Basic Concepts: Motivation in Intentional Behavior

     "Any intentional behavior can be classified in terms of the degree to which it is self-regulated versus regulated by forces outside the self, thus indexing the relative integration of action. A general schema for this is presented in Fig 1. This figure illustrates four types of motivational orientations that can be applied to extrinsically motivated (instrumental) behaviors, and leaves a separate category for intrinsically motivated actions which, although clearly self-regulated, do not have to be internalized. While the labels used for these types of motives may be idiosyncratic, the types of motivation to which they refer are identifiable in other theoretical frameworks under different labels, & also are readily observable in everyday behavior. 

     The most heteronomous form of regulation is external regulation, wherein people perform behavior only because they are either coerced into it, or rewarded for it. Here the regulatory impetus to behavior is external in the classic sense of being literally outside the person. When individuals experience their behavior to be externally regulated, they typically feel controlled or alienated, such that when the external regulatory force is absent, so is the behavioral regulation.

      Introjection represents behavior driven by the dynamics of self- and other approval. Behavior regulated through introjection is characterized by "intemally controlling states" and the guilt and anxiety avoidance that accompany them. Thus, while introjection represents a motivational impetus that is intemal to the person (ie is intrapsychic), it nonetheless remains conflictual & external to the self. Introjection therefore can be understood as a form of partial assimilation or integration. 

     A somewhat more autonomous form of regulation is entailed in identification, which involves the acceptance and personal valuing of an acquired regulation. Identification entails greater autonomy insofar as one's behavior is felt to reflect one's conscious values and identity. Because of this the pressure and conflict associated with introjection or extemal control is somewhat ameliorated. However, despite their relative autonomy, identifications can be more or less isolated or unintegrated with other identifications, introjects, or aspects of personal experience. 

     The ultimate form of "assimilation to self" is that of integration, in which various identifications are organized, or reciprocally assimilated, and brought into congruence with organismic experience as a whole. This crucial transformation completes a process of movement from heteronomy to autonomy or self-regulation. 

     Fig 1 represents intrinsic motivation as a separate category, which, as noted, pertains to behaviors that are done for their inherent satisfactions & thus are not a product of internalization. Intrinsically-motivated behaviors (IMBs) reflect a relatively conflict-free & volitional expression of the self, and have an internal perceived locus of causality. Being a prototype of autonomous regulation, intrinsic motivation is placed on the far right side of the continuum to represent a marker against which internalized regulations can be compared in terms of their degree of autonomy. 

     This schema also includes amotivation (impersonal causality) as a regulatory style, which represents the most impoverished state of integration and autonomy in behavioral regulation. Heider referred to impersonally caused behaviors and outcomes as those that are not intentional & not under personal control. People are amotivated when they do not see action as either (a) reliably connected with outcomes (as in helplessness) or (b) viable given perceived incompetence or lack of environmental supports. When amotivated, a person feels neither competent nor autonomous with regard to acting. Because amotivation represents a nonintemalization of regulation, it, like intrinsic motivation, is presented as a separate category in Figure 1."

        Ryan RM. Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes. J Pers 1995; 63(3): 397-427. 

Fig 1 - Regulatory Styles - Ryan 1995