Abstract: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 "bridge the traditions" of research on task/ego involvement and intrinsic/ extrinsic motivation and to provide an apparent "critical test" 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.

Theory/Analysis Mismatch: Comment on Fredrickson and Joiner’s (2002) Test of the Broaden-and-Build Theory of Positive Emotions

Testing the validity of the broaden-and build theory of positive emotions: a network analytic approach

What Good Are Positive Emotions?

Positive emotions broaden the scope of attention and thought‐action repertoires

A prospective test of the broaden-and-build model of positive emotions: examining the role of will and ways as temporal mediators of hedonic and eudaimonic well-being in adults

There Is No Empirical Evidence for Critical Positivity Ratios: Comment on Fredrickson (2013)

Resilient Individuals Use Positive Emotions to Bounce Back From Negative Emotional Experiences.

Open hearts build lives: Positive emotions, induced through loving-kindness meditation, build consequential personal resources.

The role of positive emotions in child development: A developmental treatment of the broaden and build theory

The persistence of wishful thinking: Response to "Updated thinking on positivity ratios"

Lessons from debates about foundational positive psychology theories & frameworks: Positivity Ratio, Broaden & Build, Happiness Pie, PERMA to PERMA+4

The complex dynamics of wishful thinking: The critical positivity ratio

Factor Structure of the “Top Ten” Positive Emotions of Barbara Fredrickson

Identifying profiles of affective change: An ecological momentary assessment of flourishers.

Using the Broaden-and-Build Theory to Test a Model of Mindfulness, Affect, and Stress

Appreciative Joy in Buddhism and Positive Empathy in Psychology: How Do They Differ?

Positive Emotions Predict Students’ Well-Being and Academic Motivation: The Broaden-and-Build Approach

The Influence of Positive and Negative Affect on Cognitive Organization: Some Implications for Development

Bridging the Research Traditions of Task/Ego Involvement and Intrinsic/Extrinsic Motivation: Comment on Butler (1987)

What Emotions to Encourage? The Role of High and Low Arousal Positive Emotions in Three Randomized Controlled Trials of Different Positive Psychology Interventions

Not feeling it: lack of robust emotion effects on breadth of attention