![]() | Motivation crowding theory has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 28, 2019. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Motivation crowding theory appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 June 2019 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | Motivation crowding theory received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
W.s.campbell.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Motivation crowding theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham ( talk · contribs) 22:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Will do this in a bit.--
Farang Rak Tham
(Talk) 22:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I graduated Master in I&O Psychology, but do not work in the field, so my knowledge maybe outdated. I have no knowledge of economics.
I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. To keep communication to the point, you might want to use templates like Done,
Doing...,
Not done,
Removed,
Added, and
Fixed. Please do not cross out my comments, as I will not yours but only my own. I will do the review of the lead mostly at the end.
closer to the time of the behavior.closer to implies both before and after. Is this correct?
Thus, according to most thinking ...according to most theories?
has an immediate relative-price effectwhat does this mean?
These behaviors are said ...Sounds like hearsay more than scientific theory.
(see below)should still be sourced. If you are repeating information later, you might not need to source it anymore, but usually, we don't repeat ourselves much in encyclopedia articles.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
W.s.campbell ( talk) 18:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)These observations led researchers to ask how providing extrinsic rewards for a given activity would influence intrinsic motivation toward that activity. While the relative-price effect would predict that rewards should only enhance the attractiveness of the behavior, there appeared to be indirect psychological effects of offering extrinsic incentives that, in some cases, have the opposite effect of making the behavior seem less attractive (see below).
A wide range of behaviors has been investigated for crowding outYou haven't defined crowding out yet. You should give sufficient attention to the "what part" before you go to the why and how.
In almost all cases, crowding out is measured either as self-reported interest in the activity after an incentive has been provided or by measuring engagement in the activity, unbeknownst to experimental subjects, in a free-choice time period during which subjects believe the experiment has ended and after full compensation has been provided.
Interesting to read that crowding out doesn't occur in performance-contingent awards. I wasn't aware of that. 22:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments here, Farang! They're very encouraging.
Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999)You usually do not need to mention the year of the study inline. As for the authors, usually you would just mention them if their opinion is not mainstream and cannot be stated in "Wikipedia's voice". After all, they are mentioned in the citation anyway.
This research considered the effect of monetary, tangible, and symbolic rewardsHow are tangible and monetary awards different?
Deci (1971)Please add the citation in <ref>...</ref> format. Be consistent in your citation style.
For instance, there has been work showing that increasing penalties can actually lower obedience with the law and decrease worker performance.Is this connection to the subject of motivation crowding theory made by you or by the secondary literature? Just asking.
I can follow this section, but I don't think people without a psychological background can. Please try to find a concrete example in the literature cited. And speaking of citing, there is still a lot of unsourced content here.
extant performance? That's what you mean, right?
high status or high achievementwhich is mentioned later on. Also, personally, I think the phrase
(i.e. a merit-based award)is not particularly helpful in this context. It doesn't explain the difference between the two ways of giving awards externally.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Dickinson argues that part of why these behaviors are socially praised is precisely because they are not connected with any particular reinforcers. Thus, the introduction of a specific reinforcer such as an extrinsic reward lowers the public praise.It isn't clear why an extrinsic reward would diminish the praise.
If this effect is larger than the size of the specific reinforcerHow is the diminishing of public praise larger than the size of a specific reinforcer? And what do you mean by size?
then free-choice selection of that behavior will decreaseAnd this leads to crowding out, I suppose?-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
utility functionWhat is this?
Some content is unsourced.--
Farang Rak Tham
(Talk) 15:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
sufficiently skilled or motivated without such incentivesShouldn't this just be motivated? How can a person suddenly become more skilled with the right incentives?
are said to infer something about the activityare understood to interpret the activity ... ?
To the extent that agents are concerned with image-signalingWhat do you mean by image-signaling in this context
Separately, though,Shouldn't you write something along the lines of On the other hand, ...?
Example textToo technical, remove.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
The collection of this evidence has led someWeasel phrase, please specify some.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I found this article very hard to understand. For example, take the third and final paragraph of the introduction now:
The phrase "either for some explicitly mentioned payment sum or for no additional payment at all" is an awkward way to say "for payment or unpaid." The second sentence doesn't make it clear as to whether the researchers care whether or how quickly the subjects perform the initial assignment. The third sentence is worst. How is "removing the incentive" different from "pre-payment"? Does "pre-payment" mean before payment was offered or after payment was offered and before it was given? Does "often" mean most of the time or not?
Here is the third and final paragraph of the article from a year ago when it was only three paragraphs:
References
That seems substantially clearer to me. Is there anywhere in the text that a similar summary is provided? How many of those sources are still cited? I generally don't mind difficult prose in the body of the article, as long as the introduction is completely clear and easy to understand. But the GA criterion says that the entire article should have good prose.
EllenCT (
talk) 21:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Done
W.s.campbell ( talk) 22:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Apologies. Think I've grown used to writing for an academic audience. I've polished the language you picked out. Thanks!
The introduction says, "the idea was first introduced ... by Richard Titmuss, who argued in 1970...." without providing a source for the claim. But the version from a year ago referenced the
backward bending supply curve of labour which goes
back to at least 1941. The connection
appears to be made in reliable sources, and the concepts seem nearly identical. The graph had been removed before I replaced it. I'm convinced that the unsourced Titmuss attribution as the origin of the concept is false.
EllenCT (
talk) 21:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Done
Titmuss [ sic] attribution as the origin of the concept is falseappears not to be supported by sources that I found about the subject. Titmuss is often cited as the origin.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- For example, one study found that paying people to collect charitable donations actually caused them to collect fewer donations.
- The term "crowding out" was coined by Bruno Frey in 1997, but the idea was first introduced into economics much earlier by Richard Titmuss,[1][2] who argued in 1970 that offering financial incentives for blood donation could counter-intuitively lead to a drop in the total amount of blood donated. While the empirical evidence supporting crowding out for blood donation has been mixed, there has since been a long line of psychological and economic exploration supporting the basic phenomenon of crowding out.
Farang Rak Tham, phewwwwwwwww. What a process. Wow. Thanks for volunteering all of your help & stewardship. SO appreciated and am really glad to see how it stands!
W.s.campbell, your move.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
No copyright violationsJust verifying: you're saying that there, in fact, are none, right? You're not suggesting that there are some I need to fix?--— Preceding unsigned comment added by W.s.campbell ( talk • contribs) date (UTC)
This was hugely helpful. Thanks so much! W.s.campbell ( talk) 17:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Done! W.s.campbell ( talk) 22:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Removing this from article to meet DYK standards after DYK got pulled.
In "Debate and meta-analyses" section the statement: "Through the debate, consensus seems to have emerged that crowding out reliably occurs if the following conditions are met:" does not seem to be supported by anything in the reference [33] (Gneezy, Uri; Meier, Stephan; Rey-Biel, Pedro (2011).) and the references for each condition do not really suggest an emerging consensus.
I think the options are either:
I don't have confidence in my knowledge in the area to know which option is best, but I thought I should flag it because it seemed very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamespitt ( talk • contribs) 07:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
![]() | Motivation crowding theory has been listed as one of the
Social sciences and society good articles under the
good article criteria. If you can improve it further,
please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can
reassess it. Review: April 28, 2019. ( Reviewed version). |
![]() | A fact from Motivation crowding theory appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the
Did you know column on 30 June 2019 (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
| ![]() |
![]() | Motivation crowding theory received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
![]() | This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
W.s.campbell.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 04:31, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Motivation crowding theory. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 11:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
GA toolbox |
---|
Reviewing |
Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham ( talk · contribs) 22:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
Will do this in a bit.--
Farang Rak Tham
(Talk) 22:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)
I graduated Master in I&O Psychology, but do not work in the field, so my knowledge maybe outdated. I have no knowledge of economics.
I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. To keep communication to the point, you might want to use templates like Done,
Doing...,
Not done,
Removed,
Added, and
Fixed. Please do not cross out my comments, as I will not yours but only my own. I will do the review of the lead mostly at the end.
closer to the time of the behavior.closer to implies both before and after. Is this correct?
Thus, according to most thinking ...according to most theories?
has an immediate relative-price effectwhat does this mean?
These behaviors are said ...Sounds like hearsay more than scientific theory.
(see below)should still be sourced. If you are repeating information later, you might not need to source it anymore, but usually, we don't repeat ourselves much in encyclopedia articles.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
W.s.campbell ( talk) 18:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)These observations led researchers to ask how providing extrinsic rewards for a given activity would influence intrinsic motivation toward that activity. While the relative-price effect would predict that rewards should only enhance the attractiveness of the behavior, there appeared to be indirect psychological effects of offering extrinsic incentives that, in some cases, have the opposite effect of making the behavior seem less attractive (see below).
A wide range of behaviors has been investigated for crowding outYou haven't defined crowding out yet. You should give sufficient attention to the "what part" before you go to the why and how.
In almost all cases, crowding out is measured either as self-reported interest in the activity after an incentive has been provided or by measuring engagement in the activity, unbeknownst to experimental subjects, in a free-choice time period during which subjects believe the experiment has ended and after full compensation has been provided.
Interesting to read that crowding out doesn't occur in performance-contingent awards. I wasn't aware of that. 22:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments here, Farang! They're very encouraging.
Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999)You usually do not need to mention the year of the study inline. As for the authors, usually you would just mention them if their opinion is not mainstream and cannot be stated in "Wikipedia's voice". After all, they are mentioned in the citation anyway.
This research considered the effect of monetary, tangible, and symbolic rewardsHow are tangible and monetary awards different?
Deci (1971)Please add the citation in <ref>...</ref> format. Be consistent in your citation style.
For instance, there has been work showing that increasing penalties can actually lower obedience with the law and decrease worker performance.Is this connection to the subject of motivation crowding theory made by you or by the secondary literature? Just asking.
I can follow this section, but I don't think people without a psychological background can. Please try to find a concrete example in the literature cited. And speaking of citing, there is still a lot of unsourced content here.
extant performance? That's what you mean, right?
high status or high achievementwhich is mentioned later on. Also, personally, I think the phrase
(i.e. a merit-based award)is not particularly helpful in this context. It doesn't explain the difference between the two ways of giving awards externally.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 20:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Dickinson argues that part of why these behaviors are socially praised is precisely because they are not connected with any particular reinforcers. Thus, the introduction of a specific reinforcer such as an extrinsic reward lowers the public praise.It isn't clear why an extrinsic reward would diminish the praise.
If this effect is larger than the size of the specific reinforcerHow is the diminishing of public praise larger than the size of a specific reinforcer? And what do you mean by size?
then free-choice selection of that behavior will decreaseAnd this leads to crowding out, I suppose?-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 15:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
utility functionWhat is this?
Some content is unsourced.--
Farang Rak Tham
(Talk) 15:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
sufficiently skilled or motivated without such incentivesShouldn't this just be motivated? How can a person suddenly become more skilled with the right incentives?
are said to infer something about the activityare understood to interpret the activity ... ?
To the extent that agents are concerned with image-signalingWhat do you mean by image-signaling in this context
Separately, though,Shouldn't you write something along the lines of On the other hand, ...?
Example textToo technical, remove.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
The collection of this evidence has led someWeasel phrase, please specify some.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 07:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I found this article very hard to understand. For example, take the third and final paragraph of the introduction now:
The phrase "either for some explicitly mentioned payment sum or for no additional payment at all" is an awkward way to say "for payment or unpaid." The second sentence doesn't make it clear as to whether the researchers care whether or how quickly the subjects perform the initial assignment. The third sentence is worst. How is "removing the incentive" different from "pre-payment"? Does "pre-payment" mean before payment was offered or after payment was offered and before it was given? Does "often" mean most of the time or not?
Here is the third and final paragraph of the article from a year ago when it was only three paragraphs:
References
That seems substantially clearer to me. Is there anywhere in the text that a similar summary is provided? How many of those sources are still cited? I generally don't mind difficult prose in the body of the article, as long as the introduction is completely clear and easy to understand. But the GA criterion says that the entire article should have good prose.
EllenCT (
talk) 21:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Done
W.s.campbell ( talk) 22:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Apologies. Think I've grown used to writing for an academic audience. I've polished the language you picked out. Thanks!
The introduction says, "the idea was first introduced ... by Richard Titmuss, who argued in 1970...." without providing a source for the claim. But the version from a year ago referenced the
backward bending supply curve of labour which goes
back to at least 1941. The connection
appears to be made in reliable sources, and the concepts seem nearly identical. The graph had been removed before I replaced it. I'm convinced that the unsourced Titmuss attribution as the origin of the concept is false.
EllenCT (
talk) 21:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC) Done
Titmuss [ sic] attribution as the origin of the concept is falseappears not to be supported by sources that I found about the subject. Titmuss is often cited as the origin.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
- For example, one study found that paying people to collect charitable donations actually caused them to collect fewer donations.
- The term "crowding out" was coined by Bruno Frey in 1997, but the idea was first introduced into economics much earlier by Richard Titmuss,[1][2] who argued in 1970 that offering financial incentives for blood donation could counter-intuitively lead to a drop in the total amount of blood donated. While the empirical evidence supporting crowding out for blood donation has been mixed, there has since been a long line of psychological and economic exploration supporting the basic phenomenon of crowding out.
Farang Rak Tham, phewwwwwwwww. What a process. Wow. Thanks for volunteering all of your help & stewardship. SO appreciated and am really glad to see how it stands!
W.s.campbell, your move.-- Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 16:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
No copyright violationsJust verifying: you're saying that there, in fact, are none, right? You're not suggesting that there are some I need to fix?--— Preceding unsigned comment added by W.s.campbell ( talk • contribs) date (UTC)
This was hugely helpful. Thanks so much! W.s.campbell ( talk) 17:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
Done! W.s.campbell ( talk) 22:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Good Article review progress box
|
Removing this from article to meet DYK standards after DYK got pulled.
In "Debate and meta-analyses" section the statement: "Through the debate, consensus seems to have emerged that crowding out reliably occurs if the following conditions are met:" does not seem to be supported by anything in the reference [33] (Gneezy, Uri; Meier, Stephan; Rey-Biel, Pedro (2011).) and the references for each condition do not really suggest an emerging consensus.
I think the options are either:
I don't have confidence in my knowledge in the area to know which option is best, but I thought I should flag it because it seemed very misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamespitt ( talk • contribs) 07:08, 20 June 2022 (UTC)