Keywords

Theories of human agency provide a framework for understanding human behavior. Human agentic theories , including theories of self-determination, share the meta-theoretical assumption that organismic aspirations drive human behavior (Little et al. 2006). Organismic aspirations can be understood as the drive to be active contributors to, or agents of, one’s behavior. Thus an agentic person, driven by organismic aspirations, seeks to be the origin of his or her actions (Little et al. 2002). Human agentic theories assume that actions are volitional and that an agentic person uses self-regulated and goal-directed agentic actions to “plot and navigate a chosen course through the uncertainties and challenges of the social and ecological environments… continuously interpreting and evaluating actions and their consequences” (Little et al. 2002, p. 390). This ongoing process of navigating challenges and engaging in self-regulated, goal-directed actions gives rise to a sense of personal empowerment and action-control beliefs, or the sense that one knows and has what it takes to achieve goals, which contributes to the development of a sense of causal agency ; that is, that the person acts with an eye toward causing an effect to accomplish a specific end or to cause or create change in his or her life. Repeated experiences of causal agency lead to enhanced self-determination.

In the following sections, we describe the general assumptions of human agentic theories and the features that differentiate such theories from other theories of understanding human behavior. We will also describe how human agentic theories provide a broad framework for organizing constructs related to causal agency and the development of self-determination.

Assumptions of Theories of Human Agency

Theories of human agency differ from other frameworks for understanding human behavior (e.g., theories that emphasize stimulus-response accounts of behavior) because of the assumption underlying all theories of human agency that each person is integral to his/her organismic functioning. Unlike stimulus response theories which, by and large, assume that stimuli in the environment drive behavior, agentic theories assume that the person actively shapes his or her environment and responses to that environment. Contextual factors are still highly relevant, as contexts provide supports and opportunities as well as hindrances and impediments for volitional and agentic action, but it is the individual and their drive to act as a causal agent (not environmental stimuli) that is the primary driver of behavior. People who consistently engage in causal action to exert causal agency are self-determined. Specifically, as individuals strive to meet basic psychological and biological needs, they engage in self-regulated, goal directed action, or causal action , that enables them to navigate varying environmental and contextual challenges and they become more effective in their causal action and develop a sense of causal agenc y and enhanced self-determination.

The process of engaging in causal action has a self-evaluative feedback process, where persons continuously interpret and evaluate their actions and the consequences of actions. This meta-cognitive monitoring shapes, on an ongoing basis, each individual’s action-control beliefs about the activities that he or she is capable of in varying contexts. Specifically, people are always learning under what conditions their causal actions will have desired effects. Under optimal circumstances, this continually evolving and actively monitored self-system gives rise to a strong, integrated sense of causal agency—a self-determined person. A highly self-determined person is the primary origin of his or her actions, has high aspirations, perseveres in the face of obstacles, sees more and varied options, learns from failures, and has a strong sense of well-being. A less self-determined person is shaped by extra-personal influences, has low aspirations, struggles with problem solving and goal setting, and often feels hopeless. Thus, theories of human agency have an explicit focus on the person-environment fit. It is in the context of this interaction between personal competencies and environmental demands that people become agents of their own action or causal agents over their lives, and, ultimately, self-determined.

In addition to the assumptions regarding organismic aspirations and contextual influences, theories of human agency also assume that:

  1. (a)

    Actions are motivated by both biological and psychological needs .

  2. (b)

    When actions are directed toward self-regulated goals, this serves biological and psychological needs, both short-term and long-term.

  3. (c)

    Actions are volitional and agentic and shaped by understandings about general action-control behaviors that entail self-chosen forms and functions (Deci and Ryan 2002; Little et al. 2002).

These assumptions create an organizational framework for a theoretical model of the development of self-determination (see Fig. 2.1). In the following sections, we will further describe this model, specifically discussing the various human agentic theories that contribute to an understanding of the development of self-determination.

Fig. 2.1
figure 1

The development of self-determination

Full size image

Theoretical Model of the Development of Self-Determination

As described previously, Fig. 2.1 provides a theoretical model of the development of self-determination. At the start of this system are basic psychological needs for autonomy , competence , and relatedness proposed by Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and discussed in more detail subsequently in Chap. 4. Satisfaction of these basic needs facilitates autonomous motivation , defined as intrinsic motivation and well-internalized extrinsic motivation (Deci and Ryan 2012, p. 88). Consistent with assumptions of organismic theories, the interplay between the context and the individual’s psychological needs satisfaction is complex and reciprocal. When a motive or motives are salient, people are in a position to select goals on the basis of their expectations about the satisfaction of these motives (Deci and Ryan 1985, p. 235). As per Fig. 2.1, these psychological needs initiate a causal action sequence that, through interaction with environmental supports and opportunities, enables the development of a “synergistic set of action-control beliefs and behaviors that provide the self-regulatory foundation that is called upon to negotiate the various tasks and challenges of the life course” (Little et al. 2002, p. 396). Action-control beliefs about the link between the self and the goal (control expectancy beliefs), the links between the self and the means that are available for use to address a challenge (agency beliefs), and about which specific means are most effective for reaching one’s goals (causality beliefs) (Little et al. 2002, p. 396) interact with and mediate volitional and agentic actions (employing causal and agentic capabilities), resulting in causal agency. Repeated experiences with the causal action sequence leads to multiple experiences with causal agency and, as a result, enhanced self-determination. In the following sections, we describe each of these contributors to the development of self-determination in greater depth.

Psychological and Biological Needs

As mentioned previously, a fundamental assumption of human agentic theories is that actions are motivated by both psychological and biological needs , and that if psychological and biological needs are addressed overall, well-being is supported. For purposes of this text, we are focusing on the psychological needs that motivate causal action, but, of course, biological needs also motivate action. In terms of biological needs, an assumption of human agentic theories is that all organisms require resources for physical growth and development (Hawley 1999; Little et al. 2002). These resources create an appetite for biological needs; however, to meet biological needs there is an evolutionarily duality that shapes action in pursuit of resources. On one hand, people can participate in social groups, using social connections and capital to acquire needed resources. This social group, however, can also become a source of competition as multiple people in the social group pursue resources. Within social groups, therefore, people experience both supports and threats to the attainment of resources. Ethologists describe this duality as a dominance hierarchy. Hawley (1999) further defined such hierarchies as the emergent ordering of individuals based on their relative competitive abilities. People that become highly agentic are more likely to attain needed resources, whereas those with less developed causal agency experience fewer opportunities to access resources (Hawley 1999; Little et al. 2002). Thus, contextual factors interact with the pursuit of resources to meet biological needs that shape the development of personal agency. Essentially, as people are able to meet their biological needs, they learn the types of volitional and agentic actions that enable them to access needed resources. They learn that goals can be set and met, that they can influence their environment, and that their future efforts are likely to be successful (Hawley and Little 2002). This cyclical process is why biological (and psychological needs, discussed subsequently) are foundational elements to the development of causal agency and self-determination.

Of particular focus in this text, human agentic theories also assume that there are basic psychological needs —organismic necessities for psychological growth, integrity, and wellness—that shape the development of self-determination, result in autonomous motivation, and motivate causal action (volitional action, agentic action, and action control beliefs). As mentioned previously, Self-Determination Theory (see Chap. 4 for overview) describes three fundamental psychological needs: Competence, Relatedness, and Autonomy (Deci and Ryan 2002). Self-Determination Theory assumes that social contexts motivate human action to meet these basic psychological needs. The need for competence is defined as the need to successfully engage, manipulate, and negotiate the environment. The need for relatedness reflects the desire for close emotional bonds and feelings of connectedness to others in the social world. The need for autonomy reflects the need to feel that one’s actions are predicated on the self or volitional in nature (Vansteenkiste and Ryan 2013). These basic psychological needs serve as the “energizer of behavior” (Deci and Ryan 2012, p. 101) or, within this theoretical model of the development of self-determination, the autonomous motivation that energizes causal action.

A significant body of research has emerged documenting the efforts undertaken by individuals to address their need for autonomy (Deci et al. 1991; Vansteenkiste et al. 2012). Deci and Ryan (2012) observed that:

To be autonomous means to behave with a sense of volition, willingness, and congruence; it means to fully endorse and concur with the behavior on is engaged in. Autonomy—this capacity for and desire to experience self-regulation and integrity—is a central force within both the life span development of individuals and in the movement of history toward greater freedom and voice for citizens within cultures and governments.

In healthy individual development, people move in the direction of greater autonomy. This entails internalizing and integrating external regulations over behavior and learning to effectively manage drives and emotions. Additionally, it means maintaining intrinsic motivation and interest, which are vital to assimilating new ideas and experiences.” (p. 85).

As Deci (1996) noted, “without choice, there would be no agency, and no self-regulation” (p. 222). Autonomy is therefore understood as a critical need, and actions undertaken to address this need are critical to the development of a sense of causal agency and self-determination.

As organisms take action to meet these three basic psychological needs, this energizes the development of autonomous motivation, consisting of intrinsic motivation (doing an activity because it is enjoyable) and/or internalized extrinsic motivation (doing an activity because it leads to a valued consequence separate from the activity itself) (Deci and Ryan 2012, p. 88). The interaction between the organism’s efforts to meet basic psychological needs and the resultant autonomous motivation stimulates causal action, discussed in the next section.

Causal Action

While the self-system processes pertaining to psychological needs and autonomous motivation are detailed and explained by Self-Determination Theory, we turn, by and large, to Action-Control Theory (Chap. 22) and Causal Agency Theory (Chap. 5) to explain causal action and the development of causal agency leading to self-determination. As mentioned previously, human agentic theories assume that actions are volitional and that an agentic person uses causal actions to “plot and navigate a chosen course through the uncertainties and challenges of the social and ecological environments… continuously interpreting and evaluating actions and their consequences” (Little et al. 2002, p. 390). As discussed in Chap. 1 self-determined action is self-caused action. Organisms act volitionally and self-initiate action based upon conscious choices that reflect one’s preferences in pursuit of goals that enhance personal well-being. The interaction between causal action and the context or environment is complex, but in essence, reflects the organism’s response to opportunities or threats in the environment. As depicted in Fig. 2.2, these two classes of challenges to which the organism responds (opportunity or threat) are composed of three distinct contextual conditions. Opportunity refers to situations or circumstances that provoke the organism to engage in causal action to achieve a planned, desired outcome that is available because of the opportunity. Opportunity implies that the situation or circumstance provides a chance for the person to create change or make something happen based upon his or her individual causal capability (knowledge and abilities leading to volitional action, discussed subsequently). If a person has the causal capability to act on the situation or circumstance, that situation or circumstance can be construed as an opportunity. If the person is unable to act on the situation or circumstance because of limitations to causal capability, that may be a ‘missed opportunity.’ However, if the person has limited causal capability, the situation or circumstance is not an opportunity. An opportunity is definitionally bound to the person’s causal capability. Opportunities can be “found” (unanticipated, happened upon through no effort of one’s own) or “created” (the person acts to create a favorable circumstance).

Fig. 2.2
figure 2

Causal action schema

Full size image

The second challenge condition, threat, involve situations or circumstances that threaten the organism’s self-determination and provoke the organism to exercise causal action to maintain a preferred outcome or to create change that is consistent with one’s own values, preferences, or interests, and not the values, preferences or interests of others. The interplay between autonomous motivation and these challenge conditions is, as mentioned previously, complex. In the case of created opportunities, it is the organism’s autonomous motivation that directly motivates the effort to create the opportunity. In the case of found opportunities or threats, these contextual challenges emerge unsolicited by the organism, so that it is the context or the condition that triggers the autonomous motivation to take advantage of the opportunity or minimize the impact of the threat. In all cases, though, the emergence of these environmental and contextual conditions lead to the innervation of a set of action-control beliefs that mediate volitional and causal action.

Action-Control Theory

The interaction between the organism’s efforts to meet basic psychological needs and the resultant autonomous motivation and the environmental conditions of opportunity or threat stimulate causal action, beginning with “self-perceptions about the means and competencies one has to reach one’s goals” (Little et al. 2002, p. 396). These self-perceptions are articulated through Action-Control Theory as a set of action-control beliefs:

From this view point, the general agency system of individuals gives rise to a synergistic set of action-control beliefs and behaviors that provide the self-regulatory foundation that is called upon to negotiate the various tasks and challenges of the life course. More specifically, action-control theory focuses on the role of specific self-regulatory beliefs as mediators of motivated action (i.e., they are the proximal links to behavior). (Little, Hawley, Heinrich, & Marsland, 2002, p. 396).

These self-regulatory beliefs involve:

Control Expectancy Beliefs : Control expectancy beliefs “reflect the general expectations about the link between the self and the goal” (Little et al. 2006, p. 70); they reflect “the general perception of the degree to which a person feels that he or she can attain a given goal” (Little et al. 2002, p. 396).

Agency Beliefs: Agency beliefs “reflect the links between the self and the various means that they are relevant for attaining a chosen end” (Little et al. 2006; p. 71); they are “beliefs about whether these means are personally available for use” (Little et al. 2002, p. 396).

Causality Beliefs : Causality beliefs “reflect general views of the utility or usefulness of a given means such as efforts, luck, or ability for attaining a particular goal” (Little et al. 2006; p. 71); they are “judgments about which specific means are most effective for reaching one’s goals” (Little et al. 2002, p. 396).

Greater detail about these action-control beliefs can be found in subsequent chapters. Before moving to the operators involved in volitional and agentic action (as per Fig. 2.1), it is important to note that these interrelated action-control beliefs contribute jointly to the initiation of volitional action, but also contribute uniquely. Control expectancy beliefs are more generalized beliefs about one’s ability to set and attain goals, influencing both capacity and agency beliefs as well as the initiation of volitional action. Capacity beliefs contribute more directly to the initiation of volitional action (and specific causal capabilities), while agency beliefs contribute more directly to agentic action and the agentic capabilities that energize that action. Each of these is described in greater detail in the next section.

Causal Agency Theory

As will be detailed in Chap. 5 Causal Agency Theory specifies how one becomes self-determined. Within Causal Agency Theory, self-determination is defined as:

…dispositional characteristic manifested as acting as the causal agent in one’s life. Self-determined people (i.e., causal agents) act in service to freely chosen goals. Self-determined actions function to enable a person to be the causal agent is his or her life. (Shogren et al., 2015, p. 257)

Causal Agency Theory holds that self-determined action is characterized by three essential characteristics – volitional action , agentic action , and action-control beliefs . As has been discussed, the causal action sequence depicted in Fig. 2.2 begins with the organism’s response to (or attempt to create) environmental opportunities and threats, resulting in the stimulation of action-control beliefs. In turn, these beliefs mediate causal action in the form of volitional and agentic action.

Briefly, as per Causal Agency Theory, volitional action is defined as making conscious choices based on one’s preferences and engaging in self-initiated actions that promote autonomy. Agentic action refers to the process of identifying pathways that lead to specific ends and engaging in self-directing and self-regulating action to navigate environmental opportunities and threats. The primary operators in propelling volitional and agentic action involve the capability to perform causal actions or behaviors, subdivided into causal capability and agentic capability. Capability refers to the condition of being capable; that is, having requisite mental or physical capacity to accomplish a particular task. Two types of capabilities are important to causal agency; Causal Capability and Agentic Capability. These capabilities differentiate between the two aspects of causal action; (1) causing something to happen (e.g., Volitional Action) and (2) directing that action toward a preferred end (e.g., Agentic Action). As can be seen in Table 2.1, these capabilities provide an overarching theme for the skills and knowledge needed to develop and acquire in relation to the essential characteristics of Volitional Action and Agentic Action.

Table 2.1 Component elements of Causal Agency Theory
Full size table

Causal capability refers to the mental or physical capacity (e.g., the ability to perform an action or behavior) that enables a person to cause or make something happen. Such capacities include the skills and knowledge associated with making a choice or a decision, setting a goal, solving a problem, planning a course of action; the skills and behaviors that enable self-initiation and autonomous functioning and, as such, volitional action. However, we would emphasize that limitations to the number or complexity of such capacities that might otherwise hinder causal or agentic action can, in fact, be mitigated by a wide array of supports, including technological devices, social networks and supports, and so forth, thus enabling people who might otherwise not be able to perform requisite actions to, in fact, engage in causal action and become more self-determined.

Agentic capability, in turn, involves the mental or physical capacities involved in directing behavior toward an end. Such capacities include the skills and knowledge associated with self-management, goal attainment, problem solving, and self-advocacy; the skills and behaviors that enable self-regulation, self-direction, pathways thinking and, as such, agentic action.

Conclusion

Figure 2.1 introduced a theoretical model of the development of self-determination. This process involves the stimulation of action through the organism’s response to contextual and environmental challenges (opportunities, threats) that energize basic psychological needs and resultant autonomous motivation, stimulating a causal action sequence in which volitional and agentic actions are mediated by action-control beliefs, resulting in experiences of causal agency. Repeated experiences of causal agency result in enhanced self-determination. Though explained by three different theories (Self-Determination Theory, Action-Control Theory, Causal Agency Theory), all share the broad metatheoretical assumptions inherent within human agentic theories that organismic aspirations drive behavior, and that humans engage in goal-directed activity to meet basic biological and psychological needs, influenced by contextual and environmental challenges, and that, by learning to engage in volitional and agentic action and developing action-control beliefs, causal agency increases ultimately enhancing self-determination and the agentic self. The following chapters will provide more detail on specific theories and process that also influence the development of the agentic self.