I'm not sure that focusing on 'disadvantages' is the most advantageous approach, especially considering the substantial body of research and practice that supports self-determination theory. However, like any theory self-determination theory has limits to its value. You may find it useful to look at work on goal orientation, Gary Latham's work on goal-setting, or Piers Steel's integrated model of motivation as well.

Cheers

Arthur

As Arthur Poropat has already written: There are a lot of studies that support self-determination theory and its practical implications. But it doesn't mean that it's perfect.

For some people the concept of Self-determination is somewhat confusing. If one doesn't believe that the free will exists, then an assumption of self-determination would be implausible.

Philosophical issues aside. There is also empirical criticism. The authors propose three psychological needs (competence, autonomy, relatedness). Why just these three? Other scientists have proposed more needs: Murray's system of needs, Maslow's hierarchy of needs, 16 basic desires theory (Steven Reiss) etc.

However, there are also pessimistic scientists, who assume that we have only one basic psychological need - the hedonistic one. We can derive all secondary needs or desires from this one.

We certainly need more cross-cultural studies if we want to test the hypothesis, that there are exactly three universal, innate psychological needs.

A serious problem is the confounding of intrinsic and achievement motivation--these are not the same-- love for the activity vs love for achieving some standard of excellence--of course, both, along with extrinsic, are good to have together--the ideal job-

Lukasz's point are well taken- and the theory's predictions about incentives often do not come out--there have been huge debates about this and the studies---the use of task resumption as a DV is very misleading--

Good point Luke. As you say one theory can't do everything, except maybe in Physics and then I'm not even sure of that. The answers here are nicely framed. I use SDT as a model for practical activity. As a model it fills a niche in the framework by which I construct my job (teacher). I use a range of theories to create a functional framework to which I refer as I plan. And you are correct, SDT doesn't say much about the development of competence or efficacy. There are obviously some theories that fill this gap. A good step has been the clear movement from (generalised) self esteem to a more contextualised self-efficacy, which I see in action every day as I teach. Myself, I favour a form of attribution theory in self-efficacy, though Bandura's work is relevant. I am also open to using a mix of theories in constructing my daily work.

A flaw in SDT, among others, is that intrinsic motivation is a confound of two different things: liking the task activity and achievement motivation (striving to do well). Deci was not the causes of this--the confound has been around since the 1970's but the two kinds of motivation are not the same.

Where can I start? There are many more needs than in that model.  Money does not destroy self det. It does not distinguish between needs and virtues. Independent judgement is a virtue. Intrinsic motivation is a confound of personal interest and achievement motivation. But the broader question is: what is it you are trying to explain?

Edwin, unless I am misunderstanding the descriptors in SDT's description of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, I can't agree with what you say. Doesn't SDT explicitly separate intrinsic, ie motivation by pleasure in the task itself and extrinsic ie motivation by achievement or other 'rewards' including needs satisfaction?

It sounds like you have a fundamental disagreement with the whole theory.

To answer your question specifically based on a private discussion with Edwin, I think two key points Edwin may agree with are that:

SDT does not adequately accept and account for achievement motivation, which with my meagre knowledge, I think I agree with.

SDT believes the negative impact of monetary reward is too strong. Something I am not sure I agree totally with, but accept that there may be differences between people that aren't considered.

We have multiple needs, both physical and psychological. Monetary rewards are basic to the economy--you would hardly get people to work without them,

Although on that count Edwin, I also thinkyou may place too much emphasis on the need for money. Apart fom the research that shows that 'enough' money is needed for motivation to do things that are not inherantly interesting,  but more does not influence motivarion as mch as one would expect, there is also the experiments with a govt subsidised living wage in Holland and somewhere else in Europe. 

About moneytary reward: maybe we should distinguish the inevitable money (salary) needed for living, as perceived a basic element of living, from an extra reward, which tends to shift the motivation from intrinsic towards extrinsic?

Agree Merja. Thank you for clarifying the point I was trying to make. I think the evidence supports this viewpoint.

I have a very different view of money. First, if you do not reward the best people, they will leave. Second, money involves more than just surviving--it means living better and I do not mean status seeking. Third, money is not just extrinsic. It is also a symbol of achievement, of doing well at something. As for the idea of giving everyone a free living, who is going to pay for it: those who work for a a living. This is the new exploitation theory.

I suspect we are getting into cultural difference here Edwin. There is plenty of money. It is just distributed too unevenly. I suspect I have a more socialist viewpoint, that more even distribution yields the best outcomes in total, when you include happiness and motivation in the mix of outcomes.

Distributing money equally means: social injustice- stealing from those who produced wealth and giving it to those who did not--it means every person is a slave of the state-the motive of socialism is, in reality, to make everyone equally poor--socialists are indifferent to poverty so long as all are poor--no socialist could honestly believe that any other outcome  than mass poverty is possible-socialism is not motivated by economic theory but by a certain moral code: altruism: the sacrifice of the self to others--I could never hate mankind so much as to wish that on them-

Dear Edwin,

I was taken aback by your statement: " intrinsic and achievement motivation--these are not the same-- love for the activity vs love for achieving some standard of excellence". Very often people love to do something because they can achieve a level of excellence. It's a positive feedback loop that is necessary in order to dedicate yourself to a profession, such as a musician or a mathematician.

Of course, there may be some professions for which level of performance is not commonly measured, such as a clergyman or a politician. In such cases, their motivation is most likely extrinsic: depending on the approval of others.

Edwin, I don't see any evidence for your statements. They appear to be just opinion.

I thought economic theory was being reexamined. So many aspects seem to be lacking real evidence. IMO unfettered Capitalism seems to me to have had its day. Countries with rising economic inequality have been linked to a drop in economic strength.

The evidence about socialism: world history. No socialist state has ever attained anything but mass poverty. But they don't care. You can't find one real socialist state that is an exception. If you look closely (e.g., Stalin archives, Venezuela, etc.) the underlying motive is always hared for wealth creators because they make more money than others. Capitalism is the only method of wealth creation beyond the mass poverty level. If it has had its day, then so has modern civilization. If North Korea, Cube and Venezuela are you moral ideals than be honest enough to say so.

Edwin, you seem to conflate economic systems with moral values. Of course these countries don't represent my moral ideals. But neither does the USA with its inequalities, violence problems and race issues. We were talking about motivation and economics, not morality. As I said UNFETTERED capitalism has issues, mostly to do with inequality. We seem to have strayed off topic, but I think a crossover between the two systems is needed. A modernisation of capitalism if you like, which accounts for aspects of motivation related to finding meaning other than financial. Make sure people are secure and safe financially.

Actually morality is more fundamental than econ. Marxism views making a profit as immoral so economic education means nothing to them It is based on altruism: every person sacrifices to the state, especially those with ability.  Capitalism is based on the principle of trade: buyer and seller act in their own self interest (force and fraud are not allowed). It is Marx vs Ayn Rand in the field of morality.  Non communist countries are welfare states: a mixture of altruism and egoism. Eventually this will collapse because none of these countries will be able to honor the obligations  they make in the long run or repay the debts they have incurred. Printing money works for a while but cannot work forever. I do not think everything will collapse in my lifetime but we are living on borrowed time.

Colleagues, the debate is very interesting and I think it might be a good topic to ask in ResearchGate, but please, as Mr. Gould says, the topic of discussion is if you find any aspect of the Self-Determination Theory who want to change or Add. Thank you all for your cooperation and for your answers.

Back to SDT. Edwin has made me think that the separation of the levels of extrinsic and intrinsic is less clear than it is shown to be in SDT (although maybe my reading imposed those separations and Ryan and Deci never meant them to be so separate) I think that not enough has been said in SDT about people's personal or cultural interpretations of rewards. As Edwin implied in one post, money is also an external indicator of a job 'well done', so somewhere between external regulation and introjected.

IN other words, perhaps SDT needs a rider about cultural or personal interpretation of rewards.

I retract parts of my last comment. I just found a section of Ryan and Deci's work that describes the two aspects of a reward as controlling and informational. The controlling part is the more external regulation and the informational is the more introjected. I still think that the issue of cultural and personal influence on making meaning has not been discussed enough.

One limitation in the SDT needs-as-requirements literature has

been a lack of examination of comparison or alternative needs, in

addition to autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Perhaps there

are many different types of positive experience that feel good, and

perhaps autonomy, competence, and relatedness are an arbitrary or

incomplete subset of those many different types? Sheldon et al.

(2001) provided some of the only data relevant to this discriminant

validity issue, asking what’s satisfying about satisfying events and

comparing 10 different candidate needs as predictors of event-

related satisfaction. These 10 candidate needs included self-

esteem, security, meaning, luxury/money, popularity/status, phys-

ical thriving, and pleasure/stimulation, as well as relatedness,

competence, and autonomy...................Kennon M. Sheldon 2011

About limitations of SDT in general, as a beginning researcher, I have been looking for  varieties in methodological approaches. I think that qualitative research in both ends of motivational continuum might open interesting views about perception of the needs. SDT seems to be based on quantitative studies, but couldn't it be fruitful to study the concept of the (three or more?) needs in other kinds of research settings, too?

Merja Pikkarainen I and my colleagues have published research using a qualitative approach (in our case, narrative inquiry) with SDT as its theoretical framework, as have one of my co-authors, my former labmate, and their colleagues.

Our research:

Article Supporting Students through Role Redefinition: A Self-Determ...

Theirs:

Article Thriving on Challenge: Examining One Teacher’s View on Sourc...