Transcript The Effects of Extrinsic Motivation and Subsequent Absence

The Effects of Extrinsic
Motivation and Subsequent
Absence on Test Taking
Performance
Kimala Bennet, Aja Crockett, Sophia Hsu, Lisa Poulin, Dina Zelyony
Mount Holyoke College
Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic


Extrinsic Motivation
 “ Instrumental in nature and considered a
means to an end”(Deci, 1991)
Intrinsic
 “Primary propensity of organisms to
engage in activities that interest them
and, in doing so, learn, develop, and
expand their capacities” (Sansone, 2002)
Rationale

In an effort to improve our educational
systems, understanding what effectively
motivates students to perform to their full
potential is necessary if we are to
adequately assess knowledge.
 Are extrinsic motivators beneficial or do
they negatively affect the learning
process?
Supporting Research


Short term performance improves with the use of
extrinsic motivators (O’Donnell ,1996)
Previous research has shown that extrinsic rewards
undermine intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1971; Kohn
1993; Sansone, 2000)
 When offered a reward, retention of material,
value, and understanding was diminished
(Grolnick and Ryan, 1987; Kohn, 1986;
Sansone, 2000)
 Removal of reward has shown to decrees
subsequent efforts (Bandura, 1986)
Conflicting Research
Performance contingent rewards have been
found to help affirm competence – thus
encouraging performance on subsequent
tasks ( Eisenberger & Rhodes, 2001;
Schunk, 1984)
 Diminished performance could be due to
satiation (Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996)

Hypothesis

Extrinsic motivators will increase
immediate performance, but will have a
detrimental effect on subsequent
performance when a reward is not offered.
Additionally, when the promise of a reward
is broken, there will be an even greater
decrease in performance.
Variables
Independent:
 Motivation:
 Control, No Reward, Reward
 Time
 Test 1, Test 2
 Dependent:
 Test Scores

Participants

66 Mt. Holyoke College female students,
age 18-60, randomly recruited via poster
advertisement on campus
 Control - 19
 No reward- 24
 Reward- 23
Materials

Test 1 & Test 2
 word scrambles
 each of equal difficulty
 General Test Instructions include:
 motivator
 time limit
 each answer assigned varying point
value
Materials cont’d

Instructions for Tests 1 & 2 according to
the group the participant is randomly
assigned to
 control – no extrinsic motivation
 Instructions include no reward nor
promise of reward
Materials Continued

2 reward groups – extrinsic motivation
 No Reward – Although earned,
instructions include broken promise of
reward
 Reward – Instructions include a
reward certificate ( $5 Odyssey )
according to false performance grade
Materials Continued
Color-coding stickers
 Clock
 Candy

Procedure







P’s sign consent form
P’s randomly assigned to group
 Provided a sticker w/ number corresponding to
their test number
Collect test after 10 minutes
Pretend to grade test
Distribute Test 2 and Instructions
Collect Test 2 after 10 minutes
Debrief P’s and give candy “Thank you”
Results


Dependent Variable – Test Scores
Hypothesis –
 2 extrinsically motivated groups (Reward & No
Reward) will score higher than control group on
Test 1
 Control groups scores will remain consistent
 Reward group will score lower on Test 2
 No Reward group will score the lowest on Test 2
Analysis

2 ( Time: Test 1, Test 2) X 3 (Motivation:
Control, No Reward, Reward) Mixed
Design ANOVA
 Test -Repeated measure (within)
 Motivation – Independent group
(between)
Main Effects
Main effect for Test, such that P’s scored
significantly higher on Test 1
 There was no significant Main Effect for
Motivation. P’s did not differ significantly
from one another in their test scores.

Interactions

There was no interaction between Test and
Motivation, therefore our hypothesis was
not supported.
Discussion



Significant main effect for Test
 P’s perceived Test 2 as harder
 After Test 1, perhaps P’s experienced fatigue
No main effect for Motivation
 Perhaps due to weak motivation manipulation
No interaction between Test and Motivation
 Results inconsistent with previous research
Problems

Participants did not believe in deception
 Some P’s did not complete test
 overall scores too low to believe scores
warranted the reward
 P’s thought some words were made
up-no actual answer – “impossible
test”


Anticipated Testing Effect not Realized
 Concerns of better performance on Test 2
because of practice from Test 1
Hypothesis guessing did affect construct validity
 P’s trying to figure out what test was measuring
 Self –esteem
 Frustration
Possible Confounds

Both tests very difficult
 Poor measure - Required specific ability,
not general enough to accurately measure
effect of motivation
 Poor performance on Test 2 possibly due
to test taking fatigue
More Possible Confounds

External Validity was limited
 Previous research better replicated real
world situation
 Small sample increased Type II error
 Specific population too homogenous

Internal Validity was limited
 Difficulty of test might have affected
self-esteem, which then affected
performance
 P’s might have figured out hypothesisleading to demand characteristics
 Hawthorne Effect
 P’s might have figured out wrong
hypothesis and acted accordingly
Questions ?