ArticleJournal of applied behavior analysis2017
A quantitative review of overjustification effects in persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities.
Article in Journal of applied behavior analysis, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- PRT-based multisensory smart education prototype for intervention in children with autism spectrum disorder.iScience · 2026Article
- Examining non-reinforced lever pressing as intrinsically-motivated behavior.Animal cognition · 2026Article
- Building a Social Justice Framework for Cultural and Linguistic Diversity in ABA.Behavior analysis in practice · 2022Review
- Reward Salience and Choice in a Controlling Context: A Lab Experiment.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Article
- Behavioral treatment of automatically reinforced SIB: 1982 - 2015.Journal of applied behavior analysis · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The overjustification hypothesis suggests that extrinsic rewards undermine intrinsic motivation. Extrinsic rewards are common in strengthening behavior in persons with intellectual and developmental disabilities; we examined overjustification effects in this context. A literature search yielded 65 data sets permitting comparison of responding during an initial no-reinforcement phase to a subsequent no-reinforcement phase, separated by a reinforcement phase. We used effect sizes to compare response levels in these two no-reinforcement phases. Overall, the mean effect size did not differ from zero; levels in the second no-reinforcement phase were equally likely to be higher or lower than in the first. However, in contrast to the overjustification hypothesis, levels were higher in the second no-reinforcement phase when comparing the single no-reinforcement sessions immediately before and after reinforcement. Outcomes consistent with the overjustification hypothesis were somewhat more likely when the target behavior occurred at relatively higher levels prior to reinforcement.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.