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.