Types of Motivation and Regulatory Styles

A Taxonomy of Regulatory Styles

To help you visualize the relationships between many of the concepts we’ve been discussing, let’s review the following diagram adapted from Ryan and Deci’s Taxonomy of regulatory styles (2018, p. 193).

First, you’ll see the autonomy-control continuum represented on the top line of the diagram with the term nonself-determined on the left side, this indicates an absence of autonomy, intentionality, and effectance, while self-determined on the right side indicates a state of full autonomy, intentionality, and effectance. It’s important to again note that autonomy is not a dichotomous concept, but rather, is experienced as a continuum or progression from lesser to greater autonomy within particular contexts.

Beneath the autonomy-control continuum, the three types of motivation (amotivation, extrinsic motivation, and intrinsic motivation) are listed from left to right along with the six regulatory styles. 

On the left-hand side, non-regulation reflects a perceived lack of autonomy, which can lead to amotivation based on the belief one lacks the necessary competence to effectively perform an action. Amotivation may also be experienced when a person has the competence to act but, in fact, lacks an interest, or simply fails to see the relevance or value, in acting. 

Moving to the right along the continuum, regulatory styles reflect progressively more internal autonomous regulation. For example, integrated regulation is perceived as more autonomous than external regulation. Further, intrinsic regulation, on the right-hand side of the diagram, reflects intrinsically motivated actions that are perceived as fully integrated and autonomous. 

The following sections of this course briefly describe each of the six regulatory styles from least to most autonomous: non-regulation, external regulation, introjected regulation, identified regulation, integrated regulation, and intrinsic motivation. Educators need not memorize the names and descriptions of each style. Rather, the important thing is to conceptually understand the distinctions between amotivation, external motivation, and intrinsic motivation, and the progression from low to high autonomy/internalization.

Introjected Regulation

Introjected regulation reflects only a partial adoption of a value, belief, or behavior such that it is experienced as an internally demanding and controlling force rather than either entirely externally demanding or internally autonomous (Ryan & Deci, 2018, p. 185).

Introjected regulation conveys a sense that one should or must endorse a particular value or belief or enact a particular behavior to avoid internal negative self-judgment and evaluation that is typically imagined to reflect the actual likely judgments of others, hence the feeling of being controlled or coerced (but internally rather than externally).

For example, choosing healthy foods and eating in moderation are excellent ways to feel good and maintain good health. However, believing you are a bad person for eating a certain type of food like a dessert, or believing people will not find you attractive or lovable if you gain even just a little weight, reflects introjected regulation based on internal negative self-judgment. 

It can be similar for students who feel like they must get good grades, not because these grades are an indication of how much they learned or how hard they worked, but because they fear teachers or parents won’t value them if they don’t get good grades. It is also possible students may see their grades as the only aspect of their identity that is valuable.

Because introjection depends on internal contingencies rather than immediate external rewards and punishments, it is more durable than external regulation, meaning that it may continue in the absence of monitoring and external contingencies. However, one result of introjected regulation is that one’s self-approval or sense of self-worth becomes conditioned upon the target behavior or outcome, which can lead to unstable self-esteem. 

Situational factors that heighten self-consciousness and threaten one’s ego or self-concept, such as high-stakes competition and social comparisons, particularly regarding one’s image, attractiveness, or achievements, are especially likely to result in introjection (Ryan & Deci, 2018, p. 186).

Identified Regulation

Regulation through identification reflects a conscious recognition and self-endorsement of a value or behavior as something personally important to oneself (Ryan & Deci, 2018, p. 187). 

Consider the ideal “good student,” or one who demonstrates autonomous effort and a sense of competence. A student who identifies with the importance of studying will likely expend greater effort studying and completing assignments, whether or not they are being monitored by parents or teachers. In other words, the student is not primarily driven to act based on a perception of either external or internal reward or punishment in the same way we’ve previously discussed, though this student may see their efforts as also supporting other important goals like college and career readiness. This kind of identity development is important for adolescents, and it is helpful for them to form positive identities related to personal effort and altruistic behaviors.

Identified regulation is characterized by a greater sense of autonomy than either external or introjected regulation. However, this does not necessarily mean one has fully examined, reconciled, and integrated a particular behavior with existing values, goals, behaviors, or other aspects of one’s identity. This can result in a compartmentalization of and defensiveness about one’s conflicting identifications. 

For example, imagine an adolescent who identifies as a good student, but also identifies as a “good athlete.” Hopefully, it is obvious these identities are not incompatible. However, students, influenced by peers and media, very often hold certain negative attitudes and beliefs about what it means to be either a good student or a good athlete. If these identities have not been fully integrated, a student may act defensively by either playing up or minimizing an identification, perhaps by pretending not to care about academics when in the presence of their sports teammates or other classmates.

Integrated Regulation

Integrated regulation reflects the fullest internalization and most autonomous and self-endorsed form of an externally motivated value, belief, or behavior. To achieve this integration, or a more authentic and wholehearted endorsement of the valued regulation, an individual engages in a deeper self-reflective process, sometimes called a self-compatibility check, to resolve any remaining inner conflict between a regulation and other identifications. 

Self-compatibility checking requires one to have knowledge of or accurately perceive one’s authentic preferences, values, and intentions (Kazen, Baumann, & Kuhl, 2003). The better a person is able to regulate negative dysfunctional emotions, the more likely they are to accurately perceive their authentic preferences, values, and intentions. Self-reflective questioning and mindful attention support healthy integrated regulation. 

For example, let’s again consider the identities of the good student and good athlete. Suppose a student receives positive narratives about the compatibility of academics with other pursuits from their teachers and parents. Suppose this student has exposure to role models who confidently identify with hard work and achievement in both academic and athletic domains. Let’s further suppose this student has the opportunity to self-reflect upon their authentic preferences, values, and goals for the future. How are these supportive conditions likely to impact the integration of these different aspects of the student’s identity?

Finally, an individual may not always enjoy the specific task they are working on, yet discover that doing it feels good because it’s a step on the path to an outcome they really want for themselves. 

Intrinsic Regulation

As previously described, intrinsic regulation reflects one’s authentic interests and is by definition fully autonomous, meaning it reflects what one naturally finds enjoyment in doing. Although no one can truly separate themself from the culture in which they live or the people with whom they interact, in the case of intrinsically regulated behavior, the individual is performing the behavior because they really want to and find it naturally interesting and enjoyable, not because they believe it should be done to please others or to achieve an unrelated goal.

Even when an external value or behavior becomes fully integrated, it does not typically become intrinsic motivation, because it still depends on some instrumental value, meaning individuals perform integrated regulations because they have accepted them as important for and consistent with their present or future goals and values rather than an inherent and spontaneous interest or enjoyment (Ryan & Deci, 2018, p. 197). However, what is important is that both integrated regulation and intrinsic regulation are experienced as autonomous or willing actions, and both are facilitated by satisfaction of the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and belonging. 

Although intrinsic regulation is perhaps more easily identifiable in the areas of relationships and leisure, some aspects of one’s professional life may also reflect instances of autonomous regulation. For example, a teacher might be more autonomously motivated to grade a large stack of student essays if the teacher is free to select and design the assignment based on a question or problem they feel is important (autonomy), if they are confident in their ability to deliver constructive feedback (competence), and if they feel connected with their students through the guidance they are providing those students (belonging).