Pervasive Negative Effects of Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation

1

The Behavior Analyst No. 1 (Spring)2001, 24, 1–44

Pervasive Negative Effects ofRewards on Intrinsic Motivation:

The Myth ContinuesJudy Cameron, Katherine M. Banko,

and W. David PierceUniversity of Alberta

A major concern in psychology and education is that rewards decrease intrinsic motivation toperform activities. Over the past 30 years, more than 100 experimental studies have been conductedon this topic. In 1994, Cameron and Pierce conducted a meta-analysis of this literature and con-cluded that negative effects of reward were limited and could be easily prevented in applied settings.A more recent meta-analysis of the literature by Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999) shows pervasivenegative effects of reward. The purpose of the present article is to resolve differences in previousmeta-analytic findings and to provide a meta-analysis of rewards and intrinsic motivation that per-mits tests of competing theoretical explanations. Our results suggest that in general, rewards are notharmful to motivation to perform a task. Rewards given for low-interest tasks enhance free-choiceintrinsic motivation. On high-interest tasks, verbal rewards produce positive effects on free-choicemotivation and self-reported task interest. Negative effects are found on high-interest tasks whenthe rewards are tangible, expected (offered beforehand), and loosely tied to level of performance.When rewards are linked to level of performance, measures of intrinsic motivation increase or donot differ from a nonrewarded control group. Overall, the pattern of results indicates that rewardcontingencies do not have pervasive negative effects on intrinsic motivation. Theoretical and prac-tical implications of the findings are addressed.

Key words: meta-analysis, rewards, reinforcement, intrinsic motivation, intrinsic interest

Most parents, educators, and behav-ior analysts would agree that the idealstudent is one who performs academictasks at a high level, shows high inter-est and involvement in school activi-ties, is willing to take on challengingassignments, and is a self-motivatedlearner. To instill interest and to height-en student performance, many practi-tioners implement reward and incen-tive systems in educational settings. Inrecent years, the wisdom of this prac-tice has been debated in literature re-views, textbooks, and the popular me-dia. Many writers and researchersclaim that giving students high grades,prizes, money, and even praise for en-gaging in an activity may be effectivein getting students to perform a task,

This work was supported by a research grantfrom the Social Sciences and Humanities Re-search Council of Canada.

Correspondence concerning this article shouldbe addressed to Judy Cameron, Department ofEducational Psychology, 6-102 EducationNorth, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alber-ta, T6G 2G5 Canada.

but performance and interest are main-tained only as long as the rewards keepcoming. In other words, rewards aresaid to undermine intrinsic motivation.This premise is based on the view thatwhen individuals like what they aredoing, they experience feelings ofcompetence and self-determination.When students are given a reward forperformance, the claim is that they be-gin to do the activity for the externalreward rather than for intrinsic reasons.As a result, perceptions of competenceand self-determination are said to de-crease and motivation to perform theactivity declines.

Those who decry the use of rewardssupport their position by citing exper-imental studies on rewards and intrin-sic motivation conducted in social psy-chology and education. Since the1970s, dozens of experiments havebeen designed to assess the impact ofrewards on intrinsic motivation. A cur-sory examination of the studies, how-ever, reveals a mixed set of findings.That is, in some studies, extrinsic re-

2 JUDY CAMERON et al.

wards produce negative effects onmeasures of intrinsic motivation. Otherstudies find positive effects of reward;still others show no effect. A numberof reviewers have noted the contradic-tory nature of the findings and have at-tempted to identify the conditions un-der which extrinsic rewards producedecrements on measures of intrinsicmotivation (Bates, 1979; Bernstein,1990; Carton, 1996; Dickinson, 1989;Flora, 1990; Morgan, 1984).

In 1994, Cameron and Pierce pub-lished a meta-analysis of 96 experi-mental studies on the topic (with ad-ditional analyses by Eisenberger &Cameron, 1996). Based on their re-sults, they argued that negative effectsof reward were minimal and could beeasily prevented in applied settings.The research and recommendationsmade by Cameron and Pierce and byEisenberger and Cameron generatedconsiderable debate (Hennessey &Amabile, 1998; Kohn, 1996; Lepper,1998; Lepper, Keavney, & Drake,1996; Ryan & Deci, 1996; Sansone &Harackiewicz, 1998) and seeminglyspurred the publication of a new meta-analysis on the topic. Deci, Koestner,and Ryan (1999) presented a meta-analysis that claimed to support theview that rewards have pervasive neg-ative effects on intrinsic motivation.

Deci et al. (1999) identified 128 ex-periments on rewards and intrinsic mo-tivation, including 20 unpublishedstudies from doctoral dissertations.They outlined a number of concernsthey had with the meta-analyses con-ducted by Cameron and Pierce (1994)and Eisenberger and Cameron (1996).Deci et al.’s meta-analysis was de-signed to rectify these concerns, to testcognitive evaluation theory, and toprovide a more comprehensive reviewof the literature. Their findings sup-ported cognitive evaluation theory and,in general, rewards were found to havea substantial negative effect on intrin-sic motivation. Deci et al. concludedthat ‘‘although rewards can controlpeople’s behavior—indeed, that is pre-sumably why they are so widely ad-

vocated—the primary negative effectof rewards is that they tend to forestallself-regulation’’ (p. 659).

The assertion that rewards decreaseintrinsic motivation has captured theattention of cognitive researchers,practitioners, and the general publicbecause such a claim (a) seems to offeran empirical basis for psychologicaltheories that assume that self-determi-nation and freedom from control arefundamental human motives, (b) ap-pears to question basic behavioral con-ceptions of human nature, and (c) sug-gests that rewards used in schools, hos-pitals, the workplace, and so on aremore harmful than beneficial. A re-viewer of this manuscript suggestedthat the claim that rewards are harmfulmay be attractive to some practitionersand educators because detecting andrewarding performance improvementsis hard work and the negative effectclaim relieves us of a difficult and de-manding task.

Clearly, Deci et al.’s (1999) findingof general negative effects of rewardhas important theoretical and practicalimplications and calls for a carefulanalysis of contradictory empiricalclaims. In this article, we argue thatpervasive negative effects of rewardare not a necessary outcome of a meta-analysis of this literature. We contendthat a careful examination of Deci etal.’s meta-analysis reveals several con-ceptual and methodological shortcom-ings. The disparate conclusions of thetwo major meta-analyses on the effectsof reward on intrinsic motivation(Cameron & Pierce, 1994; Deci et al.)suggest the value of correcting theflaws in each and building on theirstrengths to draw more definitive con-clusions. In this article, we offer a re-analysis of the effects of rewards onintrinsic motivation. Our reanalysis isinformed by a consideration of Deci etal.’s decisions and procedures. In ad-dition, the concerns raised by Deci etal. about our previous research are ad-dressed. The purpose of the present ar-ticle is to resolve differences in previ-ous meta-analytic findings and to pro-

3THE MYTH CONTINUES

vide a meta-analysis of rewards and in-trinsic motivation that permits tests ofcompeting theoretical explanations.

We begin with a general descriptionof the experiments conducted on re-wards and intrinsic motivation. This isfollowed by a brief description of theprocedure and logic of meta-analysis.The meta-analyses by Cameron andPierce (1994), Eisenberger and Cam-eron (1996), and Deci et al. (1999) aredescribed, and criticisms of each arepresented. We then provide a detailedaccount of how our reanalysis is de-signed to resolve differences betweenDeci et al.’s and our earlier reviews ofthis literature. Results of our newmeta-analysis are presented, and dif-ferences between our findings and pre-vious reviews are explained. Finally,our discussion focuses on theoreticaland practical implications of the find-ings.

THIRTY YEARS OFRESEARCH ON REWARDS

AND INTRINSICMOTIVATION

The term intrinsic motivation is gen-erally understood in contrast to extrin-sic motivation. Intrinsically motivatedbehaviors are those in which there isno apparent reward except with the ac-tivity itself (Deci, 1975). Extrinsic mo-tivation, on the other hand, is said tooccur when an activity is rewarded byincentives not inherent in the task. Al-though these terms have been criticizedand debated (e.g., Bandura, 1986;Dickinson, 1989; Flora, 1990), they areaccepted by many researchers. The dis-tinction between intrinsic and extrinsicmotivation led psychologists to specu-late about the relation between thesetwo sources. One view was that intrin-sic and extrinsic motivation combinedin an additive fashion to produce over-all motivation. For example, in worksettings, organizational psychologistsargued that optimal performancewould occur when jobs were interest-ing and challenging and employeeswere externally rewarded (e.g., with

money) for their work (Porter & Law-ler, 1968; Vroom, 1964). Other theo-rists challenged the additive assump-tion, suggesting instead that extrinsicrewards might interfere with intrinsicmotivation (DeCharms, 1968).

The idea that extrinsic rewards coulddisrupt intrinsic motivation instigated aseries of experiments carried out in theearly 1970s (Deci, 1971; Lepper,Greene, & Nisbett, 1973). In the initialstudies, researchers tested the hypoth-esis that external rewards would un-dermine intrinsic motivation either bysubverting feelings of competence andself-determination or by deflecting thesource of motivation from internal toexternal causes. Intrinsic motivationwas inferred from changes in timespent on an activity once rewards wereremoved, performance during the non-rewarded phase, or expressed task in-terest. When rewards were found tolower time on task, performance, or in-terest, the researchers claimed that re-wards undermined intrinsic motivation.Results from the early studies appearedto offer some support for the under-mining hypothesis. That is, when in-dividuals were promised a material re-ward, their performance, time on task,and interest decreased once the rewardwas no longer forthcoming. Because ofthe implications for education, busi-ness, and the psychology of motiva-tion, the early findings led to a greatdeal of research on the topic.

Since the 1970s, over 100 experi-ments have been performed to inves-tigate alleged undermining effects ofrewards. The vast majority of the stud-ies on rewards and intrinsic motivationhave been conducted using a between-groups design. In a typical study, par-ticipants are presented with an inter-esting task (e.g., solving and assem-bling puzzles, drawing with magicmarkers, playing word games). Partic-ipants are rewarded with money orgrades, candy, praise, good-player cer-tificates, and so forth for performingthe activity. Rewards are tangible (e.g.,money, candy, gold stars) or verbal(e.g., praise, approval, positive feed-


back). In addition, the rewards may beoffered beforehand (expected reward)or presented unexpectedly after the ac-tivity (unexpected reward). In some ex-periments, reward is offered simply fordoing an activity; in other studies therewards are given for completing a taskor for each puzzle or unit solved. In anumber of experiments, the rewardsare offered for meeting or exceeding aspecific standard. Participants in a con-trol condition engage in the activitywithout receiving a reward.

The reward intervention is usuallyconducted over a 10-min to 1-hr peri-od. Rewarded and nonrewarded groupsare then observed during a nonrewardperiod (typically, 2 min to 1 hr) inwhich participants are free to continueperforming the target task or to engagein some alternative activity. The timeparticipants spend on the target activityduring this nonreward phase, their per-formance on the task during the free-choice period, or self-reported task in-terest are used as measures of intrinsicmotivation. If rewarded participantsspend less free time on the activity,perform at a lower level, or expressless task interest than nonrewardedparticipants, reward is said to under-mine intrinsic motivation.

The findings from the studies on re-wards and intrinsic motivation havebeen diverse (positive, negative, andno effects have been reported). None-theless, the results from these studiesare often cited as evidence that rewardsand positive reinforcement can backfire(e.g., Kohn, 1993). External rewardsare said to be controlling and to inter-fere with a basic human desire for self-determination.

Because the detrimental effects ofrewards have been interpreted as achallenge to behavioral conceptions ofhuman nature and to the benefits of be-havioral technology for education andbusiness, a few behaviorally orientedresearchers have used single-subjectdesigns to assess the generality of thefindings. In this type of study, partici-pants serve as their own controls. Mea-sures such as time on task are taken

over a number of sessions in a baselinephase, reinforcement procedures areimplemented over several sessions, andfinally, reward is withdrawn and timeon task is assessed on repeated occa-sions. An increase or decrease in in-trinsic motivation is measured by thedifference in time spent on the task be-tween baseline and postreinforcementphases. In the five studies employingthis type of design (Davidson & Buch-er, 1978; Feingold & Mahoney, 1975;Mawhinney, Dickinson, & Taylor,1989; Skaggs, Dickinson, & O’Connor,1992; Vasta, Andrews, McLaughlin,Stirpe, & Comfort, 1978), participants’performance during the postrewardphase either exceeded or remained atthe same level as performance in theprereward sessions. In other words,when the rewards were shown to func-tion as reinforcement and multiple-tri-als procedures were used, there was noevidence of a decremental effect of re-ward.

Those who argue that rewards de-crease intrinsic motivation are criticalof the single-subject designs. For ex-ample, Deci et al. (1999) state that onecan conclude very little from the sin-gle-subject designs because there aretoo few participants and none of thestudies had control groups. Instead,claims about negative effects of rewardare based on results from the group-design studies. As noted, however, thefindings from such studies have notbeen entirely clear-cut. Although mostresearchers have found that verbal re-wards do not decrease measures of in-trinsic motivation, the results with tan-gible rewards have been more contra-dictory. To understand such diverse ef-fects, Cameron and Pierce (1994),Eisenberger and Cameron (1996), andDeci et al. used the methodology ofmeta-analysis to assess the group-de-sign experiments and to determinewhen and under what conditions re-wards have detrimental effects on taskperformance and interest. Despite theseeming objectivity of this technique,these meta-analytic reviews reachedmarkedly different conclusions. Cam-

5THE MYTH CONTINUES

eron and Pierce and Eisenberger andCameron reported minimal negative ef-fects of tangible reward, whereas Deciet al. found tangible rewards to be det-rimental under a wide range of condi-tions.

Although the usefulness of meta-analysis and statistical testing in gen-eral has been questioned by behavioralresearchers (e.g., see Baron &Derenne, 2000; Derenne & Baron,1999), research summaries based onmeta-analyses have become valuedsources of information for both policymakers and researchers. Deci et al.’s(1999) meta-analytic finding of generalnegative effects of reward has impor-tant implications. Thus, to understandwhy the meta-analyses by Cameronand Pierce (1994) and Deci et al. re-sulted in different findings, it is impor-tant to be familiar with the techniqueand logic of meta-analysis. The meta-analytic procedures described beloware based on Hedges and Olkin (1985);these were the basic procedures usedby Cameron and Pierce and by Deci etal.

THE TECHNIQUE AND LOGICOF META-ANALYSIS

Meta-analysis is a technique forcombining the results of a large num-ber of studies on the same topic. It in-volves combining data from concep-tually related studies to reach general-izations based on statistical criteria.Quantitative analyses, similar to meta-analysis, have been conducted on sin-gle-subject designs (e.g., see Kollins,Newland, & Critchfield, 1997); how-ever, meta-analysis is typically usedwith between-groups designs in whicha treatment group (e.g., a rewardedgroup) is compared to a control group(nonrewarded group) on a common de-pendent measure (intrinsic motivation).The goals of a meta-analysis are to es-tablish the relation between indepen-dent and dependent variables (in thiscase, the relation between rewards andintrinsic motivation) and to determinewhat factors moderate or alter the mag-

nitude of the relation (e.g., type of re-ward, reward contingency). Conduct-ing a meta-analysis entails specifyingthe criteria for including and excludingstudies, collecting all experiments thatmeet the criteria, and coding the stud-ies.

Once all relevant studies are identi-fied, the statistical results of each studyare transformed into a measure calledan effect size. An effect size is foundby converting the findings from eachstudy into a standard deviation unit. Inthe rewards and intrinsic motivationliterature, an effect size indicates theextent to which the experimental group(rewarded group) and the control group(nonrewarded group) differ in themeans on measures of intrinsic moti-vation (e.g., free time on task after re-wards are removed, task interest). In itssimplest form, the effect size (g) is thedifference between the means of the re-warded group and the nonrewardedcontrol group divided by the pooledstandard deviation of this difference. Ina meta-analysis, the effect size fromeach study, rather than the individualparticipants within a study, becomesthe unit of analysis. If the effect sizesfrom all the studies present a randompattern, they will hover around zero,indicating no evidence for an effect.On the other hand, the effect sizes maycluster in a positive or negative direc-tion, indicating that something is goingon.

One problem in meta-analysis ariseswhen studies do not provide enoughinformation to calculate effect sizes.When means and standard deviationsare not available, effect sizes can becalculated from t tests, F statistics, andp values (see Hedges & Becker, 1986).However, in some cases, there may stillbe insufficient information to obtain aneffect size. The meta-analyst can con-tact the researchers and try to obtainthe missing data. When the data cannotbe procured, the study can be excludedfrom the analyses or assigned an effectsize of 0.00 (indicating no differencebetween experimental and controlgroups). It has been argued that includ-


ing zero effect sizes is a conservativestrategy; if a significant effect is de-tected in spite of the inclusion of zeros,the contention is that the results wouldnot be altered if missing data wereavailable (for a discussion of this issue,see Light & Pillemer, 1984). On theother hand, if one’s bias is toward noeffect (i.e., we are satisfied if the treat-ment is not harmful), including zerosfavors this conclusion. One strategy fordealing with this issue is to conduct theanalyses with zeros included and ex-cluded.

After effect sizes (g) are calculatedfor each relevant study, an overallmean effect size (d1) is obtained.First, g is converted to d by correctingfor bias (g is an overestimation of thepopulation effect size, particularly forsmall samples; see Hedges, 1981). Theoverall mean effect size is obtained byweighting each effect size by the recip-rocal of its variance and averaging theweighted d. This procedure gives moreweight to effect sizes that are more re-liably estimated. The calculation ofmean effect sizes provides a signifi-cance test (whether the value differssignificantly from 0.00) and a 95%confidence interval (CI) (when the CIcontains 0.00, the results suggest thatthere is no evidence of a statisticallysignificant effect).

In a hierarchical meta-analysis, allstudies are included in an overall anal-ysis. The researcher then searches formoderator variables. The studies arebroken out by one key moderator, thenanother, and so on. The moderators thatthe researcher chooses to examine maybe based on theoretical considerationsor on differences between the studies(e.g., different procedures used in thestudies, different characteristics of thesamples used, year of publication,etc.).

Hedges and Olkin (1985) recom-mend using homogeneity tests to as-certain whether a moderator analysis isnecessary. Essentially, the procedure isto use a chi-square statistic, Q, with K2 1 degrees of freedom, where K is thenumber of effect sizes. The null hy-

pothesis is that the effect sizes are ho-mogeneous (i.e., effect sizes in a givenanalysis are viewed as values sampledfrom a single population; variation ineffect sizes among studies is merelydue to sampling variation). When Q isstatistically significant, the implicationis that moderator analyses should beconducted. The original set of studiesis then broken into subsets until thechi-square statistics within the sub-groups are nonsignificant. When theresearcher has exhausted potentialmoderators and homogeneity is stillnot obtained, outliers (studies with ex-treme effect-size values) are examinedindependently and the analysis is con-ducted with outliers removed.

DIFFERENCES BETWEENCAMERON AND PIERCE’S (1994)

AND DECI ET AL.’S (1999)META-ANALYSES

Although Deci et al. (1999) andCameron and Pierce (1994) used thesame meta-analytic procedures to eval-uate the research on rewards and in-trinsic motivation, their results dif-fered. Cameron and Pierce conducted ahierarchical meta-analysis of the re-wards and intrinsic motivation litera-ture. Studies were included if they hada rewarded group and a nonrewardedcontrol group and if they used one ofthe two main measures of intrinsic mo-tivation (free time on the task after thereward was removed or self-reportedtask interest). The effects of reward onthe two dependent measures (free timeand task interest) were assessed sepa-rately. When a study did not provideenough information to calculate an ef-fect size, it was not included in theanalyses.

Cameron and Pierce (1994) werefirst interested in whether rewards,overall, produced negative effects onmeasures of intrinsic motivation. Theirfindings indicated no overall negativeeffects on either measure of intrinsicmotivation. However, the set of effectsizes was significantly heterogeneous;thus, the researchers conducted a num-

7THE MYTH CONTINUES

ber of moderator analyses to determinewhen and under what conditions re-wards produced negative effects. Re-wards were broken down by rewardtype (tangible and verbal). Tangible re-wards were subdivided into expectedand unexpected, and expected tangiblerewards were further separated by thereward contingency. Cameron andPierce used a behavioral framework tocategorize rewards by reward contin-gency; in addition, they used the cate-gories suggested by Deci and Ryan’s(1985) cognitive evaluation theoryframework. Their results indicatednegative effects on the free-time mea-sure only when the rewards were tan-gible, expected, and not contingent onmeeting a performance standard. Thesame findings were reported by Eisen-berger and Cameron (1996), who car-ried out some additional analyses of re-ward contingencies.

Deci et al. (1999) suggested thatCameron and Pierce’s (1994) and Ei-senberger and Cameron’s (1996) fail-ure to detect more pervasive negativeeffects was due to methodological in-adequacies. Specifically, they criticizedCameron and Pierce and Eisenbergerand Cameron for the following: (a) col-lapsing across tasks with high and lowinitial interest and omitting a modera-tor analysis of initial task interest, (b)including a study that used an inappro-priate control group (Boal & Cum-mings, 1981), (c) omitting studies ordata as outliers rather than attemptingto isolate moderators, (d) omittingstudies that were published during theperiod covered by their meta-analysis,(e) omitting unpublished doctoral dis-sertations, and (f) misclassifying stud-ies into reward contingencies as de-fined by cognitive evaluation theory.

To rectify these issues in their recentmeta-analysis, Deci et al. (1999) ex-cluded the study by Boal and Cum-mings (1981), included studies thatwere missed in the previous meta-anal-yses, and included unpublished doctor-al dissertations. In addition, in contrastto Cameron and Pierce (1994), forstudies with insufficient information to

calculate effect sizes, Deci et al. im-puted effect sizes of 0.00 and includedthese in each of their analyses.

In terms of initial task interest, Deciet al. (1999) noted that ‘‘the field ofinquiry has always been defined interms of intrinsic motivation for inter-esting tasks and the undermining phe-nomenon has always been specified asapplying only to interesting tasks in-sofar as with boring tasks there is littleor no intrinsic motivation to under-mine’’ (p. 633). Given that cognitiveevaluation theory has little to say aboutthe effects of rewards on low-interesttasks, Deci et al.’s meta-analysis fo-cused on reward effects on high-inter-est tasks. Studies or conditions withinstudies were included only if the tasksused were measured or defined to beinitially interesting; studies or condi-tions within studies were excluded ifthe tasks used were measured or de-fined as initially uninteresting.

Thus, Deci et al.’s (1999) meta-anal-ysis began with the overall effects ofrewards on intrinsic motivation fortasks of initial high interest only. Deciet al. analyzed the effects of reward onmeasures of self-reported task interestand free-choice intrinsic motivation.Their free-choice measure includedtime spent on a task after rewards wereremoved. When a time measure wasnot reported in a study, Deci et al. usedmeasures of task persistence during thefree-choice period (e.g., number of tri-als initiated in a labyrinth game, num-ber of balls played in a pinball game,number of successes on a task). Hence,Deci et al.’s analysis of the free-choicemeasure was broader than the analysisby Cameron and Pierce (1994), whoused only studies that assessed timemeasures.

On tasks of high initial interest, Deciet al. (1999) found a significant nega-tive effect of rewards on the free-choice measure and a non-significanteffect on the self-report measure. Bothmean effect sizes were heterogeneous.To obtain homogeneity at each level ofanalysis, Deci et al. tested a number ofmoderator variables. When homoge-


neity could not be obtained, Deci et al.followed the procedure used by Cam-eron and Pierce (1994) and identifiedand removed outliers. First, Deci et al.tested whether verbal versus tangiblerewards were a moderator. Verbal re-wards were found to increase free-choice intrinsic motivation for collegestudents (a nonsignificant effect wasfound for children) and to enhance taskinterest for both children and collegestudents. Tangible rewards producednegative effects on both the free-choiceand self-report measures. In accordwith Cameron and Pierce, tangible re-wards were broken down into expectedand unexpected rewards. Unexpectedrewards had no significant effects; ex-pected tangible rewards were found tosignificantly undermine both self-re-ported task interest and free-choice in-trinsic motivation.

Using cognitive evaluation theory astheir framework, Deci et al. (1999) fur-ther subdivided expected tangible re-wards into task-noncontingent, engage-ment-contingent, completion-contin-gent, and performance-contingent re-wards. Task-noncontingent rewardswere ‘‘those given without specificallyrequiring the person to engage in theactivity’’ (p. 636); engagement-contin-gent rewards were those offered to par-ticipants for engaging in a task withouta requirement to complete the task, doit well, or reach some standard. Com-pletion-contingent rewards were thoseoffered and given for completing atask, and performance-contingent re-wards were defined as those ‘‘offereddependent upon the participants’ levelof performance’’ (p. 636). Deci et al.found no significant negative effectsfor task-noncontingent rewards; en-gagement-contingent rewards producedsignificant negative effects on bothfree-choice intrinsic motivation andself-reported task interest. Completion-contingent and performance-contingentrewards also resulted in significantnegative effects on the free-choice in-trinsic motivation measure.

In addition, Deci et al. (1999) pro-vided a breakdown of performance-

contingent rewards into studies of‘‘maximum’’ and ‘‘not-maximum’’ re-ward. In studies of maximum reward,participants were offered rewards grad-ed in terms of meeting a criterion orperformance standard; all met the cri-terion and received the full amount ofreward. Six studies were identified byDeci et al. as involving not-maximumreward. In these studies, some partici-pants failed to attain the criterion andwere given less than the maximum re-ward. Deci et al. reported that relativeto a nonrewarded control condition,participants receiving less than themaximum reward showed a large de-cline in free-choice intrinsic motiva-tion. In fact, the value (d 5 20.88) wasthe largest mean effect size in their en-tire analysis.

As a supplemental analysis, Deci etal. (1999) analyzed studies with chil-dren in which the free-choice assess-ment of high-interest activities wasconducted immediately following theremoval of reward, within a week, andafter a week. Deci et al. found negativeeffects at each time of assessment andsuggested that the undermining effectis not a transitory phenomenon. An ad-ditional analysis of the effects of re-wards on low-interest tasks was con-ducted by Deci et al.; no statisticallysignificant effects were detected.

All in all, Deci et al.’s (1999) meta-analysis produced numerous negativeeffects of the various reward contin-gencies. Given the discrepancies be-tween Deci et al.’s and Cameron andPierce’s (1994) findings, it is importantto examine carefully the proceduresused by Deci et al. The first noteworthydifference between the two meta-anal-yses occurs at the level of all rewards.Cameron and Pierce were interested inassessing the overall effects of rewardsacross all types of tasks. Deci et al. didnot conduct this analysis; instead, theyargued that the more theoretically rel-evant question concerned the effects ofrewards on tasks of high initial interest.

We contend that an analysis of theoverall effect of reward is central to anunderstanding of this complex area of

9THE MYTH CONTINUES

research. On a practical level, manyeducators, parents, and administratorshave taken the position that rewardsand incentive systems are harmful. Theview is that rewards negatively affectstudents’ intrinsic interest across alltypes of activities (e.g., reading, math,science, computer games, etc.); no dis-tinction is made between low and highinitial levels of task interest. Writerswho caution against the use of rewardsand reinforcement frequently use ex-amples to illustrate their point. Moreoften than not, activities such as read-ing, lawn mowing, and mathematicsare cited as activities that people willlose interest in if they are given re-wards for performing the activity. Mostof these activities are not ones that in-dividuals begin doing with high levelsof initial interest. Importantly, policymakers who adopt the view that re-wards are harmful rarely distinguishbetween high- and low-interest tasks.Because of this, an analysis of theoverall effects of reward is warranted.It is our contention that a more com-plete hierarchical breakdown of the ef-fects of rewards on intrinsic motivationshould begin at the level of all rewardsover all types of tasks. Following this,a breakdown of reward effects on high-and low-interest tasks would be appro-priate.

A further difficulty with Deci et al.’s(1999) meta-analysis concerns theirsupplemental analysis of reward effectson low-interest tasks. Several studiesthat used low-interest tasks were ex-cluded from their primary meta-analy-sis of high-interest tasks (e.g., Freed-man & Phillips, 1985; Overskeid &Svartdal, 1996). The problem is thatthese studies were not brought backinto their supplementary analysis oflow-interest tasks.

Another concern is that for somestudies in their analysis of high-interesttasks, Deci et al. (1999) omitted con-ditions that were relevant to their anal-yses. For example, in an experiment byWilson (1978), one group was offered$0.50 to engage in the target activity,a second group was offered $2.50 and

a control group performed the taskwithout the offer of reward. In Deci etal.’s analyses, only one of the rewardedgroups was included. For other studiesthat used more than one level of re-ward magnitude (e.g., Earn, 1982;McLoyd, 1979; Newman & Layton,1984), Deci et al. included all rewardconditions. Their omission of certainconditions within studies does not ap-pear to be systematic (e.g., rewardmagnitude was not examined by Deciet al. as a moderator), yet there are anumber of different types of cases inwhich this occurs. In addition, as didCameron and Pierce (1994), Deci et al.also missed a few experiments that mettheir inclusion criteria and that werepublished during the period covered bytheir meta-analysis. Also, several stud-ies using high-interest tasks that mea-sured self-reported task interest wereeither excluded or inadvertently omit-ted from Deci et al.’s analyses. Manyof these studies found positive effectson the self-report measure of task in-terest; Deci et al.’s omission of theseeffects helps to explain why they foundeither negative effects or no effects onthe task-interest measure. A list ofstudies not included in Deci et al.’sanalyses, dependent measures thatwere precluded, and a description ofconditions omitted by Deci et al. arepresented in Appendix A. Any com-putational differences in sample sizesand effect sizes are also outlined inAppendix A.

A final issue concerns the classifi-cation of studies into various rewardcontingencies. Deci et al. (1999) sug-gested that Cameron and Pierce (1994)miscategorized many experiments. Us-ing cognitive evaluation theory toguide their classification of studies,Deci et al. established the categories oftask-noncontingent, engagement-con-tingent, completion-contingent, andperformance-contingent rewards. Al-though this categorization system maybe informative for cognitive evaluationtheory, the problem is that the catego-ries are too broad. Studies that usedvery different procedures were pooled


into overall categories of engagement-contingent, completion-contingent, andperformance-contingent rewards. Forexample, under performance-contin-gent reward, Deci et al. pooled exper-iments in which participants were of-fered a reward for doing well, for eachproblem or unit solved, for obtaining acertain score, or for exceeding a norm.Eisenberger, Pierce, and Cameron(1999) examined some of these differ-ent reward procedures and found verydifferent effects on measures of intrin-sic motivation.

Rather than argue about which stud-ies belong in which category, we sug-gest that a more nuanced approach isto return to the methods section of theoriginal studies and code the rewardprocedures actually employed in theexperiment. To the extent that one canobtain consistency in coding, such aprocedural categorization of rewardcontingencies would allow an assess-ment of the effects of the actual con-tingencies rather than those presumedto be an effect by any theoretical per-spective. The literature on rewards andintrinsic motivation is fraught withcompeting theories (e.g., cognitiveevaluation theory, the overjustificationhypothesis, social cognitive theory,general interest theory, the competingresponse hypothesis, behavioral theo-ry). The problem with organizing stud-ies according to a particular theoreticalstance is that each theory could beused to organize the literature and, us-ing categories appropriate to the theo-ry, each theory could gain support. Us-ing a theoretical approach to guide theclassification of the reward proceduresdoes not provide us with a definitiveanswer about the effects of reward con-tingencies on measures of intrinsic mo-tivation. Instead, we propose that aprocedural description of reward con-tingencies not only allows us to assesswhere we stand in terms of the effectsof the actual reward contingencies butalso provides us with a test of alter-native accounts of the effects of re-wards on intrinsic motivation.

A NEW META-ANALYSIS:RESOLVING DIFFERENCES

BETWEEN PREVIOUSMETA-ANALYSES

To address criticisms and resolvediscrepancies among Cameron andPierce’s (1994), Eisenberger and Cam-eron’s (1996), and Deci et al.’s (1999)meta-analyses, we provide a reanalysisof the effects of rewards on intrinsicmotivation. Our goal is to eliminateshortcomings of the prior meta-analy-ses (including ours) while building ontheir strengths. Our current meta-anal-ysis focuses on how reward affectsmeasures of free-choice intrinsic mo-tivation and self-reported task interest.In accord with Deci et al., free-choicemeasures included free time on taskwhen the rewards were removed and,when time measures were not avail-able, performance during the free-choice period. As did Deci et al., wecombined performance and time mea-sures to make up the free-choice intrin-sic motivation index (we found no sig-nificant differences in the analyseswhen only time measures were ana-lyzed). Our analysis begins with an as-sessment of the overall effects of re-ward.

We then examine the effects of dif-ferent moderator variables. To dealwith Deci et al.’s (1999) criticism, ourfirst breakdown is in terms of high andlow initial task interest. Subdividingthe studies by high and low initial taskinterest allows us to directly compareour findings with those of Deci et al.In doing so, we favor cognitive eval-uation theory. On the other hand, fail-ure to find pervasive negative effectseven with high-interest tasks favors theconclusion that reward contingenciesdo not destroy interest. In other words,the strongest way to test Deci et al.’sclaims is to use their requirement thattasks used in the studies must be bro-ken out by high and low initial interest.

At each level of our analysis, a ho-mogeneity statistic (Q) was calculated todetermine whether the set of effect sizescould be considered homogeneous.

11THE MYTH CONTINUES

When Q was significant, we proceededwith further moderator analyses. Re-wards were broken down by type (verbalor tangible), by expectancy (expected,unexpected), and by reward contingen-cy. In addition, when there was enoughdata, we examined differences betweenstudies in which participants receivedmaximum or less than maximum re-wards. These breakdowns generally re-sulted in homogenous samples. Howev-er, in a few cases, homogeneity couldstill not be obtained even after a thor-ough examination of potential modera-tors. In these cases, we conducted theanalysis by removing outliers (as didDeci et al., 1999). Outliers were exam-ined in an attempt to explain their ex-treme values. At each level of our anal-ysis, we report mean effect sizes, signif-icance tests, and 95% CI. However, weshould point out that making conclu-sions based on heterogeneous samplesmay be misleading. In a hierarchicalbreakdown, interpretations should focuson the homogeneous effects at the bot-tom level of the analysis (see Hunter &Schmidt, 1990).

Sample of Studies

Studies included in the present anal-ysis incorporated the databases ofCameron and Pierce (1994) and Deciet al. (1999). In addition, in a searchof PsycINFO, we located a few newstudies and a few studies that were in-advertently missed in previous meta-analyses. The criteria for including astudy in a sample were as follows: Arewarded group was compared to anonrewarded group, the rewards weredistinguished as verbal (praise, positivefeedback) or tangible (e.g., money,candy, good-player awards), and intrin-sic motivation was measured as freechoice (time spent on the task follow-ing the removal of reward or perfor-mance on the task during the free-choice period) or by self-reported mea-sures of task interest (task liking,enjoyment, satisfaction, or task prefer-ence). Two studies included in Cam-eron and Pierce’s research were omit-

ted; in one study (Boggiano & Hertel,1983), the dependent measure was as-sessed before all participants workedon the task; in the other study (Boal &Cummings, 1981), all participants (in-cluding the control group) receivedmonetary payments. These studieswere also not included in Deci et al.’sanalyses.

In addition to including publishedwork and in keeping with Deci et al.(1999), we included unpublished doc-toral dissertations. The resulting sam-ple consisted of 145 independent stud-ies (21 of the experiments were fromunpublished doctoral dissertations). Ofthese, 115 studies included a free-choice measure of intrinsic motivation;100 included a self-report measure oftask interest.

Classification and Coding of Studies

To code initial levels of task interest,we used the procedures described byDeci et al. (1999). If a measure of ini-tial task interest was reported in the ar-ticle, the study was classified as a low-interest task when the average on thatmeasure was below the midpoint of thescale for the activity and as a high-in-terest task when the average was abovethe midpoint. Two studies not includedin any of Deci et al.’s analyses (Freed-man & Phillips, 1985; Phillips &Freedman, 1985) provided initial task-interest measures and included both ahigh- and a low-interest task. We in-cluded these studies in our analysis oflow- as well as high-interest tasks (seecomments in Appendix A). Studieswithout initial interest measures wereclassified as high or low depending onhow the researcher defined the task oron whether the task had been describedas interesting or uninteresting in priorexperiments.

Studies were also classified accord-ing to reward type (tangible or verbal),reward expectancy (expected or unex-pected), and reward contingency. Toclassify studies by reward contingency,we went back to the original studies,read the precise procedures used for re-


TABLE 1

Description of expected tangible reward contingencies

Reward contingency Description

Task noncontingent Reward is offered for agreeing to participate, for coming to thestudy, or for waiting for the experimenter.

Offer of reward is unrelated to engaging in the task.Rewards offered for doing well Reward is offered for doing well on the task or for doing a

good job.No specification is given as to what it means to do a good job

or to do well.Rewards offered for doing a

taskReward is offered to engage in the experimental activity.No instructions are given about how well participants must

perform or whether they must complete the task.Rewards offered for finishing

or completing a taskReward is offered to finish an activity, to complete a task, or

to get to a ceratin point on the task.The reward is not related to quality of performance.

Rewards offered for each unitsolved

Reward is offered for each unit, puzzle, problem, etc., that issolved.

Rewards offered for surpassinga score

Reward is offered for surpassing a particular specified score(absolute standard).

In some cases, the better the score, the higher the reward.Rewards offered for exceeding

a normReward is offered to meet or exceed the performance of others

on the task (relative standard).

ward delivery, and wrote down whatwas said to participants and how thereward was delivered. We then orga-nized the studies into seven main cat-egories of reward contingency: rewardsdelivered regardless of task involve-ment (task noncontingent); rewardsgiven for doing a task; rewards for do-ing well; rewards for finishing or com-pleting a task; rewards given for eachproblem, puzzle, or unit solved; re-wards for achieving or surpassing aspecific score; and rewards for meetingor exceeding others. Although all stud-ies were coded for reward contingency,it was at the level of expected (offered)tangible reward that it became neces-sary to analyze studies in the variousreward contingencies. Other analysesresulted in homogeneity, and furtherbreakdowns were not required. In Ta-ble 1, we provide definitions and de-scriptions for each of these contingen-cies at the level of expected tangiblereward. A comparison of our rewardcontingencies and those of Deci et al.(1999) is presented in Appendix B. Wereturn to a discussion of these compar-isons in our results section.

In some studies, there was not

enough information to code the contin-gency (e.g., Chung, 1995; Hom, 1987).In addition, a few studies used a con-tingency that did not fit into any of theseven categories; for example, W. E.Smith (1975) offered rewards to partic-ipants for showing signs of learning.These studies were included in overallanalyses, but were omitted from theanalysis of reward contingencies. A listof the studies used in each analysis, adescription of reward type, reward ex-pectancy, and reward contingency, to-gether with effect sizes are presentedin Appendixes C through G.

To ensure reliability of coding, thesecond author was given the definitionsfor each contingency (Table 1) and asample of 32 studies to code (each ofthe studies involved expected tangiblerewards). Reliability calculated as per-centage agreement was 97% (31 of 32studies). One study (L. W. Goldstein,1977) included a condition in whichparticipants were offered a reward totake pictures. The issue was whetherthis contingency involved reward sim-ply for doing the task or for finishingthe task. The third author was broughtin to code the study; he pointed out


that participants in the reward condi-tion were not required to complete orfinish the task to obtain the reward andthat Goldstein stated that ‘‘the rewarddid not imply that the subject had donewell on the task, only that s/he had en-gaged in it’’ (p. 30). Hence, the rewardcontingency was classified as a rewardoffered for doing the task.

Finally, we identified studies that in-volved maximum or less than maxi-mum reward. Such studies involved of-fering participants a reward for doingwell, for finishing a task, for eachproblem or unit solved, for surpassinga score, or for exceeding a norm. Stud-ies were considered to produce themaximum reward if participants in thereward condition met the performancerequirements and received the full re-ward. Less than maximum reward oc-curred when there was a time limitsuch that some participants were un-able to meet all the requirements in thetime allotted and were given less thanthe full reward. For example, Deci’s(1971) experiment involved less thanmaximum reward. Participants wereoffered $1.00 for each of four puzzlessolved within a 13-min time limit. Notall participants were able to solve thepuzzles within the time limit and didnot receive the full reward.

Calculation and Analysis ofEffect Sizes

After all studies were coded, we cal-culated effect sizes (g) for each com-parison of a rewarded group to a non-rewarded group on the free-choice andself-report measures of intrinsic moti-vation. Positive effect sizes indicatethat rewards produced an increase inmeasures of intrinsic motivation rela-tive to a control group, negative effectsizes denote a decrease, and an effectsize of 0.00 indicates no difference.When there was not enough informa-tion to calculate an effect size, we at-tempted to contact the researchers.From a list of 22 researchers, we wereable to locate E-mail addresses fornine. E-mail messages were sent re-

questing the missing data. Eight peoplereplied; six could not locate the data,and two provided us with data for stud-ies by Wicker, Brown, Wiehe, andShim (1990) and by Dollinger andThelen (1978). When we could not ob-tain missing data, we imputed an effectsize of 0.00. Each analysis was con-ducted with zeros included and exclud-ed. In accord with Deci et al. (1999),we report the analyses with the zerosincluded; however, when mean effectsizes were altered to any extent by theinclusion of zeros, we report the anal-ysis with and without zeros.

Eisenberger, Pierce, and Cameron(1999) pointed out that there were twopossible types of control comparisonsfor some of the studies labeled perfor-mance contingent by Deci et al. (1999).In some studies, the control group wastold the performance objectives and wasgiven performance feedback (completecontrol); in others, the control group wasnot told a performance objective and nofeedback was given (partial control). Ei-senberger, Pierce, and Cameron exam-ined differences between these two typesof comparisons (reward vs. partial con-trol, reward vs. complete control). Onesmall difference was detected on thefree-choice measure. When rewardswere offered to exceed others, rewardversus a partial-control condition result-ed in a nonsignificant positive effect; themean effect for reward versus a com-plete control was significantly positive(no other comparisons resulted in differ-ences). Because this difference wassmall and both mean effects were in thesame direction, we included studies witheither type of control condition in thepresent analyses. If a study containedboth types of controls (e.g., Harackiew-icz, Manderlink, & Sansone, 1984), oneeffect size was calculated comparing thereward condition to both controls.

In accord with Deci et al. (1999) andwith our previous procedures, morethan one effect size was calculated forseveral studies in our analyses. For ex-ample, if a single study assessed freechoice and used two types of expectedtangible rewards (e.g., rewards offered


TABLE 2

Hierarchical analysis of the effects of rewards on measures ofintrinsic motivation

Analysis of the effects of reward K N d1 95% CI

Free-choice intrinsic motivationAll rewarda

Low initial task interestHigh initial task interesta

Verbal rewardTangible rewarda

Unexpected rewardExpected reward (offered)a

11512

11425

1029

101

8,176429

7,8881,3746,942

3756,703

20.080.28*

20.09*0.31*

20.17*0.02

20.18*

20.12, 0.020.07, 0.47

20.14, 20.040.20, 0.41

20.22, 20.1220.18, 0.2220.23, 20.13

Self-reported task interestAll rewarda

Low initial task interestHigh initial task interesta

Verbal rewarda

Tangible rewarda

Unexpected rewardExpected reward (offered)a

10011982483

581

8,028503

7,5471,5846,354

2996,138

0.12*0.120.12*0.32*0.08*0.030.08*

0.07, 0.1620.06, 0.30

0.07, 0.170.22, 0.430.03, 0.13

20.20, 0.260.03, 0.13

Note. K 5 number of studies; N 5 total sample size; d1 5 mean weighted effect size; 95% CI5 95% confidence interval.

a The sample of effect sizes was significantly heterogeneous.* p , .05.

for doing the task and rewards offeredfor surpassing a certain score) plus acontrol group, two effect sizes werecalculated. Each individual effect sizewas entered into the relevant analysis(expected tangible rewards for doing atask, expected tangible rewards for sur-passing a score). For the analyses ofexpected tangible reward, tangible re-ward, and all reward, one effect sizewas calculated (the two groups werecompared to the control group) and en-tered into the overall analyses. Thisstrategy satisfies the independence as-sumption of meta-analytic statistics(Hedges & Olkin, 1985) and givesequal weight to each study analyzed.Thus, subcategories (e.g., rewards of-fered for doing the task, for doing well,etc.) may contain more effect sizesthan the superordinate category (ex-pected tangible reward). For example,for all reward on the free-choice mea-sure (over both high- and low-interesttasks), there were 126 effect sizes, butonly 115 of these are independent (sev-eral are within the same study).

After all effect sizes were calculated,

the present analyses were run on thecomputer program Meta (Schwarzer,1991) using the weighted integrationmethod described in our section onmeta-analytic procedures. The programconverts effect size, g, to d; meanweighted effect size (d1) is obtained;95% CI is constructed around themeans, and a homogeneity statistic, Q,is computed.

RESULTS OF OURMETA-ANALYSIS

In Table 2, we present the results forour meta-analysis up to the level of re-ward contingency. Table 2 presentsmean weighted effect size (d1) and 95%CI for each analysis. Mean effects areconsidered statistically significant whenthe CI does not include zero. In the pres-ent meta-analysis, positive effect sizesindicate that reward produces increasesin intrinsic motivation, negative effectsizes support the claim that rewardsundermine intrinsic motivation, andzero effects indicate no evidence for aneffect of reward. According to J. Cohen


(1988), an effect size of 60.20 is con-sidered small, 60.50 is moderate, andgreater than 60.80 is large.

All Rewards

First, the overall effects of rewardwere analyzed across all conditionsand across high- and low-interest tasks.On the free-choice measure, Table 2 in-dicates that there was no significant ef-fect (d1 5 20.08, CI 5 20.12, 0.02).On the measure of self-reported taskinterest, a small significant positive ef-fect was detected (d1 5 0.12, CI 50.07, 0.16). This analysis was not con-ducted by Deci et al. (1999); therefore,the findings cannot be compared. Theresults are, however, in accord withthose of Cameron and Pierce (1994).On both the free-choice and self-reportmeasures, however, the sets of studieswere significantly heterogeneous, sug-gesting the necessity of a moderatoranalysis. Thus, at the next level ofanalysis, we divided studies into thosewith low- and high-interest tasks.

The Effects of Rewards onLow-Interest Tasks

When reward effects were analyzedfor tasks with low initial interest, Table2 shows a statistically significant pos-itive effect on the free-choice measure(d1 5 0.28, CI 5 0.07, 0.47); therewas no significant effect on self-re-ported task interest (d1 5 0.12, CI 520.06, 0.30). These findings indicatethat when a task is not initially inter-esting, rewards enhance free-choice in-trinsic motivation but not verbal ex-pressions of task interest.

Although the studies in this analysiswere considered homogeneous (i.e., Qwas not significant), we examinedwhether there were any differencesamong different types of rewards, ex-pectancies, and contingencies. On thefree-choice measure, only one study in-cluded a condition that used a verbalreward (the effect was positive). Fortangible reward, one study included anunexpected reward condition (the ef-fect was positive). All of the 12 studies

with low-interest tasks included an ex-pected tangible reward condition; com-pared with a nonreward control, themean effect was significantly positive(d1 5 0.26, CI 5 0.06, 0.45). Ninestudies involved offering the rewardfor doing the task; on the free-choicemeasure the effect remained significant(d1 5 0.26, CI 5 0.03, 0.48). For self-reported task interest, no significant ef-fects were found under any of the con-ditions.

In Deci et al.’s (1999) supplementalanalysis of low-interest tasks (p. 651),fewer studies were included and nosignificant effects were found on eitherthe free-choice or the self-report mea-sures of intrinsic motivation.

The Effects of Rewards onHigh-Interest Tasks

For high-interest tasks, the mean ef-fect size on free choice (Table 2)showed a small but significant negativeeffect (d1 5 20.09, CI 5 20.14,20.04); the set of effect sizes, how-ever, was heterogeneous. The mean ef-fect size for self-reported task interestwas significant, small, but in a positivedirection (d1 5 0.12, CI 5 0.07, 0.17);the sample of effect sizes was also het-erogeneous. Deci et al. (1999) also re-ported a significant negative effect onthe free-choice measure but a nonsig-nificant effect on the task-interest mea-sure. As noted, Deci et al. omitted ormissed several self-report effect sizes.

Verbal Rewards

Verbal rewards were found to sig-nificantly enhance both free-choice in-trinsic motivation (d1 5 0.31, CI 50.20, 0.41) and self-reported task inter-est (d1 5 0.32, CI 5 0.22, 0.43).These results were also obtained byDeci et al. (1999), who reported similarsmall to moderate positive effects ofverbal rewards.

On the free-choice measure, the setof effect sizes was homogeneous, sug-gesting that no further breakdownswere necessary. In most studies of ver-bal reward, the rewards were unex-


pected and the mean effect was posi-tive; a positive effect was also foundwith the five studies that used expectedrewards. In addition, verbal rewardswere generally delivered simply fordoing a task and were not contingenton any specific level of performance(again, the effects were positive).When the effects of verbal reward onfree choice were examined with chil-dren versus adults (mainly college stu-dents), children showed a smaller pos-itive effect (K 5 10, N 5 320, d1 50.22, CI 5 0.04, 0.39) than adults (K5 15, N 5 844, d1 5 0.36, CI 5 0.22,0.49). Deci et al. (1999) also reporteda larger effect for adults but a nonsig-nificant effect for children (our effectsize for children was statistically sig-nificant because we included morestudies than Deci et al.).

On the task-interest measure, the setof effect sizes for verbal reward wassignificantly heterogeneous. We con-ducted moderator analyses of childrenversus adults and expected versus un-expected reward. Mean effect sizes foreach of these analyses remained sig-nificantly positive, but homogeneitywas still not obtained. In almost allstudies, the rewards were given for do-ing the task; hence, this reward contin-gency could not be a moderator.

To obtain homogeneity, three studieswere removed from the analysis (thesame outliers were removed by Deci etal., 1999). Inspection of the outliers in-dicated that two of the studies (Butler,1987; Vallerand, 1983) produced largepositive effects; these studies did notdiffer in obvious ways from other stud-ies in the sample except for their ten-dency to generate extreme values of ef-fect size. The third outlier (Kast &Connor, 1988) produced a negative ef-fect (20.46). Kast and Connor com-pared control participants to partici-pants who were praised for their per-formance on the task as well as to an-other group who were also praised butwho were told that they should be do-ing well. The second verbal rewardcondition produced a negative effectand was different from verbal reward

used in other studies; Deci et al. termedthis ‘‘controlling’’ reward. When theoutliers were removed from the anal-ysis of verbal rewards on the task-in-terest measure, the set of studies washomogeneous and the mean effect re-mained significantly positive (K 5 21,N 5 1,194, d1 5 0.32, CI 5 0.21,0.44). In this data set, there were sixstudies that did not provide enough in-formation to obtain an estimate of ef-fect size (these studies were given aneffect size of 0.00). When these studieswere removed, the mean effect size fortask interest showed a slight increase(K 5 15, N 5 981, d1 5 0.40, CI 50.27, 0.53).

Tangible Rewards

When the effects of tangible rewardson high-interest tasks were analyzed,Table 2 shows a small significant neg-ative effect on the free-choice measure(d1 5 20.17, CI 5 20.22, 20.12) anda small significant positive effect onself-reported task interest (d1 5 0.08,CI 5 0.03, 0.13). Both of these sam-ples of effect sizes were significantlyheterogeneous and required a furthermoderator analysis.

Reward expectancy. Tangible re-wards were subdivided into unexpect-ed (rewards delivered without a state-ment of the contingency) and expected(rewards delivered after a statement ofcontingency) categories. No significanteffects were detected for unexpectedtangible rewards (see Table 2), and thesamples were homogenous (Deci et al.,1999, reported similar findings). Ex-pected tangible rewards produced anegative effect on the free-choice mea-sure (d1 5 20.18, CI 5 20.23,20.13) and a positive effect on theself-report measure (d1 5 0.08, CI 50.03, 0.13), but both of these sampleswere significantly heterogeneous.

Reward contingency. For the nextlevel of analysis, expected tangible re-wards were subdivided into various re-ward contingencies. Results of ouranalysis on the free-choice measure arepresented in Figure 1. No significant


Figure 1. The effects of expected tangible reward contingencies on free-choice intrinsic motivationunder high levels of initial task interest. K 5 number of studies, N 5 total sample size, d1 5 meanweighted effect size; statistically reliable effect sizes are marked with an asterisk (*p , .05, **p ,.01). Positive effect sizes indicate higher intrinsic motivation for rewarded versus control groups;negative effect sizes indicate lower intrinsic motivation for rewarded groups. Numbers in parenthe-ses represent 95% confidence intervals. All effect sizes are based on homogeneous samples.

effects were detected when the rewardswere task noncontingent, were offeredfor finishing or completing a task, orwere offered for attaining or surpassinga score. Figure 1 shows significantnegative effects when the rewards wereoffered for doing a task, for doing wellon a task, and for each unit solved. Asignificant positive effect was foundwhen the rewards were offered formeeting or exceeding the performancelevel of others.

When rewards were offered for do-ing a task, the effect was significantlynegative (K 5 57, N 5 2,910, d1 520.35, CI 5 20.43, 20.27) but not ho-mogeneous. Although we searched formoderators (salient vs. nonsalient re-ward, children vs. adults, and time ofreward delivery), analyses of these var-iables did not result in homogeneoussamples. As a result, outliers wereidentified and omitted. The mean effectwith outliers removed is presented in

Figure 1. Two of the outliers producedpositive effects; the only differencesbetween these two studies and the bulkof studies were that the study by Tri-pathi and Agarwal (1988) was con-ducted in India and the study by Bren-nan and Glover (1980) was designed toassess the effects of rewards when therewards were shown to function as re-inforcement. Other outliers (Chung,1995; Danner & Lonkey, 1981; Fabes,Eisenberg, Fultz, & Miller, 1988; Mor-gan, 1983, Experiment 1; Okano, 1981,Experiment 2) had large negative ef-fects but there was no common factorthat could explain their extreme values.

Our findings for free choice indicatethat when reward contingency is de-fined in terms of experimental proce-dures, negative, neutral, and positiveeffects are obtained. Using cognitiveevaluation theory as their frameworkfor the categorization of reward contin-gencies, Deci et al. (1999) found neg-


Figure 2. A comparison of our findings with Deci et al.’s (1999) effects of expected tangiblereward contingencies on free-choice intrinsic motivation for high-interest tasks. Deci et al.’s cate-gories of completion-contingent and performance-contingent reward contained studies that involved‘‘reward offered for each unit solved.’’

ative effects for all but task-noncontin-gent rewards. One way to understandthese differences is to compare Deci etal.’s effects and definitions of contin-gencies with our effects and proceduraldefinitions. Figure 2 shows this com-parison and indicates that Deci et al.’scompletion-contingent and perfor-mance-contingent rewards consisted of

a variety of reward procedures havingdifferent effects.

Our results for the task-interest dataare presented in Figure 3. The analysisshows no significant effect for task-noncontingent rewards, a small signif-icant negative effect for rewards of-fered for doing, and significant positiveeffects for each of the other contingen-


Figure 3. The effects of expected tangible reward contingencies on self-reports of task interestunder high levels of initial task interest. K 5 number of studies, N 5 total sample size, d1 5 meanweighted effect size; statistically reliable effect sizes are marked with an asterisk (*p , .05, **p ,.01). Positive effect sizes indicate higher intrinsic motivation for rewarded versus control groups;negative effect sizes indicate lower intrinsic motivation for rewarded groups. Numbers in parenthe-ses represent 95% confidence intervals. All effect sizes are based on homogeneous samples.

cies. In the analysis of rewards offeredfor doing, 14 studies were given effectsizes of 0.00; when these studies areremoved from the analysis, the nega-tive effect increased from 20.13 to20.22 (K 5 24, N 5 1,201, d1 520.22, CI 5 20.33, 20.10).

In the analysis of rewards offered foreach unit completed, when all studieswere included the effect was positive (K5 22, N 5 1,161, d1 5 0.19, CI 5 0.08,0.31) but significantly heterogeneous.Two studies (Kruglanski et al., 1975,Experiment 1; Wimperis & Farr, 1979)had a large positive effect size; whenthese studies were omitted, homogeneitywas attained (Figure 3 presents the datafor homogenous samples).

In Figure 4, we compare Deci et al.’s(1999) findings and reward contingen-cies with ours. For completion-contin-gent and performance-contingent re-wards, Deci et al. found no significanteffects, whereas our findings show a

number of positive effects for studiesthat would be included in these cate-gories. As discussed previously, manystudies with self-report measures werenot included in Deci et al.’s analyses(see details in Appendix A).

Maximum versus less than maximumreward. On the free-choice measure ofintrinsic motivation, there was onlyone reward contingency (rewards of-fered per unit solved) that allowed acomparison between maximum andless than maximum reward. For otherreward contingencies, most studies in-volved maximum reward; a compari-son with less than maximum rewardwould be unreliable. When rewardswere offered for each unit solved, thefindings showed nonsignificant effectsfor studies of maximum rewards (K 56, N 5 345, d1 5 20.03, CI 5 20.25,0.18) and a significant negative effectfor studies of less than maximum re-ward (K 5 14, N 5 749, d1 5 20.22,


Figure 4. A comparison of our findings with Deci et al.’s (1999) effects of expected tangiblereward contingencies on self-reports of task interest for high-interest tasks. Deci et al.’s categoriesof completion-contingent and performance-contingent reward contained studies that involved ‘‘re-ward offered for each unit solved.’’

CI 5 20.37, 20.07). These two sets ofeffect sizes were homogeneous. Theseresults suggest that the negative effectof pay per unit is associated with par-ticipants receiving less than maximumrewards.

No analyses were conducted on dif-ferences between maximum and lessthan maximum rewards on the self-re-port measure. Most of the contingen-

cies had too few studies that used lessthan maximum reward. For studies in-volving the offer of reward for eachproblem solved, there were too few ex-periments of maximum reward (seeAppendix F).

DISCUSSIONA major issue in psychology and ed-

ucation is that rewards and reinforce-


ment have a detrimental effect on in-trinsic motivation. The concern is thatif people receive reinforcement or re-wards for activities they already enjoy,they will be less motivated to engagein those activities than they were priorto the introduction of reward once therewards are no longer forthcoming. Inother words, rewards and reinforce-ment are said to decrease intrinsic mo-tivation. Since the 1970s, over 100studies have been conducted to assessthe effects of reward on intrinsic mo-tivation. The vast majority of studieson the topic have employed between-groups statistical designs. Rewardedparticipants are compared to nonre-warded controls. Intrinsic motivation ismeasured by the difference betweengroups on task interest and free choice(time on task and performance on taskonce the rewards are removed). Ameta-analysis of this experimental lit-erature by Cameron and Pierce (1994)and Eisenberger and Cameron (1996)found limited negative effects of re-wards, whereas a more recent analysisby Deci et al. (1999) showed pervasivenegative effects. The meta-analysispresented in this article was designedto correct flaws in the previous reviewsand to resolve differences.

A Summary of Our Findings

In terms of the overall effects of re-ward, our meta-analysis indicates noevidence for detrimental effects of re-ward on measures of intrinsic motiva-tion. This finding is important becausemany researchers and writers espousethe view that rewards, in general, re-duce motivation and performance. Inaddition, many students of psychologyand education are taught that rewardsare harmful and that reward proceduresshould be avoided in applied settings.Our finding of no overall effect of re-ward, however, must be treated withcaution. In our meta-analysis, the over-all reward category lacked homogene-ity, indicating the appropriateness of amoderator analysis. In other words, theoverall reward category is too inclu-

sive; rewards have different effects un-der different moderating conditions.

Figure 5 shows the effects of differ-ent moderating conditions. The effectsof rewards on free-choice intrinsic mo-tivation and self-reported task interestare presented only for homogeneoussubsets. When a result was heteroge-neous, we broke down the subset of ef-fect sizes by different moderator vari-ables until homogeneity was attained.A positive effect indicates that rewardsenhanced the measure of intrinsic mo-tivation relative to a control condition,a negative effect indicates a decreasefor the rewarded group, and a zero ef-fect indicates no significant effect.

The effects of all rewards are firstbroken into high- and low-interesttasks. When the tasks used in the stud-ies are of low initial interest, rewardsincrease free-choice intrinsic motiva-tion and leave task interest unaffected.This finding indicates that rewards canbe used to enhance time and perfor-mance on tasks that initially hold littleenjoyment. As Bandura (1986) recog-nized, ‘‘Most of the things people en-joy doing for their own sake had littleor no interest for them originally. . . .But with appropriate learning experi-ences, almost any activity . . . can beimbued with consuming significance’’(p. 241). Our results suggest that re-ward procedures are one way to culti-vate interest in an activity. In educa-tion, a major goal is to instill motiva-tion and enjoyment of academic activ-ities. Many academic activities are notof high initial interest to students. Animplication of our finding is that re-wards can be used to increase perfor-mance on low-interest academic activ-ities.

For high-interest tasks, verbal re-wards are found to increase free choiceand task interest. This finding repli-cates the results of Cameron and Pierce(1994) and Deci et al. (1999). Most so-cial interaction in business, education,and clinical settings involves the use ofverbal praise and positive feedbackfrom managers, teachers, and thera-pists. When praise and other forms of


Figure 5. A summary of the meta-analysis comparing free-choice intrinsic motivation and self-reported task interest. 0 5 no reliable effect; 2 5 statistically significant negative effect of reward;1 5 statistically significant positive effect of reward.

positive feedback are given and laterremoved, our findings indicate that in-terest and performance increase.

The effects of tangible reward onmeasures of intrinsic motivation differby reward expectancy. When rewardsare delivered unexpectedly (without adescription of the reward contingency),there is no evidence of a significant ef-fect on either free choice or task inter-est. This suggests that it is not tangiblerewards per se that undermine moti-vation and interest; instead it dependson instruction and the statement ofcontingency.

For high-interest tasks, when the re-wards are tangible and expected (of-fered beforehand), there are differenteffects depending on the description ofthe reward contingency. When the of-fer of reward is unrelated to task be-havior (task noncontingent), there is noevidence for an effect of reward on ei-ther free choice or task interest. On theother hand, when people are offered atangible reward for doing a task or for

doing well at a task, they often chooseto do the activity less in a free-choiceperiod. The negative effect of rewardsoffered for doing a task is also detectedfor the task-interest measure. We didnot find a negative effect on task inter-est when the rewards are offered fordoing well. One possibility is that thetrue effect is negative but, at this point,there are too few studies to yield a re-liable estimate. In general, when thedescription of the reward contingencyimplies that rewards are loosely tied toperformance, the evidence suggeststhat people show a small reduction inperformance and interest.

Figure 5 shows that rewards offeredfor finishing or completing a task havea nonsignificant effect on the free-choice measure but a positive effect ontask interest. Again, there were fewstudies in this category, and a firm con-clusion about the effects is premature.Stronger conclusions can be drawn forthe analysis of rewards offered for eachunit solved. When participants are of-


fered a reward for each problem, puz-zle, or unit solved, our findings indi-cate a negative effect on free choiceand a positive effect on task interest. Asupplementary analysis involving lessthan maximum reward and maximumreward shows that the negative effecton free choice occurs when partici-pants obtain less than the full reward.In studies of less than maximum re-ward, participants are given a time lim-it to solve problems. Thus, the negativeeffect may be a result of time pressurerather than reward. Another way to un-derstand this result is to consider whatless than maximum reward signifies toparticipants. If people are told they canobtain a certain level of reward but aregiven less than that level, they have re-ceived feedback information that indi-cates failure. In other words, this typeof situation may represent failure feed-back, not reward. When participantsare not under time pressure and areable to obtain the maximum reward,there is no significant effect on thefree-choice measure.

When rewards are offered for meet-ing or surpassing a score, Figure 5shows no significant effect on freechoice but a significant positive effecton task interest. Rewards offered forattaining a criterion are tightly linkedto level of performance. In this situa-tion, the rewards are tied to challengeand mastery of the activity, and peopleexpress interest in the task (see Ban-dura, 1986). When rewards are givenfor exceeding the performance level ofothers, the results show a significantincrease on free choice and task inter-est. One possible explanation for thepositive effects of this type of rewardcontingency is that rewards signifycompetence, self-efficacy, or ability atthe task, and people enjoy doing activ-ities that reflect their competence.

Overall, our analysis shows that tan-gible rewards can be used to produceboth negative and positive effects onmeasures of intrinsic motivation. Pos-itive effects are obtained when the re-wards are explicitly tied to perfor-mance standards and to success; neg-

ative effects are produced when re-wards signify failure or are loosely tiedto behavior.

Durability of Reward Effects

Deci et al. (1999) have claimed thatnegative effects of rewards are nottemporary. In a supplemental analysis,Deci et al. examined studies of chil-dren in which the free-choice assess-ment was conducted within a week fol-lowing the removal of reward and aftera week. Their analysis showed nega-tive effects on free choice for eachtime of assessment. Deci et al. con-cluded that their results ‘‘indicate quiteclearly that the phenomenon of extrin-sic rewards undermining intrinsic mo-tivation is not merely transitory’’ (p.650). An examination of the studies in-cluded in Deci et al.’s supplementaryanalysis indicates that most of the ef-fect sizes were based on rewards of-fered for doing the task or for doingwell. When the free-choice assessmentwas conducted within a week follow-ing the removal of reward, 10 of 12studies involved rewards offered fordoing well or for doing the task. Of the14 studies with assessments conductedmore than a week later, 13 were con-cerned with rewards offered for doingwell. Our interpretation of Deci et al.’sfindings is that it is rewards offered fordoing (or doing well) that continue toproduce a negative effect on freechoice, not extrinsic rewards in gener-al. According to Bandura (1986), thiskind of reward procedure imparts littleindication of competence, in that therewards are allocated without regard toquality of performance and are thusloosely tied to behavior.

An unresolved issue is whether thereis a change in free-choice intrinsic mo-tivation over time. We examined sevenbetween-groups design studies of re-wards offered for doing the task thatassessed whether negative effects weremaintained over time (Chung, 1995;Loveland & Olley, 1979; Morgan,1983, Experiments 1 and 2; Ogilvie &Prior, 1982; Ross, 1975, Experiment 1;


Shiffman-Kauffman, 1990). Thesestudies included two measures of free-choice intrinsic motivation, one afterthe removal of reward and a second afew weeks later. Only two of the sevenstudies showed a significant negativeeffect on the second measure (Morgan,1983, Experiments 1 and 2). These re-sults suggest that rewards offered fordoing a task have transitory effectswhen multiple measures of free-choicemotivation are used. This conclusion isstrengthened by examining the resultsfrom studies using repeated presenta-tions of reward followed by repeatedassessments of intrinsic motivation fol-lowing the removal of reward.

As previously indicated, some op-erant researchers tested the effects ofrewards on intrinsic motivation by ex-perimental designs in which the sameindividual was exposed to a baselineperiod, a reward intervention, and a re-turn to baseline (Davidson & Bucher,1978; Feingold & Mahoney, 1975; Ma-whinney et al., 1989; Skaggs et al.,1992; Vasta et al., 1978). Participantswere measured repeatedly during eachphase of the experiment, and rewardswere shown to increase measures ofperformance, indicating that the re-wards functioned as reinforcement.The results of these experimentsshowed that participants spent as much(or more) time on the target activity inthe postreward phase as they did in theinitial baseline period. These findingsindicate that negative effects of rewarddo not persist when task performanceis rewarded on repeated occasions.

Magnitude and Impact ofReward Effects

It may be informative to considerhow serious the negative effects are onhigh-interest tasks when the rewardsare tangible, expected, and given fordoing a task or for doing well on atask. In all of the studies involvingthese contingencies, time spent on thetask during the free-choice period wasthe measure of free-choice intrinsicmotivation. Using the free-time mea-

sure, one could ask how much lesstime students would spend on high-in-terest tasks (e.g., art, music, reading,drama) if a teacher implemented a re-ward system for doing the task (or do-ing well) and then removed it. Resultsfrom our meta-analysis indicate thatthe average effect size for a compari-son between students who receive thisreward procedure and nonrewarded in-dividuals on time on task is about20.30.

In the original experiments, freetime on task was typically measuredover an 8-min period. To convert theeffect size of 20.30 to real time, oneneeds to know the pooled standard de-viation of rewarded and nonrewardedgroups. Because many researchers re-port only t or F statistics that cannotbe converted to the overall pooledstandard deviation, we are unable toprovide an estimate of this parameter.Instead, we will use a well-designedstudy by Pretty and Seligman (1984)that provides a pooled standard devia-tion. Pretty and Seligman conductedtwo experiments with large samplesand readily available statistical infor-mation. Both experiments compared acondition of tangible rewards offeredfor doing a high-interest task (Somapuzzles) with a nonrewarded controlgroup on 8 min of free time. Thepooled standard deviation was 2.6 min(Deci, 1971, also used Soma, the free-time measure was assessed over an 8-min period, and the pooled standarddeviation was 2.4 min).

Using 2.6 min as the estimate of er-ror, we are able to convert the negativeeffect size from the meta-analysis intoreal time. An effect size of 20.30would mean than in an 8-min period,the average individual who is offereda tangible reward for doing the task (ordoing well) will spend about 47 s lesson the task when the reward is with-drawn than the average nonrewardedindividual. Given this result, whatwould happen if a teacher implementedthis incentive procedure in a readingprogram (for children who already en-joy reading) and then removed it? Ac-


cording to this estimate, students whoare offered gold stars for readingwould spend about 4 min less readingin a 40-min free-choice period thanstudents not given the incentive. If weassume that students without rewardspend about 30 min reading in the 40-min free-choice period, then rewardedstudents would spend about 26 minreading (based on Deci et al.’s, 1999,analysis of engagement-contingent re-ward, rewarded children would spendabout 25 min reading). A 4- to 5-minreduction in free-time reading could bebehaviorally important if cumulatedover many successive opportunities toread, but there are no studies that haveaddressed this issue.

A cautionary note is in order. Ourexample of reading and reward de-pends on the use of a standard devia-tion from a single well-designed study.It also depends on the ability to extrap-olate from an 8-min experimental pe-riod to longer ones. It is possible thatthe negative effects, such as they are,are evident only for a short time at thebeginning of the free-choice period.That is, it may well be the case that ifan hour of free choice were given, re-sults might look very different. Thepoint is that this is a hypothetical ex-ample. Further evidence is required togeneralize the findings to experimentswith longer free-choice periods or toeveryday settings in which choice isdistributed over long periods of time.

Given the state of the literature, weconclude that the negative effect oftangible rewards offered for doing ahigh-interest task (or doing well) is sta-tistically significant, but the size of theeffect does not suggest a strong impact.Of course, our conclusion with regardto the magnitude of the negative effectsof reward contingencies applies equal-ly to positive effects. That is, althoughthe positive effects are statistically sig-nificant, they too are small.

A Comparison of Our Findings toThose of Deci et al. (1999)

Our pattern of findings for expectedtangible reward contingencies differs

from the results of Deci et al.’s (1999)meta-analysis. Deci et al. present a pic-ture of pervasive negative effects. Thepicture depicted in our analysis is oneof circumscribed negative effects. Asnoted, Deci et al. used reward contin-gencies that were theoretically rele-vant, but that were collapsed over dis-tinct reward procedures. For example,on free-choice intrinsic motivation,Deci et al. showed a negative effect forperformance-contingent rewards. Theperformance-contingent category in-cluded some studies of rewards offeredfor each unit solved, rewards offeredfor doing well, rewards offered for sur-passing a score, and rewards offeredfor exceeding others. By combiningthese distinct procedures, Deci et al.obtained an overall negative effect forperformance-contingent reward. Weshow that these diverse reward proce-dures produce different effects on freechoice; hence, it is unwise to collapsethem into a single category of perfor-mance-contingent reward. Similarly,Deci et al. collapsed over reward cat-egories for the task-interest measure,and similar problems arise. In additionto collapsing over different reward cat-egories, Deci et al. omitted several pos-itive effects that, when included, re-sulted in positive findings for task in-terest. Overall, our meta-analysis indi-cates that rewards do not havepervasive negative effects when minorimprovements to Deci et al.’s catego-rization of reward contingencies aremade and all available studies are in-cluded.

Using cognitive evaluation theory toguide the classification of studies, Deciet al. (1999) obtained negative effectsof tangible reward contingencies. Weshowed that by classifying studies ac-cording to the actual contingency used,different effects were obtained. Thatthe results of a meta-analysis can bedrastically altered by assigning studiesto categories based on a particular the-oretical orientation points to some im-portant issues and limitations in this lit-erature. The difference between ourfindings and those of Deci et al. points


to a lack of standardization of rewardprocedures and definitions and sug-gests that, overall, the literature on re-wards and intrinsic motivation is oneof meager effects. One implication isthat extreme caution must be exercisedbefore making any applied policy de-cisions based on this body of research.

Theoretical Implications ofOur Meta-Analysis

In terms of theoretical consider-ations, results from our reanalysis canbe well explained by theories that pre-dict that the effects of reward on in-trinsic motivation depend on a clearspecification of the reward contingen-cy. For example, social cognitive the-ory (Bandura, 1986) predicts that re-wards tied to level of performance en-hance self-efficacy to the extent thatthe person is able to attain the perfor-mance standard (i.e., succeed). Greaterself-efficacy leads to higher interest ina task and to more time spent on theactivity. In our analyses, the positiveeffects of rewards given for surpassinga score or exceeding others are in ac-cord with this account. The results alsosupport a behavioral approach (e.g.,Dickinson, 1989) in the sense that re-wards that are closely tied to perfor-mance lead to interest in an activity;there is no evidence of negative effectson time spent on the activity when therewards are withdrawn (participants re-turn to baseline levels of the activity).

Our pattern of findings contradicts astrict application of cognitive evalua-tion and overjustification theories.Cognitive evaluation theory emphasiz-es the controlling aspect of perfor-mance-contingent rewards in reducingpersonal autonomy or self-determina-tion. The loss of perceived autonomyleads to a loss of intrinsic motivation.Overjustification theory emphasizesthe shift in attribution from internal toexternal sources that performance-con-tingent rewards produce. Both ac-counts predict that performance-con-tingent rewards are detrimental to in-trinsic motivation. Our finding that re-

wards specifically tied to level ofperformance (surpassing a score, ex-ceeding others) do not undermine mea-sures of intrinsic motivation is incom-patible with the claims of these theo-ries. On the other hand, cognitive eval-uation theory could handle the patternof results if rewards offered for doinga task or for doing well were shown tobe controlling and rewards tied to per-formance level were shown to enhanceperceptions of competence. In thiscase, rewards tied to performance levelwould also be controlling, but the com-petence information based on the re-ward procedure would override thecontrolling aspect of reward. Althoughthis is a possible way to map cognitiveevaluation theory onto the current re-sults, an analysis by Eisenberger,Pierce, and Cameron (1999) indicatesthat reward contingencies enhance per-ceptions of autonomy or self-determi-nation, a finding that is in direct con-trast to predictions of cognitive evalu-ation theory. Thus, cognitive evalua-tion theory would require modificationin order to handle positive effects ofrewards tied to level of performanceand the fact that reward contingenciescan increase perceptions of self-deter-mination.

Practical Implications

The findings from our reanalysis arein accord with a retrospective surveyon the effects of extrinsic reward of-fered to children for reading. Flora andFlora (1999) examined the effects ofparental pay for reading as well as par-ticipation in the ‘‘Book It’’ readingprogram sponsored by Pizza Hut. The‘‘Book It’’ program involved over 22million children in Australia, Canada,and the United States. The children setreading goals and were rewarded withcoupons redeemable for pizzas if theymet their objectives. Flora and Flora’sfindings indicate that neither offers ofmoney or pizzas negatively affectedreading or intrinsic motivation forreading in everyday life. These resultsindicate that the findings from our


meta-analysis have external validity.That is, in both laboratory situationsand in everyday settings, rewards of-fered contingent on meeting a specificlevel of performance do not negativelyaffect intrinsic motivation.

Our analysis shows that rewards canbe used effectively to enhance interestwithout disrupting performance of anactivity in a free-choice setting. Thesefindings are given more importance inlight of the fact that the group-designexperiments on rewards and intrinsicmotivation were primarily designed todetect detrimental effects. The rewardcontingencies examined in this litera-ture can be viewed as a subset of themany possible arrangements of the useof reward in everyday life. Rewardscan be arranged to shape performanceprogressively (Schunk, 1983, 1984), toestablish interest in activities that lackinitial interest (Bandura, 1986), and tomaintain or enhance effort and persis-tence at a task (Eisenberger, 1992).Further research is necessary to showwhen and under what conditions re-wards have positive effects on humanbehavior. What is clear at this time isthat rewards do not inevitably havepervasive negative effects on intrinsicmotivation. Nonetheless, the myth con-tinues.

REFERENCES

References marked with an asterisk indicatestudies included in the meta-analyses.

*Adorney, K. M. (1983). Facilitating and un-dermining intrinsic motivation: A test of at-tribution, cognitive evaluation and compe-tence theories. Unpublished doctoral disser-tation, Columbia University.

*Amabile, T. M., Hennessey, B. A., & Gross-man, B. S. (1986). Social influences on cre-ativity: The effects of contracted-for reward.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,50, 14–23.

*Anderson, R., Manoogian, S. T., & Reznick, J.S. (1976). The undermining and enhancing ofintrinsic motivation in preschool children.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,34, 915–922.

*Anderson, S., & Rodin, J. (1989). Is bad newsalways bad?: Cue and feedback effects on in-trinsic motivation. Journal of Applied SocialPsychology, 19, 449–467.

*Arkes, H. R. (1979). Competence and the ov-

erjustification effect. Motivation and Emotion,3, 143–150.

*Arnold, H. J. (1976). Effects of performancefeedback and extrinsic reward upon high in-trinsic motivation. Organizational Behaviorand Human Performance, 17, 275–288.

*Arnold, H. J. (1985). Task performance, per-ceived competence, and attributed causes ofperformance as determinants of intrinsic mo-tivation. Academy of Management Journal,28, 876–888.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations ofthought and action: A social cognitive theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Baron, A., & Derenne, A. (2000). Quantitativesummaries of single-subject studies: What dogroup comparisons tell us about individualperformances? The Behavior Analyst, 23,101–106.

*Bartelme, L.A. (1983). The effects of choiceand rewards on intrinsic motivation and per-formance. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Iowa.

Bates, J. A. (1979). Extrinsic reward and intrin-sic motivation: A review with implications forthe classroom. Review of Educational Re-search, 49, 557–576.

Bernstein, D. J. (1990). Of carrots and sticks:A review of Deci and Ryan’s Intrinsic Moti-vation and Self-Determination in Human Be-havior. Journal of the Experimental Analysisof Behavior, 54, 323–332.

*Blanck, P. D., Reis, H. T., & Jackson, L.(1984). The effects of verbal reinforcement ofintrinsic motivation for sex-linked tasks. SexRoles, 10, 369–386.

Boal, K. B., & Cummings, L. L. (1981). Cog-nitive evaluation theory: an experimental testof processes and outcomes. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 28, 289–310.

*Boggiano, A. K., & Barrett, M. (1985). Per-formance and motivational deficits of help-lessness: The role of motivational orienta-tions. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 49, 1753–1761.

*Boggiano, A. K., Harackiewicz, J. M., Besette,J. M., & Main, D. S. (1985). Increasing chil-dren’s interest through performance contin-gent reward. Social Cognition, 3, 400–411.

Boggiano, A. K., & Hertel, P.T. (1983). Bonusesand bribes: Mood effects in memory. SocialCognition, 2, 49–61.

*Boggiano, A. K., Main, D. S., & Katz, P. A.(1988). Children’s preference for challenge:The role of perceived competence and control.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,54, 131–141.

*Boggiano, A. K., & Ruble, D. N. (1979).Competence and the overjustification effect: Adevelopmental study. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 37, 1462–1468.

*Boggiano, A. K., Ruble, D. N., & Pittman, T.S. (1982). The mastery hypothesis and theoverjustification effect. Social Cognition, 1,38–49.


*Brennan, T. P., & Glover, J. A. (1980). An ex-amination of the effect of extrinsic reinforcerson intrinsically motivated behavior: Experi-mental and theoretical. Social Behavior andPersonality, 8, 27–32.

*Brewer, J. (1980). The undermining and en-hancing effects of intrinsic motivation: A de-velopmental study. Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation, Ohio State University.

*Brockner, J., & Vasta, R. (1981). Do causalattributions mediate the effects of extrinsic re-wards on intrinsic interest. Journal of Re-search in Personality, 15, 201–209.

*Butler, R. (1987). Task-involving and ego-in-volving properties of evaluation: Effects ofdifferent feedback conditions on motivationalperceptions, interest, and performance. Jour-nal of Educational Psychology, 79, 474–482.

*Calder, B. J., & Staw, B. M. (1975). Self-per-ception of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,31, 599–605.

Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Rein-forcement, reward and intrinsic motivation: Ameta-analysis. Review of Educational Re-search, 64, 363–423.

Carton, J. S. (1996). The differential effects oftangible rewards and praise on intrinsic mo-tivation: A comparison of cognitive evaluationtheory and operant theory. The Behavior An-alyst, 19, 237–255.

*Carton, J. S., & Nowicki, S. (1998). Shouldbehavior therapists stop using reinforcement?A reexamination of the undermining effect ofreinforcement on intrinsic motivation. Behav-ior Therapy, 29, 65–86.

*Chung, K. T. (1995). The effects of extrinsicreinforcement on intrinsic motivation amongstmildly mentally handicapped children. Curric-ulum Forum, 4, 98–114.

*Cohen, D. S. (1974). The effects of taskchoice, monetary, and verbal reward on in-trinsic motivation: A closer look at Deci’scognitive evaluation theory. Unpublished doc-toral dissertation, Ohio State University.

Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis forthe behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale,NJ: Erlbaum.

*Crino, M. D., & White, M. C. (1982). Feed-back effects in intrinsic/extrinsic reward par-adigms. Journal of Management, 8, 95–108.

*Dafoe, J. L. (1985). Use of rewards in teach-ing a skill: Effects on competence, self-effi-cacy and intrinsic motivation. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, Stanford University.

*Daniel, T. L., & Esser, J. K. (1980). Intrinsicmotivation as influenced by rewards, task in-terest and task structure. Journal of AppliedPsychology, 65, 566–573.

*Danner, F. W., & Lonkey, E. (1981). A cog-nitive developmental approach to the effectsof rewards on intrinsic motivation. Child De-velopment, 52, 1043–1052.

Davidson, P., & Bucher, B. (1978). Intrinsic in-terest and extrinsic reward: The effects of acontinuing token program on continuing non-

constrained preference. Behavior Therapy, 9,222–234.

DeCharms, R. (1968). Personal causation. NewYork: Academic Press.

*Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally me-diated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18,105–115.

*Deci, E. L. (1972a). The effects of contingentand noncontingent rewards and controls on in-trinsic motivation. Organizational Behaviorand Human Performance, 8, 217–229.

*Deci, E. L. (1972b). Intrinsic motivation, ex-trinsic reinforcement, and inequity. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 22, 113–120.

Deci, E. L. (1975). Intrinsic motivation. NewYork: Plenum Press.

*Deci, E. L., Cascio, W. F., & Krusell, J. (1975).Cognitive evaluation theory and some com-ments on the Calder and Staw critique. Jour-nal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31,81–85.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999).A meta-analytic review of experiments ex-amining the effects of extrinsic rewards on in-trinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin,125, 627–668.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsicmotivation and self-determination in humanbehavior. New York: Plenum Press.

*DeLoach, L. L., Griffith, K., & LaBarba, R. C.(1983). The relationship of group context andintelligence to the overjustification effect. Bul-letin of the Psychonomic Society, 21, 291–293.

Derenne, A., & Baron, A. (1999). Human sen-sitivity to reinforcement: A comment on Kol-lins, Newland, and Critchfield’s (1997) quan-titative literature review. The Behavior Ana-lyst, 22, 35–41.

Dickinson, A. M. (1989). The detrimental ef-fects of extrinsic reinforcement on ‘‘intrinsicmotivation.’’ The Behavior Analyst, 12, 1–15.

*Dimitroff, G. (1984). Depression of intrinsi-cally motivated performance by rewards: Therole of frustration-mediated contrast effects.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universityof Toronto.

*Dollinger, S. J., & Thelen, M. H. (1978). Ov-erjustification and children’s intrinsic motiva-tion: Comparative effects of four rewards.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,36, 1259–1269.

*Earn, B. M. (1982). Intrinsic motivation as afunction of extrinsic financial rewards andsubjects’ locus of control. Journal of Person-ality, 50, 360–373.

*Effron, B. (1976). Effects of self-mediatedcompetency feedback and external incentiveson intrinsic motivation and quality of taskperformance. Unpublished doctoral disserta-tion, University of Pittsburgh.

Eisenberger, R. (1992). Learned industrious-ness. Psychological Review, 99, 248–267.

*Eisenberger, R. (1999). Effects of gender and


cooperative-versus-individual performancecontingent reward on intrinsic motivation.Unpublished manuscript.

Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). The det-rimental effects of reward: Myth or reality?American Psychologist, 51, 1153–1166.

Eisenberger, R., Pierce, W. D., & Cameron, J.(1999). Effects of reward on intrinsic moti-vation: Negative, neutral, and positive. Psy-chological Bulletin, 125, 677–691.

*Eisenberger, R., Rhoades, L., & Cameron, J.(1999). Does pay for performance increase ordecrease self-determination and intrinsic mo-tivation? Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 77, 1026–1040.

*Eisenstein, N. (1985). Effects of contractual,endogenous, or unexpected rewards on highand low interest presechoolers. The Psycho-logical Record, 35, 29–39.

*Enzle, M. E., Roogeveen, J. P., & Look, S. C.(1991). Self- versus other-reward administra-tion and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Ex-perimental Social Psychology, 27, 468–479.

*Fabes, R. A. (1987). Effects of reward con-texts on young children’s task interest. Jour-nal of Psychology, 121, 5–19.

*Fabes, R. A., Eisenberg, N., Fultz, J., & Miller,P. (1988). Reward, affect and young chil-dren’s motivational orientation. Motivationand Emotion, 12, 155–169.

*Fabes, R. A., Fultz, J., Eisenberg, N., May-Plumlee, T., & Christopher, F. S. (1989). Ef-fects of rewards on children’s prosocial mo-tivation: A socialization study. DevelopmentalPsychology, 25, 509–515.

*Fabes, R. A., McCullers, J. C., & Hom, H.(1986). Children’s task interest and perfor-mance: Immediate vs. subsequent effects ofrewards. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 12, 17–30.

*Feehan, G. G., & Enzle, M. E. (1991). Sub-jective control over rewards: Effects of per-ceived choice of reward schedule on intrinsicmotivation and behavior maintenance. Per-ceptual and Motor Skills, 72, 995–1006.

Feingold, B. D., & Mahoney, M. J. (1975). Re-inforcement effects on intrinsic interest: Un-dermining the overjustification hypothesis.Behavior Therapy, 6, 357–377.

Flora, S. R. (1990). Undermining intrinsic in-terest from the standpoint of a behaviorist.The Psychological Record, 40, 323–346.

Flora, S. R., & Flora, D. B. (1999). Effects ofextrinsic reinforcement for reading duringchildhood on reported reading habits of col-lege students. The Psychological Record, 49,3–14.

*Freedman, S. M., & Phillips, J. S. (1985). Theeffects of situational performance constraintson intrinsic motivation and satisfaciton: Therole of perceived competence and self-deter-mination. Organizational Behavior and Hu-man Decision Processes, 35, 397–416.

*Goldstein, G. S. (1980). The effects of com-petition and external rewards on intrinsic mo-

tivation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of New Hampshire.

*Goldstein, L. W. (1977). Intrinsic motivation:The role of reward and feedback on quality ofperformance and subsequent interest in pho-tography. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,Cornell University.

*Greene, D., & Lepper, M. R. (1974). Effectsof extrinsic rewards on children’s subsequentintrinsic interest. Child Development, 45,1141–1145.

*Griffith, K. M. (1984). The effects of groupversus individual context, initial interest, andreward on intrinsic motivation. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University of SouthFlorida.

*Griffith, K. M., DeLoach, L. L., & LaBarba, R.C. (1984). The effects of rewarder familiarityand differential reward preference in intrinsicmotivation. Bulletin of the Psychonomic So-ciety, 22, 313–316.

*Hamner, W. C., & Foster, L. W. (1975). Areintrinsic and extrinsic rewards additive: A testof Deci’s cognitive evaluation theory of taskmotivation. Organizational Behavior and Hu-man Performance, 14, 398–415.

*Harackiewicz, J. M. (1979). The effects of re-ward contingency and performance feedbackon intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 37, 1352–1363.

*Harackiewicz, J. M., Abrahams, S., & Wage-man, R. (1987). Performance evaluation andintrinsic motivation: The effects of evaluativefocus, rewards, and achievement orientation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,53, 1015–1023.

*Harackiewicz, J. M., & Manderlink, G. (1984).A process analysis of the effects of perfor-mance-contingent rewards on intrinsic moti-vation. Journal of Experimental Social Psy-chology, 20, 531–551.

*Harackiewicz, J. M., Manderlink, G., & San-sone, C. (1984). Rewarding pinball wizardry:Effects of evaluation and cue value on intrin-sic interest. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 47, 287–300.

Hedges, L. V. (1981). Distribution theory forGlass’s estimator of effect size and related es-timators. Journal of Educational Statistics, 6,107–128.

Hedges, L., & Becker, B. J. (1986). Statisticalmethods in the meta-analysis of research ongender differences. In J. Hyde & M. C. Linn(Eds.), The psychology of gender: Advancesthrough meta-analysis (pp. 14–50). Balti-more: The John Hopkins University Press.

Hedges, L., & Olkin, I. (1985). Statistical meth-ods for meta-analysis. Orlando, FL: AcademicPress.

Hennessey, B. A., & Amabile, T. M. (1998).Reward, intrinsic motivation, and creativity.American Psychologist, 53, 674–675.

*Hitt, D. D., Marriott, R. G., & Esser, J. K.(1992). Effects of delayed rewards and taskinterest on intrinsic motivation. Basic and Ap-plied Social Psychology, 13, 405–414.


*Hom, H. L. (1987). A methodological note:Time of participation effects on intrinsic mo-tivation. Personality and Social PsychologyBulletin, 13, 210–215.

Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (1990). Methodsof meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias inresearch findings. Newbury Park, CA: SagePublications.

*Hyman, C. (1985). Reward contingency, stan-dards, and intrinsic motivation. Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, City University of NewYork.

*Karniol, R., & Ross, M. (1977). The effect ofperformance relevant and performance irrele-vant rewards on children’s intrinsic motiva-tion. Child Development, 48, 482–487.

*Kast, A., & Connor, K. (1988). Sex and agedifferences in response to informational andcontrolling feedback. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 14, 514–523.

*Koestner, R., Zuckerman, M., & Koestner, J.(1987). Praise, involvement, and intrinsic mo-tivation. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 53, 383–390.

Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards. Boston:Houghton-Mifflin.

Kohn, A. (1996). By all available means: Cam-eron and Pierce’s defense of extrinsic moti-vators. Review of Educational Research, 66,1–4.

Kollins, S. H., Newland, M. C., & Critchfield,T. S. (1997). Human sensitivity to reinforce-ment in operant choice: How much do con-sequences matter? Psychonomic Bulletin andReview, 4, 208–220. Erratum: PsychonomicBulletin and Review, 4, 431.

*Kruglanski, A. W., Alon, S., & Lewis, T.(1972). Retrospective misattribution and taskenjoyment. Journal of Experimental SocialPsychology, 8, 493–501.

*Kruglanski, A. W., Friedman, I., & Zeevi, G.(1971). The effects of extrinsic incentive onsome qualitative aspects of task performance.Journal of Personality, 39, 606–617.

*Kruglanski, A. W., Riter, A., Amitai, A., Mar-golin, B. S., Shabatai, L., & Zaksh, D. (1975).Can money enhance intrinsic motivation?: Atest of the content-consequence hypothesis.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,31, 744–750.

*Lee, J. (1982). Effects of absolute and nor-mative feedback and reward on performanceand affect. Unpublished doctoral dissertation,University of Iowa.

Lepper, M. R. (1998). A whole much less thanthe sum of its parts. American Psychologist,53, 675–676.

*Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E.(1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic in-terest with extrinsic reward: A test of the ‘‘ov-erjustification’’ hypothesis. Journal of Person-ality and Social Psychology, 28, 129–137.

Lepper, M. R., Keavney, M., & Drake, M.(1996). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic re-wards: A commentary on Cameron and

Pierce’s meta-analysis. Review of EducationalResearch, 66, 5–32.

*Lepper, M. R., Sagotsky, G., Dafoe, J. L., &Greene, D. (1982). Consequences of super-fluous social constraints: Effects on youngchildren’s social inferences and subsequent in-trinsic interest. Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology, 42, 51–65.

*Liberty, H. J. (1986). Intrinsic motivation, ex-traversion, impulsivity, and reward in a com-puter game setting. Unpublished doctoral dis-sertation, City University of New York.

Light, R. J., & Pillemer, D. B. (1984). Summingup: The science of reviewing research. Cam-bridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

*Loveland, K. K., & Olley, J. G. (1979). Theeffect of external reward on interest and qual-ity of task performance in children of high andlow intrinsic motivation. Child Development,50, 1207–1210.

*Luyten, H., & Lens, W. (1981). The effect ofearlier experience and reward contingencieson intrinsic motivation. Motivation and Emo-tion, 5, 25–36.

Mawhinney, T. C., Dickinson, A. M., & Taylor,L. A. (1989). The use of concurrent sched-ules to evaluate the effects of extrinsic re-wards on ‘‘intrinsic motivation.’’ Journal ofOrganizational Behavior Management, 10,109–129.

*McGraw, K. O., & McCullers, J. C. (1979).Evidence of a detrimental effect of extrinsicincentives on breaking a mental set. Journalof Experimental Social Psychology, 15, 285–294.

*McLoyd, V. C. (1979). The effects of extrinsicrewards of differential value on high and lowintrinsic interest. Child Development, 50,1010–1019.

*Morgan, M. (1981). The overjustification ef-fect: A developmental test of self perceptioninterpretations. Journal of Personality and So-cial Psychology, 40, 809–821.

*Morgan, M. (1983). Decrements in intrinsicinterest among rewarded and observer sub-jects. Child Development, 54, 636–644.

Morgan, M. (1984). Reward-induced decre-ments and increments in intrinsic motivation.Review of Educational Research, 54, 5–30.

*Mynatt, C., Oakley, D., Piccione, A., Margolis,R., & Arkkelin, J. (1978). An examination ofoverjustification under conditions of extendedobservation and multiple reinforcement: Ov-erjustification or boredom? Cognitive Therapyand Research, 2, 171–177.

*Newman, J., & Layton, B. D. (1984). Over-justification: A self-perception perspective.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,10, 419–425.

*Ogilvie, L., & Prior, M. (1982). The overjus-tification effect in retarded children: Durabil-ity and generalizability. Australia and NewZealand Journal of Developmental Disabili-ties, 8, 213–218.

*Okano, K. (1981). The effects of extrinsic re-


ward on intrinsic motivation. Journal of ChildDevelopment, 17, 11–23.

*Orlick, T. D., & Mosher, R. (1978). Extrinsicawards and participant motivation in a sportrelated task. International Journal of SportPsychology, 9, 27–39.

*Overskeid, G., & Svartdal, F. (1996). Effect ofreward on subjective autonomy and interestwhen initial interest is low. PsychologicalRecord, 46, 319–331.

*Pallak, S. R., Costomotis, S., Sroka, S., & Pitt-man, T. S. (1982). School experience, rewardcharacteristics and intrinsic motivation. ChildDevelopment, 53, 1382–1391.

*Patrick, C. (1985). The effect of level of taskdifficulty on children’s intrinsic motivation.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, PurdueUniversity.

*Perry, D. G., Bussey, K., & Redman, J. (1977).Reward-induced decreased play effects: Re-attribution of motivation, competing respons-es, or avoid frustration? Child Development,48, 1369–1374.

*Phillips, J. S., & Freedman, S. M. (1985).Contingent pay and intrinsic task interest:Moderating effects of work values. Journal ofApplied Psychology, 70, 306–313.

*Picek, J. S. (1976). Effects of reward uncer-tainty and ability information on attributionsof intrinsic motivation. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, Indiana University.

*Pittman, T. S., Cooper, E. E., & Smith, T. W.(1977). Attribution of causality and the ov-erjustification effect. Personality and SocialPsychology Bulletin, 3, 280–283.

*Pittman, T. S., Davey, M. E., Alafat, K. A.,Wetherill, K. V., & Kramer, N. A. (1980). In-formational versus controlling verbal rewards.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6,228–233.

*Pittman, T. S., Emery, J., & Boggiano, A. K.(1982). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivationalorientations: Reward-induced changes in pref-erence for complexity. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 42, 789–797.

*Porac, J. F., & Meindl, J. (1982). Underminingoverjustification: Inducing intrinsic and ex-trinsic task representations. OrganizationalBehavior and Human Performance, 29, 208–226.

Porter, L. W., & Lawler, E. E. (1968). Mana-gerial attitudes and performance. Homewood,IL: Irwin-Dorsey.

*Pretty, G. H., & Seligman, C. (1984). Affectand the overjustification effect. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 46, 1241–1253.

*Reiss, S., & Sushinsky, L. W. (1975). Over-justification, competing responses and the ac-quisition of intrinsic interest. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 31, 1116–1125.

*Rosenfield, D., Folger, R., & Adelman, H. F.(1980). When rewards reflect competence: Aqualification of the overjustification effect.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,39, 368–376.

*Ross, M. (1975). Salience of reward and in-trinsic motivation. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 32, 245–254.

*Ross, M., Karniol, R., & Rothstein, M. (1976).Reward contingency and intrinsic motivationin children: A test of the delay of gratificationhypothesis. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 33, 442–447.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). When par-adigms clash: Comments on Cameron andPierce’s claim that rewards do not undermineintrinsic motivation. Review of EducationalResearch, 66, 33–38.

*Ryan, R. M., Mims, B., & Koestner, R. (1983).Relation of reward contingency and interper-sonal context to intrinsic motivation: A reviewand test using cognitive evaluation theory.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,45, 736–750.

*Salincik, G. R. (1975). Interaction effects ofperformance and money on self-perception ofintrinsic motivation. Organizational Behaviorand Human Performance, 13, 339–351.

*Sansone, C. (1986). A question of compe-tence: The effects of competence and taskfeedback on intrinsic interest. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 51, 918–931.

*Sansone, C. (1989). Competence feedback,task feedback and intrinsic interest: An ex-amination of process and context. Journal ofExperimental Social Psychology, 25, 343–361.

Sansone, C., & Harackiewicz, J.M. (1998).‘‘Reality’’ is complicated. American Psychol-ogist, 53, 673–674.

*Sansone, C., Sachau, D. A., & Weir, C. (1989).Effects of instruction on intrinsic interest: Theimportance of context. Journal of Personalityand Social Psychology, 57, 819–829.

*Sarafino, E. P. (1984). Intrinsic motivation anddelay of gratification in preschoolers: The var-iables of reward salience and length of ex-pected delay. British Journal of Developmen-tal Psychology, 2, 149–156.

Schunk, D. H. (1983). Reward contingenciesand the development of children’s skills andself-efficacy. Journal of Educational Psychol-ogy, 75, 511–518.

Schunk, D. H. (1984). Enhancing self-efficacyand achievement through rewards and goals:Motivational and informational effects. Jour-nal of Educational Research, 78, 29–34.

Schwarzer, R. (1991). Meta: Programs for sec-ondary data analysis. MS-DOS Version 5.0[computer program]. Dubuque, IA: Wm. C.Brown.

*Shanab, M. E., Peterson, D., Dargahi, S., &Deroian, P. (1981). The effects of positiveand negative verbal feedback on the intrinsicmotivation of male and female subjects. Jour-nal of Social Psychology, 115, 195–205.

*Shapira, Z. (1976). Expectancy determinantsof intrinsically motivated behavior. Journal of


Personality and Social Psychology, 34, 1235–1244.

*Shiffman-Kauffman, S. E. (1990). The effectsof reward contingency and type of learningexperience on intrinsic motivation. Unpub-lished doctoral dissertation, City University ofNew York.

Skaggs, K. J., Dickinson, A. M., & O’Connor,K. A. (1992). The use of concurrent sched-ules to evaluate the effects of extrinsic re-wards on intrinsic motivation: A replication.Journal of Organizational Behavior Manage-ment, 12, 45–83.

*Smith, A. T. (1980). Effects of symbolic re-ward and positive feedback on high and lowlevels of intrinsic motivation in preschoolers.Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universityof Missouri–Columbia.

*Smith, T. W., & Pittman, T. S. (1978). Reward,distraction, and the overjustification effect.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,36, 565–573.

*Smith, W. E. (1975). The effect of anticipatedvs. unanticipated social reward on subsequentintrinsic motivation. Unpublished doctoraldissertation, Cornell University.

*Sorensen, R. L., & Maehr, M. L. (1976). To-ward the experimental analysis of ‘‘continuingmotivation.’’ Journal of Educational Re-search, 69, 319–322.

*Staw, B. M., Calder, B. J., Hess, R. K., & San-derlands, L. E. (1980). Intrinsic motivationand norms about payment. Journal of Person-ality, 48, 1–14.

*Swann, W. B., Jr., & Pittman, T. S. (1977).Moderating influence of verbal cues on intrin-sic motivation. Child Development, 48, 1128–1132.

*Taub, S. I., & Dollinger, S. J. (1975). Rewardand purpose as incentives for children differ-ing in locus of control expectancies. Journalof Personality, 43, 179–195.

*Thompson, E. P., Chaiken, S., & Hazlewood,D. (1993). Need for cognition and desire forcontrol as moderators of extrinsic reward ef-fects: A person 3 situation approach to thestudy of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Per-sonality and Social Psychology, 64, 987–999.

*Tripathi, K. N. (1991). Effect of contingencyand timing of reward on intrinsic motivation.Journal of General Psychology, 118, 97–105.

*Tripathi, K. N., & Agarwal, A. (1985). Effectsof verbal and tangible rewards on intrinsicmotivation in males and females. Psycholog-ical Studies, 30, 77–84.

*Tripathi, K. N., & Agarwal, A. (1988). Effectof reward contingency on intrinsic motivation.

Journal of General Psychology, 115, 241–246.

*Vallerand, R.J. (1983). The effect of differ-ential amounts of positive verbal feedback onthe intrinsic motivation of male hockey play-ers. Journal of Sport Psychology, 5, 100–107.

*Vallerand, R. J., & Reid, G. (1984). On thecausal effects of perceived competence on in-trinsic motivation: A test of cognitive evalu-ation theory. Journal of Sport Psychology, 6,94–102.

Vasta, R., Andrews, D. E., McLaughlin, A. M.,Stirpe, L. A., & Comfort, C. (1978). Rein-forcement effects on intrinsic interest: A class-room analog. Journal of School Psychology,16, 161–168.

*Vasta, R., & Stirpe, L. A. (1979). Reinforce-ment effects on three measures of children’sinterest in math. Behavior Modification, 3,223–244.

Vroom, V. (1964). Work and motivation. NewYork: Wiley.

*Weinberg, R. S., & Jackson, A. (1979). Com-petition and extrinsic rewards: Effect on in-trinsic motivation and attribution. ResearchQuarterly, 50, 494–502.

*Weiner, M. J. (1980). The effect of incentiveand control over outcomes upon intrinsic mo-tivation and performance. Journal of SocialPsychology, 112, 247–254.

*Weiner, M. J., & Mander, A. M. (1978). Theeffects of reward and perception of competen-cy upon intrinsic motivation. Motivation andEmotion, 2, 67–73.

*Wicker, F. W., Brown, G., Wiehe, J. A., &Shim, W. Y. (1990). Moods, goals, and mea-sures of intrinsic motivation. Journal of Psy-chology, 124, 75–86.

*Williams, B. W. (1980). Reinforcement, be-havior constraint and the overjustification ef-fect. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-chology, 39, 599–614.

*Wilson, R. L. (1978). The effect of reward onintrinsic motivation: An integration of disso-nance and intrinsic motivation studies. Un-published doctoral dissertation, North Caroli-na State University.

*Wimperis, B. R., & Farr, J. L. (1979). Theeffects of task content and reward contingencyupon task performance and satisfaction. Jour-nal of Applied Social Psychology, 9, 229–249.

*Yuen, W. C. (1984). Self-schema, task infor-mation, extrinsic reward and intrinsic moti-vation. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Si-mon Fraser University, Canada.

*Zinser, O., Young, J. G., & King, P. E. (1982).The influence of verbal reward on intrinsicmotivation in children. Journal of GeneralPsychology, 106, 85–91.


APPENDIX A

Following is a list of studies in which there were differences between ourtreatment of the study and Deci et al.’s (1999). If the difference was in termsof effect size and our effect sizes differed by more than 0.10 in either direc-tion from Deci et al.’s, an explanation of how we calculated the effect size

is given

Study Differences

Adorney (1983)a Not included by Deci et al. The study assessed the effectsof tangible rewards offered for surpassing a score.

R. Anderson, Manoogian, andReznick (1976)

For tangible reward, Deci et al. noted in Appendix A oftheir article that there was only one appropriate controlgroup comparison to sue (we used that group). However,with verbal reward, Deci et al. used the inappropriatecontrol groups for their comparison.

S. Anderson and Rodin (1989) For verbal reward, Deci et al. did not include the free-choice measure (reported on p. 461 of the original arti-cle).

Bartelme (1983)a Deci et al. did not include the free-choice measure in theiranalysis of performance-contingent rewards.

Boggiano and Barrett (1985) Not included by Deci et al. The study assessed the effectsof verbal reward on intrinsic motivation.

Boggiano, Main, and Katz (1988) Not included by Deci et al. The study assessed the effectsof verbal reward on intrinsic motivation.

Boggiano and Ruble (1979) Our free-choice effect size for tangible expected rewardsoffered for doing (20.61) was calculated from meansand SDs reported in the article; it is not clear how Deciet al. obtained their estimate (20.94).

Brennan and Glover (1980) Our free-choice effect size for tangible rewards offered fordoing (1.0) was calculated from the F value reported inthe article; it is not clear how Deci et al. obtained theirestimate (0.52).

Brewer (1980)a Our free-choice effect size (20.08) for rewards offered fordoing well (Deci et al. label as performance contingent)was calculated from means and the mean square errorreported in the dissertation; it is not clear how Deci etal. obtained their estimate (20.20).

Calder and Staw (1975) For low-interest tasks on the self-report measure (0.61) andfor tangible rewards offered for finishing task (20.46),we calculated the effect sizes from the F value reportedin the article; it is not clear how Deci et al. obtainedtheir estimates (1.01 for low-interest task and 20.76 forexpected tangible reward).

Carton and Nowicki (1998)Experiments 1 and 2

Recent studies not included by Deci et al. The studies as-sessed the effects of tangible rewards offered for eachunit solved.

D. S. Cohen (1974)a The study was a 2 3 2 3 2 design; 2 levels of task choice(choice, no choice), 2 levels of monetary reward (mon-ey, no money) and 2 levels of verbal praise (praise, nopraise). For verbal reward, our effect size is based onthe main effect of verbal praise; Deci et al. omitted con-ditions, and their effect size is based on verbal praiseversus no praise for the no-money no-choice conditiononly.

Crino and White (1982) For verbal reward, Deci et al. reported a free-choice effectsize; there was no free-choice measure. This study alsoincluded a low-interest task; the effect size for this wasnot included in Deci et al.’s analysis of low-interesttasks.


APPENDIX A

Continued

Study Differences

Dimitroff (1984)a For tangible expected rewards for doing, our effect sizesare based on the whole sample; Deci et al.’s effect sizesare based on part of the sample. In addition, Dimitroffreports no difference between the rewarded and controlgroups (identical means) for the self-report measure;Deci et al. report 20.26.

Eisenberger (1999) Recent study not included by Deci et al.; included in Ei-senberger, Pierce, and Cameron (1999). The study as-sessed the effects of tangible rewards offered for sur-passing a score.

Eisenberger, Rhoades, and Cameron(1999)

Recent study not included by Deci et al. The study as-sessed the effects of tangible rewards offered for sur-passing a score and tangible rewards offered for exceed-ing others.

Eisenstein (1985) This study included a low-interest task; Deci et al. did notinclude the effect size for free-choice unexpected rewardin their analysis of low-interest tasks.

Feehan and Enzle (1991)Experiment 1

Mislabeled by Deci et al. as Experiment 2.

Feehan and Enzle (1991)Experiment 2

Not included by Deci et al.

Freedman and Phillips (1985) Not included by Deci et al. who stated that the tasks usedwere uninteresting. Close inspection of the study, how-ever, suggests that both a high- and low-interest taskwere used (see comments on Phillips & Freedman,1985). Deci et al. did not include the study in their pri-mary analysis of the effects of reward on high-interesttasks or in their supplemental analysis of reward effectson low-interest tasks.

G. S. Goldstein (1980)a Deci et al. did not include the free-choice effect size.L. W. Goldstein (1977)a The study was a 2 3 2 design; 2 levels of tangible reward

(reward, no reward) and 2 levels of verbal feedback(feedback, no feedback). For verbal reward, our effectsize is based on the main effect of verbal feedback; Deciet al. compared feedback to no feedback in the no-tangi-ble-reward condition only.

Griffith (1984)a In this study, there were two rewarded groups. In onegroup, participation was individual, in the other, it wasgroup participation. In their analysis of low-interest tasksand in their analysis of engagement-contingent reward,Deci et al. included only the effects of reward for theindividual context (but their sample size indicates theymay have actually used both). We used both contextsand calculated effect sizes from F values, means, andSDs.

Harackiewicz et al. (1984)Experiments 1 and 3

Our effect sizes for rewards offered for exceeding othersare based on a comparison of rewarded groups to a con-trol group given feedback and to a control group givenfeedback with performance objectives comparable to thereward group. Deci et al. omitted one of the controlgroups and based their effect size on a comparison tothe feedback control only.

Hom (1987) Experiments 1 and 2 Excluded by Deci et al. who stated that there was too littleinformation to include. We included Experiment 2 in theverbal reward category (there was sufficient informa-tion); Experiment 1 was included in the overall rewardanalysis and in the analysis of tangible rewards. Therewas no information about reward expectancy or contin-gency; we did not include the study in these analyses.


APPENDIX A

Continued

Study Differences

Kast and Connor (1988) The study was concerned with the effects of verbal feed-back on intrinsic motivation. There were 180 participantsin the rewarded group and 60 in the control group; Deciet al. report 90 and 30.

Kruglanski et al. (1975)Experiment 2

Deci et al. excluded an analysis of the effects of rewardson the self-report measure for one of the tasks (stockmarket game).

Lepper, Sagotsky, Dafoe, and Greene(1982) Experiment 3

Our free-choice effect size for rewards offered for doing(20.13) was calculated from means and SDs; it is notclear how Deci et al. obtained their estimate (20.50).

McLoyd (1979) Deci et al. did not include the self-report measure in theiranalysis of completion-contingent rewards.

Mynatt, Oakley, Piccione, Margolis,and Arkkelin (1978)

Our free-choice effect size for expected tangible rewardsoffered for doing (0.19) is based on between-group dif-ferences; Deci et al. used a within-group comparison(20.11).

Okano (1981) Experiment 2 For task-noncontingent reward, our free-choice effect size(20.47) was calculated from means and SDs reported inthe article; it is not clear how Deci et al. obtained theirestimate (20.84). On the self-report measure, Deci etal.’s effect size should be negative, not positive.

Overskeid and Svartdal (1996)Experiments 1 and 2

Excluded by Deci et al. because the task was of low initialinterest. This study should have been included in Deci etal.’s analysis of reward effects on low-interest tasks.

Patrick (1985)a There is not enough information in the study to calculate afree-choice or self-report effect size.

Phillips and Freedman (1985) Excluded by Deci et al. who stated that the tasks usedwere uninteresting. Two tasks were used in this study;one was rated above the median on a 7-point scale (3.8),the other was rated below the median (2.7) (see p. 307of the original article). Freedman and Phillips (1985)was also in accord with this scale. This study was notincluded in either Deci et al.’s primary analysis of theeffects of reward on high-interest tasks or their supple-mental analysis of reward effects on low-interest tasks.

Picek (1976) In this study, there were three reward conditions; onegroup received a reward for doing the task (we includedthis in our analysis of rewards offered for doing). In theother two reward groups (one was labeled performancecontingent by Deci et al.), only half the participants inthe rewarded conditions were actually offered and givena reward. Because not all participants were offered a re-ward, we excluded these two conditions from our analy-sis.

Pittman, Cooper, and Smith (1977) Our free-choice effect size (20.50) for rewards offered forsurpassing a score (Deci et al. label the study perfor-mance contingent) was calculated from the p value re-ported in the article; it is not clear how Deci et al. ob-tained their estimate (21.46).

Pittman, Emery, and Boggiano(1982) Experiment 1

Deci et al. did not include the self-report measure for en-gagement-contingent rewards; a self-report measure isreported in the article on page 792.

Pretty and Seligman (1984)Experiment 1

The study was 3 3 3 design; 3 levels of tangible reward(expected, unexpected, no reward) and 3 levels of feed-back (positive, negative, no feedback). For verbal re-ward, we compared positive feedback to no feedbackacross all reward conditions; Deci et al. compared posi-tive feedback to no feedback in the no-reward conditiononly.


APPENDIX A

Continued

Study Differences

Ross (1975) Experiment 1 For rewards offered for doing, our free-choice effect size(0.01) was calculated from t values reported in the arti-cle; it is not clear how Deci et al. obtained their estimate(20.18).

Shapira (1976) Excluded by Deci et al. who stated that rewarded partici-pants worked on an easier task than the control group.Both groups worked on Soma puzzles. Because task dif-ficulty was not a variable assessed in our meta-analysis,we included this study.

A. T. Smith (1980)a Deci et al. did not include the free-choice effect size forverbal reward or the effect size for low-interest tasks intheir analysis of low-interest tasks.

T. W. Smith and Pittman (1978) Our free-choice effect size (20.56) for rewards offered forsurpassing a score (Deci et al. label the study perfor-mance contingent) was calculated from the p value re-ported in the article; it is not clear how Deci et al. ob-tained their estimate (294).

W. E. Smith (1975)a For verbal reward, Deci et al. used only part of the sample.There were two verbal reward groups (n 5 40) and acontrol condition (n 5 20); Deci et al. report 20, 20. Forunexpected reward, Deci et al. also used only part of thesample.

Thompson, Chaiken, and Hazlewood(1993)

For engagement-contingent rewards (or rewards offered fordoing a task), Deci et al. report the self-report effect sizeas the free-choice effect size and did not give an effectsize for the self-report measure.

Tripathi (1991) Not included by Deci et al. The study assessed the effectsof tangible rewards offered for doing a task and for sur-passing a score.

Tripathi and Agarwal (1988) For rewards offered for doing, our free-choice effect size(0.34) was calculated from F values reported in the arti-cle; it is not clear how Deci et al. obtained their estimate(0.00).

Weiner (1980) Our free-choice effect size (0.35) for rewards offered perunit solved (Deci et al. labeled the study completioncontingent) was calculated from means and SDs reportedin the article; it is not clear how Deci et al. obtainedtheir estimate (0.20).

Wicker et al. (1990) Excluded by Deci et al. who reported that the article wasnot about the effects of rewards on intrinsic motivationand none of the appropriate statistics were available. Wewrote to the first author and obtained the data for thefree-choice and self-report measures.

Williams (1980) For rewards offered for doing, our free-choice effect size isbased on the whole sample. Although Deci et al. reportthe entire sample, their effect size appears to be basedon only part of the sample.

Wilson (1978)a In this study, there were two reward groups (one received$2.50; the other group received $0.50); Deci et al. in-cluded only one of the reward groups in their analysis oflow-interest tasks and in their analysis of engagement-contingent rewards. We included both. For other studiesthat used two different magnitudes of rewards, Deci etal. included both (e.g., McLoyd, 1979).

a Unpublished doctoral dissertation.


APPENDIX B

A comparison of our classification of reward contingencies with Deci,Koestner, and Ryan (1999)

Our classification ofthe reward contingency

Differences between ourcategories and Deci et al.’s (1999)

Task-noncontingent reward Also labeled task noncontingent by Deci et al.The same set of studies was used in both analyses.

Rewards offered for doing well All studies included in our analysis of this category were la-beled performance contingent by Deci et al.

Rewards offered for doing thetask

Studies included in our analysis of this category were labeledengagement contingent by Deci et al.

We included L. W. Goldstein (1977) in this category. In thisstudy participants were offered a reward to take pictures;no instructions were given about completing the task andthere was no requirement to do well or to achieve any spe-cific standard. Deci et al. labeled this study as completioncontingent.

Rewards offered for finishing orcompleting a task

Studies in our analysis of this category were labeled comple-tion contingent by Deci et al.

We included Tripathi and Agarwal (1985) in this category. Inthis study rewarded participants were told they could earna reward if they completed the task even if all solutionswere not correct. Deci et al. labeled this study as engage-ment contingent.

Rewards offered for each puzzleor problem solved

Most of the studies in our analysis of this category were la-beled completion contingent by Deci et al.

Five studies in this category were labeled performance con-tingent by Deci et al. (Bartelme, 1983; D. S. Cohen, 1974;Effron, 1976; Lee, 1982; Weiner & Mander, 1978). In eachof these studies, participants were offered pay for eachpoint earned on a puzzle-solving task, each word found ina word-search task, each code completed on a decodingtask, or each correct answer on a matching-to-sample task.

Rewards offered for surpassinga score

All studies in our analysis of this category were labeled per-formance contingent by Deci et al.

Rewards offered for exceeding anorm

All studies in our analysis of this category were labeled per-formance contingent by Deci et al.


APPENDIX C

Studies included in the analysis of the effects of rewards on intrinsicmotivation for tasks with low initial interest

Study

Re-wardtype

Re-wardex-

pec-tancy

Rewardcontingency NE NC

Free-choiceeffectsize(g)

Self-reporteffectsize(g)

Calder and Staw (1975) T E For finishing task 10 10 0.61Chung (1995)

Crino and White (1982)

TTVV

EEUU

For doing taskInsufficient informationPer unit solvedYoked per unit

55

1010

5555

1.931.22

20.050.32

Daniel and Esser (1980)Eisenstein (1985)

TTT

EUE

For doing quicklyFor finishing taskFor finishing

166

16

1666

20.280.620.22

0.08

Freedman and Phillips(1985)

Griffith (1984)a

TTT

EEE

Per unit solvedFor finishing taskFor doing task

242644

252544 0.25

0.240.53

Hamner and Foster (1975) TT

EE

For doing taskPer unit solved

1619

1515

20.280.52

Hitt, Marriott, andEsser (1992) T E For doing task 30 15 0.57 20.16

Loveland and Olley (1979)McLoyd (1979)Mynatt et al. (1978)

TTT

EEE

For doing taskFor finishing taskFor doing task

618

5

695

1.200.611.35

0.00

Newman and Layton(1984) T E For doing task 20 10 0.41

Overskeid and Svartdal(1996) Experiment 1 T E For doing task 10 10 20.29 0.39

Overskeid and Svartdal(1996) Experiment 2 T E For doing task 64 32 20.15

Phillips and Freedman(1985)

TT

EE

For finishing taskPer unit solved

1212

1212

0.6320.10

A. T. Smith (1980)a

Wilson (1978)a

TVT

EUE

For doing taskFor doing taskFor doing task

212246

272623

0.040.17

20.03 0.12

Note. T 5 tangible reward, V 5 verbal reward, E 5 expected, U 5 unexpected, NE 5 samplesize of experimental group, NC 5 sample size of control group.

a Unpublished doctoral dissertation.


APPENDIX D

Studies included in the analysis of the effects of verbal rewards on intrinsicmotivation for tasks with high initial interest

StudyReward

expectancyReward

contingency NE NC



R. Anderson et al. (1976) U For doing task 18 19 0.40S. Anderson and Rodin

(1989) U For doing task 10 10 0.20 0.40Blanck, Reis, and Jackson

(1984) Experiment 1 U For doing task 70 69 0.56 0.69Blanck et al. (1984)

Experiment 2 U For doing task 12 12 0.73 0.00Boggiano and Barrett (1985) U For doing task 18 18 0.35Boggiano et al. (1988) U For doing task 66 34 0.42Butler (1987) E For doing task 50 50 1.59b

D. S. Cohen (1974)a U For doing task 52 52 0.07 0.42Crino and White (1982) U

UPer unit solvedYoked per unit

1010

55

0.0520.79

Danner and Lonkey (1981) U For doing task 30 30 20.10 20.08Deci (1971) Experiment 3 U For doing task 12 12 0.82 0.00Deci (1972b) U For doing task 48 48 0.29Deci, Cascio, and Krusell

(1975) No information No information 32 32 0.02Dollinger and Thelen (1978) E For doing well 12 12 20.07 0.00Effron (1976)a U For doing task 15 13 0.89L. W. Goldstein (1977)a U For doing task 32 32 0.77 0.12Harackiewicz (1979) U For doing task 31 31 0.59Hom (1987) Experiment 2 No information No information 28 28 20.37Kast and Connor (1988) U For doing task 180 60 20.46b

Koestner, Zuckerman, andKoestner (1987) U For doing task 35 18 0.51 0.00

Orlick and Mosher (1978) U For doing task 11 12 20.34Pallak, Costomotis, Sroka,

and Pittman (1982)UE

For doing taskFor doing task

1614

1212

20.470.32

Pittman, Davey, Alafat, Weth-erill, and Kramer (1980) U For doing task 24 12 0.80

Pretty and Seligman (1984)Experiment 1 U For doing task 30 30 0.35 0.46

Ryan, Mims, and Koestner(1983) E For doing task 32 16 0.53 0.00

Sansone (1986) U For doing task 44 11 0.68Sansone (1989) E For doing task 82 41 0.46Sansone, Sachau, and Weir

(1989) U For doing task 40 40 0.12Shanab, Peterson, Dargahi,

and Deroian (1981) U For doing task 20 20 0.64 0.43A. T. Smith (1980)a U For doing task 21 27 0.24W. E. Smith (1975)a U For learning 20 20 0.04 0.00Tripathi and Agarwal (1985) E For doing task 20 20 1.61 0.48Vallerand (1983) E For doing task 40 10 1.98b

Vallerand and Reid (1984) E For doing task 28 28 0.53Zinser, Young, and King

(1982) U For doing task 64 32 0.08

Note. U 5 unexpected, E 5 expected, NE 5 sample size of experimental group, NC 5 sample sizeof control group.

a Unpublished doctoral dissertation.b Outliers in the data set.


APPENDIX E

Studies included in the analysis of unexpected tangible rewards on intrinsicmotivation for tasks with high initial interest for all reward contingencies

StudyReward

contingency NE NC



Eisenstein (1985)Greene and Lepper (1974)Harackiewicz et al. (1984) Experiment 2Kruglanski, Alon, and Lewis (1972)Lepper et al. (1973)Orlick and Mosher (1978)Pallak et al. (1982)Pretty and Seligman (1984) Experiment 1Pretty and Seligman (1984) Experiment 2W. E. Smith (1975)a

For finishingFor doing wellExceeding othersFor winningFor doing taskFor doing wellFor doing taskFor doing taskFor doing taskFor learning

10261536181215303040

10151533151212303040

0.460.140.44b

0.1221.2820.43

0.060.060.06

0.1520.65

0.420.380.00

Note. NE 5 sample size of experimental group, NC 5 sample size of control group.a Unpublished doctoral dissertation.b Effect sizes based on performance measures on the task during the free-choice period (e.g.,

number of balls played in a pinball game, number of trials initiated in a labyrinth game, numberof words found in a word search game). See text for details.


APPENDIX F

Studies included in the analysis of expected tangible rewards on intrinsicmotivation for tasks with high initial interest, listed by reward contingency

Study NE NC



Rewarddelivery

Task noncontingentDafoe (1985)a

Deci (1972a)Earn (1982)Kruglanski, Friedman, and Zeevi (1971)Okano (1981) Experiment 2Pittman et al. (1982) Experiment 1Ross, Karniol, and Rothstein (1976)Swann and Pittman (1977) Experiment 1Wimperis and Farr (1979)

252440161110122016

281620161110122016

20.200.08

20.28

20.470.260.44

20.21

0.73

0.1820.6920.27

0.00

0.56

Rewards offered for doing taskAmabile, Hennessey, and Grossman

(1986) Experiment 1 56 57 0.00 0.00Amabile et al. (1986) Experiment 3 30 30 0.00R. Anderson et al. (1976)Arnold (1976)Arnold (1985)Boggiano and Ruble (1979)

36171320

19361620

20.53

20.61

0.0020.04

Boggiano, Havackiewicz, Besette, and Main(1985) 26 13 20.79

Boggiano, Ruble, and Pittman (1982) 81 84 0.28Brennan and Glover (1980)Brewer (1980)a

Chung (1995)Danner and Lonkey (1981)

2024

530

1924

530

1.00b

20.1321.61b

21.33b

0.12

21.23DeLoach, Griffith, and LaBarba (1983) 26 26 0.00Dimitroff (1984)a 108 36 20.27 0.00Effron (1976)a 12 13 0.19Fabes, McCullers, and Hom (1986) 24 24 0.06 20.14Fabes et al. (1988) 14 14 21.34b 20.76Fabes, Fultz, Eisenberg, May-Plumlee, and

Christopher (1989) 15 14 20.73Feehan and Enzle (1991) Experiment 1 24 12 20.97L. W. Goldstein (1977)a

Greene and Lepper (1974)Griffith (1984)a

Hamner and Foster (1975)Harackiewicz (1979)Hitt et al. (1992)Hyman (1985)a

Karniol and Ross (1977)Lepper et al. (1973)Lepper et al. (1982)Loveland and Olley (1979)Morgan (1981) Experiment 1Morgan (1981) Experiment 2Morgan (1983) Experiment 1

16154415313032171832

627204040

16154415311532201532

627204020

20.9920.7020.23

20.8220.4220.0820.7220.1321.2020.9820.7721.94b

20.87

20.1420.3820.47

20.310.04

20.54


APPENDIX F

Continued

Study NE NC



Rewarddelivery

Morgan (1983) Experiment 2Mynatt et al. (1978)Newman and Layton (1984)Ogilvie and Prior (1982)Okano (1981) Experiment 1Okano (1981) Experiment 2Patrick (1985)a

Perry, Bussey, and Redman (1977)Picek (1976)a

Pittman et al. (1982) Experiment 1

205

2026151033321010

205

1026151131321010

20.660.19

20.3720.0820.9921.31b

0.0020.43

0.000.17

0.00

20.450.000.00

20.2120.65

0.00Pittman et al. (1982) Experiment 2Pretty and Seligman (1984) Experiment 1Pretty and Seligman (1984) Experiment 2Reiss and Sushinsky (1975)Ross (1975) Experiment 1Ross (1975) Experiment 2Ross et al. (1976)Ryan et al. (1983)Sarafino (1984)Shiffman-Kauffman (1990)a

A. T. Smith (1980)a

Swann and Pittman (1977) Experiment 1Swann and Pittman (1977) Experiment 2Thompson et al. (1993)

2730301640521216852021202634

2730301620141216152027201333

20.0520.7520.1320.83

0.0120.6620.6420.3520.41

0.0620.8220.7821.0120.003

20.0520.16

20.450.00

0.000.00

20.04

0.14Tripathi (1991)Tripathi and Agarwal (1988)Weiner and Mander (1978)Williams (1980)Wilson (1978)a

Yuen (1984)a

202030244660

51030242360

0.000.34b

20.340.18

20.0620.40

0.000.720.000.00

20.0120.12

Rewards offered for ‘‘doing well’’ or ‘‘doing a good job’’ on the taskBrewer (1980)a

Dafoe (1985)a

Dollinger and Thelen (1978)Enzle, Roogeveen, and Look (1991)Fabes (1987) Experiment 1L. W. Goldstein (1977)a

Greene and Lepper (1974)Hyman (1985)a

Orlick and Mosher (1978)Pallak et al. (1982)Ryan et al. (1983)Taub and Dollinger (1975)

4826364018161516141532

124

2428121019321516121232

124

20.080.00

20.5520.5320.8720.0820.57

0.1120.5320.1720.46

0.120.590.00

20.48

0.000.00

MMLMMMMMMMMNI

Rewards offered for completing a taskCalder and Staw (1975)Eisenstein (1985)Fabes (1987) Experiment 1Fabes (1987) Experiment 2Freedman and Phillips (1985)Griffith, DeLoach, and LaBarba (1984)McLoyd (1979)Phillips and Freedman (1985)

1018191426641812

101019142232

912

20.5320.8220.45

0.0021.04

20.46

0.94

0.000.74

MMMMMMMM


APPENDIX F

Continued

Study NE NC



Rewarddelivery

Staw, Calder, Hess, and Sanderlands(1980)

Tripathi and Agarwal (1985)

47

20

46

20 0.41

0.19

0.54

M

M

Rewards offered for each problem, puzzle, or unit solvedArkes (1979)Arnold (1985)Bartelme (1983)a

Boggiano et al. (1985)Brockner and Vasta (1981)Carton and Nowicki (1998) Experiment 1Carton and Nowicki (1998) Experiment 2D. S. Cohen (1974)a

3213352626444052

3216341326222052

20.16

0.04c

20.1020.37

0.36c

0.20c

20.18

0.0320.05

0.03

20.58

0.710.13

MLMMLLLL

Deci (1971) Experiment 1Deci (1972b)Effron (1976)a

Feehan and Enzle (1991) Experiment 2Freedman and Phillips (1985)G. S. Goldstein (1980)a

Hamner and Foster (1975)Kruglanski et al. (1975) Experiment 1Lee (1982)a

Liberty (1986) Experiment 1a

Liberty (1986) Experiment 2a

McGraw and McCullers (1979)Phillips and Freedman (1985)Porac and Meindl (1982)Shapira (1976)Sorensen and Maehr (1976)Vasta and Stirpe (1979)

12644330231418244023442012203020

4

12322815221415244023422012203020

5

20.540.33

0.31c

20.32

20.36c

20.86c

20.22c

20.78

20.5420.16

0.00

20.04

1.120.68

20.211.15b

0.3520.34

0.0420.04

0.77

0.41

LLLMLLLMMLLNILLLLL

Weiner (1980)Weiner and Mander (1978)Wicker et al. (1990)Wimperis and Farr (1979)

24302916

24302916

0.3520.5420.46

0.000.000.181.36b

MLLNI

Rewards offered for meeting a specific standard or surpassing a scoreAdorney (1983)a

Bartelme (1983)a

Boggiano and Ruble (1979)Dafoe (1985)a

Eisenberger (1999)

35352028

214

36342028

316

0.390.19c

20.170.150.08

0.4820.03

0.590.31

LMMMM

Eisenberger, Rhoades, and Cameron (1999)Experiment 1 110 113 0.10 0.34 M

Harackiewicz, Abrahams, and Wageman(1987) 13 25 20.28 M

Hyman (1985)a

Kruglanski et al. (1975) Experiment 2Patrick (1985)a

Pittman et al. (1977)T. W. Smith and Pittman (1978)Tripathi (1991)

164030606620

1640312033

5

0.04

0.0020.50c

20.56c

0.00

0.380.00

20.200.000.00

MMMLLM


APPENDIX F

Continued

Study NE NC



Rewarddelivery

Rewards offered for meeting or exceeding othersDafoe (1985)a 25 28 0.00 0.59 MEisenberger, Rhoades, and Cameron (1999)

Experiment 1 106 106 0.38 0.22 MHarackiewicz (1979)Harackiewicz and Manderlink (1984)Harackiewicz et al. (1984) Experiment 1Harackiewicz et al. (1984) Experiment 2Harackiewicz et al. (1984) Experiment 3Harackiewicz et al. (1987)Karniol and Ross (1977)Luyten and Lens (1981)Rosenfield, Folger, and Adelman (1980)Salincik (1975)Shiffman-Kauffman (1990)a

Tripathi and Agarwal (1988)Weinberg and Jackson (1979)

31473215261120103038202040

31476415522920102739201040

0.2720.43c

0.34c

0.1520.90

0.3020.34

0.350.87

20.870.330.12

20.180.400.12

0.080.220.010.001.010.00

MMMMMML/MLL/MMMML

Note. NE 5 sample size of experimental group, NC 5 sample size of control group, M 5 maximumreward, L 5 less than maximum reward, NI 5 not enough information.

a Unpublished doctoral dissertation.b Outliers in the data set.c Effect sizes based on performance measures during the free-choice period. See text for details.

APPENDIX G

Studies or conditions within studies included in the overall analyses ofreward and tangible reward that could not be classified into

reward contingencies

StudyReward

contingency NE NC



Chung (1995)Daniel and Esser (1980)Hom (1987) Experiment 1Hom (1987) Experiment 2W. E. Smith (1975)a

Insufficient informationFor doing quicklyNo informationNo informationFor showing learning

516262840

516262840

21.0220.75

0.1220.37b

20.22

20.710.00

0.00

Note. NE 5 sample size of experimental group, NC 5 sample size of control group.a Unpublished doctoral dissertation.b Effect size based on performance measures during the free-choice period. See text for details.

Date post:	03-Feb-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	6 times
Download:	0 times

Pervasive Negative Effects of Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation

Documents