What the Research Says About Attention and Motivation
This page sums up the motivation research we hold. It covers motivation, not focus. It reports studies of dopamine, rewards, game features and expectation. Most findings name their study. Then it says what the research we hold does not show. Then it lists questions we plan to answer on later pages.
TL;DR
- This page sums up the motivation research we hold. It covers motivation, not focus. Most findings name their study.
- Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999) pooled 128 experiments. They found tangible rewards for doing a task undermined people's own motivation for tasks they already engaged with. Cameron, Pierce and Eisenberger argued that the effect is narrower. In their view, verbal praise and unexpected rewards do not undermine a person's own motivation.
- One review pooled studies of game features in learning (Sailer and Homner, 2020). It found gains in learning and in motivation. The motivation gains held up less well in the stricter studies.
- One review found game features raised intrinsic motivation (Huang and colleagues, 2023). They did no more for a sense of getting better than learning without them.
- One review describes what the brain's dopamine cells signal (Schultz, 2016). By its account, those cells fire in a burst when a reward is better than expected. A reward that was fully expected brings little or no response. None of the dopamine studies we hold measured children.
What the motivation research we hold covers
This page opens one of the ten areas in our research section. It reports what the studies we hold found, as strongly as they found it.
This page covers motivation, not focus.
This page covers dopamine and effort, rewards, and game features in learning. It also covers working to please a parent and expectation.
Read what a study does not show before you read what it found.
Dopamine and effort
This part covers studies of the brain's reward signal.
One review describes what the brain's dopamine cells signal (Schultz, 2016). By its account, those cells fire in a burst when a reward is better than expected. A reward that was fully expected brings little or no response.
Salamone and Correa (2012) reviewed studies in animals. In those studies, lowering dopamine did not reduce how much an animal liked a reward. It reduced how willing the animal was to work for it. A later review by other authors reads the effort evidence differently (Walton and Bouret, 2019).
These are studies of how the brain's reward signal works. None of the dopamine studies we hold measured children.
Rewards for doing the work
This part covers studies of rewards for doing a task.
Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999) pooled 128 experiments on rewards and motivation. They found tangible rewards for doing a task undermined people's own motivation for tasks they already engaged with.
Cameron, Pierce and Eisenberger replied in the same journal. They argued that the effect is narrower. They argued that verbal praise and unexpected rewards do not undermine a person's own motivation. They also argued that a reward can help on a task of little interest to begin with.
Game features in learning
This part covers one theory of motivation and two reviews of game features.
One theory of motivation names three needs (Ryan and Deci, 2000). It calls them autonomy, competence and relatedness. In plain words, a person feels the work is their own. They feel themselves getting better. And they feel they belong. In this theory, a person's own drive grows when those needs are met. It is a framework, not a proven mechanism.
One review pooled studies of game features in learning (Sailer and Homner, 2020). It found gains in learning and in motivation. The motivation gains held up less well in the stricter studies.
One review mapped game features in learning onto those three needs (Huang and colleagues, 2023). In it, game features raised students' intrinsic motivation. They also raised a sense of ownership and of belonging. They did no more for a sense of getting better than learning without them. Some game features lowered it.
Working to please a parent
This part covers one study of parents' involvement and children's motivation.
One study followed 825 children in the US and China through grades 7 and 8 (Cheung and Pomerantz, 2012). The more involved the parents, the more children wanted to do well for them. That went with children managing their own learning, and through that, with grades. The links were small. The authors call this a kind of controlled motivation. It centers on avoiding guilt and winning approval. They expect it to matter less in younger children.
When a gain may be the expectation
This part covers one study of expectation in brain training.
Foroughi and colleagues (2016) posted two flyers. Some adults answered a flyer that promised brain training. After one hour of training, they improved on a reasoning test. Other adults answered a plain flyer and did the same hour. They showed no significant gain. That is a caution, not a method. A gain someone reports can be the expectation they came in with. It was measured in adults. This study tells us nothing about children.
The adults chose which flyer to answer. So the two groups may have differed in other ways too.
What the motivation research we hold does not show
This part covers the limits of the studies on this page.
No study of any Learning Success program exists.
The dopamine studies on this page describe how the brain's reward signal works. None of the dopamine studies we hold measured children.
The effort finding comes from Salamone and Correa's review of animal studies (2012). A later review by other authors reads the effort evidence differently (Walton and Bouret, 2019).
Foroughi and colleagues (2016) studied adults. This study tells us nothing about children. The adults chose which of two flyers to answer. So the two groups may have differed in other ways too.
In Sailer and Homner's review (2020), motivation gains held up less well in stricter studies.
Our rule is that no page says how your child will change by a given week or month.
Does Learning Success build on this?
Partly. We use one point from this page. The line we work from is the narrow one. It covers a tangible reward attached to doing the work.
We built our programs without game rewards like points and badges. That is our design choice, not a tested result.
In no case do we claim a study's result for our program.
No study of any Learning Success program exists.
Questions we plan to answer on later pages
Later pages in this area are planned. None of them is written yet.
- What does dopamine do in learning, and what has been measured?
- Why can a reward for schoolwork backfire?
- Do points and badges help children learn?
- When might a training gain be the expectation, not the training?
- One theory names three needs behind motivation. What does it say?
The studies
- Schultz (2016). Dopamine reward prediction-error signalling: a two-component response. Nature Reviews Neuroscience 17:183–195. DOI 10.1038/nrn.2015.26.
- Salamone and Correa (2012). The Mysterious Motivational Functions of Mesolimbic Dopamine. Neuron 76(3):470–485. DOI 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.021.
- Walton and Bouret (2019). What Is the Relationship between Dopamine and Effort? Trends in Neurosciences 42(2):79–91. DOI 10.1016/j.tins.2018.10.001.
- Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999). A meta-analytic review of experiments examining the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. Psychological Bulletin 125(6):627–668.
- Cameron, Pierce and Eisenberger (1999). Comment in the same issue of Psychological Bulletin.
- Ryan and Deci (2000). Self-Determination Theory and the Facilitation of Intrinsic Motivation, Social Development, and Well-Being. American Psychologist 55(1):68–78.
- Sailer and Homner (2020). The Gamification of Learning: a Meta-analysis. Educational Psychology Review 32:77–112. DOI 10.1007/s10648-019-09498-w.
- Huang, Ren, Yang and colleagues (2023). Gamification enhances student intrinsic motivation, perceptions of autonomy and relatedness, but minimal impact on competency: a meta-analysis and systematic review. Educational Technology Research & Development. DOI 10.1007/s11423-023-10337-7.
- Cheung and Pomerantz (2012). Why does parents' involvement enhance children's achievement? The role of parent-oriented motivation. Journal of Educational Psychology 104(3):820–832. DOI 10.1037/a0027183.
- Foroughi, Monfort, Paczynski, McKnight and Greenwood (2016). Placebo effects in cognitive training. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 113(27):7470–7474. DOI 10.1073/pnas.1601243113.
Think of one reward you use for schoolwork. Is it something your child gets for doing the work, or praise while they work? The studies on this page treat those two differently.
”What to do tonightCommon questions from parents
Is dopamine the brain's pleasure chemical?
One review describes what the brain's dopamine cells signal (Schultz, 2016). By its account, those cells fire in a burst when a reward is better than expected. A reward that was fully expected brings little or no response. Salamone and Correa (2012) reviewed studies in animals. In those studies, lowering dopamine did not reduce how much an animal liked a reward. It reduced how willing the animal was to work for it. A later review by other authors reads the effort evidence differently (Walton and Bouret, 2019). These are studies of how the brain's reward signal works. None of the dopamine studies we hold measured children.
Do rewards for schoolwork backfire?
Deci, Koestner and Ryan (1999) pooled 128 experiments. They found tangible rewards for doing a task undermined people's own motivation for tasks they already engaged with. Cameron, Pierce and Eisenberger argued that the effect is narrower. In their view, verbal praise and unexpected rewards do not undermine a person's own motivation.
Can a reported training gain be the expectation, not the training?
Foroughi and colleagues (2016) posted two flyers. Some adults answered a flyer that promised brain training. After one hour of training, they improved on a reasoning test. Other adults answered a plain flyer and did the same hour. They showed no significant gain. That is a caution, not a method. A gain someone reports can be the expectation they came in with. It was measured in adults. This study tells us nothing about children. The adults chose which flyer to answer. So the two groups may have differed in other ways too.