Page 15 - EMCAPP-Journal No. 23

and Self-determina�on in Human Behavior (1985). Addi�onally, research has clearly validated that ul-
They clarify that there are two direc�ons that mo�-
va�on theories have moved. One is mechanis�c
(extrinsic) in that the source of mo�va�on comes
externally from an environmental or outside source
of physiological s�mula�on and the person is seen
as passive. The second direc�on of mo�va�on the-
ories that Deci and Ryan (1985) iden�fy is the ex-
pansion into what they describe as “organismic”
theories or “intrinsic mo�va�on” (labeled by Har-
low, 1950: in no�ng explora�on pa�erns that la-
cked alignment with extrinsic mo�va�on defini�-
on). Intrinsic mo�va�on was differen�ated from ex-
trinsic mo�va�on as it was iden�fied as “a primary
central nervous system need that does not have an
appreciable effect on non-nervous system �ssues”
(p. 17).
The original thought processing of this needs-based
intrinsic view (SDT) for Deci and Ryan (1985) goes
back to White, who in 1959 emphasized the neces-
sity for an alternate mo�va�onal source to explain
the anomalies of drive theory alone. White called
this internal mo�va�ng energy “effectance mo�va-
�on” (p. 27) because “organisms are innately mo�-
vated to be effec�ve in dealing with their environ-
ments” (p. 19).
Development of Intrinsic Mo�va�on Theory
In addi�on to White’s effectance (competence) mo-
�va�on theory, Deci & Ryan (1985) found a basis for
their organismic theory in the psychoanaly�c view
that mo�va�onal energy development is found in
the innateness of the ego. This is what White called
“Independent ego energy” (p. 19) which expanded
it beyond strict focus on id and social conflicts. Deci Aristotelian concept of eudaimonia (Aristotle,
and Ryan go on explain their need-based concep�-
ons: organismic theories tend to view the organism
as ac�ve, that is, as being voli�onal and ini�a�ng
behaviors. According to the later perspec�ve, orga-
nisms have intrinsic needs and physiological drive,
and these intrinsic needs provide energy for the or-
ganisms to act on… the environment and to
manage aspects of their drives and emo�ons The
ac�ve-organism view treats s�muli not as causes of
behavior, but as affordances or opportuni�es that
the organism can u�lize in sa�sfying its need. (Deci
& Ryan, 1985, pp. 3-4).
The founda�on of this work is seated in “people’s
inherent mo�va�onal propensi�es” (needs) “for
learning and growing…” (Ryan & Deci, 2020, p. 1).
15
15
�mately, reward-based mo�vators thwart intrinsic
mo�va�on (Kasser & Ryan, 1996; Deci, 1971; Lep-
per, Greene, & Nisbe�, 1973, as cited in Ryan &
Deci, 2000a, p. 59). Deci and Ryan interpreted this
to mean that extrinsic reward moves people from
an internal to an external sense of locus of causali-
ty. They further proposed that intrinsic mo�va�on
is “based in the organismic needs to be competent
and self-determining” (1985, p 5.) with self-deter-
mining being defined as “free from control” (p. 30).
As Deci and Ryan’s (2000c) theories of mo�va�on
(SDT) development expanded, they delineated a
progression from a lack of mo�va�on through les-
sening levels of extrinsic mo�va�on movement to-
ward intrinsic mo�va�on. This work supports int-
rinsic mo�va�on as a more sa�sfying mo�va�on
for the individual.
Movement toward Mo�va�onal Well-Being (from
Hedonic to Eudaimonic)
Most o�en, psychological concepts have been fo-
cused on the hedonic view of well-being (happi-
ness) (Deci & Ryan, 2008). They state:
The hedonic approach used what Tooby and Cosmi-
des (1992) referred to as the standard social sci-
ence model, which considers the human organism
ini�ally to be rela�vely empty and thus malleable,
such that it gains its meaning in accord with social
and cultural teachings. (p.3).
Ryff and Singer (1989) challenged the hedonic mo-
del of psychological well-being, it’s measures and
prevailing viewpoint (the seeking of pleasure and
avoidance of pain), through the applica�on of the
2019). Rather than happiness, “generally defined
as the presence of posi�ve affect and the absence
of nega�ve affect” (Deci & Ryan, 2006, p. 1), a new
category was needed. It was found that happiness
literature was “hopelessly value laden in determi-
ning how people should func�on” (p. 1071). In con-
trast, the eudaimonic approach ascribes content to
human nature and works to uncover that content
and to understand the condi�ons that facilitate ver-
sus diminish it (Deci & Ryan, 2008).
It is important to note that the nature of humans
does not move consistently toward good. Accor-
ding to Kaufman et al., we all have a dark side as
well as light within. However, it varies with how
consistently we “exhibit light vs. dark pa�erns of