Assignment choice, effort, and assignment completion: Does work ethic predict those who choose higher-effort assignments? John T. Parkhurst ⁎, Matthew S. Fleisher, Christopher H. Skinner, David J. Woehr, Meredith L. Hawthorn-Embree abstract article info Article history: Received 5 October 2010 Received in revised form 26 March 2011 Accepted 9 April 2011 Keywords: Work ethic Partial-assignment completion effect Effort Leisure Assignment choice After completing the Multidimensional Work-Ethic Profile (MWEP), 98 college students were given a 20- problem math computation assignment and instructed to stop working on the assignment after completing 10 problems. Next, they were allowed to choose to finish either the partially completed assignment that had 10 problems remaining or a new assignment that contained 9 matched problems and therefore required 10% less effort to complete. Significantly more students chose the new, lower-effort assignment. Logistic regression showed that MWEP scores were significantly related to choice, with Leisure being the most significant factor. These results supported earlier research on the partial-assignment completion effect, effort, and choice and extended this research by showing that the MWEP could account for a significant amount of assignment choice variance. The discussion focuses on the validity of the MWEP, theoretical implications related to work ethic, assignment completion, and future educational research. © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. 1. Introduction Educators can assign work; however, because students ultimately choose whether to engage in assigned tasks, a more thorough understanding of factors that influence students' choice may allow educators to enhance learning. When all other factors are held constant, students are more likely to choose to engage in behaviors requiring less effort (Billington, Skinner, Hutchins, & Malone, 2004). As learning requires students' effortful engagement (Greenwood, Delquadri, & Hall, 1984), teachers may be challenged to influence students to choose to work on assigned tasks, as opposed to alternative behaviors that require less effort (Skinner, Pappas, & Davis, 2005). 1.1. Partial assignment completion Using an interrupted task paradigm (ITP), researchers have found evidence that people (including children working on puzzles) are motivated to work on partially completed assignments (Butterfield, 1964, 1965). Initial ITP research by Zeigarnik (1927), and later Ovsiankina (1928) explain that blocking a goal directed task creates a tension system (Lewin, 1926), influencing motivation to complete/ continue the task that had not been completed. Other rational for ITP include learning histories that expect individuals to have a history of reinforcement for finishing assigned work and/or punishment when work is not completed (Skinner, 2002). Recently ITP research has been extended to academic assignments while controlling for effort and interest. Hawthorn-Embree et al. (2011) had 85 seventh-grade students begin a math computation assignment but interrupted them before they could finish (after 5 min). About 20 min later, researchers gave each student their partially completed assignment and a second assignment with an equal number of matched problems, thus controlling for effort and interest. Students were told that they would have to finish an assignment, but they could choose which one. Results supported what researchers termed the Partial-Assignment Completion (PAC) effect, as significantly more students (61.2% versus 38.8%) chose to complete the assignment they had already started. Using similar procedures, Hawthorn-Embree, Skinner, Parkhurst, O'Neil, and Conley (2010), allowed seventh-grade students (N = 88) to choose to work on an assignment that they had already started or a matched assignment requiring 10% less effort. Results showed that significantly more students (62.5% versus 37.5%) chose the new, lower-effort assignment. Although the Hawthorn-Embree et al. (2010) results suggest that the PAC effect is not very powerful, 37.5% of students in this sample did chose to finish the assignment they started, even though it required more effort. ITP researchers, who did not control for or manipulate effort, have found that variables such as age and intelligence may influence students to choose to work on interrupted tasks (Butterfield, 1964; Katz, 1938; MacMillan, 1969). These findings suggest that within- subject factors may have caused these students (37.5% in Hawthorn- Embree et al., 2010) to choose to do more work. Few internal factors are more entrenched in societal values as work ethic (Weber, 1958). Learning and Individual Differences 21 (2011) 575–579 ⁎ Corresponding author at: Department of Educational Psychology and Counseling, University of Tennessee, 525 Bailey Education Complex, Knoxville, TN 37996-3452, United States. Tel.: +1 630 430 8959. E-mail address: jparkhu3@utk.edu (J.T. Parkhurst). 1041-6080/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.lindif.2011.04.003 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Learning and Individual Differences journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/lindif