3 part Discussion:

EMPIRICAL RESEARCH

Autonomy, Belongingness, and Engagement in School as Contributors to Adolescent Psychological Well-Being

Mark J. Van Ryzin Æ Amy A. Gravely Æ Cary J. Roseth

Received: 14 September 2007 / Accepted: 15 November 2007 / Published online: 30 November 2007

� Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Abstract Self-determination theory emphasizes the

importance of school-based autonomy and belongingness

to academic achievement and psychological adjustment,

and the theory posits a model in which engagement in

school mediates the influence of autonomy and belong-

ingness on these outcomes. To date, this model has only

been evaluated on academic outcomes. Utilizing short-term

longitudinal data (5-month timeframe) from a set of sec-

ondary schools in the rural Midwest (N = 283, M

age = 15.3, 51.9% male, 86.2% White), we extend the

model to include a measure of positive adjustment (i.e.,

hope). We also find a direct link between peer-related

belongingness (i.e., peer support) and positive adjustment

that is not mediated by engagement in school. A reciprocal

relationship between academic autonomy, teacher-related

belongingness (i.e., teacher support) and engagement in

learning is supported, but this reciprocal relationship does

not extend to peer-related belongingness. The implications

of these findings for secondary schools are discussed.

Keywords Self-determination theory � Autonomy � Belongingness � Positive psychology � Hope

Introduction

Self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan 2000; Deci et al.

1991) has long emphasized the importance of autonomy and

belongingness to success in school. For example, high-

autonomy learning situations (i.e., situations that provide

students with a high degree of choice and self-direction in

school) have been found to stimulate student motivation,

engagement, and academic achievement (Deci et al. 1981a,

b; Flink et al. 1990; Patrick et al. 1993; Ryan and Grolnick

1986; Vansteenkiste et al. 2004). Higher levels of auton-

omy in school are also related to lower dropout rates

(Vallerand and Bissonnette 1992). In contrast, a controlling

approach by teachers creates a reduced perception of

autonomy in students, which can interfere with performance

on complex learning tasks (Grolnick and Ryan 1987).

Academic autonomy has also been found to be

essential to psychological well-being (Ryan and Deci

2000). Lower levels of academic autonomy are associated

with higher levels of anxiety and negative coping strat-

egies in school, whereas higher levels of autonomy are

associated with positive coping strategies (Ryan and

Connell 1989). In general, increasing amounts of choice

and self-direction both inside and outside of school are

critical to adolescent psychological development (Stein-

berg 1990), and a lack of autonomy during this period

can lead to various forms of psychopathology (Ryan et

al. 1995) and increased participation in high-risk behav-

iors (Williams et al. 2000). In short, academic autonomy

is an important contributor to adolescent achievement and

development.

M. J. Van Ryzin (&)

Department of Educational Psychology, University of

Minnesota, 204 Burton Hall, 178 Pillsbury Drive SE,

Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA

e-mail: [email protected]

A. A. Gravely

Center for Chronic Disease Outcomes Research, Minneapolis,

MN 55417, USA

C. J. Roseth

Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology and Special

Education, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824,

USA

123

J Youth Adolescence (2009) 38:1–12

DOI 10.1007/s10964-007-9257-4

Belongingness, or the feeling of being supported and

accepted by others, is also critical to adolescents’ success

in school. In the literature, support from friends, peers and

teachers have all been found to promote higher levels of

motivation, engagement and academic achievement. For

example, the number and/or quality of school friendships

have been linked to higher levels of school competence,

involvement in the classroom, prosocial behavior and

academic achievement (Berndt and Keefe 1995; Cauce

1986; Wentzel et al. 2004). Acceptance and support from

the wider peer group can influence engagement in school,

prosocial behavior, and academic achievement (Marks

2000; Wentzel 1994; Wentzel and Caldwell 1997), while

socially rejected students can have higher levels of aca-

demic and behavioral problems (DeRosier et al. 1994) and

can be at risk of dropping out of school (Parker and Asher

1987). Finally, supportive teacher-student relationships

have been linked to student motivation, engagement,

interest in school, prosocial behavior and academic

achievement (Roeser and Eccles 1998; Roeser et al. 1998;

Ryan and Grolnick 1986; Ryan et al. 1994; Wentzel 1994,

1997, 1998).

Belongingness in school can also influence more general

adjustment and well-being (Dubow et al. 1991). Belong-

ingness becomes especially important to well-being as

children enter adolescence. During this time, the ability to

establish and maintain positive peer relations is linked to

higher levels of sociability, perceived competence, and

self-esteem, and reduced hostility, anxiousness, and

depression (Buhrmester 1990). Like autonomy, belong-

ingness in school is clearly vital to adolescents.

When assessed together, both academic autonomy and

belongingness in school have been found to contribute

independently to student engagement and academic

achievement (Connell and Wellborn 1991; Flink et al.

1990; Ryan and Deci 2000; Ryan and Powelson 1991;

Wentzel et al. 2004). These factors also independently

predict psychological adjustment, with adjustment con-

ceptualized as lower levels of psychological problems,

such as emotional distress and depressive affect (Eccles

et al. 1997; Roeser and Eccles 1998; Roeser et al. 1998).

Self-Determination Theory Model

Self-determination theory posits a model linking academic

autonomy and belongingness in school to engagement,

achievement, and psychological adjustment. In this model,

the satisfaction of the need for autonomy and belongingness

in the school context contributes to higher levels of

engagement in school, which in turn stimulates the devel-

opment of skills and abilities as well as psychological

adjustment (Connell and Wellborn 1991). In other words,

the effect of autonomy and belongingness on achievement

and adjustment is not direct, but is mediated by engagement.

In support of this hypothesis, Connell and Wellborn

(1991) presented cross-sectional evidence from a series of

studies involving both primary and secondary school stu-

dents. Other research has linked academic autonomy and

belongingness in school to engagement (e.g., Marks 2000;

Patrick et al. 1993; Ryan et al. 1994), and engagement in

turn has been found to predict academic achievement and

school completion (Fredricks et al. 2004). However, given

that the seminal work by Connell and Wellborn (1991) was

limited to achievement-related outcomes, we contend that

the ability of engagement to mediate the relationship

between autonomy, belongingness, and psychological

adjustment must be more clearly defined by empirical

evidence. We are particularly interested in the influence of

academic autonomy and belongingness in school on posi-

tive measures of adjustment. The exploration of this topic

is one of the primary goals of this study.

Positive Psychological Adjustment

One striking feature of the extant research in this field is its

emphasis on negative measures of psychological adjust-

ment, such as emotional distress and depressive affect (e.g.,

Eccles et al. 1997; Roeser and Eccles 1998; Roeser et al.

1998). In contrast, positive psychology emphasizes the

importance of positive psychological adjustment (i.e., self-

esteem, self-worth, etc.) as a buffer against mental illness,

and researchers in this field have called for the creation of

social climates (e.g., schools) that foster this sort of posi-

tive adjustment (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi 2000). As

a result, we wish to evaluate whether the model from

Connell and Wellborn (1991) holds when extended to a

positive measure of psychological adjustment. In this

study, we will make use of the Dispositional Hope Scale as

a measure of positive adjustment.

The Dispositional Hope Scale is part of the field of

positive psychology and measures an individual’s gen-

eralized expectancy for achieving their goals (Snyder et al.

1991). A great deal of research supports the use of hope as

a measure of positive psychological adjustment. For

example, hope correlates positively with extant measures

of adjustment such as self-efficacy, dispositional optimism,

self-actualization, and general well-being, and correlates

negatively with measures of maladjustment such as

depression and anxiety (Magaletta and Oliver 1999; Snyder

1994; Snyder et al. 1991). Hope has been linked to superior

coping behaviors in the face of deadly illness (Irving et al.

1998) as well as to lower levels of externalizing behaviors

and increased self-worth when dealing with a traumatic

accident (Barnum et al. 1998). More generally, research on

2 J Youth Adolescence (2009) 38:1–12

123

stress appraisal in adolescents has found hope to correlate

with the propensity to view problems as challenges rather

than threats, which then can contribute to the use of more

positive coping strategies; further, in these demanding sit-

uations, higher-hope individuals tend to have more positive

views of the resources available to help them rise to the

challenge (Rowley et al. 2005). Hope has also been found to

predict task-based coping when controlling for trait positive

affect and trait negative affect (Snyder et al. 1991; Steed

2002). Thus, hope represents not only a positive outlook,

but also the ability to overcome difficult situations and

execute effective coping strategies in times of stress.

In addition to its role as a measure of positive adjust-

ment, the hope construct was also selected for its relevance

to the educational environment (see Snyder 2005; Snyder

et al. 1999). For example, in school-based research on

hope, higher-hope students were found to set more

aggressive grade goals for themselves and to retain a

positive outlook on future goal attainment despite initial

negative feedback (Snyder et al. 1991). In a sample of

college freshmen, hope predicted grade-point averages

over and above entrance exam scores, and higher-hope

students were more likely to graduate (Snyder et al. 2002).

Given these empirical findings, hope can be viewed as a

measure of positive adjustment that is highly relevant to the

educational milieu. Hope not only contributes to higher

levels of achievement but also can help students to cope more

effectively with the vicissitudes of adolescence that can

interfere with functioning both inside and outside of school.

As a result, the promotion of hope among students, and the

investigation of the factors that contribute to this promotion,

could have immediate benefits for secondary schools.

Peer-related Belongingness in School

In addition to investigating the impact of autonomy and

belongingness in school on student adjustment (i.e., hope),

and evaluating the ability of engagement to mediate these

effects, we also seek to determine whether engagement can

fully mediate the effect of peer-related belongingness (i.e.,

peer support) on student adjustment. In doing so, we are

guided in part by findings from Roeser and Eccles (1998),

who documented a decrease in academic adjustment as

students progressed from 7th to 8th grade while at the same

time finding that student self-esteem increased during this

same period. In addressing this apparent contradiction, the

authors hypothesized that factors outside the realm of the

learning context, such as friendships, were exerting a

strong impact on adolescent mental health during this

period. Though their hypothesis is intriguing, Harter (1996)

has argued that support and acceptance from the larger peer

group, rather than from close friends, has the most

significant impact on adolescent self-esteem throughout the

secondary school years. Given this, and recognizing that the

consideration of peer effects was initially present in the self-

determination theory model (Connell and Wellborn 1991)

but has been noticeably absent from much of the more

recent research (e.g., Eccles et al. 1997; Roeser and Eccles

1998; Roeser et al. 1998; Skinner and Belmont 1993), this

study will include an explicit analysis of the impact of peer

belongingness (conceptualized as peer support) on adjust-

ment and will evaluate the ability of engagement to mediate

these effects. Given the research cited above, we expect

peer support to contribute to academic engagement (e.g.,

Marks 2000) and, in an unmediated fashion, to psycholog-

ical adjustment (e.g., Buhrmester 1990).

Finally, research has documented that autonomy,

belongingness, and engagement in school are reciprocal in

nature, at least with regard to teacher-related measures of

belongingness (conceptualized as teacher support and

availability). In other words, students’ initial perceptions of

academic autonomy and teacher-related measures of

belongingness can contribute to higher levels of engage-

ment in learning, which in turn can elicit increased support

for autonomy and belongingness from teachers (Skinner

and Belmont 1993). The existing research does not extend

to peer-related measures of belongingness, and examining a

reciprocal link between peer-related measures of belong-

ingness and engagement is a further goal of this study.

The Current Study

In sum, the purpose of this study is threefold. First, we will

evaluate whether the effects of school-based autonomy and

belongingness on positive psychological adjustment (i.e.,

hope) are mediated by engagement and will pay particu-

larly close attention to peer-related measures of

belongingness (i.e., peer support). Second, given that the

initial findings were cross-sectional (Connell and Wellborn

1991), we will attempt to extend the relationship between

school-based autonomy, belongingness, engagement, and

adjustment over time using short-term longitudinal data.

Third, we will evaluate whether the reciprocal relationship

between autonomy, teacher-related belongingness, and

engagement holds when peer-related measures of belong-

ingness are included.

With regard to these goals, four hypotheses are prof-

fered. First, we hypothesize that the relationship between

school-based autonomy, belongingness (both teacher and

peer support), engagement, and positive psychological

adjustment (i.e., hope) will conform to the model intro-

duced by Connell and Wellborn (1991), with engagement

in learning serving as the mediator between autonomy/

belongingness and hope. Second, we hypothesize that peer-

J Youth Adolescence (2009) 38:1–12 3

123

related belongingness (i.e., peer support) will influence

adjustment (i.e., hope) independently of engagement in

learning. In other words, although peer-related belonging-

ness is expected to contribute to engagement, we

hypothesize that an independent path between peer support

and hope will be found. Third, extending this analysis

longitudinally, we hypothesize that these relationships will

hold over time, with change in engagement and peer sup-

port predicting change in hope. Finally, given the research

cited above linking peer-related belongingness and

engagement (e.g., Marks 2000), we hypothesize that these

factors will conform to the reciprocal model introduced by

Skinner and Belmont (1993), in which academic autonomy

and teacher-related belongingness both influence and are

influenced by engagement in learning.

Method

Participants

Participants were 283 students at three small secondary

schools in a middle-class rural area in the upper Mid-

western United States. Students were recruited directly by

the researchers and were offered snacks and gift cards in

exchange for their participation. Using a short-term lon-

gitudinal format, data were gathered by the researchers or

trained assistants in two stages: the first stage was in late

November and early December of 2004 (hereafter referred

to as ‘‘Stage 1’’), and the second stage was in late April and

early May of 2005 (hereafter referred to as ‘‘Stage 2’’). The

students who participated in Stage 1 were invited to par-

ticipate in Stage 2, and most elected to do so (231 of 283,

or 82%). The students who participated in both stages of

the project were not significantly different from the stu-

dents who elected to participate only in Stage 1, with one

exception: students who participated in both stages repor-

ted higher engagement in learning, F(1,264) = 4.88,

p \ .05. However, the effect size for this difference was

small (g2 = .018, x2 = .014). Overall, the mean age for the

students in Stage 1 (n = 283) was 15.33 years (SD = 1.64)

and the sample was 51.9% male (n = 147) and 86.2%

White (n = 244); in Stage 2 (n = 231), the mean age was

15.65 years (SD = 1.70) and the sample was 52.4% male

(n = 121) and 88.3% White (n = 204).

Measures

Academic Autonomy

This construct was measured with the Academic Self-

Regulation Questionnaire, which has been utilized

previously in research on autonomy in school (e.g., Grol-

nick and Ryan 1989; Grolnick et al. 1991; Patrick et al.

1993; Ryan and Connell 1989). The Academic Self-Reg-

ulation Questionnaire assesses students’ self-reported

reasons for taking various actions in school (i.e., ‘‘Why do I

try to do well in school?’’). The reasons fall into one of four

categories of regulation, ranging along a continuum from

external (e.g., ‘‘Because that’s what I’m supposed to do’’)

to introjected (e.g., ‘‘Because I’ll feel really bad about

myself if I don’t do well’’) to identified (e.g., ‘‘Because its

important to me to do well in school’’) to intrinsic (e.g.,

‘‘Because its fun’’). The scale normally consists of 32

items, with eight items for each of the four categories, but

in the interest of minimizing the overall length of the

questionnaires, a ‘‘short form’’ of 16 items was constructed

with the help of one of the scale developers (E. L. Deci,

personal communication, October 3, 2004). The shortened

scale included only two prompts instead of four (i.e., the

items associated with ‘‘Why do I work on my classwork?’’

and ‘‘Why do I try to answer hard questions in class?’’ were

not used). As a result, the external and introjected subscales

each contained five items, and the identified and intrinsic

subscales each contained three items. Small modifications

were also introduced in consultation with school staff to

account for variation in student learning tasks and adult

roles in school (see Table 1). Students responded to each

item using a 4-point Likert-type scale from not at all true

(1) to very true (4). As per scale instructions (see Ryan and

Connell 1989), the item scores from each of the four sub-

scales were averaged, then weighted according to their

relationship with autonomy and summed to create the

Relative Autonomy Index (RAI), a measure of students’

perception of autonomy in school.

Data for this scale were gathered during both stages of

the project. In Stage 1, the reliability (Cronbach’s alpha)

for the data from the extrinsic, introjected, identified and

intrinsic subscales was .72, .73, .69, and .79, respectively;

in Stage 2, the reliability for the data from the subscales

was .72, .70, .67, and .79. These data are equivalent to

previously obtained reliability figures (e.g., Grolnick et al.

1991; Ryan and Connell 1989), indicating that the scale

alterations did not impact reliability.

Belongingness (Support from Teachers and Peers)

This construct was assessed using several subscales from

the Classroom Life Scale, which measure perceptions of

support from teachers and peers along both academic and

personal dimensions (Johnson et al. 1985). Conceptualiz-

ing belongingness in terms of support perceptions is

common in research on belongingness in school (e.g.,

Wentzel 1994, 1997, 1998) and recent work on

4 J Youth Adolescence (2009) 38:1–12

123

belongingness (e.g., Osterman 2000) treats perceptions of

support from teachers and peers as synonymous with

belongingness in school.

The Classroom Life Scale contains two teacher-related

subscales: teacher personal support (four items, such as

‘‘My teachers really care about me’’) and teacher academic

support (four items, such as ‘‘My teachers want me to do

my best in schoolwork’’). There are also two peer-related

subscales: peer personal support (four items, such as ‘‘In

this school, other students care about how much I learn’’),

and peer academic support (five items, such as ‘‘In this

school, other students like me the way I am’’). Some scale

items were originally worded to refer to ‘‘in this class’’ but,

given the global nature of our investigation, the items were

altered to refer to the school itself; in addition, small

modifications were introduced in consultation with school

staff to account for variation in adult roles (see Table 2).

Students responded to each item using a 5-point Likert-

type scale from never (1) to always (5). Item scores were

averaged to obtain subscale scores.

Data for this scale were gathered during both stages of

the project. Principal axis factor analysis with Promax

rotation revealed a two-factor rather than a four-factor

solution, with the two factors corresponding to the com-

bined teacher and peer-related items; in other words, factor

analysis did not reveal any differentiation between aca-

demic and personal support. Thus, these subscales were

combined to yield a total teacher and total peer support

score for each student. The teacher and peer support sub-

scales produced reliability (Cronbach’s alpha) figures of

.90 in Stage 1 and .91 and .92, respectively, in Stage 2.

These data are equivalent to previously obtained reliability

figures (e.g., Johnson et al. 1985), indicating that the scale

alterations did not impact reliability.

Engagement in Learning

This construct was measured using the Engagement vs.

Disaffection with Learning Scale (e.g., Furrer and Skinner

2003; Patrick et al. 1993), a 20-item self-report scale that

assesses students’ level of engagement in classroom

activities along two axes: behavioral engagement (i.e.,

effort and attention) and emotional engagement (i.e.,

interest and enjoyment). Each of the two subscales con-

tained five positively-worded items and five negatively-

worded items. As above, some scale items were originally

worded to refer to ‘‘in this class’’ but were altered to refer

to the school itself; small changes were also introduced in

consultation with school staff to clarify the nature of some

items (see Table 3). Students responded using a 4-point

Likert-type scale from not at all true (1) to very true (4).

Table 1 Revised items for the Academic Self-Regulation Question-

naire (revisions in bold)

Why do I try to do well in school?

Because that’s what I’m supposed to do.

So my teachers/advisor will think I’m a good student.

Because I enjoy doing my schoolwork/projects well.

Because I will get in trouble if I don’t do well.

Because I’ll feel really bad about myself if I don’t do well.

Because it’s important to me to try to do well in school.

Because I will feel really proud of myself if I do well.

Because I might get a reward if I do well.

Why do I do my homework or work on my projects outside of school?

Because I want the teachers/advisor to think I’m a good student.

Because I’ll get in trouble if I don’t.

Because it’s fun.

Because I will feel bad about myself if I don’t do it.

Because I want to understand the subject.

Because that’s what I’m supposed to do.

Because I enjoy doing my homework or working on my projects outside of school.

Because it’s important to me to do my homework or work on my projects outside of school.

Table 2 Revised items for the Classroom Life Scale (revisions in

bold)

Peer personal support subscale

Other students in this class school think it is important to be my

friend.

In this class school, other students like me the way I am.

Other students in this class school care about my feelings.

Other students in this class school like me as much as they like

others.

In this class school, other students really care about me.

Peer academic support subscale

Other students in this class school want me to do my best

schoolwork.

In this class school, other students like to help me learn.

In this class school, other students care about how much I learn.

Other students in this class school want me to come to school

every day.

Teacher personal support subscale

My teachers/advisor really care(s) about me.

My teachers/advisor think(s) it is important to be my friend.

My teachers/advisor like(s) me as much as he/she/they like(s) other students.

My teachers/advisor care(s) about my feelings.

Teacher academic support subscale

My teachers/advisor care(s) about how much I learn.

My teachers/advisor like(s) to see my work.

My teachers/advisor like(s) to help me learn.

My teachers/advisor want(s) me to do my best in schoolwork.

J Youth Adolescence (2009) 38:1–12 5

123

Item scores are added to obtain subscale scores, with

negatively-worded items being subtracted from positively-

worded items (see Furrer and Skinner 2003).

Data for this scale were gathered during both stages of

the project. Principal axis factor analysis with Promax

rotation revealed a single factor, so the behavioral and

emotional subscale scores were combined to yield a single

engagement score. In both Stage 1 and 2, the overall reli-

ability (Cronbach’s alpha) was .90. These data are

equivalent to previously obtained reliability figures (e.g.,

Furrer and Skinner 2003, Patrick et al. 1993), indicating

that the scale alterations did not impact reliability.

Positive Psychological Adjustment (Hope)

The Dispositional Hope Scale is a self-report, 12-item scale

consisting of two components: an individual’s orientation

towards their goals (e.g., ‘‘I meet the goals that I set for

myself’’), and the individual’s perceived ability to identify

workable routes to goal attainment (e.g., ‘‘There are lots of

ways around any problem’’). The two components are

‘‘reciprocal, additive, and positively related, although they

are not synonymous’’ (Snyder et al. 1991, p. 571). The two

subscales contain four items each, and students respond to

each item using an 8-point Likert-type scale from definitely

false (1) to definitely true (8). The scale also contains four

filler items that do not belong to either subscale; these

items are included to disguise the true nature of the scale

and reduce bias in the responses (Snyder et al. 1991). No

modifications to scale items were necessary. Per scale

instructions (see Snyder et al. 1991), item scores are

summed to create subscale scores, which are then added to

create the total score.

Data for this scale were gathered during both stages of

the project. Principal axis factor analysis with Promax

rotation confirmed that engagement and hope are distinct

constructs. Data from Stage 1 produced a reliability

(Cronbach’s alpha) figure of .79 for the total scale, while

Stage 2 produced a figure of .77, which is equivalent to

previous research (e.g., Snyder et al. 1991).

Analytic Procedures

To test our hypotheses, we used structural equation mod-

eling (SEM). The model representing our first hypothesis

was fitted to the data, and we also fitted a model without

the hypothesized direct link between peer support and

hope, which is identical to the model proposed by Connell

and Wellborn (1991). We also constructed models to

examine whether the hypothesized model holds over time

and to determine whether the variables demonstrate reci-

procal relationships.

Standard measures of fit are reported, including the chi-

square value (v2), the comparative fit index (CFI), the non-

normed fit index or Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI), and the

root-mean squared error of approximation (RMSEA).

Typically, CFI values greater than .95, TLI values greater

than .90, and a non-significant v2 or a ratio of v2 to df less

than 3.0 are considered to be indicative of adequate fit

(Bentler 1990; Bentler and Bonett 1980; Bollen 1989; Cole

1987). With regards to RMSEA, values less than .06 are

typically considered indicative of good fit, while values

between .06 and .10 are considered adequate fit (Hu and

Bentler 1999; Kaplan 2000). In this study, however, we

will also be guided by the 90% confidence interval for the

RMSEA statistic, which can be more accurate than a single

‘‘point’’ estimate (MacCallum et al. 1996). In this

approach, a RMSEA confidence interval that falls com-

pletely below .05 is considered indicative of close fit, while

a confidence interval containing .05 is considered adequate

fit. For each model tested below, predictors were allowed

to correlate freely and the effects of the school and student

covariates (i.e., age, gender, race, SES, previous school

experience, and school seniority) were controlled.

Table 3 Revised items for the engagement vs. Disaffection in school

questionnaire (revisions in bold)

Emotional engagement subscale

When I’m in class school, I feel good.

When we work on something in class school, I feel interested.

Class School is fun.

I enjoy learning new things in class school.

When we work on something in class school, I get involved.

When we work on something in class school, I feel bored.

When I’m in class school, I feel worried.

When we work on something in class school, I feel discouraged.

Class School is not all that fun for me.

When I’m in class school, I feel bad.

Behavioral engagement subscale

I try hard to do well in school.

In class school, I work as hard as I can.

When I’m in class school, I participate in class discussions with my classmates and teachers/advisor.

I pay attention in class to my teachers/advisor in school.

When I’m in class school, I listen very carefully to my teachers/advisor.

When I’m in class school, I just act like I’m working.

I don’t try very hard at school.

In class school, I do just enough to get by.

When I’m in class school, I think about other things.

When I’m in class school, my mind wanders.

6 J Youth Adolescence (2009) 38:1–12

123

Results

Descriptive Statistics

The means and standard deviations for each measure are

presented in Table 4. Bivariate correlations between mea-

sures are presented in Table 5. The correlations in Table 5

include data from both Stage 1 and 2 but are limited to only

those students who participated in both stages of the study.

An alpha level of .05 was used for all tests of significance.

In general, measures of academic autonomy and belong-

ingness in school show significant correlation with

engagement and hope.

Analyses

Our initial step was to fit the hypothesized model to the

data (all data from Stage 1). The model demonstrated

adequate fit, v2(2, N = 231) = 4.38, p = .11, CFI = .99,

TLI = .92, RMSEA = .07 (.00|.17) and is presented in

Fig. 1. All paths were significant at p \ .001, with the

exception of the direct path between peer support and hope,

which was significant at p \ .05. The predictors explained

51% of the variance in engagement in learning and 35% of

the variance in hope. An alternative model was fitted

without a direct path between peer support and hope, and

this model was found to have inferior fit when compared to

the hypothesized model, v2(3, N = 231) = 8.84, p \ .05,

CFI = .98, TLI = .86, RMSEA = .09 (.02|.17). The dif-

ference in the chi-square values for the two models is

significant (8.84 - 4.38 = 4.46, df = 3 - 2 = 1, p \ .05),

indicating that the model with the direct path between peer

support and hope demonstrated a significantly better fit.

To examine whether this model holds over time, we

extended the model to include data from Stage 2. Given

that engagement in learning and peer support predicted

hope as described above, we included these measures as

well as hope at Stage 2. Stage 1 variables were retained as

controls. Engagement and peer support from both Stage 1

and Stage 2 were used to predict hope at Stage 2, although

the Stage 1 predictors did not achieve significance and thus

are displayed using dashed lines. The resulting model

demonstrates that the relationship between engagement,

peer support and hope holds over time even when previous

levels of the constructs are controlled. In other words,

change in engagement and peer support from Stage 1 to

Stage 2 predicted change in hope from Stage 1 to Stage 2.

The model demonstrated adequate fit, v2(12, N = 231) =

24.42, p = .02, v2/df = 2.04, CFI = .99, TLI = .92,

RMSEA = .07 (.03|.11), and is presented in Fig. 2. The

predictors explained 47% of the variance in hope at Stage 2.

When exploring the reciprocal effects of academic

autonomy, teacher/peer support, and engagement in learn-

ing, we discovered that engagement in learning at Stage 1

predicts positive change in student perceptions of auton-

omy and teacher support between Stage 1 and Stage 2. On

the other hand, engagement did not predict change in

perceptions of peer support and thus this link is displayed

using a dashed line. The model documenting the reciprocal

relationship (or lack thereof) among academic autonomy,

teacher/peer support, and engagement in learning demon-

strated adequate fit, v2(9, N = 231) = 26.49, p = .002, v2/

df = 2.94, CFI = .97, TLI = .91, RMSEA = .09 (.05|.11),

and is presented in Fig. 3. At Stage 2, the predictors

explained 45% of the variance in teacher support and 49%

of the variance in academic autonomy.

Discussion

In this study, students’ perceptions of academic autonomy

and both teacher- and peer-related belongingness (i.e.,

support) in school were each found to have an independent,

positive effect on engagement in learning, which in turn

has a positive impact on adjustment (i.e., hope). These

results confirm the hypothesis that engagement acts as a

mediator between autonomy, teacher- and peer-related

support and hope. In addition, evidence was found for a

direct link between perceptions of peer support and hope

that is not mediated by engagement in learning (see Fig. 1).

These findings support the model introduced by Connell

and Wellborn (1991) with regards to a positive measure of

psychological adjustment (i.e., hope) while also providing

support for the hypothesis that positive peer relations can

impact adjustment independently of the mediating effect of

engagement.

The association between engagement in learning, peer

support and hope was also found to hold over a 5-month

period (see Fig. 2). Even though the common variance

among the Stage 1 scores for peer support, engagement and

hope was controlled, peer support and engagement each

still accounted for a statistically significant amount of

variance in hope at Stage 2. In other words, peer support,

engagement, and hope not only correlate at a fixed time

Table 4 Means and standard deviations for all variables

Variables Stage 1 Stage 2

N M SD N M SD

Autonomy 277 .32 2.39 227 .53 2.44

Teacher support 270 4.09 .75 229 4.10 .69

Peer support 269 3.22 .79 229 3.31 .76

Engagement 266 9.69 9.50 228 7.68 9.17

Hope 277 48.03 7.13 230 49.46 7.11

J Youth Adolescence (2009) 38:1–12 7

123

point but also covary over time. Our model implies that

peer support and engagement influence hope over time

rather than vice versa, but a reciprocal relationship may

also be at work. This possibility could be investigated in

future research.

In addition to corroborating our hypotheses regarding

the relations among academic autonomy, belongingness in

school, engagement in learning, and hope, our findings also

illustrate a key distinction between engagement and hope.

Engagement is a situational or ‘‘state’’ variable and thus is

responsive to changes in context (Fredricks et al. 2004). In

contrast, hope is a dispositional or ‘‘trait’’ variable and

tends to be consistent across time and setting in the absence

of unusually positive or negative experiences (Snyder et al.

1991). Consequently, one would expect cross-sectional

data to explain a sizeable amount of the variance in

engagement but less of the variance in hope. On the other

Table 5 Bivariate correlations for those students in both stages (N = 231)

Variables Stage 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

1. Autonomy S1 .66*** .17* .16* .17* .18** .50*** .44*** .34*** .26***

2. Autonomy S2 – .14* .19** .21** .23** .47*** .54*** .33** .30***

3. Teacher support S1 – .62*** .45*** .36*** .50*** .32*** .21** .22**

4. Teacher support S2 – .34*** .44*** .45*** .49*** .17* .27***

5. Peer support S1 – .69*** .54*** .42*** .38*** .35***

6. Peer support S2 – .45*** .55*** .28*** .36***

7. Engagement S1 – .75*** .52*** .38***

8. Engagement S2 – .43*** .42***

9. Hope S1 – .63***

10. Hope S2 –

Note: Pairwise deletion is used. S1 = Stage 1; S2 = Stage 2

* p \ .05, ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001

rehcaeT 1:troppuS

1:tnemegagnE 1:epoH

1:ymonotuA

reeP 1:troppuS

*71.

***53.

***84.***92.

***04.

Fig. 1 Hypothesized model linking autonomy, teacher/peer support,

engagement and hope. Note: Model contains data from Stage 1 (‘‘:1’’)

only. Predictors allowed to correlate freely and effects of school and

student covariates are controlled (not pictured). Model fit: v2(2,

N = 231) = 4.38, p = .11, CFI = .99, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .07

(.00|.17). * p \ .05, *** p \ .001

*71.

***53. ***84.

***92.

***04.

*61.

*91.

***75.

***76.

***36.

1:ymonotuA

rehcaeT 1:troppuS

reeP 1:troppuS

1:tnemegagnE 2:tnemegagnE

reeP 2:troppuS

***92.

1:epoH 2:epoH

Fig. 2 Hypothesized longitudinal model controlling for previous

levels of each construct. Note: Model contains data from both Stage 1

(‘‘:1’’) and Stage 2 (‘‘:2’’). Paths from peer support/engagement at

Stage 1 to hope at Stage 2 are non-significant. Predictors allowed to

correlate freely and effects of school and student covariates are

controlled (not pictured). Model fit: v2(12, N = 231) = 24.42, p = .02,

v2/df = 2.04, CFI = .99, TLI = .92, RMSEA = .07 (.03|.11).

* p \ .05, *** p \ .001

1:ymonotuA

rehcaeT 1:troppuS

reeP 1:troppuS

1:tnemegagnE

2:ymonotuA

rehcaeT 2:troppuS

reeP 2:troppuS

***62.

***53.

***04.

***35.

***36.

**81.

**81.

***75.

Fig. 3 Reciprocal effects between autonomy, teacher/peer support

and engagement. Note: Model contains data from both Stage 1 (‘‘:1’’)

and Stage 2 (‘‘:2’’). Path from engagement at Stage 1 to peer support

at Stage 2 is non-significant. Predictors allowed to correlate freely and

effects of school and student covariates are controlled (not pictured).

Model fit: v2(9, N = 231) = 26.49, p = .002, v2/df = 2.94, CFI = .97,

TLI = .91, RMSEA = .09 (.05|.11). ** p \ .01, *** p \ .001

8 J Youth Adolescence (2009) 38:1–12

123

hand, when predicting changes in hope over time, one

would expect greater levels of explained variance in hope.

A brief review of our results demonstrates that these

expectations were met. The single-stage model (Fig. 1)

explained a great deal of the variance in engagement

(51%), but somewhat less of the variance in hope (35%),

while the two-stage model (Fig. 2) accounted for a greater

percentage of the variance in hope (47%). This distinction

between engagement and hope could have important

implications for school reform efforts, in that changes in

the school environment may create relatively immediate

changes in student engagement, while changes in hope may

develop more slowly.

The links found in the third and final model (Fig. 3) are

consistent with the model proposed by Skinner and Bel-

mont (1993), in which engagement in learning was found

to influence student perceptions of academic autonomy

and teacher-related belongingness. In our analysis, no

reciprocal relationship was found between engagement in

learning and peer support, which was contrary to our

hypothesis. This latter finding, when considered alongside

the evidence for an independent, direct relationship

between peer support and hope as explicated above, sug-

gests that the effects of peer support in school may be

multi-faceted, in which peer factors such as modeling and

socialization contribute to engagement in learning, while

other factors such as peer regard and acceptance influence

psychological adjustment and self-esteem. Future research

assessing the various peer factors simultaneously could

contribute to untangling these effects. Interestingly, pre-

vious research has generally overlooked peer support and

has focused solely on teacher-related measures of

belongingness (e.g., Eccles et al. 1993; Feldlaufer et al.

1988; Midgley et al. 1989; Roeser et al. 1996; Roeser and

Eccles 1998). The results presented here suggest that

incorporating peer support into future research efforts may

provide a more complete picture of the school environ-

ment and yield important new findings.

Future research along these lines could also include

‘‘competence’’, a construct that self-determination theory

posits as critical to adolescents alongside academic

autonomy and belongingness in school (Connell and

Wellborn 1991; Deci and Ryan 2000). The ability of an

educational environment to support a sense of competence

has been conceptualized in the literature as a sense of

perceived control among students (e.g., Connell and

Wellborn 1991) and as the students’ perceived goal ori-

entation of the school (e.g., Roeser et al. 1998). Both

constructs have been shown to impact students’ motivation,

achievement, and adjustment (Connell and Wellborn 1991;

Kaplan and Maehr 1999; Patrick et al. 1993; Roeser et al.

1996; Roeser et al. 1998; Skinner et al. 1990). Inclusion of

competence in future research efforts, as with peer-related

measures of belongingness, would undoubtedly provide a

more complete picture of the school environment.

In sum, our results suggest that engagement in learning

and positive peer relations are independent factors that can

each promote higher levels of hope in school. As discussed

above, both engagement and hope have been linked to

higher levels of academic achievement (Connell and

Wellborn 1991; Fredricks et al. 2004; Snyder et al. 1991,

1999, 2002). Thus, an increased focus on student percep-

tions of academic autonomy and both teacher- and peer-

related belongingness in school would seem to be war-

ranted in future school reform efforts aimed at raising

student achievement. Such developmentally-focused

interventions do exist (e.g., Maehr and Midgley 1996) but

are not widely utilized.

Limitations

Firstly, with regards to the validity of our findings, we note

that our research was limited to middle-class, over-

whelmingly White secondary school students in the rural

Midwest. This limitation impacts the generalizability of

our results and thus the extension of our findings to more

diverse samples is warranted. In addition, the attrition

between Stages 1 and 2 may have introduced an unknown

amount of bias. However, as noted above, the students in

the two stages were only different in terms of engagement

in learning, and this effect was quite small. As a result, it is

unlikely that our results are significantly biased and we

contend that this limitation does not appreciably impact

internal validity.

Secondly, the data were based entirely upon self-report

measures, and therefore some portion of the relationship

between the variables may be due to shared-method var-

iance. This issue is present in much of the research in this

area; in fact, the bulk of the studies cited above use self-

report measures for much, if not all, of their data collec-

tion. Insofar as it is exceedingly difficult to measure

individuals’ perceptions of academic autonomy and

belongingness in school from an objective viewpoint, it is

unlikely that this issue will disappear from the field any-

time soon. Indeed, at least with regards to belongingness,

researchers emphasize the importance of the perceptions

of the individual in evaluating whether social contact is

supportive (Cohen and Willis 1985; Dakof and Taylor

1990; Sarason et al. 1990). Further, self-reported percep-

tions of support appear to be a stronger correlate of health

and well-being than objective ratings of support received

(Lakey and Heller 1988; Wethington and Kessler 1986).

Nevertheless, future research could include measures of

the size and/or complexity of peer networks as surrogates

for belongingness in school, or could involve the

J Youth Adolescence (2009) 38:1–12 9

123

development of an observational or teacher-report measure

of academic autonomy. The development of such mea-

sures and the concomitant effort required to establish their

validity in the educational context would represent a

methodological step forward in self-determination theory

research.

Finally, it should also be noted that structural equation

modeling is correlational in nature and thus does not nec-

essarily prove causation. However, our findings provide

strong evidence for the temporal and reciprocal relations

among academic autonomy, belongingness in school,

engagement in learning and psychological adjustment, and

these results correspond to the extant literature relating

these constructs. In addition, our analyses control for a

variety of variables that could be expected to influence the

results, which also adds weight to our findings.

Conclusion

This study adds to the literature in several ways. Primarily,

it extends existing research on self-determination theory

by documenting a mechanism by which students’ per-

ceptions of academic autonomy and belongingness in

school can exert an influence on students’ psychological

adjustment (i.e., hope). In short, those students who

believe their environment to be more supportive of their

needs tend to be more engaged in their learning, and, in

turn, this process of active engagement promotes students’

hope. In addition, our results imply that school-based

reforms targeting academic autonomy and belongingness

may yield more immediate results for student engagement,

while changes in student hope may require a more

extended timeframe. Finally, our results confirm that

higher levels of engagement in learning contribute to

increases in perceptions of academic autonomy and tea-

cher-related support over time, which can create a positive

feedback loop.

Our findings document mechanisms by which secondary

schools can, both directly and indirectly, contribute to

positive student adjustment. Schools cannot only provide

more academic autonomy and strive to create more sup-

portive teacher-student relationships, but can also foster

greater peer-related belongingness through the implemen-

tation of reforms aimed at improving peer relations (e.g.,

cooperative learning, conflict resolution, peer tutoring,

etc.). This should be seen as an intriguing opportunity for

schools, given that hope has been linked to superior aca-

demic achievement (Snyder et al. 1991, 1999; 2002).

Indeed, as discussed above, the field of positive psychology

emphasizes the importance of positive psychological

adjustment and calls for the creation of climates, such as

schools, that foster this sort of positive development

(Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi 2000). The field of posi-

tive youth development also recognizes the benefits of

promoting ‘‘wellness’’, or positive adjustment; like positive

psychology, this field acknowledges the status of education

as a ‘‘powerful, but not yet well-harnessed force for

advancing wellness’’ (Cowen 1991, p. 405), and calls for

the creation of educational environments that promote

healthy psychological development (Cowen 1994; Haw-

kins and Catalano 1990; Zaslow and Takanishi 1993). Our

results document a mechanism by which schools could

‘‘…transmit knowledge but do so in ways calibrated to

advance wellness’’ (Cowen 1991, p. 405). We agree with

Cowen’s (1991) assertion that ‘‘education’s potential, in

this regard, has not yet been sufficiently plumbed’’ (p. 405).

Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Kate Bohn,

Tony Pellegrini, Michael Harwell, and Geoff Maruyama for their

advice on issues related to previous versions of this manuscript. In

addition, we would like to acknowledge the contributions of two

anonymous reviewers and the Editor, whose comments and critiques

were invaluable.

References

Barnum, D. D., Snyder, C. R., Rapoff, M. A., Mani, M. M., &

Thompson, R. (1998). Hope and social support in the psycho-

logical adjustment of children who have survived burn injuries

and their matched controls. Children’s Health Care, 27, 15–30.

Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural models.

Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238–246.

Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and

goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures.

Psychological Bulletin, 88, 588–606.

Berndt, T. J., & Keefe, K. (1995). Friends’ influence on adolescents’

adjustment to school. Child Development, 66, 1312–1329.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New

York: Wiley.

Buhrmester, D. (1990). Intimacy of friendship, interpersonal compe-

tence, and adjustment during preadolescence and adolescence.

Child Development, 61, 1101–1111.

Cauce, A. M. (1986). Social networks and social competence:

Exploring the effects of early adolescent friendships. American Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 607–628.

Cohen, S., & Wills, T. A. (1985). Stress, social support, and the

buffering hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 98, 310–357.

Cole, D. A. (1987). Utility of confirmatory factor analysis in test

validation research. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psy- chology, 55, 584–594.

Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy and

relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In

M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Minnesota symposium on child psychology (Vol. 22, pp. 43–77). Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum

Associates.

Cowen, E. L. (1991). In pursuit of wellness. American Psychologist, 46, 404–408.

Cowen, E. L. (1994). The enhancement of psychological wellness:

Challenges and opportunities. American Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 149–179.

Dakof, G. A., & Taylor, S. E. (1990). Victims’ perceptions of social

support: What is helpful from whom? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 80–89.

10 J Youth Adolescence (2009) 38:1–12

123

Deci, E. L., Nezlek, J., & Sheinman, L. (1981a). Characteristics of the

rewarder and intrinsic motivation of the rewardee. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 1–10.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘why’’ of goal

pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior.

Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.

Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981b).

An instrument to access adults’ orientations toward control

versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motiva-

tion and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 642–650.

Deci, E. L., Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Ryan, R. M. (1991).

Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective.

Educational Psychologist, 26, 325–346.

DeRosier, M. E., Kupersmidt, J. B., & Patterson, C. J. (1994).

Children’s academic and behavioral adjustment as a function of

the chronicity and proximity of peer rejection. Child Develop- ment, 65, 1799–1813.

Dubow, E. F., Tisak, J., Causey, D., Hryshko, A., & Reid, G. (1991).

A two-year longitudinal study of stressful life events, social

support, and social problem-solving skills: Contributions to

children’s behavioral and academic adjustment. Child Develop- ment, 62, 583–599.

Eccles, J. S., Early, D., Frasier, K., Belansky, E., & McCarthy, K.

(1997). The relation of connection, regulation, and support for

autonomy to adolescents’ functioning. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12, 263–286.

Eccles, J. S., Wigfield, A., Midgley, C., Reuman, D., MacIver, D., &

Feldlaufer, H. (1993). Negative effects of traditional middle

schools on students’ motivation. The Elementary School Journal, 93, 553–574.

Feldlaufer, H., Midgley, C., & Eccles, J. S. (1988). Student, teacher,

and observer perceptions of the classroom environment before

and after the transition to junior high school. Journal of Early Adolescence, 8, 133–156.

Flink, C., Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (1990). Controlling teaching

strategies: Undermining children’s self-determination and per-

formance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,

916–924.

Fredricks, J., Blumenfeld, P., & Paris, A. (2004). School engagement:

Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59–109.

Furrer, C., & Skinner, E. (2003). Sense of relatedness as a factor in

children’s academic engagement and performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 148–162.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s

learning: An experimental and individual difference investiga-

tion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 890–898.

Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent style associated with

children’s self-regulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 143–154.

Grolnick, W. S., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1991). The inner

resources for school performance: Motivational mediators of

children’s perceptions of their parents. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83, 508–517.

Harter, S. (1996). Teacher and classmate influences on scholastic

motivation, self-esteem, and the level of voice in adolescents. In

J. Juvonen & K. Wentzel (Eds.), Social motivation: Under- standing children’s school adjustment. New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Hawkins, J. D., & Catalano, R. F. (1990). Broadening the vision of

education: Schools as health promoting environments. Journal of School Health, 60, 178–181.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in

covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new

alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

Irving, L. M., Snyder, C. R., & Crowson, J. J. C. Jr. (1998). Hope and

coping with cancer by college women. Journal of Personality, 66, 195–214.

Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Buckman, L. A., & Richards, P. S.

(1985). The effect of prolonged implementation of cooperative

learning on social support within the classroom. The Journal of Psychology, 119, 405–411.

Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M. L. (1999). Achievement goals and student

well-being. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 24, 330–

358.

Kaplan, D. W. (2000). Structural equation modeling: Foundations and extensions. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

Lakey, B., & Heller, K. (1988). Social support from a friend,

perceived support, and social problem solving. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 811–824.

MacCallum, R. C., Browne, M. W., & Sugawara, H. M. (1996).

Power analysis and determination of sample size for covariance

structure modeling. Psychological Methods, 1, 130–149.

Maehr, M. L., & Midgley, C. (1996). Transforming school cultures.

Boulder: Westview Press.

Magaletta, P. R., & Oliver, J. M. (1999). The hope construct, will, and

ways: Their relations with self-efficacy, optimism, and general

well-being. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 55, 539–551.

Marks, H. M. (2000). Student engagement in instructional activity:

Patterns in the elementary, middle and high school years.

American Educational Research Journal, 37, 153–184.

Midgley, C., Feldlaufer, H., & Eccles, J. S. (1989). Student/teacher

relations and attitudes toward mathematics before and after the

transition to junior high school. Child Development, 60, 981–

992.

Osterman, K. F. (2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school

community. Review of Educational Research, 70, 323–367.

Parker, J. G., & Asher, S. R. (1987). Peer relations and later personal

adjustment: Are low-accepted children at risk? Psychological Bulletin, 102, 357–389.

Patrick, B. C., Skinner, E. A., & Connell, J. P. (1993). What motivates

children’s behavior and emotion? Joint effects of perceived

control and autonomy in the academic domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 781–791.

Roeser, R. W., & Eccles, J. S. (1998). Adolescents’ perceptions of

middle school: Relation to longitudinal changes in academic and

psychological adjustment. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 8, 123–158.

Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. J. (1998). Academic and

emotional functioning in early adolescence: Longitudinal rela-

tions, patterns, and prediction by experience in middle school.

Development and Psychopathology, 10, 321–352.

Roeser, R. W., Midgley, C., & Urdan, T. C. (1996). Perceptions of the

school psychological environment and early adolescents’ psy-

chological and behavioral functioning in school: The mediating

role of goals and belonging. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 408–422.

Rowley, A. A., Roesch, S. C., Jurica, B. J., & Vaughn, A. A. (2005).

Developing and validating a stress appraisal measure for

minority adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 28, 547–557.

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and

internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749–761.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the

facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-

being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.

Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Grolnick, W. S. (1995). Autonomy,

relatedness and the self: Their relation to development and

psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D. J. Cohen (Eds.),

Developmental psychopathology Vol. 1 (pp. 618–655). New

York: Wiley.

J Youth Adolescence (2009) 38:1–12 11

123

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, 550–558.

Ryan, R. M., & Powelson, C. L. (1991). Autonomy and relatedness as

fundamental to motivation in education. Journal of Experimental Education, 60, 49–66.

Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J. D., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of

relationships to teachers, parents, and friends as predictors of

academic motivation and self-esteem. Journal of Early Adoles- cence, 14, 226–249.

Sarason, I. G., Pierce, G. R., & Sarason, B. R. (1990). Social support

and interactional processes: A triadic hypothesis. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 7, 495–506.

Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive

psychology: An introduction. American Psychologist, 55, 5–14.

Skinner, E. A., & Belmont, M. J. (1993). Motivation in the classroom:

Reciprocal effects of teacher behavior and student engagement

across the school year. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85,

571–581.

Skinner, E. A., Wellborn, J. G., & Connell, J. P. (1990). What it takes

to do well in school and whether I’ve got it: A process model of

perceived control and children’s engagement and achievement in

school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 82, 22–32.

Snyder, C. R. (1994). The psychology of hope: You can get there from here. New York: The Free Press.

Snyder, C. R. (2005). Teaching: The lessons of hope. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 24, 72–84.

Snyder, C. R., Cheavens, J., & Michael, S. T. (1999). Hoping. In C. R.

Snyder (Ed.), Coping: The psychology of what works (pp. 205–

231). New York: Oxford University Press.

Snyder, C. R., Harris, C., Anderson, J. R., Holleran, S. A., Irving, L.

M., Sigmon, S. T., Yoshinobu, L., Gibb, J., Langelle, C., &

Harney, P. (1991). The will and the ways: Development and

validation of an individual-differences measure of hope. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 575–585.

Snyder, C. R., Shorey, H. S., Cheavens, J., Pulvers, K. M., Adams, V.

H., & Wiklund, C. (2002). Hope and academic success in

college. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 820–826.

Steed, L. G. (2002). A psychometric comparison of four measures of

hope and optimism. Educational and Psychological Measure- ment, 62, 466–482.

Steinberg, L. (1990). Autonomy, conflict, and harmony in the family

relationship. In S. S. Feldman & G. R. Elliott (Eds.), At the threshold: The developing adolescent (pp. 255–276). Cam-

bridge: Harvard University Press.

Vallerand, R. J., & Bissonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and

amotivational styles as predictors of behavior: A prospective

study. Journal of Personality, 60, 599–620.

Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E.

L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance and persistence:

The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-

supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 87, 246–260.

Wentzel, K. R. (1994). Relations of social goal pursuit to social

acceptance, classroom behavior, and perceived social support.

Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 173–182.

Wentzel, K. R. (1997). Student motivation in middle school: The role

of perceived pedagogical caring. Journal of Educational Psy- chology, 89(3), 411–419.

Wentzel, K. R. (1998). Social relationships and motivation in middle

school: The role of parents, teachers, and peers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 90, 202–209.

Wentzel, K. R., Barry, C. M., & Caldwell, K. A. (2004). Friendships

in middle school: Influences on motivation and school adjust-

ment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 96, 195–203.

Wentzel, K. R., & Caldwell, K. (1997). Friendships, peer acceptance,

and group membership: Relations to academic achievement in

middle school. Child Development, 68, 1198–1209.

Wethington, E., & Kessler, R. C. (1986). Perceived support, received

support, and adjustment to stressful life events. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 27, 78–89.

Williams, G. C., Cox, E. M., Hedberg, V. A., & Deci, E. L. (2000).

Extrinsic life goals and health risks in adolescents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 1756–1771.

Zaslow, M. J., & Takanishi, R. (1993). Priorities for research on

adolescent development. American Psychologist, 48, 185–192.

Mark J. Van Ryzin M.A. is a Doctoral candidate in the Department

of Educational Psychology at the University of Minnesota. His

research interests are motivational and developmental processes in

education, educational innovation, and the social components of

school culture. His doctoral dissertation will address teacher–student

relationships.

Amy A. Gravely M.A. is a Statistician within the Center for Chronic

Disease Outcomes Research (CCDOR). She received her Master’s

degree from the University of Minnesota in Quantitative Methods in

Education (QME) in 2006 with a concentration in statistics. Her

research interest is in applied statistics.

Cary J. Roseth Ph.D. is an Assistant Professor in the Department of

Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Educational Technology at

Michigan State University. He received his Ph.D. in Educational

Psychology from the University of Minnesota in 2007. He is inter-

ested in social development, peer relations, and social contextual

influences on classroom achievement.

12 J Youth Adolescence (2009) 38:1–12

123

<< /ASCII85EncodePages false /AllowTransparency false /AutoPositionEPSFiles true /AutoRotatePages /None /Binding /Left /CalGrayProfile (None) /CalRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CalCMYKProfile (ISO Coated v2 300% \050ECI\051) /sRGBProfile (sRGB IEC61966-2.1) /CannotEmbedFontPolicy /Error /CompatibilityLevel 1.3 /CompressObjects /Off /CompressPages true /ConvertImagesToIndexed true /PassThroughJPEGImages true /CreateJDFFile false /CreateJobTicket false /DefaultRenderingIntent /Perceptual /DetectBlends true /ColorConversionStrategy /sRGB /DoThumbnails true /EmbedAllFonts true /EmbedJobOptions true /DSCReportingLevel 0 /SyntheticBoldness 1.00 /EmitDSCWarnings false /EndPage -1 /ImageMemory 524288 /LockDistillerParams true /MaxSubsetPct 100 /Optimize true /OPM 1 /ParseDSCComments true /ParseDSCCommentsForDocInfo true /PreserveCopyPage true /PreserveEPSInfo true /PreserveHalftoneInfo false /PreserveOPIComments false /PreserveOverprintSettings true /StartPage 1 /SubsetFonts false /TransferFunctionInfo /Apply /UCRandBGInfo /Preserve /UsePrologue false /ColorSettingsFile () /AlwaysEmbed [ true ] /NeverEmbed [ true ] /AntiAliasColorImages false /DownsampleColorImages true /ColorImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /ColorImageResolution 150 /ColorImageDepth -1 /ColorImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeColorImages true /ColorImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterColorImages false /ColorImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /ColorACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /ColorImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /JPEG2000ColorACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000ColorImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasGrayImages false /DownsampleGrayImages true /GrayImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /GrayImageResolution 150 /GrayImageDepth -1 /GrayImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeGrayImages true /GrayImageFilter /DCTEncode /AutoFilterGrayImages true /GrayImageAutoFilterStrategy /JPEG /GrayACSImageDict << /QFactor 0.76 /HSamples [2 1 1 2] /VSamples [2 1 1 2] >> /GrayImageDict << /QFactor 0.15 /HSamples [1 1 1 1] /VSamples [1 1 1 1] >> /JPEG2000GrayACSImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /JPEG2000GrayImageDict << /TileWidth 256 /TileHeight 256 /Quality 30 >> /AntiAliasMonoImages false /DownsampleMonoImages true /MonoImageDownsampleType /Bicubic /MonoImageResolution 600 /MonoImageDepth -1 /MonoImageDownsampleThreshold 1.50000 /EncodeMonoImages true /MonoImageFilter /CCITTFaxEncode /MonoImageDict << /K -1 >> /AllowPSXObjects false /PDFX1aCheck false /PDFX3Check false /PDFXCompliantPDFOnly false /PDFXNoTrimBoxError true /PDFXTrimBoxToMediaBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXSetBleedBoxToMediaBox true /PDFXBleedBoxToTrimBoxOffset [ 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 0.00000 ] /PDFXOutputIntentProfile (None) /PDFXOutputCondition () /PDFXRegistryName (http://www.color.org?) /PDFXTrapped /False /Description << /ENU <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> /DEU <FEFF004a006f0062006f007000740069006f006e007300200066006f00720020004100630072006f006200610074002000440069007300740069006c006c0065007200200036002e000d00500072006f006400750063006500730020005000440046002000660069006c0065007300200077006800690063006800200061007200650020007500730065006400200066006f00720020006f006e006c0069006e0065002e000d0028006300290020003200300030003800200053007000720069006e006700650072002d005600650072006c0061006700200047006d006200480020000d000d0054006800650020006c00610074006500730074002000760065007200730069006f006e002000630061006e00200062006500200064006f0077006e006c006f006100640065006400200061007400200068007400740070003a002f002f00700072006f00640075006300740069006f006e002e0073007000720069006e006700650072002e0063006f006d000d0054006800650072006500200079006f0075002000630061006e00200061006c0073006f002000660069006e0064002000610020007300750069007400610062006c006500200045006e0066006f0063007500730020005000440046002000500072006f00660069006c006500200066006f0072002000500069007400530074006f0070002000500072006f00660065007300730069006f006e0061006c0020003600200061006e0064002000500069007400530074006f007000200053006500720076006500720020003300200066006f007200200070007200650066006c00690067006800740069006e006700200079006f007500720020005000440046002000660069006c006500730020006200650066006f007200650020006a006f00620020007300750062006d0069007300730069006f006e002e> >> >> setdistillerparams << /HWResolution [2400 2400] /PageSize [5952.756 8418.897] >> setpagedevice