Corruption Effect

from Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In the corruption effect , secondary motivation displaces the previous primary motivation. Before the activity itself motivated ( intrinsically ), afterwards it is mainly results that are outside of the activity (extrinsic, e.g. promised rewards) that motivate . If the external incentive no longer applies, the behavior originally shown with pleasure and voluntarily declines.

Other names are corruption effect , displacement effect , effect of excessive justification or self-corruption . In English it is called the overjustification effect (about: overjustification effect ).

The effect can occur when people consciously or unconsciously justify their own behavior with external pressure (compelling circumstances) or a reward, even though the real cause of the behavior was their own wishes or interests (e.g. curiosity). In relation to the actual behavior, the giving of an external stimulus can lead to a short-term increase in the encouraged behavior. If, however, the incentive no longer applies, the frequency of the corresponding behavior drops below the original starting level. Intrinsic motivation can only be corrupted if it is present and large enough. If the initial interest is low anyway, external incentives work.

theory

Self-awareness theory

Daryl Bem derived this effect from his theory of self-awareness . The effect is summarized as follows: The person perceives that he is receiving a reward for an activity that he has enjoyed doing so far. This results in a cognitive reassessment of the activity. The person now assumes that they do not really enjoy doing the activity after all, because they are rewarded for it as they know it from other activities that they do not enjoy doing. The previous assessment of the person about the reasons for their actions is corrupted and this can lead to a change in motivation, which can have a detrimental effect on the performance in the previous activity.

This theory has sparked controversial discussions in work, industrial and organizational psychology (ABO) , among others . Mainly because of their prediction that a (financially higher) reward is not appropriate in all cases, especially not if the person is engaged in an activity. Because this commitment represents the optimal state in many commercial fields of activity and should therefore also be rewarded higher. It is difficult to justify why a person who works intrinsically motivated and thereby achieves more should not be rewarded more than other persons who only do the assigned work satisfactorily or routinely for extrinsic motives. This led to criticism and further research.

Cognitive evaluation theory

More recent research findings have been able to support the cognitive evaluation theory according to Deci and Ryan (1980; 1985), according to which the occurrence of a corruption effect depends on how a person perceives an external incentive (e.g. a material reward) with regard to their own competence and self-determination. Based on the self-determination theory , three central preconditions ( basic needs ) for the development of intrinsic motivation can be identified: autonomy, competence and social integration. If the striving for autonomy and competence is undermined by external incentives, the result is a corrupting effect.

It therefore depends on how an external incentive is perceived. If the experience of autonomy is strengthened or if a reward is perceived as not controlling, the intrinsic motivation can be increased. The same effect occurs when the reward is also perceived as recognition of one's own competence. If this is not the case, however, and a reward leads to a reduction in one's own competence experience or is experienced as controlling, the result is a corrupting effect. According to cognitive evaluation theory, an external incentive can therefore contain informational (i.e. increase in autonomy and the experience of competence) and, on the other hand, control (i.e. decrease in autonomy) properties. Furthermore, a distinction is made between verbal (positive performance feedback ) and material rewards. Material rewards are divided into expected and unexpected rewards (depending on the person's previous knowledge of whether a reward will follow after performing a particular activity). According to cognitive evaluation theory, rewards are also categorized according to their contingency in relation to the activity. If there is no contingency ( task-noncontingent rewards ), a reward is awarded completely separate from the actual activity (for example, only for participating in an experiment). However, if the reward is granted for performing a certain activity - regardless of how well the activity is carried out - it is a task-contingent reward . If the reward is only given when a certain performance level is reached, it is a performance-contingent reward . For all these different forms of rewards, predictions for effects on intrinsic motivation can be made with the aid of cognitive evaluation theory. With performance-contingent rewards there is an increased degree of behavior control, which should have a negative effect on intrinsic motivation. However, there should be no negative effect with unexpected rewards. Verbal rewards are strongly linked to the recognition of one's own competence and should therefore be perceived as more informative. Nevertheless, there can also be contexts in which such positive performance feedback is experienced as controlling.

Research on the Corruption Effect

In the frequently cited field study by Lepper, Greene and Nisbett (1973), toddlers should use so-called "magic markers" to draw pictures. All children were divided into three groups. In the “expected award” group, every child was rewarded in any case if they even started to paint. The children thus knew that they would be rewarded for painting pictures. In the “unexpected award” group, the children were given an unexpected reward after painting. No reward was given in the “no award” group. After about two weeks, the children were examined again in order to record any change in intrinsic motivation when painting. Children in the “expected award” group spent less time painting and produced poorer quality pictures than children in the other groups.

Greene, Sternberg and Lepper (1976) gave elementary school students new math games and measured how much time the children volunteered with the games for 13 days. In the following 11 days, the children received rewards for doing the same job. As predicted, after the reward was discontinued, the duration of employment fell below the initial level and below the level of the control group .

In 1971, Deci provided initial experimental confirmation of the corruption effect. A meta-analysis from 1999 with 128 studies also showed significant negative effects of rewards and the associated limited autonomy through external behavior control on intrinsic motivation. Material and expected rewards had a negative effect both on self-reported interest and on voluntary commencement of activity following the experiment. The same negative effects resulted from task-contingent rewards. Performance-contingent rewards also led to less occupation with the activity after the reward was discontinued. However, there was no influence on the self-reported interest. In the case of rewards without contingency (cf. cognitive evaluation theory ), there was no effect on intrinsic motivation. It was particularly interesting to find that verbal rewards had a positive effect on intrinsic motivation.

The behavioral economists Ernst Fehr and Armin Falk were also able to show in a study in 2002 that financial incentives can have a counterproductive effect on motivation.

Bruno S. Frey and Iris Bohnet showed that the suppression of intrinsic motivation by monetary incentives and regulations is of particular interest "if the intrinsic motivation cannot be completely substituted and the behavior of individuals can no longer be influenced to the same extent" .

application

pedagogy

How can parents and teachers avoid the effect of excessive justification? What matters is which message reaches the child. If you reward it for just doing the desired task and announce this reward beforehand (as in the study by Greene, Sternberg and Lepper, 1976.), the effect is more likely to occur than if it is unexpected rewarded for completing the task. However, rewarding performance must not lead to the child feeling under constant critical observation, because the negative feelings ("fear of evaluation") triggered by this can also destroy a previously existing intrinsic motivation. One should avoid comparisons with others (for example classmates); The individual improvement should be praised. Above all, educators should avoid the message that the respective field (sport, school subject or similar) requires skills that one either has or does not have. The best message is that exertion works, that practice helps, that the child can improve in any area if they try. How often is praised also has to be adapted to the cultural context. In Far Eastern cultures, children are much less praised than in Western cultures, while the intrinsic desire to improve one's own performance is stronger in children from Western cultures

Incentive systems in the private and public sectors

The corruption effect caused by financial incentive systems should not be underestimated. It is not about wages for basic security. In addition to a basic salary, however, performance-related grants and bonuses are often paid out. Many companies and public authorities use monetary incentives as a means of increasing motivation. Such a strongly monetary system, however, has the potential to have a corruption effect. In order to maintain intrinsic motivation, other ways of reward (such as positive performance feedback to increase one's own competence experience) should not be underestimated. If employees have performed well, this should be praised and thanked for.

The work context in which such additional rewards take place is also very important. A reward is meant to satisfy the need for autonomy, if it is not to run the risk of corrupting intrinsic motivation. If an incentive - regardless of whether it is financial or verbal - is conveyed in such a way that it is experienced as controlling (for example, in the case of verbal feedback: "You did that very well. Exactly as it was asked of you. You should keep doing it!") the need for autonomy can be undermined. A corruption effect is likely. Rewards that are of an informational nature (for example verbal feedback in the form of thanks for very good sales figures) are more suitable at this point. Because these represent an acknowledgment of the efforts of the person concerned, but without placing further conditions on the person and thus leading to experienced control. Special services that satisfy this need for autonomy and recognition of competencies (for example reimbursement of the costs for a PC course or for a trip to a conference) are also important in this way.

If premiums are unexpectedly given for particularly good performance, no corruption effect is to be expected.

controversy

The research on the corruption effect was criticized in particular from the behavioral analysis side. Above all, it is pointed out that it does not differentiate between "rewarding" a person and " reinforcing " a behavior (for the differences see under reinforcement ). The criticism also applies to the concept of intrinsic motivation, which is inherently contradictory and unempirical.

Cameron and Pierce (1994) were unable to find a corrupting effect in one of the first meta-analyzes on the influence of rewards and reinforcers on intrinsic motivation. There is only a minimal, negative effect on intrinsic motivation when a reward is expected and only given for taking up a certain activity (cf. cognitive evaluation theory : task-contingent reward). The authors concluded that rewards and enhancers had no real damaging effects on intrinsic motivation.

According to a meta-analysis carried out in 2001 with 145 studies (partly re-analyzed from previous meta-analyzes), a decrease in intrinsic motivation as a result of rewards can usually be attributed to the incorrect use of boosters. Negative effects of rewards would only be found if, with initially high interest, material, expected (previously announced) rewards independent of performance were given (cf. cognitive evaluation theory : task contingent rewards). If performance-contingent rewards were given, the intrinsic motivation would even increase. If the interest was low from the start, the intrinsic motivation was increased by a reward. Furthermore, verbal rewards could also increase intrinsic motivation if there was high initial interest. All in all, the authors summarize that their meta-analysis would have provided no indication of the harmful effects of rewards ("In terms of the overall effects of reward, our meta-analysis indicates no evidence for detrimental effects of reward on measures of intrinsic motivation", P. 21). The authors call the corruption effect a myth.

In an answer, Deci, Ryan and Koestner criticized errors in the meta-analyzes by Cameron et al. The selection of the studies they evaluated is one-sided. Among other things, groups are also included that initially did not have a strong intrinsic motivation. In these cases, it was to be expected from the outset that there would be no significant corruption effect.

See also

literature

  • Bruno S. Frey: Market and Motivation. How economic incentives displace (work) morality. Vahlen, Munich 1997, ISBN 3-8006-2168-1 .
  • JM Harackiewicz, AM Durik, KE Barron: Multiple goals, optimal motivation, and the development of interest. In: Joseph P. Forgas, Kipling D. Williams, Simon M. Laham (Eds.): Social Motivation: Conscious and Unconscious Processes. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge 2005, ISBN 0-521-83254-3 , pp. 21-39.

Web links

swell

  1. ↑ a b H. J. Snelders, SG Lea: Different kinds of work, different kinds of pay: An examination of the overjustification effect. In: The Journal of Socio-Economics. 25 (4), 1996, pp. 517-535.
  2. ↑ a b c d e f E. L. Deci, R. Koestner, RM Ryan: A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. In: Psychological Bulletin. 125 (6), 1999, pp. 627-668. online (PDF file; 7MB)
  3. ↑ a b M. R. Lepper, D. Greene, RE Nisbett: Undermining childrens intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the "overjustification" hypothesis. In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 28 (1), 1973, pp. 129-137.
  4. ^ A b E. Aronson , TD Wilson, RM Akert: Social Psychology. 6th edition. Pearson Studium, Munich 2008, ISBN 978-3-8273-7359-5 , p. 142.
  5. ^ DJ Bem: Self-perception. An alternative interpretation of cognitive dissonance phenomena. In: Psychological Review. 74, 536-537 1967.
  6. ^ A b E. L. Deci, R. Koestner, RM Ryan: Extrinsic rewards and intrinsic motivation in education: Reconsidered once again. In: Review of Educational Research. 71 (1), 2001, pp. 1-27.
  7. ^ A. Rummel, R. Feinberg: Cognitive evaluation theory: A meta-analytic review of the literature. In: Social Behavior and Personality. 16, 1988, pp. 147-164.
  8. ↑ S.-H. Tang, VC Hall: The overjustification effect: A metaanalysis. In: Applied Cognitive Psychology. 9, 1995, pp. 365-404.
  9. ^ UJ Wiersma: The effects of extrinsic rewards in intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. In: Journal of Occupational and Organizational Psychology. 65 (2), 1992, pp. 101-114.
  10. ^ EL Deci, RM Ryan: The empirical exploration of intrinsic motivational processes. In: L. Berkowitz (Ed.): Advances in experimental social psychology. Academic Press, New York 1980, pp. 39-80.
  11. ↑ a b E. L. Deci, RM Ryan: Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenary, New York 1985.
  12. ^ A b D. Greene, B. Sternberg, MR Lepper: Overjustification in a token economy. In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 34 (6), 1976, pp. 1219-1234.
  13. ^ EL Deci: Effects of externally mediated rewards on intrinsic motivation. (PDF; 223 kB). In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 18 (3), 1971, pp. 105-115.
  14. ^ E. Fehr, A. Falk: Psychological foundations of incentives. In: European Economic Review. 46, 2002, pp. 687-724.
  15. ↑ Bruno S. Frey, Iris Bohnet: The economy between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. In: Homo oeconomicus. Volume XI, number 1, ACCEDO Verlagsgemeinschaft, Munich 1994, p. 2. (PDF)
  16. ↑ J. Henderlong, MR Lepper: The effects of praise on children's intrinsic motivation: A review and synthesis. In: Psychological Bulletin. 128 (5) 2002, pp. 774-795.
  17. ↑ JM Harackiewicz: Performance evaluation and intrinsic motivation processes: The effects of achievement orientation and rewards. In: D. Buss, N. Cantor (eds.): Personality Psychology: Recent trends and emerging directions. Springer, New York 1989, pp. 128-137.
  18. ↑ CS Dweck: Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. Psychology Press, Philadelphia 1999.
  19. ↑ F. Salili: Learning and motivation: An Asian perspective. In: Psychology and Developing Societies. 8, 1996, pp. 55-81.
  20. ^ SJ Heine: Is there a universal need for positive self-regard? In: Psychological Review. 106 (4), 1999, pp. 766-794.
  21. ^ CC Lewis: Educating hearts and minds: Reflections on Japanese preschool and elementary education. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK 1995.
  22. ^ RM Ryan, V. Mims, R. Koestner: Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: A review and test using cognitive evaluation theory. In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 45 (4), 1983, pp. 736-750.
  23. ^ RM Ryan, V. Mims, R. Koestner: Relation of reward contingency and interpersonal context to intrinsic motivation: A review and test using cognitive evaluation theory. In: Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 45 (4), 1983, pp. 736-750.
  24. ↑ Alyce M. Dickinson: The detrimental effects of extrinsic reinforcement on "intrinsic motivation" . In: The Behavior Analyst . tape 12 , no. 1 , 1989, pp. 1-15 . , PMC 2742036 (free full text, PDF)
  25. ^ "Social scientists who warn that high pay will ruin the interest and motivation of ... workers, rarely counsel low reward of professional services and creative efforts", Albert Bandura: Social foundations of thought and action. A social cognitive theory . Prentice-Hall, Englewood 1986, ISBN 0-13-815614-X , pp. 236 .
  26. ↑ Falko Rheinberg: Intrinsic motivation and flow experience . In: Jutta Heckhausen, Heinz Heckhausen (ed.): Motivation and action . Springer, Berlin 2010, ISBN 978-3-642-12692-5 , pp. 365-387 .
  27. ↑ Steven Reiss: Extrinsic and intrinsic motivation at 30: Unresolved scientific issues . In: The Behavior Analyst . tape 28 , no. 1 , 2005, p. 1-14 . , PMC 2755352 (free full text, PDF)
  28. ^ Judy Cameron, W. David Pierce: Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis . In: Review of Educational Research . tape 64 , no. 3 , 1994, p. 363-423 , doi : 10.3102 / 00346543064003363 . , (PDF; 7.12 MB) ( Memento of the original from February 25, 2016 in the Internet Archive ) Info: The archive link was inserted automatically and has not yet been checked. Please check the original and archive link according to the instructions and then remove this notice. @1@ 2Template: Webachiv / IABot / rer.sagepub.com
  29. ^ Judy Cameron, Katherine M. Banko, W. David Pierce: Pervasive negative effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation. The myth continues . In: The Behavior Analyst . tape 24 , no. 1 , 2001, p. 1-44 . , PMC 2731358 (free full text, PDF).
  30. ^ Edward L. Deci, Richard M. Ryan, Richard Koestner: The Pervasive Negative Effects of Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation: Response to Cameron (2001). In: Review of Educational Research. Volume 71, No. 1, Spring 2001, pp. 43-51, doi: 10.3102 / 00346543071001043 .
  31. ^ Also Edward L. Deci, Richard M. Ryan, Richard Koestner: Extrinsic Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation in Education: Reconsidered Once Again. (PDF; 1.5 MB). In: Review of Educational Research. Volume 71, No. 1, Spring 2001, pp. 1-27, doi: 10.3102 / 00346543071001001 .