Authority in the classroom: adolescent autonomy,autonomy support, and teachers’ legitimacy

João Graça & Maria Manuela Calheiros &Maria Clara Barata

Received: 21 September 2011 /Revised: 7 August 2012 /Accepted: 16 August 2012 /Published online: 31 August 2012# Instituto Superior de Psicologia Aplicada, Lisboa, Portugal and Springer Science+Business Media BV 2012

Abstract Younger generations are increasingly questioning the legitimacy of teachers.However, evidence concerning classroom authority and the many factors that shape it tendto disregard the complexity and dynamics of the relationship between the teacher and thestudent. This paper aims to contribute to further unfold and understand this topic. Specifi-cally, teachers’ legitimacy is examined from the scope of the Relational Model of Authorityand the principle of autonomy, from the standpoint of the individual (i.e. adolescent’sautonomy level) and the individual’s perception of the social context (i.e. perceived auton-omy support). Participants were 323 adolescents attending two secondary schools in urbanareas of Portugal, from 9th to 12th grades. The results indicate that teachers’ legitimacy,as recognised by students, varies according to their perceived autonomy support. Inaddition, more autonomous adolescents, when in contexts that they perceive as lowerin autonomy support, recognise lower levels of legitimacy to their teachers, comparedwith individuals with lower autonomy levels. Results are discussed from the standpoint ofthe Relational Model of Authority, the Self-Determination Theory and the Theory ofPsychological Reactance.

Keywords Classroom dynamics . Adolescent autonomy . Authority . Legitimacy .

Autonomy support

Introduction

Changes in Western societies have led to a progressive decline in the influence of traditionand institutions in forming social values (Heelas et al. 1996). Younger generations tend todisregard the unconditional authority of traditional figures such as the police, teachers andreligious leaders. These figures’ respect must be justified, authority must be won and meritmust be proven (Thomson and Holland 2002).

Eur J Psychol Educ (2013) 28:1065–1076DOI 10.1007/s10212-012-0154-1

J. Graça (*) :M. M. Calheiros :M. C. BarataCIS-IUL, Lisbon University Institute (ISCTE-IUL), Lisboa, Portugale-mail: joao_daniel_graca@iscte.pt

In an academic context, authority is of central importance to the teaching andlearning process, supported by teachers’ positions and the school’s educational respon-sibility (Pace 2003). However, the dynamics of interpersonal classroom relationships arecomplex and students do not always recognise teachers’ authority which is shaped by aseries of negotiations between teachers and students (Pace 2003; Pace and Hemmings2007). These dynamics often involve conflicts affecting the balance of legitimacy andmutual understanding, potentially compromising students’ compliance for teachers’objectives. Even so, despite its importance to the success of formal education, themajority of existing studies on authority in an academic context are essentially focusedon the effects of social inequalities and cultural domination in student resistance. Thecomplexity and dynamics of the relationship between authority figures and the individ-ual is almost always disregarded, resulting in an insufficient understanding of theconcept (Pace and Hemmings 2007). In the words of Pace and Hemmings, “It is, weargue, imperative that classroom authority and the many factors that shape it in differentsettings be explicitly considered and investigated to inform practice and policy” (Paceand Hemmings 2007, p. 22).

In fact, in the academic context, it is the teachers—as the authority holders—who areresponsible for influencing students’ beliefs and behaviour so that they complete theestablished curriculum and achieve academic goals. Although there are a number of differentteaching strategies and trends with divergent guidelines, their effectiveness may ultimatelydepend on a common factor: student consent and acceptance of teachers’ decisions anddirectives, that is, teachers’ recognised legitimacy. Without this underlying assumption, anyattempt to influence student’s beliefs and behaviour may be compromised from the veryoutset. There are two main reasons why several authors argue that the exercise of authoritybased solely on reward, coercion or both is often difficult and ineffective. First, it is highlyprobable that compliance will not persist when the extrinsic contingencies are not present(Tyler 1990). Second, it is associated with psychological discord and discomfort on behalf ofthe individuals (Deci and Ryan 2000), in this case the students. It is our contention that theconstruct of legitimacy can offer a potentially valid contribution concerning this questionsince it focuses on the extent to which students generally acknowledge the teachers’ right toinfluence their beliefs and behaviours (Tyler 1997). Specifically, it encompasses the degreeto which students feel they should defer to the teachers and voluntarily accept theirdecisions, follow classroom rules and hold positive evaluations regarding their competence(Tyler 1990, 1997).

This work, as an initiative in social psychology for the educational field, aims tocontribute to a better understanding of the factors affecting the recognition of the legitimacyof teacher authority. Specifically, the construct of teachers’ legitimacy is examined from thescope of the Relational Model of Authority (RMA) (Tyler and Lind 1992), which addressesthe effects of justice perceptions on the legitimacy of authorities and behavioural compli-ance. Studies based on this model show that the greater the perception of procedural anddistributive justice, the greater the perception of legitimacy of family, organisational andpublic authorities (Tyler and Lind 1992). In the educational context, research up until now inthis area also underscores the importance of perceived justice in the teacher/student rela-tionship to legitimise teachers as authority figures (Gouveia-Pereira 2008; Gouveia-Pereiraet al. 2003; Tyler 1997). Such results are in line with several other studies that associatenegative interactions between students and teachers, the development of negative attitudestoward school authorities and the involvement in violent and aggressive behaviours in theschool context (e.g. Estévez et al. 2005; Murray and Murray 2004; Ochoa et al. 2007;Sanches et al. 2012).

1066 J. Graça et al.

According to the RMA, the main message to retain is that students’ perceptions of theirrelations with teachers, particularly perceived justice, are shown to be important predictorsof teacher legitimation and students’ behavioural compliance. We propose that adding to theliterature of the RMA by examining this topic from the principle of autonomy mightcontribute to further unfold and understand the dynamics of the relationship betweenteachers as authority figures and adolescent students.

Adolescence has long been characterised as a time when individuals explore and examinecharacteristics of the self in order to discover who they really are, and how they fit in thesocial world in which they live (see Steinberg and Morris 2001). Although this develop-mental process tends to give rise to a more differentiated and better organised self-concept,some factors have been associated with poor adolescent functioning, such as excessivepsychological control in family and school contexts (Eccles et al. 1997). In the schoolcontext, Eccles et al. (1993) argue that adolescents will reduce their psychological invest-ment if it fails to match their developmental needs, such as providing opportunities forautonomous decision making. Blackwell et al. (2002) also propose that many of theadolescents’ confrontational and even disruptive behaviours may be seen as a desire forautonomy from adult control, often in response to negative relations with adults. Examiningthe problem of teacher legitimation from the scope of the RMA and the principle ofautonomy allows to explore how autonomy at the individual level, as a major developmentaltask to achieve in adolescence, interacts with the adolescents’ perceptions of how theirteachers support their autonomy in voluntarily complying and acknowledging the teachers’right to influence their beliefs and behaviours.

In individual terms, the autonomy of adolescents is considered a developmental milestonein the transition for adulthood and corresponds to a set of skills that provide “the ability togive direction to one’s own life, by defining goals, feeling competent and being able toregulate one’s actions” (Noom 1999, p. 119). Specifically, these skills involve the adoles-cent’s ability to (1) think for him/herself, choose personal values, make decisions and setgoals; (2) feel confident in taking on these values, goals and decisions, without excessivedependence on social validation; and (3) to reflect confident, self-determined behaviour(Noom 1999; Noom et al. 1999, 2001). According to available evidence, autonomy ispositively tied to psychosocial adjustment indices (Noom et al. 1999), identity formation(Frank et al. 1990), decision-making ability (Beckert 2007), self-esteem (Noom 1999),resistance to peer pressure (Steinberg and Silverberg 1986) and avoidance of risk behaviour(Turner et al. 1993).

In contextual terms, autonomy support is a relationship strategy framed in the Self-Determination Theory (Deci and Ryan 1985, 2000) that considers the intentions and needsof the various sides involved (Williams and Deci 1996). This refers to the social context andoccurs when a person with an authority role assumes the other persons’ perspective wheninteracting with them acknowledges their feelings and provides options and informationneeded to make decisions, without using coercive strategies (Reeve and Jang 2006).

In educational contexts, it is defined as the degree to which teachers acknowledge theperspective of students when interacting with them and encourage their proactive participa-tion in learning activities (Williams et al. 1997). Learning environments with social contextsthat support autonomy promote harmony between the needs of students and teachingactivities. They create opportunities for the activities to be guided by students’ interestsand preferences, offering alternatives and giving a sense of challenge to solving academictasks (Reeve et al. 2004). According to available evidence, such environments are associatedwith better results in terms of academic commitment, intrinsic motivation, psychologicalwell-being, academic performance, mastery goals and persistence in school, when compared

Authority in the classroom 1067

with environments perceived as controlling (e.g. Black and Deci 2000; Ciani et al. 2010;Greene et al. 2004; Hardre and Reeve 2003; Miserandino 1996; Shih 2009; Williams andDeci 1996). Conversely, controlling learning environments interfere with student motiva-tion, emphasising a pre-determined learning agenda establishing, a priori, what studentsshould think, feel and do (Reeve et al. 2004). Students’ adherence is then governed byexternal mechanisms, through the use of pressure, rewards and punishments.

Since authority is of central importance in the teaching and learning process (Pace 2003),and in the scope of the academic activity based in interpersonal and intergroup interaction, itis therefore important to consider which strategy will be most effective in legitimisingteachers. Are relationship strategies emphasising control in academic activities negativelyassociated to students’ recognition of teacher legitimacy? If so, does this hold equally truefor more autonomous adolescents as well as for those with lower autonomy levels? Toanswer these questions, this work seeks to integrate three previously dispersed areas ofliterature, namely: adolescent autonomy as a developmental task and set of skills, autonomysupport as an interpersonal relationship strategy used by teachers in their academic activities,and, finally, the recognised legitimacy of teachers as authority figures. We frame the study inthe RMA applied to the field of education.

Objectives and Hypotheses

Firstly, we will seek to determine the link between students’ perceptions of the interpersonalrelationship strategies used by teachers in academic activities (autonomy support) and theperception that students have of them (perceived legitimacy).

Hypothesis 1 Student perception of higher teacher legitimacy is associated with higherperceived autonomy support.

Second, to integrate the approach of autonomy centred on the individual, at the develop-mental level, and the approach centred on the perceived social context, it is important toconsider the possibility that more autonomous adolescents may have more difficultiesadapting to a context that they perceive does not support their autonomy (e.g. an excessivelycontrolling context), compared with less autonomous adolescents. As such, we aim to findout if the association between perceived autonomy support and teacher legitimacy dependson the level of autonomy of the individuals.

Hypothesis 2 The association between student recognition of higher teacher legitimacyand higher perceived autonomy support depends on the level of autonomy of theindividuals.

Method

Participants

The convenience sample was composed of 323 adolescents attending two schools in urbanareas of Portugal, from 9th to 12th grades. One hundred and eighty-four were females(57 %) and 139 were males (43 %), aged 13 to 20 (M016.06; SD01.41). As regards theirage group distribution, 64.7 % were 13 to 16 and 35.3 % were 17 to 20 years old.

1068 J. Graça et al.

Measures

We used three self-report questionnaires. Since these were originally in English, we firsttranslated and adapted them to Portuguese into two independent versions and we subse-quently combined them to create the final versions of the questionnaires.

Adolescent autonomy level

Adolescent autonomy level was measured using the Adolescent Autonomy Questionnaire,a 15-item questionnaire (e.g. “I feel quickly comfortable in new situations”) that hasshown construct, discriminant and predictive validity in previous studies (Graça et al.2010; Noom 1999; Noom et al. 2001). Items were assessed on a 5-point Likert scale (10 in noway characteristic of me; 50highly characteristic of me) where higher values reflected higheradolescents’ autonomy levels. To obtain the overall autonomy level, corresponding to theadolescent’s general ability to control his/her life, we calculated the mean of the itemresponses. In the present sample, the data showed a high degree of internal consistency(α00.83).

Perceived autonomy support

To measure perceived autonomy support, we used the Learning Climate Questionnaire,a 15-item questionnaire (e.g. “I feel teachers offer me choices and options”) adapted byWilliams and Deci (1996) from the Health-Care Climate Questionnaire (Williams et al.1996), validated in previous studies (Black and Deci 2000; Williams and Deci 1996).Items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale (10completely disagree; 50completelyagree) reflecting the degree to which students perceived teacher actions in terms ofsupporting their autonomy. Higher values correspond to higher levels of perceivedautonomy support. We obtained the total value by calculating the mean of the responsesto the 15 items. In the present sample, the data showed a high degree of internalconsistency (α00.86).

Perceived legitimacy

Perceived legitimacy was measured using the Perceived Legitimacy Scale, a seven-itemquestionnaire (e.g. “I normally accept teachers’ decisions”) that assesses the degree towhich individuals feel they should defer to authority figures and voluntarily accept theirdecisions, follow their rules and hold positive evaluations regarding their competence,showing construct validity in a previous set of studies (Tyler 1997). Items were measuredon a 5-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (completely disagree) to 5 (completely agree).Higher values correspond to higher levels of perceived teacher legitimacy. Since theoriginal version of the questionnaire addresses only specific and individual situations(Tyler 1997), we adapted the structure of each item in order to capture the students’perception regarding the general group of authority figures, following the procedureused by Gouveia-Pereira et al. (2003), in the case of teachers, and by Hinds andMurphy (2007), in the case of the police force. The overall perceived legitimacy levelcorresponds to the degree to which students acknowledge the teachers’ right to influ-ence their beliefs and behaviours and is obtained by calculating the mean of the itemresponses from the total scale. In the present sample, the data showed a high degree of internalconsistency (α00.81).

Authority in the classroom 1069

Procedure

A researcher, external to the school, delivered the questionnaire in a classroom setting. Thequestionnaires took approximately 15 min to complete. The anonymity and confidentialityof responses was assured, emphasising that participation was voluntary. Aligned with theresearch that mostly supports the present study, specifically concerning the legitimation ofauthority in educational contexts (cf. Gouveia-Pereira 2008; Gouveia-Pereira et al. 2003),we asked participants to respond considering their experiences with teachers in general. Alsoconsistent with the prior studies, the unit of analysis was still the perception of individualsand not the perceptions of the class.

Data-analytic methods

First, we calculated the means, standard deviations and correlations for the variables instudy. Second, to test if student perception of teacher legitimacy varied in accordancewith their perceived autonomy support (Hypothesis 1), we used multiple regression withthe predictor variable perceived autonomy support to predict the criterion variableperceived legitimacy of authority, controlling for school-fixed effects.1 Second, weadded the main effect of adolescent autonomy level. Finally, we added the interactionbetween perceived autonomy support and the level of autonomy of the individuals tothis model, to test if the association between student recognition of higher teacherlegitimacy and higher perceived autonomy support depends on the level of autonomyof the individuals (Hypothesis 2).

Results

Descriptive statistics

In Table 1, we present the descriptive statistics for the variables in the study. The meansvaried between 3.29 and 3.58 on the 5-point scale, suggesting that adolescents’ autonomylevel was relatively high, and that the levels of perceived autonomy support and perceivedlegitimacy were relatively positive in these schools. Bivariate correlations show that there isno significant correlation between perceived autonomy support and adolescent autonomylevel (R0−0.018, p00.753); and perceived legitimacy is significantly and moderatelycorrelated with perceived autonomy support (R0−0.621; p<0.01) and slightly negativelycorrelated with adolescent autonomy level (R0−0.149; p<0.01).

Hypothesis 1 Student perception of higher teacher legitimacy is associated with higherperceived autonomy support.

We found that the predictive value of perceived autonomy support over perceivedlegitimacy of authority, and controlling for school effects, was moderate and statisticallysignificant (b00.667; SEb00.049; β00.602; p<0.001), explaining 39.4 % of the varianceobserved in perceived legitimacy, in comparison with a model adjusting just for schools

1 To check if there was additional clustering in the criterion variable Perceived Legitimacy at the classroomlevel, we fit a multilevel model with random effects for classroom, controlling for school fixed effects. In thismodel, the intraclass correlation indicated 0 % of variance at the classroom level, after accounting for schoollevel fixed effects. Therefore, we chose a single-level model.

1070 J. Graça et al.

effects and accounting for 4.6 %. Therefore, student recognition of higher teacher legitimacydoes seem to be associated with higher perceived autonomy support, as predicted in our firsthypothesis.

Hypothesis 2 The association between student recognition of higher teacher legitimacyand higher perceived autonomy support depends on the level of autonomy of theindividuals.

After adding the main effect of adolescent autonomy level to the model, results indicatedthat higher perceived autonomy support (b00.666; SEb00.049; β00.601; p<0.001) wasassociated with higher teacher legitimacy, and that higher adolescent autonomy level wasassociated with lower teacher legitimacy (b0−0.177; SEb00.057; β0−0.133; p<0.01). Inour final model, the interaction between perceived autonomy support and adolescent auton-omy level was also statistically significant (b00.225; SEb00.094; β00.916; p<0.05),suggesting that the association between perceived autonomy support on teacher legitimacydepends on the level of autonomy of the individuals. Figure 1 demonstrates the interactioneffect for three different levels—lower, medium and higher—of adolescent autonomy level,considering the first, second and third quartiles of the distribution. As can be seen throughthe illustration of the interaction effect, the lower levels of teacher legitimacy are seen in thelower levels of perceived autonomy support particularly among the more autonomousadolescents. The data support our second hypothesis.

Discussion

In general terms, this work seeks to integrate three previously dispersed areas of literature,namely: adolescent autonomy as a developmental task and set of skills, autonomy support asan interpersonal relationship strategy used by teachers in their academic activities and finallythe recognised legitimacy of teachers as authority figures. We frame the study in the RMAapplied to the field of education. The results obtained suggest that a focus on interpersonalrelationship strategies that take student interests into account, present options and minimisethe use of coercive strategies, is a means for teachers to promote voluntary consentconcerning the decisions and proposals they make. In other words, it appears that bysupporting their students’ autonomy when interacting with them, teachers exercise theirpower legitimately, as perceived by adolescents. This reinforces the importance of relation-ship components in legitimising authority figures. Adding to the literature on the RMAapplied to the school context (Gouveia-Pereira et al. 2003; Sanches et al. 2012; Tyler 1997),perceived autonomy support is a predictor of perceived legitimacy.

The results obtained also indicate that adolescents with higher autonomy levels, when incontexts that they perceive as controlling, recognise less legitimacy for authority figuresresponsible for this control, compared with individuals with lower autonomy levels. This

Table 1 Descriptive statistics for variables in study (N0323)

Variables M (SD) Min–max 1 2 3

Adolescent autonomy 3.52 (0.51) 1.73–5.00 –

Autonomy support 3.29 (0.61) 1.40–4.69 −0.018 –

Perceived legitimacy 3.58 (0.68) 1.57–4.86 −0.149* 0.621* –

*p<0.01

Authority in the classroom 1071

suggests that teachers earn legitimacy by providing the autonomy support that is develop-mentally appropriate for adolescents and resonates with Eccles et al.’s (1993) argument forthe importance of matching adolescents’ developmental needs and the opportunities provid-ed in various social contexts to meet those needs. Indeed, exchanges between adults andadolescents that allow and support autonomous behaviours and decision making havebeen identified as a factor that facilitates autonomy development in adolescence (e.g.Zimmer-Gembeck and Collins 2003). A mismatch between the adolescent’s needs in thisdomain and the opportunities provided in the classroom to meet those needs may explain thereduced legitimacy endowed by more autonomous adolescents, when in contexts they perceiveas low in autonomy support.

There are two additional and complementary theoretical explanations that can meaning-fully inform these findings. According to Self-Determination Theory (SDT) (Deci and Ryan1985, 2000), autonomy is a psychological need that plays a critical role in optimal learningand achievement. Autonomy-supportive environments promote the internalisation of exter-nally regulated behaviours in a coherent sense of self. Conversely, in controlling environments,authorities rely merely in external regulation mechanisms such as rewards, punishments anddeadlines to influence individuals’ behaviours. Considering the present findings, it appears thatmore autonomous adolescents have a stronger need for autonomy-supportive environments.Again, this could suggest that these adolescents see controlling contexts as a threat to theirautonomy and regulate this threat by rejecting the legitimacy of the authority responsiblefor this control.

A second and complementary theoretical explanation for these findings could be theactivation of a state of reactance directed toward the controlling agent. According to thetheory of psychological reactance (Brehm 1966), human beings must feel that they canchoose how to think, feel and act. When they feel that their freedom is threatened, aresistance process is triggered against this threat to reaffirm their autonomy and control ofthe situation (Brehm and Brehm 1981). The occurrence of this phenomenon may pose anobstacle in conformity with various forms of social power, particularly when it is exercisedcoercively since in such cases the influence tends to be tied to the explicit restriction of

Autonomy level

Fig. 1 Interaction effect betweenperceived autonomy support andadolescent autonomy level onteacher legitimacy, for low,medium, and high autonomy level

1072 J. Graça et al.

individual freedoms (Nowak et al. 2003). The sense of freedom may then be restored,directly or indirectly, according to the stance of more or less opposition that the individualassumes in relation to the perceived threat (Tennen et al. 1981).

These theoretical principles lead us to infer that beliefs involving individuals’ value andcapacity should guide the actions of those in positions of authority, respecting their auton-omy and ensuring their own decision-making freedom. This could be beneficial for thoseseeking to control or influence the behaviour of others, as their position as authority figuresis ultimately reinforced. Our findings indicate that this may be especially true for authorityfigures trying to regulate the behaviour of highly autonomous adolescents. It may seem to bea paradox, but it is not. Since human beings must feel that they can choose how to think, feeland act (Brehm 1966), it is only natural that others’ explicit attempts at control activatedefence mechanisms. Conversely, it appears that when feeling that the conduct of a givenindividual or group of individuals is guided by respect for individual autonomy, people willbe more inclined to recognise their right to influence or control their own behaviour,voluntarily submitting to their decisions and instructions. From an applied perspective, inorder to encourage students to perceive their conduct as legitimate, teachers can thereforetake student interests into account, present options, and minimise the use of coercivestrategies (i.e. support their autonomy).

Limitations and future research

Although the objectives laid out have been met and the respective hypotheses supported, it isimportant to take into account a few considerations on the study’s limitations and sugges-tions for future research. First, concerning methodological issues, it must be noted that onlyexperimental studies can demonstrate the existence of a causal connection between thevariables in question. Since the design adopted here is correlational in nature, the resultingconclusions drawn should be read with some caution.

Second, another important aspect to consider involves the non-random, relatively smallsample group of participants. In order to strengthen the present findings, future studiesshould draw from a more diverse nationally representative sample of students to test thesehypotheses.

Third, the present results raise the hypothesis that the perceived legitimacy of teachersplays a role in the relationship between autonomy-supportive teaching environments and theinternalisation of extrinsically regulated behaviours (see, for example, Black and Deci2000). It is possible that the internalisation of extrinsically regulated behaviours is facilitatedby the acknowledgment of the teachers’ right to influence one’s beliefs and behaviours. Itwould be interesting to further explore how study of classroom authority can fit into theSDT, considering all of the three corresponding basic needs—autonomy, competence andparticularly relatedness. One of the basic tenets of the RMA (Tyler and Lind 1992) is that fairtreatment by authority figures matters to people because it provides information about theirvalue and their social status in the group. This idea seems to fit well with the principles ofSDT (see Deci and Ryan 2000 for a review).

Fourth, it would be interesting to investigate the relationship between perceivedautonomy support, perceived legitimacy and the adoption of confrontational and disrup-tive behaviours in the classroom. Since such behaviours can be observed in the scopeof defiance towards authority figures or representatives (Pace and Hemmings 2007),bridging these constructs could help advancing towards new preventive or remedialsolutions to such problems, thereby informing the improvement of basic and secondaryteaching.

Authority in the classroom 1073

Finally, to bridge contributions from social psychology and education, it would beinteresting to keep expanding research of the teaching and learning processes in an inter-personal and intergroup dynamics perspective. The core of classroom activities consists inpeople and groups interacting with each other. For instance, Leroy et al. (2007) found thatteachers with low self-efficacy levels frequently resort to authoritarian and directive behav-iours and demonstrate less consideration concerning their students’ well-being and satisfac-tion. Such evidence is aligned with general findings on social power, showing thatindividuals who feel insecure about their ability to influence others, when in authoritypositions, tend to rely on coercive strategies to carry out their role (e.g. Bugental et al.1999; Raven and Kruglanski 1970). To bring theoretical constructs such as authority,leadership, social influence and social identity to the educational research agenda, can befruitful in providing new avenues of research, as well as informing teaching practice.

References

Beckert, T. (2007). Cognitive autonomy and self-evaluation in adolescence: a conceptual investigation andinstrument development. North American Journal of Psychology, 9(3), 579–594.

Black, A., & Deci, E. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomousmotivation on learning organic chemistry: a self-determination theory perspective. Science Education,84(6), 740–756.

Blackwell, B., Sellers, C., & Schlaupitz, S. (2002). A power-control theory of vulnerability to crime andadolescent role exits—revisited. Canadian Review of Sociology & Anthropology, 39(2), 199–218.

Brehm, J. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. New York: Academic.Brehm, J., & Brehm, S. (1981). Psychological reactance: a theory of freedom and control. San Diego:

Academic.Bugental, D., Lewis, J., Lin, E., Lyon, J., & Kopeikin, H. (1999). In charge but not in control: the management of

teaching relationships by adults with low perceived power. Developmental Psychology, 35(6), 1367–1378.Ciani, K., Middleton, M., Summers, J., & Sheldon, K. (2010). Buffering against performance classroom goal

structures: the importance of autonomy support and classroom community. Contemporary EducationalPsychology, 35, 88–99.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York:Plenum.

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.

Eccles, J. S., Midgley, C., Wigfield, A., Buchanan, C. M., Reuman, D., Flanagan, C., & Iver, D. M. (1993).The impact of stage-environment fit on young adolescents’ experiences in schools and in families.American Psychologist, 48(2), 90–101.

Eccles, J. S., Early, D., Fraser, K., Belansky, E., & McCarthy, K. (1997). The relation of connection, regulation,and support for autonomy to adolescents’ functioning. Journal of Adolescent Research, 12(2), 263–286.

Estévez, E., Musitu, G., & Herrero, J. (2005). The influence of violent behavior and victimization at school onpsychological distress: the role of parents and teachers. Adolescence, 40(157), 183–195.

Frank, S., Pirsch, L., & Wright, V. (1990). Late adolescents’ perceptions of their relationships with theirparents: relationships among deidealization, autonomy, relatedness, and insecurity and implications foradolescent adjustment and ego identity status. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 19, 571–588.

Gouveia-Pereira, M. (2008). Percepções de Justiça na Adolescência: a Escola e a Legitimação das Autor-idades Institucionais [Perceptions of justice in adolescence: school and the legitimation of institutionalauthorities]. Lisbon: Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation.

Gouveia-Pereira, M., Vala, J., Palmonari, A., & Rubini, M. (2003). School experience, relational justice andlegitimation of institutional authorities. European Journal of Psychology of Education, 18(3), 309–325.

Graça, J., Calheiros, M., & Martins, A. (2010). Adaptação do Questionário de Autonomia nos Adolescentes(QAA) para a língua portuguesa [Adaptation of the Adolescent Autonomy Questionnaire (AAQ) to thePortuguese language]. Laboratório de Psicologia, 2(8), 237–250.

Greene, B. A., Miller, R. B., Crowson, H. M., Duke, B. L., & Akey, K. L. (2004). Predicting high schoolstudents’ cognitive engagement and achievement: contributions of classroom perceptions and motivation.Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 462–482.

1074 J. Graça et al.

Hardre, P., & Reeve, J. (2003). A motivational model of rural students’ intentions to persist in, versus drop outof, high school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 347–356.

Heelas, P., Lasch, S., & Morris, P. (1996). Detraditionalization. Oxford: Blackwell.Hinds, L., & Murphy, K. (2007). Public satisfaction with police: using procedural justice to improve police

legitimacy. Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology. Available from http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3370/is_1_40/ai_n29348116/

Leroy, N., Bressoux, P., Sarrazin, P., & Trouilloud, D. (2007). Impact of teachers’ implicit theories andperceived pressures on the establishment of an autonomy supportive climate. European Journal ofPsychology of Education, 22(4), 529–545.

Miserandino, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: individual differences in perceived competence andautonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 203–214.

Murray, C., & Murray, K. (2004). Child level correlates of teacher-student relationships: an examination ofdemographic characteristics, academic orientations, and behavioral orientations. Psychology in theSchools, 41(7), 751–762.

Noom, M. (1999). Adolescent autonomy: characteristics and correlates. Delft: Eburon.Noom, M., Dekovic, M., & Meeus, W. (1999). Autonomy, attachment and psychosocial adjustment during

adolescence: a double-edged sword? Journal of Adolescence, 22, 771–783.Noom, M., Dekovic, M., & Meeus, W. (2001). Conceptual analysis and measurement of adolescent autonomy.

Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 30(5), 577–595.Nowak, A., Vallacher, R., & Miller, M. (2003). Social influence and group dynamics. In T. Millon & M. J.

Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of Psychology—vol. 5, personality and social psychology (pp. 383–417). NewYork: Wiley.

Ochoa, G., Lopez, E., & Emler, N. (2007). Adjustment problems in the family and school contexts, attitudetowards authority, and violent behavior at school in adolescence. Adolescence, 42(168), 779–794.

Pace, J. (2003). Revisiting classroom authority: theory and ideology meet practice. Teachers College Record,105, 1559–1585.

Pace, J., & Hemmings, A. (2007). Understanding authority in classrooms: a review of theory, ideology, andresearch. Review of Educational Research, 77(1), 4–27.

Raven, B., & Kruglanski, A. (2006). Conflict and power. In P. G. Swingle (Ed.), The structure of conflict (pp.69–109). New York: Academic.

Reeve, J., & Jang, H. (2006). What teachers say and do to support students’ autonomy during a learningactivity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(1), 209–218.

Reeve, J., Jang, H., Carrell, D., Jeon, S., & Barch, J. (2004). Enhancing students’ engagement by increasingteachers’ autonomy support. Motivation & Emotion, 28(2), 147–169.

Sanches, C., Gouveia-Pereira, M. & Carugati, F. (2012). Justice judgements, school failure and adolescentdeviant behaviour. British Journal of Educational Psychology. Advance online publication, (in press).

Shih, S. (2009). An examination of factors related to Taiwanese adolescents’ reports of avoidance strategies.The Journal of Educational Research, 102(5), 377–388.

Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of Psychology, 52, 83–110.Steinberg, L., & Silverberg, S. (1986). The vicissitudes of autonomy in early adolescence. Child Development,

57(4), 841–851.Tennen, H., Press, S., Rorhbaugh, M., & White, L. (1981). Reactance theory and therapeutic paradox: a

compliance-defiance model. Psychotherapy: theory, research and practice, 18(1), 14–22.Thomson, R., & Holland, J. (2002). Young people, social change and the negotiation of moral authority.

Children & Society, 16(2), 103–115.Turner, R., Irwin, C., Tschann, J., & Millstein, S. (1993). Autonomy, relatedness, and the initiation of health

risk behaviors in early adolescence. Health Psychology, 12(3), 200–208.Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale University Press.Tyler, T. R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: a relational perspective on voluntary deference to

authorities. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 1(4), 323–346.Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992). A relational model of authority in groups. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in

experimental social psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 115–191). New York: Academic.Williams, G., & Deci, E. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: a test of self-

determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 767–779.Williams, G., Grow, V., Freedman, Z., Ryan, R., & Deci, E. (1996). Motivational predictors of weight loss and

weight-loss maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 115–126.Williams, G., Saizow, R., Ross, L., & Deci, E. (1997). Motivation underlying career choice for internal

medicine and surgery. Social Science & Medicine, 45(11), 1705–1713.Zimmer-Gembeck, M. J., & Collins, W. A. (2003). Autonomy development during adolescence. In G. R.

Adams & M. Berzonsky (Eds.), Blackwell handbook of adolescence (pp. 175–204). Oxford: Blackwell.

Authority in the classroom 1075

João Graça. CIS-IUL, Lisbon University Institute (ISCTE-IUL), Lisboa, Portugal. E-mail: joao_daniel_graca@iscte.pt

Current themes of research:

Moral disengagement mechanisms associated with behaviours harmful to nature and the environment, publichealth, and animals. Among his interests is also the quality of social environments in developmental contextsfor children and adolescents such as schools and residential care units.

Maria Manuela Calheiros. CIS-IUL, Lisbon University Institute (ISCTE-IUL), Lisboa, Portugal

Current themes of research:

Areas of education, well-being and risk factors associated to child and youth development. Parental abuse andneglect. The design and evaluation of intervention programs with abusive and neglectful families andinstitutionalized children and youth.

Maria Clara Barata. CIS-IUL, Lisbon University Institute (ISCTE-IUL), Lisboa, Portugal

Current themes of research:

Educational policy analysis and implementation. Preschool development and education. Research methods.

Most relevant publications in the field of Psychology of Education:

Barata, M. C. & Yoshikawa, H. (2012). Mixed methods in research on child well-being. In A. Ben-Arieh, J. E.Korbin, I. Frones, & F. Cases (Eds.), Handbook of Child Well-Being. New York: Springer.

1076 J. Graça et al.