Motivation and emotion/Book/2015/Extrinsic motivation and antisocial behaviour in children

Extrinsic motivation and antisocial behaviour in children:
How can extrinsic motivation be used to manage antisocial behaviour in children?

Multimedia presentation
(3 min)

Overview

Childhood antisocial behaviour is of growing concern within broader society. Current research surrounding the aetiology and treatment of such behaviour varies depending on the perceived severity. An example being the increased research surrounding motivations behind the frightening proportion of school shootings occurring within the United States compared to more mild forms of aggressive or disruptive behaviour observed at home or in the classroom[grammar?]. The term “antisocial” in this context is rather ambiguous, and is often used synonymously with aggression, conduct disorder, delinquency and violence (Conner, 2002). Within this book chapter, the term anti-social behaviour will used to describe a variety of different behaviours, including general aggression, violence, or simply misbehaviour/truancy at home or within the classroom.

What motivates cyber-bullying?

With the surge in popularity of social media over recent years, bullying has begun to transcend past the class room and playground into the online medium. This form of bullying is often more insidious and can ultimately be more harmful to children and adolescents long term (Compton, Campbell & Margler, 2014). Congruent with traditional bullying, it seems one major motivator for engaging in cyber-bullying is a desire to feel powerful (Ziegler & Manner, 1991). Compton and colleagues’ review of the underlying motivations behind student bullying revealed five key themes: power/status, Difference, Peer Pressure, Anger/Frustration at being a previous victim of bullying, and fun/boredom (Compton et al., 2014).

Extrinsic Motivation

After extensive research around the study of motivation, general consensus among previous literature has narrowed motivational behaviour into two core categories; Intrinsic and Extrinsic motivation. Briefly stated, intrinsic motives come from within, are self-directed and self-rewarding; whereas extrinsic motives describe a more outward incentive-based behaviour, whereby the individual is motivated in order to achieve an external goal or reward, outside the behaviour itself (Valleran, 1997).

In terms of the latter, extrinsic motives generally involves incentivising the individual in terms of offering a reward or punishment as a consequence of a particular behaviour (Benabou & Tirole, 2003). Common examples include monetary rewards for completing work, treating a child with sweets in response to good behaviour, or rewarding a student’s conduct with a token economy. Such motivational techniques are often strongly tethered to techniques of operant conditioning, whereby behaviour is either reinforced or punished, especially as it pertains to changing anti-social behaviour in children, but this will be discussed later. While extrinsic motives can undeniably foster engagement of behaviour, it is becoming increasingly unanimous that intrinsic motivation is the more powerful of the two (however not always appropriate). Because of this, extrinsic motives are often the preferred form of incentives for inherently dull, uninteresting, unimportant or unfulfilling tasks (Reeve, 2015). Subsequently, this may pose a problem when adopting such a strategy in an attempt to modify a high-important concept like anti-social behaviour. Clearer distinctions will be made further in the chapter.

Rewards

Generally the more common approach when utilising extrinsic motivation, a reward acts as an incentive to achieve a certain goal. Such extrinsic rewards can range from a raise at work, an extra hour of television time, to receiving increased admiration or respect from your peers. Applying rewards effectively within a classroom environment has received increased attention over the years, and has often proven successful in incentivising desired behaviour. In one recent instance, Bettinger (2008) was able to significantly increase test scores in a sample of elementary school students by introducing a monetary reward incentive. While this common finding is likely unsurprising to most readers, it is important to note that the long term effectiveness of such a shallow motivational construct is less clear.

Punishments

Quick Look: Psychological Effects of Corporal Punishment

The abject negative consequences of corporal punishment has been debated for decades, and it is becoming widely aknowledged as an archaic, ineffective form of punishment within many communities. A meta analysis by Gershof (2002) surmised the following key emerging side effects of corperal punishment:

Increased immediate obiediance
Increased aggression
Decreased overall mental health
Decreased moral internalisation

On the opposite end of the spectrum, punishments are used to incentivise individuals to avoid a particular undesirable behaviour. Extrinsic punishments can range from being assigned additional unfavourable duties at work, the removal of a certain toy, to shame and ridicule. When considering punishment as an extrinsic motivator, it is important to first outline some caveats associated with this technique. Punishment has often shown to carry with it various undesirable side-effects such as negative emotionality and unfavourable modelling toward the punisher (Reeve, 2015). In the instance of quelling antisocial behaviour in children, one of the more controversial and drastic forms of this motivational technique is corporal punishment. A meta-analysis by Gershoff (2002) revealed that while the eliciting of corporal punishment by parents on their children can cause immediate obedience, it seems the numerous negative psychological side-effects that often follow this form of punishment dramatically outweigh this.

Self-Determination Model

Before applying extrinsic motivation concepts to the treatment of anti-social behaviour, it first becomes necessary to distinguish between the four types of extrinsic motivation, comprising part of the self-determination model (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

External Regulation

The first stage of motivation (after amotivation), external regulation involves little to no autonomy, and has an external locus of causality. Individuals are typically motivated toward an external reward or to avoid a particular punishment, or are motivated purely to adhere to social convention.

Introjected Regulation

Similar to the first stage, with the addition that the individual is now further motivated to avoid internal feelings of guilt or anxiety that may come with inaction. Furthermore, introjected regulation motivates the individual to act in a way that bolsters his/her ego.

Identified Regulation

By the third stage of the spectrum, the individual is beginning to perceive the motive as personally important.

Integrated Regulation

This last stage of extrinsic motivation comes closest in reflecting a self-governed, autonomous, intrinsic motivation. During the stage, those values perceived as personally important from identified regulation have now been made congruent with one’s self-beliefs.

Some things to Consider...

While continuing to read through this chapter, here are some things to consider:

What are some examples of extrinsic motivations in effect in your everyday life?
After identifying several examples, can you accurately place them into each of the four types extrinsic regulation mentioned above?

Comparing Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motives

Case 1: Intrinsic Motivation and E-Learning

Not only are intrinsic motives generally considered to be a more powerful form of motivation, but it allows for stronger engagement in activities that require heightened levels of autonomy. This has been demonstrated by Rovai et al. (2007), who observed that amongst a sample of university students, those who attended e-learning rather than face to face sessions elicited increased levels of intrinsic motivation.

As previously mentioned, intrinsic motives are characterised as being the more self-directed, autonomous, and genuine of the two. When intrinsically motivated, the individuals motives are harmonious and contained within the self (Deci & Ryan, 1985). As opposed to extrinsically sourced motivation, where energy, direction and persistence is derived from external sources, intrinsic motivation comes from within[grammar?]. It can be colloquially described as doing something for its own sake, rather than any externally offered reward. Generally, intrinsic motivation promotes personal growth, interest and autonomy. Reeve (2015) summarises key strengths of intrinsic motivation as being; increased engagement, creativity, higher quality learning and optimal functioning/wellbeing. In stark contrast to this, extrinsic motivation can often prevent the individual from internalising the reason behind their actions, and are instead solely and shallowly focused on the promise of reward. Furthermore, the addition of extrinsic incentives to a behaviour that is already intrinsically motivated can compromise overall motivation (this phenomenon, sometimes calls ‘the super motivation myth’ is discussed later). A meta-analytic review of past literature confirmed the idea that tangible extrinsic rewards often undermine, rather than bolster motivation (Deci, Koestner & Ryan, 1999).

Improving the Power of Extrinsic Motivation

While it seems clear that extrinsic motivation is a less preferred strategy, various steps can be made in increase its effectiveness, minimise the risk of undermining autonomy, and can even be used to facilitate intrinsic motivation.

Inform vs. Control

Extrinsic motivation can also be strengthened depending on the way in which the motive is presented to the recipient. On one end of the spectrum, an individual’s sense of competence can be significantly reinforced if extrinsic rewards are designed in a predominantly informational manner. On the other end of the spectrum; if a reward has been designed as inherently controlling, any sense of competence or autonomy is likely suppressed, therefore undermining intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1999).

Expected vs. Unexpected

Unfortunately, when extrinsic rewards are used to motivate particular behaviour, it often leads to a learned expectancy toward the child receiving that reward in future scenarios. It has been purported that the Premackian style of ‘if-then’ contingencies is what really undermines intrinsic motivation. Conversely, when a reward is received unexpectedly, it has been suggested that intrinsic motivation remains intact (Reeve, 2015). (A brief look at the Premack Principle is discussed later in the chapter).

Tangible vs. Verbal

Different effects can also be observed depending on the type of reward. It has been previously suggested that intangible, verbal rewards tend to foster a more informational form of motivation, when compared to tangible rewards, thus facilitating the growth of intrinsic motivation (Cameron & Pierce, 1994).

Self-Determination

Consider the aforementioned variations on extrinsic motivation when attempting to motivate a child eliciting anti-social behaviour. By utilising the principles of the self-determination theory, a child can be motivated along the self-determination spectrum, incrementally progressing toward more self-regulating behaviour. For instance, in order to suppress aggressive and disruptive behaviour, a teacher or parent may decide to directly offer the child a tangible desirable reward (e.g a sweet) when the child manages to refrain from such activity over a fixed period of time. This reward tactic would represent external regulation of behaviour. In order for the child to progress along the spectrum toward integration and internalisation, Deci & Ryan (2000) argue that “relatedness, the need to feel belongingness and connectedness with others” (p73) are vital to this process. It can therefore be argued that frequent debriefing is key in trying to enforce the value of pro-social behaviour, however with concern to children, this is easier said than done.

Putting it Together: Treating Antisocial Behaviour in a School Setting

With all these variations in mind, it becomes easier to see how particular motivational strategies may be influencing, or thwarting a child’s development. After contrasting these elements, it is clear that while extrinsic motivation (through either gaining rewards or avoiding punishment) ostensibly works, there are some crucial caveats that need to be considered. Firstly, previous research cements the need for informational, verbal reinforcement to accompany any tangible, extrinsic motivational program if autonomy and self-competence is to remain intact[factual?]. Additionally, it should be considered whether or not the extrinsic outcome was expected or unexpected. After considering all this, it is unsurprising that teachers often find the task of behavioural intervention extremely burdensome (Rubin & Pepler, 2013). Nevertheless, the aforementioned authors attempted to treat socially aggressive behaviour present in a sample of primary school students through social skills training. The intervention consisted of several phases, one of which was an interactive role play, whereby students were heavily praised when they modelled socially acceptable behaviour within a mock setting. Within this example, the students were being extrinsically reinforced through verbal and informational praise which rewarded their understanding of the task at hand and ideally, their sense of competence. According to the model of Self-Determination, this form of motivation should facilitate growth toward identified and integrated regulation.

Managing Antisocial Behaviour in Children

Aetiology of Anti-Social Behaviour

In an extensive review of research, Viding, Fontaine and McCrory (2012) observed an emerging trend which may allow psychologists to more accurately predict a child’s disposition toward anti-social behaviour. The authors surmised that by measuring callous, unemotional traits (referring to lack of empathy, guilt and shallow affect), psychologists can discern whether a child may be prone to more premeditated acts of anti-social behaviour as opposed to acting on impulse. Findings through twin studies suggest these unemotional traits are highly hereditary. Additionally, “harsh and negative parenting” (p197) has been significantly linked to the development of anti-social behaviour in children, however only in those not eliciting callous unemotional traits (CU). This finding suggests that while children high in CU are genetically predisposed to anti-social behavioural tendencies, children without CU develop such tendencies through their environment. Further twin studies have revealed that peer influences are a strong predictor between the ages of 13-14 (Tuvblad et al., 2011). In regards to severe antisocial behaviour (i.e. criminal acts), agreeableness has been shown an effective predictor (Mottus et al., 2012).

The previously outlined case is just one example of how extrinsic motivation can be used to treat antisocial behaviour. Other ways in which extrinsic incentives may be used to modify undesirable or antisocial behaviour could include designing a contingent-based paradigm, implementing a token-economy, more personable exercises involving role playing, teaching exercises, or a mix or combination of all of the above.

Applying Premack's Principle

One common way in which children are motivated in everyday life, often without the acute awareness of the parent or teacher, is through Premacks principles of conditioning. Simply put, reinforcing desirable behaviour in children through this model involves implementing an ‘if, then’ contingency (Kileen, 2014). Colloquially known as Grandmas Rule, it involves offering the individual the opportunity to engage in a desirable behaviour by making it contingent on the completion of a lesser desirable behaviour first. Some common examples may be: only offering dessert after the child has completed his/her homework; rewarding a student with free time if he/she is able to sit through class without interrupting the lesson. Conversely, these same principles can be reversed in order to punish undesirable behaviour. Using an example for punishment, a child could be forced to undertake a lesser desired behaviour, such as additional homework if he/she misbehaves. In this instance, a lower probability behaviour is being used to punish a higher probability behaviour, however punishments such as these may be more ethically difficult to implement in comparison to other strategies.

Token Economies

A common way in which socially deviant behaviour is modified is through the use of token economies, particularly within education settings. A token economy is type a of extrinsic motivation, which generally involves incentivising and individual to behave in a certain by offering tangible tokens, which can subsequently be exchanged for an attractive reward. Token economies such as these have often proved efficacious in modifying problem behaviour within elementary school (Doll, McLaughlin & Barretto, 2013), and can be particularly effective in reducing truant behaviour (Boniecki & Moore, 2003). However in contrast to this, a token economy can be designed in terms of loss, and punishment. Known as a response-cost system, this sub-type token economy has also been shown to be effective in samples of children. DeLeon, Donaldson, Fisher and King (2014) demonstrated this by significantly reducing problem behaviour in the classroom. In spite of these findings, it has been suggested that these forms of behavioural intervention can have considerable drawbacks. A systematic evaluation by Maggin, Chafouleas, Goddard and Johnson (2011) revealed the following: Firstly, methodological consistency seems to be a prevalent issue (i.e. strict adherence to the recording measures put forward does not always occur). Secondly, re-test reliability also appears to be a frequent issue, whereby the token economy is not implemented across a variety of situations. Finally, the evaluation suggests that overall, more empirical based research is needed in order to strengthen the perceived the validity between token economies and prosocial behaviour. Additionally, it is necessary to consider other potential problems associated with token economies, primarily; recorder/teacher stress and often overreliance on extrinsic rewards. In response to the latter, it has been widely recommended that any token economy be supplemented with verbal briefing and debriefing whenever appropriate (Reitman, Murphey, Hupp & O’Callaghan, 2004).

Caveats...

In spite of the immediate efficacy often observable when implementing extrinsic incentives, there are some significant drawbacks. As previously mentioned, extrinsic motivation can result in feelings of reduced autonomy or competence if not appropriately implemented. It has been commonly postulated that the use of extrinsic incentives can conflict with inherent intrinsic motives and in some circumstances, ultimately do more harm than good (Gneezy, Meier, Rey-Biel, 2011).

'Super Motivation' Myth

Common sense might lead one to assume that by adding extra incentives to a behaviour, motivation and task performance would undoubtedly increase (leading to some form of super motivation), however this is not always the case. When adding incentives to an already intrinsically motivated behaviour, the addition of extrinsic motives can be undermining.

Overjustification Effect

Instead of ‘Super Motivation’, what often occurs is known as the over justification effect. Simply put, the over justification effect explains the phenomenon observed when additional incentives ultimately result in decreased interest (Tang & Hall, 1995).

A More Holistic Approach

It is often the case that these simplistic intervention programs are not enough to quell the more severe antisocial behaviours, in particular those that constitute Conduct Disorder. In these cases, a more direct and integrated approach is needed. An example of this was demonstrated by Kazdin, Bass and Bass (1992). In this particular study, the authors used both a token economy and social praise in conjunction with more in-depth, teaching sessions, roleplay and problem solving tasks when treating the children. Coupled with parental/guardian counselling, the results were efficacious in reducing antisocial behaviour. This particular case highlights the importance of more intrinsically guided intervention programs in treating severe antisocial behaviour, and shows how extrinsic motives can be used as an effective facilitator. The importance of behavioural parent training within such interventions has also been empirically supported. Informative, verbally based positive reinforcement of prosocial behaviour has been shown to aid in the overall reduction of antisocial behaviour. In contrast to this, it has been suggested that a more coercive, controlling parenting style can garner an environment for antisocial behaviour (Serketich & Dumas, 1996). This finding lends credence to the previously outlined idea that the overall power of extrinsic motives can be strengthened by focusing on intangible, informative reinforcement. Additionally, such a motivational style is less likely to undermine the growth of intrinsic motivation. In support of this, a 40 year meta-analysis by Cerasoli, Nicklin and Ford (2014) revealed results suggesting that incentives (extrinsic) and intrinsic motivation are often best used in conjunction with one another.

Summary

This chapter focused on analysing the intricacies surrounding extrinsic motivation and attempted to apply some of the described concepts to the treatment of antisocial behaviour. While it seems clear that extrinsic incentives can be effective in managing antisocial behaviour, certain aspects of this motivational technique present some considerable drawbacks. Within educational settings, extrinsic motivational strategies are frequently used in order to treat mildly deviant behaviour (e.g. through token economies). However, overuse of such strategies has raised concern regarding its effect on intrinsic motivation. Previous research suggests that a holistic approach (involving both intrinsic and extrinsic elements) is most appropriate for treating antisocial behaviour.

Quiz

References

Benabou, R., & Tirole, J. (2009). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation. In E. L. Khalil (Ed.) , The New Behavioral Economics. Volume 3. Tastes for Endowment, Identity and the Emotions (pp. 487-518). Elgar Reference Collection. International Library of Critical Writings in Economics, vol. 238. Cheltenham, U.K. and Northampton, Mass.: Elgar.

Bettinger, E. P. (2012). PAYING TO LEARN: THE EFFECT OF FINANCIAL INCENTIVES ON ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEST SCORES. Review Of Economics & Statistics, 94(3), 686-698.

Boniecki, K. A., & Moore, S. (2003). Breaking the silence: Using a token economy to reinforce classroom participation. Teaching Of Psychology, 30(3), 224-227. doi:10.1207/S15328023TOP3003_05

Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational research, 64(3), 363-423.

Cerasoli, C. P., Nicklin, J. M., & Ford, M. T. (2014). Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Incentives Jointly Predict Performance: A 40-Year Meta-Analysis. Psychological Bulletin Advance online publication. doi: 10.1037/a0035661

Compton, L., Campbell, M., & Mergler, A. (2014). Teacher, parent and student perceptions of the motives of cyberbullies. Social Psychology Of Education, 17(3), 383-400. doi:10.1007/s11218-014-9254-x

Connor, D. F. (2012). Aggression and antisocial behavior in children and adolescents: Research and treatment. Guilford Press.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627-668. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media.

Doll, C., McLaughlin, T. F., & Barretto, A. (2013). The token economy: A recent review and evaluation. International Journal of basic and applied science, 2(1), 131-149. Retrieved from: http://tccl.rit.albany.edu/knilt/images/4/44/Doll_Token_Economy.pdf

Donaldson, J. M., DeLeon, I. G., Fisher, A. B., & Kahng, S. (2014). Effects of and preference for conditions of token earn versus token loss. Journal of applied behavior analysis, 47(3), 537-548. doi:10.1002/jaba.135

Gershoff, E. T. (2002). Corporal punishment by parents and associated child behaviors and experiences: A meta-analytic and theoretical review. Psychological Bulletin, 128(4), 539-579. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.128.4.539

Gneezy, U., Meier, S., & Rey-Biel, P. (2011). When and Why Incentives (Don't) Work to Modify Behavior. Journal Of Economic Perspectives, 25(4), 191-210.

Kazdin, A. E., Siegel, T. C., & Bass, D. (1992). Cognitive problem-solving skills training and parent management training in the treatment of antisocial behavior in children. Journal of consulting and clinical psychology, 60(5), 733.

Killeen, P. R. (2014). Pavlov+ Skinner= Premack. International Journal of Comparative Psychology, 27(4).

Mõttus, R. H. (2012). Longitudinal associations of cognitive ability, personality traits and school grades with antisocial behaviour. European Journal Of Personality, 26(1), 56-62.

Reeve, J. (2015). Understanding motivation and emotion (6^th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Reitman, D., Murphy, M. A., Hupp, S. D. A, & O'Callaghan, P. M., (2004) Behavior Change and Perceptions of Change: Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Token Economy, Child & Family Behavior Therapy, 26:2, 17-36, doi: 10.1300/J019v26n02_02

Rovai, A. P., Ponton, M. K., Wighting, M. J., & Baker, J. D. (2007). A Comparative Analysis of Student Motivation in Traditional Classroom and E-Learning Courses. International Journal On E-Learning, 6(3), 413-432.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55(1), 68-78. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.55.1.68

Serketich, W. J., & Dumas, J. E. (1996). The effectiveness of behavioral parent training to modify antisocial behavior in children: A meta-analysis. Behavior Therapy, 27(2), 171-186. doi:10.1016/S0005-7894(96)80013-X

Tang, S. C. (1995). The Overjustification Effect: A Meta-Analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9(5), doi: 365-404.

Tuvblad, C. P. (2011). The Genetic and Environmental Etiology of Antisocial Behavior from Childhood to Emerging Adulthood. Behavior Genetics, 41(5), 629-640.

Vallerand, R. J. (1997). Toward a hierarchical model of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In M. P. Zanna, M. P. Zanna (Eds.) , Advances in experimental social psychology, Vol. 29 (pp. 271-360). San Diego, CA, US: Academic Press. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60019-2

Viding, E., Fontaine, N. M., & McCrory, E. J. (2012). Antisocial behaviour in children with and without callous-unemotional traits. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, 105(5), 195–200. http://doi.org.ezproxy.canberra.edu.au/10.1258/jrsm.2011.110223

Ziegler, S., & Rosenstein-Manner, M. (1991).Bullying at school: Toronto in an international context. Toronto: Toronto Board of Education.

External links

psychology.about.com What is Extrinsic Motivation

	It is often considered the stronger form of motivation
	If implemented effectively extrinsic motivation can aid in the development toward intrinsic motivation (self-determination).
	Extrinsic motivation is considered the shallower, less internalised form of motivation
	Incentives characterised in terms of control/tangibility may be at risk of undermining intrinsic motivation

	Depression
	Tangible Gain
	Power/Status
	Parental Influences

	Super Motivation Myth
	The Overjustification Effect
	Amotivation
	Interdependency between Challenge and Feedback

	Agreeableness
	Conscientiousness
	Extraversion
	Neuroticism