Motivational profiles in study–leisure conflicts: Quality and quantity of motivation matter

Abstract

The effects of the quality and quantity of motivation were compared in relation to students' levels of experienced internal conflict in a specific study–leisure conflict using a person-oriented analysis on self-reports of 336 college students. Latent-profile-analysis identified three motivational profiles for learning and two motivational profiles for leisure. Consistent with a qualitative perspective on motivation, students with Good quality profiles for “reading papers” reported the least internal conflict under the temptation of a social activity. However, in accordance with the quantitative perspective on motivational interference, students with High quantity profiles for learning reported more internal conflict while imagining themselves socializing than students with Good and Poor quality profiles did. Similar effects for the leisure profiles and additional variable-oriented analyses confirmed the assumption that the quality of motivation best explains students' ongoing experience during a focal activity, whereas the effects of indirect motivational costs stemming from the motivational characteristics of missed activities are best described quantitatively.

Introduction

Recent theoretical and empirical developments indicate that students' motivation should be seen as a multidetermined phenomenon. On the one hand, the multidetermination of motivation refers to the notion that, in everyday-life, multiple reasons typically drive students' learning pursuits (e.g., Pintrich, 2003). For example, students may engage in learning because they are interested in the topic (i.e., usually construed as an intrinsic form of motivation) and because they want to please their parents (i.e., usually construed as an extrinsic form of motivation). On the other hand, the multidetermination of motivation refers to the notion that, in everyday-life, more than one motivational tendency is typically active at any given time and that these multiple tendencies may sometimes influence one another (e.g., Fries, Dietz, & Schmid, 2008). For example, a students' motivation to study in a specific situation (e.g., preparing for an exam in the evening) may conflict with the motivation for any concurrent leisure activity (e.g., spending the evening with friends). This paper deals with both cases.

One central implication of the first instance of the multidetermination of motivation is the notion that some types of motivation may yield more desirable outcomes than others, as has been extensively documented for intrinsic versus extrinsic forms of motivation (e.g., Reeve et al., 2004, Sansone and Harackiewicz, 2000) and for mastery versus achievement goals (e.g., Kaplan and Maehr, 2007, Sansone and Harackiewicz, 2000). According to these findings, the quality of motivation (i.e., why students learn) seems to be crucial to explaining learning behavior (cf. Vansteenkiste, Sierens, Soenens, Luyckx, & Lens, 2009).

However, little is known about these motivational processes with regard to the second instance of the multidetermination of motivation: the case of competing motivational tendencies. Would a student who resigns an attractive leisure opportunity in favor of studying experience more or less interference when intrinsic or extrinsic incentives are attached to the missed activity? Or would it be the sheer amount of motivation that accounts as indirect motivational costs of studying? And what would be the effect in a converse situation when leisure-related activities are interfered with by achievement-related activities?

To provide initial answers to these questions, I apply a person-oriented perspective of motivation that is able to examine both qualitative and quantitative aspects of motivation simultaneously.

From a social-cognitive perspective, motivation can be broadly defined as “the process whereby goal-directed activity is instigated and sustained” (Schunk, Pintrich, & Meece, 2008, p. 4). Given this premise, motivation constitutes a key variable of self-regulation and is thought to influence the active planning, maintenance, and reflection of one's actions (Zimmerman, 2000). Two general perspectives of motivated behavior can be distinguished: motivation as a drive and motivation as directed by goals (e.g., Covington, 2000). In general, drives are seen as “affectively based dispositions that energize behavior,” whereas goals are seen as “cognitive representations that serve a directional function for behavior” (Elliot, McGregor, & Trash, 2002, p. 373).

In contemporary educational psychology, self-determination theory has become one of the most prominent representatives of a drive theory of motivation, whereas achievement goal theory has gained a lot of attention in explaining students' achievement behavior from a social-cognitive perspective of motivation (Kim, Schallert, & Kim, 2010). While both approaches have their unique merits, they share the focus around qualitative distinct forms of motivation (Corpus et al., 2009, Eccles and Wigfield, 2002, Kim et al., 2010). For example, in self-determination theory, intrinsic and external types of regulation are viewed as constituting the most extreme points of the self-determination continuum, from autonomous to controlled motivation (Deci & Ryan, 2000). When students regulate their learning activities intrinsically, their reasons for engaging are fully internalized. In contrast, during external regulation, students' behavior largely depends on external contingencies controlled by others, such as rewards and punishments.

In addition, at least three forms of motivation are distinguished in achievement goal theory: performance-approach, performance-avoidance, and mastery goals (e.g., Elliot and McGregor, 2001, Kaplan and Maehr, 2007). According to this trichotomous conception, students with a disposition toward performance-approach goals learn because they wish to demonstrate their competence in relation to others, whereas students with a disposition toward performance-avoidance goals learn because they want to avoid or conceal negative outcomes. In contrast, students who endorse mastery goals engage in learning because they want to develop their competence and improve themselves.

Much of the educational importance of both approaches comes from the underlying assumption that not only the quantity of motivation (i.e., how much students are motivated) but also (or even more so) the quality of motivation (i.e., why students learn) matters (e.g., Vansteenkiste et al., 2009). In other words, different forms of motivation are thought to be differentially related to learning outcomes. Typically, both intrinsic reasons as well as mastery and performance-approach goals have been identified as more favorable forms of motivation, relating positively to a range of desired learning outcomes. On the contrary, external reasons and performance-avoidance goals have been identified as more unfavorable forms of motivation, relating positively with undesired and negatively with desired learning outcomes (see Kaplan and Maehr, 2007, Reeve et al., 2004, for recent overviews).

For example, intrinsic reasons usually relate positively to deeper learning, a positive learning attitude (Vansteenkiste, Zhou, Lens, & Soenens, 2005), and academic performance (Lepper et al., 2005, Vansteenkiste et al., 2005a). In addition, findings have consistently revealed that mastery goals are positively linked to academic interest (Harackiewicz et al., 2002a, Harackiewicz et al., 2002b, Lee et al., 2010), deeper learning (Liem, Lau, & Nie, 2008), and positive achievement emotion (Pekrun, Maier, & Elliot, 2009). Furthermore, despite some notable ambiguities (Harackiewicz et al., 2002a, Midgley et al., 2001), performance-approach goals have been found to be positively linked to performance outcomes (Elliot and Church, 1997, Harackiewicz et al., 2002a, Pintrich, 2000) and sometimes to academic motivation (Lee et al., 2010, Wolters, 2004).

In contrast, researchers have repeatedly found extrinsic reasons to relate positively to superficial learning, a negative learning attitude (Vansteenkiste et al., 2005), and poor performance (Lepper et al., 2005, Vansteenkiste et al., 2005a), and performance-avoidance goals have been found to be negatively linked to interest and performance outcomes (Elliot and McGregor, 2001, Harackiewicz et al., 2002a, Liem et al., 2008).

However, self-determination theory and achievement goal theory as prominent approaches to academic motivation also share an important shortcoming. They regard motivated behavior as a rather isolated phenomenon that depends only on the motivational characteristics tied to the focal learning activity itself. In the following, I will argue that from a motivational interference perspective, in order to understand students' motivation to learn, it may be essential to understand the ways in which they engage in other life domains, highlighting the idea of indirect motivational costs of current engagement.

Achievement goals and academic motivation are usually not the only motivational tendencies that energize and direct students in learning settings (Boekaerts and Corno, 2005, Hofer, 2007). In everyday life, self-regulated learners typically not only have to decide whether to learn and how much effort to invest, they also have to consider the allocation of their limited resources to their various, and sometimes contradictory, needs and goals (Fishbach, Zhang, & Koo, 2009). If we think, for example, about the numerous work-related, leisure, and social activities university students pursue (Brint & Cantwell, 2010), it seems only natural that, from time to time, they may feel torn between competing motivational tendencies; that is, they experience motivational interference.

Motivational interference denotes the post-decisional destabilization of self-regulation during a focal activity, resulting from motivational tendencies that stem from forgone activities in a specific conflict situation (Fries and Dietz, 2007, Fries et al., 2008). According to this idea, students' self-regulatory processes during learning are not only affected by their motivation to learn but also by their other interests and needs. During learning, for example, motivational tendencies for leisure opportunities may influence how well students regulate their focal learning pursuit in terms of persistence, concentration, and affect.

Because motivational interference constitutes a process rather than an overt outcome, it has to be inferred. Usually this has been done by demonstrating a direct positive link between the motivational strength of a missed alternative and proxies of self-regulatory destabilization during a focal activity in situations of specific study–leisure conflicts. In general, such proxies may encompass cognitive, affective, and behavioral aspects of an internal conflict experience (Fries et al., 2008, see also Schmid, Hofer, Dietz, Reinders, & Fries, 2005). For example, if students decide in favor of studying as opposed to a leisure activity, their internal conflict experience may be manifested in a worse mood, less concentration, and less persistence during studying. Similarly, students may experience internal conflict if they decide for the leisure activity in a study–leisure conflict.

In a correlational study among school students, Fries et al. (2008) demonstrated that students' internal conflict experience during a focal activity was better explained when related to the motivational characteristics of both conflicting activities. Specifically, after the decision for a learning activity in a hypothetical conflict scenario, motivation to learn related negatively to the experience of internal conflict, whereas motivation for conflicting leisure opportunities related positively to the experience of internal conflict. Interestingly, evidence for a similar but inversed motivational interference process was observed when students were asked to decide for the leisure alternative (see also Dietz, Schmid, & Fries, 2005).

Recently, Grund and Fries (2012) demonstrated such a motivational interference process by empirically reviving the concept of motivational costs (cf. Atkinson and Birch, 1970, Eccles and Wigfield, 2002). Whereas direct motivational costs include the negative task value that is part of activity engagement itself (e.g., effort and emotional costs), indirect costs arise because engagement in one task often discounts positive valued incentives attached to other action opportunities (Eccles & Wigfield, 2002). While studying, for example, anticipated incentives of missed leisure opportunities can be seen as indirect motivational costs of learning (Dietz et al., 2005). Moreover, if these anticipated incentives are positively related to the experience of internal conflict during learning, it would be evidence for motivational interference.

Importantly, indirect motivational costs should be negatively related to self-regulation, regardless of their quality (see Grund & Fries, 2012). If, for example, a student decided in a conflict situation in favor of studying and against going to the gym, the partly (or potentially forever) unfulfilled incentives of an intense workout should be counted as indirect motivational costs of learning, regardless of whether they apply to a specific approach (e.g., going to the gym to become a great athlete) or an avoidance incentive (e.g., going to the gym in order to not gain weight). Indeed, Grund and Fries found all types of incentives for the respective missed alternatives to relate positively to the experience of internal conflict during a focal activity, regardless of their specific motivational quality. Hence, it may be concluded that, in contrast to the motivational process for a focal activity, and in terms of indirect motivational costs, the quantity rather than the quality of motivation seems to matter. In the following, I refer to an analytical approach to motivation that integrates qualitative and quantitative aspects of motivation, and therefore allows for a closer examination of the ideas mentioned above.

As stated in the introduction to this paper, it is likely that students' behavior is driven by multiple simultaneous reasons and, therefore, may be best analyzed using a person-oriented approach (Pintrich, 2003). In such an approach, combinations of several operating factors (e.g., motivational dimensions) are regarded within the individual. Thus a more holistic view of a person's motivational structure is applied, compared to variable-oriented approaches that focus on relations between single motivational dimensions (Bergman and Magnusson, 1997, Magnusson, 1998).

Picking up on discussions about the co-occurrence of mastery and performance goals (Barron and Harackiewicz, 2001, Harackiewicz et al., 2002b, Pastor et al., 2007, Tuominen-Soini et al., 2011), recent person-oriented research on motivational orientations has repeatedly found three to four distinct, naturally occurring motivational profiles in learning settings (Hayenga and Corpus, 2010, Ratelle et al., 2007). Importantly, these profiles differed in character by the comparative dominance of their quality or their quantity of motivation. In the terminology of Vansteenkiste et al. (2009), students with Good quality profiles are characterized by high levels of autonomous (intrinsic) and low levels of controlled (extrinsic) motivation to learn, whereas Poor quality profiles describe high levels of controlled and low levels of autonomous motivation. Furthermore, two groups of learners who, overall, report being either minimally (Low quantity) or highly motivated (High quantity) can also be distinguished from these profiles (see also Hayenga & Corpus, 2010). Hence, a person-oriented approach to motivation should be able to reflect and compare both a qualitative perspective to motivation—as highlighted in self-determination theory and achievement goal theory—and a quantitative perspective to motivation—as highlighted in the concepts of indirect motivational costs and motivational interference.

Whereas the nature (i.e., their shape and level) of these profiles to some extent seems to be stable across different samples, age groups, and measures of motivation, not all of the profiles were found in all samples (Ratelle et al., 2007). Yet with regard to outcome measures, again, the findings were fairly consistent. Students who reported predominantly intrinsic motivation for learning and those who were, on the whole, “highly” motivated showed better learning patterns compared to students with, on the whole, “low” motivation and students who mainly learned because of extrinsic or controlled reasons. Moreover, compared to performance outcomes, the effects of motivational profiles were usually stronger for cognitive, affective, and volitional process indicators of self-regulation, such as distractions in class (Ratelle et al., 2007), cognitive and meta-cognitive strategies, effort regulation, test anxiety, and procrastination (Vansteenkiste et al., 2009). Hence, it is likely that motivational profiles also relate to the self-regulatory processes taking place in situations of study–leisure conflicts.

In the present study, I will analyze the effects of naturally occurring motivational profiles on the experience of internal conflict as a proxy for destabilized self-regulation in specific study–leisure conflicts. Based on considerations about the quality of motivation derived from self-determination theory and achievement goal theory, and the quantity of indirect motivational costs derived from the idea of motivational interference, I expect different results depending on whether motivational profiles are seen as pertaining to a focal activity or to a conflicting alternative in a study–leisure conflict.

Given that motivational profiles are to be identified that are similar to those in previous research (e.g., Hayenga & Corpus, 2010), I expect that with respect to the focal activity, participants with Good quality profiles will experience less internal conflict compared to participants with Poor quality profiles. I expect participants whose profiles mainly differ in terms of quantity of motivation to lie somewhere in between (although those with High quantity profiles may be somewhat closer to the Good quality participants than to the Poor quality participants, see Vansteenkiste et al., 2009).

In line with the idea of indirect motivational costs, I expect that motivational profiles for the conflicting activity should additionally relate to the experience of internal conflict during the focal activity. However, in this case, I expect those participants who are generally “highly” motivated for the alternative, to experience more internal conflict during the focal activity compared to those participants who are generally less motivated for the alternative. Finally, I expect participants whose motivational profiles for the alternative mainly differ in terms of quality, to lie somewhere in between. Importantly, mirroring previous findings on motivational interference, I expect this pattern to apply regardless of whether the focal activity constitutes a learning or a leisure activity (Fries et al., 2008).

I aim to add new insights into research on motivational profiles and motivational interference in several ways, thereby providing information on the generalizability of both analytical approaches. First, the present study is an attempt to demonstrate the idea of motivational interference via a person-oriented approach and, therefore, has the potential to expand previous findings by focusing explicitly on the quantity aspect of indirect motivational costs. Second, under the perspective of study–leisure conflicts, both achievement-related motivational profiles and profiles in the leisure context are to be explored. Although there exists some research on motivational profiles in the domain of physical education and sports (Boiche et al., 2008, Gillet et al., 2009), little is known about motivational profiles for leisure activities. Third, previous studies on motivational profiles have been limited to 6th- to 12th-grade students or first-year college students (Hayenga and Corpus, 2010, Ratelle et al., 2007, Vansteenkiste et al., 2009), as were most studies on motivational interference (Dietz et al., 2005, Fries and Dietz, 2007, Fries et al., 2008). Broadening the view to more experienced university students should yield important insights into how motivational profiles might develop, and how study–leisure conflicts are experienced in more autonomous learning settings.

Fourth, in accordance with a suggestion by Hayenga and Corpus (2010), the indicators for motivational profiles in the present study are more detailed compared to those of previous studies. Following Grund and Fries (2012), I distinguish five types of incentives that serve as indicators for motivational profiles instead of composite scores of intrinsic (autonomous) and extrinsic (controlled) motivation. Nevertheless, by describing specific reasons for general engagement, the incentive framework draws on the distinction of assumed favorable intrinsic and unfavorable external regulation proposed in self-determination theory, on the conception of assumed favorable mastery and performance approach goals, and on unfavorable performance avoidance goals proposed in achievement goal theory (for further details see the Method section). As such, this incentive framework allows for an exploration of motivational profiles in terms of quality and quantity of motivation.

Finally, I apply a unique methodological approach to identifying motivational profiles using model-based, latent profile analysis (LPA, Magidson & Vermunt, 2004). As suggested by recent person-oriented studies on self-concept dimensions and achievement goals, LPA offers some important advantages over exploratory cluster analysis (Marsh et al., 2009, Pastor et al., 2007).