Do Reward Charts Actually Work? What the Research Says

← All blog articles · Rewards & Motivation topic hub

Quick answer: Do reward charts work? Often yes, at least while the chart runs, for a few tasks a child currently avoids: in a classroom token-chart study and a 422-child vegetable trial, rewards raised the targeted behavior. The catch, the overjustification effect, shows up in the big research reviews mainly when kids expect a tangible reward for something they already enjoy. Most reward chart research comes from short experiments and parenting programs, not long-term studies of home chore charts, so it can guide design but can't promise lasting change.

Explore the kitchen

Overview1Tasks kids avoid2Stickers for veggies3Already-loved activities4Dull chores5Kindness6Design and ending

When rewards help and when they backfire

Each pin marks one finding from the reward research, colored by how strong the evidence is. The risky case is a promised prize for something a child already loves.

• Stronger evidence
• Some evidence
• Limited evidence
• Unverified or untested

Next: Tasks kids avoid

Are reward charts effective? The evidence for

A reward chart is a home version of what psychologists call a token economy, in which a child collects stickers, points or stars and later trades them for something they want. By 1982, Alan Kazdin's review described token economies spreading widely, into treatment and rehabilitation programs, schools and community projects (Kazdin, 1982).

A 2016 review of five behavioral parent-training programs for children with disruptive behavior problems, all in the Hanf tradition, found token economies were a core component of three: COPE, Defiant Children and the Incredible Years. Parent-Child Interaction Therapy mentions them at its last session and doesn't treat them as a key part (Kaehler and colleagues, 2016).

Controlled experiments point the same way. In a cluster-randomized trial with 422 children aged 4 to 6 in UK schools, kids tasted a vegetable they disliked in 12 daily sessions, for a sticker, for praise or for no reward. Liking rose in all three tasting groups compared with untreated controls, and the gain in how much children ate lasted three months in both reward groups but faded in the no-reward group; only the sticker group differed significantly from tasting alone (Cooke and colleagues, 2011). In a 1976 classroom study, 44 fourth and fifth graders earned credit toward their school's math awards, tracked on a large wall chart, for time spent with particular math games. While the chart was up, all three rewarded groups spent significantly more time with their target games than comparison children, who could earn the same credit for any of the four games (Greene and colleagues, 1976).

One caveat: rewards are rarely the whole intervention. In a meta-analysis of 77 parent-training evaluations for children up to age 7, the components most consistently tied to bigger effects included more positive parent-child interaction, time-out, consistent parenting and parents rehearsing new skills with their child during sessions (Kaminski and colleagues, 2008). A chart works inside a warm, consistent routine; it doesn't replace one.

Can rewards backfire? The overjustification effect

In Mark Lepper and colleagues' 1973 experiment, nursery-school children who already liked a drawing activity were randomly assigned to draw for a promised "Good Player" certificate, to get it unexpectedly, or to get nothing (Lepper and colleagues, 1973). About two weeks later, those who had drawn for the promised award spent significantly less free time drawing than the other two groups, according to the team's later summary (Greene and colleagues, 1976). That is the overjustification effect: doing something to get an outside reward can lower later interest in the activity itself.

One major synthesis is Edward Deci and colleagues' 1999 meta-analysis of 128 experiments. In its main analyses of interesting tasks, rewards for doing, completing or doing well on a task all lowered later free-choice motivation (d = −0.40, −0.36 and −0.28 respectively, small-to-moderate effects), and tangible rewards did more damage to children's interest than to college students'. Positive feedback raised motivation overall, but in the seven experiments with children that boost was not statistically significant (Deci and colleagues, 1999).

A smaller experiment adds a caution for families. Thirty-six toddlers around 20 months old had chances to help an adult, for example by picking up an object the adult had dropped. Those who had received a material reward for helping later helped less than toddlers who had been praised or not rewarded (Warneken and Tomasello, 2008). It's a single lab study, but it's a good reason to keep spontaneous kindness off the chart.

The conditions matter. Some experiments, some of them with college students, tested an interesting task and a dull task side by side. Pooling those, Deci's team found tangible rewards clearly undermined free-choice motivation for the interesting tasks (d = −0.68, a moderate-to-large effect) and had no significant effect on the dull ones; their explanation: a boring task has little interest left to lose (Deci and colleagues, 1999). Plenty of kids feel nothing much about unloading the dishwasher, so a star for that chore starts a behavior rather than replacing a love of it.

Dull tasks aren't risk-free. Deci and colleagues argue the real question there is internalization: whether people come to value and own the task. More broadly, they argue that using rewards to control behavior can keep children from learning to motivate themselves (Deci and colleagues, 1999), one more reason to treat a chart as temporary. Our post on how to encourage intrinsic motivation in children looks at what helps a task become a child's own.

Do rewards kill motivation? Where both camps agree

Judy Cameron and W. David Pierce lead the main counter-view. Their 1994 meta-analysis of 96 experiments found no overall loss of intrinsic motivation from rewards, a boost from verbal praise, and one exception: a small decline when people were promised a tangible reward just for taking part in a task (Cameron and Pierce, 1994). Deci's 1999 analysis was partly a reply, arguing that pooling interesting and dull tasks had blurred the picture (Deci and colleagues, 1999). Their 2001 follow-up with Katherine Banko found that rewards raised free-choice motivation on low-interest tasks and harmed it on enjoyable tasks only when the reward was tangible, announced in advance and barely linked to how well the person did (Cameron and colleagues, 2001).

The camps still disagree on the effect's size and on rewards tied to performance, but their findings overlap on what matters most at home:

• The risky case is the same. Both find the clearest harm from expected, tangible rewards for an activity a child already enjoys. Reading for pleasure, drawing and self-driven practice are better left off the chart.
• Dull tasks are a different case. In the meta-analyses, neither camp found that rewards undermine motivation for low-interest tasks, and Cameron's group found they raised it. The one classroom token-economy study here is a partial exception (see the spotlight above).

What reward chart research doesn't show

• Whether gains outlast the chart. Kazdin's 1982 review counted making gains last, and carry over to new settings, among the token economy's long-standing obstacles. Later results point both ways: the classroom study's post-chart drop hit the least-played and self-chosen games, while the vegetable trial's reward groups still ate more at three months.
• How long to keep a chart going. None of these studies tested how many weeks a home chart should run, and the best-known habit-timing data come from adults and vary widely; our post on how long it takes a child to form a habit walks through what is and isn't known.
• Whether to take stars away. Programs differ. COPE and Defiant Children include fines, such as deducting tokens, as a backup when a child refuses time-out, while the Incredible Years doesn't recommend removing earned tokens, reportedly so that rewards and discipline stay separate (Kaehler and colleagues, 2016). With no head-to-head test for home charts, treat this as a values choice, not settled science.

This article is general information, not medical advice. If you're worried about frequent or intense behavior problems, talk with your pediatrician.

What it means for a reward chart at home

No study we found has tested a stand-alone home reward chart, so the steps below are our reading of the findings, not a tested protocol. The working rules we recommend (immediate, specific, never taken away as punishment, reachable and celebrated) are unpacked in our reward chart guide. What goes on the prize side matters too: experiences and privileges over escalating stuff (build a printable reward menu with your own star prices).

Praise matters too: specific, "labeled" praise is a core parenting skill in programs such as Parent-Child Interaction Therapy (Kaehler and colleagues, 2016); our positive reinforcement examples show what that sounds like. If a well-designed chart still isn't moving, the problem may not be motivation: run the diagnostic in my kid won't do chores, or browse the rewards and motivation hub.

Frequently asked questions