Social Experiments

SS396 801

Professor Benkendorf

05/16/22

Rewards Theory Lab Report

Eliot Carr, Alexandra Cordato, Cynthia Griffin

Introduction

Motivation is something that has been studied by psychologists for decades. From

education to environmentalism, understanding how others are motivated to do things is both a

fascinating and essential part of mobilizing society. Being able to know how to properly push

groups of people to do things can be a very effective way for countries to combat issues like

global warming, deforestation, and unemployment. Although this sounds like something that can

possibly be used to motivate not so positive behavior, that makes it all the more important that

this ability to persuade is studied and understood by psychologists.

While this may seem like a relatively simple task, motivation is a complex topic that

feeds off of variables like incentives which, according to Mr.Ryan and Mr.Deci (2000), can be

different depending on people’s personal values and goals ([1]Black & Allen, 2018; [11]Young et

al., 2012). This concept, known as “Incentive Theory”, can be broken down into three sub-

levels; remunerative incentive, moral incentive, and coercive incentive. Remunerative incentive

means that people become motivated through physical rewards like money, working for pay

being a main example of this. Moral incentive entails that a person is motivated to do something

because it is “the right thing to do”, volunteer work being an example. Coercive incentive, the
most extreme of the three incentives, posits that people expect that failure to act in a specific way

will result in physical force being used on them by others in the community, i.e., physical

punishment like incarceration or fines ([7]Man, 2009; [4]Kyriacou, 2010). These sublevels of

incentive are seen within a study observing the motivation to pay taxes in Pakistan. The study

contained two groups; in one group, the government revealed the income tax paid by every

person in the country. This was done to expose tax evaders to ridicule from their peers as well as

guilt and shame potential evaders. In the second group, the government announced and honored

the top tax payers to the public. Researchers observed a decent increase in tax liability within

both groups, although it was higher in the group that publicly recognized top taxpayers

([9]Slemrod et al., 2019). It seems that having some sort of combination of these two tactics could

drastically increase tax liability.

Within the umbrella of incentives is also the subject of intrinsic v. extrinsic motivation.

Extrinsic motivation, which can be thought of as the flip side to remunerative incentive, is the

concept of motivating someone to do something through physical rewards like monetary

incentive, awards, or community recognition ([4]Kyriacou, 2010; [9]Slemrod et al., 2019).

Researchers have postulated that giving rewards actually undermines intrinsic motivation, which

is the drive to do an activity for the soul fulfillment of the activity itself ([3]Hidi, 2016; [1]Black &

Allen, 2018). This influence is essential when considering real-world applications for rewarding

as a way to motivate people since it can very quickly develop into a person refusing to complete

a task unless there is a certain reward persuading them to do so.

Studies from Lepper and colleagues (Lepper & Greene,1975, 1978; Lepper et al., 1973;

Lepper & Henderlong, 2000) refer to this concept of a decrease in motivation once the reward is

no longer provided as the “overjustification effect” ([2]Greene & Lepper, 1974; [3]Hidi, 2016;
 Lepper & Greene, 1975). By persuading children to complete tasks in two separate groups–the
[6]

first group receiving extrinsic motivation in the form of a physical reward and the second group

receiving unexpected or no rewards throughout the repeated completion of a task–Lepper and

Greene were able to observe this effect. After a few trials, the extrinsic motivation was removed

and the researchers observed that intrinsic motivation to complete the activity was much lower in

the group that had been receiving the reward than the group that had not received one ([6]Lepper

& Greene, 1975). These findings bring up a whole other level of complexity to the topic of

motivation. Not only is there now the variable of certain rewards not being effective due to an

individual's preferences, there’s also the factor that using any sort of physical reward would

ultimately lower someone’s personal motivation to do something when not provided with the

reward. The more research done on the topic, the more perplexing it becomes.

In certain instances, like in office work, monetary incentives aren’t always completely

effective at improving productivity within the workplace ([5]Labelle, 2005). Labelle emphasizes

the importance of understanding the difference between a “motivator” and a “satisfier” and being

able to tailor rewards to align with the desired activity. However, in other instances, monetary

incentives were seen to greatly improve performance within the workplace, mainly for people

who didn’t see an incentive program as a threat to their professional autonomy ([11]Young et al.,

2012). Another study that looked into the course of motivation in pursuing different goals

observed this journey through two dimensions of motivation; the motivation to obtain a focal

goal, known as the “outcome-focused dimension”, and the motivation to “do things right” while

reaching that goal, known as the “means-focused dimension”. The researchers proposed that the

means-focused dimension followed a U-shaped curve–meaning that it was higher at the

beginning and end of the pursuit of the goal than during it ([10]Touré-Tillery & Fishback, 2011).
This is where an additional extrinsic motivation, like a monetary incentive program, could help

motivate workers while completing their task–although there would have to be a balance so that

the extrinsic motivator doesn’t end up trumping the intrinsic motivation to complete the

task([2]Greene & Lepper, 1974; [3]Hidi, 2016; [6]Lepper & Greene, 1975). All of these motivators

have been extensively studied within the psychology field and yet there are still so many layers

to it that psychologists still don’t completely understand.

For this study, we have chosen to observe the effects on different types of extrinsic

rewards on the motivation for people to complete a specific task. Identifying no incentive as our

constant, we held up signs asking for participants to show us the last photo on their camera roll

for three separate rewards; a fist bump, a sticker, and $1. We timed how long it took the first

person to approach us to complete the task and hypothesized that providing no incentive would

take the longest amount of time while the monetary reward would take the shortest amount of

time. We additionally hypothesized that males would participate more than females due to the

location of the experiment, Midtown Manhattan, New York City. According to the Police

Department of New York’s 2021 Crime Statistics of the 10th Precinct, from the week of May

2nd to May 8th this year, 29 crimes were reported in the surrounding area of Chelsea,

Manhattan–a 107% change from the 14 reported last year ([8]NYPD CompStat Unit). These

crimes include murder, rape, robbery, felonious assault, grand larceny, and grand larceny auto.

The crime rate within New York City as a whole can be a great deterrent from approaching

strangers, and particularly for women, which is why we hypothesized that females would not

participate as much as males. We also predicted that younger people would participate more

readily than older people due to the types of rewards being offered. It was assumed that older

people are more financially stable and, therefore, would not be in need of the $1. Due to COVID
19 and the higher risk of infection and death for older people, it was also a fair to assume that

their participation in the fist bump aspect of the experiment would be less. Through this

experiment, we hope to further understand the motivations behind participating in this

experiment and contribute to the extensive research already conducted within the psychology

field on these concepts.

Methods

The experiment was conducted by a group of three confederates along 7th Avenue near

the Fashion Institute of Technology. Before the experiment, four signs were made on white

poster boards with a black marker. Each sign said something different; the first sign stated

“Show most recent picture on your camera roll,” the second stated “FIRST PERSON ONLY:

show most recent picture for a fist bump,” the third stated “FIRST PERSON ONLY: show most

recent picture for a sticker,” and the fourth stated “FIRST PERSON ONLY: show most recent

picture for $1.”

One confederate was tasked with holding each of the four signs individually during all of

the days the experiment was conducted in the field. The confederate was to wear all black

clothing, black sunglasses, and a black face mask. Each sign was to be held by the confederate

until an individual walked up to the confederate to participate. Once the person expressed

interest in showing their most recent picture from their phone, the confederate would hold down

the sign so no other passerbys could participate until the individual was finished. The

confederate was not to say anything to people walking along the street until a person engaged

with the confederate to participate in the experiment.

Depending on what the sign stated, if a person complied with showing their most recent

picture on their camera roll, the person would be given a certain reward for participating. For
example, after a participant showed the confederate with the sign that stated “FIRST PERSON

ONLY: show most recent picture for a sticker” their most recent picture, a sticker was given to

the participant. The same occurred for the participants who approached while the confederate

held the signs with the “$1” reward and “fist bump” reward. When the confederate held the sign

that stated “Show most recent picture in your camera roll,” no reward was given to the

participant; this acted as a constant for the experiment.

The other two confederates in the experiment acted as observers while the first

confederate held the signs. They tracked both the people who participated and those who looked

at the signs but did not participate. The assumed gender, age, and race was recorded for each

individual. The interest/action was also recorded; for each person, the observers checked off if

the individual was “interested/did do it,” “interested/did NOT do it,” “hesitant/did do it,” or

“hesitant/did NOT do it.” Out of the 360 people observed by the confederates, only 47

individuals participated overall.

Additionally, an electronic survey was made by the confederates and sent out to random

people. The survey consisted of questions asking for an individual’s gender, age, race, and

approximate annual income. It also asked the person taking the survey if they would show the

most recent picture in their camera roll in exchange for a certain reward; the questions replicated

the signs the first confederate held in the field experiment. For example, a question would state,

“Would you show the last photo on your camera roll for $1?” with the answer choices either

being “yes” or “no.” The other questions included the reward being a sticker and a fist bump. 20

people took the electronic survey.

 Results

NO INCENTIVE

The “no incentive” results are based on the sign that stated “Show most recent picture on your
camera roll.” This chart shows that out of the 10 people who were observed by the confederates,
5 were female and 5 were male.

Out of the 10 people who were observed, 2 were Black, 2 were Latino/Hispanic, and 2 were
Caucasian/White.
Out of the 10 people observed, 1 was in the age group of 11-20, 2 were in the age group of 41-
50, 3 were in the age group of 51-60, and 4 were in the age group of 21-30.

Out of the 10 people who were observed, 1 was interested and did participate, 4 were interested
and did not participate, and 5 were hesitant and did not participate.
FIST BUMP

The “fist bump” results are based on the sign that stated “FIRST PERSON ONLY show most
recent picture for a fist bump.” Out of the 147 people observed by the confederates, 91 were
male and 56 were female.

Out of the 147 observed, 15 were Latino/Hispanic, 18 were Asian, 31 were Black, and 83 were
Caucasian/White.
Out of the 147 observed, 1 was in the age group of 10 or below, 6 were in the age group of 61
and above, 17 were in the age group of 51-60, 25 were in the age group of 31-40, 27 were in the
age group of 41-50, and 47 were in the age group of 21-30.

Out of the 147 observed, 3 were hesitant and did participate, 9 were interested and did
participate, 47 were hesitant and did not participate, and 88 were interested and did not
participate.
STICKER

The “sticker” results are based on the sign that stated “FIRST PERSON ONLY show most recent
picture for a sticker.” Out of the 112 people observed by the confederates, 60 were female and 60
were male.

Out of the 112 people observed, 5 were Asian, 22 were Latino/Hispanic, 26 were Black, and 59
were Caucasian/White.
Out of the 112 people observed, 5 were in the age group of 10 or below, 11 were in the age
group of 51-60, 16 were in the age group of 41-50, 25 were in the age group of 31-40, 26 were in
the age group of 11-20, and 29 were in the age group of 21-30.

Out of the 112 people observed, 1 was hesitant and did participate, 16 were interested and did
participate, 37 were hesitant and did not participate, and 58 were interested and did not
participate.
MONEY

The “money” results are based on the sign that stated “FIRST PERSON ONLY show most
recent picture for $1.” Out of the 91 people observed by the confederates, 48 were male and 43
were female.

Out of the 91 observed, 4 were Latino/Hispanic, 5 were Asian, 27 were Black, and 55 were
Caucasian/White.
Out of the 91 observed, 1 was in the age group of 61 and above, 8 were in the age group of 51-
60, 11 were in the age group of 41-50, 16 were in the age group of 31-40, 24 were in the age
group of 11-20, and 31 were in the age group of 21-30.

Out of the 91 observed, 4 were hesitant and did participate, 13 were interested and did
participate, 27 were hesitant and did not participate, and 47 were interested and did not
participate.

In addition to these results, we recorded how long it took for the first individual to engage
with the confederate holding each of the signs:

Sign Time for First Person to Approach

No reward 4 minutes and 10 seconds

Fist bump 5 minutes and 30 seconds

 Sticker 19 minutes

Money 1 minute and 4 seconds

SUMMARY

Groups Count Sum Average Variance

No Incentive 10 17 1.7 0.9

Fist Bump 147 268 1.82312925 0.55754357
Sticker 112 220 1.96428571 0.91763192
1 91 185 2.03296703 0.92112332

Each “interest/action” from the observations was given an assigned number: 1- hesitant/did NOT
do it, 2- interested/did NOT do it, 3- hesitant/did do it, 4- interested/did do it. All of the averages
from each of the sign categories is closest to 2 which in the ANOVA test stands for the response
“interested, did NOT do it.”

ANOVA

Source of Variation SS df MS F P-value F crit

Between Groups
3.2403977 3 1.08013257 1.40205554 0.24192915 2.62998716
Within Groups 274.259602 356 0.77039214

Total 277.5 359

The P-value is not equal to or less than 0.05 so it’s not statistically significant.
SURVEY

The “survey” results are based on the electronic survey that was sent out by the confederates.

Out of the 20 people who responded, 8 were in the age group of 21-30 and 12 were in the age

group of 11-20.

Out of the 20 responses, 1 indentified as non-binary, 2 identified as male, and 17 identified as

female.
Out of the 20 responses, 3 selected $21,000-$60,000 as their annual income range and the other

16 selected $20,000 and below as their annual income range.

Out of the 20 responses, 2 were another race not listed, 4 were Asian, and 14 were

Caucasian/White.
This chart shows 13 responded “yes” and 7 responded “no.”

This chart shows 16 responded “yes” and 4 responded “no.”

This chart shows 18 responded “yes” and 2 responded “no.”

Discussion

The data we collected throughout our experiment allowed us to draw a number of

conclusions regarding stranger’s willingness to share a piece of personal information in exchange

for a given reward. The results we obtained aligned with our hypothesis in nearly all aspects of

the experiment. During each of the four parts of the experiment, at least fifty percent of the

participants were male. We assumed that this would be because women are subject to

harassment on the street on a daily basis and less likely to stop for us as a result. The location of

our experiment at FIT may have encouraged more women to participate, but our hypothesis still

held true. Furthermore, we hypothesized that more young people would participate in the study

which proved to be correct as the largest age group of participants was 21-30. One part of our

hypothesis that did not align with the results was that giving no incentive for the fist bump would

take the most time. We assumed that the time it took for the first participant to approach each

poster would decrease as the incentives increased, but it took longer for the first fist bump

incentive than no incentive at all. We did our best to make the experiment as controlled as
possible so that the conditions we were planning for when we made our hypothesis were the

same as in the actual experiment.

Just as in any experiment, there were some limiting factors that could have had negative

effects on the accuracy of our data. First, the only confederate we had holding the signs was

Alexandra, a woman. Using confederates of different genders to present the signs would bring

up issues of its own, but participants may have responded differently to the incentives had the

confederate been a man for the entirety of the experiment. Another possible flaw would be that

the weather varied across the four days that the experiment was conducted. The day we began,

we were testing the sticker incentive and the temperature was around forty five degrees. We

recorded that it took approximately nineteen minutes for us to get our first participant. The

experiment was also administered at the corner of seventh avenue and twenty eighth street,

whereas the remainder of the experiment was done on seventh avenue and twenty seventh street.

It is possible that participants felt more comfortable stopping on twenty seventh since it is closer

to the FIT campus and there is a greater security presence. In the following weeks, the weather

of each day that we were experimenting remained in the sixties and somewhat sunny. This is

likely what allowed us to get a participant for the “no incentive” poster in only four minutes and

ten seconds. This response was also faster than the first fist bump reward participant we

recorded which was on a day of slightly varying weather conditions. Although some details of

the experiment left room for questioning its validity, the core of our experimentation process was

consistent and showed exactly what a large number of people would do for three certain intrinsic

rewards.

We have gathered so much information from various sources and from our research in the

field, but our experiment left us with new questions about reward theory. To further our research
in the study of how incentives impact humans, we could redo the experiment with a male

confederate in the same location to compare how people respond to rewards from men. Location

has a huge impact on participation so it would also be beneficial to test how participants react in

a slower paced environment with less people. New York City is a great place to survey a large

number of people, however there are few places in the world like it so the results may not reflect

how the majority of humans process rewards. It’s also important to note that, while we got

results that lined up with most of our hypotheses, they were not statistically significant so more

studies would need to be conducted for psychologists to fully grasp the topic. Still, our

experiment gave us the insight into rewards theory we were looking for and added to the

multitude of information on intrinsic v. extrinsic motivation which is being built upon by

researchers all the time.

 Works Cited

Black, S., & Allen, J. D. (2018). Part 7: Rewards, Motivation, and Performance.
[1]

Reference Librarian, 59(4), 205–218.

https://doi-org.libproxy.fitsuny.edu/10.1080/02763877.2018.1499164

Greene, D., & Lepper, M. R. (1974). Effects of Extrinsic Rewards on Children’s

[2]

Subsequent Intrinsic Interest. Child Development, 45(4), 1141–1145.

https://doi.org/10.2307/1128110

Hidi, S. (2016). Revisiting the Role of Rewards in Motivation and Learning: Implications of
[3]

Neuroscientific Research. Educational Psychology Review, 28(1), 61–93.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/24761219

Kyriacou, A. P. (2010). Intrinsic Motivation and the Logic of Collective Action

[4]
 :

The Impact of Selective Incentives. The American Journal of Economics and Sociology,

69(2), 823–839. http://www.jstor.org/stable/40607847

LaBelle, J. E. (2005). The Paradox of Safety Hopes & Rewards. Professional Safety, 50(12),
[5]

37–42. https://search-ebscohost-com.libproxy.fitsuny.edu/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=a9h&AN=18971900&site=ehost-live

Lepper, M. R., & Greene, D. (1975). When Two Rewards Are Worse than One: Effects of
[6]

Extrinsic Rewards on Intrinsic Motivation. The Phi Delta Kappan, 56(8), 565–566.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/20298024

Man RLY. (2009). Achieving compliance with environmental health-related land use planning
[7]

conditions in Hong Kong: perspectives from traditional motivation theories. Journal of

Environmental Health, 72(4), 22–25.

 https://search-ebscohost-com.libproxy.fitsuny.edu/login.aspx?

direct=true&db=a9h&AN=105336563&site=ehost-live

NYPD CompStat Unit. (2022, May 8). CompStat Web PDF Reports. Police Department City
[8]

of New York . https://www1.nyc.gov/assets/nypd/downloads/pdf/crime_statistics/cs-en-

us-010pct.pdf

Slemrod, J., Rehman, O. U., & Waseem, M. (2019). Pecuniary and Non-Pecuniary Motivations
[9]

for Tax Compliance: Evidence from Pakistan. Proceedings. Annual Conference on

Taxation and Minutes of the Annual Meeting of the National Tax Association, 112, 1–73.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/27067424
[10]
Touré-Tillery, M., & Fishbach, A. (2011). The course of motivation. Journal of Consumer

Psychology, 21(4), 414–423. http://www.jstor.org/stable/23049312

[11]
YOUNG, G. J., BECKMAN, H., & BAKER, E. (2012). Financial incentives, professional

values and performance: A study of pay-for-performance in a professional organization.

Journal of Organizational Behavior, 33(7), 964–983.

http://www.jstor.org/stable/41683978