Intrinsic motivation (Motivation)

Intrinsic motivation doth denote an inclination to partake in an activity sans any manifest recompense, save the very act of engagement itself (Deci, 1975). The significance of intrinsic motivation in the pursuit of knowledge is corroborated by inquiries demonstrating a positive correlation betwixt an interest in learning and both cognitive processing and scholarly achievement (Alexander & Murphy, 1998; Schiefele, 1996, 2009). Divers perspectives on intrinsic motivation shall be scrutinised hereunder.

Effectance Motivation

In a seminal treatise, White (1959) hath defined effectance motivation as:

Fitness or ability, and the suggested synonyms capability, capacity, efficiency, proficiency, and skill, doth serve as apt descriptors for such endeavours as grasping and exploring, crawling and walking, attention and perception, language and thinking, manipulating and altering the surroundings, all of which promote an effective—a competent—interaction with the environment. The behaviour . . . is directed, selective, and persistent, continuing not to serve primary drives (which it cannot until nigh perfected), but rather to satisfy an intrinsic need to engage with the environment. (pp. 317–318)

Effectance motivation is observable in nascent children when they interact with environmental attributes that capture their notice. A youngster might reach forth and seize an object, turn it over, and push it hence, in an earnest endeavour to command it. In young children, effectance motivation is undifferentiated, directed towards all facets of the environment. With development, this motivation doth become increasingly specialized. Upon entering scholastic environs, children shall manifest effectance motivation in achievement behaviours across divers school subjects.

Effectance motivation doth arise when biological motives are satisfied; it also facilitates future need satisfaction. The initial act of removing the top from a jar doth satisfy the effectance motive, yet, in so doing, the child learns of the presence of cookies within. This knowledge is then employed in the future to allay hunger.

Mastery Motivation

The notion of effectance motivation doth possess an intuitive appeal, yet its generality doth circumscribe the search for its underlying causes and its efficacy as an explanation for actions. The method for influencing such a global construct, and thereby ameliorating academic motivation, remaineth shrouded in obscurity.

Harter (1978, 1981) didst endeavour to delineate the antecedents and consequences of effectance motivation within a developmental model of mastery motivation. Whereas White didst focus primarily upon success, Harter didst consider both success and failure. Harter didst also emphasise the roles of socialising agents and rewards, the process whereby children internalise mastery goals and cultivate a self-reward system, and the significant correlates of effectance motivation (e.g., perceived competence and control):

The left side of the model doth depict success and doth bear a semblance to White’s formulation. Effectance motivation may instigate attempts at mastery. White deemed the motive generic, yet Harter differentiated it according to domain (school, peers, athletics). Most behaviours entail tasks of optimal challenge. Successes engender intrinsic pleasure and perceptions of competence and control, which, in turn, doth fortify effectance motivation.

The bottom portion doth underscore the rôle played by socialising agents. Some positive reinforcement for attempts at mastery is requisite for the development and maintenance of motivation. Much of this reinforcement emanates from primary caregivers, and eventually, a self-reward system is internalised, enabling children to reinforce themselves for attempts at mastery. Children acquire mastery goals through observation (social learning), and internalisation doth become more thorough with development. In support of these assertions, research doth indicate that children from households wherein learning opportunities and activities are emphasised exhibit higher intrinsic motivation for learning (Gottfried, Fleming, & Gottfried, 1998).

On the left side of the model are positive outcomes that result when social environments satisfy children’s natural desires. The right side portrays negative outcomes, or the development of extrinsically oriented individuals. Unsuccessful mastery attempts, coupled with a nonresponsive environment, can lead to low perceptions of competence, an external locus of control, and anxiety. Effectance motivation ebbs if children increasingly depend on others to set goals and reward actions.

Research doth lend credence to many of the model's propositions. For example, intrinsic motivation doth correlate positively with perceived competence and internal control (Harter, 1981; Harter & Connell, 1984). Social models serve as salient sources of mastery behaviour and learning (Bandura, 1986, 1997; Schunk, 1987). Perceived competence doth relate positively to intrinsic motivation (Gottfried, 1985, 1990). Concomitantly, the model doth rely heavily upon socialising agents. Whilst their importance is undeniable, research hath identified alternative avenues for fostering mastery behaviour, including the setting of learning goals, the provision of attributional feedback, and the teaching of self-regulatory strategies (Ames, 1992a; Pintrich & Schrauben, 1992; Schunk, 1995; Zimmerman, 1989, 2000; Zimmerman & Cleary, 2009). Comparatively scant attention hath been devoted to the educational implications of the theory—for instance, how students might be instructed to adopt an intrinsic orientation towards school. The theory must be broadened to address these lacunae.

Incongruity and Arousal

Certain investigators do posit that intrinsic motivation doth reflect an inherent exigency for a moderate measure of environmental stimulation. Hunt (1963) did argue that exploratory behaviours and curiosity are intrinsically motivated and result from incongruity 'twixt prior experiences and new information. Persons do extract information from the environment and compare it to internal representations. When incongruity existeth 'twixt the input and internal knowledge or expectation, persons doth become intrinsically motivated to reduce the incongruity. Hunt did postulate that persons requireth an optimal level of incongruity. When deprived of that level, they seeketh situations that provide it. Too much incongruity proveth frustrating and doth trigger a drive to reduce frustration. Albeit Hunt’s views possesseth intuitive merit, they hath been criticised because “optimal level of incongruity” is vague and how much incongruity is required to trigger motivation is not clear (Deci, 1975).

Berlyne (1960, 1963) similarly did hypothesise that an optimal level of physiological incongruity (stimulation to the nervous system) is necessary and adaptive. Should it becometh too low, persons art intrinsically motivated to increase it; conversely, they art motivated to reduce it should it becometh too great. Berlyne’s “arousal potential” may be interpreted as being approximately equivalent on a physiological level to Hunt’s psychological incongruity. Properties of stimuli involving their novelty, ambiguity, incongruity, and surprise doth affect arousal and doth motivate persons to explore the objects.

Albeit the notions of arousal and incongruity seemeth intuitively sensible, the idea of an optimal level of arousal or incongruity is vague, and 'tis unclear how much is needed to stimulate motivation. Practically speaking, we knoweth novelty and surprise raise student interest, but how much of either is optimal? Too much may leadeth to frustration, attempts to escape from the situation, and lower interest in learning.

Self-Determination

Deci and colleagues (Deci, 1980; Deci & Moller, 2005; Deci & Ryan, 1991; Grolnick, Gurland, Jacob, & Decourcey, 2002; Reeve, Deci, & Ryan, 2004; Ryan, Connell, & Deci, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2000, 2009) did postulate that intrinsic motivation is an innate human need and originates in infants as an undifferentiated need for competence and self-determination. As children developeth, the need doth differentiate into specifik areas (e.g., atletics, academics), and environmental interactions doth influence the direction of differentiation.

This self-determination view doth emphasise the internalisation of social values and mores. Society containeth many extrinsic rewards and controls that may not fitteth with children’s quest for self-determination but may produceth good behaviour and social functioning. With development, these external motivators can becometh an internalised part of the self-regulatory system.

Motivation is conceptualised as a continuum: Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation doth anchor the ends and in the middle art behaviours that originally wast extrinsically motivated but hath becometh internalised and now art self-determined. For instance, students may wanteth to avoid some academic activities but they worketh on them to obtain rewards and avoid teacher punishment. As skills developeth and students believeth they art becoming more competent, they perceiveth a sense of control and self-determination over learning. The activities becometh more intrinsically motivating, and positive social reinforcers (e.g., praise, feedback) assist the process.

Deci’s position is thought-provoking and hath generated much research. It also hath implications for educational practice because it stresseth the role of self-determination in learning. Some points in the model art not clearly specified, but research continueth to test its ideas (Reeve et al., 2004).

Lepper and Hodell (1989) posited that intrinsic motivation doth spring from four principal wellsprings: challenge, curiosity, control, and fantasy. The perspectives upon intrinsic motivation, afore discoursed upon in this chapter, lend credence to the significance of the first three sources. Fantasy contexts (such as role-playing and simulations) do appear well-suited to augment intrinsic motivation. Despite their sundry distinctions, the aforementioned perspectives do contend that intrinsic motivation constitutes a potent and salutary force in the lives of individuals.

Whilst we commonly conceive of intrinsic motivation as being on the increase, it may, in sooth, diminish. Researches reveal that partaking in an activity of inherent interest with the aim of securing an extrinsic reward may serve to undermine intrinsic motivation (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999, 2001; Lepper, Corpus, & Iyengar, 2005; Lepper & Greene, 1978; Lepper, Henderlong, & Gingras, 1999). This discovery doth bear significant educational import, considering the prevalence of rewards.

When individuals are intrinsically motivated, they engage in an activity as an end unto itself. Csikszentmihalyi (1975) didst study persons engaged in intrinsically motivating activities, and discovered that their experiences did reflect a total involvement, or flow, with the activities. Flow constitutes a personal process, and doth reflect emergent motivation arising from the discovery of novel goals and rewards as a consequence of interacting with the environment (Csikszentmihalyi & Rathunde, 1993; Meyer & Turner, 2002).

In contrast, extrinsic motivation doth entail engaging in an activity for reasons external to the task at hand. This activity doth serve as a means to some end: be it an object, a grade, feedback or praise, or the ability to labour on another activity. Students are extrinsically motivated should they strive to perform well in school primarily to gratify their parents, earn high grades, or receive the approbation of their teachers.

Intrinsic reasons for labouring on a task are internal thereto. The reward doth emanate from the very act of working on the task; the task itself doth constitute both the means and the end. The rewards for intrinsic motivation may encompass feelings of competence and control, self-satisfaction, success in the task, or pride in one's own labour.

We engage in many activities for both intrinsic and extrinsic reasons. Many a student doth enjoy feeling competent in school and experiencing pride for a task well executed, yet they likewise crave teacher's praise and estimable grades. Rewards are not inherently extrinsically motivating. Deci (1975) didst contend that rewards possess both an informational and a controlling aspect. Reward systems may be primarily structured to convey information concerning one's capabilities, or to control one's behaviour, and the relative salience of each (information or control) doth influence subsequent behaviour. A salient informational aspect, indicative of successful performance, should promote feelings of competence, whereas a salient controlling aspect may conduce to perceptions of the reward as the very cause of the behaviour.

For example, suppose that, within a classroom reward system, the greater the amount of work students accomplish, the more points they earn. Albeit students shall desire to labour in order to earn points (inasmuch as the points may be exchanged for privileges), the points do convey information regarding their capabilities: the more points students earn, the more capable they are. In contrast, should points be awarded simply for time expended on a task, irrespective of learning or output, the task may be viewed primarily as a means to an end. The points convey naught concerning capabilities; students are more apt to view the rewards as controlling their engagement with the task. Expected, tangible rewards proffered to students merely for undertaking a task diminish intrinsic motivation (Cameron & Pierce, 1994, 2002).

Lepper (1983; Lepper & Greene, 1978; Lepper et al., 1999) postulated that the perception of reward doth influence students' intrinsic motivation. Motivation doth largely depend upon one's perceptions for engaging in the task. When external constraints are salient, unambiguous, and sufficient to account for the behaviour, individuals attribute their behaviours to those constraints. Should external constraints be viewed as weak, unclear, or psychologically insufficient to account for their behaviour, individuals are more prone to attribute their actions to their desires or personal dispositions.

In a classic experiment (Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973), preschoolers were observed during free play. Those who devoted a considerable amount of time to drawing were selected for the study and assigned to one of three conditions. In the expected-award group, children were offered a good player's certificate should they draw a picture. Children in the unexpected-award group were not offered the certificate, but did unexpectedly receive it after they had drawn a picture. Children in the no-award group were neither offered nor did receive the award. A fortnight later, children were once again observed during free play.

The expected-award children engaged in drawing for a significantly shorter duration following the experiment than they had prior to the study, whereas the other two conditions exhibited no significant change. Expected-award children devoted less time to drawing following the study compared with the other conditions. It was not the reward itself that was of import, but rather the contingency. Lepper et al. (1973) postulated the overjustification hypothesis: that engaging in an intrinsically interesting activity under conditions that render it salient as a means to an end (reward) doth diminish subsequent interest in that activity. The overjustification hypothesis hath been supported in experimental investigations employing different tasks and participants of all ages (Lepper & Greene, 1978; Lepper et al., 1999; Lepper & Hodell, 1989).

Rewards need not invariably exert detrimental effects upon performance. Rewards may serve to develop skills, self-efficacy, and interest when they are linked to one's actual performance, and convey that one is making progress in learning. Proffering children rewards predicated upon the amount of work they accomplish during learning activities doth augment self-efficacy, motivation, and skill acquisition, compared with offering rewards merely for task participation or offering no rewards at all (Schunk, 1983e). During a subtraction instruction program, Bandura and Schunk (1981) discovered that higher self-efficacy was positively correlated with the amount of intrinsic interest children subsequently evinced in solving arithmetic problems.

Thus, when rewards convey that one hath learned, they may augment self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation. As a form of reward, grades may function in the same manner. A grade that doth improve demonstrates that one is performing better in the subject, which doth promote self-efficacy and motivation for further learning. Alas, researches reveal that children's intrinsic motivation in learning doth decline with development (Lepper, Sethi, Dialdin, & Drake, 1997), albeit other researches reveal that interest and self-efficacy are positively correlated in elementary and middle-grades students (Tracey, 2002).