EVENT-LEVEL INTRINSIC, EXTRINSIC, AND PROSOCIAL MOTIVATION:
EFFECTS ON WELL-BEING
A Thesis
Presented to
The Graduate Faculty of The University of Akron
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts
Alison A. Benedetti
August, 2012
EVENT-LEVEL INTRINSIC, EXTRINSIC, AND PROSOCIAL MOTIVATION:
EFFECTS ON WELL-BEING
Alison A. Benedetti
Thesis
Approved:
Accepted:
_______________________________
Advisor
Dr. James M. Diefendorff
_______________________________
Dean of the College
Dr. Chand Midha
_______________________________
Faculty Reader
Dr. Joelle D. Elicker
_______________________________
Dean of the Graduate School
Dr. George R. Newkome
_______________________________
Department Chair
Dr. Paul E. Levy
_______________________________
Date
ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
CHAPTER
I.
INTRODUCTION…………………………………………………...1
Prosocial Motivation…………..…………………………………4
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation………………...……………..6
Well-being Outcomes………...………………………………….8
Integrating Autonomous, Controlled, and Prosocial Motivation..9
II.
METHODS…………………………………………………………..17
Participants……………………………………………………….17
Procedure………………………………………………………....17
Measures………………………………………………………….18
Analytic Strategy………………………………………………....20
III.
RESULTS…….……………………………………………………....22
Tests of Hypotheses……………………………………………....26
Tests of Hypotheses using the “Extrinsic Social” Item………….30
Tests of Hypotheses using the “Extrinsic Situation” Item……….30
Tests of Hypotheses with Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation……36
Tests of Hypotheses with Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic
Social Motivation………………………………………………...41
iii
Tests of Hypotheses with Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic
Situation Motivation……………………………………………...46
IV.
DISCUSSION………………………………………………………..49
Theoretical Implications………………………………………….52
Practical Implications…………………………………………….54
Limitations………………………………………………………..55
Future Research…………………………………………………..56
Conclusion………………………………………………………..57
BIBLIOGRAPHY…………………………………………………………….59
APPENDICES………………………………………………………………..67
APPENDIX A. EVENT-LEVEL MEASURES INCLUDED
IN THE PALM PILOT SURVEYS..............................................68
APPENDIX B. TABLES………….………………………………71
APPENDIX C. GRAPHS OF INTERACTIONS….……………...86
APPENDIX D. IRB APPROVAL………………………………...90
iv
ABSTRACT
As an extension of Grant (2008), the current study aimed to examine the effect of
autonomous, controlled, and prosocial motivations on well-being outcomes of emotional
exhaustion and psychological vitality. Past research has shown autonomous and prosocial
motivation to have positive relationships with well-being outcomes, while controlled
motivation has exhibited negative relationships with well-being (Gebauer, Riketta,
Broemer, & Maio, 2008; Roth, Assor, Kanat-Maymon, & Kaplan, 2007). However, this
research measures each motivation independently when motivation theory acknowledges
more than one motivation can drive an individual’s behavior at a given time (Diefendorff
& Chandler, 2010). Through a sample of 98 university staff workers who completed daily
surveys based on experience sampling methodology (Beal & Weiss, 2003), we support
previous research through strong main effects on well-being. The proposed interactions
have limited support, but a significant two-way interaction (intrinsic x extrinsic
motivation) indicates that high levels of both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation improve
well-being. The nature of extrinsic motivation, the new level of analysis, our study
limitations, and future directions are discussed.
v
CHAPTER I
INTRODUCTION
What drives employees to work? Motivation has been defined as an intangible
force that directs, energizes, and sustains behavior over time and across situations (Deci
& Ryan, 1985; Diefendorff & Chandler, 2010). At any given point in time, employees
experience many potentially competing or complementary motivations. Early motivation
theories described how different motives (i.e. intrinsic, extrinsic) exist additively to
comprise an individual’s total motivation (Atkinson, 1964). The idea that multiple
motivations may simultaneously drive behavior is being increasingly recognized by
research in a variety of disciplines (Bono & Judge, 2003; Burton, Lydon, D’Alessandro,
& Koestner, 2006; Diefendorff & Chandler, 2010; Gebauer, Riketta, Broemer, & Maio,
2008; Grant, 2008; Grant et al., 2007; Grant & Gino, 2010; Grant & Sonnentag, 2010;
Roth, Assor, Kanat-Maymon, & Kaplan, 2007; Ryan & Deci, 2000; Ryan, Deci, &
Kasser, 2004; Sheldon & Elliot, 1998; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999; Sheldon & Niemiec,
2006; Sheldon, Ryan, & Reis, 1996; Vansteenkiste et al., 2007; Weinstein & Ryan,
2010). Research on self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2000) and relational job
design (Grant, 2007; Grant, Fried, Parker, & Frese, 2010) has identified intrinsic
motivation (i.e., finding enjoyment out of the work itself), extrinsic motivation (i.e.,
seeking monetary or other rewards from completing the work), and prosocial motivation
1
(i.e., believing that their work benefits others) as important for influencing work behavior
and well-being (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagne & Deci, 2005; Grant et al., 2007; Grant,
2007; Grant, 2008; Grant & Berry, 2011; Grant & Sonnentag, 2010; Ryan & Deci, 2000;
Sheldon & Niemiec, 2006; Sheldon, Ryan, Deci, & Kasser, 2004).
Research has revealed that high levels of intrinsic motivation, or autonomous
motivation (i.e., more intrinsically-derived), are associated with higher levels of job
performance (Deci & Ryan, 2000), job satisfaction, life satisfaction (Van den Broeck,
Vansteenkiste, & de Witte, 2008; Vansteenkiste et al., 2007), sense of personal
accomplishment (Roth, Assor, Kanat-Maymon, & Kaplan, 2007), and vitality
(Vansteenkiste et al., 2007), and lower levels of emotional exhaustion (Roth, Assor,
Kanat-Maymon, & Kaplan, 2007; Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, & de Witte, 2008;
Vansteenkiste et al., 2007), work-family conflict, and turnover intentions (Vansteenkiste
et al., 2007). In contrast, research has shown that greater levels of extrinsic, or controlled
motivation (i.e., more extrinsically-derived), are associated with diminished performance
(Deci & Ryan, 2000), greater emotional exhaustion (Roth, Assor, Kanat-Maymon, &
Kaplan, 2007; Vansteenkiste et al., 2007), work-family conflict, higher turnover
intentions, and lower job and life satisfaction, and psychological vitality (Vansteenkiste,
et al., 2007). Further, these two forms of motivation have been shown to combine to
predict outcomes, such that having more autonomous motivation than controlled
motivation results in better well-being and performance (Bono & Judge, 2003; Sheldon &
Elliot, 1998; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999).
Grant and colleagues (Grant et al., 2007; Grant, 2007; Grant, 2008; Grant &
Berry, 2011; Grant & Gino, 2010; Grant & Sonnentag, 2010) have demonstrated that
2
employees who experience high levels of prosocial motivation exhibit higher levels of
performance (Grant et al., 2007; Grant, 2008; Grant & Sonnentag, 2010), persistence
(Grant et al., 2007; Grant, 2008), productivity (Grant, 2008), creativity (Grant & Berry,
2011), perceived impact on others (Grant et al., 2007; Grant & Sonnentag, 2010), task
significance (Grant et al., 2007), affective commitment to beneficiaries (Grant et al.,
2007), social worth (Grant & Gino, 2010), and self-efficacy (Grant & Gino, 2010).
Interestingly, Grant (2008) found that intrinsic motivation and prosocial motivation
interact to predict job performance, persistence behavior, and overall productivity, such
that the benefits of prosocial motivation are primarily realized when intrinsic motivation
is high rather than low.
What is not known from this past work is whether the effects of prosocial
motivation might also depend upon the level of extrinsic motivation. Just as intrinsic
motivation might “fuel the prosocial fire” (p. 48, Grant, 2008), extrinsic motivation might
dampen or put out the prosocial fire. Given that many work tasks originate in company
objectives, the way work is organized, and how responsibilities are assigned, motivation
at work may often be experienced as more extrinsically-derived (i.e., controlling) than
intrinsically-derived (i.e., autonomous; Gagne & Deci, 2005). As such, it is important to
understand how variation in extrinsic, or controlled, motivation might combine with
prosocial motivation to impact employee outcomes. A primary purpose of the proposed
investigation is to examine whether prosocial and extrinsic/controlled motivation interact
in the prediction of employee outcomes. In the process of examining this effect, we also
test for the interaction between autonomous and controlled motivation, as well as a
possible three-way interaction between extrinsic, prosocial, and intrinsic motivations.
3
A second goal of the proposed investigation is to examine the links of these
motivation constructs with well-being outcomes at the within-person, event-level of
analysis. Motivation theories typically describe how humans manage goal-directed
activities over the course of time, though research is often cross-sectional and focused on
between-person effects (Diefendorff & Chandler, 2010). As such, there is a mismatch
between the theoretical descriptions of behavior and the data used to test the models
(Dalal & Hulin, 2008). Acknowledging this problem, research has increasingly adopted
an experience sampling approach to data collection, in which repeated assessments of
event-level constructs are used to examine the dynamic, within-person relationships
among variables (Beal & Weiss, 2003). The proposed study seeks to test the relationships
and interactions of autonomous, controlled, and prosocial motivations at the withinperson level of analysis. Though prior research has separately examined the effects of
each of these motivations at the within-person level of analysis (Gagne, 2010; Sheldon &
Niemiec, 2006; Sheldon, Ryan, Deci, & Kasser, 2004; Sheldon, Ryan, & Reis, 1996;
Weinstein & Ryan, 2010), no prior work has examined their simultaneous and potentially
interactive effects at the within-person level of analysis.
Prosocial Motivation
Prosocial motivation is described as the desire to expend effort to benefit other
people (Batson, 1987). This motivation is grounded in the desire to help or benefit others
in the process of completing one’s work (Grant, 2007). Prosocial motivation is thought to
be a consequence of perceived task significance (Grant et al., 2007), which refers to the
belief that one’s work has a beneficial effect on the well-being of others (Hackman &
Oldham, 1976). One way in which task significance and prosocial motivation has been
4
shown to increase is by having respectful contact with the beneficiaries of one’s work
(Grant et al., 2007). Employees have shown increased persistence in their work as a
function of respectful contact with beneficiaries of their work (Grant et al., 2007). By
believing their efforts make a difference (perceived impact) and affect others’ well-being
(task significance), employees develop a personal or emotional bond with the
beneficiaries (affective commitment; Grant et al., 2007). Thus, contact with beneficiaries
strengthens this emotional bond, which leads to increased persistence behavior in the
employees’ work. Grant and colleagues (2007) demonstrated these effects by comparing
two groups of participants who solicited donations at a call center. The first group, which
had an opportunity to personally meet with a direct beneficiary of their donations, spent
significantly more time on the phone and earned significantly more donations as
compared to the second group, which had indirect contact or no contact with
beneficiaries. The emotional bond mediated the relationship between contact with
beneficiaries and increased persistence behavior (Grant et al., 2007). In essence,
participants’ focus extended beyond their own interests and on the positive outcomes of
others, which drove them to work harder and persist longer.
Grant (2008) argued that employees will feel they have accomplished something
when they see how their work benefits other people, thereby satisfying their need for
competence. Further, they will have accomplished something for another person, which
leads employees to form a psychological bond with the recipient of the service. This
process helps employees satisfy their need for relatedness (Grant, 2008; Ryan & Deci,
2000). Similar to this idea, Akin et al. (2010) found that people experienced greater wellbeing from giving to others (i.e., prosocial spending) when it was done of their own
5
volition. As such, prosocial actions can elicit positive feelings for more than just the
individual receiving, but also the benefactor who is giving. For instance, employees who
engage in prosocial behaviors report feeling greater self-esteem (Nadler, 1991),
competence (Nadler & Fisher, 1986), and better intergroup relations (Nadler, 2002).
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation
Self-Determination Theory (SDT), as proposed by Deci and Ryan (1985),
describes several different types of motivation based on their degree of autonomy ranging
from controlled to autonomous motivation (Gagne & Deci, 2005). Controlled motivation
commonly guides work behavior through some external pressure manifested in actual or
perceived punishments/rewards or obligations. For instance, Gagne and Deci (2005)
identified external regulation (i.e., pursuing an activity because of external
rewards/punishment) and introjected regulation (i.e., pursuing an activity to avoid feeling
guilty), as two forms of controlled motivation. Controlled motivation has generally been
associated with lower performance in organizational and educational settings (Deci &
Ryan, 2000) and overall declines in well-being such as higher emotional exhaustion and
negative affect, lower job and life satisfaction, and more work-family conflict
(Vansteenkiste et al., 2007; Gebauer, Riketta, Broemer, & Maio, 2008).
Autonomous motivation refers to performing a task for an intrinsically-derived
reason. Examples of autonomous motivation include identified regulation (i.e.,
understanding and appreciating the value of the task) and intrinsic motivation (i.e.,
performing a task because it is inherently interesting or enjoyable). Autonomous
motivation has been associated with higher achievement (Deci & Ryan, 2000), job
satisfaction, life satisfaction, and vitality (Vansteenkiste et al., 2007), and lower
6
emotional exhaustion (Roth, Assor, Kanat-Maymon, & Kaplan, 2007; Vansteenkiste et
al., 2007), turnover intentions, and work-family conflict. Pursuing activities for more
autonomous reasons (and less controlled reasons) is thought to benefit well-being
because individuals are better able to satisfy their three basic psychological needs of
competence, relatedness, and autonomy (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagne & Deci, 2005; Ryan
& Deci, 2000; Ryan & Deci, 2007; Van den Broeck, Vansteenkiste, & de Witte, 2008).
Self-determination theory posits that employees become more autonomously
motivated through a process of internalization in which the reasons for performing an
activity are ‘taken in’ and adopted as one’s own to various degrees. Essentially,
individuals can demonstrate more internalized forms of motivation (e.g., identified
regulation) in what was previously controlled behavior, as they come to identify with and
internalize the reasons for performing particular tasks.
Drawing from self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985), Sheldon & Elliot
(1999) formulated a theory about self-concordance: the extent to which behaviors or
goals are reflective of an individual’s true interests and values versus external demands
and constraints. Consistent with SDT, goals that are more autonomously or freely chosen
are considered to be more self-concordant (Bono & Judge, 2003). Theory claims that
individuals put forth more effort and better achieve their goals when those goals are
naturally aligned with the person’s interests and values (Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke,
2005; Sheldon & Houser-Marko, 2001). The self-concordance model has established
several theoretical and empirical connections between autonomous and controlled
motivation with well-being (Elliot, Sheldon, & Church, 1997; Greguras & Diefendorff,
7
2010; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999; Sheldon & Houser-Marko, 2001; Sheldon, Ryan, Deci, &
Kasser, 2004; Sheldon, Ryan, & Reis, 1996).
Consistent with the self-concordance model, Sheldon, Ryan, Deci, and Kasser
(2004) found that participants reported significantly higher levels of expected happiness
for achieving intrinsic goals than for extrinsic goals. In addition, Sheldon et al (2004)
reported that the type of goal (intrinsic and extrinsic) and motivation (autonomous or
controlled) showed significant main effects on life satisfaction, happiness, and positive
affect at within-person and between-person levels. Sheldon, Ryan, and Reis (1996) used
daily diaries to document the links of autonomous and controlled motivation with
participants’ well-being.
Well-being Outcomes
Through the combined efforts of positive psychology (Brown & Ryan, 2003; Deci
& Vansteenkiste, 2004; Seligman & Csikszentmihalyi, 2000) and occupational health
psychology (Adkins, 1999; Schaufeli, 2004; Wright & Cropanzano, 2000), organizations
have realized the benefits of studying and enhancing employee well-being. In the past,
managers have focused on identifying employee weaknesses and inefficiencies, whereas
positive psychology concentrates on honing employee strengths and catering to employee
needs (Luthans, Luthans, & Luthans, 2004). Then, based on the assumption that they are
self-directed beings (Ryan & Deci, 2000), the employees who experience greater wellbeing will be more motivated to achieve organizational goals. From an occupational
health perspective, organizations aim to prevent the rising cases of burnout, depression,
and other psychological distress for the sake of turnover, lower performance, and
medical-related costs. “Worker mental health issues have never been more important than
8
they are today” (Wright & Cropanzano, 2000, p. 7). As such, we consider indicators of
both well-being and ‘ill-being’ as outcomes of different types of motivation.
Psychological vitality, also known as subjective vitality, is defined as “one’s
conscious experience of possessing energy and aliveness” (Ryan & Frederick, 1997, p.
530). In other words, those who experience vitality have a feeling of invigoration and
enthusiasm. The nature of an individual’s motivation (i.e., controlled versus autonomous)
is thought to greatly impact the individual’s psychological vitality (Deci & Ryan, 2000;
Ryan, 1995; Ryan & Frederick, 1997). More specifically, when individuals are
autonomously motivated to complete a task (rather than motivated in a more controlled
manner), they report greater vitality (Gaine & LaGuardia, 2009; Vansteenkiste, et al.,
2007).
Another well-being outcome of interest is emotional exhaustion. Emotional
exhaustion is one of the three components of burnout (Maslach, 1982), and it describes a
persistent state of feeling depleted of emotional and even physical resources or energy
(Cropanzano, Rupp, & Byrne, 2003). Autonomous and controlled motivation directly
influence emotional exhaustion, with those individuals who are motivated for more
autonomous reasons reporting less emotional exhaustion (Roth, Assor, Kanat-Maymon,
& Kaplan, 2007; Vansteenkiste, et al., 2007).
Integrating Autonomous, Controlled, and Prosocial Motivations
Motivation studies have typically measured autonomous (Burton, Lydon,
D’Alessandro, & Koestner, 2006; Grant, 2008; Grant et al., 2007; Grant & Berry, 2011;
Grant & Gino, 2010; Grant & Sonnentag, 2010; Judge, Bono, Erez, & Locke, 2005; Roth,
Assor, Kanat-Maymon, & Kaplan, 2007; Sheldon, Ryan, Deci, & Kasser, 2004;
9
Vansteenkiste et al., 2007) and controlled motivation (Sheldon, Ryan, Deci, & Kasser,
2004) independently of each other. This raises the possibility that a given task can be
simultaneously high or low on both motivations, suggesting that employees may
experience a variety of motivation combinations for any given activity (Gagne & Deci,
2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000). These ideas also extend to the prosocial motivation, which
may vary independent of both autonomous and controlled motivations. Although specific
studies have examined the combined effects of prosocial and autonomous motivation
(Grant, 2008; Grant & Berry, 2011), this research is limited to particular contexts and
samples. In the following sections we develop theory about how the three motivations
examined in the proposed study may interact in the prediction of well-being outcomes at
the event level of analysis.
Autonomous and Prosocial Motivations
As previously articulated, high autonomous motivation has been linked to positive
outcomes. In addition, this study seeks to understand how these motivations might
interact to predict well-being outcomes. Past work has shown that autonomous
motivation interacts with prosocial motivation to predict well-being (Grant & Sonnentag,
2010), such that at low levels of prosocial motivation autonomous motivation has a weak
negative relationship with well-being and at high levels of prosocial motivation the
positive relationship with autonomous motivation and well-being is strengthened.
Gebauer, Riketta, Broemer, and Maio (2008) found that benefactors are likely to
experience increases in self-esteem, self-actualization, and positive affect when engaging
in prosocial activities in an approach manner (i.e. for the sake of gaining pleasure). In
other words, the more freely one engages in the prosocial behavior, the more positive
10
feelings one experiences from it. Weinstein and Ryan (2010) found similar findings of
participants reporting greater self-esteem, vitality, and positive affect from helping other
people.
Regarding the distinct level of analysis, past work has been conducted at the
person-level of analysis, with no work considering these effects at the within-person,
event level of analysis. Understanding the effects at this level is important because it may
better capture typical motivational processes at work (Dalal & Hulin, 2008). Given that it
has been recognized that effects observed at the between-person level of analysis may
differ in form and function from effects occurring at the within-person level of analysis
(Dalal & Hulin, 2008), it is important to understand if the interaction between
autonomous and prosocial motivations occurs within-persons over time. Further, past
work on prosocial motivation has typically focused on the motivation to perform a
particular task that indirectly benefits people with whom the benefactor may rarely or
never have actual contact. For instance, Grant (2008) measured prosocial motivation in
two samples: firefighters, who help those in fire safety situations, and university call
center workers, who fundraise to support university faculty, staff, and students. In
contrast, we consider work tasks that often involve directly interacting with the
beneficiary of one’s efforts. It is unclear how this frequent and direct contact with
beneficiaries may shape the effects of prosocial and autonomous motivation (and their
interaction), but we provide a test of the generalizability of this effect.
Hypothesis 1: Prosocial motivation moderates the relationship between
autonomous motivation and well-being outcomes (i.e., vitality, emotional
exhaustion), such that at high levels of prosocial motivation, the relationship
11
between autonomous motivation and well-being is stronger and positive and at
low levels of prosocial motivation the relationship is weaker and positive.
Controlled and Prosocial Motivations
As previously articulated, controlled motivation has been linked to more negative
employee outcomes. Although individuals have been found to report increases in wellbeing when engaging in prosocial activities in an approach manner (with more
autonomous motives), they no longer report the same increases in well-being when they
participate in prosocial activities under controlled settings (i.e. out of a sense of
obligation) (Gebauer et al., 2008). For individuals who engage in prosocial behavior
based on external pressure or obligation, motivation was a weaker predictor of well-being
outcomes (Gebauer et al., 2008).
By experiencing other-focused psychological states (prosocial motivation),
individuals shift their attention away from their negative evaluations of the task and onto
the positive outcomes for other people (Grant & Sonnentag, 2010). However, no prior
work has examined whether and in what way controlled with prosocial motivation might
interact to predict well-being. It may seem intuitive to expect the presence of prosocial
motivation to nullify the negative effect of controlled motivation on employee wellbeing. Research has demonstrated how helpers, and not just recipients, benefit from
prosocial activities (Gebauer, Riketta, Broemer, & Maio, 2008; Nadler, 1991; Nadler,
2002; Nadler & Fisher, 1986). Nonetheless, Weinstein and Ryan (2010) found that when
participants were high in controlled motivation (i.e. helping because I felt I should), they
reported significantly lower well-being outcomes compared to when participants reported
greater autonomous motivation. This finding signifies an important caveat: prosocial
12
behaviors can increase well-being for the benefactors, but the reward depends on how
autonomous or controlled individuals feel in offering their services.
Hypothesis 2: Prosocial motivation moderates the relationship between controlled
motivation and well-being outcomes, such that, at low levels of prosocial
motivation, the negative relationship between controlled motivation and wellbeing is strong and at high levels of prosocial motivation, the negative
relationship between controlled motivation and well-being is weak.
Autonomous and Controlled Motivations
Surprisingly little research has considered how autonomous and controlled
motivations might combine to predict well-being. For instance, Sheldon et al. (2004)
found that autonomous motivation had a positive relationship with well-being (β = .50)
and controlled motivation had a negative (albeit weaker) relationship with well-being (β
= -.26). Despite mounting research to demonstrate the main effects of autonomous and
controlled motivations working in conjunction to influence performance outcomes
(Callahan, Brownlee, Brtek, & Tosi, 2003; Liu & Fang, 2010), what is not clear is
whether, and in what way, these motivations might combine in a multiplicative (i.e.,
interactive) model, instead of a purely additive (i.e., main effects) model. Among the few
studies to test for interactive effects was a recent SIOP symposium that presented
empirical findings in which autonomous and controlled motivations interacted to
significantly affect competence need satisfaction and autonomy need satisfaction
(Chandler, Greguras, Diefendorff, Gabriel, & Moran, 2011).
Previous studies of autonomous and controlled motivations’ opposing main
effects lead us to question the possibility of their interacting to predict outcomes, with
13
one motivation nullifying the effect of the other. Research on the self-concordance model
sought to combine the motivations by taking the difference score of autonomous minus
controlled motivations. This work has found that more concordant goals (operationalized
as autonomous minus controlled motivations) leads to better performance and well-being.
Using another approach, calculating difference scores assumes that the motivations exist
on a common continuum and have equal and opposite effects on outcomes. However,
such a difference score approach has been widely criticized (Edwards, 2002) and ignores
the possibility of interactive effects between the motivations.
In light of the scant theory to guide our hypotheses, we turn to the inherently more
compelling effects of autonomous motivation (rather than controlled motivation) on wellbeing (Callahan, Brownlee, Brtek, & Tosi, 2003; Chandler, Greguras, Diefendorff,
Gabriel, & Moran, 2011; Liu & Fang, 2010) to predict autonomous motivation will form
a strong positive relationship with well-being outcomes; if anything, controlled
motivation will only weaken the strength of autonomous motivation’s positive
relationship (Sheldon, Ryan, Deci, & Kasser, 2004). Therefore, we expect autonomous
motivation to form a strong positive relationship with well-being outcomes when
accompanied by low levels of controlled motivation. Nevertheless, the strong relationship
between autonomous motivation and well-being will be weakened at higher levels of
controlled motivation.
Hypothesis 3: Autonomous and controlled motivations interact such that, at low
levels of controlled motivation, autonomous motivation has a strong positive
relationship with well-being, but at high levels of controlled motivation, the
effects of autonomous motivation are weaker.
14
Autonomous, Controlled, and Prosocial Motivations
No research has considered how autonomous, controlled, and prosocial
motivations might combine in the form of a three-way interaction to predict outcomes.
The most helpful source for this kind of information comes from research on motivation
profiles, which has supported the notion that several motivations (namely, the four major
subtypes based on SDT; Deci & Ryan, 1985) combine to yield unique effects on outcome
variables (Boiché, Sarrazin, Grouzet, Pelletier, & Chanal, 2008; Ntoumanis, 2002). For
instance, individuals categorized into a “self-determined” motivation profile report,
which have high levels of intrinsic and identified motivation combined with low levels of
external regulation and amotivation (Ntoumanis, 2002), are found to achieve higher
levels of performance (Gillet, Vallerand, & Rosnet, 2009; Hayenga & Corpus, 2010;
Ratelle, Guay, Vallerand, Larose, & Senécal, 2007) and experience greater levels of
enjoyment during work (Liu, Wang, Tan, Koh, & Ee, 2009). These findings suggest that
distinct motivations may combine in unique ways to relate to relevant outcomes.
The final hypothesis builds from the various arguments outlined above: prosocial
and autonomous motivations having positive effects, controlled motivation having
negative effects, both prosocial and autonomous mitigating the harmful effects of
controlled (Hypotheses 1 and 2, respectively), and prosocial and autonomous motivations
synergistically combining to enhance well-being (Hypothesis 3). Based on an
amalgamation of theoretical support regarding all of the different motivations discussed,
we expect a three-way interaction may emerge. In particular, we consider the
combination of high autonomous, high prosocial, and low controlled motivations to result
in the highest level of employee well-being (i.e., high vitality, low emotional exhaustion).
15
The least beneficial circumstance would consist of low prosocial, low autonomous, and
high controlled motivations. Further, the remaining combinations of high and low
motivations will result in intermediate levels of employee well-being.
Hypothesis 4: A three-way interaction between autonomous, controlled, and
prosocial motivations is observed, such that:
Hypothesis 4a: At high levels of prosocial motivation, autonomous and controlled
motivations interact, such that at low levels of controlled motivation the positive
relationship of autonomous motivation with well-being will be strong and at high
levels of controlled motivation it will be of moderate strength.
Hypothesis 4b: At low levels of prosocial motivation, autonomous and controlled
motivations interact, such that at low levels of controlled motivation, the positive
relationship of autonomous motivation with well-being will be moderate and at
high levels of controlled motivation it will be nonsignificant.
16
CHAPTER II
METHOD
Participants
Office staff employees from a Midwest university were recruited through an
email announcement. As a requirement for participation, employees had to be part-time
or full-time staff members at the university and receive written permission from their
direct supervisor to participate. Several employees withdrew from the study during the
initial stages due to scheduling or time constraints, so the remaining ninety-eight (87
women and 11 men) staff employees participated. The average age of participants was
46.42 years, working 41.18 hours per week (SD = 6.70), with a mean organizational
tenure of 9.90 years (SD = 8.07) and mean job tenure of 6.5 years (SD = 6.16). 82.7% of
participants were Caucasian, 13.3% were African-American, and 1.0% reported being a
mixed ethnicity. The participants were monetarily compensated proportionate to the
number of palm pilot surveys completed.
Procedure
The research team required all participants to attend a thirty-minute orientation
session to discuss the purpose and procedures of the study, provide instructions as to how
the palm pilots work, and distribute palm pilots. On the subsequent work day, participants
began responding to brief surveys on their palm pilot devices. The surveys were
17
administered randomly five times throughout business hours over the course of ten
working days. 82% of participants responded adequately to earn the full amount of
compensation, with participants completing an average of 42 (of the 50) event-level
surveys. Following the ten days of survey responses, the participants convened for a
thirty-minute debriefing session in which they returned palm pilots to the research team
and were further debriefed on the study. Payment was distributed to participants several
days later after each participant’s number of survey responses was totaled.
Measures
At the start of each survey, participants were asked: “What activity were you
working on when the (palm pilot) alarm signaled?” They were provided with a list of
activities from which to choose (i.e. “Answering/Making Phone Calls,” “Attending a
Meeting,” “Other”). Each motivation item was phrased as, “Why did you pursue the
activity?” in which participants were asked to respond on a 5-point scale (1 = “Not at all
for this reason,” 2 = “Slightly for this reason,” 3 = “Somewhat for this reason,” 4 =
“Mostly for this reason,” 5 = “Very much for this reason”).
Controlled Motivation. Consistent with past work, controlled motivation was
assessed with a combination of measures of extrinsic motivation and introjected
motivation. Extrinsic Motivation was measured using two items modified from Sheldon
and Elliot’s (1999) measures on a 5-point scale (1 = “Not at all for this reason” to 5 =
“Very much for this reason”). In response to the question “Why did you pursue this
activity?” the extrinsic motivation items were: “Somebody else wanted me to” and
“Because the situation demanded it.”These two items exhibited poor internal consistency
reliability (average α = .45), indicating that participants tended to respond differently to
18
the two items. Inspection of these items suggests that they may represent two distinct
extrinsic reasons for performing an activity that might not necessarily covary: doing it for
extrinsic social reasons versus extrinsic situation reasons. These distinct reasons both
reflect an extrinsic origination for the behavior, but they do not appear to ‘go hand in
hand’ in participants’ minds. As such, we performed supplemental analyses focusing on
the extrinsic items separately, labeling them “extrinsic social” and “extrinsic situation” to
determine if one form of extrinsic motivation is more strongly related to well-being
outcomes than the other.
To measure introjected motivation, two items from Sheldon and Elliot (1999)
were used. The items were “Because I would feel bad about myself if I did not do a good
job” and “Because I would feel guilty if I did not do well” (α = .80).
Autonomous motivation. Autonomous motivation was assessed with a
combination of identified and intrinsic motivation. Identified Motivation was measured
using two items derived from Sheldon and Elliot’s (1999) measure. Identified motivation
items were “Because I believe the task is valuable” and “Because the task is important.”
The average internal consistency reliability of these items was α = .88. Intrinsic
Motivation was measured with two items derived from Sheldon and Elliot’s (1999)
measure: “The task is enjoyable” and “The task is interesting.” The average internal
consistency reliability of these items was α = .80.
Prosocial Motivation. Prosocial motivation was measured using three items
modified from Grant and Sumanth (2009). Considering the high reliability coefficient of
Grant and Sumanth’s (2009) items, it was found beneficial to use their terminology but
with certain rephrasing for the sake of our specific context. The prosocial motivation
19
items were “Because I care about benefiting others through my work,” “Because I want
to help others through my work,” and “Because I want to have a positive impact on
others” (α = .84).
Psychological Vitality. Psychological vitality represents one’s liveliness or
alertness (Ryan & Frederick, 1997). The participants were instructed to rate each of the
three items capturing vitality (Ryan & Frederick, 1997) as to what extent the statement
described them at the present moment (1 = “Strongly Disagree,” 2 = “Disagree,” 3 =
“Neutral,” 4 = “Agree,” 5 = “Strongly Agree”). The items measuring this outcome
variable were “I feel alive and vital,” “I don’t feel very energetic,” and “I feel alert and
awake” (α = .59). The inter-item reliability of this scale was lower than expected and
perhaps due to the use of a reverse-scored item. However, the alpha coefficient did not
significantly improve after attempting to remove items from the scale.
Emotional Exhaustion. Emotional exhaustion describes the feelings of fatigue due
to one’s work. Emotional exhaustion was assessed through three items taken from
Wharton (1993). The three items read as, “At this moment I feel emotionally drained,”
“At this moment I feel burned out,” and “At this moment I feel used up.” The
participants rated to what extent each of the three statements described their level of
emotional exhaustion (1 = “Strongly Disagree,” 2 = “Disagree,” 3 = “Neutral,” 4 =
“Agree,” 5 = “Strongly Agree”). The average internal consistency reliability was α = .82.
Analytic Strategy
Due to the nested nature of the data, Hierarchical Linear Modeling (HLM) was
used to test the hypotheses (HLM 6.0; Raudenbush & Bryk, 2002). The entirety of our
hypotheses resided at the event-level of analysis, so predictors were within-person
20
centered for each variable. From there, the within-person centered variables were used to
form interaction variables in order to test each of the two-way and three-way interactions,
as stated in the hypotheses.
21
CHAPTER III
RESULTS
All hypotheses and additional tests were examined at the within-person level of
analyses. First, the hypotheses were tested as they were originally proposed. However,
due to the low reliability of the extrinsic scale, further analyses tested the hypotheses
having separated the extrinsic scale into its two component items. Next, in the same way
that studies have tested self-determination theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagne & Deci,
2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000) via intrinsic and extrinsic motivations (Grant, 2008; Grant &
Berry, 2011; Grant & Sonnentag, 2010; Vansteenkiste et al., 2007), the hypotheses were
tested using the intrinsic and extrinsic motivations as well (instead of a general focus on
autonomous and controlled motivation). Finally, the last analyses included selfdetermination constructs (intrinsic, extrinsic),splitting the extrinsic measure into two
separate items.
Table 1 includes means, standard deviations, and correlations. The within-person
centered variables as well as the aggregated person-level variables are included in the
table for comparison purposes. It is worth noting that the SDT measures supported the
simplex structure, in which motivations low in self-determination related strongly to one
another yet related poorly to those higher in the self-determination continuum (Vallerand
22
23
.84 .09** .06** -.10** -.18** -.09** -.48**
.69 .09** .30** .78**
3.62
1.89
3.11
2.97
6. Vitality
7. Emotional
Exhaustion
8. Autonomous
9. Controlled
-.02
.02
.14**
.82**
.24**
.37**
.11**
(.84)
.49**
.99 .73** .87** .38**
.95 .64** .92** .50**
2.71
3.06
.01
.46**
.45**
.75 .80** .40** .40** -.09** .32**
3.76
-.02
.90 .86** .27** .11** -.13** .25**
2.72
.84 .85** .82** .44** -.05** .46**
.69
.16**
(.80)
.77**
-.25*
(.82)
-.65**
.01
-.003
-.01
-.03
-.01
.07**
.09**
.05**
.10**
.09**
.24** -.18**
(.59)
.40** -.32**
.33**
.43** -.37**
.05
.08
7
Means
Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Correlations of Study Variables
10. Extrinsic
Social
11. Extrinsic
Situation
12. Extrinsic
Social/
Introjected
13. Extrinsic
Situation/
Introjected
3.29 1.00 .34** .43** .45**
5. Prosocial
.80 -.13** .06** .28**_
.50**
.08
2.55
(.88)
.58**
4. Intrinsic
.81 .29** .44**
.24*
-.05
6
3.66
.37**
.36**
5
3. Identified
(.80)
.05
4
2.70 1.24 .39**
3
.47** .34**
2
2. Introjected
.70 (.45)
1
3.24
Means S.D.
1. Extrinsic
Variables
.30**
.22**
.18**
-.01
.23**
(.67)
-.36**
.44**
.73**
.86**
.87**
.35**
.23*
8
.93**
.96**
.73**
.69**
(.59)
.35**
.07
.04
.57**
.19
.41**
.93**
.76**
9
.37**
.71**
.39**
--
.66**
.01
.11
-.11
.23*
-.06
.08
.41**
.87**
10
.73**
.49**
--
.65**
.62**
.41**
.02
.05
.38**
.16
.54**
.38**
.81**
11
.86**
(.54)
.45**
.45**
.98**
.30**
.07
.03
.55**
.18
.33**
.96**
.66**
12
(.62)
.95**
.60**
.95**
.97**
.41**
.05
.08
.60**
.25*
.47**
.97**
.62**
13
& Bissonnette, 1992). For instance, extrinsic motivation was most closely associated with
introjected motivation (r = .39, p < .01) but as less strongly related to identified
motivation (r = .29, p < .01), followed by intrinsic motivation (r = -.13, p < .01).
It should also be noted that prosocial motivation correlated more strongly with
introjected (r = .43, p < .01), identified (r = .45, p < .01), and even extrinsic motivation (r
= .34, p < .01) ahead of intrinsic motivation (r = .16, p < .01). We found this to be
somewhat surprising given that, “researchers have often assumed that prosocial
motivation is a specific form of intrinsic motivation” (Grant, 2008, p. 49). Further, prior
work has found prosocial and intrinsic motivation to have been related at higher levels (r
= .41, p < .001, Grant, 2008; r = .55, p < .001, Grant & Berry, 2011). However, the prior
research examined these constructs at the person level of analysis, so the relationship
between variables is subject to change as we shift to the event level of analysis. Another
potential explanation for prosocial motivation relating to the externally-derived forms of
motivation, rather than intrinsic motivation, could be due to their mutual focus on others.
Extrinsic and introjected motivations describe one’s desire to act in compliance to satisfy
another person’s wishes, or at least to avoid feeling the guilt or shame felt from not acting
in compliance with another person’s wishes (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Prosocial motivation
possesses a similar focus on others by describing one’s desire to help or benefit people
(Grant, 2008).
Since the present study includes event-level data, an important preliminary step
was taken to identify what proportion of the variance was attributable to within-person
effects. As shown in Table 2, the percentage of the variance in the dependent variables
due to within-person effects was 47.2% for psychological vitality (as shown in Table 2)
24
Table 2
HLM Estimates of Models
Variable
WithinPerson
Variance
(σ2)
Between-Person
Variance (τ00)
% of total
variance that is
within persons
Extrinsic
1.10
.46
71.69%
Extrinsic
Social/Introjected
.79
.95
45.45%
Extrinsic
Situation/Introjected
.77
.88
46.73%
Extrinsic Social
1.85
.76
70.75%
Extrinsic Situation
1.32
.53
71.33%
Controlled
.72
.69
51.03%
Intrinsic
1.05
.61
63.45%
Autonomous
.62
.47
56.98%
Prosocial
1.02
.98
50.90%
Psychological
.47
.47
50.26%
.55
.69
44.29%
Vitality
Emotional
Exhaustion
Note. % of total variance that is within-person was computed using the formula σ2 / (σ2 +
τ00).
25
and 55.2% for emotional exhaustion. These results suggest that there is ample withinperson variance that can be predicted by event-level assessments.
Tests of Hypotheses
Tables 3 and 4 present the first set of hypothesis testing results. Prosocial
motivation was a predictor of psychological vitality (b = 0.045, p < .05) and emotional
exhaustion (b = -0.080, p < .05). Autonomous motivation significantly predicted vitality
(b = 0.208, p < .05) and emotional exhaustion (b = -0.162, p < .05) as well. Controlled
motivation was not a significant predictor of psychological vitality (b = -0.029, ns), but
was a significant predictor of emotional exhaustion (b = 0.136, p < .05). These results are
consistent with past research (Grant & Sonnentag, 2010; Roth et al., 2007; Ryan & Deci,
2000; Sheldon & Elliot, 1998) and suggest that the basic satisfaction of psychological
needs, rather than the lack thereof, drives changes in well-being. Prosocial and
autonomous motivations powerfully impact one’s sense of fulfilling the needs for
relatedness and autonomy, respectively. Sheldon and Elliot (1998) found a similar result,
as applied to a performance outcome, when autonomous motivation significantly
predicted effort in a task but controlled motivation did not.
Hypothesis 1 predicted that prosocial motivation would moderate the relationship
between autonomous motivation and well-being outcomes. Prosocial motivation was not
a significant moderator in the relationship between autonomous motivation and
psychological vitality (b = 0.001, ns) or emotional exhaustion (b = 0.010, ns). Therefore,
Hypothesis 1 was not supported. Hypothesis 2 stated that prosocial motivation would
moderate the relationship between controlled motivation and well-being outcomes.
Tables 3 and 4 indicate that prosocial motivation did not significantly moderate the
26
Table 3
Overall Results for Vitality
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Prosocial
0.039** [0.02]
0.045** [0.02]
0.045** [0.02]
Autonomous
0.205** [0.02]
0.204** [0.02]
0.208** [0.02]
Controlled
-0.033* [0.02]
-0.032* [0.02]
-0.029 [0.02]
Prosocial x Autonomous
---
0.005 [0.01]
0.001 [0.01]
Prosocial x Controlled
---
0.016 [0.01]
0.015 [0.01]
Autonomous x Controlled
---
-0.010 [0.02]
-0.014 [0.02]
Prosocial x Autonomous x
---
---
-0.012 [0.01]
0.120
0.134
0.136
0.015
0.002
Controlled
Pseudo-R2
Δ R2
*p < .10 **p < .05
27
Table 4
Overall Results for Emotional Exhaustion
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Prosocial
-0.083** [0.02]
-0.081** [0.02]
-0.080** [0.02]
Autonomous
-0.165** [0.03]
-0.162** [0.03]
-0.162** [0.03]
Controlled
0.135** [0.02]
0.138** [0.02]
0.136** [0.02]
Prosocial x Autonomous
---
0.007 [0.02]
0.010 [0.02]
Prosocial x Controlled
---
-0.007 [0.01]
-0.007 [0.01]
Autonomous x Controlled
---
0.013 [0.02]
0.016 [0.02]
Prosocial x Autonomous
---
---
0.007 [0.01]
0.140
0.160
0.162
0.020
0.002
x Controlled
Pseudo-R2
Δ R2
*p < .10 **p < .05
28
relationship between controlled motivation and psychological vitality (b = 0.015, ns) or
emotional exhaustion (b = -0.007, ns). Hypothesis 2 is not supported.
Hypothesis 3 predicted an interaction between autonomous and controlled
motivations. Autonomous and controlled motivation did not form a significant interaction
to predict psychological vitality (b = -0.014, ns) or emotional exhaustion (b = 0.016, ns;
see Tables 3 and 4). Thus, Hypothesis 3 was not supported. Hypothesis 4 predicted a
three-way interaction between autonomous, controlled, and prosocial motivations.
Specifically, Hypothesis 4a predicted that at high levels of prosocial motivation,
autonomous and controlled motivations would interact, such that at low levels of
controlled motivation the positive relationship of autonomous motivation with well-being
would be strong and at high levels of controlled motivation it would be of moderate
strength. Hypothesis 4b predicted that at low levels of prosocial motivation, autonomous
and controlled motivations would interact, such that at low levels of controlled
motivation, the positive relationship of autonomous motivation with well-being would be
moderate and at high levels of controlled motivation it would be nonsignificant. As
shown in Tables 3 and 4, the three-way interaction between autonomous, controlled, and
prosocial motivation was not significant for psychological vitality (b = -0.012, ns) or
emotional exhaustion (b = 0.007, ns). Therefore, Hypothesis 4 was not supported.
The majority of the within-person variance was explained by the main effects
(autonomous, controlled, prosocial motivation), which accounted for 12% of the within
person variance in psychological vitality and 14% of the within-person variance in
emotional exhaustion (see Tables 3 and 4).
29
Tests of Hypotheses using the “Extrinsic Social” Item
Now that the hypotheses have been tested as originally stated, the next step
involved dissecting the extrinsic motivation scale into its two component items. In the
first analyses, controlled motivation encompassed the introjected motivation scale along
with extrinsic social influence item: “(I pursued this activity) because somebody else
wanted [me] to” (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). Tables 5 and 6 present the findings for these
supplemental analyses. The significance of the main effects and interactions is essentially
unchanged from the prior analyses.
Tests of Hypotheses using the “Extrinsic Situation” Item
The next set of supplemental analyses replaced the extrinsic social item with the
extrinsic situation item. In these analyses, the controlled motivation measure consists of
the introjected scale and the extrinsic situation item: “(I pursued this activity) because the
situation demanded it” (Sheldon & Elliot, 1999). Tables 7 and 8 present all of the results
for main effects and hypotheses 1-4 in these analyses. For these analyses, all of the main
effects are significant, consistent with the initial tests of hypotheses. Further, the
interaction terms were not significant, with the exception of a three-way interaction
between prosocial, autonomous, and extrinsic situation with introjected motivation scales
interacting to predict psychological vitality (b = -0.014, p < .10), providing limited
support for Hypothesis 4 (see Figure 1).
As previous research would predict (Grant, 2008), the relationship between
autonomous motivation and psychological vitality was moderated by prosocial
motivation. Therefore, the positive relationship between autonomous motivation and
vitality was stronger when prosocial motivation was high rather than low. The extrinsic
30
Table 5
Extrinsic Social Results for Vitality
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Prosocial
0.039** [0.02]
0.044** [0.02]
0.044** [0.02]
Autonomous
0.205** [0.02]
0.206** [0.02]
0.210** [0.02]
Extrinsic Social and Introjected
-0.034** [0.02]
-0.036** [0.02]
-0.033* [0.02]
Prosocial x Autonomous
---
0.005 [0.01]
0.002 [0.01]
Prosocial x Extrinsic
---
0.012 [0.01]
0.012 [0.01]
---
-0.003 [0.02]
-0.003 [0.02]
---
---
-0.011 [0.01]
0.114
0.124
0.126
0.011
0.002
Social/Introjected
Autonomous x Extrinsic
Social/Introjected
Prosocial x Autonomous
x Extrinsic Social/Introjected
Pseudo-R2
Δ R2
*p < .10 **p < .05
31
Table 6
Extrinsic Social Results for Emotional Exhaustion
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Prosocial
-0.082** [0.02]
-0.080** [0.02]
-0.079** [0.02]
Autonomous
-0.162** [0.03]
-0.158** [0.03]
-0.157** [0.03]
Extrinsic Social and Introjected
0.129** [0.02]
0.131** [0.02]
0.129** [0.02]
Prosocial x Autonomous
---
0.010 [0.02]
0.013 [0.02]
Prosocial x Extrinsic
---
-0.007 [0.01]
-0.007 [0.01]
---
0.012 [0.02]
0.015 [0.02]
---
---
0.010 [0.01]
0.137
0.157
0.160
0.020
0.003
Social/Introjected
Autonomous x Extrinsic
Social/Introjected
Prosocial x Autonomous
x Extrinsic Social/Introjected
Pseudo-R2
Δ R2
*p < .10 **p < .05
32
Table 7
Extrinsic Situation Results for Vitality
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
0.040**
0.044**
0.046** [0.02]
[0.02]
[0.02]
0.210**
0.214**
[0.02]
[0.02]
-0.043**
-0.046**
[0.02]
[0.02]
Prosocial x Autonomous
---
0.009 [0.01]
0.005 [0.01]
Prosocial x Extrinsic
---
0.012 [0.01]
0.013 [0.01]
---
-0.013 [0.02]
-0.019 [0.02]
---
---
-0.014* [0.01]
0.126
0.137
0.138
0.011
0.001
Prosocial
Autonomous
Extrinsic Situation and Introjected
0.219** [0.02]
-0.042** [0.02]
Situation/Introjected
Autonomous x Extrinsic
Situation/Introjected
Prosocial x Autonomous x Extrinsic
Situation/Introjected
Pseudo-R2
Δ R2
*p < .10 **p < .05
33
Table 8
Extrinsic Situation Results for Emotional Exhaustion
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
-0.077**
-0.076**
-0.077**
[0.02]
[0.02]
[0.02]
-0.175**
-0.170**
-0.172**
[0.03]
[0.03]
[0.03]
0.128**
0.132**
0.130** [0.02]
[0.02]
[0.02]
Prosocial x Autonomous
---
0.003 [0.01]
0.007 [0.02]
Prosocial x Extrinsic Situation/Introjected
---
0.002 [0.01]
0.001 [0.01]
Autonomous x Extrinsic
---
0.024 [0.02]
0.029 [0.02]
---
---
0.014 [0.01]
0.144
0.164
0.164
0.019
0.001
Prosocial
Autonomous
Extrinsic Situation and Introjected
Situation/Introjected
Prosocial x Autonomous
x Extrinsic Situation/Introjected
Pseudo-R2
Δ R2
*p < .10 **p < .05
34
35
motivation moderated in the opposite direction, just as previous research would expect
(Gebauer et al., 2008; Roth et al., 2007; Vansteenkiste et al., 2007), such that the positive
relationship between autonomous motivation and vitality was stronger when extrinsic
motivation was low rather than high. Thus, as we anticipated, the strongest positive
relationship was formed under conditions of low extrinsic motivation and high prosocial
motivation. This significant three-way interaction accounted for an increment of 0.1% of
the within-person variance in psychological vitality.
Tests of Hypotheses with Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation
Until this point the current study has examined motivation using autonomous and
controlled motivations, which are thought to represent two general forms of motivation
that span the full continuum from extrinsic to intrinsic motivation and each of the more
specific motivations in-between (Sheldon & Elliot, 1998; Sheldon & Elliot, 1999).
However, some SDT research has focused on the extreme ends of the continuum,
focusing on extrinsic versus intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Gagne & Deci,
2005). Indeed, some recent organizational research has focused on intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation in an attempt to capture these distinct forms of work motivation (Grant, 2008;
Grant & Berry, 2011; Grant & Sonnentag, 2010; Vansteenkiste et al., 2007). With this in
mind, the hypotheses were tested using the intrinsic and extrinsic measures, instead of the
broader autonomous versus controlled motivation measures (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagne
& Deci, 2005; Ryan & Deci, 2000). Tables 9 and 10 list all of the results for this set of
analyses. Prosocial motivation was a significant predictor for psychological vitality (b =
0.56, p < .05) and emotional exhaustion (b = -0.079, p < .05). There was a significant
main effect of intrinsic motivation on vitality (b = 0.144, p < .05) and emotional
36
Table 9
Intrinsic/Extrinsic Results for Vitality
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Prosocial
0.055** [0.02]
0.059** [0.02]
0.056** [0.02]
Intrinsic
0.144** [0.02]
0.141** [0.02]
0.144** [0.02]
Extrinsic
0.015 [0.01]
0.018 [0.01]
0.020 [0.01]
Prosocial x Intrinsic
---
0.004 [0.01]
0.001 [0.01]
Prosocial x Extrinsic
---
0.004 [0.01]
0.002 [0.01]
Intrinsic x Extrinsic
---
0.007 [0.01]
0.005 [0.01]
Prosocial x Intrinsic x
---
---
-0.007 [0.01]
0.123
0.135
0.135
0.012
0.0004
Extrinsic
Pseudo-R2
Δ R2
*p < .10 **p < .05
37
Table 10
Intrinsic/Extrinsic Results for Emotional Exhaustion
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Prosocial
-0.079** [0.02]
-0.076** [0.02]
-0.079** [0.02]
Intrinsic
-0.117** [0.02]
-0.118** [0.02]
-0.112** [0.02]
Extrinsic
0.052** [0.02]
0.051** [0.02]
0.051** [0.02]
Prosocial x Intrinsic
---
0.022 [0.01]
0.019 [0.01]
Prosocial x Extrinsic
---
0.002 [0.01]
0.005 [0.01]
Intrinsic x Extrinsic
---
-0.021 [0.01]
-0.022* [0.01]
Prosocial x Intrinsic x
---
---
-0.009 [0.01]
0.127
0.154
0.159
0.026
0.005
Extrinsic
Pseudo-R2
Δ R2
*p < .10 **p < .05
38
exhaustion (b = -0.112, p < .05). However, there was no main effect of extrinsic
motivation on psychological vitality (b = 0.020, ns), though it did significantly predict
emotional exhaustion (b = 0.051, p < .05).
Hypothesis 1 predicted that prosocial motivation would moderate the relationship
between autonomous (intrinsic) motivation and well-being. Prosocial motivation was not
a significant moderator for psychological vitality (b = 0.001, ns) or emotional exhaustion
(b = 0.019, ns). Thus, Hypothesis 1 is not supported. Hypothesis 2 predicted prosocial
motivation would moderate the relationship between controlled (extrinsic) motivation
and well-being. However, prosocial motivation did not significantly moderate the
relationship between extrinsic motivation and psychological vitality (b = 0.002, ns).
Prosocial motivation did not moderate the relationship between extrinsic motivation and
emotional exhaustion (b = 0.005, ns) either. Hypothesis 2 is not supported.
Hypothesis 3 expected an interaction between autonomous (intrinsic) and
controlled (extrinsic) motivation in predicting well-being. Intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation did not significantly interact to predict vitality (b = 0.005, ns); however, they
did significantly interact in predicting emotional exhaustion (b = -0.022, p < .10). As
shown in Figure 2, this interaction indicates a buffering effect by intrinsic motivation.
The positive relationship between extrinsic motivation and emotional exhaustion
weakens when intrinsic motivation increases. Further, this interaction alone accounted for
1.2% of the within-person variance in emotional exhaustion. Therefore, Hypothesis 3 was
partially supported. Hypothesis 4 predicted a three-way interaction between autonomous
(intrinsic), controlled (extrinsic), and prosocial interaction when predicting well-being
outcomes. The three variables did not significantly interact to predict psychological
39
40
vitality (b = -0.007, ns) or emotional exhaustion (b = -0.009, ns). Thus, Hypothesis 4 was
not supported.
The main effects of intrinsic, extrinsic, and prosocial motivation accounted for
12.9% of the within-person variance in psychological vitality and 12.7% of the withinperson variance in emotional exhaustion.
Tests of Hypotheses with Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Social Motivation
As with the controlled and autonomous motivation analyses, we tested the
hypotheses using each of the extrinsic motivation items separately to determine if the
extrinsic social motivation might exhibit a different pattern of effects from the extrinsic
situation motivation. Tables 11 and 12 present the findings. For both dependent variables,
the main effects all exhibited the same pattern of significance as was observed for the
analyses using the full extrinsic motivation scale. In particular, there was a significant
main effect of prosocial motivation on vitality (b = 0.056, p < .05) and emotional
exhaustion (b = -0.073, p < .05); intrinsic motivation predicted psychological vitality (b =
0.148, p < .05) and emotional exhaustion (b = -0.110, p < .05); and extrinsic social
motivation did not significantly predict vitality (b = 0.009, ns), but it did significantly
predict emotional exhaustion (b = 0.039, p < .05).
Further, with regard to the interaction effects proposed by the hypotheses,
prosocial motivation did not interact with intrinsic motivation (Hypothesis 1) or extrinsic
social motivation (Hypothesis 2) (see Tables 11 and 12), but intrinsic motivation did
interact with extrinsic social motivation to predict vitality (b = 0.014, p < .10) and
emotional exhaustion (b = -0.016, p < .10)(Hypothesis 3). These interactions are
presented in Figures 3 and 4. As can be seen in these figures, the extent to which intrinsic
41
Table 11
Intrinsic/Extrinsic Social Results for Vitality
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Prosocial
0.057** [0.02]
0.058** [0.01]
0.056** [0.01]
Intrinsic
0.146** [0.02]
0.144** [0.02]
0.148** [0.02]
Extrinsic Social
0.003 [0.01]
0.006 [0.01]
0.009 [0.01]
Prosocial x Intrinsic
---
0.001 [0.01]
-0.002 [0.01]
Prosocial x Extrinsic Social ---
0.002 [0.01]
-0.001 [0.01]
Intrinsic x Extrinsic Social
---
0.014* [0.01]
0.014* [0.01]
Prosocial x Intrinsic x
---
---
-0.008 [0.01]
0.117
0.125
0.127
0.009
0.002
Extrinsic Social
Pseudo-R2
Δ R2
*p < .10 **p < .05
42
Table 12
Intrinsic/Extrinsic Social Results for Emotional Exhaustion
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Prosocial
-0.074** [0.02]
-0.072** [0.02]
-0.073** [0.02]
Intrinsic
-0.119** [0.02]
-0.118** [0.02]
-0.110** [0.02]
Extrinsic Social
0.043** [0.01]
0.038** [0.01]
0.039** [0.01]
Prosocial x Intrinsic
---
0.021 [0.01]
0.018 [0.02]
Prosocial x Extrinsic Social ---
-0.001 [0.01]
-0.002 [0.01]
Intrinsic x Extrinsic Social
---
-0.021** [0.01]
-0.016* [0.01]
Prosocial x Intrinsic x
---
---
-0.003 [0.01]
0.123
0.146
0.155
0.023
0.008
Extrinsic Social
Pseudo-R2
Δ R2
*p < .10 **p < .05
43
44
45
motivation relates to well-being is moderated by how much external pressure comes from
another person wanting and/or demanding the individual perform the task. The positive
relationship between intrinsic motivation and reports of psychological vitality was
stronger when participants also experienced a sense of external motivation from others;
the two motivations combined to increase vitality. For emotional exhaustion, intrinsic
motivation acted as a buffer. Under conditions of low intrinsic motivation, the extrinsic
social motivation produced a stronger positive relationship with emotional exhaustion
than under conditions of high intrinsic motivation.
These interactions explained increments of 13% and 16% of the total withinperson variance in vitality and emotional exhaustion, respectively. Therefore, Hypothesis
3 was supported. However, there was no significant three-way interaction, failing to
support Hypothesis 4 (see Tables 11 and 12). The main effects explained approximately
12.4% of the within-person variance in vitality and emotional exhaustion.
Tests of Hypotheses with Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Situation Motivation
Finally, the hypotheses were tested using the extrinsic situation motivation item.
The pattern of main and interaction effects did not differ from those found for the overall
extrinsic motivation scale (see Tables 13 and 14). As such, none of the interaction
hypotheses were supported when operationalizing extrinsic motivation with the item
emphasizing situational constraints. The main effects explained 13.9% of the withinperson variance in psychological vitality and 12.7% of the within-person variance in
emotional exhaustion.
46
Table 13
Intrinsic/Extrinsic Situation Results for Vitality
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Prosocial
0.055** [0.02]
0.060** [0.02]
0.058** [0.02]
Intrinsic
0.144** [0.02]
0.141** [0.02]
0.141** [0.02]
Extrinsic Situation
0.013 [0.01]
0.017 [0.01]
0.0189 [0.01]
Prosocial x Intrinsic
---
0.010 [0.01]
0.007 [0.01]
Prosocial x Extrinsic
---
0.007 [0.01]
0.008 [0.01]
---
-0.012 [0.01]
-0.012 [0.01]
---
---
-0.002 [0.01]
0.133
0.143
0.147
0.010
0.004
Situation
Intrinsic x Extrinsic
Situation
Prosocial x Intrinsic x
Extrinsic Situation
Pseudo-R2
Δ R2
*p < .10 **p < .05
47
Table 14
Intrinsic/Extrinsic Situation Results for Emotional Exhaustion
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Prosocial
-0.069** [0.02]
-0.065** [0.02]
-0.065** [0.02]
Intrinsic
-0.123** [0.02]
-0.122** [0.02]
-0.121** [0.02]
Extrinsic Situation
0.027* [0.01]
0.030** [0.01]
0.029** [0.01]
Prosocial x Intrinsic
---
0.017 [0.01]
0.016 [0.01]
Prosocial x Extrinsic
---
0.015 [0.02]
0.017 [0.02]
---
-0.006 [0.01]
-0.007 [0.01]
---
---
-0.005 [0.01]
0.129
0.155
0.156
0.026
0.002
Situation
Intrinsic x Extrinsic
Situation
Prosocial x Intrinsic x
Extrinsic Situation
Pseudo-R2
Δ R2
*p < .10 **p < .05
48
CHAPTER IV
DISCUSSION
In the present study, predictors of within-person fluctuations in psychological
vitality and emotional exhaustion throughout the workday were examined using a selfdetermination framework (Deci & Ryan, 2000; Gagne & Deci, 2005). The results
demonstrated that prosocial motivation had a significant main effect on psychological
vitality and emotional exhaustion, such that performing an activity because one is
intending to help someone else resulted in better well-being than when performing an
activity in which this motive is not salient. Autonomous motivation (combined intrinsic
and identified motivations) and intrinsic motivation alone also had significant main
effects on both well-being outcomes. In particular, performing a work behavior for
autonomous or purely intrinsic reasons was associated with better well-being. Controlled
motivation and the pure extrinsic motivation both significantly predicted emotional
exhaustion, such that when individuals reported doing an activity because the situation
demanded it, they were more likely to experience high emotional exhaustion. The only
nonsignificant main effects were for controlled motivation predicting psychological
vitality. However, the social and situational forms of controlled motivation (i.e., the
extrinsic social item with the introjected scale, the extrinsic situation item with the
49
introjected scale) were significant predictors of vitality, such that lower levels of this
controlled motivation led to lower vitality. The unique effect of each social and
situational extrinsic measure appeared when the two were separately analyzed, but the
significant effects were canceled out once the items were combined. Although the main
effects for the motivations were robust, several of these were replications of past work.
Previous research has linked low levels of intrinsic motivation to higher levels of
emotional exhaustion and lower levels of vitality (Babakus, Yavas, & Karatepe, 2008;
Fernet, Guay, & Senécal, 2004; Low, Cravens, Grant, & Montcrief, 2001; Van den
Broeck, Vansteenkiste, & de Witte, 2008). Meanwhile, the relationship between
extrinsic/controlled motivation and well-being has been less certain (Kasser & Ryan,
1996; Tremblay, Blanchard, Taylor, Pelletier, & Villeneuve, 2009; Wilson, Rodgers,
Blanchard, & Gessell, 2003). Kasser and Ryan (1996) found that extrinsic motivation and
goals led to declines in well-being; however, a physical fitness study conducted by
Wilson and colleagues (2003) included a mixture of low and high well-being outcomes
depending on the length of time (short-term versus long-term effects). Thus, the present
study further examined this relationship between controlled/extrinsic motivation and
well-being.
As revealed in the testing of our proposed interactions, few of the proposed
interactions were significant. The most consistent interaction effects existed between the
more narrow categories of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: the interaction between
intrinsic and extrinsic motivations in predicting emotional exhaustion was significant, the
interaction between intrinsic and extrinsic social in predicting vitality was significant, and
the interaction between intrinsic and extrinsic social in predicting emotional exhaustion
50
was significant. In all of these interactions, the positive intrinsic motivation-well-being
relationship grew stronger under conditions of higher extrinsic motivation (or, more
specifically, extrinsic social motivation for the purpose of complying with someone’s
request). Essentially, there are two ways to view the interaction: a) extrinsic motivation
served as a moderator, such that intrinsic motivation most strongly impacts positive
feelings of well-being when accompanied by some high levels of extrinsic motivation, or
b) intrinsic motivation was a moderator, such that extrinsic motivation will only improve
well-being under conditions of high intrinsic motivation.
One three-way interaction (autonomous x extrinsic situation/introjected x
prosocial) emerged to predict psychological vitality. The nature of this interaction was
such that participants reported the highest levels of vitality if they also felt high levels of
autonomous and prosocial motivation but low levels of extrinsic motivation. It is
important to note that the extrinsic motivation in this interaction consisted of the extrinsic
situation item, indicating that, contrary to the positive effects that socially-derived
extrinsic motivation (extrinsic social) yielded on well-being outcomes, individuals may
have experienced more negative feelings when motivated by situational demands.
Prosocial motivation did not significantly moderate the relationship between
autonomous/intrinsic motivation and well-being. Despite the strong positive main effects
with both well-being outcomes, prosocial motivation did not moderate the relationships
between autonomous/intrinsic or controlled/intrinsic motivations with well-being, which
contradicts the prior empirical evidence provided by Grant (2008). As an extension of
this work (Grant, 2008), prosocial motivation was hypothesized to moderate the
relationship between controlled/extrinsic motivation and well-being; however, the
51
interaction was also nonsignificant. It may be that one or more of several differences
between the research contexts explain the divergence of findings. For instance, the first
sample for Grant’s (2008) study included firefighters, who were 97% male. Though less
heroic but equally motivated by prosocial reasons, the second sample consisted of call
center workers who persuaded donors to contribute money to a university. Contrary to the
samples from Grant (2008), the current sample comprised of predominantly female
university staff workers, which may involve tasks less relevant or responsive to prosocial
motivation. As to be expected, the use of event-level data could explain why the present
findings differ with respect to previous research (Grant, 2008), since event-level data is
subject to more variation and daily fluctuations (Hektner, Schmidt, & Csikszentmihalyi,
2007).
Theoretical Implications
Based on the powerful main effects seen in this study, it is evident how different
motivations independently shape individuals’ perceptions of well-being. We have further
supported previous research (Chian & Wang, 2008; Liu et al., 2009; Roth et al., 2007),
which has shown consistent positive relationships between autonomous/intrinsic
motivation and well-being, and negative relationships of controlled/extrinsic with wellbeing. Conversely, controlled/extrinsic motivation has formed a mixture of both positive
and negative main effects on well-being outcomes, specifically psychological vitality.
The main effect for controlled/extrinsic motivation is consistently positive for emotional
exhaustion; however, the effects are still weaker compared to that of
autonomous/intrinsic motivation. This could indicate the importance of context in
determining how controlled motivation influences momentary levels of well-being.
52
Therefore, the current findings support the notion that autonomous motivation more
strongly drives perceptions of well-being compared to controlled motivation. Prosocial
motivation, additionally, tends to have a similar, unwavering effect on well-being, shown
from its consistent positive main effects across both well-being outcomes.
As aforementioned, the level of analysis may explain some of the discrepancies
we found in our data compared to previous research involving person-level data (Gebauer
et al., 2008; Grant, 2008; Liu et al., 2009; Vansteenkiste et al., 2007). Liu and colleagues
(2009) found a person-level interaction between autonomous and controlled motivation:
individuals who routinely reported high autonomous motivation and low controlled
motivation experienced greater satisfaction. Similarly, Grant (2008) found an interaction
between prosocial and intrinsic motivations at the person level that predicted
performance outcomes. These significant interactions at the person level did not
materialize at the event level of analysis, perhaps because of the different time course of
effects. Nevertheless, it is essential to examine motivation constructs from this new
perspective because it avoids many of the biases of retrospective report data. When
measuring person-level effects, individuals report experiences based on their own
subjective, idiosyncratic view of reality; rather than recalling a specific events that are
representative of all occurrences, they rely on salient memories. The individual goals,
knowledge structures, and identities to which they ascribe influence how they report
events as well (Hektner, Schmidt, & Csikszentmihalyi, 2007). Instead, event-level
designs measure the contextual factors and specific events that had just occurred.
53
Practical Implications
Considering the influence of autonomous and prosocial motivation as main effects
at the event level, it may be wise for practitioners to emphasize and promote these
motivations throughout the employees’ workdays. Grant (2007) instructs organizations to
restructure jobs so that employees can receive feedback from or witness the good work
they have done for others. This slight job redesign costs little from the company and
requires no significant changes from the employee, yet it satisfies two basic
psychological needs: competence and relatedness (Grant, 2007; Ryan & Deci, 2000).
Once the employee continually performs work that is deemed by others to be valuable, he
will form an identity of himself as productive and helpful, which contributes to his need
for competence. Also, as the job allows for contact with beneficiaries, the employee will
view himself as prosocially motivated, thus, satisfying his need for relatedness (Grant,
2007).
More specifically, our results may have implications for which management
styles could most benefit employee well-being. For instance, the mixed findings (positive
and negative relationships) between reported well-being and controlled motivation could
suggest that leadership based on external rewards is effective under conditions of high
intrinsic motivation as well. Task leadership (Hersey & Blanchard, 1969) and
transactional leaders (Bass, 1985) may be helpful in bolstering employee well-being only
when the context, individuals, and other factors call for this type of management via
rewards and incentives. Whereas, the leaders who cast a vision, empower their
employees, and encourage autonomy through transformational leadership approaches
should see more consistent reports of employee well-being (Nielsen, Randall, Yarker, &
54
Brenner, 2008). In particular, recent research has identified mediators such as role clarity
and contact with beneficiaries that augment the effects of transformational leadership on
well-being and performance outcomes (Grant, 2012; Nielsen et al., 2008).
The significant interaction between autonomous/intrinsic and controlled/extrinsic
motivations on both vitality and emotional exhaustion demonstrates how employee wellbeing can potentially improve when both types of motivation are present. Contrary to the
belief that external rewards undermine intrinsic motivation (cognitive evaluation theory;
Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999; Deci & Ryan, 1985), our results indicate that well-being
was at its highest levels when autonomous and controlled motivations were both high. As
a direct response to this finding, managers should not shy away from offering incentives
or verbal praise to their employees, especially since controlled/extrinsic motivation
continually exists for paid employees. The caveat to this advice is that managers must
ensure their employees’ interest, enjoyment, and pride within their work (autonomous
motivation) first and foremost, or else the rewards (controlled motivation) will fail to
motivate them.
Limitations
There were several limitations worth mentioning. First, two of the measures—
extrinsic motivation and psychological vitality—had relatively low reliability coefficients
for each of the scales. As discussed previously, the scales for extrinsic motivation may
have had poor internal consistency due to shifting referents (from social to situational
causes). Vitality may indicate low reliability due to the reverse-coded item included in its
scale. Regardless, these measures may not have captured the constructs as effectively as
we had intended.
55
Second, the sample consisted of 89% women. This presents an obvious issue of
generalizability in that women may demonstrate different relationship between
motivation and well-being compared to men. Furthermore, the participants were all staff
members at a university, comprised of occupations that may be similar to each other but
that may not necessarily reflect occupations elsewhere. Most participants spent their
workdays indoors at a desk taking phone calls, handling student issues, and performing
tasks on the computer. Third and finally, all data originated from the same group of staff
workers. Therefore, there is the issue of same source bias.
Future Research
In regards to continued research, a natural progression from our present study
would be to investigate motivation constructs across levels of analysis. The literature has
clearly addressed the demand for autonomous/intrinsic and controlled/extrinsic
motivation study at the person level (Gebauer et al., 2008; Grant, 2008; Roth et al., 2007;
Van den Broeck et al., 2008; Vansteenkiste et al., 2007), and this study researches the
event level. However, there may be interesting cross-level effects to explore. For
example, highly intrinsically motivated individuals (person-level) may buffer the
negative effects (or even reverse the direction) of extrinsically motivated tasks, such that
these momentary external motivations may be construed as a means by which more
stable intrinsic motives are met. One instance could be that of employees working for a
non-profit organization: the mission of the organization may have attracted intrinsically
motivated employees but a sudden influx of revenue (i.e. donations, government funding)
motivates the employees and sends a rush of vitality or high spirits.
56
Despite nonsignificant interactions among the various motivations, there may be
potential for relationships between motivation and other constructs. Previous research
indicates significant relationships between individuals’ motivation and perceptions of
organizational justice (Zapata-Phelan, Colquitt, Scott, & Livingston, 2009),
organizational culture (Joo & Lim, 2009; Woodman, Sawyer, & Griffin, 1993), and
person-environment fit (Greguras & Diefendorff, 2009). Therefore, research testing the
interactive effects of motivation as well as these constructs, particularly at the event level,
could further explain what forces collectively drive individuals to behave. In addition to
testing these various constructs as new and different moderators (or mediators), there is
strong support for testing the relationship between motivation and organizational
commitment (Gagne & Deci, 2005). Specifically, the affective type of organizational
commitment has been shown to relate strongly to autonomous forms of motivation at the
person level (Gagne & Koestner, 2002), so event-level investigations could enrich our
knowledge of this relationship.
Conclusion
In the research presented, multiple motivations acted in conjunction to shape the
momentary experiences of employee well-being. The strongest effects on well-being
were those of autonomous/intrinsic and prosocial motivations, indicating that work
motivation is more intrinsically-derived. However, there are noteworthy effects of
extrinsically-derived motivation: positive and negative main effects on well-being,
suppressor effects on vitality, and interactive effects with intrinsic motivation. In
response to the findings, we suggest further investigation into controlled/extrinsic
motivation. When deemed appropriate, it may be most beneficial for managers to
57
implement strategies that enhance both intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. It may be time
to expand our knowledge of extrinsic motivation and more wisely implement these
strategies into the workplace.
58
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adkins, J. A. (1999). Promoting organizational health: The evolving practice of
occupational health psychology. Professional Psychology: Research and
Practice, 30(2), 129-137.
Aknin, L. B., Biswas-Diener, R., Barrington-Leigh, C. P., Kemeza, I., Dunn, E. W.,
Nyende, P., Helliwell, J. F., Ashton-James, C. E., & Norton, M. I. (2010).
Prosocial spending and well-being: Cross-cultural evidence for a universal.
National Bureau of Economic Research, 16415.
Atkinson, J. W. (1964). An introduction to motivation. Princeton, NJ: Van Nostrand.
Babakus, E., Yavas, U., & Karatepes, O. M. (2008). The effects of job demands, job
resources, and intrinsic motivation on emotional exhaustion and turnover
intentions: A study in the Turkish hotel industry. International Journal of
Hospitality & Tourism Administration, 9(4).
Bass, B. M. (1985). Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free
Press.
Batson, C. D. (1987). Prosocial motivation: Is it ever truly altruistic? In L. Berkowitz
(Ed.). Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (pp. 65-122). New York:
Academic Press.
Beal, D. J., & Weiss, H. M. (2003). Methods of ecological momentary assessment in
organizational research. Organizational Research Methods, 6, 440-464.
Bliese, P. D. (2000). Within-group agreement, non-independence, and reliability:
Implications for data aggregation and analysis. In K. J. Klein, & S. W. J.
Kozlowski (Eds.). Multilevel theory, research, and methods in organizations:
Foundations, extensions, and new directions (pp. 349-381). San Francisco, CA:
Jossey-Bass.
Boiché, J. C. S., Sarrazin, P. G., Grouzet, F. M. E., Pelletier, L. G., & Chanal, J. P.
(2008). Students’ motivational profiles and achievement outcomes in physical
education: A self-determination perspective. Journal of Educational Psychology,
100(3), 688-701.
59
Bono, J. E., & Judge, T. A. (2003). Self-concordance at work: Toward understanding the
motivational effects of transformational leaders. Academy of Management
Journal, 46(5), 554-571.
Brown, K. W., & Ryan, R. M., (2003). The benefits of being present: Mindfulness and its
role in psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
84(4), 822-848.
Burton, K. D., Lydon, J. E., D’Alessandro, D. U., & Koestner, R. (2006). The differential
effects of intrinsic and identified motivation on well-being and performance:
Prospective, experimental, and implicit approaches to self-determination theory.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 750-762.
Callahan, J. S., Brownlee, A. L., Brtek, M. D., & Tosi, H. L. (2003). Examining the
unique effects of multiple motivational sources on task performance. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 33(12), 2515-2535.
Chandler, M. M., Greguras, G. J., Diefendorff, J. M., Gabriel, A. S., & Moran, C. M.,
(2011, April). An event-level analysis of links of SDT with employee well-being.
In J. M. Diefendorff & M. M. Chandler (Chairs). Advances in research on selfdetermination theory at work. Symposium conducted at the 26th Annual Society
for Industrial and Organizational Psychology meeting, Chicago, IL. Cropanzano,
R., Rupp, D.E., & Byrne, Z., S. (2003). The Relationship of Emotional
Exhaustion to Work Attitudes, Job Performance, and Organizational Citizenship
Behaviors. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88(1), 160-169.
Chian, L. K. Z., & Wang, C. K. J. (2008). Motivational profiles of junior college athletes:
A cluster analysis. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 20, 137-156.
Dalal, R. S. & Hulin, C. L. (2008). Motivation for what? A multivariate dynamic
perspective of the criterion. In R. Kanfer, G. Chen, & R. D. Pritchard (Eds.).
Work Motivation: Past, Present, and Future (pp. 63-100). New York: Routledge.
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.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self determination in human
behavior. New York: Plenum Press.
Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs
and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227-268.
Deci, E. L., & Vansteenkiste, M. (2004). Self-determination theory and basic need
satisfaction: Understanding human development in positive psychology. Ricerche
di Psichologia, 27, 17-34.
60
Diefendorff, J. M., & Chandler, M. M. (2010). Motivating Employees. In S. Zedeck
(Ed.), Handbook of Industrial and Organizational Psychology. Washington, DC:
American Psychological Association.
Elliot, A. J., Sheldon, K. M., & Church, M. A. (1997). Avoidance personal goals and
subjective well-being. Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 23(9), 915927.
Fernet, C., Guay, F., & Senécal, C. (2004). Adjusting to job demands: The role of selfdetermination theory and job control in predicting burnout. Journal of Vocational
Behaviour, 65, 39-56.
Gagne, M. (2010). Autonomy support and need satisfaction in the motivation and wellbeing of gymnasts. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 15(4), 372-390.
Gagne, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362.
Gagne, M., & Koestner, R. (2002). Self-determination theory as a framework for
understanding organizational commitment. Paper presented at the annual meeting
of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Canada.
Gaine, G. S., & LaGuardia, J. G. (2009). The unique contributions of motivations to
maintain a relationship and motivations toward relational activities to relationship
well-being. Motivation and Emotion, 33, 184-202.
Gebauer, J. E., Riketta, M., Broemer, P., & Maio, G. R. (2008). Pleasure and pressure
based prosocial motivation: Divergent relations to subjective well-being. Journal
of Research in Personality, 42, 399-420.
Gillet, N., Vallerand, R. J., & Rosnet, E. (2009). Motivational clusters and performance
in a real-life setting. Motivation and Emotion, 33, 49-62.
Grant, A. M. (2008). Does intrinsic motivation fuel the prosocial fire? Motivational
synergy in predicting persistence, performance, and productivity. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 93(1), 48-58.
Grant, A. M. (2007). Relational job design and the motivation to make a prosocial
difference. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 393-417.
Grant, A. M. (2012). Leading with meaning: Beneficiary contact, prosocial impact, and
the performance effects of transformational leadership. Academy of Management
Journal, 55(2), 458-476.
61
Grant, A. M., & Berry, J. W. (2011). The necessity of others is the mother of invention:
Intrinsic and prosocial motivations, perspective taking, and creativity. Academy of
Management Journal, 54(1), 73-96.
Grant, A. M., Campbell, E. M., Chen, G., Cottone, K., Lapedis, D., & Lee, K. (2007).
Impact and the art of motivation maintenance: The effects of contact with
beneficiaries on persistence behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human
Decision Processes, 53, 53-67.
Grant, A. M., Fried, Y., Parker, S. K., & Frese, M. (2010). Putting job design in context:
Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 31, 145157.
Grant, A. M., & Gino, F. (2010). A little thanks goes a long way: Explaining why
gratitude expressions motivate prosocial behavior. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 98(6), 946-955.
Grant, A. M., & Sonnentag, S. (2010). Doing good buffers against feeling bad: Prosocial
impact compensates for negative task and self-evaluations. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 111, 13-22.
Grant, A. M., & Sumanth, J. J. (2009). Mission possible? The performance of prosocially
motivated employees depends on manager trustworthiness. Journal of Applied
Psychology, 94(4), 927-944.
Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2009). Different fits satisfy different needs:
Linking person-environment fit to employee commitment and performance using
self-determination theory. Research Collection Lee Kong Chian School of
Business.
Greguras, G. J., & Diefendorff, J. M. (2010). Why does proactive personality predict
employee life satisfaction and work behaviors? A field investigation of the
mediating role of the self-concordance model. Personnel Psychology, 63(3), 539560.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through the design of work: test of
a theory. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 16, 250-279.
Hayenga, A. O., & Corpus, J. H. (2010). Profiles of intrinsic and extrinsic motivations: A
person-centered approach to motivation and achievement in middle school.
Motivation and Emotion, 34, 371-383.
Hektner, J. M., Schmidt, J. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2007). Experience Sampling
Method: Measuring the Quality of Everyday Life. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Hersey, P., & Blanchard, K. H. (1969). Life cycle theory of management. Training and
62
Development Journal, 23(2), 26-34.
Joo, B., & Lim, T. (2009). The effects of organizational learning culture, perceived job
complexity, and proactive personality on organizational commitment and intrinsic
motivation. Journal of Leadership & Organizational Studies, 16(1), 48-60.
Judge, T. A., Bono, J. E., Erez, A., & Locke, E. A. (2005). Core self-evaluations and job
and life satisfaction: The role of self-concordance and goal attainment. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 90(2), 257-268.
Kasser, T., & Ryan, R. M. (1996). Further examining the American dream: Differential
correlates of intrinsic and extrinsic goals. Society for Personality and Social
Psychology, 22(3), 280-287.
Liu, W., & Fang, C. (2010). The effect of different motivation factors on knowledgesharing willingness and behavior. Social Behavior and Personality, 38(6), 753758.
Liu, W. C., Wang, C. K. J., Tan, O. S., Koh, C., & Ee, J. (2009). A self-determination
approach to understanding students’ motivation in project work. Learning and
Individual Differences, 19, 139-145.
Low, G. S., Cravens, D. W., Grant, K., & Montcrief, W. C. (2001). Antecedents and
consequences of salesperson burnout. European Journal of Marketing, 35(5),
587-611.
Maslach, C. A. (1982). Burnout: The cost of caring. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Nadler, A. (1991). Help-seeking behavior: Psychological costs and instrumental benefits.
In M. S. Clark (Ed.), Prosocial behavior: Review of personality and social
psychology (Vol. 12, pp. 290–311). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Nadler, A. (2002). Inter-group helping relations as power relations: Maintaining or
challenging social dominance. Journal of Social Issues, 58, 487–502.
Nadler, A., & Fisher, J. D. (1986). The role of threat to self-esteem and perceived control
in recipient reaction to help: Theory development and empirical validation. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 81–121).
Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Nielsen, K., Randall, R., Yarker, J., & Brenner, S. (2008). The effects of transformational
leadership on followers’ perceived work characteristics and psychological wellbeing: A longitudinal study. Work & Stress, 22(1), 16-32.
63
Ntoumanis, N. (2002). Motivational clusters in a sample of British physical education
classes. Psychology of Sport and Exercise, 3, 177-194.
Ratelle, C. F., Guay, F., Vallerand, R. J., Larose, S., & Senécal, C. (2007). Autonomous,
controlled, and amotivated types of academic motivation: A person-oriented
analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 734-746.
Raudenbush, S., & Bryk, A. (2002). Hierarchical linear models. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.
Roth, G., Assor, A., Kanat-Maymon, Y., & Kaplan, H. (2007). Autonomous motivation
for teaching: How self-determined teaching may lead to self-determined learning.
Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(4), 761-774.
Ryan, R. M. (1995). Psychological needs and the facilitation of integrative processes.
Journal of Personality, 63(3), 397-427.
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.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2007). Self-regulation and the problem of human autonomy:
Does psychology need choice, self-determination, and will? Journal of
Personality, 74(6), 1557-1586.
Ryan, R. M. & Frederick, C. (1997). On energy, personality, and health: Subjective
vitality as a dynamic reflection of well-being. Journal of Personality, 65(3), 529565.
Schaufeli, W. B. (2004). The future of occupational health psychology. Applied
Psychology: An International Review, 53(4), 502-517.
Seligman, M. E. P., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. (2000). Positive psychology: An
introduction. American Psychologist, 55(1), 5-14.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1998). Not all personal goals are personal: Comparing
autonomous and controlled reasons for goals as predictors of effort and
attainment. Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 24(5), 546-557.
Sheldon, K. M., & Elliot, A. J. (1999). Goal striving, need satisfaction, and longitudinal
well-being: The self-concordance model. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 76, 482–497.
64
Sheldon, K. M., & Houser-Marko, L. (2001). Self-concordance, goal attainment, and the
pursuit of happiness: Can there be an upward spiral? Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 80(1), 152-165.
Sheldon, K. M., & Niemiec, C. P. (2006). It’s not just the amount that counts: Balanced
need satisfaction also affects well-being. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 91(2), 331-341.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Kasser, T. (2004). The independent effects
of goal contents and motives on well-being: It’s both what you pursue and why
you pursue it. Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 30(4), 475-486.
Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R., & Reis, H. T. (1996). What makes for a good day?
Competence and autonomy in the day and in the person. Society for Personality
and Social Psychology, 22(12), 1270-1279.
Tremblay, M. A., Blanchard, C. M., Taylor, S., Pelletier, L. G., & Villeneuve, M. (2009).
Work extrinsic and intrinsic motivation scale: Its value for organizational
psychology research. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 41(4), 213-226.
Vallerand, R. J., & Bissonnette, R. (1992). Intrinsic, extrinsic, and amotivational styles as
predictors of behavior: A prospective study. Journal of Personality, 60(3), 599620.
Van den Broeck, A., Vansteenkiste, M., & de Witte, H. (2008). Self-determination
theory: A theoretical and empirical overview in occupational health psychology.
In Occupational Health Psychology: European Perspectives on research,
education, and practice (pp. 63-88). Nottingham University Press.
Vansteenkiste, M., Neyrinck, B., Niemiec, C. P., Soenens, B., De Witte, H., & Van den
Broeck, A. (2007). On the relations of work value orientations, psychological
need satisfaction and job outcomes: A self-determination theory approach.
Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 80, 251-277.
Weinstein, N., & Ryan, R. M. (2010). When helping helps: Autonomous motivation for
prosocial behavior and its influence on well-being for the helper and its recipient.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 98(2), 222-244.
Wharton, A. (1993). The affective consequences of service work: Managing emotions on
the job. Work and Occupations, 20(2), 205-232.
Wilson, P. M., Rodgers, W. M., Blanchard, C. M., & Gessell, J. (2003). The relationship
between psychological needs, self-determined motivation, exercise attitudes, and
physical fitness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 33(11), 2373-2392.
Woodman, R. W., Sawyer, J. E., & Griffin, R. W. (1993). Toward a theory of
organizational creativity. Academy of Management Review, 18(2), 293-321.
65
Wright, T. A., & Cropanzano, R. (2000). The role of organizational behavior in
occupational health psychology: A view as we approach the millennium. Journal
of Occupational Health Psychology, 5(1), 5-10.
Zapata-Phelan, C. P., Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & Livingston, B. (2009). Procedural
justice, interactional justice, and task performance: The mediating role of intrinsic
motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108, 93105.
66
APPENDICES
67
APPENDIX A
EVENT-LEVEL MEASURES INCLUDED IN THE
PALM PILOT SURVEYS
Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation Measures modified from Sheldon and Elliot (1999)
Why did you pursue the activity? Please rate the reasons on each of the following items:
1.
Somebody else wanted you to. (Extrinsic)
2.
Because the situation demanded it. (Extrinsic)
3.
Because I would feel bad about myself if I did not do a good job. (Introjected)
4.
Because I would feel guilty if I did not do well. (Introjected)
5.
Because I believe the task is valuable. (Identified)
6.
Because the task is important. (Identified)
7.
The task is enjoyable. (Intrinsic)
8.
The task is interesting. (Intrinsic)
1 = Not at all for this reason
2 = Slightly for this reason
3 = Somewhat for this reason
4 = Mostly for this reason
5 = Very much for this reason
68
Prosocial Motivation Measures modified from Grant and Sumanth (2009)
Why did you pursue the activity? Please rate the reasons on each of the following items:
1.
Because I care about benefiting others through my work. (Prosocial)
2.
Because I want to help others through my work. (Prosocial)
3.
Because I want to have positive impact on others. (Prosocial)
1 = Not at all for this reason
2 = Slightly for this reason
3 = Somewhat for this reason
4 = Mostly for this reason
5 = Very much for this reason
Psychological Vitality Measures modified from Ryan and Frederick (1997)
Rate the extent to which you agree with each item, at the present moment:
1.
I feel alive and vital.
2.
I don’t feel very energetic.
3.
I feel alert and awake.
1= Strongly disagree
2= Disagree
3= Neutral
4= Agree
5= Strongly Agree
Emotional Exhaustion modified from Wharton (1993)
1.
At this moment, I feel emotionally drained.
2.
At this moment, I feel burned out.
69
3.
At this moment, I feel used up.
1= Strongly disagree
2= Disagree
3= Neutral
4= Agree
5= Strongly Agree
70
APPENDIX B
TABLES
71
72
.84 .09** .06** -.10** -.18** -.09** -.48**
.69 .09** .30** .78**
3.62
1.89
3.11
2.97
6. Vitality
7. Emotional
Exhaustion
8. Autonomous
9. Controlled
-.02
.02
.14**
.82**
.24**
.37**
.11**
(.84)
.49**
.99 .73** .87** .38**
.95 .64** .92** .50**
2.71
3.06
.01
.46**
.45**
.75 .80** .40** .40** -.09** .32**
3.76
-.02
.90 .86** .27** .11** -.13** .25**
2.72
.84 .85** .82** .44** -.05** .46**
.69
.16**
(.80)
.77**
-.25*
(.82)
-.65**
.01
-.003
-.01
-.03
-.01
.07**
.09**
.05**
.10**
.09**
.24** -.18**
(.59)
.40** -.32**
.33**
.43** -.37**
.05
.08
7
Means
Table 1 Means, Standard Deviations, Reliabilities, and Correlations of Study Variables
10. Extrinsic
Social
11. Extrinsic
Situation
12. Extrinsic
Social/
Introjected
13. Extrinsic
Situation/
Introjected
3.29 1.00 .34** .43** .45**
5. Prosocial
.80 -.13** .06** .28**_
.50**
.08
2.55
(.88)
.58**
4. Intrinsic
.81 .29** .44**
.24*
-.05
6
3.66
.37**
.36**
5
3. Identified
(.80)
.05
4
2.70 1.24 .39**
3
.47** .34**
2
2. Introjected
.70 (.45)
1
3.24
Means S.D.
1. Extrinsic
Variables
.30**
.22**
.18**
-.01
.23**
(.67)
-.36**
.44**
.73**
.86**
.87**
.35**
.23*
8
.93**
.96**
.73**
.69**
(.59)
.35**
.07
.04
.57**
.19
.41**
.93**
.76**
9
.37**
.71**
.39**
--
.66**
.01
.11
-.11
.23*
-.06
.08
.41**
.87**
10
.73**
.49**
--
.65**
.62**
.41**
.02
.05
.38**
.16
.54**
.38**
.81**
11
.86**
(.54)
.45**
.45**
.98**
.30**
.07
.03
.55**
.18
.33**
.96**
.66**
12
(.62)
.95**
.60**
.95**
.97**
.41**
.05
.08
.60**
.25*
.47**
.97**
.62**
13
Table 2
HLM Estimates of Models
Variable
Within-Person
Variance (σ2)
Between-Person
Variance (τ00)
% of total
variance that is
within persons
Extrinsic
1.10
.46
71.69%
Extrinsic Social/Introjected
.79
.95
45.45%
Extrinsic
Situation/Introjected
.77
.88
46.73%
Extrinsic Social
1.85
.76
70.75%
Extrinsic Situation
1.32
.53
71.33%
Controlled
.72
.69
51.03%
Intrinsic
1.05
.61
63.45%
Autonomous
.62
.47
56.98%
Prosocial
1.02
.98
50.90%
Psychological Vitality
.47
.47
50.26%
Emotional Exhaustion
.55
.69
44.29%
Note. % of total variance that is within-person was computed using the formula σ2 / (σ2 +
τ00).
73
Table 3
Overall Results for Vitality
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Prosocial
0.039** [0.02]
0.045** [0.02]
0.045** [0.02]
Autonomous
0.205** [0.02]
0.204** [0.02]
0.208** [0.02]
Controlled
-0.033* [0.02]
-0.032* [0.02]
-0.029 [0.02]
Prosocial x
---
0.005 [0.01]
0.001 [0.01]
Prosocial x Controlled
---
0.016 [0.01]
0.015 [0.01]
Autonomous x
---
-0.010 [0.02]
-0.014 [0.02]
---
---
-0.012 [0.01]
0.120
0.134
0.136
0.015
0.002
Autonomous
Controlled
Prosocial x
Autonomous x
Controlled
Pseudo-R2
Δ R2
*p < .10 **p < .05
74
Table 4
Overall Results for Emotional Exhaustion
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Prosocial
-0.083** [0.02]
-0.081** [0.02]
-0.080** [0.02]
Autonomous
-0.165** [0.03]
-0.162** [0.03]
-0.162** [0.03]
Controlled
0.135** [0.02]
0.138** [0.02]
0.136** [0.02]
Prosocial x
---
0.007 [0.02]
0.010 [0.02]
Prosocial x Controlled
---
-0.007 [0.01]
-0.007 [0.01]
Autonomous x
---
0.013 [0.02]
0.016 [0.02]
---
---
0.007 [0.01]
0.140
0.160
0.162
0.020
0.002
Autonomous
Controlled
Prosocial x
Autonomous
x Controlled
Pseudo-R2
Δ R2
*p < .10 **p < .05
75
Table 5
Extrinsic Social Results for Vitality
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Prosocial
0.039** [0.02]
0.044** [0.02]
0.044** [0.02]
Autonomous
0.205** [0.02]
0.206** [0.02]
0.210** [0.02]
Extrinsic Social and
-0.034** [0.02]
-0.036** [0.02]
-0.033* [0.02]
Prosocial x Autonomous
---
0.005 [0.01]
0.002 [0.01]
Prosocial x Extrinsic
---
0.012 [0.01]
0.012 [0.01]
---
-0.003 [0.02]
-0.003 [0.02]
---
---
-0.011 [0.01]
0.114
0.124
0.126
0.011
0.002
Introjected
Social/Introjected
Autonomous x Extrinsic
Social/Introjected
Prosocial x Autonomous
x Extrinsic
Social/Introjected
Pseudo-R2
Δ R2
*p < .10 **p < .05
76
Table 6
Extrinsic Social Results for Emotional Exhaustion
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Prosocial
-0.082** [0.02]
-0.080** [0.02]
-0.079** [0.02]
Autonomous
-0.162** [0.03]
-0.158** [0.03]
-0.157** [0.03]
Extrinsic Social and
0.129** [0.02]
0.131** [0.02]
0.129** [0.02]
Prosocial x Autonomous
---
0.010 [0.02]
0.013 [0.02]
Prosocial x Extrinsic
---
-0.007 [0.01]
-0.007 [0.01]
---
0.012 [0.02]
0.015 [0.02]
---
---
0.010 [0.01]
0.137
0.157
0.160
0.020
0.003
Introjected
Social/Introjected
Autonomous x Extrinsic
Social/Introjected
Prosocial x Autonomous
x Extrinsic Social/Introjected
Pseudo-R2
Δ R2
*p < .10 **p < .05
77
Table 7
Extrinsic Situation Results for Vitality
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Prosocial
0.040** [0.02]
0.044** [0.02]
0.046** [0.02]
Autonomous
0.210** [0.02]
0.214** [0.02]
0.219** [0.02]
Extrinsic Situation and
-0.043** [0.02]
-0.046** [0.02]
-0.042** [0.02]
Prosocial x Autonomous
---
0.009 [0.01]
0.005 [0.01]
Prosocial x Extrinsic
---
0.012 [0.01]
0.013 [0.01]
---
-0.013 [0.02]
-0.019 [0.02]
---
---
-0.014* [0.01]
0.126
0.137
0.138
0.011
0.001
Introjected
Situation/Introjected
Autonomous x Extrinsic
Situation/Introjected
Prosocial x Autonomous x
Extrinsic
Situation/Introjected
Pseudo-R2
Δ R2
*p < .10 **p < .05
78
Table 8
Extrinsic Situation Results for Emotional Exhaustion
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Prosocial
-0.077** [0.02]
-0.076** [0.02]
-0.077** [0.02]
Autonomous
-0.175** [0.03]
-0.170** [0.03]
-0.172** [0.03]
Extrinsic Situation and
0.128** [0.02]
0.132** [0.02]
0.130** [0.02]
Prosocial x Autonomous
---
0.003 [0.01]
0.007 [0.02]
Prosocial x Extrinsic
---
0.002 [0.01]
0.001 [0.01]
---
0.024 [0.02]
0.029 [0.02]
---
---
0.014 [0.01]
0.144
0.164
0.164
0.019
0.001
Introjected
Situation/Introjected
Autonomous x Extrinsic
Situation/Introjected
Prosocial x Autonomous
x Extrinsic
Situation/Introjected
Pseudo-R2
Δ R2
*p < .10 **p < .05
79
Table 9
Intrinsic/Extrinsic Results for Vitality
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Prosocial
0.055** [0.02]
0.059** [0.02]
0.056** [0.02]
Intrinsic
0.144** [0.02]
0.141** [0.02]
0.144** [0.02]
Extrinsic
0.015 [0.01]
0.018 [0.01]
0.020 [0.01]
Prosocial x Intrinsic
---
0.004 [0.01]
0.001 [0.01]
Prosocial x Extrinsic
---
0.004 [0.01]
0.002 [0.01]
Intrinsic x Extrinsic
---
0.007 [0.01]
0.005 [0.01]
Prosocial x Intrinsic x
---
---
-0.007 [0.01]
0.123
0.135
0.135
0.012
0.0004
Extrinsic
Pseudo-R2
Δ R2
*p < .10 **p < .05
80
Table 10
Intrinsic/Extrinsic Results for Emotional Exhaustion
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Prosocial
-0.079** [0.02]
-0.076** [0.02]
-0.079** [0.02]
Intrinsic
-0.117** [0.02]
-0.118** [0.02]
-0.112** [0.02]
Extrinsic
0.052** [0.02]
0.051** [0.02]
0.051** [0.02]
Prosocial x Intrinsic
---
0.022 [0.01]
0.019 [0.01]
Prosocial x Extrinsic
---
0.002 [0.01]
0.005 [0.01]
Intrinsic x Extrinsic
---
-0.021 [0.01]
-0.022* [0.01]
---
-0.009 [0.01]
0.154
0.159
0.026
0.005
Prosocial x Intrinsic x --Extrinsic
Pseudo-R2
0.127
Δ R2
*p < .10 **p < .05
81
Table 11
Intrinsic/Extrinsic Social Results for Vitality
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Prosocial
0.057** [0.02]
0.058** [0.01]
0.056** [0.01]
Intrinsic
0.146** [0.02]
0.144** [0.02]
0.148** [0.02]
Extrinsic Social
0.003 [0.01]
0.006 [0.01]
0.009 [0.01]
Prosocial x Intrinsic
---
0.001 [0.01]
-0.002 [0.01]
Prosocial x Extrinsic
---
0.002 [0.01]
-0.001 [0.01]
---
0.014* [0.01]
0.014* [0.01]
---
---
-0.008 [0.01]
0.117
0.125
0.127
0.009
0.002
Social
Intrinsic x Extrinsic
Social
Prosocial x Intrinsic x
Extrinsic Social
Pseudo-R2
Δ R2
*p < .10 **p < .05
82
Table 12
Intrinsic/Extrinsic Social Results for Emotional Exhaustion
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Prosocial
-0.074** [0.02]
-0.072** [0.02]
-0.073** [0.02]
Intrinsic
-0.119** [0.02]
-0.118** [0.02]
-0.110** [0.02]
Extrinsic Social
0.043** [0.01]
0.038** [0.01]
0.039** [0.01]
Prosocial x Intrinsic
---
0.021 [0.01]
0.018 [0.02]
Prosocial x Extrinsic
---
-0.001 [0.01]
-0.002 [0.01]
---
-0.021** [0.01]
-0.016* [0.01]
---
---
-0.003 [0.01]
0.123
0.146
0.155
0.023
0.008
Social
Intrinsic x Extrinsic
Social
Prosocial x Intrinsic x
Extrinsic Social
Pseudo-R2
Δ R2
*p < .10 **p < .05
83
Table 13
Intrinsic/Extrinsic Situation Results for Vitality
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Prosocial
0.055** [0.02]
0.060** [0.02]
0.058** [0.02]
Intrinsic
0.144** [0.02]
0.141** [0.02]
0.141** [0.02]
Extrinsic Situation
0.013 [0.01]
0.017 [0.01]
0.0189 [0.01]
Prosocial x Intrinsic
---
0.010 [0.01]
0.007 [0.01]
Prosocial x Extrinsic
---
0.007 [0.01]
0.008 [0.01]
---
-0.012 [0.01]
-0.012 [0.01]
---
---
-0.002 [0.01]
0.133
0.143
0.147
0.010
0.004
Situation
Intrinsic x Extrinsic
Situation
Prosocial x Intrinsic x
Extrinsic Situation
Pseudo-R2
Δ R2
*p < .10 **p < .05
84
Table 14
Intrinsic/Extrinsic Situation Results for Emotional Exhaustion
Model 1
Model 2
Model 3
Prosocial
-0.069** [0.02]
-0.065** [0.02]
-0.065** [0.02]
Intrinsic
-0.123** [0.02]
-0.122** [0.02]
-0.121** [0.02]
Extrinsic Situation
0.027* [0.01]
0.030** [0.01]
0.029** [0.01]
Prosocial x Intrinsic
---
0.017 [0.01]
0.016 [0.01]
Prosocial x Extrinsic
---
0.015 [0.02]
0.017 [0.02]
---
-0.006 [0.01]
-0.007 [0.01]
---
---
-0.005 [0.01]
0.129
0.155
0.156
0.026
0.002
Situation
Intrinsic x Extrinsic
Situation
Prosocial x Intrinsic x
Extrinsic Situation
Pseudo-R2
Δ R2
*p < .10 **p < .05
85
APPENDIX C
GRAPHS OF INTERACTIONS
86
87
88
89
APPENDIX D
IRB APPROVAL
90