The Trans-Contextual Model of Autonomous Motivation in Education: Conceptual and Empirical Issues and Meta-Analysis

Abstract

The trans-contextual model outlines the processes by which autonomous motivation toward activities in a physical education context predicts autonomous motivation toward physical activity outside of school, and beliefs about, intentions toward, and actual engagement in, out-of-school physical activity. In the present article, we clarify the fundamental propositions of the model and resolve some outstanding conceptual issues, including its generalizability across multiple educational domains, criteria for its rejection or failed replication, the role of belief-based antecedents of intentions, and the causal ordering of its constructs. We also evaluate the consistency of model relationships in previous tests of the model using path-analytic meta-analysis. The analysis supported model hypotheses but identified substantial heterogeneity in the hypothesized relationships across studies unattributed to sampling and measurement error. Based on our meta-analysis, future research needs to provide further replications of the model in diverse educational settings beyond physical education and test model hypotheses using experimental methods.

Keywords: autonomous motivation; meta-analysis; motivational transfer; self-determination theory; theoretical integration; theory of planned behavior.

Figure 1.

The trans-contextual model. Note. Solid unidirectional arrowed paths represent the hypothesized relations among the model variables. Broken unidirectional arrowed paths represent direct, unmediated effects that are not hypothesized in the model. Empirical confirmation that the nonhypothesized direct effects are of a size that is relatively trivial, or not statistically significant, will provide further support for the hypothesized indirect effects.

Figure 2.

Meta-analytic path analysis of the trans-contextual model. Note. Solid unidirectional arrowed paths represent statistically significant relations among the model variables, broken unidirectional arrowed paths represent nonsignificant effects. Paths freely estimated in the model but not depicted in diagram: perceived autonomy support (education) → behavior (β = .01, p = .956); perceived autonomy support (education)→intention (β = −.02, p = .699); autonomous motivation (education) → behavior (β = .07, p = .199); past behavior → perceived autonomy support (education; β = .18, p < .001); past behavior → autonomous motivation (education; β = .22, p < .001); past behavior → autonomous motivation (out-of-school; β = .26, p < .001); past behavior → attitude (β = .24, p < .001); past behavior → subjective norm (β = .29, p < .001); past behavior → perceived behavioral control (β = .15, p = .005); past behavior → intention (β = .24, p < .001); indirect effect, past behavior → intention (β = .30, p < .001); total effect, past behavior → intention (β = .54, p < .001); past behavior → behavior (β = .37, p < .001); indirect effect, past behavior → behavior (β = .21, p < .001); total effect, past behavior → behavior (β = .59, p < .001). Errors in prediction (ε) and R² values freely estimated but not included in diagram: behavior, ε = .72, R² = .47; intention, ε = .62, R² = .62; attitude, ε = .77, R² = .41; subjective norms, ε = .93, R² = .14; perceived behavioral control, ε = .85, R² = .28; autonomous motivation (out-of-school), ε = .79, R² = .38; autonomous motivation (education), ε = .88, R² = .22; perceived autonomy support, ε = .98, R² = .03. Correlated errors among predictor variables in the model (φ) freely estimated but not included in diagram: attitude–subjective norms, φ = .23, p < .001; attitude–perceived behavioral control, φ = .36, p < .001; attitude–subjective norms, φ = .37, p < .001. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.