Formalizing Self-Determination Theory
formalizing_sdt.RmdThis vignette is based on work conducted as part of the “Proposition Based Theory Specification” (PBTS) project by Andreas Glöckner, Susann Fiedler, Jennifer Biehl, & Jasper Siol (in preparation). In this “many-theorists project”, groups of scholars were each assigned a chapter of the “Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology” (vanlangeHandbookTheoriesSocial2012?), and asked to specify it and document the process.
Van Lissa, Li, and Weber set out to formalize Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory, documented in Chapter 20 of the book (deciSelfDeterminationTheory2012?). The definition of SDT used for the theory specification exercise was taken from this book chapter, but seems to be fully consistent with the description on https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/the-theory/.
Step 1: Select Relevant Sources
In the first step of the PBTS procedure, we were asked to select sources for the theory specification and agree on these sources with fellow raters; to detect relevant text snippets within these sources that contain descriptions of the definitions, causal relations, et cetera as proposed by the theory; and to agree with the fellow coders on these snippets. We decided to use only the book chapter as a source. As an example, the first snippet we selected was:
“For these natural, active processes of intrinsic motivation and integration to operate effectively toward healthy development and psychological well-being, human beings need particular nutriments – both biological and psychological (Ryan, 1995). In the relative absence of such nutriments, these natural processes will be impaired, resulting in experiences, development, and behaviors that are less than optimal. (Deci & Ryan, 2012, p. 417)
Expand the section below to see all selected snippets:
See all snippets
Snippet 1: “For these natural, active processes of intrinsic motivation and integration to operate effectively toward healthy development and psychological well-being, human beings need particular nutriments – both biological and psychological (Ryan, 1995). In the relative absence of such nutriments, these natural processes will be impaired, resulting in experiences, development, and behaviors that are less than optimal. (Deci & Ryan, 2012, p. 417)
Snippet 2: “The three basic psychological needs are universal such that their satisfaction versus thwarting affects the psychological well-being of all people.” (Deci & Ryan, 2012, p. 425)
Snippet 3: “rewards do not always motivate subsequent persistence; indeed they can undermine intrinsic motivation” (Deci & Ryan, 2012, p. 417)
Snippet 4: “[Intrinsic motivation] could be either undermined or enhanced depending on whether the social environment supported or thwarted the needs for competence and self-determination. If a reward or other external event such as threat of punishment (Deci and Cascio, 1972), positive feedback (Deci, 1971), competition (Deci and Betley et al., 1981), or choice (Zuckerman et al., 1978) were expected to thwart these basic needs, it was predicted to prompt an external perceived locus of causality and undermine intrinsic motivation; but if the event were expected to support these basic needs, it was predicted to prompt an internal perceived locus of causality and enhance intrinsic motivation.” (Deci & Ryan, 2012, p. 418)
Step 2: Extract IF-THEN Propositions
Each individual coder then set out to extract a set of IF-THEN propositions from the selected snippets that, together, describe the theory.
Let’s examine the first snippet, and code it for implied causality. The causes are coded in green, and outcomes in blue:
“For these natural, active processes of intrinsic motivation and integration to operate effectively toward healthy development and psychological well-being, human beings need particular nutriments – both biological and psychological (Ryan, 1995). In the relative absence of such nutriments, these natural processes will be impaired, resulting in experiences, development, and behaviors that are less than optimal” (Lange et al., 2012, p. 417)
The text is a bit ambiguous, and possibly redundant. We see that processes, in the first sentence, refers to intrinsic motivation and integration. This invites the question of the relationship between intrinsic motivation and integration - do they go hand in hand (i.e., just two examples of processes set in motion by nutriments)? Are they distinct but similarly related to other constructs? It’s not clear. Furthermore, in the second sentence, we find the word processes again, but this time without explicit reference to intrinsic motivation and integration. For now, we will assume that intrinsic motivation and integration are distinct but have similar relationships to other constructs, and that the word is used consistently across both sentences.
Nutriments is defined elsewhere in the text - it appears to refer to refer to the three basic needs, as well as biological necessities.
Experiences, development, and behaviors is not well-defined, but we might assume it refers back to healthy development and psychological well-being.
We could reconstruct implied propositions as follows:
- Processes (intrinsic motivation AND integration) -> healthy development AND psychological well-being (processes of intrinsic motivation and integration [operate effectively toward] healthy development and psychological well-being)
- Nutriments -> Processes (human beings [need] nutriments […] for these processes to operate etc.)
- Nutriments -> Processes (In the [absence of] nutriments […] processes will be impaired)
- Processes -> Healthy development AND psychological well-being (processes will be impaired, resulting in experiences, development, and behaviors)
Assuming that our interpretations are correct, we see that the snippet redundantly states the same two relationships twice; once phrased in the positive and once in the negative.
Let’s apply the same coding procedure to all snippets:
| N | IF | THEN | Original |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | nutriments are absent | intrinsic motivation AND integration are impaired | “For these natural, active processes of intrinsic motivation and integration to operate effectively toward healthy development and psychological well-being, human beings need particular nutriments – both biological and psychological (Ryan, 1995). In the relative absence of such nutriments, these natural processes will be impaired, resulting in experiences, development, and behaviors that are less than optimal. (Deci & Ryan, 2012, p. 417) |
| 2 | [intrinsic motivation OR integration] is present | healthy development AND psychological well-being take place | “For these natural, active processes of intrinsic motivation and integration to operate effectively toward healthy development and psychological well-being, human beings need particular nutriments – both biological and psychological (Ryan, 1995). In the relative absence of such nutriments, these natural processes will be impaired, resulting in experiences, development, and behaviors that are less than optimal. (Deci & Ryan, 2012, p. 417) |
| 3 | needs are satisfied or thwarted | psychological well-being of all people is affected | “The three basic psychological needs are universal such that their satisfaction versus thwarting affects the psychological well-being of all people.” (Deci & Ryan, 2012, p. 425) |
| 4 | rewards given | intrinsic motivation can decrease | “rewards do not always motivate subsequent persistence; indeed they can undermine intrinsic motivation” (Deci & Ryan, 2012, p. 417) |
| 5 | external event is expected to thwart the basic needs | external perceived locus of causality | “[Intrinsic motivation] could be either undermined or enhanced depending on whether the social environment supported or thwarted the needs for competence and self-determination. If a reward or other external event such as threat of punishment (Deci and Cascio, 1972), positive feedback (Deci, 1971), competition (Deci and Betley et al., 1981), or choice (Zuckerman et al., 1978) were expected to thwart these basic needs, it was predicted to prompt an external perceived locus of causality and undermine intrinsic motivation; but if the event were expected to support these basic needs, it was predicted to prompt an internal perceived locus of causality and enhance intrinsic motivation.” (Deci & Ryan, 2012, p. 418) |
| 6 | external perceived locus of causality | undermined intrinsic motivation | “[Intrinsic motivation] could be either undermined or enhanced depending on whether the social environment supported or thwarted the needs for competence and self-determination. If a reward or other external event such as threat of punishment (Deci and Cascio, 1972), positive feedback (Deci, 1971), competition (Deci and Betley et al., 1981), or choice (Zuckerman et al., 1978) were expected to thwart these basic needs, it was predicted to prompt an external perceived locus of causality and undermine intrinsic motivation; but if the event were expected to support these basic needs, it was predicted to prompt an internal perceived locus of causality and enhance intrinsic motivation.” (Deci & Ryan, 2012, p. 418) |
| 7 | external event is expected to support the basic needs | internal perceived locus of causality | “[Intrinsic motivation] could be either undermined or enhanced depending on whether the social environment supported or thwarted the needs for competence and self-determination. If a reward or other external event such as threat of punishment (Deci and Cascio, 1972), positive feedback (Deci, 1971), competition (Deci and Betley et al., 1981), or choice (Zuckerman et al., 1978) were expected to thwart these basic needs, it was predicted to prompt an external perceived locus of causality and undermine intrinsic motivation; but if the event were expected to support these basic needs, it was predicted to prompt an internal perceived locus of causality and enhance intrinsic motivation.” (Deci & Ryan, 2012, p. 418) |
| 8 | internal perceived locus of causality | enhanced intrinsic motivation | “[Intrinsic motivation] could be either undermined or enhanced depending on whether the social environment supported or thwarted the needs for competence and self-determination. If a reward or other external event such as threat of punishment (Deci and Cascio, 1972), positive feedback (Deci, 1971), competition (Deci and Betley et al., 1981), or choice (Zuckerman et al., 1978) were expected to thwart these basic needs, it was predicted to prompt an external perceived locus of causality and undermine intrinsic motivation; but if the event were expected to support these basic needs, it was predicted to prompt an internal perceived locus of causality and enhance intrinsic motivation.” (Deci & Ryan, 2012, p. 418) |
From IF-THEN Propositions to Causal Model
The IF-THEN specification prescribed by the PBTS framework has some limitations here; for example, it is not so well-suited to describe a difference in degrees (people are affected a little bit), or a probabilistic effect (some people are affected, but not all). Except proposition #3, which explicitly states that people are universally affected, none of the original statements appear to be binary. However, the direction of causality is relatively clear. Thus, a better fit might be a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG), which incurs the additional advantage of being X-interoperable with covariate selection and data generation (see this vignette).
We can translate these IF-THEN statements into causal links between
specific constructs. The result is contained in a file included in the
theorytools package, which we load below. Note that the
numbers associated with the statements are retained, so that it is clear
which causal links are derived from which IF/THEN statements:
SDT <- read.csv(system.file("sdt.txt", package="theorytools"))
knitr::kable(SDT[, 1:3], caption = "IF/THEN statements translated into causal connections")| Nr | from | to |
|---|---|---|
| 1 | needs | intrinsic_motivation |
| 1 | needs | integration |
| 2 | intrinsic_motivation | healthy_development |
| 2 | intrinsic_motivation | wellbeing |
| 2 | integration | healthy_development |
| 2 | integration | wellbeing |
| 3 | needs | wellbeing |
| 4 | external_event | intrinsic_motivation |
| 5 | external_event | needs |
| 5 | external_event | locus_of_causality |
| 6 | locus_of_causality | intrinsic_motivation |
| 7 | external_event | locus_of_causality |
| 7 | external_event | needs |
| 8 | locus_of_causality | intrinsic_motivation |
This translation reveals some further ambiguities; for example, in proposition #4, we see “rewards” are related to intrinsic motivation. However, in the remainder of the text, rewards are mentioned as just one example of “external events”. We assumed that “rewards” is used as an example of the broader class of external events.
Another ambiguity: we read that “If [an external event] were expected to thwart [basic needs], it [prompts] an external perceived locus of causality”. Since the theory otherwise does not explain how people might “expect” that external events will affect them, and this seems to be more of a question for cognitive than social psychology - we made a simplifying assumption: external events affect needs, and also perceived locus of causality.
This specification also reveals redundancies in the original theory. Many propositions are repeated, once phrased in a positive way, and once phrased in a negative way. This can be confusing, especially if the two phrasings differ slightly; for example, in snippet #1, the positive phrasing refers to “healthy development and psychological well-being” as ultimate outcome of need satisfaction, and the negative phrasing refers to “experiences, development, and behaviors” as ultimate outcomes of need frustration. While it seems safe to assume that both sentences have the same meaning, there is ambiguity here. When the statements are reduced to their implied causal connections, the redundancies become readily apparent. We can simply remove the redundancies as follows:
# Drop statement numbers
SDT <- SDT[, 2:3]
# Remove redundant statements
SDT <- SDT[!duplicated(SDT), ]
knitr::kable(SDT, caption = "Unique causal connections")| from | to |
|---|---|
| needs | intrinsic_motivation |
| needs | integration |
| intrinsic_motivation | healthy_development |
| intrinsic_motivation | wellbeing |
| integration | healthy_development |
| integration | wellbeing |
| needs | wellbeing |
| external_event | intrinsic_motivation |
| external_event | needs |
| external_event | locus_of_causality |
| locus_of_causality | intrinsic_motivation |
We can translate this table to a DAG:
We can plot the DAG as follows:
library(tidySEM)
library(ggplot2)
# Specify plot layout
lo <- get_layout(
"EE", "", "IN", "WB",
"", "LC", "", "",
"NE", "", "IM", "HD",
rows = 3
)
# Rename nodes
renam <- c(EE = "external_event", NE = "needs", IN = "integration", WB = "wellbeing",
LC = "locus_of_causality", HD = "healthy_development", IM = "intrinsic_motivation")
lo[match(names(renam), lo)] <- renam
# Prepare the graph
p <- prepare_graph(SDT, layout = lo, angle = 179, text_size = 3, rect_width = 1.5, spacing_x = 2.5)
# Change node shape
p$nodes$shape <- "rect"
# Change node labels
renam <- c(external_event = "external\nevent", needs = "needs", integration = "integration", wellbeing = "wellbeing",
locus_of_causality = "locus of\ncausality", healthy_development = "healthy\ndev.", intrinsic_motivation = "intrinsic\nmotivation")
p$nodes$label <- renam[p$nodes$name]
# Plot the graph
plot(p)
Causal diagram implied by SDT
Step 3. Define and Operationalize Concepts
In this step, we were asked to add definitions for each concept
referred to by the author of the theory. In principle, we were asked to
refer to text snippets from the sources determined in Step 1. However,
in case definitions were not provided by the author (which was the case
for all constructs in this theory), we were allowed to derive them from
the scientific literature. When operationalizations could not be derived
from any relevant sources, they were coded as missing. The resulting
definitions are stored inside the theorytools package and
we can load them as follows:
definitions <- read.csv(system.file("sdt_definitions.csv",package="theorytools"))
definitions| Nr. | Concept | Synonym | Definition | Operationalization | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2 | 2 | Intrinsic motivation | processes | Intrinsic motivation | Derived from other source: Not given in chapter, but chapter references paper with definition: Mean number of seconds spent working on puzzle during eight-minute free choice period. Reference: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0030644 |
| 3 | 3 | integration | processes | integration | Derived from other source: Not given in chapter, But chapter references paper with definition: “ongoing reciprocal assimilation between schemas, such that there tends to be an internal consistency and equilibration among varied functions and structures”. Reference: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1995.tb00501.x |
| 4 | 4 | Healthy development | Healthy development | Missing: Not given in chapter, could not find | |
| 5 | 5 | Psychological wellbeing | Psychological wellbeing | Derived from other source: Not given in chapter, chapter cites paper with definition: “positive affect, vitality, and physical symptoms”. Reference: https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672962212007 | |
| 6 | 6 | external event | reward, threat of punishment, positive feedback, competition, choice | Various external events | Positive feedback (Ryan, 1982), performance-contingent monetary rewards (Ryan et al., 1983), limits set on children (Koestner et al., 1984). References: Ryan, 1982 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.43.3.450 Ryan et al., 1983 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.736 Koestner et al., 1984 https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/SDT/documents/1984_KoestnerRyanBernHolt.pdf |
| 7 | 7 | external perceived locus of causality | external perceived locus of causality | Derived from other source: Not given in chapter. Most useful resource is Ryan & Connell, 1989 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749 They use structured interviews, and the Multidimensional Measure of Children’s Perceptions of Control (Connell, 1985). Reference: Ryan & Connell, 1989 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749 | |
| 8 | 8 | internal perceived locus of causality | internal perceived locus of causality | Derived from other source: Not given in chapter. Most useful resource is Ryan & Connell, 1989 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749 They use structured interviews, and the Multidimensional Measure of Children’s Perceptions of Control (Connell, 1985). Reference: Ryan & Connell, 1989 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.5.749 |
As can be seen fom this overview - none of the definitions were given in the theory chapter. We were able to trace some definitions to empirical papers cited in the chapter, but these definitions appeared to fall short of proper “theoretical definitions”. For example, intrinsic motivation was defined as “number of seconds spent working on a puzzle”. This is a purely behaviorist definition of an internal state.
In other words: While the theory is relatively explicit about causal links between constructs (with just a few ambiguities), it appears that important work remains to be done in terms of defining the constructs involved in the theory. While it is possible and likely that domain experts would be able to easily resolve some of these ambiguities and definitions, this is the best we could do. We will now create a FAIR theory archive, and invite others to further develop this theory.
Archiving SDT as FAIR Theory
We will automate most steps of FAIR theory creation; to go through the process manually, see this vignette). Let’s create two files for our theory: a DAG to specify the causal relations, and a spreadsheet containing the definitions.
writeLines(SDT, "sdt.txt")
write.csv(definitions, "definitions.csv", row.names = FALSE)Next, we can create the FAIR theory as follows:
project_path <- file.path("c:/theories", "self_determination_theory")
create_fair_theory(
path = project_path,
title = "Self-Determination Theory",
theory_file = c("sdt.txt", "definitions.csv"),
remote_repo = "self_determination_theory",
add_license = "cc0")We will manually complete the following steps:
Documenting Interoperability with a README File
We customized the README by adding these sections:
Description This is a FAIR theory (Van Lissa et al., 2025) specification of Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2012). The definition of SDT used for the theory specification exercise was taken from this book chapter, but seems to be fully consistent with the description on https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/the-theory/.
The theory was first specified by Van Lissa, Li, and Weber as part of the “Proposition Based Theory Specification” (PBTS) project by Andreas Glöckner, Susann Fiedler, Jennifer Biehl, & Jasper Siol (in preparation). In this “many-theorists project”, groups of scholars were each assigned a chapter of the “Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology” (vanlangeHandbookTheoriesSocial2012?), and asked to specify it and document the process.
Van Lissa further adapted the theory specification, as documented in this vignette.
Interoperability
sdt.txtThis file contains the main theory, specified as a DAG. It is interoperable for causal inference and data simulaiton in R, as explained in this vignette.definitions.csvThis file contains definitions of the constructs insdt.txt, inasfar as we could find them. At present, this file is not very interoperable. We urgently invite domain experts to propose more concrete definitions of the constructs (as our attempt to identify the intended definitions likely fell short), or to propose new and better definitions.
Related works
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Self-Determination Theory. In P. A. M. V. Lange, A. W.Kruglanski, & E. ToryHiggins (Eds.), Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology: Volume 1 (pp. 416–437). SAGE Publications Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446249215
Authorize ‘GitHub’ to connect with ‘Zenodo’
On the ‘Zenodo’ website navigate to the ‘GitHub’ repository listing page and simply “flip the switch” next to your repository. If your repository does not show up in the list, you may need to press the ‘Syncronize now’ button. At the time of writing, we noticed that it can take quite a while (hours?) for ‘Zenodo’ to detect new ‘GitHub’ repositories. If so, take a break or come back to this last step tomorrow!
Enable individual ‘GitHub’ repositories to be archived in ‘Zenodo’
Flip the switch to set up a new webhook between ‘Zenodo’ and your repository.
Create a New Release
To archive a repository on ‘Zenodo’, you must create a new release.
Since we changed the README file, first, add, commit, and push these
changes to the remote repository using git_update(). Then,
publish the release using git_release_publish():
worcs::git_update(repo = project_path)
worcs::git_release_publish(repo = project_path)Updating Zenodo Meta-Data
We can further document our ‘Zenodo’ archive as a FAIR theory by
adding some extra information on ‘Zenodo’. Note that, if you created a
.zenodo.json file in a previous step, some of these
metadata will be populated automatically. On ‘Zenodo’ click the Upload tab in the main menu, where
you should find your newly uploaded repository.
Click the orange Edit button.
Click the orange Edit button, and verify/supply the
following information:
Keywords: Following a paper by Deci & Ryan
(2008), we added the keywords self-determination theory,
autonomous motivation, and
personality development. Related works: We
added the DOI of the book chapter by Deci & Ryan (2012), with the
relation Is derived from, as well as the DOIs of the papers
referenced in definitions.csv, with relation type
References. While citing these DOIs inside the file renders
them Accessible and Interoperable for sentient readers, additionally
documenting them in the DataCite metadata makes them Accessible and
Interoperable for library systems and other scholarly analytics
software.
To save these changes, click ‘Publish’.
View the final result, FAIR Self-Determination Theory, at https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.15648655.