Understanding Insufficient Effort Responding from a Self-Determination Theory Perspective

Abstract

Insufficient effort responding (IER), whereby participants lack attention and care when completing survey research, has grown in substantive importance within the field of psychology. Research on IER reveals that it is not only prevalent among undergraduate research participants, but that normal data cleaning procedures do not capture participants who engage in IER. Identifying these participants is important however, as a high prevalence of IER has the potential to change the substantive conclusions drawn from the data. Individual differences in personality has been shown to be related to IER. However, systematically removing participants based on individual differences can reduce the representativeness of samples used in psychological research. Therefore, it is necessary for researchers to identify variables that correlate with IER, with the hopes that these variables can be manipulated through intervention strategies to reduce IER among volunteer participants. Extending previous research, this dissertation aimed to explore IER from a motivational perspective using self-determination theory (SDT) across four studies. According to SDT, motivation can be lacking altogether (amotivation), or differ in quality based on the degree to which behaviors are reflective of the self (controlled versus autonomous motivation). Using proactive (instructed-response, bogus items) and reactive (longstring index, response time) measures, Study 1 examined the prevalence of IER within an online survey administered to undergraduate participants. In addition, time of semester, gender, and global motivation were explored as potential correlates of IER. Extending the findings of Study 1, Study 2 included an assessment of Academic motivation, and Study 3 and Study 4 also included an assessment of motivation toward research participation. Furthermore, Study 3 compared the rates of IER among participants based on location (laboratory vs online) x warning message (warning vs no warning). Finally, in Study 4, the effectiveness of using an autonomy supportive intervention strategy to reduce IER was examined, by introducing the study using non-pressuring language, providing rationale, perspective-taking, and acknowledging participants’ negative feelings. Results of these studies indicated that a) IER occurs at problematic rates within the University of Ottawa sample b) IER is positively correlated with student’s lack of motivation at the academic and research-specific levels, c) testing participants within a laboratory setting versus online may not be sufficient to deter IER, nor does providing a warning message, and d) framing research in a manner that supports participants’ sense of autonomy may suppress the positive relationship between amotivation towards research and IER. Overall, the results of these studies support the on-going need to identify IER, and to study IER within a motivational framework in order to improve the reliability and validity of findings drawn from psychological survey research.