# CHAPTER 33 Self-Determination (自我決定) Michael L. Wehmeyer, Karrie A. Shogren, Todd D. Little, and Nicole Adams  1. 原文字數 5600+，先縮減到 2000-2500 左右。 2. 補充 SDT 部分。 3. 建議修改為定義/說明/舉例的結構。例如：AAA. (AAA 的定義解釋)，(e.g.) 舉例。 --- [TOC] --- # Self-Determination ## Self-Determination and Human Agency Ryan and Deci (2000a) asserted that, in the pursuit for understanding optimal human functioning and well-being, researchers must take into account the "agentic" nature of human action. This chapter examines self-determination as a general psychological construct within the organizing structure of theories of human agency. Human agency is "the sense of personal empowerment, which involves both knowing and having what it takes to achieve one's goals” (Little, Hawley, Henrich, & Marsland, 2002, p. 390). --- > An "agentic" person is the origin of his or her actions, has high aspirations, perseveres in the face of obstacles, sees more and varied options for action, learns from failures, and overall, has a greater sense of well-being. In contrast, a non-agentic individual can be a pawn to unknown extra-personal influences, has low aspirations, is hindered with problem-solving blinders, often feels helpless and, overall, has a greater sense of ill-being.  -(Little et al., 2002, p. 390)  --- ## meta-theories Human agentic theories "share the meta-theoretical view that organismic aspirations drive human behaviors" (Little, Snyder, & Wehmeyer, 2006, p. 61). An organismic perspective views people as active contributors to, or authors of their behavior, where "behavior” is described as self-regulated and goal-directed action. Such actions are defined as purposive and self-initiated activities (Brandtstädter, 1998; Chapman, 1984; Harter, 1999). --- As outlined by Little et al. (2006), human agentic actions are:  1. motivated by biological and psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2002; Hawley, 1999; Hawley & Little, 2002; Little et al., 2002);  2. directed toward self-regulated goals that service short-and long-term biological and psychological needs;  3. propelled by understandings of links among agents, means, and ends (Chapman, 1984; Little, 1998; Skinner, 1995, 1996) and guided by general action-control behaviors that entail self-chosen forms and functions (Little, Lopez, & Wanner, 2001; Skinner & Edge, 2002; Vanlede, Little, & Card, 2006);  4. those that precipitate self-determined governance of behavior and development, which can be characterized as hope-related individual differences; and  5. are triggered, executed, and evaluated in contexts that provide supports and opportunities for, as well as hindrances and impediments to, goal pursuit.  --- ## organismic approach An organismic approach to self-determination requires an explicit focus on the interface between the self and context (Little et al., 2002). Organisms influence and are influenced by the contexts in which they live and develop. Through this person-context interaction, people become agents of their own action.  --- ## Assumptions of Theories of Human Agency Theories of human agency differ from other frameworks for understanding human behavior (e.g., theories that emphasize stimulus-response accounts of behavior) because of the assumption underlying all theories of human agency that each person is integral to his/her organismic functioning. Unlike stimulus-response theories, which, by and large, assume that stimuli in the environment drive behavior, agentic theories assume that the person actively shapes his or her environment and responses to that environment. Contextual factors are still highly relevant, as contexts provide supports and opportunities as well as hindrances and impediments for volitional and agentic action, but it is the individual and their drive to act as a causal agent (not environmental stimuli) that is the primary driver of behavior. People who consistently engage in causal action to exert causal agency are self-determined. Specifically, as individuals strive to meet basic psychological and biological needs, they engage in self-regulated, goal-directed action, or causal action, that enables them to navigate varying environmental and contextual challenges, and they become more effective in their causal action and develop a sense of causal agency and enhanced self-determination.  The process of engaging in causal action has a self-evaluative feedback process, where persons continuously interpret and evaluate their actions and the consequences of actions. This meta-cognitive monitoring shapes, on an ongoing basis, each individual's action control beliefs about the activities that he or she is capable of in varying contexts. Specifically, people are always learning under what conditions their causal actions will have desired effects. Under optimal circumstances, this continually evolving and actively monitored self-system gives rise to a strong, integrated sense of causal agency-a self determined person. A highly self-determined person is the primary origin of his or her actions, has high aspirations, perseveres in the face of obstacles, sees more and varied options, learns from failures, and has a strong sense of well-being. A less self-determined person is shaped by extra-personal influences, has low aspirations, struggles with problem solving and goal-setting, and often feels hopeless. Thus, theories of human agency have an explicit focus on the person-environment fit. It is in the context of this interaction between personal competencies and environmental demands that people become agents of their own action or causal agents over their lives, and, ultimately, self-determined.  In addition to the assumptions regarding organismic aspirations and contextual influences, theories of human agency also assume that:  1. Actions are motivated by both biological and psychological needs.  2. When actions are directed toward self-regulated goals, this serves biological and psychological needs, both short-term and long-term.  3. Actions are volitional and agentic and shaped by understandings about general action-control behaviors that entail self-chosen forms and functions (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Little et al., 2002).  In the following sections, we will discuss the origins of the self-determination context, and discuss theories of motivation and causal action that explain the enervation and development of self-determination.  --- # Origins of the Self-Determination Construct ## Self-Determination in Philosophy The self-determination construct's origins lie in philosophy and discourse about the doctrines of determinism and free will. Determinism is the philosophical doctrine positing that events, such as human behavior, are effects of preceding causes. John Locke (1690) provided a synopsis of the free will problem:  > This proposition "men can determine themselves" is drawn in or inferred from this, "that they shall be punished in the other world.” For here the mind, seeing the connexion there is between the idea of men's punishment in the other world and the idea of God punishing; between God punishing and the justice of the punishment; between justice of punishment and guilt; between guilt and a power to do otherwise; between a power to do otherwise and freedom; and between freedom and self-determination, sees the connexion between men and self-determination  -(Locke, 1690, np).  Locke was a soft determinist, that is, someone who saw both causality and volition, or will, at work in human behavior. According to Locke, the human mind has the active power of beginning or ceasing its own operations as activated by a preference. The exercise of that power is volition or will. Freedom or liberty is “the power to act on our volition, whatever it may be, without any external compulsion or restraint" (Locke, 1690). Human beings act freely insofar as they are capable of translating their mental preferences into actual performance of the action in question (Kemerling, 2000–2001). Freedom is conceptualized as the human capacity to act (or not) as we choose or prefer, without any external compulsion or restraint. Locke's proposals about the causes of human action as both caused and volitional are important to an organismic theory of self-determination, as is his soft deterministic distinction that it is the "agent" (the person) who is free to act, not the action itself (since it is caused by perception or sensation).  --- ## Self-Determination in Personality Psychology In Foundations for a Science of Personality (1941), Angyal proposed that an essential feature of a living organism is its autonomy, where “autonomous” means self-governing or governed from inside. According to Angyal, an organism "lives in a world in which things happen according to laws which are heteronomous (e.g., governed from outside) from the point of view of the organism” (p. 33), and that “organisms are subjected to the laws of the physical world, as is any other object of nature, with the exception that it can oppose self determination to external determination” (p. 33).  Angyal (1941) suggested that the "science of personality" is the study of two essential determinants to human behavior: autonomous determinism (self-determination) and heteronomous determinism (other-determined). Angyal placed primary importance for laying the foundation for a science of personality on the fact that a central process of an organism is the movement toward autonomous determination, noting that "without autonomy, without self-government, the life process could not be understood” (p. 34).  Furthermore, Angyal's (1941) use of the term autonomy moved away from the hard determinism that then dominated psychology, led by operant psychologists, toward a soft determinism that considered the importance of both actor and context.  Self-determination, then, as a psychological construct, refers to self- (vs. other-) caused action—it refers to people's acting volitionally, based on their own will. Volition is the capability of making a conscious choice or decision, and having a conscious intention (italics added, Gove, 1967). "Volitional behavior," then, implies intent. Self-determined behavior is volitional, intentional, and self-caused or self-initiated.  # Theories of Self-Determination ## Self-Determination Theory Self-determination theory (SDT) is a highly visible and comprehensive macro-theory developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan to explain the origins and outcomes of human agentic action (Deci & Vansteenkiste, 2004; Vansteenkiste, Niemiec, & Soenens, 2012). Standing in contrast to theories that stress the dependence of behavior on environmental contingencies, SDT is based on the organismic paradigm; one that assumes an inherent order in both biological and psychological systems (Ryan, 1995). SDT is a macro-theory of motivation, personality, and functioning that perceives human behavior as growth oriented and pro-active (Deci & Vansteenkiste, 2004; Deci & Ryan, 2012a). According to this theory, human behavior is also explained in terms of interactions between the individual and his or her social environment (Deci & Vansteenkiste, 2004).  The origin of SDT is credited to decades of empirical investigations of the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivations. These studies examined the effects of external rewards on study participants' intrinsic motivation for an assigned task (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). The effects of extrinsic rewards on autonomous motivation can be understood in terms of both basic psychological needs satisfaction and deCharms' (1968) “perceived locus of causality” (Ryan & Deci, 2000a). According to SDT, the three basic psychological needs—competence, autonomy, and relatedness—must be met in order to support healthy psychological development (Deci & Ryan, 2012a). Deci and Vansteenkiste (2004) explained the need for competence as reflecting individuals' desire to effectively master their environment, and the need for autonomy as a desire to feel an integrated sense of self through choice, agency, and volition. The need for relatedness refers to a sense of belonging and connectedness with others; to care and be cared for (Ryan & Deci, 2002). Deci and Ryan would eventually incorporate basic psychological needs into one of five mini-theories to explain the operations of self-determination theory in a complex social world (Deci & Ryan, 2012a). The five mini-theories—cognitive evaluative theory, causality orientations theory, organismic integration theory, basic psychological needs theory, and goal content theory—each explain a set of observed motivation phenomena in many domains (Ryan & Deci, 2002).  Motivation research uncovered variations in responses to experimental manipulations and observational contexts, indicating that self-determined behavior is a multidimensional construct. --- ## cognitive evaluation theory (CET) Deci and Ryan (2012a) introduced cognitive evaluation theory (CET) to explain the types of external events that would enhance or diminish intrinsic motivation, to identify autonomy-supportive social contexts versus controlling social contexts, and to explain the interactions of external events and social contexts and their effects on intrinsic motivation. To further explain individual differences in motivation-related behavior, Deci and Ryan (2012a) proposed a new mini-theory, focusing on trait-like motivational orientations. --- Causality orientations theory (COT) proposes three different personality orientations based on the source of initiation and regulation of behavior; autonomous, controlled, and impersonal (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). The autonomous orientation is associated with orienting towards internal and external cues in a way that supports one's autonomy and aids in attending to the informational significance of these cues to assist in regulating one's action. The controlled orientation is associated with perceiving internal and external cues as controlling and demanding. Finally, the impersonal orientation is associated with perceiving cues as indicators of incompetence and is linked with amotivation.  --- A third, related mini-theory under SDT is known as organismic integration theory (OIT). Deci and Ryan (1985a) formulated this theory to explain behavior that is externally motivated but also either controlled or autonomous. The researchers recognized that motivation existed on a continuum, and depended on an individual's traits and the environmental and social context. Deci and Ryan (1985a) proposed five types of motivation on a continuum from "extrinsic" to "intrinsic," thought of as reasons for engaging in behaviors. These are external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, integrated regulation, and intrinsic motivation. Researchers have used this theory to demonstrate desirable behaviors that are more highly internally regulated tend to be maintained. Also, it was found that more autonomous regulation was associated with positive outcomes such as wellness, engagement, and perceived competence (Deci & Ryan, 2012a).  --- As research evidence accumulated for these mini-theories, Deci and Ryan (2012a) noted continued evidence for the importance of the three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The researchers formalized a theory, the basic psychological needs theory (BPNT), based on findings that environments and contexts that supported psychological needs satisfaction were associated with greater feelings of well-being, psychological health, and greater positive affect in both work and non-work-related environments (Ryan, Bernstein, & Brown, 2010).  --- As a further development to the psychological needs-fulfillment work, Deci, Ryan, and colleagues gathered evidence for the importance of the contents and targets of goals that people pursue. Goal content theory (GCT) posits that extrinsic goals such as financial wealth, image, and fame are less likely to satisfy the three basic psychological needs than are intrinsic goals such as personal growth and emotional closeness (Sheldon, Ryan, Deci, & Kasser, 2004). Empirical evidence for GCT indicates that pursuing extrinsic goals leads to less well-being and poorer performance, whereas pursuing intrinsic goals leads to greater well-being; presumably due to increased satisfaction of the basic psychological needs (Deci & Ryan, 2012a).  --- With motivation, choice, and attribution as SDT's fundamental theoretical bases, a substantial empirical tradition has arisen from research in this area. SDT has been applied to study diverse social issues such as health behavior and maintenance, education and school adjustment, psychotherapy, and sports and physical activity (Chen & Bozeman, 2013; Curran, Hill, & Niemiec, 2013; Gourlan, Sarrazin, & Trouilloud, 2013; Liu, Wang, Kee, Koh, Lim, & Chua, 2014; Vansteenkiste, Claes, Soenens, & Verstuyf, 2013). Recent findings in each of these domains provide additional information about the operation of the multiple dimensions of SDT constructs as predictors of external behavior, internal states, and other distal outcomes. For example, recent work by Bruzzese, Idalski Carcone, Lam, Ellis, and Naar-King (2014) suggested that the psychological need for relatedness is important in predicting young African Americans' adherence to asthma-medication regimens. Interestingly, however, in this study, contrary to SDT assumptions, the perceived importance of the regimen did not predict adherence over and above other SDT variables, suggesting that in certain health domains, autonomous motivation does not exert an independent influence on behavior.  Other important findings in recent SDT applications include the effects of internal feedback on students' perceptions of their understanding of college-level lectures, as well as their emotions following lectures. Oliver, Markland, and Hardy (2010) assessed undergraduate students' self-talk following a lecture on research methods. According to cognitive evaluative theory, one of the five SDT mini-theories, students construe their self talk as informational or controlling, depending on the functional significance the individual attaches to their inner dialogue. The perceived informational or controlling nature of this dialogue has important consequences for anxiety and affect. Oliver and colleagues found that students who evaluated their inner dialogue as informational were more likely to report positive affect following the lecture, independent of the students' understanding of the lecture material. Conversely, controlling self-talk was found to be associated with higher state anxiety following the lecture.  Similar to outcomes in education, contextual factors and social influences play a significant role for motivation in the sports and physical activity domains. An important aspect of determining sports behavior engagement is the coaches' role in creating an autonomy-supportive atmosphere for athletes. Using SDT as a framework for predicting behavioral engagement, Curran et al. (2013) found that structure provided by coaches (information, strategy, limits, and expectations) in an autonomy-supportive manner fostered ideal conditions for satisfaction of basic psychological needs and was associated with higher levels of behavioral engagement and lower levels of behavioral disaffection.  As discussed, SDT provides a multidimensional view of the effects of goal purposes and contents on individuals' behavior, well-being, performance, and social engagement. As an extension, the five mini-theories discussed here provide an account for the complex interactions of environmental and contextual cues with personal traits and learned behaviors in a variety of behavioral domains. Thus, the foundational concept of intrinsic versus extrinsic goal engagement provides a detailed framework for understanding human agency.  --- ## Causal Agency Theory Drawing on the foundational understanding of self-determination as: (1) self-caused action from philosophy; (2) a central process of an organism in the movement toward autonomous determination, from personality psychology; and (3) motivated by the basic psychological needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness from SDT, Wehmeyer, Shogren, and colleagues (Shogren, Wehmeyer, Palmer, Forber-Pratt, Little, & Lopez, 2015) proposed causal agency theory to explain how people become self-determined; that is, how they define the actions and beliefs necessary to engage in self-caused, autonomous action that addresses basic psychological needs.  --- > Within the context of causal agency theory, Shogren and colleagues define "self determination" as a dispositional characteristic manifested as acting as the causal agent in one's life. Self-determined people (i.e., causal agents) act in service to freely chosen goals. Self-determined actions function to enable a person to be the causal agent is his or her life.  -(Shogren et al., 2015, p. 256)  --- A dispositional characteristic is an enduring tendency used to characterize and describe differences between people; it refers to a tendency to act or think in a particular way, but presumes contextual variance (i.e., socio-contextual supports and opportunities and threats and impediments). As a dispositional characteristic, self-determination can be measured, and variance will be observed across individuals and within individuals over time, particularly as the context changes (e.g., as supports and opportunities are provided for self-determined action).  Broadly defined, causal agency implies that it is the individual who makes or causes things to happen in his or her life. Causal agency implies more, however, than just causing action; it implies that the individual acts with an eye toward causing an effect to accomplish a specific endor to cause or create change. Self-determined actions enable a person to act as a causal agent.  --- ## Self-Caused Action vs. Control Organismic theories differentiate between self-determination as self-caused action and self determination as controlling one's behavior. As Deci (2004) observed, “the concept of personal control... refers to having control over outcomes" (p. 23). Control is defined as "authority, power, or influence over events, behaviors, situations, or people” (Vandenbos, 2007, p. 228). "Self-determined action" does not imply control over events or outcomes. Instead, it refers to the degree to which action is self-caused; that is, the degree to which behavior is volitional and agentic, driven by beliefs about the relationships between actions (or means) and ends.  Within causal agency theory, self-determined action is characterized by three essential characteristics-volitional action, causal action, and action-control beliefs. These essential characteristics refer, not to specific actions performed or the beliefs that drive action, but to the function the action serves for the individual; that is, whether the action enabled the person to act as a causal agent:  --- **VOLITIONAL ACTION** Self-determined people act volitionally. Volition refers to making a conscious choice based upon one's preferences. "Conscious choice" implies intentionality; self-determined actions are intentionally conceived, deliberate acts that occur without direct external influence. As such, volitional actions are self-initiated and function to enable a person to act autonomously (i.e., engage in self-governed action). Volitional actions involve the initiation and activation of causal capabilities—the capacity to cause something to happen-and something to happen in one's life. --- **AGENTIC ACTION** An agent is someone who acts; a means by which something is done or achieved. “Agency" refers to action in the service of a goal. Self-determined people act to identify pathways that lead to specific ends or cause or create change. The identification of pathways is a proactive, purposive process. As such, agentic actions are self-regulated and self-directed. Such actions function to enable a person to make progress toward freely chosen goals and respond to opportunities and challenges in their environments. Such actions involve agentic capabilities; the capacity to direct it to achieve an outcome.  --- **ACTION-CONTROL BELIEFS** Self-determined people have a sense of personal empowerment; they believe they have what it takes to achieve freely chosen goals. There are three types of action-control beliefs: beliefs about the link between the self and the goal (control expectancy; "When I want to do , I can"); beliefs about the link between the self and the means for achieving the goal (capacity beliefs; "I have the capabilities to do __"); and beliefs about the utility or usefulness of a given means for attaining a goal (causality beliefs; “I believe my effort will lead to goal achievement” vs. “I believe other factors-luck, access to teachers, or social capital—will lead to goal achievement"). Positive action-control beliefs function to enable a person to act with self-awareness and self-knowledge in an empowered, goal-directed manner.  --- ## Socio-Contextual Influences People who are causal agents respond to challenges (opportunities or threats) to their self determination by employing causal and agentic actions, supported by action-control beliefs. This leads to self-determined action that allows them to initiate and direct their behavior to achieve a desired change or maintain a preferred circumstance or situation. In response to challenges, causal agents use a goal-generation process leading to the identification and prioritization of needed actions. The person frames the most urgent action need in terms of a goal state, and engages in a goal-discrepancy analysis to compare current status with goal status. The outcome of this analysis is a goal-discrepancy problem to be solved. The person then engages in a capacity-challenge discrepancy analysis in which capacity to solve the goal discrepancy problem is evaluated. The person maximizes adjustment in capacity (e.g., acquires new or refines existing skills and knowledge) or adjusts the challenge presented to create a "just-right match” between capacity and challenge in order to optimize the probability of solving the goal discrepancy problem.  --- Next, the person creates a discrepancy-reduction plan by setting causal expectations, making choices and decisions about strategies to reduce the discrepancy between the current status and goal status. When sufficient time has elapsed, the person engages in a second goal-discrepancy analysis, using information gathered through self-monitoring to self-evaluate progress toward reducing the discrepancy between current and goal status. If progress is satisfactory, they will continue implementing the discrepancy reduction plan. If not, the person either reconsiders the discrepancy reduction plan and modifies that, or returns to the goal generation process to reexamine the goal and its priority and, possibly, cycle through the process with a revised or new goal.  # Development of Self-Determination The assumptions inherent in theories of human agentic action and research and theory in motivation (SDT) and causal action (Causal Agency Theory) create an organizational framework for a theoretical model of the development of self-determination (see Figure 33.1).  At the start of this system are basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness proposed by SDT. Satisfaction of these basic needs facilitates autonomous motivation, defined as intrinsic motivation and well-internalized extrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2012b, p. 88). Consistent with assumptions of organismic theories, the interplay between the context and the individual's psychological needs-satisfaction is complex and reciprocal. When a motive or motives are salient, people are in a position to select goals on the basis of their expectations about the satisfaction of these motives (Deci & Ryan, 1985b, p. 235). As per Figure 33.1, these psychological needs initiate a causal action sequence that, through interaction with environmental supports and opportunities, enables the development of a "synergistic set of action-control beliefs and behaviors that provide the self-regulatory foundation that is called upon to negotiate the various tasks and challenges of the life course” (Little et al, 2002, p. 396). Action-control beliefs about the link between the self and the goal (control expectancy beliefs), about the links between the self and the means that are available for use to address a challenge (agency beliefs), and about which specific means are most effective for reaching one's goals (causality beliefs) (Little et al., 2002, p. 396) interact with and mediate volitional and agentic actions (employing causal and agentic capabilities), resulting in causal agency. Repeated experiences with the causal action sequence lead to multiple experiences with causal agency and, as a result, enhanced self-determination. In the following sections, we describe each of these contributors to the development of self-determination in greater depth.  ## Psychological and Biological Needs As mentioned previously, a fundamental assumption of human agentic theories is that actions are motivated by both psychological and biological needs, and that if psychological and biological needs are addressed overall, well-being is supported. For this discussion, we are focusing on the psychological needs that motivate causal action, but, of course, biological needs also motivate action. In terms of biological needs, an assumption of human agentic theories is that all organisms require resources for physical growth and development (Hawley, 1999; Little et al., 2002). These resources create an appetite for biological needs; however, to meet biological needs, there is an evolutionary duality that shapes action in pursuit of resources. On one hand, people can participate in social groups, using social connections and capital to acquire needed resources. This social group, however, can also become a source of competition as multiple people in the social group pursue resources. Within social groups, therefore, people experience both supports and threats to the attainment of resources. Ethologists describe this duality as a dominance hierarchy. Hawley (1992) further defined such hierarchies as the emergent ordering of individuals based on their relative competitive abilities. People that become highly agentic are more likely to attain needed resources, whereas those with less developed causal agency experience fewer opportunities to access resources (Hawley, 1999; Little et al., 2002). Thus, contextual factors interact with the pursuit of resources to meet biological needs that shape the development of personal agency. Essentially, as people are able to meet their biological needs, they learn the types of volitional and agentic actions that enable them to access needed resources. They learn that goals can be set and met, that they can influence their environment, and that their future efforts are likely to be successful (Hawley & Little, 2002). This cyclical process is why biological needs (and psychological needs, discussed subsequently) are fundamental elements to the development of causal agency and self determination.  Of particular focus in this text, human agentic theories also assume that there are basic psychological needs-organismic necessities for psychological growth, integrity, and wellness—that shape the development of self-determination, result in autonomous motivation, and motivate causal action (volitional action, agentic action, and action control beliefs). As mentioned previously, SDT describes three fundamental psychological needs: competence, relatedness, and autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 2002). SDT assumes that social contexts motivate human action to meet these basic psychological needs. The need for competence is defined as the need to successfully engage with, manipulate, and negotiate the environment. The need for relatedness reflects the desire for close emotional bonds and feelings of connectedness to others in the social world. The need for autonomy reflects the need to feel that one's actions are predicated on the self or volitional in nature (Vansteenkiste & Ryan, 2013). Together, these basic psychological needs serve as the "energizer of behavior" (Deci & Ryan, 2012b, p. 101), or, in this theoretical model of the development of self-determination, the autonomous motivation that energizes causal action.  As organisms take action to meet these three basic psychological needs, this energizes the development of autonomous motivation, consisting of intrinsic motivation (doing an activity because it is enjoyable) and/or internalized extrinsic motivation (doing an activity because it leads to a valued consequence separate from the activity itself) (Deci & Ryan, 2012b, p. 88). The interaction between the organism's efforts to meet basic psychological needs and the resultant autonomous motivation stimulates causal action, discussed in the next section.  --- ## Causal Agency **ACTION-CONTROL BELIEFS** The interaction between the organism's efforts to meet basic psychological needs and the resultant autonomous motivation, and the environmental conditions of opportunity or threat, stimulates causal action, beginning with "self-perceptions about the means and competencies one has to reach one's goals" (Little et al., 2002, p. 396). These self perceptions are articulated through a set of action-control beliefs. These self-regulatory beliefs involve control expectancy beliefs, agency beliefs, and causality beliefs.  Control Expectancy Beliefs Control expectancy beliefs “reflect the general expectations about the link between the self and the goal" (Little, Snyder, Wehmeyer, 2006, p. 70); they reflect "the general perception of the degree to which a person feels that he or she can attain a given goal" (Little et al., 2002, p. 396).  Agency Beliefs Agency beliefs "reflect the links between the self and the various means that are relevant for attaining a chosen end” (Little et al., 2006; p. 71); they are "beliefs about whether these means are personally available for use" (Little et al., 2002, p. 396).  Causality Beliefs Causality beliefs "reflect general views of the utility or usefulness of a given means such as efforts, luck, or ability for attaining a particular goal" (Little et al., 2006; p. 71); they are "judgments about which specific means are most effective for reaching one's goals” (Little et al., 2002, p. 396).  **CAUSAL ACTION** Causal action is energized by the organism's response to meet basic psychological needs, and the resultant autonomous motivation, and it is mediated and supported by action control beliefs. Causal action involves both volitional and agentic action. Volitional action is defined as making conscious choices based on one's preferences, and engaging in self initiated actions that promote autonomy. Agentic action refers to the process of identifying pathways that lead to specific ends and engaging in self-directing and self-regulating action to navigate environmental opportunities and threats. The primary operators in propelling volitional and agentic action involve the ability to perform causal actions or behaviors, subdivided into causal capability and agentic capability. Capability refers to the condition of being capable; that is, having requisite mental or physical capacity to accomplish a particular task.  --- Two types of capabilities are important to causal action and causal agency: 1. causal capability and 2. agentic capability. These capabilities differentiate between the two aspects of causal action; 1. causing something to happen (e.g., volitional action), and 2. directing that action toward a preferred end (e.g., agentic action).  --- This sequence of volitional and agentic action, which is goal-mediated and self regulated, leads to experiences of causal agency, which mediate future responses by the organism to meet basic psychological needs. Repeated experiences of causal agency result in enhanced self-determination.  --- # Conclusions That self-determination is a critical construct to the study of a positive psychology seems self-evident. An organismic perspective of self-determination that views people as active contributors to, or "authors" of, their behavior, where behavior is self-regulated and goal directed, provides a compelling foundation for examining and facilitating the degree to which people become "causal agents" in their lives. The theoretical frameworks reviewed in this chapter provide both compelling evidence to support the relevance of the construct to positive psychology, as well as multiple perspectives from which to consider further research or intervention development.  --- Research stemming from SDT strives to differentiate between proactive and reactive psychological processes. Proactive processes are those that support the growth of human potential; reactive processes in terms of their lack of support for growth and well-being) are defensive, subsequent to threats toward basic needs (Ryan & Deci, 2000b). This approach to proactive and reactive processes corresponds with the tenets of positive psychology, and as the theory is applied in a broader range of settings and with more diverse populations, the field of positive psychology will advance concurrently.  --- Research stemming from the causal agency theory emphasizes the interaction between opportunity and capacity in self-determined action, and the role of self-regulated problem solving and goal-discrepancy analysis to achieve greater self-determination (Shogren, Palmer, Wehmeyer, Williams-Diehm, & Little, 2012; Shogren, Wehmeyer, Palmer, Rifenbark, & Little, 2015; Wehmeyer, Palmer, Agran, Mithaug, & Martin, 2000; Wehmeyer, Palmer, Shogren, Williams-Diehm, & Soukup, 2012; Wehmeyer, Shogren, Palmer, Williams-Diehm, Little, & Boulton, 2012). Research by Shogren, Lopez, Wehmeyer, Little, and Pressgrove (2006) explores the interrelationships among self-determination and other positive psychology constructs, including hope, well-being, and life satisfaction, in students with and without cognitive disabilities.  --- # Future Questions 1. To what degree does self-determination interact with other positive psychological constructs to predict optimal human functioning and well-being?  2. How does self-determination fit into models of human agentic behavior and other organismic theories of human action?  3. What interventions enhance personal self-determination?