MOTIVATION IN CHILDREN WITH INTELLECTUAL DISABILITIES
Monica Cuskelly
The University of Queensland
Brisbane, Australia
and
Linda Gilmore
Queensland University of Technology
Brisbane, Australia
Running header: Motivation in children
Motivation in children
2
Abstract
This article addresses the questions of whether there are motivational deficits in
children with intellectual disability, whether those with Down syndrome are more
likely to display motivational deficits, and how motivation might be supported. The
available literature which has examined motivation in children with intellectual
disability was considered and integrated to address the questions outlined above.
There is little published research on this vital topic. Reports on motivational problems
differ depending upon the method of data collection. Observational studies using
structured tasks generally reveal no differences between children with intellectual
disability and typically developing children matched for mental age. When reports of
parents or teachers are used, children with intellectual disability appear to have
deficits in motivation. No evidence was found for a particular deficit in children with
Down syndrome. The results of this review challenge the perception that children
with intellectual disability will generally have motivational problems, although it is
clear that motivation is a complex construct, not easily examined in those with
intellectual disability. Strategies for addressing problems and for maintaining
motivation, based on theory and evidence, are provided. These strategies are
applicable across a range of settings including the home, school and more adult
oriented services.
Key words: motivation, persistence, preference for challenge, intellectual disability
Motivation in children
3
In 1974, Harter and Zigler presented evidence that children with intellectual
disability had lower motivation to master new tasks than did children without
intellectual disability. Although the lives of individuals with intellectual disability are
today quite different from those of the 1970s (at least in Western countries), the view
that people with intellectual disability have motivational deficits has proven to be
quite pervasive (e.g., Deci, 2003; Greenspan, 2006). This paper reviews the research
evidence about intellectual disability and motivation and presents some suggestions
for enhancing and maintaining motivation.
Individuals who are motivated will be engaged with learning activities, will
persist with tasks they find challenging, will believe themselves to be competent, will
see success as being within their control and will experience pleasure when they are
successful. Learning is not restricted to the classroom or other formal situations, and
the origins of motivation are likely to be established in children’s early years. In
typically developing children, early motivation predicts later academic success
(Turner & Johnson, 2003). This association also holds true for children with
intellectual disability. Gilmore and Cuskelly (2009) found that children with Down
syndrome who were identified as more persistent in the preschool years were more
successful academically in adolescence, even when cognitive ability was taken into
account.
The Concept of Motivation
Before considering the research evidence about intellectual disability and
motivation, the construct of motivation needs some discussion. All individuals start
life with an urge to explore their environment and become competent within it (White,
1959); however, their interests and views of themselves become moulded as they
Motivation in children
4
succeed and fail, so that over time individuals may choose some activities in which
they will persist, even if not immediately successful, and avoid others or put no effort
into them, because not trying (and failing) is better than trying (and still failing).
Some individuals may experience such a large amount of failure that avoidance
becomes a regular strategy in many learning situations, especially formal learning
situations (see Seifert, 2004).
This type of motivation – to become competent in one’s environment – is known
as mastery (or, sometimes, effectance) motivation. While mastery motivation is
shaped by experience, the desire to become competent and to continue to learn
remains an important influence for many individuals. In school-aged children this
desire is generally researched within academic situations and is referred to as intrinsic
achievement orientation or task motivation. Some children learn to respond to
external reasons for engaging in learning – for example to demonstrate competence
(i.e. to do better than others or to win praise) and this is referred to as extrinsic
motivation (Senko, Durik, & Harackiewicz, 2008).
Most individuals will be motivated by both intrinsic and extrinsic factors;
however, the primary motivation is most important – those who are mostly
intrinsically motivated are more likely to learn than those whose motivation is more
strongly extrinsic. Intrinsically motivated learners are focused on learning (mastery)
while extrinsically motivated learners are more concerned about how they may
appear, so surface learning (e.g., learning only what is required to pass a test) and
refusing to try for fear of failure are more likely.
In young children, structured experimental tasks have been used to assess
motivation. These generally focus on measuring persistence and pleasure after success
Motivation in children
5
(e.g., Gilmore, Cuskelly, & Hayes, 2003). Other approaches to tasks that have been
taken as indicators of motivation include curiosity and preference for challenge
(Gilmore & Cuskelly, 2011; Harter & Zigler, 1974) and outerdirectedness (Zigler,
Bennett-Gates, Hodapp, & Henrich, 2002). Outerdirectedness refers to a preference
for relying on direction from others rather than taking the initiative oneself. Because
of the multi-faceted nature of motivated behaviour and also because observers depend
on external signs of this internal process, behaviours are often open to more than one
interpretation. As an example, some researchers have interpreted slowness to engage
with a task as a sign of poor motivation (Vig, 2007); however, others may see this as
the outcome of slower cognitive processes (Goodman & Linn, 2003). Another
example is the interpretation of sustained attention. Ruskin, Mundy, Kasari, and
Sigman (1994) concluded that children with Down syndrome lacked motivation on
the basis of observations with difficulty in staying on task; however, it may be that
this again reflects characteristics associated with intellectual disability rather than a
lack of interest in attaining mastery.
Motivation has also been assessed by questionnaires that are completed by
parents, teachers, or sometimes children themselves. Self-report has not been used
with children with intellectual disability although there are several studies where
adults have responded to questionnaires. While motivation is understood to be an
internal process, it is recognised by its behavioural markers (e.g., persistence with
optimally challenging tasks or pleasure following achievement); and the
questionnaires completed by others focus on these overt markers.
Research about Motivation in Children with Intellectual Disability
Observational Studies
Motivation in children
6
Several research groups have examined mastery motivation in preschool children
with intellectual disability using tasks developed by Morgan, Busch-Rossnagel,
Maslin-Cole, and Harmon (1992). These tasks are designed with a number of levels
so each child experiences an optimal level of challenge (i.e. the task is hard enough to
require sustained effort but not so difficult that it cannot be completed successfully by
the child). Glenn, Dayus, Cunningham, and Horgan (2001) worked with typically
developing children 6 months to 24 months chronological age (CA) and children with
Down syndrome of the same mental age (MA). They found no differences in observed
mastery motivation. Similarly, Gilmore et al. (2003) identified no group differences in
mastery motivation between older children with Down syndrome (CA 4 years – 6
years 8 months) and a typically developing group that was matched on mental age (30
months).
Despite apparent similarities in task motivation when children with intellectual
disability are compared with others of the same mental age, subtle differences are
sometimes identified. Suggesting that deficits in motivation might not be evident in
some studies because of the methods used for measurement, Ruskin and colleagues
(1994) included a score for the length of continuous engagement with mastery tasks in
their research with children with Down syndrome (mean MA = 16 months).
Although there were no group differences in the frequency of goal-directed behaviour,
the typically developing children displayed significantly longer durations of
uninterrupted task engagement. As mentioned above, the meaning of sustained
attention is open to interpretation.
It would not be surprising if, over time, children with intellectual disability
became de-motivated by an accumulation of failure experiences, but very few studies
Motivation in children
7
have examined motivation in older children, adolescents or adults with intellectual
disability. Evidence from one study showed, however, that this appeared not to be the
case. Gilmore and Cuskelly (2011) compared the mastery behaviours of children with
Down syndrome aged between 10 and 15 years (Mean MA = 54.58 months) with a
typically developing group matched on mental age using tasks designed to measure
persistence, preference for challenge and curiosity. They found no differences on any
of these measures, although they noted a trend with respect to one of the persistence
tasks and commented that a larger sample size may have produced a significant
difference on this measure.
Using a different approach to motivation, Nader-Grosbois and Lefévre (2011)
examined the self-motivating behaviours (defined as expressing pleasure in the
activity, self-reinforcing and maintaining motivation) of children with intellectual
disability (CA 73-249 months) in comparison to children of the same mental age
(approximately 53 months) across a variety of tasks and found no group differences.
In another study, Nader-Grosbois and Vieillvoye (2012) also found no differences in
self-motivating behaviour between children with intellectual disability and
comparison children matched for mental age (approximately 55 months) when they
were engaged in both structured and unstructured play situations.
Others’ Reports
When reports by parents and teachers are used, the results almost always show
motivational differences between children with intellectual disability and those who
are typically developing (Gilmore & Cuskelly, 2011; Zigler, et al., 2002). Differences
favour those who are typically developing, with individuals with intellectual disability
being rated as lower in motivation.
Motivation in children
8
One of the contributors to the difference between the results of observational
studies and questionnaire methodologies may be to do with the standard being applied
(Cuskelly, Gilmore & Carroll, 2013). When a parent or teacher is asked to rate a
child’s motivation the standard s/he applies is likely to be that of the average child of
the same chronological age, whereas the experimental/observational results refer to
children who are of the same mental age. Another possibility is that parents/teachers
rarely see children with intellectual disability tackling tasks that are at an appropriate
level of difficulty for them. In the mainstream school classroom, in particular,
children with intellectual disability may encounter work that is too difficult for them;
alternatively, they may be given tasks that are too easy (e.g., colouring in). The match
between ability and challenge is an important one in mastery motivation theory,
because motivation will be highest when a task is optimally challenging. Parent and
teacher perceptions of children’s task engagement may also be influenced by their
slowness to respond which may be interpreted as low motivation.
It is possible though that parents and teachers have a more comprehensive view
of the child’s motivation that is based on performance across a range of situations,
rather than the relatively contained and time-limited exposure that occurs in the
laboratory. In addition, it may be that the structure associated with experimental tasks
– where the goal is defined and the approach to success is clear – assists children to
maintain motivation, whereas unstructured tasks lack this support and so behaviour
becomes less focussed.
It is unclear which explanation for the difference between the two methods of
data collection is more correct. Of more importance is the issue of which approach
provides the more meaningful information. Longitudinal studies have the potential to
Motivation in children
9
address this question as the predictive relationship between measures of motivation
and later competence can be established. Gilmore and Cuskelly (2009) reported a
longitudinal study of children with Down syndrome where both types of data were
collected. Persistence on laboratory tasks at age 4 to 6 years predicted adolescent
reading achievement, with a trend towards significance in maths. These effects were
independent of cognitive ability. Maternal reports of motivation were unrelated to
later competence. This suggests that laboratory observational information may be
more useful; however, replication is required before this can be confirmed.
Children with Down Syndrome
Children with Down syndrome are sometimes characterised as having particular
motivational deficits. Fidler (2006) suggested that motivational deficits formed part of
the characteristic profile of this group. One possibility, according to Fidler, is that
motivational deficits become part of the repertoire of behaviour due to relative
weakness developing an understanding of the relationships between causes and effects
and relative strengths in social functioning. This combination, she argued, may lead
children to depend upon others to assist them with tasks. Other researchers have
suggested that avoidance of learning is inherent to the syndrome itself, and that
children with Down syndrome tend to use social strategies as distractors when faced
with challenging tasks (Pitcairn & Wishart, 1994).
For a behaviour to be considered to be part of the behavioural phenotype, there
should be evidence that it occurs in most individuals with the condition and also
evidence that is does not usually occur in others whose intellectual disability is caused
by different conditions (Dykens, 1995). Only two studies were identified that
compared children with Down syndrome to a group of children with intellectual
Motivation in children
10
disability from other causes. One study compared mastery motivation (operationalised
as persistence, curiosity and preference for challenge) of children with Down
syndrome (CA = 147 months; MA = 56 months) with a group matched for mental age
(CA = 157 months; MA = 55 months) but with a range of etiological conditions
(Gilmore, Cuskelly, & Browning, under review). No differences in any measures
(tasks or parent report) were found.
The second study examined outerdirectness of children with Down syndrome
(CA = 96 months; MA = 49 months) in comparison with children whose intellectual
disability had an unknown cause (CA = 106 months; MA = 53 months) (Kasari &
Freeman, 2001). Children were presented with two tasks. The first, the dependence
task, consisted of the child being asked to complete a puzzle while the experimenter
completed the same puzzle next to the child. The experimenter worked so that s/he
was just ahead of the child. The second task was an impossible task as the child’s
persistence was the focus of interest. Kasari and Freeman counted how frequently
children looked at the experimenter’s face, at the experimenter’s puzzle, and how
often they asked for help. Children were asked if they would prefer to complete a
puzzle they had completed successfully or one they had been unable to complete (a
measure of preference for challenge). Children who were more outerdirected would
be expected to look at the other’s work more frequently (for guidance) and ask for
help more often. Results were somewhat mixed.
The children with Down syndrome looked less frequently at the experimenter’s
work than did the children with intellectual disability and there was no difference in
requests for help in the dependence task. On the persistence task, children with Down
syndrome asked for assistance more frequently and they also chose the solvable
puzzle more often. In addition, on the persistence task only, children with Down
Motivation in children
11
syndrome took longer to begin the task than the other group. Short latency to engage
with tasks has been identified as an indicator of mastery motivation by Vig (2007),
although, as noted above, other interpretations are also possible. Children with Down
syndrome looked at the examiner more frequently, suggesting that they were more
interested in the adult than were the other group. Hupp (1995) has pointed out that
mastery motivation may also occur within the social dimension as children seek to
‘work out’ how others function.
There is no compelling evidence for a motivational deficit in those with
intellectual disability as a group, nor any robust evidence that motivational deficits are
part of the Down syndrome phenotype. Nevertheless, some individuals do present as
unmotivated. The following section provides some suggestions, based on the research
literature, for promising avenues for enhancing and/or maintaining motivation. See
Gilmore and Cuskelly (2014) for a more extended discussion than is able to be
provided here.
Influences on Motivation and How Motivation Can Be Maximised
Certain aspects of the environments in which individuals with intellectual
disability live and learn are likely to impact negatively on their motivation. Parents
and teachers of children with intellectual disability are often observed to be more
directive and controlling (Glenn et al., 2001; Ockjean & Hupp, 2005), thus potentially
denying sufficient opportunities for independent mastery attempts. The evidence
presented by Tichá et al. (2012) about the lack of choice around everyday activities,
such as how to spend leisure time exercised by individuals with intellectual
disabilities, and by Bigby, Knox, Beadle-Brown, Clement, and Mansell (2012)
regarding the directiveness of some support staff suggests that at least some adults
live in environments in which there is little support for autonomous activity.
Motivation in children
12
Motivation and feelings of self-efficacy are likely to be higher when individuals
are able to act autonomously (Deci & Ryan, 2008; Grolnick, 2009). Directive
behaviour will interfere with the development of confidence in one’s own decisions
and may contribute to the adoption of an outerdirected stance, where individuals
continually wait to be told what to do and adopt a passive stance. Outer-directedness
may also result if help is constantly offered even if it is not actually needed.
Often individuals seek outside help because tasks are too difficult for them. This is
an adaptive strategy, although being constantly in a situation where demands are too
difficult, and so seeking help is necessary, may lead to generalised low motivation. As
mentioned earlier, activities that are optimally challenging are best suited to
maintaining motivation (Soltani, Roslan, Abdullah, & Jan, 2011) but the provision of
optimal challenge requires a very good understanding of the match between a
person’s current level of competence and the level of challenge in the task. Activities
that are too easy are likely to result in boredom, while those that are too difficult are
likely to result in frustration. Both have the potential to produce distractibility and
other problem behaviours (Bierbaum, Henrich, & Zigler, 2005). For those working
with children or adults with intellectual disability, ensuring that activities are neither
too easy nor too difficult is clearly crucial for fostering motivation and self-efficacy,
and for preventing the behavioural sequelae to boredom and/or frustration. Breaking
down difficult tasks into manageable chunks, and scaffolding the gradual building of
competence is a well-established and often effective strategy.
People are likely to engage more enthusiastically and to experience greater
satisfaction from activities they are intrinsically interested in. Thus, in nurturing
motivation, it is also valuable to consider each person’s strengths, interests, curiosities
and talents in order to offer them activities that are interesting and meaningful.
Motivation in children
13
Mastery requires that one recognises success. It has been argued that the use of
external rewards for success undermines intrinsic motivation (Haywood, 2006);
however, Hodges (2003) suggested that even those individuals with intellectual
disability whose aim is to learn rather than demonstrate their competence to others
may need a concrete external indicator of success to provide them with feedback
about their performance. This suggestion requires empirical investigation. Certainly,
there is evidence that external rewards may be helpful in teaching new skills and may
also be an effective stimulus for students who have become discouraged about
learning or trying new activities. Using external rewards as a bridge to more
autonomous functioning is likely to be more helpful than constant dependence upon
this strategy.
Explicitly teaching about how to deal with failure may also be a productive
approach to enhancing and maintaining motivation. Persistence in the face of failure
is the hallmark of motivation; however, individuals with intellectual disability
inevitably tend to experience more failures. They may be less able to see failure as
providing useful information to guide further attempts, they may have difficulty selfregulating their responses to frustration associated with failure, or they may be unable
to view failure within a broader context that also includes their past successes.
Families and others may assist by encouraging the person to continue trying after an
initial failure or suggesting that the task is approached in a different way. Teaching
and modelling the steps involved in recognising and regulating emotions (e.g.,
frustration, anger) and associated behaviours following failure is also likely to be of
benefit. Reminding the person that he or she has been successful with other similar
tasks can be useful for getting the current failure into perspective.
Motivation in children
14
In summary, there is no strong recent evidence of motivational deficits in
individuals with intellectual disability when they are compared to mental age matched
peers on structured and optimally challenging tasks. This does not necessarily mean,
however, that individuals with intellectual disability do not have motivational
difficulties in their day-to-day lives. Optimal challenge is difficult to arrange,
especially in more than short bursts, and it is likely that there is an accumulation of
experiences such as the increasing difficulty of tasks, failure, discouraging feedback
from others, and self-comparison with others who are achieving more. These
experiences can easily undermine motivation to learn. It is important that researchers
examine motivation under real life conditions (such as in classrooms or supported
employment settings) if we are to come to a more complete understanding of
motivation to learn in individuals with intellectual disability.
Conclusions
There is a surprising scarcity of empirical research about motivation in
individuals with intellectual disability, and most of the previous research has focussed
on young children and/or on those with Down syndrome. The evidence from
observational studies does not support the view that individuals with intellectual
disability have motivational deficits; however, studies using other-reports have
consistently identified motivational difficulties. Clearly, more research is needed and
it is particularly important that this research taps into the everyday situations of
people with intellectual disability, including adolescents and adults. There has been
insufficient attention paid to the influences on motivation and its maintenance with
learners with intellectual disability. As Gilmore et al. (2003) have argued, similar
outcomes on structured tasks may be the product of different processes. This is
particularly important when interpreting studies where participants have been
Motivation in children
15
matched on MA but differ substantially on CA (e.g., Nader-Grosbois & Lefévre,
2011) Wide age ranges in samples with intellectual disability make interpretation of
findings of no group differences more difficult, since experience is generally
understood to play a role in motivation.
It seems evident that there are characteristics inherent to intellectual disability
that are taken as indicators of motivation. There are also aspects of the environments
of individuals with intellectual disability that may limit both the development, and the
display of motivated behaviour. Disentangling these confounds is a challenge. In
addition, the different understandings of various researchers about what constitutes
motivation make comparisons across studies very difficult. Other paradigms used
with typically developing populations but not yet used with individuals with
intellectual disability may provide more clarity; however, to date these have not been
operationalised in a way that makes them easily applied with this group. Motivation
research needs to address these issues as better understanding will allow the
development of more effective approaches to maintaining motivation, thus providing
a sound basis for continued learning and engagement in productive and enjoyable
activities.
References
Bierbaum, L.J., Henrich, C.C., & Zigler, E.F. (2005). Disobedient behaviours in
children with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual & Developmental
Disability, 30, 115–119. doi: 10.1080/13668250500125007
Bigby, C., Knox, M., Beadle-Brown, J., Clement, T., & Mansell, J. (2012).
Uncovering dimensions of culture in underperforming group homes for people
with severe intellectual disability. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 50,
452–467. doi: 10.1352/1934-9556-50.06.452
Motivation in children
16
Cuskelly, M., Gilmore, L., & Carroll, A. (2013). Self-regulation and individuals with
developmental disabilities: Barriers, supports and strategies. In K. C. Barrett, N. A.
Fox, G. A. Morgan, D. J. Fidler, & L. A. Daunhauer (Eds.), Handbook of selfregulatory processes in development: New directions and international
perspectives (pp. 381-402). New York: Psychology Press.
Deci, E.L. (2003). Promoting intrinsic motivation and self-determination in people
with mental retardation. In H.N. Switzky (Ed.), Personality and motivational
systems in mental retardation (pp. 1-20). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Deci, E.L., & Ryan, R.M. (2008). Facilitating optimal motivation and psychological
well-being across life’s domains. Canadian Psychology, 49, 14–23.
doi:10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14
Dykens, E.M. (1995). Measuring behavioral phenotypes: Provocations from the ``new
genetics''. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 99, 522-532.
Fidler, D.J. (2006). The emergence of a syndrome-specific personality profile in
young children with Down syndrome. Down Syndrome Research and Practice, 10,
53–60.
Gilmore, L., & Cuskelly, M. (2009). A longitudinal study of motivation and
competence in children with Down syndrome: Early childhood to early
adolescence. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 53, 484–492.
Gilmore, L., & Cuskelly, M. (2011). Observational assessment and maternal reports
of motivation in children and adolescents with Down syndrome. American Journal
of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 116, 153–164.
Gilmore, L. & Cuskelly, M. (2014). Mastery motivation in children with Down
syndrome: Promoting and sustaining interest in learning. In R. Faragher & B.
Clarke (Eds.), Educating learners with Down syndrome (pp. 60-82). London:
Routledge Education.
Gilmore, L., Cuskelly, M., & Browning, M. (under review). Mastery motivation in
children with intellectual disability: Is there evidence for a Down syndrome
Motivation in children
17
behavioral phenotype? International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education.
Gilmore, L., Cuskelly, M., & Hayes, A. (2003). A comparative study of mastery
motivation in young children with Down’s syndrome: Similar outcomes, different
processes? Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 47, 181–190.
Glenn, S., Dayus, B., Cunningham, C., & Horgan, M. (2001). Mastery motivation in
children with Down syndrome. Down Syndrome Research and Practice, 7, 52–59.
Goodman, J.F., & Linn, M.I. (2003). “Maladaptive” behaviours in the young child
with intellectual disabilities: A reconsideration. International Journal of Disability,
Development and Education, 50, 137–148.
Greenspan, S. (2006). Functional concepts in mental retardation: Finding the natural
essence of an artificial category. Exceptionality, 14, 205-224.doi:
10.1207/s15327035ex1404_3
Grolnick, W.S. (2009). The role of parents in facilitating autonomous self-regulation
for education. Theory and Research in Education, 7, 164-173.doi:
10.1177/1477878509104321
Harter, S., & Zigler, E. (1974). The assessment of effectance motivation in normal
and retarded children. Developmental Psychology, 10, 169–180.
Haywood, H.C. (2006). A transactional perspective on mental retardation. In H.N.
Switzky (Ed.), Mental retardation, personality, and motivational systems (pp. 289314). San Diego, CA: Elsevier Academic Press.
Hodges, J.S. (2003). Applying knowledge of motivational goals to programming for
persons with mental retardation, Therapeutic Recreation Journal, 37, 326-329.
Hupp, S. (1995). The impact of mental retardation on motivated behaviour. In R.H.
MacTurk & G.A. Morgan (Eds.), Mastery motivation: Origins, conceptualizations,
and applications (pp. 221-236). Norwood, NJ: Ablex Publishing Corporation.
Kasari, C. & Freeman, S.F.N. (2001). Task-related social behavior in children with
Down syndrome. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 106, 253–264.
Motivation in children
18
Kim, O., & Hupp, S.C. (2007). Instructional interactions of students with cognitive
disabilities: Sequential analysis. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 112,
94-106.
Morgan G.A., Busch-Rossnagel N.A., Maslin-Cole C.A. & Harmon R.J. (1992)
Individualized Assessment of Mastery Motivation: Manual for 15-36 Month Old
Children. New York, NY: Fordham University.
Nader-Grosbois, N. & Lefévre, N. (2011). Self-regulation and performance in
problem-solving using physical materials or computers in children with intellectual
disability. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 32, 1492-1505.
doi:10.1016/j.ridd.2011.01.020
Nader-Grosbois, N. & Vieillevoye, S (2012). Variability of self-regulatory strategies
in children with intellectual disability and typically developing children in pretend
play situations. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 56, 140-156. .
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2788.2011.01443.x Journal of Intelleir_1443
Pitcairn, T.K., & Wishart, J.G. (1994). Reactions of young children with Down's
syndrome to an impossible task. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 12,
485-489. doi:10.1111/j.2044-835X.1994.tb00649.x
Ruskin E. M., Mundy P., Kasari C. & Sigman M. (1994). Object mastery motivation
of children with Down syndrome. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 98,
499-509.
Seifert, T. (2004). Understanding student motivation. Educational Research, 46, 137149. doi:10.1080/0013188042000222421
Senko, C., Durik, A., & Harackiewicz, J. (2008). Historical perspectives and new
directions in achievement goal theory. In J. Shah & W. Gardner (Eds.), Handbook
of motivation science (pp. 100–113). New York: Guilford Press.
Soltani, A., Roslan, S., Adbullah, M.C. & Jan, C.C. (2011). Effects of manipulating
optimal challenge in a music intervention program on situational intrinsic
motivation among people with intellectual disability. Europe’s Journal of
Psychology, 7, 487-501.
Motivation in children
19
Tichá, R., Lakin, K.C., Larson, S.A., Stancliffe, R.J., Taub, S., Engler, J., Bershadsky,
J., & Moseley, C. (2012). Correlates of everyday choice and support-related choice
for 8,892 randomly sampled adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities
in 10 states. Intellectual and developmental Disabilities, 50, 486-504. Doi:
10.1352/1934-9556-50.06.486
Turner, L.A. & Johnson, B. (2003). A model of mastery motivation for at-risk
preschoolers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 495–505. doi 10.1037/00220663.95.3.495
Vig, S. (2007). Young children’s object play: A window on development. Journal of
Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 19, 201–215. doi:10.1007/s10882-0079048-6
White, R.W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence.
Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.
Zigler, E., Bennett-Gates, D., Hodapp, R., & Henrich, C.C. (2002). Assessing
personality traits of individuals with mental retardation. American Journal on
Mental Retardation, 107, 181-193.
doi:10.1352/08958017(2002)107<0181:APTOIW>2.0.CO;2