Psychologists have conducted experiments where the subjects are (randomly) split into two categories. They both perform the same task, perhaps a memory drill, and then one group gets paid money for participating and the other doesn't. After the "experiment," i.e. the task that the subjects were told was the experiment, the subjects are interviewed. One of the questions asks how much they enjoyed the experiment. Subjects who were paid money enjoy the task significantly less than those who aren't.
The theory behind this is that when a person does the task, their mind needs a reason to avoid cognitive dissonance. When they are paid, the money acts as the reason; when they aren't paid, enjoying the task acts as the reason. To put another way, one's mind imposes enjoyment ex post, so that it doesn't have to cope with the disconnect of doing something for no good reason and disliking doing it. Hazing rituals are supposed to perform a similar function. If one puts up with the hazing, it must be for a good reason. Therefore, the group that does the hazing, the frat, military academy, or whatever, is seen in a better light to avoid the cognitive dissonance. Don't judge this theory based on my explanation of it. As I've noted before, I'm a clumsy writer at best. But that is the theory as I recall it. Whether grades fit the theory, I haven't a clue. Hope that helps, -jsh --- [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > The following appeared in an article on grade > inflation in the Chronicle of > Higher Education: > > "Grades motivate (a fallacy > according to the article). > > With the exception of orthodox > behaviorists, > psychologists have come to > realize that people can > exhibit > qualitatively different kinds of > motivation: intrinsic, > in which the task > itself is seen as valuable, and > extrinsic, in which the > task is just a > means to the end of gaining a > reward or escaping a > punishment. > The two are not only distinct > but often inversely > related. Scores of > studies have demonstrated, for > example, that the more > people are > rewarded, the more they come to > lose interest in whatever > had to > be done in order to get the > reward. (That conclusion is > essentially > reaffirmed by the latest major > meta-analysis on the > topic: a review > of 128 studies, published in > 1999 by Edward L. Deci, > Richard > Koestner, and Richard Ryan.)" > > Is anyone on the list familiar with this literature? > It sounds like they are > saying that incentives don't matter. > > Cyril Morong > __________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Web Hosting - Let the expert host your site http://webhosting.yahoo.com
