Abstract
This article provides a critical analysis of Cameron and Pierce’s (1994) meta-analytic review of the experimental literature on the effects of extrinsic rewards on intrinsic motivation. It is suggested that Cameron and Pierce’s overly simplistic conclusion has little theoretical or practical value and is instead the direct consequence of their systematic and consistent misuse of meta-analytic procedures. A more nuanced analysis of the several different processes by which extrinsic rewards may affect motivation is also offered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
45.
46.
47.
48.
49.
50.
51.
52.
53.
54.
55.
56.
57.
58.
59.
60.
61.
62.
63.
64.
65.
66.
67.
68.
69.
70.
71.
72.
73.
74.
75.
76.
77.
78.
79.
80.
81.
82.
83.
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
90.