It is proposed that motivation may affect reasoning through reliance on a biased set of cognitive processes—that is, strategies for accessing, constructing, and evaluating beliefs. The motivation to be accurate enhances use of those beliefs and strategies that are considered most appropriate, whereas the motivation to arrive at particular conclusions enhances use of those that are considered most likely to yield the desired conclusion. There is considerable evidence that people are more likely to arrive at conclusions that they want to arrive at, but their ability to do so is constrained by their ability to construct seemingly reasonable justifications for these conclusions. These ideas can account for a wide variety of research concerned with motivated reasoning. The notion that goals or motives affect reasoning has a long and controversial history in social psychology. The propositions that motives may affect perceptions (Erdelyi, 1974), attitudes (Festinger, 1957), and attributions (Heider, 1958) have been put forth by some psychologists and challenged by others. Although early researchers and theorists took it for granted that motivation may cause people to make self-serving attributions and permit them to believe what they want to believe because they want to believe it, this view, and the research used to uphold it, came under concentrated criticism in the 1970s. The major and most damaging criticism of the motivational view was that all research purported to demonstrate motivated reasoning could be reinterpreted in entirely cognitive, nonmotivational terms (Miller & Ross, 1975; Nisbett & Ross, 1980). Thus people could draw self-serving conclusions not because they wanted to but because these conclusions seemed more plausible, given their prior beliefs and expectancies. Because both cognitive and motivational accounts could be generated for any empirical study, some theorists argued that the hot versus cold cognition controversy could not be solved, at least in the attribution paradigm (Ross & Fletcher, 1985; Tetlock & Levi, 1982). One reason for the persistence of this controversy lies in the failure of researchers to explore the mechanisms underlying motivated reasoning. Recently, several authors have attempted to rectify this neglect (Kruglanski & Freund, 1983; Kunda, 1987; Pyszczynski & Greenberg, 1987; Sorrentino & Higgins, 1986). All these authors share a view of motivation as having its effects through cognitive processes: People rely on cognitive processes and representations to arrive at their desired conclusions, but motivation plays a role in determining which of these will be used on a given occasion.

/pdf/the-case-for-motivated-reasoning-2ki9tjbrr6.pdf

The case for motivated reasoning.

A meta-analysis of 128 studies examined the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. As predicted, engagement-contingent, completion-contingent, and performance-contingent rewards significantly undermined free-choice intrinsic motivation (d = -0.40, -0.36, and -0.28, respectively), as did all rewards, all tangible rewards, and all expected rewards. Engagement-contingent and completion-contingent rewards also significantly undermined self-reported interest (d = -0.15, and -0.17), as did all tangible rewards and all expected rewards. Positive feedback enhanced both free-choice behavior (d = 0.33) and self-reported interest (d = 0.31). Tangible rewards tended to be more detrimental for children than college students, and verbal rewards tended to be less enhancing for children than college students. The authors review 4 previous meta-analyses of this literature and detail how this study's methods, analyses, and results differed from the previous ones.

A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation.

https://depts.washington.edu/techdocs/papers/deciExtrinsicRewardsAndIntrinsicMotivation99.pdf

Psychological Bulletin A Meta-Analytic Review of Experiments Examining the Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation

Publisher Summary Self-affirmation processes are being activated by information that threatens the perceived adequacy or integrity of the self and as running their course until this perception is restored through explanation, rationalization, and/or action. The purpose of these constant explanations (and rationalizations) is to maintain a phenomenal experience of the self-self-conceptions and images as adaptively and morally adequate—that is, as competent, good, coherent, unitary, stable, capable of free choice, capable of controlling important outcomes, and so on. The research reported in this chapter focuses on the way people cope with the implications of threat to their self-regard rather than on the way they cope with the threat itself. This chapter analyzes the way coping processes restore self-regard rather than the way they address the provoking threat itself.

The Psychology of Self-Affirmation: Sustaining the Integrity of the Self

A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation was proposed and tested in a college classroom. Mastery, performance-approach, and performance-avoidance goals were assessed and their antecedents and consequences examined. Results indicated that mastery goals were grounded in achievement motivation and high competence expectancies; performance-avoidance goals, in fear of failure and low competence expectancies; and performance-approach goals, in ach.ievement motivation, fear of failure, and high competence expectancies. Mastery goals facilitated intrinsic motivation, performance-approach goals enhanced graded performance, and performanceavoidance goals proved inimical to both intrinsic motivation and graded performance. The proposed model represents an integration of classic and contemporary approaches to the study of achievement motivation. Achievement motivation is a ubiquitous feature of daily life. In the classroom, at the workplace, and on the ballfield individuals strive to be competent in their effortful activities. In the past decade, many theorists have utilized a social-cognitive, achievement goal approach in accounting for individuals' competence-relevant strivings. "Achievement goal" is commonly defined as the purpose of task engagement (Maehr, 1989), and the specific type of goal adopted is posited to create a framework for how individuals interpret, experience, and act in their achievement pursuits (Dweck, 1986; Nicholls, 1989). Achievement goal theorists commonly identify two distinct orientations toward competence: a performance goal focused on the demonstration of competence relevant to others, and a mastery goal focused on the development of competence and task mastery (Ames & Archer, 1987; for similar conceptualizations with different nomenclature see Dweck, 1986; NichoUs, 1984). The adoption of a performance goal is hypothesized to produce susceptibility to a "helpless" pattern of responses in achievement settings (e.g., a preference for easy or difficult tasks, withdrawal of effort in the face of failure, and decreased task enjoyment), whereas the adoption of a mastery goal is presumed to lead to a "mastery" motivational pattern (e.g., a preference for moderately challenging tasks, persistence in the face of failure, and enhanced task enjoyment; Ames, 1992; Dweck & Leggett, 1988; Nicholls, 1989). Most achievement goal theorists conceptualize both perfor

/pdf/a-hierarchical-model-of-approach-and-avoidance-achievement-1ffisu2rjd.pdf

A hierarchical model of approach and avoidance achievement motivation

How do observers respond when the actions of one individual inflict harm on another? The primary reaction to carelessly inflicted harm is to seek restitution; the offender is judged to owe compensation to the harmed individual. The primary reaction to harm inflicted intentionally is moral outrage producing a desire for retribution; the harm-doer must be punished. Reckless conduct, an intermediate case, provokes reactions that involve elements of both careless and intentional harm. The moral outrage felt by those who witness transgressions is a product of both cognitive interpretations of the event and emotional reactions to it. Theory about the exact nature of the emotional reactions is considered, along with suggestions for directions for future research.

The Psychology of Compensatory and Retributive Justice

1. Psychological perspectives on motivation and achievement Thane S. Pittman and Ann K. Boggiano Part I. Intrinsic Motivation: 2. The initiation and regulation of intrinsically motivated learning and achievement Edward L. Deci and Richard M. Ryan 3. Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in peer interactions Thane S. Pittman, Ann K. Boggiano and Deborah S. Main 4. The motivation for creativity in children Teresa M. Amabile and Beth A. Hennessey Part II. Competence and Motivation: 5. The relationship between perceived competence, affect, and motivational orientation within the classroom: processes and patterns of change Susan Harter 6. Competence processes and achievement motivation: implications for intrinsic motivation Judith M. Harackiewicz, George Manderlink and Carol Sansone 7. Developmental changes in competence assessment Diane N. Ruble, Ellen H. Grosovsky, Karin S. Frey and Renae Cohen Part III. Motivation and Achievement: 8. When achievement is not intrinsically motivated: a theory of internalization and self-regulation in school Richard M. Ryan, James P. Connell and Wendy S. Grolnick 9. Children's achievement-related behaviors: the role of extrinsic and intrinsic motivational orientations Cheryl Flink, Ann K. Boggiano, Deborah S. Main. Marty Barrett and Phyllis A. Katz 10. On being psyched up but not psyched out: an optimal pressure model of achievement motivation Philip R. Costanzo, Erik Woody and Pamela Slater 11. Self-handicapping and achievement Janet Morgan Riggs 12. Divergent approaches to the study of motivation and achievement: the central role of extrinsic/intrinsic orientations Ann K. Boggiano and Thane S. Pittman Name index Subject index.

Achievement and motivation : a social-developmental perspective

SummaryThe present study was designed as a firstattempt to manipulate the degree of controlmotivation, which has generally been assumedto be the prime reason for making attribu-tions. The results indicate that such manipu-lations are feasible and that variations in ex-perience with lack of control do affect subse-quent attributional tendencies. These findingsopen the way for further investigations of thenature of control-deprivation-attributional-activity relationships in specific, and of therelatively neglected topic of motivational an-tecedents of attribution processes in general.Reference Note 1. Snyder, M. L., Smoller, B., Strenta, A., & Frankel,A. A comparison of egotism, negativity, andlearned helplessness as explanations for poor per-formance after unsolvable problems. Unpublishedmanuscript, Dartmouth College, 1979. References Abramson, L. Y., Seligman, M. E. P., & Teasdale,J. D. Learned helplessness in humans: Critiqueand reformulation. Journal of Abnormal Psychol-ogy, 1978, 87, 49-74.Bern, D. J. Self-perception: An alternative interpre-tation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. Psycho-logical Review, 1967, 74, 183-200.Berglas, S., & Jones, E. E. Drug choice as a self-handicapping strategy in response to noncontingentsuccess. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 1978, 36, 405-417.Bersheid, E., Graziano, W., Monson, T., & Dermer,M. Outcome dependency: Attention, attribution,and attraction. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 1976, 34, 978-989.Brehm, J. W. A theory of psychological reactance.New York: Academic Press, 1966.Chaikin, A. L., & Cooper, J. Evaluation as a func-tion of correspondence and hedonic relevance.Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1973,9, 257-264.Frankel, A., & Snyder, M. L. Poor performance fol-lowing unsolvable problems: Learned helplessnessor egotism? Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 1978, 36, 1415-1423.Heider, F. The psychology of interpersonal relation-ships. New York: Wiley, 1958.Heller, J. F. Attribution theory: Self and other at-tributions as a determinant of attitude change.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University ofIowa, 1972.Jones, E. E., & Berglas, S. Control of attributionsabout the self through self-handicapping strategies:The appeal of alcohol and the role of under-achievement. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 1978, 4, 200-206.Jones , E. E. & Davis K From acts to disposi-tions: The attribution in person perception. InL. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in ExperimentalSocial Psychology (Vol. 2). New York: AcademicPress, 1965.Jones, E. E., & McGillis, D. Correspondent infer-ences and the attribution cube: A comparative re-appraisal. In J. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. Kidd(Eds.), New directions in attribution research(Vol. 1). Hillside, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1976.Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. The actor and theobserver: Divergent perception s or the cause fbehavior. In E. E. Jones et al. (Eds.), Attribution:Perceiving the causes of behavior. New York:General Learning Press, 1971.Kelley, H. H. Attribution theory in social psychology.In D. Levine (Ed.), Nebraska Symposium on Mo-tivation (Vol. 15). Lincoln: University of NebraskaPress, 1967.Kelley, H. H. Attribution theory in social interaction.In E. E. Jones et al. (Eds.), Attribution: Per-ceiving the causes of behavior. New York: Gen-eral Learning Press, 1971.Kiesler, C. A., Nisbett, R. E., & Zanna, M. On in-ferring one's beliefs from one's behavior. Journalof Personality and Social Psychology, 1969, 11,321-327.Langer, E. J. The illusion of control. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 311-

Deprivation of Control and the Attribution Process

The experiment was designed to test Deci's (1975) informational/controlling analysis with verbal rewards and to assess the joint effects of type of verbal reward and level of surveillance. Compared to a no-reward control, the informational verbal reward enhanced interest in task engagement, but the controlling verbal reward did not. Regardless of type of reward, task interest decreased in linear fashion as surveillance was increased from low to medium to high.

Informational versus Controlling Verbal Rewards

The following analysis was developed and tested: Individuals may approach an activity with either an intrinsic or an extrinsic motivational orientation. Intrinsic motivational orientations are characterized by preference for activities that are relatively complex, challenging, and entertaining. Extrinsic motivational orientations are characterized by preference for activities that are relatively simple, predictable, and easily completed. The introduction of task-continge nt reward fosters an extrinsic motivational orientation, and this orientation may carry over into subsequent interactions with the activity, even when the conditions that originally fostered that orientation are no longer present. To test this analysis, second-grade subjects in Study 1 played with a novel game of intermediate complexity in one of three conditions: no reward, task-noncontingent reward, or task-contingent reward. Only the latter condition was expected to produce an extrinsic motivational orientation. In a subsequent free-choice period, simple, intermediate, and complex versions of the game, as well as several other activities, were available. As predicted, contingent-reward subjects showed the strongest preference for the simple versions of the game, while no-reward subjects tended to prefer the intermediate version. Task-noncontingent-reward subjects showed a strong preference for the most complex version of the game. In Study 2, using a different task and older subjects, the effects of reward on simple and intermediate-complexity tasks were replicated. Further implications of these findings are discussed.

Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations: Reward-induced changes in preference for complexity.

Handle everyday research tasks with reliable, citation-backed results

Your personal Research Agent to handle research tasks with citation-backed results

Popular Tasks used by Researchers

How can I help with your research?

Meet SciSpace

Get more enhanced response by uploading the PDFs you want me to reference.

No relevant PDFs in your library

SciSpace is the AI research assistant for academics. Run systematic literature reviews on 280M+ papers, and write papers with cited sources. Trusted by 1M+ students, PhDs & researchers.

SciSpace | AI for Research

Analyze PDFs

Code & Manuscripts

Funding & Grants

Literature & Patents

Medical & Clinical Data

Systematic Review

Visualize & Present

Web & Data

Build a Google Scholar-like website for your research.

Build a website

Create charts and images for your research

Create a Chart

Write a paper for submission to a journal

Draft a manuscript

Patent Search

Design eye-catching scientific posters in minutes.

Scientific Poster Generation

Systematic Literature Review

One task is running at the moment. Your messages will be shown right after.

Drag and drop or click here to browse

Loved by <highlight>1 million+</highlight> researchers

Extract a list of specific topics and their sources from unstructured text

Topics

Compare and analyze relevant papers that matches with your search

Papers

Get insights from PDFs and bookmarked papers from your library

My library

Recent searches

Try searching for:

Catch AI-generated content in scholarly and non-scholarly content

{ai} Detector

Ai Writer

Get PDF Summaries, highlighted text explanations 

Chat with PDF

Effortlessly create in-text citations and bibliographies in APA and 2,500 other formats

Citation generator

Get explanations, summaries, and answers on academic papers

Ease up your research workflow with {scispace}'s cohort of exciting AI tools

Elevate your academic writing skills and convey your ideas the way you want

Paraphraser

Explore our range of reading and writing tools

Your file is being prepared and should be ready in a few minutes. If it's a large file, it might take a bit longer. You can close this window, and we'll email you the file when it's done.

You have reached a maximum limit of <strong>{limit}</strong> columns in the table. Remove at least <strong>1</strong> column to add or create another one.

Thane S. Pittman

Author Tools

Chat about Author