One can ask what is the effect of a large reward on the perception of a pleasant task. The answer is unequivocal: it devalues the task in the eyes of those performing it. Nursery school children were provided in their playtime with brightly coloured magic markers and attractive drawing paper. Those who showed an interest in drawing were subsequently given the same apparatus in the classroom and encouraged to draw. One group was promised a glossy certificate for good drawing, while another was given no reward. Two weeks later the material was again provided and the children were told it was up to them whether they wanted to draw or not. The group previously given the certificate showed a marked decline in interest, while the other group drew as much as they had done in the previous two sessions. Presumably the children thought that drawing could not be of much interest in its own right if a reward was needed to make them engage in it.
The findings on the effects of reward call into question the practice of giving grades in schools. The child should be persuaded that reading and even algebra are worthwhile activities in their own right - whenever this is possible - or alternatively that they are a means to achieving one of the child's own superordinate ends. Curiosity about the world and the drive to manipulate it successfully are inborn in all mammals and are particularly strong in man's nearest relatives, monkeys and apes. The satisfaction of getting something right or of discovering something is itself a powerful reward, albeit one largely ignored by the behaviourist school of psychology.
Then there is the harm done to the prizewinner and the unhappiness produced in his rivals: both are the product of an irrational institution. The experimental evidence suggests that people trying to gain a prize will do less imaginative and less flexible work than those of equal talent who are not. In addition they may come to work less hard after winning the prize. There have been no studies of the effects of Nobel prizes, but one has the impression that many Nobel laureates deteriorate markedly, though in some cases allowance must be made for senility. Many develop considerable hubris, and turn to fields in which they are totally unqualified; others try to solve grand but meaningless problems like the nature of consciousness or devote themselves to promoting vitamin C as a cure for everything from cancer to the common cold (unfortunately these examples are not imaginary). Many feel that after the Nobel prize there is nothing else to accomplish in their own discipline.
It is enough to note the folly and irrationality of attempting to control behaviour by rewards or punishments unless they can be permanently maintained.
In general people prefer something freely chosen to the same thing forced upon them. The effect is dramatically revealed in a study that did not directly involve reward or punishment. Lottery tickets costing $1 each were sold to the employees of two companies. Some of the employees were allowed to choose the number of their tickets, others had no choice but were merely handed a ticket. Just before the draw, the experimenter approached each subject offering to buy the ticket back. The subjects who had no choice were prepared to sell back for $1.96 on average, but those who had selected their own tickets held out for an average of $8.67. There could be no better demonstration that we irrationally overvalue what we freely choose.
Similar experiments have been performed with university students, who were asked what piece of poetry they would like to recite. Subsequently, they were all allowed to recite the piece they preferred, but half were told they must use that piece, the others were told they could change their minds and recite any piece they wanted. The students allowed to choose for themselves attended the classes more frequently, were better pleased with them and performed better in their recitations.
This and many similar findings have important implications for medicine and other professions. In a study of women who had abortions in a Boston hospital, it was found that those who felt they had been coerced into the abortion had far more psychiatric illness after it than those who felt they had freely chosen to have it. In a British study of breast cancer some women, after discussion with the surgeon, were allowed to choose whether to have a lump removed or to have the whole breast excised, others had the decision made for them by the surgeon. The women who were allowed to choose were less anxious and less distressed post-operatively. Even more dramatically, of 17 women who felt they had been compelled to enter a nursing home for the old, all but one died within ten weeks, while only one of 38 women who felt they had themselves freely chosen to enter the home died within that time. There was no difference in their state of health when they first entered the home.
(2) If you are a manager, adopt as participatory and egalitarian a style as possible.
(3) If you want to stop children (and almost certainly adults as well) from doing something, try to persuade rather than threatening them with punishment.
(4) Give people as much freedom of choice as possible, particularly in medicine and education.
(5) If you happen to be offered a Nobel prize, turn it down.
Previous / Next / Table of Contents