Are rewards truly the best motivators? Would you believe that intrinsic motivation rather than extrinsic rewards leads to better performance and commitment, be it in the workplace or in school? Ever wondered about the downside of using rewards and punishments as motivators? Discover the surprising truth behind rewards, punishments and motivation that is backed by studies conducted by famous psychologists like Edward Deci, Mark Lepper and Alfie Kohn.

Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A's, Praise and Other Bribes

The pervasive influence of behaviorism on our society is not easily noticed because it is so ingrained in our daily practices. At its core, pop behaviorism operates on the principle of "Do this and you'll get that," a technique used to raise children, teach students, and manage employees through rewards. While rewards might seem like an effective way to get people to comply, this book argues that the use of rewards is fundamentally flawed. 

The roots of behaviorism date back to early psychologists like Edward Thorndike and John B. Watson, and were further developed by B.F. Skinner. Skinner's experiments on animals led him to believe that human behavior could also be controlled through reinforcement. The principles of behaviorism have found their way into every aspect of our lives, from schools to workplaces, and even in parenting. 

For instance, schools often use grades, stickers, and certificates to motivate students, while workplaces rely on bonuses and incentives to drive productivity. However, this approach is not without its problems. Research has shown that rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation and create a dependency on external validation. 

Skinner's radical view, that humans are merely a collection of behaviors shaped by external factors, eliminates the concept of the self, creativity, love, and morality. This reductionist view has serious implications for how we understand human behavior and motivation.

The popularity of rewards is partly due to their immediate effectiveness and ease of use. It's much simpler to promise a treat or a bonus than to address underlying issues or foster intrinsic motivation. However, this short-term success often leads to long-term problems, as people become reliant on rewards and lose sight of other reasons to engage in a task.

In short, while rewards might seem like a practical solution, their overuse can have detrimental effects. It's time to question our reliance on behaviorism and consider alternative ways to motivate and engage people.

Is Our Dependence on B.F. Skinner's Behaviorism Undermining True Motivation?

Is it right to reward? Behaviorists like John B. Watson and B.F. Skinner were fascinated by the idea of controlling human behavior, much like scientists control natural phenomena. This brings us to a debate: should we reward people for their actions?

Take the notion of a "just world" where people believe that everyone gets what they deserve. This idea can lead to some troubling conclusions, such as assuming victims must have done something wrong to deserve their fate. For instance, children who watched a film about the Nazis concluded that the Jews must have been guilty to be punished so severely.

The equity principle suggests that people should get rewards based on their performance. This seems fair at first glance but raises questions about what constitutes deservingness and how rewards should be distributed. Rewards can be problematic because they often don't lead to lasting change.

Behavior modification, or the use of rewards to shape behavior, has its origins in studies with animals. Yet, applying these principles to humans can be dehumanizing and controlling. Pop behaviorism, which simplifies human motivation to "Do this and you'll get that," is based on this flawed assumption.

Research shows that rewards don't always produce lasting behavior change. Token economy programs, where tokens are exchanged for rewards, often fail to produce long-term effects. When the rewards stop, people revert to their previous behavior.

Studies on weight loss, smoking cessation, and seatbelt use reveal that rewards often don't lead to lasting change. For example, people who were paid to lose weight or quit smoking often reverted to their old habits once the rewards ceased.

Moreover, rewards can negatively impact performance on tasks requiring creativity or deep thinking. Studies from the 1960s onwards have shown that rewards can actually impair performance, especially on tasks that are interesting or require creative solutions.

Rewards might work for simple, mindless tasks but often fail when applied to more complex or meaningful activities. They can lead to superficial compliance rather than genuine engagement or lasting change.

In essence, while rewards can sometimes produce short-term compliance, they often backfire in the long run. They can undermine intrinsic motivation, reduce the quality of performance, and perpetuate control rather than fostering genuine engagement and growth.

Debunking Rewards: Insights from John B. Watson and B.F. Skinner

Confronted with evidence that rewards can lead to poorer performance, researchers initially suggested that the distraction caused by the reward was to blame. However, further research revealed a deeper issue: rewards can fundamentally undermine performance quality. This text outlines four key reasons why rewards often fail.

Firstly, rewards can feel punitive. Even if they are intended to be positive, rewards can be just as controlling as punishments. When people fail to earn a reward, it feels like a punishment. This dynamic can be seen in classrooms and workplaces where rewards and punishments often go hand in hand, leading to a sense of manipulation and control.

Secondly, rewards can damage relationships. In competitive environments, rewards can create hostility and jealousy among peers. Cooperative work, which is essential for quality performance, is undermined when individuals are pitted against each other for rewards. This competition can lead to stress and a lack of trust, stifling collaboration and innovation.

Thirdly, rewards ignore the underlying reasons for behavior. Instead of addressing the root causes of a problem, rewards offer a quick fix that often misses the bigger picture. For instance, a child who repeatedly gets out of bed at night might need more attention or have fears that need to be addressed. Simply rewarding them for staying in bed fails to solve the underlying issue.

Lastly, rewards discourage risk-taking. When people are focused on earning a reward, they are less likely to take creative risks or explore new possibilities. They tend to play it safe and stick to known methods, which can stifle innovation and growth. Studies have shown that people working for rewards are more likely to choose easier tasks and avoid challenges, which can hinder long-term development and creativity.

While rewards can motivate people to a certain extent, they often do so at the cost of creativity, collaboration, and genuine problem-solving. The focus on earning a reward can narrow attention, discourage risk-taking, and ultimately lead to poorer performance and strained relationships.

Are Rewards Sabotaging Our Performance and Creativity?

Who would have thought that rewarding people could turn play into work? This is the unintended consequence of using rewards as motivators. Psychologists call rewards and punishments "extrinsic" motivators because they come from outside the task. In contrast, "intrinsic" motivation comes from enjoying the task itself. Intrinsic motivation is a powerful predictor of quality and commitment, whether in the workplace or in school.

Consider someone excellent at their job. They likely don’t work just for the paycheck; they love what they do. Intrinsic motivation drives performance; extrinsic rewards can actually undermine this. This phenomenon has been studied extensively. 

In the 1970s, Edward Deci and Mark Lepper independently conducted experiments showing that rewards reduce intrinsic motivation. Deci found that college students paid to solve puzzles spent less time on them later, while Lepper found that preschoolers rewarded for drawing lost interest in drawing once the rewards stopped.

The Old Man's Plan illustrates this concept humorously. An old man bribed children to insult him, and once the payments decreased, the children stopped. They had shifted from doing it for fun to doing it for money.

Further studies confirmed that rewards, whether money, praise, or tangible prizes, reduce intrinsic motivation. For example, Leann Lipps Birch found that children who were rewarded for drinking a yogurt beverage liked it less over time.

This research challenges the conventional wisdom that rewards boost motivation. In fact, rewards can make people less interested in the rewarded activity. This occurs because rewards are seen as controlling, diminishing our sense of autonomy. When we feel controlled, our intrinsic motivation suffers.

Several strategies can minimize the damage of rewards:

1. Reduce the prominence of rewards.
2. Offer rewards as surprises.
3. Avoid making rewards a contest.
4. Make rewards similar to the task.
5. Give people choice in how rewards are used.
6. Immunize against the negative effects of rewards by focusing on intrinsic motivation.

Ultimately, relying on rewards is a short-sighted strategy. It undermines long-term interest and performance, turning potentially enjoyable activities into chores. Instead, fostering intrinsic motivation and providing autonomy leads to better outcomes and a more fulfilled life.

Decoding Motivation: How Rewards Undermine Passion According to Edward Deci and Mark Lepper

Children have an intrinsic desire to learn, and while gold stars and candy bars might be dismissed easily as motivational tools, praise is a trickier subject. Many of us crave approval, and the idea of praising our children or students seems natural. However, it’s important to consider how we praise and its long-term effects.

Praise can be a double-edged sword. On one side, there is straightforward feedback that provides information about a task and encourages a sense of self-determination. On the other, there are verbal rewards that can feel controlling, making one dependent on approval and potentially harmful to intrinsic motivation. The critical point is to distinguish between these types of praise and understand which can be beneficial and which can be detrimental.

Studies have shown that praise does not necessarily correlate with better performance. For instance, an experiment with Israeli students found that those who were praised for their creativity performed worse on subsequent tasks. 

Similarly, American college students who received praise saw a decline in their performance. This counterintuitive result can be attributed to various factors, including the pressure to live up to the compliment, low-risk strategies to avoid failure, and a decrease in intrinsic motivation.

Praise can also undermine self-esteem and personal values. When children are praised for prosocial behavior, it may not lead to genuine altruism. Instead, they might act generously only when they expect praise, not out of a personal commitment to being kind. Similarly, praise does not necessarily build a healthy self-concept. It can create a dependency on external validation, leading to insecurity and a lack of self-determination.

To use praise effectively, it’s important to focus on specific actions rather than making general judgments about a person. For example, "That's a really nice story" is better than "You're such a good writer." Genuine and spontaneous praise is preferable to contrived compliments meant to manipulate behavior. Additionally, avoiding comparisons and public praise can prevent fostering competition and resentment among peers.

Instead of relying on praise, offering informational feedback and encouragement can be more beneficial. Acknowledging effort and providing constructive feedback helps individuals feel competent and motivated without becoming dependent on external approval. Encouragement should be sincere and aimed at promoting self-determination and intrinsic motivation.

Ultimately, the goal is to support children in developing their own judgments and motivations. While praise can be tempting as a quick fix, it’s essential to consider its long-term effects and use it thoughtfully to foster genuine growth and self-confidence.

Is Praising Children Hurting Their Motivation More Than Helping?

In the corporate world, incentive systems and pay-for-performance plans are deeply ingrained, with the belief that rewards drive better performance. Yet, ample evidence contradicts this notion, revealing that such extrinsic motivators often hinder rather than help.

Consider the 1955 insight of William Foote Whyte, who argued that the issue lies not in poor incentive techniques but in flawed theories of worker motivation. Despite the widespread use of these systems, they frequently fail to deliver the promised results. The consistent failure of these systems is not a new observation; experts have been lamenting their ineffectiveness for decades.

Numerous research studies and real-world examples highlight the counterproductive nature of incentives. For instance, a study on executive pay found no significant difference in shareholder returns between companies with and without incentive plans. Similarly, a comprehensive review of performance-based pay in the public sector concluded that such programs did not improve organizational performance.

One of the fundamental issues is that rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation. Edward Deci's research in the 1970s demonstrated that external rewards could diminish a person's inherent interest in a task. This devaluation of intrinsic motivation explains why rewards often result in lower quality work and reduced enthusiasm.

Incentive systems also foster negative dynamics within organizations. They can create competition rather than cooperation among employees, damaging teamwork and overall productivity. Moreover, these systems tend to ignore the root causes of performance issues, offering superficial solutions instead of addressing underlying problems.

Even countries like Japan and Germany, known for their high productivity, rarely rely on incentive-based tactics, suggesting that intrinsic motivation and effective management practices are more crucial for success.

Ultimately, the persistent belief in the power of rewards is akin to a theological dogma in the business world, deeply tied to capitalist values. However, to truly enhance performance and job satisfaction, organizations must shift their focus from extrinsic rewards to fostering intrinsic motivation and addressing the real needs of their employees.

Rethinking Rewards: Edward Deci's Insights on Intrinsic Motivation Over Incentives

When children first start school, they're brimming with curiosity and excitement. They're eager to learn to print their names, count objects, and decode signs. They listen wide-eyed during story time and return home excited about new facts. But over time, this enthusiasm often fades. They start to complain about homework and count the minutes until the next break. This shift isn't natural and can be attributed to the way schools use rewards to motivate students.

Recent studies show that American classrooms frequently use rewards—stickers, stars, treats, and grades—to encourage children. But this approach, rooted in behaviorism, often fails to enhance students' interest and achievement. When rewards don’t work, educators offer more rewards or blame students for being lazy or less capable.

Behaviorism's failure in education is evident. Children naturally have a desire to learn, but as they progress through school, their motivation becomes more extrinsic. Research shows that intrinsic motivation, the internal desire to learn, leads to better academic achievement. A study even found that children's interest in a subject was thirty times more important for memory retention than the readability of the material.

An anecdote illustrates this point: A high school teacher once gave a ride to a seemingly unmotivated student who sang every song on the radio with enthusiasm and perfect memory. This showed that her lack of interest in schoolwork was not due to a lack of ability but rather the uninspiring methods used in classrooms.

The issue lies in the use of rewards, which not only fail to help but also undermine intrinsic motivation. When students are controlled and pressured with rewards and evaluations, their interest in learning diminishes. They may become anxious, helpless, and less likely to take on challenging tasks. For example, research has shown that students perform worse when their teachers feel pressured to ensure high performance.

Students with special needs or labeled as learning disabled are often subjected to more controlling techniques, which can further reduce their intrinsic motivation and achievement. These children are treated with behavior management systems that focus on obedience rather than fostering self-directed learning.

The overuse of rewards and controlling strategies in education not only fails to motivate students but also damages their natural desire to learn. Instead, creating an environment that fosters intrinsic motivation and allows students to engage deeply with their subjects is key to effective learning.

Is the Overuse of Rewards in Schools Killing Children's Natural Curiosity?

In the world of child-rearing and education, there's a pervasive reliance on rewards and punishments as tools for molding behavior. But do these methods genuinely help children develop into good and responsible adults? 

Constance Kamii and others argue that these tactics merely buy temporary compliance without fostering internal growth and conviction. Consider the vivid recollections many adults have of childhood punishments—moments that often left scars rather than instilling any valuable lessons. 

Research echoes these sentiments, showing that punitive measures often lead to more disruptive and aggressive behavior in the long run. Similarly, when parents or teachers use rewards to manipulate behavior, they may inadvertently teach children to act only when there's something in it for them, undermining genuine altruism and responsibility. Children learn to focus on the external consequences of their actions rather than developing a sense of internal ethics and responsibility.

The problem with both punishments and rewards is that they often prioritize adult convenience and control over children's long-term development. They fail to teach children to ask the critical questions: "What kind of person do I want to be?" or "What kind of community do we want to build together?" Instead, children learn to ask, "What will happen if I don't comply?" or "What do I get if I do?"

To truly nurture responsible, caring, and self-reliant individuals, we must explore alternatives that move beyond the simplistic carrot-and-stick approach. This involves engaging with children in ways that promote self-determination and ethical decision-making, fostering environments where they can thrive as thoughtful and compassionate individuals.

Breaking Free from the Carrot-and-Stick: Constance Kamii Advocates for True Child Development

Before writing this book, the author often criticized rewards, both in print and in person. The most common response wasn't to challenge his arguments but to ask, "What's your alternative?" This question is tricky because the alternative depends on whether we're talking about raising children, teaching students, or managing employees. 

Moreover, pop behaviorism's promise of one-size-fits-all solutions is alluring but false. For those seeking short-term compliance, rewards might seem like the only answer. However, if the goal is to foster intrinsic motivation, develop lifelong learners, or nurture caring individuals, rewards fail and even hinder these objectives.

One key step is to abolish financial incentives. W. Edwards Deming and Frederick Herzberg argue that pay isn't a motivator, although unfair pay can be a demotivator. The focus should be on ensuring fair compensation and then helping employees put money out of their minds.

Performance appraisals, usually stressful and counterproductive, should also be reevaluated. Instead of ranking and judging employees, evaluations should be continuous, collaborative, and separate from compensation. This approach fosters improvement rather than resentment and competition.

Creating conditions for authentic motivation involves treating workers decently and ensuring they have autonomy. Collaboration, meaningful work, and choice are crucial. Employees thrive in environments where they feel a sense of belonging, do work they find meaningful, and have some control over how they do their jobs.

To truly motivate employees, managers must shift from control and incentives to creating supportive, participatory environments. This approach not only enhances motivation and productivity but also aligns with democratic principles, challenging the traditional hierarchical structures in many organizations. Ultimately, the goal should be to provide meaningful work and a better quality of life for all employees.

Can We Abandon Financial Incentives and Still Motivate Employees Like Deming and Herzberg Suggest?

In the classroom, motivation isn't about making lessons flashy or using threats and rewards; it's about fostering genuine interest and engagement. John Dewey emphasized that true attention involves active thinking and questioning. The idea that students need to be artificially motivated is flawed; children are naturally curious and eager to learn. The challenge for educators is to create an environment that supports this intrinsic motivation.

Douglas McGregor and Raymond Wlodkowski argue that the role of teachers is to set up conditions that allow students to motivate themselves, not to control them. This involves collaboration, meaningful content, and giving students choices in their learning process. Removing extrinsic motivators like grades and rewards can be challenging, but it's necessary for fostering a love of learning.

Grades, while intended to motivate, often undermine intrinsic motivation and create a dependency that can be hard to break. They encourage competition, strain student-teacher relationships, and can lead to cheating. Alfie Kohn highlights that grades don't provide useful feedback and instead fixate students on performance rather than learning.

Kohn also discusses the detrimental effects of a grade-focused education system, where students' self-worth becomes tied to their grades. This creates a never-ending race for rewards, often at the expense of genuine learning and personal growth. He recalls a poignant moment when a highly successful prep school student asked, "What else is there?" This question underscores the hollowness of a reward-driven education system.

To move beyond this, Kohn suggests several steps: reducing the emphasis on grades, involving students in the evaluation process, and creating a curriculum that is engaging and relevant to their lives. This involves breaking down the traditional competitive and individualistic models of education and fostering cooperative learning environments.

Cooperative learning, where students work together, has been shown to improve self-esteem, social skills, and academic achievement. It's important to focus on meaningful content that connects to students' interests and lives, rather than on rote memorization and decontextualized facts.

Finally, giving students autonomy in their learning is crucial. When students have a say in what and how they learn, they are more motivated and engaged. This can be implemented in various ways, from letting students choose their projects to involving them in curriculum decisions.

By rethinking our approach to education and focusing on intrinsic motivation, collaboration, relevant content, and student choice, we can create a more engaging and effective learning environment. This shift requires a fundamental change in how we view teaching and learning, but the potential benefits for students' motivation and achievement make it worth the effort.

Revolutionizing Education: Insights from John Dewey, Douglas McGregor, and Alfie Kohn

Raising children is an age-old challenge, and countless experts have offered advice on the subject. Most parenting books and seminars focus on eliminating unwanted behaviors using step-by-step plans, punishments, and rewards. 

However, this approach often emphasizes control rather than fostering long-term positive values and skills in children. Instead of focusing on eliminating problematic behavior, we should promote positive values and skills, reducing everyday issues and helping children grow into good people.

The traditional recipe approach to parenting, which provides exact instructions on what to say and do, is flawed. Human interactions are too complex for simple formulas. Offering a set of foolproof instructions is disrespectful to both parents and children. Moreover, relying on punishments and rewards can be counterproductive, teaching children about power and control rather than proper behavior.

Researchers Edward Deci and Richard Ryan distinguish between structured and controlling environments for children. They argue that while structure and limits are necessary, control through coercion should be minimized. 

Heavy-handed approaches often lead to disruptive and aggressive behavior. Martin Hoffman's research found that outcomes were worse when parents reacted aggressively to children's non-compliance. Punishment teaches about power, not proper behavior, and can create adversarial relationships and negative assumptions about children's motives.

Instead of punishment, we should use misbehavior as teachable moments to educate and solve problems together. This collaborative approach promotes trust and lasting positive behavior. Parents and teachers should aim to solve problems with children, allowing them to participate in decision-making and developing their capacity to act responsibly.

Effective parenting involves the "three C's": content, collaboration, and choice. First, reconsider the nature of our requests and ensure they are reasonable. Second, involve children in decision-making, explain the reasons behind rules, and work together to solve problems. Third, provide children with real choices, fostering their autonomy and sense of control.

Caring environments, where children feel loved and respected, are crucial for positive development. Modeling positive behavior, explaining the reasons behind actions, and attributing positive motives to children help them internalize prosocial values. Providing opportunities for children to care for others, collaborate, and take different perspectives further reinforces these values.

Schools also play a vital role in moral and social development. Programs like the Child Development Project emphasize creating caring communities and involving children in decision-making. Class meetings, unity-building activities, and prosocial literature help children internalize positive values and develop a sense of community.

Ultimately, fostering children's autonomy and providing them with meaningful choices are essential for their long-term development. Encouraging self-determination helps children grow into responsible, caring, and ethical individuals, capable of making their own decisions and contributing positively to society.

Can Edward Deci and Richard Ryan's Research Revolutionize Modern Parenting?

Behaviorism's influence on society is pervasive, often unnoticed due to its deep integration into our practices. It operates on a reward-based principle, which is widely used in child-rearing, education, and management. 

However, this approach has significant flaws. Rewards can undermine intrinsic motivation, create dependency on external validation, and reduce the quality of performance. They can also feel punitive, damage relationships, ignore underlying issues, and discourage risk-taking.

Intrinsic motivation, on the other hand, is a more effective predictor of quality and commitment. Studies have shown that rewards often reduce intrinsic interest in tasks, leading to poorer performance and less engagement. In education, the overuse of rewards can diminish students' natural desire to learn, leading to disengagement and lower achievement.

In parenting and education, focusing on fostering intrinsic motivation and providing autonomy can lead to better outcomes. This involves creating supportive environments, meaningful content, and giving children choices in their learning process. Effective feedback and encouragement should be specific, genuine, and aimed at promoting self-determination.

In the workplace, the focus should be on fair compensation, continuous and collaborative evaluations, and creating conditions for authentic motivation. This means treating employees with respect, fostering collaboration, and providing meaningful work and autonomy.

Ultimately, moving away from rewards and punishments towards fostering intrinsic motivation and autonomy can lead to more genuine engagement, better performance, and more fulfilled individuals. This requires a fundamental shift in how we view motivation and behavior, emphasizing long-term growth and self-determination over short-term compliance and control.

Home

Trending Books

News & Mags

Relax

Curated

Collections

Key Ideas & Notes

Insights

Highlights & Bookmarks

Listening History

Key Ideas

#1