Diferencia y la diferancia como archi-escritura

When people use external events as incentives and consequences, they generally seek to create in others an extrinsic motivation for engaging in that activity. Much of the spirit behind the use of an extrinsic motivator is therefore to shape, influence, or outright control another person’s behavior. Sometimes the attempt to control is obvious (e.g., using money to bribe a child to wear orthodontic gear; see Figure 5.2), but other times it is more seductive (e.g., giving free soft drinks at a bar to anyone agreeing to be a designated driver; Brigham, Maier, & Goodner, 1995). Thus, one potential purpose behind almost any extrinsic motivator is to control another person’s behavior—that is, to increase some desirable behavior (or to decrease some undesirable behavior). But there is a second purpose. Incentives, consequences, and rewards also provide feedback that informs the person about her competence at the task. Rewards such as money, awards, good grades, academic scholarships, and verbal praises not only function to increase behavior (i.e., control behavior) but also to communicate a message of a job well done (i.e., inform competence).

Cognitive evaluation theory asserts that all external events have both a controlling aspect and an informational aspect (Deci & Ryan, 1985b). The theory presumes that people have psychological needs for autonomy and competence (Chapter 6). Furthermore, it is the controlling aspect of an external event that affects the person’s need for autonomy, whereas it is the informational aspect of an external event that affects the person’s need for competence. Formally, cognitive evaluation theory exists as the set of three propositions shown in Table 5.1.

According to Proposition 1, external events (e.g., choice) that promote an internal perceived locus of causality (PLOC) promote intrinsic motivation because these events involve or satisfy the need for autonomy. External events (e.g., reward) that promote an external PLOC promote extrinsic motivation because these events neglect the need for autonomy and instead establish an if–then contingency between a behavior and a forthcoming consequence. Proposition 1 therefore asks, “Is the purpose of the extrinsic event to control another person’s behavior?” If not, autonomy and intrinsic motivation will be preserved; if so, autonomy and intrinsic motivation will be undermined as extrinsic motivation replaces intrinsic motivation.

According to Proposition 2, external events that increase perceived competence (e.g, praise) promote intrinsic motivation, whereas events that decrease perceived competence (e.g., criticism) undermine this motivation. Hence, the more an external event com-municates positive effectance information, the more likely it is to satisfy the need for competence and increase intrinsic motivation. Proposition 2 therefore asks, “Is the pur-pose of the extrinsic event to inform another person’s sense of competence?” If so,

Cognitive Evaluation Theory 129 Table 5.1 Cognitive Evaluation Theory

Proposition 1

External events affect a person’s intrinsic motivation when they influence the perceived locus of causality (PLOC) for that behavior. Events that promote a more external PLOC will decrease intrinsic and increase extrinsic motivation, whereas those that promote a more internal PLOC will increase intrinsic and decrease extrinsic motivation.

Proposition 2

External events affect a person’s intrinsic motivation for an optimally challenging activity when they influence the person’s perceived competence. Events that promote greater perceived competence will enhance intrinsic motivation, whereas those that diminish perceived competence will decrease intrinsic motivation.

Proposition 3

Events relevant to the initiation and regulation of behavior have three potential aspects, each with a functional significance. The informational aspect facilitates an internal PLOC and perceived competence, thus enhancing intrinsic motivation. The controlling aspect facilitates an external PLOC, thus undermining intrinsic motivation and promoting extrinsic motivation. The

amotivating aspect facilitates perceived incompetence, thus undermining intrinsic motivation and promoting amotivation. The relative salience of these three aspects to a person determines the functional significance of the external event.

Source: Adapted with permission from Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior, by E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan, 1985a, New York: Plenum. Copyright 1985, Plenum Press.

perceived competence and intrinsic motivation will rise and fall to the extent that the external event communicates positive versus negative effectance information.

The contribution that the first two propositions offer for a comprehensive under-standing of the motivational significance of incentives, consequences, and rewards is this: External events affect not only a person’s behavior but, in addition, a person’s psychological needs.

Proposition 3 ties together the first two propositions into a full theoretical statement.

According to Proposition 3, the relative salience of whether an event is mostly control-ling or mostly informational determines its effects on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.

Relatively controlling events undermine intrinsic motivation (via their harmful effect on autonomy) and promote extrinsic motivation. Relatively informational events increase intrinsic motivation (via their beneficial effect on competence). It is in Proposition 3 that the usefulness of cognitive evaluation theory becomes apparent. The reader can use cog-nitive evaluation theory to predict the effect that any extrinsic event will have on intrinsic and extrinsic motivations, as discussed more fully in Box 5. The essential question in understanding and in predicting how an external event will affect a person’s motivation and behavior becomes, Why am I giving another person this external event—Is my purpose to control his behavior, or to inform his competence?

Two Examples of Controlling and Informational Events

Any external event—praise, money, grades, a scholarship, surveillance, deadlines, inter-personal competition, and so on—can be administered in a relatively controlling way or in a relatively informational way.

BOX 5 Predicting How Any External Event Will Affect Motivation

Question: Why is this information important?

Answer: So that you can predict, in advance, what effect any external event will have on motivation.

When teachers put stickers on children’s home-work, they hope the stickers will motivate the children to work hard. When employers give end-of-the-year holiday bonuses, they hope the money will motivate the workers to work hard. And when street panhandlers wash the windows of a person’s car at a traffic stop, they hope the driver will give them some money. The logic is: Since stickers, money, and favors are good, the children’s, workers,’ and drivers’ motivation will probably respond in a positive way.

Why a reward is given is at least as important as what is given. A sincere pat on the back can enhance motivation even more than can a big fat check, if the check has strings attached to it. Basically, the pur-pose behind the reward (“Why is this person giving me this reward?”) is more important than is the reward itself.

Understanding how any external event affects another person’s motivation is the domain of cog-nitive evaluation theory. The theory can be articulated in the accompanying flowchart.

To make sense of the figure, first write in the blank line (on the left) any external event. A teacher, for instance, might be interested in the motivational effects of external events such as stickers, grades, praise, tests, or deadlines. Next, working from left to right, determine the external event’s purpose, or functional significance. Is the external event being used to control behavior, or is it being used to inform competence? In particular, which of these two aspects is the relatively more salient one?

If the external event is used largely to con-trol behavior, then its motivational effect will be to decrease autonomy, decrease intrinsic motivation, and increase extrinsic motivation. If the external event is not used to control behavior, then it will not decrease autonomy, not decrease intrinsic motivation, and not increase extrinsic motivation. If the external event is used to communicate a job well done, then its motiva-tional effect will be to increase competence and hence intrinsic motivation. When the external event commu-nicates a job poorly done, however, its motivational effect will be to decrease competence and hence intrin-sic motivation.

Notice that in predicting how any external event will affect another person’s motivation, the critical question is not what the external event is, but rather, why one person administers it to another.