1996
DOI: 10.3102/00346543066001005
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Intrinsic Motivation and Extrinsic Rewards: A Commentary on Cameron and Pierce’s Meta-Analysis

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… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
22
2

Year Published

1999
1999
2013
2013

Publication Types

Select...
6
4

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 107 publications
(25 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
1
22
2
Order By: Relevance
“…However, they were unclear in explaining the value of that distinction on a phenomenological level. Cameron and Pierce's (1994) meta-analysis has been rebutted by many for lack of methodological rigor, failure to include relevant studies and tendency to ignore important conceptual distinctions (see Deci et al 1999Deci et al , 2001Kohn 1996;Lepper, Keavney, and Drake 1996;Lepper, Henderlong, and Gingras 1999;Ryan and Deci 1996). Lepper et al (1996, 6) described the review as 'sweeping and anomalous' and accused it of 'systematic and consistent misuse of meta-analytic procedures [ .…”
Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, they were unclear in explaining the value of that distinction on a phenomenological level. Cameron and Pierce's (1994) meta-analysis has been rebutted by many for lack of methodological rigor, failure to include relevant studies and tendency to ignore important conceptual distinctions (see Deci et al 1999Deci et al , 2001Kohn 1996;Lepper, Keavney, and Drake 1996;Lepper, Henderlong, and Gingras 1999;Ryan and Deci 1996). Lepper et al (1996, 6) described the review as 'sweeping and anomalous' and accused it of 'systematic and consistent misuse of meta-analytic procedures [ .…”
Section: Theoretical Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Others have claimed that the relationship between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation is more complex. Reviews of the literature and resulting discussion have produced con icting and contested interpretations (Cameron & Pierce, 1994;1996;Kohn, 1996;Lepper, Keavney, & Drake, 1996;Morgan, 1984;Ryan & Deci, 1996). It is surprising to nd such fundamental disagreements over a construct which has been used widely for so long.…”
Section: Extrinsic Interestmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The other line of research examining the effects of rew ard (Deci, 1971;D eci & Ryan, 1978;Lepper et al, 1973;Ransen, 1980;Lepper et al, 1996 ;Ryan & D eci, 1996, etc. ) has provided academ ic support for the theory that m otivation and interest in perform ing a task can be manipulated by initiating extrinsic rew ards in such a way that intrinsic motivation and interest in the task w ill be reduced.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%