Internalisation: meaning and application

An organisation can introduce a rule, but it cannot require people to experience that rule as their own. Yet it makes a difference: does someone follow an agreement only while someone is watching, or because they consider it important themselves? Internalisation describes how an imposed rule, value or role can gradually become one's own.

Internalisation is the process by which a person comes to experience a value, rule or role that originally came from outside as their own.

Self-determination theory describes a sliding scale: from behaviour under external pressure, through behaviour driven by guilt, to behaviour a person values themselves. The more complete the internalisation, the more stable the behaviour usually remains.

Internalisation is the process by which a person takes on a value, rule or role that originally came from outside and gradually experiences it as their own. Ryan and Deci describe internalisation as taking in a value or regulation, and integration as the further step in which it then emanates from the person's sense of self (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

It concerns behaviour that is not appealing in itself, such as a safety procedure. Two people may follow the same rule equally carefully: one fearing a sanction, the other finding the rule sensible. Internalisation is also gradual; a rule can be partly adopted and still feel like pressure.

In social psychology, Herbert Kelman distinguished three processes of attitude change in 1958: compliance, identification and internalisation (Kelman, 1958).

Today's most widely used account comes from Edward Deci and Richard Ryan's self-determination theory. Its mini-theory organismic integration theory describes forms of extrinsic motivation and the conditions that promote or hinder internalisation (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Deci & Ryan, 2000). Their 2017 handbook devotes a separate chapter to it (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Empirically, Ryan and Connell worked out the continuum by asking pupils why they did things such as homework (Ryan & Connell, 1989).

Self-determination theory distinguishes four forms of regulation for behaviour that is not appealing in itself (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Deci & Ryan, 2000):

• External regulation: you do something for a reward or to avoid punishment.
• Introjected regulation: you have taken on the rule without accepting it and act to avoid guilt or shame or to feel pride.
• Identified regulation: you recognise the value of the behaviour and consider it personally important.
• Integrated regulation: the rule fits your other values and your self-image; the most complete form of internalisation.

There are also amotivation and intrinsic motivation (satisfaction in the activity itself), where nothing needs to be taken on. Intrinsic motivation, identification and integration together are called autonomous motivation; external and introjected regulation, controlled motivation (Gagné & Deci, 2005). Introjection therefore comes from within and still feels like pressure.

In eight samples of pupils, Ryan and Connell found that reasons adjacent on the scale correlated more strongly than reasons further apart. Introjected reasons were most strongly related to anxiety amplification after a setback; non-external reasons to more reported effort (Ryan & Connell, 1989).

A meta-analysis of 486 samples with more than 205,000 participants largely supported the continuum ordering. However, integrated regulation was hardly distinguishable from identified regulation, and introjection lay roughly as far from external as from identified regulation (Howard et al., 2017).

In work settings, a meta-analysis of 124 samples linked intrinsic motivation most strongly to well-being and work attitudes, and identified regulation to performance. Introjection had mixed outcomes; external regulation went together with lower well-being (Van den Broeck et al., 2021). This research is largely correlational: it shows association, not cause.

Deci and Ryan describe external regulation as having poor maintenance and transfer to new situations. Introjected regulation is more likely to be maintained, but in their view remains relatively unstable (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Three reasons follow from the theory. These are interpretations, not separately tested laws:

• The behaviour relies on supervision or guilt. Without monitoring, or under heavier pressure such as time pressure, the rule loses its hold.
• The context changes. According to Ryan and Deci, environments only yield autonomous regulation if people can feel competent, related and autonomous there (Ryan & Deci, 2000). A new manager or a reorganisation can remove that.
• The rule clashes with other values, for example safety with speed. A rule that seemed one's own can then feel imposed again.

What you measure today may shift with the next change.

For what a group considers important in general, see What are a target group’s values and vision? and What are a target group’s emotional drivers?.

In the most widely used approach, from Ryan and Connell, people rate how true each reason is for them in answer to "Why do you do this?"; each reason belongs to a form of regulation (Ryan & Connell, 1989). Adapted questionnaires exist for work, education, health and sport (self-regulation questionnaires).

You can use the scores separately or combine them into a relative autonomy index (RAI), a weighted sum in which controlled reasons count negatively and autonomous reasons positively (Deci & Ryan, 2000). Howard and colleagues note that the weights lack empirical support, that such a difference score can be unreliable and that it hides which form of motivation has which effect. Multidimensional scoring methods predicted roughly 30 to 40 per cent more variance (Howard et al., 2020).

Furthermore, these are self-reports, a single measurement is a snapshot and averages describe a group, not an individual. Open associations (How do you measure associations?) can show what meaning people attach to a rule; that is an editorial addition, not a validated instrument.

In a laboratory experiment by Deci, Eghrari, Patrick and Leone, three factors fostered the internalisation of a dull but important task: a meaningful rationale, acknowledgement that people might not find the task interesting, and an emphasis on choice rather than control (Deci et al., 1994). With two or three factors, internalisation was integrated: more time on the task went together with more reported valuing and feeling free. With zero or one factor, it was introjected: there, behaviour was negatively related to those self-reports (Gagné & Deci, 2005).

For organisations, these are working hypotheses, not guarantees:

• Explain the reason: what problem does the rule solve and why this solution?
• Acknowledge objections, such as time or convenience. See also What are objections in a target group profile?.
• Offer choice where it exists, with a mandatory rule often in how it is implemented, and avoid unnecessarily controlling language.

In a field example described by Gagné and Deci, perceived autonomy support from supervisors went together with more internalised motivation for a new programme; an association, not a proven cause.

Fostering internalisation becomes manipulation when people are meant to embrace something against their interest. Editorial principles:

• Honest explanation: give the real reasons, even if they sound less persuasive.
• Take objections seriously: if an objection is justified, change the rule, not just the communication.
• No measurement against individuals: process motivation questionnaires anonymously or at group level, with a clear purpose, voluntary participation and attention to the GDPR.
• Mandatory stays mandatory: for safety-critical rules, internalisation complements supervision and technical measures but does not replace them.

See also Neuromarketing ethics: key questions and responsibilities.

1. Describe the rule, value or role and who it applies to.
2. Define your question: current reasons, change after an adjustment or stability over time.
3. Choose a reasons questionnaire and report the separate scales.
4. Add open questions or associations about meaning and objections.
5. Collect data anonymously and record context such as department, shift and supervision.
6. Analyse at group level and formulate hypotheses.
7. Test an adjustment and measure again, including after later changes.

This example is fictional. No outcomes are known.

Situation and decision question. A fictional manufacturing company requires machines to be locked out at every breakdown before anyone intervenes. The day shift follows the rule well; the night shift, with less supervision, less often. Is compliance driven mainly by monitoring, or by seeing the rule's importance?

Available information. Compliance per shift and remarks that locking out takes time.

Suitable approach. A short anonymous questionnaire with reasons such as "I would get a warning otherwise" (external), "I would feel guilty if something happened" (introjected) and "it matters for my safety" (identified). Plus an open prompt ("For me, the lockout rule means…") and group discussions about objections.

Possible interpretation. If external reasons dominate and associations concern lost time, one hypothesis is that compliance depends on supervision. Rosters or lock availability may also matter.

Next step. Explain the risk, acknowledge the time cost and work out faster lockout together; the rule remains mandatory. Compliance per shift and the questionnaire are predefined outcome measures, repeated after a few months.

• Reading compliance as internalisation: behaviour under supervision says little about the reason.
• Mistaking introjection for conviction: guilt drives behaviour and still feels like pressure.
• Using only an index: the RAI hides which form of motivation is at play.
• Measuring once: internalisation can shift under new pressure or context.
• Explanation instead of a better rule: justified objections are not solved that way.

• You can: describe which reasons dominate in a group and formulate hypotheses about vulnerable compliance.
• You can't: predict individual behaviour from group patterns.
• You can't: infer from an association that an adjustment causes internalisation; that requires a comparative design.
• You can't: assume that findings from education or the laboratory automatically apply in your organisation.

Internalisation describes how an imposed rule, value or role becomes one's own. Self-determination theory orders this from external through introjected and identified to integrated, and meta-analyses largely support that ordering. Partial internalisation is fragile. So research the reasons behind behaviour and support internalisation with honest explanation, acknowledgement of objections and genuine room for choice.