Self-Determination Theory

Edward L Deci and Richard M Ryan, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, USA
Ó 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
This article is a revision of the previous edition article by E.L. Deci, volume 11, pp. 7886–7888, Ó 2001, Elsevier Ltd.

Abstract

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

Self-determination Theory (SDT) is a theory of human moti- The Meta-Theory of SDT

vation that examines a wide range of phenomena across
gender, culture, age, and socioeconomic status. As a motiva- Within psychology, the meta-theoretical assumptions underlying
tional theory, it addresses what energizes people’s behavior and different theories tend to fall along a continuum from mecha-
moves them into action, as well as how their behavior is nistic to organismic. At one end, mechanistic meta-theories
regulated in the various domains of their lives. SDT’s expla- assume that humans are passive and thus require some force
nations are focused at the psychological level (rather than the operating on them to move them into action. Classic theories of
sociological or physiological levels), thus using human this sort include operant theory (Skinner, 1971), which assumes
perceptions, cognitions, emotions, and needs as predictors of that external reinforcers, such as contingently provided food and
regulatory, behavioral, developmental, and experiential water, as well as their derivatives such as money, are what move
outcomes (e.g., Ryan and Deci, 2000b). people into action. When reinforcers are provided after a person
Central to the theory is the important distinction between emits a behavior in the presence of a contingency, the reinforcer
two types of motivation – autonomous motivation and controlled will strengthen the association between the contingency and
motivation. Traditionally, motivation theories have treated behavior, making the behavior more likely to occur the next time
motivation as a unitary concept focusing just on the total the contingency is present.
amount of motivation people have for behaviors in order to At the other end of the continuum, organismic meta-theories
predict how vigorously they will engage in those behaviors, and assume that humans are by nature active organisms who can
many contemporary theories of motivation still do. SDT, in motivate themselves to act on their environment and elaborate
contrast, has always put its primary emphasis on the types of and strengthen their understanding and behavioral repertoire.
motivation people have for various behaviors. The theory Piaget’s (1971) theory of cognitive development is an example
maintains that, although knowing the amount of motivation of a classic theory built upon organismic assumptions. This
people have for behaviors may allow one to predict the amount approach assumes that people are naturally inclined to expand
or quantity of the behaviors they will exhibit, assessing types of their cognitive, knowledge structures by seeking stimuli that are
motivation is necessary for predicting the quality and mainte- optimally discrepant from their existing structures. The assimi-
nance of those behaviors. lation schema is the means through which these new schema are
When people are autonomously motivated, they act with developed, and the organization principal is the process that
a full sense of willingness and volition, wholly endorsing that integrates the new schema into people’s existing structures.
which they are doing because they find it either interesting and Many current theories, such as the social cognitive and social
enjoyable, or consistent with their deeply held, integrated learning theories (e.g., Bandura, 1996) fall somewhere between
values. Autonomous motivation is typically accompanied by the ends of the continuum with some aspects of the theories
the experience of positive affect, flexibility, and choice. In reflecting somewhat mechanistic, and others reflecting some-
contrast, when people’s motivation is controlled, they act out what organismic, meta-theoretical assumptions. However, the
of coercion, seduction, or obligation. They tend to experience primary lacuna in these theories is the failure to recognize that
pressure and compulsion, rather than concurrence and choice. people have an innate developmental tendency – that is, that
Much of the self-determination research has examined either they inherently act to elaborate themselves and to integrate
(1) antecedents of these types of motivation, at the develop- these new experiences. Simply stated, from the organismic
mental or the situation levels, or (2) the concomitants and perspective, development is not something the environment
consequences of the different types of motivation. We address does to people, although of course the environment does affect
these two types of motivation and their various subtypes in people’s development; rather development is something that
turn, although first we speak briefly about the philosophical people do for themselves by acting on stimuli either that they
assumptions upon which self-determination was built. seek out or that are thrust upon them.

486 International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences, 2nd edition, Volume 21 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.26036-4
Self-Determination Theory 487

Self-determination theory (SDT) is decidedly organismic at The initial research indicated that in fact extrinsic rewards
its core. It assumes that humans are active, working to integrate do undermine intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1971). People who
new material into their own sense of self, but also, and did an interesting activity to get a monetary reward were
importantly, that the environment can either provide nutrients subsequently less intrinsically motivated than others who did
for this integrative process, or can disrupt and impair the the same activity without getting the reward. This was a very
process. Thus, it is the dialectic between the active, growth- controversial finding because it highlighted negative effects of
oriented organism and the social context that is the central rewards, which is no doubt the archetype of motivation in most
explanatory nexus for motivation, behavior, and development. people’s minds, and of course in the behavioral psychologies.
The degree to which people’s motivation is autonomous versus So, in the subsequent decades there were many additional tests
controlled, at either the developmental or situation level, of this phenomenon. A meta-analysis of more than 100
depends on the degree to which the active integrative process experiments confirmed that tangible rewards do in fact
functions more versus less successfully, in part depending on undermine intrinsic motivation for a behavior, especially if the
whether the social environment supports versus thwarts the rewards are contingent on the behavior, expected while doing
integration. it, and relatively salient (Deci et al., 1999). On the other hand,
the research and meta-analysis also showed that positive
feedback enhanced intrinsic motivation. Additional experi-
Autonomous Motivation ments showed, as summarized by Ryan and Deci (2000a), that
threats of punishment, deadlines, evaluations, and surveillance
The early motivation research that led directly to SDT differ- all undermined intrinsic motivation, whereas providing people
entiated intrinsic motivation from extrinsic motivation (e.g., with choice, as well as acknowledging their feelings and
Deci, 1971). Intrinsic motivation means people are engaging in perspectives, tended to enhance their intrinsic motivation.
an activity because they find it interesting, enjoyable, or fun. In drawing these findings together and providing a theoret-
The play of young children is a perfect example of intrinsically ical account, Deci and Ryan (1985) posited that integral to
motivated behavior. The children are active and engaged in intrinsic motivation are two fundamental psychological needs
a very natural way. They will often be working out some inner – that is, the needs for autonomy and competence. Stated
agenda, such as expressing feelings, albeit without any delib- differently, people have inherent psychological needs, just as
erate intention to do so. They are simply doing what they find they have basic physiological needs (e.g., oxygen, food, and
interesting to do, and in the process they are learning and water), and satisfaction versus thwarting of the basic psycho-
growing. Adults are also intrinsically motivated for some logical needs can have a range of positive versus negative
activities, typically their leisure-time pursuits. Because intrinsic consequences. Specifically, people may become dependent on
motivation is a natural internal motivation involving interest and controlled by external events such as tangible rewards,
and enjoyment, it is not necessary to motivate people to do threats, deadlines, and surveillance, thus having their need for
what they find intrinsically interesting. They simply do those autonomy thwarted and their intrinsic motivation undermined
behaviors and this intrinsic motivation is the prototype of by these events. In contrast, choice and the acknowledgment of
autonomous motivation. their internal perspective have been found to increase people’s
Intrinsic motivation is often discussed in contrast to sense of autonomy, thus enhancing their intrinsic motivation.
extrinsic motivation. The latter type of motivation involves Concerning feedback, positive feedback tends to affirm
a contingency between the target behavior and some separable people’s sense of effectance, thus satisfying their need for
consequence desired by the individual. What are referred to as competence and enhancing their intrinsic motivation; whereas,
reinforcers in operant theory can be thought of as extrinsic negative feedback, which has been found to diminish intrinsic
motivators. People are often extrinsically motivated by the motivation, is thought to have its effects by thwarting the need
pursuit of rewards such as money or prizes, the avoidance of for competence.
noxious stimuli, or the desire for social approval. Colloquially,
the classic extrinsic motivators are the ‘carrot and stick.’
Internalization of Motivation
The fact that the most typical extrinsic motivators have been
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation
reliably found to decrease intrinsic motivation – humans’
Early intrinsic motivation research examined the effects of natural, inherent type of autonomous motivation – raises the
extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. At issue is whether question of whether it is possible for people to be autonomous
giving extrinsic rewards to people who are intrinsically moti- while being extrinsically motivated. Ryan et al. (1985)
vated for an activity would enhance their intrinsic motivation addressed that issue with the concept of internalization,
for the activity. That of course would be desirable. Perhaps, which had been an important concept in developmental
however, the two are additive in which case the motivations psychology for many years, and they suggested that people tend
would not affect each other but would add together to form to internalize material endorsed by significant others in order
total motivation. That too would be a good outcome. But the to satisfy a basic psychological need for relatedness. The Ryan
third option is that there is a negative interactive effect between et al. idea was that extrinsic contingencies, which are external to
extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation. That would mean people, could be taken in by the individuals and integrated into
that giving extrinsic rewards to someone doing an interesting their sense of self. If that were to happen, people could behave
activity would actually diminish the person’s intrinsic moti- from their own sense of self and thus be autonomous
vation for the activity. with respect to motivations that had originally been external.
488 Self-Determination Theory

However, the researchers pointed out that internalization, essential in various Eastern cultures such as South Korea,
which is a natural part of the integrative process, may not China, and Japan. For example, Chirkov et al. (2003) did
always function wholly effectively so motivations sometimes a study in Korea, Russia, Turkey, and the United States, finding
get only partially internalized and thus not fully integrated. that when people enacted behaviors consistent with either
Therefore, they suggested, internalization can be understood in individualism or collectivism and did so autonomously, they
terms of a continuum of autonomy, in which the more fully evidenced high well-being, but when their enactment was
some value or regulation is internalized the more the accom- prompted by controlled motivation, they evidenced poor well-
panying behavior will be enacted autonomously. They dis- being, regardless of the culture or the values. In other words,
cussed four types of extrinsic motivation that resulted from autonomy is necessary for a high level of psychological
different degrees of internalization. wellness in Eastern as well as Western cultures.
External regulation is the classic type of extrinsic motivation.
People behave because of external contingencies that have not
been internalized. Thus, external regulation is the least auton- Amotivation
omous and most controlled form of extrinsic motivation.
Introjected regulation results from people having partially inter- Clearly, both autonomous and controlled motivations are
nalized an extrinsic motivation – that is, having taken it in but types of motivation, so to whatever degree people have one or
not really accepted it as their own. Introjection includes being the other or both of these, the people will be motivated. In
motivated by contingent self-esteem, guilt, or ego-involvement. contrast, the concept of amotivation refers to people having no
Introjected regulation has been found empirically to be intentionality or motivation. People tend to be amotivated for
accompanied by experiences and consequences similar to those a behavior when they do not feel competent to do it or when
associated with external regulation. Thus, although this type of they do not value the outcomes that are likely to follow from
extrinsic motivation is internal to the person, it is still quite the behaviors.
controlling. A more fully internalized form of extrinsic moti- Many motivation theories use as their primary distinction:
vation is referred to as identified regulation because it involves being motivated versus unmotivated. SDT, however, has
people identifying with the personal value and importance of a tripartite differentiation of autonomous motivation,
the behavior for themselves and thus accepting it as their own. controlled motivation, and amotivation. Considerable research
Subsequently, they will regulate themselves for related behav- has used questionnaires that assess these concepts at the levels
iors relatively autonomously. Finally, the fullest type of inter- of specific behaviors, such as stopping tobacco use, or of
nalized extrinsic motivation is labeled integrated regulation. It domains, such as doing schoolwork. However, the tripartite
involves people having integrated new identifications with conceptualization has also been examined at the more general
other aspects of their own integrated sense of self – that is, with personality level.
other identifications, values, and needs. With integrated regu-
lation, people act with a full sense of volition and choice.
Empirically, identified regulation is more closely related to Causality Orientations
integrated regulation than it is to introjected regulation. Thus,
identified and integrated regulations, as well as intrinsic The concept of general causality orientations refers to three
motivation, are all considered relatively autonomous forms of individual difference variables related to people’s under-
motivation. standing of the causality for their behaviors and the degrees to
With the elaboration of extrinsic motivation in terms of the which, motivationally, they are generally oriented in these
degree of internalization, and thus of autonomy, it became ways. The three causality orientation dimensions are the
clear that the distinction between autonomous and controlled autonomous orientation, the controlled orientation, and the
motivation was the most useful and appropriate as the primary impersonal orientation (Deci and Ryan, 1985). When people
distinction in SDT. Accordingly, autonomous motivation are high in the autonomous orientation, they tend to focus on
comprises external and introjected forms of extrinsic motiva- information in the environment and within themselves that
tion, whereas controlled motivation comprises identified and they can use in making choices, and they tend to have a high
integrated forms of extrinsic motivation, along with intrinsic level of autonomous motivation. When people are high in the
motivation. In this, one sees that some types of extrinsic controlled orientation, they tend to focus on controls and
motivation (identified and integrated) are relatively autono- pressures in the environment and within themselves that tell
mous along with intrinsic motivation and one type of internal them what they should do, and to a substantial degree their
motivation (introjected) is relatively controlled. As such, behavior is controlled. When people are high in the impersonal
neither the intrinsic–extrinsic distinction, nor the internal– orientation, they tend to focus on cues in the environment and
external distinction works as cleanly and effectively as the within themselves that signify their incompetence and inability
autonomous-controlled distinction. to obtain desired outcomes, and they tend to be amotivated
a good deal of the time.
Each person has each of these orientations to some degree,
Autonomy across Cultures
so people are not categorized as being one type of person or
Various psychologists have argued that the concept of another. Rather, the three orientations are all operative to
autonomy is a Western concept that is not relevant to Eastern differing degrees, and each orientation influences some of their
cultures (e.g., Iyengar and DeVoe, 2003); however, numerous behaviors and experiences. The autonomous orientation is
studies have shown that the experience of autonomy is also related to self-esteem and self-actualization; the controlled
Self-Determination Theory 489

orientation is related to public self-consciousness and the relatively thwarted, people tend to develop a high level of the
type-A coronary-prone behavior pattern; and the impersonal impersonal orientation. In short, the satisfaction versus
orientation is related to self-derogation and depressive thwarting of the basic psychological needs for autonomy,
symptoms. competence, and relatedness explains the enhancement versus
undermining of intrinsic motivation, the internalization of
extrinsic motivation, and the development of general causality
Basic Psychological Needs orientations.

Earlier we introduced the concept of fundamental psycholog-

Hedonic and Eudaimonic Wellness
ical needs, which refers to essential, universal nutrients for
psychological health and well-being. We mentioned that Basic psychological needs theory was developed initially to
satisfying the needs for competence and autonomy appeared to address the issue of psychological wellness, although it has
be particularly important for maintaining intrinsic motivation, a central role in all of SDT, for satisfaction of the psychological
and also that people tend to internalize extrinsic motivation needs has been shown to maintain and enhance intrinsic
in order to experience satisfaction not only of these needs but motivation, to promote internalization of extrinsic motivation,
also the need for relatedness. and to facilitate development of the causality orientations. As
Indeed, the concept of basic psychological needs is central well, it has consistently been shown to promote well-being.
to SDT because it specifies the nutrients that are essential in the Within that field, a distinction is frequently made between
environment to support and facilitate people becoming more hedonic well-being and eudaimonic well-being (Ryan et al.,
autonomously motivated, experiencing greater psychological 2008a). Hedonic well-being refers to being happy, to having
and physiological wellness, and performing more effectively high positive affect and low negative affect. Eudaimonic well-
(Gagné and Deci, 2005; Ryan et al., 2008b). Many dozens of being, in contrast, refers to living one’s life in a full and
studies, summarized in a recent meta-analysis (Ng et al., 2012) deeply satisfying way, actualizing one’s human potentials.
have confirmed that, across cultures, genders, and circum- Eudaimonic living will often be accompanied by positive
stances, when people experience satisfaction of the three basic affect, but people will also experience negative affect when that
psychological needs, they do indeed evidence greater health is appropriate to the moment, as when something sad has just
and well-being. happened. Satisfaction of the basic psychological needs has
The importance of supports for psychological need satis- been shown to be crucial for eudaimonic well-being.
faction has been shown concurrently and developmentally.
First, some studies have shown that when the current social
environment supports one or more of the basic needs, people Need Support, Motivation, and Outcomes
tend to be more autonomously motivated in that situation.
Examples of this are the experiments showing that both choice Much of the research examining the consequences of autono-
and acknowledging people’s feelings in a particular situation mous motivation, controlled motivation, and amotivation has
enhanced their intrinsic motivation for the target activity at that been done in various applied settings, including homes,
time (Deci et al., 1999). When environments supported schools, workplaces, medical clinics, athletic settings, psycho-
people’s autonomy, they became more intrinsically motivated. therapy offices, and virtual worlds. In short, many hundreds of
Similarly, an experiment (Deci et al., 1994) showed that studies have shown that, across these domains in many coun-
supports for autonomy in a particular situation facilitated tries, outcomes tend to be most positive when the social
internalization and integration in that situation. environment has been supportive of the basic needs and when
Second, the promotion of autonomous motivation and the target individuals have been autonomously motivated.
wellness has been shown developmentally. For example, For example, when elementary school teachers were more
studies have shown that when the social contexts of either need supportive, their students were more intrinsically moti-
homes or classrooms were autonomy supportive of young vated and showed higher self-esteem; when instructors in
students, the students tended, over time, to develop stronger a college course were more need supportive the students
identifications with the importance of doing schoolwork – that became more autonomously motivated for the course over the
is, they internalized this value and regulation more fully semester, understood the material better, and received higher
(Grolnick and Ryan, 1989). As noted already, the concept of grades in the course. And a study of medical students showed
general causality orientations concerns people’s general indi- that when their instructors were more need supportive, the
vidual differences with regard to autonomous and controlled students internalized the course material more fully. In general,
motivation and amotivation. This concept of causality orien- when the social context is more need supportive and people are
tations is viewed as a developmental outcome – that is, it is said more autonomously motivated for learning, they learn in
to result from the mix of supporting versus thwarting of the a deeper more conceptual way, whereas, when the context is
basic psychological needs during one’s developmental years. controlling or the learners are controlled in their motivation,
When all of the needs are satisfied over time, in homes, schools, they tend to do well at memorizing facts, but they show low
and elsewhere, while children are growing up, they tend to levels of conceptual understanding (Ryan and Deci, 2009).
develop a relatively strong autonomy orientation. When the A study of employees in a work setting showed that when
competence and relatedness needs are supported, but the need managers became more need supportive the employees were
for autonomy is thwarted, people tend to develop a fairly more satisfied with their jobs and more trusting of the
strong controlled orientation, and when all of the needs are company. A study of investment bankers showed that when
490 Self-Determination Theory

managers were more autonomy supportive, their employees learning and performance than having extrinsic goals made
performed better at their jobs and also showed better psycho- salient. When, for example, business students who were
logical well-being. These employees having higher autono- learning about communications were told that it would help
mous causality orientations also contributed to their them learn about themselves, which is an intrinsic goal, their
performing well and feeling good. In general, work settings that learning and performance was better than when the students
are more need supportive and workers who are more autono- were told that it would help them make more money, which is
mously motivated have been found to yield more positive an extrinsic goal (Vansteenkiste et al., 2004).
work outcomes (e.g., Baard et al., 2004).
In the domain of health care, for example, research has
found that when physicians were need supportive, the patients Close Relationships
were more autonomously motivated to take their medications
and in turn showed greater medication adherence. Other The concepts of SDT have also been used to examine close
research showed that when medical practitioners were more personal relationships such as best friends and romantic part-
need supportive for diabetic patients, the patents’ health ners. Much of the SDT research has focused on the importance
improved (Ryan et al., 2008b). of autonomy in close relationships. Some theorists have argued
In research on virtual worlds, results indicate that when that to have a satisfying close relationship people need to give
players experience more satisfaction of the basic psychological up autonomy in service of the dyad, but SDT has argued that
needs while playing the games they are more intrinsically autonomy, as well as relatedness and competence, must be
motivated for and more immersed in the games (Rigby and satisfied within a relationship in order for the relationship to
Ryan, 2011). They have also shown that much of the basis be high quality and truly satisfying.
for players’ aggression during or following game play is Studies have shown that indeed the degree to which people
a function of their needs having been thwarted while playing. experience autonomy in a particular relationship predicts the
degree of attachment security in that relationship. Across
several relationships (e.g., mother, father, best friend, romantic
Goals and Aspirations partner) people experience considerable variability in the
degree to which their need for autonomy is satisfied with
The concept of goals has been perhaps the most common different partners, and similarly they experience different
motivational concept in the psychological literature on moti- degrees of attachment security. For each of the partners,
vation since the 1960s, when cognitive processes have been the autonomy need satisfaction directly predicted security of
central explanatory approach to psychology. Goals are attachment in the relationship (La Guardia et al., 2000).
outcomes that people value and hope to attain when engaging A different study examined best friend relationships and
in particular behaviors. In SDT, although psychological needs is found that mutuality of providing autonomy support was
the most important explanatory concept, goals also have an important for satisfying friendships. In other words, when
important place. Specifically, SDT has focused on the degree to a person received autonomy support from a friend it contrib-
which people place value on what are called extrinsic life goals uted to the person’s attachment security, emotional reliance,
or aspirations, such as wealth, fame, and image, relative to relationship satisfaction, and well-being, a set of findings that
intrinsic life goals such as personal growth, relationships, and was true for each partner. Further, however, when a person gave
community. autonomy support to the friend, not only did the friend benefit,
Research has shown that when people value the extrinsic but the person actually benefitted from the giving to the
aspirations more strongly than the intrinsic aspirations, they partner. So, both receiving autonomy support and giving
tend also to display poor psychological health, whereas when autonomy support within a friendship benefits each partner in
they value the intrinsic aspirations more strongly, they are that relationship (Deci et al., 2006).
psychologically healthier (Kasser and Ryan, 1996). These
results have been consistently replicated in varied groups and
cultures, and the explanation of the findings supported by SDT Summary
research is that the pursuit and attainments of the intrinsic
goals of self-exploration, meaningful relationships, and SDT is a motivational theory that differentiates between
community contributions tend to provide direct satisfaction of autonomous and controlled types of motivation and proposes
the basic psychological needs, whereas pursuit and attainment that autonomous motivation leads to higher quality behavior
of the extrinsic goals of material possessions, social recogni- and experience, especially for heuristic activities. It also differ-
tion, and attractive image are at best indirectly satisfying of entiates between intrinsic and extrinsic aspirations and
the basic needs and may even be antagonistic to them. proposes that intrinsic aspirations are associated with greater
Furthermore, research has shown that people tend to value well-being and better performance. Further, the theory specifies
the extrinsic aspirations when they have had a low level of basic three basic psychological needs, those for autonomy, compe-
psychological need satisfaction during their years as children, tence, and relatedness, which have been found to be universally
but they tend to value intrinsic aspirations when they have had essential for psychological health and well-being. Further,
a high level of basic satisfaction during those years (Kasser satisfaction of the basic needs not only promotes psychological
et al., 1995). health but also enhances intrinsic motivation, facilitates inter-
As well, studies found that if people’s goals are manipulated nalization of extrinsic motivation, supports the development of
experimentally, having intrinsic goals made salient led to better autonomous causality orientations, and strengthens intrinsic
Self-Determination Theory 491

relative to extrinsic aspirations. Across the domains of people’s Grolnick, W.S., Ryan, R.M., 1989. Parent styles associated with children’s self-
lives, the people are more optimally motivated, perform better, regulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology 81,
143–154.
and feel healthier if their basic psychological needs are satisfied.
Iyengar, S.S., DeVoe, S.E., 2003. Rethinking the value of choice: considering cultural
mediators of intrinsic motivation. In: Murphy-Berman, V., Berman, J.J. (Eds.),
See also: Affect-Regulation Motivation; Avoidance and Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Cross-Cultural Differences in Perspectives on
Approach Motivation: A Brief History; Control Behavior: Self, vol. 49. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NB, pp. 129–174.
Kasser, T., Ryan, R.M., 1996. Further examining the American dream: differential
Psychological Perspectives; Eudaemonism; Expectancy-Value-
correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Cost Model of Motivation; Gender and Academic Motivation; 22, 280–287.
Grit; Interest, Psychology of; Motivation and Actions, Kasser, T., Ryan, R.M., Zax, M., Sameroff, A.J., 1995. The relations of maternal and
Psychology of; Motivation in Australian Aboriginal Populations; social environments to late adolescents’ materialistic and prosocial values.
Motivation in Youth Sport and Physical Activity: Developmental Developmental Psychology 31, 907–914.
La Guardia, J.G., Ryan, R.M., Couchman, C.E., Deci, E.L., 2000. Within-person
Perspectives; Motivation, Learning, and Instruction; Personal variation in security of attachment: a self-determination theory perspective on
Projects; Race and Academic Motivation; School Achievement: attachment, need fulfillment, and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Motivational Determinants and Processes; School Burnout and Psychology 79, 367–384.
Engagement: Lessons from a Longitudinal Study in Finland; Ng, J.Y.Y., Ntoumanis, N., Thøgersen-Ntoumani, C., Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., Duda, J.,
Williams, G.C., 2012. Self-determination theory applied to health contexts: a meta-
Schooling: Impact on Cognitive and Motivational Development;
analysis. Perspectives on Psychological Science 7, 325–340.
Self and Emotional Development in Adulthood and Later Life; Piaget, J., 1971. Biology and Knowledge. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Self-Regulation in Adulthood; Teacher Motivation. Rigby, C.S., Ryan, R.M., 2011. Glued to Games: The Attractions, Promise and Perils of
Video Games and Virtual Worlds. Praeger, New York.
Ryan, R.M., Connell, J.P., Deci, E.L., 1985. A motivational analysis of self-
determination and self-regulation in education. In: Ames, C., Ames, R.E. (Eds.),
Bibliography Research on Motivation in Education: The Classroom Milieu. Academic Press,
New York, pp. 13–51.
Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2000a. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions
Baard, P.P., Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 2004. Intrinsic need satisfaction: a motivational
and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology 25, 54–67.
basis of performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social
Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2000b. Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic
Psychology 34, 2045–2068.
motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist 55, 68–78.
Bandura, A., 1996. Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control. Freeman, New York.
Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L., 2009. Promoting self-determined school engagement: moti-
Chirkov, V., Ryan, R.M., Kim, Y., Kaplan, U., 2003. Differentiating autonomy from
vation, learning, and well-being. In: Wentzel, K.R., Wigfield, A. (Eds.), Handbook on
individualism and independence: a self-determination theory perspective on
Motivation at School. Routledge, New York, pp. 171–196.
internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and
Ryan, R.M., Huta, V., Deci, E.L., 2008a. Living well: a self-determination theory
Social Psychology. 84, 97–110.
perspective on eudaimonia. Journal of Happiness Studies 9, 139–170.
Deci, E.L., 1971. Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal
Ryan, R.M., Patrick, H., Deci, E.L., Williams, G.C., 2008b. Facilitating health behavior
of Personality and Social Psychology 18, 105–115.
change and its maintenance: interventions based on self-determination theory.
Deci, E.L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B.C., Leone, D.R., 1994. Facilitating internalization: the
The European Health Psychologist 10, 2–5.
self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality 62, 119–142.
Skinner, B.F., 1971. Beyond Freedom and Dignity. Knopf, New York.
Deci, E.L., Koestner, R., Ryan, R.M., 1999. A meta-analytic review of experiments
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K.M., Deci, E.L., 2004. Motivating
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological
learning, performance, and persistence: the synergistic effects of intrinsic goal
Bulletin 125, 627–668.
contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social
Deci, E.L., La Guardia, J.G., Moller, A.C., Scheiner, M.J., Ryan, R.M., 2006. On the
Psychology 87, 246–260.
benefits of giving as well as receiving autonomy support: mutuality in close
friendships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 32, 313–327.
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., 1985. Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human
Behavior. Plenum, New York.
Relevant Website
Gagné, M., Deci, E.L., 2005. Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of
Organizational Behavior 26, 331–362. www.selfdeterminationtheory.org.