bs_bs_banner
APPLIED PSYCHOLOGY: AN INTERNATIONAL REVIEW, 2012
doi: 10.1111/j.1464-0597.2012.00525.x
“What Motivates You Doesn’t Motivate Me”:
Individual Differences in the Needs
Satisfaction–Motivation Relationship of
Romanian Volunteers
Simona Haivas
Alexandru.I.Cuza University, România, and Vrije Universiteit
Brussel, Belgium
Joeri Hofmans and Roland Pepermans*
Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Belgium
The present study examines individual differences in the relationship between
two core concepts of the self-determination theory (SDT), namely satisfaction
with the autonomy, competence, and relatedness need and motivation (autonomous vs. controlled). Based on the values component of SDT we hypothesised
at least two different subpopulations with different need satisfaction–
motivation patterns. Data from 349 Romanian volunteers revealed that two
groups (or subpopulations) of volunteers can be distinguished, supporting our
hypothesis. For the first and largest group, the pattern is in line with the SDT
assumption that satisfaction of the autonomy and competence need has an
effect on the autonomous forms of motivation. This group is in line with people
endorsing intrinsic values. The second group of volunteers, however, revealed
that satisfaction with the relatedness need links up with the controlled forms of
motivation, and satisfaction of autonomy and competence needs does not
predict autonomous motivation. This group is expected to favor extrinsic
values. Both relationship patterns were further linked to work engagement and
intention to quit, in order to shed light on the practical importance of the
observed differences.
INTRODUCTION
Since the beginnings of motivation theories (Maslow, 1954; McClelland,
1961) the concept of needs, defined as the content of motivation that provides
the basis and direction for action, has grounded the studies on motivation.
Starting around the mid-1960s, a new approach, which emphasised the
process of motivation (e.g. Vroom, 1964), shifted the focus from needs
* Address for correspondence: Roland Pepermans, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Work and Organizational Psychology, Pleinlaan 2, 1050 Brussels, Belgium. Email: [email protected]
© 2012 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2012 International
Association of Applied Psychology. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd, 9600 Garsington
Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA.
2
HAIVAS ET AL.
towards goals selection and pursuit as dominant motivational concepts
(Steers, Mowday, & Shapiro, 2004). Finally, in the last 30 years, SelfDetermination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985) has reframed the concept
of psychological needs by emphasising its role in both the content and the
process of behavior.
SDT is a greatly studied metatheory of human motivation (Deci & Ryan,
1985, 2000) built on the assumption that all individuals have innate tendencies to develop towards a more elaborated self. SDT has evolved in a series of
five interrelated mini-theories, each receiving a considerable amount of
empirical support (e.g. Baard, Deci, & Ryan, 2004; Deci, Koestner, & Ryan,
1999; Ryan & Connell, 1989; Sheldon, Ryan, & Reis, 1996; van Beek, Hu,
Schaufeli, Taris, & Schreurs, 2012; Van den Broeck, Schreurs, De Witte,
Vansteenkiste, Germeys, & Schaufeli, 2011; Williams & Deci, 1996). In this
article, we study individual differences in the relationship between elements
from two of these mini-theories, namely the basic needs theory and the
organismic integration theory, in a sample of Romanian volunteers.
Basic Psychological Needs and Organismic Integration
SDT argues that everyone has three basic psychological needs, that is, the
need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Satisfaction of these needs
provides the basis for optimal psychological growth and well-being of the
individual (Deci & Ryan, 2000). The need for autonomy relates to a sense
of personal choice, free will, and ownership of one’s actions. The need for
competence refers to the need to be effective in the interaction with one’s
environment and in the achievement of desired outcomes. The need for
relatedness reflects the desire to have close relationships and to obtain a sense
of communion. Contrary to other motivation theories that are concerned
with need strength (e.g. McClelland, 1961, 1985), SDT focuses on (a) the
extent to which the individual experiences satisfaction of these needs within
various social environments and (b) the consequences of this variation in
need satisfaction.
According to SDT, need satisfaction is closely linked to intrinsic motivation and the internalisation of external values (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Internalisation is an active process in which individuals transform social requests
into self-regulation or values that are personally accepted. The internalisation process can be successful to different degrees, thus resulting in different
forms of regulation, from less to fully self-determined behaviors. External
regulation refers to the classical case of extrinsic motivation when people are
acting to obtain desired consequences or to avoid punishment. Introjected
regulation represents a partial, but only very limited form of internalisation in
which people act to avoid guilt and shame or to obtain ego enhancements and
feelings of worth. Identified regulation appears when people accept and rec© 2012 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2012 International
Association of Applied Psychology.
“WHAT MOTIVATES YOU DOESN’T MOTIVATE ME”
3
ognise the value of a certain behavior; hence their behavior is more autonomous but still instrumental, as it serves to attain a personal goal. Integrated
regulation represents a more complete form of internalisation and refers to
integrating the activity with other aspects of one’s values and identity.
Finally, Intrinsic motivation emerges when people engage in an activity
because they consider it interesting in itself and when they do so without any
external demands or pressures. The four regulation types, plus intrinsic motivation, differ in the extent to which they represent either controlled or
autonomous motivation. Thus, SDT distinguishes between controlled motivation (extrinsic and introjected regulations) and autonomous motivation
(intrinsic motivation, identified and integrated regulations) (Deci & Ryan,
2000; Vansteenkiste, Lens, Dewitte, De Witte, & Deci, 2004; Bidee, Vantilborgh, Pepermans, Huybrechts, Willems, Jegers, & Hofmans, in press;
Haivas, Hofmans, & Pepermans, in press b).
Both intrinsic motivation and the four types of regulation are linked to
fulfillment of the basic needs (Deci & Ryan, 2002). In particular, the degree
to which people engage in interesting activities or are able to internalise
external demands, values, and regulation, is mainly a function of the extent
to which the activities allow the autonomy, competence, and relatedness
needs to be satisfied. Yet, at present research on this crucial link between
needs satisfaction and the different types of motivation is subject to two
major limitations.
First, most research on SDT studies need satisfaction as an aggregated
construct (e.g. Baard et al., 2004; Deci, Ryan, Gagné, Leone, Usunov, &
Kornazheva, 2001; Gagné, 2003). For this reason, the link between satisfaction of the autonomy, competence, and relatedness need on the one hand,
and the different types of motivation on the other is not often tested. The few
studies that have differentiated between the three needs showed that separating the needs reveals interesting independent contributions (Boezeman &
Ellemers, 2009; Greguras & Diefendorff, 2009; Haivas, Hofmans, & Pepermans, in press a; Lynch, Plant, & Ryan, 2005). By differentiating between the
three needs, these studies allow for a better understanding of the role of need
satisfaction in the internalisation process. In particular, it could be tested
whether the three needs are all equally important for full internalisation,
which should not be the case according to SDT. Whereas feelings of competence and autonomy contribute to the facilitation of full internalisation,
satisfaction of the relatedness need is not sufficient to ensure full internalisation of activities (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagné & Deci, 2005). Thus, the first
contribution of the present paper is to study the relationships between satisfaction of the autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs, and the different types of motivation. In line with SDT, we hypothesise that satisfaction of
the competence and autonomy needs, in particular, will relate to the more
autonomous forms of motivation.
© 2012 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2012 International
Association of Applied Psychology.
4
HAIVAS ET AL.
A second limitation is that most of the previous studies that relate needs
satisfaction to motivation do not pay attention to the fact that these relationships may differ between individuals. Note that we do not suggest that
individual differences have been neglected in former research on SDT.
Rather, these former studies have focused either on individual differences in
regulatory styles (Vallerand & Ratelle, 2002; Losier, Perreault, Koestner, &
Vallerand, 2001) or on the way people are oriented towards the social
context, referred to as causality orientations (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Lam &
Gurland, 2008; Williams, Grow, Freedman, Ryan, & Deci, 1996; Gagné,
2003). Basically, and in line with our argumentation, both approaches
suggest that not all individuals react in the same way. However, they both
relate individual differences to the way single variables are perceived or
assessed and not to the interrelationships between those variables. Indeed,
whereas previous research acknowledges that people may differ in the satisfaction of their needs and therefore also in their type of motivation, the
relationship between need satisfaction and motivation is implicitly assumed
to be similar for everyone. In other words, each individual is supposed to be
well characterised by an “average pattern”, thereby ignoring individual deviances from that average. Recent research, although still scarce, has started to
question the dominant paradigm that generalises the universality of such
psychological relationship patterns (e.g. De Gieter, Hofmans, & Pepermans,
2011). In addition, a number of theoretical arguments suggest that individual
differences in these relationships are an empirical reality.
Individual Differences
First, it has been found that different individuals display different motivational profiles (a profile being a specific combination of autonomous and
controlled motivation), even within the same situation or for the same activity (Gillet, Vallerand, & Rosnet, 2009; Ratelle, Guay, Vallerand, Larose, &
Senécal, 2007; Vansteenkiste, Sierens, Soenens, Luyckx, & Lens, 2009). In
other words, even when the environment provides the same means for satisfying the three needs, people show different types of motivation. Such individually based variations may be due to the fact that people differ in the way
satisfaction of their needs relates to motivation, and that these interindividual differences lie at the basis of differences in motivational profiles.
Second, Kasser’s (2002) self-determination theory of values offers some
insights that support our questioning of the universality of certain relationships between SDT-related variables. It is suggested that individuals seek out
activities that they value, with the valuing process depending on the current
state of the individual, making it a dynamic process. Kasser (2002) suggests
two sets of values, i.e. intrinsic and extrinsic ones (see also Van den Broeck,
Vansteenkiste, Lens, & De Witte, 2010). As Kasser mentions that “some
© 2012 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2012 International
Association of Applied Psychology.
“WHAT MOTIVATES YOU DOESN’T MOTIVATE ME”
5
values are conducive to growthful, intrinsically motivated actions, others
tend to prompt extrinsically motivated behaviors, focused on rewards and
people’s praise” (Kasser, 2002, pp. 127–128), intrinsic values are more likely
to satisfy the self ’s needs than extrinsic values. In line with this reasoning,
Sheldon and Kasser (1995) showed that people valuing intrinsic goals were
more autonomy oriented, while people relying on extrinsic goals were more
control oriented, even experiencing different relatedness need satisfactions
(Kasser & Ryan, 2001; Sheldon & Kasser, 1995). The latter were even “likely
to ignore their needs and to engage in activities which work against their
health and well-being” (Schmuck, Kasser, & Ryan, 2000, p. 226). This suggests that, depending on the values an individual endorses at a particular
moment, the relationship between the three needs and the different types of
motivation may be different.
Third, the functional theory of Clary, Snyder, Ridge, Copeland, Stukas,
Haugen, and Moiene (1998) advances six possible functions that can be
served through volunteer activities: (1) expressing personal values such as
altruism or humanitarian concerns (i.e. values); (2) expanding knowledge,
skills, and abilities (i.e. understanding); (3) increasing one’s social network or
building a favorable image in front of relevant others (i.e. social); (4) extending personal career related networks (i.e. career); (5) protecting one’s ego and
reducing potential negative feelings (i.e. protective); (6) increasing personal
development and esteem enhancement (i.e. enhancement). As can readily be
seen, all these functions can be linked to either intrinsic (1, 2, 6) or extrinsic
values (3, 4, 5). As such, this approach further supports the idea that there
exists a (dichotomous) differentiation between why and how people get motivated to volunteer.
In short, previous research suggests that there are individual differences in
the way need satisfactions relate to the different types of motivation. In line
with Kasser’s (2002) self-determination theory of values, we expect to find
two groups of volunteers: (1) one group for which satisfaction of the needs
(and especially the competence and autonomy needs) relates to the more
autonomous forms of motivation (i.e. people who endorse intrinsic values);
and (2) one group for which satisfaction of the needs is unrelated to the more
autonomous forms of motivation (i.e. people who endorse extrinsic values).
To study the potential impact of the hypothesised individual differences,
subgroup-related relationships will further be linked to two important
organisational outcomes, namely volunteers’ work engagement and intention
to quit the (volunteering) organisation (Gagné, 2003; Grube & Piliavin, 2000;
Millette & Gagné, 2008). Psychological engagement in one’s work or activities is often used as an important indicator that relates to personal involvement, triggered by autonomous motivation in paid (e.g. Baard et al., 2004;
Deci et al., 2001) as well as in voluntary work (e.g. Koestner, Franz, &
Weinberger, 1990; Gagné, 2003). Intention to quit is considered a good
© 2012 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2012 International
Association of Applied Psychology.
6
HAIVAS ET AL.
predictor of actual turnover, even in the volunteering sector (Omoto &
Snyder, 1995) where retaining volunteers is a well-known practical consideration of present-day volunteering organisations (Bussell & Forbes, 2002;
Vantilborgh, Bidee, Pepermans, Willems, Huybrechts, & Jegers, 2011).
METHOD
Participants
Participants were 349 Romanian volunteers aged between 18 and 58 years
(mean age 22.9 years; SD = 4.8) and 61.3 per cent were female. With respect
to professional status, 28.7 per cent had paid jobs and 71.3 per cent were
students. With respect to the level of education, 0.3 per cent of the participants had completed primary school, 47 per cent had completed secondary
education, 44 per cent had acquired a professional school or bachelor degree
and 8.7 per cent had obtained a masters or PhD degree. This sample was
representative of Romanian volunteers in several aspects: the majority of
volunteers in Romania are female (two-thirds female, one-third male); they
are mostly young, that is, within the age range 19–25 years, and are highly
educated, with more than half currently enrolled in an educational program
(Rigman, 2009; European Union, 2010).
Procedure
To obtain a representative volunteer sample, we recruited from 10 nongovernmental organisations operating in the social domain (61.3% of
respondents) and in the educational domain (38.7% of respondents). The
questionnaires were distributed at the end of regular meetings in the respective organisations where volunteers are briefed about new and ongoing volunteering projects. This was accompanied by a short verbal clarification of
the study, where special emphasis was put on confidentiality, anonymity of
responses, and voluntary participation. Our procedure resulted in a response
rate close to 100 per cent (a small number of questionnaires could not be used
due to incompleteness).
Measures
The questionnaire included four measurement scales (Motivation at Work
Scale-R, Basic Needs Satisfaction at Work Scale, Volunteers’ Work Engagement and Intention to Quit). In addition, demographic questions concerning
age, gender, level of education, and professional status were included in the
questionnaire. The four measurement scales were translated from English
into Romanian by a professional translator. An English back-translation was
© 2012 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2012 International
Association of Applied Psychology.
“WHAT MOTIVATES YOU DOESN’T MOTIVATE ME”
7
done by another translator and this back-translation was compared with
the original version of the scales. Remaining and additional ambiguities
were solved by a team of four psychologists who mastered both English and
Romanian.
Motivation at Work Scale-R (MAWS-R). Motivation for voluntary
work was measured using the Motivation at Work Scale-R (Gagné et al.,
2012). In this scale, participants were asked to rate the reasons for engaging
in volunteer work according to the different forms of autonomous (and
controlled) motivation, on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all because of this
reason) to 7 (exactly because of this reason). The scale measures the five
forms of motivation: external regulation (four items, e.g. “Because others
put pressure on me”), introjected regulation (four items, e.g. “Because it
makes me feel proud of myself”), identified regulation (four items, e.g.
“Because what I do in this job has a lot of personal meaning for me”),
integrated regulation (four items, e.g. “Because I am made for this type of
work”), and intrinsic motivation (four items, e.g. “Because I enjoy this
work very much”). Consistent with SDT and previous studies (Deci &
Ryan, 2000; Vansteenkiste et al., 2004), we used the distinction between
controlled motivation, composed of the items that measure external and
introjected regulation (a = 0.68), and autonomous motivation, composed of
items that measure identified and integrated regulation and intrinsic motivation (a = 0.89) for subsequent analyses.
Basic Needs Satisfaction at Work Scale. We adapted the need satisfaction scale developed by Deci and Ryan (2000) to the volunteer context by
substituting the words “work” and “job”, respectively, with “work as volunteer” or “volunteering activities”. In total, 20 items were used to assess
autonomy satisfaction (six items, e.g. “I am free to express my ideas and
opinions when I work as a volunteer”, a = 0.72), competence satisfaction
(six items, e.g. “I don’t feel very competent at my volunteering activities”,
reversed coded, a = 0.62), and relatedness satisfaction (eight items, e.g.
“I really like the people I am volunteering with”, a = 0.74). All items had
to be answered on a 7-point scale ranging from 1 (totally disagree) to 7
(totally agree). One item from the original autonomy satisfaction subscale
was deleted because of its decreasing impact on Cronbach’s a (from
a = 0.72 to a = 0.60; “When I am volunteering, I have to do what I am
told”).
Volunteers’ Work Engagement. Work engagement was measured by the
adapted version of the Volunteers’ Work Engagement Scale proposed by
Gagné (2003) which measures behavioral and emotional engagement in volunteer work on a 7-point scale, from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree).
© 2012 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2012 International
Association of Applied Psychology.
8
HAIVAS ET AL.
Example items are: “I really like to devote myself to my volunteer work” or
“When I am volunteering, I often feel bored” (reversed). Cronbach’s a of the
12-item scale was 0.78.
Intention to Quit. Volunteers rated the following two questions on a
scale from 1 (totally disagree) to 7 (totally agree): “I frequently think about
leaving this organisation” and “It is likely that I will leave this organisation
in the next year”, which is based on earlier measures of turnover intention
(e.g. Currall, Towler, Judge, & Kohn, 2005). Combining both questions
resulted in a Cronbach’s a of 0.74.
Analyses
In a first analysis, we fitted a path model in which the satisfaction with the
three basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness)
predicts the different types of regulation.
Second, to test whether individual differences exist in the relationship
between satisfaction of the three basic needs and motivation for performing
volunteering activities, we relied on a statistical method called mixture path
analysis (MPA). Similar to the traditional path analysis model, a series of
dependent variables is modeled as a function of a set of predictors. The major
difference, however, is that it is assumed that the data originate from various
(unknown or latent) clusters or groups, with each of these clusters showing
different relationships in the path model (DeSarbo & Cron, 1988). MPA
identifies these clusters by simultaneously estimating (1) cluster memberships
and (2) a separate path model per cluster. In particular, for each individual in
the data set, the MPA model estimates the probability Pij that person i
belongs to cluster j. These probabilities can then further be used to cluster the
persons by assigning each person to the cluster with maximum probability.
For each of these clusters we can then establish the path model. As the
number of clusters is unknown, the most commonly used approach is to fit
models with an increasing number of clusters and compare their model fit
(e.g. Brusco, Cradit, Steinley, & Fox, 2008). In this study, MPA models with
one to five clusters were fitted. Moreover, for each model, 100 random
restarts were performed in order to minimise the risk of converging to a local
maximum (e.g. Leisch, 2004). To compare these models, we made use of the
Bayesian Information Criterion (BIC), which is an information criterion that
balances model fit and parsimony (Schwarz, 1978). The BIC is generally
considered the best index to compare mixture models (Leisch, 2004). In
general, a model with a lower BIC is preferred over a model with a higher
value. Our analyses were carried out in Mplus (Muthén & Muthén, 2010),
a statistical program that allows fitting a wide range of finite mixture
models.
© 2012 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2012 International
Association of Applied Psychology.
“WHAT MOTIVATES YOU DOESN’T MOTIVATE ME”
9
In a final step, independent samples t-tests were performed to test whether
the clusters of volunteers differed on work engagement and intention to quit.
RESULTS
Overall Analysis
Table 1 shows the means, standard deviations, and correlation coefficients
for each variable. All variables are measured on a 1 to 7 scale.
Subsequently, we fitted a path model in which the autonomy, competence,
and relatedness needs predict the different types of regulation. From Table 2
it can be seen that satisfaction of the autonomy and competence needs relates
to the autonomous forms of motivation, whereas satisfaction of the relatedness need does not. As satisfaction of the relatedness need was significantly
related to all forms of motivation when computing the zero-order correlations (see Table 1), this result implies that, when accounting for the effects of
satisfaction of the autonomy and competence needs, satisfaction of the relatedness need no longer explains variance in the autonomous forms of motivation. In other words, the effect of relatedness on the autonomous forms of
motivation is already accounted for by the autonomy and competence needs.
Individual Differences Analysis
To test for individual differences in the relationship between basic need
satisfaction and motivation, mixture path models with one to five subpopulations were fitted. Moreover, for each model, 100 random restarts were
performed. In Figure 1 the best BIC out of the 100 restarts is plotted for each
of the five mixture models. Based on this information, we decided to retain
the model with two mixture components.
It appeared that the data can best be described by a model including two
subpopulations of 293 (i.e. Subpopulation 1 – SP1) and 56 (i.e. Subpopulation 2 – SP2) volunteers, respectively. When comparing the path coefficients
for both subpopulations (see Table 3), it can be seen that satisfaction of the
autonomy and competence needs has an effect on the autonomous forms of
motivation for SP 1, whereas for individuals belonging to SP 2, satisfaction
of autonomy and competence needs hardly predict any form of autonomous
motivation. In contrast, relatedness need satisfaction relates positively to the
controlled forms of motivation in SP 2.
Finally, in order to obtain a more detailed picture of the volunteers constituting the two subpopulations, we tested for between-subpopulation differences using independent samples t-tests (see Table 4). First, there were
no significant differences according to gender, professional status (student
or employed), age, or the type of NGO (educational vs. social). Second,
© 2012 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2012 International
Association of Applied Psychology.
Autonomy Need
Competence Need
Relatedness Need
Extrinsic
Introjected
Identified
Integrated
Intrinsic
Engagement
Intention to quit
** p < .01; *** p < .001.
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
5.40
5.40
5.44
1.96
3.67
5.24
4.55
5.28
5.11
1.86
M
.99
.93
.93
.89
1.02
1.10
1.27
1.05
.78
1.32
SD
.65**
.73**
-.16**
.12*
.32**
.36**
.35**
.57**
-.40**
1
.62**
-.17**
.15**
.27**
.35**
.32**
.61**
-.37**
2
-.12**
.11*
.23**
.31**
.29**
.46**
-.34**
3
.39**
.03
.10
.02
-.27**
.02
4
.45**
.47**
.40**
.11**
-.16*
5
.71**
.65**
.37**
-.16**
6
TABLE 1
Means, Standard Deviations, and Correlations of all Variables
.65**
.36**
-.17**
7
.31**
-.18**
8
-.43**
9
10
HAIVAS ET AL.
© 2012 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2012 International
Association of Applied Psychology.
“WHAT MOTIVATES YOU DOESN’T MOTIVATE ME”
11
TABLE 2
Path Coefficients for the Relationship between Autonomy, Competence, and
Relatedness Need Satisfaction and the Extrinsic, Introjected, Identified,
Integrated, and Intrinsic Regulation for the Whole Sample
Controlled motivation
Autonomy
Competence
Relatedness
Autonomous motivation
Extrinsic
Introjected
Identified
Integrated
Intrinsic
-.09
-.12
.03
.02
.13
.02
.30**
.15
-.06
.26*
.26**
.06
.23**
.18*
.05
* p <.05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
FIGURE 1. BIC as a function of the number of subpopulations in the mixture
path model.
compared to volunteers from SP2, volunteers belonging to SP1 have a
significantly higher satisfaction of their three needs. Conversely, the latter
group scores significantly higher on controlled motivation than individuals
from SP1.
Second, we also evaluated whether membership of one of the subpopulations relates differently to volunteers’ work engagement and intention to quit
the organisation. As can be seen in Table 4, the results showed that individuals belonging to SP1 score significantly higher on work engagement and
lower on intention to quit than individuals of SP2 (see Table 4).
DISCUSSION
The present study presents a thorough assessment of the complex relationship between two fundamental elements of SDT, namely that between basic
© 2012 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2012 International
Association of Applied Psychology.
12
HAIVAS ET AL.
TABLE 3
Path Coefficients for the Relationship between Autonomy, Competence, and
Relatedness Need Satisfaction and the Extrinsic, Introjected, Identified,
Integrated, and Intrinsic Regulation for Subpopulations 1 (SP1) and 2 (SP2)
Controlled motivation
Autonomous motivation
Extrinsic
Introjected
Identified
Integrated
Intrinsic
.22
.34**
.24
.31**
.25**
.12
SP1
Autonomy
Competence
Relatedness
-.02
.04
.01
.07
.32**
-.02
.31**
.28**
-.07
SP2
Autonomy
Competence
Relatedness
.53
-1.08**
.84**
.34
-.83**
.45**
.46
-.46
-.01
.67*
-.09
-.54*
.02
.02
-.34
* p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001.
TABLE 4
Mean Differences between the Two Subpopulations (SP1 and SP2)
Needs Satisfaction
Autonomous Mot.
Controlled Mot.
Work Engagement
Intention to quit
SP 1 (n = 293)
SP 2 (n = 56)
t-value
p-value
5.57
5.02
2.65
5.20
1.79
4.89
4.99
3.67
4.65
2.19
6.367
.199
-10.037
4.930
-2.058
<.001
>.05
<.001
<.001
<.05
psychological needs (autonomy, competence, and relatedness) and the different regulatory types. First of all, and in line with our expectations, the
results show that the relatedness need is indeed less relevant for full internalisation of the regulations. In particular, our results show that, when
accounting for autonomy and competence need satisfaction, satisfaction of
the relatedness need has no additional explanatory power for predicting
variation in the regulatory types. Second, and most important, the results
reveal that there are major individual differences in the relationship between
the basic psychological needs and the different regulatory types. These individual differences can best be summarised using two subpopulations, each
with a different need satisfaction–motivation relationship. In line with our
expectations, we find that for one subpopulation (i.e. SP1), satisfaction of the
autonomy and competence needs relates to facilitation of autonomous motivation, whereas for the other subpopulation (i.e. SP2), satisfaction of the
autonomy and competence needs is unrelated to autonomous motivation.
The observation that the first subgroup is composed of the largest number of
volunteers (n = 293) has two important implications. First, it implies that the
© 2012 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2012 International
Association of Applied Psychology.
“WHAT MOTIVATES YOU DOESN’T MOTIVATE ME”
13
SDT assumption which states that satisfaction of the autonomy and competence needs is more central to autonomous motivation than satisfaction of
the relatedness need holds for the majority of individuals. Second, it also
indicates why, if no individual differences are taken into account, research
often supports this SDT premise, i.e. because the results are “biased” towards
the results of the largest group.
An explanation of the observed individual differences in the need
satisfaction–motivation link can be found in the theory of values orientation.
Kasser and Ryan (1996) propose two types of values: intrinsic and extrinsic
ones. Intrinsic values are desires that are congruent with actualising and
growth tendencies, while extrinsic values do not provide satisfaction in themselves: they focus on the power or sense of worth that can be derived from
attaining them. It is likely that intrinsic values, rather than extrinsic ones, will
more easily satisfy our basic needs. Indeed, it has been found that people
oriented towards intrinsic values are likely to differ from those oriented
towards extrinsic values in the way they experience need satisfaction (Kasser
& Ryan, 2001; Schmuck et al., 2000). Thus, we suggest that volunteers from
SP1 place greater importance on intrinsic values, such as concern for growth,
autonomy, or self-regard. In accordance with Kasser (2002), this determines
that they will engage in behaviors that help them satisfy their basic needs,
such as performing volunteering activities, for which they will display
autonomous forms of motivation. In contrast, and also in line with Kasser’s
(2002) self-determination theory of values, we suggest that volunteers belonging to SP2 place greater importance on extrinsic values and therefore get
involved in volunteering activities to obtain appreciation and affection from
others and get their relatedness need satisfied. Hence, they perform behaviors
based on what other people value, which is reflected in the higher level of
controlled motivation.
The relations that are displayed by the two volunteering subpopulations
suggest that there are significant interindividual differences in how the satisfaction of the autonomy, competence, and relatedness needs are aligned
when one is extrinsically and introjected motivated versus identified, integrated, or intrinsically motivated. From an SDT perspective, all people are
naturally inclined to develop towards greater autonomy (integration with the
self) and greater relatedness (integration with the social community), and the
three needs together enhance the internalisation of activities performed.
However, it is also assumed within SDT that incompatibility between the
needs might arise, that is, when the social context structure turns the needs
against each other. In our particular study, the results could be rooted both
in the specifics of the volunteers’ activity domain and in the specifics of the
Romanian culture. First, it might be that volunteers belonging to SP2 engage
in volunteering mainly because it creates a social context to be with one’s
friends, and because it offers the opportunity to be viewed favorably by other
© 2012 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2012 International
Association of Applied Psychology.
14
HAIVAS ET AL.
important people (see also Snyder & Omoto, 2008). Second, the volunteering
population in Romania is fairly distinct as it has been formed in the last two
decades in a social climate less conductive to social participation, responsibility for self, and autonomy (Voicu, 2001). Therefore, it mainly consists of
young and educated people from urban areas. Thus, young Romanian
volunteers might be more interested in satisfying their autonomy and
competence needs and less in connecting with others, maybe due to the fact
that the relatedness need might already be satisfied during other day-to-day
youth activities. In addition, it can be suggested that the collectivistic features
of the Romanian culture might also allow volunteers to satisfy their relationship need by means of particularly strong connections with their families and
other social groups.
From our results it appears that the group differences relate to important
differences in certain organisational behaviors by volunteers, namely, work
engagement and intention to quit. Members of SP1, that is, volunteers for
whom autonomy and competence need satisfaction predicts autonomous
motivation, experience a stronger satisfaction for the three basic needs and a
stronger work engagement as well as a lower intention to quit. This is in line
with other SDT studies, also in the voluntary sector (e.g. Baard et al., 2004;
Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, De Witte, & Lens, 2008; Vansteenkiste,
Neyrinck, Niemic, Soenens, De Witte, & Van den Broeck, 2007; Gagné,
2003), and provides support for the SDT assumption that satisfaction of the
basic needs results in positive outcomes through the facilitation of selfdetermined behavior. It further emphasises the importance of taking into
account individual differences when studying the factors that influence volunteers’ organisational behavior. The fact that no differences in demographic
variables are found between the two subpopulations may be due to the rather
homogeneous nature of the sample, consisting of mainly young educated
volunteers.
In addition to the theoretical implications, our study tentatively suggests
that when designing retention and motivational programs for volunteers,
organisations ought to consider subpopulation differences and design practices that address both groups of volunteers. For volunteers belonging to the
first subpopulation, it is important to provide tasks with optimal challenges,
free choices, and constant feedback in order to satisfy their autonomy and
competence needs, while for the second subpopulation it is of key importance
to foster social interactions between volunteers or with beneficiaries, in order
to satisfy the volunteers’ relatedness need.
Several limitations of the present study should be noted. First, it is evident
that our findings on volunteers cannot be generalised to paid workers. This is
due to differences in the task structure and available resources, as mentioned
in the introduction to this paper, and also because paid workers and volunteers differ in work attitudes (De Cooman, De Gieter, Pepermans, & Jegers,
© 2012 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2012 International
Association of Applied Psychology.
“WHAT MOTIVATES YOU DOESN’T MOTIVATE ME”
15
2011). Second, our sample of volunteers comes from an East European
country with a specific social background, and hence, a replication of the
study in another non-Western country with a comparable social background
is recommended, as would be replications in Western countries.
Despite these limitations, this study is the first one to reveal individual
differences in one of the core relationships of SDT. The results show that an
individual differences analysis can reveal additional insights when investigating the relationship between individual need satisfaction and motivation.
Yet, further research is needed in order gain a more complete picture of the
magnitude and consequences of individual differences in predicting motivational behavior for volunteers as well as for other populations.
REFERENCES
Baard, P.P., Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2004). The relation of intrinsic need satisfaction to performance and well-being in two work settings. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 34, 2045–2068.
Bidee, J., Vantilborgh, T., Pepermans, R., Huybrechts, G., Willems, J., Jegers, M., &
Hofmans, J. (in press). Autonomous motivation stimulates volunteers’ work
effort: A self-determination theory approach to volunteerism. Voluntas.
Boezeman, E.J., & Ellemers, N. (2009). Intrinsic need satisfaction and the job
attitudes of volunteers versus employees working in a charitable volunteer organization. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 82, 897–914.
Brusco, M.J., Cradit, D., Steinley, D., & Fox, G.L. (2008). Cautionary remarks on the
use of clusterwise regression. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 43, 29–49.
Bussell, H., & Forbes, D. (2002). Understanding the volunteer market: The what,
where, who and why of volunteering. International Journal of Nonprofit and
Voluntary Sector Marketing, 7, 244–257.
Clary, E.G., Snyder, M., Ridge, R.D., Copeland, J., Stukas, A.A., Haugen, J.J., &
Moiene, P. (1998). Understanding and assessing the motivations of volunteers: A
functional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1516–1530.
Currall, S.C., Towler, A.J., Judge, T.A., & Kohn, L. (2005). Pay satisfaction and
organizational outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 58, 613–640.
Deci, E.L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R.M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of
experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation.
Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627–668.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human
needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227–268.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan R.M. (2002). Handbook of self-determination research. Rochester,
NY: University of Rochester Press.
Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., Gagné, M., Leone, D., Usunov, J., & Kornazheva, B.P.
(2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of
a former Eastern bloc country. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,
930–942.
© 2012 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2012 International
Association of Applied Psychology.
16
HAIVAS ET AL.
De Cooman, R., De Gieter, S., Pepermans, R., & Jegers, M. (2011). A cross-sector
comparison of motivation-related concepts in for-profit and not-for-profit service
organizations. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 40, 296–317.
De Gieter, S., Hofmans, J., & Pepermans, R. (2011). Revisiting the impact of job
satisfaction and organizational commitment on nurse turnover intention: An
individual differences analysis. International Journal of Nursing Studies, 48, 1562–
1569.
DeSarbo, W.S., & Cron, W.L. (1988). A maximum likelihood methodology for
clusterwise linear regression. Journal of Classification, 5, 249–282.
European Union, Educational, Audiovisual & Culture Executive Agency (2010,
February). Volunteering in the European Union. Retrieved from http://ec.
europa.eu/citizenship/pdf/doc1018_en.pdf
Gagné, M. (2003). The role of autonomy support and autonomy orientation in the
engagement of prosocial behavior. Motivation and Emotion, 27, 199–223.
Gagné, M., & Deci, E.L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331–362.
Gagné, M., Forest, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Crevier-Braud, L., Van den Broeck, A.,
Aspeli, A.K., Battistelli, A., Bellerose, J., Benabou, C., Chemolli, E., Güntert,
S.T., Halvari, H., Johnson, P., Indiyastuti, D.L., Mans, N., Martin-Albo, J.,
Molstad, M., Naudin, M., Ntalianis, F., Nuñez, J.L., Olafson, A.H., Panagopoulou, P., Portoghese, I., Roussel, P., Westbye, C., & Wang, Z. (2012). Validation
evidence in ten languages for the Revised Motivation at Work Scale. Manuscript
submitted for publication.
Gillet, N., Vallerand, R.J., & Rosnet, E. (2009). Motivational clusters and performance in a real-life setting. Motivation and Emotion, 33, 49–62.
Greguras, G.J., & Diefendorff, J.M. (2009). Different fits satisfy different needs:
Linking person–environment fit to employee commitment and performance using
self-determination theory. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 465–477.
Grube, J.A., & Piliavin, J.A. (2000). Role identity, organizational experiences, and
volunteer performance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1108–1119.
Haivas, S.M., Hofmans, J., & Pepermans, R. (in press a). Self-determination theory as
a framework for exploring the impact of the organizational context on volunteer
motivation: A study of Romanian volunteers. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector
Quarterly.
Haivas, S.M., Hofmans, J., & Pepermans, R. (in press b). The mediating role of
autonomous motivation in the relationship between need satisfaction, work
engagement and intention to quit: A study on Romanian NGO volunteers. Journal
of Applied Social Psychology.
Kasser, T. (2002). Sketches for a self-determination theory of values. In E.L. Deci
& R.M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 123–140).
Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R.M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 22, 80–87.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R.M. (2001). Be careful what you wish for: Optimal functioning
and the relative attainment of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. In P. Schmuck & K.M.
© 2012 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2012 International
Association of Applied Psychology.
“WHAT MOTIVATES YOU DOESN’T MOTIVATE ME”
17
Sheldon (Eds.), Life goals and well-being (pp. 116–131). Göttingen: Hogrefe &
Huber.
Koestner, R., Franz, C., & Weinberger, J. (1990). The family origins of empathic
concern: A 26-year longitudinal study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 709–717.
Lam, C.F., & Gurland, S.T. (2008). Self-determined work motivation predicts job
outcomes, but what predicts self-determined work motivation? Journal of
Research in Personality, 42, 1109–1115.
Leisch, F. (2004). FlexMix: A general framework for finite mixture models and latent
class regression in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 11. Retrieved 5 June 2010,
from http://www.jstatsoft.org/v11/i08/paper
Losier, G.F., Perreault, S., Koestner, R., & Vallerand, R.J. (2001). Examining individual differences in the internalization of political values: Validation of the
self-determination scale of political motivation. Journal of Research in Personality,
35, 41–61.
Lynch, M.F., Jr., Plant, R., & Ryan, R.M. (2005). Psychological need satisfaction,
motivation, attitudes, and well-being among psychiatric hospital staff and
patients. Professional Psychology, 36, 415–425.
McClelland, D.C. (1961). The achieving society. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
McClelland, D. (1985). Human motivation. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman.
Maslow, A.H. (1954). Motivation and personality. New York: Harper & Row.
Millette, V., & Gagné, M. (2008). Designing volunteers’ tasks to maximize motivation, satisfaction and performance: The impact of job characteristics on volunteer
engagement. Motivation and Emotion, 32, 11–22.
Muthén, L.K., & Muthén, B. (2010). Mplus user’s guide 6.1. Los Angeles, CA:
Muthén & Muthén.
Omoto, A.M., & Snyder, M. (1995). Sustained helping without obligation: Motivation, longevity of service, and perceived attitude change among AIDS volunteers.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 671–686.
Ratelle, C.F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R.J., Larose, S., & Senécal, C. (2007).
Autonomous, controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation:
A person-oriented analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 734–
746.
Rigman, C. (2009). Volunteers in Romania: A profile. Unpublished manuscript,
University of Babes-Bolyai, Romania.
Ryan, R.M., & Connell, J.P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization:
Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 57, 749–761.
Schmuck, P., Kasser, T., & Ryan, R.M. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic goals: Their
structure and relationship to well-being in German and US college students. Social
Indicators Research, 50, 225–241.
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals of Statistics, 6,
461–464.
Sheldon, K.M., & Kasser, T. (1995). Coherence and congruence: Two aspects of
personal integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 531–
543.
© 2012 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2012 International
Association of Applied Psychology.
18
HAIVAS ET AL.
Sheldon, K.M., Ryan, R.M., & Reis, H.T. (1996). What makes for a good day?
Competence and autonomy in the day and in the person. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 22, 1270–1279.
Snyder, M., & Omoto, A.M., (2008). Volunteerism: Social issues perspectives and
social policy implications, Social Issues and Policy Review, 2, 1–36.
Steers, R.M., Mowday, R.T., & Shapiro, D.L. (2004). The future of work motivation.
Academy of Management Review, 29, 379–387.
Vallerand, R.J., & Ratelle, C.F. (2002) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A hierarchical model. In E.L. Deci & R.M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination
research (pp. 255–275). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press.
van Beek, I., Hu, Q., Schaufeli, W.B., Taris, T., & Schreurs, B. (2012). For fun, love
or money: What drives workaholic, engaged and burned-out employees at work?
Applied Psychology: An International Review, 61, 30–55.
Van den Broeck, A., Schreurs, B., De Witte, H., Vansteenkiste, M., Germeys, F., &
Schaufeli, W.B. (2011). Understanding workaholics’ motivations: A self-determination perspective. Applied Psychology: An International Review, 60, 600–621.
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., De Witte, H., & Lens, W. (2008). Explaining
the relationships between job characteristics, burnout, and engagement: The role
of basic psychological need satisfaction. Work & Stress, 22, 277–294.
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & De Witte, H. (2010). Unemployed individuals’ work values and job flexibility: An explanation from
expectancy-value theory and self-determination theory. Applied Psychology: An
International Review, 59, 296–317.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Dewitte, S., DeWitte, H., & Deci, E.L. (2004). The “why”
and “why not” of job-search behaviour: Their relation to searching, unemployment
experience, and well-being. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 345–363.
Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemic, C., Soenens, B., De Witte, H., & Van den
Broeck, A. (2007). Examining the relations among extrinsic versus intrinsic
work value orientations, basic need satisfaction, and job experience: A selfdetermination theory approach. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 251–277.
Vansteenkiste, M., Sierens, E., Soenens, B., Luyckx, K., & Lens, W. (2009). Motivational profiles from a self-determination perspective: The quality of motivation
matters. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 671–688.
Vantilborgh, T., Bidee, J., Pepermans, R., Willems, J., Huybrechts, G., & Jegers, M.
(2011). A new deal for NPO governance and management: Implications for volunteers using psychological contract theory. Voluntas, 22, 639–657.
Voicu, B. (2001). România pseudo-modernă [Pseudo-modern Romania]. Sociologie
Românească, 1, 36–59.
Vroom, V.H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
Williams, G.C., & Deci, E.L. (1996). Internalization of biopsychosocial values by
medical students: A test of self-determination theory. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 70, 767–779.
Williams, G.C., Grow, V.M., Freedman, Z., Ryan, R.M., & Deci, E.L. (1996).
Motivational predictors of weight loss and weight-loss maintenance. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 115–126.
© 2012 The Authors. Applied Psychology: An International Review © 2012 International
Association of Applied Psychology.