The Effects of Extrinsic Motivation and Subsequent Absence on Test Taking Performance

1. The Effects of Extrinsic Motivation and Subsequent Absence on Test Taking Performance Kimala Bennet, Aja Crockett, Sophia Hsu, Lisa Poulin, Dina Zelyony Mount Holyoke College

2. Extrinsic vs. Intrinsic • Extrinsic Motivation • “ Instrumental in nature and considered a means to an end”(Deci, 1991) • Intrinsic • “Primary propensity of organisms to engage in activities that interest them and, in doing so, learn, develop, and expand their capacities” (Sansone, 2002)

3. Rationale • In an effort to improve our educational systems, understanding what effectively motivates students to perform to their full potential is necessary if we are to adequately assess knowledge. • Are extrinsic motivators beneficial or do they negatively affect the learning process?

4. Supporting Research • Short term performance improves with the use of extrinsic motivators (O’Donnell ,1996) • Previous research has shown that extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1971; Kohn 1993; Sansone, 2000) • When offered a reward, retention of material, value, and understanding was diminished (Grolnick and Ryan, 1987; Kohn, 1986; Sansone, 2000) • Removal of reward has shown to decrees subsequent efforts (Bandura, 1986)

5. Conflicting Research • Performance contingent rewards have been found to help affirm competence – thus encouraging performance on subsequent tasks ( Eisenberger & Rhodes, 2001; Schunk, 1984) • Diminished performance could be due to satiation (Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996)

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

7. Variables • Independent: • Motivation: • Control, No Reward, Reward • Time • Test 1, Test 2 • Dependent: • Test Scores

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

9. Materials • Test 1 & Test 2 • word scrambles • each of equal difficulty • General Test Instructions include: • motivator • time limit • each answer assigned varying point value

10. Materials cont’d • Instructions for Tests 1 & 2 according to the group the participant is randomly assigned to • control – no extrinsic motivation • Instructions include no reward nor promise of reward

11. Materials Continued • 2 reward groups – extrinsic motivation • No Reward – Although earned, instructions include broken promise of reward • Reward – Instructions include a reward certificate ( $5 Odyssey ) according to false performance grade

12. Materials Continued • Color-coding stickers • Clock • Candy

13. Procedure • P’s sign consent form • P’s randomly assigned to group • Provided a sticker w/ number corresponding to their test number • Collect test after 10 minutes • Pretend to grade test • Distribute Test 2 and Instructions • Collect Test 2 after 10 minutes • Debrief P’s and give candy “Thank you”

14. Results • Dependent Variable – Test Scores • Hypothesis – • 2 extrinsically motivated groups (Reward & No Reward) will score higher than control group on Test 1 • Control groups scores will remain consistent • Reward group will score lower on Test 2 • No Reward group will score the lowest on Test 2

15. Analysis • 2 ( Time: Test 1, Test 2) X3 (Motivation: Control, No Reward, Reward) Mixed Design ANOVA • Test -Repeated measure (within) • Motivation – Independent group (between)

16. Main Effects • Main effect for Test, such that P’s scored significantly higher on Test 1 • There was no significant Main Effect for Motivation. P’s did not differ significantly from one another in their test scores.

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

19. Discussion • Significant main effect for Test • P’s perceived Test 2 as harder • After Test 1, perhaps P’s experienced fatigue • No main effect for Motivation • Perhaps due to weak motivation manipulation • No interaction between Test and Motivation • Results inconsistent with previous research

20. Problems • Participants did not believe in deception • Some P’s did not complete test • overall scores too low to believe scores warranted the reward • P’s thought some words were made up-no actual answer – “impossible test”

21. Anticipated Testing Effect not Realized • Concerns of better performance on Test 2 because of practice from Test 1 • Hypothesis guessing did affect construct validity • P’s trying to figure out what test was measuring • Self –esteem • Frustration

22. Possible Confounds • Both tests very difficult • Poor measure - Required specific ability, not general enough to accurately measure effect of motivation • Poor performance on Test 2 possibly due to test taking fatigue

23. More Possible Confounds • External Validity was limited • Previous research better replicated real world situation • Small sample increased Type II error • Specific population too homogenous

24. Internal Validity was limited • Difficulty of test might have affected self-esteem, which then affected performance • P’s might have figured out hypothesis- leading to demand characteristics • Hawthorne Effect • P’s might have figured out wrong hypothesis and acted accordingly

25. Questions ?