Explain how autonomy, competence and relatedness shape the quality of motivation, place motivation on the self-determination continuum and, at HL, apply the six mini-theories of self-determination theory.
Each is in the SEHS glossary, with every other term in the subject.
The absence of motivation, which occurs when a person perceives no link between their effort and the outcome, or places no value on the activity.
Motivation in which an activity is done with a full sense of choice because it is enjoyable, interesting or personally valued, so that it is experienced as an end in itself.
The basic psychological need to feel that one’s behaviour is self-chosen and self-endorsed, so that one is the origin of one’s own actions rather than pushed by outside pressure.
A general tendency to act out of interest in and valuing of what is happening, to seek choice and to treat events as sources of information.
The three innate needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness that, according to self-determination theory, must be satisfied for optimal motivation, development and well-being.
A mini-theory of self-determination theory proposing that well-being and optimal functioning depend on satisfying the needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness, and that thwarting any of them leads to ill-being.
A mini-theory of self-determination theory describing relatively stable individual differences in how people orient to their environment, expressed as autonomy, control and impersonal orientations.
Outline self-determination theory and the three basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness.
Describe coach, teacher and parent behaviours that support or thwart each basic psychological need.
Distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and between amotivation, controlled motivation and autonomous motivation.
Sketch and annotate the self-determination continuum.
Describe the three types of intrinsic motivation (to know, to accomplish, to experience stimulation) and how the Sport Motivation Scale measures them.
Explain why autonomous motivation is linked to enjoyment, self-regulation and persistence, and controlled motivation to anxiety.
Apply self-determination theory to exercise adherence, youth sport dropout and coaching practice.
Explain cognitive evaluation theory, the overjustification effect and the four types of extrinsic regulation in organismic integration theory (HL).
Outline causal orientations theory, basic psychological needs theory, goal contents theory and relationships motivation theory (HL).
Evaluate self-determination theory and its mini-theories using research evidence (HL).
Self-determination theory (SDT) is a theory of human motivation that explains not only how much a person is motivated, but what kind of motivation they have. It proposes that people do their best, enjoy activity most and keep going longest when their behaviour feels self-chosen, when they feel capable, and when they feel connected to others. The theory was developed by the American psychologists Edward Deci and Richard Ryan from the 1970s onwards and is now one of the most widely used frameworks in sport and exercise psychology.
With a free account, Augment remembers where you stopped and what you have practiced.
A mini-theory of self-determination theory explaining how external events such as rewards, feedback and competition affect intrinsic motivation through their effects on perceived autonomy and competence.
The basic psychological need to feel effective in dealing with the environment and capable of achieving desired outcomes and mastering challenges.
A general tendency to focus on rewards, gains, deadlines and approval from others, so that behaviour is organised around external or internal controls.
Motivation in which an activity is done as a means to an end, because of external rewards or pressure or internal pressure such as guilt, so that it feels obligatory rather than freely chosen.
A reward perceived mainly as an attempt to control behaviour, so that the person feels they act to obtain it, which tends to undermine intrinsic motivation.
The least self-determined type of extrinsic motivation, in which behaviour is controlled by external rewards, punishments or demands and feels like having little or no choice (“I must”).
Motivation to take part in an activity as a means to an end, for an outcome separate from the activity such as a reward, praise, status, avoiding punishment or a health benefit.
A mini-theory of self-determination theory distinguishing intrinsic goals (growth, relationships, community, health) from extrinsic goals (wealth, fame, image), and linking intrinsic goals to greater well-being.
An autonomous type of extrinsic motivation in which a person values the outcome of a behaviour and wants to do it, but still as a means to an end (“I want to”).
A general tendency to feel that outcomes are beyond one’s control, marked by anxiety about competence and a lack of intentional action, which leads to amotivation.
A reward or piece of feedback perceived mainly as information about one’s competence, given without pressure, which tends to maintain or increase intrinsic motivation.
The most self-determined type of extrinsic motivation, in which the reasons for a behaviour fit fully with the person’s values and identity, although it is still done for a separate outcome.
Motivation to take part in an activity for its own sake, for the enjoyment, interest and satisfaction that the activity itself provides.
A controlled type of extrinsic motivation in which behaviour is driven by internal pressures such as guilt, shame or the need to protect self-esteem (“I should”).
Behaviour by a coach, teacher, parent or other social agent that satisfies another person’s needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness, such as offering choice, giving a rationale, providing structure and showing care.
Behaviour by a social agent that actively frustrates another person’s needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness, such as pressure, threats, excessive control, belittling criticism or rejection.
A mini-theory of self-determination theory explaining how extrinsic motivation becomes more autonomous through internalisation, described by external, introjected, identified and integrated regulation.
The fall in intrinsic motivation for an activity that occurs when an expected, controlling extrinsic reward is given for doing it, so that the activity becomes a means to the reward.
The basic psychological need to feel connected to, cared for by and accepted by others, with a sense of belonging in a group.
A mini-theory of self-determination theory proposing that positive interpersonal relationships are essential for well-being, and that the best relationships are those in which each person supports the other’s autonomy.
A model that orders types of motivation by how self-determined they are, from amotivation through controlled (extrinsic) motivation to autonomous (intrinsic) motivation.
A theory of motivation, developed by Deci and Ryan, proposing that people strive to satisfy needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness, and that need satisfaction determines the quality of their motivation and well-being.
A self-report questionnaire that measures an athlete’s reasons for taking part in sport, with subscales for three types of intrinsic motivation, types of extrinsic motivation and amotivation.
The theory serves both lenses of the course. For health, it helps explain why most people who start an exercise programme stop within months, and how health professionals can help them keep going. For performance, it explains why some talented young athletes drop out while others train for a decade, and how a coach’s everyday behaviour shapes the quality of an athlete’s motivation. It also links to the motivational climate a coach creates and to an athlete’s task orientation and ego orientation.
Motivation is usually defined in sport psychology as the direction and intensity of a person’s effort. Direction is what a person chooses to do (join a running club, go to training, take up tennis). Intensity is how much effort they put into it once they are there. Older theories treated motivation mainly as a quantity: an athlete had more or less of it.
Self-determination theory adds a second question: why is the person doing the activity? Two swimmers may both train six mornings a week with the same intensity. One trains because she loves the feeling of moving through the water and wants to see how fast she can become. The other trains because his parents insist and he fears losing his place on the squad. Their behaviour looks the same today, but SDT predicts that their experience, well-being and long-term persistence will differ. This difference is the quality of motivation.
The simplest way to describe the quality of motivation is to ask whether the reason for the activity lies inside the activity or outside it.
A child who kicks a ball against a wall for an hour because it is fun, a climber who works on a hard route because the problem fascinates her, and a retired man who cycles every morning because he enjoys the countryside are all intrinsically motivated. No one needs to reward them: the activity is its own reward. Intrinsic motivation is therefore the most self-determined form of motivation.
Trophies, prize money, scholarships, selection, a coach’s approval, avoiding a fine for missing training and losing weight for a wedding are all extrinsic reasons. Extrinsic motivation is not automatically harmful. Most athletes have a mixture of intrinsic and extrinsic reasons, and extrinsic rewards can draw people into an activity that they later come to enjoy. SDT’s contribution is to show that the balance between the two, and how the extrinsic reasons are experienced, has predictable consequences.
Feature | Intrinsic motivation | Extrinsic motivation |
|---|---|---|
Source of the reason | Inside the activity (enjoyment, interest, challenge) | Outside the activity (rewards, approval, avoiding punishment, outcomes) |
Typical statement | “I play because I love it.” | “I play to win the trophy” or “to keep my place”. |
What happens if the reward is removed | The activity continues | The activity often stops unless the reason has been internalised |
Typical outcomes | Enjoyment, effort, self-regulation, persistence | Can raise short-term effort; linked to pressure and anxiety when controlling |
Sport example | A teenager skateboarding every evening for the thrill of landing new tricks | A professional footballer whose main reason for training is his contract bonus |
Self-determination theory hypothesises that all humans, in every culture and at every age, strive to satisfy three innate psychological needs. When the social environment satisfies these needs, people develop more self-determined motivation, function better and experience greater well-being. When the environment frustrates them, motivation becomes more controlled or disappears, and well-being suffers.
The three basic psychological needs are often compared to nutrients. A plant needs light, water and soil nutrients to grow, and a shortage of any one of them limits growth even if the other two are plentiful. In the same way, SDT treats autonomy, competence and relatedness as indispensable for psychological growth: a person with high competence but no sense of autonomy is unlikely to thrive.
Autonomy does not mean independence or doing whatever one likes. An athlete can follow a coach’s training plan closely and still feel autonomous if she understands why each session matters and agrees with it. What matters is the feeling of volition: “I am doing this because I endorse it”, not “I am doing this because I have no choice”.
Sport example: a coach lets a youth basketball team choose between two conditioning drills that train the same quality, and explains why conditioning matters in the final quarter.
Exercise example: a physiotherapist gives a patient with knee osteoarthritis three exercise options and lets him choose the days on which he does them.
Autonomy frustrated: a gymnast is told exactly what to eat, when to sleep and when to speak, with no explanation and threats of punishment for disobeying.
Competence is satisfied by experiences of improvement and mastery: learning a new skill, completing a hard session, seeing a personal best. It depends on tasks being optimally challenging, neither so easy that success means nothing nor so hard that failure is guaranteed. Clear, constructive feedback that tells the athlete what they did well and how to improve also supports it.
Sport example: a tennis coach sets a 12-year-old the goal of landing 7 of 10 second serves in the service box, a target she can reach with effort, and praises her specific improvement in ball toss.
Exercise example: an exercise class for older adults starts with movements every participant can complete, then progresses them gradually.
Competence frustrated: a beginner is placed in a training group far above his level and repeatedly criticised in front of others.
Competence is closely related to self-efficacy, a person’s belief in their ability to succeed in a specific task. The two ideas overlap, but SDT treats competence as a need that must be satisfied, while self-efficacy is a belief about a particular task.
Relatedness is satisfied when an athlete feels that the coach and team-mates value them as a person, not only as a performer. In exercise settings it explains why group classes, walking groups and running clubs often have better attendance than solitary programmes: people come back partly for each other.
Sport example: a hockey coach learns every player’s name in the first session, asks about school and family, and makes sure substitutes feel part of the team.
Exercise example: a cardiac rehabilitation group in which patients exercise together and support each other between sessions.
Relatedness frustrated: an injured rugby player is ignored by the coaching staff and excluded from team meetings while he recovers.
The people around an athlete or exerciser, especially coaches, PE teachers, parents and health professionals, shape whether the three needs are satisfied. SDT distinguishes two broad interpersonal styles.
Need thwarting acts in the opposite direction.
Need support is more than the absence of need thwarting. A coach who is neither warm nor cold, gives little feedback and makes no threats does not thwart the needs, but does not support them either. Need thwarting is the active frustration of the needs, and research suggests it predicts negative outcomes more strongly than a mere lack of support does.
Need | Need-supportive behaviours | Need-thwarting behaviours |
|---|---|---|
Autonomy | Offering choices within clear limits; giving a rationale for tasks; acknowledging the athlete’s feelings and views; inviting the athlete to take the initiative; avoiding guilt and pressure | Commanding without explanation; using threats, punishment or guilt; using rewards to control behaviour; intrusive control over life outside sport (diet, friends, sleep) |
Competence | Setting optimally challenging tasks; clear expectations and structure; specific, informational feedback; recognising improvement and effort | Tasks far too hard or too easy; public criticism; feedback that only judges ability; comparing athletes in ways that humiliate |
Relatedness | Warmth and genuine interest in the person; inclusion of every athlete; encouraging team-mates to support each other | Ignoring or excluding athletes; withdrawing attention after poor performance; favouritism |
A motivational model of the coach–athlete relationship, published in 2003, set out seven autonomy-supportive behaviours that coaches can learn, including choice within limits, a rationale for tasks, acknowledging feelings and non-controlling feedback. Together with structure and genuine involvement, these behaviours are predicted to satisfy all three needs.
Evidence from athletes supports the distinction between support and thwarting. In three studies published in 2011, athletes who perceived their coach as autonomy-supportive reported greater need satisfaction, which predicted vitality and positive affect. Athletes who perceived their coach as controlling reported more need thwarting, which predicted disordered eating, burnout, depression and negative affect, and was even associated with a physiological marker of stress (raised secretory immunoglobulin A) before training.
Sources: Mageau and Vallerand, Journal of Sports Sciences, 2003; Bartholomew et al., Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2011.
The coach’s style also shapes the motivational climate of a squad. A mastery climate that rewards effort, improvement and cooperation supports all three needs, while an ego climate that ranks players and punishes mistakes tends to thwart them.
SDT arranges types of motivation along a line according to how self-determined they are, that is, how far the behaviour comes from the person’s own choice and values rather than from outside pressure. The line runs from no motivation at all, through motivation that is controlled by outside forces, to motivation that is fully autonomous.
The self-determination continuum is a way of describing the dominant type of motivation behind a behaviour at a given time. A person can have several types at once, and their position can shift over weeks or years, for example as a reluctant beginner grows to enjoy a sport.
An amotivated person either does not take part or goes through the motions without purpose. The key cause is that they see no link between what they do and what happens: “Whatever I do, nothing changes.” Amotivation can arise for several reasons:
Low perceived competence: the person believes they are not able to succeed, however hard they try (a student who has always been picked last in PE).
No perceived contingency: effort does not seem to produce results (an athlete who trains hard but is never selected because selection appears to depend on favouritism).
Low value: the activity seems pointless or irrelevant to the person (“Why would I run around a field for no reason?”).
Amotivation is closely related to learned helplessness, the belief that failure is inevitable and outside one’s control. Both lead to giving up. Amotivated athletes are the most likely to drop out of sport, and amotivated patients are least likely to follow an exercise prescription.
Controlled motivation is extrinsic: the activity is done to obtain something separate from it, or to avoid something unpleasant. A sprinter who trains only to keep her funding, a footballer who plays to please his father, and an office worker who uses the gym only because his insurance company gives him a discount all have controlled motivation. Their behaviour depends on the pressure or the reward continuing.
Controlled motivation can produce high effort in the short term, especially when rewards are large or punishments are feared. Its weakness is that the behaviour is fragile: when the reward stops, the pressure is removed or the person no longer cares about the outcome, the behaviour tends to stop too.
Autonomous motivation is intrinsic and self-determined. The person does not need to be pushed: the activity is its own reward. In the simplest form of the continuum, autonomous motivation is equated with intrinsic motivation. It is the type of motivation most closely associated with enjoyment, persistence and well-being.
The Canadian psychologist Robert Vallerand and colleagues proposed that intrinsic motivation itself takes three forms. This tripartite model of intrinsic motivation forms the basis of the Sport Motivation Scale.
Type of intrinsic motivation | Meaning | Sport and exercise example |
|---|---|---|
To know | Doing the activity for the pleasure of learning, exploring and understanding something new | A cricketer who enjoys working out how different grips change the swing of the ball |
To accomplish | Doing the activity for the pleasure of mastering a skill, improving or creating something | A gymnast who trains for the satisfaction of finally landing a new tumbling element |
To experience stimulation | Doing the activity for the sensations it gives: excitement, fun, aesthetic pleasure, the feeling of movement | A downhill skier who skis for the rush of speed, or a swimmer who loves the feeling of gliding through water |
The distinction matters for coaching. An athlete motivated mainly to know responds well to explanations and problem-solving tasks. One motivated mainly to accomplish needs clear progressions and visible improvement. One motivated mainly by stimulation needs variety, excitement and game-like practice.
The original Sport Motivation Scale has 28 items in seven subscales of four items each: intrinsic motivation to know, to accomplish and to experience stimulation; three types of extrinsic motivation (identified, introjected and external regulation); and amotivation. Each item answers the question of why the athlete practises their sport (for example, “For the excitement I feel when I am really involved in the activity”), and the athlete rates how well it corresponds to them on a scale from 1 (“does not correspond at all”) to 7 (“corresponds exactly”). A subscale score is the mean of its items, so it lies between 1 and 7.
SDT predicts that the more autonomous a person’s motivation is, the more positive the consequences for their experience, behaviour and well-being. Research in sport, PE and exercise has broadly confirmed this pattern.
Intrinsic motivation is positively associated with three outcomes that matter for both health and performance:
Enjoyment: people enjoy activities they do for their own sake. Enjoyment is in turn one of the main reasons children give for staying in sport.
Self-regulation: autonomously motivated people organise their own behaviour without needing to be supervised or reminded. A self-regulating athlete completes her recovery routine when the coach is absent; a self-regulating exerciser plans his week around his runs.
Persistence: autonomous motivation predicts that a person keeps taking part over months and years, including after setbacks, injuries or the end of external rewards.
A 2012 systematic review of 66 studies of exercise and physical activity found consistent support for a positive relation between more autonomous forms of motivation and exercise. Valuing the benefits of exercise tended to predict starting and short-term participation more strongly, while intrinsic motivation was more predictive of long-term exercise adherence. Feeling competent also positively predicted exercise participation across many samples and settings.
Sources: Teixeira et al., International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 2012.
Persistence in competitive sport follows a similar pattern. A prospective study of 369 competitive swimmers measured their motivation and then recorded whether they were still swimming 10 and 22 months later. Swimmers who experienced their coaches as controlling reported more external regulation and amotivation, while those who experienced their coaches as autonomy-supportive reported more self-determined motivation. The table summarises how each form of motivation measured at the start predicted persistence.
Motivation at the start | Persistence after 10 months | Persistence after 22 months |
|---|---|---|
Intrinsic motivation and identified regulation (self-determined) | Higher | Higher |
Introjected regulation | Higher | No significant link |
External regulation | No significant link | Lower |
Amotivation | Highest dropout | Highest dropout |
Sources: Pelletier et al., Motivation and Emotion, 2001.
The pattern shows why controlled motivation is described as fragile. Pressure from guilt kept some swimmers going for a season, but only self-determined motivation predicted that they were still swimming almost two years later.
Extrinsic motivation, especially when it is controlled, is positively associated with anxiety. The mechanism is that controlled motivation makes a person’s sense of worth depend on an outcome they do not fully control: a result, selection, approval or a reward. Every competition then becomes a threat (“If I lose, I lose my scholarship” or “my father will be angry”), which raises worry and tension. In contrast, an athlete who plays mainly for enjoyment and mastery still wants to win, but losing does not threaten their sense of self in the same way.
This link connects SDT to other parts of sport psychology. Athletes with a strong ego orientation and low perceived ability are especially vulnerable to anxiety when their motivation is controlled, and controlling, ego-involving coaching is a known risk factor for burnout and dropout.
Health lens | Performance lens | |
|---|---|---|
Autonomy | Patients choose their own type and timing of exercise; health professionals explain the reasons rather than ordering | Athletes have input into training plans and goals; coaches give a rationale for hard sessions |
Competence | Programmes start at a manageable level and progress gradually, with feedback on improvement | Optimal challenges, skill progressions and informational feedback |
Relatedness | Group classes, walking groups, exercise with family or friends | A team culture in which every player, including substitutes and injured athletes, feels valued |
Outcome of autonomous motivation | Long-term adherence, better mental health, maintained activity after the programme ends | Persistence, enjoyment, lower anxiety, lower burnout and dropout, sustained development |
Interventions based on SDT can change health behaviour. A 2021 meta-analysis of 73 experimental studies in health settings found that SDT-informed interventions produced small-to-medium increases in need support and autonomous motivation and in health behaviours such as physical activity, both at the end of the intervention and at follow-up. Increases in need support and autonomous motivation, but not in controlled motivation or amotivation, were associated with positive changes in behaviour. The effects were modest and varied between studies.
Sources: Ntoumanis et al., Health Psychology Review, 2021.
YouTubeThe video makes the same point as the research: the type of motivation, not only its amount, predicts how people feel and whether they persist.
SDT is one of the best-supported theories of motivation in sport and exercise, but its evidence and its practical use both have limits.
Strengths | Limitations |
|---|---|
Supported by a very large body of research across many countries, ages, sports and health settings, including meta-analyses | Most studies are cross-sectional and correlational: they show that autonomous motivation and persistence go together, not that one causes the other |
Explains the quality of motivation as well as its quantity, which older theories did not | Relies mainly on self-report questionnaires, which are open to social desirability bias and limited self-awareness |
Gives coaches, teachers and health professionals concrete, trainable behaviours (choice, rationale, informational feedback, warmth) | Real motivation is usually a mixture of types, so placing a person at one point on the continuum oversimplifies |
Applies to health (adherence, well-being) and performance (persistence, burnout, dropout); prospective and experimental studies show the same pattern | Effects of SDT-based interventions on behaviour are real but modest, and other factors (time, cost, access to facilities, injury) also limit participation |
Taken together, the evidence supports the central claim that need-supportive environments and autonomous motivation lead to more enjoyment, better well-being and greater persistence. The strength of the conclusion depends on the outcome: the link with persistence and well-being is strong and consistent, while the effect of changing a coach’s or health professional’s behaviour on actual long-term behaviour is positive but smaller than the correlational studies suggest. SDT is therefore best used as a guide to the kind of environment that builds lasting motivation, alongside practical measures that make participation easy.
A meta-theory is a broad theory that holds several narrower theories together under shared assumptions. SDT’s shared assumptions are that people are naturally active and inclined to grow, that they have three basic psychological needs, and that the social environment can either support or undermine this natural tendency. Each mini-theory was developed to explain a particular set of findings, and each has its own research tradition.
The six mini-theories are cognitive evaluation theory (how rewards and feedback affect intrinsic motivation), organismic integration theory (how extrinsic motivation is internalised), causal orientations theory (individual differences), basic psychological needs theory (needs and well-being), goal contents theory (what people pursue) and relationships motivation theory (the quality of relationships).
The first two refine the continuum: cognitive evaluation theory deals with intrinsic motivation at its right-hand end, and organismic integration theory divides extrinsic motivation into four types.
Cognitive evaluation theory starts from an observation that surprised psychologists in the early 1970s. Behaviourist psychology assumed that rewarding a behaviour always makes it more likely. CET proposes instead that a reward given for an activity a person already enjoys can reduce their intrinsic motivation, depending on how the person interprets it.
In CET, every reward or piece of feedback has two aspects. Its informational aspect tells the person something about their competence (“That was well done”). Its controlling aspect pressures the person to behave in a particular way (“Do this to be paid”). Which aspect is more salient to the person, called the functional significance of the event, decides the effect on intrinsic motivation.
A reward with the opposite functional significance is called a controlling reward.
Two processes explain the effects. First, a reward experienced as controlling shifts the perceived locus of causality from internal (“I play because I want to”) to external (“I play because I am paid”). Autonomy falls, and so does intrinsic motivation. Second, an informational reward such as specific praise raises perceived competence. As long as autonomy is not reduced at the same time, higher competence raises intrinsic motivation. A controlling reward can undermine intrinsic motivation even when it is large and attractive.
Event in sport or exercise | Likely to be experienced as informational when… | Likely to be experienced as controlling when… |
|---|---|---|
Trophy or medal | It recognises a genuine achievement and is not the reason for taking part | Athletes are told it is the reason to train, or every child gets one for attending |
Praise from a coach | It is specific, sincere and about effort or improvement (“That footwork on the drive was much quicker”) | It is used to manipulate (“Good girl, now do it again exactly as I said”) |
Sport scholarship | It is seen as recognition of ability and commitment | It is tied to strict performance targets and the athlete fears losing it |
Payment for exercise | It is small, unexpected or used briefly to help a new habit start | It becomes the main reason for exercising and the person monitors what they earn |
Competition | Winning or performing well provides information about competence | The focus is on beating others at any cost, so losing threatens the person’s worth |
The name comes from the idea that the reward provides more justification than the behaviour needs. A person who already enjoys an activity now has two reasons to do it, the enjoyment and the reward. When they explain their own behaviour to themselves, the reward is the more obvious reason, so they start to see the activity as something done for the reward. When the reward is later removed, the main reason for doing the activity seems to have gone, and they do it less than before. Motivation has moved towards the controlled, extrinsic end of the continuum.
Two classic experiments showed the overjustification effect:
Edward Deci’s puzzle experiment (1971). University students solved interesting puzzles over three sessions. One group was paid for each puzzle solved in the second session only; a control group was never paid. In each session the experimenter left the room for a few minutes, and the time each student spent on the puzzles during this free-choice period was recorded as a measure of intrinsic motivation. The paid students’ free-choice time rose while they were being paid, then fell below its starting level in the third session after payment stopped, whereas the unpaid control group showed no such fall.
Lepper, Greene and Nisbett’s drawing study (1973). Pre-school children who already showed interest in drawing with felt-tip markers were assigned to three conditions: an expected award (told in advance they would receive an award for drawing), an unexpected award (given the same award as a surprise afterwards) and no award. When the markers were later placed in the classroom during free play, children in the expected-award group showed significantly less interest in drawing than before. The unexpected-award and no-award groups did not show this drop.
The Lepper study shows why CET focuses on how rewards are perceived. The unexpected award could not have been the reason for drawing, so it carried information without control. Only the expected, contingent award turned drawing into “something I do to get a prize”.
A 1999 meta-analysis combined 128 experiments on rewards and intrinsic motivation. It distinguished rewards by what they were contingent on: simply taking part (engagement-contingent), finishing the task (completion-contingent) or reaching a standard (performance-contingent). All three types significantly reduced free-choice intrinsic motivation, as did tangible rewards and expected rewards in general. Positive verbal feedback had the opposite effect, increasing both free-choice behaviour and self-reported interest.
The chart shows effect sizes (Cohen’s d), which express the difference between groups in standard deviation units: about 0.2 is usually described as small, 0.5 as medium and 0.8 as large. The undermining effects of rewards were therefore small to moderate, but consistent. The stronger effect in children matters for youth sport, where trophies and prizes are common, and for parents who reward children for being active.
The findings have been debated. Some behavioural psychologists argued in published replies that rewards rarely harm intrinsic motivation in practical settings, and that the effects depend heavily on how rewards are given. The meta-analysis authors responded that the undermining effect of expected tangible rewards was robust. The debate shows that the type of reward and how it is delivered matter more than whether a reward is given at all.
Many activities in sport and exercise are not enjoyable in themselves: conditioning runs, rehabilitation exercises, early-morning sessions in cold water. SDT does not expect people to be intrinsically motivated for everything. Organismic integration theory explains how people can still do such activities with a sense of choice, through internalisation: the process by which a person takes in a value or rule that was first imposed from outside and makes it their own. The more fully a reason is internalised, the more autonomous the extrinsic motivation becomes.
The full continuum refines the simple SL version. Amotivation sits at the left. Extrinsic motivation is divided into four types of regulation, ordered by how internalised they are. Intrinsic motivation sits at the right.
In external regulation, the person acts only because of an external contingency and would stop if it were removed. A youth footballer who attends training only because the coach drops anyone who misses a session, and a teenager who goes to swimming lessons only because his parents will stop his pocket money if he skips them, are externally regulated. The perceived locus of causality is entirely external.
In introjected regulation, a rule has been taken in but not accepted as one’s own. The pressure now comes from inside the person, but it still feels like pressure. A runner who goes out on a rainy evening because she would feel guilty if she missed a day, and a weightlifter who trains to avoid feeling ashamed of his body, are regulated by introjection. Introjected regulation can produce persistent behaviour, but it is accompanied by tension and anxiety and is linked to less stable self-esteem.
Identified regulation marks the point where extrinsic motivation becomes autonomous. The person still does the activity for a separate outcome, but chooses it freely because the outcome matters to them. A sprinter who does not enjoy core-stability exercises but wants to do them because she knows they reduce her risk of injury, and an adult with type 2 diabetes who walks daily because he values controlling his blood glucose, are both identified. They want to do the activity, but the reason lies in what it achieves, not in the activity itself.
Integrated regulation occurs when an activity fits with everything else a person values and believes about themselves. A marathon runner for whom being a healthy, disciplined person is part of who she is, and who organises her life around training without feeling any conflict, shows integrated regulation. It is very close to intrinsic motivation and is thought to develop mainly in adults with a settled sense of identity. It remains extrinsic because the behaviour is still instrumental: it serves goals and values, rather than being done purely for the enjoyment of the activity.
Type of regulation | Typical thought of a squad swimmer before a 5 a.m. session | Controlled or autonomous |
|---|---|---|
Amotivation | “I don’t know why I bother. My times never improve.” | Neither (no motivation) |
External regulation | “I must go, or the coach will drop me from the relay team.” | Controlled |
Introjected regulation | “I should go. I’d feel guilty letting my team-mates down.” | Controlled |
Identified regulation | “I want to go, because aerobic sessions are what will make me faster at the championships.” | Autonomous |
Integrated regulation | “Training early is part of who I am. It fits with how I want to live.” | Autonomous |
Intrinsic motivation | “I love the feeling of being in the water first thing in the morning.” | Autonomous |
The four regulations also clarify the SL version of the continuum. At SL, controlled motivation is described as extrinsic and autonomous motivation as intrinsic. OIT shows that extrinsic motivation can be autonomous: identified and integrated regulation are extrinsic but freely chosen. This is why later research usually compares controlled motivation (external and introjected) with autonomous motivation (identified, integrated and intrinsic), rather than extrinsic with intrinsic.
OIT proposes that internalisation is a natural process, but that it depends on the social environment. People are more likely to take in a value when the three needs are supported:
Relatedness: people adopt the values of those they feel connected to. A young player is more likely to value a coach’s emphasis on fitness if she feels the coach cares about her.
Competence: people internalise behaviours they feel able to do. Rehabilitation exercises that are too difficult remain externally regulated.
Autonomy: a meaningful rationale and choice allow the person to understand and endorse the value, so it is integrated rather than merely introjected. Pressure produces at best introjection.
In exercise research, identified regulation tends to predict starting to exercise, while intrinsic motivation better predicts long-term adherence. The evidence on introjected regulation is mixed: it sometimes predicts exercise, but with costs such as guilt and anxiety.
The first mini-theories describe how the environment affects motivation. Causal orientations theory adds that people differ in how they tend to interpret and respond to the same environment. Causal orientations are trait-like: each person has some degree of all three, and one is often dominant. They connect SDT to the study of personality.
An athlete with a strong autonomy orientation reads a coach’s feedback as useful information, takes the initiative in planning training and is likely to choose clubs and coaches that offer choice.
A person with a strong control orientation interprets events as pressure: a swimmer of this type trains hard mainly for selection, sponsorship or the coach’s praise, and hears feedback as a demand. The same reward scheme is more likely to be experienced as controlling, and therefore to undermine intrinsic motivation, in such a person than in an autonomy-oriented person.
The impersonal orientation is sometimes called the amotivated orientation. It resembles learned helplessness and an external locus of control: a person with a strong impersonal orientation expects failure and sees little point in trying, so they are most at risk of avoiding exercise or dropping out of sport.
Causal orientations are usually measured with the General Causality Orientations Scale, in which people read short scenarios from everyday life and rate how likely they would be to respond in an autonomy-oriented, control-oriented or impersonal way. Each person receives a score on all three orientations, which fits the idea that the orientations are tendencies rather than types.
COT is useful because it explains why the same coach or programme affects people differently. It also suggests that orientations, although fairly stable, can change: repeated experiences of need-supportive environments may strengthen an athlete’s autonomy orientation over time. Research on COT in sport is more limited than on the other mini-theories, and much of it uses questionnaires designed for general life rather than sport.
Basic psychological needs theory turns the three needs from a description into a set of testable predictions:
All three needs are essential. Well-being depends on satisfaction of each need; a deficit in any one has costs that the other two cannot fully make up for.
The needs are universal. They apply across ages, sexes and cultures, although the behaviours that satisfy them differ between cultures.
Satisfaction and thwarting are not simply opposites. Need satisfaction predicts positive outcomes such as vitality and enjoyment, while need thwarting predicts negative outcomes such as burnout, depression and disordered eating. A person can experience some of both.
Need satisfaction varies from day to day. Daily changes in need satisfaction are followed by daily changes in well-being.
Research with athletes supports these predictions. In the 2011 studies of coach behaviour, need satisfaction predicted vitality and positive affect, while need thwarting more consistently predicted disordered eating, burnout, depression, negative affect and physical symptoms. A diary study within the same research showed the same relationships at a daily level: on days when athletes felt their needs were thwarted, they reported lower well-being.
Sources: Bartholomew et al., Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 2011.
BPNT links well-being and performance. A need-satisfied athlete is predicted to function optimally: to concentrate fully, recover well from setbacks and keep developing. A need-thwarted athlete is at risk of burnout and of overtraining syndrome when controlling pressure keeps them training through fatigue. In health settings, BPNT suggests that exercise programmes improve mental health partly because well-designed programmes satisfy all three needs: choice of activity, visible progress and social contact.
The other mini-theories ask why a person acts (their regulation). Goal contents theory asks what they are trying to achieve. Intrinsic goals are thought to satisfy the basic psychological needs directly. Extrinsic goals, such as becoming rich, famous or attractive, are pursued for the approval or status they bring, satisfy the needs less directly, and are often accompanied by social comparison and pressure. GCT therefore predicts that people who give priority to extrinsic goals have lower well-being, even when they achieve those goals.
Exercise goal | Intrinsic or extrinsic | Example |
|---|---|---|
Health management | Intrinsic | “I exercise to stay healthy and have energy as I get older.” |
Skill development | Intrinsic | “I go to climbing sessions to master harder routes.” |
Social affiliation | Intrinsic | “I run with the club to spend time with friends.” |
Image | Extrinsic | “I go to the gym to look good on social media.” |
Social recognition | Extrinsic | “I train so that people will admire me.” |
The five exercise goals in the table come from the Goal Content for Exercise Questionnaire, developed and validated in 2008. A study of 410 adults using this questionnaire found that the more a person’s exercise goals were intrinsic relative to extrinsic, the higher their physical self-worth, psychological well-being, need satisfaction and self-reported exercise, and the lower their exercise anxiety. All of these links except the one with exercise behaviour remained after the researchers controlled for the participants’ type of motivation, which suggests that what people pursue matters as well as why they pursue it.
Sources: Sebire, Standage and Vansteenkiste, Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 2008 and 2009.
Goal contents connect to other topics. Intrinsic goals such as skill development resemble the self-referenced focus of task orientation, while goals of social recognition overlap with the norm-referenced focus of ego orientation. They also matter for goal setting: a performance goal can serve an intrinsic aim (mastering a skill) or an extrinsic one (being admired), and GCT predicts different effects on well-being.
Relationships motivation theory is the newest mini-theory. It deals with the need for relatedness in close relationships and groups. People are motivated to seek relationships because relationships satisfy the need for relatedness, and isolation therefore harms well-being. RMT adds that not all relationships are equally good for people. A relationship in which affection depends on performance (“I’m only proud of her when she wins”) satisfies relatedness only conditionally, and can thwart autonomy. A relationship in which each person accepts and supports the other’s choices satisfies relatedness and autonomy together, and to a lesser degree competence.
Coach–athlete relationship: a coach who cares about the athlete as a person and respects their choices builds a relationship that supports long-term motivation. One whose warmth disappears after a poor performance creates conditional regard.
Parents: a parent who shows love only after wins teaches the young athlete that their worth depends on results, which fosters introjected regulation and anxiety.
Team-mates and exercise partners: mutually supportive relationships explain part of the appeal of team sport and group exercise, and why loneliness is a risk during long injuries or after retirement from sport.
From the health lens, RMT is consistent with wider evidence that social isolation is harmful to health, and it suggests that exercise programmes which build genuine relationships may improve well-being beyond the effects of the exercise itself.
Mini-theory | Central idea | Key concepts | Sport or exercise example |
|---|---|---|---|
Cognitive evaluation theory | Rewards and feedback affect intrinsic motivation through their effects on autonomy and competence | Informational vs controlling rewards; overjustification effect | A youth swimmer paid by her parents for each length enjoys swimming less once the payments stop |
Organismic integration theory | Extrinsic motivation can be internalised and become more autonomous | External (“I must”), introjected (“I should”), identified (“I want to”), integrated regulation | A sprinter moves from doing core work because the coach demands it to doing it because she values injury prevention |
Causal orientations theory | People differ in how they tend to orient to their environment | Autonomy, control and impersonal orientations | Two players receive the same bonus scheme: one sees recognition, the other pressure |
Basic psychological needs theory | Well-being and optimal functioning depend on satisfying all three needs | Need satisfaction vs need thwarting; universality | A controlled, isolated elite gymnast performs well but develops burnout |
Goal contents theory | What people pursue matters: intrinsic goals bring greater well-being than extrinsic goals | Intrinsic goals (growth, relationships, health) vs extrinsic goals (wealth, fame, image) | A gym user exercising for health has lower exercise anxiety than one exercising for image |
Relationships motivation theory | Positive relationships are essential for well-being; the best relationships are mutually autonomy-supportive | Relatedness; conditional regard; mutual autonomy support | A parent whose warmth depends on match results fosters anxiety and guilt-driven training |
The meta-theory’s main strength is breadth with coherence. Six mini-theories explain rewards, internalisation, personality, well-being, goals and relationships, but all rest on the same three needs, so findings in one area support the others. The theory has been tested by experiments (rewards and free-choice behaviour), prospective studies (persistence and dropout), diary studies (daily need satisfaction) and meta-analyses, in many countries and settings.
Its weaknesses are partly the price of that breadth. The mini-theories are supported unevenly: CET and OIT have decades of experimental and applied evidence, while COT and RMT have far less evidence from sport. Many constructs, such as integrated regulation, are hard to measure separately from neighbouring ones, and questionnaires are open to self-report bias. Because the theory can explain almost any outcome after the event (a reward that helped was “informational”, one that harmed was “controlling”), critics argue that it should state in advance which rewards will be perceived in which way. The cultural universality of the needs is also debated, although cross-cultural studies have generally supported it.
On balance, SDT is a strong and practically useful theory. Its core predictions, that need support and autonomous motivation lead to enjoyment, persistence and well-being, are well supported in sport, PE and exercise. How confidently it can be applied depends on the mini-theory and on the setting: its advice for youth sport, PE and exercise promotion rests on firmer evidence than its predictions for professional sport, where large extrinsic rewards are normal.
Financial incentives are increasingly used to promote physical activity. Employers, health insurers and smartphone apps pay people small amounts for reaching daily step targets. Self-determination theory makes a clear prediction about such schemes: payment creates extrinsic, controlled motivation, which can raise activity while the reward continues but is unlikely to produce lasting change unless the person comes to enjoy or value the activity for its own sake.
A randomised controlled trial at the University of Pennsylvania tested this in 281 adult employees who were overweight or obese (body mass index of 27 kg m⁻² or more). Every participant had a goal of 7,000 steps per day, with steps tracked every day, and received daily feedback on whether they had reached it. Participants were randomly allocated to a control group (feedback only) or one of three incentive schemes for 13 weeks:
Gain incentive: US$1.40 paid for each day the goal was reached.
Lottery incentive: a daily chance to win a prize, with an expected value of about US$1.40, if the goal was reached.
Loss incentive: US$42 placed in an account at the start of each month, with US$1.40 removed for each day the goal was missed.
After the 13-week intervention, all participants were followed for another 13 weeks with daily feedback but no incentives. The main outcome was the proportion of participant-days on which the 7,000-step goal was reached.
During the intervention, the control group reached the goal on 30% of participant-days, the gain and lottery groups on 35% and 36%, and the loss group on 45%. Only the loss incentive produced a significant improvement: after adjustment, its participants reached the goal on 16 percentage points more days than controls. The adjusted difference in mean daily steps (861 steps) was not statistically significant. Once the incentives stopped, daily steps fell in all three incentive groups and were no longer different from the control group.
The pattern fits the SDT account of controlled motivation. The incentives gave participants an external reason to walk, a behaviour regulated by a reward, and the most effective scheme was the one that felt most like a penalty. When the reward was removed, the reason for the extra walking disappeared and so did most of the behaviour. Nothing in the scheme was designed to make walking more enjoyable, to give participants choice or to build social connection, so there was little to help the motivation become autonomous.
The trial is one of many. A 2020 meta-analysis of 23 randomised controlled trials, involving 6,074 adults, found that 20 of 22 studies reported positive effects of incentives on physical activity during the intervention, but only 4 of 18 reported benefits after the incentives were withdrawn. In the studies that could be pooled, incentives averaging about US$1.40 per day increased daily step counts by a mean of 607 steps during the intervention and by 514 steps after it. The authors concluded that a short-term incentive “dose” may promote sustained activity, although, for the period after incentives ended, the count of individual studies and the pooled step data gave different pictures.
The meta-analysis shows that incentives can produce modest, mainly short-term increases in activity, and that the question of lasting effects is not settled. From the health lens, an extra 500–600 steps per day is a small change, about five minutes of walking, which matters at the population level but is far below the change needed to move an inactive person into the recommended range. From the SDT point of view, the most likely way to make the change last is to combine any incentive with need support: choice of activity, feedback on progress and activities done with other people.
Sources: Patel et al., Annals of Internal Medicine, 2016; Mitchell et al., British Journal of Sports Medicine, 2020.
Using the self-determination continuum, explain why physical activity fell when the incentives were removed.
Suggest how the step-count programme could be redesigned to support autonomy, competence and relatedness.
Discuss whether a short-term increase of about 600 steps per day justifies the cost of an incentive scheme from a public health point of view.
Most marks in longer answers come from linking ideas in a chain rather than listing them.
The second question tests the definitions of the three needs.
Researchers recruited 80 competitive youth swimmers (aged 13–16) from eight clubs. Each swimmer completed a questionnaire rating their coach’s behaviour, and was classified as having an autonomy-supportive coach (n = 40) or a controlling coach (n = 40). Each swimmer also completed the Sport Motivation Scale (subscale scores 1–7). One year later, the researchers recorded how many swimmers had dropped out of the sport. The results are shown in the table (hypothetical data).
Measure | Autonomy-supportive coach (n = 40), mean ± SD | Controlling coach (n = 40), mean ± SD |
|---|---|---|
Intrinsic motivation (1–7) | 5.6 ± 0.8 | 4.4 ± 1.1 |
External regulation (1–7) | 2.9 ± 1.0 | 4.1 ± 1.2 |
Amotivation (1–7) | 1.8 ± 0.7 | 2.6 ± 1.0 |
Swimmers who dropped out after one year | 2 | 7 |
Sketch questions usually ask for the continuum with its three regions labelled and annotated.
Structured HL questions often ask for an explanation of the overjustification effect with an example.
HL extended responses usually ask for an evaluation that draws on several mini-theories.
Self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan) explains the quality of motivation, not only its quantity: why a person acts matters as much as how hard they try.
Intrinsic motivation is taking part for the activity itself; extrinsic motivation is taking part as a means to a separate outcome.
Humans strive to satisfy three basic psychological needs: autonomy (self-endorsed action), competence (feeling effective) and relatedness (feeling connected and cared for).
Coaches, teachers, parents and health professionals can support the needs (choice, rationale, informational feedback, optimal challenge, warmth) or thwart them (pressure, threats, belittling criticism, exclusion).
Motivation lies on a continuum from amotivation (no perceived link between effort and outcome) through controlled motivation (a means to an end) to autonomous motivation (an end in itself).
Intrinsic motivation takes three forms (to know, to accomplish, to experience stimulation), measured by the Sport Motivation Scale.
Intrinsic motivation is associated with enjoyment, self-regulation and persistence; extrinsic, controlled motivation is associated with anxiety and fragile behaviour that stops when rewards or pressure end.
Cognitive evaluation theory: rewards perceived as informational support intrinsic motivation; expected, controlling rewards can undermine it (the overjustification effect) (HL).
Organismic integration theory: extrinsic motivation becomes more autonomous through internalisation, from external (“I must”) and introjected (“I should”) to identified (“I want to”) and integrated regulation (HL).
Causal orientations, basic psychological needs, goal contents and relationships motivation theory add individual differences, well-being, the content of goals and the quality of relationships (HL).
I can outline self-determination theory and define autonomy, competence and relatedness with sport and exercise examples.
I can describe need-supportive and need-thwarting behaviours of coaches, teachers and parents.
I can distinguish intrinsic from extrinsic motivation, and amotivation from controlled and autonomous motivation.
I can sketch and annotate the self-determination continuum.
I can describe the three types of intrinsic motivation and how the Sport Motivation Scale measures them.
I can explain the links between intrinsic motivation and enjoyment, self-regulation and persistence, and between extrinsic motivation and anxiety.
I can apply self-determination theory to exercise adherence, youth sport dropout and coaching.
I can explain cognitive evaluation theory, the overjustification effect and the four types of extrinsic regulation (HL).
I can outline causal orientations theory, basic psychological needs theory, goal contents theory and relationships motivation theory (HL).
I can evaluate self-determination theory and its mini-theories using research evidence (HL).