Self-Determination Theory uses an organismic-dialectical metatheory which is quite different from the more mechanistic metatheories underlying most current theories within the empirical psychological tradition. For example, contained within SDT are the assumptions that human beings are active (rather than passive), that they are naturally inclined toward growth and development (rather than being programmed by the social environment), that they have a set of basic psychological needs which are universal (rather than being determined by culture). These meta-theoretical assumptions have led to a variety of theoretical propositions and hypotheses which have been supported by research but which run counter to many of the propositions and hypotheses associated with current behavioral and social-cognitive theories that utilize more mechanistic metatheoretical assumptions. This difference has resulted in a number of controversies within the psychological literature and elsewhere, some of which have been a bit heated.

Herein we discuss some of those controversies, presenting background information and relevant references.

• The Rewards Controversy
  From the time of the first published study showing that tangible rewards undermine people's intrinsic motivation there has been a controversy about this frequently replicated finding. Here, we trace the history of that controversy and present the current state of the field based on a recent meta-analysis.
  
  
• The High-Stakes Testing Controversy
  A current controversy is being played out primarily in the political arena concerning the use and consequences of wide-scale testing in public schools. This essay addresses the relation of high-stakes testing to motivation and learning, based on SDT-inspired research.