Science topic

Motivational Psychology - Science topic

Explore the latest questions and answers in Motivational Psychology, and find Motivational Psychology experts.
Questions related to Motivational Psychology
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
2 answers
Please understand and note that I am not involved or interested in any preference of anybody at all .
The question is just only about very critical decision in relation with very expansive & risky surgery/surgeries & also hormonal with other chemical procedures which may even be fatal on short or long run !?
Relevant answer
Answer
It's Psychological illness.
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
5 answers
Dear colleagues,
I would like to know what are the differences between a language learning mindset and self-efficacy in language learning. What resources do you recommend that explain such notions in detail? Also, are there any other similar notions?
Thank you
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Samaher, I did not know that "language learning mindset" was an established term (or, rather, an established learner variable) in SLA research at all. I agree with Ting He that it sounds like a collection of other learner features, such as their L2 aptitude, L2 motivation, or L2 competence. I suppose that "self-efficacy" for L2 learning would be a student's belief in their capacity to act in the ways necessary to learn the L2. In any case, you may want to look up both terms in any available SLA Handbook's index to find more clear-cut definitions.
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
2 answers
Dear Colleagues,
In the vein of the self-determination theory, three basic needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness positively shape autonomous motivation. Do you think increase in autonomous motivation may discourage external regulation?
Best regards,
Muhammad Shujahat
Relevant answer
Answer
Have you ever observed children? Why do the youngest children lie (like when they are just able to speak)? Young children are not taught to lie, so how do they know how to be untruthful, this complex, thoughtful, idea of not telling the truth even when asked to? They are obviously concerned about getting into trouble, displeasing the authority figure (intrinsic motivations)? This comes to mind when I read your query. So when parents find these lies cute (smile, laughing), or endearing are parents not encouraging the behaviors and thus, the lies continue. Parents then raise a child that lies, a teen that lies, etc. We know that lying is wrong. Why do adults lie, to ourselves and to each other? Even the smallest of fibs and encourage it at the youngest age? I realize your question is about adults, but we have a society that is less than honest about what they want, have helicopter parents to solve problems, and have a significant rise in undiagnosed mental illness. Of the three basic needs of self determination theory, what are parents/guardians missing in raising a resilient workforce?
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
15 answers
I'm conducting research and am looking to find a simple and validated instrument that will categorize university students as either intrinsically or extrinsically motivated. The survey will be administered in multiple sections of the same university course taught by the same instructor. I appreciate any suggestions. Thank you!
Relevant answer
Answer
This is a very good scientific research article which highlights dependent and independent variables and also the impact on creativity:
"RIGINAL RESEARCH article
Front. Psychol., 04 February 2019 | https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00137
The Influence of Intrinsic Motivation and Synergistic Extrinsic Motivators on Creativity and Innovation
📷Carmen Fischer*, 📷Charlotte P. Malycha and 📷Ernestine Schafmann
  • International School of Management, Dortmund, Germany
Despite the vast amount of research focusing on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, the effects of extrinsic motivators on creativity and innovation have been scarcely investigated. Extrinsic factors can be seen as synergistic extrinsic motivators when they have a positive effect on the outcome. The present study investigates synergistic extrinsic motivators that organizations can use to foster creativity and innovation of their intrinsically motivated knowledge workers. The analysis is based on Amabile and Pratt’s dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations combined with elements from Ryan and Deci’s self-determination theory. The quantitative data stemmed from 90 knowledge workers of an international consulting company who participated in an online self-assessment. In exploratory factor analyses, extrinsic motivation items consolidated two factors “relational rewards” and “transactional rewards”, while creativity and innovation items resulted in a one-factor solution, called “creativity/innovation performance”.
The results of hierarchical regression analyses confirmed the widely found positive effects of intrinsic motivation on creative and innovative performance. Moreover, the results supported the hypothesis that the extrinsic motivator, relational rewards, moderated the relationship between intrinsic motivation and creativity/innovation performance significantly and positively. The findings showed the higher the perceived probability of receiving relational rewards and the higher the intrinsic motivation, the greater the positive effect on creative/innovative outcomes. At the same time, the results did not confirm the hypothesis, that the moderator transactional rewards had a statistically significant effect on the relationship between intrinsic motivation and creative/innovative performance. Finally, the empirical evidence provided practical implications on how to stimulate the creativity/innovation performance of knowledge workers within organizations.
Introduction
As work is becoming more and more dynamic and knowledge-based, organizations increasingly depend on creative ideas and innovative impulses from their employees. Knowledge workers’ creativity and innovation are critical for the organizational competitive advantage as they help to enhance a firm’s performance, product quality, and innovative power (Anderson et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2016). Creativity is generally seen as the generation of useful and novel ideas while innovation implies the implementation of these ideas (Anderson et al., 2014).
Research has shown that three factors increase creativity in particular: Motivation, skills, and creativity-relevant processes (Hirst et al., 2009; Richter et al., 2012; Amabile and Pratt, 2016). Generally speaking, motivation is seen as “the heart of organizational behavior” (Gagné, 2014, p. 414) because employees’ motivation has a substantial impact on their performance and productivity (Cerasoli et al., 2014; Amabile and Pratt, 2016). Motivation guides the direction, intensity, and persistence of performance behaviors and can be categorized into intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (Cerasoli et al., 2014; Deci et al., 2017). Extrinsic motivation leads to engagement when material or social considerations are expected (Amabile et al., 1994). Contrarily, when intrinsically motivated, employees perform tasks out of interest and enjoyment for its own sake (Deci et al., 1999; Amabile and Pratt, 2016).
Throughout the last three decades, the positive impact of intrinsic motivation on creativity and innovation was highlighted while extrinsic motivation was often seen as controversial and has been less investigated in this context (Amabile et al., 1995; Anderson et al., 2014). Nevertheless, employers cannot assume that their employees are always intrinsically motivated as relatively few people find their jobs interesting enough to work without getting paid or receiving other rewards in return (Deci et al., 2017). Consequently, in order to enhance creativity and innovation deliberately, extrinsic motivators must also be considered. Contextual factors, like HRM practices, are meant to influence employees’ motivation and thus, to impact outcomes like creative and innovative performance (Byron and Khazanchi, 2012; Cerasoli et al., 2014; Ryan and Deci, 2017). Research evidence on what kind of external motivators foster and impede motivation and furthermore, creative and innovative performance still yields mixed results.
The best-known theory of creativity is Amabile’s model of creativity and innovation in organizations from 1988 (Amabile, 1988; Liu et al., 2016). Based upon recent theoretical developments within the creativity and innovation field the model has been updated by Amabile and Pratt (2016). Complemented with new research findings like synergistic extrinsic motivation and an emphasis on both constructs creativity and innovation, this model represents a promising conceptual framework for the current research scope. According to the concept of synergistic extrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivators can add positively to intrinsic motivation and other outcomes like creativity and innovation (Amabile and Pratt, 2016).
Although Amabile and Pratt (2016) provide a general creativity and innovation framework, they do not elaborate on the different types of motivation and motivators in detail. In order to close this gap, the SDT by Ryan and Deci (2000) can be employed. The SDT distinguishes different motivation types while addressing the link between motivation and performance. Additionally, the theory reflects how multiple factors like pay contingent and managerial styles impact this relation (Deci et al., 2017). So far, no empirical study was found that has already combined Ryan and Deci (2000) and Amabile and Pratt (2016) models in one research scope.
To summarize, the objective of this article is to clarify the open research question about the role of extrinsic motivators on creative and innovative performance as well as their interplay with intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivators in the form of specific HRM practices, transactional and relational rewards, are analyzed (Grant and Berry, 2011; Amabile and Pratt, 2016; Deci et al., 2017).
Theory
Dynamic Componential Model of Creativity and Innovation in Organizations
The importance of creativity and innovation is reflected in a multitude of empirical studies, and the number of research efforts has grown significantly over the last 30 years (Amabile and Pratt, 2016; Liu et al., 2016). However, the boundaries between the two concepts of creativity and innovation are still not clearly drawn today (Anderson et al., 2014). Rationales are that focused research and clear, practical guidelines are hampered by the lack of convincing theoretical advances and valid models (Anderson et al., 2014). Amabile and Pratt (2016) recognized this gap and responded by updating Amabile’s well-known model of creativity and innovation in organizations with the latest theoretical developments on motivational factors and their impact on personal and contextual multi-level approaches. New research findings, which are addressed in the 2016 version of the model, include meaningfulness of work, work progress, affect, work orientations, external influences, and synergistic extrinsic motivation (Amabile and Pratt, 2016). It is commonly argued that these factors influence creativity and innovation within organizations (Davis, 2009; Grant and Berry, 2011; Baer, 2012). Their dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations is a complex, multivariate theory (Amabile and Pratt, 2016). The model (cf. Figure 1 for an adapted version) is broadly clustered into organizational innovation and individual creativity which are displayed as strongly interdependent (Amabile and Pratt, 2016). Both clusters are described with the same three basic multiplicative components that are required to produce something new: Motivation, resources, and processes. The three components of the individual creativity include taking actions due to the sake of enjoyment (intrinsic motivation), individual know-how and abilities (skills), and cognitive/perceptual styles and thinking skills (creativity relevant processes). The three organizational innovativeness components include the openness to take new risks (motivation to innovate), the provision of money, time, and workforce (resources), as well as relational and transactional rewards (HRM practices/processes). Whereas Montag et al. (2012) and Amabile and Pratt (2016) recognize organizational innovativeness and individual creativity as two distinct constructs, others view creativity and innovation as a single construct (Yuan and Woodman, 2010; Soriano de Alencar, 2012).
FIGURE 1
📷
Figure 1. Modified componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations adapted from Amabile and Pratt (2016).
Self-Determination Theory
Similar to the theories of creativity and innovation, there is also a variety of motivational theories that partially overlap or contradict each other (Maslow, 1943; Herzberg, 1966; McClelland, 1985; Ryan and Deci, 2000, 2017; Amabile and Pratt, 2016). The theories share the notion that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are considered as distinct motivational systems. However, depending on the theory, the effects of these motivational subsystems on creativity and innovation as well as on each other are perceived differently. Whereas some researchers like Herzberg (1966) argued that intrinsic motivation (motivators) and extrinsic motivation (hygiene factors) are orthogonal constructs, indicating their independence of each other, authors like Amabile (1993) assume that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation can influence each other and even add up positively. This kind of positive effect is called a synergistic extrinsic motivation effect and is reflected in their latest published model (Amabile and Pratt, 2016). Thus, they argue that extrinsic motivation can also lead to synergistic outcomes. One theory that explains various internal and external motivation types and their dependencies in more detail is the SDT (Ryan and Deci, 2000). The theory suggests that human actions, such as creative and innovative performance, are strongly affected by the type of underlying motivation and are triggered by individual motives and needs. According to the SDT, motivation varies along a continuum between controlled and autonomous motivation(Ryan and Deci, 2000). Autonomous motivation comprises the intrinsic motivation of an employee and the internalized extrinsic motivation. Internalization is defined “as the process of taking in values, beliefs, or behavioral regulations from external sources and transforming them into one’s own” (Ryan and Deci, 2017, p. 182). It is anticipated that internalization of extrinsic motives can also cause similar positive outcomes as intrinsic motivation because it enables self-determination. Ryan and Deci (2000) named these autonomous supporting motivation styles “identification, integration, and intrinsic regulation”. Controlled motivation – on the other side of the continuum – is characterized by non-self-determination which is caused by non-regulation, external regulations, or introjection (Deci et al., 2017). See Figure 2 for visualization of the SDT. Consequently, it is argued that extrinsic motivation is not a one-dimensional construct, as it has often been considered in the past. Thus, previously controversial results of extrinsic motivation effects may have arisen from different views and research settings on extrinsic motivation (Eisenberger and Cameron, 1996; Deci et al., 1999).
FIGURE 2
📷
Figure 2. Self-determination theory adapted from Ryan and Deci (2000).
The SDT does not only focus on the conceptualization of extrinsic motivation but also on need satisfaction. It consists of six sub-theories that have been tested for decades in numerous work-related studies (Gong and Zhang, 2017; Ryan and Deci, 2017). The BPNT is one of these sub-theories. The BPNT indicates that the autonomous motivation of employees is expected to increase when their basic needs are satisfied in the workplace (Ryan and Deci, 2017). In the case of dissatisfaction of the basic needs, the autonomous motivation decreases and a controlled motivation is anticipated (Ryan and Deci, 2017). It is argued that such controlled motivation has a negative impact on the performance (Ryan and Deci, 2017). Although everybody has needs that trigger motives when salient stimuli are present (Gerrig and Zimbardo, 2016), the level of need satisfaction may vary among individuals. Motives, thereupon, trigger the motivation to act (Gerrig and Zimbardo, 2016). Most need-based theories of motivation postulate very similar basic needs (McClelland, 1985; Ryan and Deci, 2000). The SDT of Ryan and Deci (2000) has built on earlier need theories of Maslow (1943) and McClelland (1985). According to the BPNT, as part of the SDT, there are three basic psychological needs – competence, relatedness, and autonomy – which can be satisfied through self-determination (Ryan and Deci, 2000). The need for competence focuses on the satisfaction of proficiency as well as the feeling of effectiveness in one’s own work (Ryan and Deci, 2002). McClelland (1985) labeled this need the need for achievement. Relatedness provides a feeling of belonging which is supported by cooperation and teamwork (Ryan and Deci, 2002). This need was also mentioned by McClelland (1985), labeled as the need for affiliation. Autonomy represents the choice to engage in an activity that is aligned with one’s values out of personal interest (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Thus, the need for autonomy refers to a need for power over one’s own actions as well as the choice to engage in activities to enable self-fulfillment (Ryan and Deci, 2000). However, the need for power can also be defined differently. McClelland (1985) for instance referred to the need for power as the need to have power over others.
Intrinsic Motivation and Creative and Innovative Performance
Intrinsic motivation is characterized by a strong valuation of personal investment and engagement (Ryan and Deci, 2017). Several meta-analyses have shown that the effect between intrinsic motivation and creative performance is significantly positive (De Jesus et al., 2013; Cerasoli et al., 2014; Liu et al., 2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations of Amabile and Pratt (2016) also underlines this strong relationship theoretically. Additionally, Grant and Berry (2011) found that this positive effect increases when work involves service to others. This study aims to replicate the widely found positive effects of intrinsic motivation on creative and innovative performance, especially with regard to the group of knowledge workers (see Figure 3).
FIGURE 3
📷
Figure 3. Hypothesized interaction of intrinsic motivation and rewards on creativity and innovation performance.
Hypothesis 1: Intrinsic motivation has a significant positive effect on the creative and innovative performance of knowledge workers.
Extrinsic Motivators and Creative and Innovative Performance
In earlier times, research on extrinsic motivation often supported a negative impact on intrinsic motivation and performance, commonly referred to as the crowding-out effect (Deci et al., 1999; Kohn, 1999). Such crowding-out effects are becoming less dominant as extrinsic motivators receive more nuanced analyses (Condly et al., 2003; Hammond et al., 2011; Ryan and Deci, 2017). Nevertheless, decades of research have not provided reliable guidelines and a common understanding of the impacts of rewards on motivation as well as creative and innovative performance. Therefore, scholars have called for further investigations (Byron and Khazanchi, 2012; Cerasoli et al., 2014).
HRM practices are a commonly used way to improve motivation in work set-ups. Rewards, a specific HRM practice, are the most common form of extrinsic motivators in the work environment (Cerasoli et al., 2014). In general, they are provided as a consequence of desired behaviors (Rose, 2014). The most common distinction of rewards occurs in transactional and relational rewards (Baer et al., 2003; Gagné and Forest, 2008; Armstrong, 2012; Joshi, 2016). In the following, empirical research findings of the main effects of each reward type on creative and innovative performance are laid out individually before the focus is set on the interaction effects between these rewards and intrinsic motivation on creativity and innovation.
Effects of the Extrinsic Motivator Transactional Rewards on Creative and Innovative Performance
Transactional rewards are tangible rewards and refer to any form of financial compensation (e.g., increase in base pay, bonus, monetary awards, and external training with certifications). Regarding transactional rewards, Condly et al. (2003) meta-analysis supported a significant positive main effect between monetary rewards and general performance. Eisenberger and Shanock (2003) found that expected monetary rewards can enhance creativity – a specific form of performance – when participants understand the necessity of performing creative actions, either through instructions or prior experience. These results are consistent with the findings by Deci and Ryan (2014). They found that bonuses for acknowledging the work of individuals are very effective when these knowledge workers expect a bonus. Other researchers, like Malik et al. (2015), found controversial results: Although rewards in general correlated significantly and positively with creativity, financial rewards showed no significant effect on creativity. Malik et al. (2015) explained this finding with the lack of salient transactional stimuli.
Effects of the Extrinsic Motivator Relational Rewards on Creative and Innovative Performance
Unlike transactional rewards, relational rewards are intangible. Thus, relational rewards go beyond financial considerations. They include praise, recognition, and performance feedback (Armstrong, 2012), for example in the form of thank-you cards, hall of fame postings, announcements in newsletters (Armstrong, 2012), or funding a successful team for a particular project that the team appreciates, to mention some (Amabile and Pratt, 2016). Such rewards require interpersonal skills and depend on managerial and collegial behavior in order to build valued relationships (Stajkovic and Luthans, 2001; Armstrong, 2012). Therefore, due to the personal component, it is argued that relational rewards are harder to be imitated by competitors than transactional rewards (Armstrong, 2012). Moreover, transactional rewards “only” require the definition and one-time implementation of the specific financial rewards, whereas relational rewards are continuously time-consuming for managers. Thus, from an organizational perspective, it is argued that both types of rewards differ strongly regarding efforts and competitive advantage. The meta-analyses by Hammond et al. (2011) and Byron and Khazanchi (2012) supported that relational rewards in a controlled motivational environment could have no impact or even negative ones on creative and innovative performance. However, in terms of autonomous motivational work set-ups, supportive feedback and the recognition of managers contribute significantly positive to creative outcomes (Madjar et al., 2002; Amabile et al., 2004; Byron and Khazanchi, 2012; Zhang et al., 2017). Evidence for such a positive main effect explicitly for innovation is provided by Taggar (2002).
Interaction Effects of Extrinsic Motivators and Intrinsic Motivation on Creative and Innovative Performance
Amabile (1993) stated that the above-mentioned positive boosting effects with extrinsic motivators are more likely when intrinsic motivation is high. In addition to the empirical investigations about the main effects in these contexts, the focus of the present study is therefore on the interaction effects with intrinsic motivation. Cerasoli et al. (2014) showed in their meta-analysis that the significant relationship between intrinsic motivation and general performance was stronger when rewards were granted. However, neither performance nor the type of reward was specified in more detail in their meta-analysis. Amabile and Pratt (2016) assumed a similar interaction effect between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivators especially in terms of creative and innovative performance. Therefore, the following is hypothesized (see also Figure 3):
Hypothesis 2a: Transactional rewards moderate the relationship between intrinsically motivated knowledge workers and their creative as well as innovative performance positively.
Hypothesis 2b: Relational rewards moderate the relationship between intrinsically motivated knowledge workers and their creative as well as innovative performance positively.
Materials and Methods
The data was collected through an online self-assessment. The English questionnaire (see Figure 4) was sent by e-mail to knowledge workers of a global business consulting firm working in Germany, Austria, and Switzerland. Participants were informed about the purpose of the survey, while anonymity and confidentiality of their data were assured. No incentives for participating in this survey were given. Additionally, the survey instructions emphasized that there were no right or wrong answers to the questions. One hundred and seventy-five consultants received the questionnaire whereby 120 returned it. Thirty of these were excluded because they had either chosen “I just want to look at all the questions” (N = 2) or had not answered all questions completely (N = 28). Participants who stated “I do not know” for the reward items were excluded listwise. Thus, for the hierarchical regression analyses, only 82 and 87 questionnaires were considered for transactional and relational rewards, respectively. The average age of the participants was 28.27 years (SD = 5.62) with an average job tenure in their current organization of 2.20 years (SD = 2.05). In the sample 42.2% were women. 95.6% of the participants were graduates. This result represents the intended sample of highly educated knowledge workers. Table 1 provides the sociodemographic characteristics of this sample.
FIGURE 4
📷
Figure 4. Online self-evaluation questionnaire (Inquery).
TABLE 1
📷
Table 1. Sociodemographic characteristics of the polled consultants.
In order to control for common method bias due to the self-assessment of a single source, the questionnaire was divided into three sections: Independent, dependent, and moderator variables (Podsakoff et al., 2003). To measure the independent variable “intrinsic motivation”, the WPI by Amabile et al. (1995) was applied. The WPI is a widely used measure to assess (intrinsic and extrinsic) motivation at work (Choi, 2004; Spada and Moneta, 2013). It has acceptable re-test reliabilities of more than 0.60 (Abuhamdeh and Csikszentmihalyi, 2009; Robinson et al., 2014). Its items have been applied in many experiments to better understand motivational behavior for creativity and innovation at work (Prabhu et al., 2008; Chen et al., 2010; Stuhlfaut, 2010). Originally, the WPI consists of 30 items. However, due to the focus on intrinsic motivation within this research (originally 15 WPI items) and to avoid survey fatigue, the number of items was reduced to six intrinsic motivation items. Such WPI item reductions have been previously conducted by other authors such as Robinson et al. (2014) (IMRobinson α = 0.71) and O’Shea (2018) (IMO′Shea α = 0.58). These six items were chosen for their relevance to consultants in their work environment. Opportunities to increase their knowledge and skills (IM item 1: Challenge) as well as to solve complex problems (IM item 6: Challenge) are typical parts of knowledge workers’ business surroundings. Additionally, consultants often prefer to take responsibility early on (Schlossbauer, 2017) which enables them to set goals themselves and work autonomously (IM item 5: Enjoyment). Excluded were items like “[w]hat matters most to me is enjoying what I do”. This item was removed, as consultants generally have to work on all issues the client provides them with, irrespective of whether they enjoy it, or not. This item is argued to be more relevant to self-employed people. Moreover, these six items were selected with the aim to cover a broader field of intrinsic motivation. Therefore, no similar worded items like “I enjoy trying to solve complex problems”/“The more difficult the problem, the more I enjoy trying to solve it” were selected as Robinson et al. (2014) for instance did. The scale reliability of the intrinsic motivation items resulted in a Cronbach’s alpha of 0.54 (Guttman’s α = 0.58). This value represents the alpha after the scale was reduced from six to four items. Although this indicates a reliability index below standard according to Field (2017), this value is not unacceptable. Guttman (1945) stated that alpha values are generally below the actual reliability (Sijtsma, 2009). This indicates that the current intrinsic motivation alpha could be higher than 0.54. In addition to this mathematical inaccuracy of alpha, Kline (1999) supported psychological constructs with reliabilities even below 0.70. He considered them as still realistic and acceptable due to the diversity and complexity of constructs being measured. All items were written in the first person and participants were asked to state the extent to which each item describes them best on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “never or almost never true of me” (1) to “always or almost always true of me” (4).
The research aimed to evaluate the creative and innovative performance at work. Consequently, for the dependent variable creativity and innovation, the focus was set on on-the-job creativity and innovation that arises during daily work. Due to the lack of consensus about the measurement of creativity and innovation among researchers, there is no commonly used measure for these constructs (Nelson et al., 2014; Fisher, 2015). The questionnaire of Dorenbosch et al. (2005) was applied because they were among the first who measured idea generation and idea implementation without having strong correlations. The items with the highest factor loadings (between 0.674 and 0.842) were selected for the current research. All items were written in the first person and measured on the same 4-point Likert scale as the intrinsic motivation items (see Figure 4). In the current sample, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.63 for the three creativity items, 0.58 for the three innovation items, and 0.79 for the combined creativity and innovation items. Consequently, scale reliability for the combined construct was given (Field, 2017).
For measuring transactional and relational reward, no standard measurement exists (Anderson et al., 2014). Transactional and relational reward items from Gagné and Forest (2008) as well as Armstrong (2012) were selected. A distinction between idea generation and implementation for each reward item was made to enable the differentiation between creativity and innovation. Perceptual measures were used in line with previous research to investigate the effects of rewards on creativity (George and Zhou, 2007; Anderson et al., 2014). The relational rewards were divided into symbolic public recognition, individual praise/recognition from the manager, and performance management as suggested by Armstrong (2012). The transactional rewards were divided into monetary rewards as well as training/personal development investments (Armstrong, 2012). See Figure 4 for details. Participants rated the likelihood of receiving the specific rewards on a 4-point Likert scale ranging from “never or almost never likely” (1) to “always or almost always likely” (4). An additional category gave the participants the option to say “I do not know” (5) to increase validity.
In addition, age, gender, job tenure, and education of the participants were controlled. Other control variables were not defined due to the homogeneous sample of knowledge workers working in the same business consulting company and similar working conditions.
Results
Preliminary Analyses
None of the sociodemographic variables (age, gender, job tenure, education) correlated significantly with intrinsic motivation or creativity or innovation (see Table 2). Creativity and innovation correlated moderately and significantly with intrinsic motivation (r = 0.37, p = 0.000), relational rewards (r = 0.34, p = 0.001) and transactional rewards (r = 0.30, p = 0.006). The two measures – creative and innovative performance – showed a significant correlation (r = 0.75, p = 0.000). Generally, all independent and dependent variables were significantly correlated with each other except for intrinsic motivation with transactional rewards (r = 0.14, p = 0.202). Univariate variance analyses with sociodemographic control variables demonstrated no significant differences between creative and innovative performance of males (M = 2.89, SD = 0.53) and females (M = 2.87, SD = 0.52) in this company. Moreover, no significant difference was found between creative and innovative outcomes and the level of education amongst graduates (M = 2.89, SD = 0.52) and non-graduates (M = 2.83, SD = 0.47). Similar findings applied to the different age groups as no significant effect was found. In addition, no significant difference was found between participants who worked 2–3 years in the company (M = 3.00, SD = 0.41) and those who worked more than 5 years (M = 2.50, SD = 0.17).
TABLE 2
📷
Table 2. Means, standard deviations, and intercorrelation among study variables.
The high correlation of 0.75 between creativity and innovation indicated a one-factor solution. This was supported by an EFA. The results showed a Barlett’s Test of Sphericity [chi-square (15) = 148.61, p = 0.000] and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure (KMO) with sampling adequacy of 0.757. This represents a mediocre KMO value, indicating that the variables are suitable for doing an EFA (Backhaus et al., 2016). A principal components analysis with Varimax rotation resulted into a one-factor solution. Overall, this factor explained 49.2% of the variance (eigenvalue = 2.953, Cronbach’s α = 0.79). Therefore, both terminologies were treated as one variable called creativity/innovation performance. This result is in line with Baer (2012) whose findings also showed no significant difference between creativity and innovation. See Table 3 for details.
TABLE 3
📷
Table 3. Pattern and structure matrix of PCA with varimax rotation for a one-factor solution of creativity and innovation items.
To evaluate the transactional and relational reward items another EFA was conducted. The results indicated a Barlett’s Test of Sphericity [chi-square (45) = 566.94, p = 0.000] and Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure (KMO) with sampling adequacy of 0.684. This represents a mediocre KMO value indicating that the variables are suitable for performing an EFA (Backhaus et al., 2016). A principal components analysis with Varimax rotation was done. The EFA was conducted to find a parsimonious solution with a high data fit, meaning to select as little factors with the highest explanation of variance as possible (Tabachnick and Fidell, 2014). Thus, two factors were extracted. Although when following the Kaiser-Kriterium strictly, three factors should have been extracted. This decision was based on three rationales. Firstly, the Kaiser-Kriterium overestimates the number of factors (Field, 2009). Secondly, the third factor had an eigenvalue only slightly above one (eigenvalue = 1.098). Fabrigar et al. (1999) have advised to treat an eigenvalue of one only as a reference point not as a fixed criteria because “it is not really meaningful to claim that a common factor with an eigenvalue of 1.01 is a “major” factor whereas a common factor with an eigenvalue of 0.99 is not” (p. 278). Thirdly, the two-factor solution is in line with the common theoretical distinction between the two constructs transactional and relational rewards (Gagné and Forest, 2008; Armstrong, 2012). The first factor, relational rewards, contained six items, accounting for 34.6% of the variance (eigenvalue = 4.916, Cronbach’s α = 0.86). The factor reflects symbolic public recognition, individual praise from managers, and performance management. The second factor, transactional rewards, accounted for additional 32.8% of the variance (eigenvalue = 1.822, Cronbach’s α = 0.84). It consisted of four items that reflect financial and training investment. Overall, these two factors accounted for 67.4% of the variance. Table 4 provides details about the rotated component matrix of rewards and shows that each creativity (idea generation) and innovation (idea implementation) “item pair” of the reward EFA belongs to the same factor. The high alpha values and factor loadings justified the internal reliability and construct validity (Backhaus et al., 2016).
TABLE 4
📷
Table 4. Pattern and structure matrix of PCA with varimax rotation for a two-factor solution of reward-items.
Effects on Creativity/Innovation Performance
Since the sociodemographic control variables were neither significant nor did they influence the outcome of the regression models, they were not considered in further investigations.
The hypotheses were tested within two 3-step hierarchical linear regression analyses on creativity/innovation. In the first regression analysis on creativity and innovation performance, the independent variable intrinsic motivation was entered in the first step, followed by transactional rewards in the second step. Afterward, the interaction between transactional rewards and intrinsic motivation was added (intrinsic motivation × transactional rewards). This model [F(3.78) = 8.44, p = 0.000] explained a total variance of 24.5% (see Table 5). Intrinsic motivation had a significant effect on creativity/innovation performance (β = 0.38, p = 0.000). Intrinsic motivation demonstrated the highest significant beta values of all measures and a strong effect size of d = 0.42 (Cohen, 1992). Thus, Hypothesis 1 can be confirmed. Transactional rewards had a significant main effect on creativity/innovation (β = 0.23, p = 0.025). However, the interaction effect between intrinsic motivation and transactional reward was not significant (β = 0.17, p = 0.089). Thus, Hypothesis 2a cannot be confirmed.
TABLE 5
📷
Table 5. Hierarchical regression analysis predicting creativity/innovation from intrinsic motivation and transactional rewards.
In the second regression analysis on creativity/innovation performance, the independent variable intrinsic motivation was entered in the first step followed by relational rewards in the second step. Then, the interaction of intrinsic motivation with relational rewards was added (intrinsic motivation × relational rewards). This model [F(3.83) = 9.70, p = 0.000] explained overall 26.0% of the variance. Relational rewards had a significantly positive main effect on creativity/innovation (β = 0.27, p = 0.008) with a Cohen’s d of 0.52. Relational rewards and intrinsic motivation also had a significantly positive interaction effect on creativity/innovation (β = 0.23, p = 0.024). The interaction had an effect size of d = 0.59. This represented a medium effect on creativity/innovation performance (Backhaus et al., 2016). Thus, Hypothesis 2b can be confirmed. Figure 5 visualizes this ordinal interaction effect while the exact figures are presented in Table 6.
FIGURE 5
📷
Figure 5. Interaction effects of intrinsic motivation and relational rewards on creativity/innovation performance.
TABLE 6
📷
Table 6. Hierarchical regression analysis predicting creativity/innovation from intrinsic motivation and relational rewards.
Discussion
This study was the first to analyze most common transactional and relational reward items as a moderator of the relationship between intrinsic motivation and the creativity/innovation performance of knowledge workers. The most important finding of this research demonstrates the significant, positive interaction effect of the extrinsic motivator, relational rewards, and intrinsic motivation on creativity/innovation performance. In addition to this significant interaction effect, the main effects between the dependent variable creativity/innovation performance and each of the three independent variables intrinsic motivation, relational, and transactional rewards showed significant positive results.
The results show a strong and highly significant correlation between on-the-job creativity and innovation. This study supports the view that knowledge workers of the international consulting business do not distinguish between idea generation (creativity) and idea implementation (innovation), unlike the two-construct approach of Amabile and Pratt (2016). Apart from the statistical indication, practical circumstances of the consulting business also necessitate that creativity and innovation are handled as a single construct. This business is characterized by consulting services that generally require only a small amount of product design or technical testing. Once generated ideas are put directly into practice, and thus, idea generation and implementation often coincide in time. This finding is not entirely new and complements the existing literature from Yuan and Woodman (2010), who do not strictly distinguish between creativity and innovation. However, the research question remains open as to whether creativity and innovation are considered as one or two constructs in other work environments. The perception of the two terminologies may vary depending on the mental (consulting business) and physical work environments. More research is needed to link the creative and innovative performance of employees with different organizational settings to foster a comprehensive understanding of their interplay (Dorenbosch et al., 2005; Anderson et al., 2014).
Intrinsic Motivation and Creativity/Innovation Performance
An explicitly strong and significantly positive main effect is found between intrinsic motivation and creative/innovative performance. This implies that the higher the intrinsic motivation, the higher the creative and innovative outcome. This finding confirms the results of earlier research (Hammond et al., 2011; De Jesus et al., 2013; Liu et al., 2016) and supports Amabile and Pratt (2016) model that the individual component “intrinsic motivation” is a critical predictor for creativity. One reason for this significant effect could be that employees who work on perceived inherently interesting tasks enjoy their work, value their personal investment, and dedicate more time to their activities (Ryan and Deci, 2017). Generally, more information is being processed while efforts to develop and implement new and useful ideas are being pursued more persistently (Zhou and Shalley, 2008; Zhang and Bartol, 2010). An additional reason for the significant effect of intrinsic motivation and creativity and innovation performance could be that the work itself involves service to others. Grant and Berry (2011) found that service to others increases the positive effect of intrinsic motivation on creative and innovative outputs. The item “I mobilize support from my supervisor and colleagues for implementing ideas and solutions” could serve as an indicator for supporting the effect stated by Grant and Berry (2011). This item is the only creativity/innovation item that does not explicitly mention service to others. Compared to all other items, this item showed the lowest mean value (Mitem6 = 2.76, SDitem6 = 0.75). The highest values are found when improvements for and with the team are targeted (Mitem4 = 3.01, SDitem4 = 0.65 and Mitem1 = 2.98, SDitem1 = 0.73). Consultants do not only provide service to clients but also help each other on project tasks. Because each project assignment typically has limited resources, success depends on the commitment of each team member. The provision of service to others is promoted by the need for relatedness (Shiraki and Igarashi, 2018). Consequently, it is argued that such a prosocial behavior of consultants satisfies their feeling for relatedness. This, in turn, might increase their intrinsic motivation and so, their creative and innovative outcomes. In addition, Baer et al. (2003), as well as Oldham and Cummings (1996) provided evidence that employees with complex and challenging tasks, such as consultants generally have (Schlossbauer, 2017), show higher intrinsic motivation and thus, greater creative and innovative job performance. By being able to engage in complex and challenging tasks, it is argued that they can prove their competences and abilities which supports their basic need fulfillment. Further research should clarify the assumed role of the different needs in this context.
Relational Rewards, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creativity/Innovation Performance
The results showed a positive, significant main effect between relational rewards and creative/innovative performance. This result is in line with previous research findings on the relationship between supportive manager feedback/recognition and creative outcomes (Madjar et al., 2002; Gong and Zhang, 2017; Zhang et al., 2017). The following argument can explain the main effect of this extrinsic motivator: Relational rewards initiate salient stimuli strong enough to be recognized by consultants. Without salient stimuli, no creative or innovative action would follow (Gerrig and Zimbardo, 2016). In addition to awareness of the rewards, it is argued that these employees value the relational rewards they receive. Without any appreciation of these HRM practices, less creative and innovative performance would occur (Rose, 2014; Malik et al., 2015). Referring to the dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations of Amabile and Pratt (2016), the results showed that HRM practices, in the form of relational rewards, have an essential impact on creativity and innovation. Symbolic public recognition, individual praise, and performance feedback are argued to increase a feeling of competence through the evaluation and confirmation of one’s abilities (Ryan and Deci, 2017). It is therefore expected that the satisfaction of the basic psychological need for competence will be met. It is assumed that this increases autonomous motivation and, in turn, leads to better performance (Ryan and Deci, 2017).
In addition to the significant main effect, the results support a significant, medium interaction effect between relational rewards and intrinsic motivation on creativity/innovative performance. The impact of relational rewards on creative and innovative outputs is notably greater when the intrinsic motivation of knowledge workers is high. This finding supports the assumed boosting effect on performance from Amabile (1993). Additionally, no crowding-out effect occurred by using extrinsic motivators as defined by Kohn (1999). Therefore, relational rewards, as a synergistic extrinsic motivator, can add positively to intrinsic motivation as suggested by Amabile and Pratt (2016). Also, Herzberg (1966) orthogonal factor assumption differs from the current research findings which support dependencies between intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivators. One reason for this significant positive interaction effect might be the perceived appreciation of creativity and innovation in the organization. Perception of an environment is subjective and influenced by what an individual sees, feels, and hears (Atkinson, 1964). Perception might change based on past experiences (Zhou and George, 2001; Dorenbosch et al., 2005). In order to respond to the perceived circumstances, a stimulus – strong enough to trigger motivation – must be present (Gerrig and Zimbardo, 2016). In this context, it is argued that the highly intrinsically motivated knowledge workers perceive that their organization values creativity and innovation. Applying recognition and performance feedback to communicate the appreciation of creative and innovative work is argued to increase employees’ perception and beliefs that creative and innovative efforts are valued within the company (Armstrong, 2012). Therefore, the belief in the importance of creativity and innovation might have influenced employees’ behavior to be more creative and innovative. It is assumed that the likelihood to start new creative and innovative ventures and implement more ideas rises. More attention is given toward making improvements on the job and seeing aspects from different perspectives. This result supports the importance of Amabile and Pratt (2016) organizational component HRM practices.
The theoretical assumption of Amabile and Pratt (2016) on synergistic extrinsic motivators can also be supported with the SDT of Ryan and Deci (2017). When self-determination is given, extrinsic motivators can add positively to the outcome. Self-determination can be reached through the satisfaction of the psychological needs. Several indicators support the need satisfaction of knowledge workers. The highly intrinsically motivated consultants feel most likely satisfied in their need for autonomy due to task ownership and their willingness to take responsibility early on (Schlossbauer, 2017). Additionally, their feeling of competence is triggered by the usage of their know-how and is argued to rise further with verbal praise and feedback because it complements a confirmation of competence. Moreover, it is anticipated that project-oriented employees fulfill their need for relatedness in their project environment, by providing support to their colleagues and clients (Shiraki and Igarashi, 2018). Since the three basic psychological needs have not been empirically tested, it is recommended that future research should specifically analyze their interplay with creative and innovative behavior. Additionally, an emphasis should be set on the different extrinsic motivation types of the SDT from Ryan and Deci (2000). The exact and diversified understanding of work motivation with its subsystems should continue to evolve (Kanfer et al., 2008).
Transactional Rewards, Intrinsic Motivation, and Creativity/Innovation Performance
The data indicated a significant positive main effect between transactional rewards and creative/innovative performance of knowledge workers. This means the higher the transactional rewards, which implied financial and training investments, the higher the creative and innovative outcome. This result is controversial to Malik et al. (2015) who found no significant main effect when analyzing financial rewards. This finding is aligned with previous research findings by Condly et al. (2003) on the positive, significant relation between monetary rewards and work performance. However, neither Condly et al. (2003) nor Malik et al. (2015) performed a cost-benefit analysis to validate the transactional reward program. A reason for the significant main effect might be that consultants generally expect a bonus as part of their annual salary for a job well done. According to Deci and Ryan (2014), such usage of bonuses to acknowledge individual good work is very effective. However, it is argued that the valuation of bonuses is a pre-requisite for their effectiveness because, without any appreciation of these HRM practices, creative and innovative performance would not be likely to occur (Rose, 2014; Malik et al., 2015). Thus, besides the relational rewards, transactional rewards as a HRM practice can also foster creativity and innovation.
No statistically significant interaction between transactional rewards and intrinsic motivation on creativity/innovation was supported. This indicates that transactional rewards do not have to imply a synergistic nor a crowding-out effect. The first rationale for this non-significant interaction effect might be that there is no formal creativity-/innovation-contingent rewards and recognition within the sampled consulting organization. The findings of Eisenberger and Shanock (2003) provide evidence that monetary rewards only increase creativity when employees are aware of the necessity as to why creative performance should happen. This finding is aligned with Malik et al. (2015), who found that rewards need to be present and perceived as relevant to influence creative and innovative performance significantly. Based on current results, it can be argued that the link between these tangible rewards and the commitment to pursue more creative and innovative work may not be specific and clear enough. A second reason for the non-significant effect could be that the standard deviation of 0.85 is very high within a scale from 1 to 4. This number indicates that employees perceive the likelihood of receiving a reward very different among each other. On average, only about one-third of all employees in a company receive rewards (CEB, 2014). Statistically, the remaining two-thirds of employees consider the likelihood of receiving transactional rewards to be low. Therefore, it is argued that the awareness, salience, and accessibility of the creativity-contingent transactional rewards, combined with strong intrinsic motivation, seem to be too little to cause a significant result.
In summary, the two extrinsic motivator effects support the assumption of Amabile et al. (1995) that “the motivational structure is probably more complex than the simple intrinsic-extrinsic distinction suggested by the literature” (p. 957). The results for relational and transactional rewards are also aligned with the SDT of Ryan and Deci (2000) which distinguishes between different types of extrinsic motivation with various effects. The results show that extrinsic motivators can have a positive effect on intrinsic motivation and creative/innovative performance (relational rewards), however, can also have no effect (transactional rewards).
Limitations
When interpreting these results, four main limitations have to be considered. First, the research used self-measurements for all variables as the sole and primary data source. Therefore, the reliability of the data may have been compromised. Although self-evaluation is the most commonly used method of analysis at the individual level (Anderson et al., 2014), it might be problematic if employees do not answer honestly. Instead of providing truthful information, they could indicate how they would like their motivation and creative and innovative performance to be perceived (Bryman and Bell, 2015). Manager reports could resolve this limitation. However, managers have only limited insight into their subordinates’ behavior, thoughts, and informal performance contribution (Organ et al., 2006). Since only the individuals themselves know best how to perceive their environment, the self-assessment approach seemed justified, as suggested by Organ et al. (2006). In order to minimize distortion and falsification, the anonymity and confidentiality of employees’ data were ensured. For future studies, it is recommended to test the results of the research with longitudinal study designs and to select multi-level approaches that examine on an individual, team, and organizational level – and thus, enrich the database.
Second, this study might be considered limited in its scale reliability for the motivational sub-systems. Many academics only consider a Cronbach’s alpha value of 0.70 or higher to show a satisfactory internal consistency (Field, 2017). Not all alpha values measured in this study met this criterion. While the constructs creativity/innovation performance, as well as transactional and relational rewards, showed acceptable scale reliability of minimum 0.79, the corresponding value for intrinsic motivation did not fulfill this criterion (Guttman’s α = 0.58). Nevertheless, besides the fact that intrinsic motivation had such high importance for the investigated model that it could not be excluded from the analyses, 0.58 is still argued to be an acceptable reliability because the calculated alpha values are generally below the actual reliability (Guttman, 1945). Moreover, intrinsic motivation presents a psychological construct. According to Kline (1999), such constructs with reliabilities even below 0.70 are still considered as realistic and acceptable due to the diversity and complexity of constructs being measured.
Third, this research has explicitly analyzed intrinsic motivation and extrinsic reward motivators. Extrinsic motivators are directly related to concrete HRM practices, and thus, represent ways in which companies can influence creative and innovative performance. Hence, the focus has been on these constructs. Gerrig and Zimbardo (2016) assume that extrinsic motivators are a prerequisite of extrinsic motivation. Nevertheless, extrinsic motivation was not directly measured. Future research should empirically measure and compare a more sophisticated breakdown of different motivational systems in relation to creative and innovative performance. For example, Ryan and Deci (2000) four different types of extrinsic motivation that fall along a continuum between autonomous and controlled motivation can guide future research.
Fourth, these research results may be limited to the creativity and innovation performance of knowledge workers in a given consulting firm. Generalization issues might occur due to the purposely, non-random sampling of the survey participants as they were generated through the personal business network of one of the researchers. This method was used for reasons of accessibility and resource constraints, as it was the case in several other studies (Choi et al., 2009). For future studies, however, it is recommended to apply different companies and industries. These would enable the analysis of causal inference related to the findings across various industries. Furthermore, future research should shed light on whether different ages of knowledge workers have an impact on their creative and innovative performance.
Practical Implications
The results supported the positive impact intrinsic motivation has on creativity and innovation. However, because not every employee has an inherently interesting job, employers cannot rely solely on the intrinsic motivation of their employees. In order to promote creativity and innovation in a targeted manner and to make use of this often untapped human potential, extrinsic motivators should also be considered. In particular, leaders are strongly advised to understand the needs of their employees, as well as to be familiar with the organizational targets in order to implement effective HRM practices (Joshi, 2016). Thus, leaders should support the internalization of their employees’ goals with the organizational goals by fulfilling the need for autonomy, competence, and relatedness (Ryan and Deci, 2017). The research findings suggested that HRM practices in the form of individual praise, symbolic public recognition, and performance feedback along with intrinsic motivation foster the creative and innovative outcomes of knowledge workers. Specifically, leaders could enhance their employees’ creative and innovative performance by providing, for instance, constructive feedback or thank-you cards as well as by funding of a successful team in order to demonstrate leaders’ appreciation of their employees’ work. However, it should be noted that each company is characterized by specific values and circumstances with different perceptions and behaviors of its employees (Malik et al., 2015). Country-specific and cultural differences may require local adjustments to some extent in order to achieve the intended outcomes. Most important, the reward tools have to be salient for the individuals in order to let creative and innovation actions occur. Additionally, knowledge workers need to appreciate the incentives offered and need to be aware of how rewards can be achieved. It is recommended that creative people are recognized for their creative and innovative efforts. Such an appreciation should be done even if the activity itself does not lead to an innovation of economic value (Amabile and Pratt, 2016). In addition, it should be noted that providing a relational reward to one employee may be perceived as negative by another employee who does not receive a reward (Joshi, 2016). Establishing an effective reward system requires time and perseverance. Overall, the aim should be to create a “win–win” situation by improving the innovative capacity of the organization in relation to the goals of the employees.
Conclusion
Academics are still at an early stage of understanding the relevance of environmental factors, their relationship to motivational subsystems, and their impact on creativity and innovation (Soriano de Alencar, 2012; Anderson et al., 2014). This survey attempted to make a contribution to these research areas. Overall, these quantitative, cross-sectional research findings help to reduce the ambiguities regarding the synergistic effects of extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation on the creative and innovative performance of knowledge workers. The specific external motivators, relational and transactional rewards, and their effects on the relationship between intrinsic motivation and creative/innovative performance of knowledge workers were tested. By applying the SDT and the dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations, this research provides three contributions to the contradictory literature on motivation, creativity, and innovation:
First, the results confirm the widely found positive effect of intrinsic motivation on the creative/innovative performance of knowledge workers. This relationship remained significant regardless of whether other variables were added to the model. Second, the findings show that extrinsic motivators in the form of relational as well as transactional rewards can have a significant positive main effect on creative/innovative outcomes. Third, with respect to creative/innovative outputs, extrinsic motivators and intrinsic motivation are not necessarily antagonistic and are best considered simultaneously. Particularly relational rewards were found to add a positive, significant effect to intrinsic motivation on creative/innovative output. Thus, relational rewards in the form of symbolic public recognition, individual praise, and performance management can be synergistic to intrinsic motivation in terms of creativity and innovation. Transactional rewards, however, had no significant effect with intrinsic motivation on creative/innovative performance. This indicates that extrinsic motivators are not per se synergistic, nor do they have per se crowding-out effects with intrinsic motivation as well as with creative and innovative performance.
It is recommended that organizations create a “win–win” situation by enhancing organizational innovativeness and considering their employees’ needs. As every company is characterized by specific values with different employees’ perception, it is of critical importance that employers carefully analyze the needs of their employees as well as the needs of their business to create an effective reward system. This research has shown that relational rewards in particular help organizations to enhance the creative and innovative performance of their knowledge workers, which in turn strengthens companies’ competitive advantages.
Data Availability Statement
The dataset is available on request. The raw data supporting the conclusions of this manuscript will be made available by the authors, without undue reservation, to any qualified researcher.
Ethics Statement
The study was conducted according to the ethical rules of the German Psychological Society (DGP – Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychology) which is the equivalent to the APA. The main ethical principles of the DGP are: No intervention in the personal rights of the polled consultants, who did not belong to a special vulnerable group, happened. Pain, psychological stress, exhaustion, fear, or other negative effects can be excluded to be caused by this research set-up as the survey instructions emphasized that there is no right or wrong answer. Moreover, no drugs, placebos, or other substances were given to the participants. No covered participant observation and active deceptions took place while complete clarification about the research aim, procedure, and results were granted to the polled consultants. Every participant provided his/her informed consent with the first question of the survey. This question stated whether the participants wanted to fill in the full questionnaire or whether they just liked to look at the questions. Moreover, all data was anonymized. No names or initials, just four generic sociodemographic characteristics (job tenure, age, highest education level, and gender) were interrogated. Confidentiality of the polled consultants’ data was assured all the time. No incentives for participating in this voluntary survey were given. As these ethical DGP principals have been considered, no further ethical committee was consulted.
Author Contributions
Research design and survey execution were done by CF. The theoretical foundation, data evaluation, and discussion were a common work by CF and CM. CF wrote the first draft of the manuscript. The critical review was provided by CM and ES. CF and CM contributed to manuscript revision. All authors read and approved the submitted version. CM and ES have provided their written consent to the submission of the manuscript in this form. CF has assumed responsibility for keeping CM and ES informed of the progress through the editorial review process, the content of reviews, and any revision made.
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
We would like to show our gratitude to all participants of this survey. We are also very grateful to Dr. Goetz Walter and Dr. Stefan Diestel for their feedback on an earlier version of the manuscript which was handed in the form of a thesis. A publication within Frontiers of Psychology is in line with the policy of the International School of Management. The thesis is the only form in which the data has appeared, and it is not archived online.
Abbreviations
BPNT, basic psychological need theory; EFA, exploratory factor analysis; HRM, human resource management; IM, Intrinsic Motivation; SDT, self-determination theory; WPI, work preference inventory.
References
Abuhamdeh, S., and Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2009). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations in the competitive context: an examination of person-situation interactions. J. Pers. 77, 1615–1635. doi: 10.1111/j.1467-6494.2009.00594.x
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (1988). “A model of creativity and innovation in organizations,” in Research in Organizational Behavior, Vol. 10, eds B. M. Staw and L. L. Cummings (Greenwich, CT: JAI Press), 123–167.
Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M. (1993). Motivational synergy: toward new conceptualizations of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the workplace. Hum. Res. Manag. Rev. 3, 185–201. doi: 10.1016/1053-4822(93)90012-S
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., and Tighe, E. M. (1994). The work preference inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 66, 950–967. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.66.5.950
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M., Hill, K. G., Hennessey, B. A., and Tighe, E. M. (1995). The work preference inventory: assessing intrinsic and extrinsic motivational orientations: correction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 68:580. doi: 10.1037//0022-3514.68.4.580
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M., and Pratt, M. G. (2016). The dynamic componential model of creativity and innovation in organizations: making progress, making meaning. Res. Organ. Behav. 36, 157–183. doi: 10.1016/j.riob.2016.10.001
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Amabile, T. M., Schatzel, E. A., Moneta, G. B., and Kramer, S. J. (2004). Leader behaviors and the work environment for creativity: perceived leader support. Leadersh. Q. 15, 5–32. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2003.12.003
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Anderson, N., Potoènik, K., and Zhou, J. (2014). Innovation and creativity in organizations. J. Manag. 40, 1297–1333. doi: 10.1177/0149206314527128
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Armstrong, M. (2012). Armstrong’s Handbook of Reward Management Practice: Improving Performance Through Reward, 4th Edn. London: Kogan Page.
Google Scholar
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An Introduction to Motivation. New York, NY: D. Van Nostrand Company.
Google Scholar
Backhaus, K., Erichson, B., Plinke, W., and Weiber, R. (2016). Multivariate Analysemethoden: Eine Anwendungsorientierte Einführung, 14th Edn. Berlin: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-3-662-46076-4
CrossRef Full Text
Baer, M. (2012). Putting creativity to work: the implementation of creative ideas in organizations. Acad. Manag. J. 55, 1102–1119. doi: 10.5465/amj.2009.0470
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Baer, M., Oldham, G. R., and Cummings, A. (2003). Rewarding creativity: when does it really matter? Leadersh. Q. 14, 569–586. doi: 10.1016/S1048-9843(03)00052-3
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Bryman, A., and Bell, E. (2015). Business Research Methods, 4th Edn. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Byron, K., and Khazanchi, S. (2012). Rewards and creative performance: a meta-analytic test of theoretically derived hypotheses. Psychol. Bull. 138, 809–830. doi: 10.1037/a0027652
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., and Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic incentives jointly predict performance: a 40-year meta-analysis. Psychol. Bull. 140, 980–1008. doi: 10.1037/a0035661
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Chen, S.-C., Wu, M.-C., and Chen, C.-H. (2010). Employee’s personality traits, work motivation and innovative behavior in marine tourism industry. J. Serv. Sci. Manag. 3, 198–205. doi: 10.4236/jssm.2010.32024
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Choi, J. N. (2004). Individual and contextual predictors of creative performance: the mediating role of psychological processes. Creat. Res. J. 16, 187–199. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2004.9651452
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Choi, J. N., Anderson, T. A., and Veillette, A. (2009). Contextual inhibitors of employee creativity in organizations: the insulating role of creative ability. Group Organ. Manag. 34, 330–357. doi: 10.1177/1059601108329811
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Cohen, J. (1992). Statistical power analysis. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 1, 98–101. doi: 10.1111/1467-8721.ep10768783
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Condly, S. J., Clark, R. E., and Stolovitch, H. D. (2003). “The effects of incentives on workplace performance: a meta-analytic review of research studies 1,” in Performance Improvement Quarterly, ed. J. Turner (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley Researcher Academy), 46–63. doi: 10.1111/j.1937-8327.2003.tb00287.x
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Davis, M. A. (2009). Understanding the relationship between mood and creativity: a meta-analysis. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 108, 25–38. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2008.04.001
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
De Jesus, S. N., Rus, C. L., Lens, W., and Imaginário, S. (2013). Intrinsic motivation and creativity related to product: a meta-analysis of the studies published between 1990–2010. Creat. Res. J. 25, 80–84. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2013.752235
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., and Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychol. Bull. 125, 627–668. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Deci, E. L., Olafsen, A. H., and Ryan, R. M. (2017). Self-determination theory in work organizations: the state of a science. Annu. Rev. Organ. Psychol. Organ. Behav. 4, 19–43. doi: 10.1146/annurev-orgpsych-032516-113108
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Deci, E. L., and Ryan, R. M. (2014). “The importance of universal psychological needs for understanding motivation in the workplace,” in Oxford Library of Psychology. The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, Motivation, and Self-Determination Theory, ed. M. Gagné (Oxford: Oxford University Press), 13–32.
Google Scholar
Dorenbosch, L., van Engen, M. L., and Verhagen, M. (2005). On-the-job innovation: the impact of job design and human resource management through production ownership. Creat. Innov. Manag. 14, 129–141. doi: 10.1111/j.1476-8691.2005.00333.x
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Eisenberger, R., and Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: reality or myth? Am. Psychol. 51, 1153–1166. doi: 10.1037//0003-066X.51.11.1153
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Eisenberger, R., and Shanock, L. (2003). Rewards, intrinsic motivation, and creativity: a case study of conceptual and methodological isolation. Creat. Res. J. 15, 121–130. doi: 10.1080/10400419.2003.9651404
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Fabrigar, L. R., Wegener, D. T., MacCallum, R. C., and Strahan, E. J. (1999). Evaluating the use of exploratory factor analysis in psychological research. Psychol. Methods 4, 272–299. doi: 10.1037/1082-989X.4.3.272
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Field, A. P. (2009). Discovering Statistics Using SPSS. Introducing Statistical Method Series, 3rd Edn. London: SAGE Publications.
Google Scholar
Field, A. P. (2017). Discovering Statistics Using IBM SPSS Statistics, 5th Edn. London: SAGE.
Google Scholar
Fisher, J. E. (2015). Challenges in determining whether creativity and mental illness are associated. Front. Psychol. 6:163. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.00163
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Gagné, M. (ed.) (2014). Oxford Library of Psychology: The Oxford Handbook of Work Engagement, (Motivation), and Self-Determination Theory. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Google Scholar
Gagné, M., and Forest, J. (2008). The study of compensation systems through the lens of self-determination theory: reconciling 35 years of debate. Can. Psychol. 49, 225–232. doi: 10.1037/a0012757
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
George, J. M., and Zhou, J. (2007). Dual tuning in a supportive context: joint contributions of positive mood, negative mood, and supervisory behaviors to employee creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 50, 605–622. doi: 10.5465/amj.2007.25525934
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Gerrig, R. J., and Zimbardo, P. G. (2016). Psychologie, 20th Edn. Munich: Pearson Studium.
Google Scholar
Gong, Z., and Zhang, N. (2017). Using a feedback environment to improve creative performance: a dynamic affect perspective. Front. Psychol. 8:1398. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01398
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Grant, A. M., and Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention: intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 54, 73–96. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2011.59215085
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Guttman, L. (1945). A basis for analyzing test-retest reliability. Psychometrika 10, 255–282. doi: 10.1007/BF02288892
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Hammond, M. M., Neff, N. L., Farr, J. L., Schwall, A. R., and Zhao, X. (2011). Predictors of individual-level innovation at work: a meta-analysis. Psychol. Aesthet. Creat. Arts 5, 90–105. doi: 10.1037/a0018556
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Herzberg, F. (1966). Work and the Nature of Man. New York, NY: Ty Crowell.
Google Scholar
Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., and Zhou, J. (2009). A cross-level perspective on employee creativity: goal orientation, team learning behavior, and individual creativity. Acad. Manag. J. 52, 280–293. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2009.37308035
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Joshi, P. (2016). Relational rewards: creating a fulfilling workplace environment. Int. J. Eng. Manag. Res. 6, 1–5.
Google Scholar
Kanfer, R., Chen, G., and Pritchard, R. D. (2008). Work Motivation: Past, Present and Future. The Organizational Frontiers Series, Vol. 27. New York, NY: Routledge.
Kline, P. (1999). The Handbook of Psychological Testing. London: Routledge.
Google Scholar
Kohn, A. (1999). Punished by Rewards: The Trouble With Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and Other Bribes. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin Co.
Google Scholar
Liu, D., Jiang, K., Shalley, C. E., Keem, S., and Zhou, J. (2016). Motivational mechanisms of employee creativity: a meta-analytic examination and theoretical extension of the creativity literature. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 137, 236–263. doi: 10.1016/j.obhdp.2016.08.001
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Madjar, N., Oldham, G. R., and Pratt, M. G. (2002). There’s no place like home? The contributions of work and nonwork creativity support to employees’ creative performance. Acad. Manag. J. 45, 757–767. doi: 10.2307/3069309
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Malik, M. A. R., Butt, A. N., and Choi, J. N. (2015). Rewards and employee creative performance: moderating effects of creative self-efficacy, reward importance, and locus of control. J. Organ. Behav. 36, 59–74. doi: 10.1002/job.1943
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychol. Rev. 50, 370–396. doi: 10.1037/h0054346
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
McClelland, D. C. (1985). How motives, skills, and values determine what people do. Am. Psychol. 40, 812–825. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.40.7.812
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Montag, T., Maertz, C. P., and Baer, M. (2012). A critical analysis of the workplace creativity criterion space. J. Manag. 38, 1362–1386. doi: 10.1177/0149206312441835
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Nelson, A., Earle, A., Howard-Grenville, J., Haack, J., and Young, D. (2014). Do innovation measures actually measure innovation? Obliteration, symbolic adoption, and other finicky challenges in tracking innovation diffusion. Res. Policy 43, 927–940. doi: 10.1016/j.respol.2014.01.010
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Oldham, G. R., and Cummings, A. (1996). Employee creativity: personal and contextual factors at work. Acad. Manag. J. 39, 607–634. doi: 10.5465/256657
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Organ, D. W., Podsakoff, P. M., and MacKenzie, S. B. (2006). Organizational Citizenship Behavior: Its Nature, Antecedents, and Consequences. Foundations for Organizational Science. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
Google Scholar
O’Shea, S. C. (2018). Characteristics and skills necessary in accountancy. Int. J. Bus. Manag. 13, 22–32. doi: 10.5539/ijbm.v13n1p22
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Podsakoff, P. M., MacKenzie, S. B., Lee, J.-Y., and Podsakoff, N. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: a critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. J. Appl. Psychol. 88, 879–903. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.88.5.879
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Prabhu, V., Sutton, C., and Sauser, W. (2008). Creativity and certain personality traits: understanding the mediating effect of intrinsic motivation. Creat. Res. J. 20, 53–66. doi: 10.1080/10400410701841955
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Richter, A. W., Hirst, G., van Knippenberg, D., and Baer, M. (2012). Creative self-efficacy and individual creativity in team contexts: cross-level interactions with team informational resources. J. Appl. Psychol. 97, 1282–1290. doi: 10.1037/a0029359
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Robinson, G. F., Switzer, G. E., Cohen, E. D., Primack, B. A., Kapoor, W. N., Seltzer, D. L., et al. (2014). Shortening the work preference inventory for use with physician scientists: WPI-10. Clin. Transl. Sci. 7, 324–328. doi: 10.1111/cts.12132
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Rose, M. (2014). Reward Management. London: Kogan Page.
Google Scholar
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2000). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: classic definitions and new directions. Contemp. Educ. Psychol. 25, 54–67. doi: 10.1006/ceps.1999.1020
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2002). “Overview of self-determination theory: an organismic dialectical perspective,” in Handbook of Self-Determination Research, eds E. L. Deci and R. M. Ryan (Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press).
Google Scholar
Ryan, R. M., and Deci, E. L. (2017). Self-Determination Theory: Basic Psychological Needs in Motivation, Development, and Wellness. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
Google Scholar
Schlossbauer, S. (2017). Successful DNA Decoded: The Top Skills Needed by Consultants. Available at: https://us.experteer.com/magazine/successful-dna-decoded-10-skills-needed-consultants/.
Shiraki, Y., and Igarashi, T. (2018). “Paying it forward” via satisfying a basic human need: the need for relatedness satisfaction mediates gratitude and prosocial behavior. Asian J. Soc. Psychol. 21, 107–113. doi: 10.1111/ajsp.12211
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Sijtsma, K. (2009). On the use, the misuse, and the very limited usefulness of cronbach’s alpha. Psychometrika 74, 107–120. doi: 10.1007/s11336-008-9101-0
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Soriano de Alencar, E. (2012). “Chapter 5 - creativity in organizations: facilitators and inhibitors,” in Handbook of Organizational Creativity, ed. M. D. Mumford (Amsterdam: Academic Press), 87–111.
Google Scholar
Spada, M. M., and Moneta, G. B. (2013). Metacognitive and motivational predictors of surface approach to studying and academic examination performance. Educ. Psychol. 34, 512–523. doi: 10.1080/01443410.2013.814196
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Stajkovic, A. D., and Luthans, F. (2001). Differential effects of incentive motivators on work performance. Acad. Manag. J. 44, 580–590. doi: 10.5465/3069372
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Stuhlfaut, M. W. (2010). Evaluating the work preference inventory and its measurement of motivation in creative advertising professionals. J. Curr. Issues Res. Adv. 32, 81–93. doi: 10.1080/10641734.2010.10505277
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Tabachnick, B. G., and Fidell, L. S. (2014). Using Multivariate Statistics. Always Learning, 6th Edn. Harlow: Pearson Education.
Taggar, S. (2002). Individual creativity and group ability to utilize individual creative resources: a multilevel model. Acad. Manag. J. 45, 315–330. doi: 10.2307/3069349
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Yuan, F., and Woodman, R. W. (2010). Innovative behavior in the workplace: the role of performance and image outcome expectations. Acad. Manag. J. 53, 323–342. doi: 10.5465/AMJ.2010.49388995
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Zhang, J., Gong, Z., Zhang, S., and Zhao, Y. (2017). Impact of the supervisor feedback environment on creative performance: a moderated mediation model. Front. Psychol. 8:256. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00256
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Zhang, X., and Bartol, K. M. (2010). The influence of creative process engagement on employee creative performance and overall job performance: a curvilinear assessment. J. Appl. Psychol. 95, 862–873. doi: 10.1037/a0020173
PubMed Abstract | CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Zhou, J., and George, J. M. (2001). When job dissatisfaction leads to creativity: encouraging the expression of voice. Acad. Manag. J. 44, 682–696. doi: 10.2307/3069410
CrossRef Full Text | Google Scholar
Zhou, J., and Shalley, C. E. (eds) (2008). Handbook of Organizational Creativity. New York, NY: Tylor and Francis.
Google Scholar
Keywords: creativity, innovation, intrinsic motivation, synergistic extrinsic motivator, relational rewards, transactional rewards, recognition, performance feedback
Citation: Fischer C, Malycha CP and Schafmann E (2019) The Influence of Intrinsic Motivation and Synergistic Extrinsic Motivators on Creativity and Innovation. Front. Psychol. 10:137. doi: 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.00137
Received: 31 July 2018; Accepted: 15 January 2019; Published: 04 February 2019.
Sukanlaya Sawang, Queensland University of Technology, AustraliaEdited by:
Brock Bastian, The University of Melbourne, Australia Chien-Sing Lee, Sunway University, MalaysiaReviewed by:
Copyright © 2019 Fischer, Malycha and Schafmann. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Carmen Fischer, fischer.m.carmen@gmail.com
Disclaimer: All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher."
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
60 answers
There must be a reason to work, so there must be an idea of pursuing research career. Let us share our experiences and motivate others.
Do you have any idea of how it may impact the following -
What are Health effects ?
How it effects sustainability ?
Is there any study on growth impacts ?
What about energy and environment ?
How it impacts the ecology and environment ?
How it impacts the local economy ?
Relevant answer
Dear Dr. Omkar S. Kushwaha,
I consider that the first of all to have a great vocation for research work. Only in this way can we take responsibility for the content that we are going to offer to the research community in general. The research work must also be attractive and interesting with clear intentions of being able to contribute to advancing the knowledge of the disciplinary Sector to which we are dedicated. It is also important that we not only conceive theoretical works that would only find a physical location in a library, but that they be "living" research works, circulating and interacting in multidisciplinary environments.
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
7 answers
This anonymous survey is open to all UK and Middle East academics, researchers, postgraduate students, and professionals. It takes 10 minutes to complete. At the end of the survey you will be offered the opportunity to fill in your details on a separate online form, in case you wish to be considered for the prize draw. To participate, please click on the link below. You are welcome to share the link with your professional and/or social network too.
This is a survey for a Master’s thesis and your support is greatly appreciated. The title of the study is ‘‘The role of leadership self-efficacy (LSE) in developing academic and professional leaders’’. You can find more information in the Participant Information Sheet, which is available with the survey.
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you! More than 300 responses received so far. The survey will be open until midnight (London, UK Time) today. Thank you for helping.
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
15 answers
Dear all,
What tool can be used to measure motivation in scholars, teachers and students who are in home isolation or work remotely?
Any specific tool suitable for all people involved in Academia and Education? Or any brief standard measure to investigate motivation?
This question rised from a recent talk with my colleague, who expressed a bit of regret about students' lack of attention (camera offs, chating with smb else) via Zoom classes.
Moreover, many scientists and school teachers have admitted this on social media or even in Nature column (https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01292-x).
Please, share your thoughts. Thank you.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Anastasia Peshkovskaya I agree with the statements by
Cheza Olmoguez
and Bulcsu Szekely
Regards!
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
3 answers
Work-family conflict (WFC) results when work interferes with family time or space; or when family matters interfere with work. These WFC events can cause tension within family or at work. Can you suggest what theoretical lens (or theories or conceptual frameworks) can be used from sociology, organisational theory, family literature, feminist studies or psychology or conflict literature to study WFC?
Relevant answer
Answer
I think the direction of your study drawing from your research questions and objectives are critical in determining your theoretical frame. For instance, if your study intend to probe the status quo of the family institution vis-a-vis the changes it effect or trigger, conflict theory, political economy theory or critical theory would be more appropraite for your study. But on the contrary, functionalist or system theory can be adopted for your study.
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
7 answers
I'm working on the relation of trust and mental well-being of managers at the moment. However, the field is blurred from what I have seen so far. Has anyone done any research on the topic? Any insights are much appreciated.
Relevant answer
Answer
Check the following reference Please.. it might's assist you in your question …
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
31 answers
Hello, guys. So, I'm doing an informative speech for my Public Speaking class and I had originally done some posts to catch some ideas about the topic of Motivation, when I had suddenly come across this idea after something that happened in my life recently.
So, I wanted to ask if any of you guys have ideas for subtopics and articles for those subtopics, that I can use in my 6-7 minute presentation time frame. Thank you, guys.
UPDATE: I completed my speech presentation a long time ago and got a good grade on it. Now, I'm doing my best to exemplify what it means to be a good person.
Relevant answer
Answer
I think the reason is social responsibility
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
3 answers
So, I'm going to have to do a speech about the topic of motivation and I want to be able to have resources I can use to help put together 3 Subtopics or Points to talk about. This presentation will be given to other classmates in my Public Speaking class. They will not know a whole lot about a topic such as this entering in.
My goal is to inform the audience the different factors that tie into lack/loss of motivation along with some of the effects and to show them that there is also a difference between laziness and apathy, and on the side, possibly even more important, keeping it simple enough to where I don't lose the audience's attention. The thesis also needs some work and fine-tuning, right now as well.
I was just wondering if there was any recent and interesting research articles I could have immediate access in order to try and look at to help spur some ideas. There's a certain outline and such I need to follow for this as well that will be attached to this question for further details. Thank You.
Relevant answer
Answer
I assume that an audience with little (academic) knowledge of the topic will want something they can use in their everyday life. Of course you cannot aim to teach them "how to be motivated" like people new to the topic often hope, but you can give them some concepts that help them think in a more elaborate way about their own and others' behavior.
Topics I would suggest (pick 3):
- Attribution theory, a simple way to connect patterns of thought to behavior
- Approach vs. avoidance motivation/goals, e.g. based on Elliot (2006).
- Carol Dweck's theory of fixed vs. growth mindsets is - in my opinion - very instructive for laypeople, plus it connects well with attribution theory and approach-avoidance motivation.
- Others have proposed SDT by Decy and Ryan, but thats a huge and complex theory, so maybe just stick with extrinsic vs. intrinsic motivation.
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
3 answers
Dear all,
I'm developing a video game for the Cerebral Palsy patients, to increase the hope and motivation in them. but the Question is: how much excitement is useful for them?
as you know, The high excitement causes spasticity in patients with cerebral palsy. and also if the video game does not have enough charm, the patient will not be motivated.
Regards,
Hafezi
Relevant answer
Answer
What kind of video games we are talking about? I'll be better of you'd share some details.
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
6 answers
Are there any evidence that state that hygiene factors must be reached first in order to better address motivator factors?
Relevant answer
Answer
Are You aware of the article "Does Herzberg's motivation theory have staying power?" from 2005 by Basset-Jones & Loyd?
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
19 answers
Free research is good, but not for a Phd student with empty pockets and without a real research grant.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Nabil,
Personal satisfaction is a key driving force behind research. Dissemination and interaction is a key - after all one needs constructive criticism to move forward, and collaboration to be more efficient and naturally to create a pleasurable working environment. However platforms like this one and many others tend to bridge a gap created by limited funding - just imagine how you could communicate, share and get access to research from your peers 20 years ago. Enjoy your work, and enjoy the benefits of technology and existing platforms. And have fun doing it :)
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
3 answers
Subject: An academic dishonesty - its psychological and cultural predictors
The subject matter of the present project is linked to a current problem in every stage of education, namely academic dishonesty among students. The phenomenon of academic dishonesty is widespread and it is treated lightly and indulgently in some countries. The analysis in this project is focused on academic dishonesty namely: cheating, plagiarism and falsification. The main aim is twofold; firstly, to determine the role of culture and personal characteristics in academic dishonesty and secondly, to verify the prevalence of academic dishonesty in different countries.
The study will test a model of academic dishonesty in different countries. It will verify the relationship between academic dishonesty, self-control, perfectionism, flourishing, distress, and culture. It is assumed that a positive verification of the relationships assumed in the model will be a significant and original contribution to an ongoing international debate on the academic dishonesty. Moreover, I would also like to test cultural differences using the model. The research is based on 300 students from different countries and we are going to collect data via Internet using e-questionnaires.
If you would like to collect data in your country, contact me. I intend to disseminate the results of the project in a form of articles published in the international journals with a recognized impact factor; I can therefore offer you a co-authorship. If you have any questions, please don’t hesitate to contact me us.
I look forward to hearing from you.
You can see a list of my publications from the previous projects:
If you would like to join us, contact me: gatta@kul.pl I would welcome your collaboration!
Agata Błachnio, PhD with habilitation
The John Paul II Catholic University of Lublin, Poland
Emotion and Motivation Psychology Department
Lab A&A
Relevant answer
Answer
interesting :)
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
17 answers
I understand that controlling behaviours thwart individual needs and suppress motivation leading to amotivation, but what is the mechanism that causes students to become disruptive, to actively damage the classroom climate? Or in other words, SDT explains why students become amotivated, but can it also explain why students become actively 'naughty'.
Relevant answer
Answer
Controlling behaviors don't inherently lead to amotivation; amotivation arises when someone doesn't value a behavior or its outcomes, or lacks the competence to engage in it.
I would caution you against branding defiant behavior as always "naughty;" one can pursue defiance for defiance's sake -- as a means of escaping control, which thwarts need satisfaction -- or defiance as an attempt to evoke autonomy support and get needs met.
I think this article may be helpful:
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
32 answers
Motivating, encouraging and assessing students to learn.
Relevant answer
Thanks for this question.
I have been a teacher for over 20 years, and this question goes to the heart of this profession. Authenticity is key here. I see so many teachers 'throwing away' praise. Kids are clever, and very quickly work out how 'meaningful' your encouragement is. If a kid is not doing so well, but you feel they need encouragement, do not fall into the trap of commending them for a mediocre performance. Equally, do not chastise them for this. Be accurate, and give them a measure of what they are doing, and how they can do it better.
Most important, and very simple: stress 'work', not 'intelligence'. Use the verb 'work' or synonyms to describe the path to achievement: "If you are able to work more on your reading, this will get better" or "You just didn't work hard enough on this project, that's why this project gets an F'.
Also, stress the objects the child produces, and not the child itself. You are not in the business of critiquing the child and their developing personality, but you are in the business of doing this to their work; the products they produce. Such an externalisation allows the child to develop as a conceptual thinker, without connecting issues of 'blame', and 'incompetence', or innate stupidity with their person - more with their work, and whether they put enough into it or not.
Sounds really simple, but difficult when you are in the thick of it in a classroom. IMHO, many people teach, few are teachers. It is an artform.
It naturally depends upon the age of the students. Different developmental phases may evince specific approaches to motivation.
Ultimately, you want to grow a child's self-confidence and self-efficacy. How capable they think they are and who well will do. You can work between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, but really, the more you can motivate a child intrinsically, the better.
To be honest, there is a lot of work on motivation in the classroom. I suggest going off for a search of appropriate material, and a good read.
I hope this helps,
Best wishes,
Alex
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
4 answers
The literature of motivation, specifically in the framework of the Self-Determination Theory, lacks from more higher-level or implicit measurements. For example, Wismer, Ziegler, Kurian, Jacoris and Pollak (2005) found lower levels of oxytocin for children who scored high levels of social neglect in response to an interaction with their adoptive mothers. Such research show biological evidence for processes of accommodation or desensitization, which is interesting for the current ways of research we want to do. Are there other methods we can use to measure more psychophysiological artefacts of motivation and psychological need frustration/satisfation (e.g. EEG, etc.) ?
Relevant answer
Answer
The following paper discusses implicit measures:
Uhlmann, E. L., Leavitt, K., Menges, J. I., *Koopman, J., *Howe, M. D., &
Johnson, R. E. (2012). Getting explicit about the implicit: A taxonomy of implicit measures and guide for their use in organizational research.
Organizational Research Methods, 15, 553-601.
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
19 answers
We know that the employee's attitudes express his or her positive or negative feelings towards a specific thing such as the organization or the leader, which can change over time to turn from positive to negative or vice versa. Can Attitudes turn into personal traits that are hard to change?
Relevant answer
Answer
Employee attitudes when they crystallize over time may become personal traits
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
3 answers
As per requirement of my class assignment. I need to conduct a research related to Mobile Banking with Expectation Confirmation Model. I want to test the correlation between  the construct " Sociability of User" is positively correlated with perceived performance and satisfaction. Hence I need a scale ( Preferably free and short) to measure extroversion of respondents
Kindly help
Regards
Partha 
Relevant answer
Answer
Partha
You can get a suitable scale from the International Personality Item Pool (ipip.ori.org). Look at the items in the scale before choosing a scale (i.e. do not just look at the name of the scale) as they can differ widely.
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
21 answers
Dear All,
Would you please advise me from where I could find a free version of Wong's Emotional Intelligence Scale (WEIS) or the “Bar-On model of emotional and social intelligence”?
Many thanks in advance.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Karine,
If you are interested, I can send you  the Emotional Skills and Competence Questionnaire (ESCQ) we developed and it has cross culturally validated. The info about ESCQ you can find at:  https://www.researchgate.net/publication/235938207_Emotional_Skills_and_Competence_Questionnaire_ESCQ_as_a_self-report_measure_of_emotional_intelligence
Have a nice day.
Best
Vladimir (Tale) Takšić
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
4 answers
For my master thesis, I analysed my quantitative data, with SPPS.
I conducted an experiment within-subject, 6 type of resume with 2 different level of education attainment.  2 Dutch resumes, 2arabic, 2 anonymouse- vary in MBO/HBO education level. I'm testing for the effect of the introduction of anonymous resume on recruiters perception of the hirerability.-education level is my moderator. I run mixed linear model analyses, how to report the results?
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you so much, Annalise, it is very helpful.
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
6 answers
Because there are papers favoring both the relationships. Please provide your take regarding the directionality of this relationship.
Relevant answer
Answer
Mr. Marco V. Rossi,
Thank you very much for presenting your take.
"Brand experience 1 is an antecedent of the customer engagement state 1 which leads in tun to the brand experience 2 (in this case, a consequence of the state of engagement). It's a circular process according to me."
Ya! It is a pretty convincing comment. 
Cheers!
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
2 answers
How much have differences between proactive states and proactive behavior?
Relevant answer
Answer
I think Orlando already explained to you the difference in detail. If you need to know the current research on proactivity, see the following book
Parker, S. K., & Bindl, U. K. (Eds.). 2017. Proactivity at Work: Making Things Happen in Organizations. London: Routledge.
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
3 answers
I would like to identify large public datasets that can support within and between subjects analysis among cognitive, emotional, and behavioral measures. The goal is to achieve a diverse sample of human psychological and behavioral functioning. Data that have many (20+) observations for two or more measures over time within subjects are desired. The subjects dimension should preferably also be about 30+. Any pointers are greatly appreciated!
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
4 answers
I am looking for a perfectionism questionnaire and many researches about this, and also I'm looking for a questionnaire measuring ability to cooperate.
Thanks
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Nadia,
Perhaps the Work Ability Index could be helpful for your aim.
best wishes
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
4 answers
Good evening, colleagues!
In one of our qualitative study, we investigate organizational identity (employees' identity, organizational citizenship). Now we would like to collect some quantitative data. Do you know any validated measurements (questionnaires preferred) on identity? Any suggestion would be helpful!
Faithfully,
Eugene
Relevant answer
Answer
dear Yevgen, take a look at scale suggested by Leach et al. (2008) in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and our 2013 paper in British Journal of SP (Postmes, Haslam, & Jans, 2013, see also https://www.researchgate.net/publication/258509180_SISI_social_identification for recommendations on how to implement & measure this). For older scales that are interesting and relevant you could check out Mael & Ashforth's org.identification scale as well as Meyer & Allen's work on org. commitment.
Finally, you may be interested in a new measure of identity content we developed: Turner, Postmes, & Van Zomeren, 2015. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0137879
Best, Tom
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
4 answers
Hi :)
Im writing my bachelor thesis and want to make a questionnaire to compare energy-using-strategies (electricity) from solarexperts and "normal people". Also using the theory of planned behaviour.
The tricky part is to operationalize sufficiency and efficiency for my questionnaire.
Do you have any good paper or questionnaire for me to recommend?
Thanks and greeetings
Tim Pauli
ps. Sorry for my bad english. My Motherlanguage is german. So I'd prefer papers written in german :)
Relevant answer
Answer
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
10 answers
Dear researchers,
my personal work and passion is about supporting individuals in getting awareness about their personal values in order to enable them to set autonomous goals and to strive for intrinsically rather than extrinsic aspirations. I measure the effects on variables like goal attainment, subjective well-being, psychological well-being, and ecological as well as social behaviour.
To measure psychological well-being I use the psychological well-being scale by Ryff (1989). As I read a lot of studies in the area of self-determination theory, I read the very insightful empirical study by Brown & Ryan (2003) about the effects of mindfulness on different well-being scales. In that study they state (Brown & Ryan, p. 828) that they used subscales of Ryff's psych. wb scale to measure the satisfaction of the three psychological needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness. I wonder if this is possible with the subscales of Ryffs scale and if so, which subscales can be used to measure the three psychological needs validly.
I ask that question because I did a lot of studies with Ryff's psychological well-being scale and it would be very interesting for me, if I could use the scales also to measure the satisfaction of the psychological needs for autonomy, competence and relatedness. This could generate more insights.
Kind regards and thank you!
Benedict
Literature:
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M. (2003). The benefits of being present: mindfulness and its role in psychological well-being. Journal of personality and social psychology, 84(4), 822-848.
Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning of psychological well-being. Journal of personality and social psychology, 57(6), 1069-1081.
Relevant answer
Answer
I think you have answered your own question. It would seem a terrific endeavor to use the scales the way you indicated.
I'd like to receive the studies and results.   pratibhagramann@gmail.com
Pratibha Gramann, Ph.D.
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
4 answers
I want to apply self determination theory to motivate  technology adaption. to test the this experimentally, are the three needs (autonomy, relatedness, and competence) all required together? or one of them is enough for  self determined motivation?
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi Nora,
Based on SDT, all three psychological needs are required for developing motivation. However, their importance is different with greater emphasis put on autonomy.
You can read this article for more information:
Hope it helps.
Hassan
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
1 answer
Some researches define it as 'personal and professional influences'. And some define it as internal and external influences. Some of these influences (or I call it as factors) are personality, religion, life philosophy, supervisor preference, training received, peer orientation etc...
Is there any recent study about these influences that affecting theoretical orientation choice of counselors? 
Originally i use the work 'factors'. Should I change it to 'influences'?
Relevant answer
Answer
Noted you intend to use both questionnaire survey and in-depth interview. It depends on what is your research paradigm and how you frame your research question and project. You could use the in-depth interviews, and identify themes underlying counselors' choice of their theoretical orientations, or design the survey based on what the research and literature out there are saying, and use the in-depth interviews to add further insights to what you have captured in your survey data. 'Influences' probably work better if you are approaching this qualitatively and inductively, especially if you have not found much literature in your context and country. But that is only my view, let's see if others can add to it.
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
3 answers
Dear friends on Researchgate,
for my current research project I marvel about the relationship between classical affective conditioning and mere exposure with respect to preference acquisition for brands.
In particular I do not understand whether classical conditioning is only possible with positive or negative affect as the unconditional stimulus and a brand as the conditional one, OR whether neutral affect could also be used? If neutral affect were present, would it not be classical conditioning, but mere exposure? 
An example to clarify my question: Person A goes to a friend's house and sees Brand X, which Person A finds very surprising.
In line with appraisal theory the valence of the emotion (surprise) would be classified as neutral, because it was unexpected. Would Person A in that case be subject to classical conditioning or mere exposure? Sources to help me answer the question would be very welcomed.
THANK YOU :)
Relevant answer
Answer
I suppose it dépends on evaluative response, so we're not here in classical conditioning, nor mere exposure but in evaluative conditioning, the affective value (the surprise is temporary and may be liked or disliked) of the unconditional stimulus may lead to the issue.
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
3 answers
I am interested in conducting research in bush Alaska for my masters thesis. I teach in a village of 100 at school with 18 students. What research questions come to mind? I seek to help the struggling community or do research that could help empower the students to change the cycle of abuse and apathy that exists in the current climate. 
Relevant answer
Answer
@Jeanne Lizama, 
Thank you for your thoughts. I appreciate the time you put into answering my question. I would like to stray away from any research question regarding abuse, but instead, seek to deepen a dying culture and  provide hope for the future. If you have any thoughts regarding these topics, I urge you to answer again.
@Regina Fanjul,
I am excited to read into this research on resilience. Thank you for posting here!
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
14 answers
As a teacher, I am constantly trying to move away from using external motivators to "get" my students to do things. Instead, I seek to help students build their own internal motivators so that when they leave my class, they will be prepared to combat anything with the right frame of mind, pursuing tasks without the need for dangling carrots or gold stars. 
I am wondering if anyone knows of research that deals with the letting go of extrinsic motivation. 
Or... the adopting of intrinsic motivators as the reason for accomplishing goals and tasks. 
The main goal would be to get some research or thoughts on how to help shift motivations without using extrinsic motivators along the way. Teaching students to seek understanding and to then share that knowledge with others, but never using external motivators to get them there. 
This is kind of an out there idea, but one I've been seeking an answer to for a long time. 
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi Andrew, 
I wouldn't necessarily say this is an out there idea, and not an unusual request given today's understanding on motivation. Motivation is generally the product of a few things, firstly personality, secondly potential reward, and finally and I think most importantly a performance/motivating climate. The latter is what will get your students into the idea of working for intrinsic reasons. 
I would suggest reading around Deci and Ryan's Self Determination Theory, with a view to looking for ways to increase Autonomy, Competence, and Relatedness within your classroom. Mallet gives a nice overview of some tools you can use to increase self-determined motivation in his paper (I have attached here). 
A very good book to read on this basic idea is Drive by Dan Pink, It is aimed towards business but can easily be applied to education. 
With regards to 'letting go' of extrinsic motivation. I find that term troubling because it assumes the extrinsic motivation is bad. In my opinion extrinsic motivation is neither good nor bad and should be used in conjunction with intrinsic motivators depending on the situation and the person. Moving away from this idea that motivation is either intrinsic or extrinsic is probably the way forward. Let's face it life isn't either/or it is both. Most people do things for both intrinsic and extrinsic reasons, although depending on the people in your class you may find you have no choice but to use the carrot and stick method. You first port of call should be to change the climate, let go of all preconceptions of motivation, and try to build a self-determined approach to motivation (it's radical and will feel horrible to begin with).
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
9 answers
The standard studies focus on the magnitude question, but I’m wondering if there are studies on the question of the type of reward. Suppose a subject is indifferent between an infusion of glucose of a certain size, and finding out that she has won a certain amount of money. The specific cues predict the glucose, but instead she finds that she is to be paid the money. Indifference means that there’s no need for a reward prediction error concerning magnitude. But it’s surely surprising, relevant to learning, etc., that she got cash rather than glucose…
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear David,
This question does not exactly enter into my field of expertise, I am afraid. But it points to something important, i.e., whether the difference between expected and obtained value is precisely dimensional. In other words how to consider the reinforcement value of the mismatch expressed by this difference. The question is as whether the change in reinforcement category can add to this assessment, in the sense of the "good enough mother" (Winnicott) where a slight mismatch adds to the result value..
This suggestion is a response to Lucas, since any novelty is not disruptive, as we know it from curiosity responses.
Hope this means something to you, If not, I would be glad to better understand what you look after!
Françoise
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
4 answers
Self determination theory states that people have innate psychological needs  ( autonomy, competence and relatedness) that are the basis for intrinsic motivation. I am interested in studies on interpersonal differences in the importance of these needs. Do some people need more autonomy or relatedness than others? Which factors contribute to these differences?  
Relevant answer
Answer
Hello Arno,
Do you know this article ?
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
5 answers
I would like to investigate the process of negotiation between two individuals, when one is trying to persuade the other to do something that they are unmotivated/unwilling to do (e.g. giving money to charity). Are there any established tasks using similar scenarios that have been employed in previous studies?
Relevant answer
Answer
Regarding persuasion techniques, this article may be useful:
Hausken, K. (1997), “Game-theoretic and Behavioral Negotiation Theory,” Group Decision and Negotiation 6, 6, 509-527.
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
7 answers
Hey,
I am doing research in the field of Self-Determination Theory. I am looking for a way to measure a person's awareness about his or her personal values on the one hand and for measuring the use of his or her personal values on the other hand. Any recommendations?
Best regards
Benedict
Relevant answer
I saw your references. I'll sugggest Schwartz but he just has known by you. 
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
5 answers
Most of the teachers are always supposed to motivate learners while they themselves are not motivated enough! How can an unmotivated teacher motivate a group of unmotivated learners? 
Relevant answer
Answer
Teacher self-efficacy has been a topic of research for several decades; but, it is only in the last decade that research on teachers' own motivation has burgeoned. You can find an excellent review of the recent scholarship in:
Richardson, P. W., Karabenick, S. A., & Watt, H. M. (2014). Teacher motivation: Theory and practice. Routledge.
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
3 answers
Hello,
I'm using dynamic stimuli (17 morphed pictures : neutral to emotional valence (happy,angry,etc)). In each trial, the morphing stimulus was presented for 500ms.
Currently, the onset of stimulus is on the first picture (neutral).
Edit: resolved
Thank you for your answer.
William
Relevant answer
Answer
I assumed that the purpose of your study was to compare ERP deflections between all of your morphed images, thereby assessing what difference affective content makes. If this is the case, then surely you would need to present each of your images - perhaps in random order - and examine the potentials corresponding to each from a series of repeated runs. I've not been involved with ERP designs, so it's probably best to await a response from somebody more familiar with experiements if this sort.
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
2 answers
Can anyone recommend any literature on horse racing event attendance motivation? Also, the festival motivation of attendees? I am looking for materials that could help me with my research on what motivates people to attend horse racing event and compare horse racing event cum festival. Is it any motivation different between horse racing event and horse racing event inject festival elements. It could be past research, journals, books, anything will be helpful really. Thank you.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear Mary,
Thank you for your valuable information. It very useful for my research paper!
Best regards,
Ivy
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
7 answers
Motivation and education
Relevant answer
Answer
However remember to be cautious in the use and application of the tools. The questionnaire may be readily available but target group different from different regions and back grounds. Hence tools are always contracted to suit a particular study within a given environment. 
There may be need to adapt the tool to suit your need. 
Try to construct one yourself. You will find it most interesting.and try to explain what the score means and how would one interpret the scores. What would you deduce from the scores. 
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
13 answers
I need to select and research an article on motivational speaking and making ethical decisions.  I need to summarize the article and reflect and relate it to myself and determine how I would apply it to myself.  
Relevant answer
Answer
Can you clarify what you mean?  My field is disability awareness and training.  I speak to groups of individuals, having them do hands on activities and then talk about what ever topic I am given.  For example my last topic was "No Excuses!" with men who were on parole and after the group did four different stations with a different activity at each station I then shared with them about how I could have used my head injury or my stroke as an excuse to do nothing in life but I didn't.  I went to work for the state and continued my education... I really love going into class rooms and speaking to children and watching them do the activities and then answering their questions... but for this assignment what I need is an article on how speakers implement ethical decision-making.  It is not about me.
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
3 answers
I constructed a third-order reflective model of psychological empowerment (see model in attachment), which is composed by:
- 12 first-order latent variables: PC, ACT, CIE, OCE, PTR, PF, SI, CC, CP, OI, SN, and SB
- 3 second-order latent variables: CE (reflected in PTR, PF, and SI), RE (reflected in CC, CP, OI, SN, and SB), and BE (reflected in ACT, CIE, and OCE).
To establish the measurement model of higher-order variables, all the indicators from the lower-order variables were assigned to the higher-order variables in the form of a repeated indicators approach.
Then, CTA-PLS was used to investigate the directionality for indicators associated with the psychological empowerment construct (see CTA-PLS results in attachment)
1) Should I use significance test at p = 0.1 or 0.05 level?
2) Since I'm testing for multiple model-implied vanishing at the same time, should I assess the significance of the tetrads based on CI Low adj. and CI Up Adj. values?
3) Should I analyze both first and second-order LV results? Should I report all the results in the paper (it's a very long table...)
4) Taking into account the results, 3 first-order LV (SI, SB and SN) and 1 second-order LV (RE) are formative ([CI Low Adj., CI Up Adj.] don't include 0). Should I conclude that psychological empowerment model is better measured formatively?
Your help will be sincerely appreciated.
Relevant answer
Answer
Hello James,
Thank you very much for your answer. it is very pleaseful to know that you found my work interesting. I am writing a paper on this issue, I will share it with you once it is published.
Best regards,
Mariana
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
7 answers
Im interested in treatment to reduce tendency to procrastinate; do you kwon articles focused on this topic?
Relevant answer
Answer
My work in achievement motivation is focused on academic achievement.  So I will share some points here regarding procrastination i that domain...I hope this helps.
First, (and in agreement with previous answers provided above), it is important to know the underlying source for the procrastination habits.
Second, there are three general lenses to examine procrastination:
1. self-handicapping (unconsciously setting oneself up to fail, but with a justification)
2. meta-motivational (deliberately making a high-pressure situation)
3. volitional (a true problem preventing one from doing work)
My read of your question, as posed, is that you might be more interested in the third option.  In that case, I would direct you to the following reference:
Vlian, V. (1977).  Learning to work.  In  S. Ruddick & P. Daniels (Eds.) Working it out: 23 women writers, artists, scientists, and scholars talk about their lives and work, (pp. 163-178). New York:  Pantheon.
Hope this helps.
cheers
   gh
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
3 answers
I am looking specifically towards promoting pro-environmental behavior, using motivation as one of the variable . 
Relevant answer
Answer
The Bergen Laboratory for the study of Decision, Intuition, Consciousness and Emotion have done many studies on climate psychology, including pro-environmental behavior: http://www.uib.no/en/persons/Gisela.B%C3%B6hm#
The Research Group for Social Cognitive Studies in Tourism at the University of Bergen does research regarding pro-environmental behavior in tourism: http://www.uib.no/en/persons/Svein.Larsen
Einar Strumse from Lillehammer University College has done research on pro-environmental behavior as well: https://www.hioa.no/tilsatt/estrum
They all have profiles here on Research Gate where you can check out their research, and maybe find some tests that have been used by others in the research on pro-environmental behavior.
The article «Encouraging pro-environmental behaviour: An integrative review and research agenda» by Linda Steg & Charles Vlek (2009) also talks about motivational factors in pro-environmental behavior, and might be useful to you: http://www.rug.nl/staff/e.m.steg/stegvlekencouraging.pdf
The American Psychological Association has a webpage with guidance to finding psychological tests: http://www.apa.org/science/programs/testing/find-tests.aspx
Educational Testing Service has a database where you can search for tests on different topics: https://www.ets.org/test_link/find_tests/
Hope the links will be useful. Good luck with your work!
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
5 answers
Teaching strategies mainly. 
Relevant answer
Answer
I cannot give you any articles, but I can give you 14 years of special education experience and a some names that helped me help all levels of the profoundly disabled to raise self esteem: Carl Rogers, Virgina Satir, Garry Landreth.  All of these individuals advocated to begin with the story of the individual through empathetic listening.  Landreth advocated that one way to promoted the story was through play therapy or art therapy.  By the readings of these three people, I was able to bring many of my downs, autism, and academically challenged students confidence level to where they were able to take state mandated tests and obtain part time employment.  80% of the students raised their test scores by 20% or more 63% met state standards.  All I did was follow the aforementioned theories in my classroom.  I still follow their examples in my general ed art classes.
I hope this helps.
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
9 answers
I would appreciate it and be very happy if anybody could tell me which is the most recent Portraits Value Questionnaire (PVQ) based on Schwartz et al. 2012 with 57 items (not PVQ21 or PVQ40)? Additionally it would be wonderful to know, how to access the questionnaire/which paper has published the most recent version.
Looking forward for your answers.
Schwartz, S. H., Cieciuch, J., Vecchione, M., Davidov, E., Fischer, R., Beierlein, C., ... & Dirilen-Gumus, O. (2012). Refining the theory of basic individual values. Journal of personality and social psychology, 103(4), 663.
Relevant answer
Answer
Benedict,
however it depends on what you will show.
The PVQ-21 is well tested and frequently used by the ESS (European social Survey - www.europeansocialsurvey.org) (since 2002 every 2 years)
For science use free, after registration – there you will find a very good data-base.
The PVQ-40-57 are more interesting for detailed or specific questions.
A few thoughts you´ll find in the article: Warum Werte?
Best to you
Norbert
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
4 answers
Kasser distinguishes in the context of Self-Determination Theory intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Intrinsic goals are those which are more closely related to the satisfaction of human's psychological needs. Kasser argues that his model could be applied to values. I am searching for literature which applies the distinction of intrinsic/extrinsic to a valid model of human values (e.g. S.H. Schwartz's universal structure of human values). Any advices?
Relevant answer
Answer
I don't know if there are any direct comparisons. But Grouzet et al. 2005 uses Kasser & Ryan's intrinsic and extrinsic goals and provides their own circumplex model where they put all the goals on a circle with two dimensions: intrinsic vs. extrinsic and physical self vs. self-transcendence. Comparing that model with Schwartz circumplex model would be the place where I would start looking at the similarities and differences between the two models:
Grouzet, F. M. E., Kasser, T., Ahuvia, A., Dols, J. M. F., Kim, Y., Lau, S., … Sheldon, K. M. (2005). The structure of goal contents across 15 cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(5), 800–816.
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
7 answers
Does anyone know about a valid questionnaire, using likert-scales for determining the degree of both intrinsic motivation and regulation based on the self-determination and organismic integration theory, for any field of application?
Relevant answer
Answer
In physical activity / exercise settings the BREQ (most recent BREQ-3) is a frequently used questionnaire which may be adapted for other contexts:
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
4 answers
I need information about the use of mental training in soccer. If nothing is present interesting , I'd like to do research in the near future on this topic.
Thank for your help!
Relevant answer
Answer
Although this is not related to soccer, it might help...
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
6 answers
Previously examined the effect of social-contextual environments on physical activity motives, but how designing environmentals in terms of architecture affect attitudes and motives for physical activity. For instance, some people would prefer to intend in environments for their physical activities which they enjoying because of its beautiful interior architecture and plan.
I would greatly appreciate if anyone kindly shares with me any plan, research and experience and guides.
Relevant answer
Answer
If you exercise in a beautiful environment, it stimulates you to continue to do exercises. If you don't like the environment you are inclined to stop: this is the case with ugly dark indoor halls with no windows. Most people in the moderate climate zones like the sun and walking or doing physical exercise outside,  in the sun and in a beautiful landscape is a most rewarding experience. So variables at stake are:light, sun, that means intensity of the colors, beauty of the landscape if outdoor or indoor: beauty of the architectonal surroudings. But besides these variables there is another one: if one feels at ease in these surroundings, so what are the associations with this place, what is the vibe, how do you relate to other people in this environment: are they potentially friends or enemies ?
If you want to do research on this subject, it is not enough to just ask some questions. That is because what people think is not always how they feel. So you should also look to what places are the most visited and what places the least  and for what reasons. Another way is to let respondents score at photo's of some places they do not know.
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
9 answers
MPA & Career choice
Relevant answer
Answer
Hello Christiane,
I would recommend this article: Patston, T. (2014). Teaching stage fright? Implications for music educators. British Journal of Music Education, 31(1), 85-98. I have attached the article below. Here the author talks about (as David Suggested) how many music performance students suffering from MPA change course and alter their performance aspirations to become music educators. This article has been helpful to me in my research investigating how undergraduate music schools address MPA. What is interesting is how many of these individuals who become music educators due to their MPA issues may be propagating MPA issues among their students. I hope this is helpful.
All The Best,
~Craig
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
2 answers
just any research or task on the recognition of self-conscious emotion ( via social stories, scenarios, moral dilemmas, ...)?
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi, Aude,
I don't know if this can help you, but my last paper (2015) present a method to show hybris (hubris). Teachers becomes conscious of their narcissism by empathic survey, filled by their pupils and them, (It is in my profile, but I attach).
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
5 answers
In the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen, 1991), behavioral intention is influenced by three constructs : attitude, subjective norm and perceived behavioral control. In some paper, those constructs are supposed to be independent (Ogden, 2003) whereas they are all linked in some figures (Ajzen, 1991 ; Bamberg & Möser, 2003).
In an experiment I have conducted during my PhD, I have found links between these constructs. I was wondering if these results are consistent with previous studies.
Relevant answer
Answer
A nice example. Maybe there is a little confusion on the terms. In my view, "conceptually independent predictors" means that each has an independent/unique predictive value, and not that there are unrelated. Correlations among the concepts are a common observation, so if you find correlations in your data than that's not untypical.
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
8 answers
Person-centered (or person-oriented) approach – in contrast to variable centered one – is more and more frequently used to analysis of individuals, e.g. personality traits. Did you meet any theoretically based papers and/or empirically sound studies where this analytical toolkit (e.g. various clustering methods, Latent Class Analysis and Latent Profile Analysis) was used for DYADIC data? Dyadic data is commonly analyzed by Actor Partner Interdependence Model (APIM) which is clearly a variable centered method. May be there examples of an alternative pattern oriented approach? How can these kind of results be interpreted? Any hints are highly appreciated!
Relevant answer
Answer
OK. I understand a bit more now. We do similar kinds of analyses with individuals and classrooms. One way is to cluster (or LPA--quite similar when specified the right way) at the level of the individual and then cross tab the partner 1 and partner 2 clusters. Where are the white spots and dark spots in the data? Are there particular pairings that are more common (statistics would be like a chi sq, testing whether the adjusted standardized residuals are greater than one would expect if the pairings were due to chance alone).
I think the Bergman et al. book will help you a lot (Studying individual development in an interindividual context: A person-oriented approach. L R Bergman, D Magnusson, B M Khouri). They use their freely-available SLEIPNER (which is the way I learned to do cluster analysis) with a set of modules for testing and comparing different cluster solutions, imputing missing data,  etc. Note that MPlus is also my go-to package, but the questions you are asking about theory don't require any particular package to run. They also aren't new, though they're certainly advanced. I linked below to a paper I wrote using clustering with SLEIPNER. I can send it to you directly if you can't get the full text. Just message me for it.
There are a few publications by Steve Peck who is a genius at thinking about these multiple levels of analysis. My favorite is "TEMPEST in a Gallimaufry: Applying multilevel systems theory to person-in-context research." The reason you haven't found much done in this area is because most of us are still working it out and I, for one,  am not comfortable publishing results from this person centered work until I have been able to replicate and test my findings across different samples and talk with others doing similar work about different ways to tweak the methods to get at the question. When it comes to getting support from the Muthens for work in Mplus, their responsiveness is quick and helpful on the stat model boards. 
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
8 answers
I am conducting research about mindset and can't seem to find a valid measure.  Can anyone point me in the right direction?
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi Mark,
No, but I will now.  Thank you.
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
17 answers
I have found the questionnaire without difficulty but cannot find the scoring instructions.
Relevant answer
Answer
KEY FOR AMS-28
# 2, 9, 16, 23    Intrinsic motivation - to know
# 6, 13, 20, 27   Intrinsic motivation - toward accomplishment
# 4, 11, 18, 25   Intrinsic motivation - to experience stimulation
# 3, 10, 17, 24   Extrinsic motivation - identified
# 7, 14, 21, 28   Extrinsic motivation - introjected
# 1, 8, 15, 22    Extrinsic motivation - external regulation
# 5, 12, 19, 26   Amotivation
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
6 answers
A systematic literature review would be ideal, but anything would help.
Relevant answer
Answer
Hi,
Try this one as well: Liñán & Chen (2009),  Development and Cross-Cultural Application of a Specific Instrument to Measure Entrepreneurial Intentions. 
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
14 answers
Hi Everyone,
Recently, I engaged in a conversation with a professor who concluded that intrinsic rewards differ from internal rewards. Moreover, he suggested that extrinsic rewards differ from external rewards. What are the differences (if any)?
Please include references.
Thank you.
Relevant answer
Answer
Good point!  I Think (maybe) it is lazy word use. Ie conflating rewards with motivation. It shouldn't happen with academics but in emails (and in posts like this) one can become a bit sloppy. The word intrinsic means a 'fundamental or inseperable property of', whereas internal in this sense means 'emanating from within' ie generated by the emotions of the person. So an intrinsic reward is an inseparable property of the activity itself such as 'learning' or he product of that activity such as a lego model, whereas an internal reward is the feeling of satisfaction arising in the person who completes/engages in he activity. Extrinsic reward is therefore a reward appended to an activity such as a gold star or praise or money, and to be honest, I have difficulty separating extrinsic and external rewards. Ineresting conundrum for me!
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
13 answers
I am looking for a theory of appreciation. So far, I only found studies which concentrated on appreciation as one factor in motivation theory. I am especially interested in the multiprofessional context of health professionals.
Relevant answer
Answer
Appreciation is also an aspect of the reward concept in the Effort-Reward-Imbalance model (Siegrist et al)
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
5 answers
I am trying to explore the factors that are more implicated in banking sectors. Past studies have autonomy, competence, persistence etc as some of the factors of intrinsic motivation.
Can anyone suggest me if there are some more and new factors?
Relevant answer
Answer
very interesting topic. Congrats for choosing this relevant topic for research work. 
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
4 answers
According to self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan) external regulation behaviors are performed to satisfy an external demand or obtain an externally imposed reward contingency. Individuals typically experience externally regulated behavior as controlled or alienated. This contrasts with intrinsic motivation which is defined as the doing of an activity for its inherent satisfactions rather than for some separable consequence. When intrinsically motivated a person is moved to act for the fun or challenge entailed rather than because of external prods, pressures, or rewards.
Relevant answer
Answer
I agree that external pressure plays an important part on compliance. In some cases including voluntary disclosure of information in the financial and related statements arise due to awareness of the need for transparency, publicity opportunities, and sense of accountability. Ethical perspective may play a part.
Gin
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
7 answers
According to self determination theory, the three psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness can be satisfied by the context or by behaviours in which individuals engage. Is there any research comparing whether the implications of need satisfaction differ depending on how the needs are satisfied (i.e. by the context or the person)? 
In other words, are the outcomes of need satisfaction more positive when needs are satisfied by specific behaviours individuals engage in versus being in a context that satisfies the needs?
Relevant answer
Answer
Thank you!! This looks amazing and very helpful!
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
56 answers
My students learn biology and other sciences in English. Recently they had the Mid-semester test. Two of my 90 students had an F grade. When I checked their answers I found they had many misconceptions. Even simple questions like formation of a dipeptide; simple structure of a nucleotide were wrongly answered. The students admitted that they studied at the last minute.
Any suggestions how to help such students with their misconceptions/confusions? I I believe it is related to their lack of motivation.  They take life easy; so different from the time when I was a student.  All my class mates worked hard to achieve, for the sake of our families.  Besides that, we found that science was interesting, and this fueled our curiosity.
Relevant answer
Answer
Dear @Miranda, this is fine link!
Overcoming Misconceptions: Misconceptions as Barriers to Understanding Science!
"Teachers can be astonished to learn that, despite their best efforts, students do not grasp fundamental ideas covered in class. Even some of the best students give the right answers, but are only using correctly-memorized words. When questioned more closely, these students reveal their failure to understand the underlying concepts fully. Students are often able to use algorithms to solve numerical problems without completely understanding the underlying scientific concepts. Mazur (1997) reported that students in his physics class had memorized equations and problem-solving skills, but performed poorly on tests of conceptual understanding. Nakhleh and Mitchell (1993) studied 60 students in an introductory course for chemistry majors. In an exam which paired an algorithmic problem with a conceptual question on the same topic, only 49 percent of those students classified as having high algorithmic ability were able to answer the parallel conceptual question.
 Besides offering students information and helpful examples, we must show them the reasoning processes that lead to algorithms and conceptual generalizations. Inclusion of conceptual questions on tests is another way to emphasize the importance of this aspect of problem solving. In many cases, students have developed partially correct ideas that can be used as the foundation for further learning. However, many students have not developed an appropriate understanding of fundamental concepts from the beginning of their studies, and this shortcoming can interfere with subsequent learning..."
  • asked a question related to Motivational Psychology
Question
29 answers
Based on a situational factor, I drew a model for a new motivational theory that could be applied to the overwhelming majority of organizational members in different sectors. The theory is consistent with Maslow's theory of needs. But my theory has just two items instead of five in Maslow.
Relevant answer