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

TLDR

A prevailing view in education and social psychology is that rewards decrease intrinsic motivation, a claim that critics argue is overstated and that the meta‑analytic methods used to test it are flawed. The authors aim to demonstrate that their meta‑analytic questions and techniques are fundamental, appropriate, and statistically sound. They employ robust, statistically correct meta‑analytic techniques to evaluate reward effects. Their meta‑analysis of about 100 studies finds no support for a general reward‑induced decline in intrinsic motivation, with only a minor negative effect under narrowly defined conditions, and shows that critics’ protests do not alter these conclusions.

Abstract

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.