↓ Skip to main content

Multiple types of motives don't multiply the motivation of West Point cadets

Overview of attention for article published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, June 2014
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (99th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (98th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
16 news outlets
blogs
3 blogs
twitter
786 tweeters
weibo
2 weibo users
facebook
9 Facebook pages
googleplus
3 Google+ users
reddit
1 Redditor
video
1 video uploader

Citations

dimensions_citation
62 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
202 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
Title
Multiple types of motives don't multiply the motivation of West Point cadets
Published in
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, June 2014
DOI 10.1073/pnas.1405298111
Pubmed ID
Authors

A. Wrzesniewski, B. Schwartz, X. Cong, M. Kane, A. Omar, T. Kolditz

Abstract

Although people often assume that multiple motives for doing something will be more powerful and effective than a single motive, research suggests that different types of motives for the same action sometimes compete. More specifically, research suggests that instrumental motives, which are extrinsic to the activities at hand, can weaken internal motives, which are intrinsic to the activities at hand. We tested whether holding both instrumental and internal motives yields negative outcomes in a field context in which various motives occur naturally and long-term educational and career outcomes are at stake. We assessed the impact of the motives of over 10,000 West Point cadets over the period of a decade on whether they would become commissioned officers, extend their officer service beyond the minimum required period, and be selected for early career promotions. For each outcome, motivation internal to military service itself predicted positive outcomes; a relationship that was negatively affected when instrumental motives were also in evidence. These results suggest that holding multiple motives damages persistence and performance in educational and occupational contexts over long periods of time.

Twitter Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 786 tweeters who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 202 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 11 5%
Germany 2 <1%
Japan 2 <1%
United Kingdom 1 <1%
South Africa 1 <1%
Russia 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Switzerland 1 <1%
Luxembourg 1 <1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 181 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 36 18%
Researcher 33 16%
Student > Master 32 16%
Student > Doctoral Student 24 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 20 10%
Other 49 24%
Unknown 8 4%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 48 24%
Social Sciences 31 15%
Business, Management and Accounting 31 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 8%
Arts and Humanities 11 5%
Other 44 22%
Unknown 21 10%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 454. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 31 May 2020.
All research outputs
#25,845
of 15,418,109 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#743
of 85,056 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#294
of 188,495 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#17
of 936 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 15,418,109 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 85,056 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 27.4. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 188,495 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 936 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.