Linda Baker

Review of Research
Dimensions of Reading Motivation

andTheir Relation to Reading
Behaviorand Competence
Ulrich Schiefele
University of Potsdam, Germany
Ellen Schaffner
University of Potsdam, Germany
Jens Mller
University of Kiel, Germany
Allan Wigfield
University of Maryland, College Park, USA
CONSULTING EDITORS:
Susan Nolen, University of Washington, Seattle, USA
Linda Baker, University of Maryland, Baltimore County, USA
ABSTR ACT
This review of research examines the constructs of reading motivation and synthesizes research findings of the past 20
years on the relationship between reading motivation and reading behavior (amount, strategies, and preferences), and the
relationship between reading motivation and reading competence (reading skills and comprehension). In addition, evidence relating to the causal role of motivational factors and to the role of reading behavior as a mediator of the effects of
motivation on reading competence is examined. We identify seven genuine dimensions of reading motivation: curiosity,
involvement, competition, recognition, grades, compliance, and work avoidance. Evidence for these dimensions comes
from both quantitative and qualitative research. Moreover, evidence from previous studies confirms the positive contribution of intrinsic reading motivation, and the relatively small or negative contribution of extrinsic reading motivation,
to reading behavior and reading competence. The positive contribution of intrinsic motivation is particularly evident in
relation to amount of reading for enjoyment and reading competence and holds even when accounting for relevant control variables. However, the causal role of reading motivation and the mediating role of reading behavior remain largely
unresolved issues.
he effects of motivation on learning and achievement are central issues in educational psychology (Heckhausen, 1991; Schunk, Pintrich,
&Meece, 2008; Wigfield, Eccles, Schiefele, Roeser,
&Davis-Kean, 2006). A multitude of studies have suggested that students motivation impacts their processes
and products of learning above and beyond cognitive

characteristics such as intelligence or prior knowledge.
In this context, reading plays a particularly important
role because learning relies to a large extent on written materials. Accordingly, many studies have used
text learning tasks to examine effects of motivation on
Reading Research Quarterly 47(4) pp. 427463 doi: 10.1002/RRQ.030 2012 International Reading Association
427
learning (see, e.g., P. Alexander, Kulikowich, & Jetton,

1994; Hidi, 2001; Schiefele, 1999).
Thus, in fact, these studies examined the effects of
motivation on reading competence. Because learning
depends so strongly on text materials, reading competence appears to be a highly important precondition of
academic achievement. As a consequence, educational
training programs such as Concept-Oriented Reading
Instruction have been developed to foster students
reading strategies and their motivation to read (Guthrie,
McRae, & Klauda, 2007). Motivation is assumed to be
of particular significance because it affects the amount
and breadth of students reading, which, in turn, facilitates the development of reading competence (Mol &
Bus, 2011; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997b).
Although the importance of reading motivation
for the development of reading competence has been
emphasized and empirically examined by many authors
(e.g., Guthrie & Wigfield, 1999; McKenna, Conradi,
Lawrence, Jang, & Meyer, 2012; Morgan & Fuchs, 2007;
Park, 2011; Unrau & Schlackman, 2006), several questions remain. In our view, these questions mainly refer to
the nature of conceptualizations of reading motivation,
the distinction between dimensions of reading motivation, the relative contributions of different dimensions
of reading motivation to reading behavior and reading
competence, the independence of motivational influences from confounding cognitive predictors, the evidence for the causal direction of motivational effects,
and the identification of processes mediating the effects
of reading motivation on reading competence.
The present review was guided by these unresolved questions. Thus, our goals were (1) to examine
previously identified constructs of reading motivation, (2)toclarify the dimensionality of reading motivation, (3) to synthesize research f indings on the
relation between facets of reading motivation and reading behavior (amount, strategies, preferences) as well as
(4) reading competence (reading skills and comprehension), and (5) to examine the evidence on the causality
of motivational effects, including the analysis of the role
of reading behavior as a mediator of the effects of reading motivation on reading competence.
In searching for relevant studies, we focused on
19902010 and part of 2011 and used several databases
for English and German psychological literature (e.g.,
PsycINFO, PSYNDEX). For the purpose of online
search, we created search phrases by combining the
terms reading, comprehension, reading competence, reading amount, reading frequency, and reading behavior
with each of the following terms: motivation, interest,
self-concept, self-efficacy, attitude, and goal orientation
(e.g., reading and interest). Because past research
focused on young children and school students, we
did not include studies with adults or university students. In fact, only very few studies involving adults
428
were identified (He, 2008; Kolic-Vehovec, Roncevic, &

Bajanski, 2008; Schutte & Malouff, 2007).
Our review focuses primarily on research from a
psychological perspective as opposed to a sociocultural or situated perspective (e.g., Moje, Overby, Tysvaer, &Morris, 2008; Nolen, 2007). The main reason
for this focus is that sociocultural research on reading
motivation addresses different research questions than
the ones addressed in our review. Research on reading motivation from a sociocultural perspective has
addressed issues such as the socially situated development of reading motivation (Moje et al., 2008; Nolen,
2007), the role of popular media texts in the literacy
practice of adolescents (Alvermann, 2011; Alvermann &
Heron, 2001), and the dependency of text use and text
comprehension on characteristics of different academic
disciplines (Moje, Stockdill, Kim, & Kim, 2011).
In the following, we first discuss the conceptualization of reading motivation at a more general level and
review different approaches to theorizing about reading
motivation. The most widely known line of research pertains to the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic
reading motivation. Other lines of research examine reading attitude, reading-related task value beliefs, reading
self-concept and self-efficacy, and reading-related goal
orientations. After briefly clarifying these constructs, we
attempt to categorize and integrate them (goal 1).
Another highly relevant theoretical issue is the identification of various dimensions of reading motivation
within the constructs of intrinsic and extrinsic reading
motivation. We focus on both qualitative and quantitative research on the multifaceted nature of reading motivation. Of particular interest is the question
of whether evidence from qualitative and quantitative
research coincides with regard to the identification of
motivational dimensions. We systematically compare
the various studies and conclude by proposing the core
dimensions of reading motivation (goal 2).
In the main part of our review, research on the relations between facets of reading motivation and reading
behavior (goal 3) and on the relations between facets
of reading motivation and reading competence (goal
4) is analyzed. More specifically, the section on reading motivation and behavior examines three aspects
of reading behavior: amount of reading, use of reading strategies, and individuals preferences for different text genres. Research on the association between
reading motivation and various indicators of reading
competence is presented next. The indicators of reading competence vary from measures of basic reading
skills (e.g., decoding skills, vocabulary, pseudoword
naming) to measures of reading comprehension (e.g.,
multiple-choice questions pertaining to the main ideas
of a text). The first two parts of the section on reading
motivation and reading competence examine research
on intrinsic/extrinsic reading motivation, then research
Reading Research Quarterly 47(4)
on reading attitude and reading-related task value. In

the third part, we review findings on the causal direction of effects and the identification of processes (particularly the amount of reading) that possibly mediate
the effects of reading motivation on reading competence (goal 5). In the final section, we draw conclusions
and make suggestions for further research.
Conceptualization of Reading
Motivation
In our definition of reading motivation, we suggest a distinction between current and habitual reading motivation (cf. Pekrun, 1993) and between different dimensions
of reading motivation (e.g., Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997b).
A persons current motivation to read can be defined as
the extent of his or her intention to read a specific text in
a given situation (Schiefele, 1999, 2009). Thus, someone
eager to read a particular article, for example, displays a
high level of current reading motivation. An individual
who repeatedly shows a form of current reading motivation can be ascribed a certain amount of habitual reading motivation. For example, a girl who uses most of her
free time to read books would be said to exhibit strong
habitual reading motivation. Thus, habitual reading
motivation denotes the relatively stable readiness of a
person to initiate particular reading activities. Reading
motivation inventories, such as Wigfield and Guthries
(1997b) Motivations for Reading Questionnaire (MRQ),
usually assess habitual forms of motivation.
It should be noted that we do not consider individual interest as a form of reading motivation, as was
suggested by Guthrie and Wigfield (1999). Individual
interest may motivate quite different behaviors (e.g., visiting a museum, attending a conference), one of which is
reading text materials related to ones interests. Thus, a
specific form of habitual reading motivation may involve
the repeated intention to read to satisfy ones interests. As
will be shown, this form of reading motivation has been
termed curiosity (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997b), object-oriented reading motivation (Schaffner & Schiefele, 2007a),
or reading for interest (Mller & Bonerad, 2007).
In the following, we discuss central constructs of
reading motivation. As will be argued, there are basically two groups of constructs: those referring to forms
of intrinsic or extrinsic reading motivation (e.g., reading
attitude) and those dealing with preconditions of reading motivation (e.g., reading self-concept).
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Reading Motivation

Theoretically, the distinction between dimensions
of reading motivation should correspond to the various incentives that are attached to reading (cf. Mller
& Schiefele, 2011). From the perspective of the reader,
these incentives may appear as subjective reasons for

reading. For example, a student may be motivated to
read because of individual interest in a particular topic.
Alternatively, the students reading motivation may
derive from external incentives, such as the desire to get
good grades in school. Usually, these different aspects
of motivation are categorized as intrinsic or extrinsic
forms of motivation (e.g., Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997a). In
line with motivational theories (cf. Schunk et al., 2008),
intrinsic motivation to read is defined as the willingness
to read because that activity is satisfying or rewarding
in its own right. More specifically, intrinsic motivation
to read can be either object or activity specific. In the
case of object-specific intrinsic reading motivation, the
person is motivated to read because of an interest in the
topic of a text. In the case of activity-specific intrinsic
reading motivation, the person is motivated to read
because the activity of reading provides positive experiences, such as becoming absorbed by a story (Schiefele,
1999, 2009).
Extrinsic reading motivation refers to reasons for
reading that are external to both the activity of reading and the topic of the text. Extrinsically motivated
reading is energized by its expected consequences
(Wigfield &Guthrie, 1997b). Extrinsically motivated
readers either aspire to get positive outcomes or attempt
to avoid negative ones. For example, a student might
read a text for school to elicit praise from the teacher.
Other forms of extrinsic reading motivation refer, for
example, to the desire for good grades or for outperforming others (Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997b).
Reading Attitude
McKenna, Kear, and Ellsworth (1995; see also McKenna
et al., 2012) maintained that childrens attitude toward
reading is important because it affects their levels of
reading ability through its influence on reading behavior. In line with Fishbein and Ajzens (1975) classic attitude theory and J. Alexander and Fillers (1976, p. 1)
definition of reading attitude as a system of feelings
related to reading which causes the learner to approach
or avoid a reading situation, McKenna et al. (1995) view
reading attitude as an affective construct. Furthermore,
they reported evidence for two dimensions: attitude
toward recreational and academic reading. McKenna et
al. did not explicitly differentiate their concept of reading attitude from the concept of reading motivation.
Yet, theoretically, the two concepts are distinguishable: Whereas reading motivation refers to intentions
or reasons for reading, reading attitude involves the
expression of feelings toward reading.1
When taking a closer look at McKenna and Kears
(1990) Elementary Reading Attitude Survey (recently
adapted by McKenna et al., 2012, for middle school
students and reading in both print and digital settings),
Dimensions of Reading Motivation andTheir Relation to Reading Behaviorand Competence
429
a strong overlap between reading attitude and intrinsic reading motivation becomes evident. For example,
the subscale for recreational reading involves questions
such as How do you feel about spending free time
reading? that have to be answered on a pictorial rating
scale based on the cartoon character Garfield. Because
of the conceptual overlap between measures of reading attitude and reading motivation, findings related to
reading attitude are relevant in the present context.
Chapman and Tunmers (1995) Reading Self-Concept Scale for elementary students also includes an attitude toward reading subscale. These authors adopted
the same definition of reading attitude as McKenna and
Kear (1990) but categorized attitude toward reading as
the affective component of reading self-concept. Again,
the nature of the items (e.g., Is it fun for you to read
books?) suggests a close relation of reading attitude
with intrinsic reading motivation.
Sainsbury and Schagen (2004) developed a reading
attitude questionnaire for upper elementary students
and identified three attitude factors. The first factor was labeled reading enjoyment (e.g., I like reading
stories) and is very similar to McKenna et al.s (1995)
and Chapman and Tunmers (1995) attitude scales. The
other two factors were conceptually less clear. The second factor was characterized as support for reading and
mainly expresses a preference for reading with an adult
person or other support. The third factor measures the
preference for nonbook reading materials (e.g., comics,
magazines).
It should be noted that other authors (e.g., Logan
& Johnston, 2009) used operational definitions of reading attitude that could not be classified unambiguously
as indicators of reading motivation and thus were not
included in the present review.
Reading-Related Task Value Beliefs

Based on the expectancyvalue model of achievement
behavior by Eccles (1994; Eccles et al., 1983), Durik, Vida,
and Eccles (2006) examined task value beliefs and selfconcept of reading ability as predictors of high school
achievement choices related to literacy (e.g., number
of language arts courses per year of high school). They
considered two forms of reading-related task values in
their study: intrinsic value and importance. Intrinsic
value refers to valuing a reading task because it is enjoyable and involving. Perceived importance of a reading
task entails both utility value (practical or instrumental significance) and attainment value (importance of
reading well).
Anmarkrud and Brten (2009) used items from
the MRQ and their own items to assess reading selfefficacy and the utility, attainment, and interest value of
reading comprehension (rather than of reading in general). Factor analyses revealed only two factors: reading
430
comprehension efficacy and value of reading comprehension (comprising items referring to utility, attainment, and interest value). Thus, intrinsic and extrinsic
aspects of reading value were not separated.
Value of reading is also a component of the Motivation to Read Profile developed by Gambrell, Palmer,
Codling, and Mazzoni (1996) and revised by Pitcher et
al. (2007). This instrument consists of two subscales:
reading self-concept, and value or importance of reading. A typical item on the value of reading scale asks
students to complete the statement I think reading is...
with one of four response categories (e.g., 4=a great
way to spend time, 1=a boring way to spend time).
Durik et al.s (2006) scale of intrinsic value and
Pitcher et al.s (2007) scale of reading value seem to capture similar constructs. In addition, they both appear
to be closely related to the concepts of reading attitude
and intrinsic reading motivation. Durik et al.s (see also
Solheim, 2011) task importance resembles Wigfield and
Guthries (1997b) reading motivation dimension importance of reading (see later discussion).
Reading Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy

Self-concepts of ability are more or less domain-specific
self-perceptions that students develop as a result of their
experiences in different (school) subjects or domains.
These experiences are largely determined by the opinions of significant others, concrete feedback, and causal
attributions (Shavelson, Hubner, & Stanton, 1976; see
also Helmke, 1996). As was shown by Marsh, Byrne,
and Shavelson (1988), the self-concept of academic ability falls into two distinct dimensions: verbal and mathematical. Whereas most prior research viewed the verbal
self-concept as being one-dimensional, Wigfield and
Karpathian (1991) suggested the differentiation of subcomponents. Accordingly, the concept of ones reading
ability may be one such subcomponent. In line with this
assumption, Chapman and Tunmer (1995) developed
the Reading Self-Concept Scale for elementary students.
This instrument comprises two subscales related to
self-perception of reading competence and difficulty of
reading tasks. Only the first of these subscales captures
reading self-concept. A similar scale is included in the
Motivation to Read Profile (Pitcher al., 2007) discussed
previously.
Reading self-efficacy refers to the extent of a persons expectation to perform well on a reading task.
Bandura (1997; see also Schunk & Zimmerman, 1997)
differentiated between outcome and self-eff icacy
expectations. An outcome expectation is defined as the
subjective belief that a given behavior will in fact result
in a certain outcome, whereas self-efficacy beliefs refer
to the expectation of being able to execute that behavior. In contrast to academic self-concepts, self-efficacy
beliefs are relatively independent of both social and
dimensional comparison processes (e.g., Bong, 1998;

Mller, Pohlmann, Kller, & Marsh, 2009). However,
they depend more strongly on past experiences with
similar tasks. Despite these conceptual distinctions,
inventories of reading-related competence beliefs (e.g.,
Chapman & Tunmers, 1995, Reading Self-Concept
Scale; Wigfield and Guthries, 1997b, MRQ reading
efficacy subscale) often combine self-concept and selfefficacy items.
Goal Orientations
To date, there appear to be no direct applications of
achievement goal theory to reading. This contrasts
with the importance of goal orientations in educational research (e.g., Elliot, 1999; Kaplan & Maehr,
2007). However, Meece and Miller (1999, 2001; see also
Graham, Tisher, Ainley, & Kennedy, 2008) applied
achievement goal theory to literacy-related learning
assignments (involving reading and writing tasks) in
school. They were particularly interested in examining the temporal stability of students goals for literacyrelated assignments over the late elementary years.
In addition, the relation between changes in goal orientations and changes in learning strategy use was
investigated. Three types of goal orientations were distinguished: (1) Task-mastery goals represent the desire
to improve ones ability or to understand learning
material; (2) performance goals involve demonstrating
high ability relative to others and attaining recognition
for ones abilities; and (3) work-avoidant goals represent
the tendency to work on academic tasks with a minimum of effort.
The items of the scales to assess students goals
did not directly address reading or writing (e.g., I
really wanted to understand the assignment: taskmastery goals) but were to be answered in terms of
a specific literacy-related learning assignment. Two
types of learning activities were selected for data collection: simple assignments (involving worksheets or
exercise that required a simple response, e.g., circling
the correct answer) and complex assignments (involving writing multiple paragraphs, e.g., essays, research
reports). Students were reminded to answer the questions in relation to the assignment that they had just
completed. The f indings from Meece and Miller
(2001) revealed significant declines over time in taskmastery and performance goals but not in work-avoidant goals. In addition, task-mastery goal ratings were
significantly related to reported use of active learning
strategies.
Lepola and his colleagues (e.g., Lepola, Salonen,
& Vauras, 2000) proposed another approach based
on goal theory. Similar to Meece and Miller (2001),
these researchers assessed goal orientations as more
general constructs not being specifically related to
reading. For example, Lepola et al. (see also Poskiparta, Niemi, Lepola, Ahtola, & Laine, 2003) had
experimenters rate elementary school students behavior in testlike and gamelike situations on a number of
items. Task orientation items addressed, for example,
concentration on task and verbal behavior indicating task involvement. Social dependence orientation
was related, for example, to verbal help-seeking and
imitative behavior. Ego-defensive orientation items
reflected, for example, avoidance behavior and negative utterances referring to ones performance. The
resulting goal orientation measures were then examined as predictors of various indicators of reading
competence.
Summary: Categorization of Reading

Motivation Constructs
Our first goal was to clarify the nature of previously
identified constructs of reading motivation. Based on
the previous analysis, we suggest two categories: genuine motivational constructs (facets of reading motivation) and antecedents of reading motivation. The
former group clearly entails the concepts of intrinsic
and extrinsic reading motivation and their components.
As we have argued, reading attitude (McKenna et al.,
1995), intrinsic value (Durik et al., 2006), and reading
value (Pitcher et al., 2007) are all rather similar to the
construct of intrinsic reading motivation and, thus,
also belong to the group of genuine reading motivation
constructs. In contrast, the second group of constructs
involves self-concept of reading ability, reading
self-efficacy, and importance of reading. In our view,
these constructs are antecedents of reading motivation
because they refer to the expectancy of successful reading and to the value of reading (cf.Mller & Schiefele,
2011).
To assign goal orientations to one of the two
groups appears to be more difficult because in the
past, goal orientations were only indirectly related
to reading. Meece and Miller (2001) examined students goals for literacy-related learning assignments
in school. Lepola et al. (2000) observed students in
testlike and gamelike situations to assess their goal
orientations. These researchers operational definitions of goals do not refer to reading as an activity that
is being pursued within or outside of school. Thus,
in our view, work on goal orientations does not relate
specifically to reading motivation.

In the preceding sections, we described intrinsic and
extrinsic reading motivation as higher order categories that may each subsume several specific forms or
431
dimensions of reading motivation. For the second goal

of the present review, we examine these specific dimensions. This is important because different dimensions
of motivation (within the same higher order category)
are likely to have different effects on reading behavior and reading competence. Thus, in the following,
we review both qualitative and quantitative research
on the dimensionality of reading motivation, and we
address the question of whether qualitative and quantitative studies agree on the identification of reading
motivation dimensions. Quantitative studies of reading
motivation are strongly influenced by a priori theoretical conceptions, and thus the findings may differ from
those of qualitative studies that are more grounded in
respondents perspectives.
Results From Qualitative Research

To date, there have been few attempts to measure reading motivation by means of qualitative assessment methods. Reading motivation of students has been usually
assessed by means of questionnaires, such as Wigfield
and Guthries (1997b) MRQ. Interesting, the MRQ is
based on theoretical considerations as well as results of a
qualitative study by Guthrie, Van Meter, McCann, and
Wigfield (1996). These authors interviewed a sample of
20 third- and fifth-grade students who participated in
Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction (CORI), a program designed to foster both reading competence and
motivation. Content analysis of students interview protocols resulted in 14 categories (cf. Table 1):
Table 1. Dimensions of Reading Motivation: Results from Qualitative Studies

Categories of reading
motivation according to
Guthrie et al.a
Correspondence with Guthrie et al.sa categories

Greaney and Neumanb
Nolenc
Schiefele and Schaffnerd
Curiosity
Interest, mastery
Involvement
Escape, stimulation, enjoyment
Interest, enjoyment
Imagination, absorption, suspense,

enjoyment, relaxation
Competition
General learning
Ego concerns
Competition
Recognition
Self-respect
Social context
Grades
Utility, general learning
Competence
Challenge
General learning
Mastery
Work avoidance
Reading avoidance
Social
Social motives
Social context
Compliance
Reading as a school task
School task
Investment
Goals
Utility reading
Emotional tuning
Relief from boredom, escape
Regulation of emotions, relief from

boredom, relaxation
Rewards
Utilitarian
Efficacy
Categories that do not correspond with those of Guthrie et al.a

Morality
Convenience/flexibility
Facilitation of sleepe
Filling time
Growth of Literacy Engagement: Changes in Motivations and Strategies During Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction, by J.T. Guthrie, P. Van Meter,
A.D.McCann, and A. Wigfield, 1996, Reading Research Quarterly, 31(3), 306332.
b
The Functions of Reading: A Cross-Cultural Perspective, by V. Greaney and S.B. Neuman, 1990, Reading Research Quarterly, 25(3), 172195.
c
Young Childrens Motivation to Read and Write: Development in Social Contexts, by S.B. Nolen, 2007, Cognition and Instruction, 25(2/3), 219270.
d
Lesemotivation im Grundschulalter Ergebnisse einer Interviewstudie [Reading Motivation of Elementary School Students Results From an Interview
Study], by U. Schiefele and E. Schaffner, in press, Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht.
e
Reading to facilitate sleeping refers in Greaney and Neumansb study to a specific student statement that was assigned to the broader category of
convenience/flexibility.
432
1. CuriosityTo learn more about personally

interesting topics
2. InvolvementTo get lost in a story, experience
imaginative actions, and empathize with the
characters of a story
3. CompetitionTo reach higher levels of reading
achievement than other students
4. RecognitionTo get praise for good reading
performance by teachers, parents, or friends
5. GradesTo improve ones grades in school
6. ChallengePreference for difficult or complex
reading materials
7. Work avoidanceTrying to avoid readingrelated work
8. SocialReading-related activities with family
and peers
9. ComplianceReading because of external
pressure or assignments in school
10. InvestmentTo build experience that will lead
to achieving long-term goals, such as attending
college
11. Emotional tuningTo change an existing
feeling, such as alleviating sadness or boredom;
reading to relax
12. RewardsTo gain desirable privileges, such as
books, gold stars, or praise, in the classroom or
at home
13. UtilitarianTo learn a procedure or rules for a
game, hobby, or craft
14. EfficacyFeeling that reading behaviors are
completely under ones own control; to be
confident in ones reading ability
It should be noted that Guthrie et al. (1996) interviewed only students who were part of the CORI
program. As Nolen (2007, p. 221) has argued, the
CORI program suggests particular reasons for reading (e.g., to satisfy subject interests), and therefore,
par ticipation in COR I may have inf luenced the
responses of the students.
Greaney and Neuman (1990) combined qualitative and quantitative methods to determine the reasons
behind students reading intentions. In the first part of
their research, 8-, 10-, and 13-year-old students from different countries were asked to write essays on why they
liked to read. In the second part, statements from the
essays were used to construct a reading motivation questionnaire. The analysis of students essays (n > 1,200)
revealed 10 separate functions of reading (cf. Table 1):
1. General learningTo learn, to read better, or to
get smarter
2. EnjoymentBecause it is fun, interesting, or
exciting
3. EscapeTo withdraw or to forget

4. StimulationTo have a fantasy or to get involved
with the characters of a story
5. Relief from boredomTo pass the time
6. GoalsTo get a job, to help ones family, or to
help ones country in the future
7. MoralityTo learn good manners, to learn from
ones elders, or to behave right
8. Self-respectTo be praised by others or to win
respect
9. Convenience/flexibilityBecause it can be done
any time of the day and in a self-determined way
10. UtilityTo improve ones vocabulary or to do
well on an exam
In a three-year longitudinal, mixed-method study,
Nolen (2007) observed a sample of 67 children in two
schools during literacy activities in grades 13. Each
year, students and their teachers were interviewed
about the students motivation to read and write.
According to Nolen, motivation theory has shifted
from considering context as an independent variable
influencing individuals motivation toward considering
motivation itself as socially constructed. This assumption entails the possibility that individuals definitions
of motivation are different in different situations and
that they develop over time. The main research question (of interest here) referred to the nature of the motivations for literacy that were salient for students across
the primary grades. In addition, the relation of these
motivations and their development to the students
classroom social context was examined.
Based on a grounded theory approach (Strauss &
Corbin, 1998), the interview protocols were analyzed to
identify the motivations that were salient to students at
each grade level in each domain. The results revealed
eight major categories of reading motivation (cf. Table1):
1. InterestGetting involved with the plot or the
characters of a story; liking to read favorite genres,
authors, or topics
2. EnjoymentReading is enjoyable; use of
imagination
3. MasteryReading harder books as a challenge;
becoming a better reader; learning new things
through reading
4. Reading as a school taskReading is needed for
school or for accomplishing homework
5. Utility readingReading is important in later
life, for example, as part of ones job
6. Ego concernsBeing a good reader relative to
others; avoiding shame
7. Social motivesReading with others is fun; talking about reading materials is possible
433
8. Reading avoidanceBecause it is time consuming, and some materials are hard to understand
The major goal of Schiefele and Schaffners
(in press) study was to examine whether students
responses to questionnaire measures of reading motivation developed by Wigfield and Guthrie (1997b),
Mller and Bonerad (2007), and Schaffner and Schiefele (2007a) coincided with students subjective views of
their own reading motivation. To address this question,
Schiefele and Schaffner conducted interviews with 26
sixth-grade students and applied content analysis to
examine the interview protocols. The findings revealed
13 categories of reading motivation (see Table 1):
1. EnjoymentReading is experienced as positive and enjoyable without specifying particular
reasons
2. ImaginationTo project ones thoughts in a story
or to get involved with the characters of a story
3. AbsorptionTo become deeply absorbed and
forget all things around oneself
4. SuspenseTo get to know what happens next in
a story or because a story is very exciting
5. RelaxationTo relax or to get ones mind off
things
6. Regulation of emotionsTo cope with sadness
or anger
7. Relief from boredomTo overcome boredom
8. Filling timeBecause other, more preferred
activities are not available
9. CompetenceTo improve ones competence
10. School taskBecause of homework or other
tasks assigned by the teacher
11. CompetitionTo outperform other students in
school
12. Social contextBecause parents or peers value
reading and because it allows talking with parents or peers about books
13. Facilitation of sleepTo get tired and fall asleep
more easily
It should be noted that school task, facilitation of sleep,
and competition were each indicated by only one or two
students.
Apart from using different terms, the results of
qualitative studies on reading motivation reviewed here
show considerable consistency. This was most apparent
for the category of reading experience. All studies identified qualities of reading experience as an important
dimension of reading motivation (see Table 1). Moreover, despite some minor differences in definition, most
of the categories were found in at least three of the four
studies. This applies to the following components (using
434
Guthrie et al.s, 1996, terms): competition, recognition,

grades, compliance, challenge, social, investment, and
emotional tuning. The least support was provided for
the dimensions of rewards, utilitarian, efficacy, morality, convenience/flexibility, facilitation of sleep, and filling time. As was noted previously, efficacy represents a
precondition but not an inherent component of reading
motivation.
The remaining two dimensionscuriosity and
work avoidancewere each identified in two of the
four studies. Thus, they should be considered in further
research on reading motivation. This seems particularly
true for curiosity. Although, the students in Schiefele
and Schaffners (in press) study did not mention that
category when they answered the open, nondirected
question regarding their reading motivation, curiosity
(or reading for interest) appeared as a major category
when students were more directly asked for it.
Results From Quantitative Research

Probably the most widely used questionnaire to measure reading motivation is Wigfield and Guthries
(1997b) MRQ. The MRQ and differing versions of it
have been used by these authors and their associates
(e.g., Baker & Wigfield, 1999; Taboada, Tonks, Wigfield, & Guthrie, 2009; Wang & Guthrie, 2004) as well as
by other researchers (e.g., Logan, Medford, & Hughes,
2011; Unrau & Schlackman, 2006). In addition, Mller
and Bonerad (2007) and Schaffner and Schiefele (2007a)
developed German adaptations of the MRQ. Greaney
and Neuman (1990) developed an earlier questionnaire.
The MRQ comprises 11 dimensions that were
derived from motivation theory (e.g., self-determination
theory, goal theory) and from interviews with students
(Guthrie et al., 1996; see earlier discussion). Ten of these
dimensions correspond to the categories of reading
motivation identified by Guthrie et al. (1996): curiosity,
involvement, competition, recognition, grades, challenge, work avoidance, social, compliance, and efficacy. The following qualitatively determined categories
of reading motivation were not included in the MRQ:
investment, emotional tuning, utilitarian, and rewards.
The reasons for their exclusion remain unclear. Conversely, the dimension of importance (of being a capable reader) was added to the MRQ even though it was
not suggested by the findings from Guthrie et al. (1996).
Based on theoretical considerations and factor analyses, Wigfield and Guthrie (1997b) defined composite
scales to tap intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation.
The composite scale for intrinsic motivation included
the dimensions curiosity, involvement, and efficacy. In
contrast to Wigfield and Guthrie (1997b), we consider
only curiosity and involvement as components of intrinsic reading motivation (see earlier discussion). This is
supported by Guthrie, Wigfield, Metsala, and Cox
(1999) as well as Wang and Guthrie (2004), who argued

that reading efficacy represents a theoretically independent construct and should not be included as part of
intrinsic motivation. Instead, these authors identified
challenge as a third component of the intrinsic motivation composite. However, the preference for challenging text materials may be regarded as an outcome of
intrinsic and/or extrinsic reading motivation (see later
discussion).
Whereas intrinsic reading motivation is focused on
incentives within the reading process, extrinsic reading
motivation is directed at incentives that represent consequences of reading. Accordingly, the composite scale
for extrinsic motivation comprises competition, recognition, and grades. In our view, compliance could also
be classified as a dimension of extrinsic reading motivation because it represents external pressure by the
school as a motivational force. In fact, Wang and Guthrie (2004) have added both compliance and social to the
extrinsic motivation composite. Whereas we agree on
compliance, in our view, the social subscale should not
be regarded as a form of extrinsic motivation (see later
discussion).
Watkins and Coffey (2004) criticized the fact that
Wigfield, Guthrie, and their colleagues have not conducted factor analyses of all MRQ items simultaneously. Instead, Wigfield and Guthrie (1997b) conducted
factor analyses separately on the items from each
subscale (because of the small sample size) and then
factor analyzed scale values to determine higher order
dimensions. In a similar fashion, Baker and Wigfield
(1999) conducted confirmatory factor analyses of three
different sets of MRQ subscales (instead of the entire
item set). In addition, Watkins and Coffey noted that
Wigfield, Guthrie, and their colleagues have used in
their research either particular subscales of the MRQ
or slightly changed versions of it (e.g., Cox & Guthrie,
2001; Wang & Guthrie, 2004).
On the basis of exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses, Watkins and Coffey (2004) concluded that
the structure of the MRQ is best characterized by eight
factors. However, the authors reported a lack of success
in cross-validating the eight-factorial structure and
thus recommended a substantial revision of the MRQ.
The eight dimensions that were identified by Watkins
and Coffey largely coincide with the following original MRQ factors: curiosity, involvement, competition,
recognition, work avoidance, social, and efficacy. The
eighth factor (grades/compliance) represents a combination of grades and compliance. Both challenge and
importance were not substantiated as factors of reading
motivation. This is in line with our consideration that
these factors should not be regarded as components of
reading motivation (see later discussion).
As described previously, Greaney and Neuman
(1990) determined 10 different aspects of reading
motivation by means of analyzing students essays on

their own reading motivation. They used statements from
these essays to construct a reading motivation questionnaire that was administered to students (n>3,000) in different countries to examine whether the 10 components
of reading motivation were independent and whether
they were similar in different cultural settings. By means
of factor analyses, three distinct functions or factors were
identified in most of the countries: utility, enjoyment, and
escape. In some countries there were two utility factors:
educational and moral. In addition, a single enjoyment/
escape factor was observed in a few countries.
The first factor (utility) incorporates both moral
and educational aspects. Students with high utility values indicated that they read to know how to help their
country, to live and work better, and to be shown the
right way to live (utility/moral). They also viewed reading as contributing to academic and vocational success
and considered reading useful because of the importance that parents placed on it (utility/educational). The
utility factor comprises items from the following qualitatively determined functions of reading (see previous
discussion): general learning, goals, self-respect, utility,
and morality.
The second factor (enjoyment) pertains to reading for enjoyment. Students with high scores on this
component found reading enjoyable, interesting, and
exciting. More specifically, they considered reading to
be a stimulating process that allowed them to become
absorbed in stories. For example, reading allows them
to go into another world and have an adventure or
imagine themselves as a person in a story (Greaney
& Neuman, 1990, p. 185). The enjoyment factor is based
on items from the qualitatively derived reading functions enjoyment and stimulation.
The third factor (escape) relates to the use of reading for escapist purposes. Students scoring high on
this factor read to avoid boredom and when they have
nothing better or more exciting to do (e.g., watching a
TV show, meeting friends). For these students, reading
functions as a source of distraction and relaxation. In
addition, reading may help to forget personal worries
or overcome negative feelings. The items of this factor
stem from the qualitative reading functions escape and
relief from boredom.
Taken together, Greaney and Neumans (1990)
analyses resulted in a considerably smaller number of
reading motivation dimensions than was suggested by
Wigfield and Guthrie (1997b). However, Greaney and
Neumans factors are rather broadly defined and allow
for subsuming several of Wigfield and Guthries factors.
For example, the MRQ scales curiosity and involvement can both be assigned to Greaney and Neumans
dimension of enjoyment.
Mller and Bonerad (2007) and Schaffner and
Schiefele (2007a) developed overlapping adaptations of
435
the MRQ. Both research groups tested German translations of the original MRQ items. Neither research
group could replicate all of the MRQ components
(cf. Table 2). Mller and Bonerads (2007) Questionnaire of Habitual Reading Motivation includes four
dimensions: reading enjoyment (not part of the MRQ),
reading for interest, competition in reading, and reading self-concept. In contrast, Schaffner and Schiefele
(2007a) did not consider reading self-concept or efficacy as a reading motivation dimension. Their Reading
Motivation Questionnaire encompasses five components (see also Table 2): object-, experience-, performance-, and competition-oriented as well as social
reading motivation.
The findings from Mller and Bonerads (2007) and
Schaffner and Schiefeles (2007a) studies do not provide
evidence for the MRQ components challenge, importance, work avoidance, and compliance. In partial support
of that finding, Watkins and Coffey (2004) were also not

able to replicate the factors challenge, importance, and
compliance (which loaded together with grades on a
common factor). Thus, it can be concluded that the factor structures of the two German questionnaires and
Watkins and Coffeys version of the MRQ are largely in
agreement. Only work avoidance was confirmed by Watkins and Coffey but was not included in either Mller and
Bonerads or Schaffner and Schiefeles instruments.
Schaffner and Schiefele (2007a) demonstrated evidence for two second-order factors, namely intrinsic
reading motivation (indicated by object- and experience-oriented reading motivation) and extrinsic reading
motivation (indicated by performance- and competitionoriented and social reading motivation). It is also worth
noting that the intrinsic and extrinsic factors of reading motivation tend to be positively correlated (Guthrie
etal., 1999; Schaffner & Schiefele, 2007a), thus indicating
Table 2. Dimensions of Reading Motivation: Results From Quantitative Studies

Correspondence with Wigfield and Guthriesa categories
Categories of RM
according to Wigfield and
Guthriesa MRQ
Watkins and Coffeysb

reanalysis of the MRQ
Greaney and Neumanc
Mller and Boneradsd

adaptation of the MRQ
Schaffner and
Schiefelese adaptation
of the MRQ
Curiosity
Curiosity
Interest
Object-oriented RM
Involvement
Involvement
Enjoyment
Experience-oriented RM
Competition
Competition
Competition
Competition-oriented
RM
Recognition
Recognition
Utility
Social RM
Grades
Grades/compliance
Utility
Performance-oriented
RM
Compliance
Grades/compliance
Work avoidance
Work avoidance
Challenge
Social
Social
Importance
Efficacy
Efficacy
Self-concept
Categories that do not correspond with those of Wigfield and Guthriesa MRQ
Escape
Enjoyment
Note. MRQ = Motivations for Reading Questionnaire; RM = reading motivation.

a
Relations of Childrens Motivation for Reading to the Amount and Breadth of Their Reading, by A. Wigfield and J.T. Guthrie, 1997, Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89(3), 420432.
b
Reading Motivation: Multidimensional and Indeterminate, by M.W. Watkins and D.Y. Coffey, 2004, Journal of Educational Psychology, 96(1), 110118.
The Functions of Reading: A Cross-Cultural Perspective, by V. Greaney and S.B. Neuman, 1990, Reading Research Quarterly, 25(3), 172195.
Fragebogen zur Habituellen Lesemotivation [Habitual Reading Motivation Questionnaire], by J. Mller and E. Bonerad, 2007, Psychologie in Erziehung und
Unterricht, 54(4), 259267.
e
Auswirkungen Habitueller Lesemotivation auf die Situative Textreprsentation [Effects of Habitual Reading Motivation on the Situational Represention of
Text], by E. Schaffner and U. Schiefele, 2007, Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 54(4), 268286.
436
that reading usually is simultaneouslybut to varying

degreesmotivated by intrinsic and extrinsic incentives.
To summarize the quantitative studies, it should
be first noted that the development of the MRQ was
informed by the results from interviews with students
on their motivation to read. Thus, the dimensions of
the MRQ cannot be regarded as purely theoretical constructs without empirical support. The factor analyses
of the MRQ by Watkins and Coffey (2004) suggest that
eight factors should be distinguished (see Table 2). Further clarification of the factor structure derives from
theoretical considerations. As we have argued herein,
reading efficacy represents a precondition and not a
component of reading motivation. However, it certainly
should be an important factor in future research on
reading motivation and may be even assessed as a part
of reading motivation instruments.
Similar arguments may apply to importance, challenge, and social aspects. The dimension of importance
also appears to be a precondition of reading motivation
(intrinsic and/or extrinsic). In contrast, the dimension
of challenge may be regarded as a consequence of reading motivation. For example, if a student is motivated
by curiosity, then challenging or complex text materials are most conducive to that motivation by helping the
student learn more about particular topics. Finally, the
item contents of the social scale suggest that this dimension assesses the preference for and frequency of literary practices within the family and the peer group (e.g.,
visiting a library, talking about books). These aspects
may represent the impact of socialization contexts that
are relevant to the development of reading motivation (Klauda, 2009; Rubin, Bukowski, & Parker, 2006;
Snchal, 2006). Thus, the social scale does not reflect a
genuine dimension of reading motivation.
If we take into account both the analysis of Watkins
and Coffey (2004) and the aforementioned theoretical
considerations, then it follows that only seven factors
should be considered as genuine dimensions of reading
motivation: curiosity, involvement, competition, recognition, grades, compliance, and work avoidance. Schaffner and Schiefeles (2007a) questionnaire covers all of
these dimensions with the exception of compliance and
work avoidance. Interesting, Greaney and Neumans
(1990) and Mller and Bonerads (2007) scales complement each other and, when taken together, cover the
same MRQ dimensions as Schaffner and Schiefeles
(2007a) scale. Thus, it seems justified to conclude that
prior research is largely in agreement with respect to the
major dimensions of reading motivation.
Comparison Between Qualitative

andQuantitative Approaches
Our second goal was to analyze the dimensionality
of reading motivation by dealing with the similarities
and dissimilarities of qualitative and quantitative reading motivation research. Overall, a relatively close correspondence between qualitative and quantitative
dimensions of reading motivation was found. This is
particularly true for those qualitative dimensions that
were identified in at least two of the four studies that
we have considered. The correspondence between
qualitative and quantitative factors can be explained
by the fact that the MRQ was based on a qualitative
interview study and served as the basis of the questionnaires bySchaffner and Schiefele (2007a) and Mller
and Bonerad (2007).
A few qualitative dimensions (rewards, utilitarian,
morality, convenience/flexibility, facilitation of sleep,
and filling time) were observed in only one of the qualitative studies and, thus, might be viewed as not worthy of
further research. However, the qualitative findings suggest that the experience of reading may be more differentiated than is demonstrated in questionnaire studies.
Whereas Wigfield and Guthries (1997b) MRQ included
only involvement as a relevant experiential aspect of
reading motivation, Greaney and Neuman (1990) and
Schiefele and Schaffner (in press) suggest that in addition to involvement (which corresponds to stimulation
in Greaney and Neumans study and to imagination in
Schiefele and Schaffners study), the aspects of emotional tuning, relief from boredom, absorption, enjoyment, and relaxation should also be considered.
Reading Motivation
and Reading Behavior
Motivation is assumed to increase individuals competence by facilitating the persistence and intensity of
performing activities being conducive to gains in competence (Schunk et al., 2008; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997b).
Accordingly, reading motivation should be related to
particular aspects of reading behavior (e.g., time spent on
reading) that contribute to the development of reading
and comprehension skills. Past research has focused on
the relation between reading motivation and three different aspects of reading behavior: the amount of reading,
the use of reading strategies, and preferences for different text genres. The findings of these lines of research
are summarized in the following sections (goal3). Subsequently, we deal with the association between reading
motivation and various indicators of reading competence
(goal 4). In addition, the role of reading behavior as a
mediator of motivational effects on reading competence
will be analyzed. All of the reviewed studies and their
basic features are listed in Table 3.
It should be noted that we focus on studies that have
captured what we regard as genuine reading motivation
constructs as they were defined in the preceding sections. This entails the seven core dimensions of reading
437
438
Elementary
Longitudinal
elementary
sample
371
741
Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999).

Dimensions of childrens motivation for
reading and their relations to reading
activity and reading achievement.
Reading Research Quarterly, 34(4),
452477.
Becker, M., McElvany, N., &

Kortenbruck, M. (2010). Intrinsic
and extrinsic reading motivation
as predictors of reading literacy:
A longitudinal study. Journal of
Educational Psychology, 102(4),
773785.
Elementary
Secondary
3,700
Artelt, C., Schiefele, U., Schneider,

W., & Stanat, P. (2002). Leseleistungen
deutscher Schlerinnen und Schler
im internationalen Vergleich (PISA)
[Reading literacy of German students
in international comparison (PISA)].
Zeitschrift fr Erziehungswissenschaft,
5(1), 627.
345
Secondary
104
Anmarkrud, O., & Brten, I. (2009).

Motivation for reading comprehension.
Learning and Individual Differences,
19(2), 252256.
Chapman, J.W., & Tunmer, W.E. (1995).

Development of young childrens
reading self-concepts: An examination
of emerging subcomponents and their
relationshipwith reading achievement.
Journal of Educational Psychology,
87(1), 154167. (experiment 4)
Elementary
School level
180
Size
Andreassen, R., & Brten, I. (2010).

Examining the prediction of reading
comprehension on different multiplechoice tests. Journal of Research in
Reading, 33(3), 263283.
Author(s)
Table 3. Overview of Reviewed Studies (continued)
1, 4, 5
36
5, 6
810
Gradea
Sample
New Zealand
Germany
United States;
52% white,
46% African
American
Germany
Norway
Norway
Country/
ethnicity
Intrinsic RM
(reading
attitude), reading
self-concept
Intrinsic RM,
extrinsic RM
MRQ subscales
Intrinsic
RM, reading
self-concept
Reading value,
reading efficacy
Intrinsic RM,
extrinsic RM
(MRQ)
RM
Enjoyment
reading amount
Enjoyment
reading amount
(RAI)
Reading
strategy use
Reading
strategy use
Reading
behavior
Grade 1: Reading
skills (letter and
word identification,
pseudoword
naming, spelling);
grades 4 and
5: standardized
comprehension test
Standardized
multiple-choice tests
of decoding skills,
vocabulary, and
comprehension
Standardized
multiple-choice test
of vocabulary and
comprehension,
free-response
comprehension test
PISA reading
comprehension test
(multiple-choice
and free-response
format)
Multiple-choice
comprehension test
Three multiplechoice
comprehension tests
(standardized and
self-constructed)
Reading competence
Measures
Prior reading
competence
Reasoning ability,
decoding skills,
metacognitive
knowledge of reading
strategies
Social studies grades,

topic knowledge
Word recognition,
working memory
capacity
Control variables
439
Elementary
Elementary
Elementary
251
606
20
271
31
67
Cox, K.E., & Guthrie, J.T. (2001).

Motivational and cognitive
contributions to students amount of
reading. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 26(1), 116131.
Durik, A.M., Vida, M., & Eccles, J.S.

(2006). Task values and ability beliefs
as predictors of high school literacy
choices: A developmental analysis.
Journal of Educational Psychology,
98(2), 382393.
Guthrie, J.T., Van Meter, P., McCann,

A.D., & Wigfield, A. (1996). Growth
of literacy engagement: Changes in
motivations and strategies during
concept-oriented reading instruction.
306332.
Guthrie, J.T., & Wigfield, A. (Eds.).

(1999). How motivation fits into a
science of reading: A special issue of
scientific studies of reading. Mahwah,
NJ: Erlbaum. (study 1)
Guthrie, J.T., Hoa, L.W., Wigfield, A.,

Tonks, S.M., Humenick, N.M., & Littles,
E. (2007). Reading motivation and
reading comprehension growth in the
later elementary years. Contemporary
Educational Psychology, 32(3), 282313.
Katzir, T., Lesaux, N.K., & Kim, Y.

(2009). The role of reading self-concept
and home literacy practices in fourth
grade reading comprehension. Reading
and Writing, 22(3), 261276.
Elementary
Elementary
Longitudinal
sample from
elementary
to secondary
level
Elementary
Conlon, E.G., Zimmer-Gembeck, M.J.,

174
Creed, P.A., & Tucker, M. (2006). Family
history, self-perceptions, attitudes and
cognitive abilities are associated with
early adolescent reading skills. Journal
of Research in Reading, 29(1), 1132.
3, 5
3, 5
410
3, 5
7 (Mage = 11.9)
United States,
ethnically
diverse
United States,
ethnically
diverse
United States,
ethnically
diverse
United States,
ethnically
diverse
United
States, >90%
European
American
United States,
ethnically
diverse
Australia
Intrinsic RM
(reading
attitude), reading
self-concept
Interest, choice,
involvement,
social, reading
efficacy
(interview-based)
Intrinsic RM,
extrinsic RM,
general RM (MRQ)
Intrinsic RM
(interview-based)
Intrinsic
value beliefs,
importance value
beliefs, reading
self-concept
General RM
(based on five
MRQ subscales)
Intrinsic RM
(reading
attitude), reading
self-concept
General
reading amount
(RAI)
Reading
strategy use
(composite
of searching,
drawing,
writing, and
conceptual
transfer)
Enjoyment
reading amount
Enjoyment
reading
amount, school
reading amount
(RAI), reading
strategy use
Standardized
multiple-choice
comprehension test
Standardized
multiple-choice
comprehension test
Free-response
comprehension test
Standardized test
of vocabulary and
comprehension
Reading skills (word

identification,
spelling),
standardized
comprehension test
(continued)
Verbal ability, word

and nonword reading
fluency and accuracy
Prior reading
comprehension
Prior knowledge,
prior reading
competence, reading
efficacy
Gender, English
grades, parents level
of education
Prior reading
competence
Nonverbal
ability, rapid
visual processing,
orthographic skill,
phonological skill
440
Size
120
111
Law, Y. (2009). The role of attribution

beliefs, motivation and strategy use
in Chinese fifth-graders reading
comprehension. Educational Research,
51(1), 7795.
Logan, S., Medford, E., & Hughes, N.

(2011). The importance of intrinsic
motivation for high and low ability
readers reading comprehension
performance. Learning and
IndividualDifferences, 21(1),
124128.
McElvany, N., Becker, M., & Ldtke,
O. (2009). Die Bedeutung familirer
Merkmale fr Lesekompetenz,
Wortschatz, Lesemotivation und
Leseverhalten [The role of family
variables in reading literacy,
vocabulary, reading motivation,
and reading behavior]. Zeitschrift
fr Entwicklungspsychologie und
Pdagogische Psychologie, 41(3),
121131.
766
734
Law, Y. (2008). The relationship

between extrinsic motivation, home
literacy, classroom instructional
practices, and reading proficiency
in second-grade Chinese children.
Research in Education, 80(1), 3751.
Lau, K. (2009). Reading motivation,

1,146
perceptions of reading instruction and
reading amount: A comparison of junior
and senior secondary school students
in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in
Reading, 32(4), 366382.
Lau, K., & Chan, D.W. (2003). Reading
159
strategy use and motivation among
Chinese good and poor readers in Hong
Kong. Journal of Research in Reading,
26(2), 177190.
Author(s)
Longitudinal
elementary
sample
Elementary
Elementary
36
46
Secondary
Elementary
Mage = 14.5
Gradea
Sample
Secondary
(junior,
senior)
School level
Germany
United
Kingdom
China
China
China (Hong
Kong)
China (Hong
Kong)
Country/
ethnicity
Intrinsic RM
Intrinsic RM
(MRQ)
Intrinsic RM,
extrinsic RM
(MRQ)
Extrinsic RM
(MRQ)
Intrinsic RM,
extrinsic RM,
social RM, reading
efficacy (MRQ)
Intrinsic RM,
extrinsic RM,
social RM, reading
efficacy (MRQ)
RM
Enjoyment
reading amount
Reading
strategy use
Reading
strategy use
(composite of
eight different
strategies)
General
reading amount
(RAI)
Reading
behavior
Standardized
multiple-choice
comprehension test
Standardized
multiple-choice
sentence completion
test
Higher order
comprehension
(multiple-choice
test of inferential
comprehension,
ratings of written
summaries)
Composite score of
basic and inferential
comprehension
Standardized
multiple-choice
test of vocabulary
and comprehension
(sentence,
paragraph, and text
levels)
Reading competence
Measures
Prior reading
comprehension,
family background,
vocabulary
Verbal IQ, decoding

skills, prior reading
comprehension
Beliefs about
intelligence and
ability
Home literacy
activities, parents
support, students and
parents perceptions
of classroom
instructional practices
Control variables
441
211
5,190
396
Nurmi, J.E., & Aunola, K. (2005). Taskmotivation during the first school
years: A person-oriented approach
to longitudinal data. Learning and
Instruction, 15(2), 103122.
Park, Y. (2011). How motivational

constructs interact to predict elementary
students reading performance: Examples
from attitudes and self-concept in
reading. Learning and Individual
Differences, 21(4), 347358.
Philipp, M. (2010). Lesen empeerisch:

Eine Lngsschnittstudie zur Bedeutung
von peer groups fr Lesemotivation
und -verhalten [Empeerical reading: A
longitudinal study on the relevance of
peer groups for reading motivation and
behavior at the beginning of secondary
school]. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS
Verlag.
Longitudinal
secondary
sample
Elementary
Elementary
Secondary
Elementary,
secondary
392
1,455
Longitudinal
elementary
sample
741
Mller, J., & Retelsdorf, J. (2008).

Lesen oder Fernsehen? Zur Vorhersage
von Ttigkeitsprferenzen [Reading
or watching TV? On the prediction
of activity preferences]. Zeitschrift
fr Entwicklungspsychologie und
Pdagogische Psychologie, 40(1), 1321.
McElvany, N., Kortenbruck, M., &

Becker, M. (2008). Lesekompetenz
und Lesemotivation: Entwicklung und
Mediation des Zusammenhangs durch
Leseverhalten [Reading literacy and
reading motivation: Their development
and the mediation of the relationship
by reading behavior]. Zeitschrift fur
Padagogische Psychologie, 22(3/4),
207219.
Mller, J., & Bonerad, E. (2007).
Fragebogen zur habituellen
Lesemotivation [Habitual Reading
Motivation Questionnaire]. Psychologie
in Erziehung und Unterricht, 54(4),
259267.
5, 6
1, 2
4, 5
36
Germany
United States,
representative
sample
Finland
Germany
Germany
Germany
Intrinsic RM
Intrinsic RM,
extrinsic
RM, reading
self-concept
Intrinsic value
beliefs
Reading
enjoyment, reading
for interest,
competition,
reading selfconcept (QHRM)
Reading
enjoyment, reading
for interest,
competition,
Intrinsic RM
Preferences for
different text
genres
Preferences for
narrative and
expository texts
Enjoyment
reading amount
Enjoyment
reading amount
PIRLS reading
comprehension test
(multiple-choice
and free-response
format)
Composite score
based on tests of
letter identification,
word and
sentence reading,
and sentence
comprehension
Standardized
multiple-choice
comprehension test
(continued)
German grades
Prior reading
comprehension
442
1,508
304
414
3,650
Schaffner, E., & Schiefele, U. (2007).

Auswirkungen habitueller Lesemotivation
auf die situative Textreprsentation
[Effects of habitual reading motivation
on the situational represention of text].
Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht,
54(4), 268286.
Schaffner, E., & Schiefele, U. (2008).

Familire und individuelle Bedingungen
des Textlernens [Familial and individual
conditions of text learning]. Psychologie
in Erziehung und Unterricht, 55(4),
238252.
Schaffner, E., Schiefele, U., & Schneider,

W. (2004). Ein erweitertes Verstndnis
der Lesekompetenz: Die Ergebnisse des
nationalen Ergnzungstests [An extended
view on reading competence: Results
from the supplementary national tests].
In U. Schiefele, C. Artelt, W. Schneider,
& P. Stanat (Eds.), Struktur, Entwicklung
und Frderung von Lesekompetenz:
Vertiefende Analysen im Rahmen von
PISA 2000 [Structure, development
andpromotion of reading skills: Indepthanalysis in PISA 2000] (pp.
197242). Wiesbaden, Germany: VS
Verlag.
Size
Retelsdorf, J., Kller, O., & Mller, J.

(2011). On the effects of motivation
on reading performance growth
in secondary school. Learning and
Author(s)
Secondary
Secondary
Secondary
Longitudinal
secondary
sample
School level
810
810
8, 9
58
Gradea
Sample
Germany
Germany
Germany
Germany
Country/
ethnicity
Intrinsic RM
Intrinsic RM
Intrinsic RM,
extrinsic RM
(RMQ)
Reading
enjoyment, reading
for interest,
competition,
RM
Metacognitive
knowledge
of reading
strategies
Metacognitive
knowledge
of reading
strategies
Reading
behavior
Reading
comprehension
(recognition of
correct inferences),
multiple-choice
and free-response
comprehension tests
Reading
comprehension
(recognition of
correct inferences)
Reading
comprehension
(recognition of
correct inferences)
PIRLS reading
comprehension test
(multiple-choice
and free-response
format)
Reading competence
Measures
Reasoning ability,
prior knowledge,
family background
Reasoning ability,
decoding skills,
prior reading
comprehension,
family background
Control variables
443
151
1,032
Sample
1: 197,
sample
2: 187
105
Tercanlioglu, L. (2001). The nature

of Turkish students motivation for
reading and its relation to their reading
frequency. The Reading Matrix: An
International Online Journal, 1(2).
Unrau, N., & Schlackman, J. (2006).

Motivation and its relationship
with reading achievement in an
urban middle school. The Journal of
Educational Research, 100(2), 81101.
Wang, J.H., & Guthrie, J.T. (2004).

Modeling the effects of intrinsic
motivation, extrinsic motivation,
amount of reading, and past reading
achievement on text comprehension
between U.S. and Chinese students.
162186.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J.T. (1997).

Relations of childrens motivation for
reading to the amount and breadth of
their reading. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 89(3), 420432.
Elementary
Elementary
Secondary
Secondary
Elementary
4, 5
68
79
United States,
ethnically
diverse
Sample 1:
United States,
90% European
American;
sample 2:
Taiwan
United States;
74% Hispanic,
26% Asian
Turkey
United States,
ethnically
diverse (87%
Caucasian)
Intrinsic RM,
extrinsic RM
(MRQ)
Intrinsic RM,
extrinsic RM
(MRQ)
Intrinsic RM,
extrinsic RM
(MRQ)
MRQ subscales
Internal RM (based
on teacher ratings)
Out-of-school
reading amount
(recorded
by parents),
reading breadth
(RAI)
Enjoyment
reading
amount, school
reading amount
(RAI)
Enjoyment
reading
amount, school
reading amount
(RAI)
IEA reading
comprehension
for narrative text
Standardized
of vocabulary and
comprehension
Standardized
multiple-choice
comprehension
test, free-response
comprehension test
Prior reading amount,

prior reading breadth
Prior reading
achievement (reading
grades)
Grade level
Prior knowledge,
student questioning,
prior reading
comprehension
Depending on the country (or on the state within the same country, such as Germany), the length of elementary school varies considerably.
(continued)
Note. IEA = International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement; MRQ = Motivations for Reading Questionnaire; PIRLS = Progress in International Reading Literacy Study; PISA = Programme for
International Student Assessment; QHRM = Questionnaire of Habitual Reading Motivation; RAI = Reading Activities Inventory; RM = reading motivation; RMQ = Reading Motivation Questionnaire.
205
Taboada, A., Tonks, S.M., Wigfield,

A., & Guthrie, J.T. (2009). Effects of
motivational and cognitive variables on
reading comprehension. Reading and
Writing, 22(1), 85106.
motivation identified previously as well as nonspecific or

global measures of intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation, including reading attitude and intrinsic value of
reading. However, we present results with respect to other
constructs, such as reading self-concept, if these are part
of a study involving at least one of the genuine dimensions of reading motivation. Studies on goal orientations
are not considered because the respective constructs are
not defined as reading-related forms of motivation.
Reading Amount
Past research has shown signif icant associations
between reading amount and several important aspects
of students achievement and performance, such as
world knowledge, social engagement, and reading comprehension (Ecalle & Magnan, 2008; Guthrie, Schafer,
& Hutchinson, 1991; Harlaar, Dale, & Plomin, 2007;
Mol & Bus, 2011). For example, the amount of reading has been found to predict orthographic processes
required for word recognition (Brten, Lie, Andreassen,
& Olaussen, 1999) and growth in reading comprehension during elementary school (Anderson, Wilson, &
Fielding, 1988; Cipielewski & Stanovich, 1992).
To investigate the relation between reading motivation and reading amount, different ways to measure
reading amount have been used, including students
self-reports and parents recordings of of their childrens
reading times. The Reading Activities Inventory (RAI;
Guthrie, McGough, & Wigfield, 1994) assesses students
amount of reading for school and for enjoyment. Both
parts include several pairs of items that are related to the
same theme. The first item in each pair asks the respondents how often they read about a theme in the last week.
If the students answer yes, they are asked to add the title,
author, or specific theme of the book. The second item
refers to students general amount of reading about a particular theme. Three different themes (science, literature,
history) are considered for measuring reading for school,
whereas reading for enjoyment is assessed with respect
to six themes (e.g., sports, romance, nature). Because
the RAI assesses the amount of students reading with
respect to different themes, it can also be used to measure reading breadth or reading preferences.
Other scales to assess reading amount have an
explicit focus on reading for enjoyment (leisure time
reading). They do not distinguish between reading
themes or materials and usually ask for indicating the
frequency and length of reading activities (e.g., How
many hours do you read outside school on a weekday?;
Becker, McElvany, & Kortenbruck, 2010).
Overview of Studies
In Wigfield and Guthries (1997b) study, students
participated in a reading program geared toward
444
increasing out-of-school reading. Reading motivation

was assessed twice during the school year (in the fall
and spring). To measure the amount of out-of-school
reading in the prior and present year, the parents were
asked to record over a two-year period the time that
their children spent on reading each day, including all
kinds of reading materials but excluding homework.
The results revealed significant positive correlations
between (present and prior year) reading amount
and both intrinsic and extrinsic aspects of (fall and
spring) reading motivation (.21r.37). However, in
a regression analysis controlling for the effect of prior
year reading amount, only (fall) extrinsic motivation (a
composite of recognition, grades, and competition), but
not (fall) intrinsic motivation (a composite of curiosity,
involvement, and efficacy), contributed significantly to
reading amount in the present year.
In a study by Baker and Wigfield (1999), reading
for enjoyment was measured by two questions adapted
from the RAI. Specifically, the students rated how
often they read a book for fun last week and how often
they generally read for fun. The correlations of reading
amount with all dimensions of the MRQ (except work
avoidance) were statistically significant and positive.
Involvement and challenge showed the highest positive correlations with reading amount (r=.51 in both
cases), whereas the weakest correlation was obtained
for competition (r=.14). In addition, the correlation
between work avoidance and reading amount was
significantly negative (r=.24).
Guthrie et al. (1999) examined the contribution of
reading motivation to general reading amount (based
on the RAI, involving both reading for enjoyment and
for school). Regression analyses revealed that intrinsic
reading motivation (a composite of curiosity, involvement, and challenge) and extrinsic reading motivation
(a composite of recognition and competition), entering
the regression equation separately, contributed significantly to reading amount, even when prior knowledge,
prior reading competence, and reading efficacy were
controlled. The effects of intrinsic motivation (b=0.33)
and extrinsic motivation (b=0.36) were both positive
and of similar size. However, because intrinsic and
extrinsic motivations were not simultaneously entered in
the regression model, it is unclear whether these factors
made unique contributions to reading amount. Reading
efficacy did not significantly predict reading amount.
Cox and Guthrie (2001) investigated the contributions of reading motivation, strategy use, and prior
reading competence (assessed six months earlier) to
amount of reading for school and for enjoyment. Five
MRQ subscales (curiosity, involvement, recognition, competition, and challenge) were used to create
a composite score of general reading motivation. This
measure showed significant positive correlations with
both reading amount for school and for enjoyment.
However, when controlling for strategy use and prior

reading competence, general reading motivation
contributed only to the prediction of enjoyment reading
(explaining an additional 5% of the variance). Because
the authors used a reading motivation composite
involving both intrinsic and extrinsic aspects, it
remains unclear whether these aspects were differently
associated with reading amount.
Wang and Guthrie (2004) addressed the relations
between reading motivation and reading amount in
U.S. and Chinese samples of elementary school students. In both groups, the intrinsic aspects of reading
motivation showed significant positive correlations
with the amount of reading for enjoyment, whereas the
extrinsic aspects were mostly uncorrelated with reading
for enjoyment. Amount of reading for school displayed
generally low or nonsignificant correlations with intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions of reading motivation. By
means of structural equation modeling with latent variables, the authors examined the unique contributions
of the composite scores of intrinsic motivation (curiosity, involvement, and challenge) and extrinsic motivation (recognition, competition, grades, compliance,
and social) to students reading for enjoyment and for
school. Amount of reading for school was significantly
and moderately positive associated with intrinsic but
not extrinsic motivation. With respect to the amount of
reading for enjoyment, the results confirmed a strong
positive contribution of intrinsic motivation and a
medium-size negative contribution of extrinsic motivation. Prior reading achievement did not relate to either
measure of reading amount.
Interesting, the latent correlations between intrinsic motivation and reading for enjoyment (U.S.: r=.45;
Chinese: r=.40; p<.01) were considerably lower than
the path coefficients in the structural equation models
(U.S.: b=0.85; Chinese: b=0.89; p<.01). In the case of
extrinsic motivation, the latent correlations with reading for enjoyment were positive (U.S.: r=.18; Chinese:
r=.15; p<.05), in contrast to the negative coefficients
in the structural equation models (U.S.: b=0.44;
Chinese: b=0.57; p<.01). The discrepancy between
the findings from correlational and structural equation
analyses is due to the high latent correlation between
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (U.S.: r=.75; Chinese:
r=.81) and a corresponding reciprocal suppression
effect.
According to Wang and Guthrie (2004), the high
correlation between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation induced a positive spurious effect of extrinsic
motivation and a negative spurious effect of intrinsic
motivation on reading for enjoyment, such that the
weakly positive correlation between extrinsic motivation and reading amount became strongly negative,
and the positive correlation between intrinsic motivation and reading amount became even more positive.
The same explanation applies to the somewhat smaller

discrepancy between f indings from correlational
and structural equation model analyses pertaining to
amount of reading for school.
Tercanlioglu (2001) assessed amount of reading for
school and for enjoyment with respect to the last week
and in general. By means of correlation analyses, it was
shown that the general amount of reading for school
was significantly associated with curiosity, involvement,
competition, recognition, and efficacy (.17r.24). Surprising, the general amount of reading for enjoyment
exhibited no significant correlations with any of the
MRQ scales. However, the amount of reading for enjoyment in the last week was significantly correlated with
challenge (r=.28), efficacy (r=.24), and work avoidance (r=.23).
Lau (2009) used a modified version of the MRQ
to obtain four distinct measures of reading motivation: intrinsic, extrinsic, and social reading motivation as well as reading efficacy. A measure of reading
amount was derived from an abbreviated version of the
RAI without differentiating between reading for school
and for enjoyment. Correlations revealed that all four
motivation variables were significantly positively associated with reading amount. The unique effects of the
motivation variables on reading amount were tested by
means of a path model. For junior students, it was found
that intrinsic motivation (b=0.28) and social motivation (b=0.26), but not extrinsic motivation and reading
efficacy, contributed significantly to the prediction of
reading amount. In the sample of senior students, only
intrinsic motivation emerged as a significant predictor
of reading amount (b=0.38).
Mller and Bonerad (2007) assessed four different
aspects of reading motivation: reading enjoyment, reading for interest, competition, and reading self-concept.
A single-item indicator provided a measure of students
amount of reading for enjoyment. Scores on all motivation subscales correlated significantly and positively
with students amount of reading. Reading enjoyment
displayed the highest correlation with reading amount
(r=.56). Reading for interest and self-concept were
moderately correlated with reading amount (r=.31 and
.28, respectively), whereas the contribution of competition was significant but negligible (r=.06).
McElvany, Kortenbruck, and Becker (2008) examined the mutual relations between intrinsic reading
motivation, amount of reading for enjoyment, 2 and
reading comprehension in a longitudinal study from
grade 3 to grade 6. Intrinsic motivation and reading
for enjoyment were assessed by short, self-constructed
questionnaires. All variables were measured in grades
3, 4, and 6. The results showed significant and rather
high concurrent correlations (.60r.75) as well as
significant and medium-size longitudinal correlations
(.40r.49) between intrinsic motivation and reading
445
for enjoyment (some of these results were also reported

by McElvany, Becker, & Ldtke, 2009.)
Becker et al. (2010) analyzed the same data set as
McElvany et al. (2008) but used different indicators
of intrinsic motivation, reading for enjoyment, and
reading competence. In addition, Becker et al. included
a measure of extrinsic reading motivation. Only grade
4 measures of reading motivation and reading amount
were included in the analyses. Intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation and reading amount were defined as latent
variables. Intrinsic motivation involved the following manifest indicators: reading enjoyment, intrinsic
value of books, and importance of reading. Extrinsic
motivation was represented by motivation provided by
parents, motivation provided by the school, and motivation resulting from instrumental goals.
Amount of reading for enjoyment was assessed by
means of students self-reports and parents ratings.
The analysis of correlations among the latent variables
revealed a high positive association between intrinsic
motivation and reading amount (r=.85). In contrast,
extrinsic motivation showed a small negative association with reading amount (r=.14). However, by means
of structural equation analyses that included both
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as well as prior (grade
3) reading competence as predictors, it was shown that
only intrinsic motivation exhibited a significant and
strong unique effect on reading amount (b=0.81).
Durik et al. (2006) tracked students reading-related
task value beliefs and reading self-concept between
grades 4 and 10 and examined the relations of these
constructs with amount of reading for enjoyment.
Concurrent correlations of intrinsic value, importance
value, and self-concept with students reading amount
(all variables measured in grade 10) were low but significant. Moreover, grade 4 intrinsic value (r=.19) and grade
4 self-concept (r=.15) displayed significant longitudinal
associations with (grade 10) reading amount. Path
analyses, including gender, English grades, and parents
level of education (e.g., college graduate) as additional
predictors, confirmed that grade 4 intrinsic value exerted
an indirect effect (through grade 10 intrinsic value) and
an additional direct effect (b=0.18) on grade 10 reading
amount, while grade 4 self-concept showed an indirect
effect (through grade 10 self- concept) but no direct
effect on reading amount. No significant contribution
of importance to reading amount was found. Because
intrinsic value and self-concept were examined in separate analyses, the unique effects of these variables on
reading amount were not estimated.
Summary
The reviewed studies clearly suggest that indicators of
reading amount fall into two groups: reading for enjoyment (out-of-school reading, leisure time reading) and
446
reading for school. Half of the studies referred only to

reading for enjoyment, whereas the other half either
assessed both reading for enjoyment and for school,
or used a general score of reading amount (involving
both reading for enjoyment and for school). With only
one exception (Cox & Guthrie, 2001), all of the studies distinguished between indicators of intrinsic and
extrinsic reading motivation. Given the differential
relations between dimensions of reading motivation
and the two measures of reading amount, the use of
composite measures of reading amount does not seem
justified.
Taken together, only two studies (Tercanlioglu,
2001; Wang & Guthrie, 2004) allow conclusions with
respect to differential relations between intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation on the one side and amount of
reading for enjoyment and for school on the other side.
Whereas Wang and Guthrie reported mostly significant relations between reading motivation and reading
for enjoyment but weaker relations between reading
motivation and reading for school, Tercanlioglus study
showed the opposite finding. In addition, Wang and
Guthrie demonstrated that intrinsic motivation was
more strongly related to reading for enjoyment than
was extrinsic motivation. The latter finding is further
supported by other studies (Baker & Wigfield, 1999;
Becker et al., 2010; Lau, 2009) that mostly showed at
least moderately sized correlations between intrinsic
motivation and reading amount. The unusually high
correlation of .85 between intrinsic motivation and reading for enjoyment obtained by Becker et al. was a latent
correlation and, thus, corrected for measurement error.
In contrast to other studies, Wigfield and Guthrie
(1997b) reported relatively low correlations between
components of intrinsic reading motivation and
(out-of-school) reading amount. In addition, a nonsignificant effect of intrinsic motivation on reading amount
was found when students prior reading amount was
controlled. It should be noted, however, that Wigfield
and Guthries study deviates from other studies in
several respects. First, the authors had parents rate their
childrens out-of-school reading. Thus, no self-reports
were used, and the assessment of reading amount did
not explicitly address reading for enjoyment. Second,
the students took part in a school reading program that
aimed at increasing their out-of-school reading. This
program used rewards and social recognition, which
were given to those children who read most frequently.
Perhaps the contribution of intrinsic motivation to reading amount was thus reduced because reading at home
was influenced by extrinsic incentives. Third, Wigfield
and Guthries measure of reading amount referred not
only to book reading (as is usually the case) but also to
reading of comics or magazines. According to results
obtained by Philipp (2010; see later discussion), intrinsic motivation should be more predictive of the amount
of reading of books than of comics, newspapers, or

magazines.
Positive associations between intrinsic reading
motivation and reading amount were also shown when
accounting for relevant control variables, such as prior
knowledge, prior reading achievement, grade level,
gender, parents education, reading efficacy, extrinsic reading motivation, and other motivational factors
(Becker et al., 2010; Durik et al., 2006; Guthrie et al.,
1999; Lau, 2009; Wang & Guthrie, 2004). Some of the
reviewed studies also revealed positive and significant
correlations between extrinsic reading motivation and
reading amount, although these correlations were generally low (r<.30). Whereas Baker and Wigfield (1999)
and Wigfield and Guthrie (1997b) found that all considered components of extrinsic motivation (with the
exception of work avoidance) were positively associated
with students amount of reading for enjoyment, Wang
and Guthrie demonstrated such associations only for
competitive and social reading motivation. In addition,
Wang and Guthrie found significant and positive correlations between school reading amount and both competition and compliance. Finally, Becker et al. obtained
a weak negative (latent) correlation between extrinsic
motivation and enjoyment reading amount. In this
study, however, different aspects of extrinsic motivation
(provided by parents, school, and instrumental goals)
were assessed than in those studies using the MRQ.
The association between extrinsic reading motivation and reading amount has been also examined while
controlling for other predictors. The results of these
analyses are varied. Positive effects of extrinsic motivation on reading for enjoyment and general reading were
obtained by Wigfield and Guthrie (1997b; with prior
reading amount controlled) and Guthrie et al. (1999;
with prior knowledge, prior reading achievement, and
reading efficacy controlled). Nonsignificant effects
of extrinsic motivation were shown by Lau (2009) on
general reading amount (additional predictors: intrinsic and social motivation, reading efficacy), by Becker
et al. (2010) on enjoyment reading amount (additional
predictors: prior reading achievement, intrinsic motivation), and by Wang and Guthrie (2004) on school reading amount (additional predictor: intrinsic motivation).
Moreover, the results of Wang and Guthrie showed a
negative effect of extrinsic motivation on reading for
enjoyment when intrinsic motivation was controlled.
Overall, it seems that the effects of extrinsic motivation on indicators of reading amount vary depending on the control variables included in the analyses.
Controlling for intrinsic motivation seems to lead to
nonsignificant or even negative associations between
extrinsic motivation and reading amount. This
finding is most likely due to a suppression effect.
Accordingly, Wang and Guthrie (2004) observed a
substantial strengthening of the association between
intrinsic motivation and amount of reading for enjoyment when controlling for extrinsic motivation.
Reading Strategies
Students who are intrinsically motivated to read
not only read more in their leisure time but also, it is
assumed, comprehend text materials at a deeper level
(e.g., by engaging in enhanced inference processes) and
use more complex strategies (e.g., organization; Guthrie
et al., 1996). In contrast, extrinsic motivation to read is
hypothesized to facilitate shallow text processing and
the use of superficial learning strategies (e.g., rehearsal).
Experimental studies examining the effects of different
motivational instructions on text learning have supported these assumptions (see overview by Schaffner
& Schiefele, 2007b). Although these studies assessed
current motivation to learn instead of habitual reading
motivation, their findings are relevant in the present
context because current motivation and habitual reading motivation are interrelated (Guthrie, Hoa, Wigfield,
Tonks, & Perencevich, 2006; Schaffner & Schiefele,
2007a). Thus, it may be assumed that habitual reading
motivation affects the quality of strategic processing
while reading.
Overview of Studies
Guthrie et al. (1996) investigated the relation between
intrinsic reading motivation and comprehension strategies. Based on interviews with students who participated in the CORI program, Guthrie et al. identified 14
categories of reading motivation (see earlier discussion).
In addition, four types of reading strategies were measured by means of different CORI tasks: searching and
selecting relevant texts (searching), expressing what was
learned either graphically (drawing) or verbally (writing), and finding similarities between newly acquired
and prior knowledge (conceptual transfer). In support
of their assumptions, Guthrie et al. found high correlations (grade 3: r=.70; grade 5: r=.81) between intrinsic
motivation (a composite of involvement, social, emotional tuning, and efficacy) and strategy use (a composite of searching, drawing, writing, and conceptual
transfer). However, it cannot be concluded that intrinsic
reading motivation was responsible for gains in strategy use. Instead, the applied intervention program may
have facilitated students motivation and strategy use
at the same time and, thus, may have increased their
intercorrelation.
Cox and Guthrie (2001) analyzed the relation
between general reading motivation and self-reported
strategy use (referring to prior knowledge activation,
self-questioning, integrating multiple texts, and selfregulation). The findings revealed moderate to high
correlations between reading motivation and strategy
use (Grade 3: r=.66; grade 5: r=.36).
447
Law (2009) assessed intrinsic reading motivation

by adapting items from the MRQ that mainly tapped
the dimension of curiosity, whereas their measure of
extrinsic reading motivation comprised six items from
the MRQ dimensions competition, recognition, grades,
and social. The use of global, problem-solving, and
support reading strategies was assessed by means of
an adapted version of Mokhtari and Reichards (2002)
Metacognitive Awareness of Reading Strategies Inventory. The findings revealed a significant correlation
between overall strategy use and intrinsic motivation
(r=.43) but not extrinsic motivation (r= .14).
Andreassen and Brten (2010) adapted the MRQ to
examine the relations between intrinsic reading motivation (a composite of involvement, challenge, importance, and efficacy), extrinsic reading motivation (a
composite of competition, recognition, grades, compliance, work avoidance, and social), and reading strategy
use. To assess strategy use, the participants had to read
a text and write down (a) their predictions about the
text content, (b) three good questions about the text,
(c) explanations for two words from the text, and (d) a
short summary of the text (cf. Lederer, 2000). The students were awarded points for mentioning important
concepts (in the case of tasks a, b, and d) and for giving correct explanations (task c). Correlation analyses
indicated a significant (but low) association between
strategy use and intrinsic motivation (r=.18) but not
extrinsic motivation (r=.02).
Lau and Chan (2003) compared good and poor
readers who were classified according to their scores
on a standardized reading comprehension test. To
measure reading strategy use, the students read multiple text paragraphs and answered questions referring
to eight different strategies (e.g., deletion of redundant
information, inferring word meaning by context clues).
The comparison of good and poor readers revealed significant differences with respect to all reading strategies, intrinsic reading motivation (based on the MRQ
dimensions curiosity and involvement), and reading
efficacy but not extrinsic reading motivation (based on
the MRQ dimensions competition, recognition, and
grades). High intrinsic motivation and high strategic
ability were thus combined in students with high levels of reading comprehension. Furthermore, in the total
sample (both good and poor readers), significant correlations between a composite strategy score and both
intrinsic (r=.37) and extrinsic motivation (r=.19) as
well as reading efficacy (r=.16) were obtained. A subsequent regression analysis involving all of the motivational variables as predictors indicated that only
intrinsic motivation was a significant predictor of strategy use.
Schaffner and Schiefele (2007a) investigated the relations between intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation
and metacognitive strategy knowledge (i.e.,knowledge
448
about reading or learning strategies and the appropriate

conditions of their use; Baker, 1989). To assess strategy
knowledge, students were asked to rate the appropriateness of different reading or learning strategies in six different situations (cf. Schlagmller & Schneider, 2007).
Knowledge of reading strategies is assumed to be a relevant precondition of using reading and learning strategies to facilitate text comprehension (Kuhn & Pearsall,
1998; Schunk & Rice, 1989). Strategy knowledge showed
significant correlations with object-oriented (r=.23)
and experience-oriented motivation (r=.16) but not
with performance-oriented (r=.06) and competitionoriented motivation (r=.05). However, in a structural
equation model with latent variables, a significant positive effect of intrinsic motivation (b=0.36) and a significant negative effect of extrinsic motivation (b=0.18)
were obtained.
These results were replicated in a second sample
and, in line with Wang and Guthries (2004) results,
demonstrated the occurrence of a suppression effect.
However, in a similar study by Schaffner and Schiefele
(2008), the positive relation between intrinsic motivation and strategy knowledge turned out to be nonsignificant when reasoning ability was controlled. In that
study, intrinsic motivation was measured by means of
the Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA) reading interest scale (Kirsch et al., 2002). The
items of this scale are aimed at capturing how much an
individual likes reading in general. Extrinsic motivation
was not assessed. Thus, the nonsignificant contribution
of intrinsic motivation may be explained by the failure
to take into account a possible suppression effect.
Anmarkrud and Brten (2009) examined reading
value and reading efficacy as predictors of deeper (e.g.,
elaboration) and surface reading strategies (e.g., memorization). Their measure of reading value comprised
items related to importance, utility, and interest value.
Analyses of correlations showed significant associations
between strategy use and reading efficacy (r=.26 for
deeper strategies; r=.29 for surface strategies) but not
reading value (r=.19 for deeper strategies; r=.18 for
surface strategies).
Summary
Positive associations between intrinsic reading motivation and diverse reading strategies were reported
in all reviewed studies. The nonsignificant findings
of Anmarkrud and Brten (2009) may be due to the
fact that their measure of reading value entailed both
intrinsic and extrinsic components. Guthrie et al.
(1996) showed that intrinsic motivation and strategies
both changed in tandem when students participated
in the CORI reading comprehension program. Lau
and Chan (2003) compared good and poor readers
and revealed that they differed in intrinsic motivation
and comprehension strategies as well. Neither of these

studies analyzed additional predictors to strengthen
causal conclusions.
Schaffner and Schiefele (2007a) confirmed a positive association between intrinsic reading motivation
and metacognitive strategy knowledge when extrinsic reading motivation was controlled. In a similar
study that controlled reasoning ability, Schaffner and
Schiefele (2008) reported a nonsignificant effect of
intrinsic motivation on strategy knowledge. However,
as mentioned earlier, the failure to include extrinsic
motivation in that study may have led the researchers to underestimate the effect of intrinsic motivation.
Taken together, previous studies could not provide
sufficient evidence for a substantial relation between
intrinsic motivation and students strategy use while
reading.
The relation between extrinsic reading motivation
and reading strategies was investigated in four studies.
By means of regression analyses, Lau and Chan (2003)
revealed nonsignificant contributions of extrinsic and
social reading motivation to strategy use. This is in
line with the findings of Law (2009), Andreassen and
Brten (2010), and Schaffner and Schiefele (2007a), who
reported nonsignificant correlations between extrinsic
reading motivation and strategy use or strategy knowledge. In addition, Schaffner and Schiefele showed that
the effect of extrinsic reading motivation on strategy
knowledge becomes negative when intrinsic reading
motivation is taken into account. However, none of
these studies included cognitive control variables, and
thus, interpretation of their findings is restricted.
Reading Preferences
Different aspects of reading motivation are based on different reasons for reading that are seemingly connected
with different kinds of text. A studentwhoreads to
experience excitement during readingprobably prefers
different texts (e.g., criminal stories, adventure books)
than a student who is highly motivated by the desire
to outperform other students in school. The question
of whether reading motivation is related to students
preferences for particular text genres (e.g.,narrative
vs. expository text) or text materials (e.g., comics vs.
books) has been examined in only a few studies.
Overview of Studies
Wigfield and Guthrie (1997b) were interested in the
relation between reading motivation and reading
breadth, which they defined as a preference for multiple
themes and genres. Both reading motivation and reading breadth were measured in the fall and spring of
the school year. Only the five items on book reading
(general, mystery, sports, adventure, and nature) were
selected from the RAI to create a composite score of
reading breadth. The students answered whether they

read a particular book in the last week for pleasure and
how often they read it.
The results revealed significant positive correlations (.23 r .51) with students breadth of book
reading for all MRQ subscales (either in the fall or
the spring or at both measurement points) except
competition and compliance. Curiosity (r=.50) and
involvement (r=.51) showed the highest associations
with reading breadth, whereas work avoidance correlated negatively with reading breadth (r = .28).
When spring reading breadth was predicted by intrinsic motivation (a composite of curiosity, involvement,
and efficacy) and extrinsic motivation (a composite of
competition, recognition, and grades) with fall reading breadth being controlled, only intrinsic motivation
contributed significantly to students breadth of book
reading. Changes in students reading breadth between
fall and spring were thus related to intrinsic but not
extrinsic motivation.
Mller and Retelsdorf (2008) examined whether
different dimensions of reading motivation predicted
students preferences to read narrative and expository
texts. Correlations revealed that all dimensions of
reading motivation were positively and significantly
associated with students preferences for reading
narrative and expository texts. However, by means
of regression analyses that included all motivation
subscales and German grades as predictors, it was
demonstrated that only reading for interest and reading
enjoyment (but not competition or self-concept)
contributed significantly and uniquely to students preferences for reading. In accordance with expectations,
reading for interest proved to be more strongly related
to the preference to read expository (b=0.28) than
narrative texts (b=0.15), whereas reading enjoyment
was more predictive of the preference to read narrative (b=0.30) than expository texts (b=0.21). This
pattern of findings may be explained by the assumption that narrative texts are more apt to induce positive
emotional experiences (enjoyment) among students,
whereas expository texts are more suited to the purpose
of learning about interesting topics.
Philipp (2010) investigated the associations between
intrinsic reading motivation and students reading
preferences in a longitudinal study. The measure of
intrinsic motivation was based on the PISA reading interest scale and focused on the experience of enjoyment
while reading. Reading preferences were indicated by
self-reported frequency of reading different text genres
and materials (narrative and expository texts, comics,
magazines, and newspapers) voluntarily during leisure
time. The results showed significant cross-sectional
correlations between intrinsic motivation and preference for different text genres. The highest correlations
emerged between intrinsic motivation and preference
449
for narrative texts (grade 5: r=.68; grade 6: r=.71), followed by preference for newspapers (only assessed in
grade 6: r=.35), expository texts (grade 5: r=.22; grade
6:r=.33), magazines (grade 5: r=.23; grade 6: r=.23),
and comics (grade 5: r=.11; grade 6: r=.18). The particularly strong association with reading narrative texts is
in agreement with the finding of Mller and Retelsdorf
(2008) that reading enjoyment is associated more closely
with the reading of narrative texts than the reading of
expository texts.
Summary
The results of Wigfield and Guthrie (1997b) and Mller
and Retelsdorf (2008) suggest that intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation are positively related to students
breadth of reading and their preferences for expository
and narrative texts. Moreover, in both studies, intrinsic motivation turned out to be more closely associated with students reading preferences than extrinsic
motivation was. It thus seems that the choice of reading themes depends more on students intrinsic than
extrinsic motivation. This is supported by Wigfield
and Guthries finding that the effect of intrinsic (but
not extrinsic) motivation on reading breadth was maintained when prior reading breadth was controlled.
Reading Motivation
and Reading Competence
The fourth goal of this review involves synthesizing
research findings on the relation between different
aspects of reading motivation and indicators of reading
competence (reading skills, comprehension). This section is organized according to the different constructs
of reading motivation. In the first part, studies involving
indicators of intrinsic and/or extrinsic reading motivation are summarized. In the second part, research referring to reading attitude and reading-related task value is
synthesized. Finally, we analyze research findings pertaining to the causal direction of effects and the role of
reading behavior as a mediator of the effects of reading
motivation on reading competence (goal 5).
Our review of research is focused on studies that
have captured what we regard as genuine reading motivation constructs. Excluded dimensions are considered,
however, if they are part of a study involving at least
one of the genuine dimensions of reading motivation.
We chose not to review research pertaining exclusively
to reading efficacy, reading self-concept, or goal orientations. In our view, reading efficacy and reading selfconcept are potential antecedents but not components
of reading motivation, whereas goal orientations are
not defined as reading-related forms of motivation in
the existing literature. In addition, Morgan and Fuchs
(2007) have recently provided a comprehensive review of
450
research on the association among competence beliefs,

goal orientations, and reading skills of young children.
Intrinsic and Extrinsic Reading Motivation

Overview of Studies
Baker and Wigfield (1999) examined bivariate correlations between reading competence and all MRQ
subscales. The results were complex and differed
between the two measures of reading competence (see
Table 3) and between ethnic and gender subgroups.
Overall, only moderate to low correlations (r<.30)
were found. In addition, only white students and girls
exhibited significant correlations between reading
competence and several intrinsic and extrinsic dimensions of reading motivation. Baker and Wigfield did
not report motivationperformance correlations for
gender by ethnicity subgroups. The obtained pattern
of correlations suggests that reading motivation is
particularly predictive of reading competence in the
case of white girls.
Guthrie et al. (1999) combined the MRQ scales of
intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation in a composite measure of general reading motivation and found a
nonsignificant correlation between that measure and
reading comprehension. Cox and Guthrie (2001), who
used the same measure of general reading motivation as
Guthrie et al. but a different test of reading competence,
confirmed this finding.
Wang and Guthrie (2004) compared samples of
U.S. and Chinese students. Structural equation modeling analyses revealed significant direct effects of
composite scores of intrinsic reading motivation (U.S.:
b=0.64; Chinese: b=0.73) and extrinsic reading motivation (U.S.: b=0.57; Chinese: 0.68) as well as prior
reading achievement (U.S.: b=0.35; Chinese: b=0.35)
on reading comprehension. As was found for reading
amount (see earlier discussion), the observed zero-order
correlations between reading comprehension and both
intrinsic reading motivation (U.S.: r=.19; Chinese:
r=.29; p<.01) and extrinsic reading motivation (U.S.:
r=.07; Chinese: r=.03; ns) were considerably lower
than the path coefficients in the structural equation
models. This effect is related to the high correlation
between intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation.
Guthrie, Hoa, et al. (2007) interviewed students
in September and December of a school year to learn
about their interests in different kinds of books, preferences for having choices of what to read, involvement
with books, social aspects of reading, and their reading
efficacy. Separate regression analyses were conducted
to examine how these motivation variables predicted
growth in reading comprehension from September to
December. Interest, choice, and involvement, but not
social and efficacy, significantly predicted comprehension growth. More specifically, both interest and
involvement explained 12% of the variance in comprehension growth, and choice explained 22%.
Unrau and Schlackman (2006) tested structural
equation models in which grade level, gender, and composite scores of intrinsic reading motivation (curiosity,
involvement, challenge) and extrinsic reading motivation (competition, recognition, grades, compliance,
social) were included as predictors of students performance on a standardized test of reading vocabulary and
comprehension. The assumed direct effects of intrinsic reading motivation (b=0.55) and extrinsic reading
motivation (b=0.47) were observed for Asian but
not Hispanic students. In accordance with Wang and
Guthries (2004) findings, the latent correlation between
intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation was quite
high (Asian: r=.87; Hispanic: r=.91), and as a consequence, the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
only emerged when they were simultaneously included
in the prediction model. However, this did not work
for the Hispanic group. The authors attributed the low
impact of reading motivation on the Hispanic students
reading competence to cultural characteristics: Hispanic students, who tend to represent an involuntary
minority in contrast to Asian students, were assumed to
not internalize certain values of American society.
Lau and Chan (2003) found that good readers were
higher than poor readers on intrinsic reading motivation but not on extrinsic or social reading motivation.
Additional analyses of the total sample (both good and
poor readers) revealed significant correlations with performance on a standardized test of reading vocabulary
and comprehension for intrinsic motivation (r=.34),
extrinsic motivation (r=.20), and social motivation
(r=.17) but not reading efficacy (r=.12).
Law (2008) investigated the relation between extrinsic reading motivation (measured by six items from
the MRQ scales competition, recognition, grades, and
social), home literacy, parents support, classroom
instructional practices, and reading comprehension.
The bivariate correlation between extrinsic motivation and reading comprehension was not significant.
However, when entering home literacy, parents support, and both childrens and parents perceptions of
instructional practices into a regression model, extrinsic
motivation contributed significantly and negatively to
reading comprehension (b=0.12).
Law (2009) examined the relations between
implicit beliefs about intelligence and ability, intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation, reading strategy
use, and higher order reading comprehension. The
same extrinsic motivation scale was used as in Laws
(2008) study. The measure of intrinsic motivation corresponds closely to the MRQ dimension of curiosity.
With respect to the prediction of reading comprehension, a significant positive correlation (r=.20) was
obtained for intrinsic motivation and a significant
negative correlation (r=.21) for extrinsic motivation.

However, a regression model with reading strategy use
and implicit beliefs as additional predictors resulted in
nonsignificant regression coefficients for both intrinsic
and extrinsic motivation. Presumably, because of a nonsignificant correlation between intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation, a suppression effect was not observed.
Andreassen and Brten (2010) assessed intrinsic and
extrinsic reading motivation, strategy use, word recognition skills, and working memory capacity. Six months
later, standardized multiple-choice tests of sentence
comprehension (test 1) and text comprehension (test
2) as well as a researcher-developed multiple-choice
test of text comprehension (test 3) were administered.
The findings revealed significant positive correlations
(.15r.26) between intrinsic motivation and all three
comprehension measures. In contrast, correlations
between extrinsic motivation and reading comprehension were either nonsignificant (test 1: r=.05; test
2: r=.11) or significantly negative (test 3: r=.15).
The results from regression analyses indicated that
the unique contribution of the predictors varied across
comprehension tests. Extrinsic reading motivation did
not contribute uniquely to performance in any of the
three comprehension tests, whereas intrinsic reading
motivation was a significant predictor of text comprehension as measured on test 2 (b=0.17).
Logan et al. (2011) were particularly interested in
exploring whether intrinsic reading motivation (a composite of curiosity, involvement, and challenge) explains
more variance in reading comprehension of low- than
of high-ability readers. Poor, moderate, and good readers were identified by means of a standardized reading
comprehension test. For the whole sample, regression
analyses revealed significant contributions to current
reading comprehension only for verbal IQ and decoding skills. Intrinsic motivation was not a significant
predictor, although it correlated significantly (r=.30)
with comprehension. However, the analysis of poor
versus good readers showed that the comprehension
of poor readers was most strongly and significantly
predicted by intrinsic motivation (b=0.61) and decoding skills (b=0.30), whereas only verbal IQ was predictive in the group of good readers. When testing the
contribution of intrinsic motivation against that of prior
reading comprehension (assessed nine months earlier)
to examine intrinsic motivation as a predictor of comprehension growth, the findings revealed a strong and
significant effect of intrinsic motivation on current
reading comprehension for poor readers (b=0.70) but
not for good readers (b=0.08, ns). In these analyses,
however, neither verbal IQ nor decoding skills were
included.
Logan et al. (2011) explained the differential effect of
intrinsic motivation on good and poor readers by assuming that poor readers with high intrinsic motivation
451
are less frustrated by their low comprehension ability.

Instead, they may be more inclined to persevere with
difficult text material. It follows that high-ability readers
are not in need of support through intrinsic motivation.
However, when drawing conclusions from Logan et al.s
results, one should bear in mind that extrinsic motivation was not assessed. The studies reported previously
(e.g., Wang & Guthrie, 2004) found that the effect of
intrinsic motivation becomes more pronounced when
controlling for extrinsic motivation. Also, these studies found strong effects for intrinsic motivation without
distinguishing between good and poor readers.
Retelsdorf, Kller, and Mller (2011) conducted a
longitudinal study that was aimed at identifying unique
effects of reading motivation on reading comprehension when controlling for reasoning ability, decoding
skills, and aspects of family background (e.g., number
of books at home). Indicators of intrinsic motivation
(reading enjoyment, reading for interest), extrinsic
motivation (competition), and reading self-concept
were assessed in grade 5. Reading comprehension was
measured in grades 5, 6, and 8. Significant and substantial correlations with comprehension were only obtained
for reading enjoyment (.27r.32). Correlations for
reading for interest were also significant but rather low
(.05r.09), whereas competition was weakly and
negatively (but significantly) associated with comprehension (.08r.10).
In addition, Retelsdorf et al. (2011) were able to
demonstrate that the contributions of reading enjoyment and competition (but not reading for interest)
remained significant when taking the control variables
into account. Moreover, the authors applied latent
growth curve analyses to examine the effects of all
predictors on comprehension growth from grade 5 to
grade 8. The only significant predictors of growth were
gender (females had more growth than males), number
of books at home, reasoning ability, and reading for
interest. Although the concurrent correlation between
reading for interest and grade 5 comprehension was not
significant, reading for interest (in contrast to reading
enjoyment) proved to be a significant predictor of comprehension growth.
Artelt, Schiefele, Schneider, and Stanat (2002) analyzed data from the German PISA sample of students
in grades 810 and examined intrinsic reading motivation (using the PISA reading interest scale) and reading
self-concept as predictors of the students scores on the
PISA reading comprehension test. Reasoning ability,
decoding skills, and metacognitive knowledge of learning strategies were included as additional predictors.
The findings revealed low but significant contributions
of the same size (b=0.07) for intrinsic motivation and
self-concept.
Schaffner, Schiefele, and Schneider (2004) used the
PISA reading interest scale as a predictor of various
452
indicators of reading comprehension involving expository and narrative text materials. The authors reported
correlations ranging from .22 to .35 between reading
interest and measures of reading comprehension. In a
similar study, Schaffner and Schiefele (2008) found a
significant regression coefficient for the relation between
reading interest and reading comprehension (b=0.17)
when controlling for features of family background,
reasoning ability, and prior knowledge. Furthermore,
Schaffner and Schiefele (2007a) observed signif icant positive contributions of object-oriented (r=.20)
and experience-oriented intrinsic reading motivation
(r=.14) as well as significant negative contributions of
performance-oriented (r=0.16) and competition-oriented extrinsic reading motivation (r=.13) to reading
comprehension.
McElvany et al. (2008) analyzed the relations
between intrinsic reading motivation and reading
comprehension in a longitudinal study from grade
3 to grade 6. The results showed significant correlations between intrinsic reading motivation and reading
comprehension between .19 and .32. Similar findings
were reported by McElvany et al. (2009) and Becker
et al. (2010), who used the same data set as McElvany
et al. (2008) but conducted different analyses. In their
reanalyses of the original data set, McElvany et al.
(2009) tested a model that included intrinsic motivation, enjoyment reading amount, knowledge of vocabulary, family background indicators, and prior reading
comprehension (all measured in grade 4) as predictors
of grade 6 reading comprehension. The results showed
that intrinsic motivation was no longer a significant
predictor of comprehension. Becker et al. made use of
a measure of extrinsic reading motivation in addition
to intrinsic reading motivation. They reported correlations for latent variables and found that intrinsic
motivation measured in grade 4 was significantly and
positively associated with reading competence in grade
4 (r=.37) and grade 6 (r=.38), whereas extrinsic motivation was significantly and negatively related with
reading competence in grade 4 (r=.52) and grade 6
(r=.64).
Park (2011) used the U.S. data from the Progress in
International Reading Literacy Study (Mullis, Martin, Kennedy, & Foy, 2007) and analyzed the relation
between reading comprehension and both intrinsic
and extrinsic reading motivation as well as reading
self-concept. Intrinsic motivation was defined as reading enjoyment, whereas extrinsic motivation referred to
disparate aspects. Only one of these aspects seems to
be clearly extrinsic in nature (I need to read well for my
future), whereas the other two aspects either address
an intrinsic component (I would be happy if someone
gave me a book as a present) or the preference for reading-related social exchange (I like talking about books
with other people).
The findings showed significant correlations with

reading comprehension for intrinsic motivation (r=.32)
as well as self- and peer-referenced reading self-concept
(r=.26 and .32, respectively) but not for extrinsic motivation (r=.01). By means of multilevel regression analyses, Park (2011) obtained a significant positive effect
of intrinsic motivation (and for the two self-concept
indicators) as well as a significant negative effect of
extrinsic motivation. In addition, Park found evidence
for a curvilinear relation between extrinsic motivation
and reading comprehension and a significant interaction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. These
two effects created a rather complex pattern of results
that, in our view, should be replicated before drawing
far-reaching conclusions. For follow-up studies, it seems
essential to use a measure of extrinsic reading motivation that is in line with prior conceptualizations of the
construct.
Taboada et al. (2009) had teachers rate the internal
reading motivation (mostly aspects of intrinsic motivation and efficacy) of grade 4 students and related
this measure to their reading comprehension. Other
variables included were prior knowledge and student
questioning (students were instructed to write textrelated questions that were rated according to their
level of complexity and elaboration). All variables were
assessed at the same time (time 1). The comprehension
tests, however, were administered again three months
later (time 2). The findings showed significant correlations between internal motivation and comprehension at time 2 (multiple-choice: r=.42; free-response:
r=.49). Regression analyses involving time 1 comprehension, prior knowledge, and student questioning
as additional predictors revealed significant unique
contributions of internal motivation (multiple-choice:
b=0.11; free-response: b=0.23) to comprehension at
time 2.
Summary
The reviewed studies consistently confirm that intrinsic
reading motivation is moderately and positively related
to measures of reading competence. In contrast, extrinsic
reading motivation was found to be either negatively or not
significantly associated with reading competence. Only a
few studies reported findings that deviate from these general trends. Specifically, Baker and Wigfield (1999) and Lau
and Chan (2003) reported positive correlations between
dimensions of extrinsic motivation and comprehension. In
addition, there is evidence that the relation between reading motivation dimensions and reading competence varies
between ability, ethnic, and gender subgroups (e.g., Baker
& Wigfield, 1999; Logan et al., 2011; Unrau & Schlackman,
2006; Wang & Guthrie, 2004).
Several studies have considered control variables,
such as prior reading competence, prior knowledge,
reasoning and verbal ability, strategy use, decoding

skills, working memory, reading self-concept, and
family background variables. In most of these studies
(Artelt et al., 2002; Guthrie, Hoa, et al., 2007; Retelsdorf et al., 2011; Schaffner & Schiefele, 2008; Taboada
et al., 2009; Wang & Guthrie, 2004), the effects of
reading motivation remained significant. However,
Law (2009), Logan et al. (2011), and McElvany et al.
(2009) did not confirm the unique contributions of
reading motivation. Andreassen and Brten (2010)
found significant unique contributions of intrinsic
motivation to only one of three indicators of reading
comprehension.
Logan et al.s (2011) study is particularly interesting because it suggests that intrinsic reading motivation
is only predictive for poor readers. Unfortunately, the
authors did not include a measure of extrinsic reading motivation. Therefore, it cannot be ruled out that
intrinsic motivation is also predictive for good readers. It should be also noted that in contrast to Lau and
Chan (2003), Logan et al. did not find significant mean
differences in intrinsic motivation between good and
poor readers.
Past research has suggested that intrinsic and
extrinsic reading motivation should not be studied in
isolation. Some of the reviewed studies observed suppression effects that are most likely due to the high
correlation between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation
and their opposing effects on reading competence.
Thus, rather strong positive contributions for intrinsic motivation and strong negative contributions for
extrinsic motivation were found when both variables
were simultaneously tested as predictors of reading
competence (Unrau & Schlackman, 2006; Wang &
Guthrie, 2004).
This finding was not confirmed by Law (2009) or
Andreassen and Brten (2010). In both of these cases,
however, the researchers used strongly adapted versions of earlier MRQ composite measures (e.g., Wang &
Guthrie, 2004). Because of the possibility of a substantial suppression effect, all findings based on separate
analyses of intrinsic or extrinsic motivation should be
interpreted with caution. In addition, the suppression of
variance may also explain why Guthrie et al. (1999) and
Cox and Guthrie (2001) found no significant correlation
between reading competence and a composite reading
motivation measure involving intrinsic and extrinsic
components. Furthermore, Park (2011) observed a curvilinear relation between extrinsic motivation and reading comprehension and a complex interaction between
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Although these findings need to be replicated, they suggest that the relation between intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation
may be more complex than was assumed in previous
research and should be addressed more fully in the
future.
453
Reading Attitude and Reading-Related

Task Value
Reading Attitude
We have argued herein that measures of reading attitude overlap conceptually with measures of intrinsic
reading motivation. Thus, findings showing substantial relations between reading attitude and reading
competence also support the importance of intrinsic
motivation. In fact, a recent meta-analysis of 32 studies
(Petscher, 2010) demonstrated a moderately strong relation between reading attitudes and various measures
of reading competence (Zr=0.32). In contrast to the
results of Morgan and Fuchs (2007) referring to competence beliefs and goal orientation, Petscher reported
a stronger reading attitudecompetence relation for students in elementary school (Zr=0.44) than for students
in middle school (Zr=0.24). In addition, one of the
reviewed studies (McKenna et al., 1995) is particularly
interesting because it revealed greater mean differences
between groups of low-, average-, and high-ability readers in recreational reading attitude than in academic
reading attitude.
In addition to the studies reviewed by Petscher
(2010), positive contributions of reading attitude to
reading competence have been observed by Chapman and Tunmer (1995), Conlon, Zimmer-Gembeck,
Creed, and Tucker (2006), and Katzir, Lesaux, and
Kim (2009).3 In Chapman and Tunmers study (experiment 4), nonsignificant correlations between attitude
and various reading skill measures (e.g., word identification) in grade 1 and between attitude and reading
comprehension in grade 4 were observed. However, a
significant reading attitudecomprehension relation
was obtained for grade 5 students (r = .40). Chapman and Tunmer reported similar results for reading
self-concept.
Conlon et al. (2006) found signif icant contributions of reading attitude and self-concept (measured by Chapman & Tunmers, 1995, questionnaire)
to reading skills and comprehension. Regression
analyses (including nonverbal ability, rapid visual
processing, and both orthographic and phonological skill as additional predictors) revealed a significant effect of reading attitude on comprehension
(b = 0.14), whereas self-concept exhibited signif icant effects not only on comprehension (b=0.21)
but also on word identification (b=0.33) and spelling (b=0.38). In support of Conlon et al.s findings,
Katzir et al. (2009) observed significant correlations
between reading comprehension and both reading
attitude (r=.28) and self-concept (r=.42; assessed
by Chapman & Tunmers questionnaire). These associations remained significant in a regression model
controlling for verbal ability and word and nonword
reading fluency and accuracy.
454
Reading-Related Task Value

Studies of reading-related task value are rare. As shown
previously, Durik et al. (2006) examined intrinsic and
importance value beliefs as well as reading self-concept
as predictors of high school achievement choices related
to literacy (e.g., number of language arts courses per year
of high school). However, they did not address the relation of task values to reading competence. In contrast,
Solheim (2011) examined the effects of task values on
reading comprehension but only included importance
value beliefs; in our view, these represent an antecedent
but not a genuine form of reading motivation.
Nurmi and Aunola (2005) employed a person-oriented
approach and investigated the association among four
groups of students with different patterns of intrinsic task
values attached to math, reading, and writing on the one
side and academic performance in these subjects on the
other side. In measuring intrinsic task values, the authors
referred to Eccles (1994). By means of a cluster analysis,
four motivational groups were identified: (1) high value
on all three subjects, (2) high value on math, (3) low value
on math, and (4) low value on reading and writing. The
findings did not reveal significant differences in reading
competence between these four groups.
Anmarkrud and Brten (2009) examined reading
value and efficacy as predictors of comprehension.
Their measure of reading value comprised items
related to importance, utility, and interest value. The
results revealed significant correlations with reading comprehension for both value and efficacy. When
testing a regression model including school grades,
topic knowledge, and strategy use as additional predictors, only reading value (b=0.24), but not reading
efficacy (b=0.12), remained a significant predictor of
comprehension.
Summary
Past research has provided evidence for a moderate relation between reading attitude and reading competence
(Petscher, 2010). In a few studies (e.g., Conlon et al.,
2006), it was found that controlling for cognitive factors
(e.g., phonological skill) did not weaken the predictive
contributions of reading attitude. Because of a strong
conceptual overlap, the evidence for substantial relations
between reading attitude and reading competence supports the importance of intrinsic reading motivation.
The findings for reading-related task values were
mixed. Nurmi and Aunola (2005) did not find a significant contribution of intrinsic beliefs. However, it can
be argued that intrinsic task value was related to reading as a school subject but not directly to the activity of
reading that may take place either in school or outside
of school. Thus, different results should be expected if
intrinsic task values are more directly related to reading. This consideration is supported by McKenna et al.
(1995), who observed that good and poor readers show

greater mean differences in attitude toward recreational
than academic reading.
Using a measure of reading value comprising both
intrinsic and extrinsic components, Anmarkrud and
Brten (2009) found a significant relation between
reading value and reading comprehension, even when
controlling for school achievement, topic knowledge,
strategy use, and reading efficacy. However, because
they used a composite measure of intrinsic and extrinsic
task values, the relative importance of these components remains unclear.
Causal Direction of Relations

andMediation Processes
The fifth and final goal of the present review pertains to the evaluation of the empirical evidence on
the causality of motivational effects and the analysis
of the role of reading behavior as a mediating variable.
Most of the reviewed studies represent correlational
research that does not allow causal conclusions. Even
studies involving a substantial time lag between measures of reading motivation and criterion variables are
rare (e.g., Andreassen & Brten, 2010; Logan et al.,
2011; Retelsdorf et al., 2011). However, there are several studies available that have considered relevant
alternative predictors of reading competence, such as
cognitive ability, prior reading competence, strategy
use, and background knowledge. The evidence from
these studies at least partly supports the assumed
causal direction of the effects of reading motivation on
reading amount and reading competence. Even more
informative, however, are longitudinal studies and
studies investigating mediation processes.
In their review of reading-related competence
beliefs and goal orientations, Morgan and Fuchs (2007)
specifically addressed the directionality of the relations
between these constructs and reading performance
in young children. They came to the conclusion that
a bidirectional relation is most likely. However, they
admitted that they could not present direct causal evidence because potentially confounding factors were not
controlled in most studies and experimental designs
have not yet been applied.
With respect to intrinsic reading motivation, a bidirectional relation was also suggested by McElvany et al.
(2008). These researchers examined the development
of reading comprehension and intrinsic motivation
from grades 36, as well as the mutual relations among
comprehension, motivation, and reading amount. Two
cross-lagged panel models, either with or without reading amount, were analyzed. In the first model, only
measures of intrinsic motivation and comprehension for
grades 3, 4, and 6 were included. The findings revealed
significant effects of grade 3 comprehension on both
grade 4 and grade 6 intrinsic motivation. In addition,

grade 3 intrinsic motivation was significantly related
to grade 4 comprehension. This result suggests that
early reading competence is predictive of later intrinsic
reading motivation (significant path from grade 3 to
grade 6).
In contrast, the cross-lagged effect of intrinsic motivation seems to be somewhat weaker and was only
observed from grade 3 intrinsic motivation to grade 4
comprehension. It should be noted that McElvany et
al. (2008) did not include extrinsic motivation in their
model. Thus, the effect of intrinsic motivation may have
been underestimated because intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation are likely to exhibit a reciprocal suppression
effect (Unrau & Schlackman, 2006; Wang & Guthrie,
2004; see earlier discussion).
Retelsdorf et al. (2011) also conducted a longitudinal study and were able to show that reading enjoyment
and competition, in contrast to reading for interest,
were significant predictors of concurrent reading comprehension, even when controlling for cognitive skills as
well as familial and demographic background variables.
However, when analyzing the growth of comprehension performance from grade 5 to grade 8, reading for
interest was the only significant motivational predictor
(along with gender, number of books, and reasoning ability). Thus, despite a nonsignificant correlation
between grade 5 reading for interest and grade 5 comprehension, reading for interest substantially predicted
comprehension growth.
This finding is particularly interesting because, on
the one hand, it underlines the importance of intrinsic reading motivation for the development of reading
competence. On the other hand, it suggests that the two
components of intrinsic motivation (reading for interest
and reading enjoyment) have different effects and that it
is not always appropriate to combine scores on the components in an intrinsic reading motivation composite.
Specifically, in studies predicting growth in reading
competence, it is to be expected that object-oriented
intrinsic reading motivation (i.e., curiosity, reading for
interest) exerts stronger effects than experience-oriented
intrinsic reading motivation (i.e., involvement, reading
enjoyment). A possible explanation for this finding may
be that reading to satisfy ones interest in certain topics
initiates reading of informational texts with challenging
levels of difficulty. In contrast, enjoyment of reading is
more associated with the reading of novels, stories, or
otherwise enjoyable leisure time literature. As a consequence, reading enjoyment may be correlated with the
level of reading competence but may not be strongly
conducive to gaining more competence in reading (cf.
Retelsdorf et al., 2011).
Guthrie, Hoa, et al. (2007) obtained similar findings.
In their study, interview-based measures of interest in
reading, preference for choice, and involvement proved
455
to be significant predictors of growth in reading comprehension over a three-month period. Interesting, the
opposite did not occur; scores on the comprehension
measure did not predict growth in motivation.
Logan et al. (2011) conducted an interesting study
that also contributes to understanding the issue of
causality. These authors examined the relative contributions of intrinsic reading motivation, verbal IQ, decoding
skills, and previous comprehension performance to the
prediction of current comprehension performance in
groups of good and poor readers. In line with expectations, only poor readers growth in comprehension was
significantly predicted by intrinsic motivation. This
finding suggests that intrinsic motivation facilitates the
development of comprehension ability in poor readers in
particular. Individual differences pertaining to verbal IQ
and decoding skills were held constant and thus cannot
explain the effect of intrinsic motivation.
An important aspect of investigating the causal
relation between reading motivation and reading competence entails the analysis of mediating variables (see
Guthrie, Wigfield, & You, 2012, for further discussion of
this issue). The most important potential mediator discussed in the literature is reading amount. Guthrie et al.
(1999) proposed various explanations for the assumed
influence of reading amount on reading competence.
First, the knowledge gained through frequent reading
might facilitate comprehension. Second, it is plausible
that reading a lot enhances reading-related competence beliefs. Thus, students are more likely to choose
challenging texts, which in turn promotes reading
comprehension. Third, the authors posit that frequent
reading increases reading effectiveness (e.g., reading
speed, fluency). The increased effectiveness or automatization of reading reduces the load on memory and
frees up further resources for comprehension processes
(e.g., identifying main ideas, drawing conclusions).
According to Cipielewski and Stanovich (1992),
students who frequently read perform better on reading tasks than do students with the same intellectual
abilities who do not read much. Cunningham and
Stanovich (1997) estimated that 23% of the progress in
reading comprehension made from grade 5 to grade 10
can be predicted by reading amount. Evidence shows
that both out-of-school and in-school reading activities are associated with reading comprehension (Elley,
1992; Metsala & Ehri, 1998). Experiments have confirmed the assumed direction of this relationship. For
example, in a study by Morrow (1996; see also Morrow, Pressley, Smith, & Smith, 1997), students whose
reading time at school was increased outperformed
a control group on measures of reading competence.
In addition, joint verbal activities in the family as well
as parental reading amount predict childrens reading
amount and reading motivation (Klauda, 2009; Retelsdorf & Mller, 2008).
456
The evidence for the mediation of effects of reading

motivation on reading competence through reading
amount or reading strategies is scarce. For example,
Guthrie et al. (1999) assessed students in grades 3
and 5 on their general reading motivation, reading
amount, and text comprehension. However, although
scores on Guthrie et al.s measure of motivation were
significantly related to reading amount, they did not
predict comprehension. In contrast, Wang and Guthrie (2004) found significant associations of intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation with both reading amount and
comprehension, but reading amount did not significantly contribute to comprehension.
More convincing evidence of the mediating role
of reading amount was provided by McElvany et al.
(2008). As described previously, these authors analyzed two cross-lagged panel models. In their second
model, reading amount was added to the variables in
the first model (intrinsic motivation, comprehension).
The results showed that there was a significant indirect
effect of grade 3 intrinsic motivation on grade 6 comprehension mediated by reading amount. In contrast, the
effects of comprehension on intrinsic motivation were
not mediated by reading amount. Instead a significant
direct effect of grade 3 comprehension on grade 4
intrinsic motivation was obtained.
Although they used the same data set as McElvany
et al. (2008), Becker et al. (2010) obtained different
results, which are most likely due to the addition of
extrinsic motivation and the use of different operational
definitions of intrinsic motivation and reading competence (see Table 3). Moreover, Becker et al. measured
motivation at grade 4 instead of grade 3. They first
conducted separate analyses for intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation and examined in each case grade 4 reading amount as a mediator of the effects of motivation
on grade 6 reading competence. For intrinsic motivation, Becker et al. observed a substantial mediation
effect, but not for extrinsic motivation. Extrinsic motivation exerted a significant negative direct effect on
competence. The picture changed, however, when both
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation as well as grade 3
reading competence were included in the model. In this
case, grade 6 competence was significantly positively
predicted by grade 3 competence and significantly negatively predicted by extrinsic motivation. There was no
indirect effect of intrinsic motivation mediated by reading amount because the latter variable was no longer
significantly related to reading competence.
It should be noted that Becker et al.s (2010)
extrinsic reading motivation measure differed considerably from measures used in research based on
the MRQ (e.g., Unrau & Schlackman, 2006; Wang &
Guthrie, 2004). Becker et al. focused on social recognition (through parents and teachers) and instrumental goals. Instrumental goals were not clearly extrinsic
in nature (e.g., I read because it is important to me

to know a lot). In contrast, studies using the MRQ
to measure extrinsic motivation have emphasized the
dimensions of competition, grades, and compliance
(in addition to recognition and social aspects). Also
in contrast to prior research, in Becker et al.s study,
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation were not significantly correlated.
It should be noted that McElvany et al. (2009), in
their reanalyses of the McElvany et al. (2008) data set
(see earlier discussion), demonstrated a nonsignificant
contribution of grade 4 intrinsic motivation to grade 6
comprehension when controlling for amount of reading for enjoyment, knowledge of vocabulary, family
background indicators, and prior reading comprehension (all measured at grade 4). However, in their model,
they did not include a path from intrinsic motivation
to amount of reading for enjoyment, which in turn was
a significant predictor of comprehension. Thus, the
occurrence of a mediation effect remains unclear in
these analyses.
In sum, despite previous evidence of significant
associations between reading amount and reading
competence on the one hand and among reading motivation, reading amount, and reading competence on
the other hand, the reviewed studies do not substantially support the assumption that reading amount
explains the effects of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on reading competence. Furthermore, there is a
lack of studies testing the role of reading strategies or
reading preferences as mediators of the effects of motivation on reading competence. Exceptions are studies by Anmarkrud and Brten (2009) and Law (2009).
However, these studies did not find evidence for the
mediating role of reading strategies.
Conceptualization of Reading Motivation

(Goal 1)
Conclusions
A positive aspect of past research pertains to the

combination of quantitative and qualitative work. Most
notably, Wigfield and Guthries (1997b) MRQ is based
on interviews with students. As a result, the dimensions
of the MRQ closely correspond with those dimensions
revealed by qualitative research. We identified only two
interview-based categories (emotional tuning and relief
from boredom) that are not represented in the questionnaires reviewed in this paper and that should be pursued
in future research. In addition, the qualitative studies
have suggested that the experience of reading involves
several distinguishable facets (e.g., absorption, enjoyment, relaxation) that may warrant further analysis.
The dimensions of reading motivation as they
are currently assessed by questionnaires need more
clarification. First of all, we believe that the number
of reading motivation components can be reduced if
those that should not be regarded as genuine reading
motivation dimensions (i.e., importance and challenge
The reviewed research on reading motivation has provided important findings. These pertain not only to
the conceptualization and dimensionality of reading
motivation but also to the effects of reading motivation on reading behavior and reading competence.
Despite considerable methodological differences
among the studies, there is substantial agreement on
the beneficial effects of intrinsic reading motivation
and the relatively small or negative impact of extrinsic reading motivation. However, beyond these general results, questions remain. Among those, probably
the most critical ones pertain to the relation between
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation and to the causality
of motivation effects on reading behavior and reading
competence. In the following, we briefly reiterate the
main findings of our review and provide directions for
future research.
Our overview of reading motivation constructs revealed

that the distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic
motivation plays a dominant role. Other constructs,
particularly reading attitude and intrinsic task value,
strongly overlap with intrinsic reading motivation and,
thus, should not be viewed as distinct concepts. Other
forms of task value, such as utility and attainment value
(Durik et al., 2006), however, are relevant as preconditions of reading motivation. The same applies to reading
self-concept and efficacy, which we do not regard as
components of reading motivation but as factors contributing, most likely, to intrinsic reading motivation.
The role of goal theory for conceptualizing reading
motivation is more difficult to evaluate. Past research
has failed to propose reading-related goals. Instead, the
research has analyzed the association between general
(not reading-related) goals (e.g., mastery and performance goals) and literacy-related learning assignments
(Graham et al., 2008; Meece & Miller, 1999) as well as
measures of reading competence (Lepola et al., 2000).
Although Meece and Miller defined their goals more
specifically by referring to school-related literacy activities, they did not relate these goals directly to reading.
Moreover, in our view, a meaningful application of goal
orientation constructs, in addition to the established
components of intrinsic and extrinsic reading motivation, to the domain of reading seems questionable.
However, students general achievement goal orientations may play an important role, together with task
values and reading self-concept, as conditions for the
development of (genuine) reading motivation.

(Goal2)
457
[usually included in the intrinsic motivation composite]

as well as social aspects [usually included in the extrinsic motivation composite]) are excluded.4 In our view,
the following should be regarded as genuine dimensions of reading motivation: curiosity, involvement,
competition, recognition, grades, compliance, and work
avoidance.
A further problem pertains to the common practice of combining particular dimensions into composite
scores of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. In this case,
evidence needs to be provided for these measurement
models by means of confirmatory factor analyses. The
use of different composite scores by different researchers
prevents direct comparisons among studies. In addition,
as was shown by Retelsdorf et al. (2011), using individual
components of reading motivation (in addition to composite scores) could provide important insights because
components of the same composite may have different
effects. Finally, it is necessary to examine the measurement invariance (cf. Kline, 2005) of reading motivation
questionnaires with respect to male and female students
and different age and ethnic groups.
Reading Motivation and Reading

Behavior(Goal 3)
The studies addressing the relation between reading
motivation and reading amount suffer not only from the
use of different measures of reading motivation but also
from the use of different measures of reading amount.
Specifically, only a few studies distinguished explicitly
between reading for enjoyment (or leisure time reading)
and reading for school. Other studies used either one of
the two measures or a composite of both. However, the
reviewed findings have suggested that reading motivation is more strongly related to reading for enjoyment
than to reading for school. This may be explained by
the fact that school-related reading is more under the
control of teachers than is leisure reading. In addition,
it was demonstrated that intrinsic motivation is more
strongly related to amount of reading for enjoyment than
is extrinsic motivation (e.g., Wang & Guthrie, 2004).
Of importance, positive associations between intrinsic
motivation and reading amount were confirmed when
accounting for relevant control variables (e.g., prior
reading achievement). In contrast, extrinsic motivation
seems to be weakly related to reading amount.
Future studies involving reading amount need to
distinguish more clearly between reading for enjoyment
and school-related reading. In addition, different text
materials (e.g., books, magazines) should be taken
into account. For example, the amount of reading for
enjoyment could be assessed with respect to comics,
magazines, and online texts as opposed to literary
books (see also McKenna et al.s, 2012, distinction
between print and digital texts). The contribution of
458
reading behavior to reading comprehension may not

only depend on the amount or frequency of reading
but also on the nature of the reading material (Philipp,
2010). As has been demonstrated by Alvermann and
Heron (2001; Alvermann, 2011), adolescents, who show
little interest in reading traditional books, journals, or
newspapers, seem to be quite motivated to read popular
media texts. Students interest in popular culture motivates their reading and other literacy-related activities
that are conducive to academic literacy (see also Coles
& Hall, 2002; McKenna et al., 2012).
Although research clearly corroborates the assumption that intrinsic reading motivation is positively
associated with reading strategies, there is a lack of
studies controlling for other cognitive or motivational
factors. As an exception, Schaffner and Schiefele
(2008) reported that the effect of intrinsic motivation
on strategy knowledge became nonsignificant when
controlling for reasoning ability. In addition, the association between reading strategies and extrinsic reading
motivation has not been well studied. Consequently,
the investigation of the relation between (intrinsic and
extrinsic) reading motivation and reading strategies
represents an important task for future research.
The importance of intrinsic reading motivation was
also evident in studies examining the prediction of reading preferences. More specifically, students breadth
of reading and preference for both informational and
literary text materials seem to depend more on their
intrinsic than extrinsic motivation. Significant relations
between intrinsic motivation and indicators of reading preferences were confirmed even when accounting
for relevant control variables (e.g., school achievement,
prior reading preferences).
Reading Motivation and Reading

Competence (Goal 4)
Above all, our summary of findings suggests that
reading competence is positively related to intrinsic reading motivation (including reading attitude and intrinsic
task values) and negatively or nonsignificantly related to
extrinsic reading motivation. The positive association
between intrinsic motivation and proficiency in reading
comprehension was confirmed even when controlling
for a variety of relevant cognitive factors. Apart from this
general result, however, questions remain. These questions refer mainly to three issues. First, the nature of the
relation between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in predicting reading competence needs to be clarified. Some
studies have observed rather high positive correlations
between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation (e.g., Wang &
Guthrie, 2004) and strong suppression effects. In addition, Park (2011) found a complex interaction between
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in predicting reading competence. Second, nonlinear relations between
reading motivation and reading competence should be

considered. For example, Park demonstrated a curvilinear relation between extrinsic motivation and reading
competence. Third, the strength of the relations between
intrinsic and extrinsic motivation appears to vary for
male and female students, younger and older students,
good and poor readers, and different ethnic groups.
It is important for future research to address the
nature of relations between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation on the one side and between both intrinsic and
extrinsic motivation and reading competence on the
other side. The analysis of the nature of these relations
also depends on clarification of the dimensions of reading motivation and how they are operationally defined
in empirical research. Clearly, the size of the correlation between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation, and the
occurrence of suppression, varies with the particular
inventories used to measure these variables.
Causal Direction of Relations

andMediation Processes (Goal 5)
A final issue concerns causal relations and mediating processes. As was mentioned herein, longitudinal
studies examining the relations among reading motivation, reading amount, and reading competence are
rare. The reviewed evidence suggests a bidirectional
relation between intrinsic motivation and reading competence (McElvany et al., 2008; Morgan & Fuchs, 2007).
Only one study (Becker et al., 2010) found a significant
(negative) longitudinal effect of extrinsic motivation.
In addition, Retelsdorf et al. (2011), Guthrie, Hoa, et al.
(2007), and Logan et al. (2011) provided evidence that
intrinsic motivation predicts growth of reading competence even when controlling for various cognitive
factors.
The findings on the role of reading amount as a
mediator of the effect of intrinsic motivation on reading competence are inconclusive. Positive evidence,
for example, was provided by a longitudinal study by
McElvany et al. (2008), who found a significant indirect
effect of grade 3 intrinsic motivation on grade 6 reading
competence mediated by reading amount. However,
Becker et al. (2010) came to a different conclusion even
though they used the same data set (but different versions of the same variables) as McElvany et al. Despite
previous evidence of significant associations between
reading amount and reading performance on the one
hand and among reading motivation, reading amount,
and reading performance on the other hand, the
reviewed studies do not support the assumption that
reading amount explains the effects of reading motivation on comprehension.
There is evidence that suggests text difficulty may
play a moderating role when analyzing reading amount
as a mediator. Carver and Leibert (1995) reported that
the text comprehension of a group of third-, fourth-,

and fifth-grade students was not increased by practice reading when the students read easy materials. In
addition, Pfost, Drfler, and Artelt (2010) found that
leisure time reading predicted comprehension only for
those children whose parents were moderately or highly
educated. For students from families with low levels of
education, no significant associations between reading
amount and reading comprehension were obtained.
As was reported by Kraaykamp and Dijkstra (1999),
individuals with high education levels seem to prefer
more difficult texts. Thus, it might be concluded that
students from families with lower education levels tend
to read less challenging or complex text materials that
are less conducive to the development of reading competence than the text materials being read in families
with higher education levels. Future research should
take into account the level of challenge or complexity
of text materials when assessing indicators of reading
amount.
Directions for Future Research

Although we have dealt with the f ive goals of the
review separately, the various issues and problems of
previous research are interconnected. For example,
those studies examining reading behavior and reading competence reached different conclusions at least
partly because they used different measures of the same
constructs of reading motivation. In addition, different sets of motivational predictors (e.g., only intrinsic
motivation, or intrinsic and extrinsic motivation) and
confounding cognitive variables were included in the
studies. Thus, it should be a task of high priority for
future research to reach a consensus on the definition
of reading motivation (including its dimensions) and
the use of individual and composite scales. The great
variety of measures and combinations thereof makes
it difficult to compare and evaluate the results from
prior studies.
Despite pleading for a consensus on measures of
reading motivation, we also see the need for exploring
alternative measurement methods beyond self-reports.
This seems to be of particular importance with respect
to the measurement of reading behavior. In this case,
alternative measures such as parents reports (Becker
et al., 2010; Wigfield & Guthrie, 1997b), teacher reports
(Wigfield et al., 2008), or student diaries (Allen, Cipielewski, & Stanovich, 1992) seem advisable to validate
findings based on students self-reports of reading
amount, reading strategies, or reading preferences.
Moreover, alternative methods to measure reading
motivation should be considered. Lepola et al. (2000)
provided a good example of a behavior-based method
that might be used. These researchers had experimenters rate students behavior in particular situations
459
to determine their goal orientations. Although we are

hesitant to accept the motivational nature of these goal
orientations (see earlier discussion), the method of
behavioral ratings (through teachers, parents, or peers)
could be fruitfully used to complement traditional
research based on self-reports. Finally, recent efforts to
develop instruments that differentiate between recreational and academic reading motivation and between
reading of print and digital texts (e.g., McKenna et al.,
2012) need to be further explored.
Notes
1
According to attitude theory (e.g., Manstead, 1995), the assessment

of attitudes may not only involve affect but also the expression of
beliefs about the attitude object (cognition) or the expression of
behavioral intentions toward the attitude object (behavior).
2
Although the authors did not classify their measure of reading
amount, we propose that it indicates the amount of reading for
enjoyment as defined by Guthrie et al. (1994).
3
Only those studies not reviewed by Petscher (2010) are included
in Table 3.
4
This is not to say that social reading motivation should be
discarded from reading motivation inventories. Wigfield and
Guthries (1997b) scale of social aspects, however, deviates from
their own theoretical definition and addresses the preference for
and frequency of reading-related activities with family and peers.
Thus, it does not explicitly represent a form of reading motivation.
References
Alexander, J.E., & Filler, R.C. (1976). Attitudes and reading. Newark,
DE: International Reading Association.
Alexander, P.A., Kulikowich, J.M., & Jetton, T.L. (1994). The role
of subject-matter knowledge and interest in the processing of linear and nonlinear texts. Review of Educational Research, 64(2),
201252.
Allen, L., Cipielewski, J., & Stanovich, K.E. (1992). Multiple indicators of childrens reading habits and attitudes: Construct validity
and cognitive correlates. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4),
489503. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.84.4.489
Alvermann, D.E. (2011). Popular culture and literacy practices. In
M.L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B. Moje, & P.P. Afflerbach (Eds.),
Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp. 541560). New York:
Routledge.
Alvermann, D.E., & Heron, A.H. (2001). Literacy identity work:
Playing to learn with popular media. Journal of Adolescent &
Adult Literacy, 45(2), 118122.
Anderson, R.C., Wilson, P.T., & Fielding, L.G. (1988). Growth in
reading and how children spend their time outside of school. Reading Research Quarterly, 23(3), 285303. doi:10.1598/RRQ.23.3.2
Andreassen, R., & Brten, I. (2010). Examining the prediction
of reading comprehension on different multiple-choice tests.
Journal of Research in Reading, 33(3), 263283. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-9817.2009.01413.x
Anmarkrud, O., & Brten, I. (2009). Motivation for reading comprehension. Learning and Individual Differences, 19(2), 252256.
doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2008.09.002
Artelt, C., Schiefele, U., Schneider, W., & Stanat, P. (2002).
Leseleistungen deutscher Schlerinnen und Schler im internationalen Vergleich (PISA) [Reading literacy of German students
in international comparison (PISA)]. Zeitschrift fr Erziehungswissenschaft, 5(1), 627. doi:10.1007/s11618-002-0002-1
Baker, L. (1989). Metacognition, comprehension monitoring, and
the adult reader. Educational Psychology Review, 1(1), 338.
doi:10.1007/BF01326548
460
Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999). Dimensions of childrens motivation for reading and their relations to reading activity and
reading achievement. Reading Research Quarterly, 34(4), 452477.
doi:10.1598/RRQ.34.4.4
Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York:
W.H. Freeman.
Becker, M., McElvany, N., & Kortenbruck, M. (2010). Intrinsic and
extrinsic reading motivation as predictors of reading literacy:
A longitudinal study. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102(4),
773785. doi:10.1037/a0020084
Bong, M. (1998). Tests of the internal/external frames of reference model with subject-specific academic self-efficacy and
frame-specific academic self-concepts. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 90(1), 102110. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.90.1.102
Brten, I., Lie, A., Andreassen, R., & Olaussen, B.S. (1999). Leisure
time reading and orthographic processes in word recognition
among Norwegian third- and fourth-grade students. Reading and
Writing, 11(1), 6588. doi:10.1023/A:1007976521114
Carver, R.P., & Leibert, R.E. (1995). The effect of reading library
books at different levels of diff iculty upon gain in reading
ability. Reading Research Quarterly, 30(1), 2648. doi:10.2307/
747743
Chapman, J.W., & Tunmer, W.E. (1995). Development of
young childrens reading self-concepts: An examination of
emerging subcomponents and their relationship with reading
achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology, 87(1), 154167.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.87.1.154
Cipielewski, J., & Stanovich, K.E. (1992). Predicting growth in
readingability from childrens exposure to print. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 54(1), 7489. doi:10.1016/0022-0965(92)
90018-2
Coles, M., & Hall, C. (2002). Gendered readings: Learning from
childrens reading choices. Journal of Research in Reading, 25(1),
96108. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.00161
Conlon, E.G., Zimmer-Gembeck, M.J., Creed, P.A., & Tucker,
M. (2006). Family history, self-perceptions, attitudes and
cognitive abilities are associated with early adolescent reading skills. Journal of Research in Reading, 29(1), 1132.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2006.00290.x
Cox, K.E., & Guthrie, J.T. (2001). Motivational and cognitive contributions to students amount of reading. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(1), 116131. doi:10.1006/
ceps.1999.1044
Cunningham, A.E., & Stanovich, K.E. (1997). Early reading
acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability
10 years later. Developmental Psycholog y, 33(6), 934945.
doi:10.1037/0012-1649.33.6.934
Durik, A.M., Vida, M., & Eccles, J.S. (2006). Task values and
ability beliefs as predictors of high school literacy choices: A
developmental analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98(2),
382393. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.98.2.382
Ecalle, J., & Magnan, A. (2008). Relations between print exposure
and literacy skills: New evidence from grade 15. The British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 26(4), 525544. doi:
10.1348/026151007X267959
Eccles, J.S. (1994). Understanding womens educational and occupational choices: Applying the Eccles et al. model of achievementrelated choices. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18(4), 585609.
doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1994.tb01049.x
Eccles, J.S., Adler, T. F., Futterman, R., Goff, S.B., Kaczala, C.M.,
Meece, J.L., et al. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic
behaviors. In J.T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement
motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75146).
San Francisco: W.H. Freeman.
Elley, W.B. (1992). How in the world do students read? IEA study of
reading literacy. Hamburg, Germany: International Association
for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
Elliot, A.J. (1999). Approach and avoidance motivation and achievement goals. Educational Psychologist, 34(3), 169189. doi:10.1207/
s15326985ep3403_3
Fishbein, M., & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and
behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Gambrell, L.B., Palmer, B.M., Codling, R.M., & Mazzoni, S.A.
(1996). Assessing motivation to read. The Reading Teacher, 49(7),
518533. doi:10.1598/RT.49.7.2
Graham, J., Tisher, R., Ainley, M., & Kennedy, G. (2008). Staying with the text: The contribution of gender, achievement
orientations, and interest to students performance on a literacy task. Educational Psychology, 28(7), 757776. doi:10.1080/
01443410802260988
Greaney, V., & Neuman, S.B. (1990). The functions of reading: A
cross-cultural perspective. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(3),
172195. doi:10.2307/748001
Guthrie, J.T., Hoa, L.W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S.M., Humenick, N.M.,
& Littles, E. (2007). Reading motivation and reading comprehension growth in the later elementary years. Contemporary Educational
Psychology, 32(3), 282313. doi:10.1016/j.cedpsych.2006.05.004
Guthrie, J.T., Hoa, L.W., Wigfield, A., Tonks, S.M., & Perencevich,
K.C. (2006). From spark to fire: Can situational reading interest lead to long-term reading motivation? Reading Research and
Guthrie, J.T., McGough, K., & Wigfield, A. (1994). Measuring
reading activity: An inventory (Instructional Resource No. 4).
Athens, GA: National Reading Research Center.
Guthrie, J.T., McRae, A.C., & Klauda, S.L. (2007). Contributions
of Concept-Oriented Reading Instruction to knowledge about
interventions for motivations in reading. Educational Psychologist, 42(4), 237250. doi:10.1080/00461520701621087
Guthrie, J.T., Schafer, W.D., & Hutchinson, S.R. (1991). Relations of
document literacy and prose literacy to occupational and societal
characteristics of young black and white adults. Reading Research
Quarterly, 26(1), 3048. doi:10.2307/747730
Guthrie, J.T., Van Meter, P., McCann, A.D., & Wigfield, A. (1996).
Growth of literacy engagement: Changes in motivations and
strategies during concept-oriented reading instruction. Reading
Research Quarterly, 31(3), 306332. doi:10.1598/RRQ.31.3.5
Guthrie, J.T., & Wigfield, A. (Eds.). (1999). How motivation fits into
a science of reading: A special issue of scientific studies of reading.
Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Guthrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., Metsala, J.L., & Cox, K.E. (1999).
Motivational and cognitive predictors of text comprehension
and reading amount. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 231256.
doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_3
Guthrie, J.T., Wigfield, A., & You, W. (2012). Instructional contexts for engagement and achievement in reading. In S.L. Christenson, A.L. Reschly, & C. Wylie (Eds.), Handbook of research
on student engagement (pp. 601-634). New York: Springer.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-2018-7_29
Harlaar, N., Dale, P.S., & Plomin, R. (2007). Reading exposure:
A (largely) environmental risk factor with environmentallymediated effects on reading performance in the primary school
years. Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry, 48(12), 1192
1199. doi:10.1111/j.1469-7610.2007.01798.x
He, T.H. (2008). Reading for different goals: The interplay of EFL
college students multiple goals, reading strategy use and reading
comprehension. Journal of Research in Reading, 31(2), 224242.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2007.00355.x
Heckhausen, H. (1991). Motivation and action. Berlin, Germany:
Springer. doi:10.1007/978-3-642-75961-1
Helmke, A. (1996). Development of the self-concept. In E. De Corte
& F.E. Weinert (Eds.), International encyclopedia of developmental and instructional psychology (pp. 228232). Oxford, UK:
Elsevier Science.
Hidi, S. (2001). Interest, reading, and learning: Theoretical and

practical considerations. Educational Psychology Review, 13(3),
191209. doi:10.1023/A:1016667621114
Kaplan, A., & Maehr, M.L. (2007). The contributions and prospects
of goal orientation theory. Educational Psychology Review, 19(2),
141184. doi:10.1007/s10648-006-9012-5
Katzir, T., Lesaux, N.K., & Kim, Y. (2009). The role of reading selfconcept and home literacy practices in fourth grade reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 22(3), 261276. doi:10.1007/
s11145-007-9112-8
Kirsch, I., de Jong, J., LaFontaine, D., McQueen, J., Mendelovits,
J., & Monseur, C. (2002). Reading for change: Performance and
engagement across countries: Results from PISA 2000. Paris:
OECD.
Klauda, S.L. (2009). The role of parents in adolescents reading
motivation and activity. Educational Psychology Review, 21(4),
325363. doi:10.1007/s10648-009-9112-0
Kline, R.B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation
modeling. New York: Guilford.
Kolic-Vehovec, S., Roncevic, B., & Bajanski, I. (2008). Motivational
components of self-regulated learning and reading strategy use
in university students: The role of goal orientation patterns.
Learning and Individual Differences, 18(1), 108113. doi:10.1016/
j.lindif.2007.07.005
Kraaykamp, G., & Dijkstra, K. (1999). Preferences in leisure time
book reading: A study on the social differentiation in book reading for the Netherlands. Poetics, 26(4), 203234. doi:10.1016/
S0304-422X(99)00002-9
Kuhn, D., & Pearsall, S. (1998). Relations between metastrategic
knowledge and strategic performance. Cognitive Development,
13(2), 227247. doi:10.1016/S0885-2014(98)90040-5
Lau, K. (2009). Reading motivation, perceptions of reading instruction and reading amount: A comparison of junior and senior
secondary school students in Hong Kong. Journal of Research in
Reading, 32(4), 366382. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2009.01400.x
Lau, K., & Chan, D.W. (2003). Reading strategy use and motivationamong
Chinese good and poor readers in Hong Kong. Journal ofResearch in
Reading, 26(2), 177190. doi:10.1111/1467-9817.00195
Law, Y. (2008). The relationship between extrinsic motivation,
home literacy, classroom instructional practices, and reading proficiency in second-grade Chinese children. Research in
Education, 80(1), 3751.
Law, Y. (2009). The role of attribution beliefs, motivation and strategy use in Chinese fifth-graders reading comprehension. Educational Research, 51(1), 7795. doi:10.1080/00131880802704764
Lederer, J.M. (2000). Reciprocal teaching of social studies in inclusive elementary classrooms. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33(1),
91106. doi:10.1177/002221940003300112
Lepola, J., Salonen, P., & Vauras, M. (2000). The development of
motivational orientations as a function of divergent reading
careers from pre-school to the second grade. Learning and
Instruction, 10(2), 153177. doi:10.1016/S0959-4752(99)00024-9
Logan, S., & Johnston, R. (2009). Gender differences in reading ability and attitudes: Examining where these differences lie. Journal of Research in Reading, 32(2), 199214.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2008.01389.x
Logan, S., Medford, E., & Hughes, N. (2011). The importance of
intrinsic motivation for high and low ability readers reading comprehension performance. Learning and Individual Differences,
21(1), 124128. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2010.09.011
Manstead, A.S.R. (1995). Attitude theory and research. In A.S.R.
Manstead & M. Hewstone (Eds.), The Blackwell encyclopedia of
social psychology (pp. 4752). Malden, MA: Blackwell.
Marsh, H.W., Byrne, B.M., & Shavelson, R.J. (1988). A multifaceted
academic self-concept: Its hierarchical structure and its relation
to academic achievement. Journal of Educational Psychology,
80(3), 366380. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.80.3.366
461
McElvany, N., Becker, M., & Ldtke, O. (2009). Die Bedeutung

familirer Merkmale fr Lesekompetenz, Wortschatz, Lesemotivation und Leseverhalten [The role of family variables in
reading literacy, vocabulary, reading motivation, and reading
behavior]. Zeitschrift fr Entwicklungspsychologie und Pdagogische Psychologie, 41(3), 121131. doi:10.1026/0049-8637.41.3.121
McE lva ny, N., Kor t en br uck, M., & B ecker, M. (20 08).
L esekompetenz und L esemotivation: Entwick lung und
Mediation desZusammenhangs durch Leseverhalten [Reading
literacy andreading motivation: Their development and the
mediation ofthe relationship by reading behavior]. Zeitschrift
fur Padagogische Psychologie, 22(3/4), 207219. doi:10.1024/
1010-0652.22.34.207
McKenna, M.C., Conradi, K., Lawrence, C., Jang, B.G., & Meyer,
J.P. (2012). Reading attitudes of middle school students: Results
of a U.S. survey. Reading Research Quarterly, 47(3), 283306.
McKenna, M.C., & Kear, D.J. (1990). Measuring attitude toward
reading: A new tool for teachers. The Reading Teacher, 43(9),
626639. doi:10.1598/RT.43.8.3
McKenna, M.C., Kear, D.J., & Ellsworth, R.A. (1995). Childrens
attitudes toward reading: A national survey. Reading Research
Quarterly, 30(4), 934956. doi:10.2307/748205
Meece, J.L., & Miller, S.D. (1999). Changes in elementary school
childrens achievement goals for reading and writing: Results of a
longitudinal and an intervention study. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 207229. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_2
Meece, J.L., & Miller, S.D. (2001). A longitudinal analysis of
elementary school students achievement goals in literacy activities. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 26(4), 454480.
doi:10.1006/ceps.2000.1071
Metsala, J.L., & Ehri, L.C. (1998). Word recognition in beginning literacy. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Moje, E.B., Overby, M., Tysvaer, N., & Morris, K. (2008). The
complex world of adolescent literacy: Myths, motivations, and
mysteries. Harvard Educational Review, 78(1), 107154.
Moje, E.B., Stockdill, D., Kim, K., & Kim, H. (2011). The role of text
in disciplinary learning. In M.L. Kamil, P.D. Pearson, E.B. Moje,
& P.P. Afflerbach (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (Vol. 4, pp.
453486). New York: Routledge.
Mokhtari, K., & Reichard, C.A. (2002). Assessing students metacognitive awareness of reading strategies. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 94(2), 249259. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.94.2.249
Mol, S.E., & Bus, A.G. (2011). To read or not to read: A meta-analysis
of print exposure from infancy to early adulthood. Psychological
Bulletin, 137(2), 267296. doi:10.1037/a0021890
Mller, J., & Bonerad, E. (2007). Fragebogen zur habituellen
Lesemotivation [Habitual Reading Motivation Questionnaire].
Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 54(4), 259267.
Mller, J., Pohlmann, B., Kller, O., & Marsh, H.W. (2009). A
meta-analytic path analysis of the internal/external frame of
reference model of academic achievement and academic selfconcept. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 11291167.
doi:10.3102/0034654309337522
Mller, J., & Retelsdorf, J. (2008). Lesen oder Fernsehen? Zur
Vorhersage von Ttigkeitsprferenzen [Reading or watching TV?
On the prediction of activity preferences]. Zeitschrift fr Entwicklungspsychologie und Pdagogische Psychologie, 40(1), 1321.
doi:10.1026/0049-8637.40.1.13
Mller, J., & Schiefele, U. (2011). The motivational foundation of
reading comprehension. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Morgan, P.L., & Fuchs, D. (2007). Is there a bidirectional relationship between childrens reading skills and reading motivation?
Exceptional Children, 73(2), 165183.
Morrow, L.M. (1996). Motivating reading and writing in diverse
classrooms: Social and physical contexts in a literature-based program (NCTE Research Report No. 28). Urbana, IL: National
Council of Teachers of English.
462
Morrow, L.M., Pressley, M., Smith, J.K., & Smith, M. (1997). The
effect of a literature-based program integrated into literacy and
science instruction with children from diverse backgrounds.
Reading Research Quarterly, 32(1), 5476. doi:10.1598/RRQ.32.1.4
Mullis, I.V.S., Martin, M.O., Kennedy, A.M., & Foy, P. (2007).
PIRLS 2006 international report: IEAs Progress in International
Reading Literacy Study in primary school in 40 countries. Chestnut
Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston
College.
Nolen, S.B. (2007). Young childrens motivation to read and write:
Development in social contexts. Cognition and Instruction,
25(2/3), 219270. doi:10.1080/07370000701301174
Nurmi, J.E., & Aunola, K. (2005). Task-motivation during the
first school years: A person-oriented approach to longitudinal data. Learning and Instruction, 15(2), 103122. doi:10.1016/
j.learninstruc.2005.04.009
Park, Y. (2011). How motivational constructs interact to predict elementary students reading performance: Examples from attitudes
and self-concept in reading. Learning and Individual Differences,
21(4), 347358. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.02.009
Pekrun, R. (1993). Facets of adolescents academic motivation: A
longitudinal expectancyvalue approach. In M.L. Maehr & P.R.
Pintrich (Eds.), Advances in motivation and achievement (Vol. 8,
pp. 139189). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.
Petscher, Y. (2010). A meta-analysis of the relationship between
student attitudes towards reading and achievement in reading. Journal of Research in Reading, 33(4), 335355. doi:10.1111/
j.1467-9817.2009.01418.x
Pfost, M., Drf ler, T., & Artelt, C. (2010). Der Zusammenhang
zwischen auerschulischem Lesen und Lesekompetenz [The
relation between extracurricular reading behavior and reading
competence]. Zeitschrift fr Entwicklungspsychologie und Pdagogische Psychologie, 42(3), 167176. doi:10.1026/0049-8637/a000017
Philipp, M. (2010). Lesen empeerisch: Eine Lngsschnittstudie zur
Bedeutung von peer groups fr Lesemotivation und -verhalten
[Empeerical reading: A longitudinal study on the relevance of
peer groups for reading motivation and behavior at the beginning
of secondary school]. Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag.
Pitcher, S.M., Albright, L.K., DeLaney, C.J., Walker, N.T., Seunarienesingh, K., Mogge, S., et al. (2007). Assessing adolescents
motivation to read. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 50(5),
378396. doi:10.1598/JAAL.50.5.5
Poskiparta, E., Niemi, P., Lepola, J., Ahtola, A., & Laine, P. (2003).
Motivational-emotional vulnerability and difficulties in learning
to read and spell. The British Journal of Educational Psychology,
73(2), 187206. doi:10.1348/00070990360626930
Retelsdorf, J., Kller, O., & Mller, J. (2011). On the effects of
motivation on reading performance growth in secondary
school. Learning and Instruction, 21(4), 550559. doi:10.1016/
Retelsdorf, J., & Mller, J. (2008). Familire bedingungen und
individuelle prdiktoren der lesekompetenz von schlerinnen
und schlern [Family conditions and individual predictors for
students reading comprehension]. Psychologie in Erziehung und
Unterricht, 55(4), 227237.
Rubin, K.H., Bukowski, W.M., & Parker, J.G. (2006). Peer interactions, relationships, and groups. In W. Damon, R.M. Lerner
(Series Eds.), & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Social, emotional, and
personality development: Vol. 3. Handbook of child psychology (6th
ed., pp. 571645). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
Sainsbury, S., & Schagen, I. (2004). Attitudes to reading at ages
nine and eleven. Journal of Research in Reading, 27(4), 373386.
doi:10.1111/j.1467-9817.2004.00240.x
Schaffner, E., & Schiefele, U. (2007a). Auswirkungen habitueller
Lesemotivation auf die situative Textreprsentation [Effects of
habitual reading motivation on the situational represention of
text]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht, 54(4), 268286.
Schaffner, E., & Schiefele, U. (2007b). The effect of experimental

manipulation of student motivation on the situational representation of text. Learning and Instruction, 17(6), 755772. doi:10.1016/
Schaffner, E., & Schiefele, U. (2008). Familire und individuelle
Bedingungen des Textlernens [Familial and individual conditions of text learning]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht,
55(4), 238252.
Schaffner, E., Schiefele, U., & Schneider, W. (2004). Ein erweitertes
Verstndnis der Lesekompetenz: Die Ergebnisse des nationalen
Ergnzungstests [An extended view on reading competence:
Results from the supplementary national tests]. In U. Schiefele,
C. Artelt, W. Schneider, & P. Stanat (Eds.), Struktur, Entwicklung und Frderung von Lesekompetenz: Vertiefende Analysen im
Rahmen von PISA 2000 [Structure, development and promotion
of reading skills: In-depth analysis in PISA 2000] (pp. 197242).
Wiesbaden, Germany: VS Verlag.
Schiefele, U. (1999). Interest and learning from text. Scientific Studies of Reading, 3(3), 257279. doi:10.1207/s1532799xssr0303_4
Schiefele, U. (2009). Situational and individual interest. In K.R.
Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook of motivation at school
(pp. 197222). New York: Routledge.
Schiefele, U., & Schaffner, E. (in press). Lesemotivation im Grundschulalter Ergebnisse einer Interviewstudie [Reading motivation of elementary school students Results from an interview
study]. Psychologie in Erziehung und Unterricht.
Schlagmller, M., & Schneider, W. (2007). WLST 712: Wrzburger
Lesestrategie-Wissenstest fr die Klassen 712 [The Wrzburg
Reading Strategy Knowledge Test for Grades 712]. Gttingen,
Germany: Hogrefe.
Schunk, D.H., Pintrich, P.R., & Meece, J.L. (2008). Motivation in
education: Theory, research, and applications. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Schunk, D.H., & Rice, J.M. (1989). Learning goals and childrens
reading comprehension. Journal of Reading Behavior, 21(3),
279293.
Schunk, D.H., & Zimmerman, B.J. (1997). Developing self-efficacious
readers and writers: The role of social and self-regulatory processes. In J.T. Guthrie & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Reading engagement:
Motivating readers through integrated instruction (pp. 3450).
Newark, DE: International Reading Association.
Schutte, N.S., & Malouff, J.M. (2007). Dimensions of reading
motivation: Development of an adult reading motivation scale.
Reading Psychology, 28(5), 469489. doi:10.1080/02702710701568991
Snchal, M. (2006). Testing the home literacy model: Parent
involvement in kindergarten is differentially related to grade 4
reading comprehension, fluency, spelling, and reading for pleasure. Scientific Studies of Reading, 10(1), 5987. doi:10.1207/
s1532799xssr1001_4
Shavelson, R.J., Hubner, J.J., & Stanton, G.C. (1976). Self-concept:
Validation of construct interpretations. Review of Educational
Research, 46(3), 407441.
Solheim, O.J. (2011). The impact of reading self-efficacy and task
value on reading comprehension scores in different item formats.
Reading Psychology, 32(1), 127. doi:10.1080/02702710903256601
Strauss, A., & Corbin, J. (1998). Basics of qualitative research: Techniques and procedures for developing grounded theory (2nd ed.).
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Taboada, A., Tonks, S.M., Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J.T. (2009).
Effects of motivational and cognitive variables on reading comprehension. Reading and Writing, 22(1), 85106. doi:10.1007/
s11145-008-9133-y
Tercanlioglu, L. (2001). The nature of Turkish students motivation
for reading and its relation to their reading frequency. The Reading Matrix: An International Online Journal, 1(2). Retrieved July
28, 2012, from www.readingmatrix.com/articles/tercanlioglu/
article.pdf
Unrau, N., & Schlackman, J. (2006). Motivation and its relationship with reading achievement in an urban middle school. The
Journal of Educational Research, 100(2), 81101. doi:10.3200/
JOER.100.2.81-101
Wang, J.H., & Guthrie, J.T. (2004). Modeling the effects of intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, amount of reading, and past
reading achievement on text comprehension between U.S. and
Chinese students. Reading Research Quarterly, 39(2), 162186.
doi:10.1598/RRQ.39.2.2
Watkins, M.W., & Coffey, D.Y. (2004). Reading motivation:
Multidimensional and indeterminate. Journal of Educational
Psychology, 96(1), 110118. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.96.1.110
Wigfield, A., Eccles, J.S., Schiefele, U., Roeser, R.W., & Davis-Kean,
P. (2006). Development of achievement motivation. In W.
Damon, R.M. Lerner (Series Eds.), & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.),
Social, emotional, and personality development: Vol. 3. Handbook
of child psychology (6th ed., pp. 9331002). Hoboken, NJ: John
Wiley & Sons.
Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J.T. (1997a). Motivation for reading: An
overview. Educational Psychologist, 32(2), 5758.
Wigf ield, A., & Guthrie, J.T. (1997b). Relations of childrens
motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their
reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 420432.
doi:10.1037/0022-0663.89.3.420
Wigfield, A., Guthrie, J.T., Perencevich, K., Taboada, A., Klauda,
S.L., McRae, S., et al. (2008). The role of reading engagement
in mediating the effects of instruction on reading outcomes.
Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 432445. doi:10.1002/pits.20307
Wigfield, A., & Karpathian, M. (1991). Who am I and what can I
do? Childrens self-concepts and motivation in achievement situations. Educational Psychologist, 26(3/4), 233261.
Ulrich Schiefele is a professor in the Department of Psychology at the University of Potsdam, Germany; e-mail
ulrich.schiefele@uni-potsdam.de.
Ellen Schaffner is a research scientist in the Department
ofPsychology at the University of Potsdam; e-mail
ellen.schaffner@uni-potsdam.de.
Jens Mller is a professor in the Department of Psychology
at the University of Kiel, Germany; e-mail jmoeller@
psychologie.uni-kiel.de.
Allan Wigfield is a professor in the Department of Human
Development at the University of Maryland, College Park,
USA; e-mail awigfiel@umd.edu.
463

Linda Baker

Caricato da

Informazioni sul documento

Titolo originale

Copyright

Formati disponibili

Condividi questo documento

Condividi o incorpora il documento

Opzioni di condivisione

Hai trovato utile questo documento?

Questo contenuto è inappropriato?

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Linda Baker

Caricato da

Copyright:

Formati disponibili

Review of Research

Dimensions of Reading Motivation

and products of learning above and beyond cognitive

learning (see, e.g., P. Alexander, Kulikowich, & Jetton,

were identified (He, 2008; Kolic-Vehovec, Roncevic, &

Reading Research Quarterly 47(4)

on reading attitude and reading-related task value. In

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Reading Motivation

these incentives may appear as subjective reasons for

Dimensions of Reading Motivation andTheir Relation to Reading Behaviorand Competence

Reading-Related Task Value Beliefs

Reading Self-Concept and Self-Efficacy

Reading Research Quarterly 47(4)

dimensional comparison processes (e.g., Bong, 1998;

Summary: Categorization of Reading

Dimensions of Reading Motivation

Dimensions of Reading Motivation andTheir Relation to Reading Behaviorand Competence

dimensions of reading motivation. For the second goal

Results From Qualitative Research

Table 1. Dimensions of Reading Motivation: Results from Qualitative Studies

Correspondence with Guthrie et al.sa categories

Schiefele and Schaffnerd

Escape, stimulation, enjoyment

Imagination, absorption, suspense,

Utility, general learning

Reading as a school task

Relief from boredom, escape

Regulation of emotions, relief from

Categories that do not correspond with those of Guthrie et al.a

Reading Research Quarterly 47(4)

1. CuriosityTo learn more about personally

3. EscapeTo withdraw or to forget

Dimensions of Reading Motivation andTheir Relation to Reading Behaviorand Competence

Guthrie et al.s, 1996, terms): competition, recognition,

Results From Quantitative Research

Reading Research Quarterly 47(4)

(1999) as well as Wang and Guthrie (2004), who argued

motivation by means of analyzing students essays on

Dimensions of Reading Motivation andTheir Relation to Reading Behaviorand Competence

of that finding, Watkins and Coffey (2004) were also not

Table 2. Dimensions of Reading Motivation: Results From Quantitative Studies

Watkins and Coffeysb

Greaney and Neumanc

Mller and Boneradsd

Note. MRQ = Motivations for Reading Questionnaire; RM = reading motivation.

Reading Research Quarterly 47(4)

that reading usually is simultaneouslybut to varying

Comparison Between Qualitative

Dimensions of Reading Motivation andTheir Relation to Reading Behaviorand Competence

Reading Research Quarterly 47(4)

Baker, L., & Wigfield, A. (1999).

Becker, M., McElvany, N., &

Artelt, C., Schiefele, U., Schneider,

Anmarkrud, O., & Brten, I. (2009).

Chapman, J.W., & Tunmer, W.E. (1995).

Andreassen, R., & Brten, I. (2010).

Table 3. Overview of Reviewed Studies (continued)

Social studies grades,

Dimensions of Reading Motivation andTheir Relation to Reading Behaviorand Competence

Cox, K.E., & Guthrie, J.T. (2001).

Durik, A.M., Vida, M., & Eccles, J.S.

Guthrie, J.T., Van Meter, P., McCann,

Guthrie, J.T., & Wigfield, A. (Eds.).