In clinical practice, junior doctors regularly receive supervision from consultants. Drawing on Basic Psychological Needs Theory, consultants\' supervision styles are likely to affect junior doctors\' intrinsic motivation differently in terms of psychological need frustration and psychological need satisfaction. To examine the effects of (de)motivating supervision styles, we conducted two experimental vignette studies among junior doctors. In Study 1 (N = 150, 73.3% female), we used a 2 (need support: high vs. low) x 2 (directiveness: high vs. low) between-subjects design and, in Study 2, a within-subjects design with the same factors (N = 46, 71.7% female). Both studies revealed a consistent positive effect of need-supportive supervision styles on psychological need satisfaction (+), need frustration (-), and intrinsic motivation (+). Particularly in Study 2, the main effect of need-supportive styles was strengthened by supervisor\'s directiveness. Moreover, in both studies, the effects of supervision styles on intrinsic motivation were explained through psychological need frustration and psychological need satisfaction. We discuss the implications of these findings for postgraduate clinical training.

OBJECTIVE: Little is known about how ex-prisoners\' parole supervision experiences support or hinder the process of desistance. The aim of this article is to analyse the nature of parole supervision of Dutch (ex-)long-term prisoners in terms of official conditions, as well as the way in which parole officers (POs) and ex-prisoners navigate these conditions. The focus is particularly on the experienced supervision style and how this interacts with different dimensions of efforts at desistance.
METHODS: Twenty-three Dutch parolees were interviewed in depth at three waves starting in prison up to one year after their release from prison. A thematic analysis was undertaken to analyse the 69 interviews. In addition, the parole files of these ex-prisoners were examined containing information about conditions, violations and sanctions.
RESULTS: Parole files revealed the practice of highly engaged parole officers, who worked with parolees to strengthen factors known to foster desistance and tried to accommodate the difficulties of navigating \'life outside\' after a relatively long prison sentence. However, the interviews showed that most parolees found their parole experience predominantly surveillance-oriented and not very helpful for desistance. Parole was experienced as most beneficial when parole officers were viewed as social workers or mentors and used their discretionary power to adjust conditions creating \'space\' for trial-and-error.
CONCLUSIONS: This longitudinal study suggests that a policy culture and discourse of risk management do not necessarily preclude desistance support in parole supervision in the Netherlands, due to discretionary power of parole officers.