Human beings can be proactive and engaged or, alterna- tively, passive and alienated, largely as a function of the social conditions in which they develop and function

Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation,

Social Development, and Well-Being

Richard M. Ryan and Edward L. Deci University of Rochester

Human beings can be proactive and engaged or, alterna- tively, passive and alienated, largely as a function of the social conditions in which they develop and function. Ac- cordingly, research guided by self-determination theo~ has focused on the social-contextual conditions that facil- itate versus forestall the natural processes of self-motiva- tion and healthy psychological development. Specifically, factors have been examined that enhance versus undermine intrinsic motivation, self-regulation, and well-being. The findings have led to the postulate of three innate psycho- logical needs–competence, autonomy, and relatedness– which when satisfied yield enhanced self-motivation and mental health and when thwarted lead to diminished mo- tivation and well-being. Also considered is the significance of these psychological needs and processes within domains such as health care, education, work, sport, religion, and psychotherapy.

T he fullest representations of humanity show people to be curious, vital, and self-motivated. At their best, they are agentic and inspired, striving to learn; ex- tend themselves; master new skills; and apply their talents responsibly. That most people show considerable effort, agency, and commitment in their lives appears, in fact, to be more normative than exceptional, suggesting some very positive and persistent features of human nature.

Yet, it is also clear that the human spirit can be diminished or crushed and that individuals sometimes re- ject growth and responsibility. Regardless of social strata or cultural origin, examples of both children and adults who are apathetic, alienated, and irresponsible are abun- dant. Such non-optimal human functioning can be observed not only in our psychological clinics but also among the millions who, for hours a day, sit passively before their televisions, stare blankly from the back of their classrooms, or wait listlessly for the weekend as they go about their jobs. The persistent, proactive, and positive tendencies of human nature are clearly not invariantly apparent.

The fact that human nature, phenotypically expressed, can be either active or passive, constructive or indolent, suggests more than mere dispositional differences and is a function of more than just biological endowments. It also bespeaks a wide range of reactions to social environments

that is worthy of our most intense scientific investigation. Specifically, social contexts catalyze both within- and be- tween-person differences in motivation and personal growth, resulting in people being more self-motivated, energized, and integrated in some situations, domains, and cultures than in others. Research on the conditions that foster versus undermine positive human potentials has both theoretical import and practical significance because it can contribute not only to formal knowledge of the causes of human behavior but also to the design of social environ- ments that optimize people’s development, performance, and well-being. Research guided by self-determination the- ory (SDT) has had an ongoing concern with precisely these issues (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1991; Ryan, 1995).

Self-Determination Theory SDT is an approach to human motivation and personality that uses traditional empirical methods while employing an organismic metatheory that highlights the importance of humans’ evolved inner resources for personality develop- ment and behavioral self-regulation (Ryan, Kuhl, & Deci, 1997). Thus, its arena is the investigation of people’s inherent growth tendencies and innate psychological needs that are the basis for their self-motivation and personality integration, as well as for the conditions that foster those positive processes. Inductively, using the empirical pro- cess, we have identified three such needs–the needs for competence (Harter, 1978; White, 1963), relatedness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Reis, 1994), and autonomy (deCharms, 1968; Deci, 1975)–that appear to be essential for facilitating optimal functioning of the natural propen- sities for growth and integration, as well as for constructive social development and personal well-being.

This work was supported in part by research Grant MH-53385 from the National Institute of Mental Health. We thank all of the members of the Human Motivation Research Group at the University of Rochester who have contributed to these ideas and research, and to Jennifer LaGuardia, Charles Couchman, and Phyllis Joe for their specific help with this article.

Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to either Richard M. Ryan or Edward L. Deci, Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology, University of Rochester, Rochester, NY 14627. Electronic mail may be sent to either or

68 January 2000 • American Psychologist Copyright 2000 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0003-066X/00/$5.00

Vol. 55, No. 1, 68-78 DOI: 10.1037110003-066X.55.1.68

Richard M. Ryan Photo by Joe Gawlowicz, University of Rochester

Much of the research guided by SDT has also exam- ined environmental factors that hinder or undermine self- motivation, social functioning, and personal well-being. Although many specific deleterious effects have been ex- plored, the research suggests that these detriments can be most parsimoniously described in terms of thwarting the three basic psychological needs. Thus, SDT is concerned not only with the specific nature of positive developmental tendencies, but it also examines social environments that are antagonistic toward these tendencies.

The empirical methods used in much of the SDT research have been in the Baconian tradition, in that social contextual variables have been directly manipulated to examine their effects on both internal processes and behav- ioral manifestations. The use of experimental paradigms has allowed us to specify the conditions under which peo- ple’s natural activity and constructiveness will flourish, as well as those that promote a lack of self-motivation and social integration. In this way, we have used experimental methods without accepting the mechanistic or efficient causal meta-theories that have typically been associated with those methods.

In this article we review work guided by SDT, ad- dressing its implications for three important outcomes. We begin with an examination of intrinsic motivation, the prototypic manifestation of the human tendency toward learning and creativity, and we consider research specify- ing conditions that facilitate versus forestall this special type of motivation. Second, we present an analysis of self-regulation, which concerns how people take in social values and extrinsic contingencies and progressively trans- form them into personal values and self-motivations. In that discussion, we outline different forms of internalized motivation, addressing their behavioral and experiential

correlates and the conditions that ale likely to promote these different motivations. Third, we focus on studies that have directly examined the impact of psychological need fulfillment on health and well-being.

The Nature of Motivation Motivation concerns energy, direction, persistence and equifinality–all aspects of activation and intention. Moti- vation has been a central and perennial issue in the field of psychology, for it is at the core of biological, cognitive, and social regulation. Perhaps more important, in the real world, motivation is highly valued because of its conse- quences: Motivation produces. It is therefore of preeminent concern to those in roles such as manager, teacher, reli- gious leader, coach, health care provider, and parent that involve mobilizing others to act.

Although motivation is often treated as a singular construct, even superficial reflection suggests that people are moved to act by very different types of factors, with highly varied experiences and consequences. People can be motivated because they value an activity or because there is strong external coercion. They can be urged into action by an abiding interest or by a bribe. They can behave from a sense of personal commitment to excel or from fear of being surveilled. These contrasts between cases of having internal motivation versus being externally pressured are surely familiar to everyone. The issue of whether people stand behind a behavior out of their interests and values, or do it for reasons external to the self, is a matter of signif- icance in every culture (e.g., Johnson, 1993) and represents a basic dimension by which people make sense of their own and others’ behavior (deCharms, 1968; Heider, 1958; Ryan & Connell, 1989).

Comparisons between people whose motivation is au- thentic (literally, self-authored or endorsed) and those who are merely externally controlled for an action typically reveal that the former, relative to the latter, have more interest, excitement, and confidence, which in turn is man- ifest both as enhanced performance, persistence, and cre- ativity (Deci & Ryan, 1991; Sheldon, Ryan, Rawsthorne, & Ilardi, 1997) and as heightened vitality (Nix, Ryan, Manly, & Deci, 1999), self-esteem (Deci & Ryan, 1995), and general well-being (Ryan, Deci, & Grolnick, 1995). This is so even when the people have the same level of perceived competence or self-efficacy for the activity.

Because of the functional and experiential differences between self-motivation and external regulation, a major focus of SDT has been to supply a more differentiated approach to motivation, by asking what kind of motivation is being exhibited at any given time. By considering the perceived forces that move a person to act, SDT has been able to identify several distinct types of motivation, each of which has specifiable consequences for learning, perfor- mance, personal experience, and well-being. Also, by ar- ticulating a set of principles concerning how each type of motivation is developed and sustained, or forestalled and undermined, SDT at once recognizes a positive thrust to human nature and provides an account of passivity, alien- ation, and psychopathology.

January 2000 • American Psychologist 69

E d w a r d L. Dec i Photo by Joe Gawlowicz, University of Rochester

Intrinsic Motivation Perhaps no single phenomenon reflects the positive poten- tial of human nature as much as intrinsic motivation, the inherent tendency to seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise one’s capacities, to explore, and to learn. Developmentalists acknowledge that from the time of birth, children, in their healthiest states, are active, inquisitive, curious, and playful, even in the absence of specific rewards (e.g., Harter, 1978). The construct of in- trinsic motivation describes this natural inclination toward assimilation, mastery, spontaneous interest, and explora- tion that is so essential to cognitive and social development and that represents a principal source of enjoyment and vitality throughout life (Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde, 1993; Ryan, 1995).

Yet, despite the fact that humans are liberally en- dowed with intrinsic motivational tendencies, the evidence is now clear that the maintenance and enhancement of this inherent propensity requires supportive conditions, as it can be fairly readily disrupted by various nonsupportive con- ditions. Thus, our theory of intrinsic motivation does not concern what causes intrinsic motivation (which we view as an evolved propensity; Ryan et al., 1997); rather, it examines the conditions that elicit and sustain, versus sub- due and diminish, this innate propensity.

Cognitive evaluation theory (CET) was presented by Deci and Ryan (1985) as a subtheory within SDT that had the aim of specifying factors that explain variability in intrinsic motivation. CET is framed in terms of social and environmental factors that facilitate versus undermine in- trinsic motivation, using language that reflects the assump- tion that intrinsic motivation, being inherent, will be cata- lyzed when individuals are in conditions that conduce toward its expression. In other words, it will flourish if

circumstances permit. Put in this way, the study of condi- tions that facilitate versus undermine intrinsic motivation is an important first step in understanding sources of both alienation and liberation of the positive aspects of human nature.

CET, which focuses on the fundamental needs for competence and autonomy, was formulated to integrate results from initial laboratory experiments on the effects of rewards, feedback, and other external events on intrinsic motivation, and was subsequently tested and extended by field studies in various settings. The theory argues, first, that social-contextual events (e.g., feedback, communica- tions, rewards) that conduce toward feelings of competence during action can enhance intrinsic motivation for that action. Accordingly, optimal challenges, effectance-pro- rooting feedback, and freedom from demeaning evaluations were all found to facilitate intrinsic motivation. For exam- ple, early studies showed that positive performance feed- back enhanced intrinsic motivation, whereas negative per- formance feedback diminished it (Deci, 1975), and re- s e a r c h by Vallerand and Reid (1984) showed that these effects were mediated by perceived competence.

CET further specifies, and studies have shown (Fisher, 1978; Ryan, 1982), that feelings of competence will not enhance intrinsic motivation unless accompanied by a sense of autonomy or, in attributional terms, by an internal perceived locus of causality (deCharms, 1968). Thus, ac- cording to CET, people must not only experience compe- tence or efficacy, they must also experience their behavior as self-determined for intrinsic motivation to be in evi- dence. This requires either immediate contextual sup- ports for autonomy and competence or abiding inner re- s o u r c e s (Reeve, 1996) that are typically the result of prior developmental supports for perceived autonomy and competence.

In fact, most of the research on the effects of environ- mental events in intrinsic motivation has focused on the issue of autonomy versus control rather than that of com- petence. Research on this issue has been considerably m o r e controversial. It began with the repeated demonstration that extrinsic rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation. Deci (1975) interpreted these results in terms of rewards facili- tating a more external perceived locus of causality (i.e., diminished autonomy). Although the issue of reward ef- fects has been hotly debated, a recent, comprehensive meta-analysis (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999) confirmed, in spite of claims to the contrary by Eisenberger and Cameron (1996), that all expected tangible rewards made contingent on task performance do reliably undermine in- trinsic motivation.

Also, research revealed that not only tangible rewards but also threats, deadlines, directives, pressured evalua- tions, and imposed goals diminish intrinsic motivation be- cause, like tangible rewards, they conduce toward an ex- ternal perceived locus of causality. In contrast, choice, acknowledgment of feelings, and opportunities for self- direction were found to enhance intrinsic motivation be- cause they allow people a greater feeling of autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Field studies have further shown that

70 January 2000 • American Psychologist

teachers who are autonomy supportive (in contrast to con- trolling) catalyze in their students greater intrinsic motiva- tion, curiosity, and desire for challenge (e.g., Deci, Nezlek, & Sheinman, 1981; Flink, Boggiano, & Barrett, 1990; Ryan & Grolnick, 1986). Students taught with a more controlling approach not only lose initiative but learn less effectively, especially when learning requires conceptual, creative processing (Amabile, 1996; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987; Utman, 1997). Similarly, studies showed that auton- omy-supportive parents, relative to controlling parents, have children who are more intrinsically motivated (Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan, 1997). Such findings generalized to other domains such as sport and music in which supports for autonomy and competence by parents and mentors incite more intrinsic motivation (e.g., Frederick & Ryan, 1995).

Although autonomy and competence supports are highly salient for producing variability in intrinsic motiva- tion, a third factor, relatedness, also bears on its expression. In infancy, intrinsic motivation is readily observable as exploratory behavior and, as suggested by attachment the- orists (e.g., Bowlby, 1979), it is more evident when the infant is securely attached to a parent. Studies of mothers and infants have, indeed, shown that both security and maternal autonomy support predict more exploratory be- havior in the infants (e.g., Frodi, Bridges, & Grolnick, 1985). SDT hypothesizes that a similar dynamic occurs in interpersonal settings over the life span, with intrinsic motivation more likely to flourish in contexts characterized by a sense of security and relatedness. For example, Ander- son, Manoogian, and Reznick (1976) found that when children worked on an interesting task in the presence of an adult stranger who ignored them and failed to respond to their initiations, a very low level of intrinsic motivation resulted, and Ryan and Grolnick (1986) observed lower intrinsic motivation in students who experienced their teachers as cold and uncaring. Of course, many intrinsically motivated behaviors are happily performed in isolation, suggesting that proximal relational supports may not be necessary for intrinsic motivation, but a secure relational base does seem to be important for the expression of intrinsic motivation to be in evidence.

To summarize, the CET framework suggests that so- cial environments can facilitate or forestall intrinsic moti- vation by supporting versus thwarting people’s innate psy- chological needs. Strong links between intrinsic motivation and satisfaction of the needs for autonomy and competence have been clearly demonstrated, and some work suggests that satisfaction of the need for relatedness, at least in a distal sense, may also be important for intrinsic motivation. It is critical to remember, however, that people will be intrinsically motivated only for activities that hold intrinsic interest for them, activities that have the appeal of novelty, challenge, or aesthetic value. For activities that do not hold such appeal, the principles of CET do not apply, because the activities will not be experienced as intrinsically moti- vated to begin with. To understand the motivation for those activities, we need to look more deeply into the nature and dynamics of extrinsic motivation.

Self-Regulation of Extrinsic Motivation Although intrinsic motivation is an important type of mo- tivation, it is not the only type or even the only type of self-determined motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Indeed, much of what people do is not, strictly speaking, intrinsi- cally motivated, especially after early childhood when the fi’eedom to be intrinsically motivated is increasingly cur- tailed by social pressures to do activities that are not interesting and to assume a variety of new responsibilities (Ryan & La Guardia, in press).

The real question concerning nonintrinsically moti- vated practices is how individuals acquire the motivation to carry them out and how this motivation affects ongoing persistence, behavioral quality, and well-being. Whenever a person (be it a parent, teacher, boss, coach, or therapist) attempts to foster certain behaviors in others, the others’ motivation for the behavior can range from amotivation or unwillingness, to passive compliance, to active personal commitment. According to SDT, these different motiva- tions reflect differing degrees to which the value and reg- ulation of the requested behavior have been internalized and integrated. Internalization refers to people’s “taking in” a value or regulation, and integration refers to the further transformation of that regulation into their own so that, subsequently, it will emanate from their sense of self.

Internalization and integration are clearly central is- sues in childhood socialization, but they are also continu- ally re]evant for the regulation of behavior across the life span. In nearly every setting people enter, certain behaviors and va]ues are prescribed, behaviors that are not interesting and values that are not spontaneously adopted. Accord- ingly, SDT has addressed the issues of (a) the processes through which such nonintrinsically motivated behaviors can become truly self-determined, and (b) the ways in which the social environment influences those processes.

The lerm extrinsic motivation refers to the perfor- mance of an activity in order to attain some separable outcome and, thus, contrasts with intrinsic motivation, which refers to doing an activity for the inherent satisfac- tion of the activity itself. Unlike some perspectives that view extrinsically motivated behavior as invariantly non- autonomous, SDT proposes that extrinsic motivation can vary greatly in its relative autonomy (Ryan & Connell, 1989; Vallerand, 1997). For example, students who do their homework because they personally grasp its value for their chosen career are extrinsically motivated, as are those who do the work only because they are adhering to their parents’ control. Both examples involve instrumentalities rather than enjoyment of the work itself, yet the former case of extrinsic motivation entails personal endorsement and a feeling of choice, whereas the latter involves compliance with an external regulation. Both represent intentional be- havior (Heider, 1958), but they vary in their relative au- tonomy. The former, of course, is the type of extrinsic motivation that is sought by astute socializing agents re- gardless o1: the applied domain.

January 2000 ° American Psychologist 71

Figure 1 The Self-Determination Continuum Showing Types of Motivation With Their Regulatory Styles, Loci of Causality, and Corresponding Processes Behavior Nonself-Determined Self-Determined


StylesRegulat°ry ~ R e g u l ~

E~ic M o t ~

Perceived Locus of Causality

Impersonal External Somewhat Somewhat Intemal Internal External Internal

Relevant Nonintentional, Regulatory Nonvaluing, Processes Incompetence,

Lack of Control

Compliance, Self-control, Personal Congruence, Interest, E x t e r n a l Ego-Involvement , Importance, Awareness, Enjoyment, Rewards and Internal Rewards Conscious Synthesis Inherent Punishments and Punishments Valuing With Self Satisfaction

Within SDT, Deci and Ryan (1985) introduced a second subtheory, called organismic integration theory (OIT), to detail the different forms of extrinsic motivation and the contextual factors that either promote or hinder internalization and integration of the regulation for these behaviors. Figure 1 illustrates the OIT taxonomy of moti- vational types, arranged from left to fight in terms of the degree to which the motivations emanate from the self (i.e., are self-determined).

At the far left of the self-determination continuum is amotivation, the state of lacking the intention to act. When amotivated, people either do not act at all or act without intent–they just go through the motions. Amotivation re- sults from not valuing an activity (Ryan, 1995), not feeling competent to do it (Bandura, 1986), or not expecting it to yield a desired outcome (Seligman, 1975). To the right of amotivation in Figure 1 are five classifications of motivated behavior. Although many theorists have treated motivation as a unitary concept, each of the categories identified within OIT describes theoretically, experientially, and functionally distinct types of motivation. At the far right of the continuum is the classic state of intrinsic motivation, the doing of an activity for its inherent satisfactions. It is highly autonomous and represents the prototypic instance of self-determination. Extrinsically motivated behaviors, by contrast, cover the continuum between amotivation and intrinsic motivation, varying in the extent to which their regulation is autonomous.

The extrinsically motivated behaviors that are least autonomous are referred to as externally regulated. Such behaviors are performed to satisfy an external demand or

reward contingency. Individuals typically experience ex- ternally regulated behavior as controlled or alienated, and their actions have an external perceived locus of causality (deCharms, 1968). External regulation is the type of moti- vation focused on by operant theorists (e.g., Skinner, 1953), and it is external regulation that was typically con- trasted with intrinsic motivation in early laboratory and field studies.

A second type of extrinsic motivation is labeled in- trojected regulation. Introjection involves taking in a reg- ulation but not fully accepting it as one’s own. It is a relatively controlled form of regulation in which behaviors are performed to avoid guilt or anxiety or to attain ego enhancements such as pride. Put differently, introjection represents regulation by contingent self-esteem (Deci & Ryan, 1995). A classic form of introjection is ego involve- ment (deCharms, 1968; Nicholls, 1984; Ryan, 1982), in which people are motivated to demonstrate ability (or avoid failure) in order to maintain feelings of worth. Although internally driven, introjected behaviors still have an exter- nal perceived locus of causality and are not really experi- enced as part of the self. Thus, in some studies, external regulation (being interpersonally controlled) and in- trojected regulation (being intrapersonally controlled) have been combined to form a controlled motivation composite (e.g., Williams, Grow, Freedman, Ryan, & Deci, 1996).

A more autonomous, or self-determined, form of ex- trinsic motivation is regulation through identification. Identification reflects a conscious valuing of a behavioral goal or regulation, such that the action is accepted or owned as personally important. Finally, the most autono-

72 January 2000 • American Psychologist

mous form of extrinsic motivation is integrated regulation. Integration occurs when identified regulations are fully assimilated to the self, which means they have been eval- uated and brought into congruence with one’s other values and needs. Actions characterized by integrated motivation share many qualities with intrinsic motivation, although they are still considered extrinsic because they are done to attain separable outcomes rather than for their inherent enjoyment. In some studies, identified, integrated, and in- trinsic forms of regulation have been combined to form an autonomous motivation composite.

As people internalize regulations and assimilate them to the self, they experience greater autonomy in action. This process may occur in stages, over time, but we are not suggesting that it is a developmental continuum in the sense that people must progress through each stage of internalization with respect to a particular regulation. Rather, they can relatively readily internalize a new behav- ioral regulation at any point along this continuum depend- ing on both prior experiences and current situational factors (Ryan, 1995). Nonetheless, the range of behaviors that can be assimilated to the self increases over time with increased cognitive capacities and ego development (Loevinger & Blasi, 1991), and there is evidence that children’s general regulatory style does tend to become more internalized or self-regulated over time (e.g., Chandler & Connell, 1987).

Ryan and Connell (1989) tested the formulation that these different types of motivation, with their distinct prop- erties, lie along a continuum of relative autonomy. They investigated achievement behaviors among school children and found that external, introjected, identified, and intrinsic regulatory styles were intercorrelated according to a quasi- simplex pattern, thus providing evidence for an underlying continuum. Furthermore, differences in the type of extrin- sic motivation were associated with different experiences and outcomes. For example, the more students were exter- nally regulated the less they showed interest, value, and effort toward achievement and the more they tended to disown responsibility for negative outcomes, blaming oth- ers such as the teacher. Introjected regulation was posi- tively related to expending more effort, but it was also related to feeling more anxiety and coping more poorly with failures. In contrast, identified regulation was associ- ated with more interest and enjoyment of school and with more positive coping styles, as well as with expending more effort.

Other studies in education extended these findings, showing that more autonomous extrinsic motivation was associated with more engagement (Connell & Wellborn, 1991), better performance (Miserandino, 1996), lower dropout (Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992), higher quality learning (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987), and better teacher rat- ings (Hayamizu, 1997), among other outcomes.

In the realm of health care, greater internalization has been associated with greater adherence to medications among people with chronic illnesses (Williams, Rodin, Ryan, Grolnick, & Deci, 1998), better long-term mainte- nance of weight loss among morbidly obese patients (Wil- liams et al., 1996), improved glucose control among dia-

betics (Williams, Freedman, & Deci, 1998), and greater attendance and involvement in an addiction-treatment pro- gram (Ryan, Plant, & O’Malley, 1995).

Demonstrations of positive outcomes being associated with more internalized motivation have also emerged in other diverse domains, including religion (Ryan, Rigby, & King, 1993), physical exercise (Chatzisarantis, Biddle, & Meek, 1997), political activity (Koestner, Losier, Valler- and, & Carducci, 1996), environmental activism (Green- Demers, Pelletier, & Menard, 1997), and intimate relation- ships (Blais, Sabourin, Boucher, & Vallerand, 1990), among others.

The advantages of greater internalization appear, then, to be manifold (Ryan et al., 1997), including more behav- ioral effectiveness, greater volitional persistence, enhanced subjective well-being, and better assimilation of the indi- vidual within his or her social group.

Facilitating Integration of Extrinsic Motivation Given the significance of internalization for personal expe- rience and behavioral outcomes, the critical issue becomes how to promote autonomous regulation for extrinsically motiwtted behaviors. That is, what are the social conditions that nurture versus inhibit internalization and integration?

Because extrinsically motivated behaviors are not typ- ically interesting, the primary reason people initially per- form such actions is because the behaviors are prompted, modeled, or valued by significant others to whom they feel (or want to feel) attached or related. This suggests that relatedness, the need to feel belongingess and connected- ness with others, is centrally important for internalization. Thus, OIT proposes that internalization is more likely to be in evidence when there are ambient supports for feelings of relatedness. For example, Ryan, Stiller, and Lynch (1994) showed that the children who had more fully internalized the regulation for positive school-related behaviors were those who felt securely connected to, and cared for by, their parents and teachers.

The relative internalization of extrinsically motivated activities is also a function of perceived competence. Peo- ple are more likely to adopt activities that relevant social groups value when they feel efficacious with respect to those activities. As is the case with all intentional action, OIT suggests that supports for competence should facilitate intermdization (Vallerand, 1997). Thus, for example, chil- dren who are directed to perform behaviors before they are developmentally ready to master them or understand their rationale would be predicted, at best, only to partially intern~tlize the regulations, remaining either externally reg- ulated or introjected.

Finally, the experience of autonomy facilitates inter- nalization and, in particular, is a critical element for a regulation to be integrated. Contexts can yield external regulation if there are salient rewards or threats and the person feels competent enough to comply; contexts can yield introjected regulation if a relevant reference group endorses the activity and the person feels competent and related; but contexts can yield autonomous regulation only

January 2000 • American Psychologist 73

if they are autonomy supportive, thus allowing the person to feel competent, related, and autonomous. To integrate a regulation, people must grasp its meaning and synthesize that meaning with respect to their other goals and values. Such deep, holistic processing (Kuhl & Fuhrmann, 1998) is facilitated by a sense of choice, volition, and freedom from excessive external pressure toward behaving or thinking a certain way. In this sense, support lor autonomy allows individuals to actively transform values into their own.

Again, research results have supported this reasoning. For example, Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, and Leone (1994) demonstrated in a laboratory experiment that providing a meaningful rationale for an uninteresting behavior, along with supports for autonomy and relatedness, promoted its internalization and integration. Controlling contexts yielded less overall internalization, and the internalization that did occur in those contexts tended to be only in- trojected. Using parent interviews, Grolnick and Ryan (1989) found greater internalization of school-related val- ues among children whose parents were more supportive of autonomy and relatedness. Strahan (1995) found that parents who were more autonomy-supportive promoted greater religious identification, as opposed to introjection, in their offspring. Williams and Deci (1996), using a lon- gitudinal design, demonstrated greater internalization of biopsychosocial values and practices among medical stu- dents whose instructors were more autonomy-supportive. These are but a few of the many findings suggesting that supports for relatedness and competence facilitate internal- ization and that supports for autonomy also facilitate inte- gration of behavioral regulations. When that occurs, people feel not only competent and related but also autonomous as they carry out culturally valued activities.

One further point needs to be made regarding the controversial issue of human autonomy. The concept of autonomy has often been portrayed as being antagonistic to relatedness or community, in fact, some theories equate autonomy with concepts such as individualism and inde- pendence (e.g., Steinberg & Silverberg, 1986), which do indeed imply low relatedness. But, within SDT, autonomy refers not to being independent, detached, or selfish but rather to the feeling of volition that can accompany any act, whether dependent or independent, collectivist or individ- ualist, in fact, recent research in Korean and U.S. samples has found a more positive relation between autonomy and collectivistic attitudes than between autonomy and individ- ualistic attitudes (Kim, Butzel, & Ryan, 1998). Further- more, research has shown positive, rather than negative, links between relatedness to parents and autonomy in teen- agers (Ryan & Lynch, 1989; Ryan et al., 1994). Clearly, then, we do not equate autonomy with independence or individualism.

Alienation and Its Prevention SDT aims to specify factors that nurture the innate human potentials entailed in growth, integration, and well-being, and to explore the processes and conditions that foster the healthy development and effective functioning of individ- uals, groups, and communities. But a positive approach

cannot ignore patholog2( or close its eyes to the alienation and inauthenticity that are prevalent in our society and in others. Accordingly, we investigate nonoptimal (as well as optimal) developmental trajectories, much as is done in the field of developmental psychopathology (e.g., Cicchetti, 1991). We now turn to a brief consideration of that issue.

By definition, intrinsically motivated behaviors, the prototype of self-determined actions, stem from the self. They are unalienated and authentic in the fullest sense of those terms. But, as already noted, SDT recognizes that extrinsically motivated actions can also become self-deter- mined as individuals identify with and fully assimilate their regulation. Thus, it is through internalization and integra- tion that individuals can be extrinsically motivated and still be committed and authentic. Accumulated research now suggests that the commitment and authenticity reflected in intrinsic motivation and integrated extrinsic motivation are most likely to be evident when individuals experience supports for competence, autonomy, and relatedness.

It is the flip side of this coin, however, that speaks directly to the issues of alienation and inauthenticity and is relevant to such questions as why employees show no initiative, why teenagers reject their schools’ values, and why patients adhere so poorly to treatment. SDT under- stands such occurrences in terms of the undermining of intrinsic motivation and, perhaps even more typically, the failure of internalization. To explain the causes of such diminished functioning, SDT suggests turning first to indi- viduals’ immediate social contexts and then to their devel- opmental environments to examine the degree to which their needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness are being or have been thwarted. We maintain that by failing to provide supports for competence, autonomy, and related- ness, not only of children but also of students, employees, patients, and athletes, socializing agents and organizations contribute to alienation and ill-being. The fact that psycho- logical-need deprivation appears to be a principal source of human distress suggests that assessments and interventions would do well to target these primary foundations of men- tal health.

Psychologic.a! Needs and Mental Health As we have seen, both the cognitive evaluation and organ- ismic integration components of SDT have led us to posit a parsimonious list of three basic psychological needs as a means of organizing and interpreting a wide array of em- pirical results, results that seemed not to be readily and satisfactorily interpretable without the concept of needs. Much of our more recent work has used the concept of three basic psychological needs to address new phenomena and, more particularly, to evaluate the postulate that these three needs are innate, essential, and universal.

By our definition, a basic need, whether it be a phys- iological need (Hull, 1943) or a psychological need, is an energizing state that, if satisfied, conduces toward health and well-being but, if not satisfied, contributes to pathology and ill-being. We have thus proposed that the basic needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness must be satis-

74 January 2000 • American Psychologist

fled across the life span for an individual to experience an ongoing sense of integrity and well-being or “eudaimonia” (Ryan & Frederick, 1997; Waterman, 1993). Accordingly, much of our research now focuses on the link between satisfaction of the basic psychological needs and the expe- rience of well-being.

Specifying psychological needs as essential nutri- ments implies that individuals cannot thrive without satis- fying all of them, any more than people can thrive with water but not food. Thus, for example, a social environ- ment that affords competence but fails to nurture related- ness is expected to result in some impoverishment of well- being. Worse yet, social contexts that engender conflicts between basic needs set up the conditions for alienation and psychopathology (Ryan et al., 1995), as when a child is required by parents to give up autonomy in order to feel loved.

To suggest that the three needs are universal and developmentally persistent does not imply that their rela- tive salience and their avenues for satisfaction are unchang- ing across the life span or that their modes of expression are the same in all cultures. The very fact that need satisfaction is facilitated by the internalization and integration of cul- turally endorsed values and behaviors suggests that indi- viduals are likely to express their competence, autonomy, and relatedness differently within cultures that hold differ- ent values. Indeed, the mode and degree of people’s psy- chological-need satisfaction is theorized to be influenced not only by their own competencies but, even more impor- tant, by the ambient demands, obstacles, and affordances in their sociocultural contexts. Thus, to posit universal psy- chological needs does not diminish the importance of vari- ability in goals and orientations at different developmental epochs or in different cultures, but it does suggest similar- ities in underlying processes that lead to the development and expression of those differences.

Our recent investigations of the importance of basic psychological needs have addressed three questions: Are the pursuit and attainment of all culturally congruent aspi- rations and life values associated with well-being? Do need-related processes operate similarly within different cultural circumstances? Is within-person variability in basic need satisfaction related to variability in well-being indi- cators? We briefly consider some of this work.

First, we discuss the relation of personal goals to well-being. We have hypothesized that the pursuit and attainment of some life goals will provide relatively direct satisfaction of the basic needs, thus enhancing well-being (Ryan, Sheldon, Kasser, & Deci, 1996), whereas the pur- suit and attainment of other goals does not contribute to and may even detract from basic need satisfactions, leading to ill-being. In accord with this reasoning, T. Kasser and Ryan (1993, 1996) examined individual differences in the em- phasis people place on intrinsic aspirations (goals such as affiliation, personal growth, and community that directly satisfy basic needs) compared with extrinsic aspirations (goals such as wealth, fame, and image that at best indi- rectly satisfy the needs). They found, first, that placing strong relative importance on intrinsic aspirations was pos-

itively associated with well-being indicators such as self- esteem, self-actualization, and the inverse of depression and anxiety, whereas placing strong relative importance on extrinsic aspirations was negatively related to these well-being indicators. Ryan, Chirkov, Little, Sheldon, Timoshina, and Deci (1999) replicated these findings in a Russian sample, attesting to the potential generalizability of the findings across cultures.

These findings go beyond goal importance per se. Both Ryan, Chirkov, et al. and T. Kasser and Ryan (in press) have found that whereas self-reported attainment of intrinsic aspirations was positively associated with well- being, attainment of extrinsic aspirations was not. Further, Sheldon and Kasser (1998) found in a longitudinal study that well-being was enhanced by attainment of intrinsic goals, ‘whereas success at extrinsic goals provided little benefit. Together, these results suggest that even highly efficacious people may experience less than optimal well- being if they pursue and successfully attain goals that do not fulfill basic psychological needs. We hasten to add, however, that the meaning of specific goals is culturally influenced, so that how specific goals relate to well-being can vary across cultures, although the relation between underlying need satisfaction and well-being is theorized to be invariant.

Clearly, there are many factors that lead people to emphasize certain life goals that may not be need fulfilling. For example, exposure to the commercial media can prompt a locus on materialism (Richins, 1987), which provides only fleeting satisfactions and could actually de- tract from basic need fulfillment and, thus, well-being. Prior deficits in need fulfillment (e.g., from poor caregiv- ing) might also lead individuals to yearn for more extrinsic goals as a substitute or compensatory mechanism. In fact, T. Kasser, Ryan, Zax, and Sameroff (1995) found that teens who had been exposed to cold, controlling maternal care (as assessed with ratings by the teens, mothers, and observ- ers) were more likely to develop materialistic orientations, compared with better nurtured teens who more strongly valued the intrinsic goals of personal growth, relationships, and community. In short, cultural and developmental in- fluences produce variations in the importance of goals, the pursuit of which, in turn, yields different satisfaction of basic needs and different levels of well-being.

In other research, we have examined the relations of people’s reports of need satisfaction to indicators of well- being in various settings. For example, V. Kasser and Ryan (in press) found that supports for autonomy and relatedness predicted greater well-being among nursing home resi- dents. Baard, Deci, and Ryan (1998) showed that employ- ees’ experiences of satisfaction of the needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the workplace predicted their performance and well-being at work. Such research shows that within specific domains, especially those central to the lives of individuals, need satisfaction is correlated with improved well-being.

A more compelling way of demonstrating the essential relations between need fulfillments and mental health has been the examination of role-to-role and day-to-day fluc-

January 2000 • American Psychologist 75

tuations in basic need satisfaction and their direct effects on variability in well-being, while controlling for individual differences and various confounding variables. For exam- ple, Sheldon et al. (1997) demonstrated that satisfaction in each of several life roles (e.g., student, employee, friend), relative to the individual ‘ s own mean satisfaction, was attributable to the degree to which that role supports au- thenticity and autonomous functioning. Similarly, in a study that examined daily variations in well-being, Shel- don, Reis, and Ryan (1996) used hierarchical linear mod- eling to show that within-person daily fluctuations in the satisfaction of autonomy and competence needs predicted within-person fluctuations in outcomes such as mood, vi- tality, physical symptoms, and self-esteem. In a more re- cent study, Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, and Ryan (in press) found that variations in the fulfillment of each of the three needs (i.e., competence, autonomy, and relatedness) independently predicted variabili ty in daily well-being. These studies support the view that basic psychological needs are determinative with regard to optimal experience and well-being in daily life.

Conclusions Debates concerning the activity or passivity, responsibili ty or indolence, of human beings have been perennial (Kohn, 1990). As psychology has become more advanced, both in terms of our understanding of evolution and neurobiology and of social behavior and its causation, ample support for both perspectives could be garnered. SDT addresses this issue by attempting to account for both the activity and the passivity, the responsibili ty and the indolence. To do this, we have assumed that humans have an inclination toward activity and integration, but also have a vulnerability to passivity. Our focus, accordingly, has been to specify the conditions that tend to support people ‘s natural activity versus elicit or exploit their vulnerability.

Our early investigations focused on the social condi- tions that enhance versus diminish a very positive feature of human nature, namely, the natural activity and curiosity referred to as intrinsic motivation. We found that condi- tions supportive of autonomy and competence reliably fa- cilitated this vital expression of the human growth ten- dency, whereas conditions that controlled behavior and hindered perceived effectance undermined its expression. Subsequently, we investigated the acquisition and regula- tion of nonintrinsically motivated behaviors and, here too, we found evidence of the dramatic power of social contexts to enhance or hinder the organismic tendency to integrate ambient social values and responsibilities. Contexts sup- portive of autonomy, competence, and relatedness were found to foster greater internalization and integration than contexts that thwart satisfaction of these needs. This latter finding, we argue, is of great significance for individuals who wish to motivate others in a way that engenders commitment, effort, and high-quality performance.

Yet, our primary concern throughout this program of research has been the well-being of individuals, whether they are students in classrooms, patients in clinics, athletes on the playing field, or employees in the workplace. As

formulated by SDT, if the social contexts in which such individuals are embedded are responsive to basic psycho- logical needs, they provide the appropriate developmental lattice upon which an active, assimilative, and integrated nature can ascend. Excessive control, nonoptimal chal- lenges, and lack of connectedness, on the other hand, disrupt the inherent actualizing and organizational tenden- cies endowed by nature, and thus such factors result not only in the lack of initiative and responsibili ty but also in distress and psychopathology.

Knowledge concerning the nutriments essential for positive motivation and experience and, in turn, for en- hanced performance and well-being has broad significance. It is relevant to parents and educators concerned with cognitive and personality development because it speaks to the conditions that promote the assimilation of both infor- mation and behavioral regulations. It is also relevant to managers who want to facilitate motivation and commit- ment on the job, and it is relevant to psychotherapists and health professionals because motivation is perhaps the crit- ical variable in producing maintained change. Thus, by attending to the relative presence or deprivation of supports for basic psychological needs, practitioners are better able to diagnose sources of alienation versus engagement, and facilitate both enhanced human achievements and well-being.


Amabile, T. M. (1996). Creativity in context. New York: Westview Press. Anderson, R., Manoogian, S. T., & Reznick, J. S. (1976). The undermin-

ing and enhancing of intrinsic motivation in preschool children. Journal oJ Personalitv and Social Psychology, 34, 915-922.

Baard, P. P., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1998). Intrinsic need satisfac- tion.” A motivational basis of performance and well-being in work settings. Unpublished manuscript, Fordham University.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for inte~qpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psycho- logical Bulletin, 117, 497-529.

Blais, M. R., Sabourin, S., Boucher, C. & Vallerand, R. J. (1990). Toward a motivational model of couple happiness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 1021-1031.

Bowlby, J. (1979). The making and breaking of affectional bonds. Lon- don: Tavistock.

Chandler, C. L., & Connell, J. P. (1987). Children’s intrinsic, extrinsic and internalized motivation: A developmental study of children’s reasons for liked and disliked behaviours. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 357-365.

Chatzisarantis, N. L. D., Biddle, S. J. H., & Meek, G. A. (1997). A self-determination theory approach to the study of intentions and the intention-behaviour relationship in children’s physical activity. British Journal of Health Psychology, 2, 343-360.

Cicchetti, D. (1991). Fractures in the crystal: Developmental psychopa- thology and the emergence of self. Developmental Review, 11, 271- 287.

Connell, J. P., & Wellborn, J. G. (1991). Competence, autonomy and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In M. R. Gunnar & L. A. Sroufe (Eds.), Minnesota Symposium on Child Psy- chology (Vol. 22, pp. 43-77). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Rathunde, K. (1993). The measurement of flow in everyday life: Toward a theory of emergent motivation. In J. E. Jacobs (Ed.), Developmental perspectives on motivation (pp. 57-97). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation. New York: Academic Press.

76 January 2000 • American Psychologist

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum. 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., Nezlek, J., & Sheinman, L. (1981). Characteristics of the rewarder and intrinsic motivation of the rewardee. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 40, 1-10.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-deter- mination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation (pp. 237-288). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. In M. Kemis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 31-49). New York: Plenum.

Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: Reality of myth? American Psychologist, 51, 1153-1166.

Fisher, C. D. (1978). The effects of personal control, competence, and extrinsic reward systems on intrinsic motivation. Organizational Be- havior and Human Performance, 21, 273-288.

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.

Frederick, C. M., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Self-determination in sport: A review using cognitive evaluation theory. International Journal of Sport Psychology, 26, 5-23.

Frodi, A., Bridges, L., & Grolnick, W. S. (1985). Correlates of mastery- related behavior: A short-term longitudinal study of infants in their second year. Child Development, 56, 1291-1298.

Green-Demers, I., Pelletier, L. G., & Menard, S. (1997). The impact of behavioural difficulty on the saliency of the association between self- determined motivation and environmental behaviours. Canadian Jour- nal of Behavioural Science, 29, 157-166.

Grolnick, W. S., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1997), Internalization within the family. In J, E. Grusec & L. Kuczynski (Eds.), Parenting and children’s internalization of values: A handbook of contemporary the- ory (pp. 135-161). New York: Wiley.

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 Edu- cational Psychology, 81, 143-154.

Harter, S. (1978). Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a devel- opmental model. Human Development, 1, 661-669.

Hayamizu, T. (1997). Between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Japa- nese Psychological Research, 39, 98-108.

Heider, F. (1958). The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley.

Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior: An introduction to behavior theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Johnson, F. A. (1993). Dependency and Japanese socialization. New York: NYU Press.

Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1993). A dark side of the American dream: Correlates of financial success as a life aspiration. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 65, 410-422.

Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Person- ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 80-87.

Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (in press). Be careful what you wish for: Optimal functioning and the relative attainment of intrinsic and extrin- sic goals. In P. Schmuck & K. M. Sheldon (Eds.), Life goals and well-being. Lengerich, Germany: Pabst Science.

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. (in press). The relation of psychological needs

for autonomy and relatedness to vitality, well-being, and mortality in a nursing home. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.

Kim, Y.., Butzel, J. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1998, June). Interdependence and well-being: A function of culture and relatedness needs. Paper pre- sented at The International Society for the Study of Personal Relation- ships, Saratoga Spring, NY.

Koestner, R., Losier, G. F., Vallerand, R. J., & Carducci, D. (1996). Identified and introjected forms of political internalization: Extending self-detemfination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 7’0, 1025-1036.

Kohn, A. (1990). The brighter side of human nature. New York: Basic Books.

Kuhl, J., & Fuhrmann, A. (1998). Decomposing self-regulation and self- control. In J. Heckhausen & C. Dweck (Eds.), Motivation and self- regulation across the life-span (pp. 15-49), New York: Cambridge University Press.

Loevinger, J , & Blasi, A. (1991). Development of the self as subject. In J. Stranss & G. Goethals (Eds.), The self” Interdisciplinary approaches (pp. 150-167). New York: Springer-Verlag.

Miserandino, M. (1996). Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived competence and autonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88, 203-214.

Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328-346.

Nix, G., Ryan, R. M., Manly, J. B., & Deci, E. L. (1999). Revitalization through self-regulation: The effects of autonomous and controlled mo- tivation on happiness and vitality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 266-284.

Reeve, J. (1996). Motivating others. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

Reis, H. T. (1994). Domains of experience: Investigating relationship processes from three perspectives. In R. Erber & R. Gilmour (Eds.), Theoretical fromeworks for personal relationships (pp. 87-110). Hills- dale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, J., & Ryan, R. M. (in press). Daily well-being: The role of autonomy, competence, and re- latedness. Personali O’ and Social Psychology Bulletin.

Richins, M. (1987). Media, materialism and human happiness. Advances in Consumer Research, I4, 352-356.

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. (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 aspi- rations and well-being in two cultures. Personality and Social Psychol- ogy Bulletin, 25, 1509-1524.

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749- 761.

Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Grolnick, W. S. (1995). Autonomy, related- ness, and the self: Their relation to development and psychopathology. In D. Cicchetti & D, J. Cohen (Eds.), Developmental psychopathology: Theoo’ and methods (pp. 618-655). New York: Wiley.

Ryan, R. M., & Frederick, C. M. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Jour- nal of Personality, 65, 529-565.

Ryan, R. /Vl., & Grolnick, W. S. (1986). Origins and pawns in the classroom: Self-report and projective assessments of individual differ- ences in children’s perceptions. Journal ¢)f Personality and Social Psychology, 5(2. 550-558.

Ryan, R. M., Kuhl, J., & Deci, E. L. (1997). Nature and autonomy: Organizational view of social and neurobiological aspects of self- regulation in behavior and development. Development and Psychopa- thology, 9, 701-728.

Ryan, R. M., & La Guardia. J. G. (in press). What is being optimized over development?: A self-determination theory perspective on basic psy- chological needs across the life span. In S. Quails & R. Abeles (Eds.), Dialogues on psychology and aging. Washington, DC: American Psy- chological Association.

J a n u a r y 2 0 0 0 • A m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i s t 77

Ryan, R. M., & Lynch, J. (1989). Emotional autonomy versus detachment: Revisiting the vicissitudes of adolescence and young adulthood. Child Development, 60, 340-356.

Ryan, R. M., Plant, R. W., & O’Malley, S. (1995). Initial motivations for alcohol treatment: Relations with patient characteristics, treatment in- volvement and dropout. Addictive Behaviors, 20, 279-297.

Ryan, R. M., Rigby, S., & King, K. (1993). Two types of religious internalization and their relations to religious orientations and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 586-596.

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 Press.

Ryan, R. M., Stiller, J., & Lynch, J. H. (1994). Representations of relationships to teachers, parents, and friends as predictors of academic motivation and self-esteem. Journal of Early Adolescence, 14, 226- 249.

Seligman, M. E. P. (1975). Helplessness. San Francisco: Freeman. Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1998). Pursuing personal goals: Skills

enable progress, but not all progress is beneficial. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1319-1331.

Sheldon, K. M., Reis, H. T., & Ryan, R. (1996). What makes for a good day? Competence and autonomy in the day and in the person. Person- ality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1270-1279.

Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Rawsthorne, L., & Ilardi, B. (1997). Trait self and true self: Cross-role variation in the Big Five traits and its relations with authenticity and subjective well-being. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 73, 1380-1393.

Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmil- lan.

Steinberg, L., & Silverberg, S. (1986). The vicissitudes of autonomy in adolescence. Child Development, 57, 841-851.

Strahan, B. J. (1995). Marriage, family and religion. Sydney, Australia: Adventist Institute.

Utman, C. H. (1997). Performance effects of motivational state: A meta- analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1, 170-182.

Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 271-360). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Vallerand, R. J., & Bissonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amo- tiwltional styles as predictors of behavior: A prospective study. Journal of Personalio’, 60, 599-620.

Vatlerand, 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.

Waterman, A. S. (1993). Two conceptions of happiness: Contrasts of personal expressiveness and hedonic enjoyment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 678- 691.

White, R. W. (1963). Ego and reality in psychoanalytic theory. New York: International Universities Press.

Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- ogy, 70, 767-779.

Williams, G. C., Freedman, Z. R., & Deci, E. L. (1998). Supporting autonomy to motivate glucose control in patients with diabetes. Dia- betes Care, 21, 1644-1651.

Williams, G. C., Grow, V. M., Freedman, Z., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Motivational predictors of weight loss and weight-loss mainte- nance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 115-126.

Williams, G. C., Rodin, G. C., Ryan, R. M., Grolnick, W. S., & Deci, E. L. (1998). Autonomous regulation and long-term medication adherence in adult outpatients. Health Psychology, 17, 269-276.

78 January 2000 • American Psychologist

Do you need a similar assignment done for you from scratch? We have qualified writers to help you. We assure you an A+ quality paper that is free from plagiarism. Order now for an Amazing Discount!
Use Discount Code "Newclient" for a 15% Discount!

NB: We do not resell papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

Buy Custom Nursing Papers