helps to explain why each prefrontal lobe can control and selectively potenti-
ate the homologous limbic system, and in the process, control one category of
affects (positive or negative). The model we have outlined also serves to clar-
ify the two different kinds ofwill(or I-will)schemes(Pascual-Leone, 1990):
the complex self-conscious Willschemes (Pascual-Leone, 1990; Pascual-
Leone & Irwin, 1998), located predominantly in LH; and the much simpler
and often unconsciouswillthat we callprimary conation, constituted by
strong, well-learned or automatized schemes (affective or cognitive) with
their self-propelling (Piaget’s assimilation) disposition to express themselves
in performance. Conation (by this term we always mean primary conation)
creates impulses to act in ways stipulated by the strong, self-propelled
schemes predominantly found in RH.
From this perspective,intrinsic motivation(i.e., an interest-based action
prompted by self-own affective–cognitive goals—Krapp, 2000) can be distin-
guished clearly fromself-motivation(i.e., a self-conscious willful motiva-
tion—Kuhl, 2000). We think that self-motivation is an executive–operative
function of self2. This executive function stems predominantly from LH and,
via the Will (i.e., conscious volition), uses the effortful power of mental atten-
tion. Intrinsic motivation, in contrast, tends not to need mental effort, may
be unconscious, and may stem predominantly from RH. As has long been
recognized (Piaget claimed that his teacher Claparede was the first to raise
this issue—Pascual-Leone, 1990), the practice of the Will leads to automati-
zation of it. For us Will-automatization is a new sort of (complex) intrinsic
motivation that is spontaneous, easy to follow, and stems predominantly
from RH.
We have conducted an experiment that illustrates this transition. Four
samples of 9- to 12-year-old children, two cognitively gifted and two main-
stream (i.e., nongifted), were tested with a visuospatialM-capacity task, the
Compound Stimuli Visual Information (CSVI) task (Pascual-Leone, 1970).
The samples were tested under one of two task-instruction conditions. In one
condition, children were told that the task was hard and was designed for
children older than they were. In the other condition, children were told that
the task was easy and designed for younger children. The instructions and
task administration differed only in the briefhardversuseasyinstruction re-
marks. We expected that gifted, but not perhaps mainstream children, would
have a superior executive repertoire and a well practiced Will, which might
have become in part automatized, producing intrinsically-motivated per-
formances. We thus predicted that our instructional manipulation would
have a greater effect with the mainstream students. Consistent with predic-
tions, the two gifted samples did not differ in their superior performance
level. In mainstream children, however, performance of the hard-task sample
was statistically higher than that of the easy-task sample, although gifted
children performed better. Further, among mainstream children, those in the
228 PASCUAL-LEONE AND JOHNSON