↓ 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)

Citations

dimensions_citation
73 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
215 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 760 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 215 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 194 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 37 17%
Researcher 35 16%
Student > Master 33 15%
Student > Doctoral Student 26 12%
Professor > Associate Professor 19 9%
Other 51 24%
Unknown 14 7%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 48 22%
Business, Management and Accounting 32 15%
Social Sciences 31 14%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 16 7%
Arts and Humanities 11 5%
Other 49 23%
Unknown 28 13%

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 451. 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
#32,941
of 17,641,103 outputs
Outputs from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#933
of 89,576 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#319
of 193,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America
#17
of 939 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 17,641,103 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 89,576 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 31.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% 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 193,913 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 939 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.