Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Self-Determination Theory and The Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being
Self-Determination Theory and The Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being
net/publication/11946306
CITATIONS READS
24,728 85,741
2 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
All content following this page was uploaded by Edward L Deci on 27 May 2014.
Human beings can be proactive and engaged or, alterna- that is worthy of our most intense scientific investigation.
tively, passive and alienated, largely as a function of the Specifically, social contexts catalyze both within- and be-
social conditions in which they develop and function. Ac- tween-person differences in motivation and personal
cordingly, research guided by self-determination theo~ growth, resulting in people being more self-motivated,
has focused on the social-contextual conditions that facil- energized, and integrated in some situations, domains, and
itate versus forestall the natural processes of self-motiva- cultures than in others. Research on the conditions that
tion and healthy psychological development. Specifically, foster versus undermine positive human potentials has both
factors have been examined that enhance versus undermine theoretical import and practical significance because it can
intrinsic motivation, self-regulation, and well-being. The contribute not only to formal knowledge of the causes of
findings have led to the postulate of three innate psycho- human behavior but also to the design of social environ-
logical needs--competence, autonomy, and relatedness-- ments that optimize people's development, performance,
which when satisfied yield enhanced self-motivation and and well-being. Research guided by self-determination the-
mental health and when thwarted lead to diminished mo- ory (SDT) has had an ongoing concern with precisely these
tivation and well-being. Also considered is the significance issues (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1991; Ryan, 1995).
of these psychological needs and processes within domains
such as health care, education, work, sport, religion, and Self-Determination Theory
psychotherapy.
SDT is an approach to human motivation and personality
that uses traditional empirical methods while employing an
organismic metatheory that highlights the importance of
Motivation E~ic M o t ~
StylesRegulat°ry ~ R e g u l ~
Within SDT, Deci and Ryan (1985) introduced a reward contingency. Individuals typically experience ex-
second subtheory, called organismic integration theory ternally regulated behavior as controlled or alienated, and
(OIT), to detail the different forms of extrinsic motivation their actions have an external perceived locus of causality
and the contextual factors that either promote or hinder (deCharms, 1968). External regulation is the type of moti-
internalization and integration of the regulation for these vation focused on by operant theorists (e.g., Skinner,
behaviors. Figure 1 illustrates the OIT taxonomy of moti- 1953), and it is external regulation that was typically con-
vational types, arranged from left to fight in terms of the trasted with intrinsic motivation in early laboratory and
degree to which the motivations emanate from the self (i.e., field studies.
are self-determined). A second type of extrinsic motivation is labeled in-
At the far left of the self-determination continuum is trojected regulation. Introjection involves taking in a reg-
amotivation, the state of lacking the intention to act. When ulation but not fully accepting it as one's own. It is a
amotivated, people either do not act at all or act without relatively controlled form of regulation in which behaviors
intent--they just go through the motions. Amotivation re- are performed to avoid guilt or anxiety or to attain ego
sults from not valuing an activity (Ryan, 1995), not feeling enhancements such as pride. Put differently, introjection
competent to do it (Bandura, 1986), or not expecting it to represents regulation by contingent self-esteem (Deci &
yield a desired outcome (Seligman, 1975). To the right of Ryan, 1995). A classic form of introjection is ego involve-
amotivation in Figure 1 are five classifications of motivated ment (deCharms, 1968; Nicholls, 1984; Ryan, 1982), in
behavior. Although many theorists have treated motivation which people are motivated to demonstrate ability (or avoid
as a unitary concept, each of the categories identified failure) in order to maintain feelings of worth. Although
within OIT describes theoretically, experientially, and internally driven, introjected behaviors still have an exter-
functionally distinct types of motivation. At the far right of nal perceived locus of causality and are not really experi-
the continuum is the classic state of intrinsic motivation, enced as part of the self. Thus, in some studies, external
the doing of an activity for its inherent satisfactions. It is regulation (being interpersonally controlled) and in-
highly autonomous and represents the prototypic instance trojected regulation (being intrapersonally controlled) have
of self-determination. Extrinsically motivated behaviors, been combined to form a controlled motivation composite
by contrast, cover the continuum between amotivation and (e.g., Williams, Grow, Freedman, Ryan, & Deci, 1996).
intrinsic motivation, varying in the extent to which their A more autonomous, or self-determined, form of ex-
regulation is autonomous. trinsic motivation is regulation through identification.
The extrinsically motivated behaviors that are least Identification reflects a conscious valuing of a behavioral
autonomous are referred to as externally regulated. Such goal or regulation, such that the action is accepted or
behaviors are performed to satisfy an external demand or owned as personally important. Finally, the most autono-