maladaptive achievement patterns in students: the role of teachers' controlling strategies

Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 47, No. 4 , 1991, pp. 35-51

Maladaptive Achievement Patterns in Students: The Role of Teachers’ Controlling Strategies

Ann K. Boggiano University of Colorado

Phyllis Katz Institute for Research on Social Problems

Guided by a theoretical model of academic achievement, the studies described here employed a multimethod approach to explore the interplay of factors that lead some children to strive harder in the face of failure and others to exhibit a maladaptive “helpless” response pattern. Converging evidence from laboratory and field research demonstrates that children with extrinsic motivational styles are more susceptible to helpless behavior, particularly when adults teach by use of controlling strategies (e.g., rewards, exhortations, evaluative cues). Autono- my-inducing techniques that focus the child more upon intrinsic aspects of the task, however, elicit better performance, more persistence, and greater preference for challenge. Nevertheless, parents and teachers paradoxically believe controlling strategies are more effective. The implications of this disparity between empirical findings and adult beliefs are discussed.

Obedience is so important that all education is actually nothing other than learning how to obey. (passage by J. Sulzer cited by Alice Miller, 1983, p. 12)

Previous research on susceptibility to helplessness in school-age children demonstrates that, for a significant proportion of children, negative feedback on some tasks leads to subsequent impaired performance, and negative self-cognitions and affective states-a “helpless” response pattern that may have quite adverse and perhaps even long-lasting effects on achievement level. Although

Several studies reported in this article were funded by grants from the Spencer Foundation to the

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Ann K. Boggiano, Department of first author.

Psychology, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309-0345.

35

0022-4537/91/1200-0035506.50/1 0 1991 Ihe Society for the Psychological SNdy of Social Issues

36 Boggiano and Katz

failure-whether rarely or frequently encountered-is an experience all children will undergo at some point during their school years, little research has addressed social situational determinants of the helpless response pattern (e.g., performance impairment, lowered motivation, lowered quality of hypothesis-testing strategies, and reduced pursuit of mastery) in children after exposure to failure feedback andlor evaluative-controlling cues.

The research described in this article examined hypotheses derived from our model of academic achievement (see Fig. l), which proposes that teachers’ use of controlling strategies (e.g.. evaluation, use of the terms “should” or “ought to,” extrinsic incentives) fosters in students an “extrinsic” motivational orientation by emphasizing external reasons for learning-which in turn increases susceptibility to helpless achievement patterns. More specifically, as noted in our model, contingencies and other techniques called “controlling strategies” (A) that are used to motivate students are actively interpreted by the children in a way that reduces (B) feelings of control over initiating and regulating events, such that a student feels more like a “pawn” rather than an “origin” of learning in the classroom (decharms, 1968; Deci & Ryan, 1987). Further, low perceptions of control in students lead to (C) a more general and pervasive extrinsic orientation toward learning-performing schoolwork for extrinsic reasons such as reward or approval. In the context of evaluative-controlling cues (D), such as failure or controlling directives, an extrinsic motivational orientation and low perceptions of control increase the likelihood of the cognitive, behavioral, and affective deficits of helplessness (E).

The assumed relation among controlling strategies, children’s perceptions regarding control, competence, and the development of motivational orientation depicted in Fig. 1 is derived largely from Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 1987; see also Harter, in press). One central principle of this theory is that techniques that foster a sense of autonomy in students and an intrinsic motivational orientation for performing activities produce the desire to engage in optimally challenging activities (i.e., “mastery strivings”; cf. Harter, in press). Conversely, use of controlling techniques over tasks that students deem enjoyable often reduces students’ subsequent intrinsic motivation to pursue activities when the controlling technique is no longer used. Many research findings support this principle (Amabile, DeJong, & Lepper, 1976; Boggiano, Main, & Katz, 1988; Deci & Cascio, 1972; Graef, Csikszentmihalyi, & Gianinno, 1983; Lepper & Greene, 1978; Ryan, Mims, & Koestner, 1983; Zuckerman, Porac, Lathin, Smith, & Deci, 1978).

This theory holds that the child perceives the reason for performing the activity as the controlling technique rather than interest in the task itself or mastery attempts. Because the controlling strategy shifts the focus of task engagement from an intrinsic to an extrinsic orientation, with concomitant feelings of low control, continued interest in task engagement decreases markedly in

Maladaptive Achievement Patterns in Students 37

I Fig. 1. A model of factors influencing achievement in elementary-aged schoolchildren.

subsequent interactions with the activity, as over 50 experiments have demonstrated (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Lepper & Greene, 1978). Even praise or positive feedback about competence can lead to reduced intrinsic motivation when presented in a controlling context, e.g., "you did very well, as you should" (Bog- giano & Ruble, 1979; Boggiano, Harackiewicz, Bessette, & Main, 1985; Bog- giano et al., 1988; see Deci & Ryan, 1987, for a review of this literature). One implication of this research is that ploys on the order of "if you do your reading, then you can have extra recess" produce a boomerang effect: children show a decrement in interest in the school subject, and ironically, more positive feelings for and/or interest in the reward activity (Boggiano, Klinger, & Main, 1986; Boggiano & Main, 1986; Lepper, Sagotsky, Dafoe, & Greene, 1982).

The major theoretical issue explored in studies derived from our model and described in this article is that the presence of evaluativeIcontrolling cues affects children with an extrinsic orientation more than those with an intrinsic orientation, leaving them more vulnerable to developing helplessness deficits. The first group of studies discussed here-the Evaluative Feedback Study, Hypothesis Testing Study, and Preference for Challenge Study-examine the proposition


that, in the presence of evaluative/controlling cues, children with an extrinsic orientation ( “extrinsics” ) display maladaptive achievement patterns, including helpless behavior, whereas those with an intrinsic orientation ( “intrinsics”) do not. We also present data from a field experiment demonstrating the negative impact of teachers’ controlling strategies on students’ achievement.

Our second line of research related to this issue examines the paradoxical finding that socializing agents, including parents and educators, seem to prefer controlling techniques over other methods to motivate students, in spite of documented negative effects of these strategies on children’s self-conceptions and propensity for helplessness deficits. Each of these lines of research is discussed below in turn.

Learned Helplessness

The Role of Attributions

Researchers investigating helplessness in children have generally examined the effect of failure feedback on subsequent performance on achievement-related tasks in elementary school children (Diener & Dweck, 1978; Dweck & Bush, 1976; Dweck & Licht, 1980; Dweck & Reppucci, 1973). Overall, the results of these studies suggest that children’s responses to negative feedback depend on their attributions about the cause of failure (Diener & Dweck, 1978; Dweck & Reppucci, 1973). For example, the data indicate that some children exert more effort after a failure experience and approach subsequent tasks as if enthusiastic to conquer a challenge. In fact, these “mastery-oriented” children often perform better after failure than they had previously. In contrast, children attributing failure to uncontrollable factors exhibit diminished effort, and their subsequent performance deteriorates. It appears, then, that the attributions made about the causes of failure are powerful mediators of the effect that such feedback may have on subsequent problem-solving ability in elementary-school children (see also Pittman & Pittman, 1979).

The impact of Controlling Strategies and Failure Feedback

In spite of the well-documented findings regarding differences in children’s attributions and their propensity toward helplessness deficits, research has largely neglected the highly critical question of the role that social contextual factors play in fostering the development of such differences. Clearly, the issue of behaviors and attitudes of socializing agents that render children vulnerable to the range and intensity of helplessness deficits, including maladaptive attribu- tional styles, is of utmost significance, both from a theoretical and an applied


perspective. The research described in this article examines one theoretical analysis of determinants of a helpless response pattern in children.

Why should individuals who have an extrinsic rather than an intrinsic orientation be more susceptible to the range of helplessness deficits? According to a recent theoretical explication (Boggiano & Barrett, 1985; Boggiano et al., 1989), the goals most salient to extrinsically motivated individuals depend more heavily on factors outside of their control, as compared to the goals salient to intrinsically motivated individuals. That is, extrinsic reasons for undertaking events, such as a desire for praise or approval, often are unrelated to the mastery of an event per se. For instance, praise may depend on a teacher’s or an employer’s preference for neatness, or on his or her mood, or on the social comparison group that is present. In contrast, intrinsically motivated individuals pursue activities for the pleasure inherent in the activity and for the satisfaction gained from mastery over task components. Such intrinsic outcomes are largely a function of the self- initiated and self-regulated effort expended to achieve task mastery or to develop skills. Thus, in contrast to extrinsically motivated individuals, intrinsics should be more likely to perceive their desired outcomes as dependent on internal factors.

From this perspective, extrinsic, but not intrinsic, individuals should exhibit the traditional cognitive deficit associated with helplessness, i.e., a perception of effort-outcome independence. Indeed, in support of this assumption, data showed that extrinsic (but not intrinsic) children reported that powerful others or unknown factors were the reasons for performance outcomes (r = -.30), in contrast to intrinsics, who viewed internal factors as the basis for outcomes (r = .37-Boggiano, Barrett, Main, & Katz, 1985). Moreover, when children are presented with controlling directives or anticipate evaluative feedback (another type of controlling technique), extrinsics but not intrinsics theoretically should manifest behavioral helplessness deficits. Finally, because extrinsics display a propensity to helplessness and a preference for easy over challenging activities, i.e., an “expediency approach,” this maladaptive motivational orientation may well be reflected in their standardized test scores.

Evaluative Feedback Study. In an initial attempt to examine susceptibility to helplessness deficits as a function of children’s motivational orientation, we conducted three experiments using different kinds of evaluative and/or controlling cues. The first study examined the proposition that negative evaluative feedback would have detrimental effects on subsequent performance and motivation of extrinsic but not intrinsic children (Boggiano & Barrett, 1985). To test this hypothesis, fifth-grade children’s motivational orientation was assessed by means of Harter’s (1981) questionnaire. This instrument was designed to assess the extent to which children are extrinsically vs. intrinsically oriented toward


learning. The scale consists of five subscales: learning for curiosity versus leam- ing to please the teacher; preference for challenge versus preference for easy work; attempts at independent mastery versus dependence on the teacher’s help for doing work; independent judgment versus reliance on teacher’s judgment; and reliance on internal versus external criteria for success and failure. The first three subscales are considered motivational (i.e., reasons why a child pursues schoolwork), and the last two informational (i.e., how well a child understands and assesses his/her own performance).

Several weeks later, children with extrinsic and intrinsic motivational orientations were given either success information, failure information, or no evaluative feedback about performance on a spatial ability task. Consistent with the model of achievement proposed in Fig. 1, the data revealed that only children with an extrinsic orientation showed performance and motivational impairment on the generalization task (anagrams) following the negative evaluative feedback. In fact, as would be expected of mastery-oriented children, intrinsics showed increased performance after being told that they had not correctly solved the spatial ability task and increased perseverance to solve additional problems on the generalization task. In addition, intrinsic children’s performance increased after success, whereas extrinsic children’s performance did not. Finally, as predicted, the performance of intrinsic vs. extrinsic children did not differ under conditions in which evaluative cues were not present. These findings suggest that when controlling feedback or directives are made salient, children with a more general intrinsic orientation respond as if the feedback is informative rather than controlling, whereas extrinsics have the opposite perception.

Hypothesis-Testing Study. A second experiment concerning extrinsic children’s propensity toward helplessness deficits examined children’s quality or “sophistication” of hypothesis-testing strategies following failure feedback as a function of teachers’ use of controlling strategies, again depending on students’ motivational orientation (Boggiano & Barren, 1990). Following a procedure developed by Diener and Dweck (1978, 1980), fifth-grade children were given a series of visual discrimination puzzles, and were trained so that they could solve the problems. To assess the impact of controlling strategies on students’ performance, half of the children of each motivational orientation were told that they “should do well” on the remaining puzzles (the controlling condition), whereas this information was not provided to children in the noncontrolling condition, who were encouraged to “just try to figure out how the puzzles work.” Subse- quently, all children were given bogus failure feedback, and changes in hypothesis-testing strategies and attributions for failure were assessed on the remaining problems. The data indicated that the controlling manipulation produced marked deterioration in the sophistication of problem-solving strategies during the failure trials for the extrinsic children but not for the intrinsic children. In addition,


extrinsic children’s open-ended verbal explanations for their failure supported the assumption that extrinsics more often ascribe performance outcomes to unknown factors, whereas intrinsics more often attribute their outcomes to their own effort. Of those children who made attributions to unknown factors, 80% were extrinsic, whereas effort explanations were expressed primarily by intrinsics (89%). Moreover, intrinsics expressed significantly higher expectations for success on additional similar problems than did extrinsics, even controlling for actual performance after the failure manipulation.

We also examined standardized test scores of children with an intrinsic vs. extrinsic motivational orientation. We hypothesized that if an extrinsic set has such dramatic effects on children’s self-conceptions and performance following negative feedback-an experience that children undergo frequently in their classroom-extrinsics’ standardized test scores should reflect this maladaptive achievement pattern. As predicted, an extrinsic motivational orientation was associated with lower achievement scores, as indexed by national percentile scores for reading, math, and total achievement on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills.

Interestingly, teachers’ assessments of their students’ propensity toward helplessness deficits (e.g., ratings that the child says, “I can’t do it” or stops trying when he/she encounters an obstacle in school work) were found to corre- late with students’ motivational orientation ( r = .40), with teachers viewing extrinsic children as behaving in a more helpless way following negative events or failure. Thus, extrinsic children who exhibit helplessness in an experimental setting appear to respond similarly in their classroom setting following failure feedback.

Although these findings suggest that an extrinsic motivational orientation is an important risk factor for maladaptive achievement patterns, they do not demonstrate that being extrinsic is sufficient to produce a helpless response pattern. Rather, salient cues that signify control or evaluation by a powerful other are an important determinant of whether children display helplessness deficits in achievement settings. This proposition parallels the assumption in the learned helplessness literature that children who are prone to helplessness show achievement and emotional deficits primarily when confronted with stress or negative life events (Nolen-Hoeksema, Girgus, & Seligman, 1986; Peterson & Seligman, 1984).

Preference for Challenge Study. A third recent study examined the effect of controlling strategies (use of “shoulds” and “musts”) on children’s preference for challenge, depending on their motivational orientation (Boggiano et al., 1988). Previous work demonstrated that the controlling manipulation of surveillance reduced mastery attempts (Boggiano, Pittman, & Ruble, 1982; Pitt- man, Boggiano, & Ruble, 1983), so we assumed that children with an extrinsic orientation would be prone to display low preference for challenge in the pres-


ence of controlling cues. In accord with the prediction, the data indicated that extrinsic children showed decreased mastery strivings (i.e., a preference for simple tasks) under the controlling condition, whereas intrinsic children showed enhanced mastery pursuits by choosing more difficult problems. Once again, no differences between these groups were observed when children received a noncontrolling directive (Boggiano et al., 1988). Taken together, then, these studies underscore the importance of negative feedback and cues about evaluative control by powerful others as critical determinants of maladaptive achievement patterns for children with an extrinsic motivational orientation.

Performance Deficits in a Field Setting: The Impact of Teachers’ Controlling Strategies

Although the previously described research supports the predicted relation between motivational orientation and helplessness deficits in the presence of evaluative/controlling cues, one intriguing unanswered question centers on factors that may influence teachers’ adoption of more or less controlling strategies. One likely causal factor may be the amount of pressure exerted on teachers for excellent student performance. In other words, teachers may experience evaluative pressure from their administrators and react by utilizing more controlling strategies with their students. A second question of importance is the effect of controlling strategies on children’s performance in their classroom setting. Be- cause we are primarily concerned with the potential adverse effects of pressure put on teachers to have their students perform well (and therefore teachers’ increased use of controlling strategies), we conducted a field experiment to address this issue (Flink, Boggiano, 8z Barrett, 1990).

In this experiment, based on the procedure of Deci, Spiegel, Ryan, Koestner, and Kauffman (1982), fourth-grade teachers were told either that their role was to ensure students’ performing tasks (anagrams and story sequencing) up to standard (the controlling manipulation) or that their job was to help students learn the same tasks (the noncontrolling manipulation). Teachers then taught groups of their students (4 or 5 children) during a 10-minute interval how to perform the target activities in a classroom setting. These teaching sessions were videotaped, and subsequently, coders blind to the experimental condition assessed the sessions for teachers’ use of controlling strategies, including the use of the word “should” and an emphasis on performance. Following the teaching sessions, students’ performance on the tasks taught by the teachers as well as on a generalization task (a shape-matching task) was assessed by raters blind to the experimental condition.

The data indicated that the students of teachers assigned to the controlling manipulation performed poorly on both the target activity and the generalization task, relative to students of teachers assigned to the noncontrolling manipulation.


Moreover, analyses of teacher behaviors indicated that the performance decrement of students was produced by teachers’ increased use of controlling behaviors. More specifically, a performance decrement was evidenced only when teacher directives were presented in a controlling manner and afforded students little choice about how to perform the activity. Thus, an extrinsic set engendered by teachers in a relatively brief interval may impair students’ performance-even on enjoyable tasks.

Surprisingly, controlling teachers were rated by blind coders as more competent, enthusiastic, and helpful. In a subsequent experiment with college students, we replicated the finding that teachers who used controlling strategies had a negative effect on students’ performance (Boggiano et al., 1991). In this study, teachers who used noneontrolling strategies were rated as less competent by their students in comparison to students exposed to teachers using controlling strategies, even though “noncontrolled” students performed significantly better on GRE analytic problems than their “controlled” counterparts.

From an applied perspective, this tendency for controlling teachers to receive high ratings has important implications. Even though controlling strategies produce performance decrements, administrators and parents may favorably evaluate teachers using such techniques because teachers “pushing” students may give the appearance of optimal teaching-an empirical question we are currently examining. Such positive evaluations would then reinforce the pressur- ing of students. This reasoning may explain why some teachers continue to use pressure and controlling strategies, despite evidence that these techniques are not conducive to children’s learning.

Use of Controlling Strategies: Parents’ Beliefs

The findings reviewed here consistently point to the negative impact of controlling techniques on achievement-related behaviors, particularly for extrinsic students. Given that controlling strategies often produce performance deficits, and yet controlling teachers are often viewed as highly competent and effective, it becomes increasingly important to examine the strategies that adults think are useful for enhancing children’s learning. Because of the impact that parents have on their children’s achievement-related behaviors, this question has applied as well as theoretical interest. In contrast to the well-documented research findings that rewards adversely affect motivation and achievement (and, as a corollary, the larger the reward, the more negative the effects), we hypothesized that adults would perceive tangible reward as an effective way to enhance motivation in students for the following reasons: Programs involving rewards apd other salient controlling techniques are widespread in educational settings and are becoming increasingly popular procedures in attempts to maximize achievement-related behaviors in children (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Kazdin & Wilson, 1978;


O’Leary & Drabman, 197 1). Extrinsic inducements, including grades, time deadlines, and surveillance, are frequently used in academic settings (Deci & Ryan, 1985) and yet may not be appropriate techniques for all learning tasks.

One important consequence of the frequent pairing of inducements, such as tangible rewards and prizes, with academic work is that adults may be less likely to consider schoolwork per se, as opposed to nonacademic behavior (e.g., prosocial behavior), as an end in itself (Kruglanski, 1975). In fact, school activities are often inherently interesting. Instead, however, school activities may be perceived as involving “work” that is typically performed for exogenous reasons- that is, as a means to some ulterior end, whether that may be payment or fulfillment of some academic requirement. If adults perceive reward as custom- ary for a given activity, they should expect rewards to increase rather than decrease participants’ subsequent motivation. And if adults see both high- and lowinterest school activities as “work” instead of considering the features of each type of task separately, they may infer that reward and other inducements are beneficial for virtually all types of school activities. Thus, “overly sufficient” incentives such as tangible reward may come to be preferred over mini- mally sufficient ones (e.g., reasoning) to motivate not only low-interest activities, but also those of initial high interest to children.

A second major consequence of the frequent pairing of reward with academic tasks is that the benefits rather than the costs of rewards may be more salient to the rewarder. Rewards often have positive effects on both high- and low-interest tasks in the “short run”: productivity is heightened (Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973), performance on simple tasks is enhanced (McGraw & McCullers, 1979), interest in boring tasks increases (Boggiano & Hertel, 1983; Calder & Staw, 1975; Kruglanski, 1975), and reward provided for performing academic activities produces positive affect, at least while the reward program is operative (Boggiano & Hertel, 1983). If adults observe the immediate positive effects of reward on performance, they may see this motivational tool as valuable for academic tasks more generally. Because adults may see school activities as work and may not differentiate carefully between tasks of varying interest levels, the rewarder may generalize that the observed increased interest following reward on low-interest activities will also occur on high-interest activities; any observed negative long-term effects for activities that the child initially found intrinsically interesting may be overlooked or ascribed to factors other than reward (e.g., to fatigue).

To investigate adults’ beliefs concerning effective techniques for maximiz- ing children’s interest in academic activities, we designed a series of studies (Boggiano, Barrett, Weiher, McClelland, & Lusk, 1987). The major hypothesis was that adults would show an overall preference for reward to maintain or increase interest in both high- and low-interest academic tasks in comparison to


other less-controlling strategies, such as a discussion of the components of an activity or a laissez-faire policy. In addition, adults were expected not to differentiate between short-term and long-term effects of extrinsic constraints (e.g., reward) on intrinsic interest-that is, immediate compliance vs. effects that are maintained after the incentive or constraint is removed.

Study 1 (Boggiano et al., 1987) assessed parents’ preference among four strategies (i.e., reward, reasoning, punishment, and no interference) to increase or maintain children’s intrinsic motivation for academic activities. Parents were asked to read different scenarios depicting 10-year-old children showing either high or low interest in academic activities, and then to rate the effectiveness of different strategies for maintaining or increasing their child’s interest in the activity-both while the strategy was in effect and after it was no longer present. Results indicated that parents significantly preferred reward over reasoning, punishment, and noninterference to maximize children’s interest in working with high- and low-interest activities. These parents apparently viewed both high- and low-interest academic tasks as requiring controlling techniques to increase children’s enjoyment in the activity, but saw no differences in the short- and long- term effects of those strategies. This indicates that adults do not discriminate carefully between tasks of varying interest levels, presumably because they regard all school-related activities as work.

Study 4 (Boggiano et al., 1987) examined the extent to which adults preferred large vs. small rewards for increasing students’ interest in academic tasks. If adults think that reward is highly beneficial for high-interest activities, they might then assume that increasing the size of a reward should increase interest. As predicted, students’ interest level was seen as covarying with the size of reward. Adults’ assumptions about the value of reward for academic vs. other behaviors again were demonstrated, for subjects preferred using both large and small reward more for academic tasks in comparison to other behavioral areas such as prosocial and aggressive behaviors. In addition, even when adults were given information that disconfirmed any positive beneficial effects of controlling strategies on students’ performance level, their beliefs remained unaltered.

Finally, Barrett and Boggiano (1988) assessed parents’ views of children depicted in scenarios as having behaviors characteristic of extrinsic vs. intrinsic children. This study found that extrinsic children were viewed by parents as being more mastery oriented (e.g., showing greater effort following failure) than children having an intrinsic set. This perception is in direct contrast to results of the Evaluative Feedback Study, which found that intrinsic children actually are more mastery oriented. Thus, the layperson’s assessment of which teachers are most competent may be misguided because of the current pervasive belief that teachers’ use of controlling strategies is most beneficial. Ironically, in their attempt to maximize intrinsic motivation in academic tasks (which, in fact, often


are inherently interesting), adults may unwittingly produce children with an extrinsic orientation toward schoolwork, characterized by a dislike of challenge, low interest in learning, and susceptibility to helplessness deficits.

Summary and Conclusion

The research summarized above has investigated the long-range effect of teachers’ controlling strategies and children’s motivational orientation on achievement-related behaviors. Clearly, the evidence presented here leads to the conclusion that children who display an extrinsic motivation toward schoolwork suffer from a range of important deficits that are influenced by teaching strategy. Children who have an extrinsic orientation prefer less challenging activities, work to please the teacher and to obtain good grades, and depend on others to evaluate their work. Perhaps most importantly, they are more likely to exhibit helplessness deficits and low national test scores. Moreover, such students approach schoolwork using an expediency approach-they do the minimal amount of work necessary to achieve the maximum outcome.

Development of an intrinsic or extrinsic set may very well hinge on the techniques used by parents and teachers for facilitating learning. One of the most distressing findings presented in this article is adults’ consistent belief that rewards (a subset of controlling strategies) enhance learning. Most people operate in a world in which extrinsic incentives commonly are offered: If you do your homework, you can watch television; if you succeed on the GRE, you will be admitted to graduate school; if you publish enough research, you will receive tenure. It is no wonder, then, that adults’ heuristics for improving achievement depend heavily on rewards. Indeed, in accord with normative if-then contingencies in our society, the common belief that “the larger the reward, the greater the learning” comes as no great surprise. Even when adults are shown disconfirming evidence, these commonly held beliefs persist, indicating resistance to disconfirming evidence (Boggiano et al., 1987).

Interestingly, teachers view students in their classroom who report an extrinsic orientation as “helpless.” Paradoxically, they also report that students who display concern over grades (an extrinsic orientation) exert more effort and take greater responsibility for schoolwork. However, when adults use controlling techniques to increase children’s achievement (techniques that teachers also receive from administrators), the process backfires. Rote learning may improve, but children’s responses to evaluative feedback are maladaptive because concep- tual learning and the motivation to continue learning decreases. And yet these effects seem to go unnoticed by adults and, ironically, teachers who most frequently use controlling techniques are often deemed most effective.

Although all of the links in our proposed model have not been tested em- pirically, the research discussed in this article supports the relations proposed


among the variables. Adults’ strategies, whether they enhance autonomy or emphasize external controls, affect children’s perceptions of control or self- determination (link A to B). Research on the link from B to C indicates that children’s perceptions of control predict their motivational orientation (Boggiano et al., 1991). To the extent that children adopt an intrinsic or extrinsic orientation, they will exhibit diverging reactions to various controlling/evaluative cues or stressors. Extrinsics display more helplessness, have lower standardized test scores, evidence fewer mastery pursuits, and are more likely to attribute control to powerful others, whereas intrinsics display the opposite set of responses. In addition, these orientations differentially affect learning, as assessed through a number of performance measures and pursuit of challenging tasks (links C and D to E).

Directions fur Future Research

The studies discussed above underscore the need for additional research. First, more longitudinal work is needed to assess the antecedents of extrinsic as well as intrinsic orientations. Given intrinsics’ resistance or invulnerability to competition and other pressures, it becomes an important question as to how children may develop intrinsic sets and, moreover, how we may reverse tenden- cies toward the development of extrinsic orientations. That children tend to show a progressive shift toward an extrinsic motivational set as they progress through the school years is well documented. Eccles, Midgley, and Adler (1984) have suggested that this systematic shift is due, in large part, to changes in the school environment. This shift in motivation is especially pronounced when children make the transition to junior high school; at this time, schools tend to place a greater emphasis on grades, performance, social comparison, and other external criteria. Eccles et al. have postulated that this focus on extrinsic factors tends to attenuate the intrinsic motivation of many highly competent students. Certainly, however, there are children who buck this trend, and demonstrate no changes or even enhanced intrinsic motivation during this transition, suggesting that motivational orientation may sometimes be “stable” or impervious to change. In contrast, some studies suggest that even brief experiences with controlling strategies in experimental settings can foster an extrinsic approach to a variety of tasks (Flink et al., 1990). Clearly, future research is warranted to determine what environmental factors may encourage extrinsics to adopt a more intrinsic approach to learning, and to investigate techniques that may “immunize” intrinsics from reverting to an extrinsic approach to schoolwork.

To address this issue, we are conducting a three-year longitudinal study examining whether motivational strategies used by parents moderate the impact of those used by teachers on children’s development of a particular motivation orientation. A second major question addressed in this study centers on the


malleability of children’s motivational orientation, as influenced by their exposure over the school years to teachers using primary controlling vs. autono- mous strategies. For instance, if children are taught by teachers using controlling techniques over several years, will they continue to maintain an extrinsic set even when they are subsequently exposed to teachers using autonomy-promoting strategies? We also are conducting an intervention study with elementary school children to explore ways to increase children’s resilience against the detrimental effects of extrinsic constraints. Clearly, however, further research is called for concerning both the antecedents of a particular motivational set and the malleability of an extrinsic approach to learning.

The question of potential gender and racial differences has also received little empirical attention. Although there has been some work suggesting that girls may be more prone than boys to developing an extrinsic orientation (Bog- giano & Barrett, in press) and that girls may be more susceptible to helplessness deficits (Dweck & Elliott, 1983), the results of studies examining this issue are inconsistent. For instance, the studies reported in this article have not found gender differences in motivational orientation or helplessness. Moreover, other research indicates that girls may be less prone to helplessness in the classroom than boys (Cooper, Burger, & Good, 1981). Thus, this issue is still an open question and invites further research, as does the issue of patterns of motivational orientation along racial and ethnic lines. We are currently conducting a meta- analysis to examine gender differences in helplessness (Eccles, Boggiano, Early, & Barrett, 1991).

Implications for Practice

The data from these studies, which have used a multimethod approach comprised of observational, experimental, and correlational methods, have both theoretical and practical applications. Taken together, these findings clearly underscore the importance of the construct of control as a determinant of achievement patterns in students. The finding that adults tend to extol the very controlling strategies that impair children’s achievement suggests that we must carefully review our educational policies. The efficacy of the current “back to basics” policies must be scrutinized. If teachers are chronically exposed to administrative pressures to increase standardized test scores, will they respond in the classroom by exerting increased controls over their students? We also must develop creative new techniques apart from grades, surveillance, and social comparison to motivate children to perform academic tasks. In short, it is imperative that we shift our focus when evaluating teacher strategies from the short-term gains of compliance and rote learning to the potentially harmful long-term effects that excess control may have on children’s achievement. It would be particularly valuable to


construct a taxonomy of teaching styles, through which their effects on individual students can be clearly understood.

Even more importantly, intervention programs are needed to begin changing socializing agents’ beliefs. If parents and teachers continue to believe rewards and the use of controlling strategies improve children’s performance and motivation for learning, then our families and schools will continue to produce extrinsically motivated children, who will have low perceptions of competence, a preference for easy tasks, anxiety over evaluative information, low overall achievement, and little interest in learning.

Researchers have long noted the need for a theoretical investigation of antecedents of helplessness deficits and maladaptive achievement patterns in children (Fincham & Cain, 1986). The present research is a preliminary step toward this goal. Moreover, by examining the links between extrinsic motivation and learned helplessness, the research seeks to provide an integration of two distinct approaches to understanding maladaptive achievement patterns in children in a way not previously investigated.

References

Amabile, T. M., DeJong, W., & Lepper, M. (1976). Effects of externally imposed deadlines on subsequent motivation. JOUrMl of Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 92-98.

Barrett, M., & Boggiano, A. K. (1988). Fostering extrinsic orientations: Use of reward strategies to motivate children. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 6 . 293-309.

Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (1985). Performance and motivational deficits of helplessness: The role of motivational orientations. JOUrMl of Personality and Social Psychology, 49. 1753- 1761.

Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (1990). The effect of controlling strategies on susceptibility to helplessness: The role of controlling strategies. Unpublished manuscript, University of Colo- rado, Boulder.

Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (in press). Strategies to motivate helpless and mastery oriented children: The effect of gender based expectancies. Sex Roles.

Boggiano, A. K., Barrett, M., Judd, C. M., Shields, A., Flink, C.. & Seelbach, A. (1991). The use of controlling rash: Effects on students’ performance and standardized test scores. Manu- script submitted for publication, University of Colorado, Boulder.

Boggiano, A. K., Barrett, M., Main, D. S . , & Katz, P. (1985, April). Mastery-motivation in children: The role of an extrinsic vs. intrinsic orientation. Paper presented at American Education Research Association meeting, Chicago.

Boggiano, A. K., Barrett, M., Weiher, A. W., McClelland, G. H., & Lusk, C. M. (1987). Use of the maximal-operant principal to motivate children’s intrinsic interest. JOUrMl of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 866-877.

Boggiano, A. K., Harackiewicz, J. M., Bessette, J. M., & Main, D. S . (1985). Increasing children’s interest through performance-contingent reward. Social Cognition, 3 , 400-41 1.

Boggiano, A. K., & Hertel, P. T. (1983). Bonuses and bribes: Mood effects in memory. Social Cognition, 2, 49-61.

Boggiano, A. K., Klinger, C. A., & Main, D. S. (1986). Enhancing interest in peer interaction: A developmental analysis. Child Development, 57, 852-861.

Boggiano, A. K., & Main, D. S. (1986). Enhancing children’s interest in activities used as rewards: The bonus effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 51, 11 16-1 126.


Boggiano, A. K., Main, D. S . , Flink, C., Barrett, M., Silvern, L., & Katz, P. A. (1989). A model of achievement in children: The role of controlling strategies in helplessness and affect. In R. Schwarzer, H. M. van der Ploeg, & C. D. Spielberger (Eds.), Advances in text anxiety research (pp. 13-26). Lisse, Netherlands: Swets & Bitlinger.

Boggiano, A. K., Main, D. S . , & Katz, P. A. (1988). Children’s preference for challenge: The role of perceived competence and control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54,

Boggiano, A. K., Pittman, T. S., & Ruble, D. N. (1982). The mastery hypothesis and the overjustification effect. Social Cognition, I. 38-49,

Boggiano, A. K., & Ruble, D. N. (1979). Perceptions of competence and the overjustification effect: A developmental study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1462-1468.

Calder, B. J., & Staw, B. M. (1975). Interaction of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Some meth- odological notes. JOUrMl of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 76-80.

Cooper, H. M., Burger, J. M., & Good, T. L. (1981). Gender differences in the academic locus of control beliefs of young children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 562- 572.

134- 141.

deCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation. New York: Academic Press. Deci, E. L., & Cascio, W. F. (1972, April). Changes in intrinsic motivation as a function of negative

feedback and threats. Paper presented at Eastern Rychological Association meeting, Boston. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and determination in human behavior. New

York: Plenum. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024-1037. Deci, E. L., Spiegel, N. H., Ryan, R. M., Koestner, R., & Kauffman, M. (1982). Effects of

performance standards on teaching styles: Behavior of controlling teachers. JOUrMl of Educa- tional Psychology, 74, 852-859.

Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1978). An analysis of learned helplessness: Continuous changes in performance strategy and achievement cognitions following failure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 451-462.

Diener, C. I., & Dweck, C. S. (1980). An analysis of learned helplessness: 11. The processing of success. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 940-952.

Dweck, C. S., & Bush, E. S. (1976). Sex differences in learned helplessness: I. Differential debilita- tion with peer and adult evaluators. Developmental Psychology, 12, 147-156.

Dweck, C. S . . & Elliot, E. S. (1983). Achievement motivation. In P. H. Mussen (Ed.), Handbook of child psychology (4th ed., Vol. 4, pp. 643-691). New York: Wiley.

Dweck, C. S., & Licht, B. (1980). Learned helplessness and intellectual achievement. In J. Garber & M. E. P. Seligman (Eds.), Human helplessness (pp. 197-221). New York: Academic Press.

Dweck, C. S . , & Reppucci, N. D. (1973). Learned helplessness and reinforcement responsibility in children. JOUrMl of Personality and Social Psychology, 25, 109- 116.

Eccles, J., Boggiano, A., Early, D., & Barrett, M. (1991). Gender differences in helplessness: A meta-analysis. Manuscript in preparation.

Eccles, J., Midgley, C., & Adler, T. F. (1984). Grade-related changes in the school environment: Effects on achievement motivation. In J. G. Nicholls (Ed.), The development of achievement motivation (pp. 283-331). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.

Fincham, F., & Cain, K. M. (1986). Learned helplessness in humans: A developmental analysis. Developmental Review, 6, 301-333.

Flink, C., Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (1990). Controlling teaching strategies: Undermining children’s self-determination and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

Graef, R., Csikszentmihalyi, M., & Gianinno, S. M. (1983). Measuring intrinsic motivation in everyday life. Leisure Studies, 2, 155-168.

Harter, S. (1981). A model of mastery motivation in children: Individual differences and developmental changes. In W. A. Collins (Ed.), Aspects of the development of competence: The Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology (Vol. 14, pp. 215-225). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Harter, S . (in press). The relationship between perceived competence, affect, and motivational

59, 916-924.


orientation within the classroom: Processes and patterns of change. In A. K. Boggiano & T. S. Pittman (Eds.), Achievemenr and motivation: A social-developmenral perspective. Cam- bridge: Cambridge University Press.

Kazdin, A. E., & Wilson, G. T. (1978). Evaluation of behavior therapy. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.

Kruglanski, A. W, (1975). The endogenous-exogenous partition in attribution theory. Psychological Review, 82, 387-406.

Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D. (1978). The hidden costs of reward. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with

extrinsic rewards: A test of the “overjustification” hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129- 137.

Lepper, M. R., Sagotsky, G., Dafoe, J. L., & Greene, D. (1982). Consequences of superfluous social constraints: Effects on young children’s social inferences and subsequent intrinsic interest. Journal of Personaliry cmnd Social Psychology, 42, 51-65.

McGraw, K. 0.. & McCullers, J. C. (1979). Evidence of a detrimental effect of extrinsic incentives on breaking a mental set. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 285-294.

Miller, A. (1983). For your own good. New York Fmar, Strauss, & Giroux. Nolen-Hoeksema, S., Girgus, J. S., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1986). Learned helplessness in children:

A longitudinal study of depression, achievement, and explanatory style. Journal of Person- ality and Social Psychology, 51, 435-442.

O’Leary, K. D., & Drabman, R. S. (1971). Token reinforcement programs in the classmom: A review. Psychological Bulletin, 75, 379-398.

Peterson, C., & Seligman, M. E. P. (1984). Causal explanations as a risk factor for depression: Theory and evidence. Psychological Review, 91, 347-374.

Pittman, N. L., & Pittman, T. S. (1979). Effects of amount of helplessness training and internal- external locus of control on mood and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 39-47.

Pittman, T. S . , Boggiano, A. K., & Ruble, D. N. (1983). Rewards and intrinsic motivation in children: Implications for educational settings. In J. M. Levine & M. Wang (Eds.), Percep- tions of success and failure: New directions in research (pp. 319-341). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Ryan, R. M., Mims, V.. & Koestner, R. (1983). Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: A review and test using cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 736-750.

Zuckerman, M., Porac, J., Lathin, D., Smith, R., & Deci, E. L. (1978). On the importance of self- determination for intrinsically motivated behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bul- letin, 4 , 443-446.

ANN K. BOGGIANO is Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Colorado at Boulder. She received her Ph.D. in social/developmental psychology from Princeton in 1981, and has published extensively on the development of children’s achievement motivation.

PHYLLIS KATZ is Director of the Institute for Research on Social Problems in Boulder, Colorado, and Adjunct Professor at the University of Colorado. Her Ph.D. in developmental and clinical psychology is from Yale University. She has published in the areas of children’s gender and race socialization, and has been active in SPSSI for many years.

maladaptive achievement patterns in students: the role of teachers' controlling strategies

Documents