dr. richard sisley - anzam
TRANSCRIPT
Cognitive Facets of Intrinsic Motivation as Predictors of Academic Performance
Dr. Richard Sisley
Department of Management, Business Faculty,
Auckland University of Technology
Auckland, New Zealand
Cognitive Facets of Intrinsic Motivation as Predictors of Academic Performance
ABSTRACT
This paper reports a study that examined the intrinsic and extrinsic motivational profiles of a sample (N =
280) of business students in a New Zealand university, and tested their cognitive ability (N = 158). As
expected, cognitive ability strongly predicted academic performance (grade point average). Of the four
facets of motivation, the two cognitive as opposed to affective facets, challenge (intrinsic) and being
motivated by ones goals for grades (extrinsic), were correlated with performance, but only the latter
significantly predicted it. Women participants had equivalent levels of cognitive ability and intrinsic
motivation, but significantly higher extrinsic grade-goal motivation and significantly higher GPA scores
than did the men. Possible explanations, including parallels with Achievement Goal theory, are suggested,
and implications for tertiary teaching strategy briefly discussed.
Keywords: motivation, business education, learning environment/climate
This paper reports an empirical study of different facets of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and their
relationship to performance in a sample of students in a university business school. Student motivation is
of obvious concern to educators in any discipline, and the contrast between intrinsic and extrinsic reasons
for choosing particular subjects and for tertiary study in general has wide implications for classroom
teaching practice, approaches to assessment, and for the characteristics of graduates who emerge to take
up careers in business. One element of this concern is the possibility of there being contrasting
relationships between different aspects or facets of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and student
performance, as reflected in grades, and this possibility was the focus of the present study.
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation
At their simplest, intrinsic motivation refers to behaviour engaged in for interest and enjoyment, and
extrinsic motivation refers to behaviour performed to attain contingent outcomes separate from the activity
itself (Vallerand & Ratelle, 2002).
For the purposes of this study the definitions given by Amabile, Hennessey and Tighe (1994, p.950) were
used:
intrinsic motivation: the motivation to engage in work primarily for its own sake, because the
work itself is interesting, engaging, or in some way satisfying.
extrinsic motivation: the motivation to work primarily in response to something apart from the
work itself, such as reward or recognition or the dictates of other people.
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation and Academic Performance
From the 1970s onwards a large number of studies explored the relationship between these two forms of
motivation, initially as induced states and later as more enduring motivational traits, and their correlations
with a variety of other educationally relevant variables.
For example, with tertiary students, trait intrinsic motivation has been associated with more meaningful
cognitive engagement (Walker, Greene and Mansell, 2006), with greater commitment to careers
(Brownlow, Gilbert and Reasinger, 1997), and with greater persistence in the face of an academic
challenge (Vallerand and Bissonnette, 1992).
Other studies have used intrinsic motivation and performance as outcome variables, often with autonomy-
promoting vs. controlling teacher strategies or student autonomy orientation as the independent variable.
Thill, Mailhot and Mouanda (1998) found that student autonomy orientation was associated with more
state intrinsic motivation and higher performance, and Benware and Deci (1984) showed that an active
learning orientation was linked to state intrinsic motivation and higher conceptual learning. Teachers’
autonomy-supporting strategies in a maths class were associated with improved self-perceived
competence, with higher levels of state intrinsic motivation, and with better performance, among
Norwegian junior high school students (Valas and Sovik, 1993).
Autonomy support from parents and family has also been shown to play a part in building intrinsic
motivational orientation and better academic performance (Ginsburg and Bronstein, 1993). Similarly
Wong, Wiest and Cusick (2002) found both teacher and parental autonomy support, as perceived by ninth
grade students, predicted both trait intrinsic motivation (preference for challenge, and independent
mastery) and academic achievement. A study by Conti (2000) found greater autonomy of students’ goal-
setting was associated with more intrinsic and less extrinsic trait motivation and higher GPA scores. Thus
intrinsic motivation and academic performance often co-vary as dependent variables, where both are
predicted by a third variable such as autonomy-support or autonomy orientation.
There is also some evidence of a direct relationship between intrinsic motivation and performance.
Vansteenkiste, Simons, Lens, Sheldon and Deci (2004) found with both high-school and university
students that, when goals for learning or physical exercise were framed by instructors as intrinsic (i.e. an
experimentally induced intrinsic state), test performance, depth of processing, and persistence were all
significantly higher than for extrinsically framed goals. Similarly significant associations have been found
between intrinsic motivation and academic performance for British secondary school students (Whitehead,
1984), Austrian high-school leavers (Brandstatter and Farthoffer, 2002), Italian high-school students
(Mason and Arcaomo, 2001) and British (Baker, 2003) and American (Mitchell, 1992) tertiary students.
Looking more specifically at intrinsic intellectual motivation, defined as ‘an emotional response to the
content and process of intellectual learning’ (p. 646), Lloyd and Barenblatt (1984) found this form of trait
intrinsic motivation predicted academic performance independently of cognitive ability. With an all-
female sample Li, Lee, and Solmon (2005) found a similar relationship between intrinsic motivation and
both persistence at a physical activity and scores on an associated skills test.
However not every study supports these findings. Garcia and Pintrich (1996) found the state-intrinsic goal
orientation induced by an experience of classroom autonomy did not directly predict performance. Baker
(2004) failed to replicate her earlier findings (Baker, 2003) - none of three possible trait-motivational
orientations (intrinsic, extrinsic, amotivational) was associated with significantly better or worse
performance, and Mason and Arcaoma (2001) found both intrinsic and extrinsic motivational traits
predicted performance on more complex tasks. Metofe (2002) reported that trait-intrinsically motivated
black university students performed no differently than their more extrinsically motivated colleagues, the
best predictor of university GPA being their previous high-school GPA. Wong and Csikszentmihalyi
(1991) found that while intrinsically motivated students tended to enrol in more difficult classes, it was the
personality factor “work orientation” that best predicted academic performance (controlling for ability)
rather than intrinsic motivation.
While these studies all failed to replicate the findings of a positive relationship between intrinsic
motivation and academic performance, two studies actually found contrary results. Moneta and Siu (2002)
measured trait extrinsic and intrinsic motivation in a sample of first-year Hong Kong university students
and found that while intrinsic motivation was associated with greater creativity, it correlated with lower
GPA scores than those of the extrinsically motivated participants; and Burton, Lydon, D’Asselandro and
Koestner (2006) found that while intrinsic motivation predicted psychological well-being, it was a highly
internalised form of extrinsic motivation that best predicted academic performance.
Overall, although there appears to be clear and consistent evidence linking an intrinsic motivational
orientation to a variety of positive outcomes, the relationship with direct measures of performance,
especially academic grades, is less well-established. A possible reason for this may be that the great
majority of studies have considered intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as unitary variables and have failed
to examine the differential effects of different sub-types or facets of each. This is despite the fact that
several of the scales most often used to measure them are composed of sub-scales based on distinct
aspects of the two major types. For example the Academic Motivation Scale (Vallerand et al, 1992, 1993)
has three extrinsic and three intrinsic scales, and the Work Preference Inventory (Amabile et al, 1994) has
two of each. The latter scale was used in the present study.
Gender Differences in Motivation and Academic Performance
Previous research has found women to be significantly higher on autonomy orientation and lower on
control orientation than are men (Deci & Ryan, 1985b; Pelletier, Fortier, Vallerand, Tuson, Briere &
Blais, 1995; Vallerand & Bissonette, 1992). Thus they might be expected to exhibit greater intrinsic
motivation and, if there is a positive relationship between intrinsic motivation and performance, to
perform at higher levels. There is some evidence for both halves of this assertion. Covington and Dray
(2002) found that women were more intrinsically motivated than were men, as did Vallerand and
Bissonette (1992). In the latter study women also showed higher persistence in the face of academic
challenges, and Baker in two separate studies (2003, 2004) found her female participants exhibited higher
levels of academic performance, as did Furnham, Chamorro-Premuzic and McDougall (2003). However
Pintrich and DeGroot (1990) found no motivational differences between seventh-grade boys and girls.
Thus in general there appears to be some evidence of greater intrinsic motivation among women than men,
and some evidence of better academic performance by women.
HYPOTHESES
In accordance with the majority findings of the relatively small literature that directly addresses this
question, the first hypothesis was:
Hypothesis 1: High Work Preference Inventory (WPI) intrinsic motivation scale scores
(Challenge and Enjoyment) will predict high GPA scores, after controlling for cognitive
ability.
The second hypothesis was based on a very large body of previous research (Schmidt, 2002), and
the third and fourth on more modest but largely consistent findings in the literature alluded to
above.
Hypothesis Two: High cognitive ability (WPT) scores will predict high GPA (Grade Point
Average) scores.
Hypothesis Three: Female student participants will average higher GPA scores than male
student participants, after controlling for cognitive ability.
Hypothesis Four: Female student participants will exhibit higher levels of trait-intrinsic
motivation, as measured by WPI scales, than will male student participants.
Given the strong focus on grades observable among today’s business students, a further hypothesis was:
Hypothesis5: WPI Grade Goal Motivation subscale scores will predict GPA scores better than
will scores on the other extrinsic motivation subscale, Outward Orientation.
METHOD
Over a four year period 280 participants were recruited from second and third year Bachelor of Business
students in the Business Faculty of Auckland University of Technology (AUT). The research project was
explained to classes of students, (omitting the hypotheses), and they were invited to participate. Thus the
sample was self-selected rather than random. Each student volunteer completed the full 30-item WPI and
a measure of cognitive ability, the Wonderlic Personnel Test. With their permission, each student
participant’s GPA at the end of the semester in which they completed these measures was accessed from
AUT academic records.
The WPI was factor analysed (using a maximum-likelihood factor analysis with oblimin rotation) and a
shorter version with cleaner and more robust factors was developed (Table 2). Details of the analysis are
given under Findings. Descriptive statistics were calculated for all measures used, both for the whole
sample and by gender (Table 3), and significant trends identified by one-way Analysis of Variance (Table
4). Cross-correlations were calculated between each of the cognitive (Wonderlic) and motivational (WPI)
variables, and between these variables and GPA (Table 5). Those variables that correlated significantly
with GPA were entered as independent variables in a multiple regression analysis with GPA as the
dependent variable.
FINDINGS
The factor analysis produced a 12-item four-factor version and a 15-item five-factor alternative. These
were compared, using maximum likelihood factor analysis on randomly split half-samples. Only the four-
factor version was consistently replicated in both half-samples. Within the time constraints of the study it
was not practical to gather another independent sample of comparable size with which to validate this
new version of the WPI. Accordingly, as recommended by Hair et al (2006), in order to provide
some confirmation of the factor structure and to identify any inconsistencies the original sample
was again randomly split and the first half-sample subjected to a maximum likelihood factor
analysis. This clearly replicated the model derived from the full sample. The second half-sample
was then used in a confirmatory factor analysis of the model. Goodness of fit indices (GFIs) for
this analysis are displayed in Table 1. Nothing was found in the modification indices and
standardised residual covariances to indicate a serious level of model misspecification, and the
GFIs were judged to indicate a moderately good fit for the model, certainly better than was found
for the original 30-item WPI by Amabile et al (1994). The four three-item subscales in the new
instrument each retained a strong conceptual similarity with the corresponding subscales in the original
WPI and were given the same names, with the exception of the Compensation scale which was re-named
Grade Goal Motivation to better reflect its content. The items making up the four subscales, and the
subscale reliabilities, are shown in Table 2.
As can be seen in Table 3, levels of intrinsic motivation did not differ between genders, but female
students had stronger extrinsic grade-goal motivation and higher GPA scores, despite equivalent cognitive
ability to the males. One–way analysis of variance indicated these differences were statistically
significant (p < 0.001) (Table 4).
Cognitive ability and one extrinsic sub-scale of the WPI, grade-goal motivation, were moderately
positively correlated with GPA, the intrinsic sub-scale Challenge was weakly positively correlated with
GPA, and the other intrinsic sub-scale, Enjoyment was weakly negatively correlated with GPA (see Table
5). Results of the regression analysis, displayed in Table 6, showed cognitive ability and grade-point
motivation were significant predictors of GPA, but scores on the two intrinsic motivation scales were not,
each producing a non-significant ∆ R2 (change in the coefficient of determination) of only 0.01. The
conclusions regarding the hypotheses are shown in Table 7.
DISCUSSION
Cognitive and Affective Facets of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation
That cognitive ability was the best predictor of academic performance is, of course, not surprising and is
in accord with a vast amount of previous research (Schmidt, 2002). That strong grade-goal motivation
should also lead to better grades may, at one level, seem equally unsurprising and almost a trivial finding.
However when the correlations of the two intrinsic motivation scales with GPA are taken into account a
more interesting pattern emerges. Amabile et al (1994) classified the intrinsic Challenge scale and the
extrinsic Compensation scale (which was the parent scale from which the grade-goal scale was derived) as
cognitive facets and the intrinsic Enjoyment scale and the extrinsic Outward Orientation scale (that taps a
concern with the opinions of other people) as affective facets. Hence it was the two cognitive facets of
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation that positively correlated with GPA and not the affective facets1.
Attaining good grades obviously presents some degree of challenge to all students, greater or lesser
according to their ability. It would appear that, with this sample at least, regardless of whether they enjoy
either the material studied or the process of learning (intrinsic affective), or how much they care what
others think of their efforts (extrinsic affective), it is the extent to which they are “fired up” by both the
challenge of succeeding, in grade terms, (intrinsic cognitive) and, more strongly, the value they place on
grades as desirable goals (extrinsic cognitive), that determines the performance outcome.
While largely contrary to the hypotheses proposed under Research Questions above, this result does echo
some findings in closely related fields. Recent research on salesperson motivation, using the Adult version
of the WPI, demonstrated that challenge and compensation (both cognitive facets), but not enjoyment and
recognition-seeking (both affective facets), served as main predictors of sales performance (Miao, Evans
& Zhou, 2006). In the field of achievement goal theory the distinction is made between mastery goals and
performance goals. The motivation for pursuing mastery goals is to develop competence in the activity
concerned, whereas performance goals are pursued in order to demonstrate that competence in
comparison to that of other people (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2000). Mastery and performance goals have
sometimes been referred to respectively as intrinsic and extrinsic goals (Pintrich & Garcia, 1991) and
appear closely related to the constructs of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Certainly the motivation to
attain high grades appears to be primarily a performance rather than a mastery goal. Although mastery
1 The weak negative correlation of the affective intrinsic scale Enjoyment with GPA appears likely to have been a
consequence of the wording of the three items in the scale, especially item 22 that explicitly frames the valuing of
enjoyment as being at the expense of being focused on grade goals (see Table 2). Consideration was given to
dropping this item, however as Factors with fewer than three items are considered weak and unstable (Costello &
Osborne, 2005) the item was retained in the analysis.
goals are associated with a number of positive consequences similar to those associated with intrinsic
motivation (Barron & Harackiewicz, 2000), a series of studies (Barron, Schwab & Harackiewicz, 1999;
Harackiewicz, Barron, Carter, Lehto & Elliot, 1997; Harackiewicz, Barron, Tauer, Carter & Elliot, 2000)
have demonstrated that while students with mastery goals develop greater interest in the subjects studied,
it is performance goals that predict final grades.
What are the implications of all this for business educators? It should not be concluded that calls for
greater efforts to develop students’ intrinsic interest in the subjects studied and to encourage autonomous
learning (e.g. Reeve, 2002; Sisley, 2004) are misplaced. The wide range of benefits associated with
intrinsic motivation are well documented (Sheldon, Ryan, Deci & Kasser, 2004) and educators who
engage in teaching practices designed to promote student autonomy can feel confident that they are aiding
and strengthening their students’ learning (Reeve, 2002). However it appears these benefits may not
include improved performance as measured by course grades, which, judging by the results of this study,
requires a narrowly focused cognitive facet of extrinsic motivation.
Gender Differences in Motivation and Performance
Female students in the sample possessed this form of motivation more strongly than males. In other
words, women obtained significantly better overall grades than did men, despite having similar levels of
intellectual ability, simply because they were significantly more motivated to do so. This motivational
difference is contrary to previous research findings that women tend to be more autonomy oriented (e.g.
Deci & Ryan, 1985b, Pelletier et al, 1995) and more intrinsically motivated than were men (Covington &
Dray, 2002; Vallerand & Bissonnette, 1992). However it is noteworthy that Covington and Dray found
their female participants were both more intrinsically motivated and more intensely focused on grades and
the need to prove themselves.
Why there should be this gender difference remains open to speculation, but one possibility is personality
differences. For example, recent research has shown women scored more highly on agreeableness and
openness to experience than did men, with openness directly predicting academic grades (Farsides &
Woodfield, 2003; Woodfield, Jessup and McMillan, 2006; O’Connor & Paunonen, 2007), and
agreeableness predicting attendance rates at classes, which in turn was a powerful predictor of academic
grades (Farsides & Woodfield; Woodfield, et al.). However the role of personality in the superior
academic performance of women is far from clear in the literature. Another rather complex explanation
revolves around gender differences, assumed to be due to different socialisation experiences, in men’s and
women’s responses to the informational and controlling aspects of positive feedback, with such feedback
being said to activate intrinsic motivation in males and extrinsic motivation in females (Deci & Moller,
2005). Elucidation of these possibilities awaits further research.
CONCLUSIONS
A fundamental question that emerges from the study reported here is the perennial one of “What are our
educational goals for our students and how do we measure their level of attainment of these goals?” If, as
one would hope, we aim to produce graduates with a passion for their chosen discipline or professional
speciality, coupled with a life-long addiction to learning, then research strongly supports the promotion of
student autonomy and intrinsic motivation as a means to this end (Reeve, 2002; Sisley, 2004). However it
appears that grades achieved in our current assessment programmes may measure, along with ability,
something different and arguably equally important, namely a strong determination to succeed. This is
likely to remain the case whatever form our assessments take, and we are left with two alternative
strategies. Either we attempt to design assessments that better reflect autonomy and intrinsic passion,
while attempting to avoid the well-documented risk that linking these to the extrinsic rewards of grades
may actually undermine intrinsic motivation (Lepper & Henderlong, 2000), or we accept as inevitable the
separation of the two functions of instilling student intrinsic interest in a subject on the one hand, and
attempting to objectively assess students’ understanding and application of subject content on the other.
Whether the second strategy is a counsel of despair or the path of wisdom I leave to your judgement.
REFERENCES
Amabile TM, Hennessey BA & Tighe EM (1994) The Work Preference Inventory: Assessing intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66 (5): 950-967.
Baker SR. (2003) A prospective longitudinal investigation of social problem-solving appraisals on
adjustment to university, stress, health, and academic motivation and performance, Personality and
Individual Differences, 35: 569-591.
Baker SR (2004) Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational orientations: Their role in university adjustment,
stress, well-being, and subsequent academic performance, Current Psychology: Developmental, Learning,
Personality, Social, 23 (3): 189-202.
Barron KE & Harackiewicz JM (2000) Achievement goals and optimal motivation: a multiple goals
approach, in Sansone C and Harackiewicz JM (Eds) Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: The Search for
Optimal Performance, Academic Press, New York.
Barron KE Schwab C & Harackiewicz JM (1999) Achievement goals and classroom context: A
comparison of different learning environments. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern
Psychological Association, Chicago.
Benware CA & Deci EL (1984) Quality of learning with an active versus passive motivational set,
American Educational Research Journal, 21 (4): 755-765.
Brandstatter H & Farthofer A (2002) Prediction of university students’ performance: Configurative or
linear additive? Zeitschrift fur Differentielle und Diagnostische Psychologie, 23 (4): 381-391.
Brownlow S, Gilbert NM & Reasinger RD (1997) Motivation, personality preferences, and interests in
college students. Journal of Psychological Practice, 3(4): 128-140.
Burton KD, Lydon JE, D’Asselandro DU & Koestner R (2006) The differential effects of intrinsic and
identified motivation on well-being and performance: Prospective, experimental and implicit approaches
to Self-Determination Theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4): 750-762.
Conti R (2000) College goals: Do self-determined and carefully considered goals predict intrinsic
motivation, academic performance, and adjustment during the first semester? Social Psychology of
Education, 4: 189-211.
Costello AB & Osborne J (2005) Best practices in exploratory factor analysis: four recommendations for
getting the most from your analysis. Practical Assessment Research & Evaluation, 10 (7). Available
online: http://pareonline.net/getvn.asp?v=10&n=7
Covington MV & Dray E (2002) The developmental course of achievement motivation: A needs-based
approach, in Wigfield, A and Eccles, JS (Eds), Development of Achievement Motivation, 33-56, Academic
Press, San Francisco.
Deci EL & Moller AC (2005) The concept of competence: A starting place for understanding intrinsic
motivation and self-determined extrinsic motivation, in Elliott AJ & Dweck CS (Eds) Handbook of
competence and motivation, 579-597, The Guilford Press, New York.
Deci EL & Ryan RM (1985) The general causality orientations scale: Self-determination in personality,
Journal of Research in Personality, 19: 109-134.
Farsides T & Woodfield R (2003) Individual differences and undergraduate academic success: The roles
of personality, intelligence and application, Personality and Individual Differences, 34: 1225-1243.
Furnham A, Chamorro-Premuzic T, & McDougall F (2003) Personality, cognitive ability, and beliefs
about intelligence as predictors of academic performance, Learning and Individual Differences, 14: 49-66.
Garcia T & Pintrich PR (1996) The effect of autonomy on motivation and performance in the college
classroom, Contemporary Educational Psychology, 21: 477-486.
Ginsberg GS & Bronstein P (1993) Family factors related to children’s intrinsic/extrinsic motivational
orientation and academic performance, Child Development, 64: 1461-1474.
Hair JF, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE & Tatham RL (2006). Multivariate data analysis (6th ed.)
Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.
Harackiewicz JM, Barron KE, Carter SM, Lehto AT & Elliot AJ (1997) Determinants and consequences
of achievement goals in the college classroom: Maintaining interest and making the grade, Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 73: 1284-1295.
Harackiewicz JM, Barron KE, Tauer JM, Carter SM & Elliot AJ (2000) Short-term and long-term
consequences of achievement goals in college: Predicting continued interest and performance over time,
Journal of Educational Psychology, 92 (2): 316-330.
Lepper MR & Henderlong J (2000) Turning “play” into “work” and “work” into “play”: 25 years of
research on intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation. In Sansone C & Harackiewicz J (Eds) Intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation: The search for optimal motivation and performance pp257-307, Academic Press,
San Diego.
Li W, Lee AM & Solmon,MA (2005) Effects of ability conceptions and intrinsic motivation on
persistence and performance: An interaction approach, Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport, 76 (1):
A81.
Lloyd J & Barenblatt L (1984) Intrinsic intellectuality: Its relations to social class, intelligence, and
achievement, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46 (3): 646-654.
Mason L & Arcaomo S (2001) Motivation for school engagement, causal attributions, and performance in
middle and high-school students, Psicologia
Clinica dello Sviluppo, 5 (3): 423-450.
Metofe PA (2002) Prediction of academic performance in historically Black colleges and universities
(HBCU’s), Dissertation Abstracts International Section A: Humanities and Social Sciences, 62 (12-A):
4075.
Miao CF, Evans KR & Zou S (2006) The role of salesperson motivation in sales control systems –
Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation revisited, Journal of Business Research, 60: 417-425.
Mitchell JV (1992) Interrelationships and predictive efficacy for indices of intrinsic, extrinsic, and self-
assessed motivation for learning, Journal of Research and Development in Education, 25: 149-155.
Moneta GB & Siu CMY (2002) Trait intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, academic performance, and
creativity in Hong Kong college students, Journal of College Student Development, 43: 664-683.
O’Connor MC & Paunonen SV (2007) Big five personality predictors of post-secondary academic
performance, Personality and Individual Differences, 43: 971-990.
Pelletier LG, Fortier MS, Vallerand RJ, Tuson KM, Briere N & Blais MR (1995) Toward a new measure
of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, and amotivation in sports: The Sport Motivation Scale,
Journal of Sport and Exercise Psychology, 17: 35-53.
Pintrich PR & Garcia T (1991) Student goal orientation and self-regulation in the college classroom, in
Maehr ML & Pintrich PR (Eds), Advances in Motivation and Achievement (vol.7, 371-402), JAI Press,
Greenwich, CT.
Reeve J (2002) Self-Determination Theory applied to educational settings, in Deci EL & Ryan RM (Eds),
Handbook of self-determination research, pp183-203, University of Rochester press, Rochester, NY.
Schmidt FL (2002) The role of general cognitive ability and job performance: Why there cannot be a
debate, Human Performance, 15 (1/2): 187-210.
Sheldon KM, Ryan RM, Deci EL & Kasser T (2004) The independent effects of goal contents and
motives on well-being: It’s both what you pursue and why you pursue it, Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 30: 475-486.
Sisley R (2004) Fostering a love of learning, in Yourn B & Little S (Eds) Walking to Different Beats:
Good Practice and Innovation in Higher Education, Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, NZ.
Thill EE, Mailhot L & Mouanda J (1998) On how task-contingent rewards, individual differences in
causality orientations, and imagery abilities are related to intrinsic motivation and performance, European
Journal of Social Psychology, 28 (2): 141-158.
Valas, H & Sovik, N (1993) Variables affecting students’ intrinsic motivation for school mathematics:
Two empirical studies based on Deci and Ryan’s theory on motivation, Learning and Instruction, 3: 281-
298.
Vallerand RJ & Bissonette R (1992) Intrinsic, extrinsic and amotivational styles as predictors of behavior:
A prospective study. Journal of Personality, 60: 599-620.
Vallerand R.J, Pelletier LG, Blais MR, Briere NM, Senecal C and Vallieres EF (1992) The academic
motivation scale: a measure of intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education, Educational and
Psychological Measurement, 52: 1003-1017.
Vallerand RJ, Pelletier LG, Blais MR, Brier NM, Senecal C and Vallieres EF (1993) On the assessment of
intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivation in education: Evidence on the concurrent and construct validity of the
academic motivation scale, Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53: 159-172.
Vallerand RJ & Ratelle CF (2002) Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: A hierarchical model, in Deci EL &
Ryan RM (Eds), Handbook of self-determination research, University of Rochester press, Rochester, NY.
Vansteenkiste M, Simons J, Lens W, Sheldon KM & Deci EL (2004) Motivating learning, performance,
and persistence: The synergistic effects of intrinsic goal contents and autonomy-supportive contexts,
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87 (2): 246-260.
Walker CO, Greene BA & Mansell RA (2006) Identification with academics, intrinsic/extrinsic
motivation, and self-efficacy as predictors of cognitive engagement, Learning and Individual Differences,
16 (1): 1-12.
Whitehead J (1984) Motives for higher education: A study of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in relation
to academic attainment, Cambridge Journal of Education, 14 (2): 26-34.
Wong MM & Csikszentmihalyi M (1991) Motivation and academic achievement: The effects of
personality traits and the quality of experience, Journal of Personality, 59 (3): 539-574.
Wong EH, Wiest DJ & Cusick LB (2002) Perceptions of autonomy support, parent attachment,
competence and self-worth as predictors of motivational orientation and academic achievement: An
examination of sixth- and ninth-grade regular education students, Adolescence, 37 (146): 255-266.
Woodfield R, Jessop D & McMillan L (2006) Gender differences in undergraduate attendance rates,
Studies in Higher Education, 31 (1): 1-22.
TABLES
Table 1: Confirmatory Factor Analysis: Fit Indices for the Modified WPI
(Using a Random Half-Sample)
χ2 df χ
2/df GFI CFI IFI RMSEA P ratio
78.24
p = .004
48
1.63
.94
.94
.94
.06
(.03-.08)a
.73
Note: χ2 = chi-square (the difference between estimated and observed covariance matrices), df =
degrees of freedom, GFI = goodness of fit index, CFI = comparative fit index, IFI = incremental fit index,
RMSEA = root mean square error of approximation, P = parsimony, p = probability. a confidence intervals for RMSEA.
Table 2: Items Comprising the Modified Version of the Work Preference Inventory (WPI)
WPI
Item
No.
Items comprising the four sub-scales
EFA
Factor
loadings
CHALLENGE (Intrinsic Cognitive) ( α = .81)
26 I enjoy trying to solve complex problems .84
3 The more difficult the problem, the more I enjoy trying to solve it .81
13 I enjoy tackling problems that are completely new to me .66
GRADE GOAL MOTIVATION (Extrinsic Cognitive) (α = .78)
10 I am keenly aware of the GPA (grade point average) goals I have for myself .83
4 I am keenly aware of the goals I have for getting good grades .78
19 I am strongly motivated by the grades I can earn .55
ENJOYMENT (Intrinsic Affective) (α = .64)
30 What matters most to me is enjoying what I do .69
20 It is important for me to be able to do what I most enjoy .67
22 As long as I can do what I enjoy, I’m not that concerned about exactly what grades or
awards I can earn
.47
OUTWARD ORIENTATION (ExtrinsicAffective) (α = .60)
24 I am strongly motivated by the recognition I can earn from other people .70
29 I want other people to find out how good I can really be at my work .67
25 I have to feel that I’m earning something for what I do .45
Note. α = factor internal consistency (Cronbach’s alpha), EFA = Exploratory Factor Analysis.
Table 3: Means and Standard Deviations of Cognitive Ability Scores, Motivation Scale Scores and
GPA for the Whole Sample and by Gender.
Cognitive
Ability
IM EM Enjoyment Challenge Outward
Orientation
Grade Goal
Motivation
GPA
Whole
sample:
mean
22.98
17.07
17.35
9.05
8.02
8.23
9.13
67.43
SD 5.84 2.73 3.00 1.77 1.99 1.97 2.07 8.47
n 158 280 280 280 280 280 280 316
Males:
mean
23.12
17.17
16.88
9.06
8.11
8.28
8.60
65.13
SD 5.21 2.86 2.91 1.76 2.06 1.83 2.12 7.54
n 68 120 120 120 120 120 120 132
Females:
mean
22.88
17.00
17.69
9.04
7.95
8.19
9.53
69.07
SD 6.3 2.64 3.02 1.78 1.94 2.08 1.94 8.74
n 90 160 160 160 160 160 160 184
Note: IM = overall intrinsic motivation, EM = overall extrinsic motivation.
Table 4: ANOVA of Gender Differences in Motivation Measures, Cognitive Ability and GPA
Measure
df
F
Effect size
Partial ή2
Cognitive ability 1, 156 0.04 0.00
Enjoyment 1, 278 0.01 0.00
Challenge 1, 278 0.40 0.00
Outward Orientation 1, 278 0.18 0.00
Grade Goal Motivation 1, 278 14.04*** 0.05
Grade Point Average (GPA) 1, 314 16.74*** 0.05
Note: ***= p < 0.001.
Table 5: Correlations Between Cognitive Ability Scores, Motivation Scales and GPA
Enjoyment Challenge Outward
Orientation
Grade
Goal
Motivation
Cognitive
Ability
Challenge .05 ns
Outward
Orientation
.07 ns .01 ns
Grade Goal
Motivation
-.13* .18** .11 ns
Cognitive
Ability
.01 ns .09 ns -.26** -.06 ns
GPA -.12* .16** -.05 ns .29*** .32***
Note: ns = not significant, * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001
Table 6: Regression Analysis Assessing Predictors of GPA
Measure B SE
B
β t Model F Model
R2
Adjusted
R2
∆ R2
Model 1 16.55*** .12 .11 .12***
Cognitive Ability .50 .12 .35 4.07***
Model 2 15.50*** .21 .19 .09***
Cognitive Ability .52 .12 .36 4.43***
Grade Motivation 1.18 .33 .29 3.58***
Model 3 10.79*** .22 .20 .01
Cognitive Ability .50 .12 .35 4.31***
Grade Motivation 1.11 .34 .28 3.32**
Challenge .40 .35 .10 1.14
Model 4 8.50*** .23 .20 .01
Cognitive Ability .50 .12 .35 4.31***
Grade Motivation 1.05 .34 .26 3.13**
Challenge .43 .35 .10 1.23
Enjoyment .47 .39 .10 1.22
** p < 0.01, *** p < 0.001.
Table 7: Summary of Hypothesis Results
Hypothesis Result
1
High WPI intrinsic motivation scale scores (Challenge
and Enjoyment) will predict high GPA scores, after
controlling for cognitive ability.
Rejected
2 High cognitive ability (WPT) scores will predict high
GPA scores.
Supported
3 Female student participants will average higher GPA
scores than male student participants, after controlling
for cognitive ability.
Supported
4 Female student participants will exhibit higher levels of
trait-intrinsic motivation, as measured by WPI primary
and secondary scales, than will male student
participants.
Rejected: intrinsic motivation
scores were the same, but females
scored higher on one extrinsic
scale (grade goal motivation)
5 WPI grade goal motivation subscale scores will predict GPA
scores better than will scores on the other extrinsic motivation
subscale, Outward Orientation.
Supported : in fact this was the
only motivation scale that
predicted GPA