作者：Gabriel Recchia

Deci & Ryan的自我决定理论对社会心理学的影响不能不说是巨大的。它是一个经常受到争议的观点的理论来源。这个观点就是，内在刺激（因为使任务变得有趣的固有属性而产生做这个任务的动机）是受到外部奖励（如点数、金钱、徽章等）的损害。这个理论没有被广泛接受：无趣任务提供的外部奖励已经被证明能导致了更大的内部刺激，而两个（有争议的）亚分析也已经提出反映能力的奖励会增加对任务的内在兴趣。Chris Heckler整理文献后提出两个多数研究者都认同的观点：

motivation(from selfmademiracle.hubpages.com)

对于有趣的任务：

1、取决于任务完成度的预期的、有形的奖励（通常）会减少自由选择的内部刺激；

2、口头的、非预期的、信息性的反馈（通常）会增加自由选择和自我报道的内部刺激。

我们着重看第一点。为什么这一点是正确的？有些人认为那是因为我们告诉自己我们要这么做的理由：当看得到奖励时，我们的理由更可能是“因为我会得到奖励”，而不是“因为我想做”。又有些人提出这是因为我们觉得我们被引诱了或被收买了，这导致我们贬低任务的价值——如果必须有人奖励我们，我们才肯做它，那么这个任务本身肯定是不值得做的。这两种看法的共识是，我们对任务的固有价值的信仰导致了内部刺激。这两种情况的危险是，当奖励被移除或变得无趣时，我们对任务的积极性也会消失。

然而，在游戏中，情况就复杂了；因为游戏中的某些有形的、预期的、偶然的奖励也会导致游戏从本质上变得更加有趣。此外，对游戏的某方面来说是外部的奖励可能会为另一方面提供内部刺激，通常以间接或意料之外的方式。 在Jesse Schell在2010的采访中提到一个思维实验表明，让情况变得复杂是多么容易：

“但这正是它变得棘手的地方——内部和外部刺激之间以错综复杂的方式交织在一起。所以，例如，我可能建立 一个分发点数的系统，是的，那完全是外部的。你会说，”好吧，那么从长远看来，这行不通。”

但如果我和我的朋友都习惯它了，我们开始这种比点数多的社交活动，我们现在做这种事不是因为我们为了点数而关心点数，而是因为现在它变得有点儿像我们之间的社交惯例，也就是内部奖励？

所以，这些外部系统有时候可以变成能固定另一种具有内在力量的东西的锚，那就是我认为我们感到一点儿纠结的地方，因为很难预测，也很难计划。”

另一个分析是来自Ted Castronova：

“如果一个人不想做某个任务，但做了这个任务就会得到10美元报酬，我们就说这个人受到外部刺激，但没有内部刺激。

如果这个人不花钱玩某款游戏，我们就说他有内部刺激。他“想”玩游戏。

假如一个人玩一款游戏时不想做某个任务，例如采矿。但如果他采矿并在游戏中出售，他就能得到名为“金片”的东西。所以他就做这个任务了。他是受到外部刺激了还是内部刺激？以下哪一条是正确的？

1、这个人玩游戏是受到内部刺激，因为他不需要奖励，只是单纯地想玩这款游戏。

2、这个人玩游戏的采矿部分是受到外部刺激。

3、采矿是内置于游戏的。因此你的内部刺激中可以嵌入外部刺激。

4、这个人玩游戏部分是因为内部刺激，部分是因为外部刺激。

这就是切入口。根据这个理论，如果游戏具有更多内部刺激，那么它就会让玩家产生更深的沉浸感……游戏可以去掉所有采用外部刺激的机制，所有为了任务而任务的元素。在我看来，这样的游戏环境虽然纯净了，但也太无聊了。”

关于内部刺激的研究表明，如果采矿任务是“有趣的”（无奖励的情况下），那么得到奖励可能使这个任务显得无聊；如果采矿任务是无聊的，那么得到奖励可能使它变得更有趣一些，或可能还是无聊，这取决于你认同哪种理论。

如果我们假设采矿任务是无聊的，那么费功夫做它的人就会更少，这就导致金片在客观上变得更有价值了。另外，自我感知理论认为，独立于实际的经济之外，任务越无聊，奖励就显得越有价值（玩家对自己说，如果没有丰厚的回报，我也不会干这份苦差事）。这是我的推测，但是似乎不显得令人难以置信：具有高度心理价值的游戏内经济系统可以产生更有趣的经济，使玩家更难决定如何分配他的资源，还会产生其他使游戏从本质上变得更有趣的高级现象。所以，正如Schell的例子，消除表面上看似是内部性的机制有可能根除支持玩游戏的内部刺激。

如果我们不能确定消除看似外部性的动机会产生什么效果，那么我们自然会想到的另一个策略就是，放大看似内部性的动机。（本文为游戏邦/gamerboom.com编译，拒绝任何不保留版权的转载，如需转载请联系：游戏邦）

Intrinsic/extrinsic motivation: A false dichotomy?

by Gabriel Recchia

The following blog was, unless otherwise noted, independently written by a member of Gamasutra’s game development community. The thoughts and opinions expressed here are not necessarily those of Gamasutra or its parent company.

Want to write your own blog post on Gamasutra? It’s easy! Click here to get started. Your post could be featured on Gamasutra’s home page, right alongside our award-winning articles and news stories.

The impact of Deci & Ryan’s self-determination theory in social psychology is difficult to overstate. This is the source of the frequently argued point that intrinsic motivation (motivation to do something based on inherent properties of the task that make it interesting or enjoyable) is undermined by extrinsic rewards (i.e., points, money, badges, etc.). The theory is not universally accepted: Extrinsic rewards offered for performing boring tasks have been demonstrated to lead to greater intrinsic motivation, and two (controversial) meta-analyses have argued that rewards that reflect competence increase inherent interest in a task. Chris Heckler has sorted through the literature to illuminate the two points on which most researchers seem to agree:

For interesting tasks,

Expected, tangible rewards that are contingent on task completion (generally) reduce free-choice intrinsic motivation, and
Verbal, unexpected, informational feedback (generally) increases free-choice and self-reported intrinsic motivation.

Let’s focus on the first point. Why is this true? Some argue that it’s because we tell ourselves stories about why we do what we do: when rewards are present, our story is more likely to become “because I’ll get a reward” than “because I want to.” Others say it’s because we feel that we are being cajoled or bribed, which causes us to devalue the task—if someone has to reward us for doing it, it must not be worth doing on its own. In either case, it is our beliefs about the inherent value of the task that drive intrinsic motivation. The danger in both cases is that when the rewards are removed or become uninteresting, our motivation for the task will vanish as well.

However, things get complicated in the case of games, in which some tangible, expected, contingent rewards also happen to make a game more inherently interesting or enjoyable. Furthermore, rewards that are extrinsic to one aspect of a game can provide intrinsic motivation for another, often in an indirect or unpredictable way. A thought experiment from Jesse Schell’s 2010 Gamasutra interview illustrates how easily things can get hairy:

“But this is where it gets tricky — is that intrinsic and extrinsic are tangled in complicated ways. So, for example, I may set up a system of giving out points, right, that’s totally extrinsic. And you would say, “Well, therefore, in the long run, it won’t work.”

Well, but what if me and my friends all kind of get into it, and like we start this kind of social thing about one-upping each other, and we’re now doing it not because we care about the points for the sake of the points, but it now becomes like a little social ritual with us, which is intrinsically rewarding?

So, these extrinsic systems can sometimes become an anchor for something that has intrinsic power, and that part is where I think our brains get a little tangled up, because it’s difficult to predict and it’s difficult to plan for.”

And another from Ted Castronova (reprinted with permission):

“If a man does not want to do a task, but does it in return for $10, we say that he was extrinsically motivated, but not intrinsically motivated. OK.

If the man plays a game and is not paid to do it, we say that he was intrinsically motivated. He “wanted” to.

Suppose a man is playing a game and does not want to perform a task, such as, mining. Yet if he mines ore and sells it in the game, he gets a thing called “gold pieces.” So he performs the task. Is he intrinsically or extrinsically motivated? Which if any of the following are true?

1. The man is intrinsically motivated to play the game, since he wants to do it without any reward other than just playing the game.

2. The man is extrinsically motivated to play a part of the game, the mining.

3. The mining is nested inside the game. Thus you can have extrinsic motivations nested inside intrinsic motivations.

4. The man is motivated partly intrinsically and partly extrinsically to play the game.

Here’s where it cuts. According to the theory, a game is more engaging if it is more intrinsically rewarding… These games could take out all the mechanics that use extrinsic motivation, all the grinding elements. It seems to me that that would be a pure candy environment, and boring.”

The research on intrinsic motivation suggests that if the mining task is “interesting” (in the absence of reward), then receiving a reward is likely to make it seem more dull; if the mining task is dull, receiving a reward might make it seem more interesting, or it might not, depending on whose theory you subscribe to.

If we assume the mining task is dull, then fewer people are likely to put in the effort to perform it, making the resulting gold pieces objectively more valuable. Also, independent of the actual economics, self-perception theory suggests that the duller the task, the more valuable the reward will seem (I wouldn’t be swinging this heavy pick, the player tells herself, if I weren’t getting something totally awesome in return). I’m speculating here, but it doesn’t seem too implausible that having an in-game currency of high psychological value enables a more interesting economy, more difficult and compelling choices about how to allocate one’s resources, and other high-level phenomena that make the game inherently enjoyable. So here, as in Schell’s example, eliminating a mechanic that seems superficially extrinsic is likely to undercut an intrinsic motivator that supports the experience of playing the game as a whole.

If we can’t be sure about the effects of eliminating seemingly extrinsic motivators, a logical alternative strategy would be to amp up seemingly intrinsic ones. In the next post, I’ll talk about how multifaceted theories of motivation provide game designers with more actionable ways to do just that.(source:gamasutra)