Rewards and Creative Performance: A Meta-Analytic Test of Theoretically Derived Hypotheses Kris Byron Syracuse University Shalini Khazanchi Rochester Institute of Technology Although many scholars and practitioners are interested in understanding how to motivate individuals to be more creative, whether and how rewards affect creativity remain unclear. We argue that the conflicting evidence may be due to differences between studies in terms of reward conditions and the context in which rewards are offered. Specifically, we examine 5 potential moderators of the rewards– creative performance relationship: (a) the reward contingency, (b) the extent to which participants are provided information about their past or current creative performance, (c) the extent to which the reward and context offer choice or impose control, (d) the extent to which the context serves to enhance task engagement, and (e) the extent to which the performance tasks are complex. Using random-effects models, we meta-analyzed 60 experimental and nonexperimental studies (including 69 independent samples) that examined the rewards– creativity relationship with children or adults. Our results suggest that creativity-contingent rewards tend to increase creative performance—and are more positively related to creative performance when individuals are given more positive, contingent, and task-focused perfor- mance feedback and are provided more choice (and are less controlled). In contrast, performance- contingent or completion-contingent rewards tend to have a slight negative effect on creative perfor- mance. Keywords: creativity, rewards, motivation, meta-analysis Offering incentives to stimulate and motivate creativity may seem an apparent—and likely feasible—way to increase indi- vidual creativity. However, there are several reasons to question the potential effectiveness of this solution. Despite the many studies examining rewards and creativity in the psychological, educational, and organizational literatures, rewards’ effects on creativity—and the factors that serve to mitigate or enhance those effects—remain unclear. Many studies have found that rewards decrease creativity (e.g., Amabile, 1982); in contrast, many others have found that rewards increase creativity (e.g., Eisenberger & Rhoades, 2001). Further obscuring the effects of rewards on creative perfor- mance, the distinct cognitive and behavioral processes underlying the motivation of creativity may limit the extent to which theory and research focusing on routine performance may generalize to creative performance. For example, creativity is considered more dependent on intrinsic motivation, more cognitively demanding, more risky, and of less certain value than routine performance (e.g., Amabile, 1996; Eysenck, 1995). Consequently, many schol- ars and practitioners have suggested that motivating creative per- formance is fundamentally different from motivating routine per- formance (e.g., Amabile, 1996). Lastly, theories differ in their predictions about rewards’ effects on creativity. Specifically, researchers have often applied self- determination and learned industriousness theories to arrive at diametrically opposed predictions about rewards’ effects on cre- ativity (e.g., Amabile, Goldfarb, & Brackfield, 1990; Eisenberger, 1992). Researchers relying on earlier incarnations of self- determination theory (SDT) focused on the controlling aspects of rewards and their cognitive effects to argue that rewards under- mine intrinsic motivation and, thus, creative performance (e.g., Amabile et al., 1990; Joussemet & Koestner, 1999). Conversely, researchers relying on learned industriousness theory (LIT) fo- cused on the informational aspects of rewards and their behavioral effects to argue that rewards provide behaviorally relevant infor- mation that guides goal-directed behavior and, thus, increase cre- ative performance (e.g., Eisenberger, 1992; Eisenberger & Selbst, 1994). Because of the conflicting results and theoretical perspec- tives, we conducted a quantitative synthesis of 60 experimental and nonexperimental studies (including 69 independent samples) that have examined the rewards– creativity relationship. The results of this meta-analysis are likely to have several theoretical and practical implications. First, they may help to resolve the theoretical debate regarding the relationship between rewards and creativity. The results will allow us to test theoretical contentions regarding rewards’ effects on creativity. Second, the results of the meta-analysis may help to explain the variability found among studies and determine the conditions that enhance, mitigate, or have little effect on the relationship between rewards and creativity. Further, the review may identify gaps in the liter- This article was published Online First March 12, 2012. Kris Byron, Whitman School of Management, Syracuse University; Shalini Khazanchi, Saunders School of Business, Rochester Institute of Technology. We would like to thank Bob Eisenberger (University of Houston), Teresa Amabile (Harvard University), and Markus Baer (Washington University), who provided valuable suggestions that allowed us to craft a stronger article. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kris Byron, Whitman School of Management, Syracuse University, 721 Uni- versity Avenue, Syracuse, NY 13244-2450. E-mail: klbyron@syr.edu Psychological Bulletin © 2012 American Psychological Association 2012, Vol. 138, No. 4, 809 – 830 0033-2909/12/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/a0027652 809