A two-by-two model that finds shared features of need frustrations in Basic Psychological Needs Theory

Publikation: KonferencebidragKonferenceabstrakt til konferenceForskningpeer review

Standard

A two-by-two model that finds shared features of need frustrations in Basic Psychological Needs Theory. / Ravn, Ib.

2019. Abstract fra 7th International Self-Determination Theory Conference, Egmond aan Zee, Holland.

Publikation: KonferencebidragKonferenceabstrakt til konferenceForskningpeer review

Harvard

Ravn, I 2019, 'A two-by-two model that finds shared features of need frustrations in Basic Psychological Needs Theory', 7th International Self-Determination Theory Conference, Egmond aan Zee, Holland, 21/05/2019 - 24/05/2019.

APA

Ravn, I. (2019). A two-by-two model that finds shared features of need frustrations in Basic Psychological Needs Theory. Abstract fra 7th International Self-Determination Theory Conference, Egmond aan Zee, Holland.

CBE

Ravn I. 2019. A two-by-two model that finds shared features of need frustrations in Basic Psychological Needs Theory. Abstract fra 7th International Self-Determination Theory Conference, Egmond aan Zee, Holland.

MLA

Ravn, Ib A two-by-two model that finds shared features of need frustrations in Basic Psychological Needs Theory. 7th International Self-Determination Theory Conference, 21 maj 2019, Egmond aan Zee, Holland, Konferenceabstrakt til konference, 2019.

Vancouver

Ravn I. A two-by-two model that finds shared features of need frustrations in Basic Psychological Needs Theory. 2019. Abstract fra 7th International Self-Determination Theory Conference, Egmond aan Zee, Holland.

Author

Ravn, Ib. / A two-by-two model that finds shared features of need frustrations in Basic Psychological Needs Theory. Abstract fra 7th International Self-Determination Theory Conference, Egmond aan Zee, Holland.

Bibtex

@conference{b0136f6ccdbb40e0976d05a8ba61dacb,
title = "A two-by-two model that finds shared features of need frustrations in Basic Psychological Needs Theory",
abstract = "If the three psychological needs are rooted in the same evolved human nature, wouldn’t we expect the ways in which they are frustrated to share common features? Shouldn’t they be graspable by the same conceptual model? The need for autonomy is found to be frustrated by controllingness and identity confusion, the need for competence by (e.g.) rote learning and unguided trial-and-error, and the need for relatedness by contingent regard and neglect. These frustrations share a pattern. They can be mapped by a model that combines two prominent aspects of human flourishing: the two dimensions of stability and flexibility pertaining to the norms, rules and institutions that structure human existence. When such structures are both stable and flexible, they support needs and enable flourishing, and when they’re not, they don’t.Thus, as captured by cell 2, high stability combined with low flexibility equals rigidity, which in the three need-frustration cases takes the form of controllingness, rote learning and contingent regard. Conversely, as captured by cell 3, low stability combined with high flexibility equals chaos, which shows up as need frustrations such as identity confusion, unguided trial-and-error and neglect.Further, the need satisfactions may be captured by cell 4. It combines high stability with high flexibility (which may be expressed as “flexstability”). Here we find authenticity, structure and involvement.Cell 1: The null case (Low stability, low flexibility)Cell 2: Rigidity (High stability, low flexibility)Re autonomy: ControllingnessRe competence: Rote learning Re relatedness: Contingent regardCell 3: Chaos (Low stability, high flexibility)Re autonomy: Identity confusion Re competence: Unguided trialsRe relatedness: Neglect Cell 4: Flexstability (High stability, high flexibility)Re autonomy: AuthenticityRe competence: StructureRe relatedness: Involvement This flexstability model maps a number of issues addressed by the SDT community. For example, the three causality orientations: Controlled (= cell 2 rigidity), impersonal (cell 3 chaos) and autonomous (cell 4 flexstability). Some parenting types are authoritarianism (cell 2 rigidity), permissiveness (cell 3 chaos) and gentle guidance (cell 4 flexstability). Extrinsic factors (Deci and Ryan, 1985 book, p. 64) come in three flavors: Controlling (rigidity), amotivational (chaos) and informational (flexstability). Examples are legion.The model points to the unitary nature of the needs. Are they really just different ways of saying that the structures and forms that guide human action need to be stable and flexible at the same time to facilitate need satisfaction and eudaimonia? Further (radical) implications for the very concept of need will be discussed.",
keywords = "Self-Determination Theory, Needs, Basic psyhological needs, Flexstability, Autonomy, Competence, Relatednesss, Rigidity, Chaos",
author = "Ib Ravn",
year = "2019",
month = "5",
day = "21",
language = "English",
note = "null ; Conference date: 21-05-2019 Through 24-05-2019",
url = "https://sdt2019.org/",

}

RIS

TY - ABST

T1 - A two-by-two model that finds shared features of need frustrations in Basic Psychological Needs Theory

AU - Ravn, Ib

PY - 2019/5/21

Y1 - 2019/5/21

N2 - If the three psychological needs are rooted in the same evolved human nature, wouldn’t we expect the ways in which they are frustrated to share common features? Shouldn’t they be graspable by the same conceptual model? The need for autonomy is found to be frustrated by controllingness and identity confusion, the need for competence by (e.g.) rote learning and unguided trial-and-error, and the need for relatedness by contingent regard and neglect. These frustrations share a pattern. They can be mapped by a model that combines two prominent aspects of human flourishing: the two dimensions of stability and flexibility pertaining to the norms, rules and institutions that structure human existence. When such structures are both stable and flexible, they support needs and enable flourishing, and when they’re not, they don’t.Thus, as captured by cell 2, high stability combined with low flexibility equals rigidity, which in the three need-frustration cases takes the form of controllingness, rote learning and contingent regard. Conversely, as captured by cell 3, low stability combined with high flexibility equals chaos, which shows up as need frustrations such as identity confusion, unguided trial-and-error and neglect.Further, the need satisfactions may be captured by cell 4. It combines high stability with high flexibility (which may be expressed as “flexstability”). Here we find authenticity, structure and involvement.Cell 1: The null case (Low stability, low flexibility)Cell 2: Rigidity (High stability, low flexibility)Re autonomy: ControllingnessRe competence: Rote learning Re relatedness: Contingent regardCell 3: Chaos (Low stability, high flexibility)Re autonomy: Identity confusion Re competence: Unguided trialsRe relatedness: Neglect Cell 4: Flexstability (High stability, high flexibility)Re autonomy: AuthenticityRe competence: StructureRe relatedness: Involvement This flexstability model maps a number of issues addressed by the SDT community. For example, the three causality orientations: Controlled (= cell 2 rigidity), impersonal (cell 3 chaos) and autonomous (cell 4 flexstability). Some parenting types are authoritarianism (cell 2 rigidity), permissiveness (cell 3 chaos) and gentle guidance (cell 4 flexstability). Extrinsic factors (Deci and Ryan, 1985 book, p. 64) come in three flavors: Controlling (rigidity), amotivational (chaos) and informational (flexstability). Examples are legion.The model points to the unitary nature of the needs. Are they really just different ways of saying that the structures and forms that guide human action need to be stable and flexible at the same time to facilitate need satisfaction and eudaimonia? Further (radical) implications for the very concept of need will be discussed.

AB - If the three psychological needs are rooted in the same evolved human nature, wouldn’t we expect the ways in which they are frustrated to share common features? Shouldn’t they be graspable by the same conceptual model? The need for autonomy is found to be frustrated by controllingness and identity confusion, the need for competence by (e.g.) rote learning and unguided trial-and-error, and the need for relatedness by contingent regard and neglect. These frustrations share a pattern. They can be mapped by a model that combines two prominent aspects of human flourishing: the two dimensions of stability and flexibility pertaining to the norms, rules and institutions that structure human existence. When such structures are both stable and flexible, they support needs and enable flourishing, and when they’re not, they don’t.Thus, as captured by cell 2, high stability combined with low flexibility equals rigidity, which in the three need-frustration cases takes the form of controllingness, rote learning and contingent regard. Conversely, as captured by cell 3, low stability combined with high flexibility equals chaos, which shows up as need frustrations such as identity confusion, unguided trial-and-error and neglect.Further, the need satisfactions may be captured by cell 4. It combines high stability with high flexibility (which may be expressed as “flexstability”). Here we find authenticity, structure and involvement.Cell 1: The null case (Low stability, low flexibility)Cell 2: Rigidity (High stability, low flexibility)Re autonomy: ControllingnessRe competence: Rote learning Re relatedness: Contingent regardCell 3: Chaos (Low stability, high flexibility)Re autonomy: Identity confusion Re competence: Unguided trialsRe relatedness: Neglect Cell 4: Flexstability (High stability, high flexibility)Re autonomy: AuthenticityRe competence: StructureRe relatedness: Involvement This flexstability model maps a number of issues addressed by the SDT community. For example, the three causality orientations: Controlled (= cell 2 rigidity), impersonal (cell 3 chaos) and autonomous (cell 4 flexstability). Some parenting types are authoritarianism (cell 2 rigidity), permissiveness (cell 3 chaos) and gentle guidance (cell 4 flexstability). Extrinsic factors (Deci and Ryan, 1985 book, p. 64) come in three flavors: Controlling (rigidity), amotivational (chaos) and informational (flexstability). Examples are legion.The model points to the unitary nature of the needs. Are they really just different ways of saying that the structures and forms that guide human action need to be stable and flexible at the same time to facilitate need satisfaction and eudaimonia? Further (radical) implications for the very concept of need will be discussed.

KW - Self-Determination Theory

KW - Needs

KW - Basic psyhological needs

KW - Flexstability

KW - Autonomy

KW - Competence

KW - Relatednesss

KW - Rigidity

KW - Chaos

M3 - Conference abstract for conference

ER -