afwilcox.weebly.com · web view2013-11-10 · intrinsic motivation, the undermining effect, and...

Running Head: INTRINSIC MOTIVATION, THE UNDERMINING EFFECT AND ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE

Intrinsic Motivation, The Undermining Effect, and the Impact on Academic

Performance in Higher Education

Alex Wilcox

James Madison University

INTRINISC MOTIVATION AND THE UNDERMINING EFFECT

Table of Contents

List of Tables……..……………………………………………………………………….3

List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………..4

Abstract……………………………………………………………………………………5

Introduction………………………………………………………………………………..6Research Gap……………………………………………………………………...9Purpose of The Study………………………………………………………….....10Justification of the Study……………………………...…….…………...............11Significance o Research.........................................................................................12Research Question and Hypothesis........................................................................12Key Definitions......................................................................................................13Assumptions and Limitations................................................................................16

Literature Review...............................................................................................................19Methodology..........................................................................................................19Conceptual Framework..........................................................................................20Motivation..............................................................................................................21Theoretical Framework..........................................................................................23An Overview of Motivation...................................................................................27Intrinsic Motivation...............................................................................................29Background on Extrinsic Motivation....................................................................31The Undermining Effect of Extrinsic Motivation on Intrinsic Motivation...........32

Analysis..............................................................................................................................38Discussion of Hypothesis 1....................................................................................45Discussion of Hypothesis 2....................................................................................47Discussion of Hypothesis 3....................................................................................47

Conclusion.........................................................................................................................52

References..........................................................................................................................56


List of Tables

Table 1: Key Definitions....................................................................................................13Table 2: Matric of Studies conducted since 1998 on intrinsic motivation and its

relationship to academic performance..................................................................39


List of Figures

Figure 1. Conceptual Framework......................................................................................21Figure 2. Theoretical Framework......................................................................................23


Abstract

This study provides an overview of the research conducted since the seminal paper

written by Ryan and Deci (2000) on the Undermining Effect. The purpose of this study

was to examine in more depth the phenomenon of the Undermining Effect and how it

relates to academic achievement in higher education. In addition to this, the relationship

between intrinsic motivation and academic performance was also examined. The first

hypothesis of this study is that there is a relationship between intrinsic motivation and

academic performance in higher education. The second is that students who are

intrinsically motivated outperform those who are extrinsically motivated. Lastly, that the

undermining effect results in lower performance of those intrinsically motivated students.

Twenty studies were examined in this critical review and support was found for

hypotheses one and two. Too little evidence existed to support hypothesis three. Based on

these results, recommendations for future research were provided.


Chapter One

Introduction

Academic performance has been an issue in education since school systems arose

(Hidi & Harackiewicz, 2000). How to motivate students to perform is currently one of the

biggest dilemmas teachers face. Motivation is defined as “an internal state that arouses

learners, steers them in a particular direction and keeps them engaged in certain

activities” (Lei, 2010, p. 154). It is an essential element when students are acquiring new

tasks.

In 2002 former President George Bush enacted the “No Child Left Behind Act”

(Tough, 2006). The primary goal was to shrink the performance gap between African

American and Hispanic k-12 students and Caucasian students. Although this is a gap that

is arguably a result of socioeconomic status, it begs the question “why”? If students are

provided with fair and adequate education, which is the responsibility of our government,

why shouldn’t African American and Hispanic students perform as well? According to

the article by Tough, these children express the same desire to attend college. Something

is happening within the education system, which results in these students performing

lower and being less likely to attend college.

Few teachers and schools are employing innovative and new methods of teaching

students from lower socioeconomic areas (Tough, 2006). Those that do are successful

and their students benefit greatly. This is not the case for the majority of students across

the nation. Educational systems are failing these students, leaving parents and educators

in a quandary. What is the best approach to fix these broken schools? One area ripe for

investigation pertains to current scientific research. Struggling schools are unaware of,


overlook or conscientiously dismiss ongoing empirical research that might provide the

creative solutions to addressing weaknesses. As a result, schools do not go to scientific

research to inform their teaching practices. If they did, things could be very different.

Research on student motivation appears largely overlooked by practitioners.

Understanding what motivates students would be a step in the right direction. Although

not all students want to attend college, they may want to be allowed to participate in a

special art class they love. Or perhaps, simply offering them an extra 10 minutes of free

time is enough to ensure their work is completed in a satisfactory manor. Then there are

the rare students who actually underperform, not because the educational system is too

hard, but because it is too easy. The students’ internal motivation slips because they are

not being challenged and their performance suffers. These are issues scientific research

exposes, but public schools do not act upon. Motivation, in any individual, is at the heart

of what the student does and why he or she does it (Powell, Symbaluk & Honey, 2009).

What frequently fails to be accounted for in education is there are, in fact, two

separate types of motivation (Lei, 2010). Individuals are either intrinsically motivated or

extrinsically motivated. Between these two groups there lie fundamental differences.

Intrinsic motivation is comprised of internal forces or “needs” to perform. Extrinsic

motivation is based solely on external reinforcements or punishments. These either

perpetuate or extinguish the individual’s behaviors.

Recently, a shift has begun in the academic world and in the classroom. Teachers,

professors and researchers are beginning to realize the standard they have used until now

maybe inadequate (Meece, Anderman & Anderman, 2005). The shift is a result of the

changing views of motivation. As more research is conducted involving academic


motivation, it has become clear one way of motivating students may not be enough

(Meece et al., 2005).

In contemporary society, with technological advances and limitless resources at

educator’s fingertips, it seems unethical not to tailor education more to the student.

Closely examining the different styles of motivation and directly correlating them to

performance, is the first step to addressing this issue. In short, knowing what motivates

individuals and how it interplays with academic performance will allow us to better serve

these individuals as educators (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Previous literature indicates there is a relationship between motivation and

academic performance (Goodman, Jaffer, Keresztesi, Mamdani, Mokgatle, Musariri,

Pires & Schlechter, 2011). Goodman et al., 2005, found there to be a significant

correlation between type of motivation and GPA, but additional research on the topic

may help to identify the nature of the relationship between type of motivation and

academic performance.

Research Gap

A large body of research exists regarding motivation style and academic

performance in children (Ryan & Deci, 2001). There is, however, a dearth of literature

regarding the relationship between intrinsic motivation and academic performance in

higher education. The study hopes to add to the body of knowledge regarding motivation

and academic performance in higher education.

In addition to the relationship between intrinsic, extrinsic motivation and

academic performance, there is a research gap regarding the Undermining Effect. The

Undermining Effect is a theory proposed by Deci in 1972. It suggests intrinsic motivation


can be undermined by extrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). The idea is the attention

is shifted from the internal enjoyment and onto the external reward by reinforcing or

offering an incentive for a behavior that was previously intrinsically motivated (Deci,

1972). Several studies performed by Deci (1972) have shown when individuals are paid

money to perform a task they found intrinsically motivating, they were less intrinsically

motivated afterwards to perform the task than individuals who received no pay (Deci,

1972).

Beyond the research performed by Deci (1972), scant research has been

conducted on this topic. Deci’s research is comprehensive, but he appears to be the

primary researcher in the field and his research has yet to be validated by others. The

author hopes to use his research as a starting point and a way to find further information

on the undermining effect. Potentially, it could be used to explain demotivation in

intrinsically motivated students, which contributes to the argument that research in this

field should be further pursued. Deci’s research solely targeted younger individuals in K-

12 settings, with little implication for older students. It remains unclear how his theory

may impact individuals in higher education or much older than the age of 18.

Purpose of this Study

The purpose of this study is to conduct an exhaustive and comprehensive

investigation in the field of intrinsic motivation. The variables that will be examined are

intrinsic motivation, the undermining effect of extrinsic motivation on intrinsic

motivation and the effect of these two variables on academic performance in higher

education. By deeply examining these three variables, the author hopes to be able to


specifically identify how intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation and academic

performance relate to each other in the higher education setting.

From an instructors’ perspective, there are both benefits and drawbacks to the

different styles of motivation (Lei, 2010). Although several studies have indicated

students who are intrinsically motivated perform better on academic tasks and have

higher grade point averages (Lei, 2010; Goodman et al., 2011; Kasser & Ryan, 1996)

there is also some evidence that motivation style, from an instructional standpoint, can

have negative consequences. Students who are intrinsically motivated have a much

harder time learning information they are not interested in (Lei, 2010). They are also

more inclined to ignore deadlines and authority figures (Lei, 2010). These issues serve to

obscure the relationship between motivation and academic performance and need to be

addressed.

The study hopes to examine the downfalls of intrinsic motivation more deeply and

bridge the research gap that exists regarding the benefits and costs of intrinsic motivation.

Although intrinsic motivation is heavily cited as a positive attribute to have (Lei, 2010),

more information is needed in this area, as previous research (Lei, 2010) indicates it may

not be as positive an attribute as previously cited.

The study also intends to examine the effect extrinsic motivation has on

intrinsically motivated individuals, better known as the undermining effect. It is a theory

developed by Deci in the late 1970’s and has not been deeply examined by others.

Additionally, the study will look at and further explain the relationship between intrinsic

motivation, the undermining effect and academic success, specifically in higher


education. As previously mentioned, the majority of research has been performed in K-

12 settings.

Justification of this Study

Although there has been much research done regarding motivation in grade

school and middle school age children, there is a lack of research regarding motivation in

higher education. Performing the study will add to the body of research that exists. It will

also help demonstrate the areas where further research is needed. The study intends to

show key relationships between intrinsic motivation, the undermining effect and

academic performance. However, when investigating these relationships, it is believed

gaps in the current literature will arise. By identifying and discussing these, the author

will be able to make suggestions for future research.

Significance of Research

The author asserts that being aware of student’s motivational preferences is key to

teacher success in higher education. If an instructor is aware of the two different types of

motivation and attends to them when developing lesson plans, student success rate and

performance could be potentially enhanced. Also, if instructors are aware of the

undermining effect of extrinsic motivation on intrinsic motivation, they might hesitate to

offer external rewards to students who are intrinsically motivated. Perhaps a system

outside of grading could be utilized. Remove the performance aspect for intrinsically

motivated students and it is possible they would actually retain more and be able to

demonstrate their knowledge acquisition in ways other than the traditional grading

system.


By deeply examining intrinsic motivation as well as the undermining effect, the

author hopes to provide evidence that moving away from a traditional grading system

could in fact be beneficial for certain students. Individuals whose retention is hampered

by the emphasis placed on grades (extrinsic motivation) could potentially be more

successful if that specific contingency was removed. Additionally, individuals who are so

intrinsically motivated they do not care at all about performance could benefit from a

non-traditional measure of performance. Perhaps one where they are not even aware they

are being observed or graded. Removing any external contingency could, in fact, be very

beneficial for both types of individuals.

Lastly, the study will contain information relevant to professors in higher

education. It will, hopefully, allow them to tailor their teaching methods to address

specific students needs. The information provided by the study will hopefully allow

educators to make inferences about their students’ motivational preferences and academic

performance.

Research Questions and Hypotheses

The researcher will attempt to address the following research questions via this study:

What is intrinsic motivation?

Does intrinsic motivation relate to student performance in higher education?

Is there a significant difference between intrinsically motivated students and

extrinsically motivated students in academic performance?

Does the Undermining Effect of extrinsic motivation on intrinsic motivation

reduce academic performance in higher education?


Hypotheses

There is a relationship between intrinsic motivation and student performance in

higher education.

Students who are intrinsically motivated will perform better academically than

students who are extrinsically motivated. There will be a positive relationship

between intrinsic motivation and academic performance.

The undermining effect results in intrinsically motivated students who have been

exposed to external reinforcement performing at a lower rate than intrinsically

motivated students who have not been exposed to external reinforcement.

Table 1: Definition of Terms

Key Definitions

Term Definition SourceMotivation “An internal state that

arouses learners, steers them in a particular direction and keeps them engaged in certain activities”

Motivation – (Lei, 2010, p. 156)

Intrinsic Motivation “Intrinsically motivated behaviors are those whose motivation is based in the inherent satisfaction of behaviors, rather than in contingencies or reinforcements that are operationally separable from those activities”

(Areepattamannil, Freeman & Klinger, 2011, p.428)

Extrinsic Motivation “A broad array of behaviors having in common the fact that activities are in engaged in not for reasons

(Areepattamannil et al., 2011, p. 428).


inherent in them, but for instrumental reasons. Rewards and constraints regulate these behaviors”

The Undermining Effect The effect of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is reduced by extrinsic rewards (undermined) and attention is shifted from individual reasons for participation to only the reward or performance incentive.

(Ryan and Deci, 2001; Murayama, Matsumoto, Izuma & Matsumoto, 2010)

Academic Achievement Student’s grade point average (GPA) . The weighted average of all grades received by a student during his/her academic career.

(Goodman, Jaffer, Mamdani, Mokgatie, Musariri, Pires and Schlechter, 2011)

Motivation. Motivation can occur in numerous different areas. Lei (2010) defines

it as an internal state of arousal which occurs and directs learners in specific directions. It

can apply to work, school, recreational activities or even home life. For the purposes of

this paper, motivation will be used specifically in reference to academia. Motivation to

perform well in higher education is the primary focus of this study. Within the category

of motivation, two subcategories exist. These two types are intrinsic and extrinsic

motivation.

Intrinsic Motivation. Intrinsic motivation is a broad subcategory of motivation

that also applies to numerous areas. It is, essentially, performing a task or doing

something because it is inherently interesting to the individual doing it (Deci, Koestner &

Ryan, 2001). People who are intrinsically motivated are driven to perform simply

because of the satisfaction they gain from the act. Intrinsic motivation is separate from


the external reinforcement that often coincides with performing. Getting an “A” because

you worked hard, or a pay-raise because you met sales goals is a good example of

everyday external reinforcement. People who are intrinsically motivated may perform

well, but they do not do so to attain these things. For the purpose of the research, intrinsic

motivation will be primarily examined in an academic setting. The focus is on the

difference in academic performance between students who are intrinsically motivated

versus extrinsically motivated.

Extrinsic Motivation. Extrinsic motivation is the extent to which external

reinforcement motivates an individual to perform (Areepattamannil et al., 2011).

Individuals who are extrinsically motivated work hard and attempt to do well for

incentives such as good grades or higher pay. They do not take inherent enjoyment from

the act of performance itself, but rather work for the reward at the end, which they find

reinforcing. This situation is very different from people who are intrinsically motivated.

People who are extrinsically motivated have often been cited as not performing as well

academically (Lei, 2010). They have also been observed to only exert the minimal level

of effort to achieve the reward, and often experience lower self-efficacy than individuals

who are intrinsically motivated. In general, extrinsic motivation holds more negative

connotations than intrinsic motivation. However, the two are heavily intertwined and one

cannot be examined without mentioning the other.

The Undermining Effect. The undermining effect is the extent to which assigned

tasks, tangible rewards or any type of contingency that rests on task performance, reduces

intrinsic motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Essentially, when a person who is intrinsically

motivated is given a contingency before hand “do ___ and you’ll get ___” the focus is


shifted from the internal locus to the external. Individuals no longer engage in the activity

because they find it reinforcing, instead they pursue it for the tangible reward they were

offered upon completion. Providing intrinsically motivated individuals with

contingencies effectively eliminates the internal motivation and enjoyment they

experience towards the task they are performing. The author is particularly interested in

researching this area because of the implications it has on student performance. If an

intrinsically motivated individual is distracted with a grade, they will most likely not

perform as well as if the contingency had never been put in place.

Academic Achievement. For the purposes of this paper academic achievement

will be measured using Grade Point Average. GPA is a commonly used measure which

encompasses all grades earned in a specific level of education, K-12, undergraduate,

graduate, etc. These weighted averages are used to measure how well a student is

learning and retaining information (Goodman et al, 2011). Although the author believes

alternative ways of measuring academic performance could be beneficial, GPA is a tested

and standardized method and this definition will be used.

Assumptions and Limitations

Significant research currently exists involving intrinsic motivation and academic

performance. Although, little research has been conducted regarding the undermining

effect, the author found more than they had anticipated at the onset of the study. Due to

the extensive nature of the available information, the time frame for the study was limited

from 2000 to 2012. Ryan and Deci first elaborated on the controversial theory of the

undermining effect in 2000. Although these researchers had previously postulated it

before, their 2000 article provided supposedly irrefutable proof it in fact existed. The


author of this study chose this article as the jumping off point for further investigation. It

was assumed all previous literature and research on the specific topic was performed

correctly and was reliable and valid. The author also assumed Ryan and Deci were

experts in their field and subsequently could be referenced as the final word on the

undermining effect and intrinsic motivation.

Ryan and Deci’s 2000 article lacks specific detail about the undermining effect. It

is simply mentioned as having recently been proven true and a brief definition is

provided. In the rest of the article, the authors talk about intrinsic motivation and extrinsic

motivation but fail to return to the relationship between the two. The author believes

more information regarding the relationship exists. The literature review will seek to

further explore it using Ryan and Deci’s seminal article as the beginning.

Although the author has provided definitions regarding intrinsic motivation and

extrinsic motivation, as well as the differences between the two, it is not the area of focus

for this study. Extrinsic motivation is referenced only to the extent to which it effects

intrinsic motivation. This variable was not thoroughly investigated, and only comprises a

brief area of the literature review. Background information was provided on it to set the

context for which the undermining effect will be researched as well as context for

intrinsic motivation.

In addition to these assumptions and limitations, academic performance is only

relevant to the extent it is used to demonstrate motivation. The author did not spend time

researching or validating measures of academic performance. Nor was there any research

performed regarding academic performance independent of motivation. Such as

examining standardized testing, or the effect of study habits on performance. These are


extraneous variables and were not examined, nor were they controlled for within the

research.


Chapter Two

Literature Review

In an attempt to understand the relationship existing between intrinsic motivation

and academic performance, as well as how the undermining effect can impair academic

performance, a literate review was conducted. The following chapter includes the

methodology, the conceptual framework, theoretical framework and finally, a review of

the pertinent literature beginning with Ryan and Deci’s seminal work published in 2000.

Other literature was used to provide background information and context, however, the

following section specifically addresses the variables and hypotheses discussed in the

first chapter.

Methodology

The author used several research databases to identify articles for the literature

review. JSTOR, psychinfo, EBSCOhost and the JMU library were all used to gather

articles. The James Madison University library website was used to select the relevant

databases. In addition to these databases the author also referenced other online sources

including Google scholar as well as sciencedirect.com. One of the elimination criteria

was date. Only articles between 2000 and 2012 were used. Dissertations and book

chapters were also excluded. These publications were excluded due to the fact that the

majority of these documents are not peer reviewed, which was a criterion for the articles

included in the literature review.

Specific search words and phrases such as “intrinsic motivation,” “motivation,”

“undermining effect,” “academic performance” and “education” were used. A

combination of these different terms yielded the results summarized in the following


review. In addition to these research databases and search words, the author also

referenced several college level textbooks. These were used to provide the initial idea for

the study, as well as provide background and context for the author’s hypotheses.

Conceptual Framework

Figure 1: Conceptual Framework depicting the study’s variables: intrinsic motivation,

extrinsic motivation and academic achievement

The conceptual framework depicted in Figure 1 above depicts the relationship

between extrinsic motivation, intrinsic motivation and academic achievement as

perceived by the researcher. This framework was developed based on extensive research

done in the field of motivation. Individuals are either motivated intrinsically or

extrinsically (Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 2001) when it comes to academia. Although some

individuals who are intrinsically motivated are also receptive to external reinforcement,


their primary drive is still internal. The same is true of individuals who are extrinsically

motivated, although they may sometimes have intrinsic motives for what they do, they

are primarily receptive to external reinforcement and this is their reason for performance.

Figure 1 depicts the type of motivation, intrinsic or extrinsic, and then shows how they

overlap into academic performance. Students are motivated in one of these two ways, and

as a result of this, their academic performance is affected.

Motivation. Motivation cannot be discussed without first addressing its underlying

theories. Fundamentally, both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are a function of

behavior (Powell, Symbaluk & Honey, 2009). Motivation is an observable and

measurable behavior. If an organism seeks out food because it is hungry, it is safe to say

hunger is the motivator and seeking food is the behavior indicating this condition.

However, humans and animals are motivated to do things that are not necessarily

biologically relevant or biologically motivated (Kalat, 2009). What is the motivation for

those behaviors? The answer to that question rests with contingencies and schedules of

reinforcement and punishment. All behaviors can either be continued through

reinforcement, or stopped via punishment (Powell, Symbaluk & Honey, 2009). When

individuals perform well on a test they are doing so because they are trying to avoid the

punishment of a bad grade or because they are working for the reinforcement of a good

grade.

Intrinsic motivation does not impact humans in the same manner. That is,

supposedly, when an individual engages in an activity because it is internally rewarding,

it is safe to say, if the activity is internally rewarding, or the behavior is enjoyable in its


self, than the activity is reinforcing (Powell, Symbaluk & Honey, 2009). People who are

said to be intrinsically motivated are simply being reinforced by something internal. It

does not mean their behavior is not being reinforced or punished. It simply means their

behavior is being reinforced or punished from an internal state. What these individuals

find to be appetitive is different than what people who experience extrinsic motivation

find to be appetitive. An intrinsically motivated person might do well in school simply

for the challenge of learning. He or she is seeking out learning because it is reinforcing.

An extrinsically motivated individual might do well in school because he or she is

seeking out a good grade. Getting the good grade is reinforcing. When discussing

intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, there is not doubt it is best, and most parsimoniously

explained from a behavioral perspective.


Theoretical Framework

Figure 2: Theoretical Framework

Motivation is encompassed by numerous psychological theories and forms the

basis for research done on choice and behavior (Powell & Symbaluk 2009). Due to the

extensive amount of information in this field, the author had to narrow the scope of the

theories used for this review. Social-Cognitive theory was used for the theoretical root of

S o c i a l C o g n i t i v e

T h e o r y

M o t i v a t i o n

I n t r i n s i c M o t i v a t i o n

T h e U n d e r m i n i

n g E f f e c t

A c a d e m i c P e r f o r m a n

c e


the study because self-efficacy and self-directed learning are heavily discussed in this

theory. Self-efficacy and self-directed learning are both aspects of intrinsic motivation

and help to explain why people are internally driven to perform in academic settings.

Social-Cognitive Theory

Social-Cognitive theory began to develop in the 1960’s as a challenge to

behaviorism (Schunk, 2012). The behavioral perspective, although, parsimonious, is also

reductionistic. As research in the field of psychology developed, it became clear that

Albert Bandura’s Social-Cognitive Theory not only helped explain what motivated

students but also why (Bandura, 1989; Greddler, 2012). It is the further development of

behavioral perspectives into a more in-depth look at social influences on human actions.

Social-Cognitive Theory essentially states that individuals learn from watching

others and that learning can occur without an apparent behavior change. This can be in

regard to pro-social behavior, antisocial behavior or even something like schoolwork

(Bandura & Schunk, 1983; Greddler, 2012). The theory also states that there are external

factors that influence learning, such as engaging in intentional and purposive actions and

influences from the media on attitudes and beliefs (Greddler, 2012).

Social-Cognitive Theory also offers further explanations for perceived self-

efficacy and self regulated learning. Both of these concepts are integral to explaining

motivation, both intrinsic and extrinsic. Perceived self-efficacy is the extent to which a

person believes in his or her own capabilities and his or her ability to perform. With

regard to motivation, the higher one’s perceived self-efficacy, the better one performs

(Bandura & Schunk, 1983). Self-regulated learning is essentially compatible with

intrinsic motivation. It refers to a student’s ability to engage in school activities on his or


her own. Both of these are key elements not only for learning, but also for student’s

academic performance.

Social-Cognitive theory builds on behaviorism but also adds its own component.

It states that learning is observational. Specifically referencing a type called imitative

learning (Greddler, 2012). Imitative learning occurs when one individual view another,

mimics the behavior, and then is reinforced or punished based on their performance of

the behavior (Powell, Symbaluk & Honey, 2009). Bandura, Ross & Ross (1961)

demonstrated this well in their classic study using children and Bobo dolls. It is a direct

example of Social Learning Theory, which is a type of imitative learning.

Bandura originally explained his Social-Cognitive Theory as involving three

different factors working together. He referred to this as reciprocal determinism (Wood &

Bandura, 1989). Reciprocal determinism is the relationship between the behavior, the

environment, and the internal events that then influence perception and action (Wood &

Bandura, 2012). This is not dissimilar from Skinner’s theory of operant conditioning

(Skinner, 1981); it is just more advanced. In operant conditioning there is an antecedent

that elicits a behavior, which then is reinforced or punished by a consequence (Powell,

Symbaluk & Honey, 2009). The behavior is conditioned as a response to the antecedent

and as a result of the reinforcement or punishment, the behavior continues or desists. In

Bandura’s theory (Bandura, 1989), rather than occurring in a linear fashion, all three

factors interconnect and influence each other simultaneously. However, the primary

difference between these two theories is the fact that Social-Cognitive theory accounts for

internal states, such as thoughts and emotions. Behaviorism does not account for these


and was rejected by the field of psychology as a result of this (Powell, Symbaluk &

Honey, 2009).

It is potentially difficult to see how Social-Cognitive theory (Bandura, 1989) and

Skinner’s behaviorism (Skinner, 1988) relate to motivation. However, explaining the

psychological processes behind the overt behavior is the first step to understanding what

motivates individuals, as well as why. According to Bandura (1989), self-efficacy plays a

key role in motivating individuals. Self-efficacy is the manifestation of intrinsic

motivation. When individuals have high self-efficacy, they set high goals for themselves.

When they set high goals for themselves, they are simultaneously more reinforced when

they achieve them. From this construct, it can be inferred that individuals with high self-

efficacy are also those who are strongly intrinsically motivated. This theory transfers

directly to academic achievement. Individuals who have high self-efficacy will set higher

academic goals and thus be more likely to perform well and achieve their set goals.

Conversely, individuals who have low self-efficacy, or those who are potentially

more externally motivated, have a difficult time setting high goals. In addition to this

goal-setting challenge, they have difficulty persisting in the face of adversity and will

easily give up or settle for something less then their original goal (Bandura, 1989). When

applying this theory to an academic setting, it is important to consider these individuals.

They are the ones who will be more likely to get poor grades or potentially even

withdraw from school. It is also important to consider alternative ways of motivating

them. Just because individuals are extrinsically motivated does not mean they cannot

become high achievers. If individuals are presented with the correct external reinforces


they can be effectively motivated and perform as well academically as their intrinsically

motivated peers (Powell, Symbaluk & Honey, 2009).

An Overview of Motivation

Ryan and Deci (2000) define motivation as the experience of being moved to do

something. A person who is energized and active toward a specific goal is considered

motivated. An individual who feels no specific urge or direction to do anything is

considered unmotivated, or amotivated. Motivation is generally defined as a type of

action or behavior, something that is observable and measurable from the outside (Deci,

1972).

The theory and foundation of motivation can be traced to the early to mid 1900’s,

when psychology, as a scientific field, was just beginning (Schunk, 2012). In the 1930’s

the behaviorist movement began to define what motivation is in regard to behavioral

patterns and operant conditioning. The Law of Effect was developed, which states, when

a response is followed by reinforcement, the response will have an increased likelihood

of occurring (Thorndike, 1927). In addition, the premise arose that humans’ behavior is

goal directed; if a person believes something positive will occur based on his or her

action, then he or she will be more motivated to perform the action or behavior in

response to the proposed goal (Deci, 1972). These theories all laid the foundation for

what is referred to as motivation.

Motivation cannot be defined in a linear fashion. People do not all have the same

type of motivation, nor do they have the same amount of it. Motivation, like most human

behaviors and internal emotional states, exists in a continuum (Ryan & Deci, 2000).


When discussing motivation, it is important to pay attention to the underlying goals

causing the behavior. If a person is motivated to do something for an external reward,

then the person is extrinsically motivation (Reiss, 2012). If a person is motivated to

perform an activity because he or she finds the behavior or action in itself to be inherently

rewarding, then the person is intrinsically motivated (Reiss, 2012). The concept of

intrinsic motivation is a very different construct from what was believed by the original

behaviorists, which suggests all behavior is externally reinforced or punished. According

to the current theory of motivation, internal states can be equally as reinforcing as

external rewards (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Academic theories regarding motivation have recently been validated by

empirical research in the field of neuroscience. Lee, Reeve, Xue and Xiong (2012)

performed an fMRI study on 10 individuals. While undergoing the fMRI, individuals

were given scenarios to imagine. One was intrinsically motivated, and one was

extrinsically motivated. What Lee et al., (2012) found was different areas of the brain

were used when considering the different types of motivation. The insular cortex was

where intrinsic motivation was processed. The insular cortex is usually recruited for

emotional processing (Lee et al., 2012), which suggests intrinsic motivation is more

emotionally driven. This research is consistent with motivation and behaviorist theories.

The researchers also found extrinsic motivation was primarily processed in the PCC. The

PCC is an area of the brain that has historically been reported as involved in reward-

based decisions making (Lee et al., 2012). Once again, this is consistent with the

motivation and behaviorist theories. Essentially, there is now clear neurological evidence

that extrinsic and intrinsic motivation exist and are inherently different.


Intrinsic Motivation

As previously stated, intrinsic motivation is defined as engaging in an activity or

behavior for enjoyment of the experience (Gillet, Vallerand & Lafreniere, 2012). In

educational research, it has been found that intrinsic motivation can produce better

conceptual learning and academic performance (Gillet et al., 2012). This result is

consistent with the theory that individuals who are intrinsically motivated also have high

self-efficacy for those activities they are motivated toward (Elliot & Harackiewicz,

1994). Self-efficacy is defined as an individual’s belief that he or she is capable of

successfully performing a task he or she is effective at already (Walker, Greene &

Mansell, 2005). Most individuals who have high self-efficacy are also intrinsically

motivated. It is difficult to have self-efficacy without intrinsic motivation. Typically, if an

individual believes he or she is competent at a task, and then engages in it and performs

well, he or she is inherently rewarded by the task and completion (Walker et al., 2005).

The nexus of self-efficacy, competence and task completion, represents intrinsic

motivation.

In several studies performed by Albert Bandura, self-efficacy has been cited as

key factor for learning in school aged children, (Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Bandura &

Cervone, 1983). Both studies found that goal setting, both by the children and by the

teachers significantly increased academic performance. In addition, the completion of

goals that were set led to higher self-efficacy, which then led to higher goals set. This

cyclical relationship indicates the importance of self-efficacy. This research indicates that

intrinsic motivation is not something that occurs spontaneously. Rather, it seems that

intrinsic motivation is both cultivated and enhanced by self-efficacy as well as by goal


setting and goal completion. Although this makes sense, it also indicates that intrinsic

motivation may originate from extrinsic motivation in childhood. Through the

reinforcement of goal completion, different motivation styles are cultivated in individuals

at an early age. Even though intrinsic motivation may not occur as spontaneously as

previously believed, both studies found that it led to higher academic achievement.

Intrinsic motivation has been found to be academically beneficial. When

individuals who are intrinsically motivated are faced with a challenge, they are more

likely to persist in the face of difficulty than those individuals who are extrinsically

motivated (Walker et all, 2005). This is because intrinsic motivation is a self-determined

and frequently autonomous form of motivation (Areepattamannil et al., 2011). According

to Ryan and Deci (2000) the most rewarding and important aspect of intrinsic motivation

is that of “free choice”. When people are faced with several different tasks and they

choose to engage in a specific one, they are not just experiencing self-direction and free

choice. They are, also, experiencing pleasure from the task and are more likely to

perform well at the task because they chose it themselves (Ryan & Deci, 2000). It can be

inferred that if an individual engages in an academic task he or she finds to be inherently

rewarding and enjoyable, than he or she will most likely perform better than someone

who is doing it for a grade. This relationship between enjoyment and performance forms

the basis for why intrinsic motivation seems to correlate to academic achievement

(Walker et al., 2005).

Despite the evidence that intrinsic motivation is beneficial to academic

performance, there is some research that says otherwise. Individuals who are intrinsically

motivated can get wrapped up in something called “flow” which is characterized by total


absorption in the activity and a loss of attention to time and space (Lei, 2010).

Essentially, individuals becomes so engaged in what they are doing, they lose a sense of

their surroundings (Lei, 2010). Flow can be a drawback if someone has more than one

homework assignment, and gets absorbed to the point that nothing else gets done.

Another potential downfall of intrinsic motivation is that the learning process can become

more important than the material being learned (Lei, 2010). Students who enjoy learning

will engage solely for this purpose with very little effort made to actually retain

information. They simply enjoy learning and engage as a result of the learning process

(Lei, 2010).

Despite these potential pitfalls, the benefits of intrinsic motivation to learning are

irrefutable. The same can be true of extrinsic motivation though. It appears that any

motivation in relation to academic achievement is better than none. Amotivation is

hypothesized to be the third type of motivation and is manifested as a complete lack of

interest or drive to do anything (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Although amotivation does not

play a role in this study, it is still important to acknowledge its existence.

Background on Extrinsic Motivation

Although academically not as beneficial as intrinsic motivation, extrinsic

motivation still has its place. Depending on how learning situations are approached, it

may be as beneficial as intrinsic motivation for individuals who experience this type of

motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Gillet et al., (2012) found intrinsic motivation decreases

as student’s age increases. Conversely, student extrinsic motivation seems to increase.

Despite the change in these two variables in relation to each other, there was not a

significant decline in academic performance. Rather, the individuals who were


extrinsically motivated from the beginning did not perform as well. Individuals whose

levels shifted performed just as well, merely for different motivational reasons. (Gillet, et

al., 2012).

Extrinsic motivation has been heavily cited and discussed as being inferior to

intrinsic motivation (Lei, 2010). Although according to Ryan and Deci (2000) this

perceived inferiority is not necessarily the case, its pitfalls must still be discussed.

Individuals who are extrinsically motivated are prone to doing only the bare minimum

(Lei, 2010). They will frequently show little retention of material once they have taken an

initial academic test and performed well (Lei, 2010). These individuals will also perform

poorly in general if there is not enough external reward to justify their actions (Lei,

2010). Extrinsically motivated individuals are constantly at risk for under performing

because the contingencies for their behavior are not being met. This is a far cry from

intrinsically motivated individuals who perform purely for their own satisfaction.

The Undermining Effects of Extrinsic Motivation on Intrinsic Motivation

Research suggests intrinsic motivation can be undermined by extrinsic motivation

(Ryan & Deci, 2000). The idea is the attention is shifted from the internal enjoyment and

onto the external reward by reinforcing or offering an incentive for a behavior that was

previously intrinsically motivated (Deci, 1972). Several studies performed by Deci

(1972) showed individuals who were paid money to perform a task they found

intrinsically motivating, were less intrinsically motivated afterwards to perform the task

than individuals who received no pay (Deci, 1972).

The undermining effect, although a legitimate psychological theory, has been met

with some skepticism since its recent development. Deci, Koestner and Ryan (2001)


wrote a rebuttal article to one written that had questioned their original work, regarding

their postulation of the undermining effects’ existence. The article (not encompassed in

the scope of this study) called the undermining effect “minimal” and “inconsequential”.

The meta analysis conducted by Deci, Koestner and Ryan (2001) targeted several issues

that were brought to light regarding the undermining effect.

In their article, the authors (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 2001) exhaustively

discussed Cognitive Evaluation Theory. CET postulates that intrinsic motivation is a

direct result of the psychological need for competence and self-determination. CET also

argues that when extrinsic rewards are applied to intrinsic motivation, the extrinsic

reinforcement serves to decrease it. The decrease in intrinsic motivation is a direct result

of the individual’s change in perception regarding his or her competence and self-

determination. By taking the individual’s locus of control and shifting it out ward, the

individual effectively loses any intrinsic motivation they previously had.

According to Deci, Koestner and Ryan (2001) CET does not only apply to

schedules of reinforcement that are based on rewards. It also applies to other types of

external feedback, such as evaluation. Hypothetically, students who are intrinsically

motivated could be distracted from their internal motivation by assessments such as tests

and report cards. CET further supports the idea of the undermining effect. Although its

validity can be called into question because CET was in fact developed by Deci (Deci,

Koestner & Ryan, 2001), it rests heavily on the premises of Social Cognitive theory

(Deci, Koestner & Ryan). The idea of self-determination and self-efficacy are all integral

parts of Social Cognitive theory that cross over into CET.


In their article, Deci, Koestner and Ryan (2001) further elaborate on the effects of

different types of external reinforcement on intrinsic motivation. This relationship is

relevant because not all external reinforcement results in a decrease in intrinsic

motivation. They found that tangible rewards or reinforcement resulted in a decrease,

where non-tangible (such as verbal feedback) did not. This research has heavy

implications for K-12 teaching as well as higher education. Not only does it support the

undermining effect as existing, it also suggests that certain students should indeed be

taught differently so as not to demotivate them.

Weichman and Gurland (2009) conducted their research not just on the

undermining effect, but what actually happened to intrinsic motivation when it occurred.

The researchers used a free choice experiment, where individuals could choose an

activity to engage in within certain limits. Subsequently, they would also choose the time

of engagement, within certain limits. What they found was that intrinsic motivation was

indeed undermined by the addition of an external reinforcer, but before the decrease in

motivation occurred, it was initially polarized. Subjects in the experiment experienced a

peak in intrinsic motivation in response to the external reinforcer before it sharply

dropped off. This research shows that in some circumstances, when used correctly,

external reinforcement can actually enhance intrinsic motivation. The research conducted

by Weichman and Gurland (2009) combined with that of Deci, Koestner and Ryan (2001)

could be used by educators to correctly reinforce intrinsically motivated students. By

delivering non-tangible rewards on a variable interval scale, intrinsically motivated

students’ performance could potentially be enhanced rather than undermined.


Research conducted Carton and Nowicki (1998) found similar results, although,

their research targeted the use of tangible reinforcement in Cognitive Behavioral Therapy

and discrimination training. Their research supports the theory of the undermining effect,

but provides the explanation for it from an operant standpoint. The research in this article

suggests that when conducting Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, the undermining effect is a

result of discrimination training. Discrimination training being is defined as informing a

therapy participant that they will be rewarded for performing the activity and then in a

subsequent session informing them they will not be rewarded. By implementing these

two different conditions participants are taught to discriminate and thus respond

differently. If the context of stated reinforcement is removed, hypothetically, the

undermining effect is also. The individuals will not be anticipating reinforcement and

will behave based on their free will and intrinsic motivation.

This study does not have the direct implications that others do, but it provides

relevant background. From a behaviorist standpoint, the undermining effect does exist

and it can be countered. If students were reinforced in such a way that they were unaware

it was coming, their intrinsic motivation could be retained and their performance

potentially enhanced. Like previous studies, the one by Carton and Nowicki provides

further evidence the undermining effect exists and subsequent solutions to it. Although it

is redundant to say, it is essential that professors and other educators are up to date on

current research. Student’s performance could be enhanced, as could learning and

retention.

Research that has been done using grade school age children found that offering

external reinforcement for grades can impair the actual learning process (Cialdani et al,


1998). Students who experience more external reinforcement for performing well do not

develop the ability to direct their own education and learning. Instead, they are reliant on

incentives and do not develop the intrinsic motivation needed to succeed. The same study

by Cialdani et al (1998) also found that they could over come the undermining effect by

offering specific types of reinforcement. The authors found that just reinforcing a student

with a positive statement was effective and did not undermine the student’s intrinsic

motivation. However, if students were labeled as “the type of student who wants to write

correctly for a prize” (p. 259) they subsequently appeared to lose their intrinsic

motivation for “writing correctly”. Like previous studies, this one shows that the

undermining effect is not just a result of the type of reinforcement that is offered, but also

related to the locus of control. If the locus of control is shifted externally by the teacher,

the students lose their intrinsic motivation.

A study by Lin, McKeachie and Kim (2002) provided similar evidence to those

cited above. In their study, extrinsic motivation was shown to be a moderating factor

between performance and intrinsic motivation. Individuals with high intrinsic motivation

and a little extrinsic motivation performed the best. When students were given extrinsic

reinforcement, their levels of intrinsic motivation were affected.

Elliot and Harrackiewicz (1994) had similar results to the studies cited above.

Their study showed that when goals were assigned to intrinsically motivated individuals,

this motivation was undermined. The authors’ results inherently make sense. When

individuals who are intrinsically motivated to perform well as a result of self-efficacy and

autonomy are assigned goals, this motivation is taken away (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

Conversely, for individuals who are extrinsically motivated, assigning them goals can


actually enhance their learning and performance because contingencies are being put in

place (Deci, 1972). The interplay between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic

reinforcement is undeniable.

This study hopes to make clear the differences between intrinsic motivation

versus extrinsic motivation and academic achievement. There seems to be less evidence

of academic performance differences between these two in higher education. Previous

literature indicates that in school age children, intrinsic motivation results in better

learning outcomes. The researcher suspects the same is true in college age adults. By

assessing for the students’ motivation style, teaching them a task and testing them on it,

the researcher hopes to show intrinsically motivated individuals perform inherently

better. If this outcome can be shown, a case can be made for tailoring lessons to the type

of motivation. Students who are extrinsically motivated need different contingencies and

possibly different classroom settings and assignments. By showing there is a difference in

learning between the two types, the researcher hopes to provide a valid case for

implementing different teaching methods to these students.

The current study intends to add to the body of knowledge already existing in the

field of motivation. It hopes to provide a more extensive look at the undermining effect,

as well as aggregate knowledge on the three variables discussed in the introduction;

intrinsic motivation, undermining effect and academic performance. By examining the

relationship between these three variables, the author hopes to explain why some students

are more successful than others in higher education. The next chapter will investigate and

analyze the relationship between these variables and based on this attempt to answer the


research questions discussed in chapter one. In addition to this, the analysis will be used

to support the previously stated hypotheses or nullify them.


Chapter 3

Analysis

Motivation is a widely researched topic that spans more than half a century and

encompasses a vast array of data and information. Motivation is not as simple as it seems

at face value and is broken down into several sub categories, the relevant two for the

study being intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Both of these areas include a significant

amount of research. When beginning this study the author had to narrow the field of

investigation. Deci, Ryan and Koestner’s (2001) seminal article on the undermining

effect was used as the point of departure for the current study. This article was selected

on the basis that it was the first widely cited and discussed article on the undermining

effect. It was controversial and elicited a large amount of discussion and numerous

rebuttal articles by other authors. This in turn led to several other response articles by

Deci, Ryan and Koestner. However, before it, little empirical research existed on the

subject. The author did, however, find several articles from 1998 (Wolters, 1998; Carlton

& Nowicki, 1998; Cialdini et al, 1998; Deci, Ryan & Koestner, 1999) that were included

in the study because they were relevant and literature on the subject of the undermining

effect was hard to find.

When beginning the analysis, the author thought it best to group the variables

under the categories of intrinsic motivation and academic achievement and then the

undermining effect. Within these broad categories the sub categories of author, type of

study, sample size, K-12 or higher education, variables and whether the study was related

to motivation in academia or in another area were used.


Table 2: Matrix of Studies Conducted since 1998 on intrinsic motivation and its relationship to academic performance

Intrinsic Motivation and Academic Performance

Author Type of Study Sample Size Participant Age Variables

Addressed the relationship between motivation and academic performanceYes or No

Results

Lee, Reeve, Xue &Xiong (2012)

Laboratory, quasi-experimental design, within subjects

10 Mean 19.7 Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, neutral condition, neural activity

No Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation has different recruitment patterns of neurons. Intrinsic motivation is processed in the insular cortex – area of the brain responsible for emotional processing. Extrinsic motivation is processed in the PCC – area of the brain that processes the learned value of a stimulus.

Gillet, Vallerand & Lafreiere (2011)

Classroom Survey 1600 9-17, mean 13.1 Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, school motivation, perceived autonomy support toward school activities

Yes – academic performance in K-12 students.

Intrinsic motivation towards school decreases between the ages of 9-15 but begins to increase after age 16, extrinsic motivation decrease through age 12 where it began to stabilize. Teacher autonomy support was found to mediate the relationship between age and intrinsic motivation.

Areepattamannil, Freeman & Klinger (2011)

Classroom Survey 718 9-18 mean 16 Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, academic achievement of Indian immigrant and Indian adolescent students

Yes – academic performance in k-12 students

Indian immigrant students out performed their Indian counter parts academically. It is believed this is due to higher intrinsic motivation that is a result of the more autonomy-supportive classroom the immigrant students experienced.

Author Type of Study Sample Size Participant Age Variables Addressed the

relationship between Results

39


motivation and academic performanceYes or No

Lei (2010) Meta Analysis Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, academic performance

Yes – this article discusses which motivation type leads to higher academic performance

Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can be beneficial in academia. Intrinsic motivation is more frequently cited as being beneficial and tied to self-efficacy and creativity. It does have some specific down falls though. Individuals can underperform at tasks they are not interested in and occasionally become too wrapped up in tasks they enjoy to the exclusion of others. Extrinsic motivation frequently results in lower performance because the focus is not on learning but on the external reinforcement such as the grade. It can also lead to lower resilience in the face of a challenge and students attempting to get by with doing the least amount of work.

Walker, Greene & Mansell (2005)

Classroom survey 191 18-22 Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, academic motivation, self-efficacy, cognitive engagement, academic identification

Yes – academic performance is addressed as a function of motivation in college age students

Academic identification helps to predict meaningful cognitive engagement more than self-efficacy and intrinsic motivation alone. Intrinsic motivation, self-efficacy, and identification with academics all predicted meaningful cognitive engagement in different ways. Extrinsic motivation was the only variable that was found to predict shallow cognitive engagement.

Author Type of Study Sample Size Participant Age Variables


Results

40


Lin, McKeachie, & Kim (2002)

Quasi field experiment

577 College age undergraduate students

Motivation for good grades (extrinsic motivation), prefer to be challenged (intrinsic motivation), course grades

Yes – motivation and academic performance in higher education

Medium extrinsic motivation and high intrinsic motivation was found to correlate with higher grades than those students with either high or low extrinsic motivation. Students who had mid to high intrinsic motivation were low in test-anxiety and high in self-efficacy. Mid level extrinsic motivation and high intrinsic motivation was the most positively related to good grades.

Wolters (1998)

Classroom survey 115 College age students, mean 15

Motivation, self-regulated learning, strategies that regulate motivation, achievement

Yes – academic performance and motivation in higher education

Students reported that they self regulated learning with a variety of motivational strategies. Extrinsic and intrinsic strategies were applied to a variety of motivational problems. Goal orientation (learning vs. grade) was found to correlate with whether the students self-reported intrinsic or extrinsic motivation.

Goodmna, Jaffer, Keresztesi, Mamdani, Mokgatle, Musiriti, Pires, Aschlechter (2011)

Cross-sectional quantitative relational design

254 College age students

Motivation, achievement motivation, effort, GPA, reward

Yes – academic performance and motivation in higher education

Motivation for academic achievement was correlated to student GPA. More highly motivated students performed better. Both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation was found to correlate with student performance but of the two, intrinsic motivation was found to correlate with students applying more effort and performing better academically. Students who had less motivation exerted less effort and ultimately did not perform as well as students who were either intrinsically or extrinsically motivated.

Table 3: Matrix of Studies conducted since 1998 on the Undermining Effect

The Undermining Effect

41


Author Type of Study Sample Size

Participant Age Variables

Article addressed the relationship between motivation and academic performanceYes or No

Results

Murayma, Matsumoto, Izuma & Matsumoto (2010)

Between subjects experimental design


Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, neural activity

No – not related to academic performance

Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are processed in different areas of the brain and extrinsic motivation undermines intrinsic motivation from a neurological standpoint. Activity in the anterior striatum and the prefrontal area decreased with the undermining effect.

Weichman & Gurland (2009)


61 College age students mean 19.46

Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, monetary reward

No – motivation was not related to academic performance in this experiment

Extrinsic rewards were found to undermine intrinsic motivation as shown by externally reinforcing individual’s behavior during a free choice experiment. Extrinsic reinforcement was also found to initially polarize and increase intrinsic motivation before leading to it sharply declining.

Carton & Nowicki (1998)

Within subjects experimental design

66 Undergraduate college students

Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, undermining effect, word searchers

No – motivation was not related to academic performance in this experiment

Extrinsic motivation was found to have an undermining effect on intrinsic motivation as observed by participant behavior. However, participants self-reported significantly higher intrinsic motivation when it was paired with an extrinsic reward. 14??




Results

Cialdini, Between subjects 142 4th and 5th grade Undermining effect, Yes – handwriting was Pairing a trait label with an external

42

Jane Thall, 10/30/13,

What is this 14, delete maybe???


Eisenberg, Green, Rhoads & Bator (1998)

experimental design

age children hand writing, tangible reward

considered a measure of academic performance for this age group

reinforce was found to counteract the undermining effect up to 9 days after the study was completed. So long as the reward was tied to an internal trait, in this case wanting to do well on a school writing exercise, the individual’s intrinsic motivation was not affected. It is possible, though, that the statement itself is serving as a reward and this was cited as a potential confound.

Deci, Ryan & Koestner (1999)

Meta Analysis – Rebuttal argument

Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, the undermining effect, cognitive evaluation theory

Yes- academic performance was discussed in regard to motivation in this article

Deci, Ryan and Koestner defend their Cognitive Evaluation Theory. This theory explains the undermining effect of external rewards on intrinsic motivation. In addition to this, it also discusses how external rewards can have positive effects on intrinsic motivation when they are tied to the individuals perceived competence. Essentially if rewards are tied to self-efficacy. The paper counters every point and wraps up by stating the CET is still the best way to explain the undermining effect.




Results

43


Houlfort, N., Koestner, R., Joussemet, M., Nantel-Vivier, A., Lekes, N. (2002).

Study 1 – between subjects experimental design

Study 2 – between subjects experimental design (same as study one but with children)

85

145

College age students, mean 19.3

Children in 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th grade

Intrinsic motivation, undermining effect, reward (monetary for adults, perceived for children), task performance

No – this study was not related to academic performance. It targeted specifically the undermining effect of perceived external reinforcement on intrinsic motivation.

This study was performed to clarify the debate between Eisenberg and Deci (the above article was part of this debate) as to the impact of performance contingent rewards on perceived autonomy and the undermining effect this has. They both essentially had the same argument but reached different conclusions based on their different backgrounds, cognitive vs. behaviorist. In this study performance contingent rewards were found to have a negative impact on affective autonomy (absence of feeling pressure or tension) but not decisional autonomy (feeling of choice). Evidence was also found that performance contingent rewards had a positive effect on feelings of competence. By redefining autonomy, the authors of this article hoped to settle the debate between Eisenberg and Deci.




Results

44


Hennessey, B.A. (2003)

Meta Analysis Intrinsic motivation, creativity, the undermining effect

Yes – This research targets the negative effects of external reinforcement on intrinsic motivation in an academic setting

This article discusses the “social psychology of creativity” and talks about the effect environmental factors have on it. Essentially, if a creative person is put in a context where they feel pressure to perform, their intrinsic motivation (creativity) will be damaged and most likely lowered. The studies referenced in this article were all performed over seas. The undermining effect is not a western construct and the issue of creativity (intrinsic motivation) being impaired by external reinforcement is becoming recognized in psychology worldwide. The author poses interesting questions regarding workplace performance. She suggests that understanding the undermining effect can contribute to practice changes and more creative work environments that lead to higher productivity.




Results

45


Cimpian, A., Arce, H.M., Markman, E.M., Dweck, C.S. (2007)


24 4-5 years old Undermining effect, reaction to set back, generic and non-generic praise

Yes –motivation to perform a school related task in preschool age children

There was no difference between the generic praise condition and the non-generic praise condition during the baseline where children had experienced no mistakes when performing the task. After the mistake had occurred, children who had received generic praise exhibited more helpless behavior than those children who had received non-generic praise. Generic praise is believed to be more representative to the child of their actual skill and thus when they are criticized based on this their motivation to perform such a task as drawing is more extremely undermined than those children who perceive criticism as not being related to their actual ability but rather just to a mistake they made.




Results

46


Tietje, B.C (2002)



Undermining effect, external reinforcement, brand preference and consumer choice

No – not related to motivation for academic performance

Rewards that were provided immediately prior to the presentation of the stimulus (seltzer water brand) and were directly linked to the stimulus as the source of the reward were correlated with higher consumer self report of product enjoyment. Rewards that were delayed, led to lower self-report of product enjoyment. Individuals who received the monetary compensation for sampling the brand reported differently than those who had received no compensation. The external reinforcement in the delayed presentation undermined their internal perception of the brand. Rewards were found to enhance or undermine product evaluations based on two factors, the timing of the reward and the source.




Results

47


Cooper, R.B., Jayatilaka, B. (2006)


138 College seniors The undermining effect, creativity,

No – this article did not target motivation for academic performance

Support for obligation motivations existence was found in this experiment and it appears to have an effect on creativity that is similar to that of intrinsic motivation. The article hypothesizes that this is due to the fact that when reward is not contingent upon performance, people feel free to explore the task for internal enjoyment. In addition to this, when the reward is simply contingent on participation (which it was for this study) individuals experience positive effects from the obligation motivation because although they feel obligated to participate, participation is seen as an adequate trade for the reward, which then opens them up to exploring the task in whatever way the desire.




Results

48


Deci, Ryan & Koestner (2001)

Meta Analysis The undermining effect, cognitive evaluation theory

Yes – related to motivation for academic performance

CET proposes that core of intrinsic motivation is the need for autonomy and self-determination. External variables are processed based on the extent to which they influence an individuals feeling of competence, autonomy and self-determination. The undermining effect of external reinforcement is dependent on the type of reinforcement (verbal vs. tangible) and whether they are performance contingent (a person knows that a reward is possible and is basing their performance on it. Verbal rewards are less likely to undermine an individual’s intrinsic motivation and can frequently enhance it when used correctly. Tangible rewards are more likely to undermine it especially individual is performing solely for the tangible reward.




Results

Deci, Ryan & Koestner

Response Article The undermining effect, cognitive evaluation theory

Yes – related to motivation for academic performance

This article was written in rebuttal to one published by Cameron (1999), which was a response to the previous article in this

49


(2001) matrix. The discussion between Deci and Cameron is ongoing and central to the theory of the undermining effect. Tangible rewards can be used in a way that has a less negative effect on intrinsic motivation. However, the way most rewards are currently used presents a problem in education. Rewards are consistently used in a way that undermines intrinsic motivation. Research has been repeatedly presented supporting cognitive evaluation theory as well as the undermining effect. Despite this, it is still not getting the attention or reform necessary, and many people continue to attack it.

50


Hypothesis Discussion

Hypothesis 1. There is a relationship between intrinsic motivation and student

performance in higher education.

The researcher found numerous articles that addressed the relationship between

intrinsic motivation and student performance. However, there were not as many

pertaining specifically to higher education as originally anticipated. Many of the studies

that were performed using college age individuals did not exactly target the relationship

between the students type of motivation and academic performance. Two articles were

found that directly tested the relationship between intrinsic motivation in college age

students and academic performance.

Goodman, Jaffer, Keresztesi, Mamdani, Mokgatle, Musiriti, Pires and Aschlechter

(2011) found that students who were intrinsically motivated performed better in college

than students who were extrinsically motivated or amotivated. Performance was

measured using GPA and motivation type was assessed via a questionnaire. The study

also found that students who are intrinsically motivated put forth more effort and were

more resilient in the face of academic challenges. This is consistent with Social-

Cognitive Theory’s premise that intrinsic motivation is linked to self-efficacy, self-

determination and that both of these are predictors of academic success (Schunk, 2010).

It is also consistent with the study done by Areepattamannil, Freeman & Klinger (2011)

who found that Indian immigrant children outperformed their counter parts in India

because of the higher levels of academic autonomy they experienced in Canadian

schools.


The second study that directly addressed the relationship between intrinsic

motivation and academic performance in higher education was done by Lin, McKeachie,

& Kim (2002). This study found that mid to low-level extrinsic motivation combined

with high intrinsic motivation correlated with higher grades. High intrinsic motivation

was also found to correlate with lower test anxiety and higher self-efficacy. Students who

had high extrinsic motivation were found to generally have lower GPAs than their

counter parts with mid to low-level extrinsic motivation and high intrinsic motivation.

Lei (2010) performed a meta-analysis comparing the differences between intrinsic

and extrinsic motivation and the benefits and drawbacks both had for college students

and their professors. The findings were similar to those of the other articles examined in

this critical review. All articles included discussed the benefits of intrinsic motivation

with regard to academic achievement.

Deci, Ryan and Koestner (2001) are particularly strong proponents of intrinsic

motivation and have written numerous articles discussing the positive impact it has on

academic performance. They also heavily discuss the undermining effect, as well as the

fact that extrinsic motivation is over emphasized in educational settings and can be

potentially detrimental to student performance.

Gillet, Vallerand and Lafreiere (2011) found that intrinsic motivation decreases as

a function of age. Children’s intrinsic motivation goes down between the ages of 9 and

15. The authors argue that this decrease is a result of the controlling atmosphere of most

public schools. However, they also found that providing students with more autonomy in

the classroom could enhance intrinsic motivation. The degree of control and autonomy


has very important implications for educators and should be used when designing

instruction for all age groups.

Although there were fewer articles that targeted the relationship between intrinsic

motivation and academic performance in higher education than initially hoped for, the

information that exists is very relevant to the previously stated hypotheses. In general, the

consensus in the field of motivation appears to be that intrinsic motivation has a positive

influence on performance and perceived self-efficacy (Goodman et al, 2011:

Areepattamannil, Freeman & Klinger, 2011: Lin, McKeachie, & Kim, 2002).

Hypothesis 2. Students who are intrinsically motivated will perform better academically

than students who are extrinsically motivated.

As discussed in the previous section, intrinsic motivation is correlated with higher

academic achievement and students who are intrinsically motivated tend to perform

better than those who are extrinsically motivated (Goodman et al, 2011: Areepattamannil,

Freeman & Klinger, 2011: Lin, McKeachie, & Kim, 2002). Not only is there a

relationship between intrinsic motivation and academic performance that is positive,

there is also a relationship between extrinsic motivation and academic performance that is

negative. This holds true for K-12 age students, as well as those in college.

Hypothesis 3. The undermining effect results in intrinsically motivated students who

have been exposed to external reinforcement performing at a lower rate than intrinsically

motivated students who have not been exposed to external reinforcement.

Unfortunately, although the undermining effect has clear implications for student

performance, there has not been much research done within the last 12 years that

specifically targets its impact. Due to the lack of research, it was impossible to validate or


disprove the hypothesis. There is simply not enough information to make a logical

inference regarding the topic. Despite this, the author still chose to deeply examine the

undermining effect and attempt to provide a clear picture of all research that has been

done in this field within the last 12 years.

The undermining effect of external reinforcement on intrinsic motivation is a

relatively new and somewhat controversial topic. Although Deci, Ryan and Koestner

(2001) have performed much research on the topic, there are still critics of the

undermining effect. In this critical review, several meta-analyses and rebuttal arguments

were included regarding the undermining effect. Originally these were going to be

excluded but were included based on the lack of recent experimental research on the

subject. Most of the research performed on the undermining effect was conducted by

Deci, Ryan and Koestner in the 1980’s and is outside the scope of this paper. As a result,

the author attempted to find more recent sources that were not generated by them.

What this critical review uncovered, was that the undermining effect is a

phenomenon that is addressed in areas of psychology that are unrelated to academic

performance as well as in fields outside of psychology. Two of the studies examined in

this critical review validated the undermining effect from a non-academic perspective.

Weichman and Gurland (2009) and Carton and Nowicki (1998) both found that

intrinsically motivated human behavior was undermined by external reinforcement. In

addition to these studies, several other studies found that intrinsic motivation was

undermined in a way that was dependent on the type of external reinforcement provided

(Deci, Ryan & Koestner, 2001: Cialdini, Eisenberg, Green, Rhoads & Bator, 1998). If the

reinforcement was tangible, it was more likely to undermine the individual’s motivation.


Reinforcement that was not tangible (verbal) was found to enhance intrinsic motivation if

it was not contingent on performance and if it supported perceived autonomy.

There were two studies included in this critical review that discussed the

undermining effect from a standpoint other than that of behaviorism or educational

psychology. Hennessey (2003) conducted a meta-analysis on creativity that discussed

how structure impaired it. Creativity is generated by intrinsic motivation and they are

essentially the same thing. In this paper, Hennessey discussed workplace and school

structure as impairing creativity and leading to lower production rates. Although the

undermining effect was briefly discussed, the paper was written from an application

standpoint. The author makes a point of emphasizing that if people were to be allowed

more creativity in work and school, they would probably perform at much higher rate.

Once again, this finding aligns with the theory that autonomy, self-efficacy and self-

determination are correlated with higher performance (Schunk, 2010). This article takes a

different perspective on it though and refers to intrinsic motivation as “creativity” as well

as discussing intrinsic motivation in the workplace. This was the only article found that

suggested job performance might be enhanced with more autonomy.

Another article that addressed the undermining effect was conducted in the field

of economics. Tietje (2002) found that when immediate monetary compensation was

paired with product sampling (seltzer water) the consumers self-reported liking the water

more than the same water that was not paired with immediate monetary compensation. In

addition to this finding, Tietje also found that monetary compensation that was presented

after the product tasting led to consumers self-reporting that they liked the water less.

Essentially, delayed reinforcement led to undermining the enjoyment of the water. Tietje


hypothesized that this result occurred because the external reinforcement (money)

distracted from the internal enjoyment of the water. In addition, Tietje (2002) also found

that undermining enjoyment was a result of two factors, timing and the source of the

reward. If the source of the reward was obviously tied to the consumption of the water,

the people did not experience an undermining effect. If it was not perceived as tied to the

water, then they did.

This finding is very similar to what Deci, Ryan and Koestner (2001) discuss

regarding verbal versus tangible rewards. Although monetary compensation is undeniably

tangible, it is the perception of it that changes. Based on this perception, internal

enjoyment is either undermined or unaffected. Similarly, verbal rewards either undermine

or support intrinsic motivation based on how they are perceived by individuals. This

study, which was conducted in a very different field from most research done on the

undermining effect, helps affirm the existence of it. It also demonstrates a very important

point; the extent to which an external stimulus undermines motivation is directly related

to how the individual perceives the stimulus.

That is to say, it is possible the undermining effect could be completely avoided if

external reinforcement was presented in a way that did not effect individual’s intrinsic

motivation, perception of autonomy and self-efficacy. More research on the undermining

effect and perception of reinforcement needs to be conducted to identify how

reinforcement should be presented. Based on the current research, it seems like a very

real possibility the undermining effect can be negated with more investigation into the

subject.


Despite the fact that only two of the three hypotheses could be addressed in this

critical review, the data gathered will still be beneficial to the field. The author found

several gaps in the body of research on the undermining effect and based on this finding

was able to develop recommendations for future research. The fourth chapter of this

paper will address the suggestions for future research. It will also discuss the practical

implications for teachers based on the information gathered on intrinsic motivation and

the undermining effect.


Chapter 4

Conclusion

This critical review of the literature closely examined the relationship between

academic performance in higher education, intrinsic motivation, and the undermining

effect of extrinsic motivation on intrinsic motivation. The initial time frame for studies to

include in the analysis was 2000 to 2012. However, after finding little information on the

undermining effect, the time frame was set back to 1998. This change in scope was

because several articles were found in 1998 and 1999 that I believed needed to be

included (Wolters, 1998; Carlton & Nowicki, 1998; Cialdini et al, 1998; Deci, Ryan &

Koestner, 1999). A total of 20 articles were examined in this review. All of these studies

yielded consistent and valid results. Motivation type was found to relate to academic

performance, and the undermining effect was shown to exist in an academic setting.

Although consistent results were found, there was not as much literature regarding

the relationship between academic performance and intrinsic motivation in higher

education. Although numerous studies were performed on the topic of intrinsic

motivation, there were only two that showed the direct relationship between academic

performance and intrinsic motivation (Goodman et al, 2011; Gillet, Vallerand &

Lafreiere, 2011). Within theses two studies, only the first one performed by Goodman et

al, (2011) targeted college age students.

Based on the articles examined, it appears that intrinsic motivation has a positive

impact on academic performance, as does perceived self-efficacy (Goodman et al, 2011:

Areepattamannil, Freeman & Klinger, 2011: Lin, McKeachie, & Kim, 2002). Conversely,

extrinsic motivation is linked to lower academic performance as well as lowered


enjoyment of academia. Students who are intrinsically motivated tend to out perform

those who are extrinsically motivated and intrinsic motivation is generally believed to be

more beneficial in an academic setting than extrinsic (Goodman et al, 2011:

Areepattamannil, Freeman & Klinger, 2011: Lin, McKeachie, & Kim, 2002).

Whether these results are due to the fact that students who are extrinsically

motivated are simply poor students, or a result of interference from the undermining

effect was outside the scope of this paper. However, I believe that if more research were

performed, it would find that almost all people at some point are intrinsically motivated

and this is changed through time by excessive external reinforcement. The fact that

people appear to be solely extrinsically motivated could be a result of too many external

stimuli being present at a young age. Essentially, it is possible that the undermining effect

is to blame for individuals who appear to only be motivated by external sources.

When researching the undermining effect, I found clear implications for student

performance, but found little research conducted within the past 12 years that targeted

student performance in higher education. What I did find regarding the undermining

effect was very interesting. Deci, Ryan and Koestner (2001) conducted the majority of

existing research on the undermining effect. It has been a field of study for them since the

late 1970’s. They have conducted research jointly and separately. Together they have

generated most of what we know on the undermining effect. Despite their expertise in the

field, they have been called in to question several times. These arguments were not within

the scope of this study, but for future research I would recommend examining them and

considering their validity.


The main finding regarding the undermining effect was not one that I had initially

expected. The undermining effect appears to be a field that is studied outside of

psychology and a phenomenon that is known by different names. Two studies looked at

the undermining effect outside the context of academia. Rather than factor in academic

performance, researchers simply examined human behavior (Weichman & Gurland,

2009; Carton & Nowicki, 1998). Several other studies found that the undermining effect

was dependent upon the type of reinforcement provided, whether tangible or non-tangible

(Deci, Ryan & Koestner, 2001: Cialdini, Eisenberg, Green, Rhoads & Bator, 1998).

Yet another study conducted by Hennessey (2003) referred to intrinsic motivation

as “creativity” and stated that structure frequently impaired it. The author pointed out that

if people were to be allowed to be more creative in work and school they most likely

would produce more. Although, not specifically addressed as the undermining effect, a

very clear parallel exists between creativity and intrinsic motivation and structure and

extrinsic reinforcement.

Tietje (2002) also referenced the undermining effect but not by name. In his study

“enjoyment” was intrinsic motivation and was undermined by providing participants with

a reward. In addition to this reward structure, he also found that this relationship was

moderated by perception. Only when individuals believed the reward was not tied to the

activity did their enjoyment reduce. Enjoyment was not reduced if the participants

believed the reward was directly tied to the activity. What I found when conducting my

critical review is that the undermining effect is researched in many different fields. If the

research were to be compiled, much more data would exist and a clearer picture could be

presented.


Implications for Practice

Based on the research conducted, I believe teachers and professors should all have

a cursory knowledge of motivation and the undermining effect. If they were aware of the

effect extrinsic motivation had on intrinsic motivation, they could better tailor their

lessons to their students. Additionally, I think the research conducted also provides

evidence that our standards for education are fundamentally flawed. Student motivation

suffers from the presence of too many external stimuli.

Throughout my life I have had numerous classmates who are overly involved in

what grade they get, as a result they do not correctly learn and synthesize the curriculum

or content that is presented in class. In my personal life, I have found that getting a good

grade does not necessarily result in long-term retention. I have received A’s in classes

where 2 weeks later I forgot all the material. This, naturally, leads to the argument of

student assessment. Are the assessments we use an actual measure of student learning?

Or is the system by which we measure student outcomes fundamentally flawed also? This

argument is not within the scope of this paper but is just as important a topic and directly

tied to the issue of external reinforcement for academic performance.

Recommendations for Future Research

First and foremost, more research needs to be conducted regarding the

undermining effect within the context of higher education. Although, there is much

information on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, little appears to exist that points to the

relationship between them and the effect the relationship has on student performance.


Continuing to further validate the undermining effect as a psychological phenomenon is

also necessary. It is a relatively new field of study and is still under question.

By further examining the undermining effect in academic settings, researchers can

further the body of knowledge on the subject as well as hopefully make the transition into

practice. Having adequate research on these topics and disseminating the information to

teachers is just one step that needs to be taken to further our education system. Much

research remains to be done on the subject of intrinsic motivation, the undermining

effect, and the relationship their relationship with academic performance.


References

Areepattamannil, S., Freeman, J.G., Klinger, D.A. (2011). Intrinsic motivation and

Extrinsic motivation, and academic achievement among Indian adolescents in

Canada and India. Springer Science and Business Media, Vol 14, 427-429.

Bandura, A. (1982). Self-Efficacy Mechanism in Human Agency. American

Psychologist, Vol 37(2), 122-147.

Bandura, A. (1989). Human Agency in Social Cognitive Theory. American Psychologist,

Vol 4(9), 1175-1184.

Bandura, A., Cervone, D. (1983). Self Evaluative and Self-Efficacy Mechanisms

Governing the Motivational Effects of Goal Systems. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, Vol 45(5), 1017-1028.

Bandura, A., Ross, D., Ross, S.A. (1961). Transmission of aggression through imitation

of aggressive models. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, Vol 63(3),

575-582. Doi;10.1037/h0045925

Bandura, A., Shunk, D.H. (1981). Cultivating Competence, Self-Efficacy, and Intrinsic

Interest Through Proximal Self-Motivation. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, Vol 41(3), 586-598.

Barber, L.K., Bagsby, P.G., Grawitch, M.J., Buerck, J.P. (2011). Facilitating Self-

Regulated Learning With Technology: Evidence for Student Motivation and

Exam Improvement. Teaching Psychology, Vol 38, 303.

Carton, S.C., Nowicki, S.J. (1998). Should behavior therapists stop using reinforcement?

A Reexamination of the underling effect of reinforcement on intrinsic


motivation. Behavior Therapy, Vol 29, 65-86.

Cialdini, R.B., Eisenberg, N., Green, B.L., Rhoads, K., Bator, R. (1998). Undermining

The Undermining Effect of Reward on Sustained Interest. Journal of Applied

Social Psychology, Vol 28(3), 249 – 263.

Cimpian, A., Arce, H.M., Markman, E.M., Dweck, C.S. (2007). Subtle Linguistic Cues

Affect Children’s Motivation. Psychological Science, Vol 18(4), 314-316.

Cooper, R.B., Jayatilaka, B. (2006). Group Creativity: The Effects of Extrinsic, Intrinsic

and Obligation Motivation. Creativity Research journal, Vol 18(2), 153-172.

Deci, E.L. (1972). The Effects of Contingent and Non-contingent Rewards and Controls

on Intrinsic Motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol

8, 217-229.

Deci, E.L., Koestner, R., Ryan, R.M. (2001). Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation

In Education: Reconsidered Once Again. Review of Educational Research, Vol

71(1), 1-27.

Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., Koestner, R. (2001). The Pervasive Negative Effects of Extrinsic

Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation: Response to Cameron. Review of Education

Research, 71(1), 43-52.

Deci, E.L., Koestner, R., Ryan, R.M. (1999). The Undermining Effect is a Reality After

All – Extrinsic Rewards, Task Interest and Self-Determination: Reply to

Eisenberg, Pierce and Cameron (1999) and Lepper, Henderlong and Gingras

(1999). American Psychological Association, Vol 125(6), 692-700.

Deitz, S.M. (1978). Current Status of Applied Behavior Analysis. American Psychologist,

805-814.


Elliot, A.J., Harackiewicz, J.M. (1994). Goal Setting, Achievement Orientation and

Intrinsic Motivation: A meditational Analysis. American Psychological

Association, Vol 66(5), 968-980.

Fraenkel, J.R., Wallen, N.E, Hyun, H.H. (2012). How to Design and Evaluate

Educational Resarch.

Gillet, N., Vallerand, R.J., Lafreniere, M.K. (2011). Intrinsic and extrinsic school

Motivation as a function of age: the mediating role of autonomy support. Springer

Science and Business Media, Vol 15, 77-95.

Goodman, S., Jaffer, T., Keresztesi, M., Mokgatte, D., Musariri, M., Pires, J., Schlechter,

A. (2011). An investigation of the relationship between students’ motivation and

Academic performance as mediated by effort. South African Journal of


Gottfried, A.E., Gottfried, A.W. (2004). Toward the Development of a Conceptualization

of Gifted Motivation. Gifted Child Quarterly, Vol 48 (2), 121-132.

Guay, F., Vallerand, R., Blanchard., C. (2000). On the Assessment of Situational Intrinsic

and Extrinsic Motivation Scale (SIMS). Motivation and Emotion, Vol 24 (3), 175-

213.

Hennessey, B.A. (2003). The Social Psychology of Creativity. The Scandinavian Journal

of Educational Research, Vol 47(3), 253-271.

Hidi, S., Harackiewics, J.M. (Summer 2000). Motivating the Academically Unmotivated:

A Critical Issue for the 21st Century. Review of Educational Research, Vol70,

151-179.

Houlfort, N., Koestner, R., Joussemet, M., Nantel-Vivier, A., Lekes, N. (2002). Impact of


Performance-Contingent Rewards on Perceived Autonomy and Competence.

Motivation and Emotion, Vol 26(4), 279-295.

Husman, J., Derryberry, W.P., Crowson, M., Lomax, R. (2003). Instrumentality, task

value, and intrinsic motivation: Making Sense of their independent

interdependence. Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol 29, 63-76.

Kasser, T., Ryan, R.M. (1996). Further examining the American Dream: Differential

Correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Personality and Social

PsychologyBullentin, Vol 22, 280-287.

Kalat, J.W. (2009). Biological Psychology. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning; Belmont,

CA.

Lee, W., Reeve, J., Xue, Y., Xiong, J. (2012). Neural differences between intrinsic and

Reasons for doing versus extrinsic reasons for doing: an fMRI study.

Neuroscience Research, Vol 73, 68-72.

Lei, S.A. (2010). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: Evaluating Benefits and Drawbacks

from College Instructor’s Perspectives. Journal of Instructional Psychology. Vol

37, 153-160.

Lin, Y.G., McKeachie, W.J., Kim, Y.C. (2003). College student intrinsic and/or extrinsic

Motivation and learning. Learning and Individual Differences, Vol 13, 251-258.

Meece, J.L., Anderman, E.M., Anderman, L.H. (2005). Classroom Goal Structure,

Student Motivation, and Academic Achievement. Annual Review of Psychology,

Vol 57, 487-503.

Murayama, K., Matsumoto, M., Izuma K., Matsumoto, K. (2010). Neural basis of the

undermining effect of monetary reward on intrinsic motivation. PNAS, Vol


107(49), 20911-20916.

Pintrich, P.R. (2004). A Conceptual Framework for Assessing Motivation and Self-

Regulated Learning in College Students. Education Psychology Review, Vol

16(4).

Powell, R.A., Symbaluk, D.G., Honey, P.L. (2009). Introduction to Learning and

Behavior. Wadsworth, Cengage Learning; Belmont, CA.

Pun, S.K. (2009). Creative Thinking Through Visual Thinking. Business Education and

Accreditation, Vol 1(1), 97.

Reiss, S. (2012). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. Society for the Teaching of


Ryan, R.M., Deci, E.L. (2000). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivations: Classic Definitions

and New Directions. Contemporary Educational Psychology, Vol 25, 54-67.

Schunk, D. H. (2012). Learning Theories. Pearson: Boston, MA.

Skinner, B.F. (1981). Selection by consequence. Science, Vol 213(4507), 501-504. Doi:

10.1126/science.7244649

Skinner, B.F. (1988). The operant side of behavior therapy, Journal of Behavior Therapy

and Experimental Psychiatry, Vol 19(3), 171-179. Doi: 10.1016/0005-

7916(88)90038-9.

Spring, E. (2008). Moral Feedback and Motivation: Revisting the Undermining Effect.

Ethical Theory and Moral Practice, Vol 11, 407-423.

Thorndike, E.L. (1927). The law of effect. The American Journal of Psycholog, Vol 39,

212-222. Doi: 10.2307/1415413

Tietje, B.C. (2002). When do Rewards Have Enhancement Effects? An Availability


Valence Approach. Journal of Consumer Psychology, Vol 12(4), 363-373.

Vallerand, R.J., Pelletier, L.G., Blais, M.R., Briere, N.M., Senecal, C., Vallieres, E.F.

(1993). On the Assessment of Intrinsic, Extrinsic and Amotivation in Education:

Evidence on the Concurrent and Construct Validity of the Academic Motivation

Scale. Educational and Psychological Measurement, Vol 53, 159.

Walker, C.O., Greene, B.A., Mansell, R.A. (2005). Identification with academics,

intrinsic/extrinsic motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive

engagement. Learning and Individual Differences, Vol 16, 1-12.

Weichman, B.M., Gurland, S.T. (2009). What happens during free choice period?

Evidence of a polarizing effect of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation.

Journal of Research in Personality, Vol 43, 716-719.

Wolters, C.A. (1998). Self-regulated Learning and College Students’ Regulation of

Motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology, Vol 90(2), 224-235.

Zimmerman, B.J. (2002). Becoming a Self-Regulated Learner: An Overview. Theory into

Practice, Vol 41(2).

afwilcox.weebly.com · web view2013-11-10 · intrinsic motivation, the undermining effect, and...

Documents