長久以來，許多研究對於財務性獎勵是否會損害工作表現，特別是對於內因興趣的工作表現抱持著不同的看法。Jenkins, Mitra, Gupta, & Shaw (1998) 與 Weibel et al. (2010)是兩篇廣為引用的後設分析論文，Jenkins et al. (1998)在 Journal of Applied Psychology發表獎勵對於工作的正向效應量為 d = +.72; 相對的Weibel et al. (2010)卻發現效應量為負向 d = -.13，等於在財務性獎酬對工作表現影響的效應量分析上相差.85標準差。本研究提出須要重新分析這兩篇後設分析的研究，並且比較結果，試圖找出差異的理由。這也相當符合目前心理學領域重現過往研究發現的新趨勢，本研究將對於釐清動機理論和獎酬實務間的主要關係有所貢獻。 ;There continues to be disagreement about whether financial incentives undermine or enhance performance, especially in intrinsically interesting tasks. Although the Jenkins, Mitra, Gupta, & Shaw (1998) meta-analysis published in Journal of Applied Psychology finds a positive effect of incentives, including in intrinsically interesting tasks (d = +.72), a more recent and widely cited meta-analysis by reports, in contrast, a negative effect (d = -.13) of incentives on performance in interesting tasks. Thus, the effect size for interesting tasks differs by .85 standard deviations between the two meta-analyses, a very large difference. The present proposal seeks to identify the reason why the Jenkins et al. (1998) and Weibel et al. (2010) meta-analyses report such dramatically conflicting findings on the important question of how incentives affect performance in intrinsically interesting tasks. The results could provide a contribution in clarifying the nature of a key relationship with major implications for motivation theory and compensation practice in the workplace.
