Motivation and emotion/Book/2025/Autonomy and intrinsic motivation in self-determination theory

Autonomy and intrinsic motivation in self-determination theory:
How does autonomy influence intrinsic motivation according to SDT?

Overview

Figure 1. Lisa reading one of her favourite books. Case study: Growing up, Lisa had an inherent love for learning (see Figure 1). She took great pleasure in learning whatever she could, whether it was about animals, history, or science. She was very excited to start school, an institute dedicated to her favourite activity! However, once she became a student, Lisa's desires began to shift. She was less enthused to learn about new facts for the sake of it. Instead, she felt compelled by her teachers to focus on studying to get good grades or receive awards. What caused the change in her motivation? Lisa, like all people, was born with intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation requires a person to feel fully autonomous in their actions. When people are exposed to external events, especially those that are perceived as controlling, this can negatively impact their feelings of autonomy. Without autonomy, people cannot be intrinsically motivated.

According to self-determination theory (SDT), the most optimal form of motivation is intrinsic motivation, when actions are committed out of inherent interest, satisfaction, or enjoyment (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Intrinsic motivation is important because of its positive associations with psychological well-being (Ryan et al., 2019). SDT proposes that achieving intrinsic motivation requires the satisfaction of the basic psychological needs (Ryan & Deci, 2017). This chapter specifically discusses the need for autonomy and its influence on intrinsic motivation.

In addition, this chapter explores cognitive evaluation theory (CET), a mini-theory of SDT, that studies the various social-contextual factors which increase or decrease intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2019). CET argues that intrinsic motivation is contingent on whether a particular factor satisfies an individual’s sense of autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2017). According to CET, autonomy is satisfied when social-contextual factors promote an internal perceived locus of causality (IPLOC) and are interpreted to be non-controlling (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Autonomy and intrinsic motivation are undermined by factors perceived to be controlling and contributing to an external perceived locus of causality (EPLOC) (Ryan et al., 2021).

Finally, this chapter discusses the two factors of rewards and choice, and their impact on autonomy and intrinsic motivation. Certain types of rewards have been found to lower autonomy and intrinsic motivation because of their externally controlling associations (Deci et al., 1999; Ryan et al., 1983). Alternatively, studies show choice typically facilitates autonomy and increases intrinsic motivation (Patall et al., 2008; Reeve et al., 2003). The results of these studies will be analysed on how they explain the relationship between autonomy and intrinsic motivation in adherence with CET.

Focus questions What is autonomy, according to self-determination theory? What is intrinsic motivation? What is cognitive evaluation theory, and how does it explain the impact of autonomy on intrinsic motivation? What factors support or undermine intrinsic motivation through their impact on autonomy?

Self-determination theory

SDT is a macro-theory of human behaviour and motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan (1985), SDT uses an organismic-dialectic framework to explain motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2015; Reeve et al., 2018). It is an organismic theory in its assumption that humans have an inherent predisposition toward psychological growth and development (Ryan & Deci, 2020). However, this predisposition can be supported or diminished through interactions, the dialectic, with social environments (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Specifically, social environments impact healthy development based on how they satisfy basic psychological needs (Ryan & Deci, 2017).

According to SDT, basic psychological needs are psychological nutriments integral to satisfying humans’ inherent organismic inclination toward growth and development (Niemiec et al., 2010; Ryan et al., 2019). Needs are defined as innate, energising forces that, when satisfied, positively contribute to health and wellbeing. When they are unsatisfied, they result in illness and pathology (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). While SDT proclaims that basic needs are universal, there is debate about their cross-cultural significance (Niemiec et al., 2010). SDT outlines three basic psychological needs: competence, relatedness, and autonomy (see Figure 2, Ryan & Deci, 2017).

Figure 2. The three basic psychological needs.

Competence is the desire to feel mastery and effectiveness when performing tasks or activities (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Satisfaction of this need provides opportunities for an individual to challenge themselves and improve their skills and abilities (Ryan & Deci, 2002; Vansteenkiste et al., 2020). When this need is frustrated, it can cause feelings of failure, ineffectiveness, and helplessness (Vansteenkiste et al., 2020).

Relatedness is feeling a sense of belonging or connection to others (Ryan & Deci, 2020). It is enhanced when people simultaneously feel cared for and that they have the capacity to care for others (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Thwarting the relatedness need contributes to feeling socially excluded or alienated (Vansteenkiste et al., 2020).

Autonomy is the perception that one's behaviours are wholly self-endorsed, and congruent with their interests and values (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Satisfaction of autonomy occurs when an individual experiences their actions as authentic and self-regulated (Vansteenkiste et al., 2020). Frustration of this need typically involves feeling pressured by others, creating internal conflict when one is compelled to act against their own interests (Vansteenkiste et al., 2020). The opposite of autonomy is heteronomy, where an individual feels controlled or pressured to act in specific ways (Chirkov et al., 2003; Niemiec et al., 2010). Autonomy is commonly confused with independence, defined as not relying on external support or influences (Ryan & Deci, 2002). However, a person can be autonomous and still act in accordance with external expectations if they believe their actions to be fully volitional and consistent with their values (Chirkov et al., 2003; Ryan & Deci, 2002).

1

SDT uses what kind of framework to understand motivation?:

	A mechanistic framework
	An organismic-dialectic framework

2

Autonomy is satisfied when an individual:

	Is able to be challenged
	Experiences their behaviour to be self-regulated
	Feels cared for and able to care for others

Motivation in self-determination theory

Traditionally, motivation has been conceptualised as a unitary entity and studied in terms of amount or strength (Ryan & Deci, 2017). However, Deci and Ryan (2015) argue that assessing different types of motivation is required to predict the quality and maintenance of behaviour. SDT therefore focuses on three types of motivation: amotivation, extrinsic motivation, and intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2015). These motivation types are distinguished according to how autonomous they are (Ryan & Deci, 2017).

Amotivation and extrinsic motivation

Figure 3. Red player is playing to win as an example of extrinsic motivation. Blue player is playing for fun as an example of intrinsic motivation.

Amotivation is the lack of intentionality to act, or absence of motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017). It can be caused by a person not perceiving the value of an activity, feeling incompetent, or not believing that their actions will lead to a favourable outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Extrinsic motivation involves performing an activity to achieve an outcome separate to the activity itself (see Figure 3, Ryan & Deci, 2000b). There are four types of extrinsic motivation which vary in levels of autonomy. The least autonomous forms of extrinsic motivation are external and introjected regulation, while identification and integration regulation are more autonomous (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). Integrated regulation shares some similarities with intrinsic motivation, however, it is classified as an extrinsic motivation because one’s actions are still done to fulfill external outcomes, instead of personal satisfaction (Ryan & Deci, 2000b).

Intrinsic motivation

Intrinsic motivation is defined as actions committed out of inherent interest or pleasure (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Unlike extrinsic motivation, it is not dependent on external pressures, rewards, or incentives (Ryan & Deci, 2020). According to SDT, humans evolved to develop spontaneously through play and exploration to learn and expand their own capabilities (Ryan & Deci, 2000b, 2017). Intrinsic motivation is the prototypical representation of this self-determining behaviour (Ryan & Deci, 2019). It is the most autonomous type of motivation, as intrinsically motivated behaviours are experienced as being fully volitional and originating from the self (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

In line with SDT’s organismic-dialectic framework, while people are born with intrinsic motivation, it requires support from social environments to be sustained or increased (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). This is achieved through satisfaction of the basic psychological needs of autonomy and competence (Deci et al., 1999). In comparison to autonomy and competence, relatedness is suggested to be less directly impactful on intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Autonomy is particularly critical for intrinsic motivation as competence by itself is unable to sustain intrinsic motivation. For competence to affect intrinsic motivation, it must be accompanied by a sense that one's behaviours are self-determined, or autonomously driven (Ryan & Deci, 2000b; Ryan & Deci, 2017). CET, a mini-theory within SDT, studies the relationship between intrinsic motivation and autonomy in greater detail.

1

SDT studies different types of motivation, instead of amount or strength:

	True
	False

2

Intrinsic motivation is the most autonomous form of motivation:

	True
	False

Cognitive evaluation theory

CET was the first SDT mini-theory, and its primary purpose is to explore the various social-contextual factors that enhance or decrease intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2019). Factors which satisfy autonomy and competence enhance intrinsic motivation (Reeve et al., 2018). Conversely, factors which thwart autonomy and competence diminish intrinsic motivation (Reeve et al., 2018). CET uses certain concepts to explain how these factors impact intrinsic motivation through their effects on autonomy. These include whether the factor contributes to an internal perceived locus of causality (IPLOC) or external perceived locus of causality (EPLOC, de Charms, 1983), and the functional significance of the factor (Ryan & Deci, 2002).

Internal versus external perceived locus of causality

The basis of CET was heavily informed by Deci's (1971, 1972a) earlier studies of the impact of rewards on intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2019). The results of these studies found that certain types of rewards undermined intrinsic motivation because they promoted the participants’ perceptions of their behaviour as being extrinsically motivated (Deci, 1972a, 1972b). Drawing from the works of de Charms (1983), Deci (1971, 1972b) attributed this motivational shift to a transition from an IPLOC to an EPLOC. An individual with an IPLOC perceives themself to be the origin of their own behaviour, and is intrinsically motivated (de Charms, 1983). When an individual perceives their behaviour to be caused by external factors, or has an EPLOC, they are thus extrinsically motivated (de Charms, 1983). Simply put, the perceived locus of causality is the degree of autonomy over an individual's behaviour (Deci & Ryan, 1985).

Functional significance

Another concept foundational to CET is that the impact of external events on intrinsic motivation is dependent on the psychological meaning attributed to that event (Ryan & Deci, 2017). This meaning is otherwise known as functional significance. Functional significance is an individual’s interpretation of an external event as it relates to how it affects their feelings of autonomy and competence (Deci et al., 1999). CET proposes that all external events, such as rewards or choice, have two aspects of functional significance: an informational aspect, and a controlling aspect (Ryan & Deci, 2002). This is sometimes extended to three with the inclusion of an amotivating aspect (Ryan & Deci, 2017).

External events which have the amotivating aspect invoke feelings of lacking the autonomy or competence to achieve outcomes, decreasing both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and instead increasing amotivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017). An informational aspect of an external event delivers self-determined, competence-related feedback, promoting an IPLOC and improving perceived competence (Reeve, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2002). Controlling external events pressure people to behave towards a specific outcome, prompting a shift to an EPLOC, and undermining autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2002). It is the relative salience of the informational aspect versus the controlling aspect which influences its impact on autonomy and, by extent, intrinsic motivation (Reeve, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2002). That is, an individual’s perception of an external event as being more informational or controlling determines whether it supports or diminishes their intrinsic motivation.

1

If an individual feels they are the origin of their behaviour, they have an:

	Internal perceived locus of control
	Internal perceived locus of causality
	External perceived locus of causality

2

What are the three aspects of functional significance?:

	Controlling, informational, demotivating
	Controllable, informative, amotivating
	Controlling, informational, amotivating

Factors which support or undermine intrinsic motivation

CET proposes that external factors influence intrinsic motivation through their thwarting or satisfaction of autonomy (Reeve et al., 2018). Autonomy is thwarted when a factor contributes to an EPLOC, or the factor is perceived as controlling (Ryan & Deci, 2017, 2019). Autonomy is satisfied when a factor induces an IPLOC, or the factor is interpreted to be non-controlling (Ryan & Deci, 2017, 2019). Two of the most extensively studied factors are rewards (see Figure 4) and choice.

Rewards

Figure 4. Money is often used as an external reward.

When Deci (1971) initially found that rewards decreased intrinsic motivation, they theorised that receiving a reward caused the participants to cognitively re-evaluate their actions to be instrumental to acquiring a reward, as opposed to genuine autonomous interest in the activity. By creating an EPLOC and the perception of being externally controlled, this thwarted their need for autonomy and, subsequently, undermined intrinsic motivation. Deci’s (1972a, 1972b) following studies suggested that this undermining effect was only apparent on certain kinds of rewards. Specifically, rewards that were contingent on engagement of the activity. When participants were rewarded merely for attending the experiment, rather than for engaging with or completing the activity, their intrinsic motivation did not diminish (Deci, 1972a, 1972b).

Ryan et al. (1983) expanded on these findings by categorising rewards and their unique effects on intrinsic motivation. Task-contingent rewards are rewards given for working on or completing a task. Task-non-contingent rewards are awarded for participation, without consideration of completion or performance (Ryan et al., 1983). Task-contingent rewards were found to reduce intrinsic motivation, while task non-contingent rewards did not have an effect.

A third type of reward identified in the study was performance-contingent rewards; given for meeting a certain standard of performance (Ryan et al., 1983). Whether performance-contingent rewards enhanced or decreased intrinsic motivation was dependent on how the context was administered. Performance-contingent rewards delivered in an intentionally controlling style undermined intrinsic motivation, whereas an informational style increased intrinsic motivation. While these results appear to align with CET, it is important to note that Ryan et al. (1983) is the only study to have examined the differing impacts of a controlling and informational administrative styles on rewards. Further research is required in this area.

A meta-analysis by Deci et al. (1999) examined over 100 studies on the effects of reward on intrinsic motivation. The results were analysed across two common measures of intrinsic motivation: free-choice behaviour and self-reporting. The free-choice behaviour method measures the amount of time a participant autonomously interacts with an interesting task after being notified by an experimenter that the experiment has concluded (Deci, 1971). Self-reports have the participants respond to a questionnaire regarding their perceived intrinsic interest in the task (Ryan, 1982). Deci et al. (1999) found that, for the free-choice behaviour measure, task-contingent rewards, and performance-contingent rewards both had a significant negative effect on intrinsic motivation. However, similar to the findings of Deci (1972a, 1972b), task non-contingent rewards did not show a significant undermining of intrinsic motivation.

The results on the overall effects on intrinsic motivation for the self-report method were weaker than those of the free-choice measure, while still being significant (Deci et al., 1999). The exception was that performance-contingent rewards did not present significant undermining as was found in the free-choice method. Deci et al. (1999) attributed this result to an issue with the self-report measure: participants were potentially confusing pleasure from receiving a reward with inherent interest in the activity. This may have increased the chances of participants erroneously self-reporting interest in rewards conditions. Deci et al. (1999) suggests this may have led to an underestimation of the undermining effects of rewards.

The meta-analysis concluded that both free-choice and self-report methods remain useful as measures of intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1999). However, they recommended ensuring accurate assessment of intrinsic motivation by having both measures correlate within conditions or studies (Deci et al., 1999).  

Deci et al. (1999) also noted that the impact of rewards differed based upon participant age; rewards were more detrimental to intrinsic motivation in children than college students for the free-choice method. No data was available regarding the moderating effects of participant age on the influence of rewards on intrinsic motivation in a self-report measure (Deci et al., 1999). It was theorised that children would perceive rewards as a means of control more frequently than college students, and this likely negatively impacted intrinsic motivation. Further, college students may have had greater ability to separate the informational and controlling aspects of rewards, and therefore more likely to interpret rewards as informational (Deci et al., 1999). In accordance with CET, it is largely assumed that perceived autonomy serves as the mediating factor between rewards and intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2019). However, there are only a small number of studies which assess autonomy as a direct mediator (Deci et al., 1999). The prevalence of this issue within the CET literature severely limits any attempt of forming definitive conclusions on autonomy’s impact on intrinsic motivation.

Choice

CET generally holds that choice enhances intrinsic motivation because it supports an individual’s autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000b). Reeve et al. (2003) found that only certain types of choice, known as action choices, positively affect autonomy and intrinsic motivation. For example, the impact of a choice between multiple options had little effect on intrinsic motivation (Reeve et al., 2003). Instead, conditions where participants were able to self-initiate and self-regulate their actions improved their intrinsic motivation. Reeve et al. (2003) suggested this is because action choices increased IPLOC, whereas option choices did not (Reeve et al., 2003). However, very few of the studies investigated in Reeve et al. (2003) directly tested for autonomy as a mediator between choice and intrinsic motivation. Therefore, CET’s proposal that autonomy acts as the causal mediator for intrinsic motivation remains speculative.

A meta-analysis by Patall et al. (2008) further discovered that instructionally irrelevant choices, such as participants picking music to study to, enhanced intrinsic motivation. This was presumed to be because they allowed participants the opportunity for autonomous self-expression (Patall et al., 2008). The study also found that external rewards diminished the positive impact of choice on intrinsic motivation, as the rewards were perceived as controlling (Patall et al., 2008). When participants chose the reward themselves, they did not perceive the reward as controlling, and it did not negatively affect their intrinsic motivation. Similarly, when participants were denied choice, or when they were made aware of alternative options that they were not allowed to choose, their intrinsic motivation decreased because they felt controlled (Patall et al., 2008).

Patall et al. (2008) hypothesised that the negative effect of a lack of choice on intrinsic motivation may be neutralised if the participant was not aware of being controlled. It was proposed that only when the participant was aware of their lack of choice that intrinsic motivation would diminish (Patall et al., 2008). This could potentially align with CET regarding the importance of the salience of a controlling aspect as determining its effects on autonomy (Reeve, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2002). However, this theory requires further empirical support.

The study also concluded that choice had a greater positive impact on intrinsic motivation for children (Patall et al., 2008). It was theorised that as children are often not granted as many choices as adults, their ability to feel autonomous is limited. Therefore, when children are provided the opportunity to make their own choices, the following impact on their autonomy and intrinsic motivation may be larger. Further analysis on the moderating effects of age would likely benefit the literature of CET.

Case study Lisa’s teacher, Ms Greene, noticed that Lisa and some of the other students hadn’t been as engaged with the content since she started giving out gold stars for good grades. Ms Greene did some research on how to best motivate her students, finding that satisfying her students’ need for autonomy would enhance their intrinsic motivation. Reading about CET, she learned that autonomy is supported when students feel they are the source of their own behaviour (IPLOC), and that the psychological meaning (functional significance) of an event is not attributed to be controlling. She realised that handing out gold stars as a reward had caused her students to perceive that they were acting outside of their own interests (i.e. not for the inherent pleasure of learning) and that they were being externally controlled. In other words, because she had thwarted her students’ autonomy, they lost their intrinsic motivation. To rectify this issue, Ms Greene began to give her students more opportunities to feel autonomous in the classroom. She stopped handing out gold stars and, knowing that choices were more effective on children’s intrinsic motivation, gave her students more choices over how they learned and studied class material. This included choices that weren’t relevant to class activities, such as choosing colour of pens to use on tests. When she did use rewards, she allowed students to pick their own prizes. After supporting her students’ autonomy in these ways, Ms Greene observed greater interest in content from the students. In Lisa’s case, she rediscovered her passion for learning!

Conclusion

SDT is a motivational theory which states that the satisfaction of basic psychological needs positively affects intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2017). One of these psychological needs, autonomy, is the perception that one’s actions and behaviours are entirely volitional and aligned with personal interests (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Autonomy is satisfied when an individual believes their actions are self-directed (Vansteenkiste et al., 2020). It is frustrated by feelings of pressure or control (Vansteenkiste et al., 2020).

Intrinsic motivation is the most autonomous form of motivation, where an individual’s actions are committed out of interest or enjoyment (Ryan & Deci, 2020). CET arose to explore the various factors that increased or decreased intrinsic motivation by their effect on autonomy (Ryan & Deci, 2019). CET explains the impact of autonomy on intrinsic motivation through the concepts of perceived locus of causality, and informational or controlling functional significance of external events (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2017).

Rewards generally decrease intrinsic motivation, but this is dependent on the category of reward, and how they are administered (Deci et al., 1999; Ryan et al., 1983). Choice increases intrinsic motivation when the participant has the capacity to act, and the choices are not relevant to the task (Patall et al., 2008; Reeve et al., 2003). When choices are paired with external rewards, intrinsic motivation decreases. If a reward is chosen by an individual, they do not perceive the reward as controlling, and intrinsic motivation does not diminish (Patall et al., 2008). Age may also be a significant moderating factor in both supporting and undermining autonomy and intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1999; Patall et al., 2008).

Within the literature, there are strong assumptions supporting CET’s proposed motivational model of external events influencing shifts in autonomy which subsequently impacts intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1999; Patall et al., 2008; Reeve et al., 2003). However, very few studies explicitly measure autonomy as a mediator between external factors and intrinsic motivation. Future research would need to examine autonomy as a direct, causal mediator to determine CET’s true validity.

Together, this chapter suggests that the support or thwarting of autonomy by external factors influences whether intrinsic motivation is enhanced or undermined, respectively.  

See also

• Cognitive evaluation theory and motivation (Book chapter, 2021)
• Intrinsic motivation (Book chapter, 2013)
• Self-determination theory (Book chapter, 2011)
• Self-determination theory (Wikipedia)

References

Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 97–110.

de Charms, R. (1983). Personal causation: The internal affective determinants of behavior (1st ed.). Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315825632

Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18(1), 105–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030644

Deci, E. L. (1972a). Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement, and inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22(1), 113–120. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0032355

Deci, E. L. (1972b). The effects of contingent and noncontingent rewards and controls on intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior & Human Performance, 8(2), 217–229. https://doi.org/10.1016/0030-5073(72)90047-5

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(6), 627–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior (1st ed.). Springer New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2015). Self-determination theory. In J. D. Wright (Ed.), International Encyclopedia of the Social & Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed., pp. 486–491). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-097086-8.26036-4

Niemiec, C. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Autonomy, competence, and relatedness in the classroom: Applying self-determination theory to educational practice. Theory and Research in Education, 7(2), 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318

Niemiec, C. P., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2010). Self-determination theory and the relation of autonomy to self-regulatory processes and personality development. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of personality and self-regulation (pp. 169–191). Wiley Blackwell. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781444318111.ch8

Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Robinson, J. C. (2008). The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings. Psychological Bulletin, 134(2), 270–300. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.134.2.270

Reeve, J. (2012). A self-determination theory perspective on student engagement. In S. Christenson, A. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 149–172). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_7

Reeve, J., Nix, G., & Hamm, D. (2003). Testing models of the experience of self-determination in intrinsic motivation and the conundrum of choice. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(2), 375–392. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.95.2.375

Reeve, J., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. (2018). Sociocultural influences on student motivation as viewed through the lens of self-determination theory. In G. A. D. Liem & D. M. McInerney (Eds.), Big theories revisited 2 (2nd ed., pp. 15–40). Information Age Publishing.

Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43(3), 450–461. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.3.450

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Overview of self-determination theory: An organismic-dialectical perspective. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). University of Rochester Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness (pp. xii, 756). The Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28806

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2019). Brick by brick: The origins, development, and future of self-determination theory. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Advances in motivation science (pp. 111–156). Elsevier Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.adms.2019.01.001

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61, 1-11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000a). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(1), 54–67. https://doi.org/10.1006/ceps.1999.1020

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000b). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. The American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037//0003-066x.55.1.68

Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., Vansteenkiste, M., & Soenens, B. (2021). Building a science of motivated persons: Self-determination theory’s empirical approach to human experience and the regulation of behavior. Motivation Science, 7(2), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000194

Ryan, R. M., Mims, V., & Koestner, R. (1983). Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: A review and test using cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 736–750. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.736

Ryan, R. M., Ryan, W. S., Di Domenico, S. I., & Deci, E. L. (2019). The nature and the conditions of human autonomy and flourishing: Self-determination theory and basic psychological needs. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of human motivation (2nd ed., pp. 89–110). Oxford University Press.

Vansteenkiste, M., Ryan, R. M., & Soenens, B. (2020). Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions. Motivation and Emotion, 44(1), 1–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-019-09818-1

External links

• Cognitive evaluation theory (psychologyfanatic.com)
• Edward Deci - self-determination theory (Youtube.com)
• Intrinsic motivation (selfdeterminationtheory.org)