Autonomy Support and Perspective-Taking

Suzanne T. Gurland, Aviva Bannerman, Michelle Alto, and Ellen Dahlberg Middlebury College
Introduction
Childre n reap a range of benefits from adults who support their autonomy (Deci, 2008; Gurland & Grolnick, 2008; Niemiec & Ryan, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2000), as opposed to controlling them. What are autonomy-s upportive adults doing so right? Perspective-taking is one answer (e.g., Grolnick, 2003), but it remains unclear how autonomy-s upportive adults stay in tune with childre ns perspectives. Do they make more spontaneous attempts to understand others perspectives? Are they more accurate in doing so? Autonomy Support implies perspective-taking Supporting childrens autonomy requires recognizing them as whole, volitional beings with valuable ideas, beliefs, and perspectives of their own (e.g., Deci, 2008; Grolnick, 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2000). For example, autonomy-supportive behaviors include involving childre n in decision-making, respecting their opinions, and allowing them the latitude to complete tasks their own way. In this sense, autonomy support cannot be divorced from perspective-taking. Y the et, particular relation between the two has not been specified. To specify this relation, a more nuanced understanding of perspective-taking is required. Social Perspective-Taking is Multi-dime nsional Social perspective-taking (SPT) involves discerning the thoughts, feelings, and perceptions of others (Gehlbach, 2004). Although it is sometimes treated as a unidimensional construct, Gehlbach (2004) has argued compellingly for multiple dimensions such as SPT Propensity and SPT Accuracy (Gehlbach, 2004). Propensity: Accuracy: the tendency to check in spontaneously with others perspectives the correctness of ones read on anothers point of view Self-report Measures Propensity Accuracy Time 0.10 -0.16 False Starts 0.15 -0.10

Discussion
The primary aim of this study was to specify the relation between autonomy support and perspective-taking. To do so, it was necessary also to establish the relations among various dimensions of perspective-taking. Specifically, we examined perspectivetaking accuracy and propensity as measured by self-report and behavioral tasks, and tested their relation to autonomy support. Accuracy and propensity appear to be separable dimensions of perspective-taking. This is consistent with Gehlbachs (2004) analysis of perspective-taking as a multi-dimensional construct, and underscores the need for researchers to adequately specify the particular construct(s) we are measuring. Participants actual perspective-taking accuracy was negatively related to their self-reported accuracy, and positively related to their self-reported propensity. Thus, participants appear to have misestimate d or misunderstood their own perspective-taking habits and abilities. What they reported as propensity actually showed up in their behavior as accuracy, and what they reported as accuracy showed up in their behavior as exactly the opposite: namely, less accuracy. These findings suggest that we do not have great insight into our own perspective-taking behaviors. They furthe r highlight the need for researchers to distinguish carefully between actual and perceived perspective-taking. Regarding the central question of autonomy support in relation to perspective-taking, results suggested that autonomy supportiveness was associated with perspective-taking accuracy, whereas controllingness was associated with perspective-taking propensity. `Thus, autonomy supportive adults are not necessarily checking in more frequently or more readily with others perspectives rather, they are more accurate when they do so. In other words, they more correctly perceive the feelings, beliefs, and experiences that others are having. The design of this study was correlational, and we therefore cannot establish a direction of causality. Those who take a supportive stance toward others autonomy may value and hone their perspective-taking skills, and develop accuracy over time. Alternatively, those who are adept at perceiving others perspectives might be more incline d to recognize others as whole, volitional beings and therefore come to support others autonomy. Why would greater controllingness (i.e., less autonomy support) be associated with greater perspective-taking propensity? We suggest that controlling individuals might scan for others perspectives, not for the sake of unde rstanding them, but rather to glean self-relevant feedback or information that could be used to direct or influe nce others behaviors. In negotiations and other adversarial situations, perspective-taking helps in predicting and influencing the behavior of others (Galinsky, et al., 2008). Thus, it may be that adults who are oriented toward controlling and directing childrens behavior are likely to consult the childre ns perspectives frequently for information that will help them lead the children toward desired outcomes. The irony, of course, is that propensity is independe nt of accuracy. Thus, adults who are high in interpe rsonal control might regularly be misinte rpreting childrens perspectives, whereas autonomy supportive adults who are genuinely interested in unde rstanding childre ns experience are checking in less, but getting a more accurate read. In practice, these findings suggest that not all perspective-taking is created equal: the motive matters, and so does the dimension. Those who take childrens perspectives with the goal of understanding them are likely to be more accurate in their perceptions of the other, whereas those who take childre ns perspectives with the goal of guiding or directing their behavior are likely to do so with greater fervor, but less accuracy. These findings have practical implications for researchers, as well. First, they unde rscore the importance of recognizing the multidimensional nature of perspective-taking, and maintaining conceptual clarity among dimensions. Second, they argue for the inclusion of behavioral (or multiple) methods of measureme nt, given that self-reported perspective-taking did not match behaviorally measured perspective-taking. Finally, worthwhile avenues for future research include 1) experimental methodologies that could establish the direction of causality between autonomy supportive styles and perspective-taking accuracy, and 2) direct tests of our reasoning regarding the link between interpersonal control and increased perspective-taking propensity.

Results
Perspective-taking accuracy and propensity were largely unrelated across method of measureme nt, as were behavioral and self-report measures across dimension of measurement. However, behavioral accuracy was negatively related to self-reported accuracy, and positively related self-reporte d propensity. Table 1. Correlations among perspective-taking measures. Behavioral Measures Propensity Clarifying Qs -0.15 -0.02 Looks -0.11 0.14 Accuracy 0.21* -0.19

We first asked how and whethe r perspective-taking propensity and accuracy are related to one another, and then more centrally, how do they relate to autonomy support?

Method
87 college students (59.4% female) each attended an individual single session in which they indicated their relative endorsement of autonomy-supportive and controlling strategies for dealing with childre ns Proble ms in School (Reeve, 1998), and completed both self-report and behavioral measures of perspective-taking. Trait Control Perspective-taking Self-reported Accuracy Propensity Behavioral Accuracy Propensity Time Propensity False starts Behavioral 0.19 0.23* 0.13 0.24* 0.03 0.13 0.24* 0.08 0.15 0.18 0.08 0.20 -0.06 0.12 0.17 0.23* 0.09 0.03 -0.12 -0.17 -0.06 -0.18 -0.09 -0.25* -0.15 -0.06 0.05 0.01 0.03 -0.13 0.01 0.10 0.12 0.08 0.01 High Mod. versus Mod. Autonomy support High Composite Self-reported measures of perspective-taking were unrelate d to autonomy support. Rather, autonomy support was positively related to behavioral perspective-taking accuracy, and negatively related to behavioral perspective-taking propensity.

Table 2. Correlations between perspective-taking and autonomy support

Method

Accuracy In general, how confident are you that you can accurately guess what motivates another person? (Gehlbach, 2008)

Propensity Before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place. (Davis, 1980) Overall, how often do you try to understand the point of view of other people? (Gehlbach, 2004b)

Autonomy Support In response to soccer player who fails spelling test: Ask him to talk about how he plans to handle the situation (highly autonomy supportive) versus Make him miss tomorrows game to study (highly controlling; Reeve, 1998)

Self-report

Indicate whether Oscar felt amused. (Gehlbach, 2004a)

Move the hat to the empty cell. (Keysar, et al., 2000)

Propensity Qs Propensity Looks

Author contact information: sgurland@middlebury.e du