Why Bribes Work in the Short Term — And What to Do Instead

The sticker chart was working. The seven-year-old who had resisted brushing his teeth for two years was now doing it nightly, checking off the box, watching the row of stars accumulate. His parents, who had tried everything from threats to bargaining to elaborate explanations of gum disease, were relieved and a little proud of themselves for finally finding the lever.

Then they stopped the chart. And the teeth-brushing stopped with it.

This is not an unusual story. It’s actually a near-perfect illustration of one of the most replicated findings in behavioral psychology — a finding that has important implications for how parents structure incentives, how teachers design assignments, and how children learn to care about what they do.

The Problem with Carrots

The intuition behind rewards is sensible: behavior that is reinforced tends to repeat. This is operant conditioning, and it’s real. Rewards do produce behavior change. The question that researchers started asking in the early 1970s was more specific: what happens to intrinsic motivation — the desire to do something for its own sake — when external rewards are attached to activities that people already find interesting?

The answer, discovered through decades of controlled experiments and synthesized through meta-analysis, is uncomfortable. Tangible external rewards systematically reduce intrinsic motivation for activities that were already intrinsically interesting. The child who loved drawing before you started paying her for drawings will draw less, and with less engagement, after the reward structure is introduced. The student who was curious about history before grades were attached to it becomes more interested in the grade than the history.

This is called the overjustification effect, and its discovery reshaped how developmental and educational psychologists think about motivation.

The practical problem is significant. Extrinsic rewards — stickers, screen time, money, prizes — are among the most common tools parents and schools use to manage children’s behavior and academic engagement. If those tools are eroding the very motivation they’re intended to support, parents need to know what the research actually shows, where the evidence is strongest, and what the alternatives are.

What the Research Actually Says

The overjustification effect was first demonstrated experimentally by Mark Lepper, David Greene, and Richard Nisbett in a 1973 study published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. The setup was elegant. Researchers identified preschool children who showed high intrinsic interest in drawing with felt-tip markers — they played with the markers during free play regularly and enthusiastically. Children were then divided into three groups: one group was told they would receive a “Good Player Award” certificate for drawing (expected reward), one group received the same certificate as a surprise after drawing (unexpected reward), and one group received no reward.

Two weeks later, the researchers measured how much time children spontaneously spent drawing during free play when no reward was mentioned. The expected-reward group spent significantly less time drawing than the other two groups. The unexpected-reward group was indistinguishable from the no-reward group. The conclusion: it was not the reward itself that damaged intrinsic interest, but the expectation of the reward — the conversion of a freely chosen activity into an instrumental behavior performed to earn something.

This single study generated enormous follow-up research. By 1999, Edward Deci, Richard Koestner, and Richard Ryan had enough studies to conduct a comprehensive meta-analysis. Published in Psychological Bulletin, the meta-analysis synthesized 128 controlled experiments. The findings:

• Tangible rewards (things you can touch, spend, or use) reliably undermined intrinsic motivation for interesting tasks.
• Verbal rewards (praise for doing something well) had mixed effects — specifically, controlling praise undermined motivation while informational praise that confirmed competence maintained or enhanced it.
• Unexpected rewards did not undermine intrinsic motivation.
• Rewards for activities that were not intrinsically interesting did not undermine motivation (there was nothing to undermine).
• Engagement-contingent rewards (you get this just for participating, regardless of quality) were more damaging than performance-contingent rewards (you get this for doing well).

Alfie Kohn synthesized this research for a general audience in his 1993 book “Punished by Rewards,” arguing that the educational system’s reliance on grades, prizes, and other extrinsic incentives was systematically damaging students’ relationship with learning. Kohn’s argument was influential and sometimes overstated — critics noted that he drew broader conclusions than the experimental literature strictly supported.

The most important rebuttal came from Judy Cameron and W. David Pierce, whose 1994 meta-analysis in the Review of Educational Research argued that Deci et al.’s analysis was flawed and that verbal rewards and unexpected rewards did not show the undermining effect. Cameron and Pierce concluded that the overjustification effect was real but narrower than Lepper and Deci suggested — specifically, it applied to tangible, expected, task-contingent rewards for activities children already found interesting. Rewards for low-interest activities, verbal praise for competence, and unexpected rewards did not show consistent undermining effects.

This nuance matters enormously for parents. The research is not saying “never use rewards.” It’s saying that a specific configuration of reward use — tangible, expected, contingent on engaging in an already-interesting activity — is reliably counterproductive.

Jennifer Henderlong and Mark Lepper’s 2002 review in Psychological Bulletin clarified the praise dimension further. Praise that communicated genuine information about competence (“you solved that by trying a different approach — that’s good thinking”) maintained or increased intrinsic motivation. Praise that was controlling (“good job, you did what I asked”), person-focused rather than process-focused (“you’re so smart”), or contingent on comparative performance (“you did better than the other kids”) undermined motivation or had no positive effect.

Reward Type	Effect on Intrinsic Motivation	Evidence Strength
Tangible expected reward for interesting task	Significantly reduces motivation	Strong — 128 studies in Deci et al. meta-analysis
Tangible unexpected reward	No significant effect	Moderate
Verbal praise — informational / competence-confirming	Maintains or increases motivation	Moderate
Verbal praise — controlling / person-focused (“you’re smart”)	Reduces motivation; increases fear of failure	Strong (Henderlong & Lepper, 2002)
Tangible reward for uninteresting task	No significant negative effect	Moderate
Engagement-contingent reward (just for showing up)	More damaging than performance reward	Moderate
Performance-contingent reward for reaching a standard	Mixed — depends on framing and context	Weak to moderate

What to Actually Do

The research on extrinsic rewards doesn’t leave parents without tools. It clarifies what kinds of influence are productive and what kinds work in the short term while eroding the long-term outcome everyone actually wants — a child who is internally motivated to learn, create, and persist.

Reserve tangible rewards for tasks that genuinely lack intrinsic appeal

The overjustification effect applies to activities that children already find interesting. It does not apply to activities they find boring or aversive. A child who hates practicing scales on the piano is not going to have her intrinsic love of scales undermined by receiving a small reward for completing practice — she doesn’t have intrinsic love of scales to undermine. Rewards can scaffold behavior through genuinely unpleasant phases until a skill develops enough that the activity itself becomes rewarding.

The practical test is honest: does the child actually find this activity interesting when no reward structure is in place? If yes, introducing tangible rewards is likely to erode that interest over time. If no, a reward structure can support behavior during a genuinely difficult phase without the cost of undermining intrinsic motivation that doesn’t exist.

Use unexpected rewards rather than promised rewards

Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett’s original finding was specific: it was the expectation of reward that undermined motivation, not the reward itself. Spontaneous recognition — “you worked on that for a really long time, let’s celebrate” — does not create the same psychological mechanism. The child is not performing the activity in order to earn the reward; the reward comes as a genuine expression of appreciation after the fact.

This distinction is harder to maintain in practice than in theory. Once you’ve used unexpected rewards a few times, they become expected. The goal is not to systematically use surprise rewards as a strategy — it’s to recognize that genuine, spontaneous positive responses to children’s effort and persistence don’t carry the costs of structured reward systems.

Shift from entity praise to process praise

“You’re so smart” is the praise that sounds most affirming and produces the most damage. Carol Dweck’s decades of research at Stanford — reinforced by Henderlong and Lepper’s review — show that person-focused praise (“you’re smart,” “you’re talented”) increases motivation temporarily but makes children avoid challenge to protect the identity it conferred. A child who believes she is smart doesn’t want to do hard things that might prove she isn’t.

Process praise is different. “You kept trying different approaches until one worked.” “You noticed that didn’t work and changed your strategy.” “You stayed with that problem for a long time.” These statements communicate information about what the child did — which is something they can replicate — rather than who they are, which feels fixed. Process praise maintains and can enhance intrinsic motivation because it directs the child’s attention to the strategies and behaviors that produce the feeling of competence, not to an identity label that might be withdrawn if performance drops.

This has direct implications for how parents talk about intrinsic motivation and what actually sustains children’s drive to learn.

Understand what rewards are actually communicating

Rewards communicate information about how the parent or teacher evaluates the activity. A parent who offers ice cream for reading is communicating — even without meaning to — that reading is an unpleasant obligation that requires compensation. A parent who reads alongside a child and talks about the book with genuine interest is communicating that reading is something worth doing. Children internalize not just the reward but the implied message about the value of the activity.

Before implementing a reward system, it’s worth asking: what is this reward implying about the activity? If a child already loves building or creating or exploring, framing that activity as reward-worthy can shift how they categorize it — from something they do because they want to, to something they do because someone is paying attention and will compensate them.

Use rewards to bridge genuinely difficult phases, then remove them

The research doesn’t show that rewards never work. They work reliably in the short term. The problem is persistence after the reward is removed and the long-term effect on intrinsic motivation for activities the child would otherwise find interesting.

For behaviors that need to be established before they can become self-sustaining — some habits, some skill-building routines — a reward structure can be useful if it’s treated as a temporary scaffold rather than a permanent system. The goal is to use the reward to get the child through the initial phase of low skill and low reward, until the behavior is established enough that the intrinsic rewards of competence start to operate. Then systematically fade the external reward before the child has fully internalized that the activity is only worth doing for external reasons.

Build autonomy, not compliance

The deepest issue with reward systems is that they optimize for compliance rather than autonomy. A child who does something for a reward is executing someone else’s agenda. A child who does something because they find it interesting, meaningful, or satisfying is developing their own relationship with effort and persistence.

Self-determination theory — developed by Deci and Ryan — identifies three basic psychological needs: autonomy (the sense that one’s actions are self-chosen), competence (the sense that one is effective in one’s environment), and relatedness (connection to others). Environments that support these three needs produce higher intrinsic motivation, more persistent engagement, and better learning outcomes than environments that rely heavily on external control.

Understanding executive function and why smart kids sometimes struggle is relevant here: children whose environments emphasize external control from early ages may develop weaker capacity for internal regulation, not stronger.

What to Watch for Over the Next 3 Months

If you currently use a reward system — sticker charts, point systems, screen-time-for-chores arrangements — the next three months are a useful observation period.

Watch what happens to children’s engagement with activities they’re being rewarded for. Is the engagement itself high quality — focused, curious, generative — or is it minimal-sufficient-to-earn-the-reward? The latter is a signal that the reward is shaping the behavior rather than the interest. A child who completes ten pages of a workbook to earn thirty minutes of screen time and then immediately stops is not building a relationship with the content; she’s executing a transaction.

Notice what children do when no reward structure is in place. What do they choose to spend time on? What problems do they return to? What do they do when they’re bored? These reveal genuine intrinsic interests — the raw material that reward systems can either preserve or erode.

If you’re ready to transition away from a reward system for an activity the child now engages in, don’t remove it abruptly. Taper the frequency and salience of the reward while increasing the intrinsic supports: genuine interest shown by adults in what the child is doing, process feedback on specific strategies, and connection of the activity to the child’s own goals and interests.

Frequently Asked Questions

Should I never use rewards with my kids?

The research doesn’t support “never.” It supports being specific about when rewards help and when they hurt. Tangible expected rewards for activities children already find interesting reliably reduce that interest. For activities that have no intrinsic appeal, rewards can scaffold behavior without the cost. The key question is whether there’s intrinsic motivation to protect.

What’s wrong with sticker charts?

Sticker charts are engagement-contingent rewards — you earn stickers for doing something, regardless of quality. Deci et al.’s meta-analysis found engagement-contingent rewards more damaging to intrinsic motivation than performance-contingent rewards. For habits that genuinely need building (teeth brushing, bedtime), sticker charts can work temporarily, but they don’t build intrinsic motivation; they just change behavior while the chart is running.

Is praising kids bad for their motivation?

It depends on the type of praise. Person-focused praise (“you’re so smart”) increases performance temporarily but creates fear of challenge and reduces persistence after failure. Process praise — specific feedback about strategies and effort — maintains or increases intrinsic motivation. The content and framing of praise matter more than the presence of praise.

What’s the overjustification effect?

The overjustification effect is the psychological phenomenon in which providing an external reward for an activity that someone already finds intrinsically interesting causes them to attribute their engagement to the reward rather than to their own interest — and consequently, to be less engaged when the reward is removed. It was first documented experimentally by Lepper, Greene, and Nisbett in 1973.

Do schools cause this problem with grades?

Grades are tangible expected rewards for academic work — the configuration the research identifies as most likely to undermine intrinsic motivation. Research consistently shows that students in grade-focused environments learn less deeply, are more likely to choose easy tasks over challenging ones, and report lower intrinsic interest in academic content than students in feedback-rich, mastery-oriented environments. Grades are not going away, but how teachers frame grades matters.

What works better than rewards for building habits?

Making the habit itself as low-friction and high-clarity as possible (environment design), modeling the behavior yourself, expressing genuine interest in the child’s engagement with the activity, providing process feedback, and connecting the habit to the child’s own stated goals. These approaches work with intrinsic motivation rather than substituting for it.

---

About the author

Ricky Flores is the founder of HiWave Makers and an electrical engineer with 15+ years of experience building consumer technology at Apple, Samsung, and Texas Instruments. He writes about how kids learn to build, think, and create in a tech-saturated world. Read more at hiwavemakers.com.

Sources

• Deci, E. L., Koestner, R., & Ryan, R. M. (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 125(6), 627–668. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.125.6.627
• Lepper, M. R., Greene, D., & Nisbett, R. E. (1973). Undermining children’s intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: A test of the “overjustification” hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 28(1), 129–137. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0035519
• Cameron, J., & Pierce, W. D. (1994). Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 64(3), 363–423. https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543064003363
• Henderlong, J., & Lepper, M. R. (2002). The effects of praise on children’s intrinsic motivation: A review and synthesis. Psychological Bulletin, 128(5), 774–795. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.128.5.774
• Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by Rewards: The Trouble with Gold Stars, Incentive Plans, A’s, Praise, and Other Bribes. Houghton Mifflin.
• Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11(4), 227–268.
• Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The New Psychology of Success. Random House.