PREVENTING UNWANTED BEHAVIOR. IS IT WITHIN OUR POWER ?
Just as it is hard to start a new habit, it is hard to stop an old one. In fact, some behaviors are thought to be unpreventable, i.e. beyond our ability to control with "willpower" or self-help techniques. Many feel this way about drinking alcohol; some do about eating, smoking, and even procrastination. When we add an awareness that genetic, metabolic, physiological, unconscious, and environmental factors as well as underlying emotions affect our reaction to drinking, food, smoking, coffee, soft drinks, sugar, etc., it shakes our faith (rightly so) in self-control. There is evidence, for instance, that alcoholics chemically process alcohol differently from nonalcoholics (Heilman, film). Alcoholism is called a "disease," implying that it is an unstoppable physical disorder, treatable only by physicians or a Higher Power? For an extensive discussion and references, see the Addiction section and Stanton Peele's books (Peele & Brodsky, 1991). For the specific steps to take when preventing relapse, go to Relapse Prevention.
Experienced people in Alcoholics Anonymous (AA), Overeaters Anonymous (OA), and Emotions Anonymous (EA) say the first step towards recovery is to admit you are powerless over alcohol, food, emotions, or whatever. Then, their 12-step program basically says, (l) abstain (totally in the case of alcohol) by asking for help from friends (in AA or OA or EA who have been in the same situation) and from a Higher Power, (2) admit your "defects of character" and the wrongs you've done, and (3) make amends. AA is often considered the best available treatment for alcoholism, so use it if you need it. Interestingly, AA has a reputation for being successful in spite of little or no outcome research. Unfortunately, AA opposes research (members aren't supposed to disclose what happens at AA meetings) and doesn't directly teach self-control methods. It is known that many people go to AA only a few times and others backslide after hundreds of AA sessions. One study of 90 addicts found that they had, on average, attended 586 AA sessions before relapsing (Chiauzzi, 1989). That is an amazing amount of "treatment" to be followed by failure. So, AA is not a perfect miracle cure. If AA added more self-control beliefs and procedures, especially relapse prevention, to its program, it might be more effective. Only research can tell us. See more references concerning alcoholism at the end of the chapter.
There is also evidence that overweight people adjust their metabolism as they reduce their intake of food so that they tend to stay about the same weight, called their "biological destiny" (Bennett & Gurin, l98?). If that is the case, losing weight may be very hard to do if you have a genetic tendency to be heavy or to crave sweets, etc. It is believed that weight loss efforts work best the first time you try to diet; thereafter, the body loses weight more slowly but gains it back much more rapidly. Also, over-weight people produce more insulin than thin people when they see food and that increases hunger pangs. Heavy people respond more to external cues--smells, sight of dessert, etc. All this (plus the emotions pushing us to eat) makes it hard to lose weight. As most people know, our metabolism is a function of our activity level, so losing weight without exercise is especially hard to do.
No matter what the physiological and emotional processes are and how difficult it is to reduce drinking or overeating, the addict still has the problem of how to stop a harmful habit. Should he/she get professional medical help, psychological help, give up trying to do the impossible alone and turn to God, join a self-help group, take antabuse or diet pills, go to a Mental Health Center or an addiction treatment center, talk to friends, read and try to help him/herself or what? My answer again is, "Try all kinds of treatment until something works."
Is it harder for some people to overcome bad habits than others? Since this is like the question "Do I see blue the same as you do?" we will never know but old habits are hard for everybody to stop. How hard? There is very contradictory evidence. Some treatment programs claim a 90% success rate (during the treatment phase). In general, relapse after treatment of addictive behavior is very high, 50% to 90% (Brownell, Marlatt, Lichtenstein & Wilson, 1986). Two thirds to 3/4's of drug and alcohol abusers relapse within three months after treatment (Chiazzi, 1989). In one study, less than 10% of treated alcoholics abstained for two years (Armor, Polich, & Stambul, 1978). Researchers of weight loss projects also report disappointing results: few stay in treatment, and 80% of those that do, gain any weight loss back within a year. Smokers frequently quit, then relapse. Clients who stay in these treatment programs for various problems are successful (why else would they stay?), but thus far no program enables a high percentage of clients to maintain their gains. So, it is hopeful (we can change) but the final long-term results of today's "programs," even the expensive ones, are not good enough. On the other hand, note that about half of all former problem-drinkers have quit drinking "on their own" (no help from a MD or AA or any treatment). You are not powerless! But I'd recommend getting all the outside help you can, as well as self-helping.
Similarly, Stanley Schachter (1982) reported some interesting but controversial findings: almost 2/3's (63%) of people who tried to lose weight or stop smoking on their own (without professional help) were successful! And they kept it off for years! This implied that self-help was better than professionally run treatment programs. Subsequent studies (Cohen, et al, 1989) showed this was not true; self-quitters (smokers) did no better or no worse than clients in a stop smoking clinic. But over the years, we try to help ourselves a lot more often than we use professional programs. Thus, 85% of those trying to stop are on their own and only 15% join a stop-smoking program. About 1/3 of all smokers have tried to stop within the last year; most failed. Of those trying to stop sometime (or many times) between 1976 and 1986, 48% of the self-helpers and 24% of the treatment clients were successful. Altogether 40 million Americans have stopped smoking, so it is possible. 90% of the successful ones were on their own and most of them had tried again and again. 70-75 million are still smoking. There is no evidence that successful quitters used different behaviorchange methods than the relapsers; they just motivated themselves more and kept on trying (maybe until they found an approach that worked for them). There is hope. Again, I'll remind you: self administered programs (listening to a tape, reading a manual, watching a videotape) have been just as effective as the rapist administered programs (Scogin, Bynum, Stephens, & Calhoon, 1990). The keys seems to be learning to be motivated and maintaining your gains.
Thursday, May 21, 2015
Once we have self-control why do we lose control over some behavior?
ONCE WE HAVE SELF-CONTROL WHY DO WE LOSE OVER SOME BEHAVIOR ?
Baumeister, Heatherton & Tice (1994) do a good job of explaining our failures at self-control, e.g. giving up during the performance of a task, losing control over our thoughts or emotions, and letting some habit (eating, drinking, smoking, buying, etc.) get out of control. Unfortunately, these authors' work is of limited value because it doesn't tell us much about how to prevent the loss of self-control. However, by understanding the process by which we lose control, perhaps science can help us learn how to maintain self-control. You will recognize that "blocks," discussed above, have much in common with "loss of self-control."
Three steps are needed for us to be in self-control. First, we need "standards," i.e. to know what we want to do or should do. Second, we need to be aware if our behavior is failing to meet our standards. Third, we need to be able to correct our behavior when it becomes sub-standard (this is what the ordinary person would often call "will power"). Failure in any of the three steps will lead to poor self-control: if we don't know where we are going, if we don't pay attention to see if we are getting there, and if we don't know how (or don't have the strength--see blocks) to get back on track if we get lost.
Here are some of the more common ways we lose self-control: we set no goals or impossible goals; we lose control or don't pay attention to our goals or to our behavior; we quit because we get tired or stressed and weakened; we attend to our immediate situation and needs overlooking long-range goals; we misjudge what is important to do; we focus on calming our emotions but neglect doing our tasks or solving our problems; we become obsessed with protecting our egos and neglect getting the job done; we let the initial failure lead to a "snowballing" of many failures (see relapse prevention below); we believe in venting our feelings rather than in eliminating the emotions; we decide we are helpless or bad and stop trying in order to avoid further failure.
Solutions to losing self-control? Set goals, monitor your progress carefully, reward desired behavior, and practice self-control and in the process learn as much as possible about the self-help methods that work for you. As Baumeister, Heatherton & Tice explain, one barrier to gaining this self-knowledge is that most people don't really want to know a lot of accurate information about themselves. Our species prefers to be told positive things or, at most, be told negative things they already believe about themselves. We resolutely avoid accurate self-knowledge about our weaknesses. The more we can overcome this I-don't-want-to-know-the-truth trait, the better we can gain selfcontrol.
Baumeister, Heatherton & Tice (1994) do a good job of explaining our failures at self-control, e.g. giving up during the performance of a task, losing control over our thoughts or emotions, and letting some habit (eating, drinking, smoking, buying, etc.) get out of control. Unfortunately, these authors' work is of limited value because it doesn't tell us much about how to prevent the loss of self-control. However, by understanding the process by which we lose control, perhaps science can help us learn how to maintain self-control. You will recognize that "blocks," discussed above, have much in common with "loss of self-control."
Three steps are needed for us to be in self-control. First, we need "standards," i.e. to know what we want to do or should do. Second, we need to be aware if our behavior is failing to meet our standards. Third, we need to be able to correct our behavior when it becomes sub-standard (this is what the ordinary person would often call "will power"). Failure in any of the three steps will lead to poor self-control: if we don't know where we are going, if we don't pay attention to see if we are getting there, and if we don't know how (or don't have the strength--see blocks) to get back on track if we get lost.
Here are some of the more common ways we lose self-control: we set no goals or impossible goals; we lose control or don't pay attention to our goals or to our behavior; we quit because we get tired or stressed and weakened; we attend to our immediate situation and needs overlooking long-range goals; we misjudge what is important to do; we focus on calming our emotions but neglect doing our tasks or solving our problems; we become obsessed with protecting our egos and neglect getting the job done; we let the initial failure lead to a "snowballing" of many failures (see relapse prevention below); we believe in venting our feelings rather than in eliminating the emotions; we decide we are helpless or bad and stop trying in order to avoid further failure.
Solutions to losing self-control? Set goals, monitor your progress carefully, reward desired behavior, and practice self-control and in the process learn as much as possible about the self-help methods that work for you. As Baumeister, Heatherton & Tice explain, one barrier to gaining this self-knowledge is that most people don't really want to know a lot of accurate information about themselves. Our species prefers to be told positive things or, at most, be told negative things they already believe about themselves. We resolutely avoid accurate self-knowledge about our weaknesses. The more we can overcome this I-don't-want-to-know-the-truth trait, the better we can gain selfcontrol.
Behavioral Blocks And Getting Unstuck
BEHAVIORAL BLOCKS AND UNSTUCK
Lipson and Perkins (1990) have a book explaining why we don't do what we would like to do. How is our intended behavior "blocked," such as when we are constantly late, can't lose weight, don't exercise, don't do our best, etc.? First of all, they assume that all of our behavior is the result of many forces, including our will, pulling and pushing us in many directions. However, they don't use the concept of reinforcement and they decry the idea of increasing our "will power." They point out, as I have, that much self-help advice is very simple and unquestionably correct: stop procrastinating by "planning your time," lose weight by "eating less," be successful by "studying more," etc. But such advice is often inane--useless--because it can't be followed, our will power just isn't strong enough to make the changes. Often, though, they say that if you understood the forces that block your good intentions, you could counter those forces and do what you want to do. This is a cognitive (insight) approach to self-control of your behavior. Let's see if it helps to describe five different kinds of blocks.
First, a strong force in the environment may block our intended or desired behavior; it overpowers our will. We often know exactly what these forces are; we recognize them as constant temptations, e.g. a strong attraction to desserts ruins our diet, a desire to have fun keeps us from getting our work done, an angry reaction to someone causes us to say things we shouldn't, an urge to buy clothes overdraws our account, etc. When these forces overwhelm our best intentions, we say, "I'm weak willed," "I'm lazy," "I'm selfish," etc. It may be neat in a way that there are so many strong forces in the world--things we want and enjoy, physical, hormonal, and genetic drives, social needs, compelling emotions, and on and on. But, these forces frequently crush our self-control, and that's not so neat.
This notion of blocks is obvious; however, it isn't easy to assess the strength of the blocks or your "will power." How successful do you feel your will power has been in overcoming the blocks (temptations and distractions)? These authors say will power is frequently weak, usually over-estimated and a false hope. Instead of "will," we have to use our brain--our knowledge of self-help--to devise ways of avoiding or containing these strong forces. There are lots of such methods; most are in this book.
Secondly, in contrast with the forces mentioned above that we are keenly aware of, Lipson and Perkins (1990) contend that some strong forces are hidden from us and, thus, since we can't combat them handily, they easily block our intentional behavior. We know the forces are there because we see the results. Examples: Our hot attraction to someone turns cold (we don't know why but perhaps he/she is coming on too strong or getting too dependent). Our grades in chemistry are D's and F's (we have the ability but maybe we fail because medicine is dad's choice, not ours). We have a short fuse with our spouse without sufficient reason and without knowing why (maybe because we feel taken for granted or got a lousy assignment at work). We don't want to turn cold, fail chemistry, or have a fight. But things like this happen to all of us; hidden forces are the cause. To understand these blocks, we must seriously search for the reasons, the hidden forces. When we think we have found the reasons, we must carefully question and critically assess the explanation (because we are prone to self deception). Are the conjectured forces really there? Are they powerful enough to block our desired behavior? When we accurately see the hidden forces (not easy), we have a better chance of getting back in control.
Thirdly, besides strong forces in the outside world (things we yearn for, fears, reactions of others, etc.), there are strong forces generated by our own self-evaluations. Examples: You may be only 5 or 6 pounds overweight but see yourself as embarrassingly chubby. During a conversation, you may panic thinking, "I don't know what to say, I'll look like a jerk." These thoughts and feelings about ourselves are powerful forces that frequently block us from doing what we would like to do. By observing our internal dialogue and self-appraisals, we can gain better control over these blocks. Examples: Some negative things about ourselves, e.g. 6 pounds or quietness, we can accept as okay, others we can "own," e.g. sarcasm or self-criticism, and take responsibility for changing. Likewise, some of your traits may initially be seen as positive, e.g. being a party animal and excessive drinking, but by recognizing their negative long-term consequences and "disapproving" of the destructive aspects of the traits, we can reduce these blocks to achieving our more important life goals.
Fourthly, many activities can captivate or "enthrall" us: eating, drinking, listening to music, watching TV, socializing, and even cleaning can capture our attention once we get started. Becoming preoccupied with these activities blocks us from doing other things. Enthralling activities may have a relatively weak initial "pull" for us but once we are absorbed in the activity the "grip" can hold us. All of us have wasted evenings watching worthless TV. If we had gotten off the couch and turned off the set for a minute, we almost certainly would have found something better to do. Ask yourself frequently, "What is the best use of my time right now?" Change your environment. Try to develop more fruitful "counter-thralls." Witkin (1988) has a book about controlling these urges.
Lastly, blocks occur when a complex collage of forces pushes us in certain directions, such as when a woman marries the same kind of jerk three times. Another example is the person who is so concerned about being liked that they try too hard to please. As a result, they are seen as weak, "an easy mark," and not respected, which pushes them to try even harder to please. This is called a self-sealing system and this vicious circle occurs in many situations: a person creates more problems drinking to avoid problems, an over-protective parent produces a more and more helpless child, an insecure and jealous lover increases his/her chances of being dumped. Obviously, complex but powerful and mostly hidden forces are pushing these people in disastrous directions. Such people must get an understanding of the complex forces shaping their lives, and then they have a better chance of coping. They need courage to self-explore--maybe in therapy.
This is a nice theoretical summary of blocks. But, removing your specific blocks is not easy. Washton and Boundy (1989) make the point that many of our self-help efforts are directed at the bad habit and not at the block or real underlying problem. For example, it is common to see drinking or smoking or over eating or procrastination or TV addiction as the problem, while, in truth, the more basic problem is the hurt, anxiety, emptiness, frustration, shame, etc. (feelings and thoughts), which the drinking, eating, escaping behaviors attempt to relieve. These unwanted surface behaviors are not the real problems; they are attempted solutions! The underlying feelings are the problems! Having the will power to stop the unwanted habits is not enough. You must reduce the psychological pain inside which causes the bad habits, i.e. our dis-ease. Discovering this internal hurt may be easy; it may be hard even with therapy; it needs to be done (see chapters 14 and 15).
Sidney Simon (1988) describes another set of barriers to changing: (1) Having low self-esteem and feeling unable to change or undeserving of a better life. (2) Failing to see alternatives or feeling you can't make or don't have good choices (see decision-making in chapter 13). (3) Being unsure of what you want and/or are simply going along with someone else's decisions about your life. (4) Finding lots of excuses for doing nothing or "Yes, but-ing" and, thus, reducing your motivation to change. (5) Being afraid to change. (6) Feeling alone and unsupported or "I don't need anyone" or "I shouldn't have to ask for help." (Ask for help anyway!) (7) Demanding perfection. (8) Lacking the determination or "will" to get the job done.
When changing, the first step is the killer. If you haven't exercised in months or have smoked for years, the first day is toughest. You must use willpower (or, if you prefer, motivation or self-talk). You can strengthen a weak will. Simon suggests building your willpower by (a) practicing in more and more difficult self-control situations, (b) taking small successful steps followed by rewards, and (c) planning alternatives to use when major temptations threaten. Besides will power, you need lots of other skills. But the hardest part for many of us will be getting a handle on the underlying emotions causing the inner pain and creating the barriers. This kind of insight comes from gaining more and more knowledge about people and from honestly looking inside your self.
Lipson and Perkins (1990) have a book explaining why we don't do what we would like to do. How is our intended behavior "blocked," such as when we are constantly late, can't lose weight, don't exercise, don't do our best, etc.? First of all, they assume that all of our behavior is the result of many forces, including our will, pulling and pushing us in many directions. However, they don't use the concept of reinforcement and they decry the idea of increasing our "will power." They point out, as I have, that much self-help advice is very simple and unquestionably correct: stop procrastinating by "planning your time," lose weight by "eating less," be successful by "studying more," etc. But such advice is often inane--useless--because it can't be followed, our will power just isn't strong enough to make the changes. Often, though, they say that if you understood the forces that block your good intentions, you could counter those forces and do what you want to do. This is a cognitive (insight) approach to self-control of your behavior. Let's see if it helps to describe five different kinds of blocks.
First, a strong force in the environment may block our intended or desired behavior; it overpowers our will. We often know exactly what these forces are; we recognize them as constant temptations, e.g. a strong attraction to desserts ruins our diet, a desire to have fun keeps us from getting our work done, an angry reaction to someone causes us to say things we shouldn't, an urge to buy clothes overdraws our account, etc. When these forces overwhelm our best intentions, we say, "I'm weak willed," "I'm lazy," "I'm selfish," etc. It may be neat in a way that there are so many strong forces in the world--things we want and enjoy, physical, hormonal, and genetic drives, social needs, compelling emotions, and on and on. But, these forces frequently crush our self-control, and that's not so neat.
This notion of blocks is obvious; however, it isn't easy to assess the strength of the blocks or your "will power." How successful do you feel your will power has been in overcoming the blocks (temptations and distractions)? These authors say will power is frequently weak, usually over-estimated and a false hope. Instead of "will," we have to use our brain--our knowledge of self-help--to devise ways of avoiding or containing these strong forces. There are lots of such methods; most are in this book.
Secondly, in contrast with the forces mentioned above that we are keenly aware of, Lipson and Perkins (1990) contend that some strong forces are hidden from us and, thus, since we can't combat them handily, they easily block our intentional behavior. We know the forces are there because we see the results. Examples: Our hot attraction to someone turns cold (we don't know why but perhaps he/she is coming on too strong or getting too dependent). Our grades in chemistry are D's and F's (we have the ability but maybe we fail because medicine is dad's choice, not ours). We have a short fuse with our spouse without sufficient reason and without knowing why (maybe because we feel taken for granted or got a lousy assignment at work). We don't want to turn cold, fail chemistry, or have a fight. But things like this happen to all of us; hidden forces are the cause. To understand these blocks, we must seriously search for the reasons, the hidden forces. When we think we have found the reasons, we must carefully question and critically assess the explanation (because we are prone to self deception). Are the conjectured forces really there? Are they powerful enough to block our desired behavior? When we accurately see the hidden forces (not easy), we have a better chance of getting back in control.
Thirdly, besides strong forces in the outside world (things we yearn for, fears, reactions of others, etc.), there are strong forces generated by our own self-evaluations. Examples: You may be only 5 or 6 pounds overweight but see yourself as embarrassingly chubby. During a conversation, you may panic thinking, "I don't know what to say, I'll look like a jerk." These thoughts and feelings about ourselves are powerful forces that frequently block us from doing what we would like to do. By observing our internal dialogue and self-appraisals, we can gain better control over these blocks. Examples: Some negative things about ourselves, e.g. 6 pounds or quietness, we can accept as okay, others we can "own," e.g. sarcasm or self-criticism, and take responsibility for changing. Likewise, some of your traits may initially be seen as positive, e.g. being a party animal and excessive drinking, but by recognizing their negative long-term consequences and "disapproving" of the destructive aspects of the traits, we can reduce these blocks to achieving our more important life goals.
Fourthly, many activities can captivate or "enthrall" us: eating, drinking, listening to music, watching TV, socializing, and even cleaning can capture our attention once we get started. Becoming preoccupied with these activities blocks us from doing other things. Enthralling activities may have a relatively weak initial "pull" for us but once we are absorbed in the activity the "grip" can hold us. All of us have wasted evenings watching worthless TV. If we had gotten off the couch and turned off the set for a minute, we almost certainly would have found something better to do. Ask yourself frequently, "What is the best use of my time right now?" Change your environment. Try to develop more fruitful "counter-thralls." Witkin (1988) has a book about controlling these urges.
Lastly, blocks occur when a complex collage of forces pushes us in certain directions, such as when a woman marries the same kind of jerk three times. Another example is the person who is so concerned about being liked that they try too hard to please. As a result, they are seen as weak, "an easy mark," and not respected, which pushes them to try even harder to please. This is called a self-sealing system and this vicious circle occurs in many situations: a person creates more problems drinking to avoid problems, an over-protective parent produces a more and more helpless child, an insecure and jealous lover increases his/her chances of being dumped. Obviously, complex but powerful and mostly hidden forces are pushing these people in disastrous directions. Such people must get an understanding of the complex forces shaping their lives, and then they have a better chance of coping. They need courage to self-explore--maybe in therapy.
This is a nice theoretical summary of blocks. But, removing your specific blocks is not easy. Washton and Boundy (1989) make the point that many of our self-help efforts are directed at the bad habit and not at the block or real underlying problem. For example, it is common to see drinking or smoking or over eating or procrastination or TV addiction as the problem, while, in truth, the more basic problem is the hurt, anxiety, emptiness, frustration, shame, etc. (feelings and thoughts), which the drinking, eating, escaping behaviors attempt to relieve. These unwanted surface behaviors are not the real problems; they are attempted solutions! The underlying feelings are the problems! Having the will power to stop the unwanted habits is not enough. You must reduce the psychological pain inside which causes the bad habits, i.e. our dis-ease. Discovering this internal hurt may be easy; it may be hard even with therapy; it needs to be done (see chapters 14 and 15).
Sidney Simon (1988) describes another set of barriers to changing: (1) Having low self-esteem and feeling unable to change or undeserving of a better life. (2) Failing to see alternatives or feeling you can't make or don't have good choices (see decision-making in chapter 13). (3) Being unsure of what you want and/or are simply going along with someone else's decisions about your life. (4) Finding lots of excuses for doing nothing or "Yes, but-ing" and, thus, reducing your motivation to change. (5) Being afraid to change. (6) Feeling alone and unsupported or "I don't need anyone" or "I shouldn't have to ask for help." (Ask for help anyway!) (7) Demanding perfection. (8) Lacking the determination or "will" to get the job done.
When changing, the first step is the killer. If you haven't exercised in months or have smoked for years, the first day is toughest. You must use willpower (or, if you prefer, motivation or self-talk). You can strengthen a weak will. Simon suggests building your willpower by (a) practicing in more and more difficult self-control situations, (b) taking small successful steps followed by rewards, and (c) planning alternatives to use when major temptations threaten. Besides will power, you need lots of other skills. But the hardest part for many of us will be getting a handle on the underlying emotions causing the inner pain and creating the barriers. This kind of insight comes from gaining more and more knowledge about people and from honestly looking inside your self.
Popular How-To-Be-The-Greatest Books And Programs
POPULAR HOW TO BE THE GREATEST BOOKS AND PROGRAMS
Inspirational, confidence-building books sell by the million. None have ever been objectively evaluated to see the results, but people buy them, probably because they do motivate us, at least for a day or two. They are often written by successful business or sales people or by ministers. Psychologists write in areas related to motivation: assertiveness, self-acceptance, and self-direction or self-instruction, but these writings deal with learning skills, not just getting inspiration.
The popular "success" books take four main approaches:
1. Confidence building. The common belief is that you can't sell a product or love someone else until you believe in yourself or love yourself (Amos & Amos, 1988; Zigler, 1987). So, these books essentially tell you to recognize your strong points and to tell yourself you are the greatest.
2. Setting goals and utilizing time effectively (Lee, 1978; Lakein, 1973). While these are important skills and have been discussed in this chapter and chapter 2, the goals need to be more than vague hopes and an occasional motivational speaker. Some seminars or longer programs about goal setting, however, involve lectures and tapes costing several hundred dollars (Meyer, 1988).
3. Inspirational. These books give many illustrations of exceptional people and unusual successes (Simonton, 1994; Ferguson, 1990; Waitley, 1983; Stone, 1962). Michael Jordan's I Can't Accept Not Trying is a good example. Other writers emphasize the "power of positive thinking" (Peale, 1952; Schuller, 1973). The techniques involve fantasizing about being successful (like in achievement training), modeling and rehearsal, repeating hopeful beliefs (called affirmations), giving your self pep talks, and so on. Of special psychological interest is Lillian Rubin's (1996) Fall Down Seven Times, Get Up Eight which tells stories of people overcoming horrible childhood experiences. I find the caring stories in Canfield & Hansen (1991, 1993, 1995, 1996) to be heart-warming; they make me value goodness and look for it in others; they help me be good.
4. Understanding human needs. Some of these books explain how to present products and ideas so that they meet people’s needs and, thus, sell (Dichter, 1971). Many other books describe how to influence or motivate others--usually for your benefit (Carnegie, 1936).
These popular books are based on one person's experience or hunches, not on research. Don't neglect these books but read them with a lot of skepticism.
Inspirational, confidence-building books sell by the million. None have ever been objectively evaluated to see the results, but people buy them, probably because they do motivate us, at least for a day or two. They are often written by successful business or sales people or by ministers. Psychologists write in areas related to motivation: assertiveness, self-acceptance, and self-direction or self-instruction, but these writings deal with learning skills, not just getting inspiration.
The popular "success" books take four main approaches:
1. Confidence building. The common belief is that you can't sell a product or love someone else until you believe in yourself or love yourself (Amos & Amos, 1988; Zigler, 1987). So, these books essentially tell you to recognize your strong points and to tell yourself you are the greatest.
2. Setting goals and utilizing time effectively (Lee, 1978; Lakein, 1973). While these are important skills and have been discussed in this chapter and chapter 2, the goals need to be more than vague hopes and an occasional motivational speaker. Some seminars or longer programs about goal setting, however, involve lectures and tapes costing several hundred dollars (Meyer, 1988).
3. Inspirational. These books give many illustrations of exceptional people and unusual successes (Simonton, 1994; Ferguson, 1990; Waitley, 1983; Stone, 1962). Michael Jordan's I Can't Accept Not Trying is a good example. Other writers emphasize the "power of positive thinking" (Peale, 1952; Schuller, 1973). The techniques involve fantasizing about being successful (like in achievement training), modeling and rehearsal, repeating hopeful beliefs (called affirmations), giving your self pep talks, and so on. Of special psychological interest is Lillian Rubin's (1996) Fall Down Seven Times, Get Up Eight which tells stories of people overcoming horrible childhood experiences. I find the caring stories in Canfield & Hansen (1991, 1993, 1995, 1996) to be heart-warming; they make me value goodness and look for it in others; they help me be good.
4. Understanding human needs. Some of these books explain how to present products and ideas so that they meet people’s needs and, thus, sell (Dichter, 1971). Many other books describe how to influence or motivate others--usually for your benefit (Carnegie, 1936).
These popular books are based on one person's experience or hunches, not on research. Don't neglect these books but read them with a lot of skepticism.
Positive Addiction
POSITIVE ADDICTION
Addiction to drugs, alcohol, food, smoking, etc. are instances of powerful motivation, but they sap our strength and zest for doing our best. William Glasser (1965) believes there are other addictive activities that give us strength: jogging, meditating, writing a diary, exercising, relaxing, and so on. These are called positive addictions.
Like Ellis and Knaus, Glasser focuses on the emotions underlying our behavior (level II). First, we all want to be loved and to feel worthwhile. When we don't get what we want, we either have the strength to try again or we don't. Thousands of us give up, according to Glasser, by saying, "Why try? I'd just fail" or "It's my parents' fault" or some other similar rationalization.
When giving up and giving excuses don't remove the pain (of not achieving love or worth), we may turn to psychiatric symptoms, such as depression, rebelling, going crazy, psychosomatic complaints, or addiction to drugs, alcohol, or food. Painful as these conditions are, they are less painful than facing the fact that we have failed and given up on obtaining love and self-worth. So, they are another self-con-they make it easier to give up and, at the same time, get some sympathy.
What is Glasser's solution? Positive addictions. It isn't an easy solution nor is it for everybody. It takes six months to a year of activity (jogging, meditating, etc.) one hour every day to develop a strength-giving addiction. The activity must usually be done alone, with no demands or striving for excellence or self-criticism. There are thousands of joggers, bikers, meditators, relaxers, journal writers, exercisers, and other users of positive addictions, along with Glasser, who claim great benefits. They claim to get more results than just feeling better and getting pleasure; they claim greater self-confidence, more energy, better imagination and ideas, more frustration tolerance and so on.
It is an interesting, indirect approach which does not concentrate on dedication to your major life goals. Committing an hour a day directly to loving someone or to studying could have powerful effects too. If I were John, I'd first try to build a real interest and motivation in my studies. There are too many good joggers who are poor students to confidently believe that jogging will make you an "A" student. More research, not more testimonials, is needed to evaluate the effects of positive addictions and to investigate which positive addictions work best with what kind of people and with what problems. But it is an idea.
Addiction to drugs, alcohol, food, smoking, etc. are instances of powerful motivation, but they sap our strength and zest for doing our best. William Glasser (1965) believes there are other addictive activities that give us strength: jogging, meditating, writing a diary, exercising, relaxing, and so on. These are called positive addictions.
Like Ellis and Knaus, Glasser focuses on the emotions underlying our behavior (level II). First, we all want to be loved and to feel worthwhile. When we don't get what we want, we either have the strength to try again or we don't. Thousands of us give up, according to Glasser, by saying, "Why try? I'd just fail" or "It's my parents' fault" or some other similar rationalization.
When giving up and giving excuses don't remove the pain (of not achieving love or worth), we may turn to psychiatric symptoms, such as depression, rebelling, going crazy, psychosomatic complaints, or addiction to drugs, alcohol, or food. Painful as these conditions are, they are less painful than facing the fact that we have failed and given up on obtaining love and self-worth. So, they are another self-con-they make it easier to give up and, at the same time, get some sympathy.
What is Glasser's solution? Positive addictions. It isn't an easy solution nor is it for everybody. It takes six months to a year of activity (jogging, meditating, etc.) one hour every day to develop a strength-giving addiction. The activity must usually be done alone, with no demands or striving for excellence or self-criticism. There are thousands of joggers, bikers, meditators, relaxers, journal writers, exercisers, and other users of positive addictions, along with Glasser, who claim great benefits. They claim to get more results than just feeling better and getting pleasure; they claim greater self-confidence, more energy, better imagination and ideas, more frustration tolerance and so on.
It is an interesting, indirect approach which does not concentrate on dedication to your major life goals. Committing an hour a day directly to loving someone or to studying could have powerful effects too. If I were John, I'd first try to build a real interest and motivation in my studies. There are too many good joggers who are poor students to confidently believe that jogging will make you an "A" student. More research, not more testimonials, is needed to evaluate the effects of positive addictions and to investigate which positive addictions work best with what kind of people and with what problems. But it is an idea.
Humanistic Theories
HUMANISTIC THEORIES
Abraham Maslow (1971) was critical of traditional psychology because it based its theories on emotionally disturbed patients or on laboratory animals. Like other philosophers, he believed in the basic goodness of humans and in their tendency to move to higher levels of functioning as their basic physical needs are met. Maslow described the needs at each level, going from the most fundamental physiological needs to the highest, most noble needs. Every person has the same "hierarchy of needs:"
1. Physiological needs--air, water, food, sleep, elimination, sex, activity.
2. Safety needs--escape fear and pain, physical security, order, physical safety.
3. Belonging and love needs--to love and be loved, have friends, be part of a family.
4. Self-esteem needs--to feel competent, independent, successful, respected, and worthwhile.
5. Self-actualization needs--being one's true self, achieving one's highest potential, wanting knowledge and wisdom, being able to understand and accept oneself and others, being creative and appreciative of beauty in the world. A self-actualized person is happy, realistic, accepting, problem-oriented, creative, democratic, independent, and fulfilling a mission or purpose in life.
What are the implications of this theory for changing behavior? First, the theory says it is necessary to generally satisfy one's basic needs before one can turn to meeting needs higher in the hierarchy. But once a person has taken care of the needs at levels 1 and 2, then one is free, in fact motivated to search for love, then self-esteem, and then finally self-actualization. Thus, if you can't achieve some goal, such as John not being able to study, consider the possibility that some more basic need still hasn't been met and must be satisfied first. For example, John may have to find love or feel secure and liked by his friends before he can study effectively and devote himself to a profession. While thinking in terms of a hierarchy of needs may sometimes help you figure out the real underlying problem, research has not supported the theory that all needs at a more primary level must be satisfied before you can move on to higher needs. So, go for self actualization at 15 or 19, even if you lack confidence and a love relationship.
Also, remember if you make different assumptions about the basic nature of humans, you will surely find different underlying problems. Maslow would find unmet love or self-esteem needs; Freud would find unmet sexual-aggression needs; Adler would find feelings of inferiority to be overcome.
Maslow noted that learning theories (not the more recent Social Learning Theories or cognitive theories) were based largely on hunger, thirst, and pain (needs at levels 1 and 2) in animals, seldom dealing with the higher levels. Maslow's theories are based on the opposite end of the scale (needs at level 5). He studied the best historical specimens of our species he could find, including Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, Jane Addams, Eleanor Roosevelt, Albert Schweitzer, and he interviewed the most outstanding living people available to him at the time. That's where his description of the self-actualized person came from. His was a valuable addition to our knowledge.
Secondly, according to theory, few of us ever achieve self actualization to any significant degree. Maslow assumed it took the most able among us 30 to 40 years to develop self-actualization. Although Maslow believed we became more self-reliant on our own values and judgment as we met more of our needs, and less dependent on rewards and approval of others, he still emphasized the importance of the environment in determining our growth. He felt families and schools and work should be respectful, nonjudgmental, and trusting, i.e. places where one can make his/her own decisions, gain esteem, and use his/her talents. Otherwise, our growth would be slowed or reversed...and we would have problems. Maslow had impact on Humanistic education and on business management. But, he left it to others to discover if it is possible to develop specific methods of speeding up the natural development of self-actualization, such as through self-help techniques. Maybe in 100 years we'll all be self actualizing even as teenagers.
Abraham Maslow (1971) was critical of traditional psychology because it based its theories on emotionally disturbed patients or on laboratory animals. Like other philosophers, he believed in the basic goodness of humans and in their tendency to move to higher levels of functioning as their basic physical needs are met. Maslow described the needs at each level, going from the most fundamental physiological needs to the highest, most noble needs. Every person has the same "hierarchy of needs:"
1. Physiological needs--air, water, food, sleep, elimination, sex, activity.
2. Safety needs--escape fear and pain, physical security, order, physical safety.
3. Belonging and love needs--to love and be loved, have friends, be part of a family.
4. Self-esteem needs--to feel competent, independent, successful, respected, and worthwhile.
5. Self-actualization needs--being one's true self, achieving one's highest potential, wanting knowledge and wisdom, being able to understand and accept oneself and others, being creative and appreciative of beauty in the world. A self-actualized person is happy, realistic, accepting, problem-oriented, creative, democratic, independent, and fulfilling a mission or purpose in life.
What are the implications of this theory for changing behavior? First, the theory says it is necessary to generally satisfy one's basic needs before one can turn to meeting needs higher in the hierarchy. But once a person has taken care of the needs at levels 1 and 2, then one is free, in fact motivated to search for love, then self-esteem, and then finally self-actualization. Thus, if you can't achieve some goal, such as John not being able to study, consider the possibility that some more basic need still hasn't been met and must be satisfied first. For example, John may have to find love or feel secure and liked by his friends before he can study effectively and devote himself to a profession. While thinking in terms of a hierarchy of needs may sometimes help you figure out the real underlying problem, research has not supported the theory that all needs at a more primary level must be satisfied before you can move on to higher needs. So, go for self actualization at 15 or 19, even if you lack confidence and a love relationship.
Also, remember if you make different assumptions about the basic nature of humans, you will surely find different underlying problems. Maslow would find unmet love or self-esteem needs; Freud would find unmet sexual-aggression needs; Adler would find feelings of inferiority to be overcome.
Maslow noted that learning theories (not the more recent Social Learning Theories or cognitive theories) were based largely on hunger, thirst, and pain (needs at levels 1 and 2) in animals, seldom dealing with the higher levels. Maslow's theories are based on the opposite end of the scale (needs at level 5). He studied the best historical specimens of our species he could find, including Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Albert Einstein, Jane Addams, Eleanor Roosevelt, Albert Schweitzer, and he interviewed the most outstanding living people available to him at the time. That's where his description of the self-actualized person came from. His was a valuable addition to our knowledge.
Secondly, according to theory, few of us ever achieve self actualization to any significant degree. Maslow assumed it took the most able among us 30 to 40 years to develop self-actualization. Although Maslow believed we became more self-reliant on our own values and judgment as we met more of our needs, and less dependent on rewards and approval of others, he still emphasized the importance of the environment in determining our growth. He felt families and schools and work should be respectful, nonjudgmental, and trusting, i.e. places where one can make his/her own decisions, gain esteem, and use his/her talents. Otherwise, our growth would be slowed or reversed...and we would have problems. Maslow had impact on Humanistic education and on business management. But, he left it to others to discover if it is possible to develop specific methods of speeding up the natural development of self-actualization, such as through self-help techniques. Maybe in 100 years we'll all be self actualizing even as teenagers.
Learned Industriousness
LEARN INDUSTRIOUSNESS
Recent research suggests we can learn to be hard, persistent workers. Those of us who have been rewarded, often starting in childhood, for making strong efforts to achieve our own or assigned goals tend to develop a "work ethic" and a "moral ethic." Likewise, training in persisting or waiting for a worthwhile reward or achievement can help us develop better self-control involving handling delays. So, just as there is "learned helplessness," there is "learned industriousness."
There is a "law of least effort:" we all try to get things (a pay off) the easiest way we can. That's smart and different from being lazy. Some of us take on hard challenges, others don't. You can also see an enormous range in the amount of effort people will expend to achieve a given goal. Of course, the value of a goal differs from person to person, but some people simply work much harder and longer than others. Why? Perhaps, according to Eisenberger (1992), because some have a long history of exerting intense effort and then being praised and well reinforced. In effect, some have been given "effort training" to be industrious, others haven't. One theory is that this training is effective because being repeatedly rewarded following long, hard efforts makes hard work in any situation seem less offensive, less aversive, less awful. Eisenberger has also shown that self-talk ("When I try hard, I do well on all my school work" and "when I don't, I don't") further enhances this "effort training." Both high effort and attention to tedious detail, if reinforced, become less unpleasant and less avoided. Thus, reasonable and challenging-but-demanding work or study experiences may produce harder working employees or more motivated students.
Eisenberger suggests another law, the "law of more effort:" if hard work has paid off for you in the past in many different ways, your effort and self-control will increase more, as compared to individuals who have worked less hard, as the stakes get higher. Likewise, a boss, teacher, or parent who has positively encouraged and reinforced your high performance and hard efforts in the past will provide more motivation to you than a person who is or has been more permissive.
Unfortunately, while "effort training" seems simple at first, a little thought makes you realize that the actual work conditions as well as your attitudes and personality traits are all involved in determining if your hard work is viewed as yielding rewards or punishment. If hard work is seen as stupid and/or obnoxious, then one may develop "learned laziness." Also, our willingness to work hard, regardless of our past experience, is, in part, a function of our needs and the nature of the work, e.g. mental or physical, clean or dirty, cooperative or competitive, social or isolated, all of which may reflect one's reinforcement history (Eisenberger, Kuhlman & Cotterell, 1992). Most important aspects of life are complex.
Another fascinating feature of this program of research is the moral consequences of "effort training." Children required to do hard math problems first, cheated less on a later anagram test than students given easy math problems first. We need to know more about the relationship between industriousness and honesty, caring, and other morals. But there are reasons to doubt that the relationship is simple because in some situations having a high need for achievement increases our tendency to cheat.
Later, we will discuss the harm that can be done to a person's performance, especially on interesting tasks, by extrinsic reinforcement. Eisenberger's research contradicts this; he found that extrinsically rewarding hard work improves performance. Moreover, he says rewarding progressively improving performance (harder and harder effort?) did not reduce intrinsic interest. To me it seems clear that in order to maintain optimal motivation you have to consider both your intrinsic and extrinsic pay offs (see intrinsic satisfaction section). The motivation problem is complicated by the fact that only parts of working or studying are interesting and exciting, other parts are hard and difficult, still other parts are tedious or boring, and so on. You have to cope with all parts of life, so it is important for our work to be satisfying, but a history of hard, rewarding efforts involving long delays of reinforcement may also be important in preparing us for the unavoidably hard and uninteresting parts.
Recent research suggests we can learn to be hard, persistent workers. Those of us who have been rewarded, often starting in childhood, for making strong efforts to achieve our own or assigned goals tend to develop a "work ethic" and a "moral ethic." Likewise, training in persisting or waiting for a worthwhile reward or achievement can help us develop better self-control involving handling delays. So, just as there is "learned helplessness," there is "learned industriousness."
There is a "law of least effort:" we all try to get things (a pay off) the easiest way we can. That's smart and different from being lazy. Some of us take on hard challenges, others don't. You can also see an enormous range in the amount of effort people will expend to achieve a given goal. Of course, the value of a goal differs from person to person, but some people simply work much harder and longer than others. Why? Perhaps, according to Eisenberger (1992), because some have a long history of exerting intense effort and then being praised and well reinforced. In effect, some have been given "effort training" to be industrious, others haven't. One theory is that this training is effective because being repeatedly rewarded following long, hard efforts makes hard work in any situation seem less offensive, less aversive, less awful. Eisenberger has also shown that self-talk ("When I try hard, I do well on all my school work" and "when I don't, I don't") further enhances this "effort training." Both high effort and attention to tedious detail, if reinforced, become less unpleasant and less avoided. Thus, reasonable and challenging-but-demanding work or study experiences may produce harder working employees or more motivated students.
Eisenberger suggests another law, the "law of more effort:" if hard work has paid off for you in the past in many different ways, your effort and self-control will increase more, as compared to individuals who have worked less hard, as the stakes get higher. Likewise, a boss, teacher, or parent who has positively encouraged and reinforced your high performance and hard efforts in the past will provide more motivation to you than a person who is or has been more permissive.
Unfortunately, while "effort training" seems simple at first, a little thought makes you realize that the actual work conditions as well as your attitudes and personality traits are all involved in determining if your hard work is viewed as yielding rewards or punishment. If hard work is seen as stupid and/or obnoxious, then one may develop "learned laziness." Also, our willingness to work hard, regardless of our past experience, is, in part, a function of our needs and the nature of the work, e.g. mental or physical, clean or dirty, cooperative or competitive, social or isolated, all of which may reflect one's reinforcement history (Eisenberger, Kuhlman & Cotterell, 1992). Most important aspects of life are complex.
Another fascinating feature of this program of research is the moral consequences of "effort training." Children required to do hard math problems first, cheated less on a later anagram test than students given easy math problems first. We need to know more about the relationship between industriousness and honesty, caring, and other morals. But there are reasons to doubt that the relationship is simple because in some situations having a high need for achievement increases our tendency to cheat.
Later, we will discuss the harm that can be done to a person's performance, especially on interesting tasks, by extrinsic reinforcement. Eisenberger's research contradicts this; he found that extrinsically rewarding hard work improves performance. Moreover, he says rewarding progressively improving performance (harder and harder effort?) did not reduce intrinsic interest. To me it seems clear that in order to maintain optimal motivation you have to consider both your intrinsic and extrinsic pay offs (see intrinsic satisfaction section). The motivation problem is complicated by the fact that only parts of working or studying are interesting and exciting, other parts are hard and difficult, still other parts are tedious or boring, and so on. You have to cope with all parts of life, so it is important for our work to be satisfying, but a history of hard, rewarding efforts involving long delays of reinforcement may also be important in preparing us for the unavoidably hard and uninteresting parts.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)