The General Causality Orientations Scale (GCOS)

1. Abstract

The General Causality Orientations Scale (GCOS) is a foundational psychometric instrument developed by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan in 1985 within the overarching architecture of Self-Determination Theory (SDT). The instrument operationalizes individual differences in motivational styles, specifically assessing the degree to which an individual orientates toward initiating and regulating behavior through autonomous, controlled, or impersonal psychological mechanisms. Rather than conceptualizing personality as a static inventory of surface traits, the GCOS examines how people interpret contextual affordances, construe behavioral etiologies, and regulate actions across diverse life spheres, including occupational, interpersonal, academic, and clinical domains.

Structurally, the instrument presents respondents with a series of written hypothetical scenarios or vignettes describing common real-world dilemmas, followed by three distinct response options that independently embody the three motivational orientations. The original standardized scale comprised 12 vignettes yielding 36 ratings; an expanded 17-vignette version (yielding 51 ratings) was subsequently developed to enhance construct representation and internal consistency reliability. Each response option is independently rated on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from 1 (very unlikely) to 7 (very likely). This multidimensional scoring architecture intentionally preserves orthogonality, acknowledging that an individual possesses varying strengths of all three causality orientations rather than being categorized into mutually exclusive typologies.

Decades of psychometric inquiry have supported the construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the GCOS across clinical, educational, organizational, and experimental paradigms. The Autonomy orientation reliably correlates with self-actualization, high self-esteem, ego development, integration, openness to experience, and optimal psychological well-being. The Controlled orientation demonstrates consistent associations with public self-consciousness, Type A coronary-prone behavior patterns, extrinsic aspirational striving, and contingent self-worth. The Impersonal orientation is robustly linked to external locus of control, depressive symptomatology, self-derogation, anxiety, and learned helplessness. Across empirical studies, internal consistency estimates (Cronbach’s alpha) range from adequate to robust (typically α = .70 to .85 across subscales), accompanied by high test-retest reliability across multi-month intervals. This article provides an exhaustive examination of the GCOS, detailing its theoretical origins, operational constructs, psychometric architecture, structural validity, factor structure, and scoring conventions, alongside the complete, authentic English 17-vignette instrument.

2. Keywords

General Causality Orientations Scale, Self-Determination Theory, Autonomy Orientation, Controlled Orientation, Impersonal Orientation, Edward L. Deci, Richard M. Ryan, Motivation, Intrinsic Motivation, Human Agency, Locus of Causality, Psychometrics.

3. Authors

The General Causality Orientations Scale was conceptualized, designed, and empirically validated by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan at the Department of Psychology, University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, United States. Deci and Ryan are co-founders of Self-Determination Theory (SDT), a macro-theory of human motivation, emotion, personality development, and psychological wellness that has fundamentally transformed contemporary personality psychology, clinical practice, health behavior research, organizational management, and pedagogy.

• Edward L. Deci, Ph.D.: Professor Emeritus of Psychology and Gowen Professor in the Social Sciences at the University of Rochester; Professorial Fellow in the Institute for Positive Psychology and Education at the Australian Catholic University. Renowned for seminal laboratory and field research on intrinsic motivation, the undermining effect of extrinsic rewards, and psychological autonomy.
• Richard M. Ryan, Ph.D.: Clinical psychologist, Professor at the Institute for Positive Psychology and Education at the Australian Catholic University, and Professor Emeritus of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology at the University of Rochester. A leading theorist on human development, vitality, well-being, mindfulness, and the cross-cultural universality of basic psychological needs.

Subsequent psychometric developments and international cross-cultural validations have involved distinguished researchers worldwide, notably including Robert J. Vallerand and colleagues at the Université du Québec à Montréal (who validated the standard French-Canadian adaptation, the Échelle des Orientations Générales à la Causalité), as well as extensive research groups headed by Mark R. Lepper, Kenneth M. Sheldon, Tim Kasser, and C. Raymond Knee.

4. Purpose

The primary purpose of the General Causality Orientations Scale is to quantify stable, trait-level individual differences in the generalized motivational orientations that individuals adopt toward their environment and internal experiences. Within Self-Determination Theory, human behavior is understood not merely as the product of immediate situational contingencies or static temperament traits, but as the expression of active, integrative regulatory processes. Humans consistently encounter social environments, developmental demands, and internal drives; the GCOS assesses the habitual psychological frame through which people interpret these inputs and initiate behavioral regulation.

Theoretical Rationale

Historically, psychological measurement of motivation frequently treated causality as a unidimensional continuum (e.g., Rotter’s internal versus external locus of control) or dichotomized behavior into intrinsic versus extrinsic categories. Deci and Ryan argued that such bifurcations obscure critical qualitative differences in human agency. Specifically, an individual may experience an internal locus of control (recognizing that personal effort leads to an outcome) while nevertheless feeling internally or externally coerced, pressured, or controlled (e.g., striving obsessively for approval or avoiding guilt). To address this distinction, Deci and Ryan differentiated between:

• Autonomy: Acting out of personal interest, volitional endorsement, and deeply held values.
• Control: Acting out of coercion, external reward structures, interpersonal surveillance, or introjected, guilt-driven imperatives.
• Impersonal: Believing that outcomes are determined by fate, chance, uncontrollable factors, or intractable incompetence, resulting in pervasive amotivation.

The GCOS was designed specifically to provide three continuous, functionally independent indices reflecting these orientations. Rather than forcing respondents into an artificial single category, the tool measures the simultaneous presence and relative strength of all three orientations within the personality system.

Research Applications

In academic and laboratory research, the GCOS serves as an indispensable tool for examining how personality-level motivation interacts with situational contexts (the person-by-situation paradigm). Research applications include:

• Social Cognition and Defensive Processing: Examining how causality orientations moderate self-serving attributions, ego-defensiveness, self-handicapping, and road rage (e.g., Knee & Zuckerman, 1996, 1998; Knee et al., 2005). Highly autonomous individuals demonstrate minimal defensive bias, whereas controlled individuals display heightened vulnerability to ego-threat.
• Interpersonal Relationships and Communication: Investigating conflict resolution, honesty, and empathy in dyads. Autonomy orientation predicts lower defensiveness, higher capacity for genuine apology, and greater relational intimacy (Hodgins et al., 1996).
• Academic Learning and Pedagogical Climate: Tracking student engagement, conceptual learning, and academic commitment in challenging curricula such as organic chemistry or medical education (Black & Deci, 2000; Williams & Deci, 1996).
• Consumer Behavior and Materialism: Assessing vulnerability to compulsive buying, consumer susceptibility to prestige advertising, and the psychological consequences of financial strivings (Scherhorn et al., 1990; Kasser & Ryan, 1993; Zuckerman et al., 1988).

Clinical and Applied Interventions

In clinical, counseling, and health psychology settings, the GCOS provides vital diagnostic and prognostic insight into patient engagement and therapeutic alliance. Patients with high impersonal orientations frequently present with profound demoralization, chronic depressive disorders, or severe eating pathology (e.g., anorexia nervosa; Strauss & Ryan, 1987), requiring therapeutic interventions that first cultivate basic competence and agency. In lifestyle modification programs (e.g., tobacco cessation, long-term weight reduction, cardiac rehabilitation; Williams et al., 1996; King, 1984), an individual’s baseline autonomy orientation strongly predicts sustained behavioral adherence, internal value integration, and long-term health outcomes.

5. Psychological Construct

The GCOS operationalizes human motivation across three broad, multidimensional constructs: the Autonomy Orientation, the Controlled Orientation, and the Impersonal Orientation. Each represents a distinct psychological schema characterized by specific perceived loci of causality, phenomenological experiences, behavioral determinants, and personality correlates.

Autonomy Orientation

The Autonomy Orientation involves organizing behavior on the basis of conscious personal goals, authentic interests, and deeply integrated values. An individual high in autonomy orientation experiences the self as the primary author and initiator of action. When interpreting environmental inputs, they view situations as sources of relevant information rather than as demands or constraints. Even when confronted with external regulations or organizational hierarchies, autonomous individuals actively process the rationale for these regulations, integrating them into their personal hierarchy of values (identified and integrated regulation).

Behavioral manifestations include active problem-solving, reflective decision-making, genuine interpersonal openness, and high exploratory drive. For instance, when presented with a promotion or career transition (e.g., Vignette 1 or Vignette 9), an autonomy-oriented individual evaluates whether the role is intrinsically fascinating, personally meaningful, and aligned with developmental goals. In interpersonal interactions (e.g., Vignettes 5, 14, and 17), autonomy corresponds to non-defensive collaboration, empathic perspective-taking, and open communication of feelings.

Controlled Orientation

The Controlled Orientation involves organizing and regulating behavior through rigid external contingencies, interpersonal controls, perceived social expectations, and introjected self-pressures (such as guilt, ego-involvement, and status anxiety). An individual high in controlled orientation approaches life events through the prism of “shoulds,” “oughts,” and extrinsic imperatives. The environment is perceived as demanding compliance or provoking defiance.

Phenomenologically, the controlled orientation is characterized by feelings of internal tension, constant interpersonal comparison, and heightened sensitivity to social evaluation. In professional contexts, decisions are driven by financial remuneration, job prestige, or political positioning rather than task interest (e.g., Vignette 1b, Vignette 8b, Vignette 11b). In supervisory or interpersonal roles, controlled individuals frequently resort to authoritative directives, coercive pressure, or conditional regard (e.g., Vignette 3b, Vignette 10a, Vignette 15c).

Impersonal Orientation

The Impersonal Orientation reflects a psychological state in which behavior is experienced as beyond intentional human control. Individuals scoring high on this dimension perceive life outcomes as largely governed by luck, fate, unpredictable external forces, or personal deficits in basic competence. Rooted in repeated experiences of failure, arbitrary punishment, or pervasive psychological need thwarting, the impersonal orientation is the personality-level analogue of learned helplessness and amotivation.

The core affective correlates include pervasive apprehension, sadness, passivity, and fear of failure. When encountering novel responsibilities or challenging life events, the immediate cognition is self-derogation: “What if I can’t live up to the responsibility?” (Vignette 1a) or “I’m probably not good enough for the job” (Vignette 2b). In social predicaments or conflict, impersonal individuals exhibit avoidance, resignation, and withdrawal, believing that constructive action is impossible (e.g., Vignette 6c, Vignette 14b, Vignette 16b).

6. Theoretical Framework

The General Causality Orientations Scale is directly derived from Causality Orientations Theory (COT), which constitutes one of the six formal mini-theories comprising Self-Determination Theory, alongside Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET), Organismic Integration Theory (OIT), Basic Psychological Needs Theory (BPNT), Goal Contents Theory (GCT), and Relationships Motivation Theory (RMT).

Organismic-Dialectical Metatheory

SDT is grounded in an organismic-dialectical philosophy of human nature. It posits that human beings are active, growth-oriented organisms possessing innate constructive tendencies toward psychological growth, personality integration, and behavioral coherence. However, these active integrative tendencies do not operate automatically in a vacuum; they exist in continuous dialectical tension with the social environment. The social context can either nurture and support these growth tendencies or thwart, fragment, and disrupt them.

According to COT, an individual’s developmental history within family, educational, and cultural environments shapes relatively stable personality-level causality orientations. Persistent developmental exposure to autonomy-supportive contexts (environments providing choices, rationales for rules, and validation of feelings) fosters the Autonomy orientation. Environments dominated by controlling contingencies (conditional love, surveillance, rigid performance incentives, and punitive pressures) cultivate the Controlled orientation. Environments characterized by chaos, inconsistency, or pervasive neglect undermine basic competence, solidifying the Impersonal orientation.

Locus of Causality versus Locus of Control

A crucial conceptual contribution of SDT’s theoretical framework is the explicit differentiation between Julian Rotter’s Locus of Control and Fritz Heider’s Perceived Locus of Causality (PLOC) as extended by Richard deCharms (1968) and Deci and Ryan (1985). Rotter’s construct focuses on contingency: whether an outcome is contingent upon one’s own behavior (internal) versus external forces such as chance or powerful others (external). In contrast, PLOC addresses volition and agency: given that an action produces a contingent outcome, does the person experience themselves as the authentic origin of their behavior (internal PLOC) or as an instrument controlled by outside pressures and internal mandates (external PLOC)?

Under this theoretical framework, the Controlled orientation demonstrates an internal locus of control (the individual knows that working long hours secures a corporate bonus), yet possesses an external perceived locus of causality (the individual feels trapped, compelled, and pressured to do so). Only the Autonomy orientation reflects both an internal locus of control and an internal perceived locus of causality.

7. Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the GCOS has been substantiated across empirical investigations spanning over four decades. The validation protocol conducted by Deci and Ryan (1985) and corroborated by subsequent international programs establishes the robust psychometric integrity of the three subscales.

Construct and Convergent Validity

Extensive correlational studies demonstrate that each subscale converges with theoretically aligned psychological constructs while remaining distinct from unrelated traits:

• Autonomy Subscale Convergence: Positively correlated with Loevinger’s measure of Ego Development (r = .24, p < .01), Harter’s Self-Esteem Scale (r = .39, p < .001), Rotter’s Internal Locus of Control (r = .31, p < .01), the Self-Actualization Index (r = .43, p < .001), and Costa and McCrae’s Openness to Experience and Extraversion. Furthermore, autonomy correlates positively with psychological vitality and mindfulness.
• Controlled Subscale Convergence: Strongly associated with Fenigstein, Scheier, and Buss’s Public Self-Consciousness (r = .33, p < .001), private self-consciousness, Type A coronary-prone behavior pattern (r = .28, p < .01), and high valuation of extrinsic aspirations such as wealth, fame, and attractive image (Kasser & Ryan, 1993). Controlled orientation is also linked to high self-monitoring and susceptibility to image-based marketing appeals (Zuckerman et al., 1988).
• Impersonal Subscale Convergence: Highly correlated with Beck’s Depressive Symptomatology (r = .41, p < .001), Rotter’s External Locus of Control (r = .45, p < .001), Spielberger’s Trait Anxiety (r = .42, p < .001), low self-esteem (r = -.47, p < .001), self-handicapping tendencies, and self-derogation.

Discriminant and Predictive Validity

The orthogonality among the subscales provides crucial evidence of discriminant validity. Inter-scale correlations reported in the original validation study (Deci & Ryan, 1985) and subsequent large-scale evaluations confirm that the Autonomy and Controlled subscales are virtually uncorrelated (typically r = .03 to .12, non-significant). The Autonomy and Impersonal subscales correlate negatively (r = -.25 to -.35), while Controlled and Impersonal subscales exhibit modest positive associations (r = .15 to .25), consistent with the theoretical premise that both reflect non-autonomous functioning.

In predictive experimental settings, baseline GCOS scores reliably predict distinct behavioral and physiological responses:

• Persistence and Intrinsic Motivation: In laboratory problem-solving paradigms (e.g., SOMA puzzles), autonomous individuals demonstrate greater free-choice behavioral persistence following challenging tasks and exhibit spontaneous interest in the absence of external rewards (Deci & Ryan, 1985).
• Ego-Defensive Biases: Knee and Zuckerman (1996) demonstrated that when receiving negative performance feedback, individuals high in controlled orientation exhibit exaggerated self-serving attributions (blaming external factors), whereas individuals high in autonomy orientation display a virtual disappearance of the self-serving attributional bias, objectively acknowledging their personal performance limitations without defensive distortion.
• Facework and Social Predicaments: In awkward social situations or interpersonal transgressions, individuals scoring high on autonomy utilize open, non-defensive communication and offer authentic apologies, whereas controlled individuals resort to evasive justification, face-saving tactics, and retaliatory hostility (Hodgins, Liebeskind, & Schwartz, 1996).

8. Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the GCOS has been rigorously examined across standard adult, collegiate, and diverse clinical populations. Because the instrument employs contextualized, multi-sentence vignettes representing diverse life domains (work, education, friendship, parenting) rather than redundant, single-concept survey items, internal consistency coefficients must be interpreted within the context of wide ecological breadth.

Internal Consistency (Cronbach’s Alpha)

Across the literature, internal consistency parameters for both the 12-vignette and the expanded 17-vignette versions consistently meet or exceed acceptable psychometric standards for multidimensional personality instruments:

• Autonomy Subscale: Cronbach’s α ranges from .75 to .83 in standard community and collegiate samples (e.g., Deci & Ryan, 1985; Wong, 2000; Sheldon & Kasser, 1995). In the expanded 17-vignette version, alpha values typically stabilize at α ≥ .80.
• Controlled Subscale: Cronbach’s α ranges from .70 to .78 across diverse empirical cohorts. Given that controlled behaviors manifest through heterogeneous mechanisms (e.g., financial greed, compliance to authority, competitive dominance), this reliability coefficient represents solid structural stability.
• Impersonal Subscale: Cronbach’s α ranges from .74 to .85, demonstrating strong internal consistency across clinical and non-clinical cohorts (Strauss & Ryan, 1987).

Test-Retest Stability

Temporal stability evaluations confirm that the causality orientations represent enduring, trait-like orientations within the personality system. Deci and Ryan (1985) administered the scale across a two-month test-retest interval, yielding stability coefficients of:

• Autonomy: r = .75 (p < .001)
• Controlled: r = .72 (p < .001)
• Impersonal: r = .78 (p < .001)

Subsequent long-term developmental tracking across multi-semester academic periods (e.g., Wong, 2000) demonstrated that causality orientations remain highly stable over annual intervals while retaining sensitivity to profound, persistent environmental shifts (such as sustained exposure to highly autonomy-supportive educational institutions).

9. Factor Analysis

The internal structural validity of the GCOS has been substantiated through exploratory factor analysis (EFA) and confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) across numerous empirical studies.

Exploratory Factor Structure

In the initial scale construction (Deci & Ryan, 1985), an initial pool of vignettes was administered to large university samples (N > 1,000). Principal axis factoring with oblique rotation consistently generated three dominant eigenvalues exceeding unity. Items designed to tap autonomy, control, and impersonality loaded cleanly onto their respective target factors, with primary factor loadings typically ranging between .40 and .72, and cross-loadings remaining below .20. This tripartite structure demonstrated that autonomy and control represent distinct behavioral determinants rather than opposite poles of a single dimensional axis.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA) Fit Indices

Subsequent confirmatory evaluations (e.g., Vallerand et al., 1987; Hodgins et al., 1996; Knee & Zuckerman, 1998) tested the three-factor oblique model against alternative structural configurations, including a single-factor general motivation model and a two-factor (autonomous vs. controlled) model. The three-factor model demonstrated superior fit across standard statistical metrics:

• Comparative Fit Index (CFI): Ranging between .90 and .94 across diverse validation datasets.
• Tucker-Lewis Index (TLI): Ranging between .89 and .93.
• Root Mean Square Error of Approximation (RMSEA): Ranging from .042 to .058 (with 90% confidence intervals well within psychometrically robust boundaries).
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR): Consistently ≤ .06.

These structural findings confirm that individual differences in motivation are best characterized by three distinct, concurrent orientations that operate simultaneously within the individual’s personality structure.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

The operational characteristics, administration conventions, and scoring procedures of the General Causality Orientations Scale are summarized below:

• Tool Name: General Causality Orientations Scale (GCOS).
• Original Authors: Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan (University of Rochester).
• Assessment Type: Self-report psychological inventory utilizing situational vignettes.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil or computerized self-administered survey; suitable for individual or group testing.
• Standard Versions:
  • 12-Vignette Standard Form: 12 scenarios × 3 responses = 36 total rating items.
  • 17-Vignette Expanded Form: 17 scenarios × 3 responses = 51 total rating items (recommended for maximum subscale reliability).
• Completion Time: Approximately 15 to 25 minutes for the full 17-vignette inventory.
• Target Population: Adolescents and adults (typically age 16 and older); adaptable for university students, working professionals, and clinical cohorts.
• Response Format: 7-point Likert rating scale:
  • 1 or 2 = Very Unlikely
  • 3, 4, or 5 = Moderately Likely
  • 6 or 7 = Very Likely
• Scoring Architecture:
  • Each vignette is accompanied by three distinct responses representing: (1) Autonomy orientation, (2) Controlled orientation, and (3) Impersonal orientation.
  • Respondents rate the likelihood of each response option independently. A rating on one option does not constrain or restrict ratings on the other two.
  • Subscale scores are calculated by summing or averaging the ratings across all items corresponding to each orientation.
  • Subscale 1: Autonomy Orientation Score = Mean or sum of all autonomy-designated items.
  • Subscale 2: Controlled Orientation Score = Mean or sum of all control-designated items.
  • Subscale 3: Impersonal Orientation Score = Mean or sum of all impersonal-designated items.
  • Researchers may evaluate profiles across the three independent scores or utilize the Relative Autonomy Index (RAI) in specialized predictive models.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

The General Causality Orientations Scale was originally published in 1985 by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan in the peer-reviewed Journal of Research in Personality. In alignment with the open-science ethos established by the founders of Self-Determination Theory, the GCOS is made freely accessible for academic, clinical, and non-commercial scientific research purposes.

• Intellectual Property & Copyright: Copyright © 1985 by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan. Academic usage rights are maintained through the official research portal selfdeterminationtheory.org.
• Fee Structure: The scale is completely free of charge for non-commercial educational, psychological, and medical research. Researchers and clinicians are not required to pay licensing fees or obtain written permission for academic study, provided proper scholarly citation is maintained.
• Commercial Applications: Commercial usage, integration into proprietary corporate consulting platforms, or distribution within for-profit assessment suites requires prior written permission and licensing through the original authors and the University of Rochester.

12. References

• Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’ autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84(6), 740–756. https://doi.org/10.1002/1098-237X(200011)84:6<740::AID-SCE4>3.0.CO;2-3
• deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior. Academic Press.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality. Journal of Research in Personality, 19(2), 109–134. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(85)90023-6
• 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(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01
• Hodgins, H. S., Koestner, R., & Duncan, N. (1996). On the compatibility of autonomy and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22(3), 227–237. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167296223001
• Hodgins, H. S., Liebeskind, E., & Schwartz, W. (1996). Getting out of hot water: Facework in social predicaments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.300
• Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of financial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 410–422. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.65.2.410
• Knee, C. R., Neighbors, C., & Vietor, N. (2001). Self-determination theory as a framework for understanding road rage. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31(11), 2246–2268. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2001.tb00173.x
• Knee, C. R., & Zuckerman, M. (1996). Causality orientations and the disappearance of the self-serving bias. Journal of Research in Personality, 30(1), 76–87. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1996.0005
• Knee, C. R., & Zuckerman, M. (1998). A nondefensive personality: Autonomy and control as moderators of defensive coping and self-handicapping. Journal of Research in Personality, 32(2), 115–130. https://doi.org/10.1006/jrpe.1997.2207
• Koestner, R., Bernieri, F., & Zuckerman, M. (1992). Self-regulation and consistency between attitudes, traits, and behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18(1), 52–59. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167292181008
• Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28769
• Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1995). Coherence and congruence: Two aspects of personality integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(3), 531–543. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.68.3.531
• Strauss, J., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy disturbances in subtypes of anorexia nervosa. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 96(3), 254–258. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-843X.96.3.254
• Vallerand, R. J., Blais, M. R., Lacouture, Y., & Deci, E. L. (1987). L’Échelle des orientations générales à la causalité: Validation canadienne-française du General Causality Orientations Scale. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 19(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0079983
• Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(4), 767–779. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.767
• Williams, G. C., Grow, V. M., Freedman, Z. R., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Motivational predictors of weight loss and weight-loss maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(1), 115–126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.1.115
• Wong, M. M. (2000). The relations among causality orientations, academic experience, academic performance, and academic commitment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(3), 315–326. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200265005
• Zuckerman, M., Gioioso, C., & Tellini, S. (1988). Control orientation, self-monitoring, and preference for image versus quality approach to advertising. Journal of Research in Personality, 22(1), 89–100. https://doi.org/10.1016/0092-6566(88)90027-X

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)