Beyond  defense:    The  possibili+es  for  self-­‐determina+on  amidst  implicit  and  explicit  threats  and  

controls  

Richard M. Ryan Professor of Psychology, Psychiatry and Education

University of Rochester

Herzliya Symposium, April, 2011

Beyond defense: The possibilities for self-determination amidst implicit and explicit threats and controls

Richard M. Ryan University of Rochester

Social and personality psychologists are skilled at showing us the control we don’t have. Research tells us how non-conscious processes and motives pervasively determine human behavior; how implicit threats automatically drive us toward inhumanity and defense; and how any attempts to exercise choice and volition are not only depleting, but also an illusion. It’s enough to make one throw in the existential towel.

But is that the whole story? In this talk and chapter evidence derived from self-determination theory is reviewed that speaks to the power of people to act in accord with integrated values, and to be mindful of, and able to resist, habitual ways of acting. Findings suggest that with the existential exertion of autonomy people are actually more successful at personal ad collective goals, more connected to others, less defensive, and more vital and alive. This “good news” is balanced by manifold vulnerabilities to being controlled, the bread and butter of mainstream social-psychological research, the limitations of which become clearer when we focus on our human capacities for awareness and integrity.

An Incomplete List of Recent Collaborators

Avi Assor Ben Gurion Univ., Israel

Kirk Warren Brown Virginia Commonwealth

Jesse Bernstein McGill University

Valery I. Chirkov University of Saskatchewan

Edward L. Deci University of Rochester.

Marylène Gagné Concordia University

Wendy S. Grolnick Clark University

Hyungshim Jang Inha University, Korea

Tim Kasser Knox College

Johnmarshall Reeve University of Korea

C. Scott Rigby Immersyve Inc., Orlando

Guy Roth Ben Gurion Univ., Israel

Kennon M. Sheldon University of Columbia-Missouri

Martin Standage University of Bath, UK

Geoffrey C. Williams Univ. of Rochester Medical Ctr.

Maarten Vansteenkiste University of Ghent, Belgium

Netta Weinstein University of Essex, UK

John Wang NIE-Singapore

Youngmee Kim University of Miami

Ayoung Kim Ewha Women’s Univ., Korea

Jennifer G. La Guardia Univ. of Rochester Medical Ctr.

Nicole Legate University of Rochester

Arlen Moller Northwestern University

Kou Murayama Univ. of Munich, Germany

Nikos Ntoumanis Univ. of Birmingham, UK

Luc Pelletier University of Ottawa

Andrew Przybylski University of Rochester

The  Self  as  Subject  •  Not all behavior comes from

the self

•  Indeed, many behaviors are either forced upon one, or are uncontrolled and impulsive, bypassing regulation by the self

•  Have we any capacity for self-regulation or autonomy?  

Apparently not

Today’s Talk •  The functional importance of experiencing

behaviors as self-regulated or autonomous •  Relevance of this experience across cultures •  Autonomy and the Regulation of Implicit

Processes •  Control, Suppression and Implicit/Explicit

Discrepancies •  Autonomy, Mindfulness and Congruence

Autonomy defined

Autonomy Literally means “rule by self”, or self-regulation;

Behavior is done willingly, and is owned or endorsed as reflecting the self;

Actions are experienced as originating in and/or backed by the self; accord with abiding values and interests;

What  Autonomy  is  Not  

•  It  is  not  independence  or  separateness  •  It  is  not  being  “an  original  cause,”  or  ini+a+on  ex  nihilio  

•  It  does  not  require  an  absence  of  external  inputs  or  demands  

•  It  is  not  about  dualism:  autonomy  is  a  form  of  func+oning  that  requires  a  brain,  so  is  being  controlled  

Autonomy  as  Self-­‐Regula+on  

•  Philosophical  Perspec+ves:  – Phenomenal  view  (e.g.,  Pfander,  Ricoeur)  – Analy+cal  view  (e.g.,  Frankfurt;  Dworkin;  Friedman)  

– Chinese  view  (e.g.,  Chung,  Lo)  

– Reflected  within  Social-­‐Personality  •  Heider(1958)  •  De  Charms  (1968)  •  SDT  (Deci  &  Ryan,  1985)  

Assessing Relative Autonomy

Simplex Model Factor Approach:Autonomous vs. Controlled

Multidimensional scaling(e.g., SSA)

Relative Autonomy

Correlations Among Autonomy Subscales in Japanese Elementary Students

Note.  ***  p  <  .001  

From:  Yamauchi  &  Tanaka  (1998)  

-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  .68***  .35***  .08  Intrinsic  

-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  .50***  .26***  Iden+fied  

-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  .62***  Introjected  

-­‐-­‐-­‐-­‐  External  

Intrinsic  Iden+fied  Introjected  External  Subscales  

Correlations between Self-Regulation Styles and Academic Goals, Value, and Learning Strategies

Note.  *  p  <  .05,  **  p  <  .01,  ***  p  <  .001  

From:  Yamauchi  &  Tanaka  (1998)  

-­‐.26***  -­‐.27***  .06  .21***  Self-­‐Handicapping  

.13*  .16**  .40***  .38***  Surface  Process  

.56***  .54***  .27***  -­‐.04  Deep  Process  

Learning  Strategies  

.58***  .49***  .24***  -­‐.02  Value  

-­‐.42***  -­‐.37***  -­‐.02  .19***  Work-­‐Avoidance  Orienta+on  

.16**  .33***  .50***  .28***  Performance  Orienta+on  

.62***  .58***  .37***  .15**  Learning  Orienta+on  

Goal  Orienta+on  

Intrinsic  Iden+fied  Introjected  External  Subscales  

Standage,  M.,  Sebire,  S.  J.,  &  Loney,  T.  (2008).  Does  exercise  mo+va+on  predict  engagement  in  objec+vely  assessed  bouts  of  moderate-­‐intensity  exercise  behavior?  a  self-­‐determina+on  theory  perspec+ve.  Journal  of  Sport  and  Exercise  Psychology,  30,  337-­‐352.  

Exercise  mo+va+on  and  engagement  in  objec+vely  assessed  bouts  of  moderate-­‐intensity  exercise  behavior  

Correla/ons  of  SDT’s  Mo/va/onal  Constructs  and  Total  moderate-­‐intensity  exercise  per  ACSM/AHA  guidelines  

External  Regula+on  

-­‐.18  

Introjected  Regula+on  

.22  

Iden+fied  Regula+on  

           .45***  

Intrinsic  Mo+va+on    

   .34*  

Controlled  Mo+va+on  

.05  

Autonomous  Mo+va+on  

     .42**  

Mo+va+on  for  Medica+on  Adherence  

.59***  .57***  .52***          .41***  Autonomous  Regula+on  

 *  p  <  .05,  **  p  <  .01,  ***  p  <  .  001  

-­‐.11  -­‐.13  -­‐.10  -­‐.05  Controlled  Regula+on  

.18*  .03  .17*          .24**  Autonomy  Support  (HCCQ)  

Composite  Adherence  

Self-­‐  Rpt.    

14  Day    Count  

2  Day  Pill  Count  

AS4

AS3

AM1

AM2

AM3

A1 A2 A3

AS2

AS1

.37 .78

.87

.40

.83 .67 .72

.70 .61

.70

.86

.79

.74

.60

Autonomy Support

Autonomous Motivation

Composite Adherence

From Williams, Rodin, Ryan, Grolnick, and Deci, Health Psychology, 1998

Autonomy  and  Medica/on  Adherence  (N=126)  

Daily!Well-being!

-5!-4!

-3!-2!

-1!0!

1!2!

3!4!

5!

1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7! 8! 9! 10! 11! 12! 13! 14!

Person A  

Person B  

Sample Mean  

Within-person effects: Daily Fluctuations in Autonomy  

Days!

Need  Sa+sfac+on  on  Days  of  the  Week        

Need  Sa+sfac+on  and  Well-­‐being  Within  Persons:  Working  Adults  

Predicting Experience Level Well-Being from Experience-Level Need Satisfaction

Positive Affect Negative Affect Vitality Symptoms

Need Satisfaction B t B t B t B t

Autonomy .95 22.29*** -.03 -10.66*** .04 8.74*** -.01 -5.24***

Relatedness .20 11.69*** -.06 -8.38*** .08 7.21*** -.02 -2.74**

Competence .21 7.65*** -.18 -10.37*** .06 3.14** -.02 -1.26

Note. Group-mean centering was used for all predictors. All Bs are unstandardized.** p < .01. ***p < .001.

Ryan, Bernstein, & Brown (2010, JSCP)

Selected  Items  Reflec+ng  Cultural  Orienta+ons  *  

•  Horizontal  Individualism  •  To  cul+vate  a  personal  iden+ty,  independent  of  others.  •  To  depend  on  oneself  rather  than  on  others.  •  To  behave  in  a  direct  and  forthright  manner  when  having  discussions  with  people.  

•  Horizontal  Collec+vism  •  To  maintain  harmony  within  any  group  that  one  belongs  to.  •  To  consult  close  friends  and  get  their  ideas  before  making  a  decision.  •  To  help  a  rela+ve  (within  your  means),  if  the  rela+ve  has  financial  problems.  

•  Ver+cal  Individualism  •  To  strive  to  do  one’s  job  beler  than  others.  •  To  express  the  idea  that  without  compe++on,  it  is  impossible  to  have  a  good  society.  •  To  strive  to  work  in  situa+ons  involving  compe++on  with  others.  

•  Ver+cal  Collec+vism  •  To  sacrifice  an  ac+vity  that  one  enjoys  very  much  if  one's  family  did  not  approve  of  it.  •  To  respect  decisions  made  by  one’s  group/collec+ve.  •  To  teach  children  to  place  duty  before  pleasure.  

*  Items  based  upon  Singelis  et  al.  (1995);  Triandis  (1996);  Triandis  &  Gelfand  (1998).  

Within-­‐Sample  Regressions  of  Well-­‐Being  Composite  onto  Rela+ve  Autonomy  for  Cultural  Prac+ces  

From  Chirkov,  Ryan,Kim  &  Kaplan,  2003,  JPSP  

.15*  .15  .42**  .33  .24**  .20  .25**  .24  Ver+cal  Collec+vism  

 .21**  .23  .38**  .30  .18**  .17  .28**  .28  Ver+cal  Individualism  

 .21**  .23  .38**  .30  .18**  .17  .23**  .26  Horizontal  Collec+vism  

 .22**  .24  .37**  .32  .17**  .16  .28**  .37  Horizontal  Individualism  

b  B  b  B  b  B  b  B  Rela+ve  Autonomy  of:  

U.S.  (N=195)  

Turkey  (N=94)  

Russia  (N=159)  

S.  Korea  (N=111)  

Differences  Associated  With    High  Versus  Low  Autonomy  

•  Greater  persistence,  adherence    •  Greater  performance    •  Beler  mental  health/well-­‐being  •  Less  defensiveness  •  Beler  quality  of  rela+onships  •  Clearly,  the  experience  of  autonomy  has  func+onal  implica+ons  

•  Across  domains  •  Across  development  •  Across  cultures  

Effects  of  Autonomous  versus  Controlled  Mo+va+on  for    Prosocial  Behavior  on  Helper  and  Recipient  

           Pos.  Affect                                                Vitality                                                Self-­‐Esteem  

Weinstein & Ryan (2010) JPSP

Behavior  is  oJen  controlled  by  non-­‐conscious  processes:    Does  that  make  it  non-­‐autonomous?  

Some  non-­‐consciously  controlled  ac+ons  can  be  characterized  as  autonomous.  

-­‐Shiting  the  car  

-­‐Tying  a  +e  

• Others  would,  upon  reflec+on  not  be  self-­‐endorsed.  

 -­‐  Impulse  ea+ng  in  dieters  

 -­‐  Expressions  of  prejudice  

 -­‐  TMT  and  out-­‐group  deroga+on  

What  is  the  rela+on  of  such  implicit  processes    

to  self-­‐regula+on  or    autonomy?  

Integra+ng  Autudes:  Autonomy  and  prejudice    (Legault  et  al.  2007)  

 Correla+ons  Between  Mo+va+on  to  be  Non-­‐prejudiced  and  Explicit  

and  Implicit  Outcomes  Dependent  Variable   Correla/on  with  Rela/ve  

Autonomy  

Explicit  (Affec+ve)  Prejudice      -­‐.45***  

IAT  assessed  Racism  Score      -­‐.53***  

Legault,  Green-­‐Demers,  Grant  &  Chung  (2007),  PSPB,  33,  732-­‐749

What  drives  implicit/explicit  discrepancies?  

•  Externally  controlling  contexts  may  lead  to  mo+ve  suppression,  and  thus  implicit  explicit  discrepancies  

•  Autonomy  support  may  conduce  to  more  implicit  explicit  congruence  

•  Example  of  Sexual  Orienta+ons  

Autonomy Support Facilitates Implicit/Explicit Congruence

Weinstein et al., study 1

Parental autonomy support versus control and parental homophobia as predictors of implicit/explicit discrepancies

and aggression toward gay and lesbian targets.

Weinstein et al., study 2

Awareness  is  the  ground  of  autonomous  func+oning;  lack  of  awareness  makes  one  vulnerable  to  being  controlled  or  non-­‐self-­‐regulated  

Mindfulness:  open  and  recep+ve  awareness  of  what  is  occurring  in  the  present  moment  (Brown  &  Ryan,  2003,  JPSP)  

Autonomy  and  Awareness  

Mindfulness  Moderates  the  Rela+ons  of    Implicit  and  Explicit  Measures  

•  IAT  assessed  affect  compared  with  self  reports  of  affect.  r=.16,  ns.  

•  Mindfulness  moderates  this  rela+on  

From  Brown  &  Ryan,  2003,  JPSP  

Mindfulness  as  a  Predictor  of  Day-­‐to-­‐Day  Autonomous  Behavior    

Sample  2  Results:  MulWlevel  Modeling  

                       Day-­‐to-­‐Day  Autonomy  Predictor                                          Unstandardized  es+mate  

Gender                                              -­‐0.98                                          Time  of  day                                      0.53****                        Day  of  study                                            -­‐0.03                                            Weekly  cyclicity                                -­‐0.51***    Autocorrela+on                            0.02                                          Trait  mindfulness                                1.08**                                          State  mindfulness                              1.59****      

**  p  <  .01      ***  p  <  .001    ****p  <  .0001  

From Brown & Ryan (2003), JPSP

       Mortality  Salience  Effects  

The  effect  of  MS  is  most  readily  observed  when  death-­‐related  thoughts  exist  on  the  periphery  of  consciousness,    yet  remain  accessible  (Greenberg  et  al.,  1997)  

In-­‐group  favori+sm  studies  exemplify  this  

MS  effects  more  pronounced  in  authoritarian,  low  autonomy-­‐  oriented  people  

Can  mindfulness  moderate  this?  

Mindfulness  and  the  Mortality  Salience  effect  

from  Niemiec  et  al.  (2010)  JPSP  

Is self-regulation draining?

--Revisiting the ego depletion effect.

• Baumeister and colleagues suggest that the exercise of will, self-control, and self-regulation are depleting.

• But some forms of “self regulation” are volitional, some not so much. Does autonomous regulation deplete?

• Nix, Ryan, Manly & Deci (1999) JESP: vitality undermined only by controlling conditions.

• Muraven and colleagues: autonomous actions not depleting; controlled actions are.

But isn’t choice itself depleting?  

•  Baumeister  et  al.  (1998)  compared  “no-­‐choice”  to  “high  choice”,  and  found  the  laler  more  ego  deple+ng.  

•  But  “high  choice”  was  not  true  choice.  “…it  would  help  me  a  lot  if  you  would  do  x”  

•   “controlling”  induc+on  used  by  Pilman  et  al.  

•  Let’s  compare  it  with  true  choice  

Condition Time (sec.) Attempts

Autonomous-choice M 1440.42 46.83 SD 154.01 5.92

No-choice M 1278.00 35.00 SD 154.01 5.92

“1998 High Choice” M 896.39 19.15 SD 147.97 5.69

From: Moller, Deci, & Ryan, R. M. (2006), PSPB, 32, 1024-1036.

Self  Malers  Behavior experienced as self-determined or autonomous is more congruent, persistent and effective

Autonomous actions associated with great wellness

When autonomous, individuals are better able to regulate implicit processes

Autonomy is facilitated by mindful awareness, and is less depleting than controlled actions

In short, experiencing behaviors as self-determined and congruent has manifold functional and wellness consequences.

www.selfdeterminationtheory.org