Why Rewarding Yourself for a Habit Can Backfire
A classic 1973 study on kids and drawing found that adding a reward to something people already enjoyed made them do it less. What this means for habit trackers and streaks.
Rewarding yourself for a habit sounds like it should help, but a classic 1973 study found the opposite can happen. When kids who already enjoyed drawing were told they'd get a reward for it, they later drew less than kids who were never promised anything. Adding an external reward to something you already liked seems to quietly replace your own reason for doing it with the reward itself, which disappears the moment the reward does.
The drawing study that started it
In 1973, psychologists Mark Lepper, David Greene, and Richard Nisbett ran a study with preschoolers who already liked drawing during free playtime, no prompting needed. They split the children into groups: one group was told in advance they’d get a certificate for drawing, one group got the same certificate as a surprise afterward with no expectation set, and one group got nothing at all.
Weeks later, when the researchers observed the same children during free play, the group that had expected a reward spent noticeably less time drawing than the other two groups. Promising a reward for something the kids already loved doing seemed to have quietly taken some of the love out of it.
Why adding a reward can subtract motivation
The explanation comes from what’s now called self-determination theory, developed by psychologists Edward Deci and Richard Ryan. The theory proposes that people don’t just have motivation, they also interpret their own motivation after the fact, essentially asking themselves “why am I doing this?” When an external reward is clearly the reason on offer, the mind tends to quietly answer “because of the reward,” even if the activity was originally enjoyable on its own.
The catch is that once you’ve reattributed your own motivation to the reward, the reward becomes load-bearing. Take it away, and the behavior often drops below where it started, because the original, internal reason has been crowded out in the meantime.
This isn’t an argument against all rewards
It’s worth being precise here, because this finding gets oversimplified a lot. The overjustification effect shows up specifically for tasks people already found intrinsically enjoyable. For tasks people find boring or effortful with no inherent appeal, external rewards generally don’t backfire the same way, and can genuinely help get things started. The risk is narrower and more specific: don’t bolt an external reward onto something you were already doing for its own sake, since that’s the exact condition where the effect shows up.
What this means for habit tracking and streaks
- Notice what you already enjoy. If a habit already feels satisfying on its own, heavy gamification (badges, points, streak pressure) is the thing most likely to quietly undercut it.
- Save external rewards for the genuinely unpleasant parts. Tasks you don’t inherently enjoy are a safer place to add an external incentive.
- Watch your own reasoning. If you notice you’re doing something “just to keep the streak,” that’s worth a second look. It may mean the streak has replaced the actual reason you started, which is the same trap a long, overloaded goal list can quietly set for you too.
- Let feedback be information, not a prize. Seeing your own progress is different from being rewarded for it. The research distinction is subtle but real: information about your behavior doesn’t seem to trigger the same effect that an explicit reward does.
This is part of why Me Improve avoids point systems and badges. It shows your streak and completion rate as plain information, not as a prize to chase, so your own reasons for a habit stay intact instead of quietly getting replaced. See how it works.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the overjustification effect?
It's when adding an external reward for a behavior you already enjoy actually reduces your motivation to do that behavior once the reward is gone. The classic demonstration is a 1973 study by Mark Lepper, David Greene, and Richard Nisbett, where children who expected a reward for drawing, an activity they already liked, later spent less time drawing than children who were never offered a reward at all.
Does this mean all rewards are bad for motivation?
No. The effect shows up specifically when a reward is added to something a person already found enjoyable on its own (intrinsic motivation). Rewards for tasks people don't find inherently interesting don't show the same backfire, and in some cases genuinely help. The risk is narrower than "never reward yourself," it's about not attaching external rewards to things you were already doing for their own sake.
What's the theory behind why this happens?
Self-determination theory, developed by psychologists Edward Deci and Richard Ryan, proposes that people reinterpret their own motivation based on the situation. If you're doing something and get rewarded for it, part of your mind quietly concludes "I must be doing this for the reward," which crowds out the original "I do this because I like it." Once the reward disappears, so does the reason you'd built for continuing.
How does this apply to habit trackers and streaks?
A streak counter or a badge system can function like an external reward layered on top of a habit. For habits you already find some satisfaction in, this research suggests that heavy gamification runs a real risk of quietly replacing your own reasons for doing it with the badge itself, which is a fragile thing to depend on long term.