Becoming who you are: An integrative review of self‐determination theory and personality systems interactions theory

Abstract

One of the enduring missions of personality science is to unravel what it takes to become a fully functioning person. In the present article, the authors address this matter from the perspectives of self-determination theory (SDT) and personality systems interactions (PSI) theory. SDT (a) is rooted in humanistic psychology; (b) has emphasized a first-person perspective on motivation and personality; (c) posits that the person, supported by the social environment, naturally moves toward growth through the satisfaction of basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. PSI theory (a) is rooted in German volition psychology; (b) has emphasized a third-person perspective on motivation and personality; and (c) posits that a fully functioning person can form and enact difficult intentions and integrate new experiences, and that such competencies are facilitated by affect regulation. The authors review empirical support for SDT and PSI theory, their convergences and divergences, and how the theories bear on recent empirical research on internalization, vitality, and achievement flow. The authors conclude that SDT and PSI theory offer complementary insights into developing a person's full potential.

Reflections on self‐determination theory as an organizing framework for personality psychology: Interfaces, integrations, issues, and unfinished business

“…We begin with the piece by Koole et al () in part because SDT has had a rich history of connecting with scholars in PSI (e.g., Ryan, Kuhl, & Deci, ), and more generally, the longer tradition of volitional psychologies from Germany (e.g., Heckhausen, ; Krapp & Ryan, ). Recently, Ryan (), in a volume honoring PSI founder Julius Kuhl, suggested that SDT and PSI are “sibling theories,” both being organismic in their meta‐theoretical assumptions, and overlapping in their interests in autonomy and control in human behavior.…”

“…Koole et al () highlight the evidence base of PSI which has shown how its personality dimensions of action orientation and state orientation , typically measured with self‐report, predict differences in engagement, coping, and wellness, especially under challenging conditions. They also provide their own review of SDT, much of with which we can concur.…”

“…Koole et al () characterize SDT as a “first person” approach, with a strong focus on individuals’ subjective experience, which they then contrast with their “third person” approach of PSI, which they characterize as “objective.” In our view, there is confusion in any thinking that aligns “objective” methods with “third person” approaches, or that proposes a dichotomy between a “first person” and a “third person” perspective, as if both would be incompatible. Indeed, SDT research shows that objective methods can be extensively applied within a theory that nonetheless recognizes the importance of subjective experience within the organization of behavior.…”

Emotionally aligned: Preliminary results on the effects of a mindfulness‐based intervention for depression on congruence between implicit and explicit mood

“…Both classic and modern psychoanalytic and humanistic theories have suggested that incongruence between conscious and unconscious emotional responses lead to mental illness (Shedler, ) and stunt personal growth (Koole, Schlinkert, Maldei, & Baumann, ). Consistent with these ideas, well‐being is lower and psychological symptoms are increased among people with greater incongruencies between implicit and explicit motivation (Baumann, Kaschel, & Kuhl, ) or implicit and explicit self‐esteem (Phillips & Hine, ).…”

“…Both classic and modern psychoanalytic and humanistic theories have suggested that incongruence between conscious and unconscious emotional responses lead to mental illness (Shedler, 2010) and stunt personal growth (Koole, Schlinkert, Maldei, & Baumann, 2018).…”