What You Want Dictates What You Do
How your motives drive action
Motivation is a “part of popular culture as few other psychological concepts are.” Those were the words of Martin Maehr and Heather Meyer, speaking almost two decades ago. Since then, the enthusiasm to understand motivation has increased. Yet, we still discuss motivation and our motives as though we know nothing about them.
I can’t go more than a few days without hearing someone say, “I’m just not motivated,” as an excuse for inaction. They believe that motivation comes from a well of energy; once it runs dry, there’s nothing to do but wait for it to replenish, but that isn’t how motivation works. It comes from our motives, the fundamental reasons we decide to change.
Everything we do has a motive behind it, but we forget the importance of our motives when we aren’t focused. When we need to get work done but procrastinate, we don’t need divine intervention; we need a better understanding of our goals.
Breaking Down Motivation
Our focus on motivation as an external source limits its effectiveness. This view is extrinsic motivation, and it’s only a fraction of what motivates us.
Extrinsic motivators, like money and recognition, are dangled in front of us to motivate specific habits. They aren’t ours; they come and go at others’ discretion. Intrinsic motivation stems from the delight and fascination with the activity itself. Almost all the work you do involves a mix of each. But, unless you’re entirely aware of the “why” behind your actions, you might end up assuming things about yourself that aren’t true.
Intrinsic motivation is internal, long-lasting, and self-sustaining but challenging to develop. It’s also far more subjective. Depending on the context, this can be positive or negative. These characteristics support positive habits but make quitting negative habits difficult.
Extrinsic motivators are short-term, restricted, quick fixes with broad impact. They may undermine intrinsic motivation and often require rewards to increase over time. However, they can promote rapid shifts in behavior.
When we discuss motivation, we typically focus on positive incentives. We want to know what’s in it for us.
In psychology, this is called incentive salience or approach behavior. Two factors compose incentive salience; wanting and liking. The wanting factor determines our desire to consume or attain. The liking portion is the immediate pleasure we get after acting. Both aspects can vary over short intervals and are influenced by perceived value and required effort entirely in our unconscious mind.
Other times we use our conscious mind to figure out the best possible outcome. Like, how we want to relax for the weekend.
You’ve had a stressful week, and you decide your best option for Friday night is to kick back with a bottle of wine. Your first glass is fantastic. You may be even more eager for the second glass than the first. But, once your second is empty, you must decide just how deep into the bottle you want to go.
You’ve got a hike in the morning, and it’s been a while since you drank. After a quick appraisal, the third glass seems less appealing. Its incentive salience has decreased, and your aversion to another glass has increased. You decide to cork the bottle. Better safe than sorry.
In our example, the impact of alcohol caused avoidant behavior; we weren’t demotivated to drink another glass. There were legitimate reasons not to. The effects were associated with undesirable outcomes, like hiking with a hangover.
It’s challenging to account for all the factors that drive us towards action or inaction. That’s what makes motivation tricky. Of course, it’s hard to get up and go to the gym; your home is comfortable, you want to relax, and the gym doesn’t seem fun. Each of these is a powerful motivator because they are averse. You need to recognize them as such to overcome them.
When we fail to understand our reasons for acting, we can become easily knocked off course. Our attention shifts from one salient distraction to the next until we finally remind ourselves that we should be working towards our goals. At that point, it’s impossible to tell if we’ll get back on track.
Psychologist Dan Ariely wanted to learn about motivations’ impact on behavior. So, he designed an experiment focused on the importance of meaning.
In his experiment, participants continually built simple Lego sets. Regardless of the trial, they eventually deconstructed each model. For each Bionicle built, participants earned a small amount. Completing the first net 3 dollars, the second $2.70, the third $2.40, and so on until they gave up or the amount paid reached zero. Ariely dubbed this the “meaningful experiment.”
Participants built the same models but with a subtle twist in the second condition. If they agreed to make another, they received a new set, but a third meant building the first model again.
This trial was called the “sisyphic condition” after the Greek myth of Sisyphus, an ordinary man punished by the Gods for his hubris. Each day, Sisyphus pushed a boulder up a hill only to have it roll down as he neared the peak. This condition emulated Sisyphus and his eternal — meaningless work.
Individuals built 50 percent more models in the meaningful condition than the sisyphic, for such a minor difference in how they ran the experiment that is a massive increase in effort by participants. These individuals weren’t changing the world. They played with toys for pocket change.
There was no opportunity to ascribe personal meaning to their work. Yet, the difference in experiments mattered substantially to each participant.
In another version of the experiment, nothing was built or paid for; participants only heard the description of each condition. They understood meaning is essential. But, they underestimated the magnitude. They expected the meaningful condition to build 15 percent more, less than a third of the actual amount.
Ariely didn’t stop with the first few experiments. He knew some participants were fond of Legos and wanted to understand how that changes behavior. Upon reviewing the results, participants’ attachment to Legos correlated with effort. However, in the sisyphic trial, their attachment was meaningless.
In Ariely’s own words, “this manipulation of breaking things in front of people, we basically crushed any joy they could get out of this activity.”
Throughout his experiments, participants had intrinsic and extrinsic incentives. Simple changes completely sapped their motivation. What we perceive as motivating — joy, effort, money — loses potency without meaning. We can persist on them alone, but only for a limited time.
To supersede these effects, you must understand what your goals and actions mean to you before you blindly chase after them.
Your motives decide the intensity and enthusiasm of your actions. If you want to “stay motivated,” you need to understand what motivates and holds you back. Leverage this knowledge and change your life.
