Le rôle de la motivation autodéterminée dans l'explication de la détresse psychologique : une évaluation de trois modèles théoriques

ETIENNE JULIEN

C'iL-LE RÔC'iL-LE DE LA MOTIVATION AUTODÉTERMINÉE DANS L'EXPLICATION

DE LA DÉTRESSE PSYCHOLOGIQUE: UNE ÉVALUATION DE TROIS

MODÈLES THÉORIQUES

Mémoire présenté

à la Faculté des études supérieures de l’Université Laval

pour l’obtention

du grade de maître en psychologie (M.Ps.)

École de psychologie

FACULTÉ DES SCIENCES SOCIALES UNIVERSITÉ LAVAL

AOÛT 2002

OBJET : Mémoire de maîtrise présenté à la Faculté des Études Supérieures de !,Université Laval par Etienne Julien, intitulé : Autodétermination et détresse psychologique : évaluation de trois modèles théoriques ».

Madame, Monsieur,

Par la présente, les soussignés co-auteurs d’un article intitulé « Self-Determination and Psychological Distress : A Test of Three Theoretical Models », faisant partie du mémoire de maîtrise présenté à la Faculté des Études Supérieures de l’Université Laval par Etienne Julien donnent leur autorisation pour l’insertion de cet article dans le mémoire et

l’éventuel microfilmage de ce mémoire selon les règles de la Bibliothèque nationale du Canada,

En espérant le tout conforme, veuillez, Madame, Monsieur, accepter mes plus cordiales salutations. Frédéric Guay Etienne Julien Robert J. Vallerand Caroline Senécal 418 656 3646 PAGE.03 09 MAI ’02 15:09

Le but de cette étude est d'évaluer trois modèles motivationnels de la détresse psychologique à l'aide d'un devis longitudinal sur cinq ans. Le premier modèle propose que la motivation autodéterminée globale prédit négativement la détresse psychologique et positivement les motivations contextuelles autodéterminées vis-à-vis des loisirs, des études et des relations interpersonnelles (Vallerand, 1997). Le second modèle propose que les motivations contextuelles autodéterminées déterminent la motivation autodéterminée globale, qui par la suite prédit négativement la détresse psychologique (Harter, 1999). Le troisième modèle propose que les motivations contextuelles autodéterminées prédisent négativement la détresse psychologique alors que la motivation autodéterminée globale ne fait que covarier avec ces motivations contextuelles autodéterminées (Marsh & Yeung, 1998). Au total, 201 étudiants du collégial ont participé à l'étude. Les résultats des analyses par équations structurelles démontrent que les indices d’adéquation des trois modèles sont excellents, bien que les différences de chi-carré démontrent que le troisième modèle offre une meilleure adéquation aux données.

Avant-propos

Je tiens à remercier tous les gens qui m'ont offert un soutien sur plusieurs plans et qui m'ont ainsi permis de développer ma passion envers la psychologie sociale et de la personnalité. Je remercie particulièrement mes superviseurs, Caroline Senécal, Ph.D. et Frédéric Guay, Ph.D. pour leurs constants encouragements, leurs enseignements, les opportunités de recherche et d'enseignements qu'ils ont pu m'offrir et les nombreux commentaires très constructifs qu'ils m'ont fourni tout au long de la rédaction de ce mémoire. Ensuite, je tiens à remercier les membres du laboratoire de psychologie sociale, Lysanne Gauthier, Claude Femet et Marie-Noëlle Delisle pour leurs commentaires enrichissants et leur agréable compagnie. Je remercie également le fond F CAR de m'avoir permis de me concentrer exclusivement sur mes études de maîtrise grâce à leur bourse de maîtrise. Enfin, je remercie tout mon entourage pour leur amour, leur amitié et leurs réflexions enrichissantes à tout point de vue.

Table des matières

RÉSUMÉ... 2

AVANT-PROPOS... 3

TABLE DES MATIÈRES... 4

LISTE DES TABLEAUX...6

LISTE DES DES FIGURES... 7

INTRODUCTION GÉNÉRALE... 8

ARTICLE : « Self-Determination and Psychological Distress: A Test of Three Theoretical Models»...12

RÉSUMÉ...13

ABSTRACT...14

INTRODUCTION...15

Self-determination theory and empirical evidences... 17

Theoretical models... 21

METHOD... 23

Participants and procedures... 23

Measures... 23

Statistical analyses... 26

RESULTS... 27

Preliminary analyses... 28

DISCUSSION... 3()

Theoretical implications...31

Limitations and future studies... 35

Conclusion... 36

TABLES...37

FIGURES...42

CONCLUSION GÉNÉRALE... 45

Liste des tableaux

Tableaux Page

1 Sample of Items from the Four Motivational Scales and the

Psychological Distress Scale... 35 2 Means and Standard Deviations on Motivationnal Indexes for the

Total Sample and the Subsamples at T1 only and T2 only...37 3 CFA Correlations Between Self-Determined Motivations

and Psychological Distress... 38 39 Goodness-of-Fit Indicators of theThree Motivational Models

Liste des figures

Figures 1 Results for Model 1 (Vallerand, 1997)... 40 2 Results for Model 2 (Harter, 1999)... 41 3 Results for Model 3 (Marsh & Yeung, 1998.)... 42

Introduction

La santé mentale constitue un phénomène social important. En effet, les enquêtes menées par Santé-Québec ont démontré que 26% des Québécois âgés de 15 ans et plus ont déjà manifesté un niveau élevé de détresse psychologique (Santé-Québec, 1995). Environ 27 % de ces Québécois affirment que certains problèmes de santé mentale ont affecté leur vie familiale et sentimentale alors que 17 % d’entre eux affirment que ces problèmes ont nuit à leurs activités sociales, à leur travail et/ou à leurs études (Santé-Québec, 1995). Aux États-Unis, les études du National Institute of Mental Health démontrent que la prévalence des troubles de santé mentale sur une année est de 28% (Régler, Narrow, Rae,

Manderscheid, Locke, & Goodwin, 1993). Plusieurs cadres théoriques accordent une importance au rôle de l’autonomie dans l’étiologie des problèmes de santé mentale (p. ex, Beck, 1983; Remberg, 1967). Au cours de ce mémoire, je me pencherai sur !'explication de la détresse psychologique selon la théorie de 1 ’ autodétermination (Deci & Ryan,

1985;1991). Selon cette perspective, la détresse psychologique survient lorsque la personne a un faible sentiment d’autonomie (ou d’autodétermination), c’est-à-dire quand ses actions ne reflètent pas ses choix et ses intérêts personnels. En effet, les actions et buts d'une personne autodéterminée représentent ses intérêts et ses valeurs personnels. Cependant, la personne non-autodéterminée agit plutôt pour des raisons externes (par exemple, obtenir une récompenses) ou pour des raisons introjectées (par exemple, éviter la culpabilité). La personne qui agit pour ces raisons non-autodéterminées est moins satisfaite de sa vie et peut éprouver des problèmes de détresse psychologique (Kasser & Ryan, 1993, 1996; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryan, Deci, & Grolnick, 1995; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999; Sheldon & Kasser,

Ainsi, dans le cadre de la théorie de !'autodétermination (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryan, Deci & Grolnick, 1995), l'autonomie est opérationnalisée par l'évaluation du style

motivationnel de la personne. Ainsi, la personne peut être motivée de manière

autodéterminée, ou autonome (i.e, agir par choix et intérêts personnels) ou de manière non- autodéterminée (i.e., agir pour des raisons externes ou introjectées). De plus, selon certains auteurs (voir Vallerand, 1997), la motivation autodéterminée n'est pas seulement le reflet de certaines différences individuelles. En effet, elle régit également de nombreux

comportements dans divers contextes de vie. Par exemple, une personne peut se sentir obligée de suivre un programme de formation collégiale mais pratiquer des loisirs avec un sentiment de liberté et de choix ( voir également Roberts & Donahue, 1994; Ryan, 1995; Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthome, & Hardi, 1997 pour une argumentation similaire). De fait, une recension des écrits de Vallerand (1997) dans le secteur de la motivation révèle que la motivation autodéterminée existe à trois niveaux de généralité, soit les niveaux situationnel (d’état), contextuel (domaine de vie) et global (personnalité). Dans le cadre de ce mémoire, les motivations autodéterminées globales et contextuelles seront abordées. La motivation autodéterminée globale réfère aux différences individuelles relativement stables qui prédisposent la personne à interagir avec !’environnement de manière autodéterminée ou non-autodéterminée. La motivation contextuelle autodéterminée réfère, quant à elle, à l’orientation motivationnelle spécifique à différents domaines de vie de la personne. Ce type de motivation varie en fonction des contextes de vie de la personne. Jusqu’à présent les études qui ont porté sur le lien entre la détresse psychologique et l’autonomie n’ont pas tenu compte de ces différents niveaux de généralité. De fait, la majorité des études se sont attardées à prédire la santé mentale d’une personne à partir de mesures globales de

l’autonomie (personnalité) ou à partir des mesures contextuelles spécifiques à une activité mais sans pour autant intégrer dans une même étude les différents niveaux de généralité.

La présente étude vise donc à déterminer quel niveau motivationnel, global ou contextuel, est le plus susceptible de prédire la détresse psychologique des individus. Autrement dit, est-ce que la motivation autodéterminée globale est suffisante pour comprendre la détresse psychologique, ou est-il préférable de s'attarder aux expériences motivationnelles dans différents contextes de vie pour comprendre la détresse

psychologique? Cette question est importante car les études effectuées jusqu'à présent ne permettent pas de spécifier quel niveau de motivation autodéterminée et quels contextes de vie sont les plus importants pour expliquer la détresse psychologique d’une personne. Cette nuance permettrait également de spécifier les stratégies d’intervention les plus pertinentes pour la santé mentale des individus (autodétermination globale ou envers les domaines de vie importants). Pour répondre à cette question, trois modèles théoriques seront évalués et comparés. Ces modèles proposent différentes relations entre la motivation autodéterminée globale, la motivation autodéterminée vis-à-vis de trois contextes de vie (loisirs, relations interpersonnelles et éducation) et la santé mentale. Le premier modèle propose que la motivation autodéterminée globale prédit négativement la détresse psychologique et positivement les motivations contextuelles autodéterminées vis-à-vis des loisirs, des études et des relations interpersonnelles (Vallerand, 1997). Le second modèle propose plutôt que les motivations contextuelles autodéterminées déterminent la motivation autodéterminée globale, qui par la suite prédit négativement la détresse psychologique (Harter, 1999). Enfin, le troisième modèle propose que les motivations contextuelles autodéterminées prédisent négativement la détresse psychologique alors que la motivation autodéterminée globale ne fait que covarier avec les motivations contextuelles autodéterminées (Marsh &

Yeung, 1998). Dans un premier temps, les participants ont répondu aux mesures de motivation. Puis, cinq ans plus tard, les participants ont répondu à la mesure de détresse psychologique. Les différents modèles ont été évalués et comparés à l’aide d’analyses par équations structurelles (logiciel EQS).

Le présent mémoire est écrit sous forme d’article scientifique et il est soumis au Journal of Personality pour fin de publication. La première section de l’article expose la théorie de 1 ’ autodétermination (Deci & Ryan, 1991; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryan, Deci & Grolnick, 1995) ainsi qu’une recension des écrits portant sur le lien entre la motivation autodéterminée et la détresse psychologique. J'aborderai ensuite les trois modèles

théoriques qui seront testés dans le cadre de la présente étude. La section suivante expose la méthodologie utilisée ainsi que les résultats obtenus lors de la présente étude. Finalement, la dernière section présente la discussion générale, portant sur les implications théoriques des résultats obtenus ainsi que les limites de l’étude et des suggestions de recherches futures.

Self-Determination and Psychological Distress: A Test of Three Theoretical Models Étienne Julien, Frédéric Guay, Caroline Senécal

Université Laval, Québec Robert J. Vallerand

Université du Québec à Montréal, Montréal

Résumé

Le but de cette étude est d'évaluer trois modèles motivationnels de la détresse psychologique à l'aide d'un devis longitudinal sur cinq ans. Le premier modèle propose que la motivation autodéterminée globale prédit négativement la détresse psychologique et positivement les motivations contextuelles autodéterminées vis-à-vis des loisirs, des études et des relations interpersonnelles (Vallerand, 1997). Le second modèle propose que les motivations contextuelles autodéterminées déterminent la motivation autodéterminée globale, qui par la suite prédit négativement la détresse psychologique (Harter, 1999). Le troisième modèle propose que les motivations contextuelles autodéterminées prédisent négativement la détresse psychologique alors que la motivation autodéterminée globale ne fait que covarier avec ces motivations contextuelles autodéterminées (Marsh & Yeung, 1998). Au total, 201 étudiants du collégial ont participé à l'étude. Les résultats des analyses par équations structurelles démontrent que les indices d’adéquation des trois modèles sont excellents, bien que les différences de chi-carré démontrent que le troisième modèle offre une meilleure adéquation aux données.

Abstract

The purpose of this study was to test and compare three motivational models of psychological distress using a five-year longitudinal design. The first model posits that global self-determined motivation predicts negatively psychological distress, and positively contextual self-determined motivations toward education, leisure and interpersonal

relationships. The second model posits that the three contextual self-determined

motivations predict global self-determined motivation, which in turn predicts negatively psychological distress. The third model posits that the three contextual self-determined motivations predict negatively psychological distress, whereas global self-determined motivation simply covaries with these contextual self-determined motivations. Participants were 201 French-Canadian college students. Results from structural equation modeling provided support for the three models, although the third model offered slightly better fit indices to the data.

Self-Determination and Psychological Distress: A Test of Three Theoretical Models Mental health is an important social phenomenon. In the United States, according to studies by the National Institute of Mental Health, the prevalence of mental health disorders in the course of a year is 28%, which accounts for approximately 44 million Americans reporting a psychological disorder that may be diagnosed as a psychiatric disorder (Régier, Narrow, Rae, Manderscheid, Locke, & Goodwin, 1993). One out of two persons aged 15- 54 may have a psychological problem in the course of their life. The most common

disorders are anxiety disorders and depression (Kessler, McGonagle, Zhao, Nelson, Ughes, Eshleman, Wittchen, & Kendler, 1994).

According to Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985;1991), psychological distress occur when people demonstrate a weak sense of autonomy, that is, when their actions do not reflect their personal choices and interests. Several other theoretical frameworks also attribute importance to the role of autonomy in the etiology of psychological distress. For example, based on the psychodynamic object relations perspective, the child’s inability to detach themselves from their mother is detrimental to the development of their autonomy, which ultimately generates psychological distress (Kemberg, 1967). Moreover, according to the cognitive-behavioral perspective,

psychological distress is the product of dysfunctional cognitive processes which prevent individuals from adopting rational and functional thought (Beck, 1983). The cognitive conception of depression thus implies an autonomy disorder since the person’s actions are then controlled by rigid and impersonal standards.

According to Vallerand (1997), autonomy not only reflects certain individual differences, but also governs behaviors in various social contexts. For example, a person may feel obliged to take a college training program, but engages in leisure activities with a

feeling of freedom and choice (see also Roberts & Donahue, 1994; Ryan, 1995; Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthome, & Ilardi, 1997; for a similar argument). However, until now, studies which examined the relation between psychological distress and autonomy have not taken these different levels of generality into account. In fact, most of the studies have focused on predicting a person’s psychological distress based on global measures of autonomy

(personality) or on contextual measures in relation to an activity, but without integrating the different levels of generality into the same study.

According to Self-Determination Theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryan, Deci, & Grolnick, 1995), the operationalization of the process associated with autonomy involves assessment of the motivational style of the person. That is, people can be motivated by self- determined, or autonomous reasons (i.e, acting out of choice and personal interests) or by non self-determined reasons (i.e., by introjected or external reasons). Therefore, in accord with self-determination theory, autonomy will be assessed by the level of self-determined motivation. Thus, the purpose of this study was to determine which motivational level is most likely to predict the psychological distress of individuals. In other words, is global self-determined motivation an adequate predictor of psychological distress, or should motivational experiences in different social contexts be examined in order to understand psychological distress? We therefore assessed the validity of three theoretical models from the self-concept and the motivational perspectives (Harter, 1999; Marsh & Yeung, 1998; Vallerand, 1997) which posit different relations between global self-determined motivation, three contextual self-determined motivations (leisure, interpersonal relationships and

education) and psychological distress. In the following sections, we will first present Self- Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1991; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryan et ah, 1995) and a review of the literature on the relation between self-determined motivation and

psychological distress. We will then describe the three theoretical models which will be tested in this study.

Self-Determination Theory and Empirical Evidences

Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; 1991) posits that individuals seek to fulfil certain basic psychological needs, including autonomy, to develop their

psychological well-being and to protect themselves from psychological distress. In fact, people must act for self-determined reasons in order to experience optimal psychological well-being and reduce psychological distress. The level of self-determination (or

autonomy) is defined by three types of motivation, that is, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and amotivation. Intrinsic motivation is the most self-determined form of motivation. Intrinsically motivated people act for the pleasure and/or the satisfaction inherent in discovering and learning new things, using their potential to the fullest and mastering stimulating challenges. On the other hand, extrinsically motivated individuals engage in activities for instrumental reasons and not for the satisfaction inherent in performing the activity (Deci, 1975). Although some scholars have argued that extrinsic motivation refers uniquely to behaviors displayed in the presence of external control sources (e.g., rewards and punishments), other types of extrinsic motivations are now recognized (Deci & Ryan, 1985). These types of extrinsic motivations, from the lowest to the highest level of self-determination, are external regulation, introjected regulation and identified regulation. External regulation implies that the person behaves in a certain way in order to obtain a reward or avoid a punishment. In the case of introjected regulation,

individuals begin to internalize the reasons which push them to perform activities.

However, this form of internalization is still not self-determined because it is limited to the internalization of external control sources. For example, individuals can act in order to rid

themselves of their guilt, to lessen their anxiety or else to maintain a positive image of themselves. When people behave by choice and demonstrate a personal interest in their activities, the internalization of extrinsic reasons is regulated by identification. Thus, this form of extrinsic motivation is self-determined. Finally, amotivation is the least self- determined form of motivation. Amotivated people do not place any value on their actions. They do not feel competent about them and do not expect their actions to result in the desired consequences. This construct is similar to learned helplessness (Abramson, Seligman, & Teasdale, 1978). Several research studies in the past 25 years have

demonstrated that these motivational concepts can explain and predict a variety of human behaviors (see Deci, 1975; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1991, 2000; Vallerand, 1997).

The actions and goals of self-determined people are chosen in an authentic manner and reflect central aspects of their personality. These individuals thus experience a sense of integrity and congruence between their behaviors, feelings and personality traits (Koestner, Bemieri, & Zuckerman, 1992). Individuals who act for these self-determined reasons are more satisfied with their life and feel greater psychological well-being. They show an integrated regulation of their emotions and impulses, in that they are able to realize their emotions and use this awareness to control their actions. On the other hand, the actions and goals of non self-determined people do not represent their personal interests and values, but are instead imposed on them by external or introjected pressures. These individuals may therefore be excessively controlled by values, standards and self-regulation processes that are not integrated into the self. Individuals who act for these non self-determined reasons are less satisfied with their life and may experience psychological distress (Kasser & Ryan, 1993,1996; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999; Sheldon & Kasser, 1995; 1998; Ryan et al., 1995). For example, depressive individuals have often introjected unattainable standards which lessen

their self-esteem. In fact, the impossibility of attaining certain standards leads these individuals to perceive themselves as worthless and unlovable, resulting in a state of amotivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985) or learned helplessness (Abramson et ah, 1978).

In his recent review of the intrinsic and extrinsic motivation literature, Vallerand (1997) noted that most of these publications have investigated motivation at three levels of generality, that is, the situational level (state), the contextual level (areas of life) and the global level (personality). This article deals with the global and contextual levels only. Global motivation refers to the relatively stable individual difference which predispose the person to interact with the environment in a self-determined or non self-determined way. Contextual motivation refers instead to one’s usual motivational orientation toward a specific social context. This type of motivation varies according to the person’s social contexts. According to Vallerand (1997), the most important social contexts for college students are interpersonal relationships, education and leisure. By assessing the

multidimensional profile of motivation, we can determine the specific strengths and

weaknesses of a person in several social contexts. In fact, individuals can be motivated in a self-determined way toward leisure and interpersonal relationships, but in a non self- determined way toward education. This lack of self-determination in this fundamental context can constitute a weakness for individuals, despite the level of self-determination that they feel overall and in the other areas of their life.

Several empirical studies demonstrate that self-determined motivation, both at the global and contextual levels, is associated with psychological well-being. In these studies, psychological well-being refers to optimal psychological functionning and is assessed by the relative presence of positive features and absence of negative features. According to Ryan, Sheldon, Kasser, & Deci (1996), the pursuit and attainment of personal goals

in beneficial effects on the psychological well-being of individuals as long as these goals are self-determined. For example, Kasser and Ryan (1993,1996) focused on the effects of intrinsic or extrinsic aspirations on the psychological well-being of adults and adolescents. Intrinsic aspirations relate to behaviors based on the tendency toward actualization, such as meaningful relationships, personal growth and interest in the community. Extrinsic

aspirations such as fame, wealth and image require recognition by other people in order to be gratifying. These authors demonstrated that people who attach more importance to intrinsic aspirations have better psychological well-being (as defined by actualization, vitality and less depression, anxiety, narcissism and physical symptoms) than those who attach importance to extrinsic aspirations (see also Ryan, Chirkov, Little, Sheldon,

Timoshina, & Deci, 1999). Two longitudinal studies also showed that students who pursue self-determined goals during an academic session demonstrate more perseverance and satisfaction in pursuing these goals (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999; Sheldon & Kasser, 1998). Moreover, the pursuit of self-determined goals maintains or increases the person’s level of vitality (a positive feeling of having available energy), compared to the pursuit of non self- determined goals (Nix, Ryan, Manly, & Deci, 1999; Ryan & Frederick, 1997; Sheldon & Kasser, 1995).

A number of studies have demonstrated that individuals with a high level of trait self-determination have better subjective well-being on a daily basis. However, after having controlled for this personality effect, it was demonstrated that the days when people feel the most self-determined are also the days when they feel their best (Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, & Ryan, 2000; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999; Sheldon, Ryan, & Reis, 1996). Sheldon and his colleagues (1997) also demonstrated that self-determined motivation toward certain important life domains (studies, work, family, love and interpersonal relationships) is

linked with subjective well-being, after the influence of personality traits has been controlled for. Pelletier, Vallerand, Green-Demers, Brière, and Blais (1995) also demonstrated that engagement in leisure activities when governed by self-determined motivation is positively associated with the psychological well-being of individuals.

In summary, previous studies indicate that the well-being of individuals results not only from personality-based motivation but also from motivations which govern their daily activities. Although psychological distress differs from psychological well-being because it only refers to negative features, these previous studies show that non self-determined motivation limits psychological well-being, and therefore may be associated with

psychological distress. However, none of the studies mentioned had simultaneously tested the influence of global and contextual motivations on psychological distress. This is an important omission since these studies do not allow us to specify which level of generality in motivation and which social contexts are the most important for explaining a person’s psychological distress.

Theoretical Models

As was mentioned above, three theoretical models will be tested in order to better understand the relations that exist between global motivation, contextual motivations (toward leisure, interpersonal relationships and education) and psychological distress. The first model is based on the Hierarchical Model of Motivation (see Figure 1; Vallerand, 1997). According to this model, motivational consequences exist at three levels of generality. The degree of generality of the different consequences depends on the level of motivation. Thus, the consequences of global motivation should be on the general level (e.g. psychological distress). However, the consequences of contextual motivation should be related to the area of life concerned. For example, non self-determined motivation

toward school has been found to be associated with a higher drop-out rate among students during one school year (Vallerand, Fortier, & Guay, 1997) and during one academic session (Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992). Thus, based on the Hierarchical Model of

Motivation (Vallerand, 1997), global self-determined motivation (personality) would affect negatively psychological distress and, in addition, largely and positively determine the individual’s motivation in his areas of life (education, interpersonal relationships and leisure).

The second model is based on Harter’s (1999) theoretical perspective on the self- concept, according to which, the specific self-evaluations determine global self-esteem which, in turn, affects a person’s psychological distress level. The second model therefore posits that the contextual motivations (toward education, interpersonal relationships and leisure) would affect global motivation. Global motivation would then affect negatively psychological distress (see Figure 2).

The third model is based on Marsh and Yeung’s (1998) perspective on the self- concept, which posits that global scales do not allow for a significant prediction of

consequences related to the self when the person’s more specific self-evaluations are taken into consideration. These authors therefore conclude that the measures that are more specific to different important areas of life would be more useful than the global scales for understanding the consequences related to the self. The third model tested assesses this proposition and posits that the global motivational representations should not predict psychological distress if the influence of motivations in the areas of life (education, interpersonal relationships and leisure; see Figure 3) is taken into consideration.

In sum, the purpose of this research was to assess the influence of self-determined motivation on psychological distress. More specifically, we wanted to determine which

motivational level (global or contextual) and which social contexts (leisure, interpersonal relationships or education) provide a better prediction of the psychological distress of individuals over a 5-year period. To this end, the results of the three theoretical models presented above will be compared.

Method Participants and Procedure

Data from this study were obtained from a longitudinal project on employment integration (Guay & Vallerand, 1999). This project included one wave of data collection in 1994 with a follow-up data collection in 1999. In March 1994,1039 French-Canadian college students completed four motivational measures (Global, Academic, Interpersonal Relationships and Leisure Motivation Scales). Questionnaires were administered in the college classroom by research assistants. Among the 1039 college students, 500 of them agreed to give us their address and telephone number for possible participation in a follow- up study. In March 1999, a research assistant attempted to contact these 500 students. Of the 500, 360 were reached either by phone or by mail. Finally, of those 360 participants, 201 agreed to participate in the second wave of testing, for a response rate of 56%. Among those 201 participants, 143 were females, 58 were males and the mean age was 24 years old. In the 1999 data collection, participants completed various measures, including the psychological distress measure.

Measures

The Global Motivation Scale. The French version of the Global Motivation Scale assesses one’s general motivation (GMS; Guay, Mageau, & Vallerand, 2002). The GMS assesses three types of intrinsic motivation (toward knowledge, stimulation, and

extrinsic motivation (i.e., identified, introjected, and external regulation), and amotivation. There are 4 items per subscale and thus a total of 28 items. Each item represents a possible reason for doing things in general. Items are scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “does not correspond at all” (1) to “corresponds completely”(?). The GMS has

demonstrated high levels of construct and concurrent validity as well as internal

consistency (see Guay et al., submitted manuscript). In the present study, Cronbach alphas for the seven subscales ranged from .69 to .93. Sample items are presented in the Table 1.

The Academic Motivation Scale. The French version of the Academic Motivation Scale (AMS; Vallerand et al., 1989) assesses students’ motivation toward educational activities. The AMS is composed of seven subscales. However, in the present study we used the abridged version containing 4 subscales. There are 4 items per subscale and thus a total of 16 items. Each item represents a possible reason for going to school. One subscale assesses intrinsic motivation, two subscales assess types of extrinsic motivation (identified regulation and external regulation) and one subscale assesses amotivation. Items are scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “does not correspond at all” (1) to “corresponds completely”(?). The AMS has demonstrated high levels of construct and concurrent validity as well as internal consistency (see Vallerand et al., 1989,1992,1993). In the present study, Cronbach alphas for the four subscales ranged from .69 to .91. Sample items are presented in the Table 1.

The Interpersonal Motivation Scale. This scale was developed and validated in French by Blais, Vallerand, Pelletier and Brière (1994). It measures intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, introjected regulation, external regulation, and amotivation toward interpersonal relationships. The original version consists of a 26-item scale. Participants had to answer the following question: "Why do you have relations with your friends?”.

Each item represents a possible answer to this question. These reasons are scored on a 7- point Likert scale ranging from “does not correspond at all”(l) to “corresponds

completely”(?). However, in the present study, we used the abridged version containing four subscales. One subscale assesses intrinsic motivation, two subscales assess types of extrinsic motivation (identified regulation and external regulation) and one subscale assesses amotivation. Four possible answers are given for each of the four motivations, yielding a 16-item scale. In the present study, Cronbach alphas for the four subscales ranged from .71 to .90. Sample items are presented in the Table 1.

The Leisure Motivation Scale. This scale was developed and validated in French by Pelletier et al. (1995). It measures three types of intrinsic motivation (toward knowledge, stimulation, and accomplishment), three types of extrinsic motivation (identified regulation, introjected regulation, and external regulation), and amotivation toward leisure activities. The original version consists of a 28-item scale. Each item represents a possible answer to the following question : “Why do you engage in leisure activities?”. The reasons given are scored on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from “does not correspond at all” (1) to

“corresponds completely”(?). In the present study, we used the abridged version containing four subscales. One subscale assesses intrinsic motivation, two subscales assess types of extrinsic motivation (identified regulation and external regulation) and one subscale assesses amotivation. Four possible answers are given for each of the four motivations, yielding a 16-item scale. In the present study, Cronbach alphas for the four subscales ranged from .63 to .84. Sample items are presented in the Table 1.

Psychological distress scale. This scale assesses four indicators of psychological distress, namely depression, anxiety, irritability and paranoid ideations. Each item assesses the frequency of a psychological symptom on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “not at

all” (1) to “often” (4). The depression, anxiety and irritability subscales are abridged versions from the Psychiatric Symptoms Index subscales (Ilfeld, 1976). These subscales were adapted and validated in French for the Santé-Québec survey on mental health (1995). The first subscale assesses anxiety (6 items, a = .73) whereas the second subscale assesses irritability (4 items, a = .75). The third subscale assesses depression (10 items, a = .84). Finally, the fourth subscale is an abridged version of the paranoid ideations subscale from the “Symptoms Checklist 90” (Derogatis & Melisaratos, 1983). It was adapted and

validated in French for the Santé-Québec survey on mental health (1995). Cronbach alpha for this subscale (6 items) is .73. Sample items are presented in the Table 1.

Statistical Analyses

Measurement strategy. To reduce the number of variables involved in the study, we computed self-determination indices for our four motivational scales (e.g., Fortier,

Vallerand, & Guay, 1995; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Senécal, Vallerand, & Guay, 2001; Vallerand, 1997). This was done by ascribing each item a specific weight and then summing the products. Consequently, intrinsic motivation and identified regulation items were assigned the score of +2 and +1 respectively (higher self-determined forms of motivation) whereas amotivation and external regulation were attributed the weights of -2 and -1 respectively. For contextual motivations, there were four items for each motivational construct and consequently four indicators per latent construct were computed using the following formula: ((-2*amotivation) + (-!*external regulation) + (1 *identified regulation) + (2*intrinsic motivation)). For global motivation indices, items of seven subscales were computed, using the following formula: ((-2*amotivation) + ((-1* external regulation - !*introjected regulation)/2) + (!*identified regulation) + (2 *mean of intrinsic motivations

toward stimulation, accomplishment, knowledge)). Mean scores on the anxiety, irritability, paranoia and depression scales served as the four different indicators of the psychological distress latent construct.

Goodness of fit. All structural equation modeling analyses were performed on covariance matrices using the Maximum Likelihood estimation procedure (EQS Version 5.6; B entier, 1993). To ascertain the model fit, we used the Comparative Fit Index (CFI), the Non-Normed Fit Index (NNFI, also known as the Tucker-Lewis Index), the Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA) as well as the chi-square test statistic. The NNFI and CFI vary along a 0-to-l continuum (although the NNFI could be greater than 1, this is rarely the case in practice), where values greater than .90 are typically taken to reflect an acceptable fit (Schumacker & Lomax, 1996). Browne & Cudeck (1993; see also Joreskog & Sorbom, 1993) suggest that RMSEAs less than .05 are indicative of a “close fit” and that values up to.08 represent reasonable errors of approximation. Model comparison was facilitated by positing a nested ordering of models in which the parameter estimates for a more restrictive model are a proper subset of those in a more general model (for further discussion see B entier, 1990). Under appropriate assumptions, the difference in chi-squares between two nested models has a chi-square (χ2 ) distribution and so can be tested in relation to statistical significance.

Results

Two series of statistical analyses were conducted. We first conducted some preliminary analyses to ensure that the subsample who had completed measures in 1994 and in 1999 (n = 201) was equivalent and thus representative of the whole sample (N= 1039). Second, we tested the three motivational models.

Preliminary Analyses

First, scores on motivational indexes (means of the four indicators for each

motivation) at Time 1 were tested for mean differences between the subsample included in the main analyses (n = 201) and people whose data were not available for Time 2 (n = 838). Means and standard deviations are presented in Table 2. Results of a multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) indicated that all index means were equivalent across samples ( F

(4,1034) = .898,2 >.45).

Second, the measurement model at Time 1 was tested for factorial invariance across the two samples (i.e., n = 201, n = 838). This model included global motivation, academic motivation, leisure motivation and interpersonal relationship motivation, all measured at Time 1. The overall fit of the unconstrained model for the multiple group analysis was excellent. Nested models were then created by constraining different components of the original model to be equal across samples (factor loadings, error variances, factor covariances). For each comparison between models, the chi-square statistics of all models were equivalent with a p value exceeding .05 (i.e., the chi-square difference test was non significant). These results strongly suggested that the subsample used (n = 201) was equivalent to the initial whole sample with respect to the variable's means and their factorial structure. Given these tests, we feel confident that results obtained with the smaller sample can be generalized to the initial larger sample.

Structural Equation Models

Correlations between latent constructs are presented in Table 3 (the correlations are based on a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA)). The fit of the CFA model is good

constructs were relatively independent of each other (i.e., correlations ranged between -.19

to .73).

Three models were compared in order to investigate relations between global motivation, contextual motivations (toward leisure, education and interpersonal

relationships), and psychological distress five years later. Table 4 presents a summary of the goodness-of-fit for these three models.

In Model 1, we tested predictions from the Hierarchical Model of Motivation (Vallerand, 1997). In this model, paths from the self-determined global motivation latent construct to self-determined contextual motivations latent constructs and to psychological distress were freely estimated (see Figure 1). The fit of the model is good (see Model 1 in Table 4). There were significant positive relations between global self-determined

motivation and self-determined motivation toward leisure (ß = .74), interpersonal

relationships (ß = .44) and education (ß= .60). Moreover, there was a significant negative relation between global self-determined motivation and psychological distress (ß = -.22).

In Model 2, we tested the prediction from Harter (1999). In this model, paths from the three contextual motivation latent constructs to the global motivation latent construct, as well as the path from global motivation to psychological distress, were freely estimated. Correlations among contextual self-determined motivations were also freely estimated (see Figure 2). The fit of the model is good (see Model 2 in Table 4). There were significant positive relations between global self-determined motivation and self-determined motivation toward leisure (ß = .57) and education (ß= .41). Moreover, there was a

distress (ß - -.22). However, the relation between global motivation and motivation toward interpersonal relationships was not significant (ß = .08).

In Model 3, we tested a model based on Marsh and Yeung’s (1998) perspective. In this model, correlations among factors were freely estimated and all paths from the three contextual motivation latent constructs and the global motivation latent construct to the psychological distress index were freely estimated (see Figure 3). The fit of the model is good (see Model 3 in Table 4). There was a significant negative relation between some contextual self-determined motivations and psychological distress (Figure 1). Specifically, psychological distress were negatively predicted by self-determined motivation toward interpersonal relationships (ß = -.25) and leisure activities (ß = -.26). However, the relation between academic motivation and psychological distress was not significant (ß = -.23). On the other hand, global self-determined motivation demonstrated a non-significant but positive relation with psychological distress (ß = .25). This unexpected result is probably due to some minor multicolinearity problems since the correlation between global self- determined motivation and psychological distress is - .19.

According to the chi-square difference (Δχ2) test, Model 3 offered the values with the best fit (Δχ2 (3)= 14,91, pc.OOl). However, it is important to keep in mind that the CFI, NNFI, and RMSEA indices were nearly equivalent for each model (see Table 4).

Consequently, it cannot be concluded that there is no support for models 1 and 2. Discussion

The purpose of this study was to determine the relations that exist between global motivation, contextual motivations and psychological distress over a 5-year period and, more specifically, to compare three different theoretical models of these relations (Harter,

1999; Marsh & Yeung, 1998; Vallerand, 1997). Although the fit indices of the three models are excellent, the chi-square differences show that the model based on Marsh and Yeung’s (1998) perspective provides a slightly better fit to the data. However, since the other two theoretical models also show an acceptable fit to the data, they should not be rejected. Some of the theoretical and methodological implications of these results will be discussed in the following sections.

Theoretical Implications

All the results obtained for the three models have demonstrated that, regardless of the level of generality assessed (global or contextual), self-determination is negatively

associated with the psychological distress of individuals five years later. Thus, people who are motivated in a self-determined way have satisfactory experiences, which are associated with less psychological distress. On the other hand, people who lacks self-determination in their life feel that their actions do not reflect their personal choices and interests, which are associated with psychological distress. These results support those of other studies that have demonstrated the relation between self-determination and well-being (Reis et al., 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryan & Kasser, 1993, 1996; Ryan et al., 1995; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999; Sheldon & Kasser, 1995,1998; Sheldon et al., 1996,1997).

The present study is the first to integrate global and contextual motivations in order to understand psychological distress. The integration of these two aspects of self makes it possible to test and compare the different predictions of the three motivational models. Results of the first model, which is based on the Hierarchical Model of Motivation

(Vallerand, 1997), suggest that global self-determined motivation fosters self-determination in different areas of life and allows the individual to experience less psychological distress. These results support those of several studies on self processes which demonstrate that the

stable and global aspects of self influence the more specific aspects of self (for example, Brown, 1993). Thus, the motivation that characterise individuals predispose them to be somewhat motivated in certain areas of life (Vallerand, 1997). Several studies have also already demonstrated that in order to accurately predict individuals’ behaviors, their attitudes must be measured at the same level of generality (for example, Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). Similarly, the results of this model support Vallerand’s (1997) hypothesis that global consequences such aspsychological distress are predicted by motivation at the same level of generality (global motivation).

Results from the second model, which is based on Harter’s (1999) studies, suggest that individual’s motivational experiences in their areas of life contribute to the

development of their global motivational representations. These motivational

representations are in turn associated with less psychological distress. These results are in line with the developmental literature (for example, Byrne and Gavin, 1996; Harter, 1985;

1999) which suggests that individual’s repeated experiences in their areas of life contribute to the development of their more stable representations of self. Thus, individual’s

motivational experiences in their studies and leisure contribute to the development of their global motivational inferences (see also Vallerand, 1997). In practical terms, it is thus important to encourage individual’s self-determination in the important areas of their life, since their contextual motivations have an effect on their global motivation, which in turn contributes to improving their psychological well-being.

Lastly, the third model, which is based on Marsh and Yeung’s (1998) proposition, proves to be slightly better than the other two models. These results emphasize the importance of focusing on contextual motivations in the explanation of psychological distress. In fact, this model’s results demonstrated that the self-determined motivations in

interpersonal relationships and leisure are negatively associated with the indicator of psychological distress five years later. However, global self-determined motivation and motivation toward studies are not significantly associated with this indicator of

psychological distress. Thus, in this model, the assessment of motivational experiences in interpersonal relations and leisure seems to be more useful than the assessment of global motivational representations for predicting long-term psychological distress. These results therefore suggest that individual’s well-being would be mainly influenced by their

experiences in their areas of life. These results also support those of several authors who demonstrated a relation between self-determination at the contextual level and

psychological adjustment (Pelletier et al., 1995; Reis et al., 2000; Ryan, 1995; Sheldon et al., 1996,1997). However, in this third model, self-determined motivation toward

education was not significantly linked to psychological distress. On the other hand, only 122 of the 201 participants were still studying when their psychological distress was assessed five years later. Thus, 79 of the 201 participants no longer had studies as their reference framework when their psychological distress was assessed, which may have skewed the results on the relation between academic motivation and psychological distress. Therefore, a sample made up of only students should be used in future studies in order to determine once again the relation between self-determined motivation toward studies and psychological distress.

The results of the first two models suggest that the role of global motivation in the prediction of psychological distress should not be rejected. We believe that the general motivation which characterises an individual can certainly be useful in the prediction of psychological distress, but this type of motivation probably plays a different role than that proposed by Vallerand (1997) and Harter (1999). Thus, the global motivation level may not

necessary have a direct influence on psychological distress. However, it appears rather clean that global motivation have an influence on the individual’s motivational experiences in different areas of life, as suggested by Vallerand (1997). The individual’s motivational experiences in these contexts would in turn be the best predictors of psychological distress, as suggested by Marsh and Yeung (1998). A post hoc model was tested in order to assess this possibility. In this model, relations ranging from global motivation to contextual motivations (toward studies, interpersonal relationships and leisure) are assessed as well as relations between these contextual motivations and the indicator of psychological distress. This model provides excellent fit indices (χ2 (161, n = 201) =280.367; CFI = .95; NNFI = .94; RMSEA= .06). Moreover, the chi-square differences test shows a fit to the data which is equivalent to the model that assesses the proposition of Marsh and Yeung (Δχ2 (1)= 2.108, n.s.). Thus, global self-determined motivation could predispose individuals to be motivated in a self-determined manner in their areas of life, and these contextual

motivations would in turn affect negatively psychological distress. This model thus has the advantage of integrating Marsh and Yeung’s (1998) propositions and the Hierarchical Model of Motivation (Vallerand, 1997). However, additional research are necessary in order to reproduce this model’s results.

The relations between global motivation, contextual motivation and psychological distress are thus complex. In fact, the levels of global and contextual motivations seem to show reciprocal relations, as shown in Model 1 and 2 (see also Guay, et ah, 2002;

Vallerand, 1997). Moreover, each of these levels of generality is linked with psychological distress, although the contextual motivations seem to be the best predictors of

complex relations between global and contextual motivations in the prediction of psychological distress.

Limitations and Future Studies

The present study has a number of limitations. First of all, results were obtained from the areas of interpersonal relationships, studies and leisure. Although these areas are considered to be the most important ones for young adults (Vallerand, 1997), it is likely that other areas, such as work as well as romantic and family relationships, also have an impact on the well-being of individuals (e.g., Senécal, Vallerand, & Guay, 2001). Future studies could include these areas of life in order to assess their relative importance for psychological distress.

It would also be useful to assess the models’ validity with other population groups, in particular older adults who might demonstrate a stronger relation between their global self-determined motivation and psychological distress. In fact, the students in our sample were 19 years of age when measured at Time 1. At that age, it is likely that the global motivational representations are not fully developed yet. These global representations are probably more developed in older adults, and thus would have a stronger influence on their level of psychological distress.

Lastly, as the data used in this study are correlational, it was impossible for us to ascertain the direction of causality. Therefore, the use of a longitudinal design with

repeated measurements in future studies could compensate for this shortcoming. The use of this longitudinal design has proven to be a useful approach to assess the direction of

causality when experimental manipulations are not possible (see also Marsh & Yeung, 1998). However, the 5-year time frame used in this study constitutes a methodological contribution to studies on motivation, providing a more valid assessment of the types of

relations which exist between motivation and psychological distress. This makes it possible to assess the relations between self-determined motivation and psychological distress over time.

Conclusion

In summary, despite the limitations mentioned, the present study demonstrates that it is relevant to assess the relation between self-determination and psychological distress from a multidimensional perspective. In fact, the results of analyses by structural equations show that it is important to focus on individual’s motivational experiences in the significant areas of their life rather than assessing only their global self-determined motivation.

Nevertheless, it also seems appropriate to maintain an interest in global motivation, since individual’s personality may predispose them toward a certain type of motivational experiences in their areas of life. However, interventions should also be targeted at important social contexts in which individuals show a lack of self-determination.

For example, individuals can be self-determined in their studies but amotivated in their interpersonal relationships and thus perceive themselves to be unsociable. These people might then suffer from loneliness and feel depressed despite being self-determined in their studies. They might therefore benefit from an intervention aimed at enhancing their self- determination in interpersonal relationships. This information, which is relevant for the intervention, would not have been available from a measure of global self-determination.

Table 1

Sample of Items from the Four Motivational Scales and the Psychological Distress Scale

Scale Sample Items

Global Motivation “In order to feel pleasant emotions” (intrinsic motivation to stimulation); Scale “Because I like making interesting discoveries”(intrinsic motivation to

knowledge);

“For the pleasure I feel mastering what I am doing” (intrinsic motivation to accomplishment);

“Because I choose them as means to attain my objectives” (identified regulation);

“Because I would be hard on myself for not doing them” (introjected regulation);

“Because I want to be viewed more positively by certain people” (external regulation);

“Although I do not see the benefit in what I am doing” (amotivation). Academic “Because I experience pleasure and satisfaction when learning new things” Motivation Scale (intrinsic motivation);

“Because this will help me make a better choice regarding my career orientation” (identified regulation);

“In order to have a better salary later on”(extemal regulation); “I don’t know; I can’t understand what I am doing in school” (amotivation).

“Because I have lots of fun with my fnends”(intrinsic motivation); “Because it’s a great way to develop myself’(identified regulation); “Because I don’t want to be isolated from the other persons”

(external regulation);

“I don’t know; I’m not a sociable person” (amotivation) “For the pleasure I feel when I have exciting experiences” (intrinsic motivation);

“Because I chose them as a means to improve myself’ (identified regulation);

“To show other people that I’m a dynamic person” (external regulation);

“I don’t know; I think that leisure is a waste of time” (amotivation). “Have you been feeling low in energy or slowed down?”

(depression scale);

“Have you been feeling easily annoyed or irritated?” (irritability); “Have you been feeling under pressure?” (anxiety);

“Have you been feeling others are to blame for most of your problems?” Interpersonal Motivation Scale Leisure Motivation Scale Psychological Distress Scale (paranoid ideation)

Table 2

Means and Standard Deviations on Motivational Indexes for the Total Sample and the Subsamnles at Time 1 only and Time 2 only

Total sample Subsample (Tl only) Subsample (T2 only)

N= 1039 n= 838 n = 201

Motivational Mean Standard Mean Standard Mean Standard

Indexes Deviation Deviation Deviation

GINDEX 9.09 3.97 9.37 3.97 8.99 3.98

EINDEX 7.83 4.31 7.80 4.34 7.97 4.20

LINDEX 10.85 3.57 10.92 3.51 10.58 3.79

RINDEX 10.14 4.12 10.17 4.09 10.01 4.25

Note: GINDEX= global self-determined motivation, LINDEX= leisure self-determined motivation, RINDEX= interpersonal relationship self-determined motivation, EINDEX= academic self-determined motivation.

Table 3

Correlations Between Self-Determined Motivations and Psychological Distress

GINDEX LINDEX RINDEX EINDEX DISTRESS

GINDEX 1.00

LINDEX .73 1.00

RINDEX .43 .50 1.00

EINDEX .60 .30 .17 1.00

DISTRESS -.19 -.28 -.32 -.20 1.00

Note: GINDEX- global self-determined motivation, LINDEX= leisure self-determined motivation, RINDEX— interpersonal relationship self-determined motivation, EINDEX— academic self-determined motivation, DISTRESS- composite of paranoia, depression, anxiety and anger.

Table 4

Goodness-of-Fit Indicators of the Three Motivational Models

Model

X2 df CFI NNFI RMSEA

Model 1

(based on the Hierarchical Model; Vail er and, 1997)

Model 2 293,171 163 .95 .94 .06 (based on Harter, 1999) Model 3 293,171 163 .95 .94 .06 (based on Marsh & Yeung, 1998)

278,259 160 .95 .94 .06

Note: CFI = Comparative Fit Index, NNFI = Non-Normed Fit Index, RMSEA = Root Mean Square Error of Approximation.

Global Psychological Distress Self-Determined Motivation y Academic Interpersonal > S elf-Determined Motivation y Leisure Self-Determined Motivation y Self-Determined Motivation y

Interpersonal X Self-Determined K Motivation y Leisure

X

Interpersonal X Self-Determined Motivation y Academie Leisure

X

Conclusion générale

Le but de cette étude était de vérifier les relations qui existent entre la motivation globale, les motivations contextuelles et la détresse psychologique sur une période de 5 ans. Plus précisément, il s'agissait de comparer trois modèles théoriques (Vallerand, 1997; Harter, 1999; Marsh & Yeung, 1998) qui proposent différentes relations entre la motivation globale, les motivations contextuelles et la détresse psychologique. Bien que les indices d’adéquation des trois modèles soient excellents, les différences de chi-carré démontrent que le modèle reposant sur la perspective de Marsh et Yeung (1998) offre une adéquation aux données légèrement supérieure. Néanmoins, les deux autres modèles théoriques ayant également démontré une adéquation suffisante aux données, il nous apparaît difficile de les rejeter. Ces résultats entraînent donc certaines implications théoriques et méthodologiques qui sont discutées dans les sections qui suivent.

Implications théoriques

L’ensemble des résultats obtenus pour les trois modèles ont démontré que peu importe le niveau de généralité évalué (global ou contextuel), 1 ’ autodétermination est associée négativement à la détresse psychologique des individus cinq ans plus tard. Ainsi, les gens motivés de manière autodéterminée vivent des expériences satisfaisantes, ce qui est associé négativement à la détresse psychologique. Par contre, une personne qui démontre un manque d’autodétermination dans sa vie sent que ses actions ne reflètent pas ses choix et intérêts personnels, ce qui est associé à la détresse psychologique. Ces résultats appuient un ensemble de recherches qui démontrent le lien entre !'autodétermination et le bien-être psychologique (Reis et al., 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryan et al., 1995; Ryan et Kasser,

1993, 1996; Sheldon et Elliot, 1999; Sheldon & Kasser, 1995,1998; Sheldon et al., 1996,

La présente étude est la première à intégrer les motivations globale et contextuelle afin de comprendre la détresse psychologique. L'intégration de ces deux aspects du Soi a permis de vérifier et de comparer les différentes prédictions de trois modèles

motivationnels. Les résultats du premier modèle qui repose sur le modèle hiérarchique de la motivation (Vallerand, 1997) démontre que la motivation globale autodéterminée favorise 1 ’ autodétermination vis-à-vis différents domaines de vie, tout en permettant à F individu de vivre moins de détresse psychologique. Ces résultats appuient plusieurs travaux sur les processus du Soi, qui démontrent que les aspects stables et globaux du Soi influencent les aspects plus spécifiques du Soi (par exemple, Brown, 1993). Ainsi, la motivation qui caractérise une personne prédispose à être motivé d'une certaine manière dans les domaines de vie (Vallerand, 1997). Aussi, plusieurs travaux ont déjà démontré qu'afin de bien prédire les comportements des individus, les attitudes doivent être mesurées au même niveau de généralité (par exemple, Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). De la même manière, les résultats de ce modèle appuient l'hypothèse de Vallerand (1997) selon laquelle les conséquences globales telle que la détresse psychologique, sont prédites par la motivation au même niveau de généralité (motivation globale).

Les résultats du deuxième modèle qui repose sur les travaux de Harter (1999)

démontre, pour sa part, que les expériences motivationnelles globales de F individu dans ses domaines de vie contribuent à l'élaboration de ses représentations motivationnelles

globales. Par la suite, ces représentations motivationnelles sont associées à moins de détresse psychologique. Ces résultats sont en ligne avec la littérature développementale (par exemple, Byme & Gavin, 1996; Harter, 1985;1999) qui suggère que les expériences répétées de l'individu dans ses domaines de vie contribuent à l'élaboration de ses

dans ses relations interpersonnelles, ses études et ses loisirs contribuent à l'élaboration de ses inférences motivationnelles globales (voir aussi Vallerand, 1997). Au plan pratique, il devient donc important d'encourager !'autodétermination de l'individu dans les domaines importants de sa vie, puisque ses motivations contextuelles entraînent un effet sur sa motivation globale, ce qui contribue par la suite à améliorer son bien-être psychologique.

Enfin, le troisième modèle reposant sur la proposition de Marsh et Yeung (1998) s'est avéré légèrement supérieur aux deux autres modèles. Ces résultats soulignent bien

l'importance d'accorder plus d'attention aux motivations contextuelles dans !'explication de la détresse psychologique. En effet, les résultats de ce modèle ont démontré que les

motivations autodéterminées envers les domaines des relations interpersonnelles et des loisirs sont associées négativement à l’indice de détresse psychologique 5 ans plus tard. Toutefois, la motivation autodéterminée globale et celle envers les études ne sont pas associées significativement à cet indice de détresse psychologique. On peut ainsi constater dans ce modèle que l'évaluation des expériences motivationnelles envers les relations interpersonnelles et les loisirs semble plus utile que l'évaluation des représentations motivationnelles globales pour prédire la détresse psychologique à long terme. Ainsi, ces résultats suggèrent que la détresse psychologique des individus serait principalement influencée par ses expériences dans ses domaines de vie. Ces résultats viennent aussi appuyer les travaux de plusieurs auteurs qui ont démontré une relation entre la motivation contextuelle autodéterminée et l’ajustement psychologique et ce, indépendamment de l’influence des facteurs de personnalité (Pelletier et al., 1995; Reis et al., 2000; Sheldon et al., 1996, 1997; voir aussi Ryan, 1995). Cependant, la motivation autodéterminée envers les études n’est pas reliée de manière significative à la détresse psychologique dans ce modèle. Par contre, seulement 122 participants sur 201 étaient encore aux études lorsque leur

détresse psychologique fut évalué 5 ans plus tard. Ainsi, 79 des 201 participants n’avaient plus le cadre de référence des études lorsqu’ils ont évalué leur niveau de détresse

psychologique, ce qui a pu biaiser les résultats concernant la relation entre motivation académique et détresse psychologique. Les recherches futures devraient donc utiliser un échantillon composé uniquement d’étudiants pour vérifier à nouveau la relation entre la motivation autodéterminée envers les études et la détresse psychologique.

À la lumière des deux premiers modèles, il nous semble toutefois difficile de rej etter le rôle de la motivation globale dans la prédiction de la détresse psychologique. Nous croyons donc que la motivation qui caractérise un individu peut certainement être utile dans la prédiction de la détresse psychologique, mais ce type de motivation joue probablement un rôle différent de celui proposé par Vallerand (1997) et Harter (1999). Ainsi, le niveau global de la motivation n'a peut-être pas une influence directe sur la détresse

psychologique. Cependant, la motivation globale influence probablement les expériences motivationnelles de l'individu daris ses domaines de vie tel que postulé par Vallerand (1997). Par la suite, les expériences motivationnelles de l'individu dans ses domaines de vie seraient les meilleurs prédicteurs du niveau de détresse psychologique, tel que postulé par Marsh & Yeung (1998). Afin de vérifier cette possibilité, un modèle post hoc a été testé. Dans ce modèle, les relations allant de la motivation globale vers les motivations envers les domaines de vie (étude, relations interpersonnelles et loisirs) sont estimées ainsi que les relations allant de ces motivations contextuelles vers l'indice de détresse psychologique. Ce modèle offre des indices d'adéquation excellents (χ2 (161, n = 201) =280.367; CFI = .95; NNFI = .94; RMSEA= .06). De plus, le test de différence de chi-carré démontre une adéquation aux données équivalente au modèle évaluant la proposition de Marsh et Yeung