View on GitHub

sdt-condensed

Self-Determination Theory: Condensed

Relationships Motivation Theory

This is part of my “Self-Determination Theory: Condensed” series, based on Chapter 12 of Deci & Ryan’s “Self-Determination Theory”. See this page for background, and links to other articles in this series.

Relationships Motivation Theory concerns the quality of close relationships, and their consequences.

As SDT conceives of them, autonomy and relatedness are not in opposition to each other. In fact, fulfilment of each of these depends upon fulfilment of the other, for example

Relationships Motivation Theory explores in detail these relationships between autonomy and relatedness.

RMT holds that feeling relatedness with others is an intrinsic psychological need, which should be valued for its own sake. Connecting with and caring for others directly satisfies psychological needs.

Relatedness may be supported (or thwarted) both by the social context, and by attributions of motives to others. People are particularly sensitive to whether or not others’ caring for them is volitional, and even selfless (i.e. not done for personal gain). People also gain more satisfaction from providing care when they do it autonomously, rather than being driven by external rewards.

This chapter focuses primarily on adult-to-adult relationships (both friendships and romantic relationships). Subsequent chapters will look at parent-child relationships, and hierarchical relationships such as teacher-student, manager-employee and coach-athlete - however the principles laid out in this chapter will apply equally across all these different types of relations.

The Importance of Relationships and Relatedness

The importance of relatedness is widely agreed upon by social scientists. Harlow’s experiments with primates in 1958 showed how deprivation of social contact and warmth resulted in global deficits in social and motivational development. This was in contrast to earlier theories (e.g. Watson, 1913) which had viewed warmth and relatedness as variables that could be withheld and applied contingently, in order to control behaviour.

Since Harlow, a range of other studies have shown the fundamental importance of warmth and relatedness for healthy human development, and that experiencing others as providing supportive relationships directly contributes to wellbeing, independently of any instrumental resources that may be being provided.

Not All Social Interactions Convey Relatedness

Many day-to-day social interactions are merely transactional, with no interpersonal or emotional significance. Whereas, in general, contact with friends and romantic partners are intrinsically satisfying.

However, there are cases where contact with a stranger can be deeply resonant and meaningful, even if there is no subsequent contact. And there are also occasions where interactions with family or friends can feel impersonal, agenda-ridden, or superficial, and thus not create any sense of relatedness.

In terms of what, exactly, it is about a particular interaction that drives this sense of relatedness, RMT suggests that a significant factor is whether or not an interaction supports acceptance and support of the self. Interest from others is most satisfying when it is experienced as authentic, and unconditional Other forms of interest (e.g. objectifying admiration, or conditional love) can thwart autonomy, and promote inauthenticity, and do not therefore provide the same sense of relatedness, and accompanying benefits.

Close Relationships and RMT

RMT is mostly concerned with close personal relationships.

A range of studies have shown that having close personal relationships yields a range of instrumental benefits such as access to information or resources. However, most people hope that their friends’ and partner’s relationships with them are motivated by more than just these extrinsic benefits. SDT suggests that the experience of relatedness specifically arises when people are motivated by intrinsic caring for each other, rather than extrinsic considerations.

RMT specifically understand relatedness as the intrinsically satisfying experience of being connected to and mattering to another person or group, independently of any extrinsic benefits that may also arise from the relationship.

RMT Proposition I: People have a basic psychological need for relatedness, the satisfaction of which is essential to growth, integrity, and wellness, and the frustration of which can play a causal role in ill-being.

As we saw in Chapter 10, various studies have shown that satisfying the need for relatedness has a direct and independent impact on psychological well-being.

This independent effect of relatedness on well-being was first established in a 2-week diary study with a group of students in 2000. A 2010 study with working adults showed a similar effect, and also a significant boost in relatedness, vitality and positive affect at the weekend, the time when people could be with the people who mattered most to them.

A 2003 study of gymnasts found that satisfaction of relatedness needs during practice sessions was positively correlated with increases in positive affect, vitality and self-esteem.

In contrast, thwarting of relatedness is directly related to psychological distress and ill-being.

We now turn to looking at what qualities in relationship drive, or impede, these important feelings of relatedness.

Being Autonomously Motivated Within Close Personal Relationships

One of the conditions under which close personal relationships tend to satisfy relatedness needs, is that the motivation to enter into and maintain the relationship is autonomous.

RMT Proposition II: High-quality relationships are facilitated not only by having close and enduring social contact with a partner, but also by experiencing autonomous motivation within and for that contact. Autonomous motivation – that is, the individual’s authentic willingness to participate in the relationship – contributes to high satisfaction and greater psychological wellness in both parties within that dyad.

The first major study to apply SDT concepts to romantic relationships found that greater autonomy experienced by each partner resulted in greater general relationship satisfaction, and greater dyadic adjustment (a measure of relationship quality developed by Springer in 1976).

The experience of autonomy was also associated with each of the following: viewing relationship problems as challenges rather than annoyances, experiencing less distress, and being more inclined to work through problems.

A series of 4 studies in 2005 extended this research. Across this series of studies, relational autonomy reliably predicted individuals experiencing more satisfaction in their relationship (including after disagreements), greater understanding of their partner, and less defensiveness in conflicts.

A 2007 study looked at pro-relationship behaviours, such as individuals making sacrifices for their partners. The study looked at motivations for these behaviours, which might be autonomous, or controlled, and found that autonomy in pro-relationship behaviours led to greater commitment to the relationship, greater relationship satisfaction, more feelings of closeness, greater vitality, and higher levels of self-esteem.

A 2009 cross-cultural study with American and Japanese participants drew a distinction between personal autonomy (the individual’s autonomy for being in the relationship), and relational autonomy (the individual’s autonomy in supporting their partner’s needs and interests). The study found that personal autonomy and relational autonomy both (independently) contributed to positive outcomes.

Another 2009 study showed similar effects when looking at the autonomy people had for specific activities within relationships. Again, this study showed that acting with autonomy within the relationship was an important contributor to various positive outcomes, over and above having autonomy for being in the relationship.

Both these studies show that in close relationships, it is possible to act in the interests of another, in a truly volitional manner, and doing so is strongly beneficial for a person’s relatedness and wellbeing, and for the quality of the relationship.

At the heart of RMT is the point that caring for others is something that can be done wholly autonomously. This kind of caring will provide the greatest satisfaction of basic needs, and also the highest quality of care.

Several 2015 studies further supported this view. One study showed that autonomous motives for helping others led to less exhaustion, greater satisfaction of relatedness needs, higher reported relationship quality, and lower distress. A second study showed that autonomous motivation for a relationship was associated with more availability and responsiveness, yet less intrusiveness. A third study found that when individuals were autonomously motivated to be in a relationship, their partners felt that their basic psychological needs were better-supported.

Autonomous Causality Orientations in Relationships

Given the results described above, we might expect people with higher autonomy causality orientations (see Chapter 9) to have better quality relationships.

A 1996 study found that people who were higher on the autonomy orientation reported more positive and honest relationships. A 2002 study found that in situations of conflict in their relationships, people with a high autonomy orientation expressed less negative emotion, used coping strategies that were more relationship-maintaining, and showed more positive relationship-oriented behaviours during the conflict.

Priming the Autonomy Orientation in Close Relationships

As discussed in Chapter 9, causality orientations can be primed.

An unpublished 2010 study that involved strangers getting to know each other through a structured discussion, found that priming participants for the autonomy orientation resulted in greater satisfaction with the new relationship, greater satisfaction of relatedness needs, more positive affect, and greater well-being, and greater desire to spend time with that person in the future.

Another 2010 study found that priming for the autonomy orientation resulted in a range of positive outcomes for participants performing creative activities together in pairs, including: more empathy and encouragement, more openness and less defensiveness, and also more task engagement and improved task performance.

Experimental manipulation of this sort helps to establish that there is not only correlation, but in fact a causal relationship between autonomy, and the quality and closeness of interpersonal relationships.

Perceiving the Other as Being Autonomous

In addition to the importance of one’s own autonomy, one’s perception of the other person’s autonomy for being in the relationship is also important.

Various 2010 experiments found that when people were helped by others for what thy perceived to be autonomous reasons, they experienced more gratitude, felt more closeness, and had a more positive attitude towards the helper. These effects remained even when controlling for other factors such as the perceived empathy of the helper, the cost to the helper, the perceived value of the help, and perceptions of similarity with the helper.

Basic Need Satisfactions, High-Quality Relationships, and Well-Being

In addition to autonomy, RMT maintains that the satisfaction of the two other basic psychological needs (competence and relatedness) are also vital for the maintenance of relationships over time, and the well-being of the partners.

In any context, the three basic psychological needs are mutually supportive, and hence correlated. However, in the context of relationships, the dynamics of support offered by a partner increase this interdependence between the three basic needs.

This observation leads to:

RMT Proposition IIIa: Within relationships, the satisfaction of all three basic psychological needs for relatedness, autonomy, and competence, contribute to, and in fact define, higher quality relationships and facilitate greater relationship satisfaction, attachment security, and well-being.

A set of 2007 studies looked at the relationships between satisfaction of each of the three basic psychological needs, and relationship quality. It found that each need contributed significant variance to personal well-being, relationship well-being, and effective management of conflict.

The need that had the strongest effect was relatedness, but each of the other needs contributed significant additional variance.

Follow-up studies showed that the relational well-being of a person in a relationship was also boosted by the basic need satisfaction of their partner, and that satisfaction of basic needs within relationships predicted more successful resolution of relationship conflicts.

Need Satisfaction and Attachment Security

The concept of secure attachment was introduced by Bowlby in 1969 in the context of parent-infant relationships, and has subsequently also been used in the study of adult relationships.

Attachment theory holds that early life experiences, and the presence or absence of secure attachment in early life will affect the probability of developing secure attachments in adult life.

Secure attachment and relatedness are clearly related concepts. However SDT would also predict significant variations in relatedness on the basis of factors that will vary even for a single person, from one relationship to another.

A series of studies in 2000 looked at a range of factors influencing security of attachment in adult relationships. They found that 35% of the variance in attachment security could be attributed to between-person differences, but that more than half of the variance in attachment security was due to within-person differences, and that this could be explained by the varying levels of need satisfaction in different relationships.

Relatedness need satisfaction had the strongest effect, with autonomy need satisfaction second, and competence need satisfaction the weakest effect (though still significant).

A 2007 study looked at the relations between attachment styles, basic need satisfactions, and well-being and relationship quality, within a group of young adults. The study found that attachment styles had a significant influence on both well-being and relationship quality. However, bringing need satisfaction into the analysis revealed that these relationships could be explained wholly in terms of the satisfaction, of the three basic psychological needs.

In addition to looking at need satisfaction, it is also to consider that there are aspects of relationships that can directly thwart basic psychological need satisfaction.

RMT Proposition IIIb: Within relationships the frustration of psychological needs for relatedness, autonomy, or competence, contributes to relationship dysfunction and defense and greater relationship dissatisfaction, insecurity, and ill-being.

Need-thwarting in close relationships can take many forms, including dominance and control (thwarting autonomy), coldness or distancing (thwarting relatedness), and criticalness and derogation (thwarting competence).

Autonomy-Supportive Partners: Facilitating Interdependence and Full Functioning

An important concept in understanding high-quality relationships is autonomy support.

Providing autonomy support means acting in a way that will support and promote the other’s functioning in an autonomous way, that is, in alignment with their authentic self.

This includes conveying empathy and respect (which facilitate self-initiated expressions and actions), providing informational rather than controlling feedback (when feedback is desired), and facilitating the partner’s self-organization and self-regulation.

Autonomy support in relationships does not only promote autonomy, but also promotes the relationship partner’s experiences of relatedness and competence.

RMT Proposition IVa: Individuals who experience autonomy support from their partners within a close relationship will be more willing to emotionally rely on those partners and to turn to those partners for support.

SDT is unique among psychological theories in drawing a strong distinction between independence and autonomy. A person can be autonomously dependent on another, and indeed this is often a positive element in close relationships.

Emotional reliance is a person’s willingness to rely on relational partners at times of heightened emotion (positive or negative). A 2005 study looked at between-person and within-person variations in emotional reliance. The study found that greater emotional reliance was associated with greater wellness. It also found that the level of emotional reliance within a particular relationship was strongly associated with the level of autonomy support provided within that relationship. This was found to be true for both parent-child relationships, and also in adult relationships between romantic partners and best friends.

A 2006 study found that when people experienced greater need satisfaction in relationships, they experienced more contact with their inner emotions, resulting in a greater sense of intimacy, and more feelings of vitality when with the other person.

A 2009 study of young adults in Russia and China found that emotional reliance was predicted by an individual’s experience of autonomy support, and in turn predicted greater psychological wellbeing.

In summary, turning to others at times of heightened emotion promotes wellness. And at these times, people prefer to turn to those who they find most autonomy-supportive.

RMT Proposition IVb: Individuals who experience autonomy support within a close relationship will be more able to “be themselves” – that is, to be authentic and transparent and to function closer to their own ideals.

To fulfil a person’s need for relatedness, relationships must be authentic in two senses: the people involved must be real rather than fake (i.e. being themselves), and must be engaging autonomously, rather than in a scripted or controlled manner.

We’ll now briefly look at concealment within close relationships.

Concealment

A 2010 diary study found that self-concealment (i.e. hiding information from one’s partner) predicted thwarting of basic needs, and various associated negative outcomes.

Another diary study, in 2012 found that self-concealment was associated with lower relationship satisfaction and commitment, mediated by low levels of satisfaction of needs for autonomy and relatedness. In addition to the long-term impacts of self-concealment, the study also showed that concealing information from a partner on one day predicted lower relationship wellbeing on the following day.

Being Oneself in Relationships

In high quality relationships, people are able to be themselves.

Studies have shown that authenticity is associated with greater relationship satisfaction and lower strain (1997) and autonomy is associated with a lower incidence of people presenting themselves as something other than what they are (2005).

A 2009 study, with participants from the US, Russia and China, looked at participants’ self-assessments of themselves in each of the “Big Five” personality traits: how they were “ideally”, typically, and in each of various different interpersonal relationships. The study found that people were closest to their “ideal” profile when they were with autonomy-supportive partners. It also found that it was in these relationships that people felt the most relationship satisfaction, and the most vitality.

Mutuality of Autonomy and Autonomy Support in Relationships

RMT further proposes that mutuality of autonomy support is an important element in close relationships, whereby experience of autonomy support in one direction increases the likelihood of autonomy support in the other direction.

RMT Proposition V: Autonomy-supportive partners in close relationships tend to experience a sense of mutuality – that is, when one partner experiences autonomy or autonomy support, the other is more likely to experience it as well – and the greater the degree of mutuality in autonomy or autonomy support within a relationship, the greater is the relationship satisfaction, attachment security, and well-being of both partners.

Strong support for RMT Proposition V was found in a pair of two 2006 studies that examined close friendships.

The studies also found the following patterns:

Conditional Regard: Turning Basic Psychological Needs Against Each Other

As we have seen, the basic psychological needs for autonomy and relatedness are not in opposition, but rather provide support for each other.

However, there are social contexts in which basic psychological needs are in opposition to each other - i.e. where it is necessary to sacrifice one need in order to meet another.

According to RMT, such situations will be damaging, as they inevitably lead to one of the basic psychological needs not being met.

RMT Proposition VI: Although, inherently, satisfactions of the basic psychological needs are complementary and positive, if the social environment turns any two against each other – for example, if an individual’s relationship partner requires the individual to relinquish satisfaction of one need (e.g. autonomy) in order to get satisfaction of another (e.g. relatedness) – the individual will experience a poorer relationship quality with that partner and a lower level of wellness.

Conditional Regard in Close Relationships

Conditional regard is the behaviour of making the love, attention and affection that is offered to a partner contingent on that partner meeting certain particular demands or expectations.

This is one example of basic needs being turned against each other.

A common example is Parental Conditional Regard (PCR), where a parent withdraws expressions of love or affection in an attempt to control a child’s behaviour. This is discussed in detail in a later chapter, but we provide a brief overview here.

A 2004 study of college students examined the effect of parental conditional regard. Students who had experienced more conditional regard from their parents felt more rejected by their parents, as they had not been accepted for themselves, and they felt more anger and resentment towards their parents.

They did experience higher internal pressure to perform the behaviours upon which their parents’ regard had been contingent. However this came at a cost to their wellbeing, including lower self-esteem, poorer coping strategies, short-lived satisfaction after enacting desired behaviours, and more guilt and shame when failing to enact behaviours.

PCR and Peer Relationships

A 2016 study looked at the influence of PCR on subsequent peer relationships. It found that the more parents had been conditionally regarding with their children, the less need satisfaction and security those children were likely to feel in their subsequent adult relationships.

Another 2016 study distinguished between conditional positive regard (i.e. giving of attention and affection as a reward) and conditional negative regard (i.e. withdrawal of affection and attention as a punishment). The study found that both of these behaviours independently predicted poorer quality romantic relationships, which was consistently mediated by poorer satisfaction of basic psychological needs.

Two independent effects were discovered that explained the high level of conditional regard experienced in adult relationships by those raised under the influence of PCR. One was a tendency for projection, where those who experienced PCR to be more likely to experience others’ behaviour as conditionally regarding. The second was a selection effect, whereby those who had experienced high levels of PCR in fact chose partners who treated them with conditional regard in the same way that their parents had done.

The study also looked at the possibility of a third kind of effect, whereby individuals trained others to treat them with conditional regard. However no evidence was found for this kind of effect.

Relationship-Contingent Self-Esteem

A 2008 study examined the phenomenon of Relationship-Contingent Self-Esteem whereby a person’s self-esteem is contingent upon their romantic relationships.

This was found to be a negative factor in relationships. High levels of relationship-contingent self-esteem led to high levels of commitment to relationships, but low levels feelings of closeness and satisfaction in the relationship.

Relating to Selves, Relating to Objects

At the heart of the ideas presented in this chapter is the idea that the fundamental basis for a high-quality relationship is two people acting openly with each other, each from their own authentic sense of self. By implication, in a high-quality relationship, people are not relating to each other as objects, or as something to use.

However in many real-world relationships, it does seem that people are objectified, or used as a means to an end - for example they may be valued for their wealth, looks, status or connections. Such objectification leads to an instrumental, rather than intrinsic connection between people, and may also lead to self-objectification, in which a person takes an external view of themselves, a perspective that tends to diminish their sense of autonomy.

RMT Proposition VII: To the degree that an individual in a relationship relates to the partner more as an object, stereotype or thing, rather than as a person intrinsically worthy of respect, the partner will accordingly experience thwarting of the basic psychological needs, resulting in a lower quality relationship and poorer well-being.

In Chapter 11, we looked at how goals or values can be characterized as either intrinsic or extrinsic, and saw how a focus on intrinsic goals and values leads to greater satisfaction of basic needs.

SDT hypothesizes that people who have high levels of extrinsic aspirations are likely to view romantic relationships and friendships as means to attain these aspirations. This leads to objectification of friends and romantic partners, resulting in lower-quality relationships.

Various studies support this hypothesis.

Concluding Comments

RMT proposes that:

  1. People have an intrinsic motivation to engage in high-quality relationships with other people, due to their basic need for relatedness.
  2. Autonomous motivation for the relationship is essential for high-quality, securely attached relationships.
  3. Satisfaction of the three basic psychological needs within relationships promote well-being of both the individuals in the relationship, and the quality of the relationship itself.
  4. Autonomy-support within relationships makes relationships more satisfying.
  5. Mutuality of autonomy and autonomy-support are key characteristics of high-quality relationships.
  6. When basic needs become in conflict with each other, this impacts both relationship quality, and well-being of individuals in the relationship.
  7. When people relate to each other as objects, this results in lower well-being and lower-quality relationships.

One important implication of this is that autonomy and relatedness are inherently complementary, rather than antagonistic.

Certain behaviours (such as conditional regard) can create conflict between these two needs, but in high-quality relationships, autonomy and relatedness needs can both be met, and indeed each provides strong support for the other.

Key Concepts from this Chapter

RMT Proposition I: Relatedness is one of the basic human psychological needs.

RMT Proposition II: Autonomous motivation for participation in a relationship results in higher relationship quality, and greater wellness for both parties.

Personal autonomy: An individual’s autonomy for being in a relationship.

Relational autonomy: An individual’s autonomy in supporting their partner’s needs and interests within a relationship.

RMT Proposition IIIa: High-quality relationships can be understood as those in which all three basic psychological needs (i.e. autonomy, competence and relatedness) are satisfied

Secure Attachment: A characteristic of an individual, that means that they are able to have trusting relationships, communicate openly, have good self-esteem, and seek out social support when they need it. The concept was originally introduced by Bowlby in studies of infants, and later extended to describe a healthy pattern of engagement in relationships observed in adults.

RMT Proposition IIIb: When basic psychological needs are frustrated within a relationship, this leads to relationship dysfunction, dissatisfaction, and ill-being.

Autonomy Support: A person in a relationship provides autonomy support when they act in a way that supports and promotes their partner functioning in an autonomous way (i.e. in alignment with their authentic self).

Emotional reliance: A person’s willingness to rely on relational partners at times of heightened emotion (positive or negative).

RMT Proposition IVa: Receiving autonomy support from a partner within a relationship leads to increased emotional reliance.

Self-concealment: A behaviour where a person hides information from their relationship partner.

RMT Proposition IVb: Receiving autonomy support from a partner within a relationship leads to individuals being more authentic and transparent.

Mutuality of Autonomy Support: A pattern observed in close relationships whereby experience of autonomy support in one direction increases the likelihood of autonomy support in the other direction.

RMT Proposition V: Participants in autonomy-supportive relationships experience mutuality of autonomy support, which leads to relationship satisfaction, secure attachment, and well-being of both partners.

Conditional Regard: The behaviour of making the love, attention and affection that is offered to another person contingent on that partner meeting certain particular demands or expectations.

Conditional Positive Regard: One form of conditional regard. Giving of attention and affection as a reward.

Conditional Negative Regard: Another form of conditional regard. Withdrawal of affection and attention as a punishment

Parental Conditional Regard (PCR): Conditional regard (which could be positive, negative, or both) from a parent towards their child.

RMT Proposition VI: When circumstances turn one basic psychological need against another, this will negatively impact relationship quality, and wellbeing of those in the relationship.

Relationship-Contingent Self-Esteem:: When a person’s self-esteem is contingent upon their romantic relationships.

Objectification: Treating or relating to another person as an object, or something to use.

Self-objectification: When a person takes an objectifying view of themselves (i.e. seeing themselves as an object, or something for others to use), a perspective that tends to diminish their sense of autonomy.

RMT Proposition VII: Objectification of a partner in a relationship will thwart their basic psychological needs, resulting in a lower quality relationship and poorer well-being.