Self-determination Theory and Social Work Values

Abstract

Self-determination theory (SDT) is an evidence-based approach to programs promoting behavioral change. Social work researchers are increasingly incorporating SDT into program planning and evaluation. Yet the theory itself, developed within the discipline of psychology, has not been fully evaluated for congruence with social work values and perspectives. We compare the core tenets of SDT to values found within the United States National Association of Social Workers Code of Ethics, and find that there is a significant overlap between SDT and social work values. Areas of congruence include autonomy, relatedness, and the importance of human relationships. There are some concepts within SDT that need special consideration when used by social workers, in particular competence and motivation. These constructs have been used to support narratives of individual responsibility in the face of problems caused by societal structures. Further, the theory's traditional framing of context has not explicitly highlighted social justice. SDT has been shown to be an effective strategy in supporting behavioral change. Social workers must be careful to include structural factors such as poverty and discrimination when applying SDT to planning and evaluating social work programs. With these considerations, we suggest that SDT can be a powerful tool for planning and evaluation of social interventions.

Keywords

self-determination theory program planning program evaluation social work ethics social justice

As social workers, we focus on the person in environment and seek to effect change in both. Theories of change are thus especially important in social work interventions. The use of a fitting theory in program development and subsequent evaluation can promote a powerful and effective program (Davidoff et al., 2015; Nilsen, 2020). Conversely, the use of an inadequate or poorly chosen theory can have negative impacts (Thyer, 2008). Self-determination theory (SDT) is a theory of human functioning which focuses on motivation and the psychological needs that support it (Ryan & Deci, 2000). SDT has been increasingly used by social workers in programs promoting behavioral change (Dover, 2016). This paper contributes to the special issue on Program Theory in Social Interventions by evaluating SDT using the lens of social work values. We suggest ways to effectively apply the theory to social service interventions, and present an example program in which the authors used SDT to develop and evaluate an intervention.

SDT was developed within the discipline of psychology (Ryan & Deci, 2019). While its use within social work has been growing (Caffrey & Browne, 2022; Chaumba & Locklear, 2021; de Jonge et al., 2020), the theory has not been fully examined for congruence with social work values and perspectives. Some components of the theory have been explored; for example, the focus of SDT is on needs. Dover (2016) discussed the utility for social work of a theory based on common human needs. He discussed controversies relating to the universality of human needs, and the conceptual differences between strengths, needs, and capabilities. Dennis and colleagues (2012), in a qualitative study on services for older homeless adults, discussed the ethical dilemma presented by supporting individual autonomy at the same time as providing mandated services. However, there has not yet been a full evaluation of SDT concepts and social work perspectives.

In this paper, we examine the congruence between the central tenets of SDT and the core ethics and values of the social work profession as practiced in the United States. If SDT aligns with social work perspectives, this theory can be a powerful tool for program planning and evaluation, thus adding to the evidence base for effective social work practice. We argue that there is a strong correspondence between the theory and the profession. However, there are several components of the theory with the potential to become problematic within social work. Further, some fundamental social work concepts can be situated within SDT but are not explicitly stated in this theory's foundational literature. We begin with an overview of SDT. We then use a social work lens to evaluate the three human needs that are central to SDT, the social construct of motivation, and the understanding of context, or environment, within SDT. We suggest strategies for interpreting and applying SDT so that it fully supports social work traditional approaches and perspectives. Because SDT focuses on individual change, we primarily focus on its use within micro (individuals) and mezzo (small groups and families) social work practice.

Self-Determination Theory

SDT is a broad theory of engagement, motivation, and human flourishing that has been applied effectively in education (Miserandino, 1996; Reeve & Cheon, 2021), business (Slemp et al., 2018), health care (Ntoumanis et al., 2020; Ryan et al., 2008), and, more recently, social work (Kirzner et al., 2021). Self-determination theory holds that fulfillment of three basic psychological needs is essential to many aspects of human functioning. Context provides the nutriments, or basic elements, necessary for people to feel that these needs are being met. The three essential needs are autonomy, relatedness, and competence (Ryan & Deci, 2019).

Autonomy

Autonomy is defined as feeling able to make one's own decisions about what to pursue or not instead of feeling coerced or controlled by the expectations of others (including themselves) or being limited by the environment (Deci & Ryan, 2013). Feeling autonomous is the essence of SDT, that is, feeling self-determined instead of being a pawn at the mercy of forces outside of one's control. In many contexts, autonomy is supported by teachers, managers, parents, loved ones, doctors, practitioners, and others, by avoiding controlling language when making recommendations and offering choice where possible (Connell & Wellborn, 1991). Where choice is not possible, the practitioner explains why this is so and helps the client adjust. This process of adjusting to reality or to the current contingencies in an environment is how we are able to maintain our need for autonomy and self-determination (Ryan & Deci, 2019).

Competence

Competence is feeling effective in the environment: having the ability to successfully achieve tasks and goals which are neither too easy nor too hard (Deci & Ryan, 2013). Feeling competent comes from exercising, expanding, and expressing one's abilities. Competence is fostered when teachers, managers, parents, loved ones, doctors, practitioners, and others provide structure so that tasks, goals, and recommendations are accessible and not overwhelming (Connell & Wellborn, 1991; Williams et al., 1998).

Relatedness

The fostering of autonomy that comes from autonomy support, and the fostering of competence that comes from the provision of structure, occur within a relationship. The quality of that relationship fulfills the third need, the need for relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2013). Relatedness is feeling respected and truly cared for by the people around us in a given context, including teachers, managers, parents, loved ones, doctors, practitioners, and others, and is demonstrated by the investment of time, interest, and energy in another (Ryan & Deci, 2019). For example, relatedness or connection between doctors and their patients is essential for the development and maintenance of positive health behaviors (Williams et al., 1998).

Context

According to SDT, these three needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are either supported or blocked by the context or social structures in which individuals function. In early SDT literature, this social context included direct social contacts such as parents, teachers, employers, and medical professionals (Ryan & Deci, 2000). More recently, SDT has expanded to include “pervasive” social context, or indirect contexts such as culture, politics, and economics (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Social contexts, whether proximal (direct) or pervasive, can support or undermine the ability to meet basic psychological needs. For example, specific conditions such as unsafe neighborhoods, lack of fresh grocers, impoverished community resources, low-paying jobs, and high healthcare costs may make it harder if not impossible for people to exercise autonomy or achieve the competence necessary to obtain basic life necessities (Ryan & Deci, 2017).

Motivation

In sum, self-determination theory holds that individuals demonstrate the motivation to engage in positive behaviors or behavior change when they have the knowledge and feel capable of taking the steps required to maintain positive behaviors or make changes (competence), the choice to do so rather than feeling pressured to follow professionals or feeling pressured by an already distrusted establishment (autonomy), and feel supported by professionals and by peers in a support group or friends, neighbors, or family members (relatedness). When these three needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness are met, people feel internal motivation, become engaged in taking action, and as a result, have positive outcomes. Social context can support or undermine the meeting of these psychological needs (Ryan & Deci, 2017).

In the context of school, this means skill-building and psychosocial growth; in the context of business, it means accomplishing work goals and thriving; and in the context of health care, it means adopting and maintaining healthy behaviors. Because social work encompasses a wide range of personal and societal goals, positive outcomes can include employment, education, mental and physical health, personal well-being, and community change.

SDT and Social Work Values

A theory used by social workers must align with social work ethics. The International Federation of Social Work (IFSW) delineates professional ethics in their Global Social Work Statement of Ethical Principles, and recommends that each country address context-specific factors by developing its own code (International Federation of Social Workers, 2018). To date, 23 countries have done so. Because the authors of this paper practice in the United States (U.S.), this country's National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics (COE) is used in the analysis (National Association of Social Workers, 2021). The U.S. is a member of IFSW and the U.S. Code of Ethics is posted on the IFSW website. For SDT, we examine the core concepts using the lens of the NASW COE. This examination can serve as an example for practitioners and researchers in other countries using other country-specific codes of ethics. For SDT, using country-specific ethical codes may be especially important, because culture and political context influence how each of the psychological needs is expressed and fulfilled (Ryan & Deci, 2017).

Human Needs

Theories relating to common needs were required to be a part of U.S. social work educational programs until recently (Council on Social Work Education, 2015). The newly released educational standards do not specifically mention human needs, however, they contain related content such as the importance of self-determination and of social context (Council on Social Work Education, 2022). The six core values of the social work profession, as delineated by the U.S. COE, are service, social justice, dignity and worth of the person, importance of human relationships, integrity, and competence. Each value leads to specific ethical principles and standards (National Association of Social Workers, 2021). The U.S. COE values are similar to the IFSW's Global Ethical Principles, which are recognition of the inherent dignity of humanity; promoting human rights, promoting social justice, promoting the right to self-determination, promoting the right to participation; respect for confidentiality and privacy; treating people as whole persons; ethical use of technology and social media, and professional integrity (International Federation of Social Workers, 2018).

Relatedness and Autonomy

Some aspects of SDT clearly line up with social work ethics and values. The SDT need of relatedness aligns directly with the importance of human relationships: “Social workers understand that relationships between and among people are an important vehicle for change. Social workers engage people as partners in the helping process. Social workers seek to strengthen relationships among people in a purposeful effort to promote, restore, maintain, and enhance the well-being of individuals, families, social groups, organizations, and communities” (International Federation of Social Workers, 2018). Autonomy relates directly to the core value of dignity and worth of the person: “Social workers seek to enhance clients’ capacity and opportunity to change and to address their own needs.” The Code's ethical standards are elaborated in Section 1.02, Self-determination: “Social workers respect and promote the right of clients to self-determination and assist clients in their efforts to identify and clarify their goals” (National Association of Social Workers, 2021). For social work, common ethical dilemmas include the tension between individual autonomy and protection from harm (Braye et al., 2017; Dennis et al., 2012; Sasson, 2000), and between individual autonomy and community preferences and safety (Akbar, 2019; Wu et al., 2013). Thus the core social work value of self-determination, or the need for autonomy in SDT terms, must sometimes be reconciled with the competing value of protection from harm.

Competence

The COE core value of competence, while using the same language as SDT, refers to the competence of the social worker in serving the client. However, the ethical principle relating to dignity and worth of the person is similar to the SDT framing of competence and its connection to self-determination: “Social workers promote clients’ socially responsible self-determination. Social workers seek to enhance clients’ capacity and opportunity to change and to address their own needs” (National Association of Social Workers, 2021). Here, the notion of capacity does refer to the ability of clients to engage in behavior change. Capabilities, similar to competence, are referenced in IFSW's Global Principal 4.5: “Social workers work toward building the self-esteem and capabilities of people” (International Federation of Social Workers, 2018). In SDT, competence encompasses both the objective ability to change and address needs, and the subjective perception of that ability. This perception of competence can be impacted by poverty and structural barriers, as will be discussed later.

SDT's use of competence matches up well with social work values and ethics. However, the word choice of “competence” presents some challenges for social workers because it is open to misinterpretation based on its common usage. The language of competence implies the alternate possibility, incompetence. Social work is primarily focused on social justice—included as a core value or principal in both the U.S. and global Codes—and those individuals and groups who are subject to oppression (International Federation of Social Workers, 2018; National Association of Social Workers, 2021). The language of competence can be open to misinterpretation because of its implication that those who are not succeeding lack competence, when the problem may be an environment which is preventing the person from feeling competent. Further, the essential problems of social work are framed as lack of opportunity (a problem in the environment), rather than lack of competence (a problem within the individual). For example, an individual in poverty may be highly motivated to graduate from college, but lack of funds for tuition makes it extremely difficult to do so. This is how an environment can undermine or prevent individuals from having their need for competence met.

Context and Social Work

Social work ethics and values frame personal problems within broader societal structures (International Federation of Social Workers, 2018; National Association of Social Workers, 2021). Structural barriers can include economic inequality, resource deprivation, and unequal treatment or oppression due to personal characteristics such as gender, disability, age, race, or ethnicity. Social work clients have typically been subject to discourses involving otherness and being “less than” (Cassiman, 2008). For people of color, structural barriers in the U.S. and other societies can include structural racism (Braveman et al., 2022). For example, in the United States structural racism within the housing system can increase the odds of persons of color living in under-resourced neighborhoods, which then connects to other forms of inequality such as violence exposure, healthy food access, and adequate public schools (Bailey et al., 2017; Lynch et al., 2021; Mokiao & Hingorani, 2021).

The foundational SDT literature did not explicitly include societal structures as part of context. However, a recent update (Ryan & Deci, 2017) includes chapters on culture, politics, and economic inequality as part of the context through which fulfillment of psychological needs may be supported or undermined. In the SDT theoretical and empirical literature, however, the social environment is frequently defined solely as the people in one's immediate surroundings (Ntoumanis et al., 2020) rather than structural barriers such as racism or economic inequality. We argue that to be congruent with social work values, the use of SDT must include an emphasis on the structural factors that make goal achievement—even for the highly motivated—especially difficult.

One feature of context that is often left out in SDT literature is resource deprivation. This aspect of context is especially relevant to the marginalized groups served by social workers. Ryan and Deci (2017) discuss economic inequality as impacting psychological needs, but not specifically the impact of lacking basic necessities such as money or food. They discuss safety net programs such as income support and health insurance as limiting autonomy because one may need to stay with an unsatisfying job in order to retain income or insurance. However, lack of cash or health care also directly limits the ability to express motivation through task completion. We argue that the availability of resources should be clearly delineated as impacting motivation and task completion. Neglecting to frame deprivation as a unique factor leads to a risk of clients being blamed for structural problems caused by broader societal structures and processes such as the economy, social policy, or discrimination. Some social work researchers illustrate the emphasis on structural barriers in discussion of SDT: “A lack of needed services was specifically identified as enough to leave clients feeling powerless over their situation, negatively affecting motivation and the feelings of competence required” (Dennis et al., 2012, p. 360). Social workers applying SDT are well-situated to explore the person-in-environment interactions that affect autonomy, competence, and relatedness, and thus support or thwart motivation and task completion.

Motivation and Social Work Values

SDT posits that self-determination, supported by the fulfillment of the three psychological needs, will enhance motivation and thus lead to behavioral change. While SDT is presented as a theory of psychological needs, human development, and well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2019) it is often applied in the research literature as solely a theory of motivation (Gillison et al., 2019; Huang et al., 2019; Stupnisky et al., 2018). This is problematic because definitions of motivation vary widely. Definitions in research literature include drive, or “extent to which a person acts on personal motivators” (Siegling & Petrides, 2016, p. 1), engaging in a behavior (Legault, 2020), and initiating and maintaining goal-directed activities (Schunk & DiBenedetto, 2020). The implication is that motivation leads directly to action and task completion, yet in our society action and task completion require more than motivation. Much more effort is required to initiate and complete tasks in the face of poverty and oppression. Often motivation is just not enough.

For social work clients, the language of motivation is sometimes weaponized to mean that people in poverty or experiencing social problems can extricate themselves if they were more driven, desired goal completion more strongly, and persisted more. For example, discourses of people in poverty label them as lazy and unwilling to work when in fact structural barriers are what prevent task-completion and goal attainment (Rose & Baumgartner, 2013). In actuality, people living in poverty sometimes perform extensive “hidden labor” that keeps them from task completion yet is invisible to professionals (Senteio & Veinot, 2014). The language of motivation must be used with caution by social workers. While inner drive enhances task completion, focusing primarily on inner drive and ignoring structural factors can lead to narratives of pathology for the marginalized populations served by social workers (Davidai, 2022; Taylor et al., 2011). In fact, SDT began as a counter to the view of motivation as solely internal or external, by considering both person and social environment as supporting or undermining the three psychological needs whose fulfillment is essential to motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1980).

The language of motivation can imply that the location of change is situated primarily within the individual. This fits within the framework of structure versus agency, with structure referring to societal structures, and agency to individual action. To deny that personal agency impacts one's life choices is patronizing to populations that social workers seek to serve (Dolgoff & Feldstein, 2012). However, social work research that directly addresses human agency as part of solving social problems generally does so within the context of societal structures. Human agency is mediated by social constraints, and social workers grapple with the complexity of this interaction using the person-in-environment framework (Parsell et al., 2017). Social workers using SDT as a theoretical framework must be careful not to frame motivation as the sole driver of behavior change, but to also look at the context. Persons living in poverty face challenges to experiencing and expressing personal agency (Murphy et al., 2021). Constrained choices due to environmental factors often steer marginalized individuals into a limited range of options in which to express their desires and drives (Umberson et al., 2014). For example, low-income parents living in housing projects were moved to slightly less disadvantaged neighborhoods in the Moving to Opportunity study. Researchers found that some of the parents did not choose the highest performing schools in their new neighborhoods for their children. Qualitative interviewing revealed that the parents did not choose the “best” schools because they did not view academic performance as the most important factor. Rather, they chose schools that were orderly and appeared safe; to them, having just moved from high-violence neighborhoods, safety was their priority (de Souza Briggs et al., 2010). An outsider might view these parents as being “unmotivated” for their children to succeed academically. Carefully examining the choices available revealed that the parents were highly motivated to keep their children safe, even at the expense of academic rigor. Person-in-environment is the framework in which to view motivation in the context of constrained resources and choices afforded by the environment. In SDT terms, constrained choices undermine autonomy and competence. However, this connection must be explicitly made in order to support the social work value of social justice. If the connection is not highlighted, then we risk blaming the victim.

Social Justice and SDT

One of the core values of social work is social justice:
Social workers pursue social change, particularly with and on behalf of vulnerable and oppressed individuals and groups of people. Social workers’ social change efforts are focused primarily on issues of poverty, unemployment, discrimination, and other forms of social injustice. These activities seek to promote sensitivity to and knowledge about oppression and cultural and ethnic diversity. Social workers strive to ensure access to needed information, services, and resources; equality of opportunity; and meaningful participation in decision making for all people. (National Association of Social Workers, 2021, sec. Ethical Principles)

The IFSW's Global Ethical Principles (2018) likewise highlight social justice, including features such “Challenging Discrimination and Institutional Oppression,” “Access to Equitable Resources,” and “Challenging Unjust Policies and Practices.”

When social contexts include inequalities based on personal characteristics or group memberships, this is social injustice. Social injustice can thwart the meeting of SDT needs because poverty and deprivation due to oppression and differential opportunities directly affect the ability to meet the three basic psychological needs. Persons in poverty and oppressed groups often experience external pressure to accomplish tasks, such as receiving more directive than collaborative advice from medical professionals, thus undermining autonomy (Verlinde et al., 2012). Poverty reduces the resources needed for task completion, and marginalized groups are exposed to societal messages that they are less competent (Soss et al., 2011). Persons in poverty have less bridging social capital (social relationships that span socioeconomic classes) than those not in poverty (Wacquant & Wilson, 1989). Relatedness can be framed as relating to society as a whole. Structural racism, for example, in the criminal justice system, can undermine the feeling of trust and relatedness to the broader society (Bell, 2017; Miller & Vittrup, 2020; Ontario Human Rights Commission, 2003). Ryan and Deci (2017) state that “there cannot be strong relatedness in a society where supports for autonomy and competence apply only to some” (p. 602).

SDT is an evolving theory and the addition of material on culture, economics, and politics brings in concepts that are directly related to social justice. For example, a perception of fairness in social policy can support relatedness, and economic inequality can undermine it (Ryan & Deci, 2017). While the newer SDT framing of pervasive social contexts invites inclusion of social justice issues, it is common to find SDT-informed studies that ignore the broader societal factors that impact the three basic needs (Güntert et al., 2016; Krause et al., 2019; Leblanc et al., 2015; Rahman et al., 2015; Sergis et al., 2018). However, recent research demonstrates that income status and income inequality are both correlated with lower fulfillment of SDT needs (Di Domenico & Fournier, 2014). Limited studies are beginning to identify poverty-related barriers including neighborhood safety, traumatic events, and oppression as part of applying SDT (Gray et al., 2016; Luginbuhl et al., 2016; Quinlivan et al., 2017; van Egmond et al., 2017). We provide an example of what this kind of research and programming might look like from our own experience with conducting a cardiovascular disease prevention program (Kirzner et al., 2021). Our participants vividly and forcefully identified the environmental barriers which undermined their motivation to make major life changes. This growing body of research finds that poverty, deprivation, and discrimination can add valuable information when applying SDT in research involving marginalized populations. Structural factors such as poverty and oppression can be powerful forces that undermine autonomy, competence, and relatedness. This indicates that SDT can be especially important for marginalized communities, but also means that social workers and others using SDT must be aware of and consider structural factors that undermine SDT needs.

Social injustice can lead to “wrongfully unmet needs and the resulting serious harm” (Dover, 2019, p. 444). Presented this way, the three constructs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness cannot be viewed outside of structural issues relating to social justice. Social workers can take the lead in connecting SDT to social justice and addressing how structural factors such as racism and other types of oppression undermine psychological needs.

SDT Tools for Program Planning and Evaluation: The Wellness with Heart Program

To illustrate how social workers can use the principles of SDT, we describe an intervention for low-income urban residents at risk of cardiovascular disease, called Wellness with Heart. We discuss how social work values and the application of SDT apply to program planning and program evaluation. This intervention was designed to support the three SDT psychological needs. The program met weekly for twelve weeks and included peer support (relatedness), participant-selected goals and activities (autonomy), and skill-building components such as physical activity coaching (competence). At the same time, poverty-related barriers were recognized and considered in program design. Free gym memberships for participants, recipes that were both healthful and affordable, and supermarket gift card incentives are examples of components tailored to make the program user-friendly for those with limited or no income. This led to clients being able to express more autonomy in their choices and more competence in engaging in these new healthier behaviors, which we expect will eventually lead to positive health outcomes of lowered cardiovascular disease.

Program Planning

Implementing and evaluating an intervention based on SDT principles begins with program design. Such programs need to incorporate approaches and activities that support autonomy, relatedness, and competence. Using participant input as part of program planning is itself a form of autonomy support, because participants help design the program, and seeking their input additionally recognizes the strengths (competence) that they possess (Chapin, 1995). Seeking input also supports the psychological need for relatedness, because it promotes collaboration between program professionals and future participants. Therefore, participant input in program planning provides support for all three SDT core psychological needs.

As part of planning this cardiovascular disease prevention program, the authors and colleagues completed a focus group study exploring participants’ perceptions of their health-related goals and barriers to completing them (Kirzner et al., 2021). The focus group transcripts were analyzed using SDT as a conceptual framework. Findings indicated that participants often had autonomy, relatedness, and competence undermined by their environments, typically due to poverty-related barriers. While participants expressed the desire to accomplish health-related goals, they were sometimes thwarted by their lack of resources. For example, a participant who lacked a gym membership used walking as a form of exercise. When her neighborhood's sidewalks were not cleared adequately in winter, she was unable to complete her usual form of exercise. Several participants noted the lack of affordable healthy produce in local supermarkets. They could not purchase local produce due to price, and they could not easily travel to find cheaper produce because of lack of car or transit fare. For these participants, poverty-related barriers made follow-through on motivation—task completion and goal attainment—much more challenging.

Justice and equity demand that people have the same basic opportunities, not that some people need to work harder to obtain them. So while there are alternatives to gym memberships which can be used at home, thinking of and implementing alternatives requires extra motivation, when the individual is already struggling with deprivation. Community-based interventions using similar methods would do well to help residents find viable alternatives when their basic needs are not being met. Participants’ views elicited in this study support the utility of SDT for persons in poverty, as well as the imperative to include environment and societal structures in applying the theory.

Program Evaluation

SDT provides a number of tools for effective program evaluation. Program components can be evaluated in terms of support for the three psychological needs. How often are clients given choices on goals and activities? What components specifically build relationships and relatedness, and how do participants perceive these activities? Are participants gaining the skills and knowledge needed to reach their selected goals? For the focus group study, we used the three psychological needs as part of qualitative analysis of participant statements (Kirzner et al., 2021). SDT also lends itself to quantitative analysis. The Center for Self-Determination Theory (2021) provides a variety of validated scales to measure constructs such as autonomy, relatedness, and competence in general (Van der Kaap-Deeder et al., 2020), and tied to specific contexts such as at work or within relationships (Deci et al., 2001). The Wellness with Heart program, described above, incorporated an adapted version of the Perceived Competence Scale (Williams & Deci, 1996) as part of outcomes measurement (results not available yet due to a COVID-related pause in programming). Wellness with Heart is an example of a program designed using an SDT theoretical framework and evaluated with inclusion of SDT tools. It is also an example of bringing environmental barriers to the forefront when applying SDT.

Discussion and Conclusion

Self-determination theory is a well-researched theoretical framework for programs seeking to change individual behaviors. The social work perspective follows that of C. Wright Mills in believing that personal troubles reflect public issues (Mills, 2000). However, social work programs on the ground often focus on individual behaviors such as job training programs for unemployed workers, parenting programs for families involved in the child welfare system, and life skills programs for emerging adults leaving foster care. These programs can benefit from a theory like SDT, which rests on the core social work values of self-determination, dignity, and worth of the person, a strengths-based approach, and the importance of human relationships. However, social work clients often face additional challenges to autonomy, relatedness, and competence due to belonging to marginalized groups. Many researchers using SDT do not delineate those aspects of a non-middle-class environment that pose particular challenges and often undermine the three psychological needs (Cerasoli & Ford, 2014; Mills et al., 2021; Schösler et al., 2014). Those who lack resources may be unable rather than unwilling to complete even self-determined goals. SDT, without a focus on social justice, can feed into narratives of simply a lack of motivation for persons living under oppression and unequal opportunities. However, those same populations may be especially in need of support for the three SDT constructs. SDT foundational literature does not explicitly focus on social justice. However, it is a broad and evolving theory that now includes pervasive context, and allows room for a focus on a range of environmental constraints which affect motivation and prevent goal attainment. Social workers can be at the forefront of incorporating social justice into the application of SDT. By doing so, social workers will give clients the benefit of an evidence-based approach to reaching meaningful and potentially life-changing goals. Social workers will also be demonstrating that social justice must be considered when applying SDT and any theoretical framework addressing individual change. Only then will clients truly have a path to self-determination.

Footnotes

Acknowledgments

The authors express gratitude to Dr. Inga Robbins, for her leadership in the design and implementation of the Cardiovascular Risk Focus Groups study, and the Wellness with Heart program and study.

Author Note

This paper was submitted as a contribution to the special issue of Research on Social Work Practice “Program theory in social interventions developed in practice settings,” guest edited by Tina M. Olsson and Therése Skoog.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The authors received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

ORCID iD

Rachel S. Kirzner

References

Akbar

(2019). Thinking critically about self-determination: A literature review. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 16(2), 9–17. https://jswve.org/download/fall_2019_volume_16_no._2/articles/9-Thinking-critically-re-self-determination-16-2-Fall-2019-JSWVE.pdf .

Bailey

Z. D.

Krieger

Agénor

Graves

Linos

Bassett

M. T.

(2017). Structural racism and health inequities in the USA: Evidence and interventions. The Lancet, 389(10077), 1453–1463. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(17)30569-X

Bell

M. C.

(2017). Police reform and the dismantling of legal estrangement. The Yale Law Journal, 126(7), 2054–2150. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/45222555 .

Braveman

P. A.

Arkin

Proctor

Kauh

Holm

(2022). Systemic and structural racism: Definitions, examples, health damages, and approaches to dismantling. Health Affairs, 41(2), 171–178. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2021.01394

Braye

Orr

Preston-Shoot

(2017). Autonomy and protection in self-neglect work: The ethical complexity of decision-making. Ethics and Social Welfare, 11(4), 320–335. https://doi.org/10.1080/17496535.2017.1290814

Caffrey

Browne

(2022). Understanding the social worker–family relationship through self–determination theory: A realist synthesis of signs of safety. Child & Family Social Work, 27(3), 513–525. https://doi.org/10.1111/cfs.12903

Cassiman

S. A.

(2008). Resisting the neo–liberal poverty discourse: On constructing deadbeat dads and welfare queens. Sociology Compass, 2(5), 1690–1700. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00159.x

Center for Self Determination Theory (2021). Metrics & methods: Questionnaires. https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/questionnaires/.

Cerasoli

C. P.

Ford

M. T.

(2014). Intrinsic motivation, performance, and the mediating role of mastery goal orientation: A test of self-determination theory. The Journal of Psychology, 148(3), 267–286. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.2013.783778

10.

Chapin

R. K.

(1995). Social policy development: The strengths perspective. Social Work, 40(4), 506–514. https://doi.org/10.1093/sw/40.4.506

11.

Chaumba

Locklear

A. K.

(2021). Strategies for promoting client self-determination: A review of the literature. Journal of Social Work Values and Ethics, 18(1), 60. https://doi.org/https://jswve.org/download/2021-1/2021-1-articles/60-Lit-Review-Strategies-for-Client-Self-Determination-18-1-Spring-2021-JSWVE.pdf

12.

Connell

J. P.

Wellborn

J. G.

(1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In Gunnar

M. R.

Sroufe

L. A.

(Eds.), Self processes and development (pp. 43–77). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

13.

Council on Social Work Education (2015). Educational policy and accreditation standards (EPAS). https://www.cswe.org/accreditation/standards/2015-epas/.

14.

Council on Social Work Education (2022). Educational policy and accreditation standards (EPAS). https://www.cswe.org/accreditation/standards/2022-epas/.

15.

Davidai

(2022). How do people make sense of wealth and poverty? Current Opinion in Psychology, 43, 42–47. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.06.010

16.

Davidoff

Dixon-Woods

Leviton

Michie

(2015). Demystifying theory and its use in improvement. BMJ Quality & Safety, 24(3), 228–238. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjqs-2014-003627

17.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1980). Self-determination theory: When mind mediates behavior. The Journal of Mind and Behavior, 1(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/43852807

18.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(2013). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media.

19.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

Gagné

Leone

D. R.

Usunov

Kornazheva

B. P.

(2001). Need satisfaction, motivation, and well-being in the work organizations of a former eastern bloc country: A cross-cultural study of self-determination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(8), 930–942. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201278002

20.

de Jonge

Kloppenburg

Hendriks

(2020). The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on social work education and practice in the Netherlands. Social Work Education, 39(8), 1027–1036. https://doi.org/10.1080/02615479.2020.1823363

21.

Dennis

C. B.

McCallion

Ferretti

L. A.

(2012). Understanding implementation of best practices for working with the older homeless through the lens of self-determination theory. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 55(4), 352–366. https://doi.org/10.1080/01634372.2011.640742

22.

de Souza Briggs

Popkin

S. J.

Goering

(2010). Moving to opportunity: The story of an American experiment to fight ghetto poverty. Oxford University Press.

23.

Di Domenico

S. I.

Fournier

M. A.

(2014). Socioeconomic status, income inequality, and health complaints: A basic psychological needs perspective. Social Indicators Research, 119(3), 1679–1697. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-013-0572-8

24.

Dolgoff

Feldstein

(2012). Understanding social welfare: A search for social justice. Pearson Higher Ed.

25.

Dover

M. A.

(2016). Human needs: Overview. In Franklin

(Ed.), The encyclopedia of social work (Electronic Ed., pp. 1–40). Oxford University Press and National Association of Social Workers.

26.

Dover

M. A.

(2019). A needs-based partial theory of human injustice: Oppression, dehumanization, exploitation, and systematic inequality in opportunities to address human needs. Humanity & Society, 43(4), 442–483.

27.

Gillison

F. B.

Rouse

Standage

Sebire

S. J.

Ryan

R. M.

(2019). A meta-analysis of techniques to promote motivation for health behaviour change from a self-determination theory perspective. Health Psychology Review, 13(1), 110–130. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2018.1534071

28.

Gray

P. M.

Murphy

M. H.

Gallagher

A. M.

Simpson

E. E.

(2016). Motives and barriers to physical activity among older adults of different socioeconomic status. Journal of Aging and Physical Activity, 24(3), 419–429. https://doi.org/10.1123/japa.2015-0045

29.

Güntert

S. T.

Strubel

I. T.

Kals

Wehner

(2016). The quality of volunteers’ motives: Integrating the functional approach and self-determination theory. The Journal of Social Psychology, 156(3), 310–327. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224545.2015.1135864

30.

Huang

Y.-C.

Backman

S. J.

Backman

K. F.

McGuire

F. A.

Moore

(2019). An investigation of motivation and experience in virtual learning environments: A self-determination theory. Education and Information Technologies, 24(1), 591–611. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10639-018-9784-5

31.

International Federation of Social Workers (2018). Global social work statement of ethical principles. IFSW. https://www.ifsw.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/Global-Social-Work-Statement-of-Ethical-Principles-IASSW-27-April-2018-1.pdf.

32.

Kirzner

R. S.

Robbins

Privitello

Miserandino

(2021). ‘Listen and learn:’ participant input in program planning for a low-income urban population at cardiovascular risk. BMC Public Health, 21(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-021-10423-6

33.

Krause

A. E.

North

A. C.

Davidson

J. W.

(2019). Using self-determination theory to examine musical participation and well-being. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, 405. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00405

34.

Leblanc

Bégin

Hudon

A.-M.

Royer

M.-M.

Corneau

Dodin

Lemieux

(2015). Effects of a nutritional intervention program based on the self-determination theory and promoting the Mediterranean diet. Health Psychology Open, 3(1), 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1177/2055102915622094

35.

Legault

(2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In Zeigler-Hill

Shackelford

T. K.

(Eds.), Encyclopedia of personality and individual differences (pp. 2416–2419). Springer.

36.

Luginbuhl

P. J.

McWhirter

E. H.

McWhirter

B. T.

(2016). Sociopolitical development, autonomous motivation, and education outcomes: Implications for low-income Latina/o adolescents. Journal of Latina/o Psychology, 4(1), 43–59. https://doi.org/10.1037/lat0000041

37.

Lynch

E. E.

Malcoe

L. H.

Laurent

S. E.

Richardson

Mitchell

B. C.

Meier

H. C.

(2021). The legacy of structural racism: Associations between historic redlining, current mortgage lending, and health. SSM-Population Health, 14, 100793. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssmph.2021.100793

38.

Miller

Vittrup

(2020). The indirect effects of police racial bias on African American families. Journal of Family Issues, 41(10), 1699–1722. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192513X20929068

39.

Mills

C. W.

(2000). The sociological imagination. Oxford University Press.

40.

Mills

D. J.

Li Anthony

Nower

(2021). General motivations, basic psychological needs, and problem gambling: Applying the framework of self-determination theory. Addiction Research & Theory, 29(2), 175–182. https://doi.org/10.1080/16066359.2020.1787389

41.

Miserandino

(1996). Children who do well in school: Individual differences in perceived competence and autonomy in above-average children. Journal of Educational Psychology, 88(2), 203–214. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.88.2.203

42.

Mokiao

Hingorani

(2021). Food insecurity and kidney disease: Symptoms of structural racism. Clinical Journal of the American Society of Nephrology, 16(12), 1903–1905. https://doi.org/10.2215/CJN.07860621

43.

Murphy

Burford

McWha

Sheehy-Skeffington

Byrne

(2021). From poverty to flourishing: Agency and empowerment. https://www.bps.org.uk/news-and-policy/poverty-flourishing-agency-and-empowerment.

44.

National Association of Social Workers. (2021). Code of ethics. https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English.

45.

Nilsen

(2020). Making sense of implementation theories, models, and frameworks. Implementation Science, 10(1), 53–79. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-015-0242-0

46.

Ntoumanis

J. Y.

Prestwich

Quested

Hancox

J. E.

Thøgersen-Ntoumani

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

Lonsdale

Williams

G. C.

(2020). A meta-analysis of self-determination theory-informed intervention studies in the health domain: Effects on motivation, health behavior, physical, and psychological health. Health Psychology Review, 15(2), 1–85. https://doi.org/10.1080/17437199.2020.1718529

47.

Ontario Human Rights Commission. (2003). The effects of racial profiling.

48.

Parsell

Eggins

Marston

(2017). Human agency and social work research: A systematic search and synthesis of social work literature. British Journal of Social Work, 47(1), 238–255. https://doi.org/10.1093/bjsw/bcv145

49.

Quinlivan

Messer

L. C.

Roytburd

Blickman

(2017). Unmet core needs for self-determination in HIV-infected women of color in medical care. AIDS Care, 29(5), 603–611. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540121.2016.1243788

50.

Rahman

R. J.

Hudson

Thøgersen-Ntoumani

Doust

J. H.

(2015). Motivational processes and well-being in cardiac rehabilitation: A self-determination theory perspective. Psychology, Health & Medicine, 20(5), 518–529. https://doi.org/10.1080/13548506.2015.1017509

51.

Reeve

Cheon

S. H.

(2021). Autonomy-supportive teaching: Its malleability, benefits, and potential to improve educational practice. Educational Psychologist, 56(1), 54–77. https://doi.org/10.1080/00461520.2020.1862657

52.

Rose

Baumgartner

F. R.

(2013). Framing the poor: Media coverage and US poverty policy, 1960–2008. Policy Studies Journal, 41(1), 22–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12001

53.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68–78. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

54.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Publications.

55.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2019). Brick by brick: The origins, development, and future of self-determination theory. In Elliot

(Ed.), Advances in Motivation Science (Vol. 6, pp. 111–156). Elsevier.

56.

Ryan

R. M.

Patrick

Deci

E. L.

Williams

G. C.

(2008). Facilitating health behaviour change and its maintenance: Interventions based on self-determination theory. The European Health Psychologist, 10(1), 2–5. https://www.ehps.net/ehp/index.php/contents/article/view/ehp.v10.i1.p2/32 .

57.

Sasson

(2000). Beneficence versus respect for autonomy: An ethical dilemma in social work practice. Journal of Gerontological Social Work, 33(1), 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1300/J083v33n01_02

58.

Schösler

de Boer

Boersema

J. J.

(2014). Fostering more sustainable food choices: Can self-determination theory help? Food Quality and Preference, 35, 59–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2014.01.008

59.

Schunk

D. H.

DiBenedetto

M. K.

(2020). Motivation and social cognitive theory. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 60, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2019.101832

60.

Senteio

Veinot

(2014). Trying to make things right: Adherence work in high-poverty, African American neighborhoods. Qualitative Health Research, 24(12), 1745–1756. https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732314549027

61.

Sergis

Sampson

D. G.

Pelliccione

(2018). Investigating the impact of flipped classroom on students’ learning experiences: A self-determination theory approach. Computers in Human Behavior, 78, 368–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.08.011

62.

Siegling

A. B.

Petrides

(2016). Drive: Theory and construct validation. Plos One, 11(7), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0157295

63.

Slemp

G. R.

Kern

M. L.

Patrick

K. J.

Ryan

R. M.

(2018). Leader autonomy support in the workplace: A meta-analytic review. Motivation and Emotion, 42(5), 706–724. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-018-9698-y

64.

Soss

Fording

R. C.

Schram

S. F.

(2011). Disciplining the poor: Neoliberal paternalism and the persistent power of race. University of Chicago Press.

65.

Stupnisky

R. H.

BrckaLorenz

Yuhas

Guay

(2018). Faculty members’ motivation for teaching and best practices: Testing a model based on self-determination theory across institution types. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 53, 15–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2018.01.004

66.

Taylor

Samblanet

Seale

(2011). The new “lazy”: Structure and agency in managers’ discussions of welfare clients’ motivation. Race, Gender & Class, 18(1/2), 171–188. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/23884874 .

67.

Thyer

B. A.

(2008). The potentially harmful effects of theory in social work. In Thyer

(Ed.), Comprehensive handbook of social work and social welfare (Vol. II - Human behavior in the social environment, pp. 519–541). New York: Wiley.

68.

Umberson

Williams

Thomas

P. A.

Liu

Thomeer

M. B.

(2014). Race, gender, and chains of disadvantage: Childhood adversity, social relationships, and health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 55(1), 20–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022146514521426

69.

Van der Kaap-Deeder

Soenens

Ryan

Vansteenkiste

(2020). The Basic Psychological Need Satisfaction and Frustration Scale (BPNSFS).

70.

van Egmond

M. C.

Navarrete Berges

Omarshah

Benton

(2017). The role of intrinsic motivation and the satisfaction of basic psychological needs under conditions of severe resource scarcity. Psychological Science, 28(6), 822–828. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797617698138

71.

Verlinde

De Laender

De Maesschalck

Deveugele

Willems

(2012). The social gradient in doctor-patient communication. International Journal for Equity in Health, 11(1), 12. https://doi.org/10.1186/1475-9276-11-12

72.

Wacquant

L. J.

Wilson

W. J.

(1989). The cost of racial and class exclusion in the inner city. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 501(1), 8–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716289501001001

73.

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(4), 767–779. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.767

74.

Williams

G. C.

Rodin

G. C.

Ryan

R. M.

Grolnick

W. S.

Deci

E. L.

(1998). Autonomous regulation and long-term medication adherence in adult outpatients. Health Psychology, 17(3), 269–276. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.17.3.269

75.

H.-C.

Tang

I.-C.

Lin

W.-I.

Chang

L.-H.

(2013). Professional values and attitude of psychiatric social workers toward involuntary hospitalization of psychiatric patients. Journal of Social Work, 13(4), 419–434. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468017311435201