User:Cheryltang91/sandbox

Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

Experimental evidence

The overjustification effect has been widely demonstrated in many settings. In one of the earliest demonstrations of this effect,

intrinsic motivation to engage in the task.[1]

Theories

Laboratory studies in the 1970s indicated that individuals under conditions with extrinsic rewards showed diminished intrinsic motivation. Deci and his colleagues (e.g., Deci and Ryan 1985) developed the cognitive evaluation theory to explain the results. As a sub-theory of self-determination theory, cognitive evaluation theory explains that both control and competence underlie intrinsic motivation and how extrinsic rewards affect intrinsic motivation is dependent on individual’s interpretation. Intrinsic motivation increases if individuals interpret rewards as pertaining positive information about their own competence and self-control over results, whereas if they interpret the results as indicative of external control, this decreases their feelings of self-control and competence, which in turn decreases intrinsic motivation. Cognitive evaluation theory also suggest social context as another implication on intrinsic motivation. Social cues can exert either positive or negative effects on intrinsic motivation depending on the messages that the context conveys regarding a person’s autonomy and competence. Verbal rewards such as positive feedback and praise are predicted to be experienced as controlling hence decreasing intrinsic motivation. However, verbal rewards that are informational and not experienced as controlling are predicted to exert positive effects.[2]

Self-determination theory is a broad theory of motivation in work organizations that maintains the predictions of cognitive evaluation theory but also recognizes the limitations of the theory, such as organizational conditions under which predictions do not apply or are less relevant in real-world settings, which cognitive evaluation theory fails to recognize. The theory differentiates between various types of motivational state, distinguishes the organizational conditions where extrinsic rewards are more effective than intrinsic rewards, examines individual differences in orientation toward intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation and discusses managerial behavioral that can enhance intrinsic motivation. Findings from the Deci et al. (1989) study have supported self-determination theory as an approach to work motivation by showing how managers can impact the work attitudes of their employees. The study reported that managerial autonomy support which included provision of options, giving relevant information in a non-autonomous way, acknowledging subordinates’ perspectives and cultivating self-initiation resulted in employees having more positive work-related attitudes such as higher level of job satisfaction and increased in level of trust in corporate management.[3]

Controversy

tangible rewards offered for outperforming others and for performing uninteresting tasks (in which intrinsic motivation is low) lead to increased intrinsic motivation,[6] and stated that the detrimental effects of rewards on motivation only occur in a specific, restricted set of conditions that could be easily avoided.[7] This set of analyses included both high-interest and low-interest tasks, whereas the original meta-analyses conducted by Deci and colleagues (1999) restricted analyses to tasks in which participants initially had high interest. In fact, a 2001 meta-analysis showed that rewards can increase intrinsic motivation for tasks that initially hold little intrinsic interest.[8]

Also, according to Eisenberger and Cameron, claimed negatives effects of extrinsic rewards on task interest derived from the Deci study (1971) do not take into consideration that conditions manufactured in laboratory settings that produces these effects is not a true reflection of situations in the real world. For example, in the Deci study the incentive was provided for one session and was then arbitrarily withdrawn in the next and such incentive plans do not exist in the real world. Also, the reduced intrinsic interest seen in subjects may be explained by a negative reaction when the reward was withheld.[9] Eisenberger and his colleges also claimed that the validity of the dependent measure is highly questionable in the Deci study. Laboratory results that used the amount of free time spend on the task as the dependent measure are shown to be far weaker than when self reports are used for these measures. The Deci study gives far less weight to self reports, however self-reports about subjects’ level of internal motivation seem to be a more direct measure of the psychological state of interest.[10]

Considerable research has also shown that rewards tend to enhance feelings of competence and autonomy and high standards, pressure and competitiveness are able to increase these effects. For example, employees view earning

incentives as enjoyable rather than a dreaded tool of management control. These findings are in contrast with the psychological mechanism for effects that Deci and his colleges had claimed in the past. Also in the past 30 years, notable academic reviews of rewards have confirmed that monetary incentives have shown to significantly increase performance.[11]
Also some activities require significant level of mastery or engagement before its attractiveness becomes apparent to an individual, in such cases external incentives may be useful to build individuals up to that level. An example is token economy programs where there are evidences showing that such programs have successfully implemented extrinsic rewards to increase interest in certain broad classes of activities.[12]

There are also differences in effect among the different age groups. According to Deci et al. (1999), the negative effects extrinsic contingencies have on intrinsic motivation seem to be more severe for children than college students. One possible explanation is that college students have greater cognitive capacity, enabling them to better separate informational and controlling aspects of rewards. Hence they are able to interpret rewards as indicators of effective performance rather than controlling their behavior, which causes them to operate with performance-goal orientations. It is therefore speculated that such differences are far greater between children and employed workers.[13]

A rebuttal defended the original findings, concluding that this analysis by Cameron (2001) was flawed and that Cameron's inclusion of boring tasks in analyzing potential overjustification effects made little theoretical or practical sense. This rebuttal argued that cognitive evaluation theory is the most consistent structure for explaining the effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation, pointing to several other papers that have supported the theory.[14]

Applications

Education

Findings from the Lepper et al’s (1973) study suggest that presenting these extrinsic rewards poses central problems in the schooling system in that it fails to preserve the intrinsic interest in learning and exploration that a child may seem to posses during his initial phase in school. This also has severe ramifications on the education system, as it seems to almost undermine children’s spontaneous interest in the process of learning itself, instead their motivation is driven by these extrinsic rewards. Research in this area suggests that parents and educators should rely on intrinsic motivation and preserve feelings of autonomy and competence as much as possible.[15] When the task is unattractive and intrinsic motivation is insufficient (e.g., household chores), then extrinsic rewards are useful to provide incentives for behavior. Student grades may not undermine intrinsic motivation because grades convey information about competence, much like praise.

School programs that provide money or prizes for reading books have been criticized for their potential to reduce intrinsic motivation by overjustification. However, a study of the

Book It!, found that participation in the program neither increased nor decreased reading motivation.[16]
Although motivating students to read by rewarding them may undermine their interest in reading, it may also encourage the reading skills necessary for developing an interest in reading.

Workplace

Cognitive evaluation theory further predicts the different types of rewards that will exert different effects. According to the theory, task non-contingent rewards like benefits that are based on things other than performance, such as employment that do not consist any information regarding autonomy and competence, will have no effect on intrinsic motivation. Task contingent rewards on the other hand like

non-profit organization led to decreased feelings of autonomy and intrinsic motivation, indicating that rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation in work settings.[17]

Performance contingent rewards like monetary incentives that are given for good performance or meeting a certain standard will be experienced as highly controlling hence decreasing intrinsic motivation. The Shirom, Westman, and Melamed (1999) study found that

blue-collar workers, and this was especially evident for those who felt that their jobs were monotonous.[18] However, in certain cases where the reward also conveys information about competence that will in turn reduce the negative effect.[19]

See also

References

  1. S2CID 40981945. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help
    )
  2. S2CID 15271950. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help
    )
  3. S2CID 15816760. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help
    )
  4. S2CID 40981945. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help
    )
  5. S2CID 145560555. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link
    )
  6. S2CID 146340830
    .
  7. PMID 8937264. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link
    )
  8. PMID 22478353. Retrieved 28 March 2012. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)CS1 maint: date and year (link
    )
  9. PMID 8937264. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help
    )
  10. PMID 10589299. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help
    )
  11. doi:10.5465/19416520903047269. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help
    )
  12. S2CID 40981945. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help
    )
  13. S2CID 15271950. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help
    )
  14. S2CID 145704599
    .
  15. ISBN 0-399-14047-6
    .
  16. S2CID 53397656
    .
  17. S2CID 15816760. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help
    )
  18. S2CID 15816760. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help
    )
  19. S2CID 15271950. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help
    )

Further reading

  • Deci, E.L. (1995). Why we do what we do: The dynamics of personal autonomy. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons.
  • Kohn, A. (2005). Unconditional parenting: Moving from rewards and punishments to love and reason. New York: Atria Books.
  • Pink, D.H. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. Riverhead.

Category:Cognitive biases Category:Educational psychology Category:Motivation

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Cheryltang91/sandbox&oldid=1168296541"