Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
VANSTEENKISTE,
ACADEMIC
MOTIVATION
LENS, DECI
Edward L. Deci
Department of Psychology
University of Rochester
The study of motivational processes and dynamics has received increased empirical attention within the field of educational psychology over the past decade (Murphy & Alexander, 2000; Pintrich, 2000). One theory that has proven
useful in explaining the variation in students learning strategies, performance, and persistence is self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 2000; R. M. Ryan & Deci, 2000a).
In this article, we present a recent development within the
theory that has both theoretical and practical potential for educational researchers and practitioners.
Traditionally, SDT researchers have been concerned primarily with examining the quality of learners motivation.
Quality of motivation refers to the type or kind of motivation
that underlies learning behavior. It can be distinguished from
the quantity, level, or amount of motivation that learners display for a particular learning activity (R. M. Ryan & Deci,
2000b; Vansteenkiste, Lens, De Witte, & Feather, 2005).
20
Within SDT, intrinsic motivation is seen as the motivational instantiation of the proactive, growth-oriented nature
of human beings. Indeed, intrinsically motivated activity is
the natural basis for learning and development. White (1959)
suggested that a need for competence underlies intrinsic motivation, that people engage in many activities in order to experience a sense of effectance and competence. Later,
deCharms (1968) proposed that people have a primary motivational propensity to engage in activities that allow them to
feel a sense of personal causation and that this is the basis of
intrinsic motivation. Similarly, Nuttin (1973) argued that individuals experience causality pleasure when they perceive
themselves as the initiator of their behavior. These authors
together were thus proposing that the needs for competence
and personal causation (which is closely related to the concept of autonomy) are the energizing bases for intrinsically
motivated behavior.
In the 1970s several researchers examined intrinsic motivation, particularly with respect to the effects of external
motivators on intrinsic motivation (Deci, 1971, 1972;
Kruglanski, Freedman, & Zeevi, 1971; Lepper, Greene, &
Nisbett, 1973). In the first of these early studies, Deci (1971)
rewarded some participants for engaging in an intrinsically
interesting activity and observed that rewarded participants
enjoyed the activity less and showed less subsequent behavioral persistence than did nonrewarded participants. This
finding is particularly interesting because it is an instance in
which people are approaching outcomes they value, but the
process of doing so has a negative effect on the prototype of
their proactive, growth-oriented nature. Deci interpreted this
undermining of intrinsic motivation as indicating that the
participants behavior, which had initially been intrinsically
motivated, became controlled by the reward, so their sense of
autonomy was undermined. Because extrinsic rewards are so
often used as instruments of social control (Luyten & Lens,
1981), they can leave people feeling like pawns to the rewards (deCharms, 1968) and thus thwart their need for autonomy (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). Additional studies
showed that other external factors such as deadlines
(Amabile, DeJong, & Lepper, 1976), surveillance (Enzle &
Anderson, 1993), testing (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987), and controlling language (Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, &
Deci, 2004) all undermined individuals inherent interest and
subsequent persistence at the activity.
Initial conceptualizations viewed intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation as being invariantly antagonistic (e.g., de Charms,
1968; Lepper & Greene, 1978). Intrinsic motivation was considered self-determined, whereas extrinsic motivation was
thought to reflect a lack of self-determination. However, later
research (Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri, & Holt, 1984; R. M. Ryan,
1982; R. M. Ryan, Mims, & Koestner, 1983) has indicated that
extrinsic motivation does not necessarily undermine intrinsic
motivation and that it may even enhance it (Luyten & Lens,
1981), implying that extrinsic motivation is not invariantly
controlled. These findings resulted in a more refined analysis
ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
21
(Grolnick, Deci, & Ryan, 1997). Just as with intrinsic motivation, competence and autonomy are considered important
energizers of internalization, but the need for relatedness
(Baumeister & Leary, 1995) is also critically important for internalization (Deci & Ryan, 2000; R. M. Ryan, 1995). Indeed,
it is out of the desire to be related to others, to feel part of a family, group, or social order, that individuals are inclined to take
on the values, beliefs, and behaviors that are endorsed by those
others. Accordingly, for students to internalize the norms,
standards, and regulations that are typically transmitted
through schooling, these will need to be presented in a way that
facilitates the students feelings of relatedness, competence,
and autonomy with respect to the relevant behaviors.1
It is worth noting that internalization as conceived by SDT
does not imply that people must invariantly move through
each type of regulation for a particular behavior. The theory
specifies these types of regulation to index the degree to
which people have internalization of a behavioral regulation.
Thus, under optimal conditions, people can, at any time, fully
internalize a new regulation, or they can fully internalize a
regulation that had been only partially internalized.
A number of previous studies have documented manifold
advantages of autonomous relative to controlled motivation for
learning, including decreased drop-out (Vallerand et al., 1997),
more deep learning (Grolnick & Ryan, 1987), greater creativity
(Koestner et al., 1984), less superficial information processing
(Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, et al., 2004), higher
achievement (Boggiano, Flink, Shields, Seelback, & Barrett,
1993; Soenens & Vansteenkiste, 2005), and enhanced well-being (Black & Deci, 2000; Levesque, Zuehlke, Stanek, & Ryan,
2004). These general findings (see Reeve, Deci, & Ryan, 2004,
for a recent review) have been replicated in collectivistic societies, such as Russia (Chirkov & Ryan, 2001) and China
(Vansteenkiste, Zhou, Lens, & Soenens, 2005).
Autonomy-Supportive Versus Controlling Social
Environments
Because learning out of inherent interest or internalized values yields many advantages, SDT researchers have explored
how social contexts can promote autonomous motivation and
its adaptive qualities. Many studies have focused on aspects
of the social context that make it autonomy-supportive versus
controlling. In autonomy-supportive contexts, instructors
empathize with the learners perspective, allow opportunities
for self-initiation and choice, provide a meaningful rationale
if choice is constrained, refrain from the use of pressures and
contingencies to motivate behavior, and provide timely positive feedback (Deci et al., 1994).
1Notably, like the theories that consider only the quantity and not the
quality of motivation, SDT also considers the degree to which a person is or
is not motivated for an activity. When people display a lack of motivation,
because they feel unable to achieve a desired outcome or to do the activity effectively, they are said to be amotivated.
22
ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
23
signs of academic maladjustment. These findings provide initial evidence for the claim that learnerspersonal goals are not
all created equal in the sense that the extrinsic versus intrinsic
goals are associated with different academic outcomes (see R.
M. Ryan, Sheldon, Kasser, & Deci, 1996). In short, some goals
(viz., intrinsic goals) are more conducive to academic adjustment than are others (i.e., extrinsic goals), presumably because pursuit of the different goals is differentially linked to
peoples basic psychological need satisfaction.
Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Goal Framing
Not only has the majority of the research just reviewed on intrinsic versus extrinsic goals focused on well-being outcomes rather than educational outcomes but it has also been
done with individual differences in the strength of peoples
intrinsic versus extrinsic life goals. Only very recently has research begun to focus on the framing of students learning activities in terms of intrinsic versus extrinsic goalsin other
words, on the experimental manipulation of the goals that
students are pursuing while doing an educationally relevant
activity. For example, the learning of physical exercises has
been framed in terms of the utility of attaining intrinsic goals
versus extrinsic goals. The examination of these goal-content
manipulations is relevant because different learning contexts
do place different emphasis on intrinsic versus extrinsic
goals. For example, business schools might tend to emphasize the extrinsic goal of making money, whereas education
schools are more likely to emphasize the goal of contributing
to the community. Just as the personal valuing of intrinsic
versus extrinsic goals is associated with differential outcomes, contexts that place differential emphasis on these
goal contents should also result in different learning outcomes. This general hypothesis has been tested in a series of
field experiments done in school settings.
Each experiment framed students learning in terms of
whether it served a long-term intrinsic goal or a long-term extrinsic goal. Further, in each study, the goal content manipulation was crossed with a manipulation of whether the social
context was autonomy supportive or controlling. It was expected, in line with SDT, that both the goal-content manipulation and the quality of the learning context within which the
goal framing occurred would contribute independent variance
to the prediction of learning, performance, and persistence.
In the first set of field experiments, Vansteenkiste,
Simons, Lens, Sheldon, and Deci (2004; Study 1) presented
the learning of a reading activity on ecological issues in
terms of either the attainment of saving money (an extrinsic
goal) or in terms of contributing to the community (an intrinsic goal). The researchers reasoned that extrinsic goal framing would distract learners attention from the learning task
itself, thus interfering with a full absorption with the learning
material; thus, they predicted poorer learning and performance in the extrinsic goal condition. In contrast, when the
learning was portrayed as being useful for an intrinsic goal,
24
ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
trinsic goal striving and autonomous regulation as well as extrinsic goal striving and controlled regulation were positively
correlated, both regulatory styles and the goal contents have
independent effects on well-being and adjustment.
The framing of learning activities in terms of intrinsic versus extrinsic goal contents provided a new opportunity to test
these incompatible hypotheses. Specifically, because many
studies (e.g., Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, & Brire, 2001;
Vallerand et al., 1997) have confirmed that autonomy-supportive contexts tend to promote autonomous motivation and
controlling contexts tend to promote controlled motivation, it
is expected that autonomous motivation would mediate the
effects of autonomy-supportive versus controlling contexts
on the achievement outcomes. Further, if Carver and Baird
(1998) were correct in their critique, the effects of intrinsic
versus extrinsic goal framing on achievement outcomes
would be fully mediated by autonomous motivation. In other
words, the goal-content effect would be wholly reducible to
the motivation (i.e., the self-regulatory style) that it was said
to induce. According to SDT, however, intrinsic versus extrinsic goal framing should have an independent effect on
learning after controlling for autonomous regulation, which
would show up as only partial mediation.
The results of the Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon,
and Deci (2004) research indicated that (a) intrinsic goal content and autonomy support each had an independent, positive
effect on autonomous motivation, deep learning, achievement, and persistence, and (b) the effect of intrinsic versus
extrinsic goal framing on the learning outcomes could, in
general, be only partially accounted for by autonomous
motivation.
ALTERNATIVE ACCOUNTS OF
INTRINSIC VERSUS EXTRINSIC GOAL
FRAMING RESEARCH
Our interpretation of the findings that intrinsic goal framing
leads to higher quality learning than does extrinsic goal framing is based on the SDT proposition that different types of
motivation and, hence, different qualities of engagement
with the learning materials are induced by these different
goal-content manipulations. There are, however, two possible alternative explanations of the results.
The first derives from expectancy-valence theories
(Atkinson & Feather, 1966; Eccles & Wigfield, 2002; Feather,
1982; Vroom, 1964) and instrumentality models (Husman &
Lens, 1999; Lens, Simons, & Dewitte, 2001, 2002; Raynor,
1969). It suggests that intrinsic goal framing may have produced positive learning effects not because it prompted qualitatively different engagement with the learning activity, as was
suggested by Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, and Deci
(2004), but because it resulted in higher overall value being
placed on the learning than did extrinsic goal framing. According to this account, the beneficial effect of intrinsic goal fram-
25
26
that the intrinsic versus double goal framing effects on performance and persistence were fully mediated by participants task-orientation, that is, by their motivation to master
and fully understand the learning material (Ames, 1992; Butler, 1987; Nicholls, 1989; R. M. Ryan, 1982). Similarly, the
negative effect of the extrinsic compared with the double-goal framing was also mediated by task-orientation; participants in the extrinsic goal condition obtained lower
achievement scores because they were less oriented toward
mastering the learning material.
In a second study, Vansteenkiste, Simons, Soenens, et al.
(2004) compared the impact of intrinsic goal framing and extrinsic goal framing with a no-goal control group. According
to expectancy and instrumentality theories, the extrinsic goal
framing condition provides additional value or incentive for
the learning task and should thus lead to better learning and
performance than the no-goal condition, even if it leads to
poorer learning than the intrinsic-goal condition
(Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon, & Deci, 2004). SDT,
on the other hand, would predict that extrinsic goal framing
might well lead to poorer learning than no goal framing because extrinsic goal framing shifts learners attention away
from the learning to the external indicators of worth, thereby
hindering a full involvement in the learning.
These hypotheses were tested in the exercise domain by
Vansteenkiste, Simons, Soenens, et al. (2004). Participants
were told that learning physical exercises was useful for attaining an extrinsic goal (i.e., physical attractiveness) or an intrinsic goal (i.e., physical health), or they were not told anything
about the relevance of the learning activity. Results showed
that intrinsic goal framing, relative to no goal framing, led to
higher autonomous motivation and better test performance,
and it also resulted in greater persistence both in the short term
and the long term. In contrast, extrinsic goal framing, relative
to no goal framing, undermined participantsautonomous motivation, performance, and long-term persistence, although it
resulted in better short-term persistence. The latter result
makes sense in that extrinsic goals can be powerful motivators,
especially of rote learning, but the persistence is expected to be
of a different quality and not to be maintained over the long
term (Vansteenkiste, Simons, et al., 2005).
More specifically, because participants in the extrinsic
goal condition adopt a more rigid and narrow approach to the
learning material, the learning is less likely to be experienced
as enjoyable and meaningful to them. Hence, persistence under extrinsic goal circumstances is likely to be motivated less
by autonomy than is persistence under intrinsic goal circumstances. To examine this reasoning, additional analyses were
performed. Within-cell correlations between self-reported
autonomous motivation for doing the exercises and behavioral persistence at each time point were calculated (for additional examples of this approach, see also R. M. Ryan,
Koestner, & Deci, 1991; Vansteenkiste & Deci, 2003).
Vansteenkiste, Simons, Soenens, and Lens (2004) found that,
in the intrinsic-goal condition, participants persistence was
ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
27
28
CONCLUSION
Most of the work within SDT (Deci & Ryan, 2000) has focused on the autonomous versus controlled regulations of behavior and on the autonomy-supportive versus controlling
social contexts that have been found to prompt these types of
regulations. This research has been done in laboratory settings and in various life domains including parenting, health
care, work organizations, and sport. As well, a considerably
amount of the research has been done in educational settings
ranging from elementary schools to medical schools. That
body of research has proven useful in predicting a variety of
motivational and outcome variables across these various settings, and they have also been reliable in predicting students
investment in learning activities, persistence, and level of
achievement (Reeve, Deci, & Ryan, 2004).
In addition to the conceptualization of the autonomous versus controlled motives for doing learning-related activities,
SDT researchers (Kasser & Ryan, 1996) have gradually paid
greater attention to the goal contents on which students focus.
Individuals are said to have a natural tendency to focus on intrinsic and growth-oriented rather than extrinsic and outward-oriented goals, because the intrinsic goals are theorized
to be more directly linked to satisfaction of the basic psychological needs for competence, relatedness, and autonomy.
The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic goals was
used initially to predict psychological health and well-being,
but most recently it has been related to learning, achievement, and persistence at learning activities. In a series of experimental studies, it was found that portraying activities as
serving the attainment of an intrinsic rather than an extrinsic
goal promotes deeper processing of the learning material,
greater conceptual understanding of it, and both short-term
and long-term persistence at relevant learning tasks. These
effects were found to occur because intrinsic goal framing induces a different quality of motivation (i.e., it promotes a task
orientation). These findings were obtained across diverse age
groups, diverse intrinsic and extrinsic goal contents, and diverse types of learning activities. They were also found to apply to individuals whether the individuals were intrinsically
ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
or extrinsically oriented in terms of their personal goals. Extrinsic goal framing yielded some positive effects; namely, it
promoted as much rote learning as did intrinsic goal framing,
and it resulted in somewhat higher persistence over the short
term than did a no-goal condition. However, the advantage in
terms of short-term persistence was at substantial cost in
terms of the enjoyment and valuation of the persistence, the
longer term persistence, and conceptual understanding of the
learning material.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The contribution of Maarten Vansteenkiste was sponsored by
the Funding for Scientific Research Flanders
(FWO-Vlaanderen).
We thank Bart Soenens, Bart Duriez, and Eline Sierens for
reading over an earlier version of this article.
REFERENCES
Allen, J. P., Hauser, S. T., Bell, K. L., & OConnor, T. G. (1994). Longitudinal assessment of autonomy and relatedness in adolescentfamily interactions as predictors of adolescent ego development. Child Development,
65, 179194.
Amabile, T. M., DeJong, W., & Lepper, M. (1976). Effects of externally imposed deadlines on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 34, 9298.
Ames, C. (1992). Classrooms: Goals, structures, and student motivation.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 84, 261271.
Anderman, E. M., Griesinger, T., & Westerfield, G. (1998). Motivation and
cheating during early adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology,
90, 8493.
Aunola, K., & Nurmi, J.-E. (2004). Maternal affection moderates the impact
of psychological control on a childs mathematical performance. Developmental Psychology, 40, 965978.
Assor, A., Kaplan, H., & Roth, G. (2002). Choice is good, but relevance is
excellent: Autonomy-enhancing and suppressing teacher behaviours in
predicting students engagement in school work. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 72, 261278.
Assor, A., Roth, G., & Deci, E. L. (2004). The emotional costs of parents
conditional regard: A self-determination theory analysis. Journal of Personality, 72, 4788.
Atkinson, J. W., & Feather, N. T. (1966). A theory of achievement motivation. New York: Wiley.
Barber, B. K., Olson, J. E., & Shagle, S. C. (1994). Associations between parental psychological and behavioral control and youth internal and
externalized behaviors. Child Development, 65, 11201136.
Baumeister, R., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological
Bulletin, 117, 497529.
Black, A. E., & Deci, E. L. (2000). The effects of instructors autonomy support and students autonomous motivation on learning organic chemistry:
A self-determination theory perspective. Science Education, 84,
740756.
Benware, C., & Deci, E. L. (1984). The quality of learning with an active
versus passive motivational set. American Educational Research Journal,
21, 755766.
Boggiano, A. K., Flink, C., Shields, A., Seelbach, A., & Barrett, M. (1993).
Use of techniques promoting students self-determination: Effects on stu-
29
30
ACADEMIC MOTIVATION
The search for optimal motivation and performance (pp. 1354). New
York: Academic.
Ryan, R. M., Koestner, R., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Varied forms of persistence:
When free-choice behavior is not intrinsically motivated. Motivation and
Emotion, 15, 185205.
Ryan, R. M., Mims, V., & Koestner, R. (1983). Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: A review and test
using congitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 736750.
Ryan, R. M., Sheldon, K. M., Kasser, T., & Deci, E. L. (1996). All goals
were not created equal: An organismic perspective on the nature of goals
and their regulation. In P. M. Gollwitzer & J. A. Bargh (Eds.), The psychology of action: Linking motivation and cognition to behavior (pp.
726). New York: Guilford.
Sagiv, L., & Schwartz, S. H. (2000). Value priorities and subjective well-being: Direct relations and congruity effects. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 30, 177198.
Sheldon, K. M., & Kasser, T. (1995). Coherence and congruence: Two aspects of personality integration. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 531543.
Sheldon, K. M., & McGregor, H. A. (2000). Extrinsic value orientation and
the Tragedy of the Commons. Journal of Personality, 68, 383411.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Kasser, T. (2004). The independent effects of goal contents and motives on well-being: Its both what
you pursue and why you pursue it. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 30, 475486.
Sheldon, K. M., Sheldon, M. S., & Osbaldiston, R. (2000). Prosocial values
and group assortation in an N-person prisoners dilemma. Human Nature,
11, 387404.
Simons, J., Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Lacante, M. (2004). Placing motivation and future time perspective theory in a temporal perspective. Educational Psychology Review, 16, 121139.
Sirgy, M. J. (1998). Materialism and quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 43, 227260.
Soenens, B., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2005). Antecedents and outcomes of
self-determination in three life domains: The role of parents and teachers
autonomy support. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 34, 589604.
Soenens, B., Vansteenkiste, M., Duriez, B., Luyten, P., & Goossens, L.
(2005). Psychological control and adjustment: The mediating role of
maladaptive perfectionism. Personality and Individual Differences, 38,
487498.
Srivastava, A., Locke, E. A., & Bartol, K. M. (2001). Money and subjective
well-being: Its not the money, its the motive. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 80, 959971.
Timmermans, T., Vansteenkiste, M., & Lens, W. (2004). Does an extrinsic values induction result in higher performance and persistence among extrinsically oriented individuals? A test of the self-determination theory versus
the match hypothesis. Internal research report, University of Leuven.
31
Urdan, T. C., & Maehr, M. L. (1995). Beyond a two-goal theory of motivation and achievement: A case for social goals. Review of Educational Research, 65, 213243.
Vallerand, R. J., Fortier, M. S., & Guay, F. (1997). Self-determination and persistence in a real-life setting: Toward a motivational model of high-school
drop out. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 11611176.
Van Boven, L., & Gilovich, T. (2003). To do or to have? That is the question.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 11931202.
Vansteenkiste, M., & Deci, E. L. (2003). Competitively contingent rewards
and intrinsic motivation: Can losers remain motivated? Motivation and
Emotion, 27, 273299.
Vansteenkiste, M., Duriez, B., Simons, J., & Soenens, B. (in press). Materialistic values and well-being among business students: Further evidence
for their detrimental effect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., Dewitte, S., De Witte, H, & Deci, E. L. (2004).
The why and why not of job search behavior: Their relation to searching, unemployment experience and well-being. European Journal of Social Psychology, 34, 345363.
Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., De Witte, H., & Feather, N. T. (2005). Understanding unemployed peoples search behavior, unemployment experience and well-being: A comparison of expectancy-value theory and
self-determination theory. British Journal of Social Psychology, 44,
120.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K. M., & Deci, E. L.
(2004). Motivating learning, performance, and persistence: The synergistic role of intrinsic goals and autonomy-support. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 87, 246260.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B., & Matos, L. (2005).
Examining the impact of extrinsic versus intrinsic goal framing and internally controlling versus autonomy-supportive communication style
upon early adolescents academic achievement. Child Development, 76,
483501.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Soenens, B, Matos, L., & Lacante,
M. (2004). Less is sometimes more: Goal-content matters. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 96, 755764.
Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Soenens, B., & Lens, W. (2004). How to become a persevering exerciser? The importance of providing a clear, future
intrinsic goal in an autonomy-supportive manner. Journal of Sport and
Exercise Psychology, 26, 232249.
Vansteenkiste, M., Zhou, M., Lens, W., & Soenens, B. (2005). Experiences
of autonomy and control among Chinese learners: Vitalizing or immobilizing? Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 468483.
Vroom, V. H. (1964). Work and motivation. New York: Wiley.
White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence.
Psychological Review, 66, 297333.
Williams, G. C., Cox, E. M., Hedberg, V. A., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Extrinsic
life goals and health-risk behaviors among adolescents. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 17561771.