SELF-DETERMINATION THEORY AND RELATIONSHIPS MOTIVATION THEORY

The three qualities measured in the assessment, Mutual Investment in Growth, Enhancement of Self-Efficacy, and Values Coherence, map to the three basic psychological needs identified by Self-Determination Theory: autonomy, competence, and relatedness. Relationships Motivation Theory (one of six sub-theories within Self-Determination Theory) extends this framework to close relationships, establishing that relationships functioning well across all three needs produce distinct benefits that relationships strong in only one or two cannot provide.

The Anchor Relationships framework’s most distinctive theoretical move is operationalizing two aspects of autonomy that Self-Determination Theory treats as separable. Ryan and Vansteenkiste (2023) describe two distinct human tendencies that basic psychological needs serve: the drive to grow and expand one's capabilities, and the drive to stay true to who one is. Assor, Cohen, Ezra, and Yu (2021) provided empirical support for this distinction, showing that feeling free to act and having an authentic inner compass are separable experiences of autonomy. The Anchor Relationships assessments map these onto two of its three qualities: autonomy as development, captured in Quality 1, and autonomy as integrity, captured in Quality 3. Relatedness is treated as an emergent outcome of the three qualities working together rather than as a separate quality, consistent with how Knee and Browne (2023) describe the interaction of needs in relationships that produce deep connection.

The specific mechanisms operationalized in the assessment draw from several key findings. Deci and colleagues (2006) established that giving autonomy support predicts well-being above and beyond receiving it, which supports the assessment's focus on bidirectional growth rather than one-directional mentorship. Knee and colleagues (2002) demonstrated that autonomy-oriented individuals treat disagreements as opportunities for learning rather than threats to the relationship, which grounds the assessment's measurement of how the relationship handles conflict. Assor, Roth, and Deci (2004) identified the distinction between values-aligned behavior driven by authentic endorsement and behavior driven by conditional regard, which grounds the Compliance vs. Capacity dimension in Quality 3. Feeney and Collins (2015) described the relational catalyst function through which partners fortify each other with new strengths, which grounds the Strengths Activation dimension in Quality 2.

INHERENT VALUE DEMONSTRATION AND AUTHENTIC INNER COMPASS

The Values Coherence quality draws on a third research stream that grounds the Inherent Value Demonstration dimension. Assor, Benita, Yitshaki, Geifman, and Maree (2020) describe inherent value demonstration as a practice in which trusted others enact in their behavior the values they say matter to them, in ways that signal meaning and energy rather than obligation. Across two cultures, this practice predicted the focal person's authentic inner compass and resistance to negative peer pressure, controlling for basic autonomy support. Assor, Benita, and Geifman (2023) extended this work by framing the authentic inner compass as one of the core motivational structures through which autonomy-supportive contexts strengthen a person's clarity about their own values. The mechanism does not transmit the partner's specific values to the focal person. The focal person's mature values may differ substantially from the partner's. What is transmitted is the felt legitimacy of living from values, which functions as a resource for the focal person's own value formation and reaffirmation. Together, this research establishes why a relationship in which the partner visibly enacts their own values serves a function that supports the focal person's values without overriding them.

ADDITIONAL SUPPORTING RESEARCH

Several additional lines of research inform specific dimensions of the assessment. Feeney and Collins' (2015) thriving-through-relationships model describes how relational partners fortify each other with new strengths, adaptive coping strategies, and positive reframing. This work grounds how the assessment measures the capability-building function of Quality 2. Usher and Pajares' (2008) review of self-efficacy sources establishes that mastery experiences and credible social persuasion, rather than general encouragement, produce durable confidence. Bandura's (2012) social cognitive theory provides the broader framework for understanding how self-efficacy develops through social processes. Together, these research streams converge on the claim that well-functioning relationships do not merely support people; they expand what people believe they are capable of, and they do so through specific, identifiable mechanisms the assessment is designed to detect.

RELATIONSHIP TO PSYCHOLOGICAL SAFETY RESEARCH

Team psychological safety, the construct introduced by Amy Edmondson's 1999 study of work teams, is a related but distinct body of research. Team psychological safety describes a shared belief among team members that the team is safe for interpersonal risk-taking, and it is measured at the team level.

The Anchor Relationships assessment measures a dyadic construct and does not itself measure Psychological safety. Research from the psychological safety literature, however, corroborates several of the behaviors and conditions the assessment surfaces, particularly in Reporting Up and Managing Down relationships where status differences influence the dynamic. Findings from Nembhard and Edmondson (2006), Frazier and colleagues (2017), and Ferrère and colleagues (2022) provide useful context for coaches interpreting results but are not the theoretical foundation of the assessment itself.

Edmondson's analysis notes that "the most salient influence" on an individual's sense of psychological safety is "the perceptions of those individuals with whom an individual works most closely" (Edmondson, 2003, p. 259). The Anchor Relationships® assessment captures the respondent's experience of specific workplace relationships, which Edmondson's analysis identifies as a salient influence on an individual's psychological safety. This connection becomes most visible in the Team Assessment, where patterns across multiple dyadic relationships come into view.

If you are working with a Certified Anchor Relationships® Coach, you can ask how the psychological safety research literature connects to specific indicators in your report.

VALIDATION STATUS

The Anchor Relationships assessment has strong face validity and content validity: 
items are explicitly derived from the mechanisms identified in these research literatures, 
expert-reviewed for construct representation, and behavior-based to reduce abstraction bias. The instrument is currently undergoing exploratory factor analysis with plans to complete confirmatory factor analysis by the end of 2026. Results should be interpreted as theoretically grounded and face-valid, pending formal psychometric confirmation.

Aquino, K., Freeman, D., Reed, A., II, Lim, V. K. G., & Felps, W. (2009). Testing a social-cognitive model of moral behavior: The interactive influence of situations and moral identity centrality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 123–141. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015406

Assor, A., Benita, M., & Geifman, Y. (2023). The authentic inner compass as an important motivational experience and structure: Antecedents and benefits. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of self-determination theory (pp. 362–386). Oxford University Press.

Assor, A., Cohen, R., Ezra, O., & Yu, S. (2021). Feeling free and having an authentic inner compass as important aspects of the need for autonomy in emerging adults' interactions with their mothers. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 635118. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.635118

Assor, A., Roth, G., & Deci, E. L. (2004). The emotional costs of parents' conditional regard: A self-determination theory analysis. Journal of Personality, 72(1), 47–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00256.x

Bandura, A. (2012). On the functional properties of perceived self-efficacy revisited. Journal of Management, 38(1), 9–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0149206311410606

Deci, E. L., La Guardia, J. G., Moller, A. C., Scheiner, M. J., & Ryan, R. M. (2006). On the benefits of giving as well as receiving autonomy support: Mutuality in close friendships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32(3), 313–327. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205282148

Edmondson, A. C. (1999). Psychological safety and learning behavior in work teams. Administrative Science Quarterly, 44(2), 350–383. https://doi.org/10.2307/2666999

Edmondson, A. C. (2003). Managing the risk of learning: Psychological safety in work teams. In M. A. West, D. Tjosvold, & K. G. Smith (Eds.), International handbook of organizational teamwork and cooperative working (pp. 255–275). Wiley.

Feeney, B. C., & Collins, N. L. (2015). A new look at social support: A theoretical perspective on thriving through relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 19(2), 113–147.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868314544222

Ferrère, A., Rider, C., Renerte, B., & Edmondson, A. C. (2022). Fostering ethical conduct through psychological safety. MIT Sloan Management Review, 63(4), 39–43.

Frazier, M. L., Fainshmidt, S., Klinger, R. L., Pezeshkan, A., & Vracheva, V. (2017). Psychological safety: A meta-analytic review and extension. Personnel Psychology, 70(1), 113–165. https://doi.org/10.1111/peps.12183

Haidt, J. (2013). Moral psychology and the law: How intuitions drive reasoning, judgment, and the search for evidence. Alabama Law Review, 64(4), 867–880.

Knee, C. R., & Browne, J. L. (2023). Relationships motivation theory. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of self-determination theory (pp. 160–184). Oxford University Press.
https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197600047.013.8

Knee, C. R., Patrick, H., Vietor, N. A., Nanayakkara, A., & Neighbors, C. (2002). Self-determination as growth motivation in romantic relationships. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(5), 609–619.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202288005

La Guardia, J. G., & Patrick, H. (2008). Self-determination theory as a fundamental theory of close relationships. Canadian Psychology, 49(3), 201–209. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0012760

Nembhard, I. M., & Edmondson, A. C. (2006). Making it safe: The effects of leader inclusiveness and professional status on psychological safety and improvement efforts in health care teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 27(7), 941–966. https://doi.org/10.1002/job.413

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.

Ryan, R. M., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2023). Self-determination theory: Metatheory, methods, and meaning. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of self-determination theory (pp. 3–30). Oxford University Press. https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197600047.013.2

Usher, E. L., & Pajares, F. (2008). Sources of self-efficacy in school: Critical review of the literature and future directions. Review of Educational Research, 78(4), 751–796. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654308321456