Motivational theories are not concepted to explain aggression. Aggression and motivation are two different fields of research. For this there are motivational theores like SDT and aggression theories.

The main factors why those are two different fields:

Psychology of motivation researches persistence and intensity of behavior. The question is in first place not if a behavior is in social terms 'good' or 'bad' like being motivated is 'good behavior' and being aggressive is 'bad behavior'. You could likewise take an army soldier who needs to show aggressive behavior and call this motivated. Psychology of motivation is for this also often said to be part of psychology of leadership and/or differential psychology.

Aggression theories then again are part of social psychology. And so they deal with questions like reduction of aggressive behavior in deaden or groups. Here it is indeed about cultivating 'good behavior' and solving question which arise from social needs. Social psychology also uses the term motivation quite different. Here it is social motivation. Social motivation is social activation.

So motivation as defined in SDT is a problem of leadership. And aggression is a social problem.

If you are looking for a theory which combines social motivation and aggression you need to look up theories of social interaction. Also SDT is said to be a meta-theory which can also be used in a social context in order to explain group behavior it is not made to explain aggression since it has an explanational border which lays in the research object and how the theory in itself is designed.

Thank you Carmen. That helps.

In organisational psychology, that can explain using the psychological contract theory.

Controlling behaviors don't inherently lead to amotivation; amotivation arises when someone doesn't value a behavior or its outcomes, or lacks the competence to engage in it.

I would caution you against branding defiant behavior as always "naughty;" one can pursue defiance for defiance's sake -- as a means of escaping control, which thwarts need satisfaction -- or defiance as an attempt to evoke autonomy support and get needs met.

I think this article may be helpful:

Article Rebels With a Cause? Adolescent Defiance From the Perspectiv...

I would also point you towards this one:

Article Authority in the classroom: Adolescent autonomy, autonomy su...

Thanks Tierney, I don't brand defiant behaviours as naughty. Others do, that's why I put the word in inverted commas. I regard the term naughty as dysfunctional as it masks the need to change behaviours on the teachers' part. The idea of intentional defiance is interesting to me. It speaks to either or both of unconscious seeking to escape or conscious application of power, both of which are indiciators of a dysfunctional relationship with schooling and/or that teacher. Thanks for the links. I've read the first but the second is new.

I agree with Dr. Tierney.

These resources will be equally helpful.

Thanks Adom, These documents are useful to practicing teachers, but the focus I am after is the psychological conditions that link Teacher interactions and behaviours with student dysfunctional behaviour.

Acting in a civilized way is thin veneer that can rupture, given the right conditions and opportunities (as in "Lord of the Flies" or as in the Stanford Experiment of guards and prisoners). A teacher must clearly communicate, at the outset, what is and what is not acceptable behavior; and the teacher must explore what rewards/punishments will work on each student (they can be quite different).

Antonio, from an SDT perspective, reward and punishment are the worst ways to get students to take on regulation for their own behavior. Such controlling behaviors from teachers may gain compliance, but also provoke defiance. They also lead to cutting corners and cheating, because the point becomes getting rewards and avoiding punishments, not engaging in appropriate behaviors because they are valued in their own right.

Mark, I wandered back over because I'm re-reading Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior and came across this:

"The final set of factors that affects the degree to which a

regulation will be internalized is the extent to which the external regulator pressures the child to engage in the behaviors. Because we have asserted that the" internalization process (although not the particular behavior being regulated) is intrinsically motivated, it follows that the internalization process will function satisfactorily only in those conditions that facilitate the intrinsic motivation that underlies the process. The key to this, of course, is the absence of undue pressure and control, so the child can gain an experience of self-determination. Surplus social controls exacerbate conflict and tend to result in either compliance or defiance, both of which forestall development and preclude integration. With reactive defiance, one does not even get the desired behavior, and with compliance, one gets the behavior but not the desire to become self-determined with respect to it."

This doesn't explain why students might choose compliance over defiance, but does indicate that they are fruits of the same overly controlling behaviors.

Thank you for that Tierney. I appreciate the extra information. While the decision to engage in disruptive behaviours rather than amotivation is still not clear, I can see that the process COULD simply be a psychological trajectory, dependant on the student's personality traits and past experiences. When amotivation elicits more controlling behaviours from the teacher, the student would choose to either engage superficially or rebel, both being regarded as 'functional' choices, dependant on the student's ego needs.

Hi Mark, me again. This just came across my feed, and may be helpful.

Article Correlates of students’ internalization and defiance of clas...

Thanks for that. Interesting correlations between non compliance and pressured compliance.

Hello,

The causes of deviant behaviour on the academic performance among students have often been attributed to amotivational syndrome. Self determination theory ( SDT) defines "amotivation" as the absence of motivation, which is the psychological process influencing the initiation, direction, magnitude, perseverance, continuation, and quality of goal-directed behaviour. The process is characteristically explained in terms of three different but interrelated global types of motivation; namely, intrinsic, extrinsic and amotivation. Alternatively, SDT recognises three basic psychological needs that need to be satisfied in order for an individual to be self-determined.The need for autonomy, competence and relatedness are required to be supported in the social environment in order to increase self-determined motivation. When such cognitive mechanisms are not supported, motivation is replaced by amotivation. To reduce amotivation and to help learners to comply with curricular goals, teachers' intervention is necessary. Improving intervention effectiveness for motivated individuals should begin with an analysis of the underlying reasons for being in an amotivated or precontemplative state when it comes to learning objectives and how these may be specifically targeted in interventions.

Best regards,

R. Biria

this link is useful

https://www.duo.uio.no/bitstream/handle/.../PhD-Odegaard-2017.pdf...

regards

Agree with Carmen Wrede

regards

Thank you Hassan Nima. I appreciate your answer but I couldn't get the document as it said there was a server error.