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