Three studies of motivation

Today, we examine three recent studies of motivation. First, Hubley, Edwards, Miele & Scholer (2023) published “Metamotivational Beliefs about Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation” in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.  Here’s the edited abstract:

Although intrinsic motivation is often viewed as preferable to more extrinsic forms of motivation, there is evidence that the adaptiveness of these motivational states depends on the nature of the task being completed (e.g., Cerasoli et al., 2014). Specifically, research suggests task-motivation fit such that intrinsic motivation tends to benefit performance on open-ended tasks (tasks that involve qualitative performance assessment; e.g., creative writing) and extrinsic motivation benefits performance on closed-ended tasks (tasks that involve quantitative performance assessment; e.g., multiple choice). We examined people’s metamotivational beliefs about intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the context of this task-motivation fit. Across 11 studies (seven primary, four supplemental; N = 3,544), participants provided beliefs about the utility of different types of motivation-regulation strategies: strategies that enhance one’s interest and enjoyment in a task versus strategies that focus on the value associated with task outcomes (self-relevance strategies and reward strategies). Across all studies, participants recognized that the adaptiveness of these strategies depends on the nature of the task being completed. Consistent with an understanding of normative task-motivation fit, participants generally reported that interest-enhancing strategies were more useful for open-ended tasks and that reward strategies were more useful for closed-ended tasks; however, in some studies, participants reported that reward strategies were equally useful across task types (Studies 2, 3, and 5). More normatively accurate beliefs were associated with more normatively accurate consequential behavioral choices (Study 6) and better task performance (Study 7). We discuss the implications of these results for theories of motivation and self-regulation. 

I liked this distinction between strategies that work better with different tasks. Generally, their studies support the notion that intrinsic strategies (interest and enjoyment) work better with open-ended tasks and people know that. It’s not surprising, however, that some participants only see value in extrinsic strategies. The next study looks at another motivational distinction – effort and intelligence. Boncquet, Flamant, Lavrijsen, Vansteenkiste, Verschueren & Soenens (2023) published “The Unique Importance of Motivation and Mindsets for Students’ Learning Behavior and Achievement: An examination at the level of between-student differences and within-student fluctuations” in Journal of Educational Psychology.  Here are the edited abstract and impact statements:

This study examined the unique and interactive role of students’ quality of motivation, as defined in self-determination theory, and their mindsets about intelligence, as conceptualized in Dweck’s framework, in predicting a variety of learning outcomes (engagement, learning strategies, persistence, procrastination, and test anxiety) and achievement. Moving beyond past work, this study examined their effects both at the level of between-student differences and at the level of semester-to-semester fluctuations within students’ own functioning, thereby controlling for students’ cognitive ability. The study had a four-wave longitudinal design, following 3,415 seventh-grade students across a 2-year period with 6-month intervals (49.8% female; Mage = 12.65 years). Multilevel analyses demonstrated that autonomous motivation and effort beliefs had independent and favorable associations with most outcomes and that controlled motivation and a fixed mindset related more uniquely to maladaptive outcomes, findings that emerged at both levels of analysis. This pattern of associations was held after controlling for students’ cognitive ability and applied to both students with high and low cognitive ability. The number of interactions between motivation and mindsets was quite limited. It can be concluded that the quality of motivation and mindsets about intelligence represent compatible resources for learning that help to explain between-student and within-student differences in learning and achievement. 

Both students’ quality of academic motivation and their beliefs about the role of effort and intelligence in performance were found to predict students’ learning outcomes and achievement. Students reported more favorable outcomes when they perceived the learning material as interesting and personally relevant and when they thought that efforts led to improved learning. The benefits of such autonomous motivation and effort beliefs emerged both when students scored higher on these motivational resources compared to others (i.e., between-student level) as well as when they scored higher on these resources in a given semester (i.e., within-student level). As such, the findings indicate that both students’ quality of motivation and their effort beliefs are useful targets for intervention that should perhaps be combined in educational interventions. 

This is a very large sample and well-controlled in terms of cognitive ability. I like the examination of both between- and within-student levels. I applaud this last sentence as a recommendation when motivation is a factor. The final study looks at motivation in relation to social media use. Armstrong-Carter, Garrett, Nick, Prinstein & Telzer (2022) published “Momentary Links between Adolescents’ Social Media Use and Social Experiences and Motivations: Individual differences by peer susceptibility” in Developmental Psychology. Here’s the edited abstract:

This longitudinal ecological momentary assessment study examined whether adolescents’ use of social media to interact with peers relates to their experiences of social connectedness, social craving, and sensation seeking on an hourly level. Further, we investigated whether these associations differ for adolescents who were nominated by their peers as more or less susceptible to social influences, because highly susceptible youth may be more strongly impacted by social media due to heightened focus on peer behaviors and social feedback. The sample was 212 adolescents in the southeastern United States (Mage = 15 years; range 14 to 17; 56.2% female; 40% White, 28% Latinx, 26% African American, 15% mixed/other race). Controlling for both daily and between-subjects effects, we found a consistent pattern of hourly-level results that were robust to sensitivity analyses. When highly susceptible adolescents used social media to interact with peers in the last hour, they felt less socially connected to others and more strongly craved social connections and novel sensations. Youth who are particularly sensitive to social input from peers may feel less connected to others and crave more connections and exciting stimuli within 1 hr after using social media to interact with peers. Findings inform efforts to promote youths’ wellbeing in the context of increasing online exposures. 

The sample isn’t huge but I like the idea of using peer nominations to assess susceptibility. The results make sense and suggest a vehicle for working with students whose social motivation seems especially high and may feed both social media use and sensation-seeking in general. Taken together, these studies extend previous research on motivation in ways that may be useful to practitioners.