PSY220 - 6. Mechanisms of motivated cognition & Intrinsic motivation Flashcards
Mechanisms of motivated cognition: Intrinsic motivation
systematic influence of our desires, goals, and feelings on our cognition + behavior
tend to think about motivational speakers
THE MOTIVATION VS. COGNITION DEBATE
cognitive revolution: interested in memory, retrieval, eliminate motivation, goals
intuitive motivational explanation for many phenomena, there is often a competing cognitive explanation that does not involve any motivation
Often based on expectancies
THE MOTIVATION VS. COGNITION DEBATE
cognitive revolution: interested in memory, retrieval, eliminate motivation, goals
Although there may be an intuitive motivational explanation for many phenomena, there is often a competing cognitive explanation that does not involve any motivation
Often based on expectancies
Motivated memory search
search in memory not as objective or systematic (confirmation bias, hindsight bias)
bias can be exaggerated further by motivational concerns
Gloss over + put less weight on examples of bad cooking
Motivated example search
Motivated memory search
motivated defense: protect self esteem – self enhancement biases
undergrads – vast majority rate themselves above average – sef enhancement – statistical impossibility
not representative sample – undergrads from prestigous schools – reporting honestly – they are above average – more instances of success than failure
HOW DOES MOTIVATION INFLUENCE OUR BEHAVIOR?
BY SYSTEMATICALLY INFLUENCING OUR COGNITION
Affects of our desires on our cognition
influence of behaviourism: not interested in goals, preferences
Motivation → Cognition → Behavior
Creating a (plausible) theory to support your conclusion
theory we concoct to support our conclusion could also support opposite conclusion
Sanitioso, Kunda, &; Fong (1990)
- informed subjects given trait (extraversion/introversion) is associated with academic + professional success.
- asked to list memories of past behaviors that reflected their standing on the introversion-extraversion dimension.
Sanitioso, Kunda, &; Fong (1990)
Concoct theory plausible for both
Extraverts – connections
Introverts – focused, can work alone
Wrote down more introverted than extraverted/extraverted than introverted
Motivated memory search
We often don’t realize that our search in memory is not as objective or systematic as it could be (e.g., confirmation bias, hindsight bias).
Learned that ppl are susceptible to bias, but can be exaggerated further by motivational concerns
Gloss over + put less weight on examples of bad cooking
Motivated example search
Kunda (1987)
both theories plausible: nonworking – home, focus on children/working – role model for industriousness, balance. Had a working mother = thought that was better. Had a nonworking mother = thought this was better. Latch onto self-enhancing info
The eternal balance: self-enhancement vs. “reality constraints”
Most ppl not delusional
Self enhance within constraints of reality
Bring in participants that are actually extraverts + introverts
Already extraverts – slightly less extravert, not become introverts even with motivation: they know who they are
How do we accomplish the task of boosting ourselves without being delusional?
we take advantage of ambiguity in the world.
Dunning found ppl rated themselves as extraordinary on ambiguous traits (sensitive), but more honestly on unambiguous traits like “punctual”
No wiggle room – rate themselves honestly
Greater self-enhancement when there’s wiggle room
Playing fast and loose with inferential rules
- ½ subjects given desirable info/ ½ undesirable info
2. ½ told info based on small sample, ½ told based on large sample
Playing fast and loose with inferential rules
Desirable info Undesirable info
Large sample accepted accepted
Forced to accept accepted rejected
Small sample
Turn on critical faculties with undesirable info
Relaxing critical faculties with desirable info
Playing fast and loose with inferential rules
Shouldn’t be rejecting info either way
Uncritical – desirable/critical – undesirable
Good news: stop/bad news: retesting
Bad news: turn on critical faculties/good news: relax critical faculties
NEED FOR CLOSURE
reaching cognitive closure can often be goal in its own right
Less concerned with accuracy – optimal solution – all we need is good enough solution
NEED FOR CLOSURE
Bring decision making process to a close
Avoid closure – try to prolong decision making process - enjoyable
Situational variables that increase need for closure
1.time pressure
2.task tedium
3.no costs for making an error
NFC can vary as chronic, personality variable
Situationally manipulable
Situational variables that increase need for closure
in state of needing closure, cognition is often characterized by “freezing” early on, soon as we settle on some provisional answer
Stopped processing after a bit of info – make it likely to exhibit primacy effects
Replicated classic Jones & Harris (1967) attitude attribution paradigm
- 1/3 told after task, they would watch comedy clips.
- 1/3 told they would have to listen to lecture on statistics.
- Final 3rd told they will do task as interesting as current task
Replicated classic Jones & Harris (1967) attitude attribution paradigm
Quick closure Neutral Avoid closure
No choice 2.31 3.76 7.08
Free choice 1.69 2.27 2.13
Quick closure: less effort, more exaggerated FAE
Replicated classic Jones & Harris (1967) attitude attribution paradigm
Avoid closure: more effort, less FAE – significant difference – situational discounting for no choice avoid closure
Neutral: replication of FAE
Certain motivations can increase/decrease likelihood of stereotype activation
Fein & Spencer (1997)
- sub took intelligence test
- positive/negative feedback
- asked to evaluate woman candidate for a job, based on her application + videotaped excerpts
- woman portrayed as Jewish vs. non-Jewish (same woman, diff ethnic markers)
Fein & Spencer (1997)
Compensate for below self esteem by deregating others. Exhibited prejudice when negative feedback. Prejudice when we have low self-esteem
Fein & Spencer (1997)
participants rated woman that was Jewish when receiving negative feedback. Compensate for below self esteem by deregating others. Exhibited prejudice when negative feedback. Prejudice when we have low self-esteem.
Sinclair and Kunda (1998)
- Whites received feedback
- positive vs. negative
- Evaluator: Black vs. White
- Other observed someone else receive one of these types of feedback. – watch through 1 way mirror
- subjects did word-fragment completion task competed with Black stereotype.
Sinclair and Kunda (1998)
motivated to inhibit Black stereotype when receive praise from Black person
motivated to activate stereotype receive criticism from Black person
Sinclair and Kunda (1998)
To rule out nonmotivational explanation: Other ppl were dispassionate observers – shown same pattern as actual subjects. Weren’t insulted/praised by anybody. Must be some sort of priming.
Sinclair and Kunda (1998)
SELF
Evaluator
Black White
Positive no stereotype activation little activation
Feedback(less than for White evaluator)
Negative LOTS OF activation little activation
Feedback
Motivated memory search
motivated defense: protect self esteem – self enhancement biases
undergrads rate themselves on random activities – vast majority rate themselves above average – sef enhancement – statistical impossibility
illusory correlation/representative heuristics
Motivated memory search
not a representative sample – undergrads from prestigous schools – reporting honestly – they are above average – more instances of success than failure
these explanations do not involve motivation – need to be able to rule these out
The overjustification effect
tendency for intrinsic motivation to diminish for activities that have become associated with reward/other extrinsic factors.
Enjoy it less when you get paid
Intrinsic motivation
motivation originates from within person (doing something “for its own sake,”)
more powerful, tend to perform better
Extrinisic motivation
motivation that originates from outside the person (the situation)
(the activity is a means to an end)
overjustified: like activity less because you situationally discount
Motivated memory search
not a representative sample – undergrads from prestigous schools – reporting honestly – they are above average – more instances of success than failure
these explanations do not involve motivation – need to be able to rule these out
An attributional / self-perception phenomenon
Mere offering of a reward implies that it’s an undesirable activity
Discounting: 2 plausible reasons why I’m doing this activity – studying for test
An attributional/self-perception phenomenon
Inherently interested/studying for test – reduced confidence in either
Sometimes extrinsic motivation is necessary
can reduce intrinsic motivation on tasks you like due to discounting
Lepper et al. (1973)
- children opportunity to play with colorful felt-tipped markers. measure degree of intrinsic motivation
- 2 weeks later, children divided into 3 groups, equal in terms of initial levels of intrinsic motivatio
Lepper et al. (1973)
1 group told that if they used markers would receive “Good Player Award,” certificate. 3rd group, not offered reward, but given reward afterward (surprise)
Lepper et al. (1973)
- One week later
DV: Amount of time each child spent playing with markers (reflecting his/her level of intrinsic motivation)
Expected reward Unexpected reward Control
Decrease = =
Lepper et al. (1973)
expected to get the certificate + received it – one week later no longer interested in markers. expected reward condition, intrinsic motivation goes down. expect to get the reward, more likely to think you are doing it for reward not because you like it. In unexpected reward, didn’t know they were getting it, so they didn’t think they were doing it for a reward
Should corporations stop offering incentives to employees?
Reward can undermine rather than enhance intrinsic motivation.
Yes, “bribe,” no if “bonus.”
workers think they doing this for the money, feels more like work. Quality of work tends to be higher
more creative when intrinsically motivated – relative difference
Intrinsic motivation
increases when you feel autonomous, rather than controlled
Free will vs. coerced/determined
Not from environment but can still decrease internal motivation
-Artists
-Office workers
REACTIONS TO SETBACKS AND SUCCESSES
Why some ppl display adaptive reactions for failures
2 key patterns that people display after failure:
1)helpless pattern
2)mastery-oriented pattern
Helpless pattern
1) once failure occurs, situation is out of control
2) denigration of own intelligence/ability
3) plunging expectations,
Helpless pattern
4)negative emotions,
5)lower persistence/deteriorating performance
Cycle of self-fulfilling prophecy within one person’s head
failure→global attributions (self as incompetent, beyond task at hand)
Creating a (plausible) theory to support your conclusion
We often don’t realize that the theory we concoct to support our conclusion could also support the opposite conclusion
mastery-orientation vs. help-orientation study
1)solved 8 easy logic problems
2)4 very difficult problems
3)8 new easy problems
Questionnaire used to assess mastery-orientation vs. help-orientation
mastery-orientation vs. help-orientation study
DV’s: performance on last 8 problems, strategies used, plus thoughts + feelings they spontaneously uttered (asked to talk aloud as they worked on problems).
Mastery-oriented better on all DV’s
mastery-orientation vs. help-orientation study
performed better on last 8 questions. Equal on first 8 between helpless + mastery oriented. Only when helpless encountered difficulty that they fell to piecces while mastery oriented recovered
helpless no longer could solve problems of same easiness
mastery-orientation vs. help-orientation study
setback activate debilitating mind set that impeded performance.
In other words…made FAE on themselves
Overweighted dispositional attribution – didn’t take into account temporary situation.
mastery-orientation vs. help-orientation study
Belief performance direct reflectance of underlying ability + disposition
Situational factors: emotional state, sleep, difficulty, preparedness
Conveying that performance = ability makes children vulnerable to helpless pattern
Sanitioso, Kunda, & Fong (1990)
- informed subjects that a given trait (randomly varied: extraversion or introversion) is associated with academic and professional success. (In other words, experimenters instilled motivation to possess that trait).
- asked to list memories of past behaviors that reflected their standing on the introversion-extraversion dimension.
Mueller & Dweck (1998)
2) all students told they got very good score
3) Students in control group: feedback stopped there. Students in intelligence-praise group, Students in effort-praise group, “You must have worked really hard.”
4) 2nd set of problems – much harder, poorer performance
5) 3rd set – same level of easiness as first set.
Results (on 3rd problem set)
must be smart you must have worked hard controls
lowest performance highest middle
simple differences in feedback led to profound differences in way children saw themselves and led to major differences in their performance
Results (on 3rd problem set)
Chronic tendencies take over after temporary endorsements Don’t tell kids they’re smart – convey damaging message – link performance with ability
Over and above diff within ppl, some performance diff may be accounted for by psychology
Holding themselves back due to bad reaction to failure
Sanitioso, Kunda, & Fong (1990)
Concoct a theory plausible for both
Extraverts – connections
Introverts – focused, can work alone
Half motivated to be introverted/half motivated to be extraverted
Wrote down more introverted than extraverted/extraverted than introverted
Kunda (1987)
Subjects were: one group who, in childhood, had mothers who had worked (a job) vs. a second group whose mothers had not worked. Subjects asked which type of mother (working vs. nonworking) would more likely lead to children who are happily married.
Kunda (1987)
both theories plausible: nonworking – home, focus on children/working – role model for industriousness, balance. Had a working mother = thought that was better. Had a nonworking mother = thought this was better. Latch onto self-enhancing info.
The eternal balance: self-enhancement vs. “reality constraints”
Most ppl not delusional
Those who brag even when they suck – delusional
Self enhance within constraints of reality
Bring in participants that are actually extraverts + introverts
Already extraverts – slightly less extravert, not become introverts even with motivation: they know who they are
How do we accomplish the task of boosting ourselves without being delusional?
Dunning and colleagues: we take advantage of ambiguity in the world.
Dunning found that people rated themselves as extraordinary on ambiguous traits (like “sensitive” and “idealistic”), but more honestly on unambiguous traits like “punctual.”
How do we accomplish the task of boosting ourselves without being delusional?
Take advantage of ambiguity, no gold standard of measurement
No wiggle room – rate themselves honestly
Greater self-enhancement when there’s wiggle room
Playing fast and loose with inferential rules.
Doosje et al. (1995):
- ½ subjects given desirable info (their group is more prosocial than a rival group) or ½ undesirable info (less prosocial).
- ½ told this info based on a small sample, ½ told info based on a large sample.
Playing fast and loose with inferential rules
Desirable info Undesirable info
Large sample accepted accepted
Forced to accept accepted rejected
Small sample
Example of motivated cognition
Turn on critical faculties with undesirable info
Relaxing critical faculties with desirable info
Playing fast and loose with inferential rules
Shouldn’t be rejecting info either way
Uncritical – desirable/critical – undesirable
Medical sample – stays the same colour – bad/good news
Good news: stop/bad news: retesting
Bad news: turn on critical faculties/good news: relax critical faculties
NEED FOR CLOSURE
Kruglanski and colleagues: reaching cognitive closure, just simply finishing the task, can often be a goal in its own right.
Want to finish a cognitive task
NEED FOR CLOSURE
Less concerned with accuracy – optimal solution – all we need is good enough solution
Bring decision making process to a close
Avoid closure – try to prolong decision making process - enjoyable
Situational variables that increase need for closure
- time pressure
- task tedium
- no costs for making an error
Also: NFC can vary as a chronic, personality variable (assessed using the NFC questionnaire).
Situationally manipulable
Situational variables that increase need for closure
When in a state of needing closure, our cognition is often characterized by “freezing” early on, as soon as we settle on some provisional answer.
Stopped processing after a bit of info – make it likely to exhibit primacy effects
Replicated classic Jones & Harris (1967) attitude attribution paradigm
- But 1/3 of the subjects told that after this task, they would get to watch a collection of comedy clips.
- Another 1/3 told that after this task they would have to listen to a lecture on statistics.
- Final 3rd told afterwards they will do task as interesting as the current task.
Replicated classic Jones & Harris (1967) attitude attribution paradigm
Quick closure Neutral Avoid closure
No choice 2.31 3.76 7.08
Free choice 1.69 2.27 2.13
Quick closure: less effort, more exaggerated FAE
Replicated classic Jones & Harris (1967) attitude attribution paradigm
Avoid closure: more effort, less FAE – significant difference – situational discounting for no choice avoid closure
Neutral: replication of FAE
Certain motivations can increase or decrease the likelihood of stereotype activation.
Fein & Spencer (1997)
- subjects took intelligence test
- randomly given positive or negative feedback
- in a seemingly unrelated study, asked to evaluate a woman described as a candidate for a job, based on her application and videotaped excerpts of her interview.
- woman portrayed as Jewish vs. non-Jewish by giving her a Jewish name or a non-Jewish name and having her wear a visible star of David or a cross in the video clip. I.e., same woman, different ethnic markers
Fein & Spencer (1997)
participants rated woman that was Jewish when receiving negative feedback. Compensate for below self esteem by deregating others. Exhibited prejudice when negative feedback. Prejudice when we have low self-esteem.
Fein & Spencer (1997)
participants rated woman that was Jewish when receiving negative feedback. Compensate for below self esteem by deregating others. Exhibited prejudice when negative feedback. Prejudice when we have low self-esteem.
Sinclair and Kunda (1998)
- Subjects (Whites) received feedback on a test they had taken.
- Feedback was: positive vs. negative
- Evaluator was: Black vs. White
- Other subjects only observed someone else receive one of these types of feedback. – watch through 1 way mirror
Sinclair and Kunda (1998)
- Then, as part of an apparently unrelated study, subjects did a word-fragment completion task in which several fragments could be competed with words related to Black stereotype. (Example: P_ _ R)
Sinclair and Kunda (1998)
You will be motivated to inhibit Black stereotype when you receive praise from a Black person (you are motivated to think highly of people who praise you); you will be motivated to activate stereotype when you receive criticism from Black person (you are motivated to think negatively of people who trash you)
To rule out nonmotivational explanation: Other ppl were dispassionate observers – shown same pattern as actual subjects, can’t claim that it’s a motivated process. Weren’t insulted or praised by anybody. Must be some sort of priming
Sinclair and Kunda (1998)
SELF
Evaluator
Black White
Positive no stereotype activation little activation
Feedback(even less than for White evaluator)
Negative LOTS OF activation little activation
Feedback
No diff in stereotype activation
Sinclair and Kunda (1998)
OTHER
Black White
Positive little stereotype activation little stereotype
Feedback
Negative little stereotype activation little stereotype
Feedback
INTRINSIC MOTIVATION
Intrinsic rewards become less rewarding when paired with external rewards
The overjustification effect
The tendency for intrinsic motivation to diminish for activities that have become associated with reward or other extrinsic factors.
Enjoy it less when you get paid
Intrinsic motivation
motivation that originates from within the person
(doing something “for its own sake,” not for the sake of reward, e.g., studying for the love learning)
more powerful, tend to perform better
Extrinisic motivation
motivation that originates from outside the person (the situation)
(the activity is a means to an end, e.g., studying only because of the exam)
overjustified: like activity less because you situationally discount
Extrinisic motivation
motivation that originates from outside the person (the situation)
(the activity is a means to an end, e.g., studying only because of the exam)
overjustified: like activity less because you situationally discount
An attributional / self-perception phenomenon
More common during childhood to be rewarded for undesirable activities
Mere offering of a reward implies that it’s an undesirable activity
Discounting: 2 plausible reasons why I’m doing this activity – studying for test
An attributional / self-perception phenomenon
Inherently interested/studying for test – reduced confidence in either
Sometimes extrinsic motivation is necessary
Extrinsic motivation can reduce intrinsic motivation on tasks you like due to discounting
Lepper et al. (1973)
- gave children opportunity to play with colorful felt-tipped markers…something these children loved to do. By observing how much time the children spent on the activity, they were able to measure the degree of intrinsic motivation.
- Two weeks later, children divided (randomly) into 3 groups, all about equal in terms of initial levels of intrinsic motivation.
Lepper et al. (1973)
In one group, children asked simply to draw dome pictures with the markers. In a second, told that if they used the markers they would receive a “Good Player Award,” a certificate with a gold star and a red ribbon (very cool). In third group, not offered reward for drawing pictures, but given reward afterward (surprise!).
Lepper et al. (1973)
- One week later, teachers placed the markers and paper on a table in the classroom and experimenters observed through a one-way mirror. DV: Amount of time each child spent playing with the markers (reflecting his or her level of intrinsic motivation).
Lepper et al. (1973)
those who expected to get the certificate + received it – one week later no longer interested in markers. In expected reward condition, intrinsic motivation goes down. Expectation part is critical to this. When you expect to get the reward, more likely to think that you are doing it for reward not because you like it. In unexpected reward, didn’t know they were getting it, so they didn’t think they were doing it for a reward. When you think about doing it for a reward, that’s when intrinsic motivation goes down.
Lepper et al. (1973)
Expected reward Unexpected reward Control
Decrease = =
Should corporations stop offering incentives to employees?
Reward can undermine rather than enhance intrinsic motivation.
Yes, if framed as a “bribe,” no if framed as a “bonus.”
Once workers think they are doing this for the money, then work feels more like work. Monetary rewards more helpful when framed as bonus rather than bribe.
Quality of work tends to be higher.
commisioned work less quality than autonomy
more creative when intrinsically motivated – relative difference
Intrinsic motivation
Intrinsic motivation increases when you feel autonomous, rather than controlled.
Free will vs. coerced/determined behaviour
Not from environment but can still decrease internal motivation
-Artists
-Office workers
REACTIONS TO SETBACKS AND SUCCESSES
Why do some ppl display adaptive reactions for failures
Dweck & colleagues: two key patterns that people display after failure:
1) helpless pattern
2) mastery-oriented pattern
Helpless pattern
1) a view that once failure occurs, the situation is out of their control,
2) a general denigration of their own intelligence or ability,
Helpless pattern
3) plunging expectations,
4) negative emotions,
5) lower persistence / deteriorating performance.
Cycle of self-fulfilling prophecy within one person’s head
Helpless pattern: failure→global attributions (indictment of self as incompetent, beyond the circumscribed task at hand)
Mastery-oriented pattern
hardy responses to failure because students remain focused on achieving mastery in spite of their present difficulties. – more likely to think “1 step back to lead to 2 steps forward”
mastery-orientation vs. help-orientation study
1) children solved 8 easy logic problems.
2) children next went on to 4 very difficult problems
3) children given 8 new easy problems
How did they respond?
Questionnaire used to assess mastery-orientation vs. help-orientation.
mastery-orientation vs. help-orientation study
DV’s: performance on last 8 problems, strategies used (good vs. bad), plus thoughts and feelings they spontaneously uttered (asked to talk aloud as they worked on problems).
Mastery-oriented better on all DV’s
mastery-orientation vs. help-orientation study
performed better on last 8 questions. Equal on first 8 between helpless + mastery oriented. Only when helpless encountered difficulty that they fell to piecces while mastery oriented recovered. Most striking: helpless children no longer could solve the problems of the same easiness that they solved with no problem prior to the setback!
mastery-orientation vs. help-orientation study
! In other words, the setback seemed to activate a debilitating mind set that not only led to self-recrimination but actually impeded their performance.
In other words…made FAE on themselves!
Overweighted dispositional attribution – didn’t take into account temporary situation.
mastery-orientation vs. help-orientation study
Belief that performance direct reflectance of underlying ability + disposistion
Situational factors: emotional state, sleep, difficulty, preparedness
Conveying that performance = ability makes children vulnerable to helpless pattern
Is praising children a good thing to do?
Can be a bad thing. Even good praise can result in helpless pattern. May not be well equiped when they fail.
Process oriented praise: tried really hard, thought it through, good strategy as opposed to “you’re smart/brilliant”
Mueller & Dweck (1998)
2) all students told they got a very good score.
3) Students in control group: feedback stopped there. Students in intelligence-praise group: Experimenter continued saying, “You must be very smart.” Students in effort-praise group, “You must have worked really hard.”
4) 2nd set of problems – much harder, much poorer performance.
5) 3rd set – same level of easiness as first set.
Results (on 3rd problem set)
you must be smart you must have worked hard controls
lowest performance highest middle
Thus, these simple differences in feedback led to profound differences in the way the children saw themselves and led to major differences in their performance!!
Results (on 3rd problem set)
Chronic tendencies take over after temporary endorsements. Don’t tell kids they’re smart – convey damaging message – link performance with ability
Over and above diff within ppl, some performance diff may be accounted for by psychology
Holding themselves back due to bad reaction to failure
