Multifaceted Nature of Intrinsic Motivation PDF
Multifaceted Nature of Intrinsic Motivation PDF
Multifaceted Nature of Intrinsic Motivation PDF
Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Steven Reiss, Department of Psychology, Ohio
State University, 321 McCampbell Hall, 1581 Dodd Drive,
Columbus, OH 43210-1296. E-mail: [email protected]
179
1
This example is based partially on empirical findings of
a correlation between motivation for status and motivation
for wealth (see Reiss & Havercamp, 1998).
180
REISS
can pursue the end goal of, say, power. Generally, there seems to be little or no point to listing
instrumental motives, because no matter how
comprehensive a list happens to be, somebody
can probably imagine an additional instrumental motive that was overlooked and could be
added. In contrast, the number of ends is limited
by human nature. A central issue for psychology should be to identify and classify the end
purposes of human behavior, because ends indicate the ultimate goals of much of what people do.
Two theoretical perspectives have been advanced concerning end goals. Multifaceted theory holds that the various end goals are largely
unrelated to each other, perhaps to the point
where they are genetically distinct sources of
motivation with different evolutionary histories.
Multifaceted theorists include philosophers who
have suggested lists of the most fundamental
motives of human nature (e.g., Spinoza, 1675/
1949), psychologists who have put forth evolutionary theories of motivation (e.g., McDougall,
1926), and psychologists who have suggested
theories of human needs (e.g., Murray, 1938).
In contrast, unitary or global theorists hold
that end goals can be profitably reduced to a
small number of categories based on common
characteristics. Unitary theorists seek the underlying psychological principles that are expressed by diverse motivational events. The ancient Greek philosophers, for example, reduced
end goals into categories expressing the needs
of the body, mind, and soul (e.g., Plato, 375
BCE/1966). Hedonists distinguished between
end goals associated with pleasure enhancement
and those related to pain reduction (Russell,
1945). Freud (1916/1963) reduced motives to
sexual and aggressive instincts.
Today, some social psychologists classify
end goals into two global categories, called
drives and intrinsic motives (IMs). The distinction has been influential1,921 scholarly publications on intrinsic motivation (IM) appeared
during the period of January 1967 to May 2002
(source: PsycINFO). IM has been investigated
in social psychology (e.g., Ryan & Deci, 2000),
developmental psychology (e.g., Harter, 1981),
clinical psychology (e.g., Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996), organizational psychology (e.g.,
Houkes, Janssen, de Jonge, & Nijhuis, 2001),
and educational psychology (e.g., Kohn, 1993).
Drive Theory
Thorndikes (1911) law of effect reduced human motivation to categories of reward and
punishment. This law holds that responses are
strengthened when they lead to satisfaction and
weakened when they lead to punishment. Psychologists studying learning soon realized
Thorndikes law is a tautology, or a proposition
that is circular (true by definition). The following statements, for example, are circular with
respect to each other: Rewards strengthen behavior and Any event that strengthens behavior is a reward.
The concept of drive was introduced to escape from the circularity of the law of effect
(Brown, 1961). Instead of identifying reward as
any stimulus or satisfying event that strengthens
behavior, drive theorists defined it as a reduction in a state of deprivation. The statements
Drive reduction strengthens behavior and
Drive reduction occurs when a state of deprivation is lessened are not circular with respect
to each other.
Hull (1943) recognized four types of drives:
hunger, thirst, sex, and escape from pain. In
many animal learning experiments, investigators have induced drives by depriving animals
of an important need prior to the experiment.
The deprivation of food, for example, establishes food as a powerful reward, increasing the
animals motivation to learn responses that produce food (Skinner, 1938). Much of animal
learning theory is based on the results of psychological studies with food-deprived or waterdeprived animals.2
Unitary IM Theory
The unitary construct of IM was put forth as
an alternative to drive theory. The initial insight
was that many of the motives not explained well
by drive theorymotives such as exploration
(curiosity), autonomy, and play have common properties. To a large extent, unitary IM
theory initially represented an attempt to show
the essential differences between drives and
what psychodynamic theorists have called ego
motives.
In the past, the distinction between drives and
IMs has been thought to have a physiological
basis, at least according to some published remarks. The general idea was that drives such as
hunger and thirst arise from tissue needs involving peripheral components of the nervous
system, whereas IMs arise from psychological
or cognitive processes involving primarily central neural activity. Deci (1975), for example,
wrote that the primary effects of IM are in the
tissues of the central nervous system rather than
in the non-nervous system tissues (p. 61). This
physiological paradigm for distinguishing
drives from IMs always lacked scientific support; indeed, we now know that it is physiological nonsense. Motives such as hunger and
thirst, for example, involve significant central
nervous system or cognitive activity (Berntson
& Cacioppo, 2000). Both the behaviorist concept of drive and the concept of IM as nondrive
have no precise physiological meaning and
originally were put forth at a time when little
was known about the physiology of motivation.
Mastery
Whites (1959) article on competence motivation (mastery) was arguably the start of the
current era of scholarship on IM. White (1959)
asserted that exploration, manipulation, and
play are not drives originating from states of
deprivation partially because they are not related to visceral needs comparable to hunger,
thirst, or sex (p. 301). Exploration and play
cannot be regarded as leading to any kind of
consummatory response (p. 301). He further
181
182
REISS
to become sexually effective in attracting others. By putting forth a sufficiently general definition of competence motivation, it seems possible to argue that nearly any collection of diverse motives may have common elements.
The hypothesis that effectance motivation is
undifferentiated at birth and later differentiates
into the various IMs has not been tested. Nobody has observed the predicted process of differentiation of mastery motivation. Nobody has
conducted measurements of effectance motivation in an undifferentiated state and in its predicted differentiated form, showing that the
former is linked to the latter.
In conclusion, children show a need to feel
competent and master their environments. This
need, called mastery, is important in childhood
development and in human behavior generally.
The relationship between mastery and other ego
motives, however, is not well understood. Researchers need to develop methods to explore
more fully Whites hypothesis that mastery is
the aim of important ego motives such as exploration, manipulation, and autonomy.
Intrinsic Pleasures
Intrinsic pleasure is another common characteristic of IMs, according to unitary theorists.
This viewpoint holds that people are motivated
to engage in activities they expect to experience
as pleasurable. When the pleasures are inherent
to the behavior or activity itselfsuch as drawing for its own sakeIM is imputed (Ryan &
Deci, 2000; Weiner, 1995). When the pleasures
are external to the behavior or activitysuch as
drawing for a good player award extrinsic
motivation is imputed. As Deci and Ryan
(1985) put it, When people are intrinsically
motivated, they experience interest and enjoyment, they feel competent and self-determining,
they perceive the locus of causality for their
behavior to be internal, and in some instances,
they experience flow (p. 34). Weiner (1995)
defined IM as a source of motivation arising
from the enjoyment of an activity.
Are IMs pleasurable? IM theorists may
have erred in embracing hedonism, the philosophy that pleasure motivates behavior. Over the
centuries, scholars have shown a number of
significant limitations of pleasure theories. Applied to the concept of intrinsic pleasures, for
183
184
REISS
Individual Differences
Unitary theory seems inconsistent with individual differences regarding different IMs. If
competence motivation is the developmental origin of both autonomy and curiosity, people
with above average competence motivation also
should develop above average autonomy and
curiosity, and so trait autonomy and trait curiosity should be significantly correlated. Highly
autonomous people should be highly curious.
These implications of unitary IM theory are
unsupported by scientific evidence. In factor
studies of the Reiss Profile psychometric instrument (Reiss & Havercamp, 1998), moreover,
the correlation between factors assessing trait
autonomy (independence) and trait curiosity
was virtually nil (r .05, N 1,154). Because
highly autonomous people are not necessarily
highly curious, how can autonomy and curiosity
be about the same thing (mastery)?
Conclusion
White (1959) put forth the thesis that IMs
such as curiosity, autonomy, and play have
common characteristics justifying a single
name (p. 317), meaning a single category of
motivation. No common characteristics have
been shown scientifically. Neither competence
motivation nor intrinsic pleasure has been
shown to distinguish IMs from drives. Whites
hypothesis lacks adequate scientific support and
seems inconsistent with individual differences.
White himself admitted that his hypothesis was
speculative in that the IMs appear to be too
diverse to have significant common
characteristics.
cial contact, modesty, and righteousness. Descartes (1637/1958), on the other hand, listed six
passions of the soul. He wrote, There are
only six [intrinsic motives] which are simple
and primitive, viz., wonder, love, hatred, desire,
joy and sadness. All others are composed of
these six (Descartes, 1637/1958, p. 291).
James (1890/1950) and McDougall (1926) recognized between 8 and 20 instincts.3 When
psychodynamic psychology gained influence,
Murray (1938) reinterpreted McDougalls list
of instincts into a list of 20 basic psychological
needs.4 Maslow (1943) also put forth a theory
of diverse human motives.
Some psychologists have taken strong exception to efforts to develop lists of end motives.
Critics have argued that 8 to 20 fundamental
motives are too many to be studied profitably
(Freeman, Anderson, Azer, Girolami, & Scotti,
1998). Biologists study scores of enzymes, and
chemists study 115 elements. Because we do
not say that biologists study too many enzymes or that chemists study too many elements, why should we think that 8 to 20 basic
motives are too many for psychologists to
study? Scientific rules permit psychologists to
study as many fundamental motives as can be
identified. We do not want to invent a motive
for every behavior, of course, but we also do not
want to proceed according to invalid, preconceived notions of how many motives there are.
Evolutionary theory suggests a multifaceted
model of IMs. When we consider the various
IMs, they seem relevant to different survival
needs, suggesting possibly distinct motives controlled by different genes. Efficacy, for example, motivates building nests and other forms of
shelter, which have the survival value of pro3
In the JamesMcDougall theory, a human instinct is an
automatically occurring desire or motive, not a rigid pattern
of unlearned behavior. The idea is that people do not deliberately choose their psychological needs. As Aristotle
(330 BCE/1953) put it, people choose means, not ends.
Aristotle was making a valid point in logic (if an individual
attempted to choose an end, the option chosen would be
instrumental to the criteria on which the choice was based).
In contrast, James and McDougall were reporting anecdotal
observations of human behavior.
4
Henry A. Murray (1938) acknowledged the origin of his
famous list of needs when he wrote, This classification of
needs is not very different from lists constructed by McDougall, Garnett, and a number of other writers (p. 84).
tecting animals from harsh environmental elements. Autonomythe desire for freedom
motivates animals to leave the nest when they
come of age, spreading the search for food over
a larger geographical area. These considerations
suggest at least a possibility of separate evolutionary histories, which supports the idea that
IMs are multifaceted.
185
186
REISS
187
Table 1
Reisss 16 Motives
Motive name
Motive
Animal behavior
Dominant animal eats more food
Efficacy
Curiosity
Wonder
Independence
Desire to be autonomous
Status
Loyalty
Power
Social contact
Vengeance
Honor
Idealism
Physical
exercise
Romance
Family
Order
Eating
Acceptance
Tranquility
Saving
of moderation (called a set point or sensitivity)in other words, people generally are motivated to experience what Aristotle called a
moderate mean. Most people aim for a moderate degree of power, a moderate degree of status, a moderate degree of knowledge, and so on
for each basic desire. Individual differences,
however, are significant (Hypothesis 5). In Figure 1, for example, Henry aims for a lower
degree of social contact than does Jake. When
Figure 1.
Intrinsic feeling
Freedom
Self-importance
Fun
Vindication
Compassion
Vitality
Lust
Love
Stability
Satiation (avoidance
of hunger)
Self-confidence
Safe, relaxed
Ownership
188
REISS
but then feels uncomfortable because he is experiencing much more social activity than he
desires. Jake, on the other hand, still wants more
fun when the party ends. After the party, Henry
goes home and spends the next morning alone
to balance his experience toward a low average
amount of social contact, whereas Jake goes to
the nearest bar to keep the party rolling.
The theory of 16 basic desires holds that what
is motivating are discrepancies between the
amount of an intrinsic satisfier that is desired
and the amount that was recently experienced
(Hypothesis 7). When a person experiences
more power than he or she desires, the individual is motivated to be submissive for a period of
time to balance experience toward the desired
rate. When a person experiences less power
than he or she desires, the individual is motivated to be domineering for a period of time.
Thus, a person who generally has a powerful
personality may at times be motivated to be
submissive, and a person with a submissive
personality may at times be motivated to be
dominant.
According to the theory of 16 basic desires,
vengeful people are motivated to experience
high degrees of vindication, competition, contentiousness, conflict, and aggression, whereas
peacemakers are motivated to experience low
degrees of these experiences. When a vengeful
person experiences a period of timesay, a few
daysthat is conflict free, the individual is motivated to get into arguments, fights, and competitions. The longer the period of time that is
conflict free, the stronger becomes the motivation to pick a fight with somebody. If the individual goes too far and provokes more of a
fight than he or she had anticipated, the person
becomes motivated by peacemaking behavior to
balance experience back toward the individuals
Aristotlean mean (de Waal, 1989). On the other
hand, peacemakers are generally conflict
avoidant and motivated to experience a below
average degree of strife. When peacemakers
experience even ordinary amounts of everyday
strife and conflict, they become motivated to
make peace. Their tolerance for strife is much
below that of the average individual.
As was noted previously, basic desires organize our attention, cognitions, feelings, and behavior into a coherent action or whole (Hypothesis 8). We pay attention to stimuli that are
189
190
REISS
Correlation Matrix
Evidence that the 16 basic desires are largely
unrelated to each other supports multifaceted
theory. Havercamp (1998) calculated the average correlations among the 16 factors of the
Reiss Profile at about .15. More than 81% of the
values in the intercorrelation matrix had an absolute value of less than .20, indicating that the
scales were largely unrelated. The most strongly
related scales are power and status (r .58),
vengeance and status (r .54), and honor and
idealism (r .48). These results support a multifaceted approach to end motivation and argue
against unitary theories.
Conclusion
Since antiquity, scholars have debated
whether human motives can be reduced to a few
191
motives) also have been shown to be multifaceted (Schwartz, 1994). Competence is only one
of the values people holdit is not the common
root of diverse values. People also value ends
such as status, social contact, revenge, physical
activity, and autonomy.
Evidence for multifaceted theory extends significantly beyond the initial factorial studies
suggesting 15 and 16 factor solutions for basic
motivation. All 16 basic motives have been
validated against criterion behavior outside laboratories and experiments (see Havercamp &
Reiss, 2003). Concurrent validity and social desirability studies also support the multifaceted
model.
The sensitivity model holds that 16 genetically distinct desires (IMs) combine to determine many psychologically significant motives.
The model supports numerous predictions about
behavior and provides standardized measures
(such as the Reiss Profile self-report version)
needed to test the validity of the predictions.
Future research is indicated to study this model
and the role of the 16 basic desires in human
behavior. This theory, if valid, shows the multifaceted nature of human IMs. Researchers
studying unitary IM theory need to show they
can predict behavior as well as or better than
Reisss model by reducing the 16 motives to
one or two categories. In contrast, multifaceted
theorists need to continue to show that behavior
is better predicted and explained with a comprehensive, multifaceted list of IMs than is possible with a reductionism approach.
References
Aristotle. (1953). The nicomachean ethics. New
York: Penguin. (Original work published 330 BCE)
Berntson, G. G., & Cacioppo, J. T. (2000). Psychobiology and social psychology: Past, present, and
future. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 315.
Brown, J. S. (1961). The motivation of behavior. New
York: McGraw-Hill.
Butcher, J. N., Dahlstrom, W. G., Graham, J. R.,
Tellegen, A., & Kaemmer, B. (1989). Minnesota
Multiphasic Personality Inventory2 (MMPI-2):
Manual for administration and scoring. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale
of social desirability independent of psychopathol-
192
REISS
193