[2005] - 09 - When Effort is Enjoyed - Two Studies of Intrinsic Motivation for Personally Salient Activities

8/9/2019 [2005] - 09 - When Effort is Enjoyed - Two Studies of Intrinsic Motivation for Personally Salient Activities

1/24

Motivation and Emotion, Vol. 29, No. 3, September 2005 ( C 2005)

DOI: 10.1007/s11031-005-9440-4

When Effort Is Enjoyed: Two Studies of Intrinsic

Motivation for Personally Salient Activities

Alan S. Waterman1,2

Distinctions between two philosophical conceptions of happiness, hedonism andeudaimonism, were applied to the study of intrinsic motivation. Modified versionsof the Personally Expressive Activities Questionnaire (PEAQ) were used in twostudies to contrast activities, all of which were enjoyed, but which differed in thelevel of effort involved. In Study 1, 173 college students were free to choose anytype of activity that met the selection criteria. In Study 2, the activities chosen by95 undergraduates were limited to activities associated with a particular leisuretime or hobby activity in which the respondents engaged on a regular basis.Consistent results across the two studies indicate that High EffortLiked activities,in comparison to Low EffortLiked activities, were associated with greater interest,flow, and feelings of personal expressiveness, greater perceived competence, andhigher scores for both self-realization values and importance. These differencesare discussed for their implications for the conceptual understanding of intrinsicmotivation.

KEY WORDS: intrinsic motivation; effort; flow; self-determination; self-realization.

Intrinsic motivation has been defined as performing behaviors out of interest,

pleasure, and enjoyment (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Vallerand & Ratelle, 2002). How-

ever, equating intrinsic motivation with engaging in activities because they are

associated with interest, pleasure, and enjoyment appears to subsume too many

activities under this construct by disregarding important distinctions concerning

the nature of enjoyment. Rock climbing, composing music, acting on stage, and

writing computer code are performed out of interest and are enjoyed by some peo-

ple. So too are dining at a fine restaurant, watching television, window shopping

at a mall, and hanging out with friends. The former all require significant effort,1Department of Psychology, The College of New Jersey, Ewing, New Jersey.2Address all correspondence to Alan S. Waterman, Department of Psychology, The College of

New Jersey, P.O. Box 7718, Ewing, New Jersey 08628-0718; e-mail: [email protected].

165

0146-7239/05/0900-0165/0 C 2005 Springer Science+Business Media, Inc.


2/24

166 Waterman

whether physical or mental, the latter involve considerably less effort. Yet, both

sets of activities would appear to fulfill the criteria for being viewed as intrinsically

motivated for those individuals who enjoy these activities and choose to do them

out of interest. Theories of happiness within both philosophy and psychology

have traditionally distinguished higher from lower pleasures and provide a basis

for using effort as a variable for making a distinction between the two types of

activities with respect to their behavioral motivation.

PHILOSOPHICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES

ON THE NATURE OF HAPPINESS

Within philosophy, the terms happiness, pleasure, and enjoyment are gener-ally used to refer to positive subjective experiences. Some philosophers have held

that pleasures differ only in intensity, not in quality. Aristippus of Cyrene, among

the first to advance hedonism as a basis for ethics, held that all pleasures were the

same in kind, though not equivalent in intensity, and was concerned only with the

immediate pleasurable consequences of behavior (Tatarkiewicz, 1976). Similarly,

Bentham (1789/1962) did not make qualitative distinctions between pleasures,

though he did create a complex calculus for quantitative comparisons. The ethical

goal associated with hedonism is the maximization of pleasure.

The more often employed approach within philosophy, however, has beento differentiate higher from lower pleasures. Plato distinguished true from

false pleasures, not on the basis of subjective experience, but on the basis of the

character of the person (Plato, 1937). Aristotle (1985), in rejecting the hedonic

view of happiness as pleasure or a life of gratification, offered the proposition

that eudaimonia (happiness) is activity expressing virtue (p. 284), where virtue

may be variously considered to be the best thing, the best within us, or excellence

(Ackrill, 1973; McDowell, 1980). Similarly, de Spinoza (1677/1951) advanced

the position that happiness was the result of right action, specifically through the

power to realize ones potentialities. In eudaimonistic philosophy, self-realizationis held to be the ethical goal worth pursuing, and progress toward that end was

viewed as the proximate cause for experiences of eudaimonia. Thus, the distinction

emerged within philosophy equating the lower pleasures with hedonism and the

higher pleasures with eudaimonia.

However, philosophers recognized that these two positive subjective states

were not independent. Eudaimonia was considered a sufficient, but not a neces-

sary condition for the presence of hedonic enjoyment (Telfer, 1980). Thus, three

categories of activities were posited: (a) those giving rise to both hedonic enjoy-

ment and eudaimonia (i.e., higher pleasures), (b) those giving rise only to hedonicenjoyment (i.e,, lower pleasures), and (c) those giving rise to neither hedonic en-

joyment nor eudaimonia. The category of activities giving rise to eudaimonia but

not hedonic enjoyment was considered a theoretical null.


3/24

When Effort Is Enjoyed 167

Within psychology, the differentiation of lower and higher pleasures has

appeared in the work of numerous theorists. For example, Fromm (1947) distin-

guished between pleasure derived from the relief of painful tension and pleasure

as excellence in the art of living through the expression of a productive orientation.

Consistent with philosophical understandings of higher pleasures, he saw happi-

ness not as a primary motivation for the choice of activity but as a companion of

productive activity (Fromm, 1947, p. 180). Along similar lines, Maslow (1968)

provided a detailed analysis of differences between d-motives (deficit-motives)

and b-motives (being-motives). The satisfaction of both types of motives yield

pleasurable subjective states, but these states are seen as differing extensively in

the cognitive-affective elements experienced. More recently, Ryan and Deci (2001)

and Ryff (1989) have discussed the distinctions between hedonic enjoyment and

eudaimonia in relation to subjective and psychological well-being. Waterman andcolleagues (Waterman, 1993b; Waterman, Schwartz, & Conti, 2005) have empiri-

cally explored the differences between the two conceptions of happiness in terms

of the ways in which they are experienced and the variables that predict to their

occurrence. The variables chosen for analysis were ones previously demonstrated

to be associated with intrinsic motivation. Before reviewing that research, how-

ever, it is necessary to consider perspectives on the role of effort in the way that

activities are experienced.

PHILOSOPHICAL AND PSYCHOLOGICAL PERSPECTIVES

ON THE ROLE OF EFFORT IN HAPPINESS

Numerous lines of theoretical analysis and empirical findings converge in

linking the higher pleasures with activities that call forth a significant investment of

effort. For Aristotle, eudaimonia was associated with striving toward an excellence

or perfection consistent with the daimon (Norton, 1976). Such excellence or

perfection is approachable only with diligence in both thought (in the recognition

of the true self) and action (in the implementation of those potentials thatconstitute the daimon). Similarly, de Spinoza (1677/1951), at the conclusion of

the The Ethics, wrote all things excellent are as difficult as they are rare (p. 271)

implying the need for exceptional effort before excellence might be attained.

In his discussion of happiness from a perspective of humanistic ethics, Fromm

(1947) pointed to the flaw in hedonism that made it appear as if that which is

easiest in lifeto have some kind of pleasurewere at the same time that which

is most valuable. But nothing valuable is easy. . . Humanistic ethics may very

well postulate happiness and joy as its chief virtues, but in doing so it does not

demand the easiest but the most difficult task of man, the full development of hisproductiveness (p. 194).

In discussing the lives of people most likely to be self-actualizing, Maslow

(1968) directed attention to the full development of personal potentials. He pointed


4/24

168 Waterman

to the activities of artists, intellectuals, the profoundly religious, and people expe-

riencing great insights in psychotherapy, all effortful forms of endeavor, as venues

in which to seek evidence of self-actualization. Csikszentmihalyi (1975), in his

original research on flow, interviewed rock-climbers, chess players, basketball

players, and dancers regarding their experiences when engaged in their preferred

activities. These groups were selected in part because of the effort that went into

their chosen activities. Flow came to be defined in terms of the balance of the

challenges a person encounters when engaged in an activity and the skills being

brought to it. Thus, high levels of effort were built into the definition of flow.

Similarly, Deci and Ryan (1985) discuss the importance of optimal challenges

in sustaining intrinsic motivation. In turn, Sheldon and Elliot (1998) demonstrated

that the autonomy of personal goals, an element of intrinsic motivation, served to

promote sustained effort.

INTRINSIC MOTIVATION AND THE TWO

CONCEPTIONS OF HAPPINESS

The theoretical considerations involving differences between hedonic en-

joyment and eudaimonia lead to the possibility that the construct of intrinsic

motivation should be reconceptualized. In current practice, enjoyment is central

to the operational definition of intrinsically motivated activities. Enjoyment is asufficient condition for activities to be performed for their own sake, rather than

for any extrinsic considerations that may be contingent on their performance. This

is the case whether task continuation or activity ratings for enjoyment are used to

assess such motivation. However, neither approach allows for making a distinction

between hedonic enjoyment and eudaimonia.

Starting with the distinctions between hedonic enjoyment and eudaimonia,

Waterman et al. (2005) proposed that the construct of intrinsic motivation is spe-

cific to the category of activities giving rise to both positive subjective states,

whereas activities in the category giving rise to hedonic enjoyment alone shouldbe termed hedonically motivated. The utility of this approach is predicated on

the ability to empirically identify differences between the two conceptions of

happiness with respect to variables demonstrated to be associated with intrin-

sic motivation, and specifically with variables linked to self-realization, since

progress toward self-realization is presumed to be responsible for experiences of

eudaimonia (Kraut, 1979; Norton, 1976).

Theories of intrinsic motivation, including cognitive-evaluation/self- de-

termination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985, 2002), the teleonomic theory of the

self/flow theory (Csikszentmihalyi, 1975, 1990), and eudaimonistic identity the-ory (Waterman, 1992, 1993a) have led to the identification of a set of subjective

experience variables associated with enacting intrinsically motivated activities

and a set of predictor variables reliably associated with the subjective experience


5/24


variables. Waterman et al. (2005) used these variables to determine whether differ-

ences between hedonic enjoyment and eudaimonia could be reliably demonstrated.

The Subjective Experiences Associated with Intrinsic Motivation

Interest, flow experiences, and feelings of personal expressiveness are posited

to be various forms of the subjective experience associated with intrinsic moti-

vation. Interest is an expression of feeling like doing an activity (Sansone &

Harackiewicz, 1996). It is a disposition to involve oneself selectivity in some activ-

ities rather than others (Krapp, Hidi, & Renninger, 1992). Interest is a subjective

experience that can range in intensity from relatively mild engagement to pas-

sionate involvement. Flow experiences, as described by Csikszentmihalyi (1990),refer to the combination of such cognitive-affective elements as (a) the presence

of clear goals; (b) an awareness of clear, immediate, and unambiguous feedback

about the outcomes of the actions taken; (c) a merging of action and awareness;

(d) the centering of attention on a limited stimulus field with the exclusion of

distractions from consciousness; (e) a feeling of being in control of ones actions

and of the immediate environment; (f) the absence of a concern about failure; (g)

the loss of ego or self-consciousness; and (h) a distortion in the sense of time. The

term feelings of personal expressiveness was used by Waterman (1990) to refer

to the subjective experiences associated with engaging in intrinsically motivated,identity-related activities. Feelings of personal expressiveness appear to embody

ones core sense of being. When engaged in personally expressive activities, in-

dividuals experience (a) an unusually intense involvement, (b) a special fit or

meshing with the activities, (c) a feeling of intensely being alive, (d) a feeling of

completeness or fulfillment, (e) an impression that this what the person was meant

to do, and (f) a feeling that this is who one really is.

While the operational definitions of interest, flow, and personal expres-

siveness are distinct, they have been demonstrated to be strongly interrelated

(Waterman et al., 2003). There is, however, an asymmetry with respect to theirassociation. Virtually all activities rated high on flow or personal expressiveness

were also rated high on interest. In contrast, a substantial proportion of activities

rated high on interest were not characterized by either flow or personal expres-

siveness (Waterman et al., 2003). This indicates that interest is, on average, a

milder form of pleasurable experience associated with intrinsic motivation and is

encountered in a broader range of activities.

Given the close association of the construct of personal expressiveness with

self-realization, Waterman and colleagues (Waterman, 1993b; Waterman et al.,

2005) employed the scale used to assess feelings of personal expressiveness asthe operational definition of eudaimonia. Interest and flow experiences remained

available as variables that could potentially have differentially strong relationships

with hedonic enjoyment and eudaimonia.


6/24

170 Waterman

The Predictors of Intrinsic Motivation

Deci and Ryan (1985) identified self-determination and perceived compe-

tence as two predictor variables for intrinsic motivation. An activity is more likelyto be experienced as intrinsically motivating if it is perceived to be self-chosen by

the individual than if performance of the same activity is assigned (Dwyer, 1993;

Felixbrod & OLeary, 1973; LaMore & Nelson, 1993; Pryor, 1999; Zuckerman,

Porac, Lathin, Smith, & Deci, 1978). Similarly, intrinsic motivation is more likely

to be present during activities one believes oneself capable of doing well than

during activities one perceives oneself as doing poorly (Boggiano, Main, & Katz,

1988; Curry, Biddle, Famose, & Goudas, 1996; Elliot et al., 2000; Reeve & Deci,

1996; Vallerand & Reid, 1984).

Csikszentmihalyi (1988) refined the concept of perceived competence byexplicating the role played by challenges in the behaviors being performed.

He advanced the view that intrinsic motivation, in the form of flow, was charac-

teristically present only on those occasions on which a high level of skills was

brought to activities involving a high level of challenges. Activities for which

the level of skill is high, but the level of challenges is low, give rise to experi-

ences of boredom, this despite the competence the person has demonstrated on the

task.

Waterman (1990) identified the role played by self-realization values asathird

predictor variable for intrinsic motivation. Such values are viewed as operating inthose activities that serve to promote the development of ones best potentials and

the furthering of ones purposes in living. In a series of studies, self-realization

values, as well as measures of self-determination and the balance of challenges

and skills were found to be significantly related to measures of the subjective

experiences of intrinsic motivation (Waterman et al., 2003). In addition, self-

actualization has been demonstrated to be associated with intrinsic (as opposed

to extrinsic) aspirations (Carver & Baird, 1998; Kasser & Ryan, 1993, 1996)

and intrinsic job satisfaction (Lee & Graham, 1986; Lee, McCabe, & Graham,

1983).There are, however, theoretical grounds for expecting these three predictor

variables to be differentially related to intrinsic and hedonic motivation. Whereas

both the balance of challenges and skills and self-realization values appear con-

ceptually linked to self-realization, self-determination is not. The balance of chal-

lenges and skills is associated with self-realization, since progress toward self-

realization can only occur as individuals strive to develop their potentials through

taking on, and mastering, opportunities of increasing difficulty (and thereby ex-

periencing eudaimonia). This linkage is not perfect, however, since a person may

successfully engage in some demanding activities about which they care little be-cause personally salient goals are not involved. Eudaimonia would not be expected

in such instances. Self-realization values have the most direct relevance here, since


7/24


they reflect the deliberate selection of activities because they provide opportuni-

ties to develop ones potentials and advance ones purposes in living. In contrast,

self-determination does not bear any strong association with self-realization in that

a person may make an autonomous choice to engage in an activity simply because

it is fun, irrespective of whether that activity involves the development of personal

potentials or furthering ones purposes in living. Consistent with this perspective,

Waterman et al. (2003) found that indices of the balance of challenges and skills

and self-realization values were significantly correlated, but neither measure was

correlated with an index of self-determination. Waterman et al. (2005) predicted

that the balance of challenges and skills and self-realization values would have

stronger associations with eudaimonia than with hedonic enjoyment, whereas

self-determination would have a stronger association with hedonic enjoyment.

Additional Variables with Implications for Contrasting

the Two Conceptions of Happiness

Waterman and colleagues (Waterman, 1993b; Waterman et al., 2005) also

considered three other variables when seeking to differentiate hedonic enjoyment

and eudaimonia: the frequency of the activities, their self-ascribed importance,

and the level of effort invested in them. Differential associations with the two

conceptions of happiness were expected for importance and effort.While opportunities for self-realization may constitute a reason for wishing

to engage in an activity frequently, so too do opportunities to experience hedonic

enjoyment alone. In addition there are a host of practical considerations that will

affect the frequency of activities and that could therefore obscure the impact of

this variable. For these reasons, no expectation was advanced that this variable

would differentiate between the two conceptions of happiness.

In contrast, the self-ascribed importance of an activity was seen as linked to

self-realization in that greater value would be attached to those activities that afford

opportunities for the advancement of personal potentials and personal goals, thanto those activities that did not. Similarly, it was anticipated that activities linked to

self-realization would require a greater expenditure of effort than would most other

activities. It is certainly true that a person might be asked to expend considerable

effort on tasks unrelated to personal potentials or purposes-in-living, but under

such circumstances a likely goal would be to manage the situation so as a minimize

the total amount of effort put into it. In contrast, when self-realization is involved,

the person would likely endeavor to work as diligently as possible so as to make the

most progress attainable. Thus, both importance and level of effort were expected

to have stronger associations with eudaimonia than with hedonic enjoyment.To return for a moment to the two groups of activities introduced at the

opening of this article, it should be readily recognized that rock climbing,


8/24

172 Waterman

composing music, acting on stage, and writing computer code will each be chosen

by some people because they provide a means for self-realization. When such

activities are pursued on the basis of self-realization values, it should also be

anticipated that they will involve a balance of challenges and skills, be viewed

as personally important, and that a considerable level of effort will be invested

in them. When the person is having a reasonable degree of success in pursu-

ing such activities, both eudaimonia and hedonic enjoyment may be expected to

be present. In contrast, dining at a fine restaurant, watching television, window

shopping at a mall, and hanging out with friends, while hedonically enjoyable,

are far less likely to be seen as involving self-realization, they are unlikely to

entail the combination of high challenges and high skills, they are less likely to

be viewed as being of the same personal importance as activities in the other

group, and it is hard to see how a great deal of effort could be invested inthem.

Empirical Research on the Two Conceptions of Happiness

In an initial series of studies, the author (Waterman, 1993b) demonstrated

empirical distinctions between two conceptions of happiness experienced in con-

nection with activities deemed to be personally salient to the research participants.

In comparison to reports of hedonic enjoyment, feelings of personal expressivenesswere found to be more strongly associated with reports of the following cognitive-

affective elements: (a) feeling competent, (b) having a high level of concentration,

(c) knowing how well one was doing, (d) having clear goals, (e) feeling assertive,

and (f) feeling challenged. With particular relevance to the studies reported here,

personal expressiveness was more strongly associated with (g) investing a great

deal of effort.

More recently, Waterman et al. (2005) demonstrated reliable differences be-

tween the two conceptions of happiness in terms of variables specifically related to

intrinsic motivation. The variables of self-determination and interest consistentlyhad significantly stronger relationships with hedonic enjoyment, whereas the vari-

ables of the balance of challenges and skills, self-realization values, self-ascribed

importance of activities, and the level of effort invested consistently had stronger

correlations with the measure of personal expressiveness (eudaimonia). No differ-

ences in the strength of the associations with eudaimonia and hedonic enjoyment

were found flow experiences or frequency. Thus, those variables with links to self-

realization were the ones with the stronger association with eudaimonia. Those

variables more strongly linked to hedonic enjoyment were the ones that were not

specific to self-realization. This pattern was consistent with expectations and itserves to support drawing a distinction between intrinsically motivated activities

(as involving both hedonic enjoyment and eudaimonia) and hedonically motivated

activities (as involving only hedonic enjoyment).


9/24


THE PRESENT RESEARCH

Findings from these prior studies support the view that the level of effort

expended in an activity can be used to distinguish hedonic enjoyment from eu-

daimonia. However, in those studies effort was treated as one outcome variable

among many, and it was assessed using a single item. In the current studies,

rather than treating effort as an outcome variable, it was incorporated in the cri-

teria for the selection of the activities to be evaluated. In the studies reported

here, direct comparisons were made of High EffortLiked activities with Low

EffortLiked activities. Based on both philosophical and psychological theory

and on prior empirical research, activities in the former category are presumed

to be intrinsically motivated such that both hedonic enjoyment and eudaimonia

will be present, whereas the latter are presumably hedonically motivated suchthat only hedonic enjoyment will be present. This design represents an alter-

native and more direct strategy for analyzing the role of effort in behavioral

motivation.

The following hypotheses were advanced:

(1) The category of High EffortLiked activities will be associated with

greater reported levels of feelings of personal expressiveness than is the

category of Low EffortLiked activities. This is a direct test of the assump-

tion that eudaimonia is present for the former but not the latter and it doesso under conditions where the level of hedonic enjoyment is comparable.

(2) The category of High EffortLiked activities will be associated with

greater levels of interest and flow experiences than is the category of

Low EffortLiked activities. Despite the fact that in prior research interest

was more associated with hedonic enjoyment than eudaimonia and that

no difference was found for flow experiences, the following rationale was

used to generate this hypothesis. Since the two categories of activities were

selected to be equivalent on hedonic enjoyment, whatever residual associ-

ation interest and flow experiences have with eudaimonia over and abovethe association with hedonic enjoyment will contribute to the high-effort

activities being experienced more positively than the low-effort activities.

(3) The category of High EffortLiked activities will be associated with higher

scores for the balance of challenges and skills, self-realization values, and

self-ascribed importance, in comparison to Low EffortLiked activities.

Each of these variables has specific links to self-realization and therefore

should contribute to the eudaimonia experienced in connection with High

EffortLiked activities.

In addition to specifying the variables on which differences were anticipated,

the theoretical perspective advanced here provides a basis for identifying variables

for which differences were not anticipated. Specifically, no differences between


10/24

174 Waterman

the High EffortLiked activities and Low EffortLiked activities were expected

for the measure of self-determination, since both types of activities should be

perceived as self-selected on the basis of hedonic enjoyment alone. Similarly, no

differences between the conditions were expected for frequency of performing

activities, since hedonic enjoyment alone should account for frequency and since

practical considerations are presumed to play a substantial role in determining

frequencies.

The two studies reported here involved use of modified versions of the Per-

sonally Expressive Activities Questionnaire (PEAQ) (Waterman, 1998) to collect

data on activities differing in levels of effort and affect. When completing the

PEAQ, respondents are asked to identify personally salient activities that they

engage in on a regular basis. In the first of these studies, respondents were asked

to evaluate what they experienced while engaging in self-selected activities withno constraints placed on the respondents regarding the types of activities they

could choose when matching the criteria regarding enjoyment and effort. In the

second study, it was stipulated that the activities to be evaluated were to be

drawn from the array of behaviors performed when the respondent was involved

with a particular hobby or leisure time pursuit that they engaged in on a regular

basis.3

The versions of the PEAQ employed in these studies contained identical sets

of measures for assessing the three subjective experience variables (i.e., interest,

flow, and feelings of personal expressiveness), the three predictor variables forintrinsic motivation (i.e., self-determination, the balance of challenges and skills,

and self-realization values), and the variables of importance and frequency. In

addition, the instruments included items pertaining to both effort and affect as a

means to validate the activities selected in the various categories. Thus, the design

of the studies allowed for making within-participant contrasts of intrinsically

motivated (High EffortLiked) activities with hedonically motivated (Low Effort

Liked) activities.

STUDY 1

Methods

Participants

Participants were 173 undergraduate students (129 women, 42 men) enrolled

in psychology courses at The College of New Jersey. The gender distribution

in the sample reflects the approximate gender distribution within those courses.

3Other findings from this pair of studies were reported in Waterman et al. (2003). Studies 1 and 2 inthis report correspond to Studies 3 and 4 in the previous publication.


11/24


Approximately 90% of the student population at the school is Caucasian, about

10% other ethnic groups.

Instrument

In this study, the standard version of the PEAQ was modified to have re-

spondents identify six activities to be rated, constrained by crossing two levels of

Effort (High and Low) with three levels of Affect (Liked, Neutral, and Disliked)

(PEAQEA).4 The instructions on the PEAQEA read as follows:

This questionnaire is designed to assess how individuals feel about various types of activitiesin which they regularly engage. Currently, we are interested in learning about how botheffort and enjoyment affect the ways in which activities are experienced. In the spaces belowyou are asked to list six activities in which you regularly engage that are characterized bydifferent combinations of effort and enjoyment.

Six versions of the questionnaire were created to counter-balance the sequence in

which activities were to be listed and then rated. Each combination of Effort and

Affect was represented once in each ordinal position.

A 7-point scale was used for all items with the endpoints of the scale labeled.

The endpoint labels varied as a function of the scale content.

Measures of the Subjective Experience of Intrinsic Motivation

Interest. Interest was assessed with one item pertaining to the usual level of

interest experienced when engaged in the activity. The response scale ranged from

very low to very high.

Flow Experiences. Flow was measured using an 8-item scale, the items

corresponding to elements identified by Csikszentmihalyi (1990). The items were

phrased as completions of a common stem: When I engage in this activity .

The item completions for this scale were the following: (a) I feel I have clear

goals, (b) I feel self-conscious (reverse-scored), (c) I feel in control, (d) I losetrack of time, (e) I feel I know how well I am doing, (f) I have a high level of

concentration, (g) I forget personal problems, and (h) I feel fully involved. These

items were embedded among a series of other sentence completions not specific

to flow experiences. Each item was responded to on a scale ranging from not at

all characteristic of me to very characteristic of me. Cronbachs alpha for this

scale was .70.5

4Only the comparisons of the High EffortLiked activities and Low-EffortLiked activities will be

reported here, since it is that set of comparisons that bear directly on distinctions between intrinsi-cally motivated and hedonically motivated activities. A report of findings involving all conditions isavailable from the author on request.

5The reported levels of Cronbach alphas and inter-item correlations were derived from the studyconducted by Schwartz and Waterman (2005).


12/24

176 Waterman

Personal Expressiveness. Feelings of personal expressiveness were assessed

with six items for which respondents were asked the extent to which they agreed

or disagreed with a series of statements. The items tapping feelings of personal

expressiveness were the following: (a) This activity gives me my greatest feeling

of really being alive; (b) When I engage in this activity I feel more intensely

involved than I do when engaged in most other activities; (c) This activity gives

me my strongest feeling that this is who I really am; (d) When engaged in this

activity I feel this is what I was meant to do; (e) I feel more complete or fulfilled

when engaging in this activity than I do when engaged in most other activities;

and (f) I feel a special fit or meshing when engaged in this activity. The scale

for these items ranged from strongly disagree to strongly agree. Cronbachs

alpha for this scale was .91.

Predictor Measures of Intrinsic Motivation

Self-Determination. Self-determination was assessed by two items adapted

from Graef, Csikszentmihalyi, and Giannino (1983). The first item read to what

extent do you usually feel that engaging in this activity is something you are

required to do or is your choice to do? The endpoints of the scale were required

to do and my choice to do. The second read When engaging in this activity,

to what extent do you wish you were doing something else?, with the endpointsof the scale labeled not at all and very much (reverse scored). The inter-item

correlation was .39 (after reversal).

Balance of Challenges and Skills. Perceived competence, in the form of the

balance of challenges and skills, was measured by the sum of two items. The first

referred to the usual level of challenges encountered when engaged in the activity,

the second to the level of skills the respondent usually brings to the activity. For

both items, the scale endpoints were very low and very high. High scores

on this measure can only be obtained when the level of challenges and skills are

both balanced and high, corresponding to the condition Csikszentmihalyi (1988)termed flow. Low scores are obtained when the levels of both elements are low,

corresponding to the condition associated with apathy. Intermediate scores are

obtained when both variables are intermediate or when one is high and the other

low, corresponding to either the conditions for boredom or anxiety. The inter-item

correlation was .34.

Self-Realization Values. Self-realization values were assessed by two items,

embedded within a series of items with the stem: To what extent does this activity

provide you with each of the following types of opportunities? The relevant

completions were the opportunity for me to develop my best potentials and theopportunity for me to make progress toward my goals. Each item was associated

with a scale with the endpoints identified as not at all and very extensively.

The inter-item correlation was .67.


13/24


Measures of Frequency and Importance

The frequency of each activity was assessed by one item reading: How often

have you engaged in this activity in the past year? The endpoints of the scale

were identified as very frequently and very seldom.

The self-ascribed importance of each activity was assessed by one item

reading: Overall, how important is this activity to you in your life? The endpoints

of the scale were identified as extremely important and not at all important.

Validity Check Items

Effort. To compare activities on the basis of effort, the following item wasemployed: What is the usual level of effort you invest when you engage in this

activity? The scale ranged from very high to very low.

Affect. To compare activities on the basis of the enjoyment experienced, the

following item was used: To what extent do you usually like or dislike engaging

in this activity? The scale endpoints were labeled like to do very much and

dislike to do very much.

Procedures

Research materials were distributed to participants in psychology classes with

instructions to complete the questionnaires under conditions of relative privacy

where they lived. The materials were to be returned to their course instructor

the following week. Respondents received points toward their course grade as a

reward for participation.

Results

Data Analysis Strategy

All hypotheses were evaluated by contrasting High EffortLiked activities

with Low EffortLiked activities using paired measures t-tests.

Preliminary Analyses

Validation of the Selection of Activities. Consistent with the requested selec-

tion of activities in terms of high and low effort, for the item pertaining to level ofeffort High EffortLiked activities were rated significantly higher on this item than

were Low EffortLiked activities, t(172) = 20.29, p < .0001. With respect to the

validation of the selection of liked activities, for the item pertaining to affect, the


14/24

178 Waterman

Table I. The Content of Activities Evaluated in the Intrinsically and He-donically Motivated Activity Groups (Minimum of 5% Representation):

Study 1

Low EffortLiked (hedonically High EffortLiked (intrinsicallymotivated) activities motivated) activities

TV viewing Athletic activitiesSocial activities Dance activitiesReading Work activitiesMusic-related activitiesSolitary activitiesShoppingRecreational activities

ratings for the High EffortLiked activities and Low EffortLiked activities were

not statistically different, t(172) = 1.21, ns.

The Content of Activities in the Various Motivation Categories. In Study 1,

the respondents were free to choose any type of activity within the categories of

High EffortLiked and Low EffortLiked activities. The activities generated by

the respondents were analyzed for content and a frequency distribution of those

activities reported in each group by at least 5% of the sample are listed in Table I.

Very little overlap in content between the two sets of activities was observed.

Comparisons Involving the Subjective Experience Measures

Mean scores and standard deviations for the 8 dependent variables for the

High EffortLiked and Low EffortLiked activities are reported in Table II.

Consistent with Hypotheses 1 and 2, as expected, High EffortLiked activities

received higher scores on all three measures relating to the subjective experience of

intrinsic motivation than did Low EffortLiked activities: Interest, t(172) = 4.00,

Table II. Means Scores and Standard Deviations on the Subjective Experience, Predictor,Importance, and Frequency Variables for Low EffortLiked and High EffortLiked Activities:

Study 1

Variables Low EffortLiked High EffortLiked t-value

Interest 5.98 (1.27) 6.40 (.75) 4.00

Flow experiences 39.46 (8.68) 44.09 (6.42) 5.84

Personal expressiveness 23.70 (10.29) 31.34 (6.78) 8.05

Self-determination 11.91 (2.39) 11.89 (2.08) .15Balance of challenges and skills 6.41 (3.55) 10.08 (2.21) 14.76

Self-realization values 7.12 (3.77) 10.40 (2.86) 9.62

Frequency 6.37 (1.01) 5.59 (1.44) 5.73

Importance 5.09 (1.71) 5.44 (1.33) 2.14

p < .05. p < .001.


15/24


p < .0001; flow experiences, t(167) = 5.84, p < .0001; personal expressiveness,

t(167) = 8.05, p < .0001.

Comparisons Involving the Predictor Variables

Consistent with Hypothesis 3, the expected differences for the balance of

challenges and skills and self-realization values were obtained, with High Effort

Liked activities rated higher on these scales than Low-EffortLiked activities:

Balance of challenges and skills, t(172) = 14.77, p < .0001; Self-Realization

Values, t(172) = 9.63, p < .0001. Also as anticipated, no difference between

High EffortLiked activities and Low EffortLiked activities was found for the

measure of self-determination, t(171) = .15, ns.

Comparisons Involving Frequency and Importance

Consistent with Hypothesis 3, with respect to the importance attributed to

the activities evaluated, High EffortLiked activities were rated as significantly

more important than Low EffortLiked activities, t(172) = 2.15, p < .05. Al-

though no prediction was advanced with respect to the frequency of various

activities, Low EffortLiked activities were reported to be engaged in signifi-

cantly more frequently than were High EffortLiked activities, t(172) = 5.73,p < .0001.

Discussion

The findings for Study 1 provided support for the hypothesized differ-

ences between intrinsically motivated and hedonically motivated activities. High

EffortLiked activities were found to be associated with higher levels of reported

interest, flow experiences, personal expressiveness, perceived competence in theform of the balance of challenges and skills, self-realization values, and the rated

importance of activities. For frequency, no difference was predicted, but a signifi-

cant outcome was obtained with Low EffortLiked activities found to be engaged

in more frequently than High EffortLiked activities. This indicates that activities

giving rise solely to hedonic enjoyment were performed more frequently than

those giving rise to both hedonic enjoyment and eudaimonia. No difference was

predicted for self-determination and none was obtained.

The participants in Study 1 were able to choose the activities without con-

straints on the nature of the activities themselves. Thus, the content of the activitiesconstituted an uncontrolled variable. A second study was conducted in an effort

to replicate the findings obtained here under conditions where all the activities

evaluated would be drawn from the same content domain. By keeping the content


16/24

180 Waterman

domain constant, a greater degree of comparability across the activities evaluated

could be attained for aspects of the activities that were uncontrolled in Study 1,

for example, the relative frequency of the activities and the time interval since

the activity was last enacted. The particular domain selected for study was leisure

time and hobby activities.

STUDY 2

Methods

Participants

Participants were 95 undergraduate students (81 women, 14 men) enrolled in

psychology courses at The College of New Jersey.

Instrument

For Study 2, the standard version of the PEAQ was modified so that respon-

dents first identified a domain of leisure time or hobby activity (PEAQ-LH). The

activity to be selected was to have the following characteristics: (a) there was a

strong interest in doing it, (b) it was considered to be an important part of oneslife, (c) it was engaged in with some regularity or frequency, and (d) it was not a

paid activity or one engaged in for course credit. Next, respondents were asked

to break the leisure time or hobby activity into its component elements, that is,

specific activities that were a part of the larger activity. Examples were provided as

to how two leisure or hobby activities (playing a musical instrument and playing

on a football team) could be broken down into component activities. Respondents

were asked to list a minimum of 10 component activities. Finally, respondents

were asked to choose four of the component activities listed that were character-

ized by different combinations of Effort (High and Low) and Affect (Liked andDisliked). The sequence in which activities were rated was varied among four

versions of the instrument, with each category of activity appearing once in each

ordinal position.

Measures

All scales on the PEAQ-LH were the same as those on the PEAQ-EA.

Procedures

The procedures in Study 2 were the same as those in Study 1.


17/24


Results

Preliminary Analyses

Validation of the Selection of Activities. Consistent with the requested se-

lection of activities in terms of high and low effort, for the item pertaining to

the level of effort High EffortLiked activities were rated significantly higher

than were Low EffortLiked activities, t(96) = 11.48, p < .0001. With respect

to the comparison of activities with respect to affect, the difference between the

High EffortLiked activities and Low EffortLiked activities was not significant,

t(95) = 1.65, ns.

Comparisons Involving the Subjective Experience Measures

Mean scores and standard deviations for the 8 dependent variables for the

High EffortLiked activities and Low EffortLiked activities are reported in

Table III.

Again, as predicted in Hypotheses 1 and 2, for all three measures of the sub-

jective experiences of intrinsic motivation, High EffortLiked activities were rated

significantly higher than Low EffortLiked activities: interest, t(94) = 3.43, p

Documents

[2005] - 09 - When Effort is Enjoyed - Two Studies of Intrinsic Motivation for Personally Salient Activities