Organismic Integration Theory

The Spectrum of Motivation: An Introduction to Organismic Integration Theory

Organismic Integration Theory (OIT) is a psychological framework developed by Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan. It focuses on the different types of motivation that drive human behavior, particularly in the context of self-determination and individual autonomy. According to OIT, motivation exists on a spectrum, ranging from intrinsic motivation (engaging in an activity for its inherent satisfaction) to extrinsic motivation (engaging in an activity for external rewards or to avoid punishment).

The Basics of Organismic Integration Theory

Organismic Integration theory is a sub-theory of Self-Determination theory. OIT primarily focuses on behaviors that are not intestreting, optimally challenging or aesthetically pleasing. Accordingly, these behaviors typically are not intrinsically motivated. Yet, life often demands an individual perform some of these behaviors. It may be a significant other, or an employer that requests that an individual perform these behaviors. Individuals are unlikely to perform these behaviors unless there is an extrinsic reason for performing them.

Ryan and Deci explain, “socializing agents frequently find it necessary to promote these uninteresting behaviors, so they face the issue not only to promote these uninteresting behaviors but, even more importantly, how to promote self-regulation of the behaviors so they will persist over the long haul” (Ryan & Deci, 2023).

Ryan and Deci explain that the real question concerning non-intrinsically motivated practices is “how individuals acquire motivation to carry them out and how this motivations affects ongoing persistence, behavioral quality and wellbeing.” They continue, “whenever a person (be it a patient, teacher, boss, coach, or therapist) attempts to foster certain behaviors in others, the others’ motivation for the behavior can range from amotivation or unwillingness to passive compliance, to active personal commitment” (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Integration

Organismic Integration Theory is based on the primary assumption that “people are naturally inclined to integrate their ongoing experiences.” Accordingly, if a person is performing an uninteresting behavior because they are externally motivated by a significant other or group, “they tend to internalize the activities initially external regulation” (Ryan & Deci, 2023). Consequently, to the extent a person integrates an externally motivated behavior to their sense of self, they are autonomous when enacting this particular behavior.

Ryan and Deci explain, “we view the phenomenon of internalization as a natural process in which people work to actively transform external regulation into self-regulation, becoming more integrated as they do so” (Ryan & Deci, 2023).

The Continuum of Motivation

Deci and Ryan explain that “although motivation is often treated as a singular construct, even superficial reflection suggest that people are moved to act by very different types of factors, with highly varied experiences and consequences” (Ryan & Deci, 2000). According to Organismic Integration Theory (OIT), the Continuum of Motivation is a range that describes different types of motivation regulation, from amotivation to intrinsic motivation. This continuum reflects varying degrees of self-determination:

• Amotivation: At this end of the continuum, there is no self-determination or motivation. Individuals feel neither competent nor connected to the activity.
• Extrinsic Motivation: This includes several subtypes that increase in autonomy:
  • External Regulation: External rewards or punishments drive behavior.
  • Introjected Regulation: Internal pressures such as guilt or ego enhancement guide motivation.
  • Identified Regulation: The individual recognizes and accepts the value of the behavior as important.
  • Integrated Regulation: This is the most autonomous form of extrinsic motivation. In this form of extrinsic motivation, behaviors are fully assimilated with one’s self and values, though still extrinsic.
• Intrinsic Motivation: At the opposite end of the continuum, Internal rewards drive behavior. Internal rewards include such personal satisfaction or enjoyment. Here, autonomy is maximized.

This continuum illustrates how behaviors can move from being purely extrinsic to being completely intrinsically motivated. We can describe motivation in various stages of internalization and integration.

Amotivation

Amotivation is the state of lacking motivation to act. Ryan and Deci explain that “when people are amotivated, either they do not act at all or they act passively” (Ryan & Deci, 2023). Amotivation is the result of:

• not valuing an activity,
• not feeling competent to do it (self-efficacy),
• or not expecting it to yield a desired outcome (outcome expectancy) (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Extrinsic Motivation

Extrinsic motivations refers to behaviors that an individual enacts for a separable reward. They may not feel the behavior necessary, or desire to perform it, but an external reward, such as paycheck or happy spouse, motivates the behavior. According to organismic Integration theory, individuals have an innate drive to integrate these externally motivated behaviors to retain a sense of autonomy. Often when we soley perform a behavior for an external behavior, overtime we feel coerced and resentful.

According to Leon Festinger’s cognitive dissonance theory, repeatedly doing something we lack motivation to do would create dissonance that we cognitively attempt to resolve (Festinger, 1957, p. 3). One way to resolve the conflict is to internalize and integrate. Basically, our view of the behavior as unnecessary changes. Either we see value in it, or we gain competence in the performance, or see a benefit to performing it. This transition occurs over several stages.

External Regulation

The first stage is external regulation. It is the least autonomous form of regulation. This stage includes the fundamental drive to obtain rewards or avoid punishment. For example, I rinse and place my dishes in the dishwasher, rather than leaving them in the sink overnight, even though I don’t see the benefit in the behavior other than to prevent the unjustified chastisement from my wife.

Ryan and Deci explain that “external regulation is in evidence when one’s reason for doing a behavior is to satisfy an external demand or a socially constructed contingency” (Ryan & Deci, 2023).

Introjected Regulation

Introjected regulation is the second stage, slightly internalized but not fully accepted as one’s own. Ryan and Deci explain, “it is a relatively controlled form of regulation in which behaviors are performed to avoid guilt or anxiety or to attain ego enhancements such as pride”(Ryan & Deci, 2000). In introjected regulation, I may experience guilt or anxiety for leaving dishes in the sink, knowing it upsets my wife. These internal affects motivate action. Basically, the motivation is partially integrated.

Identified Regulation

In identified regulation, the individual experiences a conscious valuing of the behavior, integrating the behavioral goal. The behavior begins to have personal importance. Ryan and Deci wrote that “when a person identifies with an action or the value it expresses, they, at least at a conscious level, are personally endorsing it” (Ryan & Deci, 2023).

Following the example of the dishes, the person now sees the dishes in thes sink makes the kitchen look dirty and makes washing of the dishes a more difficult task.

Integrated Regulation

Integrated regulation is the most autonomous form of extrinsically motivated behavior. The individual recognizes the identification, consciously evaluates them and the behavior now aligns with personally endorsed values, goals, and needs. This stage of extrinsic motivation shares many of the qualities of intrinsically motivated behavior. However, the extrinsic reward or punishment avoidance may still remain a salient force motivating the performance.

Intrinsic Motivation

Intrinsic motivation represents the autonomous, self-determined motivation. The purpose for performing a behavior is completely integrated, motivating the behavior whether extrinsically rewarded or not.

The History of Organismic Integration Theory

Organismic Integration Theory (OIT) is a sub-theory within the broader framework of Self-Determination Theory (SDT), which was developed by psychologists Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan. OIT specifically addresses the internalization and integration of extrinsic motivation, explaining how different forms of motivation can become more self-determined through a process of internalization.

The history of OIT is intertwined with the development of SDT. SDT itself evolved over several decades, beginning in the 1970s, as Deci and Ryan sought to understand the factors that drive human motivation beyond the traditional behaviorist perspective. They expressed particular interested in the concept of intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is the natural, inherent drive to seek out challenges and new possibilities.

As SDT expanded, it encompassed various mini-theories, including OIT, which emerged to explain the dynamics of how extrinsically motivated behaviors can be assimilated into one’s sense of self. OIT proposes a continuum of motivation from amotivation, through various forms of extrinsic motivation, to intrinsic motivation. This continuum reflects the degree to which individuals internalize and integrate motivation for a behavior with their values and identity.

OIT has been influential in various fields, including education, organizational behavior, and health care, providing insights into how social contexts and individual differences can influence the internalization of values and behaviors. It continues to be a key area of research and application within the field of motivational psychology.

Organismic Integration Theory and Cognitive Evaluation Theory

Organismic Integration Theory (OIT) and Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET) are both sub-theories within the broader framework of Self-Determination Theory (SDT). Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan developed both theories. Here’s how they differ:

Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET): CET focuses on intrinsic motivation and how external events impacts it. It explains how factors such as autonomy support, competence feedback, and relatedness influence an individual’s intrinsic motivation to engage in an activity for its own sake. Deci and Ryan explain that it “applies primarily to activities that people find interesting, optimally challenging, or aesthetically pleasing” (Ryan & Deci, 2023).

Organismic Integration Theory (OIT): OIT extends the concepts of CET by examining extrinsic motivation. It describes a continuum of internalization that explains the different ways organisms regulate extrinsic motivation. OIT suggests that extrinsic motivation can become more self-determined through a process of internalization and integration into one’s own values and sense of self.
In essence, while CET is concerned with the factors that influence an individual’s inherent enjoyment and interest in an activity, OIT deals with the process by which externally motivated behaviors can become more autonomous and self-regulated. The continuum of motivation portrays this process.

Autonomy and Self-Regulation

Central to Organismic Integration Theory (OIT) is the fundamental concept of autonomy, which refers to the psychological need to experience one’s behavior as self-endorsed. According to Deci and Ryan, who developed OIT, autonomous motivation, encompassing intrinsic motivation and self-determined extrinsic motivation, is linked to greater well-being and psychological health. Individuals autonomously motivated tend to experience a sense of volition and choice in their actions, leading to more positive outcomes and a deeper sense of fulfillment.

Deci and Ryan describes intrinsic motivation as a principle source of enjoyment and vitality throughout our life. They say that in many ways it “is almost spiritual” having to do with the feeling itself. They continue, “it is vitality, dedication, transcendence. It is one of those experiences that can be called ‘more than ordinary moments’” (2000, page 45).

Controlled Forms of Motivation

In contrast, controlled forms of motivation, driven by external pressures or contingencies, can lead to negative outcomes. These outcomes include anxiety and depression. When individuals feel coerced or pressured to act in a certain way, it can undermine their sense of autonomy and intrinsic motivation, impacting their psychological well-being. Therefore, OIT emphasizes the importance of fostering environments that support autonomy and intrinsic motivation, ultimately contributing to individuals’ overall well-being and positive mental health.

Deci and Richard Flaste wrote, “It is truly amazing, as pointed out by our findings, that if people are ongoingly treated as if they were passive mechanisms or barbarians needing to be controlled, they will begin to act more and more that way” (1996, p. 84).

The distinction between autonomous and controlled motivation proposed by OIT has significant implications for various domains, including education, work settings, and personal relationships. Understanding the impact of motivation on psychological health can guide the development of strategies to promote autonomy and intrinsic motivation, ultimately enhancing individuals’ quality of life and overall happiness.

See Autonomy for more on this topic

Application in Different Contexts

Professionals in various domains have applied OIT. These include education, work, sports, and healthcare. Understanding the different motivational regulations can inform strategies for fostering autonomous motivation and enhancing engagement in these settings. For instance, educators can structure learning environments to support students’ sense of autonomy, competence, and relatedness, thereby promoting intrinsic motivation and positive learning outcomes.

Example of Organismic Integration Therapy

For a better understanding of this theory in action let’s consider the story of Maya, a high school student, to illustrate the Continuum of Motivation in action:

Amotivation: Maya sits in her math class, staring blankly at the equations on the board. She feels disconnected and unmotivated, unable to grasp the purpose of learning algebra. Her grades begin to slip, and she feels no inclination to improve them.

Extrinsic Motivation

External Regulation: Concerned about her falling grades, Maya’s parents promise her a new phone if she passes her math exam. Motivated by the reward, Maya starts to study, but her heart isn’t in it. She’s working solely for the phone, not because she sees any value in the subject.

Introjected Regulation: As the exam approaches, Maya begins to feel internal pressure. She doesn’t want to disappoint her parents or for her peers to see her as a failure. This anxiety drives her to study harder, but the motivation is still stressful and not self-determined.

Identified Regulation: During her studies, Maya starts to recognize how algebra could be useful in real-life situations, like budgeting or understanding statistics. She accepts that learning math has its benefits and decides to pass the exam for her own sake, not just for the phone.

Integrated Regulation: Maya begins to integrate her study habits into her identity. She sees herself as a responsible student who values education. While she still looks forward to the reward, She aligns her motivation with her personal goals and values.

Intrinsic Motivation

Intrinsic Motivation: Over time, Maya discovers a genuine interest in math. She enjoys solving problems and the sense of accomplishment that comes with understanding complex concepts. Her motivation is now intrinsic; she studies math because she finds it fulfilling and engaging, not for any external reward.

Maya’s journey through the Continuum of Motivation showcases how motivation can evolve from a lack of interest to a deep, intrinsic engagement with an activity. Each stage represents a shift towards greater self-determination and personal growth.

Supporting Autonomy in Organizations

In the workplace, OIT emphasizes the critical nature of fostering autonomy-supportive environments to empower employees’ self-motivation and overall well-being. This approach involves recognizing and valuing employees’ viewpoints, delivering meaningful explanations for tasks, and enabling choices whenever feasible. These strategies contribute to an organizational culture that not only nurtures intrinsic motivation but also propels employees toward peak performance. Cultivating such an environment underscores the significance of acknowledging individual perspectives, as it lays the foundation for a workforce where employees feel respected, empowered, and ultimately more engaged. By prioritizing autonomy and intrinsic motivation, organizations can foster a workplace environment that not only leads to enhanced job satisfaction and well-being but also elevates overall productivity and performance.

A Few Words by Psychology Fanatic

As we reach the culmination of our exploration into the depths of Organismic Integration Theory, we stand at the crossroads of self-determination and external influence. This theory, a beacon in the vast ocean of motivational psychology, has illuminated the intricate pathways through which our motivations evolve from external pressures to the inner sanctum of self-regulation.

In the symphony of human behavior, OIT has offered us a score, detailing how the notes of external rewards and internal values can harmonize to produce the melody of self-determined action. It has shown us that within each of us lies the potential to orchestrate our own motivations, to internalize and integrate the extrinsic until it resonates with the intrinsic.

Let us carry forth the insights gleaned from OIT with a renewed commitment to fostering environments that nurture autonomy, competence, and relatedness. May we apply this understanding to cultivate a world where environments empower individuals to align their actions with their most authentic selves, creating a society that thrives on the collective harmony of fully integrated beings. With this, we bid adieu to our journey through Organismic Integration Theory, embarking on new paths of discovery with the map it has provided us.

Last Update: April 28, 2024

References:

​Deci, Edward L.; Flaste, Richard (1996) Why We Do What We Do: Understanding Self-Motivation. Penguin Books; Reprint edition.

Festinger, Leon (1957). A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance. Stanford University Press; Anniversary ed. edition.

Ryan, Richard M.; Deci, Edward L. (2023). Overview of Self-Determination Theory: An Organismic Dialectical Perspective, in Richard M. Ryan (ed.), The Oxford Handbook of Self-Determination Theory (2023; online edn, Oxford Academic, 23 Feb. 2023), DOI: 10.1093/oxfordhb/9780197600047.013.4

Ryan, Richard, Deci, Edward (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78.

Topic Specific Databases:

PSYCHOLOGY – EMOTIONS – RELATIONSHIPS – WELLNESS – PSYCHOLOGY TOPICS