Copyright 1992 by the American Psychological Association, Inc.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1992, Vol. 63, No. 3, 379-390
Once a Boring Task Always a Boring Task? Interest as a Self-Regulatory Mechanism Carol Sansone, Charlene Weir, Lora Harpster, and Carolyn Morgan University of Utah A process was proposed through which individualsregulatetheir motivation to perform necessary but uninteresting activities over time. If committed to continuing, individuals may engage in interest-enhancing strategies that can change the activity into something more positive to perform. In Study 1 Ss performed novel tasks and generated strategies to make regular performance interesting. In Study 2 Ss actually used these strategies primarily in conditions indicating a self-regulatory attempt: The task was currently boring, there was a perceived reason to continue (alleged health benefit), and a relevant strategy was available. Strategy use was associated with a change in activity definition and greater likelihood ofsubsequently performing the activity. In Study 3 Ss beliefs about how to maintain motivation to perform more everyday activities emphasized the importance of regulating interest relative to other self-regulatory strategies.
perform. When necessary or important activities are uninteresting, therefore, individuals may actively attempt to make them relatively more interesting to do. We propose not only that a process exists through which individuals regulate their interest levels (as suggested by Berlyne's, 1960, work on stimulus deprivation) but also that this process may be an important mechanism through which individuals regulate their motivation to perform necessary activities over time.
When we think of activities that are intrinsically rewarding, many of our day-to-day activities would not come to mind. For example, grading exams is a seemingly ubiquitous and often tedious requirement of an academic's job. In the absence of external constraints, few would willingly spend time grading. External constraints appear necessary to motivate our performance; however, are these external constraints sufficient to keep us grading semester after semester? Research examining the effects of external constraints on intrinsic motivation have primarily used activities for which interest was initially high. The results from a number of these studies suggested that external constraints were superfluous in maintaining motivation and that in fact they could interfere with the internal reward (e.g., Boggiano & Ruble, 1979; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Harackiewicz, 1979; Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973; Smith & Pittman, 1978). The reverse pattern was assumed for initially uninteresting activities. That is, when a clear external reason or reward to perform an activity was present and presumed to motivate behavior, internal rewards were presumed to be superfluous (e.g., Calder& Staw, 1975; Loveland & Olley, 1979; McLoyd, 1979). We assume instead that internal rewards may be essential in the long run even for activities individuals feel constrained to
Self-Regulatory Process
Portions of this research were funded by a grant awarded to Carol Sansone from the Biomedicai Research Support Grant Program, Division of Research Resources, National Institutes of Health (BRSG S07 RR07092). Preparation of this article was also facilitated by a grant awarded to Carol Sansone and Cynthia A. Berg from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and National Institute on Aging (HD25728). We thank Deborah J. Wiebe, Cynthia A. Berg, Robert Croyle, John F. Kihlstrom, Frederick Rhodewalt, and Timothy W Smith for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. We also thank Shadi Sahami for her help in data collection. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Carol Sansone, Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112. 379
When individuals initially approach and interact with a given activity, they hold a particular activity definition in mind (Higgins & Trope, 1990; Sansone, Sachau, & Weir, 1989; Trope, 1986; Vallacher & Wegner, 1987). Part of the initial definition, we suggest, includes a judgment of the activity's interest level. If sufficiently interesting, individuals should be more likely to continue performing the activity. If not, individuals may be less likely to continue over the long term, unless they canfindsomething that makes it relatively more interesting. According to our model, this discovery in turn depends on both motivation and opportunity to enhance interest. Oftentimes the easiest way to alleviate the boredom associated with a particular task is to quit the activity (Berlyne, 1960). We thus propose that in addition to the experience of boredom, a critical source of motivation to make an activity more interesting is the belief that quitting is not a desirable or viable option. This perceived need to continue is also part of the activity definition and may be based on overt, tangible events, such as rewards, as well as unobservable reasons, such as personal values (e.g., R. M. Ryan & Connell, 1989). Although pressure generated by this need may be relatively unpleasant (e.g., R. M. Ryan, 1982), without it individuals may choose the easier route and abandon the activity. If the motivation to make the activity more interesting is sufficiently strong, then the availability of relevant strategies within the current environment becomes important. A number of strategies may potentially foster interest. For example, tradi-
380
SANSONE, WEIR, HARPSTER, AND MORGAN
tional approaches to intrinsic motivation (Bandura, 1982; deCharms, 1968; Deci & Ryan, 1980; White, 1959) suggest that interest may be created through strategies that enhance competence or enhance the challenge afforded by the activity (e.g., Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Csikszentmihalyi, 1978; Pittman, Boggiano, & Ruble, 1983). Alternatively, individuals may turn to contextual features not directly involved in performance of the primary task. Suedfeld (1981) suggested that attempts to decrease boredom may include "exploiting the residual stimulation in the [present] environment more effectively" (p. 78). For example, one may attend to previously overlooked features of the environment. Still other research suggests that motivation may be increased by adding variety in how a repetitive activity is performed (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Liu & Gollwitzer, 1990). Past research also suggests that the ability of a particular strategy to enhance interest can vary across tasks and individuals (Harackiewicz, 1989; Kruglanski, 1975; Sansone & Voisard, 1990). A strategy's effectiveness may also vary as a function of the current context. For example, Sansone and colleagues (Sansone, 1986,1989; Sansone et al, 1989) found that the relationship between perceived competence and motivation for curiosity-arousing or fantasy activities differed as a function of contextual cues. A positive relationship emerged only when cues emphasized the individual performance component of the task. Integrating thesefindings,we suggest that the availability of a "relevant" strategy depends in part on how the activity is currently denned. As the definition varies, different strategies may become relevant (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 1991). Finally, engaging in a strategy can result in both physical and psychological transformations of the activity. As a result, the activity definition can change to accommodate the transformations. This change could reflect a shift in the level of definition (Vallacher & Wegner, 1987), an emphasis on certain features of the activity (Higgins & Trope, 1990; Sansone et al., 1989), or an incorporation of contextual features. For example, suppose one's job was to inspect potato chips for uniformity of appearance. One potential strategy to make the job more interesting is to discover meaningful shapes—such as the image of Elvis Presley—in the nonuniform chips. According to our model, the individual using this strategy would redefine his or her job over time to include the more interesting dimension of building a collection of celebrated chips.1 Thisflexibilityin activity definition is the mechanism in our model that allows individuals to find and maintain "intrinsic" interest. Because the activity definition may change, what is "intrinsic" to the activity can change as well. In a certain sense, then, the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation may blur over the course of performing an activity on a regular basis (Day, 1981). Present Research In the present article we test the primary hypothesis that this self-regulatory process exists. To demonstrate self-regulation, we must establish that individuals have implicit theories about how to regulate their motivation, which include the general strategy of making activities more interesting to perform (e.g., Paris & Byrnes, 1989). These theories should also include
knowledge about specific strategies to make activities more interesting (i.e., declarative knowledge) as well as knowledge about how and when they should be used (i.e., procedural knowledge). In addition, individuals should actually use these strategies primarily under conditions that suggest they are trying to regulate their motivation: (a) when the current task is uninteresting, (b) when the individual perceives a reason to persist at the uninteresting task, and (c) when it is possible to use the strategy in the current environment. Assessing knowledge about strategies to regulate interest may create experimental demand to use these strategies. On the other hand, we cannot classify behavior as "strategy" use unless we know that the behavior was intended to enhance interest (Zimmerman, 1989). In Study 1, therefore, individuals were given experience with specific experimental tasks and asked to generate strategies to make the tasks more interesting. In Study 2, we operationalized these strategies and examined whether individuals were more likely to emit the behaviors under the predicted conditions. In Study 3, we examined individuals' implicit theories about more everyday activities, comparing the perceived effectiveness of making performance more interesting to the perceived effectiveness of other types of self-regulatory strategies. Study 1 To clearly identify self-regulatory strategies as well as their differential use, the activities we used needed to possess several characteristics. First, they must differ in the levels of interest initially generated to be able to compare different motivations to make the task more interesting. Furthermore, potential strategies for these tasks should include at least some observable behaviors, which can then be measured similarly across tasks. Although the tasks should be distinct, performance should also require similar physical actions; if not, key behaviors may be emitted at different rates because of different task demands, not differential uses of a strategy. Finally, the tasks must be novel; if not, there may be an infinite number of individual differences in task definitions because of different amounts and kinds of past experiences. To meet these criteria, in thefirststudy we compared individuals' perceptions of three novel activities: a hidden-words puzzle (finding words embedded in a letter matrix), a copying task (copying a letter matrix), and a lettering task (copying a letter matrix in the different styles of script displayed, similar to calligraphy). On the basis of task characteristics, we expected both the hidden-words task and the lettering task to be perceived as more interesting than the copying task. Furthermore, we expected the hidden-words task to be defined primarily in terms of challenge and word skills and the lettering activity to be defined primarily in terms of its artistic requirements. Because the actions associated with the copying activity are a subset of those associated with the lettering task, we did not expect the copying activity to be defined by unique dimensions. Rather, when there is a difference, features that help to make the other
' We are indebted to a story on National Public Radio for this example.
381
ONCE A BORING TASK tasks interesting (such as being artistic) should be perceived as less characteristic of the copying task. We then asked individuals to suggest strategies to make the tasks more interesting. We expected that knowledge about these strategies would reflect the differences in activity definition. In other words, certain types of strategies should be perceived as more effective for one task than for the other. We thus predicted that individuals would suggest strategies that enhance the skill or challenge component primarily for the hidden-words task (Sansone & Voisard, 1990) and that involve the artistic and creative component primarily for the lettering task. The components associated with copying task performance should not be perceived as interesting; these individuals should thus be more likely to suggest strategies that involve interesting aspects of the context (Suedfeld, 1981). Finally, we expected individuals would suggest strategies for all three activities that involved varying the procedure, because adding variety should be relevant for any task that is repeated (e.g., Liu & Gollwitzer, 1990).
Method Subjects Participants were 90 undergraduates (45 men and 45 women, mean age =21.1 years), who received extra credit in their introductory psychology class. They were randomly assigned to one of six conditions in a 3 (hidden-words vs. copying vs. lettering task) X 2 (no cover story vs. cover story) factorial design.
Tasks All participants were presented with letter matrices displaying different typefonts (e.g., geneva, monaco, and so forth) and instructed to record their responses in the spaces provided below each matrix. Individuals in the hidden-words task condition were instructed tofindas many words as possible formed by adjacent letters within each matrix. Individuals in the copying task condition were instructed to copy (in their own handwriting) the letters displayed in the matrix. Individuals in the lettering task condition were instructed to copy the letters using the typefont displayed.
Procedure Participants were run in groups of 5 to 9. The purpose of the study was ostensibly to evaluate the effects of different types of lettering on individuals' perceptions of and reactions to different types of tasks. Individuals were given packets according to a random sequence within session and instructed to work on each of three sections in turn. The initial section contained written instructions on how to perform one of the three tasks. Half of the individuals also read that the materials were attempting to simulate information-processing tasks associated with the use of computers, such as the finding and transferring of information from computer screens. We varied this cover story (to be used in Study 2) to assess potential effects on activity definitions. After reading the instructions, participants worked on a practice matrix for 2 min. In the second section, subjects were instructed to work on three additional matrices at 2-min intervals, which the experimenter would time. They were informed that the task was not competitive but that to compare effects of letter types, the amount of time needed to be identi-
cal. On completing the third matrix, subjects filled out the questionnaires in the last section.
Dependent Measures Participants rated how well each of eight statements described their activity using a scale ranging from 1 (doesn't describe at all) to 5 (describes very well). Six statements derived from pilot testing were expected to capture some key differences in activity perceptions: seeing the activity as being like a puzzle (puzzle), testing vocabulary skills {vocabulary skills), letting one compete against oneself Compete self), exercising eye-hand coordination (eye-hand), using writing and drawing skills (writing/drawing skills), and being an artistic activity (artistic). Two additional activity description items were expected to reflect manipulations in Study 2: being able to benefit one's health (health benefits) and letting one learn about different types of lettering (learn lettering). No task differences were expected or found for these two items in the first study. Participants next rated how well they thought several statements captured their reactions on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Enjoyment was measured by the items "I would describe this task as very interesting," "I think this is an uninteresting task" (reverse scored), and "This task is fun to do." Perceived competence was measured by "I feel that I do this task well" and "I think this is a hard task" (reverse scored). Finally, participants were asked "If you knew that you'd be doing this activity on a regular basis, what would you do to make it more interesting?" Responses were coded by two raters (interrater reliability = .95) as to whether it fell into one of four strategy types: increasing the skill or challenge component (skill; e.g., time/race self; make harder/more challenging; set goals), increasing the artistic or creative component (artistic/creative; e.g., be more creative; make it more artistic), changing something in the context (context; e.g., play music; do it with others), or varying the procedure (vary procedure; e.g., trade off on different tasks; use different styles of pens). These four strategy types together accounted for 64% of all responses. Because individuals could have mentioned all or none of the four types, task differences were analyzed separately within type.
Results Definition of the Activity Task characteristics ratings. We performed a 3 (hiddenwords vs. copying vs. lettering) X 2 (no cover story vs. cover story) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) on the six core description ratings (puzzle, vocabulary, eye-hand, compete self, artistic, and writing/drawing skills). Using Wilks's criterion for the combined ratings resulted in a significant main effect of activity condition only, ^(12, 158) = 26.19, p < .01. Mean ratings corresponding to the subsequent univariate analyses are presented in Table 1. Individuals were more likely to see the hidden-words task as a puzzle, F(2,84) = 80.96, p < .01, that tested vocabulary skills, F(2, 84) = 41.72, p < .01, and the lettering task, as an artistic activity, F(2, 84) = 33.86, p < .01, that used writing and drawing skills, F(2, 84) = 34.02, p < .01. The copying activity was defined as an activity in which one can compete against oneself (as was the hidden-words task), F(2, 84) = 11.53, p < .01, and as an activity involving eye-hand coordination (as was the lettering task), F(2, 84) = 12.00, p
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 1992, Vol. 63, No. 3, 379-390
Once a Boring Task Always a Boring Task? Interest as a Self-Regulatory Mechanism Carol Sansone, Charlene Weir, Lora Harpster, and Carolyn Morgan University of Utah A process was proposed through which individualsregulatetheir motivation to perform necessary but uninteresting activities over time. If committed to continuing, individuals may engage in interest-enhancing strategies that can change the activity into something more positive to perform. In Study 1 Ss performed novel tasks and generated strategies to make regular performance interesting. In Study 2 Ss actually used these strategies primarily in conditions indicating a self-regulatory attempt: The task was currently boring, there was a perceived reason to continue (alleged health benefit), and a relevant strategy was available. Strategy use was associated with a change in activity definition and greater likelihood ofsubsequently performing the activity. In Study 3 Ss beliefs about how to maintain motivation to perform more everyday activities emphasized the importance of regulating interest relative to other self-regulatory strategies.
perform. When necessary or important activities are uninteresting, therefore, individuals may actively attempt to make them relatively more interesting to do. We propose not only that a process exists through which individuals regulate their interest levels (as suggested by Berlyne's, 1960, work on stimulus deprivation) but also that this process may be an important mechanism through which individuals regulate their motivation to perform necessary activities over time.
When we think of activities that are intrinsically rewarding, many of our day-to-day activities would not come to mind. For example, grading exams is a seemingly ubiquitous and often tedious requirement of an academic's job. In the absence of external constraints, few would willingly spend time grading. External constraints appear necessary to motivate our performance; however, are these external constraints sufficient to keep us grading semester after semester? Research examining the effects of external constraints on intrinsic motivation have primarily used activities for which interest was initially high. The results from a number of these studies suggested that external constraints were superfluous in maintaining motivation and that in fact they could interfere with the internal reward (e.g., Boggiano & Ruble, 1979; Deci & Ryan, 1985; Harackiewicz, 1979; Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973; Smith & Pittman, 1978). The reverse pattern was assumed for initially uninteresting activities. That is, when a clear external reason or reward to perform an activity was present and presumed to motivate behavior, internal rewards were presumed to be superfluous (e.g., Calder& Staw, 1975; Loveland & Olley, 1979; McLoyd, 1979). We assume instead that internal rewards may be essential in the long run even for activities individuals feel constrained to
Self-Regulatory Process
Portions of this research were funded by a grant awarded to Carol Sansone from the Biomedicai Research Support Grant Program, Division of Research Resources, National Institutes of Health (BRSG S07 RR07092). Preparation of this article was also facilitated by a grant awarded to Carol Sansone and Cynthia A. Berg from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development and National Institute on Aging (HD25728). We thank Deborah J. Wiebe, Cynthia A. Berg, Robert Croyle, John F. Kihlstrom, Frederick Rhodewalt, and Timothy W Smith for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this article. We also thank Shadi Sahami for her help in data collection. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Carol Sansone, Department of Psychology, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112. 379
When individuals initially approach and interact with a given activity, they hold a particular activity definition in mind (Higgins & Trope, 1990; Sansone, Sachau, & Weir, 1989; Trope, 1986; Vallacher & Wegner, 1987). Part of the initial definition, we suggest, includes a judgment of the activity's interest level. If sufficiently interesting, individuals should be more likely to continue performing the activity. If not, individuals may be less likely to continue over the long term, unless they canfindsomething that makes it relatively more interesting. According to our model, this discovery in turn depends on both motivation and opportunity to enhance interest. Oftentimes the easiest way to alleviate the boredom associated with a particular task is to quit the activity (Berlyne, 1960). We thus propose that in addition to the experience of boredom, a critical source of motivation to make an activity more interesting is the belief that quitting is not a desirable or viable option. This perceived need to continue is also part of the activity definition and may be based on overt, tangible events, such as rewards, as well as unobservable reasons, such as personal values (e.g., R. M. Ryan & Connell, 1989). Although pressure generated by this need may be relatively unpleasant (e.g., R. M. Ryan, 1982), without it individuals may choose the easier route and abandon the activity. If the motivation to make the activity more interesting is sufficiently strong, then the availability of relevant strategies within the current environment becomes important. A number of strategies may potentially foster interest. For example, tradi-
380
SANSONE, WEIR, HARPSTER, AND MORGAN
tional approaches to intrinsic motivation (Bandura, 1982; deCharms, 1968; Deci & Ryan, 1980; White, 1959) suggest that interest may be created through strategies that enhance competence or enhance the challenge afforded by the activity (e.g., Bandura & Schunk, 1981; Csikszentmihalyi, 1978; Pittman, Boggiano, & Ruble, 1983). Alternatively, individuals may turn to contextual features not directly involved in performance of the primary task. Suedfeld (1981) suggested that attempts to decrease boredom may include "exploiting the residual stimulation in the [present] environment more effectively" (p. 78). For example, one may attend to previously overlooked features of the environment. Still other research suggests that motivation may be increased by adding variety in how a repetitive activity is performed (Hackman & Oldham, 1976; Liu & Gollwitzer, 1990). Past research also suggests that the ability of a particular strategy to enhance interest can vary across tasks and individuals (Harackiewicz, 1989; Kruglanski, 1975; Sansone & Voisard, 1990). A strategy's effectiveness may also vary as a function of the current context. For example, Sansone and colleagues (Sansone, 1986,1989; Sansone et al, 1989) found that the relationship between perceived competence and motivation for curiosity-arousing or fantasy activities differed as a function of contextual cues. A positive relationship emerged only when cues emphasized the individual performance component of the task. Integrating thesefindings,we suggest that the availability of a "relevant" strategy depends in part on how the activity is currently denned. As the definition varies, different strategies may become relevant (Harackiewicz & Sansone, 1991). Finally, engaging in a strategy can result in both physical and psychological transformations of the activity. As a result, the activity definition can change to accommodate the transformations. This change could reflect a shift in the level of definition (Vallacher & Wegner, 1987), an emphasis on certain features of the activity (Higgins & Trope, 1990; Sansone et al., 1989), or an incorporation of contextual features. For example, suppose one's job was to inspect potato chips for uniformity of appearance. One potential strategy to make the job more interesting is to discover meaningful shapes—such as the image of Elvis Presley—in the nonuniform chips. According to our model, the individual using this strategy would redefine his or her job over time to include the more interesting dimension of building a collection of celebrated chips.1 Thisflexibilityin activity definition is the mechanism in our model that allows individuals to find and maintain "intrinsic" interest. Because the activity definition may change, what is "intrinsic" to the activity can change as well. In a certain sense, then, the distinction between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation may blur over the course of performing an activity on a regular basis (Day, 1981). Present Research In the present article we test the primary hypothesis that this self-regulatory process exists. To demonstrate self-regulation, we must establish that individuals have implicit theories about how to regulate their motivation, which include the general strategy of making activities more interesting to perform (e.g., Paris & Byrnes, 1989). These theories should also include
knowledge about specific strategies to make activities more interesting (i.e., declarative knowledge) as well as knowledge about how and when they should be used (i.e., procedural knowledge). In addition, individuals should actually use these strategies primarily under conditions that suggest they are trying to regulate their motivation: (a) when the current task is uninteresting, (b) when the individual perceives a reason to persist at the uninteresting task, and (c) when it is possible to use the strategy in the current environment. Assessing knowledge about strategies to regulate interest may create experimental demand to use these strategies. On the other hand, we cannot classify behavior as "strategy" use unless we know that the behavior was intended to enhance interest (Zimmerman, 1989). In Study 1, therefore, individuals were given experience with specific experimental tasks and asked to generate strategies to make the tasks more interesting. In Study 2, we operationalized these strategies and examined whether individuals were more likely to emit the behaviors under the predicted conditions. In Study 3, we examined individuals' implicit theories about more everyday activities, comparing the perceived effectiveness of making performance more interesting to the perceived effectiveness of other types of self-regulatory strategies. Study 1 To clearly identify self-regulatory strategies as well as their differential use, the activities we used needed to possess several characteristics. First, they must differ in the levels of interest initially generated to be able to compare different motivations to make the task more interesting. Furthermore, potential strategies for these tasks should include at least some observable behaviors, which can then be measured similarly across tasks. Although the tasks should be distinct, performance should also require similar physical actions; if not, key behaviors may be emitted at different rates because of different task demands, not differential uses of a strategy. Finally, the tasks must be novel; if not, there may be an infinite number of individual differences in task definitions because of different amounts and kinds of past experiences. To meet these criteria, in thefirststudy we compared individuals' perceptions of three novel activities: a hidden-words puzzle (finding words embedded in a letter matrix), a copying task (copying a letter matrix), and a lettering task (copying a letter matrix in the different styles of script displayed, similar to calligraphy). On the basis of task characteristics, we expected both the hidden-words task and the lettering task to be perceived as more interesting than the copying task. Furthermore, we expected the hidden-words task to be defined primarily in terms of challenge and word skills and the lettering activity to be defined primarily in terms of its artistic requirements. Because the actions associated with the copying activity are a subset of those associated with the lettering task, we did not expect the copying activity to be defined by unique dimensions. Rather, when there is a difference, features that help to make the other
' We are indebted to a story on National Public Radio for this example.
381
ONCE A BORING TASK tasks interesting (such as being artistic) should be perceived as less characteristic of the copying task. We then asked individuals to suggest strategies to make the tasks more interesting. We expected that knowledge about these strategies would reflect the differences in activity definition. In other words, certain types of strategies should be perceived as more effective for one task than for the other. We thus predicted that individuals would suggest strategies that enhance the skill or challenge component primarily for the hidden-words task (Sansone & Voisard, 1990) and that involve the artistic and creative component primarily for the lettering task. The components associated with copying task performance should not be perceived as interesting; these individuals should thus be more likely to suggest strategies that involve interesting aspects of the context (Suedfeld, 1981). Finally, we expected individuals would suggest strategies for all three activities that involved varying the procedure, because adding variety should be relevant for any task that is repeated (e.g., Liu & Gollwitzer, 1990).
Method Subjects Participants were 90 undergraduates (45 men and 45 women, mean age =21.1 years), who received extra credit in their introductory psychology class. They were randomly assigned to one of six conditions in a 3 (hidden-words vs. copying vs. lettering task) X 2 (no cover story vs. cover story) factorial design.
Tasks All participants were presented with letter matrices displaying different typefonts (e.g., geneva, monaco, and so forth) and instructed to record their responses in the spaces provided below each matrix. Individuals in the hidden-words task condition were instructed tofindas many words as possible formed by adjacent letters within each matrix. Individuals in the copying task condition were instructed to copy (in their own handwriting) the letters displayed in the matrix. Individuals in the lettering task condition were instructed to copy the letters using the typefont displayed.
Procedure Participants were run in groups of 5 to 9. The purpose of the study was ostensibly to evaluate the effects of different types of lettering on individuals' perceptions of and reactions to different types of tasks. Individuals were given packets according to a random sequence within session and instructed to work on each of three sections in turn. The initial section contained written instructions on how to perform one of the three tasks. Half of the individuals also read that the materials were attempting to simulate information-processing tasks associated with the use of computers, such as the finding and transferring of information from computer screens. We varied this cover story (to be used in Study 2) to assess potential effects on activity definitions. After reading the instructions, participants worked on a practice matrix for 2 min. In the second section, subjects were instructed to work on three additional matrices at 2-min intervals, which the experimenter would time. They were informed that the task was not competitive but that to compare effects of letter types, the amount of time needed to be identi-
cal. On completing the third matrix, subjects filled out the questionnaires in the last section.
Dependent Measures Participants rated how well each of eight statements described their activity using a scale ranging from 1 (doesn't describe at all) to 5 (describes very well). Six statements derived from pilot testing were expected to capture some key differences in activity perceptions: seeing the activity as being like a puzzle (puzzle), testing vocabulary skills {vocabulary skills), letting one compete against oneself Compete self), exercising eye-hand coordination (eye-hand), using writing and drawing skills (writing/drawing skills), and being an artistic activity (artistic). Two additional activity description items were expected to reflect manipulations in Study 2: being able to benefit one's health (health benefits) and letting one learn about different types of lettering (learn lettering). No task differences were expected or found for these two items in the first study. Participants next rated how well they thought several statements captured their reactions on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Enjoyment was measured by the items "I would describe this task as very interesting," "I think this is an uninteresting task" (reverse scored), and "This task is fun to do." Perceived competence was measured by "I feel that I do this task well" and "I think this is a hard task" (reverse scored). Finally, participants were asked "If you knew that you'd be doing this activity on a regular basis, what would you do to make it more interesting?" Responses were coded by two raters (interrater reliability = .95) as to whether it fell into one of four strategy types: increasing the skill or challenge component (skill; e.g., time/race self; make harder/more challenging; set goals), increasing the artistic or creative component (artistic/creative; e.g., be more creative; make it more artistic), changing something in the context (context; e.g., play music; do it with others), or varying the procedure (vary procedure; e.g., trade off on different tasks; use different styles of pens). These four strategy types together accounted for 64% of all responses. Because individuals could have mentioned all or none of the four types, task differences were analyzed separately within type.
Results Definition of the Activity Task characteristics ratings. We performed a 3 (hiddenwords vs. copying vs. lettering) X 2 (no cover story vs. cover story) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) on the six core description ratings (puzzle, vocabulary, eye-hand, compete self, artistic, and writing/drawing skills). Using Wilks's criterion for the combined ratings resulted in a significant main effect of activity condition only, ^(12, 158) = 26.19, p < .01. Mean ratings corresponding to the subsequent univariate analyses are presented in Table 1. Individuals were more likely to see the hidden-words task as a puzzle, F(2,84) = 80.96, p < .01, that tested vocabulary skills, F(2, 84) = 41.72, p < .01, and the lettering task, as an artistic activity, F(2, 84) = 33.86, p < .01, that used writing and drawing skills, F(2, 84) = 34.02, p < .01. The copying activity was defined as an activity in which one can compete against oneself (as was the hidden-words task), F(2, 84) = 11.53, p < .01, and as an activity involving eye-hand coordination (as was the lettering task), F(2, 84) = 12.00, p
