The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: An historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions

Abstract

Self-determination theory is a macro-theory of human motivation, emotion, and personality that has been under development for 40 years following the seminal work of Edward Deci and Richard Ryan. Self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985b, 2000; Niemiec, Ryan, & Deci, in press; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Vansteenkiste, Ryan, & Deci, 2008) has been advanced in a cumulative, research-driven manner, as new ideas have been naturally and steadily integrated into the theory following sufficient empirical support, which has helped SDT maintain its internal consistency. To use a metaphor, the development of SDT is similar to the construction of a puzzle. Over the years, new pieces have been added to the theory once their fit was determined. At present, dozens of scholars throughout the world continue to add their piece to the ‘‘SDT puzzle,’’ and hundreds of practitioners working with all age groups, and in various domains and cultures, have used SDT to inform their practice. Herein, we provide an historical overview of the development of the five mini-theories (viz., cognitive evaluation theory, organismic integration theory, causality orientations theory, basic needs theory, and goal content theory) that constitute SDT, discuss emerging trends within those mini-theories, elucidate similarities with and differences from other theoretical frameworks, and suggest directions for future research

Full text

THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE
FIVE MINI-THEORIES OF
SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY:
AN HISTORICAL OVERVIEW,
EMERGING TRENDS, AND
FUTURE DIRECTIONS
Maarten Vansteenkiste, Christopher P. Niemiec and
Bart Soenens
Self-determination theory is a macro-theory of human motivation, emotion,
and personality that has been under development for 40 years following the
seminal work of Edward Deci and Richard Ryan. Self-determination theory
(SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985b, 2000; Niemiec, Ryan, & Deci, in press; Ryan &
Deci, 2000; Vansteenkiste, Ryan, & Deci, 2008) has been advanced in a
cumulative, research-driven manner, as new ideas have been naturally and
steadily integrated into the theory following sufficient empirical support,
which has helped SDT maintain its internal consistency. To use a metaphor,
the development of SDT is similar to the construction of a puzzle. Over
the years, new pieces have been added to the theory once their fit was
determined. At present, dozens of scholars throughout the world continue
to add their piece to the ‘‘SDT puzzle,’’ and hundreds of practitioners
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
The Decade Ahead: Theoretical Perspectives on Motivation and Achievement
Advances in Motivation and Achievement, Volume 16A, 105–165
Copyright r2010 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited
All rights of reproduction in any form reserved
ISSN: 0749-7423/doi:10.1108/S0749-7423(2010)000016A007
105

working with all age groups, and in various domains and cultures, have used
SDT to inform their practice. Herein, we provide an historical overview of
the development of the five mini-theories (viz., cognitive evaluation theory,
organismic integration theory, causality orientations theory, basic needs
theory, and goal content theory) that constitute SDT, discuss emerging
trends within those mini-theories, elucidate similarities with and differences
from other theoretical frameworks, and suggest directions for future research.
COGNITIVE EVALUATION THEORY
Intrinsic Motivation
Cognitive evaluation theory (CET; Deci, 1975), SDT’s first mini-theory, was
built from research on the dynamic interplay between external events
(e.g., rewards, choice) and people’s task interest or enjoyment (i.e., intrinsic
motivation). At the time, this research was quite controversial, as operant
theory (Skinner, 1971) had dominated the psychological landscape. The
central assumption of operant theory was that reinforcement contingencies
in the environment control behavior, which precluded the existence
of inherently satisfying activities performed for non-separable outcomes.
During this time, Deci proposed that people – by nature – possess intrinsic
motivation (IM), which can manifest as engagement in curiosity-based
behaviors, discovery of new perspectives, and seeking out optimal challenges
(see also Harlow, 1953; White, 1959). IM thus represents a manifestation
of the organismic growth tendency and is readily observed in infants’ and
toddlers’ exploratory behavior and play. Operationally, an intrinsically
motivated activity is performed for its own sake – that is, the behavior is
experienced as inherently satisfying. From an attributional perspective
(deCharms, 1968), such behaviors have an internal perceived locus of
causality, as people perceive their behavior as emanating from their sense
of self, rather than from experiences of control or coercion.
Theoretical Considerations
At this point, it is worthwhile to clarify the exact meaning of enjoyment,which
is central to IM, and to contrast it with the hedonic approach to well-being
(Kahneman, Diener, & Schwarz, 1999). Within SDT, IM does not involve the
active and explicit pursuit of enjoyment prior to activity-engagement; that is,
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.106

we do not describe those who are intrinsically motivated as ‘‘enjoyment-
seekers.’’ Rather, enjoyment is a by-product of full immersion in an activity.
This view contrasts with the hedonic approach, which stresses the importance
of seeking immediate gratification from one’s pursuits and can resemble a
carpe diem approach to life (Zimbardo & Boyd, 1999). Hedonic activities may
be enjoyable, but the positive feelings derived from such pursuits are likely to
be superficial and short-lived because hedonic activities may be unrelated
to the satisfaction of one’s basic psychological needs. In line with this,
Steger, Kashdan, and Oishi (2008) showed that daily engagement in hedonic
activities (e.g., getting drunk, eating more than intended) did not contribute
to daily well-being. In contrast, the enjoyment derived from IM is likely to
be personally relevant and long-lasting, and to be conducive to personal
growth and eudaimonia (Ryan, Huta, & Deci, 2008). Indeed, De Bilde,
Vansteenkiste, and Lens (2009) found that having a present-centered, hedonic
orientation was even inversely associated with being intrinsically motivated
for one’s school work, suggesting that hedonism can be used to compensate
for a lack of interest. It is also useful to clarify the meaning of interest as used
in CET and the hedonic approach. In CET, interest refers to the attraction
one feels toward an activity; in the hedonic approach, hedonic activities serve
one’s self-interest or personal benefit. As such, in the hedonic approach (self-)
interest represents a form of extrinsic motivation (EM), which refers to doing
an activity to obtain some separable outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Empirical Basis of Cognitive Evaluation Theory
Undermining External Events
CET examines the factors that either undermine or support IM. Because
intrinsically motivated behaviors are engaged spontaneously and volition-
ally, it follows that controlling external events (e.g., monetary rewards),
which pressure people to think, feel, or behave in particular ways, can
undermine IM. Theoretically, such events prompt a shift in the perceived
locus of causality from internal to external, resulting in attenuated
experiences of volition and interest. The first studies to examine the effects
of controlling external events on IM were conducted by Deci (1971), in
which participants worked on an interesting activity either in a rewarding or
in a non-rewarding context. The findings suggested an undermining of
IM by task-contingent rewards, such that rewarded participants were less
likely to persist at the activity once the reward contingency was removed
(i.e., during a free-choice period).
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 107

Subsequently, dozens of studies in the 1970s and 1980s demonstrated
the undermining of IM by such controlling external events as threat of
punishment, deadlines, evaluation, competition, and surveillance (see Deci
& Ryan, 1985b, for an overview). Other studies showed that controlling
external events affect the types of activities in which people decide to engage.
For example, Pittman, Emery, and Boggiano (1982) found that rewarded
participants preferred less complex (i.e., easier) tasks. Further, controlling
external events not only undermine task persistence after the removal of the
contingency, but also adversely affect experience during task engagement.
For instance, controlling external events were found to predict less cognitive
flexibility (McGraw & McCullers, 1979), more shallow learning (Grolnick &
Ryan, 1987), less creativity (Amabile, 1979), and less positive emotional
tone (Garbarino, 1975). Finally, being pressured to help another has
been found to undermine both the helper’s and the recipient’s well-being,
suggesting that the adverse effects of controlling contexts can radiate to
others (Weinstein & Ryan, in press).
Interestingly, such findings could not be predicted by expectancy-valence
theory (Wigfield & Cambria, this volume), which suggests that increasing
the amount of motivation would yield positive outcomes. From this
perspective, rewarding individuals for engaging in an interesting activity
would enhance effort and motivation, as such individuals would have
multiple reasons (intrinsic and extrinsic) for doing the activity. However,
the findings reviewed above suggest that introducing a reward and then
removing that contingency can have a substantial cost, manifest in reduced
task interest. Thus, IM and EM were found to have an interactive, rather
than additive, relation to each other over time.
Over 100 empirical articles have been published on the effects of rewards
on IM, and several meta-analytic reviews provided support for the under-
mining effect (e.g., Tang & Hall, 1995). Others (Eisenberger & Cameron,
1996) found no undermining by most reward contingencies and thus
suggested that CET be abandoned. Because these meta-analyses varied
considerably in several important ways, Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999)
conducted a new one and provided detailed insight into for whom and
under which types of reward contingencies IM is undermined, enhanced, or
unaffected. Results suggested that, on average, rewards undermine IM,
although this effect was not evident for unexpected rewards and was less
potent for performance-contingent (rather than engagement- or completion-
contingent) rewards.
Such findings could be predicted by CET. Indeed, Deci and Ryan (1985b)
suggested that satisfaction of the psychological needs for autonomy and
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.108

competence form the energetic basis for the development and maintenance
of IM and, thus, external events that thwart those needs are expected to
undermine IM. Because unexpected rewards are not perceived as control-
ling, as they are administered after completion of task engagement, they
cannot thwart autonomy and, hence, cannot undermine IM. Likewise,
because performance-contingent rewards convey positive feedback, the
accompanying satisfaction of competence may partially counteract the
detrimental effects of such rewards on autonomy. Notably, individuals
given a less-than-maximum amount of a performance-contingent reward
(e.g., Luyten & Lens, 1981) displayed a much steeper decline in IM than
those given the maximum amount of a performance-contingent reward
(see Deci et al., 1999), as the needs for both autonomy and competence were
likely thwarted in the process.
Of course, external events do not occur in a vacuum and, accordingly, the
social context in which those events occur can affect their functional
significance (i.e., attributed meaning). Deci and Ryan (1985b) suggested that
external events (e.g., rewards) can be introduced in an informational or in a
controlling way. Informational events allow choice and provide competence-
relevant feedback, whereas controlling events pressure people to think,
feel, or behave in particular ways. Given their presumed differential impact
on autonomy, informational events are less likely than controlling events
to undermine IM. For example, on average surveillance undermines IM,
presumably because surveilled individuals feel evaluated or perhaps
distrusted, both of which are controlled experiences. This undermining effect,
however, can be offset by the way in which surveillance occurs. If one is given
a meaningful rationale for being watched (e.g., curiosity), then surveillance is
less likely to be experienced as controlling and has been found not to
undermine IM (Enzle & Anderson, 1993). Other research has demonstrated
that performance-contingent rewards (Ryan, Mims, & Koester, 1983) and
competition (Reeve & Deci, 1996) do not yield deleterious consequences for
IM if those events are presented in a non-controlling manner.
Facilitative External Events
Because IM is supported by satisfaction of the needs for autonomy and
competence, CET posits that external events that are conducive to need
satisfaction facilitate task interest and enjoyment. A number of studies have
supported this hypothesis. For example, Vallerand and Reid (1984) reported
that positive feedback enhanced IM because it supported competence,
while Patall, Cooper, and Robinson (2008) conducted a meta-analysis on
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 109

42 studies and found that choice, on average, enhances IM, presumably
because it is conducive to the experience of autonomy.
Interestingly, similar to how the social context can attenuate the
undermining of IM by controlling external events, so too the social context
can diminish the facilitative effects of positive feedback and choice on IM.
For instance, Ryan (1982) found that when participants were given positive
feedback in a controlling way (i.e., ‘‘Good. You’re doing as you should’’),
relative to a non-controlling way, they lost their interest in the activity,
presumably because they felt that the positive feedback was conditional
upon their meeting the experimenter’s standards. Similarly, Moller, Deci,
and Ryan (2006) showed that controlled choice, which involved subtly
pressuring participants to choose a particular option (e.g., ‘‘The decision
you make is up to you, but as there are already enough participants who
chose option A, it would help the study a great deal if you chose option B’’)
failed to yield a vitalizing effect, relative to the provision of autonomous
choice. The effects of choice are also likely to depend on whether (1) making
a choice on a particular issue is important for the chooser, which would
support autonomy; (2) the available options are considered meaningful
(vs. unattractive) by the chooser, such that one is not confronted with
the false choice of deciding between two undesirable alternatives, which
would thwart autonomy; and (3) the number of available options is
perceived as manageable (vs. overwhelming), such that one feels competent
to select an option.
Regarding the latter issue, Iyengar and Lepper (2000) questioned the
motivating power of choice from their finding that the provision of an
extensive (i.e., 24 or 30), relative to a limited (i.e., 6), number of options
predicted lower quality task engagement and less satisfaction with the
selected option. From a CET perspective, however, the critical question is
whether the number of options available affect people’s basic psychological
needs. In this respect, Iyengar and Lepper did not examine the effect of
choice on autonomy per se, but rather examined the effect of one’s felt
effectiveness to make the decision. Indeed, it is interesting to note that
participants who were given extensive options reported the decision-making
process to be more difficult and frustrating, compared to those who had
limited options, and also expressed more regrets about their chosen option.
It is reasonable to suggest that being given too many trivial options
(e.g., selecting among 24 different flavors of exotic jams; Study 1) may
have thwarted participants’ competence by creating stimulus overload,
which may account for Iyengar and Lepper’s conclusion that ‘‘choice is
demotivating.’’ This analysis speaks to the importance of examining how
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.110

choice affects both the needs for autonomy and competence to understand
whether choice truly has a motivating effect (see also Katz & Assor, 2007).
Choice seems to be most vitalizing when one feels confident to select a
particular option and when the selected option is self-endorsed and reflective
of personal interests and values.
Directions for Future Research
Several potential directions for future research on CET deserve mention.
One direction is to examine the effects of both controlling and informational
external events on satisfaction of autonomy and competence, which are
theorized to carry the effects of external events on IM (see Houlfort,
Koestner, Joussemet, Nantel-Vivier, & Lekes, 2002, for an example). A
second direction is to assess the effect of repeated exposure to external
events. Most, if not all, research on CET has looked at the effect of a single
exposure to an external event (e.g., rewards, deadlines). Mouratidis,
Vansteenkiste, Lens, and Sideridis (2009) showed that students’ within-
person variation in their interest in and enjoyment of physical education
covaried with experimentally varied, successive exposures to a series of
physical education classes in which choice was provided or denied, such that
students reported more IM when their physical education teachers provided
choice. Such class-to-class oscillation in IM underscores the motivating
potential of the immediate social context.
A third direction for research is to examine the factors that promote or
undermine the generalization (or transfer) of behaviors (see also Maehr,
1976), as previous work within CET was primarily concerned with the
phenomenon of persistence (or maintenance). Persistence refers to the
continued engagement in a requested activity once the socializing figure that
introduced the activity is no longer watching. Persistence constituted the
central outcome in the classic free-choice paradigm (Deci, 1971) developed
within CET, as it involved the unobtrusive observation of engagement in
an activity once the external contingency was removed. Generalization,
however, refers to the transfer of a behavior to a different social context or
to a different activity. Cross-context generalization describes a situation
in which an activity performed in a particular context is transferred to a
different context, whereas cross-activity generalization describes a situation
in which the dynamics around an activity performed in a particular context
are transferred to a different activity. For both cross-context and cross-
activity generalization, we hypothesize that the type of motivational
dynamics operative during initial task engagement will determine whether
the behavior will be carried over to different contexts and to new activities.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 111

Specifically, if external events prompt a controlled engagement in an
activity, it is unlikely that the activity will be performed in a new context or
will radiate to new activities. This is because the exposure to controlling
external events can frustrate one’s basic needs, such that one has less energy
available to continue the behavior in a different context or to engage in new
(albeit related) behaviors.
Within CET, only a small number of studies have examined general-
ization and, indeed, only cross-activity generalization has been considered.
For example, Flink, Boggiano, and Barrett (1990) conducted an experiment
showing that 4th-grade children whose teachers pressured them to
perform well on an initial learning task displayed a performance deficit on
a subsequent novel task, relative to those who were not pressured. Such
results demonstrate that the adverse consequences of a controlling context
during task engagement can radiate to new activities. Likewise, Enzle,
Wright, and Redondo (1996) reported that when a task was introduced in an
autonomy-supportive, relative to controlling, manner, participants showed
heightened IM for a novel activity.
ORGANISMIC INTEGRATION THEORY
Extrinsic Motivation
Especially with age, the majority of behaviors in which people engage
are not inherently interesting or enjoyable. Rather, adults spend much of
their time meeting responsibilities and fulfilling important duties. This
suggests that the concept and processes of IM, which are central to CET, are
less or even not relevant for some activities (e.g., health-behavior changes,
following traffic laws). When interest and enjoyment are absent, behavioral
engagement requires EM, in which the activity is perceived as a means
to a separable outcome. In early theorizing, IM and EM were considered
separate and antagonistic (deCharms, 1968; Harter, 1981); specifically, IM
was thought to be fully self-determined and EM was said to lack personal
causation. Empirical examinations in the early 1980s (Koestner, Ryan,
Bernieri, & Holt, 1984; Ryan, 1982), however, added important new pieces
to the SDT puzzle, as they indicated that EM can vary in the degree to
which it is experienced as autonomous versus controlled and, thus,
suggested that different types of EM can be distinguished (Ryan & Connell,
1989).
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.112

Such work formed the basis for the postulation of a second manifestation
of the organismic growth tendency, namely internalization. The process of
internalization involves endorsing the value of extrinsically motivated
behaviors (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and is critical for the self-initiation
and maintenance of socially important, yet non-intrinsically motivated,
behaviors. As such, internalization is central to successful socialization
because when an individual has personally endorsed societal norms and
rules, that person is more likely to follow them willingly, even in the absence
of socializing agents (e.g., parents, teachers). Therefore, internalization can
facilitate social responsibility through the adoption of cultural values and is
at the heart of organismic integration theory (OIT; Deci & Ryan, 1985b),
SDT’s second mini-theory.
Toward a Differentiated View of Extrinsic Motivation
In an important study that helped lay the foundation for OIT, Ryan (1982)
experimentally showed that people’s interest in an activity can be diminished
not only by salient external controls, but also by intra-individual pressures.
One example of a controlling internal event is ego involvement, in which
people perceive their self-worth as dependent on successful completion
of a particular task. In Ryan’s study, participants either were told that their
performance on an activity was indicative of their creative intelligence
(ego involvement) or simply had their attention drawn to the activity
(task involvement). After receiving positive feedback on their successful task
completion, ego-involved participants displayed less IM relative to task-
involved participants, presumably because ego-involved participants
had pressured themselves to do their best. Clearly, then, ego-involved
participants were extrinsically motivated, as their task engagement was
instrumental for demonstrating self-worth. Yet this type of EM differs from
that engendered by having to meet external contingencies (the type of EM
central to CET), as the reason for task engagement now resides inside the
individual. Of course, the common feature to both is their controlled nature.
Nonetheless, this study provided an important first indication of the utility
of distinguishing different forms of EM.
So far, we have described EM as engendering an experience of pressure
and control. It is important to consider, however, whether people necessarily
feel like ‘‘pawns’’ (deCharms, 1968), lacking volition and autonomy, when
extrinsically motivated. From a phenomenological perspective (Pfander,
1908/1967; Ricoeur, 1966), autonomy need not imply a literal absence of
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 113

external forces, so long as people fully concur with the reason for engaging
in the activity. Said differently, EM will be experienced as autonomous
to the extent that people feel a sense of ownership over their behavior and
have fully endorsed the personal value and significance of the behavior.
Koestner et al. (1984) examined the postulate that one can experience EM
as volitional if both the value of and the reason for doing the activity are
accepted. Before engaging in a painting activity, young children were given a
set of norms and expectations about how to keep their art materials clean.
The norms were introduced in an autonomy-supportive way or the children
were pressured to stick to the norms. Results suggested that children in
the autonomy-supportive, relative to the controlling, condition showed
greater free-choice persistence at and creativity in their paintings. Thus,
although children in both conditions were extrinsically motivated, as while
completing the paintings they tried to satisfy external guidelines, those in the
autonomy-supportive condition presumably followed the norms willingly
and with a personal understanding of their importance, which contributed
to their persistence and performance.
The Internalization Continuum
These experiments (Koestner et al., 1984; Ryan, 1982) provided an empirical
basis for the next development in SDT; specifically, the conceptual dif-
ferentiation of EM, which had heretofore been a unitary construct. From
the perspective of OIT, people possess a natural tendency to transform
social norms, mores, and rules into personal values and self-regulations so
as to develop a more elaborated, unified sense of self (Ryan, 1993). There
is considerable variation, however, in the extent to which the process of
internalization functions successfully. Accordingly, four types of EM are
distinguished, as depicted AU :1in Table 1.
The least autonomous form of EM is external regulation, in which
people are motivated to obtain a reward or to avoid punishment. The value
of the behavior has not been internalized at all and, accordingly, people
behave solely to comply with external demands. To illustrate, a patient
with anorexia who gains weight to earn a treatment-based incentive (e.g.,
going home for the weekend) would display external regulation. This type of
regulation is rooted in operant theory (Skinner, 1971) and, indeed, external
regulation is a powerful form of motivation. Even according to operant
theory, however, the problem is with maintenance and transfer, as behaviors
controlled by reinforcements will persist only so long as those contingencies
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.114

1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Table 1. Schematic Relation of the Six Types of Motivation According to SDT.
Type of Regulation Amotivation External
Regulation
Introjected
Regulation
Identified
Regulation
Integrated
Regulation
Intrinsic
Regulation
Motivational
intensity
Low High High High High High
Motivational force Discouragement
and
helplessness
Expectations,
rewards, and
punishment
Guilt, shame, and
self-worth
contingencies
Personal valuation
and relevance
Harmonious and
coherent
commitment
Enjoyment,
pleasure, and
interest
Internalization No No Partial Almost full Full Not required
Underlying feelings Futility and
apathy
Stress and
pressure
Stress and
pressure
Volition and
freedom
Volition and
freedom
Volition and
freedom
Locus of causality Impersonal External External Internal Internal Internal
Type of motivation Amotivation Extrinsic Extrinsic Extrinsic Extrinsic Intrinsic
Controlled
Motivation
Controlled
Motivation
Autonomous
Motivation
Source: Adapted from Ryan and Deci (2000).
Self-Determination Theory 115

are in effect, as such contingencies formed the very reason for behavioral
engagement.
The next form of EM is introjected regulation, in which people are
motivated to comply with a partially internalized contingency to gain pride
and self-esteem, or to avoid feelings of guilt and shame. For instance, a
person who recycles to avoid feeling guilty would display introjected
regulation. Introjection, which commonly manifests as ego involvement, is
etymologically rooted in the Latin words intro (inside) and jacere (to throw).
In other words, the reason for doing the behavior has been ‘‘thrown inside’’
the individual and no longer requires external contingencies for enactment.
Thus, the contingency underlying the behavior, which was formerly applied
by others, is now applied to oneself. However, the regulation of the behavior
has been ‘‘swallowed whole’’ (Perls, 1973) rather than ‘‘fully digested’’,
engendering feelings of internal control. Such intrapersonal pressure is quite
energy-depriving, which might explain why introjection only predicts short-
term persistence (Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, & Brie
`re, 2001).
The third form of EM is identified regulation, in which people understand
and endorse the personal value and significance of a behavior and, as a
result, experience a sense of freedom in doing it. For example, an obese
teenager who decides to diet so as to take responsibility for his health would
display identified regulation. Identification, which can involve finding
meaning and choice in behavior, even when faced with adverse circum-
stances, corresponds to the tenets of existential thought (Ryan & Deci,
2004). As with introjection, identification involves behavior that is regulated
by intrapsychic forces. However, rather than being accompanied by feelings
of pressure, identified regulation is guided by personal values and self-
endorsed commitments. As such, the regulation of the behavior has almost
been fully internalized.
A final step toward full internalization involves the assimilation of
identified values and goals and the alignment of those identifications with
other aspects of the self. The fourth form of EM, integrated regulation,
involves the synthesis of various identifications to form a coherent and
unified sense of self, a process that likely requires considerable effort,
reflection, and self-awareness. To illustrate, a smoker who understands the
health benefits of cessation and wants to quit so that she might live to see her
grandchildren grow up would display integrated regulation. At times, people
understand the personal importance of a behavior, but they experience the
identification as compartmentalized and inconsistent with other aspects
of the integrated self. Consider, for example, a person who gives money
to charity to help those in need while employing ‘‘black-market workers’’
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.116

to avoid paying taxes. Interestingly, the importance of integration has been
questioned by some postmodern thinkers. Gergen (1991), for instance,
argued that adopting a chameleon-like personality could be an adaptive
response to a world with multiple and at times competing demands.
Such claims conflict with an organismic approach to personality in which
the experience of multiple, but compartmentalized, identities represents
fragmentation and non-optimal functioning (Ryan, 1993). In line with this,
Downie, Koestner, ElGeledi, and Cree (2004) reported that the integration
of cultural identities into the self was conducive to tricultural individuals’
psychological well-being.
Theoretical Considerations
Clarification of several conceptual points seems warranted. First, IM does
not represent the end point of the internalization process. Behaviors that
initially were prompted by external sources can be internalized and, when
integrated into the self, are enacted with a full sense of volition. However,
this does not imply that such behaviors are experienced as inherently
interesting or enjoyable. According to SDT, intrinsically motivated
behaviors are themselves satisfying and performed for non-separable
reasons, whereas well-internalized, extrinsically motivated behaviors are
performed for separable outcomes and, thus, cannot – by definition – be
intrinsically motivated. Nonetheless, it is possible that the integration of EM
co-occurs with the development of IM (Deci & Ryan, 1985b).
Second, internalization represents a developmental process. That is, there
is a natural inclination toward integration of the salient norms and values
in the social environment (Deci & Ryan, 1985b). For instance, whereas
adolescents may pursue particular hobbies to make a good impression on
others, older individuals might behave according to their personal interests.
In line with this, evidence suggests that with age children tend to regulate
socialized behaviors more autonomously given sufficient environmental
support (e.g., Chandler & Connell, 1987). We speculate that this trend
would emerge because during development the integrative tendency can
engender greater awareness and understanding of personal interests. Also,
older individuals may find that acting in line with personal commitments
yields more satisfaction than acting to meet external demands, which
can encourage further exploration of one’s values and interests. Similar
assumptions have been made by researchers who focused on concepts such
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 117

as ego-identity (Erikson, 1968), personal expressiveness (Waterman, in press),
and ego-development (Hy & Loevinger, 1996).
Third, the recognition that some forms of EM are relatively autonomous
has resulted in a conceptual shift in SDT. Whereas the distinction between
IM and EM was central to CET, this paradigm has been replaced by a
distinction between autonomous motivation and controlled motivation.
Autonomous motivation involves the regulation of behavior with
the experiences of volition, psychological freedom, and reflective self-
endorsement; the behavior has an internal perceived locus of causality. Both
identified regulation and integrated regulation, in addition to IM, are
autonomous forms of motivation. Controlled motivation, in contrast,
involves the regulation of behavior with the experiences of pressure and
coercion to think, feel, or behave in particular ways; the behavior has
an external perceived locus of causality. Both external regulation and
introjected regulation are controlled forms of motivation. Importantly, the
shift toward a distinction between autonomous motivation and controlled
motivation does not negate the findings and core principles of CET, which
focuses on IM and the external events that undermine or support it (i.e., the
extreme poles of the self-determination continuum). Thus, new pieces were
added to the growing ‘‘SDT puzzle’’ while previous pieces were left intact.
According to OIT, both autonomous motivation and controlled motiva-
tion reflect high involvement in an activity, although these two types of
motivation have very different qualities (Vansteenkiste, Lens, & Deci,
2006b). Further, autonomous motivation and controlled motivation are
contrasted with amotivation, in which people lack intentionality. Such
non-intentional behavior can result from a perceived non-contingency
between behavior and outcomes, from feeling incapable to perform the
behaviors necessary to achieve desired outcomes, or from a lack of valuation
of the activity (Deci & Ryan, 1985b).
Fourth, it is useful to link autonomous motivation and controlled
motivation to the concept of value, as discussed in expectancy-valence
models (Vroom, 1964; Wigfield & Cambria, this volume). Within such
models, values (along with expectancies) are considered the determinants
of motivated action through their effects on valences (Feather, 1992). Many
studies have shown that the value of an activity is an important
predictor of behavioral choice and performance. An important question
from the OIT perspective, however, concerns the reason one attaches high
valence to a particular activity. Such strong valuation could be motivated
either by external demands, internal pressures, or a personal endorsement
of the behavior. Indeed, Vansteenkiste, Lens, De Witte, and Feather (2005)
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.118

showed that unemployed individuals’ valence of a future job (employment
value) was strongly correlated with both autonomous and controlled reasons
for job search. Thus, a strong valuation can be driven by qualitatively
different reasons (viz., autonomous and controlled) for the activity, which
yield differential relations to adjustment.
Empirical Basis of Organismic Integration Theory
The Benefits of Internalization
The differentiation of EM has generated dozens of studies since Ryan and
Connell’s (1989) seminal article on the internalization continuum. During
the first half of the 1990s, the internalization continuum was examined in
several domains representing central aspects of people’s lives, including
relationships, religion, work, education, prosocial behavior, and parenting.
Subsequently, this research was extended to such domains as life goals,
politics, physical activity, and the environment. Most recently, domains
holding particular relevance for some people have received empirical
attention, including psychotherapy, unemployment, migration, health care,
eating regulation, and gaming.
In contrast to CET, the studies conducted within OIT often relied on self-
report questionnaires, rather than experimental manipulations, to assess the
antecedents and consequences of the motives for behavioral engagement.
Such research considerably broadened the scope of the macro-theory and
provided evidence for the ecological validity of SDT. This was important
because some had criticized CET for studying a phenomenon (viz., IM)
that is seldom observed in daily life (cf. Gagne
´& Deci, 2005), although
several real-life experimental studies have been conducted within CET (e.g.,
Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Soenens, & Matos, 2005a). Thus, the empirical
investigations testing OIT naturally complemented the work within CET.
OIT suggests that greater internalization is predictive of enhanced
physical, psychological, and social wellness. At least three methodological
approaches to the statistical aggregation of the internalization continuum
have been used to examine this hypothesis. First, some researchers have
examined the correlates of the different forms of EM as well as IM (e.g.,
Ryan & Connell, 1989; Burton, Lydon, D’Alessandro, & Koestner, 2006).
Second, others have assessed the independent effects of autonomous
motivation and controlled motivation (e.g., Vansteenkiste, Zhou, Lens, &
Soenens, 2005b). Third, some have used a relative autonomy index to predict
outcomes, in which the forms of EM are differentially weighted according to
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 119

their location along the continuum of self-determination, with controlled
regulatory styles weighted negatively and autonomous regulatory styles
weighted positively (e.g., Niemiec et al., 2006). Regardless of the
methodology used, studies have indicated that more autonomous, relative
to controlled, motivation is associated with greater persistence, perfor-
mance, social functioning, and physical and psychological wellness
(for review, see Deci & Ryan, 2000).
The Facilitation of Internalization
Given that internalization is conducive to myriad positive outcomes, it is
important to consider the factors that facilitate this process. Just as
autonomy and competence form the natural ingredients for IM, contexts
that support these needs are thought to promote internalization (Deci &
Ryan, 2000). That is, to the extent that people can feel choiceful and
effective in undertaking non-enjoyable behaviors, they are more likely to
personally endorse those actions. Furthermore, in considering the factors
that facilitate internalization, it became necessary to introduce the need
for relatedness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ryan, 1995) as a third basic
psychological need and a new piece of the ‘‘SDT puzzle.’’ Relatedness refers
to the need to experience mutual care and concern for close others. Indeed,
social norms and values are more likely to be adopted and internalized
when introduced by socializing agents to whom people feel close, rather
than distant. Children are, for instance, more likely to accept norms and
guidelines introduced by their parents, relative to strangers. Thus, full
internalization is most likely to occur in social contexts that are autonomy-
supportive (rather than controlling), competence supportive (rather than
chaotic and demeaning), and relatedness supportive (rather than rejecting
and withholding). In contrast, partial internalization is likely to occur when
social contexts support only the needs for competence and relatedness
(Markland & Tobin, in press).
Dozens of questionnaire-based studies in a variety of life domains, but far
fewer experimental studies, have lent credence to the importance of need-
supportive contexts in facilitating internalization (e.g., Niemiec et al., 2006).
Herein, we discuss three illustrative experiments. Deci, Eghrari, Patrick,
and Leone (1994) did a study in which participants performed a boring
vigilance task. Three need-supportive ingredients were manipulated in a
2 (rationale vs. no rationale) 2 (acknowledgement of feelings vs. no
acknowledgement) 2 (low vs. high controllingness) design. Interestingly,
participants’ engagement time increased linearly according to the number
of need-supportive factors. Also, participants’ quality of persistence was
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.120

examined by inspecting the correlations between engagement time and
three self-reported variables related to the task (viz., choice, usefulness,
interest/enjoyment) in two groups – persistent participants exposed to zero/
one versus two/three need-supportive factors. Importantly, among those
who received need support, the correlations were positive and significant
(indicating integrated regulation), whereas among those who did not
receive need support, the correlations were negative (indicating introjected
regulation). This examination of within-cell correlations underscores the
importance of moving beyond only considering the quantity of persistence to
examine its quality, as engagement time can be congruent with or alienated
from one’s affective experiences.
Joussemet, Koestner, Lekes, and Houlfort (2004) reported the results of
two experimental studies assessing the effects of autonomy support and
engagement-contingent rewards on the internalization of motivation for a
dull task. Deci et al.’s (1999) meta-analysis pointed out that rewards had no
impact on free-choice persistence at an uninteresting activity. However,
the studies included in the meta-analysis were limited by their considering
only the quantity of participants’ persistence and it is possible that under
reward contingencies people may display a qualitatively different type of
persistence. Joussemet et al. found that although rewards do not undermine
the quantity of engagement, they do create a more fragmented and alienated
form of behavioral regulation when administered in a controlling way. That
is, the association between behavioral persistence and affect was negative for
those in the controlling reward condition, whereas that correlation was
positive for those in the autonomy-supportive condition, suggesting that
their behavior was congruent with their emotional experiences. Such results
argue against the common socialization practice of using rewards to fore
people to engage in non-intrinsically motivated behaviors.
Recently, in a field study Jang (2008) examined the motivational power of
one component of autonomy support – provision of a meaningful rationale.
Rationale provision was found to enhance engagement time on an
uninteresting learning activity. Interestingly, the motivational benefits of
rationale provision increased over time. Moreover, internalization of the
motivation for the uninteresting activity fully explained the direct positive
effect of rationale provision on behavioral engagement.
Directions for Future Research
There are many important directions for future research on OIT.
One direction is to examine whether the theoretical continuum of
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 121

self-determination requires further refinement. Assor, Vansteenkiste, and
Kaplan (2009) posited that introjected regulation could be bifurcated into
approach and avoidance subtypes. They suggested that behavior might be
regulated with an experience of internal pressure to avoid such negative
feelings as shame, guilt, and anxiety, or to approach such positive feelings as
self-aggrandizement and pride. Consistent with the approach-avoidance
tradition in motivation (e.g., Atkinson, 1958; Elliot, 1999), Assor et al.
found that introjected avoidance regulation yielded more negative correlates
than introjected approach regulation. Further, identified regulation was a
stronger predictor of positive outcomes than both subtypes of introjected
regulation. Interestingly, identified regulation was more strongly correlated
with introjected approach regulation than with introjected avoidance
regulation, suggesting that introjected approach regulation is somewhat
more autonomous than introjected avoidance regulation. This seems logical
given that avoiding negative outcomes is more stressful and autonomy-
thwarting than approaching positive outcomes (Elliot & Sheldon, 1998).
These findings underscore three important points. First, they disconfirm
Carver and Scheier’s (1999) criticism that the differential correlates of
autonomous motivation and controlled motivation are due to autonomous
motivation’s being approach-regulated and controlled motivation’s being
avoidance-regulated. Assor et al. (2009) found that feeling internal pressure
to achieve contingent self-worth (i.e., introjected approach regulation)
was associated with less adaptive outcomes than willingly endorsing one’s
behavior (i.e., identified regulation), although both forms of EM are
approach-regulated. Second, they call for an examination of whether the
approach-avoidance distinction may be incorporated across the internaliza-
tion continuum. For example, external regulation can manifest as either
avoiding punishment or approaching a reward. Further, identified regula-
tion can manifest as approaching one’s personal values and commitments,
although failing to do so might engender feelings of guilt and anxiety
that one would aim to avoid. Such feelings are likely to be ontological
(May, 1983), as they arise when an individual is unable to personally express
oneself. Third, they underscore the importance of designing domain-specific
measures of internalization that include a balanced number of approach-
and avoidance-regulated items.
A second direction for research is to examine whether not engaging in a
particular activity is necessarily a reflection of amotivation or whether the
reason for non-engagement can be internalized and thus experienced as
more or less autonomous. In other words, having reflected upon a particular
request, some might choose not to engage in an activity to give priority to
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.122

alternative actions. For instance, a driver might deliberately choose not to
follow prescribed traffic rules (e.g., not speeding) because he believes the
situation is safe enough to do so. Alternatively, others might feel pressured
not to engage in a requested activity. Consider, for example, a student whose
mother suggests that she search for a summer job, but the student’s friends
prefer that she be available to hang out during the summer and thus
pressure her into not searching for a job. Such controlled non-engagement
might also take the form of defiance, as when people defy another’s request
so as to ‘‘save face’’ or to maintain independence. For instance, an
adolescent with anorexia might simply reject her parents’ wish for her to eat
more because she believes that her parents’ request is illegitimate. Such
rebellious reactions are controlled, as they are driven by a reaction against
external forces that one resists obeying. In short, then, it is possible for
both activity engagement and non-engagement to be experienced as either
autonomous or controlled.
In this respect, Vansteenkiste, Lens, De Witte, De Witte, and Deci (2004)
examined the motives given by unemployed individuals for searching
and not searching for a job, and found that autonomous motivation not-to-
search related positively to the experience of being unemployed and to
general well-being, whereas controlled motivation not-to-search related
negatively to the experience of being unemployed. Notably, autonomy-
supportive contextual factors may promote autonomous non-engagement in
an activity. For example, Vandereycken and Vansteenkiste (2009) examined
the effects of allowing patients with eating disorders to make an informed
choice about whether to continue or to terminate treatment after the first
few weeks of treatment. The implementation of this autonomy-supportive
strategy reduced patients’ drop-out rate during subsequent treatment,
relative to another program in which such choice was denied. This choice
implementation likely facilitated autonomous engagement in therapy among
those who continued treatment, as well as autonomous disengagement from
therapy among those who terminated treatment.
A third direction for research is to examine individuals’ motivational
profiles as they relate to outcomes, thereby using a person-centered rather
than a dimensional approach. Such an approach is instructive for various
reasons. For instance, the person-centered approach offers a more in-depth
understanding of the different types of motivational profiles that can
be used to characterize individuals, which might also be instructive for
practitioners (e.g., therapists, school counselors) interested in developing
programs for different individuals. Also, this data-analytical technique
provides new ways to test competing hypotheses. For instance, the argument
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 123

maintained in expectancy-valence theories and echoed by lay beliefs that
being highly motivated (regardless of the type of motivation) yields
beneficial effects can be contrasted with the SDT perspective, which
suggests that the type of motivation is also useful in predicting important
outcomes. Using a person-centered approach to test this hypothesis, Ratelle,
Guay, Vallerand, Larose, and Sene
´cal (2007) and Vansteenkiste, Sierens,
Soenens, Luyckx, and Lens (2009) found that students characterized by high
levels of autonomous motivation and low levels of controlled motivation
displayed better academic outcomes, relative to those characterized by the
opposite motivational profile, although both groups had equal amounts of
motivation. These findings are in line with SDT but contradict quantitative
perspectives on motivation, as they suggest that being highly motivated does
not necessarily yield beneficial effects, especially when one’s motivation is
controlled.
A fourth direction for research is to examine whether internalization
predicts generalization (or transfer) of behaviors, similar to our recommen-
dation for future research on CET. For example, some governments
encourage their constituents to recycle by selling expensive garbage bags,
thereby deterring people from filling those bags with recyclable materials.
One of the critical questions is (1) whether people continue recycling while on
vacation when garbage bags are free (i.e., cross-context generalization) and
(2) whether they engage in a broad array of pro-environmental behaviors,
such as conserving water or driving in an ecologically responsible way (i.e.,
cross-behavior generalization). According to OIT, autonomous motivation is
conducive to both behavioral persistence and generalization because, when
more fully internalized, behavior is not dependent on external contingencies
of reinforcement. In line with this, Hagger, Chatzisarantis, Culverhouse,
and Biddle (2003) found that high-school students who reported more
autonomous reasons for physical education were more likely to exercise
during their leisure time, suggesting that the benefits of autonomous
motivation in physical education radiated to a new context. Further, in an
experimental study, Vansteenkiste, Simons, Soenens, and Lens (2004c) found
that an autonomy-supportive introduction of a new exercise (viz., Tai-Bo)
during a physical education class promoted enrollment in a Tai-Bo club four
months later. Some recent studies provided initial evidence for cross-activity
generalization. Muraven, Gagne
´, and Rosman (2008) showed that con-
trolled, relative to autonomous, engagement in a relatively boring activity
that required self-control (e.g., not typing the letter e) predicted poorer
performance on a subsequent, unrelated self-control task, as mediated by
reduced vitality. Finally, Mata et al. (2009) reported that exercise motivation
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.124

was associated with more healthy eating regulation in an intervention
program among obese individuals that primarily targeted physical activity
change, thus suggesting a motivational spill-over effect.
A fifth direction for research is to examine whether OIT’s taxonomy of
EM adds explanatory precision to domain-specific approaches to motiva-
tion. For instance, Allport and Ross (1967) distinguished between intrinsic
and extrinsic religious orientations. Those with an intrinsic religious
orientation have internalized their religious beliefs (e.g., humility, compas-
sion) ‘‘without reservation’’ and accommodate or reorganize other goals to
bring them into harmony with their religious convictions. Those with an
extrinsic religious orientation, in contrast, approach religion in an instru-
mental way to attain ‘‘self-centered’’ ends (e.g., safety, solace). Recently,
Neyrinck, Lens, Vansteenkiste, and Soenens (in press) showed that
Allport and Ross’s intrinsic–extrinsic distinction does not correspond to
SDT’s distinction between IM and EM. Specifically, the intrinsic religious
orientation related positively to well-internalized EM, but was unrelated to
IM, suggesting that such an orientation might more accurately be labeled
as internalized EM. A similar conceptual refinement could be applied to the
motivation measure for smoking cessation developed by Curry, Wagner,
and Grothaus (1990), which is primarily grounded in the intrinsic–extrinsic
motivation distinction that formed the basis for CET.
CAUSALITY ORIENTATIONS THEORY
Autonomous, Controlled, and Amotivated Functioning
at the Dispositional Level
In contrast to CET and OIT, which examine motivational dynamics in
particular life domains or situations, causality orientations theory (COT;
Deci & Ryan, 1985a), SDT’s third mini-theory, focuses on individual
differences in global motivational orientations. That is, COT adds a new
piece to the ‘‘SDT puzzle’’ by applying the dynamics of behavioral regulation
to an understanding of people’s personality-level functioning. The term
‘‘causality orientation’’ contains the Latin root causa, which refers to the
reason behind, or the cause of, behavioral initiation (deCharms, 1968).
According to COT, individuals differ in how they typically perceive the
source of their behavioral initiation. People who are high on the autonomy
orientation tend to act in accord with their own emerging interests and
self-endorsed values, interpret external events as informational, and thus
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 125

typically regulate their behavior autonomously. In contrast, those who are
high on the control orientation tend to act in accord with external or internal
demands, interpret external events as pressuring, and thus typically
regulate their behavior with an experience of control. Finally, people who
are high on the impersonal orientation tend to perceive their life experiences
as beyond personal control and, accordingly, are prone to pervasive
feelings of helplessness, ineffectiveness, and passivity; such an orientation
is the dispositional equivalent of amotivation and is conceptually related to
Rotter’s (1966) concept of external locus of control.
Deci and Ryan’s (1985a) specification of causality orientations was later
adopted in Vallerand’s (1997) hierarchical model of motivation, which
suggests that motivation can be studied at three hierarchically organized
levels – global individual differences, social contexts, and specific situations.
Consistent with the proposed interrelation among these three levels of
motivation, research has shown that the causality orientations are mean-
ingfully related to domain-specific motives. Williams and Deci (1996),
for instance, reported that the autonomy and control orientations were
associated with autonomous and controlled reasons for participating in a
medical interviewing course, respectively.
Theoretical Considerations
Because causality orientations are relatively stable individual differences,
it is important to distinguish them from other personality constructs,
particularly the Big Five traits. Whereas the Big Five traits can be
considered core personality dimensions AU :2(Asendorpf & van Aken, 2003), as
they are highly stable and have a substantial genetic basis, the causality
orientations can be considered surface personality dimensions, as they are
more malleable and shaped by socialization experiences. Indeed, causality
orientations represent dynamic outcomes that develop as a function of
the amount of received need support in interaction with genetic and
biological factors. Importantly, COT suggests that each of the three
causality orientations exists to varying degrees within each of us. As a result,
situational cues can elicit otherwise latent causality orientations that, once
triggered, influence perception and action. For instance, a braggart may
trigger a control orientation in a conversation partner that, in turn, may
elicit a competitive and defensive stance toward the braggart. Nonetheless,
each individual has a predominant motivational orientation that charac-
terizes his/her disposition in general.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.126

Empirical Basis of Causality Orientations Theory
An Initial Investigation
Deci and Ryan (1985a) developed the General Causality Orientations Scale
(GCOS) to assess general motivational orientations and found them to be
differently related to a broad array of personality and adjustment outcomes.
Specifically, the autonomy orientation related positively to ego-development
and self-esteem, and negatively to self-derogation. Interestingly, those who
scored high on the autonomy orientation also reported a greater tendency to
support their children’s autonomy and had children who were more securely
attached. Thus, the autonomy orientation may be transmitted intergener-
ationally through autonomy-supportive parenting. The control orientation,
by contrast, related positively to the Type-A coronary-prone behavior
pattern and to public self-consciousness, indicating that control-oriented
individuals experience substantial tension and stress, and are highly sensitive
to others’ evaluations. Bridges, Frodi, Grolnick, and Spiegel (1983) reported
that the mothers of resistant babies scored high on the control orientation,
suggesting that such children are anxious about losing their mother’s
approval, just as their mothers are concerned with others’ approval. The
impersonal orientation showed the least adaptive profile of personality
functioning and adjustment. Specifically, those who scored high on the
impersonal orientation reported greater self-derogation, depressive symp-
toms, and social anxiety, as well as impaired ego-development and low
self-worth. Mothers with an impersonal orientation had children who
displayed an avoidant attachment pattern, which may engender feelings of
inadequacy at a very young age.
Open Versus Defensive Modes of Responding
A central line of research within COT has examined the relation of the
autonomy and control orientations to openness and defensiveness,
respectively. Hodgins and Knee (2002) argued that because autonomy-
oriented individuals experience more psychological freedom and choice,
they likely would process information and interact with others with a sense
of openness, engendering greater tolerance and non-biased responding.
In contrast, because control-oriented individuals often feel preoccupied with
meeting external demands and maintaining self-worth, they likely would feel
threatened by intrapersonal and interpersonal pressures. They would react
to such pressures by processing information in a biased, self-serving way and
would relate to others in a more defensive, strategic, and intolerant manner.
Indeed, studies have provided support for this line of reasoning.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 127

First, the autonomy and control orientations have been shown to yield
differential relations to people’s awareness and knowledge of their attitudes,
personality traits, and behavior. Specifically, Koestner, Bernieri, and
Zuckerman (1992, Study 1) reported that the association between self-report
and behavioral (i.e., free-choice persistence) assessments of IM was stronger
among autonomy-oriented, relative to control-oriented, individuals. Similar
findings were observed between self-report and behavioral (i.e., returning a
questionnaire on time) measures of conscientiousness (Koestner et al., 1992,
Study 2). Overall, then, autonomy-oriented individuals report higher levels of
self-knowledge, whereas control-oriented individuals report more biased and
inaccurate self-perceptions.
Second, the autonomy and control orientations have been shown to yield
differential relations to people’s processing of information that could inform
them about their capabilities, interests, and identity (i.e., self-relevant
information). Koestner and Zuckerman (1994), for instance, showed that
autonomy- and control-orientated individuals react differently to success
versus failure feedback on a puzzle task. Whereas individuals high on the
autonomy orientation showed the same amount of persistence in the success
and failure conditions, those high on the control orientation persisted more
in the failure condition. Also, the persistence shown by control-oriented
participants related negatively to their positive affect during the free-choice
period. This suggests that control-oriented individuals attempted to restore
feelings of self-worth by ‘‘proving themselves’’ following failure feedback,
resulting in conflicted, ego-involved persistence. In a related study, Knee
and Zuckerman (1996) showed that autonomy-oriented individuals did not
display a self-serving bias, as manifested in their tendency to adopt a self-
aggrandizing attitude after success and to deny responsibility for failure.
Such differences between autonomy- and control-oriented individuals in
processing self-relevant information also manifest in how they approach
the developmental process of identity exploration. For example, Soenens,
Berzonsky, Vansteenkiste, Beyers, and Goossens (2005) found that the
autonomy orientation was associated with an information-oriented style,
in which adolescents engage in an open and flexible exploration of identity-
relevant alternatives. In contrast, the control orientation was associated
with a normative style, which is characteristic of adolescents who safeguard
their adopted identity commitments against discrepant self-relevant
information in an assimilative, defensive fashion.
Third, the autonomy and control orientations have been related to
markedly different interpersonal styles. Whereas autonomy-oriented indivi-
duals tend to relate to others with a sense of openness and honesty, those
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.128

with a control orientation tend to relate to others in an intolerant, closed-
minded, and manipulative way. For instance, Hodgins, Liebeskind, and
Schwartz (1996) showed that autonomy-oriented individuals’ provided
fewer lies and more mitigating themes (e.g., concessions and excuses) after
offending someone than those with a control orientation. Hodgins et al.
suggested that following an offense, autonomy-oriented individuals
are authentically concerned with the restoration of the relationship, rather
than with ‘‘saving face’’ and protecting their reputation. Other studies
have shown that control-oriented individuals have a more Machiavellian
interpersonal orientation (McHoskey, 1999), and display more aggression
in sports (Goldstein & Iso-Ahola, 2008) and while driving (Neighbors,
Vietor, & Knee, 2002), because they tend to dehumanize others by
considering them as obstacles that need to be removed (Moller & Deci,
2009; Vansteenkiste, Mouratidis, & Lens, in press).
Priming Unconscious Motivational Orientations
Rather than relying on self-reports of global motivational orientations,
recent studies have made use of priming procedures to activate the
autonomy and control orientations outside conscious awareness to examine
how these latent, unconscious motivational orientations affect behavior,
performance, and well-being. The findings of these studies largely paralleled
those obtained using the GCOS. More specifically, primed autonomy
and control orientations have been shown to predict open (vs. defensive)
intrapersonal and interpersonal functioning, performance, and adjustment
in theoretically consistent ways. In one of the first priming studies, Levesque
and Pelletier (2003) activated the autonomy and control orientations by
using a scrambled sentence task. Autonomy-primed participants descrambled
sets of words that contained terms related to autonomy (e.g., choice,
freedom), whereas control-primed participants descrambled sets of words
that contained terms related to control (e.g., should, forced). Results showed
that autonomy-, relative to control-, primed participants, reported more
enjoyment during a subsequent crossword puzzle task. Using a similar
priming procedure, Hodgins and colleagues have shown that control-,
relative to autonomy-, primed participants, displayed a more defensive intra-
personal orientation, as reflected in a stronger self-serving bias (Hodgins,
Yacko, & Gottlieb, 2006, Study 2); reported higher self-handicapping (i.e.,
making anticipatory excuses for failure; Hodgins et al., 2006, Study 3); and
had a larger discrepancy between explicit and implicit self-esteem (Hodgins,
Brown, & Carver, 2007). Control-primed individuals also experienced lower
implicit self-worth (Hodgins et al., 2007) and displayed poorer performance
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 129

on a rowing machine (Hodgins et al., 2006, Study 3). These findings
have been confirmed using both supraliminal and subliminal procedures
(Radel, Sarrazin, & Pelletier, 2009).
Directions for Future Research
There are many important directions for future research on COT. One
direction is to examine stability and change in the causality orientations.
If causality orientations reflect surface personality dimensions, then they
should be less stable than core personality dimensions. Further, longitudinal
research could show that, despite being relatively stable, causality orienta-
tions are susceptible to change in response to environmental influences
(e.g., need support). A second direction for research is to address the
measurement of the GCOS, which was developed in the 1980s when OIT had
not yet been fully developed. Although Deci and Ryan (1985a) provided
evidence for the validity of the scale, a closer inspection of the items indicates
that the operationalization of the autonomy orientation was limited to items
tapping emerging interests, whereas the control orientation measure was
limited to items referring to monetary rewards and external approval. Thus,
the operationalization of the autonomy and control orientations was heavily
influenced by the distinction between IM and EM, which is at the heart
of CET – the most developed and refined theory at the time. However, given
that new pieces have been added to the ‘‘SDT puzzle’’ it seems appropriate
to reevaluate the GCOS. Because autonomy involves acting upon one’s
interests and personal values, and controlled functioning can take the form of
external and internal pressure, it is important to operationalize the autonomy
and control orientations in a more inclusive manner.
A third direction for research is to examine whether interpersonal
supports for autonomy interact with the causality orientations in predicting
behavior and well-being. From a match-perspective, it could be argued
that control-oriented individuals would benefit from being in a controlling
environment, as the motivational orientation would match the contextual
dynamics. Because control-oriented individuals’ basic needs would be
frustrated in a controlling environment, according to COT such individuals
would be expected to suffer in such an environment. To date, most studies
on autonomy support (vs. control) and research on causality orientations
have been conducted in relative isolation from each other. Black and Deci
(2000) examined such interactions and found that students’ autonomous
motivation and perceived teacher autonomy support interacted to predict
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.130

performance, but not adjustment. Interestingly, low autonomy-oriented
students benefited from perceiving their instructors as autonomy-suppor-
tive, which contradicts the match-perspective prediction that such indivi-
duals would fare better in controlling contexts.
BASIC NEEDS THEORY
A Unifying Principle
The concept of basic psychological needs has been woven throughout our
discussion of SDT. Within CET need satisfaction was used to explain the
effects of external events on IM, whereas within OIT and COT need
satisfaction accounted for the effects of the social environment on the
internalization of societal norms and rules, and the development of global
motivational orientations, respectively. In addition to representing a unifying
principle within SDT (Niemiec et al., in press), the concept of need
satisfaction is important in its own right. Basic needs theory (BNT; Ryan &
Deci, 2002), SDT’s fourth mini-theory, specifies innate psychological
nutriments that are necessary for psychological and physical health, and
social wellness. Following the principle of Ockham’s razor (the law of
parsimony) and to avoid proliferation of the number of basic psychological
needs, a minimal number of needs (i.e., three) have been proposed to account
for a maximal number of phenomena across ages, genders, and cultures.
The need for autonomy (deCharms, 1968) refers to the experience of
volition and psychological freedom. With autonomy, one experiences choice
in and ownership of behavior, which is perceived as emanating from the self
and is in accord with abiding values and interests. The need for competence
(White, 1959) refers to the experience of effectance in one’s pursuits. The
need for relatedness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) refers to the experience
of reciprocal care and concern for important others. In line with SDT’s
cumulative, research-driven development, this does not preclude the
specification of additional needs, but a new need would only be added
following strong theoretical arguments and empirical support.
Supporting Basic Psychological Needs
Parallel to the basic needs, BNT specifies three dimensions of the social
environment that support (rather than thwart) those needs. Specifically,
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 131

autonomy-supportive (rather than controlling) contexts support autonomy,
well-structured (rather than chaotic and demeaning) contexts support
competence, and warm and responsive (rather than cold and neglectful)
contexts support relatedness. Consider each in turn.
Autonomy-supportive individuals promote the volition of those they
socialize. In doing so, such individuals provide the amount of choice desired
by the person being socialized, offer a meaningful and realistic rationale
when choice is constrained, and try to understand the other’s perspective.
In contrast, controlling individuals direct the thoughts, feelings, and
behaviors of those they socialize. In doing so, such individuals may use
overt, externally pressuring tactics (e.g., controlling language, punishments),
or more covert, subtle techniques of manipulation, including conditional
regard (Assor, Roth, & Deci, 2004), guilt induction (Vansteenkiste et al.,
2005a), and shaming (for a review, see Soenens & Vansteenkiste, in press-a).
Several studies in various life domains have shown that perceptions of
autonomy support (relative to control) are associated with higher well-
being, better performance, and more behavioral persistence.
Whereas autonomy support promotes the self-initiation of behavior,
structure is critical for the competent pursuit of one’s goals. Interestingly,
some have proposed that structure and autonomy support are contrasting
socialization styles, as if these styles are situated at opposite ends of a
continuum (see Reeve, 2009). BNT maintains that autonomy support is not
a laissez faire socialization technique in which guidance is lacking and
unlimited freedom is granted, which certainly would reflect the opposite of a
well-structured environment (Jang, Reeve, & Deci, in press). Indeed,
although guidelines may structure and limit behavior, such restrictions are
not necessarily experienced as controlling. Rather, people are more likely to
personally endorse and volitionally follow social norms that are introduced
in an autonomy-supportive way. Thus, both autonomy support and
structure are essential for effective socialization, as the former describes
the way rules and expectations are introduced and the latter describes the
clarity of those norms.
Interpersonal support, as described within the socialization literature
(Davidov & Grusec, 2006), is provided through warmth (or the ability to
amicably connect with others and to partake in mutually enjoyable
activities) and responsiveness to distress (or the ability to empathize with
and respond to others’ unpleasant feelings in a way that provides solace and
comfort). The importance of interpersonal support has been highlighted by
such theories as attachment theory (Bowlby, 1988) and acceptance–rejection
theory (Rohner, 2004). According to SDT, interpersonal support is
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.132

necessary for the satisfaction of the need for relatedness, as it fosters a sense
of connectedness, love, and understanding within relationships.
Advantages of Specifying Basic Psychological Needs
There are several advantages to positing the existence of basic psychological
needs (Deci, 1992). First, this concept allows for theorizing about the
energization of behavior, which, in addition to the direction of behavior,
is an important component of motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985b). Many
theories of motivation however, only focus on the direction of behavior.
In contrast, SDT maintains that basic psychological needs represent an
energetic resource that propels a variety of motivated behaviors.
Second, this concept allows for a discussion of human nature and the
specific psychological factors that are essential for optimal human
development. Various scholars typically fail to address these important
questions, either because they focus on a circumscribed phenomenon
(e.g., unrealistic optimism), which obviates their grappling with such issues,
or because they assume (implicitly or explicitly) that no inherent human
nature need to be specified. Other scholars argue that humans are born as
tabula rasa (blank slates) upon which cultural values and norms are
imprinted during socialization, a perspective known as the Standard Social
Science Model (SSSM; Barkow, Cosmides, & Tooby, 1992). According to
the SSSM, culturally acquired behaviors are not evaluated according to
their compatibility with human nature, but rather according to whether
those behaviors are emphasized by the environment, and well-being is
expected to result from a match between one’s behavior and ambient
social values. In contrast, SDT posits that all humans, regardless of whether
their behaviors fit or do not fit the social context, require satisfaction
of autonomy, competence, and relatedness for psychological growth and
wellness (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Third, this concept enables researchers to synthesize a broad range of
divergent phenomena. For instance, within SDT the satisfaction versus
thwarting of basic needs has been used to explain such positive outcomes as
well-being, productivity, and cooperation, as well as such negative outcomes
as depression, pathology, and racism, among many others. Fourth, this
concept gives researchers a theoretical basis for understanding which
dynamics of social contexts (homes, organizations, schools) promote versus
hinder high-quality motivation, productivity, and well-being. Related to
this, the specification of basic psychological needs is important from an
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 133

applied perspective, as this concept gives socializing agents a means to
predict whether their interaction styles, organizational structures, and
educational practices will promote optimal outcomes.
Characterization of Basic Psychological Needs
Early motivation theorists, most prominently Hull (1943), focused on
physiological drives (viz., hunger, thirst, sex), which are non-nervous-system
tissue deficits that activate behaviors to reduce those drives. In contrast,
the focus of BNT is on psychological needs, which provide an important
source of energy (in addition to physiological drives and emotions) and are
considered the essential nutriments for optimal functioning. Just as plants
require sun, soil, and water to grow, humans require satisfaction of the
needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness to function optimally at
the physical, psychological, and social levels (Ryan, 1995). An important
characterization of basic needs, therefore, is that when satisfied, they
promote humans’ thriving and optimal functioning, and prevent illness.
A second important characterization of basic needs is that they are innate,
from which three implications can be derived. First, it implies that
satisfaction of the basic psychological needs is critical throughout one’s
entire life, from birth until death. Second, it implies that the benefits of need
satisfaction do not necessarily require conscious, cognitive processing
to accrue, as even children as young as one-year old benefit from being in
need-supportive environments (Grolnick, Bridges, & Frodi, 1984). Third,
it implies that the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are
universal nutriments necessary for optimal functioning, regardless of gender,
social class, and cultural context.
A third important characterization of basic needs is that when thwarted,
people may cope in a variety of maladaptive ways (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
One such maladaptive coping response is to develop need substitutes, which
represent strong desires (e.g., material success, a thin body, social approval)
that strongly affect cognition, emotion, and behavior. Although achieving
such desires may yield some derivative satisfaction, such feelings are
short-lived, as those ends fail to satisfy basic psychological needs. For
instance, a materialist may experience a derivative sense of competence if he
is successful in business, but such satisfaction is likely short-lived and
his pursuit of financial success may in time cause work–family conflict
(Vansteenkiste et al., 2007b), thus interfering with his satisfaction of
relatedness. Consider also an adolescent who has such a strong desire for
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.134

social recognition that she spreads rumors about her classmates. Although
this relationally aggressive style may enhance her popularity, it is unlikely to
promote her developing close relations with others (Soenens, Vansteenkiste,
Goossens, Duriez, & Niemiec, 2008).
A second maladaptive coping response is to develop rigid behavior
patterns, which may provide short-term feelings of security, stability, and
efficacy, but interfere with genuine need satisfaction. For instance,
maladaptive perfectionists often obsess about achieving very demanding
standards. Although such high standards may provide structure, their rigid
pursuit is likely to interfere with the satisfaction of autonomy (Shafran &
Mansell, 2001), as such standards preclude opportunities for full absorption
in the activity.
Theoretical Considerations
Needs as Experiential Inputs Versus Needs as Motives
BNT’s definition of basic psychological needs as innate nutriments necessary
for integrated functioning differs from the more prominent usage of the
concept provided by Murray (1938). According to Murray, psychological
needs are relatively stable differences in desires that vary in strength
across individuals as a function of their socialization history. From this
perspective, individuals learn to associate positive emotions with particular
motives (e.g., affiliation, achievement, power) during development, resulting
in differences in the strength of those preferences. An important implication
of this acquired ‘‘needs’’ perspective is that the satisfaction of these motives
is only beneficial for people who desire to have those motives satisfied; thus,
people will most likely experience wellness in contexts that match their
acquired ‘‘needs.’’ For example, those with a strong desire for achievement
are expected to benefit from a context that emphasizes outperforming others
(Senko & Harackiewicz, 2002). BNT, in contrast, posits that the basic needs
for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are innate requirements for
psychological growth, even for those who do not place strong importance on
those needs. To the extent that basic needs are satisfied, positive outcomes
are expected to follow. In line with this, Mouratidis, Vansteenkiste, Lens,
and Sideridis (2008) demonstrated that positive feedback enhanced IM,
even for those who did not value doing well on the activity.
When needs are thwarted, initially an individual is likely to persist in an
attempt to satisfy basic needs by looking for new routes to need satisfaction
(Deci & Ryan, 2000). For instance, following critical feedback an individual
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 135

might have an increased desire for competence. Indeed, Sheldon and Gunz
(in press) showed that experiential deficits in autonomy, competence, and
relatedness predicted corresponding motives to overcome those deficits.
This study, however, did not examine whether pursuing a need after an
experienced deficit predicted subsequent need satisfaction. We doubt this
would be the case, as there are a number of reasons that people would be
less likely to feel maximally satisfied once their pursuit is consciously and/or
reactively driven.
First, when needs are thwarted, people may become sensitive to
environmental cues that signal opportunities for need satisfaction. For
instance, Gardner, Pickett, Jefferis, and Knowles (2005) found that lonely
individuals, who presumably lacked relatedness satisfaction, displayed
an increased attention to social cues and opportunities for interpersonal
interaction. Such heightened sensitivity to environmental cues might
lead previously need-deprived individuals to interpret a subsequent need-
supportive experience as less supportive than when their needs are satisfied.
Indeed, van Prooijen (2009) showed that relative to those whose autonomy
was satisfied, autonomy-deprived participants experienced a no-voice
decision-making process as less fair. This suggests that previously controlled
individuals interpreted subsequent events more strongly as autonomy-
frustrating, thereby potentially inducing a negative spiral.
Second, the regulation of behaviors intended to satisfy needs can vary in
relative autonomy. When needs are thwarted, one might become explicitly
focused on pursuing need satisfaction because of ego involvement. That is,
need-deprived individuals may be preoccupied with potential need-satisfying
activities because they base self-worth on their successful completion of such
tasks. When feeling incompetent, for instance, one may have a strong desire
to prove oneself as capable and effective. Likewise, when feeling lonely,
one may have a strong desire to portray oneself as having an extensive
social network. Finally, when feeling pushed around and unable to voice
personal preferences, one may have a strong desire to be independent and
differentiated from others. Thus, when needs are thwarted, people may
actively pursue opportunities for need satisfaction so as to regain self-worth,
which is unlikely to contribute to need satisfaction. In fact, Ryan, Koestner,
and Deci (1991) and Vansteenkiste and Deci (2003) demonstrated that
providing negative feedback to ego-involved individuals engendered
inauthentic persistence during a free-choice period. Presumably, such
persistence was done to feel competent after having received critical
feedback, but the behavior was experienced as internally conflicted and,
thus, not genuine. Paradoxically, the controlled pursuit of competence may
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.136

have precluded participants’ opportunity to satisfy their needs, as feeling
controlled may have detracted from competently engaging the activity.
Although need deprivation appears to prompt heightened attention
to social cues and a stronger desire for need satisfaction, this does not
preclude the possibility that need-deprived individuals (a) anticipate less
satisfaction from subsequent need-satisfying experiences (due to previous
experiences of need deprivation) and (b) derive less satisfaction from
those new experiences. In line with this, Moller, Deci, and Elliot (in press)
used diary and experimental methodologies to show that individuals
high in person-level relatedness (i.e., those who reported higher general
levels of relatedness) expected greater need satisfaction from a relational
event (anticipated value) and experienced days and events in which
their relatedness was supported as more satisfying (experienced value).
Thus, different from the studies mentioned above, Moller et al. examined
subsequent need satisfaction and found that those high in general need
satisfaction found subsequent need-supportive events more affectively
rewarding and need satisfying. Interestingly, Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe,
and Ryan (2000) and Moller et al. used the term sensitization to explain their
findings and suggested that satisfaction of relatedness makes an individual
more sensitive to opportunities for relatedness, leading people to perceive
need-supportive events as more important and satisfying.
In short, it appears that both need-deprived and need-satisfied individuals
are sensitive to new need-satisfying experiences, albeit at different moments
and in different ways. Given that need-deprived individuals tend to
reactively monitor their environment for need-satisfying signals, they are
alert or sensitive to potentially new need-satisfying stimuli before such
stimuli occur. Rather than reactively seeking new need-satisfying experi-
ences, previously need-satisfied individuals tend to be spontaneously
immersed in ongoing activities. When asked whether they anticipate
deriving satisfaction from a new event, their history of need-satisfying
experiences may lead them to expect and experience greater subsequent need
satisfaction, relative to need-deprived individuals. Thus, for need-satisfied
individuals the sensitization process occurs after need satisfaction has
occurred. Although need-deprived individuals might initially increase in
alertness for and motivation to approach new need-satisfying events
(Sheldon & Gunz, in press), their failure to derive as much satisfaction
from new need-satisfying encounters (Moller et al., in press) might lead
them to devalue the importance of new need-satisfying experiences over
time. Indeed, the initially controlled reactions of need-deprived individuals
might be gradually replaced by a sense of helplessness; they might feel
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 137

incapable of getting their basic needs met, leading them to attach less
importance to need satisfaction, a process referred to as accommodation or
desensitization (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Moller et al., in press). These dynamics
await further empirical testing.
The Universal Importance of Autonomy
Several contemporary psychologists have questioned the importance of
autonomy for such groups as Easterners (Iyengar & DeVoe, 2003), women
(Jordan, 1997), and the working class (Stephens, Markus, & Townsend,
2007). Herein, we discuss the cultural relativist perspective (Markus &
Kitayama, 2003) and later we consider the relevance of autonomy for
Easterners, women, the impoverished, and, indeed, all humans. Markus and
Kitayama have disputed the universal importance of autonomy by arguing
that autonomy is a typical Western concept that is unlikely to yield the
same well-being correlates for Easterners, whose culture emphasizes social
harmony and interdependence. Such a view is rooted in the SSSM, as it
suggests that autonomy will only promote desirable outcomes for those
whose culture emphasizes the importance of acting autonomously. Clearly,
this view is at odds with SDT and, accordingly, it is important to discuss this
complex, multi-faceted controversy.
First, SDT and cultural relativists define autonomy in different ways.
Whereas cultural relativists typically equate autonomy with individualism,
independence, and uniqueness, BNT defines autonomy as the experience of
volition, choice, and psychological freedom. When defined as independence,
it follows that such a concept would not be relevant to those who value
interdependence. However, within BNT the opposite of autonomy is not
dependence (i.e., reliance on others to guide one’s behavior and decision
making), but rather the experience of pressure or coercion to behave in
particular ways (Vansteenkiste et al., 2005b), and we maintain that
autonomy will have functional benefits in cultures that emphasize both
independence (Western values) and interdependence (Eastern values). When
defined as volition and choice, it follows that one can feel either free or
coerced to act independently or to remain dependent on others. To
illustrate, both a Belgian and a Chinese college senior may feel choiceful
(vs. controlled) in her decision to live by herself (i.e., to become
independent) or to live with her family (i.e., to remain dependent), with
divergent outcomes associated with the degree to which her decision is
experienced as autonomous (Kins, Beyers, Soenens, & Vansteenkiste, 2009).
Second, and fully in line with the cultural relativist perspective, we recognize
that differences in emphasis on independence versus interdependence are
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.138

learned through socialization. Despite mean-level differences in a culture’s
emphasis on independence versus interdependence, BNT maintains that
the behaviors associated with both types of functioning can vary in the
degree to which they are experienced as psychologically free or coerced.
A more volitional (relative to pressured) pursuit of either independence or
interdependence (regardless of the dominant cultural values) is expected to
promote optimal functioning, and this has been confirmed in several studies
(e.g., Rudy, Sheldon, Awong, & Tan, 2007).
Third, BNT’s claim that satisfaction of autonomy yields positive effects
across cultures does not contradict the idea that there exists considerable
cross-cultural variation in how psychological needs are satisfied. For instance,
Iyengar and Lepper (1999) reported that for European Americans making a
personal choice was more intrinsically motivating than having the choice
made by one’s mother or the experimenter. However, for Asian Americans
having the choice made by one’s mother was comparable to making a
personal choice, although both were more intrinsically motivating than
having the choice made by the experimenter. At first sight, such findings seem
to challenge BNT’s assumption that autonomy is a universal need. However,
from the perspective of BNT such findings illustrate the considerable cross-
cultural variation in how autonomy can be satisfied. For those from an
individualistic culture, behaving autonomously (with a sense of volition)
implies making a personal choice, whereas those from a collectivistic culture
seem to feel volitional when behaving in accord with the choice of someone
who they trust (e.g., their mother), perhaps because they have identified with
that person’s choice for them. Indeed, Bao and Lam (2008) found that pre-
adolescent Chinese children reported comparable levels of IM when making
a personal choice as when the choice was made by an adult (viz., parent,
teacher) to whom they felt close, presumably because their need for
relatedness was satisfied. Notably, although Bao and Lam obtained their
results in a culture that emphasizes social harmony and relationships, BNT
posits that similar results would be found among those from an individualistic
culture, as relatedness is equally important in both cultures. In short, the
specification of innate and universal needs does not preclude differences in
socialization affecting how those needs are satisfied. Thus, it is critical to
examine the dynamic interplay among the basic needs to understand how the
social environment supports need satisfaction in different cultures.
Covariance among the Elements of Need Support
Although the elements of need support have been isolated and examined
separately (Sheldon & Filak, 2008), in daily interactions supports for
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 139

autonomy, competence, and relatedness are likely to covary. Such
covariance may occur because the elements of need support are based,
in part, on an accurate understanding of another’s perspective. Specifically,
autonomy support involves the provision of choice and a meaningful
rationale when choice is constrained, competence support involves the
provision of a desired amount of information and guidance, and relatedness
support involves the provision of a desired amount of care and concern.
When an individual truly understands another’s internal frame of reference,
the provided choice, information, and concern can be experienced as
genuine, helpful, and caring. Thus, accurate empathy seems to be a
precondition for supporting all three needs, which may explain why the
three facets of need support strongly covary. Further, some elements of need
support might satisfy a single need, whereas others might satisfy two or
three needs. For instance, a meaningful rationale might help an individual
grasp the value of an activity (autonomy support) and provide structure for
the activity (competence support). Choice, however, would likely only
satisfy autonomy. Thus, because there is no one-to-one association between
need support and need satisfaction, the elements of need support are often
highly correlated.
Empirical Basis of Basic Needs Theory
Basic Psychological Needs and Wellness
A central tenet of BNT is that satisfaction of each of the basic needs
contributes unique variance to the prediction of psychological wellness,
productivity, and social functioning. Empirical evidence supporting
this proposition has been obtained in many life domains, including school,
work, exercise, and sports. Need satisfaction has even been shown to predict
outcomes other than one’s immediate psychological functioning, such as
long-term health-behavior change (Williams, Niemiec, Patrick, Ryan, &
Deci, 2009a) and medication adherence (Williams et al., 2009b). Further,
need satisfaction has been shown to facilitate wellness across the lifespan,
from early childhood (e.g., Grolnick et al., 1984) to adulthood (e.g.,
Vansteenkiste et al., 2007b). The amount of need satisfaction accumulated
during one’s life has even been found to negatively predict mortality
(Kasser & Ryan, 1999). Other studies have demonstrated that daily
variations in need satisfaction contribute independently to within-person
fluctuations in well-being (Reis et al., 2000) and to within-person differences
in security of attachment (La Guardia, Ryan, Couchman, & Deci, 2000).
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.140

Thus, the ‘‘ups and downs’’ in daily emotional experiences and in the
quality of relationships covary with fluctuations in need satisfaction. Need
satisfaction not only varies at the between- and within-persons levels, but
also at the group level. To illustrate, Kelly, Zuroff, Leybman, Martin, and
Koestner (2008) showed that group differences in need satisfaction predicted
higher positive affect and performance over and above the differences in
need satisfaction between group members.
Recently, investigators have examined the importance of having
one’s basic psychological needs satisfied to a relatively equal extent
(i.e., balanced need satisfaction). Sheldon and Niemiec (2006) found
that balanced need satisfaction predicted higher adjustment and lower
mother-rated oppositional defiant behaviors among children, even while
controlling for the total amount of need satisfaction. Interestingly, not
only imbalance among the needs, but also imbalance in need satisfaction
across contexts detracts from well-being. Milyavskaya et al. (2009)
showed that adolescents who reported imbalanced need satisfaction across
multiple contexts had lower well-being and school grades. To explain these
findings, Milyavskaya et al. suggested that a lack of balance in need
satisfaction may undermine identity development, as such imbalance may
reflect their inability to reconcile the demands of multiple, context-bounded
identities.
The Universal Benefits of Need Satisfaction
BNT suggests that the basic psychological needs are universal requirements
for human flourishing. Consistent with this proposition, studies have
demonstrated the importance of basic needs for the well-being of people
living in both individualistic (Western) cultures, including the United States
(Reis et al., 2000) and Belgium (Luyckx, Vansteenkiste, Goossens, &
Duriez, 2009), and collectivistic (Eastern) cultures, including Bulgaria
(Deci et al., 2001), South Korea (Jang, Reeve, Ryan, & Kim, 2009), Russia
(Lynch, La Guardia, & Ryan, 2009), and China (Vansteenkiste, Lens,
Soenens, & Luyckx, 2006c). Further, need satisfaction has been found to
facilitate health-behavior change among a sample of poor, working-class
Americans (Williams et al., 2009a), and to promote the psychological and
physical health of men and women alike (Ryan, La Guardia, Solky-Butzel,
Chirkov, & Kim, 2005). Together, these findings contradict the reasoning of
Markus and Kitayama (2003), Jordan (1997), and Stephens et al. (2007),
who combine to suggest that need satisfaction (in particular, autonomy) is
only beneficial for Western, working-class males.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 141

The Importance of Support for Autonomy
Within BNT, much research with self-reports has shown that perceived
autonomy support promotes well-being in a variety of life domains. In
addition, various experimental studies (e.g., Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens,
Sheldon, & Deci, 2004a) have shown that an autonomy-supportive, relative to
a controlling, communication style predicts deep learning and performance.
Within adolescent psychology, some psychologists, influenced by separa-
tion-individuation theories, equate autonomy support with independence
promotion (Silk, Morris, Kanaya, & Steinberg, 2003), which differs in at
least two ways from the promotion of autonomy as defined by BNT
(Soenens et al., 2007). First, although parents can promote independence
in an autonomy-supportive way, independence can also be promoted in a
controlling way, such that children feel they have no choice other than
to become self-reliant. Second, when parents cannot support their child’s
independence, they still can support their volition. Indeed, rules constrain
behavior and, thus, limit independence. However, by providing a mean-
ingful rationale for those guidelines and trying to be empathic, parents can
support volition even though they limit independence.
To examine the distinction between the views of BNT and separation-
individuation theories, Soenens et al. (2007) assessed adolescents’ percep-
tions of their parents’ promotion of both independent and volitional
functioning, and found that both constructs were moderately positively
correlated with each other and with psychological well-being. However, only
parental promotion of volition (but not independence) accounted for unique
variance in well-being when both constructs were simultaneous predictors.
These results suggest it is critical for adolescents to perceive parental
support for expressing their preferences and enacting their personal values,
rather than to perceive parental support for independence and self-reliance.
Whereas some adolescents may choose to be independent, others may act
independently for controlled reasons, either because they do not feel ready
to be independent (premature independence) or because they wish to rebel
against their parents (defiant independence).
A subsequent study (Soenens, Vansteenkiste, & Sierens, 2009) showed
that parental promotion of both volition and independence differentially
related to psychologically controlling parenting. Whereas promotion of
independence was orthogonal to psychologically controlling parenting,
promotion of volition was antithetical to it. Next, Soenens, Vansteenkiste,
and Luyten (in press) developed items assessing parents’ attempts to force
children to remain dependent through the use of guilt trips or conditional
regard. Soenens et al. (in press) found that the children of such parents
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.142

displayed a more dependent orientation, which in turn predicted depressive
symptoms. Together, then, the work of Soenens, Vansteenkiste, and friends
suggests that adolescents who perceive their parents as promoting either
independence or dependence in a controlling (relative to autonomy-
supportive) manner experience lower well-being.
The Importance of Support for Competence
The concept of structure has received far less attention than autonomy
support within BNT. Grolnick and Ryan (1989) conducted structured
interviews with children in 3rd through 6th grade to obtain ratings of
parental autonomy support and structure. They reported that autonomy
support related positively to children’s academic autonomous self-regulation
and grades, while structure predicted children’s control beliefs. More
recently, Cleveland and colleagues examined the relations of parental
autonomy support and structure to preschool children’s reminiscence of
daily events. In an observational study, Cleveland and Reese (2005) showed
that the two parenting styles could be distinguished and that by 65 months
of age, children of high structuring parents (i.e., parents who asked open-
ended, elaborative questions) recalled more daily events than those of low
structuring parents. Subsequently, Cleveland, Reese, and Grolnick (2007)
found that elaborative structure related positively to children’s memory of
the details and narrative quality (i.e., coherence) of a standardized event,
while autonomy support predicted children’s observer-rated engagement
(see also Jang et al., in press). Finally, using self-reports of autonomy support
and structure, Sierens, Vansteenkiste, Goossens, Soenens, and Dochy (2009)
found that structure only had a positive relation to students’ self-regulated
learning when it was provided in an autonomy-supportive way.
The Importance of Support for Relatedness
Support for relatedness has generally been found to predict a host of
positive outcomes, including social competence, empathy, and secure
attachments (Rohner, 2004). However, at times socializing agents may be
involved and show concern in a controlling way, thus providing love at the
expense of autonomy. One such socialization strategy is parental condi-
tional regard (PCR; Assor et al., 2004; Roth, Assor, Niemiec, Ryan, & Deci,
2009), in which parents provide love and affection when their child behaves
according to their expectations, but withdraw love and affection when their
child fails to meet their expectations. In essence, such parents contingently
provide love in order to pressure their child into compliance, thereby pitting
the child’s need for relatedness against autonomy. PCR has been shown to
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 143

promote children’s inner tension and resentment toward parents (Assor
et al., 2004; Roth et al., 2009). Other studies have revealed harmful
consequences of social contexts that pit autonomy against relatedness. For
example, a combination of controlling (i.e., autonomy-inhibiting) and
supportive (i.e., relatedness-providing) parenting is related to a maladaptive
pattern of developmental outcomes in children and adolescents,
including poor academic achievement (Aunola & Nurmi, 2004) and poor
empathic skills (Kanat-Maymon & Assor, 2010), as well as externalizing
problems (Aunola & Nurmi, 2005). Importantly, with conditional support
for relatedness, parents love is likely to be driven by their agenda and
must be ‘‘earned’’ by the child. Such support is limited, strategic, and not
genuine; therefore, conditional regard is unlikely to provide deep, enduring
satisfaction of relatedness.
Directions for Future Research
Several potential directions for future research on BNT deserve mention.
One direction is to validate both domain-general and domain-specific
measures of need satisfaction. Researchers have often relied on ad hoc
measures, which make it difficult to compare findings across studies. Such
validation work has been done in the domains of exercise (Wilson, Rogers,
Rodgers, & Wild, 2006) and organizations (Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste,
De Witte, Lens, & Soenens, in press), and future research could extend this
work to other life domains.
A second direction for research is to examine the etiology of need
substitutes. Indeed, recent research has begun to explore these dynamics.
For instance, Soenens et al. (2008) showed that patients with eating
disorders, relative to a matched control group, perceived their fathers as
more psychologically controlling. Such autonomy deprivation presumably
leaves individuals vulnerable to adopting self-critical, perfectionist stan-
dards that, in turn, promote eating pathology. In a more direct test of this
idea, Thøgersen-Ntoumani, Ntoumanis, and Nikitaras (in press) found that
adolescents who reported a lack of need satisfaction had a stronger focus on
weight-control strategies and, in turn, lower body satisfaction. Qualitative
research might provide insight in how need-thwarting experiences give rise
to the emergence of need substitutes and psychopathology (Ryan, Deci,
Grolnick, & La Guardia, 2006).
A third direction for research is to examine whether basic needs
explain the impact of various environmental factors on outcomes. Indeed,
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.144

domain-specific theories often identify the critical factors that contribute to
optimal development but fail to adequately explain the mechanisms that
underlie these effects; the concept of basic psychological needs might fill
this gap. To illustrate, Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, and Lens
(2008) showed that need satisfaction is a critical mechanism that explains the
health-enhancing and -impairing effects of job resources and job demands
(Karasek, 1979), respectively. Further, some (Markland, Ryan, Tobin, &
Rollnick, 2005; Vansteenkiste & Sheldon, 2006) have argued that need
satisfaction might explain the positive effects of motivational interviewing
(Miller & Rollnick, 2002) on clinical outcomes, such as drop-out, behavioral
change, and relapse.
GOAL CONTENT THEORY
The Content of Life Goals
In addition to studying the reasons underlying behavioral regulation and
the concept of basic psychological needs, a growing body of research from
SDT has examined the correlates of different types (intrinsic and extrinsic)
of life goals, or aspirations, that people pursue (for a review, see Kasser,
2002; Vansteenkiste et al., 2006b). Kasser and Ryan (1996) distinguished
intrinsic goals (viz., personal growth, close relationships, community con-
tribution, physical health) from extrinsic goals (viz., money, fame, image)
and argued that, whereas intrinsic aspirations are likely to satisfy the basic
needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, extrinsic aspirations are
likely to be unrelated to need satisfaction. These goal contents are theorized
to have differential relations to basic needs, in part, because intrinsic
goal pursuit may engender an inward orientation that is conducive to
need satisfaction, whereas extrinsic goal pursuit may engender an outward
orientation that is focused on garnering self-worth through achievement and
external validation, detracting from basic need satisfaction (Vansteenkiste,
Soenens, & Duriez, 2008a). Because of their different foci, Ryan, Sheldon,
Kasser, and Deci (1996) argued that ‘‘not all goals are created equal’’ and,
therefore, are likely to have differential relations to physical, social, and
psychological health.
Originally, the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic goals was
incorporated within BNT, as extrinsic aspirations are considered to be
compensatory goals that people value and pursue in times of need
deprivation. An emphasis on extrinsic goals as need substitutes is fueled
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 145

both by the media and advertising industry, which portray wealth, social
recognition, and achieving ‘‘the right look’’ as the ultimate routes to identity
development (Dittmar, 2007; Soenens & Vansteenkiste, in press-b) and
happiness (Kasser, 2002). Indeed, individuals who are deprived of need
satisfaction and who experience identity diffusion may be more likely to
buy into extrinsic goals, hoping that such pursuits will provide a source of
identity, meaning, and self-worth (La Guardia, 2009). The problem, however,
is that such pursuits are not likely to provide genuine satisfaction of basic
needs, which is integral to healthy personality development and wellness.
To meaningfully organize the burgeoning research on the content of life
goals, it seems appropriate and timely to introduce a fifth mini-theory of
SDT, namely goal content theory (GCT). We maintain that the pursuit of
intrinsic goals represents a third manifestation of the organismic growth
tendency (Vansteenkiste et al., 2006b), along with IM and internalization,
which are central in CET and OIT, respectively. That is, we posit that
people have a natural tendency to move toward intrinsic goals and away
from extrinsic goals, although such shifts do not happen automatically,
but require contextual supports for need satisfaction. Accordingly,
research has shown that need-supportive contexts promote movement
away from extrinsic goals and toward intrinsic goals (Sheldon, Arndt, &
Houser-Marko, 2003), whereas need-thwarting contexts hinder such change
(Sheldon & Krieger, 2004). Further, we propose that the structure of goal
contents will be similar across different types of cultures.
Theoretical Considerations
It is important to clarify several conceptual points. First, the distinction
between intrinsic and extrinsic goals is not unique to GCT. For example,
Fromm (1976) proposed a distinction between a having orientation and
abeing orientation, while Van Boven and Gilovich (2003) proposed
a distinction between experiential purchases and material purchases.
Moreover, the extrinsic aspirations for wealth and an appealing image
(viz., the thin-ideal) have been examined extensively by consumer (e.g.,
Richins & Dawson, 1992) and body dissatisfaction (e.g., Stice, 2001)
psychologists, respectively.
Second, GCT is not intended to be an all-inclusive theory of goals. The
list of goals proposed within GCT is not exhaustive because some goals
(e.g., hedonism) are neither used to validate self-worth nor inherently
growth-promoting and, therefore, cannot be classified as intrinsic or
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.146

extrinsic. Unlike most other research (e.g., Schwartz, 1992), GCT does not
intend to chart the universal structure of human strivings. Rather than being
descriptive in nature, GCT is prescriptive in nature, as it formulates clear
predictions regarding the correlates of goal contents. These claims are
derived from the extent to which goal contents are consistent with human
nature and, thus, likely to satisfy basic psychological needs. For instance,
individuals who contribute to their community through volunteering
are likely to build meaningful relationships and thus satisfy their need
for relatedness, whereas those who aim to amass wealth are likely to view
colleagues as rivals and experience conflict between their work and
family, thereby detracting from satisfaction of relatedness and autonomy
(Vansteenkiste et al., 2007b).
Third, although related, intrinsic and extrinsic aspirations are distinct
from IM and EM, which are central to CET and OIT, respectively. Indeed,
both intrinsic and extrinsic goals can be pursued for either autonomous or
controlled reasons. For instance, a retiree may volunteer either because he
would feel guilty for not contributing to society (controlled motivation) or
because he really likes volunteering (autonomous motivation). Similarly, an
adolescent may strive for a physically appealing body because her partner
praises her good looks (controlled motivation) or because she personally
values this goal (autonomous motivation). Thus, although intrinsic goals
tend to be pursued for autonomous reasons and extrinsic goals tend to be
pursued for controlled reasons (Sheldon, Ryan, Deci, & Kasser, 2004), the
content of, and reasons for pursuing, aspirations can be empirically crossed.
Empirical Basis of Goal Content Theory
The Structure of Goal Contents
Initial work within GCT (Kasser & Ryan, 1993) distinguished the pursuit of
financial success from personal growth, close relationships, and community
involvement. Kasser and Ryan (1996) subsequently showed that the
aspirations fall into two general categories, namely intrinsic and extrinsic.
These factor-analytic results have been replicated using samples from
cultures characterized as individualistic (Belgium; Vansteenkiste et al.,
2007b), moderately collectivistic (Russia; Ryan et al., 1999), and collecti-
vistic (South Korea; Kim, Kasser, & Lee, 2003). Using more refined
descriptive techniques (viz., multidimensional scaling analysis), Grouzet and
colleagues (2005) showed that the structure of intrinsic and extrinsic goal
contents was observed in 15 cultures across the globe.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 147

The Relation of Goal Contents to Wellness and Performance
A central tenet of GCT is that intrinsic and extrinsic goal contents
differentially predict well-being and adjustment. One line of research
relevant to this hypothesis has examined the importance of intrinsic and
extrinsic aspirations, showing that the importance of intrinsic (relative to
extrinsic) goals related positively to well-being and negatively to ill-being.
Other work has shown that the effects of intrinsic (relative to extrinsic) goal
contents generalize beyond individuals’ personal well-being to health-
related, interpersonal, and societal outcomes. In the health-care domain,
smokers who had maintained their aspirations for physical health at one-
year post-treatment were more likely to attain tobacco abstinence at two-
years post-treatment (Niemiec, Ryan, Deci, & Williams, 2009b). Further,
the importance of intrinsic (relative to extrinsic) goals has been found to
predict less alcohol and drug use, romantic relationship conflict, and
prejudicial and discriminatory attitudes toward immigrants, as well as
more trust in romantic relationships. Finally, there are important societal
benefits associated with the importance of intrinsic (relative to extrinsic)
goals, including less egoistic responses in scarce-dilemma situations and a
smaller ecological footprint (for a review, see Kasser, 2002; Vansteenkiste,
Timmermans, Lens, Soenens, & Van den Broeck, 2008b).
Interestingly, based on the match-perspective (e.g., Sagiv & Schwartz,
2000), which is rooted in the SSSM, it can be argued that the effects of
pursuing intrinsic (relative to extrinsic) goals would depend on the kind of
goals that prevail in one’s environment. Therefore, the pursuit of extrinsic
goals would not be harmful in an environment that places high emphasis on
such goals. This position stands in contrast to GCT, as we underscore the
importance of considering which goals are congruent with basic psycholo-
gical needs rather than with the goals prevailing in the social environment
to derive predictions about the adaptive value of goals. A number of studies
have examined these conflicting hypotheses. In line with the match
perspective, Sagiv and Schwartz found that business students who valued
extrinsic (relative to intrinsic) goals reported higher psychological well-
being, whereas psychology students reported more optimal functioning
when they valued intrinsic (relative to extrinsic) goals. In contrast, in
two subsequent studies (Kasser & Ahuvia, 2002; Vansteenkiste, Duriez,
Simons, & Soenens, 2006a) extrinsic (relative to intrinsic) goal pursuits
were associated with lower well-being and more internal distress among
business students, even though extrinsic goals tend to be emphasized in their
environment. Furthermore, Sheldon and Krieger (2004) reported that law
students shifted away from intrinsic goals and toward extrinsic goals during
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.148

their first year of law school. Given that law schools typically foster status-
seeking and image-building (Krieger, 1998), a match perspective would
suggest that such changes should be adaptive. In spite of this, these changes
predicted a decline in psychological well-being.
A second line of research has examined the attainment of intrinsic and
extrinsic aspirations. Kasser and Ryan (2001) found that attainment of
intrinsic (relative to extrinsic) goals related positively to the quality of
interpersonal relationships and psychological health. Examining the cross-
cultural generalizability of these findings, Ryan et al. (1999) reported that
among US and Russian students, attainment of intrinsic (relative to
extrinsic) goals related positively to psychological health. Further, Niemiec,
Ryan, and Deci (2009a) conducted a longitudinal study and found that
attainment of intrinsic aspirations related positively to well-being and
negatively to ill-being, whereas attainment of extrinsic aspirations was
unrelated to well-being and actually contributed to ill-being. Finally, Van
Hiel and Vansteenkiste (2009) showed that whereas seniors’ attainment
of intrinsic goals contributed to their ego-integrity and death acceptance,
extrinsic goal attainment positively predicted despair. Together, these
studies qualify the expectancy-valence theory (Wigfield & Cambria, this
volume) and social cognitive theory (Bandura, 1997) views, which suggest
that attainment of valued goals, regardless of their content, is conducive to
psychological wellness.
A third line of research has examined the contextual promotion of intrinsic
and extrinsic aspirations. Vansteenkiste and colleagues conducted a series
of experiments showing that framing a learning activity as conducive to
intrinsic (vs. extrinsic) goal attainment promoted deeper learning, better
achievement, and longer persistence. Such results were found regardless of
both the specific intrinsic and extrinsic goals that were promoted and the
specific learning activities (e.g., exercise, studying) that were taught (for a
review, see Vansteenkiste et al., 2006b). Interestingly, the detrimental impact
of extrinsic (vs. intrinsic) goal framing emerged even among participants
who valued extrinsic goals more strongly than intrinsic goals, suggesting
that a ‘‘match’’ does not yield benefits (Vansteenkiste et al., 2008b).
Further, the experimental manipulation of intrinsic and extrinsic
goals has permitted a direct comparison of competing hypotheses offered
by GCT and expectancy-valence theory on the effect of goal promotion.
Vansteenkiste et al. (2004b) contrasted an intrinsic goal framing condi-
tion with a double goal (intrinsic and extrinsic) framing condition, while
Vansteenkiste et al. (2004b) contrasted an extrinsic goal framing condition
with a no-goal control condition. If, as suggested by expectancy-valence
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 149

theory, promotion of any goal would increase the utility value of an activity
and thus have a motivating effect, then participants in the double
goal framing condition and extrinsic goal framing condition would be
expected to show better outcomes than those in the intrinsic goal and
no-goal control conditions, respectively. In contrast, GCT predicts that
promotion of extrinsic goals would distract the learner from the activity
and thus undermine learning, performance, and persistence. In line with the
predictions of GCT, results demonstrated that participants in the intrinsic
goal framing condition and no-goal control condition showed better
learning, performance, and persistence than those in their respective
comparison conditions, thereby supporting the proposition that not all
goals are beneficial for motivation.
In addition to being studied at the situational level (i.e., prior to
engagement in a specific learning activity), goal promotion can also be
examined at the domain (e.g., organizations, schools) and global levels
(Vallerand, 1997). Regarding the latter, Duriez, Soenens, and Vansteenkiste
(2008) found that parental promotion of intrinsic (relative to extrinsic) goals
related positively to tolerance toward out-groups.
The Relation of Goal Contents to Basic Needs
GCT further posits that intrinsic and extrinsic goal contents differentially
predict satisfaction of the basic psychological needs, which accounts for
the differential relations of goal contents to psychological, physical, and
social wellness. A small but growing number of studies have lent support
to this hypothesis. For instance, Vansteenkiste et al. (2007b) showed that
need satisfaction at work mediated the relations of the importance of
extrinsic (relative to intrinsic) work value orientations to job-related
outcomes and work–family conflict. In the exercise domain, Sebire,
Standage, and Vansteenkiste (2009) found that need satisfaction partially
accounted for the relation of intrinsic (relative to extrinsic) goal content to
psychological well-being, exercise anxiety, and physical self-worth. Thøger-
sen-Ntoumani et al. (in press) reported that a stronger focus on the intrinsic
goal of physical health positively predicted basic need satisfaction, which,
in turn, was negatively related to the thin-ideal adoption and engagement
in unhealthy weight-management behaviors; in contrast, the pursuit of
physical attractiveness was positively related to the thin-ideal adoption.
Further, Niemiec et al. (2009a) found that change in need satisfaction
accounted for some of the association between change in attainment of
intrinsic aspirations and change in well-being; change in attainment of
extrinsic aspirations was unrelated to change in need satisfaction.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.150

The Development of Goal Contents
There are at least two possible routes through which people develop strong
values for intrinsic or extrinsic goals (Kasser, 2002). First, over time people
may come to endorse the salient goals promoted by their culture, similar to a
process of modeling. Thus, employees for whom competition and financial
success are the central values of their organization may come to value and
pursue those same goals. Indeed, Schwartz (2006) showed that those in
capitalistic societies tended to value extrinsic values (e.g., achievement,
power) more than intrinsic values (e.g., universalism, self-direction). Second,
over time people exposed to need-supportive contexts may come to endorse
intrinsic goals, whereas those exposed to need-thwarting contexts may come
to endorse extrinsic goals. Indeed, the pursuit of extrinsic goals may be used
to cope with the irritation, anxiety, and insecurity associated with need
deprivation. In line with this, Kasser, Ryan, Zax, and Sameroff (1995)
found that teenagers of mothers who supported their autonomy and
relatedness placed greater importance on intrinsic goals (relative to financial
success), and Williams, Cox, Hedberg, and Deci (2000) found that
adolescents of autonomy-supportive parents were more likely to endorse
intrinsic (relative to extrinsic) goals.
Directions for Future Research
GCT can be expanded in several different directions. One direction is to
consider whether the list of intrinsic and extrinsic goals might be expanded.
From the perspective of GCT, new goals would only be added if they
are clearly linked to satisfaction of basic psychological needs. If such
a relation cannot be made, there is no theoretical basis for predicting
whether a new goal would be beneficial or harmful to wellness. One viable
candidate to be added as an additional extrinsic goal is power, which was
found to co-load with financial success and fame in factor analyses (Ryan
et al., 1999; Vansteenkiste et al., 2007b). A second direction for research
involves the development of domain-specific assessments of aspirations,
as not all goals are equally relevant in all life domains. For example, the
intrinsic aspiration for physical health is important in the domains of health
care (Niemiec et al., 2009a) and exercise (Sebire et al., 2009), but is less
relevant in the work domain.
A third direction for research is to examine additional, lower-
level mediational processes that might account for the effects of intrinsic
and extrinsic goals. We propose that need satisfaction represents a
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 151

macro-mediational process between goal contents and outcomes, which may
be complemented and enriched by an examination of micro-mediational
processes (e.g., attentional and cognitive factors). For instance, a woman
who exercises in pursuit of the thin-ideal (an extrinsic goal) might be overly
attentive to the number of calories she has burned while running on a
treadmill or might spend more time looking at herself in the mirror than
looking for opportunities to connect with others, thus detracting from
full immersion in the her exercise (Vansteenkiste, Matos, Lens, & Soenens,
2007a). Such preoccupations are likely to undermine need satisfaction.
Identifying such lower-level mediational processes might provide further
insight into how intrinsic and extrinsic goal promotion and pursuit affect
need satisfaction and functioning (Vansteenkiste et al., 2008a).
A fourth direction for research is to examine whether the differential
relations of goal contents are carried by the motives (autonomous and
controlled) that underlie them, as proposed by Carver and Baird (1998).
A number of studies at general (Carver & Baird, 1998; Sheldon et al., 2004)
and domain-specific (education: Vansteenkiste et al., 2004a; exercise:
Ingledew & Markland, 2008; Sebire et al., 2009) levels have examined this
issue, but have produced mixed results, with some studies showing
independent effects (Sheldon et al., 2004) and others not (Sebire et al.,
2009). The independence of the ‘‘what’’ and ‘‘why’’ of goal pursuits might
depend on a number of factors (the domain under investigation, the outcomes
examined, the formulation of goal items, and the meaning attributed to a
goal). For example, it is possible that because goal contents are cognitive in
nature they are more predictive of cognitive–attitudinal outcomes (e.g.,
prejudice), whereas because motives are experiential and affective in nature
they are more predictive of affective outcomes (e.g., well-being).
CONCLUSION
The literature on SDT has witnessed an exponential increase in the last
decade. The theory has attracted the attention of dozens of scholars across
the globe, perhaps due to its coherent and internally consistent develop-
ment. The strong meta-theoretical (i.e., organismic dialectical) foundation
of SDT provides an ideal basis to generate and test novel hypotheses
that meaningfully account for observed phenomena. Moreover, it provides
an antidote against the theoretical eclecticism in modern psychology,
a movement that fits within the current postmodern cold-buffet culture
where it is ‘‘bon ton’’ to take ideas from diverse theories, compile one’s own
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.152

model, and present oneself as theoretically pluralistic. We hope this chapter
will provide a source of inspiration for scholars to further develop SDT,
thereby fitting their own piece into the ‘‘SDT puzzle.’’
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
We would like to thank Willy Lens, Eline Sierens, and Bart Neyrinck for
providing insightful comments on previous drafts of this chapter.
REFERENCES
Allport, G. W., & Ross, M. J. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,5, 432–443.
Amabile, T. M. (1979). Effects of external evaluation on artistic creativity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,37, 221–233.
Asendorpf, J. B., & van Aken, M. A. G. (2003). Personality-relationship transaction in
adolescence: Core versus surface personality characteristics. Journal of Personality,71,
629–666.
Assor, A., Roth, G., & Deci, E. L. (2004). The emotional costs of perceived parents’ conditional
regard: A self-determination theory analysis. Journal of Personality,72, 47–89.
Assor, A., Vansteenkiste, M., & Kaplan, A. (2009). Identified versus introjected approach and
introjected avoidance motivations in school and in sports: The limited benefits of self-
worth strivings. Journal of Educational Psychology,101, 482–497.
Atkinson, J. W. (1958). Motives in fantasy, action and society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2004). Maternal affection moderates the impact of psychological
control on a child’s mathematical performance. Developmental Psychology,40, 965–978.
Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J. E. (2005). The role of parenting styles in children’s problem behavior.
Child Development,76, 1144–1159.
Bao, X., & Lam, S. (2008). Who makes the choice? Rethinking the role of autonomy and
relatedness in Chinese children’s motivation. Child Development,79, 269–283.
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York: Freeman.
Barkow, J. H., Cosmides, L., & Tooby, J. (1992). The adapted mind: Evolutionary psychology
and the generation of culture. New York: Oxford University Press.
Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin,117, 497–529.
Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors’ autonomy support and students’
autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry: A self-determination theory
perspective. Science Education,84, 740–756.
Bowlby, J. (1988). Developmental psychiatry comes of age. The American Journal of Psychiatry,
145, 1–10.
Bridges, L., Frodi, A. M., Grolnick, W., & Spiegel, N. H. (1983). Motivation and attachment: The
relationship between maternal causality orientation, infant-mother attachment, and infant
mastery motivation. Unpublished manuscript. University of Rochester, Rochester, NY.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 153

Burton, K. D., Lydon, J. E., D’Alessandro, D. U., & Koestner, R. (2006). The differential
effects of intrinsic and identified motivation on well-being and performance: Prospective,
experimental, and implicit approaches to self-determination theory. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,91, 750–762.
Carver, C. S., & Baird, E. (1998). The American dream revisited: Is it what you want or why
you want it that matters? Psychological Science,9, 289–292.
Carver, C. S., & Sheier, M. F. (1999). Themes and issues in the self-regulation of behavior.
In: R. S. Wyer, Jr. (Ed.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 12, pp. 1–105). Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
Chandler, C. L., & Connell, J. P. (1987). Children’s intrinsic, extrinsic and internalized
motivation: A developmental study of behavioral regulation. British Journal of
Developmental Psychology,5, 357–365.
Cleveland, E. S., & Reese, E. (2005). Maternal structure and autonomy support in
conversations about the past: Contributions to children’s autobiographical memory.
Developmental Psychology,41, 376–388.
Cleveland, E. S., Reese, E., & Grolnick, W. S. (2007). Children’s engagement and competence
in personal recollection: Effects of parents’ reminiscing goals. Journal of Experimental
Child Psychology,96, 131–149.
Curry, S., Wagner, E. H., & Grothaus, L. C. (1990). Intrinsic and extrinsic motiva-
tion for smoking cessation. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology,58,
310–316.
Davidov, M., & Grusec, J. E. (2006). Untangling the links of parental responsiveness to distress
and warmth to child outcomes. Child Development,77, 44–58.
De Bilde, J., Vansteenkiste, M., & Lens, W. (2009). Understanding the association between future
time perspective and self-regulated learning through the lens of self-determination theory.
Unpublished manuscript. University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation. New York: Academic Press.
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,18, 105–115.
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L. (1992). On the nature and functions of motivation theories. Psychological Science,3,
167–171.
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.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin,
125, 627–668.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985a). The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination
in personality. Journal of Research in Personality,19, 109–134.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985b). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The ‘what’ and ‘why’ of goal pursuits: Human needs and the
self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry,11, 227–268.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagne
´, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P.
(2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations
of a former eastern bloc country. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,27,
930–942.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.154

Dittmar, H. (2007). The costs of consumer culture and the ‘‘cage within’’: The impact of the
material ‘‘good life’’ and ‘‘body perfect’’ ideals on individuals’ identity and well-being.
Psychological Inquiry,18, 23–31.
Downie, M., Koestner, R., ElGeledi, S., & Cree, K. (2004). The impact of cultural
internalization and integration on well-being among tricultural individuals. Personality
and Social Psychology Bulletin,30, 305–314.
Duriez, B., Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2008). The intergenerational transmission of
authoritarianism: The mediating role of parental goal promotion. Journal of Research in
Personality,42, 622–642.
Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: Reality of myth?
American Psychologist,51, 1153–1166.
Elliot, A. J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational
Psychologist,34, 169–189.
Elliot, A. J., & Sheldon, K. M. (1998). Avoidance personal goals and the personality-illness
relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,75, 1282–1299.
Enzle, M. E., & Anderson, S. C. (1993). Surveillant intentions and intrinsic motivation. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology,64, 257–266.
Enzle, M. E., Wright, E. F., & Redondo, I. M. (1996). Cross-task generalization of intrinsic
motivation effects. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science,28, 19–26.
Erikson, E. H. (1968). Identity: Youth and crisis. New York: Norton.
Feather, N. T. (1992). Values, valences, expectations, and actions. Journal of Social Issues,48,
109–124.
Flink, C., Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (1990). Controlling teaching strategies: Undermining
children’s self-determination and performance. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,59, 916–924.
Fromm, E. (1976). To have or to be? New York: Harper & Row.
Gagne
´, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior,26, 331–362.
Garbarino, J. (1975). The impact of anticipated reward upon cross-aged tutoring. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,32, 421–428.
Gardner, W. L., Pickett, C. L., Jefferis, V., & Knowles, M. (2005). On the outside looking
in: Loneliness and social monitoring. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,31,
1549–1560.
Gergen, K. J. (1991). The saturated self: Dilemmas of identity in contemporary life. New York:
Basic Books.
Goldstein, J. D., & Iso-Ahola, S. E. (2008). Determinants of parents’ sideline-rage emotions and
behaviors at youth soccer games. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,38, 1442–1462.
Grolnick, W. S., Bridges, L., & Frodi, A. (1984). Maternal control style and the mastery
motivation of one-year-olds. Infant Mental Health Journal,5, 72–82.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children’s learning: An experimental
and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,52,
890–898.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children’s self-regulation
and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology,81, 143–154.
Grouzet, F. M. E., Kasser, T., Ahuvia, A., Miguel, J., Dols, F., Kim, Y., et al. (2005).
The structure of goal contents across 15 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,89, 800–816.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 155

Hagger, M. S., Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Culverhouse, T., & Biddle, S. J. H. (2003). The process
by which perceived autonomy support in physical education promotes leisure-
time physical activity intentions and behavior: A trans-contextual model. Journal of
Educational Psychology,95, 784–795.
Harlow, H. F. (1953). Motivation as a factor in the acquisition of new responses. In:
J. S. Brown, et al. (Eds), Current theory and research on motivation (pp. 24–49). Lincoln:
University of Nebraska Press.
Harter, S. (1981). A new self-report scale of intrinsic vs. extrinsic orientation in the
classroom: Motivational and informational components. Developmental Psychology,
17, 300–312.
Hodgins, H., Yacko, H., & Gottlieb, E. (2006). Autonomy and nondefensiveness. Motivation
and Emotion,30, 283–293.
Hodgins, H. S., Brown, A. B., & Carver, B. (2007). Autonomy and control motivation and self-
esteem. Self & Identity,6, 189–208.
Hodgins, H. S., & Knee, C. R. (2002). The integrating self and conscious experience. In:
E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 87–100).
Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Hodgins, H. S., Liebeskind, E., & Schwartz, W. (1996). Getting out of hot water: Facework in
social predicaments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,71, 300–314.
Houlfort, N., Koestner, R., Joussemet, M., Nantel-Vivier, A., & Lekes, N. (2002). The impact
of performance-contingent rewards on perceived autonomy and competence. Motivation
and Emotion,26, 279–295.
Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior: An introduction to behavior theory. New York:
Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Hy, L. X., & Loevinger, J. (1996). Measuring ego development (2nd ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Ingledew, D. K., & Markland, D. (2008). The role of motives in exercise participation.
Psychology and Health,23, 807–828.
Iyengar, S. S., & DeVoe, S. E. (2003). Rethinking the value of choice: Considering cultural
mediators of intrinsic motivation. In: V. Murphy-Berman & J. J. Berman (Eds),
Nebraska symposium on motivation: Cross-cultural differences in perspectives on self
(Vol. 49, pp. 129–174). Lincoln, NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural per-
spective on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,76,
349–366.
Iyengar, S. S., & Lepper, M. R. (2000). When choice is demotivating: Can one desire too much
of a good thing? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,79, 995–1006.
Jang, H. (2008). Supporting students’ motivation, engagement, and learning during an
uninteresting activity. Journal of Educational Psychology,100, 798–811.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (in press). Engaging students in learning activities: It’s not
autonomy support or structure, but autonomy support and structure. Journal of
Educational Psychology AU :3.
Jang, H., Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., & Kim, A. (2009). Can self-determination theory explain what
underlies the productive, satisfying learning experiences of collectivistically oriented
Korean students? Journal of Educational Psychology,101, 644–661.
Jordan, J. V. (1997). Do you believe that the concepts of self and autonomy are useful in
understanding women? In: J. V. Jordan (Ed.), Women’s growth in diversity: More
writings from the Stone Center (pp. 29–32). New York: The Guilford Press.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.156

Joussemet, M., Koestner, R., Lekes, N., & Houlfort, N. (2004). Introducing uninteresting tasks
to children: A comparison of the effects of rewards and autonomy support. Journal of
Personality,72, 141–169.
Kahneman, D., Diener, E., & Schwarz, N. (1999). Well-being: The foundations of hedonic
psychology. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Kanat-Maymon, M., & Assor, A. (2010). Perceived maternal control and responsiveness to
distress as predictors of young adults’ empathic responses. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin,36, 33–46.
Karasek, R. (1979). Job demands, job decision latitude, and mental strain. Administration
Science Quarterly,24, 285–307.
Kasser, T. (2002). The high price of materialism. London: MIT Press.
Kasser, T., & Ahuvia, A. C. (2002). Materialistic values and well-being in business students.
European Journal of Social Psychology,32, 137–146.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of
financial success as a central life aspiration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
65, 410–422.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential
correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,22,
80–87.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (2001). Be careful what you wish for: Optimal functioning and the
relative attainment of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. In: P. Schmuck & K. M. Sheldon
(Eds), Life goals and well-being: Towards a positive psychology of human striving
(pp. 116–131). Seattle: Hogrefe & Huber Publishers.
Kasser, T., Ryan, R. M., Zax, M., & Sameroff, A. J. (1995). The relations of maternal and
social environments to late adolescents’ materialistic and prosocial values. Developmental
Psychology,31, 907–914.
Kasser, V., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). The relation of psychological needs for autonomy and
relatedness to vitality, well-being, and mortality in a nursing home. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology,29, 935–954.
Katz, I., & Assor, A. (2007). When choice motivates and when it does not. Educational
Psychology Review,19, 429–444.
Kelly, A. C., Zuroff, D. C., Leybman, M. J., Martin, E. A., & Koestner, R. (2008). Satisfied
groups and satisfied members: Untangling the between- and within-groups effects of
need satisfaction. Journal of Applied Developmental Psychology,38, 1805–1826.
Kim, Y., Kasser, T., & Lee, H. (2003). Self-concept, aspirations, and well-being in South Korea
and the United States. Journal of Social Psychology,143, 277–290.
Kins, E., Beyers, W., Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2009). Patterns of home leaving and
subjective well-being in emerging adulthood: The role of motivational processes and
parental autonomy support. Developmental Psychology,45, 1416–1429.
Knee, C. R., & Zuckerman, M. (1996). Causality orientations and the disappearance of the
self-serving bias. Journal of Research in Personality,30, 76–87.
Koestner, R., Bernieri, F., & Zuckerman, M. (1992). Self-regulation and consistency
between attitudes, traits, and behaviors. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
18, 52–59.
Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits on children’s
behavior: The differential effects of controlling versus informational styles on children’s
intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of Personality,54, 233–248.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 157

Koestner, R., & Zuckerman, M. (1994). Causality orientations, failure, and achievement.
Journal of Personality,62, 321–346.
Krieger, L. (1998). What we’re not telling law students – and lawyers – that they really need to
know: Some thoughts-in-action toward revitalizaing the profession from its roots.
Journal of Law and Health,13, 1–48.
La Guardia, J. G. (2009). Developing who I am: A self-determination theory approach to the
establishment of healthy identities. Educational Psychologist,44, 78–89.
La Guardia, J. G., Ryan, R. M., Couchman, C. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Within-person varia-
tion in security of attachment: A self-determination theory perspective on attachment,
need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,79,
367–384.
Levesque, C. S., & Pelletier, L. G. (2003). On the investigation of primed and chronic
autonomous and heteronomous motivation orientations. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin,29, 1570–1584.
Luyckx, K., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., & Duriez, B. (2009). Basic need satisfaction and
identity formation: Bridging self-determination theory and process-oriented identity
research. Journal of Counseling Psychology,56, 276–288.
Luyten, H., & Lens, W. (1981). The effect of earlier experience and reward contingencies on
intrinsic motivation. Motivation and Emotion,5, 25–36.
Lynch, M. F., La Guardia, J. G., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). On being yourself in different cultures:
Ideal and actual self-concept, autonomy support and well-being in China, Russia and the
United States. The Journal of Positively Psychology,4, 290–304.
Maehr, M. (1976). Continuing motivation: Analysis of seldom considered educational outcome.
Review of Educational Research,46, 443–462.
Markland, D., Ryan, R. M., Tobin, V. J., & Rollnick, S. (2005). Motivational interviewing and
self-determination theory. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology,24, 811–831.
Markland, D., & Tobin, V. J. (in press). Need support and behavioral regulations for exercise
among exercise referral scheme clients: The mediating role of psychological need
satisfaction. Psychology of Sport and Exercise.
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. K. (2003). Models of agency: Sociocultural diversity in the
construction of action. In: V. Murphy-Berman & J. J. Berman (Eds), Nebraska symposium
on motivation: Cross-cultural differences in perspectives on self (Vol. 49, pp. 1–57). Lincoln,
NE: University of Nebraska Press.
Mata, J., Silva, M. N., Vieira, P. N., Carrac-a, E. V., Andrade, A. M., Coutinho, S. R., et al.
(2009). Motivational ‘‘spill-over’’ during weight control: Increased self-determination
and exercise intrinsic motivation predict eating self-regulation. Health Psychology,28,
709–716.
May, R. (1983). The discovery of being. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
McGraw, K., & McCullers, J. (1979). Evidence of a detrimental effect of extrinsic incentives
on breaking a mental set. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,15, 285–294.
McHoskey, J. (1999). Machiavellianism, intrinsic versus extrinsic goals, and social interest:
A self-determination theory analysis. Motivation and Emotion,23, 267–283.
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people for change.
New York: Guilford Press.
Milyavskaya, M., Gringas, I., Mageau, G. A., Koesnter, R., Gagnon, H., Fang, J., et al. (2009).
Balance across contexts: Importance of balanced need satisfaction across various life
domains. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,35, 1031–1045.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.158

Moller, A. C., & Deci, E. L. (2009). Interpersonal control, dehumanization, and violence: A self-
determination theory perspective. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,13, 41–53.
Moller, A. C., Deci, E. L., & Elliot, A. J. (in press). Person-level relatedness and the incremental
value of relating. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin.
Moller, A. C., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). Choice and ego-depletion: The moderating
role of autonomy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,32, 1024–1036.
Mouratidis, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Sideridis, G. (2008). The motivating role of
positive feedback in sport and physical education: Evidence for a motivational model.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,30, 240–268.
Mouratidis, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Sideridis, G. (2009). Class-to-class variation in
vitality and intrinsic motivation in physical education as a function of the synergistic
interaction between need-supportive teaching and pupils’ motivational orientations.
Unpublished manuscript. University of Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
Muraven, M., Gagne
´, M., & Rosman, H. (2008). Helpful self-control: Autonomy support,
vitality, and depletion. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,44, 573–585.
Murray, H. A. (1938). Explorations in personality. New York: Oxford University Press.
Neighbors, C., Vietor, N. A., & Knee, C. R. (2002). A motivational model of driving anger and
aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,28, 324–335.
Neyrinck, B., Lens, W., Vansteenkiste, M., & Soenens, B. (in press). Updating Allport’s and
Batson’s framework of religious orientations: A refreshing look from the perspective of
self-determination theory and Wulff’s cognitive model of approaches towards religions.
International Journal of the Scientific Study of Religion.
Niemiec, C. P., Lynch, M. F., Vansteenkiste, M., Bernstein, J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2006).
The antecedents and consequences of autonomous self-regulation for college: A self-
determination theory perspective on socialization. Journal of Adolescence,29, 761–775.
Niemiec, C. P., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009a). The path taken: Consequences of attaining
intrinsic and extrinsic aspirations in post-college life. Journal of Research in Personality,
43, 291–306.
AU :4Niemiec, C. P., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (in press). Self-determination theory and the relation
of autonomy to self-regulatory processes and personality development. In: R. H. Hoyle
(Ed.), Handbook of personality and self-regulation. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Niemiec, C. P., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Williams, G. C. (2009b). Aspiring to physical
health: The role of aspirations for physical health in facilitating long-term tobacco
abstinence. Patient Education and Counseling,74, 250–257.
Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, C. (2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation
and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin,134,
270–300.
Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M., Vallerand, R. J., & Brie
`re, N. M. (2001). Associations among
perceived autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence: A prospective
study. Motivation and Emotion,25, 279–306.
Perls, F. S. (1973). The gestalt approach and eyewitness to therapy. Palo Alto, CA: Science and
Behavior Books.
Pfander, A. (1967). In: H. Spielberg (Trans.), Phenomenology of willing and motivation.
Evanston, IL: Northwestern University Press (Original work published, 1908).
Pittman, T. S., Emery, J., & Boggiano, A. K. (1982). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational
orientations: Reward-induced changes in preference for complexity. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology,42, 789–797.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 159

Radel, R., Sarrazin, P., & Pelletier, L. (2009). Evidence of subliminally primed motivational
orientations: The effects of unconscious motivational processes on the performance of a
new motor task. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,31, 657–674.
Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Larose, S., & Sene
´cal, C. (2007). Autonomous,
controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented analysis.
Journal of Educational Psychology,99, 734–746.
Reeve, J. (2009). Why teachers adopt a controlling motivating style toward students and how
they can become more autonomy supportive. Educational Psychologist,44, 159–175.
Reeve, J., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Elements of the competitive situation that affect intrinsic
motivation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,22, 24–33.
Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). Daily well-being:
The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin,26, 419–435.
Richins, M. L., & Dawson, S. (1992). A consumer values orientation for materialism and its
measurement: Measure development and validation. Journal of Consumer Research,19,
303–316.
Ricoeur, P. (1966). In: E. V. Kohak (Trans.), Freedom and nature: The voluntary and the
involuntary. New York: Harper & Row.
Rohner, R. P. (2004). The parental ‘‘acceptance-rejection syndrome’’: Universal correlates of
perceived rejection. American Psychologist,59, 830–840.
Roth, G., Assor, A., Niemiec, C. P., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). The emotional and
academic consequences of parental conditional regard: Comparing conditional positive
regard, conditional negative regard, and autonomy support as parenting practices.
Developmental Psychology,45, 1119–1142.
Rotter, J. B. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of
reinforcement. Psychological Monographs,80, Whole No. 609.
Rudy, D., Sheldon, K. M., Awong, T., & Tan, H. H. (2007). Autonomy, culture, and well-being:
The benefits of inclusive autonomy. Journal of Research in Personality,41, 983–1007.
Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of
cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,43, 450–461.
Ryan, R. M. (1993). Agency and organization: Intrinsic motivation, autonomy and the self
in psychological development. In: J. Jacobs (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation:
Developmental perspectives on motivation (Vol. 40, pp. 1–56). Lincoln, NE: University of
Nebraska Press.
Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. Journal of
Personality,63, 397–427.
Ryan, R. M., Chirkov, V. I., Little, T. D., Sheldon, K. M., Timoshina, E., & Deci, E. L. (1999).
The American dream in Russia: Extrinsic aspirations and well-being in two cultures.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,25, 1509–1524.
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization:
Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,57, 749–761.
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.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic
dialectical perspective. In: E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds), Handbook of self-
determination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester, NY: Rochester University Press.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.160

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Autonomy is no illusion: Self-determination theory and the
empirical study of authenticity, awareness, and will. In: J. Greenberg, S. L. Koole &
T. Pyszczynski (Eds), Handbook of experimental existential psychology (pp. 449–479).
New York: Guilford Press.
Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., Grolnick, W. S., & La Guardia, J. G. (2006). The significance of
autonomy and autonomy support in psychological development and psychopathology.
In: D. Cicchetti & D. Cohen (Eds), Developmental psychopathology: Theory and methods
(2nd ed., Vol. 1, pp. 795–849). New York: Wiley.
Ryan, R. M., Huta, V., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Living well: A self-determination theory
perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies,9, 139–170.
Ryan, R. M., Koestner, R., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Varied forms of persistence: When free-choice
behavior is not intrinsically motivated. Motivation and Emotion,15, 185–205.
Ryan, R. M., La Guardia, J. G., Solky-Butzel, J., Chirkov, V. I., & Kim, Y. (2005). On the
interpersonal regulation of emotions: Emotional reliance across gender, relationships,
and cultures. Personal Relationships,12, 145–163.
Ryan, R. M., Mims, V., & Koester, R. (1983). Relation of reward contingency and
interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: A review and test using cognitive
evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,45, 736–750.
Ryan, R. M., Sheldon, K. M., Kasser, T., & Deci, E. L. (1996). All goals are not created
equal: An organismic perspective on the nature of goals and their regulation. In:
P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds), The psychology of action: Linking cognition and
motivation to behavior (pp. 7–26). New York: Guilford.
Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2000). Value priorities and subjective well-being: Direct relations
and congruity effects. European Journal of Social Psychology,30, 177–198.
Schwartz, S. (1992). Universals in the content and structure of values: Theoretical advances and
experimental tests in 20 countries. In: M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (Vol. 25, pp. 1–65). New York: Academic Press.
Schwartz, S. H. (2006). Cultural and individual value correlates of capitalism: A comparative
analysis. Psychological Inquiry,18, 52–57.
Sebire, S. J., Standage, M., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2009). Exploring exercise goal content:
Intrinsic vs. extrinsic exercise goals, exercise outcomes, and psychological need
satisfaction. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,31, 189–210.
Senko, C., & Harackiewicz, J. M. (2002). Performance goals: The moderating roles of
context and achievement orientation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,38,
603–610.
Shafran, R., & Mansell, W. (2001). Perfectionism and psychopathology: A review of research
and treatment. Clinical Psychology Review,21, 879–906.
Sheldon, K. M., Arndt, J., & Houser-Marko, L. (2003). In search of the organismic valuing
process: The human tendency to move towards beneficial goal choices. Journal of
Personality,71, 835–869.
Sheldon, K. M., & Filak, V. (2008). Manipulating autonomy, competence and relatedness
support in a game-learning context: New evidence that all three needs matter. British
Journal of Social Psychology,47, 267–283.
Sheldon, K. M., & Gunz, A. (in press). Psychological needs as basic motives, not just
experiential requirements. Journal of Personality.
Sheldon, K. M., & Krieger, L. (2004). Does law school undermine law students? Examining
changes in goals, values, and well-being. Behavioral Sciences and the Law,22, 261–286.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 161

Sheldon, K. M., & Niemiec, C. P. (2006). It’s not just the amount that counts: Balanced need
satisfaction also affects well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,91,
331–341.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Kasser, T. (2004). The independent effects of goal
contents and motives on well-being: It’s both what you pursue and why you pursue it.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,30, 475–486.
Sierens, E., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Soenens, B., & Dochy, F. (2009). The interactive
effect of perceived teacher autonomy-support and structure in the prediction of self-
regulated learning. British Journal of Educational Psychology,79, 57–68.
Silk, J. S., Morris, A. S., Kanaya, T., & Steinberg, L. (2003). Psychological control and
autonomy granting: Opposite ends of a continuum or distinct constructs? Journal of
Research on Adolescence,13, 113–128.
Skinner, B. F. (1971). Beyond freedom and dignity. New York: Knopf.
Soenens, B., Berzonsky, M. D., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., & Goossens, L. (2005). Identity
styles and causality orientations: In search of the motivational underpinnings of the
identity exploration process. European Journal of Personality,19, 427–442.
Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (in press-a). Theoretical upgrade of the concept of parental
psychological control: Proposing new insights on the basis of self-determination theory.
Developmental Review.
Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (in press-b). On the congruence between the self and
identity: Identity development from a self-determination perspective. In: S. J. Schwartz,
K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds), Handbook of identity theory and research. New York:
Springer.
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Goossens, L., Duriez, B., & Niemiec, C. P. (2008). The
intervening role of relational aggression between psychological control and friendship
quality. Social Development,17, 661–681.
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Luyckx, K., Goossens, L., Beyers, W., et al. (2007).
Conceptualizing parental autonomy support: Adolescent perceptions of promotion of
independence versus promotion of volitional functioning. Developmental Psychology,43,
633–646.
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Luyten, P. (in press). Towards a domain-specific approach to
the study of parental psychological control: Distinguishing between dependency-
oriented and achievement-oriented psychological control. Journal of Personality.
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., & Sierens, E. (2009). How are parental psychological control
and autonomy-support related? Naturally occurring profiles of psychological control
and two types of autonomy-support. Journal of Marriage and Family,71, 187–202.
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Vandereycken, W., Luyten, P., Sierens, E., & Goossens, L.
(2008). Perceived parental psychological control and eating disordered symptoms:
Maladaptive perfectionism as a possible intervening variable. Journal of Nervous and
Mental Disease,196, 144–152.
Steger, M. F., Kashdan, T. B., & Oishi, S. (2008). Being good by doing good: Daily eudaimonic
activity and well-being. Journal of Research in Personality,42, 22–42.
Stephens, N. M., Markus, H. R., & Townsend, S. S. M. (2007). Choice as an act of
meaning: The case of social class. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,93,
814–830.
Stice, E. (2001). A prospective test of the dual-pathway model of bulimic pathology: Mediating
effects of dieting and negative affect. Journal of Abnormal Psychology,110, 124–155.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.162

Tang, S. H., & Hall, V. C. (1995). The overjustification effect: A meta-analysis. Applied
Cognitive Psychology,9, 365–404.
Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., Ntoumanis, N., & Nikitaras, N. (in press). Unhealthy weight control
behaviours in adolescent girls: A process model based on self-determination theory.
Psychology and Health.
Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
In: M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 271–360).
New York: Academic Press.
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.
Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2003). To do or to have: That is the question. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology,85, 1193–1202.
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens, W. (2008). The role of basic need
satisfaction in explaining the relationships between demands, resources, well-being and
engagement. Work & Stress,22, 277–294.
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., Lens, W., & Soenens, B. (in press).
Capturing autonomy, relatedness and competence: Construction and validation of a work
related need satisfaction scale. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology.
Vandereycken, W., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2009). Let eating disorder patients decide: Providing
choice may reduce early drop-out from inpatient treatment. European Eating Disorders
Review,17, 177–183.
Van Hiel, A., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2009). Ambitions fulfilled? The effects of intrinsic and
extrinsic goal attainment on older adults’ ego-integrity and death attitudes. International
Journal of Aging and Human Development,68, 27–51.
van Prooijen, J. (2009). Procedural justice as autonomy regulation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology,96, 1166–1180.
Vansteenkiste, M., & Deci, E. L. (2003). Competitively contingent rewards and intrinsic
motivation: Can losers remain motivated? Motivation and Emotion,27, 273–299.
Vansteenkiste, M., Duriez, B., Simons, J., & Soenens, B. (2006a). Materialistic values and
well-being among business students: Further evidence for their detrimental effect.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology,36, 2892–2908.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006b). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in
self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation.
Educational Psychologist,41, 19–31.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., De Witte, S., De Witte, H., & Deci, E. L. (2004). The ‘‘why’’ and
‘‘why not’’ of job search behavior: Their relation to searching, unemployment
experience, and well-being. European Journal of Social Psychology,34, 345–363.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., De Witte, H., & Feather, N. T. (2005). Understanding
unemployed people’s search behavior, unemployment experience and well-being: A
comparison of expectancy-value theory and self-determination theory. British Journal of
Social Psychology,44, 1–20.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Luyckx, K. (2006c). Autonomy and relatedness
among Chinese sojourners and applicants: Conflictual or independent predictors of
well-being and adjustment? Motivation and Emotion,30, 273–282.
Vansteenkiste, M., Matos, L., Lens, W., & Soenens, B. (2007a). Understanding the impact
of intrinsic versus extrinsic goal framing on exercise performance: The conflicting role of
task and ego involvement. Psychology of Sport and Exercise,8, 771–794.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 163

Vansteenkiste, M., Mouratidis, A., & Lens, W. (in press). Fair play and well-being in soccer as a
function of pursuing performance-approach goals for autonomous and controlled
reasons. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology.
Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemiec, C. P., Soenens, B., De Witte, H., & Van den Broeck,
A. (2007b). On the relations among work value orientations, psychological need
satisfaction, and job outcomes: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of
Occupational and Organizational Psychology,80, 251–277.
Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). Self-determination theory and the
explanatory role of psychological needs in human well-being. In: L. Bruni, F. Comin &
M. Pugno (Eds), Capabilities and happiness (pp. 187–223). Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Vansteenkiste, M., & Sheldon, K. M. (2006). ‘There is nothing more practical than a good
theory’: Integrating motivational interviewing and self-determination theory. British
Journal of Clinical Psychology,45, 63–82.
Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., & Lens, W. (2009). Motivational
profiles from a self-determination perspective: The quality of motivation matters.
Journal of Educational Psychology,101, 671–688.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004a). Motivating
learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents
and autonomy supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,87,
246–260.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Matos, L. (2005a). Examining
the motivational impact of intrinsic versus extrinsic goal framing and autonomy-
supportive versus internally controlling communication style on early adolescents’
academic achievement. Child Development,76, 483–501.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., Matos, L., & Lacante, M. (2004b).
‘‘Less is sometimes more’’: Goal-content matters. Journal of Educational Psychology,96,
755–764.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2004c). How to become a persevering
exerciser? The importance of providing a clear, future intrinsic goal in an autonomy-
supportive manner. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,26, 232–249.
Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Duriez, B. (2008a). Presenting a positive alternative
to materialistic strivings and the thin-ideal: Understanding the effects of
extrinsic relative to intrinsic goal pursuits. In: S. J. Lopez (Ed.), Positive psychology:
Exploring the best in people (Vol. 4, pp. 57–86). Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing
Company.
Vansteenkiste, M., Timmermans, T., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Van den Broeck, A. (2008b).
Does extrinsic goal framing enhance extrinsic goal oriented individuals’ learning
and performance? An experimental test of the match-perspective vs. self-determination
theory. Journal of Educational Psychology,100, 387–397.
Vansteenkiste, M., Zhou, M., Lens, W., & Soenens, B. (2005b). Experiences of autonomy and
control among Chinese learners: Vitalizing or immobilizing? Journal of Educational
Psychology,97, 468–483.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Waterman, A. S. (in press). Eudaimonic identity theory: Identity as self-discovery. In:
S. J. Schwartz, K. Luyckx, & V. L. Vignoles (Eds), Handbook of identity theory and
research. New York: Springer.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
MAARTEN VANSTEENKISTE ET AL.164

Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. M. (in press). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for
prosocial behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and recipient. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological
Review,66, 297–333.
Williams, G. C., Cox, E. M., Hedberg, V., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Extrinsic life goals and health
risk behaviors in adolescents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology,30, 1756–1771.
Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by
medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology,70, 767–779.
Williams, G. C., Niemiec, C. P., Patrick, H., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009a). The
importance of supporting autonomy and perceived competence in facilitating long-term
tobacco abstinence. Annals of Behavioral Medicine,37, 315–324.
Williams, G. C., Patrick, H., Niemiec, C. P., Williams, L. K., Divine, G., Lafata, J. E., et al.
(2009b). Reducing the health risks of diabetes: How self-determination theory may help
improve medication adherence and quality of life. The Diabetes Educator,35, 484–492.
Wilson, P. M., Rogers, W. T., Rodgers, W. M., & Wild, T. C. (2006). The psychological need
satisfaction in exercise scale. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology,28, 231–251.
Zimbardo, P. G., & Boyd, J. N. (1999). Putting time in perspective: A valid, reliable individual-
differences metric. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,77, 1271–1288.
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Self-Determination Theory 165

1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
AUTHOR QUERY FORM
Book: AMA-V16A
Chapter: 4
Please e-mail or fax your responses
and any corrections to:
E-mail:
Fax:
Dear Author,
During the preparation of your manuscript for typesetting, some questions may have arisen.
These are listed below. Please check your typeset proof carefully and mark any corrections in
the margin of the proof or compile them as a separate list.
Disk use
Sometimes we are unable to process the electronic file of your article and/or artwork. If this is
the case, we have proceeded by:
&Scanning (parts of) your article &Rekeying (parts of) your article
&Scanning the artwork
Bibliography
If discrepancies were noted between the literature list and the text references, the following may
apply:
&The references listed below were noted in the text but appear to be missing from
your literature list. Please complete the list or remove the references from the text.
&UNCITED REFERENCES: This section comprises references that occur in the
reference list but not in the body of the text. Please position each reference in the text or
delete it. Any reference not dealt with will be retained in this section.
Queries and/or remarks
Location in
Article
Query / remark Response
AU:1 please check, the given Figure 1
in table format has been changed
to Table 1.
AU:2 please the cited reference
Asendorpf and van Aken (1998)
has been changed to Asendorpf
and van Aken (2003) as per the
Reference list.
AU:3 please provide missing volume
number and page range for the
following references: Jang,
Reeve, and Deci (in press);

1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37
39
Markland and Tobin (in press);
Moller, Deci, and Elliot (in
press); Neyrinck, Lens,
Vansteenkiste, and Soenens (in
press); Sheldon and Gunz (in
press); Soenens and
Vansteenkiste (in press-a);
Soenens, Vansteenkiste, and
Luyten (in press); Thøgersen-
Ntoumani, Ntoumanis, and
Nikitaras (in press); Van den
Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte,
Lens, and Soenens, (in press);
Vansteenkiste, Mouratidis, and
Lens (in press); Weinstein and
Ryan (in press).
AU:4 please provide the year of
publication for the following
references: Niemiec, Ryan, and
Deci (in press); Soenens and
Vansteenkiste (in press-b);
Waterman (in press);