Self-Determination Theory

Self-Determination Theory: An Annotated Bibliography of Resources
Name
Institution
Self-Determination Theory: An Annotated Bibliography of Resources
Ryan, R. & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68.
In their argument, Ryan and Deci proposed that the theory of intrinsic motivation be unified in a central role for “self-determination.” It is by assuming that human beings have a predisposition towards activity and integration but considers that the vulnerability to passivity. Moreover, the authors emphasize that the concept of human motivation is the innate psychological need of the individual for competence, autonomy, and relatedness.
Edward L.Deci and Richard M. Ryan are both American Professors of Psychology at the University of Rochester and the creator of Self-Determination theory, by which the most significant theories of human motivation. Both inspired to unravel the perennial task of human being that concerns motivation as a unitary phenomenon.
In their research, they have added that the individuality and their differences support the fulfillment of basic human needs in facilitating the process of natural growth and that includes “intrinsically motivated behavior and integration of extrinsic motivations.”
Understanding the theory, Self-determination Theory will provide a factual argument on how people develop a stronger needs or motivation than the others.

Therefore, the context of the theory may focus on the individual’s differences and their degree of requirements that may contribute whether they are satisfied or not. This source can be utilized in research articles that sought to explore how self-determination is varied amongst individuals in several situations and fields.
Reference
Ryan, R. & Deci, E. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation,
social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0003-066x.55.1.68