This article examines the impact of support and goal instrumentality on relationship quality. Goal instrumentality is a means by which people can outsource their self-regulatory efforts to close others, allowing close others to facilitate their goal progress. Two studies investigated the consequences of autonomous, directive, and controlling goal support from instrumental others on relationship quality. In Study 1, participants were asked to think of an instrumental other versus not and in Study 2, participants were followed over 3 months and changes in relationship closeness and commitment were assessed. In both studies, as expected, there was a main effect of autonomy support, and instrumentality moderated the effects of directive support. However, controlling support was unrelated to relationship quality. This article furthers current understanding of how goals shape people’s responses to the different types of support provided.
AronA.AronE. N.SmollanD. (1992). Inclusion of other in the self scale and the structure of interpersonal closeness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 596–612.
2.
CampbellL.KashyD. A. (2002). Estimating actor, partner, and interaction effects for dyadic data using PROC MIXED and HLM: A user–friendly guide. Personal Relationships, 9, 327–342.
3.
ChuaS. N.CarbonneauN.MilyavskayaM.KoestnerR. (2014). Beyond the self in self-control: The role of relational interdependent self-construal in goal pursuit. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 32, 330–343.
4.
ChuaS. N.WongN.KoestnerR. (2014). Autonomy and controlling support are two sides of the same coin. Personality and Individual Differences, 68, 48–52.
5.
ChirkovV. I.RyanR. M. (2001). Parent and teacher autonomy-support in Russian and U.S. adolescents: Common effects on well-being and academic motivation. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 32, 618–635.
6.
CutronaC. E. (1990). Stress and social support-in search of optimal matching. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 3–14.
7.
CutronaC. E.RussellD. W. (1990). Type of social support and specific stress: Toward a theory of optimal matching. In SarasonB. R.SarasonI. G.PierceG. R. (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 319–366). New York, NY: Wiley.
8.
CutronaC. E.SuhrJ. A. (1992). Controllability of stressful events and satisfaction with spouse support behaviors. Communication Research, 19, 154–174.
9.
DeciE. L.RyanR. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
10.
DeciE. L.La GuardiaJ. G.MollerA. C.ScheinerM. J.RyanR. M. (2006). On the benefits of giving as well as receiving autonomy support: Mutuality in close friendships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 313–327.
11.
DownieM.ChuaS. N.KoestnerR.BarriosM.RipB.SawsanM. (2007). The relations of parental autonomy support to cultural internalization and well-being on immigrants and sojourners. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 13, 241–249.
12.
FeeneyB. C. (2004). A secure base: Responsive support of goal strivings and exploration in adult intimate relationships. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 631–648.
13.
FergusonY. L.KasserT.JahngS. (2011). Differences in life satisfaction and school satisfaction among adolescents from three nations: The role of perceived autonomy support. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 21, 649–661.
14.
FinkelE. J.HuiC. M.CarswellK. L.LarsonG. M. (2014). The suffocation of marriage: Climbing Mount Maslow without enough oxygen. Psychological Inquiry, 25, 1–41.
15.
FisherE. B.JrBickleC.HarberK.HughesC. R.JeffeD. B.KahlL.La GrecaA. M. (1997). Benefits of directive and nondirective support are moderated by severity of circumstances. Paper presented at the Society of Behavioral Medicine, San Francisco, CA.
16.
FitzsimonsG. M.FishbachA. (2010). Shifting closeness: Interpersonal effects of personal goal progress. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98, 535–549.
17.
FitzsimonsG. M.FinkelE. J. (2011). Outsourcing self-regulation. Psychological Science, 22, 369–375.
18.
FitzsimonsG. M.FinkelE. J. (2012). Outsourcing effort to close others. In CampbellL.La GuardiaJ. G.OlsonJ. M.ZannaM. P. (Eds.), The science of the couple: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 12, pp. 41–57). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
19.
FitzsimonsG. M.ShahJ. Y. (2008). How goal instrumentality shapes relationship evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95, 319–337.
20.
FletcherG. J.SimpsonJ. A.ThomasG. (2000). The measurement of perceived relationship quality components: A confirmatory factor analytic approach. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 340–354.
21.
GabrieleJ. M.CarpenterB. D.TateD. F.FisherE. B. (2011). Directive and nondirective e-coach support for weight loss in overweight adults. Annals of Behavioral Medicine, 41, 252–263.
22.
GorinA. A.PowersT. A.KoestnerR.WingR. R.RaynorH. A. (2014). Autonomy support, self-regulation, and weight loss. Health Psychology, 33, 332–339.
23.
HorowitzL. M.KrasnoperovaE. N.TatarD. G.HansenM. B.PersonE. A.GalvinK. L.NelsonK. L. (2001). The way to console may depend on the goal: Experimental studies of social support. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 49–61.
24.
JoussemetM.LandryR.KoestnerR. (2008). A self-determination theory perspective on parenting. Canadian Psychology, 49, 194.
25.
KennyD. A.KashyD. A.CookW. L. (2006). The analysis of dyadic data. New York, NY: Guilford.
26.
KoestnerR.PowersT. A.MilyavskayaM.CarbonneauN.HopeN. (2015). Goal internalization and persistence as a function of autonomous and directive forms of goal support. Journal of Personality, 83, 179–190. doi:10.1111/jopy.12093
27.
KoestnerR.PowersT. A.CarbonneauN.MilyavskayaM.ChuaS. N. (2012). Distinguishing autonomous and directive forms of goal support their effects on goal progress, relationship quality, and subjective well-being. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38, 1609–1620.
28.
KneeC. R.UysalA. (2011). The role of autonomy in promoting healthy dyadic, familial, and parenting relationships across cultures. In ChrikovV. I.RyanR. M.SheldonK. M. (Eds.), Human autonomy in cross-cultural context (pp. 95–110). Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Springer.
29.
LawrenceE.BundeM.BarryR. A.BrockR. L.SullivanK. T.PaschL. A.…AdamsE. E. (2008). Partner support and marital satisfaction: Support amount, adequacy, provision, and solicitation. Personal Relationships, 15, 445–463.
30.
LightA. E.FitzsimonsG. M. (2014). Contextualizing marriage as a means and a goal. Psychological Inquiry, 25, 88–94.
31.
MacherS. (2013). Social interdependence in close relationships: The actor–partner-interdependence–investment model (API-IM). European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 84–96.
32.
MarbellK. N.GrolnickW. S. (2013). Correlates of parental control and autonomy support in an interdependent culture: A look at Ghana. Motivation and Emotion, 37, 79–92.
33.
PowersT. A.KoestnerR.GorinA. A. (2008). Autonomy support from family and friends and weight loss in college women. Families, Systems, & Health, 26, 404–416.
34.
PreacherK. J.CurranP. J.BauerD. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling and latent curve analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31, 437–448.
35.
OverallN. C.FletcherG. J.SimpsonJ. A. (2010). Helping each other grow: Romantic partner support, self-improvement, and relationship quality. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1496–1513.
36.
RyanR. M. (1993). Agency and organization: Intrinsic motivation, autonomy and the self in psychological development. In JacobsJ. (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Developmental perspectives on motivation (Vol. 40, pp. 1–56). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
37.
RyanR. M.DeciE. L.GrolnickW. S. (1995). Autonomy, relatedness, and the self: Their relation to development and psychopathology. In CicchettiD.CohenD. J. (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Theory and methods (Vol. 1, pp. 618–655). New York, NY: Wiley.
38.
SheldonK. M.FilakV. (2008). Manipulating autonomy, competence, and relatedness support in a game-learning context: New evidence that all three needs matter. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 267–283.
39.
SimpsonJ. A.RholesW. S.OrinaM. M.GrichJ. (2002). Working models of attachment, support giving, and support seeking in a stressful situation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 598–608.
40.
VerhofstadtL. L.BuysseA.IckesW. (2007). Social support in couples: An examination of gender differences using self-report and observational methods. Sex Roles, 57, 267–282.
