IMIfull
IMIfull
IMIfull
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. Egoinvolvements, 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
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.
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:
1234567
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 couldnt do very well.
(R)
Effort/Importance
I put a lot of effort into this.
I didnt try very hard to do well at this activity. (R)
(R)
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 didnt 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.
Id like a chance to interact with this person more often.
Id really prefer not to interact with this person in the future.
(R)
I dont 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:
not at all
true
somewhat
true
1.
While I was working on the task I was thinking about how much I enjoyed it.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
very
true
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
I felt like I was doing what I wanted to do while I was working on the task.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
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
participants 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.
************
not at all
true
1.
While I was reading this material, I was thinking about how much I enjoyed it.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
somewhat
true
very
true
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 participants 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:
not at all
true
somewhat
true
1.
I believe that doing this activity could be of some value for me.
2.
3.
While I was doing this activity, I was thinking about how much I enjoyed it.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
very
true
9.
10.
11.
I felt like I was enjoying the activity while I was doing it.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
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 item score is the reverse of the participants response on that item.
Interest/enjoyment:
Value/usefulness:
Perceived choice:
************
not at all
true
somewhat
true
1.
While I was interacting with this person, I was thinking about how much I enjoyed it.
2.
3.
I did not feel at all nervous about interacting with this person.
4.
5.
6.
I really doubt that this person and I would ever become friends.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
very
true
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
I felt like I was doing what I wanted to do while I was interacting with this person.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
I think its likely that this person and I could become friends.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
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 participants response on that
item.
Relatedness:
Interest/enjoyment:
Perceived choice:
Pressure/tension:
Effort: