Metamotivational Beliefs about Extrinsic Incentives

Abstract

Metamotivation refers to the individual's awareness of their own motivational processes and their beliefs about how best to manage and regulate their motivation. One area of investigation in metamotivational research is the discrepancy between these beliefs and evidence-based findings. The present study examined beliefs about the role of extrinsic incentives in students' intrinsic motivation. Language teachers (n = 130) and students (n = 252) read a description of a previous experiment that showed an undermining effect of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation, and were asked to predict the outcome of that experiment. The results showed that teachers and students alike believed that extrinsic rewards would enhance, rather than undermine, intrinsic motivation. These beliefs might explain the prevalence of extrinsic incentives in educational contexts and suggest the need for targeted interventions to raise awareness of the detrimental effects of overreliance on extrinsic incentives.

Full text

1
Note: This is the postprint of the following article:
Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2024). Metamotivational beliefs about extrinsic incentives. System, 124,
103360. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2024.103360
Metamotivational Beliefs about Extrinsic Incentives
Abstract
Metamotivation refers to the individual’s awareness of their own motivational processes and
their beliefs about how best to manage and regulate their motivation. One area of investigation in
metamotivational research is the discrepancy between these beliefs and evidence-based findings.
The present study examined beliefs about the role of extrinsic incentives in students’ intrinsic
motivation. Language teachers (n = 130) and students (n = 252) read a description of a previous
experiment that showed an undermining effect of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation, and
were asked to predict the outcome of that experiment. The results showed that teachers and
students alike believed that extrinsic rewards would enhance, rather than undermine, intrinsic
motivation. These beliefs might explain the prevalence of extrinsic incentives in educational
contexts and suggest the need for targeted interventions to raise awareness of the detrimental
effects of overreliance on extrinsic incentives.
Keywords: metamotivation; self-determination theory; intrinsic motivation; undermining effect

2
1. Introduction
Creating a positive and supportive classroom climate fosters student engagement and willingness
to communicate inside and outside the classroom, persistence against setbacks, and lifelong
learning (Joe et al., 2017; Wang et al., 2021). Conversely, a negative classroom environment can
provoke anxiety and inhibit learning, potentially leading to academic burnout, failure, and even
dropout (Derakhshan et al., 2022; Derakhshan & Yin, 2024). However, it is also important to
recognize that mere enjoyment and a positive evaluation of the learning context may not always
signify better learning outcomes, as learners may enjoy a class but without actually learning from
it (Al-Hoorie, 2018). Similarly, completely eliminating all forms of anxiety from the learning
environment may not be the most effective pedagogical approach or reflective of real-life
experiences beyond the classroom. Therefore, enjoyment and anxiety can be seen as “two feet”
necessary for balance in learning:
the goal is not to eliminate FLCA [foreign language classroom anxiety] any more than a
runner would wish to eliminate one of her feet (even the sore, aching one). Learners will
find their balance when both feet, enjoyment and anxiety, are brought into equilibrium.
(Dewaele & MacIntyre, 2016, pp. 233–234)
In addition to this delicate balance, the classroom experience is situated and dynamic, making it
sensitive to temporal and contextual variations (Hiver et al., 2019; Zhou et al., 2022), thus
requiring continual adaptation and responsiveness from both teachers and learners alike.
Given this complexity, it is not surprising that some teachers, despite their well-
intentioned aims, may inadvertently engage in pedagogical practices that create a learning

3
environment detrimental to student motivation. One example is the use of rewards, where certain
types of rewards foster a positive learning environment while others lead to unintended negative
consequences on students’ intrinsic motivation (see more below). Research on individuals’
knowledge and understanding of their own motivation falls under the umbrella of
metamotivation (Al-Hoorie, 2024; Miele et al., 2020; Scholer et al., 2018). Broadly,
metamotivation research examines individuals’ understanding of optimal strategies for
regulation, the alignment of this understanding with evidence-based practices across various
contexts, and the impact of such knowledge on the selection of regulatory strategies.
Metamotivation is additionally concerned with how individuals actively regulate and manage
their motivation and how this influences adaptability to shifting task demands, success in goal
pursuit, and overall quality of life and well-being. As Al-Hoorie (2024) explained,
metamotivation is related to metacognition, but in metamotivation the focus is on regulating
motivation. A learner may draw from cognitive, emotional and/or behavior strategies, but the
target is regulating their motivational states.
As little research to date has examined learners’ and teachers’ understanding of
motivational dynamics, this study aimed to shed light on teachers’ and students’
metamotivational beliefs, particularly in relation to the effect of extrinsic incentives on intrinsic
motivation. The participants were asked to predict the results of an actual experiment whose
results clearly demonstrated the undermining effect of extrinsic rewards on both voluntary
behavioral engagement in enjoyable tasks as well as its neural correlates using functional MRI.
Through investigating these metamotivational beliefs, this study sought to bridge the gap in
understanding how teachers and students perceive the influence of extrinsic incentives on

4
intrinsic motivation. This may shed light on potential misbeliefs regarding the impact of rewards,
ultimately providing insights for educational practice and policy.
2. Effect of Extrinsic Incentives on Intrinsic Motivation
From a self-determination theory (SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Ryan & Deci, 2017) perspective,
autonomy is considered a fundamental human need and, along with competence and relatedness,
the satisfaction of these needs is essential for an individual’s adjustment, development, and
overall well-being (Liu & Oga-Baldwin, 2022; Oga-Baldwin et al., 2022). Intrinsic motivation,
as a prototypical expression of this autonomous and proactive tendency in human nature, refers
to engagement in activities for the sake of enjoyment, curiosity, and sheer interest in them, rather
than seeking specific rewards, conforming to external incentive structures, or succumbing to
pressure (Ryan & Deci, 2020). Cognitive evaluation theory, one SDT mini-theory (see Al-Hoorie
et al., 2022; Sugita McEown & Oga-Baldwin, 2019, for a review of SDT’s six mini-theories),
deals with how intrinsic motivation may be facilitated and undermined through various social-
contextual factors. These factors or events can enhance or thwart intrinsic motivation to the
extent that they promote an internal or external locus of causality as well as the extent to which
they enhance or diminish one’s perceived competence in the target activity. In other words, the
functional significance of the event lies in how the individual experiences, interprets, and makes
sense of that event in relation to their autonomy and competence.
The undermining effect (also called crowding-out effect and overjustification effect)
occurs when intrinsic motivation is diminished by external incentives such as money, prizes, and
trophies (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Tasks may be classified differently based on the reward
contingencies they involve (see Deci et al., 1999; Ryan et al., 1983). One class of tasks has a
favorable impact on intrinsic motivation. This includes tasks that involve non-tangible rewards

5
(e.g., positive feedback), unexpected rewards, and task-noncontingent rewards (i.e., rewards for
simply being present). These rewards do not carry a controlling functional significance, while
they may provide informational value for one’s competence. A second class of tasks involves
task-contingent rewards. The rewards in these tasks may be engagement-contingent requiring the
individual to spend time engaging in the target activity to obtain the reward, or completion-
contingent additionally demanding the completion of the activity, perhaps within time
constraints. These tasks may provide mixed implicit messages about autonomy and competence
but generally lead to an undermining effect. A third class of tasks involves performance-
contingent rewards (achieving a specific performance standard) and competitively contingent
rewards (winning, while others lose). This class leads to the most damaging effect on intrinsic
motivation for both winners and losers. Especially for losers, such tasks convey both low
autonomy and low competence, having long-term detrimental effects on subsequent motivation
and behavior (Ryan & Deci, 2017).
Empirical investigations into the undermining effect of external incentives typically
involve randomly dividing participants into two groups: one group is informed that a reward is
contingent on their performance while the control group is simply invited to take part.
Participants engage in an interesting task for some time, after which they are stopped by the
experimenter who announces that the experiment has ostensibly ended. Unbeknownst to the
participants, they enter into a “free-choice period” during which their performance is still being
observed in order to find out whether they will still voluntarily engage in the task. As an
illustration, consider the study by Murayama et al. (2010). The researchers asked their
participants to engage in an interesting activity (a stopwatch task) while tracking their brain

6
activity through functional MRI. The reward group was told that they would receive financial
incentives for each successful trial while the control group was paid simply for task participation.
After completing the activity, the participants entered a free-choice period that was
ostensibly not part of the experiment or monitored. During this time, they had the opportunity to
perform the task voluntarily if they wished, while waiting for the next session. The results
showed that the reward group engaged significantly less frequently with the task during the free-
choice period, indicating that their intrinsic motivation to perform the interesting task was
impaired by the rewards. Functional MRI results similarly showed that the reward group
exhibited a decrease in activation in the anterior striatum and the prefrontal areas, which are
implicated in the subjective evaluation of control (Tricomi et al., 2004), corroborating the
underpinnings of SDT with respect to the need for autonomy.
3. Metamotivational Beliefs about Extrinsic Incentives
Despite repeated empirical demonstrations of the undermining effect, various sectors in society
(e.g., employers, educators, parents) still heavily rely on external rewards and incentives, and
language learning is no exception (see Noels, 2023). This phenomenon reflects a “theory–
practice gap” (Murayama et al., 2016, p. 138) stemming from people’s misbeliefs about the role
of rewards, perhaps due to its rather counterintuitive nature. People’s beliefs about how best to
regulate their own and other’s motivation and the correspondence of these beliefs with empirical
evidence are the subject of metamotivation research (Al-Hoorie, 2024; Miele et al., 2020;
Scholer et al., 2018). Similar to metacognitive knowledge (e.g., Teng & Zhang, 2021, 2022),
metamotivation is concerned with “the processes by which individuals monitor and control their
motivational states in order to achieve their goals” (Scholer et al., 2018, pp. 437–438). The

7
motivational processes that individuals utilize are ultimately shaped by their beliefs about the
nature of motivation, which may or may not coincide with best practices in motivational theory.
Metamotivation research, therefore, does not primarily aim to identify optimal forms of
motivation; instead, it explores how individuals navigate and control their motivation. This
involves understanding their knowledge about effective motivational strategies, assessing the
alignment of this knowledge with evidence-based findings on optimal motivation, and examining
the impact of this knowledge on the selection of regulatory strategies, success in pursuing goals,
and overall well-being. Identifying people’s motivational misbeliefs is the first step toward
finding ways to address these misbeliefs.
Research into metamotivation has identified several areas where individuals tend to hold
erroneous beliefs about their cognitive, emotional, and motivational states, leading them to adopt
ineffective or even maladaptive self-regulation strategies. For instance, metamemory research
has shown that individuals frequently possess flawed mental models regarding their learning and
memory processes, resulting in misassessment and mismanagement of their own learning (Bjork
et al., 2013). Similarly, research into affective forecasting demonstrates that mispredictions of
emotional states can lead individuals to behave in manners that do not maximize their happiness
and well-being (Gilbert & Ebert, 2002). Research into beliefs about self-regulatory focus also
indicates that individuals may not fully appreciate the trade-offs in task–motivation fit when
selecting promotion- versus prevention-oriented strategies (Al-Hoorie, 2024). People likewise
tend to underestimate the value of setting autonomous, self-concordant goals when they forecast
their need satisfaction in goal pursuit (Werner & Milyavskaya, 2018). Finally, people often
underestimate the positive effect of intrinsic incentives when reflecting on previous activities or

8
planning future tasks (Woolley & Fishbach, 2015). Overall, these findings suggest that people’s
metamotivational beliefs may not always align with research evidence.
When it comes to the phenomenon of external rewards undermining intrinsic motivation,
two studies serve to illustrate these metamotivational discrepancies. In a series of seven studies,
Kuratomi et al. (2023) presented participants with a boring, long, and repetitive task without
extrinsic incentives. The task involved performing a series of association production tasks for
about 20 minutes. Participants were asked to produce as many words associated with each word
appearing on the screen and type them within 20 seconds before moving to the next trial. The
participants were also asked to predict their intrinsic motivation at the end of the task (other
studies reported in Kuratomi et al., 2023, employed different procedures testing various
conditions). The results consistently demonstrated that individuals underestimate their ability to
motivate themselves without performance‑based extrinsic incentives.
In another study, Murayama et al. (2016) presented their participants with the design used
in Murayama et al. (2010) and asked them to predict the outcome of that experiment and rate
how confident they feel about their predictions. As described above, Murayama et al. (2010)
asked their participants to perform an interesting task either with or without performance-
contingent extrinsic rewards. Murayama et al. (2016) found that most participants incorrectly,
but confidently, expected the outcome of the experiment to show beneficial effects of extrinsic
rewards. Overall, these results suggest that people tend to underestimate their ability to
upregulate their motivation in the absence of extrinsic incentives.
4. The Present Study
In the language classroom, extrinsic incentives (e.g., prizes, trophies) are routinely utilized. This
prevalence may be attributed to a metamotivational misbelief among teachers and students

9
regarding the potential undermining effect of these extrinsic incentives. Given the lack of prior
investigation into this topic within the language learning context, this study aimed to examine
teachers’ and students’ beliefs about the impact of rewards on intrinsic motivation. Following the
design used by Murayama et al. (2016), participants were presented with an experimental setup
adapted from a previous study (Murayama et al., 2010) whose results clearly demonstrated the
undermining effect both behaviorally and neurologically. They were then asked to predict the
outcome of that experiment. The present study adapted this design to reflect a language learning
task while retaining the essential elements known to lead to an undermining effect. Therefore,
the primary objective of this study was to assess the extent to which teachers and
students correctly (or incorrectly) anticipate the negative consequences of extrinsic incentives on
intrinsic motivation.
5. Method
5.1 Participants
A total of 382 participants volunteered to take part in this study. Among these participants, 130
were language teachers (47% female) who were primarily either from Saudi Arabia
(approximately 40%) or based in Saudi Arabia (about 25% from Pakistan), with the remaining
teachers reporting various other nationalities. Their average age was 35.7 years, and their
teaching experience ranged from recent graduates with no experience to 48 years (M = 10.5, SD
= 10.6, Mdn = 6.0). They also reported holding a variety of qualifications (11.5% diploma,
27.7% BA, 37.7% MA, 20.8% PhD).
As for students, 252 (31.5% female) took part in this study. All students were Saudi
learners of English enrolled in undergraduate degree programs. The students were mostly
studying at two major higher education institutions in Saudi Arabia, one on the east coast and

10
one on the west. Both institutions admit students from various regions in Saudi Arabia and
represent various socioeconomic statuses. The majority of the students were either in their
foundation year (64.2%) or their freshman year (19.3%).
5.2 Instrument
The description of the experiment used by Murayama et al. (2016) was adapted for the context of
language learning. First, participants were provided with instructions explaining that
the study aimed to gather their expectations regarding the results of scientific research. The
description of the experiment that followed explained that language learners were asked to
engage in a learning task that had been demonstrated as enjoyable in previous research.
Unbeknownst to them, the description continued, the participants were divided into two groups.
One group was told that, depending on their performance in this task, they would be rewarded
with up to six bonus marks in their course. After 20 minutes, the experimenter stopped the
experiment and indeed awarded the promised bonus marks, which were 3 marks on average. The
second group was simply told to engage in this task and was stopped by the experimenter after
20 minutes. After the experiment, the description continued, each participant was asked to stay
alone in a room ostensibly waiting for the next session. That enjoyable task was available in the
room, along with some magazines, and the participants were free to do whatever they wanted to
during that waiting period.
After the participants read the above description of the experiment, they were asked to
predict its outcome. They were asked to select one of three options indicating whether the first or
the second group would be more likely to perform the task, or whether there would be no
noticeable difference. They then rated their confidence in their answers on a 1 (not confident at
all) to 10 (extremely confident) Likert scale, and indicated whether they had heard of a similar

11
experiment (see supplementary material for the description used). The last section in the survey
collected demographic information tailored to each of teachers and students. For example,
teachers were asked about their years of teaching experience while students were asked about
their current year of study.
5.3 Procedure
The survey link was disseminated to participants via official email and work-related WhatsApp
groups. The participants completed the survey using their smartphones and generally needed less
than five minutes to do so. The teacher version was presented in English while the student
version was in Arabic, the participants’ first language. Ethical approval was obtained from the
author’s institution before the study commenced.
6. Results
Only four teachers reported being familiar with this experiment and also correctly predicted that
the reward would undermine intrinsic motivation. Only one of them explicitly stated that the
reward group would lose their motivation because they had already obtained their reward. Other
respondents who claimed familiarity with this experiment actually expected that the reward
would increase intrinsic motivation or lead to no difference. Four students also reported that they
had heard of this experiment and also correctly predicted that the reward would decrease intrinsic
motivation. Only one of them explained that he heard of this study from a TV show without
giving further details. Like teachers, a number of students claimed that they had heard of this
experiment but ended up expecting the reward to increase intrinsic motivation or to lead to no
difference.
The results are found in Table 1. The majority of both teachers and students expected that
the reward would increase intrinsic motivation. In the case of teachers, the proportion of teachers

12
expecting the reward to have a positive effect was significantly larger than those who expected a
negative effect (χ2 = 37.39, p < .001) or no effect (χ2 = 48.91, p < .001). Similarly, among
students, a significantly larger proportion expected the reward to increase intrinsic motivation
compared to those expecting a negative (χ2 = 98.67, p < .001) or no effect (χ2 = 100.48, p <
.001). This pattern was consistent across both male and female respondents, in both the teacher
and student samples. The same pattern of results was also found among the various qualifications
the teachers held, with the exception of diploma holders (p = .07). For teachers with diplomas,
although the majority expected the reward to increase motivation, the statistical test was only
marginally significant, likely due to the relatively small number of diploma holders in the sample
(n = 15).
Table 1: Predictions and confidence ratings by teachers and students.
Predicted Outcome
Teachers
Students
Prediction
Confidence
Prediction
Confidence
Reward increases intrinsic motivation
89 (68.5%)
7.54 (2.36)
183 (72%)
7.74 (2.38)
Reward decreases intrinsic motivation
24 (18.5%)
7.83 (1.78)
36 (14.2%)
6.94 (2.44)
Reward has little effect
17 (13.1%)
7.18 (2.53)
35 (13.8%)
6.57 (1.90)
When it comes to confidence ratings, no significant differences were observed among
teachers in their confidence levels across response categories, F(2, 127) = 0.41, p = .664. In
contrast, the results for students did show a significant main effect, F(2, 251) = 4.77, p = .009.
Post hoc LSD comparisons revealed that students who believed that the reward would increase
motivation were marginally significantly more confident than those who believed it would

13
decrease motivation (p = 0.061, d = 0.33) and were significantly more confident than those who
believed it would lead to no difference (p = 0.007, d = 0.54).
7. Discussion
The purpose of this study was to examine language teachers’ and students’ intuitions about the
effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Following Murayama et al. (2010) and
Murayama et al. (2016), the participants read a description of an actual experiment that showed
an undermining effect of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation, and were asked to predict the
outcome of that experiment. In line with the results of Murayama et al. (2016), the participants in
this study consistently expected extrinsic incentives to enhance, rather than undermine, intrinsic
motivation. This trend was observed across teachers and students, across male and female
respondents, and across teachers with various academic qualifications.
These results highlight metamotivational misbeliefs about the role of extrinsic rewards.
This misconception is further illustrated by the explanations provided by some participants in
response to the question about whether they had heard of a similar study. Most participants who
reported that they did hear of a similar study actually expected extrinsic rewards to be more
effective. For example, one participant asserted, “The bonus marks serve as an extrinsic
motivation and such practices are highly effective.” Another participant elaborated that the
extrinsic rewards would act as a positive reinforcement that motivates them to perform well:
“Simply because the students will get a positive reimbursement if they perform well in the
experiment, based upon that assumption I believe that group A [extrinsic rewards] will have a
positive effect on their results.”
Similar metamotivational misbeliefs were also evident in students’ responses to that
question. One respondent argued that rewards should enhance motivation because “They

14
received a morale boost that helped them win.” Another student provided a similar perspective:
“Any work in which there is material or moral compensation, the efficiency of completion is
higher than work that you do in exchange for nothing.” These responses illustrate that the
concept of rewards and their influence on motivation and engagement is susceptible to
misunderstanding and ambiguity. As a result, they highlight the potential need for improvement
in teacher education, particularly in providing accurate information and insights regarding the
nuanced effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation.
Al-Hoorie et al. (2021) posited that research into language learning motivation has had
little effect on teaching practice, and that most teachers are not keen on reading academic
research findings. One explanation for this phenomenon is that teachers find a lot of research
findings rather intuitive, and they can obtain the same insights through practice and experience in
the classroom without having to read jargon-laden journal articles. The results of this study may
provide an exception. Research could prioritize areas characterized by uncertainty, confusion, or
outright misconceptions among teachers. This requires researchers to first study teachers’
metamotivational beliefs and identify areas of research–practice discrepancies, before devising
interventions to address these discrepancies. This approach ensures that stakeholders and
research users are central to the research process (e.g., see Chalmers et al., 2024).
The malleability of metamotivational beliefs is most likely related to the level of
confidence individuals have in those beliefs. In the present study, there were no significant
differences in the confidence levels of teachers who expected the reward to increase, decrease, or
lead to no effect. At the risk of accepting the null, these results might imply that language
teachers may be open to changing their beliefs. Students, in contrast, seemed more confident that
rewards would have a positive effect on intrinsic motivation. The results from students are

15
consistent with those by Murayama et al. (2016), who similarly found that university student
participants, as well as Mechanical Turk participants, exhibited significantly higher confidence
that rewards would enhance intrinsic motivation.
Misuse of extrinsic rewards could have detrimental effects on the classroom social
climate, despite the teacher’s good intentions and well-meaning actions. Even if extrinsic
rewards result in a transient boost in motivation, short-term extrinsic goals risk leading to
individuals who are less psychologically healthy and who tend to perform more poorly and to
learn less well compared to those who adopt intrinsic goals (Ryan & Deci, 2017). Those
who pursue intrinsic goals have an inherently more fulfilling experience that is conducive to
effective learning. Furthermore, extrinsic rewards could affect the classroom social climate
through motivational spillovers (Gubler et al., 2016). Motivational spillovers are the collateral
effects of extrinsic incentives undermining autonomous motivation to perform tasks beyond
those directly targeted by the reward (e.g., reduced punctuality, flexibility, cooperative behavior),
as students engage in gaming tactics aimed at obtaining the promised extrinsic rewards. Extrinsic
goals are also ill-suited for fostering long-term interest in language learning outside the
classroom, which is crucial for sustained language development. By prioritizing extrinsic
incentives over intrinsic motivation, teachers risk hindering students’ intrinsic enjoyment and
engagement with the language, potentially impeding their overall progress and proficiency in the
long run.
8. Conclusion
It is clear that teachers’ and students’ metamotivational beliefs represent promising avenues for
future research. Understanding how teachers perceive and regulate their own and their students’
motivation, as well as how students make sense of their motivational processes, holds significant

16
implications for educational practice, academic achievement, and the well-being of both teachers
and students. Examination of the interplay between metamotivation and academic achievement
can also shed light on effective teaching strategies, student engagement techniques, and positive
learning experiences.
Furthermore, investigating the alignment between individuals’ metamotivational beliefs
and evidence-based findings on motivation can guide the development of tailored interventions
aimed at enhancing motivation and improving learning outcomes. Misalignment between
(experienced) teachers’ metamotivational beliefs and evidence-based findings could also
potentially contribute to the refinement of existing theories. Leveraging teachers’ expertise in
their unique local contexts and their constraints might provide critical insights to fine-tune
educational and motivational theories.
In sum, further research into teachers’ and students’ metamotivation holds the promise of
advancing motivation theory within educational settings. This, in turn, can stimulate the
development of innovative approaches to teaching and learning, ultimately fostering more
effective educational practices and enhancing the overall educational experience for both
teachers and students.

17
References
Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2018). The L2 motivational self system: A meta-analysis. Studies in Second
Language Learning and Teaching, 8(4), 721–754.
https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2018.8.4.2
Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2024). Metamotivation: Self-regulating task–motivation fit. Porta Linguarum,
IX. https://doi.org/10.30827/portalin.viIX.29880
Al-Hoorie, A. H., Hiver, P., Kim, T.-Y., & De Costa, P. I. (2021). The identity crisis in language
motivation research. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 40(1), 136–153.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927x20964507
Al-Hoorie, A. H., Oga-Baldwin, W. L. Q., Hiver, P., & Vitta, J. P. (2022). Self-determination
mini-theories in second language learning: A systematic review of three decades of
research. Language Teaching Research, Advance online publication.
https://doi.org/10.1177/13621688221102686
Bjork, R. A., Dunlosky, J., & Kornell, N. (2013). Self-regulated learning: Beliefs, techniques,
and illusions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64(1), 417–444.
https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143823
Chalmers, H., Faitaki, F., & Murphy, V. A. (2024). Setting research priorities for English as an
Additional Language: What do research users want from EAL research? Language
Teaching for Young Learners, 6(1), 5–31. https://doi.org/10.1075/ltyl.00043.set
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments
examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin,
125(6), 627–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627

18
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human
behavior. Plenum.
Derakhshan, A., Fathi, J., Pawlak, M., & Kruk, M. (2022). Classroom social climate, growth
language mindset, and student engagement: The mediating role of boredom in learning
English as a foreign language. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2099407
Derakhshan, A., & Yin, H. (2024). Do positive emotions prompt students to be more active?
Unraveling the role of hope, pride, and enjoyment in predicting Chinese and Iranian EFL
students’ academic engagement. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development,
Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2024.2329166
Dewaele, J.-M., & MacIntyre, P. D. (2016). Foreign language enjoyment and foreign language
classroom anxiety: The right and left feet of the language learner. In P. D. MacIntyre, T.
Gregersen, & S. Mercer (Eds.), Positive psychology in SLA (pp. 215–236). Multilingual
Matters.
Gilbert, D. T., & Ebert, J. E. J. (2002). Decisions and revisions: The affective forecasting of
changeable outcomes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(4), 503–514.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.4.503
Gubler, T., Larkin, I., & Pierce, L. (2016). Motivational spillovers from awards: Crowding out in
a multitasking environment. Organization Science, 27(2), 286–303.
https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2016.1047
Hiver, P., Obando, G., Sang, Y., Tahmouresi, S., Zhou, A., & Zhou, Y. (2019). Reframing the L2
learning experience as narrative reconstructions of classroom learning. Studies in Second
Language Learning and Teaching, 9(1), 83–116. https://doi.org/10.14746/ssllt.2019.9.1.5

19
Joe, H.-K., Hiver, P., & Al-Hoorie, A. H. (2017). Classroom social climate, self-determined
motivation, willingness to communicate, and achievement: A study of structural
relationships in instructed second language settings. Learning and Individual Differences,
53, 133–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2016.11.005
Kuratomi, K., Johnsen, L., Kitagami, S., Hatano, A., & Murayama, K. (2023). People
underestimate their capability to motivate themselves without performance-based
extrinsic incentives. Motivation and Emotion, 47(4), 509–523.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11031-022-09996-5
Liu, M., & Oga-Baldwin, W. L. Q. (2022). Motivational profiles of learners of multiple foreign
languages: A self-determination theory perspective. System, 106, 102762.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2022.102762
Miele, D. B., Scholer, A. A., & Fujita, K. (2020). Metamotivation: Emerging research on the
regulation of motivational states. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Advances in motivation science
(Vol. 7, pp. 1–42). Elsevier.
Murayama, K., Kitagami, S., Tanaka, A., & Raw, J. A. L. (2016). People’s naiveté about how
extrinsic rewards influence intrinsic motivation. Motivation Science, 2(3), 138–142.
https://doi.org/10.1037/mot0000040
Murayama, K., Matsumoto, M., Izuma, K., & Matsumoto, K. (2010). Neural basis of the
undermining effect of monetary reward on intrinsic motivation. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 107(49), 20911–20916.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1013305107
Noels, K. A. (2023). Self-determination theory and language learning. In R. M. Ryan (Ed.), The
Oxford handbook of self-determination theory (pp. 619–637). Oxford University Press.

20
Oga-Baldwin, W. L. Q., Parrish, A., & Noels, K. (2022). Taking root: Self-determination in
language education. Journal for the Psychology of Language Learning, 4(1), 1–7.
https://doi.org/10.52598/jpll/4/1/9
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-determination theory: Basic psychological needs in
motivation, development, and wellness. Guilford Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2020). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation from a self-determination
theory perspective: Definitions, theory, practices, and future directions. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 61, 101860. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cedpsych.2020.101860
Ryan, R. M., Mims, V., & Koestner, R. (1983). Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal
context to intrinsic motivation: A review and test using cognitive evaluation theory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(4), 736–750.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.45.4.736
Scholer, A. A., Miele, D. B., Murayama, K., & Fujita, K. (2018). New directions in self-
regulation: The role of metamotivational beliefs. Current Directions in Psychological
Science, 27(6), 437–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721418790549
Sugita McEown, M., & Oga-Baldwin, W. L. Q. (2019). Self-determination for all language
learners: New applications for formal language education. System, 86, 102124.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2019.102124
Teng, M. F., & Zhang, L. J. (2021). Development of children’s metacognitive knowledge,
reading, and writing in English as a foreign language: Evidence from longitudinal data
using multilevel models. British Journal of Educational Psychology, 91(4), 1202–1230.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/bjep.12413

21
Teng, M. F., & Zhang, L. J. (2022). Development of metacognitive knowledge and
morphological awareness: A longitudinal study of ethnic minority multilingual young
learners in China. Journal of Multilingual and Multicultural Development, Advance
online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/01434632.2022.2052301
Tricomi, E. M., Delgado, M. R., & Fiez, J. A. (2004). Modulation of caudate activity by action
contingency. Neuron, 41(2), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0896-6273(03)00848-1
Wang, H., Peng, A., & Patterson, M. M. (2021). The roles of class social climate, language
mindset, and emotions in predicting willingness to communicate in a foreign language.
System, 99, 102529. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.system.2021.102529
Werner, K. M., & Milyavskaya, M. (2018). We may not know what we want, but do we know
what we need? Examining the ability to forecast need satisfaction in goal pursuit. Social
Psychological and Personality Science, 9(6), 656–663.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617720274
Woolley, K., & Fishbach, A. (2015). The experience matters more than you think: People value
intrinsic incentives more inside than outside an activity. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 109(6), 968–982. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000035
Zhou, S. A., Hiver, P., & Zheng, Y. (2022). Modeling intra- and inter-individual changes in L2
classroom engagement. Applied Linguistics, 44(6), 1047–1076.
https://doi.org/10.1093/applin/amac065

22
Appendix
Undermining Scenario
A research team is planning to conduct a study. We would like you to make a prediction about
the outcome of the study. Please read the brief description of that study, and answer with your
prediction. The purpose of this survey is to gather information about people’s predictions and
compare them to the results researchers actually get.
Procedure of Study
The participants are language learners. The participants will do a fun learning exercise. The
participants can accumulate points by succeeding in the exercise. Previous research indicated
that participants highly enjoy doing this exercise.
Students will take part in the experiment individually. The participants will be randomly assigned
to “Group A” or “Group B”. Participants do not know that there are different groups.
The participants assigned to Group A will be given the following instructions:
“In this experiment, you will do this exercise. Depending on your scores on this exercise,
you can get bonus marks. The more scores you get, the more bonus you can receive.
The amount of bonus can be up to 6 marks in the course.”
After the participants perform this exercise for 20 minutes, the experimenter will stop the
participants. Then, the participants will indeed receive bonus marks based on their
performance of the exercise. The average of bonus they are expected to receive is about
3 marks.
The participants assigned to Group B will be simply will be given the following instructions:
“In this experiment, you will do this exercise.”
After participants do this exercise for 20 minutes, the experimenter will stop the
participants.
After this session, the participants will be asked to wait alone in a room for the next session. The
participants will be asked not to leave the room, but other than that, they can do whatever they
want. The room has this exercise and they can freely do with it if they want. The room also has
some magazines and they can read them if they want. Of course, they can simply sit and wait
without doing anything.
Q1. During this waiting period, which group do you think is more likely to do this exercise?
Please provide your prediction.
1) Group A will likely do the exercise more.
2) Group B will likely do the exercise more.
3) There will not be a noticeable difference between the two groups.

23
Q2. How confident are you about this prediction?
0. Not at all confident – 10. Very confident
Q3. Have you ever heard or read any studies like this?
1) Not at all.
2) Yes, I am slightly familiar with a similar study.
3) Yes, I know this study very well.
Q4. If you answered yes, please explain:
[Note, no color coding was used in the study. Colors above are for illustration purposes.]