Debunking the Overjustification Effect Hypothesis in Web 3 Gaming

According to the American Psychological Association , the overjustification hypothesis is defined as a “paradoxical effect in which rewarding (or offering to reward) a person for his or her performance can lead to lower, rather than higher, interest in the activity. It occurs when the introduction of an extrinsic reward?weakens the strong?intrinsic motivation?that was the key to the person’s original high performance.” In the context of web 3 gaming, many have argued that allowing players to earn while playing would reduce the pleasure of the game by transforming one’s motivation from intrinsic to extrinsic. The overjustification hypothesis is used as evidence to support this claim. In this article I will outline why I disagree with this line of thinking, but before I would like to pose a question to the reader.

Question for Thought

Assuming you are playing a game for fun and not to earn money, do you feel that earning a small amount of money that takes the form of an in-game currency would make the game less enjoyable? Why or why not?

There are three arguments I will outline to debunk the overjustification hypothesis and explain why it does not apply to web 3 gaming. ?

1.?The evidence that suggests that motivation should be characterized into the categories ‘extrinsic’ and ‘intrinsic’ is weak.

2.?The evidence in favour of the overjustification effect is weak.

3.?The results from studies that have a controlled experimental design in other fields should not be extrapolated to players’ behaviour in games without sufficient research.

The evidence that suggests that motivation should be characterized into the categories ‘extrinsic’ and ‘intrinsic’ is weak

Many psychologists have criticized the idea that motivation can be arbitrarily narrowed into two categories. Intrinsic motivation is generally viewed as doing something because you want to, while extrinsic motivation is created by a reward like money, and that intrinsic motivation is superior to extrinsic motivation. This theory is weak for the intuitive reason that there are differences between people in terms of what motivates them. Therefore, making the value judgement that certain types of motivation are better than others is not representative of what motivates people. A simple example of this is grades in university. For some, grades are a much greater motivator to study despite being 'extrinsic' (like for those trying to get into medicine), compared to an 'intrinsic' motivator like one's passion for learning. A second criticism is what’s been described by Reiss 2005 as an issue of confusing means and ends. He presents the idea that a parent could be considered 'intrinsically motivated' to be a good parent by providing for their children, while also being 'extrinsically motivated' to work to earn a salary. Reiss created a framework of 16 motivations for people which he believes is more representative of understanding human motivations.?

The evidence in favour of the overjustification effect is weak.

It appears there is no consensus in the scientific community about whether the overjustification effect exists. The theory originated from a study in 1971, which for the first time was directly replicated by Peters et al. 2022 and found statistically insignificant results. The same research article nicely summarizes the history of the research, the types of behaviours that were measured, and where the debate lies in the research.

?- It’s a long quote but worth reading

“Following?Deci (1971), multiple studies were published suggesting external reward may have negative effects (e.g.,?Cameron et al. (2001);?Lepper & Greene, 1975;?Lepper et al., 1973). found more than 100 studies had evaluated the effects of extrinsic reward since the 1970s. A variety of tasks were included in these studies, such as completing puzzles (Deci, 1971,?1972;?Lepper & Greene, 1975), connecting dots (Feingold & Mahoney, 1975), coloring pictures (Lepper et al., 1973), listening to music (Reiss & Sushinsky, 1975), sorting silverware (Roane et al., 2003), and following classroom directions (Akin-Little & Little, 2004). In addition to all of the empirical research on the topic, several meta-analyses have been published.?Cameron and Pierce (1994)?evaluated the results of 96 studies using group designs and five studies using single subject designs. Based on the results of their statistical analyses, they concluded that external reward did not decrease intrinsic motivation.?Deci et al. (1999)?published a meta-analysis claiming that Cameron and Pierce’s review was seriously flawed. Deci et al. claimed that Cameron and Pierce used inappropriate procedures and made numerous errors. Based on the results of 128 studies, Deci et al. concluded that tangible (i.e., external) reward do have a substantial undermining effect on intrinsic interest.?Cameron et al. (2001)?readdressed the issue. Their study suggested that both of the meta-analyses conducted by Pierce and Deci et al. were flawed and attended to the issues brought up by Deci et al., Cameron et al. came to the conclusion that external reward overall do not have a negative effect, but under some conditions there might be some decrement in interest (e.g., tangible reward delivered contingent on performance on high interest tasks).”

As mentioned there are meta-analyses and studies on both sides of the debate. Ultimately, I would argue that the conclusion that ‘a reward makes an activity less enjoyable’ is an attempt to apply an existing theory to explain behaviour because prior researchers applied that same theory. An alternative explanation to the situations seen in these studies could be that performance anxiety causes a child to perform the activity less, as argued by Reiss 2012 .

Some thoughts:

• It’s better to assume studies are wrong than right, regardless of whether they are peer-reviewed. Reviewing a study's limitations and assumptions is crucial. For more on this point, I recommend looking into the replication crises.

The results from studies that have a controlled experimental design should not be extrapolated to players’ behaviour in games without sufficient research

At this point, it should be clear that the evidence to support the overjustification hypothesis is moderate at best. As such, to extrapolate these findings to those ‘playing and earning’ would be incorrect. To say with a reasonable level of certainty whether earning while playing a game takes the fun away from gaming requires surveying gamers and performing a study. Perhaps a better question is not ‘does earning while playing remove the fun of a game’ but, ‘is there actually a demand in the first place for players to earn some money while playing a game?’

Concluding thoughts:

Gaming is an excellent opportunity to study Economics and Psychology. As Edward Castronova puts it in his Ted Talk in 2011, “People in the game industry are sitting on experiments going on for years with millions of people in them. Play games to learn more about human motivations.” ?

Sources:

Ohio State University. (2005). Intrinsic Motivation Doesn't Exist, Researcher Says.?ScienceDaily. Retrieved from www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/05/050509173611.htm

Peters, K. P. , Grauerholz-Fisher, E. , Vollmer, T. R. & Van Arsdale, A.?(2022).?An Evaluation of the Overjustification Hypothesis.?Behavior Analysis: Research and Practice,?22?(3),?258-264.?doi: 10.1037/bar0000245.

Reiss, S. (2012). Intrinsic and Extrinsic Motivation.?Teaching of Psychology,?39(2), 152–156.?https://doi.org/10.1177/0098628312437704

Dr. Castranova’s Ted Talk: ?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=404ESZ8pmkg&ab_channel=TEDxTalks