Self Determination Theory

1
Self-determination theory
To guide our study, we build on self-determination theory (SDT) (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
SDT has been used in the marketing literature to study influencers (e.g. Ilicic et al.,
2016; Liu et al., 2015; Thomson, 2006), and in the entrepreneurship literature to study
entrepreneurial behaviour and motivations (e.g. Nikolaev et al., 2019; Shir et al., 2019),
many of which are relevant for influencers who act entrepreneurially to build their
‘human brand’ in a monetised social media attention economy (e.g. Ashman et al.,
2018; Campana et al., 2020).
Self-determination theory is a framework for the study of human motivation and
personality. The theory is based on three innate psychological needs: autonomy, compe-
tence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Autonomy refers to experiences of volition, i.e. it
represents an individual’s need to feel that their actions are self-directed. As such, auton-
omy involves acting from one’s integrated sense of self and reflects humans’ desire to self-
organise their experiences and behaviours to be congruent with that integrated self (Deci &
Ryan, 2000). Competence relates to the experience of effectiveness and mastery, and the
ability to engage in activities that use and extend a person’s skills and expertise. Relatedness
refers to the human need for connectedness with others, and feelings of being cared for.
SDT posits that the fulfilment of those three basic needs is essential for a person’s psycho-
logical growth, integrity, and well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2001). SDT is placed within the
organismic-dialectical tradition where people are seen as active and growth-oriented
organisms. Thus, the concept of self in SDT focuses on intrinsic activities/intrinsic motiva-
tion, where human beings are assumed to have innate tendencies to engage in activities
that help them refine their inner representation of themselves and the surrounding world
(Deci & Ryan, 2000). SDT emphasises the importance of peoples’ natural inclination towards
integration of their self, which includes both a unified sense of self (i.e. acting according to
their own volition, values, etc.) and integration into larger social structures. In SDT, to the
extent that the social environment provides nutriments for the satisfaction of the basic
needs of autonomy, competence and relatedness, individuals will experience positive
psychological functioning and well-being. Conversely, the inhibition of the fulfilment of
those needs in the social environment will lead to less-than-optimal functioning and well-
being.
In the marketing literature, building on SDT, Thomson (2006) argues that ‘human
brands’ (influencers) who are able to encourage basic human needs of autonomy,
relatedness, and competence among their followers cultivate the development of strong
attachment bonds to the influencer. Thomson’s results confirm that feelings of autonomy
and relatedness have a significant impact on consumers’ attachment, trust, and commit-
ment towards the influencer. Similarly, Ilicic et al. (2016) found support for the importance
of autonomy and relatedness in the interactions between consumers and ‘human brands’,
especially among younger consumers.
While extant research in marketing has examined how the tenets of SDT can affect
followers’ daily lives and aspects leading to well-being (e.g. autonomy, relatedness), and
consequently the success of influencer marketing campaigns, less attention has been
devoted to influencers’ experiences of autonomy, competence, and relatedness while
exercising the labour of influencer marketing. Both in and out of the marketing field,
scholars have problematised the supposedly democratising effects of influencer market-
2
ing, pointing to the necessarily market-driven and self-promotional aspects of the work of
influencers, as opposed to the desire for autonomy and authenticity (e.g. Arriagada &
Bishop, 2021; Duffy, 2015; Ferguson et al., 2021). A neoliberal market logic can impose
a ‘sense of straitjacketing’ (Ashman et al., 2018, p. 480) requiring influencers to follow
prescribed norms if they are to be ‘successful’ by the measures of the attention economy,
which can have an impact on their emotional state and feelings of well-being. Scholars
have also highlighted the constraining self-monitoring (and peer-driven surveillance)
aspects of social media and apps, especially with regard to the female body commodifica-
tion (Elias & Gill, 2018; Ferguson et al., 2021; Lupton, 2016) and how influencers are
involved in shifting cultural norms around body ‘management’ and marketisation
(Drenten et al., 2020). Instead of autonomy and agency, the marketplace can lead them
to a misplaced sense of empowerment (Ferguson et al., 2021; Rome & Lambert, 2020).
Such self-monitoring and straitjacketing based on the rules of the neoliberal marketplace,
inevitably conflict with feelings of autonomy, and alter the way influencers interact and
relate to their audiences (Ashman et al., 2018), and as such can affect their well-being.
Influencer marketing is a demanding and competitive job, as influencers compete for
attention and followers that they can monetise via brand sponsorships (Abidin, 2016).
A study of a thousand influencers with 50,000+ followers found that on average, they
spend 9 hours 2 minutes per day on their mobile device (Austen, 2020). Depending on the
platform and the number of followers, an influencer can earn several thousand dollars per
sponsored post (Hadouni, 2021). At the same time, although influencers act as digital
‘microentrepreneurs’ involved in content production and ‘human brand’ creation, their
labour is still largely insecure and unregulated (O’Meara, 2019). All of this can have
a profound impact on influencers’ self-perceptions, and their well-being. This situation
was further complicated by the COVID-19 pandemic during which uncertainty and chan-
ging rules of engagement were a part of daily life. As such, to inform our study, we used
SDT to guide us in several ways. First, the theory informed our interview guide with
influencers. During the interviews, we included questions about the relationship between
their role as an influencer and other aspects of their life (e.g. being an entrepreneur,
a mom), as well as how their well-being has been affected and whether or not they
perceive changes in how they projected their persona and their role as an influencer
during the pandemic. Second, during the interview data analysis, following an iterative
process of going back and forth between data and existing literature, the theory helped
refine our conceptual categories emerging from the data (Glaser et al., 1968). Third, the
theory also informed our netnographic analysis by providing a lens to juxtapose the
narratives of the text and the images accompanying the text, by focusing our attention on
the tensions and contradictions of trying to project an image that is both ‘marketable’ and
authentic, while maintaining a feeling of autonomy and relatedness.

Self Determination Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Self Determination Theory

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Self Determination Theory

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

1

You might also like