Talk:Motivation crowding theory

40px 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.

{{small|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:

• Added archive https://archive.is/20120717222231/http://journal.southerneconomic.org/doi/abs/10.4284/sej.2010.76.3.678 to http://journal.southerneconomic.org/doi/abs/10.4284/sej.2010.76.3.678
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100703161543/http://carmine.se.edu/cvonbergen/The_real_and_imagined_harmful%20effects%20of%20rewards.pdf to http://carmine.se.edu/cvonbergen/The_real_and_imagined_harmful%20effects%20of%20rewards.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}}

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:22, 6 February 2018 (UTC)

{{Talk:Motivation crowding theory/GA1}}

{{Template:Did you know nominations/Motivation Crowding Theory}}

Removing this from article to meet DYK standards after [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template:Did_you_know/Queue/1&diff=876786756&oldid=876597506&diffmode=source DYK got pulled].

• Thus, according to most theories before the 1970s, offering extrinsic incentives would only promote more of the rewarded behavior.

• Rewards can serve as a signal in two ways (described below), they argue: signals to actors and signals to observers.
• Rewards are conditional on task engagement.
• Rewards can be interpreted by the agent or observers as controlling.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 08:14, 23 June 2019 (UTC)

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:

• the statement be corrected to align with the existing references (e.g. "although a general consensus has not been achieved, some patterns are common in meta-analysis:")
• add references that align better with the existing statement
• remove the statement

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)