About the SA Blog Network

MIND Guest Blog

MIND Guest Blog

Commentary invited by editors of Scientific American Mind
MIND Guest Blog HomeAboutContact

The Psychology of Freedom

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Email   PrintPrint

I’d like to examine the concept of freedom in a somewhat unusual way — from the viewpoint of motivational psychology.

The starting point is to realize that there are basically four ways of influencing behavior: reward, punishment, restraint, and compulsion. Reward means offering the subject something good for performing an action. Punishment means threatening the subject with something bad for performing an action. Restraint means physically blocking the subject from performing an action, for example preventing the subject from walking on a lawn by putting a fence around it. Compulsion means physically forcing the subject to perform an action, as for example causing a man to get on an airplane by dragging him onto it. (Footnote: by rewards, I don’t just mean physical things like money or food. A smile, a kind word, or even a moment of attention also function as rewards. Conversely, punishment doesn’t just mean physical harm. A frown, a sharp word, a withdrawal of attention, or a time-out also function as punishments.)

The main point that I want to make is that each of these ways of influencing behavior has a different impact on our sense of freedom.

We never feel that our freedom is reduced when we are influenced by rewards. It doesn’t matter how compelling the reward is. If I go up to a homeless man on the street and hand him $1000, I can be virtually certain that he will take it, but nobody would say that I have reduced his freedom by making the offer. Rewards can create conflict situations, if they are offered for doing things that we otherwise wouldn’t, but even then we don’t think of them as reducing our freedom.

Punishment, restraint, and compulsion do, however, reduce our sense of freedom.

The greatest sense of unfreeness comes from compulsion. If we are physically compelled to do something, we feel a total absence of freedom, even if it is something we would willingly have done in the absence of compulsion.

Restraint and punishment are viewed as reductions in freedom in proportion to their severity. For restraint: If I prevent somebody from walking on a lawn by putting a fence around it, that’s a reduction in freedom, but not a terribly onerous one. If I lock a man in a jail cell, though, that’s a huge reduction in freedom. It is similar for threats of punishment. If I stop a man from talking by frowning at him, that’s a minor reduction in freedom. If I make him give me his wallet by pointing a gun at him, that’s a huge reduction in freedom. In fact, we tend to equate very severe threats of punishment with compulsion, even though logically they are not the same thing.

In summary, we regard reward motivation as maximizing freedom, restraint and threats of punishment as reducing it in proportion to their severity, and compulsion as totally depriving us of freedom.

It follows that a maximally free society would be one where people are influenced as much as possible by offers of reward, as little as possible by restraints or threats of punishment, and rarely if ever by compulsion. A Utopian society would be one where rewards are the only motivation ever used.

Unfortunately, such a Utopian society is never going to happen, at least until humans become a different type of organism. The reason lies in a basic property of reward motivation.

To understand that reason, it is necessary to make a distinction between doing and not-doing — that is, between actively initiating a behavior, versus refraining from initiating a behavior. Rewards are effective at motivating doing, but they are not effective at motivating not-doing. If you want a child to do her homework, offering a reward such as the ability to watch a TV show is a reasonable approach. But if you want a child to stop making noise, offering a reward doesn’t work very well. The reward needs to be unreasonably large to be effective, and doing that repeatedly actually encourages performing the obnoxious behavior in order to be rewarded for stopping. On a more serious scale, how could you possibly use rewards to influence people not to rob banks?

The flip side is that threats of punishment are effective at motivating not-doing, but they are not very effective at motivating doing. It is usually possible to get a child to do her homework by threatening punishment, but often the punishment has to be unreasonably large. Moreover, the use of punishment always gives rise to resentment and dislike.

So the bottom line is that if we want a society where people feel free, we should try to develop a society where people are motivated as much as possible by rewards and as little as possible by punishment or restraint — but we need to realize that punishment and restraint will always be required to some degree, to stop people from behaving antisocially. How do we achieve such a society? That’s the key question, of course, but it is beyond the scope of this short essay.


Footnote: The ideas here are my attempt to summarize in a few words a vast and vastly controversial literature extending over decades. The concept of dividing motivational factors into reward, punishment, compulsion, and restraint is implicit in B. F. Skinner’s Beyond Freedom and Dignity, a book that is well worth reading, even though Skinner goes astray at many points and often obscures simple things by overcomplicating them. Skinner also believed that punishment is always counterproductive, but in my view his arguments for that are unconvincing.

The use of reward and punishment for motivating people has been particularly controversial in the literature. I believe this is largely because when people hear the word “reward”, they automatically think of large overt rewards such as money; when they hear “punishment”, they think of large overt punishments such as hitting. Human beings are actually hypersensitive to reward and punishment, and in many cases a smile or a frown are more than enough to do the job. We also readily generate internal rewards and punishments; adults more readily than children. Using large overt rewards or punishments often has the effect of flooding the system, producing a range of unwanted consequences. That’s why many writers have argued that rewards and punishments are not useful for teaching children — but it misses the point. If you really want to understand what it would be like to teach without reward or punishment, think about teaching without ever smiling or frowning; without ever saying an encouraging or discouraging word. But if you would like to see the argument in the other direction framed as strongly as possible, see the book Punished by Rewards, by Alfie Kohn.

My perspective here is largely that of a neuroscientist. We don’t have a very good understanding of the neural mechanisms of motivation and decision-making yet, but we are learning fast, and it is clear that structures such as the prefrontal cortex, basal ganglia, and dopamine system play central roles. See the book Your Brain Is (Almost) Perfect: How We Make Decisions by Read Montague for a readable overview of recent progress.

In my short essay I only discuss the perception of freedom, and not the question of whether there is such a thing as true freedom. That is of course a very important question, but it is beyond my scope. For the moment I’ll simply point out that even if there is such a thing as true freedom, the perception of freedom would still be important. True freedom would not be very satisfying if it didn’t leave us feeling free. See Daniel Dennett’s Freedom Evolves for a thorough philosophical discussion of these issues.

Image: Pascual De Ruvo

William Skaggs About the Author: William Skaggs is a neuroscientist whose experimental work has focused on the role of the hippocampus in learning, memory, and spatial navigation, but he is interested in several other areas of science as well, especially the study of consciousness. He has ambitions to be a science writer, and has contributed extensively to Wikipedia under the name "Looie496", mainly by writing articles about the nervous system. Follow on Twitter @weskaggs.

The views expressed are those of the author and are not necessarily those of Scientific American.

Comments 8 Comments

Add Comment
  1. 1. hvant 11:18 am 08/20/2013

    - On a more serious scale, how could you possibly use rewards to influence people not to rob banks? -

    Is this not the basis of society? The more you have to lose, job, partner, children (being your reward) the less likely you are to stray from the median. It this not also ingrained in religions? Reward for good behavior.

    It is an interesting point of view. Appreciation/recognition is currently regarded as one of the most basic needs of a human-being. And with the comeback of design and innovation competition (ie. X-Prize) it seems that evolution and reward are used to create a positive incentive to solve our challenges.

    Link to this
  2. 2. rmcotton 12:04 pm 08/20/2013

    It seems odd that you did not mention as possible motivators: education, example, etc. The human animal is a person, able to learn in the same ways as a psychologist. One may refrain from offending a person’s sense of freedom by refraining from using force, but relying instead on mutual consent. You seem to assume that the motivator must, at all costs, succeed at his task. But since his subject is also a human being with equal rights and independent judgement, this should not be assumed.

    Link to this
  3. 3. plswinford 4:09 pm 08/20/2013

    We are biologicals. Many levels of biology have discovered the advantage of status, which must entail some folks winning and other folks loosing. So when you give freedom to Homo Sapiens, conflict must result. This is an essential problem with giving us Homo Saps unguarded freedom.

    Link to this
  4. 4. gesimsek 5:04 pm 08/20/2013

    If my alcoholic father offers some money to get some drink for him, should I consider this as an increase of my freedom or an abuse?

    Link to this
  5. 5. TTLG 7:09 pm 08/21/2013

    A couple of problems I see here. First is that people perceiving something to be true does not necessarily make it so. Just because people think that rewards do not reduce freedom but punishment does, does not mean that it is true. Pavlov’s dogs is an obvious example. Offering a large reward to someone who is starving or otherwise desperate to do something they consider abhorrent is another. There are many others.

    Another is that punishment has been shown to be a pretty ineffective way to discourage most types of undesirable behavior. For example, if you want to keep someone from robing a bank, fixing the underlying problem, whether it be poverty, drug addiction or an obsessive focus on money, works better than punishment.

    I suppose the ideal society would consist of making sure people’s basic physical and emotional needs were met. Then the question of to what extent positive or negative reinforcement is needed to keep people social could be addressed. Of course there will always be sociopaths and other types which will need special treatment. But for the most part, the final stage would be education so that everyone could make their own conscious choice of what sort of life they want to lead.

    Link to this
  6. 6. FOOZLER8 8:18 pm 08/21/2013

    Some good insights here, particularly the nature of reward and punishment. For an excellent (hope it’s still in print) little book on training dogs or people, try ‘Don’t Shoot the Dog’.

    We can’t NOT use reward and punishment – get over it. Approval and disapproval are perhaps the strongest since we are such social creatures.

    (I taught Learning for many years)

    Link to this
  7. 7. kvinayagamoorthy 6:43 am 08/22/2013

    What about Intrinsic motivation? The one which makes us feel freer than extrinsic motivators like “Rewards, Punishments, Restraint and compulsion”.

    Link to this
  8. 8. isafakir 8:33 am 08/22/2013

    the classification of motivation and freedom ignores a fundamental fact of freedom. the classification of motivations is extrinsic, however the overwhelming motivations of our behaviors are intrinsic. we eat food because eating is self motivating and not eating is not just unpleasant but downright harmful. if some chooses not to eat, it requires a strong personal decision. so imposed sanctions really tell us about less that 1% or maybe less than 0.1% of behavior. it’s interesting but hardly that illuminating in this context in this question IMHO.

    Link to this

Add a Comment
You must sign in or register as a member to submit a comment.

More from Scientific American

Email this Article