The Rewards Controversy

Extrinsic Rewards Do Undermine Intrinsic Motivation

Self-Determination Theory’s history can be traced to a set of early experiments done by Deci showing that extrinsic rewards such as monetary payments can undermine people’s intrinsic motivation for the rewarded activity. This finding was important as it was the first evidence that desired outcomes such as rewards can have the unintended consequence of decreasing intrinsic motivation because they limit people’s sense of self-determination--that is, because people come to feel controlled by the rewards. Over the past 20 years, nearly 100 published experiments have provided additional support for the initial finding of tangible extrinsic rewards undermining intrinsic motivation. The finding was very controversial when it first appeared because it seemed to contradict the prevailing behaviorist wisdom of that time, which maintained that the careful use of rewards (or reinforcements) was the most effective approach to motivation. Remarkably, three decades later, in spite of very convincing evidence in support of the fact that rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation, the controversy continues.

The earliest experiments on intrinsic motivation in humans were:

Deci, E. L. (1971). Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 18, 105-115.

Deci, E. L. (1972a). Effects of contingent and non-contingent rewards and controls on intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 8, 217-229.

Deci, E. L. (1972b). Intrinsic motivation, extrinsic reinforcement, and inequity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22, 113-120.

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

Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic rewards: A test of the "overjustification" hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28, 129-137.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Critiques from behaviorists included:

Calder, B. J., & Staw, B. M. (1974). The interaction of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation: Some methodological notes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 76-80.

Reiss, S., & Sushinsky, L. W. (1975). Overjustification, competing responses, and the acquisition of intrinsic interest. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 31, 1116-1125.

Scott, W. E. (1975). The effects of extrinsic rewards on "intrinsic motivation": A critique. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 14, 117-129.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Replies from motivational researchers (including those listed below) showed the critiques to be invalid and unwarranted.

Deci, E. L. (1976). Notes on the theory and metatheory of intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 15, 130-145.

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

Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D. (1976). On understanding "overjustification": A reply to Reiss and Sushinsky. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 25-35.

Ryan, R. M., Mims, V., & Koestner, R. (1983). Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: A review and test using cognitive evaluation theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 736-750.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Still the behaviorists' critiques continued, with the behaviorists becoming ever more vituperative while remaining wholly unconvincing. They included:

Carton, J. S. (1996). The differential effects of tangible rewards and praise on intrinsic motivation: A comparison of cognitive evaluation theory and operant theory. The Behavior Analyst, 19, 237-255.

Dickinson, A. M. (1989). The detrimental effects of extrinsic reinforcement on "intrinsic motivation". The Behavior Analyst, 12, 1-15.

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

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Meta-analyses. Throughout the 1970s and 1980s several dozen experiments investigated the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. As might be expected given the number of studies, meta-analyses were performed to combine the results of these experiments. Three meta-analyses done between 1988 and 1995 concluded that expected, tangible rewards made contingent upon doing, completing, or excelling at an interesting activity will undermine intrinsic motivation for that activity. These meta-analyses tested specific propositions from Deci and Ryan's Cognitive Evaluation Theory (a sub-theory contained within SDT), and all concluded that the studies provided strong support for the theory. For example, Rummel and Feinberg concluded that, "This meta-analysis lends support to the adequacy of [cognitive evaluation theory].", (1988, p. 160). The three meta-analyses were:

Rummel, A., & Feinberg, R. (1988). Cognitive evaluation theory: A meta-analytic review of the literature. Social Behavior and Personality, 16, 147-164.

Tang, S-H., & Hall, V. C. (1995). The overjustification effect: A meta-analysis. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9, 365-404.

Wiersma, U. J. (1992). The effects of extrinsic rewards in intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology, 65, 101-114.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

The controversy heats up. The conclusions of the above three meta-analyses were problematic for individuals holding a behaviorist perspective, so in 1994, the behaviorist team of Cameron and Pierce published their own meta-analysis in Review of Educational Research, concluding that, overall, rewards do not decrease intrinsic motivation. Although the authors implicitly acknowledged that intrinsic motivation is important for learning and adjustment in educational settings, they nonetheless stated that "teachers have no reason to resist implementing incentive systems in the classroom" (p. 397). Cameron and Pierce also advocated abandoning Deci and Ryan's cognitive evaluation theory which had been formulated to explain reward effects on intrinsic motivation. In 1996, three commentaries were published in Review of Educational Research (Kohn, 1996; Lepper, Keavney, & Drake, 1996; Ryan & Deci, 1996) arguing that Cameron and Pierce's meta-analysis was flawed and that its conclusions were inappropriate. In that same issue, Cameron and Pierce (1996) responded to the commentaries with an angry diatribe that failed to address any of the important issues.

Subsequent to that interchange, Eisenberger and Cameron (1996) published an article in the American Psychologist, summarizing the Cameron and Pierce (1994) meta-analysis and claiming that the so-called undermining of intrinsic motivation by extrinsic rewards, which they said had become accepted as reality, was in fact largely a myth. The American Psychologist is a very visible outlet with a large readership, so even though the article and the Cameron and Pierce meta-analysis it referred were seriously flawed it got a great deal of attention and has been widely cited in textbooks.

Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64, 363-423.

Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1996). The debate about rewards and intrinsic motivation: Protests and accusations do not alter the results. Review of Educational Research, 66, 39-52.

Eisenberger, R., & Cameron, J. (1996). Detrimental effects of reward: Reality of myth? American Psychologist, 51, 1153-1166.

Kohn, A. (1996). By all available means: Cameron and Pierce's defense of extrinsic motivators. Review of Educational Research, 66, 1-4.

Lepper, M.R., Keavney, M., & Drake, M. (1996). Intrinsic motivation and extrinsic rewards: A commentary on Cameron and Pierce's Meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 66, 5-32.

Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (1996). When paradigms clash: Comments on Cameron and Pierce's claim that rewards do not undermine intrinsic motivation. Review of Educational Research, 66, 33-38.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

The Eisenberger, Cameron, and Pierce meta-analysis is invalid. It was clear to anyone familiar with the field that the Cameron and Pierce's meta-analysis contained many errors and inappropriate procedures that made their conclusions invalid. However, to confirm this, a new meta-analysis was necessary. Consequently, Deci, Koestner, and Ryan performed a meta-analysis of 128 experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation, organizing the analyses so as to provide a test of cognitive evaluation theory. The new meta-analysis showed that, in fact, tangible rewards do significantly and substantially undermine intrinsic motivation. It also provided strong support for cognitive evaluation theory and made clear that there is indeed reason for teachers to exercise great care when using reward-based incentive systems. The new meta-analysis was published in Psychological Bulletin (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). Included in that article is an appendix table which lists every study in the meta-analysis explaining exactly where errors were made by Cameron and Pierce, and how the new meta-analysis corrected their errors. That table allows all interested readers to see for themselves in precise detail how Cameron and Pierce's meta-analysis was invalid and why their conclusions were unwarranted. As well, it makes clear that the Eisenberger and Cameron article in the American Psychologist was without basis and presented fallacious conclusions.

Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 627-668.
Download this article in .pdf format (for Personal Use Only)

* * * * * * * * * * * *

In conclusion. The finding that expected, tangible rewards undermine intrinsic motivation was initially very controversial, but during the 30 years that the evidence has mounted confirming the finding, most psychologist have accepted it as an important phenomenon. During that period, the reinforcement perspective of behaviorists has also been losing its centrality in psychology. Today, relatively few psychologists and practitioners subscribe to the behaviorist doctrine, yet a few vocal advocates continue to debate the rewards point which is now beyond debate. Tangible extrinsic rewards reliably undermine intrinsic motivation under most circumstances, and, interestingly the most detrimental reward contingency involves giving rewards as a direct function of people's performance. Those who perform best get the most rewards and those who perform less well get less (or no) rewards. This contingency, which is perhaps the one most often used in life, seems to be the one that is most detrimental to the motivation, performance, and well-being of the individuals subjected to it.

Next: The High-Stakes Testing Controversy >