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 concequence of their systematic and consistent misuse of meta-analytical procedures. A more nuanced analysis of these several different processes by which extrinsic rewards may affect motivation is also offered. (A)