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 MotivationExtrinsic Motivation

“ “ Instrumental in nature and considered a Instrumental in nature and considered a means to an end”(Deci, 1991)means to an end”(Deci, 1991)

IntrinsicIntrinsic “ “Primary propensity of organisms to Primary propensity of organisms to

engage in activities that interest them engage in activities that interest them and, in doing so, learn, develop, and and, in doing so, learn, develop, and expand their capacities” (Sansone, 2002)expand their capacities” (Sansone, 2002)

Rationale

In an effort to improve our educational In an effort to improve our educational systems, understanding what effectively systems, understanding what effectively motivates students to perform to their full motivates students to perform to their full potential is necessary if we are to potential is necessary if we are to adequately assess knowledge. adequately assess knowledge. Are extrinsic motivators beneficial or do Are extrinsic motivators beneficial or do

they negatively affect the learning they negatively affect the learning process?process?

Supporting Research

Short term performance improves with the use of Short term performance improves with the use of extrinsic motivators (O’Donnell ,1996)extrinsic motivators (O’Donnell ,1996)

Previous research has shown that extrinsic rewards Previous research has shown that extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1971; Kohn undermine intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1971; Kohn 1993; Sansone, 2000)1993; Sansone, 2000) When offered a reward, retention of material, value, When offered a reward, retention of material, value,

and understanding was diminished (Grolnick and and understanding was diminished (Grolnick and Ryan, 1987; Kohn, 1986; Sansone, 2000)Ryan, 1987; Kohn, 1986; Sansone, 2000)

Removal of reward has shown to decrees Removal of reward has shown to decrees subsequent efforts (Bandura, 1986)subsequent efforts (Bandura, 1986)

Conflicting Research

Performance contingent rewards have been Performance contingent rewards have been found to help affirm competence – thus found to help affirm competence – thus encouraging performance on subsequent encouraging performance on subsequent tasks ( Eisenberger & Rhodes, 2001; tasks ( Eisenberger & Rhodes, 2001; Schunk, 1984)Schunk, 1984)

Diminished performance could be due to Diminished performance could be due to satiation (Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996) satiation (Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996)

Hypothesis

Extrinsic motivators will increase Extrinsic motivators will increase immediate performance, but will have a immediate performance, but will have a detrimental effect on subsequent detrimental effect on subsequent performance when a reward is not offered. performance when a reward is not offered. Additionally, when the promise of a reward Additionally, when the promise of a reward is broken, there will be an even greater is broken, there will be an even greater decrease in performance.decrease in performance.

Variables

Independent:Independent: Motivation:Motivation:

Control, No Reward, RewardControl, No Reward, Reward TimeTime

Test 1, Test 2Test 1, Test 2 Dependent:Dependent:

Test ScoresTest Scores

Participants

66 Mt. Holyoke College female students, 66 Mt. Holyoke College female students, age 18-60, randomly recruited via poster age 18-60, randomly recruited via poster advertisement on campusadvertisement on campus Control - 19Control - 19 No reward- 24No reward- 24 Reward- 23Reward- 23

Materials

Test 1 & Test 2Test 1 & Test 2 word scramblesword scrambles each of equal difficultyeach of equal difficulty General Test Instructions include:General Test Instructions include:

motivatormotivatortime limittime limiteach answer assigned varying point each answer assigned varying point

valuevalue

Materials cont’d

Instructions for Tests 1 & 2 according to Instructions for Tests 1 & 2 according to the group the participant is randomly the group the participant is randomly assigned toassigned to control – no extrinsic motivationcontrol – no extrinsic motivation

Instructions include no reward nor Instructions include no reward nor promise of rewardpromise of reward

Materials Continued

2 reward groups – extrinsic motivation2 reward groups – extrinsic motivationNo Reward – Although earned, No Reward – Although earned,

instructions include broken promise of instructions include broken promise of reward reward

Reward – Instructions include a Reward – Instructions include a reward certificate ( $5 Odyssey ) reward certificate ( $5 Odyssey ) according to false performance gradeaccording to false performance grade

Materials Continued

Color-coding stickersColor-coding stickers Clock Clock CandyCandy

Procedure

P’s sign consent formP’s sign consent form P’s randomly assigned to groupP’s randomly assigned to group

Provided a sticker w/ number corresponding to Provided a sticker w/ number corresponding to their test numbertheir test number

Collect test after 10 minutesCollect test after 10 minutes Pretend to grade test Pretend to grade test Distribute Test 2 and InstructionsDistribute Test 2 and Instructions Collect Test 2 after 10 minutesCollect Test 2 after 10 minutes Debrief P’s and give candy “Thank you”Debrief P’s and give candy “Thank you”

Results

Dependent Variable – Test ScoresDependent Variable – Test Scores Hypothesis – Hypothesis –

2 extrinsically motivated groups (Reward & No 2 extrinsically motivated groups (Reward & No Reward) will score higher than control group on Reward) will score higher than control group on Test 1Test 1

Control groups scores will remain consistentControl groups scores will remain consistent Reward group will score lower on Test 2Reward group will score lower on Test 2 No Reward group will score the lowest on Test 2No Reward group will score the lowest on Test 2

Analysis

2 ( Time: Test 1, Test 2) X2 ( Time: Test 1, Test 2) X 3 (Motivation: 3 (Motivation: Control, No Reward, Reward) Mixed Control, No Reward, Reward) Mixed Design ANOVADesign ANOVA Test -Repeated measure (within)Test -Repeated measure (within) Motivation – Independent group Motivation – Independent group

(between)(between)

Main Effects

Main effect for Test, such that P’s scored Main effect for Test, such that P’s scored significantly higher on Test 1 significantly higher on Test 1

There was no significant Main Effect for There was no significant Main Effect for Motivation. P’s did not differ significantly Motivation. P’s did not differ significantly from one another in their test scores. from one another in their test scores.

Interactions

There was no interaction between Test and There was no interaction between Test and Motivation, therefore our hypothesis was Motivation, therefore our hypothesis was not supported. not supported.

Discussion

Significant main effect for Test Significant main effect for Test P’s perceived Test 2 as harderP’s perceived Test 2 as harder After Test 1, perhaps P’s experienced fatigueAfter Test 1, perhaps P’s experienced fatigue

No main effect for MotivationNo main effect for Motivation Perhaps due to weak motivation manipulationPerhaps due to weak motivation manipulation

No interaction between Test and MotivationNo interaction between Test and Motivation Results inconsistent with previous researchResults inconsistent with previous research

Problems

Participants did not believe in deceptionParticipants did not believe in deception Some P’s did not complete testSome P’s did not complete test

overall scores too low to believe scores overall scores too low to believe scores warranted the rewardwarranted the reward

P’s thought some words were made P’s thought some words were made up-no actual answer – “impossible up-no actual answer – “impossible test”test”

Anticipated Testing Effect not RealizedAnticipated Testing Effect not Realized Concerns of better performance on Test 2 Concerns of better performance on Test 2

because of practice from Test 1because of practice from Test 1 Hypothesis guessing did affect construct validityHypothesis guessing did affect construct validity

P’s trying to figure out what test was measuring P’s trying to figure out what test was measuring Self –esteemSelf –esteemFrustrationFrustration

Possible Confounds

Both tests very difficultBoth tests very difficult Poor measure - Required specific ability, Poor measure - Required specific ability,

not general enough to accurately measure not general enough to accurately measure effect of motivationeffect of motivation

Poor performance on Test 2 possibly due Poor performance on Test 2 possibly due to test taking fatigue to test taking fatigue

More Possible Confounds

External Validity was limitedExternal Validity was limited Previous research better replicated real Previous research better replicated real

world situationworld situation Small sample increased Type II error Small sample increased Type II error Specific population too homogenousSpecific population too homogenous

Internal Validity was limitedInternal Validity was limited Difficulty of test might have affected Difficulty of test might have affected

self-esteem, which then affected self-esteem, which then affected performance performance

P’s might have figured out hypothesis- P’s might have figured out hypothesis- leading to demand characteristicsleading to demand characteristics

Hawthorne Effect Hawthorne Effect P’s might have figured out P’s might have figured out wrongwrong

hypothesis and acted accordinglyhypothesis and acted accordingly

Questions ?