velvetpage (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
velvetpage) wrote2005-09-02 12:48 pm
velvetpage) wrote2005-09-02 12:48 pm
PoAC: The Breakdown of Extrinsically Motivating Factors
First, some definitions.
Extrinsic motivation is exhibited when someone does something for a reason outside of the thing itself. My daughter says "please" when I tell her to because she knows she won't get the cookie if she doesn't. The action (saying please) is extrinsically motivated by the promise of a cookie. Basic animal training almost always works on this principle.
Intrinsic motivation is that which comes from an inward curiosity or desire to improve oneself, regardless of outside factors. Someone who takes their project after it has been completed and extends it because they want to learn more about it is intrinsically motivated by curiosity. A person who consciously chooses healthy foods because they are healthy and they want to be healthy too is intrinsically motivated - unless they're receiving points from a weight-loss program of some sort.
Now.
I got to thinking about motivation and the development of morality a few days ago, during a discussion of child development with![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
danaeris. My daughter is quite firmly in a pre-moral state. Her idea of morality is bound up in consequences both good and bad. She will do what we want either a) because she wants something from us - attention, cookies, a Dora video - or b) because she knows she won't get what she wants unless she does it - pick up her toys or Mommy won't get down the play dough. She's an agreeable child, and a smart one. Most of the time, things happen without a lot of fuss because she recognizes the benefits of doing what Mommy wants. There have been moments when our systems of extrinsic motivation have fallen through, in particular with sleep time. We found the problem (giving attention when she cried at bedtime reinforced her bad behaviour) and fixed it (no attention whatsoever after we've tucked her in.) But it is still extrinsically motivated, because she's not ready yet for the next stage.
As she grows up, she will start to develop the next level of morality. A school-age child will generally be able to tell you that such and such an action is wrong, and when you ask why, the answer will be that they'll have to sit in the corner, have a time-out, lose a privilege, etc, if they do that. In other words, the wrongness is linked to a consequence; it's only wrong because you will get in trouble if you do it.
The next stage after that one is where it starts to get really interesting. The next stage is the need to please, and the social identity that comes from behaving a certain way. This is where children will identify themselves as good boys, or bad boys, and act accordingly. Bullying starts to develop at this stage, because bullies draw their approval from their own social circle made up of other bullies or cowed lackies, or just bystanders who laugh when they do something mean. Good kids will do things at this stage because it will make their parents/teacher/caregivers happy if they do it. This is still a mostly extrinsic motivation, but consequences can be removed from the actions involved. I make this card for Mommy the week before Mother's Day because she'll be happy on Sunday morning. When I tell my friends about beating up Sally, they'll laugh and think I'm cool.
This stage is dependent on social interactions, and it is the reason why a good bond between parent and child is essential during the school years (well, at any time, of course.) In the absence of the correct social interaction, though, it will fall apart because it is still extrinsically motivated.
The last stage that most people ever reach, according to Kohlberg, is the one where law is paramount. If there is a rule telling you that you can't do it, then most people won't. This is the stage that has most people stopping at a stop light in the middle of nowhere at three o'clock in the morning when you are certain there isn't a cop anywhere in a hundred-mile radius. It is the law to stop, so you do. This stage is mostly intrinsic, because you have been trained to do this. The reward is your own clear conscience, which is an intrinsic motivation.
There are two stages beyond this - social contract morality, and universal principles morality - but they don't apply very much to this discussion.
Kohlberg postulated that people moved up through the stages as they grew up, and couldn't regress back down through them. I tend to disagree, as does most modern research. I believe that elements of all of these stages go into our complex motivations for behaving as we do, and that regression happens in times of stress. Let me illustrate.
Most people, when their fridge is empty, will go to the grocery store and purchase food to make into meals over the coming days. There are several motivations for this behaviour. The first, obviously, is the knowledge that they need to eat, and possibly an immediate sensation of hunger. The second is the knowledge that if they just walk into their neighbour's house and take what they need, the police will be called and they'll go to jail. The third is the awareness that this is actually a fairly easy task, and there are social rules for it, and no good reason not to follow the social rules. Going to the grocery store is the path of least resistance to making oneself a meal. There may be some moral debate between a fast-food joint and the grocery store, in which case the only intrinsic part of this behaviour comes into play - either the knowledge that the grocery store is more budget-friendly, or you like to cook, or it's healthier, or (on the other side of the coin) you're hungry now, not two hours from now when you've shopped and prepared a meal. Probably, this is the only part of this whole process to which you give any conscious thought at all.
What happens when the grocery store is unavailable to you - for example, you have no money with which to purchase food?
You can't follow the social rules, because those require you to give something you don't have in order to obtain something you need. Most people will first try to borrow from friends or family to meet their need in a socially-acceptable fashion; then they'll approach aid agencies like food banks for help. They may skip these steps and break the social rules by stealing food or the money with which to buy it. It will depend very much on the level of stress and how much the one sees oneself as a law-abiding person or upholder of the social contract. In other words, the more intrinsic your motivation to not steal, the less likely you are to do it.
What happens if the social rules break down as the result of a natural disaster, terrorist attack, or war?
When needs are reduced to their most basic, morality is also reduced. Many people will see the first layer stripped away almost immediately. They would never dream of robbing a grocery store normally, but when they or their children are hungry and thirsty, and the act can be rationalized ("The food is only going to rot anyway") they will start to steal to meet their needs. This is done on the understanding that the rule of law is temporarily suspended. Their need for food is more important than the store owner's need to be paid for the food, especially if he's not actually there. Stealing to supply one's needs is a breakdown of social contract morality - the social contract hasn't met my needs, so I'm going to do what it takes to ensure that they are met without contributing any more than necessary to the breakdown of the contract.
The second layer to go is the one reliant on consequences. Most people realize that they will get caught if they shoplift, eventually. For many people, that's enough to keep them from doing it. The extrinsic motivation of consequences will keep them in line even when the intrinsic motivation of right versus wrong is not present. But if people think they can get away with something, they will often do things that, once, they would not have considered doing. Until presented with the opportunity, most people do not realize that their morals are primarily based on fear of consequences and of social repercussions. This is why cops go bad; they have a better chance of getting away with it, and they often find themselves entering a new social contract with others who have gone bad or with organized crime. In a disaster, the resources which normally provide consequences to wrongdoers are instead engaged with much more basic pursuits, like saving lives off of roofs or ferrying a superdome full of people to safety. In the absence of enforced negative consequences, a layer of morality is stripped away. People begin to loot. This is a breakdown of consequence-based morality, the kind inherent to five-year-olds, the kind we expect kids (unrealistically) to have surpassed by the age of about twelve.
At the next stage, the grocery store image breaks down, so let's take another. Now, the prohibition is against rape. Socially, rape is anathema, a rapist the lowest of the low. People hate rapists more than any other brand of criminal, especially if they happen to be child molesters, as well. The legal, social, moral prohibition against rape is extremely strong. But when the legal and social codes have broken down, what's left? For a person whose intrinsic morality is weak or non-existent, the next step is the stage small children are at - I can meet my needs without thinking about anyone else. Except that sexual gratification through domination and pain is not a childish need.
What has happened in New Orleans over the last few days is a textbook case in the breakdown of the social order and its effects on individual morality. Many people have already stolen or broken into a deserted building in order to meet their needs. Many more have broken into a deserted building and stolen because they knew there was no one to stop them. Others have committed heinous acts of rape and murder because either they were trying to get what they wanted, like a child throwing a tantrum to get a cookie, or because they could get away with it. All extrinsic motivation has been stripped away. What's left is character. The people who are trying their best to survive and help others and contribute as little as possible to the breakdown of social order - those are people whose motivations are mostly intrinsic, and they are good people. The people who are looting nonessential items, who are raping, murdering, shooting at rescuers - these people didn't have a lot of intrinsic morality before this started. They were kept in line by a complex combination of extrinsic motivators, ranging from their mother's disapproval of stealing to the cop who might be about to turn the corner.
According the Kohlberg, and on this I agree with him, most people never attain the level of morality where behaviour under stress will be adequately policed inside their own minds.
In fact, almost all of us are a few days of terror away from acting in similar ways. It's almost impossible to know whose morality would survive it more or less intact, and whose would crack. I doubt most of us know that about ourselves.
Which is why you won't see me refusing to help humans who are doing bad or stupid stuff in the South. As the old saying goes, "There but for the grace of God go I."
Extrinsic motivation is exhibited when someone does something for a reason outside of the thing itself. My daughter says "please" when I tell her to because she knows she won't get the cookie if she doesn't. The action (saying please) is extrinsically motivated by the promise of a cookie. Basic animal training almost always works on this principle.
Intrinsic motivation is that which comes from an inward curiosity or desire to improve oneself, regardless of outside factors. Someone who takes their project after it has been completed and extends it because they want to learn more about it is intrinsically motivated by curiosity. A person who consciously chooses healthy foods because they are healthy and they want to be healthy too is intrinsically motivated - unless they're receiving points from a weight-loss program of some sort.
Now.
I got to thinking about motivation and the development of morality a few days ago, during a discussion of child development with
danaeris. My daughter is quite firmly in a pre-moral state. Her idea of morality is bound up in consequences both good and bad. She will do what we want either a) because she wants something from us - attention, cookies, a Dora video - or b) because she knows she won't get what she wants unless she does it - pick up her toys or Mommy won't get down the play dough. She's an agreeable child, and a smart one. Most of the time, things happen without a lot of fuss because she recognizes the benefits of doing what Mommy wants. There have been moments when our systems of extrinsic motivation have fallen through, in particular with sleep time. We found the problem (giving attention when she cried at bedtime reinforced her bad behaviour) and fixed it (no attention whatsoever after we've tucked her in.) But it is still extrinsically motivated, because she's not ready yet for the next stage.As she grows up, she will start to develop the next level of morality. A school-age child will generally be able to tell you that such and such an action is wrong, and when you ask why, the answer will be that they'll have to sit in the corner, have a time-out, lose a privilege, etc, if they do that. In other words, the wrongness is linked to a consequence; it's only wrong because you will get in trouble if you do it.
The next stage after that one is where it starts to get really interesting. The next stage is the need to please, and the social identity that comes from behaving a certain way. This is where children will identify themselves as good boys, or bad boys, and act accordingly. Bullying starts to develop at this stage, because bullies draw their approval from their own social circle made up of other bullies or cowed lackies, or just bystanders who laugh when they do something mean. Good kids will do things at this stage because it will make their parents/teacher/caregivers happy if they do it. This is still a mostly extrinsic motivation, but consequences can be removed from the actions involved. I make this card for Mommy the week before Mother's Day because she'll be happy on Sunday morning. When I tell my friends about beating up Sally, they'll laugh and think I'm cool.
This stage is dependent on social interactions, and it is the reason why a good bond between parent and child is essential during the school years (well, at any time, of course.) In the absence of the correct social interaction, though, it will fall apart because it is still extrinsically motivated.
The last stage that most people ever reach, according to Kohlberg, is the one where law is paramount. If there is a rule telling you that you can't do it, then most people won't. This is the stage that has most people stopping at a stop light in the middle of nowhere at three o'clock in the morning when you are certain there isn't a cop anywhere in a hundred-mile radius. It is the law to stop, so you do. This stage is mostly intrinsic, because you have been trained to do this. The reward is your own clear conscience, which is an intrinsic motivation.
There are two stages beyond this - social contract morality, and universal principles morality - but they don't apply very much to this discussion.
Kohlberg postulated that people moved up through the stages as they grew up, and couldn't regress back down through them. I tend to disagree, as does most modern research. I believe that elements of all of these stages go into our complex motivations for behaving as we do, and that regression happens in times of stress. Let me illustrate.
Most people, when their fridge is empty, will go to the grocery store and purchase food to make into meals over the coming days. There are several motivations for this behaviour. The first, obviously, is the knowledge that they need to eat, and possibly an immediate sensation of hunger. The second is the knowledge that if they just walk into their neighbour's house and take what they need, the police will be called and they'll go to jail. The third is the awareness that this is actually a fairly easy task, and there are social rules for it, and no good reason not to follow the social rules. Going to the grocery store is the path of least resistance to making oneself a meal. There may be some moral debate between a fast-food joint and the grocery store, in which case the only intrinsic part of this behaviour comes into play - either the knowledge that the grocery store is more budget-friendly, or you like to cook, or it's healthier, or (on the other side of the coin) you're hungry now, not two hours from now when you've shopped and prepared a meal. Probably, this is the only part of this whole process to which you give any conscious thought at all.
What happens when the grocery store is unavailable to you - for example, you have no money with which to purchase food?
You can't follow the social rules, because those require you to give something you don't have in order to obtain something you need. Most people will first try to borrow from friends or family to meet their need in a socially-acceptable fashion; then they'll approach aid agencies like food banks for help. They may skip these steps and break the social rules by stealing food or the money with which to buy it. It will depend very much on the level of stress and how much the one sees oneself as a law-abiding person or upholder of the social contract. In other words, the more intrinsic your motivation to not steal, the less likely you are to do it.
What happens if the social rules break down as the result of a natural disaster, terrorist attack, or war?
When needs are reduced to their most basic, morality is also reduced. Many people will see the first layer stripped away almost immediately. They would never dream of robbing a grocery store normally, but when they or their children are hungry and thirsty, and the act can be rationalized ("The food is only going to rot anyway") they will start to steal to meet their needs. This is done on the understanding that the rule of law is temporarily suspended. Their need for food is more important than the store owner's need to be paid for the food, especially if he's not actually there. Stealing to supply one's needs is a breakdown of social contract morality - the social contract hasn't met my needs, so I'm going to do what it takes to ensure that they are met without contributing any more than necessary to the breakdown of the contract.
The second layer to go is the one reliant on consequences. Most people realize that they will get caught if they shoplift, eventually. For many people, that's enough to keep them from doing it. The extrinsic motivation of consequences will keep them in line even when the intrinsic motivation of right versus wrong is not present. But if people think they can get away with something, they will often do things that, once, they would not have considered doing. Until presented with the opportunity, most people do not realize that their morals are primarily based on fear of consequences and of social repercussions. This is why cops go bad; they have a better chance of getting away with it, and they often find themselves entering a new social contract with others who have gone bad or with organized crime. In a disaster, the resources which normally provide consequences to wrongdoers are instead engaged with much more basic pursuits, like saving lives off of roofs or ferrying a superdome full of people to safety. In the absence of enforced negative consequences, a layer of morality is stripped away. People begin to loot. This is a breakdown of consequence-based morality, the kind inherent to five-year-olds, the kind we expect kids (unrealistically) to have surpassed by the age of about twelve.
At the next stage, the grocery store image breaks down, so let's take another. Now, the prohibition is against rape. Socially, rape is anathema, a rapist the lowest of the low. People hate rapists more than any other brand of criminal, especially if they happen to be child molesters, as well. The legal, social, moral prohibition against rape is extremely strong. But when the legal and social codes have broken down, what's left? For a person whose intrinsic morality is weak or non-existent, the next step is the stage small children are at - I can meet my needs without thinking about anyone else. Except that sexual gratification through domination and pain is not a childish need.
What has happened in New Orleans over the last few days is a textbook case in the breakdown of the social order and its effects on individual morality. Many people have already stolen or broken into a deserted building in order to meet their needs. Many more have broken into a deserted building and stolen because they knew there was no one to stop them. Others have committed heinous acts of rape and murder because either they were trying to get what they wanted, like a child throwing a tantrum to get a cookie, or because they could get away with it. All extrinsic motivation has been stripped away. What's left is character. The people who are trying their best to survive and help others and contribute as little as possible to the breakdown of social order - those are people whose motivations are mostly intrinsic, and they are good people. The people who are looting nonessential items, who are raping, murdering, shooting at rescuers - these people didn't have a lot of intrinsic morality before this started. They were kept in line by a complex combination of extrinsic motivators, ranging from their mother's disapproval of stealing to the cop who might be about to turn the corner.
According the Kohlberg, and on this I agree with him, most people never attain the level of morality where behaviour under stress will be adequately policed inside their own minds.
In fact, almost all of us are a few days of terror away from acting in similar ways. It's almost impossible to know whose morality would survive it more or less intact, and whose would crack. I doubt most of us know that about ourselves.
Which is why you won't see me refusing to help humans who are doing bad or stupid stuff in the South. As the old saying goes, "There but for the grace of God go I."
no subject
I think part of the problem in New Orleans is that most of the people who are currently there, who were unable to get out, aren't people who have ever been completely within the rule of law in society. We're talking about the extremely poor, and being poor in New Orleans is REALLY bad, people who have already been oppressed and toughened by a difficult life. So the reaction is going to be more extreme.
Either way, it's a horrible situation.
no subject
no subject
I beg to differ here. I know it might be really starting a fight, but my teachers didn't give a CF about ethics. They just cared whether kids could repeat the right buzzwords and hopefully play football well.
no subject
Most school districts have mandatory "social skills" programs that are actually morality lessons. Whether they were in place or enforced in your school environment is a separate question.
Studies consistently show a link between higher education and lower crime, especially violent crime. It's not universal, of course - not everyone who obtains a B.A. will be a moral person. But the likelihood of it has increased with every year of education they have under their belt.
no subject
It's just a sore topic right now, because things in the US are so fouled up by money.
no subject
That's an interesting question, though. I think I might do some research into that.
no subject
no subject
1. The city was underfunded to deal with a disaster of this proportion. Blame who you will (and there's more than one person/agency to blame) but the bottom line is that the money wasn't there.
2. The city itself was dumb and didn't have any sort of measure in place to deal with a storm of this magnitude despite storm projections for the future and the fact that New Orleans is practically built in the bottom of a fishbowl.
3. The government (city and federal) were unwilling to step in and drag people kicking and screaming to shelters when the storm swelled to monstrous proportions. Instead of just dealing with people in shelters, they had to deal with picking people off of rooftops and getting shot at in the process in the aftermath. When that storm hit Category 5, that was more than enough impetus for the mayor to say, "Everyone out- no exceptions" and have a plan ready (which of course- they didn't) to get those who could not leave on their own to a shelter.
4. The shelters themselves were not ready. They should have been stocked with food and water the moment the judgment was made that this storm was going to hit the city.
5. Hurricane season lasts six months out of the year, every year. It's not like a tornado or an earthquake where it hits all of a sudden. These storms can be tracked and projected. There is absolutely no excuse why everyone should not have been ready for this. Absolutely none at all.
I don't want to sound callous here and I really do feel sorry for the people who lost their homes and their loved ones, but due to lack of planning on the part of pretty much everyone, there are some people that have reaped what they have sown (and I'm guessing that in pretty short order, those in emergency management jobs there aren't going to have their jobs for much longer).
no subject
no subject
no subject