Reinforcement Effects on Three Measures of Children's Interest in Math

Vasta, Ross; Stirpe, Louise A.

doi:10.1177/014544557932006

Cited by 32 publications

(26 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition, as with Michael, Charlie's accuracy remained high and his ratings of liking math were the highest possible. By including data on a gradually thinning schedule of reward delivery and obtaining subjective measures, this study extends the findings of Vasta and Stirpe (1979). Collectively, the two studies do not support the strongly worded warnings about the dire effects of tangible rewards on children's interest.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 52%

“…Very few studies employing behavior-analytic methods with children have been reported. We found none published within the past 20 years, and only one that used math as a dependent variable (Vasta & Stirpe, 1979). It alternated two conditions, contingent rewards and baseline, and a decremental effect was not detected, although a transient below-baseline performance did occur for 2 of the 4 middleschool participants.…”

mentioning

confidence: 78%

“…Additional details about the methods used are available from the first and second authors (see also Vasta & Stirpe, 1979).…”

Section: Interscorer Agreementmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The Effect of Token Rewards on “Intrinsic” Motivation for Doing Math

McGinnis

Friman

Carlyon

1999

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study used a multielement baseline design to analyze the effects of token rewards delivered contingent upon completion of math problems by 2 middle-school boys. Time spent on math and number of work pages completed increased (with high accuracy) during reward conditions and were maintained during fading and withdrawal. At followup, time spent and work pages completed remained well above baseline for 1 boy and fell below for the other, while accuracy remained high and ratings of liking math were the highest possible for both boys. Overall, the results are inconsistent with warnings about use of token rewards to motivate children.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 52%

mentioning

confidence: 78%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Effect of Token Rewards on “Intrinsic” Motivation for Doing Math

McGinnis

Friman

Carlyon

1999

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…By contrast, Vasta and Stirpe (1979) showed evidence that did not support the overjustification hypothesis. First, baseline data were collected on worksheet completion for two groups of children.…”

mentioning

confidence: 76%

Progressing From Programmatic to Discovery Research: A Case Example With the Overjustification Effect

Roane

Fisher

McDonough

2003

J of App Behav Analysis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Scientific research progresses along planned (programmatic research) and unplanned (discovery research) paths. In the current investigation, we attempted to conduct a single-case evaluation of the overjustification effect (i.e., programmatic research). Results of the initial analysis were contrary to the overjustification hypothesis in that removal of the reward contingency produced an increase in responding. Based on this unexpected finding, we conducted subsequent analyses to further evaluate the mechanisms underlying these results (i.e., discovery research). Results of the additional analyses suggested that the reward contingency functioned as punishment (because the participant preferred the task to the rewards) and that withdrawal of the contingency produced punishment contrast.

show abstract

“…Three other studies are noteworthy for including a control group that would allow assessment of drifts in intrinsic motivation unrelated to reward. One of these studies (Vasta & Stirpe, 1979) is not considered further because the experimental and control groups were small and showed different levels of performance toward the end of baseline training. The two remaining studies used repeated performance-independent reward followed by reNovember 1996 • American Psychologist 1159 peated assessments of intrinsic interest.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth?

Eisenberger¹,

Cameron²

1996

American Psychologist

701

544

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.O bservers of American culture have long noted a I strong emphasis on individualistic values, including taking responsibility for one's own actions, pursuing personal interests, and exploring one's creative potential (e.g., Badia, 1990;Huber, 1971; Tocqueville, 1840Tocqueville, /1990. Consistent with the common presumption that individuals function most effectively and happily when they are guiding their own behavior (see Geller, 1982;Hogan, 1975), an increasingly dominant view has developed over the past quarter century contending that the strengthening of performance by reward (reinforcement) causes the unpleasant experience of being controlled by others and reduces task interest and creativity. Based on seemingly overwhelming empirical evidence of such effects, the value of using reward to alter human behavior has been challenged in literature reviews, textbooks, and the popular media. Conventional ViewThe following sentiments are characteristic of a diverse and growing literature claiming that reward inherently reduces task interest and creativity. According to an article published in the American Psychologist, "reinforcement has two effects. First, predictably, it gains control of [an] activity, increasing its frequency. Second .... when reinforcement is later withdrawn, people engage in the activity even less than they did before reinforcement was introduced" (Schwartz, 1990, p. 10). A widely cited literature review that appeared in the premier social psychology journal, the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, concluded the following: Individuals who have been provided rewards "seem to work harder and produce more activity, but the activity is of a lower quality, contains more errors, and is more stereotyped and less creative than the work of comparable nonrewarded subjects working on the same problems" (Condry, 1977, pp. 471-472).The categorical assertion that rewards lessen task interest and creativity has profound practical implications. Increasingly, one hears and reads about how the use of reward systems in educational settings, hospitals, the workplace, and other institutions may do more harm than good. Articles and books written for laypeople and practitioners in education and business warn of the danger of behavior modification programs and incentive systems when...

show abstract

Reinforcement Effects on Three Measures of Children's Interest in Math

Cited by 32 publications

References 21 publications

The Effect of Token Rewards on “Intrinsic” Motivation for Doing Math

The Effect of Token Rewards on “Intrinsic” Motivation for Doing Math

Progressing From Programmatic to Discovery Research: A Case Example With the Overjustification Effect

Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About