Cross-Cultural Motivation and Self-Determination
Susan McGilloway
Walden University
Self-Determination Theory

For decades researchers have studied human motivation and the process of developing self-determination (Deci & Ryan, 1980, 1985, 1991; Deci & Ryan, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Deci & Ryan, 2008; Vallarand, Pelletier, and Koestner, 2008). Human motivation is the drive to change personal or public behaviors on an individual or societal level. Self-determination theory presupposes that motivation is the inner impetus to implement sustained change independent of control by others (Deci & Ryan, 2000; 2008). Deci and Ryan (2008) and Milyavskaya and Koestner (2011) suggested that SDT applies to multiple spheres of life domains such as health, education, and work. The concept of motivation and self-determination goes beyond mere goal achievement and addresses the concepts of psychological, emotional, and physical well-being (McGilloway, 2011).
According to Deci & Ryan (2009), SDT is in contrast to the Hull drive (Hull, 1943) and Skinner reinforcement theories (Skinner, 1953). However, White (1959) suggested that an innate motive that is psychological supplements drive theory - a precursor to the concept of intrinsic motivation and the satisfaction of psychological needs. In contrast to the drive theory of Hull and the reinforcement theory of Skinner, SDT strays from the concept of “deficit principles” (Deci & Ryan, 2000). In SDT psychological needs are understood as constructs that strengthen the individual’s movement toward a desired state (White, 1959). Deci & Ryan (2000) describe this phenomenon as “psychological need” (p. 231) rather than the White (1959) term ¬“motive.” (p. 298).
SDT extends beyond the mere concept of goal direction and achievement by associating these constructs with intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation regulatory processes (Deci & Ryan, 2000), and the satisfaction of the basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness as they are related to the overall well-being of the individual.
Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness
The association of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation to the satisfaction of basic psychological needs has been the topic of Deci’s and Ryan’s research in self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000). According to SDT theory, the development of self-determination is contingent upon the fulfillment of autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2008; Deci & Ryan, 2009; Ryan, Lynch, Vansteenkiste & Deci, 2010); however, the manner in which these needs are met in relation to the Hays (2009) cultural influences is generally absent from the literature. The question remains as to the characterization of these constructs cross culturally.
Although there is a plethora of literature on motivation and self-determination, the concept of the cross cultural definitions of autonomy, competence, and relatedness is absent. Hays (2009) distinguished cultural groups according to the presence of the following variables: age, disability, religion, ethnicity/race, sexual orientation, socioeconomic level, indigenous heritage, national origin, and gender. The organismic-dialectical interchange involves not only the internal process of motivation, but the individual’s social world view (Haggar & Chatzisarantis, 2011; Chirkov, Saskatchewan, Ryan, Kim, Kaplan, 2003; Deci & Ryan, 2000). Reflecting upon self-determination cross culturally according to the Hays framework requires that one think particularly in terms of individualism versus collectivism. Are the constructs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness subject to a universal definition or are they distinct within collectivist cultures?
According to Deci and Ryan (2000) autonomy is essential for the development of intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation requires that the behavior be freely chosen separate from environmental rewards or punishments, and that the individual have a belief that she is capable of achieving the goal. According to Lepper, Green, and Nesbitt (1973) the introduction of extrinsic rewards or negative feedback actually counteracts intrinsic motivation as the individual no longer performs the act as a result of interest and joy, but by the controlling force of the reward or perceived punishment decreasing autonomy. Positive feedback does, however, assist in supporting intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Positive feedback supports satisfaction of the need for competence by increasing the self confidence of the recipient (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Positive feedback may additionally be associated with relatedness as positive feedback comes from an external individual who provides a connection to the individual performing the action. It appears that autonomy and competence are essential for intrinsic motivation while relatedness may not be (McGilloway, 2011).
In contrast to Deci and Ryan (2000) who suggested that the need for autonomy in motivation is cross-cultural, Iyengar and Lepper (1999) suggested that with Chinese children whose choice was determined by parents and teachers, motivation was strongly associated with relatedness rather than autonomy. For non-Western cultures relatedness takes precedence over autonomy. While the Western value of individualism drives the motivational need for autonomy, the more collectivist concept of the importance of the social group coherence of non-Western cultures may not have a significant impact on motivation. This premise suggests that, in fact, the definition of autonomy may differ among cultures. This assumption raises the question of whether autonomy may be interpreted as collectivistic as well as individualistic. The decision to adhere to the values of the social milieu may be as autonomous an act as the individual who autonomously decides to defy the cultural norm. The question remains, however, as to whether motivation that is collectivist-based is intrinsic or extrinsic and whether the definition of autonomy is the same as in individualist cultures. If the values of the society milieu have been integrated into the belief system of the individual, even though the motivation is strictly speaking extrinsic, it could be sufficiently internalized to be considered autonomous. Moreover, when fully integrated into the individual’s belief and value system, the individual may be actually motivated by the pleasure of acting according to one’s belief and value system, thereby raising the motivation from integrated extrinsic to intrinsic (Ryan & Deci, 2006). According to Camgoz, Tektas, and Metin (2008) assert that cross culturally and in gender there are significant differences in the manner in which individuals interpret the causality of success and failure. This construct is explained as AAS, and is significant in predicting subsequent perception of academic ability thus influencing one’s perception of competence. One’s attitude toward self efficacy affects one’s perception of situational obstacles as being significant to failure rather than an expression of their ability. When the individual is high in self efficacy, they attribute success to internal factors, and failure to external situational factors. This attitude influences the manner in which the individual exerts effort in overcoming external obstacles leading to successful performance. Individuals who are low in self efficacy tend to approach situational obstacles as significantly more influential in their ability to be successful, and attribute failure to internal causality. According to Camgoz, Tektas, and Metin (2008), gender and culture were both each positively associated with an individual’s academic attributional style. Females tended to internalize failure and externalize success while males tended to externalize failure and internalize success. In terms of culture, a significant difference was found in various cultures in relation to the same phenomenon. Camgoz’s and Tektas’ study supports the assertion that further research is needed to determine the difference in academic attributional style cross culturally to determine ethnic/racial individual’s motivation and ability to exhibit self determination.
Competence, closely related to autonomy, as an innate need is first proposed by White (1959). Deci & Ryan (1985, 2000, 2008) add autonomy and relatedness as innate needs that strengthen the individual’s movement toward goal achievement. As stated above, Deci & Ryan posited that the innate needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, when satisfied, correlates positively with intrinsic motivation or extrinsic motivation integration, and increases the likelihood that an individual will achieve positive outcomes. A belief that the individual has the ability to attain a particular goal is required for the individual to attempt a goal. When the behaviors required to achieve the goal are lower than the perceived ability of the individual, she will lose interest. When above the perceived ability of the individual, she will lose interest. Self-efficacy is closely related to competence. Culturally, self-efficacy and competence are explained differently according to the culture group. According to Camgoz, Tektas, and Metin (2008), two variables that impact the expression of self-efficacy are gender and ethnicity/race. Based on Bandura’s concept of attribution, Peterson and Seligman (1984) describe the concept as academic attributional style (AAS) as “…a cognitive personality variable that reflects the habitual manner in which people explain the causes of events that befall them” (p. 347). Peterson and Seligman believed that this causality was significant in the development of depressive symptoms related to learned helplessness. When the individual perceives their locus of control as external to themselves, successes are perceived as situational rather than related to personal competence.
Returning to Peterson and Seligman (1984) who attributed depressive symptoms to learned helplessness and depression, one concludes that those individuals who attribute failure to internal causality and success to external causality will tend to be less hopeful in their ability to be successful academically. Kay, Hanson, Maltby, Proctor, and Wood (2010) support the supposition that when individuals attribute success to external causal factors and failure to internal causal factors they will be less hopeful in subsequent academic endeavors and in goal achievement. Therefore, in academic counseling of students, the counselor is advised to address the individual’s locus of causality, self-efficacy, and competence as it impacts academic goal achievement and success.
Motivational Processes
Behavior for the positive affect that is experienced regardless of any extrinsic reward is intrinsically motivated as the individual performs the action for pleasure. Few goals are pursued for the mere enjoyment or interest. Few have such luxury as to approach achieving a goal for this purpose. Intrinsic motivation draws the individual to challenge, exploration, and learning.
When left to explore, the child is attracted to challenge, and receives joy from attempting a skill repeatedly until mastery (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Deci and Ryan (2000) introduce the concept of cognitive evaluation theory (CET) that indicates the factors that positively or negatively address the need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Given support and the satisfaction of the aforementioned needs, the child grows to accept challenges, has an inherent inclination to explore the unknown, and approaches learning positively. However, at some point motivation becomes associated with control, failure, or extrinsically related positive or negative outcomes thus creating conditions that discourage intrinsic motivation. Grades, parental disapproval, external demands and rewards all contribute to a loss of the initial attraction to challenge, exploration, and learning. Given that not all motivation is intrinsically centered, a discussion of the process of internalizing external motivation is salient. Extrinsic motivation is by nature centered outside the individual. However, through self-regulation, the individual has the ability to internalize and integrate the perceived locus of causality from external to internal. According to Deci and Ryan (2000), the organismic-dialectical metatheory explains the manner in which the individual internalizes external social traditions, values, and beliefs. The levels of internalization are defined in terms of the perceived locus of causality as impersonal, external, somewhat external, somewhat internal, and internal.
Given external support in competence and relatedness, the perceived extrinsically oriented locus of causality becomes the individual’s rather than controlled by the social environment. When the individual is able to self-regulate behaviors rather than being controlled by others, she has reached integration and the perceived locus of control becomes internal. The degree that the individual experiences external support of competence and relatedness determines the level of perceived locus of causality (Deci & Ryan, 2000).
Autonomy influences integration as well. The individual must experience a degree of autonomy in the process. Intrinsic to this process are independence and interdependence. These constructs are determined by the degree of relatedness that the individual has experienced on an ongoing basis through the formative years. Differing culture groups experience relatedness either as group cohesion or as involvement with the individual. Deci & Ryan (2000) reported that children who experienced “autonomy support, optimal structure, and interpersonal involvement” (p. 238) exhibited the greatest integration of external activities and educational achievement and “autonomous self-regulation” (p. 238).
The importance of the above cannot be understated for the degree to which the child experiences these constructs will determine the level of intrinsic motivation or extrinsic self-regulation that is achieved. The question remains as to the ability of the individual to internalize interrelatedness in collectivist cultures. In collectivist cultures, the child is raised feeling the benefit of group cohesion and the significance attached to that characterization of life roles. To the degree that the cohesive environment permits the individual to experience and “freely process” (p. 238) the belief system of the cultural group, she will internalize the values, behaviors, and activities of the group. Studying the practices of the Hays (2009) culture groups will enable the researcher to consider assumptions regarding the ability of group members to choose to assimilate and internalize the belief system and exhibit intrinsic motivation or extrinsic internalization.
Considering that a sense of congruence and well-being facilitates the full development of goal achievement, the more salient the environment is to the development of intrinsic motivation or extrinsic regulation the more the individual will acquire a goal and achievement orientation, and recognize her responsibility in the process. Cultures that support the individual in the growth process through autonomy, competence, and relatedness will facilitate achievement orientation in the individual. Research supports the concept that to the degree that the individual experiences herself as supported rather than thwarted, she will experience personal and societal well-being and flourish (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2004). Additionally, research supports that the individual who experiences a controlling negative environment will not be intrinsically motivated nor progress above the lowest levels of internalization (Ryan & Deci, 2004).
References

Camgoz, S., Tektas, O., & Metin, İ. (2008). Academic attributional style, self-efficacy and gender: A cross-cultural comparison. Social Behavior and Personality, 36(1), 97-114.
Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 97–110.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1991). A motivational approach to self: Integration in personality. In R. Dienstbier (Ed.), Nebraska symposium on motivation: Perspectives on motivation, vol. 38 (pp. 237-288). Lincoln, NE: University Of Nebraska Press.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49, 14-23.
Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior: An introduction to behavior theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Ivengar, S.S. & Lepper, M.R. (1999). Rethinking the value of choice: A cultural perspective on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 76(3), 349-366.
Lepper, M.R., Green, D., Nesbitt, R.E. (1973). Turning play into work: Effects of adult surveillance and extrinsic rewards on children's intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31(3), 479-486.
Milyavskaya, M. & Koestner, R. (2011). Psychological needs, motivation, and well-being: A test of self-determination theory across multiple domains. Personality and Individual Differences, 50(3), 387-391.
Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. (1984). Causal explanations as a risk factor for depression: Theory and evidence. Psychological Review, 91(3), 347-374.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The darker and brighter sides of human existence: Basic psychological needs as a unifying concept. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 319-338.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Autonomy is no illusion: Self-determination theory and the empirical study of authenticity, awareness, and will. In J. Greenberg, S. L. Koole, & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.), Handbook of experimental existential psychology (pp. 449-479). New York: Guilford Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy: Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of Personality, 74, 1557-1586.
Ryan, R.M., Lynch, M.F., Vansteenkiste, M., Deci, E.L. (2010). Motivation and autonomy in counseling, psychotherapy, and behavior change: A look at theory and practice. Counseling Psychologist, 39(2), 193–260.
Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan
Vallerand, R. J., Pelletier, L. G., & Koestner, R. (2008). Reflections on self-determination theory. Canadian Psychology, 49, 257-262.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66(5), 297-333.