The Overjustification Effect: When Rewards Undermine
External rewards can destroy the motivation they aim to create. Lepper et al.'s (1973) classic study showed rewarded children drew 50% less when...
The overjustification effect happens when external rewards reduce a learner's natural desire to complete a task they already enjoy. This drop in motivation often occurs if the reward is expected or physical. It also happens when pupils feel the reward tries to control their behaviour rather than giving them useful feedback (Deci, 1971; Lepper et al., 1973; Deci et al., 1999).
Understanding the Overjustification Effect
Deci and Ryan (1985) showed rewards can reduce learner motivation. Too many rewards for enjoyable tasks decrease learner interest. Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett (1973) suggested praising achievements instead of giving lots of rewards.
The Overjustification Effect means rewards reduce learners' intrinsic motivation. Giving rewards for enjoyable tasks makes learners see it as work for prizes (Deci, 1971; Lepper et al., 1973). They do the task for reward, not enjoyment.
Key Takeaways
- External rewards fundamentally shift learners' perception of why they engage in learning. When learners receive tangible rewards for activities they already enjoy, their perceived locus of causality can shift from internal enjoyment to external control, thereby undermining their intrinsic motivation (Deci & Ryan, 1985). This means learners may come to view an activity as something they *have* to do for a reward, rather than something they *want* to do.
- Carefully chosen rewards can support, rather than undermine, learners' intrinsic motivation. Rewards that are perceived as informational, acknowledging competence without controlling behaviour, are less likely to diminish intrinsic motivation than those seen as controlling (Deci, Koestner, & Ryan, 1999). For instance, unexpected praise or feedback on mastery can enhance a learner's sense of competence and autonomy, fostering continued engagement.
- Teachers must prioritise fostering autonomy and competence to prevent the overjustification effect. Creating learning environments that offer choice, relevance, and opportunities for skill development helps maintain learners' intrinsic interest, even when external motivators are present (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Educators should focus on supporting learners' psychological needs for autonomy, competence, and relatedness to cultivate a genuine love for learning.
- The overjustification effect is not universally applied; its impact varies significantly across learners and contexts. Learners who initially possess high intrinsic interest in an activity are more susceptible to the undermining effect of external rewards than those with low initial interest (Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973). Furthermore, the effect is less pronounced with verbal praise compared to tangible rewards, and its influence can differ based on age and personality factors (Cameron & Pierce, 1994).
What does the research say? Lepper, Greene and Nisbett's (1973) landmark study showed children who expected a reward for drawing spent 50% less time drawing in free play compared to unrewarded children. Deci, Koestner and Ryan's (1999) meta-analysis of 128 studies confirmed that tangible rewards undermine intrinsic motivation (d = -0.34), particularly for interesting tasks. Cameron and Pierce (1994) found the effect is strongest for expected, contingent rewards but not for unexpected praise or informational feedback.
Ryan and Deci (2000) showed that when learners lose their inner drive, they become much less engaged in class. This drop in motivation simply makes learning activities feel less interesting. Furthermore, Lepper et al. (1973) and Sansone and Harackiewicz (2000) found that performance drops, and learners often try to avoid similar tasks in the future.
Studies by Deci and Ryan (1985) show that rewards can actually reduce a learner's desire to work. When learners receive prizes for things they already like doing, their enjoyment of the task drops. This process is called overjustification. According to Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett (1973), this ultimately harms their natural, internal drive to learn.
The overjustification effect varies with age. Deci and Ryan (1985) showed that learners lose interest in art when assessment becomes key. Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett (1973) found rewards help struggling learners in maths. However, rewards can decrease motivation in keen, high achieving learners (Henderlong Corpus et al., 2005).
Ryan and Deci (2000) found some learners need support; others are self-motivated. Give learners good feedback and use rewards with care. Deci et al. (1999) showed recognising competence builds internal motivation. Help learners move towards this inner drive.
How Rewards Impact Intrinsic Motivation: Overjustification Effect
Deci (1971) found that giving rewards can actually lower motivation over time. A natural interest in learning drops when teachers offer outside rewards (Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973).
Rewards can reduce passion and motivation, say Deci and Ryan (1985). Learners then focus on getting the reward instead of enjoying the task. This makes them link actions to the reward, not personal interest, explain Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett (1973). Intrinsic motivation drops because learners no longer enjoy the activity itself (Ryan & Deci, 2000).
For example, imagine a child who naturally loves drawing. If they are given a reward, such as a toy, for completing their artwork, their motivation may shift from the joy of creating art to the desire for the reward. In this case, the extrinsic reward undermines the child's intrinsic motivation and passion for drawing.
Workplaces show this too. Bonuses boost motivation, but passion may drop (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Rewards can overshadow initial job interest, argue Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett (1973). This shift lowers commitment, says Kohn (1993).
Brain reward systems change during motivational shifts. Dopamine pathways, naturally triggered by learning, reorient to external rewards (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Learners may lose interest when grades become the focus (Lepper et al., 1973; Kohn, 1993).
Teachers must consider classroom effects beyond learner motivation. Over-reliance on rewards risks competition and transactional learning (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Learners may focus on rewards ("What will I get?") instead of learning ("What can I learn?"). This changes the culture and impacts relationships and engagement (Ryan & Deci, 2000; Dweck, 2006).
Research shows that rewards can boost learner motivation if used well, especially when paired with clear feedback (Deci and Ryan, 2000). Unexpected treats and simple praise for taking part can also be helpful. Ryan and Deci (2020) suggest that offering choices and building skills matter most for growth. However, Lepper et al. (1973) advise using outside prizes carefully, ensuring that learners still enjoy the act of learning.
Exploring the Theoretical Underpinnings of Overjustification
Deci (1971) and Lepper, Greene & Nisbett (1973) studied what drives learners. They looked at intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. Internal drives give learners pleasure. External ones, like money, are incentives. Overjustification means external rewards can reduce a learner's interest (Deci, 1971; Lepper, Greene & Nisbett, 1973).
Deci (1971) looked at the overjustification effect using CET. This theory explains how outside factors change a learner's drive. Deci found that giving rewards actually lowered a learner's natural motivation. Tests using puzzles (Deci, 1971) showed this effect clearly.
Bem's theory explains overjustification. Learners check their actions to understand why they do things. Rewards for fun tasks make learners link actions to rewards (date not provided). Removing rewards can then reduce a learner's natural motivation.
This effect, like the Dunning-Kruger Effect, shows thinking errors. We can misunderstand why we do things (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Motivation sources become unclear to learners.
Deci and Ryan (1985) showed that rewards affect learners in different ways. Dweck (2006) found that focusing on feelings and social skills helps boost motivation. Vygotsky (1978) reminds teachers to think about each learner's specific needs before giving out rewards.
The overjustification effect, like the Bystander Effect, shows social context shapes behaviour. Deci and Ryan (1985) showed rewards change how learners see fun activities. Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett (1973) found this effect reduces internal drive.
Real-World Examples of the Overjustification Effect in Education
A Year 5 teacher used sticker charts to boost reading. Readers saw books as rewards, not enjoyment. Deci and Ryan's theory shows rewards can hurt intrinsic motivation. When rewards stopped, learners lost interest (Deci & Ryan).
Point systems can shift learner focus in maths, (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Learners may prioritise points over understanding, (Hidi & Renninger, 2006). This shift, shown by Lepper et al. (1973), can reduce maths skills.
Building skill and offering choices, rather than giving rewards, truly helps learners succeed. Teachers can do this by discussing books and showing that they value learners' insights (Deci & Ryan, 1985). We should also celebrate the process of solving maths problems, which encourages learners to share their thinking (Boaler, 2016; Dweck, 2006).
Preventing the Overjustification Effect: Evidence-Based Strategies
Deci's (1985) self-determination theory says rewards should inform, not control, learners. Give feedback on skill, effort and progress, not just finishing tasks. This approach, research shows, helps maintain learners' intrinsic motivation (Deci et al., 1991).
Researchers (no names or dates) suggest giving surprise rewards after tasks. This doesn't hurt initial drive. Use specific praise on learning, not general talent. Show learners why activities matter and link to their goals. Offer choices so learners own their work, even with guidance.
Researchers Deci and Ryan (1985) say gradually reduce external rewards. As learner motivation grows, shift to social praise, then self-assessment. Regularly check if rewards help or hurt curiosity, advise Lepper and Greene (1978). Change tactics to boost long-term learning, found Hattie (2009).
Limitations and Critiques
The overjustification effect is not a strict warning against all rewards. Cameron and Pierce (1994) and Cameron, Banko and Pierce (2001) argued that early research overstated the harm, noting that unexpected praise or verbal feedback can be helpful. Later reviews show that the impact of a reward also depends heavily on its timing. For example, immediate physical rewards affect pupils differently than delayed praise or rewards tied to specific tasks (Lehtivuori, 2023).
A second limitation is methodological. Classic studies often used brief laboratory tasks, small samples, and free choice behaviour as the main outcome. These conditions do not fully match classrooms, where pupils work with curriculum demands, peer comparison, teacher relationships, and assessment pressure at the same time. Findings from nursery drawing studies should therefore be applied cautiously to long term teaching routines (Lepper et al., 1973; Deci et al., 1999).
There are cultural limits to this theory as well. Self-Determination Theory highlights the need for independence, skill development, and social connection. However, pupils experience independence differently depending on their family, culture, and school system (Ryan and Deci, 2000). Furthermore, giving pupils a choice does not motivate everyone equally, as success often depends on a pupil's social background and normal classroom routines (Iyengar and Lepper, 1999).
Finally, the theory can be misread as advice to avoid rewards altogether. Rewards may help pupils begin dull or avoided tasks, and gamified EdTech points may support practice when they are faded and paired with feedback about progress. The theory remains valuable because it asks teachers to judge what a reward communicates, not just whether it produces short term compliance.
References
Dweck, C. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning.
Karpicke, J. (2008). The critical importance of retrieval for learning.
Vygotsky, L. (1978). Mind in society: The development of higher psychological processes.
Further Reading: Key Research Papers
These studies help teachers see how the overjustification effect works in real classrooms. They show that giving rewards can easily change a pupil's desire to learn.
Undermining Children's Intrinsic Interest with Extrinsic Reward View study ↗ 2,444 citations
Lepper, M. R., Greene, D. and Nisbett, R. E. (1973)
Deci (1971) showed learners given drawing rewards later drew less. External rewards, like prizes, can make play feel like work. Think about this when you plan classroom rewards.
Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999) found rewards can lower a learner's intrinsic motivation. Cameron, Banko, and Pierce (2001) suggest rewards do not always hurt learner interest.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R. and Ryan, R. M. (1999)
Deci, Koestner and Ryan's 1999 analysis shows rewards hurt learner motivation. Expected, task-based rewards proved most damaging. Praise and feedback from Ryan, Deci, and Koestner's research (2000) do not cause overjustification. Teachers can use feedback rather than just giving rewards.
Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (2001) examined extrinsic rewards. Their research explores how to boost learners' intrinsic motivation in education. Many people have cited their study.
Deci, E. L., Koestner, R. and Ryan, R. M. (2001)
Research by Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999) shows that rewards can lower a learner's drive. When we give physical prizes, learners often lose their natural interest in a topic. Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999) suggest that using rewards to control behaviour reduces motivation. Instead, they found that giving useful feedback helps learners grow.
The "Costs" of Reward: Insufficient Justification and Cognitive Dissonance
Festinger, L. and Carlsmith, J. M. (1959)
Festinger and Carlsmith (1959) found learners enjoyed dull tasks more when paid less for them. This links with overjustification theory. Weak reasons externally make learners think they like the work (Deci, 1971).
Self-Determination Theory Applied to Educational Settings View study ↗ 973 citations
Niemiec, C. P. and Ryan, R. M. (2009)
Using self-determination theory, Niemiec and Ryan (dates not given) looked at what truly drives learners. They found that giving choices, setting the right level of challenge, and building strong relationships boost engagement far more than prizes. As a result, teachers can build curious classrooms without needing to use outside rewards.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Overjustification Effect?
Deci (1971) found that giving prizes can sometimes lower a learner's inner drive. We call this the Overjustification Effect. When learners only focus on chasing rewards, they start to enjoy the actual learning much less (Lepper, Greene & Nisbett, 1973). As a result, their natural joy fades, and the task simply loses its appeal.
How do I implement the Overjustification Effect in the classroom?
Research by (Deci & Ryan, 1985) found that physical prizes can sometimes reduce a learner's inner drive. Because of this, teachers should use rewards carefully and focus more on giving helpful feedback (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Over time, we should guide learners toward self-motivation rather than letting them rely on outside prizes (Lepper, Greene, & Nisbett, 1973).
What are the benefits of understanding the Overjustification Effect?
Rewarding learners can affect motivation, say Deci and Ryan (1985). Teachers should protect learners' internal drive to learn. Think about intrinsic motivation, as Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett (1973) suggested.
What are common mistakes when using rewards in the classroom?
Deci and Ryan (1985) say rewards should recognise skill, not just obedience. Too many rewards can hurt learner motivation (Ryan & Deci, 2000). Pink (2009) suggests you consider each learner's needs.
How do I know if the Overjustification Effect is working?
Deci and Ryan (1985) found that rewards can make learners lose interest in a task. The quality of their work also drops. This is called the Overjustification Effect. It works against a learner's natural desire to learn (Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett, 1973).
Choosing Rewards Wisely: Types That Support Rather Than Undermine Motivation
Deci (1971) showed feedback works well. Rewards supporting intrinsic motivation are better than controlling ones. Informational rewards, like praise, meet a learner's needs. Learners understand their progress toward expertise with this focus (Deci, 1971).
Giving rewards at unpredictable times can help keep learners interested, as Deci & Ryan (1985) discovered. When recognition comes as a surprise, it feels much more genuine to the learner. Additionally, Amabile (1982) showed that rewards work quite well for creative tasks. Because creative work is complex, adding a prize is less likely to ruin the joy of doing it.
Focus on the learning process, not just rewards, benefits learners. Praise thoughtful questions, instead of giving prizes for reading. Deci and Ryan (2000) showed this maintains focus. Hattie (2012) found that sustained engagement supports a learner's development.
Individual Differences: How Age and Personality Influence the Overjustification Effect
Age plays a big part in how learners stay motivated, as Deci and Ryan (1985) discovered. While rewards might work for younger learners, taking those prizes away can damage their drive. Older learners manage their own learning better, though individual traits still matter. Furthermore, Ryan and Deci (2000) showed that having a sense of choice changes how learners react to rewards.
Deci and Ryan (1985) showed motivated learners show overjustification effects. Rewards help learners with less interest, studies suggest. Dweck (1986) found performance goals change how learners react to rewards. Know each learner's motivation for teaching well.
Before using rewards, teachers should check learners' development and motivation. For older, keen learners, focus on choice and feedback (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Give younger learners or those less keen skills, then reduce rewards gradually. This builds self-motivation (Lepper et al., 1973).
