Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation

The Search for Optimal Motivation and Performance

Carol Sansone,Judith M. Harackiewicz

• Éditeur: Academic Press
• Année: 2000
• ISBN:
  9780080509099
• Sujet: Psychologie
• Sous-sujet: Persönlichkeit in der Psychologie

In understanding human behavior, psychologists have long been interested in what motivates specific actions. Debates have pitted extrinsic motivators (e.g. rewards/punishment) against intrinsic motivation in attempting to determine what best motivates individuals. This book provides a summary view of what research has determined about both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, and clarifies what questions remain unanswered. Divided into three sections, section I revisits the debate about the effects of extrinsic incentives or constraints on intrinsic motivation and creativity, and identifies theoretical advances in motivational research. Section II focuses on the hidden costs and benefits of different types of achievement goals on motivation and performance. Section III discusses theory and research findings on how extrinsic and intrinsic motivators may work in everyday life and over time. This book is of interest to researchers in psychology, education, and business, as well as to a wider audience interested in promoting optimal motivation and performance.Coverage in this book includes: * Debates and controversies in motivational research* Developmental nature of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation over time* Influences of parents, educators, and employers in facilitating motivation* Effect of achievement goals on learning and performance* The role of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in self-regulationKey Features* Brings together major figures in the fields of motivation, education, and social psychology* Provides a mix of theory, basic and applied research* Presents research conducted both in laboratories and educational settings* Comprehensive chapters provide excellent reviews of previous literature as well as outlines important new directions* Provides different perspectives on controversial debates in a balanced, constructive manner

CHAPTER 1 Looking beyond Rewards

The Problem and Promise of Intrinsic Motivation

CAROL SANSONE
Department of Psychology University of Utah

JUDITH M. HARACKIEWICZ
Department of Psychology University of Wisconsin

Understanding why we do the things we do has long been a goal of psychologists. From early on, the field focused on two primary types of explanations for behavior: basic biological needs or drives connected to survival and procreation (e.g., hunger, thirst, sex) and extrinsic rewards or punishments. Both types of explanations suggest that behavior is motivated by the need or desire to achieve particular outcomes (e.g., restoring a tissue deficit to equilibrium, acquiring a reward, or avoiding punishment). Motivation thus energizes and guides behavior toward reaching a particular goal.

THE BIRTH OF DEBATE

Eventually, researchers began to recognize that humans and some other animals sometimes engage in behaviors that do not seem to be motivated by either biological needs or the desire to secure an extrinsic reward or avoid punishment. These behaviors motivated by “something else” seemed to be engaged in as ends in themselves and seemed to be associated with positive feelings of interest, enjoyment and satisfaction. For example, Woodworth (1921, p. 139) referred to this class of activities as “… less concerned with the struggle for existence than with the joy of living.” To explain why we do these things, researchers posited new drives (e.g., play instincts, effectance or competence motivation, curiosity, optimal stimulation) and talked about “intrinsic” rewards and intrinsic motivation, in which the rewards were inherent to the activity (e.g., Berlyne, 1960; Hunt, 1965; White, 1959; Woodworth, 1921). These early theorists also tended to see intrinsic motivation as independent of motivation due to biologically based “tissue deficits” and rewards and punishments. In other words, intrinsic rewards were seen to be an additional source of possible reinforcers that could serve to motivate behavior in the absence of or in addition to the motivation to satisfy a biological deficit or to receive an extrinsic reward or to avoid punishment.

In the early 1970s, several researchers began important programs of research that started to question the additive nature of “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” motivation. An early study by Deci (1972) suggested that college students paid to perform an interesting SOMA Cube puzzle became less likely to perform the puzzle on their own during a free-choice period. In 1973, Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett found that nursery school children offered a “good player award” for drawing a picture (something they normally did because they liked it) were less likely to spontaneously draw when back in their regular classrooms, compared with children who had not been rewarded for drawing. In addition, this study was important because it showed that this decrement did not occur if children received the same reward unexpectedly after drawing; that is, the effect depended on their perception that they were drawing in order to receive a reward. Using terminology from self-perception theory, the researchers called this reduction in free-time play the “overjustification effect.” They suggested that when individuals have both sufficient extrinsic (the reward) and intrinsic (interest) reasons to perform a behavior, they will discount the intrinsic reason and attribute their behavior to the extrinsic reward. Thus, when the extrinsic reward is no longer available, individuals no longer have sufficient intrinsic reasons to engage in the behavior. Kruglanski, Alon, and Lewis (1972) found that this decremental effect could occur even when the attribution to the extrinsic reward occurred retrospectively.

These seminal studies were the first of many to illustrate the paradox that extrinsic rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation, and they generated much excitement and spawned a large number of research studies and approaches. The early research was presented in a landmark volume edited by Lepper and Greene (1978) called The Hidden Costs of Rewards. In that book, chapters by Lepper, Greene, Deci, Kruglanski, and colleagues, as well as chapters by Condry, Csikzentmihalyi, McCullers, and others, documented an impressive number of studies suggesting that using an extrinsic reward to motivate someone to do something that the person would have done anyway could have detrimental effects on the quality and creativity of the person’s performance and on the person’s subsequent motivation to perform the activity once the extrinsic reward was received.

As research in this area burgeoned, more comprehensive theories were developed and these general conclusions were qualified by a number of carefully documented caveats. For example, the negative effects of extrinsic rewards on subsequent motivation were found only when individuals found the activity initially interesting (e.g., Calder & Staw, 1975; Lepper et al., 1973), and when the reward was seen as external to the activity (Kruglanski, 1975). In addition, the negative effects found for rewards did not seem to be limited to rewards but seemed to be associated with a variety of extrinsic constraints, such as deadlines and surveillance (e.g., Amabile, Dejong, & Lepper, 1976; Lepper & Greene, 1975). Thus, the field shifted to trying to understand the underlying process rather than focusing on reward effects per se. For example, Deci and Ryan’s (1985) cognitive evaluation theory suggested that rather than focusing on a particular external event, we need to understand its functional significance. They proposed that any event can have both informational and controlling properties. If the informational aspect is more salient and positive (i.e., the primary significance of that event for me is that it conveys that I am competent), then it may enhance my subsequent motivation. However, if the controlling aspect is more salient (i.e., the primary significance of that event for me is that it conveys that I am being controlled), then it will decrease my subsequent motivation.

These issues became particularly salient when researchers turned their attention to a different type of reward—a reward offered for achieving a certain level of competence at an activity. These performance-contingent rewards had the potential to be perceived as extremely controlling but also had the potential to communicate positive competence feedback. The effects of these types of rewards were mixed. Sometimes receiving a reward that signified competence at the task appeared to enhance subsequent motivation (Karniol & Ross, 1977), sometimes it seemed to decrease subsequent motivation (Harackiewicz, 1979), and sometimes it seemed to have no effect (Boggiano & Ruble, 1979). These findings highlighted the important role of competence information in intrinsic motivation and the need to develop models that could account for both positive and negative effects on intrinsic motivation. The first chapters in this book review some of these efforts.

During the 1970s and early 1980s, a number of researchers vociferously challenged and questioned these studies and conclusions, sparking a lively debate (e.g., Arnold, 1976; Feingold & Mahoney, 1975; Reiss & Sushinsky, 1975; Vasta and Stirpe, 1979). Many of the vocal critics came from behaviorist backgrounds. These researchers suggested that the “negative” effects were due to poor operationalizations of the reward as a reinforcer, a focus on short-term effects without consideration of overall reinforcement history, and neglect of the enormous amount of research showing that reinforcement makes behavior more, and not less, likely to occur (e.g., Flora, 1990; Mawhinney, 1990).

The divergent conclusions of these different literatures were left to coexist in a lingering tension. In the “real world,” the use of token economies (in which behavior is controlled by rewards) in schools and hospitals was and continues to be widespread. In business, compensation packages continue to be used to motivate workers, and in schools, teachers still use gold stars and stickers to reward children for good work. At the same time, management consultants counsel against using extrinsic incentives to motivate employees, and education consultants counsel against policies and procedures which interfere with intrinsic motivation to learn (Kohn, 1993). Thus, both sides of this ongoing debate have informed policy.

THIS BOOK

The debate reerupted in 1996 when Eisenberger and Cameron published an article in American Psychologist entitled “Detrimental Effects of Reward: Reality or Myth?” In that article, they presented a review of the literature based primarily on meta-analytic techniques and described research from their own laboratory. On the basis of an earlier meta-analysis (Cameron & Pierce, 1994), they suggested that detrimental effects of rewards on motivation occur only when the reward is tangible (as opposed to verbal), expected (as opposed to unexpected), and not contingent on performance level (as opposed to contingent on meeting some performance standard). They further suggested, on the basis of their laboratory research, that rewards can in fact increase the incidence of creative performance (i.e., “reinforce” creativity) when the criteria for being creative (e.g., coming up with many different uses for an object) are clearly explained to an individual prior to performance. Their conclusions, as summarized in the abstract of the article, were that

a) detrimental effects of reward occur under highly restricted, easily avoidable conditions; b) mechanisms of instrumental and classical conditioning are basic for understanding incremental and decremental effects of reward on task motivation; and c) positive effects of reward on generalized creativity are easily attainable using procedures derived from behavior theory. (p. 1153)

The publication of that article in the flagship journal of the American Psychological Association signaled that questions first raised in the early 1970s about the use of rewards were still being debated and that the debate was of great interest in psychology. The appearance of the article also highlighted the need to update the discussion beyond the effects of extrinsic rewards per se, to include newer models, approaches, and applications that have emerged since the early 1970s. Subsequently, we (Sansone and Harackiewicz) organized a symposium for the Society of Experimental Social Psychology, meeting in October 1997. As a starting point, we used the recent reemergence of the debate about the effects of rewards and other extrinsic incentives on motivation and creativity to frame the symposium, but we also extended the panel to include new theoretical approaches to the field. Participants in the symposium were Robert Eisenberger and Judy Cameron, Teresa Amabile and Beth Hennessey, Mark Lepper, Ed Deci and Rich Ryan, Tory Higgins, Arie Kruglanski and James Shah, and Judith Harackiewicz and Carol Sansone. The debate became somewhat heated, given the different approaches and answers given.

In light of the debate among the symposium panel members and the renewed and continuing interest in understanding “intrinsic” and “extrinsic” motivation (as evidenced by a 1999 special issue of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, commentaries in the American Psychologist (1998), subsequent meta-analytical reviews and responses published in the Psychological Bulletin [1999], etc.), we decided that it was time for a volume to revisit the earlier work and provide an update both on what we have learned since then and on what we have still to learn. Some chapters in this book revisit the initial seminal work on this topic and examine how well its conclusions have stood the test of time. Other chapters focus on newer issues or approaches that evolved from the earlier work. The chapters also provide a mix of theory and basic and applied research, with research conducted both in laboratories and educational settings.

Robert Eisenberger and Judy Cameron were invited to contribute a chapter to this book, but they declined the opportunity. However, most of the other participants in the symposium have contributed chapters. In addition, we have included chapters by other researchers whose work we believe represents important and groundbreaking contributions that attempt to integrate the role of interest and intrinsic motivation into the examination of whether and how people learn and perform.

The book has three major sections. In Part I (“Are the Costs of Rewards Still Hidden? A New Look at an Old Debate”), authors review and update the literature on the effects of rewards and other extrinsic incentives or constraints on motivation and creativity. Thus, Richard Ryan and Edward Deci discuss the results from their meta-analytical review of the rewards literature (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999) in terms of support for the predictions made by cognitive evaluation theory and their broader self-determination theory. They suggest that individuals have innate needs for competence and control, and that rather than focus on the effects of any particular “extrinsic” event, one must consider the meaning of the event in light of these needs. They then review more recent extensions of this work into other domain...

Table des matières

• Cover
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contributors
• Preface
• Acknowledgments
• Table of Contents
• Chapter 1: Looking beyond rewards
• Part 1: Are the costs of rewards still hidden?
• Part 2: A new debate
• Part 3: The role of interest in learning and self-regulation
• Part 4: Conclusion
• Author index
• Subject index
• Instructions for online access