For decades, researchers have relied on financial incentives to encourage people to take part in studies, yet new evidence suggests that money may not always be the main motivator. In a growing number of cases, participants are more inspired by a study’s purpose than by the promise of cash.
A paper by Prince Kouamelan Kouassi, PhD published in the ISPCE Bulletin, highlights how participants are often driven by a genuine interest in the research topic, a desire to contribute to science, or the hope of gaining personal insight. In many cases, these motivations far outweigh financial gain, particularly when the cash incentive is small or fails to even cover transport costs. Kouassi argues that for a significant portion of participants, the most meaningful reward lies in their engagement with the study’s core aim.
Kouassi, who is an assistant professor of psychology at the American University in Dubai, explained the motivation behind his research: “The motivation for this study stemmed from a disconnect observed between commonly used financial incentives and the actual motivating factors reported by many research participants. While monetary rewards remain the default form of compensation, anecdotal and empirical evidence suggests that participants often value other aspects of the research experience more highly.”
This shift in motivation presents an opportunity for researchers, especially those with limited budgets. Undergraduate students and academics working with fewer resources often struggle to afford traditional forms of compensation. The findings suggest that offering non-financial forms of appreciation may be not only sufficient but actually more effective in some cases. Such alternatives could include personalised feedback, summary reports of findings, or other tangible takeaways that connect the participant to the research goal.
“Existing literature and researcher observations indicate that curiosity, therapeutic engagement, personal relevance, and a desire to contribute to science often outweigh financial motivations,” Kouassi added. “Despite this, little attention has been given to what these alternative motivations might look like in practice or how they can be intentionally designed into the research process.”
Studies referenced in the report provide striking examples. In one investigation into blood sugar management, participants continued taking part over two decades, not for the modest compensation, but because of the direct relevance to their own health. Another study on perceptions of diabetic care in Scotland found that not one participant cited money as a reason for taking part. Instead, themes of altruism, therapeutic benefit, and trust in the healthcare system emerged.
Older adults who signed up to university research registries often mentioned their desire to give back, meet people, or learn about the academic environment. These reasons underscore the complexity of participant motivation and point to the inadequacy of assuming money is always the driving force.
Kouassi emphasised that context plays a critical role in shaping what participants value: “This study emerged from an educational context, where financial resources are often limited, particularly for undergraduate students conducting independent research. As such, there was a need to explore viable, ethical, and meaningful forms of non-financial compensation that could both honour participants’ time and enhance participation rates.”
The article contends that the most valuable reward a researcher can offer is a sense of involvement. By aligning compensation with the participant’s interest in the study, researchers can create a more meaningful exchange. A participant in a workplace satisfaction study, for instance, might value a short personalised report over a small voucher. Likewise, those in a study on intergroup perception may find value in seeing how their views changed over time.
Reflecting on the implications of the findings, Kouassi stated: “Many are drawn to the underlying aims of a study, particularly when those aims intersect with their lived experiences, beliefs, or personal goals. The implication is clear: researchers can deliberately emphasise participants’ experience of the study aim as a form of compensation.”
What makes these non-financial rewards particularly promising is their adaptability. They can be tailored to fit different research designs and made accessible even to those with limited institutional backing. For student researchers especially, they offer a practical and ethical way to thank participants without breaching budget constraints.
“By reframing compensation around participant experience and relevance, research can become more accessible, ethically grounded, and participant-centred,” Kouassi noted. He also outlined plans for broader implementation: “Moving forward, the intention is to design structured guidance for researchers, particularly students, on how to develop non-financial compensation strategies rooted in participant experience. This involves identifying aspects of the study that participants may find intrinsically rewarding and converting them into tangible outputs.”
As academia increasingly embraces inclusivity and innovation, Kouassi’s work suggests that rethinking how we compensate participants could boost both participation rates and the overall quality of research. “The long-term goal is to create an academic culture where compensation is no longer synonymous with cash, but with relevance, recognition, and reciprocity,” he said. “As funding constraints continue to limit financial incentives, non-financial approaches may emerge not only as a fallback, but as a preferred method for fostering ethical, engaging, and inclusive research participation.”
