Overjustification effect: what it is and what it shows about motivation

The overjustification effect is a phenomenon of the psychology of motivation., studied and introduced by researchers Lepper, Greene and Nisbett. According to this phenomenon, our intrinsic motivation to do a certain activity decreases when we are offered a reward for it.

In this article we take a tour of human motivation and explain what this effect consists of. In addition, we will see in detail how the experiment that made it known was developed and the results that emerged and that demonstrated such an effect.

• Related article: "Types of motivation: the 8 motivational sources"

What is human motivation?

Before explaining what the overjustification effect consists of, we are going to address the concept of motivation, and explain its two large subtypes: intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. All this, because they are concepts inherent to this phenomenon that we are going to talk about.

What is motivation? Some authors define it as “the dynamic root of behavior”. But... What does this mean exactly?

etymologically, The term "motivation" derives from the Latin "motivus" or "motus", which means "cause of movement". Thus, motivation underlies all types of behavior that people manifest, it could be said that it is its "cause" or motor, and it has to do with the desire we have to do a certain action or task, in order to satisfy a need, or to achieve something that we wish.

Broadly speaking, there are two types of human motivation: intrinsic motivation and extrinsic motivation. Let's see, in summary, what each of them consists of:

1. Intrinsic motivation

Intrinsic motivation is that motivation that given inherently to the task, that is, the task itself motivates us, we like it, and said motivation has nothing to do with external reinforcers or rewards.

Simply, we enjoy doing a certain action (for example doing homework). This is intrinsic motivation, a very important motivation especially in the educational field, where the ideal is for the child to learn for the mere pleasure of learning.

2. extrinsic motivation

Extrinsic motivation, on the other hand, is “outside” the task; It is the motivation towards the prize or reward that we obtain when completing a certain task. That is, we carry out certain actions to get something from abroad, such as praise, money, a prize...

• You may be interested in: "Maslow's pyramid: the hierarchy of human needs"

Overjustification effect: what is it?

The overjustification effect is a phenomenon framed within psychology (even more specifically, basic psychology, which encompasses the psychology of motivation), which occurs when an external stimulus (for example a reward, a prize... that makes up extrinsic motivation) reduces the intrinsic motivation that someone has to perform a certain task.

To quickly illustrate the overjustification effect, let's take an example: a child really likes read (i.e., has a high intrinsic motivation for reading), and reads for the pleasure of reading read.

Suddenly, his father tells him that every time he finishes a book, he will give him €5 as a prize, so he can spend it on whatever he wants. This can cause the child's intrinsic motivation to read to decrease, because the motivation that he has for reading is influenced by the motivation to get the €5 (reward external).

In other words, you will not only read for the pleasure of reading, but also to get your reward. This is the overjustification effect, which can appear in both children and adults.

The experiment

Who discovered (and how) the overjustification effect? The researchers Lepper, Greene and Nisbett, through a field experiment developed with childrenin a kindergarten.

The investigation of the overjustification effect is based on the following hypothesis: “when we associate a certain activity with a reward external (extrinsic motivation), we will have less interest in carrying out said activity (intrinsic motivation) if in the future, there is no such reward".

1. Methodology: first phase of the experiment

The Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett experiment was carried out in a kindergarten. There observed that the children had a certain interest in carrying out different educational activities.

In their overjustification effect experiment, the researchers had children (aged 3 to 5 years) draw and play with felt-tip pens. Specifically, they were placed in three different experimental conditions, which were:

1.1. Condition 1 (expected reward)

The first condition was the “expected reward”. consisted of Promise children that they will receive a "good player" ribbon, for simply participating in the activity of drawing with markers.

It is important to note at this point that the children, prior to the experiment, already performed this activity, spontaneously, for the simple fact that they enjoyed doing it (motivation intrinsic).

1.2. Condition 2 (unexpected reward)

The second condition in the experiment was "unexpected reward." Here, the children were not initially told that they would receive a prize for doing the activity (they were not told at all). After, At the end of the activity, they were given the prize.

1.3. Condition 3 (no reward)

In the third and last condition, called "no reward", the kids were simply not told about prizes and rewards at any time. That is, in this condition, no prizes were given to the children for completing the drawing activity; it was the control group.

2. Methodology: second phase of the experiment

After applying these conditions, and at the end of the first phase of the experiment, the researchers they observed the children in a free environment, where they could play whatever they wanted without premises or restrictions.

The objective of this second phase of the experiment on the effect of overjustification was to determine whether or not there were more children to play the drawing activity, this time without the promise of a final reward for it.

3. Results

What results did the Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett experiment provide on the overjustification effect? We are going to know each one of them, according to the applied experimental condition and in relation to the effect of overjustification.

3.1. expected reward condition

First of all, it was observed that the children subjected to the first experimental condition (expected reward) played much less drawing with the felt-tip pens in the second phase of the experiment (free game).

If we apply the theory of the overjustification effect to this result, we can think that the children had diminished or even lost their original intrinsic motivation for the activity, having a reward (extrinsic motivation) for doing it (in the previous phase of the experiment).

We must bear in mind that they had never had this reward, and that suddenly someone "rewarded them for playing".

3.2. Unexpected reward condition

Another of the results of the experiment showed how the children of the second experimental condition (unexpected reward), they had not changed their interest in drawing, and they drew the same in the free play phase.

Thus, it was attributed that the children enjoyed drawing prior to the experiment, in the same way that they also enjoyed the activity in the experimental condition (since they did not know that they would have a reward), and in the same way in which they played in the second phase of the experiment (game free).

3.3. condition without reward

Finally, the children in the third experimental condition (without reward) did not show any changes in their drawing behaviors or in their interest in the activity. That is, they drew the same in the free play stage.

Following the overjustification effect, since they had never been rewarded for doing so (in the first phase of the experiment), their intrinsic motivation had remained “intact”.

Bibliographic references:

• Grzib, G. (2002). Cognitive and behavioral bases of motivation and emotion. Ramón Areces Study Center. Madrid.
• Pintrich & Shunck (2006). Motivation in educational contexts. Theory, research and applications.
• Reeve, J. (2010). Motivation and emotion. 5th Edition. McGraw-Hill/Interamericana. Mexico.
• Ryan, R. M.; Deci, e. L. (2000). «Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being». American psychologist 55 (1): 68-78.