Overjustification effect
The Korrumpierungseffekt (also corruption effect, effect of excessive justification or self - corruption ) denotes the displacement of the primary motivation ( acting out in action lying incentive, " intrinsic motivation " ) by secondary motivation ( acting on the basis of rewards or consequences that are out of work lie, " extrinsic motivation "). Falls off the outer incentive to reduce the behavior originally gladly and voluntarily shown. It also speaks of the displacement effect, whereby the displacement of a motivation is meant by another. In English, the effect is as overjustification effect (about: Over -justification effect) known.
The effect occurs when people consciously or unconsciously their own behavior first establish with external pressure ( compelling circumstances) or a reward, although the true cause of the behavior lay in your own wishes or interests (for example, curiosity ). Based on the actual behavior may lead to a short-term increase in the behavior encouraged by the gift of an external stimulus. If the incentive but then gone, but the frequency of the corresponding behavior falls below the original output level. Intrinsic motivation can only be corrupted if it exists and is large enough. If the initial interest already low, function outside stimuli, however.
- 3.1 pedagogy
- 3.2 Incentive systems in the private sector and the public sector
Theory
Self-perception theory
Daryl Bem headed this effect from from his self-perception theory. The effect is explained in summary as follows: The person perceives that they will receive a reward for an activity that has been practiced like. This results in a cognitive reappraisal of activity. The person now assumes that they do not like doing the work, because it is so for so rewarded, as she knows it from others, from their less happy DONE activities. The previous assessment of the person of the reasons for their actions is corrupted and it can also lead to a change in motivation, which can adversely affect the performance in the former gladly work performed.
This theory has sparked controversy among others in the industrial, corporate and organizational psychology (ABO ). Mainly because of its prediction that a ( financially higher ) reward was not appropriate in all cases, particularly not if the person is engaged engaged in an activity. Because of this commitment represents the optimum condition is in many commercial fields of activity and should be rewarded later. It is difficult to justify why a person who works intrinsically motivated and this does more, should not be rewarded more than other people who only do the work assigned to them from extrinsic motives satisfactory or routine. This led to criticisms and to further research.
Cognitive evaluation theory
Recent research findings were the cognitive evaluation theory by Deci and Ryan ( 1980, 1985) confirm the occurrence whereby a Korrumpierungseffekts is dependent on how a person is an external incentive ( for example, a material reward ) in terms of their own competence and self-determination perceives. Proceeding from the self-determination theory of motivation, three key preconditions (Basic Needs ) can be identified for the development of intrinsic motivation: autonomy, competence and social embeddedness. If the pursuit of autonomy and competence undermined by external incentives, it comes to Korrumpierungseffekt.
It is thus dependent on how an external stimulus is perceived. If the experience of autonomy is strengthened or a reward perceived as not controlling, intrinsic motivation can be increased. The same effect occurs when the reward is perceived simultaneously as a recognition of their own competence. If this is not the case and a reward leads to a reduction in own competence or experience is experienced as controlling, it comes to Korrumpierungseffekt. According to cognitive evaluation theory, any external stimulus thus the one hand, informational (ie, increasing the autonomy and competence of the experience ) and on the other hand, controlling (ie, reducing the autonomy experience ) include properties. Furthermore, and material rewards distinction is made between verbal ( positive performance feedback ). Tangible rewards are divided into expected and unexpected rewards (depending on prior knowledge of a person, whether by the exercise of a particular activity will be a reward ). Rewards are categorized by cognitive evaluation theory even further after their contingency in relation to the activity. If there is no contingency (English task- noncontingent rewards) is a reward completely detached from the actual work assigned ( for example, only to participate in an experiment ). If, however, the reward granted for the execution of a particular activity - regardless of how good the work is carried out - is it a task- contingent reward (german task- contingent reward). If the reward is awarded only upon reaching a certain level of performance, it is a performance- contingent reward (English performance- contingent reward). For all these different forms of rewards can be made predictions for effects on intrinsic motivation with the help of cognitive evaluation theory. So with performance contingent rewards will be held at an increased level of behavioral control, which should have a negative effect on intrinsic motivation. When not expected rewards but no negative effect should be observed. Verbal rewards are strongly linked to a recognition of its own authority, and should be perceived more as informational. Nevertheless, there may be contexts in which such positive performance feedback is experienced as controlling.
Research on Korrumpierungseffekt
In the oft-quoted field study by Lepper, Greene and Nisbett (1973 ) Young children should paint pictures with so-called "Magic Markers". All children were divided into three groups. In the "expected award " group each child was rewarded in any case, if it ever started to paint. The children knew therefore that they would be rewarded for painting images. In the "unexpected award" group was given to the children after painting an unexpected reward. In the "no- award " group no reward was given. After approximately two weeks, the children were again examined in order to detect a possible change in the intrinsic motivation while painting. Children in the "expected award " group spent less time with painting and images created in worse quality than children in the other groups.
Greene, Sternberg and Lepper (1976 ) gave elementary school students new math games and measured for 13 days, how much time the children spent voluntarily with the games. In the following 11 days, the children were given rewards for the same activity. After discontinuation of reward decreased, as predicted, the period of employment under the initial level and below the level of the control group.
Deci delivered in 1971 the first experimental confirmations for Korrumpierungseffekt. Also, a meta-analysis of 128 studies showed 1999 significant negative effects of rewards and concomitant diminished autonomy by external behavioral control on intrinsic motivation. Material and expected rewards had an impact on the self-reported interest and on a voluntary, subsequent to the experiment start of the activities have a negative effect. In the same negative effects resulted after task contingent rewards. Also, performance contingent rewards led by eliminating the reward to less employment with the activity. However, There was no influence on the self-reported interest. When rewards without contingency ( cf. cognitive evaluation theory ), no effect was observed on intrinsic motivation. Of particular interest was the finding that verbal rewards had a positive effect on intrinsic motivation.
The behavioral economists Ernst Fehr and Armin Falk have demonstrated in a 2002 study that financial incentives can affect the motivation counterproductive.
Application
Education
How can parents and teachers avoid the effect of excessive justification? Crucially, what message arrives in the child. If you already rewarded with the desired task to deal only and this reward also previously announced (as in the study by Greene, Sternberg and Lepper, 1976), the effect is more likely than when it unexpectedly for rewarding to have achieved the task. May reward performance but not cause the child feels under constant critical observation because it provoked negative feelings ("Valuation fear" ) can also destroy a pre-existing intrinsic motivation. Please avoid the comparison with others (eg, classmates ); should be commended the individual improvement. Above all, educators should avoid the message that the particular area ( sport, school subject or similar) requires skills that one either has or does not have. Optimal is the message that effort does that practice helps, so that the child can improve in every area, if there is an effort. As is often praised, must be adapted to the cultural context. In Far Eastern cultures children are much less common than in Western praised, while the intrinsic desire to improve their own performance, in children from Western cultures is stronger.
Incentive schemes in the private sector and the public sector
A Korrumpierungseffekt caused by financial incentive systems should not be underestimated. It 's not about the pay for basic security. But grants and bonuses are paid in addition to a basic salary Frequently additionally performance related. Many businesses and public authorities state monetary incentives as a means of increasing motivation. However, such a strong monetarily oriented system has the potential of a Korrumpierungseffekts. To maintain intrinsic motivation also other ways of reward ( such as positive performance feedback to improve own competence experience ) should not be underestimated. Have employees performed well, so this should be an honorable mention and a thanks are pronounced.
It is quite essential and the work context, to take place in which such additional rewards. A reward to the need for autonomy satisfy if it is not to run the risk of corrupting intrinsic motivation. If an incentive - whether financially or verbally - but communicated in a way that it is experienced as controlling (for example, verbal feedback: " The did you manage very well Just as it was required of you, you should go on like this. . !") can undermine the need for autonomy. A Korrumpierungseffekt probably will. Rewards that have informational character (for example, verbal feedback in the form of a thanksgiving for good sales figures ) are appropriate at this point. Because these are a tribute to the efforts of the person concerned, without, however, provide further constraints on the person and thus lead to experienced control. Also special services that satisfy this need for autonomy and competence recognition ( for example, a reimbursement for a computer course or for a trip to a conference ) plays an important role in this way.
If unexpectedly awarded premiums for a particularly good performance, no Korrumpierungseffekt is expected.
Controversy
The research on Korrumpierungseffekt were particularly criticized by behavioral analytical side. Above all, it is pointed out, is that it does not differentiate between the " reward " of a person and the " amplifying " a behavior ( on the differences see here). The criticism also applies to the concept of intrinsic motivation, which is contradictory and unempirical in itself.
Cameron and Pierce (1994 ) could find to the effects of rewards and amplifiers on the intrinsic motivation not Korrumpierungseffekt in one of the first meta-analyzes. It kick only to a minimal, negative effect on intrinsic motivation when a reward was expected and only awarded for a certain activity ( cf. cognitive evaluation theory: task - contingent reward). The authors concluded from this that rewards and amplifier would not really harmful effects on intrinsic motivation.
According to a study carried out in the following years 2001 meta-analysis of 145 studies ( partially re-analyzed from previous meta-analyzes ) to a decrease in intrinsic motivation as a result of rewards usually can be attributed to the wrong use of amplifiers. Negative effects of rewards would only be found when you initially high interest material, expected ( previously announced ) and is independent of the performance rewards were granted ( cf. cognitive evaluation theory: Task quotas rewards ). If performance- contingent rewards were awarded, the intrinsic motivation even would rise. Was that low interest already from the beginning, the intrinsic motivation was reinforced by a reward, however. Furthermore, verbal rewards at high initial interest could also enhance intrinsic motivation. All in all, summarize the authors that their meta-analysis would have yielded no evidence of adverse effects of rewards ("In terms of the overall effects of reward, our meta -analysis indicates no evidence for detrimental effects of reward on intrinsic motivation of measures ", p 21). The Korrumpierungseffekt is referred to by the authors as myth.
Deci, Koestner and Ryan criticized in a reply turn errors in the meta-analyzes by Cameron et al. The selection of the analyzed studies of them is one-sided. Among other things, groups respectively, which initially had no strong intrinsic motivation. In these cases could be expected from the outset that no significant Korrumptionseffekt would occur.