Prosocial Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-P)

1. Abstract

The Prosocial Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-P) is a standardized, domain-specific self-report assessment developed by Richard M. Ryan and James P. Connell in 1989. Grounded in the organismic integration sub-theory of Self-Determination Theory (SDT), the SRQ-P investigates the regulatory mechanisms, or perceived locus of causality (PLOC), underlying children’s prosocial actions, moral behaviors, and interpersonal conflict resolutions. Tailored developmentally for late elementary and middle school students (typically ages 8 through 14), the instrument presents children with five vignettes representing common prosocial dilemmas: keeping promises to friends, refraining from mocking peers for their mistakes, abstaining from hitting peers during anger, striving to be nice to peers, and assisting people in distress.

The questionnaire evaluates three distinct regulatory styles along the internalization continuum: External Regulation (acting to avoid disciplinary punishment or secure peer approval), Introjected Regulation (acting to ward off guilt, shame, and self-derogation or to protect contingent self-esteem), and Identified Regulation (acting out of personal conviction, valuation of prosocial outcomes, and autonomous endorsement). Unlike general self-regulation scales, the SRQ-P deliberately excludes an intrinsic motivation subscale because prosocial conventions are culturally transmitted social behaviors that require experiential internalization rather than arising purely out of inherent, spontaneous hedonism. The instrument features a structured 4-point response format ranging from 1 (“Not at all true”) to 4 (“Very true”). Extensive psychometric evaluations demonstrate a clear simplex correlation pattern across subscales, robust internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha values typically ranging from .69 to .82 across distinct subscales), and remarkable convergent and discriminant validity with teachers’ ratings of empathy, classroom social behavior, peer popularity, and moral reasoning stages.

2. Keywords

Prosocial Self-Regulation Questionnaire, SRQ-P, Self-Determination Theory, Organismic Integration Theory, Perceived Locus of Causality, Prosocial Behavior, Moral Development, Child Psychology, Internalization, Autonomous Motivation

3. Authors

The Prosocial Self-Regulation Questionnaire was conceptualized, operationalized, and psychometrically validated by:

• Richard M. Ryan, Ph.D.: Clinical psychologist, Professor at the Institute for Positive Psychology and Education at the Australian Catholic University, and Research Professor of Psychology at the University of Rochester. Co-developer with Edward L. Deci of Self-Determination Theory. Contact: Institute for Positive Psychology and Education, Australian Catholic University, North Sydney, NSW, Australia.
• James P. Connell, Ph.D.: Developmental psychologist, former Associate Professor of Psychology and Education at the University of Rochester, and co-founder of the Institute for Research and Reform in Education (IRRE). Specializes in child development, social-emotional competence, and academic motivation in early and middle childhood.

4. Purpose

The fundamental purpose of the Prosocial Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-P) is to decode why children engage in prosocial, collaborative, and socially benevolent conduct. While overt behavioral indicators can demonstrate whether a child shares resources, keeps commitments, helps a peer in distress, or manages aggression, behavioral observation alone is structurally agnostic to the underlying psychological motive. A child who keeps a promise out of raw terror of parental reprimand or social ostracism exhibits the exact same outward behavior as a child who honors a promise out of a deep personal valuation of integrity and interpersonal care. The SRQ-P was created to differentiate these diverse regulatory orientations, charting the subjective degree to which children have transformed externally transmitted social rules into fully integrated personal values.

In developmental and educational research, the SRQ-P provides researchers with a theoretically refined tool to assess interventions aimed at social-emotional learning (SEL), character development, and restorative justice. It allows researchers to investigate how parenting styles (such as parental autonomy support versus psychological control) and school disciplinary climates affect the quality of a child’s moral functioning. Educational environments that rely primarily on token economies, coercive surveillance, or public shaming frequently foster external or introjected forms of compliance; the SRQ-P serves as an empirical instrument to examine whether these pedagogical programs unintentionally stunt genuine moral internalization.

In clinical, child psychiatric, and school psychology practices, the SRQ-P is used to assess children experiencing conduct problems, oppositional defiant tendencies, peer relational difficulties, or pervasive socio-emotional maladjustment. By assessing a child’s subscale profile, practitioners can identify maladaptive introjection (which frequently correlates with internalizing distress, generalized anxiety, and pathological self-blame) or persistent external regulation (which correlates with impulsivity, defiance when surveillance is absent, and amoral opportunistic behavior). Consequently, the SRQ-P facilitates targeted clinical interventions that guide the child toward self-reflective moral valuation and authentic empathy, moving away from fragile compliance based on fear or anxiety.

5. Psychological Construct

The construct assessed by the SRQ-P is the Perceived Locus of Causality (PLOC) in the prosocial domain. In accordance with Organismic Integration Theory, the SRQ-P treats human motivation not as a simplistic binary construct (such as intrinsic versus extrinsic, or selfish versus selfless), but as a differentiated continuum reflecting varying degrees of autonomy and behavioral assimilation into the self. The scale maps out three core regulatory styles:

External Regulation

External regulation sits at the least autonomous end of the internalization continuum. Behaviors governed by external regulation are initiated and sustained solely by external contingencies, such as concrete rewards, avoidance of punishment, explicit parental demands, or the immediate fear of peer hostility and social retribution. In the SRQ-P, an externally regulated child keeps a promise or refrains from hitting because of statements like “Because if I do, I’ll get in trouble” or “So my friends will like me.” In this regulatory state, the locus of causality is perceived as entirely external; if the surveillance or the external contingency is removed, the probability of the prosocial behavior being enacted decreases precipitously.

Introjected Regulation

Introjected regulation represents a rudimentary, partial form of internalization where external social expectations and moral prohibitions have been taken inside the psychological boundary, but remain unintegrated with the core self. Rather than acting out of genuine personal belief, the individual acts to avoid intrapsychic penalties such as guilt, self-blame, social anxiety, and shame, or to secure ego-enhancement and contingent self-esteem. As captured by SRQ-P items such as “Because I’d feel like a bad person if I didn’t” and “Because I’d feel ashamed of myself after I did it,” the individual is internally pressured. The perceived locus of causality remains relatively external to the core self, characterized by internal coercion, intrapsychic conflict, and self-administered conditional approval.

Identified Regulation

Identified regulation reflects a relatively mature, autonomous form of extrinsic motivation wherein the individual consciously values the behavioral goal and recognizes its personal importance and alignment with their social identity. The child enacts the behavior because it is personally meaningful, helpful, and socially essential, even if the action itself is not inherently enjoyable or entertaining. Exemplified by statements like “Because I think it’s important to be nice to others” and “Because I think it’s important to give help when it’s needed,” the perceived locus of causality is largely internal. Identified regulation fosters high behavioral stability, genuine empathic engagement, resilience in social interactions, and low vulnerability to social stress.

Absence of an Intrinsic Motivation Subscale

Unlike the companion Academic Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-A), the SRQ-P deliberately does not include an Intrinsic Motivation subscale. Intrinsic motivation refers to engaging in an activity purely for its inherent enjoyment, curiosity, and aesthetic pleasure. Ryan and Connell (1989) argued that keeping promises under difficult conditions, controlling violent impulses during anger, and extending aid to a distressed peer are moral duties and social conventions acquired via developmental socialization. Because these behaviors originate from the child’s internalization of relational norms and moral imperatives, conceptualizing them as purely “fun” or “spontaneously entertaining” misrepresents the nature of social and moral self-regulation.

6. Theoretical Framework

The theoretical bedrock of the SRQ-P is Self-Determination Theory (SDT), specifically its sub-theory, Organismic Integration Theory (OIT), developed by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan. OIT is based on an organismic-dialectical meta-theory which posits that human beings are naturally active, growth-oriented organisms equipped with innate psychological tendencies to integrate their experiences into a coherent sense of self. However, this constructive developmental tendency does not operate automatically; it requires nutriments and ambient support from the surrounding social environment.

OIT explains how non-intrinsically motivated behaviors—specifically cultural norms, moral responsibilities, and behavioral constraints—can become internalized. Internalization is defined as the active, natural process through which individuals assimilate socially sanctioned values and behavioral regulations. This continuum spans from external regulation, through introjection, to identification, and finally to integration (the most mature state, where identifications are unified into a harmonious, coherent self-concept).

A crucial theoretical innovation introduced by Ryan and Connell (1989) is the Perceived Locus of Causality (PLOC), which traces its conceptual ancestry to Fritz Heider‘s attribution theory and Julian Rotter‘s locus of control. While Rotter focused on whether behavioral outcomes are controlled by internal effort versus external chance, Ryan and Connell’s PLOC focuses on the experiential origin of the behavior itself: does the individual experience oneself as the autonomous author and initiator of their actions (internal PLOC), or do they feel driven, controlled, and compelled by forces outside their core self (external PLOC)?

According to OIT, optimal internalization depends directly upon the satisfaction of three basic psychological needs:

• Autonomy: Experiencing psychological freedom, agency, and internal volition.
• Competence: Feeling effective and capable within social environments.
• Relatedness: Experiencing emotional warmth, interpersonal connection, and unconditional belonging.

Prosocial actions inherently relate to the need for relatedness; children internalize prosocial behaviors initially because these behaviors are valued by significant others (parents, teachers, peers) to whom they feel or desire attachment. However, if socializing agents employ controlling tactics (such as guilt induction, withdrawal of love, or corporal threats), internalization stalls at the external or introjected stages. Conversely, when socialization is characterized by rationale provision, acknowledgment of the child’s perspective, and autonomy-supportive limits, children identify with the value of the action, reaching identified regulation.

7. Validity

The construct, convergent, discriminant, and predictive validity of the SRQ-P has been confirmed through numerous psychometric investigations, beginning with the seminal validation studies conducted by Ryan and Connell (1989).

Construct and Structural Validity

The primary validation benchmark of the SRQ-P is the empirical demonstration of a simplex-like pattern among the subscales. In psychometric theory, a simplex structure occurs when the correlations between subscales show an ordered matrix: adjacent regulatory styles on the conceptual continuum correlate positively and moderately-to-strongly, whereas styles situated farther apart show lower, null, or negative correlations. In Ryan and Connell’s (1989) validation sample of 426 elementary and middle school students, the correlation between External Regulation and Introjected Regulation was moderate and positive (r = .39, p < .001), while the correlation between Introjected and Identified Regulation was also positive (r = .42, p < .001). In contrast, the correlation between the polar opposites—External Regulation and Identified Regulation—was significantly weaker and occasionally inverse (r = .11 to -.08, depending on the sample), empirically validating the ordered continuum of the perceived locus of causality.

Convergent and Criterion Validity

The SRQ-P subscales show well-documented associations with external socio-emotional and behavioral criteria:

• Teacher and Peer Ratings: Identified regulation on the SRQ-P correlates positively with teacher-rated empathy (r = .38, p < .001), positive peer sociometric nominations, and observable prosocial classroom involvement. External regulation, conversely, correlates inversely with teacher-rated empathy and shows a non-significant or negative correlation with overall classroom social adjustment.
• Moral Reasoning: In investigations linking the SRQ-P to Lawrence Kohlberg‘s and Nancy Eisenberg’s models of moral reasoning, children scoring high on identified regulation demonstrate higher-stage, empathy-based moral reasoning. Children with high external regulation scores demonstrate primarily hedonistic, punishment-avoidance, or instrumental moral justifications.
• Emotional Well-Being vs. Distress: Although both introjected and identified regulation lead to overt prosocial acts, they produce fundamentally different internal experiences. Introjected prosocial regulation is uniquely associated with elevated self-reported anxiety, somatic complaints, vulnerability to depression, and conditional self-esteem. In contrast, identified prosocial regulation is positively associated with generalized self-esteem, life satisfaction, and authentic self-concept.

Discriminant Validity

The SRQ-P demonstrates discriminant validity when evaluated alongside academic self-regulation (SRQ-A) and generalized social desirability scales. Ryan and Connell (1989) demonstrated that while children show consistent regulatory tendencies across domains, domain-specific variance remains high: prosocial regulation specifically predicts social and moral criteria, whereas academic regulation specifically predicts classroom grades, achievement scores, and cognitive engagement. Furthermore, controlling for social desirability using scales such as the Marlowe-Crowne or the Children’s Social Desirability Scale does not attenuate the predictive power of the SRQ-P subscales.

8. Reliability

The psychometric reliability of the Prosocial Self-Regulation Questionnaire has been evaluated across multiple independent developmental and educational cohorts. Estimates of internal consistency and temporal stability confirm that the instrument reliably measures individual differences in children’s regulatory styles.

Internal Consistency

In the original validation studies by Ryan and Connell (1989), the subscales demonstrated good internal consistency, especially considering the developmental stage of late childhood and early adolescence:

• External Regulation: Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients consistently range from .69 to .76 across middle-class and socio-economically diverse urban samples.
• Introjected Regulation: Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients range between .74 and .81, indicating strong scale coherence.
• Identified Regulation: Cronbach’s alpha ($lpha$) coefficients span from .73 to .82 across educational studies.

Subsequent psychometric evaluations of adapted and translated international versions (e.g., in Italian, Spanish, Turkish, and Korean developmental contexts) have confirmed these values, consistently reporting overall subscale alphas between .70 and .84, which meet the criteria for psychological instruments applied in educational and socio-developmental research.

Test-Retest Stability

Short- and medium-term test-retest reliability assessments demonstrate adequate temporal stability. Over a standard 4-week interval, test-retest correlation coefficients ($r_{tt}$) for elementary school children typically fall between .65 and .78. Longitudinal studies spanning an entire academic year show moderate stability coefficients (ranging from .48 to .62), reflecting both construct stability and expected developmental evolution as children mature cognitively and integrate social norms.

9. Factor Analysis

The factor structure of the SRQ-P has been examined through Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA), Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA), and Multidimensional Scaling (MDS) to assess whether items map accurately onto their designated regulatory constructs and uphold the circumplex/simplex assumption of Organismic Integration Theory.

Exploratory Factor Analysis (EFA)

In early exploratory factor analyses utilizing principal axes extraction with oblique rotation (e.g., Promax or Oblimin), the items across the vignettes generally produce a three-factor solution matching the theoretical subscales: External, Introjected, and Identified Regulation. Although the items are nested within distinct behavioral vignettes (e.g., promise-keeping vs. distress-alleviation), factor loadings are predominantly organized by regulatory style rather than by vignette content. Factor loadings for designated items generally exceed .45, with cross-loadings remaining low to moderate.

Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA)

Subsequent structural modeling has compared competing factor arrangements to confirm the superiority of the three-factor model:

• Single-Factor Model: A baseline model forcing all items onto a single “general prosocial motivation” construct demonstrates poor fit (e.g., $\chi^2/df > 4.8$, $\text{CFI} < .70$, $\text{TLI} < .66$, $\text{RMSEA} > .11$).
• Two-Factor Model (Controlled vs. Autonomous): Combining External and Introjected items into a single controlled factor yields an improved but suboptimal fit.
• Three-Factor Independent Model: The hypothesized three-factor structure (External, Introjected, Identified) consistently shows acceptable-to-strong fit indices across developmental studies (e.g., $\chi^2/df < 2.2$, $\text{CFI} ge .92$, $\text{TLI} ge .90$, $\text{RMSEA} le .054$, $90% \text{ CI } [.045, .063]$, $\text{SRMR} le .058$).

Multidimensional Scaling (MDS)

Because Self-Determination Theory conceptualizes regulatory styles as existing along a quasi-continuous underlying continuum of self-determination, standard CFA models (which assume fully independent latent factors) can produce cross-loadings that reflect simplex structures. To address this, psychometricians have applied multidimensional scaling and radex analysis to the inter-item correlation matrices. These spatial analyses demonstrate that the items arrange themselves along a linear continuum ordered precisely from external to introjected to identified regulation, confirming the construct validity of the PLOC continuum.

10. Instrument / Measurement Tool

• Test Type: Self-report domain-specific psychometric questionnaire; objective behavioral motivation inventory for children.
• Target Population: Children in late elementary and middle school (grades 3 through 8; ages 8–14 years). Can be administered individually or in group classroom settings.
• Administration Format: Paper-and-pencil or computer-based assessment. For younger children (grades 3–4), standardized oral administration (where an administrator reads vignettes and items aloud) is recommended.
• Total Number of Items: 25 items structured across 5 distinct prosocial situational vignettes (questions).
• Vignette Distribution:
  • Scenario 1: Keeping a promise to friends (Items 1–5).
  • Scenario 2: Not making fun of another child for making a mistake (Items 6–10).
  • Scenario 3: Not hitting someone when angry (Items 11–15).
  • Scenario 4: Trying to be nice to other kids (Items 16–20).
  • Scenario 5: Helping someone in distress (Items 21–25).
• Response Format: 4-point Likert-type scale ordered with the highest affirmation first:
  • Very true = 4
  • Sort of true = 3
  • Not very true = 2
  • Not at all true = 1
• Scoring Methodology:
  • Subscale scores are calculated by summing or averaging the items assigned to each regulatory style.
  • External Regulation Subscale: Items 1, 3, 5, 8, 10, 11, 15, 16, 21, 23. (Assesses acting out of fear of punishment, authority reprimand, or desire for peer approval).
  • Introjected Regulation Subscale: Items 2, 7, 14, 18, 22. (Assesses acting to avoid guilt, shame, and self-disparagement).
  • Identified Regulation Subscale: Items 4, 6, 9, 12, 13, 17, 19, 20, 24. (Assesses acting because the behavior is personally valued, important, or endorsed).
  • Relative Autonomy Index (RAI): While individual subscale analyses are recommended, researchers often compute a domain-specific RAI to generate a single composite score reflecting overall autonomy: $\text{RAI} = (2 \times \text{Identified}) – (1 \times \text{Introjected}) – (1 \times \text{External})$.

11. Permissions & Fee and Test Year

• Year of Initial Publication: 1989.
• Copyright & Ownership: Copyright © 1989 by Richard M. Ryan and James P. Connell. Intellectual property is managed within the Self-Determination Theory research community.
• Usage Licensing & Cost: The Prosocial Self-Regulation Questionnaire (SRQ-P) is an open-access instrument available free of charge for non-commercial, academic, scientific, and educational research purposes. It can be accessed and downloaded via the official Self-Determination Theory repository (selfdeterminationtheory.org).
• Commercial Applications: Commercial use, organizational consulting, software integration, or inclusion in paid diagnostic products requires formal written authorization from the copyright holders.

12. References

Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Minnesota Symposia on Child Psychology (Vol. 23, pp. 43–77). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7

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

Eisenberg, N., Fabes, R. A., & Spinrad, T. L. (2006). Prosocial development. In N. Eisenberg, W. Damon, & R. M. Lerner (Eds.), Handbook of child psychology: Social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., Vol. 3, pp. 646–718). John Wiley & Sons. https://doi.org/10.1002/9780470147658.chpsy0311

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. Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28769

13. Items of the Scale (Questionnaire)