The effects of extrinsic reinforcement on intrinsic motivation

Abstract

In this paper, the role of extrinsic reinforcement in intrinsic motivation is discussed in terms of Deci's cognitive attribution theory. The competing response hypothesis and the frustration hypothesis are presented as alternative modes of analysis. "Undermining" is the phenomenon proposed by the cognitive attribution theorists that accounts for reported decrements in intrinsically motivated behaviors following external rewards. The literature regarding undermining in token economy research is critically evaluated. The author concludes that: (a) Cognitive attribution theory lacks parsimony, in that extant reinforcement analysis can account for undermining with equal facility. (b) Undermining is of little significance as a concept, due to its elusive and transient impact on operant behavior.For years, psychologists and educators have considered the problem of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation as influences on human development. While it would be a difficult task to determine all of the subtleties of human behavior that are of intrinsic interest to a given individual, this problem has been appreciated by behaviorists in applied settings. With regard to classroom token economies, it has been recommended that teachers should look at the interest level of the curriculum before looking to reinforcing materials students do not like (O'Leary & Drabman, 1971). Indeed, it seems desirable to acknowledge and, when possible, to utilize an individual's intrinsic interests and avocations in applied behavioral settings. Over the last 10 years, however, the cognitive attribution theory of Deci (1971) has been offered as a remedy for the "detrimental effects of token reinforcement" on the intrinsic motivation of the individual. For a number of reasons, Deci and his colleagues maintain that increments gained in the frequency of an intrinsically motivated behavior through external rewards are only temporary, and, in fact, will eventually decrease below their initial prereward levels (Levine & Fasnacht, 1974). The most serious implication of this thesis applies to token economy systems. On the basis of this theory, token programs not only fail to generalize to the nontreatment environment, but theoretically cause decrements in the very behaviors being treated. Boldly enough, the cognitive attributionists have charged, with varying degrees of enthusiasm, that the proponents of token reinforcement were having an effect in diametric opposition to that intended by them.The purpose of this paper is to discuss the conceptual framework of the cognitive attribution theory and its relation to the external reinforcement issue. A review of the related literature will demonstrate the obscurity of the attribution position in relation to reinforcement theory. The competing response and frustration hypotheses will be presented as two extant concepts that can account for Deci's undermining phenomenon with equal facility to that of the cognitive attribution theory. Empirical data will be presented that contraindicate theoretical construction along t...

Behavior Analytic Studies of Creativity: A Critical Review

“…Subsequent studies extended the effect to other activities, rewards, and age groups. Early studies dealt only with single-trial procedures, while in some later studies, evidence for "undermining" was claimed for multiple-trial token reinforcement procedures (e.g., Greene, Stemnberg, & Lepper, 1976 Feingold & Mahoney, 1975), (c) the methodological adequacy of some of the supporting studies has been questioned (e.g., Blocker & Edwards, 1982), (d) Lepper and Greene (1978) have themselves cautioned against a blanket indictment oftoken economies, and (e) the effect occurs only under certain conditions.…”

Does reinforcement destroy intrinsic motivation?

“…Preexposing subjects to a rewarding stimulus, either verbally or visually, may elicit responses that interfere with the target behavior and, consequently, cause it to decrease. Elicited responses that disrupt the target behavior may include “perceptual distraction, cognitive distraction (e.g., thinking about reward), excitement, anticipation of reward (Miller & Estes, 1961; ShefBeld, 1966), or frustration resulting from delay or withdrawal of reward (Barker, Dembo, & Lewin, 1941; Perry, Bussey, & Redman, 1977)” (Reiss & Sushinsky, 1975). Second, the frustration hypothesis (Perry et al, 1977) proposed that when the reward for an activity is withdrawn, the activity acquires aversive properties through arousal of “anticipatory frustration” and this causes decreased interest in the activity.…”

Peer Effects on the Motivation of Adolescents with Learning Difficulties

“…Namely:-lt may lead to increases in competition thus further lowering esteem of poor achievers; -The motivator needs to closely match individuals to be effective (e.g. Social sclass, development and personal differences, 1967) and needs increasing overtime to maintain effect; -Difficulties can emerge and behaviour revert when motivator is phased out; -Research has shown that it decreases intrinsic motivation and devalues the task to which it is attached (Blocker and Edwards, 1982). Daniel and Esser (1980) also showed how it may distort the task structure and learning purposes.…”