内部动机量表(IMI)

内部动机量表（IMI）

Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI)

Scale Description | The Scale

Download the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory packet in a

Word file

The Scales

THE POST-EXPERIMENTAL INTRINSIC MOTIVATION

INVENTORY (Below are listed all 45 items that can be used

depending on which are needed.)

For each of the following statements, please indicate how

true it is for you, using the following scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at all true somewhat true very true

Interest/Enjoyment

I enjoyed doing this activity very much

This activity was fun to do.

I thought this was a boring activity. (R)

This activity did not hold my attention at all. (R)

I would describe this activity as very interesting.

I thought this activity was quite enjoyable.

While I was doing this activity, I was thinking about how

much I enjoyed it.

Perceived Competence

I think I am pretty good at this activity.

I think I did pretty well at this activity, compared to other

students.

After working at this activity for awhile, I felt pretty

competent.

I am satisfied with my performance at this task.

I was pretty skilled at this activity.

This was an activity that I couldn’t do very well. (R)

Effort/Importance

I put a lot of effort into this.

I didn’t try very hard to do well at this activity. (R)

I tried very hard on this activity.

It was important to me to do well at this task.

I didn’t put much energy into this. (R)

Pressure/Tension

I did not feel nervous at all while doing this. (R)

I felt very tense while doing this activity.

I was very relaxed in doing these. (R)

I was anxious while working on this task.

I felt pressured while doing these.

Perceived Choice

I believe I had some choice about doing this activity.

I felt like it was not my own choice to do this task. (R)

I didn’t really have a choice about doing this task. (R)

I felt like I had to do this. (R)

I did this activity because I had no choice. (R)

I did this activity because I wanted to.

I did this activity because I had to. (R)

Value/Usefulness

I believe this activity could be of some value to me.

I think that doing this activity is useful for

______________________

I think this is important to do because it can

_____________________

I would be willing to do this again because it has some value

to me.

I think doing this activity could help me to

_____________________

I believe doing this activity could be beneficial to me.

I think this is an important activity.

Relatedness

I felt really distant to this person. (R)

I really doubt that this person and I would ever be friends. (R)

I felt like I could really trust this person.

I’d like a chance to interact with this person more often.

I’d really prefer not to in teract with this person in the future.

(R)

I don’t feel like I could really trust this person. (R)

It is likely that this person and I could become friends if we

interacted a lot.

I feel close to this person.

Constructing the IMI for your study. First, decide which of the

variables (factors) you want to use, based on what theoretical

questions you are addressing. Then, use the items from those

factors, randomly ordered. If you use the value/usefulness items,

you will need to complete the three items as appropriate. In other

words, if you were studying whether the person believes an

activity is useful for improving concentration, or becoming a

better basketball player, or whatever, then fill in the blanks with

that information. If you do not want to refer to a particular

outcome, then just truncate the items with its being useful,

helpful, or important.

Scoring information for the IMI. To score this instrument, you

must first reverse score the items for which an (R) is shown after

them. To do that, subtract the item response from 8, and use the

resulting number as the item score. Then, calculate subscale

scores by averaging across all of the items on that subscale. The

subscale scores are then used in the analyses of relevant

questions.

The following is a 22 item version of the scale that has been

used in some lab studies on intrinsic motivation. It has four

subscales: interest/enjoyment, perceived choice, perceived

competence, and pressure/tension. The interest/enjoyment

subscale is considered the

self-report measure of intrinsic motivation; perceived choice

and perceived competence are theorized to be positive

predictors of both self-report and behavioral measures of

intrinsic motivation. Pressure tension is theorized to be a

negative predictor of intrinsic motivation. Scoring information is

presented after the questionnaire itself.

TASK EVALUATION QUESTIONNAIRE

For each of the following statements, please indicate how

true it is for you, using the following scale:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at all true somewhat true very true

1. While I was working on the task I was thinking about how

much I enjoyed it.

2. I did not feel at all nervous about doing the task.

3. I felt that it was my choice to do the task.

4. I think I am pretty good at this task.

5. I found the task very interesting.

6. I felt tense while doing the task.

7. I think I did pretty well at this activity, compared to other

students.

8. Doing the task was fun.

9. I felt relaxed while doing the task.

10. I enjoyed doing the task very much.

11. I didn’t real ly have a choice about doing the task.

12. I am satisfied with my performance at this task.

13. I was anxious while doing the task.

14. I thought the task was very boring.

15. I felt like I was doing what I wanted to do while I was

working on the task.

16. I felt pretty skilled at this task.

17. I thought the task was very interesting.

18. I felt pressured while doing the task.

19. I felt like I had to do the task.

20. I would describe the task as very enjoyable.

21. I did the task because I had no choice.

22. After working at this task for awhile, I felt pretty

competent.

Scoring information.

Begin by reverse scoring items # 2, 9, 11, 14, 19, 21. In other

words, subtract the item response from 8, and use the result as

the item score for that item. This way, a higher score will indicate

more of the concept described in the subscale name. Thus, a

higher score on pressure/tension means the person felt more

pressured and tense; a higher score on perceived competence

means the person felt more competent; and so on. Then calculate

subscale scores by averaging the items scores for the items on

each subscale. They are as

follows. The (R) after an item number is just a reminder that

the item score is the reverse of the participant’s response on

that item.

Interest/enjoyment: 1, 5, 8, 10, 14(R), 17, 20

Perceived competence: 4, 7, 12, 16, 22

Perceived choice: 3, 11(R), 15, 19(R), 21(R)

Pressure/tension: 2(R), 6, 9(R), 13, 18

The subscale scores can then be used as dependent variables,

predictors, or mediators, depending on the research questions

being addressed.

TEXT MATERIAL QUESTIONNAIRE 1

For each of the following statements, please indicate how

true it is for your, using the following scale as a guide:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at all true somewhat true very true

1. While I was reading this material, I was thinking about how

much I enjoyed

it.

2. I did not feel at all nervous while reading.

3. This material did not hold my attention at all.

4. I think I understood this material pretty well.

5. I would describe this material as very interesting.

6. I think I understood this material very well, compared to

other students.

7. I enjoyed reading this material very much.

8. I felt very tense while reading this material.

9. This material was fun to read.

Scoring information.

Begin by reverse scoring items # 2 and 3. In other words,

subtract the item response from 8, and use the result as the item

score for that item. This way, a higher score will indicate more of

the concept described in the subscale name. Then calculate

subscale scores by averaging the items scores for the items on

each subscale. They are shown below. The (R) after an item

number is just a reminder that the item score is the reverse of the

participant’s response on that item.

Interest/enjoyment: 1, 3(R), 5, 7, 9

Perceived competence: 4, 6,

Pressure/tension: 2(R), 8

The next version of the questionnaire was used for a study of

internalization with an uninteresting computer task (Deci et al.,

1994).

ACTIVITY PERCEPTION QUESTIONNAIRE

The following items concern your experience with the task.

Please answer all items. For each item, please indicate how true

the statement is for you, using the following scale as a guide:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at all true somewhat true very true

1. I believe that doing this activity could be of some value for

me.

2. I believe I had some choice about doing this activity.

3. While I was doing this activity, I was thinking about how

much I enjoyed it.

4. I believe that doing this activity is useful for improved

concentration.

5. This activity was fun to do.

6. I think this activity is important for my improvement.

7. I enjoyed doing this activity very much.

8. I really did not have a choice about doing this activity.

9. I did this activity because I wanted to.

10. I think this is an important activity.

11. I felt like I was enjoying the activity while I was doing it.

12. I thought this was a very boring activity.

13. It is possible that this activity could improve my studying

habits.

14. I felt like I had no choice but to do this activity.

15. I thought this was a very interesting activity.

16. I am willing to do this activity again because I think it is

somewhat useful.

17. I would describe this activity as very enjoyable.

18. I felt like I had to do this activity.

19. I believe doing this activity could be somewhat beneficial

for me.

20. I did this activity because I had to.

21. I believe doing this activity could help me do better in

school.

22. While doing this activity I felt like I had a choice.

23. I would describe this activity as very fun.

24. I felt like it was not my own choice to do this activity.

25. I would be willing to do this activity again because it has

some value for

me.

Scoring information.

Begin by reverse scoring items # 8, 12, 14, 18, 20, and 24 by

subtracting the item response from 8 and using the result as the

item score for that item. Then calculate subscale scores by

averaging the items scores for the items on each subscale. They

are shown below. The (R) after an item number is just a reminder

that the ite m score is the reverse of the participant’s response

on that item.

Interest/enjoyment: 3, 5, 7, 11, 12(R), 15, 17, 23

Value/usefulness: 1, 4, 6, 10, 13, 16, 19, 21, 25

Perceived choice: 2, 8(R), 9, 14(R), 18(R), 20(R), 22, 24(R)

SUBJECT IMPRESSIONS QUESTIONNAIRE

The following sentences describe thoughts and feelings you

may have had regarding the other person who participated in the

experiment with you. For each of the following statement please

indicate how true it is for you, using the following scale as a guide:

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

not at all true somewhat true very true

1. While I was interacting with this person, I was thinking

about how much I

enjoyed it.

2. I felt really distant to this person.

3. I did not feel at all nervous about interacting with this

person.

4. I felt like I had choice about interacting with this person.

5. I would describe interacting with this person as very

enjoyable.

6. I really doubt that this person and I would ever become

friends.

7. I found this person very interesting.

8. I enjoyed interacting with this person very much.

9. I felt tense while interacting with this person.

10. I really feel like I could trust this person.

11. Interacting with this person was fun.

12. I felt relaxed while interacting with this person.

13. I’d like a chance to interact more with this person.

14. I didn’t really have a choice about interacting with this

person.

15. I tried hard to have a good interaction with this person.

16. I’d really prefer not to interact with this person in the

future.

17. I was anxious while interacting with this person.

18. I thought this person was very boring.

19. I felt like I was doing what I wanted to do while I was

interacting with this

person.

20. I tried very hard while interacting with this person.

21. I don’t fee l like I could really trust this person.

22. I thought interacting with this person was very interesting.

23. I felt pressured while interacting with this person.

24. I think it’s likely that this person and I could become

friends.

25. I felt like I had to interact with this person.

26. I feel really close to this person.

27. I didn’t put much energy into interacting with this

person.

28. I interacted with this person because I had no choice.

29. I put some effort into interacting with this person.

Scoring information.

Begin by reverse scoring items # 2, 3, 6, 12, 14, 16, 18, 21, 25,

27, and 28 by subtracting the item response from 8 and using the

result as the item score for that item. Then calculate subscale

scores by averaging the items scores for the items on each

subscale. They are

shown below. The (R) after an item number is just a reminder

that the item score is the reverse of the participant’s response

on that item.

Relatedness: 2(R), 6(R), 10, 13, 16(R), 21(R), 24, 26

Interest/enjoyment: 1, 5, 7, 8, 11, 18(R), 22

Perceived choice: 4, 14(R), 19, 25(R), 28(R)

Pressure/tension: 3(R), 9, 12(R), 17, 23,

Effort: 15, 20, 27(R), 29

Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI)

Scale Description | The Scale

Download the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory packet in a

Word file

Scale Description

The Intrinsic Motivation Inventory (IMI) is a multidimensional

measurement device intended to assess participants’ subjective

experience related to a target activity in laboratory experiments.

It has been used in several experiments related to intrinsic

motivation and self-regulation (e.g., Ryan, 1982; Ryan, Mims &

Koestner, 1983; Plant & Ryan, 1985; Ryan, Connell, & Plant, 1990;

Ryan, Koestner & Deci, 1991; Deci, Eghrari, Patrick, & Leone,

1994). The instrument assesses participants’ interest/enjoyment,

perceived competence, effort, value/usefulness, felt pressure and

tension, and perceived choice while performing a given activity,

thus yielding six subscale scores. Recently, a seventh subscale has

been added to tap the experiences of relatedness, although the

validity of this subscale has yet to be established. The

interest/enjoyment subscale is considered the self-report

measure of intrinsic motivation; thus, although the overall

questionnaire is called the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory, it is

only the one subscale that assesses intrinsic motivation, per se.

As a result, the

interest/enjoyment subscale often has more items on it that

do the other subscales. The perceived choice and perceived

competence concepts are theorized to be positive predictors of

both self-report and behavioral measures of intrinsic motivation,

and pressure/tension is theorized to be a negative predictor of

intrinsic motivation. Effort is a separate variable that is relevant

to some motivation questions, so is used it its relevant. The

value/usefulness subscale is used in internalization studies (e.g.,

Deci et al, 1994), the idea being that people internalize and

become self-regulating with respect to activities that they

experience as useful or valuable for themselves. Finally, the

relatedness subscale is used in studies having to do with

interpersonal interactions, friendship formation, and so on.

The IMI consists of varied numbers of items from these

subscales, all of which have been shown to be factor analytically

coherent and stable across a variety of tasks, conditions, and

settings. The general criteria for inclusion of items on subscales

have been a factor loading of at least 0.6 on the appropriate

subscale, and no cross loadings above 0.4. Typically, loadings

substantially exceed these criteria. Nonetheless, we recommend

that investigators perform their own factor analyses on new data

sets. Past research suggests that order effects of item

presentation appear to be negligible, and the inclusion or

exclusion of specific subscales

appears to have no impact on the others. Thus, it is rare that

all items have been used in a particular experiment. Instead,

experimenters have chosen the subscales that are relevant to the

issues they are exploring.

The IMI items have often been modified slightly to fit specific

activities. Thus, for example, an item such as "I tried very hard to

do well at this activity" can be changed to "I tried very hard to do

well on these puzzles" or "...in learning this material" without

effecting its reliability or validity. As one can readily tell, there is

nothing subtle about these items; they are quite

face-valid. However, in part, because of their straightforward

nature, caution is needed in interpretation. We have found, for

example, that correlations between self-reports of effort or

interest and behavioral indices of these dimensions are quite

modest--often around 0.4. Like other self-report measures, there

is always the need to appropriately interpret how and why

participants report as they do. Ego-involvements, self-presentation styles, reactance, and other psychological dynamics

must be considered. For example, in a study by Ryan, Koestner,

and Deci (1991), we found that when participants were ego

involved, the engaged in pressured persistence during a free

choice period and this behavior did not correlate with the self-reports of interest/enjoyment. In fact, we concluded that to be

confident in one’s assessment of intrinsic motivation, one needs

to find that the free-choice behavior and the

self-reports of interest/enjoyment are significantly correlated.

Another issue is that of redundancy. Items within the

subscales overlap considerably, although randomizing their

presentation makes this less salient to most participants.

Nonetheless, shorter versions have been used and been found to

be quite reliable. The incremental R for every item above 4 for

any given factor is quite small. Still, it is very important to

recognize that multiple item subscales consistently outperform

single items for obvious reasons, and they have better external

validity.

On The Scale page, there are five sections. First, the full 45

items that make up the 7 subscales are shown, along with

information on constructing your own IMI and scoring it. Then,

there are four specific versions of the IMI that have been used in

past studies. This should give you a sense of the different ways it

has been used. These have different numbers of items and

different numbers of subscales, and they concern different

activities. First, there is a standard, 22-item version that has been

used in several studies, with four subscales: interest/enjoyment,

perceived competence, perceived choice, and pressure/tension.

Second, there is a short

9-item version concerned with the activity of reading some

text material; it has three subscales: interest/enjoyment,

perceived competence, and pressure/tension. Then, there is the

25-item version that was used in the internalization study,

including the three subscales of

value/usefulness, interest/enjoyment, and perceived choice.

Finally, there is a 29-item version of the interpersonal relatedness

questionnaire that has five subscales: relatedness,

interest/enjoyment, perceived choice, pressure/tension, and

effort.

Finally, McAuley, Duncan, and Tammen (1987) did a study to

examine the validity of the IMI and found strong support for its

validity.

References

Deci, E. L., Eghrari, H., Patrick, B. C., & Leone, D. (1994).

Facilitating internalization: The

self-determination theory perspective. Journal of Personality,

62, 119-142.

McAuley, E., Duncan, T., & Tammen, V. V. (1987). Psychometric

properties of the Intrinsic Motivation Inventory in a competitive

sport setting: A confirmatory factor analysis. Research Quarterly

for Exercise and Sport, 60, 48-58.

Plant, R. W., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and the

effects of self-consciousness, self-awareness, and ego-involvement: An investigation of internally-controlling styles.

Journal of Personality, 53, 435-449.

Ryan, R. M. (1982). Control and information in the

intrapersonal sphere: An extension of cognitive evaluation theory.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 450-461. Ryan,

R. M., Connell, J. P., & Plant, R. W. (1990). Emotions in non-directed text learning. Learning and Individual Differences, 2, 1-17.

Ryan, R. M., Koestner, R., & Deci, E. L. (1991). Varied forms of

persistence: When free-choice behavior is not intrinsically

motivated. Motivation and Emotion, 15, 185-205.

Ryan, R. M., Mims, V., & Koestner, R. (1983). Relation of

reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic

motivation: A review and test using cognitive evaluation theory.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 736-750.