WEEK 2: OVERVIEW OF MOTIVATION THAT IS EXTRINSIC OR INTRINSIC

Ryan & Deci (2000): As much as people like talking about Maslow’s Pyramid, we already know there’s little theoretical basis for it. So it’s very fascinating to see alternate models that tries less strict “tiered” ways to approach the issue, like the self-determination theory by Edward L. Deci.The theory has three components that can be effectively be used in a business, project or group context:

Autonomy: people need to perceive that they have choices and that they can self-determine what to do. This is why most of the top-down management approaches fail: because there’s a difference between setting a vision and imposing activities.

Relatedness: people need to care about and be cared about by others. Feel connected without ulterior motives.

Competence: people need to feel challenged, contributing to the cause and being effective. It’s a very close component to the Flow mental state.

One interesting aspect of these three elements is how much all of them are related not to extrinsic motivations but intrinsic ones, and more specifically to finding a meaning.

Extrinsic motivation comes from external sources. Deci and Ryan[17] developed organismic integration theory (OIT), as a sub-theory of SDT, to explain the different ways extrinsically motivated behaviour is regulated. OIT details the different forms of extrinsic motivation and the contexts in which they come about. It is the context of such motivation that concerns the SDT theory as these contexts affect whether the motivations are internalised and so integrated into the sense of self. OIT describes four different types of extrinsic motivations that often vary in terms of their relative autonomy:

Externally regulated behaviour: Is the least autonomous, it is performed because of external demand or possible reward. Such actions can be seen to have an externally perceived locus of causality.[12] Introjected regulation of behaviour: describes taking on regulations to behaviour but not fully accepting said regulations as your own. Deci and Ryan[21] claim such behaviour normally represents regulation by contingent self-esteem, citing ego involvement as a classic form of introjections.[22] This is the kind of behaviour where people feel motivated to demonstrate ability to maintain self-worth. While this is internally driven, introjected behavior has an external perceived locus of causality or not coming from one's self. Since the causality of the behavior is perceived as external, the behavior is considered non-self-determined.

Regulation through identification: a more autonomously driven form of extrinsic motivation. It involves consciously valuing a goal or regulation so that said action is accepted as personally important.

Integrated Regulation: Is the most autonomous kind of extrinsic motivation. Occurring when regulations are fully assimilated with self so they are included in a person's self evaluations and beliefs on personal needs. Because of this, integrated motivations share qualities with intrinsic motivation but are still classified as extrinsic because the goals that are trying to be achieved are for reasons extrinsic to the self, rather than the inherent enjoyment or interest in the task.

Extrinsically motivated behaviours can be integrated into self. OIT proposes internalization is more likely to occur when there is a sense of relatedness.Ryan, Stiller and Lynch[23] found that children internalize school's extrinsic regulations when they feel secure and cared for by parents and teachers.Internalisation of extrinsic motivation is also linked to competence. OIT suggests that feelings of competence in activities should facilitate internalisation of said actions.[24]Autonomy is particularly important when trying to integrate its regulations into a person's sense of self. If an external context allows a person to integrate regulation—they must feel competent, related and autonomous. They must also understand the regulation in terms of their other goals to facilitate a sense of autonomy.[25] This was supported by Deci, Eghrari, Patrick and Leone[26] who found in laboratory settings if a person was given a meaningful reason for uninteresting behaviour along with support for their sense of autonomy and relatedness they internalized and integrated their behaviour.

AutonomyDeci[27] found that offering people extrinsic rewards for behaviour that is intrinsically motivated undermined the intrinsic motivation as they grow less interested in it. Initially intrinsically motivated behaviour becomes controlled by external rewards, which undermines their autonomy. Further research by Amabile, DeJong and Lepper[28] found other external factors like deadlines, which restrict and control, also decrease intrinsic motivation. Situations that give autonomy as opposed to taking it away also have a similar link to motivation. Studies looking at choice have found that increasing a participant's options and choices increases their intrinsic motivation.[29]

CompetenceDeci[27] found that giving people unexpected positive feedback on a task increases people's intrinsic motivation to do it, meaning that this was because the positive feedback was fulfilling people's need for competence. In fact, giving positive feedback on a task served only to increase people's intrinsic motivation and decreased extrinsic motivation for the task.Vallerand and Reid[18] found negative feedback has the opposite effect (i.e., decreasing intrinsic motivation by taking away from people's need for competence).

Relatedness During a study on the relationship between infants' attachment styles, their exhibition of mastery-oriented behaviour, and their affect during play, Frodi, Bridges and Grolnick[30] failed to find significant effects: "Perhaps somewhat surprising was the finding that the quality of attachment assessed at 12 months failed to significantly predict either mastery motivation, competence, or affect 8 months later, when other investigators have demonstrated an association between similar constructs ..." Yet they note that larger sample sizes could be able to uncover such effects: "A comparison of the secure/stable and the insecure/stable groups, however, did suggest that the secure/stable group was superior to the insecure/stable groups on all mastery-related measures. Obviously, replications of all the attachment-motivation relations are needed with different and larger samples."