A conceptual integration of SDT’s autonomous internalization and ACT’s values-based action: aimed at clarifying how identity can become more authentic, flexible, and resilient.
(This article is an English translation of the original Bulgarian publication “Индивидуалност и идентичност в теорията за самоопределянето,” first published on Psychology.ink (January 4, 2026). Original: Psychology ink. I am the author as well)
Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT) approach identity from different intellectual traditions - motivational psychology and contextual behavioral science, yet they converge on a practical question: how do people move from externally imposed roles and labels toward authentic, values-consistent ways of living? This article offers a brief bridge between SDT’s account of autonomous internalization and basic psychological needs (autonomy, competence, relatedness) and ACT’s model of psychological flexibility (values clarification, defusion, self-as-context, committed action), with an emphasis on identity development and therapeutic implications.
Within SDT, personality (the whole, unique individuality, the self) is conceptualized not as a static structure but as an active organizing and integrating force in the psyche. The topic of this publication is identity formation, the role of parents and of the person (the self) in building a healthy, coherent, and authentic identity, and the forms of support when it has been compromised.
Sometimes the term “personality” is used in psychology to denote the socially shaped individual role, as well as the concept of the “self.” In fact, there is an entire tradition in which the “self” is defined from the perspective of the labels we would ascribe to ourselves. I “am” a patriot, heterosexual, a nurse, an introvert, a sports fan, a poor student. I could call all of these labels a “self,” and these would be identities. I can say that I am a musician, a father, a psychologist. All role labels by which I can name myself, or by which other people can identify me, could be equated with “me.”
These labels we use to designate ourselves can be authentic to varying degrees. It is possible that they truly fit us. In fact, we develop identities because, as a rule, they satisfy certain needs. My identity helps me connect with other people. So if I am a fan of PFC Levski, that allows me to interact with other Levski fans. If I am a psychologist, that enables people to know what my role is and helps me interact with them. In this way, identity within a group satisfies the need for relatedness. It helps us establish connection with other people.
In addition, identity helps us gain competence. It satisfies the need for competence because we orient ourselves toward the skills needed to fulfill our obligations. We often identify with these roles, which not infrequently increases our sense of effectiveness.
Identity is also an expression of autonomy. Because if we have an identity that truly fits us, it reflects our values and interests. In short, if we have a fitting identity (if we choose an identity that truly suits us) this will allow us to genuinely satisfy the needs for relatedness, autonomy, and competence.
An interesting feature of identity is that its formation actually comes from two sources. First, there is an internal striving: by nature we have certain predispositions, interests, inclinations, skills, and talents. They can direct us toward certain identities, careers, and roles in life. Second, there are external pressures. Our parents and the society around us also want us to take on certain roles. For example, parents may want us to become adherents of their religion. Or they may want us to pursue a particular career: physician, lawyer, musician, or something else. It is precisely this interplay between external and internal pressure that makes identity formation an interesting topic for research in the field of self-determination.
Identity is not always authentic. Because pressure can be exerted on you to accept a role or identity that does not fully correspond to who you really are. You can take on or accept life roles that simply do not function. For example, think of the classic case where a medical student is studying at university. And you ask him what is interesting about being a medical student or why he likes biology, but he cannot give an answer. In reality, he wants to become a medical student because he has always been told that he should become one, and he has never checked whether he actually finds it interesting or not. Therefore, if he cannot find within himself energy or vitality to study organic chemistry, we may understand why. It is possible that his identity as a future physician is not authentically rooted.
Not only career shapes identity, but also our personal style. This too can be the result of external factors. For example, you may be pushed into the role of a “macho” in a particular social context, or you may be forced to be more sensitive than others. We can acquire a different identity when social pressure is exerted on us to live in a certain way.
The authenticity of identity is determined by the degree to which these role identities are internalized and integrated with a real sense of self, values, and interests. Since we can integrate our identity to a greater or lesser degree, we may be driven to identity-related behavior by external motives or by autonomous motives: our interests and true values.
As research such as that by Soenens, Berzonsky, Dunkel, Papini, and Vansteenkiste (2011) shows: it is not the mere presence of identity commitments, but the degree of their autonomous internalization that predicts psychological well-being and adaptive functioning. The more autonomously we relate to our own identity commitments, the more positive our psychosocial adaptation.
It matters how you have internalized your identity. Research shows that for children to truly integrate their identity, it is not enough for parents to support autonomy. This will help children to identify in a more autonomous way. But equally important is the role of credible demonstration by parents of the values themselves. This is the demonstration of internal values: when parents truly embody the values they would like to transmit. Then it is much more likely that children will actually integrate them and become more autonomous.
Research shows that children of parents who authentically embody their values are more likely to internalize those values in an autonomous way, compared to children of parents who use controlling strategies or show inconsistency between words and actions (Grusec et al., 2014; Knafo-Noam et al., 2020).
When we think about identity, this is the task of late adolescence and early adulthood. But in a sense, throughout life it is difficult to determine who we are. Life transitions such as changing careers, becoming a parent, migration, and losing loved ones prompt re-evaluation and reconstruction of identity. From the SDT perspective, the capacity for flexible adaptation of identity while preserving a sense of authenticity and psychological wholeness depends on the degree of autonomous integration of identity. Individuals with an authentically integrated identity show greater resilience in life challenges (Weinstein et al., 2012).
In this context, authentic identity is characterized by self-awareness: an accurate understanding of one’s values, interests, strengths, and weaknesses; unbiased processing: an objective appraisal of information about the self, including negative feedback; authentic behavior: actions consistent with true values and beliefs; and relational authenticity: sincerity and openness in interpersonal interactions (Kernis & Goldman, 2006).
Our identity may be present to a greater or lesser degree, and this is precisely the case when it is authentic. Some people arrive at an identity because it seems to them that they must do so, or that they are obliged to adopt a certain identity; and others because they truly understand its value and how well it matches their interests. And it is the latter that supports human flourishing.
Therapeutic interventions based on self-determination theory emphasize supporting the client’s autonomy - validating the client’s perspective, providing choice, minimizing control, facilitating identity exploration, encouraging reflection on values, interests, and goals; identifying introjected aspects of identity: recognizing roles and values adopted under pressure; and supporting integration as a synthesis of different aspects of the self into a coherent identity (Ryan et al., 2011; Vansteenkiste et al., 2020).
Empirical research shows that therapeutic approaches that support autonomy lead to better therapeutic outcomes compared to controlling approaches (Zuroff et al., 2007; Deci & Ryan, 2012).
An interesting parallel can be drawn with Acceptance and Commitment Therapy (ACT), which shares significant conceptual overlap with self-determination theory in the context of forming an authentic identity. Acceptance and Commitment Therapy emphasizes psychological flexibility - the ability to be in contact with the present moment and to choose or sustain behavior in accordance with our values (Hayes et al., 2006).
A central process in ACT is values clarification - identifying what is truly important to the individual and committing to actions that are consistent with these values. This directly corresponds to the concept of autonomous identity in self-determination theory, where identity reflects the individual’s true values and interests.
ACT also works with the concept of “self-as-context” as opposed to “self-as-content” (Hayes et al., 2012). Self-as-content refers to fixed self-descriptions and labels: “I am a failure,” “I am an anxious person,” etc., which can be rigid and limiting—similar to externally imposed identities in self-determination theory. Self-as-context, on the other hand, is the perspective of the observing awareness that can notice thoughts, feelings, and self-descriptions without identifying with them. This flexibility in relating to one’s own identity allows the individual to explore and re-evaluate identity commitments in a way that is consistent with the concept of autonomous identity exploration.
The process of cognitive defusion in ACT - the ability to observe thoughts and beliefs as psychological events rather than as literal truths (Hayes et al., 2006), can be particularly helpful when working with externally imposed identities. When a client says, “I have to be a doctor because my parents expect it,” cognitive defusion can help the client recognize this as a thought-as-thought rather than as a fact or an inevitable truth about their identity. This creates an opportunity to explore authentic interests and values, which is the foundation for the development of autonomous identity (Villatte et al., 2016).
In addition, ACT works with the concept of committed action: maintaining behavior that is consistent with values even in the presence of psychological discomfort. This resonates with research within self-determination theory showing that autonomously motivated individuals demonstrate greater persistence and deeper engagement with chosen identity roles even when they face challenges (Vansteenkiste et al., 2004). Integrating ACT processes with SDT principles in therapeutic work can provide a powerful framework for supporting clients in developing an authentic, flexible, and values-oriented identity.
Self-determination theory provides a rich conceptual framework for understanding the process of individuation, emphasizing the role of the basic psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness. A key distinction within the theory is the difference between identity as a social label and identity as an integrated psychological process; between the mere presence of identity commitments and the degree of their autonomous internalization, which is precisely what determines psychological well-being and adaptive functioning.
References
Bindman, S. W., Pomerantz, E. M., & Roisman, G. I. (2015). Do children's executive functions account for associations between early autonomy-supportive parenting and achievement through high school? Journal of Educational Psychology, 107(3), 756–770. https://doi.org/10.1037/edu0000017
Grolnick, W. S., & Ryan, R. M. (1989). Parent styles associated with children's self-regulation and competence in school. Journal of Educational Psychology, 81(2), 143–154. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-0663.81.2.143
Grusec, J. E., Chaparro, M. P., Johnston, M., & Sherman, A. (2014). The development of moral behavior from a socialization perspective. In M. Killen & J. G. Smetana (Eds.), Handbook of moral development (2nd ed., pp. 113–134). Psychology Press.
Hayes, S. C., Luoma, J. B., Bond, F. W., Masuda, A., & Lillis, J. (2006). Acceptance and commitment therapy: model, processes and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 44(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2005.06.006
Hayes, S. C., Strosahl, K. D., & Wilson, K. G. (2012). Acceptance and commitment therapy: The process and practice of mindful change (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.
Joussemet, M., Koestner, R., Lekes, N., & Landry, R. (2005). A longitudinal study of the relationship of maternal autonomy support to children's adjustment and achievement in school. Journal of Personality, 73(5), 1215–1236. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-6494.2005.00347.x
Kim, S. Y. (2013). Defining tiger parenting in Chinese Americans. Human Development, 56(4), 217–222. https://doi.org/10.1159/000353711
Kernis, M. H., & Goldman, B. M. (2006). A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: Theory and research. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 283–357. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38006-9
Knafo-Noam, A., Vertsberger, D., & Israel, S. (2020). Genetic and environmental contributions to children's prosocial behavior: Brief review and new evidence from a reanalysis of experimental twin data. Current Opinion in Psychology, 44, 60–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2021.08.028
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Parenting and the facilitation of autonomy and well-being in development. In R. M. Ryan & E. L. Deci, Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in motivation, development, and wellness (pp. 319–350). Guilford Press.
Soenens, B., Berzonsky, M. D., Dunkel, C. S., Papini, D. R., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2011). Are all identity commitments created equally? The importance of motives for commitment for late adolescents' personal adjustment. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 35(4), 358–369. https://doi.org/10.1177/0165025411405954
Vasquez, A. C., Patall, E. A., Fong, C. J., Corrigan, A. S., & Pine, L. (2016). Parent autonomy support, academic achievement, and psychosocial functioning: A meta-analysis of research. Educational Psychology Review, 28(3), 605–644. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10648-015-9329-z
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L. (2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: the synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(2), 246–260. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.2.246
Villatte, J. L., Vilardaga, R., Villatte, M., Plumb Vilardaga, J. C., Atkins, D. C., & Hayes, S. C. (2016). Acceptance and Commitment Therapy modules: Differential impact on treatment processes and outcomes. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 77, 52–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.brat.2015.12.001
Weinstein, N., Ryan, W. S., DeHaan, C. R., Przybylski, A. K., Legate, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2012). Parental autonomy support and discrepancies between implicit and explicit sexual identities: Dynamics of self-acceptance and defense. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102(4), 815–832. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0026854
Zuroff, D. C., Koestner, R., Moskowitz, D. S., McBride, C., Marshall, M., & Bagby, M. R. (2007). Autonomous motivation for therapy: A new common factor in brief treatments for depression. Psychotherapy Research, 17(2), 137–147. https://doi.org/10.1080/10503300600919380