Employee Commitment and Motivation: A Conceptual Analysis and Integrative Model

Journal of Applied Psychology
Copyright 2004 by the American Psychological Association
2004, Vol. 89, No. 6, 991–1007
0021-9010/04/$12.00
DOI: 10.1037/0021-9010.89.6.991
Employee Commitment and Motivation: A Conceptual Analysis and
Integrative Model
John P. Meyer
Thomas E. Becker
University of Western Ontario
University of Delaware
Christian Vandenberghe
E
´ cole des Hautes E´tudes Commerciales, Montreal
Theorists and researchers interested in employee commitment and motivation have not made optimal use
of each other’s work. Commitment researchers seldom address the motivational processes through which
commitment affects behavior, and motivation researchers have not recognized important distinctions in
the forms, foci, and bases of commitment. To encourage greater cross-fertilization, the authors present
an integrative framework in which commitment is presented as one of several energizing forces for
motivated behavior. E. A. Locke’s (1997) model of the work motivation process and J. P. Meyer and L.
Herscovitch’s (2001) model of workplace commitments serve as the foundation for the development of
this new framework. To facilitate the merger, a new concept, goal regulation, is derived from self-
determination theory (E. L. Deci & R. M. Ryan, 1985) and regulatory focus theory (E. I. Higgins, 1997).
By including goal regulation, it is acknowledged that motivated behavior can be accompanied by
different mindsets that have particularly important implications for the explanation and prediction of
discretionary work behavior.
Organizational scientists and practitioners have long been inter-
most evident in goal-setting theory (Locke & Latham, 1990),
ested in employee motivation and commitment. This interest de-
which is arguably the dominant theory in the work motivation
rives from the belief and evidence that there are benefits to having
literature (Miner, 2003). In contrast, commitment had its origins in
a motivated and committed workforce (Locke & Latham, 1990;
sociology (e.g., H. S. Becker, 1960; Kanter, 1968) and social
Meyer & Allen, 1997; Pinder, 1998). Surprisingly, however, the
psychology (e.g., Kiesler, 1971), and gained prominence in the
commitment and motivation literatures in organizational psychol-
organizational behavior literature as a potential predictor of em-
ogy have evolved somewhat independently. Although commit-
ployee turnover (cf. Mowday, Porter, & Steers, 1982). However,
ment is discussed by motivation researchers and motivation by
motivation theories have since been used to explain turnover (e.g.,
commitment researchers, neither concept is dealt with at the level
Prestholdt, Lane, & Mathews, 1987; Richer, Blanchard, & Valle-
of complexity that it is within its own domain. Moreover, there
rand, 2002), and commitment has been examined as a determinant
have been few attempts to integrate the two literatures; to demon-
of job performance (e.g., T. E. Becker, Billings, Eveleth, & Gil-
strate how the concepts are similar, different, and related; or to
bert, 1996; Meyer, Paunonen, Gellatly, Goffin, & Jackson, 1989;
examine how commitment and motivation combine to influence
Somers & Birnbaum, 1998) and organizational citizenship behav-
behavior. These are our objectives.
ior (e.g., Bentein, Stinglhamber, & Vandenberghe, 2002; Shore &
One explanation for the relative independence of the two bodies
Wayne, 1993). This begs the questions, Is there a difference
of work might be the differences in origin and objectives. Theories
between motivation and commitment? Are both concepts worth
of work motivation evolved out of more general theories of mo-
retaining? If so, how are they related, and how do they combine to
tivation (see Steers, Porter, & Bigley, 1996) and have largely been
influence work behavior?
applied to explain task performance. This emphasis is perhaps
In this article, we argue that commitment and motivation are
distinguishable, albeit related, concepts. More specifically, we
suggest that commitment is one component of motivation and, by
John P. Meyer, Department of Psychology, University of Western
integrating theories of commitment and motivation, we gain a
Ontario, London, Ontario, Canada; Thomas E. Becker, Department of
better understanding of the two processes themselves and of work-
Business Administration, University of Delaware; Christian Van-
place behavior. For example, because commitment often involves
denberghe, E
´ cole des Hautes E´tudes Commerciales, Montreal, Quebec,
psychological attachment to social foci, incorporating commitment
Canada.
as an independent aspect of motivation should allow enhanced
Preparation of this article was supported, in part, by a research grant
understanding of behaviors that have broader social implications.
from the Social Science and Humanities Research Council to John P.
It might also help to answer the call for motivation theories that
Meyer.
explain work behavior in more collectivist societies (e.g., Boy-
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to John P.
Meyer, Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, Lon-
acigiller & Adler, 1991; Shamir, 1991). Similarly, by embedding
don, Ontario N6A 5C2, Canada. E-mail: meyer@uwo.ca
commitment within a more general motivation framework, a
991

---

992
MEYER, BECKER, AND VANDENBERGHE
clearer picture of how workplace commitments exert their influ-
and then for commitment. This allows us to identify similarities
ence on behavior may be obtained, as well as a better understand-
and differences between the two concepts and to explain our
ing of how and when multiple commitments can complement or
rationale and strategy for integration.
conflict with one another.
We begin our attempt at integration by providing a broad
Motivation
overview of theory and research pertaining to workplace motiva-
tion and commitment. Both are complex concepts, and therefore a
Motivation has been a difficult concept to properly define, in
comprehensive analysis is beyond the scope of this article. Fortu-
part because there “are many philosophical orientations toward the
nately, however, both literatures have been reviewed recently with
nature of human beings and about what can be known about
the objective of providing a general theoretical framework. Spe-
people” (Pinder, 1998, p. 11). Although some have argued that the
cifically, Locke (1991, 1997) incorporated theory and research on
term defies definition (e.g., Dewsbury, 1978), in an extensive
work motivation into a general model of the motivation process.
multidisciplinary review Kleinginna and Kleinginna (1981) iden-
Similarly, Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) provided a model that
tified approximately 140 attempts. Pinder (1998) provided a def-
incorporates recent theory and research pertaining to the multiple
inition that nicely accommodates the different theoretical perspec-
forms and foci of workplace commitment. We briefly describe
tives that have been brought to bear in the explanation of work
these models and use them as the basis for the development of our
motivation:
integrative framework.
Work motivation is a set of energetic forces that originates both within
Incorporating a multidimensional conceptualization of commit-
as well as beyond an individual’s being, to initiate work-related
ment as part of the general motivation process necessitated some
behavior, and to determine its form, direction, intensity, and duration.
modifications to Locke’s (1997) model. The two most substantial
(p. 11)
changes involved (a) the introduction of a new concept, goal
regulation, as a linchpin and (b) drawing a distinction between two
There are two noteworthy features of this definition. First,
forms of motivated behavior: nondiscretionary and discretionary.
motivation is identified as an energizing force—it is what induces
Goal regulation refers to a motivational mindset reflecting the
action in employees. Second, this force has implications for the
reasons for, and purpose of, a course of action. The concept derives
form, direction, intensity, and duration of behavior. That is, it
from, and builds on, self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan,
explains what employees are motivated to accomplish, how they
1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000) and regulatory focus theory (Higgins,
will attempt to accomplish it, how hard they will work to do so,
1997, 1998). Both of these theories developed outside the main-
and when they will stop.
stream work motivation literature but have recently been found to
Many theories have been set forth to explain employee motiva-
contribute to our understanding of workplace behavior (e.g.,
tion (see Kanfer, 1990; Pinder, 1998). None are complete, but most
Brockner & Higgins, 2001; Richer et al., 2002; Van-Dijk &
make meaningful contributions to our understanding of what is
Kluger, 2004). By incorporating goal regulation into Locke’s
obviously a complex process. Locke (1991, 1997) noted that each
model, we acknowledge that motivated behavior can be accompa-
of the different theoretical orientations offers a unique perspective
nied by different psychological states, or mindsets, comparable to
and can be combined to form a general model. We present a
those found to characterize different forms of commitment (e.g.,
simplified depiction for the motivation process as described by
Meyer & Allen, 1991, 1997).
Locke (1997) in Figure 1.
Acknowledging that commitment and motivation can be char-
At the heart of the motivation process is goal setting. Presum-
acterized by different mindsets becomes particularly important
ably all consciously motivated behavior is goal-oriented, whether
when considering behaviors that are not required of a person (i.e.,
the goals are self-generated or assigned by others. Naturally oc-
not included in the terms of the commitment or specifically iden-
curring goals derive from the activation of basic human needs,
tified as the intended outcome of motivated behavior). For exam-
personal values, personality traits, and self-efficacy perceptions
ple, mindsets matter when it is not possible to specify everything
shaped through experience and socialization. Individuals also set,
that is required for effective performance and employees are
or accept, goals in response to external incentives. The goals
expected to make decisions and modify their behaviors in accord
individuals choose can vary in difficulty and specificity, and these
with changing conditions. It is for this reason that we introduce the
attributes, in combination with perceptions of self-efficacy, help
distinction between nondiscretionary and discretionary behavior.
determine the direction of behavior, the amount of effort exerted,
Our model represents the first attempt to integrate motivation
the degree of persistence, and the likelihood that individuals will
and commitment theory. Although generally well-grounded in
develop strategies to facilitate goal attainment. The latter serve as
existing theory and research, the model introduces new vari-
the mechanisms by which goal choices and efficacy beliefs influ-
ables and relations between variables. Therefore, as we describe
ence behavior (Locke & Latham, 1990, 2002). According to Locke
the model, we offer a set of propositions to serve as a guide for
(1997), the performance that results from these efforts affects the
future research. If supported, the model has implications for
level of satisfaction experienced, which, along with organizational
both theory and practice. We conclude by discussing some of
commitment, can lead to other forms of action (e.g., job and work
these implications.
avoidance, deviance, adjustment). In addition to this causal chain
from internal and external inducements, to goals, and, ultimately,
Theories of Motivation and Commitment: A Brief
to performance and satisfaction, Locke identified a set of moder-
Overview
ating conditions that are necessary for goal accomplishment: feed-
back, goal commitment, ability, and task complexity.
To set the stage for the development of our integrative model,
Goal setting is among the most dominant theories of work
we provide a brief overview of existing theory, first for motivation
motivation (Miner, 2003), and Locke’s general model is one of the

---

SPECIAL SECTION: COMMITMENT AND MOTIVATION
993
Figure 1.
The motivation process. Reprinted from “The Motivation to Work: What We Know” by E. A. Locke,
in Advances in Motivation and Achievement, Vol. 10, M. L. Maehr & P. R. Pintrich (Eds.), p. 402, Copyright
1997, with permission from Elsevier.
most comprehensive to date. Perhaps more important, the causal
(1991, 1997). This model has been subjected to the greatest em-
connections it proposes are generally well supported by empirical
pirical scrutiny and has arguably received the greatest support (see
evidence (Locke, 1997; Pinder, 1998). For this reason, with the
Meyer & Allen, 1997, and Meyer, Stanley, Herscovitch, & Topol-
modifications described below, Locke’s model provides an excel-
nytsky, 2002, for reviews). It also has been adapted recently to
lent foundation for integrating the motivation and commitment
account for multiple foci of workplace commitment and therefore
processes.
provides a useful general framework for the development of our
integrative model.
Commitment
Meyer and Allen (1991; Allen & Meyer, 1990) initially devel-
oped their three-component model to address observed similarities
Like motivation, commitment has been a difficult concept to
and differences in existing unidimensional conceptualizations of
define. Meyer and Allen (1991, 1997; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001)
organizational commitment (e.g., H. S. Becker, 1960; Mowday et
compiled a list of definitions and analyzed the similarities and
al., 1982; Wiener, 1982). Common to all, they argued, was the
differences. The similarities served as the basis for a definition of
belief that commitment binds an individual to an organization and
what they considered the “core essence” of commitment:
thereby reduces the likelihood of turnover. The main differences
Commitment is a force that binds an individual to a course of action
were in the mindsets presumed to characterize the commitment.
that is of relevance to a particular target. (Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001,
These mindsets reflected three distinguishable themes: affective
p. 301)
attachment to the organization, obligation to remain, and perceived
cost of leaving. To distinguish among commitments characterized
The differences in definitions of commitment led them to con-
by these different mindsets, Meyer and Allen labeled them “affec-
clude that commitment can take different forms. We elaborate on
tive commitment,” “normative commitment,” and “continuance
these differences below.
commitment,” respectively.
Perhaps the most significant developments in commitment the-
ory over the past two decades have been the recognition that
Meyer and Allen (1991) argued that one of the most important
commitment (a) can take different forms (e.g., T. E. Becker &
reasons for distinguishing among the different forms of organiza-
Billings, 1993; Jaros, Jermier, Koehler, & Sincich, 1993; Meyer &
tional commitment was that they have very different implications
Allen, 1991; O’Reilly & Chatman, 1986) and (b) can be directed
for behavior. Although all three forms tend to bind employees to
toward various targets, or foci (e.g., T. E. Becker et al., 1996;
the organization, and therefore relate negatively to turnover, their
Cohen, 2003; Reichers, 1985). We consider differences in form
relations with other types of work behavior can be quite different
first, followed by differences in foci. We then describe a general
(see Meyer et al., 2002). Indeed, research shows that affective
model of workplace commitment developed by Meyer and Her-
commitment has the strongest positive correlation with job perfor-
scovitch (2001) that incorporates both of these developments.
mance, organizational citizenship behavior, and attendance, fol-
As noted above, several authors have made the argument that
lowed by normative commitment. Continuance commitment tends
commitment can take different forms. Although there is consider-
to be unrelated, or negatively related, to these behaviors.
able overlap in the various models that have developed to explain
The second major development in commitment theory has been
these differences, there are also important differences (see Meyer
the recognition that commitment can be directed toward various
& Herscovitch, 2001, for more detail). For our purposes, we focus
targets, or foci, of relevance to workplace behavior, including the
on the three-component model developed by Meyer and Allen
organization, occupation, supervisor, team, program, customer,

---

994
MEYER, BECKER, AND VANDENBERGHE
and union (e.g., T. E. Becker, Randall, & Riegel, 1995; Bishop &
would be lost if the individual discontinued a course of action, and
Scott, 2000; Morrow, 1993; Neubert & Cady, 2001; Reichers,
as a result of lack of alternatives to the present course (Powell &
1985). Commitments to these foci have all been the subject of
Meyer, 2004).
empirical investigation, either alone or in combination. It is gen-
In sum, theory and research over the past two decades supports
erally believed that these commitments have the potential to both
distinctions among foci, forms, and bases of commitment. These
complement and conflict with one another, although when, why,
distinctions have been incorporated into Meyer and Herscovitch’s
and how these opposing effects can be expected is still not well
(2001) general model of workplace commitment. Therefore, in the
understood (Meyer & Allen, 1997).
integration of motivation and commitment theory, this model
Recently, Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) developed a general
serves as an important guide.
model of workplace commitment to account for differences in both
form and focus. As mentioned earlier, this model is an extension of
Meyer and Allen’s (1991, 1997) three-component model of orga-
Motivation and Commitment: A Comparison
nizational commitment. Development of the model was stimu-
lated, in part, by an increase in the number of studies applying the
Comparing the definitions of motivation and commitment re-
three-component model to explain commitment to other foci, in-
veals an obvious similarity: Both have been described as energiz-
cluding occupations (Irving, Coleman, & Cooper, 1997; Meyer,
ing forces with implications for behavior. Note, however, that
Allen & Smith, 1993; Snape & Redman, 2003), supervisors and
Pinder (1998) described motivation as a set of energizing forces
work groups (T. E. Becker & Kernan, 2003; Clugston, Howell, &
and that Meyer and Herscovitch (2001) defined commitment as a
Dorfman, 2000; Stinglhamber, Bentein, & Vandenberghe, 2002;
force that binds an individual to a course of action. This implies
Vandenberghe, Stinglhamber, Bentein, & Delhaise, 2001), cus-
that motivation is a broader concept than commitment and that
tomers (Stinglhamber et al., 2002), and organizational change
commitment is one among a set of energizing forces that contrib-
(Herscovitch & Meyer, 2002).
utes to motivated (intentional) behavior. However, the binding
On the basis of the findings of this research, Meyer and Her-
nature of commitment makes it rather unique among the many
scovitch (2001) offered a general set of predictions concerning the
forces. Indeed, if we consider its use in everyday language, we see
consequences of commitment. Specifically, they argued that re-
that the term commitment is generally reserved for important
gardless of the target of commitment, all three forms of commit-
actions or decisions that have relatively long-term implications
ment bind an individual to a course of action specified within the
(e.g., commitment to a marriage; commitment to improving em-
terms of the commitment, which the authors referred to as “focal
ployee productivity or satisfaction). By contrast, we refer to an
behavior.” They proposed that the differences will be seen primar-
individual as being motivated to do something even in cases that
ily in effects on related behavior that, though not clearly specified
have relatively trivial and shorter-term implications (e.g., getting
in the terms of the commitment, would nevertheless be beneficial
motivated to turn off the TV and do some work).
to the target of the commitment. For example, commitment to an
Of course, even when commitment is involved, motivation can
organization (as it is typically conceptualized) binds an individual
ebb and flow over time as commitment increases and decreases in
to stay and to comply with minimum requirements for employ-
salience. For example, a commitment to obtain a university degree
ment. Although not required by the terms of the commitment,
should contribute to generally high levels of motivation to study,
speaking positively about the organization to outsiders or helping
but day-to-day behavior will also be shaped by other sources of
to socialize newcomers would also be of benefit to the organiza-
motivation (e.g., needs, values, incentives) that intrude and make
tion. Depending on the nature and strength of their commitment,
the long-term commitment momentarily less salient. Nevertheless,
employees can freely choose whether to expand its implications
we argue that commitment can serve as a particularly powerful
to include these or other beneficial behaviors. The likelihood of
source of motivation and can often lead to persistence in a course
their making such choices should increase with the strength of
of action, even in the face of opposing forces (cf. Brickman, 1987;
their affective commitment and, to a lesser extent, their norma-
Scholl, 1991).
tive commitment. The tendency for employees to voluntarily
As another point of comparison, it is clear from our discussion
expand the implications of their commitment should be unre-
of motivation and commitment theory that both developed in an
lated, or even negatively related, to the strength of their con-
attempt to understand, predict, and influence employee behavior.
tinuance commitment.
As we noted at the outset, however, motivation theorists have
Research concerning the development of organizational com-
generally been more concerned with explaining task performance.
mitment has been extensive but relatively unsystematic (Meyer &
This is clearly reflected in Locke’s (1997) model (see Figure 1). In
Allen, 1997; Reichers, 1985). Nevertheless, on the basis of theo-
contrast, commitment theorists have historically focused more on
retical considerations and accumulated evidence, Meyer and Her-
explaining employee retention or turnover. The latter has clearly
scovitch (2001) also identified several bases for the development
changed, however, as is evident in Meyer and Herscovitch’s
of each of the three forms of commitment. They argued that the
(2001) model where predictions are made concerning the effects of
primary bases for the development of affective commitment are
commitment on any behavior (focal or discretionary) of relevance
personal involvement, identification with the relevant target, and
to the target of that commitment. For reasons to be explained
value congruence (cf. T. E. Becker, 1992; T. E. Becker et al.,
below, we believe that Locke’s model can also be applied to
1996). In contrast, normative commitment develops as a function
explain any form of intentional behavior (e.g., attendance, turn-
of cultural and organizational socialization and the receipt of
over, in-role performance, organizational citizenship). Therefore,
benefits that activate a need to reciprocate (Scholl, 1981; Wiener,
in light of the obvious overlap in purpose and implication, we
1982). Finally, continuance commitment develops as the result of
argue that integration of commitment and motivation theory is
accumulated investments, or side bets (H. S. Becker, 1960), that
both plausible and warranted.

---

SPECIAL SECTION: COMMITMENT AND MOTIVATION
995
In sum, as we turn to the development of our integrative model,
exerted on us as a natural part of the socialization process have the
we propose that commitment is part of a more general motivational
potential to limit our sense of autonomy. Some efforts at influence
process and is distinguishable from other components within this
clearly go against our natural inclinations and are accepted only
process. Our objective in the next section is to explain more fully
because of a desire to attain contingent rewards or avoid contin-
where commitment fits within the motivation process and why its
gent punishments. Others are more consistent with our personal
inclusion helps to understand and influence workplace behavior.
values and are therefore less likely to be experienced as control-
ling. Deci and Ryan specifically identified four different forms of
Toward the Development of an Integrative Model: Setting
extrinsically motivated behavior: external, introjected, identified,
the Stage
and integrated.
Externally regulated behavior occurs in order to satisfy an
If we are to incorporate commitment within the more general
external demand or reward contingency and is associated with
motivation process, we first need a framework to describe that
feelings of being controlled (e.g., cleaning out the garage at the
process. As we noted earlier, Locke’s (1997) model serves as an
request of a parent or spouse). The perceived locus of causality is
excellent starting point. However, some aspects of the model
outside the person. Introjected regulation involves a different form
require modification for our purposes. In this section we provide
of contingency, one involving self-worth. People often engage in a
the background for two of the most substantial changes: (a) the
behavior that is socially acceptable in order to avoid feelings of
treatment of motivation as a multidimensional concept, and (b) a
guilt or anxiety (e.g., paying back a favor), or to gain others’
distinction between nondiscretionary and discretionary behavior.
respect (e.g., meeting parents’ expectations by getting into medical
Other changes are introduced as they become relevant in our
school). Because the behavior is evaluated against external stan-
description of the model.
dards, it also tends to be experienced as somewhat controlled.
Identified regulation comes from a conscious valuing of the action
Motivation Mindsets
and its intended consequences. Although the tasks themselves
might not be enjoyable (i.e., intrinsically motivating), they are seen
The theories of work motivation included in Locke’s (1997)
as serving an important purpose and, thus, are typically experi-
model treat motivation as a unitary concept. That is, although they
enced as somewhat internal (e.g., studying for an upcoming exam
recognize variation in the degree of motivation, they do not ac-
rather than going out with friends). Finally, with integrated regu-
knowledge differences in the psychological states, or mindsets,
lation, the values guiding the behavior are fully accepted and
that can accompany this motivation. This becomes problematic for
integrated with other needs and values defining one’s self-concept.
the integration of a model of commitment where the nature of the
Consequently, the behavior is experienced as having been freely
accompanying mindset is very important. This problem is not
chosen and therefore fully autonomous. This can be the case even
insurmountable, however. Indeed, motivation theories developed
when external sources of influence are quite evident. For example,
in other areas of psychology, most notably self-determination
the soldier who signs up for a tour of duty out of love of country
theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000) and regulatory
and follows orders willingly should feel as fully autonomous in
focus theory (Higgins, 1997, 1998), provide a convincing case
carrying out these activities as the scientist who chooses to spend
that, like commitment, motivation is multidimensional. That is, it
long hours in the lab in the pursuit of knowledge. Again, because
can take different forms on the basis of the nature of the accom-
it is the objective that is valued, the behavior itself is not neces-
panying mindset. As we explain below, the mindsets identified in
sarily enjoyable.
these theories have a remarkable similarity to those identified in
It is important to note that all forms of extrinsic regulation can
Meyer and Allen’s (1991) three-component model of commitment.
be highly motivating. Indeed, the use of reward and punishment
Therefore, to illustrate how Locke’s model can be modified to
can have a powerful impact on behavior and can even lead people
better accommodate a multidimensional conceptualization of com-
to choose to pursue an externally regulated course of action over
mitment, we provide a brief summary of relevant aspects of
an internally regulated one. For instance, a strong enough mone-
self-determination and regulatory focus theory.
tary incentive might entice the reluctant teen to abandon a video
Self-determination theory.
According to self-determination
game long enough to mow the lawn. Similarly, the threat of being
theory, motivation reflects an intention to act. This intention can be
a victim of the next downsizing might encourage an employee to
self-initiated or result from external inducements. Intrinsically
take work home at night even though it will cut into valued family
motivated behavior is undertaken purely for its own sake (i.e., the
time. However, according to self-determination theory, external
activity itself is enjoyable) and reflects “the inherent tendency to
regulation can have negative consequences, including lower task
seek out novelty and challenges, to extend and exercise one’s
satisfaction, lower effort, and less persistence. In the long run,
capacities, to explore, and to learn” (Ryan & Deci, 2000, p. 70).
personal well-being can also suffer. Studies in education have
Extrinsically motivated behavior refers to “the performance of an
demonstrated that, in contrast to external regulation, “more auton-
activity in order to attain some separable outcome” (Ryan & Deci,
omous extrinsic regulation was associated with more engagement
2000, p. 71). However, according to self-determination theory,
(Connell & Wellborn, 1991), better performance (Miserandino,
extrinsically motivated behavior itself can take different forms
1996), lower dropout (Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992), higher
depending on the perceived source of regulation (i.e., the impetus
quality learning (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987), and better teacher
for the behavioral intent). As we explain below, the various forms
ratings (Hayamizu, 1997), among other outcomes” (Ryan & Deci,
of extrinsic motivation differ primarily in terms of perceptions of
2000, p. 73).
autonomy or self-determination.
There are striking parallels between the nature and conse-
Deci and Ryan (1985) argued that autonomy is a primary human
quences of the different forms of perceived regulation identified in
need (cf. Heider, 1958; de Charms, 1968). External influences
self-determination theory and the nature and consequences of the

---

996
MEYER, BECKER, AND VANDENBERGHE
three components of commitment described by Meyer and Her-
self” are said to have a promotion focus, whereas those who seek
scovitch (2001). More specifically, the five forms of perceived
to minimize discrepancies with their “ought self” have a preven-
regulation in Deci and Ryan’s (1985) self-determination theory
tion focus. Although there may certainly be some people for whom
and the three components of commitment in Meyer and Allen’s
ideals and oughts are highly related, Higgins’s work suggests that
(1991) theory can both be seen as falling along a continuum from
this is unlikely to be true of all, or even most, individuals.
external control (external regulation, continuance commitment) to
Regulatory focus can be dispositional and reflect a generalized
internal control (intrinsic motivation and integrated and identified
tendency to satisfy nurturance (promotion focus) or security (pre-
regulation, affective commitment), with milder forms of external
vention focus) needs. However, it can also be situationally induced
control in between (introjected regulation, normative commit-
by increasing the relative salience of these needs through priming
ment). Consistent with this notion of a continuum, Ryan and
(e.g.. activation through recall or threat) or problem framing (e.g.,
Connell (1989) observed a simplex-like pattern of correlations
emphasizing the attainment of positive outcomes or the avoidance
(Guttman, 1954) among measures reflecting students’ reasons for
of negative outcomes). In either case, regulatory focus has impli-
various academic and prosocial behaviors. That is, the highest
cations for the nature of the goals people set, the strategies they use
correlations were found for reasons adjacent to one another on the
to attain them, and the emotional reactions they have following
continuum. A similar pattern of correlations is seen among the
success or failure. Of particular relevance for our purposes is the
three components of commitment, with normative commitment
notion that regulatory focus influences the way individuals think
correlating more strongly with affective and continuance commit-
about their goals and the implications this has for goal-oriented
ment than the latter do with one another (Meyer et al., 2002).
behavior. According to Higgins (1998):
The pattern of relations between the different forms of regula-
tion and behavior is also similar to that observed for the three
A promotion focus is concerned with advancements, growth, and
components of commitment. That is, just as affective commitment
accomplishment. Goals are hopes and aspirations. The strategic incli-
has been found to have stronger links to behavior, particularly
nation is to make progress by approaching matches to the desired end
state. In contrast, a prevention focus is concerned with security,
discretionary behavior, than normative and continuance commit-
safety, [and] responsibility. Goals are duties and obligations or even
ment (Meyer et al., 2002; Meyer & Herscovitch, 2001), more
necessities. Given these differences, one would expect that people’s
autonomous forms of regulation (i.e., intrinsic, integrated, and
self-regulatory states would be different when their focus is promotion
identified regulation) have been found to be associated with
versus prevention. With a promotion focus, the state should be ea-
greater task persistence (e.g., Ryan & Connell, 1989), depth of
gerness to attain advancements and gains. With a prevention focus,
information processing (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987), and creativity
the state should be vigilance to assure safety and nonlosses. (p. 27)
(Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, & Holt, 1984) than the more externally
controlled forms (i.e., external and introjected regulation).
Regulatory focus theory complements self-determination theory
It is interesting to note that this pattern has been found even for
and also has some similarities to commitment theory. Promotion
personal goals (i.e., self-set goals such as New Year’s resolutions)
focus and prevention focus reflect different motivational states.
where autonomous regulation might naturally be assumed (e.g.,
Individuals with a promotion focus see themselves as working
Berg, Janoff-Bulman, & Cotter, 2001; Sheldon & Elliot, 1998).
toward the attainment of their ideals, whereas those with a
Sheldon and Elliot pointed out that personal goals can have a
prevention focus are attempting to fulfill their obligations.
strong element of perceived external control when they are set to
There are parallels between these motivational states and those
achieve outcomes that are more important to others than to oneself
characterizing the different forms of perceived regulation in
(e.g., losing weight to please a spouse) or to avoid feelings of guilt
self-determination theory, on the one hand, and the psycholog-
(e.g., sending holiday greeting cards to all of one’s relatives).
ical states characterizing the forms of commitment in the three-
Sheldon and Elliot conducted three studies demonstrating that
component model, on the other (cf. Van-Dijk & Kluger, 2004).
perceived autonomy in personal goals predicts goal attainment and
Individuals who are affectively committed, experience more
that this effect is mediated by sustained effort investment.
autonomous forms of regulation (i.e., intrinsic, integrated, iden-
Again, this discussion is not intended to imply that externally
tified), or both might be expected to have a stronger promotion
regulated forms of motivation cannot exert a powerful influence on
focus. In contrast, those who have a strong normative or con-
behavior. However, as Sheldon and Elliot (1998) pointed out,
tinuance commitment, experience more controlled regulation
“controlled goals are less likely to be well protected from com-
(introjected or external), or both might have a stronger preven-
peting desires and temptations” (p. 547). Because autonomous
tion focus.
goals originate from personal values, they arguably have an ad-
The behavioral implications of the differences in regulatory
vantage over those that are externally controlled (Deci & Ryan,
focus also have some similarity to those described in the three-
1991) and are likely to garner the highest levels of effort and
component model of commitment and self-determination theory.
persistence.
The motivational states associated with both a promotion and a
Regulatory focus theory.
At the heart of regulatory focus the-
prevention focus can serve as strong forces to behave. However,
ory (Higgins, 1997, 1998) is the notion that people are motivated
the obligations associated with a prevention focus are likely to be
to minimize discrepancies between actual and desired end states
perceived as having more clearly defined boundaries than the
(i.e., seek pleasure) and to maximize&