Learning from psychology: Concepts to develop citizens who thrive

Abstract

In this article, I argue that modern psychology can make a valuable contribution to citizenship education. I present some key themes from research on human thriving and argue that they should be central to developing self-directed, resilient, altruistic citizens. The article includes language and analogies that educators can use to make the key concepts memorable. I also draw on recent research on engaging employees in the business world and suggest that we can use the same ideas to develop engaged citizens. The accumulated evidence has implications for parents, teachers and leaders.

Introduction

Psychology offers some targeted ways to develop thriving, successful children and adults. The benefits are not just for them. Any strategy that helps individuals become more motivated, happy and resilient makes them more capable of contributing to others. Two of the most effective strategies for thriving have immediate benefits for individuals, families, organisations and societies: developing relationships and helping others.

We should try to agree on some measure of success. Conventional definitions of effective citizens imply altruism, self-direction and motivation. The United Kingdom’s Citizenship Foundation (2013) states that citizenship education is ‘about enabling people to make their own decisions and to take responsibility for their own lives and their communities’. The definition promotes both self-direction and an outward focus on the community, suggesting altruism.

The utilitarian principle of law-making and social policy, ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’, provides one measure of a successful citizen. It is widely accepted in its general sense, but utilitarianism has been controversial for centuries because of disagreements over the meaning of good. Some have interpreted it as hedonistic pleasure for individuals. For others, a ‘good’ is a social benefit, such as reducing poverty (Stanford pub., 2014). We could accept the full range of interpretations of good, from pleasure for the individual to benefits for society as a whole. That loose interpretation of utilitarianism allows us to incorporate all that modern psychology suggests is beneficial for citizens and groups.

The new field of positive psychology focuses on ways to make lives more fulfilling (Seligman and Csikszentmihalyi, 2000). It is a reaction to psychology’s previous focus on mental health, although not a replacement (Seligman et al., 2005). Positive psychologists decided that helping people with depression and anxiety may have made them less unwell, but didn’t help them thrive. In the last 15 years, researchers have confirmed some of what we understood about raising children who thrive and helping adults develop more productive, rewarding lives. They have also shown that many of our assumptions and practices are wrong and even counter-productive.

Focusing on a range of proven and interrelated concepts could produce significant benefits for individuals, their families, communities and nations. We can enhance their effect by sharing the concepts with children and adults in language that is meaningful for them. The following concepts will be discussed in more detail – locus of control, explanatory style, mindset, self-esteem, generational differences, happiness and willpower. By re-evaluating current understandings of these concepts and incorporating them into everyday educational practices, we can contribute to building valuable citizens of the future.

Locus of control

Locus of control is fundamental to developing citizens able, in the words of the Citizenship Foundation (2013), to ‘… make their own decisions and to take responsibility’.

In 1954, Julian Rotter proposed the concept of locus of control to summarise our beliefs about how much influence we have on our lives. It is part of Rotter’s social learning theory as well as a response to Sigmund Freud’s psychoanalysis and B.F. Skinner’s behaviourism, both of which focus on external influences, such as past experiences or anticipation of rewards. Locus of control remains one of the most cited concepts in psychology.

People with an internal locus of control believe that their success is up to them. People with an external locus of control believe that outcomes in life have more to do with luck, fate or powerful other people. It is not an either/or concept, but a scale, and allows for inconsistent behaviour or beliefs. Sometimes, people with an external locus of control will behave in an internal way because they believe that, in those circumstances, they can influence the outcome of their efforts.

Citizens who believe they can influence their world are more likely to be active participants in their communities. They are more likely to campaign for social justice and become active in community groups and inspire others. They are more likely to start businesses and lead them well. They are more motivated than those with an external locus of control and more resilient when setbacks arise. Citizens with an external locus of control are likely to have low motivation, and the results of their half-hearted efforts can create a downward spiral.

Locus of control provides a useful focus for developing citizens, but the term is jargon, and we need an alternative for those with no particular interest in psychology. One alternative is to contrast being the captain of your own ship (internal locus of control) with the ship bobbing around in the sea. We can promote being the captain of our own ship as a liberating choice. It is liberating because it is a choice that liberates us to achieve more. Encouraging an internal locus of control is encouraging a focus on hope and agency. Having made that choice, emerging citizens could consider other liberating choices, such as to be courageous, proactive, resilient; to think independently, to be optimistic and to be happy.

Once we know a person’s typical position on the locus of control scale, we can adopt a strategy to match. Encouraging our emerging citizens to be the captains of their own ship can help those who are receptive to a more focused way of developing their motivation and resilience. The captain analogy is unlikely to make any difference to those well down the external end of the locus of control scale. Externals need help to recognise the irrationality of their often-gloomy expectations. We need to find ways of encouraging them to attempt appropriate challenges they would otherwise avoid because they expect to fail. Encouraging them to reframe and set goals is helpful. Micromanagement is not.

Stories and simple analogies can help to make the range of liberating choices memorable and inspiring. Courage is a central choice because it makes other liberating choices possible. One example of courage most audiences relate to is the Pakistani teenager Malala Yousafzai, who chose to continue to campaign for the education of girls despite being shot by the Taliban. Courage can come at many levels. Within most young citizens’ own experiences, there will be examples of courage we can highlight, perhaps deciding to take a journey alone, perhaps enrolling in a course that promises to be difficult, or confronting a bully.

The Austrian psychiatrist Viktor Frankl provides a striking example of another liberating choice: choosing our attitude whatever the circumstances. In his book Man’s Search for Meaning, Frankl writes of men he observed as a prisoner in Nazi concentration camps who walked through the huts comforting others, giving away the last piece of bread. ‘They may have been few in number’, he wrote, ‘but they offer sufficient proof that everything can be taken from a man but one last thing: the last of the human freedoms – to choose one’s attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one’s own way’ (Frankl, 1984). Emerging citizens will have their own examples of choosing their own attitude, perhaps studying harder after failing a test, not taking criticism personally, choosing to encourage their team mates when they seem likely to lose a game.

Explanatory style

Our explanatory style is the way we explain to ourselves why we succeed or fail. If our explanatory style is optimistic, we tend to attribute our setbacks to factors we can change, such as not trying hard enough or not yet having the skills. We may also attribute those setbacks to factors beyond our control, such as the wind being in the wrong direction, or the exam being exceptionally difficult. Setbacks are no threat to our belief that we will eventually succeed. Conversely, when they succeed, those with an optimistic explanatory style attribute the success to their ability, or talent.

A pessimistic explanatory style is a form of learned helplessness. We attribute our setbacks to factors beyond our control, such as ‘I just don’t have the talent to learn the piano’. When people with a pessimistic explanatory style succeed, they believe it has nothing to do with their ability or talents. They will say, ‘I was just lucky that time’.

Our explanatory style is a measure of our sense of hope. The hope that comes with an optimistic explanatory style brings significant rewards. It makes us more motivated, resilient and mentally and physically healthy. Researchers have linked a pessimistic explanatory style with depression (Sweeney et al., 1986).

The term explanatory style is a barrier for people with no interest in psychology, and we need to take care when choosing alternatives or risk turning them off. There is another risk. Optimistic explanatory style encourages most people to think of optimism in a general sense. They will think of optimism as a half-full glass, but the glass analogy is too superficial to be useful. For some, having a half-full glass means avoiding reality. They avoid going to their doctor to check out a lump because ‘everything will be okay’. Other avoiders believe that going for a health check would suggest they are not optimistic, and they know that successful people are relentlessly optimistic.

The term real optimism doesn’t explain explanatory style, but it does suggest that there is more to optimism than bland assurances that everything will be okay. For real optimists, having a glass half-full suggests they believe that, generally speaking, life will work out well. That general sense of optimism is healthy. Real optimists do focus on the positive, but it doesn’t stop them facing reality. It doesn’t stop them being pessimistic from time-to-time.

Parents, teachers and leaders can encourage real optimism by explaining the term and using it so that it becomes a focus. They can help emerging citizens reframe pessimistic explanations. They can help them attribute their successes to their abilities and their setbacks to factors they can control. They can help optimists to be consistent in their healthy responses to setbacks and successes.

Mindset

Carol Dweck of Stanford University uses the term ‘mindset’ in particular ways. People with a fixed mindset believe that we either have a talent or intelligence, or we don’t. People with a growth mindset believe that life is a series of learning opportunities and failure is a normal part of learning.

The consequences of our characteristic mindset are profound. A fixed mindset encourages us to believe not only that we have failed, but that we are a failure. Fixed mindsetters believe that effort is for those who don’t have the talent. They are less inclined to take on ambitious challenges because even a temporary setback would suggest that they lacked talent. Growth mindsetters will seek out challenges. Failure may be painful at times, but growth mindsetters are resilient. Fixed mindsetters are not.

People with no particular interest in psychology generally interpret mindset as meaning simply a positive or negative outlook. In developing citizens, we must make the real meaning of mindset clear so that young people can reframe their responses to challenges and setbacks.

Parents, teachers, coaches and leaders can make developing a healthy growth mindset a focus of their roles. It is natural to be encouraging, but ‘Wow, an A without even studying! You must be really talented’ encourages a fixed mindset. ‘Wow, an A! That’s a great reward for all the effort you put in’ encourages a growth mindset by recognising effort, not natural talent. We can encourage a healthy mindset when our emerging citizens encounter setbacks too. ‘Okay, it looks like that way didn’t work too well. What could you do next time?’ helps a learner refocus. It is also reassuring because it implies that with a new strategy and effort, the learner may succeed. Sometimes, it will be necessary to be very direct and point out that the learner did not put enough effort in. A direct focus on effort is far more likely to produce motivated and resilient citizens than leaving open the possibility that you believe they have no talent, or that the goal does not matter.

We can praise effort, persistence and thoughtful strategies even more than achievement: ‘You built your own computer? I’ll bet you had to overcome a few hurdles to do that.’ When a task doesn’t go so well, ‘You didn’t get the number of volunteers we wanted on the day, but we did admire your determination.’ Are we just going soft on failure? Not at all. Our focus is on developing more effective citizens through resilience and continuous improvement. We are encouraging more effort and more persistence and we are not allowing the cop out ‘I just don’t have the talent’.

Dweck encourages organisations to recruit for mindset, not talent. She cites the recruiting firm McKinsey and Company insisting, in the early 2000s, that success in the corporate world depended on the ‘talent mindset’, essentially a search for stars with extraordinary business talent (Dweck, 2006). Dweck states that Enron Corporation’s complete faith in talent forced its employees into a fixed mindset. Enron filed for bankruptcy in December 2001. We may or may not agree with Dweck’s claim that in promoting a fixed mindset, Enron ‘did a fatal thing’, suggesting that mindset alone would have brought Enron down. Even so, we should note a comment from Linda Chatman Thomsen formerly of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission which prosecuted leading figures in Enron. She describes ‘smartest guys in the room’ (a phrase often associated with Enron) as a syndrome and an affliction (Thomsen, 2008).

Abandon the focus on self-esteem

It is counterintuitive to many people, but the focus on self-esteem can be harmful. Praising emerging citizens for who they are rather than for what they have done encourages a fixed mindset and even narcissism.

The assumed link between self-esteem and success at school or at work is unjustified. Roy Baumeister of Florida State University and his research colleagues describe the correlation between the two as modest (Baumeister et al., 2003). They conclude that what relationship does exist is partly the result of success, not a cause of it.

Baumeister and other researchers are sharply critical of assumptions about the value of self-esteem. They report that high self-esteem does not protect children from risky behaviour such as smoking, drug taking, drinking or early sex. ‘We have not found evidence that boosting self-esteem (by therapeutic interventions or school programs) causes benefits. Our findings do not support continued widespread efforts to boost self-esteem in the hope that it will by itself foster improved outcomes’ (Baumeister et al., 2003).

Narcissism is not merely self-esteem, but an unhealthy self-obsession. Jean Twenge (San Diego State University) and Keith Campbell (University of Georgia) have exposed what they describe as a narcissism epidemic. They report that narcissistic traits in American college students have risen as fast as obesity since the 1980s (Twenge and Campbell, 2009). In research terms, the epidemic they report is a significant increase in individual scores on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory (Raskin and Terry, 1988).

Claims of increasing narcissism became particularly controversial when American media reported that researchers at the University of California at Davis found no change over five years.The contrast in results illustrates the influence of culture. Twenge and Joshua Foster examined the Davis data and found that the earlier researchers had not accounted for cultural differences. Asian-Americans score lower on the Narcissistic Personality Inventory, and their numbers at the University of California had increased disproportionately (Twenge and Foster, 2008).

Twenge and Campbell (2009) report that data from 37,000 college students showed that the rise in narcissism is accelerating: ‘By 2006, one out of four college students agreed with the majority of the items on the standard measure for narcissistic traits.’ Twenge and Campbell (2009) report that nearly 1 in 10 Americans in their 20s displays the symptoms of Narcissistic Personality Disorder. Narcissistic Personality Disorder is a clinical diagnosis involving a pattern of lack of empathy, a need to be admired and grandiosity, with some form of impairment such as depression or disrupted relationships with co-workers.

Increasing narcissism matters because the narcissists’ self-focus means they are less likely to be interested in ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’. The major difference between people who score high on narcissistic traits and those who do not shows up in relationships. Narcissists don’t value relationships. Twenge and Campbell say the result is people with ‘… a fundamentally imbalanced self – a grandiose inflated self-image and a lack of deep connections to others … often manipulating and exploiting people and viewing others as tools to make themselves look good and feel good’.

The increased prevalence of narcissism should prompt some rethinking. For parents, teachers and leaders from individualist cultures, less focus on children being ‘special’ may slow the growth of narcissistic behaviours. Not being special does not mean unloved or not respected. A sense of self-worth is clearly healthy. A feeling of superiority, especially with no evidence to support it, is not. Instead of heaping praise where it is unearned and emphasising how exceptional our emerging citizens are, we could praise their efforts and encourage them to think of how much they have in common with others.

Monitor changes in the generations

Are young people today really any different from us when we were their age? It is a controversial topic, but there is some objective evidence that the answer is yes. Most of the differences are not great, but they are worth monitoring.

A recent study by Twenge and colleagues provides a useful comparison of generations. The researchers compared the life goals, concern for others and civic orientation of millennials (born after 1982), generation X (1962–1981) and baby boomers (1949–1961). The study is significant not just because of the sample size of 9.2 million, but particularly because it used questionnaires all the subjects had completed at the same stage of their lives – their late teens. Millennials thought goals involving money, fame and image were more important than the baby boomer generation did. They thought goals involving affiliation and community were less important. Civic orientation declined by more than a third of a standard deviation. Millennials were less willing to participate in civic action, even for the environment (Cohen’s d = .5 − a large effect). The surveys included life goals, and some of the largest declines between generations were in ‘developing a meaningful philosophy of life’ and ‘finding meaning and purpose in my life’. Twenge et al. (2012: 1058) include some worrying speculation: ‘With young people less focused on intrinsic values such as community feeling and more focused on extrinsic values such as money, mental health issues may follow.’ Their reference to health issues acknowledges the research, showing that a focus on others, happiness and health is linked.

The evidence on altruism is mixed. Evidence from other studies suggests that millennials are more likely to volunteer, but possibly because more high schools have organised community service programmes (Newmann and Rutter, 1985).

Make happiness a focus

We should encourage our emerging citizens to develop their happiness in a focused way. It may seem like encouraging self-centredness, but genuine happiness takes far more than self-centred indulgence. The research has produced simple techniques for developing what Martin Seligman of the University of Pennsylvania calls authentic happiness (Seligman, 2004, 2011). Seligman’s authentic happiness involves developing a sense of meaning and purpose in life through altruistic behaviour consistent with our measure of success in developing citizens: the greatest good for the greatest number. The researchers who explore life satisfaction and subjective well-being refer to the eudaimonic component. Eudaimonia is the word Aristotle used to describe the happiness derived from actively pursuing a virtuous life. A more modern interpretation is human flourishing resulting from the meaning and purpose we see in our lives. (For more detail on flourishing and some international comparisons see Huppert and So (2013)).

Many studies have confirmed the benefits of altruism for the giver. Altruism, particularly volunteering, is clearly linked with increased life satisfaction, improved morale, longevity and reduced anxiety and depression (Post, 2005).

Researchers do not discount seemingly trivial hedonistic pleasures that may appear to benefit only an individual. Some have linked even a positive outlook to success in relationships as well as health and longevity (Danner et al., 2001; Seligman, 2000). One study found that people who rated themselves as just generally cheerful were earning more and enjoying their work more 19 years later (Diener et al., 2002).

There is some controversy about how long our new happiness might last. Some researchers have concluded that we have a set point for happiness, a point we return to after, say, failing an exam or winning a lottery. If they are right, some of our emerging citizens will have to work on their happiness throughout their lives to counter genetic influences. Other researchers question whether we really do have set points, and cite surveys revealing substantial and permanent changes in life satisfaction. No matter which side of the debate appeals to us, there is little doubt that happiness is worth some effort.

Happy citizens are more likely to be effective citizens. They are more resilient, are optimistic, make better leaders and have stronger immune systems. They are more likely to be fully committed to lifelong goals, devote more time to family and friends, be engaged in their work and have satisfying marriages.

Lyubomirsky (2007: 24) writes that developing happiness demands considerable sustained effort, but is ‘… the most rewarding work you’ll ever do’. She warns that many of the evidence-based techniques for developing happiness may appear so simple as to be ‘corny’. We can acknowledge the corny objection directly, preferably pre-empting it. We can encourage teenagers and adults to choose the techniques that are most appropriate for them, speak of developing happiness as work and, if necessary, assure them that the techniques are fully supported by objective evidence.

Investing in relationships features prominently in the research on happiness and life satisfaction. Happy people have more friends. The link is causal, and there is an upward spiral as more friends bring more happiness. Close relationships provide support, but also make our emerging citizens healthier and more effective in influencing change.

The successful strategies for investing in relationships are not surprising. The missing element is the focus. It is very human to take relationships for granted. The prolific researcher of relationships, John Gottman, promotes the notion of a reservoir of goodwill and his Gottman Institute (2012) also uses the term ‘emotional bank account’. Partners in successful relationships top up the reservoir regularly with encouragement, genuine interest and practical and emotional support, as well as more intimate things that would be less appreciated in our community group or business. The reservoir analogy is an example of how we can make the findings of research more memorable and meaningful to emerging citizens.

Gratitude also appears consistently in the researchers’ recommendations. Gratitude may be in the form of a letter or a visit to someone who has been helpful or inspirational. It may be simply appreciating what we have.

The Buddhist concept of mindfulness can enhance feelings of gratitude and it, too, is well supported by research. A key characteristic is ‘open or receptive awareness and attention to the current experience or present reality’ (Kabat-Zinn, 2003). Mindfulness is a deliberate act involving active observation and reflection, without judgement.

Mindfulness has its own rewards, including positive emotions and reduced symptoms of depression (Jimenez et al., 2010). We can encourage emerging citizens to use mindfulness to savour the bright side of their lives by focusing on what they appreciate, such as glow from sharing activities with loved ones, or nostalgic memories. We can encourage them to savour seemingly ordinary things as they experience them–perhaps a sunset, fresh leaves or the warmth of a hand.

Lyubomirsky (2007) sums up the benefits of focused gratitude: more positive moods, empathy, forgiveness; less materialism, depression, anxiety, loneliness and envy (see also Emmons and McCullough, 2003). The researchers suggest that gratitude works for individuals once it becomes habitual.

Altruism is not only a sign of a good citizen, it brings a surprising range of less obvious rewards for both individuals and communities. Altruistic behaviour makes us more aware of our interdependence, strengthens relationships and encourages others to reciprocate. Surveys of volunteers reveal enhanced happiness, reduced depression, improved feelings of self-worth and even a ‘helper’s high’ (Piliavin, 2003). Altruistic acts are more rewarding for the benefactor if they require effort, but are not an overwhelming burden. It pays to vary acts of kindness or the boost to happiness wears off. Diminishing returns is less of an issue for major commitments that involve working with other people, such as helping out at your local food bank or youth group (Lyubomirsky, 2007).

In promoting strategies for happiness, we should be explicit about hedonic adaptation. The aroma of flowers that seems to disappear as we remain in a room illustrates the process. Hedonic adaptation works with things we buy and do, too. Our emerging citizens will be able to provide their own examples: the car that was once a status symbol, but is now just transport; the relationship that was once a dream, but now seems ordinary; the smartphone that seemed so cool, but now seems so ‘last year’. Hedonic adaptation becomes a treadmill when we seek happiness in what we don’t yet have. Gratitude, altruism and investing in our relationships are strategies for finding happiness in what we have now.

Willpower and impulse control

The research exposes numerous myths about willpower. It is now clear that having an obsession with willpower is not an effective strategy for meeting our goals. Unbounded optimism about achieving big goals is counter-productive. Visualising success is not as effective as visualising failure.

We can help emerging citizens develop their willpower from an early age. Catching them doing good and being specific in our praise reinforces impulse control. We might say ‘Good waiting’ when they let another child have an ice cream first. We might praise saving over spending frivolously.

With older children, we can be more explicit about controlling impulses. We might choose to talk about the pre-frontal cortex and its role in regulating our impulses and emotions. We might make what psychologists know about willpower a natural topic for discussion.

Willpower takes energy. For brains, the fuel is glucose and a healthy body is well supplied with glucose. Baumeister, a researcher of willpower over two decades says, “the most plausible current view is that there are extensive stores of glucose, but the body resists running down its stores - and as the depletion increases it increasingly resists further allocation” (Baumeister 2014: 315).

Being obsessed with a long-term goal is not the route to success for most people. Determination is important and goals are useful, but systems are better. Losing 5 kg is a goal. Maintaining our diet and regular exercise, even when we don’t feel like it, is a system. Winning a gold medal at the Olympics is a goal. Following the advice of our coach through every event is a system. The yacht on the refrigerator door and no plan to achieve it is not even a goal. It is a fantasy. We should be explicit about the difference.

It is counterintuitive, but the more optimistic our citizens are about achieving their goals,the less likely they are to be successful. The most optimistic goal-seekers can be devastated by setbacks and are more likely to give up. Researchers have also found that optimism about achieving goals encourages self-indulgence today, as in: ‘I won’t have any trouble losing those five kilograms once I start the diet, so I might as well have the cheesecake now’.

Healthy pessimism is more helpful for goal-seekers than optimism. Moderate pessimism is an advantage if it helps us develop strategies. A study involving women who were not exercising but believed they should illustrates the point. The researchers asked the women to imagine what might stop them working towards their goal of regular exercise. Then they asked what they could do if they found themselves saying, for example, ‘Not now. I’m under too much stress. I’ll do it tomorrow’. Four months later, the women who had identified the barriers and come up with strategies to overcome them were doing twice as much exercise as women who had only been reminded of the benefits of exercise (Stadler et al., 2009).

Attaching moral values or self-esteem to goals appears to be especially unproductive. Believing that we will be a worthy person when we achieve our goal just encourages us to set a new and higher benchmark for worthiness once we do. The University of Michigan’s Institute for Social Research surveyed more than 600 students and found that more than 80% based their sense of self-worth on their academic achievements. Those students were more motivated to study, but they did not achieve higher grades. They were more likely to feel stressed and to be in conflict with the academic staff. Linking their sense of self-worth to their grades made them more sensitive to setbacks. There wasn’t even an upside to compensate for the anxiety. Their sense of self-worth did not increase any more than for the other students who were not depending on the outcome of their exams to feel good about themselves (Crocker et al., 2003; Crocker and Park, 2004).

Self-compassion or forgiveness when we lapse may seem a soft option, but the research shows that it is an effective strategy. Self-criticism, guilt and shame when we lapse are sources of stress and a further drain on our willpower. Self-compassionate messages have proved to be effective with problem drinking, gambling, procrastination and smoking. Adams and Leary established the value of self-compassion with dieters. They encouraged women to eat a doughnut, then introduced a compassionate message that everyone indulges sometimes, ‘… and everyone in this study eats this stuff, so I don’t think there’s any reason to feel really bad about it. This little amount of food doesn’t really matter anyway’. They then invited the women to ‘taste-test’ some candy. Those who had heard a compassionate message ate far fewer candies than a control group (Adams and Leary, 2007). Out loud, productive self-talk would sound like a supportive friend, accepting the lapse without judgement and helping us to resume the path to the goal.

As educators, we can be explicit about willpower and what it takes to maintain it. We can introduce self-compassion into conversations with our emerging citizens. We can suggest that they think through their goals with some healthy pessimism.

Engaging citizens

Psychology has some useful contributions to the science of engaging citizens. We can draw on extensive surveys that indicate what motivates employees. We can also apply the findings from recent theories and studies of motivation. Self-Determination Theory developed by Edward Deci and Richard Ryan from the University of Rochester is widely respected. Researchers around the world have been exploring its application and implications for the last three decades.

Self-Determination Theory challenges theories based on the assumption that people are motivated by rewards and punishments. Deci and Ryan’s theory introduced innate psychological needs: competence, autonomy and relatedness. The undermining effect of rewarding people for doing something they enjoy illustrates the relevance of considering what is going on in our learners’ minds, not simply the reward. The rewards are counter-productive because learners begin to believe they are involved in the activity for the reward rather than the enjoyment. Deci reports that in 128 published studies, the ‘undermining effect held strong’ (Deci et al., 1999; Deci and Ryan, 2000).

It is useful to distinguish between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation. With intrinsic motivation, the rewards come from the activity itself. Deci and Ryan refer to intrinsic motivation as the prototype of self-determined behaviour, implying an ideal. Extrinsic motivation involves an actual or anticipated reward, or avoidance of some penalty that is separate from the activity. The reward might be money, promotion or to earn or avoid disapproval.

According to Self-Determination Theory, intrinsic motivators work best when they satisfy the three innate psychological needs Ryan and Deci (2000). Teachers who encourage autonomy produce students who find their learning more intrinsically rewarding, are more curious and enjoy a challenge. Students who feel they are being controlled through rewards, threats, evaluations or deadlines lose their initiative and generally do not learn as well, especially if the learning task is complex or requires creativity (Deci Nezlek & Sheinman, 1981; Ryan & Grolnick, 1987). Autonomy encourages intrinsic motivation. So does positive feedback, by satisfying the need for competence. Deci and Ryan described autonomy and competence as the most powerful influences on intrinsic motivation. They see relatedness as less influential, but still significant.

The distinction between intrinsic and extrinsic motivation is not as simple as it may seem, and a closer look at extrinsic motivation provides some useful implications.

Deci and Ryan conclude that extrinsic motivation can vary greatly, with some forms having much the same qualities as intrinsic motivation. Their observation has significant implications for parents, teachers and leaders because much of the preparation for citizenship involves learning that is not intrinsically motivated. If the learner is only motivated to meet an external demand or avoid negative consequences, the motivation is no more than the early behaviourists would have recognised as conditioning. Deci and Ryan state that extrinsic motivation comes closest to intrinsic motivation when learners internalise goals, rather than see them as imposed Ryan and Deci (2000).The reward might be passing a grammar test (an extrinsic reward), but the task becomes close to intrinsically rewarding when the learner decides she wants to develop her skills as a writer.

Parents, teachers, coaches and leaders can use Deci and Ryan’s findings on extrinsic motivation to lead learners closer to the benefits of intrinsic motivation. Deci et al. (1994) have demonstrated the value of providing a meaningful rationale for uninteresting learning or activities. Educators and leaders can refer regularly to the reasons for the activity in ways that are meaningful for the learners or followers (e.g. encouraging the idea that learning German will make a planned trip to Germany much more fun.) We can encourage autonomy by leaving emerging citizens to make their own choices, wherever it is feasible, and avoiding any temptations to micromanage them. We can provide regular positive feedback to encourage the learners’ belief in their competence. We can use the motivator relatedness by encouraging them to plan, learn and work together.

Conclusion

Psychology, particularly positive psychology, offers a range of well-tested concepts compatible with developing citizens to achieve ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’. Many of the concepts are already informing education. We can achieve much more by making the concepts a focus, using language that makes them accessible and providing stories and analogies that make the concepts relevant, inspirational and memorable.

There are some obstacles for both learners and educators. Some of the concepts are counterintuitive, particularly taking the focus off self-esteem and some of the findings on goal-setting. A few of the concepts can appear trite, and it is also very human to respond by saying ‘I already do that’. It may be true, but it is not the point. The most successful citizens have an internal locus of control most of the time. An optimistic explanatory style is their default setting. A growth mindset allows them to see each setback as a learning opportunity. Altruism and gratitude for what they have already is an integral part of their lives. Our challenge is to help emerging citizens make the best tools available a part of who they are, so that everyone benefits.