Two views of intrinsic motivation have been discussed in academic psychology. The "multifaceted theory" says that humans inherit a number of motives common to our species such as the needs for food, shelter, companionship, respect, independence, and learning. Advocates of such a view include four generations of Harvard University professors (James, McDougall, Murray, and McClelland) as well as Abraham Maslow. In my own research, I have tried to revive these views, validating a taxonomy of 16 human needs and creating a standardized assessment tool to assess how individuals prioritiz universal motives. In contrast, dualistic theory says that human motives can be divided into just two types, called intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In other words, they claim we can review universal human needs and classify some as intrinsic and others as extrinsic. Readers of this blog know I regard the dualistic theory as invalid partially because I believe that extrinsic motivation doesn't exist. All motives common to the species are intrinsic motives. All motivation arises from 16 intrinsic needs.
The two theories of intrinsic motivation differ in what they say about paying students to learn in schools. Multifaceted theory, which identifies six motivational causes of poor grades, says that for some children paying them to learn should improve grades. Dualistic theory says that paying children to learn is a very bad idea that will not work over the long haul.
As reported in Time magazine (April 19, 2010), Harvard University Professor Roland Fryer, Jr. has conducted large-scale studies paying students for reading, grades, various behaviors, and test scores. The results indicated positive outcomes, especially for paying students to learn specific skills. The results contradict dualistic theories of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. The results support predictions made in a 1975 JPSP article authored by Leonard Sushinsky and myself. At that time, we stated that the social psychological claim that incentives do not work was based on rewarding time in activity rather than on rewarding the learning of skills. If you pay somebody to just stand on a golf course, for example, you undermine intrinsic interest, but if you pay them to learn how to play golf, you enhance intrinsic interest.
There is no undermining of extrinsic reward on intrinsic motivation. Dualistic theory has multiple flaws in logic. It is based on the idea of motivation as "intrinsic pleasure"; this is the central idea of philosophical "hedonism," which was shown to be illogical (error of consequence) in academic philosophy many centuries ago. The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is poorly thought out at a conceptual level, and there is no evidence that motives can be divided into just two kinds.
The Time magazine article refers to behind the scenes effort to disrupt Professor Fryer from conducting his research. Intrinsic motivation theorists called schools to pressure them not to cooperate with Professor Fryer, and they also called his donors to disrupt his funding. These guys write books claiming "scientific support" for intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, but they don't tell you about their organized pressure group efforts to suppress scientific research that contradicts their ideological views so the scientific literature will be as they want it. This isn't science: It is politics and cronyism.
Science requires construct validity, measurement reliability, experimental control, and interpretation close to the data. Intrinsic-extrinsic motivation lacks construct validity (evidence that motives actually divide into two kinds). I have seen no measurement reliability studies on the key behavioral measure. Studies using different measures get different results. The studies lack experimental controls: Although the literature in social psychology journals shows that distraction can produce undermining with novel rewards, the researchers do not control for distraction. As for interpretations, from the get go social psychologists have been calling for eliminating incentives from education even though the studies are about novel reward. Top drug researchers do not infer the long-term effects of a drug based on a single trial of use, but this error is deeply rooted in social psychology's approach to motivation. In a response to me, Edward Deci actually claimed that I had to prove the need for distraction controls, defending his habit of inferring long-term effects of reward from single trial use. His comment overlooks two published studies (both in social psychology journals) demonstrating that distraction undermines intrinsic interest.
I congratulate Professor Roland Fryer and his group for ground breaking research. I have no doubt that motivation is multifaceted; that incentives sometimes work; and that the dualistic theory is invalid. The misuse of incentives can backfire, which is why you have to go to graduate school to learn how to use them. Paying students to learn can be a good idea depending on the student's values and what behavior is rewarded. I would be cautious, for example, about paying a student who is afraid of failure because the incentive might increase evaluation anxiety. In contrast, paying a student who is distracted by combativeness, or one who lacks curiosity, seems like a good idea.
