It seems like such a simple idea, and yet it strongly stuck with me, perhaps because it doesn't seem to be a strategy that's often employed (despite its simplicity!). Why don't we link extrinsic rewards to the actual goals of the intervention program more often?? For example, I can imagine an energy use reduction program that would provide incentives, not in the form of monetary rewards or even billing discounts, but rather by rewarding successful reduction with a free low-flow showerhead or free CFL lightbulbs. What better way to make an extrinsic-reward program durable, and perhaps even increase its effect over time? After all, as stated by several of the articles we've read, systematic efficiency upgrades (e.g., installing low-energy showerheads and lighbulbs) are likely to have a much larger practical impact than the individual curtailment behaviors that tend to receive more focus.
Of course, it's still possible that such incentives may trigger the overjustification effect, or that their effectiveness might taper off over time (for example, people might start wasting water because they feel that their low-flow showerhead gives them an excuse to take longer showers). This is where I think some other concepts from this class could be incorporated into an empirically testable solution.
We've already talked in class about how behaviors can feed back onto values and intentions, for example because performing an eco-friendly behavior strengthens a person's self-identity of being "pro-environmental," thus increasing their future eco-friendly behaviors. Also, the Verdugo (2012) article on "The Positive Psychology of Sustainability" discussed how performing pro-environmental behaviors can itself feel good, thus increasing the likelihood that those behaviors will be performed again. Both of these may be true for a extrinsic incentive program with goal-linked rewards, as installing the energy-saving reward may help to further strengthen their pro-environmental identity and also make them feel extra-good about their pro-environmental impact.
However, there is another aspect of "feeling good" that I think has been traditionally overlooked. At the beginning of the semester, we read Barb Fredrickson's (1998) article on the "Broaden and Build" model for positive emotions. Critical to this model is the idea that positive emotions broaden our attentional focus and foster more flexible thinking, thus allowing us to gain new ideas and skills and resources. We know that receiving rewards feels good, leading to an experience of positive emotions. But reward-based interventions usually just dispense a reward and then move on, without stopping to capitalize on the possibilities afforded by positive post-reward feelings. If feeling positive emotions leads to a "Broaden and Build" mindset, then this state shoud be the ideal moment to provide participants with information about the importance/impact of eco-friendly behaviors, and opportunities to reflect on this new information and their own behaviors, in order to produce durable behavior change.
This approach would map on nicely to the findings from this week's readings, about the effectiveness of small-group interventions that provide feedback and reflection opportunities. But the difference is that my approach would particularly capitalize on the positive feelings of getting a reward, to target participants specifically when they may be most receptive to exploring new ideas. And because the reward in this case would be relevant to achieving the program's eco-friendly goals, it should be particularly effective at keeping participants' focus on environmentally-relevant information and reflection. (This might not be true of non-relevant extrinsic rewards--e.g., money--because after receiving such rewards participants might be distracted by thinking about what they're going to do with the money, or might just be interested in getting the reward and uninterested in attending to additional information after they already have the money.)
This approach could take the much-maligned extrinsic incentive and turn it into a force for good :-), but of course, it would need to be empirically tested (as I don't know of any existing intervention that has tried this particular approach). What do you all think about this idea? Do you think that this intervention would actually work if it were tested in the real world?
Hi Julia! I really liked reading your post, because it made me reassess extrinsic goals again in a different light. But after thinking about it, I'm still not entirely convinced that this "new" kind of extrinsic motivation would succeed in ways that others had failed.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with extrinsic motivation was never necessarily what kind of reward it was, but the origin of the reward. So even if you are trying to promote energy savings, and decide to hand out efficient bulbs to the ones who reach certain goals, what happens when you stop providing them bulbs? I don't think this reward system is durable.
As the administrator of the bulbs, you make it easy for them to continue the behavior -- but once you're gone, what is there to make them start purchasing the bulbs on their own? They never went through the process of going to the store and deciding to buy the bulbs themselves; and THAT is what I think would make more of a difference, their own reflection on their behavior and feeling the need to buy the bulbs.
This kind of reward almost feels like the monetary incentives that might be in place (i.e., subsidies for buying energy efficient things) that we see also don't typically work.
I think if we could keep giving people bulbs forever, it would work (it'd be free - who doesn't like free stuff?). But we can't, unfortunately. And without intrinsic motivation to keep doing the desired behavior, I think this kind of extrinsic motivation might come up short like the rest of them.
I don't know if I agree... I think that if the role of a reward is to encourage exploration, it can trigger internal motivations that can be present even once the reward is removed.
ReplyDelete