Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

248
ALTERNATIVE MODELS OF INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION By MICHAEL DWAIN CRINO A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 1978

Transcript of Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

Page 1: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

ALTERNATIVE MODELS OF INTRINSIC AND

EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION

By

MICHAEL DWAIN CRINO

A DISSERTATION PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE COUNCIL OF

THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDAIN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

DEGREE OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

1978

Page 2: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

3 1262

Page 3: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author expresses his appreciation to Professor Jack M. Feldman,

to whom he owes an inestimable debt for the scholarly direction, counsel,

and friendship he so freely provided throughout the doctoral program.

Similarly, appreciation must be expressed to Professors H. Joseph

Reitz, Marvin E. Shaw, and Jerry W. Young for their patient review of

numerous drafts of this report, and for their many contributions to this

study and to the author's graduate education.

The author wishes to thank Dr. Ira Horowitz, whose initial encourage-

ment and support made this study possible.

Thanks are also owed to Dr. David A. Martin, and to the entire faculty

and staff of the Department of Economics and Management Science, State

University College of New York at Geneseo, Geneseo, New York. They

generously provided their time and resources in support of this study.

Special appreciation is reserved for the author's wife, Laurie, who

willingly and enthusiastically contributed to this study in every con-

ceivable fashion in addition to providing patient encouragement and under-

standing throughout the doctoral program.

n

Page 4: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS ii

LIST OF TABLES v

LIST OF FIGURES vii

ABSTRACT ^x

CHAPTER

I. INTRODUCTION1

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation Defined 2

The Intrinsic/Extrinsic Controversy 4Organizational Implications 5

Hypothesized Relationships 8

Statement of the Problem 25Summary of the General Hypotheses 25Notes 28

II. METHODOLOGY 29

Subjects 29Design 29Procedure 35Instruments 38Notes 46

III. RESULTS 47

Data 47Replications 57

Data Analysis 82Notes 120

IV. DISCUSSION 121

The Study 121

Results 125Implications 127

Future Research 128

APPENDIX AAPPENDIX B

APPENDIX C

Methodology 131

Operational Hypotheses 146Results 166

m

Page 5: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

Page

BIBLIOGRAPHY 227

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH 234

IV

Page 6: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

1. Experimental Design 30

2. Operational Definitions of Independent Variables(Design Factors) 31

3. Operational Definitions of Dependent Variables 36

4. Factor Analytically Based Composite SemanticDifferential Scales 40

5. Summary of Dependent Variable Measures 43

6. Summary of Measured Variables for Statistical Control ... 44

7. Summary of Task Dimensionality Measures 45

8. Comparison of Individual Measures of IntrinsicMotivation in Isolated Control Groups 49

9. Correlation Matrix of Intrinsic Motivation IndicesIsolated Control Groups 50

10. Oneway Anova for High and Low Interest Control GroupsTask Dimensionality Composite Scales 51

11. Replications of Deci Study iJ8

12. Replications of Deci Study 61

13. Replications of Deci Study 63

14. Replications of Reiss and Sushinsky Study 66

15. Replications of Reiss and Sushinsky Study 68

16. Replications of Reiss and Sushinsky Study 70

17. Replications of Calder and Staw StudyAnalyses of Variance: Intrinsic Motivation Indices ... 73

18. Replications of Calder and Staw StudyAnalyses of Variance: Indices of Intrinsic Motivation .

^^

Page 7: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

Table Page

19. Replications of Calder and Staw StudyAnalyses of Variance: Indices of Intrinsic Motivation . 78

20. Replications of Calder and Staw Study Utilizing A

Variant of Reiss and Sushinsky Multiple ExtrinsicReward Schedule, Analyses of Variance: IntrinsicMotivation Indices 80

21. Replications of Calder and Staw Study Utilizing AVariant of Reiss and Sushinsky Multiple ExtrinsicReward Schedule, Analyses of Variance: IntrinsicMotivation Indices 83

22. Replications of Calder and Staw Study Utilizing AVariant of Reiss and Sushinsky Multiple ExtrinsicReward Schedule, Analyses of Variance: IntrinsicMotivation Indices 85

23. Planned Comparisons Between Control Groups and FeedbackOnly Conditions 88

24. Planned Comparisons for Feedback Only Conditions 90

25. Effects of Feedback on Intrinsic MotivationAnalyses of Variance 92

26. Hypotheses Matrix for Intrinsic Motivation Index 98

27. Analysis of Variance: Intrinsic Motivation Indices .... 99

28. Extrinsic Reward Effect: Intrinsic Motivation 102

29. Analysis of Variance: Extrinsic Motivation(Feelings About the Payment: Faces Scale) 108

30. Hypotheses for Overall Motivation 112

31. Analysis of Variance: Overall Motivation(Feelings About Both Task and Payment: Faces Scale) . . 113

Page 8: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Self-perception theory: a conceptual framework 9

2. Alpha-notated experimental design 34

3. Comparison of Theoretical Expected Frequency Distributionand The Observed Frequency Distribution of SubjectsOver Available Experimental Treatment Days 54

4. Comparison of Theoretical Expected Frequency Distributionand The Observed Frequency Distribution of SubjectsOver Available Experimental Treatment Times 55

5. Replications of The Deci Study (One end-of-taskpayment of $1.50) 59

6. Replications of The Deci Study (One end-of-taskpayment of $3.00) 62

7. Replications of The Deci Study (One end-of-taskpayment averaging $2.25) 64

8. Replication of The Reiss and Sushinsky Study (Teninstallments of $.15 each) 67

9. Replications of the Reiss and Sushinsky Study (Teninstallments of $.30 each) 69

10. Replications of the Reiss and Sushinsky Study (Teninstallments of $.22 each) 71

11. Replications of The Calder and Staw Study (One paymentof $1.50) 74

12. Replications of The Calder and Staw Study (One paymentof $3.00) 76

13. Replications of The Calder and Staw Study (One paymentaveraging $2.50) 79

14. Replications of The Calder and Staw Study Utilizing A

Variant of The Reiss and Sushinsky Multiple ExtrinsicReward Schedule (Ten installments of $.15 each) 81

vn

Page 9: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

FigureP^ge

15. Replications of The Calder and Staw Study Utilizing A

Variant of The Reiss and Sushinsky Multiple Extrinsic

Reward Schedule (Ten installments of $.30 each) 84

16. Replications of The Calder and Staw Study Utilizing A

Variant of The Reiss and Sushinsky Multiple Extrinsic

Reward Schedule (Ten installments averaging $.22 each) . . 86

17. Analysis of variance: feedback conditions 91

18. Feedback analysis of contingency X interest X feedback

schedule: task interest (faces scale) 93

19. Feedback analysis of contingency X interest X feedback

schedule: task enjoyability (faces scale) 94

20. Feedback analysis of contingency X interest X feedback

schedule: task enjoyability (composite scale) 95

21. Extrinsic reward effect: intrinsic motivation (task

interest, task enjoyability: composite semantic

differential ^03

22. Examination of significant simple effect one: Interest

X contingency X extrinsic reward/feedback schedule

interaction. Dependent variable: Intrinsic motivation

(task interest) ^^^

23. Examination of significant simple effect two: Interest

X extrinsic reward/feedback schedule interaction.

Dependent variable: Intrinsic motivation (task interest) . 106

24. Extrinsic reward effect: Extrinsic motivation (feelings

about payment) 10^

25. Extrinsic reward effect: Overall motivation (feelings

about task and pay) ^^5

26. Extrinsic reward/feedback contingency main effect:

overall motivation (feelings about pay) 116

27. Examination of extrinsic reward X extrinsic reward/

feedback schedule interaction (performance-contingent

extrinsic rewards, multiple extrinsic reward/feedback

schedule) 118

28. Interest X contingency X extrinsic reward level inter-

action: overall motivation index (feelings about

task and pay) 119

Page 10: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

Abstract of Dissertation Presented to the Graduate Councilof the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

ALTERNATIVE MODELS OF INTRINSIC ANDEXTRINSIC MOTIVATION

By

Michael Dwain Crino

August, 1978

Chairman: Jack M. FeldmanMajor Department: Management

Theorists and practitioners alike are concerned with the relationship

between intrinsic and extrinsic sources of worker motivation in organiza-

tional settings. A number of relationships between the receipt of in-

trinsic and extrinsic incentives and subsequent motivation have been sug-

gested in the motivation literature. Among them are: a) Positive

dependent--through the process of secondary reinforcement one's feelings

about the task are bound to improve regardless of prior feelings, b)

Interactive--1) Negative: making extrinsic rewards contingent upon task

performance may reduce intrinsic motivation; 2) Positive: the more

intrinsically motivating a task is, the more motivating a given level of

task-contingent extrinsic rewards will be. c) Corequisite--l ) No extrinsic

motivation can exist in the absence of intrinsic motivation; 2) No

intrinsic motivation can exist until basic lower-level needs are adequately

satisfied via extrinsic rewards, d) Independent--the motivation generated

by performance-contingent extrinsic rewards and the level of intrinsic

motivation are unrelated and contribute to overall motivation independently

via direct functional relationships.

IX

Page 11: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

Four of these alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motiva-

tion are discussed, and investigated in a controlled experiment. These

models include the simple additive or independent model (expectancy

theory), the positive dependent model (secondary reinforcement), the

negative interactive model (self-perception theory, competing responses

hypothesis), and the positive interactive model. A specially designed

apparatus was constructed allowing the simultaneous manipulation of

intrinsic incentives (high interest task, low interest task), extrinsic

incentives (no payment, payment of $1.50, payment of $3.00), contingency

of payments (performance contingent, performance noncontingent) , and

monetary payment administration schedule (single payment, multiple partial

payments). This constitutes a 2X3X2X2 factorial design. Special consider-

ation was given to the control of feedback effects (design control),

monetary payment levels across contingency situations (design control),

timing of payments across contingency situations (design control), the

influence of the extra credit incentive used to solicit the volunteer

subjects (statistical control), and experimental treatment time both

within and across experimental days (statistical control).

Dependent variables included attitudinal measures of intrinsic,

extrinsic, and overall motivation. In addition, a behavioral measure of

intrinsic motivation was utilized (willingness to participate in a future

study without pay)

.

Analyses of variance (in addition to a^ priori and d_ posteriori

contrasts) provided limited support for both the simple additive and the

positive dependent models. Only the positive dependent model was clearly

supported by the analyses of the attitudinal measures of intrinsic moti-

vation. However, the results of the analysis of the attitudinal measure

Page 12: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

of overall motivation was consistent with both the additive and positive

dependent models. This is due, in part, to the similarity of the hypo-

theses for overall motivation derived from these two theoretical positions.

It was noted that both the positive dependent and simple additive models

predict increases in overall motivation as contingent intrinsic or extrinsic

incentives (or both) are increased, although the underlying dynamics are

not similar.

Implications for theory and practice are discussed. Practical impli-

cations include the suggestion that organizations may provide intrinsic

and extrinsic incentive combinations without fear of decreasing overall

worker motivation. The positive dependent relationship, however, requires

that more attention be paid to the specific characteristics of positive

reinforcers. Important directions for future research are suggested.

XT

Page 13: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

CHAPTER I

INTRODUCTION

Organizations, as diverse as their philosophies and objectives might

be, face a common problem: the provision of environments and tasks which

will enhance member performance and commitment. Attempts to solve this

problem have varied widely; they include both the individual financial

incentive systems of the scientific management era (Taylor, 1919) as well as

more recent job enrichment programs (Herzberg, 1968). Basic to all the

approaches, regardless of their philosophy, has been the notion that the

provision of valued task-contingent rewards (both intrinsic and extrinsic

to the task) would serve to enhance member motivation to perform. To be

sure, controversy has existed as to the effectiveness, proper sequencing,

and/or appropriateness of these rewards in particular situations, but it

was always assumed in theory and practice that they were compatible.

Recently, questions have been raised as to their compatibility in various

combinations and sequences. In particular, it has been hypothesized that

the addition of valued extrinsic outcomes to an intrinsically motivating

task will undermine and reduce intrinsic motivation (and therefore overall

motivation) to perform that task (Deci, 1971). This is not a trivial con-

cern, for if the provision of task-contingent valued outcomes is indeed

detrimental to member motivation (in certain situations), organizations

may be expending valuable resources in a counterproductive way.

The purpose of the present study was to examine the relationship

between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The presentation which

1

Page 14: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

follows, 1) reviewsthe history and usefulness of the intrinsic/extrinsic

distinction, the various hypothesized relationships between the constructs,

the relevant empirical data and, 2) provides specific predictions con-

sistent with each theoretical position.

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation Defined

The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic outcomes, when such a

distinction is made, exists along two dimensions: 1) origin of the out-

come, and 2) control over the administration of the outcome.

Intrinsic outcomes are outcomes "derived from the task itself /and

as such are/ associated with the task or job itself" (Dyer & Parker, 1975,

p. 456). They include among others, task enjoyment (Calder & Staw, 1975a;

Staw, 1976); opportunity for independent thought and action (Dyer & Parker,

1975); feelings of task accomplishment (McClelland, 1971); feelings of

competence (White, 1959); and personal growth and development (Dyer &

Parker, 1975). Further, it is assumed that such outcomes are controlled

(mediated or administered) by the individual himself (Brief & Aldag, 1977;

Dyer & Parker, 1975; Mainstone & Bowen, 1977). These outcomes are called

intrinsic incentives, and the degree of effort exerted to acquire such

incentives is said to index intrinsic motivation (Brief & Aldag, 1977).

There is an extensive research history that supports the construct

validity of intrinsic incentives and intrinsic motivation. Data from

early animal studies encouraged the development of such theoretical con-

structs as needs for manipulation, exploration, and/or curiosity (Weiner,

1972). Early studies on the process of secondary reinforcement indicated

that an activity could take on motivation properties under certain condi-

tions (Ferster & Skinner, 1957). Maslow's speculations concerning higher-

order needs consist of statements in regard to behaviors that have no

Page 15: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

obvious dependence on external reinforcement (Maslow, 1970). McClelland's

work on need for achievement is another case where behavior is thought to

be independent of external rewards (McClelland, 1971).

Extrinsic outcomes are outcomes "derived from the environment sur-

rounding the task or work /a"nd as such ar¥/ associated with the context of

the task or job" (Dyer & Parker, 1975, p. 456). They include, among others,

financial incentives (Mainstone & Bowen, 1977), working conditions (Dyer

& Parker, 1975; Herzberg, 1968), and task success feedback (Deci, 1971;

Dyer & Parker, 1975). Further, it is assumed that such outcomes are con-

trolled (mediated or administered) "by the organization or agents of the

organization" (Dyer & Parker, 1975, p. 456). These outcomes are called

extrinsic incentives, and the degree of effort exerted to acquire such

incentives is said to index extrinsic motivation (Brief & Aldag, 1977),

A great deal of research has been conducted on the motivating properties

of extrinsic outcomes. The notion that task contingent extrinsic outcomes

can motivate individuals to perform organizationally defined tasks is

fundamental to economic theory and the operation of the American economy.

Although the usefulness of the intrinsic/extrinsic distinction has

been heavily criticized (Mainstone & Bower, 1977), it does serve to bring

an intuitively appealing order to the myriad of possible outcomes available

to an individual as a function of particular behaviors. Basic to the

criticism has been the demonstration that certain outcomes are classified

as intrinsic as often as they are classified as extrinsic by researchers

(Dyer & Parker, 1975). Rather than abandon the distinction, however, it

might be far more useful to conceive a two-dimensional intrinsic/extrinsic

continuum rather than a simple two-category system. The psychometric

properties of such a two-dimensional continuum present an important empirical

Page 16: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

question, which unfortunately can not be specifically addressed in this

presentation.

Until the characteristics of such a continuum have been empirically

investigated, researchers must deal with the classification of outcomes

as consistently as possible. It should be emphasized that the more clearcut

and generally accepted the classification of an outcome has been, the more

valuable it becomes for research purposes.

The Intrinsic/Extrinsic Controversy

A number of relationships between the receipt of intrinsic and

extrinsic incentives and subsequent motivation have been suggested in the

literature. They include:

1. Positive dependent: through the process of secondary rein-forcement (association through time with either a primary orsecondary reinforcement) one's intrinsic motivation to performthe task is going to increase. (Weiner, 1972)

2. Interactive: a) negative--making extrinsic rewards contingentupon task performance may reduce intrinsic motivation. (Calder& Staw, 1975 a & b; Deci, 1971)

b) Positive--the more intrinsically motivating a task is, themore a given level of task-contingent extrinsic rewards willmotivate. (Dermer, 1975)

3. Corequisite: a) no extrinsic motivation can exist in theabsence of intrinsic motivation. (Dermer, 1975)

b) No intrinsic motivation can exist until basic lower-levelneeds are adequately satisfied via extrinsic rewards. Maslow,1970)

4. Independent: the motivation generated by performance-contingent extrinsic rewards and the level of intrinsicmotivation are unrelated and contribute to overall motivationindependently via direct functional relationships. (House,Shapiro, & Wahba, 1974)

Page 17: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

Organizational Implications

The suggested relationships between the two motivational components

each have different implications as to how organizations should combine

intrinsic and extrinsic incentives.

A number of hypotheses require that attention be paid to the temporal

sequencing of the two types of incentives. One corequisite hypothesis

implies that the initial provision of extrinsic incentives by an organi-

zation sufficient to satisfy "lower-order needs" is necessary for the

effective use of intrinsic incentives, while the other implies the opposite.

The positive dependent hypothesis requires a contingent association

(over time) in order to increase intrinsic motivation to perform the task.

Those supporting this position would state that efforts to increase intrinsic

motivation, and hence overall motivation, through methods such as job

enrichment (independent of external task-contingent reward) would be

wasted. The implication would be that given task-contingent extrinsic

rewards, the most senior employees would be the most intrinsically motivated

employees. Indeed, there are data indicating the existence of a relation-

ship between seniority and job satisfaction (Reitz, 1977, p. 275), which is

at least consistent with the hypothesis, though not directly supportive.

The positive interactive hypothesis, on the other hand, states that

to get the greatest positive motivational impact out of a given level of

extrinsic rewards, the organization should add them to intrinsically

motivating tasks. An individual is predicted to respond far less strongly

to a given level of extrinsic rewards when the task itself is boring or

otherwise lacking in intrinsic motivation. This provides the clear impli-

cation that initial priorities should be the addition of intrinsic incen-

tives to tasks. This addition would serve to enhance the motivational

properties of existing extrinsic rewards as well as possible future ones.

Page 18: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

The independence hypothesis argues for additivity without reference

to temporal sequencing or previous associations. Organizations may simply

substitute one incentive for the other (keeping overall motivation con-

stant) or either may be increased, thus causing overall motivation to

increase. No superiority of either incentive is implied. Thus, the

organization is free to determine which particular incentive it can most

easily add or increase.

The most controversial of the proposed relationships is the negative

interactive hypothesis (Calder & Staw, 1975 a & b; Deci , 1971; Staw, 1976),

Within this framework it is predicted that an originally intrinsically

rewarding task will, when external performance-related rewards are added,

lose intrinsic reward value.

In an applied sense this idea is quite important. If an organization

(whose tasks are such that individuals are currently performing them in

the absence of significant external performance-related rewards) decides

to institute or increase external rewards to significant levels, it may be

eroding intrinsic motivation to perform the task behavior. Examples of

such organizations include volunteer groups, public servants, and perhaps

the military. Pursuing our military example, the recent attempts at pro-

viding military salaries that are competitive with civilian salaries may be

significantly diminishing the intrinsic motivation derived from such notions

as service to one's country, devotion to duty, and partiotism. The recent

decline in reenlistment rates is not inconsistent with this hypothesis.

Korman (1977) cites a study which he coauthored in 1974 with similar

implications: ". . . it was found that adding incentives for naval enlist-

ment and reenlistment did not lead to greater likelihood of choosing the

Navy as a career. In fact, sometimes it led to less." (p. 49)

Page 19: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

Additional fuel has been added to this controversy by various

researchers who assert that overall motivation to perform intrinsically

interesting tasks will also decrease when external performance-related

rewards are added. This decrease in overall motivation is hypothesized

to be a direct result of the erosion of intrinsic motivation. While data

indicating a decrease in overall motivation would be consistent with

various motivation theories, so too would the two alternatives--maintenance

or increase in overall motivation. There are no compelling reasons to

believe this decrease will take place, nor are there supporting empirical

data. Thus, the degree to which this "accompanying" decrease in overall

motivation has been accepted as a natural extension of the negative inter-

active relationship is somewhat surprising.

Equally surprising have been the generalizations of the negative

interactive relationship to business organizations. These generalizations

reveal the degree to which the literature has failed to discriminate

between 1) adding extrinsic rewards where none had existed, and 2) in-

creasing already existing extrinsic rewards. Self-perception theory, the

theory underlying the negative interactive relationship, requires an initial

perception of intrinscially motivated behavior in order for the effect to

occur. (Self-perception theory will be discussed in detail in the following

section.) This condition is met by a task for which there is no history of

significant external performance-related rewards. However, payment is

inherent in the performance of occupational tasks and it is unlikely that

the initial perception of task behavior motivation would be intrinsic.

Clearly, inferential extensions of the negative interactive relationship to

business occupations at this point are unwarranted.

Page 20: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

One researcher (Deci, 1972) has gone so far as to suggest that the

resolution of this "dilemma" lies in the provision of non-performance

contingent external rewards, a radical departure from current convention

and intuition.

Until such time that data are generated which bear directly upon the

issue of the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation for

typical occupational tasks, extreme caution should be exercised in dis-

cussions of the possible impact of the negative interactive relationship

in business organizations.

The following sections address the underlying theory and supporting

data for the principle positions: interactive (positive and negative),

additive, and positive dependent.

Hypothesized Relationships

Negative Interactive Relationship

Theory

Most current research is directed toward either confirming or refuting

the hypothesized negative interactive relationship. The theoretical justi-

fication for the negative interactive relationship is drawn from self-

perception theory, which states:

Individuals come to 'know' their own attitudes, emotions, and otherinternal states partially by inferring them from observations oftheir own overt behavior and/or the circumstances in which thisbehavior occurs. Thus, to the extent that internal cues are weak,ambiguous, or uninterpretable, the individual is functionally inthe same position as an outside observer, an observer who mustnecessarily rely upon those same external cues to infer theindividual's inner states. (Bem, 1972, p. 2)

This implies that individuals work backward from their own actions in

inferring the causes of their behavior. Figure 1 provides us with a

framework for a discussion of self-perception theory. There are four basic

combinations of intrinsic and extrinsic rewards.

Page 21: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

o <-+->

o •>-

•I- s-+J O)3 4->

JD O•I- ros- s--M m•M ^re o

•r- -r- Q. 3

uO)> o t/l I/)

•r- C T3CU .— -r- S_

U O) S- rdS- > +-> SO) O) C OJQ I >—

I

Qi

oi c

Page 22: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

10

Quadrant I has been called the insufficient justification condition.

A person is engaging in an activity for which there is little intrinsic

qr_ extrinsic reward. An appropriate question an individual in this situa-

tion might ask is, "Why am I doing this?" Self-perception theory predicts

that the individual will reevaluate the level of intrinsic interest upward

and come to the conclusion that: "Since I am doing this of my own free

will, and there is no obvious externally mediated reward for it, then I

must like it." This will move the individual from Quadrant I to Quadrant

IV. The notion that the intrinsic reward level will be reevaluated (as

opposed to the extrinsic) is reasoned to be a function of the more obvious

and objective characteristics of extrinsic rewards as a class. In the

insufficient justification condition self-perception theory and cognitive

consistency theory lead to the same prediction. Cognitive consistency

theory theorists often create this condition by the experimental proce-

dure known as the forced-compliance design (e.g., Festinger & Carlsmith,

1959).

Quadrant IV is a stable state. A person engaging in an activity for

which there is a high level of intrinsic rewards, and a low level of ex-

trinsic rewards, will simply assume he is doing it because of the high

intrinsic rewards.

Quadrant III is also a stable state. The extrinsic rewards for

engaging in the activity are high, the intrinsic, low. An individual will

attribute his behavior to the presence of the high level of extrinsic

rewards. Cognitive consistency theory and self-perception theory also

agree on the stability of situations falling within Quadrants III and IV.

Cognitive consistency theories predict Quadrant II to be a stable

state. An individual will experience no dissonance when engaged in an

Page 23: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

11

activity for which there are both high levels of intrinsic interest and

extrinsic reward. It is not inconsistent to be externally rewarded for

engagement in an interesting activity. Self-perception theory, however,

predicts that an individual can only move through this state, moving

eventually into Quadrant III. An individual is generally moved into this

Quadrant by an increase in external rewards associated with an activity

he/she perceives as highly interesting or enjoyable. At this point self-

perception theory predicts that in order to explain his behavior an individ-

ual will reevaluate downward his perceptions of the intrinsic rewards of

the activity, thus allowing him to attribute his behavior to the expecta-

tion of external rewards. This prediction alludes to a negative inter-

active relationship between the two motivational constructs. This pre-

dicted negative relationship has been called the over-justification effect.

Bem states ".. .An over-justification effect is predicted if one is

willing to assume that to the extent that external contingencies of rein-

forcement are strongly apparent, the individual infers that he did not want

to perform the activity, that he does not believe in it, or that it does

not reflect his true opinions." (Bem, 1972, p. 39)

Empirical Evidence

There has been considerable empirical support for the over-justification

hypothesis in recent years (Calder & Staw, 1975 a & b; Deci , Cascio, &

Krusell, 1975; Staw, 1976). Investigations of the over-justification

effect have generally conformed to the following experimental design.

1. An intrinsically interesting activity is selected. Examples

include puzzles (Calder & Staw, 1975; Deci, Cascio, & Krusell, 1975), and

play activity (Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973).

Page 24: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

12

2. Subjects who would normally participate in the activity are

selected, and randomly separated into three groups. (Two groups are

treatment groups and the other a control.

)

3. Experimental Time Period 1 - All groups of subjects become in-

volved with the intrinsically interesting activity and some measure of

their voluntary engagement in it is taken (e.g., free time spent engaged

in the activity)

.

4- Experimental Time Period 2 - One treatment group is told to ex-

pect a reward for engaging in the intrinsically interesting activity.

They are shown the reward, and are given it at the end of this experi-

mental period. Another treatment group is not told to expect a reward,

but is given one at the end of this experimental period. The third group

is neither told of nor receives any reward. The same measure of voluntary

involvement in the intrinsically interesting activity is taken as in step

3 above.

5- Experimental Time Period 3 - All groups are observed as a post-

test of interest in the activity. The same measure of involvement or

interest level is taken as in steps 3 and 4 above.

The over-justification hypothesis predicts that if the reward contin-

gencies are salient, unambiguous, sufficient (to explain to the subject

why he performed the behavior), and the reward expected, intrinsic moti-

vation to perform the originally interesting task will decrease (Reiss &

Sushinsky, 1975, p. 1117). This translates, in terms of the general design

above, to the "expected reward group" exhibiting less interest in the

activity during Experimental Period 3 than eigher the "unexpected reward"

or the "no reward" groups. With reference to our Quadrant Discussion, this

design moves one of the original groups, initially in Quadrant IV, into

Page 25: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

13

Quadrant II where the subsequent "reevaluation" of the intrinsically

interesting activity was observed. The crucial effect is the difference

in the levels of the measure of intrinsic motivation between the control

and unexpected reward groups, which have remained in Quadrant IV, and the

expected reward group. This difference, it is reasoned, reflects the

impact of external rewards on intrinsic task interest. A significant

decrease in the intrinsic interest measure for the expected rewards group

has been consistently obtained. This has been taken to mean that there was

a reattribution of the causes of behavior within the expected reward group,

and hence as support for the over-justification hypothesis.

Unfortunately, there are almost as many alternative explanations for

the data as there are studies of this nature. These alternative explana-

tions include: fatigue and satiation effects (expected reward groups

generally engage in the activity a great deal more during Experimental

Period 2 than do either of the other two groups); frustration effects

resulting from the delay in gratification; selection of the intrinsically

interesting tasks based on a priori intuition rather than empirical data;

nonrandom selection of subjects; poor control for experimental context

effects and a high probability that verbal instructions were misunderstood

given the age (often young children, e.g., Lepper, et al., 1973) of many

subjects (Calder & Staw, 1975; Reiss & Sushinsky, 1975).

In spite of the validity of these criticisms for particular studies,

the consistent results obtained by a number of different researchers using

several kinds of tasks, groups of subjects, and extrinsic rewards (Staw,

1976) point out a phenomenon worthy of further and hopefully better con-

trolled study.

Page 26: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

14

Calder and Staw (1975) controlled fairly well for the various alter-

native explanations cited above. Using puzzles (after Deci, 1972) and

monetary payment, they manipulated both extrinsic and intrinsic rewards

levels (pay, no pay, interesting puzzles set, uninteresting puzzles set).

The results were mixed. Using "enjoyabil ity" ratings, they found that

the stated enjoyabil ity of performing an intrinsically interesting task

(picture puzzles) decreased dramatically when payment for the task was

made. This is consistent with self-perception theory in this instance.

However, an increase in task enjoyability resulted from the association

between the originally uninteresting task and monetary payment, a result

consistent with secondary reinforcement theory.

One alternative explanation for the increased task enjoyability of

the boring task is the possibility that the task enjoyability measurement

scale tapped overall motivation as opposed to intrinsic motivation.

However, this position is weakened, given that a second measure of

intrinsic motivation (willingness to perform the task in the future without

pay) reflected a similar pattern (although not significantly so).

Although methodology employed in this study represents a significant

improvement over that used in earlier over-justification studies, major

drawbacks may be cited. Task classification and development were based on

data generated using seven point semantic differential scales. The

postexperimental measure of task enjoyability was a seventeen point scale

disallowing meaningful pre and postexperimental comparisons. Thus,

experimental context effects may not be evaluated. Additionally, there is

some question as to the validity of a seventeen point semantic differential

scale, given that in general an individual's ability to accurately dis-

criminate deteriorates after not many more than seven points (Heise, 1969;

Miller, 1956).

Page 27: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

lb

A second drawback is the inability of the experimental design to

separate feedback effects from extrinsic reward effects. Task success

feedback has been found to act in a manner consistent with an increase in

intrinsic motivation for males and a decrease for females (Deci, 1971).

It would appear therefore that feedback and extrinsic rewards may act in

opposite directions. As a consequence, even though Calder and Staw used

only male subjects, it is likely that they observed confounded effects,

severely handicapping their inferences.

Theoretical Alternatives

Other theorists have been attracted to this problem. In particular,

several feel the data can be explained within a less elaborate stimulus-

response framework (Reiss & Sushinsky, 1975), generally labeled the "com-

peting response hypothesis." Their alternative provides a very plausible

explanation for the data. In its simplest form it states the addition of

an extrinsic reward to an already intrinsically interesting activity (the

"oversufficient justification condition") will cause a set of responses

competit)g witn the task behavior to be elicited from the individual. The

extrinsic reward acts as a stimulus that elicits responses interfering

with task behavior. Such interference will cause the individual to sub-

sequently lose interest in the activity when the stimulus is withdrawn.

Thus, there is no dispute with the data, merely the suggestion that an

external reward, as administered in the over-justification studies, acts

as one of many possible distracting stimuli might act. The effect,

therefore, is not unique to external incentives, but to a general class of

salient distractive stimuli .

Reiss and Sushinsky (1975) devised two experiments to test whether it

was the external reward per se or its administration that caused the

Page 28: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

16

negative interactive effect. Their first experiment was an attempt to

create a study more or less typical of the earlier over-justification

studies. They reasoned that if they could show that their own paradigm

was capable of generating similar data, then their subsequent findings

would be more acceptable. The data from this experiment were consistent

with earlier studies.

Experiment two was similar to experiment one. with the exception of

the method of extrinsic reward administration. They felt that if the

extrinsic reward could be administered in a way consistent with rein-

forcement theory, then the competing responses causing the decline in

intrinsic motivation would not result. Rather, extrinsic reward could

serve to emphasize the behavior as opposed to eliciting competing responses,

Their data were consistent with the competing-response hypothesis.

Their study has been criticized on a number of grounds. The

activity chosen was artificial (listening to target songs); no experimental

groups were included that were not reinforced for engaging in the task

activity; the activity was not normally in the subject's behavioral reper-

toire (young children); the second experiment more closely resembles a

training paradigm than an over-justification study and as such addresses

other issues (Lepper & Greene, 1976).

However, in view of the results of Calder and Staw (1975a) (uninter-

esting task) the competing responses hypothesis may provide the more

parsimonious explanation.

Predictions

Given the theoretical positions discussed above it is possible to

derive a number of predictions.

To the extent that extrinsic rewards are salient and contingent, self-

perception theory would predict a loss of intrinsic motivation (and

Page 29: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

17

possibly, in turn, overall motivation) when they are added to an intrinsically

motivating task.

The competing-response hypothesis predicts that to the extent that

extrinsic rewards are salient, contingent, and administered in accordance

with reinforcement theory, their addition to an intrinsically motivating

task will not elicit competing responses, but will increase both intrinsic,

extrinsic, and thus overall motivation to perform the task.

To the extent that extrinsic rewards may be classified as distracting

stimuli (salient; not task-contingent; delayed administration) the competing-

responses hypothesis predicts their addition will cause a decrease in

intrinsic task motivation (and possibly in turn overall motivation) to

perform an intrinsically motivating task.

Necessary Experimental Conditions

In order to examine the negative interactive relationship certain

experimental conditions must be provided. Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic

motivation, extrinsic incentive contingency, and extrinsic incentive admin-

istration schedule (single or multiple administration) must be simultaneously

varied. Additionally, an extrinsic incentive stimulus (either contingent

or not) that could distract or provide only task success feedback must be

provided, in order to isolate feedback effects from extrinsic incentive

effects.

Positive Interactive Relationship

Theory

Dermer (1975) hypothesized that in the absence of intrinsic motivation,

performance-contingent external rewards would not motivate. An empirical

investigation of this corequisite relationship generated data strongly

supporting a positive interactive relationship (i.e., the more intrinsically

Page 30: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

18

motivated an individual is, the more motivating a given level of extrinsic

rewards would be). Dermer states that these data may indicate that the

negative interactive findings (e.g., Calder and Staw, 1975a) may not

generalize to administrative settings (details of the study may be found

below). Regardless, the data are important for two reasons: 1) these

are the first empirical data indicating a possible intrinsic reward

"enhancement" effect on the motivating strength of extrinsic rewards, and

2) further support has been generated against a simple additive relation-

ship between the motivational constructs.

Empirical Evidence

Dermer (1975), using a questionnaire, requested information from

store managers of a large multistate department store chain. Eighty-one

managers responded. Motivation for performance-contingent extrinsic re-

wards was measured by the perceived instrumentality of good budget per-

formance to other rewards on a Likert Scale (strongly disagree to strongly

agree). "Intrinsic motivation was measured by three statements, presented

in Likert (five-point) format, about the degree to which good performance

leads to higher order need satisfaction" (p. 126). The sum of the three

statements was used as the measure of intrinsic motivation. (Measures of

instrumentality taken without reference to valence appear to measure only

half the construct. Given the assumption that there would be little

valence variability within the sample for each reward, something not

explicitly assumed, it may be valid.)

Dermer reasoned that

If intrinsic and performance-contingent motivations are independentof each other, no significant positive or negative associations areexpected between the measure of intrinsic motivation and the per-ceived budget instrumentalities for seven extrinsic rewards. Ifperformance-contingent extrinsic motivation is detrimental to

Page 31: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

intrinsic motivation, however, these relationships should benegative and significant. If intrinsic motivation is anecessary corequisite, these associations will be positive andsignificant. (Dermer, 1975, p. 127)

Basing the analysis solely on the ordinal properties of the data (Goodman

& Kruskal's gamma), Dermer uncovered significant positive associations

between the budget instrumentalities and the intrinsic motivation measure.

Dermer concluded, therefore, that the data indicated a corequisite rela-

tionship between the two constructs.

His logic regarding the properties of a corequisite relationship is

questionable, however. A corequisite relationship which required a posi-

tive level of intrinsic motivation before performance-contingent rewards

could be motivating should be tested separately in two regions of intrinsic

motivation: I - 0; I > (where I = intrinsic motivation). The provision

of data indicating a positive and significant relationship between measures

of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation within the region I > or a combi-

nation of the regions is not inconsistent with a corequisite relationship,

but it does not rule out a significant independent external contribution

to total motivation. Unless an independent term representing extrinsic

motivation can be ruled out (i.e., no overall motivation regardless of

external rewards, when 1=0), one simply cannot call the relationship

corequisite.

The finding of evidence consistent with a positive interactive rela-

tionship is obviously not without importance, however. Dermer's data indi-

cate that the more intrinsically motivated managers are, the higher they

are in their motivation for performance-contingent extrinsic rewards (Dermer,

1975, p. 127). This conclusion should be approached with caution, however,

if one is trying to infer the dynamics of the construct relationship. A

Page 32: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

20

one time systematic assessment may yield associations, but the underlying

causal dynamics remain hidden.

Predictions

The more intrinsically motivating a task is, the greater the moti-

vational influence a given level of task-contingent extrinsic rewards

would have. Overall motivation would be greater than the simple sum of

either motivational source taken independently.

Necessary Experimental Conditions

In order to examine the positive interactive relationship certain

experimental conditions must be provided. Intrinsic motivation and

extrinsic incentives (contingent or not) must be varied simultaneously.

Additionally, an extrinsic incentive stimulus that could distract or

provide task success feedback only must be provided in order to isolate

feedback effects from extrinsic incentive effects.

Positive Dependent Relationship

Theory

To the extent that a given task behavior has historically proven to

be instrumental in the receipt of primary or secondary reinforcement,

that behavior will acquire reinforcing properties. These acquired rein-

forcing properties may then be viewed as being intrinsic to the task

behavior itself. Thus, it is hypothesized that no task behavior may

become intrinsically motivating in the absence of extrinsic reinforcement

(dependent). Further, it is hypothesized that such an association

serves solely to increase the intrinsic motivation to engage in the task

behavior (a positive effect).

The notion that neutral stimuli can acquire reinforcement value is

fairly old. Hull, borrowing from Pavlov's observations of higher-order

conditioning, developed the notion of secondary reinforcement:

Page 33: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

21

A neutral receptor impulse (stimulus) which occurs repeatedly andconsistently in close conjunction with a reinforcing state ofaffairs, whether primary or secondary, will itself acquire thepower of acting as a reinforcing agent. (Hull, 1951, p. 28, asfound in Weiner, 1972)

Empirical Evidence

Weiner (1972) lists two studies that strongly support the existence

of this phenomenon. The first is that of Bugelski. (1938). Rats were

trained to depress a bar for food. When the bar was depressed it made

an audible click. During subsequent extinction period (no food was

given when the bar was pressed), one group of rats continued with a bar

that had the accompanying clicking sound. For another group, the bar was

fixed so that no clicking sound would be made when depressed. The

reasoning was that if the extinction process took longer in the clicking

condition, then reinforcement properties had been acquired by the sound.

This was the case although the bar-pressing response was eventually

extinguished in both conditions.

Cowles (1937) trained monkeys to use tokens to acquire food from a

vending machine. Following this training, and in the absence of such

vending machines, the monkeys would work for, and hoard, the tokens. It

was reasoned that the tokens had acquired some reinforcement value due

to their prior association with the food reward (Weiner, 1972, p. 27).

Evidence also exists indicating that the reinforcing effect of task

success feedback may also serve to increase the motivating properties

intrinsic to the instrumental behavior (Deci, 1971). However, this

evidence also indicates that sex may moderate this relationship. Deci

(1971) found that males appeared to respond positively to task success

feedback; females negatively.

Page 34: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

22

Predictions

To the extent that an extrinsic reward is valued and is associated

with the performance of a task, increased liking for that task will

result. The more valued the extrinsic reward, the greater the increased

liking for the task.

Extrinsic rewards which are not associated with the task behavior

will not serve to increase task liking.

Required Experimental Conditions

In order to examine the positive dependent relationship certain

experimental conditions must be provided. Tasks of given levels of

intrinsic motivation must be associated (in varying degrees) with

extrinsic incentives (contingent or not) over time. Additionally, an

extrinsic incentive stimulus that could distract or provide task success

feedback only must be provided in order to isolate feedback effects from

extrinsic incentive effects.

Additive Relationship

Theory

Those supporting the additivity of intrinsic and extrinsic sources

of motivation do so more on the basis of intuition than empirical evidence

(e.g., Galbraith and Cummings, 1967). Their position is based upon

/Expectancy X Value/ theories of motivation. Such theories state that

the motivational force to perform an act is a function of one's expec-

tations that their performance of the act will yield valued outcomes.

These outcomes may be either intrinsic to the task (e.g., feelings of

competency) or extrinsic to the task (e.g., task-contingent financial

rewards). Regardless of its source, however, the motivational influence

of any one outcome is theorized as independent of that exerted by any

Page 35: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

23

other outcome. Thus, the addition of expected and valued act-contingent

outcomes, regardless of source, should increase the force on an individual

to perform that act. This, of course, assumes that the additional outcome(s)

does (do) not affect either the expectancies or the values of the other

outcomes.

However, within an expectancy framework a change in the likelihood

of one outcome may indeed alter the perceived likelihood of other out-

comes occurring. For example, the institution of an individual incentive

program may in a \/ery real sense alter an individual's expectancy for the

valued outcome of social interaction. Although the individual himself

may wish to continue social relationships in the workplace, his peers

might adjust their behavior in such a way as to reduce interaction in

order to maximize financial gain.

Thus, the argument that /^Expectancy X Value/ theories of motivation

require the complete independence of the motivational influences of valued

outcomes is accurate only to a limited extent. Expectancy theories do

not preclude the existence of antecedent dynamics, but rather state that

once cognitive adjustments have been made, the motivational influence of

each outcome is independent of any other outcome.

This distinction between antecedent and motivational dynamics is

important. If one is to test the independence of the constructs with

reference to motivational dynamics, it is not safe to assume that once

salient task-contingent extrinsic outcomes have been added, previous

expectancies for all other outcomes remain intact. However, it would

be consistent to assume that the individual value of all other outcomes

would remain the same.

Page 36: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

24

Thus, although it would be correct to state that the motivational

force to perform the act may have changed in value and/or composition,

it would not be correct to state that a reevaluation of other outcomes

has occurred. Therefore, post-experimental measures of the subjective

value of intrinsic outcomes should not reflect an erosion of those values,

although pre-experimental measures might demonstrate a perceived incom-

patibility of task-contingent outcomes (intrinsic and extrinsic). For

example, an individual may not expect a puzzle task to be interesting

once he/she has been informed that payment for the task will be made.

However, the actual degree of interest and the subjective valuation of

an interesting task are postulated to be independent of this initial

expectancy. Thus post-experimental interest measures should reflect

the actual (initial) value if the two constructs are independent.

Empirical Evidence

Although /.Expectancy X Value/ theories of motivation have been

empirically investigated, the intent of such investigations has been to

test the predictive properties of the entire model, rather than the rela-

tionship between these two motivational constructs. These studies have

not investigated the impact of the additional dynamics of the model

independently. As a consequence, unconfounded data dealing with the

nature of the relationship within an expectancy theory framework do not

exist (to the author's knowledge).

Predictions

/Expectancy X Value^/ theories would predict that the addition of

task-contingent extrinsic rewards to a task would increase extrinsic

motivation (and overall motivation) to perform the task, provided that

such an addition does not significantly alter the perceived expectancies

Page 37: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

25

of other task-contingent outcomes. Assuming no alterations in such

expectancies, intrinsic motivation to perform the task would remain

unchanged.

Regardless of possible cognitive alterations of outcome expectancies,

the value of any one outcome would remain unchanged with the addition of

task-contingent extrinsic rewards.

Necessary Experimental Conditions

In order to examine the additive relationship, certain experimental

conditions must be provided. Intrinsic incentives and extrinsic incen-

tives (contingent or not) must be varied simultaneously. Additionally,

an extrinsic incentive stimulus that could distract or provide task suc-

cess feedback only must be provided in order to isolate feedback effects

from extrinsic incentive effects.

Statement of the Problem

The preceding review of the motivation literature reveals a con-

troversy of considerable breadth. Attempts at its resolution have been

limited. Thus, the central question to which this study was addressed

was: what is the basic relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic

motivation or, alternatively, what motivational impact will various

combinations of intrinsic and extrinsic incentives have?

This study was devised to test the following competing hypotheses.

Summary of the General Hypotheses

Negative Interactive Hypothesis

To the extent that extrinsic rewards are salient and task-contingent,

self-perception theory would predict a loss of intrinsic motivation (and

possibly in turn overall motivation) when they are added to an intrin-

sically motivating task.

Page 38: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

26

Self-perception theory would predict no decrease (or increase) in

intrinsic motivation as a function of salient, task-contingent rewards

when those rewards are added to a task lacking intrinsic motivation.

The competing-responses hypothesis predicts that to the extent that

extrinsic rewards are salient, contingent, and administered in accordance

with reinforcement theory, their addition to an intrinsically motivating

task will not elicit competing responses, but will increase intrinsic,

extrinsic, and overall motivation to perform the task.

To the extent that extrinsic rewards may be classified as distracting

stimuli (salient; not task-contingent and/or delayed administration) the

competing-responses hypothesis predicts their addition will cause a

decrease in intrinsic task motivation (and possibly in turn overall

motivation) to perform an intrinsically motivating task.

Positive Interactive Relationship

The more intrinsically motivating a task is, the greater the

motivational influence a given level of task-contingent extrinsic rewards

would have. Overall motivation would be greater than the simple sum of

both motivational sources taken independently.

Positive Dependent Relationship

To the extent that an extrinsic reward is valued and is associated

ith the performance of a task, increased liking for that task will result.

The more valued the extrinsic reward, the greater the increased liking

for the task.

Extrinsic rewards which are not associated with the task will not

serve to increase task liking.

w

Page 39: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

27

Additive Relationship

An additive relationship would predict that the addition of task-

contingent extrinsic rewards would increase extrinsic motivation (and

overall motivation) to perform the task, provided that such an addition

does not significantly alter the perceived expectancies, of other task-

contingent outcomes. Assuming no alterations in such expectancies in-

trinsic motivation to perform the task would remain unchanged.

Regardless of possible cognitive alterations of outcome expec-

tancies, the value of any one outcome would remain unchanged with the

addition of task-contingent extrinsic rewards.

Page 40: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

28

Notes

1. Overall motivation to perform an intrinsically motivating task may

decrease within the negative interactive framework for three reasons

1) subsequent removal of newly added extrinsic incentives (Deci,

1971); 2) a smaller positive increment in motivation from the addi-

tional extrinsic rewards than the negative increment due to the

erosion of intrinsic motivation (Korman, 1977, p. 49); 3) eventual

satiation of individual needs which are satisfied by the various

extrinsic incentives. This satiation should result in an eventual

erosion of their relative importance and, in turn, their motivating

properties (Maslow, 1970).

Page 41: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

CHAPTER II

METHODOLOGY

Subjects

One hundred thirty volunteer male subjects (18 years or older)

participated in this study. All subjects were undergraduate students

currently enrolled in Economics or Management Science courses. A notice

was read in all Economics and Management Science classes offering two

extra credit percentage points on final end of semester averages for

participation in a Behavioral Science research project (see Appendix A).

Students were presented with a sign-up book containing special forms

associated with available experimental times. They were requested to

provide their names, phone numbers, and other pertinent information in

the space corresponding to a time which was both convenient for them and

unclaimed by another participant.

Design

A 3X2X2X2 factorial experiment with two isolated control groups was

designed. Table 1 outlines this design.

Operational Definitions

Independent Variables

Table 2 outlines the operational ization of the various design

factors. A detailed discussion of each independent variable follows.

Intrinsic Motivation . Following Calder and Staw (1975a) a puzzle

task was used to manipulate intrinsic interest levels.^ (See Appendix

A for a discussion of the puzzle task development.) Two levels of

29

Page 42: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

30

O 4-> 0) +->•+- c: Q. cS- O) I O) '-^<D CD c: cjii

Q- c o sz o•r- c: -r- s^

» +J -M -M00 c: • c: c0)0000

.— -o i-

r— C: (U r-=5 O) SZ Ol

E E o s-

CM OO 1— C\J 1

OJ

Page 43: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

CU CDQ->—

S cno •>-

1— -C

£Z 3 cnO O -r-

r- CUQ- E•r- O)

31

•r- roU NOJ -r-

NJ Q-

CL CDi_

-^ 303 O

E O O>,LO OfO • •

CLi— OO

CD CD

E E>1 >>03 03

E J=O cn-—

-

-a -r- 1—c: r— ofO s-s- M- +->

o c>, o>— CD Ucn cc: .- -o•I- +-> CD

E -c ^CD cn o(D -r- >,CO 1——

O CD03 1

CD N

r- -r- -- CD

•r- CL to+J -r- ^-J

-c +-> x:cni— cn

Page 44: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

32

interest were generated; a picture puzzle task was considered to be the

high intrinsic interest task and a blank puzzle was considered to be the

low intrinsic interest task.

External reward systems (levels, contingencies, administration ). A

specially designed apparatus was used, consisting of two sets of ten

puzzles (four pieces each, one blank and one picture set); ten puzzle

bases; one light for each puzzle; and a recording device. All puzzle

bases contained four microswitches, each of which was located in a dif-

ferent corner of the puzzle base, and prepared in such a way that one was

triggered for each puzzle piece placed on the base. As each puzzle in

the contingent reward and/or feedback condition was completed, the assembly

time was recorded on magnetic tape. This was accomplished by an elec-

trical pulse allowed to flow through the puzzle base when all the micro-

switches on the base were triggered. Each puzzle base was wired inde-

pendently of the others, although the completion sequence of the puzzle

sets was always from left to right. The microswitches were located

within the puzzle bases and were not visible, although an audible click

was generated as each piece was placed on the base and the associated

microswitch was triggered. As the pulses were recorded on the magnetic

tape in the contingent multiple reward and/or feedback condition, all

ten lights were in view and each was lighted within one second of its

associated puzzle's completion. When in the contingent single reward

and/or feedback condition, the first nine lights were hidden from view

while the last light was placed over the last puzzle in the sequence (far

right). Thus, although the nine lights were lighted as their associated

puzzles were completed, the appearance created was that of one light,

the lighting of which was contingent upon successful completion of the

Page 45: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

33

entire ten-puzzle task. Another function of the magnetic tape recording

was to control reinforcement schedules in the noncontingent (yoked-

control ) condition. Treatment replications in experimental cells that

differed solely on the contingency condition were randomly paired. (For

example, referring to Figure 2, individual replication within experi-

mental cell C were paired with individual replications within experi-

mental cell D.) The tape recorded during the replication in the con-

tingent condition was used to control the lighting of the light(s) for

the noncontingent replications. The proper number of lights (i.e., ten

or one) was visible; these were lighted in left to right sequence

according to the times recorded on the magnetic tape. Subjects were

told that the light or lights in the noncontingent condition were lighted

using time intervals randomly generated by computer program, and were in

no way related to their task progress. (See Appendix A for subject

instructions.

)

Thus, the paired replicate in the noncontingent condition received

external rewards and/or lights (where applicable) according to the pre-

viously recorded times--regardless of what he was doing at that point.

Differential monetary payments were made available during this

study. Subjects in payment conditions received either $1.50 or $3,00.

Subjects in feedback only conditions received no payment. Payment

installments were either partial (one-tenth of total payment: multiple

reinforcement schedule) or complete (total payment: single reinforce-

ment schedule). This was accomplished by attaching each light to a

clear plastic cup and in turn positioning each cup approximately six

inches above its associated puzzle base on a specially constructed

wooden platform. (When only one light was to be visible it was the light

Page 46: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

34

o

Page 47: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

35

associated with the tenth puzzle and the others were hidden from view

behind the wooden platform.) The puzzles were positioned in a straight

line paralled to, and approximately three inches from the wooden platform

on two rectangular tables placed end to end (see Appendix A). Subjects

who were to receive monetary payment were told to lift the cup and

remove the money beneath it whenever the light was lighted. (All mone-

tary payments were placed beneath the cup(s) prior to the subject's

arrival.) Task contingent light(s) resulted in task contingent rein-

forcement(s) while noncontingent light(s) resulted in noncontingent

reinforcement(s) . (Lights were always lighted from left to right,

corresponding to the experimental task completion sequence.)

Dependent Variables

Table 3 outlines the operational ization of the various dependent

variables. Measures of intrinsic, extrinsic, and overall motivation

were taken. A detailed discussion of each dependent variable and its

measurement may be found in the Instruments section of this chapter.

Operational Hypotheses

Given the detailed nature of these operational hypotheses they have

been placed in the appendices. Appendix B contains specific experimental

cell contrasts and graphical presentations of all theoretical predictions,

Procedure

Experimental treatments (including isolated control groups) were

randomly ordered (see Appendix A) and assigned to the first 130 subjects

in sequence as they arrived to participate in the study (Edgington, 1956).

This resulted in five subjects per experimental cell. Every subject was

telephoned the night before his appointment to decrease the likelihood

of broken appointments. Each subject was greeted by the experimenter at

Page 48: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
Page 49: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

37

a reception desk removed from the task area (see Appendix A). Subjects

were requested to fill out informed consent forms and were told that their

participation in the study could be terminated by them at any point they

chose without adverse personal consequences. In addition, they were told

that having kept their appointment, the extra credit incentive had been

earned, and if they chose to decline participation at that point (prior

3to the task) they were free to do so.

The subject was then asked to proceed to the task area. This area

had been prepared in advance of each subject's arrival by the experimenter

according to a set of subject specific procedures (see Appendix A for an

example). These procedures informed the experimenter of the questionnaire,

instruction set, puzzle set, amount of money, payment schedule and

magnetic tape to be used. All materials were clearly referenced and

labeled in order to minimize any possible difficulties in task preparation.

Once the subject arrived at the task area he was seated and read the

instructions placed before him. These instructions outlined the purpose

of the task, the contingency involved (if any) and the type of payment

to be received, as well as the presence and use of the electrical wiring

and recording device (see Appendix A). When the subject had read the

instructions the experimenter reviewed them, once again emphasizing the

nature and the respective contingency of payment(s) and/or light(s) if

appropriate. The subject was further instructed to proceed through the

task at whatever pace he wished. The subject was then requested to wait

until given the signal to begin, as the experimenter had to insure the

proper functioning of the recording device. Once the signal had been

given the experimenter left the task area, allowing the subject to pro-

ceed. When the task was completed, the experimenter stopped the

Page 50: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

38

recording device and asked the subject to proceed to the area set aside

for the administration of the post-experimental questionnaire.

Conspicuously placed immediately above the table where the subject

was to fill out the questionnaire was a sign indicating that the

questionnaires were anonymous and that we were most concerned with the

subjects' true impressions. They were told to record how they really

felt as opposed to what they might think we would like to hear. In

addition, they were informed that a future study was mentioned in the

questionnaire and they should realize that no extra credit incentive

would be provided for participation in that study. After this question-

naire had been completed by the subject, a statement was presented for

his signature (see Appendix A). This statement was, in effect, a

commitment on the subject's part not to reveal any particulars about

the study to his peers. Periodic checks confirmed that no information

concerning the study itself or the possibility of payment for partici-

pation was revealed to later subjects prior to their arrival. All sub-

jects were fully debriefed by letter at the completion of the data

collection phase of the study (see Appendix A). Subject appointments

averaged thirty minutes in length.

Instruments

All data were collected via a post-task questionnaire. The following

reviews the various sections of the questionnaire.

Semantic Differentials

A number of semantic differential scales were used to measure per-

ceptions of various task dimensions. Those semantic differentials

selected for inclusion had either been used with success in earlier

intrinsic/extrinsic motivation studies (CalderS Staw, 1975a), or were

Page 51: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

39

previously validated measures of task dimensionality (Guion, 1965).

Both the semantic differential scales and the position of the adjectives

within each scale were randomly ordered.

These semantic differentials were factor analyzed using the principal

-

components solution with unities in the diagonal of the correlation

matrix. Eigenvalues were plotted and a visual assessment of component

contribution to total variance was made (Cattell, 1966). Four components

were isolated in this fashion, accounting for 45. 5X of the variance. The

components were orthogonally rotated by varimax.'^ Four scales were

defined by isolating all those items loading .5 or above on each rotated

factor, summing the subject responses and averaging over the number of

items.

The scales created and the semantic differentials involved may be

found in Table 4. All semantic differentials were scored 1 to 7 in the

direction of the adjective on the right.

Faces Scales

Five additional measures were taken using nine-point faces scales

(Kunin, 1955). The variables and their intended usage were as follows:

1. Feelings about participation in an^ experiment (as opposed to

this particular one): data useful for the statistical control of

systematic error resulting from initial differences among subjects in

their enthusiasm for participation in experiments per se.

2. Enjoyability of the puzzle set: an index of intrinsic motivation,

3. Interest level of the puzzle set: an index of intrinsic

motivation.

4. Feelings about both task and pay: an index of extrinsic moti-

vation.

Page 52: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

•r- 03 -r-

40

•r- C C

4-> O)

• r-

Page 53: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

41

5. Feelings about both task and pay: an index of overall moti-

vation.

6. Feelings about the receipt of extra credit for participation in

the experiment: data useful for the statistical control of systematic

error resulting from initial differences among subjects in the strength

of their feelings about the extra credit incentive.

Time Scales

These scales ranged from to 120 minutes in 10 minute increments.

Subjects were requested to mark on the scale the amount of time they

would be willing to volunteer for a second study (to be conducted in the

near future) for either no money, $.75, $1.50, $3.00, or $6.00.^ Each

scale and the associated amount of money was on a separate page. The

"no payment" scale was placed first and the other scales were randomly

ordered and placed directly afterward. The amount of time a subject

would be willing to spend without pay in a second study was to act as a

behavioral index of intrinsic motivation.

Distraction Effect Scale

A separate page of the instrument gathered data on how distracting

the extra credit incentive might have been during the performance of the

task. Subjects were asked to indicate whether they thought of the extra

credit once, twice, three times, or four or more times during the task.

In addition, a "don't remember" category was provided. It was hoped that

should such a distraction effect exist, this data would provide a means

to statistically control for it.

Contingency Check

As a means of assessing a possible failure of the contingency manip-

lation, a contingency check was included. Subjects were requested to

Page 54: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

42

choose one of three responses in the form of a sentence completion

exercise. For example, the subjects in a multiple reward condition (con-

tingent and noncontingent) were presented with the following sentence:

The lights which were lighted were:

contingent upon the completion of each individual puzzle.

lighted at randomly determined (by computer) intervals.

due to another reason (please comment in detail below).

Additional Data

Additional information was placed on the front of each questionnaire

by the experimenter after the departure of each subject. This infor-

mation included the coded number of the magnetic tape used (see Procedures

section), and the date as well as the time of day of the treatment. Since

the study was conducted within four weeks of the end of the semester, it

was suspected that subjects would become more conscious of their use of

time and as a result, exhibit reluctance to make a time commitment for a

study to be conducted in the near future, as well as react more negatively

to the study over time.

Summary of Measured Variables

Tables 5 to 7 present summaries of the measured variables, their

use, and the means by which they were measured.

Page 55: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

43

Page 56: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

44

•,- -r- O)

Page 57: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

45

c

Page 58: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

46

Notes

1. Despite the current controversy surrounding the intrinsic/extrinsic

distinction, Mainstone and Bowen (1977) have clearly demonstrated

that task interest is viewed by males as an intrinsic reward (outcome)

2. Mainstone and Bowen (1977) have clearly demonstrated that pay is

viewed by males as an extrinsic reward (outcome).

3. One subject elected to terminate his participation at this initial

briefing.

4. See Appendix A for the rotated factor-analytic solution.

5. The semantic differentials were coded such that all loadings of .5

or above were positive loadings. This in no way affected the statis-

tical properties of the factor analyses. Given the logic and con-

sistency of the relationships among the adjectives involved, however,

it was felt that more interpretable scales would be developed using

this approach. A loading of .5 was chosen because more stable scales

were generated.

6. Subjects were told that the completion of a questionnaire would not

be required in the second study. This was necessary in order to

insure that feelings about the questionnaire would not confound the

measure of time volunteered.

Page 59: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

CHAPTER III

RESULTS

This chapter will discuss various analyses of the experimental data.

Attention will initially focus upon the nature and quality of the data,

and will include a review of possible experimental context effects, the

validity of the dependent measures, an experimental manipulation check,

a randomization scheme check, and analyses to statistically control

various possible sources of systematic error. Additionally, several

earlier designs will be replicated and the results will be compared.

This chapter will also present the results for each of the depen-

dent variables (intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, overall

motivation) and the degree of support for each of the a priori hypotheses.

Data

Summary Data

Summary data (cell means and standard deviations) for all dependent

variables may be found in Appendix C.

Experimental Context Effect

Time scale, faces scale, and semantic differential ratings for the

isolated control groups, pre-experimental subjects and, where possible,

the Calder and Staw data (1975a), were compared. These comparisons

indicated that an experimental context effect had not been created and

that puzzle task manipulations generated similar responses in both pre-

experimental and actual experimental situations. These data may be found

in Appendix C.

47

Page 60: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

48

Validity

The validity of the intrinsic motivation measures was examined using

data generated by the isolated control groups. It was reasoned that the

validity of the measures would be supported if the following conditions

were met: a) the intrinsic interest manipulation for the isolated con-

trol groups influenced each of the intrinsic motivation measures, taken

independently, b) significant correlations among the measures of intrinsic

motivation existed (convergent validity), and c) the intrinsic interest

manipulation did not significantly affect any of the measures of task

dimensionality except "task enjoyabil ity" (i.e., no effects on task

structure, task complexity, task solution specificity).

Tables 8, 9, and 10 show the extent to which these conditions were

met.

Table 8 indicates that all four measures of intrinsic motivation were

influenced in the expected direction by the intrinsic interest manipu-

lation, but only three of the four differences were significant. These

occurred on task enjoyability (composite semantic differential scale),

task enjoyability (nine-point faces scale), and time volunteered for no

money. (Note the positive value of the one-tailed t statistic.)

The correlation matrix for the dependent measures of intrinsic

motivation (Table 9) clearly shows that all of the measures are positively

correlated. In addition, all correlations but two are significant (time

volunteered for no money and task interest; task interest and task

enjoyability (composite semantic differential)). The more complete

matrix may be found in Appendix C.

Table 10 indicates that the third condition held and the intrinsic

interest manipulation affected only the task enjoyability dimension.

Page 61: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

49

l—i

Page 62: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

•1- <U O)

Page 63: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

51

I— I— C\J

4-> r— -I-

Page 64: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

52

(The mean value for the high interest group was 5.0, for the low interest

group 3.68. The greater the mean value, the more enjoyable the task.)

On balance it appears that we may have confidence in the validity

of the intrinsic motivation measures.

Task Success Feedback

A check on the task success feedback manipulation (performance

contingent, performance noncontingent) was made. All subjects who marked

an incorrect contingency on the sentence completion instrument (see

Instruments section, Chapter II) were isolated. Twelve subjects, 10%

of the total, were removed and the distribution of these subjects over

the 24 experimental cells was examined. There was no discernible

pattern. Subsequent analyses of variance revealed that the presence or

absence of these 12 subjects did not alter the results.

Randomization Scheme Check

A Kruskal-Wall is analysis of variance was conducted on the treat-

ment replicate pair ranks in order to test the randomization scheme.

Each subject replicate pair and isolated control group replicate was

assigned a rank (1 to 70) based upon its order in the randomization

scheme (see Appendix A). For example, the first replicate pair of sub-

jects was assigned a rank of one, the second, a rank of two. It was

reasoned that if each combination of paired contingency treatments and

isolated control groups was considered an experimental treatment, then

an analysis of variance of ranks would be capable of demonstrating

whether the replicate pairs for any given treatment were randomly inter-

spersed among all other replicate pairs. This analysis supported the

randomization of the subject assignments. More information may be found

in Appendix C.

Page 65: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

53

Statistical Control

Date and time of treatment . It was reasoned that perhaps the self-

selection of both time of day and date of participation may have led to

disproportionate numbers of subjects at various times or dates, and that

these disproportionate frequencies, if present, might have somehow

influenced subject responses. This possibility was examined by comparing

the observed frequency of subjects over experimental times and dates

with theoretically expected distributions. Figure 3 and Figure 4 illus-

trate these comparisons. A chi-square test for differences between

observed and expected frequencies revealed no significant departure from

expected frequencies.

Additionally, it was possible that subjects might have reacted

differently to the treatment stimuli both within and across experimental

days. These possible influences were examined within a multiple regres-

sion framework. Design factors were orthogonally coded and entered into

the equation as independent variables (Kerlinger & Pedhazur, 1973).

Both time variables (date of treatment, time of day of treatment) were

independently entered into multiple regression equations (one for each

dependent variable). In no case were either of the two time variables

or their interactions with design factors significant.

Analysis of covariance . Two assumptions basic to the analysis of

covariance were tested for each of the variables thought likely to

systematically influence subject responses. These were: feelings about

the extra credit incentive, extra credit distraction effect, and feelings

about participation in any experiment. The analysis of covariance

requires that the value of the covariate be independent of the experi-

mental manipulations. In addition, the analysis requires the assumption

Page 66: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

54

00 uj

Page 67: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

>1

•I- -o

55

Qj

•r- IIa

OCTvOOr--toun"*rocM

dj -r- ca:

Page 68: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

56

that the covariate's relationship with the dependent variable is identical

to all experimental conditions. This assumption of within-class homo-

geneity of regression may be tested by the significance levels of all

possible design factor X covariate interactions. Significant design

factor X covariate interactions would indicate heterogeneity of regression.

The first assumption was tested by treating each possible covariate

as a dependent variable in an analysis of variance. Independence of the

covariate from design factors would require that there be no significant

main or interaction effects. These analyses revealed that all variables

intended as possible covariates, except "feelings about participation

in any experiment," were not influenced by the experimental conditions.

The second assumption was tested using multiple regression analysis.

All design factors were orthogonally coded and used as independent

variables in a multiple regression analysis (Kerlinger & Pedhazur, 1973).

Each possible covariate (feelings about the extra credit incentive,

extra credit distraction effect) was entered into the regression

equation as an additional independent variable. In addition, each

covariate's interactions with the coded design factor vectors were

entered into the regression equation. Each continuous variable was

investigated independently of the others. There appeared to be no a^

Pi^iori reason to suspect interactions among them. All analyses were

performed within either the contingent or noncontingent feedback experi-

mental conditions, in keeping with the hypotheses under study. A com-

plete regression model (additive and all interactive terms) was compared

to a reduced model (additive and experimental design factor interaction

terms only) with reference to incremental contribution to explanatory

power. The results of these analyses revealed no significant interactions

Page 69: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

57

between the design factors and covariates. Further, none of the covariates

examined had significant effects on the dependent variables. Tables in

Appendix C summarize these analyses.

Analyses of covariance were performed. The individual covariates

were not found to be significant, nor were there any changes in signifi-

cance patterns revealed by standard analyses of variance on any dependent

measure. These analyses may also be found in Appendix C.

Replications

A number of earlier studies were replicated by combining selected

cells of the total experiment. This section will report the results of

those replications.

Deci Replications

Deci has conducted a number of studies characterized by contrasting

pre and post payment measures of intrinsic motivation (e.g., Deci, 1971).

He has consistently found that intrinsic motivation declines signifi-

cantly when payment is given for performing a previously interesting

task. These studies were discussed in some detail in the first chapter

with reference to the negative interactive relationship. An attempt was

made to replicate his studies within the total experimental design. The

high intrinsic interest isolated control group corresponds to Deci's

prepayment subjects. The two performance-contingent single extrinsic

reward groups ($1.50, $3.00) correspond to Deci's postpayment subjects.

It should be noted, however, that the following replications are based

on between-subject as opposed to within-subject data.

Table 11 and Figure 5 illustrate one set of replications, using a

payment of $1.50. Note that only two of the intrinsic motivation

Page 70: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

58

>> re

JD CL -Q <D

>. oO t_)

CO o00 QJ

IT3 fO

E E

Q. Q.

4-> JD -r->1 CCL E

>>

Page 71: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

59

cricor^(£)Ln«:a-Mc\ii

XSpUI UOLaBAL:;OW

dlsulj:1ui

xapui uo!.:;bal:;o^^

D.LSUU:tUI

I I I I

i/i aiO) I—

O) o

xapui uoL:iBAL:^o^^

3LSUU:^UIxapui uoL^eAL^ow

Page 72: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

60

measures indicated a decrease in intrinsic motivation after payment.

Neither of those two pay--no pay comparisons reached statistical

siyni ricance.

Table 12 and Figure 6 show another set of replications. For these

replications, subjects received one performance contingent payment of

$3.00. For only one variable (time volunteered for no payment) did the

results parallel Deci's findings, and those results were not significant.

Additional replications were attempted by pooling both single pay-

ment conditions ($1.50, $3.00), and contrasting this pooled group with

the high intrinsic interest isolated control group. It was felt that

the additional subjects in the payment group would allow a more powerful

test. However, it should be noted that these "pooled subject" repli-

cations are not independent of the replications just discussed (i.e..

Table 11, Table 12). Table 13 and Figure 7 summarize the results of

these analyses. Note that in three of the four replications the

direction of difference was consistent with Deci's findings. However,

in none of these instances was statistical significance achieved.

In summary, Deci's findings were not replicated in this study.

Reiss and Sushinsky Replications

Reiss and Sushinsky (1975) conducted two experiments designed to

demonstrate that the negative interactive findings of Deci were due to

the nature of the administration of the extrinsic reward--not the value

of the extrinsic reward itself (see Chapter I). In their study, a per-

formance contingent multiple reward schedule resulted in an increase in

intrinsic motivation to perform the task rather than a decrease. Their

experiment may be replicated within the present study. The high interest

isolated control group corresponds to the prepayment subject group. The

Page 73: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

61

• (

Page 74: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

62

xapui uoneAL^owDLSULJ:iUI

xepuj uoL:}eAL:iow

-I—r—r—I—I—

r

l/l

Page 75: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

63

•r- -I— -I— (/)

jD Q-

Page 76: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

64

-)—I—I—I—I—I—I—t-

I I I I I I I

xapui uoi:;BA.L:iow xapui uoL:tBAL:ioi^|

D!.suu:^ui

-I—I-—I—I-

in 0)W T—

+J 10

xapui uol:;bai.:;o^j

3LSULa:;ui OLSUur^ui

Page 77: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

65

performance-contingent multiple extrinsic reward schedule groups corre-

spond to Reiss and Sushinsky's payment subject group.

Table 14 and Figure 8 clearly indicate that 10 payments of $.15 each

influence only on indicator of intrinsic motivation (time volunteered

for no payment). In fact, a marginally significant decrement in intrinsic

motivation occurred on one variable (task enjoyability-composite scale).

Regardless, neither effect reached conventional levels of significance.

Table 15 and Figure 9 indicate that even when the 10 payments were

increased to $.30 each, intrinsic motivation to perform the task was not

increased in three out of four replications. In no case did intrinsic

motivation to perform the puzzle task change significantly.

Additional replications were attempted by pooling both mutliple pay-

ment conditions ($.15, $.30) and contrasting this pooled group with the

high intrinsic interest isolated control group. It was felt that the

additional subjects in the payments group would allow a more powerful

test. However, it should be noted that these "pooled subject" repli-

cations are not independent of the replications just discussed (i.e.,

Tabel 14, Table 15). This test provided no additional support for the

Reiss and Sushinsky hypothesis.

In summary, Reiss and Sushinsky's findings were not replicated. It must

also be noted that, although multiple payments were made, within the self-

perception framework these replications of the Reiss and Sushinsky study also

constitute replications of Deci's work. As such, they provide no additional

support for Deci's fundings.

Calder and Staw Study Replications

Calder and Staw (1975a) found evidence strongly supporting Deci's

findings (negative interactive relationship). Their study attempted to

determine the impact of monetary payments upon tasks of decidedly different

Page 78: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

66

-a

Page 79: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

67

-I 1 1 1—

u

xapui uo,L:teAL:io^^

DLSULU:iUI

xspui uo.Lq.eA,L:;oi^

3LSulj:;ui

>.—

Page 80: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

68

to •-

a

Page 81: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

69

D

Page 82: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

cuoi

-o uO) cI— fO•r- OfO -r-4-> M-

I -c-

(1) cC enO -r-

OO

70

•r- •!- T- to

•r- O -1— CO +-) 1/1 1

JD CL

Page 83: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

71

-J I I I uI I I I I

xepui uol:ieal:;ow

dlsulj:^ui

xapui uoi.:ieAL:;oi^-a

>>—

-

Page 84: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

72

interest levels. (See Chapter I for details.) They discovered, consis-

tent with Deci's findings, that intrinsic motivation to perform an inter-

esting task declined when monetary payment was made. However, they also

discovered that intrinsic motivation to perform an uninteresting task

increased with the addition of monetary payment.

The Calder and Staw study (1975a) may be replicated within the total

design. The high and low intrinsic interest isolated control groups

correspond to the Calder and Staw unpaid subject group. The high and

low intrinsic interest, performance contingent, single payment groups

correspond to the Calder and Staw paid subject groups.

Table 17 and Figure 11 show the results of the replications when

subjects were paid $1.50 for task performance.

Although there was some degree of ccnvergence in every case, it was

never sufficient to cause a significant interaction effect. Note that

the convergence in every situation appears to be the result of paying

subjects for an uninteresting task. Every measure of intrinsic motiva-

tion reflected an increase when payment was received for an uninteresting

task.

Increasing the payment to $3.00 results in statistically significant

support for the Calder and Staw findings. Table 18 and Figure 12 clearly

indicate convergence in all cases. In addition, the predicted interaction

effect reached significance for two of the four intrinsic motivation

measures (enjoyabil ity-faces scale; time volunteered for no payment).

For only one variable, however, did the high interest task lose intrinsic

motivation as a function of monetary payment (time volunteered for no

money)

.

Page 85: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

73

r— OJ -^

CI)

Page 86: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

74

•r- U CD

CTicor-^UDLn^rocMi—

xapuj uol;pal:}ow

^LSUu:^UI

•r- .i^ U -i^

l/l 1/1 -r- (/)

C ft) to fO

C to +-> (/I

•r- c: o c

I I 1_J I LI I I I I I

3 O O O3 CTi CO r~^

xapui uoLaeAL:;on

3!.suu:).u];

-4 1 1 1-

I I I I I I

cTicx)r~-UDLr)':i-ncMi

OLSuuq.uixapui uo!.:;eAl:^o^J

3!.suu:;ui

Page 87: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

75

Page 88: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

76

f—

Page 89: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

77

Additional replications were attempted by pooling both payment condi-

tions ($1.50, $3.00) for each interest level individually, and contrasting

these two separate groups with the isolated control groups would allow a

more powerful test. However, it should be noted that these "pooled

subject" replications are not independent of the replications just dis-

cussed (i.e., Table 17, Table 18).

Once again, convergence may be observed for every measure of intrinsic

motivation. However, none of the predicted interactions were statistically

significant.

Two measures of intrinsic motivation in the high interest situation

decreased when payment was received. These decreases were neither dramatic

nor statistically significant.

Given that within the self-perception framework a performance-

contingent extrinsic reward would have the same impact on intrinsic

motivation regardless of its administration schedule, additional repli-

cations of the Calder and Staw study may be isolated within the total

design. The mulitple payment groups may be considered as equivalent to

the single payment groups just discussed.

Table 20 and Figure 14 summarize the effect of multiple payments of

$.15 each on the measures of intrinsic motivation. Once again convergence

patterns emerge for all the intrinsic motivation measures. For three

out of four intrinsic motivation measure the convergence is as predicted;

a decrease for high interest task when subjects were paid, an increase

for low interest tasks when subjects were paid. In addition, two of the

four replications resulted in statistically significant interactions

(task enjoyability-composite semantic differential scale, task enjoyability-

faces scale).

Page 90: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

78

OO -r-

fO T-

Page 91: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

79

_J I I I I I I I LI I I I I I I I I

xapui uo!.:^PAL:iow

J 1 L_J I I I I L

Page 92: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

80

-J^ •!-

T3CI)

Page 93: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

81

-I 1 1—

u

•I- tj CD

3LSULJ:tUI

o

Page 94: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

82

When the multiple payments are increased to $.30 each, the con-

vergence patterns remain, yet their significance is reduced. In only

one case (task enjoyabil ity-composite semantic differential) is the

intrinsic interest X extrinsic reward interaction even marginally

significant (2.<.06). Table 21 and Figure 15 summarize these data.

Additional replications were accomplished by pooling the multiple

payment groups ($.15, $.30) for each of the different tasks individually,

and contrasting these two separate groups with the isolated control

groups, as before. It should be noted that these "pooled subject" repli-

cations are not independent of the replications just discussed (i.e..

Table 20, Table 21).

Once again the predicted convergence patterns appeared. Hoever,

for only one measure of intrinsic motivation (task enjoyabil ity-composite

semantic differential) was this interaction significant.

In summary, considerable support for some of Calder and Staw's

findings was found. However, it should be noted that the significance

of the predicted intrinsic interest X extrinsic reward interactions was

primarily due to monetary payment increasing intrinsic motivation to do

an uninteresting task. Contrary to Deci's hypothesis, monetary payment

did not decrease intrinsic motivation to do an interesting task.

Data Analysis

This discussion will initially focus on the issue of feedback and

its effect on intrinsic motivation. Subsequent discussion will deal

with univariate analyses of the various measures of intrinsic, extrinsic

and overall motivation with particular attention to the a priori opera-

tional hypotheses as specified in Chapter II.

Page 95: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

83

O

.^ •!-

"O

Page 96: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

fO 1

O <-)

•r- u en

84

xapui uo.L:teA!.:;ow

3!.suu:}ui

,

Page 97: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

85

-V -r-

T3CD

Page 98: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

-^ oLO 03ro Li_

I I I I I I I I I

I I I I I I I I I

cr)OOr^UDun>*rocMi—

xapui uo.l:^ba!.:^o^j

3LSUlj:1ui

-I I I u

(_)

Page 99: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

87

Intrinsic Motivation Indices

Feedback effects . The experimental design employed in this study

allowed the separation of feedback effects from extrinsic reward effects.

Earlier studies made no real attempt to accomplish this. As a conse-

quence, one can not be sure that the reported effects are at all repre-

sentative of the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

A series of planned comparisons were made between the control groups

and the various feedback only conditions. The comparisons revealed some

significant effects, as Table 23 indicates.

If one considers the contingent feedback condition, an interesting

difference between the high interest task and low interest task becomes

apparent. Note that for both high and low interest tasks, single

schedule contingent reinforcement generally had little impact (slight

increase or decrease in intrinsic motivation). However, if one reviews

the impact of contingent feedback presented on a multiple reinforcement

schedule for the high interest task, significant decreases in intrinsic

motivation resulted for both measures of task enjoyability (faces scale,

composite semantic differential). A significant increase is revealed

for one measure of task enjoyability (faces scale) for the low interest

task. Further, no decrease, significant or not, occurred as a result of

the multiple feedback for the low interest task.

No such pattern emerges for the noncontingent feedback conditions.

A suggestive pattern emerges for the low interest task, however. For

three of the four measures of intrinsic motivation there is an increase

due to the single reinforcement schedule (significantly so for task

enjoyability-faces scale) and a decrease when the multiple reinforcement

schedule is used.

Page 100: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

88

-aa;

Page 101: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

89

Regardless, it is apparent that the initial differences between the

intrinsic motivation levels of the control groups diminished as a function

of feedback. This suggests that feedback effects may play an important

role in explaining the diversity of earlier research results.

Table 24 summarizes the feedback only conditions (exclusive of

isolated control groups).

Note that none of the feedback relationships assumed by earlier

researchers appear. As a consequence, it becomes obvious that while

feedback effects may influence the results of similar intrinsic/extrinsic

studies, such influence must be controlled, not assumed a priori .

Further analyses were performed on the feedback only conditions.

A 2X2X2 anova (see Figure 17) was conducted for each measure of intrinsic

motivation. Table 25 summarizes those results.

Rather consistent results appear. In three of the four cases the

intrinsic interest X feedback contingency X feedback schedule interaction

reaches significance. A posteriori Scheffe tests of the various simple

effects did not reach significance (^= .10), however.

Figures 18, 19, and 20 present graphically the simple effects which

were examined. Although no effect was significant a posteriori , they

are included so that the reader may appreciate the suggestive consistency

across the measures of intrinsic motivation.

Subsequent analyses of variance of the intrinsic motivation measures

will control for feedback effects by utilizing these feedback only condi-

tions as control conditions.

Relevant experimental hypotheses . The following are relevant hypo-

theses for the indices of intrinsic motivation.

Page 102: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

90

-a

Page 103: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

91

Page 104: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

92

T)

Page 105: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

93

::: 2-1-

W1 th1n Contingency

Contingent Rcinf orcetncnt Noncontingent Reinforcement

- - - single schedulemultiple schedule

1 7--~6--

S 5

i; e

5 34.

Interest Interest

Within Interest

Low Interest Task High Interest Task

J Contingency

c 8

l7.

§5

5 3

CONTINGENT N0NC0NTIH3ENT CONTINGENT NONCONTINGENT

Within Feedback Schedule

Single Schedule Multiple Schedule

- - - contingentnoncontingent

^ 7

> 3

i?]Interest

Figure 18. Feeciback analysis of contingency X interest X feecibackschedule: task interest (faces scale).

Page 106: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

94

o B-t-

; 3J-

W1 thin Contingency

Contingent Reinforcement Noncontingent Reinforcement

- - - single schedulemultiple schedule

? 7--"6--

§ S

'Z e

5 34'Z 2

X. 1

Interest Interest

17-"6-§5-T. 4-

S 3

X. 2

^ H

Low Interest Task

- singlemultiple

Within Interest

£ 7-

if:-x; 4--s 3--

5 2-

:c 1--

_Contingency

High Interest Task

_Contingency

CONTINGENT N0NC0NTIN3ENT CONTINGENT NONCONTINGENT

Within Feedback Schedule

Single Schedule Multiple Schedule

- - - contingentnoncontingent

S7"6§54-1:4--S3-T.2-.^1-

Interest

S 7"6

o 5-

" 4-

? 3

illInterest

Figure 19. Feedback analysis of contingency X interest X feedbackschedule: task enjoyability (faces scale).

Page 107: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

95

~ 6

g 5

3>- j-i-

Wlthln Contingency

Contingent Reinforcement Noncontingent Reinforcement

- - - sinole schedulemultiple schedule

? 7--"6--

g 5-

Z «-

> 3

^ 2-1

^ 1

Interest_Interest

1 7-

~ 6-

§5

5 3-

i. 1-

Low Interest Task

- - singlemul tiple

Within Interest

S 7-

5 4-1-

_Contingency

3-2--1--

High Interest Task

_Contingency

-^7-1"6§ 5

Z 4--

_> 3

CONTINGENT NONCONTINGENT CONTINGENT NONCONTINGENT

Within Feedback Schedule

Single Schedule Multiple Schedule

- - - contingentnoncontingent

^ 6-

o 5-

Interest Interest

Figure 20. feedback analysis of contingency X interest X feedbackschedule: task enjoyability (composite scale).

Page 108: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

96

1. Negative interactive: Self-perception theory would predict a

significant decrease in intrinsic motivation when performance contingent

extrinsic payment is made for an intrinsically motivating task. This

effect should exist independently of the mode of extrinsic payment (i.e.,

single or multiple). No such decrease (nor an increase) is predicted for

intrinsic motivation when performance contingent extrinsic rewards are

added to a task lacking intrinsic motivation.

On the other hand, the competing responses position does clearly

differentiate between different modes of performance contingent extrinsic

reward. It predicts that when performance contingent rewards are adminis-

tered in a manner consistent with reinforcement theory, no decrease in

intrinsic motivation will take place. On the contrary, increases in

intrinsic motivation should result for both high and low interest tasks.

2. Additive: Expectancy theory would predict that intrinsic and

extrinsic motivation would be completely independent of one another.

Thus, additions of extrinsic rewards, whether performance contingent or

not, would have no impact on intrinsic motivation.

3. Positive dependent: To the extent that an extrinsic reward is

valued and is associated with the performance of a task, increased liking

for that task will result. The more valued the extrinsic reward, the

greater the increased liking for the task.

Thus, intrinsic motivation should increase for both high and low

interest tasks with the addition of performance contingent extrinsic

rewards. The greater the extrinsic reward, the greater the increase in

intrinsic motivation which will result. Also, given that a performance

contingent multiple reinforcement schedule provides a stronger association

between task and reward than a single schedule, one would expect a

Page 109: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

97

greater positive impact on intrinsic motivation (for a given level of

extrinsic reward) in the multiple reward conditions than in the single

reward conditions.

Experimental effects . The verbal hypotheses are reflected at a

general level in Table 26. This table may be compared to the overall

anova results for the various measures of intrinsic motivation presented

in Table 27.

Note, however, that specific a priori contrasts (as specified in

Chapter II) are necessary before support, or lack of support, for particu-

lar theories can be claimed.

If one reviews Table 27, a general pattern of effects becomes

apparent. One measure of intrinsic motivation is insensitive to the ex-

perimental manipulations altogether (time volunteered for no money).

However, the other three measures of intrinsic motivation reflect a fairly

consistent pattern of significance. Extrinsic payment significantly

affected two of these three measures. Additionally, the interest X

contingency X schedule (I x C x S) interaction was either conventionally

(£.<.05) or marginally (£<.10) significant for all three of these

measures of intrinsic motivation. In one case (task enjoyability-faces

scale) the third order interaction (interest X contingency X reward X

schedule) (I x C x R x S) was marginally significant.

A comparison of Tables 26 and 27 reveals a disparity between predicted

and realized experimental effects. The I x C x S interaction was not

predicted by any of the theoretical positions. Further, none of the

higher order interactions involving extrinsic reward reached a conven-

tional (£<.05) level of significance. One third order interaction

involving extrinsic reward (I x C x R x S) was marginally significant.

Page 110: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

98

Table 26

Hypotheses Matrix for Intrinsic Motivation Index

Theoretical PositionExperimental Treatment Negative Interactive Additive Positive

Effects Self-Perception Competing Responses Dependent

Intrinsic Interest (I)

Extrinsic Reward/Feedback Contingency (C)

Extrinsic Reward Level (R) NS

Extrinsic Reward/Feedback Schedule (S)

I x C

I X R NS

I X S

C X R NS .

C X S

R X S NS

I X C X R SG^

I X C X S

I X R X S NS

C X R X S NS SG

I X C X R X S SG NS

Note . These hypotheses are specified at a general level. Detailed a prioricontrasts are also necessary. No main effects or lower order interactionsare dealt with when a theoretical position predicts an interaction of a

given order.

^ Significant.Nonsignificant.

Page 111: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

99

a

Page 112: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

100

Those simple effects not a^ priori specified were a^ posteriori tested.

None were found to be significant (Scheffe,oc= .10). Given that

extrinsic payment effects did not appear in any of the significant higher

order Interactions, the extrinsic payment main effect which was signifi-

cant for two measures of intrinsic motivation (task enjoyabil Ity-composite

semantic differential; task interest-faces scale) becomes both important

and Interpretable. The significant extrinsic reward main effect and

the I X C X S interactions will be dealt with shortly. For the present,

an examination of the a priori specified contrasts will be considered.

A priori contrast tables may be found in Appendix C. The following

summarizes these tables:

1. Self-perception theory: No significant reduction of Intrinsic

motivation for a high Interest task occurred when extrinsic rewards were

performance-contingent (averaged over both single and multiple extrinsic

reward/feedback schedules). On the contrary, three of the four measures

of Intrinsic motivation increased for the high interest task. One

measure, task enjoyability (faces scale). Increased significantly (£< .05),

2. Competing responses: Consistent with the competing responses

hypothesis, performance-contingent extrinsic rewards administered for a

high interest task on a multiple schedule resulted in a significant

increase in intrinsic motivation for one measure (task enjoyability-

composlte semantic differential, £<.05). However, this result is also

consistent with a positive dependent relationship. Moreover, the pre-

dicted reduction in Intrinsic motivation did not appear when performance-

contingent extrinsic rewards were administered on a single schedule (see

self-perception theory above).

Page 113: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

101

3. Additive: Contrary to the independence hypothesis (necessary

for additivity), performance-contingent extrinsic rewards (across both

payment schedules and tasks) increased task enjoyability (composite

semantic differential, £<.01). Additionally, results of the overall

anovas indicated significant extrinsic payment effects across both levels

of contingency on two measures of intrinsic motivation. In both cases,

payment resulted in increased levels of intrinsic motivation. (See Table

28 and Figure 21.)

4. Positive dependent: Performance-contingent extrinsic payment

did increase intrinsic motivation (across both tasks) for three of the

four measures (task enjoyabil ity-composite and faces scales, task interest)

In one instance this increase was significant (task enjoyabil ity-composite

scale, p^<.01). However, the prediction that increases in the level of

extrinsic payment would result in increased task liking was not supported.

Additionally, the multiple reinforcement schedule, when contrasted with

the single reinforcement schedule, did not produce an increase in task

liking when performance-contingent extrinsic rewards were given.

Noncontingent extrinsic rewards also increased task liking (across

both tasks) for the same three measures; significantly so for one measure

(task enjoyability-composite scale, £<.01), marginally so for another

(task interest, £<.10). Thus, even when extrinsic payment was believed

to have been determined "randomly by central computer" (see Chapter II),

increased task liking resulted. Equally interesting was the impact of the

extrinsic reward/feedback schedule on intrinsic motivation under non-

contingent extrinsic reward conditions. The multiple reinforcement

schedule, when contrasted with the single reinforcement schedule, led to

Page 114: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

o I -a•r- -r- dJ-t-J -o C•I- C •!-

"O O XiCUEo oo >, u

O) r— >-C fO dJ4-1 > I—

102

o

Page 115: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

103

-J I I I

xapuL uoL:;BA!.:to^j

E >>5 OJ

xapuL uoL:teAL:;ow

%-

Page 116: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

104

reduced task enjoyability (faces scale, e^<.10) and task interest (faces

scale, £ <.20) although not significantly so.

It must be noted that these performance-contingent/noncontingent

condition differences did not surface as an extrinsic reward/feedback

contingency main effect on the overall anovas (see Table 27).

A posteriori examinations of the I X C X S interaction revealed few

significant simple effects (Scheffe,s£^= .10). Figure 22 and Figure 23

present the two significant simple effects (Scheffe,'^= .05).

As shown in Figure 22 there was a contingency main effect for task

interest (faces scale) in the low interest task condition. Subjects in

the contingent condition found the low interest task significantly more

interesting than subjects in the noncontingent condition, regardless of

extrinsic reward/feedback schedule. No such effect was found for subjects

in the high task interest condition.

Figure 23 indicates that when viewing the single extrinsic reward/

feedback schedule condition in isolation, a contingency main effect

exists across both task interest conditions. Subjects receiving con-

tingent extrinsic rewards and/or feedback found the task more interesting

(faces scale) across both levels of task interest than did subjects

receiving noncontingent extrinsic rewards and/or feedback. No such effect

was found for subjects in the multiple extrinsic reward/feedback schedule

condition.

Graphical presentations of the data for each measure of intrinsic

motivation may be found in Appendix C.

Extrinsic Motivation

Relevant hypotheses . The following are relevant hypotheses for the

index of extrinsic motivation.

Page 117: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

105

ocncOT^^OLO'd-cocj

xapuL uo_L:;eAL:^o^J

I- +-)

Page 118: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

106

xapui uoL:;BAL:^o^J

4-> X)1/1 roOJ -r-

r— OCL ra

E S-•r- O)

ro

Page 119: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

107

1. Positive interactive: The more intrinsically motivating a

task is, the greater the motivational influence a given level of performance-

contingent extrinsic reward would have.

2. Additive: The addition of performance-contingent extrinsic

rewards to a task will increase the extrinsic motivation to perform the

task. This increase in extrinsic motivation will exist independently of

intrinsic motivation to perform the task given no alterations in the

expectancies of the performance-contingent intrinsic incentives as a

function of these additional extrinsic incentives.

It must also be noted that an increase in extrinsic motivation as a

function of extrinsic incentives is not inconsistent with either the

positive dependent or the negative interactive hypotheses.

Experimental effects . Table 29 shows the interest X extrinsic reward

interaction (I x R) predicted by the positive interactive relationship

was not significant. However, there was an extrinsic reward level main

effect. Figure 24 indicates the direction of this extrinsic reward

effect. Note that greater extrinsic payment served to increase extrinsic

motivation. More detailed graphs may be found in Appendix C.

A priori contrast tables may be found in Appendix C. The following

summarizes those tables:

1. Positive interactive: No support was provided for the notion

that extrinsic motivation is enhanced by intrinsic incentives.

2. Additive: The notion that intrinsic and extrinsic components of

motivation are independent could not be rejected on the basis of the a_

priori contrasts. No effect (main or interactive) involving intrinsic

motivation reached significance.

Page 120: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

108

Table 29

Analysis of Variance: Extrinsic Motivation

(Feelings About the Payment: Faces Scale)

Source

Intrinsic Interest (I)

Extrinsic Reward/Feedback Contingency (C)

Extrinsic Reward Level (R)

Extrinsic Reward/Feedback Schedule (S)

I x C

I x R

I x S

C x R

C x S

R X S

I X C X R

I X C X S

I X R X S

C X R X S

I X C X R X S

Error

df MS

1 4.05

Page 121: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

109

J—I I I I

xapuL uoL:tBAL:to^^

Page 122: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

no

Overall Motivation

A nine-point faces scale was used to measure subjects' feelings

about the task and extrinsic payment combined. As a consequence, there

are no data on overall motivation for subjects in the feedback only

experimental conditions. For this reason, the hypotheses in this section

have been separated into two sections. The first section, Relevant

Hypotheses, discusses hypotheses which are capable of testing the various

theories under consideration. The second section. Boundary Conditions

Hypotheses, discusses hypotheses which might provide additional infor-

mation concerning a particular theory. However, these hypotheses do not

test the underlying assumptions of the various theories. Rather, they

address possible boundary conditions.

Relevant hypotheses . The following are relevant hypotheses for the

index of overall motivation.

1. Positive interactive: Overall motivation should be increased

when a given level of performance-contingent extrinsic rewards is added

to increasingly more intrinsically motivating tasks. This increase will

be attributed to the individual intrinsic and extrinsic sources, as well

as to a positive interaction between them.

2. Additive: Overall motivation to perform a task should increase

as a direct function of adding either performance-contingent extrinsic

incentives or intrinsic incentives (or both) to a task.

3. Positive dependent: Overall motivation to perform a task should

increase as performance-contingent extrinsic incentives sre added to a

given task. The more valued the extrinsic incentive, and the stronger

the associations between task and extrinsic incentives, the greater the

impact on overall motivation.

Page 123: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

m

Boundary conditi on hypotheses. The following are boundary condition

hypotheses for the index of overall motivation.

1. Self-perception: A number of researchers (e.g., Deci, 1971) have

discussed a possible decrease in overall motivation as a function of the

negative interactive relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic moti-

vation (although no empirical evidence supports this position). Although

it is not possible to directly test this speculation, it is worthwhile

to examine the impact on overall motivation to perform an interesting

task as increasingly greater levels of performance-contingent extrinsic

rewards are added to an interesting task. One might hypothesize, based

on these speculations, that the negative impact on overall motivation would

be more pronounced the greater the level of extrinsic incentives added

to the given task.

2. Competing responses: This position holds, that if indeed overall

motivation is reduced as a result of adding increasingly greater levels

of performance-contingent extrinsic incentives to an interesting task,

that reduction should occur only when a single reinforcement schedule is

used. Performance-contingent extrinsic incentives administered on a

multiple reinforcement schedule would not interact negatively with

intrinsic incentives.

Experimental effects . Both sets of hypotheses are shown in Table 30.

This table may be compared to the overall anova in Table 31.

Note that the interest X contingency X reward interaction barely

failed to reach significance (£ <.06). Had this effect been significant

it would have been consistent with both the positive and negative inter-

active (self-perception) theoretical positions. However, these theoretical

positions are better tested by the a priori contrasts than at the level

of a higher order interaction.

Page 124: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

112

Table 30

Hypotheses for Overall Motivation

Theoretical PositionExperimental Treatment Negative Interactive

Efl'ects Self- Competing Positive PositivePerception Responses Interactive Additive Dependent

Intrinsic Interest (I)

Extrinsic Reward/Feedback Contingency (C)

Extrinsic Reward Level (R)

Extrinsic Reward/Feedback Schedule (S)

I X C

I x R

I X S

C X R

C X S

R X S

I X C X R SG^ SG

I X C X S

I X R X S

C X R X S

I X C X R X S SG

S6

SG SG

SG

SG

Note. These hypotheses are specified at a general level. Detailed a prioricontrasts are also necessary. No main effects or lower interactions aredealt with when a theoretical position predicts an interaction of a givenorder.

^ Significant.

Page 125: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

113

Table 31

Analysis of Variance: Overall Motivation

(Feelings About Both Task and Payment: Faces Scale)

Source

Intrinsic Interest (I)

Extrinsic Reward/Feedback Contingency (C)

Extrinsic Reward Level (R)

Extrinsic Reward/Feedback Schedule (S)

I x C

I x R

I x S

C x R

C X S

R x S

I X C X R

I X C X S

I X R X S

C X R X S

I X C X R X S

Error

df MS

1 .20

Page 126: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

114

Figure 25 and Figure 26 present the significant extrinsic reward

level main effect and the marginally significant extrinsic reward/

feedback contingency effect respectively.

As Figure 25 illustrates, the greater the extrinsic incentive the

greater the impact on overall motivation.

Figure 26 illustrates that performance-contingent extrinsic incen-

tives had a greater impact on overall motivation than noncontingent

extrinsic incentives.

A priori contrast tables may be found in Appendix C. The following

summarizes those tables:

1. Positive interactive: There was no support for the positive

interactive relationship. Although the direction of the interaction

between extrinsic incentives and intrinsic interest was positive, the

effect was not even marginally significant.

2. Additive: It was not possible to reject the simple additive

relationship.

3. Positive dependent: Mo direct support for the positive depen-

dent relationship was found. Within the performance-contingent condition,

increased levels of extrinsic incentives did not (significantly) increase

overall motivation to perform the task. Also, the strength of associa-

tion between task and performance-contingent extrinsic payment (multiple

versus single reinforcement schedules) did not differentially affect

overall motivation.

4. Self-perception (boundary condition hypotheses): No support

was found for the negative interactive relationship across the two

extrinsic reward/feedback schedules. The direction of the interest X

extrinsic reward interaction, although not significant, was more consistent

Page 127: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

115

I I I I I I I I I I

~i—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—

ocT>oor^<X)LOri-ncvii—

XSpUL U0L:;BAL:^01ft|

Page 128: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

116

n

Page 129: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

117

with the positive interactive relationship. Further, overall motivation

increased for the high interest task as extrinsic rewards were increased

(£<.10) across both extrinsic reward/feedback schedules.

5. Competing responses (boundary condition hypotheses): When

explicit attention was paid to the extrinsic reward/feedback schedule,

the predicted negative impact on overall motivation for the single

reinforcement schedule did not appear. In the multiple reinforcement

schedule, mixed results appeared. Increasing the level of extrinsic

reward enhanced overall motivation for the high interest task and lowered

it for the low interest task. This interaction (or cross-over effect)

was significant (t. (64) = 2.27, £<.01). Unfortunately, the difference

in overall motivation for both tasks in the low payment condition ($1.50)

was so slight, unequivical inferences may not be made on the basis of

this effect.

A posteriori examinations (Scheffe,oc = JO) of the simple effects

(other than a priori specified) for the I x C x R interaction revealed

no significant effects.

Page 130: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

118

I/)

Page 131: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

119

102 9

1 8" 7

g fi

« 5-

> 4li 3

i. 2-

Low Interest Task

- contingentnoncontingerit

Within Interest

« ID-

'S 9

£ 8

<= 74°

6

t; 5--

^ 4--

S 3-^

2

1-

ExtrinsicReward

High Interest Task

J1.50 }3.00 $1.50 $3.00

ExtrinsicReward

Within Contingency

Contingent Reinforcement

- - - high interest tasklow interest task

Noncontingent Reinforcement

X ID-

'S 9-

~ 8-

c 7-

2 6-

-i 5-

^ 4-

$1.50 $3.00

ExtrinsicRewardLevel $1.50 $3.00

_Extrins1cRewardLevel

Within Extrinsic Reward Level

Low Extrinsic Reward ($1.50) High Extrinsic Reward ($3.00)

- - contingentnoncontingent

2 10-

o 9

- 8

o^--

T.6--

5 5--

« 4-

- I-1--

Interest

High Higli

Figure 28. Interest X contingency X extrinsic reward level interaction'overall motivation index (feelings about task and pay)

Page 132: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

120

Notes

1. The phrase "departure from significance patterns" is being used to

refer to statistically significant differences. Various significance

levels were influenced by the use of covariates, but not enough to

cause previously nonsignificant effects to become significant.

Page 133: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

CHAPTER IV

DISCUSSION

This chapter will review important aspects of the study, the results

obtained, and the implications of those results for motivation theory and

organizational application.

The Study

This study examined the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic

sources of motivation. Earlier research in this area was often charac-

terized by serious methodological weaknesses, which in turn cast doubt

on the research results. As the controversy has matured it has become

possible to clearly identify these weaknesses and their probable conse-

quences. This study represents an attempt to investigate the intrinsic/

extrinsic relationship in a laboratory setting controlling for the

methodological problems of these earlier studies. Statistical control

techniques (e.g., design factors) were utilized. To the extent that the

internal validity of the study is supported, the empirical data generated

become increasingly more worthwhile. Time should be taken at this point

to explicitly deal with the question of internal validity, and in turn,

the quality of the data generated.

A fundamental question is the degree to which the contingency manip-

ulation was successful. A check on the contingency manipulation revealed

that fully 90% of the subjects stated a contingency perception (contingent,

noncontingent) consistent with the experimental manipulation. An examina-

tion of the remaining 10% (incorrect contingency perceptions) revealed no

121

Page 134: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

122

discernable pattern (see Chapter III). Especially important is the faith

the subjects had in the randomness of the extrinsic payments in the non-

contingent condition. This compares favorably with earlier studies which

utilized a "piece-rate" versus "flat-rate" pay contingency manipulation

(e.g., Farr, Vance, & Mclntyre, 1977). Further, levels of monetary

payments were controlled across contingency conditions. Earlier studies

relied on chance to equate payments across these two conditions, or

worse yet, offered differential rates of pay based on a_ £riorj_ expecta-

tions of performance in the noncontingent condition (Farr, Vance, &

Mclntyre, 1977). In the latter case differential rates of payment may

elicit widely disparate expectations . The fact that earnings may be

approximately equivalent is not sufficient to assume that differences

in attitudinal measures of intrinsic motivation (between differing

contingency conditions) are due solely to the contingency manipulation

and not due to differing initial expectations. Moreover, the timing of

extrinsic payments could differ significantly between the two different

contingency conditions. Earlier studies made no attempt to control for

such timing differences. This study utilized a yoked control to insure

that the timing for extrinsic payments was equivalent across contingency

conditions. This technique made it possible to have a fully crossed

reinforcement schedule (single, multiple) contingency (contingent, non-

contingent) design. This represents an important design improvement over

earlier studies.

Previous empirical studies failed to clearly separate feedback effect

from extrinsic reward effects on intrinsic motivation. As a consequence,

it is impossible to determine to what extent intrinsic motivation

measures were affected by extrinsic incentives. Feedback effects were

Page 135: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

123

controlled in this investigation by the provision of feedback only condi-

tions. These feedback only conditions were used as comparison groups.

Thus, extrinsic incentive/feedback groups were compared to feedback

only groups. Analyses of the feedback only conditions revealed that a

number of a priori expectations concerning the impact of feedback were

not supported. This implies that feedback effects must be controlled in

future studies.

Isolated control groups were used in order to insure that no experi-

mental context effects were created. Previous studies either used dif-

ferent instruments for task selection and the experiment (Calder & Staw,

1975a), or simply assumed the task to be interesting a priori (e.g.,

Deci, 1971; Farr, Vance, & Mclntyre, 1977). Thus, meaningful comparisons

between subjects' evaluation of the task in the task-selection process

and the experimental process could not be made. Such comparisons were

possible in this investigation because the same instrument was used for

both the task selection process and the post-experimental measurement of

the dependent variables. Moreover, isolated control groups (intrinsic

interest manipulation only) were used. These isolated control groups

were compared to the pre-experimental task selection groups. These com-

parisons allowed the hypothesis of an experimental context effect to be

rejected.

Time, both within and across experimental treatment days, might have

an important impact on attitudinal and behavioral measures of intrinsic

motivation. Previous studies made no attempt to investigate this effect.

Explicit attention was paid to time, both within and across experimental

treatment days, in this investigation. It was determined that no signifi-

cant time effects were present.

Page 136: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

124

Many studies have been criticized for aggregating the effects of

two different extrinsic incentives. Typically, both extra credit of some

type and monetary incentives are offered to subjects for participation.

Extra credit might influence the experimental results in two ways. It

could act as a distraction and/or a powerful extrinsic incentive in its

own right. In spite of this possible confounding, significant effects

(when found) are attributed solely to the monetary payments. Rather than

assume a priori that the extra credit incentive had no impact, separate

analyses of covariance were performed to investigate the possible impact

of such extra credit along both the distraction and extrinsic incentive

dimensions. The results indicated that the extra credit incentive had no

significant impact on the dependent measures used in this study.

Explicit attention must also be paid to the nature of the dependent

measures used. The dependent variables in this study were primarily

self-report, attitudinal measures. The one exception was a self-report

measure of a subject's willingness to spend time on the task at a future

date. With reference to the time volunteered measure, it was made

explicit that no payment would be available for future participation nor

would a questionnaire be required. It was hoped that such explicit

exceptions would allow a more accurate measure of willingness to partic-

ipate in the future.

Both types of measures have been used extensively in the past.

However, self-report measures of intrinsic motivation have recently come

under attack. Arnold (1976) found little relation between self-report

measures of satisfaction and actual return behavior. Moreover, he found

no relation between time volunteered and subsequent return behavior.

Although Arnold views these weak relationships as surprising and as a

Page 137: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

125

significant indictment of self-report measures, they need not be either.

A vast amount of attitude research clearly demonstrates that the rela-

tionships between attitudes (or affect), behavioral intentions, and

actual behavior are neither simple nor always direct (Fishbein & Ajzen,

1975). Actual return behavior may be a function of far more powerful

influences than the intrinsically motivating properties of an experi-

mental task. For example, alternative uses for a particular period of

time typically increase as that time period approaches. Thus, even if

self-report measures of satisfaction or intrinsic motivation are both

reliable and valid, the experimental activity will typically be compared

to a myraid of alternatives which may compete very effectively with the

experimental task. More research must be done before the theoretical

importance of the relationship between self-report measures of intrinsic

motivation and actual return behavior is established.

Results

This study provided no support for the positive interactive rela-

tionship (Dermer, 1975). Given levels of extrinsic incentives did not

differentially influence extrinsic motivation when added to tasks

differing in levels of intrinsic motivation.

Nor did this investigation provide support for the negative inter-

active position (e.g., Deci , 1971). The addition of performance-contingent

extrinsic incentives (monetary payments) to tasks did not reduce intrinsic

or overall motivation for either an interesting or an uninteresting task.

On the contrary, extrinsic incentives, whether perceived by the subjects

to be performance-contingent or random, served to increase intrinsic and

overall motivation regardless of initial task interest.

Page 138: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

126

The results do provide mixed support for both the simple additive

(expectancy theory) and positive dependent (secondary reinforcement)

positions. As stated above, a clear positive relationship was obtained

between the receipt of extrinsic incentives and intrinsic motivation.

To that extent, the positive dependent position was supported and the

simple additive relationship was not. However, reinforcement contingencies

and schedules, predicted to be of importance by the positive dependent

position, were not significant. This weakens the support for the positive-

dependent position as stated here.

When one reviews the data for overall motivation, the results become

equivocal. This is due, in part, to the inability of the overall moti-

vation measure to clearly differentiate between these two theoretical

positions (additive versus positive dependent). Although the positive

dependent relationship would predict an indirect task-contingent extrinsic

incentive -^intrinsic motivation contribution to overall motivation, such

an effect would be constant across tasks and as a consequence would sur-

face as both intrinsic interest and extrinsic incentive main effects

(or as an extrinsic incentive X contingency interaction for the overall

anova). The predicted effects are also consistent with the simple addi-

tive position. As a consequence, neither position may be rejected given

the data. This is true in spite of the failure of the contingency and

reinforcement schedule manipulations to reach significance.

Given that the intrinsic motivation data support the positive depen-

dent position (to the exclusion of the simple additive position), and

that the overall motivation data are consistent with both the positive

dependent and additive positions, it may be said that this study provides

limited support for the positive dependent position.

Page 139: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

127

Imp1 icatio ns

Motivational

There was no evidence that individuals attempt to explain the causes

of their past behaviors to themselves, and in turn base subsequent

behaviors on those explanations. As a consequence, these results are in

no way consistent with self-perception theory.

Nor are these research results consistent with a simple additive

relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic incentives and overall moti-

vation. This casts some doubt on the expectancy theory assumption of

independence between these two sources of motivation. However, the over-

all impact of combinations of intrinsic and extrinsic incentives is

consistent with a broad view of additivity. Such a view would hold that

the use of combinations of intrinsic and extrinsic incentives would in-

crease overall motivation to a greater extent than either set of incen-

tives taken separately, allowing for both positive dependent and additive

processes to occur simultaneously. The underlying dynamics of this broad

approach to additivity, however, are consistent with the notion that to

some extent individuals engage in task related behaviors because those

behaviors have been instrumental in providing primary or secondary rein-

forcements in the past. This positive dependent relationship was clearly

supported by the analysis of the rating-scale measures of intrinsic

motivation and consistent with the analysis of the attitudinal measure of

overall motivation.

Organizational

Organizations should feel free to provide both intrinsic and extrinsic

incentives as a means of increasing worker motivation. However, the

positive dependent relationship requires that attention be paid to the

Page 140: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

128

specific characteristics of positive reinforcers. The motivational

impact of various combinations of intrinsic and extrinsic incentives may

be primarily a function of idiocyncratic valuations of the incentive and

previous associations between the incentives.

It would be premature to attempt definitive comment on the organi-

zational implications of this study. This study, as do others, deals

with the addition of extrinsic rewards where none had previously existed.

Business organizations are interested in the impact of increasing present

levels of intrinsic and extrinsic incentives. This is a different

question, and results may not be generalized without additional infor-

mation. All that can be said at this point is that no conclusive evidence

for either a negative or positive interactive relationship between extrinsic

incentives and intrinsic motivation presently exists.

Future Research

There are a number of research imperatives in this area:

1. It is necessary to develop improved conceptual and operational

definitions of the motivational constructs.

2. Research should be directed toward establishing the validity of

commonly used self-report measures of intrinsic motivation. The impor-

tance of the weak relationships between these measures and subsequent

return behavior found by Arnold (1976) should be investigated further.

3. Up until now, monetary payment has been the primary extrinsic

incentive. Other types of extrinsic incentives should also be used in

order to determine whether the effects of extrinsic incentives are con-

sistent.

4. riore attention must be paid to degrees and kinds of contingencies

rather than the current dichotomy. Is an extrinsic reward ever really

noncontingent if participation at any level is necessary?

Page 141: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

129

5. A closer examination of the role feedback effects play in moder-

ating the impact of extrinsic incentives on intrinsic and overall motiva-

tion is necessary. Too many studies either assume away or neglect this

important concern altogether.

6. The relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic sources of

motivation should be studied in organizational settings where pay is an

inherent part of the task. This is especially important if one wishes

to provide meaningful information to management.

7. The relationship between self-report measures of motivation and

actual performance should be investigated. It may be that while overall

motivation to perform a task may increase (or decrease) as measured,

actual performance may prove to be independent of such an increase (or

decrease)

.

Page 142: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

APPENDIX A

Methodology

Page 143: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

The Department of Economics and Management Science will conduct two

studies this semester during the period Wednesday, April 13 to May 7.

One study will collect data from the male undergraduate population directly

relevant to the design of jobs in business organizations. The other study

will collect data from the female undergraduate population and deal with

their attitudes and perceptions of economics and management science as

academic majors. We would like to provide you with an opportunity to

be a participant in these investigations if you are an undergraduate 18

years of age or older.

Such participation will allow you to experience first hand the pro-

cess of data collection in the behavioral sciences as well as earn extra

credit in this course. Because the Department of Economics and Management

Science values your contribution and feels that participation in investi-

gations such as these may be viewed as valuable learning experiences, two

extra credit points will be added to your final average in this course

should you elect to participate in one of these two studies.

Male volunteers will be asked to accomplish a simple task and complete

a short anonymous questionnaire.

Due to both time and physical limitations we are forced to restrict

participation to a first-come, first-serve basis.

If you have an interest in participating in these studies and in

earning the two extra percentage points on your final grade, please choose

a convenient day, time, and date as listed on the appropriate sign-up

materials that will be passed around the class, and fill in the requested

information. The extra credit will be awarded by your professor after

he has been notified of your participation. You may hear this announce-

ment in other of your classes. Please do not volunteer more than once.

131

Page 144: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

132

If you are in two classes where this opportunity is presented you will

have the option of deciding which professor will receive notice of your

contribution.

Page 145: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

133

PUZZLE TASK DEVELOPMENT

Picture Selection

Subjects

Ten male subjects enrolled in an upper division organizational be-

havior courses participated in the initial stage of the puzzle task

development. Their participation was required in order to complete a

course unit on questionnaire construction and application.

Procedure

The subjects were asked to rate 30 color prints on various interest-

related dimensions. A questionnaire was developed for this purpose

which included a number of seven-point semantic differential scales.

The semantic differential scales included: Simple-Complex, Bad-Good,

Deadening-Stimulating, Monotonous-Exciting, Ordinary-Novel, Passive-

Active, Boring-Interesting. In addition, the questionnaire included two

nine-point faces scales (Kunin, 1955) specifically addressed to the

interest and enjoyability levels of each print.

Both the semantic differential scales and the adjectives within each

scale were randomly ordered. This was an attempt to minimize such sources

of rating variance as scale-checking styles by forcing independent

judgements over the scales employed. Semantic differential profiles were

created by first ordering the adjectives in a fashion determined a priori

to cluster the more positive adjectives on the right side of all the

scales. Mean scores for all male subjects were plotted on each scale

for each print. These plotted scores were then connected to form profiles

suitable for rapid visual inspection. The ten points selected using

this method were rated quite favorably on both interest and enjoyability

dimensions. In addition, no selected print had a mean score further to

Page 146: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

134

the left than the center position on the other dimensions considered.

The selected prints were also favorably rated on the faces scales used

to measure the interest and enjoyability level of each print.

Two copies each of ten different puzzles were cut out of one-

quarter inch plywood. One set of ten puzzles was isolated and painted

white. The remaining indentical puzzles were used to construct a pic-

ture puzzle set. Each of the ten selected prints was decoupaged on one

of the puzzles.

Puzzle Task Evaluation

Subjects

Both the picture and the blank puzzle sets were rated on selected

dimensions (Calder & Staw, 1975; Guion, 1965) by 60 male undergraduates

drawn from a larger pool of volunteer subjects (see Subjects section.

Chapter IIO.

Procedure

Each puzzle piece was outlined on the assembly base, since pictures

would convey considerably more assembly information than would a blank

white surface. In addition, a black dot was placed on the back corner

of each piece to enable the subject to easily differentiate the front

from the back of each piece. Although this information was redundant for

the picture puzzles, it was necessary for the proper assembly of the

blank puzzles.

An initial 20 subjects were randomly assigned to either the blank

or picture puzzles, such that 10 subjects evaluated each puzzle set.

Subjects assembled a puzzle set and were requested to respond to a post-

experimental questionnaire. This questionnaire measured subject per-

ceptions of the puzzle task on various interest related dimensions. (For

Page 147: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

135

a detailed discussion of the questionnaire instrument see the Instrument

section, Chapter II.)

Mean scores were contrasted (t-tests) on various dimensions for each

puzzle set. It was determined in advance that differences in mean scores

on certain dimensions must be significant, while certain other dimension

differences between puzzle sets must not be. This determination was

based upon the premise that the tasks appropriate for this study must

differ on dimensions related to intrinsic interest but not on dimensions

related to other task characteristics. Data from the first 20 subjects

indicated that mean score differences between the puzzle sets on dimensions

relating to intrinsic incentives were not significant.

As a consequence, each blank puzzle had its four outer front corners

painted blue. It was reasoned that this additional information would

make the blank puzzles less interesting and would serve to further equate

the tasks (the four outer corners were readily apparent on the picture

puzzles). Three puzzles were changed in order to increase the interest

of the picture puzzle set. The pictures added included female nudes

taken from popular magazines. Another 20 subjects were randomly assigned

to rate either the picture or the blank puzzle set. Data from these sub-

jects indicated that while picture set-blank set differences were greater,

they were not large enough for the purpose of this investigation. For

this reason a third group of 20 male subjects was randomly assigned to

evaluate either the picture or the blank puzzle set after two additional

puzzles were changed. Once again the purpose of these changes was to

increase the mean score differences between the puzzle sets on relevant

dimensions. Data from these subjects indicated that a sufficiently large

difference between blank and picture puzzle sets had been created. These

Page 148: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

136

puzzle sets were used in the investigation. The data from this manipu-

lation check may be found in Appendix C.

Page 149: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

137

INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBJECTS

General *

You will be participating in an information processing experiment.

There are 10 puzzles you will be asked to solve. As you solve these

puzzles the order of each piece you place on the puzzle base will be

recorded on magnetic tape. We are trying to gain information on the

relationship between the size and shape of a puzzle piece and the order

it is placed on the puzzle base. There is no correct or proper comple-

tion sequence for any individual puzzle. Each puzzle piece is outlined

on the puzzle base. Select a puzzle piece and place it in the appro-

priate position. Please complete the sequence of puzzles from left to

right. Please complete each puzzle before moving on to the next one.

There is no time limit so work at whatever pace you wish. Please be

aware that you are free to decline participation at any point during

this study, although your cooperation would be most appreciated.

Specific (for other than control cells)

Feedback Only

Performance Contingent

Multiple reinforcement schedule . Notice the lights above each

puzzle. Each light will be lighted as each puzzle is completed. This

indicates that the puzzle is successfully accomplished and that the

completion sequence has been recorded.

Single reinforcement schedule . Notice the light above the last

puzzle. That light will be lighted when the entire puzzle task (i.e.,

all 10 puzzles) is completed. It indicates that the task has been

successfully accomplished and that the completion sequence for each puzzle

has been recorded.

^Control cells received only these general instructions,

Page 150: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

138

Non-performance Contingent

Multiple reinforcement schedule . Notice the lights above each

puzzle. They will be lighted at random intervals throughout the experi-

ment. These random intervals are determined by a central computer and

as a consequence are in no way related to your progress with reference

to the puzzle task.

Single reinforcement schedule . Notice the light above the last

puzzle. At some point during the experiment it will be lighted. It is in

no way related to your progress with reference to the task. It is

lighted at an interval randomly determined by computer.

Extrinsic Reward and Feedback

Performance Contingent

Multiple reinforcement s chedule. Monetary payment will be available

to you. However, your payment is contingent upon the successful comple-

tion of each puzzle. As you complete each puzzle, the light above the

puzzle will be lighted. It indicates that the puzzle has been success-

fully accomplished and the completion sequence has been recorded. When

that happens raise the plastic cup and take the money located under the

cup as your partial payment.

Single reinforcement schedule . Monetary payment will be available

to you. However, your payment is contingent upon the successful comple-

tion of the entire puzzle task (i.e., all 10 puzzles). When you have

completed the last puzzle the light above the puzzle will be lighted.

It indicates that the task has been successfully accomplished and the

completion sequence for each puzzle has been recorded. When that happens

raise the plastic cup and take the money located beneath the cup as your

payment for successful completion of the task.

Page 151: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

139

Non-performance Contingent

Multiple reinforcement schedule . Monetary payment will be available

to you. However, your payment is not contingent upon the successful

completion of each puzzle. These lights will be lighted at random inter-

vals throughout the experiment. These random intervals are determined

by a central computer and as a consequence are in no way related to your

progress with reference to the puzzle task. As they are lighted please

raise the plastic ups and remove the money located beneath them as a

partial payment. Should you decide not to complete all the puzzles you

may still remove the money located beneath each cup as the light is

1 ighted.

Single reinforcement schedule . Monetary payment will be available

to you. However, your payment is not contingent upon the successful

completion of the puzzle task. At some randomly determined point during

the task the light above the last puzzle will be lighted. Please raise

the pi actio cup at that point and remove the money located beneath it as

your payment. Should you not have completed this task prior to the light

being lighted, please remove the money and then, if you choose, please

continue the task. Should you decide not to complete all the puzzles you

may still remove the money located beneath the cup as your payment when

the light is lighted.

Page 152: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

140

Page 153: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

141

Page 154: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

142

SUBJECT SPECIFIC PROCEDURES

CELL

SUBJECT NUMBER

'THIS IS A RECORD CELL***

**USE TAPE

•^ALL 10 LIGHTS SHOULD BE IN VIEW*

DIME(S) AND NICKLE(S) SHOULD BE UNDER EACH OF

THE 10 LIGHTS**

'USE SUBJECT QUESTIONNAIRE

^USE SUBJECT INSTRUCTIONS

'USE THE PUZZLE SET**

Page 155: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

143

I understand that it is in the best interest of scientific inquiry

not to discuss with my classmates any aspect of the experiment in which

I have just participated. I fully realize that such discussion may lead

to possible distortions of the data and may in effect cause the entire

experiment to be abandoned.

Signature Date

Page 156: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

144

_MEMORANDUM

TO: Participants on the Job Design Study Conducted by the Departmentof Economics and Management Science

FROM: Michael D. Crino, Department of Economics and Management Science

DATE: May 19, 1977

SUBJECT: Additional Information

We would like to thank all of you for your cooperation during the

last few weeks. Although it is too early to report results, we wouldlike to provide a more elaborate explanation of the study in which youwere a part.

Basically, the study dealt with the effects of monetary payment and

feedback upon tasks differing solely on an interest dimension. Some of

you were presented with what was determined to be a boring task (blank

puzzles). Others of you were presented with what was determined to be

an interesting task (picture puzzles). Differential monetary payment

was made available ($0.00, $1.50, $3.00), and its effect on your per-

ceptions of the task will be evaluated. It has been said that paying

someone to do an interesting task will result in the task becoming far

less interesting and enjoyable. We will test that hypothesis with the

data generated during the last few weeks.

Some of you were provided with task accomplishment feedback (1 light

at the end of the task; 1 light at the end of each puzzle), while others

of you were given noncontingent feedback. The effect of these different

schedules will be evaluated and will perhaps shed some light on the

questions of whether any feedback is better than none, and whether

contingent feedback is superior to noncontingent feedback.

Enclosed please find a short explanation of the theoretical under-

pinnings of the study. This information is provided for those of you

whose interest extends beyond the short explanation provided in this

letter.

Should you have any additional questions about the study, data, or

theories involved, please stop by my office (206-A Welles Hall) this

week, during the Summer, or in the Fall.

Page 157: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

APPENDIX B

Operational Hypotheses

Page 158: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

o_J

Page 159: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

147

The following experimental cell contrasts are presented along with

the verbal hypotheses as summarized in Chapter I. Each contrast is

specified with reference to the alpha cell notations found on Figure 2

in Chapter II. This figure is reproduced below so that the reader may

more easily relate the cell contrasts to the experimental design.

Negative Interactive Relationship

Self-Perception Theory

Basic Predictions

To the extent that extrinsic rewards are salient and task-contingent,

self-perception theory would predict a loss of intrinsic motivation (and

possible in turn, overall motivation) when they are added to an intrin-

sically motivating task.

Self-perception theory would predict no decrease (or increase) in

intrinsic motivation as a function of salient, task-contingent rewards

when those rewards are added to a task lacking intrinsic motivation.

Cell Contrasts: ContingentExtrinsic Reward Condition

Overall Motivation Index

1. A possible (but not necessary) significant intrinsic interest main

effect. The strength of this effect is, to an exten, dependent upon the

relative symmetry of the interactive or cross-over effect, should it

exist (see 3 below).

C + G + K + = E + I + M +

4 4^

2. A possible (but not necessary) significant external reward main effect.

The strenght of this effect is, to an extent, dependent upon the relative

symmetry of the interactive or cross-over effect, should it exist (see 3

below).

Page 160: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

148

+ Q + K + M = C + E + G + I

4 4

3. A possible significant interaction effect between intrinsic interest

and extrinsic reward.

C + G + M + Q < K + + E + I

4 4

4. A nonsignificant external reward schedule effect.

C + K + E + M = G + O + I + Q4 4

Intrinsic Motivation Index

1. A significant intrinsic interest main effect.

C + G + K + + S + W > E+I+M + Q + U + Y

6 6

2. A significant extrinsic reward main effect. This would be attributed

to the predicted interaction effect between intrinsic interest and

extrinsic rewards (see 3 below). Note that the lower level of intrinsic

interest is not affected by extrinsic rewards while the higher level is

affected. When one averages over these two levels (as would be done for

a main effect for extrinsic rewards) a significant main effect should

result.

Joint effect of:

C + G + E + I < K + O + M + Q~

^ 4

C + G + K + + E + I+M + Q < S + W + U + Y

8 4

3. A significant interaction effect between intrinsic interest and

extrinsic reward.

C + G + M + Q < E + + E + I

4 4

C + G + K + + U + Y < E + I + M + Q + S + W8 4 8 4

Page 161: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

149

4. A nonsignificant external reward schedule main effect.

C + K + S + E + M + U = G + + W + I + Q + Y6 6

Cell Contrasts: Noncontingent ExtrinsicReward Condition Intrinsic Index

Data consistent with self-perception theory would manifest:

1. A significant intrinsic interest main effect.

D + H + L + P + T + X > F + J + N + R + V + Z6 6

2. A noncontingent extrinsic reward main effect.

Joint effect of:

D + H + F + J = L + P + N + R

4 4

D + H + L + P + F + J + N + R = T + X + V + Z

8 4

3. A nonsignificant interaction effect between intrinsic interest and

extrinsic reward.

Joint effect of:

D + H + N + R = L + P + F + J

4 4

D + H + L + P + V + Z = J + F + N + R + T + X8 4 8 ~T~

4. A nonsignificant extrinsic reward schedule main effect.

D+L + T + F + N + V = H + P + X + J + R + Z6 6

Competing-Responses Hypotheses

Basic Prediction

The competing-responses hypothesis predicts that to the extent that

extrinsic rewards are salient, task-contingent, and administered in

accordance with reinforcement theory, their addition to an intrinsically

motivating task will not elicit competing responses, thus increasing

intrinsic, extrinsic, and overall motivation to perform the task.

Page 162: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

150

To the extent that extrinsic rewards may be classified as distracting

stimuli (salient, not task-contingent and/or delayed administration).

The competing-responses hypothesis predicts their addition will cause a

decrease in intrinsic task motivation (and in turn overall motivation) to

perform an intrinsically motivating task.

Cell Contrasts: Contingent ExtrinsicReward Condition Overall Motivation Index

Single reward condition

1. A possible (but not necessary) significant intrinsic interest main

effect. The strength of this effect is dependent upon the relative

symmetry of the interactive or cross-over effect, should it exist (see

3 below).

+ 6 = Q + I

2 2

2. A possible (but not necessary) extrinsic reward main effect. The

strength of this effect is dependent upon the relative symmetry of the

interactive or cross-over effect, should it exist (see 3 below). Note

that only one contrast is necessary to define this effect since only

subjects receiving payment may be included in the analysis.

G + L = + Q2 2

3. A possible significant interaction effect between intrinsic interest

and extrinsic reward. The strength and direction of this relationship is

dependent upon the symmetry of the cross-over effect, should one exist.

G + Q = + I

2 2

Multiple reward condition

1. A significant intrinsic interest main effect.

K + C > M + E

Page 163: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

ro O

151

S- 2ro O)S a:0)

<_) 1/1

•I- c

•r- +Js- X

c:CD -r-

1 +->

Q- C•r- O+-> t_)

O) CDf— aiQ- C

xapui

0)

Page 164: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

152

2. A significant extrinsic reward main effect.

K + M < C + E

2 ~2~3. A nonsignificant interaction effect between intrinsic interest and

extrinsic rewards.

K + E = C + M2 ~2~

Intrinsic Motivation Index

Single reward condition

1. A significant intrinsic interest main effect.

W + + G > Y + Q + I

3 3

2. A significant extrinsic reward main effect. This would be attributed

to the interaction effect between intrinsic interest and extrinsic rewards

(see 3 below). Note that the lower level of intrinsic interest is not

affected by extrinsic rewards while the higher level is affected. When

one averages over these two levels (as would be done for a main effect

for extrinsic rewards) a significant main effect should result.

Joint effect of:

G + Q < + I

2 ~2~

G + + I + Q > w + Y

4 ~T~3. A significant interaction effect between intrinsic interest and

extrinsic reward.

G + Q < + I

2~2~

I + Q + W G + + Y

4 2 ~T~ 7

Page 165: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

153

Multiple reward condition

1. A significant intrinsic interest main effect.

S + K + C > U + M + E

3 3

2. A significant external reward main effect.

Joint effect of:

K + M < C + E

2 ~r~K + M + C + E > S + U

4 ~2~

3. A nonsignificant interaction effect between intrinsic interest and

extrinsic reward.

Joint effect of:

K + E = M + C

2 2

K + C + U = M + E + S

4 2 4 2

Cell Contrasts: Noncontinqent ExtrinsicReward Condition (Single and MultipleExtrinsic Reward ConditionsT

Intrinsic motivation index

1. A significant intrinsic interest main effect.

D + H + L + P + T + X > F + J + N + R + V + ZI 6

2. Significant extrinsic reward main effect.

Joint effect of:

D + H 4- F + J < L + P + N + R

4 4

D + H + L + P + F + J + N + R < T + X + Z + V8 4

3. Significant interaction effect between intrinsic interest and extrinsic

reward.

Page 166: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

154

Joint effect of:

D + H + N + R < L + P + F + J

4 4

V + H + L -t- P + V + Z < F + J + N + R + T + X

Page 167: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

155

CL C•r- O4-> O

-I 1 1 1 1 1-

xepuiUOL:tBALq.OW OLSUUItUI

(->

Page 168: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

156

Positive Interactive Relationship

Basic Predictions

The more intrinsically motivating a task is the greater the motiva-

tional influence a given level of task-contingent extrinsic rewards would

have. Overall motivation would be greater than the simple sum of either

motivational sources taken independently.

Cell Contrasts: Contingent ExtrinsicReward Conditions (Single and MultipTeExtrinsic Reward Conditions)

Overall motivation index

1. A significant intrinsic interest main effect.

C + G + K + > E + I + M + Q4 4

2. A significant extrinsic reward main effect.

+ Q + K + M < C + E + G + I

4 4

3. A significant interaction effect between intrinsic interest and

extrinsic reward. (Note that the direction of this interaction differs

from that predicted by self-perception theory.)

C + G + M + Q > E + I + K 4-

4 4

Extrinsic motivation index

1. A significant intrinsic interest main effect.

C + G + K + > E + I + M + Q

4 4

2. A significant extrinsic reward main effect.

+ Q + K + M < C + E + G + I

4 4

3. A possible interaction effect between extrinsic reward and intrinsic

interest. This effect is possible given the nature of the intrinsic

interest manipulation and measurement.

Page 169: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

157

cu -o

Page 170: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

158

CO

Page 171: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

159

C + G + M + Q = K + + E + I

4 4

Positive Dependent Relationship

isic Predictions

To the extent that an extrinsic reward is valued and is associated

with the performance of a task, increased liking for that task will

result. The more valued the extrinsic reward, the greater the increased

liking for the task.

Extrinsic rewards which are not associated with the task will not

serve to increase task liking.

Cell Contrasts: Contingent ExtrinsicReward Condition (Single and MultipT¥Extrinsic Reward Conditions

Intrinsic motivation index

1. A significant extrinsic reward main effect. This hypothesis is based

on the assumption that a larger extrinsic reward will be more valued than

a smaller extrinsic reward.

C + G + E + I < K + + M + Q4 4

C + G + K + + E + I-t-M + Q > S + W + U + Y

8 4

2. A significant extrinsic reward/feedback schedule main effect. This

hypothesis is based on the assumption that a stronger association between

task and reward will develop with a multiple reinforcement schedule than

a single reinforcement schedule.

C + K + S + E + M + U > G + + W+I+Q + Y

6 6

Page 172: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

160

Cell Contrasts: Noncontingent ExtrinsicReward Condition (Single and MultipleExtrinsic Reward ConditionsT

Intrinsic motivation index

1. A nonsignificant extrinsic reward main effect. This hyposthesis is

based upon the assumption that non-performance contingent extrinsic rewards

will have no impact on intrinsic motivation, regardless of relative size.

D + H + F + J = L + P + N + R

4 4

D + H + L + P + F + J + N + R = T + X + Z + V

8 4

2. A nonsignificant extrinsic reward/feedback schedule main effect. This

hypothesis is based upon the assumption that the schedule of non-performance

contingent reinforcement will not affect intrinsic motivation.

D + L + T + F + N + V = H + P + X + J + R + Z

Page 173: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

161

•.- 4-)

CO X

—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I—I

I I I I I I I I I

CTtcor^iX)Lo^ooc\ji

xapui

CI)

Page 174: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

162

Additive Relationship

Basic Predictions

An additive relationship would predict that the addition of task-

contingent extrinsic rewards would increase extrinsic motivation (and

overall motivation) to perform the task, provided that such an addition

does not significantly alter the perceived expectancies of other task-

contingent outcomes. Assuming no alterations in such expectancies,

intrinsic motivation to perform the task would remain unchanged.

Regardless of possible cognitive alterations of outcome expectancies,

the value of any one intrinsic outcome would remain unchanged with the

addition of task-contingent extrinsic outcomes.

Cell Contrasts: Contingent ExtrinsicReward Condition (Single and MultipleExtrinsic Reward Condi tionsj

Overall motivation index

1. A significant intrinsic interest main effect.

C + G + K + > E + I + M + Q4 ^-

2. A significant extrinsic reward main effect.

+ Q + K + M < C + E + G + I

4 4

3. A nonsignificant interaction effect between intrinsic interest and

external reward.

C + G + M + Q = K + + E + I

4 4

Extrinsic motivation index

1. A significant extrinsic reward main effect.

+ Q + K + M < C + E + G + I

4 4

2. A nonsignificant intrinsic interest main effect.

C + G + K + = E + I + M + Q4 4

Page 175: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

163

3. A nonsignificant interaction effect between intrinsic interest and

external reward.

C + G + M + Q = K + + E + I

4 4

Intrinsic motivation index

1. A significant intrinsic interest main effect.

C + G + K + + S + W > E+I + M + Q + U + Y

6 6

2. A nonsignificant extrinsic reward main effect.

Joint effect of:

C + G + E + I = K + + M + Q4 4

C + G + K + Q + E + I + M + Q = S + W + U + Y

8

3. A nonsignificant interaction effect between intrinsic interest and

extrinsic reward.

Joint effect of:

C + G + M + Q = K + + E + I

4 4

C + G + K + + U + Y = E + I + M + Q + S + W8 4 8 ~T~

Page 176: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

164

2 r-cu toa: c:

u i-•r- -M

LU

Page 177: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

165

CDo uC -r-

03 1/1

E cS- -1-

O !-4- +->

-4—1 1 U

X3pui uoi;eAL:;ow

+-> +->

Page 178: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

APPENDIX C

Results

Page 179: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

o ^

Page 180: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

168

CO

Page 181: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

169

1/1

Page 182: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

170

>.

Page 183: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

171

o

Page 184: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

172

u

Page 185: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

173

(/I >,i

CJ) (13 re

oo o-^ or^ ocTi OLD or^ ooCMr— CO 'JD oco cor^ co^f ^^a-o cnji—

3 >,--^O (13 O)XI D. I—cC n3

r- .^ 0)1— 1/1 (_)

O) fO fDCU h- Ll_

o en^ CO

Page 186: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

174

C/l >,!

=!

Page 187: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

175

r— X r—

COOD isD>* CNJUD MDiXi -^O <^(X) «:^C\J '^'^•-^c^ "*^ uncNj Lr)>=d- i— c\j lovo Lntn "^«;d"

ocTi coo coco cnr-~ ^ocvj cooo ^cm <x>c!^

•^cvj 5^"^ ^d-c\j ID ^ 1— 1— unuD uni ^fo

=3- CO ^ CO

l^^l^D r~-0 OOLD r^^LD

rocvj >:d-<* I— I— uDi^^ 00

O r-

Page 188: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

1/6

i-D CO

=3- ro

CO oCO to

COOvJ COCSJ 'd-CM "^^3- too OJCO «:3-CvJ

unro roro rocsj ^o<v^ loud ooi— cold

* ro CO CTl

«* CM

UO CO UD o 0~1 C\I I— LD

OO CM CM 1

CM OO

00 Ln

CO lO

CO -^

O CD

^ CM

r-^ ID

CM CO

CM CO o 1— en Ln "^^ Ln

^ CO Ln LD ^ c^

-t-J (13

Page 189: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

CO CO o oin ^f

O CM

un "^ ro c\j

CO O UD CM CM (XI

oo un "* ^ tn ^o

CO oCM LD CO CO

+J 03

Page 190: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

17f

— OJ

Page 191: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

179

3 o) x: E cr— OJ 4-> >,•!-

> u- S Q--

clOj

Page 192: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

180

•1— QJ -^

>5

Qj

Page 193: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

iSi

o ojQJ r—

Cl

dj q4

Page 194: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

182

C5 fN.

O .—

o .—

.— o•— o

CO r-^

ao m .—

o —

^ o

CD O O O O

CD OCD CD

— O

CD <Tv

>— O

> — >y^»— O E O

'— e "^ — ijt-j E .

»/i CD CD

O O Oj oj

Page 195: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

4-> <V-M

O) +->

03 Q.

183

,

Page 196: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

>— +->+->

184

XJ -r-•I- S-

HI cu cE > -r-

O U M- CO

+J OCLOO

<4- M-

Page 197: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

185

QJ UC7)-r- in£Z CO T3

c

Page 198: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

186

c en "O•r- c: !-+-> -r— rtJ

to -r-

O) </) -aen c !-

c: -r- ro•r- S- 3-l-J +-> OJC X QiO LU

a

Page 199: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

187

OJ

Page 200: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

188

O)

Page 201: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

189

0)

Page 202: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

190

-l-J

Page 203: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

191

T3CI)

Page 204: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

192

O 1— LD lOCM I— r—

CM CTv LO Ln tn CMix> CO -^

(£) i-o n o CTi

tn o CO

r— ^ toCM ro Ln 00

CO CM LD

OJ Q

Page 205: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

193

OO l\ CM CTl en IT)

t^ CO CO

LD CO LnCTi CTl r^

LCi KO I—

LO1— CTi OO CTv

r— 00 OO

l-O CO CO CM o oo ^ ix> enr^ CO <x)

— <^ 1—

T5 +J -r-

X3 r—

3

Page 206: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

194

•u

Page 207: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

19!

CDS-

Page 208: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

196

X3Ol

Page 209: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

197

"O

Page 210: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

198

aQJ

Page 211: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

199

"O

Page 212: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

>,

Page 213: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

:o]

••— I/)

1— 1—

I

4J

TD

Page 214: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

202

•1— 23 4->

Page 215: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

203

IxJ CD

O) -r-

I— +->

a. cr- O4-> (_3

I I I I I I

T3

Page 216: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

204

Q- C•r- O

S- 5

O) (U

CL c

(T3 S-1— +->

o c

CTioor^uDLn-^cocMi

xapuiuo_l:;bal:^o[^ 3lsulu:}ui

U 4->

10 LU

r— CCD O

o

Page 217: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

205

+-> cX (VUJ CD

•r- O

-1 1 1 h-

fO

Page 218: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

206

H f—I (-

+Jc oO) o

oi LnE •

(O

Page 219: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

to

•I- S- r—S- n3 QJ+-> 2 >X O) OJuj q: _j

207

-1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 H

xapuiuoL:;BA_Lq.o^j 3lsuu:;uj

c

Page 220: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

COc -a•r- i- I

i- ro O)4-> 5 >X O) cuLU Di __l

c

Page 221: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

209

•I- 4->

OJ I—^ O)+-> >

O)S- r—o^- o)

uo cOl f^

ui u

<v -1-

+-> c:ra en

Page 222: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

210

.r>

Page 223: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

OJ -r-1 -MCL C

c oO) oE

a.

211

J I I I I

Xepui UO.UBALtiOW

X

Page 224: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

212

LO -I—

(/I d)(13 1

2 r-

+J >CO o

U I—c: 1

•(- s-S- OJ03 >> oOJ O)

I— +->

Page 225: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

213

t/i -t—

CD O)-c: ^I— -M

Page 226: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

•I— l/l

(A

Page 227: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

o-+

+

o -a

U (->

+ -

cr+

+

u I

•1— 1300 "O

C/1

Page 228: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

211

•r- •!- ro

0) O)J= .C 1

CM

Page 229: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

217

<J r—C 1

•r- S-

cU

Page 230: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

B03 <=n

218

LU cn

cu •-1— +j

•r- O4-> C_)

£= OQj LnE •

fO -be-

+-> CUX cn

I— cQ. O•r- O

-J 1 1 1 1 L-

o -a(U s-

xapui uoL:tBAL:;oi^|o

Page 231: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

219

o 2

xapui uoL:;eA.L:^ow

OJ

Page 232: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

220

120-

no-

100-

90-

80-^

70

60-1-

50-

40-

30-

20-

10-

- - Low interest taskHigh interest task

No pay $.75 $1.50 $3.00 $6.00possiblepayment

Figure 46. Graphical presentation of time volunteered: isolated controlgroups.

Page 233: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

221

Performance- -contingent

120-

110-

100-

90-

80-

70-

60-

50-

40--

30--

20-f

10

- Nonperformance--contingent

j^ High interest task

X-x_ ^ Low interest task

No pay $.75 $1.50 $3.00 $6.00possiblepayment

Figure 47. Graphical presentation of time volunteered: single extrinsicreward/feedback schedule, feedback only condition.

Page 234: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

222

Performance--contingent

120-

110-

100-

90-

80-

70-

60-

50-f

40-

30-

20-

10-f

- Nonperformance--contingent

_l High interest task

X-X— Ix Low interest task

No pay $.75 $1.50 $3.00I possible

,00 payment

Figure 48. Graphical presentation of time volunteered: multipleextrinsic payment/feedback schedule, feedback only condition.

Page 235: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

223

X- -

X

Performence— contingent- - Nonperformance--contingent

- - High interest task

^ Low interest task

120

110-

100-

90

80

70

60-

50--

40-

30

20

10-4

No pay $.75 $1.50 $3.00 $6.00possiblepayment

Figure 49. Graphical presentation of time volunteered: single extrinsicreward/feedback schedule, low extrinsic payment condition.

Page 236: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

224

120-

110-

100-

90--

80-

70-

60-

50-

40-

30--

20-

Performance--contingentNonperforrTiance--contingent

High interest task

^ Low interest task

10-

No pay $.75 $1.50 $3.00 $6.00possiblepayment

Figure 50. Graphical presentation of time volunteered: single extrinsicreward/feedback schedule, high extrinsic payment condition.

Page 237: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

225

120-

110-

100-

90-

80-

70-

60-

50-

40-

30-

20-

10-

Perforniance--contingent- - Nonperformance--contingent

- - High interest task

"^ Low interest task

-X -

I I I I I possibleNo pay $.75 $1.50 $3.00 $6.00 payment

Figure 51. Graphical presentation of time volunteered: multiple extrinsicreward/feedback schedule, low extrinsic payment condition.

Page 238: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

226

Page 239: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Anderson, N. H. How functional measurement can yield validated intervalscales of mental quantities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1976, 61677-692.

"^ ^ —Anderson, R, Manoogian, S. T., & Rezinik, J. S. The undermining and

enhancing of intrinsic motivation in preschool children. Journal o fPersonality and Social Psychology , 1976, 34, 915-922.

Arnold, H. J. Effects of performance feedback and extrinsic reward uponhigh intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance . 1976, \U 275-288? ~

Barr, A. J., Goodnight, J. H. , Sail, J. P., & Helwig, J. T. A User'sGuide to SAS 76 . Raleigh, North Carolina: SAS Institute, Inc., 1976.

Behling, 0., & schriesheim, C. Organizational Behavior: Theory, Research ,

and Application . Boston, Massachusetts: Allyn and Bacon, Inc., 1976.

Bern, D. J. Self-perception theory. In Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances inexperimental social psychology . Academic Press, 1972.

Bogartz, W. Coding dummy variables is a waste of time: Reply to Wolf andCartwright, among others. Psychological Bulletin , 1975, 82, 180.

Brief, A. P., & Aldag, R. J. The intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy: Towardconceptual clarity. The Academy of Management Review , 1977, 2, 496-500.

Bugelski, B. R. Extinction with and without sub-goal reinforcement.Journal of Comparative Psychology , 1938, 26^, 121-133.

Calder, B. J., & Staw, B. W. The interaction of intrinsic and extrinsicmotivation. Journal of Personalit y and Social Psychology, 1975, 31.76-80. ^ —

Calder, B. J., & Staw, B. W. Self-perception of intrinsic and extrinsicmotivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31,599-605. ^ —

Campbell, D. T., & Stanley, J. C. Experimental and quasi-experimentaldesigns for research . Ran McNally, 1963.

Campbell, J. P., Dunnette, M. D., Lawler, E. E., Ill, & Weick, K. E.Managerial behavior, performance, and effectiveness. New York-McGraw-Hill, 1970.

~

227

Page 240: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

228

Cattell, R. B. Scree test for the number of factors. MultivariateBehavioral Research , 1966, ]_, 245-276.

Cherrington, D. J., Reitz, H. J., & Scott, W. E. Effects of contingentand non-contingent reward on the relationship between statsfactionand task performance. Journal of Applied Psychology , 1971, 55^, 531-536.

Christensen, L. B. Experimental methodology . Boston, Massachusetts:Allyn and Bacon, 1977.

Cochran, W. G., & Cox, G. M. Experimental designs (2nd ed.). New York:John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1957.

Cowles, J. T. Food tokens as incentives for learning by chimpanzees.Comparative Psychology Monograph , 1937, ]^ (Serial No. 71).

Deci, E. L. The effects of contingent and non-contingent rewards andcontrols on intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance , 1972, 8, 217-229.

Deci, E. L. The effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsicmotivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1971, 18 ,

105-115.

Deci, E. L. Notes on the theory and metatheory of intrinsic motivation.Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 1975, 1_5, 130-145.

Deci, E. L., Cascio, W. F., & Krusell, J. Cognitive evaluation theory and

some comments on the Calder and Staw critique. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology . 1975, 31, 81-85.

Dermer, J. The interrelationship of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.Academy of Management Journal , 1975, X8, 125-129.

Dyer, L., & Parker, D. F. Classifying outcomes in work motivation research:

An examination of the intrinsic-extrinsic dichotomy. Journal of

Applied Psychology , 1975, 60, 455-458.

Edgington, E. S. Statistical inference and nonrandom samples. Psychological

Bulletin , 1966, 66, 485-487.

Farr, J. L. Task characteristics, reward contingency, and intrinsic

motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance . 1976,

26, 294-307.

Farr, J. L., Vance, R. J., Mclntyre, R. M. Further examinations of the

relationship between reward contingency and intrinsic motivation.

Organizational Behavior and Human Performance . 1977, 2£, 31-53.

Ferster, C. B., & Skinner, B. F. Schedule of reinforcement . Englewood

Cliffs, New Jersey: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1957.

Festinger. L., & Carlsmith, J. M. Cognitive consequences of forced

compliances. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology , 1959. 58,

203-201.

Page 241: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

229

Fishbein, M. , & Ajzen, I. Belief, Attitude, Intention, and Behavior .

Reading, Massachusetts: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company, 1975.

Galbraith, J., & Cummings, L. L. An empirical investigation of the motivationaldeterminants of task performance: Interactive effects betweeninstrumentality-valence and motivation-ability. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance , 1967, 2^, 237-257.

Giles, W. F. Volunteering for job enrichment: A test of expectancy theorypredictions. Personnel Psychology , 1977, 3£, 427-435.

Gocka, E. F. Regression analysis of proportional cell data. PsychologicalBulletin , 1973, 80, 25-27.

Graen, G. Instrumentality theory of work motivation: Some experimentalresults and suggested modifications. Journal of Applied PsychologyMonograph , 1969, 53^, 1-25.

Greene, D., Sternberg, B. , & Lepper, M. R. Overjustification in a tokeneconomy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1976, 34, 1219-1234

Guion, R. Measurement of the meaning of work . Paper presented at theAmerican Psychological Association, September 4, 1965.

Hackman, J. R., & Porter, L. W. Expectancy theory predictions of workeffectiveness. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance . 1968,3, 417-426.

Hamner, W. C, S Foster, L. W. Are intrinsic and extrinsic rewardsadditive: A test of Deci's cognitive evaluation theory of taskmotivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 1975,H, 398-415.

Heise, D. R. Some methodological issues in semantic differential research.Psychological Bulletin , 1969, 72, 406-422.

Herzberg, F. One more time: How do you motivate employers. HarvardBusiness Review , 1968, 46 (1), 53-62.

House, R. J., Shapiro, H. J., & Wahba, M. A. Expectancy theory as a

predictor of work behavior and attitudes: A reevaluation of empiricalevidence. Decision Sciences , 1974, 5^, 481-506.

Hull, C. L. Essentials of behavior . New Haven, Conn.: Yale UniversityPress, 1951.

Kelly, F. J., Beggs, D. L., McNeil, K. A., Eichelberger, T., & Lyon, J.

Research design in the behavioral sciences: Multiple regressionapproach , Carbondale, Illinois: Southern Illinois Press, 1969.

Kelly J. Organizational behavior . Homewood, Illinois: Richard D. Irwin,Inc., 1974.

Keren, G., & Lewis, C. A comment on coding in nonorthogonal designs.Psychological Bulletin , 1977, 84, 346-348.

Page 242: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

230

Kerlinger, F. N. , & Pedhazur, E. J. Multiple regression 1n behavioralresearch . New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, Inc., 1973.

Korman, A. K. Organizational behavior . Englewood Cliffs, New JerseyPrentice-Hall, Inc. , 1977.

Kunin, T. The development of a new type of attitude measure. PersonnelPsychology , 1955, 8, 65-78.

Lathrop, R. G. Introduction to psychological research: Logic, design ,

analysis . New York: Harper and Row, 1969.

Lawler, E. E., III. Pay and organizational effectiveness: A ps ychologicalview . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1971.

Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D. On understanding "overjustification": A replyto Reiss and Sushinsky. Journal of Personal ity and Social Psychology,1976, 3^, 25-35.

^ ^

Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. Undermining children'sintrinsic interest with extrinsic rewards: A test of the "overjusti-fication" hypothesis. Journal of Persona lity and Social Psychology,1973, 28, 129-137.

^ ^

Luthans, F., & Kreitner, R. Organizational behavior modification . Glenview,Illinois: Scott, Foresman and Co., 1975.

Mainstone, L. E. , & Bowen, D. D. Intrinsic and extrinsic rewards: Anempirical assessment . Paper presented at Academy of ManagementMeeting, August, 1977, Orlando, Florida.

Maslow, A. H. Motivation and personality . New York: Harper and Row, 1970.

Mawhinney, T. C. Operant terms and concepts in the description of individualwork behavior: Some problems of interpretation, application, andevaluation. Journal of Applied Psychology , 1975, 6£, 704-712.

Maxwell, S., & Cramer, E. M. A note on analysis of covariance. PsychologicalBulletin

, 1975, 82, 187-190.

McClelland, D. C. Assessing human motivation . Morristown, New Jersey:General Learning Press, 1971.

Meir, E. I., & Barak, A. Pervasiveness of the relationship betweenintrinsic-extrinsic needs and persistence at work. Journal of AppliedPsychology , 1974, 59, 103-104.

Miller, G. A. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limitson our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review,1956, 63, 81-97.

Mitchell, T. R. Expectancy models of job satisfaction, occupationalpreference, and effort: A theoretical, methodological, and empiricalappraisal. Psychological Bulletin , 1974, 81_, 1053-1077.

Page 243: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

231

Mitchell, T. R. Expectancy and expected value: Decision models fororganizations. Organization and Administrative Sciences, 1977, 8.97-115.

—Newman, J. E. Development of measure of perceived work environment (PWE).

Academy of Management Journal , 1977, 20, 520-534.

Nie, N. H., Hull, C. H., Jenkins, J. G., Steinbrenner, K. , & Bent, D. H.Statistical package for the social sciences (2nd ed.). New York-McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1970.

Notz, W. W. Work motivation and the negative effects of extrinsic rewards:A review with implications for theory and practices. AmericanPsychologist , 1975, September, 884-891.

Olson, C. L. On choosing a test statistic in multivariate analysis ofvariance. Psychological Bulletin , 1976, 83^, 579-586.

Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J., & Tannerbaum, P. H. The measurement ofmeaning . Urbana, Illinois: University of Illinois Press, 1957.

Overall, J. E. , & Spiegel, D. K. Concerning least squares analysis ofexperimental data. Psychological Bulletin , 1969, 72^, 311-322.

Overall, J. E., & Spiegel, D. K. Equivalence of orthogonal and non-orthogonal analysis of variance. Psychological Bulletin, 1975, 82,182-186. —

Overall, J. E., & Woodward, J. A. Common misconceptions concerning theanalysis of covariance. The Journal of Multivar iate BehavioralResearch , 1977, U, 171-185^

~~

Pedhazur, E. J. Coding subjects in repeated measures designs. PsychologicalBulletin

, 1977, 84, 298-305.

Pinder, C. C. Additivity versus nonadditivity of intrinsic and extrinsicincentives: Implications and work motivation, performance andattitudes. Journal of Applied Psychology , 1976, 61_, 693-700.

Porter, L. W., Lawler, E. E., Ill, & Hackman, J. R. Behavior in organi-zations . New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1975.

Reiss, S. Evaluating token economy generalization effects . Paper presentedat the meeting of the Midwest Psychological Association, Chicago, 1976.

Reiss, S., & Sushinsky, L. Overjustification, competing responses, andmodified dissonance theory: A rejoinder to Lepper and Greene.Unpublished manuscript.

Reiss, S., & Sushinsky, L. Overjustification, competing responses and theacquisition of intrinsic interest. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology , 1975, 31, 1116-1125.

Page 244: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

232

Reiss, S., & Sushinsky, L. W. Undermining extrinsic interest. AmericanPsychologist , 1975, 30, 782-783.

Reitz, H. J. Behavior in organizations . Homewood, Illinois: Richard DIrwin, Inc. , 1977.

Runkel, P. J., & McGrath, J. E. Research on human behavior. New York-Holt, Rinehart, Winston, 19727"

'

Salancik, G. R. Extrinsic attribution and the use of behavioral informationto infer attitudes. Journal of Personal ity and Social Psycholoav1976, 34, 1302-1312. -^ ^'

Salancik, G. R. Interaction effects of performance and money on self-perception of intrinsic motivation. Organizat ional Behavior and HumanPerformance , 1975, 21, 339-351.

~

Scott, W. E., Jr. The effects of extrinsic rewards on "intrinsic motivation."Organizational Behavior and Human Performance , 1975, 1J_, 117-129,

Selltiz, C, Wrightsman, L. S., & Cook, S. W. Research methods in soci al'"g'ations (3rd ed.). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and Winston, 1976.

Shapira, Z. Expectancy determinants of intrinsically motivated behavior.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 1976, 34, 1235-1244.

Smith, H. C, & Wakeley, J. H. Psychology of industrial behavior. NewYork: McGraw-Hill Book Co. , 1972.

Staw, B. M. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation . Morristown, New Jersey-General Learning Press, 1976.

Steers, R. M. Effects of need for achievement on the job performance--job attitude relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1975, 60678-682. ^ —

Steers, R. M., & Porter, L. W. Motivation and work behavior. New York:

McGraw-Hill, 1975.~

Taylor, F. W. Scientific management . New York: Harper and Row Publishers,

Turnage, J. J., & Muchinsky, P. M. The effects of reward contingency andparticipative decision making on intrinsically and extrinsical lymotivating tasks. Academy of Management Journal , 1976, J_9, 482-489.

Vroom, V. H. A comparison of static and dynamic correlational methods inthe study of organizations. Organizational Behavior and HumanPerformance , 1966, ]_, 55-70.

Wanous, J. P. A causal-correlational analysis of the job satisfaction andperformance relationship. Journal of Applied Psychology, 1974, 59,139-145.

^ ^ —

Page 245: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

233

Weiner, B. Theories of motivation . Chicago, Illinois: Markham PsychologySeries, Rand McNally College Publishing Co., 1972.

White, R. W. Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence.Psychological Review , 1959, 66^, 297-333.

Winer, B. J. Statistical principles in experimental desi gn. New York-McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., 1962.

Wolf, G., & Cartwright, B. Rules for coding dummy variables in multipleregression. Psychological Bulletin , 1974, 81_, 173-179.

Wolf, G., & Cartwright, B. A timely reply to Bogartz. PsychologicalBulletin , 1975, 82, 181.

Page 246: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

The author was born on October 26, 1947, in Rochester, New York.

The author received a Bachelor of Arts Degree in Economics from the

State University of New York in June, 1969. He completed the requirements

for a Master of Arts degree in Economics at Northern Illinois University

in January, 1971, and a Master of Science degree in Management at the

University of Arkansas in March, 1973. In September, 1974, the author

was accepted into the Doctor of Philosophy program in Business Adminis-

tration at the University of Florida. He majored in Management with a

primary emphasis on behavior in organizations. The author received the

degree Doctor of Philosophy from the University of Florida in August, 1978.

The author accepted a position in January, 1976, as Instructor in the

Department of Economics and Management Science at the State University

College of New York at Geneseo, Geneseo, New York. He remained in that

position until August, 1978, at which time he accepted an appointment to

the graduate faculty. College of Business Administration, Texas Tech

University, Lubbock, Texas.

234

Page 247: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion itconforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fullyadequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy.

vWck M. Feldman, Chairman/Associate Professor of Management

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion itconforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fullyadequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy.

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion itconforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fullyadequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy.

larvin E.

ProfessorShawof Psychology

I certify that I have read this study and that in my opinion itconforms to acceptable standards of scholarly presentation and is fullyadequate, in scope and quality, as a dissertation for the degree ofDoctor of Philosophy.

Page 248: Alternative models of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation

This dissertation was submitted to the Graduate Faculty of the Departmentof Management in the College of Business Administration and to the GraduateCouncil, and was accepted as partial fulfillment of the requirements forthe degree of Doctor of Philosophy.

August, T978

Dean, Graduate School