Talk:Motivation crowding theory/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Farang Rak Tham (talk · contribs) 22:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Will do this in a bit.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 22:21, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Introduction
I graduated Master in I&O Psychology, but do not work in the field, so my knowledge maybe outdated. I have no knowledge of economics.

Overview

 * 1. Prose:
 * Section titles should normally not include the name of the article: e.g. "Psychological theories" is better than "Psychological theories explaining crowding out"; for "Early findings of crowding out" the same holds. ✅
 * There are no copyright violations. So that's good.
 * The article reads a bit rough at times. Below I will do a detailed review. ✅
 * Please remove all bolded text except for synonyms of the article's title. ✅
 * 2. MOS::Shouldn't navigation boxes have a backlink of the article?
 * I wasn't sure what this meant. Sorry!-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by W.s.campbell (talk • contribs) date (UTC)
 * The graph mentions a theory which is not mentioned in the body of the text. You have to either adjust the caption or expand the text. -- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:46, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * The graph was added by someone else. I've removed it. Good catch! W.s.campbell (talk) 17:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 3. References layout: No dead links. Looks perfect, sources can easily be identified.
 * 4. Reliable sources:
 * These look very good, though I would cut out the Daniel Pink source, reference 22. It doesn't appear reliable enough. Try looking for that Sawyer Effect in academic or reliable news sources. ✅
 * I clarified the language a bit to make clear that this is just the name that has been used (dubbed by Pink, used in pop psych, management consulting, etc) in popular print. It's just Pink's renaming of the work on motivation crowding theory I outline in the article, but I reference it because it's rather well known in some professional circles.W.s.campbell (talk) 20:08, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Not sure what you mean, but it's a popular source with not sufficient quality for an article like this, especially at GA level. Furthermore, you are using it to support an entire paragraph. ✅ -- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Thank you for removing the Pink source, but you have left the content unsourced. You should find a source for this content, or move it to talk page for the time being.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 15:20, 9 April 2019 (UTC) ✅
 * All of those ideas are attributable to the sources cited ([20] and [6]), which have been moved to the end of the paragraph.
 * Usually a citation is given at the end of the content (sentence or paragraph), yes.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:23, 9 April 2019 (UTC) ✅


 * Some parts of the article are unsourced. You need to source these or delete them. ✅
 * It appears that one more tag has been added.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
 * 5. Original research: Possibly, because some parts are unsourced. ✅
 * 6. Broadness: ...
 * 7. Focus: Yes.
 * 8. Neutral: Yes.
 * 9. Stable: article is stable.
 * 10-11. Pics: Relevant and licensed, though you might want to specify in the caption what volunteer firefighters have to do with motivation crowding theory. ✅

Detailed review per section
I will continue with a detailed review per section. Feel free to insert replies or inquiries. To keep communication to the point, you might want to use templates like ✅,, , , , and. Please do not cross out my comments, as I will not yours but only my own. I will do the review of the lead mostly at the end.

Previous thinking

 * The section title sounds a bit awkward. Perhaps "History" will suffice. ✅
 * Changed. W.s.campbell (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

W.s.campbell (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * closer to the time of the behavior. closer to implies both before and after. Is this correct? ✅
 * Thus, according to most thinking ... according to most theories? ✅
 * has an immediate relative-price effect what does this mean? ✅
 * These behaviors are said ... Sounds like hearsay more than scientific theory. ✅
 * The phrase marked with (see below) should still be sourced. If you are repeating information later, you might not need to source it anymore, but usually, we don't repeat ourselves much in encyclopedia articles.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:23, 5 April 2019 (UTC) ✅
 * Not sure what you mean by "the phrase marked with (see below)..." but I think I've fixed this.
 * I meant paragraph. This one:
 * -- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC) ✅

Dependent measures

 * A wide range of behaviors has been investigated for crowding out You haven't defined crowding out yet. You should give sufficient attention to the "what part" before you go to the why and how. ✅
 * In almost all cases, crowding out is measured either as self-reported interest in the activity after an incentive has been provided or by measuring engagement in the activity, unbeknownst to experimental subjects, in a free-choice time period during which subjects believe the experiment has ended and after full compensation has been provided. Too long sentence, please split in multiple sentences.-- Farang Rak Tham  ✅  (Talk) 20:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Independent variables
Interesting to read that crowding out doesn't occur in performance-contingent awards. I wasn't aware of that. 22:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments here, Farang! They're very encouraging.


 * Deci, Koestner, and Ryan (1999) You usually do not need to mention the year of the study inline. As for the authors, usually you would just mention them if their opinion is not mainstream and cannot be stated in "Wikipedia's voice". After all, they are mentioned in the citation anyway. ✅

Early evidence

 * This research considered the effect of monetary, tangible, and symbolic rewards How are tangible and monetary awards different? ✅
 * You should normally not use more than three citations after a sentence, as this is considered WP:CITATION OVERKILL, which may affect neutrality. Instead, put all the references you cite there in one single citation, so it doesn't look like you are pushing some opinion with lists of citations. For example, you might use the refn template for that. ✅
 * Deci (1971) Please add the citation in format. Be consistent in your citation style. ✅
 * There are still some cases left, especially in the list of studies.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 15:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Got them all. Sorry about that. W.s.campbell (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No problem.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * For instance, there has been work showing that increasing penalties can actually lower obedience with the law and decrease worker performance. Is this connection to the subject of motivation crowding theory made by you or by the secondary literature? Just asking. ✅
 * The The American Economic Review study does not mention crowding out at all. If there is no such connection in the source mentioned, nor in other sources, you cannot include it here, per OR policy.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 15:29, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Akerlof & Dickens (1982) argue that imposing harsher penalties for crimes may actually be counterproductive. In fact, this summary is in a footnote of Benabou & Tirole (2003), cited elsewhere in the article! They don't use the phrase "crowding out" (there're lots of different titles for the phenomenon)--I'm using it here just as another context in which adding an incentive can have a backfiring effect. W.s.campbell (talk) 19:12, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Alright, then.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Motivational theories
I can follow this section, but I don't think people without a psychological background can. Please try to find a concrete example in the literature cited. And speaking of citing, there is still a lot of unsourced content here.
 * Helpful feedback (as always!), Farang. Thanks! I included a more concrete example from the Deci literature. As for citation, same issue as above where the ideas of the entire paragraph are contained within the citation I made after the first sentence. I replicated the citation at the end of the paragraph for clarity. W.s.campbell (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * You are welcome. How about we write performance in general instead of extant performance? That's what you mean, right? If that's what you mean, you might have to add the words in general after high status or high achievement which is mentioned later on. Also, personally, I think the phrase (i.e. a merit-based award) is not particularly helpful in this context. It doesn't explain the difference between the two ways of giving awards externally.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:36, 9 April 2019 (UTC) ✅
 * Changed to "performance in general." I changed the "i.e." to an "e.g."--a merit-based award is one example of an extrinsic reward that may be seen as a non-controlling status signal and thus, according to these Motivational Theories, may not crowd out intrinsic motivation. Happy to change that if you disagree. W.s.campbell (talk) 17:10, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Attributional theories

 * Please source everything.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 15:38, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Those two sentences are both linked to the Lepper paper that I reference and then cite. I moved the citation up one sentence to hopefully clarify.

Behavioral theories

 * You need to simplify the content, it's not explained clearly. In particular:
 * Dickinson argues that part of why these behaviors are socially praised is precisely because they are not connected with any particular reinforcers. Thus, the introduction of a specific reinforcer such as an extrinsic reward lowers the public praise. It isn't clear why an extrinsic reward would diminish the praise.
 * If this effect is larger than the size of the specific reinforcer How is the diminishing of public praise larger than the size of a specific reinforcer? And what do you mean by size?
 * then free-choice selection of that behavior will decrease And this leads to crowding out, I suppose?-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 15:49, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * These comments were SUPER helpful. Thanks, thanks, thanks, Farang! W.s.campbell (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Nicely fixed.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:47, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Economic utility theories

 * utility function What is this?
 * I linked to the wiki article on Utility (which has a section on Utility Functions) W.s.campbell (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Some content is unsourced.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 15:52, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Same issue with citations as above: I cited the article after the first sentence, which applied to the ideas of the whole paragraph. I moved it. W.s.campbell (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Signals to actors

 * sufficiently skilled or motivated without such incentives Shouldn't this just be motivated? How can a person suddenly become more skilled with the right incentives? ✅
 * are said to infer something about the activity are understood to interpret the activity ... ? ✅
 * I tried to tighten this language a bit. W.s.campbell (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Please move the citation.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC) ✅

Signals to observers about actors' motivations

 * To the extent that agents are concerned with image-signaling What do you mean by image-signaling in this context ? ✅
 * Clarified. Thanks, Farang! W.s.campbell (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Debate and meta-analyses

 * Separately, though, Shouldn't you write something along the lines of On the other hand, ...? ✅
 * You mention dependent measures twice in this sentence. Is this correct ? ✅
 * Yes, that was correct, but I updated the language to be a bit clearer. The *kind* of measure is considering a moderating factor that determines the presence/absence/extent of crowding out. W.s.campbell (talk) 17:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * (typical effect sizes are in the range of d=0.3 to d=0.5) Too technical, remove.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:40, 10 April 2019 (UTC) ✅

Applications

 * The collection of this evidence has led some Weasel phrase, please specify some.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC) ✅
 * I used the slightly-less-weasely (thanks for the LOL at "weasel"!) "some economists" and have a citation to an example article. That good? W.s.campbell (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Sure. Please note that weasel is a technical term, no offense intended.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:46, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Broadness

 * Apparently, there is also a related phenomenon called crowding-in. Please mention this briefly.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 09:20, 10 April 2019 (UTC) Here and here is more about the relation between crowding-in and crowding-out. 84 and 210 cites on Google Scholar, respectively.--  Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 15:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC) ✅
 * Really cool! Thanks for the heads up, Farang! I mentioned it as a consequence of the economic view. W.s.campbell (talk) 17:26, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Prose concerns
I found this article very hard to understand. For example, take the third and final paragraph of the introduction now:


 * The typical study of crowding out involves assigning subjects a task to complete either for some explicitly mentioned payment sum or for no additional payment at all. Researchers then look to self-reported measures of motivation for completing the task, willingness to complete additional rounds of the task for no additional compensation, or both. Removing the extrinsic incentive often diminishes overall interest and willingness to engage in the task compared to pre-payment levels.

The phrase "either for some explicitly mentioned payment sum or for no additional payment at all" is an awkward way to say "for payment or unpaid." The second sentence doesn't make it clear as to whether the researchers care whether or how quickly the subjects perform the initial assignment. The third sentence is worst. How is "removing the incentive" different from "pre-payment"? Does "pre-payment" mean before payment was offered or after payment was offered and before it was given? Does "often" mean most of the time or not?

Here is the third and final paragraph of the article from a year ago when it was only three paragraphs:


 * Researchers are interested in understanding the conditions which maximize motivation and productivity. Recent studies and literature reviews suggest that as managers have become more aware of the conditions involved in influencing overall motivation, external incentives for volunteers and laborers have not led to decreases in intrinsic motivation or output productivity.    Those results are consistent with an earlier meta-analysis that found intrinsic motivation is only diminished by tangible rewards when they are both expected and given simply for doing a task, and then those rewards are removed, instead of given for achieving the task's goals, or given unexpectedly. 

That seems substantially clearer to me. Is there anywhere in the text that a similar summary is provided? How many of those sources are still cited? I generally don't mind difficult prose in the body of the article, as long as the introduction is completely clear and easy to understand. But the GA criterion says that the entire article should have good prose. EllenCT (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC) ✅

W.s.campbell (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC) Apologies. Think I've grown used to writing for an academic audience. I've polished the language you picked out. Thanks!

Accuracy/OR
The introduction says, "the idea was first introduced ... by Richard Titmuss, who argued in 1970...." without providing a source for the claim. But the version from a year ago referenced the backward bending supply curve of labour which goes back to at least 1941. The connection appears to be made in reliable sources, and the concepts seem nearly identical. The graph had been removed before I replaced it. I'm convinced that the unsourced Titmuss attribution as the origin of the concept is false. EllenCT (talk) 21:05, 2 April 2019 (UTC) ✅


 * The economic idea of a backward bending supply curve is tremendously different from crowding out. Where crowding out is the loss of motivation from introducing extrinsic incentives, backward bending supply curves result, e.g., from income targeting where an increase in hourly wages results in fewer hours worked since people reach pre-determined income targets. W.s.campbell (talk) 17:07, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * I have a number of comments with regard to the lead and 's comments:
 * A number of reliable sources cited in the old version mentioned by Ellen have since been removed. Campbell, are you aware of why this happened? E.g. in this edit, you removed a significant portion of reliably sourced information, including some references.
 * I'm happy to put those references back in if you suggest where you think they should go (or I trust your judgment if you want to insert them yourself). I chose my citations based on the most prominent research/researchers in the field. Among the 7 cited in a previous version, 3 are also cited by me because they feature some of the most important researchers in the field (Bruno Frey, Robert Eisenberger & Judy Cameron) and 2 of them are broken/orphaned links. Does the article, as it presently stands, seem to lack sufficient scientific corroboration/citations? W.s.campbell (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * No, of course it doesn't. I just wanted to know your reasoning.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 22:05, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Ellen's comment that Titmuss [sic] attribution as the origin of the concept is false appears not to be supported by sources that I found about the subject. Titmuss is often cited as the origin.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 08:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * you say that the concepts are "tremendously different" and I would like to understand why. Both involve unexpected decreases in output as extrinsic incentives are increased, do they not? What do you think is the essential difference between the two? EllenCT (talk) 14:48, 17 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Hi, . Thanks for your points here. You're definitely right that both concepts involve people doing less of a task. And I'm happy to make mention of it in here (just let me know!), but I do think the concepts are pretty unrelated.
 * Typical example of backwards bending supply curve: Someone wants to make $1,000/week. She is paid $20/hour so decides to work 50 hours and stops working there. Where neoclassical economics would predict that increasing her salary to $25/hour would mean she'd be willing to work more, backward bending supply would occur if she instead realizes that she can earn her target income by reducing to 40 hours a week and so increased wages lead to stagnant or reduced productivity.
 * Typical example of crowding out: A teacher is motivated to tutor his students after school each day because he wants his students to grow. However, once the school introduces an incentive scheme that pays $15 for each day that he stays to tutor, he now thinks "It's not worth the $15, I'll go home." Or, if the fund dries up and he is no longer offered money to tutor, he ceases to tutor (where he was previously tutoring without any incentive).
 * I'm not sure that these two concepts are related enough to merit joining them. They both involve doing less of a task, but the relationship stops there. Also, backward bending supply already has a wiki page devoted which doesn't even mention crowding out, in fact. I just included a link to that page in the "See Also" section but am happy to make an explicit connection if you'd like & think the two ideas are close enough. If so, where would you suggest it goes?
 * W.s.campbell (talk) 17:19, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Simply the fact that a concept is related to the subject of the article isn't sufficient reason for inclusion, except for concepts that are frequently connected with the subject of the article in RS, such as the crowding-in mentioned above. So if the backwards bending supply curve isn't frequently connected with the article's subject, there is no need to include it.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 07:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Well put. Thanks! W.s.campbell (talk) 15:27, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Farang's final review

 * Per wikipedia guideline, the lead should not contain any citations because it only covers content that is already mentioned in the body of the article. Exceptions are very rudimentary and very controversial information. Which means that all the citation numbers need to go, though, considering Ellen's recent comments, you can leave the one for Titmuss. Nevertheless, you should also mention in the body of the article that Titmuss came up with the theory. ✅
 * In other words, whatever you mention in the lead, should also be mentioned in the body, and the citation number should be there, not in the lead. ✅
 * OK, think I've taken care of them all! W.s.campbell (talk) 15:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Good, but a great deal of the lead isn't mentioned in the body of the article. So you need to copy and preferably expand a little on the content mentioned in the lead. Again, the lead should be a summary of all the main points in the article, and nothing more.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 22:18, 20 April 2019 (UTC) ✅
 * Think I've got it all in there now!W.s.campbell (talk) 15:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)
 * These two parts are not found in the body of the article:


 * Please add that information to the body of the article as well.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 11:17, 22 April 2019 (UTC) ✅


 * I have no other comments with regard to the lead.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 08:16, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

, phewwwwwwwww. What a process. Wow. Thanks for volunteering all of your help & stewardship. SO appreciated and am really glad to see how it stands!
 * , you are welcome. Please note that most reviews are not this long—I am particularly known for that. Then again, some people appreciate that, because the article is less likely to become delisted from GA, and it will be easier to bring it to FA later. Most reviews are only 2–3 pages long.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 15:29, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

April 2019
, your move.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 16:31, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
 * This is *awesome*! Thanks a bunch for the feedback. Apologies in advance if I've broken the norms of how I should reply to your comments; this is my first article! I've made all changes you recommended except the following:
 * No copyright violations Just verifying: you're saying that there, in fact, are none, right? You're not suggesting that there are some I need to fix?-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by W.s.campbell (talk • contribs) date (UTC)


 * No, I'm not, you have no copyright violations but I had to check it because of the GA criteria.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of reorganizing your comments and those of. As I said, I will get to the lead at the end. Meanwhile, as I continue with commenting,, you should feel free to respond to EllenCT's comments, time allowing.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:10, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

This was hugely helpful. Thanks so much! W.s.campbell (talk) 17:28, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * , there are new comments. Since the review has now lasted for seven days, I am putting on hold, to give you more time to improve the article.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 21:25, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Done! W.s.campbell (talk) 22:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
 * New comments. I will underline the remaining old comments, in the sections which have not been crossed out yet (see Table of Contents).-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 15:54, 9 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Farang, thanks so much for helping me through this process. SUPER helpful. All changes made and comments embedded above. W.s.campbell (talk) 19:31, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , your move.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 15:28, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , are you still pursuing this? You finished about 70% already.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 20:00, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , I think I've gotten them all. This has been an awesome process thanks to you!
 * , I have a question with regard to Ellen's comments, and would like you to adjust some things in the lead. There is also a minor comment left above, underlined, in the section "Previous thinking".-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 08:21, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , just making sure I'm not missing anything. Thanks for leading this process! W.s.campbell (talk) 09:29, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , .-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 11:23, 22 April 2019 (UTC)

, please correct the lead according to the guidelines I have given above (underlined), and we can wrap this up. Thanks.-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 16:39, 27 April 2019 (UTC)
 * Okay, I've made a few tweaks to the lead and it's all done. I am passing for GA. Two more things: Let me know if you do a DYK and I might help, and secondly, if you would care to a review of one of my articles at WP:GAN (to take revenge ), I would appreciate that very much. See you around!-- Farang Rak Tham   (Talk) 18:29, 28 April 2019 (UTC)