Mustivation or Motivation?
The Nurturing Role of Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction
Maarten Vansteenkiste
University Gent, Belgium
Contactadress: [email protected]
www.vopspsy.ugent.be
www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT
Collaborators
S. Van Petegem
Ghent University
L. Claes
University of Leuven
K. M. Sheldon
University of Missouri
R. M. Ryan
University of Rochester
J. Reeve
Korea University
Bart Soenens
Ghent University
E. L. Deci
University of Rochester
Bart Duriez
University of Leuven
L. Matos
University of Lima
T. Kasser
Knox College
C. P. Niemiec
University of Rochester
W. Beyers
Ghent University
H. De Witte
University of Leuven
W. Lens
University of Leuven
E. Kins
Ghent University
A. Assor
Ben Gurion University
A. Mouratidis
University of Leuven
J. Verstuyf
Ghent University
N. Aelterman
Ghent University
L. Haerens
Ghent University
D. Wuyts
Ghent University
V. Chirkov
University of Saskatchewan
K. Sheldon
University of Missouri
L. Boone
Ghent University
A. Mouratidis
University of Leuven
K. Luyckx
University of Leuven
E. Sierens
University of Leuven
W. Vandereycken
University of Leuven
B. Deforche
Bruxelles University
L. Matos
Lima University
A. Van den Broeck
University of Brussels
B. Neyrinck
University of Leuven
M. Standage
University of Bath
S. Sebire
University of Bath
B. Chen
Ghent University
SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY
Prof. Edward Deci
(University of Rochester, NY)
Prof. Richard Ryan
(University of Rochester, NY)
Objectives of talk
1.  Providing an overview on key principles of Self-Determination
Theory
2.  Selectively linking Self-Determination Theory to
- prevalent notions: e.g., self-control
- other theories of behavior change: e.g., motivational interviewing
Any behavior change requires energy!
The critical questions are
1)  … which factors can furnish the necessary energy for
sustained behavioral change?
2)  … whether the amount of available energy depends on the
motives or reasons underlying behavior change?
-  Ethymological meaning: Motivation < movere = to move
-  Basic question = “Why do (not) engage in behavior change”
⇒ Capturing hetereogenity in clients/people
-  Universal question that applies to all possible health behaviors
•  Physical activity
•  Losing weight
•  Smoking cessation
•  Eating regulation
•  Diabetes management
Etc.
Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C., & Soenens, B. (2010). The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: An historical overview,
emerging trends, and future directions. In T. Urdan & S. Karabenick (Eds.). Advances in Motivation and Achievement, vol. 16: The decade ahead (pp.
105-166). UK: Emerald Publishing.
Overview
1.  The Energetic Basis of Behavior Change: Basic Psychological Need
Satisfaction
2. Quality of Motivation: Autonomous versus Controlled Functioning
3. The Nurturing role of a Need-supportive Counseling Style
Vansteenkiste, M., Niemiec, C., & Soenens, B. (2010). The development of the five mini-theories of self-determination theory: An historical overview,
emerging trends, and future directions. In T. Urdan & S. Karabenick (Eds.). Advances in Motivation and Achievement, vol. 16: The decade ahead (pp.
105-166). UK: Emerald Publishing.
PART I
The Energetic Basis of Behavior Change:
Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction
Self-determination Theory: Meta-theoretical assumptions
1. Passive / reactive entities
2. No inherent growth-oriented
nature
3.  Social environment programs
& controls people’s behavior
1. Pro-active organism that acts
upon his environment
2.  Oriented towards growth, selforganization & integration
3.  Social environment can
facilitate & support development
4. Social development can
also awaken vulnerabilities
and lead to passivity &
defensive functioning
Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as an unifying
principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration.
SOCIAL CONTEXT
ENERGIZATION
OUTCOMES
Need-supportive
environment
Basic psychological
need satisfaction
Behavior change &
growth
“the best”
Need-thwarting
environment
Basic psychological
need frustration
Passivity & resistance
to change
“the beast”
Vansteenkiste, M., & Ryan, R. M. (2013). On psychological growth and vulnerability: Basic psychological need satisfaction and need frustration as an unifying
principle. Journal of Psychotherapy Integration.
Which needs meet the following criteria?
Psychological
rather than
physiological
Innate rather than
acquired
Universal
rather than culturebounded
Fundamental
Basic psychological needs
Need for
Autonomy
A
-  Being oneself
-  Psychological freedom
-  Volition
Need for
Relatedness
R
Need for
Competence
C
-  Being loved by
others
-  Feeling capable to
achieve desired
outcomes
-  Having close and
intimate relations
-  Feeling effective
Dozens of studies have provided evidence for the association between need
satisfaction and
1. …various well-being outcomes
•  self-reported vitality and positive affect (e.g., Reis et al., 2000; Sheldon, et al., 1996)
•  teacher-rated adjustment (e.g., Adhmad, Vansteenkiste, & Soenens, 2013)
2. …in various cultures and nations
•  Russia (e.g., Deci et al., 2001)
•  Korea (e.g., Jang et al., 2009)
3. … in various age groups
•  adults (e.g., Laguardia et al., 2000)
•  children (e.g., Sebire et al., today)
Statement:
Need Satisfaction = Universal Vitamin
When people, regardless of their cultural background,
educational level or age, feel psychological free, confident
and related, they will benefit from it.
Do the benefits of need satisfaction radiate to the way
how we regulate our physical needs?
Daily need satisfaction and daily eating regulation
Diary study
5!
N = 302 female adolescents; Mean age = 17.7 years
4!
Person A
3!
2!
1!
Daily
Bulimic
0!
symptoms
-1!
-2!
Person B
-3!
-4!
-5!
1! 2! 3! 4! 5! 6! 7! 8! 9! 10!11!12!13!14!
Days
Binge-Eating and Healthy Eating as a Function of Daily Need Satisfaction and Frustration
Fixed effects
Binge-Eating
Healthy Eating
Intercept
1.313
(0.025)
2.836
(0.025)
Daily need satisfaction
-0.006
(0.017)
0.064***
(0.017)
Daily need frustration
0.126 ***
(0.012)
-0.003
(0.012)
Verstuyf, J., Vansteenkiste, M., & Soenens, B. (2013). Daily ups-and-downs binge eating symptoms: The role of need satisfaction, self-control and emotional
eating style. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 32, 335-361
Figure 1: Plot of Interaction Effect between Emotional Eating and Need Frustration in the Prediction of
Binge Eating Symptoms
3,3
3,1
Binge eating
2,9
2,7
2,5
low emotional eating style
2,3
high emotional eating style
2,1
1,9
1,7
low need frustration (-1 SD)
high need frustration (+ 1SD)
Need frustration
Verstuyf, J., Vansteenkiste, M., & Soenens, B. (2013). Daily ups-and-downs binge eating symptoms: The role of need satisfaction, self-control and emotional
eating style. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 32, 335-361
Statement
On the interface between psychological and physical
need satisfaction
-  Psychological need satisfaction furnishes the necessary
energy for the ongoing regulation of physical needs
-  Likely a reciprocal relations between both
PART II
Need Satisfaction as Fuel for Optimal Motivation:
Autonomous and Controlled Functioning
UNITARIAN
CONCEPT
Low
motivation
DIFFERENTIATED
CONCEPT
High
motivation
-Self-efficacy theory (Bandura)
- Expectancy-valence theory (Vroom, Feather)
Poor quality
motivation
Good quality
motivation
Controlled
motivation
Autonomous
motivation
-Self-Determination Theory
Which subtypes of motivation are distinguished
within SDT?
⇒ I’m going to be more physically active in 2013 ...
‘because my doctor
expects me to do so’
‘because I can only
reward myself with a
snack if I do so’
Punishment
rewards
expectation
‘because I can only
be proud of myself if I
do so’
‘because I would feel
guilty if I wouldn’t do
so’
Shame, guilt,
self-worth
Controlled motivation
Mustivation
‘because I feel more
energetic if I do so’
Personal
relevance,
meaningful
‘because I just like to
exercise’
Pleasure,
passion,
interest
Autonomous motivation
Volitional motivation
Process of internalisation = ownership of change
Does quality of motivation matter?
Are Autonomously Motivated Teenagers more Active
and Engaged During PE classes?
- 
- 
N = 739 students (Mean age = 14.36 years), belonging to 46 classes
Two outcomes:
•  Videotaping entire class and rating degree of engagement
•  Physical activity levels as recorded by accelerometers
PHYSICAL ACTIVITY LEVEL (N = 543)
FIXED PART Intercept
Predictors
Personal autonomous motivation
Collective autonomous mo?va?on Collective controlled mo?va?on
Collective amo?va?on
RANDOM PART reference model Class level variance Pupil level variance RANDOM PART test model Class level variance Pupil level variance Test significance of test model -­‐2*loglikelihood reference model -­‐2*loglikelihood test model χ2(3) β
33.03
S.E.
2.52
1.35***
22.06***
-­‐7.41
6.72
σ2
150.95
103.21
σ2
112.79
118.79
0.48
6.30
8.28
8.16
S.E.
33.48
6.55
S.E.
25.45
8.97
4207.84
4185.18
p < .001
Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Van Keer, H., Van den Berghe, L., De Meyer, J., & Haerens, L. (2012). Students’ objectively measured physical
activity levels and engagement as a function of between-class and between-student differences in motivation toward physical education. Journal of
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34, 457-480.
ENGAGEMENT
(N = 668)
FIXED PART Intercept
Predictors
Collective autonomous mo?va?on Collective controlled mo?va?on
Collective amo?va?on
RANDOM PART reference model Class level variance RANDOM PART test model Class level variance Test significance of test model -­‐2*loglikelihood reference model -­‐2*loglikelihood test model χ2(3) β
1.84
S.E.
0.02
0.70***
-­‐0.24*
-­‐0.21*
σ2
0.23
σ2
0.16
0.06
0.08
0.08
S.E.
0.01
S.E.
0.01
983.94
935.52
p < .001
Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Van Keer, H., Van den Berghe, L., De Meyer, J., & Haerens, L. (2012). Students’ objectively measured physical
activity levels and engagement as a function of between-class and between-student differences in motivation toward physical education. Journal of
Sport & Exercise Psychology, 34, 457-480.
Is more motivation not better?
Are highly motivated dieters functioning in the best
way?
- 
- 
N = 450 weigth watch clients (Mean age = 44.44 y)
Outcomes:
•  Healthy eating behaviors
•  Eating pathology
Autonomous
Motivation (AM)
Controlled
Motivation (CM)
Variable-centered
approach
Person-centered
approach
Types of
dieters?
1,5
1
0,5
0
-0,5
-1
-1,5
Red =
controlled
motivation
Blue =
autonomous
motivation
Healthy eating behaviors
4,2
4
3,8
3,6
3,4
3,2
3
I’m fed up with my diet! I’m sick of it!
Who suffers from a diet burn-out?
‘Regulating my eating behaviors is exhausting’ ‘At the end of the day, I feel tired because I have to
Burn out
2,8
2,6
2,4
2,2
2
1,8
1,6
1,4
1,2
regulate my eating behaviors’ »
‘I stuff myself with food’ ‘I eat restricted when others are around, but binge
Bulimic symptoms
3
2,8
2,6
2,4
2,2
2
1,8
1,6
when I’m alone’ »
Statement:
“Less is sometimes more”:
Quality of motivation matters
It is not just important that people are motivated for
behavior change, they can best display the most
desirable motivational profile, that is, one characterized
by autonomous rather than controlled motivation.
The distinction ‘autonomous’ and ‘controlled’ motivation is critical for various aspects of
behavior change, including
-  Weight loss (e.g., Moller et al., 2012; Silva et al., 2010; Williams et al., 1996)
-  Medicine
•  Dental care (e.g., Halvari et al., 2012)
•  Medication adherence (e.g., Williams et al., 2009)
•  Diabetes management (e.g., Senecal et al., 2000)
-  Exercising (Markland & Tobin, 2010; Verloigne, et al., 2012) and adopting a physical active lifestyle (e.g.,
Haerens et al., 2010; Hagger et al., 2006; Sebire et al., 2011; see Teixeira et al., 2012 for a review)
-  Eating regulation (e.g., Pelletier et al., 2004; Pelletier & Dion, 2007; see Verstuyf et al., 2012 for an overview)
-  Physical eduation (e.g., Ntoumanis, 2001; Standage et al., 2012)
Life style change
Physical activity
& exercising
Smoking
cessation
Eating regulation
Weight loss
Medication
intake
Mustivation - volitional motivation =
ROBUST distinction, with high PREDICTIVE validity
Towards conceptual clarification
Does being autonomously motivated mean that one
has to pursue change on one’s own, that is, without the
help of others?
NO!
Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Soenens, B., & Van Petegem, S. (in press). Autonomy in family decision-making among Chinese adolescents:
Disentangling the dual meaning of autonomy. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology.
Independence
Dependence
e.g., ‘self-help dieter’
e.g., consulting a health counselor
Autonomous or volitional
Controlled or imposed
⇒ 4 combinations are possible!
Chen, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Beyers, W., Soenens, B., & Van Petegem, S. (in press). Autonomy in family decision-making among Chinese adolescents:
Disentangling the dual meaning of autonomy. Journal of Cross-cultural Psychology.
Towards conceptual clarification
Is the act of self-control by definition autonomously
motivated?
NO!
Self-control
-  Desirable characteristic defined as “the use of cognitive and
attentional resources to override, inhibit, or alter impulses in the
service of attaining personal goals or satisfying motives" (Vohs & Heatherton,
2000, p. 214)
-  Will-power; ‘character’
e.g. Restricting food intake, engaging in physical activity
-  Such acts of self-control can be variously motivated! (e.g., Moller, Ryan, & Deci,
2006)
Act of self-control
Autonomous &
controlled motivation
“What people do”
“Why people do what
they do”
-  Effectiveness of self-control will depend on the motivational force
underlying the self-control
Act of self-control
Autonomously
motivated
Controlled
motivated
Flexible functioning
Process focus
Less energy draining
Greater persistence
Rigid functioning
Result focus
Energy draining
Breakdowns in self-control
Why would pressured self-control more easily result in
a breakdown?
People can defy/revolt against
-  inner pressuring forces
-  externally pressuring forces
Does oppositional defiance constitute a
different motive for non-engagement?
-  Oppositional defiance
= intentionality (directional behavior)
= blunt rejection to engage in the requested behavior
= (re)active form of functioning
= arises as a function of need frustration
⇒ Controlled motivation & oppositional defiance go often hand in hand!
Oppositional defiance in the physical education
class: Its unique predictive validity
- 
- 
N = 519 (Mean age = 15.76 years), belonging to 30 classes
Outcomes:
•  Student-level: Engagement & resentment
•  Class-level: Teacher rated learning & engagement
Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Haerens, L. (submitted). Oppositional defiance as a motivating force in physical education: A
dimensional and person-centered approach. Manuscript submitted for publication.
FIXED PART
Intercept
Average class autonomous motivation
Average class controlled motivation
Average class amotivation
Average class oppositional defiance
RANDOM PART intercept only model
Class level variance
RANDOM PART multiple predictor model
Class level variance
Test of significance
Reference model
Deviance test model (-2LL)
Χ2 (df)
Rated collective
engagement
Rated collective
learning
B (S.E.)
B (S.E.)
1.92 (.04)
.45 (.08)
-.29 (.14)
.25 (.12)
-.46 (.08)
σ2 (S.E.)
.31 (.02)
σ2 (S.E.)
.25 (.02)
712.92
680.14
32.78***
β
.39***
-.10*
.13*
-.29***
1.04 (.17)
2.02 (.31)
-1.34 (.59)
.74 (.49)
-2.33 (.34)
σ2 (S.E.)
5.54 (.36)
σ2 (S.E.)
4.07 (.27)
β
.41***
-.11*
.09
-.35***
1971.10
1926.97
44.13***
Note. *p <.05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.
Aelterman, N., Vansteenkiste, M., Soenens, B., & Haerens, L. (submitted). Oppositional defiance as a motivating force in physical education: A
dimensional and person-centered approach.
Statement:
Towards a differentiated view on non-engagement
Many individuals are not engaging in change; yet, this nonengagement can be variously motivated:
-  Discouragement (amotivation)
-  Oppositional defiance = straightforward refusal to change
-  Reflective defiance = choice not to change!
⇒ What is the consequence of this viewpoint?
Vansteenkiste, M., Williams, G. C., & Resnicow, K. (2012). Toward systematic integration between Self-Determination Theory and motivational
interviewing as examples of top-down and bottom-up intervention development: Autonomy or volition as a fundamental theoretical principle. International
Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9:23
Statement:
Towards a differentiated view on non-engagement
1)  Autonomous functioning = meaningful outcome by itself, regardless of
behavior change
⇒  Autonomy enhancement = criterion of therapeutic success
⇒  Necessary to broaden our view on therapeutic success!
2)  Clinical implication: Task of the health counselor = encouraging
autonomous functioning to change or not to change
⇒  Manifestation of unconditional regard
Vansteenkiste, M., Williams, G. C., & Resnicow, K. (2012). Toward systematic integration between Self-Determination Theory and motivational
interviewing as examples of top-down and bottom-up intervention development: Autonomy or volition as a fundamental theoretical principle. International
Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9:23
PART III
The Nurturing Role of Need-supportive Counseling
Autonomysupportive vs.
controlling environment
Involved vs. cold environment
Structured vs. chaotic
environment
Autonomy
Relatedness
Competence
What is motivating language?
Do guilt-trips work? A comparing with inviting
language
“What you will really need for change is character. I have seen many clients
here, but without willpower, you won’t be able to make.”
- 
- 
N = 80 5th and 6th grade obese children (11-12 year; adjusted BMI > 182%)
Outcomes:
•  Type of learning
•  Persistence
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Matos, L. (2005). Examining the impact of extrinsic versus intrinsic goal framing and
internally controlling versus autonomy-supportive communication style on early adolescents’ acadamic achievement. Child Development, 76,
483-501.
Learning activity
(i.e., reading a text on the food pyramid)
Autonomysupportive
language
Internally
controlling
language
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Matos, L. (2005). Examining the impact of extrinsic versus intrinsic goal framing and
internally controlling versus autonomy-supportive communication style on early adolescents’ acadamic achievement. Child Development, 76,
483-501.
•  Instructions: Internally controlling (& extrinsic goal)
The text that we ask you to read discusses a few eating habits that you can try to
master. Researchers say that children who eat each day one piece out of each leaf of
the four-leafed clover think that they will remain more attractive and good-looking
when they are 16-17 years old; children also think that they will remain more
appealing for others. Moreover, many children also think that they will not become fat
or will even lose weight by paying attention to their diet. To feel better about their
appearance and slim figure many children follow the guidelines of the four-leafed
clover. They do this by eating more fruit, yoghurt, and vegetables instead of eating
candy or drinking soft drinks (e.g., cola, fanta, ice-tea etc.). Thus, many children follow
the four-leafed clover because they would feel guilty if they would become fat or
because they would become less attractive and appealing due to their own fault. So, it
is for your own good that we ask you to attentively read the guidelines of the fourleafed clover.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Matos, L. (2005). Examining the impact of extrinsic versus intrinsic goal framing and
internally controlling versus autonomy-supportive communication style on early adolescents’ acadamic achievement. Child Development, 76,
483-501.
•  Instructions: Autonomy-supportive (& intrinsic goal)
The text that we ask you to read discusses a few eating habits that you can try to
master. Researchers say that children can pay attention to their diet by eating each
day one piece out of each leaf of the four-leafed clover. In this way, you are more
likely to remain healthy and physically fit when you are 16-17 years old. Thus,
remaining in shape and active might be good reasons for you to decide to follow the
guidelines of the four-leafed clover. You could do this by eating more fruit, yoghurt,
and vegetables instead of eating candy or drinking soft drinks (e.g., cola, fanta, ice-tea
etc.). Because you want to avoid becoming unhealthy and ill, you can try to follow the
guidelines of the four-leafed clover on a daily basis. If you want to stay active and fit,
you might decide to follow the guidelines of the four-leafed clover. Because of these
reasons, it might be important for you to attentively read the text on the four-leafed
clover.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Matos, L. (2005). Examining the impact of extrinsic versus intrinsic goal framing and
internally controlling versus autonomy-supportive communication style on early adolescents’ acadamic achievement. Child Development, 76,
483-501.
8,5
8
7,5
Green =
superficial
learning
7
6,5
6
Blue = deep
level
learning
5,5
5
4,5
4
Autonomysupport
Internal
control
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Matos, L. (2005). Examining the impact of extrinsic versus intrinsic goal framing and
internally controlling versus autonomy-supportive communication style on early adolescents’ acadamic achievement. Child Development, 76,
483-501.
Figure 1 - Pieces of Eaten Fruit By Experimental Condition over Time
8
7
6
5
Autonomy support
4
Internally controlling
3
2
1
0
Baseline
1st week
3rd week
Figure 2 – Percentage of Diet-attendance By Experimental Condition
0,8
0,7
0,6
0,5
0,4
Internally controlling
0,3
Autonomy support
0,2
0,1
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Figure 3 - Percentage Overweight By Experimental Condition
260
250
240
Autonomy support
230
Internally controlling
220
210
200
Baseline
6 months
one year
2 years
Additional issues:
1) Do people need to be consciously aware of their
autonomy to benefit from it?
⇒  No! (e.g., Radel, Sarrazin, & Pelletier, 2009)
2)  Can we train socializing agents to increasingly adopt a
need-supportive style?
⇒  Yes! (e.g., Cheon et al., 2012)
3) Can we observe socializing agents’ need-support and
move beyond self-reports?
⇒  Yes! (e.g., Haerens et al., 2012)
4) Which other features are characteristic of an autonomysupportive approach?
•  Work from the person’s frame of reference (e.g., Deci, et al., 1994)
•  Providing a meaningful rationale for a request (e.g., Jang, 2008)
•  Allow input and encourage self-initiation &
experimentation = empowering
•  Offer choice whenver possible (e.g., Patall et al., 2008; Mouratidis et al., 2011)
Are autonomy-supportive health counselors
refraining from giving any advise?
Counselor autonomy-support does not imply that (Vansteenkiste, et al., 2012; Williams et al., 2012)
a) Clients are left by themselves to resolve their problems
b) Health counselors can not provide any advise or even introduce
prohibitions, as if clients need to enjoy unlimited freedom
Structure
= guidance
Autonomy supportive
environment
Controlling environment
Lack of structure
= chaos
Most motivating cocktail = combination of counselor autonomysupport & structure!
⇒ How can advise be given in a need-supportive way (see also Rollnick, 2013)?
1.  Try to avoid given redundant advise
2.  Try to provide advise in an autonomy-supportive way by asking
permission to give advise
3.  Try to pay attention to the timing of the advise
-  Up front ó after taking internal frame of reference
Vansteenkiste, M., Williams, G. C., & Resnicow, K. (2012). Toward systematic integration between Self-Determination Theory and motivational
interviewing as examples of top-down and bottom-up intervention development: Autonomy or volition as a fundamental theoretical principle. International
Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9:23
How does SDT relate to Motivational
Interviewing?
Thema?c Series with 7 review papers and 2 commentaries: “Self-­‐Determina?on Theory and Mo?va?onal Interviewing in Behavioral Nutri?on, Physical Ac?vity, and Health” Teixeira, P., Palmeira, A., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2012). The role of Self-Determination Theory and Motivational Interviewing in behavioral nutrition,
physical activity, and health: An introduction to the IJBNPA Special Series. International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9:17
MI
SDT
Clinical model
Theory
Description of
motivational
conversational skills
= rather bottom-up
Explaining why
change happens =
Rather top down
Potential for
integration
Vansteenkiste, M., Williams, G. C., & Resnicow, K. (2012). Toward systematic integration between Self-Determination Theory and motivational
interviewing as examples of top-down and bottom-up intervention development: Autonomy or volition as a fundamental theoretical principle. International
Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9:23
For two frameworks to be integrated, they need to have a
shared theoretical platform
Shared vocabulary
Shared meta-theoretical
foundation
⇒  ongoing, yet, not fully actualized yet!
Vansteenkiste, M., Williams, G. C., & Resnicow, K. (2012). Toward systematic integration between Self-Determination Theory and motivational
interviewing as examples of top-down and bottom-up intervention development: Autonomy or volition as a fundamental theoretical principle. International
Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9:23
1. Distinction autonomy & independence
2. Qualitative view on change talk
‘Need’ = imperative language
-  e.g. “I have to…”
-  e.g. “I must …”
‘Reasons’ = more specific
-  e.g. “I would have more
energy”
⇒ Consequence: change talk = surface manifestation of change = what
the couselor hears (Oliver, Markland, & Hardy, 2008, 2010; Vansteenkiste, et al., 2012)
⇒ Need satisfaction = critical mechanism!
Vansteenkiste, M., Williams, G. C., & Resnicow, K. (2012). Toward systematic integration between Self-Determination Theory and motivational
interviewing as examples of top-down and bottom-up intervention development: Autonomy or volition as a fundamental theoretical principle. International
Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9:23
3. By identifying the critical mechanism of change, one can move
beyond the interactional/communicative level to the structural level
Theory
SDT
Clinical model
MI
Communication
level
Communication
level
Structural level
(e.g., school,
district, societal
level)
Vansteenkiste, M., Williams, G. C., & Resnicow, K. (2012). Toward systematic integration between Self-Determination Theory and motivational
interviewing as examples of top-down and bottom-up intervention development: Autonomy or volition as a fundamental theoretical principle. International
Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity, 9:23
Conclusion
Need support cannot be reduced to a set of motivating
tricks with the explicit intent to
•  increase the motivation of the client
•  obtain desired results (e.g., weight loss)
= INSTRUMENTALISATION of need support
⇒ Clinical implication: Need support manifests through an
attitude of sincere interest & curiosity, regardless of his/her
change plans!
Thank your for your attention!
I am happy to answer any questions you have!