Self-determination Theory

Introduction to Self-determination Theory

Overview

Self-determination Theory (SDT), developed by psychologists Edward Deci and Richard Ryan in the 1980s, is a motivational theory that emphasizes the role of intrinsic motivation in learning and personal growth. Unlike traditional theories that focus on external rewards or punishments, SDT asserts that motivation is strongest when three core psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and relatedness—are fulfilled. Deci and Ryan’s research demonstrated that when learners are given opportunities to make meaningful choices, build their skills, and form positive relationships, they engage more deeply and develop a greater sense of self-motivation. Their work challenged behaviorist perspectives by highlighting the importance of personal satisfaction and internal drivers of motivation.

An understanding of SDT will assist instructional designers in creating learning environments—whether in classrooms, online courses, or workplace training—that foster self-motivation and long-term engagement by supporting these fundamental psychological needs.

Importance

SDT offers a valuable framework for instructional designers to understand how motivation influences learning. In contrast to behaviorist approaches that rely on external reinforcements, SDT focuses on internal psychological needs that drive intrinsic motivation. This approach helps explain why learners engage more deeply, persist through challenges, and take ownership of their learning. When these insights are applied, instructional designers can create environments that nurture genuine engagement.

Learning environments that are designed with learner autonomy, competence, and relatedness in mind guide students towards better educational outcomes. When learners are allowed freedom to choose, opportunities to build confidence, and the chance to form positive connections with peers and instructors, they become more engaged and invested in their learning. For instructional designers, SDT provides a strategic foundation for creating learner-centered environments that promote meaningful learning experiences.

SDT’s influence extends beyond education. It also has value in workplace training, professional development, and other behavioral interventions, demonstrating that environments supporting these psychological needs lead to sustained motivation and long-term success  (Deci & Ryan, 2008).

Origins of Self-determination Theory

Founders

Self-determination Theory (SDT) was first proposed by psychologists Edward Deci and Richard Ryan in the 1980s as a framework for conceptualizing human motivation. Their work built on earlier motivational theories, particularly Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, which

suggests that individuals must satisfy physical survival needs before growth needs can influence behavior. Deci and Ryan challenged this idea, arguing that autonomy, competence, and relatedness are fundamental psychological needs that consistently influence motivation, regardless of whether other needs are met.

Deci’s early research found that extrinsic motivators, such as rewards, can hinder self-determination, while intrinsic motivators, such as curiosity, can enhance it. This contradicted existing behaviorist views, which claimed that external reinforcements universally enhance motivation. Ryan later collaborated with Deci to refine these findings by introducing a motivation continuum that ranges from externally controlled to fully autonomous motivation. The more self-determined the motivation, the higher the quality of engagement and the more productive the learning.

Over the years, Deci and Ryan’s work has significantly changed how motivation is understood. They demonstrated that learning environments supporting core psychological needs foster deeper engagement, enhanced learning, and sustained effort. Their contributions continue to shape educational theory, instructional design, and workplace motivation.

Historical Context

SDT emerged in response to the behaviorist models of the mid-20th century (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Behaviorism explained motivation as a reaction to external rewards and punishments. In particular, it focused on controlling behavior through reinforcement, treating motives and behaviors as the same, and overlooking students’ personal choices, goals, and interests that drive genuine motivation.

In the 1970s, doubt surrounding this perspective began to emerge. Edward Deci’s research revealed the overjustification effect, showing that intrinsic motivation can be diminished when extrinsic rewards are introduced (Deci, 1971). Deci et al. (1999) demonstrated that this effect can not only reduce intrinsic motivation but also create a dependence on extrinsic rewards for continued performance.

Criticism of behaviorist approaches in education also grew during this period. DeGrandpre (2000) argued that behaviorism overlooks internal motives and cultural contexts that can influence student behavior; outward behaviors cannot clearly reflect a student’s motives. Similarly, Kohn (1996) warned that over-reliance on rewards and punishments in classrooms could undermine student autonomy and long-term motivation. These critiques aligned with SDT’s emphasis on student agency, self-direction, and internal motivation.

By the late 20th century, Deci and Ryan formalized SDT, proposing that motivation arises from satisfying psychological needs rather than relying on external reinforcements. This change in perspective redirected motivation research to focus on autonomy-supportive environments, as well as contexts that foster competence and relatedness. These environments promote deeper engagement, creativity, and persistence in educational and professional settings. Today, SDT continues to influence instructional practices by emphasizing meaningful learning experiences rather than mere compliance.

Comparison with Other Theories

SDT stands apart from other motivation theories by emphasizing the role of psychological need satisfaction in fostering intrinsic motivation. Unlike theories that primarily focus on external rewards, rigid hierarchies, or calculations of effort and reward, SDT suggests people remain motivated when they feel in control, capable, and connected to others. Below, we explore three theories that offer contrasting perspectives on motivation and how they compare to SDT.

SDT vs. Behaviorism

While behaviorism views motivation as being shaped by external reinforcements, SDT challenges this assumption by showing that external incentives can have the effect of diminishing intrinsic motivation rather than enhancing it (Deci et al., 1999). While behaviorism focuses on control and regulation from outside forces, SDT emphasizes creating environments that support autonomy, leading to deeper and more sustained motivation. Behaviorist techniques can work for short-term behavior management, but SDT argues for building long-lasting self-motivation rather than dependence on external rewards.

SDT vs. Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs

Both SDT and Maslow’s hierarchy of needs explore how human needs influence motivation, but they differ in important ways. Maslow suggests that people must first satisfy basic needs (like food and safety) before they can pursue personal growth. SDT, however, argues that autonomy, competence, and relatedness are essential psychological needs that influence motivation at all times, not in a set order. SDT also sees these needs as continuous motivators for learning and well-being, not just as requirements to be met before moving on to higher goals.

SDT vs. Expectancy-Value Theory

Expectancy-Value Theory (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002) explains motivation based on two factors: a person’s belief in their ability to succeed and the value they place on the task. While both SDT and Expectancy-Value Theory recognize the importance of competence, SDT also emphasizes the role of autonomy and relatedness. Even if students feel confident and see value in a task, they may still lack motivation if they don’t feel a sense of choice or connection. SDT expands the conversation by exploring how supportive environments and fulfilling psychological needs lead to better self-regulation and long-term motivation.

Unlike other theories that focus on external rewards, cognitive evaluations, or fixed progressions, SDT explains why people engage deeply and stay motivated over time. By highlighting fundamental psychological needs, SDT helps educators, instructional designers, and organizations create environments that inspire intrinsic motivation and sustained engagement.

The figure below illustrates how Self-determination Theory differs from three other major motivation frameworks in its core components and central focus. Each theory represents a distinct approach to understanding what drives human behavior:

Fundamental Tenets of Self-determination Theory

Key Concepts

Self-determination Theory (SDT) explains that human motivation is driven by three core psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. When these needs are met, individuals experience greater intrinsic motivation, leading to deeper engagement, persistence, and overall well-being. Conversely, when these needs are not fulfilled, motivation shifts toward external control, often resulting in lower engagement and reduced self-directed learning. Since SDT is built around these key psychological needs, it is essential to understand their role. Below, we explore how each contributes to intrinsic motivation and engagement.

Autonomy

Autonomy is the need to feel in control of one’s actions and decisions. People are more likely to feel motivated when they believe they have meaningful choices and ownership over their actions. In learning contexts, this means giving students opportunities for self-directed learning, offering meaningful choices, and avoiding controlling language. For example, a teacher who allows students to choose their project topics fosters a sense of ownership, which increases their interest and motivation to learn.

Competence

Competence is about feeling capable and effective in one’s activities. It develops through appropriate challenges, constructive feedback, and opportunities for skill development. In education, strategies like scaffolded instruction, mastery-based assessments, and clear feedback help students feel competent, boosting their motivation and engagement. For example, when a student receives constructive feedback on their writing, they improve their skills and gain confidence. This growth motivates them to take on more complex writing tasks.

Relatedness

Relatedness is the need to feel connected to others and a sense of belonging. Positive social interactions and supportive relationships enhance motivation by helping individuals feel valued. In educational settings, fostering strong student-teacher relationships and encouraging peer collaboration satisfy the need for relatedness, leading to greater engagement and persistence. For example, group discussions that encourage students to share their perspectives help them feel connected to their peers. This sense of belonging enhances their motivation to participate.

Unlike hierarchical models of motivation, SDT suggests that autonomy, competence, and relatedness interact continuously and depend on each other, rather than following a fixed order. When these needs are supported, individuals are motivated to engage in activities for their own sake—a key characteristic of intrinsic motivation.

Test your understanding of the key concepts of SDT with the following H5P activity.

Supporting Mechanisms

SDT explains motivation through two primary types—intrinsic and extrinsic motivation—and further differentiates extrinsic motivation based on the degree of self-determination.

1. Intrinsic Motivation – Occurs when individuals engage in activities because they find them inherently enjoyable, interesting, or meaningful. This type of motivation leads to deep learning, creativity, and persistence.
2. Extrinsic Motivation – Occurs when behaviors are driven by external rewards, pressures, or social expectations. However, SDT expands on extrinsic motivation by identifying a continuum of self-determined motivation, illustrating how individuals internalize external influences to varying degrees.
   • External Regulation – Motivation is entirely controlled by rewards or punishments (e.g., studying only to avoid failure).
   • Introjected Regulation – Behavior is influenced by guilt or obligation rather than personal choice (e.g., completing an assignment to avoid self-criticism).
   • Identified Regulation – An individual sees the activity as personally valuable, even if it was initially externally motivated (e.g., learning math because it is necessary for a desired career).
   • Integrated Regulation – The behavior is fully internalized and aligned with personal values, resembling intrinsic motivation (e.g., studying because one identifies as a lifelong learner).

The process of self-determination occurs when extrinsic motivation becomes increasingly internalized, leading individuals to engage in learning or other tasks with a greater sense of autonomy. Deci’s research suggests that certain environmental factors, such as the presence of choice, constructive feedback, and meaningful social interactions, facilitate this shift toward more autonomous motivation.

By differentiating types of motivation and emphasizing self-determined learning, SDT provides a framework for understanding how motivation operates across various contexts. This theoretical foundation informs the design of environments that enhance engagement, encourage self-regulation, and sustain long-term motivation—elements that will be explored further in the instructional design applications section.

Assess your knowledge. Using the following H5P, review the scenarios and identify whether each illustrates intrinsic or extrinsic motivation.

Strengths and Limitations of Self-determination Theory

Strengths

Self-determination Theory (SDT) has made a major impact on how we understand motivation by offering a detailed explanation of why people engage in activities with different levels of enthusiasm and persistence. One of its greatest strengths is its view of motivation as a continuum, from externally controlled behavior to fully autonomous motivation. Unlike models that separate motivation into just intrinsic and extrinsic categories, SDT recognizes varying degrees of self-determination, making it more adaptable to real-world settings.

SDT is particularly effective in explaining how intrinsic motivation can be cultivated and how certain types of extrinsic motivation can support engagement if they align with a person’s values and goals. This insight has valuable applications in education, workplace motivation, and behavior change. Research in education and workplace psychology suggests that environments that offer choice, mastery-based feedback, and collaboration tend to enhance motivation and engagement. In the classroom, providing students with opportunities to select project topics and engage in peer discussions can foster persistence. Similarly, in professional settings, allowing employees to set learning goals and receive constructive feedback is often linked to increased job satisfaction.

Another important strength of SDT is its focus on three core psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and relatedness—as key drivers of motivation. People are most motivated when they feel a sense of control over their actions and decisions (autonomy), experience mastery in their activities (competence), and feel connected to others within a supportive community (relatedness). By identifying these needs, SDT provides practical guidance for creating environments that encourage lasting engagement and motivation. This approach has been shown to be effective in both educational and professional settings. For example, students in autonomy-supportive classrooms—where they have meaningful choices, receive regular feedback, and collaborate with peers—tend to develop stronger intrinsic motivation and a deeper investment in learning (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

SDT’s adaptability across a wide range of settings—such as education, workplace motivation, sports psychology, and health interventions—further demonstrates its practical value (Deci & Ryan, 2008). Its focus on psychological needs rather than external rewards makes it a flexible and widely applicable model for boosting motivation in various aspects of life.

Limitations

Despite its many strengths, SDT also has some limitations, particularly when applied to different learners and contexts. One criticism is that promoting autonomy and offering choices does not always improve learning outcomes. In some cases, having too many choices can lead to decision fatigue and reduced motivation (Schwartz, 2004). For example, in an online learning environment, offering students an overwhelming number of assignment options without guidance can make it difficult for them to make decisions, ultimately leading to lower engagement rather than increased motivation. This suggests that autonomy should be structured carefully to avoid overwhelming learners.

Another challenge with SDT is its stance on extrinsic rewards. While the theory suggests that external incentives can reduce intrinsic motivation, research on this issue is mixed. Some studies have found that unexpected rewards or verbal praise can actually enhance intrinsic motivation (Cameron & Pierce, 1994). For instance, in workplace training, performance-based incentives can increase engagement, even when tasks are not inherently interesting. Similarly, in K-12 education, small rewards or positive reinforcement through praise can reinforce learning behaviors without necessarily undermining intrinsic motivation.

SDT also does not fully account for individual differences in how people respond to autonomy, competence, and relatedness. While some learners thrive in self-directed environments, others benefit from structured support. Some students, particularly those with executive function challenges such as ADHD, may find highly autonomous learning settings difficult. Without sufficient structure, excessive flexibility can pose challenges for self-regulation and task completion.

Cultural factors are also important—some cultures value collective decision-making over individual autonomy, which can influence how SDT applies across different societies. For example, Chirkov et al. (2003) suggest that in East Asian educational systems, which emphasize collectivism, students may respond better to structured guidance and teacher-directed instruction rather than fully autonomous learning.

Another limitation is that SDT mainly focuses on motivation and engagement rather than direct learning outcomes. Although higher motivation is generally linked to better academic performance, motivation alone does not guarantee learning success (Schwartz, 2004). Critics argue that other factors, such as cognitive ability, teaching quality, and prior knowledge, play significant roles in determining educational achievement.

Despite these challenges, SDT remains a powerful and influential framework in motivational psychology. However, its effectiveness depends on context, including cultural differences, individual preferences, and task complexity. When these factors are considered, SDT can be a valuable tool for enhancing motivation in real-world situations.

The figure below illustrates this balanced perspective, highlighting how Self-determination Theory provides valuable insights while acknowledging areas where further development may be needed:

Instructional Design Implications

Practical Applications

Self-determination Theory (SDT) provides practical strategies for instructional design by helping educators create learning environments that encourage intrinsic motivation and sustained engagement. By supporting students’ needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, educators can promote self-directed, meaningful learning rather than relying on external reinforcements.

Supporting Autonomy

• Providing meaningful choices in learning activities, such as allowing students to select topics for projects or choose between different assignment formats (Ryan & Lynch, 2003).
• Encouraging self-directed learning, where students set their own goals and take ownership of their progress.
• Using autonomy-supportive teaching methods, including project-based learning, inquiry-based instruction, and student-led discussions.

Fostering Competence

• Designing tasks that are both engaging and achievable, with appropriate support to ensure success.
• Offering constructive and timely feedback to reinforce skill development and help students track progress (Elliott et al., 2004).
• Implementing mastery-oriented assessments that focus on growth and improvement rather than performance-based grading.

Enhancing Relatedness

• Facilitating collaborative learning opportunities, such as group projects, peer discussions, and cooperative problem-solving.
• Building positive instructor-student relationships by recognizing student efforts, offering encouragement, and maintaining open communication (Ryan & Lynch, 2003).
• Creating a supportive educational setting that fosters a sense of belonging and values diverse perspectives.

The figure below shows a key tenet of Self-determination Theory; three fundamental psychological needs—autonomy, competence, and relatedness—each contribute to fostering intrinsic motivation in learners:

Example Application

In a history class, SDT principles can be applied in the following ways:

• Autonomy: Students can demonstrate learning through different formats, such as writing an essay, creating a digital presentation, or organizing a debate.
• Competence: Formative feedback on drafts before final submission helps students develop their skills and reinforces their sense of mastery.
• Relatedness: Group work to analyze primary sources fosters collaboration and meaningful peer interactions.

By embedding SDT principles into instructional design, educators can move from compliance-based learning to engagement-driven learning, leading to improved motivation, persistence, and cognitive development.

Strategies

To effectively apply SDT in instructional design, educators should use strategies that support these psychological needs while reducing reliance on external rewards.

Strategies to Support Autonomy

• Explain the purpose behind learning activities, helping students see the relevance and value of tasks.
• Encourage student choice, allowing them to make decisions about their learning paths and processes.
• Avoid controlling language, instead offering guidance and encouragement that supports independence.

Strategies to Build Competence

• Use scaffolding techniques that provide structured support and gradually reduce assistance as students gain confidence and independence.
• Provide clear and constructive feedback to help students understand their progress and build their skills (Elliott et al., 2004).
• Focus on mastery-oriented assessments that emphasize skill development and personal growth rather than competitive grading.

Strategies to Foster Relatedness

• Encourage peer collaboration through group projects, interactive discussions, and cooperative problem-solving.
• Create a supportive classroom community where students feel connected and appreciated.
• Build positive instructor-student relationships by recognizing student contributions, offering encouragement, and maintaining open communication.

By using these strategies, educators can nurture self-motivation, increase engagement, and help students become more independent and self-directed in their learning.

Contexts

While the psychological needs identified by SDT apply to all learners, how these needs are met depends on the learning environment. The core principles remain consistent, but the methods for supporting these needs must be adapted to fit the context.

Traditional Classrooms

• Encouraging student choice in assignments, such as selecting research topics, to promote autonomy.
• Promoting peer collaboration through structured discussions, debates, or group problem-solving activities to support relatedness.
• De-emphasizing extrinsic evaluation by using assessments that focus on mastery and progress rather than just grades (Niemiec & Ryan, 2009).

Online Learning

• Designing flexible learning pathways with self-paced modules and interactive content to enhance autonomy.
• Providing immediate digital feedback to help students track progress and adjust their learning strategies, supporting competence.
• Creating virtual collaboration spaces, such as discussion forums and breakout rooms, to foster social connections and relatedness.

The following case study demonstrates how an instructional designer applied SDT principles to address motivation challenges in an online STEM course.

While this case study focused on a college course, the principles of SDT extend beyond higher education. In corporate training and professional development, motivation can be similarly enhanced by fostering autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

Corporate Training & Professional Development

• Aligning training programs with employees’ intrinsic interests and career goals to support autonomy and competence.
• Allowing employees to set their own learning objectives and engage in self-directed learning to enhance autonomy.
• Building a workplace culture that values autonomy, collaboration, and mastery, helping employees feel connected and motivated.

Regardless of the setting, motivation thrives when people feel a sense of control, mastery, and belonging. By adapting SDT principles to different learning environments, educators, trainers, and instructional designers can create engaging experiences that support long-term growth and success.

Conclusion

Self-determination Theory (SDT) offers valuable insights for understanding motivation in education, emphasizing the importance of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Unlike traditional models that rely on external rewards, SDT encourages learner-centered environments that inspire intrinsic motivation, deep engagement, and meaningful learning.

SDT’s versatility makes it relevant in various educational settings, from traditional classrooms to online learning platforms and workplace training. As educational technologies like adaptive learning, gamification, and real-time feedback continue to grow, SDT provides a useful framework for designing experiences that boost motivation, self-regulation, and personalized learning.

For instructional designers, applying SDT principles involves creating curriculum designs, assessments, and learning experiences that promote autonomy, competence, and relatedness. This can be achieved by offering choices in assignments, designing appropriately challenging tasks, and encouraging collaborative learning. By focusing on internal motivation rather than external rewards, SDT-based educational planning supports long-term engagement, persistence, and meaningful learning.

As educational research and technology evolve, SDT will continue to influence best practices in instructional design. Its principles provide a solid foundation for creating innovative learning environments that not only improve student outcomes but also nurture lifelong motivation and a love for learning.

In the H5P below, review what you have learned about the application of SDT to instructional design.

References

Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64(3). https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064003363

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 Cross-Cultural Psychology, 34(6). https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022103250691

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

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum Press.

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). https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4). https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Self-determination theory: A macrotheory of human motivation, development, and health. Canadian Psychology, 49(3). https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012801

DeGrandpre, R. J. (2000). A science of meaning: Can behaviorism bring meaning to psychological science? American Psychologist, 55(7). https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.7.721

Eccles, J. S., & Wigfield, A. (2002). Motivational beliefs, values, and goals. Annual Review of Psychology, 53(1). https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135153

Elliott, A. J., McGregor, H. A., & Thrash, T. M. (2004). The need for competence. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research. University of Rochester Press.

Kohn, A. (1996). Beyond discipline: From compliance to community. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

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). https://doi.org/10.1177/1477878509104318

Ryan, R. M., & Lynch, M. F. (2003). Philosophies of motivation and classroom management. In R. Curren (Ed.), Blackwell companion to philosophy: A companion to the philosophy of education. Blackwell.

Schwartz, B. (2004). The paradox of choice: Why more is less. Ecco.