Bonuses and Bribes: Mood Effects in Memory

Boggiano, Ann K.; Hertel, Paula T.

doi:10.1521/soco.1983.2.1.49

Cited by 20 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 42 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One possibility is that the facilitative effects of positive mood on task performance are mediated by changes in task interest (positive mood -*• greater task interest -*• improved task performance); in other words, people in positive moods may perform well on creativity tasks because they find them interesting. This hypothesis seems very plausible, particularly in light of other research indicating that positive mood enhances intrinsic interest (Boggiano & Hertel, 1983;Pretty & Seligman, 1984;Sansone, Sachau, & Weir, 1989). A second possibility is that individuals in a positive mood might approach the task in a way that facilitates performance on creativity tasks (perhaps due to a reliance on playful or heuristic processing strategies), and that successful task performance produces the observed changes in task interest (positive mood -»-improved task performance -*• greater task interest).…”

Section: Effects Of Induced Mood On Task Performancementioning

confidence: 95%

Processing goals, task interest, and the mood–performance relationship: A mediational analysis.

Hirt¹,

Melton²,

McDonald³

et al. 1996

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

177

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors examined the role of intrinsic interest in mediating the relationship among mood, processing goals, and task performance. Participants in induced happy, neutral, or sad moods generated similarities and differences between TV shows using performance-based, enjoyment-based, or no stop rule (cf. L.L. Martin, D.W. Ward, J.W. Achee, & R.S. Wyer, 1993). Pretask interest and both quantitative (time spent, number generated) and qualitative (creativity) performance were assessed. Happy participants spent more time and generated more items than other participants when using an enjoyment-based stop rule but spent less time and generated fewer items when using a performance-based stop rule. Happy participants also expressed greater pretask interest and were more creative than other participants regardless of stop rule. Regression-based path analyses indicated that pretask interest partially mediated the effects of mood on quantitative performance but not on creativity.

show abstract

Section: Effects Of Induced Mood On Task Performancementioning

confidence: 95%

Processing goals, task interest, and the mood–performance relationship: A mediational analysis.

Hirt¹,

Melton²,

McDonald³

et al. 1996

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

177

147

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For more detail, see Footnotes 1 and 6 to main text. Boggiano & Hertel (1983) We excluded this because participants did not work on the target task before the dependent variable was assessed. Cameron and Pierce (1994) coded it unexpected and reported a d = 0.02, which is as we would expect.…”

Section: Studies Excluded From Our Meta-analysesmentioning

confidence: 99%

A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation.

Deci

Koestner²,

Ryan³

1999

Psychological Bulletin

5,114

152

3,633

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A meta-analysis of 128 studies examined the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. As predicted, engagement-contingent, completion-contingent, and performance-contingent rewards significantly undermined free-choice intrinsic motivation (d = -0.40, -0.36, and -0.28, respectively), as did all rewards, all tangible rewards, and all expected rewards. Engagement-contingent and completioncontingent rewards also significantly undermined self-reported interest (d = -0.15, and -0.17), as did all tangible rewards and all expected rewards. Positive feedback enhanced both free-choice behavior (d = 0.33) and self-reported interest (d = 0.31). Tangible rewards tended to be more detrimental for children than college students, and verbal rewards tended to be less enhancing for children than college students. The authors review 4 previous meta-analyses of this literature and detail how this study's methods, analyses, and results differed from the previous ones.By 1971, hundreds of studies within the operant tradition (Skinner, 1953) had established that extrinsic rewards can control behavior. When administered closely subsequent to a behavior, rewards were reliably found to increase the likelihood that the behavior would be emitted again, an effect that persisted as long as the reward contingency was operative. When rewards were terminated, the likelihood that the behavior would be emitted eventually returned to the prereward baseline. This general finding led to the widespread advocacy of rewards as a motivational strategy, and behavior-change programs based heavily on the use of rewards were introduced into a variety of applied settings.In 1971, Deci (1971 argued that some activities provide their own inherent reward, so motivation for these activities is not dependent on external rewards. In line with White (1959), Deci referred to such activities as intrinsically motivated and raised the question of how extrinsic rewards would affect people's intrinsic motivation for these activities. Research reported in that and subsequent papers (Deci, 1971(Deci, , 1972a(Deci, , 1972b revealed that tangible rewards (viz., money) could undermine college students' intrinsic

show abstract

“…The criteria for including a study in a sample were as follows: A rewarded group was compared to a nonrewarded group, the rewards were distinguished as verbal (praise, positive feedback) or tangible (e.g., money, candy, good-player awards), and intrinsic motivation was measured as free choice (time spent on the task following the removal of reward or performance on the task during the freechoice period) or by self-reported measures of task interest (task liking, enjoyment, satisfaction, or task preference). Two studies included in Cameron and Pierce's research were omit-ted; in one study (Boggiano & Hertel, 1983), the dependent measure was assessed before all participants worked on the task; in the other study (Boal & Cummings, 1981), all participants (including the control group) received monetary payments. These studies were also not included in Deci et al's analyses.…”

Section: Sample Of Studiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pervasive negative effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation: The myth continues

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A major concern in psychology and education is that rewards decrease intrinsic motivation to perform activities. Over the past 30 years, more than 100 experimental studies have been conducted on this topic. In 1994, Cameron and Pierce conducted a meta-analysis of this literature and concluded that negative effects of reward were limited and could be easily prevented in applied settings. A more recent meta-analysis of the literature by Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999) shows pervasive negative effects of reward. The purpose of the present article is to resolve differences in previous meta-analytic findings and to provide a meta-analysis of rewards and intrinsic motivation that permits tests of competing theoretical explanations. Our results suggest that in general, rewards are not harmful to motivation to perform a task. Rewards given for low-interest tasks enhance free-choice intrinsic motivation. On high-interest tasks, verbal rewards produce positive effects on free-choice motivation and self-reported task interest. Negative effects are found on high-interest tasks when the rewards are tangible, expected (offered beforehand), and loosely tied to level of performance. When rewards are linked to level of performance, measures of intrinsic motivation increase or do not differ from a nonrewarded control group. Overall, the pattern of results indicates that reward contingencies do not have pervasive negative effects on intrinsic motivation. Theoretical and practical implications of the findings are addressed.

show abstract

Bonuses and Bribes: Mood Effects in Memory

Cited by 20 publications

References 42 publications

Processing goals, task interest, and the mood–performance relationship: A mediational analysis.

Processing goals, task interest, and the mood–performance relationship: A mediational analysis.

A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation.

Pervasive negative effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation: The myth continues

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About