Positive Motivation

Positive Motivation A six-week course by Kennon Sheldon, PhD

First published in the United Kingdom in 2008 © Kennon Sheldon ISBN: 978-1-906366-05-6 (paperback) British Library Cataloguing-in-Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise), without either the prior written permission of the publisher, or a licence permitting restricted copying in the United Kingdom issued by the Copyright Licensing Agency Ltd, Saffron House, 6-10 Kirby Street, London, EC1N 8TS. This book may not be lent, resold, hired out or otherwise disposed of by way of trade in any form of binding or cover other than that in which it is published, without the prior consent of the Publisher. Requests for permissions should be directed to the Publisher. Printed in the United Kingdom 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 .

Table of Contents Week One: What is “Positive Motivation?”

5

Week Two: Understanding the “Why” and “What” of Motivation: Introduction to Self Determination Theory

19

Week Three: The Goal Systems Approach to Motivation

40

Week Four: Attribution and Achievement Goal Theories

59

Week Five: How to Motivate Others!

77

Week Six: What Do People Really Need?

91

About the Author

108

Week One: What is “Positive Motivation?”

Welcome to this course on the positive psychology of motivation! Motivation is a topic that is universally relevant and central to everyday life, not just to research psychology. For example: How do we get ourselves out of bed to take that morning run, and why is it so easy to find excuses not to? Why do we sometimes become addicted to experiences that are bad for us, and find it so hard to do what we know will be good for us? Although the answers to these questions are complex, the good news is that positive psychology and other branches of research psychology have produced answers. The best part of motivation research is that it can be applied to real life situations for gains in performance and other desirable outcomes. As a teacher, parent, manager, or therapist, it makes sense to ask ourselves how we should treat our children, subordinates, and clients so that they perform and develop to their full potential, rather than succumbing to the worst in themselves or underachieving. Motivation is also central to the biggest question of all — how do we decide what to do with our time, energy, and attention, in order to fill this great unstructured void between birth and death? Research on positive motivation, as you will see, provides some preliminary—and often sophisticated—answers to these important questions. As a specific example of the everyday nature of motivational psychology, take a moment and consider your own motivation to take this course. You‘re probably very curious about positive psychology, and you are hoping to learn useful facts about your own motivation and the motivation of others, facts that may help you in your work with clients, students, or employees. Presumably, you enrolled for the course of your own free will – there were no parents standing behind you, or graduation requirements to fulfill. Ultimately, you— and you alone— brought you to this experience. By contrast, think back to a difficult time in your early education or college years – a time when there was a certain required course that you didn’t want to take, or a course with an instructor you disliked intensely. Do you have a good example in mind? Now, remember how you felt when (or if) you dragged yourself to class. Was it resentment? A feeling of coercion? Whatever you felt, it was definitely not “you” that brought you to that experience. And, there were likely motivational

6 Week 1

consequences: maybe you rarely attended that course, or did poorly. Possibly you attended the course and did your work, but with a sense of half-heartedness and inner resistance – you got by, but remember little of the content today. Many of us have had experiences like this. But another scenario is possible as well. Perhaps, on the other hand, you somehow buckled down and found unexpected sources of meaning and interest related to the course. Maybe the topic of that course even turned into a lifelong passion for you! All of these responses are possible, and part of understanding the “positive psychology of motivation” is to understand how people find the latter response within themselves, rather than the former. In this course, we will learn about cutting-edge research on precisely this crucial issue. Positive motivation is about helping people rise to be at their best rather than whipping them into production mode. Incidentally, all of the ideas and exercises in this course are supported by topquality, peer-reviewed psychological science. Thus, this is not just a “self-help” course, a collection of common sense, or a smattering of pedestrian advice. The concepts and procedures presented here are not just the product of my imagination or the reflection of my opinions or political views. Instead, these concepts represent consensus knowledge in the field, and would pass peer review as a fair and balanced presentation of current theory and supporting data. (In fact, the content presented in this module did pass peer review—being read and commented on by my colleagues in the field before publication in academic journals). Look at it this way: there is, admittedly, much good advice to be found in the self-help section of your local bookstore and many good suggestions to be found in fashionable titles on business, education, and psychotherapy. But, there is also no shortage of bad advice, poor ideas, and ineffectual suggestions. Worse, there is often no way to tell the difference between the high quality work and the low quality passing fads. What you need is validated advice, based on painstakingly collected data. In this course, that is exactly what you will get. One final introductory point: I hope you leave this course at the end of our six weeks together with a clear understanding of the most important concepts in motivation theory, and how these can be applied effectively in your own life and work. Motivation theories are powerful, and if you understand them and how they relate to each other, then you can use them to solve almost any problem that might arise – in your own life, or in your professional life working with others. To help with this, I will suggest many concrete activities that help you to apply the concepts, so that you can continue to apply them when the course is over. In fact,

What is “Positive Motivation?” 7

I view this course as much more than just a weekly reading. The content of Positive Motivation is intended to be not only informative, but interactive, reflective, and perhaps even provocative. This course is not about passive learning, and you will be expected to read, reflect, apply techniques, integrate new knowledge, write short essays, and actively take charge of your own learning. I believe you will get so much more out of this course if you engage with it rather than just “read it.” And, not because a parent, boss, or instructor is looking over your shoulder, either! As we embark on this six week learning adventure together I hope you come to share my excitement and passion for this topic.

1.1 Exercise: Your Motivation for Taking this Course 1. Please list below all the different reasons that you can think of for why you decided to take this course.

2. What different sources of motivation can you identify in them?

3. Which of those sources of motivation was the most powerful in influencing your decision?

8 Week 1

Motivation and Happiness A preliminary question that is very relevant for the “positive psychology of motivation” is what can we do to be optimally happy and productive? Life is filled with an endless variety of experiences, and these experiences are largely of our own making. How can we, via our motivated behaviour, make our experiences as happy, fulfilling, and productive as possible? This is one of the oldest and most important questions humans have asked themselves throughout history. Great thinkers like Aristotle wrote whole works in answer to this question. In more recent times, this goal of happiness—of personal fulfillment— seems foundational to the birth of American society, with its “pursuit of happiness” enshrined as an inalienable right by the Declaration of Independence. But happiness, for all its hype, is by no means a uniquely American phenomenon. Modern international surveys show that this goal is very important for people in cultures as diverse as those of Brazil and China. Fortunately, research in the positive psychology tradition has been addressing the question of how motivation relates to happiness. In fact, there is now much longitudinal research that provides a clear understanding of the causal processes involved in becoming a happier person, and clear indications about where and how to intervene in those processes. In this course we will consider this research, and its implications for you, the people you work with, and those you care about. One of the things revealed by this research is that there are no secret formulas or easy solutions for becoming a more motivated, happier person. This is what the self-help books (and the diet books, and the instant wealth books) are selling, but it doesn’t work. Positive motivation can be difficult, and always requires effort. First, it takes effort to do the research and reflection to decide on a proper course of motivation. In one sense we are like doctors to ourselves, trying to diagnose what this patient within should do with his or her time and energy. This is not easy. Second, it takes effort to follow through on motivation. Often there is the temptation to hit the psychological (and sometimes actual) “snooze” button, or turn the alarm off altogether. Hopefully the effort feels more like fun than like work, but sometimes it may not – at those times, one must pass the “existential challenge” to carry on, nevertheless. Those who can do this become the shapers of worlds.

What is “Positive Motivation?” 9

What About Over-motivation? At this point, some of you may be asking: What about people who are overmotivated, workaholics who are burnt out by an obsession that stresses them daily and does not meet their psychological or social needs in the long run? Can’t a case be made that a huge portion of modern people are in, or very near, this category? Aren’t there highly publicised reports of stress being on the rise? As the pace of life quickens and the demands of work life increase, perhaps we should step aside and reflect on the ethics of increasing motivation. Maybe we should be trying to rid ourselves of motivation, rather than trying to acquire more motivation! Although there are certainly times when the absence of motivation is a good thing (say, when lying on a beach, or when relaxing after a stressful work-day), this course on positive motivation is based on the assumption (backed by research) that it almost always beneficial to find and pursue goals. In most cases of burnout the problem is not that people are too motivated, but rather, that they are motivated towards the wrong things, that they are doing the right things with the wrong type of motivation, or that they are unbalanced in their motivation, pursuing just one goal at the expense of other important motivations that they are ignoring. If you or your clients fall into the “over-motivated” camp, hopefully this course will help you to understand and resolve this problem.

10 Week 1

1.2 Reflection: Are You Over-motivated? 1. Think about the things you do on a daily basis and your motivation for doing them. Identify the things for which you have the greatest motivation and list them below:

2. Out of this list of things, can you identify anywhere you think you might be overmotivated? What do you think could be leading to that?

3. What about the people around you? Your friends, family members, work colleagues. Do you see them being over-motivated with things? What do you think causes that?

What is “Positive Motivation?” 11

The Whether, What, Why, and How of Motivation Let’s introduce some official course terminology, concerning the whether, the what, the why, and the how of motivation. These four everyday terms correspond to important distinctions and research topics within positive psychology, and within motivation research more generally. The “whether” question concerns whether a person has motivation to do “X,” which can be answered in the broadest way with a yes or no. Obviously, if there is no motivation, then a person is unlikely to take any action! And indeed, there are infinite activities for which we have no motivation whatsoever and will take no action. For me this list includes bungeejumping, horseback-riding, and buying a motorcycle. Insert your own list here. However, as we will see next week, amotivation can be a state of mind that exists even as we continue to “go through the motions” of doing something. And as you might expect, amotivation is a rather pernicious syndrome, one that afflicts many students, workers, clients and athletes. Amotivation is most likely to result when we have very low expectations concerning our ability to succeed – leading us to feel helpless and hopeless, even as we struggle on. However, this is a course in the positive psychology of motivation, not the negative psychology of motivation! Thus, we will not focus overlong on helplessness, hopelessness, and depression. Instead, let us assume that in most cases some degree of legitimate motivation exists, along with some perceived possibility of being successful at the activity. Now, the question becomes: what type of motivation is optimal? The “what” of motivation concerns the target activity or goal – what is the object towards which motivation is directed? Again, there are an infinite number of things that we might do. From a positive psychology perspective, the “what” question becomes, “Are some activities innately more healthy and beneficial (on average, at least) than others?” Does it make a difference, where psychological health and motivation are concerned, whether the goal is winning a football match, raising a responsible child, or embezzling from work? Are some motives, such as those intrinsic ones related to intimacy, community, and personal growth more beneficial than others, such as extrinsic motives around money, fame, and beauty? As we will see next week, there is considerable emerging research that provides answers to these questions. To give you a sneak peek at those answers, it seems human beings are naturally designed to pursue intrinsic goals and values, and to benefit emotionally from such pursuit. However, they can also easily be suckered into overly extrinsic goals, diverted by personal and cultural role models, and by advertising and the media, into an emotion-regulation strategy that usually backfires in the end. We will discuss this in depth later in this course.

12 Week 1

The “why” of motivation concerns why a person decides to do “X” activity or pursue “X” goal– what are their reasons for directing their motivational energies in this way? As we will see during this course, there are several interesting ways to think about the “why” question. One of the most compelling ways is provided by psychologist Ed Deci and Richard Ryan’s “Self-Determination Theory” (the topic of Week 2), which examines motivation as being internal or external. For example, do we only tip a food server, change our baby’s diaper, or attend a class, because we have to or would be punished if we didn’t (external motivation)? Or, do we do such things because they are naturally meaningful, interesting, or valuable to us (internal motivation)? Another way to think about the “why” of motivation is to consider how goals fit together. Might your motivation to pursue “X” goal be related to higher-level goals and purposes? For example, is taking this course linked to a broader goal of, say, becoming a skilled consultant or a therapist, which is in turn linked to an even broader principle of contributing to the well-being of others? We will consider these issues in Week 3 of this course. Yet another way of thinking about the “why” question concerns the type of “self-theory” that we hold about our own abilities. Do we believe, for instance, that talent and ability can be developed and increased through effort (called “mastery theory” or “incremental theory”), or do we believe that ability is innate and unchangeable (called “entity theory”)? If we believe the latter “entity” theory we may get stuck trying to prove our abilities to others, rather than acquiring and mastering new abilities. Unfortunately, entity theorists are quite vulnerable to amotivation when inevitable difficulties arise, whereas mastery theorists are not. We will discuss these issues in much greater depth in Week 4 of this course. Finally, the “how” of motivation concerns the concrete tools, techniques, steps, plans, or sequences that we use to approach a particular goal. Obviously, setting positive goals for positive reasons will still do us no good, if we have no way to achieve the goals in the first place! The “how” question will be considered in our third week, and a variety of empirically-supported techniques for planning and implementing goals and motivations will be covered. Indeed, many goal-setting efforts fail because people do not have the tools, the supports, or the feedback that they need.

The Four Questions of Motivation: 1. To what degree are you motivated to act, expend effort, or other resources in pursuit of a goal? Decide whether or not you are motivated. 2. What is it you are motivated to pursue? What is your goal or desired outcome? 3. Why are you pursuing this goal? 4. How will you achieve your goal?

What is “Positive Motivation?” 13

1.3 Exercise: Applying the Four Questions of Motivation to Yourself Think about a big goal that you are working towards at the moment. Answer each of the four questions of motivation for yourself in relation to this goal:

1. To what degree are you motivated to act, expend effort, or other resources in pursuit of a goal? Decide whether or not you are motivated.

2. What is it you are motivated to pursue? What is your goal or desired outcome?

3. Why are you pursuing this goal?

4. How will you achieve your goal?

14 Week 1

Stepping Back: Positive Psychology and Humanistic Psychology Let’s step back a bit from the professional terminology of motivation, and take a look at the bigger picture. Many of the questions and issues raised above predated the emergence of positive psychology. In fact, some of you may recognise the influence of older humanistic psychology ideas, concerning concepts like selfactualization, self-congruence, and the discernment of the “true self.” This is no accident: in many ways, positive psychology is built from and grounded in earlier efforts to understand the nature of optimal functioning and well-being. Positive psychology can trace some of its intellectual roots to the efforts of famous humanists like Abraham Maslow, Carl Rogers, and Rollo May. Although you might not be aware of it, this is sometimes a point of contention that amounts to a minor intellectual turf war. Some contemporary humanistic psychologists accuse modern positive psychologists of “reinventing the wheel,” or of not giving due credit to others who have pioneered similar lines of inquiry. For its part, the metaphorical question of which group of intellectual explorers planted their flag first is far less important than the differences between the explorers themselves. The main difference between the new positive psychology movement and the older humanistic psychology movement is that positive psychology embraces rigorous psychological science, whereas humanism did not (and still does not). Although humanists raise legitimate concerns about measurement, experimental manipulation, and the nature of knowledge, positive psychology does not flinch because of these concerns. Years have passed since the heyday of humanism and there have been tremendous advances in psychological measurement and statistical analyses. Positive psychology researchers are harnessing these advances to carry forward and develop the best theories of the humanists, finally supplying them with the scientific confirmation that every theory ultimately requires in order to be taken seriously. One such theory is that of psychological needs. As many of you know, Abraham Maslow’s “hierarchy of needs” theory has been very popular, trickling into the layperson’s understanding of psychology, and is still covered in every introductory psychology textbook. Maslow’s idea is that once we meet lower-level needs (such as food and security) then we can move on towards higher-level needs (such as relationships and self-esteem), and once they are met, then we can finally move on to our highest-level self-actualization needs (a place at which very few people arrive). However, the empirical support for Maslow’s needs hierarchy is shaky at best. After all, many people sacrifice their lower-level material needs in pursuit of higher-level value-based needs. Other people, with all their lower-level

What is “Positive Motivation?” 15

needs met, do not then turn towards higher-level needs. Neither of these instances would be predicted by Maslow’s theory. In Week 6 of this course we will consider the most prominent contemporary theory of psychological needs—a modern replacement of Maslow, if you will— put forth by Self-Determination Theory, as a way of consolidating all of the ideas and theories considered before. This theory views certain basic psychological needs (and not necessarily water and shelter) as being essential to all — like differing food-groups that everybody needs, in order to be most psychologically healthy. What all positive motivations may share in common, then, is that they draw from and help satisfy these basic needs built into the human psyche by evolution. Keeping this in mind may provide a “recipe for thriving” in any new situation, and for enhancing the thriving of others.

Review of Main Points from Week 1 1. In this week’s content, we contrasted positive and not-so-positive motivation, by comparing your motivation to take this course with your motivation to take some disliked course in the past. 2. We then considered four basic questions in motivation theory – whether or not one has motivation, what the target goal of that motivation may be, why does one have the motivation, and how does one go about trying to get the motivation? 3. Finally, we considered the links between positive psychology and humanistic theories of motivation, pointing out that positive psychology embraces rather than rejects scientific methodologies, and is using the best science to prove (and expand) some of the best humanistic theories.

What You Will Get Out of This Course This course is designed to give you a better understanding of your own motivation, and the motivations of others. In Week 2 we will cover SelfDetermination Theory, and its powerful concepts for analyzing the “what” and “why” of motivation. In Week 3 we will consider the nature of personal goal hierarchies, which will let us consider the “why” question in a different way, and also the “how” question. In Week 4 we will consider the “why” question again by addressing achievement goal theory, covering the important distinctions between approach versus avoidance motivation, performance versus mastery motivation, and entity versus incremental theories of ability. In Week 5 we will turn to the

16 Week 1

topic of motivating others, or—to put it differently— the topic of helping others to motivate themselves. Finally, in Week 6, we will pull it all together by considering the nature of psychological needs. In addition to conceptual knowledge, in this course I hope you gain personal knowledge, such as new insights on how to set and select self-appropriate personal goals. Furthermore, I hope you will gain clear techniques and pathways for achieving those goals, and clear techniques and recommendations for motivating others towards better performance, learning, and development. Finally, it is my intention that you will develop a better understanding of your own and others’ psychological needs, and the crucial role of psychological needsatisfaction in your own and others’ motivation and well-being. Unfortunately, I cannot guarantee any of these outcomes — I am still learning to apply these ideas to my own life, and sometimes things go slowly! I can assure you that what you will take away from this course will be commensurate with the effort and time you put into it. There will be two formal assignments given during this course that are aimed at giving you an opportunity to showcase your learning. A pass grade on both is required to receive credit in this course. The first assignment will consist of three short essay questions at the end of Week 3, and the second will be a longer 600 word essay given at the end of the course. No need to have test anxiety, however; you are bright, experienced, and motivated, and you should do fine on these essays.

What is “Positive Motivation?” 17

1.4 Looking Ahead Please think about and set two personal goals for the course, and think about your motivation for those goals. These may be something as simple as “keep up with the assigned reading each week.” Also, set two goals for other areas of your life (such as work or family), including a goal in a problem area of your life, and think about your motivation for pursuing them, as well. So, at the next class, please have four goals in mind.

18 Week 1

Reading for Week 1 Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68-78. Available from: http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/documents/2000_RyanDeci_SDT.pdf This paper provides an excellent and accessible overview and introduction to Self-Determination Theory and some of the core concepts around motivation that we will cover throughout this course. Sheldon, K. M. (2005). Optimal human being: An integrated multi-level perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Please read Chapter 1. This chapter introduces optimal human being and provides an overview and context for the things we will cover in this course.

Week 2: Understanding the “Why” and “What” of Motivation: An Introduction to SelfDetermination Theory Welcome back! Last week we contrasted positive and not-so-positive motivation, by comparing your motivation to take this course with your motivation to take some other course which you disliked, back in the past. We then considered four basic questions in motivation theory – whether or not a person has motivation, what a person is motivated to accomplish, why a person is motivated to seek out or accomplish a goal, and how does a person go about trying to get the motivation? Finally, we considered the links between positive psychology and humanistic theories of motivation, pointing out that positive psychology embraces rather than rejects scientific methodologies, and is using the best science to prove (and expand on) some of the best humanistic theories. At the end of Week 1, I asked you to think of four different goals you would like to pursue in the next few weeks — two concerning this course, and two concerning your personal or work life outside of this course. If you haven’t done that yet, then please do it now before continuing! RECAP: If you haven’t yet done the exercise, 1.4 Looking Ahead, please go back and do it now – you will need to refer to it during the learning for Week 2 and beyond! This week, I will introduce you to one of the best-researched and most widely accepted theories of motivation: self-determination theory (SDT). I hope you were able to read the suggested overview article on SDT, referenced and linked to in last week’s material. The SDT approach to motivation, pioneered by psychologists Ed Deci and Rich Ryan, is centrally about the “what” and “why” of motivation, supplying powerful concepts for understanding positive (and not-so-positive) motivation. SDT has been around for a long time in academic research psychology, since the early 1970s, which is very unusual given the short life of most theories. In fact, the number of researchers applying and developing SDT continues to grow every year — more than 300 researchers from 23 countries attended the 2007 SDT conference in Toronto. Although SDT has a lot in common with humanistic theories of motivation, it has been developed completely in partnership with high quality experimental, applied, and longitudinal research data, published in the very best peer-reviewed journals. This is knowledge you can trust.

20 Week 2

It is also knowledge you can use. SDT is all about optimal motivation, and understanding SDT will provide you with many tools for understanding, recognising, and promoting optimal motivation, both in yourself and in others. Understanding SDT will also help you work with teams, clients, and students to promote productivity. This week you will be introduced to new vocabulary and practical applications of this important research. In particular, we will cover four types of motivation: intrinsic, identified, introjected, and external.

The Importance of Intrinsic Motivation SDT is built on the concept of intrinsic motivation, that is, the desire to do something just for the experience itself. Intrinsic motivation is everywhere – it is seen when people are doing a jigsaw puzzle, when they are making love, when they are trying to master the art of flower gardening, and when they are absorbed in a fascinating work project. Intrinsic motivation is present in babies just learning about the world, and provides the impetus for much of people’s cognitive development thereafter; from the teen years through old age. When we are intrinsically motivated we are fully engaged, pushing the limits of our current abilities, and often experiencing states of “flow,” in which we are totally absorbed by optimal challenges (such as learning a new piano piece, mastering a new computer programme, or striving for victory in a hard-fought tennis match). Intrinsic motivation is a big part of what makes life worth living! Edward Deci, originator of SDT, was one of the first to discover the potential fragility of intrinsic motivation – that it is easily undermined and spoiled. In one of the earliest experiments on the topic, researchers discovered an unusual finding: that after paying people to solve inherently enjoyable puzzles, they typically lose the desire to play with them spontaneously (as observed through a one-way mirror).1 This is very hard to explain from a ”Skinner Box” behaviourist perspective, which says that people should want to do more, not less, of a behaviour that has been reinforced! In the words of writer Alfie Kohn, people can sometimes be “punished by rewards.”2 It turns out that it is not just payment that can undermine intrinsic motivation — imposed deadlines, hawkish bosses, coerced goals, and unwarranted rules also make activities less enjoyable.

Understanding the “Why” and “What” of Motivation 21

These findings beg an important question: does it matter whether or not people enjoy their daily activities? For example, should we care if our employees are happy at work? Does it matter if students are thrilled by their maths homework? Does it make a difference if learning to play the violin is a fun self-selected activity, or pushed on a child by his or her parents? The answers to all these questions are: YES! Intrinsic motivation has been shown by countless studies to provide a wide variety of benefits – intrinsically motivated research participants can learn and integrate the most new information, can achieve the best performance breakthroughs, and demonstrate the greatest persistence in the presence of difficulties.3 Intrinsic motivation and positive psychology naturally go together; what could be more positive than to show managers, teachers, and mentors that helping students and subordinates to enjoy themselves will also help them to be more effective and productive? These findings have huge implications for how teachers should teach, coaches should coach, parents should parent, and bosses should boss; indicating that it is very important to nurture intrinsic motivation where it does not exist, and to keep it alive where it does. If you compare your motivation to take this course with the motivation you had for that disliked course back in secondary school or at university, you will probably find much intrinsic motivation in the first case and not very much in the second. Why the difference? The SDT findings suggest that you may have felt controlled, coerced, or bribed to take the high school course, undermining your intrinsic motivation.4 In the words of the student chorus in Pink Floyd’s classic album The Wall, “Teacher — we don’t need no thought control!” Does this description fit your experience as a student in that course? Maybe, maybe not — think about it.

22 Week 2

2.1 Reflection: Your Previous Educational Experiences Think back to your school or college experiences, and the courses that you most enjoyed and least enjoyed. What was your motivation for taking each of those courses? What things impacted on that motivation? Write your answers here:

Understanding the “Why” and “What” of Motivation 23

The Importance of Identified Motivation You can’t lose what you never had — so maybe your intrinsic motivation wasn’t undermined in the disliked course, because you never had any in the first place! Maybe nothing could ever induce you to enjoy chemistry, literature, or physical education—whatever that class may have been for you. Even so, might you at least have come to see the topic’s importance, even if you still didn’t enjoy it? For example, the health course you originally hated when you were fifteen might have remained boring all term long, but maybe you could have seen the chance to learn some useful information and adopt some beneficial new habits, nevertheless. Maybe you did come to realise that there were points that were useful, and found these motivating, even if you never rose to that intrinsic level where the class was inherently fun. This subtle difference represents a whole different type of motivation. This last example illustrates an important development in SDT, which occurred during the 1980s; the recognition that there are other positive forms of motivation besides intrinsic motivation. After all, not all important activities (such as paying taxes or changing baby’s diaper or studying for a licensing exam) can be fun – but we can still identify with these activities, doing them willingly rather than with a sense of internal resistance. This second positive (or self-determined) form of motivation, in addition to intrinsic motivation, is called identified motivation. One may not enjoy the activity, but at least one can have internalised it into one’s sense of self, seeing the value in it, if not the fun of it, doing it willingly and with a sense of personal volition. In the business world, workers with identified motivation can be counted on to keep going even when the task gets boring or frustrating. Also, since they believe in the importance of what they are doing, identified workers are also more likely to spontaneously contribute to the organisational citizenship of the workplace, taking responsibility for tasks that go above and beyond their job descriptions.5 Unfortunately, like intrinsic motivation, identified motivation can also be undermined by controlling authorities – for example, if the leader of the political action group to which you belong is a jerk, you may cease to participate, and you may even cease to identify with the political party itself. In the work world, if your immediate supervisor is obnoxious and pushy, you may start to dislike the entire company that he represents. Many of us have had experience with managers who are negative or controlling, and interactions with them can quickly become motivationally toxic. For identified workers— those who see the value in their work even if they do not feel it is enjoyable every step of the way—this can be

24 Week 2

especially damaging. If anything, workers with identified motivation need to be reminded of how valuable their overall contributions are. However, on the positive side, identified motivation can be enhanced — by autonomy-supportive authorities, who take a subordinate’s perspective when they make a request (“I know this may seem like a boring task”), provide them with a meaningful rationale for what is being asked (“but it is crucial to the company’s competitiveness in this area”), and provide as much choice as possible about how and when to complete a task (“to do this task, you can come to work early and also leave early, if that works better for you”). Autonomy-supportive bosses tend to trust their employees to get the job done, and want to offer them the encouragement, freedom, and flexibility to do the job in a way that makes sense personally. Of course, as supervisors, even autonomy-supportive bosses must hold workers accountable for the final quality of the work. It is a case of executives and managers telling subordinates “what” to do rather than “how” to do it. Bosses who are autonomy-supportive (rather than controlling) tend to inspire loyalty in their followers at the same time that they inspire maximal performance by those followers.6 In fact, the importance of identified motivation and autonomy-support can not be emphasised enough. SDT claims that both are hugely important for the survival of society itself, ensuring that cultural norms, values and traditions are fully transmitted to and internalised by the next generation. Ironically, by providing people the freedom to reject a particular motivation, they are more likely to take it in! As an example, one recent study showed that second generation immigrant college students in the United States were already largely “Americanised.”7 However, they were more likely to also have internalised their parents’ cultural traditions, making them bi-cultural individuals, if they had been allowed to make their own choices regarding those traditions. In contrast, controlling parents’ attempts to force-feed the traditions of the old country backfired, such that their children showed the least internalization of their birth culture. I’m sure you can imagine the same types of processes occurring in organizations—whether it is a large company or a school— when the “old guard” tries to force the traditional ways of doing things rather than allowing younger employees to decide for themselves which traditions remain worthy or when it makes sense to revise and evolve. We will talk more about autonomy-support, and other positive motivational techniques, in Week 5 of this course.

Understanding the “Why” and “What” of Motivation 25

The Problems with External and Introjected Motivation In addition to the two “positive” forms of motivation covered above (intrinsic and identified motivation) SDT also specifies two less positive forms of motivation – external motivation, and introjected motivation. In these instances a person acts with a sense of external compulsion or necessity (external motivation) and/or with a sense of internal pressure or self-recrimination (introjected motivation). External motivation is easy to understand: these are the activities you are forced to do, for which you see little value, and are not particularly fun. Redundant paperwork, some required trainings at work, attending regular meetings where nothing is ever accomplished – these are just a few of these often aggravating activities that are the products of external motivation. Introjected motivation is similar, only in this case it is you, yourself, who is doing the requiring, pushing, and guilt-tripping. You can probably call to mind activities that you thought were neither enjoyable nor very valuable, and yet felt you “ought” to do them, or “should” do them. Chances are you dragged yourself off to complete them just the same as if there had been a supervisor, military sergeant, or concerned mother looking over your shoulder. Both of these types of motivation involve some sense of unwillingness, of being controlled by forces one does not fully own and endorse. Introjected motivation is not as problematic as external motivation, because at least we have begun to internalise the motivation into our sense of self. In fact, introjected motivation can motivate some very positive behaviour, as when people spontaneously share, cooperate, or make necessary personal sacrifices to avoid guilt (see the example below). According to SDT, however, it is better if introjected motivation can go one step further, to become identified motivation. In this case, the sense of internal resistance and guilt has disappeared, and the self fully endorses the motivation, even if it is not enjoyable. Let’s take an example – that of Joan, an administrator who is responsible for maintaining her office’s enormous electronic mailing database at work. She dislikes the job, and usually waits until near the monthly deadline to complete it, when her reluctance is finally overcome by her guilt over procrastinating. An autonomy-supportive manager could help her turn this introjected motivation into identified motivation by acknowledging Joan’s hard work on such a difficult and often unpleasant task, and letting her know about all the important uses to which the database has been put, and how this work is vital to the ultimate success of the organization. By helping Joan to connect the behaviour to her values and sense of

26 Week 2

self, the manager might gain an employee who is even more timely, dedicated, and effective in the tedious task. Figure 2.1 below summarises the concepts so far, all concerning the “why” of motivation. The figure shows that motivation exists on a continuum, ranging from amotivation (helplessly going through the motions, as discussed in Week 1) to external motivation (feeling one’s behaviour is caused by the environment) to introjected motivation (feeling one’s behaviour is caused by a conflict inside the self) to identified motivation (feeling one’s behaviour is caused by the wholehearted self) to intrinsic motivation (feeling that one’s behaviour is caused by the enjoyable nature of the activity itself). Motives to the right are more internalised than motives to the left, and tend to be more positive and beneficial for peoples’ performance and well-being. Ideally, over time, one will be able to internalise all of one’s motives, so that one feels fully self-determined in whatever one does. In fact, several published articles show that this tends to happen automatically as we get older – we learn to “own” what we do, and learn how to avoid situations or resist influences that seem to force us to do what we cannot own. This same natural internalization process also occurs in children — studies have shown that teenagers tend to do non-fun behaviours (such as picking up their room) for more internalised reasons (“I do it so I know where my stuff is”), compared to younger children (“I do it because mother will punish me if I don’t).8 Figure 2.1: The Motivation Continuum

Amotivation

External

Introjected

Identified

Intrinsic

3 “Extrinsic” Motives 2 “Controlled” Motives Least Internalised

2 “Autonomous” Motives Most Internalised

Understanding the “Why” and “What” of Motivation 27

Figure 2.1 also shows the three “extrinsic” motivations, in which a person acts not for the inherent pleasure of acting, but rather, to get some separable consequence; shows the distinction between “autonomous” and “controlled” motivations, in which the self does or does not endorse the behaviour; and shows that not all extrinsic motivations are problematic, since identified extrinsic motivation is autonomous and internalised (see Figure 2.1), despite (perhaps) not being enjoyable. In addition, this figure can be used to illustrate the place of many different types of motivation theories from the past, including Skinnerian reinforcement theories, Freudian superego theories, and humanistic theories (I won’t bore you with the details). Finally, as implied earlier, many theories of personality and psychosocial development (i.e., Erik Erikson’s stage theory of lifespan development) emphasise movement towards greater autonomy and selfpossession over time. Thus, I suggest that figure 2.1 is well worthy of study and reflection!

28 Week 2

2.2 Reflection Please stop and reflect upon Figure 2.1 – how have your motives and goals been more or less internalised, in various times and places in your life? Have you gradually become more internalised in what you do, over the course of your life? Write your answers here:

Understanding the “Why” and “What” of Motivation 29

Concretely speaking, the figure also illustrates an important goal for those who are trying to enhance their own motivation, or others’ motivation — namely, trying to promote motives to the right side of the figure, and avoiding instilling motives to the left side of the figure. Indeed, dozens of research studies have supported this advice, in domains as diverse as medicine, coaching and sport, education, organizations, and parenting.9 The general approach of these studies is to 1) measure participants on each of the five motivations, determining where on the continuum they fall, then 2) show that greater internalization is associated with a wide variety of positive outcomes, including persistence, flexibility, creativity, and better performance at the individual level, and better teamwork and cooperation between people, at the team level.

The “What” of Motivation – And Why it Matters So far we’ve been talking about the “why” of motivation — looking for the reasons behind the goal, while ignoring what the goal itself is. We could call the goal itself the “what” of motivation – the “X” that we pursue, for whatever reason. Some people pursue love, others money; some people want a new television, others want to finish the novel they are reading; some people want to take up jogging, others want to quit smoking; some people pursue success, others try to avoid failure. SDT research in the 1990s began to address the “what” question, by distinguishing between two different types of values or goals: “extrinsic” and “intrinsic.” We have already used these terms when talking about motivation in general, but they can also apply to the “what,” to the target goal itself. Extrinsic goals are those that are done for some “external” reason. Extrinsic goals include trying to enhance our physical appearance, trying to gain status or become more well-known, and trying to acquire money and luxuries. By contrast, intrinsic goals include trying to enhance intimate relationships, trying to serve groups or communities beyond the self, and trying to grow and develop as a person. Extrinsic goals may sound “shallow,” like something you don’t really do — but let’s face it, everybody is susceptible to the lure of luxury, the pull of power, and the appeal of appearance! These goals certainly have their place, but it seems they should not predominate within the motivational system, or else the person may experience problems. Indeed, research conducted by psychologist Tim Kasser and his colleagues shows that focusing overmuch on extrinsic goals (relative to intrinsic goals) is negatively associated with well-being, happiness, and adjustment.10 As the sayings go, “money can’t buy you love,” “beauty is only skin deep,” and “fame ain’t what it’s cracked up to be.”

30 Week 2

Research also shows that merely framing tasks in intrinsic versus extrinsic terms has effects on peoples’ performance and mood. For example, in three experiments, Maarten Vansteenkiste (a prominent young Belgian researcher) and his colleagues showed that framing information about recycling, business communication styles, or a fitness activity in intrinsic terms (“this will help the environment, your personal development, your health”) versus extrinsic terms (“this will help you save money, help you get a high-paying job, help you look better”) made a difference.11 Participants randomly assigned to do the requested activity with the intrinsic frame had greater learning/understanding, better performance/ achievement, and greater persistence/follow-through, compared to performing the activity with the extrinsic frame — in part because the intrinsic frame produced more internalised motivation for doing the activity. The implications for motivating clients, students, and workers are clear – whenever some course of action is being suggested, try to frame it in intrinsic rather than extrinsic terms. For example, Richard, a team-leader, might frame the team’s goal as to “grow as a team,” not to “boost the bottom line,” and Louise, a sports coach, might frame her skater’s goal as “giving your best performance yet at the Nationals,” not “winning a medal at Nationals.” These kinds of ideas will re-appear when we consider achievement goals theory and the difference between performance versus learning goals, in Week 4 of the class.

Extrinsic versus Intrinsic Framing Examples Extrinsic

Intrinsic

1. Do well to impress my boss at work

1. Do well to earn more responsibility

at work 2. Earn more to boost my status

2. Earn more to take the kids on vacation

3. Increase time on the treadmill to look more attractive 4.Go green to save money

3. Increase time on the treadmill to improve my health 4. Go green to help the planet

Understanding the “Why” and “What” of Motivation 31

2.3 Exercise: Reframing Motivation With reference to the Extrinsic versus Intrinsic Framing Examples given above, think about three goals that you need to frame, either for other people, or for yourself. How could you shift that framing from being an extrinsic orientation to being an intrinsic motivation? Write your original goals and reframed goals below: Extrinsic Goal (original)

Intrinsic Goal (reframed)

1.

1.

2.

2.

3.

3.

32 Week 2

Sometimes when people hear about the extrinsic versus intrinsic value findings, they wonder if these “what” effects are really “why” effects. Maybe there is nothing problematic about striving for money, beauty, and fame, as long as you can do it for the right reasons. In fact, this is not quite the case – recent research shows that the “what” and “why” variables have independent effects on people’s mood and well-being.12 This research indicates that the happiest people are those who pursue intrinsic goals for autonomous (internalised) reasons (e.g., a philanthropist who supports charities because she feels it is important to help others), and the least happy people are those who pursue extrinsic goals for controlled (non-internalised) reasons (e.g., a stock-broker who wants greater wealth for controlled reasons such as social status). In the middle are those who pursue intrinsic goals for controlled reasons (e.g., a philanthropist who helps charities to look good to his peers) or who pursue extrinsic goals for autonomous reasons (e.g., a stockbroker who enjoys the game, and believes in the capitalist system). So, it appears to be important to both orient one’s clients and employees in intrinsic directions, and, to promote their internalization of those motivations into their sense of self. This will yield not only happiness benefits, but performance and achievement benefits. In the exercise that follows, I ask you to consider the four goals that you brought to Week 2’s work in these terms.

Understanding the “Why” and “What” of Motivation 33

2.4 Exercise: Understanding Your Goals on the Motivation Continuum Please think and write about each of your four goals, using the SDT concepts described above. Answer the following questions for each goal: 1. Do the goals concern intrinsic or extrinsic contents, and are they pursued for autonomous or controlled reasons?

2. Where do the goals fit on the internalization continuum?

3. If some of your goals are extrinsic and/or controlled, how might you reframe or re-conceptualise them, so that they represent more positive forms of motivation, according to the SDT research? Of course you need not accept all of the ideas presented above, in order to do this assignment; just try them on for size.

34 Week 2

Stepping Back: SDT and the Free Will Question Although SDT is well-known and well-respected in the academic research literature, it is not everybody’s cup of tea. The theory raises difficult philosophical issues concerning free will, agency, and the self; issues which make some hardnosed psychologists uncomfortable or even suspicious. Can the self really determine its own life and choices, or is the self an illusion that determines nothing? Instead of studying the nature of self-experience, should psychologists instead be studying the fine-grained cognitive processes that produce selfexperience? However, SDT maintains that it is vital to understand the nature of healthy selfhood in order to understand optimal functioning. Human beings are “thrown” into this world, and must create a self-endorsed identity and direction ex nihilo, out of nothing. Those people who feel like pawns, and who lack a sense of self-ownership, likely are failing to thrive. Thus, even if (in reality) “selfdetermination” is a delusion and free will is a myth, it still matters that we believe in these ideas, and experience them personally. And indeed, our society and laws expect us to exert behavioural self-determination, at least to the extent of not committing crimes or infringing upon the rights of others. SDT merely emphasises the psychological sense of self-determination, i.e. the belief that one is the author of one’s own life and choices. Such beliefs have many positive effects, even if we are sometimes deluded about our objective degree of choice and control. Thus, SDT provides a very good match with positive psychology, which is concerned with the psychological underpinnings of optimal performance. In subsequent weeks we will continue to make use of SDT.

To find out more, go to:

http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/

A Brief Note on Culture Some of you may be from non-western countries or cultures, in which there is less emphasis on individual experience, freedom, and the self, and more emphasis on collective norms, traditions, and the group. SDT is a decidedly individual-focused theory – does it apply in such settings? The answer is – YES. Deci and Ryan insist that autonomy should not be confused with independence: to be autonomous is to experience volition and internal assent with one’s behaviour, whereas to be independent is to be separate from, and not to rely on, others. When autonomy is measured as volition rather than independence, it has been found to be associated with positive outcomes in every culture so far examined, including Turkey, Japan, China, Bulgaria, India, and Nigeria. In other words, there is good emerging support for SDT’s proposal that autonomy is a universal or pan-cultural need, although of course, people may express this need differently in different settings, or may receive more or less encouragement for its expression in different settings. 13

Understanding the “Why” and “What” of Motivation 35

2.5 Reflections Although the research shows that only some types of motivation are associated with productivity and well-being, most of us have experience with less productive motivations as well. Take a few minutes to consider the various types of motivation discussed this week and how they apply to your own life: 1. Think about a time when you engaged in an activity that “had to be done” but which you did not particularly enjoy. Perhaps this was a project at work, or a social obligation. Maybe it was some work around the house. Which type of motivation do you think best characterises your approach to this task? Why do you think you did not like it very much? What could have been done, motivationally speaking, to help you enjoy it more? Are there lessons from this that you can apply to your clients, teams, or students? Write your answers here:

2. Consider a time when you bought into an extrinsic value. Maybe it was wanting to look attractive for other people. Perhaps it was an instance of wanting money for some desirable furniture. Remember back to that time and try to recall how that goal felt. How did it motivate you? What did you do as a result? How did that goal feel in comparison to other, more intrinsic goals you have had? Write your answers here:

36 Week 2

Review of Main Points from Week 2 1. In Week 2, we used Self-Determination Theory (SDT) and its supporting research base to talk about both the “why” and the “what” of motivation. SDT is a prototypically positive theory of motivation, because it emphasises intrinsic motivation and peoples’ natural growth processes. 2. However, SDT is not mindlessly positive, because it also emphasises the difficulty of internalising one’s actions in a world that does not always support free choice and self-expression. 3. According to the SDT research, it is optimal to pursue “intrinsic” goals concerning growth, intimacy, and community more so than “extrinsic” goals such as money, fame, and beauty, and also, to pursue these goals with intrinsic or at least identified motivation, more so than external or introjected motivation (as you may have noticed, the term “intrinsic” appears in both the “what” and “why” conceptions, which can be confusing; however in both places it refers to inherently rewarding pursuits). 4. Also, when assigning goals and motives to others, it is also best to frame the goals in intrinsic terms (this will help your health/development/the environment), and to emphasise internalised reasons for doing them (this is enjoyable and/or important).

Understanding the “Why” and “What” of Motivation 37

2.6 Bonus Exercise for Professionals! Many participants in this course are HR professionals, management consultants, coaches, or therapists – people who want to find useful concepts for working with others. Thus, an additional exercise I would like to invite you to do is to think and write about how these SDT concepts might be applied in your work. In what way might you alter what you are doing with others, in order to enhance their motivation? As a reminder, in Week 5 we will address this topic in detail, but it is never too soon to start thinking about it! Write your thoughts here:

38 Week 2

Readings for Week 2 Sheldon, K. M. (2005). Optimal human being: An integrated multilevel perspective. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. Please read Chapter 6. For the best introduction to the goal concepts discussed in Week 3, please read Chapter 6 on goals and intentions. You may also want to read Chapters 1 and 2 of this book, for further relevant background. Also, here is a link to an article showing that the “what” and the “why” of motivation are not the same thing – both are independently important. The article is: Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R. M., Deci, E. L., & Kasser, T. (2004). The independent effects of goal contents and motives on well-being: It’s both what you pursue and why you pursue it. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 475-486. You can access the article here: http://web.missouri.edu/~sheldonk/pdfarticles/PSPB04.pdf

Key References from Week 2 1.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

2.

Kohn, A. (1993). Punished by rewards: The trouble with gold stars, incentive plans, A’s, praise, and other bribes. Boston, MA, USA: Houghton Mifflin Co.

3.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum

4.

Ryan, R. M. & Stiller, J. (1991). The social contexts of internalization: Parent and teacher influences on autonomy, motivation, and learning. Advances in Motivation and Achievement, 7, 115-149.

5.

Sheldon, K. M., Turban, D.V., Brown, K., Barrick, M., & Judge, T. (2003). Applying self-determination theory to organizational research (pp 357-394). Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 22. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Understanding the “Why” and “What” of Motivation 39

6.

Sheldon, K. M., Turban, D.V., Brown, K., Barrick, M., & Judge, T. (2003). Applying self-determination theory to organizational research (pp 357-394). Research in Personnel and Human Resources Management, Vol. 22. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

7.

Abad, N., & Sheldon, K. M. (in press). Parental autonomy-support and ethnic culture identification among second-generation immigrants. Journal of Family Psychology.

8.

Chandler, C. L., & Connell, J. P. (1987). Children’s intrinsic, extrinsic, and internalised motivation: A developmental study of children’s reasons for liked and disliked behaviours. British Journal of Developmental Psychology, 5, 357-365.

9.

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. New York: Plenum.

10. Kasser, T. (2002). The high price of materialism. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. 11. Vansteenkiste, M., Simons, J., Lens, W., Sheldon, K.M., & Deci, E. (2004). Motivating processing, performance, and persistence: The synergistic role of intrinsic goal content and autonomy-supportive context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 246-260. 12. Sheldon, K. M., Ryan, R., Deci, E., & Kasser, T. (2004). The independent effects of goal contents and motives on well-being: It’s both what you pursue and why you pursue it. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 475-486. 13. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behavior. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268.

Week 3: The Goal Systems Approach to Motivation Once again, welcome back! Last time we used Self-determination theory (SDT) and its supporting research base to talk about both the “why” and the “what” of motivation. SDT is a prototypically positive theory of motivation, because it emphasises intrinsic motivation and peoples’ natural growth processes. However it is not mindlessly positive, because it also emphasises the difficulty of internalising one’s actions in a world that does not always support free choice and self-expression. According to the SDT research, it is optimal to pursue “intrinsic” goals concerning growth, intimacy, and community more so than “extrinsic” goals such as money, fame, and beauty; and also, to pursue these goals with intrinsic or at least identified motivation, more so than external or introjected motivation (as you may have noticed, the term “intrinsic” appears in both the “what” and “why” conceptions, which can be confusing; however in both places it refers to inherently rewarding pursuits). Also, when assigning goals and motives to others, it is also best

to

frame

the

goals

in

intrinsic

terms

(“this

will

help

your

health/development/the environment”), and to emphasise internalised reasons for doing them (“this is enjoyable and/or important”).

The Goal Systems Perspective This week, we will consider a very different way of understanding the structure of motivation, one that is based on cognitive and cybernetic principles. This is just jargon for the idea that we have goals that are—for lack of a better word— programmed into us, perhaps by nature, perhaps by society, perhaps by our parents and, ultimately, perhaps by ourselves. This “goal systems” approach is in some ways very mechanistic, seeing humans much like robots that need to be intricately and properly programmed in order to achieve their objectives. Few of us resonate naturally to the idea that we are like programmable robots! However, when the mechanical approach is combined with the humanistic SDT approach, we will see that a very powerful marriage results. Within this union, the question becomes “can the self learn to program itself, rather than being programmed by external forces?” Hopefully, you were able to do the assigned reading in Optimal Human Being, which covers these issues in detail.

The Goal Systems Approach to Motivation 41

To introduce the goal-systems perspective, let us return to the “why” question of motivation. SDT says it is optimal to do X (such as learning French, writing a report, or making a sale) “because it is enjoyable” or “because I believe in it,” rather than “because I have to” or “because I ought to” (i.e., for identified or intrinsic reasons, rather than external or introjected reasons). But if you think about it, the “why” of many behaviours often turns out to be a bit more complex than “how I feel about it.” Often one goal is related to another and they can be more accurately described by statements such as “because I needed to complete X before I could move on to Z” or “because X brings me closer to Z.” In this arrangement, X (the lower-level goal) supplies the “how” of Z (the higher-level goal), and Z supplies the “why” for X. If this algebraic approach to goals and motivation seems a bit complicated or challenging for the non-mathematically inclined, don’t worry, we’ll flesh out these concepts with an example. For instance: why do you try to get your kids to school on time? This is a small daily goal that those of us with children typically have, and the answer to the question is related to larger, more abstract goals. You can mentally chain these higher and lower level goals together without much difficulty. The short term answer to school punctuality is this: we like to get our kids to school on time so that they are not punished, so that they don’t miss that day’s lesson, and so that they do not suffer any social consequences (such as missing a few free moments to hang out with friends). But, clearly, things don’t end there. More generally, we want our children to learn responsibility and punctuality, and the importance of taking seriously one’s commitments in the world. Put this way, getting to school on time starts to sound pretty important! The truth is, school related punctuality is just one strand in a web of here-and-now short-term, concrete goals that make up a system related to a higher goal of wanting to “raise kids right” or “help our children become responsible adults.” We often hold these loftier, more abstract goals in the back of our minds, and use the more concrete short-term goals as mile markers en route.

Goal Systems Point 1: Hierarchical Organisation As this example illustrates, action is hierarchically organised.1 Longer-term goals, principles, and values (ideally) set the agenda for shorter-term skills, processes, and procedures. Meanwhile, the shorter-term processes (ideally) provide the means of reducing the discrepancy between the present state and a desired future state. In other words, short term goals act like stepping stones that help break up daunting goals and provide us a clear path for progress. Imagine, for example, a gargantuan task such as writing a book. If you, as the author, sat in front of your

42 Week 3

blank page one and thought about the overwhelming prospect of churning out a 350 page story, you might give up, even though it is a meaningful goal to you. Instead, what you (and the rest of us) do is break that large goal into smaller bits. You might consider writing a chapter, or writing a page, and these smaller goals seem much easier to accomplish while still putting you on the road to the longterm goal. Goal systems are how we pull ourselves into the future — first envisioning, and then actually creating, how we want things to be. Furthermore, most if not all of even our momentary behaviours can be located somewhere within the overall system.

The Goal Systems Approach to Motivation 43

3.1 Activity: Goal Hierarchies Try thinking of your own goals in terms of a hierarchy, some of which are broader, more important, or take precedence over others. The way we most commonly do this is by thinking about goals in terms of “short” and “long term.” Take a moment and list some of your own personal goals. In this case, we will work top-down, from the “highest,” most abstract goals down to the most local, current, and concrete: 1. What I want to accomplish in my professional life:

2. What I plan to do to accomplish this:

3. What I need to do to increase skills, resources, and opportunities to put #2 into action:

4. What needs to happen on a daily basis, or micro-level to ensure #3 occurs:

44 Week 3

From the “robot” perspective, the ideal action system should have a clear set of characteristics. First, every goal, at every level of the system, should be furnished with lower-level plans, skills, and procedures, that allow people to keep reducing the discrepancy between the present state (ultimate goal not complete) and desired future state (ultimate goal complete). Returning to the example of an author, above: writing a page of that novel helps complete that chapter, which puts you one chapter closer to completing the manuscript, which then can be published. This “discrepancy-reduction” idea goes back to the development of missile guidance systems in World War II — it was only then that machines first became capable of self-correction, by comparing their actual trajectory with a target trajectory, detecting any discrepancies, and making changes as needed. Of course, I am not suggesting that our goal systems are designed after missile guidance systems: quite the opposite! Missile guidance systems mimic how biological organisms continually maintain homeostasis and move themselves around the environment. It is amazing to me that these basic principles of selfregulation were discovered so late, three hundred years after the discovery of calculus! Bringing it back to people: It appears, then, that certain self-regulatory tools are necessary in order to pursue goals effectively. That is, goals are not just products of random luck and succeeding at them is not a matter of effortless trial. Instead, we have to be in control of our own thoughts, feelings, and behaviours, and often at a conscious level in order to succeed. First, we need to be able to keep the goal in mind; second, we need to be able to mentally compare it to the current situation, detecting discrepancies between the goal and the current situation; third, we need to be able to act effectively to reduce the discrepancies, and fourth, we need to be able to detect when the discrepancy is gone (when we have achieved the goal!), so we can stop acting.2

The Four Steps of Goal Systems 1. Keep the goal in mind 2. Evaluate our current situation, and be able to compare it to where we want to be in terms of the ultimate goal. 3. Understand what actions we need to take in order to reduce the discrepancy and move closer to the goal . 4. Recognise when we have achieved the goal so we can quit working and pat ourselves on the back!

The Goal Systems Approach to Motivation 45

Problems at any of these stages can spell trouble for the whole system. For example, take the case of a manager who—like managers everywhere— wants to run a cohesive work-group. Managers tend to be great at step one, and we can assume that he or she will keep the goal of a cohesive work group in mind! But, what about problems in step two: evaluating progress toward the goal? The manager, depending on his or her intuition, relationships, and supervisory style may or may not detect interpersonal conflicts within the work-group undermining their effectiveness and the ultimate goal of cohesion. Even if he or she does detect a discrepancy there could be a problem with step three: knowing what to do about it to get back on track toward having a cohesive group. Finally, even if the manager succeeds in resolving the group conflict, he or she may or may not realise that the ultimate goal has been accomplished and now is the time to back away and let the team function again. This last is the typical case of continuing to fix what isn’t broken. The take-home message for motivators is: Try to be aware of deficits and planning gaps in this simple, four step action system.

Goal Systems Point 2: Goal Conflict As a second positive goal system characteristic, goals should be consistent with each other, and not conflict with one another. For example, it would be hard to simultaneously achieve the goals of becoming an Olympic level athlete and reading all of the masterpieces of world literature! The problem here would be a time conflict, but there can also be material conflicts between goals (”I want to own a private yacht and helicopter” but “I am dedicated to the idea of working in the non-profit sector for a low salary,”) and even logical conflicts between goals (to “become a more agreeable and cooperative person” may conflict with the goal to “aggressively grow my business by beating out the local competition”). Chronic goal conflict is associated with chronic low-level stress and with increasing health problems over time, and thus it is worth the effort to untangle and sort out any such conflicts.3 People who actively pursue conflicting goals find themselves frustrated, ambivalent, or stretched thin. Take the example of Casey, a new hire at a large tech firm outside London. Casey was eager to perform well at work and rise through the professional ranks, but he also had a newborn at home. In only a few weeks it became clear to Casey that he could not put in the time he wanted at both work and home. Like many people, Casey upped his hours at the office and it led him to feel bad about his performance as a father. In this instance, Casey had two very worthwhile goals, but experienced strong time-conflict. Another takehome message for motivators is: Try not to assign conflicting goals to one’s charges, and try to be on the lookout for pre-existing conflicts that might interfere with the person’s performance.

46 Week 3

To summarise so far: in a “positive goal system,” goals should be helped by goals at lower levels of the system, and should help goals at higher levels of the system. People should be able to realise when action is needed towards a goal, and take action effectively. Also, goals should not conflict with other goals at the same level of the system, and ideally, would help and support those same-level goals. How can we tell if these are the case? One way is to diagram your own goal system thoroughly, and to explore the helpful and harmful interconnections between the different goals. Try this now.

The Goal Systems Approach to Motivation 47

3.2 Activity: Analyse Your Personal Goal System Please analyse your own personal goal system using the concepts developed in this class. One way to do this is to write 3 long-term goals at the top of the page, three shorter-term (e.g. monthly) goals in the middle of the page, and 3 very short-term (e.g. weekly) goals at the bottom of the page. How do the goals at each level conflict with, or help, each other? To what extent are the higher-level goals and lower-level goals linked, so that your weekly goals provide a route to your monthly goals, and your monthly goals provide a route to your longer-term goals? If such linkages do not exist or are unclear, how could you enhance the “functional coherence” of your goal system?

48 Week 3

Goal Systems Point 3: The Importance of Success Expectancies A very important issue for motivation, from the goal systems perspective, is peoples’ expectancies for success. Having high expectations for success (or a high sense of self-efficacy) provides many resources.4 For example, when unexpected difficulties emerge, high-expectancy people do not immediately become discouraged and withdraw their effort; they keep going, and why shouldn’t they? They expect to succeed in the end. Having high expectancies also allows us to proceed with social confidence and conviction, persuading and selling others on our intentions and thereby securing their help and cooperation. What if a person’s expectations seem overly optimistic, unrealistic, or even self-delusory? This can happen, but in the research literature, it is still an open question of “how unrealistic is too unrealistic?” The existing data suggests that overall, positive illusions provide more benefits than drawbacks, often helping people turn former illusions into current reality.5 As a result, the take-home message for motivators is: Always display confidence in your subordinates’ abilities to do what needs to be done, and do not be too quick to dismiss their loftier ambitions! Beyond having general confidence, the goal systems perspective also says that people need to have very specific action plans, tied to particular times and places. Experimental research by Gollwitzer and colleagues shows that “implementation intentions” are very important.6 An implementation intention is a specific plan about what to do, when. When one creates a goal, one should also create a statement of the form “If situation x is encountered, I will perform behaviour y!” For example, for the goal “Talk to my boss about a raise,” an implementation intention might be “When he asks me to his office to talk about the new project, I will bring up the raise possibility,” and for the goal “Get more exercise,” an implementation intention might be “On Tuesday and Thursday mornings when I don’t have to be at work until 10, I will go on a long run.” One advantage of implementation intentions is that they automatically delegate the behaviour to a certain stimulus, which, when it arises, cues the behaviour without conscious thought. That is, because you have thought things through ahead of time, and tagged your action to a specific situation, you are more likely to be ready when the situation arises. This “situational priming” can free up mental resources that can be used for other valuables actions, strivings, and goal pursuits.

The Goal Systems Approach to Motivation 49

3.3 Activity: Using Implementation Intentions Please take a moment to think about how you could use implementation intentions to help achieve one or more of your personal goals. Consider a goal, and consider situations related to your goal. List some things you might do if one or more of these situations arises that will help you accomplish your goal. Please write down your goal, situation, and behaviour below: 1. Goal:

2. Likely situations related to goal:

3. What will I do when these situations arise that will help me toward my goal?

50 Week 3

The implementation intention research is consistent with much other recent research showing the importance of automatic priming in goal pursuit: Subtle information that people aren’t even aware of can prompt them to adopt and pursue certain goals and actions. For example, John Bargh and colleagues showed that subliminally priming the concept of “achievement” prompted participants to try harder on an anagram task, without their conscious knowledge.7 Hence, the take-home message for motivators is: Try to create an environment that automatically primes goal-relevant action (as when a football coach posts a sign in the locker room that says ‘Success is built on sweat’)

Goal Systems Point 4: Approach and Avoidance Goals Differ Another important distinction from the goal systems perspective is between approach motivation and avoidance motivation. Approach motivation is working toward a desirable future outcome, such as making a sale or getting a new client, whereas avoidance motivation refers to trying to avoid an undesirable outcome, such as trying not to get fired or not becoming overweight. Most goals can be framed either as approach or avoidance (e.g., “pass the test” versus “don’t fail the test;” “win the match” versus “don’t lose the match”). The research shows that approach framing is preferable — both for promoting greater performance and achievement, and for promoting better mood and feeling.8 Why? First, avoidance goals contain an implicit reference to failure, which can in the end automatically cue failure (as in the priming research, discussed above). If I am trying not to fail, I am aware of failure as a constant possibility. Just think of when we tell children “Don’t spill your drink!” – and then they do – at least in part because we primed that thought in them! Second, achieving an approach goal simply requires finding one path to success, from among the many paths that may be available; in contrast, achieving an avoidance goal requires avoiding (or fending off) all possible paths to failure. The latter is often more difficult. Third, the goal system is built to take action, not to avoid action. This makes avoidance goals logically awkward to pursue. The take-home message for motivators is therefore: Try to use approach rather than avoidance framing, whenever possible. This can extend even to goals like “lose weight;” as framed, this has an avoidance component (avoid weight), and might be better framed as “exercise more” or “eat better.”

The Goal Systems Approach to Motivation 51

3.4 Activity: Reframing Avoidance Goals as Approach Goals Please take a moment to consider whether any of your goals, or your client’s goals, are framed as avoidance goals, and if so, if they could be re-framed as approach goals: Goal #1:

Goal #2:

Goal#1 (reframed):

Goal#2 (reframed):

52 Week 3

Goal Systems, SDT, and Self-concordance Again, the goal systems perspective proceeds as if humans were robots, who need to have the right programming, sub-routines, and if-then statements in place, in order to succeed. Consider a premedical student at university, who is about to graduate with perfect grades and has her choice of medical schools to attend. She has met and surpassed every challenge; her goal system is functioning smoothly and efficiently, pulling her forward into the future of her choice. Or was it her choice? Perhaps she is really living out her parents’ dream, and if she stopped and thought about it, she would rather be a historian, or a dancer? This raises an issue that most goal system theorists do not consider: “Where does the original programming come from?” Are they locked up in our DNA? Are they handed down from parents, or from religious traditions? Are they influenced by the children’s stories we read as kids? Although there are likely many sources for the goals the important question remains the same: Are the goals in the system really the right ones for the individual person? Perhaps they are not, if the goals originated from a coercive or insensitive social environment, or if they conflict with a person’s basic traits and dispositions. For example, what if the medical student hates the sight of blood and does not really like to be around sick people – will she do so well in the next phase of her life, when she starts learning medicine? This brings us to the topic of “self-concordance.” In my own research, I ask people to list first the broad personal goals they are pursuing. It is a blank sheet of paper (similar to the sheet you faced in doing the last activity!), on which they can write whatever they want. The question is, do people know what they want, and if they do, can they elevate those desires to the status of goals within their system? We measure this by asking people “Why are you striving for the goals you listed?” using SDT’s external, introjected, identified, and intrinsic motivation concepts, which we have already covered in this course. When people feel autonomous (rather than controlled) in their personal goals, we say the goals are “selfconcordant,” that is, the goals fit with and well represent the deeper interests, values, and personality of the individual. By contrast, non-concordant goals are ones people don’t enjoy or believe in, or that they pursue because of external or internal pressures.9 Such goals probably do not match their deeper personalities. In terms of the pre-medical student example: “Become a doctor” may ultimately be a non-concordant goal, instilled by external pressures, whereas “Become a historian” might be a more self-concordant goal, consistent with innate curiosities and talents. Thus, despite having a well-constructed goal system, all is not well for

The Goal Systems Approach to Motivation 53

this student. It is the wrong goal system for her, and eventually, she may pay a price! This shows why both humanistic and mechanistic perspectives are needed in order to best understand positive motivation.

Research on the Self-concordance Concept In my lab we have conducted considerable longitudinal research on the selfconcordance concept, to see how self-concordance impacts people’s health and functioning.10 As you might expect, things go better when people feel selfconcordant. First, people better attain self-concordant goals over time, because they strive harder and longer. Although people may initially intend to try very hard in non-concordant goals, the intentions tend to fade over time, because such goals do not contact and draw from the person’s deeper personality and resources. New Year’s resolutions are a good example: we often fail at them when we select unrealistic goals or goals based on extrinsic concerns and pressures, rather than goals we can truly believe in and identify with. Second, self-concordant goals are more fulfilling once attained. They represent who we really are or can become, and when achieved, produce greater happiness and well-being than before. In contrast, our research shows that attaining non-self-concordant goals often provides no boost at all, or no lasting boost. Perhaps the person (i.e., the premedical student) shouldn’t have bothered! As mentioned last time, our research also shows that people tend to become more self-concordant as they age – they stop worrying about pleasing others, and learn to do what is meaningful and important to them.

54 Week 3

3.5 Reflection: Thinking about Goals that were not Self-concordant As a reflection activity, can you think of some personal goal that you pursued in the past that was not self-concordant? A goal that may have come from somebody else, or that did not really reflect your values and interests, or that ran directly counter to your deeper personality? With this goal in mind, answer the following questions: 1. How did that “mistaken” goal get into your system in the first place? To what extent was it “put there” by an outside force and to what extent did you allow it to be “put there”?

2. How did you perform in relation to this goal? What was your motivation like? What was the ultimate outcome?

3. If you were able to modify or get rid of the goal, how were you able to do so?

While not part of the exercise, you might also want to think about any goals you have at the moment that are not self-concordant. Why do you have them as goals? What can you do about them? Are there ways that you can make them more selfconcordant?

The Goal Systems Approach to Motivation 55

Stepping Back: Two Definitions of Self-regulation Really, this week’s material highlights two different meanings of the term “selfregulation.” The conventional meaning of self-regulation within research psychology is that a person is basically in control of him or herself: he/she can delay gratification, make plans, reduce discrepancies toward long-term goals, and so on, so that goal progress occurs. To self-regulate is to exercise self-discipline and self-control. The SDT meaning of self-regulation is a bit different. In this case, selfregulation means that a person’s actions are consistent with and emerge from his or her subjective sense of self. Here, it is the Self that regulates the goal system, rather than the goal system that regulates the Self! As noted last week, this definition of “Self” makes some psychologists uncomfortable, because it seems to imply that people have a “mental homunculus” in their heads, some kind of “ghost in the machine” – possibilities that raise many difficult philosophical issues. For the philosophically minded, this notion brings about large questions regarding the nature of individual identity and the existence of free will. However, we don’t need to decide whether a mental self really exists, or whether free will really exists. What matters is that people feel that these things are true, and live their lives accordingly as relatively autonomous, self-possessed agents, who are, in large part, the authors of their own destiny. In other words, even if the self is fictional, it is still very functional! A positive psychology of motivation needs to recognise this fact, and positive motivators need to ensure that A) clients select goals that are aligned with their deeper needs, interests, values, and personality, and/or that B) they are helped to internalise goals that are not so aligned – coming to feel a sense of choice and ownership to the degree possible, so that necessities may be accomplished. And who knows? By trying out goals that originally feel non-concordant, we may sometimes develop our tastes and personalities, so that in the end the goals become concordant after all! This last point underscores the importance of personal experience: we mature, in part, through a system of trial-and-error in which we get to know ourselves and our preferences better. For managers, teachers, and other professionals it might be helpful to remember how common non-self-concordant goals are. Instead of mentally or verbally chastising the folks we work with for their lack of motivation it may be helpful to work together to tailor goals so that they are a better fit with the individual, even if this is as simple as reframing the goal in terms that make sense to the employee, student, or client. This leads to the final take-home message for motivators of this week: Try to work on self-concordant goals wherever possible. If you have goals that are not self-concordant, focus on what you can do to reframe them or restructure them so that they become more self-concordant.

56 Week 3

Review of Main Points from Week 3 1. In this class, we considered the goal systems perspective upon motivation. In this mechanistic approach, “positive motivation” means to be a high-functioning robot, with a well-constructed goal system full of plan-sequences, skills, discrepancy-detectors, and sub-routines, and with little conflict between goals. In this case, one makes swift progress towards the goals in the system. 2. Goal systems thinking can tell us a lot about the “how” and “why” of motivation, by showing which higher-level goals supply the “why” for lower-level goals, and which lower-level goals supply the “how” for higher-level goals. They can also further illuminate the mechanics of the “how” with cognitive concepts such as planning, discrepancy-reduction, implementation intentions, and priming. 3. But we also saw that goal system theories don’t address how the higher-level goals get into the system in the first place, and whether they should be in a particular system. Recall the example of the pre-medical student who is better suited to be a historian — maybe her doctor goal was implanted by her controlling parents, and this goal is not really “self-concordant” for her? 4. Practically speaking, this shows the importance of picking goals that represent one’s true values, interests, and dispositions, rather than the insistences of others – in this case the Self owns the goal system, rather than being owned by it.

Readings for Week 4: Please read Elliot’s article on the 2x2 Achievement Goal Framework. http://www.psych.rochester.edu/faculty/elliot/documents/2006_CuryDaFonseca ElliotMoller_TheSocial-CognitiveModel.pdf

Key References from Week 3 1

Carver, C., & Scheier, M. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

2

Carver, C., & Scheier, M. (1998). On the self-regulation of behavior. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.

3

Emmons, R. A., & King, L. (1988). Conflict among personal strivings: Immediate and long-term implications for psychological and physical wellbeing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 10401048.

4

Bandura, A. (1997). Self-efficacy: The exercise of control. New York, N.Y: Freeman and Co.

The Goal Systems Approach to Motivation 57

5

Taylor, S. E., Kemeny, M. E., Reed, G. M., Bower, J. E., & Gruenewald, T. L. (2000). Psychological resources, positive illusions, and health. American Psychologist, 55, 99-109.

6

Gollwitzer, P. M. (1999). Implementation intentions: Strong effects of simple plans. American Psychologist, 54, 493-503.

7

Bargh, J. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., Lee-Chai, A., Barndollar, K., & Troetschel, R. (2001). The automated will: Nonconscious activation and pursuit of behavioural goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 1014-1027

8

Elliot, A.J., & Sheldon, K.M. (1998). Avoidance personal goals and the personality-illness relationship. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 1282-1299

9

Sheldon, K. M. & Elliot, A.J. (1999). Goal striving, need-satisfaction, and longitudinal well-being: The Self-Concordance Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 482-497.

10 Sheldon, K. M. (2002). The self-concordance model of healthy goal-striving: When personal goals correctly represent the person. In E.L. Deci & R.M. Ryan (Eds.), Handbook of self-determination research (pp. 65-86). Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. 11 Elliot, A. J., Maier, M. A., Moller, A. C., Friedman, R., & Meinhardt, J. (2007). Color and psychological functioning: The effect of red on performance attainment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 136, 154-168.

58 Week 4

Mid-course Assessment Congratulations! You have arrived at the half-way point. In the spirit of employing multiple avenues for learning, I would like to give you the opportunity to demonstrate what you have learned so far. Please write 200-300 word answers to the three questions below. 1. How does SDT differ from the goal-systems approach, in conceptualizing the nature of positive motivation? How can these perspectives work together for a complete picture?

2. Please mention and evaluate three different concepts for enhancing the “how” of motivation. How can people better achieve their goals and motives?

3. Please discuss some ways in which you could use goal-priming effects to positively motivate others. You may also want to consider recent research by Elliot showing that the colour “red” primes worse performance than the colour “green!” http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/02/070228170240.htm

See also: Elliot, A. J., Maier, M. A., Moller, A. C., Friedman, R., & Meinhardt, J. (2007). Color and psychological functioning: The effect of red on performance attainment. Journal of

Experimental

Psychology:

General,

136,

154-168. Article

available

from:

http://www.psych.rochester.edu/faculty/elliot/documents/2007_ElliotMaierMollerFried manMeinhardt_Color.pdf

Week 4: Attribution and Achievement Goal Theories: Naming, Framing, and Explaining ….And welcome back, yet again! Last week, we considered the goal systems perspective upon motivation. In this mechanistic approach, “positive motivation” means being a high-functioning robot, with a well-constructed goal system full of plan-sequences, skills, discrepancy-detectors, and sub-routines, and with little conflict between goals. In this case, one makes swift progress towards the goals in the system. Goal systems thinking can tell us a lot about the “how” and “why” of motivation, by showing which higher-level goals supply the “why” for lower-level goals, and which lower-level goals supply the “how” for higher-level goals. They can also further illuminate the mechanics of the “how” with cognitive concepts such as planning, discrepancy-reduction, implementation intentions, and priming. But we also saw that goal system theories don’t address how the higher-level goals get into the system in the first place, and whether they should be in a particular system. Recall the example of the pre-medical student who would be better suited to a career as a historian — maybe her goal of being a doctor was implanted by her controlling parents, and this goal is not really “self-concordant” for her. Practically speaking, this shows the importance of picking goals that represent one’s true values, interests, and dispositions, rather than the insistences of others – in this case the Self owns the goal system, rather than being owned by it. This week we’ll look at goals and motivation in a somewhat different way, by checking out attribution theories and achievement goal theories. These theories supply yet a third way of considering the “why” question of motivation—why am I pursuing this particular target?—beyond the approaches we covered earlier in discussing SDT and goal systems. Hopefully you were able to read Elliot’s overview article on these issues, assigned last week – if not, please do so now. I’d like to start by asking you—as unpleasant as it might sound— to think back to some significant failure in your life – perhaps a failed test or exam, a lost athletic competition, or an embarrassing speech you gave – you name it, as long as the failure meant something to you. In addition, please think back to some significant success in your life, which also mattered. Bring both types of example to mind before you move on, please!

60 Week 4

4.1 Exercise: Success and Failure Reference for later: If you feel comfortable doing so, please write down the failure and the success so that you can refer to them later as we discuss this topic further: My failure

My success:

Attribution and Achievement Goal Theories 61

Causal Attribution Theories: How We Explain the Past Affects the Future Human beings are naturally inclined to want to explain events, especially unusual success or failure events, so that they can gain better control over those events in the future. Causal attribution theories categorise the various types of explanations we use. For example, do you think the failure mentioned above was caused by something internal in you, such as a lack of effort or preparation, or by something about the external situation that you couldn’t control, such as poor team effort, bad weather, or faulty equipment? Was it caused by an unstable and likely transient factor (bad weather), or by a factor that is stable and likely to persist over time (a character flaw in a teammate)? Combining these concepts leads to four basic types of attribution: • internal-stable (e.g., attributing the outcome to our traits or abilities); • internal-unstable (e.g., attributing the outcome to our effort or our temporary sickness); • external-stable (e.g., attributing the outcome to societal prejudice against our ethnicity); • external-unstable (e.g., attributing the outcome to luck or chance). In terms of the “why” question, these are four basic types of reason people use to explain why things happen. Here’s why the kind of attribution we choose matters: explanations for the past influence our motivations and expectations for the future. Suppose you thought your failure was due to a stable internal factor (I’m dumb; I’m uncoordinated; I’m boring). It is you at fault, so it really hurts on a personal level; and it is stable, so you can’t do anything about it. Imagine the devastating impact this could have on your future motivation! Suppose instead you thought your failure was due to an unstable external factor (the test covered unexpected material; the wet turf made you slip; the audience was burnt out from the long day prior). The failing really wasn’t due to anything related to you, and it was a fluke, and next time could be better. Not so bad — you can bounce back from that! So, explaining failures via an external-unstable attribution seems more motivationally and emotionally beneficial than explaining failure via an internalstable attribution. Conversely, explaining successes via an internal-stable attribution

62 Week 4

(I’m smart!… coordinated!… interesting!) seems more beneficial than explaining them via an external-unstable attribution (I made lucky guesses! My opponent fell! I looked good compared to the terrible speaker before me!). Internal-stable attributions for success in an achievement domain help us to feel good about that domain, and to want to engage further, with high expectations for success.

Attribution At a Glance: Internal

External

Stable

Unchanging Ability, Character

Unchanging Situation, Circumstances

Unstable

Changeable Effort, State of Mind

Changeable Situation, Luck

This may sound suspicious to some of you. You may be asking yourself: so, all we have to do is make some blame-deflecting excuse after failure, and always take the credit after success? Maybe both of these patterns reflect “self-serving biases,” that let us feel good (or not too bad) about ourselves, but hide the true causes of the outcome. When we fail, maybe it was in part something about us, which we should take a look at and perhaps try to change! And when we succeed, maybe there was a “luck” factor involved, that we should recognise so we don’t rely on it next time. In other words, in making self-serving attributions, we should be sure not to distance ourselves from reality. But on the other hand, we saw last week that “positive illusions” can be beneficial, sometimes acting as self-fulfilling prophecies. What determines when illusions are too illusory, so positive that they turn into a negative? This is a very difficult question to answer.

Attribution and Achievement Goal Theories 63

4.2 Activity: Your Attributions Please take a moment to consider the success experience and the failure experience you brought to mind. How did you explain them at the time? Was there a selfserving component in those explanations, or were your explanations “objectively accurate?” If you used a negative but accurate explanation for your failure, did that help you, or would you have been better served with a more positive explanation? If you used a positive but inaccurate explanation for your success, did that serve you in the long run? Why or why not? Please write your answers to these important questions here:

64 Week 4

Entity versus Incremental Theories of the Self and its Ability Where do people’s attributional styles come from? What deeper beliefs about the world, and the self, do they reflect? To answer these questions, let’s turn to Carol Dweck’s world-famous research. Dweck has shown that people’s attributional styles ultimately derive from the basic theories about ability, and about the self, that they hold.1 That is, people are like scientists, and develop “lay theories” about themselves and the world. An “entity” theorist is somebody who thinks that ability is stable – you either have it or you don’t. Entity theorists hope they have it, and try to demonstrate to themselves and others that they have it. For example, an entity-oriented salesman might think that the ability to win others over is just something you are born with – some have it, others don’t. This is an important point because, to some degree, all of us make these types of immutable character judgments (e.g., “He interrupts all the time because he is an insensitive person”). It might be helpful to remind ourselves that there are other possibilities (e.g., He interrupts because he is highly engaged in the conversation; he interrupts because he comes from a family with a different conversational style; he actually doesn’t interrupt all the time). For managers and supervisors with this mindset, it may be useful to bear in mind that there are situational and other factors at play, often in very subtle ways. An “incremental” theorist, by contrast, is somebody who thinks that ability is malleable – you can develop it, bit by bit, with effort. Incremental theorists hope to develop their ability, and are not so concerned with showing themselves and others that they already have it. For example, an incremental salesperson might think that sales ability can always be improved and sharpened. It turns out that people with both types of attributional style do fine when things are going well. However, people with the “entity theorist” mindset have all kinds of problems when stumbling blocks arise or plans go askew. First, if they are having difficulty, this suggests they may be lacking in ability (after all, highly competent people shouldn’t have to try hard, right?). This is frightening, since they think they can’t do anything about their ability. And what if others see them struggling, and conclude they are dumb (or uncoordinated, or boring) – also frightening! In these cases, entity theorists may quit trying, because their expectancies for success are low. Almost as bad, if they do keep trying, they may do it with a “self-handicap,” in order to have an excuse if and when they fail – i.e., “I bombed on the presentation because I didn’t prepare” or “I bombed on the presentation because I was up all

Attribution and Achievement Goal Theories 65

night the night before.” Clearly, not studying and not sleeping before an achievement task, just to protect one’s self-esteem, is a maladaptive approach to take. An additional problem comes after failures have occurred – entity theorists tend to make internal stable attributions, which lead to helplessness. In contrast, incremental theorists tend to make internal unstable attributions (“I don’t have the ability yet” or “I need to try harder”), which holds out the possibility of positive change in the future. Thus, entity theorists are more likely to use an “effort withdrawal” strategy in the face of difficulty, and incremental theorists an “effort increase” strategy. You can figure out for yourself which is a more positive motivational style!2 It may be worth stopping to asking yourself: “Which am I, an entity theorist or an incremental theorist? Do I ever use self-handicapping or premature effort withdrawal to lessen the possible sting of failure?” To help with this, below are the items from a scale that measures entity versus incremental beliefs. Which pair of items better describes your underlying beliefs?

66 Week 4

4.3 Activity: Measuring People’s Entity versus Incremental Theories of Achievement Entity Theory “You have a certain amount of intelligence, and you can’t really do much to change it.” “Your intelligence is something about you that stays the same.” Incremental Theory “Intelligence is something that we develop over time, through effort.” “People can learn to be more intelligent in their lives.” Think about which of these statements may most apply to you. Write your answer here and describe why you think that is the case, illustrating it with examples:

Attribution and Achievement Goal Theories 67

A final note: According to Dweck’s research, entity versus incremental theories apply not only to achievement domains — they can also describe people’s beliefs about other important personal characteristics, such as one’s likeability, one’s health, and even one’s morality.3 Thus, any of these three terms could be substituted for the term “intelligence” in the four items above, to create a measure of entity versus incremental self-theories in these non-achievement domains. However, Dweck emphasises that people’s theories can be different in different domains; one might be an entity theorist in one domain, but an incremental theorist in another domain.

68 Week 4

4.4 Exercise: Contrasting Entity and Incremental Orientations Can you think of two domains of your life, such that you have an entity orientation in one domain, and an incremental orientation in the other? Write your answer below, and describe each domain:

Attribution and Achievement Goal Theories 69

Performance versus Mastery Goals Let’s look at some other relevant concepts from the achievement goal literature, which has been the dominant paradigm in educational psychology for many years. Many researchers distinguish between “performance” goals and “mastery” (or learning) goals. When we have a performance goal, we are trying to do well relative to others, or relative to some external standard or norm of success. We are trying to win the competition or make the grade. When we have a mastery goal, we are trying to do well relative to our own past performance, or relative to some internal standard of success. We are trying to learn and improve. Lots of research shows that mastery goals do in fact lead to more improvement, as well as deeper conceptual learning and knowledge-integration.4 Mastery goals do not necessarily lead to better performance, objectively (i.e. higher grades), because mastery-oriented people are often more concerned with learning what is interesting, rather than making the grade. However, this new learning usually pays off later. Performance goals tend to be associated with more anxiety and less enjoyment, although they can also be associated with great concentration and persistence, since the ego is on the line. Take a minute to reflect — Which better describes your approach to achievement situations, performance or mastery?

70 Week 4

4.5 Activity: Performance versus Mastery 1. If mastery goals engage people, and performance goals are associated with productivity, how can you work with your clients, teams, students, etc to ensure an optimal mix of both?

2. If mastery goals pay off in the long run and performance goals are associated with short term-effectiveness how can you balance the two for an optimal timeline of success?

Attribution and Achievement Goal Theories 71

Adding Approach versus Avoidance: Four Basic Types of Achievement Goals Are performance goals always “bad?”

During the last decade my former

colleague Andrew Elliot has been transforming achievement goal research, by introducing the approach/avoidance distinction into the mix. As described last week, to approach means to move towards a desired future state, whereas to avoid means to try to maintain a desired present state, or prevent an undesired future state. Framing goals in approach terms (“win the match”) is generally preferable than framing goals in avoidance terms (“don’t lose the match”). Elliot’s contribution was to show that performance goals aren’t necessarily a problem – it depends on whether they involve approach or avoidance motivation.5 In his “2 x 2 Achievement Goal theory,” there are four basic types of achievement motivation: mastery-approach, performance-approach, (non) performance-avoidance, and (non) mastery-avoidance. These may be construed as four basic “whys” of achievement behaviour – the different goals that a person has at the back of her mind during an achievement situation. For example, in business, performance-approach goals orient people towards the bottom line or objective production targets; performance-avoidance goals orient people towards not screwing up in the eyes of others; mastery-approach goals orient people towards skill-development workshops and improving on past performance; and masteryavoidance goals orient people towards maintaining their skills, a concern sometimes seen in older workers who are compensating for cognitive declines.

The 2 x 2 Achievement Goal Framework Approach

Avoidance

Performance “I’m trying to win the competition.”

“I’m trying not to lose the competition

Mastery

“I’m trying not to lose my skills.”

“I’m trying to develop my skills.”

Elliot’s research shows that performance approach goals actually do produce greater performance, and it is only when fear of failure enters the picture (via performance avoidance goals) that difficulties result.6 This makes sense, and is actually reassuring — it would be awkward to have to conclude that competing against others, or trying to reach objective performance standards, is “bad” by definition! After all, these are necessary aspects of life. Elliot’s results imply that

72 Week 4

ideally, given the necessity of jumping through some performance hoops in life, one should have both types of approach motivation. Still, debate continues concerning these issues. Performance approach goals themselves may be OK, but are they vulnerable to turning into performance avoidance goals when inevitable failures and setbacks occur? If so, should they still be minimised, so that we think mainly about learning and improving? Recent research suggests that it depends on the personality of the striver. Entity theorists (or people high in the trait of “fear of failure”) are most vulnerable when they pursue performance goals, whereas incremental theorists (or people low in fear of failure) seem to be able to pursue performance goals with less risk.7 So once again, it comes down to how you think about yourself, and what success and failure mean to you!

Attribution and Achievement Goal Theories 73

4.6 Reflection: Your Achievement Efforts Please reflect and write about the role of achievement goals in your own life. Which better characterises your achievement efforts – performance orientation, or mastery orientation? When you are performance-oriented, does it tend to be an approach or an avoidance orientation? Also, which better characterises your underlying beliefs about yourself – entity theory or incremental theory? Write your reflections below:

74 Week 4

So, what are the actionable messages in all this, for those who want to positively motivate themselves and others? 1. First, even in the most objective performance situations, try to focus yourself and others on what can be learned and developed in the situation, rather than focusing on the final outcome (success/failure) and its implications. 2. It is OK, and sometimes even necessary, to also have, or assign, objective performance goals (i.e., to beat others, or to win the prize). However, do not over-emphasise such goals, if at all possible! 3. Also, when failures and set-backs occur, be sure not to interpret them as failures of the self (yours or others’ selves), or as demonstrating fundamental inability or inadequacy. Instead, keep on thinking of achievement as a process, which takes sustained effort and skill-development. In this way, you (and your charges) will benefit most in the long run.

Stepping Back: Achievement Goals Theory and SDT Perhaps some of you have made the connection between achievement goal theory and SDT, covered in Week 2. In fact, there are some strong points of similarity. To have a mastery goal in an achievement situation is like having intrinsic motivation within that situation; one is concerned with the task itself, and is probably interested in it more for its own sake, rather than as a means to an end. In contrast, to have a performance goal in an achievement situation is like having external motivation — one is thinking about the reward or punishment one might get, and might not even do the activity if not for those strong possibilities. The achievement goal approach has been favoured in the educational psychology literature because its concepts are easy to grasp, are concrete and tangible to many educational situations (taking a test, doing an assignment), and do not raise the same difficult issues regarding the self that are raised by SDT. Instead of asking “is this goal owned and endorsed by the Self,” as does SDT, achievement goal theory asks “what kind of ability-relevant self-beliefs does the person have?” This places achievement goal theory closer to the “cognitive mainstream” regarding the nature of self, in which the self is thought of simply as the self-concept (what we believe about ourselves), rather than as a mysterious internal entity striving to express and actualise itself. And it may be that you, too, resonate better to the achievement goals approach, in the work that you do. I would simply suggest that it is important not only to feel competent in one’s life, but also, to feel autonomous and self-expressive! These can be different experiences, and is even possible to have much of one and little of the other. We will develop this theme further in the last class, concerning the three psychological needs of autonomy, competence, and relatedness.

Attribution and Achievement Goal Theories 75

Summary of Main Points from Week 4 • In this class, we saw that how we explain past events affects our motivation for the future: internal-stable attributions for success and external-unstable attributions for failure provide the greatest emotional benefits and perhaps subsequent motivation. However, we have to be careful to avoid “self-serving biases” that keep us from learning what needs to be learned! • We also compared “entity” and “incremental” theories of personal ability. Entity theorists believe ability is fixed, and are concerned with proving their ability; incremental theorists believe ability is changeable, and are concerned with improving their ability. • Entity theorists are vulnerable when failure occurs, because they tend to make internal-stable attributions for failure and withdraw effort – or, they self-handicap and set up the conditions for further failure (by not sleeping, preparing, etc., for the next achievement situation). • Incremental theorists can better handle failure — since their true goal is to learn and develop, failure provides valuable information about where they need to focus effort. • Finally, we compared “performance” and “mastery” achievement goals, which go along with entity and incremental self-theories. We saw that performance goals are generally beneficial, as long as they involving approaching success rather than avoiding failure. It is only in the latter case that failing at performance goals produces the “helpless” motivational pattern.

76 Week 4

Reading for Week 4 Please read Deci and Ryan’s “The support of autonomy and the control of behaviour,” a classic early statement regarding the issues we will discuss next in Week 5. You can access the article at: http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/documents/1987_DeciRyan_SupportofAu tonomy.pdf

Key References from Week 4 1

Dweck, C. S. (1999) Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. New York: Psychology Press.

2

Dweck, C. S. (2002). Beliefs that make smart people dumb. In R. J. Sternberg (Ed), Why smart people can be so stupid (pp. 24-41). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

3

Dweck, C. S., & Leggett, E. L. (1988). A social-cognitive approach to motivation and

4

personality. Psychological Review, 95(2), 256-273.

Dweck, C. S. (1999) Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. New York: Psychology Press.

5

Elliott, A. J. Shell, M. M., Henry, K. B., & Maier, M. A. (2005). Achievement goals, performance contingencies, and performance attainment: An experimental test Journal of Educational Psychology, 97(4), 630-640.

6

Elliot, A. J. (2006). The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30(2), 111-116.

7

Elliot, A. J. (2006). The hierarchical model of approach-avoidance motivation. Motivation and Emotion, 30(2), 111-116.

Week 5:

How to Motivate Others

Welcome to our fifth and penultimate week in Positive Motivation! Last week, we saw that how we explain past events affects our motivation for the future: internalstable attributions for success and external-unstable attributions for failure provide the greatest emotional benefits and subsequent motivation. However, in thinking about internal-stable attributions, we cannot just blindly take credit for all successes. We have to be careful to avoid “self-serving biases” that keep us from learning what needs to be learned. Last week we also compared “entity” and “incremental” theories of personal ability. As a reminder, entity theorists believe ability is fixed, and are concerned with proving their ability; incremental theorists believe ability is changeable, and are concerned with improving their ability. Entity theorists are vulnerable when failure occurs, because they tend to make internal-stable attributions for failure and withdraw effort. Alternately, they selfhandicap by not sleeping, not preparing well, and so forth, and thereby set up the conditions for further failure. Incremental theorists can better handle failure — since their true goal is to learn and develop, failure provides valuable information about where they need to focus effort. Finally, we compared “performance” and “mastery” achievement goals, which go along with entity and incremental self-theories. We saw that performance goals are generally beneficial, as long as they involve approaching success rather than avoiding failure. It is only in the latter case that failing at performance goals produces the “helpless” motivational pattern. This week, we will turn to the very important topic of motivating others. This issue has been addressed here and there within the previous weeks, as I’ve suggested various “take-home messages for motivators.” However, today we will pull it all together, in one place. Of course, motivating others is vital for all of us! As we age, we assume more and more roles that necessitate supervising or mentoring others, including perhaps the roles of parent, manager, therapist, coach, and teacher. What is the right way to maximise both the quality and the quantity of our charges’ motivation to do what needs to be done? How can we get others to want to do what we ask them to? What really works? Today, we’ll find out. Hopefully you were able to read the Deci and Ryan article that was assigned at the end of last week – if not please do so now.

78 Week 5

5.1 Activity: Motivating Others Please think of a situation or two in your life when you need to be able to motivate others. This could be a general role you play (“I need to be able to motivate my coaching clients so they can keep momentum as they work toward their goals”), or a specific relationship you are in (“I need to be able to motivate my daughter to complete her homework before she socialises”). Think about the typical dynamics you experience, the ebb and flow of the process. Consider the following questions and please write your answers in the space provided: 1. How do you typically communicate the original request to complete a task?

2. How do others typically respond?

3. What recurrent problems seem to arise in these situations?

4. When are you the most successful when motivating others?

5. When do you feel like you are beating your head against the wall?

How to Motivate Others 79

If you think about it, motivating others is paradoxical. You have motivation, and you are trying to transmit it to another. You want your own motivation to be “contagious,” so that it infects another. But this may be impossible! Your motivation cannot be somebody else’s motivation, only they (and their brains) can have motivation. So the question becomes, how do we arouse a process in other people in which they develop their own motivation that mirrors our own and persists even when we’re not around? We’ve already touched upon one answer to this question when we discussed Self Determination Theory. Again, SDT addresses the “why” of motivation using the internalisation continuum. People generally internalise motivation ranging from amotivation (helpless) to external (reward) to introjected (guilt) to identified (belief) to intrinsic (enjoyable) motivation (see Figure 1, from Week 2). When motivation has been internalised it has been fully taken into the self, so that the person wants to do the behaviour for their own reasons, not because they feel forced to. According to SDT, the key to internalization is “autonomy support” from motivating authorities.1 Autonomy-supportive authorities do two basic things. First, they recognise and try to diffuse the power differential within the situation, by taking the perspective of those they are trying to motivate. For example, a maths teacher might say “I know you may not want to learn these trigonometric functions, I remember how boring they seemed when I first encountered them.” The goal is to show that you acknowledge and respect the selfhood of the other — you care what they think, and want to establish a connection between the two of you. Second, autonomy-supportive authorities try to provide as much choice as possible in the situation. For example, the teacher might say “You can work on the problems alone, or in groups – it is up to you. Also, you can choose when to work on them – its OK if you do the work at home, instead of here.” The goal here is to help students feel that they are the cause of their behaviour, when they are behaving. Feeling that “I’m doing this because teacher is making me” is not as conducive to learning as feeling that “I’m doing this because this is when and how I want to be doing it.” Of course, choice-provision is not always possible. First, it may not be possible to offer choice regarding the basic activity – maths students need to learn these trigonometric functions, and that’s all there is to it. Office workers need to hand in expense reports, even if they aren’t particularly fun to complete. Second, it may

80 Running Head line

not even be possible to offer choice regarding the “when” and “how” of the activity. Consider an upcoming standardised mathematics achievement test that the students must take, at a certain time, and in a certain way – there is no latitude for choice-provision here. This could be just as true of the office that has a specific protocol and deadline for workers to complete standardised forms. In these cases, it is crucial for autonomy-supportive authorities to provide a meaningful rationale for the lack of choice. Why must the test be run this way? To provide the same fair environment for all, and to allow the scores to be fairly compared. Why is trigonometry important in the first place? Because it is essential for all higher forms of maths, and you will be much better off with these skills. This process essentially differentiates between the “I told you so” approach and the more mature school of “I owe you an explanation.” Some of you may be thinking “This is obvious. He’s just saying to be ‘nice’ to those I am trying to motivate.” You would be right – it is obvious. However, it is far from easy. Those in authority positions tasked with the job of motivating others face their own difficulties. First, they have the power in the situation – they are in charge. It is simple human nature to enjoy and make use of such a “one-up” position and, as we know, “power corrupts.” Second, motivating authorities have not only power, but also, responsibility. If the teacher, manager, or coach fails to produce or draw good performances out of the subordinates, it is her job and reputation that will be on the line. This creates a tendency to force the issue, to wield one’s power to try to make happen what one wants to happen. Unfortunately this can backfire, as in the earlier example of the second-generation immigrant children who failed to internalise their parents’ native cultural traditions when parents tried to force them to adhere to these traditions. Third, motivating authorities must have patience. By providing some degree of choice to their subordinates, things may not happen as quickly as authorities would like, or in the precise way that they would like. This does not mean that they have to settle for less than they want; instead, they have to keep providing feedback, and be willing to take the time required. Autonomy-supportive mentoring is about negotiation, as the subordinate defines the ways and terms under which he/she can be self-motivated in the situation. The key is promoting internalization – the sense that “I am doing it,” rather than “My situation is making me do it.”

How to Motivate Others 81

Again, this can be quite difficult! Autonomy-support is a skill, which takes a lot of practice to develop. Let me share some personal anecdotes. I am fairly good at this skill with my graduate students – I let them choose what projects to work on, and also when and how they work on them. But, they have already chosen to be graduate students, and to accept my guidance – thus the problems are not very great. However, I am not very good at being autonomy-supportive with my children! First, they don’t care if their rooms are clean, or if they turn out the lights when they leave the room, and it seems that nothing I say can make them care. Sometimes I get very sarcastic and controlling! Second, part of being a child is to push the limits, to establish one’s independence from one’s parents. This factor also works against the negotiation process outlined above. However, let me also share a small recent victory of mine: trying to motivate my 11-year old to memorise the multiplication tables. It has been a struggle, and there have been some tears. But this morning, he spontaneously recited several answers he had been working on (“6 x 8 = 48; 7 x 9 = 63”), and I was very happy to express my pride and appreciation! Hopefully, my adoption of his perspective, and my explanation of why this is so important, is finally taking root. Let’s spend a minute discussing what autonomy-support is not. First, autonomysupport is not permissiveness. One doesn’t let subordinates do anything they want, or get away with anything counterproductive or dangerous. Obviously, we can’t support our children’s autonomy to play in the street during heavy traffic, to consume dangerous drugs, or to stay home from school when they are not sick. Just as we can’t let employees take off however many days they would like, skip team meetings if they don’t sound important, or take an unethical approach to business. Thus, to be autonomy-supportive does not mean to have no rules, expectations, and standards, and no consequences for misbehaviour. Instead, it means to communicate rules, expectations, and consequences in a way that the subordinate understands and accepts them, instead of resisting and rejecting them. Being controlling (i.e., “I don’t care whether you like it or not, you have to do what I say”) is not the same thing as having rules and standards; instead, it only breeds resistance to the rules and standards. For example, a manager who says “This is the way I’ve always done it, so you have to do it this way” will produce less internalised motivation than a manager who says “This is the way I’ve always done it, but I’m open to you doing it differently – let’s talk about it.”

82 Week 5

Second, autonomy-support is not the absence of structure. There can be plenty of structure in the situation; the key issue is how that structure is communicated and administered. For example, an autonomy-supportive physical trainer might have a wide variety of training programmes that the client can choose, each of which prescribes a very precise set of steps and procedures. People don’t mind this, and in fact, sometimes prefer to have a step-by-step plan to follow, one that is known to work. This may be why self-help books describing some specific programme or diet are so popular! The main thing is that the trainee personally identifies with following this plan or programme. In terms of the SDT and goal systems perspectives, the Self must own the programme, rather than vice versa. You can think of it as the “menu approach” to motivation. There are several structures to choose from, and the individual has a choice, but the choice is limited by what gets on the “menu” in the first place.

How to Motivate Others 83

5.2 Reflection: How Do You Typically Motivate Others? At this point, please bring to mind again the situation or situations in which you need to be able to motivate others. I’d like you to consider your typical approach – to what extent are you autonomy-supportive, as defined above, and to what extent are you instead controlling? Again, you have the power in these situations – how do you use that power? Do you try to minimise the power differential, or do you try to wield and exploit it? Do you see your subordinates as partners in a negotiation, or as lazy slackers trying to exploit the situation? (I sometimes see my children in the latter way!) Please take a minute to consider these questions. Please write any answers, notes or insights here:

84 Week 5

So, the way to positively motivate others, according to SDT, is to support their autonomy and sense of self in the situation. What about the achievement goal perspective? For researcher Carol Dweck, the prescription is rather simple: Try to help subordinates focus upon learning and mastery goals, so that they develop incremental theories of ability.2 More specifically, when guiding our students, employees, or children through achievement situations, don’t overemphasise the prizes, admiration, or approval to be won; instead, emphasise the process — what will be learned from the experience. When failures occur (as they will), emphasise what is to be learned from them, instead of being critical or blaming. Talk about doing better next time. Avoid describing subordinates in entity-like terms (“He’s a little slow in maths”), because these terms reinforce the idea of inadequacy and stuck-ness. Here is an interesting question: what about when subordinates do well — should we tell them they are smart, intelligent, or talented? And what about when we do well, shouldn’t we be praised? Surely here is a case where we can enjoy the fruits of our gifts, whatever they may be – by allowing our egos to be stroked by the admiration of others? This returns us to the issue of whether internal-stable attributions are good to make after one succeeds. They might feel best in some ways, but are they like candy, unhealthy in the end? Perhaps one should always attribute one’s successes to internal-unstable factors, such as effort, persistence, or perseverance, rather than to internal-stable factors? In 1998, Dweck and her colleagues addressed this question with a fascinating series of experiments in which children were asked to work on IQ problems.3 After the first set, they were told they had done well and that either “You must be smart” (condition 1), “You must have worked hard” (condition 2), or nothing (condition 3). Children were then asked what goal they wanted to pursue in the next set. Children receiving the “smart” feedback tended to choose performance goals, and children receiving “worked hard” feedback chose learning goals. After the second set of problems, all children were told they had done poorly in that set (regardless of their actual performance). Across several studies, children initially given “smart” feedback performed worst in a third set of studies, tried less hard, reported the least enjoyment of the experiment as a whole, and did less of the problems during a “free choice” period. Furthermore, children given “smart” feedback were more likely to lie about their performance to another child, later on (who was an experimental confederate). With just one sentence of praise, an entire negative syndrome was established! In contrast, children told “You must have worked hard” after the first set of problems showed the best performance in the third set of problems.

How to Motivate Others 85

5.3 Reflection: The Correct Conditions for Appropriate Praise Please think further about the question raised above. Under what conditions can praise be a positive motivator, and under what conditions might it backfire? Do you think it may matter whether or not the motivator is being controlling (trying to manipulate the subordinate’s performance via the praise) versus autonomysupportive (trying to help the subordinate achieve greater internalization via the praise)?

86 Week 5

Stepping Back: Should We Really Avoid Praising People? What does this tell us? That even good-feeling success, and not just bad-feeling failure, can backfire to produce maladaptive motivation. It appears that, as in eastern cultures, we should not stroke the egos of those who do well; if we praise them, it should be for their effort and persistence, not their ability. In fact, when I first read these studies, I stopped calling my 8-year old daughter “a smart little cookie!” Instead, I tried to praise her for taking her schoolwork seriously, and for being self-disciplined in doing her homework. Of course, Dweck is not saying that praises, awards, and so forth should never be given. Employees at work enjoy being acknowledged. The point is, they may benefit more if their effortful contribution to the organisation is being praised, rather than their ability and talents. Think about it: if our ability is a static disposition or talent, we had nothing to do with it – we were born with it, and deserve no credit for it. Where we do deserve credit is when we make the most out of whatever ability we have, not letting setbacks stop us along the way. However, I should mention that there is a new motivational technique in positive (coaching) psychology, called “acknowledgment.” The idea is to acknowledge the “signature strengths” of the person being motivated – for example, saying “I really admire how you persevered to get that report done on time. In fact, your perseverance has always impressed me,” rather than just saying “Good job on getting your report in on time.” In addition, research by the Gallup Organization has shown that certain kinds of praise are effective (i.e. frequent positive feedback from boss, but not “employee of the month” awards).4 Why does this kind of praise work? Probably it works because it is process-oriented praise (i.e., praising perseverance), which conveys that the person’s efforts, in combination with their specific strengths, are appreciated. The most important thing may be to avoid “inflating the person’s ego” with the praise, or making them afraid that they may not be able to keep doing the praiseworthy behaviour. If the praise refers to one’s effort, that one expended in using one’s specific strengths, then one’s ego and one’s fears of future failure are de-emphasised.

How to Motivate Others 87

5.4 Reflection: Giving Praise Appropriately Please take a moment to think about how and when you praise those around you. What do you emphasise – their ability, and their unchanging nature? Or, their effort, and their improving nature? Have you ever seen a case where praise seemed to backfire, swelling somebody’s ego and reducing their performance in the future? Please write any notes or insights here:

88 Week 5

Summary of Main Points from Week 5 Recap: Key Factors to Consider in Motivating Others. This recap can serve as a “quick guide” of empirically-supported motivational techniques. 1. Support autonomy, by seeking ways to engage the client’s sense of self in the task. Take their perspective, provide choices, and provide meaningful explanations for the requests you are making. 2. Avoid being controlling, or using one’s power to “force” the desired outcome. Have patience: it is a negotiation, not a command. 3. Emphasise learning and mastery goals; give performance goals a back-seat. 4. Avoid providing feedback about the client’s seemingly fixed ability, even if the feedback is positive — instead, give feedback on the client’s effort, learning, and perseverance. Support incremental, not entity, theories of achievement. 5. If you want to focus attention on a client’s characteristics, acknowledge their specific strengths, not their general ability. Let them know how their talents contribute to the overall goals of the team or organisation. 6. When failure occurs, focus on what can be learned from the failure, and what can be improved in the future. Make internal-unstable attributions for failure.

How to Motivate Others 89

More Easy Reference: Key Factors in Motivating Others Below are some further recommendations, which are repeated from earlier classes (I have identified when we covered each concept, if you want to go back and refresh yourself): 1.

Week 2: Try to frame assigned tasks in intrinsic rather than extrinsic terms (“This will help the company” instead of “This will make you money”). This concerns the “what” of motivation.

2.

Week 2: Try to promote internalised (intrinsic or identified) motivation, rather than external (reward-focused) or introjected (guilt-focused) motivation. This concerns the “why” of motivation.

3.

Week 3: Try to be aware of self-regulatory deficits and planning gaps in the goal systems of one’s subordinates — help them to be sensitive to what is needed, and help them to develop the concrete skills and plans they need to succeed. This concerns the “how” of motivation.

4.

Week 3: Try not to assign conflicting goals to one’s subordinates, and try to be on the lookout for pre-existing conflicts that might interfere with the subordinate’s performance. This also concerns the “how” of motivation.

5.

Week 3: Always display confidence in your subordinates’ abilities to do what needs to be done, and do not be too quick to dismiss their loftier ambitions. This breeds confidence and self-efficacy.

6.

Week 3: Try to create an environment that automatically primes goal-relevant action, including helping subordinates to create implementation intentions that cue action automatically when the right circumstances emerge. This lets motivated behaviour occur without conscious thought.

7.

Week 3: Try to use approach rather than avoidance framing, whenever possible. It is better for people to know where they are trying to go, rather than what they are trying to prevent.

8.

Week 3: Try to help subordinates select self-concordant goals – ones that express their natural dispositions, talents, and interests (like the pre-medical student who actually wants to be a dancer).

90 Week 5

Reading for Week 6 Please read the article by Sheldon et al. on “Testing 10 Candidate Psychological Needs,” available from: http://web.missouri.edu/~sheldonk/pdfarticles/JPSP01mostsat.pdf If you bought Optimal Human Being, you may also want to read Chapter 4, which also concerns the question of psychological needs. Finally, please also read Sheldon and Krieger’s three year study of law students. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=913824

Key References from Week 5 1

Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (1987). The support of autonomy and the control of behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 1024-1037.

2

Dweck, C. S. (1999) Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. New York: Psychology Press.

3

Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children’s motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 33-52.

4

Rath, T., & Clifton, D. O. (2004). How full is your bucket? Positive strategies for work and life. New York: Gallup Press.

Week 6: What Do People Really Need? Welcome to the final week of the course! We have come a long way. Last time, we examined the question of how to boost or enhance motivation in others. We looked at the tough question, “How can our motivation be somehow transmitted to another, so that they want to do what we think they should do?” Obviously, one way is to have a large-enough inducement or punishment. However, such methods are undoubtedly crass, frequently impractical, and may backfire in the long run, as our subordinates fail to internalise the motivation. Take away the promise of reward or threat of punishment, and motivation disappears. A more effective route is autonomy-support, in which motivators take the subordinate’s perspective, offer them as much choice as possible, and offer a meaningful rationale when choice is not possible. In this way subordinates can align their sense of self with the task being asked of them, internalising it and wanting to do it for its own sake, not just for the sake of an external motivator. Autonomy-support is a skill that requires commitment, patience, and the willingness to downplay one’s power advantage in the situation. However, developing this skill makes for a more positive motivational climate, for everyone. Last week we also examined how to positively motivate others from researcher Carol Dweck’s achievement-goal perspective. In her view, we should always avoid making entity attributions after failure, and only point out where effort and attention are needed.1 More counter-intuitively, we should also avoid entity praise after success (You’re so smart! Talented! Beautiful!), and only praise effort, learning, and growth. The idea is to keep people’s minds engaged, by keeping their egos out of the picture. Dweck’s recommendation is consistent with the recommendation of many contemporary self-esteem researchers, who have concluded that we should not try to directly boost the self-esteem of others (i.e., by giving gold stars to schoolchildren), and should not encourage people to put their self-esteem on the line in achievement situations. The self is better lived as a resource to be contacted, rather than as a symbol to be defended! So, by now, you have a good sense of some very important concepts in contemporary motivation theory, concepts that have been well-supported by peerreviewed research data. Hopefully, you have seen lots of ways to use them in your

92 Week 6

own personal and professional life! In this final week, Week 6, we’ll ask “What are the ultimate motivators?” That is, what do people really need and depend on in their lives? We’ll see that the answer may be fairly simple – according to SDT, we need to feel autonomous, competent, and related. In fact, the presence or absence of these three feelings may be able to explain most, if not all, of the earlier patterns and findings we’ve seen. Hopefully, since last week, you were able to read the Sheldon paper “What is satisfying about satisfying events?” and the needsatisfaction in law school studies that were assigned. If not, please do so now. In Week 1, I briefly talked about Maslow’s famous theory of needs. As a reminder, Maslow’s theory says that people have five basic needs: biological, security/safety, love/belongingness, self-esteem, and self-actualization. Maslow proposed that people strive to satisfy these in sequence: once biological needs such as adequate food and shelter are handled, then one can take care of one’s psychological safety and security, then one can worry about meaningful connections with others, and once one has those, one can strive for success and self-esteem, and finally, when these are all fulfilled, then one can move to selfactualization concerns, which involve self-transcendence, spirituality, and final expression of one’s best potentials. Although the theory makes a lot of sense, there are probably more exceptions than confirmations of the sequence. Some people strive for higher-order purposes even when their biological and safety needs are unmet, and other people fail to self-actualize even when all the other needs are met. It is also unclear whether all five of Maslow’s needs are really needs. For example, we just saw that self-esteem, and a focus on ego more generally, may cause more trouble than it is worth.

What Do People Really Need? 93

6.1 Activity: Your Most Satisfying Events In preparation for the next section, please take a moment to bring to mind the most

satisfying event you’ve experienced in the last year. Define “satisfying” in whatever way makes sense to you, and remember back to the single most satisfying event you can remember last year. Do this now, please! Please write notes about this event here:

94 Week 6

In our research, we have tried to answer the question “What really are the fundamental psychological needs?” That is, what experiences seem to be essential to produce happiness and well-being among humans all around the world? One study which received international attention (http://www.apa.org/releases/needs.html) contrasted ten “candidate needs,” to see which really were the most important.2 Participants wrote about the “most satisfying events” in their lives, then rated the presence of the ten candidate needs, and then rated their emotional state during those events. The ten candidate needs included Maslow’s five of health, security, relatedness, self-esteem, and self-actualization/meaning, and also included SDT’s competence and autonomy needs (SDT’s relatedness need was already included in Maslow’s set), and also included the further candidates of popularity/fame, money/luxury, and stimulation/pleasure. The results were consistent across several samples, and also across American and South Korean samples: SDT’s autonomy, competence, relatedness, and also selfesteem, emerged in the top group as “what’s satisfying about satisfying events.” These four predictors both had the highest mean level of presence within participants’ ratings, and also, each uniquely predicted participants’ positive emotional state during the satisfying event. In other words, when people thought about satisfying events, they tended to bring to mind experiences containing lots of autonomy, competence, relatedness, and self-esteem; also, the more of these the experience contained, the happier they were during the experience. By the criteria we established, then, physical health, money/luxury, popularity/fame, pleasure/stimulation, self-actualization/meaning, and security were not basic psychological needs. Notably, these were college student samples; it is possible that if we had used other samples (i.e. geriatric), then other needs (such as health) would have emerged as important. These results nicely supported SDT’s claims about basic psychological needs, but what about self-esteem? Didn’t I just say that is a problem? Actually, self-esteem is fine and good if you have it. However, it seems to be particularly problematic if you don’t have it, especially if you are focused on getting it. By striving for selfesteem, people become entity-oriented and ego-focused, and deprive themselves of the deeper resources that might help them reach lasting happiness. Let’s talk more about SDT’s three needs. Autonomy should be very familiar; we have seen that identified and intrinsic motivations are both considered to be autonomous motivations, because they are felt to express the Self. The more general claim is that people need to feel ownership of what they do; to feel that they endorse, choose, and value the behaviour in which they are engaged. This is

What Do People Really Need? 95

why autonomy-supportive motivational practices are so important — by helping to satisfy people’s need for autonomy within the situation, this motivational style helps produce optimal performance and persistence in the one being motivated. Autonomy is in some ways the most controversial of SDT’s three proposed needs, because people sometimes confuse autonomy with independence (not relying on others), or with self-centeredness (not caring about others). It is neither of these things. Some researchers also question whether autonomy is really universal; maybe it is not so important within collectivist cultures, where people are trained to subordinate their self-concerns? In fact, there are now lots of cross-cultural data showing that autonomy, measured as volition and self-ownership rather than as independence or self-centeredness, is important for all humans.3 See the SDT website for more information: http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/ What about competence? Competence ties back to the concepts of high expectancy and high self-efficacy that we saw in Week 3; again, the research suggests that people need to feel self-efficacious and confident that they can do well. Competence also ties back to performance goal and mastery concepts, from earlier. Again, the evidence suggests that competence needs are better met when one pursues mastery rather than performance goals, especially if the performance goals involve avoiding incompetence. The need for competence was first discussed by Robert White back in 1959; he called it “effectance” and argued that such motivation underlies most exploratory and growth efforts.4 This also supports the idea that ideally, competence is aligned with intrinsic rather than extrinsic motivations. Thus, in addition to supporting others’ autonomy, motivators should also support their competence needs, by offering encouragement, providing hints and resources, and conveying confidence in their ability to succeed. Finally, let’s consider relatedness. Actually, we’ve made very little mention of this need in the course so far – instead, issues of autonomy and competence have dominated our attention. Relatedness is certainly essential for peoples’ well-being and even physical health — lonely and isolated people get sicker and die younger. Indirectly, relatedness is also essential for people’s positive motivation, the topic of this course. Consider — when we are supporting others’ autonomy, we are implicitly supporting their relatedness needs, because we are showing we care about them as equals, and respect them enough to want them to be able to make their own choice. Of course, there are other ways we can support people’s relatedness – by encouraging them to develop friendships or partnership with others in the situation, and by being sensitive to their relatedness needs outside of the situation.

96 Week 6

Notice something important here: autonomy and relatedness go together. People typically assume that these two aims are in conflict, and that you can’t have both. They think that by relating to and accommodating others, we necessarily have to sacrifice some autonomy, and vice versa. But this only makes sense if autonomy equals independence, and if social life is a zero-sum game, such that our own happiness must come at the expense of others. It is not, and it doesn’t. In reality, when we feel truly related to others, we are also likely to be feeling that our unique selves are being given full expression, and vice versa. There is no conflict, and in fact, it can sometimes be hard to separate autonomy and relatedness in the data! When people feel a conflict, it is usually because the other person they are trying to have relatedness with is being controlling, not allowing the first person to fully exist within the relationship.

What Do People Really Need? 97

6.2 Reflection: Autonomy and Relatedness A) Please take a moment to think of some conflict between you and another person – either current, or in the past. Perhaps this is a difficulty with a co-worker, maybe it was a time you and a supervisor could not see eye to eye, perhaps it was a trouble period in your marriage To what extent were each of you feeling truly autonomous at that time? To what extent do you think you were each feeling related? Was one of the two parties more concerned about having their way than in creating a true connection between the two? How did you feel during this period? How did you think about the other party? Ultimately, what happened? How was the situation resolved? How might this solution be tied to autonomy or relatedness? Consider these many questions and write your answers or insights here:

98 Week 6

B) Now, please return to the “most satisfying event” that you brought to mind earlier. I’d like you to test, for yourself, our findings. Was this event mostly about feeling autonomous, competent, and related (i.e., you chose to learn a fun skill; you mastered it, and used it to make somebody important happy)? Was selfesteem involved as well? What about the other five “candidate needs” – to what extent was the event about health, pleasure, security, money/luxury, or popularity/fame? Was it unrelated to these needs? Or, is your “most satisfying event” an exception to the pattern we discovered? Please take a minute to consider this question! Please write any insights below:

What Do People Really Need? 99

Stepping Back: Putting It All Into One Picture In this final segment of the final week, I’d like to bring much of what we’ve learned together, into one big picture. I’ll do this by talking about a study we published in 2007, examining what happens to law students over the three-year law-school career.5 Law school is notorious for “bringing students down,” as students go from being initially excited and optimistic about the experience, to reporting elevated depression, alienation, and substance use by the third year. Why? Our study compared students at two different law schools, using SDT to explain the negative changes that we expected to see. One of the two schools is very competitive, with a mandatory grading curve, much emphasis on status and competition, and little concern with students’ needs. We’ll call this Law School 1. The other school is more student-centered, with grades based on demonstrated mastery instead of a curve, and considerable attention to students’ needs and psychological condition. We’ll call this one Law School 2. We were able to assess students’ well-being and general need-satisfaction when they began at law school; their perceptions of autonomy-support at their law school at the end of the first year; and their need-satisfaction and well-being at the end of the third year. At the end of the third year we also measured their grades, and their self-concordant motivation for heading into the law school career. We tested and found excellent support for a particular causal path model, shown in Figure 1. It is well worth considering what the model shows, since it consolidates a lot of the concepts we’ve considered in this course! Figure 6.1: Model Tested and Supported in the Law School Study – all coefficients statistically significant Greater Y3 Autonomy Satisfaction

.33

Greater SelfCareer Motivation

.39 .41 Law School 2 Versus Law School 1

.20

Autonomy Support (Y1)

.20

Greater Y3 Relatedness Satisfaction

.13

.

Better Y3 SWB .40

.32

Greater Y3 Competence Satisfaction

.23

Higher Grade Point Avg in Y3

100 Week 6

What does Figure 6.1 tell us? First, let’s consider one fact that this figure does not show us – namely, that students at both schools showed lower subjective wellbeing (SWB) at the end compared to the beginning of law school. Thus, consistent with past research, law school was problematic for all students. However, the problem was nowhere near as bad at Law School 2. Students at the two schools started out equal in undergraduate grades and entrance test scores. Yet, by the end of the first year, students rated the faculty at Law School 2 as being considerably more autonomy-supportive than the faculty at Law School 1. They felt that faculty took their perspective into account, provided them with meaningful choices regarding their education, and were less elitist and controlling. Perceptions of autonomy support at the end of the first year in turn predicted higher levels of autonomy, competence, and relatedness needsatisfaction, rated two years later (these analyses controlled for time 1 needsatisfaction, thus they concern changes in need-satisfaction). In turn, changes in need-satisfaction had predictable effects upon the final outcome variables of the study. As in the “most satisfying events” study, all three needs predicted enhanced wellbeing; also, changes in autonomy need-satisfaction predicted more selfconcordant motivation to become a lawyer; also, changes in competence needsatisfaction predicted higher graded achievement. Not shown in the figure is that students at Law School 2 actually scored better than students at Law School 1 on the bar exam, the professional law licensing exam in the U.S.! This is something that law school deans care about. Maybe it is something that you, as a manager, coach, or therapist, also care about. These data are lending significant support to a legal education reform movement here in the United States, because they show concretely what critics have long claimed; that law school is dehumanizing, but doesn’t have to be. If the faculty tries to be more autonomy-supportive, they can produce happier, healthier, and more successful students, and likely having important positive effects for legal and political culture as a whole. This is the “positive psychology of motivation” in action!

What Do People Really Need? 101

6.3 Activity: Mapping Motivation and Autonomy Support As a final course exercise, I invite you to try to adapt the figure above to some important situation in your life. Perhaps this situation concerns your attempts, as a manager, to motivate and inspire your employees; or, maybe your attempts as a teacher, a therapist, or a coach. What would the autonomy-supportive factor look like in your case, and what would be the final positive outcomes you’d like to enhance? Or, perhaps you come to this exercise as somebody being motivated – what would more autonomy-supportive treatment by your supervisors look like, and what might be the positive outcomes that result? To do this exercise, you might try modifying the boxes on the previous page, or perhaps, even rearranging them. You may also want to try to insert achievement goals into the diagram – such that autonomy-supportive treatment produces enhanced learning and decreased performance goals, leading to final positive outcomes. You decide. Please write your insights here:

102 Week 6

Looking Back and Looking Forward Again, we have come a long way in this course! Hopefully it has both confirmed some things that you always knew, and, taught you new things that you didn’t know. One thing I would like to leave you with is this: Motivation theory is practical. Motivation theories can help us to understand how to get the best out of ourselves, and out of others – the true goal of positive psychology. I invite you to make a life-discipline out of applying these course lessons in whatever way you can – I think you will find that the applications are limitless! Good luck.

Key References for Week 6 1

Dweck, C. S. (1999) Self-theories: Their role in motivation, personality, and development. New York: Psychology Press.

2

Sheldon, K. M., Elliot, A. J., Kim, Y., & Kasser, T. (2001). What’s satisfying about satisfying events? Comparing ten candidate psychological needs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 80, 325-339.

3

Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227- 268.

4

White, R. W. (1959). Motivation reconsidered: The concept of competence. Psychological Review, 66, 297-333.

5

Sheldon, K. M. & Krieger, L. K. (2007). Understanding the negative effects of legal education on law students: A longitudinal test and extension of selfdetermination theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 883-897.

What Do People Really Need? 103

Further Reading Below are some references to further reading concerning the various course topics. I have supplied links either to the sources themselves, or a place you can purchase the source. Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2000). The “what” and “why” of goal pursuits: Human needs and the self-determination of behaviour. Psychological Inquiry, 11, 227-268. http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/documents/2000_DeciRyan_PIWhatWhy. pdf This is probably the best single overview to SDT, and its scientific support base. Psychological Inquiry publishes target articles, followed by commentaries from other researchers, followed by a final response by the target author articles. If you are curious, you can get the commentaries and final response as well. Gagné, M., & Deci, E. L. (2005). Self-determination theory and work motivation. Journal of Organizational Behaviour, 26, 331-362. http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/documents/2005_GagneDeci_JOB_SDTth eory.pdf This is a recent overview of SDT and its application to work and organizations, for course-members who are interested in business and management. Vansteenkiste, M., Lens, W., & Deci, E. L. (2006). Intrinsic versus extrinsic goalcontents in self-determination theory: Another look at the quality of academic motivation. Educational Psychologist, 41, 19-31. http://www.psych.rochester.edu/SDT/documents/2006_VansteenkisteLensDeci_ InstrinsicvExtrinsicGoal_EP.pdf This is a recent overview of SDT and its application to academics and teaching, for course-members who are interested in education. Dweck, C. S. (2006). Mindset: The new psychology of success. New York: Random House This is Dweck’s most recent book, summarizing her thinking on achievement motivation, in lay terms.

104 Week 6

Final Course Assignment: Please write a 600 word essay that first summarises and integrates the most interesting and useful things you learned in this class, and then, applies those ideas to some practical situations in your life. This is your chance to pull everything altogether, elaborating on what makes the most sense to you. We are not looking for particular “right answers” in this assignment – just evidence that you have thought carefully and deeply about the course concepts!

What Do People Really Need? 105

106 Week 6

What Do People Really Need? 107

108 About the Author

About the Author Kennon Sheldon is a full Professor of Psychology at the University of Missouri (USA), and a world thought-leader in the field of positive motivation. In particular, his “self-concordance” model of positive motivation has received wide attention and application in research psychology, in fields as diverse as education, sports, and medicine. Sheldon’s work has also received significant national and worldwide media attention, in outlets such as Newsweek, US News and World Report, Time, Scientific American, USA Today, and Discovery magazine. Sheldon’s credentials in positive psychology are also top-tier: he was present at a keynote event in the birth of positive psychology, the Akumal conference in 1999, and received a prestigious $30,000 Templeton Award in 2001 for his contributions to the emerging field. Currently, he is editing a book called “Designing the future of positive psychology: Taking stock and moving forward,” to be published by Oxford University Press in 2009, on the tenth anniversary of the Akumal conference. Sheldon is also author of the books “Optimal human being: An integrated multi-level perspective,” and “Self-determination in the clinic: Motivating physical and mental health,” and a co-editor of the book “Life goals and well-being: Towards a positive psychology of human striving.” Sheldon has delivered numerous talks and keynote addresses at positive psychology conferences, including the first international Australian Positive Psychology conference, held in Sydney in April 2008. There, he addressed the question of whether increases in happiness are sustainable, or whether they are doomed to fade, thwarting a significant goal of positive psychology. His conclusion: it may be possible to become happier and stay that way, if you have the right motivation. Learn about his ideas on Positive Motivation in this course.