Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020, April). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
– Right away, I note that SDT indicates that the (proposed to be) innate human drive for self-determination can only be robust if the three basic psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness are met. Yet I also immediately consider that, in this context, we’re already operating at the tip of Maslow’s hierarchy of needs–we should remember that there are many other preconditions that may need to be met before an innate drive for development and self-determination will exhibit itself.
– Fascinating to see the difference between autonomous extrinsic motivation (based on value) versus intrinsic motivation (based on interest / enjoyment). So many of my activities fall into the former now, versus the latter…
– Good to see the distinction made between control vs. structure! I always want to provide a “skeleton” or (in the paper’s words) scaffold that people can then fill in or flesh out as they wish. There’s always been a good bit of assertion that this is “controlling” and the better approach is to set no rules whatsoever so people can just do whatever they want. I’ve never felt that to be productive, and sometimes outright dangerous.
– I wonder if some of these “autonomy-supportive” behaviors such as “resist[ing] giving answers” and “offering progress-enabling hints when students seem stuck” might be confused with (or be complementary to!) the Socratic method of asking open-ended questions as a way of encouraging students to think critically and gain insights on their own. I’ve had several people simply refuse to engage with questions altogether, accusing me of using the Socratic method as if that’s inherently a bad thing.
– Grading! My expectation through elementary and secondary school was for all grading to be purely criterion-based, it shocked me when I entered undergraduate courses and discovered comparative grading in use (namely, “grading on a curve” according to a normal distribution). As a lifelong overachiever, I’m usually the person busting the curve, and it annoys me significantly when I can’t be graded “fairly” for my actual performance. And yet most of my fellow students preferred grading on a curve (when I wasn’t in the same class as them) and explained it as being a counterweight for “unfairly hard” assessments. As much as that may be true, I wonder if criterion-based grading isn’t both more accurate and also “better” in the sense of offering informational value about one’s accomplishments without pushing people to “just be better than somebody else.”
– It’s interesting to reflect on supporting processes versus outcomes. In some ways, focusing on the end result could be construed as supporting autonomy–there are many ways to reach the desired outcome. At the same time, there’s been several thinkers who have advocated the opposite. (For example, a company that does “the right thing” by their customers will naturally be rewarded with profits, while focusing on profits above all tempts companies to take the shortest path to the goal, at the expense of their customers.) Both of these approaches seem to have points of validity to me. Clearly, doing good does not always lead to a profitable outcome; just as clearly, “teaching to the test” does not yield the desired results. It seems more productive to balance these approaches, understanding that “how did we get to the goal?” is just as important as “did we reach the goal?”.
I also hasten to add that this requires a good understanding of what the goal is. If we failed to reach the goal of a specific grade, the temptation might be to decide that we chose the wrong path. But we may have reached a goal of learning and gaining deeper understanding, which makes the path a much more positive one.
Mikami, A. Y., Khalis, A., & Karasavva, V. (2025). Logging out or leaning in? Social media strategies for enhancing well-being.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 154(1), 171–189. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0001668
– Is it possible that social media platform use, as with other addictive behaviors, presents the positive effects as the lure (connect with your friends! win a jackpot in the casino!) while minimizing the negative effects (depression and self-negativity, I can quit any time / I can beat the house because I’m smarter than everybody else)? Is that comparison lazy, or am I picking up on a similarity? In both cases, the negative effects are hidden or minimized because repetition of the addictive behavior leads to habituation of the positive effects and accumulation of the negative effects, but repetition is how profits are made.
– I have been told that some personalities are more susceptible to addictive behaviors. I wonder if anybody’s correlated these personalities to social media use and prevalence of negative vs. positive effects. I imagine that if negative effects are more prevalent in specific personalities, abstinence might be a more effective treatment for those, while tutorial might be a more effective treatment for others…
– It strikes me that a balanced approach intuitively seems to be the best way to use social media platforms–as an augmentation to offline social interaction, not a replacement. Social media definitely allows more flexibility in who we interact with, when, and under what conditions; in this, I judge it to be quite positive. At the same time, overdoing this interaction has negative effects which may be countered or diluted by having supportive offline social interaction as well. Neither online nor offline social interaction seem to replace the benefits of the other, so using them in a balanced fashion seems to be the best option to me.
Best, P., Manktelow, R., & Taylor, B. (2014, June). Online communication, social media and adolescent wellbeing: A systematic narrative review. Children and Youth Services Review, 41, 27-36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.childyouth.2014.03.001
– “Evidence of a ‘rich-get-richer’ phenomenon is provided whereby young people whose offline friendship quality is perceived as ‘high’ had greater benefits from online communicative activities those who did not possess high quality friendships.” Interesting. Evidence towards a balanced approach being of most benefit, as I posited above?
Vogel, E. A., & Rose, J. P. (2016). Self-reflection and interpersonal connection: Making the most of self-presentation on social media. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 2(3), 294–302. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000076
– If there’s a general bias towards emphasizing positive self-presentation on social networking sites, and the benefits of participating on SNS accrue mainly to those who focus on their own positive self-presentation… what vanity! Is there truly any real, long-term benefit to be had from presenting a biased perspective of yourself and then focusing on and reinforcing that biased presentation? Besides, how does this work with research showing that there’s benefits to be gained from being emotionally real and open about one’s struggles?
– “According to mood management theory, consumers select media that will help regulate their moods. When expanded to social media, the theory suggests that users select social content (such as another Facebook user’s profile) that will improve their mood.” I would suggest that this only holds so long as the user selects the content! And as we know, Facebook’s algorithms determine what content is pushed to the user in order to maximize engagement, not to be responsive to the user’s desires.
I had another seven papers I wanted to read; time pressures force me to move onward…
Leave a Reply