MethodMaterialsProcedureResultsDiscussionIntroduction Despite the large body of research done on learning, more data is needed to understand the relationship between how people learn and what motivates them. Past research has indicated that when students are given an incentive to learn or perform an unfamiliar skill, they will perform at a higher rate of success (Benowitz & Busse, 1975). Researchers have found that offering an incentive, such as money or candy, acts as a reinforcement to perform successfully at a given task and also, aids in the retention of new information (Flora & Flora, 1999).  Previous studies indicated that video presentation techniques result in superior learning, more so than formats such as text, because mental imagery can increase the amount of material remembered (De Hann et al., 2000). It was hypothesized that the scores on the questionnaire would rank in the following order: 1) the video expected incentive group 2) video unexpected incentive group 3) text expected incentive group and 4) the text unexpected incentive group.MethodParticipants Sixty Mount Holyoke College female students aged 18 to 60. The students participated on a volunteer basis either by recruitment directly from the researchers or in response to posted flyers.  Participants who are currently enrolled in Psych 100 or Psych 201 were offered 1/2 of a research credit for their time.Materials An 8-minute clip from a History Channel special “History uncovered; Doolittle’s Raiders One Hour Over Tokyo," was used. A text version of this video clip was used for the text-based learning conditions. A 10 multiple choice and 5 short answer questionnaire. One tootsie pop per participant was used as an incentive. Procedure Testing occurred in the Reese Psychology building.  Prior to arrival, participants were randomly divided into four groups: (1)expected incentive video, (2)unexpected incentive video, (3)expected incentive text, and an(4)unexpected incentives text group.  Half of the participants watched the video and the other half read the text version. The two expected incentive groups were told prior to watching or reading the History Uncovered Documentary that they would receive candy for every correct answer. Those in the two unexpected incentive groups were not told until after they read/watch the clip that they would receive candy for each correct answer.  Once this task was completed, the subjects were given a questionnaire to complete.  All the participants were debriefed after they completed the experiment and they were given candy regardless of their score on the questionnaire. Following the completion of the experiment, the researchers tallied the number of correct answers on the questionnaires of the 4 different groups and analyzed the data.ResultsAn independent groups ANOVA was run to determine if there was a significant difference in participant test scores for learning styles and incentives. There was no maineffect for learning style. Participants in the text group (M= 11.03) did not score significantly different than participants in the video group (M= 11.37), F (1,59)= .36, Mse= 4.70, p>. 05. There was also no main effect for incentives. Participants in the expected incentive group (M= 11.53) did not obtain a significantly different score than participants in the unexpected incentive group (M=10.87), F(1,59)= 1.42, Mse= 4.70, p>.05. There was a significant interaction detected between learning styles and incentives F(1,59)= 5.12, Mse= 4.70, p<.05. A post hoc test was run to determine where the significant differences existed. This test revealed that the unexpected incentive text group scored significantly lower than the expected incentive text group and the unexpected incentive video group. No other significant effects were found.textvideolearning stylePercent of Accurate Responses to Action Oriented QuestionsError Bars show Mean +/- 1.0 SEBars show Meansexpect ed unexpectedincentive0.004.008.0012.00scoreDiscussionThe hypothesis being tested study was partially supported. There were no significant main effects.  A significant interaction was found. The unexpected incentive text group scored significantly lower then the expected incentive text group and the unexpected incentive video group.  A possible explanation for the significant interaction is that the participants who expected to be rewarded for reading the text were more motivated to study the text carefully and read it multiple times. Participants who were unaware of the reward for reading the text did not perform as well on the questionnairre. However, there was not a main effect for the incentive in the video groups. Participants in the video groups could not watch the video more than once, and therefore, the effect of the incentive was minimized. The questionnaire only had fifteen questions, which could have had a ceiling effect on the results. Previous research done by Swaffar & Vlatten (1997), and De Hann et al (2000) showed that many people do learn more information better and perform more efficiently when taught through videos instead of traditional methods of textual learning. Other previous research has indicated that incentives are effective (Flora & Flora, 1999). Overall, with this experiment we hope to promote the use of incentives and encourage administrators to use different teaching methods. This is just one step in achieving a larger goal of motivating people to learn. Hopefully in the future more research will be done to further the improvement of education through examining different methods of teaching and the use of incentives. textvideolearning stylePercent of Accurate Responses to Action Oriented QuestionsError Bars show Mean +/- 1.0 SEBars show Meansexpected