You say to-may-toe, I say to-mah-toe

Individual differences in motives guide focus and effort

Scholars frequently describe people according to two different motivational paradigms. The intrinsic–extrinsic dimension suggests that individuals are primarily motivated either by rewards or by the achievement of personal satisfaction and growth. Many contingencies exist concerning how rewards work and whether personal development alone is sufficient to motivate behavior. A second dimension infers that learning and performance are motivated by the reasons people strive to reach particular goal targets. Individuals can achieve goals for two primary reasons: to master a particular topic or skill or for socially driven reasons, including the appearance of capability in the eyes of others. This chapter deconstructs these dimensions and also emphasizes the pervasive role of interest as a catalyst for motivated behavior.

Keywords

Intrinsic motivation; extrinsic motivation; self-determination; behaviorism; goal orientation

Welcome to Part II. First, let’s recap. Thus far, we have explored several foundational principles to interpret the antecedents of performance motivation. Some motivational myths were debunked, the influence of biopsychology on motivation was described, and the evolving nature of motivation over the lifespan was explained. The pervasive influence of culture when diagnosing and mediating motivational challenges was revealed. Next, we turn to three paradoxical, but central. types of evidence critical to understanding optimal motivation: (1) individual differences in how rewards sway and modify performance effort, (2) factors that contribute to setting and attaining goal targets, and (3) a discussion on how domain-specific interest develops, fluctuates, and influences our attentional focus and corresponding strategy choices.

Now, imagine it is the first day of the semester, or recall your first day on a new job. Like the start of the baseball season, hope springs eternal, and individual confidence abounds. As the naive optimism prevails, you are suddenly offered an intriguing proposition. In the classroom, students hear the instruction, “Line up against the wall.” During corporate orientation, I say, “Sign here” and point to a tiny square box that reads, “I agree to all terms and conditions of employment.” No, I am not taking attendance or measuring compliant organizational behavior. I am beginning to assess how people are motivated. My academic voice rings out: “How many of you would like an ‘A’ for the course without needing to attend the next six classes?” Hands dart up. My corporate voice mirrors the similar academic intention: “Who wants to participate in the executive bonus plan? You don’t have any specific goals to meet; merely come to work every day!” Suddenly, the tired eyes of students open wide and the workers’ eyebrows take a dubious shift. Invariably, responses to these offers are first met with laughter and then skepticism, as people wonder if these overtures could possibly be sincere. After a few minutes of probing questions, about 80% of the respondents assume their positions against the wall or check the little box, all indicating their willingness to either earn grades or pay, with little, if any, investment of effort. Yet 20% of individuals turn my offer down, but why?

The disparity between accepting an unearned “A” and taking pay for minimal effort, in comparison with rejecting the offer is stark evidence that individual differences exist in ascribing values to tasks, determining what goals are worthy of pursuit, and what people find interesting. Each choice described has broad and powerful motivational implications. The variability of individual need and choice suggests that what is perceived as satisfying by one individual may be disparaged by another. The reasons for choices are robust indicators of individual commitment and symptomatic of the value individuals place on various learning objectives and performance targets. Frequently, we hear friends and co-workers lament their choices and obligations, using terminology, such as “wanting,” “needing,” or being “obligated,” as the prevailing rationale that determines how much time, focus, or effort is invested in a particular endeavor. Broadly, these exclamations represent how individuals qualitatively evaluate various aspects of their decisions, choices which ultimately influence how they apply and regulate their motivation. Individuals make clear assessments and distinctions between what is considered “work” or “play” (Lepper & Henderlong, 2000), and if they approach tasks because of “desire” or a perceived “necessity” (Sansone & Smith, 2000). It is these dimensions, typically described in research as the difference between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, that motivational detectives (MDs) can use to make some preliminary and significant diagnostic inferences concerning the conditions and contingencies related to cultivating optimal performance.

Conceptions of motivation vary broadly, yet most researchers agree that individuals assume one of two motivational dispositions when contemplating the goals they set and the tasks they are willing to pursue. Although at times people embrace dualistic motives, frequently individuals have either intrinsic or extrinsic motives (Vallerand & Ratelle, 2002). Intrinsic motivation, from a learning or performance perspective, suggests that individuals possess a predisposition to engage in the pursuit of knowledge and seek opportunities to demonstrate competence. When intrinsically motivated, individuals gain pleasure and satisfaction merely from the process of reaching a learning or performance target (Stipek, 1998). Intrinsic motivation implies that the impetus to achieve is cultivated without consideration or expectation of external recognition or reward. The purposeful and intentional process of goal pursuit is emotionally perceived as positive for the intrinsically motivated (White, 1959), presumably because the individual ascribes personal value and utility to reaching the intended goal. Successful goal attainment cultivates a sense of competency and nurtures positive efficacy perceptions, primarily because the individual is able to reach the desired target.

Conversely, when extrinsically motivated, individuals pursue goal targets chiefly because reaching the desired goal results in attaining specific incentives or reinforcements, jointly described as “contingencies.” Learning contingencies represent desired short-term outcomes, such as earning good grades or receiving teacher and parent praise for academic achievements. Long-term learning contingencies include making incremental progress toward career goals, earning positive social evaluations from others, or realizing personal definitions of economic success, if and when goal targets are met. Performance-related contingencies provide similar materialistic inducements, affording recognition of accomplishments or gaining elevated social status because of one’s talents and abilities. Avoidance of negative consequences may also incentivize the extrinsically-motivated individual by thwarting the appearance of incompetence and by evading tasks that might bring about self-doubt (Bandura, 1991).

The key difference between individuals with intrinsic versus extrinsic orientations are the purported justifications and reasons for pursuing exhibited behavior. When contemplating goal setting and task engagement, individuals undergo a series of intrapsychological evaluations. Broadly, individuals assess whether task pursuits are undertaken for reasons external to the psychic self or to satisfy the inner psychological strivings of the core self (Ryan, Sheldon, Kasser, & Deci, 1996). This assessment process implies that individuals have a dominant phenomenological orientation that is either internally or externally anchored, sometimes referred to as the locus of control (deCharms, 1968). Individuals with an internally controlled locus are primarily intrinsically motivated. When considering task engagement, they will assess tasks relative to their personal interests and beliefs. These individuals will consider task relevance, personal importance placed upon completing the task, and the overall value or worth associated with task, including how task completion will make them feel emotionally. Positive appraisals result in task pursuit. For instance, intrinsically-motivated individuals given the opportunity to explain why they exercise, often report reasons, such as having fun, personal challenge, and enjoyment (Ryan, Frederick, Lepes, Rubio, & Sheldon, 1997), and their exercise frequency is positively correlated with the individual degree of self-focus they profess (Lewis & Sutton, 2011). Similar self-reflective rationales are reported by intrinsically-motivated individuals during other episodes of highly focused goal-directed behavior, including weight loss (Mata et al., 2011), superior athletic performance (Gillet, Vallerand, Amoura, & Baldes, 2010), and tobacco abstinence (Williams et al., 2006). Summarily, individual self-views and personal interest strongly influence the attention and effort of the intrinsically oriented individual.

Extrinsically-motivated individuals are also interested in reaching goal targets, albeit for different reasons. Psychologically, a person with an external locus of control makes a conscious and deliberate distinction between behaviors pursued strictly for the purpose of self-gratification, and those tasks attempted with the anticipation of a materialistic outcome or a psychological payoff. Unlike their intrinsic peers, extrinsically oriented individuals have differently weighted dualistic motives, whereby goal attainment is subordinate to goal contingencies or the benefits reaped as a result of goal attainment. Benefits include materialistic outcomes or valued incentives but may also consist of positive social comparisons inherent to task choice and completion. Attaining the “reward,” or avoiding negative perceptions when not reaching the goal takes precedence and becomes a more meaningful reason to pursue a goal when motives are extrinsically dominated and focused.

Abundant educational and psychological evidence supports the power of extrinsic motivation for optimal performance, with limitations (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Perhaps the best-known example of extrinsic motivation and the blatant coercion of learners based upon incentives is the Pizza Hut “Book It!” reading program created in 1985. Commercialism aside, the goal of the program is to motivate and increase children’s reading frequency and enjoyment. The mass appeal of incentive motivation is evidenced by the more than 14 million young readers who were expected to participate in the ongoing program in 630,000 classrooms during the 2014–2015 school year (Pizza Hut, 2015). According to an independent survey (University of Rhode Island, 1986 as cited in Flora & Flora, 1999) a strong majority of teachers involved in the program claimed that historically, the program increased reading interest, reading level, and reading enjoyment (and probably the unmeasured variable, reader waist size)! Although perpetuating pizza parties may increase certain behavior frequencies, under closer scrutiny, a strictly extrinsic reward focus can have profound motivational consequences and influence how students view ongoing learning and performance tasks, which, under certain circumstances, may decrease task motivation (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 2001; see Principle #33, p. 149).

Despite that apparent dichotomous nature of motivational orientation, categorizing motives is not an all-or-nothing proposition. Intrinsic and extrinsic orientations are neither antagonistic nor orthogonal and may peacefully coexist in the same person (Covington & Müeller, 2001). Although there may be a dominant influence on behavior, other factors discussed in this chapter, including goal orientation, the performance context, and various social mediators, can radically alter situational motives (Lepper & Henderlong, 2000), inhibiting a precise temporal interpretation of what drives behavior. Imagine the intrinsically motivated, highly ambitious, energized student of college statistics, fully confident in her ability to conquer a formidable class at the semester’s launch, who is gradually transformed into a lethargic, work avoidant, grade junkie as the semester wanes and academic pressures mount. Realistically, competing goals and practical considerations will mandate that individuals prioritize goals. Individuals, invariably, will differ in the strength and degree of commitment and intentionality toward attaining goal targets. Initial mastery intentions may ultimately be masked and pursued solely for the perceived payoffs as contextual conditions change. Further, dual performance motives may concurrently exist, such as when the highly paid athlete with the long-term contract excels, not exclusively for money but for pride and personal accomplishment.

Before illuminating the etiology and consequences of motivational orientation, I would like to introduce you to the motivational enigma known as Alec Torelli, who is profiled in detail in Chapter 9 (p. 251). Before I met Alec, his wife Ambra informed me that “Alec regularly travels the world following high-stakes poker action” (A. Meda, personal communication, November 20, 2013). On any given day, Alec can be found in one of the many opulent casinos throughout the world, playing in lucrative tournaments in exotic locales, such as Macau, China, or Monaco (in Monte Carlo’s Grand Casino of James Bond fame). As a professional gambler, you might quickly surmise that Alec is highly extrinsically motivated, especially considering that he has twice played at the finals table in the famed Las Vegas World Series of Poker, where the payout to the winner is over $10,000,000! As emphasized in Chapter 1, however, snap judgments and quick inferences concerning the meaning of behaviors should always be tempered. In this case, the extrinsic inference concerning Alec is only marginally true.

I described Alec as “enigmatic” because contrary to intuition, he does not play in high-risk, high-reward poker tournaments for money alone. When asked why he participated, Alec emphasized the opportunity for perfect play and the potentially boosting feelings of efficacy as strong motivators of his behavior. Alec stated,

When I am at the table, I feel I am in control of my own destiny. Win or lose, nothing or no one gets in my head. I am totally focused on the outcome. I decide if I should fold, raise, or pass; it’s my choice. I use my advanced knowledge of mathematics and assess the probability of winning; what decision should be made is usually crystal clear. Obviously, winning is important for my career, but being right is more important for my state of mind.

A. Torelli, personal communication, May 13, 2014

He added, “Losing is part of the game. Over time, everyone gets dealt the same hands; knowing when to fold is the difference between the ultimate winners and losers.”

Analyzing Alec’s motives for immersing himself in the risky career of a tournament poker player shows an obvious connection to extrinsic factors. Would Alec play if there were no promise of economic gain? Probably not. Does he engage in the behavior for extrinsic reasons alone? Also unlikely. While the monetary gains from winning tournaments are immense, Alec realizes his quest for control by consciously regulating his willingness to engage in playing and by making in-game tactical decisions. Alec’s behavior can be best understood through the broad theoretical lens of self-determination theory (SDT; Ryan & Deci, 2000) introduced in Chapter 2 (p. 36). SDT contends that individuals strive to create a unified view of the self that integrates with their perceptions of their conceptual and social world. Individuals elect to immerse themselves in environments that may either impede or accelerate integration. The foundation of organismic integration (one component of SDT) suggests that reciprocal and harmonious relationships between the psychic self and the external world are based upon the satisfaction of three basic psychological needs: autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Deci & Ryan, 2002; also see Principle #11, p. 35). For Alec, the needs for autonomy and competence are revealed in his answer to the “why do you play” question. When Alec plays, he presumes to be in control of his environment. His choice of vocation provides the social context that allows him the opportunity to fulfill his needs while concurrently allowing him to develop more positive views of the self as he meets his playing objectives (aka, winning). Alec feels competent when his choices are correct; he feels autonomous because he believes it is his own volition, not the cards, that ultimately determines his seemingly extrinsically-focused destiny. Alec’s orientation, although perhaps statistically infrequent, is supported by neurological evidence indicating that individuals exhibit similar biopsychological reactions to materialistic reward as they do when having the perception of making a correct choice (Satterthwaite et al., 2012).

While Alec’s behavior may seem circumstantially logical, according to SDT, motives are not fixed but, instead, operate under a continuum that predicts a range of behaviors. Knowing under what circumstances innately intrinsic motivation shifts to an extrinsic focus is of great value to the practitioner. Knowledge of the motive source can influence not only what goals individuals will set but also what strategies they will choose as the mechanism to attain their goals. Although some ambiguity exists, an abundance of research supports the view that when it comes to cultivating superior learning and performance outcomes, intrinsic motives are highly coveted and beneficial (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990; Ryan & Deci, 2000). What remains elusive are the specific cognitive triggers that influence motivational orientation and how orientation can be used as a reliable predictor to determine which goal attainment strategies individuals will use.

Principle #32—The source of motives determines goal emphasis and strategy choice

When individuals set targets, they undergo a series of largely implicit cognitive evaluations ascribing a degree of relative importance, value, interest, and utility to the tasks under consideration. Goal setting criteria vary among individuals and are contingent upon a variety of task-related beliefs, contextual circumstances, and the perceived social climate of application. The factors individuals consider during task appraisal will vary according to the nature of the task, the individual’s ability perceptions, and the perceived benefits derived, if and when the task is completed. In other words, individual differences in the perception and evaluation of task goals influence the type of goals set, the degree of challenge one is willing to accept, the level of commitment or effort devoted toward reaching a goal, including which strategies will be employed during goal pursuit.

Perhaps the best example of the variety of factors individuals consider when setting goals is the classic case of a learner studying for an examination. Some learners exhibit organized and methodical approaches when planning and executing study strategies, setting lofty goals, such as attaining a perfect test score. Take Jerry from Chapter 1, for example. Jerry considers where he will study, which specific material he will study, and with whom he will share his study efforts. Jerry’s study strategy varies based upon how well he already knows the material and the relative importance of the examination to his overall academic success. The more important the test, the more he studies. Ginny’s study strategy is radically different. Ginny waits until the last minute to even think about the examination. As a procrastinator, she undergoes a cognitive evaluation similar to her highly organized brother, yet Ginny ascribes little value to test outcomes, lacks interest in the test subject (for instance, earth science), and believes that the amount of time invested in studying will likely have little, if any, bearing on her test score. We might conclude that the degree of commitment and value when studying for an earth science test is profoundly different between siblings. These dichotomous approaches to studying in many ways mirror the diversity of strategies individuals use when striving toward meeting many learning and performance goals. Logically, if we understand the nature of strategy choices, we can potentially identify the antecedents of behavior (i.e., motives). This “bottom-up” approach of examining strategies aids in understanding the relationships between motives and strategies and also allows us to consider what factors individuals evaluate when contemplating the direction and regulation of their own behaviors.

Returning to SDT as a broad theoretical lens for examining performance behavior, one core aspect of SDT, Organismic Integration Theory (OIT), deserves additional investigation. This component of SDT posits that individuals have an innate tendency either to integrate task goals as an integral part of their self-perceptions and self-identity or to conceptually reject tasks inconsistent with core perceptions of the self (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Koestner & Losier, 2002). External stimuli, if perceived as congruent with organismic self-perceptions, will be evaluated as meaningful and thus intrinsically motivating. Conversely, external stimuli assessed as incongruent with self-views are likely pursued for extrinsically motivated reasons, or in the language of SDT, a “separable payoff.”

For instance, consider that over 1,000,000 animals are killed per year as a result of being run over by vehicles (Highcountrynews.com, 2014). I have a tendency to stop in the middle of the road when I see turtles in peril, a common occurrence in my home state, Florida. I frequently view myself as a turtle whisperer, with the highly internalized belief that humans are obligated to care for animals because many animals do not have the cognitive capacity to reason accurately and make informed decisions. In other words, turtles’ skills in calculating the relationship between personal speed and vehicular velocity are often flawed, causing them to risk their lives crossing highways in search of food and water. When I see a turtle, I stop the car and pick up the turtle. I do not need a “payoff” to prompt my action: in the vernacular of SDT and OIT, I am self-determined.

Alternatively, I could continue driving while leaving the turtle vulnerable to drivers who have no concern or interest in turtles, people who would run them over and use them as an ingredient in soup (another common Florida occurrence). We might say that for some drivers, saving turtles lacks intrinsic appeal. Some sort of incentive is necessary to motivate prospective turtle crushers to stop driving and rescue turtles. Clearly, those who do not stop are not motivated by aspirations of becoming a reptilian savior. I could offer the turtle crusher an incentive, such as $20, to change his or her behavior, but would $20 really change perceptions of turtle preservation? Or would the driver stop just to get the cash? Psychologically, stopping for a cash payoff or stopping for the turtle’s sake have very different motivational antecedents, which are explained more fully by Principle #34 (p. 154).

OIT outlines a continuum of task commitment, or personal endorsement, described as the degree to which individuals internalize a task. The continuum of internalization identifies six variations among the type of effort and commitment individuals are willing to devote to a task. Table 6.1 identifies the continuum of internalization and some of the strategies that align with enacting a particular task orientation. With a greater degree of internalization comes a higher probability that an individual will experience self-determination. Applying the turtle example to the chart, a person taking $20 would likely be classified as having a fully external internalization, according to OIT. Meanwhile, self-righteous rescue behavior would classify me as fully internal, but only when it comes to turtle rescue tasks, and not my behavior in general because the degree of internalization usually changes based on the task.

Internalization differs from intrinsic motivation: unlike intrinsic motivation, when individuals internalize a task previously perceived as introjected, meaning is derived primarily based upon social influence. For example, an individual with low intrinsic task motivation might agree to complete a potentially boring task based upon the perception of social acceptance or a moral obligation to respond affirmatively. I am reminded of the time I asked my son to assume the dismal task of looking up “doi” numbers (an alpha-numeric document identifier) as seen in the reference section of this and many other texts. Although his intrinsic motivation was non-existent for the actual task, he cheerfully volunteered for this mundane opportunity and delivered a flawless performance with robust enthusiasm, primarily to stay in my good graces. Did he embrace and internalize the “doi” task as one of his own? Probably not, but he completed the task despite an overall lack of commitment and interest. He did not seek me out for similar tasks after the first assignment. In this example, little intrinsic motivation resulted from performing the actual task, but we might conclude that internalization has potential to influence intrinsic motivation (Koestner & Losier, 2002) if task engagement is perceived as challenging, experienced positively, and found to be personally rewarding and important. The greater the perception that a task aligns with personal beliefs and values, the more likely the task will be perceived as integrative. In the absence of task commitment and value found in boring mundane tasks, little, if any, self-integration would be expected and likely not experienced.

Clearly, these examples reveal that what you do is important; however, the motives for setting particular goals and striving toward goal attainment are even more critical. The continuum of task orientation can, in many ways, predict how a task will be completed. Research identifies variable cognitive, affective and socioemotional consequences for individuals who engage in a task for reasons external to the self. When tasks are completed for obligatory reasons, learners tend to show motivational apathy, negative affect, and occasionally, open resistance to the actual task as well as the perceived originating source of the task (i.e., the “boss”). Commenting upon the feelings associated with completing a task when not fully self-determined, and demonstrating an introjected task orientation, Koestner and Losier (2002) indicated “…the person feels pressured to do the activity in order to feel good about himself or herself, but would rather not have to do it” (p. 104). This disturbing scenario potentially results in compliant individuals feeling coerced into completing tasks that are potentially in conflict with their preferred desires and interests. In turn, introjection also places individuals at risk for impeding the basic foundation of self-determined motivation: feeling autonomous, specifically because the choice and independence of free will are replaced with obligation and guilt.

At a minimum, the degree of internalization is a reliable predictor of effort across domains. The absence of intrinsic motivation and a dominant introjected regulatory style are related to the investment of lower task effort and the use of more shallow processing strategies during learning. In a study investigating self-reported behavioral intentions to perform physical exercise, introjected participants ascribed less effort, lower importance, and less intention to exercise compared with participants indicating a more identified behavioral regulation (Wilson, Rodgers, Fraser, & Murray, 2004). Organismic orientation also predicted exercise frequency 4 months later. Integrated regulation of behavior has also been linked to investing more effort in work activities (Dysvik & Kuvaas, 2013) and feeling more autonomous during educational endeavors (Ratelle, Guay, Vallerand, Larose, & Senécal, 2007; Williams & Deci, 1996) and can even predict the extent of listening proficiency (Vandergrift, 2005).

Motivational Leader—Nick Holes

image Nicholas Formato (aka Nick Holes) is the personification of integrated task orientation. Nick was born and raised in Elmont, New York, a sleepy bedroom community about 30 miles east of New York City. Nick graduated from high school in 2001 and went on to earn a Business Management degree from Five Towns College in 2005. In February 2005, a few months before he graduated college, Nick received a fantastic opportunity, a piercing apprenticeship. Piercing involves “puncturing or cutting a part of the human body and creating an opening in which jewelry may be worn” (FloridaHealth, 2015, para 1). Piercing is a regulated and licensed occupation in many states. Minimally, a piercing career requires completion of a certification course verifying ability, including knowledge of safe and sanitary procedures.

Nick dreamed of becoming a piercer since he was 16. At the time, he thought it would be an interesting and fun profession. Today, he realizes his passion is much more rewarding than he ever imagined because Nick is highly content with his career choice, having few regrets in what some people might despise as an “alternative lifestyle.” In addition to his professional skill, Nick has over 20 piercings and has endured hundreds of hours of intricate tattooing, but for him, piercing is not just about making money, passing time, or doing something he likes. Nick sees his work as meaning much more than just piercing people. Nick explained, “I help transform them.” He added, “There are many people out there who get piercings for purely aesthetic reasons. Then there are people who are doing it for a deeper meaning” (N. Holes, personal communication, December 28, 2013). For nearly as long as he can remember, Nick felt reticent about his life. For Nick, being pierced or tattooed was a metaphysical catharsis, akin to solving a mystery by recovering some of the pieces he thought were missing in his life. As he became more accomplished in his craft, his views of personal satisfaction and contentment significantly increased.

Nick also engages in body suspensions and flesh pulls, along with a scarification. For a moment, visualize Nick dangling from the ceiling with four hooks his back. He knows for most people, these rituals all sound painful and weird, but according to Nick, “once you realize that you are in charge of what your body is going through, that changes everything. You never really know what you are capable of until you challenge yourself.” “These marks (referring to his scarification),” he says, “you have to earn them” (N. Holes, personal communication, December 28, 2013).

As of 2015, Nick has been piercing for 10 years. Even now, he explained, “I still get a big rush when I pierce someone. I can’t think of any other profession that could give me that same feeling” (N. Holes, personal communication, December 28, 2013). Nick also loves animals and the outdoors. In his spare time, he enjoys running, hiking, camping, and practicing outdoor skills. He has competed in several marathons and obstacle courses and plans on taking his physical abilities to the limits even more in the near future.

Don’t let Nick scare you. He is one of the most genuine, gentle, and congenial individuals you could ever hope to meet. When asked about his eventual goal, Nick responded he wanted to “live off the land and do as much for myself as I can, without depending on other people” (N. Holes, personal communication, December 28, 2013). Nick currently lives in in Brunswick, Maine, and pierces at Vibes Tattoo. Stop in and see him for a stabbing sometime.

The story of Nick Holes is highly reflective of an integrated task orientation for several reasons. Nick, who has a business degree and great communication skill, has the ability to earn much more in a different profession. He receives minimal social benefits from his profession and lifestyle and admits that his unorthodox appearance can sometimes frighten or intimidate the uninformed observer. His vocation offers little opportunity for the “separable payoff” that often compels individuals with an introjected orientation to persist in meaningless jobs and stay in unfulfilling careers far longer than they likely should. Nick exemplifies internalization because piercing satisfies his psychological strivings and provides a meaningful and purposeful life. Nick sees his craft as one that does much more than just adorn people with body art. His career provides many opportunities for him to transfer his highly evident positive energy to other people and to help others move closer to a mental state that offers the same inner peace and subjective well-being that he experiences almost every day.

Considering the confluence of evidence, it seems both important and necessary that educators and leaders strive to cultivate familial, classroom, and organizational cultures that openly promote internalized regulation of behavior. In many cases, overall psychological well-being is highly related to the degree of success individuals experience when internalizing values during task performance (Vallerand, 1997). Creating value-laden opportunities that offer discretion and choice, rather than instigating those made through mandate or decree, invariably leads to the more probable adaptation of identified regulatory styles because individuals perceive the presence of autonomy. Nevertheless, a conundrum exists. Autonomy is typically associated with high degrees of intrinsic motivation, yet many learning and performance environments, such as school and work, operate under the diametrically opposed deterministic principle that the extrinsic rewards represented by grades and incentives motivate individuals.

Principle #33—Individual reaction to incentives is variable, and predictable

Historically, determining the optimal conditions necessary to leverage the powerful but tenuous influence of rewards on motivation is the metaphoric equivalent of gaining consensus on hairstyle or trouser flare. The chic Bardot Bouffant and trendy elephant bells of the 1970s are no longer quite in vogue. Like fashion, the convoluted annals of psychological and educational research over the past 100 years have seen varying degrees of emphasis on the potency and packaging of incentives as catalysts for accelerated performance. Incentives, defined as contingencies that increase the frequency or quality of learning or performance outcomes, are generally thought to perpetuate extrinsic motivation. Incentives are both lionized and demonized as bosses and educators worldwide wrestle with the dilemma of determining the precise blend of personalized rewards that will accelerate individual performance while concurrently circumventing the demotivating consequences of incentives on interest and intrinsic motivation.

Many prominent behavioral researchers and a plurality of educators laud the apparent benefits of incentives to prompt and accelerate performance. Beginning with Taylor’s (1911) publication of the Principles of Scientific Management and his goal of fostering “maximum prosperity” (p. 9) in individuals, incentives were deemed the primary method to accelerate “a large gain in the quantity of work done and at the same time a marked improvement in quality” (p. 93). Taylor theorized that every worker possessed a “personal coefficient” (p. 89) that represented an amalgamation of speed and production metrics that could be calculated as a proxy to predict anticipated effort invested toward a particular task. Although Taylor lamented about the need for the judicious use of incentives and the necessity of patience as a prerequisite for a change in “mental attitude” (p. 101), his efforts spawned the universal adaptation of extrinsic rewards to motivate performance in the workplace.

The ubiquitous view of the power of incentives as a utopian performance catalyst continued unabated for almost 60 years, led, in part, by twentieth century educational pioneers, including Thorndike, Watson, and Skinner, all touting evangelic incentives as the means to direct and maintain task interest and effort. White (1959), primarily commenting on the monkey experimentation of his colleagues, posited that something more was responsible for the drives and interests augmented by rewards. He wrote, “Contact with the environment seem to be sought and welcomed, in which raised tension and even mild excitement seem to be cherished, and in which novelty and variety seem to be enjoyed for their own sake” (p. 58). White’s ideas implied that motives were, at least in part, internally derived, and his conceptions are close cousins of the current empirically supported definitions of intrinsic motivation, which contend that interest and inherent task value alone are sufficient to motivate performance.

As the cognitive revolution unfolded during the 1960s and 1970s, interest in intrinsic motives increased and reward contingencies were scrutinized, discounting and qualifying the auspicious role of incentives as potentially demotivating. Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett (1973) found that when children were provided incentives to complete a task they enjoyed, future performance and task interest suffered when the incentive was removed. Intrinsic motivation was measured by lower levels of discretionary time devoted to a puzzle completion task subsequent to being rewarded, in comparison with higher interest and more puzzle building for children not initially rewarded. The Lepper et al. (1973) study and others (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999, Deci et al., 2001; Vallerand, 1997) initiated a shift in the universal applicability of rewards to a staunch stance that suggested incentives inhibited intrinsic motivation because “reward contingencies undermine people’s taking responsibility for motivating or regulating themselves” (Deci et al., 1999, p. 659). In other words, incentives and rewards were considered as potentially controlling individual performance; in the minds of many researchers, incentives were downright evil (Kohn, 1999). Viewed through SDT, rewards were thought to manipulate individuals, stymie the ability to exercise free will, and inhibit satisfaction of the basic human need for autonomy.

The primary dilemma persists: Can autonomy and extrinsic reward coexist productively? Despite the apparent and persistent denigrating influence of incentives on performance perpetuated by some consultants and scholars (Firestone, 2014; Kohn, 1999; Pink, 2011), under the optimal set of circumstances, individuals can embrace extrinsic rewards while concurrently forestalling the perception of control, inducing feelings of autonomous self-determination. Motivational pioneers Deci and Ryan (2002), the originators of SDT, emphatically maintained that contrary to the claims of many researchers, “it is possible to be autonomously extrinsically motivated” (p. 15). Thus, the challenge shifts from “if” extrinsic rewards are motivating to determining a clear representation about those circumstances in which incentives can concurrently promote performance while eluding the negative intrinsic motivational consequences.

The primary obstacle inhibiting intrinsic motivation and the associated autonomy achieved through self-determination of performance is the perception of control. Extrinsic rewards may be experienced as controlling when individuals set and strive toward goals merely for the anticipated payoff of attaining a reward or avoiding the negative consequences of not completing a task successfully. When performance is enacted exclusively for externally motivated incentive reasons, individuals are reluctant to integrate task attainment as a representation of their defined selves: They perceive the value or utility of achieving the task outcome as functionally meaningless except to earn the anticipated incentive. However, some tasks are pursued for dualistic motives: first to earn the incentive but also because the individual ascribes value and worth to the process of attaining the predetermined goal. Only when the individual has the perception that both the incentive and the process of earning the incentive are worthy of attainment will the individual feel self-determined.

When the extrinsically-motivated individual is faced with the possibility of goal failure, we might predict that psychological conflict would develop. Intuitively, if an individual is motivated by incentives, then the inability to attain the incentive or removal of the incentive should automatically decrease drive and effort invested toward reaching the goal target. However, effort decrements do not always occur when reward contingencies are changed. Prosperous performance is decidedly more probable when incentives are not given at regularly scheduled intervals. Like the Las Vegas gambler who hits big on the slot machine and walks away, humans have an innate tendency to redirect learning and performance effort once the incentive is realized. Alec Torelli has reiterated many times that regardless of winning or losing and despite being on streaks of luck, he routinely sets targets and walks away from the table as a means to monetarily regulate his play.

Although effort regulation can be strongly influenced by reward removal, many other contingences are considered by the extrinsically-motivated individual when appropriating effort toward goal targets. Such factors as the degree of task complexity, the value associated with the task reward, reasons why the reward is provided or removed and, of course, overall task interest are important considerations that help predict the performance of an extrinsically-motivated individual. Many times, however, task value and commitment are promoted as a result of social factors. When activities are deemed important by peers, the probability of task internalization grows, and individuals are more inclined to associate value to tasks perceived as important and useful to others. Additionally, when a performance evokes affirmations of confidence in one’s ability, the effectiveness of incentives is increased (Deci et al., 1999).

Torelli’s persona reveals how a person can be driven to attain a valued external task outcome and concurrently realize the benefits associated with intrinsic motivation. In the absence of a predictable playoff, Alec takes great pride in his expert card play. He views his own strategic choices as a source of contentment and pleasure (i.e., those confidence feelings). Although Alec realizes that ultimately the fate of his card playing is a function of mathematical probability, his task effort and commitment to the process of goal attainment remain constant, whether he wins or loses. Of course, Alec is dissatisfied when dealt an obviously losing hand because his materialistic goals are thwarted. However, Alec believes he has control of his own destiny. His volition is not encumbered because he decides whether to play or fold. While the cards will ultimately determine his destiny, and whether Alec’s decisions were right or wrong, his choices are personally meaningful and likely to instill competence attributions, even when he loses. In short, Alec is self-determined based upon perceptions of controlling outcomes; thus, he experiences a high degree of autonomy.

Unfortunately, many of us do not lead the dualistically motivating, glamorous life of Alec Torelli. Educators and leaders are typically charged with accelerating achievement or motivating lethargic individuals to complete mundane learning or boring performance tasks at school and work. Despite the erratic effectiveness of incentives, reward programs proliferate in classroom and organizational cultures and are conventionally perceived as effective in accelerating performance. In reality, teacher candidates frequently inform me about the various gyrations of incentives used in the classroom to control performance, including the use of “treasure boxes,” “traffic light” systems, or making students run track laps (yes, that still really happens) when task-contingent goals are not met. In business, sales contests and incentive bonuses are the foundation of many corporate compensation programs. The power of incentives in many ways define individualistic Western cultures, with materialistic incentives provided for activities as varied as weight loss, smoking cessation, blood donations, and, yes, even school attendance (Gneezy, Meier, & Rey-Biel, 2011). It is improbable that these remedies instill little, if any, internalization of task value, inhibiting much hope of creating intrinsic motivation and sustained performance once the reward is removed.

Instead, MDs are faced with a number of potentially debilitating performance and learning situations that can undermine intrinsic motivation. Many times, learners are presented with performance contingencies designed to assist effort in reaching specific targets, such as finishing a certain portion of homework or the corporate equivalent of homework, completing a work project by a specific deadline. Other times, incentives are not task contingent, with few, if any, quality considerations, such as the promise of rewards, points, or recognition for class attendance or group project participation. These contingent situations typically redirect focus from the task to the outcome, leaving individuals highly susceptible to perceptions of control. Frequently, the incentive that was designed to be a performance catalyst reduces autonomy perceptions and deflates intrinsic drive because little emphasis is on the process of goal attainment, and only the outcome is perceived as valued.

Knowing how intrinsic motivation dissipates and realizing when task internalization is less probable are two of the many prerequisites necessary to mediate the motivational consequences of incentives. However, implementing strategic remedies is decidedly more valuable. First, effort should be devoted to fostering autonomy-supportive learning and performance contexts. Reeve (2009) recommends specific strategies educators can use to promote autonomy, including providing learners with explanatory rationales, acting patiently, and accepting expressions of negative affect in the classroom. Autonomy-supportive environments accelerate performance across diverse domains, including academic achievement strivings (Bonneville-Roussy, Vallerand, & Bouffard, 2013; Reeve, 2013), child rearing (Marbell & Grolnick, 2013), and superior athletic ability cultivation (Conroy & Coatsworth, 2007).

Second, in order to realize adaptive motivation that is beneficial to performance, MDs should leverage the power of choice. Individuals crave choices that foster perceptions of autonomy and control. In the classroom, autonomy is promoted by involving students in decisions related to instructional content, teaching methods, and types of assessment. Providing choice, however, is a precarious proposition. When improperly implemented, choice can be debilitating. Learners should be offered choices that instill competence in them as they strive toward reaching learning and performance goals but do not evoke undue psychological conflict or anxiety as a result of needing to make a choice (Patall, 2012). To be instrumental in promoting intrinsic motivation, choices should not be perceived as overly stressful, effortful, or restrictive (Patall, Cooper, & Robinson, 2008). Foremost, precautions should be taken so that perceived responsibility for choice outcomes is shared between the learner and the educator. If an individual perceives full responsibility for a choice and the choice does not work out as planned, the responsibility may inadvertently result in reluctance to make future choices under the perception of potential task failure (Moller, Deci, & Ryan, 2006).

Third, research suggests that performance-contingent rewards and intrinsic motivation can coexist peacefully by following a prescriptive model that starts with a clear distinction between the reward offer and the reward outcome (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 2000). According to the model, in order to avoid undermining interest and intrinsic motivation, individuals must know that rewards can only be achieved through the demonstration of specific competencies. Feedback should be provided to learners during task effort that guides the individuals toward successful task completion. Additionally, the reward–task distinction must be implemented with effective monitoring and a conscious realization that some tasks for some learners may promote anxiety that ultimately reduces task interest. Intrinsic motivation can be retained if and only if feelings of competence are instilled concurrent to attaining the incentive. Despite the contingencies, the Harackiewicz and Sansone model, when properly implemented, suggests that intrinsic motivation under optimal conditions can actually be increased through the availability of task-contingent extrinsic rewards.

In summary, using incentives to promote learning and performance is, at best, tricky business. The use of a prescriptive model as described above that accounts for the impact on both intrinsic and extrinsic motives is an important consideration. Not everyone is an Alec Torelli with fully declared dualistic motives. Even when motives are recognized, motivational orientation can change drastically within individuals based upon the person, task, and context of implementation (remember Principle #32, p. 144). However, under controlled circumstances, individuals will follow a pattern of predictable behavior revealing important clues about their motivational orientations. Unfortunately, there is one special caveat: Not all individuals value academic success and superior performance. Others have little concern for learning and put forth minimal effort or just enough to get by, perhaps because they value other things as more important for success, such as friendship, social status, or their own ethnicity (Stipek, 1998). Even worse, some individuals may not realize or understand why or how their effort is directed because they do not fully recognize or appreciate their own goals and intentions. We next examine the elusive nature of goals and explore how and why individuals strive toward goal targets and the manner by which those targets help predict the strategies individuals will use to reach their desired outcomes.

Principle #34—Goal type and orientation are reliable and accurate predictors of behavior

There was an old lady from Kent, Whose nose was most awfully bent. She followed her nose One day, I suppose, and no one knows which way she went.

Anonymous

Some might contend that everything we do in life has a purpose, and for every purpose, there is a reason. While the “bent” of some individuals is as plain as the nose on a face, for others, knowing and understanding our directional destiny and which road will lead us to our desired destination is more mysterious than deciphering the origin of ancient limericks. Allegory aside, the goals we set and the paths we take are robust indicators that illuminate our inner motives. All goals have a source of origination, with most conventional goal theories operating under the dichotomous premise that goal formation emanates from either internal evaluations of our core values and beliefs (Ryan et al., 1996) or through socially derived external expectations or pressures (Heider, 1958). Unlike the generalized orientation of locus of control (pp. 141–142), goal emphasis in most cases is domain specific, with noticeable individual differences existing within and between persons according to the task. The specific degree of goal challenge and the relative importance ascribed to goals are subject to change in valence and strength based upon a variety of situational factors to be discussed. Most importantly, goal choice and particularly goal orientations have well-defined motivational and self-regulatory trajectories that help predict the degree of individual task engagement and the preferred strategies individuals will use in their quest to reach goal targets.

Distinct differences exist between goals and goal orientations, with goals representing what an individual intends to accomplish, in comparison with goal orientations that are typically associated with achievement motives and representing why (i.e., the motive) individuals set and pursue a particular target. The distinction between goal targets and intent is important because individuals with identical targets may exhibit radically different behaviors to attain their goals. Between-person comparisons, such as the reasons for career choice, illuminate the eclectic nature of goal choice. For instance, in academia, some individuals pursue university faculty positions specifically for the sometimes misconceived notion of ample materialistic benefits. Others seek to make meaningful scientific contributions to advance their chosen field. Yet others elect an academic career path for the serenity of the university lifestyle, or the opportunity to influence the development of young minds and nascent scholars. All four of these examples illustrate similar behaviors and the election of the same career goal, albeit for vastly different motives.

The precise and consensual operational definition of goals is idiosyncratic, with variations in definition based upon theorist, discipline of origin, or context of application. Some definitions prescribe a focus based on the emotional valence of a goal, describing intent as “representations of future states that are accompanied by some desire or affect” (Ryan et al., 1996, p. 21), while others ascribe a cerebral and achievement emphasis indicating that goals are “the cognitive representations we hope to accomplish” (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2000, p. 231). Some adopt a dualistic focus, defining goals as the confluence of “internally represented desired states ranging from biological set points for internal processes (e.g., body temperature) to complex cognitive depictions of desired outcomes” (Austin &Vancouver, 1996, p. 338). The commonality among these definitions implies that goal attainment is typically an effortful, largely conscious, agentic satisfaction of a need or desire, which transitions an individual from one motivational state to a discrepant other.

Although the goals we set permeate most aspects of our lives (Ford, 1992), goal orientation provides revealing evidence about how we prefer to reach our goals. Orientation is a strong predictor of effort invested in a task and persistence to complete the task, and is indicative of the types of strategies individuals will use to attain their goals (Senko, Hulleman, & Harackiewicz, 2011). The individual goal choices and the pathways we elect to reach our goals have critical implications for the quantity, quality, and efficiency of learning and performance outcomes (Hoffman & Schraw, 2010). In other words, all goals are not created equal (Ryan et al., 1996), and as such, we should recognize that each goal target is engulfed with potentially diverse motivational costs and benefits. Individuals may not only enact adaptive and self-regulatory strategies, such as planning and reflection, to enhance the probability of reaching targets but may also be susceptible to hurdles that interfere with task success. If the perception of reaching a goal is doubtful, individuals often evoke goal inhibiting strategies, such as when a student sets unrealistic goals or waits until the last minute to study for an important examination (Alderman, 2004).

Determining optimal goal orientation for a particular individual and task involves acknowledgment of at least four universal interpretative concerns. First, not all goal pursuits are within the realm of individual consciousness. Although many goal-directed behaviors involve explicit intentionality, individuals may indiscriminately pursue objectives under the guise of habit or cognitive automaticity. For instance, when individuals are exposed to certain food choices, the choices automatically evoke emotionally laden reactions (Shiv & Fedorikhin, 2002) similar to the pleasurable neurological responses observed when people anticipate financial reward (Knapp & Kornetsky, 2009, see Principle #17, p. 57). In turn, these automatic affectively laden choices lead to optimistic mental representations, which subsequently increase goal intensity (Bargh, 2006). These “psychological transactions” are frequently unknown to the individual and direct behaviors toward certain targets as people navigate their daily lives.

Individuals can also be deliberately “primed” to pursue different goals. Priming studies require individuals to complete an explicit task while they are simultaneously, but subliminally, given suggestive ideas designed to unconsciously influence their behaviors. Priming can be accomplished through environmental manipulations as innocuous as leaving a leather briefcase in view of participants in an experimental office setting, which, when clearly visible, evokes more competitive behavior in individuals than when hidden (Kay, Wheeler, Bargh, & Ross, 2004). Priming can also affect motivation though subliminally suggestive words. For example, individuals consume more beverages after being exposed to words that evoke positive affective responses (e.g., wet, cold) compared with neutral words despite no conscious awareness of the words being primed (Strahan, Spencer, & Zanna, 2002).

Second, the specificity and transience of goal orientation is important. While some evidence supports generalized goal orientations (Elliot & Murayama, 2008), more often goal orientations fluctuate based upon specific task requirements, or the circumstances influencing performance outcomes (Duda & Nicholls, 1992). Revision may occur in stages, with modulation of orientation based upon insights of task progress, including evaluations of potential success or impending failure. Consider the elite runner who first intends to achieve a personal best but exerts less effort when she realizes there is little or no hope of winning a race. Similarly, many classroom cues may influence task engagement. For instance, when students engage in classroom competitions, they may initially intend to demonstrate superior knowledge through avid participation. After a series of wrong answers, competency strivings may quickly evaporate, resulting in motives shifting from demonstrating high achievement to avoiding the embarrassment associated with fear of failure or public humiliation when wrong (Elliot, 2006).

Third, a compendium of goal theories imply that individual goal orientation is one-dimensional and polarized, sometimes pitting one dimension against the other, falsely suggesting mutual exclusivity of underlying motives. Theorists have contended that we are either driven to achieve gains or forestall losses (Freund & Ebner, 2005), relish pleasure yet detest pain (Kringelbach & Berridge, 2010), enthusiastically approach some goals but aggressively avoid others (Elliot, 2006), demonstrate vigilance, or enact eagerness (Higgins, 1997). However, contrary to these apparently polarized historical conceptions of orientation, goal dimensions are not dichotomous; many times, individuals will concurrently adopt multiple goal orientations (Senko et al., 2011). In practice, goal orientations are more like attitudes, moods, and opinions that situationally shift and operate on a continuum based upon factors, including individual differences, task beliefs, emotion, and the social context of goal pursuit (see Principle #4, p. 11).

Finally, a point of potential misunderstanding for many is the overlapping terminology used to describe achievement–goal paradigms. Historically, many conceptually similar constructs with related motivational trajectories are described using different names, as illustrated in Table 6.2. Much of the terminology emanates from the underlying dualistic premise that individuals pursue goals from either a normative perspective, comparing themselves with others, or a mastery perspective, pursuing knowledge or performance targets for their own sake, similar to the approach used by Nick Holes. Each particular orientation is aligned with relatively predictable cognitive, affective, or motivational manifestations. Although individuals may frequently adopt one specific orientation, in some cases, a multiple goal perspective is more probable (Senko et al., 2011). All frameworks outlined differentiate reasons (i.e., motive) for why and how an individual pursues a goal, which are distinct and separable from the specific goal target.

Table 6.2

Clarifying academic goal orientation

Terminology Theoretical interpretation Strategy implication Source
Learning or performance goals Learners have implicit and relatively stable beliefs concerning ability and effort, which may provide a strong orientation toward learning. Learning goals are motivated by topic mastery, while performance goals are motivated by favorable social comparisons. Learners with similar abilities respond differently to learning if they believe knowledge acquisition is fixed and unrelated to effort. Fixed views of competence are detrimental to intellectual growth and may result in reduced effort and/or failure attributions. Dweck and Leggett (1988), Elliott and Dweck (1988)
Task or ego involvement goals Young children (<12) have difficulty distinguishing the source of academic success because of the inability to differentiate between task effort and task ability. Task involvement implies an adaptive and intrinsically motivating orientation. Ego involvement contributes to selecting easier task goals. Differentiated or undifferentiated views of learning are related to the degree of concurrent learning and effort. Those with an undifferentiated view tend to strive toward eclipsing the performance of others, while those with a differentiated view of learning distinguish effort from ability. Maehr and Nicholls (1980), Nicholls (1984)
Approach or avoidance goals Individuals possess biological temperaments conducive to seeking positive outcomes while avoiding those deemed negative. Psychological or physiological “movement” is evolutionary and energizes individuals to attain or avoid goal targets. Individual valance guides the nature of self-regulation. Elliot (2006)
Goal attainment is intentional and strategic.
Mastery or performance goals Learner competency is a combination of the approach–avoidance distinction, coupled with effort directed toward positive, normative comparisons and/or a deliberate focus on content mastery. A multiple goal focus is sometimes likely and helpful for learning. Although mastery-approach goals are typically thought preferential, and strictly performance goals may lead to shallow learning (but normative superiority), few achievement differences are observed. A dual focus on normative competence and content mastery is beneficial. Pintrich (2000), Senko et al. (2011)

Image

Considering the abundance of research examining achievement-goal orientation (for a review, see Murayama, Elliott, & Friedman, 2012; Senko et al., 2011), I avoid a detailed examination of each classification in Table 6.2 but, instead, feature two particularly useful and applied approaches that subsume many issues of learning and performance. First, the evolving mastery–performance and approach–avoidance paradigms that are most frequently used to explain individual differences in academic outcomes and study strategies are described (Dweck, 1986; Elliot, 1999; Hulleman, Schrager, Bodmann, & Harackiewicz, 2010; Pintrich, 2000). Next, the promotion and prevention orientations of Regulatory Focus Theory that are particularly useful in organizational settings are advanced (Scholer & Higgins, 2012). Both interpretations are designed to illuminate a dominant approach to goal striving that individuals adopt to reach their intended learning or performance targets.

Achievement goals: Mastery, normative, or multiple?

The achievement-goal approach to understanding academic motivation suggests that learners set goals for one of two reasons. Some learners have a dominant mastery orientation. These learners are motivated to achieve for such reasons as intellectual curiosity or topic interest. For these mastery-oriented learners, gaining knowledge or meeting task-specific goals is sufficient motivation to engage in the process of learning, with few, if any, additional incentives needed. The mastery learner generally believes that knowledge creation is deliberate and malleable, operating under the assumption that intellectual ability can change in response to the degree of commitment and engagement devoted toward the learning process (Dweck, 1986).

In contrast, learners who assume a more normative approach to learning view academics as an intermediary, but necessary, step to achieving more important primary goals. Normative-oriented learners strive toward reaching academic targets not for the obligatory sake of knowledge but for socially constructed and extrinsically motivated reasons. Many normative learners view ability as relatively fixed and stable, generally withholding or avoiding greater investment of academic effort, under the belief that the investment of extra effort is often fruitless (Dweck, 1986). Normative learners seek positive competence evaluations from others, and the extrinsic incentive of good grades is usually a sufficient benchmark to connote academic prowess, regardless of actual or sustained content mastery.

In addition to a primary mastery or normative orientation, learners conceptually frame their approach toward learning in one of two ways. Learners strive either to gain the positive consequences of their mastery or normative orientation or to avoid the negative consequences they presume likely when academic targets are not met. Regardless of a mastery or normative orientation, academic energy and resultant knowledge acquisition strategies are either invested toward attaining a competence goal or, if academic efforts are derailed, directed toward avoiding the appearance of lower ability or questionable talent in comparison with others. Elliot (2006) described the avoidance-approach valence of goals as “one of the oldest ideas in the history of psychological thinking about organisms” (p. 111). The approach–avoidance distinction suggests mutual exclusivity of motives. Individuals are energized to intentionally and deliberately seek goals in the hope of attaining desired positive outcomes or are alternatively driven to avoid the negative contingencies associated with goal failure. Table 6.3 aggregates selective behavioral examples from our motivational leaders using a “2×2” goal orientation framework as a means to decipher underlying academic motives by evaluating goal orientations.

The orientation matrix below illustrates the nexus of academic orientation in conjunction with the motivational valence of a learner, suggesting that academic goals are pursued for one of four reasons. A mastery-approach orientation is demonstrated by learners who seek knowledge under the presumption of personal improvement. The mastery-approach orientation is generally deemed preferential for adaptive and sustained learning. Learners espousing this approach are typically more interested in academics, approach learning strategically, and persist in the face of academic obstacles (Pintrich & De Groot, 1990). Mastery-approach learners are more open to changing existing belief conceptions (Johnson & Sinatra, 2014), demonstrate higher levels of self-regulation (Burnette, O’Boyle, VanEpps, Pollack, & Finkel, 2013), and associate positive emotions with the learning process (Mega, Ronconi, & De Beni, 2014).

Mastery-avoid learners also focus on achieving positive learning outcomes but seek to avoid the appearance of poor performance, especially in comparison with their own successful past achievements. A mastery-avoid orientation is particularly prevalent in older individuals who seek to avoid perceptions of diminished control, which increases with age (Heckhausen, Wrosch, & Schulz, 2010). Many individuals with a mastery-avoid orientation show deliberate, focused attention, and assertively seek performance feedback (Baranik, Lau, Stanley, Barron, & Lance, 2013). This task-directed focus can lead to vigilant information processing, presumably because mastery-avoid learners want details to assist in circumventing the self-referent impressions of academic failure that often drive their motivation (Förster, Friedman, & Liberman, 2004).

Unlike their mastery-oriented peers, learners with a normative-approach orientation exhibit an intentional focus grounded in social comparison. The primary goal of the normative-approach learner is to project the perception of relative academic superiority, irrespective of content mastery. Researchers deliberate as to whether normative-approach learners are primarily motivated by competence strivings, by achieving social superiority, or by a combination of both (Senko et al., 2011). Nevertheless, normative-approach learners are keenly attuned to what strategies are most effective to earn high grades (Elliot & Moller, 2003; Mouratidis, Vansteenkiste, Michou, & Lens, 2013) and how to direct their academic effort (Bouffard, Boisvert, Vezeau, & Larouche, 1995), and the normative-approach learner clearly understands and strives toward the competencies that are valued by instructors (Senko & Miles, 2008).

Universally, performance-avoid learners are demonized in comparison with other orientations because they seek to avert looking less capable in comparison with peers at all costs, exhibiting highly external self-referent evaluations. These learners tend to alienate themselves from academics, show low task commitment, and devalue the importance of academic success (Senko et al., 2011). The performance-avoid orientation is positively correlated with a number of academically undesirable behaviors, including lack of cooperation and not helping others (Poortvliet & Darnon, 2014), cheating (Van Yperen, Hamstra, & van der Klauw, 2011), and self-sabotage through the use of academic self-handicapping strategies (Urdan, 2004). The performance-avoid learner frequently exhibits a self-preservation motive tending to evade academic challenges that might reveal lack of knowledge or ability (Pajares, Britner, & Valiante, 2000; Skaalvik, 1997).

A number of inconsistent generalizations and broad misconceptions overshadow the practical implications of goal orientation. First, some researchers and practitioners unequivocally advocate the superiority of a mastery orientation for learning, in conflict with a substantial body of evidence that indicates a mastery orientation is unrelated to achievement, whereas normative performance goals are positively correlated with achievement outcomes (Hulleman et al., 2010). A normative orientation is preferential for learners seeking performance attainment and classroom help and is positively correlated with individual self-efficacy and effort investment (Elliot & Moller, 2003), likely because normative learning is highly focused on earning grades and the qualitative markers necessary to claim academic success (Midgley, Kaplan, & Middleton, 2001). Second, substantial research asserts that normative learners adapt shallow processing strategies, such as rote memorization; however, meta-analytic reviews show that little evidence exists differentiating the strategies used by mastery and normative learners when preparing for examinations (Hulleman et al., 2010; Senko et al., 2011). Third, the study strategies of normative learners are, at times, contributory to preferential learning outcomes because normative learners are better at deciphering the key content that should be studied, unlike mastery learners who usually concentrate only on the content they perceive to be interesting (Shell & Husman, 2008). The normative learner with focused task concentration is advantaged with an “academic sonar” and thus is able to detect exactly what it takes to reach a desired performance goal.

Senko et al. (2011) advocated a multiple goals approach based upon close scrutiny of empirical findings related to the positive benefits of a combined normative and mastery orientation. Their multiple goals perspective suggests that learners can adopt multiple goal orientations concurrently, leveraging the high interest associated with mastery learners and the preferential performance attainment strategies typically used by normative learners. The approach is substantiated by positive correlations between normative and mastery goals, and the apparent shift in goal priorities students exhibit as they navigate coursework over a semester (Hulleman et al., 2010). Recent school-based research indicates that a multiple goals approach can result in enhanced achievement and adaptive motivation. Mason, Boscolo, Tornatora, and Ronconi (2013) observed increased subject specific self-efficacy in elementary students adapting a multiple-goals approach, while Luo, Paris, Hogan, and Luo (2011) found that in addition to improved mathematics scores, high school learners employing dual mastery and normative goals showed increased class engagement, improved time management, and greater self-regulation compared with other goal orientation combinations. In business, a multiple goals orientation has been found related to superior individual workplace performance (Van Yperen & Orehek, 2013), while organizations advocating a dualistic goal orientation are positively correlated with elevated innovation and lucrative corporate profitability (Che-Ha, Mavondo, & Mohd-Said, 2014). Although more research is needed, these findings show promising evidence that the concurrent adoption of mastery- and normative-approach goals is an optimal and powerful combination that may enhance both individual and organizational performance.

Organizational promotion or prevention?

Operating under the fundamental and dualistic premise that individuals strive to either approach or avoid goal targets and that motives are distinct from goal orientations, Scholer and Higgins (2012) suggested that individuals navigate life under the compulsion of either amassing accomplishments or avoiding the liabilities of prospective goal failure. Described as the regulatory focus theory, motives operate under the presumption that emotional trade-offs will always occur between the coexisting motivational systems of promotion and prevention. Individuals with a promotion orientation are opportunistic and seek out authentic experiences as incentives to set action-oriented goals, which are a prerequisite to achieving results. Individuals with a promotion focus colloquially see the world as a half-filled glass in need of bubbling overflow. Promotion-oriented individuals thrive on progress and enjoy recognition of accomplishment. Conversely, individuals with a prevention orientation are cautiously optimistic and perceive the maintenance of status quo and avoidance of negative outcomes as their defining and dominant motive. Prevention-oriented individuals show less risk tolerance and, instead, are motivated by psychological safety and security, evidenced by emotional calm and contentment. The prevention-oriented individual thrives when stability is assured and negativity is controlled. Regulatory focus suggests that each orientation is philosophically antithetical to the other and goal attainment is accomplished through a unique blend of emotional balance, task commitment, and successful performances that are moderated by the respective orientations.

Regulatory focus is a particularly useful motivational model to describe organizational behavior because many organizations and corresponding cultures align with a strategic vision emphasizing either growth or preservation, similar to the personal valences exhibited by individuals with a promotion or prevention orientation. Like individuals, some organizations may become complacent, showing resistance to change, while others aggressively pursue a corporate agenda rooted in the philosophy of perpetual organizational transformation as part of growth and prosperity. Operationalizing the promotion focus, we may describe individuals exhibiting a promotion-influenced orientation as those who seek accomplishment through taking risks, living by the maxim “Nothing ventured, nothing gained.” These individuals exemplify the virtues of advancement and assertion, eager to question authority or challenge tradition. In contrast, the prevention-influenced individual follows a conservative and secure dogma of self-preservation, operating under the mantra “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it” (Scholer & Higgins, 2012, p. 71). These individuals value organizational behaviors, such as loyalty and vigilance, while nurturing group cohesion and collective work teams.

Considering the diversity of motives, prevention- and promotion-oriented individuals use a vastly different repertoire of strategies to accomplish their objectives. Different strategies are engaged because the outcomes valued by promotion and prevention orientations are different. The promotion orientation values progress, and thus these individuals will have goals grounded in precise action, not maintenance of a current state. They will use strategies involving discreet planning and steadfast evaluation of incremental success. For instance, recall the adolescent dilemma of LaSonya Moore, who had a child before graduating high school. Demonstrating a promotion orientation, LaSonya perceived her circumstances not as the reason to curtail or plateau her career growth, but as an opportunity to demonstrate her personal drive and ambition. Through a series of calculated and carefully designed steps, LaSonya continued her education as a means of reaching her personal goal of independence, discounting negative ruminations while refuting the racial stereotypes she so fervently rejected. Had LaSonya exhibited a more dominant prevention orientation, she may have used her circumstances as the justification for not finishing her education, perhaps striving to only finish high school, seeking a safe haven, and avoiding conflict.

Higgins (1997) noted that regulatory focus and corresponding orientations have strong emotional consequences and performance implications. Promotionally focused individuals will set more aggressive goal targets, perhaps learning new skills or immersing themselves in unfamiliar social situations. The emotional consequences of success for the promotion individual are feelings of accomplishment and elation, but the emotional ramifications of failure can be devastating: dejection, sadness, and disappointment. Conversely, prevention-focused individuals with a more guarded task approach will appear more judicious in their strategy use, showing an even-tempered disposition, calculating and planning their every move. The emotional contingencies of the prevention orientation are serenity and feelings of overall well-being when successful. One of the primary goals of the prevention orientation is minimizing mistakes and being more satisfied with safe and secure alternatives (Zhang & Mittal, 2007). However, prevention individuals are susceptible to anxiety, nervousness, and guilt, based upon the insecurity associated with potentially negative outcomes.

The nature of regulatory focus to understand behavior is ubiquitous, with the model applied broadly across disciplines. A regulatory focus has been used to examine how physicians respond to feedback in a clinical setting (Watling, Driessen, van der Vleuten, Vanstone, & Lingard, 2012), to determine what factors managers consider when making ethical decisions in the workplace (Neubert, Wu, & Roberts, 2013), and research reveals how regulatory orientation influences labor negotiations and bargaining concessions (Troetschel, Bundgens, Huffmeier, & Loschelder, 2013). Regulatory orientation can also assist in predicting behavioral intentions, such as which information consumers consider when making buying decisions (Pham & Chang, 2010), understanding how much a person is willing to pay for an item (Avnet & Higgins, 2006), or what factors are considered when engaging in healthy behavior (Keller, 2006).

Generally, these findings reveal that both prevention and promotion orientations will instill successful performance; however, individuals with a promotion focus are regarded as more creative, abstract oriented, and quick thinking. In contrast, prevention-oriented individuals are deemed more analytical, detail-oriented, and methodical thinkers. Scholar and Higgins (2012) suggested that what seems to matter most is effective calibration of regulatory fit with specific task goals. In other words, individuals should be encouraged and directed to play the right position within organizations in order to leverage their strengths. By analogy, in American football the quarterback position requires a nimble athlete capable of instant decisions and perceptive field awareness, unlike the brawny lineman who must protect the quarterback through brute strength, individual vigilance, and focused attention on his defensive counterpart. Linemen make terrible quarterbacks, as poor as most quarterbacks are in making tackles. Thus, at minimum, we can conclude that across contexts, position compatibility is key, and assessment of regulatory fit is an essential step when striving to cultivate optimal task motivation.

Principle #35—Interest is a multi-faceted contributor to motivational intensity

Disputing the influence of interest on performance motivation is akin to suggesting that basking for hours under a searing-hot sun is a cure for sunburn. Evidence suggests that interest, as an independent influence on learning outcomes, accounts for between 11% and 38% of unique variability between individuals when learning is measured by information retention, grades, or achievement test scores (Alexander & Murphy, 1998; Krapp & Prenzel, 2011; Linnenbrink-Garcia, Patall, & Messersmith, 2013; Schiefele, Krapp, & Winteler, 1992). As such, interest strongly influences the activities we choose and the degree of our overall task engagement. Interest is a reliable predictor of how much attention we give to the educational process and the educational goals we set (Pintrich & Zusho, 2002), including the degree of self-regulation students use when learning such subjects as mathematics, science, and English (Lee, Lee, & Bong, 2014). Interest is also a mediating factor influencing the choice of academic majors (Lapan, Shaughnessy, & Boggs, 1996), degree of college completion (Larson, Pesch, Bonitz, Wu, & Werbel, 2013), and career choice (Tracey, 2010). After employment, interest is highly influential in determining vocational success and can predict employee turnover. A meta-analysis of vocational literature revealed validity estimates of .23, correlating results on interest inventories with job performance, while interests are moderately, but negatively (.22), predictive of employee turnover (Van Iddekinge, Roth, Putka, & Lanivich, 2011).

The pervasive influence of interest cannot be denied; however, “disparate conceptualizations” (Renninger & Hidi, 2011, p. 168) have plagued the precise meaning and interpretation of interest since Dewey (1913) declared in his seminal publication that interest was “the sole guarantee of attention” (p. 1). The relative effect of interest on performance at any specific time is contingent upon the type of content or task attempted, individual developmental factors, and the trajectory of the interest. Most researchers describe the trajectory of interest as beginning with a genetic predisposition for certain topics, followed by either a self-generated or situational “trigger,” emanating from an environmental-based cognitive or emotional stimulus, that subsequently promotes individual willingness to engage in a task (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). Interest is maintained if and when the individual believes the knowledge, or experience gained, from task participation is personally valuable, useful, or socially rewarding. Recent neurological evidence supports behavioral observations of interest and suggests that individuals show similar biopsychological reactions during performances accompanied by sustained self-reported interest and curiosity as when receiving monetary or other pleasurable rewards (Corr, DeYoung, & McNaughton, 2013; Kang et al., 2009; Ulrich, Keller, Hoenig, Waller, & Grön, 2014).

Interest is generally categorized in one of two ways: either as personal (also referred to as “topical” or “individualized”), or situational (Ainley, Hidi, & Berndorff, 2002). Personal interest represents interest that is primarily cognitively grounded, enduring, individually valued, and usually topic specific, while situational interest is affectively induced, transient, environmentally activated, and typically not premediated (Schraw & Lehman, 2001). Frequently, personal interest represents an internal striving that behaviorally results in re-engagement of behavior, such as voluntarily reading all books about motivation, whereas situational interest occurs during instances, such as the familiar leisurely pastime of channel surfing, when attention is drawn toward a particular program not actively being sought, which subsequently engages the individual’s attention. Considering the emphasis here on learning and performance, interest is operationalized as “a psychological state and a predisposition to re-engage [in] particular disciplinary content over time” (Renninger & Hidi, 2011, p. 170).

Two key points underlie the interpretation of interest. First, a key moderator of interest is biological sex and gender (Ainley et al., 2002; Lee et al., 2014; Su, Rounds, & Armstrong, 2009). Consistent findings across cultures suggest male preferences for mathematics and science, whereas females prefer and demonstrate greater language arts proficiency and interest in social and artistic domains. Despite the broad generalizations concerning subject matter preferences, the relationship between gender and interest can be spurious. For instance, when interpreting the contributory influences of interest and gender on science learning and career expectations, gender norms are more influential and important than personal interest (Buccheri, Gürber, & Brühwiler, 2011). Despite declining interest based upon purported stereotypic threat, whereby learners base important decisions on presumed social norms, ambiguous results across domains suggest that the majority of gender differences ascribed to interest may be more of a function of gender differences in self-beliefs, such as self-efficacy, than those due to domain-specific interest (Krapp & Prenzel, 2011).

Second, unlike many motivational influences that are primarily derived from cognitive self-perceptions, interest is conceptualized to include both cognitive and affective components. Interest targets are typically activated by either a positively or negatively charged environmental trigger or a preconceived emotional valence held toward a learning target or impending task (Hidi, 1990). The affective nature of interest is grounded in individualistic self-beliefs that contend that certain tasks hold more value and utility for some individuals than for others. When evaluating their engagement opportunities, individuals undergo continuous qualitative assessments that calibrate and associate worth for a particular subject or activity, such as learners do when they evaluate their personal interest and the usefulness of learning science (Nadelson et al., 2014). Interesting material is perceived as exciting! When task valence is deemed positive, the individual will engage, and potentially re-engage, in the activity, provided the task is perceived as meaningful and offers sufficient cognitive and intellectual stimulation to hold his or her interest (Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter, & Elliot, 2000; Mitchell, 1993). Conversely, if a negative affective valence is associated with a task, disengagement is likely to follow (Skinner, Furrer, Marchand, & Kindermann, 2008), superseding evaluations of cognitive suitability. The pervasive affective component of interest is supported by substantial neurological evidence that confirms self-reported and behavioral engagement of interest. The evidence suggests that both cognitive and affective evaluations occur during task choice, with conceptually distinct brain localization patterns observed when individuals express interest and when they do not (Hidi & Renninger, 2006; Ulrich et al., 2014).

Keeping with our applied emphasis, I shift to determining how experience contributes to the development of sustained personal interest, along with suggesting specific strategies that are useful to promote interest related to learning and performance. Krapp and Prenzel (2011) and Hidi and Renninger (2006) indicated that personal interest develops primarily when positive associations are ascribed to situationally engaging experiences. Interest for learning develops, in part, through the socialization process, which, in some cases, is concurrent with the evolution of individual and idealistic self-views. As children interact with their environment, they encounter situations that are potentially positive and rewarding, or negative and debilitating. During task performance, the inherent interest in topical learning is either reinforced or discouraged by significant others. Feedback, embedded in the process of environmental exploration and socialization, is offered first by parents and teachers and then by peers. If external evaluations and personal perceptions of the learning experience are commensurate with skill, personally valued, and self-relevant, individuals will internalize topical interest and incorporate task participation as part of their overall performance self-identity. Over time, repeated performances coupled with ongoing self-evaluations become deeply internalized, resulting in the development of positive self-beliefs about the task, including outcome beliefs concerning the ability to complete the task successfully (Bandura, 1989). Prospectively, when a child encounters task success, the feat is accompanied by feedback and positive social support, contributing to interest growth. Conversely, the combination of task failure, social stigma, or lack of positive feedback will impede or divert interest development from the task at hand and, instead, lead the individual to pursue more palatable alternatives to satisfy the intellectual curiosity inherent in most individuals.

Capitalizing on curiosity, situational interest, or nascent personal interest can be facilitated by using a variety of interest-evoking strategies. First, a combined emphasis on both the cognitive and affective components of interest is a prerequisite to foster interest development. Individuals need to believe the targeted task is within their cognitive and academic capability. The task should leverage a “knowledge thirst,” able to close an information gap (Rotgans & Schmidt, 2014, p. 37), and provide sufficient, but not overwhelming, challenge in order to generate positive affective evaluations to accompany task performance (Lee et al., 2014). Next, educators should provide ongoing opportunities and continued social support for activities valued by the learner. In a 4-year longitudinal qualitative study examining student perception of science, Logan and Skamp (2013) determined educators promoted science interest when learners believed that the content being taught was relevant and had direct implications for their daily lives. Pedagogically, in the same study, students indicated that educators with a sense of humor, those who avoided the requirement of extensive note taking, and those able to align instructional content with student perceptions of their “ideal self-concept” (p. 2881) contributed to their sustained interest in science learning.

Linnenbrink-Garcia et al. (2013) described a number of contextual conditions conducive to leveraging situational interest and transforming transient learner focus into more stable and enduring individual interest. First, consistent with SDT (see Principle #32, p. 144), educators should strive toward creating autonomy-supportive learning environments. When learners experience autonomy, they believe their individual interests are self-promoted and voluntarily pursued, as opposed to feeling controlled by instructor directives or curricular mandates. Next, educators should strive to be perceived as “friendly, approachable, and supportive of a social relationship with students” (p. 595). By appearing approachable, learners are more likely to ask questions and become part of the learning process than when they experience instructor alienation (Jennings & Greenberg, 2009). Third, learners should be provided with opportunities for hands-on exploration of learning content. Pedagogical strategies, such as guided inquiry and jigsaw, are especially useful in the domain of science and have been found to promote enhanced interest and learner motivation (Furtak, Seidel, Iverson, & Briggs, 2012).

Finally, we must address the all too common enigma of learner amotivation, cognitive apathy, and behavioral lethargy. Many times, the academic engagement of learners may appear fleeting or non-existent at face value. One promising interest-generating strategy, primarily confined to generating interest in reading content, is the use of seductive details. Texts that include vivid imagery on such topics as sex, religion, politics, and death are highly interesting, and described as seductive, but frequently impede knowledge building because the learner focuses on unessential aspects of the narrative content. Although historically research on the use of seductive details has been broadly inconsistent and resulted in pedagogically vilified outcomes (Abercrombie, 2013; Schraw & Lehman, 2001), under certain circumstances, seductive details will capture learner interest.

Park, Flowerday, and Brünken (2014), using multi-media science learning, found that under conditions of low cognitive load, seductive details were more motivating and actually enhanced learning in comparison with topically similar high-load conditions, replicating previous findings using biology learning (Park, Moreno, Seufert, & Brünken, 2011). Similarly, animations that appear more lifelike, illustrating the emotions of surprise, fear, and sickness, promoted learning about the development of rhinovirus in comparison with simple, unemotional, black-and-white drawings (Mayer & Estrella, 2014). Although more research is needed, these findings suggest that even when controlling for existing interest, judicious use of vividness and seductive details may be a promising strategy to induce interest, even in the most aloof learners.

Chapter summary/conclusions

Evidence described in this chapter revealed that goal-directed behaviors are influenced by the source of motivation. Individuals have a demarcated locus of control, internalize task value along a continuum, have dominant but varying goal orientations, and are prone to a number of influences that determine and direct situational and enduring interests. Evaluation of the examples from individuals, classrooms, and organizations supports the contention that finding the source of a motive can be highly beneficial in assessing which particular mediation strategy or strategies will be most effective to guide a particular individual or work team.

Assessing locus of control is an important first step to determining if an individual is prone to self-internalizing tasks that foster intrinsic motivation or if separable, externally-focused contingencies that are based upon social comparison or incentives are instrumental in energizing behavior. Although some positive correlations exist between intrinsic motives and goal orientation, individuals predominantly actualize their goal intentions for reasons of self-determined mastery or to appear competent based upon past performance or in the eyes of others. Categorizing individuals is a risky proposition, but success strivings and avoidant behaviors can easily be observed and detected in most individuals by examining which choices are made and probing to determine the degree of personal investment and task commitment.

Variations in individual interest are guided by cognitive and affective influences that are both fleeting and enduring. All interests have a developmental trajectory and may change from situational to personal, based on the social and contextual influences that align with a particular interest. MDs can influence interest development and longevity by providing incentives, choices, and authentic task-based feedback as a means to cultivating interest in academically or organizationally productive ways.

Next steps

Throughout the chapter, I identified numerous sources that influence the direction and intensity of our motivational efforts. Although not specifically articulated as a distinct and prevailing basis for motivation, one common theme continues to persist: the strong and immutable influence of social factors on motivated action. For some individuals, nothing has a greater influence on behavior than how they perceive themselves in relation to others. Social factors determine, modify, and localize our behaviors as we seek outlets to demonstrate who we are and what we are capable of accomplishing. A key determinant of social behavior is how we think about ourselves in relation to others, often described as socialized self-beliefs. The next step is an extensive examination of the socialized nature of motivation, and understanding which self-beliefs are most instrumental in directing our performance efforts. Chapter 7 also features a legendary performer, Nick Lowery, who when he retired from the National Football League held practically every kicking record in the history of the sport!

End of chapter motivational minute

Principles covered in this chapter:

32. The source of motives determines goal emphasis and strategy choice—individuals pursue goals and exhibit goal-specific behaviors along a continuum of internalization that identifies six variations among the type of effort and commitment individuals are willing to devote toward a task. Each variation in motive is aligned with certain preferred motivational and behavioral regulation strategies.

33. Individual reaction to incentives is variable, and predictable—incentives, when judiciously administered, promote superior performance, especially when the incentive is task contingent and variable or used to generate interest in a boring task. Incentives perceived as promoting task internalization and providing perceptions of autonomy and choice are more conducive to developing intrinsic motivation.

34. Goal type and orientation are reliable and accurate predictors of behavior—individuals pursue goals for specific reasons that fluctuate based upon task and circumstance. Some learners actively strive toward goals to satisfy motives of personal accomplishment and knowledge building. Others goal strivings are pursued to demonstrate competence to peers or for other separable incentives. Multiple goal orientations are highly probable and typically result in superior performance outcomes.

35. Interest is a multi-faceted contributor to motivational intensity—interests are a catalyst for motivated behavior, predicting the degree of intensity an individual is willing to invest in a task. Individuals demonstrate interests on both a personal (recurring) and situational (transitory) basis. Strategies, such as feedback, incentives, and autonomy-supportive environments, can either promote or impede interest depending upon the learner, context, and the developmental trajectory of interest.

Key terminology (in order of chapter presentation):

ent Contingencies—often the target of extrinsically-motivated individuals, contingencies are the catalysts of motivated behavior and represent the incentives and reinforcements gained when reaching desired learning or normative goals.

ent Locus of control—a phenomenological orientation that classifies individuals based upon what they consider when setting goals and making task decisions. Individuals with an internal locus pursue tasks relative to their own personal interests and beliefs, while individuals with an external locus consider the materialistic or social contingencies associated with task pursuit.

ent Internalization—the process of accepting the value of an activity as part of the identified self, resulting in high engagement and inherent reward.

ent Goals—the typically conscious objectives set by individuals as the targets of their active motivational strivings, otherwise described as what an individual intends to accomplish.

ent Goal orientations—the underlying reason associated with individual goal strivings, which may be tacit to the individual or actively recognized. Goal orientations are empirically valid indicators of why an individual seeks certain goal targets.

ent Mastery-oriented learners—a goal striving grounded in the motive of gaining knowledge or meeting task-specific goals primarily to satisfy intellectual curiosity. These learners presumably are not motivated by separable outcomes unrelated to learning.

ent Normative-oriented learners—a goal striving grounded in the motive of favorable social comparison or goals pursued for a separable outcome (e.g., grades, money). These learners presumably need incentives to energize motivational strivings.

ent Personal interest—cognitively activated and valued internal strivings that behaviorally result in re-engagement of behavior directed toward a specific activity or target.

ent Situational interest—transitory focus of attention that is affectively induced, environmentally activated, and typically not premediated.