Instrumental motivation is the desire to learn a language for practical, utilitarian purposes: career advancement, academic requirements, higher salary, passing an exam, or gaining access to information. It was first distinguished from integrative motivation by Gardner and Lambert (1959, 1972) within Gardner's Socio-Educational Model of second language acquisition.
Gardner (1985) proposed that motivation in SLA comprises three components:
| Component | Definition |
|---|---|
| Motivational intensity | Effort the learner expends |
| Desire to learn | Want to achieve the language learning goal |
| Attitudes toward learning | Positive or negative evaluation of the learning situation |
Within this framework, orientation (the reason for learning) and motivation (the driving force) are distinct. A learner can have an instrumental orientation without necessarily being highly motivated, and vice versa. Gardner measured motivation primarily through the Attitude/Motivation Test Battery (AMTB), which includes subscales for both orientations.
| Dimension | Instrumental | Integrative |
|---|---|---|
| Goal | External, practical benefit | Social identification with TL community |
| Driving force | Extrinsic reward | Desire for cultural connection |
| Typical context | EFL settings, exam preparation, professional requirements | ESL/immersion, heritage learners |
| Example | "I need English to get promoted" | "I want to understand British culture" |
Gardner and Lambert (1972) initially hypothesized that integrative motivation was superior for long-term language achievement. This claim was subsequently challenged by research in EFL contexts (see below).
Gardner & Lambert (1972): Their foundational studies in Montreal found that integratively oriented francophone learners of English achieved higher proficiency than instrumentally oriented ones. However, in the Philippines, they found the reverse: instrumental motivation predicted success better where English was needed for socioeconomic advancement.
Lukmani (1972): Studying non-westernized female learners of English in Bombay, found that instrumental motivation was a stronger predictor of proficiency than integrative motivation, challenging the primacy of integrativeness.
Dörnyei (1990): In the Hungarian EFL context, found that instrumental motives (particularly related to pragmatic benefits) were more influential than integrative motives, partly because learners had little contact with English-speaking communities.
Warden & Lin (2000): Studying Taiwanese university students, found that a required motivation orientation (studying English because it is compulsory) was distinct from both instrumental and integrative motivation and was the strongest predictor of effort in EFL settings.
Dörnyei & Ushioda (2011) argued that the instrumental/integrative distinction, while historically important, has been largely superseded by more nuanced models including the L2 Motivational Self System, where instrumental motivation maps onto the ought-to L2 self (obligations, expectations) and partly onto the ideal L2 self (desired future state requiring L2).
Instrumental motivation is often the primary driver in EFL contexts where learners have limited contact with target language communities, precisely the context of most IELTS preparation, TOEIC courses, and professional English programs.