The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior

doi:10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Home
/
Papers
/
The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior

Journal Article•DOI•

The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursuits: Human Needs and the Self-Determination of Behavior

Edward L. Deci¹, Richard M. Ryan•Institutions (1)

University of Rochester¹

01 Jan 2000-Psychological Inquiry (Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.)-Vol. 11, Iss: 4, pp 227-268

TL;DR: Self-Determination Theory (SDT) as mentioned in this paper maintains that an understanding of human motivation requires a consideration of innate psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness, emphasizing that needs specify the necessary conditions for psychological growth, integrity, and well-being.

read less

Abstract: Self-determination theory (SDT) maintains that an understanding of human motivation requires a consideration of innate psychological needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness. We discuss the SDT concept of needs as it relates to previous need theories, emphasizing that needs specify the necessary conditions for psychological growth, integrity, and well-being. This concept of needs leads to the hypotheses that different regulatory processes underlying goal pursuits are differentially associated with effective functioning and well-being and also that different goal contents have different relations to the quality of behavior and mental health, specifically because different regulatory processes and different goal contents are associated with differing degrees of need satisfaction. Social contexts and individual differences that support satisfaction of the basic needs facilitate natural growth processes including intrinsically motivated behavior and integration of extrinsic motivations, whereas those that forestall autonomy, competence, or relatedness are associated with poorer motivation, performance, and well-being. We also discuss the relation of the psychological needs to cultural values, evolutionary processes, and other contemporary motivation theories.

...read moreread less

Content maybe subject to copyright Report

Citations

PDF

Open Access

More filters

Journal Article•DOI•

Getting to the “COR” Understanding the Role of Resources in Conservation of Resources Theory

[...]

Jonathon R. B. Halbesleben¹, Jean-Pierre Neveu², Samantha C. Paustian-Underdahl³, Mina Westman⁴•Institutions (4)

University of Alabama¹, University of Montpellier², Florida International University³, Tel Aviv University⁴

25 Mar 2014-Journal of Management

TL;DR: In this article, a review of the conservation of resources (COR) theory is presented, highlighting gaps in the COR literature that can be addressed by integrating research from other areas of psychology and management.

...read moreread less

1,609 citations

Cites background from "The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursui..."

...Further, progression along that continuum is enhanced through the satisfaction of three basic needs—the need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000)....
[...]

Journal Article•DOI•

Servant Leadership: A Review and Synthesis:

[...]

Dirk van Dierendonck¹•Institutions (1)

Erasmus University Rotterdam¹

01 Jul 2011-Journal of Management

TL;DR: Servant leadership is a new field of research for leadership scholars as discussed by the authors, and it is argued that leaders who combine their motivation to lead with a need to serve display servant leadership.

...read moreread less

1,536 citations

Cites background from "The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursui..."

...To be self-determined means to experience a sense of choice in initiating and regulating one’s own actions (Deci & Ryan, 2000)....
[...]

Journal Article•DOI•

Toward a Conceptualization of Optimal Self-Esteem.

[...]

Michael H. Kernis¹•Institutions (1)

University of Georgia¹

01 Jan 2003-Psychological Inquiry

TL;DR: In this paper, the authors present a theoretical perspective on the nature of "optimal" self-esteem and show that high selfesteem can be fragile or secure depending upon the extent to which it is defensive or genuine, contingent or true, unstable or stable, and discrepant or congruent with implicit feelings of selfworth.

...read moreread less

Abstract: In this article, I present a theoretical perspective on the nature of "optimal" self-esteem. One of my major goals is to show that optimal and high self-esteem are different from each other. High self-esteem can be fragile or secure depending upon the extent to which it is defensive or genuine, contingent or true, unstable or stable, and discrepant or congruent with implicit (nonconscious) feelings of self-worth. Optimal self-esteem is characterized by qualities associated with genuine, true, stable, and congruent (with implicit self-esteem) high self-esteem. A second major goal is to present a conceptualization of the construct of authenticity. I propose that authenticity as an individual difference construct may be particularly important in delineating the adaptive features of optimal self-esteem. Authenticity can be characterized as the unobstructed operation of one's true, or core, self in one's daily enterprise. I argue that authenticity has 4 components: awareness, unbiased processing, action, and r...

...read moreread less

1,524 citations

Cites background from "The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursui..."

...Furthermore, it may be the case that the need for self-esteem is not a fundamental psychological need in the same sense as needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000)....
[...]
...Moreover, they are likely to reflect the lack of (and even interfere with) satisfaction of one’s basic needs for competence, self-determination, and relatedness, and to undermine one’s feelings of authenticity (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Kernis, 2000)....
[...]
...Namely, Deci and Ryan (2000) identified heightened use of these strategies as stemming from the insecurity, fragility, and suboptimal functioning that emerge when satisfaction of one’s fundamental needs for competence, self-determination, and relatedness is thwarted....
[...]

Journal Article•DOI•

Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Goal Contents in Self-Determination Theory: Another Look at the Quality of Academic Motivation

[...]

Maarten Vansteenkiste¹, Willy Lens¹, Edward L. Deci²•Institutions (2)

Katholieke Universiteit Leuven¹, University of Rochester²

01 Jan 2006-Educational Psychologist

TL;DR: The authors found that intrinsic goal framing (relative to extrinsic goal framing and no-goal framing) produces deeper engagement in learning activities, better conceptual learning, and higher persistence at learning activities.

...read moreread less

Abstract: Examination of motivational dynamics in academic contexts within self-determination theory has centered primarily around both the motives (initially intrinsic vs. extrinsic, later autonomous vs. controlled) that regulate learners' study behavior and the contexts that promote or hinder these regulations. Less attention has been paid to the goal contents (intrinsic vs. extrinsic) that learners hold and to the different goal contents that are communicated in schools to increase the perceived relevance of the learning. Recent field experiments are reviewed showing that intrinsic goal framing (relative to extrinsic goal framing and no-goal framing) produces deeper engagement in learning activities, better conceptual learning, and higher persistence at learning activities. These effects occur for both intrinsically and extrinsically oriented individuals. Results are discussed in terms of self-determination theory's concept of basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

...read moreread less

1,507 citations

Cites background or result from "The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursui..."

...One theory that has proven useful in explaining the variation in students’ learning strategies, performance, and persistence is self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000; R. M. Ryan & Deci, 2000a)....
[...]
...Just as with intrinsic motivation, competence and autonomy are considered important energizers of internalization, but the need for relatedness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995) is also critically important for internalization (Deci & Ryan, 2000; R. M. Ryan, 1995)....
[...]
...Most of the work within SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000) has focused on the autonomous versus controlled regulations of behavior and on the autonomy-supportive versus controlling social contexts that have been found to prompt these types of regulations....
[...]
...The concept of goal content (intrinsic vs. extrinsic) is quite different from the concept of goal motive (autonomous vs. controlled), which represents the reasons why people are pursuing the particular goal contents (Deci & Ryan, 2000)....
[...]

Journal Article•DOI•

What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs.

[...]

Kennon M. Sheldon, Andrew J. Elliot, Youngmee Kim, Tim Kasser

01 Feb 2001-Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

TL;DR: Supporting self-determination theory postulates--autonomy, competence, and relatedness, were consistently among the top 4 needs, in terms of both their salience and their association with event-related affect.

...read moreread less

Abstract: Three studies compared 10 candidate psychological needs in an attempt to determine which are truly most fundamental for humans. Participants described "most satisfying events" within their lives and then rated the salience of each of the 10 candidate needs within these events. Supporting self-determination theory postulates (Ryan & Deci, 2000)—autonomy, competence, and relatedness, were consistently among the top 4 needs, in terms of both their salience and their association with event-related affect. Self-esteem was also important, whereas self-actualization or meaning, physical thriving, popularity or influence, and mbney-luxury were less important. This basic pattern emerged within three different time frames and within both U.S. and South Korean samples and also within a final study that asked, "What's unsatisfying about unsatisfying events?" Implications for hierarchical theories of needs are discussed.

...read moreread less

1,456 citations

1
2
…
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
…
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200

Collapse

References

PDF

Open Access

More filters

Book•

Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control

[...]

Albert Bandura¹•Institutions (1)

Stanford University¹

01 Jan 1997

TL;DR: SelfSelf-Efficacy (SE) as discussed by the authors is a well-known concept in human behavior, which is defined as "belief in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments".

...read moreread less

Abstract: Albert Bandura and the Exercise of Self-Efficacy Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control Albert Bandura. New York: W. H. Freeman (www.whfreeman.com). 1997, 604 pp., $46.00 (hardcover). Enter the term "self-efficacy" in the on-line PSYCLIT database and you will find over 2500 articles, all of which stem from the seminal contributions of Albert Bandura. It is difficult to do justice to the immense importance of this research for our theories, our practice, and indeed for human welfare. Self-efficacy (SE) has proven to be a fruitful construct in spheres ranging from phobias (Bandura, Jeffery, & Gajdos, 1975) and depression (Holahan & Holahan, 1987) to career choice behavior (Betz & Hackett, 1986) and managerial functioning (Jenkins, 1994). Bandura's Self-Efficacy: The Exercise of Control is the best attempt so far at organizing, summarizing, and distilling meaning from this vast and diverse literature. Self-Efficacy may prove to be Bandura's magnum opus. Dr. Bandura has done an impressive job of summarizing over 1800 studies and papers, integrating these results into a coherent framework, and detailing implications for theory and practice. While incorporating prior works such as Social Learning Theory (Bandura, 1977) and "Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency" (Bandura, 1982), Self-Efficacy extends these works by describing results of diverse new research, clarifying and extending social cognitive theory, and fleshing out implications of the theory for groups, organizations, political bodies, and societies. Along the way, Dr. Bandura masterfully contrasts social cognitive theory with many other theories of human behavior and helps chart a course for future research. Throughout, B andura' s clear, firm, and self-confident writing serves as the perfect vehicle for the theory he espouses. Self-Efficacy begins with the most detailed and clear explication of social cognitive theory that I have yet seen, and proceeds to delineate the nature and sources of SE, the well-known processes via which SE mediates human behavior, and the development of SE over the life span. After laying this theoretical groundwork, subsequent chapters delineate the relevance of SE to human endeavor in a variety of specific content areas including cognitive and intellectual functioning; health; clinical problems including anxiety, phobias, depression, eating disorders, alcohol problems, and drug abuse; athletics and exercise activity; organizations; politics; and societal change. In Bandura's words, "Perceived self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute the courses of action required to produce given attainments" (p. 3). People's SE beliefs have a greater effect on their motivation, emotions, and actions than what is objectively true (e.g., actual skill level). Therefore, SE beliefs are immensely important in choice of behaviors (including occupations, social relationships, and a host of day-to-day behaviors), effort expenditure, perseverance in pursuit of goals, resilience to setbacks and problems, stress level and affect, and indeed in our ways of thinking about ourselves and others. Bandura affirms many times that humans are proactive and free as well as determined: They are "at least partial architects of their own destinies" (p. 8). Because SE beliefs powerfully affect human behaviors, they are a key factor in human purposive activity or agency; that is, in human freedom. Because humans shape their environment even as they are shaped by it, SE beliefs are also pivotal in the construction of our social and physical environments. Bandura details over two decades of research confirming that SE is modifiable via mastery experiences, vicarious learning, verbal persuasion, and interpretation of physiological states, and that modified SE strongly and consistently predicts outcomes. SE beliefs, then, are central to human self-determination. STRENGTHS One major strength of Self-Efficacy is Bandura's ability to deftly dance from forest to trees and back again to forest, using specific, human examples and concrete situations to highlight his major theoretical premises, to which he then returns. …

...read moreread less

46,839 citations

"The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursui..." refers background or result in this paper

...As for autonomy, Bandura (1989) stated that autonomy would be evident only if “humans serve as entirely independent agents of their own actions” (p....
[...]
...Social-learning theories, of which Bandura’s (1996) self-efficacy theory is currently the most popular, are examples of the so-called standard social science model (e.g., Tooby & Cosmides, 1992), for they view people’s behavioral repertoires and self-concepts as being largely acquired from the social world.Self-efficacy theory has focused specifically on the extent to which people feel capable of engaging in behaviors that will lead to desired outcomes (Bandura, 1977). Given their capacity to alter their environment, establish incentives, and create cognitive self-inducements, people can, Bandura (1989) argued, motivate themselves and be agentic....
[...]
...As for autonomy, Bandura (1989) stated that autonomy would be evident only if “humans serve as entirely independent agents of their own actions” (p. 1175), a characterization that allowed him to dismiss the concept out of hand. Clearly, this characterization bears no relation to the concept of autonomy contained in SDT and is inconsistent with the way the concept is treated by modern philosophers (e.g., Dworkin, 1988; Ricoeur, 1966). By using this characterization, self-efficacy theory has avoided dealing with the important human issue of autonomy. By contrast, other perceived control theories addressed the concept of autonomy and acknowledged that it cannot be reduced to perceived control (e.g., Little, Hawley, Henrich, & Marsland, in press; E. A. Skinner, 1995). In terms of our three needs, self-efficacy theory is concerned almost exclusively with competence, but the theory explicitly shuns White’s (1959) postulate of an innate effectance motivation....
[...]
...Although many empirically based theories treat motivation as a unitary concept, variable only in amount rather than kind (e.g., Bandura, 1996; Locke & Latham, 1990), our approach focuses on the kind of motivation or regulation—specifically, the degree to which it is self-determined versus…...
[...]
...Social-learning theories, of which Bandura’s (1996) self-efficacy theory is currently the most popular, are examples of the so-called standard social science model (e....
[...]

Journal Article•DOI•

Self-efficacy: toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.

[...]

Albert Bandura¹•Institutions (1)

Stanford University¹

01 Mar 1977-Psychological Review

TL;DR: An integrative theoretical framework to explain and to predict psychological changes achieved by different modes of treatment is presented and findings are reported from microanalyses of enactive, vicarious, and emotive mode of treatment that support the hypothesized relationship between perceived self-efficacy and behavioral changes.

...read moreread less

Abstract: The present article presents an integrative theoretical framework to explain and to predict psychological changes achieved by different modes of treatment. This theory states that psychological procedures, whatever their form, alter the level and strength of self-efficacy. It is hypothesized that expectations of personal efficacy determine whether coping behavior will be initiated, how much effort will be expended, and how long it will be sustained in the face of obstacles and aversive experiences. Persistence in activities that are subjectively threatening but in fact relatively safe produces, through experiences of mastery, further enhancement of self-efficacy and corresponding reductions in defensive behavior. In the proposed model, expectations of personal efficacy are derived from four principal sources of information: performance accomplishments, vicarious experience, verbal persuasion, and physiological states. The more dependable the experiential sources, the greater are the changes in perceived selfefficacy. A number of factors are identified as influencing the cognitive processing of efficacy information arising from enactive, vicarious, exhortative, and emotive sources. The differential power of diverse therapeutic procedures is analyzed in terms of the postulated cognitive mechanism of operation. Findings are reported from microanalyses of enactive, vicarious, and emotive modes of treatment that support the hypothesized relationship between perceived self-efficacy and behavioral changes. Possible directions for further research are discussed.

...read moreread less

38,007 citations

"The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursui..." refers background or result in this paper

...As for autonomy, Bandura (1989) stated that autonomy would be evident only if “humans serve as entirely independent agents of their own actions” (p....
[...]
...Social-learning theories, of which Bandura’s (1996) self-efficacy theory is currently the most popular, are examples of the so-called standard social science model (e.g., Tooby & Cosmides, 1992), for they view people’s behavioral repertoires and self-concepts as being largely acquired from the social world.Self-efficacy theory has focused specifically on the extent to which people feel capable of engaging in behaviors that will lead to desired outcomes (Bandura, 1977). Given their capacity to alter their environment, establish incentives, and create cognitive self-inducements, people can, Bandura (1989) argued, motivate themselves and be agentic....
[...]
...As for autonomy, Bandura (1989) stated that autonomy would be evident only if “humans serve as entirely independent agents of their own actions” (p. 1175), a characterization that allowed him to dismiss the concept out of hand. Clearly, this characterization bears no relation to the concept of autonomy contained in SDT and is inconsistent with the way the concept is treated by modern philosophers (e.g., Dworkin, 1988; Ricoeur, 1966). By using this characterization, self-efficacy theory has avoided dealing with the important human issue of autonomy. By contrast, other perceived control theories addressed the concept of autonomy and acknowledged that it cannot be reduced to perceived control (e.g., Little, Hawley, Henrich, & Marsland, in press; E. A. Skinner, 1995). In terms of our three needs, self-efficacy theory is concerned almost exclusively with competence, but the theory explicitly shuns White’s (1959) postulate of an innate effectance motivation....
[...]
...Social-learning theories, of which Bandura’s (1996) self-efficacy theory is currently the most popular, are examples of the so-called standard social science model (e....
[...]
...Self-efficacy theory has focused specifically on the extent to which people feel capable of engaging in behaviors that will lead to desired outcomes (Bandura, 1977)....
[...]

Journal Article•DOI•

Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being.

[...]

Richard M. Ryan¹, Edward L. Deci•Institutions (1)

University of Rochester¹

01 Jan 2000-American Psychologist

TL;DR: Research guided by self-determination theory has focused on the social-contextual conditions that facilitate versus forestall the natural processes of self-motivation and healthy psychological development, leading to the postulate of three innate psychological needs--competence, autonomy, and relatedness.

...read moreread less

Abstract: Human beings can be proactive and engaged or, alternatively, passive and alienated, largely as a function of the social conditions in which they develop and function. Accordingly, research guided by self-determination theo~ has focused on the social-contextual conditions that facilitate versus forestall the natural processes of self-motivation 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 psychological needs--competence, autonomy, and relatednesswhich when satisfied yield enhanced self-motivation and mental health and when thwarted lead to diminished motivation 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; extend 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 reject growth and responsibility. Regardless of social strata or cultural origin, examples of both children and adults who are apathetic, alienated, and irresponsible are abundant. 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 between-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 environments that optimize people's development, performance, and well-being. Research guided by self-determination theory (SDT) has had an ongoing concern with precisely these

...read moreread less

29,115 citations

"The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursui..." refers background in this paper

...Summary and Integration Self-determination theory is concerned primarily with explicating the psychological processes that promote optimal functioning and health (Ryan & Deci, 2000)....
[...]
...The dominance of behavior by unintegrated forces, such as external coercions and seductive rewards can thus preclude holistic processing (Kuhl & Fuhrmann, 1998) and self-coherence (Ryan & Deci, 2000)....
[...]

Journal Article•DOI•

Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.

[...]

Julian B. Rotter¹•Institutions (1)

University of Connecticut¹

01 Jan 1966-The Psychological Monographs

TL;DR: In this paper, the effects of reward or reinforcement on preceding behavior depend in part on whether the person perceives the reward as contingent on his own behavior or independent of it, and individuals may also differ in generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement.

...read moreread less

Abstract: The effects of reward or reinforcement on preceding behavior depend in part on whether the person perceives the reward as contingent on his own behavior or independent of it. Acquisition and performance differ in situations perceived as determined by skill versus chance. Persons may also differ in generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. This report summarizes several experiments which define group differences in behavior when Ss perceive reinforcement as contingent on their behavior versus chance or experimenter control. The report also describes the development of tests of individual differences in a generalized belief in internal-external control and provides reliability, discriminant validity and normative data for 1 test, along with a description of the results of several studies of construct validity.

...read moreread less

21,451 citations

Book•

Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior

[...]

Edward L. Deci, Richard M. Ryan

01 Aug 1975

TL;DR: This chapter discusses the development of Causality Orientations Theory, a theory of personality Influences on Motivation, and its application in information-Processing Theories.

...read moreread less

Abstract: I: Background.- 1. An Introduction.- 2. Conceptualizations of Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination.- II: Self-Determination Theory.- 3. Cognitive Evaluation Theory: Perceived Causality and Perceived Competence.- 4. Cognitive Evaluation Theory: Interpersonal Communication and Intrapersonal Regulation.- 5. Toward an Organismic Integration Theory: Motivation and Development.- 6. Causality Orientations Theory: Personality Influences on Motivation.- III: Alternative Approaches.- 7. Operant and Attributional Theories.- 8. Information-Processing Theories.- IV: Applications and Implications.- 9. Education.- 10. Psychotherapy.- 11. Work.- 12. Sports.- References.- Author Index.

...read moreread less

21,337 citations

"The "What" and "Why" of Goal Pursui..." refers background or methods or result in this paper

...Like these other theories, self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1980, 1985b, 1991) has differentiated the concept of goal-directed behavior, yet it has taken a very different approach....
[...]
...In SDT, we refer to these ascausality orientations(Deci & Ryan, 1985a) at the broadest level of generality, and asregulatory styles(Ryan & Connell, 1989) at a more domain-specific level of generality (see also Vallerand, 1997)....
[...]
...Thus, it appears that the optimal circumstances for intrinsic motivation are those that allow satisfaction of the needs for autonomy and competence, circumstances that we labelinformational (Deci & Ryan, 1980, 1985b)....
[...]
...Our research (Deci & Ryan, 1985a) on causality orientations also showed that the impersonal orientation was associated with an external locus of control (i.e., the belief that one cannot control outcomes) and with self-derogation and depression, implying a negative relation to general well-being....
[...]
...In SDT, external regulation is considered controlling, and externally regulated behaviors are predicted to be contingency dependent in that they show poor maintenance and transfer once contingencies are withdrawn (Deci & Ryan, 1985b)....
[...]