Source: Adapted from Ryan and Deci (2000):72.
learned from others. There may be some degree of ambivalence about completing the activities, but we complete them because we feel we should and if we don’t our self-esteem decreases. Where people consciously value actions and view them as having personal importance, then regulation is based on identification or internalisation of views of others concerning the action. Where activities are congruent with a person’s identity and synthesised with the self, then actions are regulated in an integrated way. We do these actions because we want to and because we view them as the sort of things that fit with our other personal values and needs. However, these actions are still viewed as extrinsically motivated because they are done to achieve particular outcomes rather than because they are experienced as inherently interesting and enjoyable.
The further along the continuum of self-determination we are, the greater the level of autonomy we experience in regulating our actions. Greater autonomy in extrinsic motivation is associated with better persistence at tasks, better task performance and greater subjective well-being. This holds for academic tasks, adherence to medical regimes in patients with chronic illnesses, obesity and addiction, physical exercise, environmental activism and intimate relationships.
Development of intrinsic motivation
Many activities which we find intrinsically motivating as adults, such as arts, sports and some types of work, were once abhorrent to us. We had to learn to be intrinsically motivated to do these things. This involved moving through the stages of extrinsic
motivation entailed in the self-determination continuum in Figure 2.1, that is, progressing from external regulation through introjection and internalisation to integration. As children develop, they internalise and integrate more and more regulations and experience, increasing autonomy in carrying out various actions. Also, the range of regulations that they can internalise increases as their cognitive abilities develop.
Certain conditions promote the development of intrinsic motivation (Ryan and Deci, 2000). The development of intrinsic motivation is determined partly by the degree to which needs for relatedness, competence and autonomy are satisfied by children’s parents, teachers, coaches and other significant members of their social networks.
Evidence from developmental studies suggests that the needs for relatedness, competence and autonomy are to some degree constitutionally determined. Children show attachment behaviour from the earliest moments of life. From birth infants also strive to master skills and later to autonomously use them.
Children whose needs for relatedness are met in infancy and childhood show more intrinsic motivation. Studies of attachment in infants and children show that children with secure attachments to their parents engage in more intrinsically motivated exploratory behaviour. In childhood, a parenting style which is supportive rather than controlling engenders intrinsic motivation. Similarly in school, teachers who adopt a supportive rather than a critical style enhance pupils’ intrinsic motivation.
Children whose needs for competence and autonomy are met by being given age-appropriate tasks and responsibilities develop integrated regulation for these tasks. In contrast, children who are given tasks that are too developmentally advanced for them remain externally motivated to do them or, at best, develop introjected regulation for these activities.
We develop intrinsic motivation to do activities that are: (1) moderately challenging;
(2) that we feel we can do well; and (3) that give us satisfaction (Bandura, 1997). For very challenging complex tasks, intrinsic motivation may be developed by working initially towards moderately challenging subgoals. Once a series of subgoals have been mastered, the whole task or activity may be addressed. Intrinsic motivation is mediated partially by self-efficacy. That is, we are intrinsically motivated to do activities at which we believe we can succeed. Intrinsically motivating tasks bring personal satisfaction.
Often this sense of satisfaction is associated with achieving personal standards of performance and experiencing the positive emotions that accompany such achievement.
The relationship between rewards and the development of intrinsic motivation is complex. While rewards that are perceived as controlling reduce intrinsic motivation for activities once such motivation has been established, such rewards may help people move along the continuum of self-determination towards intrinsic motivation. That is, rewards may help people persist at an activity initially until they achieve sufficient self-efficacy to reach a state where the activity is regulated in an integrated way. Rewards that are perceived as more informative than controlling may help us move along the continuum of self-determination towards intrinsic motivation, insofar as they let us know how well we are doing at a task.
One class of activities which are intrinsically motivated deserves particular mention because lifestyles which involve these activities may be profoundly rewarding. These are activities which entail the use of signature strengths (Seligman, 2002).
SIGNATURE STRENGTHS
Seligman (2002) distinguishes between two distinct classes of positive emotions concerned with the present: momentary pleasures and more enduring gratifications.
While pleasures arise from sensual experiences, gratifications entail states of absorption or flow that come from engagement in activities which involve using signature strengths.
Sailing, dancing, reading, creative writing and teaching are examples of such activities.
Signature strengths are personal traits on which particularly high scores are obtained, associated with particular virtues, and defined in the Values in Action Classification of Strengths (Peterson and Seligman, 2001). The Values in Action Classification of Strengths is a system in which distinctions are made between virtues, strengths and enabling themes. Virtues are core characteristics valued by moral philosophers, such as wisdom or courage, and strengths are less abstract personality traits which may be used to achieve virtues. The 24 strengths associated with the 6 virtues of this classification system are presented in Table 2.1
Virtues
The six virtues in the Values in Action Classification System are wisdom, courage, humanity, justice, temperance and transcendence (Peterson and Seligman, 2001). These were chosen because they recur in the writings of important moral philosophers such as Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, Augustan, Aquinas and others. Wisdom refers to strengths that entail the acquisition and use of knowledge. The will to accomplish goals in the face of opposition, external or internal, is the main feature of courage. Character strengths associated with the virtue humanity involve positive social interaction with friends and family members. The strengths of justice show up in positive interactions with the wider community. Temperance refers to strengths which protect us against excesses of all sorts in satisfying our needs. Strengths that connect us to the larger universe constitute the virtue of transcendence. These six broad categories of virtue which emerge consistently from historical surveys are definitely ubiquitous and probably universal. They may be grounded in biology through an evolutionary process and selected as a means of managing the important tasks necessary for survival of the species. Probably all six of these virtues must be present at above-threshold values for an individual to be deemed of good character.
Character strengths
Character strengths are routes for achieving virtues (Peterson and Seligman, 2001). To be included as a character strength in the Values in Action Classification, a positive characteristic had to satisfy most of the following criteria: be trait-like; lead to some form of fulfilment associated with the good life; be morally valued; not diminish other people;
be supported by institutions; be displayed by highly valued societal role models; and be exemplified by prodigies. A further criterion was that the opposite of the character strength could not be phrased in a positive way: for example the opposite of flexible can be phrased as steadfast, so flexible would not qualify as a character strength. Talents and abilities (e.g. intelligence) and characteristics not valued across all cultures (e.g.
cleanliness, forgiveness, frugality) were excluded from the classification system.
Strengths in each virtue group are similar in that they all