The Risks of Rewards
ERIC Digest
December 1994
ERIC Identifier: ED376990
The Risks of Rewards
By Alfie Kohn
To read this article in Spanish, click here.
Many educators are acutely aware that punishment and threats are
counterproductive. Making children suffer in order to alter their future behavior
can often elicit temporary compliance, but this strategy is unlikely to help
children become ethical, compassionate decision makers. Punishment, even if
referred to euphemistically as “consequences,” tends to generate anger,
defiance, and a desire for revenge. Moreover, it models the use of power rather
than reason and ruptures the important relationship between adult and child.
Of those teachers and parents who make a point of not punishing children, a
significant proportion turn instead to the use of rewards. The ways in which
rewards are used, as well as the values that are considered important, differ
among (and within) cultures. This digest, however, deals with typical practices
in classrooms in the United States, where stickers and stars, A’s and praise,
awards and privileges, are routinely used to induce children to learn or comply
with an adult’s demands (Fantuzzo et al., 1991). As with punishments, the offer
of rewards can elicit temporary compliance in many cases. Unfortunately,
carrots turn out to be no more effective than sticks at helping children to
become caring, responsible people or lifelong, self-directed learners.
REWARDS VS. GOOD VALUES
Studies over many years have found that behavior modification programs are
rarely successful at producing lasting changes in attitudes or even behavior.
When the rewards stop, people usually return to the way they acted before the
program began. More disturbingly, researchers have recently discovered that
children whose parents make frequent use of rewards tend to be less generous
than their peers (Fabes et al., 1989; Grusec, 1991; Kohn 1990).
Indeed, extrinsic motivators do not alter the emotional or
cognitive commitments that underlie behavior–at least not in a desirable
direction. A child promised a treat for learning or acting responsibly has been
given every reason to stop doing so when there is no longer a reward to be
gained.
Research and logic suggest that punishment and rewards are not really
opposites, but two sides of the same coin. Both strategies amount to ways of
trying to manipulate someone’s behavior–in one case, prompting the question,
“What do they want me to do, and what happens to me if I don’t do it?”, and in
the other instance, leading a child to ask, “What do they want me to do, and
what do I get for doing it?” Neither strategy helps children to grapple with the
question, “What kind of person do I want to be?”
REWARDS VS. ACHIEVEMENT
Rewards are no more helpful at enhancing achievement than they are at
fostering good values. At least two dozen studies have shown that people
expecting to receive a reward for completing a task (or for doing it successfully)
simply do not perform as well as those who expect nothing (Kohn, 1993). This
effect is robust for young children, older children, and adults; for males and
females; for rewards of all kinds; and for tasks ranging from memorizing facts to
designing collages to solving problems. In general, the more cognitive
sophistication and open-ended thinking that is required for a task, the worse
people tend to do when they have been led to perform that task for a reward.
There are several plausible explanations for this puzzling but remarkably
consistent finding. The most compelling of these is that rewards cause people
to lose interest in whatever they were rewarded for doing. This phenomenon,
which has been demonstrated in scores of studies (Kohn, 1993), makes sense
given that “motivation” is not a single characteristic that an individual
possesses to a greater or lesser degree. Rather, intrinsic motivation (an interest
in the task for its own sake) is qualitatively different from extrinsic motivation
(in which completion of the task is seen chiefly as a prerequisite for obtaining
something else) (Deci & Ryan, 1985). Therefore, the question educators need to
ask is not how motivated their students are, but how their students are
motivated.
In one representative study, young children were introduced to an unfamiliar
beverage called kefir. Some were just asked to drink it; others were praised
lavishly for doing so; a third group was promised treats if they drank enough.
Those children who received either verbal or tangible rewards consumed more
of the beverage than other children, as one might predict. But a week later
these children found it significantly less appealing than they did before,
whereas children who were offered no rewards liked it just as much as, if not
more than, they had earlier (Birch et al., 1984). If we substitute reading or doing
math or acting generously for drinking kefir, we begin to glimpse the destructive
power of rewards. The data suggest that the more we want children to wantto
do something, the more counterproductive it will be to reward them for doing it.
Deci and Ryan (1985) describe the use of rewards as “control through
seduction.” Control, whether by threats or bribes, amounts to doing
things to children rather than working with them. This ultimately frays
relationships, both among students (leading to reduced interest in working with
peers) and between students and adults (insofar as asking for help may reduce
the probability of receiving a reward).
Moreover, students who are encouraged to think about grades, stickers, or
other “goodies” become less inclined to explore ideas, think creatively, and
take chances. At least ten studies have shown that people offered a reward
generally choose the easiest possible task (Kohn, 1993). In the absence of
rewards, by contrast, children are inclined to pick tasks that are just beyond
their current level of ability.
PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE FAILURE OF REWARDS
The implications of this analysis and these data are troubling. If the question is
“Do rewards motivate students?”, the answer is, “Absolutely: they motivate
students to get rewards.” Unfortunately, that sort of motivation often comes at
the expense of interest in, and excellence at, whatever they are doing. What is
required, then, is nothing short of a transformation of our schools.
First, classroom management programs that rely on rewards and
consequences ought to be avoided by any educator who wants students to
take responsibility for their own (and others’) behavior–and by any educator
who places internalization of positive values ahead of mindless obedience. The
alternative to bribes and threats is to work toward creating a caring community
whose members solve problems collaboratively and decide together how they
want their classroom to be (DeVries & Zan, 1994; Solomon et al., 1992).
Second, grades in particular have been found to have a detrimental effect on
creative thinking, long-term retention, interest in learning, and preference for
challenging tasks (Butler & Nisan, 1986; Grolnick & Ryan, 1987). These
detrimental effects are not the result of too many bad grades, too many good
grades, or the wrong formula for calculating grades. Rather, they result from the
practice of grading itself, and the extrinsic orientation it promotes. Parental use
of rewards or consequences to induce children to do well in school has a
similarly negative effect on enjoyment of learning and, ultimately, on
achievement (Gottfried et al., 1994). Avoiding these effects requires
assessment practices geared toward helping students experience success and
failure not as reward and punishment, but as information.
Finally, this distinction between reward and information might be applied to
positive feedback as well. While it can be useful to hear about one’s
successes, and highly desirable to receive support and encouragement from
adults, most praise is tantamount to verbal reward. Rather than helping
children to develop their own criteria for successful learning or desirable
behavior, praise can create a growing dependence on securing someone else’s
approval. Rather than offering unconditional support, praise makes a positive
response conditional on doing what the adult demands. Rather than
heightening interest in a task, the learning is devalued insofar as it comes to be
seen as a prerequisite for receiving the teacher’s approval (Kohn, 1993).
CONCLUSION
In short, good values have to be grown from the inside out. Attempts to short- circuit this process by dangling rewards in front of children are at best
ineffective, and at worst counterproductive. Children are likely to become
enthusiastic, lifelong learners as a result of being provided with an engaging
curriculum; a safe, caring community in which to discover and create; and a
significant degree of choice about what (and how and why) they are learning.
Rewards–like punishments–are unnecessary when these things are present,
and are ultimately destructive in any case.
FOR MORE INFORMATION
Birch, L.L., D.W. Marlin, and J. Rotter. (1984). Eating as the ‘Means’ Activity in a
Contingency: Effects on Young Children’s Food Preference. CHILD
DEVELOPMENT 55(2, Apr): 431-439. EJ 303 231.
Butler, R., and M. Nisan. (1986). Effects of No Feedback, Task-Related
Comments, and Grades on Intrinsic Motivation and Performance. JOURNAL OF
EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 78(3, June): 210-216. EJ 336 917.
Deci, E. L., and R. M. Ryan. (1985). INTRINSIC MOTIVATION AND SELF- DETERMINATION IN HUMAN BEHAVIOR. New York: Plenum.
DeVries, R., and B. Zan. (1994). MORAL CLASSROOMS, MORAL CHILDREN:
CREATING A CONSTRUCTIVIST ATMOSPHERE IN EARLY EDUCATION. New
York: Teachers College Press.
Fabes, R.A., J. Fultz, N. Eisenberg, T. May-Plumlee, and F.S. Christopher. (1989).
Effects of Rewards on Children’s Prosocial Motivation: A Socialization Study.
DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 25(4, Jul): 509-515. EJ 396 958.
Fantuzzo, J.W., C.A. Rohrbeck, A.D. Hightower, and W.C. Work. (1991).
Teachers’ Use and Children’s Preferences of Rewards in Elementary School.
PSYCHOLOGY IN THE SCHOOLS 28(2, Apr): 175-181. EJ 430 936.
Gottfried, A.E., J.S. Fleming, and A.W. Gottfried. (1994). Role of Parental
Motivational Practices in Children’s Academic Intrinsic Motivation and
Achievement. JOURNAL OF EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGY 86(1): 104-113.
Grolnick, W.S., and R.M. Ryan. (1987). Autonomy in Children’s Learning: An
Experimental and Individual Difference Investigation. JOURNAL OF
PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 52: 890-898.
Grusec, J.E. (1991). Socializing Concern for Others in the Home.
DEVELOPMENTAL PSYCHOLOGY 27(2, Mar): 338-342. EJ 431 672.
Kohn, A. (1990). THE BRIGHTER SIDE OF HUMAN NATURE: ALTRUISM AND
EMPATHY IN EVERYDAY LIFE. New York: Basic Books.
Kohn, A. (1993). PUNISHED BY REWARDS: THE TROUBLE WITH GOLD STARS,
INCENTIVE PLANS, A’S, PRAISE, AND OTHER BRIBES. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Solomon, D., M. Watson, V. Battistich, E. Schaps, and K. Delucchi. (1992).
Creating a Caring Community: Educational Practices That Promote Children’s
Prosocial Development. In F.K. Oser, A. Dick, and J.L. Patry (Eds.), EFFECTIVE
AND RESPONSIBLE TEACHING: THE NEW SYNTHESIS. San Francisco: Jossey- Bass.
Copyright © 1994 by Alfie Kohn. This article may be downloaded, reproduced,
and distributed without permission as long as each copy includes this notice
along with citation information (i.e., name of the periodical in which it originally
appeared, date of publication, and author’s name). Permission must be
obtained in order to reprint this article in a published work or in order to offer it
for sale in any form. Please write to the address indicated on the Contact