Judy Cameron

Reinforcement, Reward, and Intrinsic Motivation: A Meta-Analysis

This article reviews research on the effects of reinforcement/reward on intrinsic motivation. The main meta-analysis included 96 experimental studies that used between-groups designs to compare rewarded subjects to nonrewarded controls on four measures of intrinsic motivation. Results indicate that, overall, reward does not decrease intrinsic motivation. When interaction effects are examined, findings show that verbal praise produces an increase in intrinsic motivation. The only negative effect appears when expected tangible rewards are given to individuals simply for doing a task. Under this condition, there is a minimal negative effect on intrinsic motivation as measured by time spent on task following the removal of reward. A second analysis was conducted on five studies that used within-subject designs to evaluate the effects of reinforcement on intrinsic motivation; results suggest that reinforcement does not harm an individual’s intrinsic motivation.

Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth?

Based on seemingly overwhelming empirical evidence of the decremental effects of reward on intrinsic task interest and creativity, the use of reward to alter human behavior has been challenged in literature reviews, textbooks, and the popular media. An analysis of a quarter century of research on intrinsic task interest and creativity revealed, however, that (a) detrimental effects of reward occur under highly restricted, easily avoidable conditions; (b) mechanisms of instrumental and classical conditioning are basic for understanding incremental and decremental effects of reward on task motivation; and (c) positive effects of reward on generalized creativity are easily attainable using procedures derived from behavior theory.

Pervasive negative effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation: The myth continues

A major concern in psychology and education is that rewards decrease intrinsic motivation to perform activities. Over the past 30 years, more than 100 experimental studies have been conducted on this topic. In 1994, Cameron and Pierce conducted a meta-analysis of this literature and concluded 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 pervasive negative effects of reward. The purpose of the present article is to resolve differences in previous meta-analytic findings and to provide a meta-analysis of rewards and intrinsic motivation that permits tests of competing theoretical explanations. Our results suggest that in general, rewards are not harmful to motivation to perform a task. Rewards given for low-interest tasks enhance free-choice intrinsic motivation. On high-interest tasks, verbal rewards produce positive effects on free-choice motivation and self-reported task interest. Negative effects are found on high-interest tasks when the 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 do not differ from a nonrewarded control group. Overall, the pattern of results indicates that reward contingencies do not have pervasive negative effects on intrinsic motivation. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are addressed.

The Debate About Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation: Protests and Accusations Do Not Alter the Results

A prevailing view in education and social psychology is that rewards decrease a person’s intrinsic motivation. However, our meta-analysis (Cameron & Pierce, 1994) of approximately 100 studies does not support this position. The only negative effect of reward occurs under a highly restricted set of conditions, circumstances that are easily avoided. These results have not been well received by those who argue that rewards produce negative effects under a wide range of conditions. Lepper, Keavney, and Drake (1996), Ryan and Deci (1996), and Kohn (1996) have suggested that the questions asked in our meta-analysis were inappropriate, that critical studies were excluded, that important negative effects were not detected, and that the techniques used in our meta-analysis were unsuitable. In this response, we show that the questions we asked are fundamental and that our meta-analytic techniques are appropriate, robust, and statistically correct. In sum, the results and conclusions of our meta-analysis are not altered by our critics’ protests and accusations.

Achievement-Based Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation: A Test of Cognitive Mediators

This study assessed how rewards impacted intrinsic motivation when students were rewarded for achievement while learning an activity, for performing at a specific level on a test, or for both. Undergraduate university students engaged in a problem-solving activity. The design was a 2 2 factorial with 2 levels of reward in a learning phase (reward for achievement, no reward) and 2 levels of reward in a test phase (reward for achievement, no reward). Intrinsic motivation was measured as time spent on the experimental task and ratings of task interest during a free-choice period. A major finding was that achievement-based rewards during learning or testing increased participants’ intrinsic motivation. A path analysis indicated that 2 processes (perceived competence and interest–internal attribution) mediated the positive effects of achievement-based rewards in learning and testing on intrinsic motivation. Findings are discussed in terms of the cognitive evaluation, attribution, and social–cognitive theories.

Positive Effects of Rewards and Performance Standards on Intrinsic Motivation

The present study examined how rewards affect people’s intrinsic motivation when the rewards are tied to meeting increasingly demanding performance standards. The experiment was a 2 x 2 factorial design with 2 levels of performance standard (constant, progressive) and 2 levels of reward (reward, no reward). Using a puzzle-solving task, 60 undergraduate university students were randomly assigned to the experimental conditions. In the constant conditions, participants were required to solve 3 puzzle problems on each of 3 trials; in the progressive conditions, participants were asked to solve 1, 3, and 5 problems over the trials. Half the participants were offered and given

Negative Effects of Reward on Intrinsic Motivation—A Limited Phenomenon: Comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (2001)

1.00 for each correct solution; those in the no-reward condition were not offered pay. The major finding was that participants in the progressive reward condition spent more time on the task in a free-choice session than those in the other conditions. The findings are discussed in terms of different theoretical accounts of rewards and intrinsic motivation and are most consistent with an extension of Eisenberger’s (1992) theory of learned industriousness.

Social Modeling, Monetary Incentives, and Pain Endurance: The Role of Self-Efficacy and Pain Perception

A major concern in educational settings is that the use of rewards and incentives may destroy students’ intrinsic motivation to perform activities. In collaboration with other researchers, the author conducted a meta-analysis of the literature that showed that negative effects of reward were limited and easily avoidable (Cameron & Pierce, 1994; Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996). Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (2001) suggest that our work was seriously flawed; they present a summary of their meta-analysis on the topic (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999a) and claim that rewards do substantially undermine intrinsic interest. In this comment, it is argued that there is no inherent negative property of reward. By organizing studies according to cognitive evaluation theory, Deci et al. (1999a) collapsed across distinct reward procedures and were able to obtain pervasive negative effects. When studies are organized according to the actual procedures used, however, negative effects are limited to a specific set of circumstances.

The Warm-Cold Study: A Classroom Demonstration of Impression Formation.

The present experiment investigated the effects of social modeling and monetary incentives on pain endurance as mediated by self-efficacy and pain perception. Using a 3 × 3 factorial design that crossed three levels of modeling (tolerant, no model, intolerant) with three rates of pay (

Does Pay for Performance Increase or Decrease Perceived Self-Determination and Intrinsic Motivation?

0,