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 an individual's behavior is self-
motivated and self-determined.[1][2][3]

In the 1970s, research on SDT evolved from studies comparing the intrinsic and extrinsic motives, and from growing
understanding of the dominant role intrinsic motivation played in an individual's behavior[4] but it was not until the
mid-1980s that SDT was formally introduced and accepted as a sound empirical theory. Research applying SDT to
different areas in social psychology has 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 for its own sake because it is interesting and satisfying in itself, as opposed to doing an activity to
obtain an external goal (extrinsic motivation). Different types of motivations have been described based on the degree
they have been internalized. Internalization refers to the active attempt to transform an extrinsic motive into
personally endorsed values and thus assimilate behavioural regulations that were originally external.[6]

Edward L. 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,
the three psychological needs motivate the self to initiate behavior and specify nutriments that are essential for
psychological health and well-being of an individual. These needs are said to be universal, innate and psychological
and include the need for competence, autonomy, and relatedness.[1]

Contents
Basic theory
Needs
Motivations
Intrinsic motivation
Extrinsic motivation

Basic needs and intrinsic motivation

Autonomy
Competence
Relatedness
Individual differences
Causality orientations
Life goals
Key studies
Deci (1971): External rewards on intrinsic motivation
Experiment I
Experiment II
Experiment III
Pritchard, Campbell and Campbell (1977): Evaluation of Deci's Hypothesis
Session I
Session II

New developments
Exercise
 Awareness
Vitality and self-regulation
Education
Alcohol use
Motivational interviewing
Environmental behaviors
Motivation toward the Environment Scale
Environmental Amotivation
Intervention strategies
References
External links

Basic theory
SDT is centered on the belief that human nature shows persistent positive features, that it repeatedly shows effort,
agency and commitment in their lives that the theory calls "inherent growth tendencies". People also have innate
psychological needs that are the basis for self-motivation and personality integration.

SDT identifies three innate needs that, if satisfied, allow optimal function
and growth:

1. Competence[9][10]
2. Relatedness[11]
3. Autonomy[12][13]
These needs are seen as universal necessities that are innate, not learned
(instinctive), and seen in humanity across time, gender and culture.[14]

Deci and Ryan claim that there are three essential elements of the theory:[15]

1. Humans are inherently proactive with their potential and mastering 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 don't happen automatically
To actualise their inherent potential they need nurturing from the social environment.

If this happens there are positive consequences (e.g. well being and growth) but if not, there are negative
consequences. So SDT emphasises humans' natural growth toward positive motivation; however, this is thwarted if
their basic needs are not fulfilled.

Needs
SDT supports three basic psychological needs that must be satisfied to foster well-being and health. These needs can
be universally applied. However, some may be more salient than others at certain times and are expressed differently
based on time, culture, or experience.

Competence
Seek to control the outcome and experience mastery[16]
Relatedness
Will to interact, be connected to, and experience caring for others[11]
Autonomy
Desire to be causal agents of one's own life and act in harmony with one's integrated self;
however, Deci and Vansteenkiste[15] note this does not mean to be independent of others
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.

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)[17] 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[13] found positive feedback enhanced intrinsic motivations and negative feedback
diminished it. Vallerand and Reid[18] 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.[19]

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[20] 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[17] 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 causality.[12]
2. Introjected regulation of behaviour: describes taking on regulations to behaviour but not fully accepting said
regulations as your own. Deci and Ryan[21] claim such behaviour normally represents regulation by contingent
self-esteem, citing ego involvement as a classic form of introjections.[22] 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: Is 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[23] 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.[24]

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.[25] This was supported by
Deci, Eghrari, Patrick and Leone[26] 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.

Basic needs and intrinsic motivation

White[16] and deCharms[12] 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.

Autonomy
Deci[27] found that offering people extrinsic rewards for behaviour that is intrinsically motivated undermined the
intrinsic motivation as they grow less interested in it. Initially intrinsically motivated behaviour becomes controlled by
external rewards, which undermines their autonomy.

Further research by Amabile, DeJong and Lepper[28] found other external factors like deadlines, which restrict and
control, also decrease intrinsic motivation.

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.[29]

Competence
Deci[27] 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. In fact, giving
positive feedback on a task served only to increase people's intrinsic motivation and decreased extrinsic motivation for
the task.

Vallerand and Reid[18] found negative feedback has the opposite effect (i.e., decreasing intrinsic motivation by taking
away from people's need for competence).

Relatedness
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[30] 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."

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 to either the way people orient to an environment and
regulate their behaviour because of this or 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 some amount of each of the orientations, which can be used to make predictions
on a persons 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:[31]

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.[32]

Key studies

Deci (1971): External rewards on intrinsic motivation

Deci[27] 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, Campbell and Campbell (1977): Evaluation of Deci's Hypothesis

Pritchard, Campbell and Campbell[33] 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 was 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.[34][35]

New developments
Principles of SDT have been applied in many domains of life, e.g., job demands;[36] parenting;[37] teaching;[38] and
health.[39] Besides the domains mentioned above, self-determination theory research has been widely applied to the
field of sports.[40]

Exercise
Murcia, Roman, Galindo, Alonso and Gonzalez-Cutre[41] 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, Adachi, Deci, and Mohammadzadeh[42] 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."[42]

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[43] 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[44] 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.[45]

Ryan, Bernstein, and Brown[46] used SDT to explain the effect of weekends on the well-being of adult working
population. The study[46] 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
A recent study by Hyungshim Jang[47] in which 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 self-determination theory

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 self-determination theory 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.[47]

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.[47]

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.[48]

Alcohol use
According to self-determination theory,[49] 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 self-determination theory 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,[50] 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.[51]

Motivational interviewing
Motivational interviewing (MI) is a popular approach to positive behavioral change. Used initially in the area of
addiction (Miller & Rollnick, 2002),[52] 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[53] 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.[54]

Environmental behaviors
Several studies explored the link between self-determination theory 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.[55]

Motivation toward the Environment Scale

Environmental attitudes and knowledge are not good predictors of behavior. Self-determination theory 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.[56] 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.[57]

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.[58]
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.[55]

Self-determination theory 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.[59]

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.[60]

Based on the connection between self-determination theory and environmental behaviors, Pelletier et al. suggest that
successful intervention should emphasize self-determined motivation for performing environmental behaviors.[56]

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, 68-78. https://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68
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 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-6494.1995.tb00501.x).
PMID 7562360 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/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. Harter, S (1978). "Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model". Human Development. 1:
661–669.
10. White, R. W. (1963). Ego and reality in psychoanalytic theory. New York: International Universities Press.
11. 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 (https://doi.org/1
0.1037%2F0033-2909.117.3.497). PMID 7777651 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7777651).
12. deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation. New York: Academic Press.
13. Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.
14. Chirkov, V.; Ryan, R. M.; Kim, Y.; Kaplan, U. (2003). "Differentiating autonomy from individualism and
independence: A self-determination perspective on internalisation of cultural orientations, gender and well being".
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 84 (1): 97–110. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.97 (https://doi.org/10.1
037%2F0022-3514.84.1.97). PMID 12518973 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12518973).
15. 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.
16. White, R. W. (1959). "Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence". Psychological Review. 66 (5): 297–
333. doi:10.1037/h0040934 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0040934).
17. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behaviour. New York:
Plenum.
18. 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.
19. Reeve, J. (1996). Motivating others. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
20. 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 (https://doi.org/1
0.1037%2F0022-0663.81.2.143).
21. 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.
22. 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 (https://citeseerx.is
t.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.529.4370). doi:10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0
003-066x.55.1.68).
23. 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 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F027243169401400207).
24. 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.
25. 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.
26. Deci, E. L.; Eghrari, H.; Patrick, B. C.; Leone, D. R. (1994). "Facilitating internalization: The self-determination
theory perspective". Journal of Personality. 62: 119–142. doi:10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00797.x (https://doi.org/
10.1111%2Fj.1467-6494.1994.tb00797.x).
27. 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 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fh0030644).
28. 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 (https://doi.org/10.103
7%2F0022-3514.34.1.92).
29. 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 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F014616727800400317).
30. 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 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1467-8624.1985.tb00197.x).
31. 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 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1177%2F0146167296223006).
32. 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. (http://ci
teseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.90.1443&rep=rep1&type=pdf) Department of Psychology,
University of Leuven.
33. 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 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0021-9010.6
2.1.9).
34. 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.
35. 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.
36. 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 (htt
ps://doi.org/10.1016%2Fs0001-8791%2803%2900098-8).
37. 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.
38. 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 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-0663.99.4.761).
39. 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.
40. 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.
41. 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: 23–31.
42. Behzadnia, B.; Adachi, P.J.C.; Deci, E.L.; Mohammadzadeh, H. (2018-11-01). "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" (https://www.sciencedirect.co
m/science/article/pii/S1469029217303205). Psychology of Sport and Exercise. 39: 10–19.
doi:10.1016/j.psychsport.2018.07.003 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fj.psychsport.2018.07.003). ISSN 1469-0292 (ht
tps://www.worldcat.org/issn/1469-0292).
43. 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 (https://citesee
rx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.331.8033). doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.822 (https://doi.org/10.103
7%2F0022-3514.84.4.822). PMID 12703651 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12703651).
44. 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 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1751-9004.2008.00098.x).
45. 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 (https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/view
doc/summary?doi=10.1.1.466.5776). doi:10.1177/0146167206288008 (https://doi.org/10.1177%2F014616720628
8008). PMID 16861307 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16861307).
46. Richard M. Ryan, Jessey H. Bernstein, and Kirk Warren Brown (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: Vol. 29, No. 1, pp. 95-122. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.2010.29.1.95
47. 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 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2Fa00128
41).
48. Greenberg, D.(1995). Introduction, Free at Last: The Sudbury Valley School. Sudbury Valley School Press.
49. 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 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0022-3514.
53.6.1024).
50. 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 (http
s://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1559-1816.2002.tb00228.x).
51. 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" (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl
es/PMC2629627). Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs. 70 (1): 92–100. doi:10.15288/jsad.2009.70.92 (http
s://doi.org/10.15288%2Fjsad.2009.70.92). PMC 2629627 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC262962
7). PMID 19118397 (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19118397).
52. Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change (2nd ed.). New York:
Guilford Press.
53. 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 (https://doi.org/10.152
1%2Fjscp.2005.24.6.811).
54. 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 (http
s://doi.org/10.1016%2Fs0740-5472%2899%2900003-3).
55. 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 (https://doi.org/10.1037%2F0008-400x.2
9.3.157).
56. 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 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1559-1816.1998.tb01714.
x).
57. 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 (https://doi.org/10.117
7%2F0013916503035004003).
58. 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 (https://doi.org/10.1111%2Fj.1559-1816.1999.tb001
22.x).
59. 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 (https://cites
eerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.321.1585). doi:10.1007/s11205-004-8207-8 (https://doi.org/10.100
7%2Fs11205-004-8207-8).
60. 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 (https://doi.org/10.1016%2Fs0272-4944%2803%2900035-5).

External links
Rochester Psychology: SDT (http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Self-determination_theory&oldid=873220362"

This page was last edited on 11 December 2018, at 21:04 (UTC).

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using
this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia
Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.