When people use external events as incentives and consequences, they generally seek to create in themselves or in others an extrinsic motivation to engage in that activity. Much of the spirit behind the use of an extrinsic motivator is therefore to control behavior. Sometimes the attempt to control is obvious (e.g., using money to bribe someone's compliance), but other times it is more seductive (e.g., giving free soft drinks at a bar to anyone agreeing to be a designated driver). Thus, part of the purpose of implementing almost any extrinsic motivator is to control another person's behavior-that is, to increase some desirable behavior or to decrease some undesirable behavior. But there is a second purpose, because incentives and consequences also provide feedback that informs the person about his or her competence at the task. Rewards such as money, awards, grades of A's, academic scholarships, and verbal praise not only function to increase behavior (i.e., control behavior), but they also function to communicate a message of a job well done (i.e., inform competence).

Cognitive evaluation theory asserts that all external events have both a controlling aspect and an informational aspect (Deci & Ryan, 1985a). The theory presumes that people have organismic needs for self-determination and competence (chapter 4) and that the external event's controlling aspect relates to the need for self-determination whereas its informational aspect relates to the need for competence. More formally, cognitive evaluation theory exists as a set of three propositions, which are as follows:

According to proposition 1, external events that promote an internal perceived locus of causality (PLOC) promote intrinsic motivation, because they involve or satisfy the need for self-determination. External events that promote an external PLOC promote extrinsic motivation, because they neglect the need for self-determination and instead establish an if-then contingency between behavior-consequence. Hence, the more an event is presented in a noncontrolling way, the more likely it is to promote self-determination, an internal PLOC, and intrinsic motivation; the more an event is presented in a controlling way, the more likely it is to undermine self-determination, promote an external PLOC, and increase extrinsic motivation.

According to proposition 2, events that increase perceived competence promote intrinsic motivation, whereas events that decrease perceived competence undermine it. Hence, the more an external event communicates positive effectance information, the more likely it is to satisfy the need for competence and increase intrinsic motivation; the more an external event communicates negative effectance information, the more likely it is to frustrate the need for competence and decrease intrinsic motivation. The contribution that the first two propositions offer to understanding the motivational significance of incentives and consequences is that they focus attention not only on how an extrinsic event affects behavior but, in addition, on how it affects people's organismic psychological needs.

Events relevant to the initiation and regulation of behavior have three potential aspects, each with a functional significance. The informational aspect facilitates an internal PLOC and perceived competence, thus enhancing intrinsic motivation. The controlling aspect facilitates an external PLOC, thus undermining intrinsic motivation and promoting extrinsic compliance or defiance. The amotivating aspect facilitates perceived incompetence, thus undermining intrinsic motivation and promoting amotivation. The relative salience of these three aspects to a person determines the functional significance of the event.

Proposition 3 ties together the first two propositions into a full theoretical statement. According to proposition 3, the relative salience of whether an event is mostly controlling or mostly informational determines its effects on intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. When an extrinsic event is presented in a relatively controlling way, it effectively undermines intrinsic motivation (via its effects on self-determination) and promotes extrinsic motivation. When an extrinsic event is presented in a relatively informational way, it effectively increases intrinsic motivation (via its effect on competence) rather than extrinsic motivation. It is in proposition 3 that the usefulness of cognitive evaluation theory becomes apparent. The utility of cognitive evaluation theory is that the reader can use its propositions to predict the effect that any extrinsic event will have on intrinsic and extrinsic motivations.

References

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Cognitive evaluation theory. In Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior (Chpt. 3, pp. 43-85). New York: Plenum.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1980). The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 13, pp. 39-80). New York: Academic Press.