READING 1

Undermining Children’s Intrinsic Interest with Extrinsic Reward: A Test of the

“Overjustification” Hypothesis by Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett

Overview

In his provocative self-perception theory, Daryl Bem (1972) proposed that people can learn about
themselves the same way outside observers do—by watching their own behavior. To the extent that
our internal states are weak or difficult to interpret, says Bem, we infer what we think or how we feel
by observing our own behavior and the situation in which that behavior takes place. In an early test
of this theory, Lepper and others (1973) reasoned that when people are rewarded for engaging in a
fun activity, that behavior becomes overjustified, or overrewarded, and can be attributed to extrinsic
as well as intrinsic motives. The result is that they may begin to wonder if the activity was ever
worth pursuing in its own right. As you read this study, think about the possible implications of this
research in schools, businesses, and other settings. As you read more of the textbook, consider also
how this research relates to theory and research presented in Chapters 3 (The Social Self), 4
(Perceiving Persons), and 6 (Attitudes).

Critical Thinking Questions

1. As discussed in Chapter 3, behaviorists such as B. F. Skinner emphasized how rewards increased

people’s likelihood of performing a behavior. Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett’s research suggests that
rewards can make people less likely to engage in a behavior. How can one explain these different
effects?

2. Using self-perception theory, explain why the subjects who received an unexpected reward did not
show a decrease in intrinsic motivation whereas the subjects who expected to receive a reward did
show a decrease in motivation.

3. Lepper and his colleagues selected children for their study only if they showed an intrinsic interest
in the activity the researchers would be observing. Why did they select only these children? What
effects would the rewards have had if the children had shown very little interest in the activity
initially? Why?

4. Why were two experimenters used for each child? Discuss this in relation to experimenter
expectancy effects, explained in Chapter 2.

5. Chapter 4 of your textbook explains Jones’s correspondent inference theory. On the basis of this
theory, explain why perceivers should be more likely to infer that children are intrinsically interested
in drawing if they see the children drawing with no expectation of a reward than if they see them
drawing with the expectation of a reward.

6. What are the implications of this research for education? What recommendations, if any, would
you make for nursery schools and elementary schools to help maintain children’s interest in learning
and exploration? What recommendations would you make to college professors or administrators,
coaches, or employers to help maintain their students’, players’, or employees’ levels of interest?