Researched
and Composed by
Gabriel “Venom” Wilson, BSc. (Hons), CSCS
Abstract
For over 30 years now, there has been an intense debate on the effects
of external rewards on intrinsic motivation. The answer to this question
appears to depend on two properties of a reward: control and
information. Though many professions have utilized rewards to control
behavior with students, athletes, and children, it appears that this
very controlling mechanism is what undermines intrinsic motivation.
Conversely, an informational message of competency can enhance intrinsic
motivation. Therefore, the way the reward is delivered will determine
its effects on intrinsic motivation. In this context, the purpose of
this paper was to analyze the effects of various rewards on intrinsic
motivation. Rewards will be analyzed using the well established
Cognitive Evaluation Theory.
Introduction
We shall begin this article with a short story (McCullagh, 2005). Once
there was a man, who lived in a house and had a lawn. And kids would
come to play on this mans lawn to have fun. The man began to be annoyed
by this, and decided to do something about it. So, strangely enough...he
paid them a dollar to come play on his lawn. The kids happily took the
dollar and played on his lawn. The next day, the man told the kids that
he did not have enough money, so he could only give them 50 cents to
come play on his lawn. On the third day, he told them he could only give
them a nickel to come play on his lawn. The kids were displeased with
this, and told the man he could forget that, and that they would not
play on his lawn for such a cheap reward. What happened? These kids
played on his lawn before for absolutely nothing, but now, they quit
playing, even though they were offered a nickel! Well, it just so
happens that this man understood an important concept in Sport
Psychology. That is, the effects of external rewards on intrinsic
motivation.
Intrinsic &
Extrinsic Motivation
Motivation
can be defined as the intensity and direction of effort (McCullagh,
2005). Intensity refers to the quantity of effort, while direction
refers to what you are drawn too. Evidence suggests that enhanced
motivation promotes learning, performance, enjoyment, and persistence in
sport, among other benefits (McCullagh, 2005; Wilson, 2005). Therefore, methods to enhance motivation have been thoroughly
investigated.
There are two forms of motivation: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.
Adapted from Ryan and Deci (2000)
Figure 1 graphically depicts the various forms of intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation, and amotivation. These definitions are discussed
below.
Intrinsic motivation
can be defined as an individuals need to feel competency and pride in
something (McCullagh, 2005). Therefore, athletes who are intrinsically
motivated participate in sports for no apparent reward other than the
satisfaction and pleasure they get from the activity itself. There are 3
types of intrinsic motivations (Weinberg & Gould, 2003):
-
Knowledge
-
Accomplishment
-
Stimulation
Being intrinsically motivated for knowledge occurs when athletes
participate in activates because of the pleasure and satisfaction they
get from learning, acquiring, and studying something new in their sport.
This would include learning how to squat, or refining your pattern on
deadlifts.
Being intrinsically motivated for accomplishments occurs when
athletes participate in activates because of the pleasure and
satisfaction they get from mastering various skills. For example,
reaching a goal of squatting 400 pounds, or acquiring
perfect form on deadlifts.
Being intrinsically motivated for stimulation occurs when
athletes participate in activates because of pleasant sensations such as danger, pain, or
excitement. For example, the rush you get when
lifting heavy in the weight room, or posing down on stage.
Extrinsic Motivation
can be defined as performance of an activity in order to attain some
separate outcome (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Therefore, athletes that are
extrinsically motivated participate in sport for external causes such as
rewards, positive feedback, recognition, etc.; rather than for the
inherent satisfaction of performing the activity itself (intrinsic
motivation). There are 4 types of extrinsic motivations (Weinberg &
Gould, 2003):
-
Integrated
regulation
-
Identified
regulation
-
Introjected
regulation
-
External
regulation
Integrated regulation
occurs when athletes perform activities to benefit different aspects of
life, rather than for the pleasure of participating itself. For
example, training and dieting hard in order to develop a healthy life
style.
Identified regulation
occurs when athletes participate in an activity because the activity is
considered of high value and important to the participant,
even if they do not enjoy the activity itself.
The difference between this and integrated regulation, is that this is
limited to the particular activity itself. For example, lifting weights
to become huge. Or going to school, or doing your homework because it is
a great way to learn about things which may be useful to you.
One important concept to understand is that these two forms of extrinsic
motivation (more so with integrated regulation) and the three forms of intrinsic motivation all involve the
athlete participating in sports by their own initiative, because they
want to participate for some desired outcome (autonomous).
Therefore, these 5 subtopics of motivation have been found to positively
influence affective, behavioral, and cognitive functions (Vallerand,
1997; Vallerand and Rousseau, 2001).
Introjected
regulation
occurs when athletes participate in an activity because of various
pressures. For example, lifting heavy, or posing in the weight room, so
you can impress people in the gym. Or training so that you can get huge,
and gain self recognition and approval from others. Evidence suggests
that Introjected regulation increases tension and anxiety (Nikos,
2001). An outcome oriented mentality (click
Here for more information), in which
ones worth is on the line, and their self esteem is contingent on the
outcome, is another example of introjection.
External regulation
occurs when athletes participate in an activity only because they feel
they have to, or because they may get a reward. For example, playing for
the money, or telling someone
if you do such and such, I’ll give you such and such. This activity is
performed entirely for the reward.
The last term to discuss is amotivation. This is when an athlete
is neither intrinsically or extrinsically motivated, and therefore, do
not have any reason to participate in an activity. For example, a kid in
P.E. class, who sits down on the ground and writes letters on the ground
while his/her pears are playing baseball.
It is important to understand that people have various forms of
motivation; therefore, you can be both externally and internally
motivated. However, results indicate that individuals who are
intrinsically motivated (and or have the two forms of autonomous
extrinsic motivation), compared to those who are controlled by others to
perform an activity (extrinsically motivated) have more interest,
excitement, fun, and confidence, which leads to enhanced performance,
creativity, persistence, vigor, general well-being, and self-esteem, among
other benefits (Ryan & Deci, 2000). For instance, Frederick and Ryan
(1993) found that intrinsic motivation facilitated a greater amount of
hours and days per week of exercise and sport participation, and greater
levels of satisfaction and competency, compared to extrinsic motivation,
which facilitated greater anxiety, and decreased self-esteem. Similarly,
Hodgins, Yacko, Gottlieb, Goodwin and Rath (2002) found that intrinsically
motivated rowers had greater performance than extrinsically motivated
rowers.
Therefore, ways to enhance intrinsic motivation are of the utmost
importance for athletes. In this context, the purpose of this paper was
to discuss the effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation.
Theories on the
Effects of External Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation
It was originally
thought by many that extrinsic rewards would enhance motivation for a
task that was already intrinsically motivating. This seemed as simple as
1 (external reward) +1 (already present intrinsic motivation) = 2 (more
motivation). But as usual, the concept is not this simple. For over 30
years, there has been an intense debate over the effects of extrinsic
rewards on intrinsic motivation; particularly, its ability to undermine
intrinsic motivation. First, it is important to understand that all
research is theory driven (Sawyer, 2005).
Theories are vital to research because they offer a framework for
many areas of research aimed at the nature of the topic, address
possible mechanisms, and suggest several specific interventions
(McCullagh, 2005). Therefore,
before we get into
studies and experiments on this topic, we need to discuss some theories.
Self
Determination & Cognitive Evaluation Theory
Deci, Ryan, and
others developed what today is the most well established theory on the
effects rewards have on intrinsic motivation—Self Determination Theory
(SDT; Deci, 1975; Deci & Ryan, 1985). This theory suggests that humans
have three central psychological needs, which are relatedness,
effectance, and autonomy. Deci and Ryan (1994) summarize these needs in
the following quote: “people are inherently motivated to feel connected
to others within a social milieu (relatedness), to function effectively
in that milieu (effectance), and to feel a sense of personal initiative
in doing so (autonomy)” (p.7). Notice the term “inherently”. This theory
suggests that humans have an innate tendency to develop these needs.
Nevertheless, these needs do not develop automatically; they must be
furnished by the environment, which can either promote growth, or impede
it.
While, this theory
focuses on intrinsic motivation, it does not say what causes it. In this
context, Deci and Collegues developed a sub theory to SDT, known as
Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
CET focuses on
factors which can increase or decrease intrinsic motivation. In essence,
this theory suggests that rewards have two basic properties that can
influence intrinsic motivation: information and control.
And these properties can increase or decrease intrinsic motivation
depending on how they effect an individuals self determination and
competency.
Adapted from Weinberg and Gould (2003)
Figure 2
The Effects of Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation
Figure 2
graphically depicts the effects rewards can have on intrinsic
motivation. These effects are discussed below.
The informational
aspect of a reward relays information about a person’s competency. MVP
rewards, All Star Selections, Sandow Trophies, among other rewards, all
relay that the person receiving the reward is competent. CET suggests
that if the informational aspect of a reward relays that the person is
competent, this will enhance intrinsic motivation. Thus, a reward must
be based on performance to enhance intrinsic motivation; at least, from
an informational view point. Conversely, CET predicts that if a reward
relays that the athlete is not competent, such as getting a last place
reward, this will decrease intrinsic motivation.
The second
property of a reward is the controlling aspect. This has to do with a
person’s locus of causality. Locus of causality is the degree
people perceive their behavior to be freely determined (self determined)
or caused by other people. If a person feels their behavior is caused by
outside pressures from others, they would have an external locus of
causality. If a person feels their behavior is self determined, or
initiated, they would have an internal locus of causality. CET predicts
that if a reward is perceived as controlling, people will attribute
their behavior to an outside source (an external locus of causality).
Conversely, if people do not feel controlled by the reward, they will
attribute their behavior to self determination (an internal locus of
causality). CET predicts that if a reward is perceived as controlling,
it will decrease intrinsic motivation; but if a reward is not perceived
as controlling, and the person has an internal locus of causality,
intrinsic motivation will be high.
To elaborate on
control and intrinsic motivation, people who have an internal locus of
causality, feel that they participate in an activity because they want
to (high intrinsic motivation); whereas, people who have an external
locus of causality, feel that they participate in an activity because of
an external cause (i.e. playing for the money). Therefore, “paying
people off” can decrease their intrinsic motivation, because they may
attribute their behavior to the money, rather than self determination.
An example of something that would promote an internal locus of
causality would be a coach who gives his athletes greater input on what
drills are performed during practice. An example of controlling someone
through a reward would be telling someone that you will give them such
and such for doing such and such (external regulation). For example,
telling a kid, "if you clean your room, I'll give you five dollars." In this
scenario, the reward is controlling the persons behavior, rather than
self determination.
The key aspect of
this theory is the perception of the receiver of the reward.
Someone who gives an athlete a reward may have the best intentions for the
athlete; but if it is perceived as controlling, it will decrease
intrinsic motivation. For example, if a player perceives that he/she is
being rewarded with cars or money, only so that he will stay on the
team, this will decrease his/her intrinsic motivation, because they will
perceive the reward as controlling. Additionally, the reward giver
should stress the informational aspect of the reward, making sure the
player knows that the reward was given to them to show a sign of
appreciation for their hard-work.
Rewards
Based on his research, the current author suggests that a reward can be
defined as an external agent administered when a desired act or task is
performed, that has controlling and informational properties. While
rewards are typically delivered to increase the probability of a
response, they can increase or decrease the probability of an event
occurring, depending on the saliency and direction of the controlling
and informational aspects of the reward. Saliency would refer to the
intensity of either the controlling or informational aspect of the
reward. It is what stands out to you the most. While direction would
refer to whether the reward is perceived as increasing or decreasing the
athlete’s control; and whether the information is perceived as positive
(increasing the athlete’s competency) or negative (decreasing the
athlete’s competency). Rewards can come in the form of verbal rewards
(i.e. telling someone “good job!”), physical rewards (i.e. a pat on the
back), or tangible rewards (i.e. giving someone money, food, or a
medallion), among others. There are 5 basic types of rewards discussed
in the literature as follows (Deci,
Koestner, & Ryan, 1999):
-
Task-Non
contingent rewards
-
Engagement
contingent rewards
-
Completion
contingent rewards
-
Performance
contingent rewards
-
Unexpected
rewards
Task-Non contingent
rewards
are rewards given for just showing up for the study. In an experiment, a
participant may be paid to just show up for the experiment, but they are
not required to do anything. They could just sit around the entire time.
Engagement contingent
rewards
are rewards given for just participating in an activity, and not
necessarily completing it. For example, an experimenter may pay a
participant just to participate in an activity that involves making a
puzzle, but they do not have to complete or perform well on the puzzle.
Completion contingent
rewards
are rewards given for completing a task.
Performance
contingent rewards
are rewards given for performance, usually based on a normative
value. For example, doing better than 80% of the participants in a
study. A
sub category of performance contingent rewards are competitively
contingent rewards. They involve rewarding individuals for defeating
others.
Unexpected rewards
occur when participants receive a reward after performing a certain
behavior, but were not expecting to receive a reward.
CET makes several predictions on these types of rewards.
This theory predicts that unexpected rewards would not decrease
intrinsic motivation, because the participant performed the task without
knowledge of the reward; therefore, the controlling aspect of the reward
would not be as salient, and participants would attribute their
participation in the activity to an internal locus of causality. Because
of the informational aspect, unexpected rewards may also enhance intrinsic
motivation. But the administrator of the reward would have to give it
based on high performance, and stress the informational aspect for it to
be beneficial.
Non-contingent rewards do not require participating in the task,
completing the task, or performing well on the task, and they deliver no
information about the person’s competency. Therefore, CET predicts they
will not effect intrinsic motivation.
Both engagement and completion contingent rewards are predicted to
typically cause the highest decrease in intrinsic motivation. This is
because they contain a high controlling aspect, but deliver no information
about the competency of the individual. For example, you could be paid
for participating in an activity, but whether you perform well or not,
is irrelevant. Therefore, these types of rewards say nothing about the
person’s competency, and decrease their control.
Performance contingent rewards are a lot more complex. While they can
decrease control as engagement and completion contingent rewards do,
they also relay a sense of competency. Therefore, CET predicts that if
the information aspect is more salient for performance rewards, it may
be able to counteract the controlling aspect of the reward.
Additionally, whether the message is portrayed as controlling or not
will also determine whether the reward decreases intrinsic motivation or
not. Therefore, it is predicted by CET that generally, these rewards
will decrease intrinsic motivation less than engagement and completion
contingent rewards do.
Lastly, CET would suggest that verbal and physical rewards should
enhance intrinsic motivation. This is because the informational aspect
is very salient, while the controlling aspect is typically low. However, the
controlling aspect can vary significantly depending on the delivery.
This will be discussed more in practical applications.
Important note
This article is
dealing with the effects external rewards have on intrinsic motivation for
activities that are already intrinsically motivating to the individual.
Rewards have an entirely different effect on activities that are boring
to an individual. Therefore, these results should not be generalized to
other scenarios. It also primarily makes predictions about when
rewards are removed. Because while the rewards are being administered, this
is a test of both extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Lastly, CET does
not make predictions on studies that combine verbal rewards with
tangible rewards, because they would contribute to intrinsic motivation
in opposite directions.
Studies on the
Effects of External Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation
In a revolutionary
study on the effects of external rewards on intrinsic motivation, Deci (1971) had
participants play on an inherently interesting task, called the SOMA
puzzle. Participants were paid to play, were given verbal rewards (i.e.
verbally encouraged), or received no reinforcement for participating.
Results found that participants who were paid money to play spent a
significantly less amount of time (100 seconds) than participants who
were not rewarded to play. Whereas, those who received verbal rewards,
played for a longer amount of time than both conditions (intrinsic
motivation increased).
Soon after this,
Lepper and Greene (1975) performed a study called “Turning Play Into
Work.” Participants were nursery school children, who drew with felt
pens, an intrinsically motivating activity.
Participants were divided into three conditions. Condition one was the
expected reward condition, in which the children agreed to draw a
picture in order to receive a good player certificate (completion
contingent rewards). In the unexpected reward condition, participants
were unexpectedly given a reward after they completed the task. In the
control condition, children received no rewards for participating. One
week later, participants were brought back in to play with the felt
pens without any rewards. Results found that children in the expected reward condition
decreased in intrinsic motivation; whereas, children in the other two
conditions maintained intrinsic motivation.
Limits must often be set for various activities, such as education. In
this context, Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, and Holt (1984) investigated if
limits could be set without decreasing intrinsic motivation.
Participants consisted of 44 first and second grade students, engaging
in a painting activity. Participants were given controlling verbal
limits, informational verbal limits, and no verbal limits. Controlling
verbal limits consisted of using various phrases such as, “I am going to
tell you what you have to do now” “We have rules you have
to follow” “I want you to be a good boy or girl.” Whereas, children in
the information condition were just told what the experimenters
wanted them to do, instead of what they had
to do. For example, “The smaller sheet is for you to paint on, the larger
sheet is a border to be kept clean.” Results found that intrinsic
motivation, enjoyment, creativity, and quality of the artist product
were decreased from the control condition, but not by the informational
condition. Therefore, informational constraints may be an effective way
to regulate behavior. This study supported cognitive evaluation theory. CET would predict that as control decreased, intrinsic motivation would
decrease.
Other studies have also supported these findings (Plant and Ryan, 1985; Deci,
Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999, b).
While the purpose
of this article is to discuss the effects of rewards on intrinsic
motivation, CET has incredible implications for many areas of life.
Rewards are just one of a broad array of techniques in which we control
people and decrease their intrinsic motivation. Results show deadlines,
evaluations, and imposed goals, all decrease intrinsic motivation (Deci,
Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999, b; Ryan & Deci,
2000). Whereas, provision of choice, and acknowledgement of feelings,
enhance intrinsic motivation (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). These
results are all centered on one key concept—control. It appears that
using controlling language and actions consistently lowers intrinsic
motivation. Plant and Ryan (1985) suggest that control is “any
vocalization that pressures a person to behave a certain way.” It is
suggested that contextual factors that tend to control someone—such as
pressure to feel, think or behave a certain way—lowers
intrinsic motivation. For example, a mother who says, “you know what you
should do” would be controlling compared to “what do you think you
should do?” Or telling someone
“Good job, you
should keep up the good work” or “Good job, you are doing as you
should.” One experiment found that saying
(Deci, Koestner, &
Ryan, 1999) “I
have not been able to use most of the data I got so far, but if you keep
it up, I may be able to use yours” puts pressure on the person,
decreasing his/her control. While the other participants were told,
“compared to most of my subjects, you are doing really well” which
resulted in more control, and higher intrinsic motivation. Therefore,
how information is relayed is vital for how an
individual
perceives rewards and instructions. Numerous future articles can be
written on the implications these theories have not only on
bodybuilding, but everyday life—stay tuned.
Scholarships
The famous
basketball player, Magic Johnson, was asked if he had received rewards
when being recruited by college basketball teams. He stated that
(Weinberg & Gould, 2003) “I received my share of offers for cars and
money. It immediately turned me off. It was like they were trying to buy
me, and I don’t like anyone trying to buy me.” According to CET theory,
what Magic was really annoyed with was the controlling aspect of
rewards. With hundreds of multi-million dollar contracts thrown around
in sports today, of immense interest would be the effect of rewards on
athlete’s intrinsic motivation. To investigate this question, there has
been a significant amount of research on the effects of athletic
scholarships on intrinsic motivation.
In one of the
earliest studies on the effects of athletic scholarships on intrinsic
motivation, Ryan (1977, 1980; as cited in Frederick & Ryan, 1995)
observed collegiate Division I football players on scholarships and not
on scholarships. Ryan found that players who had scholarships did not
enjoy football as much as non-scholarship athletes; further, scholarship
athletes had less intrinsic motivation every year they had a
scholarship, so that they had their lowest level of intrinsic motivation
during their senior year!
However, in a
similar case, results found that male wrestlers and female athletes from
six different sports had higher intrinsic motivation than
athletes who were not on scholarships.
These results may
seem contradictory at first glance. However, CET may offer some helpful
explanations.
As you recall,
according to CET, there are two properties to a reward that influence
intrinsic motivation—control and information. Therefore, CET would
predict that the controlling and informational aspects of these rewards were different.
While scholarships
can clearly be perceived as controlling, they also relay information of
competency. Now, what determines whether a scholarship would decrease or
increase intrinsic motivation is the saliency of the controlling and
informative aspects of the reward. If the controlling aspect was more
salient, intrinsic motivation would decrease; conversely, if the
informative aspect of competency was more salient, intrinsic motivation
would increase.
Consider this. In
the 1980’s, when this study was composed, athletic scholarships for
Division I football teams was common. However, it was rare for wrestlers
and female athletes to receive scholarships. Thus, the normality of a
scholarship for Division I football players, would have decreased the
saliency of the informative properties of the reward; however, the
rarity of a scholarship for wrestlers and female athletes, would
highlight the informative message of competency.
This hypothesis
was supported in a more recent study on athletic scholarships (Amorose,
Horne, & Miller, 1994). 440 male and female athletes in Division I
sports were analyzed. Results found that players on scholarship had
lower intrinsic motivation, enjoyment, and perceived choice than
non-scholarship athletes. CET would predict that the increased number of
scholarships offered to female athletes today, decreased the saliency of
the informative aspect of scholarships for them, resulting in a decrease
in intrinsic motivation, similar to male football players.
Now, as the reader
recalls, according to CET, it is the perception of the reward that
causes an athlete to increase or decrease in intrinsic motivation. In
this context, if a coach uses scholarships as leverage over their
athletes—i.e. threatening that they will lose their scholarships if they
don’t perform well—then this would emphasize the controlling aspect of
the reward, decreasing intrinsic motivation. Therefore, coaches should
be extremely careful of how they treat the scholarships. Coaches should
emphasize the informational aspect, and downplay the controlling aspect,
instead of using scholarships as leverage over their athletes.
In this context,
Amorose and Horn (2000) teamed up again to see if it was the reward or
coaching behaviors that decreased intrinsic motivation. What they found
is that the coaches’ behaviors were more influential on intrinsic
motivation. For example, if a coach was perceived as a tyrant over
practice, players had lower intrinsic motivation; whereas, coaches who
were perceived as positive, and democratic, increased intrinsic
motivation. Therefore, this study suggests that the coach has a bigger
impact on intrinsic motivation than the scholarship itself.
Meta-Analyses
A
meta-analysis is a statistical practice of combining the results of a
number of studies. Considering that literally hundreds of studies have
been done on the effects of external rewards on intrinsic motivation over the
past
30 years, a summary of the data through a meta-analysis would be of
immense help to our research.
Thankfully, a
number of scientists have done just this.
Rummel and
Feinberg (1988) examined 45 studies between 1971 and 1985. They found
that extrinsic rewards significantly decreased intrinsic
motivation. However, there were some flaws in this meta-analysis. For
example, they did not distinguish between various rewards (i.e. expected
vs. unexpected; contingent vs. non-contingent, etc.).
Wiersma (1992)
performed another meta-analysis on 20 published studies between 1971 and
1990. Results also found that rewards significantly decreased intrinsic motivation.
However, there were also flaws in this. First, the sample size of
studies was small; second, as with the former meta-analysis, they did
not distinguish between rewards; and third, many of the studies did not
have control groups, and instead only compared reward conditions to each
other.
Following this,
Tang and Hall (1995) performed another meta-analysis, which was much
more comprehensive than its predecessors. They examined 50 studies, and
distinguished between rewards. They found that task-contingent rewards
decreased intrinsic motivation the most, followed by performance
contingent rewards; however, unexpected rewards did not effect intrinsic
motivation. They also found that verbal rewards increased intrinsic
motivation. Further, they found that rewards may enhance intrinsic
motivation for boring tasks. All of these findings supported CET. Flaws in the experiment were that some of the
measures were not purely of intrinsic motivation. This is because they
included results about the quality, quantity, and ratings of how much
participants enjoyed activities during the reward phase. Again, this
would be a measure of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In order
to assess intrinsic motivation, you would need to test participants
during another trial, when rewards were not administrated.
The importance of
this distinction is highlighted by the previously mentioned meta-analysis by Wiersma (1992).
Wiersma sought to clear up the supposed contradictory studies on the
effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation. It was hypothesized that the
conflicts seen could be attributed to differences in experimental
designs. They found that while the reward is being administered,
intrinsic motivation does not decrease (though intrinsic motivation is difficult to
measure in this
situation; this will be discussed momentarily);
however, when the reward is removed, intrinsic motivation does decrease.
The problem is
this: performance during the administration of the reward is not a pure
measure of intrinsic motivation. It is a measure of both intrinsic
motivation and the reward. When the reward is administrated, it would be
predicted that if performance increases, the extrinsic reward was
stronger than intrinsic motivation; if performance decreases, the
extrinsic reward was weaker than intrinsic motivation; and if
performance remains the same, the extrinsic reward was equal to intrinsic motivation. Therefore, a
"free time" trial must be performed, in
which the reward is removed to accurately asses intrinsic motivation.
In summary, though
these three meta-analyses had several methodological short comings, they all
supported CET.
So far, evidence
strongly supports CET. But what would a scientific discussion be without
a little controversy? Don’t fret; this was supplied in a mighty way
through Cameron and Colleagues from the behaviorist camp.
Cameron and Pierce
(1994) performed a meta-analysis on the effect of rewards on intrinsic
motivation. Two years later, Cameron and Eisenberger performed an almost
identical analysis, with a few slightly modifications. I will therefore
refer to these studies as Cameron, Eisenberger, and Pierce henceforth,
unless stated otherwise. There results were almost entirely
contradictory to every shred of evidence shown in this article. They
concluded that rewards essentially do not effect intrinsic motivation,
and that there was no reason not to use rewards to regulate behaviors,
particularly in educational settings. And here is their boldest statement
of all: they suggested the “abandoning of cognitive evaluation theory”!
Since this
meta-analysis was published, several scientists have harshly critiqued
the methods
and conclusions made by Cameron, Eisenberger, and Pierce. In 1996, three commentaries (Kohn, 1996; Lepper, Keavney, & Drake,
1996; Ryan & Deci, 1996) argued that Cameron, Eisenberger, and Pierce’s
meta-analysis was invalid and that its conclusions false. More recently,
the inventors of CET themselves stepped in and critiqued this
meta-analysis.
Deci, Koestner,
and Ryan (1999) reported several flaws in this analysis. Some notable
comments were that this analysis combined the effects of boring tasks,
with intrinsically interesting task. As has been clearly displayed, CET
makes no predictions on boring tasks; only inherently interesting
tasks. For, how would extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic
motivation for tasks which have none, or very little intrinsic
motivation to begin with? Further, as show in the Tang and Hall (1995)
meta-analysis, rewards may actually be of benefit for boring activities.
Therefore, this is comparing apples and oranges, and would greatly skew
the results. Another problem was that they mixed some rewards together,
and misclassified them. For example, they included a reward from a study
as a non-contingent
reward, that actually was administrated as an
engagement contingent reward. They also
eliminated 20% of the studies as outliers, instead of isolating the
cause of variability. Other critiques were made, but clearly there were
many flaws in this analysis.
A flaw in all
these meta-analyses is that they did not include unpublished doctoral
theses. Doctoral theses are commonly the most comprehensive papers
conducted; thus, inclusion of these papers would increase the
reliability of the analysis.
In light of the
various flaws in these meta-analyses, Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999)
teamed up to compose the most comprehensive meta-analysis on rewards to
date. 128 studies were examined. Participants ranged from
college to pre-school students. There were a wide array of rewards
administrated, including marshmallows and dollar bills.
Results found that
verbal rewards, when not administered in a controlling manner, increased intrinsic
motivation. However, when they were administered in a controlling manner, they
decreased intrinsic motivation.
Both engagement
and completion contingent rewards decreased intrinsic motivation.
Performance contingent rewards also decreased intrinsic motivation; but
not as much as the previous two rewards. However, participants in the
performance contingent condition, who got less than the maximum reward,
showed a sharp decline in intrinsic motivation—more so than any other
group! This is because not only are they being controlled by the reward,
but they are being delivered information that they are incompetent.
Since in many cases, the majority do not achieve the standard of
excellence taken to obtain a performance contingent reward, these can be
especially dangerous to administer. Results also found a significant
difference between the effects of rewards on boring and intrinsically
motivating tasks. This is in agreement with the findings of Tang and
Hall (1995).
Unexpected rewards
and non-contingent rewards did not decrease intrinsic motivation;
presumably because the participants were not doing the task in order to
get those rewards, therefore, they did not feel controlled by them.
It has also been
suggested that the effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation may be transitory. But their results indicated they were long lasting.
One interesting
finding was that rewards were more undermining to intrinsic motivation
for kids than college students. The authors suggested 3 explanations:
1.) Kids are “bribed” more often than adults for performing activities, so it
may have a deeper effect. 2.) College students are more cognitively
advanced, so they may be able to distinguish the controlling aspect from
the informational aspect of rewards better than kids. 3.) College students may have
different expectations during experiments, because they have more
experience in them than kids.
The authors
suggested that verbal rewards are effective, in part because they are
unexpected rewards. In this context, if a coach always praises their
athletes for performing an activity, the athletes may come to expect
praise, and CET
would predict that intrinsic motivation would decrease. In fact, they
sourced 3 studies which indicated that when participants were told they
would be given performance feedback, and then were given positive
feedback (verbal rewards) after completion of the task, intrinsic
motivation significantly decreased! So evidence suggests that you should
give verbal rewards in an intermittent fashion. This is further
supported by studies on partial reinforcement (refer to
Hull’s
Quantitative Equation on Human Performance).
In response to
this meta-analysis, Cameron, Eisenberger, and Pierce (1999) teamed up
again to make 2 more meta-analyses. But it was more or less the same. Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999, b) again responded with a convincing
argument refuting the claims made by them. The largest point that
Cameron, Eisenberger, and Pierce (1999) tried to get across was that
performance-contingent rewards may enhance intrinsic motivation. This
was supported by a recent study by Cameron, Pierce, Banko, Katherine,
and Slyvia (2003) who found that giving rewards that are tied to meeting
increasingly demanding performance standards enhanced intrinsic
motivation. However, Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999, b) pointed out
several flaws in this meta-analysis. The primary differences were that
they excluded 11 studies out of 40 which indicated negative results, and
had several other methodological flaws, which had actually been pointed out in previous
critiques, but were not corrected.
In summary, the
results appear to strongly support CET, and suggest that we should be
very careful about how and if we use external rewards.
The Link Between Self Determination
Theory, CET, & Goal Orientations
In another article
in this issue of JHR, the current author addressed various goals. It is
a pre-requisite to study that article to be able to understand the topic
that is about to be discussed. Click Here,
to study this article.
It has been
suggested by several authors that there may be a link between self
determination theory and goal orientations (Nikos, 2001). Evidence
suggests than an ego (outcome) orientation can undermine intrinsic
motivation; whereas, a mastery goal orientation facilitates
intrinsic motivation (Ryan, 1982; Brunel, 1999). This is because
athletes with an ego orientation are concerned more with the outcome of
an event, rather than the activity itself (Nicholls, 1989). For
instance, Brunelt (1999) found that an ego orientation increased
introjected regulation (participating
in an activity because of various pressures) and external regulation
(participating in an activity for a reward) in 160 badminton athletes.
Similarly, Ryan (1982) found that an ego orientation decreased intrinsic
motivation for participating in a puzzle game.
Conversely, a
mastery orientation appears to enhance intrinsic motivation. This is
because a mastery orientation focuses on intrinsic properties of the
activity, rather than an external motivator. In this context, Butler
(1987) found that a mastery goal orientation enhanced intrinsic
motivation, by promoting task persistence and challenge seeking
activities.
Various studies
have supported this hypothesis. Duda, Chi, Newton, Walling, and Catley (1995) found that a mastery
goal orientation enhanced intrinsic motivation, while an ego goal orientation
maintained or decreased intrinsic motivation. Studies on British and
Romanian PE have found that students with the highest intrinsic
motivation were those with a high mastery orientation, regardless of
their ego orientation.
And a plethora of
other studies have demonstrated this (refer to the aforementioned goal
setting article for more).
In order to
summarize this data, Nikos (2001) performed a comprehensive analysis on
the link between Self Determination Theory and Goal orientations. Over
247 British University students were examined. Results indicated that a
mastery orientation was able to predict all three types of intrinsic
motivation and identified regulation (as you recall, this is an
autonomous form of extrinsic motivation, and related to enhanced self
determination). However, a mastery orientation did not predict introjected
regulation (i.e. avoidance or participation in activities because of
guilt, pressure, etc.), external regulation (participation in
activities purely for rewards), or amotivation (a lack of motivation).
As expected, an
ego orientation was able to predict introjected and external regulation.
This is most likely because athletes with an ego oriented mentality
participate in sport for extrinsic rewards such as acknowledgment, superiority, etc. (Nichols, 1989).
Additionally, an ego orientation
was not a predictor of intrinsic motivation, or other self determined
measures (except, it did predict intrinsic motivation for sensations).
This is attributed to the controlling nature of their extrinsic goals.
Lastly, ego orientations did not predict amotivation.
Nikos also
examined the interaction between goal orientations, as individuals can
be both mastery and ego oriented. Results found that when participants master
orientation was high, external regulation was lower when ego orientation
was lower. Further, high mastery oriented individuals
predicted high intrinsic motivation regardless of ego orientation.
Thus, evidence
suggests that a mastery goal orientation is optimal for facilitating
intrinsic motivation, while an ego orientation will tend to enhance
extrinsic motivation. These results are clearly explained using Self
Determination Theory.
Now, an outcome
oriented mentality often promotes competition (for information on
competition vs. cooperation Click Here).
And CET would predict that competitive mentalities can lead to a
decrease in intrinsic motivation, as they focus on external goals such
as winning. In this context, Fortier, Vallerand, Briere & Provencher
(1995) tested CET with competitive athletes compared to recreational
athletes. Results indicated that recreational athletes had greater
intrinsic motivation, while competitive athletes had greater identified
regulation and amotivation. Similarly, Kavussanu and Roberts (1996) found
that a competitive, outcome oriented environment decreased the intrinsic
motivation of tennis players.
The next question
is, what is the effect of rewards on competitive situations. These type
of rewards are called competitively contingent rewards, and are a sub
category of performance contingent rewards. They involve rewarding
individuals for defeating others. In this context,
Pritchard, Campbell and Campbell
(1977) found that giving participants a $5 reward for defeating
participants in their group (approximately 6 participants per group)
decreased intrinsic motivation relative to no reward. CET predicts these
types of rewards are very controlling, as they focus the participants
locus of causality on winning, which is an external motivator. Other
studies have also supported these findings (Ryan, Mims, & Koestner,
1983).
Thus, Self
Determination Theory and CET are very helpful in explaining the results
of goal orientations and competition on intrinsic motivation.
Conclusion
The results
clearly indicate that the rewards can greatly undermine intrinsic
motivation. For practical applications, click Here.
Keep it Hardcore,
Venom
Vice President of
ABCbodybuilding.com
Venom@abcbodybuilding.com
References
Amorose and Horn
(2000). Intrinsic motivation: relationships with collegiate athletes'
gender, scholarship status, and perceptions of their coaches' behavior.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology (JSEP), 22(1), 63 - 84.
Amorose, Horne, &
Miller, (1994). Intrinsic motivation in collegiate athletics:
Relationship with athletes’ scholarships status and coaching behaviors.
Journal of Sport & Exercise Psychology. 16, S26.
Brunel, P. (1999).
Relationship between achievement goal orientations and perceived
motivational climate on intrinsic motivation. Scandinavian Journal of
Medicine and Science in Sports, 9, 365-374.
Butler, R. (1987).
Task-involving and ego-involving properties of evaluation: Effects of
different feedback conditions on motivational perceptions, interest, and
performance. Journal of Educational Psychology, 79, 474-482.
Cameron, Pierce, Banko, Katherine, and Slyvia (2003). Positive effects
of rewards and performance standards on intrinsic motivation. The
Psychological Record
Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994).
Reinforcement,
reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational
Research, 64, 363-423.
Cameron, J., &
Pierce, W. D. (1996). The debate about rewards and intrinsic motivation:
Protests and accusations do not alter the results. Review of Educational
Research, 66, 39-52.
Deci, E. L.
(1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105-115.
Deci, E. L.
(1975).
Intrinsic motivation. New York: Plenum Publishing Co.
Japanese Edition, Tokyo: Seishin Shobo, 1980.
Deci,
E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination
in human behavior. New York: Plenum Publishing Co.
Deci,
E.L. and Ryan, R.M. (1994). Promoting Self Determined Education.
Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research. 38, 3-41.
Deci, E. L.,
Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of
experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic
motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627-668.
Deci,
E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999).
The undermining
effect is a reality after all: Extrinsic rewards, task interest, and
self-determination.
Psychological
Bulletin,
125,
692-700. b.
Deci, E. L., &
Ryan, R. M. (2000). The "what" and "why" of goal pursuits: Human needs
and the self-determination of behavior.
Psychological
Inquiry,
11,
227-268
Duda, J.L., Chi,
L., Newton, M.L., Walling, M.D., and Catley, D. (1995). Task and ego
orientation and intrinsic motivation in sport. International Journal of
Sport Psychology, 26, 40-63.
Dorobantu, M. and
Biddle, S.J.H. (1997). The influence of situational and individual goals
on the intrinsic motivation of Romanian adolescents towards physical
education. European Yearbook of Sport Psychology, 1, 148-165.
Eisenberger, R., &
Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: Reality of myth?
American Psychologist, 51, 1153-1166.
Fortier, M. S.,
Vallerand, R. J., Briere, N. M., & Provencher, P. J. (1995). Competitive
and recreational sport structures and gender: A test of their
relationship with sport motivation. International Journal of Sport
Psychology, 26, 24-39.
Frederick, C. M.,
& Ryan, R. M. (1993). Differences in motivation for sport and exercise
and their relations with participation and mental health. Journal of
Sport Behavior, 16, 124-146.
Frederick, C. M.,
& Ryan, R. M. (1995). Self-determination in sport: A review using
cognitive evaluation theory. International Journal of Sport Psychology,
26, 5-23.
Hodgins, H. S.,
Yacko, H. A., Gottlieb, E., Goodwin, G., & Rath, P. (2002). Autonomy and
engaging versus defending against experience. Unpublished manuscript,
Skidmore College.
Kavussanu, M., &
Roberts, G. C. (1996). Motivation in physical activity contexts: The
relationship of perceived motivational climate to intrinsic motivation
and self-efficacy. Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 18,
264-280.
Koestner, R.,
Ryan, R. M., Bernieri, F., & Holt, K. (1984). Setting limits on
children's behavior: The differential effects of controlling versus
informational styles on children's intrinsic motivation and creativity.
Journal of Personality, 54, 233-248.
Kohn, A.
(1996). By all available means: Cameron and Pierce's defense of
extrinsic motivators. Review of Educational Research, 66, 1-4.
Lepper,
M. R., & Greene, D. (1975). Turning play into work: Effects of adult
surveillance and extrinsic reward on children's intrinsic motivation.
Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 479-486.
Lepper, M.R.,
Keavney, M., & Drake, M. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic
rewards: A commentary on Cameron and Pierce's Meta-analysis. Review of
Educational Research, 66, 5-32.
McCullagh, Penny.
(2005) Sport and Exercise Psychology Lecture. Cal State University East
Bay. 10/27.
NIKOS, NTOUMANIS (2001). Empirical links between achievement goal theory
and self-determination theory in sport. Journal of Sports Sciences
Nicholls, J.G.
(1989). The Competitive Ethos and Democratic Education. Cambridge, MA:
Harvard University Press.
Pierce, W. David Cameron, Judy Banko, Katherine M. So, Sylvia. (2003).
Positive effects of rewards and performance standards on intrinsic
motivation. The Psychological Record.
Plant, R. W., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and the effects
of self-consciousness, self-awareness, and ego-involvement: An
investigation of internally-controlling styles. Journal of Personality,
53, 435-449.
Pritchard, R.D.,
Campbell, K. M., & Campbell, D.J. (1997). Effects of extrinsic financial
rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Applied Psychology. 62,
9-15.
Rummel, A., & Feinberg, R. (1988). Cognitive evaluation theory: A
meta-analytic review of the literature. Social Behavior and Personality,
16, 147-164.
Ryan, R.M. (1982).
Control and information in the intrapersonal sphere: An extension of
cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 43, 450-461.
Ryan, R. M., Mims,
V., & Koestner, R. (1983). Relation of reward contingency and
interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: A review and test using
cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 45, 736-750.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996).
When paradigms
clash: Comments on Cameron and Pierce's claim that rewards do not
undermine intrinsic motivation. Review of Educational Research, 66,
33-38.
Ryan,
R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000).
Self-determination
theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development,
and well-being.
American
Psychologist,
55,
68-78.
Sawyer, D.
(2005). Sensori Motor Skill Acquisition Lecture. California State
University East Bay.
Tang, S-H., &
Hall, V. C. (1995). The overjustification effect: A meta-analysis.
Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 365-404.
Vallerand, R.J.
(1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social
psychology (pp. 271-360). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Vallerand,
R.J. and Rousseau, F.L (2001). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in
sport and exercise: a review using the Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic
and Extrinsic Motivation. In Handbook of Sport Psychology, 2nd edn
(edited by R.N. Singer, H.A. Hausenblas and C.M. Janelle), pp. 389-416.
New York: Wiley.
Vlachopoulos, S.
and Biddle, S.J.H. (1996). Achievement goal orientations and intrinsic
motivation in a track and field event in school physical education.
European Physical Education Review, 2, 158-164.
Weinberg R, &
Gould, D (2003). Foundations of Sport and Exercise Psychology: Human
Kinetics.
Wiersma, U. J.
(1992). The effects of extrinsic rewards in intrinsic motivation: A
meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology,
65, 101-114.
Wilson, Jacob.
(2005).
Hull’s Quantitative Equation on Human Performance. Journal of
Hyperplasia Research.
© ABC Bodybuilding Company. All rights reserved.
Disclaimer |
