What motivates us: why the principle of carrot and stick does not work

In what situations do we get such pleasure from the process that the only desire is to continue doing it, and in what situations we expect rewards from outside? This question was asked by psychologist Edward Deci in the early 70s of the last century. He tried to distinguish between extrinsic and intrinsic motivation. Soon a colleague at the University of Rochester (USA) Richard Ryan joined him, and the theory of self-determination (psychologists sometimes use the abbreviation SDT) was born, which became part of the general changes in psychology as a science.

“If earlier schools dominated, each of which was a separate power with its own authorities, then in those years a movement began towards a common system of concepts,” says psychologist Dmitry Leontiev. – The new leaders no longer had a sacred status. Technological democratization has also taken place – scientific journals have become available to a wider range of researchers.”

The psychology of motivation has abandoned the formulation of global questions, for example, what drives us in general – libido or the search for the meaning of life. For all its beauty, such a question has nothing to do with science: no answer can be verified experimentally.

“Instead, psychologists have taken up questions of situational motivation – why I am doing something at the moment. This is exactly what can be explored and proved,” continues Dmitry Leontiev. The appearance of SDT, in his opinion, was a very important event in psychology.

Three Basic Needs

What motivates us to take action? Motivation is based on basic needs.

The first is the need for autonomy: we want to feel like the initiators of our own actions. It’s one thing to go to the store because we wanted something tasty, and quite another if the wife or husband buzzed all the ears in the refrigerator with a rolling ball.

The second is the need for competence: we want to be successful in what we do, to feel our mastery. It is good, of course, to become a great violinist or football player whose art is recognized by the whole world, but the simple praise of the authorities, colleagues, fans or listeners satisfies this need at least in part.

And the third is the need for relationships with other people. Everything is simple here: we feel good when those around us accept, hear, love and do not forget to report it.

The theory of self-determination, based on a lot of empirical data, proves that the satisfaction of these basic needs ensures psychological well-being and serves as the best incentive to perform any action. The main conclusion of STD supporters is that rewards and punishments are not always effective. Moreover, they violate the need for autonomy, and the negative side effects of this violation are much more serious than they seem.

Whether we are promised a carrot for our actions or threatened with a whip if we don’t do them, in both cases we are not the initiators. “To resort to the carrot and the stick is obviously easier for those who are faced with the task of motivating: we tend to choose what is easier,” says Dmitry Leontiev. – But if external motivation can still help in solving short-term, tactical tasks, then it will absolutely not help in solving strategic ones. Nothing can be achieved here without internal motivation.”

Of course, the full picture is more complex. For example, external motivation is divided into negative (conditional stick) and positive (carrot). The best results come from a combination of positive extrinsic and intrinsic motivation (psychologists have called this the “autonomy continuum”). And the combination of negative extrinsic motivation with a lack of intrinsic motivation ensures that nothing will come of it. But even from a brief retelling it is clear that a lot of things in life are arranged, to put it mildly, not in an optimal way.

Limits of control

“Freedom is the basis of our motivation. This is the main thesis of the theory of self-determination,” says psychologist Tamara Gordeeva. – We are constantly trying to control children, husbands, wives, friends and, of course, those who are subordinate to us at work. All this happens almost imperceptibly and is called by different words. Parents call it caring and nurturing, teachers call it learning, and leaders call it effective management. But essentially all this is control that undermines intrinsic motivation.

Practical conclusions from the theory of self-determination affect almost all spheres of life, often quite unexpected. For example, millions of patients forget to take their medicines. Dmitry Leontiev gives an example described by the American psychologist Edward Desi.

The woman was unsuccessfully treated for a serious illness – until her doctor changed. The new therapist began the visit by asking, “When is the best time for you to take your medication?” She, thinking, replied that in the evening. Soon the symptoms disappeared. The pills remained the same, the only thing was that the former doctor demanded to take them in the morning, when the woman forgot about the medicines for everyday chores. Although the timing of the appointment was not a fundamental condition for the effectiveness of treatment, one doctor believed in control and discipline, and the other gave the patient freedom of action, supporting her need for autonomy.

Kids need choices too.

The education system, which is almost entirely built on external (and by no means always positive) motivation, also needs the ideas of SMT.

“Freedom can be manifested in the way the teacher teaches the lesson, whether he asks questions, whether he answers the questions of the children himself – or requires him to open the textbook on such and such a page, write down such and such a solution to the problem from the board and do the work by such and such a date. over the mistakes, having issued it only in this way – and nothing else, – says Tamara Gordeeva. “Freedom lies in the fact that children themselves choose the solution to the problem or the work that they will study: “The Quiet Flows the Don” or “Virgin Soil Upturned”, “War and Peace” or “Anna Karenina”. There are infinitely many options, and it is important to see them and not miss them.”

It is useless, experts say, to try to force children to learn through grades. And even with the help of praise, they can also “turn off” the child’s own motivation. If a child considers praise as a means of control, a way to force him to learn, there will be no result.

Praise should be perceived as support and recognition of the child’s competence, his skill. “The more we try to control the child, the deeper the hole we dig. We may think that we are driven by love and the desire for the child to be successful in the future, but this does not change anything, Tamara Gordeeva reflects. “In the long run, these methods don’t work.”

Even a small child who does not want to eat porridge confirms the theory of self-determination. “Don’t get up from the table until you eat.” “Don’t eat porridge – there will be no cartoons today.” “Eat porridge – you get candy.” All three options are equally bad. They convey the idea that porridge in itself is a tasteless, unnecessary and unpleasant thing. But porridge is actually useful! Plus, it can be delicious. In the end, why not invite the child to choose what kind of porridge he wants and with what – with raisins or prunes, with a banana or dried apricots?

Waiting for a change

Although Edward Deci and Richard Ryan are among the most cited psychologists in the world, the theory of self-determination is not yet very widespread in Russia. But I want to believe that sooner or later most parents, teachers and leaders will understand: the source of our aspirations is in ourselves, and not at all in carrots and sticks. And this statement is now proven by scientific experiments. However, many of us, of course, have long guessed about it.