Developmental Psychology Copyright 1981 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.

1981, Vol. 17, No. 3, 300-312 0012-1649/81 /1703-0300S00.75

A New Self-Report Scale of Intrinsic Versus

Extrinsic Orientation in the Classroom:
Motivational and Informational Components
Susan Harter
University of Denver

This article reports on a new self-report scale that taps a child's intrinsic versus
extrinsic orientation toward learning and mastery in the classroom. Five separate
dimensions are defined by an intrinsic and an extrinsic pole: preference for chal-
lenge versus preference for easy work, curiosity/interest versus teacher approval,
independent mastery attempts versus dependence on the teacher, independent
judgment versus reliance on the teacher's judgment, and internal versus external
criteria for success/failure. The reliability and factorial validity of the scale have
been adequately demonstrated. Additional validity studies are reported. Higher
order factoring reveals two distinct clusters of subscales: The first three dimen-
sions form one factor and are interpreted as more motivational in nature; the
remaining two are viewed as more cognitive-informational in nature. Develop-
mental data reveal that across Grades 3-9 there is a shift from intrinsic to
extrinsic on the first motivational cluster. Conversely, there is a dramatic de-
velopmental shift from extrinsic to intrinsic on the cognitive-informational clus-
ter. Interpretations for these developmental differences are advanced, and the
educational implications are explored. The discussion focuses on the need to be
precise in our conceptualization and operationalization of the term intrinsic
motivation.

Recent trends within the domain of mo-
tivation have led to an increasing emphasis
An earlier version of this article was presented at the
meeting of the Society for Research in Child Develop-
ment, San Francisco, March 1979. This research was
supported by Grant HD-09613 from the National In-
stitute of Child Health and Human Development, De-
partment of Health, Education and Welfare, U.S. Pub-
lic Health Service.
The author would like to acknowledge the extensive
cooperation of both the school personnel and pupils from
the following school systems, without whose assistance
this scale could not have been constructed: the Cherry
Creek Public School System, the Denver Public School
System, and the Jefferson County Public School System,
all in Colorado; the Ventura School District, Ventura,
California; the Killingworth Public School System and
the Wightwood School, in Connecticut; and the Roch-
ester Public School System, Rochester, New York. The
contributions of Jim Connell and Bob Engstrom were
invaluable in bringing conceptual clarity to the scale
during the various phases of its evolution. I would also
like to thank Ed Deci, from the University of Rochester,
for providing the data from the New York sample.
A manual for the scale is now available for $5.95
from the author.
Requests for reprints should be sent to Susan Harter,
Department of Psychology, University of Denver, Uni-
versity Park, Denver, Colorado 80208.
on the construct of intrinsic motivation (see
Deci, 1975, for a review of many of the the-
oretical models that address this construct).
One approach can be seen in the efforts of
experimental social psychologists, notably
Lepper (1980), Deci (1975), and their col-
leagues, who are empirically examining at-
tributional models that specify the con-
ditions under which extrinsic rewards
undermine intrinsic motivation. One also
finds the concept of intrinsic motivation in
those broad theoretical formulations that
have focused on mastery and competence.
Our own approach has taken White's (1959)
model of effectance motivation as a point of
departure. In his challenge to traditional
drive theory, White proposed a new moti-
vational construct that impels the organism
to engage in mastery attempts. He viewed
this need to deal effectively with the envi-
ronment as intrinsic, postulating that its
gratification produced inherent pleasure.
The effectance motive construct has ob-
vious heuristic appeal, particularly for the
study of the developing child in whom striv-
ings toward mastery and competence are

300
 INTRINSIC VERSUS EXTRINSIC ORIENTATION
universally evident. The global nature of this
construct, however, has made it difficult to
operationalize. White's formulation does not
readily lend itself to an empirical test. Thus
my own efforts have focused on refining and
extending this formulation, casting it within
a developmental framework that could be
examined empirically (see Harter, 1978,
1980, for a complete discussion of this
model).
The present article describes one empiri-
cal effort in this programmatic research,
namely, the construction of a self-report
measure to assess intrinsic motivation in the
elementary school child. A major purpose
was to devise an instrument that would make
it possible to test certain predictions postu-
lated in the model. These involved hy-
potheses concerning the antecedents of in-
trinsic motivation as well as correlates (e.g.,
perceived competence). One central hypoth-
esis was that motivational orientation and
perceived competence should be related such
that children with an intrinsic orientation in
a given domain would have higher perceived
competence in that domain. Conversely,
children with an extrinsic orientation would
have lower feelings of competence.
In constructing a measure sensitive to
these predictions, I was guided by the fol-
lowing general considerations:
1. Rather than view effectance motiva-
tion as a global or unitary construct, we
should attempt to delineate the possible com-
ponents of this motive system.
2. Although White's (1959) major em-
phasis was on the intrinsic properties of ef-
fectance motivation, we should also address
the issue of extrinsic motivation and examine
the relative strength of intrinsic versus ex-
trinsic motivational orientations.
3. We should examine the components of
these motive systems within a developmental
framework, charting ontogenetic change.
4. We should also be sensitive to individ-
ual differences in motivational orientation
within a given developmental level.
5. In our attempts to devise measures that
are psychologically meaningful as well as
psychometrically sound, we should give care-
ful attention to the ecological validity of our
construct.
301
Classroom learning was chosen as a sit-
uation in which the motivational orientation
of the child would be particularly relevant.
As a starting point, I addressed the following
question: To what degree is a child's moti-
vation for classroom learning determined by
her or his intrinsic interest in learning and
mastery, curiosity, and preference for chal-
lenge, in contrast to a more extrinsic ori-
entation in which the child is motivated to
obtain teacher approval and/or grades and
is dependent on the teacher for guidance?
With this as a framework, I delineated
five dimensions of classroom learning that
could be characterized as having both an
intrinsic and an extrinsic motivational pole:
(a) learning motivated by curiosity versus
learning in order to please the teacher, (b)
incentive to work for one's own satisfaction
versus working to please the teacher and get
good grades, (c) preference for challenging
work versus preference for easy work, (d)
desire to work independently versus depen-
dence on the teacher for help, and (e) in-
ternal criteria for success or failure versus
external criteria (e.g., grades, teacher feed-
back) to determine success or failure.
My psychometric efforts were guided by
the following criteria. Although I had iso-
lated components that seemed meaningful,
it was critical to determine whether the scale
structure that I imposed actually emerged
in the children's responses such that subscale
scores could be meaningfully interpreted.
Thus I relied heavily on factor-analytic pro-
cedures in examining the structure of the
scale. Furthermore, to make meaningful de-
velopmental comparisons, it was important
that the factor structure remain stable across
the grade levels examined. I also placed em-
phasis on the internal consistency of given
subscales as a primary index of reliability.
My sensitivity to the tendency for many self-
report measures to pull for socially desirable
responses caused me to devote considerable
energy to the design of a new question for-
mat that would offset this tendency.
The age levels initially selected were third
to sixth grade, although I subsequently ex-
tended the sample to include junior high
school pupils. The initial approach to the
examination of developmental differences
302 SUSAN HARTER
was to use a cross-sectional design across this
grade span.
Method
Subjects
Over 3,000 pupils have participated in various phases
of my scale construction studies. Data have been col-
lected in four states; Connecticut, New York, Colorado,
and California.
Data from six samples are described in this article.
Sample A consisted of 130 third through sixth graders
from Colorado to whom early versions of the scale were
individually administered. The initial scale resulting
from these efforts was then group administered to Sam-
ple B, 780 third through sixth graders from New York,
and to Sample C, 341 third through sixth graders from
California. The revised scale was then group adminis-
tered to Sample D, 761 third through sixth graders from
New York, and to Sample E, 793 third through ninth
graders from California. Sample F, 120 third through
sixth graders from Colorado, was group administered
the final version. In each sample, the socioeconomic level
ranged from lower-middle to upper-middle class. There
were approximately the same number of children at each
grade level, with about the same number of males and
females within each grade.
Original Scale Structure
The content of the initial five subscales, each defined
by an intrinsic and an extrinsic pole, was as follows:
(a) Learning for curiosity versus learning to please the
teacher contrasted asking questions to satisfy one's own
curiosity versus learning because the teacher wanted one
to master the material, (b) Incentive to work for one's
own satisfaction versus working to get grades and please
the teacher pitted a desire to do schpolwork out of per-
sonal interest in learning against learning in order to
meet the teacher's expectations and to insure good
grades, (c) Preference for challenge versus preference
for easy work contrasted a desire to engage in chal-
lenging schoolwork with a preference for merely doing
the easier work assigned by a teacher, (d) Desire to work
independently versus dependence on the teacher pitted
an orientation in which the child chose to work on as-
signments and projects on his or her own against an
orientation in which the child preferred help and assis-
tance from the teacher, (e) Internal criteria of success
and failure versus external criteria contrasted the child's
own judgment about how well she or he did on a test
or an assignment with a reliance on teacher feedback,
marks, or grades as an indication of how well she or he
performed.
Question Format
The question format was one initially devised in the
construction of the Perceived Competence Scale for
Children. The rationale for this format has been de-
scribed in detail in the presentation of that scale (see
Harter, in press). My previous experience with true-
false formats has revealed several problems, the most
critical of which has been their susceptibility to socially
desirable responses. These problems attenuate both the
reliability and the validity of such scales. After consid-
erable pilot work, much of which involved the individual
interviewing of children, I devised a structured alter-
native format in which the child is presented with the
type of question shown in Figure 1.
The child is first asked to decide which kind of kid
is most like him or her and then asked whether this is
only sort of true or really true for him or her. The ef-
fectiveness of this question format lies in the implication
that half of the children in the world (or in one's ref-
erence group) view themselves in one way, whereas the
other half view themselves in the opposite manner. That
is, this type of question legitimizes either choice. The
option of checking "sort of true for me" or "really true
for me" broadens the range of choices over the typical
two-choice format. In addition, none of the choices in-
volve the response false. Rather, the child must decide
which of the options is most true for him or her.
My confidence in this format was first bolstered by
the fact that the verbal elaborations given for their
choice indicated that children were giving accurate per-
ceptions of their motivational orientations rather than
socially desirable responses. Subsequently, we admin-
istered the Children's Social Desirability Scale (Cran-
dall, Crandall, & Katkovsky, 1965) to Sample F, which
revealed correlations between .09 and —.15 across the
various subscales. Three of the values were negative,
reflecting a slight tendency for socially desirable re-
sponses to be correlated with an extrinsic orientation.
Earlier versions of the scale contained from six to
eight items per subscale. Each item was scored on an
ordinal scale from 1 to 4, where a score of 1 indicated
the maximum extrinsic orientation and a score of 4 in-
dicated the maximum intrinsic orientation. Thus, in the
example given above, children who indicate that they
know if they have made a mistake without checking
with the teacher and describe this as really true for
themselves would receive a 4. Children for whom this
part of the statement is only sort of true would receive
a 3. Children who indicate that they need to check with
the teacher and describe this as sort of true would receive
a 2, and children for whom this second part of the state-
ment is really true would receive a 1. Items were coun-
terbalanced within each subscale such that half of them
began with a statement reflecting an intrinsic orientation
and half with an extrinsic orientation. Subscale means
were then obtained by averaging the item scores.
Results
Pilot Data on the Original Version
As emphasized above, it was important to
demonstrate the factorial validity of the
scale to interpret the dimensions of class-
room motivation as meaningful subscales.
Considerable exploratory work with individ-
ual children (Sample A) resulted in a pool
 INTRINSIC VERSUS EXTRINSIC ORIENTATION 303

Really Sort of Sort of Really

True True True True
for Me for Me for Me for Me

Some kids know when Other kids need to check

they've made mistakes BUT with the teacher to know
without checking with the if they've made a mistake
teacher
Figure I . Sample item.

of items that were comprehensible to ele- than two consecutive items are keyed in the
mentary school children and appeared to tap same direction. Each item could receive a
the orientations in question at the item level. score of from 1 to 4. Item scores are summed
The scale was then group administered for a given subscale, and a mean is calcu-
to two separate samples of third-, fourth-, lated for each separate subscale. Given the
fifth-, and sixth-grade children, 780 in New focus on isolating the components of moti-
York (Sample B) and 341 in California vational orientation, based on identifiable
(Sample C). The resulting factor structures factors, no total scale score is calculated be-
were virtually identical and revealed that cause such a score would mask subscale dif-
three of the initial five dimensions described ferences manifest in the profiles of individual
here in terms of their intrinsic pole emerged children.
as clear and interpretable factors, although
not perfectly defined by all of the particular Factorial Validity of the Revised Scale
items included to tap these dimensions.
These three were preference for challenge, Factor analyses were performed on data
independent mastery, and internal criteria collected on the revised scale from a New
for success failure. Two of the initial di- York sample of 761 third, fourth, fifth, and
mensions, incentive to work for one's own sixth graders (Sample D) and a California
satisfaction and curiosity, merged as a single sample of 793 pupils, third through ninth
factor. Finally, one new factor emerged. grades (Sample E). Although both orthog-
Examination of the particular items defining- onal and oblique solutions reveal the same
that factor indicated that it could be mean- basic factor structure, the oblique rotations
ingfully interpreted as independent judg- are presented here. Although it was assumed
ment versus reliance on the teacher. that individuals would show differences
Thus items were reorganized to define this across the five subscales, it was also antici-
new subscale structure and additional items pated that there would be a moderate rela-
were written where necessary to determine tionship among subscale scores. Thus an
whether an interpretable five-factor solution, oblique solution, which allows the factors to
reflecting these dimensions, would emerge. intercorrelate, was considered to be the most
appropriate. Cattell's (1962) "scree" test,
Revised Scale Structure which uses criteria based on the magnitude
of the eigenvalues, indicated that five factors
The five subscales, described in terms of should be extracted.
their intrinsic and extrinsic poles, are pre- The factor pattern for the third through
sented in Table 1. Sample items are given sixth graders in Sample D is presented in
in Table 2. The revised scale contained 30 Table 3. Item means and standard deviations
items, 6 for each subscale. Within each sub- are also included. There it can be observed
scale, 3 of the items begin with the intrinsic that the five factors emerge, with items load-
orientation and 3 with the extrinsic orien- ing on their designated factors and with vir-
tation. With regard to item order, there were tually no cross-loadings. The factor structure
two constraints: No two consecutive items for the third through ninth graders in Sam-
are from the same subscale, and no more ple E was virtually identical. Average load-
304 SUSAN HARTER

Table 1
Intrinsic Versus Extrinsic Orientation in the Classroom
Subscale dimension Intrinsic pole Extrinsic pole

Preference for challange
vs
Preference for easy work
Curiosity/interest
vs
Pleasing teacher/getting
grades
Independent mastery
vs
Dependence on teacher
Independent judgment
vs.
Reliance on teacher's
judgment
Internal criteria
vs.
External criteria
Does child like hard,
challenging work?
Does child work to satisfy own
interest and curiosity?
Does child prefer to work,
figure out problems on his/
her own?
Does child feel capable of
making judgments about
what to do?
Does child know when she/he
has succeeded/failed on
assignments or tests?
Does child like easier
assignments and subjects?
Does child do schoolwork to
satisfy teacher, get marks
and grades?
Does child rely on teacher
for help and guidance,
particularly when figuring
out problems and
assignments?
Is child primarily dependent
on teacher's opinion and
judgment about what to
do?
Is child dependent on
external sources of
evaluation (e.g., teacher
feedback, grades, marks)?

ings for each of the five subscales in this
sample were .53, .50, .46, .50, and .54, in the
order in which the scales are presented in
Table 3. In this sample, only two items had
moderate cross-loadings on other factors.
The similarity in factor patterns across sam-
ples has also been examined by calculating
congruence coefficients representing the cor-
relation between factor loadings in different
samples. These correlations range from .67
to .84.
Item Means and Standard Deviations
As can be seen in Table 3, item means fall
slightly above the midpoint of 2.5, with stan-
dard deviations of slightly less than 1.0.
These values are highly replicable across
samples. Item means indicate that there are
no ceiling or floor effects for particular
items. The standard deviations reveal the
variability for each item, indicating that sub-
jects are utilizing the entire range of scores.
Reliability
The reliability of each subscale was first
assessed by using a reliability coefficient
(Formula 20 from Kuder & Richardson,
1937) that provides an index of internal con-
sistency. Across samples from New York,
California, and Colorado, reliabilities range
from .78 to .84, .68 to .82, .54 to .78, .72 to
.81, and .75 to .83 for the challenge, mastery,
curiosity, judgment, and criteria subscales,
respectively. (The relatively low reliability
of .54 for the curiosity subscale was based
on only three items, omitting those that were
subsequently revised. The .78 value repre-
sents a reliability estimate based on six
items, which includes the three revised items.)
Test-retest reliability data were collected
after a 9-month period for Sample D and
after 1 year for Sample E, with values rang-
ing from .48 to .63 across the various sub-
scales. Test-retest data from Sample F, col-
lected after a 5-month period, yielded
somewhat higher values, in the .58 to .76
range.
Developmental Trends in Subscale Means
Figure 2 presents the means for each sub-
scale for Grades 3-9 of California Sample
E. This same pattern was replicated in a fol-
 INTRINSIC VERSUS EXTRINSIC ORIENTATION 305

Table 2
Sample Items and Scoring for Each of the Five Subscales
Score Score
Really Sort of Sort of Really
true true true true
for me for me Subscale dimension for me for me

Preference for challenge vs. Preference for easy work

Some kids like to go on to Other kids would rather stick to
new work that's at a more but the assignments that are pretty
difficult level easy to do

Curiosity/interest vs. Pleasing teacher/getting grades

Some kids do extra Other kids do extra projects
projects so they can get but because they learn about things
better grades that interest them

Independent mastery Dependence on teacher

When some kids get stuck Other kids keep trying to figure
on a problem they ask the but out the problem on their own
teacher for help

Independent judgment vs. Reliance on teacher's judgment

Some kids think the Other kids think they should
teacher should decide but have a say in what work they do
what work to do

Internal criteria External criteria

Some kids know whether Other kids need to have grades to
or not they're doing well but know how well they are doing in
in school without grades school

low-up study 1 year later. The trends for pupils become increasingly intrinsic in their
third through sixth grades were replicated orientation. Linear trend analyses indicated
both in New York (Sample D) and in Col- that for all five subscales these trends were
orado (Sample F). significant at p < .001.
As can be seen in the figure, three of the
subscales, preference for challenge versus Intercorrelations Among Subscales
preference for easy work, curiosity/interest
versus teacher approval, and independent Although the emphasis has been on the
mastery versus dependence on the teacher, identification of the components of motiva-
begin with relatively high intrinsic scores in tional orientation, moderate correlations were
the third grade and show a systematic shift anticipated among subscales. These intercor-
toward the extrinsic pole across the grade relations are presented in Table 4 for subjects
levels. The opposite linear trend was ob- from New York and California Samples C
tained for the remaining two subscales, in- and D. For both samples, the intercorrelations
dependent judgment versus reliance on among curiosity, challenge, and independent
teacher's judgment and internal versus ex- mastery are moderate to high. Independent
ternal criteria for success/failure. For the judgment and internal criteria bear a mod-
latter two subscales, third graders are rela- erate relationship to each other but do not
tively extrinsic, and with higher grade levels, correlate as highly with the other three sub-
306 SUSAN HARTER

Table 3
Factor Structure From Oblique Rotation, Based on Data from 761 Third Through Sixth Graders
(Sample D)

Subscale/item description 1 2 3 4 5 M SD

1. Challenge
Like hard, challenging work .73 2.8 .88
Like difficult problems .73 2.8 .88
Learn as much as I can .42 .37 2.9 .94
Like new, difficult work .74 2.9 .83
Like hard school subjects .54 2.9 .81
Find difficult work interesting .58 2.8 .84
2. Curiosity
Work to learn how to solve3
Find out things I want to know .38 2.7 .94
Read out of interest3
Ask questions to learn3
Want extra projects to learn .60 2.5 .97
Work to learn new things .60 2.3 1.03
3. Mastery
Figure out things myself .43 3.1 .73
Figure out mistakes myself .55 2.9 .86
Do hard problems on my own .59 2.7 .88
Make my own plans"
Figure out assignments on my own .29 2.7 .88
Do schoolwork without help .57 2.9 .78
4. Judgment
Like my own ideas better .68 2.5 .86
Stick to my own opinion .70 2.5 .95
Learn things that interest me .50 2.8 .94
Think my opinions are important .54 2.7 .93
Think I should have a say .59 2.4 .92
Feel it's best when I decide when to work .62 2.6 .93
5. Criteria
Know mistakes without the teacher .28 2.7 .78
Know how I'm doing without grades .72 2.8 .97
Know without report card .81 2.7 .93
Know before I get paper back .62 2.6 .94
Know before the teacher tells me .65 2.7 .83
Know when I turn work in .48 2.7 .84

Note, Loadings smaller than .28 not included for the sake of clarity of presentation.
3
Wording of new items subsequently revised.

scales. Higher order factoring revealed that
a two-factor solution best described this sub-
scale pattern, with curiosity, challenge, and
mastery defining one factor and judgment and
criteria defining the second.
Validitv
The initial goal, as noted above, was to
establish the factorial validity of the scale,
Subsequently, I addressed the discriminant
validity of the scale. In one study, differences
between two groups of fourth, fifth, and sixth
graders were predicted. These groups varied
in several respects, each of which I expected
would influence motivational orientation.
The first group consisted of 26 pupils in a
private "open" school from upper-middle-
class families that strongly supported the
educational philosophy espoused by the
school. The school was chosen on the basis
of its emphasis on precisely those principles
 INTRINSIC VERSUS EXTRINSIC ORIENTATION 307

| Preference for Challenge Curiosity/Interest Independent Mastery

2 2-1
Preference for Easy Work Assigned ^ Teacher Approval, Grades Dependence on Teacher

3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3 4 5 6 7

Independent judgment Internal Criteria

2-
Reliance on Teacher's Judgment — External Criteria for Success/Failure
I
4 5 6 7 8 9 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
Grade Level Grade Level

Figure 2. Mean score by grade level for each subscale.

captured by the intrinsic pole of our sub- ferences. The purpose of the comparison was
scales. School personnel reinforced children to show that when several variables, each of
for their intrinsic interest in learning, for which were predicted to influence motiva-
curiosity, for working on their own, and for tional orientation, were compounded in this
setting their own classroom goals. In the fashion, large group differences would re-
comparison group were pupils matched for sult, providing one type of evidence for the
age and sex in a "traditional" public school, validity of the scale. Additional studies are
drawn from lower-middle-class families. necessary to determine the precise contri-
These pupils attended the neighborhood bution of each variable included.
school to which they had been assigned. In a second study (Barter, Silon, & Pike,
Respective mean scores for the two groups Note 1), the scale was administered to 61
were 2.98 versus 1.81 for challenge (p < educable mentally retarded children, ages
.001), 3.10 versus 2.30 for curiosity (p < 10-12, whose primary instruction was con-
.001), 2.80 versus 2.47 for independent mas- ducted in special (segregated) classes. Given
tery (p < .05), 2.92 versus 2.25 for indepen- the intellectual deficits and poor achieve-
dent judgment (p < .001), and 3.00 versus ment history of this group, it was anticipated
1.85 for internal criteria (p < .001). that they should realistically be more ex-
These findings cannot be viewed as dem- trinsic in their orientation, particularly with
onstrating the effects of open education per regard to their dependence on the teacher.
se because social class, related ability levels, Mean scores were 2.62 for challenge, 2.60
and the educational philosophy of the family for curiosity, 2.61 for independent mastery,
may have also contributed to the group dif- 2.07 for independent judgment, and 2.11 for
308 SUSAN BARTER

Table 4 classroom teacher. Correlations between

Intercorrelations Among Subscales teacher and pupil ratings were higher for the
Subscale 1
three motivational subscales (.73 for chal-
lenge, .67 for curiosity, and .61 for mastery)
California sample than for the two informational subscales
1. Challenge — (.52 for judgment and .43 for criteria). This
2. Curiosity .39 — pattern would seem to result from the fact
3. Mastery .48 .34 — that the three motivational subscales may
4. Judgment -.10 -.05 .04 — have clearer behavioral correlates observable
5. Criteria .27 .07 .24 .39 — by the teacher, whereas judgment and cri-
New York sample teria are more attitudinal in nature.
The predictive validity of one subscale,
1. Challenge preference for challenge, has now been ex-
2. Curiosity .56 —
3. Mastery .61 .39 — amined (Harter, Note 2) utilizing a behav-
4. Judgment .10 .14 .24 — ioral task. Children were asked to choose
5. Criteria .33 .33 .33 .38 anagrams—of 3, 4, 5, and 6 letters—rep-
resenting four difficulty levels. The corre-
Note. For California sample, n = 793; for New York lations between the preference for challenge
sample, n = 761.
subscale and the mean number of letters in
the anagrams chosen was .72.
internal criteria. Comparing these values to Finally, I have begun to explore the con-
the normative data presented in Figure 2, struct validity of the scale. A central hy-
it can be seen that, with the exception of the pothesis derived from the model is that per-
curiosity subscale, these children are consid- ceived competence in a particular domain
erably more extrinsic in their orientation should be related to one's motivational ori-
than are their chronological-age peers, entation (i.e., the higher one's perceived
namely, fifth and sixth graders. The differ- competence, the more intrinsic one's orien-
ences are particularly dramatic for indepen- tation). This prediction has been supported
dent judgment and internal criteria, where by correlational data revealing that per-
these low scores reveal considerable reliance ceived cognitive competence is strongly re-
on the teacher's judgment and dependence lated to challenge (r = .57), curiosity
on external criteria for success and failure. (r = .33), and independent mastery (r = .54).
Compared with their mental-age peers, the Correlations with independent judgment and
normal IQ third and fourth graders, these internal criteria are much lower in magni-
children are also more extrinsically oriented, tude (.03 and .26, respectively). Higher or-
with the exception of the independent judg- der factoring reveals that perceived cognitive
ment subscale where the normal sample was competence, challenge, curiosity, and mas-
also relatively extrinsic in orientation. tery form a distinct factor with extremely
The relationship between pupil and teacher high loadings of .76, .87, .70, and .80, re-
ratings was also examined in Sample F. A spectively.
parallel teacher rating scale was constructed
by selecting three items from each sub- Discussion
scale—those with the highest factor load-
ings. The teacher item corresponding to the The findings indicate that the scale con-
sample item given earlier would read: "This struction efforts were successful and that the
pupil knows when he/she has made a mis- criteria described at the outset were met.
take without checking with the teacher" or The instrument is a reliable and valid mea-
"This pupil needs to check with the teacher sure sensitive to individual differences in
to know if he/she has made a mistake." The both intrinsic and extrinsic orientation. The
question format and response choices were new question format has proved quite effec-
comparable to the child's form. Each child tive in eliciting such judgments. The results
was individually rated by her or his main demonstrate that we can meaningfully iso-
 INTRINSIC VERSUS EXTRINSIC ORIENTATION
late five measurable components, as re-
flected in the very clean five-factor solution
obtained. The data strongly support the ar-
gument that one should identify the com-
ponents or dimensions of a construct such
as motivational orientation rather than con-
sider it a global or unitary construct. Had
these efforts been dictated by the latter view-
point, such that one merely summed across
all items and calculated a total scale score,
the distinct developmental trends for sepa-
rate subscales would have been obscured.
Interpretation of Subscale Clusters
Although it was anticipated that the sub-
scales would all correlate to a moderate de-
gree, the intercorrelations, the higher order
factor structure, and the developmental data
all suggest that there are two relatively in-
dependent clusters of subscales. The first is
composed of preference for challenge versus
preference for easy work, curiosity/interest
versus teacher approval, and independent
mastery versus dependence on the teacher.
The second cluster is defined by independent
judgment versus reliance on teacher's judg-
ment and internal versus external criteria for
success/failure. How are these unpredicted
but highly replicable clusters to be inter-
preted?
After a closer examination of the subscale
and item content, the following distinction
emerged. The challenge, curiosity, and mas-
tery subscales each had a definite motiva-
tional flavor in that they tapped issues in-
volving what the child wants to do, likes to
do, and prefers. A child with a high score
on these subscales is telling us that he or she
is intrinsically motivated to engage in the
mastery process. In contrast, the judgment
and criteria subscales seem to tap more cog-
nitive-informational structures. What does
the child know, on what basis does she or he
make decisions, how much has the child
learned about the rules of the game called
"school"? High scorers on these two sub-
scales are telling us that they can make these
judgments rather autonomously.
The developmental data, as well as indi-
vidual profiles, indicate that a child can be
relatively intrinsic on one of these clusters
309
and relatively extrinsic on the other. For ex-
ample, third graders are very intrinsic on the
first cluster, demonstrating strong intrinsic
mastery motivation, but they are very ex-
trinsic with regard to the second cluster, re-
flecting their dependence on the information
provided by the teacher. The pattern for the
ninth graders is just the opposite. Their ex-
trinsic scores on the first cluster suggest that
they are doing assignments to meet teacher
expectations and to get grades. Their rela-
tively high intrinsic scores on the second
cluster suggest that they have acquired suf-
ficient information about the school system
to make their own judgments and to deter-
mine whether or not they are successful.
The findings further highlight the need to
be precise in our use of the term intrinsic
motivation. Too often this term is used
rather loosely, conceptually as well as op-
erationally. Only three of the subscales ap-
pear to be truly motivational in nature,
whereas the remaining two are more infor-
mational. Thus, although this scale was ini-
tially viewed as a scale of motivational ori-
entation, I now view it as a scale of intrinsic
versus extrinsic orientation, with separable
motivational and informational components.
Developmental Trends
Within this framework, how are the de-
velopmental data to be interpreted? Across
Grades 3-9, the dramatic shift from reliance
on teacher's judgment to independent judg-
ment and from external criteria to determine
success to internal criteria made intuitive
sense. It seemed plausible that at higher
grades, children should become more knowl-
edgeable and should be more capable of
making their own judgments as to whether
or not they are successful. The underlying
process would appear to be one in which they
gradually internalize the rules for making
judgments about school-related issues. The
developmental decrease in those three sub-
scales that seemingly tap more motivational
components, however, was open to a more
complex set of interpretations.
Perhaps the most value-laden interpreta-
tion is that our school systems are gradually
stifling children's intrinsic interest in school
310 SUSAN HARTER

learning, specifically with regard to chal- Within this framework, one's motivational
lenge, curiosity, and independent mastery. and/or informational orientation is viewed
Children may also be adapting to the de- as situation specific, as alterable, rather than
mands of the school culture, which rein- as a traitlike construct. Data bearing directly
forces a more extrinsic orientation. This on this issue have been obtained by Deci
trend, however, could be very domain spe- (Note 3). Deci administered this scale to
cific. Though it would appear that one's children whose teachers were characterized
motivation to perform in school is becoming along a continuum ranging from the use of
less intrinsic with age, one's motivation in rewards to control children's behavior to a
other domains may not show this trend. The teaching style in which pupils were encour-
child may be channeling intrinsic interest aged to solve problems on their own. His
into other areas of his or her life (e.g., social findings suggest that pupils readily adapt to
relationships, sports, and other extracurric- the particular teaching style, as evidenced
ular activities). Since this particular scale by the fact that pupils whose teachers used
tapped the cognitive domain only, there are rewards in a controlling manner were more
no data to bear on this interpretation. extrinsic on the cluster of subscales defining
The results from the retarded sample also the motivational component. Conversely,
make sense from the standpoint of this two- children whose teachers fostered indepen-
factor model, isolating motivational and in- dence were more intrinsically motivated.
formational components. It was the latter On the basis of these results, Deci argues
cluster in which the retarded children were that we should view this construct not as
particularly extrinsic in their orientation. traitlike in nature but as one that is sensitive
Given their cognitive limitations, one would to environmental manipulation. Within a
expect them to question their own intrinsic given classroom situation, my data indicate
ability to make autonomous judgments in that children's orientations are relatively sta-
the classroom situation. Thus it would be ble over the 5- to 12-month periods inves-
extremely adaptive for them to rely on the tigated. Deci's findings, however, in con-
teacher's judgment and to look to external junction with the clear age trends that have
criteria in the form of teacher feedback to been documented, indicate the need for fur-
determine how well they were performing. ther research on the developmental as well
as on the environmental determinants.
Intrinsic Motivation as a Construct There is another sense in which we must
be cautious about our use of the term in-
These findings also bear on the tendency trinsic motivation. We must not allow our
to make value judgments about constructs measures to take on a life of their own and
such as intrinsic motivation, viewing it as the become the construct in question. I chose to
more desirable orientation. If one adopts a define intrinsic motivation as an orientation
reality-oriented perspective, it becomes ob- toward learning and mastery in the class-
vious that in certain situations, or with cer- room, pitting it against an extrinsic stance.
tain populations, an extrinsic orientation This definition differs from that of Lepper
may be more adaptive. The data from the (1980) and Deci (1975) where intrinsic mo-
retarded children speak to the issue of pop- tivation is inferred from interest or activity
ulations. One can also envisage situations for level in a given task. In their paradigm, the
individuals of normal or above average in- introduction of tangible rewards is found to
telligence, for example, those requiring guid- attenuate performance and to undermine in-
ance in the mastery of new skills, in which trinsic interest. Approval that conveys com-
an extrinsic orientation would initially be the petence information does not seem to have
most realistic. In such situations, one would this effect. Any convergence between these
predict a shift toward the intrinsic pole as differing approaches to the construct of in-
one internalized the knowledge, the infor- trinsic motivation remains to be investigated.
mation, and the rules necessary to perform Although I initially contrasted intrinsic
the skill. and extrinsic motivation, one can also imag-
 INTRINSIC VERSUS EXTRINSIC ORIENTATION
ine situations in which intrinsic interest and
extrinsic rewards might collaborate, as it
were, to motivate learning. Consider the
child who is curious and enjoys challenging
work but for whom the teacher's approval
is also an incentive. In both paradigms we
need measures sensitive to the independent
assessment of intrinsic and extrinsic factors
to examine those conditions under which
extrinsic rewards compete with intrinsic in^
terest and those in which the two cooperate
to produce a given behavior.
Potential Uses of the Scale
Finally, to what use can such measures be
put? The initial intent was to devise instru-
ments sensitive to my model (Harter, 1978,
1980), which postulates certain antecedents
of motivational orientation as well as cog-
nitive-attitudinal correlates. I have now ex-
amined the relationship between motiva-
tional orientation and two possible correlates,
perceived competence (Harter, in press), and
perceptions of control (Connell, Note 4).
The findings indicate that the three moti-
vational subscales are highly predictive of
the child's sense of competence in the class-
room. Thus it is the child who enjoys the
mastery process, is curious, likes hard work,
and prefers to figure out things indepen-
dently who also feels competent about her
or his cognitive ability. Such a child also
manifests greater actual competence than
does the extrinsically oriented pupil, as as-
sessed by achievement test scores. In addi-
tion, the intrinsically oriented child reports
a greater knowledge of what factors control
the successes and failures in his or her life
and is apt to report that this source is in-
ternal. Thus classroom orientation clearly
predicts perceived competence, actual com-
petence, and perceived control. Our theo-
retical models now need to attend to the
causal relationships among these variables
and to the antecedents of individual differ-
ences and developmental change.
I hope these efforts will also clarify some
confusion surrounding the constructs of in-
trinsic versus extrinsic motivation and inter-
nal versus external locus of control, terms
that are often used interchangeably. In my
311
formulation, motivational orientation refers
to the reasons why children prefer to engage
in a mastery behavior. As operationalized in
the measure, this will reflect either intrinsic
interest or extrinsic approval. The percep-
tions of the control construct refer to attri-
butions concerning the outcome of behavior,
namely, success and failure. Does the child
view himself or herself as responsible (in-
ternal control), someone else as responsible
(external control), or simply not know or
understand the source of control? Having
defined these constructs in this manner, one
can then examine the relationship between
motivational orientation and perceived con-
trol.
In addition to these theoretical consider-
ations, the scale can also be used in applied
settings. It may be included as part of a di-
agnostic battery, particularly with children
in whom school learning problems are cen-
tral. The scale may also be fruitfully em-
ployed in those program evaluation efforts
in which classroom interventions are de-
signed to influence a child's motivation. It
also holds promise as a predictive instru-
ment, a screening device, to determine which
type of educational curriculum may be more
appropriate for a given child. For example,
the scale may help to identify those children
requiring more structure, who are more ex-
trinsic in their orientation, in contrast to
those who seem better able to meet the de-
mands of a more "open" curriculum. Thus,
although my initial focus was more theoret-
ical in nature, I am also interested in the
educational implications of my constructs,
their ecological validity, and I hope to ex-
plore their relevance to actual classroom
learning.
Reference Notes
1. Harter, S., Silon, E., & Pike, R. G. Perceived com-
petence, intrinsic versus extrinsic orientation, and
anxiety in the educable mentally retarded child: A
comparison of mainstreaming and self-contained
classrooms. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Denver, 1980.
2. Harter, S. Perceived competence and its relationship
to preference for challenging tasks. Unpublished
manuscript, University of Denver, 1980.
3. Deci, E. Personal communication, March 15, 1979.
4. Connell, J. P. A multidimensional measure ofchil-
312 SUSAN BARTER

dren's perceptions of control: A comprehensive as-
sessment of the development of children's percep-
tions of control. Unpublished manuscript, University
of Denver, 1980.
References
_ „ „ „ „ , , " . , . .. _,. . estimation of a test reliability. Psychometrika, 1937,
Cattell, R. B. The basis of recognition and interpretation
of factors. Educational and Psychological Measure-
Harter, S. A model of intrinsic mastery motivation in
children: Individual differences and developmental
change. Minnesota Symposium on Child Psychology
(Vol. 14). Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum, 1980.
Harter, S. The perceived competence scale for children.
Child Development, in press.
Kuder, G. F., & Richardson, M. W. The theory of the
, m_ifio
Lep'per> M Intrjnsic and extrinsic motivation in chn.

r*™e1M w '^ r ~ > 11 \i i s> v i , n, A dren: Detrimental effects of superfluous social con-
Crandall, V. C., CrandallIV ]., & Katkovsky W. A tro,s Mimesota Symposium /„ cmd Psychology
chiWren s social desirability questionnaire. Journal (m ]4) Hi,lsdal N^j . Erlbaunl) 1980.
of Consulting Psychology 1965,29, 27-36. wh; R Motivation reconsidered: The concept of com-
motlvatlon New York: Plenum
p'resf 1975 - petence. Psychological Review, 1959, 66, 297-323.
Harter, S. Effectance motivation reconsidered: Toward
a developmental model. Human Development, 1978,
/, 34-64. Received July 25, 1980 •

Manuscripts Accepted for Publication

(Continued from page 288)

The Assessment of Social Competence in Preschoolers: Teachers Versus Peers. Jennifer Connolly (De-
partment of Psychology, Concordia University, Sir George Williams Campus, 1455 De Maisonneuve
Boulevard West, Montreal, Quebec H3G 1M8, Canada) and Anna-Beth Doyle.
Birth Order and Social Experience Differences in Infant-Peer Interaction. Deborah Lowe Vandell (Pro-
gram in Psychology, University of Texas at Dallas, Richardson, Texas 75080), Kathy Shores Wilson,
and William T. Whalen.
Validity of Social Skills Measures in Assessing Social Competence in Children: A Multivariate Inves-
tigation. Frank M. Gresham (Department of Psychology, Iowa State University, Ames, Iowa 50011).
Motives for Helping Behavior Expressed by Kindergarten and School Children in Kibbutz and City.
Daniel Bar-Tal (School of Education, Tel-Aviv University, Tel-Aviv, Israel 420111), Amiram Raviv,
and Naomi Shavit.
Rewarding and Punishing by Mothers: The Influence of Progressive Changes in the Quality of Their
Sons' Apparent Behavior. Richard H. Passman (Department of Psychology, P.O. Box 413, University
of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, Wisconsin 53201) and David Blackwelder.
Age Differences in Motivation Related to Maslow's Need Hierarchy. Barbara L. Goebel (Department
of Psychology, Illinois State University, Normal, Illinois 61761) and Delores R. Brown.
Children's Belief in Photographic Fidelity. Harry Beilin (Department of Psychology, City University
Graduate Center, 33 West 42nd Street, New York, New York 10036), Joseph O'Connor, and Gary
Kose.
Neonatal Imitation: Fact or Artifact? Louise A. Hayes (Institute of Human Development, Edward
Chace Tolman Hall, University of California, Berkeley, California 94720) and John S. Watson.
The Grammar of Action and Children's Printing. Marvin L. Simner (Department of Psychology, Uni-
versity of Western Ontario, London, Ontario N6A 5C2, Canada).
From Exploration to Play: A Cross-Sectional Study of Infant Free Play Behavior. Jay Belsky (Division
of Individual and Family Studies, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802)
and Robert K. Most.
Head Shape and the Perception of Cuteness. Thomas R. Alley (Psychology Department, U-20, University
of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut 06268).
Revisiting Skeel's Final Study: A Critique. Langdon E. Longstreth (Department of Psychology, Uni-
versity of Southern California, University Park, Los Angeles, California 90007).