A test of the 'overjustification' hypothesis
It is proposed that several biases in social judgment result from a failure--first noted by Francis Bacon--to consider possibilities at odds with beliefs and perceptions of the moment. Individuals who are induced to consider the opposite, therefore, should display less bias in social judgment. In two separate but conceptually parallel experiments, this reasoning was applied to two domains--biased assimilation of new evidence on social issues and biased hypothesis testing of personality impressions. Subjects were induced to consider the opposite in two ways: through explicit instructions to do so and through stimulus materials that made opposite possibilities more salient. In both experiments the induction of a consider-the-opposite strategy had greater corrective effect than more demand-laden alternative instructions to be as fair and unbiased as possible. The results are viewed as consistent with previous research on perseverance, hindsight, and logical problem solving, and are thought to suggest an effective method of retraining social judgment.
The Overjustification Effect and Game Achievements | …
with extrinsic reward: A test of the “overjustification” hypothesis
The most detailed explanation for the overjustification effectis cognitive evaluation theory. This theory proposes that rewards (like money) areperceived as controlling or coercive, and act to decrease perceivedself-determination and undermine intrinsic motivation. Becauseunexpected tangible rewards do not motivate behavior during a task,they are less likely to be perceived as controlling, and thus lesslikely to undermine intrinsic motivation. Informational rewards(like praise) increase perceived self-determination and feelings ofcompetence, and consequently tend to enhance intrinsicmotivation.
term:experiment = the test of a hypothesis Study Sets …
Undermining children's intrinsic interest with extrinsic reward: a test of the "overjustification&q uot; hypothesis mark r. lepper and david greene