Cameron, Judy

Pierce, W.  David

So, Sylvia

English

University of Calgary Journal Hosting

The Alberta Journal of Educational Research Vol. 50, No. 3, Fall 2004, 317-320 Research Notes Judy Cameron W. David Pierce a n d Sylvia So University of Alberta Rewards, Task Difficulty, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Test of Learned Industriousness Theory The use of incent ives i n e d u c a t i o n a l settings as a w a y to increase s tudent m o t i v a t i o n a n d p e r f o r m a n c e is a n issue that has generated a great deal of debate. S o m e researchers argue that r e w a r d s are h a r m f u l (Dec i , Koes tner , & R y a n , 1999; K o h n , 1993). T h e concern is that if a s tudent is r e w a r d e d for p e r f o r m i n g a n ac t iv i ty , the s tudent w i l l c o m e to s p e n d less t i m e o n the task, p e r f o r m at a l o w e r l e v e l , a n d enjoy the ac t iv i ty less once the r e w a r d s are n o longer a v a i l a b l e . T h e c l a i m is that r e w a r d s u n d e r m i n e s tudents ' in t r ins ic m o t i v a t i o n . O n the other s ide of the debate are researchers w h o argue that negat ive effects of r e w a r d s are l i m i t e d a n d that w h e n p r o p e r l y a r r a n g e d , r e w a r d s c a n be u s e d to enhance s tudent m o t i v a t i o n a n d p e r f o r m a n c e ( C a m e r o n & Pierce , 2002; D i c k i n s o n , 1989; F l o r a & F l o r a , 1999). Based o n a meta -ana ly t i c r e v i e w of 145 exper iments o n r e w a r d s a n d i n t r i n -sic m o t i v a t i o n ( C a m e r o n , B a n k o , & Pierce, 2001) a n d o n recent e x p e r i m e n t s o n the topic (Eisenberger , R h o a d e s , & C a m e r o n , 1999; Pierce, C a m e r o n , B a n k o , & So, 2003), r e w a r d s h a v e been f o u n d to p r o d u c e negat ive effects w h e n they s i g n i f y fa i lure or are loosely t ied to p e r f o r m a n c e . Pos i t ive effects are detected w h e n the r e w a r d s are g i v e n for a t t a i n i n g specif ic p e r f o r m a n c e s tandards . These f i n d i n g s suggest that r e w a r d s s h o u l d be used in e d u c a t i o n a l e n v i r o n -ments w h e n s tudents achieve set goals a n d s tandards . It is not clear, h o w e v e r , h o w r i g o r o u s the s t a n d a r d s s h o u l d be. The present e x p e r i m e n t w a s d e s i g n e d to address this issue. T h e p u r p o s e of this research w a s to e x a m i n e h o w r e w a r d s affected m o t i v a -t i o n a n d p e r f o r m a n c e w h e n students were r e w a r d e d for s u c c e e d i n g at a n easy task versus a m o d e r a t e l y d i f f i c u l t task. T h e s t u d y w a s also d e s i g n e d to test E isenberger ' s (1992) theory of learned indus t r iousness . A c c o r d i n g to E i s e n -berger, i n d i v i d u a l di f ferences i n i n d u s t r i o u s n e s s are l earned . L e a r n e d i n -dus t r iousness theory is b u i l t o n the concept of effort. F r o m this perspect ive , Judy Cameron is a professor in the Department of Educational Psychology; her research primari ly focuses on learning principles and their application to education. She can be reached at judy.cameron@ualberta.ca. David Pierce is a professor in the Department of Sociology; he is the Director of the Centre for Experimental Sociology. Sylvia So completed her master's degree in educational psychology. 317 J. Cameron, W.D. Pierce, and S. So i n d u s t r i o u s i n d i v i d u a l s are those w h o have i n the past h a d to p u t h i g h effort in to act ivi t ies i n o r d e r to reap the benefits or r e w a r d s . W h e n i n d i v i d u a l s are r e w a r d e d for e x p e n d i n g a large a m o u n t of effort o n a n ac t iv i ty , l earned i n -d u s t r i o u s n e s s theory p r o p o s e s that the sensat ion of h i g h effort acquires secon-d a r y r e w a r d proper t i es , thereby i n c r e a s i n g people ' s readiness to e x p e n d h i g h effort o n s u b s e q u e n t act ivi t ies . In contrast, r e w a r d s g i v e n for l o w effort o n a task c o n d i t i o n p r o d u c e sensations of l o w effort w i t h secondary r e w a r d v a l u e a n d p e o p l e s p e n d l itt le effort o n later act ivit ies . B a s e d o n l e a r n e d i n d u s t r i o u s n e s s theory, for the present s t u d y w e p r e d i c t e d that s tudents w h o w e r e r e w a r d e d for s u c c e e d i n g at a n easy task ( l o w effort) w o u l d s h o w r e d u c t i o n s i n p e r f o r m a n c e a n d intr ins ic m o t i v a t i o n re lat ive to a n o n - r e w a r d e d c o n t r o l g r o u p , whereas m o t i v a t i o n a n d p e r f o r m a n c e w o u l d increase for those w h o rece ived r e w a r d s for s u c c e e d i n g at the m o d e r a t e l y d i f f i c u l t task ( h i g h effort). Method A s par t of a m o r e genera l d e s i g n , the e x p e r i m e n t reported here w a s a 2 x 2 fac tor ia l w i t h t w o levels of r e w a r d ( r e w a r d , n o r e w a r d ) a n d t w o levels of task d i f f i c u l t y (easy, d i f f i c u l t ) . Seventy- three u n d e r g r a d u a t e u n i v e r s i t y s tudents w e r e r a n d o m l y ass igned to c o n d i t i o n s a n d asked to w o r k on three sets of f ive F i n d the Di f fe re nce ( F T D ) p r o b l e m s that w e r e p r o g r a m m e d onto M a c i n t o s h c o m p u t e r s . T h e object of the task w a s to f i n d differences be tween t w o cartoons; for each p r o b l e m there w e r e s ix poss ib le differences. T h i s task has been u s e d i n ear l ier research a n d has b e e n f o u n d to be interest ing to u n i v e r s i t y s tudents (E isenberger et a l . , 1999). In a l e a r n i n g phase , par t i c ipants i n the l o w task d i f f i c u l t y c o n d i t i o n were r e q u i r e d to f i n d t w o dif ferences i n each p r o b l e m ; those i n the m o d e r a t e l y h i g h d i f f i c u l t y c o n d i t i o n h a d to f i n d f o u r dif ferences . In the r e w a r d c o n d i t i o n s , p a r t i c i p a n t s w e r e of fered a n d g i v e n $2.00 for each set of f ive p r o b l e m s they success fu l ly p a s s e d ; the n o r e w a r d g r o u p s w e r e not offered or g i v e n m o n e y (they w e r e p a i d $6.00, h o w e v e r , once the e x p e r i m e n t w a s completed) . A f t e r the l e a r n i n g phase , par t i c ipants were g i v e n a t i m e d test m a d e u p of f ive n e w F T D p r o b l e m s ; the test w a s f o l l o w e d b y a free-choice p e r i o d w h e r e they c o u l d c o n t i n u e to d o m o r e F T D p r o b l e m s or engage i n a l ternat ive ac-t iv i t ies (e.g., r e a d i n g magaz ines ) . N o r e w a r d s w e r e avai lab le d u r i n g these phases . P e r f o r m a n c e o n F T D d u r i n g the test phase w a s measured as the n u m -ber of correct s o l u t i o n s . Intr ins ic m o t i v a t i o n w a s m e a s u r e d d u r i n g the free-choice p e r i o d as t i m e o n F T D , free-choice p e r f o r m a n c e ( n u m b e r correct o n F T D p u z z l e s ) , a n d se l f - reported task en joyment (on a 7-point L i k e r t scale). Results A n A N O V A c o n d u c t e d o n test p e r f o r m a n c e i n d i c a t e d n o m a i n effects, b u t a s ign i f i cant in terac t ion of r e w a r d b y task d i f f i c u l t y , F ( l , 69)=4.8, p=.03. F i g u r e 1 p o r t r a y s this in terac t ion ; par t i c ipants r e w a r d e d for success o n a m o d e r a t e l y d i f f i c u l t task d i d better (more correct responses) o n the test than those w h o w e r e not r e w a r d e d . In contrast , par t i c ipants r e w a r d e d for achievement o n a task of l o w d i f f i c u l t y d i d w o r s e o n the test ( fewer correct responses) t h a n n o n - r e w a r d e d p a r t i c i p a n t s . 318 Rewards, Task Difficulty, and Intrinsic Motivation Figure 1. The interaction effect of reward by task difficulty on test performance. Means and standard deviations (brackets) are shown for each condition. A M A N O V A of the in t r ins i c m o t i v a t i o n measure (free t ime o n F T D , p e r f o r -m a n c e o n F T D d u r i n g the free-choice p e r i o d , a n d task enjoyment) also detected a m a r g i n a l l y s ign i f i cant in terac t ion of r e w a r d b y task d i f f i c u l t y , F (3 , 66)=2.51, p=.06. T h e m e a n s for each of the var iables that m a d e u p the in t r ins i c m o t i v a t i o n m e a s u r e are presented i n Table 1, w h i c h s h o w s that the means for p e r f o r m a n c e o n F T D d u r i n g the free-choice p e r i o d f o l l o w e d the same pat tern as p e r f o r -mance o n the test. A m o n g the m o d e r a t e l y h i g h d i f f i c u l t y g r o u p s , Table 1 s h o w s that r e w a r d e d par t i c ipants o u t p e r f o r m e d n o n - r e w a r d e d p a r t i c i p a n t s d u r i n g the free-choice p e r i o d . F o r the l o w d i f f i c u l t y g r o u p s , the n o n - r e w a r d e d p a r t i c i p a n t s o u t p e r f o r m e d the r e w a r d e d par t i c ipants . Table 1 a lso indica tes that p a r t i c i p a n t s r e w a r d e d o n the l o w d i f f i c u l t y task spent less free t i m e o n F T D p u z z l e s t h a n n o n - r e w a r d e d controls , a n d that i n the m o d e r a t e l y d i f f i c u l t c o n d i t i o n s , r e w a r d e d par t i c ipants repor ted greater task en joyment t h a n those w h o d i d not receive a r e w a r d . Discussion The results ind ica te that p e r f o r m a n c e o n a test a n d in t r ins i c m o t i v a t i o n i n -creased w h e n r e w a r d s w e r e g i v e n for s u c c e e d i n g at a m o d e r a t e l y d i f f i c u l t task. R e w a r d s g i v e n for a c h i e v e m e n t o n a task of l o w d i f f i c u l t y r e d u c e d p e r f o r -mance a n d m o t i v a t i o n . These f i n d i n g s are i n accord w i t h l earned i n d u s t r i o u s -ness theory (Eisenberger , 1992). F r o m this perspect ive , the m o r e d i f f i c u l t task r e q u i r e d h i g h effort . T h e p a i r i n g of r e w a r d a n d h i g h effort c o n d i t i o n e d sensa-t ions of e levated effort w i t h secondary r e w a r d v a l u e . O n c e sensations of h i g h effort a c q u i r e d r e w a r d v a l u e , par t i c ipants r e w a r d e d for success o n tasks of 319 J. Cameron, W.D. Pierce, and S. So Tab le 1 M e a n s and S tanda rd Dev ia t ions for M e a s u r e s of Intrinsic Mot ivat ion (in F r e e - C h o i c e Per iod) by Exper imenta l Condi t ion Condition Free time on FTD Performance on FTD Task Enjoyment M SD M SD M SD Low Difficulty No reward (W=18) 354.9 186.4 29.5 16.5 5.8 .76 Reward (/V=18) 351.1 194.1 25.8 15.2 5.8 .83 Moderate Difficulty No reward (A/=18) 358.1 197.2 26.2 15.9 5.6 .92 Reward (A/=18) 356.6 194.1 29.6 20.1 6.1 .76 Note. One participant (in the low difficulty, reward condition) did not fill in the task enjoyment questionnaire item and was omitted from the analysis. Means for the free-time measure are based on seconds (total possible = 480 sec). h i g h d i f f i c u l t y generated these sensations b y w o r k i n g h a r d o n the task d u r i n g the test a n d free-choice p e r i o d s . O n the other h a n d , the p a i r i n g of r e w a r d w i t h l o w effort c o n d i t i o n e d sensations of l o w effort w i t h secondary r e w a r d v a l u e . G i v e n this h i s t o r y , par t i c ipants r e w a r d e d for achievement on tasks of l o w d i f f i c u l t y generated the v a l u e d sensations of l o w effort b y d o i n g little w o r k o n the task d u r i n g the test a n d free-choice p e r i o d . A l t h o u g h the s a m p l e s ize i n the present s t u d y w a s s m a l l a n d the p o w e r of the stat ist ical tests w a s l o w , the results h e l p to fur ther o u r u n d e r s t a n d i n g of h o w r e w a r d s c a n be u s e d m o s t ef fect ively i n a p p l i e d settings. It is i m p o r t a n t that o u r f i n d i n g s suggest that w h e n r e w a r d s are t ied to a c h i e v i n g a p e r f o r -m a n c e s t a n d a r d , p e r f o r m a n c e a n d m o t i v a t i o n w i l l increase o n l y w h e n the s t a n d a r d is m o d e r a t e l y d i f f i c u l t a n d c h a l l e n g i n g . Acknowledgment This research is based on Sylvia So's master's thesis and was funded by a grant from the Social Sciences and Humanit ies Research Counc i l (SSHRC) Canada. References Cameron, J., Banko, K . M . , & Pierce, W . D . (2001). Pervasive negative effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation: The myth continues. Behavior Analyst, 24,1-44. Cameron, J., & Pierce, W . D . (2002). Rewards and intrinsic motivation: Resolving the controversy. Westport, CT : Bergin and Garvey, Greenwood. Deci , E.L. , Koestner, R., & Ryan, R . M . (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627-668. Dickinson, A . M . (1989). The detrimental effects of extrinsic reinforcement on "intrinsic motivat ion." Behavior Analyst, 12,1-15. Eisenberger, R. (1992). Learned industriousness. Psychological Review, 99,248-267. Eisenberger, R., Rhoades, L. , & Cameron, J. (1999). Does pay for performance increase or decrease self-determination and intrinsic motivation? journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 1026-1040. Flora, S.R., & Flora, D.B. (1999). Effects of extrinsic reinforcement for reading during childhood on reported reading habits of college students. Psychological Record, 49,3-14. K o h n , A . (1993). Punished by rewards. Boston, M A : Houghton-Mif f l in . Pierce, W . D . , Cameron, J., Banko, K . M . , & So, S. (2003). Positive effects of rewards and performance standards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Record, 53, 561-579. 320 

Rewards, Task Difficulty, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Test of Learned Industriousness Theory

https://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/ajer/article/download/55091/42143

Rewards, Task Difficulty, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Test of Learned Industriousness Theory

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

University of Calgary Journal Hosting