Paying For Play

Written by Studio AM.

A child already enjoys drawing. Will offering a prize make drawing more appealing? In a study by Mark Lepper, David Greene, and Richard Nisbett, children initially interested in drawing received different arrangements. One group was promised a certificate, another received it unexpectedly afterward, and a third received no reward. In a later free-choice session, the promised-reward group spent less time drawing than the other groups.

One explanation is called overjustification. An expected reward may change how a person understands the activity: drawing becomes something done to obtain a prize rather than something chosen for enjoyment. When the prize is no longer offered, the activity may seem less worth doing. This is a proposed account of motivation, not a rule that every prize replaces interest.

The reward's meaning matters. A reward for the mere doing of a task can be experienced differently from useful feedback about a developing skill. An expected reward may also feel controlling, while some recognition can feel encouraging. Effects vary with the task, person, and conditions.

The drawing study concerns children who already liked the activity. It does not show that paying people for work is generally harmful. A useful question is whether a reward supports the activity's purpose or turns attention mainly toward earning the reward.

Questions

Choose an answer. The explanation appears after you answer.

  1. Question 1 of 4

    What is the main idea of the passage?

  2. Question 2 of 4

    Which children spent the least free time drawing in the later session?

  3. Question 3 of 4

    Why should the finding not be applied directly to work someone did not initially enjoy?

  4. Question 4 of 4

    What does “mere” mean here?

Score: none answered yet.

More passages

Practise reading