Bridging the research traditions of task/ego involvement and intrinsic/extrinsic motivation: Comment on Butler (1987).

In an experiment on the effects of different feedback conditions on motivationally relevant variables, Butler (1987) tested the hypothesis that the effects of feedback on intrinsic motivation would depend on whether that feedback promotes a task-involving or ego-involving orientation. She interpreted the findings as they relate to Nicholls's theory of task/ego involvement and our cognitive evaluation theory (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Although the data were very interesting, Butler failed to review a series of highly relevant studies, she misportrayed cognitive evaluation theory, and she drew conclusions that were not necessarily warranted given her experimental manipulations and data. This article provides a commentary on that research and presents a discussion of the relation between the two theories that Butler claimed to have tested. In a recent article, Butler (1987) attempted to the traditions of research on task/ego involvement and intrinsic/ extrinsic motivation and to provide an apparent between two current theories relevant to student motivation and performance, namely, Nicholls's (1979, 1984b) theory of ego versus task involvement and Deci and Ryan's (1980, 1985) cognitive evaluation theory. Unfortunately, the Butler article did not achieve either objective, being neither a new bridge nor an appropriate critical test. First, although unacknowledged in her article, the two areas of task/ego involvement and intrinsic/extrinsic motivation have been bridged for seven years by a series of empirical investigations and theoretical discussions. Second, her presentation has failed to provide a critical test of the theories, in part because she misrepresented cognitive evaluation theory. And third, her conclusions are subject to alternative interpretations given her specific experimental manipulations and results. In this comment, we will elaborate those three points and discuss the comparison of Nicholls's theory and ours.