Cited by 50Attention Deficit Hyperactivity DisorderNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDevelopmental and Educational Neuropsychology

Do Motivational Incentives Reduce the Inhibition Deficit in ADHD?

Shanahan, Michelle A., Pennington, Bruce F., Willcutt, Erik W.·2008·Developmental Neuropsychology

Abstract

The primary goal of this study was to test three competing theories of ADHD: the inhibition theory, the motivational theory, and a dual deficit theory. Previous studies have produced conflicting findings about the effects of incentives on executive processes in ADHD. In the present study of 25 children with ADHD and 30 typically developing controls, motivation was manipulated within the Stop Task. Stop signal reaction time was examined, as well as reaction time, its variability, and the number of errors in the primary choice reaction time task. Overall, the pattern of results supported the inhibition theory over the motivational or dual deficit hypotheses, as main effects of group were found for most key variables (ADHD group was worse), whereas the group by reward interaction predicted by the motivational and dual deficit accounts was not found. Hence, as predicted by the inhibition theory, children with ADHD performed worse than controls irrespective of incentives.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1080/87565640701884238

Cites

64 of 64 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 65 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shanahan, M. A., Pennington, B. F., & Willcutt, E. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Denver (US)
  • University of Colorado Boulder (US)
Venue
Developmental Neuropsychology
Published
2008-03-06
Volume
33
Issue
2
Pages
137-159
ISSN
  • 1532-6942 (ISSN-L)
  • 8756-5641
OpenAlex
W2016063033
Cited by
50
References
65
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 3
FWCI
3.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Developmental Neuropsychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (HD027802, P50HD027802)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Psychiatry and Mental health › Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Neuropsychology and Physiological Psychology › Developmental and Educational Neuropsychology
Keywords
attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, inhibitory deficits, motivational incentives, reward, stop-signal task, executive function, children, reaction time variability
MeSH terms
Acoustic Stimulation, Adolescent, Attention, Attention Deficit Disorder with Hyperactivity, Child, Choice Behavior, Cues, Discrimination Learning, Diseases in Twins, Dyslexia, Female, Humans, Inhibition, Psychological, Male, Motivation, Neuropsychological Tests, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Problem Solving, Psychomotor Performance, Reaction Time, Reference Values, 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.

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