I'm assuming the activities in the study are new and novel to the participants. Motivation without skills and experience means nothing. The study as you describe it shows NO CORRELATION at all between the subjects and high-level professionals (in any field).

The job of the novice in any task is to experiment, make mistakes, and learn from them. The learning curve is very steep. By offering them large sums of money their objective shifts from learning to AVOIDING MISTAKES. This is the worst possible strategy for long-term success. Offering extrinsic rewards at that point short-circuits the learning curve.

As Michael and Aluchko mentioned, the time factor is also very important. The bonuses you mention are usually offered months in advance, not minutes like I assume they were in the study. The difference psychologically between these two time frames is so astronomical that any comparison is meanlingless. Thus, the study is flawed from the very outset.

"professionals make mistakes..."

Yes they do, but I challenge you to show any evidence that they make more mistakes than unpaid amateurs in their field. And then I challenge you to show any evidence that those same professionals make fewer mistakes when performing the same tasks with no extrinsic rewards involved. Until then the conclusions given are pure speculation.

High-level professionals almost always spend several years honing their craft with little or no extrinsic rewards before making it to the 'big leagues.' I believe these people derive a great deal of INTRINSIC satisfaction from performing their tasks, and this more than anything else is what pushes them to do well. Whether higher pay helps or hinders them is so highly personalized and depends on such a large number of variables that the question becomes meaningless for any group larger than ONE individual.

So again, the study is flawed from its inception.

This habit of oversimplifying and overgeneralizing in an attempt to break complex human behaviors down into simple robotic yes's and no's often leads to such absurd conclusions. And then psychologists wonder why they lack credibilty with the general public.

Now, if you want a much more meaningful question, try this: Regardless of how well a top performer does his/her job, does the amount of pay and bonuses offered influence WHERE they choose to do it?? I don't think even Ariely et al. could screw that one up.

Sportsmen choke, professionals make mistakes, actors throw in duff performances. This study suggests money (in the form of bonuses) might contribute to this.

You're right to point out the difference in the tasks being performed, but wrong to completely write off the interpretation on that basis alone.

Sure there's a bit of speculation involved here but it's not as far-fetched as some of you are making it sound :-)

The only question this study sheds light on is: "Does a financial reward affect a person's willingness to take chances and experiment when performing an UNFAMILIAR task?" It has no relevance to executives, pro athletes or actors, who are highly trained and experienced in their fields, nor is it relevant to people who are trained in performance-enhancing states of consciousness (the 'flow' that you mentioned in another post).

As to the short vs long term I don't like to extrapolate when the most likely mechanism is primarily a short term effect.

I find the effects of pressure tends to decrease as we go along, and after experiencing a scenario a couple time the pressure is definitely lesser. I don't know if we're better adapting to pressure or if we're just putting the consequences in perspective, but I with most jobs I don't think they'd really hold a constant state of high pressure (maybe something like healthcare, with definite performance consequences would be different).

Over something long term like a job bonus I don't really see the pressure being significant by the end.

Since bonuses reduce performance in the short-term, doesn't it also make sense to speculate that they'll do so in the long-term?

For job performance I'd think the primary performance determining factor is motivation, and the goal of a bonus is to provide that motivation.

I'd be curious to see if the promise of a potential big bonus is sufficient to motivate someone over an extended period such as a month or more. Maybe give them a computer and some set of intellectual problems (heck, give them a pile of assignments from math courses). Up the payments to 400 and 800, and see how well they do.

The motivating factor is over the longer term. Big lolly might be what keeps those exec's at work till 9pm when they would rather be with their kids?