Cited by 574Motivation and Self-Concept in SportsBehavioral and Psychological StudiesEducation, Achievement, and Giftedness

Pervasive negative effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation: The myth continues

Open access
Cameron, Judy, Banko, Katherine M., Pierce, W. David·2001·The Behavior Analyst

Abstract

A major concern in psychology and education is that rewards decrease intrinsic motivation to perform activities. Over the past 30 years, more than 100 experimental studies have been conducted on this topic. In 1994, Cameron and Pierce conducted a meta-analysis of this literature and concluded that negative effects of reward were limited and could be easily prevented in applied settings. A more recent meta-analysis of the literature by Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999) shows pervasive negative effects of reward. The purpose of the present article is to resolve differences in previous meta-analytic findings and to provide a meta-analysis of rewards and intrinsic motivation that permits tests of competing theoretical explanations. Our results suggest that in general, rewards are not harmful to motivation to perform a task. Rewards given for low-interest tasks enhance free-choice intrinsic motivation. On high-interest tasks, verbal rewards produce positive effects on free-choice motivation and self-reported task interest. Negative effects are found on high-interest tasks when the rewards are tangible, expected (offered beforehand), and loosely tied to level of performance. When rewards are linked to level of performance, measures of intrinsic motivation increase or do not differ from a nonrewarded control group. Overall, the pattern of results indicates that reward contingencies do not have pervasive negative effects on intrinsic motivation. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are addressed.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/bf03392017

Cites

166 of 166 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The literature on rewards and compensation and performance is extensive and sometimes mixed.

    “Moreover, the effects of rewards and compensation on performance have an extensive body of literature behind them, which at times can also show mixed results (Cameron, Banko, & Pierce, 2001).”

    From Improving fluid intelligence with training on working memory: a meta-analysis (2015) · cites this paper as Cameron, Banko, & Pierce, 2001

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 170 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Cameron, J., Banko, K. M., & Pierce, W. D.
Affiliations
University of Alberta (CA)
Venue
The Behavior Analyst
Published
2001-04
Volume
24
Issue
1
Pages
1-44
ISSN
  • 0738-6729 (ISSN-L)
  • 2196-8918
OpenAlex
W1532860650
Cited by
574
References
170
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 31 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 30 · 2016: 39 · 2015: 23 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 24
FWCI
24.09
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • The Behavior Analyst (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Behavioral and Psychological Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
Keywords
reward, intrinsic motivation, extrinsic motivation, task interest, reward contingency, tangible rewards, verbal rewards, motivation theories

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review