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

Abstract

Objective This special issue focuses on self‐determination theory (SDT) as an integrative framework for the wider field of personality research. In this commentary our aims include: reflecting on the utility and strengths of SDT as such a general framework and responding to the various contributions in this issue regarding their use of SDT as a guiding, complementary, or contrasting framework. Methods and Results We describe how SDT has developed organically and conservatively from “within” based on the emerging patterns of evidence, as well through the ongoing challenges from other models and frameworks. We then discuss each of the various contributions to this special issue, addressing themes that include SDT’s breadth of methods, and its relevance to topics such as narcissism, wisdom, individual differences, Big‐Five traits, and the neuropsychology of motivation, among others. Across these discussions, we highlight fruitful avenues for research and cross‐fertilization across the fields of personality, development, motivation, and neuroscience. At the same time, we counter some claims made about SDT, and forward certain cautions regarding the integration of SDT and other personality frameworks and models. Conclusions We conclude by revisiting the value of broad theory, and SDT in particular, for coordinating complex research findings concerning motivation, personality development and wellness across multiple levels of analysis and, perhaps more importantly, for pointing researchers to the right questions within today’s prolific empiricism.

Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions

“…Individual differences in need strength have received substantial attention in other theoretical traditions, including motive disposition theory (McClelland 1987). According to BPNT's universality claim, these differences play a minimal role in altering effects of experienced need satisfaction and frustration relative to the expected main effects (Ryan et al 2019a). At the same time, BPNT's universality claim should not be interpreted too rigidly.…”

Do individual differences in need strength moderate the relations between basic psychological need satisfaction and organizational citizenship behavior?

“…To disentangle the inconsistency in findings regarding the moderating role of need strength, future research may follow an all-encompassing approach by including all three need domains as well as domain-specific and more general need satisfaction, need strength (explicit and implicit), and outcome variables (see also Ryan et al 2019). Another option for future research is to explore the moderating effect of need strength on the relation between basic psychological need frustration and destructive voluntary job performance (see Van den Broeck et al 2014).…”

Multiplicative effect of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on academic performance: A longitudinal study of Chinese students

“…SDT is regarded as a “grand theory” since its various motivational dimensions have been related to a wide range of psychological constructs, such as narcissism, wisdom, individual differences, Big Five personality traits, and the neuropsychology of motivation (Bauer, King, & Steger, ; Reeve & Lee, ; Ryan, Soenens, & Vansteenkiste, ). In particular, the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on academic achievement, working performance, psychological health, and well‐being have been widely studied (e.g., Ryan & Deci, ; Sheldon & Prentice, ).…”