The detrimental effects of extrinsic reinforcement on "Intrinsic motivation".

Baum (1989) wrote a theory paper. It asked: do outside rewards kill inner drive?

The author combed past studies. He looked for lasting harm from tokens, praise, or pay.

He set rules for safe reward use. They must be earned, non-competitive, and repeated.

The review found no proof that rewards wreck motivation. Harm only showed up in weak lab tasks.

When rewards were tied to real performance, people stayed interested after the payoff ended.

Dyer (1987) extends this idea. He showed strong external reinforcers beat autistic stereotypy and lifted work output. The data match the claim that potent rewards can out-muscle inner reinforcers.

Hawkes et al. (1974) is a predecessor. They used extinction to cut self-stim and saw play rise. Baum (1989) later explained why: removing the inner payoff let outside contingencies take over.

Matson et al. (2013) seems to clash. They added social praise for stereotypy and saw no boost, yet M says rewards help. The gap is method: L praised the very behavior we want down, while M calls for rewarding alternate, skillful acts.

Stop fearing that your token board will zap motivation. Use it, but tie tokens to clear performance, keep the task challenging, and fade later. If stereotypy keeps winning, run a quick reinforcer check—Dyer (1987) proved stronger external items can still compete. And when extinction feels harsh, remember Hawkes et al. (1974): killing the inner payoff opens room for new, reinforced play.