This article calls to mind discussions in my college psychology 101 course on intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivation. Indeed, I recall a film that illustrated the difference between the two, and implied that the first was better than the second.
Now, a researcher has offered the claim that motivation can't be divided into extrinsic or intrisic classes.
...continued in full post...
The issue is more than academic, Reiss said. Many sports psychology books, and books advising how to motivate students and business people, tout the value of intrinsic motivation and warn that extrinsic rewards can undermine people's performance. The argument is that people should do something because they enjoy it, and that rewards only sabotage natural desire.
The issue may have its roots in how science works. Is it possible to come up with a definitive test for the intrinsic/extrinsic theory?
Reiss also criticized many of the studies which proponents say prove the existence of intrinsic motivation, and how it can be undermined by extrinsic rewards. For example, many studies have purportedly shown how people who enjoy doing a specific activity – such as children who enjoy drawing – do that activity less after they are offered rewards. But when the results show the subjects continue the activity even after the rewards are offered, the researchers have argued that this just shows the subjects expect to get a reward and no longer are intrinsically motivated. "The results are always turned around to prove their hypothesis."
If any outcome can be accounted for by the theory, then the theory explains nothing.
No comments:
Post a Comment