Which of the following examples best illustrates an intrinsic motivation?

Intrinsic Motivation and Interest

Intrinsic motivation is defined as motivation to engage in a task or activity for its own sake whereas with extrinsic motivation engagement occurs for instrumental reasons, such as reward (Linnenbrink and Pintrich, 2002). Intrinsic motivation theories comprise self-determination theory, flow theory, and interests (Eccles and Wigfield, 2002). Self-determinations theory is a theoretical approach that specifies conditions leading to intrinsic motivation. Intrinsic motivation is promoted when people feel competent, self-determined (autonomy), and experience a sense of relatedness (Graham and Weiner, 2012). Flow is the immediate subjective experience of fluent and mentally absorbing processes that occurs when people are engaged in an activity that can be mastered (Eccles and Wigfield, 2002). Studies that explore that actual role of intrinsic motivation for SA are rare. Gottfried (1985) reported moderate correlations between academic intrinsic motivation measured by a self-report inventory and test achievement and teacher grades for reading, language, and mathematics in grades 4–8.

Interest can be considered as a special kind of intrinsic motivation that is related to specific objects, subject areas, or activities (Schiefele, 2009). A basic distinction is between individual, or personal, and situational interest, which corresponds to the well-known distinction between trait and state. Individual interest is a general and relatively enduring affective-evaluative orientation toward certain subject areas or objects, situational interest is a temporary state aroused by specific features of an object. Individual interest comprises feeling-related and value-related valences. The former relates to the feelings that are associated with an object or activity, the latter to the personal significance or importance of an object or activity. As summarized by Linnenbrink and Pintrich (2002), personal interest is positively associated with achievement, the use of deeper cognitive strategies, and increased attention and persistence. For the relation between interest and achievement, an effect size of 0.65 has been reported (Hattie, 2009). Köller et al. (2001) found in a longitudinal study that interest had a significant effect on the development of mathematical achievement from grade 10 to 12 but not from grade 7 to 10. That is, motivation played a role in higher grades when instruction is less structured than in earlier grades. This result illustrates the role of context for motivation.

Intrinsic, extrinsic, and synergistic models of motivation

Intrinsic motivation is defined as a motivation to engage in an activity for its own sake. It holds interest, is engaging and challenging, and elicits feelings of pleasure and satisfaction. Extrinsic motivation is defined as a motivation to participate in an activity based on meeting an external goal, garnering praise and approval, winning a competition, or receiving an award or payment. Extrinsic motivation is not driven by the desire to engage in an activity for its own sake. Amabile originally proposed the intrinsic motivation hypothesis, a hypothesis that described how intrinsic motivation promotes creativity; whereas, extrinsic motivation compromises creativity (Collins & Amabile, 1999). This hypothesis is no longer regarded as an absolute truth. Certainly intrinsic motivation must be present if a performing artist is to excel, however, appropriate external motivators can also enhance creativity (Collins & Amabile, 1999). All performing artists prefer audience approval, which is by definition an extrinsic motivator. Many enter competitions to further their careers, and all desire financial remuneration if they are to succeed as a professional artist. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations are seemingly dichotomous factors, but maintaining a binary concept marginalizes the complexity of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and how they operate within creative individuals (Collins & Amabile, 1999).

When integrating Atkinson’s need achievement theory into intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, it further nullifies a binary concept, especially because this theory includes trait-like behaviors such as approaching success and avoiding failure (Covington & Mueller, 2001). The approach/avoidance theory is built on the emotional conflict view that individuals seek (approach) success along with the accompanying feelings of pride and efficacy and fear (avoidance) failure, including feelings of shame and humiliation (Covington & Mueller, 2001). With repeated experiences, individuals who are biased toward high approach motivation may be success-oriented or overachievers; whereas, individuals who adopt low approach motivational strategies either are failure avoiders or assume and accept that they will fail (failure acceptors). On the other hand, high avoiders either may be driven by the need to avoid failure or fear that their overachieving efforts may result in failure. Low avoiding individuals will be either success-oriented, or paradoxically, fully accepting of failure. The failure acceptors will display low motivation for both approach and avoidance; they lack motivation, including an inability to respond to goals that are either intrinsic or extrinsic (Covington & Mueller, 2001).

The approach/avoidance model inherently assumes that a desire to achieve goals drives these strategies (Elliot & Thrash, 2001). To achieve goals, mastery of skills is essential, coupled with an awareness of how one performs relative to others (Elliot & Thrash, 2001). Achievement goal theory identifies three distinct types of achievement goals. The first, mastery goals, includes gaining skills to accomplish tasks and the resultant sense of competence that follows skill mastery. The second component in achievement goal theory is performance-approach goals. This reinforces competence, whereas, performance-avoidance goals indicate a motivational strategy that addresses a desire to avoid feelings of incompetence relative to others (Elliot & Thrash, 2002). Including approach/avoidance motivation and achievement goal drives adds complexity to the primary motivational strategies. For example, a successful performing artist must achieve skill mastery and also be aware of performance achievement. Ultimately, they must engage an approach motivational strategy in most circumstances; however, avoidance strategies, when used judiciously, may protect them from unnecessary experiences of failure and feelings of incompetence (Elliot & Covington, 2001). These strategies are deeply ingrained biologically. Appetitive goals are pleasurable; we approach them often without conscious awareness while aversive goals are instinctively avoided. Performing artists intuitively and instinctively recognize appetitive versus aversive goals. For example, they willingly approach aesthetic pleasures and they withdraw from works that lack an aesthetic appeal (Kharkhurin, 2014; Martindale, 2007; Osipovich, 2006).

Returning to the prevailing theories of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation, robust research demonstrates the power of intrinsic motivation in creativity. It is a powerful mediating factor in predicting the personality trait openness to experience, as well as self-esteem and creativity (Prabhu et al., 2008). Goal achievement was directly related to intrinsic motivation in performing artists (Lacaille et al., 2007). In the study by Lacaille et al. (2007), intrinsic motivation predicted positive performances and heightened enjoyment; whereas, mastery did not significantly influence goal achievement. Certainly the ability to meet a challenge influences goal achievement; however, intrinsic motivation to acquire skills to meet a challenge influences goal-directed activities and ultimately goal achievement (Abuhamdeh & Csikszentmihalyi, 2012). Individuals who experience more positive, rather than negative, emotions are able to maintain intrinsic motivation as they seek enjoyable activities. They are also able to meet external demands, even if these demands temporarily delay their engagement with their desired activities. This finding demonstrates how intrinsic motivation can be sustained across a variety of positive and negative demands (Isen & Reeve, 2005). Intrinsic motivation is certainly improved by social–environmental factors, such as support from family, teachers and coaches; cultural values that are aligned with the desired activities; and opportunities to participate in performing arts activities (Hallam, 2002; Hassandra, Goudas, & Chroni, 2003). When performers are allowed to pursue their ideal standards and set goals, rather than responding out of a sense of obligation, greater creativity is possible (Zabelina, Felps, & Blanton, 2013). They are intrinsically motivated to excel.

Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, has generally been regarded as a deterrent to creativity. External judgment and expectation can constrain performance; they ultimately divide attention and operate as a distraction. When these external forces are amplified, performance can be severely compromised; however, if they are constructive and informative, goal achievement is enhanced (Collins & Amabile, 1999). Consequently, appropriate extrinsic motivators can improve competency and facilitate both intrinsic motivation and goal achievement. Optimally, extrinsic motivators operate synergistically with intrinsic motivation; at moderate levels of intensity they promote sustained efforts to master skills and solve problems (Prabhu et al., 2008). They can reinforce an intrinsic motivation to engage in a desired activity (Collins & Amabile, 1999).

Performing artists bring a unique variable to the synergistic intrinsic–extrinsic model. Because they usually perform within group settings, their obligation and responsibility to the group is great. In these conditions, although obligation might be regarded as an extrinsic motivator, it operates as an intrinsic motivator and enhances efforts to meet external performance goals. Giving a strong performance is highly rewarding for performing artists, thus a synergistic balance between extrinsic, intrinsic, and obligation motivation facilitates this outcome (Cooper & Jayatilaka, 2006). For example, this synergistic melding of motivating factors was strongly present in the success of groups such as the Beatles. They were strongly intrinsically motivated, driven by external rewards such as success and fame, and they were deeply obligated to one another, even if they were competitively rivaling one another (Clyesdale, 2006). The group interaction of the Beatles is one example that typifies most successful performing arts groups, whether in music, theater, or dance (Fig. 12.3).

A The function of intrinsic motivation

IM can be seen as a missing piece in an important puzzle. Humans are designed as a species to be learners and doers. Although lacking in the sensory acuity, strength, speed, and built-in weapons of other creatures, we are distinguished by our enormous cerebral cortex—a massive central processing unit (about 20 billion neurons)—which allows us to pursue cognitively complex and challenging goals. A limitation is that a substantial portion of this massive processor arrives relatively “unprogrammed.” But of course that is the beauty of the human brain. It allows us to learn and adapt to diverse physical, social, and, now, technological environments. In fact, humans have a longer childhood than any other species, presumably to allow us to begin loading all those neurons with experience, knowledge, and skills (Bjorklund & Ellis, 2005)—to practice and develop our human potential for learning and doing.

The missing piece is the motivation to do this—to learn and use this big brain for challenging activities. This is a major function that psychologists attribute to the IM system: to mobilize conscious and deliberate processes of learning and development (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990; Ryan & Deci, 2009). Just as it would make no evolutional sense to have sex organs without the motivation to use them, it would make no sense to have large, adaptable brains without a system to motivate us to develop them to address the challenges of diverse human environments. Although evidence on the neurological mechanisms of IM is very limited, it has been speculated that it represents an evolution of a basic “seeking system” from our evolutionary forbearers, a system for exploring and pursuing goals (Hidi, 2006; Panksepp, 1998).

In this section, we examine the proposition that IM mobilizes an effective and efficient psychological state for learning and development. The argument is that IM not only provides motivation to deal with challenges, but also it alters how the mind processes information to facilitate high quality attention to the task at hand. It allows humans to devote deep, sustained attention to episodes of work and learning. We first describe the subjectively experienced features of this state, and then, we examine evidence that it increases cognitive effectiveness and efficiency and helps sustain engagement.

Conclusion

Intrinsic motivation is an inner drive which reflects the internal aspect of individuals, rooted inside them. This motivation has a permanent effect and it is the spirit which helps individuals to consider themselves in a higher position compared to all creatures. With this type of motivation, an individual enjoys internal satisfaction which has a more enduring and long-term effect compared to the material (extrinsic) type. As discussed before, doing work for life and for the benefits of others are considered a form of worship. From an Islamic perspective, employees who work with this idea know that God observes them in whatever they do and believe that they will achieve real success in their eternal life or life after death. Thus intrinsic motivation is at the top of the list for Muslims because only spiritual motivation can be a real force towards real success (Ghauri, 2009).

It is understood that there are difficulties in estimating or delivering new knowledge to academic researchers since it is intangible, and not many researchers have explored it in any depth. For this reason, exploring the way to ensure employee satisfaction in an organisation is very important because it leads to loyalty and ultimately organisational effectiveness. Employees are assets and resources of an organisation that are essential in achieving an organisation’s targets. An employee who is satisfied with their job may remain loyal to the organisation. Similarly, dissatisfied employees may have an intention to leave the organisation (Ramly et al., 2010).

According to Freeland (2013), employee satisfaction and engagement have proven to be an effective way to motivate employees to be more productive, work harder and display more loyalty to their organisations. Hence, ensuring long-term employee satisfaction is a key to reduce the disruptive tendencies that could hamper organisational effectiveness such as low productivity and frequent turnover. However, in achieving organisational effectiveness (defined by Etzioni (1964) as ‘the degree to which an organisation realises its goals’) through HRM needs a wider framework that will take into consideration the external and internal approaches as suggested by Bisig et al. (2007) in their study entitled Improving Organizational Effectiveness – Theoretical Framework and Model. Subsequent empirical research will look for representative data gathered from the local IBOs to identify the possible connection between intrinsic factors and job satisfaction as proposed in the framework presented earlier in this chapter.

Intrinsic Motivation Approaches

The intrinsic motivation approach involves emphasizing content that students are interested in and activities that they enjoy. Interesting activities provide learners with forms of input or opportunities for response that they find rewarding and want to pursue (Renninger and Hidi, 2002; Schraw and Lehman, 2001). This may be because the activities are perceived as relevant or useful; are simply enjoyable or sources of fun; provide self-actualization potential by allowing students to feel empowered or creative; are meaningful or satisfying because they allow students to experience new understandings or gain new skills that they value; or provide opportunities for identification or self-projection (as when they identify with the hero of a story). For example, most students enjoy collaborating in pairs or small groups, activities that provide opportunities to use a wide variety of skills (e.g., conducting and reporting research) rather than limiting them to boring repetition (e.g., filling in blanks on a worksheet), and activities that allow them to create a product that they can point to and identify with (e.g., a display or report) (Alleman and Brophy, 1993–94; Askell-Williams and Lawson, 2001).

Other intrinsic motivation approaches involve adapting school content or activities to students’ interests (Renninger, 2000; Schraw et al., 2001). For example, Hidi and Baird (1988) found that interest in texts was enhanced when their main ideas were elaborated through insertions that featured: (1) character identification (information about people with whom the students could identify, such as the inventors whose discoveries led to the knowledge under study); (2) novelty (content that was new or unusual); (3) life theme (connections to students’ lives outside of school); and (4) activity level (intense activities or strong emotions). Teachers also can stimulate students’ curiosity or whet their anticipation by introducing content in ways that create a need to resolve some ambiguity or obtain more information about the topic, or by asking questions to put students into an information-processing or decision-making mode (Blank and White, 1999; Reeve, 1996).

Teachers’ beliefs about effective motivation strategies emphasize intrinsic approaches: cooperative learning, stimulating tasks, opportunity to make choices, simulations, projects, learning games, relating content to current events, hands-on activities, and personalized content (Hootstein, 1995; Nolen and Nicholls, 1994). However, teachers typically focus on finding enjoyable activities or adding interesting elements to content rather than on helping students to develop appreciation for the content itself (Zahorik, 1996). Hands-on activities will not produce important learning unless they include minds-on features that engage students in thinking about big ideas.

The self-determination theory of Deci and Ryan (1985, 2000) has been a major source of ideas about supporting intrinsic motivation in classrooms. As part of developing their core thesis that in order to experience a sense of well-being, people require social contexts that meet their three basic needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness, self-determination theorists have been exploring what is involved in creating autonomy-supportive contexts in classrooms. Operating from intrinsic motivation typically involves exercising autonomy and making free choices. In contrast with controlling contexts, which pressure students to think, act, or feel in particular ways, autonomy-supportive contexts minimize extrinsic performance pressures, provide students with choices, encourage them to solve problems in their own ways rather than insisting on a single method, and invite them to ask questions and suggest ideas for learning activities. Autonomy-supportive teachers empathize with the student’s perspective, seek to facilitate independent thought and decision making, and provide meaningful rationales when choice is constrained. In contrast, control-oriented teachers overmanage their students using detailed instructions backed by rewards, grades, and threats (Reeve et al., 1999; Valas and Sovik, 1994; Vansteenkiste et al., 2006).

Teachers often can allow their students to choose among task alternatives or to exercise autonomy in pursuing alternative ways to meet curricular requirements. For example, they might allow students to select topics for book reports, composition assignments, or research projects, and perhaps also to select from alternative ways of representing their work. When students are likely to make undesirable choices if left completely on their own, teachers can provide a menu of choices to select from or help them make choices that are well suited to their interests and reading levels (Starnes and Paris, 2000; Worthy et al., 2002).

3 Research on Intrinsic Motivation

Initial research on intrinsic motivation examined the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation, finding that extrinsic rewards did undermine intrinsic motivation within limiting conditions (e.g., Deci 1975). Specifically, the undermining occurred when the activity was initially interesting and the rewards were both contingent on doing the activity and expected while doing it.

This general finding, which has now been replicated numerous times was controversial when it first appeared and has remained controversial ever since. In fact, the controversy was very apparent recently when Eisenberger and Cameron (1996) published a high visibility article in which they reported having done a meta-analysis of experiments examining reward effects on intrinsic motivation and having found little evidence for the undermining effect. However, Deci et al. (1999) subsequently pointed out many errors and inappropriate procedures in that Eisenberger and Cameron meta-analysis and did a new meta-analysis that corrected the previous shortcomings. The newer meta-analysis, involving 128 studies, confirmed, in fact, that tangible extrinsic rewards do reliably undermine intrinsic motivation for the rewarded activity, as had been concluded previously in narrative reviews of the literature (e.g., Deci and Ryan 1985).

Part of the significance of the undermining effect is that it indicates that motivation is not a unitary concept, varying only in amount, because these two types of motivation—intrinsic and extrinsic—are not additive. Indeed, it has turned out that the orientation of motivation—whether a behavior is intrinsically or extrinsically motivated—is more important than the overall amount of motivation for predicting behavior and its consequences (Ryan and Deci 2000).

In fact, numerous studies have shown that intrinsic, relative to extrinsic, motivation was associated with better conceptual learning, greater creativity, more cognitive flexibility, greater behavioral persistence, and enhanced well-being (Deci and Ryan 1985, Utman 1997). Given these findings, a thorough investigation of the social–contextual conditions that facilitate versus impede intrinsic motivation seemed essential.

Because the needs for competence and autonomy were theorized to be crucial nutriments for intrinsic motivation, contextual factors that allowed satisfaction of the needs for competence and autonomy were predicted to enhance intrinsic motivation, whereas those that thwarted satisfaction of these basic needs were predicted to undermine intrinsic motivation.

What is intrinsic motivation quizlet?

Which of the following is associated with intrinsic motivation?

Who is being driven by intrinsic motivation quizlet?

Which of the following describes extrinsic motivation?