Chapter 6

Some Motivation Theories

6.1 Chapter 6 Objectives

• Describe the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and their effect on behaviors.

• Describe the different kinds of achievement motivation (goal orientations) and their influences on motivation.

Motivation Theories

• Philosophers and psychologists have pondered human motives for centuries.

• Theories range from basic drives (e.g., hunger) to complex ideas like social cognitive theory.

• Social cognitive theory integrates cognitive factors, observational learning, and reinforcements (Bandura, 1991).

• This section focuses on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and achievement motivation (goal orientations).

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation

• Intrinsic Motivation: Based on inherent enjoyment and satisfaction.

• Extrinsic Motivation: Based on gaining rewards or avoiding negative consequences.

• Amotivation: A complete lack of motivation.

Overview

• Intrinsic Motivation: Pursuing tasks and activities that are inherently enjoyable.

  • Deci (1975) stated intrinsically motivated people engage in activities to feel competent and seek challenges.

  • Incentives or rewards are not needed.

  • deCharms (1968) described it in terms of locus of causality.

    • People feel their behaviors result from their own choices.

    • They have an inner locus of causality and are "free" (p. 273).

    • Compared to play, chosen activities are enjoyed.

    • Examples: sports, leisure reading, hobbies.

• Extrinsic Motivation: Engaging in activities to expect a reward or avoid negative consequences.

  • deCharms (1968) would say they have an external locus of causality and are being "forced" (p. 273).

  • Compared to work, often something you have to do.

  • Individuals may not value these activities as much and may feel controlled.

• Identifying Extrinsic Motivation:

  • A person stops tasks/activities when the reward/incentive is removed.

  • Examples: working solely for a paycheck, students completing tasks only for a grade, attending college for a high-paying career.

• Amotivation: No motivation for a task.

  • Linked to feelings of helplessness, lack of control, and perceived inability to affect the outcome (Deci & Ryan, 2002).

  • A person may quit the task entirely.

The Relationship between Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation

• Deci (1975) argued humans are born intrinsically motivated with an innate passion to learn and explore.

• Elementary-aged children engage in academic tasks for inherent enjoyment and to gain competence.

• Early researchers tied changes in motivation to the introduction of rewards, incentives, and grades (Bruner, 1962; Holt, 1964; Montessori, 1967).

• Research question: Do extrinsic rewards diminish intrinsic motivation?

  • Historically, research argued this was true (Deci, 1971; Deci et al., 1999).

  • A recent meta-analytic study argued the relationship is more complex; both intrinsic motivation and incentives could predict higher performance (Cerasoli et al., 2014).

  • People seek meaningful careers but still want to be paid/recognized.

  • Some students inherently enjoy a class and want a high GPA.

• Reiss (2012) identified limitations of a dualistic view and proposed a multifaceted theory with 16 universal reinforcements, like acceptance, power, and tranquility.

• More research will continue to explain motivation's diversity.

Hierarchical Model of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation

• Deci and Ryan (2002) proposed people experience motivation at global, contextual, and situational levels.

  • Global Level: General personality types; individuals may or may not have areas grounded in intrinsic or extrinsic motivation.

    • Example: A young woman intrinsically motivated in sports, hobbies, and study area.

  • Contextual Level: Specific domains.

    • Example: The young woman is intrinsically motivated to play softball but extrinsically motivated toward math classes.

  • Situational Level: Specific circumstances within a context.

    • Example: The young woman is extrinsically motivated in math, but verbal encouragement from her professor may cause her to enjoy her success and prompt additional effort.

• Vallerand's (1997) model integrates these levels and describes the interrelationship between them.

• Motivation can change at each level due to repeated exposure to positive experiences.

• Example: If the young woman has favorable experiences in math, her contextual motivation could shift from extrinsic to intrinsic.

• Understanding how and why motivation can change is critical to promoting and maintaining your own motivation.

Links to Self-Determination Theory

• Perceived feelings of self-determination have been linked to higher levels of intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2002; Vallerand, 1997).

• Individuals must perceive autonomy, competence, and relatedness to feel self-determined and maintain psychological well-being.

  • Autonomy: Ability to choose a course of action or adapt behaviors.

  • Competence: Perception of self-confidence and ability to affect outcomes.

  • Relatedness: A sense of belongingness with others.

• Deci and Ryan (2002) defined these constructs as basic psychological needs that must be met for an individual to function optimally.

• Self-determination reflects the contributions of related foundational theories.

• Organismic Integration Theory integrates autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

  • It is described due to its specific relationship to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and individuals' potential to transform their own motivation.

Organismic Integration Theory

• Outlines a motivation continuum ranging from amotivation to intrinsic motivation.

• Deci and Ryan (2002) stated previous research focused on a dichotomous view of motivation.

• Deci and Ryan introduced a taxonomy of motivation that is more of a continuum with amotiva-tion on the extreme left, extrinsic motivation in the middle, and intrinsic motivation on the extreme right.

• This continuum represents the degree to which extrinsic rewards are necessary for an individual to be motivated.

• On the extreme right, individuals are intrinsically motivated and do not require an extrinsic reward.

• As an individual moves further to the left on the continuum, more extrinsic rewards are required.

• Deci and Ryan divided extrinsic motivation into four parts: external regulation, introjection, identification, and integration.

  • Integration: Reflects individuals valuing an activity; closest to intrinsic motivation and most self-determined of the extrinsic types of motivation.

  • External Regulation: Requires more external rewards and individuals usually do not value the activity; most extrinsic type of motivation.

• Figure 6.1.1: Organismic Integration Theory

• Based on Organismic Integration Theory, motivation can transform.

• A person can have no interest in an activity and begin it solely based on external regulation.

• By fostering autonomy and self-determination, an environment can facilitate a transformation.

• Individuals can begin to see the value in an activity and their motivation may shift toward intrinsic motivation.

• This transformation is called internalization (See Figure 6.1.1; Deci & Ryan, 2022).

• The authors contend that anyone can begin at any point along the continuum and either move toward intrinsic or extrinsic motivation based on the value the person places on the activity.

• As students face daily activities that are not necessarily inherently enjoyable, it is possible for them to transform their own extrinsic motivation by connecting these activities to broader goals and interests.

• Example: A student taking a math class to become a nurse may only be extrinsically motivated (or amotivated) to complete tasks.

• If the student recognizes the skills developed in math class will contribute to their abilities as a nurse, their motivation can transform toward integration (a more intrinsic form).

• Intrinsic motivation in the class can lead to more persistence, less procrastination, more complex learning strategies, and higher achievement (Deci & Ryan, 2002).

• The relationships between intrinsic motivation and higher achievement outcomes are discussed next.

Intrinsic Motivation and Positive Outcomes

• Intrinsic motivation has been linked to positive outcomes in many domains (Deci & Ryan, 2002).

• Within education and learning, these findings have been repeated at all levels (Brophy, 1998; Pintrich et al., 1993; Schunk, 1991; Zusho et al., 2003).

• Earlier research by Vallerand and Bissonnette (1992) examined students at a junior college where higher levels of intrinsic motivation were related to persistence in the course whereas higher levels of extrinsic motivation were more related to dropping the course.

• Intrinsic motivation has also been related to academic self-efficacy or confidence in abilities in a particular domain (Siu et al., 2014) and long-term growth in academic achievement (Murayama et al., 2013).

• Murayama et al.’s study found intrinsic motivation to be related to mathematics achievement above and beyond students’ intelligence.

• Intelligence could predict current academic performance; however, intrinsic motivation was more strongly related to students’ growth in abilities over time.

• Another earlier study by Ferrer-Caja and Weiss (2002) supported the relationship of task persistence and intrinsic motivation.

• These students tended to select more challenging tasks and put forth greater effort.

• These findings are mirrored in a recent study by Uyulgan and Akkuzu (2014) where the authors determined that student teachers in their educational programs with higher levels of intrinsic motivation had higher GPAs.

• These student teachers had higher levels of commitment to their future profession, which the authors suggested would most likely lead to the student teachers following through and entering the teaching profession after graduation.

• It is clear from the research that intrinsic motivation can be a critical factor in promoting important outcomes for students, higher persistence, achievement, effort, and learning.

Achievement Motivation

• Achievement is the process of becoming something more than who you are now.

• When you seek to attain some goal or outcome, you are essentially saying “I want or need something more in my life.”

• When your actions result in the outcome you were seeking then you can claim to have achieved that end.

• Accomplishing a goal requires sustained effort and motivation.

• Achievement is not merely an outcome, but a complex motivational process leading to a particular set of desired outcomes (Hart & Albarracín, 2009).

• The study of achievement motivation has largely centered on the question of process.

• Over the last 65 years, psychologists have approached this important topic from a number of perspectives and established a diverse array of theories and models.

• In this section, some of the most prominent ideas from the literature on achievement motivation will be described before illustrating their practical value for students in terms of self-regulated learning as an ongoing motivational process.

Brief History of Achievement Motivation Research

• The earliest accounts of achievement motivation were founded on the idea of basic human needs.

• Personality psychologists such as McDougall (1932) and Murray (1938) created expansive lists of basic psychological needs (e.g., curiosity, nurturance, self-assertion) to categorize and better define what motivates human action.

• Maslow (1954) developed a hierarchy of needs ranging from the physiological (e.g., food, shelter) to the self-actualizing (e.g., creativity, spontaneity).

• Conceptual frameworks provided a valuable taxonomy of motivational factors but didn't address individual differences in motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

• Addressing individual differences required a shift in the underlying question itself.

• Instead of asking “what are the various human needs,” scholars sought to explain how individuals differ in their motivation to meet those needs.

• A group of theorists proposed that three fundamental needs—achievement, power, and affiliation--are acquired through life experience and can be used to explain individual differences in motivation (McClelland et al., 1953).

• In this framework, achievement-oriented people are less interested in external rewards and more interested in a personal sense of success.

• Atkinson (1957) also suggested that achieving success requires the avoidance of failure, and so a tendency toward achievement motivation can lead to a fear of failure when success is not consistently attained.

• Based on extensive studies of achievement, McClelland (1965) determined that achievement motivation is tied to standards of excellence or ideal outcomes.

• Research indicates that the process of goal-setting involves a comparison of your present circumstances to either an ideal standard or an ought standard (Higgins, 1987).

• Both ideal and ought standards are often set by others.

• For example, a teacher sets standards when grading course papers even as a boss might expect your upcoming presentation to secure a new business contract.

• Your level of motivation does not depend on these external standards alone, otherwise you would always achieve success in accordance with the expectations set by other people.

• According to both McClelland (1985) and Atkinson (1981), your motivation to achieve is largely determined by the way you imagine the route to success.

• It is influenced by your imagined expectations or achievement imagery.

• In this manner, your achievement motivation is based on not only your general drive for success, but how likely you think it will be to succeed and on how enticing you find the incentives tied to a successful outcome (Oettingen, 2000).

• Achievement imagery thus plays a vital role in motivation.

• You envision the likelihood of attaining the outcome, weigh the incentives, and choose your course of action accordingly.

Modern Achievement Motivation

• Among modern accounts of achievement motivation, emphasis is placed on the notion of goal orientations rather than basic psychological needs (Elliot, 2005).

• Such ideas, while informed by needs-based theories, seek to provide a still more substantive account of situational goal formation by explaining why individuals show different levels of achievement motivation.

• Whereas needs-based theories seek to explain achievement motivation in terms of personality dispositions, goal orientation theories focus on how specific types of achievement motivation influence both short-term and long-term learning outcomes.

• Initial exploratory research on such individual differences by Eison (1981) and Nicholls (1984) led to robust discussions on how different approaches to achievement result in unique learning outcomes.

• This eventually led to the development by Dweck (1986) of a distinction between learning and performance goal orientations, as well as the work of Ames (1992) on mastery-focused and ability-focused achievement orientations.

• Based on these findings, researchers came to a consensus on the set of terms for achievement types used today: mastery and performance.

Mastery and Performance Orientations

• An orientation represents the position, angle, or view you take on any given issue.

• In terms of achievement more specifically, mastery and performance orientations signify the major positions you take on a goal or task.

• Mastery orientation involves a "big picture" point of view or the understanding that time and dedication are often required to accomplish something masterfully. Many times, this is also described as having learning goals.

• Performance orientation (or performance goals) focuses on more immediate results, often guided by comparisons to others or some external standard of excellence.

• While a mastery orientation supports the role of effort and competence in learning, a performance orientation emphasizes ability and outcomes.

• Mastery orientation is an internalized process that regard short-term failures as a natural consequence of seeking long-term gains (Elliot, 1999).

• Because the focus is on learning and enhancing skills, motivation can be sustained over time despite numerous challenges and without concern for the judgment of others.

• Performance orientation, on the other hand, is an externalized process that regard failure as a marker of inability or incompetence (Elliot, 1999).

• Because the focus is on performance relative to an external standard of excellence, it is difficult to sustain motivation in the face of obstacles or when confronted by the negative judgment of others.

• Examples are provided below to clarify how each achievement motive might appear in a hypothetical classroom setting.

Performance Orientation

• Mark consistently participates in class by raising his hand to answer questions and lead group discussions. He approaches the task at hand actively and with resolve.

• Mark is less motivated by learning the course material than by demonstrating to others that he is an intelligent and capable student.

• Mark feels driven to prove his competence and ability. He approaches tasks with vigor and determination, but is sensitive to-and constantly aware of-how people judge his ability and performance.

• For example, after answering a question incorrectly his first thought is about how others in the class might perceive him. This is not necessarily a consuming thought, but it signifies where his mind goes automatically when his performance is suboptimal.

• He displays a high level of public self-consciousness combined with a desire to be perceived in a good light.

• This form of achievement motivation has led Mark to perform well throughout his educational experience, yet he is far less interested in learning the materials than in being regarded positively by others.

Mastery Orientation

• Bomin participates as actively in class as Mark. She asks questions and takes risks in order to learn the materials.

• Bomin is more interested in learning the content and building her understanding than being regarded as competent by others.

• The behavior she displays is similar to that guiding performance, but her relationship to the learning process is completely different.

• She approaches the class with curiosity and resilience, as well as with a desire to improve her ability in that area of study.

• For example, when Bomin answers a question incorrectly, her first thought is about the new information provided and how it contrasts with her knowledge base.

• Her focus is on gaining clarity of understanding, which may lead her to ask follow-up questions in order to resolve her sense of uncertainty.

• Bomin is most focused on reorganizing and synthesizing course content, rather than being concerned with how others judge her.

• With lower public self-consciousness than Mark, Bomin is willing to take the risks necessary to improve her learning and enhance her ability to grasp the subject matter.

Putting it all together: Achievement Motivation for the Self-Regulated Learner

• Motivation is purposeful, insofar as it energizes you to accomplish a goal.

• Achievement is intentional, meaning that the actions taken to attain specific end-goals require both forethought and sustained effort.

• The purposeful and intentional nature of achievement motivation is most clearly embodied by a mastery-approach style, which research indicates is the most beneficial style for long-term learning outcomes (Elliot, 1999).

• While performance-approach can also lead to beneficial outcomes, the effects are typically short-term, perfunctory, and directly related to external standards of excellence.

• Although performance-approach motives have been shown to support academic and work-related performance outcomes in competitive environments, such results come at the risk of forming life-long maladaptive habits including the use of superficial learning strategies, the development of negative attitudes toward learning, and tendencies to withdraw from challenging situations (Barron & Harachiewicz, 2003).

• Ormrod (1999) assembled a comprehensive list of the typical characteristics of students with mastery or learning goals and students with performance goals:

Beliefs That Drive Motivation

6.2 Chapter 6 Objectives

• Discuss the role of self-efficacy in learning.

• Describe attributions and their relationship with growth mindset and achievement motivation.

Beliefs

• This section will focus on beliefs about ability, reasons for success/failure, growth, and learning.

• Three specific theories with direct influence on long-term motivation will be discussed: self-efficacy, attributions, and mindsets.

• The section will conclude with a matrix illustrating the theories' overlapping nature and their contribution to motivation.

Self-Efficacy

• When faced with a challenge, most people have some sense of whether or not they are capable of accomplishing it.

• Tasks vary from brewing coffee without much thought to driving in rush hour traffic.

• College introduces new learning opportunities and ideas, requiring students to perform well in unfamiliar content areas or on previously unfamiliar tasks.

• Students will believe in their ability to accomplish some tasks more readily than others and for their motivation to waver in kind.

• The relationship between personal beliefs in the ability to accomplish a task and the motivation to persist when confronted with challenges is best understood in terms of self-efficacy.

• To better grasp how self-efficacy beliefs influence achievement, motivation, and goal persistence, Social Cognitive Theory will be described next.

Social Cognitive Theory

• Developed by Albert Bandura in the 1970s to explain social learning and behavioral change.

• Asserts that learning occurs through social interaction and observation of others' behavior.

• This is called modeling, a primary learning mechanism for reinforcing and inhibiting behaviors.

• Building upon earlier behaviorist theories, this idea presupposes that people can be conditioned to learn new behaviors through reinforcement.

• Bandura (1977) introduced the notion of reciprocal determinism.

  • A person's behavior both influences and is influenced by personal characteristics (i.e., cognitive, affective, motivational, and biological factors) as well as the social environment.

• Human behavior is regarded through a lens of personal agency-or the basic human capacity to make self-determined choices-as being subjective, interpersonal, and extraordinarily complex (Bandura, 2006).

• Placing emphasis on personal agency was a significant conceptual shift in learning theory.

• In contrast to earlier behaviorist theories, Social Cognitive Theory regarded a multitude of factors-behavioral, cognitive, personal, and environmental-as influential determinants of human motivation (Bandura et al., 1977).

• Whereas behaviorists had long asserted that learning is an automatic process of imitation that is supported by rewards and deterred by punishment, Bandura (1982) took the alternative view that human beings are intentional agents who seek to control outcomes.

• Learning and behavioral change must be understood in terms of how actions, thoughts, beliefs, and situational environment collectively influence one's learning and personal change processes.

• Broadening the view of learning processes beyond the limits of behaviorism, Social Cognitive Theory successfully granted due respect to the dynamic and multifaceted features of actual human experience in the world.

• According to Bandura (1997), there are four major processes that influence learning, motivation, and goal attainment: self-observation, self-evaluation, self-reaction, and self-efficacy.

• Each of these is relatively straightforward concepts that, taken together, provide a clear picture of how the theory frames learning.

• Whenever you attempt to learn a new skill, all four factors are used to enhance the likelihood that successful learning will occur.

• Example: You take your first ballroom dance class.

• You observe your thoughts, feelings, and actions as you move across the dance floor, making spontaneous adjustments as you go.

• You evaluate your current performance in terms of how well you thought you would do prior to arriving at the dance studio.

• You also react to your progress (or lack thereof) and judge yourself in light of your own self-evaluations and self-observations.

• Depending on how these factors play out, your self-efficacy for the task of dancing may either suffer or flourish.

• Self-efficacy is a personal belief in your ability to accomplish specific tasks. It is contingent not only on task performance, but your evaluative judgments and subsequent reactions to that performance.

• Doing poorly can lead to a retreat from the learning process or a determination to redouble your efforts in mastering the task.

• If your self-efficacy beliefs are relatively high and you continue in the class, all three learning processes are continuously engaged.

• You closely observe your feet in motion, evaluate your progress in terms of a self-determined outcome, react to the progress made (or not), and find that your self-efficacy for the task either increases or decreases.

• All of these learning processes also require specific cognitive elements that are distinctly human and serve as the foundation for Social Cognitive Theory.

• According to Pajares (2009), individuals use symbols to visualize their experiences, forethought to plan their actions, self-reflection to evaluate and explore their thoughts and behaviors, self-regulatory mechanisms to control their responses, and vicarious learning to translate observations into learned behaviors.

• In terms of your experience at the ballroom dance studio, you can visualize the step you are learning, plan for the next step, evaluate your progress, control your emotional response to a misstep, and watch the instructor to learn what to do next.

• It is an incredibly complex set of capabilities that you use every day, with or without effort depending on the task at hand.

• A closer examination of self-efficacy will help explain why.

Self-Efficacy Beliefs

• Self-efficacy beliefs are a task-specific version of self-esteem.

• Whereas self-esteem relates to a global sense of self-worth, self-efficacy refers to beliefs in one's capabilities to organize and execute a course of action required to manage prospective situations (Bandura, 1995, p. 2).

• Self-efficacy beliefs can have a significant effect on motivation, with higher self-efficacy relating to increased task-persistence and lower self-efficacy corresponding with reduced engagement or effort (Parajes, 2009).

• So the likelihood that you will engage in an activity depends largely on your belief that you can succeed.

• If you do not believe in your ability to perform a task then you are unlikely to persist, even when continued effort would lead to both increased ability and enhanced self-efficacy as a result (Gecas, 2004).

• Even as self-efficacy is a cumulative response-outcome expectancy of processes such as self-observations, self-evaluations, and self-reactions, its influence on behavior largely depends upon how these factors are interpreted (Pajares & Schunk, 2001).

• It is interpretation that guides personal judgments of task-based efficacy.

• Doing well or poorly at a task does not necessarily determine persistence or self-efficacy beliefs; however, the positive or negative interpretation of those relative outcomes does.

• Such judgments are a central feature of Social Cognitive Theory, outlined by Bandura (1997) in terms of four major catalysts for growing or sustaining self-efficacy: mastery experiences, social modeling, verbal persuasion, and emotional arousal.

• It is by means of these mechanisms that you interpret whether or not you have the ability to complete a task.

Mastery Experiences

• The judgment of past performance exerts the single greatest influence on self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997).

• Successful performances in the past tend to increase self-efficacy and task persistence while failures tend to reduce self-efficacy and subsequent effort.

• High levels of self-efficacy also correspond with a mastery achievement orientation, meaning that more difficult or challenging tasks are perceived as an opportunity to gain mastery rather than as a risk to avoid due to fear of failure (Williams & Williams, 2010).

• Example: Notice that you have made positive progress over the past four dance classes will increase your sense of efficacy and determination to continue learning.

Social Modeling

• Social modeling involves observing others perform a task and then considering whether you would be able to perform the task with a greater or lesser degree of success (Bandura, 1997).

• Such vicarious experiences depend largely on how you compare yourself to the individual being observed.

• Observing someone similar to you succeed at a given task can increase self-efficacy beliefs regarding that task. If that similar individual fails, you will be less likely to engage in the task.

• Example: watching similar students in the dance class struggle as you do and also stumble over their feet will likely increase your willingness to persist in learning.

Verbal Persuasion

• Supportive or discouraging remarks about personal performance or ability can have a significant effect on self-efficacy beliefs (Bandura, 1997).

• Positive, encouraging comments from credible individuals tend to increase self-efficacy and task persistence. Negative, discouraging comments have the inverse effect.

• The source of persuasion is an important factor to consider because greater significance is placed on support or discouragement provided by individuals perceived as credible (Pajares & Schunk, 2001).

• Example: Positive feedback from your dance instructor will likely increase your efficacy and desire to continue in the class.

Emotional Arousal

• Physiological feedback is a consistent source of information guiding self-efficacy beliefs.

• A prime example arises from giving a presentation to a large audience.

• Emotional arousal in the form of anxiety symptoms such as sweating, agitation, or racing thoughts provide negative feedback that can deter task persistence and lower self-efficacy.

• Positive emotional feedback stemming from feelings of joy, pleasure, or peacefulness can increase self-efficacy and effort (Bandura, 1997).

• The more capable and confident you feel in completing a task, the greater the positive emotional feedback.

• The feeling of accomplishment upon finally mastering a new dance step will lead to positive emotional feedback and a desire to continue learning.

• An important distinction to consider about physiological feedback is interpretation.

• For example, you could interpret feelings of giving presentation to a large audience as not being prepared or you could interpret these feelings as excitement and eagerness to present. One interpretation will decrease self-efficacy, the other will promote it.

Putting it all together: The Impact of Self-Efficacy on Personal Agency

• Self-efficacy beliefs impact personal agency.

• Remember, personal agency is your basic capacity to make choices, while self-efficacy is the belief that you can enact specific behaviors to achieve certain outcomes (Bandura, 1992).

• The beliefs you hold about your abilities have a direct bearing on the choices you make.

• When your efficacy in a given area is low, your sense of agency diminishes and choices are restricted. When your efficacy is high, your sense of agency rises and the array of choices expand.

• A strong sense of agency is important for success and well-being because effective action depends upon the belief that you can overcome obstacles and achieve desired outcomes.

• According to Bandura (2006), "Unless people believe that they can produce desired effects by their actions, they have little incentive to act or to persevere in the face of difficulties" (p. 170).

• An important consideration is whether specific self-efficacy beliefs are accurate or not.

• Because your optimism, aspirations, and persistence are heavily determined by self-efficacy, the accuracy of those beliefs should be of great concern.

• Inaccurate beliefs about your ability to accomplish a task can profoundly affect the decisions you make and, consequently, the course of your life (Bandura, 2006).

• Low self-efficacy can be accurate if it is grounded in a realistic assessment of skill and possibility.

• Example: Some people will never be able to dunk a basketball regardless of how much training or effort they expend.

• Being realistic about certain limitations ensures that you do not put undue effort into a task that will not pay off. However, when the belief is inaccurate, you are likely to give up even though additional effort could change the result.

• Example: students who believe they are inherently “bad” at math ignore the fact that spending extra time and energy practicing would change this perception. Persistence and effort are often the key.

• Consequence of low self-efficacy is the tendency to believe some tasks are more difficult than they actually are.

• This misperception can lead to a "tunnel vision" effect, increasing stress levels and restricting your ability to think creatively about a problem and possible solutions (Bandura, 1997).

• As a result, self-doubt fuels both a sense of helplessness in the face of the task and a reduction in sense of personal agency. It harms your sense of competence as well as your range of behavioral choices.

• A similar outcome arises from high self-efficacy when the difficulty of a future task is underestimated.

• Believing a task is easier than it actually is can lead you to ignore necessary preparations (Schunk, 1991).

• Example: With high self-efficacy in a given class you might decide not to study for the midterm examination, only to find that you seriously underestimated its difficulty.

• A positive result of high self-efficacy in this case would be the willingness to attribute your poor midterm examination grade to a lack of effort.

• For the student with low self-efficacy who receives a bad midterm grade, the poor performance is generally attributed to a lack of ability.

• This distinction between effort and ability has important implications for the self-regulated learner and will be discussed further in the next section on causal attributions.

Attributions

• Heider (1958) believed understanding other people's intentions and actions required understanding factors related to those actions.

• Heider suggested the result of an action depends on factors within the person and within the environment (p. 82).

• These results (potential successes or failures) are then associated with causes related to these factors.

• Specifically, he identified three causes: ability and effort (related to internal conditions or within the person), as well as task difficulty (related to external conditions or the environment).

Weiner's Theory

• Weiner's theories of attributions expanded on ideas of causality.

• Attributions integrate three causal dimensions:

  • Locus of causality: Location of cause (internal or external).

    • Example: Student believes they failed b/c they didn't study (internal) or b/c the test was difficult (external).

  • Stability: Whether the cause remains the same over time.

    • Example: Student can decide to study (unstable cause) and believes the test will retain its level of difficulty (stable cause).

  • Controllability: Whether person believes the cause is under their control.

    • Example: Student can control effort/study time but can't control the test design.

• Weiner (2010) concluded that most attributions in learning fall into four causes of achievement:

  • Ability (internal, stable, and uncontrollable)

  • Effort (internal, unstable, and controllable)

  • Difficulty of task (external, stable, and uncontrollable)

  • Luck (external, unstable, and uncontrollable)

• Depending on the attribution, there can be cognitive and behavioral consequences as well as motivational effects.

Expectancy Principle

• Weiner's expectancy principle ties the causal dimensions to expectations about the future.

• Example: A student who fails a test and believes the reason for her failure is her lack of intellect or ability is making a stable, uncontrollable, and internal attribution. Put bluntly, this student may believe she is "just stupid."

• Because they believe this trait is unchanging and uncontrollable, it could lead to high expectancy for failure in the future. This has significant implications for motivation.

• A student who sees no chance for success will most likely procrastinate, not study, or not try at all.

• Over time, this can lead to learned helplessness where a person believes they have no control over the outcomes in their life (Seligman, 1975).

• Example: "Why try if I'm only going to fail?"

• This situation can be further intensified if external attributions are also made such as believing that the teacher was unfair. In each case, the student will feel as if she has no control, and more importantly, this feeling will not change over time (Weiner, 2010).

• The other extreme occurs when a student fails a test and recognizes that she did not study or only used rote or rehearsal strategies to prepare. This person is making unstable, controllable, and internal attributions.

• It is likely in the future that this student will decide to make changes to her level of effort and possibly the strategies used to study. In this instance, the student believes there is an opportunity for success.

• Weiner would argue that the driving factor in a person's expectancy for success or failure is dependent on whether it is stable or changeable