                    11.  INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION.
        
             Intrinsic motivation is the performance of a task purely for
        the joy of doing it.  There is no reward except in accomplishing
        the task the individual set out to complete.  Conversely,
        extrinsic motivation is the performance of a task for some
        external reward. The most common form in a capitalist society is
        money.  What separates these two forms of motivation is that one
        is difficult to measure because it is difficult to determine for
        each individual what it is that motivates him or her.  External
        motivating factors are often visible and tangible.  
        
             Current research into both areas reveals that individuals
        can be motivated both intrinsically and extrinsically,
        separately, and sometimes, simultaneously.  Some individuals are
        more prone to accept extrinsic motivational factors than others. 
        This does not mean that they shun external factors; they just
        prefer internal ones.  
             Is one more important or powerful than the other?  There is
        no definitive answer to this question.  However, intrinsic
        motivation prompts individuals to strive for goals in the absence
        of any discernable reward.  Externally motivated individuals, in
        the absence of rewards may become unmotivated unless there is
        some hope for measurable reward in the end.   
        
             What does current research into these two unique forms of
        motivation reveal?  The following are an overview of some
        findings in business, industry, and education.  Intrinsic and
        extrinsic motivation are reviewed simultaneously because both
        capture the essence of this aspect of human motivation.
        
             Boggiano and Barrett (1992) examined whether extrinsic
        children were more depressed than intrinsic children and whether
        this effect was more pronounced for girls than for boys.  Sixty
        seven female and 60 male 3rd-grade children completed self-report
        measures assessing motivational orientation (MO) and depressive
        symptoms.  Subjects with an extrinsic MO (i.e., subjects who
        performed a task for approval or fear of evaluation) were more
        depressed than those with an intrinsic MO.  Significant gender
        differences show that girls were more extrinsic than boys and
        thus more susceptible to helplessness and depression. 
        
             Fair and Silvestri (1992) reviewed literature on the effects
        of rewards, competition, and success/failure on intrinsic
        motivation.  Data indicated that intrinsically motivated
        individuals with an internal desire to excel are superior in both
        quality and quantity of task performance to externally motivated
        performers.  Studies of children and adults credited praise and
        positive verbal affirmations with increasing internal motivation,
        and external rewards and punishment with decreasing internal
        motivation.  Although the sexes were not significantly different
        in internal motivation, they appeared to vary in their approach
        to competitive situations.  They suggested ways to increase
        motivation including the need for enough praise and positive
        affirmation at every step of the way through a process to enhance
        both children and adults to achieve at maximum levels.
        
             Boggiano and Katz (1991) tested the hypothesis that the
        importance of adult approval and feedback for females relative to
        males would render girls of elementary school age more likely to
        develop an extrinsic orientation in comparison to boys.  Using
        Harter's (1981) Scale of Intrinsic versus Extrinsic Motivation,
        the data supported the hypothesis for Study 1 in which 107 girls
        and 106 boys in 4th-6th grades participated.  Because of the
        assumed differential importance of controlling feedback from
        adults for females relative to males, a second study examined 64,
        9-11 yr old girls' and boys' preference for challenge as a
        function of adult controlling feedback and children's
        motivational orientation.  The data supported the hypothesis that
        girls relative to boys show differential preferences for
        challenge, depending on the presence and type of adult feedback
        and motivational orientation in girls. 
        
             Enzle, Roggeveen, and Look (1991) hypothesized that
        ambiguous behavior standards coupled with self-administration of
        rewards would reduce intrinsic motivation whereas clear standards
        coupled with self-administration of rewards would maintain high
        preexisting levels of intrinsic motivation.  Fifty four
        university students participated in a study comprised of a 2
        (ambiguous vs unambiguous standards) by 2 (self- vs
        other-administered reward) factorial design and unrewarded
        control group.  Results supported their predictions.  Behavior
        standard clarity was a critical determinant of whether
        self-administration protected or undermined initially high
        intrinsic motivation.  
        
             Lawler, Armstead, and Patton (1991) attempted to integrate
        the concept of the type A behavior pattern with the research on
        intrinsic motivation.  The hypothesis that type A behaviors focus
        attention on extrinsic rather than intrinsic motivation was
        tested by measuring type A behavior and motivational orientation
        in 95 male college students.  Results were consistent with the
        hypothesis.  Type A subjects were also unaffected by instructions
        designed to increase intrinsic motivation, whereas type B
        subjects were highly sensitive to such instructions.  These data
        provide an explanation for the paradoxical effect of type A
        behavior in males (i.e., success accompanied by feelings of
        dissatisfaction).  They suggested more research needed to be
        conducted to determine what motivated type B individuals.
        
             Wiersma (1991) found contrasting predictions from expectancy
        valence and cognitive evaluation theories while testing his
        hypothesis when testing using a 2 * 2 factorial design in which
        intrinsic and extrinsic rewards were manipulated.  Several
        relevant factors were also considered, namely type of extrinsic
        reward, measure of intrinsic motivation, and use of moderator
        variables (e.g., higher order need strength).  Ninety four
        undergraduates worked on either an interesting or boring task for
        a low or high extrinsic reward.  The primary measure of intrinsic
        motivation was the subjects' return rate to a second experimental
        session.  Results supported the expectancy valence hypothesis
        that intrinsic and contingent extrinsic rewards have an additive
        effect on motivation.  Both types of rewards showed significant
        main effects.  There were no significant moderator effects found.
        
             Koestner et al (1991) examined whether motives as assessed
        from fantasy (seen as implicit needs) were primarily aroused by
        factors intrinsic to the process of performing an activity,
        whereas motives obtained through self-report inventories (seen as
        self-attributed needs) were aroused by social factors that were
        extrinsic to the process of performing an activity (e.g., the way
        in which a task is presented by an experimenter).  In Experiment
        1, with 71 college students, performance on a memory task
        depended on the interaction of subjects' self-reported motive for
        achievement with achievement-arousing instructions, whereas
        performance on a word-finding puzzle depended on the interaction
        of subjects' fantasy need for achievement with the puzzle's level
        of intrinsic challenge.  Experiment 2, with 54 college students,
        generalized these findings to the power domain.  
        
             Sakurai (1990) examined the self-evaluative motivation (SEM)
        model proposed by Sakurai (1990), using four kinds of extrinsic
        rewards (verbal, token, verbal and token, and feedback only)
        among 110 6th graders.  According to the SEM model, experimental
        groups should select more difficult tasks (receiving no rewards
        or feedback) than the control group because they have higher
        feelings of competence.  The token, verbal and token, and control
        groups should select more dissimilar tasks than verbal and
        feedback groups because the former groups have little feeling of
        self-determination.  In the experiment, subjects were assigned
        lucky-puzzle tasks and given extrinsic rewards or feedback.  They
        were asked which task they wanted to try among four kinds of
        tasks that were similar or dissimilar to the previous task and
        easy or difficult.  Results supported the behavioral predictions
        of the SEM model. 
        
             Tripathi (1991) studied the effects of contingency and
        timing of reward on intrinsic motivation for subsequent task
        performance in 65 undergraduates.  After completing the mandatory
        problem session, subjects spent a significantly greater amount of
        free-activity time solving puzzles under performance-contingent
        reward conditions, followed by task-contingent reward with
        feedback, and task-contingent reward conditions, respectively.
        Performance on problem-solving tasks during a free-activity
        period yielded a significant effect of reward contingency,
        implying greater intrinsic motivation under
        performance-contingent reward, followed by task-contingent reward
        with feedback, and task-contingent reward conditions,
        respectively.  The effect of timing of reward was not
        significant.  The roles of challenge and competence information
        facilitated intrinsic motivation for task performance. 
        
             Diaz-Soto (1989) examined differences in home environment,
        motivational orientation, and relationships among the home
        environment and the motivational orientation of 28 higher and 29
        lower achieving 5th- and 6th-grade Puerto Rican children.  The
        relative weights of the variables and their ability to predict
        achievement were examined via a post-hoc multiple regression
        analysis.  Home interviews were conducted using the Family
        Environment Schedule (Marjoribanks, 1979) and a scale of
        intrinsic vs extrinsic orientation.  Gender differences were also
        noted.  Family involvement accounted for a significant amount of
        variance with regard to achievement.  Home environment differed
        for the higher and lower achievers' family, with parental
        aspirations higher for higher achievers.  Motivational
        orientation differed, with higher achievers adopting a more
        intrinsic orientation and lower achievers adopting a more
        extrinsic orientation. 
        
             Rummel and Feinberg (1990) examined the effect of
        motivational orientation on intrinsic motivation among 40
        females.  Use of the Jonckheere Test of Order (A. R. Jonckheere,
        1954) suggested that the detrimental effect of extrinsic rewards
        on intrinsic motivation might be explained within the
        reinforcement paradigm.  Intrinsically motivated subjects who
        received intrinsic rewards showed the highest amount of intrinsic
        motivation as assessed by free time on the Soma puzzle. 
        Extrinsically motivated subjects receiving intrinsic rewards
        showed the lowest amount of free time.  Rewarding intrinsically
        motivated subjects negatively affected their motivation while
        just the opposite was true for the extrinsically motivated ones.
        
             Mawhinney (1990) described cognitive and behavior analytic
        approaches to the study of intrinsic and extrinsic reward effects
        and considered the implications of differences in these
        approaches for future study and application.  A critique of the
        research design and data analysis techniques used in Deci's
        (1971, 1972; Deci and R. M. Ryan, 1985) Deci-type paradigm was
        presented.  A behavioral model of intrinsic reinforcement for use
        by organizational behavior managers was also described.  Evidence
        contradicting the Deci-type theory indicated that people who are
        most highly intrinsically motivated by a task are least likely to
        exhibit any post-extrinsic reinforcement decrement to intrinsic
        motivation. 
        
             Flora (1990) proposed that the use of contingent,
        "extrinsic" reinforcement undermines the rate at which
        "intrinsically interesting" behaviors occur.  A review of the
        literature suggested that environmental stimuli control the rates
        of behaviors rather than interest intrinsic to the organism. 
        Reduced rates of behavior typically attributed to the undermining
        of intrinsic interest are more objectively accounted for by
        environmental stimuli functions, including instructional control
        and by Herrnstein's (1970) matching law.  When the hypothetical
        version of intrinsic motivation is contrasted with a
        physiological version, the hypothetical version makes the
        opposite prediction of every effect that occurs.  Recommendations
        based on the concept of undermining intrinsic interest are flawed
        and possibly dangerous, he believed and suggested that extrinsic
        motivating factors should be removed from the intrinsically
        motivated behavioral situation or event.                          
                         
             Dickinson (1989) wrote that extrinsic consequences have been
        criticized on the grounds that they decrease intrinsic motivation
        or internally initiated behavior.  Two popular rationales for
        this criticism, Lepper's (1981) overjustification hypothesis and
        Deci and Ryan's (1985) motivational theory, were reviewed, and
        the criticism was then redefined behaviorally.  Intrinsically
        controlled behavior was defined as behavior maintained by
        response-produced reinforcers.  Empirical support for the
        decrease in the reinforcing value of stimuli caused by extrinsic
        reinforcement was presented, and possible explanations for the
        phenomenon were offered.  The effect was transient and not likely
        to occur at all if extrinsic rewards are reinforcing,
        noncompetitive, based on reasonable performance standards, and
        delivered repetitively. 
        
             Dolke and Srivastava (1988) investigated whether the job
        attitudes of satisfaction, involvement, and intrinsic motivation
        were conceptually distinct and empirically independent variables,
        using questionnaire responses from 200 clerical and 118 technical
        textile mill workers in India.  Results provided fairly strong
        evidence for treating the three variables as separate attitudes. 
        Findings appeared to be generalizable cross-culturally and they
        were similar to those obtained by Lawler and Hall (1970) with
        research scientists and Cummings and Bigelow (1968) with
        blue-collar workers. 
        
             Anderson and Rodin (1989) studied 50 undergraduates who
        received cues supporting different causality prior to answering a
        set of brain-teasers on a computer terminal.  Results indicated
        that mild negative feedback increased intrinsic motivation (IM)
        when it was associated with environmental cues signaling
        self-determination.  Subjects who were given mild negative
        feedback but who had a choice of problems to solve, no
        expectation of evaluation, and private discussion of scores,
        retained as much (or more) IM as subjects given positive feedback
        under the same conditions.  Subjects in controlling contexts
        showed less IM.  
        
             Feldman and Weitz (1988) suggested that a variety of
        individual, job-related, and organizational factors influence
        whether employees reach career plateaus.  Career plateaus were
        associated with (1) individual skills, (2) individual needs and
        values, (3) lack of intrinsic motivation, (4) lack of extrinsic
        rewards, (5) stress and burnout, and (6) slow organizational
        growth.  They reported that to motivate employees managers must
        plan strategies to increase individual skills, understand needs
        and values, support intrinsic motivational patterns, provide
        extrinsic rewards to those who need them, and increase
        organizational growth so that employees can strive to fulfill the
        challenge of promotions being offered by the company.
        
             Deci (1987) suggested that excitement as well competence and
        self-determination underlie intrinsically motivated behavior.  He
        argued that excitement (which is an emotion) belongs in a
        different class of concepts from competence and
        self-determination (which are needs).  He also suggested that
        several recent studies (e.g., Baumeister and Tice, 1985) have
        added confusion to the intrinsic motivation literature by
        focusing on paradigms (rather than theories) and operations
        (rather than constructs).  If intrinsically motivated individuals
        are to be supported, he wrote, then organizations must begin to
        accept that they exist, and create an environment in which
        intrinsically motivated individuals can fully develop.  
        
             Tang et al (1987) examined the performance of 131
        undergraduates, classified as either high or low in self-esteem,
        on an anagram-solving task labeled as difficult or easy.  In the
        first work period, subjects in the easy condition set higher
        goals than subjects in the difficult condition.  High self-esteem
        subjects in the easy condition solved more anagrams than those in
        the difficult condition.  In the second period, high self-esteem
        subjects in the easy condition set higher goals than those in the
        difficult condition.  In the free-choice period, low self-esteem
        subjects in the easy condition spent significantly less time on
        the anagram-solving task than did the average of the other
        groups.  The combination of low self-esteem and an easy label led
        to the lowest level of intrinsic motivation. 
        
             Cellar and Wade (1988) studied the effects of behavior
        modeling (intrinsically vs. extrinsically motivated model) and a
        symbolic rehearsal intervention (presence vs. absence) on
        intrinsic motivation, task satisfaction, and script-related
        recognition.  A 2 * 2 factorial design was used with 80 male
        undergraduates as subjects.  As predicted, the motivational
        orientation of the model affected behavioral measures of
        intrinsic motivation and script-related recognition.  It did not
        affect self-report measures of interest or task satisfaction. 
        Contrary to expectations, the symbolic rehearsal intervention had
        no effect on these variables.  Regression analysis revealed that
        the intrinsic script-recognition measures explained incremental
        variance in intrinsic motivation beyond measures of locus of
        causality and perceived self-competence, suggesting that a
        script-processing model may add to existing intrinsic motivation
        theory.  
        
             Reeve et al (1987) conducted two experiments with 107 female
        and 78 male undergraduates that examined individual differences
        of need for achievement, anxiety, locus of control, and gender to
        determine their intervening role in intrinsic motivational
        processes following objective competence information.  Subjects
        were either allowed to win or were made to lose a puzzle-solving
        contest against a same-gender confederate with the
        success/failure experience serving as the objective source of
        competence information.  In experiment I, the outcome, locus of
        control, and the resultant achievement motivation * outcome
        interaction predicted level of intrinsic motivation, thereby
        substantiating the claim that individual differences are
        important in the prediction of intrinsic motivation.  Experiment
        II showed that the need for achievement affected level of
        intrinsic motivation through the high achievers' favorably biased
        performance expectancy and heightened positive affect, and, after
        losing, through both favorable actual and perceived performance
        relative to low achievers. 
        
             Kohn (1987) discussed research on intrinsic task motivation,
        defined as the delight in doing something for its own sake, and
        examined the relation between creativity, external rewards, and
        motivation.  The work of Amabile (1986) suggested that the
        intrinsic motivation principle of creativity questions the
        behaviorists' assumption that any activity is more likely to
        occur if it is rewarded. Environmental factors that aid
        creativity (e.g., encouragement, autonomy) were reviewed and
        added as variables that enhance the intrinsic motivation to be
        creative, some of which were a trust, encouragement, acceptance
        of divergent thinking, and support for nonconformity. 
        
             Most studies of intrinsic motivation under reward and
        evaluative contingencies have used social comparison criteria to
        evaluate subjects' performance.  In those studies evaluation
        tended to reduce intrinsic interest.  Harackiewicz et al (1987)
        contrasted normative evaluation against a more task-focused
        evaluation of subjects' performance on an interesting word game
        and examined the role of achievement motivation in moderating
        reactions to performance evaluation.  Focus differences were
        implemented under conditions of performance-contingent reward,
        anticipated evaluation, and control conditions in which subjects
        received performance feedback at task conclusion.  They predicted
        that evaluation would reduce interest relative to reward and
        feedback control groups under a normative focus but not under a
        task focus and also that a process of competence valuation
        (Harackiewicz & Manderlink, 1984) would mediate the effects of
        reward and achievement on interest, especially in normative
        conditions.  The data conformed to these expectations with one
        exception:  evaluation under a task focus increased intrinsic
        interest.  These results were interpreted in the context of a
        general model that considers the separate effects of situational
        contingencies, personality factors, performance and motivational
        processes, and evaluative outcomes on intrinsic motivation. 
        
             Sinha (1986) administered questionnaires designed to assess
        job satisfaction, intrinsic motivation, work values, and job
        involvement to 60 government and 50 private-enterprise employees
        in India.  Questionnaires included items from instruments
        developed by Lawler and Hall (1970), Blood (1969), the Institute
        for Social Research at the University of Michigan, and U. N.
        Agarwala (1976).  Analysis of data obtained from the 60 completed
        questionnaires was accomplished using t -tests and correlations. 
        Quality dimensions correlated positively with satisfaction, and
        some differences could be detected between private and government
        workers. 
        
             Orpen (1986) administered the Pay Satisfaction Questionnaire
        (Heneman and Schwab; see PA, Vol 73:20996) to 47 managers from a
        variety of industries.  Subjects also completed measures of job
        involvement, work satisfaction, and internal motivation, and
        provided self-ratings of performance, absenteeism, and turnover. 
        Results showed that only 2 of the 24 correlations between these
        outcomes and satisfaction with pay level, raises, benefits, and
        structure were significant, those between pay level and
        motivation and pay level and involvement.  Results suggested that
        subjects pay was unrelated to job attitudes that lead to high
        motivation and performance. 
        
             Shalley et al (1987) examined the possibility that
        participative goal-setting methods combined with goal difficulty
        and expected external evaluation to affect intrinsic motivation,
        using 96 male undergraduates.  Subjects were assigned to one of
        eight experimental conditions.  Results indicated that only the
        method of setting goals had an effect on intrinsic motivation. 
        Subjects who were assigned goals exhibited significantly higher
        levels of intrinsic motivation than those who participated in
        setting goals. 
        
             In this experiment, Koestner et al (1987) examined the
        relation between content of praise, type of involvement, and
        intrinsic motivation.  College students were introduced to a
        hidden-figure task in either an ego-involving (i.e., test-like)
        or task-involving (i.e., game-like) manner and then received
        either ability-focused, effort-focused, or no praise for their
        performance.  As predicted, task involvement increased intrinsic
        motivation relative to ego involvement, and ability praise
        increased intrinsic motivation relative to effort praise or no
        praise.  Furthermore, praise and involvement interacted so that
        subjects who received effort praise were relatively more
        intrinsically motivated under task-involving than ego-involving
        conditions, whereas those who received ability praise were
        relatively more motivated under ego-involving than task-involving
        conditions.  The higher levels of intrinsic motivation were
        accompanied by a choice of a higher level of challenge and better
        performance at a related but more complex task.  Finally, a
        significant Sex * Praise interaction was found, reflecting that
        women tended to display more intrinsic motivation in the
        no-praise condition than in the two praise conditions, whereas
        men showed the reverse pattern. 
        
             Reeves et al (1986) asked undergraduates in experiment I to
        list favorite and least favorite activities and report the
        predominant affective experience underlying the activities. 
        Results showed that, in a majority of cases, subjects reported
        excitement rather than either competence or autonomy as the
        feeling most associated with their favorite activities.  In
        experiment II, the traditional intrinsic motivation paradigm was
        used with 31 undergraduates.  Results showed that excitement had
        a significant, positive association with each of four indices of
        intrinsic motivation.  It was concluded that excitement
        functioned as a third reward in intrinsic motivational processes.
        
             Sugihara (1985) investigated the hypothesis that test
        anxiety (TA) was one of the main factors undermining intrinsic
        motivation.  Two hundred and sixty three male undergraduates with
        high and low TA were assigned to a test or no-test condition. 
        Subjects engaged in solving puzzles in both conditions.  Only
        those in the test condition were told that the task was a kind of
        intelligence test.  The intrinsic motivation of high-TA subjects
        did not differ significantly between conditions, while that of
        low-TA's were significantly lower in the test than in the no-test
        condition.  In order to foster intrinsic motivation in learners,
        text anxiety needs to be diminished so that motivation is
        enhanced.
        
             Sansone (1986) examined whether competence information is
        the feedback feature that affects intrinsic motivation and
        whether perceived competence is the process responsible in two
        studies in which 174 undergraduates compared competence feedback
        with meaningful task feedback.  In study one, positive competence
        feedback and task feedback were manipulated independently.
        Findings indicated that although positive feedback resulted in
        the highest level of perceived competence, both positive and task
        feedback enhanced interest individually.  In study two, an
        ego-involvement manipulation emphasized competence prior to task
        engagement.  Path-analytic techniques were used to identify two
        processes that mediated the effects of positive, negative, and
        task feedback on interest: perceived competence and personal
        valuation.  Results indicated that perceived competence enhanced
        enjoyment only when performance quality was stressed by the
        ego-involvement manipulation.  When competence was not made
        salient, subsequent interest depended more on the degree the
        individual personally valued involvement.  Both studies indicated
        that competence information can affect both perceived competence
        and personal valuation.  Feeling competent itself enhanced
        intrinsic motivation only if attaining competence was a primary
        goal of the task. 
        
             To summarize the research cited above, intrinsic motivation
        was sometimes negatively influenced by extrinsic factors.  If
        intrinsic motivation is characterized by the pure delight in
        doing something just for the joy of doing it, then extrinsic
        factors, when added to the motivation equation, can inhibit the
        individual from intrinsically pursuing his or her goal.  The
        intrinsic/extrinsic motivational theories do not possess the same
        amount of complexity that some of the earlier ones reviewed do. 
        They are important because they provide some manner of describing
        what motivates individuals who appear to be doing something just
        for the pleasure of doing it.  This was a departure from the
        earlier researchers who theorized that causal relationships
        existed between D (drive) and motivation.  Finally, intrinsically
        motivated individuals comprise a unique group of individuals. 
        Under normal circumstances, extrinsic motivation seems to be more
        commonplace because it is something which can be seen, heard, and
        measured.  Intrinsic motivation is difficult to measure because
        it is centered in the affective rather than the cognitive or
        psychomotor domains.  
