The roles of motivation and goals on sustainable behaviour in a resource dilemma: A self-determination theory perspective

Highlights

• General environmental motivation predicts goal content, which predicts sustainable behaviour in a resource dilemma.

• When sanctions are added to a resource dilemma, it can improve sustainable behaviour.

• When sanctions are removed, it decreases sustainable behaviour.

• Sanctions increased non-self-determined motivation and extrinsic goal pursuit.

Abstract

Environmental degradation and biodiversity loss are worldwide problems caused by human activities, which can often be classified as a resource dilemma. Across two studies, and using self-determination theory as a framework, we examine the relationships between motivation, goals, sanctioning systems and sustainable behaviour in a resource dilemma. The resource dilemma used was a 2-person partnered design where each participant was required to make decisions about recreational fishing harvests in a small, private lake with a simulated partner. Study 1 used mediational analysis to demonstrate that quality of motivation affects goal content, and goal content predicts sustainable behaviour. Study 2 introduced a centralized sanctioning system to the resource dilemma, and found that this type of sanctioning system increased sustainable behaviour in the resource dilemma when added, and decreased sustainable behaviour when removed, concomitantly affecting the quality of participant motivation and goal content. The results expand upon self-determination theory, and point to the importance of distinguishing motivation from goals, examining quality of motivation through degree of internalization, and how these constructs as well as sustainable behaviour can be affected by a centralized sanction system.

Introduction

A resource dilemma is any situation in which people choose how much of a shared, finite resource they will take for their own personal gains, and how much they will leave for the collective good, both in a spatial and a temporal sense (Balliet, Mulder, & Van Lange, 2011). Social dilemmas in general have generated a notable amount of research, with resource dilemmas representing a minority within the general social dilemma framework. Within this research, the construct of motivation has not received much attention, and unfortunately has been somewhat convoluted by the conflation of the constructs of motivation and goals. Moreover, no model or theory of motivation that has yet been applied to resource dilemmas has distinguished between the origin of the motivation, that is the distinction between a motivation that is autonomous or self-determined and a motivation that is controlled or regulated by sources outside the self. This is an area in which self-determination theory (Ryan & Deci, 2017) can help to guide research in resource dilemmas with respect to the influence of individual motivation, while creating theory-driven hypotheses about the relationships between motivation, goals, and behaviour.

Self-Determination Theory (Deci & Ryan, 2000, 2012; Ryan & Deci, 2017) is a theory of motivation that posits that motivation for important activities varies in terms of quality and source of origin. These different sources fall on a continuum of self-determination, from non-self-determined motives (amotivation, external regulation and introjection motivational subtypes/behavioural regulations) to self-determined motives (identified, integrated and intrinsic motivational subtypes). The least self-determined type of motivation is called amotivation, which can be categorized as a lack of behavioural regulation and internalization. It relates to experiences where there is a clear lack of understanding of the sources of regulation of behaviour or its purpose, an absence of motivation or intention to act. In other words, when individuals don't know why they should adopt certain behaviours, they don't see the point in doing so, or they don't see how it could lead to a desired outcome (Pelletier, Dion, Tuson, & Green-Demers, 1999), they are experiencing amotivation. The first type of extrinsic, non-self-determined motivation is external regulation. It consists of behaviours intended to obtain rewards, avoid punishment, or to satisfy or avoid social pressure (e.g., praise or criticism). For example, someone may enact certain behaviours in order to receive a monetary compensation, or avoid harsh criticism or judgment. Introjected regulation is the first type of regulation where the internalization of behaviours is present. At this stage, behaviours are executed mainly to avoid negative emotions such as guilt or shame. Thus, someone engaging in certain behaviours in order to avoid feeling guilty is driven by introjected regulation. The first type of regulation on the self-determined end of the continuum is identified regulation. This type of regulation characterizes behaviours that are initiated and maintained because they are important to someone, or because they lead to the accomplishment of important personal goals. For example, someone who adopts behaviours because s/he values and understands their importance is displaying identified regulation. Next, there is integrated regulation, a more self-determined type of motivation where behaviours are enacted because they are considered to be fully internalized and coherent with different dimensions of one's self. For instance, integrated individuals will act because behaviours are considered to be part of their identity. Finally, the most self-determined type of motivation is intrinsic regulation. In this case, it is the pleasure and satisfaction of the activity that drive the behaviour(s). When intrinsically motivated, the simple act of performing certain behaviours brings pleasure to an individual when he or she is engaged in the activity. On this continuum, the quality of motivation is determined by the extent to which behaviours are internalized into the self in that fully internalized motives produce more desirable behavioural, cognitive, and affective outcomes than partially internalized and non-internalized motives.

In this way, extrinsic incentives (external punishments and rewards) are generally seen in Self-Determination Theory as controlling factors that undermine internalization of behaviour (by keeping the source of motivation external), thereby reducing self-determined motivation. With respect to punishments, these are ubiquitously controlling, and subvert the internalization of the motivation for a given activity, leading to greater non-self-determined motivation.

The Self-Determination Theory framework has been studied within a vast number of domains including the adoption of pro-environmental behaviours. In fact, many studies have looked at the possible effects of self-determined motivation and non-self-determined motivation on various proenvironmental behaviours (Pelletier & Aitken, 2014; Pelletier, Baxter, & Huta, 2011). Previous research has shown that the more self-determined forms of motivation, when compared to non-self-determined forms, are globally related to a higher frequency of pro-environmental behaviour, performing more difficult pro-environmental behaviour, a higher sustenance of performing pro-environmental behaviour over time, and persistence in performing pro-environmental behaviour in the face of obstacles (Green-Demers, Pelletier, & Ménard, 1997; Pelletier et al., 2011; Sheldon, Wineland, Venhoeven, & Osin, 2016). Also, Self-Determination Theory has been studied in relation to distinct environmental behaviours such as recycling and purchasing behaviours (e.g., Pelletier, Tuson, Green-Demers, Noels, & Beaton, 1998; Villacorta, Koestner, & Lekes, 2003), environmental activism (e.g., Seguin, Pelletier, & Hunsley, 1998), household energy-saving behaviours (e.g., Joachain & Klopfert, 2014; Webb, Soutar, Mazzarol, & Saldaris, 2013), employee green behaviours (e.g., Graves, Sarkis, & Zhu, 2013), and green information technology behaviours (e.g., Koo & Chung, 2014); as well, it has been studied in a wide variety of settings (ex., home, workplace, the classroom) and countries.

The types of motivation proffered by Self-Determination Theory are more extensive than previous conceptualizations of motivation in past research on resource dilemmas, and more easily distinguished from the desired outcomes of the task (i.e., goals). Thus, Self-Determination Theory can help advance the understanding of motivation with respect to behaviour in resource dilemmas by (1) giving a wider variety of motivations for being proenvironmental, (2) clearly separating motivation from goals, and (3) providing a theoretical framework from which to examine deeper impacts of sanctioning systems on quality of motivation and goal content.

Motivation has received relatively little attention in the overall social dilemma extant literature, comparatively speaking. What models and frameworks that do exist are further muddied by the conflation of the constructs of motivation and goal. A goal can be considered the desired or valued outcome to be derived from, or achieved by a particular behaviour or series of behaviours, while motivation can be considered the experiential, cognitive and emotional reason(s) why a person would desire that outcome, and the force of energy necessary to enact the behavior. In other words, while motivation refers to the reasons why people are engaging in a behavior or pursuing a goal, the goal itself refers to what people are pursuing (Deci & Ryan, 2000).

In some cases, authors explicitly identify their measure as ‘motivation’ or ‘motives’, even within the title of their article, when they are, in fact, actually measuring goals (e.g., Bosworth, Singer, & Snower, 2016); (Brucks & Van Lange, 2008). For example, Bosworth, Singer, & Snower (2016) discuss measuring participants' motivation, but their measure is actually of two goals, maximizing personal gain, or maximizing communal gain. (Brucks & Van Lange (2008)) also discuss a measure of motivation, which actually is measuring the goals of either preserving the resource pool as long as possible, or keeping the resource pool as high as possible. As these are direct outcomes of one's behaviour in a resource dilemma, they are better differentiated as goals rather than motivation, which can be defined and measured in a broader, more domain-general way, whereas goals are more task-specific. Other authors have adopted a broader definition of motivation, such as Markoczy (2004), who defined motives as “relatively stable individual tendencies to strive to approach a certain class of positive goals or to avoid some negative consequences or threats” (p.1018). This definition is exemplary of the conflation of goals with motivation, and the concept of motivational orientations (to achieve a positive goal, or avoid a negative consequence) within resource dilemma research. For example, it has generally been assumed by researchers from the prevalent economic model (see Markoczy, 2004) that individuals are purely motivated by self-interest, and that cooperation is simply a matter of making individual payoff greater in a cooperative structure than ‘defection’ (reaping largely for oneself and leaving less for others).

Self-Determination Theory distinguishes between why people engage in a behavior (i.e., their motivation) from what they try to achieve (i.e., their goal). As such, this theory can help provide a clearer distinction between motivation and goals, and conceptualizes motivation as a much deeper construct than simple self-interest. That is, “Self-Determination Theory differentiates the content of goals or outcomes and the regulatory processes through which the outcomes are pursued, making different predictions for different contents and for different processes” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 227). For example, imagine a person who is engaged in cleaning a public park (a public goods dilemma). This person's motivation for cleaning the park could be because performing proenvironmental behaviours (in this case, contributing to cleaner parks) is a part of their self-concept, or identity (i.e., they consider themselves to be an environmentally friendly person). However, their goal for cleaning the park could be to make it a better place for neighborhood children to be able to play and experience nature. It is not that the two are unconnected, as more self-determined forms of motivation tend to lead to more intrinsic goals, whereas non-self-determined motivational subtypes are more associated with extrinsic goals. That is, “when people value intrinsic aspirations, they also tend to be more autonomous in pursuing them, whereas there is a tendency for people to be controlled in their pursuit of extrinsic aspirations” (Deci & Ryan, 2000, p. 245). Thus, a clear, conceptual distinction between the two will help to further research in this particular area.

Only two studies so far have examined self-determined/non-self-determined motivation and its relation to behaviour in a resource dilemma. Sheldon and McGregor (2000) examined the relationship between Extrinsic Value Orientation and sustainable behaviour in a resource dilemma, and found that people who have extrinsic value orientations (wealth, fame, etc.) are more likely to act selfishly and unsustainably in a resource dilemma, reaping large personal harvests in the short run and leaving little for others or future generations. Darner (2012) found that when a sanctioning system is imposed on participants, it can have degrading effects on participants’ sense of autonomy and whether they felt their harvesting strategy in a resource dilemma matched their own desires and values.

Contrary to the expectations and findings of Self-Determination Theory, studies investigating the use of sanctioning systems, particularly centralized sanction systems, tend to base their expectations from economic, ego-incentive, rational-choice models in which is it assumed that, given appropriate payoff structures and incentive programs, a person can be guided to more or less cooperation. In other words, it is assumed that everyone will act selfishly according to his/her own gains, and will expect others to do the same (Jackson, 2008); and, as such, the real means of inducing cooperation is to make it in each person's best interests to contribute via appropriate punishment and reward systems. Thus, a sanctioning system is a system of monetary punishment and/or reward that can be administered either centrally (by the task itself and under pre-set conditions) or in a decentralized way (by the participants in the dilemma according to their own criteria). Indeed, a comprehensive meta-analysis by Balliet et al. (2011) demonstrated that the presence of monetary punishments and rewards in a social dilemma does increase cooperation. Sanctions are most effective when participants believe they are administered based on a common concern for the collective outcome (Balliet et al., 2011).

However, there is research that has shown the potential for the presence of sanctioning systems, both centralized and decentralized, to have a negative effect on participants in a variety of ways. With respect to centralized sanctions, research has shown that the presence of such can actually lead to decreased cooperation when the sanction system is removed (Chen, Pillutla, & Yao, 2009; Mulder, van Dijk, De Cremer, & Wilke, 2006; Tenbrunsel & Messick, 1999) through the expectation that others will not be cooperative (Tenbrunsel & Messick, 1999), by decreasing trust in others (Chen et al., 2009; Mulder et al., 2006), and by changing the decision frame from a moral frame to a business frame (Tenbrunsel and Messick, 1999)). Therefore, getting a deeper understanding of why centralized sanctions can have a longer-term deleterious effect on cooperative, sustainable behaviour will help to refine the use of such interventions in resource dilemma.

The overall aim of this research was to apply Self-Determination Theory to the study of resource dilemmas, and in so doing provide a theoretical framework of motivation that distinguishes between motivation and goals, internalized versus externalized motivation, intrinsic versus extrinsic goal content, and provides a foundation for future resource dilemma research.

For the research presented herein, recreational fishing was chosen as the resource dilemma. The fishing industry is a good representation of a contemporaneous resource dilemma in that many parties are harvesting from the same finite natural resource; however, if people harvest too greedily, then the resource will collapse catastrophically (Lloret, Zaragoza, Caballero, & Riera, 2008; Pauly et al., 2002), as primary production rates of fished species can easily be outweighed by consumption rates (Pauly & Christensen, 1995). Recreational fishing is open-access and largely unregulated in many countries (Lloret et al., 2008; McPhee, Leadbitter, & Skilleter, 2002), with recreational anglers spending an average total of 193 h per year per person fishing (Lloret et al., 2008), harvesting approximately 50,000 tonnes of fish per year in some countries (McPhee et al., 2002). As previously discussed, past research has often muddied the concepts of motivation and goals, has had a truncated perspective on what types of motivation may exist and has not yet included the concept of quality of motivation to the realm of resource dilemmas. Moreover, we sought to expand on the work by Sheldon and McGregor (2000) and Darner (2012) by using more detailed and expanded constructs and measures. Therefore, we sought to examine the influence of individual self-determined (SDM) and non-self-determined (NSDM) motivation on the determination of intrinsic (e.g., improving health and well-being) versus extrinsic (e.g., making or saving money, power and prestige) goal content, and how motivation and goals may relate to sustainable behaviour in a resource dilemma (Study 1). Moreover, this research also examined how the presence of a centralized sanctioning system may affect the quality of a person's motivation, the type of goals a person may pursue, the level of sustainable behaviour a person demonstrates, and how changes in motivation and goals may predict changes in behaviour (Study 2).

In Study 1, we expected that SDM would be a positive predictor of intrinsic goal pursuit, while NSDM would be a positive predictor of extrinsic goal pursuit (hypothesis 1). We also expected that SDM and intrinsic goals would be a positive predictor of greater amounts of fish left in the lake at the end of the task (i.e., greater sustainable behaviour), while NSDM and extrinsic goals would be a negative predictor of such (hypothesis 2). Moreover, we hypothesized that SDM would have an indirect effect on sustainable behaviour through intrinsic goals, while NSDM would have an indirect effect on sustainable behaviour through extrinsic goals (hypothesis 3).

In Study 2, we introduced a centralized sanctioning system into the resource dilemma task. We expected that (a) the addition of sanctions would lead to an increase in sustainable behaviour, shown by an increase in the mean number of fish left in the lake at the end of the task for the group of participants who conducted the resource dilemma without the sanction system present and then had it added in block 2 of testing (hypothesis 4a); (b) while the removal of sanctions would lead to a decrease in sustainable behaviour for the group of participants who conducted the resource dilemma with the sanction system present in the first block of testing and then subsequently had it removed in the second block (hypothesis 4b). We also expected that self-determined task motivation would be lower in the sanction condition compared to the no-sanction condition (hypothesis 5a), while non-self-determined task motivation would be higher in the sanction condition compared to the no-sanction condition (hypothesis 5b). Similarly, we expected that intrinsic goal pursuit would be lower in the sanction condition compared to the no-sanction condition (hypothesis 6a), while the pursuit of extrinsic goals would be higher in the sanction condition compared to the no-sanction condition (hypothesis 6b). Lastly, it was hypothesized that changes in quality of task motivation (self-determined vs. non-self-determined) and type of goal content (intrinsic vs. extrinsic) would significantly explain variance in the expected changes in behaviour in the resource dilemma as a result of the addition and removal of the centralized sanctioning system (Hypothesis 7).