sizes
(1289 Winsorized to 461) and one significant outlier among the correlations (correlation of
−.15 Winsorized to −.01). The effect sizes ranged from −.15 to .31.
Overall Correlation The weighted average correlation was r=.21 (95 % CI=.17, .25) with a
fixed-error model and r=.20 (95 % CI=.14, .25) with a random-error model (see Table 3 for
overall effects), Q(9)=15.92, p=.07. Trim-and-fill analyses suggest no values were missing.
There was no difference between the average effects of published and unpublished reports (see
Table 9). Meta-regression results (see Table 5) suggested that the Cronbach’s alphas for the
measure of perceived competence did not significantly explain variability in the correlation
with parental autonomy support under fixed or random effects. Lack of variability limited the
ability to run the analysis examining the role of the Cronbach’s alphas for the measure of
parental autonomy support.
Moderator Analyses Moderator analyses on the relation between parental autonomy sup-
port and perceived competence were conducted using two moderators: grade level and agent of
support. Moderator tests were conducted despite a non-significant test of heterogeneity, given
our moderator findings for other outcomes. However, neither moderator was significant under
either model (see Table 9).
Studies Correlating Parental Autonomy Support and Engagement or Effort
The literature search uncovered six studies that estimated the correlation between parental
autonomy support and engagement and effort. The 6 studies reported 12 separate correlations
based on 8 samples of students (see Table 2). Five of the correlations were from an elementary
school sample, one was from a middle school, two were high school, three were college, and
one correlation did not report a grade level. For the agent of support, five correlations were for
both parents as agent of support, while three were father and four were mother. The six studies
were published between 1992 and 2007. The sample sizes ranged from 28 to 805, with a
median size of 209.50. The mean sample size was 385.42, with a standard deviation of 322.90.
The effect sizes ranged from 0 to .38, all were positive. Grubbs test did not reveal any
significant outliers.
Overall Correlation The weighted average correlation was r=.12 (95 % CI=.09, .16) under
a fixed-error model and r=.16 (95 % CI=.07, .24) under a random-error model (see Table 3 for
overall effects), Q(7)=30.85, p<.001. Trim-and-fill analyses suggested 1 value might be
missing, though the relation between parental autonomy support and engagement/effort would
remain statistically significant (see Table 4). There was no difference between the average
effects of published and unpublished reports (see Table 9). It was not possible to run meta-
regression moderator analysis on engagement and effort because there were not enough studies
for the number of covariates.
Moderator Analyses Two additional moderator analyses were conducted: autonomy sup-
port respondent and agent of support (see Table 9). One moderator analysis was significant
Educ Psychol Rev
Table 9 Results of analyses examining the correlation between parental autonomy support and perceived
competence, engagement and effort, and perceived control
Perceived competence
Publication type
Published 9 .21*** (.20***) .17 (.14) .25 (.26) .09 (.04)
Unpublished 1 .17 (.17) −.12 (−.12) .43 (.43)
Grade level
Elementary and middle (K–8) 6 .20*** (.19***) .13 (.12) .26 (.26) .54 (.03)
High school (9–12) 4 .22*** (.20***) .19 (.11) .26 (.29)
Agent of support
Both parents 6 .25*** (.24***) .18 (.15) .31 (.31) 1.13 (.98)
Father 6 .21*** (.20***) .17 (.15) .25 (.25)
Mother 8 .21*** (.18***) .17 (.12) .25 (.25)
Engagement and effort
Publication type
Published 3 .20** (.20**) .08 (.08) .31 (.31) 1.65 (.45)
Unpublished 5 .11** (.14*) .08 (.04) .15 (.25)
Child scale 6 .12*** (.14**) .08 (.05) .15 (.24) 2.21 (1.10)
Observation 2 .24** (.24**) .08 (.08) .40 (.40)
Agent of support
Both parents 5 .23*** (.23***) .18 (.18) .28 (.28) 32.81*** (24.75***)
Father 3 .03 (.05) −.02 (−.04) .08 (.13)
Mother 4 .06* (.06*) .01 (.01) .10 (.11)
Perceived control
Publication type
Published 5 .14*** (.13) .07 (−.01) .20 (.27) .20 (.18)
Unpublished 4 .16*** (.17***) .12 (.09) .19 (.25)
Grade level
Elementary and middle (K–8) 6 .14*** (.12***) .10 (.04) .17 (.21) 5.34* (4.13*)
College 3 .25*** (.25***) .16 (.16) .33 (.33)
Agent of support
Both parents 5 .20*** (.17*) .15 (.03) .26 (.29) 26.68*** (4.36)
Father 3 .03 (0) −.02 (−.12) .08 (.12)
Mother 7 .17*** (.15***) .13 (.05) .21 (.24)
*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001
under both fixed and random-effect assumptions, agent of support. Pairwise comparisons
revealed that the average correlation between parental autonomy support and engagement
and effort for mothers was not different from the average correlation for fathers under either
fixed, Q(1)=.58, p=.45 or random assumptions, Q(1)=.03, p=.86. However, the average
correlation was significantly greater when parental autonomy support reflected the support of
Educ Psychol Rev
both parents compared with just mothers (FE: Q(1)=22.69, p<.001; RE: Q(1)=21.66,
p<.001) or just fathers (FE: Q(1)=29.00, p<.001; RE: Q(1)=12.77, p<.001).
Studies Correlating Parental Autonomy Support and Perceived Control
The literature search uncovered seven studies that estimated the correlation between parental
autonomy support and perceived control. The 7 studies reported 15 separate correlations based
on 7 samples (see Table 2). Of those correlations, 12 reported correlations relevant to
elementary and middle school and 3 reported correlations for a college sample. For agent of
support, five correlations reported the agent of support as both parents, while three reported the
father and seven reported the mother. The studies were published between 1989 and 2008. The
sample sizes ranged from 60 to 805, with a median size of 160. The mean sample size was
342.67, with a standard deviation of 330.79. The effect sizes ranged from −.26 to .36, with four
negative-effect sizes and the rest positive. The Grubbs test did not reveal any significant
outliers in sample size or correlations.
with a fixed-error model and r=.16 (95 % CI=.09, .23) with a random-error model
(see Table 3 for overall effects), Q(8)=26.50, p<.001. Trim-and-fill analyses revealed
2 possible missing values under both error models, though the relation would remain
significantly different from zero (see Table 4). In addition, a moderator analysis
indicated that there was no difference between the average effects of published and
unpublished reports (see Table 9). Meta-regression results (see Table 5) suggested that
the correlation between parent autonomy support and perceived control increased as
the Cronbach’s alpha for the measure of parental autonomy support increased under
both fixed and random effects. Results from the meta-regression assessing whether the
Cronbach’s alpha for the measure of perceived control moderated the correlation were
not significant.
Moderator Analyses Next, moderator analyses on the relation between parental autonomy
support and perceived control were conducted using three moderators: publication type, grade
level, and agent of support (see Table 9). Only one moderator, grade level, remained significant
under both fixed-effect and random-effect assumptions. The analysis revealed that the relation
between parental autonomy support and perceived control was greater for college students
compared with elementary through high school age students.
Studies Correlating Parental Autonomy Support and Other Outcomes
In addition to the outcomes reported previously, several other relevant outcomes were exam-
ined, though less frequently, in research studies focused on parents’ autonomy support. Meta-
analyses of these outcomes indicated that there were small, statistically significant correlations
between parental autonomy support and children’s positive attitudes toward school, extrinsic
motivation, executive functioning, and self-regulation, under both error models (see Table 3).
Moderator analyses were not conducted for these outcomes given the small number of
independent samples contributing to each outcome (six or fewer).
Educ Psychol Rev
Discussion
In line with self-determination theory, the results of this meta-analysis suggest that parental
autonomy support has a positive relation with a variety of desirable academic and social
outcomes including academic achievement, autonomous motivation, psychological health,
perceived competence, perceived control, engagement and effort, attitudes toward school,
self-regulation, and executive functioning. Surprisingly, parental autonomy support was also
positively related to children’s extrinsic motivation about as strongly as it is related to their
autonomous motivation. That is, the finding of this meta-analysis suggests that autonomy
support may more broadly support all forms of motivation and positive functioning, not just
motivation that is derived from an individual feeling autonomous. This may conflict with
motivation theory to the extent that self-determination theory would hypothesize that auton-
omy support should be most strongly correlated with autonomous forms of motivation and
unrelated or negatively related to extrinsic motivation. We suspect that this result reflects the
likelihood that any type of involvement by parents, whether focused on autonomy-support or
not, increases all types of motivation. This may be particularly likely when parents’ involve-
ment and students’ motivation is targeted toward school, a domain that includes many
activities for which little autonomous motivation may exist or the tension between extrinsic
and intrinsic forms of motivation is apparent. That is, the mere act of parents highlighting their
role in supporting students’ efforts in school may lead students to focus on extrinsic reasons for
engaging in school activities. When that involvement is also autonomy-supportive, it also
seems related to students’ greater focus on intrinsic reasons for engaging. This possibility is
reflected in some research examining parent involvement more broadly than just that which is
autonomy supportive. For example, Ginsburg and Bronstein (1993) found that parents who
were more involved in their children’s academic lives had students who reported being more
extrinsically motivated and dependent on external sources of academic guidance and evalua-
tion. It is also worth noting that consistent with our suggestion that involvement is likely to
enhance extrinsic motivation particularly in the academic domain, most of the extrinsic
motivation outcome measures in this meta-analysis were in the academic domain.
Several patterns emerged from moderator analyses across outcomes. Namely, the trend in
average correlations across every outcome suggested that the correlation between parental
autonomy support and academic and psychosocial outcomes was stronger when the autonomy
support measure reflected the support of both parents versus one or the other. This trend was
significant for three out of six outcomes under both error models and for two additional
outcomes under fixed effects only. That is, when both parents were simultaneously assessed as
agents of support, the relation between autonomy support and achievement was stronger
compared with when autonomy supportive of either parent was assessed independently. This
is an especially important implication for future research. Researchers often focused on
mothers over fathers in many cases, but these findings indicate that both parents are important
and the strength of autonomy support is better revealed when the combined support of both
parents is assessed. Our observation that the relation between parental autonomy support and
students’ outcomes is stronger when the measure of parental autonomy support is a reflection
of both parents’ behavior may emerge for a number of reasons. However, it seems unlikely that
the finding is a matter of mere reduction in measurement error, as rarely did the measure of
both parents’ autonomy support involve multiple informants. Rather, a majority of the articles
in this data set had children rate their parents’ autonomy support, being instructed to think
specifically about their mother, father, or both parents. Improvements in measurement
Educ Psychol Rev
notwithstanding, we speculate that our findings reflect the likelihood that the effects of
autonomy support are more powerful when both parents are consistent in their practice and
likewise, that the autonomy supportive efforts of one parent could be undermined if the other is
controlling. The additive and interactive effects of mothers and fathers autonomy support
would seem to be an important direction for future research to explore. As noted by other
scholars, there is very little focus on the ways that mothers’ and fathers’ parenting styles co-
exist and interact (Simons and Conger 2007). However, evidence from the parenting style
literature may provide some support for our speculation. For example, in a study examining
the parenting style of mothers and fathers separately, Simons and Conger (2007) found that
having two authoritative parents was associated with the most positive outcomes in delin-
quency, depression and commitment to school among adolescents, though having one parent
with this style buffered against the negative consequences associated with the second parent
having a less optimal parenting style.
The moderating relation between parental autonomy support and grade level also
showed a similar pattern across the various outcomes. Across all outcomes (except for
psychological health for which there were no studies with elementary school children
and engagement and effort for which we could not examine this moderator), the
pattern of correlations suggested that autonomy support may have a stronger relation
with children’s outcomes in middle school and later into high school and college.
Unfortunately, it was often not possible to get a clearer picture into the differences
between elementary, middle, and high school from the current data. Several studies
reported results from mixed grade levels, such as upper elementary and middle school
students. For perceived control this trend was statistically significant under both fixed
and random effects and for autonomous motivation it was significant under random
effects only. Given adolescents’ emerging desire to be autonomous individuals, au-
tonomy support would appear to be especially important for supporting autonomous
motivation during this developmental period. Interestingly, parent’s autonomy support
appears to continue to be equally important, or more important in the case of
perceived control, even as children leave the home and go off to college.
In addition, it is worth noting that for the three outcomes for which we could examine our
hypothesis about alignment between parental autonomy support and outcome domains, we
found support for our hypothesis that better aligned parental autonomy support and outcomes
would demonstrate stronger relations. That is, the correlation between parental autonomy
support and general psychological health was greater when the focus of parental autonomy
support was general, rather than specific to academics. Likewise, the correlation between
parental autonomy support and academic achievement was greater when the focus of parental
autonomy support was academic rather than general; however, this moderator was significant
under fixed effects only. In addition, under both fixed and random effects, the correlation
between parental autonomy support and autonomous motivation was greater when the focus
was academic for both the domain of the autonomy support measure and the domain of the
outcome measure. More specifically, our moderator analysis for autonomous motivation
examining the alignment between the predictor and outcome variable suggested that the
strongest effects emerged when variables were matched in the academic domain specifically,
with mismatched relations and matched relations in other domains of life being smaller. Given
that autonomous motivation is highly relevant to learning contexts in particular, this finding
that the strongest relations emerged for matched relations within the academic domain is
hardly surprising.
Educ Psychol Rev
While the strength of the two moderating factors above consistently tells an interesting
story about when the correlation between parental autonomy support and outcomes may be the
strongest, the information we received on the strength of the overall correlations is also
important to note. Parental autonomy support has the strongest relation with global psycho-
logical health. Not surprisingly, the strength of the relation between parental autonomy support
and academic achievement was smaller than the motivation and psychosocial functioning
outcomes. The reason for this smaller relation could be that academic achievement is deter-
mined by a multitude of factors beyond autonomy support. Likewise, the relation between
parental autonomy support and academic achievement may be small because achievement,
along with engagement during school, is a distal outcome of parents’ support that will be
mediated by children’s own motivation, self-regulation, and cognitive functioning. That said,
the results of this meta-analysis suggest that parental autonomy support is a small but likely
important contributor to students’ success in school. As such, parental autonomy support may
be of particular interest for intervention and practice given that it is a strategy that requires few
material resources and may be relatively effectively implemented by parents compared with
other forms of parent involvement in school that may more readily depend on parents’ level of
education or academic training.
Future Directions and Limitations
Overall, the information gained from the results of this meta-analysis is important and provides
a fuller picture of conditions under which parental autonomy support relates to important child
outcomes. However, there are limitations to be considered. An important limitation to note is
that some of the findings presented were based on small numbers of independent samples,
making it difficult to place a great deal of confidence in the specific magnitude of the estimated
effects. This is especially true for the relations with attitudes toward school, extrinsic motiva-
tion, executive functioning, and self-regulation. It is also important to note that all studies were
correlational in nature and should not be taken to imply a causal relation between parental
autonomy support and child outcomes. In our review of the literature of parent autonomy
support, we found few experimental studies in which parental autonomy support was inten-
tionally manipulated or parents were randomly assigned to receive training (or not) regarding
how to be autonomy-supportive. Interventions that manipulate parents’ autonomy-supportive
practice would be particularly useful in exploring the causal effects of parent autonomy
support on child outcomes (see Su and Reeve 2011 for a synthesis of autonomy support
intervention programs).
Along the same lines, our meta-analysis pointed to a number of moderators, such
as agent of support and grade level, which appeared to be promising factors related to
variation in effects. However again, these factors should not be interpreted to imply
causation given that they were not manipulated within studies or across studies
included in the meta-analysis. Carefully designed intervention research that conscien-
tiously takes moderators into consideration by, for example, targeting samples that
span multiple grade levels and intentionally manipulating which parent receives
training or whether both parents receive training, are likely to be particularly helpful
in exploring the role of the moderators identified in this meta-analysis. In particular,
since there were so few elementary-aged samples, more research needs to be done on
the relation between parental autonomy support and academic achievement and psy-
chosocial functioning in the elementary school age range.
Educ Psychol Rev
For several of the outcomes, moderators could not be tested due to small number of studies
with variation on that factor. We were particularly disappointed that it was not possible to test
whether the nature of parents’ autonomy support was associated with variation in the corre-
lations between parental autonomy support and child outcomes, because many studies did not
specify the specific nature of the autonomy supportive practices. Autonomy support across a
variety of contexts has been defined in theoretical and empirical literature to reflect a
combination of related, yet independent practices, including providing choices and support
for independent or collaborative decision-making, perspective-taking, careful listening, provi-
sion of rationales that appeal to personal interests and goals, among other practices (Deci and
Ryan 1987; Grolnick et al. 1997; Pomerantz et al. 2007). It is possible that these practices are
not all equal and that some support autonomy and subsequent child outcomes better than
others. Future research should focus on identifying specifically what it is about parental
autonomy support that impacts motivation and achievement.
Related to this issue, we collected information about studies along other number of
dimensions of theoretical or methodological relevance to explain variability in find-
ings. For example, we coded the ethnicity and socioeconomic status of samples, given
research suggesting that the autonomy relevant experiences vary across cultures (e.g.,
Iyengar and Lepper 1999; Stephens et al. 2007). We coded the ability level of
students given the possibility that autonomy support may not be equally effective
across different populations of students. We also collected information relevant to the
quality of studies, including the appropriateness of conceptual and operational defini-
tions of the parent autonomy support variable, the timing of measurement for out-
comes relative to the predictor, and whether attrition occurred in longitudinal research.
However, the limited reporting or variability along many of these characteristics
prevented us from conducting moderator analyses. In fact, one of the few methodo-
logical characteristics relevant to study quality that we were able to assess as a
moderator was the internal consistency of measures. Not surprisingly, most of these
moderator analyses suggested that studies with poorer measurement might be
underestimating correlations between parental autonomy support and student outcomes
or that the small amount of variability in internal consistency for some measures did
not matter much.
Finally, given our unexpected finding that parent autonomy support was positively
correlated with extrinsic motivation, it might be useful for future research to explore
not only the relations between parent autonomy support and various indicators of
motivation, achievement, and psychological adjustment, but also the relation between
parent autonomy support and amotivation (or the lack of motivation). This meta-
analysis revealed that parent autonomy support was related to all forms of motivation.
However, we would expect that differential effects might emerge when examining
various forms of motivation compared with amotivation. Parental autonomy support
seems to increase all types of motivation, including extrinsic motivation, and what is
lacking in the research is how parental autonomy support may also influence and
likely decrease a lack of motivation.
In sum, parent autonomy support seems to be a promising strategy for enhancing
children’s academic, psychological, and social outcomes. The findings of this research
synthesis provide some guidance for future investigations that will be both useful and
illuminating of the underlying social and psychological dynamics of parent autonomy
support.
Educ Psychol Rev
References
References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis
*Annear, K. D., & Yates, G. C. R. (2010). Restrictive and supportive parenting: effects on children’s
school affect and emotional responses. Australian Educational Researcher, 37(1), 63–82. doi:10.
1007/bf03216914.
*Beiswenger, K. L., & Grolnick, W. S. (2010). Interpersonal and intrapersonal factors associated with autono-
mous motivation in adolescents’ after-school sctivities. Journal of Early Adolescence, 30(3), 369–394. doi:
10.1177/0272431609333298.
*Bernier, A., Carlson, S. M., & Whipple, N. (2010). From external regulation to self-regulation: early parenting
precursors of young children’s executive functioning. Child Development, 81(1), 326–339. doi:10.1111/j.
1467-8624.2009.01397.x.
*Birman, D., & Espino, S. R. (2007). The relationship of parental practices and knowledge to school adaptation
for immigrant and nonimmigrant high school students. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 22(2), 152–
166. doi:10.1177/082957350730780.
*Blackwelder, E. A. (2006). Unpacking authoritative parenting: assessing the relationship of warmth, autonomy
granting, and supervision to perception of control and academic success. Master of Science in Psychology,
University of South Alabama. (1434975).
*Borenstein, M., Hedges, L., Higgins, J., & Rothstein, H. (2005). Comprehensive meta-analysis (Version 2).
Englewoord: BioStat.
Bronstein, P., Ginsburg, G. S., & Herrera, I. S. (2005). Parental predictors of motivational orientation in early
adolescence: A longitudinal study. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(6), 559–575. doi:10.1007/s10964-
005-8946-0.
Burrow-Sanchez, J. J., & March, R. (2006). Parent–child Relationships. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Encyclopedia of
human development (Vol. 3, pp. 961–964). Thousand Oaks: Sage Reference.
*Chirkov, V. I., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Parent and teacher autonomy-support in Russian and U. S. adolescents:
common effects on well-being and academic motivation. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 32(5), 618–
635. doi:10.1177/0022022101032005006.
*Cleveland, E. S., Reese, E., & Grolnick, W. S. (2007). Children’s engagement and competence in person
recollection: effects of parents’ reminiscing goals. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 96(2), 131–
149. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2006.09.003.
Collins, W. A., & Russell, G. (1991). Mother–child and father–child relationships in middle childhood and
adolescence: a developmental analysis. Developmental Review, 11(2), 99–136. doi:10.1016/0273-2297(91)
90004-8.
Cooper, H. (2010). Research synthesis and meta-analysis: a step-by-step approach (4th ed.). Thousand Oaks:
Sage.
Cooper, H., & Hedges, L. (1994). Handbook of research synthesis. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
*Cooper, H., Lindsay, J. J., & Nye, B. (2000). Homework in the home: how student, family, and parenting-style
differences relate to the homework process. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(4), 464–487. doi:10.
1006/ceps.1999.1036.
Cox, M. J. (2002). Parent–child Relationships. In N. J. Salkind (Ed.), Child development (pp. 291–294). New
York: Macmillan Reference USA.
*d’Ailly, H. (2002). A cross-cultural study on autonomy and perceived control in learning. Paper presented at the
Annual Meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
*Dai, Y. (1998). Relationships among parenting styles, parental expectations and attitudes, and adolescents’
school functioning: a cross-cultural study. Doctor of Philosophy, Purdue University. (9914478).
Deci, E. L. (1980). The psychology of self-determination. Lexington: Heath.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 53(6), 1024–1037. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1024.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Motivation, personality, and development within embedded social contexts:
an overview of self-determination theory. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation.
New York: Oxford University Press.
*Deslandes, R., Royer, E., Turcotte, D., & Bertrand, R. (1997). School achievement at the secondary level:
Influence of parenting style and parent involvement in schooling. McGill Journal of Education, 32(3), 191–
207.
*Downie, M., Chua, S. N., Koestner, R., Barrios, M. F., Rip, B., & M’Birkou, S. (2007). The relations of parental
autonomy support to cultural internalization and well-being of immigrants and sojourners. Cultural Diversity
& Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13(3), 241–249. doi:10.1037/1099-9809.13.3.241.
Educ Psychol Rev
Duval, S., & Tweedie, R. (2000). Time and fill: a simple funnel plot-based method of testing and adjusting for
publication bias in meta-analysis. Biometrics, 56, 276–284.
*Fei-Yin Ng, F., Kenney-Benson, G. A., & Pomerantz, E. M. (2004). Children’s achievement moderates the
effects of mothers’ use of control and autonomy support. Child Development, 75(3), 764–780. doi:10.1111/j.
1467-8624.2004.00705.x.
*Ferguson, Y. L., Kasser, T., & Jahng, S. (2011). Differences in life satisfaction and school satisfaction among
adolescents from three nations: the role of perceived autonomy support. Journal of Research on
Adolescence, 21(3), 649–661. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2010.00698.x.
*Fulton, E., & Turner, L. A. (2008). Students’ academic motivation: relations with parental warmth, autonomy
granting, and supervision. Educational Psychology, 28(5), 521–534. doi:10.1080/01443410701846119.
*Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement.
Motivation and Emotion, 27(3), 199–223. doi:10.1023/a:1025007614869.
Ginsburg, G. S., & Bronstein, P. (1993). Family factors related to children’s intrinsic/extrinsic motivational
orientation and academic performance. Child Development, 64, 1461–1474. doi:10.2307/1131546.
*Gonzalez, A. L., & Wolters, C. A. (2006). The relations between perceived parenting practices and achievement
motivation in mathematics. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 21(2), 203. doi:10.1080/
02568540609594589.
Greenhouse, J. B., & Iyengar, S. (1994). Sensitivity analysis and diagnostics. In H. Cooper & L. V. Hedges
(Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 383–398). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
*Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Parental styles associated with children’s school-related self-regulation and compe-
tence: a motivational perspective. Ph.D., University of Rochester, Rochester. (8709494)
*Grolnick, W. S. (2009). The role of parents in facilitating autonomous self-regulation for education. Theory and
Research in Education, 7(2), 164–173. doi:10.1177/1477878509104321.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: an experimental and individual
difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(5), 890–898. doi:10.1037/0022-
3514.52.5.890.
*Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s self-regulation and competence
in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 143–154. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.2.143.
*Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Inner resources for school achievement: motivational
mediators of children’s perceptions of their parents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 508–517.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.83.4.508.
Grolnick, W. S., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1997). Internalization within the family: the self-determination
theory perspective. In J. E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’s internalization of
values: a handbook of contemporary theory (pp. 135–161). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
*Grolnick, W. S., Kurowski, C. O., Dunlap, K. G., & Hevey, C. (2000). Parental resources and the transition to
junior high. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 10(4), 465–488. doi:10.1207/sjra1004_05.
*Grolnick, W. S., Gurland, S. T., DeCourcey, W., & Jacob, K. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of mothers’
autonomy support: an experimental investigation. Developmental Psychology, 38(1), 143–155. doi:10.1037/
0012-1649.38.1.143.
Grubbs, F. E. (1950). Sample criteria for testing outlying observations. Journal of American Statistical
Association, 21, 27–58.
*Halpern-Felsher, B. L. (1994). Differing pathways to achievement: direct and indirect effects of early parenting
behaviors on male and female adolescents’ high school achievement. Ph.D, University of California
Riverside. (9501895).
Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical methods for meta-analysis. Orlando: Academic Press.
Hedges, L., & Vevea, J. L. (1998). Fixed and random effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3,
486–504. doi:10.1037/1082-989x.3.4.486.
Hill, N. E., & Tyson, D. F. (2009). Parental involvement in middle school: a meta-analytic assessment of
the strategies that promote achievement. Developmental Psychology, 45(3), 740–763. doi:10.1037/
a0015362.
*Hui, E. K. P., Sun, R. C. F., Chow, S. S.-Y., & Chu, M. H.-T. (2011). Explaining Chinese students’ academic
motivation: filial piety and self-determination. Educational Psychology, 31(3), 377–392. doi:10.1080/
01443410.2011.559309.
Ishak, Z., Low, S. F., & Lau, P. L. (2012). Parenting style as a moderator for students’ academic achievement.
Journal of Science Education and Technology, 21(4), 487–493. doi:10.1007/s10956-011-9340-1.
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: a cultural perspective on intrinsic
motivation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 76, 349–366.
*Jiang, Y. H., Yau, J., Bonner, P., & Chiang, L. (2011). The role of perceived parental autonomy support in
academic achievement of Asian and Latino American adolescents. Electronic Journal of Research in
Educational Psychology, 9(2), 497–522.
Educ Psychol Rev
*Joussemet, M., Koestner, R., Lekes, N., & Laundry, R. (2005). A longitudinal study of the relationship of
maternal autonomy support to children’s adjustment and achievement in school. Journal of Personality,
73(5), 1215–1235. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00347.x.
Joussemet, M., Landry, R., & Koestner, R. (2008). A self-determination theory perspective on parenting.
Canadian Psychology/Psychologie Canadienne, 49(3), 194–200. doi:10.1037/a0012754.
*Lekes, N., Gingras, I., Philippe, F. L., Koestner, R., & Fang, J. (2010). Parental autonomy-support, intrinsic life
goals, and well-being among adolescents in China and North America. Journal of Youth and Adolescence,
39(8), 858–869. doi:10.1007/s10964-009-9451-7.
Linwood, A. S. (2006). Parent–child Relationships. In K. Krapp & J. Wilson (Eds.), The Gale encyclopedia of
children’s health: infancy through adolescence (Vol. 3, pp. 1392–1395). Detroit: Gale.
*Matte-Gagne, C., & Bernier, A. (2011). Prospective relations between maternal autonomy support and child
executive functioning: investigating the mediating role of child language ability. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology, 110(4), 611–625. doi:10.1016/j.jecp.2011.06.006.
Pomerantz, E. M., Moorman, E. A., & Litwack, S. D. (2007). The how, whom, and why of parents’ involvement
in children’s academic lives: more is not always better. Review of Educational Research, 77(3), 373–410.
doi:10.3102/003465430305567.
*Purdie, N., Carroll, A., & Roche, L. (2004). Parenting and adolescent self-regulation. Journal of Adolescence,
27(6), 663–676. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2004.01.002.
Reeve, J. (2009). Understanding motivation and emotion (5th ed.). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Rivers, J., Mullis, A. K., Fortner, L. A., & Mullis, R. L. (2012). Relationships between parenting styles and the
academic performance of adolescents. Journal of Family Social Work, 15(3), 202–216. doi:10.1080/
10522158.2012.666644.
*Robbins, R. J. (1995). An assessment of perceived parental autonomy-support and control: child and parent
correlates. Ph.D., University of Rochester, Rochester. (9523161).
Rosenthal, R. (1987). Judgment studies: design, analysis, and meta-analysis. Cambridge: New York.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68.
Ryan, R. M., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: self-report and projective
assessments of individual differences in children’s perceptions. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 50(3), 550–558. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.50.3.550.
*Sheldon, K. M., Abad, N., & Omoile, J. (2009). Testing self-determination theory via Nigerian and Indian
adolescents. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 33(5), 451–459. doi:10.1177/
0165025409340095.
Simons, L. G., & Conger, R. D. (2007). Linking mother–father differences in parenting to a typology of family
parenting styles and adolescent outcomes. Journal of Family Issues, 28(2), 212–241. doi:10.1177/
0192513x06294593.
Smetana, J. G., & Asquith, P. (1994). Adolescents’ and parents’ conceptions of parental authority and personal
autonomy. Child Development, 65(4), 1147–1162.
*Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2005). Antecedents and outcomes of self-determination in 3 life domains:
The role of parents’ and teachers’ autonomy support. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34(6), 589–604.
doi:10.1007/s10964-005-8948-y.
Stephens, N., Markus, H. R., & Townsend, S. S. M. (2007). Choice as an act of meaning: the case of social class.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 814–830.
*Stiller, J. D., & Ryan, R. M. (1992). Teachers, parents, and student motivation: the effects of involvement and
autonomy support. American Educational Research Association Annual Meeting. San Francisco, CA, USA.
*Strage, A., & Brandt, T. S. (1999). Authoritative parenting and college students’ academic adjustment and
success. Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(1), 146–156. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.91.1.146.
Su, Y. L., & Reeve, J. (2011). A meta-analysis of the effectiveness of intervention programs designed to support
autonomy. Educational Psychology Review, 23(1), 159–188. doi:10.1007/s10648-010-9142-7.
*Wang, Q. (2006). The role of parents’ control in early adolescents’ psychological functioning: a longitudinal
investiation in the US and China. Ph.D., University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana. (3243020)
View publication stats

Vasquez 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vasquez 2016

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Vasquez 2016

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Educ Psychol Rev

Parent Autonomy Support, Academic Achievement,

Ariana C. Vasquez 1 & Erika A. Patall 1 &

# Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Abstract A meta-analysis of 36 studies examining the relations between parent autonomy

Keywords Parenting . Autonomy support . Academic achievement . Psychological well-being .

The Relations Between Autonomy Supportive Parenting and Child

Factors that may Explain Variation in the Relations Between Parental

Need for a Synthesis on Parental Autonomy Support

Literature Search Procedures

Criteria for Including Studies

Information Retrieved from Studies

Methods of Data Integration

Table 1 Complete list of information retrieved from studies

Studies Correlating Parental Autonomy Support and Academic Achievement

Moderator Analyses Next, additional moderator analyses were performed on the

Outcome k r 95 % confidence interval Q

Low estimate High estimate

Academic achievement 29 .11*** (.12***) .08 (.07) .13 (.16) 94.00***

Note. Random-effect Q values and point estimates are presented in parentheses

Studies Correlating Parental Autonomy Support and Autonomous Motivation

Table 4 Trim-and-fill results

Outcome Fixed effects trim-and-fill Random effects trim-and-fill

Academic achievement 6 missing values 7 missing values

Table 5 Meta-regression analysis for Cronbach’s alpha

Outcome k Fixed effects Random effects

Moderators k r 95 % confidence interval Qb

Low estimate High estimate

Moderators k r 95 % confidence interval Qb

Low estimate High estimate

Studies Correlating Parental Autonomy Support and Psychological Health

Moderators k r 95 % confidence interval Qb

Low estimate High estimate

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Studies Correlating Parental Autonomy Support and Perceived Competence

Studies Correlating Parental Autonomy Support and Engagement or Effort

Moderators k r 95 % confidence interval Qb

Low estimate High estimate

*p<.05; **p<.01; ***p<.001

Studies Correlating Parental Autonomy Support and Perceived Control

Studies Correlating Parental Autonomy Support and Other Outcomes

Future Directions and Limitations

References marked with an asterisk indicate studies included in the meta-analysis

View publication stats

You might also like

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Academic achievement 29 .11* (.12*) .08 (.07) .13 (.16) 94.00***

p<.05; p<.01; p<.001

p<.05; p<.01; p<.001