The Uses of the Intrinsic-Extrinsic Distinction in Explaining Motivation and Organizational Behavior'

Transcription

1 The Uses of the Intrinsic-Extrinsic Distinction in Explaining Motivation and Organizational Behavior' LAURIE A. BROEDLING Navy Personnel Research and Development Center The intrinsic-extrinsic distinction has been used in a variety of ways to describe emp/oyee motivation and to explain organizational behavior. Various usages are reviewed, categorized and discussed. The usefulness of the intrinsic-extrinsic distinction is evaluated and recommendations are made on how it might be more explicitly applied. The terms intrinsic and extrinsic have received increasingly frequent use in the field of organizational behavior (OB), but the distinction between them remains unclear. The use of different definitions of this distinction, both theoretical and operational, has resulted in conceptual ambiguity. The existence of confusion has empirical support from Dyer and Parker's (18) sample survey of American Psychological Asso- Laurie Broedling (Ph.D. George Washington University) is a Research Psychologist at the Navy Personnel Research and Development Center, San Diego, California. Received 1/30/76; Accepted 6/7/76; Revised 6/9/ ciation members of the Division of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. By asking the respondents to define the terms intrinsic and extrinsic, as well as to classify 21 job outcomes into categories of intrinsic, extrinsic, or both, they found considerable support for the confusion hypothesis. This conceptual ambiguity leads to difficulty in comparing empirical results from different studies and also in deciding whether the intrinsic-extrinsic distinction is really theoretically useful. The purpose of this article is to de- The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Department of the Navy.

2 268 The Uses of the Intrinsic-Extrinsic Distinction scribe, categorize and compare various uses of the intrinsic-extrinsic distinction and to evaluate its usefulness. An even more pressing reason to reduce the ambiguity of the distinction is the recent flurry of interest in how intrinsic and extrinsic motivation combine to affect total motivation. Previously the assumption had been that the two are additive, but there have been recent findings indicating they may be subtractive or interactive (14, 40). While the latter findings have gained considerable attention, they have also been criticized (8,17, 22, 49). Critics argue that it is premature to draw conclusions regarding how intrinsic and extrinsic motivation combine when different definitions and measures of the concepts are used. The intrinsic-extrinsic distinction has been used to describe several factors and hypothetical constructs in OB, including motivation, needs, outcomes, satisfaction, rewards, and values. This article describes the use of the distinction with relation to a number of these constructs, with the emphasis on motivation since the distinction has been most commonly applied to this construct. But if interpretation is to be possible, the nature of the distinction should remain fundamentally similar no matter which construct is being described. Historical Development of the Intrinsic-Extrinsic Distinction The roots of the intrinsic-extrinsic distinction can be traced back to the work of the first contemporary cognitive theorists, Lewin (33) and Tolman (50). Their work directed psychology away from an exclusively behaviorist, stimulusresponse outlook, which considered all motivation to be extrinsic. Throughout the 1940s and 1950s the intrinsic concept was developed by need theorists who emphasized the importance of higher-order needs and cognitions. These included the needs for autonomy (2), self-esteem and self-actualization (34), mastery (24), achievement (35), and competence (54). Additional fuel was added to the fire by neo-behaviorists, working with non-human organisms, who named experimentally-observed phenomena not easily explained within behaviorist theory, e.g., exploratory drive (39), curiosity drive (4), and manipulative drive (23). Ironically, the last publication was among the first to use the term intrinsic motivation. The real popularization of the distinction occurred when Herzberg introduced his distinction between motivators and hygiene factors (25). The intrinsic-extrinsic distinction grew out of a need to explain behaviors not easily accounted for within the extrinsic, behaviorist framework. The immense current popularity of the intrinsic concept attests to the fact that many aspects of human behavior are not extrinsic. But unfortunately the term "intrinsic" has often simply been applied to those aspects of behavior which cannot be explained as extrinsic; it has been applied as a catchall explanation whenever behaviors occur which cannot be clearly linked to external outcomes. Current Uses of the Distinction The intrinsic-extrinsic distinction has been employed in a variety of ways. Usages can be descriptively categorized into two major types: as an individual characteristic or fairly stable personality trait on which people differ, and as a fairly changeable psychological state. Table 1 summarizes this categorization. Asa Trait When used to characterize individual differences, the intrinsic-extrinsic distinction is most often used in OB to describe a person's orientation toward his or her work. There are three common measures of work orientation, each incorporating a somewhat different conception of the intrinsic-extrinsic distinction. The first is the Job Attitude Scale (JAS), comprised of six intrinsic and ten extrinsic jobrelated statements, presented in forced-choice

3 Academy of Management Rev/ew - April TABLE 1. Summary of Material Pertaining to the Intrinsic-Extrinsic Distinction Category of Use Trait State as a Function of Situation State as a Function of Interaction between Situation and Trait Relevant Material in titerature Measures of work orientation lob Attitude Scale (46, 47, 48) Survey of Work Values (55) lob Orientation Inventory (5) Related trait concepts Internal-external Control (45) Origin/Pawn (12) Inner-directed/Other-directed (43) Achievement motivation (3) Level of need satisfaction (34) Independent Variables Type of rewards (41) Work content (42) Control of work (16) Leadership style (36) Reward contingencies (15,16) Theoretical concepts/models Expectancy theory (38) Internal task goals (10) Intrinsic Activity Value (7, 51) Attribution theory (9, 28, 29, 30) Information-processing theory (19) Independent variables Task design and work values (26) Content of tasks and work values (44) lob rewards and work orientation (11) Perceptions of job content and desired level of need satisfaction (20, 21, 31) Theoretical modek Cognitive evaluation theory (16) pairs (46, 47). Although job orientation here is distinct from job motivation (considered to be a process) or job satisfaction (considered a state), this intrinsic-extrinsic distinction is derived from the distinction made for motivation:... a person is intrinsically motivated to perform some task if there is no apparent reward for the performance except the activity itself and the feeling of satisfaction or enjoyment which is derived from doing the activity. Alternatively, one is extrinsically motivated to perform the task if he does it primarily for some external reward (46, p. 1). Job orientation is based on one's personal value system, with intrinsically-oriented people being more interested in job content and extrinsically-oriented people being more interested in job context (48). It is postulated that intrinsicallyoriented people tend to reject stability and routine, to have more initiative, and to be approach oriented. Saleh (46) related this conception of the distinction to Maslow's need hierarchy and to Herzberg's two-factor theory. Growth needs are seen as underlying intrinsic factors and deficiency needs as underlying extrinsic factors. If

4 270 The Uses of the Intrinsic-Extrinsic Distinctiot) Herzberg's theory is valid, it could also be expected that intrinsic factors are the main source of satisfaction and motivation, while extrinsic factors are the main source of dissatisfaction. A second measure of intrinsic-extrinsic job orientation is the Survey of Work Values (SWV) (55), based on the presumption that people who value the Protestant Work Ethic are primarily intrinsically-oriented. Some of the factors are intrinsic (e.g., pride in work); some are extrinsic (e.g., social status of the job); and one factor is viewed as mixed upward striving. A third measure is the Job Orientation Inventory (JOI) (6). Organizational rewards are classified into ten categories, some intrinsic and some extrinsic. The format is forced-choice, with the intent to measure an individual's preference for the various types of potential rewards. While there is a fundamental similarity in purpose of these three scales, there are differences in their conceptions of the intrinsic-extrinsic distinction, and the three scales have been shown not to have convergent validity (1). The first two scales measure work values, while the JOI measures preference for type of organizational rewards. On the intrinsic dimension, the SWV includes the work groups as a vehicle while the JAS does not (11). The JAS and JOI are both ipsative, forcedchoice scales which means that scoring high on intrinsic orientation necessarily means scoring low on extrinsic orientation and vice versa. This approach makes sense in an individual trait framework, since intrinsic-extrinsic is seen as a continuum on which individuals are located in only one spot. The ipsative model implies that people do not respond to both intrinsic and extrinsic motivators; therefore it does not represent a combinatorial model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (either additive or subtractive). Persons who are intrinsically motivated presumably will be relatively unaffected by the presence of extrinsic rewards, and vice versa. When the intrinsic-extrinsic distinction is employed as a characteristic of individuals, it is similar to several other personality trait distinctions and is often used to describe them. One is Rotter's Internal-External (I-E) Locus of Control (45), which refers to the extent to which one person perceives events as under one's control (internal) or as a result of forces beyond one's control (external). A similar distinction is de Charms' Origin/Pawn (12, 13), which describes the perception of controlling one's own behavior versus having it controlled by outside agents. It is essentially the difference between perceiving oneself as free versus forced, a feeling of personal causation versus a feeling of powerlessness or ineffectiveness. According to de Charms, Origins are intrinsically motivated, while Pawns are extrinsically motivated. Riesman's inner-directed/other-directed distinction (43) pertains to whether one acts in accordance with one's own beliefs or the expectations of those around one. A fourth related distinction is that of high versus low achievement motivation. Deci maintains that achievement motivation is a special case of intrinsic motivation (16). In Atkinson's model (3), achievement motivation is conceived as a relatively stable personality trait because it is a function of two other stable traits tendency to approach success and tendency to avoid failure. The fifth distinction is that of higher-order versus lowerorder need satisfaction, designating where the individual is situated on Maslow's need hierarchy. The commonality between the intrinsic-extrinsic distinction and the five distinctions described here is that all are used to explain why some people in a given situation engage in certain classes of behaviors, loosely categorized as growth or self-actualizing behaviors, more than do other people in the same situation. The other common thread is that all these distinctions relate directly or indirectly to a person's feelings of control of both self and environment. As a State The intrinsic-extrinsic distinction also has been used to describe states of the individual

5 Acadetny of Management Review - April a person's motivation or satisfaction at a given time, subject to change depending on circumstances. Within this broad category are two subcategories: (a) the state is primarily a function of the characteristics of the immediate situation; (b) the state is a function of an interaction between the situational characteristics and the individual personal traits. One major situational characteristic considered to be a determining factor in employees' intrinsic-extrinsic states is the type of rewards available. Porter and Lawler (41) distinguished between extrinsic rewards, which are controlled and awarded by the organization, and intrinsic rewards, which are awarded to the employee by himself or herself. A second important situational characteristic is job content, that is, how much of the job is intrinsically interesting. Based on the Porter and Lawler distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards, Pritchard and Peters (42) hypothesized that intrinsic job satisfaction should be more closely related to the actual work content than extrinsic satisfaction. They measured intrinsic and extrinsic satisfaction using the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire (MSQ) (53), which has intrinsic and extrinsic subscales. Not only was their hypothesis supported, but it also was found that intrinsic satisfaction was predicted better by the actual job duties than by the employees' interest in performing their job duties. A third situational characteristic is job autonomy. To the extent that employees do not perceive themselves controlling their own work, they will be in no position to receive intrinsic rewards, develop intrinsic satisfaction, etc. (16). A fourth characteristic is leadership style the extent to which supervisors employ participative practices allowing employees to exercise control over their work (36). A fifth characteristic in the work environment is the reward contingencies whether or not job outcomes are contingent upon performance and perceived as such. Deci (15) found that when extrinsic rewards were contingent upon performance, there was a detrimental effect on intrinsic motivation, but no such detriment appeared when rewards were not contingent upon performance. In this experiment, as in most experimental work on the relationship of extrinsic and intrinsic motivation, the operational definition of an intrinsically motivated activity is one which is done in the absence of any apparent external reward (16).Therefore, the measure of intrinsic motivation was the number of seconds of free choice time which the subjects spent engaged in the experimental task. In the OB field, the effects of perceived contingencies have been stressed within the rubric of expectancy theory. Expectancy theory explains motivation as a function of how much an employee values the various potential outcomes of the job (valence), whether one sees those outcomes as contingent upon job performance (instrumentality), and whether one sees oneself as able and willing to perform sufficiently well to obtain (or avoid) the relevant outcomes (expectancy). Although expectancy theory does not discount the influences of personality traits, it emphasizes the immediate influences of the situation. For instance, an employee's perception of instrumentality is more dependent upon the factors present in the immediate work situation than on his or her generalized perceptions of internal-external control. Expectancy theory is ahistorical in that it does not dwell on the formative processes resulting in employees' perceptions. In this respect it can be contrasted to trait theories, such as Atkinson's which emphasizes how the personality traits underlying achievement motivation are formed. Because expectancy theory explains behavior in terms of perceptions regarding job outcomes, it is primarily a theory of extrinsic motivation (16). This is particularly true of the original Vroom model (52), which focuses on first level outcomes (e.g., money, recognition) and second level outcomes which can be obtained with first level outcomes (e.g., food, status). The fact that expectancy theory does not lend itself directly to explaining intrinsically motivated behavior has resulted in many extensions and modifica-

6 272 The Uses of the Intrinsic-Extrinsic Distinction tions to the model. One approach has been to partition job outcomes into intrinsic and extrinsic categories (38). But this strategy does not resolve the basic difficulty that the concept of an "intrinsic outcome" is inherently contradictory, because the concept of outcome is basically extrinsic. Moreover, there is no clearcut theoretical basis for deciding which outcomes are intrinsic and which are extrinsic, so the decision is subjective to the investigator. The Dyer and Parker (18) survey demonstrates that it is unreasonable to expect consensus across investigators in this regard. One way of coping with this problem was used by Meir (37) in developing a list of intrinsic and extrinsic needs. Only those need items were included on which a board of five to ten psychologists could reach an 80 percent concensus. Campbell, Dunnette, Lawler, and Weick (10) modified the basic expectancy model specifically to better account for certain aspects of behavior which are not clearly extrinsic. In this model, two facets of motivation are included, one based on external task goals and one on internal task goals. External task goals are specified by someone else, while internal task goals are specified by the individual based on his or her value system. Motivation as affected by external task goals is a function of: valences of the goals, first and second level outcomes, perceived probabilities of goal accomplishment, and perceived probabilities of obtaining first and second level outcomes. Motivation as affected by internal task goals is a function of valence of the goals and of perceived probability of goal accomplishment. Therefore, for internal task goals, task accomplishment is an outcome in itself. This approach follows the tradition of dividing outcomes into two types, but it is superior to other attempts in that a qualitative distinction is made between the two in terms of what factors affect the two types of resulting motivation. In a related line of thinking, Turney developed the concept of Intrinsic Activity Value (lav), the value which employees place on their job duties, irrespective of external outcomes associated with performance (51). lav is the intrinsic analog of valence. But there is a fundamental difference between lav and internal task goal. The former pertains to values placed on actually engaging in job activities, while the latter pertains to values placed on task accomplishment. Thus the concept of lav obviates the need for using the somewhat self-contradictory concept of intrinsic outcome. Extending Turney's work, Broedling (7) measured extrinsic motivation in a standard, expectancy theory manner, as the mean sum of the products of the valences and instrumentalities of the individual job outcomes (e.g., getting a promotion) times the expectancy of being able to perform well. Intrinsic motivation was defined as a function of employees' feelings about their job activities apart from job outcomes. The two variables which determine intrinsic motivation were taken to be: (a) Intrinsic Activity Value measured as the perceived pleasantness or unpleasantness of engaging in each particular job activity (e.g., evaluating your employees); (b) self-expectancy the employees' perception that they can perform each job activity well if they try hard. Intrinsic motivation was the mean sum of the products of the lavs and selfexpectancies for each activity. Intrinsic motivation was found to be a much better predictor of job performance (measured by self, peer, and supervisor ratings) than extrinsic motivation. A large body of pertinent current research in social psychology derives from attribution theory, the study of how people assign motives to themselves and to others. This work is similar to expectancy theory in that, while it does not discount historical influences and individual differences, its primary purpose is to explain a person's intrinsic-extrinsic state at a given time. Calder and Staw (9) argued that the usual use of intrinsic to apply to behaviors which are self-sustained and valued for their own sake only serves as a descriptive label, not as an explanation. Instead, they advocate use of intrinsic-extrinsic as a perception on the part of individuals to explain their own behavior to themselves.

7 Academy of Management Review - April Kruglanski (28, 29) rejected the distinction of extrinsic pertaining to causes of behavior which are external to the person and intrinsic pertaining to causes internal to the person. His distinction is that extrinsically motivated behavior is exogenously-attributed, that is, behavior which the person sees as a means to an end; intrinsically motivated behavior is endogenouslyattributed, that is, seen as an end in itself. Kruglanski maintains that this distinction can better predict the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. For example, one experimental study found that money depressed intrinsic motivation only when money was not inherent to the task (a model construction game which is not typically played for money). Money enhanced intrinsic motivation for a task where money was inherent to it (a coin toss game typically played for money) (30). Greene and Lepper (19) also utilize this means-end distinction in their informationprocessing approach to intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Their goal is to account for the adverse effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation, both in the immediate and in the longer term. They distinguish between extrinsic incentives, which are not only means to ends but also situation-specific, and intrinsic incentives, which are more general and are associated with task content and internal states. A person's choice of behavior at any given moment is a result of the sum of extrinsic and intrinsic incentives. The other sub-category of uses are those which explain individual states as resulting from an interaction between situational characteristics and personal traits. There is a growing tendency within OB toward explaining work behavior as an interaction, rather than strictly in terms of either personal traits or situational characteristics. Hulin and Blood (26) indicate that job performance and satisfaction are affected by the interaction of task design (situational) and work values (personal). Robey (44) found an interaction between intrinsic-extrinsic work values and the content of tasks, in terms of the subjects' satisfaction and partially in terms of their performance. Cascio (11) hypothesized that job satisfaction would be highest for employees whose intrinsic-extrinsic value orientation (as measured by the SWV) matched the intrinsic-extrinsic nature of the rewards present in the work situation. As expected, for the extrinsic employees, satisfaction with work environment factors was the most significant determinant of overall satisfaction, but satisfaction with the work itself was not found to be the most important determinant of overall satisfaction for intrinsic employees. The work of Lawler, Hackman and Oldham (20, 21, 31) is another example of a conceptual model which postulates that motivation is the result of a situational-personal interaction. In their framework, internal motivation (that which is mediated by the person and tied directly to job content) is a function of the interaction between an employee's desire for higher-order need satisfaction (trait) and the job itself (situation). The job content is considered in terms of four core dimensions variety, autonomy, task identity, feedback and the Job Diagnostic Survey has been developed to measure these dimensions. While there is empirical support for this conceptual model, the role of the higherorder need strength trait may be more complex than originally thought (6). The concept of intrinsic and extrinsic feedback might be one way of explaining the variety of results in job enrichment studies. Intrinsic feedback is internally-sent, and extrinsic feedback is externally-sent. To the extent that the situation gives an employee the leeway to call upon skills and abilities which he or she values, and thus to rely primarily on intrinsic feedback, the employee will be intrinsically motivated. Another major theoretical development which might be classified as interactive is Deci's (16) cognitive evaluation theory. This was developed to account for findings that intrinsic and extrinsic motivation are not additive. Deci's work draws heavily on that of de Charms (12) and therefore can be considered to include both the effect of traits (Origin/Pawn) and situational

8 274 The Uses ofthe Intrinsic-Extrinsic Distinction characteristics. Deci's theoretical definition of intrinsic motivation is that which is "based in the human need to be competent and self-determining in relation to the environment" (16, p. 65). According to cognitive evaluation theory, there are two processes through which extrinsic rewards affect intrinsic motivation. One is if the reward changes the person's perception of locuses of causality of his or her own behavior, from internally controlled to externally controlled. The other is if the reward changes the person's feelings about his or her own competence and self-determination. Discussion and Conclusions As shown in this review, the intrinsic-extrinsic distinction has been applied in a variety of ways. In addition to describing individual traits and states, it has been used to characterize the working environment (e.g., an assembly-line is not intrinsically motivating). While most commonly used to explain the behavior of others, Calder and Staw (9) advocate its use as a description of one's own behavior. Some uses emphasize specific perceptions of individuals regarding their control of distinct environmental events, while others emphasize the individual's global feelings of competence and locus of control. While there is variation in usages, the common thread is the individual's perception of control, of both environmental events and his or her own behavior. There is also extensive variety in operational definitions, ranging from self-report questionnaire measures to actual behavior in a free-choice situation. Is the intrinsic-extrinsic distinction useful in explaining organizational behavior, or is it simply a superfluous label for phenomena that have already been described in other terms? Although similar to other distinctions, there is empirical evidence that it accounts for a unique dimension (32). Moreover, its frequent use is a strong argument that there is need for a distinction of this sort. A potential problem is that it may be an over-simplification, that there may be more than two categories of motivation (27). Future research on the nature of the distinction would best be directed toward investigating whether more categories of motivation could better account for organizational behavior. While the intrinsic-extrinsic distinction is basically useful, the OB field would benefit if the distinction were more uniformly applied. Specifically, it is confusing to use the distinction to describe both traits and states. Since the latter usage is more frequent, it might be helpful not to label people as intrinsic or extrinsic types, but rather as those high in feelings of control (of both their behavior and the environment) and those low in feelings of control. It also seems inappropriate to label environment characteristics as intrinsic or extrinsic since those labels are tied to perceptions, not to physical reality. If the intrinsic-extrinsic distinction is applied in a more uniform manner, and if investigators clearly define their use of the term, it will become easier to compare results and draw conclusions regarding the explanation of work behavior. REFERENCES 1. Alexander, R. A., L. L. Balascoe, G. V. Barrett, E.. O'Connor, and j. B. Forbes. The Relationships among Measures of Work Orientation, Attribute Preferences and Ability, Technical Report No. 7, (Akron, Ohio: Department of Psychology, University of Akron, 1975). 2. Angyal, A, Foundations for a Science of Personality (New York: Commonwealth Fund, 1941). Atkinson,. W. An Introduction to Motivation (Princeton, N..: van Nostrand, 1964). Berlyne, D. E. Conflict, Arousal, and Curiosity (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960). Blood, M. R. "Intergroup Comparisons of Intraperson Differences: Rewards from the job," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 26, No. 1 (1973), 1-9.

9 Academy of Management Review - April Brief, A. B., and R. G. Aldag. "Employee Reactions to ob Characteristics: A Constructive Replication," journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, No. 2 (1975), Broedling, L. A. "The Use of an Intrinsic Index of Motivation in an Expectancy Theory Framework." Paper presented at the Western Division of the Academy of Management, Calder, B.., and B. M. Staw. "Interaction of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation: Some Methodological Notes," lournal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 1 (1975), Calder, B.., and B. M. Staw."Self-perception of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation," journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 31, No. 4 (1975), Campbell, j. P., M. D. Dunnette, E. E. Lawler, and K. E. Weick. Managerial Behavior, Perfortvance and ff/ect/veness (NewYork: McGraw-Hill. 1970). 11. Cascio, W. F. Value Orientation, Organizational Rewards, and job Satisfaction, Technical Report 82 (Rochester, N.Y.: Graduate School of Management, University of Rochester, 1973). 12. decharms, R. Personal Causation (New York: Academic Press, 1968). 13. decharms, R. "Personal Causation Training in the Schools," journal of Applied Social Psychology, Vol. 2, No. 2 (1972), Deci, E. L. "Effects of Externally Mediated Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation," journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 18, No. 1 (1971), Deci, E. L. "The Effects of Contingent and Non-contingent Rewards and Controls on Intrinsic Motivation," Or- ganizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 8, I No. 2 (1972), Deci, E. L. Intrinsic Motivation (New York: Plenum Press, 1975). 17. Dermer,. "The Interrelationship of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation," Academy of Management journal. Vol. ' 18, No. 1(1975), Dyer, L., and D. F. Parker. "Classifying Outcomes in Work Motivation Research: An Examination of the Intrinsicextrinsic Dichotomy," journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 60, No. 4 (1975), Greene, D., and M. R. Lepper. "An Information-processing Approach to Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation." Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention, Hackman,. R., and E. E. Lawler. "Employee Reactions to lob Characteristics," journal of Applied Psychology Monograph, Vol. 55 (1971), Hackman,. R., and G. R. Oldham. "Development of the ' lob Diagnostic Survey," journal of Applied Psychology, ' Vol.60,No. 2(1975), Hamner, W. C, and L. W. Foster. "Are Intrinsic and Extrinsic Rewards Additive: A Test of Deci's Cognitive Evaluation Theory," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 14 (1975), Harlow, H. F., M. K. Harlow, and D. R. Meyer. "Learning Motivated by a Manipulation Drive," journal of Experimental Psychology, Vol. 40, No. 2 (1950), Hendrik, I. "The Discussion of the 'Instinct to Master'," Psychoana/y(/c Quarterly, Vol. 12 (1943), Herzberg, F., B. Mausner, and B. Snyderman. The Motivation to Work (New York: Wiley, 1959). 26. Hulin, C. L., and M. R. Blood, "job Enlargement, Individual Differences, and Worker Responses," Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 69, No. 1 (1968), Korman, A. K., B. E. Goodstadt, A. S. Glickman, and A. P. Romanczuk. An Exploratory Study of Enlistment Incentives among junior College Students (Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research, 1973). 28. Kruglanski, A. "An Endogenous Attribution Theory of Intrinsic Motivation." Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention, Kruglanski, A. "The Endogenous-exogenous Partition in Attribution Theory," Psychological Review, Vol. 82 (1975), Kruglanski, A., A. Riter, A. Amitai, B. Margolin, L. Shabtai, and D. Zaksh. "Can Money Enhance Intrinsic Motivation? A Test of the Content-consequence Hypothesis," journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 31 (1975), Lawler, E. E. "Job Design and Employee Motivation," Personnel Psychology, Vol. 22, No. 4 (1969), Lawler, E. E., and D. T. Hall. "The Relationship of ob Characteristics to ob Involvement, Satisfaction and Intrinsic Motivation," journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 54, No. 4 (1970), Lewin, K. A Dynamic Theory of Personality (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1935). 34. Maslow, A. H. "A Theory of Human Motivation," Psychological Review, Vol. 50 (1943), McClelland, D., j. W. Atkinson, R. A. Clark, and E. L. Lowell. The Achievement Motive (New York: Appleton- Century-Crofts, 1953). 36. McGregor, D. The Human Side of Enterprise (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1960). 37. Meir, E. I. "Relationship between Intrinsic Needs and Women's Persistence at Work," journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 56, No. 4 (1972), Mitchell, T. R., and D. W. Albright. "Expectancy Theory Predictions of the Satisfaction, Effort, Performance, and Retention of Naval Aviation Officers," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 8, No. 1 (1972), Montgomery, K. C. "The Role of Exploratory Drive in Learning," journal of Comparative Physiological Psychology, Vol. 47 (1954),

10 276 The Uses of the Intrinsic-Extrinsic Distinction 40. Notz, W. W. "Work Motivation and the Negative Effects of Extrinsic Rewards; A Review with Innplicafions for Theory and Practice," American Psychologist, Vol. 30, No. 9(19751, Porter, L. W, and E, E. Lawler. "The Effect of Performance on lob Satisfaction," Industrial Relations, Vol. 7 (1967), Pritchard, R. D., and L. H. Peters. ")ob Duties and Job Interests as Predictors of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Satisfaction," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol.12, No. 3(19741, Riesman, D. The Lonely Crowd (New Haven,Conn.: Yale University Press, 1950). 44. Robey, D. "Task Design, Work Values, and Worker Response: An Experimental Test," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 12, No. 2 (1974), Rotter, ). B. "Generalized Expectancies for Internal versus External Control of Reinforcement," Psychological Monographs. Vol. 80 (1966), No. 1 (Whole No. 609). 46. Saleh, S. D. Development of the job Attitude Scale (jas) (University of Waterloo: Department of Management Sciences, 1971). 47. Saleh, S. D., and T. C. Crygier. "Psychodynamics of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Job Orientation," journal of Applied Psychology, Vol. 53, No. 6 (1969), Saleh, S. D., and V. Pasricha. "Job Orientation and Work Behavior," Academy of Management journal. Vol. 18, No. 3(19751, Scott, W. E., r. "Tbe Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on 'Intrinsic Motivation.' A Critique," Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, Vol. 15, No. 1 (1976), Tolman, E. C. Purposive Behavior in Animals and Man (New York: Century, 1932). 51. Turney, J. R. "Expectancy x Valence and Intrinsic Activity Value as Predictors of Motivation in a Technical-Professional Organization," Proceedings of the 80th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, 1972, Vroom, V. H. Work and Motivation (New York: Wiley, 1964). 53. Weiss, D., R. Dawis, C. England, and L. Lofquist."Manual for the Minnesota Satisfaction Questionnaire," Minnesota Studies in Vocational Rehabilitation, Vol. 12, Bulletin 45 (1967). 54. White, R. W. "Motivation Reconsidered: The Concept of Competence," Psychological Review, Vol. 66, No. 5 (1959), Wollack, S.,. G. Goodale, J. P. Wijting, and P. C. Smith. "Development of the Survey of Work Values,"/ourna/o/ Applied Psychology, Vol. 55, No. 4 (1971),

11