The Effects of Extrinsic Rewards of Differential Value on High and Low Intrinsic Interest

The Effects of Extrinsic Rewards of Differential Value on High and Low Intrinsic InterestAuthor(s): Vonnie C. McLoydSource: Child Development, Vol. 50, No. 4 (Dec., 1979), pp. 1010-1019Published by: Wiley on behalf of the Society for Research in Child DevelopmentStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1129327 .

Accessed: 10/11/2014 15:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Wiley and Society for Research in Child Development are collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve andextend access to Child Development.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 206.246.21.158 on Mon, 10 Nov 2014 15:51:10 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

The Effects of Extrinsic Rewards of Differential Value on High and Low Intrinsic Interest

Vonnie C. McLoyd University of Michigan

McLoYD, VONNIE C. The Effects of Extrinsic Rewards of Differential Value on High and Low Intrinsic Interest. CHILD DEVELOPMENT, 1979, 50, 1010-1019. This study examined the effects of a high-value versus low-value reward on intrinsic interest in reading a high-interest versus low-interest storybook in 54 second- and third-grade children. Both reward value and storybook interest were inferred on the basis of individual choices made by each child. Children in the high-interest group received their first-choice storybook to read, while children in the low- interest group received their last-choice storybook. In each of these interest groups, children received either their first-choice reward for reading a portion of the storybook (high value), their last-choice reward (low value), or no reward. Results indicated that, during a 10-min free-choice period, children in the high-interest group spent significantly more time with and read more words from the respective storybook than children in the low-interest group, except those who received a high-value reward. Of children in the high-interest group, those in the no-reward condition spent significantly more time with and read more words from the storybook than children in both the high- and low-value reward conditions, which did not differ significantly from each other. In contrast, of children in the low-interest group, those in the high-value reward condition spent significantly more time with and read more words from the storybook than children in both the low-value and no-reward conditions, which did not differ significantly from each other.

The present study examines the effects of rewards of different value on children's interest in engaging in a high- versus low-interest activity. Recent studies have specified numerous conditions under which extrinsic rewards for engaging in an activity decrease subsequent intrinsic interest in that activity. Specifically, studies indicate that rewards which are expected (Kruglanski, Friedman, & Zeevi 1971; Lepper & Greene 1975; Lepper, Greene, & Nis- bett 1973), tangible or monetary (Anderson, Manoogian, & Reznick 1976; Deci 1971), and salient (Ross 1975) diminish subsequent intrinsic interest.

The undermining effect of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic interest has been interpreted within the framework of deCharms's (1968) ideas on personal causation and Bem's (1972) self-perception theory. Both deCharms and

Bem suggest that extrinsic rewards decrease high intrinsic interest in an activity because, upon receipt of these rewards, the perception that one is engaging in the activity because of self-propelled interest is supplanted by the perception that one is engaging in the activity because of the reward. Because the activity is viewed subsequently as a means to a reward, little interest in the activity is aroused in the absence of the reward.

As Condry (1977) has noted, most researchers in the area have selected for study only subjects who showed high initial interest in activities or tasks chosen to be interesting. Many researchers point out the tentative educational implications of the undermining effect of extrinsic rewards on high interest, on the assumption that many school tasks are of high intrinsic interest to at least some of the chil-

Partial support for this research was provided by a Faculty Research Grant from the Uni- versity of Massachusetts. The author wishes to express sincere appreciation to Mr. John Dalton, Principal of Fort River School, Amherst, Massachusetts, and the teachers, children, and their parents for their generous cooperation and assistance. Special thanks to Stacey Cacace, David Forman, Rhonda Levine, Mark McCrensky, and Michelle Plaud, who served as able and con- scientious research assistants. Thanks to Henry Wellman and Harold Stevenson for their critical readings of earlier drafts of this paper. A debt of gratitude is also owed Ernest D. Washing- ton for his encouragement, insightful criticisms, and helpful suggestion:;. Requests for reprints should be sent to Vonnie C. McLoyd, Department of Psychology, Mason Hall, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan 48109.

(Child Development, 1979, 50, 1010-1019. @ 1979 by the Society for Research in Child Development, Inc. 0009-3920/79/5004-0013$00.95]

Vonnie C. McLoyd 1011

dren (e.g., Garbarino 1975; Lepper et al. 1973; Levine & Fasnacht 1974). However, it is equal- ly true that some school tasks arouse little interest in some children. Moreover, as Lepper et al. (1973) point out, the nature of some school tasks is such that their attractiveness becomes apparent only after the child has engaged in them for a while or has achieved some minimal level of task mastery.

In light of this consideration and the vig- orous emnirical investigation of extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in recent years, it is surprising that so little attention has been given to the differential effects of extrinsic rewards on subjects who show high versus low initial interest in the same activity (intrinsic interest as a subject variable) or on subjects' interest in engaging in different tasks chosen to be relatively interesting versus relatively uninteresting (intrinsic interest as a task variable).

Of the few studies which have examined this issue, only one has manipulated intrinsic interest as a task variable. Calder and Staw (1975) varied interest level by manipulating the nature of a puzzle task. They reported a significant task x reward interaction such that extrinsic monetary rewards increased enjoyable ratings of the dull task (blank puzzle) but decreased ratings of the interesting task (picture puzzle).

A few studies have cast intrinsic interest as a subject variable. In a study by Lepper et al. (1973), preschool children who showed high initial interest in a drawing activity during a free-play baseline period were subsequently induced to draw, for which they received an expected award, an unexpected award, or no award. During a subsequent free-play period, children who received the expected award spent significantly less time engaged in the drawing activity than children who received the unexpected award or no award. Of even greater relevance to the present study is the reanalysis of this data by Lepper et al. (1973). Each of the three experimental groups was di- vided at the median on initial interest. Of the six resulting groups, only low-interest children in the unexpected-award condition showed a significant increase in subsequent interest.

Greene, Sternberg, and Lepper (1976) employed both a between-group and within- group design to examine the differential effects of extrinsic rewards on high- and low- interest subjects. The between-group analysis indicated a significant decrease in subsequent

intrinsic interest in the low-interest rewarded group but not in the high-interest rewarded group. In contrast, the within-group analysis indicated a significant decrease in subsequent interest in the high-interest rewarded group but not in the low-interest rewarded group. The results from the between- and within- group analyses were inconsistent and therefore provide limited insight into the issue of how extrinsic rewards effect high and low levels of intrinsic interest.

In light of the sparse and, moreover, inconsistent data on this important issue, the present study examines how extrinsic rewards affect intrinsic interest to engage in a relatively high-interest versus low-interest target activity. The second purpose of the present study is to determine the effects of the value of the reward on subsequent intrinsic interest. Just as previous studies have used tasks chosen to be interesting, they have also used extrinsic rewards chosen to be desirable or of high value. No study has attempted to determine the effects of a high- versus low-value reward on intrinsic interest, though a number of studies have examined the effects of reward value on learning and performance on relatively uninteresting tasks (Witryol 1971). Moreover, de- spite the wide variety of extrinsic rewards used in previous studies, including trinkets, awards, money, food, and special activities, these rewards have been chosen on a rational rather than an empirical basis (Bisett & Rieber 1966). That is, rewards have been chosen on the basis of the researchers' assumptions about the value of these rewards to the children, rather than empirical assessments of the value children ascribe to these rewards. The researchers' judg- ments of the value of various rewards may differ from the value they have to the children themselves. Moreover, research indicates that there is considerable variation among children in the value they ascribe to various reward objects (Witryol 1971). The present study, then, examines the effects of varying the individually determined value (high versus low value) of the extrinsic reward.

Finally, though previous researchers have employed a wide range of target activities (e.g., puzzles, drawing, beating a drum, recall of uninterrupted activities) and have noted the tentative educational implications of their findings, with notable exceptions (e.g., Greene et al. 1976), few studies have employed target activities which can be thought of as basically "academic" or "educational" in nature. Of

1012 Child Development

course, this is due in part to the fact that the subjects in many of these studies have been preschoolers. The present study employs an activity which is of immediate academic and educational relevance and indeed of growing concern to many educators-reading.

It was hypothesized that both high- and low-value rewards would decrease interest in the high-interest reading activity but increase interest in the low-interest activity. It was further hypothesized that in the high-interest activity, the high-value reward would result in a greater decrease than the low-value reward. Previous research indicates that a salient reward is more detrimental to intrinsic interest than a relatively nonsalient reward (Ross 1975). Rewards of high value are probably more salient to a child than rewards of low value, and thus may enhance the perception that one is engaging in the activity because of the highly valued reward rather than because of intrinsic interest.

Previous research indicates that rewards increase children's performance on relatively uninteresting tasks even after the rewards have been withdrawn (Leventhal & Fischer 1970; Meddock, Parsons, & Hill 1971) and that rewards of high value increase learning more than those of low value (Bisett & Rieber 1966). It was therefore hypothesized that in the low- interest activity, the high-value reward would result in a greater increase than the low-value reward.

Method

Design.-A 2 (high- vs. low-interest activity) x 3 (high-value reward, low-value reward, no reward) factorial design was employed. Four girls and five boys were randomly assigned to three of the experimental conditions and five girls and four boys to the remaining three.

Subjects.-The subjects were 54 second- and third-grade children, 27 girls and 27 boys, attending an elementary school in Amherst, Massachusetts. The children were Caucasian and from predominantly middle-class backgrounds. Eight children were excluded from the study because of reading difficulties, as indicated by the school's reading specialist.

Experimental activity and materials.-The experimental activity was reading from one of six storybooks. The title, author, and a brief description of each book are given below:

Amelia Bedelia and the Surprise Shower (Par- ish): A woman gives a surprise party for her lady friends and does some hilarious things at the party.

George the Drummer Boy (Benchley): A boy who beat the drums becomes a soldier during the fighting of the American Revolutionary War many years ago.

Here Comes the Strikeout (Kessler): A boy who always struck out at the bat becomes an ex- cellent baseball player.

Kittens and More Kittens (Ridlon): A little girl who loved kittens uses some funny ways of getting one.

Prehistoric Monsters Did the Strangest Things (Hornblow): Dinosaurs who roamed the earth mil- lions of years ago all die out and are replaced by new kinds of animals.

You Will Go to the Moon (Freeman): A boy makes an adventuresome trip in a rocket to outer space.

These books were selected (with the assistance of the school's reading specialist) because they represented a wide range of topics and were within the reading levels of most second and third graders of the participating school. The length of the storybooks ranged from approximately 1,010 to 4,125 words, with a mean length of approximately 1,680 words.

Children in the high- and low-value reward conditions received one of the following six rewards: (1) good reader award, (2) finger ring, (3) animal eraser, (4) pencil sharpener, (5) metal washer, and (6) plastic peg. The good reader award was a 3 x 5-inch card with a star and ribbon attached and a space for the child's name and school. A similar reward, a good player award, has been used in a number of studies on the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic interest (e.g., Anderson et al. 1976; Lepper et al. 1973; Loveland & Olley, Note 1). Some of the remaining rewards have been used in studies on the effects of reward value on performance and learning (Witryol 1971).

Procedure.-The experiment was con- ducted in a room in the elementary school at- tended by the children. Each child was brought individually to the experimental room by the experimenter and seated at a table. The experimenter explained that she or he was in- terested in finding out whether boys and girls like certain storybooks. The experimenter said: "Let's play a game. We will call it: Which storybook would you rather read? I'm going to show you a picture from six different short storybooks. Then I'm going to tell you a little about each story. What you have to do in this game is point to the picture from the story you would

like to read more than any of the other stories. Then I'll take that picture away and you point to the picture from the story you would like to read the second best. Then I'll take that picture away and you point to the picture from the story you would like to read the third best. We will do this until the game is over, OK?" The book jacket or a xeroxed color picture from each book, which depicted a major aspect of the story, was attached to a large piece of cardboard and randomly placed in front of the child. The experimenter repeated the respective story descriptions, given above, as each picture was placed before the child. The child made five choices, and after each choice the chosen picture was removed from the table.

The experimenter then said to children in the high- and low-value reward conditions: "Let's play another game. We will call this one: Which would you rather have for reading some of a story? I'm going to show you six things and you point to the one from the six you would like to have more than any of the others for reading part of one of the stories we just talked about. Then I'll take that one away and you point to the one you would like to have the second best. We will do this until the game is over, OK?" One of each of the rewards, except the good reader award, was taped to a 3 x 5-inch card. These cards and the good reader award were randomly placed in front of the child. The child made five reward choices, and after each choice the chosen object was removed from the table. No mention of the reward objects was made to children in the no- reward group.

The six storybooks and the rewards were concealed in a box placed in the corner of the room. After the choice procedure(s) was completed, the experimenter went to the box and got the appropriate storybook, and for children in the two reward groups, the appropriate reward. Children in the high-interest group were given their first-choice storybook to read, while children in the low-interest group were given the unchosen storybook, that is, the storybook which remained after the first five choices were made and therefore the one which the child did not choose at all. Upon presentation of the respective book which the child was to read, each child was asked if he or she had previously read the book. Nine children, six in the high- interest group and three in the low-interest group, indicated having previously read the target book and were dropped from the experiment.

A bookmark was placed inside each book to signal approximately the first 250 words of the book. All children were asked to read up to the page following the bookmark. This procedure controlled for differences in the reading speed of the children and insured that all children read or were exposed to approximately equal amounts of material.

Children in the high-value reward group were told that for reading up to the page following the bookmark they would receive their first-choice reward. Children in the low-value reward group, in contrast, were told that they would receive the unchosen reward. The experimenter presented the book and the reward to the children in the reward groups saying: "Now, I have this book here about [description of book] and I want to find out how much you like reading it. If you read up to the page following the bookmark here, I'll give you this reward, OK? I'll just sit here with you while you do the reading. If you don't know a word, that's okay. I'll tell you what it is. Tell me when you're finished. Then I'll give you your reward for reading, and you can tell me what you thought of the book." Children in the no-reward group were told instead: "Now, I have this book here about [description of book] and I want to find out how much you like reading it. Would you help me out by reading up to the page following the bookmark here? I'll just sit here with you while you do the reading. If you don't know a word, that's OK. I'll tell you what it is. Tell me when you're finished. Then you can tell me what you thought of the book." The experimenter then recorded the number of seconds it took the child to read the stipu- lated pages.

When children in the reward conditions completed the reading, their respective rewards were taped to a 3 x 5-inch card on which the child's name was printed. For children who received the good reader award, their names and school were printed on the award. The card was then placed on the "reward bulletin board" in the experimental room. The experimenter said to the children in the two reward groups: "Thank you very much. Here's your reward for reading that part of the book. This reward is yours to keep and your teacher will give it to you as soon as all of the children have had a chance to read some of the stories. I'll tape it to this card with your name on it and put it on the reward bulletin board so your teacher will know that it belongs to you. How did you like the book?" For children in the no-reward

group, the experimenter said instead: "Thank you very much for reading that part of the book. You helped me out a lot. How did you like the book?" The experimenter then stood up, waited for the child to stand up, and moved toward the door as though preparing to take the child back to the room. The experimenter then looked conspicuously at a clock in the room and said to the child: "Oh, it's not quite time to go back to your classroom yet. I have some work over there to do for a few minutes so you have some free time to do whatever you want while I finish. There are some things over on that table that you can keep yourself busy with, or you can keep on reading the book if you like. Just do whatever you like, OK?"

The free-choice period was 10 min. In addition to the storybook, the room contained a scrabble game, a book of crossword puzzles, and a math game book placed on a table. The experimenter moved to a corner of the room, and while pretending to be busy with papers observed and recorded the activities in which the child engaged and the duration of engage- ment. If the child read the storybook during the entire free-choice period, the experimenter inconspicuously placed a bookmark between the open pages the child was reading as he ended the free-choice period. If the child picked up the storybook during the free-choice period and put it down, the experimenter casually asked the child to place the bookmark where he left off "so you won't lose your place." This procedure allowed the experimenter to obtain an approximate measure of how much the child read during the free-choice period while minimizing experimenter influence on the child's subsequent behavior. This measure was derived by adding the number of words from each page the child appeared to read during the free-choice period past the 250-word mark- er page up to the page to the left of the bookmark. A child was considered reading when his or her eyes scanned the page from left to right and right to left in typical reading fash- ion. At the end of the free-choice period, the experimenter asked the child, "If your best friend asked you what was the best or most fun thing to do in this room, what would you tell him or her?"

The children in the reward groups received one of the six rewards 2 weeks after completion of the study. To counteract any disappointment children in the low-value reward group may have experienced as a result

of receiving a reward to which they ascribed little value, they, as well as children in the high-value reward group, received their first- choice reward.

Results

The most frequent first-choice reward of children in the two reward groups was the good reader award (58%), followed by the ring, eraser, and sharpener (14% each). A X2 analysis of these data was highly significant, X2(3) = 21.33, p < .001.1 The most frequent unchosen reward was the washer (58%), followed by the peg (25%), sharpener (11%), good reader award, and eraser (3% each). A X2 analysis of these data was also highly significant, X2 (4) = 39.00, p < .001. Chi-square analyses of the first-choice and the unchosen book revealed no significant differences. The overall mean number of seconds children required to read the designated 250 or so words during the experimental period was 210.08 sec. A 2 x 3 analysis of variance of this measure revealed no significant main or interaction effects.

Four measures of intrinsic interest in reading the respective book were obtained: (1) number of seconds of contact with the book during the free-choice period, (2) number of words read during the free-choice period, (3) whether the first object that the child contacted during the free-choice period was the book, and (4) whether the child responded that reading the book was the most fun thing to do in the experimental room.

Number of seconds of contact with book. -A 2 x 3 analysis of variance of the number of seconds spent with the book revealed a significant main effect of activity, F (1,48) = 8.86, p < .005, and a significant interaction of activity and reward value, F(2,46) = 6.15, p < .004. The form of this interaction is illustrated in figure 1. Children who engaged in the high- interest activity spent more time with the book than children who engaged in the low-interest activity, except those who received a high-value reward. Specifically, Newman-Keuls post-hoc analyses indicated that of children who received no reward, those who engaged in the high-interest activity spent significantly more time with the book than those who engaged in the low- interest activity (p < .01). Similarly, of children who received the low-value reward, those who engaged in the high-interest activity spent more time with the book than those who en-

1 All p values reported are based on two-tailed tests of significance.

0 High Interest 375 - A Low Interest

0 300-

- 225- E z

High-value reward Low-value reward No reward

FIG. 1.-Mean number of seconds of contact with storybook during 10-min free-choice period.

gaged in the low-interest activity. In contrast, of children who received the high-value reward, those who engaged in the high-interest activity spent less time with the book than children who engaged in the low-interest activity. However, neither of these latter differences reached statistical significance.

To test the specific hypotheses of the study, t tests were used. As predicted, of children who engaged in the high-interest reading activity, those who received no reward spent significantly more time with the book than the children who received either the high-value reward, X = 465.11 versus 195.22, respectively, t(16) - 2.45, p < .03, or the low-value reward, X = 456.11 versus 232.56, t(16) = 1.98, p < .06. Contrary to prediction, there was no significant difference between children in the high-interest group who received the high-value reward and those who received the low-value reward (t < 1).

In contrast, and consistent with prediction, of children who engaged in the low-interest activity, those who received the high- value reward spent significantly more time with the book than children who received either the low-value reward, X = 273.67 versus 56.11, respectively, t(16) = 2.62, p < .02, or no reward, X = 273.67 versus 53.00, t(16) = 2.55, p < .02. Contrary to prediction, there was no

significant difference between children in the low-interest group who received the low-value reward and those who received no reward (t < 1).

Number of words read.-A 2 x 3 analysis of variance of number of words read indicated a significant main effect of activity, F(1,48) = 7.69, p < .008, and a significant interaction of activity and reward value, F(2,48) = 7.69, p < .001. The form of this interaction is illustrated in figure 2. Children who engaged in the high-interest activity read more words than children who engaged in the low-interest activity, except those who received a high-value reward. Specifically, Newman-Keuls analyses indicated that of children who received no reward, those who engaged in the high-interest activity read significantly more words than those who engaged in the low-interest activity (p < .01). Similarly, of children who received the low-value reward, those who engaged in the high-interest activity read more words than those who engaged in the low-interest activity. In contrast, of children who received the high- value reward, those who engaged in the high- interest activity read fewer words than children who engaged in the low-interest activity. How- ever, neither of these latter differences reached statistical significance.

Additional contrasts of cell means indicated that, as predicted, of children who engaged in the high-interest activity, those who

700- * High Interest A Low Interest

600- CO

~500 0

. 400-

0- High-value reward Low-value reward No reward

FIc. 2.-Mean number of words read from storybook during 10-min free-choice period.

received no reward read significantly more words than those who received either the high- value reward, X = 737.11 versus 269.89, respectively, t(16) = 3.32, p < .004, or the low- value reward, X = 737.11 versus 301.11, respectively, t(16) =2.76, p < .02. Contrary to prediction, there was no significant difference between children in the high-interest group who received the low-value reward and those who received the high-value reward (t < 1).

In contrast, of children who engaged in the low-interest reading activity, those who received the high-value reward read significantly more words than children who received either the low-value reward, X = 396.00 versus 144.44, respectively, t(16) = 2.01, p < .06, or no reward, X = 396.00 versus 97.22, t(16) =

2.31, p < .04. Contrary to prediction, there was no significant difference between children in the low-interest group who received the low-value reward and those who received no reward (t < 1).

First contact.-Chi-square analyses of the frequency with which the book was the first object contacted during the free-choice period by children in the two interest groups and the three reward groups revealed no significant differences.

Most fun activity.-Seventeen children (63%) in the high-interest group, compared to seven (26%) children in the low-interest group, said that reading the book was the most fun thing to do in the experimental room. A X2 analysis indicated that this difference was sta- tistically significant, X2(1) = 4.17, p < .05. However, there were no significant differences between the three reward groups in the number of children who identified reading the book as the most fun thing to do.

Discussion

The results of the present study further clarify the conditions under which rewards increase or decrease children's subsequent intrinsic interest, both in terms of the variables examined and the educational or academic nature of the activity employed. When amount of time and approximate number of words read were used as indexes of intrinsic interest in reading the book, both high- and low-value rewards decreased significantly children's interest in the high-interest activity compared to no reward. In contrast, high- but not low-value rewards increased significantly children's in-

terest in the low-interest activity. Thus, in the present study, the overjustification effect de- scribed by Lepper et al. (1973) held for children who engaged in the high-interest activity and received the high- and low-value reward, but not for those children who engaged in the low-interest activity. This differential effect of rewards as a function of interest level is consistent with previous findings by Calder and Staw (1975) and Loveland and Olley (Note 1). Calder and Staw found that the introduc- tion of an extrinsic monetary reward increased reported enjoyment for a low intrinsically mo- tivating blank puzzle task but decreased reported enjoyment for a high intrinsically mo- tivating picture puzzle task. Loveland and Olley found that a good player award decreased interest in children who showed high initial interest in a drawing activity but increased interest in children who showed low initial interest.

In the present study, there was no significant difference in the degree to which high- and low-value rewards decreased children's subsequent intrinsic interest in the high-interest activity. In both the high-value and low-value reward conditions, an explicit contractual agree- ment was made whereby the child would re- ceiVe an extrinsic reward if he or she engaged in the reading activity. The lack of significant difference, then, suggests that it was the com- mon condition of undertaking the reading activity in order to obtain the reward which pro- duced the subsequent decline in intrinsic interest. Perhaps in the experimental situation, high- and low-value rewards were of similar salience to the children who engaged in the high-interest activity and thereby were of similar sufficiency to replace their perception of personal causation with the perception that their behavior was caused and governed by the rewards.

The present findings have practical im-

plications for situations in which extrinsic rewards are typically given for engaging in both highly interesting as well as relatively uninteresting activities. One such situation, obvious- ly, is the classroom. Giving children extrinsic rewards for engaging in an interesting activity, regardless of whether the reward is accorded

high or low value by the child, is not only superfluous, but may prove to be detrimental to subsequent interest. In contrast, highly valued rewards may enhance subsequent interest in a relatively uninteresting activity.

Thus, rather than discouraging the use of all extrinsic rewards in educational settings, the

findings of the present study suggest that the discriminant use of rewards, in this instance, high-value rewards for engaging in a low-interest activity, may be appropriate and bene- ficial. The effective and prudent use of extrinsic rewards in the classroom requires an awareness of the child's individual level of interest in the activity or the interest inherent in the activity. Moreover, when the activity is relatively uninteresting, the present findings suggest that an awareness of the rewards to which the child ascribes high value is critical. Undoubtedly, the consistent provision of rewards on the bases of their value to the child and the child's interest in the activity in question requires that the classroom, or any educational setting, have as its primary focus the individual as opposed to the group. Even in the context of individualized instruction, however, implementation of such a strategy may present practical difficulties, including amount of time required for implementation of such a strategy, classroom management, children's perception of differential receipt of rewards both in terms of quantity and identity of rewards, and parental concern about differential reward structures which are based on interest level and employ individualized and therefore different rewards.

While the present findings do have educational implications, it is important to em- phasize the limitations of the present study and to caution against overgeneralization. The manipulation of both the reward value and interest variables in the present study required that children in the low-interest and low-value reward conditions be presented with a storybook and a reward which they had previously indicated they did not like as well as the al- ternatives. This reactive procedure may have induced perceptions (e.g., dubious motive of experimenter) or emotional states over and above, or at least different from, those typically engendered when children are presented low- value rewards or low-interest activities in the absence of previous articulations of choice by the child to the person presenting the reward or activity. Assessing the effect of this reactive manipulation on the interest variable, compared to the reward-value variable, is less problematic since the present findings regarding the differential effect of rewards as a function of interest level are consistent with those reported by Calder and Staw (1975) and Love-

land and Olley (Note 1). The present findings regarding the effects of the low-value reward on subsequent intrinsic interest, relative to the high-value and control conditions, then, must be regarded as tentative and their interpreta- tion speculative in the absence of additional research which examines the reward-value variable.

In addition to this limitation, the practical implications of the present findings should not be generalized to children vastly different from those of the present study. The sample in the present study was a relatively homogeneous one of white, primarily middle-class children who did not have reading problems. The present findings, then, do not speak to the effectiveness of various reward structures for children who have reading problems or are from ethnic or socioeconomic backgrounds other than white, middle class.

Whether the present findings would have been obtained if the rewards had been given by a familiar rather than a strange, albeit friendly, adult cannot be determined. How- ever, since rewards for engaging in educational- ly related activities are more likely to be given by a familiar rather than a strange person, for example, a teacher or a parent, future research which examines the effects of rewards given by individuals with whom the child has different types of relationships would be especially use- ful. Along these same lines, though children in the no-reward condition in the present study did not receive a tangible reward, the mere presence of the experimenter may have been rewarding. Studies which clarify the effects of social rewards, such as attention and approval, independently of tangible rewards would be of great educational importance in their own right, and perhaps would also clarify some of the previous research in which this issue was ig- nored. Anderson et al. (1976) reported that of children who did not receive a tangible reward for engaging in a drawing activity, those who were exposed to an attentive experimenter showed relatively stable interest across experimental sessions, whereas the interest of those exposed to an inattentive experimenter de- clined significantly from the baseline to the posttest session. In view of these considerations, further study of the effects of various social rewards or social conditions is clearly warranted.

The failure to find significant differences

between the reward groups on the first contact and attitudinal measures indicates the need for increased attention to the operationalization of the concept of intrinsic motivation or interest as a dependent variable. This need is further indicated by discrepant findings in the litera- ture on the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic interest when different indexes of intrinsic motivation have been used. For example, consistent with the present findings, Deci (1971) found that rewards decreased persis- tence on an interesting activity but did not affect reported interest and task enjoyment. In contrast, both Calder and Staw (1975) and Kruglanski et al. (1971) found that extrinsic rewards for engaging in a high-interest activity decreased reported task enjoyment and satis- faction. The studies by Deci, Kruglanski et al., and Calder and Staw all required subjects to rate on an interval scale the degree of enjoyment of the target activity. In contrast, Ross (1975) used the same "most fun activity" verbal measure of interest as that employed in the present study. Contrary to the present findings, Ross (1975) found that children who received either a nonsalient reward or no reward were more likely to choose the target activity as the most fun activity than children who received a salient reward. To the extent that the verbal choice measure employed in the present study has lower reliability, is a less sensitive measure of interest than the enjoyment ratings employed in previous research, and requires for its analysis the use of nonparametric and therefore less powerful statistical techniques, the in- consistency between the present and previous findings regarding reported enjoyment may not be particularly problematic. However, these considerations, especially the latter two, do not explain the discrepant findings of studies men- tioned previously which employ fairly differ- entiated rating scales, analyses of which are based on parametric statistics. Future research should seek to clarify these conflicting findings and employ numerous indicators of intrinsic interest. In view of the restricted number of indexes of intrinsic interest examined in previous research and, moreover, the paucity of knowl- edge about the psychological nature of intrinsic motivation, there is no compelling reason to believe that all indexes of intrinsic motivation necessarily should be similarly affected by extrinsic rewards. Only collective results from several studies employing numerous indexes of intrinsic motivation, as well as a variety of tasks and activities, are likely to resolve these

issues and increase substantially our under- standing of the psychological nature of intrinsic motivation.

Reference Note

1. Loveland, K. K., & Olley, J. G. The effect of external reward on interest and quality of task performance in children of high and low intrinsic motivation. Unpublished manuscript, University of Massachusetts, 1977.

References

Anderson, R.; Manoogian, S. T.; & Reznick, J. S. The undermining and enhancing of intrinsic motivation in preschool children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 915-922.

Bem, D. J. Self-perception theory. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. Vol. 6. New York: Academic Press, 1972.

Bisett, B. M., & Rieber, M. The effects of age and incentive value on discrimination learning. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 1966, 3, 199-206.

Calder, B. J., & Staw, B. M. Self-perception of intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 599- 605.

Condry, J. Enemies of exploration: self-initiated versus other-initiated learning. Journal of Per- sonality and Social Psychology, 1977, 35, 459- 477.

deCharms, R. Personal causation. New York: Aca- demic Press, 1968.

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

Garbarino, J. The impact of anticipated reward upon cross-age tutoring. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 421-428.

Greene, D.; Sternberg, B.; & Lepper, M. R. Over- justification in a token economy. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1976, 34, 1219-1234.

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

Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D. Turning play into work: effects of adult surveillance and extrinsic rewards on children's intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1975, 31, 479-486.

Lepper, M. R.; Greene, D.; & Nisbett, R. E. Un- dermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic rewards: a test of the over-justification hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 28, 129-137.

Leventhal, H., & Fischer, K. What reinforces in a social situation-words or expressions? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 14, 83-94.

Levine, F. M., & Fasnacht, G. Token rewards may lead to token learning. American Psychologist, 1974, 29, 816-820.

Meddock, T. D.; Parsons, J. A.; & Hill, K. T. Ef- fects of an adult's presence and praise on young children's performance. Journal of Ex- perimental Child Psychology, 1971, 12, 197- 211.

Ross, M. Salience of reward and intrinsic motivation. Journal of Personality and Social Psy- chology, 1975, 32, 245-254.

Witryol, S. L. Incentives and learning in children. In H. W. Reese (Ed.), Advances in child development and behavior. Vol. 6. New York: Academic Press, 1971.

The Effects of Extrinsic Rewards of Differential Value on High and Low Intrinsic Interest

Documents

Transcript of The Effects of Extrinsic Rewards of Differential Value on High and Low Intrinsic Interest

The Influence of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Rewards on …...equity ownership plans, treating them as if they were identical approaches to compensation. The case against monetary rewards

Intrinsic v extrinsic - mq.edu.au

Extrinsic and Intrinsic Sensor Calibration

Reward Systems Intrinsic Rewards Status Growth Responsibility Extrinsic Rewards Non-financial (office, staff, title, etc.) Financial (direct and indirect.

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation 1 Running head ... · PDF fileIntrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation 1 ... INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC MOTIVATION Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivational Orientations

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Size Effects

Intrinsic & Extrinsic Semiconductors

Sales Management 12 Motivation and Rewards. Motivation Motivation: Intrinsic vs. Extrinsic When rewards such as pay and formal recognition act as motivators.

Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motives: Standard and ...cle/secnf/TaylorSlides.pdfAgency and Extrinsic Rewards 3. ... Behavioral Approaches to Agency and Motivation 5. ... The minimalist

Intrinsic and Extrinsic Awards

Motivation intrinsic extrinsic pres

The effect of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation

Determinants of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Rewards on ...hrmars.com/hrmars_papers/Determinants_of_Intrinsic_and_Extrinsic... · Determinants of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Rewards on Employee

Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation Education ...mrbartonmaths.com/resourcesnew/8. Research/Motivation and Praise/Extrinsic Rewards and...Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation

The body receives a stimulus via a receptor o Cold-extrinsic o Heat-extrinsic o Pain-extrinsic or intrinsic o An odor-intrinsic o Fatigue-intrinsic.

Volume 8, Issue 12, 2019 Linking Rewards and Creative ... · Linking Rewards and Creative Performance: Mediating Role of Intrinsic & Extrinsic Motivation and ... which can motivate

Extrinsic and Intrinsic Cue Effects

Motivation intrinsic extrinsic

DELIVERING VALUE THROUGH NON-CASH REWARD Rewards... · 2020-05-19 · Online Rewards Michael Rose Renowned Reward Consultant ... (Intrinsic) Expectancy (Extrinsic) Gift Contract Impact

The Contributions of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Reading ... · The Contributions of Intrinsic and Extrinsic Reading ... THE CONTRIBUTIONS OF INTRINSIC AND EXTRINSIC ... Summer Vacation