Abstract
Our meta-analysis (this issue) clarified when rewards undermine, leave unchanged, and enhance intrinsic motivation and pointed out flaws in Cameron and Pierce’s (1994) meta-analysis. Cameron’s (2001) commentary did not reveal any problems with our meta-analysis, nor did it defend the validity of Cameron and Pierce’s. Instead, Cameron referred to a fourth meta-analysis by her group; little detail was presented about the new meta-analysis, but it appears to have the same types of errors as the first three. Cameron also presented a new theoretical account of reward effects—the fourth by her group, which sequentially abandoned the previous ones as they were found wanting. Cameron concluded again that there is no reason to avoid using performance-contingent rewards in educational settings, yet her application of the research results to education lacks ecological validity.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.