When a person holds a consistent view of something encompassing a belief an emotional feeling and a related behavior it is called?

The motivational climate from a self-determination theory perspective

Self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2000) centers on the “why” of behavior, considering the determinants and consequences of more or less autonomous and controlled reasons for participation. A key concept within SDT is that of “basic psychological needs” (Ryan & Deci, 2000a,b; see also Ekkekakis & Zenko, Chapter 18); namely, the universal needs of competence (feeling one is effective in meeting environmental demands), autonomy (feeling authentic, acting with volition, having input), and relatedness (feeling connected with and cared for by significant others in the context at hand). SDT holds that greater need satisfaction will contribute to more autonomous striving (ie, participating in an activity because one enjoys it for it’s own sake and/or personally values the benefits of the activity) and optimal functioning. Diminished or actively thwarted basic needs is linked to more controlled (eg, engaging in the activity for extrinsic rewards or out of feelings of guilt and pressure) reasons for engagement and the compromised welfare of those participants (Ryan & Deci, 2000a,b).

With respect to the prominent social contextual factors deemed relevant to need satisfaction/need thwarting, the motivation regulations underlying participation, and associated outcomes, SDT has considered the extent to which the environment created by significant others is more or less autonomy supportive and/or controlling. An autonomy supportive coach acknowledges athletes’ preferences and tries to take their perspective, provides meaningful choice in training and competition and welcomes their input into decision making when and where possible (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). A coach who is more controlling in his/her interpersonal style will tend to be pressuring, coercive, and intimidating when interacting with athletes (Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, & Thogersen-Ntoumani, 2010).

SDT also considers the impact of additional, albeit related, dimensions of the social environment, such as the level and quality of social support (or interpersonal involvement) exhibited and structure. A socially supportive coach would show he/she cares for and values each athlete, as an athlete and as a person (Mageau & Vallerand, 2003). According to Reeve and coworkers (Reeve, Jang, Carrell, Jeon, & Barch, 2004), structure is manifested when the coach clearly articulates what is expected of his or her athletes and provides clear, timely and informative feedback. It is assumed (Reeve, 2002) that structure can be provided in an autonomy supportive as well as controlling manner. Optimal engagement and more autonomous motivation in athletes would be expected in cases where a coach provides structure as well as supports their autonomy (Sierens, Vansteenkiste, Goossens, Soenens, & Dochy, 2009; Reeve, 2002).

A growing body of sport research has been supportive of the SDT assumed differential implications of autonomy supportive, controlling and socially supportive coach coaching style for athletes’ need satisfaction, reasons for engagement, as well as their well-being and likelihood of continued participation (Duda & Balaguer, 2007; Ntoumanis, 2012). More autonomy and/or socially supportive coaching styles have been linked to greater need satisfaction, more autonomous motivation, enhanced interest and feelings of vitality, reduced intentions to drop out, and better sport performance (eg, Adie et al., 2012; Álvarez, Balaguer, Castillo, & Duda, 2009; Amorose & Anderson-Butcher, 2007; Gillet, Vallerand, Amoura, & Baldes, 2010; Reinboth, Duda, & Ntoumanis, 2004; Quested et al., 2013). Aligned with theoretical predictions (Reeve, 2002), recent research points to the positive implications of coach-provided structure on athletes’ reported behavioral engagement and reduced disaffection in the case where such expectations and feedback are conveyed in an autonomy supportive manner (Curran, Hill, & Niemiec, 2013).

More and more studies have also begun to focus on the implications of controlling coaching for the reduced satisfaction and, indeed, active thwarting of athletes’ needs to feel competent, a sense of autonomy, and respectful and caring connection within their sporting milieu (Balaguer et al., 2012; Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan, Bosch, & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, 2011; González, García-Merita, Castillo, & Balaguer, 2016). As predicted by SDT, controlling coaching have been found (either directly or via need thwarting) to correspond with negative outcomes such as burnout, negative affect, disordered eating, and lower feelings of self-worth (Balaguer et al., 2012 & Bartholomew et al., 2011).

Abstract

Self-determination Theory (SDT) is a motivational theory of personality, development, and social processes that examines how social contexts and individual differences facilitate different types of motivation, especially autonomous motivation and controlled motivation, and in turn predict learning, performance, experience, and psychological health. SDT proposes that all human beings have three basic psychological needs – the needs for competence, autonomy, and relatedness – the satisfaction of which are essential nutrients for effective functioning and wellness. Satisfaction of these basic needs promotes the optimal motivational traits and states of autonomous motivation and intrinsic aspirations, which facilitate psychological health and effective engagement with the world.

Self-Determination Theory

SDT (Ryan and Deci, 2000) emphasizes the satisfaction of basic human needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness as a key driver of motivated behavior. In contrast to many theories of motivation, which emphasize the quantity of motivation (e.g., goal-setting theory), SDT emphasizes the idea that qualitative differences in motivation also matter. Specifically, a key contribution of SDT is that it describes a continuum in which goals may be pursued for different reasons, ranging from being intrinsically motivating at one extreme to being extrinsically motivating at the other end. The theory suggests that these different motivations can all lead individuals to act, but they may have different implications for performance and well-being.

According to SDT, intrinsically motivating tasks are interesting, enjoyable, and spontaneously pursued by individuals. Such motivation is experienced as autonomous and self-determined (Deci and Ryan, 2000). In contrast, extrinsically motivated tasks are pursued because of external contingencies, but can be experienced as controlling or autonomous depending on the extent to which the contingencies have been internalized by the individual. As such, SDT describes several different types of extrinsic motivation. External regulation is the least internalized form of extrinsic motivation with individuals pursuing tasks because of rewards or punishments present in the environment. Introjected regulation is the next form of extrinsic motivation, with individuals pursuing goals because they have internalized and come to self-administer the rewards and punishments for the goal. Often, individuals who experience introjected motivation pursue tasks because they would feel guilty if they did not. Identified regulation reflects a more internalized form of extrinsic motivation whereby individuals understand the value of the goal and pursue it based on that understanding, but they have not come to personally value the goal and the reasons for its pursuit. Integrated regulation reflects the most complete internalization of an extrinsic goal whereby individuals have come to personally value the goal and experience it as important. The goal is not inherently interesting or fun (so it is not intrinsically motivating), but it is valued, important, and experienced as autonomously motivating. Finally, in contrast to the motivated behaviors described above, SDT also recognizes that some behaviors may be amotivated, which means that individuals are not able to provide a reason for why they engage in them.

Ryan and Deci (2000) argued that some goals are more consistent with satisfying an individual's basic needs than others. In particular, striving for autonomous goals may lead to greater need satisfaction and better well-being, whereas striving for controlled goals may lead to the thwarting of one's needs and worse well-being. A key finding from research on SDT is that more autonomous forms of motivation are associated with better performance on interesting or complex tasks. However, differences between autonomous and controlled motivation are not observed for boring or mundane tasks (Koestner and Losier, 2002). Further, autonomous motivation is positively associated with well-being and job attitudes. Thus, both forms of motivation may lead individuals to perform a behavior, but autonomous motivation better satisfies psychological needs and leads to greater well-being compared to controlled motivation.

Emotions and Wellness in SDT

SDT has a specific view on the function of emotions, including those associated with happiness within healthy self-regulation. Theoretically, emotions serve an informational function (Ryan et al., 2006), providing information about whether one is “on track,” so to speak, in regards to the satisfaction of the basic psychological needs. That is, when people satisfy needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, they typically show a rise in positive emotions and a decrease in negative ones. Interestingly, such effects are apparent in both moment-to-moment experience sampling research (e.g., Ryan, Bernstein, & Brown, 2010) and in general survey findings (e.g., Chirkov et al., 2003). However, such emotions are not infallible indicators because they can be triggered and influenced in many ways, sometimes in activities that are not related to basic need satisfactions (Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013).

Indeed, considerable research within SDT has shown the relations between basic psychological need satisfaction and multiple indicators of well-being, including positive affect, at both between-person and within-person levels of analysis. In one early study, Sheldon, Ryan, and Reis (1996) demonstrated the role of both stable trait levels of autonomy and competence, as well as the fluctuating daily levels of those same traits, in predicting positive affect, lack of negative affect, vitality, and lack of physical symptoms. On days that participants experienced greater satisfaction of needs for autonomy and competence, they showed enhanced outcomes. Yet, independent of these daily affects, people who had more need satisfaction also displayed greater well-being on average. Reis, Sheldon, Gable, Roscoe, and Ryan (2000), in later work, measured all three needs, and results showed that satisfactions for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, both on average and daily levels, were all important for outcomes, including indicators of happiness.

Ryan, Bernstein, and Brown (2010) extended this research to adult workers. This work focused on the “weekend effect,” or the uplifting effects that weekends seem to have. This idea of the weekends having a positive effect was supported by the data—on weekends, people experienced more positive affect, less negative affect, greater vitality, and fewer physical symptoms. In addition, these effects were found across gender, as well as across varying trait levels of well-being. These effects were also found when contrasting work-related and non-work-related activities: People experienced more positive mood and increased vitality with non-work-related activities. In both of these models, the role of the basic psychological needs as mediators for the relations of weekday/weekend and work-related/non-work-related activities on outcomes was tested. The boost provided by weekends was largely mediated by autonomy and relatedness; for most workers, both of these need satisfactions were lower on weekdays, leading to less positive outcomes. When work-related and non-work-related activities were compared, autonomy, relatedness, and competence fully mediated the relations between activities and outcomes. This study thus provides compelling evidence for the role of social contexts, in this case experiences at work, in supporting the satisfaction of basic psychological needs, and highlighting how need satisfaction predicts both within-person as well as between-person indicators of happiness and well-being.

Recent work by Howell and colleagues has highlighted the strong link between even momentary need satisfaction and well-being (Howell, Chenot, Hill, & Howell, 2011). They reported two studies: one in which participants completed hourly diaries of basic psychological need satisfaction and well-being (assessed with measures of happiness, enjoyment, and lack of stress), and another in which participants recalled their hourly need satisfaction and well-being for the preceding 18 hours. On average, hourly increases in autonomy and relatedness were associated with increased happiness and enjoyment and decreased stress. In addition, daily need satisfaction showed a similar pattern of results, with increased autonomy and relatedness being associated with greater happiness and enjoyment and decreased stress. Importantly, daily satisfaction of all three needs was positively associated with overall life satisfaction. A further analysis showed that life satisfaction moderated the relation between momentary autonomy and relatedness and momentary happiness, with those showing greater life satisfaction at the trait level having a stronger link between need satisfaction and happiness. This work provides support for the association between need satisfaction and well-being outcomes, but highlights the importance of eudaimonic factors.

Need frustration. Beyond considerations of basic psychological need satisfaction, recent research has been seeking greater understanding of the role of basic psychological need frustration. Previously it was implicitly assumed that the experience of satisfaction of needs being actively thwarted was one endpoint of a single continuum, with the other endpoint being need satisfaction, and lack of need satisfaction being somewhere in between. Yet, recent research highlights that need frustration could be measured uniquely. In a series of studies on athletes, the unique associations among need satisfaction, need frustration, and various outcomes were assessed, including positive and negative affect during sports activities (Bartholomew, Ntoumanis, Ryan, Bosch, & Thøgersen-Ntoumani, 2011). Autonomy support received from coaches led to increased need satisfaction, which in turn was strongly related to greater vitality and positive affect. Controlling coaches, on the other hand, led to increased need frustration, which in turn was strongly related to more negative affect, and in some samples more depression and more disordered eating. In a second study, autonomy support from coaches was again related to greater need satisfaction, but in this case greater need satisfaction was related to greater positive affect, decreased negative affect, and lower burnout; greater need frustration was associated only with more negative affect and more burnout. A third study replicated these results longitudinally, again showing that coaches’ autonomy support was most predictive of athletes’ need satisfaction, which in turn was most predictive of positive affect, whereas coaches’ control was most predictive of athletes’ need frustration, which in turn was most predictive of negative affect and physical symptoms. This set of studies seems to suggest that autonomy support leads most strongly to need satisfaction, which in turn is most highly related to positive outcomes, whereas controlling environments lead most strongly to need frustration, which in turn yields negative outcomes.

The Eudaimonic Perspective

In contrast to the hedonic view, the eudaimonic view considers happiness something different from the mere attaining of pleasure and enjoyment. Drawing on the Aristotelian definition of eudaimonia, this perspective identifies happiness with the full realization of true human nature, through the exercise of personal virtues and potentials in pursuit of complex goals that are meaningful to the individual and society (Ryff and Singer, 2008).

However, the eudaimonic perspective does not only encompass personal satisfaction, but it also pursues a development path toward the integration of the individual with the surrounding environment: it refers to the interaction between personal and collective space, which assumes that individual happiness is realized within interpersonal relationships (Nussbaum and Sen, 1993).

In the 20th century, the eudaimonic perspective has seen a significant contribution by pioneers of humanistic psychology, Abraham Maslow and Carl Rogers. According to humanistic psychology, individuals have the potential to express their authentic nature if they are able to support the natural inclination toward self-actualization, which exists in all people and is only “waiting” for the conditions to be realized.

A prominent model that has focused on the process of actualization of the self, and the ways it can be accomplished, is Deci and Ryan’s self-determination theory (Deci and Ryan, 2000).

The main focus of self-determination theory is on the investigation of innate psychological needs and inherent growth tendencies that form the basis of self-motivation and integration of personality. Specifically, according to Deci and Ryan, in order to foster well-being and health, three basic needs must be satisfied:

autonomy: this need refers to the urge to be causal and self-governing agents, who act in harmony with their integrated self;

competence: this refers to the experience of behavior as effectively enacted; and

relatedness: it concerns the universal need to interact with other human beings, be connected, and experience caring for others.

The fulfillment of these needs is essential for as a crucial condition for psychological growth (Deci and Ryan, 2000): several studies, across different life domains, have shown positive relations between need satisfaction and optimal functioning, both at the interpersonal and intraindividual level (Deci and Ryan, 2008). Also, self-determination theory holds that basic needs drive the goal-setting process: depending on the extent to which these needs are fulfilled, individuals set intrinsic aspirations, which encompass personal growth, affiliation and intimacy, contribution to one’s community, and physical health. However, if basic needs are not satisfied, individuals develop extrinsic aspirations, such as financial success, social recognition and fame, and image or attractiveness. Since the satisfaction derived from the achievement of extrinsic goals has an ephemeral nature, the individual aims at creating novel and greater extrinsic aspirations. Furthermore, recent research findings have highlighted that people’s well-being improves as they place relatively less importance on materialistic goals and values, whereas orienting toward materialistic goals relatively more is associated with decreases in well-being over time (Kasser et al., 2014). In contrast, the pursuit of intrinsic goals can generate an enduring well-being. Thus, it can be said that psychological need satisfaction plays a mediating role between the achievement of intrinsic goals and changes in well-being (Deci et al., 2008; Niemiec et al., 2009). In sum, Deci and Ryan’s self-determination theory provides a comprehensive account of intrinsic motivation and its role in the development of psychological well-being. According to this model, the prototype of self-determined behavior is intrinsically-motivated action that one engages in because one enjoys it and is interested in it, not because of an “external” reward.

Mihály Csíkszentmihályi has defined the experience associated to such intrinsically-rewarding activity as “flow” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1990). This is a positive and complex state of consciousness, characterized by a perceived balance between high challenges in the task at hand and adequate personal skills in facing them. Additional characteristics of this optimal experience are positive affect, deep concentration, clear rules in and unambiguous feedback from the task at hand, loss of self-consciousness, and control of one’s actions and environment (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1990).

Previous research has shown that flow shows stable features at the cross-cultural level, and it can be associated with various contexts of activities, such as family, work, leisure, provided that individuals perceive these activities as complex opportunities for action in which to invest personal skills. From this perspective, an important aspect highlighted by previous research is that the association of flow with specific activities motivates people to replicate them, as well as to the preferential cultivation of individual skills (Csikszentmihalyi and Beattie, 1979). As the latter improves, the person will subsequently search for increasingly complex opportunities for action.

By virtue of this dynamic process of skills cultivation and challenge increase, optimal experience shapes the development of a life theme, namely the set of goals and interests a person preferentially pursues and cultivates in his/her life (Csikszentmihalyi and Beattie, 1979). Csikszentmihalyi and colleagues also introduced the concept of an autotelic personality, to describe people with several very specific personality traits which enable more frequent experiences of flow states than the average person (Csikszentmihalyi et al., 1993; Nakamura and Csikszentmihalyi, 2002). In Csikszentmihalyi’s own words: “Autotelic is a word composed of two Greek roots: auto (self), and telos (goal). An autotelic activity is one we do for its own sake because to experience it is the main goal. Applied to personality, autotelic denotes an individual who generally does things for their own sake, rather than in order to achieve some later external goal” (Csikszentmihalyi, 1997, p. 117).

A further central concern in the eudaimonic approach to happiness is to explore the role of human character strengths and virtues. In the history of psychology, there have been several attempts to understand and classify mental illness using statistic criteria. These efforts eventually lead to the elaboration of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) which is today widely adopted by the clinical community. Following the DSM example, Park, Peterson, and Seligman proposed a taxonomy of character strengths, defined as “positive traits reflected in thoughts, feelings and behaviors” (Park et al., 2004, p. 603). Based on systematic review of psychological, philosophical, and religious literature, Peterson and Seligman (Peterson and Seligman, 2004) identified 24 measurable character strengths, which were further classified under six classes of core virtues: wisdom/knowledge (creativity, curiosity, open-mindedness, love of learning, perspective), courage (bravery, persistence, integrity, vitality), humanity (love, kindness, social intelligence), justice (citizenship, fairness, leadership), temperance (forgiveness and mercy, humility, prudence, self-regulation), transcendence (appreciation of beauty and excellence, gratitude, hope, humor, spirituality). These authors also developed a self-reported instrument, the Values in Action Inventory of Strengths (VIA-IS; 2004), in order to measure these character strengths.

Self-Determination Theory

SDT (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Ryan and Deci, 2000) posits that fulfillment of three basic innate, human psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) is necessary for optimal human functioning. When support for these needs is available, people will be intrinsically motivated to undertake tasks for their own sake because they are interesting, enjoyable, and inherently rewarding. Under these conditions, people are autonomously motivated. By contrast, when these psychological needs are unsupported or thwarted, wellness and growth will be negatively affected. In studies of student learning, autonomy relates to choice, competence refers to feeling efficacious during learning tasks, and relatedness refers to feeling connected to the teacher and class. The satisfaction of these needs is a necessary condition for learning.

SDT offers a potentially rich perspective on how individuals develop and internalize their motivations. External regulation is the least self-determined, least autonomous form of motivation, and located at the opposite end of the continuum from intrinsic regulation. Between the extremes of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, differentiated levels of regulation occur; introjected regulation refers to forms of regulation that are taken in by the individual and provide for self-imposed pressures or ‘should,’ whereas identified regulation is experienced when individuals identify with the worth of an activity or behavior and engage in it accordingly (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Thus, intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are located at two ends of an internalization continuum with movement along that continuum being signaled by structural changes that progressively transform externally based regulations into a more internal personal regulatory system (cf Grolnick et al., 1997). Movement along this continuum means that an individual's experience of regulation is progressively more autonomous, integrated, and self-determined with initiated behaviors performed out of choice, simultaneously meeting an individual's innate need for a sense of competence, autonomy, and relatedness.

The key differentiation drawn by SDT theorists is between autonomous (or self-determined) and controlled motivations. Autonomous motivation involves volition and choice, and controlled motivation involves an external or internal sense of compulsion (Assor et al., 2004; Grolnick et al., 1997). It is possible that initially autonomous motivations could become controlled motivations, for example, when an initial decision (such as to become a teacher) is autonomous, but then actually doing the work entails a sense of compulsion or external responsibility. A large literature has examined predictors of students' autonomous motivation and benefits for their engagement and well-being (see Ryan and Deci, 2009).

Self-Determination Theory

Rewards can undermine an individual's natural curiosity and interest. According to SDT (Ryan and Deci, 2000), humans can be drawn to engage in activities because the activity itself is appealing, enjoyable, and fulfilling. This intrinsic motivation is seen as an ideal type of motivation in the sense that there are no contingencies associated with the person's engagement in the activity. However, money, recognition, status, and other rewards can shape human behavior such that the same individual who once might have engaged in an activity due to interest now engages in that behavior because of the benefits that are gained by doing so. Rewards can contaminate intrinsic motivation in the sense that the person's level of engagement in the activity would diminish if she or he were no longer able to receive external benefits for engaging in the behavior (Deci and Ryan, 1985; Plant and Ryan, 1985).

The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, at times, may represent a false dichotomy with respect to how human behavior is energized and directed (Ryan and Deci, 2008). Self-determined motivation (also referred to as autonomous motivation) is a combination of the intrinsic and extrinsic regulatory mechanisms of interest (intrinsic regulation), internalization (integrated regulation), and values (identified regulation). On the other hand, controlled motivation represents behavior that is dictated by emotions imposed by others (introjected regulation), such as pride, shame, or guilt, or extrinsic rewards (external regulation). Self-determined motivation is seen as a higher quality form of motivation than controlled motivation in the sense that the forces driving an individual's behavior are all internal in nature, even if some of these forces are secondary to the enjoyment of the task itself (Ryan and Deci, 2000).

Self-determined motivation can be facilitated by contexts that nurture basic human needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci et al., 1991). Autonomy refers to an individual's perception of choice (i.e., engaging in behaviors because of her or his own volition). Competence refers to beliefs in one's capabilities. Relatedness refers to one's interpersonal connections with others. In a classroom environment, SDT explains that students whose needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness are fulfilled through interactions with others in that context will be more self-determined in their achievement behavior.

Recent SDT research has focused on assessing the synergism of different types of motivations. Vansteenkiste et al. (2009) examined profiles of autonomous and controlled motivation among high school and college students. In the high school sample, the authors labeled students, who were high in autonomous motivation yet low in controlled motivation, the high-quality motivation profile. Relative to other profiles, this profile of individuals reported greater cognitive, metacognitive, and behavioral outcomes than students with other motivational profiles. In addition to replicating this pattern in the college sample, the authors also found that college students with this profile also perceived their teachers as higher in autonomy support, structure, and teacher involvement. In a similar study of middle school students, Hayenga and Corpus (2010) examined profiles of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation among middle school students. The authors labeled students, who were high in intrinsic motivation yet low in extrinsic motivation, the high-quality profile. Relative to other profiles, students in the high-quality profile exhibited superior academic performance. Results also revealed shifts in profile stability over the course of the academic year – with more students shifting toward poor-quality motivation profiles (low-intrinsic, high-extrinsic motivation) over the course of the academic year. In a related study, Wormington et al. (2012) examined profiles of intrinsic, introjected, and external regulation in a sample of high school students. The authors labeled students who were high in intrinsic regulation relative to their introjected and external regulation the good-quality profile, and labeled students who were high in intrinsic, introjected, and external regulation the high-quantity profile. Membership in these two profiles was associated with high levels of performance and more extracurricular activity participation. However, students who were members of these two profiles did not significantly differ from one another in terms of academic performance and extracurricular activity participation. The authors explain this finding as an advance in SDT research – contending that controlled forms of regulation may perhaps be adaptive in highly controlled high school environments. Overall, work of Vansteenkiste and colleagues, Hayenga and Corpus, and Wormington and colleagues moves toward a clearer understanding of how other types of motivations may bolster or suppress the effect of intrinsic motivation on positive student outcomes.

The Social-Cognitive Approach

Social-cognitive researchers are critical of all the other personality theories. They believe that psychodynamic scholars exaggerate the importance of the unconscious and the personal history of people. They also question the idea that personality can be understood merely in terms of people’s traits, since personality also includes patterns of variability of behavior in different situations (Mischel & Shoda, 2008). Finally they also disagree with the behaviorist stand point that people are entirely controlled by environmental forces. Social-cognitivists argue that people have a capacity to influence their destinies and that their thinking capacity can be used to self-regulate and motivate actions. The construction of personal meaning and beliefs of the self is considered important for human beings (Bandura, 2006).

Mischel and Shoda (2008) have presented a set of social-cognitive personality concepts as a complex system of cognitive and affective processes which are alleged to explain human personality. Their model is named Cognitive-Affective Processing System (CAPS). The personality structures included in CAPS are competencies, expectancies, beliefs, personal goals, behavioral norms and evaluative standards. These are all interdependent. Our actions will be contingent on what beliefs and expectancies we have concerning our competencies in a certain context (e.g., to see oneself as socially competent at a party). These actions will also be influenced by what we consider to be the right thing to do in any given situation (e.g., adapting to social norms at parties) and further depends on what personal goals we have in this domain of life (e.g., to make acquaintances). Social-cognitive theory rejects context-free competencies. People will not be looked upon as more or less competent in general. Any individual’s competence will vary from one situation to another and from one knowledge domain to another. Most important of all for what kind of actions we will undertake are our expectations about the future. Beliefs of self-competence are sometimes termed beliefs of self-efficacy (Bandura, 1997). Beliefs of self-efficacy will affect goals, effort and emotions. Individuals with high self-efficacy will choose more challenging goals, put more effort into a task, and approach tasks with more positive moods (less anxiety).

The Social-Cognitive Approach in the organizational context. A social-cognitive theory of motivation is Self-Determination Theory, proposed by Deci and Ryan (Ryan & Deci, 2000), which among others has often been applied to organizational research. The theory emphasizes the need for motivation for achievement, and most of all the need for intrinsic motivation. The theorists assert that understanding motivation requires taking into account three basic human needs:

autonomy—freedom of external constraints on behavior,

competence—the need to feel capable, and

relatedness—the need to feel involved with others.

The main idea of self-determination theory is that when individuals (such as employees in a company) feel that their basic needs are reasonably well met, they tend to perceive their actions to be intrinsically motivated or self-determined, and this will raise the quality of their performance. However, the self-determination theory emphasizes a person’s perception of freedom, rather than the presence or absence of actual constraints. An individual feels free, even if he or she is also operating within certain external constraints.

Abstract

The purpose of this chapter is to identify the antecedents of two interpersonal styles adopted by coaches that are proposed in self-determination theory [SDT; Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2002). An overview of self-determination theory. In E. L. Deci, & R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 3–33). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.], namely need supportive and controlling styles. The degree to which individuals in positions of authority or leadership (eg, coaches) adopt a communication style that is need supportive and/or controlling determines the degree of psychological need satisfaction experienced by people they interact with (eg, athletes), and indirectly the quality of their motivation, well-being and behavioral engagement. Much more is known about the consequences as opposed to the antecedents of these two styles. Our review addresses this gap by examining what is known on this topic from the SDT literature in the educational, parental, sport, work, and health domains. Applications of findings from this diverse literature in sport are discussed and gaps in current knowledge are identified. Potential additional antecedents that may contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of why coaches adopt need supportive and/or controlling interpersonal styles are proposed.

Understanding the Classroom from Multiple Perspectives

As detailed above, studies of the effective components of the classroom have yielded support for frameworks like Teaching through Interactions and self-determination theory because they highlight the importance of eliciting a student's emotional connection to the teacher, the content, and the instruction. The process of eliciting student connections, also called connective instruction, emphasizes the importance of these three facets in understanding and predicting student engagement (Martin and Dowson, 2009). Forming an emotional connection to the teacher occurs through interactions in which the teacher affirms and displays a genuine interest in the student's perspective and gets to know each student as an individual. Forming an emotional connection to the content involves opportunities to work with material that is relevant to a student's life and that has meaningful purpose. Forming an emotional connection to instruction is characterized by opportunities to learn from mistakes and develop a sense of competence. This framework aligns with the Teaching through Interactions framework, as they both posit that an effective classroom environment is created by the interactions teachers have with students along emotional, organizational, and instructional domains.

A recent study extends this theoretical argument by positing that identity development sits at the center of the connective instruction model of effective classrooms (Cooper, 2014). In this study, a mixed-methods approach was employed collecting data from 581 different classrooms totaling 1132 of the school's 1420 students through a self-report survey, and then following up with case studies of five classes that were intended to be representative and “provide insight into how the various types of teaching practices related to engagement” (p. 12). Results suggested quite strongly that connective instruction practices emphasizing the uniqueness of students by connecting understanding, affirmation, and humor with expressions of relevance and self-expression were most strongly associated with student engagement. This study highlights the important point that emotional engagement achieved through positive affect and emotional connections with teachers are only predictive of greater learning when paired with high-quality instruction that pushes higher-order thinking (Marzano and Pickering, 2011).