Acceso usuarios
Candice Hubley, Jessica Edwards, David B. Miele, Abigail A. Scholer
Although intrinsic motivation is often viewed as preferable to more extrinsic forms of motivation, there is evidence that the adaptiveness of these motivational states depends on the nature of the task being completed (e.g., Cerasoli et al., 2014). Specifically, research suggests task-motivation fit such that intrinsic motivation tends to benefit performance on open-ended tasks (tasks that involve qualitative performance assessment; e.g., creative writing) and extrinsic motivation benefits performance on closed-ended tasks (tasks that involve quantitative performance assessment; e.g., multiple choice). We examined people’s metamotivational beliefs about intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in the context of this task-motivation fit. Across 11 studies (seven primary, four supplemental; N = 3,544), participants provided beliefs about the utility of different types of motivation-regulation strategies: strategies that enhance one’s interest and enjoyment in a task versus strategies that focus on the value associated with task outcomes (self-relevance strategies and reward strategies). Across all studies, participants recognized that the adaptiveness of these strategies depends on the nature of the task being completed. Consistent with an understanding of normative task-motivation fit, participants generally reported that interest-enhancing strategies were more useful for open-ended tasks and that reward strategies were more useful for closed-ended tasks; however, in some studies, participants reported that reward strategies were equally useful across task types (Studies 2, 3, and 5). More normatively accurate beliefs were associated with more normatively accurate consequential behavioral choices (Study 6) and better task performance (Study 7). We discuss the implications of these results for theories of motivation and self-regulation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)
