Responses to the Query about the Arizona Ballot and Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation.08.08.2006

Here was my query:

Since my retirement I have become interested in the American political process -- I am a volunteer with Common Cause. I also try to apply my, rapidly obsolescing OB knowledge to things that go on politically.
Shortly, the Arizona ballot will include a proposal to set up a state lottery type of system whereby every vote cast in the Primaries and General elections will be entered into a lottery with one prize of $1 million.
The proponents of this argue that this will increase the number of people that vote and will also encourage those new voters to try to understand the issues at stake in the election.
This seems to me to be a case of adding an extrinsic reward (the lottery prize, albeit with a small expected value) to a situation, voting, where there is a already a modicum of intrinsic motivation.
So, what do you think based on motivation theory: are the proponents correct and people will develop a deeper understanding
OR
will intrinsic motivation be undermined?
OR
what conditions can Arizona create to ensure that the intrinsic motivation of voters is NOT undermined, or better is enhanced?

I will post, anonymously (or give credit if you prefer), responses on my LTE/Op-ED website URL: http://home.comcast.net/~evansmgmtutor/wsb/lettersandopeds/letterindex.html
Thank you for your interest!

The responses are presented in order of appearance at my desk.

Here is the Index

 

1. I have no insight to add in terms of motivation theory. However, as an Arizona resident who has closely followed this debate, I wanted to point out the jury pool issue. Arizona relies entirely on registered voters for its jury pools and numerous polls and anecdotal evidence suggests that many Arizonans refuse to register in order to avoid jury duty.
Such residents could not be considered "civic-minded." As well, one has to wonder if a small chance at a prize (perhaps of equivalent value to a few dollars of lottery tickets) would even be an effective extrinsic motivator for residents who have already demonstrated they are swayed by the existing incentive to not vote.

Back to Index

2. Interesting. I read something the other day about the "blurriness" of the intrinsic/ extrinsic motivation distinction, but of course I can't put my finger on it.
Reiss (2005) opines that: "The undermining effect of extrinsic reward on intrinsic motivation remains unproven." That paper is here: http://nisonger.osu.edu/bhan_a28_01.1-14.pdf

Maybe the Arizona voters could only claim the lottery prize contingent on a test of issues knowledge?

Back to Index

3. This is a farce. People will go vote just to get a chance on the lottery without one thought about politics. What are they thinking?

Back to Index

4. Unintended consequences: This could encourage people to figure out ways to vote more than once!

Back to Index

5. This idea is gross, stupid, absurd, brainless, foolish, puerile, irresponsible, incompetent, moronic, asinine, ridiculous, silly, and insane.

Back to Index

6. To me it will be a sad day if people will have to be "bribed" to vote. Stimulating voting in this manner raises several ethical questions to me. Will such a vote mean anything? Will the person even know or care who he or she is voting for? Can such a vote count the same as someone who was intrinsically motivated to vote, voting to make a difference? I believe even a low voting turnout is much better than a "synthetic" high turnout. In terms of motivation theory, I expect that such a step can be a demotivator to vote to those people that would have been intrinsically motivated to vote. In other words, it can lead to people that takes voting sincerely not to vote anymore.

Back to Index

7. To modify slightly anon's perspective [#3], I think that not all "people" as he refers to them, will vote only to get a free chance at the lottery, but I believe that many if not most new voters at the margin will vote precisely for that reason. I also feel that they will fail to recognize or acknowledge any responsibility to understand issues and candidates sufficiently to develop and vote well formed convictions. I agree completely with anon's [3] ending question.

Back to Index

8. The following might be relevant to your issue:
Kerr, Steven. On the folly of rewarding A, while hoping for B. [Book; Edited Book] Vecchio, Robert P (Ed). (1997). Leadership: Understanding the dynamics of power and influence in organizations. (pp. 246-256). xiii, 577 pp. Notre Dame, IN, US: University of Notre Dame Press. Editor's Note. The original source is: Kerr, Steven. On the Folly of Rewarding A, While Hoping for B. Academy of Management Journal, Dec 1975, Vol. 18 Issue 4, p769-783.

Back to Index

9. On the other hand, from a self-perception theory standpoint, perhaps the very action of going to the polls, even if for the wrong reasons, might spur people to think about the issues more than they would have otherwise. After all, the extrinsic motivator doesn´t tell them who to vote for, and if the issue were framed such that the money were interpreted as a "valuing" rather than "controlling" stimulus, it might increase intrinsic interest in the election.
I too think it is sad to bribe people into the public sphere. Personally, I would rather promote democracy through public discussion projects rather than voting, as lack of informed public discourse seems to me the root of the problem. But, then again, I think Martin´s question is a good one, not to be dismissed so lightly,

Back to Index

10. A skeptic with regard to incentive in organizations I remain a skeptic about this proposal. Think about who this will attract. Those who want a million will come to vote in an uninformed manner. They will come to pull a lever just like a slot machine and will not take the time to think about what it is they are voting about. They are likely to be overly influenced by commercials for candidates. I don't think that is the type of voter this country needs. I am less concerned about incentives driving out intrinsic motivation of those who are already voting. They will continue to vote for the same reason. I also don't think, as I suggest above, that incentive driven behavior will become intrinsically driven behavior. To my knowledge there is not evidence for that. It is much more likely that voting behavior will be become functionally autonomous in the Allport sense.

Back to Index

11. Now, what you [#5] are saying is that you disagree with this?

Back to Index

12. Thanks so very much for your e-mail and info. It is rare that I come across a current issue that is so clear and that I can use as a very direct application of intrinsic/extrinsic motivation. It will make for a very good homework exercise for the OB students. How they frame their arguments for a very current application issue makes for a great assignment and the AZ voting one is a nice one for discussion on motivation and if the lottery isn't the answer, then a more interesting discussion can revolve around alternatives.

Back to Index

13. From a research perspective I believe that the undermining of intrinsic motivation by extrinsic rewards has not been demonstrated to my satisfaction. I don't believe that in this case there would be any effect on those who are already voting of adding the proposed lottery, with the possible exception of those who morally object to the concept of gambling (you may find that there are actually many folks in Arizona that have that opinion).
I would more question the underlying logic of the whole idea. It seems to me that the voting rate is a reflection of the amount of engagement by a population in political thought and involvement. What you want in a population is highly engaged citizens who are knowledgeable about issues and care about the process. The voting rate is one measure of that engagement.
Increasing the voting rate by way of a lottery may increase voting, but it will not likely result in better informed and engaged citizens. In my mind getting people who are not voting to vote by this method (assuming that it would work) would be detrimental to the political process.
Voting is the way that people let their opinions be known to their representatives. Those who don't vote are also letting their opinion be know. That opinion is "I don't care enough about the issue to get off the couch and vote". By involving these people in the voting process without engaging them in the process of understanding and caring about the issues would not promote democracy in my opinion. This suggestion is like putting a band aid on a gunshot wound.

Back to Index

14. I do not believe that this debate is so black and white. Does anyone truly vote based on some democratic-altruism? I think not. Although we would say we vote based on our convictions we also vote to support candidates that will give us what we want. While that is a theoretical model with more mediators than vote -> win, it is a similar model with voting on issues. Vote->get candidate I like->get policy that I like or supports my lifestyle, beliefs, or my profession. So, from an expectancy theory standpoint they are simply lowering the expectancy but raising the valence of the voting outcome. So, maybe there will be a new type of self-serving voter, but they will not be alone in their self-serving motives. We all have that motive to some degree. Just some thoughts. Which, wrong or right, might be more productive that 50 ways to say its stupid.

Back to Index

15. Fascinating instigator of discussion!
I would be particularly curious, if you pursue research in this area, of how immigrants/naturalized citizens feel/act vs. those born here.
Certainly a thought-provoking proposition!

Back to Index

16. The problem for many, I think, is instrumentality - they don't vote because they don't think it matters (e.g. "my one vote won't make a difference") - it does not lead to any positively valent outcome in their minds, and it takes time & hassles (negative valence). Others don't know the candidates well enough or they don't believe there's a big difference between them. These folks have no motivation & some would argue probably should not vote. So, offering extrinsic rewards might affect those who play the lottery thinking their odds are better than they are, but for most, I suspect it will have little impact, and for others, it may get people voting who should probably stay home (my cynical view)....

Back to Index

17. In my view the Arizona voting prize is a very bad idea. The privilege of voting is all that is needed. Anything else undermines it.

Back to Index

18. The below article will be relevant and very interesting to the question at hand: Gneezy, U., Rustichini, A., 2000. Pay enough or don’t pay at all. Quarterly Journal of Economics 115, 791–811. (you can download the article here: http://www.gsb.uchicago.edu/fac/uri.gneezy/vita/qjepayenough.pdf). Here is the abstract: Economists usually assume that monetary incentives improve performance,and psychologists claim that the opposite may happen. We present and discuss a set of experiments designed to test these contrasting claims. We found that the effect of monetary compensation on performance was notmonotonic. In the treatments in which money was offered, a larger amount yielded a higher performance. However, offering money did not always produce an improvement: subjects who were offered monetary incentives performed more poorly than those who were offered no compensation. Several possible interpretations of the results are discussed.
Using the above, I would predict that there would not be any practically-important difference expected from the lottery idea unless the probability of receiving a payoff, and the payoff that will be received are both high. The only sure and quick way to make people vote is to make it the law to vote (as is the case in some European countries).
The problem in the U.S., from my external perspective (and having lived several years), is that there is a lot of voter apathy, which in many ways serves the institutions of power in good stead. Unless the root causes of apathy are identified and addressed voter turnout will always remain paltry.

Back to Index

19. Very interesting thread! Some follow-up questions for the group.
1. How has "extrinsic motivation" and "intrinsic motivation" typically been operationalized in such studies that simultaneously examine intrinsic and extrinisic motivation? Is "pay" or "economic beneift" the primary extrinsic motivator in such studies? Are there other ways that extrinsic motivation has been operationalized?
2. Is anyone aware of any reviews or meta-analysis on the relationship of extrinsic and intrinsic motivators and performance?

Back to Index

20. This debate has its origins in cognitive evaluation theory, for which numerous conflicting studies on the undermining effects of an extrinsic reward on intrinsic motivation have been conducted, largely in education, health and sports settings. For a nice review of this theory and its limitations for studying behavior in organizations, its subsequent expansion into self-determination theory (SDT) and the implications of SDT for many theories of organizational behavior see Gagne & Deci (2005) Self-determination theory and work motivation, Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 331-362.

Back to Index


21. Bateman & Crant have a working paper that has a good review of the research and the controversy about whether extrsinsic rewards really do undermine intrinsic motivation. You can read their paper here http://www.commerce.virginia.edu/faculty_research/Research/Papers/IMOBHDP24.pdf

Back to Index


22. Basically, the work of Deci and colleagues is probably the most relevant to your both questions below (they argue and show that extrinsic reward undermine intrinsically-motivated behavior). The following should be interesting: Deci, E.L., Ryan, R.M., & Koestner, R. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effect of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin 125, 627-668.
However, extrinsic rewards are quite strongly related to performance:
Jenkins, G. Douglas; Mitra, Atul; Gupta, Nina; Shaw, Jason D. (1998). Are Financial Incentives Related to Performance? A Meta-Analytic Review of Empirical Research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 777-787.
Stajkovic, A. D., & Luthans, F. (2003). Behavioral management and task performance in organizations: Conceptual background, meta-analysis, and test of alternative models. Personnel Psychology, 56, 155-195.
Peterson, S. J., Luthans, F. (2006). The impact of financial and nonfinancial incentives on business-unit outcomes over time. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 156-165,
Hackman and Oldham have done a lot of work in the area too, with the Job Characterics Model. Their instrument, the JDS, is supposed to measure intrinsic motivation. However, meta-analytic results show correlations (with performance) that are not as strong as most would think/expect (see Fried & Ferris, 1987). Their results indicated no relationship between job characteristics and performance. Specifically, the meta-analytic correlations (90% credibility values) between the five job characteristics and rated (objective) performance that Fried and Ferris reported ranged from .00 (task significance and autonomy) to .13 (task identity). The analogous correlations between the three critical psychological states and performance were .03 (knowledge of results) and .00 (experienced meaningfulness and responsibility). For a review and critique see:
De Treville, S., & Antonakis, J. (2006). Could lean production job design be intrinsically motivating? Contextual, configural, and levels-of-analysis issues. Journal of Operations Management, 24(2), 99-123.

Back to Index