Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 888

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 2 of the 2 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement, and inequity.

Deci, Edward L.·1972·Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
DOI 10.1037/h0032355
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

If a person who is intrinsically motivated to perform an activity begins to receive external reinforcement for the activity, what will happen to his intrinsic motivation? Previous studies and the present study indicate that money decreases intrinsic motivation, while verbal reinforcements tend to enhance intrinsic motivation. The beginning of a cognitive evaluation theory is discussed, and an apparently discrepant prediction between this theory and inequity theory is pointed out. It is argued, however, that the theories are not conceptually discrepant, and the present study gives support for this argument. It is possible to distinguish between two broad classes of motivation to perform an activity: intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. A person is intrinsically motivated if he performs an activity for no apparent reward except the activity itself (cf. Berlyne, 1966; Hunt, 1965; White, 1959). Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, refers to the performance of an activity because it leads to external rewards (e.g., status, approval, or passing grades). The question of interest in this study is whether there will be changes in a person's intrinsic motivation for an activity when he receives external rewards for performing that activity. Deci (1971) reported that external reinforcements do affect intrinsic motivation, and he suggested the initial elements of a cognitive evaluation theory to account for the changes in intrinsic motivation following an experience with extrinsic rewards. The theory focuses on a person's cognitive evaluation of an activity and the reasons for his engaging in the activity. It suggests that distinctions should be made among different kinds of external rewards, since a person's evaluation of different rewards may be different. In turn, this would 1 The author would like to thank Wayne Cascio for serving as the first experimenter and for helping with the data analysis; Victor Vroom for making helpful comments on an earlier draft of the manuscript; and Larry Coff for being the second experimenter.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/h0032355

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 2 references

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
Deci, E. L.
Venue
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
1972-04
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
113-120
ISSN
  • 0022-3514 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1315
DOI
10.1037/h0032355
OpenAlex
W1995724078
Cited by
888
References
2
FWCI
28.12
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.