research study 1.1 deci and ryan

• Corpus ID: 150354527

Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective.

• Richard M. Ryan , E. Deci
• Published 2002
• Psychology, Philosophy

Figures from this paper

3,410 Citations

The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: an historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions, self‐determination theory and the relation of autonomy to self‐regulatory processes and personality development, interpersonal needs and values authenticity, belonging, independence and narcissism, meaning making, self-determination theory, and the question of wisdom in personality..

• Highly Influenced

Directionality: Unifying Psychological and Social Understandings of Well‐Being and Distress Through an Existential Ontology

How differing conceptions of integrity and self-integration influence relationships: implications for management, personal and professional development, lifespan human development and “the humanistic perspective”: a contribution toward inclusion., how differing conceptions of integrity and self-integration influence how relations are seen and managed and implications for personal and professional development, subjective experience of alienation: measurement and correlates, supporting students through role redefinition: a self-determination theory perspective, 75 references, facilitating internalization: the self-determination theory perspective., the general causality orientations scale: self-determination in personality, relations of autonomy, self-referenced beliefs, and self-regulated learning among japanese children, the contours of positive human health, emotional autonomy versus detachment: revisiting the vicissitudes of adolescence and young adulthood., on the causal effects of perceived competence on intrinsic motivation: a test of cognitive evaluation theory., two types of religious internalization and their relations to religious orientations and mental health., the relations of maternal and social environments to late adolescents' materialistic and prosocial values., what makes for a good day competence and autonomy in the day and in the person, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement, and inequity, related papers.

Showing 1 through 3 of 0 Related Papers

Snapsolve any problem by taking a picture. Try it in the Numerade app?

RESEARCH STUDY 1.1 Deci and Ryan (1985, 2001) Have Proposed That There Are

Question 14

RESEARCH STUDY 1.1 Deci and Ryan (1985, 2001) have proposed that there are three fundamental needs that are required for human growth and fulfillment: relatedness, autonomy, and competence. Susan predicts that students who have these needs met in their psychology class feel happier and more satisfied with the class. She collects data and finds that students who feel more related and competent do feel happier but that feeling more autonomous does not seem to matter. Susan thinks that maybe autonomy is only necessary when people are in situations in which they are not being evaluated. -Refer to Research Study 1.1 above to answer the following question. Susan's prediction that students who experience all of the three needs will experience greater satisfaction with their psychology class is an example of which of the following?

A) A law B) A theory C) A hypothesis D) Data E) Research

Correct Answer:

Unlock this answer now Get Access to more Verified Answers free of charge

Q9: Which of the following is NOT a

Q10: Which of the following is NOT an

Q11: Both James and Thomas have theories that

Q12: Benjamin is a social psychologist who studies

Q13: RESEARCH STUDY 1.1 Deci and Ryan (1985, 2001)

Q15: For which of the following people is

Q16: Benjamin is a social psychologist who studies

Q17: According to the text,which of the scientific

Q18: RESEARCH STUDY 1.1 Deci and Ryan (1985, 2001)

Q19: RESEARCH STUDY 1.1 Deci and Ryan (1985, 2001)

Unlock this Answer For Free Now!

View this answer and more for free by performing one of the following actions

Scan the QR code to install the App and get 2 free unlocks

Unlock quizzes for free by uploading documents

• Personality Psychology
• Self-Determination Theory

Motivation, Personality, and Development Within Embedded Social Contexts: An Overview of Self-Determination Theory

• September 2012

• University of Rochester

• Australian Catholic University

Discover the world's research

• 25+ million members
• 160+ million publication pages
• 2.3+ billion citations

No full-text available

To read the full-text of this research, you can request a copy directly from the authors.

• Yulius Yusak Ranimpi
• Mariska Lauterboom

• Learn Environ Res

• Yaniv Biton

• Lorelie Ebilane Rafanan
• Dr. Segundo C. Redondo Jr
• Deans E. Mertola

• AN PSICOL-SPAIN

• Joran De Braekeleer

• CURR PSYCHOL
• Adrian Furnham

• David S. Semmelink
• Muhammad Yasir Arafat Pohan
• J CREATIVE BEHAV

• widodo Febri Utomo

• Monica Parry

• Univers Access Inform Soc

• Ana Paula Oliveira Bertholdo

• Eunice Pereira dos Santos Nunes

• Yingchen Wang

• Jonah Kracke-Bock
• Saba Rentia

• Xiantao Huang
• Mohamed El Mistiri

• Karine Tung

• Maria de Lourdes Gurian Ernesto

• Ganesh Kumar J.
• Arnisha Aman

• Fred O. Walumbwa
• J VOCAT BEHAV

• LEARN MOTIV

• INTERNET RES

• Yu-Ting Chang-Chien
• Kingzoo Tang
• ASIA-PAC EDUC RES
• Xiao-Yu Liu
• Qiannan Zhang

• Jee Young Seong
• Antonio Fernández Ferrer

• Carmen Fernandez-Ortega
• Antonio Fernández
• INT J ENVIRON HEAL R

• Guoxiong Liu

• Int J Hospit Manag
• Xiaorong Fu
• INT J PSYCHOPHYSIOL

• Siobhán Howard

• Gabriella Keczer
• Renáta Bozsó
• Geice Zago Haus

• Luciano Fiorentin

• Theor Res Educ
• Randall Curren

• Colin Macleod
• Hermina G.B. Anghelescu
• Robert Sutherland

• Kelly Bargmann

• Gaëtan F. Losier

• Donald Carducci
• Richard Koestner
• Pers Soc Psychol Bull

• Nathaniel A. Vietor

• Carl Benware
• Chantal Seguin-Levesque

• Allan J. Schwartz
• Louise Sheinman

• Manette Kauffman

• George Manderlink

• Holley S. Hodgins
• Elizabeth Liebeskind
• Warren Schwartz

• Zachary R. Freedman

• Arnold J. Sameroff

• Carolyn O. Kurowski
• Nicholas H. Apostoleris

• D. S. Moskowitz

• J.G. La Guardia

• CONTEMP EDUC PSYCHOL
• H. S Hodgins
• J APPL SOC PSYCHOL

• John W. McHoskey

• ACTA SOCIOL

• Netta Weinstein

• Neil Duncan

• LEARN INDIVID DIFFER
• Robert W. Plant
• James P. Connell
• Boyanka P. Kornazheva
• Chantal Séguin

• Allen D. Kanner
• J SOC CLIN PSYCHOL

• Recruit researchers
• Join for free
• Login Email Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google Welcome back! Please log in. Email · Hint Tip: Most researchers use their institutional email address as their ResearchGate login Password Forgot password? Keep me logged in Log in or Continue with Google No account? Sign up

Self-Determination Theory

In subject area: Social Sciences

Self-determination theory refers to a psychological framework that emphasizes the importance of autonomy, competence, and relatedness as fundamental psychological needs in determining intrinsic motivation and individual well-being.

AI generated definition based on: Developmental Review , 2022

Chapters and Articles

You might find these chapters and articles relevant to this topic.

Self-determination theory based instructional interventions and motivational regulations in organized physical activity: A systematic review and multivariate meta-analysis

Mika Manninen , ... Sami Yli-Piipari , in Psychology of Sport and Exercise , 2022

1 Self-determination theory

In psychology, the construct of motivation can be viewed from several perspectives (see Pintrich, 2003 for a review). This study utilized the widely used self-determination theory (SDT) framework ( Deci & Ryan, 1985 , 2000 ; Ryan & Deci, 2017 ) to determine the effect of theory based interventions on participants' motivation in organized physical activity. SDT is one of the most prevalent contemporary social-cognitive motivational theories in the area of physical activity, sport, and exercise. SDT theorizes how social contexts may support or thwart human functioning based on the social environments’ ability to satisfy participants basic psychological needs. Specifically, SDT suggests that humans have three basic psychological needs, namely autonomy (i.e., engaging in a behavior with a full sense of volition), competence (i.e., the experience of mastery and efficacy), and relatedness (i.e., the need to feel connected to other people in a meaningful way) ( Deci & Ryan, 1985 , 2000 ). According to the theory, these basic needs are considered essential nutrients for individuals’ adjustment, integrity, and growth ( Ryan, 1995 ; Vansteenkiste, Ryan, & Soenens, 2020 ). Further, the theory postulates that need-supportive social environments improve human’s internal motivational sources and well-being. In juxtaposition, need-depriving (disregard for the needs) and need-thwarting (active undermining of the needs) social environments impact human’s external motivational sources with maladaptive consequences such as passivity and ill-being ( Deci & Ryan, 1985 ; Vansteenkiste et al., 2020 ). Thus, the social environments described above occupy opposite ends of a continuum that set the stage for human motivation.

SDT suggests the extent of need-support, -deprivation, and -thwarting impact the quality of motivation (i.e., the relative quantity of different behavioral regulations) ( Deci & Ryan, 2000 ; Ryan & Deci, 2017 ). SDT distinguishes the quality of motivation to six types that can be placed on a continuum ranging from low to high self-determination ( Ryan & Deci, 2017 ). This theoretical postulation is, apart from a few exceptions, supported by correlational meta-analytic findings on the continuum structure ( Howard, Gagné, Morin, & Forest, 2017 ). The continuum has two polar ends representing intrinsic motivation on one end and amotivation on the other. The intermediate signposts on the continuum represent the other four types of motivation, all of which will be explained hereafter.

According to SDT, the most self-determined type of motivation is intrinsic and is characterized by participating in behaviors due to motivations relating to the inherent satisfaction and interest in the behavior ( Deci & Ryan, 2000 ; Ryan & Deci, 2017 ). The next four motivation types on the continuum are forms of extrinsic motivation. The most self-determined type of extrinsic motivation is integrated regulation, which represents reasons for behaviors which are an essential part of a person’s identity. Identified regulation, the third most self-determined type of motivation reflects personally important and valued causes of participating in activities (e.g., health). Following these autonomous types of motivation in the continuum are introjected and external regulations, which are considered to be controlling in nature. Introjected regulation characterizes behavior that is motivated by the desire to seek acceptance from others while external regulation illustrates being motivated by behavior that is performed to comply with externally administered reward/punishment contingencies. Amotivation is placed last and on the opposite side of the continuum from intrinsic motivation as it describes a state that is characterized by a total lack of motivation and intention.

Central to the SDT is the concept of internalization. Internalization signifies the process in which less self-determined behavioral regulations become more self-determined. According to the theory, this development can be supported by the satisfaction of the basic psychological needs ( Ryan & Connell, 1989 ). In general, the theory posits that the tendency for internalization is natural for humans and based on the process of assimilating external values into personal values ( Ryan, 1993 ). However, based on the social environment and satisfaction of the basic needs, internalization can lead to different degrees of self-determination (i.e., different quality of motivation) ( Deci & Ryan, 2000 ; Ryan, 1993 ) and further to different behavioral, cognitive, and affective consequences ( Vallerand, 1997 ; 2000 ).

1.1 SDT-based interventions in organized physical activity

In organized social environments (e.g., physical education; PE), a social agent (e.g., coach, teacher, or instructor) is able to intentionally influence the social environment. And as a result, the instructor may support (or influence) participants need satisfaction as well as the internalization process through various instructional and communicational techniques. The link between these instructional behaviors and participant motivation has been explored most extensively in education (e.g., Deci, Spiegel, Ryan, Koestner, & Kauffman, 1982 ; Skinner & Belmont, 1993 ).

To date, SDT-based instructional interventions have been conducted from multiple perspectives. A prominent line of this research has explicitly focused on autonomy-supportive teaching and instruction highlighting, for example, the importance of teachers providing choice and meaningful rationales for students (e.g., Reeve & Jang, 2006 ). While most of the SDT-based interventions have reported to use autonomy-supportive techniques, in reality, these interventions have possibly incorporated strategies that might influence also relatedness and competence (e.g., Cheon, Reeve, & Moon, 2012 ). For example, a commonly used instructional strategy in autonomy-supportive interventions is acknowledging and accepting students’ negative affect, which probably affects also students’ relatedness satisfaction. Further, some of these studies mention nurturing inner motivational resources as an autonomy-supportive instructional strategy, which in itself is sometimes explained to include a wide range of specific instructional strategies such as offering students optimal challenges or asking students curiosity-inducing questions ( Cheon & Reeve, 2015 ).

Contrasting the broader autonomy-supportive interventions, some SDT-based interventions have focused on influencing participants’ satisfaction for only one need, such as relatedness by such techniques as friendly communication and support (Sparks, Lonsdale, Dimmock, & Jackson, 2017) . In the most precise and focused interventions, only one specific instructional element, such as provision of positive feedback (“Well done, great shot!”), is manipulated (e.g., Fransen, Boen, Vansteenkiste, Mertens, & Vande Broek, 2017 ). Finally, a group of studies have examined the social agents’ support explicitly for all three needs focusing on the broad spectrum of techniques such as offering constructive and informational feedback (competence-support or structure) and expressing interest in the students (relatedness-support or involvement) along with autonomy-support (see Stroet, Opdenakker, & Minnaer, 2013 for review). Adding to the variability of the SDT-based interventions, the comparison/control conditions also vary between SDT-based intervention studies. Broadly speaking, the study participants in the comparison conditions follow either as usual/traditional instructional practices (e.g., Ulstad, Halvari, Sørebø, & Deci, 2018 ) or instruction that systematically reduces need support (e.g, Leptokaridou, Vlachopoulos, & Papaioannou, 2016 ).

Recognizing the differences in operationalizing SDT-based interventions, recent efforts have been taken to organize all known need-supportive techniques into comprehensive and systematic taxonomies based on their most apparent target needs ( Gillison, Rouse, Standage, Sebire, & Ryan, 2018 ; Teixeira et al., 2019 ). However, there are some limitations with these classifications as they are not strictly based on experimental quantitative evidence about the techniques’ effect on participants’ need satisfaction but rather on qualitative assessments of researchers in the field.

Besides differences in utilizing different need-supportive strategies and comparison conditions, SDT-based interventions differ in terms of the type of intervention delivery. In one approach, teachers, instructors, or coaches are trained by a research team on SDT, its application, and possible ways to provide need-support without manipulating the instructional dynamics directly (e.g., Cheon et al., 2012 ; Langan, Toner, Blake, & Lonsdale, 2015 ; Ntoumanis, Thøgersen-Ntoumani, Quested, & Hancox, 2017 ). Typically, this type of training consists of three workshop sessions with variable durations measured in hours (e.g., Cheon, Reeve, & Song, 2016 ; Cheon & Reeve, 2015 ). In another intervention approach, the intervention interaction between the social agent and the participants is more controlled and predetermined (even scripted), and the focus is not on the professional development of the social agents (e.g., Fransen, Boen, Vansteenkiste, Mertens, & Vande Broek, 2018 ).

Overall, the relationship between adolescents’ perceptions of need-supportive teaching and motivation has been shown to be positive by narratively synthesizing the evidence of 71 education studies ( Stroet, Opdenakker, & Minnaert, 2013 ). In PE, interventions aiming to improve teachers’ autonomy-support have also shown to positively influence students’ autonomous motivation ( Cheon et al., 2012 ; Fin, Moreno-Murcia, León, Baretta, & Júnior, 2019 ). In exercise settings, the data indicates trainer/coach interventions are effective in improving exercise instructors’ need-supportive instructional behaviors. However, in terms of adult participants’ motivation, ceiling and floor effects have been reported to be a factor (Ntoumanis, Thøgersen-Ntoumani, Quested, & Hancox, 2017). Lastly, youth (adolescent) coaches’ positive feedback during a single practice has been shown to increase basketball players’ intrinsic motivation ( Fransen et al., 2018 ).

1.2 Associations of motivational regulations in organized physical activity

The meta-analytic findings by Vasconcellos et al. (2019) show that intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, and introjected regulation have a positive relationship with students’ desirable affective (e.g., persistence), behavioral (e.g., physical activity outside and during PE lessons), and cognitive outcomes in PE (e.g., concentration). In contrast, external regulation and amotivation have shown to be negatively associated with these outcomes and positively linked to maladaptive outcomes (e.g., lack of engagement) ( Aelterman et al., 2012 ; Vasconcellos et al., 2019 ). Together the data supports a conceptual continuum that highlights motivations that are more or less self-determined and are anchored at the ends by amotivation and intrinsic motivation. Generally, as students score themselves closer to intrinsically motivated desirable outcomes persist. Conversely, scores closer in proximity to amotivation along the scale demonstrate less desirable outcomes.

In sport, autonomous forms of motivation have shown to be associated with positive affective outcomes, such as effort ( Pope & Wilson, 2012 ), increased enjoyment ( Rottensteiner, Happonen, & Konttinen, 2015 ), and reduced drop-out intentions ( Gillet, Berjot, Vallerand, & Amoura, 2012 ). Similarly, the data demonstrates students’ intrinsic motivation and identified regulation to be positively linked to greater training participation ( Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, & Briere, 2001 ). On the contrary, findings from the same study suggest that students amotivation and external regulation correlate with weak sport participation adherence.

Similarly, meta-analytic findings indicate that the intention to exercise is positively associated with introjected and identified regulation as well as intrinsic motivation ( Howard et al., 2021 ). Moreover, although some mixed correlational findings have been reported (see McDonough & Crocker, 2007 ; Werman-Josefsson, Lindwall, & Ivarsson, 2015 ), intrinsic motivation, integrated regulation, and identified regulation have usually been linked to increased physical activity ( Daley & Duda, 2006 ; Dishman, Mciver, Dowda, & Pate, 2018 ; Duncan, Hall, Wilson, & Jenny, 2010 ; Owen et al., 2014 ; Wilson, Rodgers, Fraser, & Murray, 2004 ). In contrast, meta-analytic findings have shown controlled motivation and amotivation to be negatively associated with children’s and adolescents’ physical activity ( Howard et al., 2021 ; Owen et al., 2014 ).

In regards to affective outcomes in exercise settings, intrinsic motivation, and identified regulation were found to be related to higher physical self-esteem among female exercisers ( Wilson & Rodgers, 2002 ). The same constructs have also shown to be positively linked to physical self-worth ( Thøgersen-Ntoumani & Ntoumanis, 2006 ), whereas amotivation and external regulation were found to have an inverse relationship with these constructs. Finally, intrinsic motivation, identified regulation, and introjected regulation have shown to have a positive reciprocal relationship with the development of exercise identity ( Ntoumanis et al., 2018 ).

1.3 Prior meta-analyses on need-support and motivation

Although several systematic reviews and meta-analyses have been conducted on need-supportive strategies in education and health, to our knowledge, two meta-analyses have been conducted explicitly targeting the physical activity domain ( Lochbaum & Jean-Noel, 2015 ; Vasconcellos et al., 2019 ). However, these quantitative syntheses have not examined causality. Lastly, there are meta-analyses conducted in physical activity that have examined other relationships, such as correlations between the motivational regulations, in the SDT-framework (e.g., Chatzisarantis, Hagger, Biddle, Smith, & Wang, 2003 ).

The meta-analysis of Lochbaum and Jean-Noel (2015 ; N studies  = 39; N participants  = 23,554), aggregated correlational data on autonomy-supportive teaching in PE and detected large and significant positive correlations between perceived autonomy support and intrinsic motivation ( r = 0.54) and identified regulation ( r = 0.50) and small sized correlations between perceived autonomy support and introjected regulation ( r = 0.20), external regulation ( r = −0.15), and amotivation ( r = −0.19). Further, the correlational meta-analysis in the PE context by Vasconcellos et al. (2019 ; N studies  = 252; N participants  =  na ) determined that teachers’ relative need-support correlated positively with students’ intrinsic motivation ( r  = 0.46), identified regulation ( r  = 0.48) and introjected regulation ( r  = 0.19) and negatively with students’ external regulation ( r  = −0.07) and amotivation ( r  = −0.24).

In general education, systematic reviews have supported the central assumptions of the SDT and have corroborated the benefits of need-supportive instruction on student motivation ( Lazowski & Hulleman, 2016 ; Stroet et al., 2013 ). Specifically, a narrative review by Stroet et al. (2013 ; N studies  = 71; N participants  = na) on the effects of need-supportive teaching on adolescents’ motivation concluded on a positive relationship between perceptions of need-supportive teaching and students’ motivation measured by students’ self-reports. Lazowski and Hulleman (2016 ; N studies  = 74 [11 SDT-centered interventions]; N participants  = 38,377 in total), in turn, showed SDT-based motivational interventions to improve various student outcomes (self-report measures, performance, and behavioral indicators) by a medium effect size (Cohen’s d = 0.70).

In the health care context (excluding PE and sport studies), correlational meta-analytic findings by Ng et al. ( 2012 ; N studies  = 188; N participants  =  na ) demonstrated a positive link between autonomy-supportive health care climate and intrinsic motivation ( r = 0.42) and identified regulation ( r = 0.36). In contrast, the associations between autonomy-supportive health care climate and introjected regulation ( r = 0.09) and external regulation ( r = −0.02) were minuscule and, in amotivation, negative ( r = −0.27). Second, the meta-analytic path analysis of SDT constructs in health behavior by Hagger and Chatzisarantis ( 2009 ; N effects  = 18; N participants  = 4036) showed a positive relationship between perceived autonomy-support and self-determined motivation ( r = .32). In addition, in a recent meta-analysis by Gillison et al. (2018 ; N studies  = 74 [58 effects for autonomous motivation]; N participants  =  na ) examining SDT-centered health intervention studies showed that SDT-interventions impacted autonomous motivation toward health behavior change on average by 0.41 standard deviations (Hedge’s g ). An additional finding was that out of all the examined need-supportive strategies (e.g., interpersonal involvement, acknowledging participant’s perspective, and provision of structure), only the provision of rationale was detected to increase autonomous motivation ( Gillison et al., 2018 ). Lastly, the meta-analysis by Ntoumanis et al. (2020 ; N studies  = 73; [ k  = 37, 18, and 14 for autonomous- and controlled motivation, and amotivation, respectively]; N participants  = 30,088 in total), concluded that SDT-based interventions in the health context improve autonomous motivation ( g  = 0.30) measured at the end of the intervention but have no effect on participants controlled motivation nor amotivation.

Our review of the current literature exposed several gaps in knowledge that warrant this meta-analytic review. Most importantly, the meta-analyses by Lochbaum and Jean-Noel (2015) and Vasconcellos et al. (2019) focus on correlational data preventing conclusions of causal relationships between need-supportive instruction and motivational regulations in organized physical activity. Second, although the recent meta-analyses based on experimental studies by Gillison et al. (2018) and Ntoumanis et al. (2020) included physical activity studies, they did not include physical activity setting moderators in their analyses. More importantly, the focus of these reviews was more broadly on health studies and/or in summative scores of motivational regulations as outcomes. The use of summative scores (e.g., controlled motivation score consisting of introjected and external regulation) have been criticized in the light of recent meta-analytic findings, which suggest these scores to lead to loss of critical information and reduction in predictive validity ( Howard, Gagné, Morin, & Forest, 2017 ).

Contextually, organized physical activity differs from the general education and health contexts where most of the quantitative syntheses are done. For example, physical activity is almost by definition visible and, as such, more open for other people’s evaluations compared to classroom activities or one-to-one health counseling sessions. This study also seeks to explain effect size differences between studies by meta regression analyses targeting important study and intervention design features. For example, in addition to the various designs of SDT-based interventions, the motivational context of mandatory PE lessons differs quite significantly from sport and exercise settings in which people take part in their leisure time. Finally, focusing only on experimentally-oriented research allows for the establishment of causality, whereas correlational and qualitative approaches are limited in this respect. To this end, the purpose of this meta-analysis was to find the existing SDT-based instructional experimental studies and to focus on the effect of SDT-based instruction on different qualities of participant motivation in organized physical activity as theorized by SDT ( Deci & Ryan, 1985 ). Specifically, this study aimed to address two broad research questions:

What is the effect of SDT-based instructional interventions on participants’ motivational regulations in organized physical activity?

Are there important study design features that moderate the effect of the SDT-based instructional interventions on the motivational regulations?

Work Motivation

James M. Diefendorff , Gina A. Seaton , in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition) , 2015

SDT ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ) emphasizes the satisfaction of basic human needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness as a key driver of motivated behavior. In contrast to many theories of motivation, which emphasize the quantity of motivation (e.g., goal-setting theory), SDT emphasizes the idea that qualitative differences in motivation also matter. Specifically, a key contribution of SDT is that it describes a continuum in which goals may be pursued for different reasons, ranging from being intrinsically motivating at one extreme to being extrinsically motivating at the other end. The theory suggests that these different motivations can all lead individuals to act, but they may have different implications for performance and well-being.

According to SDT, intrinsically motivating tasks are interesting, enjoyable, and spontaneously pursued by individuals. Such motivation is experienced as autonomous and self-determined ( Deci and Ryan, 2000 ). In contrast, extrinsically motivated tasks are pursued because of external contingencies, but can be experienced as controlling or autonomous depending on the extent to which the contingencies have been internalized by the individual. As such, SDT describes several different types of extrinsic motivation. External regulation is the least internalized form of extrinsic motivation with individuals pursuing tasks because of rewards or punishments present in the environment. Introjected regulation is the next form of extrinsic motivation, with individuals pursuing goals because they have internalized and come to self-administer the rewards and punishments for the goal. Often, individuals who experience introjected motivation pursue tasks because they would feel guilty if they did not. Identified regulation reflects a more internalized form of extrinsic motivation whereby individuals understand the value of the goal and pursue it based on that understanding, but they have not come to personally value the goal and the reasons for its pursuit. Integrated regulation reflects the most complete internalization of an extrinsic goal whereby individuals have come to personally value the goal and experience it as important. The goal is not inherently interesting or fun (so it is not intrinsically motivating), but it is valued, important, and experienced as autonomously motivating. Finally, in contrast to the motivated behaviors described above, SDT also recognizes that some behaviors may be amotivated, which means that individuals are not able to provide a reason for why they engage in them.

Ryan and Deci (2000) argued that some goals are more consistent with satisfying an individual's basic needs than others. In particular, striving for autonomous goals may lead to greater need satisfaction and better well-being, whereas striving for controlled goals may lead to the thwarting of one's needs and worse well-being. A key finding from research on SDT is that more autonomous forms of motivation are associated with better performance on interesting or complex tasks. However, differences between autonomous and controlled motivation are not observed for boring or mundane tasks ( Koestner and Losier, 2002 ). Further, autonomous motivation is positively associated with well-being and job attitudes. Thus, both forms of motivation may lead individuals to perform a behavior, but autonomous motivation better satisfies psychological needs and leads to greater well-being compared to controlled motivation.

Self-determination theory in physical education: A systematic review of qualitative studies

Rhiannon Lee White , ... Chris Lonsdale , in Teaching and Teacher Education , 2021

This review examined qualitative evidence of self-determination theory tenets within physical education. We conducted systematic searches in four databases, included 34 studies, and thematically analysed data from all included studies. Results indicated that certain teaching strategies provided students with the opportunity to undermine other students’ relatedness. Low relatedness and competence satisfaction were associated with negative affect and reduced participation, meaning teacher behaviours that undermined competence and enabled peer teasing were counterproductive to the purpose of physical education. Need satisfaction, however, was associated with positive affect and increased participation. Therefore, teaching in line with self-determination theory may improve student outcomes.

Edward L. Deci , Richard M. Ryan , in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition) , 2015

Self-determination Theory (SDT) is a motivational theory of personality, development, and social processes that examines how social contexts and individual differences facilitate different types of motivation, especially autonomous motivation and controlled motivation, and in turn predict learning, performance, experience, and psychological health. SDT proposes that all human beings have three basic psychological needs – the needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness – the satisfaction of which are essential nutrients for effective functioning and wellness. Satisfaction of these basic needs promotes the optimal motivational traits and states of autonomous motivation and intrinsic aspirations, which facilitate psychological health and effective engagement with the world.

Teacher Motivation

Helen M.G. Watt , Paul W. Richardson , in International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (Second Edition) , 2015

SDT ( Deci and Ryan, 1985 ; Ryan and Deci, 2000 ) posits that fulfillment of three basic innate, human psychological needs ( autonomy , competence , and relatedness ) is necessary for optimal human functioning. When support for these needs is available, people will be intrinsically motivated to undertake tasks for their own sake because they are interesting, enjoyable, and inherently rewarding. Under these conditions, people are autonomously motivated. By contrast, when these psychological needs are unsupported or thwarted, wellness and growth will be negatively affected. In studies of student learning, autonomy relates to choice, competence refers to feeling efficacious during learning tasks, and relatedness refers to feeling connected to the teacher and class. The satisfaction of these needs is a necessary condition for learning.

SDT offers a potentially rich perspective on how individuals develop and internalize their motivations. External regulation is the least self-determined, least autonomous form of motivation, and located at the opposite end of the continuum from intrinsic regulation . Between the extremes of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, differentiated levels of regulation occur; introjected regulation refers to forms of regulation that are taken in by the individual and provide for self-imposed pressures or ‘should,’ whereas identified regulation is experienced when individuals identify with the worth of an activity or behavior and engage in it accordingly ( Ryan and Deci, 2000 ). Thus, intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are located at two ends of an internalization continuum with movement along that continuum being signaled by structural changes that progressively transform externally based regulations into a more internal personal regulatory system (cf Grolnick et al., 1997 ). Movement along this continuum means that an individual's experience of regulation is progressively more autonomous, integrated, and self-determined with initiated behaviors performed out of choice, simultaneously meeting an individual's innate need for a sense of competence, autonomy, and relatedness.

The key differentiation drawn by SDT theorists is between autonomous (or self-determined) and controlled motivations. Autonomous motivation involves volition and choice, and controlled motivation involves an external or internal sense of compulsion ( Assor et al., 2004 ; Grolnick et al., 1997 ). It is possible that initially autonomous motivations could become controlled motivations, for example, when an initial decision (such as to become a teacher) is autonomous, but then actually doing the work entails a sense of compulsion or external responsibility. A large literature has examined predictors of students' autonomous motivation and benefits for their engagement and well-being (see Ryan and Deci, 2009 ).

What Are the Consequences of Teachers' Self-Determined Motivations?

The research based in SDT on teachers is quite scarce (see Roth, 2014 ). When teachers perform their job for the intrinsic value of working with and achieving positive outcomes for their students, they are said to be autonomously motivated. Yet, when teachers are externally regulated by invasive policies, curriculum requirements, principal supervision, and administrative practices, the theory posits that they experience low levels of choice in initiating behavior and a reduced sense of competence and autonomy ( Fernet et al., 2012 ). In studies of teachers, autonomous motivations, such as to let children feel that teachers care about them or being in touch with children and adolescents ( Roth et al., 2007 ), are associated with perceived accomplishment, teaching self-efficacy, autonomy-supportive teaching practices, and reduced burnout. Autonomous teacher motivation has additionally been found to be associated with autonomy-supportive teaching practices that furnish choice and relevance to students ( Fernet et al., 2012 ; Pelletier et al., 2002 ; Roth et al., 2007 ; Taylor and Ntoumanis, 2007 ; Taylor et al., 2008 ).

Towards a unified theory of task-specific motivation

Cornelis J. de Brabander , Rob L. Martens , in Educational Research Review , 2014

2.1 Self-determination theory

Self-determination theory ( Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000a, 2000b ) is built on the dimension extrinsic versus intrinsic motivation. Traditionally in education, extrinsic sanctions such as grades or impositions are widely used as means to encourage learning ( Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 2001; Jackson, 1968; Silberman, 1970 ). As early as the 1970s, Ryan and Deci observed that the use of controlling measures to motivate learning has negative effects on a range of important indicators, such as performance quality, self-esteem, and general well-being ( Ryan & Deci, 2000a, p. 69 ). Numerous studies have been carried out on the effect of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. And although the issue was sometimes fiercely debated ( Eisenberger & Cameron, 1998; Hennessey & Amabile, 1998; Lepper, 1998; Sansone & Harackiewicz, 1998 ), from the available meta-analyses ( Cameron & Pierce, 1994; Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Deci et al., 2001; Rummel & Feinberg, 1988; Tang & Hall, 1995; Wiersma, 1992 ) it can be concluded that extrinsic rewards, when they are perceived to have a controlling character, can diminish (intrinsic) motivation ( Ryan & Deci, 2000c ). Extrinsic motivation was contrasted with intrinsic motivation, which capitalizes on the natural curiosity people possess. Intrinsic motivation represents a drive from within instead of external pressure. Though self-determination theory is not unanimously adhered to, the positive effects of this type of motivation are currently broadly agreed upon and are hardly subject to debate (e.g., Alexander & Murphy, 1998; Brophy, 2004; Hidi, 2001, 2006; Martens, Gulikers, & Bastiaens, 2004; Schunk et al., 2008; van Nuland, Dusseldorp, Martens, & Boekaerts, 2010 ).

According to self-determination theory, motivation is intrinsic when an activity is driven by inherent satisfactions provided by the activity itself and not by an external positive or negative reward that is contingent upon the completion of the activity. Motivation is extrinsic when an activity is adopted to acquire an outcome that is separable from the activity itself. The notion that humans have an internal need or drive to learn ( Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan, Kuhl, & Deci, 1997 ) is associated with a very different philosophy of man than most parents or teachers have. A student is not regarded as an empty vessel that needs to be filled up, but more as a sponge that naturally sucks up the liquid that is available. The learning environment should prevent any disturbances and must provide enough ‘tasty’ liquid to enable the learning process to continue.

Deci and Ryan (2000) identify three basic psychological needs that must be met to foster intrinsic motivation, namely the need for autonomy, competence and relatedness. Autonomy relates to the absence of external forces and the opportunity to be self-responsible. Competence is connected to the experience to undertake activities that are within the reach of a person’s capacity. Relatedness refers to a feeling of connectedness to fellow human beings who are part of the activity context.

Ryan and Deci (2000b) argue that extrinsic motivation emphasizes a separate reward, for instance a grade, prestige, or a financial return. They stipulate, however, that not all forms of extrinsic motivation contrast so sharply with intrinsic motivation. For instance, a person who is not interested in learning mathematics may generate enough motivation to acquire the necessary mathematical competencies in order to fulfill his or her deepest desire to become a physician. To counteract this problem, self-determination theory provides for a continuum of motivation types, which is characterized by the increasing internalization of an initially extrinsic motive ( Ryan et al., 1997 ). At the lowest level on the scale, the motive for action is purely external, e.g., compulsive force or a fully unrelated reward. At the highest level the reward is still not the inherent satisfaction provided by the activity itself, but this reward is optimally congruent with the goals that the person sets for him/herself as fully compatible with his/her identity. A state of amotivation exists at one extreme and a state of intrinsic motivation exists at the other to complete this one-dimensional scale of motivation.

Empowering and Disempowering Coaching Climates: Conceptualization, Measurement Considerations, and Intervention Implications

Joan L. Duda , Paul R. Appleton , in Sport and Exercise Psychology Research , 2016

The motivational climate from a self-determination theory perspective

Self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000 ) centers on the “why” of behavior, considering the determinants and consequences of more or less autonomous and controlled reasons for participation. A key concept within SDT is that of “basic psychological needs” ( Ryan & Deci, 2000a,b ; see also Ekkekakis & Zenko, Chapter 18 ); namely, the universal needs of competence (feeling one is effective in meeting environmental demands), autonomy (feeling authentic, acting with volition, having input), and relatedness (feeling connected with and cared for by significant others in the context at hand). SDT holds that greater need satisfaction will contribute to more autonomous striving (ie, participating in an activity because one enjoys it for it’s own sake and/or personally values the benefits of the activity) and optimal functioning. Diminished or actively thwarted basic needs is linked to more controlled (eg, engaging in the activity for extrinsic rewards or out of feelings of guilt and pressure) reasons for engagement and the compromised welfare of those participants ( Ryan & Deci, 2000a,b ).

With respect to the prominent social contextual factors deemed relevant to need satisfaction/need thwarting, the motivation regulations underlying participation, and associated outcomes, SDT has considered the extent to which the environment created by significant others is more or less autonomy supportive and/or controlling. An autonomy supportive coach acknowledges athletes’ preferences and tries to take their perspective, provides meaningful choice in training and competition and welcomes their input into decision making when and where possible ( Mageau & Vallerand, 2003 ). A coach who is more controlling in his/her interpersonal style will tend to be pressuring, coercive, and intimidating when interacting with athletes ( Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, & Thogersen-Ntoumani, 2010 ).

SDT also considers the impact of additional, albeit related, dimensions of the social environment, such as the level and quality of social support (or interpersonal involvement) exhibited and structure. A socially supportive coach would show he/she cares for and values each athlete, as an athlete and as a person ( Mageau & Vallerand, 2003 ). According to Reeve and coworkers ( Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch, 2004 ), structure is manifested when the coach clearly articulates what is expected of his or her athletes and provides clear, timely and informative feedback. It is assumed ( Reeve, 2002 ) that structure can be provided in an autonomy supportive as well as controlling manner. Optimal engagement and more autonomous motivation in athletes would be expected in cases where a coach provides structure as well as supports their autonomy ( Sierens, Vansteenkiste, Goossens, Soenens, & Dochy, 2009 ; Reeve, 2002 ).

A growing body of sport research has been supportive of the SDT assumed differential implications of autonomy supportive, controlling and socially supportive coach coaching style for athletes’ need satisfaction, reasons for engagement, as well as their well-being and likelihood of continued participation ( Duda & Balaguer, 2007 ; Ntoumanis, 2012 ). More autonomy and/or socially supportive coaching styles have been linked to greater need satisfaction, more autonomous motivation, enhanced interest and feelings of vitality, reduced intentions to drop out, and better sport performance (eg, Adie et al., 2012 ; Álvarez, Balaguer, Castillo, & Duda, 2009 ; Amorose & Anderson-Butcher, 2007 ; Gillet, Vallerand, Amoura, & Baldes, 2010 ; Reinboth, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2004 ; Quested et al., 2013 ). Aligned with theoretical predictions ( Reeve, 2002 ), recent research points to the positive implications of coach-provided structure on athletes’ reported behavioral engagement and reduced disaffection in the case where such expectations and feedback are conveyed in an autonomy supportive manner ( Curran, Hill, & Niemiec, 2013 ).

More and more studies have also begun to focus on the implications of controlling coaching for the reduced satisfaction and, indeed, active thwarting of athletes’ needs to feel competent, a sense of autonomy, and respectful and caring connection within their sporting milieu ( Balaguer et al., 2012 ; Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan, Bosch, & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, 2011 ; González, García-Merita, Castillo, & Balaguer, 2016 ). As predicted by SDT, controlling coaching have been found (either directly or via need thwarting) to correspond with negative outcomes such as burnout, negative affect, disordered eating, and lower feelings of self-worth ( Balaguer et al., 2012 & Bartholomew et al., 2011 ).

This study aimed to provide a quantitative synthesis of the effect of Self-determination theory (SDT) based instructional interventions on the motivational regulations of participants in organized physical activity. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis on experimental studies conducted before December 2021. The search using the online databases PsychINFO, PsychARTICLES, ERIC, SportDISCUS, and ProQuest Dissertations and Theses, and Google Scholar and other supplementary search strategies yielded 7774 articles, with 38 articles (142 effects and 12,457 participants) meeting the inclusion criteria. The articles were analyzed using a meta-analytic multivariate model . The study showed that SDT-based instruction had a positive heterogeneous small effect on intrinsic motivation ( g = 0.29; CI 95% [0.17, 0.41]) and identified regulation ( g = 0.23; CI 95% [0.10, 0.35]) and a negative heterogeneous, small effect on external regulation ( g  = −0.16; CI 95% [-0.31, −0.00]) and amotivation ( g  = −0.14; CI 95% [-0.28, −0.01]). SDT-based instruction did not have an effect on integrated regulation ( g = 0.08; CI 95% [-0.11, 0.28]) nor introjected regulation ( g = 0.03; CI 95% [-0.7, 0.13]). Univariate categorical moderator analyses highlighted multiple variables that impacted the size of the effects on the outcomes, including type of intervention and control group, length of study, age of participants, and study quality. Findings from the moderator analyses challenge the practical implications of SDT-based instructional interventions in improving motivation in organized physical activity. High-quality experimental trials using careful and precise conceptualizations of need-supportive behaviors and strategies would benefit the discipline.

2 Conceptualizations of task-specific motivation

2.2 flow theory.

Flow is a phenomenon that everybody is familiar with from personal experience. Flow is the common experience people have of being completely absorbed in an activity, of losing track of time and all things around them. This state of utmost concentration is characterized by a loss of self-consciousness in the sense that the person becomes one with his or her activity. Csikszentmihalyi (1990) established flow as an object of scrutiny. In a sequence of studies flow was explored. LeFevre (1988) revealed, for instance, that flow, in contrast to what intuitively might be assumed, occurs more frequently with work than with leisure. Csikszentmihalyi (1990) theorized that flow comes about when an activity represents a challenge to the person and the performance of this activity is within the reach of his/her competence. Level of challenge and level of competence define roughly four types of states ( Table 1 ). Flow arises from a high challenge and a high level of competence. However, when no challenge is present and the level of competence is low, the person is sentenced to apathy. When the challenge is low, but the level of competence is high, the person is likely to experience boredom. And a high challenge and a low level of competence is an anxiety-provoking combination. Unfortunately, Csikszentmihalyi identified level of challenge and level of competence as the defining elements of the flow construct. To our understanding, challenge and competence are causal factors and, consequently, flow should be understood as a state, namely of highest concentration, that springs from these factors.

Table 1 . Possible states produced by level of challenge and level of competence.

In order to investigate flow, Csikszentmihalyi developed the Experience Sampling Method (ESM, Csikszentmihalyi & Larson, 1987; Hektner, Schmidt, & Csikszentmihalyi, 2007; Kubey, Larson, & Csikszentmihalyi, 1996 ). Participants were given a pager that would signal them to fill out a questionnaire at predetermined times. The questionnaire contained various questions. We mention those questions that are relevant for our enterprise. The subjects were asked to describe the activity that they were engaged in at the specific point in time when the pager signaled. Second, they were asked to indicate to what extent they considered this activity challenging and how competent they felt while performing it. The flow index was determined by taking the geometric mean of both estimates (the square root of the product of challenge and competence). The subjects were also asked additional questions with respect to their emotional state, level of intrinsic motivation, level of concentration, and, rather surprisingly, the relevance of the activity for their future goals.

2.3 Expectancy   *   value theory of achievement motivation

Expectancy   *   value theories explain the development of motivation essentially as the result of two factors, namely expectancies about the performance of an activity and expectancies about the value of the activity’s outcomes. In the expectancy   *   value theory of achievement motivation ( Wigfield & Eccles, 2000 ), the expectancy part is distinguished in ability beliefs, i.e., the individual’s perception of his/her competence for an activity, and expectancy of success, i.e., the estimate of the level of performance on an activity in the future. However, Wigfield and Eccles found that empirically these two constructs were not distinguishable ( Wigfield & Eccles, 2000; Wigfield, 1994 ). In principle, expectancy is task-specific, but the level of specificity can vary. The value aspect (subjective task value), on the other hand, can be separated into attainment value, intrinsic value, utility value, and cost. Attainment value is defined as the importance of performing well in a given task. This aspect of subjective task value appears to be connected to the identity of the person. In other words, the attainment value becomes higher when the outcome of a task is more relevant to one’s identity. Intrinsic value is the enjoyment one gains from performing a task. Utility value refers to the relevance of the accomplishment for future activities. Wigfield and Eccles (2000) explicitly refer to the resemblance of intrinsic value and utility value with the concepts of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in self-determination theory , but they do not seem to suffer from cognitive dissonance as a result of this comparison. Cost refers to the emotional burden and the depletion of other resources used to perform the task, as well as to the exclusion of alternative options for action. Yet in the research based on this conceptualization, aspects of cost are seldom discussed. The three other remaining aspects proved to be empirically distinct in confirmatory factor analyses, though it was found that very young children do not usually differentiate between attainment value and utility value ( Eccles & Wigfield, 1995; Eccles, Wigfield, Harold, & Blumenfeld, 1993; Wigfield, 1994; Wigfield & Eccles, 2000 ). Although different variants of value thus can be identified, all are considered to represent value of outcomes and therefore they simply add up to a total value.

2.4 Social cognitive theory

Bandura (1986, p. 412) rejects expectancy   *   value theories because of their supposedly Tolmanian roots, which is to say that the concept of outcome expectancy was developed to explain how animals learn to solve mazes. In contrast, Bandura proposed self-efficacy as the chief factor in motivated behavior, because humans in contrast to animals have the possibility of reflecting about what they can or cannot do. However, in an earlier presentation of his social cognitive theory, Bandura (1977, p. 193) makes a distinction between efficacy expectation and outcome expectancy. Outcome expectancy is defined as a person’s estimate that a given behavior will lead to certain outcomes. Efficacy expectation is the conviction that a person can successfully execute the behavior required to produce these outcomes. Bandura (1997) criticizes expectancy   *   value theorists for focusing on outcome expectations, since in his view efficacy expectations are more predictive of choice and performance. The attribution of value to expected outcomes also remains implicit in Bandura’s definitions. Nevertheless, Bandura’s conceptualization is yet another representative of expectancy   *   value theory. Bandura underplays the role of outcome expectancies, but implicitly he distinguishes them from efficacy expectations, when he writes: “In social, intellectual, and physical pursuits, those who judge themselves highly efficacious will expect favorable outcomes, self-doubters will expect mediocre performances of themselves and thus negative outcomes.” ( Bandura, 1986, p. 392 ). Thus, Bandura supposes a sequence of efficacy expectations that determine outcome expectations, which in turn determine behavior (see also Schunk & Usher, 2012 ).

2.5 Theory of planned behavior

The theory of planned behavior (TPB) of ( Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 2008 ) is the third branch on the expectancy   *   value theory tree. This theory offers a fruitful perspective with respect to behavioral change ( Ajzen, 2001; Armitage & Conner, 2001; McEachan et al., 2011 ). We will spend relatively more time examining this theory not only because it is complex, but also because some characteristics in the theory, especially the operationalized variables, play a pivotal role in the development of our Unified Model of Task-specific Motivation. According to the TPB, behavioral intentions are affected by three factors: attitude toward the behavior, subjective norms, and perceived behavioral control. A concise summary of the theory is presented in Fig. 1 . To understand the theory, it is important to realize that it originates from research into the problematic relationship between attitudes and behavior ( Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977 ). An attitude toward a behavior is conceptualized as the subjective value of likely outcomes of that behavior. Every behavior has multiple consequences. A subjective probability that the behavior will have a particular consequence is linked to each of them. Furthermore, every consequence has a subjective value. True to the expectancy   *   value tradition ( Vroom, 1964 ), the attitude toward a behavior is proportional to the sum of products of subjective probability and subjective value across all consequences. For a typical TPB-study, important consequences that respondents associate with an attitude object are inventoried in a pilot investigation. In the main investigation subjects are asked to rate these outcomes on a 7-point scale according to how probable they are and how valuable. An attitude measure can then be obtained by summing the products per outcome of probability and value. Moreover, the attitude toward a behavior can also be measured globally. For that purpose often a semantic differential is used with bipolar items such as: bad – good, harmful – beneficial, useless – useful, unpleasant – pleasant, unenjoyable – enjoyable, and boring – exciting. A global attitude score is calculated as the mean score on these items. A validation of the multiplicative measure of attitude is provided by the correlation with this global measure (e.g., Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Madden, 1986 ; Brenes, Strube, & Storandt, 1998 ).

Fig. 1 . Theory of planned behavior ( Ajzen, 2006 ).

Attitudes toward behaviors are just one factor that influences behavioral intentions. Subjective norm and perceived behavioral control are two other factors that determine the development of intentions to perform behaviors ( Ajzen, 1991 ). These two concepts are also explained as multiplicative relationships between more elementary constructs. A subjective norm stems from normative beliefs and the tendency to comply with them. Normative beliefs represent the perceived likelihood that important others would approve or disapprove of a given behavior. Important others can be, for instance, friends, parents, a spouse or colleagues. In other words, the concept of important others refers to any referent or group of referents whose relationship with the actor is meaningful in the performance context. Perceived likelihood is expressed as a proportional value for each relevant referent. Next, the theory holds that the person’s tendency to comply is also specific for each referent. The subjective norm is then defined as the sum of these tendencies to comply with individual referents, each in proportion to the corresponding likelihood of their approval. In practice, each referent’s likelihood of approval is multiplied with the actor’s corresponding tendency to comply. The subjective norm is directly proportional to the sum of these products. Usually, also a global measure of the subjective norm is obtained by asking respondents to rate the extent in which important others would approve or disapprove of their performing a given behavior.

The third factor that influences the development of behavioral intentions has to do with the presence or absence of requisite resources and opportunities. Once again this factor, which is labeled as perceived behavioral control, is conceptualized as the sum of products of likelihood beliefs and corresponding valuations ( Ajzen, 1991, 2002 ). In this case, likelihood beliefs are beliefs about the presence of opportunities and impediments, while the valuation aspect involves an estimate of the power of a control factor to facilitate or inhibit the performance of a behavior. Multiplying each likelihood belief by the perceived power of a control factor and summing across all the control factors results in a measure that is directly proportional to perceived behavioral control. Once again, a global measure is also possible and simply involves an assessment of the ease or difficulty of engaging in an activity. Control factors can be external, such as, action opportunities, dependency on other people, obstacles in the context, and time restrictions, as well as internal, such as, knowledge and skills, intellectual capacities, emotional stability, and anxiety. In the literature about the theory of planned behavior comparisons are frequently made to the self-efficacy concept of Bandura ( Ajzen, 2002; Bandura, 1992 ). Ajzen (1991, p. 184; 2002, p. 668) more or less equates perceived behavioral control to self-efficacy. Armitage and Conner (1999, 2001) claim that self-efficacy emphasizes internal factors, whereas perceived behavioral control, though broadly defined, appears to stress external factors. We encounter here a variation on the distinction made between personal and contextual efficacy as proposed by de Brabander, Rozendaal, and Martens (2009) .

Although a full scale application of the theory of planned behavior thus requires an elaborate measurement procedure to obtain an estimate of the three factors of attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control with respect to a specific behavior ( Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 2008 ), studies that use global and extremely short questionnaires to measure the three factors are not uncustomary either ( Armitage & Conner, 2001; McEachan et al., 2011 ). For instance, Bamberg, Ajzen, and Schmidt (2003, p. 178) measure attitude toward behavior simply with two items: “For me, to [perform a specific behavior] would be good – bad ”; and “For me, to [perform a specific behavior] would be pleasant – unpleasant. ” Responses are collected on a 5-point scale. Subjective norm is also measured with two items: “Most people who are important to me would support my [specific behavior]”; and “Most people who are important to me think that I should [perform a specific behavior].” A 5-point scale follows these items with endpoints labeled likely and unlikely . And finally, perceived behavioral control was also assessed by two items using a 5-point scale: “For me to [perform a specific behavior] would be easy – difficult ”; and “My freedom to [perform a specific behavior] is high – low. ” This last question might very much surprise a follower of self-determination theory . What is relevant here, however, is that a TPB-study does not necessarily involve a complex procedure, which is the more reassuring, because the expectancy   *   value formulations of the TPB-constructs are not straightforward ( Ajzen, 1991; Ajzen & Fishbein, 2008 ).

In our opinion the relation between likelihood estimates of behavioral consequences (outcomes) and perceived behavioral control is problematic. To understand these notions it is important to keep in mind their origin. The theory of planned behavior was developed to solve the problematic relation between attitude and behavior. In short, this relation entails that people often do not act in agreement with their attitude ( Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977 ). Now, attitude objects were often taken from some ongoing social debate like abortion, race discrimination or global warming. To take global warming as an example, the attitude is defined by the products of beliefs about the likelihood of outcomes, such as, the sea level rising, the expansion of subtropical deserts, and more frequent occurrence of extreme weather conditions, and their valuation. In the theory of planned behavior, which succeeded the theory of reasoned action, perceived behavioral control was introduced because it was believed that intentions could only find expression in behavior if that behavior was under volitional control ( Ajzen, 1991 ). The relation between beliefs about the likelihood of outcomes and perceived behavioral control becomes problematic, when the attitude object is not an issue in a social debate, but a person’s activity. If we take sport activities as an example, relevant outcomes are, for instance, weight control, physical fitness and good health. In this case, the likelihood of these outcomes is dependent on perceived behavioral control, i.e. available internal and external resources and the opportunities the person sees at his/her disposal to actually bring forth these outcomes. This conceptual problem is only resolvable by an adjustment to the theory. For our purpose, we will solve it by loosening the tight bonds of the expectancy   *   value construct, which is already provided for by the global attitude measure by means of a semantic differential.

2.6 Person-object theory of interest

Person-object theory of interest ( Krapp, 2002, 2005 ) defines interest as a relational concept. Interest is understood as a specific relationship between a person and an object in his or her life space. This object can refer to concrete things, but also to a topic, an abstract idea or any other cognitively represented content. The relationship between person and object can be conceived of as a focused attention to and/or engagement with the affordances of a particular content ( Hidi, Renninger, & Krapp, 2004 ). An interest can vary in scope (for instance light refraction by lenses versus understanding physics) and in stability (momentary versus lifelong). Interest researchers distinguish between situational and personal or individual interest. A situational interest is primarily caused by factors external to the individual, whereas an individual interest stems from internal factors. This distinction is not the same as the distinction between state and trait, since a working interest as a state may be induced both by situational conditions and by individual interest ( Schiefele, 2009 ).

Krapp (2002, p. 388) makes a distinction between two facets of an interest. Any interest, whether situational or individual, is composed of value-related and feeling-related valences. Value-related valences refer to the personal significance of an interest. An activity gains in value to the extent its goals and intentions are relevant to his or her personal identity. Feeling-related valences refer to experiential states while being engaged in an activity, such as feelings of pleasure and being focused. Krapp refers explicitly to flow as an extreme form of positive feeling. Certainly, the resemblance with intrinsic motivation as defined in self-determination theory has also not escaped him.

As a foundation for the two facets of interest, Krapp (2002, p. 401) , following Epstein’s cognitive-experiential self-theory ( Epstein, 1973, 1994 ), postulates the existence of two interacting, but separate systems of behavior regulation. The first system is said – rather oddly – to have a strong biological component. It is based on emotions that provide the individual immediate feedback in dealing with the requirements of his or her action situation. The action tendencies that arise from this regulation system may be subjected to critical reflection, but they do not require conscious and active self-regulation. The second system is cognitive and conscious by nature. This system is responsible for the cognitive-analytic development of behavioral intentions. Since time immemorial, people’s common sense has provided labels for these two systems, namely heart and head, feeling and knowing (cf., Epstein, 1994, p. 710 ).

The two regulation systems are fundamentally independent. To what extent an activity provokes positive feelings is not necessarily related to its cognized value and vice versa. In general, however, positive feelings will be coupled with high value expectations and negative feelings with low value expectations. Yet conflicts between feelings and value expectations are by no means exceptional. It might be hypothesized that positive feelings and low valuation are not a problem for the individual, unless under conditions of time pressure. Another case, however, is the combination of negative feelings and high values, which, as all of us know from personal experience, is not uncommon in educational settings. In this case, high valuation might still lead to behavioral intentions, but only by way of exception to persistent behavior.

Krapp (2002) theorizes about the development of interests and tries to relate the “concertation” between situational and personal interest to the development of a personal identity. In this context, he discusses several questions, such as, whether the development of stable interests is stage bound, or how and under what conditions situational interests actually evolves into personal interests.

The Rise of STEM Education

Jeanna R. Wieselmann , ... Elizabeth A. Ring-Whalen , in International Encyclopedia of Education(Fourth Edition) , 2023

Our systematic review resulted in 11 instruments that focused on STEM motivation, shown in Table 5 . Across these instruments, several theoretical frameworks were commonly used to operationalize motivation. Self-determination theory ( Deci and Ryan, 1985 ), which distinguishes between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and focuses on individuals’ desire to fulfill fundamental needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness, frequently served as a theoretical framework for STEM motivation instruments (e.g., Glynn et al., 2009 ; Hammoudi, 2020 ; Lim and Chapman, 2015 ; Skinner et al., 2017 ). Additional instruments (e.g., Glynn et al., 2009 ; Liou and Kuo, 2014 ) utilized social cognitive theory ( Bandura, 1986 , 2001 ), while others (e.g., Glover and Bodzin, 2019 ; McCormick et al., 2015 ) used expectancy-value theory ( Eccles and Wigfield, 1995 , 2002 ). Given the connections between social cognitive theory, expectancy-value theory, and self-efficacy, it is perhaps unsurprising that self-efficacy was frequently included in the theoretical framing or as a subscale or factor in various instruments (e.g., Glynn et al., 2009 ; Hammoudi, 2020 ; Liou and Kuo, 2014 ; Tuan et al., 2005 ). Thus, researchers who are interested in measuring self-efficacy may also find useful items or instruments in Table 5 . The majority of the STEM motivation instruments were focused on science and mathematics, with only one addressing technology and one addressing engineering. In addition, only two of the instruments ( Orosco, 2016 ; Sha et al., 2015 ), were designed for use by elementary students and two for use by middle school students ( Tuan et al., 2005 ; Sha et al., 2015 ).

Table 5 . Motivation instruments.

Related terms:

• Physical Activity
• Self-Regulation
• Self Determination
• Artificial Intelligence
• Extrinsic Motivation
• Medical Information System

Pardon Our Interruption

As you were browsing something about your browser made us think you were a bot. There are a few reasons this might happen:

• You've disabled JavaScript in your web browser.
• You're a power user moving through this website with super-human speed.
• You've disabled cookies in your web browser.
• A third-party browser plugin, such as Ghostery or NoScript, is preventing JavaScript from running. Additional information is available in this support article .

To regain access, please make sure that cookies and JavaScript are enabled before reloading the page.

• For educators
• English (US)
• English (India)
• English (UK)
• Greek Alphabet

This problem has been solved!

You'll get a detailed solution from a subject matter expert that helps you learn core concepts.

Question: Deci and Ryan (1985, 2001) have proposed that there are three fundamental needs that are required for human growth and fulfillment: relatedness, autonomy, and competence. Susan predicts that students who have these needs met in their psychology class feel happier and more satisfied with the class. She collects data and finds that students who feel more

Deci and Ryan (1985, 2001) have proposed that there are three fundamental needs that are required for human growth and fulfillment: relatedness, autonomy, and competence. Susan predicts that students who have these needs met in their psychology class feel happier and more satisfied with the class. She collects data and finds that students who feel more related and competent do feel happier but that feeling more autonomous does not seem to matter. Susan thinks that maybe autonomy is only necessary when people are in situations in which they are not being evaluated.

After Susan collects and analyzes her data, which of the following is the next logical step?

a. Susan alters or amends the theory to fit her data.

b. Susan writes a paper challenging Self-Determination Theory because only some of her data supported it.

c. Susan ignores the data that did not fit the theory.

d. Susan recalculates her data to fit the theory.

THE CORRECT ANSWER IS OPTION (A). Susan alters or amends the theory to fit her data.

Not the question you’re looking for?

Post any question and get expert help quickly.