Differentiating Autonomy From Individualism and Independence: A Self-Determination Theory Perspective on Internalization of Cultural Orientations and Well-Being Valery Chirkov University of Saskatchewan Richard M. Ryan University of Rochester Youngmee Kim Mount Sinai School of Medicine Ulas Kaplan Harvard University On the basis of self-determination theory (R. M. Ryan & E. L. Deci, 2000) and cultural descriptions drawn from H. C. Triandis (1995), the authors hypothesized that (a) individuals from different cultures internalize different cultural practices; (b) despite these differences, the relative autonomy of individuals’ motivation for those practices predicts well-being in all 4 cultures examined; and (c) horizontal practices are more readily internalized than vertical practices across all samples. Five hundred fifty-nine persons from South Korea, Russia, Turkey and the United States participated. Results supported the hypothesized relations between autonomy and well-being across cultures and gender. Results also suggested greater internalization of horizontal relative to vertical practices. Discussion focuses on the distinction between autonomy and individualism and the relative fit of cultural forms with basic psychological needs. The manifest variability in values and behaviors across different cultures has led many theorists interested in personality and well- being to adopt cultural relativism as an approach to understanding what fosters well-being. In this view, different cultures engender different goals, motives, and values, and these, in turn, are as- sumed to be differentially associated with how one pursues and attains well-being and social integration (Markus, Kitayama, & Heiman, 1996; Triandis & Gelfand, 1998). Recently, a number of theorists have attempted to combine this appreciation of cultural differences with a more universalistic position regarding basic needs and well-being (e.g., Inghilleri, 1999; Kagitcibasi, 1996; Ryan & Deci, 2001; Ryff & Singer, 1998; Sheldon, Elliot, Kim, & Kasser, 2001). Theorists embracing such perspectives claim that amid the considerable surface diversity in cultural goals and values, there nonetheless exist certain universal or invariant aspects of human nature in the form of basic devel- opmental propensities and psychological needs, supports for which are essential to well-being. In particular, self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000) argues that people from all cultures share basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. The theory posits that when these three needs are supported by social contexts and are able to be fulfilled by indi- viduals, well-being is enhanced. Conversely, when cultural, con- textual, or intrapsychic forces block or frustrate the fulfillment of these basic needs, well-being is diminished. SDT acknowledges that the specific means of expressing and satisfying basic needs can vary considerably by context and culture, but it maintains that these underlying psychological needs are functionally relevant across these surface variations (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Further, although the attainment of other goals may enhance a person’s happiness or hedonic satisfactions, gratification of these basic psychological needs constitutes a necessary condition for sustained well-being and healthy development (Ryan & Deci, 2001). Among the three needs postulated by SDT, the primary con- troversy has concerned the need for autonomy. That is, although few people have doubted the universality of the need to feel relatedness (Baumeister & Leary, 1995; Ryan, 1993) or compe- tence (Csikszentmihalyi, 1988; Deci & Ryan, 1985), a basic need for autonomy has been widely disputed. For example, Iyengar and Lepper (1999), in a widely cited article, suggested that cultural values for autonomy are opposed to those for relatedness and group cohesion. In their review, they equated SDT’s constructs of autonomy and self-determination with making choices indepen- dently from one’s reference group. They then provided experimen- tal evidence showing that the imposition of choices by an exper- imenter relative to personal choice undermined intrinsic motivation in Asian Americans and Anglo Americans alike, rep- licating previous SDT-based findings (e.g., Zuckerman, Porac, Lathin, Smith, & Deci, 1978). However, they also showed that adopting choices made by trusted others uniquely enhanced intrin- sic motivation for the Asian group. Their interpretation focused on the latter findings, which they portrayed as challenging the notion that autonomy is important across cultures. Oishi (2000) measured Valery Chirkov, Department of Psychology, University of Saskatche- wan, Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada; Richard M. Ryan, Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology, University of Rochester; Youngmee Kim, Mount Sinai School of Medicine; Ulas Kaplan, Depart- ment of Psychology, Harvard University. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Richard M. Ryan, Department of Clinical and Social Sciences in Psychology, University of Rochester, Meliora Hall RC 270266, Rochester, New York 14627. E-mail: ryan@psych.rochester.edu Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2003 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 2003, Vol. 84, No. 1, 97–110 0022-3514/03/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.97 97