Self-determination theory research has demonstrated that intrinsic and identified self-regulations are associated with successful adaptation. However, few distinctions are typically made between these regulations and their outcomes. In the present studies, the associations between intrinsic and identified motivations and outcomes of psychological well-being and academic performance are compared in educational settings. In Study 1, intrinsic self-regulation predicted psychological well-being, independent of academic performance. In contrast, identified regulation predicted academic performance. Additionally, the more that students demonstrated an identified academic regulation, the more that their psychological well-being was contingent on performance. In Study 2a, priming intrinsic self-regulation led to greater psychological well-being 10 days later. In Study 2b, an implicit measure of identified regulation predicted academic performance 6 weeks later. Results indicate the need to address important distinctions between intrinsic and identified regulations.
In 7 experiments, the causal effects of the availability of an attractive alternative (AA) relationship partner on current relationship thoughts and intentions were tested using confederates, mental simulations, and virtual reality. Men behaved consistent with traditional relationship-commitment theories, showing decreased willingness to tolerate their partner's transgressions after the availability of an AA was made salient. However, consistent with a motivated cognition approach to commitment and work on relational self-construals, women increased their tolerance when presented with the relationship threat of an alternative. Word-fragment and lexical decision data suggested that AAs may activate threat for women, and their ability to dampen threat accessibility is associated with prorelationship responses. Finally, this "if relationship is threatened, then defend the relationship" contingency was induced in men with an implementation intention induction.
Two studies investigated Beck's cognitive diathesis-stress theory of depression in children. Study 1 sought to develop and validate the Dysfunctional Attitudes Scale for Children (DAS-C). Children (N = 453, ages 8-14) completed an item pool and measures assessing divergent validity, with a readministration 3 weeks later. The finalized DAS-C is a 22-item self-report measure with sound psychometric properties. Study 2 tested the DAS-C as a measure of vulnerability for depression. Children (N = 241, ages 7-14) completed the DAS-C and a measure of depressive symptoms one week before a universal stressor (receipt of report cards). Symptomatology was reassessed immediately after the stressor and five days later. Dysfunctional attitudes moderated the impact of stress on changes in symptom levels five days later, such that high-DAS-C children showed greater symptom increases relative to low-DAS-C children when experiencing stress. Consistent with cognitive-developmental theory, further analyses revealed that this interaction predicted symptom changes only in more cognitively mature children. Negative views of the self, but not of the world or of the future, mediated the relationship between the DAS-C · stress interaction and depressive changes. This work introduces a measure of depressogenic schemata to extend Beck's theory to school-aged children, suggesting that these schemata contribute to the etiology of depressive symptoms in children as young as 11 years.Keywords Dysfunctional attitudes Á Beck Á Depression Á Children Despite the emergence of adult-and adolescent-based research that supports Beck's (1967Beck's ( , 1987 cognitive diathesis-stress theory of depression (
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.