Developmental Psychology 1981, Vol. 17, No.

3, 300-312

Copyright 1981 by the American Psychological Association, Inc. 0012-1649/81 /1703-0300S00.75

A New Self-Report Scale of Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation in the Classroom: Motivational and Informational Components
Susan Harter University of Denver This article reports on a new self-report scale that taps a child's intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation toward learning and mastery in the classroom. Five separate dimensions are defined by an intrinsic and an extrinsic pole: preference for challenge versus preference for easy work, curiosity/interest versus teacher approval, independent mastery attempts versus dependence on the teacher, independent judgment versus reliance on the teacher's judgment, and internal versus external criteria for success/failure. The reliability and factorial validity of the scale have been adequately demonstrated. Additional validity studies are reported. Higher order factoring reveals two distinct clusters of subscales: The first three dimensions form one factor and are interpreted as more motivational in nature; the remaining two are viewed as more cognitive-informational in nature. Developmental data reveal that across Grades 3-9 there is a shift from intrinsic to extrinsic on the first motivational cluster. Conversely, there is a dramatic developmental shift from extrinsic to intrinsic on the cognitive-informational cluster. Interpretations for these developmental differences are advanced, and the educational implications are explored. The discussion focuses on the need to be precise in our conceptualization and operationalization of the term intrinsic motivation. Recent trends within the domain of motivation have led to an increasing emphasis
An earlier version of this article was presented at the meeting of the Society for Research in Child Development, San Francisco, March 1979. This research was supported by Grant HD-09613 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, U.S. Public Health Service. The author would like to acknowledge the extensive cooperation of both the school personnel and pupils from the following school systems, without whose assistance this scale could not have been constructed: the Cherry Creek Public School System, the Denver Public School System, and the Jefferson County Public School System, all in Colorado; the Ventura School District, Ventura, California; the Killingworth Public School System and the Wightwood School, in Connecticut; and the Rochester Public School System, Rochester, New York. The contributions of Jim Connell and Bob Engstrom were invaluable in bringing conceptual clarity to the scale during the various phases of its evolution. I would also like to thank Ed Deci, from the University of Rochester, for providing the data from the New York sample. A manual for the scale is now available for $5.95 from the author. Requests for reprints should be sent to Susan Harter, Department of Psychology, University of Denver, University Park, Denver, Colorado 80208.

on the construct of intrinsic motivation (see Deci, 1975, for a review of many of the theoretical models that address this construct). One approach can be seen in the efforts of experimental social psychologists, notably Lepper (1980), Deci (1975), and their colleagues, who are empirically examining attributional models that specify the conditions under which extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic motivation. One also finds the concept of intrinsic motivation in those broad theoretical formulations that have focused on mastery and competence. Our own approach has taken White's (1959) model of effectance motivation as a point of departure. In his challenge to traditional drive theory, White proposed a new motivational construct that impels the organism to engage in mastery attempts. He viewed this need to deal effectively with the environment as intrinsic, postulating that its gratification produced inherent pleasure. The effectance motive construct has obvious heuristic appeal, particularly for the study of the developing child in whom strivings toward mastery and competence are

300

INTRINSIC VERSUS EXTRINSIC ORIENTATION

301

universally evident. The global nature of this construct, however, has made it difficult to operationalize. White's formulation does not readily lend itself to an empirical test. Thus my own efforts have focused on refining and extending this formulation, casting it within a developmental framework that could be examined empirically (see Harter, 1978, 1980, for a complete discussion of this model). The present article describes one empirical effort in this programmatic research, namely, the construction of a self-report measure to assess intrinsic motivation in the elementary school child. A major purpose was to devise an instrument that would make it possible to test certain predictions postulated in the model. These involved hypotheses concerning the antecedents of intrinsic motivation as well as correlates (e.g., perceived competence). One central hypothesis was that motivational orientation and perceived competence should be related such that children with an intrinsic orientation in a given domain would have higher perceived competence in that domain. Conversely, children with an extrinsic orientation would have lower feelings of competence. In constructing a measure sensitive to these predictions, I was guided by the following general considerations: 1. Rather than view effectance motivation as a global or unitary construct, we should attempt to delineate the possible components of this motive system. 2. Although White's (1959) major emphasis was on the intrinsic properties of effectance motivation, we should also address the issue of extrinsic motivation and examine the relative strength of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivational orientations. 3. We should examine the components of these motive systems within a developmental framework, charting ontogenetic change. 4. We should also be sensitive to individual differences in motivational orientation within a given developmental level. 5. In our attempts to devise measures that are psychologically meaningful as well as psychometrically sound, we should give careful attention to the ecological validity of our construct.

Classroom learning was chosen as a situation in which the motivational orientation of the child would be particularly relevant. As a starting point, I addressed the following question: To what degree is a child's motivation for classroom learning determined by her or his intrinsic interest in learning and mastery, curiosity, and preference for challenge, in contrast to a more extrinsic orientation in which the child is motivated to obtain teacher approval and/or grades and is dependent on the teacher for guidance? With this as a framework, I delineated five dimensions of classroom learning that could be characterized as having both an intrinsic and an extrinsic motivational pole: (a) learning motivated by curiosity versus learning in order to please the teacher, (b) incentive to work for one's own satisfaction versus working to please the teacher and get good grades, (c) preference for challenging work versus preference for easy work, (d) desire to work independently versus dependence on the teacher for help, and (e) internal criteria for success or failure versus external criteria (e.g., grades, teacher feedback) to determine success or failure. My psychometric efforts were guided by the following criteria. Although I had isolated components that seemed meaningful, it was critical to determine whether the scale structure that I imposed actually emerged in the children's responses such that subscale scores could be meaningfully interpreted. Thus I relied heavily on factor-analytic procedures in examining the structure of the scale. Furthermore, to make meaningful developmental comparisons, it was important that the factor structure remain stable across the grade levels examined. I also placed emphasis on the internal consistency of given subscales as a primary index of reliability. My sensitivity to the tendency for many selfreport measures to pull for socially desirable responses caused me to devote considerable energy to the design of a new question format that would offset this tendency. The age levels initially selected were third to sixth grade, although I subsequently extended the sample to include junior high school pupils. The initial approach to the examination of developmental differences

302

SUSAN HARTER Harter, in press). My previous experience with truefalse formats has revealed several problems, the most critical of which has been their susceptibility to socially desirable responses. These problems attenuate both the reliability and the validity of such scales. After considerable pilot work, much of which involved the individual interviewing of children, I devised a structured alternative format in which the child is presented with the type of question shown in Figure 1. The child is first asked to decide which kind of kid is most like him or her and then asked whether this is only sort of true or really true for him or her. The effectiveness of this question format lies in the implication that half of the children in the world (or in one's reference group) view themselves in one way, whereas the other half view themselves in the opposite manner. That is, this type of question legitimizes either choice. The option of checking "sort of true for me" or "really true for me" broadens the range of choices over the typical two-choice format. In addition, none of the choices involve the response false. Rather, the child must decide which of the options is most true for him or her. My confidence in this format was first bolstered by the fact that the verbal elaborations given for their choice indicated that children were giving accurate perceptions of their motivational orientations rather than socially desirable responses. Subsequently, we administered the Children's Social Desirability Scale (Crandall, Crandall, & Katkovsky, 1965) to Sample F, which revealed correlations between .09 and .15 across the various subscales. Three of the values were negative, reflecting a slight tendency for socially desirable responses to be correlated with an extrinsic orientation. Earlier versions of the scale contained from six to eight items per subscale. Each item was scored on an ordinal scale from 1 to 4, where a score of 1 indicated the maximum extrinsic orientation and a score of 4 indicated the maximum intrinsic orientation. Thus, in the example given above, children who indicate that they know if they have made a mistake without checking with the teacher and describe this as really true for themselves would receive a 4. Children for whom this part of the statement is only sort of true would receive a 3. Children who indicate that they need to check with the teacher and describe this as sort of true would receive a 2, and children for whom this second part of the statement is really true would receive a 1. Items were counterbalanced within each subscale such that half of them began with a statement reflecting an intrinsic orientation and half with an extrinsic orientation. Subscale means were then obtained by averaging the item scores.

was to use a cross-sectional design across this grade span. Method Subjects
Over 3,000 pupils have participated in various phases of my scale construction studies. Data have been collected in four states; Connecticut, New York, Colorado, and California. Data from six samples are described in this article. Sample A consisted of 130 third through sixth graders from Colorado to whom early versions of the scale were individually administered. The initial scale resulting from these efforts was then group administered to Sample B, 780 third through sixth graders from New York, and to Sample C, 341 third through sixth graders from California. The revised scale was then group administered to Sample D, 761 third through sixth graders from New York, and to Sample E, 793 third through ninth graders from California. Sample F, 120 third through sixth graders from Colorado, was group administered the final version. In each sample, the socioeconomic level ranged from lower-middle to upper-middle class. There were approximately the same number of children at each grade level, with about the same number of males and females within each grade.

Original Scale Structure

The content of the initial five subscales, each defined by an intrinsic and an extrinsic pole, was as follows: (a) Learning for curiosity versus learning to please the teacher contrasted asking questions to satisfy one's own curiosity versus learning because the teacher wanted one to master the material, (b) Incentive to work for one's own satisfaction versus working to get grades and please the teacher pitted a desire to do schpolwork out of personal interest in learning against learning in order to meet the teacher's expectations and to insure good grades, (c) Preference for challenge versus preference for easy work contrasted a desire to engage in challenging schoolwork with a preference for merely doing the easier work assigned by a teacher, (d) Desire to work independently versus dependence on the teacher pitted an orientation in which the child chose to work on assignments and projects on his or her own against an orientation in which the child preferred help and assistance from the teacher, (e) Internal criteria of success and failure versus external criteria contrasted the child's own judgment about how well she or he did on a test or an assignment with a reliance on teacher feedback, marks, or grades as an indication of how well she or he performed.

Results Pilot Data on the Original Version As emphasized above, it was important to demonstrate the factorial validity of the scale to interpret the dimensions of classroom motivation as meaningful subscales. Considerable exploratory work with individual children (Sample A) resulted in a pool

Question Format
The question format was one initially devised in the construction of the Perceived Competence Scale for Children. The rationale for this format has been described in detail in the presentation of that scale (see

INTRINSIC VERSUS EXTRINSIC ORIENTATION

Really True for Me Sort of True for Me Sort of True for Me

303

Really True for Me

Some kids know when they've made mistakes without checking with the teacher

BUT

Other kids need to check with the teacher to know if they've made a mistake

Figure I . Sample item.

of items that were comprehensible to elementary school children and appeared to tap the orientations in question at the item level. The scale was then group administered to two separate samples of third-, fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-grade children, 780 in New York (Sample B) and 341 in California (Sample C). The resulting factor structures were virtually identical and revealed that three of the initial five dimensions described here in terms of their intrinsic pole emerged as clear and interpretable factors, although not perfectly defined by all of the particular items included to tap these dimensions. These three were preference for challenge, independent mastery, and internal criteria for success failure. Two of the initial dimensions, incentive to work for one's own satisfaction and curiosity, merged as a single factor. Finally, one new factor emerged. Examination of the particular items definingthat factor indicated that it could be meaningfully interpreted as independent judgment versus reliance on the teacher. Thus items were reorganized to define this new subscale structure and additional items were written where necessary to determine whether an interpretable five-factor solution, reflecting these dimensions, would emerge.

than two consecutive items are keyed in the same direction. Each item could receive a score of from 1 to 4. Item scores are summed for a given subscale, and a mean is calculated for each separate subscale. Given the focus on isolating the components of motivational orientation, based on identifiable factors, no total scale score is calculated because such a score would mask subscale differences manifest in the profiles of individual children. Factorial Validity of the Revised Scale

Factor analyses were performed on data collected on the revised scale from a New York sample of 761 third, fourth, fifth, and sixth graders (Sample D) and a California sample of 793 pupils, third through ninth grades (Sample E). Although both orthogonal and oblique solutions reveal the same basic factor structure, the oblique rotations are presented here. Although it was assumed that individuals would show differences across the five subscales, it was also anticipated that there would be a moderate relationship among subscale scores. Thus an oblique solution, which allows the factors to intercorrelate, was considered to be the most appropriate. Cattell's (1962) "scree" test, which uses criteria based on the magnitude Revised Scale Structure of the eigenvalues, indicated that five factors The five subscales, described in terms of should be extracted. their intrinsic and extrinsic poles, are preThe factor pattern for the third through sented in Table 1. Sample items are given sixth graders in Sample D is presented in in Table 2. The revised scale contained 30 Table 3. Item means and standard deviations items, 6 for each subscale. Within each sub- are also included. There it can be observed scale, 3 of the items begin with the intrinsic that the five factors emerge, with items loadorientation and 3 with the extrinsic orien- ing on their designated factors and with virtation. With regard to item order, there were tually no cross-loadings. The factor structure two constraints: No two consecutive items for the third through ninth graders in Samare from the same subscale, and no more ple E was virtually identical. Average load-

304

SUSAN HARTER

Table 1
Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation in the Classroom
Subscale dimension Preference for challange vs Preference for easy work Curiosity/interest vs Pleasing teacher/getting grades Independent mastery vs Dependence on teacher Intrinsic pole Does child like hard, challenging work? Does child work to satisfy own interest and curiosity? Extrinsic pole Does child like easier assignments and subjects? Does child do schoolwork to satisfy teacher, get marks and grades? Does child rely on teacher for help and guidance, particularly when figuring out problems and assignments? Is child primarily dependent on teacher's opinion and judgment about what to do? Is child dependent on external sources of evaluation (e.g., teacher feedback, grades, marks)?

Does child prefer to work, figure out problems on his/ her own?

Independent judgment vs. Reliance on teacher's judgment Internal criteria vs. External criteria

Does child feel capable of making judgments about what to do? Does child know when she/he has succeeded/failed on assignments or tests?

ings for each of the five subscales in this sample were .53, .50, .46, .50, and .54, in the order in which the scales are presented in Table 3. In this sample, only two items had moderate cross-loadings on other factors. The similarity in factor patterns across samples has also been examined by calculating congruence coefficients representing the correlation between factor loadings in different samples. These correlations range from .67 to .84. Item Means and Standard Deviations As can be seen in Table 3, item means fall slightly above the midpoint of 2.5, with standard deviations of slightly less than 1.0. These values are highly replicable across samples. Item means indicate that there are no ceiling or floor effects for particular items. The standard deviations reveal the variability for each item, indicating that subjects are utilizing the entire range of scores. Reliability The reliability of each subscale was first assessed by using a reliability coefficient

(Formula 20 from Kuder & Richardson, 1937) that provides an index of internal consistency. Across samples from New York, California, and Colorado, reliabilities range from .78 to .84, .68 to .82, .54 to .78, .72 to .81, and .75 to .83 for the challenge, mastery, curiosity, judgment, and criteria subscales, respectively. (The relatively low reliability of .54 for the curiosity subscale was based on only three items, omitting those that were subsequently revised. The .78 value represents a reliability estimate based on six items, which includes the three revised items.) Test-retest reliability data were collected after a 9-month period for Sample D and after 1 year for Sample E, with values ranging from .48 to .63 across the various subscales. Test-retest data from Sample F, collected after a 5-month period, yielded somewhat higher values, in the .58 to .76 range. Developmental Trends in Subscale Means Figure 2 presents the means for each subscale for Grades 3-9 of California Sample E. This same pattern was replicated in a fol-

INTRINSIC VERSUS EXTRINSIC ORIENTATION

305

Table 2 Sample Items and Scoring for Each of the Five Subscales
Score Really true for me Sort of true for me Preference for challenge Some kids like to go on to new work that's at a more difficult level Curiosity/interest Some kids do extra projects so they can get better grades Independent mastery When some kids get stuck on a problem they ask the teacher for help Independent judgment Some kids think the teacher should decide what work to do Internal criteria Some kids know whether or not they're doing well in school without grades
but but

Score Sort of true for me Really true for me

Subscale dimension vs. but vs. but Preference for easy work Other kids would rather stick to the assignments that are pretty easy to do Pleasing teacher/getting grades Other kids do extra projects because they learn about things that interest them Dependence on teacher Other kids keep trying to figure out the problem on their own Reliance on teacher's judgment Other kids think they should have a say in what work they do External criteria Other kids need to have grades to know how well they are doing in school

vs. but

low-up study 1 year later. The trends for pupils become increasingly intrinsic in their third through sixth grades were replicated orientation. Linear trend analyses indicated both in New York (Sample D) and in Col- that for all five subscales these trends were significant at p < .001. orado (Sample F). As can be seen in the figure, three of the subscales, preference for challenge versus Intercorrelations Among Subscales preference for easy work, curiosity/interest versus teacher approval, and independent Although the emphasis has been on the mastery versus dependence on the teacher, identification of the components of motivabegin with relatively high intrinsic scores in tional orientation, moderate correlations were the third grade and show a systematic shift anticipated among subscales. These intercortoward the extrinsic pole across the grade relations are presented in Table 4 for subjects levels. The opposite linear trend was ob- from New York and California Samples C tained for the remaining two subscales, in- and D. For both samples, the intercorrelations dependent judgment versus reliance on among curiosity, challenge, and independent teacher's judgment and internal versus ex- mastery are moderate to high. Independent ternal criteria for success/failure. For the judgment and internal criteria bear a modlatter two subscales, third graders are rela- erate relationship to each other but do not tively extrinsic, and with higher grade levels, correlate as highly with the other three sub-

306

SUSAN HARTER

Table 3 Factor Structure From Oblique Rotation, Based on Data from 761 Third Through Sixth Graders
(Sample D) Subscale/item description 1. Challenge Like hard, challenging work Like difficult problems Learn as much as I can Like new, difficult work Like hard school subjects Find difficult work interesting 2. Curiosity Work to learn how to solve3 Find out things I want to know Read out of interest3 Ask questions to learn3 Want extra projects to learn Work to learn new things 3. Mastery Figure out things myself Figure out mistakes myself Do hard problems on my own Make my own plans" Figure out assignments on my own Do schoolwork without help 4. Judgment Like my own ideas better Stick to my own opinion Learn things that interest me Think my opinions are important Think I should have a say Feel it's best when I decide when to work 5. Criteria Know mistakes without the teacher Know how I'm doing without grades Know without report card Know before I get paper back Know before the teacher tells me Know when I turn work in Note, Loadings smaller than .28 not included for the sake of clarity of presentation. 3 Wording of new items subsequently revised. 1 .73 .73 .42 .74 .54 .58 2 3 4 5 M 2.8 2.8 2.9 2.9 2.9 2.8 SD .88 .88 .94 .83 .81 .84

.37

.38 .60 .60 .43 .55 .59 .29 .57 .68 .70 .50 .54 .59 .62 .28 .72 .81 .62 .65 .48

2.7 2.5 2.3 3.1 2.9 2.7 2.7 2.9 2.5 2.5 2.8 2.7 2.4 2.6 2.7 2.8 2.7 2.6 2.7 2.7

.94 .97 1.03 .73 .86 .88 .88 .78 .86 .95 .94 .93 .92 .93 .78 .97 .93 .94 .83 .84

scales. Higher order factoring revealed that a two-factor solution best described this subscale pattern, with curiosity, challenge, and mastery defining one factor and judgment and criteria defining the second. Validitv The initial goal, as noted above, was to establish the factorial validity of the scale, Subsequently, I addressed the discriminant

validity of the scale. In one study, differences between two groups of fourth, fifth, and sixth graders were predicted. These groups varied in several respects, each of which I expected would influence motivational orientation. The first group consisted of 26 pupils in a private "open" school from upper-middleclass families that strongly supported the educational philosophy espoused by the school. The school was chosen on the basis of its emphasis on precisely those principles

INTRINSIC VERSUS EXTRINSIC ORIENTATION

| Preference for Challenge Curiosity/Interest Independent Mastery

307

2
Preference for Easy Work Assigned 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

2-1
^ 3 Teacher Approval, Grades 4 5 6 7 Dependence on Teacher

Independent judgment

Internal Criteria

2-

Reliance on Teacher's Judgment 4 5 6 7 8 9

External Criteria for Success/Failure 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

I
Grade Level Grade Level

Figure 2. Mean score by grade level for each subscale.

captured by the intrinsic pole of our subscales. School personnel reinforced children for their intrinsic interest in learning, for curiosity, for working on their own, and for setting their own classroom goals. In the comparison group were pupils matched for age and sex in a "traditional" public school, drawn from lower-middle-class families. These pupils attended the neighborhood school to which they had been assigned. Respective mean scores for the two groups were 2.98 versus 1.81 for challenge (p < .001), 3.10 versus 2.30 for curiosity (p < .001), 2.80 versus 2.47 for independent mastery (p < .05), 2.92 versus 2.25 for independent judgment (p < .001), and 3.00 versus 1.85 for internal criteria (p < .001). These findings cannot be viewed as demonstrating the effects of open education per se because social class, related ability levels, and the educational philosophy of the family may have also contributed to the group dif-

ferences. The purpose of the comparison was to show that when several variables, each of which were predicted to influence motivational orientation, were compounded in this fashion, large group differences would result, providing one type of evidence for the validity of the scale. Additional studies are necessary to determine the precise contribution of each variable included. In a second study (Barter, Silon, & Pike, Note 1), the scale was administered to 61 educable mentally retarded children, ages 10-12, whose primary instruction was conducted in special (segregated) classes. Given the intellectual deficits and poor achievement history of this group, it was anticipated that they should realistically be more extrinsic in their orientation, particularly with regard to their dependence on the teacher. Mean scores were 2.62 for challenge, 2.60 for curiosity, 2.61 for independent mastery, 2.07 for independent judgment, and 2.11 for

308
Table 4 Intercorrelations Among Subscales Subscale

SUSAN BARTER

1
California sample

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Challenge Curiosity Mastery Judgment Criteria

.39 .48 -.10 .27

.34 -.05

.04

.07

.24

.39

New York sample 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Challenge Curiosity Mastery Judgment Criteria

.56 .61 .10 .33

.39 .14 .33

.24 .33

.38

Note. For California sample, n = 793; for New York sample, n = 761.

internal criteria. Comparing these values to the normative data presented in Figure 2, it can be seen that, with the exception of the curiosity subscale, these children are considerably more extrinsic in their orientation than are their chronological-age peers, namely, fifth and sixth graders. The differences are particularly dramatic for independent judgment and internal criteria, where these low scores reveal considerable reliance on the teacher's judgment and dependence on external criteria for success and failure. Compared with their mental-age peers, the normal IQ third and fourth graders, these children are also more extrinsically oriented, with the exception of the independent judgment subscale where the normal sample was also relatively extrinsic in orientation. The relationship between pupil and teacher ratings was also examined in Sample F. A parallel teacher rating scale was constructed by selecting three items from each subscalethose with the highest factor loadings. The teacher item corresponding to the sample item given earlier would read: "This pupil knows when he/she has made a mistake without checking with the teacher" or "This pupil needs to check with the teacher to know if he/she has made a mistake." The question format and response choices were comparable to the child's form. Each child was individually rated by her or his main

classroom teacher. Correlations between teacher and pupil ratings were higher for the three motivational subscales (.73 for challenge, .67 for curiosity, and .61 for mastery) than for the two informational subscales (.52 for judgment and .43 for criteria). This pattern would seem to result from the fact that the three motivational subscales may have clearer behavioral correlates observable by the teacher, whereas judgment and criteria are more attitudinal in nature. The predictive validity of one subscale, preference for challenge, has now been examined (Harter, Note 2) utilizing a behavioral task. Children were asked to choose anagramsof 3, 4, 5, and 6 lettersrepresenting four difficulty levels. The correlations between the preference for challenge subscale and the mean number of letters in the anagrams chosen was .72. Finally, I have begun to explore the construct validity of the scale. A central hypothesis derived from the model is that perceived competence in a particular domain should be related to one's motivational orientation (i.e., the higher one's perceived competence, the more intrinsic one's orientation). This prediction has been supported by correlational data revealing that perceived cognitive competence is strongly related to challenge (r = .57), curiosity (r = .33), and independent mastery (r = .54). Correlations with independent judgment and internal criteria are much lower in magnitude (.03 and .26, respectively). Higher order factoring reveals that perceived cognitive competence, challenge, curiosity, and mastery form a distinct factor with extremely high loadings of .76, .87, .70, and .80, respectively. Discussion The findings indicate that the scale construction efforts were successful and that the criteria described at the outset were met. The instrument is a reliable and valid measure sensitive to individual differences in both intrinsic and extrinsic orientation. The new question format has proved quite effective in eliciting such judgments. The results demonstrate that we can meaningfully iso-

INTRINSIC VERSUS EXTRINSIC ORIENTATION

309

late five measurable components, as reflected in the very clean five-factor solution obtained. The data strongly support the argument that one should identify the components or dimensions of a construct such as motivational orientation rather than consider it a global or unitary construct. Had these efforts been dictated by the latter viewpoint, such that one merely summed across all items and calculated a total scale score, the distinct developmental trends for separate subscales would have been obscured. Interpretation of Subscale Clusters Although it was anticipated that the subscales would all correlate to a moderate degree, the intercorrelations, the higher order factor structure, and the developmental data all suggest that there are two relatively independent clusters of subscales. The first is composed of preference for challenge versus preference for easy work, curiosity/interest versus teacher approval, and independent mastery versus dependence on the teacher. The second cluster is defined by independent judgment versus reliance on teacher's judgment and internal versus external criteria for success/failure. How are these unpredicted but highly replicable clusters to be interpreted? After a closer examination of the subscale and item content, the following distinction emerged. The challenge, curiosity, and mastery subscales each had a definite motivational flavor in that they tapped issues involving what the child wants to do, likes to do, and prefers. A child with a high score on these subscales is telling us that he or she is intrinsically motivated to engage in the mastery process. In contrast, the judgment and criteria subscales seem to tap more cognitive-informational structures. What does the child know, on what basis does she or he make decisions, how much has the child learned about the rules of the game called "school"? High scorers on these two subscales are telling us that they can make these judgments rather autonomously. The developmental data, as well as individual profiles, indicate that a child can be relatively intrinsic on one of these clusters

and relatively extrinsic on the other. For example, third graders are very intrinsic on the first cluster, demonstrating strong intrinsic mastery motivation, but they are very extrinsic with regard to the second cluster, reflecting their dependence on the information provided by the teacher. The pattern for the ninth graders is just the opposite. Their extrinsic scores on the first cluster suggest that they are doing assignments to meet teacher expectations and to get grades. Their relatively high intrinsic scores on the second cluster suggest that they have acquired sufficient information about the school system to make their own judgments and to determine whether or not they are successful. The findings further highlight the need to be precise in our use of the term intrinsic motivation. Too often this term is used rather loosely, conceptually as well as operationally. Only three of the subscales appear to be truly motivational in nature, whereas the remaining two are more informational. Thus, although this scale was initially viewed as a scale of motivational orientation, I now view it as a scale of intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation, with separable motivational and informational components. Developmental Trends Within this framework, how are the developmental data to be interpreted? Across Grades 3-9, the dramatic shift from reliance on teacher's judgment to independent judgment and from external criteria to determine success to internal criteria made intuitive sense. It seemed plausible that at higher grades, children should become more knowledgeable and should be more capable of making their own judgments as to whether or not they are successful. The underlying process would appear to be one in which they gradually internalize the rules for making judgments about school-related issues. The developmental decrease in those three subscales that seemingly tap more motivational components, however, was open to a more complex set of interpretations. Perhaps the most value-laden interpretation is that our school systems are gradually stifling children's intrinsic interest in school

310

SUSAN HARTER

learning, specifically with regard to chalWithin this framework, one's motivational lenge, curiosity, and independent mastery. and/or informational orientation is viewed Children may also be adapting to the de- as situation specific, as alterable, rather than mands of the school culture, which rein- as a traitlike construct. Data bearing directly forces a more extrinsic orientation. This on this issue have been obtained by Deci trend, however, could be very domain spe- (Note 3). Deci administered this scale to cific. Though it would appear that one's children whose teachers were characterized motivation to perform in school is becoming along a continuum ranging from the use of less intrinsic with age, one's motivation in rewards to control children's behavior to a other domains may not show this trend. The teaching style in which pupils were encourchild may be channeling intrinsic interest aged to solve problems on their own. His into other areas of his or her life (e.g., social findings suggest that pupils readily adapt to relationships, sports, and other extracurric- the particular teaching style, as evidenced ular activities). Since this particular scale by the fact that pupils whose teachers used tapped the cognitive domain only, there are rewards in a controlling manner were more no data to bear on this interpretation. extrinsic on the cluster of subscales defining The results from the retarded sample also the motivational component. Conversely, make sense from the standpoint of this two- children whose teachers fostered indepenfactor model, isolating motivational and in- dence were more intrinsically motivated. formational components. It was the latter On the basis of these results, Deci argues cluster in which the retarded children were that we should view this construct not as particularly extrinsic in their orientation. traitlike in nature but as one that is sensitive Given their cognitive limitations, one would to environmental manipulation. Within a expect them to question their own intrinsic given classroom situation, my data indicate ability to make autonomous judgments in that children's orientations are relatively stathe classroom situation. Thus it would be ble over the 5- to 12-month periods invesextremely adaptive for them to rely on the tigated. Deci's findings, however, in conteacher's judgment and to look to external junction with the clear age trends that have criteria in the form of teacher feedback to been documented, indicate the need for furdetermine how well they were performing. ther research on the developmental as well as on the environmental determinants. There is another sense in which we must Intrinsic Motivation as a Construct be cautious about our use of the term inThese findings also bear on the tendency trinsic motivation. We must not allow our to make value judgments about constructs measures to take on a life of their own and such as intrinsic motivation, viewing it as the become the construct in question. I chose to more desirable orientation. If one adopts a define intrinsic motivation as an orientation reality-oriented perspective, it becomes ob- toward learning and mastery in the classvious that in certain situations, or with cer- room, pitting it against an extrinsic stance. tain populations, an extrinsic orientation This definition differs from that of Lepper may be more adaptive. The data from the (1980) and Deci (1975) where intrinsic moretarded children speak to the issue of pop- tivation is inferred from interest or activity ulations. One can also envisage situations for level in a given task. In their paradigm, the individuals of normal or above average in- introduction of tangible rewards is found to telligence, for example, those requiring guid- attenuate performance and to undermine inance in the mastery of new skills, in which trinsic interest. Approval that conveys coman extrinsic orientation would initially be the petence information does not seem to have most realistic. In such situations, one would this effect. Any convergence between these predict a shift toward the intrinsic pole as differing approaches to the construct of inone internalized the knowledge, the infor- trinsic motivation remains to be investigated. Although I initially contrasted intrinsic mation, and the rules necessary to perform the skill. and extrinsic motivation, one can also imag-

INTRINSIC VERSUS EXTRINSIC ORIENTATION

311

ine situations in which intrinsic interest and extrinsic rewards might collaborate, as it were, to motivate learning. Consider the child who is curious and enjoys challenging work but for whom the teacher's approval is also an incentive. In both paradigms we need measures sensitive to the independent assessment of intrinsic and extrinsic factors to examine those conditions under which extrinsic rewards compete with intrinsic in^ terest and those in which the two cooperate to produce a given behavior. Potential Uses of the Scale Finally, to what use can such measures be put? The initial intent was to devise instruments sensitive to my model (Harter, 1978, 1980), which postulates certain antecedents of motivational orientation as well as cognitive-attitudinal correlates. I have now examined the relationship between motivational orientation and two possible correlates, perceived competence (Harter, in press), and perceptions of control (Connell, Note 4). The findings indicate that the three motivational subscales are highly predictive of the child's sense of competence in the classroom. Thus it is the child who enjoys the mastery process, is curious, likes hard work, and prefers to figure out things independently who also feels competent about her or his cognitive ability. Such a child also manifests greater actual competence than does the extrinsically oriented pupil, as assessed by achievement test scores. In addition, the intrinsically oriented child reports a greater knowledge of what factors control the successes and failures in his or her life and is apt to report that this source is internal. Thus classroom orientation clearly predicts perceived competence, actual competence, and perceived control. Our theoretical models now need to attend to the causal relationships among these variables and to the antecedents of individual differences and developmental change. I hope these efforts will also clarify some confusion surrounding the constructs of intrinsic versus extrinsic motivation and internal versus external locus of control, terms that are often used interchangeably. In my

formulation, motivational orientation refers to the reasons why children prefer to engage in a mastery behavior. As operationalized in the measure, this will reflect either intrinsic interest or extrinsic approval. The perceptions of the control construct refer to attributions concerning the outcome of behavior, namely, success and failure. Does the child view himself or herself as responsible (internal control), someone else as responsible (external control), or simply not know or understand the source of control? Having defined these constructs in this manner, one can then examine the relationship between motivational orientation and perceived control. In addition to these theoretical considerations, the scale can also be used in applied settings. It may be included as part of a diagnostic battery, particularly with children in whom school learning problems are central. The scale may also be fruitfully employed in those program evaluation efforts in which classroom interventions are designed to influence a child's motivation. It also holds promise as a predictive instrument, a screening device, to determine which type of educational curriculum may be more appropriate for a given child. For example, the scale may help to identify those children requiring more structure, who are more extrinsic in their orientation, in contrast to those who seem better able to meet the demands of a more "open" curriculum. Thus, although my initial focus was more theoretical in nature, I am also interested in the educational implications of my constructs, their ecological validity, and I hope to explore their relevance to actual classroom learning. Reference Notes
1. Harter, S., Silon, E., & Pike, R. G. Perceived competence, intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation, and anxiety in the educable mentally retarded child: A comparison of mainstreaming and self-contained classrooms. Unpublished manuscript, University of Denver, 1980. 2. Harter, S. Perceived competence and its relationship to preference for challenging tasks. Unpublished manuscript, University of Denver, 1980. 3. Deci, E. Personal communication, March 15, 1979. 4. Connell, J. P. A multidimensional measure ofchil-

312

SUSAN BARTER Harter, S. A model of intrinsic mastery motivation in children: Individual differences and developmental change. Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 14). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1980. Harter, S. The perceived competence scale for children. Child Development, in press. Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. The theory of the estimation of a test reliability. Psychometrika, 1937, , m_ifio Lep'per> M Intrjnsic and extrinsic motivation in chn. dren: Detrimental effects of superfluous social contro,s Mimesota Symposium / cmd Psychology (m ]4) Hi,lsdal N^j . Erlbaunl) 1980. wh; R Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 1959, 66, 297-323.

dren's perceptions of control: A comprehensive assessment of the development of children's perceptions of control. Unpublished manuscript, University of Denver, 1980. References _ , , " . , . .. _,. . Cattell, R. B. The basis of recognition and interpretation of factors. Educational and Psychological Measurer*e1M w '^ r ~ > 11 \i i s> v i , n, A Crandall, V. C., Crandall IV ]., & Katkovsky W. A chiWren s social desirability questionnaire. Journal of Consulting Psychology 1965,29, 27-36. motlvatlon New York: Plenum p'resf 1975 Harter, S. Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward a developmental model. Human Development, 1978, /, 34-64.

Received July 25, 1980

Manuscripts Accepted for Publication

(Continued from page 288) The Assessment of Social Competence in Preschoolers: Teachers Versus Peers. Jennifer Connolly (Department of Psychology, Concordia University, Sir George Williams Campus, 1455 De Maisonneuve Boulevard West, Montreal, Quebec H3G 1M8, Canada) and Anna-Beth Doyle. Birth Order and Social Experience Differences in Infant-Peer Interaction. Deborah Lowe Vandell (Program in Psychology, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas 75080), Kathy Shores Wilson, and William T. Whalen. Validity of Social Skills Measures in Assessing Social Competence in Children: A Multivariate Investigation. Frank M. Gresham (Department of Psychology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011). Motives for Helping Behavior Expressed by Kindergarten and School Children in Kibbutz and City. Daniel Bar-Tal (School of Education, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel 420111), Amiram Raviv, and Naomi Shavit. Rewarding and Punishing by Mothers: The Influence of Progressive Changes in the Quality of Their Sons' Apparent Behavior. Richard H. Passman (Department of Psychology, P.O. Box 413, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201) and David Blackwelder. Age Differences in Motivation Related to Maslow's Need Hierarchy. Barbara L. Goebel (Department of Psychology, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois 61761) and Delores R. Brown. Children's Belief in Photographic Fidelity. Harry Beilin (Department of Psychology, City University Graduate Center, 33 West 42nd Street, New York, New York 10036), Joseph O'Connor, and Gary Kose. Neonatal Imitation: Fact or Artifact? Louise A. Hayes (Institute of Human Development, Edward Chace Tolman Hall, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720) and John S. Watson. The Grammar of Action and Children's Printing. Marvin L. Simner (Department of Psychology, University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 5C2, Canada). From Exploration to Play: A Cross-Sectional Study of Infant Free Play Behavior. Jay Belsky (Division of Individual and Family Studies, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802) and Robert K. Most. Head Shape and the Perception of Cuteness. Thomas R. Alley (Psychology Department, U-20, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06268). Revisiting Skeel's Final Study: A Critique. Langdon E. Longstreth (Department of Psychology, University of Southern California, University Park, Los Angeles, California 90007).