Self-determination theory

Self-determination theory (SDT) is a macro theory of human motivation and personality that concerns people's inherent growth tendencies and innate psychological needs. It is concerned with the motivation behind choices people make without external influence and interference. SDT focuses on the degree to which human behavior is self-motivated and self-determined.[1][2][3]

In the 1970s, research on SDT evolved from studies comparing intrinsic and extrinsic motives, and from growing understanding of the dominant role that intrinsic motivation played in individual behavior.[4] It was not until the mid-1980s Edward L. Deci and Richard Ryan wrote a book titled "Self-Determination and Intrinsic Motivation in Human Behavior" that SDT was formally introduced and accepted as a sound empirical theory. Research applying SDT to different areas in social psychology and education have increased considerably since the 2000s.

Key studies that led to emergence of SDT included research on intrinsic motivation.[5] Intrinsic motivation refers to initiating an activity because it is interesting and satisfying in itself to do so, as opposed to doing an activity for the purpose of obtaining an external goal (extrinsic motivation). A taxonomy of motivations have been described based on the degree to which they are internalized. Internalization refers to the active attempt to transform an extrinsic motive into personally endorsed values and thus assimilate behavioral regulations that were originally external.[6]

Edward Deci and Richard Ryan later expanded on the early work differentiating between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and proposed three main intrinsic needs involved in self-determination.[7][8] According to Deci and Ryan, three basic psychological needs motivate the self to initiate behavior and specify essential nutrients for individual psychological health and well-being. These needs are said to be the universal and innate need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness.[1]

Self-determination theory

Humanistic psychology has been influential in the creation of SDT.[9] Humanistic psychology is interested in looking at a person's whole psyche and personal achievement for self-efficacy and self-actualization. Whether or not an individual's self-efficacy and self-actualization are fulfilled can affect their motivation.[10] To this day, it may be difficult for a parent, coach, mentor, and teacher to motivate and help others complete specific tasks and goals. SDT acknowledges the importance of the interconnection of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations as a means of motivation to achieve a goal. With the acknowledgment of interconnection of motivations, SDT forms the belief that extrinsic motivations and the motivations of others, such as a therapist, may be beneficial. However, it is more important for an individual to find within themselves the "why" behind the desired goal.[11] According to Sheldon et al., "Therapists who fully endorse self-determination principles acknowledge the limits of their responsibilities because they fully acknowledge that ultimately people must make their own choices" (2003, p. 125).[11] One needs to determine their reasons for being motivated and reaching their goal. SDT comprises of The Organismic Dialectic approach, which is a meta-theory, and a formal theory containing six mini-theories focusing on the connection between extrinsic and intrinsic motivations within society and an individual.[12] SDT centers around the belief that human nature shows persistent positive features, with people repeatedly showing effort, agency, and commitment in their lives that the theory calls inherent growth tendencies.[9]

The organismic dialectical perspective

The organismic dialectical perspective sees all humans as an active organisms interacting with their environment. People are actively growing, striving to overcome challenges, and creating new experiences. While endeavoring to become unified from within, individuals also become part of social structures.[13][14] SDT also suggests that people have innate psychological needs that are the basis for self-motivation and personality integration. Through further explanation, individuals search for fulfillment in their 'meaning of life.' Discovering the meaning of life constitutes a distinctive desire someone has to find purpose and an aim in their lives, which enhances their perception of themselves and their surroundings.[15] Not only does SDT tend to focus on innate psychological needs, it also focuses on the pursuit of goals, the effects of the success in their goals, and the outcome of goals.[13]

Basic psychological needs

SDT consists of six mini-theories, including basic psychological needs theory which proposes three basic psychological needs that must be satisfied to foster well-being and health.[16] These three psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are generally universal (i.e., apply across individuals and situations). However, some needs may be more salient than others at certain times and be expressed differently based on time, culture, or experience. SDT identifies three innate needs that, if satisfied, allow optimal function and growth:

Autonomy[17][18]

• Desire to be causal agents of one's own life and act in harmony with one's integrated self; however, note this does not mean to be independent of others, but rather constitutes a feeling of overall psychological liberty and freedom of internal will. When a person is autonomously motivated their performance, wellness, and engagement is heightened rather than if a person is told what to do (a.k.a. control motivation).[19][20]

Deci[21] found that offering people extrinsic rewards for behavior that is intrinsically motivated undermined the intrinsic motivation as they grow less interested in it. Initially, intrinsically motivated behavior becomes controlled by external rewards, which undermines their autonomy. In further research by Amabile, DeJong and Lepper,[22] other external factors also appear to cause a decline in such motivation. For example, it is shown that deadlines restrict and control an individual which decreases their intrinsic motivation in the process.

Situations that give autonomy as opposed to taking it away also have a similar link to motivation. Studies looking at choice have found that increasing a participant's options and choices increases their intrinsic motivation.[23] Direct evidence for the innate need comes from Lübbecke and Schnedler[24] who find that people are willing to pay money to have caused an outcome themselves. Additionally, satisfaction or frustration of autonomy impacts not only an individual's motivation, but also their growth. This satisfaction or frustration further affects behavior, leading to optimal wellbeing, or unfortunate illbeing.[20]

Competence[25][26]

• Seek to control the outcome and experience mastery.[27]

Deci[21] found that giving people unexpected positive feedback on a task increases people's intrinsic motivation to do it, meaning that this was because the positive feedback was fulfilling people's need for competence. Additionally, SDT influences the fulfillment of mean-making, well-being, and finding value within internal growth and motivation.[28] Giving positive feedback on a task served only to increase people's intrinsic motivation and decreased extrinsic motivation for the task.

Vallerand and Reid[29] found negative feedback has the opposite effect (i.e., decreasing intrinsic motivation by taking away from people's need for competence). In a study conducted by Felnhofer et al., the level of competence and view of attributing competence is judged in regards to the scope of age differences, gender, and attitude variances of an individual within a given society. The effect of the different variances between individuals subsidize the negative influence that may lead to decreasing intrinsic motivation.[30]

Relatedness[31]

• Will to interact with, be connected to, and experience caring for others.[31]

During a study on the relationship between infants' attachment styles, their exhibition of mastery-oriented behaviour, and their affect during play, Frodi, Bridges and Grolnick[32] failed to find significant effects: "Perhaps somewhat surprising was the finding that the quality of attachment assessed at 12 months failed to significantly predict either mastery motivation, competence, or affect 8 months later, when other investigators have demonstrated an association between similar constructs ..." Yet they note that larger sample sizes could be able to uncover such effects: "A comparison of the secure/stable and the insecure/stable groups, however, did suggest that the secure/stable group was superior to the insecure/stable groups on all mastery-related measures. Obviously, replications of all the attachment-motivation relations are needed with different and larger samples."

Deci and Ryan claim that there are three essential elements of the theory:[19]

1. Humans are inherently proactive with their potential and mastery of their inner forces (such as drives and emotions)
2. Humans have an inherent tendency toward growth development and integrated functioning
3. Optimal development and actions are inherent in humans but they do not happen automatically

In an additional study focusing on the relatedness of adolescents, connection to other individuals' predisposed behaviors from relatedness satisfaction or frustration. The fulfillment or dissatisfaction of relatedness either promotes necessary psychological functioning or undermines developmental growth through deprivation. Across both study examples, the essential need for nurturing from a social environment goes beyond obvious and simple interactions for adolescents and promotes the actualization of inherent potential.[33][19]

If this happens, there are positive consequences (e.g. well-being and growth) but if not, there are negative consequences (e.g. dissatisfaction and deprivation). SDT emphasizes humans' natural growth toward positive motivation, development, and personal fulfillment.[34][35] However, this prevents the SDT's purpose if the basic needs go unfulfilled. Although thwarting of an individual's basic needs might occur, recent studies argue that such prevention has its own influence on well-being.[34]

Motivations

SDT claims to give a different approach to motivation, considering what motivates a person at any given time as opposed to seeing motivation as a unitary concept. SDT makes distinctions between different types of motivation and the consequences of them. White[27] and deCharms[18] proposed that the need for competence and autonomy is the basis of intrinsic motivation and behaviour. This is a link between people's basic needs and their motivations.

Intrinsic motivation

Intrinsic motivation is the natural, inherent drive to seek out challenges and new possibilities that SDT associates with cognitive and social development.

Cognitive evaluation theory (CET)[36] is a sub-theory of SDT that specifies factors explaining intrinsic motivation and variability with it and looks at how social and environmental factors help or hinder intrinsic motivations. CET focuses on the needs of competence and autonomy. CET is offered as an explanation of the phenomenon known as motivational "crowding out."

Claiming social context events like feedback on work or rewards lead to feelings of competence and so enhance intrinsic motivations. Deci[17] found positive feedback enhanced intrinsic motivations and negative feedback diminished it. Vallerand and Reid[29] went further and found that these effects were being mediated by perceived control.

Autonomy, however, must accompany competence for people to see their behaviours as self determined by intrinsic motivation. For this to happen there must be immediate contextual support for both needs or inner resources based on prior development support for both needs.[37]

CET and intrinsic motivation is also linked to relatedness through the hypothesis that intrinsic motivation flourishes if linked with a sense of security and relatedness. Grolnick and Ryan[38] found lower intrinsic motivation in children who believed their teachers to be uncaring or cold and so not fulfilling their relatedness needs.

Extrinsic motivation

Extrinsic motivation comes from external sources. Deci and Ryan[36] developed organismic integration theory (OIT), as a sub-theory of SDT, to explain the different ways extrinsically motivated behaviour is regulated.

OIT details the different forms of extrinsic motivation and the contexts in which they come about. It is the context of such motivation that concerns the SDT theory as these contexts affect whether the motivations are internalised and so integrated into the sense of self.

OIT describes four different types of extrinsic motivations that often vary in terms of their relative autonomy:

1. Externally regulated behaviour: Is the least autonomous, it is performed because of external demand or possible reward. Such actions can be seen to have an externally perceived locus of control.[18]
2. Introjected regulation of behaviour: describes taking on regulations to behaviour but not fully accepting said regulations as your own. Deci and Ryan[39] claim such behaviour normally represents regulation by contingent self-esteem, citing ego involvement as a classic form of introjections.[40] This is the kind of behaviour where people feel motivated to demonstrate ability to maintain self-worth. While this is internally driven, introjected behavior has an external perceived locus of causality or not coming from one's self. Since the causality of the behavior is perceived as external, the behavior is considered non-self-determined.
3. Regulation through identification: a more autonomously driven form of extrinsic motivation. It involves consciously valuing a goal or regulation so that said action is accepted as personally important.
4. Integrated Regulation: Is the most autonomous kind of extrinsic motivation. Occurring when regulations are fully assimilated with self so they are included in a person's self evaluations and beliefs on personal needs. Because of this, integrated motivations share qualities with intrinsic motivation but are still classified as extrinsic because the goals that are trying to be achieved are for reasons extrinsic to the self, rather than the inherent enjoyment or interest in the task.

Extrinsically motivated behaviours can be integrated into self. OIT proposes internalization is more likely to occur when there is a sense of relatedness.

Ryan, Stiller and Lynch[41] found that children internalize school's extrinsic regulations when they feel secure and cared for by parents and teachers.

Internalisation of extrinsic motivation is also linked to competence. OIT suggests that feelings of competence in activities should facilitate internalisation of said actions.[42]

Autonomy is particularly important when trying to integrate its regulations into a person's sense of self. If an external context allows a person to integrate regulation—they must feel competent, related and autonomous. They must also understand the regulation in terms of their other goals to facilitate a sense of autonomy.[43] This was supported by Deci, Eghrari, Patrick and Leone[44] who found in laboratory settings if a person was given a meaningful reason for uninteresting behaviour along with support for their sense of autonomy and relatedness they internalized and integrated their behaviour.

Individual differences

SDT argues that needs are innate but can be developed in a social context. Some people develop stronger needs than others, creating individual differences. However, individual differences within the theory focus on concepts resulting from the degree to which needs have been satisfied or not satisfied.

Within SDT there are two general individual difference concepts, Causality Orientations and Life Goals.

Causality orientations

Causality orientations are motivational orientations that refer either to the way people orient to an environment and regulate their behaviour because of this, or to the extent to which they are self determined in general across many settings. SDT created three orientations: autonomous, controlled and impersonal.

1. Autonomous Orientations: result from satisfaction of the basic needs
2. Strong controlled orientations: Result from satisfaction of competence and relatedness needs but not of autonomy and is linked to regulation through internal and external contingencies, which lead to rigid functioning and diminished well being.
3. Impersonal Orientations: Results from failing to fulfill all three needs. This is also related to poor functioning and ill being.

According to the theory, people have a certain amount of each of the orientations, which can be used to make predictions on a person's psychological health and behavioural outcomes.

Life goals

Life goals are long-term goals people use to guide their activities, and they fall into two categories:[45]

1. Intrinsic Aspirations: Contain life goals like affiliation, generativity and personal development.
2. Extrinsic Aspirations: Have life goals like wealth, fame and attractiveness.

There have been several studies on this subject that chart intrinsic goals being associated with greater health, well being and performance.[46]

Key studies

Deci (1971): External rewards on intrinsic motivation

Deci[21] investigated the effects of external rewards on intrinsic motivation in two laboratory and one field experiment. Based on the results from earlier animal and human studies regarding intrinsic motivation the author explored two possibilities. In the first two experiments he looked at the effect of extrinsic rewards in terms of a decrease in intrinsic motivation to perform a task. Earlier studies showed contradictory or inconclusive findings regarding decrease in performance on a task following an external reward. The third experiment was based on findings of developmental learning theorists and looked at whether a different type of reward enhances intrinsic motivation to participate in an activity.

Experiment I

This experiment tested the hypothesis that if an individual is intrinsically motivated to perform an activity, introduction of an extrinsic reward decreases the degree of intrinsic motivation to perform the task.

Twenty-four undergraduate psychology students participated in the first laboratory experiment and were assigned to experimental (n = 12) and control group (n = 12). Each group participated in three sessions conducted on three different days. During the sessions, participants were engaged in working on a Soma cube puzzle—which the experimenters assumed was an activity college students would be intrinsically motivated to do. The puzzle could be put together to form numerous different configurations. In each session, the participants were shown four different configurations drawn on a piece of paper and were asked to use the puzzle to reproduce the configurations while they were being timed.

The first and third session of the experimental condition were identical to control, but in the second session the participants in the experimental condition were given a dollar for completing each puzzle within time. During the middle of each session, the experimenter left the room for eight minutes and the participants were told that they were free to do whatever they wanted during that time, while the experimenter observed during that period. The amount of time spent working on the puzzle during the free choice period was used to measure motivation.

As Deci expected, when external reward was introduced during session two, the participants spent more time working on the puzzles during the free choice period in comparison to session 1 and when the external reward was removed in the third session, the time spent working on the puzzle dropped lower than the first session. All subjects reported finding the task interesting and enjoyable at the end of each session, providing evidence for the experimenter's assumption that the task was intrinsically motivating for the college students. The study showed some support of the experimenter's hypothesis and a trend towards decrease in intrinsic motivation was seen after money was provided to the participants as external reward.

Experiment II

The second experiment was a field experiment, similar to laboratory Experiment I, but was conducted in a natural setting.

Eight student workers were observed at a college biweekly newspaper. Four of the students served as a control group and worked on Friday. The experimental group worked on Tuesdays.

The control and experimental group students were not aware that they were being observed. The 10-week observation was divided into three time periods. The task in this study required the students to write headlines for the newspaper.

During "Time 2", the students in the experimental group were given 50 cents for each headline they wrote. At the end of Time 2, they were told that in the future the newspaper cannot pay them 50 cent for each headline anymore as the newspaper ran out of the money allocated for that and they were not paid for the headlines during Time 3.

The speed of task completion (headlines) was used as a measure of motivation in this experiment. Absences were used as a measure of attitudes.

To assess the stability of the observed effect, the experimenter observed the students again (Time 4) for two weeks. There was a gap of five weeks between Time 3 and Time 4. Due to absences and change in assignment etc., motivation data was not available for all students. The results of this experiment were similar to Experiment I and monetary reward was found to decrease the intrinsic motivation of the students, supporting Deci's hypothesis.

Experiment III

Experiment III was also conducted in the laboratory and was identical to Experiment I in all respects except for the kind of external reward provided to the students in experimental condition during Session 2.

In this experiment, verbal praise was used as an extrinsic reward.

The experimenter hypothesized that a different type of reward—i.e., social approval in the form of verbal reinforcement and positive feedback for performing the task that a person is intrinsically motivated to perform—enhances the degree of external motivation, even after the extrinsic reward is removed.

The results of the experiment III confirmed the hypothesis and the students' performance increased significantly during the third session in comparison to session one, showing that verbal praise and positive feedback enhances performance in tasks that a person is initially intrinsically motivated to perform. This provides evidence that verbal praise as external reward increases intrinsic motivation.

The author explained differences between the two types of external rewards as having different effects on intrinsic motivation. When a person is intrinsically motivated to perform a task and money is introduced to work on the task, the individual cognitively re-evaluates the importance of the task and the intrinsic motivation to perform the task (because the individual finds it interesting) shifts to extrinsic motivation and the primary focus changes from enjoying the task to gaining financial reward. However, when verbal praise is provided in a similar situation increases intrinsic motivation as it is not evaluated to be controlled by external factors and the person sees the task as an enjoyable task that is performed autonomously. The increase in intrinsic motivation is explained by positive reinforcement and an increase in perceived locus of control to perform the task.

Pritchard et al. (1977): Evaluation of Deci's Hypothesis

Pritchard et al.[47] conducted a similar study to evaluate Deci's hypothesis regarding the role of extrinsic rewards on decreasing intrinsic motivation.

Participants were randomly assigned to two groups. A chess-problem task was used in this study. Data were collected in two sessions.

Session I

Participants were asked to complete a background questionnaire that included questions on the amount of time the participant played chess during the week, the number of years that the participant has been playing chess for, amount of enjoyment the participant gets from playing the game, etc.

The participants in both groups were then told that the experimenter needed to enter the information in the computer and for the next 10 minutes the participant were free to do whatever they liked.

The experimenter left the room for 10 minutes. The room had similar chess-problem tasks on the table, some magazines as well as coffee was made available for the participants if they chose to have it.

The time spent on the chess-problem task was observed through a one way mirror by the experimenter during the 10 minutes break and was used as a measure of intrinsic motivation. After the experimenter returned, the experimental group was told that there was a monetary reward for the participant who could work on the most chess problems in the given time and that the reward is for this session only and would not be offered during the next session. The control group was not offered a monetary reward.

Session II

The second session was the same for the two groups:

After a filler task, the experimenter left the room for 10 minutes and the time participants spent on the chess-problem task was observed. The experimental group was reminded that there was no reward for the task this time.

After both sessions the participants were required to respond to questionnaires evaluating the task, i.e. to what degree did they find the task interesting. Both groups reported that they found the task interesting.

The results of the study showed that the experimental group showed a significant decrease in time spent on the chess-problem task during the 10-minute free time from session 1 to session 2 in comparison to the group that was not paid, thus confirming the hypothesis presented by Deci that contingent monetary reward for an activity decreases the intrinsic motivation to perform that activity. Other studies were conducted around this time focusing on other types of rewards as well as other external factors that play a role in decreasing intrinsic motivation.[48][49]

New developments

Principles of SDT have been applied in many domains of life, e.g., job demands;[50] parenting;[51] teaching;,[52] health,[53] morality,[54] and technology design.[55] Besides the domains mentioned above, SDT research has been widely applied to the field of sports.[56]

Exercise and Physical activity

Murcia et al.[57] looked at the influence of peers on enjoyment in exercise. Specifically, the researchers looked at the effect of motivational climate generated by peers on exercisers by analyzing data collected through questionnaires and rating scales. The assessment included evaluation of motivational climate, basic psychological needs satisfaction, levels of self-determination and self-regulation (amotivation, external, introjected, identified and intrinsic regulation) and also the assessment of the level of satisfaction and enjoyment in exercising.

Data analysis revealed that when peers are supportive and there is an emphasis on cooperation, effort, and personal improvement, the climate influences variables like basic psychological needs, motivation and enjoyment. The task climate positively predicted the three basic psychological needs (competence, autonomy and relatedness) and so positively predicted self-determined motivation. Task climate and the resulting self-determination were also found to positively influence level of enjoyment the exercisers experienced during the activity.

Behzadniaa et al.[58] studied how physical education teachers' autonomy support versus control would relate to students' wellness, knowledge, performance, and intentions to persist at physical activity beyond the PE classes. The study concluded that, "...perceived autonomy support was positively related to the positive outcomes via need satisfaction and frustration and autonomous motivation, and that perceptions of teachers' control were related to students' ill-being (positively) and knowledge (negatively) through need frustration."[58]

De man et al. studied constructs of SDT in a rural Ugandan population at risk of or diagnosed with diabetes.[59] Their findings suggested that different types of motivation regulate different intensities of physical activity. Higher frequency of vigorous PA was linked to a lower HbA1C and was predicted by autonomous motivation, but not by controlled motivation. Perceived competence and perceived relatedness predicted autonomous motivation. [59]

Awareness

Awareness has always been associated with autonomous functioning; however, it was only recently that the SDT researchers incorporated the idea of mindfulness and its relationship with autonomous functioning and emotional wellbeing in their research.

Brown and Ryan[60] conducted a series of five experiments to study mindfulness: They defined mindfulness as open, undivided attention to what is happening within as well as around oneself.

From their experiments, the authors concluded that when individuals act mindfully, their actions are consistent with their values and interest. Also, there is a possibility that being autonomous and performing an action because it is enjoyable to oneself increases mindful attention to one's actions.

Vitality and self-regulation

Another area of interest for SDT researchers is the relationship between subjective vitality and self-regulation. Ryan and Deci[61] define vitality as energy available to the self, either directly or indirectly, from basic psychological needs. This energy allows individuals to act autonomously.

Many theorists have posited that self-regulation depletes energy but SDT researchers have proposed and demonstrated that only controlled regulation depletes energy, autonomous regulation can actually be vitalizing.[62]

Ryan et al.[63] used SDT to explain the effect of weekends on the well-being of adult working population. The study[63] determined that people felt higher well-being on weekends due to greater feelings of autonomy, and feeling closer to others (relatedness), in weekend activities.

Education

In a study by Hyungshim Jang,[64] the capacity of two different theoretical models of motivation were used to explain why an externally provided rationale for doing a particular assignment often helps in a student's motivation, engagement, and learning during relatively uninteresting learning activities.

Undergraduate students (N = 136; 108 women, 28 men) worked on a relatively uninteresting short lesson after either receiving or not receiving a rationale. Students who received the rationale showed greater interest, work ethic, and determination.

Structural equation modeling was used to test three alternative explanatory models to understand why the rationale produced such benefits:

1. An identified regulation model based on SDT
2. An interest regulation model based on interest-enhancing strategies research
3. An additive model that integrated both models.

The data fit all three models; but only the model based on SDT helped students to engage and learn. Findings show the role that externally provided rationales can play in helping students generate the motivation they need to engage in and learn from uninteresting, but personally important, material.[64]

The importance of these findings to those in the field of education is that when teachers try to find ways to promote student's motivation during relatively uninteresting learning activities, they can successfully do so by promoting the value of the task. One way teachers can help students value what they may deem "uninteresting" is by providing a rationale that identifies the lesson's otherwise hidden value, helps students understand why the lesson is genuinely worth their effort, and communicates why the lesson can be expected to be useful to them.[64]

An example of SDT and education are Sudbury Model schools where people decide for themselves how to spend their days. In these schools, students of all ages determine what they do, as well as when, how, and where they do it. This freedom is at the heart of the school; it belongs to the students as their right, not to be violated. The fundamental premises of the school are simple: that all people are curious by nature; that the most efficient, long-lasting, and profound learning takes place when started and pursued by the learner; that all people are creative if they are allowed to develop their unique talents; that age-mixing among students promotes growth in all members of the group; and that freedom is essential to the development of personal responsibility. In practice this means that students initiate all their own activities and create their own environments. The physical plant, the staff, and the equipment are there for the students to use as the need arises. The school provides a setting in which students are independent, are trusted, and are treated as responsible people; and a community in which students are exposed to the complexities of life in the framework of a participatory democracy. Sudbury schools do not perform and do not offer evaluations, assessments, or recommendations, asserting that they do not rate people, and that school is not a judge; comparing students to each other, or to some standard that has been set is for them a violation of the student's right to privacy and to self-determination. Students decide for themselves how to measure their progress as self-starting learners as a process of self-evaluation: real lifelong learning and the proper educational evaluation for the 21st century, they adduce.[65]

Alcohol use

According to SDT,[66] individuals who attribute their actions to external circumstances rather than internal mechanisms are far more likely to succumb to peer pressure. In contrast, individuals who consider themselves autonomous tend to be initiators of actions rather than followers. Research examining the relationship between SDT and alcohol use among college students has indicated that individuals with the former criteria for decision making are associated with greater alcohol consumption and drinking as a function of social pressure. For instance, in a study conducted by Knee and Neighbors,[67] external factors in the individuals who claim to not be motivated by internal factors were found to be associated with drinking for extrinsic reasons, and with stronger perceptions of peer pressure, which in turn was related to heavier alcohol use. Given the evidence suggesting a positive association between an outward motivation and drinking, and the potential role of perceived social influence in this association, understanding the precise nature of this relationship seems important. Further, it may be hypothesized that the relationship between self-determination and drinking may be mediated to some extent by the perceived approval of others.[68]

Healthy eating

Self-determination theory offers a motivational framework for maintaining a healthy diet. A study conducted in a South African township found that frequency of fruit, vegetable and non-refined starch intake was associated with identified regulation and negatively associated with introjected regulation among people at risk of or with diabetes.[69] Perceived competence and relatedness were positively associated with identified regulation and negatively associated with introjected regulation.[69] The data also supported a negative association between identified regulation and introjected regulation. These findings support the tenets of self-determination theory that individuals who experience support from friends or family and who feel competent in adopting a healthy diet are more likely to become motivated by their own values such as having a good health. This was in contrast to individuals whose motivation originated in pressure from others or feelings of guilt or shame.[69]

Motivational interviewing

Motivational interviewing (MI) is a popular approach to positive behavioral change. Used initially in the area of addiction (Miller & Rollnick, 2002),[70] it is now used for a wider range of issues. It is a client-centered method that doesn't persuade or coerce patients to change and instead attempts to explore and resolve their ambivalent feelings, which allows them to choose themselves whether to change or not.

Markland, Ryan, Tobin, and Rollnick[71] believe that SDT provides a framework behind how and the reasons why MI works. They believe that MI provides an autonomy-supportive atmosphere, which allows clients to find their own source of motivation and achieve their own success (in terms of overcoming addiction). Patients randomly assigned to an MI treatment group found the setting to be more autonomy-supportive than those in a regular support group.[72]

Environmental behaviors

Several studies explored the link between SDT and environmental behaviors to determine the role of intrinsic motivation for environmental behavior performance and to account for the lack of success of current intervention strategies.[73]

Motivation toward the environment scale

Environmental attitudes and knowledge are not good predictors of behavior. SDT suggests that motivation can predict behavior performance. Pelletier et al. (1998) constructed a scale of motivation for environmental behavior, which consists of 4x6 statements (4 statements for each type of motivation on the SDT motivation scale: intrinsic, integrated, identified, introjected, external, and amotivation) responding to a question 'Why are you doing things for the environment?'. Each item is scored on a 1-7 Likert scale.[74] Utilizing MTES, Villacorta (2003) demonstrates a correlation between environmental concerns and intrinsic motivations together with peer and parental support; further, intrinsically motivated behaviors tend to persist longer.[75]

Environmental Amotivation

Pelletier et al. (1999) shows that four personal beliefs: helplessness, strategy, capacity, and effort, lead to greater amotivation, while self-determination has an inverse relationship with amotivation. The Amotivation toward the Environment Scale measures the four reasons for amotivation by answering a question 'Why are you not doing things for the environment?'. The participants rank 16 total statements (four in each category of amotivation) on a 1-7 Likert scale.[76]

Intervention strategies

Intervention strategies have to be effective in bridging the gap between attitudes and behaviors. Monetary incentives, persuasive communication, and convenience are often successful in the short term, but when the intervention is removed, behavior is discontinued. In the long run, such intervention strategies are therefore expensive and difficult to maintain.[73]

SDT explains that environmental behavior that is not motivated intrinsically is not persistent. On the other hand, when self-determination is high, behavior is more likely to occur repeatedly. The importance of intrinsic motivation is particularly apparent with more difficult behaviors. While they are less likely to be performed in general, people with high internal motivation are more likely to perform them more frequently than people with low intrinsic motivation. 5 Subjects scoring high on intrinsic motivation and supporting ecological well-being also reported a high level of happiness.[77]

According to Osbaldiston and Sheldon (2003), autonomy perceived by an individual leads to an increased frequency of environmental behavior performance. In their study, 162 university students chose an environmental goal and performed it for a week. Perceived autonomy, success in performing chosen behavior, and their future intention to continue were measured. The results suggested that people with higher degree of self-perceived autonomy successfully perform behaviors and are more likely to do so in the long term.[78]

Based on the connection between SDT and environmental behaviors, Pelletier et al. suggest that successful intervention should emphasize self-determined motivation for performing environmental behaviors.[74]

See also

• Positive psychology

References

1. Ryan, R. M.; Deci, E. L. (2000). "Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being". American Psychologist. 55 (1): 68–78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68. PMID 11392867.
2. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Motivation, personality, and development within embedded social contexts: An overview of self-determination theory. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), Oxford handbook of human motivation (pp. 85-107). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
3. Ryan, R. M. & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. New York: Guilford Publishing.
4. e.g. Lepper, M. K., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. (1973). Undermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the "overjustification" hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129–137.
5. e.g. Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105–115.
6. Ryan, R (1995). "Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes". Journal of Personality. 63 (3): 397–427. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00501.x. PMID 7562360.
7. Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personalit'. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation (pp. 237–288). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
8. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. In M. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 3149). New York: Plenum.
9. Koole, Sander L.; Schlinkert, Caroline; Maldei, Tobias; Baumann, Nicola (2019). "Becoming who you are: An integrative review of self-determination theory and personality systems interactions theory". Journal of Personality. 87 (1): 15–36. doi:10.1111/jopy.12380. PMC 6378399. PMID 29524339.
10. Hergenhahn, B. R. (2009). An Introduction to the History of Psychology. Wadsworth: Cengage Learning. ISBN 978-0-495-50621-8.
11. SHELDON, K., WILLIAMS, G., & JOINER, T. (2003). Self-Determination Theory and Mental Health. In Self-Determination Theory in the Clinic: Motivating Physical and Mental Health (pp. 109-125). New Haven; London: Yale University Press. Retrieved July 10, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1nq4jp.10
12. "Theory – selfdeterminationtheory.org". Retrieved July 16, 2020.
13. Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (2000). The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268. Retrieved July 16, 2020, from www.jstor.org/stable/1449618
14. Prentice, M., Jayawickreme, E., & Fleeson, W. (2019). Integrating whole trait theory and self-determination theory. Journal of Personality, 87(1), 56–69. https://doi-org.byui.idm.oclc.org/10.1111/jopy.12417
15. Demirbaş-Çelik, Nur; Keklik, İbrahim (April 1, 2019). "Personality Factors and Meaning in Life: The Mediating Role of Competence, Relatedness and Autonomy". Journal of Happiness Studies. 20 (4): 995–1013. doi:10.1007/s10902-018-9984-0. ISSN 1573-7780. S2CID 149517053.
16. Vansteenkiste, Maarten; Ryan, Richard M.; Soenens, Bart (February 2020). "Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions". Motivation and Emotion. 44 (1): 1–31. doi:10.1007/s11031-019-09818-1.
17. Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.
18. deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation. New York: Academic Press.
19. Deci, E. L.; Vansteenkiste, M. (2004). "Self-determination theory and basic need satisfaction: Understanding human development in positive psychology". Ricerche di Psichologia. 27: 17–34.
20. Van Assche, Jasper; van der Kaap-Deeder, Jolene; Audenaert, Elien; De Schryver, Maarten; Vansteenkiste, Maarten (2018). "Are the benefits of autonomy satisfaction and the costs of autonomy frustration dependent on individuals' autonomy strength?". Journal of Personality. 86 (6): 1017–1036. doi:10.1111/jopy.12372. hdl:1854/LU-8551492. PMID 29377144.
21. Deci, E. L. (1971). "Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 18: 105–115. doi:10.1037/h0030644.
22. Amabile, T. M.; DeJong, W.; Lepper, M. (1976). "Effects of externally imposed deadlines on intrinsic motivation". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 34: 92–98. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.34.1.92.
23. Zuckerman, M.; Porac, J.; Lathin, D.; Smith, R.; Deci, E. L. (1978). "On the importance of self-determination for intrinsically motivated behaviour". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 4 (3): 443–446. doi:10.1177/014616727800400317. S2CID 145704191.
24. Lübbecke, Silvia; Schnedler, Wendelin (1920). "Don't patronize me! An experiment on preferences for authorship". Journal of Economics and Management Strategy. 29 (2): 420–438. doi:10.1111/jems.12347. S2CID 211269607.
25. White, R. W. (1963). Ego and reality in psychoanalytic theory. New York: International Universities Press.
26. Harter, S (1978). "Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model". Human Development. 1: 661–669.
27. White, R. W. (1959). "Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence". Psychological Review. 66 (5): 297–333. doi:10.1037/h0040934. PMID 13844397. S2CID 37385966.
28. Bauer, Jack J.; King, Laura A.; Steger, Michael F. (2018). "Meaning making, self-determination theory, and the question of wisdom in personality". Journal of Personality. 87 (1): 82–101. doi:10.1111/jopy.12381. PMID 29524331.
29. Vallerand, R. J.; Reid, G. (1984). "On the causal effects of perceived competence on intrinsic motivation: A test of cognitive evaluation theory". Journal of Sport Psychology. 6: 94–102. doi:10.1123/jsp.6.1.94.
30. Felnhofer, Anna; Goreis, Andreas; Bussek, Theresa; Kafka, Johanna X.; König, Dorothea; Klier, Claudia; Zesch, Heidi; Kothgassner, Oswald D. (2019). "Evaluating Parents' and Children's Assessments of Competence, Health Related Quality of Life and Illness Perception". Journal of Child and Family Studies. 28 (10): 2690–2699. doi:10.1007/s10826-019-01449-x. ISSN 1062-1024. S2CID 182335620.
31. Baumeister, R.; Leary, M. R. (1995). "The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation". Psychological Bulletin. 117 (3): 497–529. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.117.3.497. PMID 7777651. S2CID 13559932.
32. Frodi, A.; Bridges, L.; Grolnick, W. S. (1985). "Correlates of mastery-related behaviour: A short term longitudinal study of infant in their second year". Child Development. 56 (5): 1291–1298. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8624.1985.tb00197.x. PMID 4053744.
33. Inguglia, Cristiano; Liga, Francesca; Lo Coco, Alida; Musso, Pasquale; Ingoglia, Sonia (October 1, 2018). "Satisfaction and frustration of autonomy and relatedness needs: Associations with parenting dimensions and psychological functioning". Motivation and Emotion. 42 (5): 691–705. doi:10.1007/s11031-018-9702-6. ISSN 1573-6644. S2CID 149936642.
34. Schüler, Julia; Baumann, Nicola; Chasiotis, Athanasios; Bender, Michael; Baum, Ingrid (February 2019). "Implicit motives and basic psychological needs". Journal of Personality. 87 (1): 37–55. doi:10.1111/jopy.12431. PMID 30298518.
35. Vansteenkiste, Maarten; Sheldon, Kennon M. (2006). "There's nothing more practical than a good theory: Integrating motivational interviewing and self-determination theory". British Journal of Clinical Psychology. 45 (Pt 1): 63–82. doi:10.1348/014466505X34192. PMID 16480567.
36. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. New York: Plenum.
37. Reeve, J. (1996). Motivating others. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
38. Grolnick, W. S.; Ryan, R. M. (1989). "Parent styles associated with children's self-regulation and competence in schools". Journal of Educational Psychology. 81 (2): 143–154. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.81.2.143.
39. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. In M. Kemis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 31–49). New York: Plenum.
40. Ryan, R. M.; Deci, E. L. (2000). "Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being". American Psychologist. 55: 68–78. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.529.4370. doi:10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68. PMID 11392867.
41. Ryan, R. M.; Stiller, J.; Lynch, J. H. (1994). "Representations of relationships to teachers, parents, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem". Journal of Early Adolescence. 14 (2): 226–249. doi:10.1177/027243169401400207. S2CID 145188733.
42. Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 271–360). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
43. Kuhl, J., & Fuhrmann, A. (1998). Decomposing self-regulation and selfcontrol. In J. Heckhausen & C. Dweck (Eds.), Motivation and self-regulation across the life-span (pp. 15–49), New York: Cambridge University Press.
44. Deci, E. L.; Eghrari, H.; Patrick, B. C.; Leone, D. R. (1994). "Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective". Journal of Personality. 62 (1): 119–142. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00797.x. PMID 8169757.
45. Kasser, T.; Ryan, R. M. (1996). "Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 22 (3): 280–287. doi:10.1177/0146167296223006. S2CID 143559692.
46. Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2003). Motivation persistence, deep level learning and achievement: The synergistic role of intrinsic goal content and autonomy-supportive context. Department of Psychology, University of Leuven.
47. Pritchard, R.; Campbell, K.; Campbell, D. (1977). "Effects of extrinsic financial rewards on intrinsic motivation". Journal of Applied Psychology. 62: 9–15. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.62.1.9.
48. e.g. Amabile, T. M., DeJong, W., & Lepper, M. (1976). Effects of externally imposed deadlines on subsequent intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 92–98.
49. e.g. Lepper, M., & Greene, D. (1975). Turning play into work: Effects of adult surveillance and extrinsic rewards on children's intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 479–486.
50. Fernet, C.; Guay, F.; Senecal, C. (2004). "Adjusting to job demands: The role of work self-determination and job control in predicting burnout". Journal of Vocational Behavior. 65: 39–56. doi:10.1016/s0001-8791(03)00098-8.
51. e.g. Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Luyckx, K., Beyers, W., Goossens, L., & Ryan, R. (2007). Conceptualizing parental autonomy support: Adolescent perceptions of promoting independence versus promoting volitional functioning. Developmental Psychology, 43, 633–646.
52. Roth, G.; Assor, A.; Kanat-Maymon, Y.; Kaplan, H. (2007). "Autonomous motivation for teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning". Journal of Educational Psychology. 99 (4): 761–774. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.99.4.761. S2CID 15192209.
53. e.g. Kennedy, S., Gogin, K., & Nollen, N. (2004). Adherence to HIV medications: Utility of the theory of self-determination. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 28, 611–628.
54. Krettenauer, Tobias; Curren, Randall (July 2, 2020). "Self-determination theory, morality, and education: introduction to special issue". Journal of Moral Education. 49 (3): 275–281. doi:10.1080/03057240.2020.1794173. S2CID 221521447.
55. Peters, D.; Calvo, R.A.; Ryan, R.M. (2018). "Designing for Motivation, Engagement and Wellbeing in Digital Experience". Frontiers in Psychology. 9: 797. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00797. PMC 5985470. PMID 29892246.
56. e.g. Fortier, M. S., Sweet, S. N., O'Sullivan, T. L., & Williams, G. C. (2007). A self-determination process model of physical activity adoption in the context of a randomized controlled trial. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 8, 741–757.
57. Murcia, J.; Roman, M.; Galindo, C.; Alonso, N.; Gonzalez-Cutre, D. (2008). "Peers' influence on exercise enjoyment: A self-determination theory approach". Journal of Sports Science and Medicine. 7 (1): 23–31. PMC 3763348. PMID 24150130.
58. Behzadnia, B.; Adachi, P.J.C.; Deci, E.L.; Mohammadzadeh, H. (November 1, 2018). "Associations between students' perceptions of physical education teachers' interpersonal styles and students' wellness, knowledge, performance, and intentions to persist at physical activity: A self-determination theory approach". Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 39: 10–19. doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.07.003. ISSN 1469-0292. S2CID 52256146.
59. De Man, Jeroen; Wouters, Edwin; Absetz, Pilvikki; Daivadanam, Meena; Naggayi, Gloria; Kasujja, Francis Xavier; Remmen, Roy; Guwatudde, David; Van Olmen, Josefien (2020). "What Motivates People With (Pre)Diabetes to Move? Testing Self-Determination Theory in Rural Uganda". Frontiers in Psychology. 11. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.00404.
60. Brown, K. W.; Ryan, R. M. (2003). "The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being". Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 84 (4): 822–848. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.331.8033. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822. PMID 12703651.
61. Ryan, R.; Deci, E. (2008). "From ego-depletion to vitality: Theory and findings concerning the facilitation of energy available to the self". Social and Personality Psychology Compass. 2 (2): 702–717. doi:10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00098.x. S2CID 1131596.
62. Moller, A.; Deci, E.; Ryan, R. (2006). "Choice and ego-depletion: The moderating role of autonomy". Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. 32 (8): 1024–1036. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.466.5776. doi:10.1177/0146167206288008. PMID 16861307. S2CID 17294021.
63. Ryan, Richard M.; Bernstein, Jessey H.; Brown, Kirk Warren (2010). "Weekends, Work, and Well-Being: Psychological Need Satisfactions and Day of the Week Effects on Mood, Vitality, and Physical Symptoms". Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 29: 95–122. doi:10.1521/jscp.2010.29.1.95.
64. Jang, H (2008). "Supporting students' motivation, engagement, and learning during an uninteresting activity". Journal of Educational Psychology. 100 (4): 798–811. doi:10.1037/a0012841. S2CID 54909059.
65. Greenberg, D.(1995). Introduction, Free at Last: The Sudbury Valley School. Sudbury Valley School Press.
66. Deci, E. L.; Ryan, R. M. (1987). "The support of autonomy and the control of behavior". Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 53 (6): 1024–1037. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.53.6.1024. PMID 3320334. S2CID 15118317.
67. Knee, C. R.; Neighbors, C. (2002). "Self-determination, perception of peer pressure, and drinking among college students". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 32 (3): 522–543. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb00228.x. S2CID 43549116.
68. Chawla, N.; Neighbors, C.; Logan, D.; Lewis, M.A.; Fossos, N. (2009). "Perceived approval of friends and parents as mediators of the relationship between self-determination and drinking". Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 70 (1): 92–100. doi:10.15288/jsad.2009.70.92. PMC 2629627. PMID 19118397.
69. De Man, Jeroen; Wouters, Edwin; Delobelle, Peter; Puoane, Thandi; Daivadanam, Meena; Absetz, Pilvikki; Remmen, Roy; van Olmen, Josefien (2020). "Testing a Self-Determination Theory Model of Healthy Eating in a South African Township". Frontiers in Psychology. 11. doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2020.02181. Text was copied from this source, which is available under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
70. Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press.
71. Markland, D.; Ryan, R. M.; Tobin, V.; Rollnick, S. (2005). "Motivational interviewing and self-determination theory". Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology. 24 (6): 811–831. doi:10.1521/jscp.2005.24.6.811. S2CID 47904538.
72. Foote, J.; DeLuca, A.; Magura, S.; Grand, A.; Rosenblum, A.; Stahl, S. (1999). "A group motivational treatment for chemical dependence". Journal of Substance Abuse. 17 (3): 181–192. doi:10.1016/s0740-5472(99)00003-3. PMID 10531624.
73. Green-Demers, Isabelle; Pelletier, L. G.; Menard, S. (1997). "The impact of behavioural difficulty on the salience of the association between self-determined motivation and environmental behaviours". Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science. 29 (3): 157–166. doi:10.1037/0008-400x.29.3.157. S2CID 64674136.
74. Pelletier, Luc G.; Tuson, K. M.; Green-Demers, I.; Noels, K.; Beaton, A. M. (1998). "Why are you doing things for the environment? The motivation toward the environment scale (MTES)". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 28 (5): 437–468. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01714.x. S2CID 45566275.
75. Villacorta, Mark; Koestner, R.; Lekes, N. (2003). "Further validation of the motivation toward the environment scale". Environment and Behavior. 35 (4): 486–505. doi:10.1177/0013916503035004003. S2CID 143375253.
76. Pelletier, Luc G.; Dion, S.; Tuson, K.; Green-Demers, I. (1999). "Why do people fail to adopt environmental protective behaviors? Toward a taxonomy of environmental amotivation". Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 29 (12): 2481–2504. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1999.tb00122.x.
77. Brown, Kirk W.; Kasser, T. (2005). "Are psychological and ecological well-being compatible? The role of values, mindfulness, and lifestyle". Social Indicators Research. 74 (2): 349–368. CiteSeerX 10.1.1.321.1585. doi:10.1007/s11205-004-8207-8. S2CID 4535908.
78. Obaldiston, Richard; Sheldon, K. M. (2003). "Promoting internalized motivation for environmentally responsible behaviors: A prospective study of environmental goals". Journal of Environmental Psychology. 23 (4): 349–357. doi:10.1016/s0272-4944(03)00035-5.

External links

• Rochester Psychology: SDT