How to Measure Motivation: A Guide for the Experimental Social Psychologist

This article examines cognitive, affective, and behavioral measures of motivation and reviews their use throughout the discipline of experimental social psychology. We distinguish between two dimensions of motivation (outcome-focused motivation and process-focused motivation). We discuss circumstances under which measures may help distinguish between different dimensions of motivation, as well as circumstances under which measures may capture different dimensions of motivation in similar ways. Furthermore, we examine situations in which various measures may capture fluctuations in nonmotivational factors, such as learning or physiological depletion. This analysis seeks to advance research in experimental social psychology by highlighting the need for caution when selecting measures of motivation and when interpreting fluctuations captured by these measures. Motivation – the psychological force that enables action – has long been the object of scientific inquiry (Carver & Scheier, 1998; Festinger, 1957; Fishbein & Ajzen, 1974; Hull, 1932; Kruglanski, 1996; Lewin, 1935; Miller, Galanter, & Pribram, 1960; Mischel, Shoda, & Rodriguez, 1989; Zeigarnik, 1927). Because motivation is a psychological construct that cannot be observed or recorded directly, studying it raises an important question: how to measure motivation? Researchers measure motivation in terms of observable cognitive (e.g., recall, perception), affective (e.g., subjective experience), behavioral (e.g., performance), and physiological (e.g., brain activation) responses and using self-reports. Furthermore, motivation is measured in relative terms: compared to previous or subsequent levels of motivation or to motivation in a different goal state (e.g., salient versus non-salient goal). For example, following exposure to a health-goal prime (e.g., gymmembership card), an individual might be more motivated to exercise now than she was 20minutes ago (before exposure to the prime), or than another person who was not exposed to the same prime. An important aspect of determining how to measure motivation is understanding what type of motivation one is attempting to capture. Thus, in exploring the measures of motivation, the present article takes into account different dimensions of motivation. In particular, we highlight the distinction between the outcome-focused motivation to complete a goal (Brehm & Self, 1989; Locke & Latham, 1990; Powers, 1973) and the process-focused motivation to attend to elements related to the process of goal pursuit – with less emphasis on the outcome. Process-related elements may include using “proper” means during goal pursuit (means-focused motivation; Higgins, Idson, Freitas, Spiegel, & Molden, 2003; Touré-Tillery & Fishbach, 2012) and enjoying the experience of goal pursuit (intrinsic motivation; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Fishbach & Choi, 2012; Sansone & Harackiewicz, 1996; Shah & Kruglanski, 2000). In some cases, particular measures of motivation may help distinguish between these different dimensions of motivation, whereas other measures may not. For example, the measured speed at which a person works on a task can have several interpretations. © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd How to Measure Motivation 329 Working slowly could mean (a) that the individual’s motivation to complete the task is low (outcome-focused motivation); or (b) that her motivation to engage in the task is high such that she is “savoring” the task (intrinsic motivation); or (c) that her motivation to “do it right” and use proper means is high such that she is applying herself (means-focused motivation); or even (d) that she is tired (diminished physiological resources). In this case, additional measures (e.g., accuracy in performance) and manipulations (e.g., task difficulty) may help tease apart these various potential interpretations. Thus, experimental researchers must exercise caution when selecting measures of motivation and when interpreting the fluctuations captured by these measures. This review provides a guide for how to measure fluctuations in motivation in experimental settings. One approach is to ask people to rate their motivation (i.e., “how motivated are you?”). However, such an approach is limited to people’s conscious understanding of their own psychological states and can further be biased by social desirability concerns; hence, research in experimental social psychology developed a variety of cognitive and behavioral paradigms to assess motivation without relying on self-reports. We focus on these objective measures of situational fluctuations in motivation. We note that other fields of psychological research commonly use physiological measures (e.g., brain activation, skin conductance), self-report measures (i.e., motivation scales), or measure motivation as a stable trait. These physiological, self-report, and trait measures of motivation are beyond the scope our review. In the sections that follow, we start with a discussion of measures researchers commonly use to capture motivation. We review cognitive measures such as memory accessibility, evaluations, and perceptions of goal-relevant objects, as well as affective measures such as subjective experience. Next, we examine the use of behavioral measures such as speed, performance, and choice to capture fluctuations in motivational strength. In the third section, we discuss the outcomeand process-focused dimensions of motivation and examine specific measures of process-focused motivation, including measures of intrinsic motivation and means-focused motivation. We then discuss how different measures may help distinguish between the outcomeand process-focused dimensions. In the final section, we explore circumstances under which measures may capture fluctuations in learning and physiological resources, rather than changes in motivation. We conclude with some implications of this analysis for the measurement and study of motivation. Cognitive and Affective Measures of Motivation Experimental social psychologists conceptualize a goal as the cognitive representation of a desired end state (Fishbach & Ferguson, 2007; Kruglanski, 1996). According to this view, goals are organized in associative memory networks connecting each goal to corresponding constructs. Goal-relevant constructs could be activities or objects that contribute to goal attainment (i.e., means; Kruglanski et al., 2002), as well as activities or objects that hinder goal attainment (i.e., temptations; Fishbach, Friedman, & Kruglanski, 2003). For example, the goal to eat healthily may be associated with constructs such as apple, doctor (facilitating means), or French fries (hindering temptation). Cognitive and affective measures of motivation include the activation, evaluation, and perception of these goal-related constructs and the subjective experience they evoke. Goal activation: Memory, accessibility, and inhibition of goal-related constructs Constructs related to a goal can activate or prime the pursuit of that goal. For example, the presence of one’s study partner or the word “exam” in a game of scrabble can activate a student’s academic goal and hence increase her motivation to study. Once a goal is active, Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8/7 (2014): 328–341, 10.1111/spc3.12110 © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd 330 How to Measure Motivation the motivational system prepares the individual for action by activating goal-relevant information (Bargh & Barndollar, 1996; Gollwitzer, 1996; Kruglanski, 1996). Thus, motivation manifests itself in terms of how easily goal-related constructs are brought tomind (i.e., accessibility; Aarts, Dijksterhuis, & De Vries, 2001; Higgins & King, 1981; Wyer & Srull, 1986). The activation and subsequent pursuit of a goal can be conscious, such that one is aware of the cues that led to goal-related judgments and behaviors. This activation can also be non-conscious, such that a one is unaware of the goal prime or that one is even exhibiting goal-related judgments and behaviors. Whether goals are conscious or non-conscious, a fundamental characteristic of goal-driven processes is the persistence of the accessibility of goal-related constructs for as long as the goal is active or until an individual disengages from the goal (Bargh, Gollwitzer, Lee-Chai, Barndollar, & Trotschel, 2001; Goschke & Kuhl, 1993). Upon goal completion, motivation diminishes and accessibility is inhibited (Liberman & Förster, 2000; Marsh, Hicks, & Bink, 1998). This active reduction in accessibility allows individuals to direct their cognitive resources to other tasks at hand without being distracted by thoughts of a completed goal. Thus, motivation can be measured by the degree to which goal-related concepts are accessible inmemory. Specifically, the greater the motivation to pursue/achieve a goal, the more likely individuals are to remember, notice, or recognize concepts, objects, or persons related to that goal. For example, in a classic study, Zeigarnik (1927) instructed participants to perform 20 short tasks, ten of which they did not get a chance to finish because the experimenter interrupted them. At the end of the study, Zeigarnik inferred the strength of motivation by asking participants to recall as many of the tasks as possible. Consistent with the notion that unfulfilled goals are associated with heightened motivational states, whereas fulfilled goals inhibit motivation, the results show that participants recalled more uncompleted tasks (i.e., unfulfilled goals) than completed tasks (i.e., fulfilled goals; the Zeigarnik effect). More recently, Förster, Liberman, and Higgins (2005) replicated these findings; inferring motivation from performance on a lexical decision task. Their study assessed the speed of recognizing – i.e., identifying as words versus non-words –words related to a focal goal prior to (versus after) completing that goal. A related measure of motivation is the inhibition of conflicting constructs. In contexts where goal pursuit is faced with conflicting desires that may interfere with the focal goal, the motivation to pursue the goal can express itself through the inhibition of constructs related to these conflicting goals (Shah, Friedman, & Kruglanski, 2002). Functionally, this inhibition allows individuals to purse the focal goal without being distracted by thoughts related to other goals. Evaluation, devaluation, and perception Motivational states influence the evaluation of goal-related objects, and these evaluative processes in turn promote successful goal pursuit consciously and non-consciously. Specifically, the evaluation of goal-relevant objects is more positive for active goals than for inactive ones (Brendl & Higgins, 1996; Ferguson & Bargh, 2004; Herek, 1987; Markman & Brendl, 2000; Tesser & Martin, 1996). Thus, motivation can be measured by the degree to which a goal-relevant object is evaluated positively, using explicit measures (e.g., willingness to pay, liking) or implicit measures such as the evaluative priming task (Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell, & Kardes, 1986) and the implicit association test (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). For example, using an evaluative priming task, Ferguson and Bargh (2004) showed that participants with an unfulfilled achievement goal were faster at identifying positive adjectives (e.g., excellent) compared to negative ones (e.g., disgusting) following achievement-relatedwords (e.g., compete). Social and Personality Psychology Compass 8/7 (2014): 328–341, 10.1111/spc3.12110 © 2014 John Wiley & Sons Ltd How to Measure Motivation 331 By contrast, participants who had just fulfilled the goal and those without a goal did not respond significantly faster to positive versus negative adjectives. The devaluation of conflicting constructs, including objects that compete with or hinder the goal, can also serve as a measure of motivation. For example, Brendl, Markman, and Messner (2003) showed that hungry consumers – with an active eating goal – expressed lower evaluation of products that serve unrelated goals (e.g., shampoo) compared to consumers who were not hungry and hence did not have an active eating goal. Relatedly, counteractive self-control theory posits that self-control involves an asymmetric shift in the subjective valuation of goal-relevant stimuli, such that individuals faced with a self-control dilemma not only increase their valuation of goal-consistent stimuli but also decrease that of temptation-related stimuli (Fishbach & Trope, 2005; Trope & Fishbach, 2000). Researchers have also measured how fast participants act to move positive and negative stimuli toward and away from them to assess people’s basic motivation to approach good things and avoid bad things (Markman & Brendl, 2005). Because goal-relevant objects are naturally valenced, people have automatic tendencies to approach goal-congruent objects (which they evaluate positively) and avoid objects that might interfere with successful goal pursuit (which they evaluate negatively). For example, Fishbach and Shah (2006) found that, in self-control dilemmas, participants exhibited faster pushing responses for temptationrelated stimuli, but faster pulling responses for goal-related stimuli.