Self-Determination Theory

Abstract

Self-determination theory (SDT) is a broad theory of human personality and motivation concerned with how the individual interacts with and depends on the social environment. SDT defines intrinsic and several types of extrinsic motivation and outlines how these motivations influence sit-uational responses in different domains, as well as social and cognitive development and personality. SDT is centered on the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness and their necessary role in self-determined motivation, well-being, and growth. Finally, SDT describes the critical impact of the social and cultural context in either facilitating or thwarting people's basic psychological needs, perceived sense of self-direction, performance, and well-being.

Full text

S
Self-Determination Theory
Lisa Legault
Clarkson University, Potsdam, NY, USA
Definition
Self-determination theory (SDT) is a broad theory
of human personality and motivation concerned
with how the individual interacts with and
depends on the social environment. SDT defines
intrinsic and several types of extrinsic motivation
and outlines how these motivations influence sit-
uational responses in different domains, as well as
social and cognitive development and personality.
SDT is centered on the basic psychological needs
of autonomy, competence, and relatedness and
their necessary role in self-determined motivation,
well-being, and growth. Finally, SDT describes
the critical impact of the social and cultural con-
text in either facilitating or thwarting people’s
basic psychological needs, perceived sense of
self-direction, performance, and well-being.
Introduction
Self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan and Deci
2000) is a metatheory of human motivation and
personality development. It is thought of as a
metatheory in the sense that it is made up of
several “mini-theories”which fuse together to
offer a comprehensive understanding of human
motivation and functioning. SDT is based on the
fundamental humanistic assumption that individ-
uals naturally and actively orient themselves
toward growth and self-organization. In other
words, people strive to expand and understand
themselves by integrating new experiences; by
cultivating their needs, desires, and interests; and
by connecting with others and the outside world.
However, SDT also asserts that this natural
growth tendency should not be assumed and that
people can become controlled, fragmented, and
alienated if their basic psychological needs for
autonomy,competence, and relatedness are
undermined by a deficient social environment. In
other words, SDT rests on the notion that the
individual is involved continuously in a dynamic
interaction with the social world –at once striving
for need satisfaction and also responding to the
conditions of the environment that either support
or thwart needs. As a consequence of this person-
environment interplay, people become either
engaged, curious, connected, and whole, or
demotivated, ineffective, and detached.
The basic components of SDT –namely, its six
mini-theories –combine to provide an account of
human behavior across life domains, including
work (Fernet 2013), relationships (La Guardia
and Patrick 2008), education (Reeve and Lee
2014), religion (Soenens et al. 2012), health
(Russell and Bray 2010), sports (Pelletier et al.
2001), and even stereotyping and prejudice
(Legault et al. 2007). At the heart of each mini-
#Springer International Publishing AG 2017
V. Zeigler-Hill, T.K. Shackelford (eds.), Encyclopedia of Personality and Individual Differences,
DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_1162-1

theory is the idea of basic psychological needs; all
individuals strive for and need autonomy (the
need to feel free and self-directed), competence
(the need to feel effective), and relatedness (the
need to connect closely with others) in order to
flourish and grow. The first mini-theory, cognitive
evaluation theory, centers on the factors that shape
intrinsic motivation by affecting perceived auton-
omy and competence. The second mini-theory is
organismic integration theory, and it concerns
extrinsic motivation and the manner in which it
may be internalized. Causality orientations theory
describes personality dispositions –that is, are
individuals generally autonomous, controlled, or
impersonal? The fourth mini-theory, basic psy-
chological need theory, discusses the role of
basic psychological needs in health and well-
being and, importantly, outlines the manner in
which social environments can neglect, thwart,
or satisfy people’s basic psychological needs.
Goal content theory is concerned with how intrin-
sic and extrinsic goals influence health and well-
ness. Finally, relationship motivation theory is
focused on the need to develop and maintain
close relationships and describes how optimal
relationships are those that help people satisfy
their basic psychological needs for autonomy,
competence, and relatedness.
Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET)
CET seeks to describe how both internal and
external events affect people’s intrinsic motiva-
tion. Intrinsic motivation refers to engagement in
activities out of enjoyment and interest rather than
for the consequence or incentive attached to the
behavior. Intrinsic motivation is noninstrumental
in nature; when intrinsically motivated, people are
not concerned with what outcome will be received
or avoided by engaging in the action. Rather, they
perform the behavior because it is inherently sat-
isfying in and of itself. In contrast, extrinsic moti-
vation is fundamentally instrumental. People are
extrinsically motivated when they are concerned
with performing an action because of the conse-
quence associated with it; behavior is contingent
upon receiving or avoiding an outcome that is
separable from the behavior in question.
According to CET, intrinsic motivation can be
enhanced or undermined, depending on the
degree to which external events (e.g., rewards,
punishers), interpersonal contexts (e.g., criticism
or praise from a relationship partner), and internal
proclivities (e.g., one’s own trait-level tendency to
feel task-engaged) affect the individual’s self-
perceptions of autonomy and competence. Auton-
omy is the innate need to feel self-direction and
self-endorsement in action, as opposed to feeling
controlled, coerced, or constrained, whereas com-
petence is the need to feel effective and masterful –
as though one’s actions are useful in achieving
desired outcomes. Competence underlies the
seeking out of optimal challenge and the
development of capacities. When external,
social/interpersonal, and internal conditions facil-
itate satisfaction of the individual’s needs for
autonomy and competence, then intrinsic motiva-
tion increases. Conversely, when autonomy is
neglected or thwarted by the use of controlling
events (e.g., bribes, demands, pressuring
language) or when perceived competence is
undermined (e.g., through negative or
uninformative feedback), then intrinsic motiva-
tion declines. Early work in the spirit of CET
showed that, by undercutting perceived auton-
omy, extrinsic motivators such as money worked
to impede intrinsic motivation (e.g., Deci 1971).
Follow-up research demonstrated that other exter-
nal events perceived to be controlling, such as
deadlines (Amabile et al. 1976) and surveillance
(Plant and Ryan 1985) also diminish intrinsic
motivation. Similarly, interpersonal contexts can
influence intrinsic motivation, depending on
whether they are perceived to be informational
or controlling. For instance, although positive
feedback is generally perceived as informational
(i.e., supporting competence), it can be perceived
as controlling (i.e., undermining of autonomy) if it
is administered in a pressuring way (Ryan 1982).
Finally, internal events –that is, people’s own
perceptions, feelings, and cognitions –can also
make behavior feel controlling or informational.
For example, people can come to feel obsessive or
ego-involved in an activity and the self-esteem
2 Self-Determination Theory

boost associated with it. When feelings of self-
worth or identity are attached to performance in a
way that it becomes necessary to perform the
behavior in order to feel worthy or valuable, then
the behavior will feel quite controlling (Mageau
et al. 2009; Plant and Ryan 1985).
In sum, CET asserts that the context –includ-
ing external forces (e.g., deadlines), interpersonal
climates (e.g., praise, instruction), and internal
events (e.g., being ego-involved) –affects intrin-
sic motivation as a function of the degree to which
they are informational vs. controlling.
Organismic Integration Theory (OIT)
Whereas CET addresses the manner in which
internal and environmental forces influence intrin-
sic motivation, OIT addresses the process by
which individuals acquire the motivation to carry
out behaviors that are not intrinsically interesting
or enjoyable. Such activities are unlikely to be
executed unless there is some extrinsic reason
for doing them. Extrinsic motivation refers to a
broad category of motivations aimed at outcomes
that are extrinsic to the behavior itself. Unlike
other motivation theories and research, OIT pro-
poses a highly differentiated view of extrinsic
motivation, suggesting that it takes multiple
forms, including external regulation, introjection,
identification, and integration. These subtypes of
extrinsic motivation are seen as falling along a
continuum of internalization (see Fig. 1). Thus,
whereas some extrinsic motivators are completely
external and nonself-determined, others can
be highly internal and self-determined (i.e.,
autonomous).
To the extent the environment satisfies people’s
needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness,
OIT postulates that people will tend to integrate
their experiences by internalizing, reflecting on,
and endorsing the values and behaviors that are
salient in their surroundings. This process of inter-
nalization is therefore spontaneous and adaptive,
allowing people to sanction and cohere with their
social environment. The more a behavior or reg-
ulation is internalized, the more it becomes inte-
grated with the self and serves as a foundation for
self-determined motivation. OIT suggests that
regulation of behavior can become increasingly
internalized to the extent that the individual feels
autonomous and competent in effecting
it. Relatedness plays an important role in internal-
ization. That is, individuals will tend to initially
internalize behaviors that are valued by close
others. For example, if a child learns that her
father, whom she admires, strongly values and
cares about brushing his teeth, then she may be
apt to internalize the same behavior. Ultimately,
however, full internalization requires the experi-
ence of autonomy in the activity (i.e., toothbrush-
ing must come to emanate from the self if it is truly
to be endorsed and sustained). To integrate the
regulation of a behavior, people must understand
its personal significance and coordinate it with
their needs, values, and other behaviors.
The degree to which any given behavior is
internalized is critically important to successful
performance and persistence of that behavior.
For instance, autonomously motivated students
study harder, pay more attention in class, and get
better grades (Vansteenkiste et al. 2004). In the
health regulation domain, autonomous motivation
leads to superior self-regulation in weight loss and
weight loss maintenance (Teixeira et al. 2010), as
well as in smoking cessation (Williams et al.
2009). Autonomous forms of motivation also
play an important role in long-term persistence
in sports (Pelletier et al. 2001) and the self-control
of prejudiced responses (Legault et al. 2007).
Causality Orientation Theory (COT)
Whereas CET and OIT are generally focused on
how the social context influences the individual’s
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation by affecting
autonomy, competence, and relatedness, COT is
more concerned with the inner resources of the
individual. Causality orientations are thought to
develop over time and form the basis of motiva-
tion at the broad level of personality. According to
COT, a developmental and social history of
autonomy-congruent experiences is likely to
shape an autonomous causality orientation (Deci
and Ryan 1985) or a trait of autonomous
Self-Determination Theory 3

functioning (Weinstein et al. 2012), wherein the
individual generally tends to regulate behavior as
a function of personal interests and values, that is,
based on intrinsic motivation and autonomous
forms of extrinsic motivation. In contrast, those
with a controlled orientation have a dispositional
tendency to look toward controls and prompts in
the environment to regulate behavior and are pri-
marily concerned with how to behave in a way
that conforms to expectations, demands, and other
external consequences. The impersonal orienta-
tion describes those who feel a general sense of
helplessness and detachment and who lack inten-
tionality in action.
The autonomy orientation is associated posi-
tively with self-esteem and self-actualization
(Deci and Ryan 1985), as well as greater daily
well-being, satisfaction of basic psychological
needs, autonomous engagement in daily activi-
ties, and positive daily social interactions
(Weinstein et al. 2012). In contrast, having a con-
trolled orientation is associated with self-
consciousness and proneness to feeling outwardly
evaluated and pressured (Deci and Ryan 1985),
as well as greater interpersonal defensiveness
(Hodgins et al. 2006). The impersonal orientation
has been shown to be associated with self-
derogation, depression, and anxiety (Deci and
Ryan 1985), as well as self-handicapping, poor
performance (Hodgins et al. 2006), and a
fragmented identity (Soenens et al. 2005).
Basic Psychological Need Theory (BPNT)
Although the basic psychological needs of auton-
omy, competence, and relatedness play a focal
role in SDT in general, as well as in each of its
mini-theories, BPNT goes beyond these basic
assumptions to specify more precisely how basic
psychological needs are essential for health and
well-being (Ryan and Deci 2000). BPNT also
describes how contexts that support the satisfac-
tion of basic psychological needs contribute to
positive life outcomes and how contexts that
thwart these needs will exact tolling costs to func-
tioning and wellness. Moreover, BPNT argues
that the needs of autonomy, competence, and
relatedness are not just essential for health but
are also innate and universal –that is, they exist
Non-self-determined Most self-determinedBehavior
Amotivation
Motivation Extrinsic
Motivation
Intrinsic
Motivation
Non-
Regulation
External
Regulation
Introjected
Regulation
Identified
Regulation
Integrated
Regulation
Intrinsic
Regulation
Regulatory
Style
Controlled (i.e., non-self-
determined) motivation Autonomous (i.e., self-determined) motivation
Locus of
Causality Impersonal External Somewhat
External
Somewhat
Internal Internal Internal
Relevant
Regulatory
Processes
Compliance,
External Rewards
and Punishers
Nonintentional,
Nonvaluing,
Incompetence,
Lack of Control
Self-Control,
Ego-Involvement,
Internal Rewards
and Punishers
Personal
Importance,
Conscious
Valuing
Congruence,
Awareness,
Synthesis with Self
Interest,
Enjoyment,
Inherent
Satisfaction
Self-Determination Theory, Fig. 1 The internalization continuum: types of motivation according to self-
determination theory
4 Self-Determination Theory

across individuals and cultures (e.g., Chen
et al. 2015).
Autonomy (the need to experience self-
direction and personal endorsement in action),
competence (the need to feel effective in interac-
tions with the environment), and relatedness (the
need to feel meaningfully connected to others) are
organismic needs. Organisms are inherently
bound to and dependent upon their environment
for survival. That is, the well-being of any organ-
ism depends on its environment because the envi-
ronment provides it with nutrients required to
thrive and develop. Just as organisms possess the
physiological needs of thirst, hunger, and sleep –
which must be met by environments that provide
water, food, and shelter if the organism is to sur-
vive; so too do organisms have psychological
needs, which are required to adapt and function
in psychologically healthy ways. Research on
basic psychological needs has found a robust con-
nection between psychological need satisfaction
and indices of eudaimonic well-being, that is, the
degree to which a person experiences meaning,
self-realization, and optimal functioning (not sim-
ply hedonic happiness, i.e., the experience of
pleasure and avoidance of pain). For instance,
psychological need satisfaction has been linked
to openness (Hodgins et al. 2006), developmental
growth and maturity (Ryan and Deci 2000),
energy, vitality, positive affect, and the relative
daily absence of psychological and physical
symptomatology (Reis et al. 2000). In contrast,
when psychological needs are unmet, individuals
experience greater apathy, irresponsibility, psy-
chopathology, arrogance, and insecurity (Ryan
and Deci 2000).
The environment therefore has a profound
impact on the extent to which the basic needs for
autonomy, competence, and relatedness are satis-
fied. For instance, when external events, interper-
sonal relationships, and social contexts/cultures
nurture and target a person’s need for autonomy,
then those contextual forces are said to be auton-
omy supportive. Autonomy-supportive environ-
ments and relationships nurture the individual’s
inner motivational resources and intrinsic prefer-
ences by providing choice and decision-making
flexibility. They also provide meaningful and
useful information to help individuals internalize
the motivation for their behavior. Competence
satisfaction is derived from contexts and relation-
ships that provide the individual with optimal
challenge (as opposed to being overwhelming or
boring), as well as structure and feedback that
allow skills and abilities to develop. Satisfaction
of the need for relatedness occurs when relation-
ships are nurturing and reciprocal and, impor-
tantly, when they involve acceptance of the
authentic self. Research on BPNT, and SDT in
general, shows that environments that are support-
ive of autonomy, competence, and relatedness
help to facilitate the individual’s perceived sense
of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, which
then promotes deeper daily engagement and over-
all psychological health (Ryan and Deci 2000).
Goal Content Theory (GCT)
GCT relates goal contents, also referred to as
aspirations or values, to well-being. GCT inte-
grates self-determination theory with values
research to suggest that basic psychological
needs also drive or underlie value systems in
specific ways (Kasser and Ryan 1996). That is,
intrinsic values/aspirations emerge from the basic
psychological needs of autonomy, competence,
and relatedness and, in turn, the pursuit and attain-
ment of intrinsic values works to satisfy these
needs. Intrinsic aspirations include close relation-
ships, personal growth, and community contribu-
tions. In contrast, extrinsic aspirations are geared
toward obtaining external validation and proof of
self-worth and instead focus on the pursuit of
goals such as financial success, popularity/fame,
and image/appearance. Extrinsic aspirations/
values tend to emerge from need substitutes;
when basic psychological needs are neglected
over time, it is theorized that socially salient
need substitutes can provide a placating alterna-
tive, and although the pursuit and attainment of
extrinsic goals can be quite motivating, they do
not provide direct nourishment of psychological
needs (Sheldon and Kasser 2008).
According to GCT, it is important to consider
the role of intrinsic and extrinsic values in
Self-Determination Theory 5

motivation because such values shape, guide, and
organize specific behaviors and experiences.
Values function to coordinate preferences, deci-
sions, and actions that are relevant to those values/
aspirations. For instance, a person who places
high value on financial success will likely buy
products and select acquaintances, friends, and
romantic partners that help to meet, affirm, or
express the value of wealth. A person who
strongly values having close relationships, in con-
trast, will be motivated to nurture and explore
intimate and lasting connections with others –
perhaps by choosing and spending significant
amounts of time on a selective number of mean-
ingful relationships. Because intrinsic values/
aspirations are more conducive to need fulfillment
than are extrinsic values/aspirations, it may not be
surprising that they are more likely to be associ-
ated with well-being. For instance, it has been
found that individuals who pursue intrinsic goals
experience greater personal fulfillment, more
productivity, less anxiety, less narcissism, less
depression, and fewer physical symptoms com-
pared to those who pursue financial success
(Kasser and Ryan 1996).
Relationship Motivation Theory (RMT)
Although the first five mini-theories of SDT are
centrally concerned with the role of the social
context in supporting the individual’s need satis-
faction, intrinsic motivation, and well-being, most
of their focus is on nonreciprocal, one-way rela-
tionships, that is, on the manner in which impor-
tant significant others (e.g., parents, teachers,
coaches, managers) tend to support or undermine
the individual’s psychological needs. RMT fills a
gap by describing the dynamics between partners
in close relationships. While RMT notes that the
basic psychological need for relatedness drives
the initial desire to seek out and maintain close
and meaningful relationships, satisfaction of the
need for relatedness alone is not sufficient; ulti-
mately, optimal close relationships are ones in
which each partner supports the autonomy, com-
petence, and relatedness needs of the other.
According to SDT broadly –and RMT in par-
ticular –all human beings possess the fundamen-
tal need to feel cared for; people aim to cultivate
relationships with those who value them and who
are sensitive to their needs and wants. People also
want to feel authentic in relationships and to know
that their relationship partner understands and
values their core self. While RMT rests on this
need for relatedness, the first major tenet of RMT
suggests that optimal satisfaction of relatedness
requires also that autonomy and competence be
fulfilled in the context of the relationship. For
instance, it has been found that each of the three
basic psychological needs contributes uniquely to
important relationship outcomes, including rela-
tionship quality, security of attachment, effective
conflict management, and overall personal well-
being (Deci and Ryan 2014; Patrick et al. 2007;La
Guardia and Patrick 2008). Overall, the more need
satisfaction people experience in relationships,
the more satisfied they will be with that relation-
ship. When individuals feel as though their part-
ner values their true self and holds them in
unconditional positive regard, then relationships
are more likely to flourish.
A second major proposition within RMT refers
to the notion that the more people are autono-
mously motivated to be in relationships, the
more they will experience the relationship to be
fulfilling. Thus, when people enter and persist at
relationships for personal, autonomous reasons
(e.g., because they feel that the relationship is
important and meaningful) rather than controlled
reasons (e.g., because they feel like they should be
in the relationship), they show greater relationship
satisfaction, better daily relationship functioning,
and greater overall well-being (Deci and Ryan
2014). Interestingly, the important role of auton-
omous motivation extends to relationships with
social groups; when individuals feel autono-
mously motivated to be part of a group (e.g.,
being Black, being German, being Catholic,
being part of a team or organization), they expe-
rience more positive group identity (Amiot and
Sansfaçon 2011).
Afinal key component to RMT is that people
desire mutuality in close relationships. Therefore,
not only do people benefit from receiving need
6 Self-Determination Theory

support from their partners, but they also benefit
by giving it (Deci et al. 2006). To feel truly related
to another person, not only do people want to feel
genuinely accepted and cared for, but they also
want their partners to feel the same way, that is,
they want others to want to form close connec-
tions with them, and they want to be able to offer
their partners unconditional support and regard in
return. RMT, in sum, suggests that optimal close
relationships between partners are complex and
require more than warmth and attachment.
Summary: Putting It All Together
Self-determination theory offers a broad frame-
work for understanding human motivation and
personality by defining the psychological nutri-
ents required for optimal motivation, engagement,
and well-being. SDT underscores the idea that
people’s relationships and social contexts must
involve and support their fundamental human
needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness.
Figure 2helps to summarize the role of contexts
and events in satisfying these basic psychological
needs and the subsequent effect on intrinsic and
autonomous forms of extrinsic motivation. When
people are exposed to and involved in
opportunities that allow for personal initiative
and self-direction, as well as optimal challenge
and positive social interactions, autonomous
motivation thrives, and they are likely to feel
interested and engaged.
Conclusion
Self-determination theory has been supported by
more than four decades of research. The success
of the theory can be attributed to its degree of
comprehensiveness and testability. That is, SDT
outlines very clear, detailed, dynamic, and verifi-
able propositions that apply to needs and motiva-
tions across life spheres, including classrooms,
organizations, families, teams, clinics, and cul-
tures. SDT is therefore both broad and specific,
as it provides detailed accounts of how social and
cultural forces impact personality development
and global motivational orientation, as well as
behavioral responses within particular domains
and tasks. Recently, SDT has begun to receive
attention at the level of the brain as well, showing
that autonomous/intrinsic motivation and con-
trolled/extrinsic motivation map onto distinct neu-
rophysiological structures and functions (e.g.,
Legault and Inzlicht 2013; Marsden et al. 2014).
Autonomy Support
from Environment
and Relationships
Competence Support
from Environment
and Relationships
Relatedness from
Environment and
Relationships
Perceived
Autonomy
Perceived
Competence
Perceived
Relatedness
Satisfaction
of Basic
Psychological
Needs
Intrinsic
Motivation and
Self-Determined
Extrinsic
Motivation
Self-Determination Theory, Fig. 2 The role of need satisfaction in motivation according to self-determination theory
Self-Determination Theory 7

Arguably, the future of SDT will rest in its appli-
cability to the practice of motivating self and
others; by applying the basics of SDT, parents,
teachers, coaches, managers, romantic partners,
and peers can help individuals enhance their cre-
ativity, meaning, and enjoyment.
Cross-References
▶The Need for Autonomy
▶The Need for Competence, Intrinsic and Extrin-
sic Motivation
References
Amabile, T. M., DeJong, W., & Lepper, M. R. (1976).
Effects of externally imposed deadlines on subsequent
intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 34(1), 92.
Amiot, C. E., & Sansfaçon, S. (2011). Motivations to
identify with social groups: A look at their positive
and negative consequences. Group Dynamics: Theory,
Research, and Practice, 15(2), 105.
Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Boone, L.,
Deci, E. L., Van der Kaap-Deeder, J., et al. (2015).
Basic psychological need satisfaction, need frustration,
and need strength across four cultures. Motivation and
Emotion, 39(2), 216–236.
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards
on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 18, 105–115.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). The general causality
orientations scale: Self-determination in personality.
Journal of Research in Personality, 19, 109–134.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2014). Autonomy and need
satisfaction in close relationships: Relationships moti-
vation theory. In Human motivation and interpersonal
relationships (pp. 53–73). The Netherlands: Springer.
Deci, E. L., La Guardia, J. G., Moller, A. C.,
Scheiner, M. J., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). On the benefits
of giving as well as receiving autonomy support: Mutu-
ality in close friendships. Personality and Social Psy-
chology Bulletin, 32(3), 313–327.
Fernet, C. (2013). The role of work motivation in psycho-
logical health. Canadian Psychology, 54,72–74.
Hodgins, H. S., Yacko, H. A., & Gottlieb, E. (2006).
Autonomy and nondefensiveness. Motivation and
Emotion, 30(4), 283–293.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the
American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and
extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bul-
letin, 22, 280–287.
La Guardia, J. G., & Patrick, H. (2008). Self-determination
theory as a fundamental theory of close relationships.
Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 201.
Legault, L., & Inzlicht, M. (2013). Self-determination, self-
regulation and the brain: Autonomy improves perfor-
mance by enhancing neuroaffective responsiveness to
self-regulation failure. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 105, 123–128.
Legault, L., Green-Demers, I., Grant, P., & Chung, J.
(2007). On the self-regulation of implicit and explicit
prejudice: A self-determination theory perspective.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33,
732–749.
Mageau, G. A., Vallerand, R. J., Charest, J., Salvy, S. J.,
Lacaille, N., Bouffard, T., & Koestner, R. (2009). On
the development of harmonious and obsessive passion:
The role of autonomy support, activity specialization,
and identification with the activity. Journal of Person-
ality, 77(3), 601–646.
Marsden, K. E., Ma, W. J., Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., &
Chiu, P. H. (2014). Diminished neural responses pre-
dict enhanced intrinsic motivation and sensitivity to
external incentive. Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral
Neuroscience, 15, 276–286.
Patrick, H., Knee, C. R., Canevello, A., & Lonsbary, C.
(2007). The role of need fulfillment in relationship
functioning and well-being: A self-determination the-
ory perspective. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-
chology, 92(3), 434.
Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., &
Brière, N. M. (2001). Associations among perceived
autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persis-
tence: A prospective study. Motivation and Emotion,
25, 279–306.
Plant, R. W., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation
and the effects of self-consciousness, self-awareness,
and ego-involvement: An investigation of internally
controlling styles. Journal of Personality, 53(3),
435–449.
Reeve, J., & Lee, W. (2014). Students’classroom engage-
ment produces longitudinal changes in classroom moti-
vation. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106,
527–540.
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(4), 419–435.
Russell, K. L., & Bray, S. R. (2010). Promoting self-
determined motivation for exercise in cardiac rehabili-
tation: The role of autonomy support. Rehabilitation
Psychology, 55,74–80.
Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intra-
personal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation
theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
43(3), 450–461.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination
theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social
development, and well-being. American Psychologist,
55(1), 68.
8 Self-Determination Theory

Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (2008). Psychological threat
and extrinsic goal striving. Motivation and Emotion,
32,37–45.
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(5), 427–442.
Soenens, B., Neyrinck, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Dezutter, J.,
Hutsebaut, D., & Duriez, B. (2012). How do percep-
tions of god as autonomy-supportive or controlling
relate to individuals’social-cognitive processing of
religious contents? The role of motives for religious
behavior. The International Journal for the Psychology
of Religion, 22,1–21.
Teixeira, P. J., Silva, M. N., Coutinho, S. R.,
Palmeira, A. L., Mata, J., Vieira, P. N., et al. (2010).
Mediators of weight loss and weight loss maintenance
in middle-aged women. Obesity, 18, 725–735.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., &
Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance,
and persistence: The synergistic role of intrinsic goals
and autonomy-support. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 87, 246–260.
Weinstein, N., Przybylski, A. K., & Ryan, R. M. (2012).
The index of autonomous functioning: Development of
a scale of human autonomy. Journal of Research in
Personality, 46(4), 397–413.
Williams, G. C., Niemiec, C. P., Patrick, H., Ryan, R. M., &
Deci, E. L. (2009). The importance of supporting
autonomy and perceived competence in facilitating
long- term tobacco abstinence. Annals of Behavioral
Medicine, 37, 315–324.
Self-Determination Theory 9