How To Motivate A Human—The Definitive Guide (Part II)
How to be need supportive
Note. This is the second post in a three-part, in-depth series on how to motivate humans and promote optimal development in those you love. If you haven’t read the first post, I suggest you take the time to do it now: it will introduce you to the major ideas of this series and was designed to till your mind in preparation for what’s to come, so that everything may sink in better, take root, and sprout.
Go on, I’ll wait right here…
We learned a lot about motivation in the first instalment of this series. Just for fun, let’s see if it can fit into one paragraph.
According to self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2017) humans are very much like plants. Our bodies have physiological needs, just like them, and we naturally grow when these nutrients are provided. But we also have three basic psychological needs — the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness — that are the psychological nutriments for the growth of our self. We learned that the satisfaction of the needs for autonomy and competence nurtures and sustains our intrinsic motivation, allowing us to keep exploring what we are naturally interested in from a place of volition and helping us gain mastery over our environment. We also learned that we can incorporate extrinsic motivations into our selves through organismic integration: this process, sustained by the fulfilment of all three needs, allows us to turn myriad extrinsic motivations into autonomous motivations, which are self-endorsed, long-lasting, and promote well-being and socialisation; the less our needs are met, the more these extrinsic motivations remain controlled, and the more we suffer. We called our innate tendency to master our environment, act out of a sense of volition, relate meaningfully to others, and integrate external regulations our Human Awesomeness Potential, and learned that we reach for it naturally, without external pressure, when our basic needs are supported. Just like avocado pits, provided the right nutrients and environment, become avocado trees—without us having to punish them for not growing fast enough.
Whew.
By now, you might have these concepts floating around in your head and only a vague idea of how they relate to the real world. I gave some examples along the way during the previous article, but they mostly referred to the consequences of supporting or thwarting the three basic needs. It is my hope that this article will ground these ideas and help you organise them in your mind by attaching them to specific, real-world actions you can take to nurture the Human Awesomeness Potential in the humans close to your heart. With that goal in mind, today we will consider each of the three needs in turn and detail specific actions you can take to support each of them. Don’t be surprised if you realise that support for each need is considerably intertwined with support for the others.
How To Support The Three Psychological Needs
Autonomy: the need to self-determine
We have previously defined autonomy as “a sense of volition, congruency, and integration.” I thought this was a good working definition for the purposes of the previous article. It seemed simple enough to remember throughout the piece but thorough enough that you, as a reader, could know what was being talked about. In this piece, however, autonomy will turn out to play such a central role that a better understanding of it is welcome. So… plock.
Where’s the plock?
As is normal in science, SDT’s concept of autonomy is based on earlier thinking and distinctions made by previous researchers. One of them was Fritz Heider (1959), who “attempted to articulate the commonsense principles, or naïve psychology, by which people make sense of their own or others’ actions.” (Ryan & Deci, 2017, p. 65) In order to assess an action and respond to it, he thought, it was important for people to distinguish between personal causation, or intentionality, and impersonal causation, or non-intentionality. Heider called this distinction perceived locus of causality (PLOC, pronounced, by me, as plock), where locus is just a fancy word for “place.”
Ryan and Deci (2017, p. 65) give a simple example: if you’re supposed to meet someone, say, a friend, at a specified hour, and said friend appears one hour late, your perception of intentionality matters for how you respond. If you think she could have come on time but “did not bother to exert much effort towards that end,” you will probably hold her personally responsible and react with anger or resentment. But if you “believe her lateness was impersonally caused (e.g., you have evidence that the subway train broke down), you are likely to be more receptive and forgiving, even sympathetic.” The concept is what creates the difference between negligent and first-degree murder; it’s pretty important.
Ok, so there are actions and events that are personally caused (like grabbing a glass of wine and throwing it in someone’s face), and others that are impersonally caused (like spilling wine on someone at a party because you were hit from behind by an idiot). And a 1959 psychologist tells us that you’d probably judge the wine-thrower differently than the wine-spiller. Surprise.
But nine years later, the plot thickens. What if I told you that the wine-thrower was being held at gunpoint by an invisible, practical jokes–loving criminal? Or if throwing the wine were the only way the person would be able to pay his mortgage to an evil, wine-hating bank? I can only assume these were the kinds of thought experiments Richard de Charms (1968) engaged in to reach the conclusion that not all intentional, personally caused, actions are alike. “He argued that people often perform intentional actions precisely because they feel pressured or coerced to do so by external agents. The bully “makes me” hand over my lunch money, or my boss will reward me only if I take on an extra duty at work.” (Ryan & Deci, 2017, p. 66)
De Charms (1968) also wanted to name things. He took Heider’s ideas and coined the differentiation between an internal perceived locus of causality, when the actor is the true ‘origin’ of an event, and an external perceived locus of causality, when an actor is but a ‘pawn’ to external forces: both are personally caused, or intentional, but only actions that we perceive to have an internal PLOC (I-PLOC for short, contrasted with the external PLOC, or E-PLOC) are truly volitional and autonomous (Ryan & Connell, 1989). This difference in plock lies at the heart of the different kinds of external motivation we discussed in the previous article.
As you may recall, identified and integrated regulations are more autonomous, and we can now characterise them as having an I-PLOC, whereas introjected and external regulations, which are more controlled, have an E-PLOC (note that, here, external does not necessarily mean outside the person, but rather outside of the self: internal pressures like guilt or shame are still characterised by an E-PLOC because they exert unwelcome pressure on the self). Our goal today is to learn to motivate others in such a way that, whatever they end up doing, they see themselves as the origins, the causes of their actions.
I love mnemonics, so let me leave you with this as well: in my head, I pronounce I-PLOC as aye-plock, and E-PLOC as ee-plock — aye is for yes, I want this, gimme more!, and ee is for ew, I don’t wanna, take it away!
Now back to supporting autonomy.
Supporting the autonomy of others is good for them, it’s good for us, and it’s good for our relationship with them. When we interact with others, be it children, students, or workers we want to motivate, be it friends or relatives we want to help, or simply out of the intrinsic pleasure of maintaining fulfilling social connections, it is important to remember to support our fellow humans’ sense of autonomy. Being supportive of others’ autonomy helps them fulfil their basic needs (Ryan & Deci, 2017) and attain their goals more easily (e.g., on weight loss, Powers, Koestner, & Gorin, 2008), and it promotes behaviours that improve our relationship with them, in turn increasing our own happiness (Demir, Özdemir, & Marum, 2011). Isn’t that cool? Being autonomy supportive towards others leads to the fulfilment of our own psychological needs, above and beyond the effect of receiving autonomy support (Deci, La Guardia, Moller, Scheiner, & Ryan, 2006). It is a win-win situation.
To support the autonomy of others, we have to remember the plock: people want to feel like the ‘origins’ of their own actions; they want to choose for themselves (aye-plock), instead of feeling enticed or coerced to make a certain choice (ee-plock). The first step in this process is to take the perspective of the other person: to understand that they may have feelings, thoughts, and desires for themselves that are different from what you feel, think, or find appropriate. As you’ll see, the strategies for supporting autonomy are grounded in this first shift in perspective.
It’s not about you, it’s about them.
From this vantage point, Niemiec, Soenens, and Vasteenkiste (2014, p. 82) list five different strategies you can use to support autonomy. Maybe some of them you naturally use, or maybe you tend to do the opposite. As we go through them and elaborate on them, try to remember how others have treated you. How did it affect you? Try also to consider how you have treated others. Is there room for improvement?
(1) Elicit, acknowledge, and accept the person’s thoughts and feelings
If someone repeatedly told you that you shouldn’t be feeling what you feel or that your feelings don’t matter, or ignored your point of view altogether, would you be more or less likely to be open with them in the future? More or less likely to feel loved and supported? More or less likely to comply with whatever is it they may ask of you next?
This is an issue I encounter often in Portugal. When a toddler cries, the parents’ response is often to dismiss the child’s feelings or coerce the toddler to stop feeling that way. They might say that “there’s nothing to cry about, so stop it,” or, worse: “I don’t like it when you cry. Go to the corner and come back when you’ve stopped.” Not only is this antithetical to supporting autonomy, it hurts the need for relatedness as well, and decreases their chances of learning to deal with their emotions effectively, a big part of growing up. It doesn’t take a genius to imagine that, from the child’s perspective, there is a reason to cry about and they don’t need to be punished for their feelings. Some even say crying is a powerful aid in healing and growth, but I digress.
So the first step involves being curious and asking about the other’s perspective in a non-judgmental way. In their article, Niemiec and colleagues (2014) give an example of a mother, Marie, who wants to speak to her daughter, Juliette, about some recent difficulties at school. They suggest that, to support her daughter’s autonomy, the mother might first say: “‘There seems to be some difficulty at school. How do you see the situation?’” (p. 82) It is important, then, that Marie really listen to her daughter and acknowledge her feelings without showing judgment, no matter what is said. Only this way can you create an environment of trust.
In her recent post What Teens Wish Their Parents Understood, psychotherapist Anna Lindberg Cedar, MPA, LCSW gives the following advice for the parents of teens who feel misunderstood:
“Remedy this [teens feeling like “you don’t get it”] by listening to your teen, really listening. Active listening means listening to what your teen has to say without formulating a response right away. First, listen, and repeat back what you heard your teen say to make sure that they know you are listening. “So, you felt really frustrated when your teacher gave you extra homework right before vacation. Is that right?” It can help to highlight the underlying feeling that your teen is trying to communicate. Ask for clarification to make sure you really did get it right. Listening, really listening, to your teen, can open up pathways of communication for them to tell you what things are really like for them. Pausing before jumping into problem-solving mode will help build trust and understanding.”
This is something that may require practice. We are often quick to offer solutions before really understanding what we’re supposed to be helping with. The next time a friend asks for your help, an employee feels demotivated, a teenager is facing difficulties, or your child cries, try to understand and acknowledge their perspective first, without judgment, before trying to help.
(2) Explore values and how they relate to the situation being discussed & (3) Encourage self-initiation and give choice
Often as a friend, parent, or boss, you have your own ‘agenda’ for the person you’re speaking to. In their interviews with mothers and fathers, Grolnick and Ryan (1989) found a clear relationship between parents’ support for autonomy and positive outcomes for the children, but they also discovered one of the reasons why parents are often controlling (the opposite of supporting autonomy). Ryan and Deci (2017) wrote:
“These interviews with parents were revealing in many ways. Sadly, many parents who were rated as controlling were clearly both involved in their children’s lives and often well-intended in their attempts at control. Their controlling behaviors in many instances appeared to stem not from malevolence or lack of care but, rather, from their investment in their children’s attaining good grades and having success in school. Yet, in their zeal to produce these specific outcomes, they had often failed to promote their children’s ownership of these goals and sense of investment and value in achieving. By employing motivational tactics of pressure and external rewards, they often unwittingly undermined their children’s personal responsibility and volition for these life tasks, creating instead a reliance on external contingencies rather than self-regulation.” (pp. 324–325, emphasis added)
If you’re tempted to push for your own agenda, remember the Human Awesomeness Potential, and remember the plock.
It’s not about you, it’s about them.
With non-judgmental questions, try to help them understand what they want from a given situation and allow them to choose, for themselves, how they might go about overcoming their challenges. What are their goals for their own development? What do they want to achieve? What are their values, and how might these values guide their decisions? What actions might they take to achieve their own goals?
Of course you can suggest ways your friend or child could improve or overcome a certain obstacle. Sometimes they don’t know how to continue, and you might provide helpful guidance. But, first, encourage them to come up with answers and solutions on their own. They are much more likely to stick to the choices they made than to those you made for them. And they’ll deeply appreciate the recognition that they are capable of autonomy.
(4) Provide a meaningful rationale for limits and requests &
(5) Minimise the use of controlling language (words like “should”, “must”, “ought”, and “have to”)
Sometimes, you have to set limits. Arguably, limits are even desirable, and they might help foster a sense of competence. You might have to limit your child’s time in front of the TV or require that your employee deliver a report at a specific time and in a specific format; it might be helpful to set certain boundaries in your friendships and romantic relationships, denoting what kind of behaviour is acceptable and what kind is not. But once again, the way you set those limits, and the way those limits are perceived by the other, will affect… the what?
Yes, the plock.
If we want others to autonomously comply with our limits, we better give them good reason to do so. A reason they can understand and agree with, that makes sense from their perspective. A meaningful rationale. Anna sees it, fundamentally, as a way to show respect. In her words:
“‘Because I said so…’ or ‘When I was a kid…’ just doesn’t cut it.”
Why should your kid go to sleep early and make his bed in the morning? Why should your toddler wait until your phone call is over before getting your full attention? Why should your teen keep her elbows off the table? (ok, that one we will never know) Why should students pay attention to a boring lecture about statistical correlations? (Jang, 2008) Why should your friend not call you by that nickname you hate? Why should your employee stay late at work on a Friday? Why is it important for you that your spouse come home early to spend time with you?
Just give them a reason.
Just a little’s not enough: give them a good reason. Show them the value of what you’re asking them to do.
And in the spirit of not being controlling, it bodes well to avoid controlling language — the shoulds, musts, and have tos encourage the listener to feel pressured to comply from the outside (E-PLOC), rather than out of his or her own choice (I-PLOC). This may be difficult, but it is crucial. Start paying attention to your words.
These five techniques form the basis of what self-determination theorists call autonomy support. Being autonomy supportive goes a long way towards supporting competence and relatedness as well, but doesn’t cover everything.
Competence: the need to master
Remember competence? The second ingredient for high-quality motivation and development is satisfied by everything that helps you feel effective in dealing with, manipulating, and navigating your environment. Being able to reach for and grab objects as an infant; acquiring language skills as a toddler; learning to respect your cultural values as you grow up; a job well done: all can bring forth the joy of being competent.
In the previous article we looked briefly over how to support a sense of competence in others: providing optimal challenges, positive feedback, and freedom from demeaning evaluations. Niemiec and colleagues (2014) have a few other suggestions we can learn from:
- Maintain a positive attitude towards success (telling friends you don’t believe they can achieve the goals they set undermines their sense of competence);
- Initiate a conversation to identify barriers to success (asking a child what might lead them to forget about homework in the future);
- Assist others with skills building and problem solving (offering help in the workplace if your employee or colleague doesn’t know how to approach a task);
- Provide structure through the communication of clear, consistent, and reasonable guidelines.
Let’s have a closer look at structure.
As a child, friend, or worker, your sense of competence will be optimally supported only when it is clear what is expected of you from others, and when you have the capacity to learn how to comply with those expectations.
Providing structure can be as simple as helping a child who is overwhelmed by the mess in her room begin to clear it up instead of simply barking at her to do it. It is like the difference, for someone inexperienced in the kitchen, between a recipe for soup and a command to “make a soup!” The recipe, if well written, contains clear instructions for the procedure and explains the consequences of doing something one way or the other, while implicitly acknowledging that you may choose to only follow it loosely and experiment creatively at your own risk.
One example of the many concerns parents may have about their teens is their hanging out with the wrong crowd — what researchers call deviant peer affiliations (e.g., Soenens, Vasteenkiste, & Niemiec, 2009). And with good reason: hanging out with teens who engage in problem behaviours, like violence and drug use, does make your kid more likely to participate as well. So what do you do?
Many parents choose to try to prohibit their teens from affiliating with delinquent teens. In their study, Soenens and colleagues (2009) found that this prohibition was often successful, but only if parents were autonomy supportive when setting the limits. Parents who set controlling limits — who threatened to punish non-compliance, expressed anger at the teen’s behaviour, said they would be disappointed with the teen for maintaining certain friendships, or gave their kids less warmth and attention until they complied — made their kids more likely to hang out with the wrong crowd. Ba dum tss.
In their chapter on parenting, Ryan and Deci explain: “When parents provide structure, they clearly and consistently communicate rules for behavior, point out the consequences of behaving in these versus alternative ways, acknowledge effective behaviors, and provide constructive feedback following inappropriate behavior.” (p. 332)
Yes, they fiercely advocate supporting autonomy, but by no means imply that parents should not set any limits on their children; by describing Structure as one of their three fundamental ‘parenting dimensions’, they are resolutely in favor of clear limits. It just so happens that providing those limits in a way that supports autonomy and competence lets children internalise them and be more likely to comply without starting to resent you.
Controlling limits backfire.
Note. I invite you to actually open up the Soenens et al. (2009) paper (freely available here), go to page 514, and examine their measure of perceived parental control. Notice the items flagged with OC (overt control), CC (covert control), and AS (autonomy support), reflect on your own experience as a child and/or parent, and decide for yourself which techniques you’d like to use on children, subordinates, and friends from now on. And feel free to use Google, Sci-Hub, and Library Genesis to have a look at the many other papers and books cited, if anything else sparks your interest.
Relatedness: the need to belong
“Again and again, we found evidence of a basic desire to form social attachments. People form social bonds readily, even under seemingly adverse conditions. People who have anything in common, who share common (even unpleasant) experiences, or who simply are exposed to each other frequently tend to form friendships or other attachments. Moreover, people resist losing attachments and breaking social bonds. […]
“Forming or solidifying social attachments generally produces positive emotion, whereas real, imagined, or even potential threats to social bonds generate a variety of unpleasant emotional states. […] Deficits in belongingness apparently lead to a variety of ill effects […]. Both psychological and physical health problems are more common among people who lack social attachments. […]
“We proposed two aspects of the need to belong, and both appear to be important. That is, people seem to need frequent, affectively pleasant or positive interactions with the same individuals, and they need these interactions to occur in a framework of long-term, stable caring and concern.” (Baumeister and Leary, 1995, p. 520)
Ryan and Deci agree: the final ingredient for motivation, growth, and well-being is relatedness, our fundamental human need to love and feel loved, to connect meaningfully with others — to belong.
How do we support this need?
Some of the autonomy and competence supportive strategies we’ve looked at already help to support our need for relatedness. Taking interest in the other’s thoughts, feelings, concerns, and aspirations, without judgment, and helping them master the skills to advance towards their goals shows them that you care about them. Unsurprisingly, Niemiec and colleagues’ (2014, p. 82) first suggestion for supporting relatedness is to “assume a warm, empathic, and non-judgmental stance toward the person.” Their third suggestion is to “communicate genuine care, interest, focus, and non-contingent support toward the person.” In essence: show love.
But their second suggestion deserves elaboration. “Provide a sense of unconditional positive regard,” they wrote. What does this mean?
(Un)Conditional Regard
How do you distribute your love and affection for another person? Naturally, you might deliver more generous doses when they meet your expectations or show their love for you. As the Chicago song goes, “when you’re good to mama, mama’s good to you.” Positive reinforcement works wonders, right? And when they misbehave, hurt you, or don’t live up to your expectations, you might give them a good dose of the silent treatment or otherwise show less love than usual, making it clear that you’re not happy about what happened and prompting them to change their behaviour.
Hmm. By now, if I’ve done my job well, you’re smelling smoke. After all we’ve been through, you know this is not a good strategy. Both conditional positive regard, giving more love and affection than usual, and conditional negative regard, giving less love and affection than usual, are internally controlling. And they have different, but ultimately negative, outcomes.
Investigating these forms of control in parenting, self-determination theorists have found that conditional positive regard leads to introjection of regulations (an internal, but not autonomous, pressure to comply) and suppression of negative emotions. It does work to get children to do what you want, but at a significant cost. Meanwhile, conditional negative regard does not make children more likely to comply; it worsens their regulation of emotions (they don’t learn to deal with their feelings effectively) and leads to outright resentment towards the parents. Not a good mix. (If you want to read more about this, check out Ryan & Deci, 2017, pp. 334–340)
Essentially, when you use conditional regard, your are pitting the needs for autonomy and relatedness against each other: you are asking someone you care about to relinquish their autonomy in exchange for your relatedness. Sound cruel?
It is. Which is why the last strategy I’ll recommend to you today is to minimise your use of conditional regard and learn to practice unconditional positive regard.
Rogers (1957/2007) described unconditional positive regard (UCPR) as one of the necessary conditions for effective psychotherapy. He saw it as a “prizing” of a person, a “warm acceptance of each aspect of the client’s experience as being a part of that client,” noting that “it means that there are no conditions of acceptance, no feeling of “I like you only if you are thus and so.”” (p. 243) But he didn’t see UCPR as only crucial for the therapist–client relationship: he posited that “UCPR is crucial for optimal human development,” because it “creates a growth-promoting climate that is important for children’s development of unconditional self-regard.” (Roth, Kanat-Mayman, & Assor, 2015, p. 2) Indeed, in a recent study, Roth and colleagues (2015) found that adolescents’ perceptions of parental UCPR not only predicted more autonomy supportive parenting practices, but also enhanced the positive effects that the autonomy supportive practices had on the teenagers. Need support was strengthened by unconditional positive regard.
How do you develop unconditional positive regard in your close relationships? I have to admit I don’t have the answer yet, no magic formula to give you. But I do have two suggestions:
- Begin with self-awareness: pay attention to your interactions, and especially to how you act when things aren’t going your way. Learn to stop reacting, to take a deep breath and respond instead.
- And look to others for inspiration on how to practice kindness and unconditional positive regard. Facts and academic references can help us understand things, but stories by humans, for humans, make the lessons memorable. Read about how a collection of keys taught psychotherapist Amy Torres to see the best in herself and others; how a question from a student prompted teacher Hannah Morris to forgive herself; and how anger showed father Jonas Ellison that unconditional love does exist.
Every day that passes, you have the power to affect someone’s life. Speaking to a stranger; listening to a friend; leading a classroom; managing a team; raising a child: all are opportunities to nurture the well-being and growth of other human beings. In the last post, we explored the processes that can lead to motivation and growth and the three basic requirements for ‘healthy’ motivation. With this post I hope to have helped you understand what you can do to support the psychological needs of those you love or are trying to motivate and inspired you to strive to be more need supportive towards others.
But simply knowing what you could do might not be enough. In the next and final post in this series, we will look at how psychology can help us consciously grow and become better, more need supportive motivators, bosses, teachers, parents, friends… some might say: better humans.
See you then, and thank you for reading!
[Update July 28: The last post of the series is still not here, but don’t despair! It will maybe possibly come out this year.]
References
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117(3), 497–529. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497
de Charms, R. (1968). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior. New York: Academic Press.
Deci, E. L., La Guardia, J. G., Moller, A. C., Scheiner, M. J., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). On the benefits of giving as well as receiving autonomy support: mutuality in close friendships. Personality And Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(3), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205282148
Demir, M., Özdemir, M., & Patrice, M. (2011). Perceived autonomy support, friendship maintenance, and happiness. The Journal of Psychology, 145(6), 537–571. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2011.607866
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s self-regulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-0663.81.2.143
Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.
Jang, H. (2008). Supporting students’ motivation, engagement, and learning during an uninteresting activity. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(4). 789–811. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012841
Niemiec, C. P., Soenens, B., Vasteenkiste, M., (2014). Is relatedness enough? On the importance of need support in different types of social experiences. In N. Weinstein (Ed.), Human motivation and interpersonal relationships: theory, research, and applications (pp. 77–96). New York: Springer.
Powers, T. A., Koestner, R., & Gorin, A. A. (2008). Autonomy support from family and friends and weight loss in college women. Families, Systems, & Health, 26(4), 404–416. https://doi.org/10.1037/1091-7527.26.4.404
Rogers, C. R. (2007). The necessary and sufficient conditions of therapeutic personality change. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 44(3), 240–248. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-3204.44.3.240 (Reprinted from Journal of Consulting Psychology, 21(2), 95–103, 1957)
Roth, G., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Assor, A. (2015). The role of unconditional parental regard in autonomy supportive parenting. Journal of Personality. (online first publication) https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12194
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 749–761. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: The Guilford Press.
Soenens, B., Vasteenkiste, M., & Niemiec, C. P. (2009). Should parental prohibition of adolescents’ peer relationships be prohibited? Personal Relationships, 16, 507–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-6811.2009.01237.x
