Autonomy in Adolescent Development

Towards Conceptual Clarity

Bart Soenens, Maarten Vansteenkiste, Stijn Van Petegem, Bart Soenens, Maarten Vansteenkiste, Stijn Van Petegem

• Publisher: Psychology Press
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781138640610
• eBook ISBN: 9781317265252
• Topic: Psychology
• Subtopic: Developmental Psychology
• Index: Psychology

Autonomy is a central feature of adolescent development, playing a key role in adolescents' psychosocial adjustment. However, opinions differ about the nature and definition of autonomy and so important questions regarding the role of autonomy in adolescents' development have remained unanswered. This book helps to address these questions while bringing clarity to the literature on adolescent autonomy.

Autonomy in Adolescent Development: Towards Conceptual Clarity highlights a distinction between two notions of autonomy: autonomy-as-independence and autonomy-as-volition. The chapters in this volume illustrate how this distinction sheds new light on controversial questions regarding autonomy, such as: Is more autonomy always beneficial for adolescents' psychosocial adjustment? Or are there limits to the amount of autonomy ideal for well-being and social adjustment? Is autonomy a universally critical ingredient of optimal development? Or do effects of autonomy differ by cultural context and socioeconomic status? How can parents, siblings, and peers promote the development of autonomy?

Bringing together scholars from varied theoretical backgrounds studying autonomy in different contexts, this book provides an overview of recent conceptual and empirical work from diverse perspectives, yielding refreshing and thought-provoking insights into the nature of adolescent autonomy. Autonomy in Adolescent Development is invaluable for advanced students and researchers in adolescent development, acting both as a guide and as a source of inspiration for new research in the area.

1

How to solve the conundrum of adolescent autonomy?

On the importance of distinguishing between independence and volitional functioning

Bart Soenens, Maarten Vansteenkiste, Stijn Van Petegem, Wim Beyers, and Richard Ryan

This chapter focuses on a distinction between two conceptualizations of autonomy and the relevance of this distinction for adolescent development. Specifically, we discuss theory and research dealing with autonomy-as-independence (i.e., the degree to which adolescents are self-reliant and make decisions without input from others) and autonomy-as-volition (i.e., the degree to which adolescents regulate their behavior based on deeply held values, preferences, and interests). We argue that this distinction helps to provide nuanced answers to controversial questions related to adolescent autonomy. Specifically, we revisit six questions about adolescent autonomy in light of the distinction between independence and volition. Throughout the chapter, we highlight the complex interplay between the two conceptualizations of autonomy and we call for future research addressing their combined and interactive role in adolescent development.

Free from what? What does that matter to Zarathustra! But your fiery eyes should tell me: free for what?

Nietzsche, Also Sprach Zarathustra

Psychologists, philosophers, economists, and sociologists have devoted literally thousands of books, papers, and talks to the topic of autonomy. Scholars have debated about several issues related to autonomy, many of which deal with the question whether autonomy is always beneficial or whether instead its effects depend on factors such as timing (What if people achieve autonomy too early?), quantity (Can people be too autonomous?), and cultural context (Is autonomy only a good thing in the West?). These questions have received much attention specifically in regard to adolescent development because adolescence is considered a developmental period during which establishing a sense of autonomy is a key developmental task (Steinberg and Morris, 2001; Zimmer-Gembeck and Collins, 2003). In spite of a broad consensus about the centrality of autonomy to understanding adolescents’ functioning, there is much controversy about the exact meaning of autonomy, about its role in adolescent development, and about the way socializing agents can foster healthy autonomy development.

The psychological literature has witnessed a proliferation of jargon related to the notion of autonomy. Autonomy has been used interchangeably with many more different terms, including constructs such as independence, volition, willingness, ownership, freedom, choice, self-reliance, uniqueness, self-sufficiency, and even egoism, narcissism, defiance, and rebellion. As a result, the concept of autonomy has become blurred and fuzzy. This conceptual confusion has also hampered the precise assessment of autonomy. There has been an upsurge in the development of autonomy-related measures, with some measures receiving similar labels while measuring different aspects of autonomy and with other measures having different labels but tapping into similar content (Van Petegem, Vansteenkiste, and Beyers, 2013).

In recent years, theory and research have begun to demonstrate the importance of distinguishing between two broad conceptualizations of autonomy, one of which has to do with self-reliance and independence from others and one of which has to do with the regulation of behavior on the basis of deeply endorsed values, preferences, and interests (Ryan and Lynch, 1989; Soenens et al., 2007). We will refer to this distinction as a distinction between independence and volitional functioning. In this chapter we will argue that this distinction can bring much clarity to a complex area of research. The first section of this chapter deals with the conceptual distinction between independence and volitional functioning. The second section deals with six specific and controversial issues related to adolescent autonomy, and we examine how the distinction between independence and volitional functioning can help to shed a refreshing light on these issues.

Two prevalent—but different—perspectives on autonomy in adolescent psychology

Autonomy as independence

In mainstream adolescent psychology, autonomy is traditionally defined as independence or self-reliance; that is, the extent to which one behaves, decides, or thinks without relying on others (Goossens, 2006; Steinberg, 2002). The opposite of autonomy then involves dependence or reliance on others, and on the parents in particular. This viewpoint is rooted in Separation-Individuation Theory (Blos, 1979), which implies that a normative developmental task for adolescents is to relinquish and transcend an idealized and immature view of their parents and to reduce the psychological dependence on parents’ approval. When occurring smoothly, this normative process of separation-individuation would result in more independent decision-making, with adolescents taking more decisions by themselves, particularly in the personal domain (e.g., choice of clothing and friendships; Smetana, Campione-Barr, and Daddis, 2004; Smetana, Chapter 3, this volume). In addition to this behavioral component, autonomy according to Separation-Individuation Theory also would manifest at the emotional and functional level (Hoffman, 1984). Emotional independence is defined as an adolescent’s freedom from excessive need for approval and emotional support by parents. Functional independence refers to the extent to which one is capable of managing practical affairs without soliciting parental help.

The developmental challenge for adolescents is not to detach themselves from their attachment figures, yet, to transform the hierarchical parent–child relation into a more horizontal one. Throughout this transformation process, a crucial task for adolescents is to strive towards more independent functioning while at the same time maintaining positive relations with parents (e.g., Cooper and Grotevant, 2011; Grotevant and Cooper, 1986; Youniss and Smollar, 1985). In other words, this gradual process towards increased independence should take place in a supportive context. Research indeed shows that adolescents who display assertiveness and independence in family discussions while simultaneously staying connected to parents display better psychosocial adjustment, as reflected for instance in higher self-esteem, social competence in friendships, and high-quality romantic relationships (Allen, Hauser, Bell, and O’Connor, 1994; Hauser et al., 1984; Kansky et al., Chapter 2, this volume; Oudekerk, Allen, Hessel, and Molloy, 2015).

The pursuit of an optimal balance between the striving for independence and the maintenance of satisfying parent–child relationships can also go awry (Beyers & Goossens, 1999, 2003; Blos, 1979; Levy-Warren, 1999; Mahler and Furer, 1963). Disturbances in the healthy separation-individuation process might have to do with a failure to achieve independence or with a failure to stay well-connected to the caregiver (Kins, Beyers, and Soenens, 2013; Lapsley, Rice, and Shadid, 1989; McClanahan and Holmbeck, 1992). In the case of dysfunctional independence, an adolescent’s striving for independence comes at the cost of a close attachment relationship. In other words, these adolescents tend to detach themselves from socialization figures, as the caregivers engender feelings of rejection, alienation, and mistrust (Beyers, Goossens, Vansant, & Moors, 2003). As adolescents become excessively concerned with demonstrating their self-reliance, they may even display oppositional defiance to the parents’ authority, in which case any external interference is perceived as a potential threat for one’s striving towards independence (Van Petegem, Vansteenkiste, Soenens, Beyers, and Aelterman, 2015). Alternatively, disturbances in the separation-individuation process might also entail dysfunctional dependence, as manifested through separation anxiety (Wood, 2006). For separation-anxious individuals, the separation from attachment figures represents a threat to the relation and, hence, causes intense distress, loneliness, and fear of being abandoned.

Autonomy as volitional functioning

Other theories have conceptualized autonomy in terms of volitional functioning. A prominent theory in this regard is Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci and Ryan, 2000; Ryan and Deci, 2000, 2017; Vansteenkiste, Niemiec, and Soenens, 2010), a general theory on motivation, personality, and social development in which the concept of autonomy takes a central place. Two concepts in SDT are specifically relevant to the notion of autonomy as volition; that is, the basic psychological need for autonomy and autonomous motivation.

Need for autonomy. Together with the basic psychological needs for relatedness and competence, the need for autonomy is considered an essential ingredient for growth, integration, and well-being (Ryan and Deci, 2000, 2017). When satisfied, this need manifests in feelings of psychological freedom and authenticity. In contrast, when frustrated it entails experiences of heteronomy; that is, feelings of pressure and inner conflict (Ryan, Deci, and Vansteenkiste, 2016). SDT makes strong claims about the importance of this psychological need, stating that it is a fundamental and universal need essential to all individuals’ thriving and psychosocial adjustment.

Consistent with these strong claims, there is solid evidence that satisfaction of the need for autonomy is related to higher levels of general well-being and to domain-specific adjustment, both in adults and in adolescents (Deci and Ryan, 2016; Vansteenkiste and Ryan, 2013). For instance, research with adolescents has shown that autonomy need satisfaction is related to developmental outcomes such as well-being (Cordeiro, Paixão, Lens, Lacante, and Luyckx, 2016; Veronneau, Koestner, and Abela, 2005), healthy identity development (Luyckx, Vansteenkiste, Goossens, and Duriez, 2009), physical activity (Gunnell, Bélanger, and Brunet, 2016), and quality of sleep (Campbell et al., 2015). In contrast, frustration of the need for autonomy is related to greater maladjustment and risk for psychopathology (Ryan et al., 2016), stress (Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan, Bosch, and Thogerson-Ntoumani, 2011), internalizing and externalizing problems (Costa, Cuzzocrea, Gugliandolo, and Larcan, 2016; Mabbe, Soenens, Vansteenkiste, and Van Leeuwen, 2016), eating disorder symptoms (Boone, Vansteenkiste, Soenens, van der Kaap-Deeder, and Verstuyf, 2014), bullying (Fousiani, Dimitropoulou, Michaelides, and Van Petegem, 2016), and pathological internet use (Liu, Fang, Wan, and Zhou, 2016).

Autonomous motivation. Besides the need for autonomy, the SDT-based concept of autonomous motivation is also relevant. In SDT, autonomous motivation refers to self-endorsed reasons for engaging in an activity or for pursuing a particular goal (Deci and Ryan, 2000). When people are autonomously motivated, they engage in an activity willingly. This is because the activity is inherently satisfying and interesting (i.e., intrinsic motivation) or because people see the personal value of engaging in the activity (i.e., identification). Thus, even when an activity is not inherently enjoyable or challenging (such as following a rule), people can still internalize its importance, thereby experiencing greater ownership over the behavior and displaying autonomous motivation. Autonomous motivation can be contrasted with controlled motivation, which occurs when people feel pressured either by external forces (e.g., threats of punishment and certain types of rewards) or by internal demands (e.g., to avoid feelings of shame or guilt, or to boost one’s self-worth) to do something or to pursue a certain goal. Instead of wanting to do an activity (as with autonomous motivation), with controlled motivation people are investing effort because they have to (Ryan and Deci, 2000; Vansteenkiste et al., 2010).

Abundant research has demonstrated the adaptive value of autonomous motivation in diverse areas of individuals’ lives, including work (Gagné and Deci, 2005), sports (Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, and Briere, 2001), and religious behavior (Ryan, Rigby, and King, 1993) to name a few. Research with adolescents has shown that autonomous motivation is important in domains such as school work and social relationships. For instance, autonomous academic motivation is related to the use of more deep-level strategies for learning, higher competence, and ultimately to higher school grades (Grolnick, Kurowski, Dunlap, and Hevey, 2000; Vansteenkiste, Zhou, Lens, and Soenens, 2005). Similarly, adolescents with more autonomous motives for engaging in friendships were found to experience more social competence (Soenens and Vansteenkiste, 2005).

Theoretically, the need for autonomy, which speaks to the energetic basis of individuals’ behavior, and autonomous motivation, which represents the motivational direction of people’s functioning, are assumed to be reciprocally related. Specifically, satisfaction of the need for autonomy provides the impetus and psychological flexibility required for autonomous motivation to unfold. That is, when people experience a sense of volition and choice when carrying out activities, they are more likely to develop and maintain autonomous motivation for a given activity and they may orient behavior towards engagement in enjoyable or highly valued activities. Indeed, intrinsically motivating activities function as a magnet to which people get naturally attracted when they experience a sense of volition and psychological freedom. At the same time, when people engage in activities or pursue goals for self-endorsed reasons, they are more likely to experience a sense of authenticity and psychological freedom, as their actions are fully endorsed by the self and are in line with one’s personal convictions and values. That is, autonomy need satisfaction may be the very outcome of engaging in an activity for autonomous reasons (e.g., Chen, Beyers, Vansteenkiste, Soenens, and Van Petegem, 2013; Sheldon and Kasser, 1998). Because autonomous motivation and satisfaction of the need for autonomy reinforce one another mutually, they can both be considered key indicators of volitional functioning.

Contrasting the notions of independence and volitional functioning

Differentiation. Increasingly, theory and research point to the importance of differentiating clearly between independence and volitio...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Series Information
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of Contributors
• Preface
• 1 How to solve the conundrum of adolescent autonomy?: On the importance of distinguishing between independence and volitional functioning
• 2 Observing adolescent relationships: Autonomy processes in parent, peer, and romantic partner interactions
• 3 The development of autonomy during adolescence: A social-cognitive domain theory view
• 4 Governance transfer: A dynamic perspective on adolescent behavioral autonomy and parent regulation
• 5 Adolescent autonomy in context: Facilitative parenting in different cultures, domains, and settings
• 6 The striving to develop an authentic inner compass as a key component of adolescents’ need for autonomy: Parental antecedents and effects on identity, well-being, and resilience
• 7 The role of choice in understanding adolescent autonomy and academic functioning
• 8 Parent–adolescent relationships and romantic development: A review and argument for research on autonomy-supportive parenting
• 9 Psychology and culture construct “autonomy”
• Index