Motivation and emotion/Book/2026/Introjection and guilt-based motivation

Introjection and guilt-based motivation:
What role do shame and guilt play in introjected forms of behavioural regulation?

Overview

Figure 1. An empty church nave. Case study Rachel, who is 16 years old, was brought up in a highly religious home in which her parents only showed her affection to the extent that she adhered to their values. As she begins to notice feelings that they would disapprove of, she doesn't merely feel bad about them; instead, she is driven to correct the situation, praying for long hours and forcing herself to act in ways that appear "faithful" from the outside. This desire to conform is not rooted in her own beliefs but is instead the result of the rules she has absorbed before having any real opportunity to form her own. For Rachel, a church nave (see Figure 1) symbolises a place that offers both belonging and a feeling of being watched; it is where obedience is expected most.

• Core conceptual framework: This chapter explores the dynamics of introjected regulation, a controlled form of extrinsic motivation within Organismic Integration Theory (OIT) whereby individuals absorb external expectations without fully internalising or endorsing them as their own (Deci & Ryan, 2000). As shown in the case of Rachel, individuals experience a state of partial internalisation characterised by 'obligation without ownership' and an external perceived locus of causality.
• The emotional sanctions of the ego (the problem): Under introjection, behavioural compliance is driven by contingent self-worth, meaning that an individual's self-approval is entirely dependent on meeting strict, unexamined standards (Crocker & Park, 2004; Sheldon, 2006). Self-conscious emotions, namely shame and guilt, function as internal watchdogs that compel action by continually threatening self-rejection and psychological distress (Ryan & Deci, 2017).
• The psychological and relational costs (why it's important): Relying on self-coercive pressure is very unstable and carries significant costs to long-term well-being. Empirical research shows that introjection undermines the basic psychological needs for autonomy and relatedness, drains essential cognitive resources, and acts as a direct pathway to anxiety, depressive symptoms, and burnout (Assor et al., 2004; Haines & Schutte, 2022).
• Pathways to autonomous self-regulation (how psychological science can help): Psychological science offers evidence-based interventions to break down this internal pressure. By establishing autonomy-supportive environments, developing mindfulness to dismantle self-critical thoughts, and cultivating self-compassion, individuals can separate their core self-worth from their performance, facilitating a healthy shift towards true, autonomous self-regulation (Neff, 2003; Schultz & Ryan, 2015).

Focus questions What is introjected regulation, structurally? What psychological function does shame and guilt serve in this process? How do the roles of shame and guilt differentiate within introjected regulation? What are the consequences of shame/guilt-driven regulation? How can individuals transition from controlled, introjected regulation toward autonomous, integrated self-regulation?

The structure of introjected regulation

• Definition and position on the continuum: Within Organismic Integration Theory (OIT), a core subtheory of Self-Determination Theory (SDT), human motivation is conceptualised as a multidimensional spectrum representing varying relative autonomy (Ryan & Connell, 1989; Schultz & Ryan, 2015). Introjected regulation sits at the lower, controlled end of this spectrum. It represents a state of partial internalisation, occurring when an individual absorbs an external rule, standard, or social expectation but fails to genuinely endorse, value, or integrate it into their sense of identity (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Haines & Schutte, 2022).
• Obligation without ownership: The key structural feature of introjection is an ongoing subjective experience of internal coercion, pressure, and self-compulsion (Shi & Jindi, 2025). Although the resulting behaviours are internally driven (occurring in the absence of direct external surveillance), the perceived locus of causality remains external (Ryan & Connell, 1989). Consequently, the individual experiences their behaviour as being dictated by rigid intrapsychic demands that feel foreign to their authentic self (Chirkov et al., 2003; Kim et al., 2002).
• Contingent self-worth: Structurally, introjected regulation thrives through a system of internal emotional sanctions (Gillison et al., 2009). Behavioural compliance is reinforced by the desire for positive self-worth (such as anticipated pride and ego-enhancement) and deterred by the threat of self-rejection (including feelings of guilt, shame, and anxiety) (Gillison et al., 2009). Because individuals tie their entire self-appraisal to the fulfilment of these rigid, unexamined standards, their self-esteem is very unstable, fluctuating dramatically based on outcomes (Crocker & Park, 2004; Liu et al., 2021).

The regulatory function of shame and guilt

• Serving as internal sanctions: When external oversight is absent, self-conscious emotions function as internal enforcing agents of internalised standards (Aronfreed, 1968; Kim et al., 2002). These emotions act as internal contingencies, creating internal pressure that drives the individual into behavioural compliance to maintain a sense of moral or social acceptability (Assor et al., 2004).
• The danger of self-rejection: The regulatory system is fueled by a desire to avoid psychological distress. The fear of feeling shame (which involves a complete disapproval of oneself) or guilt (which is characterised by strong moral self-criticism) leads to immediate and highly effortful behaviour aimed at preventing a severe decline in contingent self-esteem (Kim et al., 2002).
• The developmental trigger of Parental Conditional Regard (PCR): The psychological mechanism of introjection is greatly shaped by parental figures since their warmth and approval depend on compliance (Haines & Schutte, 2022). Rogers (1959) stated that conditional regard results in 'conditions of worth', which cause children to suppress their true feelings in order to achieve relatedness (Roth & Assor, 2012).
• Empirical basis of PCR: A comprehensive meta-analysis involving 31 samples by Haines and Schutte (2022) found a significant moderate positive association (r = .33) between parental conditional regard and introjected regulation, as well as a strong positive relationship (r = .29) with contingent self-esteem. Furthermore, the study showed that parental conditional positive regard (which involves giving love on a conditional basis) is significantly more strongly associated with introjected regulation than negative regard (r = .33 compared to r = .20) since the promise of warmth encourages children to partially internalise external expectations (Haines & Schutte, 2022).

Differentiating the roles of shame and guilt

• Focus of evaluative transgression: Differentiated through the lens of self-conscious emotion theory, guilt and shame are distinguished by their focus of transgression (see Table 1): guilt is directed at factors within one's control (for example, lack of effort), whereas shame assigns failure to stable and uncontrollable causes (such as defective ability or character) (Sabiston et al., 2010).
• Behavioural tendencies:
  • Guilt acts as an active, reparative emotional engine (Sabiston et al., 2010). Since it focuses on a particular behaviour, it causes individuals to display approach behaviours, such as feeling a pressure to apologise, make amends, or carry out corrective actions in order to 'undo' the perceived transgression (Sabiston et al., 2010).
  • Shame, conversely, is characterised by global self-devaluation. Since the entire self is regarded as defective, it triggers a strong desire to escape, withdraw, hide, or stay silent in order to protect the ego from further disapproval (Tangney et al., 1992).
• Differential links to SDT regulations: Empirical research carried out by Sabiston et al. (2010) utilised a revised structural model of "shame-free guilt" and "guilt-free shame", revealing their distinct motivational profiles:
  • Guilt-free shame is positively associated only with controlled regulations (external and introjected) and is negatively related to intrinsic regulation.
  • Shame-free guilt is more versatile, showing positive associations with external and introjected regulation, but also extending to identified regulation. This shows that guilt can cause people to take part in goals which they value personally (for example, exercising in order to stay healthy) for reparative reasons, even if they do not find the activity itself to be inherently enjoyable.
• Cultural and contextual variations: In moralistic, highly structured religious environments, introjection is often elevated (Sheldon, 2006). Sheldon (2006) showed that members of the Catholic faith, since cultural practices emphasise remorse, confession, and atonement, have a considerably greater degree of introjected motivation than do members of the Protestant faith. In collectivist cultures, shame is further emphasised through 'face concern' (a concern for family honour and the fear of public humiliation), turning introjection into an outward-facing mechanism aimed at social preservation (Bao & Lam, 2008).

Table 1

Comparative Matrix of Guilt and Shame Showing Emotional Drivers x Cognitive, Behavioural, and Motivational Dimensions.

Driver	Evaluative focus	Attributional locus	Behavioural tendency	Motivational style
Guilt	Specific behaviour ("I did a bad thing")	Internal, controllable (effort)	Approach: Reparative action, undoing harm	Identified/introjected
Shame	Global self ("I am a bad person")	Internal, uncontrollable (character)	Avoidance: Hiding, withdrawal, isolation	External/introjected

The consequences of regulation based on shame and guilt

Case study—Rachel's breaking point (Part 2) For months, Rachel's life was defined by this relentless inner vigilance. To silence the thoughts she had been taught to fear, she spent her nights kneeling in prayer, desperate to protect her fragile self-worth and retain her parents' conditional warmth. But hiding her authentic feelings was an exhausting, silent battle. The breaking point came during a crowded Sunday service. Standing in the church nave, the sensation of being observed by both the congregation and an unyielding internal judge became suffocating. Unable to maintain the facade any longer, her anxiety boiled over, and she collapsed into tears mid-service. The response from her parents was cold and silent, a deliberate withdrawal of affection in the face of her public failure to remain composed. In that moment of isolation, Rachel did not feel she had simply made a mistake; she felt entirely defective and unworthy. This complete collapse of her self-worth left her emotionally hollowed out, sliding rapidly into a depressive burnout.

• The exhaustion of executive resources: Since introjected regulation involves continuous self-monitoring, self-coercion, and suppressing one's own desires, it leads to great ego depletion and cognitive exhaustion (Ryan & Deci, 2008). The continuous psychological energy used to maintain this internal conflict drains the individual over time, serving as a direct pathway to occupational and academic burnout (Fernet et al., 2012).
• Effect on emotional well-being: When individuals subject themselves to strict self-pressure, their emotional well-being is greatly reduced (Salazar-Ayala et al., 2021). Ng and Wu (2024) showed that introjected regulation functions as a key mediating factor in the association between controlling environmental styles and significantly increased test anxiety (β = .35) and perceived stress (β = .29) in educational settings, causing students to process evaluative situations as threats.
• Brittle persistence and failures in coping: Although feelings of shame and guilt are capable of short-term effort, the resulting motivation is unstable (Ryan & Connell, 1989). When setbacks occur, people with introjected motivation cope poorly since they see failure as a direct threat to their self-worth; without the protective effects of autonomous motivation, one failure can lead to depressive rumination and a sudden withdrawal from the behaviour (Assor et al., 2004).
• The impact on well-being and sense of relatedness: The meta-analysis by Haines and Schutte (2022) demonstrated the significant developmental cost of conditional and controlled socialisation, finding that parental conditional regard (PCR) is moderately associated with an increase in depressive symptoms (r = .22) and significantly related to lower levels of relatedness (r = -.24). This effect is especially noticeable in the case of parental conditional negative regard (which involves withdrawing affection), since it is strongly associated with depressive outcomes (r = .40).

Pathways from introjected to integrated regulation

• Fostering autonomy support: A social environment that actively supports basic psychological needs, namely autonomy, is required in order to move away from controlled pressure (Schultz & Ryan, 2015). Educators, counsellors, and parents can help facilitate autonomous internalisation by:
  1. Providing a meaningful rationale for requests, rather than simply demanding blind obedience (Deci et al., 1994).
  2. Acknowledging and validating feelings of resistance or negative emotions (Deci et al., 1994).
  3. Minimising directive or controlling language (replacing 'should', 'ought', and 'must' with phrases that highlight choice) (Deci et al., 1994).
  4. Offering meaningful options within structured settings (Bao & Lam, 2008).
• Long-term goal internalisation: Longitudinal research by Koestner et al. (2014) found that directive and controlling guidance impairs goal internalisation, while autonomy-supportive relationships actively promote identified and integrated regulations over time.
• Mindfulness decoupling: Through mindful attention, automatic self-critical thoughts are decoupled from behavioural outcomes (Schultz & Ryan, 2015). This enables individuals to observe their passing self-conscious emotions without over-identifying with them, providing them with the reflective space required to align their actions with their authentic values (Kazén et al., 2003).
• Self-compassion: To dismantle the self-disciplinary cycles of introjection, individuals must replace harsh self-criticism with self-compassion (Wakelin et al., 2022). The tripartite model proposed by Kristin Neff can be applied to directly address introjected vulnerabilities:
  1. Self-Kindness vs. Self-Judgement: Treating oneself with warmth and understanding during failures directly counteracts the interalised hostile inner dialogue (Neff, 2003).
  2. Common Humanity vs. Isolation: Recognising that setbacks are part of the shared human experience neutralises the isolating and harmful nature of shame (Neff, 2003).
  3. Mindfulness vs. Over-Identification: Adopting a balanced awareness of one's emotions prevents overwhelm by the fear of failure (Neff, 2003).

• Empirical intervention efficacy: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials (RCTs) carried out by Wakelin, et al. (2022) showed that self-compassion interventions result in a significant, moderate decrease in self-criticism when compared with control groups. This demonstrates that substituting self-critical inner monologues with an empathetic and compassionate inner voice is an effective and clinically valid path to emotional recovery and authentic self-regulation (Wakelin et al., 2022)

Case study—Rachel's pathway to autonomy (Part 3) Recognising that this exhausting cycle of self-coercion was no longer sustainable, Rachel eventually began seeing a counsellor who offered her something she has never experienced before: genuine space. Rather than imposing rigid expectations of who she 'ought' to be, the consellor quietly met her with unconditional warmth, validating her hidden feelings while helping her gently explore her own authentic values. With this support, Rachel began practicing mindfulness, learning how to step back and observe her harsh, self-critical thoughts as passing mental events rather than absolute declarations of her worth. Whenever the familiar waves of guilt arose, she practised meeting them with self-compassion, speaking kind, reassuring words to herself and accepting failure as a normal part of the human experience. By detaching her self-worth from her performance, Rachel began to quiet her inner judge. The heavy, borrowed pressure of her upbringing gradually lifted, allowing her to take her first tentative steps toward a life of genuine, self-accepted choice.

Conclusion

• The internal guardian of the ego: Self-conscious emotions act as an internal disciplinary system that drives introjected regulation (Kim et al., 2002). Instead of carrying out behaviours because they are of genuine interest or personal value, the individual is coerced from within by anticipating feelings of shame and guilt in order to maintain a fragile and unstable system of contingent self-worth (Crocker & Park, 2004).
• Differentiating pathways of self-sanctioning: Guilt and shame possess highly distinct self-regulatory profiles. Guilt concentrates on specific behaviours and can occasionally lead to constructive, reparative actions that align with personally meaningful, identified goals; conversely, shame targets the entire self, leading to controlled motivation, increasing evaluative anxiety, and triggering defensive avoidance or withdrawal (Sabiston et al., 2010; Tangney et al., 1992).
• The psychological cost of self-coercion: Relying on introjected pressure greatly hinders the fundamental psychological needs for autonomy and relatedness, and quickly uses up essential cognitive resources (Ryan & Deci, 2008). The continuous internal conflict leads to emotional exhaustion and burnout (Fernet et al., 2012; Ng & Wu, 2024)—a developmental vulnerability illustrated by Rachel's collapse under the weight of conditional socialisation and emotional suppression (Assor et al., 2004; Roth & Assor, 2012).
• The scientific shift to authentic autonomy: Transitioning from introjection to integrated regulation is possible through the substitution of internal criticism for self-compassion and mindfulness (Neff, 2003; Schultz & Ryan, 2015). By utilising mindfulness to decouple self-critical thoughts from behavioural outcomes and practising self-kindness, individuals can disconnect their self-worth from their performance, transforming rigid 'shoulds' into genuine, autonomous self-regulation (Kazén et al., 2003; Neff, 2003; Schultz & Ryan, 2015).

See also

• Autonomy and intrinsic motivation in self-determination theory (Book chapter, 2025)
• Self-determination theory (Wikipedia)
• Value congruence and motivation (Book chapter, 2026)

References

Aronfreed, J. (1968). Behavioral suppression. Conduct and Conscience, 161–209. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-1-4831-9895-8.50010-8

Assor, A., Roth, G., & Deci, E. L. (2004). The emotional costs of parents' conditional regard: A self-determination theory analysis. Journal of Personality, 72(1), 47–88. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3506.2004.00256.x

Bao, X., & Lam, S. (2008). Who makes the choice? Rethinking the role of autonomy and relatedness in Chinese children’s motivation. Child Development, 79(2), 269–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01125.x

Chirkov, V., Ryan, R. M., Kim, Y., & Kaplan, U. (2003). Differentiating autonomy from individualism and independence: A self-determination theory perspective on internalization of cultural orientations and well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84(1), 97–110. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.97

Crocker, J., & Park, L. E. (2004). The costly pursuit of self-esteem. Psychological Bulletin, 130(3), 392–414. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.130.3.392

Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. R. (1994). Facilitating internalization: The self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality, 62(1), 119–142. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.1994.tb00797.x

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327965PLI1104_01

Fernet, C., Austin, S., & Vallerand, R. J. (2012). The effects of work motivation on employee exhaustion and commitment: An extension of the JD-R model. Work & Stress, 26(3), 213–229. https://doi.org/10.1080/02678373.2012.713202

Gillison, F., Osborn, M., Standage, M., & Skevington, S. (2009). Exploring the experience of introjected regulation for exercise across gender in adolescence. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 10(3), 309–319. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychsport.2008.10.004

Haines, J. E., & Schutte, N. S. (2023). Parental conditional regard: A meta-analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 95, 195–223. https://doi.org/10.1002/jad.12111

Kazén, M., Baumann, N., & Kuhl, J. (2003). Self-infiltration vs. self-compatibility checking in dealing with unattractive tasks: The moderating influence of state vs. action orientation. Motivation and Emotion, 27(3), 157–197. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1025043530799

Kim, Y., Deci, E. L., & Zuckerman, M. (2002). The development of the self-regulation of withholding negative emotions questionnaire. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 62(2), 316–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013164402062002008

Koestner, R., Powers, T. A., Milyavskaya, M., Carbonneau, N., & Hope, N. (2014). Goal internalization and persistence as a function of autonomous and directive forms of goal support. Journal of Personality, 83(2), 179–190. https://doi.org/10.1111/jopy.12093

Liu, Z., Scherfling, N., & Corpus, H. (2021). Contingent self-worth as a predictor of motivational change over the first semester of college. Proceedings of the 2021 AERA Annual Meeting. https://doi.org/10.3102/1687792

Neff, K. (2003). Self-compassion: An alternative conceptualization of a healthy attitude toward oneself. Self and Identity, 2(2), 85–101. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298860309032

Ng, B., & Wu, H. L. (2024). Exploring the relationships among perceived teacher’s autonomy support, motivational regulations, and social-emotional outcomes. International Journal of Instruction, 17(4), 99–116. https://doi.org/10.29333/iji.2024.1746a

Rogers, C. R. (1974). A theory of therapy and personality change: As developed in the client-centered framework. Perspectives in Abnormal Behavior, 341–351. https://doi.org/10.1016/b978-0-08-017738-0.50039-9

Roth, G., & Assor, A. (2012). The costs of parental pressure to express emotions: Conditional regard and autonomy support as predictors of emotion regulation and intimacy. Journal of Adolescence, 35(4), 799–808. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.11.005

Ryan, R. M., & Connell, J. P. (1989). Perceived locus of causality and internalization: Examining reasons for acting in two domains. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57(5), 749–761.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2008). From ego depletion to vitality: Theory and findings concerning the facilitation of energy available to the self. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 2(2), 702–717. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2008.00098.x

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press. https://doi.org/10.1521/978.14625/28806

Sabiston, C. M., Brunet, J., Kowalski, K. C., Wilson, P. M., Mack, D. E., & Crocker, P. R. E. (2010). The role of body-related self-conscious emotions in motivating women’s physical activity. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 32(4), 417–437. https://doi.org/10.1123/jsep.32.4.417

Salazar-Ayala, C. M., Gastélum-Cuadras, G., Huéscar Hernández, E., Núñez Enríquez, O., Barrón Luján, J. C., & Moreno-Murcia, J. A. (2021). Individualism, competitiveness, and fear of negative evaluation in pre-adolescents: Does the teacher’s controlling style matter? Frontiers in Psychology, 12. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.626786

Schultz, P. P., & Ryan, R. M. (2015). The “why,” “what,” and “how” of healthy self-regulation: Mindfulness and well-being from a self-determination theory perspective. Handbook of Mindfulness and Self-Regulation, 81–94. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-2263-5_7

Sheldon, K. M. (2006). Catholic guilt? Comparing Catholics’ and Protestants’ religious motivations. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 16(3), 209–223. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327582ijpr1603_5

Shi, Y., & Jindi, G. (2025). Insights in applying self-determination theory to study Chinese students’ positive functioning: Review of current literature and suggestions for future directions. Lifespan Development and Mental Health, 1(4), 10022–10022. https://doi.org/10.70322/ldmh.2025.10022

Tangney, J. P., Wagner, P., Fletcher, C., & Gramzow, R. (1992). Shamed into anger? The relation of shame and guilt to anger and self-reported aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(4), 669–675. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.4.669

Wakelin, K. E., Perman, G., & Simonds, L. M. (2022). Effectiveness of self-compassion related interventions for reducing self-criticism: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Clinical Psychology & Psychotherapy, 29(1). https://doi.org/10.1002/cpp.2586

External links

• Self-determination theory (selfdeterminationtheory.org)
• Self-determination theory: The secret to unlocking better motivation (YouTube)

Generic/template information

This template provides key headings, examples, and tips for each section. Gradually remove this generic information as the chapter develops. It is OK to retain some of the template material for the topic development, but it should all be removed for the final book chapter.

Key resources

• Tutorial 02 explains about how to edit
• Topic development guidelines
• Book chapter guidelines

Recommended length for overview: 180 to 330 words.

Heading structure

• Overview
• 3 to 6 major headings tailored to the topic; can have sub-headings, but:
  • avoid having only one sub-heading
  • provide an introductory paragraph before breaking into sub-sections
• Conclusion
• See also
• References
• External links

Conclusion

• The Conclusion is arguably the most important section
• Draft clear take-home message(s), even at the topic development stage
• Together, the Overview and Conclusion should summarise the problem, its significance, and how psychological science contributes to understanding and addressing it
• Recommended length: 150 to 330 words

Suggestions for this section: What is the answer to the sub-title question based on psychological theory and research? What are the answers to the focus questions? What are the practical, take-home messages?

External links

Provide external links to highly relevant resources such as podcasts and videos, news articles, and professional sites. Use sentence casing and alphabetical order. For example:

• Six top tips for writing a great essay (University of Melbourne)
• The importance of structure (skillsyouneed.com)

Suggestions for this section: Only select links to major external resources about the topic Include the source in parentheses after the link

References

Suggestions for this section: Wrap the set of references in the hanging indent template: Use "Edit source" {{Hanging indent|1= the full list of references}} Important aspects of APA referencing style Author surname, followed by a comma, then the author initials separated by full stops and spaces Year of publication in parentheses Title of work in lower case (except first letter and proper names), ending in a full-stop Journal title in italics, volume number in italics, issue number in parentheses, first and last page numbers separated by an en-dash(–), followed by a full-stop doi as a URL which is a working hyperlink (i.e., clickable) The most common mistakes include: Incorrect capitalisation Incorrect italicisation dois which aren't clickable as working hyperlinks Citing sources that haven't been consulted

Figures

Figure 2. Example of an image with a descriptive caption.

• Use figures to illustrate concepts, add interest, and to serve as examples
• Figures can show photos, diagrams, graphs, video, audio, etc.
• Embed figures throughout the chapter, starting with the scenario in the Overview section
• Caption figures (use Figure #. and explain the relevance of the image to the text)
• Images must be embedded from Wikimedia Commons
• Images can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons if they are openly licensed
• Cite each figure at least once in the main text (e.g., see Figure 2)

Learning features

Interactive learning features help to bring book chapters to life and can be embedded throughout the chapter.

Scenarios

• Scenarios, case studies, or examples describe concepts in action
• Can be real or fictional; if real, provide citations
• Can be split into multiple boxes throughout a chapter (e.g., to illustrate different theories or stages)
• Present using feature boxes

Feature boxes

• Highlight key content using feature boxes, but don't overuse, otherwise they lose their effect
• Consider using feature boxes for:
  • Scenarios, case studies, or examples
  • Focus questions
  • Tips
  • Quiz questions
  • Take-home messages

Embedded links

• When key words are introduced, use interwiki links to:
  • Wikipedia articles (e.g., "An early psychological view dreams) of dreams was provided by Sigmund Freud") or
  • Related book chapters (e.g., "If you're feeling stuck, check out the chapter about writer's block")

Tables

• Use to tables to organise and summarise information
• Cite each table at least once in the main text (e.g., see Table 1)
• Tables should be captioned
• More example tables which can be adapted

Table 1

A Descriptive Caption Which Explains The Table Contents and its Relevance to the Text e.g.,

The 2 x 2 Johari Window Model Showing Knowing x Self/Other

	Known to self	Not known to self
Known to others	Open area	Blind spot
Not known to others	Hidden area	Unknown

Quizzes

• Using one or two quiz questions for each main section is better than a long quiz at the end
• Quiz conceptual understanding, rather than trivia. Ask about important information such as take-home messages
• Ask easy rather than hard questions
• Different types of quiz questions are possible; see Quiz

Example simple quiz questions. Choose your answers and click "Submit":

1

The purpose of quizzes is to provide an interactive learning feature:

	True
	False

2

Long and complex quiz questions are recommended:

	True
	False