Intrinsic motivation, external reward, and their effect on overall motivation and performance
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
- Candidate categories
- none
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: ObservationalConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.677
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.517
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
- Teacher spread
- 0.243 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
An unresolved debate lingers concerning the effect of performance-contingent rewards on motivation and performance. Behavioral psychology and economics suggest that performance-contingent rewards improve performance. In contrast, cognitive evaluation theory predicts that performance-contingent rewards undermine motivation and performance. We discuss the predictions of these two streams and develop an experiment that resolves the limitations of previous studies by using a new measure of intrinsic motivation: self-selection into a specific area of knowledge, as revealed by choice of academic major. Students from mathematics-related and literature-related areas were selected and randomly assigned to math and English language tests. Participants received a participation fee or a performance-contingent payment in addition to a fee. Both performance-contingent rewards and intrinsic motivation improved motivation and performance, in contrast with cognitive evaluation theory’s predictions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
The record
- Venue
- Human Performance
- Topic
- Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Field
- Decision Sciences
- Canadian institutions
- University of Calgary
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- PsychologyContrast (vision)Intrinsic motivationCognitive evaluation theoryPaymentMotivation theoryCognitionSocial psychologyCognitive psychologySelection (genetic algorithm)Goal theorySelf-determination theoryEconomicsComputer science
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes