Deci left each participant alone for ten minutes.
During this time, they were free to continue to play Soma, or read the magazines that had been strategically placed on a nearby table, or indeed neither.
All of the time, Deci was secretly observing their behavior.
Conventional pigeon‒based reward theory predicts that those who had been paid to play Soma would have found the puzzle especially enjoyable, and so be more likely to continue with it when Deci left the laboratory.
In contrast, the As If principle makes a quite different set of predictions.
According to the As If principle, the participants who were offered the financial reward to play with the puzzle would have unconsciously thought, “People offer me money only when they want me to do something that I don’t want to do.
I was offered money to play with the puzzle, so it can’t be much fun.”
Using the same logic, those who weren’t offered any financial incentive would have unconsciously thought, “People offer me money only when they want me to do something that I don’t want to do.
I wasn’t offered any money to play with the puzzle, so it must be fun.”
Seen in this way, those who had been offered the reward had been made to behave as if they didn’t actually enjoy playing with the puzzle, whereas those who hadn’t been offered any financial incentive were behaving as if playing with the puzzle was fun.
According to the As If principle, Deci’s payments would have turned play into hard work, and so the participants who were financially rewarded would be significantly more likely to leave the puzzle alone when he left the room.
Deci’s results provided overwhel‒ ming support for the power of acting As If.
Regardless of participants’ success at completing the puzzle, those who had not been previously offered the financial reward were far more likely to play with the puzzle when left to their own devices.