← All blog articles · Rewards & Motivation topic hub
Quick answer: How to encourage intrinsic motivation in children comes down to three levers that self-determination theory calls autonomy, competence and relatedness: offer real choices inside limits you set, pitch tasks at a just-right challenge, and do things alongside your child. For dull jobs, two school experiments comparing the approaches found a reason plus honest empathy helped more than a prize. This evidence is mostly correlational surveys and short school experiments, so applying it at home is a reasonable inference, not a tested recipe.
Key takeaways
- Most chores will never be fun. The realistic aim is internalization: a child who does them because they see the point.
- In two school experiments (Joussemet and colleagues, 2004), a reason, empathy and choice-based wording helped children feel better about or value a dull task; a toy reward did neither.
- Keep loved activities and kindness off reward systems. In one small study, toddlers rewarded for helping later helped less (Warneken and Tomasello, 2008).
What intrinsic motivation in children is (and isn’t)
Richard Ryan and Edward Deci, who developed self-determination theory, define intrinsic motivation as doing something for the satisfaction built into it. In their 2000 review in American Psychologist, they note that developmental researchers see healthy young children explore and play with no reward needed. Examples of intrinsic motivation in children include a preschooler rebuilding a block tower to see how high it goes, a seven-year-old reading dinosaur books under the covers, or a toddler grabbing a cloth because you are wiping the table.
The catch: Ryan and Deci say intrinsic motivation only applies to activities with some built-in interest, and unloading the dishwasher may never qualify. For those jobs, the goal is internalization, a shift from “because Mom said so” toward “because it matters, and I agree.”
Self-determination theory in parenting: the three needs
The theory proposes three basic psychological needs. Settings that meet them tend to boost self-driven motivation; settings that thwart them shrink it (Ryan and Deci, 2000).
Shortest leg · Autonomy: Offer small choices inside your limits. Give a real reason, admit the job may be dull, then let your child choose the order, the timing, which part or which tool: “Cars first or blocks first?”
Autonomy: real choices inside your limits
Autonomy means experiencing an action as chosen rather than forced, not doing whatever you want. In this research, autonomy support has three ingredients: a meaningful reason, acknowledging feelings, and choice or non-pressuring language. Richard Koestner and colleagues (1984) used this trio to set neatness limits for 44 first- and second-graders while they painted: controlling limits reduced intrinsic motivation, enjoyment and creativity, and informational ones did not (we found no direct replication). Edward Deci and colleagues (1994) then found that college students took on a dull task more fully when given at least two of the three.
The classic parenting study is Wendy Grolnick and Richard Ryan’s (1989) interviews with 64 mothers and 50 fathers of children in grades 3 to 6. Children of more autonomy-supportive parents reported more self-driven reasons for schoolwork, got better teacher ratings for competence and adjustment, and had higher grades. The families were mostly white, middle-class, two-parent households from one school. It was correlational, so capable, easygoing children may simply draw out more relaxed parenting.
On choice, a meta-analysis by Erika Patall and colleagues (2008) pooled 41 studies of children and adults. Choice raised intrinsic motivation, effort and performance. Its effect on intrinsic motivation was larger for children than adults, after two to four choices, and when no reward followed. Small choices that left the task itself unchanged were linked to bigger gains than choosing between activities.
Competence: just-right challenges and useful feedback
Ryan and Deci (2000) argue that interest grows when a task is a stretch but doable, when feedback shows a person what is working, and when nobody puts them down. Feeling capable helps only if the activity also feels self-chosen. So size jobs to your child’s skills (our age-appropriate chores guide has ranges by age), show them once or twice, and describe what went well and what to try next instead of judging.
Relatedness: doing it together
Ryan and Deci argue that children first take on dull tasks because people they feel close to model and value them. The evidence they cite is correlational, and we found few parenting experiments testing this need, so doing routines together while a job is new is an inference from the theory. Research on children pitching in to family work points the same way, with the same caveats; we trace it in our fact-check of the kids who do chores study.
How to get kids to do boring tasks: what two experiments found
Mireille Joussemet and colleagues (2004) ran two experiments in Montreal elementary schools. In the first, 106 French-speaking children in grades 1, 3 and 5 did a tedious five-minute computer task: press the space bar for every letter except one. In the second, 76 children in grades 3 to 6 did a 15-minute version.
The autonomy-supportive introduction gave a reason (it trains attention, the kind of practice athletes do), admitted the task might be a bit boring, and framed continuing as the child’s choice. The controlling introduction skipped the reason and the empathy and used should and have to. Some were also promised a yo-yo or, in the second, an animal-topped pencil.
- Autonomy support helped children feel happier during the task in the first study and value it more than rewarded children did in the second.
- The toy changed neither feelings nor performance, and neither approach changed how long children kept going when left alone for five minutes.
- The key result was consistency. After autonomy support alone, children’s free time on the task lined up modestly with how much they said they enjoyed it (correlations around .4 in groups of about 25), a sign they had made it their own. After a reward alone, behavior and feelings came apart and even ran in opposite directions. Both studies showed this pattern; we found no independent replication.
In the first study, children given both the explanation and the yo-yo felt about as happy as those given the explanation alone, but their behavior and feelings matched no better than after pressuring instructions alone. The authors called that combination hard to interpret and left it out of the second study.
Where rewards fit, and how to motivate kids without rewards
For the full rewards debate, see do reward charts work? Three findings matter here:
- Keep loved activities off the chart. Summarizing a 1999 meta-analysis, Ryan and Deci (2000) write that expected tangible rewards for doing an interesting activity undermine intrinsic motivation for it, though the question has been hotly debated (Eisenberger and Cameron, 1996, argued the harm is narrow and avoidable).
- Don’t pay for kindness. In one small lab study, Felix Warneken and Michael Tomasello (2008) found that 20-month-olds given a toy each time they helped an adult later helped less often than toddlers who were thanked or got no response. The authors note rewards might still help when a child’s urge to help is very low.
- For dull jobs, lead with the reason. Joussemet’s team concluded that their results argue against using rewards to introduce new tasks, and adding the yo-yo erased the explanation’s edge on consistency. If you still use stars for teeth or tidying, put the reason and empathy first and treat the stars as an extra; that pairing hasn’t been tested at home.
That is the practical answer to how to motivate kids without rewards: reasons, choices and company first, and a reward system only where a routine still isn’t happening. See our guides to chores without nagging, when kids won’t do chores and setting up a reward chart for kids, or the rewards and motivation hub.
How strong is this evidence?
| Study | Design | Who took part | Main finding | Repeated? |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Grolnick and Ryan (1989) | Correlational | 64 mothers, 50 fathers; children in grades 3–6 | Autonomy support linked to self-driven motivation and grades | No direct replication found; a 2025 meta-analysis links autonomy support to well-being, a different outcome |
| Koestner and colleagues (1984) | Experiment | 44 first- and second-graders | Informational limits spared interest; controlling limits didn’t | No direct replication found |
| Joussemet and colleagues (2004) | Two experiments | 106 and 76 children, grades 1–6, Montreal | Autonomy support helped feelings or value; the toy didn’t | Within the paper, same team |
| Warneken and Tomasello (2008) | Experiment | 36 German 20-month-olds | Material rewards reduced later helping | Same lab found it for sharing in 96 three-year-olds (Ulber and colleagues, 2016) |
| Bradshaw and colleagues (2025) | Meta-analysis | 238 studies, 126,423 participants from childhood to adulthood (about 18% college samples) | Autonomy support correlated with well-being (r = 0.30), most strongly in adolescents | Pooled; can’t show cause |
| Joussemet and colleagues (2025) | Randomized trial | 293 parents of grade-school children | A 7-week course slightly reduced parent-reported behavior problems vs. a waitlist | One trial |
What this research does not show:
- Long-term change. The child experiments used short, artificial tasks measured in minutes, not months of real chores.
- Cause and effect in families. The parenting data are correlational. Emma Bradshaw and colleagues (2025) found the link between autonomy support and well-being held across regions, cultures, ages (children to adults) and sexes (three in four studies were cross-sectional), but associations can run both ways, and the authors include Ryan and Joussemet themselves.
- A tested home program for motivation. The How-to Parenting Program trial (Joussemet and colleagues, 2025) found small extra drops in acting-out behavior versus a waitlist, lasting at least six months, no extra benefit for anxious or low-mood problems, and no motivation outcomes in its summary.
- Broad, independent replication. Samples were small, and many key studies come from the theory’s developers and their collaborators.
This article is general information, not medical advice. If you’re worried about your child’s behavior, mood or attention, talk with your pediatrician.
Autonomy-supportive parenting examples: phrases to try
These illustrative phrasings, not scripts from the studies, combine a reason, empathy and a choice. The limit never changes, only the delivery.
| Moment | Controlling version | Autonomy-supportive version (example) |
|---|---|---|
| Toys before dinner | “Clean up now or no dessert.” | “We need the floor clear so nobody trips. I know stopping a game is annoying. Cars first or blocks first?” |
| Brushing teeth | “Brush your teeth. Now.” | “Brushing keeps your teeth healthy. It’s boring, I get it. Top or bottom first?” |
| Messy art | “Don’t you dare get paint on the table.” | “Splashing is fun, I know. Paint stays on the paper so the table is ready for dinner. Big brush or small?” |
Try this at home
- Sort the list into things your child already loves (no rewards), dull but necessary jobs (reasons, empathy, maybe a chart) and kindness (thanks, no points).
- Write one honest reason per dull job in your child’s words. If you can’t find one, ask whether the job is needed.
- Offer a few small choices each day: order, timing, which part, which tool. Let your child help pick which jobs go on this week’s list.
- Name the boredom, then start together. Hand over one part of a new job at a time.
- Check in after a couple of weeks. Fewer reminders, or your child mentioning the reason unprompted, is a rough sign the job is becoming theirs.
Where Star Chart Kids fits, and where it doesn’t
Star Chart Kids is one optional tool, and as a reward system it is extrinsic by design: use it for routines your child doesn’t already enjoy, alongside reasons, choices and company, and leave favorite activities and kindness off. Kids tap tasks done, earn stars and choose which rewards to spend them on, from avatar outfits and pets to real-life rewards you define. Parents set the task list, so pick the jobs together first. There are no ads, streaks or leaderboards, and the app never takes earned stars away as punishment.
Frequently asked questions
What are examples of intrinsic motivation in children?
Rebuilding a block tower to see how high it goes, reading about a favorite topic unprompted, or practicing a trick until it lands: the activity is its own reward. Few chores get there; for those, aim for a child who understands and agrees with why the job matters.
How do you motivate kids without rewards?
Give a real reason, admit the task may be dull, offer small choices inside your limits, and do new jobs alongside your child. In school experiments (Joussemet and colleagues, 2004), a reason, empathy and choice-based wording helped children feel better about or value a boring task; a toy reward did not. The other steps come from the theory, not those experiments.
What is autonomy-supportive parenting?
Taking your child’s point of view, explaining reasons, offering choices where you can, and avoiding threats or guilt. It is not permissive: the rules stay and only the delivery changes. A correlational study (Grolnick and Ryan, 1989) linked it to children’s self-driven motivation and school adjustment.
How do you get kids to do boring tasks?
Explain why it matters in your child’s words, admit it is boring, let them choose the order or their part, and start together. If a routine still isn’t happening, a simple chart for that one routine is a reasonable add-on.
Sources and further reading
- Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being (American Psychologist (Ryan & Deci, 2000))
- Detrimental effects of reward: Reality or myth? (American Psychologist (Eisenberger & Cameron, 1996))
- Parent styles associated with children's self-regulation and competence in school (Journal of Educational Psychology (Grolnick & Ryan, 1989))
- Setting limits on children's behavior: The differential effects of controlling vs. informational styles on intrinsic motivation and creativity (Journal of Personality (Koestner, Ryan, Bernieri & Holt, 1984))
- Facilitating Internalization: The Self-Determination Theory Perspective (Journal of Personality (Deci, Eghrari, Patrick & Leone, 1994))
- Introducing Uninteresting Tasks to Children: A Comparison of the Effects of Rewards and Autonomy Support (Journal of Personality (Joussemet, Koestner, Lekes & Houlfort, 2004))
- The effects of choice on intrinsic motivation and related outcomes: A meta-analysis of research findings (Psychological Bulletin (Patall, Cooper & Robinson, 2008))
- Extrinsic rewards undermine altruistic tendencies in 20-month-olds (Developmental Psychology (Warneken & Tomasello, 2008))
- Extrinsic Rewards Diminish Costly Sharing in 3-Year-Olds (Child Development (Ulber, Hamann & Tomasello, 2016))
- Disentangling autonomy-supportive and psychologically controlling parenting: A meta-analysis of self-determination theory's dual process model across cultures (American Psychologist (Bradshaw and colleagues, 2025))
- Evaluating the Impact of the How-to Parenting Program on Child Mental Health: A Randomized Controlled Trial in Grade Schools (Family Process (Joussemet and colleagues, 2025))