IP: Studies Find Reward Often No Motivator

[Dave Farber <farber@cis.upenn.edu>]

>From: "the terminal of Geoff Goodfellow" <geoff@iconia.com>
>To: "Dave e-mail pamphleteer Farber" <farber@cis.upenn.edu>
>
>Dave: A most interesting article, which to me is the very spirit of The How and
>The Why the Internet, Linux, etc. came to and continue to be so great. For
>myself, it is the very core of why I enjoy activities such as DJ'ng (which i
>don't accept money for) and even why I enjoy playing the stock market so much
>(just to do it for its own sake, not for the money!). I believe the word for
>these activites is "Autotelic", meaning "self goals" (as opposes to extotelic
>"external goals", such as money or other reward). -Geoff
>
>http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/motivation.html
>
>Studies Find Reward Often No Motivator
>Creativity and intrinsic interest diminish if task is done for gain
>By Alfie Kohn
>Special to the Boston Globe
>[reprinted with permission of the author
>from the Monday, 19 January 1987, Boston Globe]
>
>In the laboratory, rats get Rice Krispies. In the classroom the top students
>get A's, and in the factory or office the best workers get raises. It's an
>article of faith for most of us that rewards promote better performance.
>
>But a growing body of research suggests that this law is not nearly as ironclad
>as was once thought. Psychologists have been finding that rewards can lower
>performance levels, especially when the performance involves creativity.
>
>A related series of studies shows that intrinsic interest in a task - the sense
>that something is worth doing for its own sake - typically declines when
>someone is rewarded for doing it.
>
>If a reward - money, awards, praise, or winning a contest - comes to be seen as
>the reason one is engaging in an activity, that activity will be viewed as less
>enjoyable in its own right.
>
>With the exception of some behaviorists who doubt the very existence of
>intrinsic motivation, these conclusions are now widely accepted among
>psychologists. Taken together, they suggest we may unwittingly be squelching
>interest and discouraging innovation among workers, students and artists.
>
>The recognition that rewards can have counter-productive effects is based on a
>variety of studies, which have come up with such findings as these: Young
>children who are rewarded for drawing are less likely to draw on their own that
>are children who draw just for the fun of it. Teenagers offered rewards for
>playing word games enjoy the games less and do not do as well as those who play
>with no rewards. Employees who are praised for meeting a manager's expectations
>suffer a drop in motivation.
>
>Much of the research on creativity and motivation has been performed by Theresa
>Amabile, associate professor of psychology at Brandeis University. In a paper
>published early last year on her most recent study, she reported on experiments
>involving elementary school and college students. Both groups were asked to
>make ``silly'' collages. The young children were also asked to invent stories.
>
>The least-creative projects, as rated by several teachers, were done by those
>students who had contracted for rewards. ``It may be that commissioned work
>will, in general, be less creative than work that is done out of pure
>interest,'' Amabile said.
>
>In 1985, Amabile asked 72 creative writers at Brandeis and at Boston University
>to write poetry. Some students then were given a list of extrinsic (external)
>reasons for writing, such as impressing teachers, making money and getting into
>graduate school, and were asked to think about their own writing with respect
>to these reasons. Others were given a list of intrinsic reasons: the enjoyment
>of playing with words, satisfaction from self-expression, and so forth. A third
>group was not given any list. All were then asked to do more writing.
>
>The results were clear. Students given the extrinsic reasons not only wrote
>less creatively than the others, as judged by 12 independent poets, but the
>quality of their work dropped significantly. Rewards, Amabile says, have this
>destructive effect primarily with creative tasks, including higher-level
>problem-solving. ``The more complex the activity, the more it's hurt by
>extrinsic reward,'' she said.
>
>But other research shows that artists are by no means the only ones affected.
>
>In one study, girls in the fifth and sixth grades tutored younger children much
>less effectively if they were promised free movie tickets for teaching well.
>The study, by James Gabarino, now president of Chicago's Erikson Institute for
>Advanced Studies in Child Development, showed that tutors working for the
>reward took longer to communicate ideas, got frustrated more easily, and did a
>poorer job in the end than those who were not rewarded.
>
>Such findings call into question the widespread belief that money is an
>effective and even necessary way to motivate people. They also challenge the
>behaviorist assumption that any activity is more likely to occur if it is
>rewarded. Amabile says her research ``definitely refutes the notion that
>creativity can be operantly conditioned.''
>
>But Kenneth McGraw, associate professor of psychology at the University of
>Mississippi, cautions that this does not mean behaviorism itself has been
>invalidated. ``The basic principles of reinforcement and rewards certainly
>work, but in a restricted context'' - restricted, that is, to tasks that are
>not especially interesting.
>
>Researchers offer several explanations for their surprising findings about
>rewards and performance.
>
>First, rewards encourage people to focus narrowly on a task, to do it as
>quickly as possible and to take few risks. ``If they feel that 'this is
>something I have to get through to get the prize,' they're going to be less
>creative,'' Amabile said.
>
>Second, people come to see themselves as being controlled by the reward. They
>feel less autonomous, and this may interfere with performance. ``To the extent
>one's experience of being self-determined is limited,'' said Richard Ryan,
>associate psychology professor at the University of Rochester, ``one's
>creativity will be reduced as well.''
>
>Finally, extrinsic rewards can erode intrinsic interest. People who see
>themselves as working for money, approval or competitive success find their
>tasks less pleasurable, and therefore do not do them as well.
>
>The last explanation reflects 15 years of work by Ryan's mentor at the
>University of Rochester, Edward Deci. In 1971, Deci showed that ``money may
>work to buy off one's intrinsic motivation for an activity'' on a long-term
>basis. Ten years later, Deci and his colleagues demonstrated that trying to
>best others has the same effect. Students who competed to solve a puzzle
>quickly were less likely than those who were not competing to keep working at
>it once the experiment was over.
>
>Control plays role
>
>There is general agreement, however, that not all rewards have the same effect.
>Offering a flat fee for participating in an experiment - similar to an hourly
>wage in the workplace - usually does not reduce intrinsic motivation. It is
>only when the rewards are based on performing a given task or doing a good job
>at it - analogous to piece-rate payment and bonuses, respectively - that the
>problem develops.
>
>The key, then, lies in how a reward is experienced. If we come to view
>ourselves as working to get something, we will no longer find that activity
>worth doing in its own right.
>
>There is an old joke that nicely illustrates the principle. An elderly man,
>harassed by the taunts of neighborhood children, finally devises a scheme. He
>offered to pay each child a dollar if they would all return Tuesday and yell
>their insults again. They did so eagerly and received the money, but he told
>them he could only pay 25 cents on Wednesday. When they returned, insulted him
>again and collected their quarters, he informed them that Thursday's rate would
>be just a penny. ``Forget it,'' they said - and never taunted him again.
>
>Means to an end
>
>In a 1982 study, Stanford psychologist Mark L. Lepper showed that any task, no
>matter how enjoyable it once seemed, would be devalued if it were presented as
>a means rather than an end. He told a group of preschoolers they could not
>engage in one activity they liked until they first took part in another.
>Although they had enjoyed both activities equally, the children came to dislike
>the task that was a prerequisite for the other.
>
>It should not be surprising that when verbal feedback is experienced as
>controlling, the effect on motivation can be similar to that of payment. In a
>study of corporate employees, Ryan found that those who were told, ``Good,
>you're doing as you /should/'' were ``significantly less intrinsically
>motivated than those who received feedback informationally.''
>
>There's a difference, Ryan says, between saying, ``I'm giving you this reward
>because I recognize the value of your work'' and ``You're getting this reward
>because you've lived up to my standards.''
>
>A different but related set of problems exists in the case of creativity.
>Artists must make a living, of course, but Amabile emphasizes that ``the
>negative impact on creativity of working for rewards can be minimized'' by
>playing down the significance of these rewards and trying not to use them in a
>controlling way. Creative work, the research suggests, cannot be forced, but
>only allowed to happen.
>
>Alfie Kohn, a Cambridge, MA writer, is the author of ``No Contest: The Case
>Against Competition,'' recently published by Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA.
>ISBN 0-395-39387-6.
>
>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>Geoff_Goodfellow@iconia.com, s.r.o.  *   tel/mobil +420 (0)603 706 558
>Vsehrdova 2, 110 00 Praha 1, Czech Republic   *   fax +420 2 5732 0623
>"Success is getting what you want & happiness is wanting what you get"