Using self-determination theory, two studies found that holding an extrinsic, relative to an intrinsic, work value orientation was associated with less positive outcomes (i.e. less satisfaction with, dedication to and vitality while on the job) and more negative outcomes (i.e. higher emotional exhaustion, short-lived satisfaction after successful goal-attainment, and turn-over intention). These relations were not limited to job outcomes, but also emerged using indicators of employees' general mental health. Moreover, income level did not moderate these relations. Study 2 found that holding an extrinsic, relative to an intrinsic, work value orientation was detrimental to employees' job outcomes because these orientations thwarted the satisfaction of the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness at work.
We theoretically and empirically evaluate Allport's intrinsic-extrinsic and Batson's quest religious orientations through the lens of self-determination theory (SDT) and Wulff's social-cognitive model. Confirming our theoretical analysis, we find that Allport's intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy fails to correspond empirically to the differentiation between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation within SDT. Whereas Allport's intrinsic religious orientation was positively related to internalized extrinsic motivation, his two extrinsic (i.e., personal and social) religious orientations were not systematically related to any of the discerned motives within SDT. Furthermore, Batson's quest orientation was unrelated to any of the SDT concepts but was positively related to symbolic disbelief. The present findings suggest that Allport's motivational orientations model needs both refinement and relabeling to better fit with recent theoretical evolutions in the field of motivational psychology.
The fields of religious and motivation psychology have quite independently developed their own conceptualizations and research agendas. Few scholars, however, have examined issues that are at the intersection of both fields and, if so, most researchers in the psychology of religion did not make use of existing general motivational frameworks to enrich their understanding of the motivational dynamics for religious behaviors. The aim of the present chapter is to indicate how self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, (2000a) American Psychologist, 55, 68-78) might help to further refine Allport's classical distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic religious orientation. Specifically, it is argued that the reasons or regulations for religious behavior (initially, intrinsic vs. extrinsic; later, autonomous vs. controlled) and the goals of religious behavior (intrinsic vs. extrinsic), as they are defined within self-determination theory, are not distinguished within Allport's and other researchers' frameworks. Both conceptual dimensions might better be disentangled, so that their independent effects could be studied.
Using self-determination theory as a guiding framework, this study examined whether perceptions of God as autonomy supportive and controlling were related to individuals' belief in a transcendent reality and to their social-cognitive style of approaching religious contents (i.e., literal and rigid vs. symbolic and flexible). Further, we examined whether individuals' motives for religious behavior (i.e., autonomous vs. controlled) would mediate these associations. In a sample of 267 religiously active participants, we found that the two types of perceptions of God were positively related to belief in transcendence but were differentially related to a symbolic approach. Specifically, a perception of God as autonomy supportive related positively and a perception of God as controlling related negatively to a symbolic approach. Some evidence was obtained for a mediating role of motives for religious behavior in these associations. Discussion focuses on how self-determination theory can contribute to research on the psychology of religion.Correspondence should be sent to Bart Soenens,
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.