Profiling the Intrinsic Reading Motivation of Young Adults

This study explores the qualitative dimensions of intrinsic reading motivation among Generation Z young adults in a Malaysian university. While quantitative results highlighted general motivational trends, the qualitative phase provided deeper insights into readers’ attitudes, habits, and interests. Using the Motivation to Read Profile (MRP) and conversational interviews with a sample of 178 students, data were thematically analyzed to construct reader profiles. Four categories emerged: avid readers (consistently read for enjoyment and learning), ambivalent readers (engage selectively based on interest), apathetic readers (read mainly for external rewards), and averse readers (actively avoid reading). Findings revealed that peer influence, viral trends, and interactive platforms such as Wattpad and Goodreads significantly shaped reading practices. Many students viewed reading as both a source of escapism and a tool for mental well-being. The study concludes that understanding these diverse profiles is essential for designing strategies that foster sustained intrinsic motivation and cultivate meaningful reading engagement among young adults.

Intrinsic reading motivation, Motivation to Read Profile (MRP),

1. Baker, C. (1984). The ‘script’ concept and its application to the study of classroom communication. Australian Journal of Education, 28(2), 131–150. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3(2), 77–101. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Brown, L., & Clark, R. (2020). Cognitive development and academic reading in young adults. University Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Burgess, R. G. (1980). The unstructured interview as a conversation. In R. G. Burgess (Ed.), Field research: A sourcebook and field manual (pp. 107-110). Allen & Unwin. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Chapman, J. W. (2018). Reading self-concept and the motivated reader. Journal of Literacy Research, 50(4), 450-471. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Davis, P. (2018). Digital natives and the future of academic learning. TechLearn Publications. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Denzin, N. K. (1970). The research act: A theoretical introduction to sociological methods. Aldine Transaction. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Douillard, K. (2008). Engaging adolescent readers through literary elements. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 52(1), 34-43. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Eccles, J. S. (1983). Expectancies, values, and academic behaviors. In J. T. Spence (Ed.), Achievement and achievement motives: Psychological and sociological approaches (pp. 75–146). W. H. Freeman. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Edmunds, A., & Bauserman, K. (2006). Researching reading motivation: A guide to the literature. Journal of Educational Inquiry, 5(2), 1-22. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Gambrell, L. B. (1995). Motivation matters. In W. M. Linek & E. G. Sturtevant (Eds.), Generations of literacy (pp. 41-52). The College Reading Association. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Aldine Publishing Company. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Guthrie, J. T., & Wigfield, A. (2005). Roles of motivation and engagement in reading comprehension. In J. T. Guthrie, A. Wigfield, & K. C. Perencevich (Eds.), Motivating reading comprehension: Concept-oriented reading instruction (pp. 1-12). Erlbaum. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Johnson, M., & Williams, S. (2021). The impact of leisure reading on cognitive growth in university students. Journal of College Student Development, 62(3), 301-318. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Malloy, J. A. (2015). Connecting adolescent literacy and self-perception: A review of literature. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 31(2), 147-166. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Merga, M. K. (2017). What are the characteristics of avid readers and how are they created? Antenna, 42(1), 18-21. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Pew Research Center. (2018, November). Gen Z looks a lot like Millennials on key social and political issues. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/11/15/gen-z-looks-a-lot-like-millennials-on-key-social-and-political-issues/ [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Pressley, M. (2002). Reading instruction that works: The case for balanced teaching. Guilford Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Smith, J. (2019). Trends in academic reading habits among undergraduate students. Higher Education Research & Development, 38(5), 987-1001. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

20. Twenge, J. M. (2017). iGen: Why today’s super-connected kids are growing up less rebellious, more tolerant, less happy—and completely unprepared for adulthood—and what that means for the rest of us. Atria Books. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

21. Wigfield, A., & Guthrie, J. T. (1997). Relations of children's motivation for reading to the amount and breadth of their reading. Journal of Educational Psychology, 89(3), 420–432. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

22. Zaini, A. (2022). Reading engagement among ambivalent university readers in Malaysia. Malaysian Journal of Higher Education, 15(1), 45-60. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• What the Desert Fathers Teach Data Scientists: Ancient Ascetic Principles for Ethical Machine-Learning Practice
• Comparative Analysis of Some Machine Learning Algorithms for the Classification of Ransomware
• Comparative Performance Analysis of Some Priority Queue Variants in Dijkstra’s Algorithm
• Transfer Learning in Detecting E-Assessment Malpractice from a Proctored Video Recordings.
• Dual-Modal Detection of Parkinson’s Disease: A Clinical Framework and Deep Learning Approach Using NeuroParkNet