The Differential Effects of Tangible Rewards and Praise on Intrinsic Motivation: A Comparison of Cognitive Evaluation Theory and Operant Theory

Abstract

Substantial research indicates that tangible rewards, such as money, prizes, and tokens, decrease response rates by undermining intrinsic motivation. In contrast, praise appears to increase response rates by enhancing intrinsic motivation. Based on their interpretation of available evidence, many social-cognitive researchers warn not to use tangible rewards in applied settings and to use praise instead. Furthermore, they suggest that the differential effects of the two types of rewards on intrinsic motivation cannot be explained using principles of operant psychology. Cognitive evaluation theory provides one of the most recent and widely cited social-cognitive explanations for the different effects of the two types of rewards on intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). However, a review of existing research found little support for the explanations based on this theory and revealed three potential confounding effects: (a) temporal contiguity, (b) the number of reward administrations, and (c) discriminative stimuli associated with reward availability. These three confounding factors provide explanations for the effects of tangible rewards and praise on intrinsic motivation that are consistent with principles of operant psychology.

A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation.

“…Others have claimed that the undermining effect (typically referred to as variability in response rates that might occur following reward termination) can be explained by standard operant principles (see, e.g., Carton, 1996;Flora, 1990). Still others (e.g., Bernstein, 1990;Dickinson, 1989;Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996) have not stuck strictly to operant principles but have attempted to explain the undermining effect "in terms comfortable to behavior analysts" (Bernstein, 1990, p. 331).…”

“…627 Articles spanning a period of 25 years have presented behaviorist perspectives maintaining that the "obscure" concept of intrinsic motivation inhibits "scientific progress" and that there is "no acceptable evidence" of an undermining effect (see, e.g., Carton, 1996;Flora, 1990;Scott, 1975). Nonetheless, many behavioral theorists (e.g., Bernstein, 1990), as well as motivational and cognitive theorists, have acknowledged that there is indeed a phenomenon of undermining to be reckoned with and have tried to specify the limiting conditions of the phenomenon and to provide theoretical accounts of the processes through which rewards can affect intrinsic motivation.…”

The effects of monetary and social rewards on task performance in children and adolescents: Liking is not enough

“…Even money, a powerful reinforcer in many settings that is easy to quantify (Critchfield and Kollins, ), may actually not always act as a reinforcer. Tangible reinforcers, such as money, can decrease intrinsic motivation and consequently lead to reductions in contingency‐driven responding (Carton, ; Deci and Ryan, ). Nevertheless money is used as a reinforcer in many settings.…”

An evaluation of the overjustification effect across multiple contingency arrangements

“…Carton (1996) noted that because rewards are generally delivered after the session, whereas praise is provided continuously throughout the session, any differences observed between praise and rewards may be due to temporal contiguity. Results of this review suggest that the use of praise in facilitating intrinsic motivation may be a function of the frequency and immediacy with which praise is delivered relative to rewards.…”