Judy Cameron

Who they are

Cameron's work is the main counterweight to the view, common in popular books on motivation, that rewards damage interest. Her side of the argument is often left out of those accounts.

This page records only what the papers and their published records state. Biography beyond the cited work is not given here.

Key papers

Reinforcement, reward, and intrinsic motivation: a meta-analysis (1994), with W. David Pierce. Review of Educational Research. Across 96 experiments, reward overall did not decrease intrinsic motivation, and verbal praise increased it. The only negative effect, minimal, appeared when expected tangible rewards were given simply for doing a task.

Pervasive negative effects of rewards on intrinsic motivation: the myth continues (2001), with Banko and Pierce. The Behavior Analyst. Rewards for low-interest tasks increased free-choice intrinsic motivation. On high-interest tasks, negative effects appeared when rewards were tangible, expected and loosely tied to performance.

Detrimental effects of reward: reality or myth? (1996), Eisenberger and Cameron. American Psychologist.

Key ideas

The central idea is that rewards are not harmful in general. Harm appears in specific conditions, chiefly payment that is tangible, expected and unconnected to performance on something people already enjoy. The opposing analysis, Deci, Koestner and Ryan's 1999 meta-analysis of 128 studies, found broader undermining from expected tangible rewards. Read side by side, both support the same practical caution about paying people for activities they already like.

---