What is the Overjustification Effect?

The Overjustification Effect is a psychological phenomenon that occurs when the introduction of external rewards or incentives for engaging in a certain behavior decreases the individual's intrinsic motivation to engage in that behavior. In other words, when people are given external rewards for doing something they already enjoy, they may come to see the activity as something they are only doing for the reward rather than for their own personal enjoyment.

This effect can have detrimental effects on individuals' motivation and engagement in certain activities. When intrinsic motivation decreases, individuals may become less interested, passionate, and committed to the activity. This can lead to a decrease in the quality of performance and a decreased desire to further engage in the activity in the future.

According to the Background Information, research has found that the Overjustification Effect is particularly prominent in activities that individuals initially found intrinsically motivating. The presence of extrinsic motivation in the form of rewards or incentives can shift the focus from the inherent enjoyment of the activity to the external rewards, thereby undermining the individual's internal drive.

‍

‍

When Rewards Undermine Passion: The Dynamics of Overjustification

The overjustification effect refers to a phenomenon where the introduction of extrinsic rewards reduces an individual's intrinsic motivation and passion. When rewards are involved, the dynamics of overjustification come into play and have a significant impact on one's passion.

Rewards can undermine passion and decrease motivation by shifting the focus from the inherent enjoyment of an activity to the external reward itself. This causes individuals to attribute their actions and efforts solely to the external reward, rather than their personal interest or enjoyment. Consequently, their intrinsic motivation decreases, as they no longer engage in the activity for the sake of pure enjoyment.

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.

Another example can be found in the workplace. When employees are offered monetary bonuses for achieving certain targets, their initial motivation might stem from their passion for the job. However, if the rewards become the main driving factor, their intrinsic motivation may fade away, resulting in a decrease in overall passion and commitment to their work.

‍

‍

Theoretical Underpinnings of Overjustification

The theoretical foundations of the Overjustification Effect trace back to the early studies of human motivation and the subsequent differentiation between intrinsic and extrinsic rewards. This effect is rooted in the critical distinction between internal motivations—actions driven by inherent interest or pleasure—and external incentives, such as financial rewards or extrinsic reinforcement, that are external to the activity itself.

The journey into understanding overjustification began in the late 1960s and early 1970s with the emergence of cognitive evaluation theory (CET), a sub-theory of self-determination theory. This was a period marked by a keen interest in understanding how feelings of autonomy and internal motivations were affected by external factors. Researchers, particularly Edward Deci at the University of Rochester, initiated experiments that demonstrated the negative effects of external rewards on intrinsic motivation. Deci's seminal work, involving puzzles and college students, found that financial rewards diminished the intrinsic pleasure derived from the activity, laying the groundwork for the overjustification hypothesis.

Building on this, the self-perception theory proposed by Daryl Bem provided another lens through which to view the Overjustification Effect. This theory suggested that individuals infer their internal states, such as their motivations, by observing their behavior in the context in which it occurs. When external incentives are introduced for engaging in an activity that one already finds rewarding, it can lead to a reevaluation of why one engages in the activity in the first place, often diminishing the internal motivations.

Throughout the 1970s and 1980s, this hypothesis was further explored through various studies published in notable journals like the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and Child Development. These studies, often involving children and undergraduate students performing tasks ranging from interesting puzzles to mundane, boring tasks, consistently demonstrated that the introduction of extrinsic rewards could lead to a decrease in intrinsic interest in the activity.

Mark Lepper and David Greene, among others, contributed significantly to this body of research, notably in educational settings, highlighting how reward systems in schools could inadvertently undermine students' intrinsic interest in learning. Their work, particularly the studies involving children and feelings of autonomy, reinforced the importance of understanding the intricate dynamics between extrinsic factors and internal motivations.

‍

‍

‍

Navigating the Complexities of Reward Systems

Reward systems play a crucial role in motivating individuals by providing them with tangible incentives for their efforts. However, these systems can be complex to navigate, particularly when considering the potential impact of the Overjustification Effect on intrinsic motivation. 

To navigate this complexity, it is essential to offer rewards that enhance rather than overshadow intrinsic satisfaction. One strategy is to provide rewards that are aligned with the individuals' interests and values. This ensures that the rewards are seen as complementing the activity rather than replacing it. For example, a writer may be motivated intrinsically to write, but a reward system could offer unique opportunities, such as publishing opportunities or networking events, that enhance the writer's sense of accomplishment and professional growth.

Another effective strategy is to provide rewards that foster a sense of competence and autonomy. Recognizing an individual's progress and mastery in a particular task can be highly motivating. For example, instead of offering a monetary reward for meeting certain sales targets, a company could implement a system that celebrates employees' achievements through public recognition or opportunities for skill development.

‍

‍

3 Strategies to Mitigate the Overjustification Effect

The overjustification effect is a phenomenon whereby offering external rewards for tasks that individuals already find intrinsically motivating can actually decrease their motivation for the task. To mitigate this effect and balance external rewards with intrinsic motivation, three strategies can be employed.

1. One strategy is to ensure that the external rewards provided are perceived as genuine recognition of effort and achievement, rather than as controlling factors. When the rewards are seen as acknowledgments rather than attempts to control behavior, individuals are more likely to maintain their intrinsic motivation. This can be achieved by framing the rewards as bonuses or tokens of appreciation rather than as conditional incentives.

2. It is important to foster a sense of autonomy and self-determination in individuals. People are more likely to maintain their intrinsic motivation when they feel a sense of agency and control over their actions. By allowing individuals to have a say in setting their goals, making decisions, and choosing their own strategies, their intrinsic motivation can be preserved.

3. Creating opportunities for individuals to experience competence and mastery in their tasks can help mitigate the overjustification effect. Providing feedback, guidance, and resources to support skill development and improvement allows individuals to feel a sense of achievement and growth. When the focus is on personal growth and competence rather than solely on the external rewards, intrinsic motivation can be sustained.

By following these strategies, the negative impact of external rewards on intrinsic motivation can be reduced. Mitigating the overjustification effect helps ensure that individuals maintain their inherent drive and passion for tasks while still appreciating and valuing external rewards. This balance between external and intrinsic motivation is crucial for fostering sustained engagement and satisfaction in various activities.

‍

‍

5 Well Know Overjustification Case Studies

1. The Marshmallow Experiment by Walter Mischel: In the 1960s, Mischel's experiment with children and marshmallows revealed that promising external rewards for waiting to eat a marshmallow reduced their ability to delay gratification. This highlighted how external rewards might weaken inherent motivation, as children promised more marshmallows struggled more with waiting than those who weren't promised extra rewards.
2. Mark Lepper's Coloring Study: This seminal research divided children into three groups: no reward, verbal praise, and tangible rewards for coloring. Results showed that children receiving tangible rewards showed a notable decline in interest in coloring activities, pointing to a decrease in intrinsic motivation due to the anticipation of external rewards. In contrast, children who received no reward or verbal praise maintained their inherent interest in coloring.
3. Deci and Ryan's Puzzle Challenge: In the 1980s, Deci and Ryan discovered that while monetary rewards temporarily increased interest in solving puzzles, removing these rewards led to a significant drop in participants' intrinsic motivation compared to those who were never rewarded. This study underscores the complex relationship between types of reward and intrinsic motivation.
4. Harackiewicz et al. and the Grade Experiment: Investigating the impact of grades in the 1990s, this study showed students who were rewarded with high grades for activities experienced a loss of initial interest, unlike their counterparts who received intrinsic feedback or no rewards, highlighting how rewards on motivation can have detrimental effects on long-term engagement.
5. Cameron and Pierce's Workplace Rewards Study: In the early 2000s, research into performance-based rewards in the workplace found that when employees were motivated solely by outcomes, their intrinsic motivation and commitment diminished. This points to the importance of balancing external reinforcement with recognition of intrinsic value in work to sustain motivation.

These pivotal studies collectively illustrate the nuanced impact of different types of rewards on motivation, from the classroom to the workplace. They emphasize the delicate balance required to nurture intrinsic rewards and caution against the overreliance on extrinsic motivators, which can ultimately erode inherent motivation and engagement.

‍

Criticisms of the Overjustification Theory

The Overjustification Theory has faced several criticisms regarding its validity and implications.

One of the main criticisms of the Overjustification Theory is its lack of consistent empirical support. Several studies have failed to replicate the initial findings, suggesting that the theory may not hold true in all contexts. For example, Deci (1971) conducted a study where participants engaged in a drawing task under various reward conditions. The results revealed that neither the introduction nor the removal of rewards affected intrinsic motivation. This challenges the validity of the theory and raises doubts about the generalizability of its findings.

Another criticism pertains to the oversimplification of motivation. The Overjustification Theory assumes a linear relationship between external rewards and intrinsic motivation, disregarding the complexity of motivational processes. Critics argue that factors like autonomy, competence, and relatedness also play a significant role in determining motivation and need to be considered.

Furthermore, the Overjustification Theory fails to acknowledge the role of reward type and context. A study by Cameron and Pierce (1994) demonstrated that tangible rewards can indeed undermine intrinsic motivation, while verbal praise can enhance it. This highlights the importance of differentiating between types of rewards and the specific context in which they are employed.

In conclusion, the Overjustification Theory has been criticized for its lack of consistent empirical support, oversimplification of motivation, and failure to consider the role of reward type and context. These criticisms challenge the validity of the theory and emphasize the need for a more nuanced understanding of the factors influencing intrinsic motivation.

‍

‍

Key Papers on Overjustification Theory

These studies provide a comprehensive overview of the overjustification effect, from foundational experiments to meta-analytic reviews, exploring its implications for understanding motivation and the impact of rewards on intrinsic interest across different populations and settings.

1. Undermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the "overjustification" hypothesis (M. Lepper, D. Greene, R. Nisbett, 1973): This seminal study conducted with children tested the overjustification hypothesis, which posits that intrinsic interest in an activity may decrease when the activity is performed for an extrinsic goal. The findings supported the hypothesis that expected rewards can diminish subsequent intrinsic interest in the activity.
2. Reward, distraction, and the overjustification effect (Timothy W. Smith, T. Pittman, 1978): This study examined whether the overjustification effect, where extrinsic rewards lower intrinsic interest, could be explained by the distraction caused by rewards. The findings indicated that rewards produced a consistent decrease in interest, aligning with the attribution explanation rather than a distraction interpretation.
3. Can you Predict the Overjustification Effect? (H. L. Hom, 1994): This classroom activity aimed to enhance students' understanding of the overjustification effect by having them predict outcomes of research by Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett. Evaluation showed students did not anticipate the effect, indicating a lack of prior awareness despite the effect's counterintuitive nature.
4. Attribution of Causality and the Overjustification Effect (T. Pittman, E. E. Cooper, Timothy W. Smith, 1977): By manipulating attributions of intrinsic or extrinsic motivation, this study found the overjustification effect is mediated by one's self-perceived motivation. Contingent rewards decreased intrinsic interest, and this effect varied with individuals' interpretation of their behavior.
5. A quantitative review of overjustification effects in persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities (A. Levy, I. DeLeon, C. K. Martinez, Nathalie Fernandez, Nicholas A. Gage, S. Sigurdsson, M. A. Frank-Crawford, 2017): This meta-analysis examined the overjustification hypothesis in the context of individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The overall mean effect size did not differ from zero, indicating that the subsequent levels of intrinsic motivation were as likely to be higher as they were to be lower following reinforcement, contrasting with the expected undermining effect of extrinsic rewards.

‍