The DOI matches its Crossref record; 187 of the 189 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 1 of the 138 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation.
Abstract
A meta-analysis of 128 studies examined the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. As predicted, engagement-contingent, completion-contingent, and performance-contingent rewards significantly undermined free-choice intrinsic motivation (d = -0.40, -0.36, and -0.28, respectively), as did all rewards, all tangible rewards, and all expected rewards. Engagement-contingent and completion-contingent rewards also significantly undermined self-reported interest (d = -0.15, and -0.17), as did all tangible rewards and all expected rewards. Positive feedback enhanced both free-choice behavior (d = 0.33) and self-reported interest (d = 0.31). Tangible rewards tended to be more detrimental for children than college students, and verbal rewards tended to be less enhancing for children than college students. The authors review 4 previous meta-analyses of this literature and detail how this study's methods, analyses, and results differed from the previous ones.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
This meta-analysis of 128 experiments found that expected tangible rewards—especially engagement-, completion-, and performance-contingent rewards—significantly undermined free-choice intrinsic motivation, while positive feedback enhanced it. The authors argue the results strongly support cognitive evaluation theory and contradict the claim that the undermining effect is largely a myth.
Key findings
- Engagement-contingent, completion-contingent, and performance-contingent rewards significantly undermined free-choice intrinsic motivation: *d* = −0.40, −0.36, and −0.28, respectively. All rewards, all tangible rewards, and all expected rewards also significantly undermined free-choice intrinsic motivation.
- Engagement-contingent and completion-contingent rewards significantly undermined self-reported interest (*d* = −0.15 and −0.17), as did all tangible rewards and all expected rewards. Positive feedback enhanced both free-choice behavior (*d* = 0.33) and self-reported interest (*d* = 0.31).
- Unexpected tangible rewards and task-noncontingent rewards did not significantly affect intrinsic motivation. Tangible rewards tended to be more detrimental for children than college students, and verbal rewards tended to be less enhancing for children than college students.
- In supplemental analyses, tangible rewards undermined intrinsic motivation for interesting tasks (*d* = −0.68 for free-choice; *d* = −0.37 for self-report) but not for uninteresting tasks (*d* = 0.18 and 0.10, respectively).
Methods
- Hierarchical meta-analysis of 128 studies drawn from 94 published articles and 19 dissertations; 101 studies included a free-choice behavioral measure and 84 included a self-report measure of interest/enjoyment.
- Inclusion required experiments with at least one experimental and one control group, appropriate no-reward control groups, tasks at least neutral in initial interest, and intrinsic-motivation assessment after the reward contingency ended.
- Effect sizes were Cohen’s *d*, computed with DSTAT; composite effects were weighted by the reciprocal of variance, homogeneity was tested with *Qw*, and moderator analyses examined reward type, contingency, age, feedback/control-group type, and other variables.
Limitations
- The authors state that when too few studies existed for a moderator, they collapsed across important moderators, so reported effects are weaker than actual effects, particularly for the undermining of intrinsic motivation by tangible rewards.
- The authors state that delayed assessments were virtually all with children, so there is no basis for generalizing the persistence of undermining to adults; they also note that only 2 multiple-session studies met inclusion criteria, with only 9 rewarded participants combined, providing no basis for conclusions.
- The authors state that the conclusion about negative feedback plus rewards versus negative feedback alone remains tentative because few studies compared those conditions; the text also makes evident that self-report measures required imputed *d* = 0.00 in 26 of 121 cases (21%), compared with 8 of 150 free-choice cases (5%).
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
124 Own result · 104 No full text of the sources · 54 Own interpretation · 38 Own method · 21 No basis given · 8 Sources not found · 4 Not checked yet · 1 Couldn’t confirm · accuracy not yet measured
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as did all rewards, all tangible rewards, and all expected rewards.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as did all rewards, all tangible rewards, and all expected rewards.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“engagement-contingent, completion-contingent, and performance-contingent rewards signifi- cantly undermined free-choice intrinsic motivation (d = -0.40, -0.36, and -0.28, respectively)”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“as did all rewards, all tangible rewards, and all expected rewards.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“engagement-contingent, completion-contingent, and performance-contingent rewards signifi- cantly undermined free-choice intrinsic motivation (d = -0.40, -0.36, and -0.28, respectively)”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Positive feedback enhanced both free-choice behavior (d = 0.33) and self-reported interest (d = 0.31).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tangible rewards tended to be more detrimental for children than college students, and verbal rewards tended to be less enhancing for children than college students.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Positive feedback enhanced both free-choice behavior (d = 0.33) and self-reported interest (d = 0.31).”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Tangible rewards tended to be more detrimental for children than college students, and verbal rewards tended to be less enhancing for children than college students.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“engagement-contingent, completion-contingent, and performance-contingent rewards signifi- cantly undermined free-choice intrinsic motivation (d = -0.40, -0.36, and -0.28, respectively)”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 108
- The quote only partly states this claim. 8
- It may state two separate claims as one. 129
The cited sources that could be checked couldn’t confirm or dispute this claim.
In the paper
“C & P did not include the self-report. In this study, children selected a face ranging from frown to smile to reflect how much they enjoyed the task, a procedure that is common for obtaining self-report data from young children.”
What the sources say
- Could not verifycites G. S. Goldstein (1980)Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Method section describes Goldstein’s study of undergraduates using seven-point self-report inventories; it does not establish whether “C & P” included a self-report. Searches for C & P and for children choosing faces from frown to smile found no passage addressing that procedure in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.76)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Could not verify
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The assessment of free-choice persistence in more than 90% of the studies concerned the time spent on the target activity during the free-choice period.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Fewer than 4% of the effects were outliers”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“in 6 published studies and 3 dissertation studies (Harackiewicz et al., 1984, Exps. 2 and 3; Lee, 1982; Liberty, 1986, Exps. 1 and 2; Pittman, Cooper, & Smith, 1977; T. W. Smith & Pittman, 1978; Weiner, 1980; Weiner & Mander, 1978), the amount of time was not directly assessed, but instead, free-choice persistence was assessed as the number of trials or successes with the target activity during”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Harackiewicz et al., 1984, Exps. 2 and 3
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lee, 1982
- Not matchedcites Liberty, 1986, Exps. 1 and 2
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All 9 of these studies examined tangible rewards, and none examined verbal rewards”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of these, 18 used a free-choice measure, and 15 used a self-report measure.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Two studies were excluded on this basis (Freedman & Phillips, 1985; Phillips & Freedman, 1985).”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“In all but 3 of those studies, the data were presented as the average number of seconds, but in the remaining 3, free-choice play was presented as the proportion of participants who spent any time with the target activity”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we analyzed for whether tangible rewards had a different effect on free-choice time and free-choice performance. We found that they did not, & (1) = 2.62, ns.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“One study that assessed both the amount of free-choice time and the number of trials during the free-choice period reported a correlation between the two of r = .94 (Harackiewicz et al., 1984, Exp. 1).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Harackiewicz et al., 1984, Exp. 1
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thirteen studies from 10 published articles and 3 unpublished dissertations manipulated task interest”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Of the 25, 1 was not available, the results from 1 had appeared in a later published article, and 4 others failed to meet inclusion criteria. Thus, 19 dissertations were used, and 1 of these (Liberty, 1986) included two experiments, making a total of 20 dissertation studies”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Liberty, 1986
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interesting age effects also appeared, with the effects of verbal rewards being significantly less positive for children than for college students and with the effects of engagement-contingent rewards being significantly more negative for children than for college students.”
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The set of 43 studies with children yielded a d = -0.46 (CI = -0.55, -0.37), but it was heterogeneous, gw(42) = 118.85, p < .001”
plainn = 43- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 12 college-student studies, which yielded a d = -0.21 (CI = -0.37, -0.05), were homogeneous, 2W(11) = 18.27, ns.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only positive feedback showed enhancement, and only unexpected and task-noncontingent rewards showed no effects.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“d = 0.43 (CI = 0.27, 0.58)”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, the analyses showed that verbal rewards did not enhance free-choice intrinsic motivation for children but did for college students.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“d = 0.11 (CI = -0.11, 0.34)”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“x2 = 3.67, p < .OS.4”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For 10 studies of rewards signifying good performance compared with control groups that got the same positive feedback, there was significant undermining, d = —0.20 (CI = —0.37, —0.03), and the effects were homogeneous, Qw(9) = 8.59, ns.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, for 3 studies of rewards signifying poor performance compared with control groups that got the same negative feedback, there was no effect, d = —0.03 (CI = -0.37, 0.31), and there was homogeneity, 2W(2) = 3.08, ns.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For 18 studies of maximum rewards (signifying high competence) compared with no-feedback controls, there was significant undermining, d = -0.15 (CI = -0.31, -0.00), p < .05. This set of effects was homogeneous, Qw(17) = 24.39, ns.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We removed one outlier (Deci, 1972b), and the resulting d = -0.44 (CI = —0.59, —0.30) for 19 studies was homogeneous, 2W(18) = 23.81, ns.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The 15 completion-contingent studies with a self-report measure are also listed in Table 5. The composite effect size was d = -0.03 (CI = -0.18, 0.13), but these effects were heterogeneous, Gw(14) = 43.96, p < .001.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, as predicted, unexpected rewards and task-noncontingent rewards did not have a detrimental effect”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The range of correlations was -0.20 to 0.71, with an average of 0.35 (p < .0001). Thus, the two measures are related, although not strongly.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Examination of the results of the primary meta-analyses for both free-choice (Figure 1) and self-reports (Figure 2) indicates that the effects of these two types of rewards were virtually identical (except that significant age differences appeared for the effects of engagement-contingent but not completion-contingent rewards on free-choice behavior).”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With the removal of 2 outliers (Boggiano et al., 1982; Swann & Pittman, 1977, Exp. 2), the effects became homoge- neous, <2W(29) = 42.96, ns, and the composite effect was d = -0.40 (CI = -0.51, -0.29).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the other hand, verbal rewards—or what is usually labeled positive feedback in the motivation literature— had a significant positive effect on intrinsic motivation, although the effect on free-choice behavior was found for college students but not children.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A supplemental meta-analysis of the three groups of effects on the free-choice measure showed that for 32 studies with immediate assessments, the composite effect was d = -0.35 (CI = —0.45, —0.25), although these effects were heterogeneous, Cw(31) = 69.77, p < .001.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The only exception was that, although performance-contingent rewards undermined free-choice behavior, they did not affect self-reported interest.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and for all expected rewards, k = 92; d = -0.32 (CI = -0.38, -0.26); gw(91) = 217.42, p < .0001.”
§ 650 DECI, KOESTNER, AND RYAN > 0.00 (23, 23)d
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With the removal of 2 outliers (Amabile, Hennessey, & Grossman, 1986, Exp. 1; Morgan, 1983, Exp. 1), the effects became homogeneous, <2W(11) = 17.90, ns, and the composite, effect was d = —0.53 (CI = -0.71, -0.35).”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To summarize, in the analysis of self-report data, the inclusion of the dull tasks weakened the composite d values slightly, and there was one instance in which the inclusion made a composite effect size drop from significance to nonsignificance, namely, the completion-contingent rewards category.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The undermining effects were all considerably stronger for the free-choice measure than for the self-report measure, but the results for self-reports did parallel those for free-choice, with the already noted exception of performance-contingent'rewards.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With the removal of two outliers (Kruglanski et al., 1975, Exp. 1; Wimperis & Fair, 1979), the results became d = -0.16 (CI = -0.24, -0.07); gw(45) = 54.99, ns.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To summarize, in the analysis of free-choice data, although the inclusion of the dull tasks weakened the composite d values slightly, there were no instances in which the inclusion made a composite effect nonsig- nificant that had been significant.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two outliers (Brennan & Glover, 1980; Deci, 1972b) were removed, and the homogeneous effects had a composite d = -0.33 (CI = -0.45, -0.20); <2W(20) = 27.36, ns.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For 12 studies with delayed assess- ments done within a week, the composite effect was d = —0.49 (CI = -0.68, -0.31), and was homogeneous, gw(l 1) = 18.91, ns.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Four outliers (Boggiano et al., 1982; Danner & Lonky, 1981, Exp. 2; Morgan, 1983, Exp. 1; Swann & Pittman, 1977, Exp. 2) were removed, and the composite d = -0.44 (CI = -0.53, -0.35). The set.of effects was homo- geneous, Qw(46) = 60.98, ns.”
plainn = 649- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“for all tangible rewards, k = 92; d = -0.30 (CI = -0.36, -0.24); gw(91) = 217.65, p< .0001”
§ 650 DECI, KOESTNER, AND RYAN > 0.00 (23, 23)d
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Finally, for 14 studies with assessments done more than a week later, the composite effect was d = -0.55 (CI = -0.71, -0.40), but was heterogeneous, 2W(13) = 52.33, p < .001.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With data from dull-task conditions included, the free-choice re- sults for the aggregate categories were as follows: For all rewards, k = 101; d = -0.21 (CI = -0.27, -0.16); Gw(100) = 274.74, p < .0001”
§ 650 DECI, KOESTNER, AND RYAN > 0.00 (23, 23)d
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The composite effect for interesting tasks was d = -0.37 (CI = -0.67, -0.07), thus showing significant undermining for tangible rewards, but for uninteresting tasks there was not a significant effect, d = 0.10 (CI = -0.09, 0.40).”
§ 650 DECI, KOESTNER, AND RYAN > 0.00 (23, 23)d
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Rewards would not be expected to undermine intrinsic motivation for an activity that is not intrinsically motivating.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“and that verbal rewards do not enhance free-choice behavior for children although they do for undergraduates.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we had to impute effects of 0.00 for the self-report measure in 26 out of 121 cases (21%), whereas we had to impute effects of 0.00 for the free-choice measure in only 8 out of 150 cases (5%)”
plainn = 121- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our meta-analyses at the level of all tangible rewards showed that tangible rewards are more detrimental for children than for college students on both measures”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“no effect for unexpected tangible rewards on either measure”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cameron and Pierce (1994) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“significant enhancement by verbal rewards on both measures (d = 0.38 and 0.39, respectively)”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cameron and Pierce (1994) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“analyses of reward effects on uninteresting tasks suggested that there may be a positive effect on intrinsic motivation for uninteresting activities”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tang and Hall (1995) source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Of the 88 effect sizes reported, 83 showed the undermining effect, and only 5 showed enhancement.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Rummel and Feinberg (1988) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Cameron and Pierce (1994) reported no overall reward effect on free-choice behavior”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cameron and Pierce (1994) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Results from the 16 studies with a free-choice measure showed that rewards undermined intrinsic motivation, with an average effect size (Cohen's d) of —0.50.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wiersma (1992) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Thus, the first meta-analysis supported both CET and the valid- ity of an undermining effect.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Rummel and Feinberg (1988) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“significant undermining by expected tangible rewards on free-choice behavior (d = —0.25) but not on attitudes”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cameron and Pierce (1994) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“but significant enhancement on self-reported attitudes (d = 0.14)”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cameron and Pierce (1994) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“significant undermining for performance-independent rewards on behavior (d = —0.29) but not attitudes”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Eisenberger and Cameron (1996) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If a study included only one condition that was considered an interesting task and did not have an average interest rating below the midpoint of an interest scale, it was included.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The third compared reward effects for interesting versus dull tasks when both were included in the same experiment”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we included in the primary meta-analyses only studies, or conditions within studies, in which the interest value of the target tasks was at least neutral.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Several studies included assessments of other affective states such as satisfaction, but we did not include them unless they were part of a composite and interest was not reported separately.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If a study reported both amount of time and performance during the free-choice period, we used only amount of time.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“in several studies, initial task interest was experimentally manipulated, with one task selected by the experimenter as interesting and one as uninteresting. We excluded the uninteresting tasks from the primary meta-analyses.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“no effect for task-noncontingent rewards on either measure”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cameron and Pierce (1994) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“no effect for performance-contingent rewards on free-choice behavior but enhancement on attitudes (d = 0.19)”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cameron and Pierce (1994) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because this moderator variable showed significant effects in some differentiated categories, we also analyzed for whether it was a moderator variable at the aggregate levels of all verbal rewards and all tangible rewards.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“there appears to be consistency among the results of the Rummel and Feinberg (1988); Wiersma (1992), and Tang and Hall (1995) analyses, with only the Eisenberger and Cameron (1996) and Cameron and Pierce (1994) meta-analyses reporting different conclusions.”
What the sources say
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we report analyses both with and without those outliers”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“significant undermining by noncontingent rewards on free-choice behavior (d = —0.26) but not on attitudes”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cameron and Pierce (1994) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only after we had exhausted the potential moderators did we exclude any effects as outliers to produce homogeneity.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If a set of effects was heterogeneous, we divided the category using concepts that have been identified theoretically or empirically as possible moderators of reward effects.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Because early studies of this issue showed a crossover interaction (see, e.g., Calder & Staw, 1975; McLoyd, 1979), the type of task should have been analyzed as a moderator variable early in the hierarchical analysis”
What the sources say
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“omitting nearly 20% of the studies as outliers rather than attempting to isolate the cause of the variability in effect sizes”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there was the suggestion that undermining by tangible rewards was considerably stronger for free-choice behavior than for self-reports.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“if there was a measure of task interest reported for the control group (or for a pretreatment assessment of the rewards group) and the average on that measure was below the midpoint of the scale for the target task, it was considered an uninteresting task and not included in the meta-analysis.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“using inappropriate control groups in several comparisons”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The second measure of intrinsic motivation was self-reported interest in the target activity, which was assessed either with a single item or with multiple items”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“A study by Brennan and Glover (1980), for example, was listed by Cameron and Pierce (1994) as task-noncontingent, yet the method section made clear that the rewards were engagement-contingent”
What the sources say
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Eisenberger and Cameron (1996) reported that, after removing outliers, there was no overall reward effect on free-choice behavior but significant enhancement on attitudes (d = 0.14)”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Eisenberger and Cameron (1996) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“no effect for quality-dependent rewards on behavior but significant enhancement on attitudes (d = 0.19)”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Eisenberger and Cameron (1996) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A very small number of field studies that had been identified were excluded because of being noncomparable with the laboratory experiments.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CET was explicitly formulated to explain the effects of external events such as rewards on intrinsic motivation for interesting tasks.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“no effect for completion-dependent rewards on either measure”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Eisenberger and Cameron (1996) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In the Cameron and Pierce (1994) meta-analysis, 5 of the 6 published studies that used only the performance measure (viz., Harackiewicz et al., 1984, Exps. 2 and 3; T. W. Smith & Pittman, 1978; Weiner, 1980; Weiner & Mander, 1978) were included in a separate meta-analysis of free-choice performance; Cameron and Pierce reported that the effects of rewards on free-choice time were virtually”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cameron and Pierce (1994) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“with boring tasks, the critical theoretical issue is how to facilitate internalization of the regulation of such tasks if they .are deemed important within the social environment”
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We began by searching the PsycINFO and ERIC databases and recent editions of the Current Contents database for studies published between 1971 and August 1997.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If an activity stimulates little or no initial intrinsic motivation, one would not expect to find external events undermining intrinsic motivation, and the principles of CET would not apply.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The first compared the effects of both verbal rewards and tangible rewards in published studies versus unpublished doctoral dissertations.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The studies examined in this meta-analysis were all experiments with at least one experimental and one control group, and all were done either in the laboratory or under well-controlled, laboratory-like conditions.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In searching the PsycINFO database, we looked for unpublished doctoral dissertations as well as for published studies.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If a study included two or more target tasks but these were not explicitly defined as interesting versus uninteresting, we included both, collapsing across the task conditions.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The primary measure of intrinsic motivation, introduced by Deci (1971), is the degree to which participants return to and persist at the target activity during a free-choice period subsequent to the experimental phase.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Deci (1971) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The fourth supplemental analysis tested the GET prediction of how informational versus controlling administration of rewards moderated their effects on intrinsic motivation.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Eisenberger, Cameron, and Pierce included conditions from some studies using tasks the experimenters had selected specifically because they were dull and boring, and they collapsed the effects of rewards on interesting tasks and dull/boring tasks”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“in the free-choice behavior analysis of the performance-contingent rewards category, to achieve homogeneity, we analyzed for differences among four groups defined by whether the control group got feedback or no feedback and by the valence of the feedback implicit in or accompanying the rewards.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In some cases, questions assessing interest and enjoyment were mixed together as a single factor, so we used the total of those items; in other cases, only enjoyment or liking of the task was assessed, so we used that.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We used a hierarchical approach to conduct two primary meta-analyses, one for well-controlled experiments that used free-choice persistence as the dependent measure of intrinsic motivation and the other for well-controlled experiments that used self-reported interest.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“when the set of effects was heterogeneous, we did moderator analyses for age effects, comparing studies with children versus college students”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“no effect for unexpected tangible rewards on either measure”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Eisenberger and Cameron (1996) source
plain- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For any study where insufficient data were provided to calculate an effect size, we assigned an effect of d = 0.00 and included those imputed values in all analyses reported in this article.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Because of the potential difficulty in coding studies into the contingency categories, coding was performed independently by the second author and a trained research assistant.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Completion-contingent rewards were thus found to undermine intrinsic motivation, assessed with both measures.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, if only salient rewards had been used, as they were in nearly all other studies in the meta-analysis, the effects on free-choice intrinsic motivation of all engagement-contingent rewards, and especially the effects of engagement-contingent rewards with children, would have been even stronger.”
hedgeddirectn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We assigned d = 0.00 for 8 out of 150 free-choice effects and 26 out of 121 self-report effects, and we noted these effects in the appropriate tables.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“reported an average d of —0.50”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wiersma (1992) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“For 43 studies involving free-choice behavior, they concluded that there was significant undermining by all tangible rewards (d = -0.21), and for 33 studies with self-reports, they concluded that there was no effect for tangible rewards.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cameron and Pierce (1994) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“all found significant enhancement of intrinsic motivation with average effect sizes in the small to moderate range”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“although verbal rewards enhance intrinsic motivation for college students, they do not do so for children.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“K = .95 for tangible versus verbal”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Disagreements were resolved through discussion.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, the results for self-reported interest paralleled those for free-choice behavior, although they were substantially weaker.”
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, it seems that tangible rewards are detrimental to the free-choice intrinsic motivation of both children and undergraduates but that they tend to be more detrimental to the intrinsic motivation of children than of college students.”
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“K = 1.00 for classification of the performance-contingent reward studies (or conditions within studies) into the four categories.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“K = .83 for expected versus unexpected”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One hundred and one studies included a free-choice behavior measure of intrinsic motivation, and 84 included a self-report measure of interest/enjoyment.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“they reported no significant effect for expected tangible rewards.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Eisenberger and Cameron (1996) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“In one case (Harackiewicz, 1979), the only dependent variable reported was a composite of three self-report variables and one behavioral variable, so we included that composite in the self-report analyses but not the free-choice analyses”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Harackiewicz, 1979 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“One additional study (Ryan, 1982) was also used in the supplemental meta-analysis of informational versus controlling reward administrations.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ryan, 1982 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To summarize, performance-contingent rewards had a negative effect on free-choice intrinsic motivation but not on self-reported interest/enj oy ment.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“because participants were not doing the task in order to get those rewards, so they did not feel controlled by them.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The significant undermining of free-choice behavior by all rewards and the nonsignificant effect for self-reported in- terest have little theoretical meaning.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CET has made differentiated predictions about the effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation for interesting activities, and the results of the present meta-analyses strongly support the theory's predictions.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CET analyzes performance-contingent rewards in terms of the informational and controlling aspects of rewards working in opposite directions, and it points out that the informational aspect of performance-contingent rewards is stronger than that of any other tangible-reward category.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the inclusion of the dull-task conditions did affect the results, but it accounted for a relatively small amount of the discrepancy be- tween the results of our meta-analyses and those of Eisenberger, Cameron, and Pierce.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Finally, Cameron and Pierce (1994) reported significant under- mining of free-time behavior in 45 task-contingent rewards studies (d = —0.32) before outliers were removed and in 40 studies after outliers were removed (d = —0.23).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cameron and Pierce (1994) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“With cell sizes of 16, the effect size for the informational versus controlling comparison was d = —0.70 (CI = -1.42, 0.01), suggesting that, as with verbal rewards, controllingly administered tangible re- wards undermined intrinsic motivation relative to informationally administered tangible rewards.”
§ 652 DECI, KOESTNER, AND RYAN > 0.21 (16, 16)
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ryan et al., 1983 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, it is clear that the effects of tangible rewards are different when the tasks are interesting versus dull and that the reliable undermining of intrinsic motivation by tangible rewards does not extend to dull-boring tasks.”
§ 650 DECI, KOESTNER, AND RYAN > 0.00 (23, 23)d
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Rewards would not be expected to undermine intrinsic motivation for an activity that is not intrinsically motivating.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggests that whereas informationally administered positive feed- back enhances intrinsic motivation, controllingly administered positive feedback may actually decrease it.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, the 5 studies combined had a total of only 23 participants (3 for Davidson & Bucher [1978]; 5 for Feingold & Mahoney [1975]; 3 for Mawhin- ney et al. [1989]; and 6 in each of the Vasta et al. [1978] studies), making it tenuous to generalize the null effects.”
plainn = 23- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The effect size comparing infor- mationally administered tangible rewards with no rewards yielded a d - 0.44 (CI = —0.26, 1.14), suggesting enhancement by informational rewards”
§ 652 DECI, KOESTNER, AND RYAN > 0.21 (16, 16)
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ryan et al., 1983 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“They also reported no effect on self-reports in 21 studies before outliers were removed (d = — 0.07) and in 19 studies after outliers were removed (d = —0.08).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cameron and Pierce (1994) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, given that none of these studies had control groups, one must be careful about interpretations, particularly since there appears to be substantial variability in the rates of pretreatment behavior.”
hedgedn = 23- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“whereas the effect size comparing control- lingly administered tangible rewards with no rewards yielded a d = -0.29 (CI = -0.98, 0.41), suggesting undermining by controlling rewards.”
§ 652 DECI, KOESTNER, AND RYAN > 0.21 (16, 16)
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ryan et al., 1983 source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, because only studies with children used delayed assessments, there is no basis for generalizing these results to adults.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“As expected, because positive feedback affirms competence if it is not administered controllingly, it enhanced intrinsic motivation.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In these studies, the positive feedback was made controlling by saying, for example, that someone had done very well, “just as you should” (Ryan et al., 1983, p. 745, italics added). The should statement is what made the feedback controlling and thus under- mining of intrinsic motivation.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ryan et al., 1983 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In general, tangible rewards had a significant negative effect on intrinsic motivation for interesting tasks, and this effect showed up with participants ranging from preschool to college, with interesting activities ranging from word games to construction puzzles, and with various rewards ranging from dollar bills to marshmallows.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“On the other hand, participants know that the experimenter is going to see their answers on the self-report measure, and the questions are typically quite transparent, so demand characteristics could play a larger role with that measure.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Participants were rewarded either for the number of coin flips they guessed correctly or for the number of block constructions they completed correctly, making the study completion-contingent, but C & P coded it performance-contingent.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lepper et al. (1982), Exp. 3 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We did not include those studies because they did not meet the inclusion criterion of having a no-reward control group.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Although aspects of the social environment that tend to be controlling can be effective in producing behaviors, they are quite ineffective in promoting self-regulation.”
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“C & P excluded the two performance-contingent rewards groups.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Harackiewicz (1979) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The quote only partly states this claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The absence of an effect for children, the moderating effect by the interpersonal style of the rewarder, and the possible gender effects all suggest that Cameron and Pierce (1994) and Eisenberger and Cameron (1996) were premature in advocating the widespread use of verbal rewards in educational settings.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We believe that free-choice behavior is a more valid measure of intrinsic motivation and thus that the set of findings for the free-choice measure is the more accurate indicator of the actual effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Excluded, Type I refers to dissertations, and Cameron and Pierce (1994) excluded all dissertations.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cameron and Pierce (1994) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“This included competition conditions, but we did not use those because competition has a complex effect on intrinsic motivation (Reeve & Deci, 1996).”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Reeve & Deci, 1996 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we maintain that only task-noncontingent rewards, which do not require any explicit task behavior, could possibly fit the definition of helplessness-inducing conditions.”
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Further, C & P combined two control groups, including one that had not worked on the task for the same amount of time as the rewards group during the experimental period, but we used only the control group that had worked on the task for the same amount of time.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Deci et al. (1975) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Elsewhere (Ryan, Koestner, & Deci, 1991), we have argued that the best way to ensure one is assessing intrinsic motivation is to measure both free-choice behavior and self-reported interest and to consider them intrinsic motivation only when they correlate within conditions or studies.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ryan, Koestner, & Deci, 1991 source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“To summarize, verbal rewards may have positive effects in part because they are typically unexpected; however, according to CET, it is primarily because verbal rewards provide an affirmation of competence that they can enhance intrinsic motivation.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For these people, the failure to get the maximum reward may be experienced as negative feedback and could be highly detrimental because the reward structure is not only controlling but also conveys negative-competence information.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: In the real world, when rewards are used to signify competence (i.e., when they are performance-contingent), there likely is a substantial portion of people who receive less than maximal rewards because they do not perform up to the specified standards.
In the paper
“Cameron and Pierce (1994) did a separate, supplemental meta-analysis of studies with single-subject designs that did not have no-reward control groups.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cameron and Pierce (1994) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, both studies yielded strong results that were exactly opposite of what the Eisenberger and Cameron model predicts.”
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, the reliability of the self-report measures of interest is unknown, and because many studies have used only one (or very few) items, the measures may suffer from low reliability.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Performance-contingent rewards did not affect self-reported interest, but that is the condition where Eisenberger and Cameron predicted the strongest enhancement.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“C & Pb used a control group that the authors said was inappropriate, in which the experimenter avoided eye contact with the young children and ignored their attempts to interact, even though there were just the two people in the room.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites S. Anderson & Rodin (1989) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“C & P inappropriately collapsed across verbal and tangible rewards, and they did not use the free-choice data.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Dollinger & Thelen (1978) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“CET specifically proposes that it is because people are controlled by rewards that they become less intrinsically motivated.”
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, with engagement-contingent rewards, control over the rewards is clear and requires behavior that participants can perform.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Many social institutions face problems including alienation, detachment, and disengagement that could be at least partially ameliorated by promoting higher levels of intrinsic motivation and self-determination.”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“According to GET, intrinsic motivation is an inherent motivational tendency that has evolved because it entails many adaptive advantages (Ryan, Kuhl, & Deci, 1997), but it still requires environmental supports.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ryan, Kuhl, & Deci, 1997 source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the more appropriate interpretation is that the rewards did not enhance intrinsic motivation but that the evaluation undermined it.”
plaindirectSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Furthermore, as noted by Kohn (1993), when organizations opt for the use of rewards to control behavior, the rewards are likely to be accompanied by greater surveillance, evaluation, and competition, all of which have also been found to undermine intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985).”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Deci & Ryan, 1985
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Not matched
In the paper
“Not surprisingly, that group showed free-choice intrinsic motivation that was considerably lower than any other group.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites S. Anderson & Rodin (1989) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Excluded, Type III refers to studies that Cameron and Pierce (1994) excluded because they were published after Cameron and Pierce's cutoff date.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cameron and Pierce (1994) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“but it is possible that they also undermine the intrinsic motivation of female participants even when they are relatively ambiguous with respect to information versus control (Deci et al., 1975; Kast & Connor, 1988).”
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Excluded, Type U refers to studies that Cameron and Pierce (1994) excluded for no apparent reason.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cameron and Pierce (1994) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Cameron and Pierce (1994) collapsed across the interesting and dull tasks even though it has been firmly established in the literature that initial task interest interacts with reward effects.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Cameron and Pierce (1994) source
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“C & P used only self-report. We also used free-choice persistence, calculated as the number of trials.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pittman et al. (1977) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We excluded the pair of conditions without a proper control group, but C & P collapsed across the two pairs of conditions.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Lepper et al. (1982), Exp. 3 source
plainn = 2- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“C & P collapsed across positive and negative feedback conditions, but we did a moderator analysis for positive versus negative.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Salancik (1975) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the other, participants were paid for each model or subunit completed, making it completion-contingent, but C & P coded it performance-contingent.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wimperis & Farr (1979) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“C & P averaged the effects, whereas we combined them meta-analytically.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Tripathi & Agarwal (1988) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Participants received $.25 for each anagram completed, which makes the study completion-contingent, but C & P coded it performance-contingent.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Weiner (1980) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“C & P reported a comparison for 40 experimental and 20 control participants, but there were only 50 participants in the study.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Porac & Meindl (1982) source
plainn = 50- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“C & P coded this engagement-contingent, but participants received $1.50 for each puzzle solved.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Porac & Meindl (1982) source
plainn = 50- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“We compared the two engagement with the two control groups, but C & P used all three reward groups.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Swann & Pittman (1977), Exp. 2 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In the other group, children were rewarded for waiting, which is task-noncontingent, but C & P coded it engagement-contingent.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ross et al. (1976) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We included this study only in the supplemental meta-analysis of informational versus controlling verbal rewards. C & P excluded it.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ryan (1982) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
In the paper
“C & P imputed a score of 0.00 for free-choice performance, even though means and significance tests were reported.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites T. W. Smith & Pittman (1978) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“We excluded this because the interest level of the task was below the midpoint of the scale, so it did not examine reward effects on interesting tasks.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Freedman & Phillips (1985) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“C & P imputed a self-report value of 0.00, but participants were not asked how interesting or enjoyable they found the activity.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pittman et al. (1982), Exp. 1 source
plainSingle case- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In this study, there was also a condition called positive feedback, but the statements were not competence feedback.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites A. T. Smith (1980)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Not matched
In the paper
“This study was not designed to evaluate reward effects on intrinsic motivation. It concerned the correlations between free-choice persistence and various mood variables, so the rewards manipulation was incidental.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Wicker et al. (1990) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“We excluded it because rewarded participants worked on much easier puzzles than did nonrewarded participants.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Shapira (1976) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For comparability with other studies, we used only data from the 10-day assessments.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Shiffman-Kaufman (1990)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“C & P did not do an analysis of informational versus controlling positive feedback.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pittman et al. (1980) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“We excluded this because participants did not work on the target task before the dependent variable was assessed.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Boggiano & Hertel (1983) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Very little detail was presented about methods or results.”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites Horn (1987)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
In the paper
“C & P did only the comparable-feedback comparisons. Also, C & P did not do an informational-controlling comparison.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Ryan et al. (1983) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“C & P did not report how they coded the tangible expected rewards condition, which was performance-contingent.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pallak et al. (1982) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“C & P did not include self-report.”
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites Pretty & Seligman (1984), Exp. 2 source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
The tasks used in the included studies were interesting to participants.
“for interesting activities”
The paper relies on this without support.
Rewards would not be expected to undermine intrinsic motivation for an activity that is not intrinsically motivating.
“Because rewards would not be expected to undermine intrinsic motivation for an activity that is not intrinsically motivating, most investigators predicted that initial interest would moderate the effects of rewards, with rewards undermining intrinsic motivation for interesting tasks but maintaining or enhancing intrinsic motivation for boring tasks.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Relatively little work has directly tested mediational effects of perceived locus of causality and perceived competence on people's intrinsic motivation for interesting activities.
“Relatively little work has directly tested mediational effects of perceived locus of causality and perceived competence on people's intrinsic motivation for interesting activities.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Past evidence showing helplessness following receipt of uncontrollable positive outcomes is very scant.
“past evidence showing helplessness following receipt of uncontrollable positive outcomes is very scant”
The paper relies on this without support.
In the real world, when rewards are used to signify competence (i.e., when they are performance-contingent), there likely is a substantial portion of people who receive less than maximal rewards because they do not perform up to the specified standards.
“in the real world, when rewards are used to signify competence (i.e., when they are performance-contingent), there likely is a substantial portion of people who receive less than maximal rewards because they do not perform up to the specified standards.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Intrinsic motivation energizes and sustains activities through the spontaneous satisfactions inherent in effective volitional action.
“Intrinsic motivation energizes and sustains activities through the spontaneous satisfactions inherent in effective volitional action.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Intrinsic motivation is manifest in behaviors such as play, exploration, and challenge seeking that people often do for no external rewards.
“It is manifest in behaviors such as play, exploration, and challenge seeking that people often do for no external rewards.”
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Finally, algorithmic management usually provides comparative feedback (comparing one’s results to other workers’) and is linked to incentive pay structures, both of which reduce self-determined motivation as they are experienced as more controlling26,192.”
From Understanding and shaping the future of work with self-determination theory (2022) · cites this paper as [26]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“At the same time, linking rewards to this feedback could decrease intrinsic motivation, because the contingency between work behaviour and pay limits worker discretion and therefore reduces their autonomy26.”
From Understanding and shaping the future of work with self-determination theory (2022) · cites this paper as [26]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Further, incentive alignment, and an important extrinsic reward, may reduce anxiety and increase perceived enjoyment as extrinsic rewards are considered important drivers of intrinsic motivations (Vallerand, 1997;Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999;Ryan & Deci, 2000).”
From Technology Acceptance Model 3 and a Research Agenda on Interventions (2008) · cites this paper as Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Deci et al. (1999) in a meta-analysis of 128 studies, confirmed that rewards contingent to engagement, completion, and performance undermined intrinsic motivation.”
From Designing for Motivation, Engagement and Wellbeing in Digital Experience (2018) · cites this paper as Deci et al. (1999)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Positive feedback instead enhanced free-choice behavior and interest.”
From Designing for Motivation, Engagement and Wellbeing in Digital Experience (2018) · cites this paper as Deci et al. (1999)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“The authors also find that verbal reinforcements like, e.g., telling subjects that they did well on the task, have a strong positive effect on both the behavioural and the self-report measures of intrinsic motivation.”
From Psychological foundations of incentives (2002) · cites this paper as Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Their results indicate that if subjects expect a monetary reward intrinsic motivation (measured by the time spent on the task) is undermined irrespective of whether the reward is engagement contingent, completion contingent or performance contingent.”
From Psychological foundations of incentives (2002) · cites this paper as Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Thus, rewards can be counterproductive if they conflict with individuals ' motivations or goals (Ariely et al. 2009; Deci et al. 1999).”
From Unintended reward costs: the effectiveness of customer referral reward programs for innovative products and services (2019) · cites this paper as Deci et al. 1999
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Such varying effects are due to individuals ' perceptions of the rewards relative to their initial needs (Deci et al. 1999).”
From Unintended reward costs: the effectiveness of customer referral reward programs for innovative products and services (2019) · cites this paper as Deci et al. 1999
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Some incentives do not undermine motivation or behavior, such as verbal rewards (Deci et al. 1999), while others have neutral or positive effects on behaviors (Lacetera et al. 2012).”
From Unintended reward costs: the effectiveness of customer referral reward programs for innovative products and services (2019) · cites this paper as Deci et al. 1999
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In contrast, offering external rewards for partaking in an interesting activity can undermine intrinsic motivation (Deci et al. 1999), presumably because controlling rewards can shift one's perceived locus of causality (deCharms 1968) from internal to external, thereby diminishing a sense of autonomy (Houlfort et al. 2002).”
From Basic psychological need theory: Advancements, critical themes, and future directions (2020) · cites this paper as Deci et al. 1999
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Even positive feedback may impede people's inherent need for autonomy and thus decrease their intrinsic motivation [77].”
From Extracting Design Guidelines for Augmented Reality Serious Games for Children (2022) · cites this paper as [77]
In the citing paper
“In psychological science, the undermining impact of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation, such as that demonstrated when external rewards are provided after performance but removed subsequently, is well known (Deci, Ryan, & Koestner, 1999;White & Sheldon, 2014).”
From Optimizing performance through intrinsic motivation and attention for learning: The OPTIMAL theory of motor learning (2016) · cites this paper as Deci, Ryan, & Koestner, 1999
In the citing paper
“If one measures intrinsic motivation by self-reports of enjoyment and interest in the task the effects are, although significant, much smaller.”
From Psychological foundations of incentives (2002) · cites this paper as Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999)
In the citing paper
“For the behavioural measures this is only true for college students but not for children. Verbal reinforcement has no effect on the intrinsic motivation of children.”
From Psychological foundations of incentives (2002) · cites this paper as Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999)
In the citing paper
“In a careful meta-study that includes 128 experiments Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999) provide summary statistics on the effects of engagement contingent, completion contingent and performance contingent monetary rewards on self-report measures of intrinsic motivation, and on behavioural measures as the one in the original study by Deci (1971).”
From Psychological foundations of incentives (2002) · cites this paper as Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999)
In the citing paper
“Interestingly, the negative impact on intrinsic motivation seems to be quite similar across the different reward conditions.”
From Psychological foundations of incentives (2002) · cites this paper as Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999)
In the citing paper
“This literature claims that the introduction of monetary rewards decreases task-specific intrinsic motivation under identifiable conditions.”
From Psychological foundations of incentives (2002) · cites this paper as Deci, Koestner and Ryan 1999
In the citing paper
“In previous studies, rewards have reduced intrinsic motivation in interesting tasks (e.g., games or puzzles) in samples of children and students (19).”
From Which Components of a Smartphone Walking App Help Users to Reach Personalized Step Goals? Results From an Optimization Trial (2020) · cites this paper as [19]
In the citing paper
“A controlling environment can be created by pressuring students from the outside, for instance, through the use of rewards, punishments, deadlines, or controlling language (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999), or by pressuring students from the inside, for instance, through the use of more subtle and insidious tactics, such as shaming, guilt induction, or love withdrawal (Assor, Roth, & Deci, 2004; Soen”
From Motivational profiles from a self-determination perspective: The quality of motivation matters. (2009) · cites this paper as Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999
Statistics that don’t add up
Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“Qb (1) = 5.14, p < .02”
Reported p < .02 · recomputed p = .023
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Doesn’t add upQ(1) = 5.14reported p < .02 · recomputed p = .023
“Qb (1) = 5.14, p < .02”
- ConsistentQ(83) = 205.17reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001
“Qw (83) = 205.17, p < .0001”
- ConsistentQ(1) = 90.19reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001
“Qb (1) = 90.19, p < .0001”
- ConsistentQ(1) = 43.87reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001
“Qb (1) = 43.87, p < .0001”
- ConsistentQ(3) = 8.84reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .031
“Qb (3) = 8.84, p < .05”
- ConsistentQ(6) = 5.91reported n.s. · recomputed p = .433
“Qw (6) = 5.91, ns.”
- ConsistentQ(17) = 24.39reported n.s. · recomputed p = .109
“Qw(17) = 24.39, ns.”
- ConsistentQ(9) = 8.59reported n.s. · recomputed p = .476
“Qw(9) = 8.59, ns.”
- ConsistentQ(29) = 46.99reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .019
“Qw(29) = 46.99, p < .05”
- ConsistentQ(28) = 36.04reported n.s. · recomputed p = .142
“Qw(28) = 36.04, ns”
- ConsistentQ(46) = 60.98reported n.s. · recomputed p = .069
“Qw(46) = 60.98, ns.”
- ConsistentQ(34) = 37.57reported n.s. · recomputed p = .309
“Qw(34) = 37.57, ns”
- ConsistentQ(29) = 44.97reported p < .05 · recomputed p = .030
“Qw(29) = 44.97, p < .05”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“k = 29; d = 0.01 (CI = -0.07, -0.10); gw(28) = 34.00, ns.”
Reported 0.01 · recomputed -0.085
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 652 DECI, KOESTNER, AND RYAN
“-0.78(0.54, 1.02)”
§ 652 DECI, KOESTNER, AND RYAN
“d = -0.78 (CI = -1.02, -0.54)”
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ 644 DECI, KOESTNER, AND RYAN
“the composite d = -0.01 (CI = -0.08, 0.10).”
§ 648 DEC!, KOESTNER, AND RYAN
“Performance contingent k = 29 d = -0.01 (-0.10, 0.08)”
Citations
Cites
Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences
Cohen, J. (1990) · Computers Environment and Urban Systems · doi:10.1016/0198-9715(90)90050-4 · Cited by 65,417
A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales
Cohen, J. (1960) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/001316446002000104 · Cited by 42,398
Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.).
Lachenbruch, P. A., & Cohen, J. (1989) · Journal of the American Statistical Association · doi:10.2307/2290095 · Cited by 37,421
The psychology of interpersonal relations
Heider, F. (1958) · American Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/2089062 · Cited by 17,189
Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior
Miller, K. A. J., Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1988) · Contemporary Sociology A Journal of Reviews · doi:10.2307/2070638 · Cited by 15,406
Self-citationWasserman, S. S., Hedges, L. V., & Olkin, I. (1988) · Journal of Educational Statistics · doi:10.2307/1164953 · Cited by 10,377
Kilzer, E., & Skinner, B. F. (1953) · The American Catholic Sociological Review · doi:10.2307/3707860 · Cited by 8,940
Motivational processes affecting learning.
Dweck, C. S. (1986) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/0003-066x.41.10.1040 · Cited by 6,971
Helplessness: On Depression, Development, and Death
Seligman, M. E. P. (1975) · CERN Document Server (European Organization for Nuclear Research) · Cited by 6,181
Bem, D. J. (1972) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60024-6 · Cited by 5,241
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 6,501–6,600 of 6,935
Lee, H. J., Anderman, E. M., Liu, X., Allsop, Y., Irwin, M. K., & Saxbe, S. (2025) · The Journal of Early Adolescence · doi:10.1177/02724316251391407
“Rather, given that salient extrinsic incentives can often undermine students ’ intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1999; Ryan & Deci, 2019), per-ceiving extrinsic goal structures in a classroom may be maladaptive even when mastery goal structures co-exist in the classroom, inadvertently reducing the…”
Unpacking the side effects of social norm nudges
Picard, J., & Banerjee, S. (2025) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2025.108844
Token economy-based X-ray retakes management: resolving the principal–agent problem
Hada, H., Hiragi, S., Mori, Y., Saito, K., Ai, M., & Kuroda, T. (2025) · International Journal of Healthcare Management · doi:10.1080/20479700.2025.2583162
Wang, X., Han, S., Liu, X., Zhu, K., & Xie, X. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-7760964/v1
Cui, C., Long, Y., Dong, Y., & Jiang, Y. (2025) · Psychological Research · doi:10.1007/s00426-025-02175-4
“Some studies found that external rewards have a detrimental effect on creativity by diminishing intrinsic motivation (Amabile et al., 1986 ; Deci et al., 1999 ).”
Ecolabels Promote Sustainable Production Behavior in a Common Resource DilemmaPreprint
Kirschner, J., Lee, N., Engelmann, J. B., & Hausfeld, J. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5706522
Spiele und Gamification in der Erwachsenenbildung: Erfolgsfaktoren und Praxistipps
Siano, R. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-662-71793-6_5
On the Overpowering Effect of Digital Green Nudging in Gamified Online Return Management
Sucky, E., Straubert, C., & Rauh, C. (2025) · Eurasian studies in business and economics · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-03321-5_3
Spillover Effects of Monitoring: An Experiment on Lying
Du, N., & Yang, Y. (2025) · Journal of Economics & Management Strategy · doi:10.1111/jems.70014
Gamification Situations in Training Future Translators in Engineering Specialities
Васильевна, Г. Е. (2025) · Springer Proceedings in Humanities and Social Sciences · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-06297-0_9
邹, 枫. (2025) · Advances in Psychology · doi:10.12677/ap.2025.1511612
Timing of reward cues alters the interaction between reward and interest on memory over time
Hu, Z., & Yang, J. (2025) · npj Science of Learning · doi:10.1038/s41539-025-00374-7
“Thetermof “ undermining effect ” was traditionally used to describe the phenomenon that extrinsic reward for an initially enjoyable task reduces subsequent intrinsic motivation for the task 6,16 .”
New Thinking About Teaching, Learning, Assessment, and Purpose
(2025) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-2081-6.ch006
The Journey of a Communication Skills Educator: Motivating Factors for Commitment and Sustainability
England, K., Bogetz, J. F., Lau, N., Wood, G., & Trowbridge, A. C. (2025) · Journal of Pain and Symptom Management · doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2025.11.011
The effect of digital rewards on the motivation of children to perform everyday health behavior
Graichen, J., Stingl, C., Dangis, G., Pakarinen, A., Rosio, R., Salanterä, S., Terho, K., Günther, S. A., Siloaho, A., & Staake, T. (2025) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100879
Does Knowledge Exist if Nobody Knows About It?
Fülöp, M., & Marton, F. (2003) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-60752-793-020251010
Service and Motivation to Serve
Stenson, C. M., Eyler, J., & Giles, D. E. (2000) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-60752-848-720251015
The appearance of democracy: How conditional payments reshape behavior among local leaders
Steimanis, I., Blanco, E., & Vollan, B. (2026) · Ecological Economics · doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2026.109177
The Neural Path to Productivity
Muralidhar, L. B., Kumar, V., Prabhu, U., Sathyanarayana, N., & Rahul, V. (2025) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/979-8-3373-2292-6.ch002
Hooked on Books: A Deep Dive into the Reading Motivations of ADHD and Non-ADHD Children
Kakoulidou, M., Pavlopoulou, G., Filippi, R., & Hurry, J. (2025) · Neurodiversity · doi:10.1177/27546330251403220
“This inconsistency in children ’ s views re fl ects the fragility of fi ndings in research around the effects of rewards (Cameron & Pierce, 1994; Deci et al., 1999).”
The Impact of Collection Mechanisms on Player Experience in Puzzle Games
Lin, Q., Yan, C., Song, X., & He, J. Y. D. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Consumer Electronics-Asia (ICCE-Asia) · doi:10.1109/icce-asia67487.2025.11263721
(2012) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-61735-715-220251014
What Congtive Evaluation Theory Teaches Us About Effective Demand Response Program Design
Moller, J., & Sahraei‐Ardakani, M. (2025) · North American Power Symposium (NAPS) · doi:10.1109/naps66256.2025.11272409
“The overall trend for reward contingencies undermined intrinsic motivation due to their controlling nature [6].”
InfluentialGarner, B. R., Tueller, S., Bradshaw, M., Speck, K. J., Satre, D. D., Rash, C. J., Donohoe, T., Mungo, J., Philbrick, S. M., Ruwala, R., et al. (2025) · Implementation Research and Practice · doi:10.1177/26334895251389475
“…meaningfully larger for performance quantity than for quality, ” which is a fi nding they highlighted as being consistent with cognitive evaluation theory (Deci et al., 1975, 1999; Rummel & Feinberg, 1988) and its later incorporation into self-determination theory (Deci et al., 2017; Deci & Ryan,…”
Designing Effective Behavioral Change Strategies: An Evidence-Based FrameworkPreprint
Westover, J. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5696782
(2013) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-62396-318-720251014
Beyond the undermining effect: Extrinsic rewards preserve neural intrinsic reward
Ayabe, H., Koike, T., Yoshioka, A., Izuno, S., Ogasawara, K., Tsuchimoto, S., & Sadato, N. (2025) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2025.115996 · Cited by 3
An Interview With Dr. Edward L. Deci And Dr. Richard M. Ryan
(2015) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-68123-223-220251012
The Algorithmic Learner: How Platform Logic Shapes Gen-Z's Attention, Motivation, and WellbeingPreprint
Amiri, S. M. H. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-8378505/v1
Schaffung wissensmäßiger und emotionaler Voraussetzungen für die Zusammenarbeit
Steiger, T., & Lippmann, E. D. (2013) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-34357-5_12
Schott, C. (2010) · Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University)
The Future of Academic Publishing
Scheufen, M. (2014) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-12739-2_5
Polly, S., McQuaid, M., Jewell, L., & Dauman, B. (2009) · Scholarly Commons (University of Pennsylvania)
Incentives, Innovation, and Imitation: Social Learning in a Networked Group
Wisdom, T. N. (2010) · IUScholarWorks (Indiana University)
A Study of the Attributional Style and Performance of Elite NCAA Divers
Mitchell, M. A. (2007) · UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona)
Kløve, B., & Valholm, S. S. (2011) · BIBSYS Brage (BIBSYS (Norway))
Hendriks, M. (2014) · DSpace (Open University in the Netherlands)
Motivation till ideellt arbete inom olika idrottsföreningar
Wallén, J. E. (2014)
CONTINUANCE INTENTION IN CROWDSOURCING PROCESSES
Corvello, V., Curia, I., & Verteramo, S. (2014) · Journal of the Association for Information Systems
Wardrip, P. S. (2014) · D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh)
Kautto, F., & Sjöström, L. (2012) · KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology)
Restauranganställdas upplevelser av dricks som motivationsfaktor
Thomas, T. (2010) · KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology)
TÄVLINGSRELATERAD ÄNGSLAN/ORO OCH MOTIVATION HOS IDROTTARE PÅ ELITNIVÅ
Schiller, H. (2011) · KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology)
Managers' influence tactics and innovation implementation effectiveness
Chiu, H.-H. (2013) · Rutgers University Community Repository (Rutgers University) · doi:10.7282/t33b5xsv
Sanctuary: the evaluation of a secondary school intervention
Amphlett, M. (2013) · University of Birmingham Institutional Research Archive (University of Birmingham)
Högskoleexamen och studietids betydelse för inre motivation och identifierad reglering
Danielsson, M. (2012) · DiVA (Mälardalen University College)
REWARDS AND CREATIVITY: THE NEXT STEP
Abdur, M., & Malik, R. (2013) · HEC National Digital Library
En kvalitativ studie om vad som motiverar säljare inom detaljhandeln i södra Italien
Bengtsson, S., & Tormena, I. (2011) · Diva portal (Dalarna University Library)
Understanding Older Adults' Leisure Behaviors in Mexico
Uribe, R. (2013) · ERA: Education and Research Archive (University of Alberta) · doi:10.7939/r39948
DUÅs skole- og barnehageprogram : En studie av 10 læreres erfaring med deltakelsen
Schanke, T. (2011) · BIBSYS Brage (BIBSYS (Norway))
An Examination of the Effects of Unmet Psychological Needs on Mental and Physical Health
Beausoleil, A. (2012) · uO Research (University of Ottawa) · doi:10.20381/ruor-5895
Влияние внешних стимулирующих факторов на внутреннюю мотивацию сотрудников
Валерьевич, Е. Е. (2014) · Интернет-журнал Науковедение
Stevenson, M., Mortimer, D., Meuleners, L. B., Harris, A., Senserrick, T. M., Thompson, J., De Silva, A., Barrera-Jiménez, H., Streatfield, A., & Perera, M. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.24355047
Zhang, Y., Li, X., Zhang, X., et al. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.22602151
Evans, J. T., Stanesby, O., Blizzard, L., Jose, K., Sharman, M. J., Ball, K., Greaves, S. P., Palmer, A. J., Cooper, K., Gall, S., et al. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.23972781
Macaulay, L., O’Dolan, C., Avenell, A., Carroll, P., Cotton, S., Dombrowski, S. U., Elders, A., Goulão, B., Gray, C., Harris, F. M., et al. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20362752
Macaulay, L., O’Dolan, C., Avenell, A., Carroll, P., Cotton, S., Dombrowski, S. U., Elders, A., Goulão, B., Gray, C., Harris, F. M., et al. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20362749
van der Swaluw, K., Hiemstra, M., Lambooij, M., Roordink, E. M., van der Vliet, N., Zantinge, E. M., Proper, K., Zeelenberg, M., & Prast, H. M. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.22616753
Zhang, Y., Li, X., Zhang, X., et al. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.22602157
Macaulay, L., O’Dolan, C., Avenell, A., Carroll, P., Cotton, S., Dombrowski, S. U., Elders, A., Goulão, B., Gray, C., Harris, F. M., et al. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20362743
Stevens, E. R., Cleland, C. M., Shunk, A., & Shahawy, O. E. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.26333327
Zhang, Y., Li, X., Zhang, X., et al. (2023) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.22602154
Macaulay, L., O’Dolan, C., Avenell, A., Carroll, P., Cotton, S., Dombrowski, S. U., Elders, A., Goulão, B., Gray, C., Harris, F. M., et al. (2022) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.20362746
Fisher, J., Leahy, D., Lim, J. J., et al. (2024) · Figshare · doi:10.6084/m9.figshare.25902363
For the Fun of It Harnessing Immediate Rewards to Increase Persistence in Long-Term GoalsPreprint
Ayelet Fishbach, B., & Woolley, K. (2017) · OSF Preprints (OSF Preprints)
The Impact of Teaching Innovation Grants on Faculty Effectiveness and Student Retention
Young, C., & Mitchell-Yellin, B. (2025) · College Teaching · doi:10.1080/87567555.2025.2559948
Organizational Dimensions of Quality
Kenyon, G. N. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-4471-7606-0_7
Internalization versus Crowding Out
Feldman, Y. (2025) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781009057998.004
Gegenstandsbezogene Organisationstheorien
Miebach, B. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-658-49079-9_8
Motivation in the Context of Project Work
Liu, W. C., Tan, O. S., Wang, C. K. J., et al. (2007) · Emerald Group Publishing Limited eBooks · doi:10.1108/978-1-60752-627-820251012
Karabiber, H., & Gürol, Y. D. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5895122
Architectures of Ease: A Theory of Enforcement-Free Compliance in Regenerative Capital SystemsPreprint
Ghadamian, R. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5857382
McCurrach, C. W. D., & Goffin, R. D. (2025) · Current Psychology · doi:10.1007/s12144-025-08786-9
“Rewards are also unlikely to hinder intrinsic motivation when they are unexpected or task-noncontingent, because they may not be perceived as a method for controlling task-relevant behaviours (Deci et al., 1999).”
Fien, L., Neumann, P., Krebber, M., Berger, R., & Petzold, M. (2025) · Research Square · doi:10.21203/rs.3.rs-8165782/v1
Evaluating the Effectiveness of Gamification in Employee Training: A Review and Meta-AnalysisPreprint
Agnihotri, N., Cook, R., Hipel, I., & Roulin, N. (2025) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5968002
Subotic-Kerry, M., Mackinnon, A. J., Gallen, D., Baker, S. T. E., Parker, B., Achilles, M. R., Chakouch, C., Cockayne, N. L., Christensen, H. M., & O’Dea, B. (2025) · Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Mental Health · doi:10.1186/s13034-025-00975-5
“4 Help-seeking intentions by condition and occasion of measurement particularly once the incentive was removed [46].”
Individual and collective epistemic virtue in science
Tunç, D. U., & Pritchard, D. (2026) · Synthese · doi:10.1007/s11229-025-05396-7
“The interesting thing about intrinsic motivations is that they tend to diminish in the presence of external motivators such as rewards (see Deci & Ryan, 1985; Deci et al., 1999).”
Kim, B. (2026) · Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.3390/bs16010094
“As a key motivational construct, academic achievement goals contribute to students’ learning experiences, predicting intrinsic motivation, academic achievement, attitudes toward learning, and persistence (Huang, 2011; Rawsthorne & Elliot, 1999; Sideridis & Kaplan, 2011).”
Stathakarou, N., Kononowicz, A. A., Harjani, M. G., Reshetukha, D., Mattsson, E., & Karlgren, K. (2026) · Injury · doi:10.1016/j.injury.2026.113020
Lubna, P. K., Nishad, T. M., Panakaje, N., & Parvin, S. M. R. (2026) · Journal of Global Marketing · doi:10.1080/08911762.2025.2611966
For Praise or Money: The Impact of Different Types of Symbolic Rewards on Selective Attention
Zhou, J., Diao, F., Gao, Y., Zhao, J., & Wang, Y. (2026) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1177/17470218261417302
“Moreover, as established in previous research, monetary rewards may not always enhance intrinsic motivation; in some cases, they can actually lead to its reduction (Albrecht et al., 2014; Deci et al., 1999).”
Trpcic, M., Iannetta, D., Fleitas‐Paniagua, P. R., Azevedo, R. D. A., Aboodarda, S. J., & Murias, J. M. (2026) · American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology · doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00229.2025 · Cited by 1
Game Mechanics for Technical Education: Framework and Evaluation in Cybersecurity Contexts
Zolkifly, I. A., Suaib, N. M., & Tanalol, S. H. (2025) · IEEE International Conference on Computing (ICOCO) · doi:10.1109/icoco67189.2025.11334079
“[20], [27].”
A Quantitative Analysis of Reviewer Motivation and Incentives in Information Science
Montero‐Parodi, J. J., Rodriguez-Sánchez, R., García, J. A., & Fdez-Valdivia, J. (2026) · Lecture notes in networks and systems · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-12882-9_23
Erdoğan, B. (2026) · Akademisyen Kitabevi eBooks · doi:10.37609/akya.3965
Augmented Reality-based Serious Game for Speech Delay Therapy
Ramadhan, A., Ferdiana, R., & Nasikun, A. (2025) · doi:10.1109/icitee66631.2025.11338497
“While there are known concerns that extrinsic rewards like badges might reduce intrinsic motivation over time [16], our design integrates these elements alongside narrative and performance feedback to maintain balanced, meaningful engagement throughout the therapy experience.”
Harper, L., Motamedi, M., Desy, J. R., Coderre, S., Davis, M. J., & McLaughlin, K. (2026) · Academic Medicine · doi:10.1093/acamed/wvag012 · Cited by 3
The Algorithmic Learner: How Platform Logic Shapes Gen-Z's Attention, Motivation, and WellbeingPreprint
Amiri, S. M. H. (2026) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.5932760
Still Waiting for Rewards? User Entrepreneur’s Reward Delivery Performance in Crowdfunding
Oo, P. P., Allison, T. H., Escudero, S. B., & Srivastava, S. (2026) · Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice · doi:10.1177/10422587251404867
“When faced with production delays, these entrepreneurs lack the necessary resilience to adapt because their motivation is anchored to external outcomes, rather than the internal vitality and persistence fostered by intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1999).”
InfluentialGanninger, R., & Schäpers, P. (2025) · Zeitschrift für Immobilienökonomie · doi:10.3790/gjrer.2025.1465003
Exploring the dynamics of audit committee membership: a survival analysis approach
Blazy, R., Broye, G., & Johannes, P. (2026) · Journal of Accounting & Organizational Change · doi:10.1108/jaoc-04-2025-0109
Gai, S., Inaba, I., Shimohara, K., et al. (2026) · IEEJ Transactions on Electronics Information and Systems · doi:10.1541/ieejeiss.146.119
From signing up to staying in: Exploring factors associated with engagement in parenting programs
Kelly, M. P., Cairns, D., Smith, A. L., Barley, K., & Lincoln, A. E. (2026) · Family Relations · doi:10.1111/fare.70109
Cheung, S. O., & Ma, Q. (2026) · Journal of Construction Engineering and Management · doi:10.1061/jcemd4.coeng-16616
Alzuman, A., Jaafari, M., Ali, Z., Ali, R., & Bakadam, L. I. (2026) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2026.1671007 · Cited by 3
“Importantly, this negative interaction does not contradict appreciation theory or intrinsic motivation principles (Deci et al., 1999) but instead reflects a resource-balancing mechanism within organizational health systems.”
Martín‐Ramos, P., Diaz-De-Oleo, D., Fourati-Jamoussi, F., Couchy-Burcke, K., Giudice, L. A. L., Tosi, B., Oliveira-Pinto, F., Martins, L., & Navas-Gracia, L. M. (2026) · Open Research Europe · doi:10.12688/openreseurope.20048.4
“While badges and micro-credentials function as external motivators, extensive research shows that extrinsic rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation when perceived as controlling rather than informational (Deci et al. , 1999).”
Motivation and Goal Congruence: Evidence in the Portuguese Insurance Sector
Martins, I., da Silva, M. J. C., Oliveira, J. D. S., & Azevedo, G. (2026) · Information systems engineering and management · doi:10.1007/978-3-032-16268-7_6
Metadata
- Authors
- Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M.
- Affiliations
- University of Rochester (US)
- Venue
- Psychological Bulletin
- Published
- 1999
- Volume
- 125
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 627-668
- ISSN
- 0033-2909 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-1455
- OpenAlex
- W2007851141
- Semantic Scholar
- 8ad9801baea65b40fbbe6fc56e34b2b7be47d0ba
- Cited by
- 7,176
- References
- 189
- Citations by year
- 2026: 349 · 2025: 329 · 2024: 314 · 2023: 421 · 2022: 315 · 2021: 351 · 2020: 528 · 2019: 429 · 2018: 372 · 2017: 368 · 2016: 436 · 2015: 402 · 2014: 379 · 2013: 355 · 2012: 331
- FWCI
- 75.18
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Psychological Bulletin (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH053385, MH-53385)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Motivation and Self-Concept in Sports
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Developmental and Educational Psychology › Education, Achievement, and Giftedness
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Experimental Behavioral Economics Studies
- Keywords
- extrinsic rewards, intrinsic motivation, performance-based rewards, tangible rewards, verbal rewards, expected reward, positive feedback
- MeSH terms
- Behavior Therapy, Choice Behavior, Conditioning, Operant, Humans, Internal-External Control, Motivation, Reward
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-12, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-12 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
