The DOI matches its Crossref record.
We know this much is (meta-analytically) true: A meta-review of meta-analytic findings evaluating self-determination theory
Abstract
Self-determination theory (SDT) is a theoretical framework for addressing human motivation and wellness that has been actively and increasingly researched over four decades. As a cumulative knowledge base, many of SDT’s fundamental tenets have been repeatedly examined. We identified 60 meta-analyses that tested many of the propositions of SDT’s six mini-theories, other theory-based hypotheses, and SDT’s utility in applied domains. In this review we examine what these meta-analyses establish, highlighting the support they lend to the validity of SDT’s motivational taxonomy and its hypotheses regarding the respective effects of basic psychological need satisfaction and frustration on well-being and ill-being. Meta-analytic evidence also strongly supports the relevance of SDT for organizations, health care, parenting, and education among other domains, with identifiable gaps in the meta-analytic literature. We conclude by discussing the importance of broad theory and the use of meta-analytic knowledge as scaffolding for further theory and research, albeit with its own methodological limitations.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“Self-determination theory (SDT) is a theory of motivation that posits individuals are motivated in the most sustainable and healthy ways when they experience optimal levels of autonomy, competence and relatedness.21”
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 301–313 of 313
Rindermann, H. (2026) · Pertanika Journal of Quality of Life Studies · doi:10.47836/jqols.2026.1.1.009
Modeling Dropout Intentions in Sports Teams: Coach–Athlete and Peer Motivational Interdependence
Clerck, T. D., Haerens, L. L., Bouten, A., Lefever, E., & Loeys, T. (2026) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs16091589
“…motivation predicted continued team sport participation, while Zhang et al. (2022) identified intrinsic motivation as a medium-sized predictor of persistent sport behavior, patterns also supported by a comprehensive meta-review of SDT research across sport, education, and work (Ryan et al., 2022).”
Xie, S., & Albattat, A. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1705007
“The role of EL as a mediator highlights the impact of well-structured online learning resources in stimulating intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, which is consistent with the principles of SDT, where autonomy-supportive environments enhance motivation (Ryan et al., 2022).”
Back, J., Johnson, U., Svedberg, P., Visek, A. J., & Ivarsson, A. (2026) · International Journal of Sports Science & Coaching · doi:10.1177/17479541261485987
Zhu, H., & Shao, Q. (2026) · Systems · doi:10.3390/systems14091123 · Cited by 1
“Conversely, when these needs are frustrated, individuals may experience anxiety and job burnout [11,12].”
InfluentialIstijanović, L., Kopuz, D., & Lakić, N. (2026) · Zbornik radova Departmana za geografiju turizam i hotelijerstvo · doi:10.5937/zbdght2601054i
“…regulation, as both are characterised by a high degree of volition and choice, while for introjected and external regulation, in which externally controlled pressures influence the regulation of behaviour, the expression controlled motivation is used (Ryan & Deci, 2017; Ryan et al., 2022).”
Feng, S., Koch, M. J., & Carolus, A. (2026) · Computers in Human Behavior Artificial Humans · doi:10.1016/j.chbah.2026.100402
S, S. P., Samantaray, N. N., Basavarajappa, C., & Kumar, A. (2026) · The Journal of Psychology · doi:10.1080/00223980.2026.2731341
Blerk, V. V., & Beer, L. T. D. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1917631
“Employees who feel volitional in their actions (autonomy), capable of meeting demands (competence), and connected to others (relatedness) may be more likely to experience engagement as a fulfilling work-related state (Ryan and Deci, 2017; Van den Broeck et al., 2016; Ryan et al., 2022).”
Legitimacy and procedural justice: Where has all the procedure gone?
Herzog-Evans, M. (2026) · European Journal of Probation · doi:10.1177/20662203261493831
Escaping the AI cage: construction workers’ perceived risk with AI gives rise to unsafe behaviors
Li, T., Zhai, H., Guo, M., & Deng, J. (2026) · Safety Science · doi:10.1016/j.ssci.2026.107483
Need-Supply Misfit Management: Assessing Employees’ Propensity to Reduce Need-Supply Misfit at Work
Neumer, A., Partsch, F., Völker, J., & Sonnentag, S. (2026) · Occupational Health Science · doi:10.1007/s41542-026-00277-y
“Prior research suggests that fit is positively related to performance across cultural contexts (Oh et al., 2014 ) and that the positive relation - ship between need satisfaction and well-being is unaffected by cultural dimensions (Chen et al., 2015; Ryan et al., 2022 ).”
Metadata
- Authors
- Ryan, R. M., Duineveld, J. J., Di Domenico, S. I., Ryan, W. S., Steward, B. A., & Bradshaw, E. L.
- ORCID
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 2022-11
- Volume
- 148
- Issue
- 11-12
- Pages
- 813-842
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W4327660578
- Cited by
- 378
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 151 · 2025: 133 · 2024: 73 · 2023: 19
- FWCI
- 47.88
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
- PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Applied Psychology › Behavioral Health and Interventions
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
- Keywords
- self-determination theory, meta-review, evidence synthesis, motivation, autonomy, competence, relatedness
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
