Putting the pieces together: reviewing the structural conceptualization of motivation within SDT
- PDF / 991,398 Bytes
- 16 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 12 Downloads / 186 Views
ORIGINAL PAPER
Putting the pieces together: reviewing the structural conceptualization of motivation within SDT Joshua L. Howard1 · Marylene Gagné2 · Alexandre J. S. Morin3
© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2020
Abstract Self-determination theory presents a multi-dimensional approach to human motivation in which motivation is driven by a range of classifiably distinct regulation styles. However, these different regulations are also considered to fall along a continuum of self-determination which implies that a global dimension reflecting the degree of self-determination present is important. The lack of explicit integration between these two aspects in the conceptualization of motivation has recently led to debates and a flux of research on the structure of motivation as defined in self-determination theory. This review comprehensively explores recent advances in this area as well as more classical approaches in order to establish an optimal and empirically supported conceptualization of motivation. A novel solution is proposed, namely a semi-radex structure of motivation, in which types of motivation are predictably ordered by degree of self-determination while also maintaining their unique contribution as distinct factors. Theoretical and practical implications for researchers who use self-determination theory are made. Keywords Self-determination theory · Motivation · Continuum · Semi-radex · Bifactor exploratory structural equation modeling (B-ESEM) A common and recurrent theme within motivation research concerns the number of factors required to appropriately and completely capture an individual’s motivation. McClelland (1987) depicted motives in terms of the needs for achievement, power, and affiliation, whereas others identified approach and avoidance mindsets as the key defining characteristics of motivation (e.g., Higgins 1997). Additional * Joshua L. Howard [email protected] Marylene Gagné [email protected] Alexandre J. S. Morin [email protected] 1
Monash Business School, Department of Management, Monash University, 900 Dandenong Rd, Caulfield East, VIC 3145, Australia
2
Curtin Business School, Curtin University and University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley, WA 6009, Australia
3
Substantive‑Methodological Synergy Research Laboratory, Department of Psychology, Concordia University, 7141 Sherbrooke W, Montreal, QC H4B 1R6, Canada
theories rely on a broad definition of motivation, and rather focus on the mechanisms that underpin motivated behavior (e.g. Expectancy Theory, Theory of Planned Behavior, and Goal-setting Theory; Locke and Latham 1990; Fishbein and Ajzen 1977; Vroom 1964). Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci and Ryan 1985; Ryan and Deci 2017) is more closely aligned with the former of these approaches and specifies several motivational regulations that energize and guide individual behavior based on how self-determined or volitional each regulation is. According to SDT, each type of regulation leads to diff
Data Loading...
