Choice Requires Cognitive Availability: Protective Structure as an Enabling Condition for Autonomy Support in Digitally Distracted Physical Education Classrooms

Abstract

Does autonomy support retain its motivational benefits when digital distraction pervades the classroom? Drawing on self-determination theory and cognitive-resource perspectives, we proposed the Cognitive Availability Hypothesis: when attentional resources are depleted by smartphone presence, task choice cannot fulfill its motivational potential; protective structure—removing external digital distractions—functions as an enabling condition rather than a parallel instructional option. Using a fully counterbalanced 2 × 2 within-subjects crossover design (N = 121 Chinese undergraduates; 8 weeks), we independently manipulated protective structure (smartphone sequestration: present vs. absent) and autonomy support (task choice: present vs. absent) in university badminton classes, with flow as the primary outcome and class engagement as a secondary outcome. The Sequestration × Choice interaction was significant for flow: task choice had a negligible effect without sequestration but a moderate effect with sequestration. A parallel pattern emerged for engagement. Process-consistent analyses indicated that sequestration was associated with lower cognitive load and that the conditional choice effect on motivational regulation was most clearly expressed in identified regulation, the form of motivation that involves valuing and personally endorsing the activity. Manipulation checks confirmed that sequestration reduced perceived phone distraction without undermining perceived choice or choice authenticity. These findings suggest that in digitally saturated classrooms, establishing attentional conditions may precede, rather than merely complement, autonomy-supportive instruction.

Keywords

autonomy support / cognitive availability / flow / identified regulation / physical education / protective structure

References

[1] Aagaard, J. 2020. “Digital Akrasia: A Qualitative Study of Phubbing.” AI & Society 35, no. 1: 237–244. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00146-019-00876-0.

[2] Baumeister, R. F. 2002. “Ego Depletion and Self-Control Failure: An Energy Model of the Self's Executive Function.” Self and Identity 1, no. 2: 129–136. https://doi.org/10.1080/152988602317319302.

[3] Buchner, J., and J. Zumbach. 2018. “ Promoting Intrinsic Motivation With a Mobile Augmented Reality Learning Environment.” In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Mobile Learning, 55–61. International Association for Development of the Information Society.

[4] Chemolli, E., and M. Gagné. 2014. “Evidence Against the Continuum Structure Underlying Motivation Measures Derived From Self-Determination Theory.” Psychological Assessment 26, no. 2: 575–585. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0036212.

[5] Couvillion, K. F., A. D. Bass, and J. T. Fairbrother. 2020. “Increased Cognitive Load During Acquisition of a Continuous Task Eliminates the Learning Effects of Self-Controlled Knowledge of Results.” Journal of Sports Sciences 38, no. 1: 94–99. https://doi.org/10.1080/02640414.2019.1682901.

[6] Csíkszentmihályi, M. 2002. Flow: The Classic Work on How to Achieve Happiness. Rider.

[7] Deci, E. L., and R. M. Ryan. 2012. “ Self-Determination Theory.” In Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology, edited by P. Lange, A. Kruglanski, and E. Higgins, vol. 1, 416–437. SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215.n21.

[8] Faella, P., S. Digennaro, and A. Iannaccone. 2025. “Educational Practices in Motion: A Scoping Review of Embodied Learning Approaches in School.” Frontiers in Education 10: 1568744. https://doi.org/10.3389/feduc.2025.1568744.

[9] Gelman, A., and H. Stern. 2006. “The Difference Between “Significant” and “Not Significant” Is Not Itself Statistically Significant.” American Statistician 60, no. 4: 328–331. https://doi.org/10.1198/000313006X152649.

[10] Gezgin, D. M., T. Türk Kurtça, C. Mihci, C. Lin, and M. D. Griffiths. 2025. “The Role of Self-Regulated Learning in Modelling the Relationships Between Learning Approaches, FOMO and Smartphone Addiction Among University Students.” British Journal of Educational Technology 56, no. 6: 2296–2320. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjet.13572.

[11] Guay, F., R. J. Vallerand, and C. Blanchard. 2000. “On the Assessment of Situational Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: The Situational Motivation Scale (SIMS).” Motivation and Emotion 24, no. 3: 175–213. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1005614228250.

[12] Handelsman, M. M., W. L. Briggs, N. Sullivan, and A. Towler. 2005. “A Measure of College Student Course Engagement.” Journal of Educational Research 98, no. 3: 184–192. https://doi.org/10.3200/JOER.98.3.184-192.

[13] Hospel, V., and B. Galand. 2016. “Are Both Classroom Autonomy Support and Structure Equally Important for Students' Engagement? A Multilevel Analysis.” Learning and Instruction 41: 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2015.09.001.

[14] Howard, J. L., M. Gagné, A. Van Den Broeck, et al. 2020. “A Review and Empirical Comparison of Motivation Scoring Methods: An Application to Self-Determination Theory.” Motivation and Emotion 44, no. 4: 534–548. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-020-09831-9.

[15] Jackson, S. A., A. J. Martin, and R. C. Eklund. 2008. “Long and Short Measures of Flow: The Construct Validity of the FSS-2, DFS-2, and New Brief Counterparts.” Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 30, no. 5: 561–587. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.30.5.561.

[16] Jang, H., J. Reeve, and E. L. Deci. 2010. “Engaging Students in Learning Activities: It Is Not Autonomy Support or Structure but Autonomy Support and Structure.” Journal of Educational Psychology 102, no. 3: 588–600. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019682.

[17] J. Koekoek, and I. Van Hilvoorde, eds. 2018. Digital Technology in Physical Education: Global Perspectives. 1st ed. Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203704011.

[18] Kostić, J. O., and K. R. Ranđelović. 2022. “ Digital Distractions: Learning in Multitasking Environment.” In Psychological Applications and Trends 2022, edited by C. Pracana and M. Wang, 301–304. InScience Press. https://doi.org/10.36315/2022inpact070.

[19] Kuznekoff, J. H., and S. Titsworth. 2013. “The Impact of Mobile Phone Usage on Student Learning.” Communication Education 62, no. 3: 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1080/03634523.2013.767917.

[20] Lee, S., M. W. Kim, I. M. McDonough, J. S. Mendoza, and M. S. Kim. 2017. “The Effects of Cell Phone Use and Emotion-Regulation Style on College Students' Learning.” Applied Cognitive Psychology 31, no. 3: 360–366. https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.3323.

[21] Liu, W. 2010. “Revision of the Chinese Version of the Short Flow State Scale and the Short Dispositional Flow Scale.” China Sport Science 30, no. 8: 64–70.

[22] Paas, F. G. W. C. 1992. “Training Strategies for Attaining Transfer of Problem-Solving Skill in Statistics: A Cognitive-Load Approach.” Journal of Educational Psychology 84, no. 4: 429–434. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.429.

[23] Paas, F. G. W. C., J. J. G. Van Merriënboer, and J. J. Adam. 1994. “Measurement of Cognitive Load in Instructional Research.” Perceptual and Motor Skills 79, no. 1: 419–430. https://doi.org/10.2466/pms.1994.79.1.419.

[24] Patall, E. A., H. Cooper, and J. C. Robinson. 2008. “The Effects of Choice on Intrinsic Motivation and Related Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis of Research Findings.” Psychological Bulletin 134, no. 2: 270–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.270.

[25] Patall, E. A., and J. Zambrano. 2019. “Facilitating Student Outcomes by Supporting Autonomy: Implications for Practice and Policy.” Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences 6, no. 2: 115–122. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732219862572.

[26] Pintrich, P. R. 2000. “ The Role of Goal Orientation in Self-Regulated Learning.” In Handbook of Self-Regulation, edited by M. Boekaerts, P. R. Pintrich, and M. Zeidner, 451–502. Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012109890-2/50043-3.

[27] Raabe, J., K. Schmidt, J. Carl, and O. Höner. 2019. “The Effectiveness of Autonomy Support Interventions With Physical Education Teachers and Youth Sport Coaches: A Systematic Review.” Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology 41, no. 6: 345–355. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.2019-0026.

[28] Reeve, J., and H. Jang. 2006. “What Teachers Say and Do to Support Students' Autonomy During a Learning Activity.” Journal of Educational Psychology 98, no. 1: 209–218. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.98.1.209.

[29] Schwartz, B. 2004. The Paradox of Choice: Why More Is Less. Ecco.

[30] Skinner, E. A., T. A. Kindermann, and C. J. Furrer. 2009. “A Motivational Perspective on Engagement and Disaffection: Conceptualization and Assessment of Children's Behavioral and Emotional Participation in Academic Activities in the Classroom.” Educational and Psychological Measurement 69, no. 3: 493–525. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164408323233.

[31] Sweller, J. 1988. “Cognitive Load During Problem Solving: Effects on Learning.” Cognitive Science 12, no. 2: 257–285. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15516709cog1202_4.

[32] Troll, E. S., M. Friese, and D. D. Loschelder. 2021. “How Students' Self-Control and Smartphone-Use Explain Their Academic Performance.” Computers in Human Behavior 117: 106624. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2020.106624.

[33] Van Gog, T., and F. Paas. 2008. “Instructional Efficiency: Revisiting the Original Construct in Educational Research.” Educational Psychologist 43, no. 1: 16–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520701756248.

[34] Vansteenkiste, M., N. Aelterman, G.-J. De Muynck, L. Haerens, E. Patall, and J. Reeve. 2018. “Fostering Personal Meaning and Self-Relevance: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Internalization.” Journal of Experimental Education 86, no. 1: 30–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/00220973.2017.1381067.

[35] Vohs, K. D., R. F. Baumeister, B. J. Schmeichel, J. M. Twenge, N. M. Nelson, and D. M. Tice. 2008. “Making Choices Impairs Subsequent Self-Control: A Limited-Resource Account of Decision Making, Self-Regulation, and Active Initiative.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 94, no. 5: 883–898. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.94.5.883.

[36] Ward, A. F., K. Duke, A. Gneezy, and M. W. Bos. 2017. “Brain Drain: The Mere Presence of One's Own Smartphone Reduces Available Cognitive Capacity.” Journal of the Association for Consumer Research 2, no. 2: 140–154. https://doi.org/10.1086/691462.

RIGHTS & PERMISSIONS

2026 The Author(s). PsyCh Journal published by Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences and John Wiley & Sons Australia, Ltd.