Incremental effects of reward on creativity.

The authors examined 2 ways reward might increase creativity. First, reward contingent on creativity might increase extrinsic motivation. Studies 1 and 2 found that repeatedly giving preadolescent students reward for creative performance in 1 task increased their creativity in subsequent tasks. Study 3 reported that reward promised for creativity increased college students' creative task performance. Second, expected reward for high performance might increase creativity by enhancing perceived self-determination and, therefore, intrinsic task interest. Study 4 found that employees' intrinsic job interest mediated a positive relationship between expected reward for high performance and creative suggestions offered at work. Study 5 found that employees' perceived self-determination mediated a positive relationship between expected reward for high performance and the creativity of anonymous suggestions for helping the organization. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Contingent pay and intrinsic task interest: Moderating effects of work values.

Examined the hypothesis that Ss' work value orientations would moderate the effect that contingent extrinsic incentives may have in reducing intrinsic task interest. 74 business undergraduates were administered demographic and work value questionnaires and the Clerical Abilities subtest of the Short Employment Tests. Ss were asked to proofread 2 short stories (high interest) or 2 law review article sections (low interest) under noncontingent, contingent, or no-pay conditions. Analyses showed that under contingent pay conditions, Ss with relatively higher extrinsic than intrinsic work values reported lower task satisfaction than Ss with relatively higher intrinsic work values. In contrast, under no-pay conditions, Ss with relatively higher extrinsic than intrinsic work values were actually more satisfied than their intrinsic counterparts. Results, therefore, support the existence of both an overjustification and an insufficient justification effect for financial incentives. (18 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Need for cognition and desire for control as moderators of extrinsic reward effects: A person?×?situation approach to the study of intrinsic motivation.

74 Ss in extrinsic-reward or no-reward conditions completed a brainstorming task and then were left alone with the option to engage in additional versions of this task. If the Need for Cognition (NFC) Scale taps intrinsic motivation for effortful cognition (J. T. Cacioppo and R. E. Petty, 1982), the optional task engagement of high-NFC Ss, but not low-NFC Ss, should be undermined by extrinsic reward. Results confirmed this hypothesis, but regression analyses showed that NFC scores' moderation of reward effects was due to their covariation with scores on the Desire for Control Scale (J. M. Burger and H. M. Cooper, 1979). The data suggest that (1) NFC involves intrinsic motivation for effortful cognitive processing, (2) NFC may predict such processing mainly in contexts with minimal extrinsic incentives for processing, and (3) control motivation may be related causally both to extrinsic undermining effects and to individual differences in NFC. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Information requests in the context of escalation.

Staw's (1981) theory of escalation, that decision makers who are responsible for a failure will be more retrospectively oriented than those who are not responsible for a failure, was tested by monitoring the information requests of subjects performing the Adams and Smith decision case (Staw, 1976). A total of 72 Master of Business Administration (MBA) students completed a computer-administered version of the case, in which they were permitted to request information files that had been preclassified as retrospective or prospective on the basis of the results of data collected from a different sample of MBA students. We found that 75% of the subjects who were responsible for a previous failure requested retrospective information, compared to about 25% of the subjects who were not responsible for a failure. This significant difference (i.e., p?     

Effects of reward on intrinsic motivation—Negative, neutral, and positive: Comment on Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999).

Comments on the meta-analytic review by E. L. Deci et al (see record 1999-01567-001) concerning the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Meta-analyses indicated that rewards increase perceived self-determination and that rewards' effects on intrinsic motivation depend on the performance requirement. Reward for meeting vague performance standards reduced the subsequent choice to carry out the task and did not affect self-reported interest. Reward for meeting absolute performance standards did not affect free choice but increased self-reported interest. Reward for exceeding others increased both free choice and self-reported interest. Applied studies commonly found positive or null relationships between reward and intrinsic motivation. The findings suggest that reward procedures requiring ill-defined or minimal performance convey task triviality, thereby decreasing intrinsic motivation. Reward procedures requiring specific high task performance convey a task's personal or social significance, increasing intrinsic motivation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reward, distraction, and the overjustification effect.

A number of experiments have recently demonstrated that extrinsic constraints and rewards can produce lower levels of intrinsic interest in subsequent free-choice situations. This effect has been considered to be the result of a shift in the self-perceived locus of motivation from intrinsic to extrinsic but has also been explained as resulting from the distracting qualities of reward procedures. The latter hypothesis implies that reward and nonreward distractors will produce decreases in intrinsic interest and that these decreases will dissipate over multiple-trial procedures as a result of adaptation. On the other hand, the attribution explanation predicts that rewards or other extrinsic constraints will produce decreases in interest that are stable or strengthened over time. The present experiment, using 132 male and female undergraduates, involved manipulation of 3 levels of the reward/distraction variable (reward, nonreward/distraction, and a nonreward/no-distraction control) crossed with 3 levels of initial trial participation (10, 25, or 50 trials). The results indicate that rewards produced a constant decrease in interest over trials, consistent with the attribution explanation. While there was some evidence for a temporary disruption in intrinsic interest due to nonreward distraction, no support was obtained for a distraction interpretation of the effects of rewards on free-choice behavior. (16 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Competence and the overjustification effect: A developmental study.

Examined the conditions under which information regarding competence would mitigate the negative side effects of rewards on the intrinsic interest of preschool and middle elementary school children. 144 nursery school and 3rd–5th graders engaging in a task of high initial interest anticipated a reward made contingent either upon meeting a standard based on absolute performance level or upon task engagement alone, or they were not rewarded. In addition, Ss were provided with direct information concerning competence presented in terms of social comparison. Results indicate that the preschool children were primarily affected by information about meeting the absolute standard but not the social comparison information. That is, the overjustification effect did not occur when attaining a reward was made contingent on meeting an absolute standard of performance. Social comparison information superseded the effect of the contingency of the reward on subsequent interest in the target task for the older children. (26 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Can salient reward increase creative performance without reducing intrinsic creative interest?

Two experiments, involving 416 preadolescent school children, investigated the effects of monetary reward on generalized creative performance and intrinsic creative interest. In Experiment 1, the explicit requirement of novel performance in 1 task (generating unusual uses for physical objects) produced greater subsequent creative performance in an entirely different task (picture drawing) when a large reward was used rather than a small reward or no reward. In Experiment 2, reward for novel performance increased subsequent intrinsic creative interest, measured here by the choice to produce original drawings rather than copy a familiar drawing. Intrinsic creative interest was reduced only by reward for uncreative performance. These findings suggest that the explicit requirement of novel performance for salient reward enhances generalized creativity without any loss of intrinsic creative interest. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Performance evaluation and intrinsic motivation: The effects of evaluative focus, rewards, and achievement orientation.

Most studies of intrinsic motivation under reward and evaluative contingencies have used social comparison criteria to evaluate subjects' performance. In those studies evaluation tended to reduce intrinsic interest. This study contrasted normative evaluation against a more task-focused evaluation of subjects' performance on an interesting word game and examined the role of achievement motivation in moderating reactions to performance evaluation. Focus differences were implemented under conditions of performance-contingent reward, anticipated evaluation, and control conditions in which subjects received performance feedback at task conclusion. We predicted that evaluation would reduce interest relative to reward and feedback control groups under a normative focus but not under a task focus and also that a process of competence valuation (Harackiewicz & Manderlink, 1984) would mediate the effects of reward and achievement on interest, especially in normative conditions. The data conformed to these expectations with one exception: Evaluation under a task focus increased intrinsic interest. These results were interpreted in the context of a general model that considers the separate effects of situational contingencies, personality factors, performance and motivational processes, and evaluative outcomes on intrinsic motivation. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Additivity versus nonadditivity of intrinsic and extrinsic incentives: Implications for work motivation, performance, and attitudes.

80 male Ss were randomly assigned to either an intrinsically appealing or an intrinsically nonappealing assembly task. Half of the Ss were paid according to a highly salient, continuous, contingent reward schedule, while the other half were paid according to an extremely noncontingent payment schedule. Thus, 20 Ss worked for both intrinsic and extrinsic incentives, 20 for extrinsic only, 20 for intrinsic only, and 20 for minimal incentives of either type. Data on 4 dependent variables (performance, intrinsic motivation, orientation toward the task, and intrinsic satisfaction) provided convergent support for E. L. Deci's (see record 1968-02190-001) hypothesis that intrinsic and extrinsic incentives are not additive in determining attitudes and behavior. (18 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Overjustification and children's intrinsic motivation: Comparative effects of four rewards.

Studied the relative overjustifying effects of various types of rewards on 30 boys' and 30 girls' (mean ages 72.6 and 72.4 mo, respectively) intrinsic motivation. Four reward procedures were examined—tangible, verbal, symbolic, and self-administered symbolic (self) rewards. Ss attempted to solve mazes under 1 of 5 training conditions and were then given a free-play period in which to engage in further maze play or try other materials. Ss receiving tangible rewards and those who self-administered symbolic rewards (self-reward) showed less subsequent intrinsic motivation than Ss in the control, verbal reward, and symbolic reward conditions. Moreover, internal locus-of-control expectancies (Stanford Preschool Internal–External Scale) were inversely related to intrinsic motivation for Ss in the self-reward condition. Results are discussed from 2 perspectives—the intrinsic–extrinsic reward continuum and E. L. Deci's (1975) distinction between the controlling (detrimental) and informational (competence- and motivation-enhancing) aspects of rewards. (21 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Genetic correlation between performance on an appetitive-signaled nosepoke task and voluntary ethanol consumption

The present study used a signaled appetitive nosepoke task as a measure of behavioral control or impulsivity related to reward system function in mice and determined how impulsivity correlated with voluntary ethanol consumption. Thirteen inbred strains were trained to nosepoke for food rewards and eventually trained to nosepoke for reward when an auditory signal was presented. Efficiency in the signaled nosepoke task indicated the ability of the mice to withhold the nosepoke response until the signal to respond for a reward was given and was considered indicative of behavioral control or impulsivity. After completion of the nosepoke task, the mice were tested for ethanol consumption in a three-bottle choice test at 3 and 10% (v/v) ethanol concentrations. Behavioral measures from the nosepoke task and ethanol consumption measures were correlated to determine a genetic relationship. High efficiency, the ability to withhold nosepoking until signaled, was negatively correlated with ethanol consumption. Thus, the strains who were better able to control their behavioral responding (i.e., less impulsive) consumed less ethanol, and strains who were more impulsive consumed more ethanol. This genetic relationship may be a mouse behavioral model for some of the neuropsychological traits demonstrated in human subjects who are family history-positive for alcoholism.     

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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

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. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The overjustification effect: A developmental test of self-perception interpretations.

Examined the self-perception explanations of the overjustification effect and their underlying assumptions about cognitive structures based on the operation of multiple-sufficient-causal schemata (MSCS). Two studies were carried out that initially identified the Ss as belonging to the additive, transitional, or discounting stage of MSCS according to the procedure of M. C. Smith (see record 1974-22388-001). A total of 94 5-, 8-, and 11-yr-old schoolchildren were selected as Ss. Half of the Ss were given a tangible reward for an interesting task in the usual overjustification paradigm. The results of both studies indicate that the rewarded groups showed a decline in intrinsic interest that was independent of the Ss' level of functioning on the schema. The author examines objections to the present research strategy and assesses the educational implications of the outcomes. (39 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The effects of cooperative and individualistic reward on intrinsic motivation

The effects of cooperative versus individualistic reward on students' intrinsic motivation were investigated. The controlling aspects of extrinsic reward may be heightened or produce greater ego threat in the individualistic situation when compared with a group situation. We predicted that students in the cooperative social situation would show higher levels of intrinsic motivation. Fifth-grade students from existing cooperative groups were assigned randomly to receive a tangible reward based on either cooperative or individualistic achievement for completing pattern block designs. Cooperation affected intrinsic motivation positively. Students in the cooperative dyad solved the block designs more quickly, interacted positively, and viewed the task as easier than did those in the individualistic situation, and they reported that their peers were helpful. There was little evidence that the controlling functions of reward or ego-threat were factors in producing the outcome. Some evidence supporting the importance of the social nature of cooperation was provided.     

Effects of work task cues and play task cues on information processing, judgment, and motivation.

Explored how task cues affect cognition, attitudes, and behavior in this laboratory study with 82 MBA students. Linguistic analysis of responses to the same puzzle task, cued as either work or play, revealed that task cues influenced how information was perceived and was used to form judgments and to shape behavioral responses. Ss performing work tasks attended more to information about the quantity of their performance and made more streamlined, goal-directed responses. Ss performing play tasks attended more to information about the quality of their performance; made more elaborated, image-laden responses; and were more intrinsically motivated. Links among task cues, cognitive processes, and performance were explicated through path analysis. Task cues affected performance outcomes indirectly by instantiating associated cognitive orientations: a means orientation in play and an ends orientation in work. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Group productivity and process: Pure and mixed reward structures and task interdependence.

Conducted 2 experiments in which triads participated in multitrial block-stacking tasks that allowed for objective measures of productivity and process. In Exp I with 210 undergraduates, the task was executed either interdependently in the form of a single tower or individualistically in the construction of 3 separate towers. Reward points were distributed equally (cooperative), in relation to contribution (independent), or only to the most productive group member (competitive). Results indicate that cooperative and independent systems were associated with greater productivity than competitive systems only under conditions of high task interdependence, and that there was no relation between reward system and productivity for the individualistic task. In Exp II with 154 undergraduates, independent and competitive allocations were each combined in varied proportions with cooperative allocation to examine the effects of mixed reward systems on productivity and process. Results show that even a modicum of competitive reward led to lowered efficiency and productivity. (18 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Does reward increase or decrease creativity?

[Correction Notice: An erratum for this article was reported in Vol 67(1) of Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (see record 2008-10477-001). In the aforementioned article, Figures 1 and 2 were interchanged. The figures appear with their correct captions in the erratum.] Two studies involving 504 school children investigated why behaviorists and cognitively oriented investigators have come to opposite conclusions about reward's effects on creativity. A monetary reward for a high degree of divergent thought in 1 task (word construction) increased children's subsequent originality in a different task (picture drawing). The same reward, made contingent on a low degree of divergent thought, reduced this generalized originality. These effects were eliminated by using a large reward and were restored by keeping the large reward out of the children's sight. The results suggest that reward training increases generalized creativity when (1) a high degree of divergent thought is required and (2) the reward is presented in not too salient a fashion. The findings are consistent with a 2-factor interpretation of rewarded creativity effects that incorporates learned industriousness and selective attention. [A correction concerning this article appears in Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1994(Jul), Vol 67(1), 125. Figures 1 and 2 were interchanged.] (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

"Does reward increase or decrease creativity?": Correction to Eisenberger and Selbst.

Reports an error in "Does reward increase or decrease creativity" by Robert Eisenberger and Michael Selbst (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1994[Jun], Vol 66[6], 1116-1127). In the aforementioned article, Figures 1 and 2 were interchanged. The figures appear with their correct captions in the erratum. (The following abstract of the original article appeared in record 1994-40652-001.) Two studies involving 504 school children investigated why behaviorists and cognitively oriented investigators have come to opposite conclusions about reward's effects on creativity. A monetary reward for a high degree of divergent thought in 1 task (word construction) increased children's subsequent originality in a different task (picture drawing). The same reward, made contingent on a low degree of divergent thought, reduced this generalized originality. These effects were eliminated by using a large reward and were restored by keeping the large reward out of the children's sight. The results suggest that reward training increases generalized creativity when (1) a high degree of divergent thought is required and (2) the reward is presented in not too salient a fashion. The findings are consistent with a 2-factor interpretation of rewarded creativity effects that incorporates learned industriousness and selective attention. [A correction concerning this article appears in Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 1994(Jul), Vol 67(1), 125. Figures 1 and 2 were interchanged.] (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)