View on GitHub

sdt-condensed

Self-Determination Theory: Condensed

Goal Contents Theory

This is part of my “Self-Determination Theory: Condensed” series, based on Chapter 11 of Deci & Ryan’s “Self-Determination Theory”. See this page for background, and links to other articles in this series.

Goal Contents Theory relates life goals and aspirations to psychological well-being and ill-being.

This chapter explains:

Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Aspirations as the Basis for GCT

Unlike expectancy-value theory (in which the actual content of goals does not matter, except in so far as they are valued by the person pursuing the goal), self-determination theory takes a critical perspective on goals and aspirations, positing that the contents of these goals and aspirations matters, and that some goals will yield satisfaction of basic needs, while others will not.

Research on the Relations of Aspirations and Goals to Well-Being

While there are many different ideas about what constitutes a “good life”, a common idea presented in the media is that money, image and fame are all keys to happiness.

The selection of life priorities is not just an abstract philosophical question, but also practical question that every person must answer. SDT tries to explore empirically, the question of what choices tend to lead to the greatest wellness and flourishing in humans.

In 1993, Kasser and Ryan drew a distinction between intrinsic aspirations, aspirations that were expected to be closely related to basic need satisfactions, and extrinsic aspirations, aspirations that were expected to be only indirectly related to basic needs. Based on participant questionnaires, they gave each participant aspiration indices (AIs) in various areas, some intrinsic (personal growth, relationships and community involvement), and some extrinsic (financial success and wealth).

Their study found that each of the intrinsic AIs was positively correlated with wellness indicators, while the AI for financial success was negatively correlated with these wellness indicators.

A second study showed that depression and anxiety were negatively correlated with intrinsic AIs, and positively correlated with the AI for financial success.

A third study, of 18 year-olds from a mix of social-economic backgrounds, used a different methodology (psychologist appraisal of structured interviews) to assess AIs, but showed the same effect.

A 1996 study expanded on this research, adding two additional extrinsic aspirations: attractiveness (image), and social recognition (fame), and extending the range of outcomes studied to include a wider range of indicators of well-being and ill-being, including physical symptoms of ill-being.

This study re-confirmed the effects seen in the 1993 studies, and showed that the additional hypothesized extrinsic aspirations had the same negative correlation with well-being indicators, that had been seen with aspirations for financial success.

Various studies followed, showing that the results could be generalized to a range of age-groups, and across cultures. These studies included:

Studies of high school and college students in 2000 and 2001 found that having strong relative extrinsic aspirations was correlated with high-risk behaviours such as drug use, and also with watching television. High-risk behaviours among those who have extrinsic aspirations around image and popularity may be motivated by a desire to gain peer approval, or may be a compensatory mechanism due to the frustration of basic needs.

A 2005 study used a very different methodology, based on the stories that people tell about their lives. It found that those whose stories focussed on intrinsic aspirations displayed and experienced greater well-being than those whose stories focussed on extrinsic aspirations.

These, and other studies, lead to the formulation of the first three propositions of GCT:

GCT Proposition I: Intrinsic goals are defined as those most directly associated with the pursuit of what is inherently valued, such as close relationships, personal growth, and contributing to one’s community. Extrinsic goals, in contrast, are those focused on instrumental outcomes, such as money, fame, power, or outward attractiveness. These goals can therefore be understood as lying along an axis from intrinsic to extrinsic.

GCT Proposition II: The more an individual values or prioritizes extrinsic goals relative to intrinsic goals, the lower will be his or her well-being. The more a person puts relative priority or value on intrinsic goals, the better the person’s wellness outcomes.

GCT Proposition III: These relations between intrinsic and extrinsic goals and wellness will largely be a function of (i.e. mediated by) satisfaction and frustration of basic psychological needs. In general, intrinsic goal pursuits are more satisfying of basic psychological needs. In addition, effects may also be a function of the regulatory basis of goal pursuits, as extrinsic goals will, on average, tend to be less autonomously regulated than intrinsic goals.

A wide range of research, across a diverse range of cultures, has provided support for these propositions.

A 2005 study collected data from across diverse cultural groups in 15 countries, and found a consistent pattern that aspirations for wealth, fame and image tend to be associated with each other, and tend to be in opposition to aspirations for growth, intimacy, and community. Similar results have been found in studies conducted in China and South Korea.

A 2014 study in the UK and Chile found that extrinsic aspirations were negatively associated with well-being, and positively associated with ill-being. A range of other studies have found positive relationships between intrinsic aspirations and well-being.

It is also noteworthy that these results have been observed not only in adult populations, but also in studies of children, for example in a 2014 study of British and Chinese children aged 8-15.

Aspirations: Espousing Them or Enacting Them?

Researchers have drawn a distinction between espousing aspirations, and acting in accordance with them. People were more likely to espouse intrinsic aspirations, than to act in accordance with them.

A 2014 study found that people with greater autonomy and a strong sense of meaning in their lives tended to have more alignment between their stated aspirations, and their behaviour.

Further, it was found that for both intrinsic and extrinsic aspirations, what had the strongest influence on ill-being and well-being outcomes was not the aspirations they espoused, but the way that they actually acted.

Changes in Aspirations

Longitudinal studies have examined changes in aspirations over time (up to 12 years), and the impact on well-being, with the results again supporting GCT Proposition III.

One study involved an intervention with highly materialistic teenagers that decreased their materialism. This intervention was observed to also boost their self-esteem.

A 2012 study of late adolescents across three different post-World War II generations found that with each generation, there has been an increase in extrinsic aspirations relative to intrinsic aspirations, suggesting an important influence for historical and societal forces in shaping young peoples’ aspirations.

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Goal Attainment

Expectancy-value theory maintains that attainment of goals will lead to greater satisfaction and happiness.

A 1998 study found that this was indeed true for the attainment of intrinsic goals, but attainment of extrinsic goals provided little enhancement of well-being, suggesting that it is the content of goals that matters most in terms of their impact on well-being.

A subsequent 1999 cross-cultural study looked at the relationship between goal attainment and well-being across groups of Russian and US participants. Goal attainment was positively associated with well-being for all types of goal. However, more detailed analysis revealed that the positive well-being outcomes could be accounted for entirely on the basis of the effects of attainment of intrinsic goals. The net effect of extrinsic goal attainment, once intrinsic goal attainment had been controlled for, was zero.

An SDT interpretation of these effects is that attainment of intrinsic goals results in satisfaction of basic psychological needs, which enhances well-being. Achievement of extrinsic goals would be expected to at least satisfy competence needs, so if the overall effect is zero, this suggests that achieving these goals also comes at a cost in terms of autonomy and/or relatedness.

A 2009 study looked at graduates in their first year after college. For both intrinsic and extrinsic goals, having goals led to an increased likelihood of attaining those goals. But goal attainment was only associated with increased well-being for intrinsic goals, and was in fact associated with ill-being for extrinsic goals. These well-being effects could be wholly accounted for in terms of levels of satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs.

A 2013 study of working dentists found that those who valued, and felt able to attain, intrinsic aspirations tended to have greater subjective well-being, job-satisfaction and general satisfaction with their lives.

A pair of 2009 studies of older people found that

A 2014 study of lawyers compared those in high-paying money-related roles with those in public-service roles. The first set of lawyers were higher paid, but reported more negative affect, lower well-being, and more alcohol consumption.

Collectively, this research lends support to the next formal proposition of GCT.

GCT Proposition IV: Progress and success at attaining extrinsic goals will tend to be associated with less enhanced wellness relative to progress and attainment of intrinsic goals. Progress and attainment of intrinsic goals is predicted to yield especially enhanced wellness. These effects are largely mediated by basic psychological need satisfaction.

One mechanism that seems to lie behind the effects described in GCT Proposition IV is that the process by which extrinsic goals are attained may often involve compromises to the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness.

On the Independence of Goal Contents and Autonomous Regulation

This chapter has so far focussed on the “what” of goals and aspirations, rather than the “why”. In SDT, the “why” aspect of goals is accounted for in terms of autonomous vs. controlled regulatory styles, as covered in chapter 8.

On average, we expect intrinsic goals to be more autonomously regulated than extrinsic goals. This is because intrinsic goals are more easily integrated, since they are well-aligned with basic psychological needs.

In contrast, it might be expected that experiences of need-thwarting during development may lead to a focus on extrinsic aspirations, which may be attempts to gain the contingent regard of others.

However, although these correlations do exist, the “what” and the “why” of aspirations do seem to have independent effects.

The first study to look at both aspects was a 1995 study of the short-term strivings of undergraduates. Two distinct effects were observed: one resulting from the extent to which the motivation for the striving was autonomous, the other resulting from whether the students believed that the strivings would lead to them attaining intrinsic vs. extrinsic aspirations.

The first kind of effect has been recognized for much longer than the second kind of effect. Therefore researchers have questioned whether the second effect is in fact real, or whether the apparent positive effects of intrinsic aspirations (vs. negative effects of extrinsic aspirations) can be accounted for solely in terms of the fact that the former tends to be autonomously motivated, and the latter tends to be driven by more controlled forms of motivation.

A 2004 study looked carefully at this question. It looked at both within-person and between person differences, both at a point in time, and over the course of a year. In all cases, goal contents were found to have significant effects on well-being, over and above what could be accounted for in terms of the nature of the subjects’ motivation.

The Match of Personal Goals and Contextual Values

An interesting question is whether a person’s social context might moderate the effects of goal contents on well-being.

For example, in the context of a business school, where there is a strong culture of placing high value on wealth accumulation, would holding wealth aspirations have the same negative effect that has been seen in other contexts?

The match hypothesis suggests the opposite: that there is a well-being benefit to holding views that are endorsed by one’s social context.

A 2002 study looked specifically at the relationship between wealth aspirations and well-being among business students, and found the same negative correlation that had been observed in other contexts. A 2006 study comparing business students with education students found no evidence for the match hypothesis: as expected, business students had more extrinsic aspirations, and fewer intrinsic aspirations, than the education students. However, the relations between these aspirations and psychological well-being held equally across both groups.

However, there is some evidence that when the social context is very circumscribed and intense, there can be some effects of this nature.

For example a 1996 study in a high-security prison found that in this context, an intrinsic aspiration for physical fitness (an attribute valued and supported in that context) was associated with wellbeing, whereas aspirations for self-acceptance and close relationships (attributes not supported in that context) were negatively associated with well-being.

This suggests that holding strong intrinsic aspirations, in a context in which there is little chance of those aspirations being met, can have a negative impact.

What if Extrinsic Goals are Put to Virtuous Use?

A 2016 study looked at the reasons behind peoples’ aspirations for money. They identified three broad categories of reasons to want money:

After controlling for financial stability, the study found that integrated reasons predicted well-being, while non-integrated reasons predicted ill-being.

Therefore the reasons that lie behind the pursuit of money are significant in terms of whether it has positive or negative effects on well-being.

A cross-cultural study found that financial success was negatively correlated with well-being in the US, but not in Romania. Analysis of attitudes to money found that in the US it was strongly associated with “power” and “security”, whereas in Romania it was associated with “self-direction”.

This research highlights the importance of the true reasons behind peoples’ goals. Where an extrinsic goal such as gaining money is being pursued for intrinsic reasons (e.g. giving to the community), the effects of this intrinsic motivation will predominate. Conversely, where intrinsic goals (e.g. philanthropy) are pursued primarily for extrinsic reasons (e.g. status), they are less likely to positively impact well-being.

Beyond Wellness: Intrinsic and Extrinsic Goals in Relationships and Society

As well as studying the effects of goal contents on individuals’ well-being, there have also been a range of studies looking at broader societal and social consequences.

People with higher extrinsic aspirations experienced less satisfaction and trust, and greater conflict, in their close and intimate relationships (2001). Such people have also been shown to be less empathic (1995), and more likely to see relationships as instrumental to their goals (1999).

A 2015 study looked at how peoples’ ideal conception of close relationships compared to their actual relationships. When there was a close match between the ideal, and the actual, this was found to predict high-quality relationships in the case where people had intrinsic ideals. But this was not the case for people with extrinsic ideals.

A focus on extrinsic goals has also been found to be associated with:

Together these results suggest that extrinsically oriented people are harmful to the collective wellness of our societies.

Extrinsic Aspirations and Materialism in Our Society

Despite the results described above, wealth, fame and image are central values in the Anglo-American system of capitalism, and strongly endorsed by the multi-billion dollar advertising industry.

Materialism is the belief that success and happiness are functions of money, and the things that money can buy. A 2014 meta-analysis that combined hundreds of independent samples, showed a significant negative effect of materialism on well-being, including more risky health behaviours, and negative self-appraisals.

Another 2013 meta-analysis identified a negative relationship between materialistic values and pro-environmental attitudes and behaviours.

A 2016 study across the UK and Chile, found that intrinsic v. extrinsic life goals predicted environmentally responsible behaviours over a 2 year period. In contrast, holding pro-environmental attitudes did not by itself predict more environmentally responsible behaviours.

A 2013 5-year longitudinal study found strong evidence that feelings of loneliness (i.e. a thwarting of relatedness needs) led to materialistic attitudes. The study also found evidence that materialism in turn led to greater loneliness, suggesting potential for a reinforcing cyclical effect.

Another 2015 study also found that extrinsic aspirations are frequently developed as a response to a failure to attain intrinsic goals.

Material and Experiential Purchases

Research suggests that not all purchases and expenditures of significant amounts of money have the same effects.

A 2009 study found that experiential purchases (e.g. taking a trip or attending a concert) tended to be positively associated with wellness, whereas materialistic purchases (e.g. a bigger TV or a new dress) did not.

A 2012 study found that people felt that experiential purchases were more closely related to their own sense of true self than their materialistic purchases, and also that people felt they knew more about others’ true selves when provided with information about their experiential purchases, rather than their material purchases.

SDT understands the positive impacts of experiential purchases as being due to this alignment, which means that experiential purchases tend to reflect authentic interests and values, and are therefore more likely to satisfy basic needs.

The Development of Extrinsic Aspirations

SDT theorizes that extrinsic aspirations arise from situations in which people have been unable to meet their basic psychological needs. Where an individual’s basic need satisfactions are thwarted in childhood or adolescence, this may result in them becoming particularly vulnerable to a focus on extrinsic aspirations.

GCT Proposition V: Individuals whose basic psychological needs have been neglected or frustrated in development are more prone to adopt need substitutes, such as extrinsic life goals, as being personally important. To the extent that they do so, their well-being will be compromised.

A 1995 study tested this proposition, looking at how the aspirations of teenagers were affected by the kind of upbringing they had experienced as children.

The study found that where mothers were low on democracy and warmth, and high on control, this led to teenagers who placed greater importance on the extrinsic aspiration of accumulating wealth. Data from the same set of mothers, interacting with their children at the age of 4, showed a strong correlation between coldness, and rigidity of parenting beliefs, and the strength of the children’s extrinsic aspirations for money.

A 1999 study showed similar results. Teenagers who rated their parents as low in autonomy support had higher extrinsic aspirations than those who experienced their parents as autonomy supportive. These extrinsic aspirations in turn led to greater levels of use of tobacco, alcohol and marijuana.

In contrast, studies in 2003 and 2005 have shown that nurturing conditions that support basic needs, result in a prosocial, connecting orientation in the child, and that children raised in such conditions will tend to grow towards more intrinsic values over time.

However, there are also familial and cultural factors at play. Children are likely to integrate the values of those that they feel close to, or want to feel close to. It has also been shown (in a 2002 study) that children with greater exposure to television tend to develop more extrinsic values, probably as a result of their exposure to celebrity role-models, who tend to be focussed on wealth, fame and image.

Influencing People’s Aspirations

Research has shown that peoples’ surroundings can promote stronger intrinsic values and aspirations.

A 2014 study showed that when parents promoted intrinsic goals in their children, this led to increased basic need satisfaction, and higher levels of self-esteem, but less contingent self-esteem. When parents promoted extrinsic goals, this had the opposite effects.

When parents are autonomy-supportive, and hold intrinsic aspirations, their children are likely to emulate them, as seen, for example, in a 1999 study of Israeli students.

A 2015 study introduced the concept of an inherent value demonstration, which consists of a parent visibly acting in accordance with values that they endorse. This study showed that this kind of action in accordance with values significantly increased integration of these values by children, as compared to endorsement of values without accompanying action.

A 2012 study found that encouraging students to reflect on, and write about, intrinsic aspirations (e.g. having close friends) over a 4-week period, led to greater well-being, and to them giving greater priority to intrinsic aspirations at the end of the period.

The Framing of People’s Goals

In addition to looking at people’s expressed aspirations, we can also look at the effects of framing activities that are given to people in terms of the goals or outcomes that they may lead to.

SDT hypothesizes that different framings will lead to appreciably different outcomes.

GCT Proposition VI: Motivators can frame goals in more extrinsic versus intrinsic terms. The latter will be more likely to produce sustained engagement, and ultimately, wellness.

A 2004 study manipulated the content of framing goals (intrinsic vs. extrinsic), together with a manipulation of the social context (autonomy-supportive vs. controlling). The subjects of the study were Belgian students studying teaching, marketing and physical education.

The study found that those whose activity was framed in terms of intrinsic goals were more engaged in the learning, and more likely to engage in follow-up study, and showed a better conceptual grasp of the topic in tests.

Those who learned in an autonomy-supportive context also demonstrated greater learning, as we would expect given what we saw in chapter 6. However, there was also a significant combinatorial effect, where the combination of autonomy support and framing in terms of intrinsic aspirations, led to a greater boost in learning outcomes than could be explained by either factor in isolation.

A further 2004 study by the same authors compared framing in terms of intrinsic aspirations, extrinsic aspirations, or both sets of aspirations. Expectancy value theory would predict that the most effective learning would occur when the learning was related to the most goals, i.e. when framed in terms of both sets of aspirations. However the study found that framing in terms of intrinsic aspirations alone led to the best learning outcomes.

A follow-up study also looked at a “no-goal” framing, and found that framing in terms of extrinsic goals even undermined autonomous motivation, performance and long-term persistence, relative to this “no goal” framing, although it did boost short-term persistence.

All Goals are Not Created Equal: Applying GCT to Any Goals

GCT has allowed Self-Determination Theory to explain how intrinsic over-arching life goals promote well-being.

By analysing the basic needs that will be supported, or thwarted, by particular aspirations, it is possible to predict which goals and aspirations will lead to more effective learning, performance, and optimal psychological development.

This leads to:

GCT Proposition VII: Because all goals can be more or less linked to need satisfaction, the relation of personal goals of any type to wellness-related outcomes is a function of (or is mediated by) need satisfactions.

Initial GCT research, beginning in 1996, looked at a certain subset of goals that seemed like they were different in kind, and might fall into distinct categories, intrinsic & extrinsic. But there are more goals that are yet to be explored.

Goals for power and dominance over others, for example, seems likely to be extrinsic, while goals for generativity (promoting the wellbeing of younger generations) seems likely to be intrinsic.

However, positioning any individual goal on the intrinsic / extrinsic axis will depend on the specific meaning and intent behind the goal. A life goal “to own a home for my family” might be about the accumulation of wealth (extrinsic) or might be more about relatedness (intrinsic). And goals are often themselves instrumental to higher level goals, which may be unanalyzed or unclear. Goals may also have different meanings in different cultures.

There are many ways of categorizing goals, but often these can be related to the intrinsic / extrinsic axis.

For example, Dweck and others have distinguished between learning (or mastery) goals, and performance goals, and shown that learning goals have fewer risks, and more benefits, in most situations. Since performance goals concern performance relative to others, they are more likely to be extrinsic, and may also be more likely to be controlled rather than autonomous.

Other distinctions such as Nicholl’s 1984 distinction between ego goals and task goals, and Crocker’s 2008 distinction between eco-centric and ego-centric goals can be readily mapped to the intrinsic / extrinsic distinction of GCT.

SDT holds that these various categorizations of goals can all be understood in terms of the intrinsic vs. extrinsic goal contents, and the controlled vs. autonomous regulations underpinning them.

Mindfulness, Goal Pursuits, and Aspirations

Mindfulness also has an important relationship to a person’s focus on intrinsic vs. extrinsic goals.

GCT Proposition VIII: Mindfulness, in promoting more integrated functioning, also conduces to a greater focus on intrinsic goal contents relative to extrinsic goal contents.

A 2005 study found that higher levels of mindfulness were associated with greater intrinsic goal orientations, and that both were associated with subjective well-being and ecologically responsible behaviours.

A 2009 study found that mindfulness was associated with lower financial desire discrepancy (i.e. the gap between what one has, and what one desires, financially). This relationship held, independent of participants’ economic and social status.

Mindfulness has also been associated with greater empathy and compassion for others, and can enhance romantic relationships due to the way it promotes other-centeredness, and one’s ability to be truly present with a partner, even in challenging situations.

Well-Being: Living an Authentic, Mindful Life

Many of the studies referenced in this, and previous chapters, have measured outcomes in terms of subjective well-being. As discussed at the beginning of chapter 10, a purely hedonic analysis of well-being is problematic, and there is more to well-being than subjective happiness.

Nevertheless, many studies support the idea that when people are living eudaimonically, autonomously pursuing and attaining intrinsic aspirations, this does generally lead to subjective well-being, even if this is not the direct aim.

The choices that people make, in terms of their goals and aspirations, are significantly influenced by the thwarting or supporting of their needs during their development. But current choices also matter: cultivating mindfulness, openness and awareness can help individuals to make more informed and integrated choices, which will lead in turn to their better functioning.

Key Concepts from this Chapter

Intrinsic aspirations: Aspirations that are expected to be closely related to basic need satisfactions, and

Extrinsic aspirations: Aspirations that were expected to be only indirectly related to basic needs

GCT Proposition I: Goals can be understood as lying on an axis from intrinsic to extrinsic

GCT Proposition II: Prioritizing extrinsic goals over intrinsic goals is detrimental for well-being.

GCT Proposition III: The effects described by GCT Proposition II are largely the effects of satisfaction / thwarting of basic psychological needs.

Espousing vs. Enacting: Enacting an aspiration is acting with a view to making the aspiration come about. Espousing the aspiration is merely talking about it. Enacting aspirations is more significant in terms of impacts on well-being (both positive and negative) than merely espousing them.

Expectancy Value Theory: A competing theory that understands effects of goals in terms of the values that individuals place on them ,and rejects the idea that goal contents matter.

GCT Proposition IV: Attaining intrinsic goals is strongly positive for wellness. Attaining extrinsic goals does not particularly impact wellness.

Materialism: The belief that success and happiness are functions of money, and the things that money can buy.

Material vs. Experiential Purchases: Material purchases are purchases of items that are subsequently owned (e.g. a bigger TV or a new dress). Experiential purchases are purchases that result in an experience (e.g. taking a trip or attending a concert). Experiential purchases seem to be more closely related to a person’s own sense of true self, and tend to be more positively associated with wellness than material purchases.

GCT Proposition V: Extrinsic aspirations tend to result from neglect or frustration of needs during development.

Inherent Value Demonstration: A role-model (e.g. a parent) visibly acting in accordance with values that they endorse. Inherent Value Demonstrations are more likely to lead to integration of values, as compared to mere endorsement of values without accompanying action.

GCT Proposition VI: Framing activities in terms of extrinsic vs. intrinsic goals will influence engagement with the activity, and ultimately wellness.

GCT Proposition VII: The impact of goals on wellness can be predicted by analysing the needs that striving for, and attaining the goal, is likely to satisfy or thwart.

Financial Desire Discrepancy: The gap between what one has, and what one desires, financially. Mindfulness is associated with lower financial desire discrepancy, which is in turn associated with greater well-being (independently of actual social or economic status).