Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth

Based on seemingly overwhelming empirical evidence of the decremental effects of reward on intrinsic task interest and creativity, the use of reward to alter human behavior has been challenged in literature reviews, textbooks, and the popular media. An analysis of a quarter century of research on intrinsic task interest and creativity revealed, however, that (a) detrimental effects of reward occur under highly restricted, easily avoidable conditions, " (b) mech-anisms of instrumental nd classical conditioning are ba-sic for understanding incremental nd decremental effects of reward on task motivation; and (c) positive effects of reward on generalized creativity are easily attainable us-ing procedures derived from behavior theory. O bservers of American culture have long noted a I strong emphasis on individualistic values, in- cluding taking responsibility for one's own ac-tions, pursuing personal interests, and exploring one's creative potential (e.g., Badia, 1990; Huber, 1971; Toc-queville, 1840/1990). Consistent with the common pre-sumption that individuals function most effectively and happily when they are guiding their own behavior (see Geller, 1982; Hogan, 1975), an increasingly dominant view has developed over the past quarter century con-tending that the strengthening ofperformance by reward (reinforcement) causes the unpleasant experience of being controlled by others and reduces task interest and cre-ativity. Based on seemingly overwhelming empirical ev-idence of such effects, the value of using reward to alter human behavior has been challenged in literature reviews, textbooks, and the popular media. Conventional View The following sentiments are characteristic of a diverse and growing literature claiming that reward inherently reduces task interest and creativity. According to an article published in the American Psychologist, "reinforcement has two effects. First, predictably, it gains control of [an] activity, increasing its frequency. Second.... when re-inforcement is later withdrawn, people engage in the ac-tivity even less than they did before reinforcement was introduced " (Schwartz, 1990, p. 10). A widely cited lit-erature review that appeared in the premier social psy