Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35548550›Full record

ArticleFrontiers in psychology2022

Reward Salience and Choice in a Controlling Context: A Lab Experiment.

Rosa Hendijani, Piers Steel

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Frontiers in psychology, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.8field-weighted citation impact, top 16% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Motivation and Time: Motivational Congruence Theory's Stance.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2025
    Article
  3. Time Dilation in Motivational Congruence Theory's Paradigm.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2025
    Article
  4. Does Free Will Really Exist? The Motivational Congruence Theory's Perspective.Integrative psychological & behavioral science · 2024
    Review
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors at 2 institutions in 2 countries.

Rosa HendijaniFaculty of Management, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran.
Piers SteelHaskayne School of Business, University of Calgary, Calgary, AB, Canada.
University of Calgary · CAUniversity of Tehran · IR

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

One of the challenges in the motivation literature is examining the simultaneous effect of different motivational mechanisms on overall motivation and performance. The motivational congruence theory addresses this by stipulating that different motivational mechanisms can reinforce each other if they have similar effects on the perceived locus of causality. Reward salience and choice are two motivational mechanisms which their joint effects have been long debated. Built upon the motivational congruence effect, a recent empirical study affirms that a salient reward in a condition characterized by lack of choice and a non-salient reward in a condition characterized by provision of choice both increase overall motivation and performance. In this study, we examine the effect of reward salience and choice on overall motivation and performance in a controlling context, an effect which has not been studied before. A 2 (choice: present, absent) × 3 (reward: salient, non-salient, none) factorial design was conducted to examine research hypotheses. The results show that under controlling conditions, salient reward improves overall motivation and performance compared to non-salient and no-reward conditions.

Indexed as

choicemotivationperformanceperformance-contingent rewardreward salience

Identifiers

PMID35548550
PMCPMC9083268
OpenAlexW4224849983

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.