Imagine you run a gym. Every January, thousands of people sign up with genuine enthusiasm. They buy shoes, they tell friends, they intend to show up five days a week. By March, the gym is empty again. The interesting question isn't "what motivated the sign-ups" — it's "what converts sign-ups into reps." This paper treats open source contribution the same way, and the distinction turns out to be load-bearing. The committed claim: across 41 studies and 9,632 contributors, every motivational antecedent studied relates at least as strongly to continuance intention as to actual contribution effort — and for intrinsic motivation specifically, the gap between wanting-to and doing is larger than for extrinsic motivation. That's a direct challenge to the romantic narrative that intrinsic motivation is the special sauce of OSS. It is special — but mainly for making people want to stay, not for making them actually produce code. The architecture is meta-analytic: Hunter-Schmidt random-effects pooling of 178 bivariate correlations across 29 independent samples, organized around eight antecedents (enjoyment, self-efficacy, learning, altruism, reputation, reciprocity, career incentives, and monetary rewards). The theoretical backbone is self-determination theory (SDT) and motivation crowding theory (MCT). No new data collection — this is a synthesis instrument. The key methodological move is treating effort and intention as formally distinct dependent variables, which most primary studies fail to do. The ladder position is honest but narrow. This is the first meta-analysis to explicitly separate effort from intention in OSS motivation research. The closest predecessor is von Krogh et al.'s (2012) narrative review, which catalogued motivations qualitatively but didn't pool effect sizes or split the dependent variable. Hars & Ou (2002) and Lakhani & Wolf (2005) are canonical primary studies, but neither had the statistical power to detect the effort-intention gap at the level this paper demonstrates. The advance is real but methodological, not theoretical — SDT and MCT were already the dominant frames. Integrity is the main pressure point. The 41 studies are nearly all cross-sectional surveys with self-reported effort measures. You're pooling correlations from people who told researchers how much they contribute, not from commit logs or pull request counts. The authors acknowledge this and call for behavioral trace data, but the entire evidence base inherits the bias. Publication bias is addressed with funnel plots and trim-and-fill, and the authors find no significant asymmetry, which is reassuring but not dispositive. There's no pre-registration, but that's standard for meta-analyses in this field. The most platform-actionable finding: reputation's relationship with effort is moderated by whether the platform has an explicit reputation system. On platforms with visible karma, badges, or leaderboards, reputation correlates meaningfully with effort (ρ = .28). Without such systems, the effect nearly vanishes. And the crowding-out hypothesis — that paying contributors kills their intrinsic motivation — finds no support in the pooled data. The confidence interval for the enjoyment × monetary reward interaction includes zero. Platforms that have been timid about compensation can take note. The 20-year trajectory of this line of research points toward behavioral telemetry. The authors have demonstrated that the effort-intention gap is the real object of study, not motivation taxonomy. The next generation of papers in this space will need to measure actual commits, reviews, and documentation contributions rather than survey-reported effort. If that shift happens, the field moves from psychology to platform engineering — and this meta-analysis becomes the pivot point that forced the distinction.
