Self determination theory
Psychlopedia -- Key theories -- Motivational theories -- Self determination theory
Jump to the comments Section
According to self determination theory, proposed by Deci and Ryan (2000, 2008; Ryan & Deci, 2000), individuals experience one of two forms of motivation: autonomous or controlled. When they experience autonomous motivation, they feel a profound sense of choice. In contrast, when individuals experience controlled motivation, they feel obliged and driven by forces that transcend the self, such as managers or society in general. usually, when individuals tend to feel they are granted choice and autonomy, their persistence and wellbeing improves.
Self determination theory can explain some fascinating findings. For example, unsurprisingly, employees are less likely to become absorbed and engrossed in their work when someone else, such as their supervisor, imposes a deadline. Interestingly, this problem dissipates if employees set themselves a more stringent deadline (Burgess, Enzle, & Schmaltz, 2004). This behavior implies a sense of choice, which fosters an autonomous motivation.
Five core theories of self-determination theory
Overall, self-determination theory comprises five key mini-theories or principles (Vansteenkiste, Niemiec, & Soenens, 2010). The first mini-theory, called cognitive evaluation theory, assumes that people are sometimes intrinsically motivated to complete tasks. That is, they feel that some tasks are inherently enjoyable, challenging, or significant. They do not merely feel obliged to complete these activities. When individuals feel intrinsic motivation, they tend to be more persistent. Burnout and exhaustion diminish (for more information, see cognitive evaluation theory). Unfortunately, when managers, teachers, and other authorities attempt to control the behavior of other people--with incentives, commands, or other forces--this sense of intrinsic motivation diminishes and persistence declines (see the overjustification effect).
The second mini-theory, called organismic integration theory, highlights that extrinsic motivation--that is, the tendency to complete a task to achieve some tangible incentive, such as money or recognition--does not always compromise persistence or wellbeing. In particular, over time, individuals may begin to internalize the demands or instructions that are imposed by authorities. For example, they may initially speak politely merely to avoid punishment. Over time, however, this courtesy may become more internalized or integrated with their core values and tendencies. Indeed, if the authorities are especially supportive and encouraging, people become more likely to internalize these demands or instructions, increasing persistence (for more information, see organismic integration theory).
The third mini-theory, called causality orientations theory, emphasizes individual differences in motivations. Some people, for example, demonstrate an autonomy orientation in which they strive to engage in tasks that are inherently enjoyable, challenging, and significant--tasks that resonate with their core values. Other people, in contrast, demonstrate a control orientation in which they primarily complete tasks to seek rewards or recognition, such as money or approval. Finally, some people experience neither of these motivations to a significant degree, compromising both persistence and effort.
The fourth mini-theory, called basic psychological needs theory, delineates the three fundamental needs that individuals strive to fulfill: autonomy, relatedness, and competence. Fulfillment of these needs enhances wellbeing and optimizes functioning (see need fulfillment). Tasks that enable people to satisfy these needs tend to be intrinsically motivating.
The final mini-theory, called goal contents theory, differentiates between goals that tend to foster extrinsic motivation from goals that tend to foster intrinsic motivation. Specifically, goals such as financial success, appearance, and popularity tend to coincide with an extrinsic motivation and consequently may both diminish persistence as well as impede the fulfillment of fundamental needs. Consequently, wellbeing may decline. Goals that revolve around community, personal growth, and close relationships satisfy fundamental needs, increase intrinsic motivation, and promote wellbeing (for more information, see goal contents theory).
Consequences of intrinsic or autonomous motivations and goals
Overall, compared to controlled motivation or no motivation, intrinsic or autonomous motivation is associated with an extensive gamut of desirable outcomes. First, intrinsic or autonomous motivation is related to positive mood states, such as wellbeing (e.g., Ryan, Rigby, & King, 1993), coupled with less burnout (e.g., Fernet, Guay, & Senecal, 2004) and a healthier life style, together with adherence to medical recommendations (e.g., Pelletier, Dion, Slovenic-D'Angelo, & Reid, 2004; Williams, Rodin, Ryan, Grolnick, & Deci, 1998; Williams, Freedman, & Deci, 1998).
Second, intrinsic or autonomous motivation is related to persistence (e.g., Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, & Brire, 2001), ultimately improving weight loss for example (Williams, Grow, Freedman, Ryan, & Deci, 1996). Third, intrinsic or autonomous motivation is related to cognitive performance, especially on tasks that demand deviations from a standard set of procedures, and thus is associated with creativity (e.g., Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, & Holt, 1984) and conceptual understanding (e.g., Grolnick & Ryan, 1987). Finally, intrinsic or autonomous motivation is related to social behavior, such as better control over prejudice (Legault, Green-Demers, Grant, & Chung, 2007).
The concept of autonomous versus controlled motivation can also explain the overjustification effect. Specifically, sometimes, individuals feel less motivated to engage in a task after, rather than before, incentives are offered. That is, the provision of incentives, such as rewards or punishments, can actually diminish the autonomous motivation of individuals. Individuals are less inclined to enjoy or cherish the activity (for a review, see Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999).
The ownership effect
Self determination theory, or at least the significance of autonomy and choice, could partly explain the ownership or endowment effect. Specifically, individuals are more inclined to value and like anything they own. Nevertheless, many studies confound ownership and choice. That is, individuals tend to choose the objects they possess. Accordingly, their preference towards these objects could be ascribed to ownership, choice, or both.
Huang, Wang, and Shi (2009) disentangled the effects of ownership and choice. In the first study, an implicit association test was utilized to determine the attitudes of participants towards six objects: a mug, a small figurine, chocolate, candy, a pen, and a ruler (see Implicit association test). Before they undertook this test, they were informed that someone else had assigned three of these objects to the participant and three of these objects to themselves. In this study, participants preferred the objects they owned. Thus, ownership can affect attitudes even if these objects were not chosen.
In Study 2, participants choose to allocate half of the objects to someone else. A friend allocated the remaining objects to this person. Participants also showed a preference towards objects they chose. Accordingly, choice can shape attitudes even if they do not own these objects.
Study 3, however, showed the effects of ownership vanished if all the objects had been chosen. The choice effect seems to prevail in these instances. Presumably, objects that are chosen are associate with the concept of self or I, which usually coincides with a positive valence.
Competitive environments and the ownership effect
The ownership effect may be especially pronounced and consequential in particular conditions. Specifically, in competitive rather than cooperative settings, individuals tend to perceive other people as threats. They will, therefore, strive to inflate their capabilities and resources. Consequently, they may overestimate the value of anything that relates to themselves, culminating in the ownership effect. They will, for example, orient their attention towards their own solutions and dismiss the suggestions of other people.
These possibilities were proposed and validated by Toma, Bry, and Buter (2013). In their study, participants collaborated with two other people, both of whom were actually fictitious, over computer. Their task was to decide which of four suspects was responsible for a car accident. Nine clues were presented, although participants were informed that all collaborators received only a subset of this information. Participants then specified who they initially felt was culpable. Then, to foster cooperation, some participants were informed the entire team will receive a bonus if they identify the correct perpetrator. Alternatively, to foster competition, some participants were informed the individual who seems the most astute will receive a promotion as well. Finally, participants followed some instructions that enabled all collaborators to share their information and arrive at a final solution.
Before they reached their decision, participants were also asked to identify which pieces of information they felt were most pertinent to their final solution. In general, participants evaluated their own information as more important than other information. Interestingly, if the setting was competitive, participants dismissed the information of other people, regardless of whether or not this information was consistent with the initial decision about who was culplable. In contrast, if the setting was cooperative, participants dismissed the information of other people, but only if this information was consistent with their initial decision and therefore not especially consequential. Furthermore, in cooperative settings, the final decision was more accurate.
Threatening environments and the ownership effect
When people feel threatened, they are more likely to demonstrate the endowment effect--a bias that partly derives from the ownership effect (Chatterjee, Irmak, & Rose, 2013). Specifically, in general, people feel that an object they want to sell is worth more than an equivalent object they want to buy. This effect is called the endowment effect.
To illustrate, in one study, conducted by Chatterjee, Irmak, and Rose (2013), a coffee mug was placed on a desk. Some participants, designated as sellers, were informed the mug was not theirs and they would be granted the opportunity to sell this mug later. Other participants, designated as choosers, were not informed the mug was theirs but told they would later be granted the opportunity to decide between the mug and some amount of money. Later, participants were encouraged to estimate the value of this mug. In general, the estimated value of this mug was higher in sellers relative to choosers. That is, when people felt they owned the mug, they inflated the perceived value of this object.
According to Chatterjee, Irmak, and Rose (2013), this endowment effect can be ascribed to two tendencies. First, individuals tend to associate objects they own with themselves. Hence, when people sell an object they own, they feel they will relinquish some feature or part of themselves. This change evokes a feeling of uncertainty about their identity, manifesting as a sense of threat. In response to this threat, individuals attempt to inflate their qualities, called self-enhancement. That is, they want to feel resilient. So, they will overestimate the value of any object they associate with themselves.
Second, individuals are more sensitive to losses than gains. A $5 loss is more upsetting than a $5 gain is exciting. Selling an object reflects a loss and, therefore, is threatening. Again, in response tro this threat, people inflate their qualities and overestimate the value of any object they associate with themselves.
Chatterjee, Irmak, and Rose (2013) conducted a set of studies that vindicate these arguments. In one study, some participants completed a self-affirmation task, in which they reflected upon their most important values. This task--a task that has been demonstrated to override feelings of threat--diminished the endowment effect. In another study, a sense of threat, evoked by asking participants to summarize some difficult statistical material, amplified the endowment effect. A final study showed that conditions that magnify the endowment effect also increase the size of signatures--a measure of self-enhancement.
Measures associated with self determination
The general causality orientation scale is sometimes used to assess autonomy and control. Participants receive 17 vignettes about interpersonal situations, each coinciding with three items. Some of the items reflect an autonomous orientation: a tendency to initiate responses and experience interest. Other items reflect a controlled orientation, in which individuals feel compelled by incentives and contingencies as well as imposition from other individuals. Levels of internal consistency tend to exceed .80 (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Weinstein & Hodgins, 2009).
Furthermore, a variety of scales have been developed to assess the extent to which individuals experience autonomy in the work environment (e.g., Galinsky & Bond , 1996, cited in Lloyd, 2008; Hackman & Oldham, 1975, 1976; Sims, Szilagyi, & Keller, 1976). Lloyd (2008) blended these measures to construct a scale that comprises six items. Typical items are "In my job, I have control over my hours of work?" and "My job allows me to make a lot of decisions on my own". Specifically, this scale refers to the extent to which individuals can reach decisions independently, can control the hours they work, and can exhibit personal initiative or judgment. Alpha consistency was .78 (Lloyd, 2008).
Applications of self determination theory
Tan and Tan (2002) enumerated six distinct motives to engage in temporary employment. Four of these motives imply the temporary employment is voluntary. For example, some individuals prefer temporary work to ensure they can dedicate more time to their family. Second, some individuals choose temporary employment to facilitate the acquisition of skills--perhaps because they can engage in a variety of roles. Third, some individuals prefer temporary work for economic motives, such as to supplement the family income. Fourth, some individuals choose temporary work to circumvent some undesirable responsibilities, such as office politics.
Other motives imply that temporary employment is often involuntary. Some individuals assume temporary roles to demonstrate their qualities, ultimately to secure a permanent job. Finally, some individuals could not secure a permanent job, often because of a scarcity of relevant skills or experience.
De Cuyper and De Witte (2009), however, argued these six motives can be classified into three clusters: autonomous, controlled, and instrumental--as defined by self determination theory. Autonomous motives relate to intrinsic needs like competence and relationships, such as family. Controlled motives relate to extrinsic needs, like money or power, such as economic motives. Finally, instrumental motives, which relate to achieving specific goals, and include attempts to demonstrate qualities as a means to secure permanent employment later, might entail both autonomous and controlled orientations.
Nevertheless, although not entirely consistent with self determination theory, De Cuyper and De Witte (2009) showed that only the motivation to demonstrate qualities as a means to secure permanent employment later was correlated with job satisfaction and commitment. Autonomous and controlled motives were, in general, unrelated to these work attitudes.
One explanation, which invokes the concept of spreading of alternatives, could accommodate these unexpected findings. Individuals who experience the motive to demonstrate qualities as a means to secure permanent employment have, in essence, committed themselves to this organization. When individuals commit to some course of action, such as an organization, they become more cognizant of the relative benefits of this alternative.
Tactics to accelerate progress at work
Individuals can apply tactics they use to accelerate progress at work and ascend the corporate hierarchy, several of which are delineated by Lund, Tamnes, Moestue, Buss, and Vollrath (2007). Employees could, for example, exaggerate their status as well as misrepresent qualifications or experience. Alternatively, they may depart from the conventions or traditions of the their workgroup, pursing the goals they desire rather than conforming to the pressures that other individual impose. Finally, they might participate in more social activities, such as business functions.
All of these tactics can enhance salary and status. However, deceptive tactics--like exaggeration of status and misrepresentation of qualifications or experience--compromise satisfaction with life. In contrast, individuals who pursue the goals they desire rather than conform to the pressures that other individual impose are more likely to feel satisfied with life. These individuals are more inclined to undertake activities that resonate with their personal interests and preferences, representing autonomy, and thus satisfying fundamental needs (Lund, Tamnes, Moestue, Buss, & Vollrath, 2007). Similarly, participation in social activities also fulfills a fundamental need--relatedness--enhancing life satisfaction.
Complications of self determination theory
Increases in autonomy
Many studies have established the benefits of autonomy. For example, autonomy is negatively related to burnout (for a meta-analysis, see Humphrey, Nahrgang, & Morgeson, 2007). Despite the benefits of autonomy, some complications need to be accommodated.
Specifically, when autonomy is increased, participants might not be able to adjust effectively. Previously, they might have utilized routines to complete their work. Afterwards, when autonomy is granted, they might feel overwhelmed. They might be concerned they cannot adapt. They begin to ruminate over how to improve, distracting their attention and compromising their performance.
Niessen and Volmer (2010) verified this possibility. In this study, participants completed a task that was intended to help other university students. That is, university students need to complete a series of subjects to earn their degree. The participants attempted to formulate a schedule that students could follow to complete their degree as rapidly as possible. Specifically, they received information about the past record, performance, and interests of 14 students. They needed to formulate a schedule for each student as well as offer other recommendations.
Some of the participants were initially granted limited autonomy. That is, participants were told they must utilize particular routines. They also were told that several provisions, such as recommending the students complete tutorials or attend counseling, were now prohibited. They were also told they must complete the first case in 19 minutes and each subsequent case in 9 minutes. They were also instructed to rest for one minute. Hence, both method autonomy--that is, the procedures that were utilized--and scheduling autonomy--that is, the timing of tasks--were limited.
Other participants were initially granted considerable autonomy instead. In addition, after they completed the first 7 cases, all participants were granted considerable autonomy.
The range of recommendations that participants offered, such as counseling, was regarded as a measure of performance. The number of errors, such as schedules that were not permitted, was also assessed. In addition, participants were asked to verbalize their thoughts as they proceeded. Some of the verbalizations were categorized as reflections about the task and included statements about their goals or plans.
The participants who had initially been granted limited autonomy did not perform as well as participants who had initially been granted considerable autonomy once this autonomy was increased. If participants often reflected upon the task, this difference was especially pronounced. Presumably, these reflections distracted attention from the activity, undermining the capacity of individuals to adjust in response to increases in autonomy. One practical implication is that employees should be encouraged to experiment with a variety of routines and procedures, even when they are merely a novice.
Related topics and concepts
Felt accountability is the expectations of individuals that many of their decisions or actions will be both evaluated, as well as either rewarded or punished, by some other person or authority (e.g., Hall, Frink, Ferris, Hochwarter, Kacmar, & Bowen, 2003). Felt accountability is not merely dependent upon formal laws, regulations, and evaluation systems, but also reflects the subjective responses to these arrangements (Hall, Royle, Brymer, Perrewe, Ferris, & Hochwarter, 2006).
Felt accountability might impede self determination. Indeed, when felt accountability is elevated, cooperation, flexibility, and honesty can decline (Adelberg & Batson, 1978). Nevertheless, accountable employees also tend to be attentive at work (Mero, Guidice, & Anna, 2006), dedicated to their role, and competent at work (Hall, Frink, Ferris, Hochwarter, Kacmar, & Bowen, 2003). In short, the consequences of felt accountability to behavior and performance are mixed and, presumably, are contingent upon many factors (see Carnevale, Pruitt, & Seilheimer, 1981; Siegel-Jacobs & Yates, 1996; Thoms, Dose, & Scott, 2002).
The effects of felt accountability may be moderated by several factors, such as personal reputation. In a study conducted by Laird, Perryman, Hochwarter, Ferris, and Zinko (2009), participants completed a questionnaire that comprised several scales. First, a series of eight items, such as "I often have to explain why I do certain things at work", was included to gauge felt accountability. Second, a series of scales were administered to assess a variety of outcomes, such as depression at work, job tension, work effort, and job satisfaction. Third, the perceived reputation of individuals was assessed, with items such as "I am regarded highly by others".
If participants reported a modest reputation, felt accountability was positively related to depression at work, job tension, and job dissatisfaction. In contrast, if participants reported an elevated reputation, felt accountability was inversely related to these affective difficulties (Laird, Perryman, Hochwarter, Ferris, & Zinko, 2009).
According to Laird, Perryman, Hochwarter, Ferris, and Zinko (2009), when individuals feel their reputation is fragile, felt accountability can obviously elicit stress (e.g., Cooper, Clarke, & Rowbottom, 1999; Green, Visser, & Tetlock, 2002). Accountabilities may conflict with one another (see Orpen, 2000; Page, 2006), and hence demands might not be achievable, which provokes stress (see also Lerner & Tetlock, 1999).
When individuals feel their reputation is strong, a decline in felt accountability might instead elicit stress. These individuals might feel their qualities might not be recognized, and their reputation might diminish.
Self determination is related to the concept of psychological empowerment. According to Thomas and Velthouse (1990), psychological empowerment reflects the degree to which individuals feel they can choose which courses of action they would like to pursue, believe these pursuits are meaningful, and feel competent as well as responsible in these endeavors (for further evidence, see Spreitzer, 1995). In short, psychological empowerment seems to entail four dimensions: self determination, meaning, competence, and impact.
Spreitzer (1995) developed a measure that gauges these facets of empowerment. Self determination represents the extent to which individuals experience a sense of choice and autonomy at work, epitomized by items like "I have significant autonomy in determining how I do my job". Meaning relates to whether the role is valuable, corresponding to an important purpose or cause. A sample item is "The work I do is meaningful". Competence revolves around the degree to which individuals feel they can fulfill their roles effectively, represented by items like "I am confident about my ability to do my job". Finally, impact refers to whether individuals feel they can effect change. A typical item is "My impact on what happens in my department is large". Confirmatory factor analyses have both differentiated the four factors and verified these factors correspond to the same global construct (Spreitzer, 1995).
Empowerment has been shown to enhance work attitudes, such as job satisfaction and commitment (e.g., Chang, Shih, & Lin, 2010; Koberg, Boss, Senjem, & Goodman, 1999). Empowerment also has been demonstrated to improve work performance (Huang, Iun, Liu, & Gong, 2010; Liden, Wayne, & Sparrowe, 2000).
Several clusters of factors have been shown to cultivate a sense of psychological empowerment in the workplace. First, participative leadership evokes empowerment: When employees and managers are invited to participate in important strategic discussions and operational decisions, this sense of empowerment evolves (Spreitzer, 1996; Huang, Iun, Liu, & Gong, 2010). Likewise, if leaders are perceived as approachable, employees and managers are more likely to feel empowered (Koberg, Boss, Senjem, & Goodman, 1999). For example, managers who share strategic information, as epitomized by items like "I have access to the strategic information I need to do my job well", foster empowerment in employees (e.g., Spreitzer, 1996).
Second, role ambiguity also influences psychological empowerment. If the goals, roles, and responsibilities of employees are unambiguous, a sense of empowerment is instilled (e.g., Spreitzer, 1996). Individuals who endorse items like "Most tasks performed at the lower levels of the total unit are not well defined" seldom feel empowered (Spreitzer, 1996) . If their roles are uncertain, individuals do not experience a sense of control over their environment; they are concerned they might not fulfill the expectations of other people. They are, thus, inclined to monitor the needs of managers rather than pursue their own values and preferences.
Third, support from peers, managers, and subordinates also increases empowerment. If participants endorse items like "I have the support I need from my peers to do my job well", they are more likely to feel empowered (Spreitzer, 1996). The corresponding trust curbs any concerns or anxieties, enabling individuals to orient attention to their own values and purposes.
Psychological empowerment can also moderate the benefits or drawbacks of other approaches or characteristics. For example, research indicates that transformational leaders, who present an inspiring vision of the future, tend to enhance the innovation of organizations. Nevertheless, this benefit of transformational leaders is pronounced only when employees feel empowered (Pieterse, Van Knippenberg, Schippers, & Stam, 2010).
The objective of motivational interviewing is to foster intrinsic motivation in clients, ultimately to facilitate change (Miller & Rollnick, 1991, cited in Miller & Rollnick, 2002). Specifically, the practitioners strive to identify, and then to redress, sources of ambivalence about change. Once this ambivalence is addressed, individuals become intrinsically motivated to improve their behavior.
To uncover and address ambivalence, therapists first engage the clients. They may discuss a typical day, immediate concerns, and future aspirations. Second, therapists focus the conversation on which changes the client would like to consider. Third, therapists evoke thoughts about the prospect of change, asking questions that highlight the potential benefits and complications. They may ask "How would life be better if you changed this practice?" as well seek the beliefs of clients about change. These questions might highlight the ambivalence that individuals are experiencing. But the therapists tend to remain fairly quiet and do not impose their beliefs. Finally, they help the client implement plans to change, by exploring possibilities collaboratively without imposing their beliefs confrontationally. This support or partnership tends to encourage openness to change.
During these exchange, the therapists apply four key skills. First, they ask open ended questions to garner a broader range of information. Second, they affirm the values and qualities of clients, and these affirmations can increase openness and limit defensive reactions. Third, after listening to clients carefully, practitioners reflect their understanding of these concerns to clarify their understanding and to show unconditional empathy. Finally, the therapist occasionally, but regularly, summarizes their understanding, ideas, and recommendations.
These skills enable the therapist to visualize an inspiring future and to understand the risks and benefits of the concomitant changes. This clarity overcomes some of the unconscious ambivalence that may preclude change.
Many studies, including randomized control trials, attest to the benefits of motivational interviewing (e.g., Brodie, Inoue, & Shaw, 2008). This approach has been used to encourage healthier behavior in people ranging from adolescence (Shannon, Smith, & Gregory, 2003) to elderly individuals (Cummings, Cooper, & Cassie, 2009). In addition, this technique has been applied effectively in groups (Wagner & Ingersoll, 2013).
Benefits of choice to treatment
When individuals are granted some choice over which of several treatment alternatives they should receive, the treatment tends to be more effective. In particular, this sense of choice instils a sense of control, and this sense of control evokes physiological processes that enhance health. Consistent with this premise, Geers, Rose, Fowler, Rasinski, Brown, and Helfer (2013) showed that such benefits of choice are especially pronounced in people who report a high need for control.
Specifically, in one study, participants completed a measure that assesses the extent to which they prefer control, with questions like "I enjoy making my own decisions". Next, either an analgesic cream or a hand cleanser was applied to the hands of participants. Some but not all participants were granted the choice over which of two creams to apply to their hands. Actually, the creams were inactive. Finally, all participants immersed their hands in very cold water. If participants were granted the choice to apply the analgesic cream, they reported less pain. However, this benefit of choice was pronounced only in people who reported a desire for control.
Similarly, in a second study, participants heard an irritating sound over headphones. Some but not all participants were told that a particular color, displayed over a computer screen, could dampen the discomfort this sound evokes. Furthermore, a subset of participants was granted an opportunity to choose which color appears on the screen. If participants were granted the opportunity to choose the color that, supposedly, dampens the discomfort, they reported lower levels of discomfort. Again, this effect was pronounced only in participants who reported an elevated level of control.
A third study generated the same pattern of observations, even when desire for control was manipulated. In particular, participants were instructed to imagine their partner had cheated. Some participants imagined the partner had then telephoned to end the relationship--an image that arguably evokes a desire to seek control, because this feeling of control had been withdrawn. Some participants imagined they telephoned their partner to end the relationship--an image that arguably inhibits a desire to seek control, because this sense of control had been fulfilled. Again, choice was more effective in people who experienced a need to seek control. A fourth study showed that thoughts relate to feelings of personal control mediated these relationships.
Arguably, when the need of individuals to seel control is fulfilled, anxieties about the treatment diminish. In particular, this fulfilment of control affects processing in the caudate nucleus and anterior cingulate cortex--areas associated with processing threats. As this sense of threat diminishes, physiological responses that resolve threats, but can damage health over extended periods, may be inhibited.
Adelberg, S., & Batson, C. D. (1978). Accountability and helping: When needs exceed resources. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 343-350.
Amabile, T. M., DeJong, W., & Lepper, M. (1976). Effects of externally imposed deadlines onsubsequent intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 92-98.
Ambrose, M. L., Arnaud, A., & Schminke, M. (2008). Individual moral development and ethical climate: The influence of person-organization fit on job attitudes. Journal of Business Ethics, 77, 323-333.
Amos, E. A., & Weathington, B. L. (2008). An analysis of the relation between employee-organization value congruence and employee attitudes. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 142, 615-631.
Ariely, D. (2009). Predictably irrational: The hidden forces that shape our decisions. London: Harper.
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Brodie, D. A., Inoue, A., & Shaw, D. G. (2008). Motivational interviewing to change quality of life for people with chronic heart failure: A randomised controlled trial. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 45, 489-500. doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2006.11.009. PMID 17258218.
Burgess, M., Enzle, M. E., & Schmaltz, R. (2004). Defeating the potentially deleterious effects of externally imposed deadlines. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 868-877.
Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64, 363-423.
Carbonneau, N., Vallerand, R. J., & Massicotte, S. (2010). Is the practice of yoga associated with positive outcomes? The role of passion. Journal of Positive Psychology, 5, 452-465.
Carnevale, P., Pruitt, D., & Seilheimer, S. (1981). Looking and competing: Accountability and visual access in integrative bargaining. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 111-120.
Chang, L., Shih, C., & Lin, S. (2010). The mediating role of psychological empowerment on job satisfaction and organizational commitment for school health nurses: A cross-sectional questionnaire survey. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 47, 427-433.
Chatterjee, P., Irmak, C., & Rose, R. L. (2013). The endowment effect as self-enhancement in response to threat. Journal of Consumer Research, 40, 460-476. doi: 10.1086/671344
Conger, J. A., & Kanungo, R. N. (1988). The empowerment process: integrating theory and practice. Academy of Management Review, 13, 471-482.
Cummings, S. M., Cooper, R. L., & Cassie, K. M (2009). Motivational interviewing to affect behavioral change in older adults. Research on Social Work Practice, 19, 195-204. doi:10.1177/1049731508320216.
De Cuyper, N., & De Witte, H. (2009). Volition and reasons for accepting temporary employment. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 17, 363-387.
Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105-115.
Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Motivation: Vol. 38. Perspectives on motivation (pp. 237-288). Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. In M. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 31-49). New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and the "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life's domains. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 49, 14-23.
Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62, 119-142.
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, 627-668.
Deci, E. L., Ryan, R. M., Gagne, M., Leone, D. R., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B. P. (2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former Eastern Bloc country. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 930-942.
Deci, E. L., Schwartz, A. J., Sheinman, L., & Ryan, R. M. (1981). An instrument to assess adults' orientations toward control versus autonomy with children: Reflections on intrinsic motivation and perceived competence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 73, 642-650. Kasser, T. (2002). The high price of materialism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Deci, E., & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth? American Psychologist, 51, 1153-1166.
Fernet, C., Guay, F., & Senecal, C. (2004). Adjusting to job demands: The role of work self-determination and job control in predicting burnout. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 65, 39-56.
Filak, V. & Sheldon, K. M. (2003). Student psychological need-satisfaction and college teacher-course evaluations. Educational Psychology, 23, 235-247.
Filak, V. & Sheldon, K. M. (2008). Teacher support, student motivation, student need satisfaction, and college teacher course evaluations: Testing a sequential path model. Educational Psychology, 28, 711-724.
Frey, B. S. (1997). Not just for the money: An economic theory of personal motivation. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar.
Frey, B. S. (2001). Inspiring economics: Human motivation in political economy. Cheltenham, UK: Elgar.
Frey, B. S., & Jegen, R. (2000). Motivational crowding theory: A survey of empirical evidence. Journal of Economic Surveys, 5, 589-611
Gagne, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in prosocial behavior engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 199- 223.
Geers, A. L., Rose, J. P., Fowler, S. L., Rasinski, H. M., Brown, J. A., & Helfer, S. G. (2013). Does choice enhance treatment effectiveness? Using placebo treatments to demonstrate the role of personal control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 549-566. doi: 10.1037/a0034005
Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of Management Journal, 54, 73-96.
Green, M. C., Visser, P. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (2002). Coping with accountability cross-pressures: Low effort evasive tactics and high-effort quests for complex compromises. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 1380-1391.
Greene, D., & Lepper, M. R. (1974). Effects of extrinsic rewards on children's subsequent intrinsic interest. Child Development, 45, 1141-1145.
Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). Different fits satisfy different needs: Linking person-environment fit to employee commitment and performance using self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 465-477.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). Autonomy in children's learning: An experimental and individual difference investigation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 890-898.
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children's self-regulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81, 143-154.
Gropel, P. &, Kuhl, J. (2009). Work-life balance and subjective well-being: The mediating role of need fulfillment. British Journal of Psychology, 100, 365-375.
Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1975). Development of the Job Diagnostic Survey. Journal of Applied Psychology, 60, 159-170.
Hackman, J.R., & Oldham, G.R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.
Hall, A. T., Frink, D. D., Ferris, G. R., Hochwarter, W. A., Kacmar, C. J., & Bowen, M. G. (2003). Accountability in human resources management. In C. A. Schriesheim & L. L. Neider (Eds.), New directions in human resources management (pp. 29-63). Greenwich, CT: Information Age Publishing.
Hall, A. T., Royle, M. T., Brymer, R. A., Perrewe, G. R., Ferris, G. R., & Hochwarter, W. A. (2006). Relationships between felt accountability as a stressor and strain reactions: The neutralizing role of autonomy across two studies. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 11, 87-99.
Harackiewicz, J. M. (1979). The effects of reward contingency and performance feedback on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1352-1363.
Hepburn, A., & Brown, S. (2001). Teacher stress and the management of accountability. Human Relations, 54, 691-715.
Hidi, S., & Renninger, K. A. (2006). The four-phase model of interest development. Educational Psychologist, 41, 111-127.
Hodgins, H. S. (2008). Motivation, threshold for threat, and quieting the ego. In H. Wayment & J. Bauer (Eds.), Transcending self interest: Psychological explorations of the quiet ego (pp. 117-124). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Hodgins, H. S., Brown, A. B., & Carver, B. (2007). Autonomy and control motivation and self-esteem. Self and Identity, 6, 189-208.
Hodgins, H. S., & Knee, C. R. (2002). The integrating self and conscious experience. In E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 87-100). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Hodgins, H. S., Koestner, R., & Duncan, N. (1996). On the compatibility of autonomy and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 227-237.
Hodgins, H. S., & Liebeskind, E. (2003). Apology versus defense: Antecedents and consequences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 297-316.
Hodgins, H. S., Liebeskind, E., & Schwartz, W. (1996). Getting out of hot water: Facework in social predicaments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 300-314.
Hodgins, H. S., Weibust, K. S., Weinstein, N., Shiffman, S., Miller, A., Coombs, G.,& Adair, K. C. (2010). The cost of self-protection: threat response and performance as a function of autonomous and controlled motivations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1101-1114.
Hodgins, H. S., Yacko, H., & Gottlieb, E. (2006). Autonomy and nondefensiveness. Motivation and Emotion, 30, 283-293.
Hoffman, B. J., & Woehr, D. J. (2006). A quantitative review of the relationship between person-organization fit and behavioral outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 68, 389-399.
Huang, X., Iun, J., Liu, A., & Gong, Y. (2010). Does participative leadership enhance work performance by inducing empowerment or trust? The differential effects on managerial and non-managerial subordinates. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 122-143.
Huang, Y., Wang, L., & Shi, J. (2009). When do objects become more attractive? The individual and interactive effects of choice and ownership on object evaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 713-722.
Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: A meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1332-1356.
Jansen, K. J., & Kristof-Brown, A. (2006). Toward a multidimensional theory of person-environment fit. Journal of Managerial Issues, 18, 193-212
Kasser, T. & Sheldon, K. M. (2009). Material and time affluence as predictors of subjective well-being. Journal of Business Ethics, 84, 243-255.
Kasser, T., & Ahuvia, A. (2002). Materialistic values and well-being in business students. European Journal of Social Psychology, 32, 137-146.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 280-287.
Klar, M., & Kasser, T. (2010). Some benefits of being an activist: measuring activism and its role in psychological well-being. Psychological Science, 30, 755-777.
Koberg, C. S., Boss, R. W., Senjem, J. C., & Goodman, E. A. (1999). Antecedents and outcomes of empowerment: Empirical evidence from the health care industry. Group and Organization Management, 24, 71-91.
Koestner, R., Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits on children's behavior: The differential effects of controlling versus informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity. Journal of Personality, 52, 233-248.
Kristof, A. L. (1996). Person-organization fit: An integrative review of its conceptualizations, measurement, and implications. Personnel Psychology, 49, 1-49.
Kristof-Brown, A. L., Jansen, K. J., & Colbert, A. E. (2002). A policy-capturing study of the simultaneous effects of fit with jobs, groups, and organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 985-993.
Kristof-Brown, A., Barrick, M. R., & Franke, M. (2002). Applicant impression management: Dispositional influences and consequences for recruiter perceptions of fit and similarity. Journal of Management, 28, 27-46.
Laird, M. D., Perryman, A. A., Hochwarter, W. A., Ferris, G. R., & Zinko, R. (2009). The moderating effects of personal reputation on accountability-strain relationships. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 14, 70-83.
Larson, D. G., & Chastain, R. L. (1990). Self-concealment: Conceptualization, measurement, and health implications. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 9, 439-455.
Legault, L., Green-Demers, I., Grant, P., & Chung, J. (2007). On the self-regulation of implicit and explicit prejudice: A self-determination theory perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 732-749.
Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D. (eds.) (1978). The hidden costs of reward: New perspectives on the psychology of human motivation. Hillsdale, NY: Erlbaum.
Liden, R., Wayne, S. J., & Sparrowe, R. T. (2000). An examination of the mediating role of psychological empowerment on the relations between the job, interpersonal relationships, and work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 407-416.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum Press.
Lind, E. A., Kanfer, R., & Earley, P. C. (1990). Voice, control, and procedural justice: Instrumental and noninstrumental concerns in fairness judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 952-959.
Lind, E. A., Kulik, C. T., Ambrose, M., & De Vera-Park, M. V. (1993). Individual and corporate dispute resolution: Using procedural fairness as a decision heuristic. Administrative Science Quarterly, 38, 224-251.
Lloyd, R. (2008). Discretionary effort and the performance domain. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Organisational Psychology, 1, 22-34.
Loveland, K. K., & Olley, J. G. (1979). The effect of external reward on interest and quality of task performance in children of high and low intrinsic motivation. Child Development, 50, 1207-1210.
Lund, O. C. H., Tamnes, C. K., Moestue, C., Buss, D. M., & Vollrath, M. (2007). Tactics of hierarchy negotiation. Journal of Research in Personality, 41, 25-44.
Matarazzo, K. L., Durik, A. M., & Delaney, M. L. (2010). The effect of humorous instructional materials on interest in a math task. Motivation and Emotion, 34, 293-305.
Miller, W. R., & Rollnick, S. (2002). Motivational interviewing: Preparing people to change. Guilford press.
Moller, A. C., & Deci, E. L. (2009). Interpersonal control, dehumanization, and violence: A self-determination theory perspective. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 13, 41-53.
Morgan, M. (1981). The overjustification effect: A developmental test of self perception interpretations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 809-821.
Morgan, M. (1983). Decrements in intrinsic motivation among rewarded and observer subjects. Child Development, 54, 636-644.
Mullan, E., Markland, D., & Ingledew, D. K. (1997). A graded conceptualization of selfdetermination in the regulation of exercise behavior: Development of a measure using confirmatory factor analytic procedures. Personality and Individual Differences, 23, 745-752.
Niessen, C., & Volmer, J. (2010). Adaptation to increased work autonomy: The role of task reflection. European Journal of Work and Organizational Psychology, 19, 442-460.
Orpen, C. (2000). The interactive effects of role uncertainty and accountability on employees use of upward influence tactics. Psychology: A Journal of Human Behavior, 37, 2-4.
Ostroff, C., & Schulte, M. (2007). Multiple perspectives of fit in organizations across levels of analysis. [References]. In C. Ostroff & T. A. Judge (Eds.), Perspectives on organizational fit (pp. 3-69). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Ostroff, C., Shin, Y., & Kinicki, A. J. (2005). Multiple perspectives of congruence: Relationships between value congruence and employee attitudes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 591-623.
Page, S. (2006). The web of managerial accountability: The impact of reinventing government. Administration & Society, 38, 166-197.
Pelletier, L. G., Dion, S. C., Slovinec-D'Angelo, M., & Reid, R. (2004). Why do you regulate what you eat? Relationships between forms of regulation, eating behaviors, sustained dietary behavior change and psychological adjustment. Motivation and Emotion, 28, 245-277.
Pelletier, L. G., Fortier, M. S., Vallerand, R. J., & Briere, N. M. (2001). Associations among perceived autonomy support, forms of self-regulation, and persistence: A prospective study. Motivation and Emotion, 25, 279-306.
Perry, D. G., Bussey, K., & Redman, J. (1977). Reward-induced decreased play effects: Reattribution of motivation, competing responses, or avoid frustration? Child Development, 48, 1369-1374.
Piasentin, K. A., & Chapman, D. S. (2007). Perceived similarity and complementarity as predictors of subjective person-organization fit. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 341-354.
Pieterse, A. N., Van Knippenberg, D., Schippers, M., & Stam, D. (2010). Transformational and transactional leadership and innovative behavior: The moderating role of psychological empowerment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 609-623.
Plant, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and the effects of self-consciousness, self-awareness, and ego-involvement: An investigation of internally controlling styles. Journal of Personality, 53, 435-449.
Quinn, R. E., & Spreitzer, G. M. (1997). The road to empowerment: seven questions every leader should consider. Organizational Dynamics, 26, 37-49.
Quoidbach, Dunn, E. W., Petrides, K. V., & Mikolajczak, M. (2010). Money giveth, money taketh away: The dual effect of wealth on happiness. Psychological Science, 21, 759-763.
Reis, H. T., Sheldon, K. M., Gable, S. L., Roscoe, R., & Ryan, R. (2000). Daily well being: The role of autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 419-435.
Riketta, M., & Landerer, A. (2002). Organizational commitment, accountability, and work behavior: A correlational study. Social Behavior and Personality, 30, 653-660.
Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450-461.
Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 749-761.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Ryan, R. M., & Lynch, J. (1989). Emotional autonomy versus detachment: Revisiting the vicissitudes of adolescence and young adulthood. Child Development, 60, 340-356.
Ryan, R. M., & Solky, J. A. (1996). What is supportive about social support? On the psychological needs for autonomy and relatedness. In G.R. Pierce & B. R. Sarason (Eds.), Handbook of social support and the family: Plenum series on stress and coping (pp. 249-267). New York: Plenum.
Ryan, R. M., Koestner, R., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Ego-involved persistence: When freechoice behavior is not intrinsically motivated. Motivation and Emotion, 15, 185-205.
Ryan, R. M., Mims, V., & Koestner, R. (1983). Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: A review and test using cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 736-750.
Ryan, R. M., Rigby, S., & King, K. (1993). Two types of religious internalization and their relations to religious orientations and mental health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 586-596.
Sakalaki, M., & Fousiani, K. (2011). About some personality misfortunes of opportunists: The negative correlation of economic defection with autonomy, agreeableness, and well-being. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 42, 471-487. doi: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2011.00780.x
Schlegel, R. J., Hicks, J. A., Arndt, J., & King, L. A. (2009). Thine own self: True self-concept accessibility and meaning in life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 473-490.
Shannon, S., Smith, V. J., & Gregory, J. W. (2003). A pilot study of motivational interviewing in adolescents with diabetes. Archives of Disease in Children, 88, 680-683.
Sheldon, K. M. (1995). Creativity and self-determination in personality. Creativity Research Journal, 8, 61-72.
Sheldon, K. M. (2008). Assessing the sustainability of goal-based changes in well-being over a four-year period. Journal of Research in Personality, 42, 223-229.
Sheldon, K. M. & Bettencourt, B. A. (2002). Psychological needs and subjective well-being in social groups. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 25-38.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Not all personal goals are "personal": Comparing autonomous and controlling goals on effort and attainment. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 546-557.
Sheldon, K. M., & Filak, V. (2008). Manipulating autonomy, competence, and relatedness in a game-learning context: New evidence that all three needs matter. British Journal of Social Psychology, 47, 267-283.
Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1998). Pursuing personal goals: Skills enable progress but not all progress is beneficial. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 546-557.
Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (2008). Psychological threat and goal striving. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 37-45.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., & Reis, H. (1996). What makes for a good day? Competence and autonomy in the day and in the person. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1270-1279.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Kasser, T. (2004). The independent effects of goal contents and motives on well-being: It's both what you pursue and why you pursue it. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 475-486.
Sheldon, K., Williams, G. C., & Joiner, T. (2003). Self-determination theory in the clinic: Motivating physical and mental health. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Siegall, M., & Gardner, S. (2000). Contextual factors of psychological empowerment. Personnel Review, 29, 703-722.
Siegel-Jacobs, K., & Yates, J. F. (1996). Effects of procedural and outcome accountability on judgment quality. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 65, 1-17.
Silvia, P. J. (2003). Self-efficacy and interest: Experimental studies of optimal incompetence. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 62, 237-249.
Silvia, P. J. (2005). What is interesting? Exploring the appraisal structure of interest. Emotion, 5, 89-102.
Sims Jr., H.P., Szilagyi, A.D., & Keller, R.T. (1976). The measurement of job characteristics. Academy of Management Journal, 19, 195-211.
Sims, R. L., & Keon, T. L. (1997). Ethical work climate as a factor in the development of person-organization fit. Journal of Business Ethics, 16, 1095-1105.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1995). Individual empowerment in the workplace: Dimensions, measurement, and validation. Academy of Management Journal, 38, 1442-1465.
Spreitzer, G. M. (1996). Social structural characteristics of psychological empowerment. Academy of Management Journal, 39, 483-504.
Spreitzer, G. M., Kizilos, M. A., & Nason, S. W. (1997). A multidimensional analysis of the relationship between psychological empowerment, and effectiveness, satisfaction, and strain. Journal of Management, 23, 679-705.
Tan, H., & Tan, C. (2002). Temporary employees in Singapore. What drives them? Journal of Psychology, 136, 83-102.
Tang, S., & Hall, V. C. (1995). The overjustification effect: A meta-analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 365-404.
Tetlock, P. (1983). Accountability and the perseverance of first impressions. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 74-83.
Tetlock, P. (1985). Accountability: The neglected social context of judgment and choice. In L. L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 297-332). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Thomas, K. W., & Tymon, W. G., Jr. (1994), Does empowerment always work: Understanding the role of intrinsic motivation and personal interpretation. Journal of Management Systems, 6, 1-13.
Thomas, K. W., & Velthouse, B. A. (1990). Cognitive elements of empowerment: an 'interpretive' model of intrinsic task motivation. Academy of Management Review, 15, 666-681.
Thoms, P., Dose, J. J., & Scott, K. S. (2002). Relationships between accountability, job satisfaction, and trust. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 13, 307-323.
Toma, C., Bry, C., & Buter, F. (2013). Because I'm worth it (more than others . . .). Cooperation, competition, and ownership bias in group decision-making. Social Psychology, 44, 248-255. doi: 10.1027/1864-9335/a000109
Uysal, A., Lin, H. L., & Knee, C. R. (2009). The role of need satisfaction in self concealment and wellbeing. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 187-199.
Vallerand, R. J. , Blanchard, C. M. , Mageau, G. A. , Koestner, R., Ratelle, C. F., Lonard, M., Marsolais, J. et al. (2003). Les passions de l'me: On obsessive and harmonious passion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85 ,756-767.
Van den Bos, K. (2001). Uncertainty management: The influence of human uncertainty on reactions to perceived fairness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 931-941.
Van den Bos, K. (2003). On the subjective quality of social justice: The role of affect as information in the psychology of justice judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 482-498.
Van den Bos, K., & Lind, E. A. (2002). Uncertainty management by means of fairness judgments. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 1-60). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Van den Bos, K., & Van Prooijen, J.-W. (2001). Referent cognitions theory: The psychology of voice depends on closeness of reference points. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 616-626.
Van den Bos, K., Wilke, H. A. M., & Lind, E. A. (1998). When do we need procedural fairness? The role of trust in authority. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1449-1458.
van Prooijen, J. (2009). Procedural justice as autonomy regulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1166-1180.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41, 19-31.
Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemiec, C. P., Soenens, B., De Witte, H., & Van den Broeck, A. (2007). On the relations among work value orientations, psychological need satisfaction, and job outcomes: A self-determination theory approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 251-277.
Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C., & Soenens, B. (2010). The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: An historical overview, emerging trends, and future directions. In T. Urdan & S. Karabenick (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement. The decade ahead (Vol. 16, pp. 105-166). UK: Emerald Publishing
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivation learning, performance and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246-260.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Matos, L. (2005). Examining the impact of extrinsic versus intrinsic goal framing and internally controlling versus autonomy-supportive communication style on early adolescents' academic achievement. Child Development, 76, 483-501.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2004). How to become a persevering exerciser? Providing a clear, future intrinsic goal in an autonomy supportive way. Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology, 26, 232-249.
Verquer, M. L., Beehr, T. A., & Wagner, S. H. (2003). A meta-analysis of relations between person-organization fit and work attitudes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 63, 473-489.
Wagner, C. C., & Ingersoll, K. S. (Eds.) (2013). Motivational interviewing in groups. New York: Guilford Press.
Weinstein, N., & Hodgins, H. S. (2009). The moderating role of autonomy and control on the benefits of written emotion expression. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 351-364.
Weinstein, N., Przybylski, A. K., & Ryan, R. M. (2009). Can nature make us more caring? Effects of immersion in nature on intrinsic aspirations and generosity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 1315-1329.
Wiechman, B. M., & Gurland, S. T. (2009). What happens during the free-choice period? Evidence of a polarizing effect of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 716-719.
Williams, G. C., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 767-779.
Williams, G. C., Cox, E., Kouides, R., & Deci, E. L. (1999). Presenting the facts about smoking to adolescents: The effects of an autonomy supportive style. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 153, 959-964.
Williams, G. C., Freedman, Z. R., & Deci, E. L. (1998). Supporting autonomy to motivate patients with diabetes for glucose control. Diabetes Care, 21, 1644-1651.
Williams, G. C., Gagne, M., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). Facilitating autonomous motivation for smoking cessation. Health Psychology, 21, 40-50.
Williams, G. C., Grow, V. M., Freedman, Z. R., Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). Motivational predictors of weight loss and weight loss maintenance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 115-126.
Williams, G. C., Levesque, C. S., Zeldman, A., Wright, S., & Deci,E. L. (2003). Health care practitioners' motivation for tobacco dependence counseling. Health Education Research, 18, 538-553.
Williams, G. C., McGregor, H. A., Sharp, D., Levesque, C., Kouides, R. W., & Ryan, R. M.et al. (2006). Testing a self-determination theory intervention for motivating tobacco cessation: Supporting autonomy and competence in a clinical trial. Health Psychology, 25, 95-101.
Williams, G. C., McGregor, H. A., Zeldman, A., Freedman, Z. R., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Testing a self-determination theory process model for promoting glycemic control through diabetes self-management. Health Psychology, 23, 58-66.
Williams, G. C., Minicucci, D. M., Kouides, R. M., Levesque, C. S., Chirkov, V. I., & Ryan, R. M.et al. (2002). Self-determination, smoking, diet, and health. Health Education Research, 17, 512-521.
Williams, G. C., Rodin, G. C., Ryan, R. M., Grolnick, W. S., & Deci, E. L. (1998). Autonomous regulation and long-term medication adherence in adult outpatients. Health Psychology, 17, 269-276.
Created by Dr Simon Moss on 18/10/2008
Free Personality Tests :