Researched
and Composed by
Gabriel “Venom” Wilson, BSc. (Hons), CSCS
Abstract
Part 1 of this series investigated
the effects of various rewards on intrinsic motivation. Results
indicated that various kinds of rewards can seriously undermine
intrinsic motivation. However, the degree of this effect is entirely
dependent on the reward and delivery. The purpose of this paper was to
give various practical applications on rewards and how to properly
administrate them.
Overview of The
Effects of External Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation
Before discussing how to use rewards, we need to review several terms
discussed in article 1.
Intrinsic &
Extrinsic Motivation
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. While
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).
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).
Therefore, ways to enhance intrinsic motivation are of the utmost
importance for athletes.
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 the
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.
Cognitive Evaluation
Theory
The dominant theory on the effects of external rewards on intrinsic
motivation is Cognitive Evaluation Theory (CET).
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 1
The Effects of Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation
Figure 1 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). 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 a player 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 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.
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.
Practical
Applications
Now
that the reader has a firm grasp on several important concepts, we can
discuss various practical applications, based on the research reported
in article 1.
-
Informational aspect—for any reward, delivery is vital. You want to
emphasize the informational message of competency to the individual.
Stress that you are giving the reward because they did good. Horn
(1985) suggests that if feedback is to be effectual, it must include
information about the person’s performance. If you just tell someone
"good job" but do not explain why they did a good job, evidence
suggests this may decrease intrinsic motivation. This is because
your praise without additional feedback would be perceived as a
controlling agent.
-
Control—you want to avoid using controlling phrases. 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. These two factors of
control and information can be applied to all reward
administrations.
-
General advice—some general suggestions made by authors about this
topic are a.) minimizing use of
authoritarian style, and pressuring b.) acknowledge good
performance, but not using rewards to strengthen or
control behavior. C.) provide choice for how to do the task d.)
emphasis interesting or challenging aspects of a
task
-
Unexpected tangible rewards—these rewards appear to be able to
enhance 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 their informational aspect, they may also
enhance intrinsic motivation. But we must be careful not give these
too often, or people will come to expect the unexpected, which will
lead to a decrease in intrinsic motivation. More on this in a
moment.
-
Verbal rewards—these rewards appear to be able to enhance intrinsic
motivation. For example, telling someone they did a great job, and
why. This is because the informational aspect is very salient, while
the controlling aspect is typically low. 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 it, and CET would predict
that intrinsic motivation would decrease. Three studies have in fact
found 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. Lastly, as expected, results
indicate that verbal rewards when not administered controlling
increased intrinsic motivation. However, when they were administered
controlling, they decreased intrinsic motivation.
-
Performance contingent tangible rewards—these 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 informational 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.
Evidence suggests that generally, they decrease intrinsic
motivation, but not as much as engagement and completion contingent
rewards do. However, people in performance contingent activities who
get less than the maximum reward—for example, if you get a reward
for being in the bottom 15%, or if you do not get a reward that you
tried to obtain—show 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 standards of excellence taken to obtain a performance
contingent reward, these can be especially dangerous to administer.
Competitively contingent rewards appear to be very controlling, as
they focus the participants locus of causality on winning, which is
an external motivator.
-
Task non-contingent tangible rewards—these rewards do not appear to
affect intrinsic motivation. This is because they do not require
participating in the task, completing the task, or performing well
on the task—just showing up. And they deliver no information about
the person’s competency. These rewards may be useful for when
rewards are necessary, but are not used to motivate people or
regulate behavior, such as regular salaries. This should allow us to
commission people for their efforts without decreasing intrinsic
motivation, if administrated correctly.
-
Engagement and completion contingent tangible rewards—both of these
seriously undermine intrinsic motivation. This is because they
contain a high control aspect, but deliver no information about the
competency of the individual. For example, you could be paid for
participating in an activity, and whether you perform well or not,
is irrelevant. Therefore, these types of rewards say nothing about
the person’s competency, and decrease their control.
-
Everyday life—Rewards are just one of a broad way of techniques in
which we control people and decrease 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. 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.
-
Kids—evidence suggests that rewards may be particularly undermining
to kids. This would suggest we should be extremely careful with
giving children tangible rewards in school, home, and other
facilities, so as not to undermine their intrinsic motivation.
In summary, most rewards decrease intrinsic motivation, except under
certain circumstances. Yes, rewards can control and modulate behavior;
however, it is for this very reason that they decrease intrinsic
motivation. We have to ask ourselves, when we control kids, and other
people, are we focusing on the short term by modulating behavior through
rewards, and neglecting the future? By decreasing intrinsic motivation
of kids, and other people, this can have serious impacts on their
futures. The goal of institutions such as school is to make people
autonomous (self dependent). However, if they become dependent on our
rewards and feedback, once these extrinsic motivators are removed, they
may revert to dangerous habits.
Concerning the fitness industry, how common is it to give people prizes
for reaching certain performance goals in various programs? Very common!
And it is no wonder why we see people continually going on Yo-Yo diets.
They start these programs, and their intrinsic motivation ends up worst
than when they began. Of course, there are many other factors
contributing to these results, but evidence suggests external rewards
are a contributer.
These findings have extreme applications not only to athletics, but
everyday life. The current author suggests studying these applications,
and looking for situations to apply them in—you should not have a
problem doing so! If you have any questions, feel free to write me. My
email address is at the bottom of this article.
Keep it Hardcore,
Venom
Vice President of
ABCbodybuilding.com
Venom@abcbodybuilding.com
© ABC Bodybuilding Company. All rights reserved.
Disclaimer |
