The undermining effect is a reality after all - Extrinsic rewards, task interest, and self-determination: Reply to Eisenberger, Pierce, and Cameron (1999) and Lepper, Henderlong, and Gingras (1999)
El. Deci et al., The undermining effect is a reality after all - Extrinsic rewards, task interest, and self-determination: Reply to Eisenberger, Pierce, and Cameron (1999) and Lepper, Henderlong, and Gingras (1999), PSYCHOL B, 125(6), 1999, pp. 692-700
in their commentaries, M. R. Lepper, J. Henderlong, and I. Gingras; (1999)
rightly stressed various pitfalls in using meta-analysis and R. Eisenberger
, W. D. Pierce, and J. Cameron (1999) rescinded or failed to defend many of
their earlier claims, instead presenting 2 new meta-analyses said to discr
edit cognitive evaluation theory (CET). The 1st, concerning reward effects
on self-determination, is invalid because they confused locus of control wi
th locus of causality, and the 2nd, concerning performance-contingent rewar
ds, is flawed in ways similar to their 3 previous meta-analyses. Their only
new reliable finding, based on 6 studies, is that if people are told their
performance will be evaluated by high standards, they are less intrinsical
ly motivated when they do not get rewards than when they do. This article d
iscusses conceptual and methodological issues, concluding that CET remains
the best supported and most comprehensive theory of reward effects on intri
nsic motivation.