Continuing the Controversy About Reward and Intrinsic Motivation

Originally published in Contemporary Psychology: APA Review of Books, 2004, Vol 49(5), 532–534. Rewards and Intrinsic Motivation (see record 2002-01736-000) is a response to an ongoing debate in psychological circles; namely, whether rewarding people can, under certain conditions, decrease their subsequent interest in the task. Behavioral theories predict that rewards, given contingent on a response, increase the likelihood of future responding or maintain the behavior at its present strength. However, research anomalies emerged in the early 1970s. The book begins by noting that rewards have developed a negative reputation and that many claim that rewards should be avoided. Cameron and Pierce summarize early research and what they see as problems with this research. The next part discusses theoretical perspectives on the effects of rewards to include cognitive evaluation theory, attribution theory (overjustification effect), social cognitive theory, and behavioral theory. A lengthy section reviews empirical evidence on the effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation. After explaining the meta-analytic procedure and reviewing other meta-analyses on this topic, they describe their meta-analysis in which they break down studies according to type of reward condition. The book has several strengths. It is clearly written, including the section describing the meta-analysis. This should help to broaden its appeal beyond the academic community. Another strength is that the book frames the rewards controversy against a theoretical and historical background. It traces the rise of behaviorism as a rejection of a psychology of the mind and then discusses the ascendance of cognitive psychology. Third, both the literature review and the meta-analysis are comprehensive. However, the reviewer argues that after reading this book, it was not clear what its major purpose was. Readers will find this book repetitious; the same points are reiterated several times. With careful editing, the length could have been cut substantially. Furthermore, missing from this book are suggestions for future research directions, which would have been valuable given that the book's literature review and meta-analysis provide a solid basis for recommendations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2006 APA, all rights reserved)