(3 of 5 in series)
Ryan & Deci's (2000) Self-Determination Theory Continuum of motivation moves from an impersonal orientation and amotivation, through a controlled orientation and extrinsic motivation, to an autonomous orientation and intrinsic motivation. This is the third installment of the series on motivation. If you missed the introduction you may want to read A Motivation Continuum for context.
Extrinsic Motivation and Control Orientation
Extrinsic motivation is doing something because there is a separate outcome, such as a reward or punishment. Often times discussions of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation depict the former as a perfect ideal state and the later as inferior, or for the weak-minded (I once fell victim to this fallacy). Self-determination theory brought to light the nuances of extrinsic motivation and painted bright colors into a previously black and white picture of motivation. In this article I will explore the two categories of extrinsic motivation that are associated with a control orientation: External Regulation and Introjection.
What is External Regulation?
External regulation is on the far left side of the extrinsic motivation continuum, representing a control orientation and the least autonomy. Action is motivated through an external demand, the perception of a reward, the avoidance of a punishment, or from reactance (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Reactance is a reaction to a person, proposal, or rule that may take away their freedom of choice (Wicklund, 1974). External regulation is representative of an external locus of control, or a belief that the cause of success and failure exists outside of the individual, and is beyond their control (Ryan & Deci, 2000). External factors viewed as responsible for outcomes might be luck, fate, divine intervention, circumstance, injustice, sabotage, etc (GSP, 2013).
Motivating an individual in external regulation might rely heavily on contingent reward (Ryan & Deci, 2000). IF you do this, THEN you can have that. We often see contingent reward as effective for children, but I can tell you that when I don't want to do the dishes, contingent reward is a highly effective motivator. Harnessing the power of eternal regulation and using it intentionally generate motivation when the context you are in is not intrinsically motivating is a powerful thing. We use it on our pets and our children, so why not learn how to effectively use it on ourselves? Be careful though, contingent reward is really effective for extrinsic motivation, but can undermine intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000); more about that later.
The beauty of the colorful spectrum of motivation provided to us by SDT is that we don't have to live in one category of motivation. These are states of motivation, they ebb and flow based on the fulfillment of needs in any given context, they are not traits of one's personality (Deci & Ryan, 1985). So what causes some contexts to be intrinsically motivating but not others for some people and not others? You may remember from the introduction to this series that individual differences are a result of need fulfillment!
The Control Orientation
There are 3 basic psychological needs which play a crucial role in self-determined motivation and well-being. They are: competence, autonomy, and relatedness. In order for an individual to be self-determined these three basic psychological needs must be fully met. One's general causality orientation is representative of an individual's measured disposition for feeling the needs of competence, autonomy, and relatedness satisfied.
In the Control Orientation the needs for competence and relatedness are met, but the need for autonomy is not (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The control orientation gauges "the extent to which a person is oriented toward being controlled by rewards, deadlines, structures, ego-involvements, and the directives of others" (Center for Self-Determination Theory). When a person is high in the control orientation, they are likely to be dependent on rewards or other controls. They may also be more susceptible to what other people want/demand from them than what they want for themselves. In the U.S. culture, a high control orientation may also equate to a high value for wealth, fame or other extrinsically rewarding factors (Center for Self-Determination Theory).
What is Introjection?
Introjection is the second type of extrinsic motivation that falls in the control orientation. Introjection is the internal regulation of self-esteem through external behaviors (Ryan & Deci, 2000). An individual in introjection may be controlled by feelings of pressure and avoiding guilt from external factors, or ego-involvement (Ryan, 1982). Ego-involvement is a 'classic form' of introjection (Ryan & Deci, 2000) where a person performs an action to maintain/enhance self-esteem or establish a feeling of self worth (Nicholls, 1984). Although this is internally regulated behavior, the introjected behaviors are experienced by the individual as outside the self or from an external locus of causality (Deci & Ryan, 1995).
Introjection is most commonly apparent when an individual feels the need to prove themselves. Behavior is motivated by the desire to demonstrate to others that they have the ability to do something. Peer pressure is a readily available example most of us can draw from to understand the experience of introjection; that feeling of pressure and the need to prove you can do it, even if you don't really want to. I have a few scars from childhood and a really ugly pair of pants from undergrad thanks to some memorable circumstances of introjection.
For those of you who have ever read a parenting blog, you have probably encountered the introjection type of motivation in children as a 'nifty trick' to get them to complete a task; e.g. telling your 4-year-old "I bet you can't pick up all of your toys in less than 3 minutes." Obviously your child does not WANT to pick up their toys, but their self-esteem is on the line and they need to prove that they CAN do it.
Conclusion
External Regulation and Introjection are two types of motivation that result from a control causality orientation. Although it is very common for our past experiences hearing about extrinsic motivation to paint it as bad, I hope you are beginning to understand that the social and environmental factors involved in motivation make each type of motivation a rational and logical source of motivation for certain contexts.
An individual with a general causality orientation of controlled motivation may experience lower quality motivation and diminished well-being if the orientation is a pervasive state (Deci & Ryan, 1995) but it is not inherently a "bad" type of motivation. We should all strive to discover contexts where we experience high levels of autonomy and intrinsic motivation, but don't take those contingent rewards or peer pressure for granted as effective means of extrinsic motivation in the right context.
Thanks for reading!
References
Center for Self-Determination Theory. (2019). General Causality Orientation Scale. Retrieved from: https://selfdeterminationtheory.org/general-causality-orientations-scale/
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1995). Human autonomy: The basis for true self-esteem. In M. Kernis (Ed.), Efficacy, agency, and self-esteem (pp. 3149). New York: Plenum.
Great Schools Partnership. (2013). Locus of Control. Retrieved from: https://www.edglossary.org/locus-of-control/
Nicholls, J. G. (1984). Achievement motivation: Conceptions of ability, subjective experience, task choice, and performance. Psychological Review, 91, 328–346.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: Classic definitions and new directions. Contemporary educational psychology, 25(1), 54-67.
Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450–461.
Wicklund, R. A. (1974). Freedom and reactance. Lawrence Erlbaum
Comments