Effect of Reward Incentive on Performance

by Mark Benoza, Sydney Grimsley-Kattine, and Claire Bethge

Portland State University
Abstract:
This study aims to discover whether or not positive reinforcement can motivate people to
perform better when their cognitive abilities are tested. It was carried out by having the test
subjects take a reading comprehension test, the experimental group being informed that if they
did well they would receive a small reward, the control group performed the same test without
the reward incentive. Our goal being to show that positive reward would have a significant
impact on the test scores of the students, and the experimental groups performance on the test
would be much greater than that of the control groups scores.
Introduction:
It has been shown in multiple experimental studies that the incentive of reward increases
cognitive and memory based performance also that the larger the reward is the more impactful it
is upon performance. In one study it was found that reward for desired behavior improved the
subjects ability to respond to a cognitive stimuli tests in the two experiments performed in the
study ( Braem, 2014) the experimental design for this study is very similar to our own and
provides further evidence that our results are accurate. A second study performed at Washington
University experimented with reward and its effect on neural activity in the brain, and while the
results of a reward incentive affecting brain activity were inconclusive, the results did show
increased performance on the memory tests that the participants took ( Beck, 2010), despite the
fact that this experiment was testing the neurological effects of reward on the brain, rather than
the performance of the test subjects based on reward, the performance data still supports our
hypothesis. A further study from January 2014 highlights how human performance can be

improved through reward. The study examined how conscious and unconscious perception
impacts decision making, task preparation, and task execution (Aarts, 2014), similar to our own
study which aims to see if there is an unconscious change in cognitive ability when rewarded. In
2014 a study performed at Ghent University also found that the anticipation of a reward
improves cognitive performance and that the greater the reward is the more impactful it is on
cognitive ability (Vessena, 2014) which correlates with our own study in showing that
performance is enhanced by reward. A 2013 study testing eye movement as cognitive
performance found that monetary reward improved correct performance as well, when testing to
see whether or not reaction time was faster when subjects were told to move their eyes away
from stimuli. (Muller,2013) this test is marginally different from our own, but because they both
test cognitive performance the results correlate.
Although many studies do indicate that incentive does enhance cognitive ability and
memory, it has not been discovered what affects reward have on the brain itself or why reward
causes this effect. The variation in the studies done to research reward incentive on cognitive
ability showcase that a further study like this one can will add much needed evidence supporting
the claim that reward does improve cognitive performance.
Our expierimental study hopes to provide conclusive evidence that reward incentive
enhances performance capability on memory comprehension tests. While many other studies
have tested reward incentive and performance effects on a neurochemical activity in the brain,
our study looks only at whether or not reward effects cognitive performance itself, memory
retention in particular, in hopes to give a clearer perspective on the subject. Our hypothesis states
that the experimental group will perform marginally better within a 95% confidence interval, the
experimental data supported this hypothesis because the 95% confidence intervals of the control
group and the experimental group did not overlap, and the one tailed p-value which was

calculated at .001, showed that the difference was significant enough to allow for us to reject the
null hypothesis.

Methods:
In order to obtain an understanding of positive reinforcement, we developed a simple
experimental study. We used a sample of the population of students on the Portland State campus
as our test subjects. The sample was non-biased, and students varied in ethnicity, age, and grade
level. Sixty students were placed into one of two groups; the control group and the experimental
group. The control group took a cognitive memory test without a reward incentive. The
experimental group was given the same cognitive memory test and given a reward when they
were finished, members of the experimental group were informed that the incentive would only
be given if they performed well.
The cognitive test that was used was a sample reading test from http://act.org. The test
consisted of three passages that each had questions following them. The test was seventeen
questions total. The test required no prior knowledge and was based purely upon the information
in the reading, ensuring that no students were given any advantage over any others. The testing
conditions were as follows: each student was allowed only a pen or pencil, and could take as
much time on the test as they needed. The tests were performed in a relatively quiet and
distraction free environment, and the time the students spent on the test ranged from twenty
minutes to an hour.
For our experiment our explanatory variables were the two groups of thirty students we
were testing, one with incentive and one without. Our response variable was the corresponding

test scores of the studentst. This study may have some experimental errors due to the fact that
there are other factors that can affect performance regardless of incentive.
Data/Analysis:

Figure 1. Histogram depicting percentile test scores of control group vs experimental group

Figure 1 shows our range of the data. The experimental group has a much larger range than that
of our control group, showing that the population overall has more variability than the control
group. However, the majority of test scores in the experimental group, as depicted by figure 1,
show higher test scores than that of the control group. Additionally the third quartile range for
was twelve points higher in the experimental group than in the control, and the fourth quartile
was 15 points higher. This supports our hypothesis, that motivation increases test scores, and
provides an accurate visual depiction of what the p-value, .001, tells us about the data, that being
that the probability of the same results being observed under the null hypothesis are incredibly
unlikely.

Incentive Scores
Mean

Non Incentive Scores

79.80

69.80

Median

82.35

70.588

Mode

100

70.588

Minimum

17.65

47.06

Maximum

100

88.24

1st quartile

76.47

64.71

3rd quartile

88.24

76.4

Interquartile range

-11.765

70.59

Std. deviation

19.76

11.00

Table 1. A table showing the calculations of our mean, median, mode, range, first and third
quartile averages, interquartile range, and standard deviation of our sample and control groups

What this data table tells us is that over all the experimental group had higher test scores
than the control, this correlates with the mean and the first and third quartile values. However
this table also shows that there is much larger variation in the test scores of the experimental
group compared to the control group, correlating to the standard deviation which is much higher
in the experimental group than in the control group

95% confidence interval

experimental

control

72.64-86.96

65.86-73.74

Table 2. showing the 95% confidence interval

This table shows the 95% confidence interval of the experimental and control groups.
The 95% confidence interval estimates where the true mean of the entire population would be,
with 95% certainty. Due to there being a larger range in the scores of the experimental group,
thus causing a higher standard deviation, the confidence interval is also includes a larger span of

possible means than that of the control group, where the scores were not as widely distributed.
The fact that the confidence intervals have a very small overlap indicates that the probability that
the results occurred under the null hypothesis is low.

Conclusion:
The findings in this study support our hypothesis indicate that the incentive of reward
does improve performance on memory based cognitive tests. Although due to the sample
population being entirely college students, the results of this study could potentially only be
applicable to college students as well, rather than all adults.

Work Cited:
Beck, S., Locke, H., Savine, A., Jimura, K., & Braver, T. (2010). Primary and Secondary
Rewards Differentially Modulate Neural Activity Dynamics during Working Memory. PLoS
ONE, 5(2). Retrieved October 16, 2014, from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=12&sid=359d246b-29ce41fc-8788-5bf6ca6e35ae%40sessionmgr4001&hid=420
Braem, S., Duthoo, W., Notebaert, W., & Hickey, C. (2014). Reward Determines the ContextSensitivity of Cognitive Control.Journal Of Experimental Psychology. Human Perception And
Performance,40(5). Retrieved October 16, 2014, from
http://web.a.ebscohost.com.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/ehost/detail/detail?vid=12&sid=359d246b-29ce41fc-8788-5bf6ca6e35ae%40sessionmgr4001&hid=420
Zedelius, C., Veling, H., Custers, R., Bijleveld, E., Cheiw, K., & Aarts, H. (2014). A new
perspective on human reward research: How consciously and unconsciously perceived reward
information influences performance. 16-16. Retrieved October 16, 2014, from
http://download.springer.com.proxy.lib.pdx.edu/static/pdf/557/art%3A10.3758%2Fs13415-0130241-z.pdf?auth66=1413581393_0e7c88320284ec79b67478da76cb8b96&ext=.pdf
Vessena, Eliana, Massimo Silvetti, Carsten N. Bohler, Eric Archten, Wim Flas, and Tom Verguts.
"Overlapping Neural Systems Represent Cognitive Effort and Reward Anticipation." PloS One
9.3 (2014): n. pag. Print.

Muller, S., Teresa, D., Maclyntre, J., & Korlitz, K. (2013). Incentive processing in Congenital
Adrenal Hyperplasia (CAH): A reward-based antisaccade study. Psychoneuroendocrinology,
38(5)