Table 2.

Random intercept–only models testing confirmatory effects of experimental conditions (Hypothesis 1) and autonomous and controlled motivation (Hypothesis 2) on outcomes

Outcome and term	B	SE	t	df	rp	95% CI around rp		P value	Variance of random effects
						Lower	Upper
Autonomous motivation Hypothesis 1
Controlling (intercept)	6.01	0.06	107.99	76.01	0.048	0.036	0.060	<0.001	0.191
Vs. no message	−0.04	0.02	−2.10	25,649.85	–0.012	–0.024	-0.001	0.036
Vs. autonomy supportive	0.10	0.02	5.83	25,649.03	0.034	0.021	0.046	<0.001
Controlled motivation Hypothesis 1
Controlling (intercept)	4.57	0.06	78.37	77.52	0.099	0.088	0.112	<0.001	0.20
Vs. no message	−0.34	0.02	−16.24	25,646.41	–0.096	–0.108	–0.084	<0.001
Vs. autonomy supportive	−0.09	0.02	−4.47	25,644.91	–0.026	–0.039	–0.014	<0.001
Defiance Hypothesis 1
Controlling (intercept)	2.77	0.05	55.54	69.88	0.073	0.061	0.085	<0.001	0.13
Vs. no message	−0.01	0.02	−0.44	25,412.46	–0.003	–0.015	0.000	0.657
Vs. autonomy supportive	−0.25	0.02	−10.50	25,409.08	–0.064	–0.076	–0.052	<0.001
Defiance Hypothesis 2
Intercept	6.20	0.07	93.79	297.72	0.524	0.516	0.532	<0.001	0.11
Autonomous motivation	−0.75	0.01	−94.64	25,338.34	–0.522	–0.530	–0.514	<0.001
Controlled motivation	0.23	0.01	36.10	25,413.67	0.223	0.211	0.234	<0.001
Intention to avoid 1 wk Hypothesis 1
Controlling (intercept)	5.42	0.07	77.26	74.77	0.017	0.007	0.030	<0.001	0.30
Vs. no message	0.06	0.02	2.91	25,235.70	0.017	0.005	0.029	0.004
Vs. autonomy supportive	0.03	0.02	1.52	25,234.29	0.009	0.001	0.021	0.128
Intention to avoid 1 wk Hypothesis 2
Intercept	2.00	0.07	28.24	212.79	0.446	0.437	0.456	<0.001	0.17
Autonomous motivation	0.58	0.01	75.29	25,252.95	0.433	0.423	0.442	<0.001
Controlled motivation	−0.01	0.01	−0.92	25,265.99	–0.006	–0.018	0.000	0.355
Intention to avoid 6 mo Hypothesis 1*
Controlling (intercept)	17.20	0.27	64.42	72.23	0.012	0.003	0.025	<0.001	4.02
Vs. no message	−0.01	0.10	−0.10	24,606.22	–0.001	–0.014	0.000	0.917
Vs. autonomy supportive	−0.17	0.10	−1.72	24,604.00	–0.010	–0.023	–0.001	0.086
Intention to avoid 6 mo Hypothesis 2*
Intercept	2.50	0.29	8.75	292.37	0.466	0.457	0.475	<0.001	2.05
Autonomous motivation	2.76	0.03	79.95	24,528.81	0.465	0.456	0.474	<0.001
Controlled motivation	−0.45	0.03	−15.97	24,607.37	–0.102	–0.114	–0.090	<0.001

B is the unstandardized coefficient; r_p is the partial standardized effect size for each coefficient. N = 25,718. Controlling: n = 8,368; no message: n = 8,790; autonomy supportive: n = 8,560. The controlling message was the reference group. We report three decimal places for p and r_p and its 95% CI since our interval null is r_p = –0.025 to 0.025 and two decimals for all other values. df, degree of freedom.

^*Excluding erroneous data.