causal agency theory: reconceptualizing a functional model of

Causal Agency Theory:Reconceptualizing a Functional Model of Self-Determination

Karrie A. Shogren, Michael L. Wehmeyer, Susan B. Palmer, andAnjali J. Forber-Pratt

University of Kansas

Todd J. LittleTexas Tech University

Shane LopezClifton Strengths Institute and

University of Kansas

Abstract: This paper introduces Causal Agency Theory, an extension of the functional model of self-determi-nation. Causal Agency Theory addresses the need for interventions and assessments pertaining to self-determination for all students and incorporates the significant advances in understanding of disability and inthe field of positive psychology since the introduction of the functional model of self-determination. CausalAgency Theory provides a theoretical framework for developing and enhancing supports to enable youth toengage in agentic action through instruction in goal setting and attainment strategies, to influence self-determination, causal agency, and overall well-being across diverse social-contextual contexts.

In the December 1992 issue of (the then-named) Education and Training in Mental Re-tardation, Wehmeyer introduced what eventu-ally came to be referred to as the “functionalmodel of self-determination,” and discussedits application to students with intellectual dis-ability (Wehmeyer, 1992, 1999). That article(and the functional model) was one of theoutcomes of a U.S. Department of Education,Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP)model demonstration project that was one ofmore than 25 such projects funded by OSEPbetween 1990 and 1996 (Ward & Kohler,1996).

Prior to the OSEP model demonstrationproject initiative, there were only two refer-ences to self-determination and students withdisabilities in the literature. In 1972, Swedishphilosopher Bengt Nirje published a chapterin a text on the Normalization Principle(Wolfensberger, 1972) titled The Right to Self-Determination, which discussed the humanrights basis for supporting people with intel-lectual disability to make decisions about and

be actively involved in their lives. In 1986, Deciand Chandler published an article discussingthe importance of internal motivation (basedupon Self-Determination Theory, discussedbriefly in a subsequent section) to studentswith learning disabilities. The OSEP initiativeand a parallel competition (1992–1994) fund-ing five projects to develop assessments of self-determination served as the catalyst for a focuson promoting self-determination for studentswith disabilities during the transition process.

Much in special education and psychologyhas changed since 1990 when those initialself-determination model demonstration proj-ects were funded, including the emergence ofthe discipline of positive psychology and astrengths-based focus on understanding dis-ability, the former of which includes a focuson self-determination and the latter in whichself-determination plays a leading role. Giventhese changes, discussed subsequently, in theintervening quarter century, we believe it istime to revisit how self-determination is con-ceptualized and defined in the context of theeducation of students with (and without) dis-abilities. We begin with a brief summary ofself-determination, the functional model andits iterative changes over time, and how self-determination is currently conceptualized in

Correspondence concerning this article shouldbe addressed to Karrie A. Shogren, University ofKansas, 1200 Sunnyside Ave., Rm. 3136, Lawrence,KS 66045. E-mail: [email protected]

Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 2015, 50(3), 251–263© Division on Autism and Developmental Disabilities

Reconceptualizing Self-Determination / 251

mailto:[email protected]

research and practice in special education andin positive psychology. We then articulate thereasons for a reconceptualization of the func-tional model and describe the parameters un-der which such a reconceptualization shouldoccur. Finally, we propose Causal Agency The-ory as a way to understand self-determinationthat addresses the reasons for a reconceptual-ization.

Self-Determination and the FunctionalModel of Self-Determination

What is Self-Determination?

Self-determination is a noun referring eitherto the determination of one’s own fate orcourse of action (a personal sense of theterm) or to the rights of nations or groups ofpeople to autonomy and self-governance(American Heritage Dictionary, 1992). Thelatter is the most common use of the term inthe modern era, but the former is the oldestand, for our purposes, the most relevant. Itrefers, in some sense, to a quality or charac-teristic within a person who determines his orher own fate or course of action. The personalsense of the term emerged from the philo-sophical doctrine of determinism, which sug-gests that all action (including human behav-ior) is in some way “caused.” In the early 20th

century, as psychology emerged as a disciplinedistinct from philosophy, the notion of self-determinism was coopted to begin to under-stand personality development. Angyal(1941), in proposing the foundations for ascience of personality, suggested that an essen-tial feature of a living organism is its auton-omy, where autonomous means self-governingor governed from inside. According to Angyal,an organism “lives in a world in which thingshappen according to laws which are heteron-omous (e.g., governed from outside) from thepoint of view of the organism” (p. 33). Auton-omous-determinism, or as it subsequently be-came, self-determination, refers to self- versusother-caused action.

The Functional Model of Self-Determination

Wehmeyer (1992) canvassed the psychologi-cal and educational literature to propose aninitial definition of self-determination for use

in special education, suggesting that self-de-termination “refers to the attitudes and abili-ties required to act as the primary causal agentin one’s life and to make choices regardingone’s actions free from undue external influ-ence or interference” (p. 305). Wehmeyer rea-soned that self-determination involves “auton-omy (acting according to one’s own prioritiesor principles), self-actualization (the full de-velopment of one’s unique talents and poten-tials) and self-regulation (cognitive or self-controlled mediation of one’s behavior)”(1992; p. 395). The notion of causal agencyreflected the links of the constructs to deter-minism: people who are causal agents are peo-ple who make or cause things to happen intheir lives, rather than others (or otherthings) making them act in certain ways.

In 1996, Wehmeyer, Kelchner, and Rich-ards published an empirical evaluation ofwhat by then had become known as the func-tional model of self-determination which pro-vided both a refinement of the definition anda theoretical structure within which the devel-opment of the construct could be framed.This was called the “functional” model of self-determination because one could not defineself-determination in a response-class manner(e.g., by a list of specific behaviors), but in-stead had to consider the “function” that theaction served for the person. Self-determina-tion, at this juncture, was defined as “acting asthe primary causal agent in one’s life andmaking choices and decisions regarding one’squality of life free from undue external influ-ence or interference” (p. 632).

The current iteration of the definitionshares much with the Wehmeyer (1992) ver-sion, but moved toward a more action-ori-ented focus . . . self-determination is “acting”as the primary causal agent in one’s life. Peo-ple who acted in such a way---that is, to becausal agents in their lives---were said to havethe dispositional characteristic (e.g., an ongo-ing quality or characteristic of the person) ofself-determination. The notion of causalagency remained at the heart of the defini-tion, and in many ways, the second half of thedefinition in both 1992 and 1996 (e.g., . . .making choices and decision regarding . . .etc.) simply was intended to more explicitlydefine what it meant to be a causal agent,since that term was not as widely understood

252 / Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities-September 2015

at that time. Further, Wehmeyer and col-leagues (1996) conducted a series of discrim-inant function analyses that identified four“essential characteristics” of self-determinedbehavior: autonomous functioning, self-regu-lation, psychological empowerment, and self-realization. As the term “essential” suggests, tobe self-determined, one had to act autono-mously, self-regulate behavior, and act from abasis of psychological empowerment and self-realization. These essential characteristics be-came the domains that were measured by TheArc’s Self-Determination Scale (Wehmeyer &Kelchner, 1995), which operationalized thefunctional model’s structure to measure per-sonal self-determination.

In 2005, Wehmeyer addressed ongoing is-sues that were impacting the understanding(or misunderstanding) of the self-determina-tion construct, particularly as it pertained topeople with more severe intellectual impair-ments. By and large, people with the mostextensive support needs were deemed not tobe able to be self-determined because theterm was interpreted to mean having controlover one’s life. What was missing from discus-sions in the field up to that point, Wehmeyerargued, was the importance of self-determina-tion as volitional action; where volition refersto the act of making a conscious choice. Thus,he proposed a refinement to the functionalmodel’s definition of self-determination, sug-gesting that self-determined behavior “refersto volitional actions that enable one to act asthe primary causal agent in one’s life and tomaintain or improve one’s quality of life” (p.117). Again, this refinement emphasizes therole of acting and, in this iteration, the factthat one acts volitionally as a causal agent.

As noted previously, the functional modelhas been empirically validated (Shogren et al.,2008; Wehmeyer et al., 1996); operationalizedby the development of an assessment linked tothe theory (Wehmeyer & Kelchner, 1995);served as the foundation for intervention de-velopment, particularly with regard to the de-velopment of the Self-Determined Learning Modelof Instruction and related efforts (Shogren,Palmer, Wehmeyer, Williams-Diehm, & Little,2012; Wehmeyer, Palmer, Agran, Mithaug, &Martin, 2000; Wehmeyer et al., 2012); andprovided impetus for a variety of research ac-tivities (see Wehmeyer et al., 2007).

Self-Determination in Special Education

Since the introduction of the self-determinationconstruct to special education through theOSEP model demonstration initiative and earlypublications such as Wehmeyer (1992), promot-ing the self-determination of adolescents withdisabilities has become a best practice in second-ary education and transition services (Field,Martin, Miller, Ward, & Wehmeyer, 1998;Shogren, 2013a; Wehmeyer, Abery, Mithaug, &Stancliffe, 2003; Wehmeyer et al., 2007) for sev-eral reasons. Before recounting these, it is worthnoting that this article focuses on revisions andreconceptualizations to the functional model ofself-determination, but we would be remiss if wedid not acknowledge that the theoretical andintervention frameworks of Abery, Field, Martin,Mithaug, and Powers, among others (see Weh-meyer et al., 2003), have contributed signifi-cantly to establishing the importance of self-determination to youth with disabilities.

First, self-determination status has beenlinked to the attainment of more positive aca-demic (Konrad, Fowler, Walker, Test, & Wood,2007; Fowler, Konrad, Walker, Test, & Wood,2007; Lee, Wehmeyer, Soukup, & Palmer, 2010;Shogren et al., 2012) and transition outcomes,including more positive employment and inde-pendent living (Martorell, Gutierrez-Rechacha,Pereda, & Ayuso-Mateos, 2008; Shogren, Weh-meyer, Palmer, Rifenbark, & Little, in press; We-hmeyer & Palmer, 2003; Wehmeyer & Schwartz,1997) and recreation and leisure outcomes(McGuire & McDonnell, 2008), and more pos-itive quality of life and life satisfaction (Weh-meyer & Schwartz, 1998; Lachapelle et al., 2005;Nota, Ferrari, Soresi, & Wehmeyer, 2007;Shogren, Lopez, Wehmeyer, Little, & Press-grove, 2006).

Second, research across special educationdisability categories has established the needfor intervention to promote self-determina-tion (Shogren, Kennedy, Dowsett, & Little, inpress) documenting that students with intel-lectual disability (Wehmeyer & Metzler,1995), learning disabilities (Field, 1996; Field,Sarver, & Shaw, 2003; Pierson, Carter, Lane, &Glaeser, 2008), emotional and behavioral dis-orders (Carter, Lane, Pierson, & Glaeser,2006; Pierson et al., 2008) and autism (Chou,Palmer, Wehmeyer, & Lee, 2013; Wehmeyer &


Shogren, 2008) are less self-determined thantheir non-disabled peers.

Third, there is clear evidence that if pro-vided adequate instruction, students with dis-abilities can become more self-determined. Ina meta-analysis of single subject and groupsubject design studies, Algozzine, Browder,Karvonen, Test, and Wood (2001) found evi-dence for the efficacy of instruction to pro-mote component elements of self-determinedbehavior, including interventions to promoteself-advocacy, goal setting and attainment,self-awareness, problem-solving skills, and de-cision-making skills. Cobb, Lehmann, New-man-Gonchar, and Morgan (2009) conducteda narrative metasynthesis---a narrative synthe-sis of multiple meta-analytic studies---coveringseven existing meta-analyses examining self-determination and concluded that there issufficient evidence to support the promotionof self-determination as effective. Also, re-search documents the positive impact of ef-forts to promote student involvement in edu-cational and transition planning (Martin etal., 2006; Mason, Field, & Sawilowsky, 2004;Test et al., 2004) and more positive transitionoutcomes and self-determination (Williams-Diehm, Wehmeyer, Palmer, Soukup, & Gar-ner, 2008).

Recently, researchers at the University ofKansas (Wehmeyer, Palmer, Shogren, Wil-liams-Diehm, & Soukup, 2012) conducted arandomized trial control group study of theeffect of interventions to promote self-deter-mination in high school students receivingspecial education services under the categori-cal areas of intellectual disability and learningdisabilities. Students in the treatment group(n � 235) received instruction using a varietyof instructional methods to promote self-de-termination and student involvement in edu-cational planning meetings over three years---which will be detailed in a subsequentsection---while students in the control group(n � 132) received no such intervention. Theself-determination of each student was mea-sured using two instruments, The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale (Wehmeyer & Kelchner,1995) and the AIR Self-Determination Scale(Wolman, Campeau, Dubois, Mithaug, & Sto-larski, 1994) across three measurement inter-vals (Baseline, After 2 Years of Intervention,After 3 Years of Intervention). Using latent

growth curve analysis, Wehmeyer and col-leagues (2012) found that students with cog-nitive disabilities who participated in interven-tions to promote self-determination over athree-year period showed significantly morepositive patterns of growth in their self-deter-mination scores than did students not ex-posed to interventions to promote self-deter-mination.

Subsequently, in a follow-up study of thetreatment and control group students fromWehmeyer et al. (2012), Shogren et al. (inpress) investigated adult outcomes one andtwo years after leaving school. The study mea-sured employment, community access, finan-cial independence, independent living, andlife satisfaction outcomes. Results indicatedthat self-determination status at the end ofhigh school predicted significantly more pos-itive employment, career goal, and commu-nity access outcomes. Students who were self-determined were significantly higher in all ofthese areas. These two studies provided causalevidence that promoting self-determinationresults in enhanced self-determination, andthat enhanced self-determination results inmore positive adult outcomes, including em-ployment and community inclusion. A recentrandomized-trial study by Powers et al. (2012)also provided causal evidence of the effect ofpromoting self-determination on communityinclusion.

One could argue, and we would be inclinedto do so, that we know as much about theimportance of promoting self-determinationas any transition-related topic. It is with this inmind, then, that we describe the reasons for areconceptualization of how we understand theself-determination construct.

Reasons for Reconceptualizing theFunctional Model of Self-Determination

Given the aforementioned evidence of the im-portance of promoting self-determination andthe efficacy of the functional model to driveresearch, assessment development, and inter-vention design and evaluation, one mightquestion why a reconceptualization is needed.As should be evident from the previously de-scribed changes over time in how self-determi-nation has been defined and operationalizedwithin the functional model, conceptualizing


a complex construct like self-determination isnot a static process: It is a process that isimpacted by research on the construct, thecontext in which the construct is hypothesizedto exert its effects, and changing understand-ings of human behavior. We have a number ofreasons that we have chosen to revisit thefunctional model at this point in time, butperhaps most importantly has been the emer-gence of the discipline of positive psychology.Positive psychology involves the pursuit of un-derstanding optimal human functioning andwell-being and a prominent construct in pos-itive psychology is self-determination (Ryan &Deci, 2000). As described subsequently, re-search in self-determination in positive psy-chology has focused on the construct in thecontext of motivational psychology, and whileresearch and theory in self-determination inspecial education was derived from Deci andRyan’s early work, most of the theoretical per-spectives within special education have fo-cused more broadly on self-determination as,in essence, a personality construct and lessspecifically on motivational aspects pertainingto self-determination.

Additionally, how disability itself is under-stood is changing, and those changes are af-fecting practice in the field, including specialeducation practices. These changing under-standings of disability are strengths-based andfocus on improving the fit between the per-son’s capacities and the demands of the envi-ronment or context (Shogren, 2013b). It willbe of benefit if issues pertaining to self-deter-mination and students with disabilities areseen through the lens of these strengths-basedconceptualizations, and to achieve this, weneed a common language and understandingbetween the use of the self-determination con-struct in both special education and positivepsychology. The functional model was devel-oped incorporating knowledge from earlywork in motivational psychology and sharescommon understandings of self-determina-tion as a construct, but there is a need toreconsider the ways in which the construct isconceptualized within a functional model tobetter align with research and practice in pos-itive psychology.

Not only is there a need to align with re-search and practice in positive psychology, butalso the knowledge about issues relevant to

self-determination has exploded as the field ofpositive psychology has begun to investigateconstructs such as optimism, hope, well-being, lifestyle satisfaction, and so forth.Knowledge exists today in areas relevant toself-determination that simply didn’t exist inthe early 1990s and a reconceptualization ofthe functional model would benefit from thatprogress. Further, the functional model con-ceptualizes self-determination within a per-son-environment interaction framework, so itis relevant to the social-ecological approachesprevalent in positive psychology.

Further, the context in which special edu-cation “happens” has changed dramaticallyover the past quarter century. With the em-phasis on inclusive practices, access to the gen-eral education curriculum, and multi-tieredsystems of supports, there is a need to designand test interventions for students with dis-abilities within the context of school-wide in-terventions that focus on all students. Indeed,all students can benefit from interventions topromote self-determination and interventionsdeveloped through the auspices of the func-tional model, particularly the Self-DeterminedLearning Model of Instruction, discussed previ-ously, are applicable for all students and asschool-wide interventions. To evaluate the ef-ficacy of such interventions, however, we needmeasures that are not disability-specific. Just asthe OSEP self-determination model demon-stration projects served as a catalyst to thedevelopment of the functional model in theearly 1990s, so too is a similar event providingimpetus for us to revisit the functional mo-del’s conceptualization. Specifically, we areengaged in the development of a new assess-ment of self-determination that will, impor-tantly, be normed with adolescents and youngadults with and without disabilities and there-fore, can be used to measure the efficacy ofinterventions for all students in schools.

The confluence of a need for interventionsand assessments pertaining to self-determina-tion for all students and the expansion ofknowledge in the field of positive psychologyalong with the opportunity to develop a newassessment to meet this need has led us torevisit the functional model. In doing so, how-ever, we sought to retain the basic understand-ing and framework of the functional model,so as not to abandon the progress using the


model to this point. In 2006, Wehmeyer andMithuag proposed “Causal Agency Theory” asa means to move beyond simply conceptualiz-ing the self-determination construct, and tobetter understand how a person becomes self-determined. Given the centrality of casualagency to the functional model, we have com-bined aspects of the original version of CausalAgency Theory with the framework of thefunctional model of self-determination to pro-pose Causal Agency Theory as an extensionand revision of the functional model. This isdescribed in the following section.

Causal Agency Theory: AReconceptualization of theFunctional Model of Self-Determination

Causal agency theory conceptualizes self-de-termination as a general psychological con-struct within the organizing structure of theo-ries of human agentic behavior. Humanagentic theories “share the meta-theoreticalview that organismic aspirations drive humanbehaviors” (Little, Snyder, & Wehmeyer, 2006,p. 61). An organismic perspective views peo-ple as active contributors to, or agents of, theirbehavior. An agentic person is the “origin ofhis or her actions, has high aspirations, perse-veres in the face of obstacles, sees more andvaried options for action, learns from failures,and overall, has a greater sense of well-being”(Little, Hawley, Henrich, & Marsland, 2002, p.390). An agentic person engages in self-regu-lated and goal-directed action, they “plot andnavigate a chosen course through the uncer-tainties and challenges of the social and eco-logical environments . . . continuously inter-preting and evaluating actions and theirconsequences” (Little et al., 2002, p. 390).This continually evolving and actively moni-tored self-system gives rise to a sense of per-sonal agency, or of the agentic self. The agen-tic self has a “sense of personal empowerment,which involves both knowing and having whatit takes to achieve one’s goals” (Little et al.,2002, p. 390). Figure 1, which will be refer-enced throughout this section, represents thisconceptualization of the agentic self as thehighest “layer” of human agency.

Unlike stimulus-response accounts of be-havior, human agentic action is understood tobe: (a) motivated by biological and psycholog-

ical needs; (b) directed toward self-regulatedgoals; (c) propelled by understandings ofagents, means, and ends, and (d) triggered bycontexts that provide supports and opportu-nities, as well as hindrances and impediments(Wehmeyer, Little, & Sergeant, 2009). An or-ganismic approach to self-determination re-quires an explicit focus on the interface be-tween the self and context (Little et al., 2002).Organisms influence and are influenced bythe contexts in which they live and develop. Itis within this person-context interaction thatpeople become agents of their own action orcausal agents over their lives. This context isrepresented in Figure 1, as the socio-contex-tual supports and opportunities and threatsand impediments that are influencers of andinfluenced by the layers of human agency.

Foundations for Causal Agency Theory

Self-determination in philosophy. As notedpreviously, the self-determination construct’sorigins lie in the philosophical doctrines ofdeterminism and free will. Determinism is thephilosophical doctrine positing that events,such as human behavior, are effects of preced-ing causes. Free will is conceptualized as thehuman capacity to act (or not) as we chooseor prefer, without external compulsion or re-straint. According to philosophers like JohnLocke, though, human behavior can be bothcaused and free, as long as the distinction ismade between the agent, as actor, and theaction, as caused. That is, a person (the agent)is free to act or not, as one chooses, even if theaction itself is caused by some deterministicfactor.

Self-determination in personality psychology. InFoundations for a Science of Personality (1941),Angyal proposed that an essential feature ofa living organism is its autonomy, whereautonomous means self-governing or gov-erned from inside. According to Angyal, anorganism “lives in a world in which thingshappen according to laws which are heter-onomous (e.g., governed from outside)from the point of view of the organism” (p.33), and that “organisms are subjected tothe laws of the physical world, as is any otherobject of nature, with the exception that itcan oppose self-determination to externaldetermination” (p. 33).


Angyal (1941) suggested that the science ofpersonality is the study of two essential determi-nants to human behavior, autonomous-deter-minism (self-determination) and heterono-mous-determinism (other-determined). Angyalplaced primary importance for laying the foun-dation for a science of personality in the factthat a central process of an organism is themovement toward autonomous determination,noting that “without autonomy, without self-gov-ernment, the life process could not be under-stood” (p. 34).

Self-determination in motivational psychology.The most visible application of self-determina-tion as a psychological construct has been Self-Determination Theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan,2002), which integrates conceptualizations ofinnate human tendencies, social contexts, andmotivators for human action to illustrate howcongruence between one’s basic needs andsocial contexts spur personal agency that, ul-timately, results in improved overall well-be-ing. Specifically, SDT proposed three basic

psychological needs---competence, autonomy,and relatedness---that are either supported orchallenged by social contexts (see Little et al.,2002, for a discussion of how these psycholog-ical needs mesh with evolutionary-based bio-logical needs). These basic psychological andbiological needs are represented as the foun-dation in Figure 1, as meeting these basicneeds is necessary to progress to the otherlayers of human agency and to improve over-all well-being, one of the key outcomes andinfluences of the layers of human agency,demonstrated on the right side of Figure 1.

SDT research has demonstrated that socialenvironments can facilitate or create barriersto the integration of these psychologicalneeds, which can help or harm overall well-being (Ryan & Deci, 2000). This perspectiveviews the process of self-regulation as an orga-nizational function that “coordinates” sys-temic behaviors and serves as a foundation forautonomy and the sense of self (Ryan & Deci,2004). Essentially, SDT holds that people’s

Figure 1. The multiple layers of human agency.


basic needs for competence, autonomy, andrelatedness drive them toward action, andwhen environments are supportive of suchaction, overall well-being is improved.

Causal Agency Theory

Drawing on the foundational understandingof self-determination as (a) self-caused actionfrom philosophy, (b) a central process of anorganism in the movement toward autono-mous determination, from personality psy-chology, and (c) motivated by the basic psy-chological needs of competence, autonomy,and relatedness from SDT, we propose CausalAgency Theory to explain how people becomeself-determined, that is how they define theactions and beliefs necessary to engage in self-caused, autonomous action that addresses ba-sic psychological needs. Causal Agency Theoryrepresents the “layers” of human agency thatfall in between the drive to meet basic psycho-logical and biological needs and the agenticself. This is represented in the four shadedcircles in Figure 1. Causal agency (top rightbox) is the outcome (and an influencer) ofthe agentic self, and there are three essentialcharacteristics that lead to causal agency: voli-tional action, agentic action, and action-con-trol beliefs (shaded boxes in the middle of thelayers of human agency). We argue that it is atthe level of promoting volitional action, agen-tic action, and action-control beliefs throughwhich instructional and environmental sup-ports can be created to promote the growth ofcausal agency and ultimately the agentic self.

Definition of Self-Determination

Within the context of Causal Agency Theory,which represents specific layers of humanagency, we define self-determination as a

. . . dispositional characteristic manifestedas 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 per-son to be the causal agent is his or her life.

Key Terms and Assumptions

Dispositional characteristic. A dispositionalcharacteristic is an enduring tendency used to

characterize and describe differences betweenpeople; it refers to a tendency to act or thinkin a particular way, but presumes contextualvariance (i.e., socio-contextual supports andopportunities and threats and impediments).As a dispositional characteristic, self-determi-nation can be measured, and variance will beobserved across individuals and within individ-uals over time, particularly as the contextchanges (e.g., supports and opportunities areprovided for self-determined action).

Causal agency. Broadly defined, causalagency implies that it is the individual whomakes or causes things to happen in his or herlife. Causal agency implies more, however,than just causing action; it implies that theindividual acts with an eye toward causing aneffect to accomplish a specific end or to cause orcreate change. Self-determined actions enable aperson to act as a causal agent.

Self-caused action vs. control. Organismictheories differentiate between self-determina-tion as self-caused action and self-determina-tion as controlling one’s behavior. As Deci(2004) observed, “the concept of personalcontrol . . . refers to having control over out-comes” (p. 23). Control is defined as “author-ity, power, or influence over events, behaviors,situations, or people” (VandenBos, 2007, p.228). Self-determined action does not implycontrol over events or outcomes. Instead itrefers to the degree to which action is self-caused; that is the degree to which behavior isvolitional and agentic, driven by beliefs aboutthe relationships between actions (or means)and ends.

Essential Characteristics of Self-Determined Actions

Self-determined action is characterized bythree essential characteristics – volitional ac-tion, causal action, and action-control beliefs.These essential characteristics refer not tospecific actions performed or the beliefs thatdrive action, but to the function the actionserves for the individual; that is, whether theaction enabled the person to act as a causalagent:

Volitional Action. Self-determined peopleact volitionally. Volition refers to making aconscious choice based upon one’s prefer-ences. Conscious choice implies intention-


ality; self-determined actions are intention-ally conceived, deliberate acts that occurwithout direct external influence. As such,volitional actions are self-initiated and func-tion to enable a person to act autonomously(i.e., engage in self-governed action). Voli-tional actions involve the initiation and ac-tivation of causal capabilities---the capacityto cause something to happen---and some-thing to happen in one’s life.Agentic Action. An agent is someone whoacts; a means by which something is done orachieved. Agency refers to self-directed ac-tion in the service of a goal. Self-determinedpeople act to identify pathways that lead toa specific ends or cause or create change.The identification of pathways, or pathwaysthinking, is a proactive, purposive process.As such, agentic actions are self-regulatedand self-directed. Such actions function toenable a person to make progress towardfreely chosen goals and to respond to op-portunities and challenges in their environ-ments. Such actions involve agentic capabil-ities - the capacity to direct action to achievean outcome.Action-Control Beliefs. Self-determinedpeople have a sense of personal empower-ment; they believe they have what it takes toachieve freely chosen goals. There are threetypes of action-control beliefs: beliefs aboutthe link between the self and the goal (con-trol expectancy; “When I want to do ____, Ican”); beliefs about the link between theself and the means for achieving the goal(capacity beliefs; “I have the capabilities todo _____”); and beliefs about the utility orusefulness of a given means for attaining agoal (causality beliefs; “I believe my effortwill lead to goal achievement” vs. “I believeother factors – luck, access to teachers orsocial capital – will lead to goal achieve-ment”). Positive action-control beliefs func-tion to enable a person to act with self-awareness and self-knowledge in anempowered, goal-directed manner.

Socio-Contextual Influences

People who are causal agents respond to chal-lenges (opportunities or threats) to their self-determination by employing causal and agen-tic actions, supported by action-control

beliefs. This leads to self-determined actionthat allows them to initiate and direct theirbehavior to achieve a desired change or main-tain a preferred circumstance or situation. Inresponse to challenges, causal agents use aniterative goal generation process leading to theidentification and prioritization of needed ac-tions. The person frames the most urgent ac-tion need in terms of a goal state, and engagesin a goal discrepancy analysis to compare cur-rent status with goal status. The outcome ofthis analysis is a goal-discrepancy problem to besolved. The person then engages in a capacity-challenge discrepancy analysis in which capacityto solve the goal discrepancy problem is eval-uated. The person maximizes adjustment incapacity (e.g., acquires new or refines existingskills and knowledge) or adjusts the challengepresented to create a “just-right match” be-tween capacity and challenge to optimize theprobability of solving the goal discrepancyproblem.

Next, the person creates a discrepancy re-duction plan by setting causal expectations,making choices and decisions about strategiesto reduce the discrepancy between the cur-rent status and goal status. When sufficienttime has elapsed, the person engages in asecond goal discrepancy analysis, using infor-mation gathered through self-monitoring toself-evaluate progress toward reducing the dis-crepancy between current and goal status. Ifprogress is satisfactory, they will continue im-plementing the discrepancy reduction plan. Ifnot, the person either reconsiders the discrep-ancy reduction plan and modifies that or re-turns to the goal generation process to re-examine the goal and its priority and, possibly,cycle through the process with a revised ornew goal. This process can be explicitlytaught, and becomes increasingly internalizedwith repeated opportunities to engage in self-determined action.

Development of Self-Determination

Self-determination develops across the lifespan, emerging as adolescents develop andacquire multiple, interrelated skills, referredto as component elements of self-determinedaction that enable the expression of the essen-tial characteristics, including learning to makechoices and express preferences, solve prob-


lems, engage in making decisions, set and at-tain goals, self-manage and self-regulate ac-tion, self-advocate, and acquire self-awarenessand self-knowledge.

Self-determination is also an important con-tributor to the individuation process duringadolescent development. Individuation refersto the process of moving from being primarilydependent upon others (for a child, typicallyhis or her family), to being primarily depen-dent upon oneself; the “physiological, psycho-logical, and sociocultural processes by which aperson attains status as an individual humanbeing and exerts him- or herself as such in theworld” (VandenBos, 2007; p. 477).

Layers of the Agentic Self

To summarize, self-determination is a generalpsychological construct within the organizingstructure of theories of human agentic behav-ior. Figure 1 describes the multiple layers ofhuman agency described through this paperand their reciprocal influence on each other.The agentic self is the overarching layer. Basicpsychological and biological needs representa foundational layer as the motivation to meetthese needs promotes overall well-being andalso creates the conditions for volitional ac-tion, agentic action, and action-control beliefswhich define self-determined action, lead tocausal agency, and ultimately the develop-ment of the agentic self. Within Causal AgencyTheory, the expression and development ofthe three essential characteristics of self-deter-mined action are shaped by socio-contextualsupports and opportunities and threats and

impediments and people use a goal generationprocess and goal discrepancy analysis to identifythe component elements that must be used toenable self-determined action.

The motivation to address basic psycholog-ical and biological needs described in SDTalso influences each of these essential charac-teristics as well as responses to socio-contex-tual supports and opportunities and threatsand impediments. As people have opportuni-ties to engage self-determined action, they be-come causal agents, which then influence thedegree to which basic needs are met and over-all well-being flourishes. Together, each ofthese elements leads to the overall agenticself. Figure 1 both organizes these patterns ofrelationships but also demonstrates the thatreciprocal influence of each of these layers ofhuman agency on the agentic self, and eventhe relationship of the agentic self, with eachof the elements that contribute to it. Further,it highlights how Causal Agency Theory andthe elements associated with it can be used topromote causal agency by creating opportuni-ties for people to learn and use skills associ-ated with self-determined action (the compo-nent elements of Causal Agency Theory). Forexample, as youth learn to engage in agenticaction through instruction in goal setting andattainment strategies, this will likely influencenot only their agentic actions and causalagency, but also overall well-being, as thesebeliefs lead to increases in the ability to meetbasic psychological needs described by SDT.Further, they may also have greater access tosupports and opportunities, and be able to

TABLE 1

Relationship Between the Essential characteristics of Causal Agency Theory and the Functional Theory ofSelf-Determination

New Essential Characteristicsunder Causal Agency Theory

Associated Essential Characteristicsfrom Functional Model of Self-

Determination (Wehmeyer, 2003)

Additional Constructs incorporated inCausal Agency Theory Essential

Characteristics

Volitional Action Autonomy Self-InitiationAgentic Action Self-Regulation Self-Direction

Pathways ThinkingAction-Control Beliefs Psychological Empowerment Control expectancy

Self-Realization Agency beliefsCausality beliefs


better address threats and impediments. All ofwhich influences one’s agentic self.

Conclusion

Causal Agency Theory extends previous workon the functional model of self-determina-tion, integrating the need for interventionsand assessments pertaining to self-determina-tion for all students and the expansion ofknowledge in the field of positive psychology.Causal Agency Theory situates self-determina-tion within the context of the multiple layersof human agency, and places significant em-phasis on self-determined action, rather thanself-determined behavior, as the concept ofaction represents a broader understanding ofwhat contributes to causal agency. Researchon self-initiation and self-direction, as well ason the role of beliefs regarding the relation-ship between actions and goals has providedan additional context for understanding bothhow to define and support self-determinedaction. The essential characteristics defined inthe functional model of self-determination–autonomy, self-regulation, psychological em-powerment, and self-realization - remain partof Causal Agency Theory. These characteris-tics are merged, however, into newly definedessential characteristics, representative ofemerging knowledge in the field of positivepsychology – volitional action, agentic action,and action-control beliefs. Table 1 highlightsthe essential characteristics of self-determinedaction under Causal Agency Theory, the asso-ciated essential characteristics from the func-tional model of self-determination and addi-tional elements that now define each of theessential characteristics of Causal AgencyTheory.

Overall, Causal Agency Theory provides atheoretical framework for developing and en-hancing supports to enable youth to engage inagentic action through instruction in goal set-ting and attainment strategies, this will likelynot only influence their agentic actions andcausal agency, but also overall well-being. Fur-ther work is needed to develop tools to mea-sure these new essential characteristics and toidentify effective interventions to supporttheir development. Such work has the poten-tial to build on the existing foundation ofknowledge on promoting self-determination

in the transition field, while addressing theneed to broaden our perspective to includestudents with and without disabilities, the ten-ants of positive psychology, and changing un-derstandings of disability, leading to morepositive outcomes for all.

References

Algozzine, B., Browder, D., Karvonen, M., Test,D. W., & Wood, W. M. (2001). Effects of interven-tions to promote self-determination for individu-als with disabilities, Review of Educational Research,71, 219–277.

American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language.(1992). New York: Houghton Mifflin.

Angyal, A. (1941). Foundations for a science of person-ality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., Pierson, M. R., & Glaeser,B. (2006). Self-determination skills and opportu-nities of transition-age youth with emotional dis-turbance and learning disabilities. ExceptionalChildren, 72, 333–346.

Chou, Y. C., Palmer, S. B., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Lee,J. H. (2013). Comparisons of self-determination amongstudents with autism, intellectual disability, and learn-ing disabilities: A multivariate analysis. Manuscriptsubmitted for publication.

Cobb, B., Lehmann, J., Newman-Gonchar, R., &Morgan, A. (2009). Self-determination for stu-dents with disabilities: A narrative metasynthesis.Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32,108–114.

Deci, E. L. (2004). Promoting intrinsic motivationand self-determination in people with mentalretardation. In H. N. Switzky (Ed.), Personalityand motivational systems in mental retardation, vol.28 (pp. 1–29). San Diego: Elsevier AcademicPress.

Deci, E. L., & Chandler, C. L. (1986). The impor-tance of motivation for the future of the LD field.Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 587–594.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.). (2002). Handbookof self-determination research. Rochester, NY: Univer-sity of Rochester Press.

Field, S. (1996). Self-determination instructionalstrategies for youth with learning disabilities. Jour-nal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 40–52.

Field, S., Martin, J. E., Miller, R. J., Ward, M. J., &Wehmeyer, M. L. (1998). A practical guide for teach-ing self-determination. Reston, VA: Council for Ex-ceptional Children.

Field, S., Sarver, M. D., & Shaw, S. F. (2003). Self-determination: A key to success in postsecondaryeducation for studnets with learning disabilities.Remedial and Special Education, 24, 339–349.

Fowler, C. H., Konrad, M., Walker, A. R., Test,


D. W., & Wood, W. M. (2007). Self-determinatoininterventions’ effects on the academic perfro-mance of students with developmental disabili-ties. Education and Training in Developmental Dis-abilities, 42, 270–285.

Konrad, M., Fowler, C. H., Walker, A. R., Test,D. W., & Wood, W. M. (2007). Effects of self-determination interventions on the academicskills of students with learning disabilities. Learn-ing Disabilities Quarterly, 30, 89–113.

Lachapelle, Y., Wehmeyer, M. L., Haelewyck, M. C.,Courbois, Y., Keith, K. D., Schalock, R., Verdugo,M. A., . . . Walsh, P. N. (2005). The relationshipbetween quality of life and self-determination: Aninternational study. Journal of Intellectual DisabilityResearch, 49, 740–744.

Lee, S. H., Wehmeyer, M. L., Soukup, J. H., &Palmer, S. B. (2010). Impact of curriculum mod-ifications on access to the general education cur-riculum for students with disabilities. ExceptionalChildren, 76, 213–233.

Little, T. D., Hawley, P. H., Henrich, C. C., &Marsland, K. (2002). Three views of the agenticself: A developmental synthesis. In E. L. Deci &R. M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determinationresearch (pp. 389–404). Rochester, NY: Universityof Rochester press.

Little, T. D., Snyder, C. R., & Wehmeyer, M. L.(2006). The agentic self: On the nature and ori-gins of personal agency across the lifespan. In D.Mroczek & T. D. Little (Eds.), The handbook ofpersonality development (pp. 61–79). Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum and Associates.

Martin, J. E., Van Dycke, J. L., Christensen, W. R.,Greene, B. A., Gardner, J. E., & Lovett, D. L.(2006). Increasing student participation in IEPmeetings: Establishing the Self-Directed IEP as anevidenced-based practice. Exceptional Children, 72,299–316.

Martorell, A., Gutierrez-Rechacha, P., Pereda, A., &Ayuso-Mateos, J. L. (2008). Identification of per-sonal factors that determine work outcome foradults with intellectual disability. Journal of Intel-lectual Disability Research, 52, 1091–1101.

Mason, C., Field, S., & Sawilowsky, S. (2004). Imple-mentation of self-determination activities and stu-dent participation in IEPs. Exceptional Children, 70,441–451.

McGuire, J., & McDonnell, J. (2008). Relationshipsbetween recreation and levels of self-determina-tion for adolescents and young adults with disabil-ities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals,31, 154–163.

Nirje, B. (1972). The right to self-determination. InW. Wolfensberger (Ed.), Normalization: The princi-ple of normalization (pp. 176 - 200). Toronto: Na-tional Institute on Mental Retardation.

Nota, L., Ferrrari, L., Soresi, S., & Wehmeyer, M. L.

(2007). Self-determination, social abilities, andthe quality of life of people with intellectual dis-abilities. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research,51, 850–865.

Pierson, M. R., Carter, E. W., Lane, K. L., & Glaeser,B. C. (2008). Factors influencing the self-determi-nation of transition-age youth with high-inci-dence disabilities. Career Development for ExceptionalIndividuals, 31, 115–125.

Powers, L. E., Geenen, S., Powers, J., Pommier-Sa-tya, S., Turner, A., Dalton, L., .. Swand, P. (2012).My Life: Effects of a longitudinal, randomizedstudy of self-determination enhancement on thetransition outcomes of youth in foster care andspecial education. Children and Youth Services Re-view, 34, 2179–2187.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determina-tion theory and the facilitation of intrinsic moti-vation, social development, and well-being. Amer-ican Psychologist, 55, 68–78.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Autonomy is noillusion: Self-determination theory and the empir-ical study of authenticity, awareness, and will. In J.Greenberg, S. L. Koole, & T. Pyszczynski (Eds.),Handbook of experimental existential psychology (pp.449–479). New York: Guilford Press.

Shogren, K. A. (2013a). Self-determination and transi-tion planning. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Shogren, K. A. (2013b). Positive psychology anddisability: A historical analysis. In M. L. Wehmeyer(Ed.), The Oxford handbook of positive psychology anddisability (pp. 19–33). Oxford, UK: Oxford Uni-versity Press.

Shogren, K. A., Kennedy, W., Dowsett, C., & Little,T. D. (in press). Autonomy, psychological empow-erment, and self-realization: Exploring data onself-determination from NLTS2. Exceptional Chil-dren.

Shogren, K. A., Lopez, S. J., Wehmeyer, M. L., Little,T. D., & Pressgrove, C. L. (2006). The role ofpositive psychology constructs in predicting lifesatisfaction in adolescents with and without cog-nitive disabilities: An exploratory study. The Jour-nal of Positive Psychology, 1, 37–52.

Shogren, K. A., Palmer, S., Wehmeyer, M. L., Wil-liams-Diehm, K., & Little, T. (2012). Effect ofintervention with the Self-Determined LearningModel of Instruction on access and goal attainment.Remedial and Special Education, 33, 320–330.

Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B.,Soukup, J. H., Little, T. D., Garner, N., & Law-rence, M. (2008). Understanding the construct ofself-determination: Examining the relationshipbetween The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale andthe American Institute for Research Self-Determi-nation Scale. Assessment for Effective Instruction, 33,94–107.

Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B.,


Rifenbark, G. & Little, T. (in press). Relationshipsbetween self-determination and postschool out-comes for youth with disabilities. Journal of SpecialEducation.

Test, D. W., Mason, C., Hughes, C., Konrad, M.,Neale, M., & Wood, W. M. (2004). Student in-volvement in individualized education programmeetings. Exceptional Children, 70, 391–412.

VandenBos, G. R. (Ed.). (2007). APA dictionary ofpsychology. Washington, DC: American Psycholog-ical Association.

Ward, M. J., & Kohler, P. D. (1996). Promotingself-determination for individuals with disabili-ties: Content and process. In L. E. Powers,G. H. S. Singer & J. Sowers (Eds.), On the road toautonomy: Promoting self-competence in children andyouth with disabilities (pp. 275–290). Baltimore:Paul H. Brookes.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (1992). Self-determination andthe education of students with mental retarda-tion. Education and Training in Mental Retardation,27, 302–314.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (1999). A functional model ofself-determination: Describing development andimplementing instruction. Focus on Autism andOther Developmental Disabilities, 14, 53–61.

Wehmeyer, M. L. (2005/2006). Beyond access: En-suring progress in the general education curricu-lum for students with severe disabilities. Researchand Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31,322–326.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Abery, B., Mithaug, D. E., & Stan-cliffe, R. J. (2003). Theory in Self-Determination:Foundations for Educational Practice. Springfield, IL:Charles C Thomas Publisher, LTD.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., Hughes, C., Martin, J.,Mithaug, D. E., & Palmer, S. (2007). Promotingself-determination in students with intellectual and de-velopmental disabilities. New York: Guilford Press.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Kelchner, K. (1995). The Arc’sSelf-Determination Scale. Arlington, TX: The ArcNational Headquarters.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Kelchner, K., & Richards, S.(1996). Essential characteristics of self-deter-mined behavior of individuals with mental retar-dation. American Journal on Mental Retardation,100, 632–642.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Little, T., & Sergeant, J. (2009).Self-Determination. In S. Lopez & R. Snyder(Eds.), Handbook of positive psychology (2nd ed., pp.357–366). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Metzler, C. (1995). How self-determined are people with mental retardation?The National Consumer Survey. Mental Retarda-tion, 33, 111–119.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Mithaug, D. E. (2006). Self-determination, causal agency, and mental retar-

dation. In H. Switzky (Ed.), Current perspectives onindividual differences in personality and motivation inpersons with mental retardation and other developmen-tal disabilities (Vol. 31, pp. 37–71). San Diego, CA:Academic Press.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Palmer, S. B. (2003). Adultoutcomes from students with cognitive disabilitiesthree years after high school: The impact of self-determination. Education and Training in Develop-mental Disabilities, 38, 131–144.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S., Agran, M., Mithaug,D., & Martin, J. (2000). Promoting causal agency:The Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruc-tion. Exceptional Children, 66, 439–453.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S., Shogren, K. A., Wil-liams-Diehm, K., & Soukup, J. (2012). Establish-ing a causal relationship between interventions topromote self-determination and enhanced stu-dent self-determination. Journal of Special Educa-tion, 46, 195–210.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schwartz, M. (1997). Self-de-termination and positive adult outcomes: A followup study of youth with mental retardation orlearning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 245–255.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Schwartz, M. (1998). The rela-tionship between self-determination and qualityof life for adults with mental retardation. Educa-tion and Training in Mental Retardation and Devel-opmental Disabilities, 33, 3–12.

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Shogren, K. A. (2008). Self-determination and learners with autism spectrumdisorders. In R. Simpson & B. Myles (Eds.), Edu-cating children and youth with autism: Strategies foreffective practice (2nd Ed., pp. 433–476). Austin,TX: ProEd Publishers, Inc.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Shogren, K. A., Palmer, S., Wil-liams-Diehm, K., Little, T., & Boulton, A. (2012).The impact of the Self-Determined Learning Model ofInstruction on student self-determination. Excep-tional Children, 78, 135–153.

Williams-Diehm, K., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S.,Soukup, J. H., & Garner, N. (2008). Self-determi-nation and student involvement in transitionplanning: A multivariate analysis. Journal on Devel-opmental Disabilities, 14, 25–36.

Wolfensberger, W. (1972). Normalization: The princi-ple of normalization in human services. Toronto: Na-tional Institute on Mental Retardation.

Wolman, J., Campeau, P., Dubois, P., Mithaug, D., &Stolarski, V. (1994). AIR Self-Determination Scaleand user guide. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutefor Research.

Received: 27 February 2014Initial Acceptance: 25 April 2014Final Acceptance: 22 June 2014


causal agency theory: reconceptualizing a functional model of

Documents