Self-Determination Theory

• In Event: Motivation Theory Yesterday, Today, and Tomorrow: Reflections of Founders and Descendants

Abstract

Unlike most theories in motivation, self-determination theory (SDT) differentiates the concept of motivation into kinds or types rather than focusing primarily on amount of motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). The primary distinction in SDT is between autonomous motivation and controlled motivation. When autonomously motivated, people engage activities with a full sense of willingness and volition, doing them either because they find them interesting and enjoyable (i.e., they are intrinsically motivated) or because the they are consistent with their deeply held values (i.e., they have fully internalized the behavioral regulation). In contrast, when people’s motivation is controlled they experience pressure and obligation, doing the activity because they are seduced or coerced by either external or internal controls. External controls include threats of punishment from teachers or administrators for not doing what the authority specified (i.e., they would be extrinsically motivated without having internalized the behavioral regulation), whereas internal controls include doing something in order not to feel guilty (i.e., they would have partially internalized the extrinsic regulation).
The second important aspect of SDT is the specification of three basic psychological needs—the needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy. Substantial research has shown that, when people’s three needs are satisfied, they are likely to be autonomously motivated, engage in deeper, more conceptual leaning, and evidence more psychological well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2016).
Much of the SDT research in education has focused on autonomy support, which means that teachers take the perspectives of the students (or administrators take the perspectives of the teachers) in interacting with them, and then provide choice, meaningful feedback, and respect (Ryan & Deci, 2016). In fact, careful research has examined specific behaviors that instructors do when being autonomy supportive. Further, at all levels of education from elementary school to post-baccalaureate professional schools (e.g., medical and law schools) research has shown that when instructors are more autonomy supportive, the students learn more and perform more effectively (Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, & Deci, 2004).
SDT has been applied not only in education but in many life domains, including parenting, work, sport and physical activity, health care and dentistry, virtual worlds, psychopathology and psychotherapy, and close personal relationships, among others (Ryan & Deci, 2000). As well, some of the newer work is considering biological processes underlying the psychological processes that have always been the central focus of SDT, and also on the higher-level process involved in sociological, cultural, economic, and political processes.
With respect to education, our most recent work was a randomized field trial in which high schools from relatively dysfunctional districts were assigned to either an experimental or control group, with the experimental group getting an intervention focused on training teachers to teach in more engaging ways, and using state-administered math and language arts exams as the primary dependent variables. The intervention led to improvements on the math achievement tests, but not the English tests. More randomized trials are needed that link teachers’ autonomy support to students’ achievement and well-being, mediated by autonomous versus controlled motivation.

Authors

• Edward L Deci, University of Rochester

• Richard M. Ryan, Australian Catholic University