http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0618001816/qid=1037396034/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-2976940-3732712?v=glance&s=books&n=507846
I haven't read them yet, but Deci and Dweck seem to be a couple of the principal researches in the effects of external rewards on intrinsic motivation.
Why We Do What We Do: Understanding Self-Motivation
Edward L. Deci, Richard Flaste
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0140255265/ref=pd_bxgy_text_1/104-2976940-3732712?v=glance&s=books
Self-theories: Their Role in Motivation, Personality, and Development (Essays in Social Psychology)
Carol S. Dweck
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1841690244/qid=/sr=/ref=cm_lm_asin/104-2976940-3732712?v=glance
Chris
john hull wrote:
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
